Viewers avoiding Mideast war movies

The expertly made “The Hurt Locker” is the lowest-grossing best picture Oscar winner on record.

For every action film featuring elite warriors, such as “Zero Dark Thirty” ($132 million and a ton of painful controversy) or “Lone Survivor” (more than tripled its budget with nearly $150 million despite its horrific true story), there is a boatload of bombs — “War, Inc.,” “The Messenger,” “Stop-Loss,” “The Green Zone” ($11 million average).

Did “Sniper” make Iraq/Afghanistan movies with nuanced messages safe for audiences?

Or was its blend of heroics with a thoughtful examination of PTSD in what director Clint Eastwood characterized as an “antiwar” statement mistaken by filmgoers and pundits for a rah-rah recruitment poster?

Not that “Good Kill,” the Ethan Hawke movie critical of drone strikes, should be taken as the ideal test of this brave new world, but it’s the most recent U.S. film about our conflicts in the Middle East (starring humans, that is; the current “Max” features a military working dog).

The well-reviewed indie grossed $314,449 during its limited release.

Fantasy baseball players who picked up Giants infielders Brandon Crawford or Matt Duffy cheap have been pretty pleased.

[...] not as pleased as Fantasy Movie League players who rolled the dice on “Pitch Perfect 2.”

In the new variant on the movie-loving game, run by ESPN fantasy sports guru Matthew Berry, players own imaginary eight-screen cineplexes, trying to maximize receipts while navigating a salary cap.

The league generates weekly prices using an algorithm designed by “people involved in fantasy sports for a long time,” says Berry.

Speaking of box office expectations, “industry experts” have been pretty far off the mark this year.

Why should we care?

Because those predictions set expectations — falling short of them results in a solid bow for a low-budget comedy such as “Tammy” being labeled a “disappointment.”