As it happens, I'd be content to cast an actor who can pass for younger (in Begins Bale was 31 playing Bruce Wayne at varied ages between his teens and 30), but I'd have to reluctantly agree that having a Batman aged 30 at the start of his career was perhaps a questionable decision - bearing in mind that that's an age where many athletes and sportspeople are viewed as having their best days behind them.
That comparison really makes very little sense. Sports and acting are two completely different things. The requirement for an actor is to act, and secondary, to look the part (which makeup and camerawork can help a lot with), rather than, say, to run really fast across the court to catch the ball coming from the other side of the net.
Thank you for missing the point entirely.
As Admiral Young
said, Batman would have to have the power, fitness and stamina of an athlete. He doesn't have superpowers to fall back on, just his fitness. And athletes tend to peak in their late 20s/ early 30s, which is why I'm saying that it would make sense for the actor playing him to be in that age group. I said that if, as in Batman Begins, Batman was starting out aged 30, it might not make an awful lot of sense - he'd have missed his peak years of fitness.
Also, I never actually said that the actor playing Batman had
to be in his 20s, I merely defended Dark Gilligan
when he expressed the viewpoint that the actor playing the lead should
be in his 20s. I didn't say I agreed with him entirely. I in fact said that having an actor who was in his 30s could pass for being in his 20s would suffice.
So maybe the next time before you quote me and throw in a rolleyes, you'd actually try to read and understand what I said!
Thank you for missing the point entirely!
Guess what? Actors don't have to be the exact same age as the characters they're playing. All that matters is that look like that age, more or less. Lots of people look 10 years younger than they are. (and I should know, since people always think I'm 10-14 years younger than I am)... and even more people can look 10 years younger with good makeup and lightning.
When I watched The Amazing Spider-man, I never thought "Well that makes no sense, this guy looks like he's almost 30". Why? Because Andrew Garfield doesn't look almost 30... even though he is. And a difference between how a teenager and an adult looks usually bigger than that between a 20-something and a 30-something. How many people here think that Bale looked too old to be Bruce Wayne/Batman, and that really ruined the trilogy for them, really? It's not like he's a 50-year old actor playing a 25-year old, for crying out loud.
Demotion I don't think was comparing actors and athletes, I think he was comparing Bruce Wayne and athletes. Bruce has often been described as being an Olympic level athlete. I think Demotion was arguing this is why it would be logical to use a younger actor.
Even going by the "top athletes" standards, Batman should be able to do his thing just as well at least till his late 30s/around 40. If great basketball players can still be at the top of the game at that age, it's pretty silly to argue that Batman can't go around at night and beat up people. In fact, since, unlike the Olympic athletes, he's got his super-fast cars and other super-technology, he can continue to be at the top of his game for much longer than most athletes.