On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 14:49:42 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:

It's the only measure - otherwise why do it?

From strictly a business perspective that is correct.

From the perspective of cinema as an art form, or as entertainment,
profit is irrelevant as a measure of quality, but without profit there
is little or no prospect of future funding.

On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 10:47:22 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Spielberg uses his earnings from his mass audience blockbusters to fund
his higher quality, more cerebral movies, the ones that do break-even or
better, and to fund the projects of other movie producers who are
producing art films of merit to fans of serious film.

Bottom line is that he has to make money somewhere.

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 10:41:20 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 14:49:42 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:

It's the only measure - otherwise why do it?

From strictly a business perspective that is correct.

From the perspective of cinema as an art form, or as entertainment,
profit is irrelevant as a measure of quality, but without profit there
is little or no prospect of future funding.

How do you pay for the "art"?

Taxpayers?