I'd say without Iron Man 3 it would have made 10% more. Bloody Iron Man.
With a good marketing compaign it would have made $350m. Marketing campaign was the worst for a big studio movie since John Carter. They played the plot too close to their chests, hoping people would be intrigued by a mystery, but instead it failed to capture what the story was about or give the movie a hook.
It most certainly is a feature film. especially back in 1921.
Any film above 40 minutes is considered a feature film for awards and festival consideration.
Superhero movies are dull and beyond overstaturated now. I'm done with them. Same thing over and over. The tipping point was Amazing Spider-Man which proved the superhero genre is so bereffed of any new ideas that they were remaking a ten year old film.
I also fail to see what the fuss about Man of Steel is, I saw it when it was called Superman I and Superman II.
There's no way they spent much more than that. The marketing was lacklustre both in terms of quality and saturation. They didn't even have a Superbowl trailer, something that makde perfect sense considering its release date.
Universal effectively dumped this movie and banked almost solely Cruise's star power to sell it.
Marketing focused too much on mystery and Cruise wandering a desolate world, which I personally loved but the majority of today's audiences are morons who want non-stop CGI action. They should have cut an epic action trailer.
Still for this type of still it did well. Post-apoc movies traditionally haven't done gangbusters at the box office - there have been more disaster stories than success stories.
Depp is a draw in a certain kind of movie - family Disney films in which he plays a comic character.
Then he makes films like The Libertine and The Rum Diary and they die on their ass.
Adjusted for inflation The Firm made over $500m WW. Let's see Depp propel a movie like that to those sorts of figures.
Top Gun, Rain Man, War of the Worlds and the first two Mission: Impossible films all adjust to around $800m.