Sounds like a lot of you are in the X-Men fanboy club (people who know the comics, and can dissect, and be dissappointed by, the ways in which the movies differ).
Just as a reference point, I wonder what the ratio is of casual moviegoers vs. fanboys, and if the casual moviegoer is anything like me: Here's what is in my memory bank from the previous 3 movies (not including the Wolverine pic that I didn't see):
There were lots of special effects.
I can't remember any personality traits or quirks of any character, only a few of their superpowers .... Hugh Jackman could turn into a wolfman .... Halle Berry could jump high and either breathe ice or fire (can't remember) .... Rebecca Romjin can get nude w/ blue paint and glitter covering up the naughty bits. That's it.
I can't remember anything about the super powers (or personalities) of the Bond girl (Famke Jansen?), the pretty boy (James Marsden?) or the little girl from The Piano (Anna Pacquin?) or anybody else. A wheelchair-bound Capt. Picard and a old English actor (famous for being openly gay in real life; although how homosexuality distinguishes one in this day & age is perplexing) head up rival mutant gangs, and non-mutant society-at-large is allegedly uncomfortable with their existance (though we hardly see non-mutant society-at-large, so we're asked to take that on faith). Oh, yea, Frasier Crane was a mutant-turned-govt-beauracrat, or was it a govt-beauracrat-turned-mutant?
I don't even remember any backstory about how the mutant society got started. Did they touch on this in any of the previous films?
Maybe I gotta go back and watch them, but perhaps the decreasing box office returns suggests that these movies don't make much of a first impression for non-fanboys. Could this be a case of a comic series that is too dense in story -- and/or the # of characters we're asked to keep track of -- to make a memorable translation to film?