Can it be broad appeal if it has to exclude the entire straight male population and at least some women? Because obviously it will have to

Not all straight men are homophobes who won't see a movie just because it's about gay men. That was mostly true 20 - 30 years ago, much less so today. I'll probably go see it (though I probably would have 20 years ago, too).

... and they made the damn movie.

I saw "Making Love" (the movie with Harry Hamlin and Michael Ontkean as lovers with an onscreen love scene) in a conservative Midwestern town when it first came out in the very early '80s . When I left the theatre, I was right behind an elderly married couple. The husband turned to the wife and casually remarked, "That was different".

The funny thing about the kind of archaic thinking that straight men "naturally" shun all things gay is that you are much more likely to find it among gay men who don't have any straight male friends. Those of us who do, know better. Straight men who will be uninterested in this movie are much, much, much more likely to be so because it's a love story, not because it's a love story between two men.

Personally I find all the ferver of comparing "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" against "Brokeback Mountain" sort of weird, and the assumption that the two movies will have little audience crossover, although that may well be true.

But I grew up reading the Chronicles of Narnia, know them almost word-for-word; a friend of mine at Disney started telling me about some of the preproduction he was seeing over a year ago, and I've been excited about it ever since. I'm also gay and have been looking forward to seeing Brokeback Mountain since I first heard of it. I guess I don't fit their typical demographic charts, eh?

Still, as ridiculously self-evident as it is to "predict" LWW on over 3,000 screens will beat BBR on 5 screens, it's frustrating to know that my $10 to see LWW this weekend will be tallied in the "moral" right-wing's trumped up victory dance next week.

So the right-wing Christian groups, who in the past have helped generate ticket sales for movies they didn't approve of, have decided not to give Brokeback Mountain a hand up? No worries - I think the movie will succeed just fine on its own without them.

Here's an idea though: how's about everyone in the gay community and all of our heterosexual friends go see the movie twice to make up for the loss of ticket sales that the right-wing Christian boycotters would have generated. I'll even go three or four times if it'll help.

they are interested in women who like men. I defy you to find a straight man who would be interested, apart from wanting to please his girlfriend or as a political statement, in two guys getting it on. Why is it so inconcieveable that some men are as interested in gay sex as they would be interested in eating a rock to satisfy hunger.

djbollman - projecting your own hangups onto everyone else is a classic category error. I'm a straight man who is very comfortable with gay men and watching gay men, and will very likely see the movie. So much for 'excluding all straight men'.

I was very curious to see Lamb designate BBM as "technically" an independent movie. There are no "technical" parameters for what makes an independent film. Generally it means a film that is produced or primarily financed outside of the studio system (or a film that is produced on spec, so to speak, without a distributor or firm distribution platform already in place). It has nothing to do with a film's actual production budget, which is usually a non-disclosed (or distorted/disguised) figure.

BBM was co-produced by Focus Features (a "specialty" studio, but still a studio) and Paramount Pictures; it has a multi-million dollar marketing campaign behind it and had a distribution platform in place before they shot a single frame. Yes, it's a smaller studio film, but a studio film nonetheless. Don't mean to split hairs here, just want to point out that while Lamb suggests comparing BBM and Narnia is like comparing apples and oranges, it's more like comparing two different types of oranges. Believe me, Paramount will put BBM on 3,000 screens if the box office returns justify it.

It's possible to have total comfort with AND total lack of interest in something.

will probably be a hit in DVD and cable release - a lot of guys who may feel uncomfortable going to see this in public, might very well find interest in the privacy of their homes - much like they'd watch a romantic stinker like Serendipity or Captian Captain Corelli's Mandolin at home (for free), as opposed to spending the money and time in the theater. I would've never gone to see Sleepless in Seattle, but when it comes on I sometimes watch it. As to two men fucking on the range - it sounds more boring then controversial - a chick flick with dick...

If Sandy Dixon doesn't know any gay cowboys, she either doesn't get out much or she makes a determined effort to stay out of closets. As Bob Dylan would say, "You can't look at much, can you, Sandy?"

I am not going to go see a movie to see "two guys getting it on." But I will go to see a movie with an entertaining story. BBM looks like it will be very entertaining. It does not look like it will have members of the village people hanging from harnesses in the barn. It looks like it will tell the story of two people who fall in love. It will be a story about the human condition.

If two people can fall in love and share a relationship, more power to them no matter what their sexes are.

I'd like to see Sandy Dixon say "A cowboy who's lusting after his buddy isn't fit to wear cowboy boots" to some of the men down at the Rainbow Cattle Company here in Austin. If he actually had the balls to do it, he'd likely find one of those boots in his backside.