But will people KEEP showing up for those kinds of movies, after the sheen wears off? When there are no human beings on the other end, actually connected to/giving us the art? When there are no more stars promoting the movies, no more writers who dreamed up characters and worlds and from a specific point of view, no more director whom audiences are fans of? When it's JUST a single, soulless product, with no awe attached to it, where we wonder "How the hell did they pull that off?"

Capybara said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Capybara said:

---

MasonStorm said:

---

AI can remove or greatly reduce the cost of entry to the industry currently dominated by the wealthy or dna legacy.

There is a large amount of creative talent that can't afford or doesn't have the connections to pursue the entertainment industry that will now flood the market.

Fantastic creativity won't be as scarce of a commodity as it is now.

This is the industry's iTunes moment when combined with YT/content creators.


https://www.vulture.com/article/hollywood-nepotism-babies-list-taxonomy.html

---

Music streaming and the explosion of content creators has lowered the income available to these people by a good amount. I mean if you want to make money on yt or tiktok or ig, then you better be ad-friendly because that's your only hope of even earning a living wage.

How do you expect those locked out currently to make money if these tools and future ones really are good enough to best or match the good/great stuff today? Creating a good movie or show wouldn't mean anything anymore. Just more content to be forgotten as nearly everyone's tastes erode.

---

That just isn't true. The amount of people making money in music has exploded since Spotify and other streaming services. The amount of people making Paul McCartney money has probably gone down a little bit. The money the producers and distributors were making has cratered. That's exactly what will happen with this technology in the film industry too.

The movie theatre distribution model is similar to the CD distribution model, and that will change. Streaming services are already kicking movie theaters in the ass, AI will make that worse. But you will still have big blockbusters available in theaters for those that desire the experience. You will just pay a lot more.

---

Making money? What amount of money? Anything close to recouping the time costs? Yeah someone like Drake does better than he would've in any other era. The sensible young indie musicians need an active bandcamp with good promotion. Not the streamers.

And the movie/film streamers do an excellent job of providing things for people to have on in the background as they scroll their phones. But sometimes I really think David Chase and Peter Biskind are right: the quality is dropping and Succession might've been the last excellent and ambitious series for a while. If this is indeed true, I'd personally place more blame on worsening education and the hyperreality of life today that makes stringing together good longform narratives set in the present a daunting task.

And btw I maintain an open mind wrt to AI/ML in the arts and entertainment. It's just that the stuff I've seen utilize it - -mostly art installations, but some places on social media. Kanye's latest videos too - - has been just kind of bad. Idk, new media is supposed to be awe-inspiring, or surprising at the very least. I will say that Harmony Korine's latest movie, while not good, was incredibly interesting to look at, and he utilized something in house. But you get the feeling that sort of stuff will mostly be used in gaming. Who knows though.

---

They make more money than they would have if streaming wasn't a thing. Before streaming, indie was a small genre of people fighting to get radio time. The only people really making a living at it were the ones who could get record deals. Now some of the biggest artists in the world are independent. You don't need a record deal now to have a successful career in music, you just need a fanbase that will come see you tour.

AI probably has a better future, right now, with streaming services than with the big Hollywood companies. Although, it has the potential for studios to care less about writer strikes, I guess.

Capybara said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Capybara said:

---

This already exists with social media though. And it's arguably more of a lie than Hollywood ever has been. How do you make a return without being an ad vehicle?

---

What exists today is the ability to make vlogs and short skits in your house to post online. What doesn't exist yet is for average Joe's to make videos, shows, movies that look like they were filmed with million dollar cameras on million dollar sets, with professional soundtracks, a gazillion extras, costumes, props, and all of that. For damn cheap. That is coming.

---

But what's the point if way more people can make good stuff? You'll have to do it on the side because of how little money will be at stake. Which lots of people are willing to do, but time is finite.

---

It will be like every other industry. The demand curve would stay the same, but the supply curve would shift way down. Prices would go down (for producers and viewers alike) and the quantity would go up. But there is a point at which it's not profitable and that's who won't bother. What excites me is that producers would no longer have to mitigate risk by making sequels and remakes, but could now produce more original stories.

Quote:

---

And I think you're completely wrong wrt to soundtracks. Part of the reason why something like tiktok is so huge is that we don't have public privacy laws (at least that I'm aware of) so you can just go anywhere and film something with unwilling people and whatever sounds or music is in the background. It's exploitative, but there's always money to be had in exploitation.

