A. Yes, few directors get a cut, but very few. Speilberg, Lucus, a few huge names like that, and only them some of the time. Virtually nobody else gets a cut, and even if they do, they get a cut of the PROFITS, thus, if they are making any money, it's because the movie is already by definition a success.
B. Actors don't either. Again, sometimes, on rare occasions, people like Tom Cruise, get a cut, but that's rare, and it's non-existent in low-budget projects like Brokeback Mountain. Again, even if you were right, you still wouldn't be, because even in these cases, they get a cut of the profits, thus, as I said before, the movie must already be successful.
C. You are flat out wrong the theaters losing money. It doesn't work that way. For a film that's made that much money to lose money for the theaters, you would have to put it in more theaters then there are in the entire US. The per-screen average isn't LOTR, no doubt, but it's been above average for a film like this, especially for a low-budget film that shows in a lot of smaller theaters.
Yes, car companies make more money on SUV's then they do on hatchbacks, but that doesn't mean the hatchbacks aren't commercially successful.
You can make-believe all you want, but you are just making yourself look foolish. Disagree with it's social message all you want, but nobody who knows anything about the industry will say it wasn't a monetary success, because it was. As far as the margins go, it's a much, much, much bigger success then 'King Kong'.
Ticket sales is NOT where the theaters make their money. In fact, if they relied only on ticket sales many movies would be money losers. The concessions is where they rake it in. And they do!
So determining weather or not the individual theaters are making money is not as simple as ticket sales.