Try to imagine a fleet of 3 billion dollar aircraft carriers. Those are the studios. On board each are dozens of bombers and fighters ranging from 20 to 200 million dollars each. Those are movies. These fleets are trying to control map regions, airspace. That's the financial space, the global movie market. Without that territorial dominance, there is no funding for marketing, meaning that no one sees a film even if it's made extremely well.
Now picture a person trying to fight that with an ideology. Something that seems cool to that person, like kung fu, or veganism. So the aircraft carriers roll up to the beach, and you are standing there, and you turn to your three friends, and say "ok everybody, did you remember not to eat any carbs this morning? Prepare your slingshots and focus your chi into the self confidence necklaces we handed out earlier." We will show them how powerful a person can be without their foolish accoutrements."
What do you think happens next?
I used to play a boxing game with one of my friends. We played round after round, week after week, and I won 100% of the time. During the matches, he would coach me on his philosophy on how to win the fight. "You need to block more, try dodging the jabs" He went on like this for months, explaining his superior strategy for boxing, and loosing every round. The point isn't that I was smarter than my friend. This isn't about me. It's about him. He had built a protective mental shell around his ego, one that would not allow him to see when his strategy wasn't working. His weakness wasn't his jabs or his stance, all that could have been fixed with the right mentality. His weakness was that he had allowed protecting his ego to become a higher priority than winning the fight. By taking a perpetually confident stance that his strategy was correct, he made a tradeoff. He could feel smart, because his view was that he already knew all the answers, but he couldn't learn.
One day I went over to his house to play the boxing game. He looked a bit depressed. He said "I've been thinking about what you said. If my ideas were working, I wouldn't be loosing every fight" I then said "Ok, so since I'm winning, watch what I'm doing and just open your mind and absorb what you see working effectively. It's not about you or me, or ego, or anything like that, just reinforce what's effective, and reduce things that aren't."
He kept loosing every fight that day, but the next day when I came back, he finally beat me. He literally jumped up out of his chair and began yelling "yeah" and doing some bizarre version of an N zone dance. It was annoying. I was however glad that he had finally learned to learn.
The point is that you sound really confident, and I think you might have trouble learning and advancing from that stance. Instead of trying to rewrite the test so that what you think already is the right answer, try looking at people who aced the test, and keeping an open mind towards learning what made their approach effective. Filming narrative stories with ENG lighting is not going to be a success.
Some of your points above are valid, and some aren't. Placing abstract limitations on production in a situation where people are already facing extreme limitations due to finance doesn't make any sense. It seems like you're saying you want to encourage creativity via restrictions, and while I can see where that makes sense from a certain angle, it also belies a disproportionate estimation about the value of creativity within the pie chart of entertainment. Maybe you are quite creative, and you want to tell people about a strategy where creativity is literally the only thing that matters. That's like if I owned a wood shop, and wrote a manifesto about how skyscrapers should all be built using only wood. In example, you have outlawed post work in your manifesto. Post is a very valid, effective, and well respected part of the filmmaking process, and your idea is to discard any people that developed those skillsets. This really shows a lot of disrespect for people that work hard at learning aspects of filmmaking that I suspect are beyond you, not beneath you. I've never seen someone that was competent at production value start evangelizing against it's use. That should tell you something. If Fritz Lang was using more advanced techniques than you are, you may be behind the curve rather than ahead of it, which is what laying down a set of rules for others insinuates.
I'm sure this will be received as negative, maybe even pedantic, but to give it to you straight, I've seen literally thousands of people try variations on "what if we didn't use any lights, or professional actors, or casting, or location scouting, or cinema gear" and every single one has failed, excepting Documentaries, youtube videos, and "Lilya 4 Ever" which is very hard to watch and didn't make much money. The reality is that people have a standard for entertainment that has been set by decades of high production values, and many types of creativity and skill put together in an environment that made every effort to lift restrictions on creators, rather than impose them.
I'm not trying to be mean, or negative, I'm just pointing out that you are outlining a recipe for failure, and doing so in the context that you are providing guidelines for others to follow.