---

I don't understand this part. What does "wrt" mean? I was saying that if AI can make video, then certainly it can make music. Just say something "make a dark symphonic theme in a genre that combines Hans Zimmer and Ted Williams". Then say "make the beginning softer, but add more trombone". And so on.

Quote:

---

When you envision any sort of service (that's open sourced if average joes are going to use it) with whichever/whatever soundtracks and extras and costumes and props at your disposal that looks professionally shot, where's the money to be had? You need some sort of service that integrates ads, or one that is free or low cost to use for at least a few years before they crave returns. And then you'd just have an arguably worse version of what we have today, which is an increasingly antisocial non-live entertainment environment. It'd just be Brave New World. Not Shangri La.

---

It would be just like now, but with more content. Netflix would buy some, Hulu would buy others, some studios would buy some for theaters, etc. Prices would come down because costs would be way down. It would be like how Ford made a crap ton of money by making cars way cheaper and making it up on volume.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Capybara said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Capybara said:

---

MasonStorm said:

---

AI can remove or greatly reduce the cost of entry to the industry currently dominated by the wealthy or dna legacy.

There is a large amount of creative talent that can't afford or doesn't have the connections to pursue the entertainment industry that will now flood the market.

Fantastic creativity won't be as scarce of a commodity as it is now.

This is the industry's iTunes moment when combined with YT/content creators.


https://www.vulture.com/article/hollywood-nepotism-babies-list-taxonomy.html

---

Music streaming and the explosion of content creators has lowered the income available to these people by a good amount. I mean if you want to make money on yt or tiktok or ig, then you better be ad-friendly because that's your only hope of even earning a living wage.

How do you expect those locked out currently to make money if these tools and future ones really are good enough to best or match the good/great stuff today? Creating a good movie or show wouldn't mean anything anymore. Just more content to be forgotten as nearly everyone's tastes erode.

---

That just isn't true. The amount of people making money in music has exploded since Spotify and other streaming services. The amount of people making Paul McCartney money has probably gone down a little bit. The money the producers and distributors were making has cratered. That's exactly what will happen with this technology in the film industry too.

The movie theatre distribution model is similar to the CD distribution model, and that will change. Streaming services are already kicking movie theaters in the ass, AI will make that worse. But you will still have big blockbusters available in theaters for those that desire the experience. You will just pay a lot more.

---

Making money? What amount of money? Anything close to recouping the time costs? Yeah someone like Drake does better than he would've in any other era. The sensible young indie musicians need an active bandcamp with good promotion. Not the streamers.

And the movie/film streamers do an excellent job of providing things for people to have on in the background as they scroll their phones. But sometimes I really think David Chase and Peter Biskind are right: the quality is dropping and Succession might've been the last excellent and ambitious series for a while. If this is indeed true, I'd personally place more blame on worsening education and the hyperreality of life today that makes stringing together good longform narratives set in the present a daunting task.

And btw I maintain an open mind wrt to AI/ML in the arts and entertainment. It's just that the stuff I've seen utilize it - -mostly art installations, but some places on social media. Kanye's latest videos too - - has been just kind of bad. Idk, new media is supposed to be awe-inspiring, or surprising at the very least. I will say that Harmony Korine's latest movie, while not good, was incredibly interesting to look at, and he utilized something in house. But you get the feeling that sort of stuff will mostly be used in gaming. Who knows though.

---

They make more money than they would have if streaming wasn't a thing. Before streaming, indie was a small genre of people fighting to get radio time. The only people really making a living at it were the ones who could get record deals. Now some of the biggest artists in the world are independent. You don't need a record deal now to have a successful career in music, you just need a fanbase that will come see you tour.

---

Right, the question is what does building a fan base (which doesn't have to be large) look like in this era of absolute hell for indie venues? Social media is rarely a reliable avenue. Way too much competition between new and old stuff for that.

And I'm not complaining about there being no good young musicians btw. They aren't too hard to find if you're either in the right place or just have a curious mind. It's just that we're increasingly seeing this become mostly a hobby or goal for upper middle and upper class kids. Which you know they shouldn't feel guilt over having an easier go of things. But you necessarily give up those like Bowie and Kanye and many others from becoming huge stars, or just stars at all.

aTmAg said:

---

Capybara said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Capybara said:

---

This already exists with social media though. And it's arguably more of a lie than Hollywood ever has been. How do you make a return without being an ad vehicle?

