I found the Schumacher batflicks to be embarrassing in storytelling and visually, but not nearly as much as the Abrams with the lens flares and such. Yet for all his faults, Schumacher somehow made FALLING DOWN, which is probably among the top 5 films of the 90s for me, so it isn't just him. Also, if the first Schumacher was so reviled at the time, why was he retained for the real disaster that followed?
Honestly, I don't find the Burton batfilms much better (which puts it in the Abrams category, where others rave and I disagree heartily), though the second one had some moments. I don't find much of Burton's to be all that enjoyable, though I'm sure he has won his ticket to heaven with ED WOOD, which is just wonderful beyond belief.
The Nolans just feel right to me ... except for Katie Holmes, that is.
Of course, the thing about all three of the franchise restarts is that I am a major devotee of Bond and Trek, whereas BATMAN is just something I go see. Perhaps that is why I have been utterly appalled by two of the three Bondfilms (and only fitfully impressed with the middle one) and both Abramspics, while I've been fine (or more than fine) with all the Nolan Batfilms, with BEGINS prid near perfect, TDK very very good and TDKR good with signs of acid rain.
I think he works at a level that is well above these other guys, but maybe I'll be proved wrong in a couple of years. If as rumored Nolan actually does agree to do the next Bond, it will be the ultimate pushme/pullyou for me, as I am quite impressed with nearly all of his work, yet am convinced that there is no way I will see another Bond film until the ugly guy passing as 007 gets put out to pasture and they actually start making the films about Bond instead of about another orphan with neuroses (Bond was an orphan but the neurosis seem clearly linked to the BatRestart.)