It's not addressed. You still don't know what the essence means. None of that means anything. Because it's all up to interpretation past the phase of his tone and what makes him become the Batman. It doesn't matter what era it is. The 60s tv show is enjoyable, it was groundbreaking, it was in line with the comics of the time, but its not the essence of Batman as he was created. Neither is Batman and Robin. Is Batman a dark character who scares criminals in the night there? No.
Nolans movies borrowed from all eras one way or another. Not just the modern age.
Now, I took the time to read your posts. Thank you because they were well written and thought out. I agreed with some of it but I don't believe the majority relates to what needs to be kept or not...I don't believe it's the essence of Batman. You're breaking up each era as if THIS is honoring that era, and then these movies are honoring THIS era over here! But that's not how I see it. The essence of Batman should be there at all times, no matter what era. And Nolans and Burtons and Timm's stuff were in line with that essence. Of course it's not to say they shouldn't make the tv series from the 60s, go ahead. But that stuff along with Shumachers (mainly sequel) is the only crime
against this essence we're speaking of. You're also going too much in detail with what you think makes up the characters essence or core.