I didn't say he was 'too old' (perhaps you're pointing to the general objections, rather than anything I've said, but if so, I wish you'd clarify that). I specifically said I had no problem with his casting and that he could pass for mid 30s. I'm just not keen on the idea of a Batman and Superman who are a decade apart (and I'm talking about within the movie, I don't mean the actors' ages). No, I don't think it's 'essential' that they be the same age - I've just always imagined Bruce and Clark being separated by maybe a year or two. Affleck and Cavill could pass for being only a few years apart, I just don't like the idea of Batman (apparently) being past his best when he first meets Superman. I don't really see the Avengers comparison as being similar; for one thing, the latter are a group and the age differences are less obvious than where there are only two people. Anyway, it's perhaps notable that the younger ones in Avengers - the 2 Chrisses and ScarJo - are the ones doing all the physical and tight spandex/muscle top stuff, while RDJ and Mark Ruffalo are either doing mo-cap or wearing a CGI suit. Ruffalo looked a little porky in Avengers - can't do that in a Batman suit, can you?! In terms of the age thing, I don't think the RDJ/Tony Stark comparison holds up though, as Stark's suit and tech-know-how basically do all the work for him. Batman has no special powers and needs to be in physically great condition, which gets more difficult the older you get. Anyone who has seen Affleck in The Town will know that he can be in fantastic shape but whether or not an actor in his 50s could do so is open to question. Certainly, Hugh Jackman reckons it gets harder and harder to get into Wolverine-type condition every time. Again, I didn't say I wanted another origin movie. I just said that I thought that this film would be a way of launching a new set of Batman films, without an origin story. My query was about whether introducing an older Batman would lead to more movies for him, not the absence of an origin story.