Is there some difference between streaming companies and classic movie studios that makes this the case? Arguably, the current state of movies is a direct result of studios realizing that well-produced, middle of the road content is the most profitable.

Of course, I could be missing something about the industry and how streaming has shaped it. I just struggle to see how the streaming ecosystem has different content requirements than a normal movie studio.

> Is there some difference between streaming companies and classic movie studios that makes this the case?

Yes. Movie studios and streamers have different business models. Movie studios also deal with more "legacy" actor contract negotiations and the like (see disney v scarlet). Theater released movies make most of their money upfront, and make money out on a per-view basis. So they need as many viewers as early as possible.

With streamers, they can lose the subscription any month, and only gain it back if they lure you - so they're incentivized to give you "anchors" that keep you there. Think game of thrones keeping people subscribed to HBO month over month or Squid Games that gets lots of attention. Once you're there, they just have to have "something" for those days you don't really know what to watch. That "something" is different for everyone, so they have to make lots of low budget generic stuff that appeals, collectively, to a wide audience. Each show/movie can have few viewers, because its going for niche targeting en mass - think themed cable channels but one company has to make something for each theme. Once a streamer makes a show, its "free" to them to share it with as many people as possible, but also doesn't cost them anything to not show it.

Ben Thompson (stratechery) has talked about this a lot, check him out!

Summary: streamers are valued by how long their tail is, movie studios are valued by how high their ceiling is.

>Arguably, the current state of movies is a direct result of studios realizing that well-produced, middle of the road content is the most profitable.

yes, if streaming movies well-produced, middle of the road, not terribly expensive is most profitable - as per this recent discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29247571 on red notice

if cinema, big expansive events most profitable (currently)

if shows, high quality addictive, dramatic, character driven, etc. is most profitable

why is quality series more profitable than middle of road? because you have to get people to make the investment of spending 10+ hours.

why are medium quality competence streaming movies most profitable? because many people are willing to spend 90 minutes passing the time with something mildly enjoyable, despite the many draws on our time it's still not seen as a serious investment.

why are big events blah blah blah - because it costs a lot to go out it is a hassle compared to staying home, I tend to go to restaurant as well when I do it so for me at least it definitely has to have been a night worth it at the end, and something big is more likely to make everyone like whoa I had an experience I can't have at home.

> Is there some difference between streaming companies and classic movie studios that makes this the case?

I have no inside knowledge and am fully speculating, including some random tidbits I've read here and there.

Think about how Netflix changed when moving from DVD to streaming. They used to optimize for recommending you movies you would rate highly. Now it's all about what keeps people viewing the longest.

2 middle of the road acceptable movies that you rate a 6/10 is more viewing time than 1 higher quality production that you'd rate a 9/10 -- I doubt the costs are they cut and dry but I think that's the idea. More content that is passable wins out against less content that is of higher quality.

The big difference is that movie studios actually directly offer higher quality content, simply due to the fact that they make a side business of selling their low quality content to companies like Netflix who are more than happy to purchase a finished film and throw it on the front page for all their subscribers to see even if its crap. The movie studio is able to get a return on a steaming pile of crap film that was probably super cheap to produce and avoids the reputation tarnish, netflix is able to advertise a wider catalog and hey, sometimes these junk films really do pop off for netflix like what happened with Kissing Booth.

> studios realizing that well-produced, middle of the road content is the most profitable

I'm curious if they actually have scientifically valid data to back that up, or if it is just assumption and common knowledge from industry people with the common trait of not questioning if the assumptions are actually right. It is very hard to tell from where I'm sitting, because there is so much puffery and fake numbers tossed at the public. Actually comparing apples to apples would be difficult, as there are so many variables such as advertising budget and media placement to account for.

The UFC discovered the same thing: they realized they made more money on high-volume, non-prestige fight cards than their former model of "every fight card matters"

> High-quality, daring, more than superficially controversial, world-changing movies are another casualty of the rise of streaming.

Yes, but what has maybe replaced the movie is the high-quality, daring, world-changing series. Squid Game, Outlander, etc. Directors and consumers are now no longer limited to a 3 hour time in the theater, as far as the art of the motion picture is concerned.

I don't see why you would blame that on streaming. There was plenty of low-quality content before netflix. Movie budgets have gotten huge, in order to guarantee a return, they play to the lowest common denominator, including international audiences.

I asume you mean all Non-US audiences.

In what sense is "International Audiences" part of "The lowest common denominator"

If it's not obvious, the more diverse a group is, then lower the lowest common denominator will be. That's just a law of nature.

So if you are selling a global movie, you are not going to be able to rely on cultural references, witty banter, or sophisticated plots. You will not even be able to rely on a lot of dialogue as the movie will need to be dubbed and subtle dialogue doesn't translate well.

You will rely on boobs and explosions, because that's the lowest common denominator that will sell well in New York, Indonesia, Nigeria, Italy, Egypt, Chile, and China. And if many nations don't allow boobs, then explosions it is.

There just isn't a lot that the world has in common, which forces movies with a global audience to be extremely shallow.

One reason, for example, for the dearth of good comedy films is that it's really hard for comedy to translate across different cultures. Maybe something like slipping on a banana peel will work, but more sophisticated stuff doesn't work.

Movie budgets don't have to be huge. Most A24 films cost 10 million to make.

I question how many A24 movies actually make much more than $10 million.

They wouldn't be making over a dozen films a year if they weren't making money. Hereditary was their top grossing at like $80 million and was a $10 million film. Lady bird did $79 million on a $10 million budget as well. Moonlight did $65 million on a $4 million budget.