also before i say anything more, i want to say that faithfulness to the "source material", especially something as juvenile as a comic book, does not overly concern me as a person. comic books are not classic literature, so whether or not they interprete the ever-changing comic strips is not a very big deal to me. what matters is the film itself and how it effects me, if it rubs me the right way while keeping the general spirit of the character. with that said, i know enough about the batman comics to know that the arguments between the "burtonites" and "nolanites" is rediculous. both directors have put there stamp on the character and both are considered the best directors to interpret batman, although i really did enjoy joel schumachers versions as well. however i see that in the fan community there are alot of stupid inane bashing of the older movies because the nolan fans seem threatened that alot of people still prefer burtons version. and in defense they site that burtons was unfaithful to the comics. what. a load. of BULL. if anything nolan got more wrong, and yes, here i will list the reasons. batmans suit. when has it EVER looked like puzzle piece armor with a helmet head and skeleton neck? the tumbler thing. when has the batmobile EVER looked like a tank? (please dont site the one time only elseworlds DKR) who the hell is rachel dawes? she was never in the comics. batman faking his death and retiring as batman? ...... this would never happen in the comics. bruce wayne stops crimfighting for 7 years after harvey died??? another WTF decision by nolan. batman would never do this in the comics. scarecrow wears nothing but a simple burlap bag over his head, looking like a common hood and not the costumed horrific master of terror like he in the comics and the akrham assylum game. catwoman looking more like julie newmar from the 60's show and not like the masked avenger of the comics. this is clearly a case where burton trumps nolan. also, no whip??? only a gun??? cmon now, this is a hallmark of the character. when has joker EVER been a greasy long hair painted up psycho? he was supposed to be dropped in the vat of acid that made his skin white and everything. thats the official comics canon, not this nolanized made-up "realistic" joker whos no different then your average serial killer with a brain. of course alot of people may point out "when did penguin ever look like a pale ugly deformed mutant with green bile and living in the sewers?" yes thats true, which basically proves my point that nolan and burton took about the same liberties. burtons joker wasnt changed very much frrom the comics. nolans Ra's wasnt changed very much from the comics. but burtons penguin and nolans joker were both RADICAL departures from there comic counterparts. then there are the aesthetic choices, like making gotham city into a normal everyday place and not the dark creepy foreboding city of the comics or past films. much of nolans creative choices just seem so uninspired to me. and the acting is so underplayed it makes me yearn for those dramatic slightly over the top villian performances of yesteryear. these are just some of the complaints i have against nolan. i just wanted to point out that nolan is really no better then any of the other directors as far as faithfulness goes. i would even say nolan took far more libertites then burton or schumacher did.