You understand incorrectly, then, but it's likely not your fault; you were probably misled badly. Counting international box office receipys, it made more money than it cost to produce. But theater owners get over half of the take; overseas distribution costs a lot more; and there's always marketing costs.
Rule of thumb is if the Domestic take is greater than the production costs plus marketing costs, the movie will have made money. On the one hand, the movie seems like it has done better in the foreign market than most movies grossing the same amount in the domestic market make. On the other hand, that rule of thumb also includes presumptions of VHS and DVD sales and rentals. Usually movies that crash so quickly underperform as VHS and DVDs.
Nonetheless, it probably eventually will make a prophet. The issue is whether it is worth the damage to the principals' careers. Howard and Hanks both rely on a very Mom-and-Apple-Audience which is most likely to think badly of them afterwards... like me.
"it probably will make a prophet."
Hows that for a Freudian slip, folks?
By the way:
1st weekend: $77 million
2nd weekend: $32 million
Who....? Howard and Hanks....? Never heard of them!
Dr. Freud, your slip is showing.
Shalom.
Nonetheless, it probably eventually will make a prophet.
That's punny! Intentional or not?
Now who is misleading. Theater owners do not get "half of the take." They are fortunate to make 5%. The "take" comes from concessions according to a former manager I know.
"Usually movies that crash so quickly underperform as VHS and DVDs."
Then Peter Jackson ought to be thanking his lucky stars cause KK made the most ever on a first day of sale on DVD.