For my money, the kind of action cinematography in Dark Knight is dime a dozen, while the kind of artfully crafted action directing in Spielberg films is the kind you only get once in a while. We've come to expect it with Spielberg, so it's a given. It ages well, while Nolan's action ages pretty quickly and isn't too much better than fisticuffs from a skirmish in a CSI episode. Acting and characterization is also more potent in Skull. CG might be more obvious and shoddy, but that's not a major problem, like acting or direction. As for the script, I like KOTCS's better, even though I really think Spielberg could do better than Koepp. But again, that's not technical so much as preference. The other thing about Dark Knight, the filmmakers are just exploiting someone else's characters and stories. Nothing here is created except the way it is done. Batman, the Joker, Two face, it's all been done before. Skull gave the world a new iconic villain, an unusual quest/MacGuffin, a new greaser action character, and a never before seen story. Maybe it's all just too unfamiliar to people in this world of retreads. I remember in the 80's we were ready for new stories and sequels, not reboots that are like alternate versions of established stories.