- It's because of the empathy, not because he feels Terry is physically incapable of doing the job; he figures this one time leave it to the cops
It seems that I misunderstood the reason for this removal, so I wanted to clarify it. This PI recognizes Bruce's empathy towards Terry, but telling him to back off and "leave it to the cops" questions Batman's entire existence and necessity in Gotham, after all if the cops can handle Big Time, then they can handle anyone. Also, it points out the out-of-character nature of Bruce's approach. It may need rewording, but it should not be removed. ― Thailog 17:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- The cops managed to survive for years before Batman arrived (Both the original, and Terry), Batman's presence isn't what keeps the city from completely collapsing into an anarchic pit of horror and despair, he's simply one part that helps keep it afloat; important, of course, but not even Superman was viewed as being needed everywhere for every crime. His absence for one day, or with dealing with a single threat, doesn't mean he's completely unnecessary, just that Bruce feels the emotional damage Terry might suffer is a bigger threat than Big Time poses to the city or the cops. Other villains have also been handled by the cops without Batman (Inque, Kobra, and the Society of Assassins, for example, were all around before Batman showed up), even if they were never successful in stopping these figures the city was still able to survive without his presence.
- In summation, it might not be the smartest thing for Bruce to suggest (I, personally, feel that Terry will have to confront similar emotional issues during his time as Batman, and actually already has in the case of Ten/Melanie, and he if he runs and hides every time then it does question if he deserves to be Batman at all, and I find it out of character for Bruce to suggest hiding, instead of trying to help Terry overcome these feelings), but it's not a production error, since it really doesn't rewrite Batmans entire purpose or necessity. JBK405 19:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, maybe the issue is how you perceive the name "Production Inconsistencies." It's really only a fancy name for "Goofs," "Continuity Inconsistencies," "Character Inconsistencies" or simply "Plot holes" and it encompasses all of these... It should not be taken so seriously and it certainly is not meant only for production issues, if you know what I mean. ― Thailog 20:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Maybe that's it, but I've always been a stickler for accuracy, often to a pedantic extent. If the section is called "Production inconsistencies" I believe it should contain inconsistincies in the production (Animation/acting errors, irreconciable plot holes, etc.) Something a character does which is weird, but not necessarily wrong, doesn't really count as a production error. JBK405 04:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)