>The way around it is to get the means of producing these >movies out of the hands of just a few wealthy corporations >and into the hands of the actual filmmakers. >So the means of production need to change hands.
Not to quibble, but I would argue that the wealthy corporations do not have a creative stranglehold over the production of movies but, rather, over their distribution. I find the shit to shinola ratio about equal among studio fare and domestic independently produced fare because they're all going to the same set of theaters in the end.
You can produce a great film that is never picked up for distribution, and I do not doubt that this happens. The theatre owners are the ultimate authority in the movie business, not the studios. I maintain that new methods of reaching a different audience are necessary to change the artistic climate, not simply putting the studios in the hands of the artists. I mean, how much did Chaplin, Fairbanks, and Pickford's UA change things?