Because I don't want to pay $30 (one ticket, large popcorn, medium Coke) to see the Dark Night but be unable to enjoy it because some jackhole like you brings his five year old daughter in and she screams and shrieks through the entire fucking movie and you refuse to take her out.

were there lewed comments from Batman and the Joker for kids to scream about?

I'm absolutely delighted by the visual I'm imagining of all the dorks getting all bent out of shape when there are kids in the theater during their rubber bat suit man movie. I can practically hear them repeating "this movie is serious business!" over and over in their heads as their blood boils.

Why do I get the feeling you'd be singing a different tune if the movie had been rated R and 140 minutes long?

First of all I don't think either one of Nolan's Batman movies are that far off of the 140-minute runtime. They both seem to last at least that long.

Secondly, making an R-rated movie based on a kids comic book would only add to the hilarity. I'm pretty sure Warner Bros. and DC have some sort of policy against aiming any higher than PG-13 with the Batman character but I'm sure there are a ton of delusional Batman nerds who think an arbitrary R-rating would make it even more "artistic" and "deep".

I apologize; I made a joke at your expense you weren't expected to get. There was once a forum member around here who was adamant that only R-rated movies meeting or exceeding a 140 minute run time could possibly be worthwhile. This same member was also extremely outspoken in dismissing out of hand anything animated as frivolous entertainment for young children incapable of being interesting or emotionally involving.

My point is that you appear to be of the mind that a Batman movie, by virtue solely of including the character Batman, cannot have any artistic merit. Good luck being taken seriously as a critical viewer with that kind of outspoken prejudice.

Not everything can have the droll and subtle artistry of "Cop Out".

I just see Nolan's apparent disdain for the source material as a fundamental flaw. The Batman character is incompatible with the settings and situations as presented in Nolan's films. It's a lose/lose situation because people like Bruce Timm and Tim Burton have succeeded where Nolan has failed by embracing a tone and setting appropriate for the character and one of the perks is that by doing so "Batman" stories (whether they're in movies or on television) can also be used as vehicles for entertaining action sequences and elaborate production design, things Nolan is apparently above.

I think Nolan knows he isn't going to get away with doing away with the cape and cowl but I'm literally amazed when I see people praise him for fidelity to the source material when he burned down Wayne manor, abandoned the Batcave in favor of a garage, smashed the bat-signal, reduced the bat-emblem to a couple of small triangles on Batman's chest and given Batman vehicles and gadgets with no bat theme whatsoever aside from the color black.

It's just funny that any given episode of "Batman: The Animated Series" has far more artistic merit in 22 minutes than you'll find in Nolan's 5 boring hours of Batman, and you'll also find that the characters really are no less compelling when boiled down to archetypes and stripped of all Nolan's pretentious posturing. When you're true to the character and unafraid of putting Batman in a Bat-boat or putting him up against a character with magic or supernatural powers (again, things that are too silly for Nolan's deep rubber bat suit movie) you have the luxury of making something appropriate for kids, and when a mother brings her kids to see "The Dark Knight" all that tells you is that your average prozac mom actually understands Batman more than Christopher Nolan.

As for "being taken seriously as a critical viewer", taking things too seriously is what I object to.

I won't debate the merits of any particular Batman interpretation here, but I will say that there is plenty of room for interpretation of the mythos. The Adam West show and Frank Miller's comics are each perfectly valid. It strikes me that the problem isn't with what Nolan has or hasn't done; it's with your willingness to accept an interpretation outside your comfort zone.

I would say that The Dark Knight was meant to be taken seriously. Get past the superficial layer of Batman mythos and you have a story that discusses the balance between security and privacy, fear and terrorism, violating the law in the name of justice and public safety, even wiretapping. These are very serious issues and have been at the forefront of post-9/11 America. That this one movie was interpreted as both an endorsement and indictment of the Bush administration is, I think, testament to how nuanced the storytelling was; each side found enough evidence to appropriate it for their own purposes. If you can't take a story that does that seriously just because it has Batman in it, then we have a very strong disagreement about what is worthy of being taken seriously regarding movies.