Wouldn't he just utilize his contingency plans against the League? Thereby eliminating his "solution"?
shareHahaha, you make a great point.
Well, I've got news for you pal, you ain't leadin' but two things: Jack and sh*t and Jack left town
If he went rouge in any normal comic he would loose his plot armor and die.
share[deleted]
It's implied that the plan against each member has to be done simultaneously or else the rest will help the others. IIRC the movie doesn't establish the existence of the Bat Family, so as far as we know, Batman doesn't have the means to do that.
shareIt's implied that the plan against each member has to be done simultaneously or else the rest will help the others.Uh, no, one plan is for when one member goes rogue.
Reading comprehension fail. We're discussing how Batman would go about taking down the ENTIRE league.
shareNo, I comprehended fine. The fact remains one plan was for one member going rogue, not coordinated attacks on the entire league so Batman having the means (e.g. the Bat Family) for such coordination is beside the point. In other words, he'd make plans better suited for that objective.
But that's just me.
lol No, you clearly don't comprehend.
OP asked how could Batman's contingency plan for himself going rogue be the Justice League if he was capable of taking them down all by himself with each contingency plan?
And my answer was that he wouldn't be able to take down the entire League at once since each plan is designed with a special individual member going rogue with mind. And so like I said, it's implied that in order to take down everyone, as per the OP's scenario, he'd have to execute all the plans simultaneously and he does not have the means to do that.
Why don't you let that sink in for a while before you reply? I think you have enough eggs on your face already.
That may have been what you meant your answer to be but it was not what your answer was. Let's look at it:
It's implied that the plan against each member has to be done simultaneously or else the rest will help the others.
IIRC the movie doesn't establish the existence of the Bat Family, so as far as we know, Batman doesn't have the means to do that.
Why do people have a problem with Superman being invincible but not Batman?
You want to play the game, you'd better know the rules, love.
-Harry Callahan
Because unlike Superman, Batman isn't super human. He isn't invulnerable.
Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
Well Batman fans always act as if he's super human,invulnerable,perfect,flawless,etc...
You want to play the game, you'd better know the rules, love.
-Harry Callahan
Right, but your previous post suggests that Batman and Superman are equally invulnerable even though they're absolutely not.
Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
True. Superman is nowhere near as invulnerable as Batman. All he has is his superpowers. Batman has the power of being the most ridiculously over the top Mary Sue ever conceived.
share
Superman is not invincible. He is just damn strong.
Cult Leader my mind's frightening, I drink blood from a human skull like a Viking
This is true but that does not mean the plans were designed to be implemented simultaneously. And Batman, the designer, would be aware of this. Read on.
What you are describing here is Batman taking whatever specific plans Ras/Savage stole and altered and use them (by proxies) to divíde and conquer the whole League. But, if you'll pardon my simplifying here, Batman is smarter and knows the League better than to ever try that. He wouldn't have Robin sneak a bomb around Flash's wrist while he himself shoots Superman in the chest. He might use the weaknessess, sure, but he'd use them in some better way.
[deleted]
And when did I ever say that they were designed to be implemented simultaneously? This is what I meant by you failing at reading comprehension. Learn how to read things within the context of the conversation.
It's implied that the plan against each member has to be done simultaneously or else the rest will help the others.
IIRC the movie doesn't establish the existence of the Bat Family, so as far as we know, Batman doesn't have the means to do that.
It was simply my reply that Batman did not have the means to carry them out simultaneously, which he would have to in order to take down the entire League.
I never said that Batman would use the plans as they are. That's what the person who created this topic was asking.
It's right there, plain to see. You are saying Batman would "need" to use these specific plans to take down the entire League simultaneously but at different locations using "henchmen" (whether you were thinking "He could take them down some other way, of course." is beside the point since you didn't say it, correct?*). This is where my point comes in: The plans were not made for such an objective, each one was made to take down one member alone. A villain unable to come up with better plans would do the dividing and conquering but Batman could come up with better plans. Would he need to identify other weaknesses? Not necessarily, so in that sense he could still implement "the plans". Would he have to split up the League first? No, not necessarily, so in that sense he could implement "the plans".
If "contingency plan" just equals "exploited weakness" then the topic creator has a point and you don't. If "contingency plan" = "detailed implementation" then I have a point and you don't.
Yes, I understood that. Here's my reply: No, he doesn't have to. He doesn't need to rely on plan details that he made for a different objective. He could come up with new plans but (should he choose) still use the same weaknesses.
I don't mean to be condescending either but do you honestly still claim my argument is asinine?
I didn't say Batman would need to use these specific plans. That's what the guy who made the topic said.
Seriously, stop acting like an idiot and look back and read the topic. The TC argued that the Justice League can't be Batman's contingency plan against himself since Batman could just use his contingency plans against the League. Those were the TC's words. Get it? Read that over and over till it finally sinks in.
Some other guy made a topic saying that Batman is capable of taking down the League using these plans. And that's why I replied that Batman can't because he'd have to do it simultaneously and he had no means of doing that. I don't know how much more I can spell it out for you before you finally get it.Look at what you just said. Batman "can't" because "using these plans".
LMAO So you're claiming that that's your argument? That's even more laughable. What's your proof that Batman is capable of taking down the League as a group all at once?
No, he said "contingency plans" and nothing else. What he or you or I mean by that is the entire point of the misunderstanding between you and I.
Look at what you just said. Batman "can't" because "using these plans".