---

What exists today is the ability to make vlogs and short skits in your house to post online. What doesn't exist yet is for average Joe's to make videos, shows, movies that look like they were filmed with million dollar cameras on million dollar sets, with professional soundtracks, a gazillion extras, costumes, props, and all of that. For damn cheap. That is coming.

---

But what's the point if way more people can make good stuff? You'll have to do it on the side because of how little money will be at stake. Which lots of people are willing to do, but time is finite.

---

It will be like every other industry. The demand curve would stay the same, but the supply curve would shift way down. Prices would go down (for producers and viewers alike) and the quantity would go up. But there is a point at which it's not profitable and that's who won't bother. What excites me is that producers would no longer have to mitigate risk by making sequels and remakes, but could now produce more original stories.

Quote:

---

And I think you're completely wrong wrt to soundtracks. Part of the reason why something like tiktok is so huge is that we don't have public privacy laws (at least that I'm aware of) so you can just go anywhere and film something with unwilling people and whatever sounds or music is in the background. It's exploitative, but there's always money to be had in exploitation.

---

I don't understand this part. What does "wrt" mean? I was saying that if AI can make video, then certainly it can make music. Just say something "make a dark symphonic theme in a genre that combines Hans Zimmer and Ted Williams". Then say "make the beginning softer, but add more trombone". And so on.

Quote:

---

When you envision any sort of service (that's open sourced if average joes are going to use it) with whichever/whatever soundtracks and extras and costumes and props at your disposal that looks professionally shot, where's the money to be had? You need some sort of service that integrates ads, or one that is free or low cost to use for at least a few years before they crave returns. And then you'd just have an arguably worse version of what we have today, which is an increasingly antisocial non-live entertainment environment. It'd just be Brave New World. Not Shangri La.

---

It would be just like now, but with more content. Netflix would buy some, Hulu would buy others, some studios would buy some for theaters, etc. Prices would come down because costs would be way down. It would be like how Ford made a crap ton of money by making cars way cheaper and making it up on volume.

---

Okay, so quantity goes up and price goes down. But time is constant. People only have so many hours to engage with something, so I think we'd be collectively giving up on longform stuff aside from blockbusters and their equivalents on tv. (Not to mention how low attention spans already are for younger people especially. Who in the hell is going to watch all of this easy to make indie content, even it's well produced?) And this doesn't even take into account that people like to talk about entertainment, or art. So what happens when things expedite and everyone has their own content or things they've seen or engaged with in common with just a few others? Well I think what'd you see is even lower serendipity, which would really suck. Predictability might be comforting for some (I'd imagine many on here), but personally I think that's awful. Maybe this is just an age thing though.

And I'm on mobile so I'm not going to quote individual parts of this. Wrt means with respect to. And that basically already exists, but people don't really use it like that. I guess you could, but that's not really how musicians or composers think. At least the few I know decently well.

And I don't think the Ford analogy makes sense at all. I mean you also have to remember lots of filmmakers love cameras. You'd need an epistemological camera, as I've mentioned before, for them to abandon them. Them, meaning those with an artist or filmmaker's temperament. Which causes them to want to create in the first place. It's more or less a religious impulse, not a rational one. (Not a critique of religion, just an observation.) What you're describing doesn't fit that. It sounds more like slipshod or haphazard game development.

And I know I'm all over the place here, but it's probably good to consider there are some (albeit lightly studied) interesting connections between narcissistic behavior irl and those with gaming as a primary hobby. Which I think makes sense because it's active. You control the character and the narrative. At least you think you do. With this new film environment you have in mind, who are the people making the films? Average joes? Not at all narcissistic? That's a bad sign if so because nearly all great artists, or even good ones, fundamentally want to stand out. To be extolled. Not just create competent works. Which is partly why it's generally a bad idea to meet your favorite artists, but I digress.

There are very few late bloomer artists. Should be able to see their talent by 12 or 13, but typically earlier. Anyone who's good or great today isn't being held back by current technologies. Just broader societal structures, or personal situations, which are of course always influenced by these structures. And I'm all for technological innovation. But personally I see little innovation here. Just increased efficiency.

Final digression, but someone like Peter Thiel is right in saying material innovations are always more important than immaterial ones. Atoms over bits. And you can point to new chip technologies, but again I just see increased efficiency. I think you'd need to crack quantum computing to really realize these promised innovations. But that's just my opinion.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Your post just isn't reality. It's never been easier to make money as an independent artist than it currently is and that is directly because of social media.

