And part of the reason there's a hero for every archetype on both sides is because they've been actively copying each other for decades. The causality goes both ways.
I just tend to take it for granted that any conversation on a public BBS thread with multiple participants and many non-participating readers is going to be in response to the group as a whole rather than any single poster. So you can assume that's the case unless I say otherwise.
Well, sure, it's different from what we're used to, but to me, that's a reason to try it, not a reason to avoid it. We've seen plenty of stories about Superman and Batman as peers, now let's try doing one where they aren't, where one is a veteran and the other a novice. The whole reason for doing a story multiple times is so you can try new ways of doing it.
And like I said, it works very well for this particular interpretation of Superman, who's really been a lousy superhero so far and doesn't seem capable of doing a damn thing without a male authority figure to give him instructions. Of course, maybe that means he'd be better off without an older Batman telling him how to super, because the training wheels have to come off someday, but if any mentor could slap some sense into this guy and teach him to be self-sufficient, it's Batman. Think Batman Beyond and the Bruce-Terry dynamic.
Of course, that's probably wishful thinking on my part. I doubt Goyer and Snyder's script for the next film will be that honest about their failings of characterization in MoS.
I really doubt that Christian Bale did many of his own stunts. Heck, Keaton, Kilmer, and Clooney could probably barely move inside those rubber monstrosities they wore. Adam West probably wore the Bat-suit with the most freedom of movement (maybe about on a par with the '40s serial actors), yet he was obviously stunt-doubled as a matter of course. So whether Affleck is up to the physical demands of being Batman is unlikely to be a major consideration, not unless they intend to show him fighting as Bruce Wayne -- which seems unlikely if his primary adversary is from Krypton.
Besides, people in their 40s are certainly capable of doing effective stunt work with the right training. Downey did a lot of action out of the suit in IM3. Jim Caviezel is 44 and he does fight scenes every week in Person of Interest. Jackie Chan was doing intensive martial-arts work in movies well into his early 50s, and that was after enduring multiple injuries in the course of his career. With the right training and care, Affleck's probably got a good 10-12 years left in him as an action star.
I've explained how that's not a particularly important consideration in a movie, but even in in-story terms, there's far less difference between the two today than there was in the '60s or '70s. The modern Batman isn't wearing spandex, he's in a high-tech armor suit with a bunch of elaborate equipment built into it. It's not as heavily robotic as Stark's armor, but it's a lot closer in principle than it would've been a few decades ago.
I don't see any reason why it couldn't. Like I said, you could easily get a good decade's worth of films out of Affleck, and I see no reason why Batman already being a veteran would preclude a series of films. I'm sure there have been multiple film series whose characters were already established veterans at the start of the series. Heck, Keaton's Batman was already established in his first film, though not for quite so long.
And that's part of what I was saying about not wanting another origin story. We've seen plenty of film series about heroes in the early years of their careers; now let's try something different.
