I am dubious. It doesn't feel like an active creative decision to pursue a specific goal, so much as them throwing up their hands and going "Lets just leave it up to the directors, make it their responsibility". One half spaghetti on the wall, one half convenient scapegoat.
Will it produce better results? Well, *maybe*, but mostly because the floor was already set really low. Thing is, they were *already* getting better results just by bringing in directors and screenwriters who were better suited to the properties, without needing some mandate of canonical indifference. Wonder Woman wasn't good because of auteur independence, it was good because Patty Jenkins was a better storyteller than Zach Snyder.
Basically, it will all depend on how it shakes out. Best case scenario, its an elaborate rationalization for doing more or less what Marvel was doing anyway: "Just focus on making this movie good", with 'multiverse' being an excuse for not sweating the small stuff. Worst case scenario, it results in a Frankenstein's monster where half the movies are deeply In Name Only messes, a ton of terrible movies reach release protected by "Auteur Independence", and the audience is left with no reason to care about any character less famous than Batman because even if they liked ( say ) Aquaman in Movie A, they have no confidence that he will even be recognizable in Movie B.
WB stumbled onto it no question. It wasn't actively something they originally set out to do, though, they were at least considering this type of thing going back to JL Mortal being released in addition to TDK and a Superman Returns sequel back in the mid 00s.
So, its not as if this was an entirely new concept that they've latched onto. But yeah, this is the result of trial and error.
As far as canon goes, when I speak of filmmaker driven independence versus a continuity, I'm speaking about a debate in
fandom , not at the studio level at WB.
That debate concerns WB in so far as they
now want to have their cake and eat it to by having a Oscar winning Joker film outside of continuity which doesn't have to account for the events of whatever Reeves or Jenkins, yet have an Aquaman or WW film inside continuity.
I agree that the issue of quality, is separate from the issue of whether they're all connected. Both sets of films can be bad or good without taking into account whether they're connected or not.
The issue of interconnected films and non interconnected films has been among fans , in which there is a segment of fans who want all these films to be tied into each other and/or part of the same cinematic universe and other fans who prefer to have them separate.
This multiverse idea , with respect to that fan debate, can be seen as an attempt to please all factions of fandom, while also giving the studio leeway to attempt stories that isn't bound to film canon. In other words, Reeves Batman and The Joker.
Now of course, there will always been fans who are disagree with whatever option they take, because they don't feel its the right way to do it. And fans will disagree and debate like they tend to do already when it comes to these properties. Fandom is far from united about the right course to take, and ultimately, the studio is going to take the approach which they can do the best.
But at the end of the day , WB, like Marvel, is a business which is catering to the general audience, and if that audience can embrace a Joker and a Batman film with all their differences , while at the same time embracing a Flash film with Affleck and Keaton, that's what they're going to do.
And yes, the audience may decide whether they like one Batman film over another version. Or, they'll except both assuming both are good and won't be as hung up on the continuity issue as fans are . Or it won't be as clear cut in terms of audience response film to film.
We don't know. It can go lots of different ways. No film is guaranteed to be a success or failure. That's up to the audience, and it always has been.
The audience is going to vote with their wallets regardless. In that sense , its a risk.
But, the general audience has shown, that if the film is good , and they like it, they'll embrace it , and reward the studios at the box office.
The films have to be good , no question. To me , that should be the primary goal.
If we get a great Flashpoint, The Batman, Aquaman 2, Static Shock, Abrams led Superman film, and they are all received well by the general audience and do well for the brands, I have a hard time seeing that as a negative.
