Who says "genuinely independent film makers" are "much more in tune with the general public's tastes"? It would seem that such film makers are more in tuned with the tastes of narrow demographic strata, not the general public.

Obviously that would be more of a legal challenge than a technological one, but there have been times I've wished I could tune in on a channel in another city, or just one that's not on my cable system. For one thing, there are two PBS affiliates serving Atlanta, but only one on this cable system -- and it's not the one that had "The Red Green Show."

Fun with Dick and Jane has made
Domestic: $101,713,243 77.9%
+ Overseas: $28,778,724 22.1%
= Worldwide: $130,491,967

with an estimated $15 million spent on marketing worldwide, for ballpark of $15 to 20 million in profit on an estimated $115 million investment.

Sorry James, but Tapscott's statement is a bit too simplistic, especially at this stage of the game for a drama such as "Brokeback".

Generally, dramas don't "break big" in their initial release. They ponder along for six months. A hit such as "Brokeback" will eventually match the numbers of a "Fun with Dick and Jane".

Case in point: "Brokeback" has been in release for 45 weeks. It has generated 42 million in box office returns. "Fun with Dick and Jane" has been in release for 33 weeks and has generated 101.7 million in bo revenue. But, that is not the entire story.

"Dick and Jane" has seen a 30% drop in bo in the past week, a trend which is expected to continue. It will not be in theaters by the end of the month, more or less. Further, it was in 2800 theaters and averaged only $2156 per screen. The returns for this movie were mostly based upon "early bounce". But, it has no "legs". It will continue its slow slide and disappear onto the shelves at Blockbuster where it will undoubtedly make more money.

Compare that to "Brokeback Mountain", (Which I have not seen yet.) which has a 35% INCREASE in bo the past week, is being viewed in less than half of the screens of "Dick and Jane", 1196, for an average of $6,548 per screen.

"Brokeback" has legs, it's audience is increasing, and at this rate, will likely double or triple its box office returns within the next six months or so.

Once the Oscar nominations come out, if it gets noms, which is most likely, it will then become a long term success, rather than a short term one such as "Dick and Jane".

Futher, "Brokeback" cost $14 million to produce, add another $5 to 10 in advertising costs, and it is still considered a profitable film, already doubling the invesetment with $42 million in box office.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=brokebackmountain.htm

Compare that to "Fun with Dick and Jane", which cost $100 million to produce, (not including ads) and as noted above, has made around $101 million so far in box office returns, which is around $1 million in profit, but assuming P and A expenses, "Dick and Jaen" is still likely operating at a loss.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=funwithdickandjane.htm

So, which is the more profitible film: "Brokeback Mountain or "Fun with Dick and Jane"?

Clearly "Brokeback". You can not simply look at overall returns as Tapscott has done.

Regarding "Syriana", with a production budget of 50,000,000, it has made $45 million in box office, and is expected to make the same amount when it is relaesed overseas.