I hate to disagree with everyone (well at least the last several posts) but A: The statement was that the movie utilizes historical events as a backdrop for the film's story, which the previous movies did not do, as a means to make the film more grounded in reality. Saying that this isn't original because the comic series have done it before is... well you're basically arguing that an artistic choice made in a movie is the same as one made in a comic book, which is ridiculous. Comics cost 100K an issue to produce and can contain anything imaginable (and that's with top name talent and high production/printing/foil covers) and movies cost millions and are limited by studio marketing, budget, and time restrictions.
B: Hoping this movie fails is akin to saying you hate one guy in a pair of shorts, because you once saw another man in shorts abuse a puppy. The timeline is different from the Marvel baseline continuity, sure, but that gets re-evaluated every few years to make sure things are relevant anyway. Also, it's a movie, refer back to A if you're confused.
Matthew Vaughn is one of the few directors in Hollywood that actually seem to 'get' the properties they work on, Kick-Ass and Stardust were both pretty excellent movies, based on comic books. His comparison to Batman Begins seemed, to me, that he understands the need to make a realistically grounded film that both pays homage and expands the characters portrayed in naturalistic ways...Which is basically the main thing that makes Batman begins/ Dark Knight as good as they are.
Done.