---

Again, "make money". How much of it? How much? And independent artist has a gigantic range. Massive, really. Just doesn't mean anything as a term anymore.

And yes, of course you can build a following on social media. I've seen it happen live. But it has psychic costs, whether it's on your music or even your life. Not music, but there's a not insignificant number of suicides by YouTubers that came about because of how badly they were lied to. And so few people know about this, partly because the few people who have tried to write about it (one whom I know) have become badly depressed in the process.

Having that artistic temperament and then being stuck in the liminal space between fallow fields and lush ones is absolute hell on people, especially when they slowly merge with the digital world before they know it. And I know I sound unhinged, but I've personally seen this happen, so I don't care.

I'm sure many roll their eyes or dismiss my concerns about the increased digitization of life. Which I get, because it hasn't had all that much impact on how "normal" people move through life. (And I'd say I'm mostly in this bucket irl, but I like hanging around with artists.) But man has it wrecked the arts among young people. The "real" arts, "real" stuff, as TCTTS has dichotomized.

TCTTS said:

---

But will people KEEP showing up for those kinds of movies, after the sheen wears off? When there are no human beings on the other end, actually connected to/giving us the art? When there are no more stars promoting the movies, no more writers who dreamed up characters and worlds and from a specific point of view, no more director whom audiences are fans of? When it's JUST a single, soulless product, with no awe attached to it, where we wonder "How the hell did they pull that off?"

---

I have no idea. But people are continually entertained by things that require less and less original thought on YouTube and tiktok and the like so it certainly seems possible. I never thought I'd live to see a day where people preferred their news fast and wildly inaccurate over researched and the next day, but here we are. The consuming audience is rapidly changing. Neither of us is in position to know what today's 20 year old wants from their movies after growing up entirely on Internet culture.

There are already untold hours of stories out there in books. I don't think AI is far from being fed a book and making a movie in hours. Sanderson's stuff alone could fill hundreds of hours.

KidDoc said:

---

There are already untold hours of stories out there in books. I don't think AI is far from being fed a book and making a movie in hours. Sanderson's stuff alone could fill hundreds of hours.

---

Maybe it'll be like books on tape, you could read the book, listen to the book, or watch the book (AI). Interesting. As long as it helps reduce Hollywood I'm all for it…

Thousands of people losing their livelihood to a machine is not a good thing.

Learn to code…

Edit: Thousands of Hollyweirds losing their jobs is different than normal people losing their jobs. Hollywood influences need to be reduced from our society, so thousands of them losing their jobs is a step in the right direction…

My mistake for responding to you.

This is his schtick. He's literally playing a character (one he once admitted to in a DM), trying to get a rise out of everyone, for some sad, pathetic reason. Just ignore him and one of these days he'll finally go away.

Why?

Why don't you wanna have a discussion? Why do you have to pretend like you're better than and insult other posters instead of engaging in discussion?

TCTTS said:

---

This is his schtick. He's literally playing a character (one he once admitted to in a DM), trying to get a rise out of everyone, for some sad, pathetic reason. Just ignore him and one of these days he'll finally go away.

---

You're a liar, but if you keep saying the lie some people will believe you.

You're a liar.

Edit: You're a great poster, you bring so much to the board, but you have one glaring flaw: you're thin skinned, find insults in nothing, and can't engage in a discussion without acting like a child.

I forgive a lot of it because I know you work in the industry, and that shapes your entire perception, which makes you completely out of touch with normalcy.

Please stop slandering me, please stop acting like you're always some type of victim, please just engage in discussions without going overboard and getting twisted out of shape.

This thread is a discussion about AI and the entertainment industry. I'm stating my opinion that I think pretty much anything to reduce Hollywood influence in our society is a good thing, and the dude that works in Hollywood calls me a troll :/

Hopefully this is just like the fad of 3D

aggiephoenix02 said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

This is his schtick. He's literally playing a character (one he once admitted to in a DM), trying to get a rise out of everyone, for some sad, pathetic reason. Just ignore him and one of these days he'll finally go away.

---

You're a liar, but if you keep saying the lie some people will believe you.

You're a liar.

Edit: You're a great poster, you bring so much to the board, but you have one glaring flaw: you're thin skinned, find insults in nothing, and can't engage in a discussion without acting like a child.

