Nolan gets a pass from some people for not staying faithful to the source material, because he made a good movie.
The things that he did that wrecked the movies for me, where completely unnecessary as well.
If you are going to butcher the characterizations of both Ras Al Ghul and Henri Ducard, why even include them in the movie? Why not just create a completely new character for that role. Nolan had no problem making up Rachel Dawes. I would have enjoyed the film much more had they not royally jacked up Ras.
I like a lot of what Nolan did with Bruce/Batman, but I guess my complaint with the first 2 films is that if you can't fit characters from the source material into the film, without completely trainwrecking who they are in the source material, then just don't use them.
I don't need or even want the director to just copy things panel for panel, but I don't want him to just disregard the source material either.
What he did with Harvey Dent and Ras Al Ghul's storylines is on the same level as if he would have made Batman's secret identity really Clark Kent, and he was an ex-cop who's wife and kids were shot by the mob. I mean, he's still called Batman, who cares if the rest of the story bears no resemblance to the source material.
If Nolan did that, but still made a decent film, I'm sure a lot of people would still like his take on Batman. No one has made a truly great adaptation of Batman yet. Nolan came close, and could have done it if he would have just made up new characters instead of butchering the ones he used.