[DownGoat]

Maybe your just are getting old, and have different taste than what the movie/tv studios cater for today. If you were a kid during the 80ies, today kids are going to be looking at the content from that time with the same view as you were looking at stuff from the 40ies-60ies.

[cudgy]

Just because a movie looks better doesn’t mean it is a better movie. There has been trash made during all eras, but today is about volume, not quality, so finding the gems is much harder and frustrating.

Do we really need to have another movie about super heroes or another movie about rescuing some retiring tough guy’s kid from a bad guy? Or another movie that spends the first half rotating between character building scenes filled with silly, rote dialogue and no story line? Or another movie that takes an old, tired story and simply replaces the characters with a new set of characters intended to signal the importance of a particular demographic group? Or another Jurassic Park, Hangover, Rocky, Transformer, Terminator, Star Wars clone? Yawn.

[eadmund]

> Maybe [you] just are getting old, and have different taste than what the movie/tv studios cater for today.

But why don’t they cater to older folks? Typically, the further one progresses in one’s career, the more money one makes, and the more disposable income one has. I know that I now regularly spend sums now that I would have considered unbelievably profligate in my youth. Why don’t advertisers and producers target me, instead of some kid who still thinks $1,000 is a lot of money?

[ElevenLathe]

This is just a guess but I'm sure somebody has analyzed this novel model you propose where they charge more for the streaming service but target it at older, richer viewers and decided it doesn't pencil out:

How many people are really tons richer as they get older? Not especially many, this is an upper middle class phenomenon.

Given this small audience, are those people willing to pay 20x more per month for a streaming service to make up for that? Probably not.

If they get young people hooked on this cheap content now, they can keep charging them for it for their whole lives. How many times have you bought /The Goonies/ or /Die Hard/? The copyright holders of /Euphoria/ hope to be doing the same thing in 40 years.

It's similar to consumer packaged goods (deodorant, laundry soap, etc.) where the lifetime value of a customer is loads better if you get them into your brand when they are young. Convincing a 65 year old to change brands of shaving cream is both expensive (they have high standards and preferences from decades of shaving) and has low return (they won't be buying shaving cream for much longer). Convincing a 15 year old to buy your brand of shaving cream is relatively easy (they don't have any habits around which brand to buy, and also not much experience/preference) and they will be buying it for decades to come, so it will be a big return if it works.

[jen20]

Speak for yourself. I was a kid in the 80s and would rather watch things produced in the 40s-60s than the mindless shit that pervades most streaming services today.

[yamtaddle]

You get the benefit of hindsight, too. Picking some reasonable top 25 films from any previous decade to watch, starting with perhaps the 1930s, will tend to yield pretty damn good results.

Of course, it's also the case that an absolute shitload of good-to-great films do come out every year. Very few (but some!) of them get huge budgets and a big marketing push, but there are lots of them. Average quality may be low, but the volume's so high that there's still more good stuff coming out than I, personally, can keep up with.