There's a difference between saying "I don't care for X" and "The government should do Y specifically to prevent X from existing".
I'm absolutely not advocating censorship. In fact, I want to remove market censorship, if by censorship we mean restrictions on the type of speech that is likely to be expressed. I think that movie directors should have more role in deciding what movies get made, not incompetent executives.
In a way, that is a kind of censorship. I don't want X to happen, I want Y to happen. But that's very, very common.
Ever hear of New Hollywood?
It was big around the 1970s, though it started in the 60s. It's the movement that gave us people like Francis Ford Coppola, Roman Polanski, Stanley Kubrick, and Martin Scorsese. Some of the biggest names in directing, especially when it comes to True Art. The whole point behind this era of Hollywood was abandoning the Golden Age and the studio system, which was based around executives making what earned the studios the most money. Directors held much more creative control than before, actors were coming from all sorts of nationalities and backgrounds (rather than the Golden Age's consistent white bread image), and taboos were being broken down. You got sex, violence, and True Art.
For a while, it was good.
The Godfather and
Apocalypse Now are two big names to come out of this time period. Same with stuff like
Taxi Driver and
Easy Rider. Everyone's seen films from the New Hollywood period. The major studios failed at the time (as they were trying to copy the success of
The Sound of Music with big budget musicals that never profited), so they handed a ton of creative control to these directors.
The problem is that handing over total creative control to the artists isn't the way to go. And that was proven when the New Hollywood directors started making flops. They had gotten so much power that they were essentially protected from anyone who could reign in their egos or tell them that they were making mistakes or overstepping their boundaries.
Heaven's Gate is the most infamous, being a gigantic, big budget Western with a ridiculously troubled production that flopped at the box office and lost everyone a lot of money, but it was a similar story across the board. Francis Ford Coppola has remained under the radar for ages despite being literally one of the most famous directors period. Michael Cimino made
The Deer Hunter, but the aforementioned Western means that he's directed only 5 things since then, and only one was in the 2000s.
Giving total creative control to the creators seems like a good idea to someone who hasn't actually tried to work with them. Artists in all venues are flawed. Quite a few of them don't understand business as well as they do their art, which can turn a brilliant project into a travesty when they realize that they can't budget properly, or their magnum opus has essentially no appeal to anyone outside of a very specific demographic. Full artist control works on a small scale, like cheap indie films and small local art galleries. But as soon as you hit the big leagues, those nasty executives can actually tell you how to make enough money for your next work without alienating a lot of people. At the very least, you need people who are grounded enough to identify your mistakes and have the balls to tell you that you're fucking up.
tl;dr We tried your idea already, Fred. It worked for less than 20 years before it imploded.
