That only seems relevant in theory though. In practice the X-Men movies have been focused very hard on a few characters and not done well with the ensemble aspect. There's not that many movies to compare with but I think Whedon has outdone the X-franchise with significant margin. Despite Hawkeye's mind control.
You have 4 different team movies in the Marvel Universe released in theaters:
X-Men
Fantastic Four
Avengers
Guardians of the Galaxy
And as bad as all the FF movies are, it's not like it's the Human Torch movie and 3 other characters.
Even GOTG, Peter Quill doesn't overshadow the other members.
Avengers is not really an apt comparison because 4 of them had solo movies prior to the the Avengers. I feel that that the Avengers really spreads the wealth in terms of character even with Black Widow and Hawkeye.
The X-Men movies can't do what the Avengers did. They can't do a Cyclops, Jean, Angel, Iceman and Beast and then a X-Men movie.
I've said in the past, that X-Men should have been about the original X-Men against Magneto. Then introduce Wolverine in the sequel.
True, but the likes of Jean Grey, Storm, Kitty, Rogue, Pyro and Iceman have had decent sized roles in the franchise as well. You could even say Sabretooth and Stryker have had decent roles also. Ah well, agree to disagree.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing. I'd throw in Beast just for the last 2 movies as well as TLS. I'd even put him with Jean in terms of secondary characters, although honestly they should be primary ones.
Like I said addressing Adhesive Boy, it's not really a fair comparison. There aren't that many characters as popular as Wolverine. I understand why they focus on him, but when it's essentially Wolverine and the X-Men 1 - 3. It gets tiresome. I want more than decent sized roles from the rest of the X-Men.
But getting to my point, considering Apocalypse is the 3rd movie in the Xavier/Magneto/Mystique trilogy, it's an apt comparison saying I'm looking more forward to Cyclops then them.