What do you mean when you say "these plans" (whether to me or anyone else)? Do you mean the detailed plans we saw[] (Savage's implementations) or do you mean just the weaknesses (e.g. kryptonite)? Or is it somewhere in between (Batman's non-lethal implementations that are largely unknown)?
It's not the point whether he is cabable of it or me believing he is or not. The point is he isn't restriced the way I've already described.
No, you misunderstood what it means because you're taking it to mean something that it doesn't. Batman's plans to take down the League are the original plans he had that Savage stole and modified. Simple as that.
Listing someone's weakness isn't a plan. Savage's plans aren't Batman's plans. Batman's plans are Batman's plans. Seriously, how dense can you get?I didn't claim listing someone's weakness was a plan. My point is someone could make that mistake.
Which is why it makes no sense to reply to my post. That has nothing to do with my pointing out to the TC that Batman's original plans wouldn't work because they're designed for each individual member, not the group.
You're also ignoring the fact that your first post to me was to reply that each plan was for each member, which like I said, is exactly what I said, proving that the misunderstanding was yours and only yours. I realize you're just trying to save face, but you'd accomplish that better if you just give up now.
How do I misunderstand what it means when I'm pointing out the different ways it CAN be understood?
I didn't claim listing someone's weakness was a plan. My point is someone could make that mistake.
But you didn't point that out in writing, I did. You pointed out Batman can't take the whole League down with his plans simultaneously for lack of underlings (you give the Bat Family as an example). Which (I repeat yet again) is a point I comprehended fine but I make the counterpoint Batman wouldn't be restricted like Vandal Savage is, he doesn't "have to" do his plans simultaneously and he doesn't "have to" use underlings since he's more than smart enough to recognize that they were not DESIGNED to be done simultaneously (as you and I were both smart enough to) and compensate. Your point doesn't "fail" because it's wrong about the plans, if it's Ras al Ghul or Vandal Savage you're right on the money but with Batman the plans (as they) are are just starting points. For taking down the WHOLE league they're dull weapons he could sharpen.
Because we clearly only had one meaning in mind.
If he needed to execute each plan simultaneously, it's because each plan is meant to be executed for one individual, thus to use the exact same plans for the group (which is what the TC was implying), he'd need to carry them out simultaneously (which is what I said). Like I said, only an idiot wouldn't be able to read that from what I said.
And again, I'm only making the counterpoint that the plans as they were would work against the League as a team.
Right, but now you're adding "as they were". Which is part of my point.
Right, but now you're adding "If he needed to". Which is part of my point (not just to you but to the OP as well).
And you're adding "the exact same plans" which is part of my point since you and the OP don't know what Batman's exact plans were (you know Savage's versions of them) so you don't know how detailed they were (e.g. they could just be a weakness identified and a list of possible scenarios the weakness could be utilized in to be adapted, much like what Savage did).
I didn't add it. It's clearly implied. If you couldn't make that inference, I can't help you.
OP asks if JLA isn't a poor contingency for Batman since he has contingencies for taking down the JLA members. I got that. Your response is Batman can't use his contingencies all at once hence he can't take down JLA. I got that too. My response is that we don't know Batman's contingencies well enough to assume:
Irrelevant. The movie has various lines that imply that Batman's plans were the ones shown in the movie, only with minor revisions. The part where he explains it to GL is where it's most apparent.
And don't change your argument around and pretend that that's what you've been saying all along. Go back and read your very first post. You clearly didn't understand it then.
It's not irrelevant however if he had like 50 or 100 (which sounds like a lot but really isn't when you think about it) based on 5 (or more) identified weaknesses. It also not irrelevant if they are quite 'revisionable' to begin with (which I am more confident they are than I ever was). If either or both of these are true, Savage did use Batman's plans with minor revisions but it doesn't affect our conversation in the slightest.
Batman's plans were made for rogue members, not coordinated attacks, it was NOT implied that they "HAD TO" be done simultaneously by Batman using underlings like the Bat Family for him to "utilize his contingency plans against the League".
For your point to be accurate YOU have to be the one defining what "Batman's plans" were and what would constitute following them and what wouldn't. You're not.
You typpe it all in one sentence, but you don't see how the bolded part supports the last half. Batman's plans were made for individual rogue members, not coordinated attacks against multiple members. That does imply that in order to take down more than the entire League, the attacks has to be done simultaneously or else the others would be alerted or would be available to help.
Uh, the movie does. So I don't have to. You're the one defining his plans without any real basis.
Like I've been saying, Batman implies to GL that the exact details used against GL was pretty much the same ones from Batman's original plan. That implies that there are no "multiple plans" like you suggested because if Batman would create a specifically detailed plan for a scenario as ridiculous as GL being rogue while still caring enough to save hostages and be devastated by innocents dying, then he would've had to make hundreds of less ridiculous scenarios.
Yes, if we handicap Batman as follows
Please explain to me how I'm defining them. As far as I can tell, all I've said is that since he can't foresee every scenario it only seems logical he would have many contingency plans (which you've conceded in the other thread) rather than five he believes will work in any scenario.
It's been a while since I watched the movie too but I completely fail at understanding your logic here. The details against GL was Batman's plan, yes, but it makes no sense for that to have been the only plan for the very reasons you've just given.
Finally you get it. That was the TC's scenario and that's what I replied to. Yes, he could come up with new plans based on their weaknesses (which is just stating the obvious), but that's not what was up for discussion.
All that stuff about Batman multiple plans or what have you were completely unsubstantiated.
