Millionaire Playboy with a secret.. marriage to Elektra .

When I got back to my desk last night after a school event, a friend had posted on my Facebook page: "you're being awfully quiet about the announcement."

My god. Had I won some sort of honor? Did the podcast finally get that Hugo nomination? Had Billie Piper or Karen Gillan finally confessed her love for me, Fat Ed Helms?

No. Warner Brothers announced that Ben Affleck would be playing the role of Bruce Wayne/Batman in Man of Steel 2: Superman vs. Batman vs. The Absence of a Real Plan.

And my older nerd brethren screamed "nooooo, we need somebody far more appropriate for the role, like Michael Keaton, who when he was cast back in 1988 we screamed 'nooooooo, we need somebody far more appropriate for the role like... well, we're not sure who we wanted back then, but we're sure it was somebody rugged and square-jawed like Ben Affleck but not Ben Affleck.' "

Of course not, because in 1987 Affleck was about fifteen years old and his jaw was less square. Regardless, whether you like it or not, Ben Affleck is our new Bruce Wayne/Batman, described in Warner's press release as

...a man who is older and wiser than Clark Kent and bears the scars of a seasoned crime fighter, but retains the charm that the world sees in billionaire Bruce Wayne.

So let's take a look at the positives.

1. Physical Resemblance
Yes, see the image at right, though I guess no one is really arguing this point. Affleck looks like Bruce Wayne, and definitely more than Michael Keaton did.

2. Acting
You know, he's NOT a bad actor. Affleck's reputation carries around the weight of choices made when he was a more callow youth, and admittedly, there were some bad ones. But he has matured into a generous, quieter actor who has a good sense of humor about himself -- much like his co-producer on Argo, George Clooney.

Is he a chameleon like Christian Bale? Probably not. But can his personality make Batman stand out in a Zack Snyder film, which will be about a lot of dream imagery and ballet-like violence, but maybe not the intellectual weight that comics fans dearly want? Probably.

3. One of Us
I know this shouldn't matter, but I do feel better knowing that Affleck grew up as a comic book fan, and hangs out with one of the most rabid Batman fanboys of them all, Kevin Smith. He might actually have a valid opinion or three about the character, who we know has to be different from Goyer's previous Dark Knight Trilogy incarnation. Maybe it didn't work out as well on Daredevil -- but of the many problems (and a few strengths) with that movie, is Affleck really the one you'd point out? (Of course, I feel the same way about Clooney's Batman, who might have been just fine if the movie itself had been a better construct.)

In truth, we don't know. But if you must praise with faint damnation and are an Affleck-hater, wouldn't you rather see someone like him in the role in a movie that you've already decided you weren't going to like much anyway?

As for what this all says about the movie -- it kind of all plays into a vision of Superman and Batman not too far off from what's going on in the New 52. Announcing this at Comic-Con, Snyder had Harry Lennix do a reading from The Dark Knight Returns, causing everyone to speculate that that's the plot of Man of Steel 2. But that's just trying to travel the shortest distance between two points. And by the way, contrary to memory, Superman doesn't have that much screen time in that book -- though what he has is choice.

Henry Cavill's Superman isn't the Superman of Frank Miller's classic. All we can really take from that work is a sense of the two characters at odds, and Snyder took a shortcut in San Diego to get fans worked up. Well done, but really, too simple.

Affleck is 41, but could pass for younger. Cavill is 30, but Man of Steel establishes Clark Kent as being 33. For the sake of argument and a release date of July 17, 2015, let's call Clark Kent 35 and Bruce Wayne 40.

See what I did there? A five year age difference which is what the New 52 claims -- that Bruce Wayne had been operating in the shadows as Batman long before Superman made his first public appearance. So older and wiser and concerned about this alien who admittedly staved off an invasion and genocide but still laid waste to half of Metropolis in doing so.

Then there's Lex Luthor -- a character wisely only hinted at in Man of Steel in the same way that Bruce Wayne was teased, just a sense that he's a powerful corporate figure in this world. Bruce Wayne might not like Lex Luthor, but until the presence of Superman, most of Luthor's unsavory characteristics might not have come to the fore. Therefore it's likely that Luthor and Wayne have known each other and sparred like Larry Ellison and Bill Gates. (Are either one of them homicidal maniacs or secret crime-fighters?)

Instead of The Dark Knight Returns, look to Brian Azzarello and Lee Bermejo's Lex Luthor: Man of Steel to see a how all three characters might intertwine. (Now the book is just referred to as Luthor, but I was going by the original mini-series.)

Affleck can play the unctuous charm of a supposedly disaffected billionaire, and he can turn dark if necessary -- really look at Argo or the time he played Superman, sort of, in Hollywoodland.

Will he affect a gruff voice like Bale? I hope not. Rather, I'd like to hear something akin to what Kevin Conroy -- let's face it, the best Batman of all -- did with the character, and all animated versions have followed. But on the other hand, why would he need to disguise his voice? How many of you could pick out the voice of a famous billionaire, except maybe Donald Trump?

It's all going to come down to David S. Goyer and Zack Snyder anyway, and as I've said above, they're going to make the movie they want to, and it wouldn't matter quite so much who is in it. That's not going to make it the movie you do or do not want to see.

However, Warner Brothers loves rewarding loyalty and success, which is why you have Zack Snyder and David S. Goyer still working on this franchise. And the plus side here is that Affleck didn't just get this role as a reward; the real reward is likely to be his next project as a director, which he has proven to be far more interesting as than an actor.

If it all turns out that the movie is terrible, okay. I just don't think that will be because of Affleck; instead, I have hope that he will be a charming presence to add to the watchability of it.

Derek McCaw