I forgive a lot of it because I know you work in the industry, and that shapes your entire perception, which makes you completely out of touch with normalcy.

Please stop slandering me, please stop acting like you're always some type of victim, please just engage in discussions without going overboard and getting twisted out of shape.

---

There are two options here…

1) You DMed me a year or so ago - in the middle of doing your now familiar schtick, during a conversation we were both participating in, annoying people like you've come to do - and told me to just go with it/play along, that you like getting a rise out of people, playing a character, etc. I said fine, whatever, and may have even given you a "haha ok," figuring it was a one-time bit, and that was that. But then you kept doing it, in thread after thread, day after day, and it simply got annoying, to the point where I finally said something.

- or -

2) I've randomly decided to lie about the above, even though it benefits me in no tangible way, and you *really* are someone who does nothing but poke, prod, derail, instigate, and say weird, unhinged sh*t. In other words, this is your true self.

No matter how you slice it, you don't come out looking great.

Not to mention, I've found that the posters who give me the most crap on this board, are always dogging on my profession, and constantly wishing for the downfall of Hollywood, are the very ones who then turn around and whine about me being "thin skinned" when I respond in any way. An act that is the very definition of gaslighting, and only further speaks to either the character you told me you're playing, or your character in general, in how you treat/interact with people.

Again, you lose either way.

Murder Hornet said:

---

Hopefully this is just like the fad of 3D

---

I'm afraid it won't be, but hopefully we can at least utilize it better. If anything, at least we won't have to wear those ridiculous glasses.

I got a rare opportunity to ask OpenAI's video generation model Sora for some videos this week! I had 3 prompts. Here's the videos with my prompts and what I learned 🧵

— Marques Brownlee (@MKBHD) February 29, 2024

Prompt 1: A medium sized friendly looking dog walks through an industrial parking lot. The environment is foggy and cloudy. Shot on 35mm film, vivid colors. pic.twitter.com/gs4Mi3idZT

— Marques Brownlee (@MKBHD) February 29, 2024

Capybara said:

---

Okay, so quantity goes up and price goes down. But time is constant. People only have so many hours to engage with something, so I think we'd be collectively giving up on longform stuff aside from blockbusters and their equivalents on tv. (Not to mention how low attention spans already are for younger people especially. Who in the hell is going to watch all of this easy to make indie content, even it's well produced?) And this doesn't even take into account that people like to talk about entertainment, or art. So what happens when things expedite and everyone has their own content or things they've seen or engaged with in common with just a few others? Well I think what'd you see is even lower serendipity, which would really suck. Predictability might be comforting for some (I'd imagine many on here), but personally I think that's awful. Maybe this is just an age thing though.

---

I'm not sure how old you are, but when I was younger I watched EVERYTHING. I would have aced that "FRAMED - the daily movie game" thread every time. Then I had kids and I basically watched nothing (but whatever they had on TV). I would watch blockbuster movies only when they made it to cable and stuff like that. Now my kids are out of the house and I still don't watch anything. I watch MAYBE 1 hour of TV per day and one or 2 movies per year (like Top Gun). I have a lot of untapped capacity. If a bunch of content hit the streams that were in my wheelhouse, then I would watch a lot more. There are a lot of people like me.

Quote:

---

And I'm on mobile so I'm not going to quote individual parts of this. Wrt means with respect to. And that basically already exists, but people don't really use it like that. I guess you could, but that's not really how musicians or composers think. At least the few I know decently well.

---

My point was that you won't need to be a musician or composer to create music anymore. That a person like me, who can't play any instrument and cannot read music, would suddenly be able to make a good movie score.

Quote:

---

And I don't think the Ford analogy makes sense at all. I mean you also have to remember lots of filmmakers love cameras. You'd need an epistemological camera, as I've mentioned before, for them to abandon them. Them, meaning those with an artist or filmmaker's temperament. Which causes them to want to create in the first place. It's more or less a religious impulse, not a rational one. (Not a critique of religion, just an observation.) What you're describing doesn't fit that. It sounds more like slipshod or haphazard game development.

---

These types of people will continue to use cameras. Just like a lot of people refused to buy cars and continued to ride horses the rest of their life. But now these filmmakers will be competing against "non-religious" filmmakers who exclusively use AI to make their content. I think legacy film makers will have to focus only on blockbusters (that are basically guaranteed), and all the rest of the content would be AI generated (and probably some blockbusters too).

