Last night, Warner Bros announced that Ben Affleck would follow Christian Bale as the next Caped Crusader, taking on the role of Batman in 2015's still-unnamed follow-up to Zack Snyder's Man of Steel. Within minutes, social media imploded.

"Really looking forward to seeing Affleck bring the depth and gravitas to Batman that he brought to Daredevil and Gigli," snarked Wil Wheaton. "I hope he fights the Joke-ah! #wickedpissah" added Patton Oswalt. "Damon as Robin! Damon as Robin!" demanded Joshua Malina. Some were more philosophical about things – "I can think of worse things plaguing this planet than Ben Affleck as Batman," tweeted comic creator J. Torres. "Jennifer Garner as Wonder Woman, for example." Others just couldn't believe the news, like comic creator Frank Tieri, who asked "These Ben Affleck as Batman reports can't possibly be real, right? RIGHT?"

When fans finally accepted that it was real, some just couldn't quite deal with the news. Like John Roden, of Ludlow, KY, who created a petition on Change.org to have the actor removed from the project. "His acting skill is not even close to being believable as Bruce Wayne and he won't do the role justice," Roden's introduction to the petition explains. "He's not built, nor is he intimidating enough for the role of Batman. His portrayal of Daredevil was atrocious and he's not remotely close to an action star. Please find someone else."

Internet, I love you, but you're bringing me down.

I'll admit it: I don't get the outright disdain and fear for the idea of Affleck playing Batman. Maybe it's because I haven't seen Daredevil in years – or perhaps it's because I have seen movies like Hollywoodland, The Town and Argo more recently, and think that Affleck's a pretty good actor when he's got decent material to work with. Coincidentally, I was watching Argo last night when I got the news about Affleck; When a friend texted to complain, I thought, "But he's… good…?"

A lot of the criticism of Affleck's casting relies on old jokes and lazy humor for effect, but doesn't really have much substance when you start to think about it: Yes, he has a Boston accent – Is that a disqualification for playing a fictional character who lives in a geographically vague fictional city? (I hope those complaining about that don't realize that Jor-El, Superman's alien father, was played in Man of Steel by a human with an Australian accent.) Other jokes revolve around the fact that he's married to Jennifer Garner and friends with former co-star Matt Damon, which – so what? The Damon thing, in particular, is weird; according to IMDb, Damon and Affleck haven't appeared onscreen together since 2004's Jersey Girl. That's nine years ago. Let it go, people.

The numerous mentions of Gigli and Daredevil, both released in 2003, certainly seem to suggest that Affleck is still defined for many people by events of almost a decade ago. That makes sense on some level – it was probably when Affleck's career was at its peak, appearing in multiple movies of questionable quality each year between 1997 and 2004, and the actor his most high-profile thanks to his tabloid-friendly relationship with Jennifer Lopez – but the argument "I remember what he was like ten years ago, so he can't be allowed to do this thing today" is utterly ridiculous, especially considering the quality of his work in more recent years.

The idea, too, that Ben Affleck isn't "built" or "intimidating" enough to do justice to Batman is almost laughable, when you consider the other actors who have played Batman through the years. Even beyond the obvious Adam West example, you could point to Michael Keaton, who at the time he was cast was known as much for Mr. Mom and Beetlejuice as anything else. Batman, to paraphrase Walt Whitman, is large and contains multitudes; a wide variety of actors have brought many different things to the role, and the character remains unharmed.

In the end, all the jokes, all the snark and the complaints and the petitions and the protests are nothing new, and come back to the same, selfish point: That's not the choice that I would have made. Seeing the complaints about Affleck, I found myself wondering if there was one choice that would have united everyone with its inevitable perfection, and realized that there wasn't. There is no one true Batman, and every single suggestion would be met with the same kind of derision (from some quarters, at least) as this one.

For proof of the knee-jerk complaint impulse, it's worth revisiting the internet's reaction to the casting of Heath Ledger as the Joker, an actor who is now considered by many to be the single best personification of the villain in the character's 75+ year history. "There are over a million better choices, they could have picked someone off the street and made a better choice," complained one fan. "Heath Ledger is not Joker material, simply put he does not have the mentality of it," griped another one.

Based on the similarity between those comments and the responses by yesterday's news, who's to say Ben Affleck won't surprise us and deliver if not the greatest Batman performance in history, then at least a very good one? Maybe – and I know this is a crazy thought, and I apologize in advance – we could just wait until we actually see him in the role before we start declaring it the worst idea in the world this time?

Update 8/23/2013 5 PM EST: A previous version of this story made reference to Tomorrowland rather than Hollywoodland.