They all share the same formula. Iron man 1 and Thor 1 and Captain American 1 are all the same but incredible hulk and Ant man are the better origin movies.
I thought the main, unfortunate similarity was that Cross was pretty much just a less-intimidating Stane, though flipped to have Cross be the surrogate son instead of the surrogate father.
otherwise, there was plenty to differentiate Scott's story from Tony's
See, I don't even think that point of comparison is all too strong. There are definitely parallels but the actors gave each enough personality that I feel it's pretty easy to drawn distinctions between the two. Stane, for one, felt less like a father-figure and more as though he was acting up his role as a comrade-in-arms-race where as I'm under the impression that prior to his recent attempts of playing nice Cross's relationship with Pym was openly hostile. Stane wanted Tony out of the way because he feels he's earned Stark Inc. So in some ways it really isn't that personal for Stane, he's a victim of avarice more than anything. His goal is simply to get Tony out of his way and out of his company. On the other hand, Cross already HAS the company. He has already gotten Pym out of the way and all but made him irrelevant within the walls of PymTech. His sole reason for getting Pym back there is to rub it in the old man's face. It is nothing but personal.
To my mind there are only so many structures and story forms for a two hour movie to take, limited further by them falling under the blockbuster label. What really makes a movie for me is how they utilize characterization, theme, tone, dialogue, relationships, conflict, etc. Sure, Tony Stark, Steve Rogers, and Thor Odinnson all go on basic hero's journeys but just on personalities alone I don't think you can claim they are really the same. To do so you'd have to break them down to such basic storytelling elements that you lose any trace of their stories.
Now you pick just two of those films to compare and I think you have a stronger argument, but to say all three are the same movie is pretty reductive. It's like people who claim Quicksilver is basically a "worse" Flash. Well, yeah, so long as your sole judging criteria is speedometer and you ignore all the characterization and history that has gone into building both, not to mention the vastly different roles each plays in their stories. Maybe it's just me who starts to get annoyed when people focus obsessively on one minor attribute of a character while seemingly ignoring the depth of other features that combine to make them truly interesting.
(Also, while you're right about The Incredible Hulk following a modified origin story formula especially compared to the others I just think that's proof having a good writer work within a cliche plot is far preferable to the other way around. Has anyone sat there and just listened to the dialogue? Do yourself a favor - don't. Me proving my point is not worth the suffering of innocents.)