Quote:

---

There are very few late bloomer artists. Should be able to see their talent by 12 or 13, but typically earlier. Anyone who's good or great today isn't being held back by current technologies. Just broader societal structures, or personal situations, which are of course always influenced by these structures. And I'm all for technological innovation. But personally I see little innovation here. Just increased efficiency.

---

I disagree. There are MANY stories of script writers who were basically starving and got a lucky break and met or impressed the right person. Making movies is so expensive nowadays, that the chances of that happening are now more and more remote. Producers need a slam dunk. They can't take chances on Rocky (the first one) anymore. The increased efficiency will enable more diamonds in the rough to show themselves.

Quote:

---

Final digression, but someone like Peter Thiel is right in saying material innovations are always more important than immaterial ones. Atoms over bits. And you can point to new chip technologies, but again I just see increased efficiency. I think you'd need to crack quantum computing to really realize these promised innovations. But that's just my opinion.

---

I disagree with Peter Thiel. The invention of the computer and the plethora of software on top has VASTLY improved our lives.

I agree, but am reminded of this classic dad joke.

Quote:

---

One day a fisherman was lying on a beautiful beach, with his fishing pole propped up in the sand and his solitary line cast out into the sparkling blue surf. He was enjoying the warmth of the afternoon sun and the prospect of catching a fish.

About that time, a businessman came walking down the beach, trying to relieve some of the stress of his workday. He noticed the fisherman sitting on the beach and decided to find out why this fisherman was fishing instead of working harder to make a living for himself and his family. "You aren't going to catch many fish that way," said the businessman to the fisherman.

"You should be working rather than lying on the beach!"

The fisherman looked up at the businessman, smiled and replied, "And what will my reward be?"

"Well, you can get bigger nets and catch more fish!" was the businessman's answer. "And then what will my reward be?" asked the fisherman, still smiling. The businessman replied, "You will make money and you'll be able to buy a boat, which will then result in larger catches of fish!"

"And then what will my reward be?" asked the fisherman again.

The businessman was beginning to get a little irritated with the fisherman's questions. "You can buy a bigger boat, and hire some people to work for you!" he said.

"And then what will my reward be?" repeated the fisherman.

The businessman was getting angry. "Don't you understand? You can build up a fleet of fishing boats, sail all over the world, and let all your employees catch fish for you!"

Once again the fisherman asked, "And then what will my reward be?"

The businessman was red with rage and shouted at the fisherman, "Don't you understand that you can become so rich that you will never have to work for your living again! You can spend all the rest of your days sitting on this beach, looking at the sunset. You won't have a care in the world!"

The fisherman, still smiling, looked up and said, "And what do you think I'm doing right now?"

---

the investing guys at "Dumb Money" last night created an entire video about this subject.

they think it's going to replace much of what Hollywood does, and the overall entertainment industry as now every tik toker and youtuber can create their own movies

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

I agree, but am reminded of this classic dad joke.

Quote:

---

One day a fisherman was lying on a beautiful beach, with his fishing pole propped up in the sand and his solitary line cast out into the sparkling blue surf. He was enjoying the warmth of the afternoon sun and the prospect of catching a fish.

About that time, a businessman came walking down the beach, trying to relieve some of the stress of his workday. He noticed the fisherman sitting on the beach and decided to find out why this fisherman was fishing instead of working harder to make a living for himself and his family. "You aren't going to catch many fish that way," said the businessman to the fisherman.

"You should be working rather than lying on the beach!"

The fisherman looked up at the businessman, smiled and replied, "And what will my reward be?"

"Well, you can get bigger nets and catch more fish!" was the businessman's answer. "And then what will my reward be?" asked the fisherman, still smiling. The businessman replied, "You will make money and you'll be able to buy a boat, which will then result in larger catches of fish!"

"And then what will my reward be?" asked the fisherman again.

The businessman was beginning to get a little irritated with the fisherman's questions. "You can buy a bigger boat, and hire some people to work for you!" he said.

"And then what will my reward be?" repeated the fisherman.

The businessman was getting angry. "Don't you understand? You can build up a fleet of fishing boats, sail all over the world, and let all your employees catch fish for you!"

Once again the fisherman asked, "And then what will my reward be?"

The businessman was red with rage and shouted at the fisherman, "Don't you understand that you can become so rich that you will never have to work for your living again! You can spend all the rest of your days sitting on this beach, looking at the sunset. You won't have a care in the world!"