Uh, no I didn't. I said it makes sense for him to have many contingency plans,Yes, that's exactly what I said.
but that's all based completely on assumption. The movie gives you NOTHING to suggest that. NOTHING. Not once have you posted any evidence to support that Batman had more than one contingency plan. Give me one shred of actual evidence that Batman had more than one contingency plan and then I'll concede.
It makes sense if it was just overlooked by the author, which is the logical assumption.It wasn't overlooked by the author, Batman mentioning mind control as another possible scenario confirms that, it's just not made explicit.
Batman said that he had plans and Vandal Savage modified them.
Batman didn't mention anything about picking one of them or modifying the ones best suited for their current situation or anything of the sort. He simply said that Savage took the plans and modified them.
The default conclusion is the literal interpretation and that the error in logic we're discussing was not addressed because it did not occur to the writers.
No, I "got it" from the beginning. No, the scenario is "utilize his contingency plans against the League", all the handicapping happens in your concept of what that means ONLY. And whether they can be called "new plans" is part of what I've been trying to get across to you. If he's still using the identified weaknesses and neutralizing agents from his plans, does that not qualify as "utlizing his contingency plans against the League"? I suspect you'd claim it doesn't but that falls under the whole 'it has to fit fireinthewronghole's rules, not reality, since he's the one who lays it out'.
No, it was not.
I don't care if you concede. But as far as I can tell, it's not based on assumption but on common sense. It makes no sense for anyone, Batman or otherwise, to believe his one GL plan would work no matter what. That and his very words about mind control is my evidence it wasn't the only plan. Now (I already asked you in the other thread but) please tell me what the movie gives us to suggest Batman HAD one contingency plan. Because I'll bet that was based completely on assumption.
Right, it's more likely that the writers are complete idiots than that you just didn't bother to take the time and think things through. Yeah, that's really how you apply Occam's razor.
TC's words were "Wouldn't he just utilize his contingency plans against the League?"
If he did as you suggested and made new plans based on identified weaknesses, those weren't the contingency plans that he made in the event a certain member of the League went rogue. Those are plans (not contingency plans) that he made to take the whole League down. Get it?
What an amazing counter. I'm amazed at the slew of evidence you used to prove that it was indeed not unsubstantiated.
We only see one plan and Batman makes no reference to having other plans.Unless you count him basically stating he had contingency plans for the JL members becoming mind controlled but you seem to have a blind spot for that part of our conversation.
Yes, it's dumb of Batman to only have one contingency plan and for his plans to depend on scenarios where Supes and GL are still acting like heroes (which is exactly what I point out in the other topic) but to explaining those errors away require us to assume things that the writers intended but never put in, which is what you're doing.
Get it? Adding things that the writers never put in are ASSUMPTIONS. It would be fine if they put something that directly HINTS at your conclusions because then it's suggested. But your only basis otherwise it's that it's dumb to leave out. The writers are not infallible. The fact that the writers left out those details is FACT.
Right, it's more likely that the writers are infallible than that you just didn't bother to take the time and think things through. See, I can do that too. The fact that you can't come up with a decent argument is enough to end it here.
The writers left out any details hinting that Batman had multiple contingency plans. Your conclusion requires the assumption of exactly what they had in mind but never put in. I'm saying they left them out because they left them out. And yes, that is how you apply Ockham's Razor.Except the detail about the mind control, that was a big hint to me. But they left it non-explicit, I completely agree with you there. But that was their decision, I have no problem with it.
Yes, those were his words. Now tell me how from that sentence you also get "Utilizing them to make plans for the actual objective does not count as utilizing them, only putting them into action as they were written counts. Utilizing them in sequence also does not count since if something alerts the other members it doesn't count. And he has to use underlings established as already working for him while he's still a good guy. And (last but not least) if Batman made more contingency plans than the ones Savage adapted, those do not count."
And I'm aghast at your repeated tactic: simply telling me it's unsubstantiated because you say so.
Unless you count him basically stating he had contingency plans for the JL members becoming mind controlled but you seem to have a blind spot for that part of our conversation.
Yeah, and guess what, I'm just as free to make assumptions as you are. That's how I interpreted the plot, what do I care how you (IMHO) misinterpreted it? How is making assumptions that make sense rather than ones that don't "explaining errors away"? Because IMHO that's all I've seen you do, you made bad assumptions about the plot and refuse to admit to it (not that I care if you ever do admit it).
I've asked you repeatedly to tell me where Batman or Savage proves your assumptions about the contingency plans over mine.
LOL I didn't say they were infallible but they would have to be complete and utter drooling idiots to (through writing an entire movie script and then turning it into a movie) not realize that the plans the whole movie revolves around would not work for every contingency.
Except the detail about the mind control, that was a big hint to me. But they left it non-explicit, I completely agree with you there. But that was their decision, I have no problem with it.
You're really so lacking in common sense that you need this explained to you?
Using the basis (established weaknesses) for your original contingency plans to create new ones is not the same as using your original contingency plans. Duh. That's just basic common sense.
Way to twist the argument on the second one. I said that using the original contingency plans as they were won't work against the entire league because Batman had no means to carry them out simultaneously, which means that the others would be alerted and would be less susceptible to attack and would also be able to help the ones in danger.
And the Bat Family is an anticipated counterargument against Batman being unable to carry out the plans simultaneously that I was preemptively voiding.
And last, and yes, it is the least, you have no basis for Batman having multiple contingency plans. The fact that you're still unable to back it up and that you're now just resorting to misrepresenting my argument is just downright petty that it's pathetic.
Still doesn't prove that he had multiple plans. Just that he had plans.How so?
Also you do realize, you're using the very thing in question to explain itself? Where I come from, that's called circular logic.
