Last night, the Hollywood Reporter announced that Ben Affleck has joined the "Man of Steel" sequel as Batman. The 41-year-old Bostonian has enjoyed a career renaissance lately thanks to his magnificent work behind the camera, and now it looks like he's hoping he'll have the same luck as a star once again.

However, is Affleck really a good choice to be the caped crusader? The truth is, the only time Affleck gives great performances is when he is directing himself. His work in "The Town" was easily a career best, while "Argo" allowed him to play to his strengths by not demanding much range. Outside of those two films, Affleck is a below-average actor. Bringing emotion to characters isn't his game, and Batman's intensity may not suit the limited Affleck. He's just not all that intimidating.

If this news were "Affleck to Direct Man of Steel 2", we should all be rightly losing our minds in excitement. Alas, Zack Snyder remains in the director's chair. Snyder is definitely not an actor's director, so it's not likely he will inspire much of a surprising performance out of Affleck.

If you need one real reason to not be enthused about Affleck as Batman, just think about "Daredevil". Daredevil is a darker character close to the vein of Batman, and was even written by Frank Miller for some time. The significance of that lies in the fact that Miller also wrote "The Dark Knight Returns", which is the series the "Man of Steel" follow up will be drawing inspiration from. And what happened when Affleck played Daredevil?

Alternative actor that should have been cast: Josh Brolin. Tough and gruff exterior; noteworthy acting range; would have been perfect. Do you agree? Let us know your thoughts at @StageBuddy or @NicksMovies