Batman Begins was a total reboot of the series and the studio (in interviews and such) went to great lengths to say as much- not to say BF and B&R sucked so we'll ignore those two, but instead to say 'hey its time we take a look at what's been happening in the film world and in the comic world and make a movie based on *that*. WB stands by the previous Batman flics enough to release the special edition DVD set that they did, much like they stand by the Superman films and are doing the same this year with them. My problem with Singer's approach to continuity was to rely too heavily on his own interpretation of Donner's works, which were in turn already an interpretation of the comics... a copy of a copy. I don't care that he ignored this or that from the earlier films- even Superman III and IV did *that*. What bugs me is relying on 20 to 30 year old source material for minor source material to explain WTF is going on in your own poorly constructed plot or, when presented with lack of original ideas, just remaking the source material. And these sort of missteps can happen to filmmakers who even sequelize their own films- Blues Brothers 2000 anyone? The Star Wars prequels anyone?
But unlike the aforementioned James Bond franchise Brian Singer chose to change the nature of the character. In the Bond films, the core character of Bond rarely changes (and when it does people blast it, even if it happens to be closer to the source material... Dalton in 'The Living Daylights' and more than likely the new film this year). But as many have said here already- SR's 'Superman' is not Superman.
As always this is NOT to knock anyone who likes the film. There are PLENTY of bad movies that *I* like.