I'm saying that the plans won't work as detailed because they clearly can't be implemented in a scenario where the heroes are "rogue" or "mind-controlled" and you're saying that the fact that Batman having plans for them being mind-controlled is enough to explain that error since it proves that he had other plans (that we still don't have any proof of).
That's circular logic.
LOL I've answered your questions--the story gives you those facts. You're the one who hasn't presented any evidence even in this post. Fact is that your "interpretations" have zero basis, and you "made bad assumptions about the plot and refuse to admit to it."
This is what I mean. Assumptions without basis. Writers can make mistakes. Even really stupid ones. Fact is that the plans not making sense in application and that there is nothing in the movie to explain it is a mistake. The fact that you have to use baseless explanations to make sense of them does not make it any less of a mistake. You'd have to be an idiot to not see that.
Again, faulty logic. I've pointed out that Batman's plans can't work as detailed won't work against mind-controlled heroes, so it's a very poor counterargument to say that Batman mentioning that the plans were intended for mind-controlled heroes (the error that I pointed out) is proof of other plans that conveniently explains this error away.
So how about presenting actual evidence to support your argument, because otherwise, you're just wasting my time. Fact is that it's an error and the writers failed to explain it in the story, which has been my point all along. While your explanations are logical (and what I personally would've gone with if I wrote the story), there's just nothing that hints at Batman having multiple plans for one hero, so sadly, there's just no basis for that conclusion. Simply saying that the plot had a really bad error is not enough basis to justify shoehorning in a plot point made up entirely by audience interpretation that quite simply just wasn't in the movie.
Is it? You are utilizing your original contingency plans against the League either way. Even if your assumption that the TC did not think of that interpretation of his question happens to be correct, it was still an assumption on your part. But regardless of the TC, the latter counting as an instance of the former is a matter of opinion. Not that I was ever confused, I was pointing it out to clarify my point, my point does not rely on it.
What am I twisting? How is Batman not allowed to take down one or a few JL members to 'trick' the rest into their takedowns? You repeating yourself yourself does not answer that question.
And I understood that. BUT... he could have gathered guys like Bane, Star Sapphire etc., correct? So even if you somehow prove me wrong on all other counts, your central point (Batman lacks manpower) was flat out wrong.
Batman says he made plans against rogue or mind controlled JL members, you agree with me that the plans we see adapted in this movie clearly wouldn't work against rogue or mind controlled JL members. This leads me to think there were more plans than we saw adapted and leads you to... what? Assume the writers were incompetent, is that correct?
What are "those facts" you keep mentioning? If the movie somehow proves Batman had no more plans than shown, it should be easy for you to tell me how it does so. You repeating "The movie proves you wrong, I don't have to explain how" does not impress.
The plans make no sense IF you make the (IMO baseless) assumption you did. IF you refrain from making that assumption, it makes sense. Imagine that.
You decide that "Batman's plans" are your idea of them
and then Batman mentioning plans that don't fit your idea of "Batman's plans" is a poor argument that your idea of them is wrong since Batman has to be talking about your idea of "Batman's plans" since your idea of "Batman's plans" is in fact that he only made those?
And you call my logic faulty and circular?
Uh, I'm not the one saying the plot had an error, you are.
No, pay attention to how that's worded.
"Using the basis (established weaknesses) for your original contingency plans to create new ones is not the same as using your original contingency plans. Duh. That's just basic common sense."
Not using the plans, but using the basis. So no, he's not utilizing the original contingency plans either way. In the indirect method you're implying, he's using the basis of the plans--just the heroes' established weaknesses--not the plans themselves, to create new plans. Not even using the original contingency plans at all, which were the TC's words.
In the technicality you're trying to force in here, you're assuming Batman has to reverse engineer the heroes' weaknesses from his contingency plans, which is just illogical.
You can't even remember how you word your arguments. Here:
"Yes, those were his words. Now tell me how from that sentence you also get "Utilizing them to make plans for the actual objective does not count as utilizing them, only putting them into action as they were written counts. Utilizing them in sequence also does not count since if something alerts the other members it doesn't count."
You're misrepresenting my argument that I drew those conclusion from thin air when I explained thoroughly how I got there. I explained why Batman has to take them down simultaneously if he were to use his original contingency plans, and I did not just get that from TC's words (like I said, you're twisting things). So get your head out of your ass and read again instead of misrepresenting my argument just to pretend like you accomplished something.
Sure, none of those people are likely to betray him.
Especially not your first suggestion, who holds a personal grudge against Batman. This is as idiotic as your suggestion that Darkseid would be a benevolent ruler. So no, way to NOT prove that my central point was wrong.
You also make the assumption that a rogue Batman would be a bad Batman who would side with the villains. That's the same mistake that the writers made. But I thought a person would have to be a "complete and utter drooling idiot" to make that mistake, wouldn't you? (Before you argue it's not the same error, think it over again. That's the basis for their mistake--the "original" mistake.)
I don't have to prove that Batman didn't have other plans. The fact that he makes no such reference to it is proof enough. Could you prove to me that Leo's character from Titanic wasn't really a dragon in human disguise? No. Therefore he must be, amirite?
LMAO. More circular logic, eh? It can't just be that the plans make no sense. The plans make no sense, but they do if you assume he had more plans. Why assume that he has other plans? Well, solely because the plans make no sense otherwise. You have no other basis to assume that aside from that. Where I come from, people base their conclusions from actual evidence, not just because a particular plot point would make no sense unless we fabricate some kind of explanation for it.
