Originally Posted by OutRiddled
I'll take their analysis seriously if they actually provide some kind of at least half-academic argument.
Considering that I just gave you an academic argument about accumulated / measured probabilities that has roots in rhetorical and epistemological philosophy all through the ages back to Aristotelian phronesis
, and you ignored said argument in favor of a half-baked theory on opinions, I think that no, you actually wouldn't take their analysis seriously.
Even though in the quotes Joker provided, they gave specific, concrete examples of how Nolan's batuniverse was faithful to the comic books that they were directly involved in creating. Examples which you ignored as mere "opinion."
You've been misusing the phrase "argument from authority." You've been mis-defining logical fallacies. You demand evidence from comic book authors about what comic books contain (yeah, that's kinda like demanding evidence from George Lucas that Vader is Luke's father in Star Wars). You're just digging your hole deeper and making your argument more bizarre.