Batman's contingency plans may seem extreme, but how can you have a group of basically Physical Gods and not have a way to keep them from becoming a danger to humanity? We also have to take into account the fact that Batman makes it clear that his plans were to disable the League, not kill them. He then explains that Savage took the basic plans and made lethal versions of them. This is in contrast to the comic, where Batman's plans were much more fatal and made that way by design, meant to be implemented if Bruce was ever going against a Justice League member in a me-or-him style fight.
One of the producers narrating a making of documentary on the feature remarked that Batman had the right idea but his execution was wrong. The main argument for Batman's contingency plan is the question of competence. Not only should it have been impossible for a supervillain to learn of the existence of these contingencies but the easiness with which his security gets breached pretty much renders his reasoning moot.
Unintentionally Unsympathetic: Batman. While we're probably meant to sympathize with Batman's stance on having contingency plans to take down heroes who are practically gods among men, he's such a nasty jerk about it that it's hard to side with him (even after he gets buried alive with his dad's corpse).
The Batman cannot be both of these things at the same time. It's not even a case of conflicted opinions, entries disagree on how he's MEANT to bee seen. If his idea of having backup plans was intended to be valid then Strawman Has a Point entry loses any basis since Bat loses strawman status. In he's meant te be wrong about them the he's not unintentionally unsympathetic for having them. The way i see it neither entry is valid since Bat is supposed to look like an idiot for having his plans stolen, but be right about having them in the first place, just as Hal commented.
- Strawman Has a Point:
- Batman's contingency plans may seem extreme, but how can you have a group of basically Physical Gods and not have a way to keep them from becoming a danger to humanity? We also have to take into account the fact that Batman makes it clear that his plans were to disable the League, not kill them. He then explains that Savage took the basic plans and made lethal versions of them. This is in contrast to the comic, where Batman's plans were much more fatal and made that way by design, meant to be implemented if Bruce was ever going against a Justice League member in a me-or-him style fight.
- One of the producers narrating a making of documentary on the feature remarked that Batman had the right idea but his execution was wrong. The main argument for Batman's contingency plan is the question of competence. Not only should it have been impossible for a supervillain to learn of the existence of these contingencies but the easiness with which his security gets breached pretty much renders his reasoning moot.
- Unintentionally Unsympathetic: Batman. While we're probably meant to sympathize with Batman's stance on having contingency plans to take down heroes who are practically gods among men, he's such a nasty jerk about it that it's hard to side with him (even after he gets buried alive with his dad's corpse).
The Batman cannot be both of these things at the same time. It's not even a case of conflicted opinions, entries disagree on how he's MEANT to bee seen. If his idea of having backup plans was intended to be valid then Strawman Has a Point entry loses any basis since Bat loses strawman status. In he's meant te be wrong about them the he's not unintentionally unsympathetic for having them. The way i see it neither entry is valid since Bat is supposed to look like an idiot for having his plans stolen, but be right about having them in the first place, just as Hal commented.