Actually, what I esteem about the Dark Knight trilogy is the power of the story and how it tells an arc of the various characters. It took the ideas involved seriously. Plus I found myself genuinely wrapped up in what happened.
I didn't. Although I really enjoyed Batman Begins, it all fell apart afterwards. Unbelievable ridiculous schemes by The Joker and whatever her name was in TDKR, Harvey Dent's WWE-style heel turn (and immunity to infection), the people refusing to take The Joker's bait, Bruce being a cripple after such a short time as Batman, merrily marching every single cop in the city into the obvious trap in TDKR, the way they healed Bruce's broken back, Bruce's nuclear bomb immunity... I was disappointed to say the least.
I believe "tone" should match the material. For example people complain about BSG's dark, angst-laden tone--as if that were somehow inappropriate with a story centered around an act of genocide that makes the Holocaust look like a fender bender. Rather, I think the original version's tone in no way matched the story. I had a similar problem with Kindred: The Embraced.
However, humor need not mean empty-headed or silly or shallow. Firefly is a fine example of a series that ran the emotional gamut (pretty much true of all Joss Whedon's work), not least because very few laughs ended up cheap. Ditto The West Wing and Fringe.
For the record I loved the Tim Burton Batman films as well.
I quite liked Abrams' first ST, but hoped the second would be a little less of a roller coaster ride. As I've said to some friends who loved both "They were a lot of fun--but Star Trek has always been more, and I wish these had been." I never minded the laughs. I minded the never-catch-your-breath style that didn't allow for much beyond that roller coaster ride. Snippets of story surrounding explosions, fights and chase scenes. That is, imho, the wrong way round.
Wheras I thought there was plenty of story and it absolutely captured my imagination. Each to their own.