Seriously, did you even read any of what I wrote?
I'm now saying, for the third time, that there's an argument in favour of casting an actor in his 20s to play Batman at the start of his career.
Nowhere have I said that Batman has to be played by an actor in his 20s. Nowhere have I said that Batman can't continue into his 30s. I specifically said that an actor in his 30s who would pass for his 20s would suffice. You seem to be intent on rebutting points that I've never actually made!!!!!!!
I merely observed that if Batman started off his career aged 30 as in Begins - a movie I love and starring the actor I wanted to play Batman since I saw him in American Psycho some years earlier - he would have missed his peak years of fitness. I didn't say that he couldn't do it in his 30s.
Hell, I'm 40 and I'm as fit as I was 10 years ago and I frequently get mistaken for younger (ask Admiral Young or Jackson Archer, they're friends of mine on Facebook and have seen my pics) but I'm not as fit as I would have been in my 20s, had I exercised as much then as I do now.
So I'm saying that there is some sense in having a 20something actor play a rookie Batman - not that it's compulsory.
Other people seem to understand what I'm saying, why don't you?
Because I've actually followed the discussion, which started by a poster saying that a Batman actor should be under 30, and I've read what you wrote, which was, quote:
"...I'd have to reluctantly agree that having a Batman aged 30 at the start of his career was perhaps a questionable decision"
Yep, you've implied that it's wrong to cast someone not under 30 as Batman.
Like I said in my previous post, did he even read anything of what I said?
Who is "he"?