James Joyner at Outside the Beltway makes the fatal mistake of
using Mark Tapscott as a factual source in order to get in a few anti-Hollywood points and call "Brokeback Mountain" a failure:
Mark Tapscott notes that, despite incredible publicity and critical acclaim, neither gay cowboy movie "Brokeback Mountain" nor George Clooney's ""Blood for Oil" did well at the box office. Indeed, the lousy remake of the lousy 1970s flick "Fun with Dick and Jane" swamped them both.
His entire argument in the ensuing post hinges upon the above statement, which implies that movies such as "Brokeback" are failures and an example that Hollywood doesn't know what people like.
Joyner drives this point home by again quoting Tapscott:
And how long before we see genuinely independent film makers who are much more in tune with the general public's tastes going around the existing distribution system by showing their products only on pay-per-view Internet sites?
Just think how much cheaper tickets would be and how much more convenient "going to the movies" would become with Internet-only distribution. And most important, can you imagine how much artistic creativity would be unleashed among movie makers by their being freed of Hollywood's conventions?
So, according to Tapscott and Joyner, since movies such as Brokeback Mountain are obvious failures at the box office, emerging venue technology will allow "genuinely independent film makers who are much more in tune with the general public's tastes" (filmmakers who don't make films like Brokeback Mountain) to be "unleashed" (freed from their Liberal task masters) from "Hollywood's conventions" (bias).
Tapscott also writes:
Notice, too, that George Clooney's "Blood for Oil" potboiler isn't exactly a gusher at the box office, either. So when do we see the critics and Hollywood trades admit that these propaganda pieces masquerading as movies appeal to extremely narrow slices of the movie market?
Except there is one problem with Tapscott's intial quote and the premise that Brokeback Mountain is a failure at the box office and thus an example of a movie that the American public doesn't want to see.
It's wrong.
Brokeback Mountain is a success by
every measure that Producers and investors use to determine such matters, that is: box office versus initial inventment. (Syriana has not yet broken a profit, but it's
current numbers indicate that it will definitely break even, and most likely make an estimated profit of $10 - $30 million once it moves to overseas and DVD markets. Not too shabby.)
At first glance at the box office numbers, sure, Brokeback Mountain has only made $53 million (worldwide) to Fun with Dick and Jane's $130 million worldwide. By Tapscott's logic (and by citing him, apparently Joyner's as well), Fun with Dick and Jane is clearly the more profitable film. But, looking at only box office returns to analyse a movies profitablility and its long term popularity is disingenous at best.
Here are the facts:
Brokeback Mountain:
Investment-
Budget: $14,000,000
+ Marketing: $15,000,000 (est)
= $30,000,000 (est)
Box Office Return-
Domestic: $42,380,000 79.8%
+ Overseas: $10,700,000 20.2%
= Worldwide: $53,080,000
$13,000,000 profit (est)
Fun with Dick and Jane:
Investment-
Budget: $100,000,000
+ Marketing: $15,000,000 (est)
= $115,000,000
Box Office Returns:
Domestic: $101,713,243 77.9%
+ Overseas: $28,778,724 22.1%
= Worldwide: $130,491,967
$130,000,000 returned on a $115,000,000 investment (est)
$15,000,000 profit (est)
Fun with Dick and Jane "swamped" Brokeback Mountain at the box office? Hardly.
One can move these numbers a bit, $10 million more or less, and it still comes out that Brokeback Mountain is as profitable a film as Fun with Dick and Jane.
And, as I noted in the
comments section of Joyner's blog, the long term prospects for both films support this as well. Brokeback Mountain has "legs". It will be around for a long time. It will be nominated for Oscars. Fun with Dick and Jane will be on the DVD shelves in a months time. Looking at box office numbers solely is deceptive and only tells a small part of the story.
Cross posted at