Wrong-o. This seems to be where your mistake stems from. I didn't decide that. That's what the movie tells you. The movie tells you that he had plans that Savage stole and modified. Batman strongly implies during his explanation to GL that his original plans included the fear gas and the androids and the ultimate goal was to convince Hal that he made a bad call. Ergo, at the very least his plan against GL assumed that GL would still behave like a hero. So like I said, his original plans were detailed scenarios like that, which is completely supported by the movie and not something I made up.
YOU're the one making the decision as to what "Batman's plans" were with this whole "I uh he must have other plans because the plot would be stoopid without it. okthnxbai"Pretty much, yes. I go with an interpretation of a movie that makes sense rather than one that makes no sense. You want to go with the one that you admit makes no sense because you think that's logical, feel free.
I am merely pointing out no matter how LITTLE you use the plans against the League that's STILL using them against the League.
You WERE saying that if alerted they would help eachother so Batman can't do it which is exactly what I'm counterarguing, Batman doing just that. Basically you shoot Superman and when the Flash arrives to help - you put the bomb on him. There, I even used Savage's plans for that one.
IMHO your conclusions are drawn out of thin air.
A. You conclude Batman only made the plans for JL members gone rogue that we see Savage modify.
B. You conclude the TC is of the same mind as you regarding what "utilizing" and "Batman's plans" entail.
C. You conclude a rogue Batman "has to" take the JL members down at once to "use the plans" (as you interpret the term, mind! This conclusion fails either way)
D. You conclude he "has to" separate them (to do C).
E. You conclude he does not have manpower available to him (to do D).
(F. You conclude there is no Bat Family in this continuity.)
I find all of these baseless assumptions.
But the Bat Family would happily take down the Justice League? I must be missing something there.
Apparently you missed the part where I added he probably would not try that particular idea while using the Batman identity.
And what suggestion that Darkseid would be a benevolent ruler? Are you on some kind of medication or something?
No, I did not make that assumption, it was an example. Oh, and you left out I also mentioned androids as another example.
You're really missing the point here. I am not saying Batman must have other plans, I'm saying it makes more sense and since I see no proof he didn't have other plans that's my conclusion.
Your "default conclusion" is that Batman and the writers are incompetent, that him having only those plans is an error
and you refuse to even acknowledge the alternative that they were not the only plans for one reason only: because the movie does not explicity tell you whether or not they are.
This ties into above. Why assume he didn't have more plans? I'm still waiting for the "actual evidence" on that. It seems to me you've gone from "The story proves it" to "The story doesn't say either way hence he didn't".
I didn't say you made anything up. I said you decided Savage's plan against GL was modified from Batman's only plan against GL (this is what you are describing here). Re-read it with that it in mind.
Pretty much, yes. I go with an interpretation of a movie that makes sense rather than one that makes no sense. You want to go with the one that you admit makes no sense because you think that's logical, feel free.
Except if he made new plans, he didn't use the original contingency plans AT ALL. Not even a LITTLE. He's using the basis for the plans to make new ones. He's not using the old plans to reverse engineer the basis and make new ones. So no, that's NOT using them against the League.
And you're assuming that they'll all be coming one by one because....?
So what if all the other League members happen to arrive at the same time? Are you suggesting that Batman will simultaneously trick the Flash into getting the bomb on while he tricks GL into defusing a hostage situation while he gets Martian Manhunter to take a drink?
"A. You conclude Batman only made the plans for JL members gone rogue that we see Savage modify."
That is the logical conclusion. If I didn't see or hear about a giant robot chicken in the movie, I'm not going to assume that it exists within the movie. Your logic is weird.
If by of the same mind, you mean that we're both taking the word to mean what it actually means, then yes.
Because you're suggesting that the other League members will stand back and wait their turn? I love how you're still not presenting evidence in your counterarguments and just stating the opposite of what I say.
If you can't understand why I don't think the other League members will just twiddle their thumbs while the others are being attacked, I can't help you.
And he you think he does, why?
You were missing the fact that I never said that. If I had a nickel every time you made a straw man argument, I'd be as rich as Batman.
My point still stands. A rogue Batman would not necessarily side with villains. You want to talk baseless assumptions? That's one.
lol you really should double check before you go insulting others so you don't wind up eating your words.
Your post on another topic, where we're discussing the same thing:
"It would depend on how Superman was "rogue". I could just for example see a 'Darkseid is a benevolent ruler'-hypnotized Superman still save a Lois Lane-android about to jump off a building"
Yeah, choke on it.
The point is that a rogue Batman doesn't have the means to carry out all the plans simultaneously. Using the villains as a counterargument does assume that Batman will side with the villains. To be a good counterargument, it can't be situational like that.
And I never read the androids example, but it still runs into the same problem since Batman would have to set them up as well.
Except that's not how it works. It's okay to fill in plot holes with explanations if that explanation is a logical extension of something from within the movie. You can't fill it in with anything you want simply because "it's stupid without it."
Only you label them as "incompetent." I can actually see how that error would be easy to overlook during the writing process.
WRONG-O. On a lot of things actually.
One, they don't just explicitly tell you. They don't implicitly tell you either.
Two, Batman's explanations actually imply otherwise.
Four, the fact that that detail would be too important to leave out also suggests that it was done unintentionally.
Five, I did say that that is a logical explanation and that it is a possible explanation.
Six, you keep throwing out the opposite of what I said as though it's enough to prove a point. That still doesn't disprove my point.
You need to read closely then. If I said that it's because the story doesn't say either way, why would I even say that burden of proof is on you?
