Everybody Needs to Calm the F**k Down About Ben Affleck

Ben Affleck will play Batman in the upcoming “Man of Steel” sequel, we learned yesterday, which essentially caused the Internet to implode. My Facebook and Twitter feeds are full of angst-ridden responses to this news, some of which come from legitimately sane people decrying the decision as if it were the end of the world.

The announcement from Warner Bros. that Affleck will replace Christian Bale as tormented vigilante crimefighter Bruce Wayne has spawned not only the cutesy contraction of #Batfleck but also the hashtag #BetterBatmanThanBenAffleck. Meryl Streep will be happy to know she made the cut.

Why the freak-out? How much of it has to do with Affleck himself, and how much of it would have occurred no matter who was chosen? Yes, Affleck starred in what is widely considered one of the worst films ever based on a comic book, 2003’s “Daredevil,” which flopped critically (45 percent on the Tomatometer) and commercially ($102.5 million total domestically, which is usually what a blockbuster superhero movie will make on its opening weekend alone). Last I checked, Affleck didn’t write or direct “Daredevil.” He’s just the guy in the shiny, red suit at the center — so he gets to take all the blame.

I also see lots of bandying about of the word “Gigli,” as if the infamous 2003 Bennifer vehicle were the only career-defining cinematic moment in his 20-year career. Was “Argo,” this year’s best-picture Oscar winner which he directed and stars in, really so long ago? Has he not proven his brains and solid instincts time and time again over the past decade? Affleck also happens to have played George Reeves, TV’s Superman, in the 2006 drama “Hollywoodland,” and it represented his best work in a while at that point.

In the right supporting role, Affleck can be charismatic as hell — just look at his early work in “Boiler Room,” “Shakespeare in Love,” even “Good Will Hunting,” which essentially belongs to his best friend Matt Damon. But to get back to “Argo” for a minute, what he did as that film’s star — functioning as the all-business straight man in the middle and allowing the flashier Alan Arkin and John Goodman to shine around him — is difficult to do well. It’s easy to underestimate his skills as an actor, and even easier to turn him into a punch line.

The more I think about it, though, the more I’m inclined to suspect that whoever was picked to play opposite Henry Cavill’s Superman would have prompted some sort of backlash, simply because fans of this genre are so passionate and proprietary about it. I witnessed this personally last summer when I dared not heap massive praise on “The Dark Knight Rises” — and I happen to be a woman, which inspired a whole ‘nother charming level of vitriol. If not Affleck, then who would have been the right choice? We could peruse the filmography of myriad potential candidates and find a questionable decision here or there.

I can only imagine the sort of outcry that would have arisen had Twitter existed (or the Internet, for the matter) when Michael Keaton starred in Tim Burton’s “Batman” back in 1989: “Not Michael Keaton! He wore a flannel shirt and played poker with the neighborhood housewives in `Mr. Mom’!” Now, he’s regarded as one of the best Batmans (Batmen?) we’ve had.

So let’s all just take a moment, take a breath, and wait ’til Zack Snyder’s film comes out sometime in 2015. Let’s just calm the fuck down. Because until then, I promise you: Ben Affleck does not care what you think.