Nonsense, there's no guarantee that the script would have survived production intact or that the picture would have been any better than his last one. Regarding your conditions, there's plenty of bad films produced in that manner, the Matrix, Pirates, and some Bond sequels come to mind. Release dates and market concerns are no joke at that budget scale.
If you want the industry to change then first the audience must change. This is an absurd article, the prequels were god awful, they irrevocably maimed the franchise, and Lucas had all the time and control in the world. Rian Johnson had a free hand, half the planet hated it. Easy to criticize when it's not your signature approving the execution of a script for a 1/4 billion dollar budget franchise film.
All that from the one trailer? The movie could just as easily be one of the worst in the franchise. Foolish article.
I pulled a pupil rolling my eyes at this stupid comment; "Herzog is right. Practical effects are where it is at." There's plenty of brilliant CG creature work, I give you; Thanos, Smart Hulk, War of the Planet of the Apes, Gollum, Two Face in Dark Knight and the dismembering scene in Looper. And getting better everyday. Yes Baby Yoda is great, an excellent example. Conversely there's the horrific Yoda puppet of the Star Wars prequels. There's plenty of great practical stuff, but cinema is full of shonky practical work that looks like jiggly rubber. Get over it.
This is a stupid article pushing a futile fantasy. Want to preserve cinema? Destroy all video games and the internet. No? Maybe a better tactic is to leverage streaming to introduce young viewers to better content, while also utilizing social media to promote cinema going as a lifestyle. Break up the cinema chains instead, they're the ones narrowing the range that gets shown - more independent cinemas will more likely result in a broader range of titles screening.
Again, I'm not seeing the virtue of this approach or the articles relevance to film makers who frequent No Film School - he's essentially describing how he dumped his film on Amazon for a total of 22 viewings to date (rough guess) for a mere $1.50 remuneration. Is the purpose to simply show how easy it is to publish on Amazon? I don't see how it speaks to the platforms virtues for a film maker or distributor either way. Can't help think this article is just a ploy to drum up extra viewership and self marketing - which isn't necessarily bad I suppose. I guess I'm not seeing the logic or maybe it needs a summation of this approach as opposed to the other options. In comparison. Was it actually easier? Somehow more profitable? No other platform was exercised so I don't know how he arrives at the assertion this was the best option for the film as opposed to posting on Youtube - other than being considered a marginally more 'legit' platform for a 'movie'. Not looking to bag anybody - but this feels like little more than a transplanted personal blog post with a nebulous agenda. I didn't find it enlightening. No Film School is starting to feel a little like a dumping ground lately. E