Cinemas faced an existential threat in the middle of the previous century as well. Their solution was to overhaul the theatrical experience with things like CinemaScope, PanaVision, 3D, etc. I think the solution for cinemas going forward is to give people a worthwhile excuse to leave their home. Alamo Drafthouse is setting a great example of how it's done, particularly with their zero tolerance policy for talking, cell phones, and showing up late, which thankfully they also enforce.
It's clear that the people who made this don't know what the definition of the word pretentious is. The movies that jive with critics but not with audiences aren't necessarily "pretending" to be anything they're not or trying to seem smarter than they are. And when a movie is full of BS, I feel like the mass market is often less privy to that than reviewers.
The tone of this post reads like the writer be mocking Lucas, and suggesting he's hypocritical to be negative toward the studios. It's overly simplistic to say, for example, that Lucas has earned his success "thanks to studios." Anyone who remotely knows his career knows that his success was very much in spite of the studios, their objections, their obstructions, and everyone save for one executive at Fox turning down Star Wars. The whole idea between Lucas's and Coppola's studio, American Zoetrope, was to have autonomy from Hollywood. This is perhaps the most endearing part of Lucas, but now it's yet another excuse to deride him.