What If Netflix's "Average Movies" Are Actually Part of the Plan?

One of the most common complaints about Netflix is that it releases too many movies that are decent but rarely unforgettable. You watch them on a Friday night, enjoy them well enough, and then move on. But what if that's exactly the point? People often compare Netflix to traditional movie studios and ask why it doesn't focus exclusively on big prestige films, award contenders, or theatrical-style blockbusters. The problem is that Netflix isn't playing the same game. Traditional studios have historically relied on major hits that generate revenue through theaters, licensing, television deals, and home media. Netflix's business depends much more on keeping subscribers engaged month after month. From that perspective, a movie doesn't need to become the next Top Gun or Oppenheimer to be successful. If it gives millions of subscribers something enjoyable to watch over a weekend, it may have already done its job. That doesn't mean quality doesn't matter. A platform filled entirely with forgettable content would eventually lose viewers. But there's also value in having a deep library of solid action movies, thrillers, comedies, and mysteries that people can easily jump into without a huge time commitment. The criticism of Netflix often focuses on whether its movies are memorable. The company may be asking a different question entirely: Are people watching? The interesting debate is whether that strategy helps or hurts the long-term quality of filmmaking. Does a constant stream of "good enough" content keep audiences happy, or does it lower expectations over time? I'm curious where people stand on this. Would you rather a streaming service release a handful of great movies each year or a large mix of films where not every title is a masterpiece but there's always something new to watch?