Stealth Moose
Umbrella Elite
Originally posted by Zampanó
I'm not a Whedonite.I did, however, enjoy the Avenger's film immensely. On that basis alone, I'd like to rebut the idea that the characters were shallow. In my mind, a shallow character is one without any sort of conflict or motivation behind its intentions. None of the Avengers qualify.
Given that you have written out a nice exact definition that can be applied to pretty much every movie character made (excepting the kind of Z-grade trash that is reviewed by Somethingawful.com), yeah, it's not surprising you contend this.
Hawkeye, for all that his character was left unexplored, still faced the dissonance between being a loyal soldier and being compelled to murder his compatriots.
Which was resolved in record time. Despite knowing nothing about the level of control employed by Loki, Hawkeye is brought back into the fold in the time it takes to boil an egg, and there's no real mention of this after. While it's true that the element of him having been controlled and working against his friends was experienced in the film, it's not entirely important that it was him in the first place. Unlike the scientist Cerdic, I mean Stellan Skarsgaard, Hawkeye's control had no real point and a quick resolution just in time for him to pose for the final showdown.
By extension, Natasha was faced with the challenge of reining in a formerly trusted confidant.
Meaning she kicked his ass, then he woke up later, they had a quick talk, and he was back on the good-guy roster. Again, this isn't masterful storytelling. If it is, then television series that employ the same concept (Stargate or Star Trek for example, mind control trope) are equally brilliant by extension. Wait, no that sounds silly.
Her bluff against Loki regarding "debts" is fun to watch, and only possible because of the connection developed between these two characters.
But ultimately fruitless. In fact, a large part of the weakness of the film in my eyes is the inability of Loki to directly threaten the Avengers or at least make them squirm like hell when he has the upperhand. After this scene (and Thor's drop from the heavens), Loki becomes useless. Considering everyone but Hawkeye and Black Widow could probably manhandle Loki in personal combat, and he doesn't actually outsmart any of them (but is in turn outsmarted by Stark and Cerdic, and then mercilessly beaten by Hulk) there's no real reason to feel drawn into the conflict.
To offer a comparison, the Joker or even Bane on some level puts Batman and his friends/allies through the wringer, testing the limits of their emotions, endurance, what-have-you. Loki, despite having an amazing actor behind him, ends up being the kind of whimpy Emperor Claudius wannabe with some magic powers that seem to fade from his grasp the moment he needs them to fend off the Avengers. You know, at least Emperor Claudius was smart enough to have other people killing Maximus' friends and allies before engaging the man in single combat after mortally wounding him; Loki stares at the Hulk who of all people he should know possesses the power to tear up anything with his bare hands and uses the power of sass.
You may disagree with my assertion on The Avenger's depth, but really, only if we're going by your literal definition of "having some point or motivation" as being depth, "using tropes that have no lasting impact on character development nor lead to subplots/arcs", and lastly "who cares if the villain is a complete pushover in the end, CGI". I may have added that last one myself.
Captain America faces a similar arc; he is alone after giving up his entire world for the sake of duty. Now that his loyalties have been appropriated by S.H.I.E.L.D. it is important for him to make sure that he is not being misled. As his suspicions are piqued, he has to choose between near-dogmatic loyalty to authority and following his own conscience. Watching naivety beaten out of a relic certainly isn't my idea of a pudding cup.
Read this and get back to me.