There is no doubt that all the other characters largely contributed to Winter Soldier, as you said it wasn't just Cap, but that is the thing isn't it? Spiderman doesn't have that supporting cast to really drive things home, not hero wise anyway.
Well like I said it's the difference of
Winter Soldier being a movie within a growing universe of tied-in movies, and TAS2 being a singular sequel without anything besides the prequel to tie itself into. TAS2 did one thing really well with its ending in that it ended in the middle of events, and that trick helped world build the series in just a single scene, which those aforementioned token name drops could add to later on. But it was akin to what the first Marvel Studios film,
Iron Man did with its after-credits scene adding an element of "there's more to the story than this", and subsequent films were able to build upon this, whereas TAS2 only has TAS3 to build upon it. No tertiary title coming out in a few months to a year later building upon the universe, just a couple more years till the next sequel.
These team up movies are becoming the norm. Iron Man had Rhodey. Cap had the Commandos, Black Widow, Falcon, and more. Thor had his Warriors Three...a little anyway. I think Spiderman as a series is suffering because of Sony playing catchup.
Sony definitely shot themselves in the foot when their only course of action 5 years ago was to begin work on a new Spider-Man film and ONLY maintain its licensing of that subset of the Marvel Comics universe, whereas Marvel Studios made gambles with superheroes few people really cared about. I mean, thanks ENTIRELY to the films, Iron Man is a household superhero name, but before the first film? Iron Man was an obscure superhero nobody really cared about, and Marvel Studios' gamble paid off SUPREMELY. The fact that they're going to work on Antman just furthers this point. Besides all that vitriol mentioned earlier, much of the dispute about using Antman next has been surrounding "who the FUCK is Antman?????"
In the early 90s, superhero films went from not being a thing to being a thing all because of
Batman, and the Raimi films revitalized that as a thing when the Schumacher films practically killed it off. But the Marvel Studios films didn't simply ride the wave, they created their own new thing, the "team up films", as you put it. It's more than just encapsulated stories about superhero a vs supervillain b; it follows a particular narrative settled within a constantly-evolving established setting, not developed by prequels but by separate, yet related stories. Because her character was established in
Iron Man 2 and
The Avengers,
Winter Soldier didn't have to waste any time establishing who the Black Widow was, even though she wasn't present in the first Captain America film. The doomed nature of the super soldier program from the first Cap film was established in passing exposition in
The Incredible Hulk. One film didn't need to spend much time establishing a premise, because tertiary stories had already established these for them. Sony's "play it safe" strategy of sticking to singular franchises and individual superhero vs supervillain stories is living in the past, and that's hurting their work just as it hurt Nolan's; Everything's gotta be about Oscorp/Gotham...
Venom is going to have his own flick. First question is, Eddie Brock or Flash Thompson? Are they going to go with the Ultimate route? Will Spiderman be in the Venom movie, lose his suit, and then Brock gets it? Will Flash Thompson start off with it, altogether forgoing that plotline altogether? It would be much tidier, but the fans would hate it. Then again when is the last time Brock was Venom? I don't even know really. Would he be a villain in Sinister Six? What villains are going to pop up in Sinister Six? Logically I would think Goblin, Octopus, Vulture, Lizard, Electro, and Rhino, at least from the current info provided. Not my picks for that movie personally though. I would like to see Mysterio done justice.
Well, among all the complaints that TAS2 wracks up, isn't is striking that "OMG first Goblin wasn't Norman Osborn? LAME!!!!" isn't more prevalent? While I wouldn't like it, it's possible they COULD pull off skipping Brock as Venom entirely, and the fans might not hate it as much as you'd think. I personally favor Brock as Venom, and while he hasn't been Venom for a long time in the comics, I'd say he's the "eternal" Venom, so there's not much reason to overlook his character. I personally like him the most out of all the symbiote wearers, because he's the first (besides Peter, of course) and he comes to truly master his suit, keeping his knowledge of Peter's secrets to himself when he could just as easily go public with them and ruin Peter's life. But he doesn't. His restraint, calculating planning, and viciously preying nature make him one of the most striking nemeses to Spider-Man, possibly more so than Goblin or Fisk. I'd love a Brock Venom, so long as it turns out right, unlike SM3's emo Brock..... *shudder*
Here comes the next question. If we have Sinister Six and Venom movies, what is Amazing Spiderman 3 going to be about?
I for one think they don't even know what the end result will be.
I always operated under the assumption that TAS3 WOULD be the Sinister Six film. Though like I said above, it only hurts the story to cram so much into such a tiny vessel. If Sony had the rights to more names (cause God knows they HAVE the funds to crank out more films if they wanted to) and did even a slight mimicry of Marvel Studio's success with interwoven multiple film stories then each story would be far more interesting. A film focused on Black Cat that openly tied itself to the present TAS franchise would leave watchers wondering how the events would impact Spidey's excapades. A film focusing on a Flash Venom would build that character and add more to the world of the TAS universe simply by existing and acknowledging their connection.
Still watching second part... 
