Dude, they said production costs were $440 million, not marketing and not post production. We can only go by what they say.
Reference,
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=waroftheworlds.htm
DUDE--the production costs were not $440 million.
Marketing is separate from the budget--BUT POST PRODUCTION IS NOT. If that won't sink in, I can't help you.
Marketing is SHARED--it differs from movie to movie based on the participants.
The budget was @$130:
http://www.waroftheworldsfilm.com/archive/news_29.shtml
WOTW Budget is 128 million, not 200 An article in The New York Times "Arts" section yesterday about the filming of "The War of the Worlds" in Bayonne, N.J., misstated the size of the film’s budget. "It is $128 million," a spokeswoman for Paramount Pictures said, "not $200 million." We shall see how much that budget changes in the next couple of months....I say the minimum would be $145 million. As a matter of fact, just a few weeks ago, Paramount supposedly said that their budget was $90 million.
End quote
You're not taking into account all kinds of income streams and participants, either, like distribution costs and cuts, the huge foreign market and its lower costs, etc.
Educate yourself about the industry before you go head to head with me, 'kay bud? ;) I don't mind discussion on the issue, but obstinate insistence that our political enemies haven't just made a big, fat hit is luncay.