Why have DC fans deluded themselves?

I assume you mean "generalization". Something the "it was too smart" brigade of BvS fans certainly wouldn't be familiar with.

I love the hell out of Batman in BvS.  He's one of my all time favorite cinematic characters.  The whole films plays out like a sci-fi horror thriller for Bruce, he's completely out of his mind.  I saw it in theaters twice for his character alone.  He isn't a hero, he isn't trying to help anyone or even get revenge for his parents.  They died right before his eyes and by god that was the last time he would be in a situation he couldn't control.  He'll beat and brand criminals, or swoop down on cops like a f*cking creature of the night when he could've just left the scene.  Nobody does anything in his world without his permission-- he is the alpha and the omega.  Until two space gods start throwing each other through buildings.  Look at his face in that opening scene, as he looks up from the rubble.  That isn't concern for innocent lives.  It's absolute bitter resentment that this situation is completely out of his control.  'Who do these sons of bitches think they are?'

Bruce spends the rest of the film ranting about how Superman must be killed.  He even says if there's a 1% chance Supes is evil, they have to take it as an absolute certainty!  The sh*t he says during the actual fight (though nods to The Dark Knight Returns) are pure gold.  "The world only makes sense if you force it to."  Just an incredible take on the character, it's a shame they erased it all in the final ten minutes or so.  

BvS as a whole is a disaster but there are incredible elements to this film that should be appreciated by more people.       

No, that's what you implied by your 18th misuse of the word "assumption".

So you're familiar with the concept of a dictionary, did you actually take a gander at it yourself? I can't presume or suppose something I *see* and *know*. I can generalize - the word you're actually thinking of - that the things I've seen and know represent a whole. There's a difference.

Example: it would be an assumption for me to say that you're lying about not being a Snyder fanboy, hence attacking me and not the equally condescending person who said the people who don't like BvS are 13. It would be a generalization to say that anyone who defends Snyder fanboys are Shyder fanboys themselves. Capisce?

Attack, pester, whatever. And it was referenced in the post of mine you quoted in the first place! No wonder you think I'm assuming s**t, you weren't even paying attention to what I said.

As for your last paragraph, that point sure went over your head.

Wait, wouldn't that be......an assumption?!

"No one stays good in this world" - Zack Snyder, PhD

I did go back an edit it, I had accidentally hit the italics button so half the post had random slants going on. Maybe that's why you didn't get an alert?

I would have to agree- it just seems like the moment you make that kind of movie, a huge chunk of the viewership loses their minds and have no chill (or sense). My own sister, intelligent and educated as she is, admitted outright the other day that she's gotten to the point where she struggles to keep up with half-hour long shows because it just requires too much concentration. Meanwhile, I'm sitting there watching the extended version of B v. S, and wishing they had left in a couple of scenes I remember being discussed by the director/etc. with Diana, Alfred, and Martha. For whatever reasons, it just seems the culture is drifting towards shorter, high-energy, lower brow, expensive CGI pieces. When I introduced some friends to the bluray of the 1994 movie THE SHADOW, it was amazing how much I heard from them about the good story, the excellent effects, and such. It has some continuity errors and a couple little pieces with the characters that can make you raise an eyebrow here and there, but overall is a good movie that didn't require a 100 million just for the CGI, to get it done.

While not an opera fan, I can see your point. Yes, it does have that operatic feel to it. And definitely agree on the Nolan trilogy (I only really enjoyed the first movie, the second was just too dark for my tastes and it required me to spend too much time watching Bale's Batman, the third was alright. Best part of those movies was Michael Caine's turn as Alfred Pennyworth, in my humble opinion), they are more noir than probably just about any other super-hero movie made in the last 20 years. Yes, I really do think people expect all other comic book movies to be Marvel, Marvel-esque, Marvel-light, or some variation of the general Marvel theme. They forget the FOX owned X-MEN movies with Jackman & co. were also a fair balance of comic and dark, though verging more towards dark than the Disney-Marvel, and they weren't above having some hard PG13 stuff. Or the Tim Burton BATMAN movies, which got quite dark, and somewhat reveled in that darkness. Even the Christopher Reeves SUPERMAN movies weren't quite the bubblegum parade they are written off as. I honestly think MAN OF STEEL was less dark/heavy than Reeves's first outing was. And no worries, I love the SAT words. I so rarely read/hear them these days.

