I'm sure the vast majority of moviegoers who went to TDK couldn't have cared less if the movie was faithful to the comics. The reason the movie did so well was because Nolan wrote and directed a great movie. Simple as that.
Your statement is absolutely true... and absolutely UNRELATED to anything I said.
Nolan is a fan of the source material. He made a pair of movies which respect the source material rather than trying to "put his own spin on it." And that's a major element of why I think the film is successful.
Not because it's "faithful to a comic" per-se. There are CRAP comics out there as well as the successful, "classic" ones, after all... and being faithful to crap will not give you anything but crap, will it?
The reason is because, historically, the comics were far higher quality than the entertainment based upon them has been. Schumacher's GARBAGE had absolutely NO respect for the source material. Nolans work, by contrast, RESPECTS the source material and treats it not as a joke but as serious entertainment. Nolan didn't go in saying "I'm remaking Batman the way I want him to be." He went in saying "how can I do Batman the way he's supposed to be?"
And THAT is central to what made these movies so good.
And while World's Finest was a fun little fan film, stylistically it felt about as campy and comic booky as the Spider-Man movies-- which is NOT what I'm looking for in a Superman movie.
Again, you TOTALLY FAIL TO GRASP MY POINT. Nowhere did I claim that I thought that the fan-film trailer presented represents Academy-award-worthy filmmaking (though it's better than a lot of stuff that comes out of hollywood, granted).
What I said is that the CASTING in that trailer was excellent, and that I think that the guys playing Bruce Wayne and Clark Kent in that trailer are near-perfect cases of casting (versus what I consider to be horrible casting for Superman Returns... I DO like Bale, though... again, because he GETS IT and it is less about his ego than it is about becoming the character from the source material!)
I far preferred SR's more sophisticated and adult style (although I would still want to brighten things up a tad for the sequel ).
I didn't see anything particularly "sophisticated" or "adult" for that matter in "Superman Returns." Honestly, every bit of it felt... well... SOPHOMORIC to me. Not "childish" exactly, but certainly not "mature and adult." Honestly, it felt like "Superman through the eyes of the goth kids who hang out at the mall" to me. Granted, that's purely personal there and you can (and obviously do) feel differently. But it was very off-putting to see a Superman who reminded me more of Jamie Gumm from Silence of the Lambs than he did of the character from the books, or even of the STRONG characterization which Chris Reeves gave us.
Seriously... try to imagine Chris Reeves in the scenes from this movie... people keep saying that Routh reminds them of Reeves, but there's more to the character than basic facial structure and being quite tall... Reeves got the powerful aspect of the character's personality right, and Routh didn't. Reeves' voice was strong, clear and deep, and he spoke with conviction. Routh's voice was tinny and weak.
The entire movie played Superman as weak and powerless... and more than a little creepy. Lex Luthor was played as a parody of Gene Hackman's original parody. Lois Lane came across as a high-school-senior pretending to be a 30-something.
So, while I agree that the "trailer" I mentioned felt (as it really was) a bit "Fanboyish"... I actually like the actors in that trailer far more than I like those in the last Superman film... by a huge measure. And I like the guy playing Batman (Clark Bartram's the guy's name) better than Bale, though I like Bale a lot. (Bartram pulls off the character without any need for a rubber muscle-suit, too... literally just fabric except for the cowl sculpt!)