Like nipples on the Batsuit, casting Ben Affleck could be another terrible decision by Warner Brothers

It was all going so well: Christopher Nolan had successfully breathed life back into the Batman franchise, creating an outstanding story arc that took the Bruce Wayne/Batman character neatly from cradle-to-grave, from origin story to the hanging-up of the cape and cowl.

Batman's gadgets were believable (within the context of any comic book movie), his allies and enemies were superbly crafted and the moral ambiguity of his self-appointed vigilante role as Gotham's defender was well balanced.

As with Inception, Nolan didn't pander to the audience and brought a back-to-basics approach to the character, eschewing the neon playground and nippled-Batsuit of the disastrous Schumacher years and drawing inspiration for each film from the storylines of the major comic book arcs themselves (including seminal titles such as Knightfall, The Man Who Laughs and No Man's Land).

The curtain falling on the third and final chapter of The Dark Knight Trilogy came with a sense of closure; this journey was over and it had set a remarkable precedent for all comic book movies to follow.

Then this morning it was announced that Ben Affleck will be playing Batman in Zack Snyder's next Man of Steel film, due out in 2015 (the Guardian summarised some of the Twitter comments on this topic here).

This could go either way.

Whatever your thoughts on Christian Bale, his delivery of Bruce Wayne was impressive and honest: broken and at times fragile, Wayne was trapped in a state of emotional arrested development, using the grief of the loss of his parents to focus his pain and anger at the injustice of the world around him.

As with Daniel Craig's current tuxedoed tenure as 007, The Dark Knight Trilogy offered something of a fresh start for both character and franchise, making it darker, grittier and hyper-real.

And this, I think, was part of the success of these movies: their representation of a flawed, broken and imperfect hero is zeitgeist, speaking to audiences grown cynical of the squeaky-clean image of heroes on the silver screen.

Therein lies my major concern: Affleck's previous pedigree as an actor is shaky at best and with his past so-so performances and lack of charisma hanging like a reputational millstone around his neck, it's difficult to say whether or not he will have the gravitas and depth of character to pull off a convincing portrayal of Bruce Wayne.

He has, of course, had moments of greatness, although they tend to be few and far-between. Changing Lanes with Samuel L Jackson was excellent, as were his turns in Dazed and Confused and of course Good Will Hunting. 

Whether or not this appointment is political and they're trying to woo him into directing the impending Justice League movie (as one friend pointed out this morning), my great fear is that Ben Affleck is going to bring the same level of charisma-free delivery that he did in Daredevil.

Remember this? Urgh. 

The Dark Knight Trilogy wasn't without it's flaws, of course, with plot-holes, issues with Bale's whisky-and-cigarettes delivery and the bizarre God-like voice of Bane in Rises. This was balanced against an outstanding supporting cast throughout all three films (Michael Cane, Gary Oldman, Aaron Eckhart, Heath Ledger, et al) which tugged the movie along through its poorer moments and helped you to overlook its inadequacies.

In Man of Steel, Snyder's offering was everything that a blockbuster should be: big, noisy, visually impressive and above all fun, with great turns from Michael Shannon and Henry Cavill. It, too, was imperfect, littered with plot-holes, shaky dialogue and incredible leaps of faith on the part of the viewer (Zod having his ass handed to him by a scientist at the start of the film despite his assertions that he was bred to be a perfect warrior was one of my favourites). 

While we are more readily accepting of these bumps in the narrative road, the question or whether or not Affleck will be able to cut the mustard as Wayne without turning Batman into a two-dimensional, one trick pony remains to be seen.

"Is it cold in here?"

Affleck is undoubtedly a talented film-maker and since 2010's The Town, his star is once again in the ascendancy, with a number of films currently in production, however he has proven recently that his real talent lie behind rather than in front of the camera.

As with George Clooney's turn as Gotham's Dark Knight - and Val Kilmer before him - it's been proven that it takes more than a popular actor with a good jaw line to play a convincing and reputable Bruce Wayne/Batman.

I like to keep an open mind and am hoping that I will be pleasantly surprised by an impressive turn from a third-rate actor best remembered as being Mr Jennifer Lopez, rather than Warner Brothers consigning one of its most successful franchises to the scrap heap of sentimentality.

But then again I'm an optimistic soul.

Once you go black...

About a year ago, I started drinking coffee black.

I don't know what facilitated this change in my habits, but it seems to fit into a decade-long pattern: I went from milk with three sugars (yes, I know) to milk with one, to just the coffee.

And I like it.

Twin Peaks' FBI Special Agent Dale Cooper, renowned coffee aficionado.

In fact, I have no idea why I ever drank it with milk in the first place. In its unadulterated form, coffee is what other beverages dream that they might be when the grow up: strong, flavoursome and with that caffeine burst that kicks you in the back of the knee, slaps you around the head and screams "GOOD MORNING!" right in your face.

But it's also much more subtle and I have - I'm sorry to admit - become something of a coffee snob since going 'no lait'. While I still guzzle back freeze-dried instant - because who has time to percolate on a school day, right? - the cheaper brands just don't cut it anymore. Instant coffee is the epitome of a utilitarian solution.

This has resulted in my becoming less forgiving towards those outlets that use poor quality beans, or murder them during the brewing process.

A bold statement

Now, when I buy a to-go coffee, whether from Starbucks, Costa or *shudder* Nero, I tend to order a latte. There are a couple of reasons for this: a black coffee will generally take too long to cool down on its own (and I'm a gulper with little/no patience) and the milk can easily cover any bean-related sins. Or at least take the edge off.

There is a cafe that I walk past every day but never enter (their idea of 'breakfast' is fruit, porridge and seeds - I doubt that there is any bacon on the premises) but once - feeling that pang of caffeine desire - I went in and ordered a coffee.

It was a  small black coffee to go and was without question the worst cup of coffee that I've ever had.

Seriously.

Where was the flavour? The taste (not the burnt aftertaste, mind - there was plenty of that) was almost non existent. It was watery and thin and wanted to be put out of its misery. If I'd there had been a nearby barn, I would have taken this coffee around the back of it with a shotgun and done the merciful thing. *

I digress. Coffee is wonderful: it's good for you or at least not bad for you if as with anything else in life it is taken in moderation.

Although not, as it turns out, with milk and sugar.

This guy.

* You know what, I don't think that they deserve anonymity for such a reprehensible brew.  It was Yorks on Newhall Street.  FOR SHAME!