I'm getting REALLY TIRED of saying that by the way, so I'll put it in big bold letters for you. BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU. I DON'T HAVE TO PROVE THAT THE OTHER PLANS THAT THEY NEVER MENTIONED OR HINTED AT NEVER ACTUALLY EXISTED.
And it is. I don't have to prove that the plans that weren't even referred to in the movie don't exist. There's no possible way to do that. Can you prove to me that they didn't have a giant robot chicken either?
You're the one claiming that something EXISTS. That is why burden of proof is on you, and saying that the story would be stupid if it didn't is insufficient.
Why would I assume that Batman has other plans against GL when he never even remotely hints that he does? That's just downright stupid.
This may shock and surprise you, but plot holes happen.
If I see something in the story that doesn't make sense and there is nothing in the story that even hints at something that would explain it, then it's a plot hole. I won't be like you and assume things that the writers never even bothered to hint at. That's not called an "interpretation." That's just called making stuff up.
Which reminds me, you still haven't looked up Ockham's Razor, have you?
Wrong, using them is using them. By your logic Savage didn't use Batman's plans, he "just" took the basis for them to make new ones. I say looking at Batman's emergency contingency plans for non-lethally taking down rogue League members and making up ambush plans for lethally taking non-rogue League members down counts as "utilizing Batman's contingency plans", are you saying that doesn't count?
I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying taking them down in sequence somehow is not impossible with enough planning. And there are ways to turn them on eachother, like (just on the fly here) make Wonder Woman see Superman/Manhunter/Flash as an enemy and the gun/magnesium-poison/bomb as some neutralizing gadget.
If they all arrive at the same time then Batman didn't plan it out very well since that's hardly a sequence, is it? And you're assuming here he's 'handicapped' to the Savage-plans, I notice.
How is it a logical conclusion when you yourself have said the following (and I quote):
"While your explanations are logical (and what I personally would've gone with if I wrote the story),"
"and while it's logical for Batman to come up with multiple contingencies"
IIRC the movie never states outright the League had prior (or absent) members. Assuming they didn't just because of that would be a baseless assumption. They either did or they didn't. But if a current member says something like "We three weren't members then.", unseen members would make more sense than just three founding members. Saying "The movie never says outright they had hence they didn't hence they were three members though that's not really a 'League' so the writers made an error." is not logical IMHO.
See "utilize" at the top of this post.
In this movie, were they invited to their ambushes? Did they split up because they were asked to? No, the planner planned. That means he might actually think up ways to keep certain members distracted until he wants them to no longer be distracted.
But to prove my point about just how Batman is not handicapped, yes, he could actually try what you're describing. Let's say hmmm... they don't know he's gone rogue and he says "We're gonna play war games today. You'll teleport to this location in pairs when I radio you in, the rest are on watchduty until you're relieved. J'onn, you're up first, pick your partner."'
Already told you. For example there's villains, there's androids, there's military (would take careful planning if against more than one member, granted, but not impossible), there's the League members themselves, I can think up more if you want... oh wait, there's Cyborg to hypnotize or otherwise manipulate. Me, I'd go for one from each. :)
So you're saying the "as far as we know" was intended to apply to them existing. OK, I'll let that slide, we'll forget F.
I didn't say you said it, I was being sarcastic.
But I think it's a valid argument. You're Bruce Wayne gone rogue, you want to take down the Justice League, you consider the Bat Family a better tool than somehow using villains, that's your call but it still does not make using villains unavailable to you.
No, it doesn't stand. I didn't make the assumption you're talking about. I did not say "evil Batman", I did not say "necessarily" and I did not say "side with". We're talking about manpower, I say there's villains to use. Again you're handicapping Batman.
I repeat, what suggestion that Darkseid would be a benevolent ruler are you referring to?
He does have the means, see above. No, it doesn't assume he will side with them. If we're going with an evil Batman, he can have them die with the League member (there's a risk of them teaming up temporarily against him, of course, but that's comics for you). If we're going for some other kind of Batman it could be planned to incapacitate/kill the member while framing the villain so Batman is free to initialize the next ambush. Remember how the movie starts, the Royal Flush Gang has no idea who supplied them the phasing technology? Would you say Savage sided with them? I wouldn't.
That's (IMHO) what I'm doing. And (IMHO) the two are pretty much the same thing. Batman says he made plans against members gone bad or fallen under mind control (the whole point of him making them, even) but the plans we see modified by Savage don't fit those criteria at all... hence I conclude that the few plans we see modified are not a full view of Batman's contingency. Otherwise it's a plot hole (unless Batman's either a liar or incredibly stupid) and I don't think it's a plot hole.
Well then we disagree. I don't label them as incompetent since I don't think it is an error. But if it is an error, it's one I would say would make them incompetent drooling idiots since it's the central point of the movie.
I argue that they do with Batman's explanation at the end.
How so?
I believe it was left out to make the audience (the part who didn't know about the Tower of Babel story anyway) not see Batman's point of view too clearly until the end.
I honestly think I have disproved it.
It seems I'm not making myself understood. Let me try it a different way: Batman says he made contingency plans against Justice League members gone rogue. Batman says he made contingency plans against Justice League members fallen under mind control. Now prove to me Batman is lying about that. What's that you say? He's talking about the ambushes Savage modified and nothing else? OK, prove that. What's that you say? You can't? Oh, you said you don't need to. Why not? "Because it's obvious the writers made a mistake." How is it obvious? Hello? You there?
It's not a question of the plans EXISTING, the question is what are they? I imagine the plans as basically "use kryptonite against Superman" with many ideas about how attached and "use fear gas against Hal Jordan" with many ideas about how attached etc.
