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.

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.

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...

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.

Self-appointed arbiters of morailty are rarely right, whether they are from a Red state or a Blue state or a state of confusion.

It's just so weird that only the American culture is so hung up about sex. Our nation was initially colonized by Puritans who seemed to have believed that touching anyone for any purpose other than to pay a debt was disgusting and immoral. As much as the Puritan founders have been diluted with immigrants from around the globe, that sense of "icky" still pervades our culture. I don't want to think that way, but it was inherent in how I was raised. As a kid, I even thought the Life magazine photo essay of a developing fetus (shot in situ with fiber optics) was "dirty." Not to mention all those National Geographic articles on tribal people from warm climates who wear very little clothing!

As a culture, America needs to get out more, meet new folks, get a life, get a sense of proportion.

I thought the western was inherently a homoerotic genre. This one's probably a bit more explicit, is all.