Oh haytil... You funny little man.
This is important, and is exactly why Sallah's claims that reboots happened before the modern cinematic era are false. "King Kong" may have been made several times, but they weren't "reboots."
"Reboots" imply a halting of momentum (from one series and audience to a different series, with the same audience). That is why "Batman 1989" was not a reboot, and that is why "King Kong" was not a reboot. There was no need to make it clear that these were different series, it was already implied (or in the case of "Captain America", nobody even knew about the others, so there was no momentum to combat and redirect).
So now you are redefining what reboot means to favor your view? Got it.
Reboot in no way implies a "halting of momentum". You just say that because it fits your view. From Websters:
Reboot- to be restarted. Something doesn't have to stall out to be rebooted. When you add a new program to your computer, and it says it needs to be rebooted for "the changes to be applied".... Does that mean it stalled out? No, of course not. That is just silly talk. Again.
Rebooted is starting over, in most cases with changes applied to the original formula. So those cases I said? Reboots... before there was a term "reboot".
There have been 3 excellent Batman films that I'm sure they would have enjoyed, release in the last several years.
Oh... I'm sorry. I didn't realize you knew my kids. Especially well enough to be "sure they would have enjoyed them". I'll be sure to run my film picks for them by you from here on. And I'll pick you up for the play date Saturday.
Bar none- You do not know my kids. You do not know what they like and dislike. You haven't watched hundreds of films with them to know their tastes. I have. So yeah... I know for a fact they wouldn't have enjoyed at their ages (which I am sure you know) the Nolan films NEARLY as much as they would the Burton films, Mask of The Phantasm, Batman Forever... and heck, for the younger one, even as much as the Adam West movie.
This is not true, they're geared towards a general audience. Hence the cute kiddey moments and toned-down violence (which actually bring down the movie, if you ask me).
Every kid I've talked to loves the Nolan movies - neither bored nor frightened of them. They're no darker or slower than the Star Wars movies, and we all ate them up as kids.
Feed a kid McDonalds and he'll eat fast food all his life. Feed a kid steak and he'll eat real food the rest of his life.
Which would you rather your kids develop an appreciation for? Shlocky blockbusters designed to sell toys, or dense movies with artistic merit?
Well, I didn't ask you... but you seem to love trashing anybody's opinion that doesn't match yours. And like I said multiple times... This is MY opinion. I didn't state it as a truth, as you imply. I stated it as my opinion, both as a longtime comic fan and a father. See, I constantly have to strike a balancing act between wanting adult-themed stuff in my comic films and still making it accessible for younger audiences... Ya know, that group these heroes were made for IN THE FIRST PLACE, but yet that we, as adults, have somehow claimed ownership to.
I am curious... Do you even have kids? Or are you basing most of your little rant on being an adult comic fan? Because I do. I have 2 boys and 4 nephews ranging in age from 4 to 12. I have also worked around kids for years. I have a pretty good understanding of what kind of film apeals to what age group, and what films are obviously slanted more towards an adult audience. I know that some kids enjoyed the Nolan films (if their parents were willing to move past the doom and gloom to let them watch them). In most cases, they liked it "because its Batman".... not for some "artistic merit" like you imply (very important to 6 year olds, I'm sure). They just want to watch a Batman movie, and the Nolan films were there and accessible.
Believe me or not, I've actually done a lot of trial with this... Showing younger kids the pre-Nolan Batman stuff after they have said they watched the Nolan films. Almost every time, they glom onto that older stuff, whatever it may be (Phantasm, Burton, Schumacher, or West) because they got the best of both worlds- They got Batman, and they got something "fun" to watch.
That is what I wanted as a kid. I wanted to watch a comic book movie that made me feel good. That didn't give me an oppressive, gloomy view of the world and even its heroes... Where a hero might wear black and be tragic, but he still felt like a superhero that was making things better. Where Joker was obviously a maniacal villain... but he was somehow still able to be laughed at and looked at like something that couldn't happen in "real life". Where the world may seem dark, but it felt like a "comic book world" and not where I live. Or where Superman didn't kill and he battled horrible villains but still had time to save a cat from a tree.
And that is what I want for my kids. I don't give 2 craps about what you think about me raising my kids on what you call "shlocky blockbusters designed to sell toys" (which Burton's films, West's film, nor Mask of the Phantasm ever were) over films with "artistic merit". They are kids. I want them to go to a movie and have fun, leaving behind this sometimes oppressively dark real world we already live in and go somewhere else where heroes seem real... not right back to more gloom and darkness.
Again, my opinion. And that is just about all I can say to you on the matter. This is me, these are my choices. Railing on me won't change it... So if you feel the need, go right ahead, but I won't be replying as that is a waste of both our time.
Sallah
) but for me what contrasts him against most other "classic" comicbook heroes is that he seems right home in stories that have minimal sci-fi / fantasy elements, just as he can work well in more fantasy-and sci-fi-steeped stories (dueling an immortal, fighting a shapeshifter, or woman immune to every poison who controls plants or a man with sub-zero blood in his veins). 
