Because those are the villians for those characters in the comics.

​

Is like Bizzarro and Superman. Or Doomsday and Superman. Or Zod and Superman.

​

Also, Mordo is not a vilian in Dr Strange and Yon Rogg powers have nothing to do with Vers's powers.

It's a common thing, same with DCU. Blame the comic writers.

But not true in the Thor movies, Spiderman movies, Civil War, The 2 Infinity Wars movies, Ultron, etc.

I’m referring to the sole hero films. Thor and Spider-Man were the sole films that didn’t follow this trope

OP did state "in their first film", so only Thor and Spider-man count there.

Dormamu's powers are nothing like Dr Strange powers.

None of the guardians of the galaxy have a powerset even remotely similar to Ronan.

So, which one was like Thanos?

"In a comic, you know how you can tell who the arch-villain's going to be? He's the exact opposite of the hero." --Unbreakable

Not to mention The Eternals movie and The Avengers, Loki was definitely not similar to the Avengers.

The Avengers and Loki were not introduced in The Avengers. It is not the first film for any of them.

Loki is a valid example of villian that doesn't have the same the powers as the hero in their first film in Thor.

I love that movie so much.

In comics all heroes have a Rogues Gallery and most main villains are an antithesis to the main character. That's not lazy, that is just standard. The MCU doesn't want to deviate away from what is in the comics too much. Call it fan service or something, but it's what people want to see, especially fans.

It’s not true for most MCU movies… and, for the ones where it is true, they’re based off the comics. It’s long been a comic book trope that the best villains are just evil mirrors of the hero.

[deleted]

Black Widow was in Iron Man 2 and Hawkeye was in Thor, so it was neither character first film.

If you are going to count the Chitauri, then might as well count evil Hawkeye and he has the same "powers" than Black Widow.

Pretty sure Yon Rogg has nowhere near the same powers as Vers.

Either way, its a good trope to have the villain be the opposite of the hero simply because the scenario of opposing ideals in similar/same individuals is interesting on paper. Parallel characters that took different paths and whatnot. When done right its very appealing, TChalla/Killmonger being one example. When done wrong is boring as hell, like AntMan/Yellowjacket. The MCU however has exploited this way too much to the point of exhaustion.

[deleted]

He is barely a cameo in Avengers, but he plays a longer role in Guardians 1.

He doesn't count for the other movies, because it is not his first movie.

Because most hero stories are 'man vs self'. There's an internal conflict the hero is struggling with which is represented in the story as an external conflict between him and a mirror (or a direct opposite) for the villain.

Thus by telling the story, you can highlight the conflicting emotions and arguments the protagonist is having in their head. And by defeating the enemy, the protagonist comes to realise the solution to their personal problems.

He doesn’t fit the trope since he was a villain in the avengers films, not an initial sole hero film

Because the writers lack creativity

Dr. Strange also had Hannibal fighting Sherlock. They had similar powers.

The ending didn't make any fucking sense with Dormamu anyway. Dormamu should not have suddenly realized that "wait a minute", because he would've never remembered the last times he speared Strange. Also the warning about using timeshit too much... well nothing happened when Strange used it for 5 billion times with Dormamu. Fuck that movie was stupid in every way.

"That's not lazy, that is just standard." Uh, it can be both. And it is.

Again, because of comic origins. It was never considered lazy until the MCU and picky movie goers. That's why I say "standard" - it's 50 years of accepted comic writing.