The excuses for the plot being simple as necessary are kind of mind blowing. I mean, did anyone see Xmen First Class? Plenty of characters on screen at once, plenty of good and bad interaction, and actual depth. I was expecting more of that for the Avengers than a popcorn flick. Eh
... As much as I loved XFC, I think TA achieved much better in terms of rounder characterisation, and sharper relevance to the story if not key plot points. Mags, Xavier, Mystique, Beast and Shaw were probably the only characters who were given any real depth in terms of sociopolitical struggle and growth (or lack thereof), which elevated the film by large, whereas others felt a little glossed over or condensed, or simply chewed up the scenery.
Who's Havok? He was in jail for misusing his powers... Somehow. And controlled his red hoops (ha ha). Who's Banshee? He scared off a girl and learned to fly. Who's Darwin? He drove taxis and sacrificed himself, which was nice, but still. Who's Angel? Her switching sides was a little too quick, and without any moral resistance. I just felt they existed to propel the more important characters' actions, such as Xavier's tutelage or Shaw's fattening up the numbers. The writing made it seem as if they were peripheral... And they contributed little to the outcome in the ending, just made for a nice spectacle. If Havok and Banshee had actual dialogue with Angel regarding her traitorous turn, that would have been better writing and also economically written, personally. Since they bonded and all, at the start. Beggars can't be choosers, of course, and just my minor gripes. Though I know some would have agreed with me on this.
I do know that both Havok and Angel's backstories were actually filmed, or talked about, but cut for story economy, according to the producer. I actually don't mind that the rest of the villains were goons, more or less (though in Emma Frost's case, I can understand why she may have seemed under-utilised, considering how important she is in the comics) but in the interests of argument, I have to maintain that all the characters for TA were more prominent and evoked varying degrees of emotional resonance than in XFC. I'm not arguing that Mags and Xavier didn't have their own, I'm just pointing to the consistency of TA that was missing in the former.
Cap: his man-out-of-time status in tandem with his growing confidence as a natural, stoic, commandeering leader as well as his head-to-head dynamics with Iron Man. You immediately get that he is still a human underneath the costume, but that he'll always do the right thing.
Iron Man: cocky, self-centered, snarky, and a self-appointed genius yet the only one in a stable relationship with Pepper Potts, who shows his growth by not hesitating to throw himself on the grenade. In fact, politically speaking, he provides that element in the form of 'green' energy powering up his Stark Industries building, and being a pioneer in that respect.
Hulk: the intellectual underdog with bumbling, awkward tendencies, who becomes comfortable in his skin by coming to terms with the fact that he's 'always angry'. He also is key to discovering the source of gamma radiation, with science, and inspires an unspoken fear in SHIELD and Black Widow. And of course, steals the show many times.
Thor: he who comes out from nowhere, literally (I quite liked that; not everyone has to have a drawn-out introduction), Shakespearean-speak, 'friendly' rivalry with Hulk, and informs his brotherly squabbles with Loki, both desperate and angry, into the context of shared concerns with saving the planet.
Hawkeye: a silent, loner type of agent though has plenty to say and both symbolically and literally sees things from afar when he means business, in a slightly off-kilter sort of way. His mind control aspect was vital to the plot, not only because he single-handedly brings down the heli-carrier since he knows its design from inside out, literally, and being the 'goal' for Black Widow to save, but also because it helps illuminate the hint of a backstory between the two agents. That he, simultaneously loyal to SHIELD and double-agent-y in certain circumstances, understands Black Widow much more.
Which brings us to Black Widow, of course: a spy who doesn't hesitate to be manipulative, cunning and uses her assets to her full potential. She is instrumental to figuring out how to stop the Tesseract. She talks about 'red in her ledger', hinting again at her not-so-angelic past, but also does not understand humour, at least in the way Iron Man does.
And of course there's Loki, whose flickers of hesitation (both genuine and concocted) and Machiavellian ways are tied up with Thor's arc, as well as of course, virtually everyone's. So, there is plenty of 'bad guy interaction': everyone has a vendetta against him in some way, and not only that, but they also showcase their powers in quite interesting and 'wow factor' ways.
And
then we haven't touched both Coulson and Nick Fury, whose actions, hero worship and potential bigger-picture puppeteering drive the plot or give us a nice insight into their tics, and what it means to follow a superhero. Maria Hill is a lot more ambiguous, but who serves best as a support character and probably will be a little more fleshed out in the sequel, if Coulson's out of the way.
So, yeah, I reckon Whedon struck a near perfect balance in handling these characters, and hell of a lot more than in not only XFC but also the previous X-Men movies, dare I say it.
As for the point of this thread. I agree with the instigator of the thread on imbuing it with a little more thinking man depth, politics for the masses, but I THINK that the movie is subtle enough for you to draw parallels between the nature of SHIELD's organisation and Bruce's underclass trope or the issues of 'free' energy as unlimited energy that powers the planet, etc. After all, if it prompts you to start the thread and see some inkling of those, I think TA allows you to draw on such themes. In a way, the movie is deep enough without resorting to arthouse sensibilities, and of course the excuse that it has to be a blockbuster doesn't fly since there have been successful blockbusters that can be as philosophical as a five minute short. The decision to hold off on any possible sociopolitical leanings is probably borne of two reasons: to introduce capitalist, industrialist, and 'communist' themes may seem discordant when all you're doing is mythologising the origins of the Avengers and bringing them together through character dynamics and motives. And honestly, to have Cap go on a spiel about American virtues might be jarring when compared to the broader and universal appeal of TA in the international market (yes, I know, there are exceptions, like Spiderman and Superman but not when it comes to a team movie!). While they can be there if you look for them, to suggest a communist connection for instance might be superfluous and tenuous. And the second reason is, based on the ending and montage, that the trope of fear and hatred for the Avengers as well as SHIELD's slightly insidious agenda ("his secrets have secrets!") would be better explored in the sequel.