Your argument is that the movie doesn't say this hence the writers are saying Batman having one plan against Hal Jordan, basically "trick him down to fight hostage-taking terrorists in a mine filled with fear gas and make him believe everyone inside died, including a hostage resembling Carol Ferris", that would work against an evil Hal Jordan, a mind controlled Hal Jordan or any other kind of rogue Hal Jordan but that's a mistake on their part?
You keep interpreting me as saying "Batman having more plans BESIDE the ones Savage used" but there's no "BESIDE" in what I'm describing, really. Savage used Batman's plans like Batman would have, adding modifications like Batman would have except Savage's were lethal. Do you follow?
See above. Not that you would assume that he has other plans already but that you would consider the possibility that Batman didn't have one finished plan so that's what Savage used, Savage used Batman's plan which is designed to BE modified.
And again, I consider Batman saying he planned against GL gone rogue or fallen under mind control a big hint that he did think up more against GL than the 'hostages in a mine'.
I am aware of that.
Right, but it just so happens I don't think that applies in this case. I honestly think the writers considered us the audience smart enough to recognize that Batman is smart enough to recognize he's not smart enough to foresee every scenario hence his emergency protocols are not five detailed plans for any scenario (or however you would describe it) but (as I've tried to explain in many posts now) a few basic plans with many multiple scenarios so he's as covered as he can make himself for the day he's suddenly faced with a rogue member out to kill him or the like.
How do you know I don't work with it every day? Think about that for a second.
My "logic" doesn't say that Savage didn't use them. Savage reverse engineered his plans from Batman's. That is indeed using them.
Batman doesn't have to reverse engineer the plans to get the basis for them. They were his plans. Duuuhhhhhhh.
The fact that you just don't get the difference is just downright laughable. If Batman decide to start from scratch and made new plans, he never used his old plans. It's that simple.
It's not impossible, but very improbable. With all those elements going on, it's harder to maintain a controlled scenario.Absolutely, taking them down in sequence would take a great deal of planning and there are simpler ways.
You're going to argue "god-mode Batman" now and say that Batman can do anything with enough prep time?
And what, you're assuming that Batman can plan exactly when the heroes will arrive? Now you're just pulling stuff out of your ass.
And with as many "examples" as you use, I would think you'd recognize an actual one when you see it.
Logical explanations if you see the problem DURING THE WRITING PROCESS. However the writers obviously overlooked the problem. The fact that I have to spell it out is just unbelievable.
WTF. No. Just no. The League doesn't make mention of prior, absent, part-time, or whatever members, so assuming that there aren't any is the logical assumption. You really have no friggin clue how burden of proof works, do you? If we have no valid reason to believe that something exists within the story, then they don't. PERIOD. We don't just say that "Oh well, it might since they didn't say it didn't." Giant robot chicken exists since the movie doesn't say so.
It's been a while since I watched it, but I'm pretty sure that yes, nearly all of them were invited. Superman got a call about a jumper at the Daily Planet. WW was alerted of the location of one of her regular villains. Hell, even Batman was lured to his parents' graves.
Uh, did you not get what I said about how creating a scenario that won't always be true doesn't prove anything? This doesn't prove that Batman won't be handicapped, just that he might not be depending on the situation. I love how you make assumptions on what a rogue Batman would definitely be like.
And all those apart from the androids assume full cooperation from others--people who won't necessarily be allied with Batman if he went rogue. So no, those aren't valid. The androids would require his setup and supervision (without it, there's a margin of error) and won't work for that reason either.
Then the sarcasm was stupid and pointless if it wasn't directed at anything I said.
Again you're assuming that a rogue Batman is an immoral one who is content with allying himself with villains.
Er, you didn't say it like that verbatim, but you are saying it. I don't get how you don't realize this.
My point is that Batman doesn't have the manpower to take down the League and you're arguing that the villains are an available resource to him.
I'm not handicapping Batman. You're giving him a resource that I'm saying is not definitively available to him. A rogue Batman might still have conflicts about working with villains, so you can't just assume that he'll be working with them. It's that simple.
Go check that other topic if you really want to know. I already posted the quote: "It would depend on how Superman was "rogue". I could just for example see a 'Darkseid is a benevolent ruler'-hypnotized Superman still save a Lois Lane-android about to jump off a building"
Po-ta-to po-tah-to. Savage used them as a means to an end.
You're still assuming that a rogue Batman will definitely not have any conflicts about working with villains.
A rogue Batman won't see himself as "evil" and given his personality, he will most likely not trust anyone enough to work with others to achieve that particular end.
But you have no evidence for your conclusion and the only reason you came up with it is because of the fact that there's an error without it.
Leaving out no explanation, evidence, or a remote hint as to why Batman's plans still assume that GL would be a hero is an error.
What explanation? What line says that Batman had more than one plan each? (Remember the "or" doesn't prove more than one plan.)
Except it makes no difference either way if Batman had one plan each or more than one each.
How can you when you haven't post one shred of evidence? All you've done is just state the opposite of what I posted.
LMAO. No. Just no. Who's saying that Batman's lying? LOL
I find it just hilarious when you think you're making a valid counterargument when you're just beating on a straw man argument that you yourself constructed.
Batman says he made contingency plans against the Justice League members in the event they ever go rogue or fall under mind control. You really ought to look up what the word "or" means and why the English language gets poked fun at because of it. (I'll give you a hint. If someone asks "Do you like Jen or Ashley?" "Yes" is actually an appropriate response.)