The fisherman, still smiling, looked up and said, "And what do you think I'm doing right now?"

---

---

Of course, the fisherman then had to go work a crappy job M-F to afford housing and other basic things, while the rich businessman could retire and spend 24/7 on whatever beach of the world he wanted for the rest of his life. So there's that.

When I say "average Joe's" I don't mean "average in talent" I mean people outside of Hollywood (and plenty of them have talent).

aTmAg said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

I agree, but am reminded of this classic dad joke.

Quote:

---

One day a fisherman was lying on a beautiful beach, with his fishing pole propped up in the sand and his solitary line cast out into the sparkling blue surf. He was enjoying the warmth of the afternoon sun and the prospect of catching a fish.

About that time, a businessman came walking down the beach, trying to relieve some of the stress of his workday. He noticed the fisherman sitting on the beach and decided to find out why this fisherman was fishing instead of working harder to make a living for himself and his family. "You aren't going to catch many fish that way," said the businessman to the fisherman.

"You should be working rather than lying on the beach!"

The fisherman looked up at the businessman, smiled and replied, "And what will my reward be?"

"Well, you can get bigger nets and catch more fish!" was the businessman's answer. "And then what will my reward be?" asked the fisherman, still smiling. The businessman replied, "You will make money and you'll be able to buy a boat, which will then result in larger catches of fish!"

"And then what will my reward be?" asked the fisherman again.

The businessman was beginning to get a little irritated with the fisherman's questions. "You can buy a bigger boat, and hire some people to work for you!" he said.

"And then what will my reward be?" repeated the fisherman.

The businessman was getting angry. "Don't you understand? You can build up a fleet of fishing boats, sail all over the world, and let all your employees catch fish for you!"

Once again the fisherman asked, "And then what will my reward be?"

The businessman was red with rage and shouted at the fisherman, "Don't you understand that you can become so rich that you will never have to work for your living again! You can spend all the rest of your days sitting on this beach, looking at the sunset. You won't have a care in the world!"

The fisherman, still smiling, looked up and said, "And what do you think I'm doing right now?"

---

---

Of course, the fisherman then had to go work a crappy job M-F to afford housing and other basic things, while the rich businessman could retire and spend 24/7 on whatever beach of the world he wanted for the rest of his life. So there's that.

---

You missed the whole story. The fisherman was already doing his "9-5" job, and content.

taxpreparer said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

I agree, but am reminded of this classic dad joke.

Quote:

---

One day a fisherman was lying on a beautiful beach, with his fishing pole propped up in the sand and his solitary line cast out into the sparkling blue surf. He was enjoying the warmth of the afternoon sun and the prospect of catching a fish.

About that time, a businessman came walking down the beach, trying to relieve some of the stress of his workday. He noticed the fisherman sitting on the beach and decided to find out why this fisherman was fishing instead of working harder to make a living for himself and his family. "You aren't going to catch many fish that way," said the businessman to the fisherman.

"You should be working rather than lying on the beach!"

The fisherman looked up at the businessman, smiled and replied, "And what will my reward be?"

"Well, you can get bigger nets and catch more fish!" was the businessman's answer. "And then what will my reward be?" asked the fisherman, still smiling. The businessman replied, "You will make money and you'll be able to buy a boat, which will then result in larger catches of fish!"

"And then what will my reward be?" asked the fisherman again.

The businessman was beginning to get a little irritated with the fisherman's questions. "You can buy a bigger boat, and hire some people to work for you!" he said.

"And then what will my reward be?" repeated the fisherman.

The businessman was getting angry. "Don't you understand? You can build up a fleet of fishing boats, sail all over the world, and let all your employees catch fish for you!"

Once again the fisherman asked, "And then what will my reward be?"

The businessman was red with rage and shouted at the fisherman, "Don't you understand that you can become so rich that you will never have to work for your living again! You can spend all the rest of your days sitting on this beach, looking at the sunset. You won't have a care in the world!"

The fisherman, still smiling, looked up and said, "And what do you think I'm doing right now?"

---

---

Of course, the fisherman then had to go work a crappy job M-F to afford housing and other basic things, while the rich businessman could retire and spend 24/7 on whatever beach of the world he wanted for the rest of his life. So there's that.

---

You missed the whole story. The fisherman was already doing his "9-5" job, and content.

---

That's not the whole story. He'd be content for a few weeks, and would then die of exposure (or thirst).