The problem with all those "isolated/realistic batman was a shortsighted move" comments, is that those who make them apparently don't realise that for many people Batman - unlike Spiderman, X-Men or the Avengers - is a character that long ago trancended the comic books mythos and doesn't need a shared universe to work. Justice League is not the "be all, end all" setting for Batman.
In case of Marvel characters they exist within a whole bible of comic mythos and many years of storylines and telenovela worth of different characters. But Batman? He is a monolithic figure. Its a story about a guy whose parents were killed and who pummels criminals with his elbows, while dressed as a black beast. Its a wonderful concept that works great on its own, without any shared universe or "bat-family" and justice league friends. Its something that can be tackled in many ways, like the Burton's fairy tale gothic, or Nolan's gritty, contemporary pseudo-noir. I know that the current comic book canon sees Batman interact with a multitude of supernatural beings and characters, but I would bet money that for most people in the world Batman is still that monolithic, self-contained character. I would argue that Batman as a "lone, dark, avenger imprisoned within a city that created him" is a concept that is much more strongly rooted in popculture than the "Batman hangs out with Bat-girl, Robin, Supes, Aquaman and his super friends from their super justice league". It all boils down to that single image of a man crouched like a gargoyle atop a building while wearing something black. Everything else is just chaff.
Take Burton's films for example. They are placed within a totally fantastical, supernatural world that could easily make place for the likes of Superman or the rest of the Justice Leage, but I would bet heavy money that Burton would never in a million years be interested in introducing any of that stuff. Becouse for him it was all about the story of that one crazy, schizofrenic antihero. All about making a poetic fairy tale about a one man's delusion and the crazy city he lived in. Not a re-union of tights-wearing A-team. He wanted to create a bitter-sweet, gothic myth, similar to the tale of Frankestein or Dracula. Introducing all the shared universe stuff would competely cheapen it. He didn't give a **** about any of that noise. And I would argue that so do many geeks in the world. Geeks for whom "Batman with friends" idea can work, but will always be just an alternative to the essential story of a lone crusader. People who know that the idea of Justice Leage is cool, but its far from being the one definetive, quintessential setting for a Batman story.
I don't want to make the cynical mystake of ridiculing or pretentiously underestimating the fully over-the-top, comic-booky mythos of Batman. I know that the apparent sillynes of the "bat-family and friends" concept is just a premise, and once You accept the premise, then it offers a potential for fantastic storylines and interactions between those freaky characters. And I believe there is a great potential is the dynamic between Supes and Batman in the upcoming movie.
But whether or not those interactions and shared universe are better than an isolated, symbolic Batman, is up for debate and personal taste. But I would never, ever say that the colorfull "God-like Batman dukes it out with aliens and gods, while accompanied by teens in tights", is in any way more canon or more important than the "lone, crazy vigilante, stalking the streets of the city that killed his parents" - basically a Year One type story. Which is exactly what Nolan, Goyer and DC were going for with "Begins".
Some say that "realistic/contemporary" approach doesnt fit such an outlandish hero as batman, but thats bull****. In fact if there is one mainstrem tights-wearer who deserves the "crime movie/action/thriller" treatmen its Batman. It just fits the character, like a glove. Besides a "realistic" Batman was hardly anything new. "Batman: Year One" looks nothing like the comic booky crossovers, that form the current comic storyline. So its not like Nolan did something outrageous at the time, in fact he went for the obvious - "this would make a perfect Batman movie" pitch. Saying that he or DC were shortsighted at the time, is a bit silly. You can argue whether or not it payed out for them in the end, or whether it was worth it, but at time they greenlighted Begins, both DC and Nolan simply grabbed the obvious gold strike that was just there within their reach, and at that point they would be silly not to.
) We've gone to both deep ends now, essentially. Now we need a balanced version of Batman. 