Or am I expecting too much from your dense head? I'll spell it out for you just in case.
"In the event they ever go rogue or fall under mind control" doesn't necessarily imply one plan each. It could also mean that the plan is intended for either one. And the fact that everything else points to Batman having only one plan means that I'm right about that.
The fact that your only "evidence" is one line that could (and does) mean something else just proves that you have no evidence at all.
Except there's no question of that. Batman explains the plan to GL and it's clear that the plan Savage took was the original plan against him.
Why not? They didn't mention a giant robot chicken either, but I'm not going to assume that it exists.
If I felt a part of the story should've been there but is missing from it, the default conclusion is that it was overlooked. Duh.
I hope you still have your handy-dandy dictionary around.
Modify:
verb (modifies, modifying, modified)
[with object]
make partial or minor changes to (something): she may be prepared to modify her views
That's from Oxford dictionary by the way. There's a big difference between making minor tweaks to a plan and adding all the other layers from the foundation. "Modifying" is the former. What you're implying is the latter.
Already proven wrong so many times. Having the basis for plans is not the same as having plans. It's just not. I can't believe you're even arguing that still.
And the fact that Savage only modified the plan also strongly implies that Batman had finished plans, not just basis for plans. So no, go home and feel bad about how much you've raped the English language.
Doesn't seem like it.
*facepalm*
That's not how it works at all. If you want the audience to connect the dots, you need to give them something that at least hints at the existence of a dot outside of the story. If you just leave a contradiction within the story without that hint, it just gets chalked up as a plot hole. Errors are errors. It's not the audience's job to come up with a plausible way to explain those errors away.
This is getting way too long to reply to every single part. I'm just going to address something that I think is at the core of your misconceptions:
There may be a giant robot chicken. Toyman might be working on it. Toyman might exist. You say if the movie doesn't mention him it's logical to assume he doesn't exist. I don't see how it's logical at all. Am I to understand it would be logical to assume Lois Lane doesn't exist if they had not mentioned her in this movie? (I hear this movie is not linked continuity-wise to Crisis on Two Earths etc. but I may be wrong.)
I thought of another thing: Superman asks if having Batman buried alive was Savage's own plan and Batman answers he assumes so and adds it wasn't one of his. That I would say is another implication Batman had more plans (or at least scenarios) than the few we saw.
Unless of course Batman is being sarcastic or something like "No, Clark. Burying myself alive was not my sixth plan." but that doesn't ring true to me.
But that's just me.
"Ergo, Batman's plans exist as they were explained."
Then show me where it was explained they exist as you (mis)understand it. Because I don't believe you can since I don't believe they are.
"...and I'm done with this topic."
Been fun. I'm sure we'll talk again somewhere.
But that's just me.
Err okay hi remember me? The TC you guys keep mentioning lol
Sorry I should have been more clear but I really didn't think this post would have blown up into a battle
What I originally meant through my post was that Batman's solution to himself cannot be the JLA because he knows full well how to take them all down.
I don't know what fireinthewronghole means by "original" plans exactly because we don't know for sure what Batman's original plans were just that Savage took "one of" (Batman clearly implies he has more at the end when he says "...wasn't one of mine") them and modified them to be lethal.
For all we really know Batman never had one "original" detailed plan at all, just a list of weaknesses and possible options on how to implement them. Plus this is Batman we're talking about. If he's careful enough to come up with plans against his superhuman friends, he would have a plan for the worst case scenario of the entire league turning on him. It's not an assumption I'm making, its simple strategic thinking that even the military comes up with.
So fireinthewronghole really is not wrong but the fault is more mine since I should have been more specific. So I guess Matt Shade was correct the whole time.
This was a very interesting argument though.
But thats just me
During the opening bank heist one of the Royal Flush gang says something like Batman wouldn't come alone and another asks if they should be worried for Robin. So Robin at least exists maybe it was just Dick Grayson and he's Nightwing now since he wasn't around.
shareBatman is and has always been the most dangerous member of the JLA.
The others rely on their powers too much.
While he relies on his gadgets, his real power is his mind.
If batman went rogue, the JLA would be doomed.
So totally agree. He's too smart for the JLA. Batman is the man to look out for. He steps out of the satellite.. Does anybody know if he left any bombs behind? Self Destruct mechanism or something?
I believe when he said the contingency plan for himself was the Justice League, what he meant was that he was only human. The others can easily overpower him. Heck Bane could have killed him already. But then it boils down to detection. If the remaining members detect Batman has gone rogue, they better act fast. Otherwise they are totally DOOMED!
Think 'Owlman' in that other movie, Crisis on Two Earths.
What would Batman do to go rogue, throw Batarangs everywhere and brood a lot?
shareWhat Owlman did in Crisis on Two Earths, I'd say that's pretty much a good example of a Batman gone to the dark side.. uhm.. that don't seem to sound right.. a Batman gone to the "Other Side". And that pretty much gives us a good idea what a rogue Batman might do among other things.
Although throwing batarangs everywhere is a good idea too and much more fun at that. LoL! Batarang Frenzy! And he'd have all sorts of batarangs.. EMP Batarang, Kryptonite batarang, High Explosive batarang, Concussive batarang, knock-out gas batarang, nuclear batarang, MOAB (Mother Of All Batarangs), etc.. I love it! LoL!
I think they were trying to be clever/profound, but you're right. As soon as he said it, I thought to myself, "Wait, what? This movie is about your plain against them...."
For my latest movie reviews and news:http://www.hesaidshesaidreviewsite.com/