Honestly, I think (if you subtract the score) Diana was at her best when she was having the tit-for-tat with Bruce at the museum. When he takes her elbow, you can see the Look she gives him, as if calculating why it was better to just let him have this than to break him in half and toss the pieces over her shoulder. Because she could, easily. And watching her face as he's telling her, all Thomas Crown-like, about knowing a few women like her, stealing, etc., before she gives him that impish grin, straightens his tie, and tells him, "I don't think you've ever known a woman like me." and saunters off, with him speechless in her wake. That moment was excellent, and it fit with what they were aiming for. When she shows up to fight the beast, it almost seems like they lifted an unused scene from another movie that had centered on Wonder Woman instead of Bats/Supes. And I do love (Again, Snyder's visuals) her during the fight- she stands more like a male warrior than a pin-up girl, she grins when her sword gets knocked from her hand, and she almost seems to be enjoying herself, cutting loose without having to hide who she is or what she can do for the first time in a century. But even within the movie, they were wobbly and inconsistent with her. Although she's excellent in WONDER WOMAN and pretty darn good in JUSTICE LEAGUE. And honestly, I have to agree- they do 'get over it' rather quickly after all that build up. Granted, I don't think there was any true hostility from Clark's side, more confusion and disapproval, Bruce was the one who was blind with rage. The whole MARTHA thing was a really good idea (I'm a writer, so a lot of times, even if poorly executed, I will defend an idea/theme/plot point till I am blue in the face, because the initial idea had been a good one). The idea that it worked as a mirror for Bruce, making him see the monster he was becoming- seeing what his bleak, hopeless, mostly solitary, melancholic existence was doing to him. And I think it worked as a humanizing factor, for Superman- that he was in the same place Thomas Wayne had been in 30 years ago, just a man, bleeding, laying helpless in Gotham, unable to protect a woman he loved. Though it comes across as odd due to Clark using his mother's given name-- it might have worked better to have Lois come running and yelling almost incoherently as she tried to shove Batman off, about Luther had Martha Kent and that's why Superman had even come to the fight, that Luther was the real bad guy here.

It is a shame that he isn't as good a storyteller as he is a visual artist- because if he were, he would make stunning films. I think of movies like 2006's THE FALL, starring Lee Pace. That movie is a visual feast, absolutely radiant. There are so many layers to it, both visually and thematically. A good, solid story overall, plus the outer story of the little girl in the hospital and the inner story of the bandits. You can watch that movie 50 times and still be picking up new little details you hadn't noticed before. If Snyder could have done that with BATMAN V. SUPERMAN, people would have forgotten the Nolan trilogy. And yes, turning him loose with the camera and letting him do his crosscuts and interesting angles of filming, he can't be beaten for the canvas he paints. He just has a lot of trouble with the keeping all his threads together.

LONE RANGER didn't do much for me, although I blame part of that on how different it was from my expectation as I grew up on the old black & white show, thusly I hadn't expected Tonto seeing a horse up in the tree or a guy using his nasty, rotten fingernail to try to get a screw loose. I have to agree with you totally on DRACULA. It's a feast for the eyes in so many ways and it does hold together well (I have had people say that Keanu Reeves ruined it for them- when you tell them that he got hired to replace an actor that left during early production and that he basically had his flight from wherever he was when he said YES to wherever he went for his first day of filming, to prepare, people usually are more forgiving of his odd accent/whatever else bothered them.) and has held up to the test of time, for the most part. The new Dracula film, DRACULA UNTOLD, was also quite good. It went with a slightly different take on how he went from Vlad the Prince to Dracula the lord of Darkness, it spent a lot more time in the late medieval age, and it was not quite so stylized as BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA, though it held together very well and painted an incredibly sympathetic yet dangerous Dracula.

Oh no worries, I'm good with rants.