By definition, it is A Man of Steel sequel. Not to be confused with this is Man of Steel 2. Which it is not.

The Avengers for all intents and purposes is a sequel to Thor, Iron man 2, The incredible Hulk, and Captain America: The First Avenger. See?

Originally it was to be a Man of Steel sequel but the plans have changed now. Man of Steel 2 will be coming in a few more years.

I think your missing his point its not that it isnt stand alone films its the fact that it is a sequel (avengers) to the previous movies because it involves them unless otherwise stated

"I strongly disagree. It's basically Superman 2, let's not make it into something it's not."

I guess we always will. And it basically isn't... It's a sequel to Man of Steel (Not Man of Steel 2, that'll come later). And it's also a prelude to the Justice League. By that Cooking mama pic i'll assume you're a gamer. You know how some people are scratching their head saying "Why is it called Dead Island 2, then what was Riptide?". I'll let you figure out the rest. Maybe when Man of Steel 2 is announced after JL people will understand.

"Captain America, Iron Man and Thor are stand alone movie centered on their character and never had other main Avengers shoe horned in like they are trying to do with Man of Steel 2."

The incredible Hulk was to Iron man what BvS is to Man of Steel. It really isn't THAT hard to understand. And what the heck are you talking about!??!? Hawkeye had a CAMEO in Thor. Black Widow was in IM2 while Nick Fury was in both IM2 AND Cap. Tony Stark was in the incredible Hulk! Mjolnir was in IM2 aswell (I think). Agent Coulson was in ALL OF THEM! And did those appearances feel " shoe horned"? No. Why? because
A) They were cameos. And
B) The characters served a purpose.

Want shoe horned? Go watch Eddie/Venom in SM3 or Gambit in X-men Origins. If you honestly believe Flash's cameo would be more comparable to Hawkeye then to Venom's role than you my friend are in denial.

*YOUR THIRD PARAGRAPH*

Thank you for another example. Origins: Wolverine (BvS) is connected to the X-men franchise (MoS, Shazam, WW solo etc.) (Origins:Wolverine is more prequel than sequel) BUT it ISN'T X-men 4. Thank you.

**Fourth PARAGRAPH*

Origin stories are completely un-related but ok. Also is that why you are confused? Because they aren't following a proven formula? Sad dude. Embrace change buddy, you'll live. Also is Lord of the rings a "shoe horned" mess because it didn't have an origin story for Frodo, Legolas, Aragorn, & Gandalf? NO! Why? Because it worked as an ensemble and everyone had their place. There was no need for it.

Kinda sad when people thing the concept of team-ups is new to movies.

Yup, never argued that. Let's look at sales & reviews shall we?

Cap 1 made $370,569,774 - Let's call it 3 people.

The Avengers made - $1,518,594,910 - Which we'll call 15 people.

Only 3 people watched Cap 1 while 15 people watched The Avengers! Surely then The Avengers will flop right? 12 of those people won't even know who Cap is so it'll definitely get a mixed bag of reviews from people who didn't understand Cap (goes the same for all solo films).

In short. It didn't flop. People weren't confused and thoroughly enjoyed seeing Cap there without the origin flick (judging by reviews). People weren't confused without a Nick Fury, Hawkeye or Black Widow "build-up" movie. The Avengers practically worked by itself.

I don't expect a reply.

And I never said anything about sales. As far as story cohesion goes, the avengers route works best when doing superhero team ups. Cameos will help for the next JL-related film, but won't do much for Dawn of Justice.

The Avengers "15 people" is probably in large part built up of the groups of "3+ people" who saw some at least one of the other films and understood some of the characters better than others.