Jump to content

Talk:List of highest-grossing films: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:List of highest-grossing films/Archive 19) (bot
Line 79: Line 79:
I don't know exactly how much all the Godzilla films have grossed, but surely, if you combine both Legendary's and Toho's films, they should have made stacks of money. I could be wrong though [[Special:Contributions/2A02:C7C:A4B6:1A00:A7D4:A31A:B9AE:EBC6|2A02:C7C:A4B6:1A00:A7D4:A31A:B9AE:EBC6]] ([[User talk:2A02:C7C:A4B6:1A00:A7D4:A31A:B9AE:EBC6|talk]]) 19:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't know exactly how much all the Godzilla films have grossed, but surely, if you combine both Legendary's and Toho's films, they should have made stacks of money. I could be wrong though [[Special:Contributions/2A02:C7C:A4B6:1A00:A7D4:A31A:B9AE:EBC6|2A02:C7C:A4B6:1A00:A7D4:A31A:B9AE:EBC6]] ([[User talk:2A02:C7C:A4B6:1A00:A7D4:A31A:B9AE:EBC6|talk]]) 19:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
:Godzilla was in the list with almost [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_highest-grossing_films&oldid=1111697580#Highest-grossing_franchises_and_film_series $2.6 billion total], but now it is not enough to be in the top 20--[[User:Luke Stark 96|Luke Stark 96]] ([[User talk:Luke Stark 96|talk]]) 19:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
:Godzilla was in the list with almost [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_highest-grossing_films&oldid=1111697580#Highest-grossing_franchises_and_film_series $2.6 billion total], but now it is not enough to be in the top 20--[[User:Luke Stark 96|Luke Stark 96]] ([[User talk:Luke Stark 96|talk]]) 19:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

== Bambi adjusted for inflation? ==

Should ''[[Bambi]]'' be in the top 10 adjusted for inflation list? The Numbers claims that the gross of the ''Bambi'' "franchise" (including ''[[Bambi II]]'') adjusted for inflation is
$3,105,415,294, and even if ''Bambi II'' wasn't included, the number would still be enough to fall around the middle of the list in this article. See this page: https://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchises [[User:Alphius|Alphius]] ([[User talk:Alphius|talk]]) 06:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:51, 23 October 2023

Featured listList of highest-grossing films is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on February 25, 2013.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 6, 2008Articles for deletionKept
February 28, 2012Featured list candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured list


Double Counting

I was looking into the issue with Box Office Mojo's double counting, and I have some doubts and questions about it. Do we know why it is happening? There's a list of issues in the archive at Talk:List of highest-grossing films/Archive 19#Issues table listing the issues, but that's different from the one at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Film finance task force. Also, what do "new issues", "old issues", "old + new issues" and "correct" in the first table mean? And what do the question marks in the project page represent? And in cases of double counting, how are they fixed on the page? - Rajan51 (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "issues table" in only for the top 50 highest-grossing films, the other list is for every issues we found, and in cases of double counting we use an archived version of the source with the correct box office--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I was also looking into it further, and what I understood is that "old issue" refers to double counting and "new issue" refers to difference in the original release numbers between the figures in the "Original Release" and "All Releases" pages of BOM. Is that right? Other than that, what exactly do the question marks in the list at the WikiProject table mean? And if we are using archived versions in cases of double counting, are the grosses from the rereleases being included? -Rajan51 (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, "old issues" and "new issues" both means issues, we made that discussion on January 2023, the "old issues" are the issues before January (from the "beginning" to December 2022), and the "new issues" are the issues we found only on January 2023. The re-release are included, for example in the "Jurassic Park (1993)" gross the 2022 re-release is included--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thanks. What about the question marks in the table at the Wikiproject page? - Rajan51 (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because we have no idea where that grosses come from, they added to the total for no reason, I think the question marks have this meaning, like "where are this money from?" or "why they double counting?". We don't know why, they (Box Office Mojo) are aware of the problem but there are still so many issues....--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I know where some of the grosses are coming from. Box Office Mojo tracks the foreign grosses in local currencies and then converts them to USD every week, so the grosses in USD are subject to exchange rate fluctuations during the course of the run. This is why some movies end up with decreasing grosses in some countries (like F8 in Argentina or Infinity War in China). Now take Skyfall for example[1], where the double counting happens in Australia. Based on the gross from the original release and using the exchange rate at the time (roughly 1 USD = 1 AUD), the original gross is roughly A$50 million. The rerelease gross is then wrongly added to this total, and converted using the exchange rate at the time of rerelease (roughly 1USD = 1.5 AUD), which gives a gross of roughly US$33.9 million. This value is then listed as the rerelease gross instead of just the actual money it grossed during its rerelease. So in USD terms there is double counting, but the magnitude of error is not the same as the original gross. - Rajan51 (talk) 07:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The double counting doesn't come from exchange rates, otherwise worldwide totals would constantly oscillate. It comes from re-releases: some foreign distributors report the lifetime gross instead of just the reissue gross, which means the original release gets counted twice, hence "double counting". Betty Logan (talk) 08:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it comes from the rereleases only. I was explaining why some of the double counting numbers seem different from the original gross. Looks like I didn't phrase that properly at the beginning, my bad. As for the worldwide totals, they don't oscillate because BO Mojo only keeps updating the grosses in individual countries each week using the exchange rates. They seem to calculate international totals separately. - Rajan51 (talk) 08:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Box Office Mojo used to be the gold standard of box-office tracking, but it's total shite these days. I think it is so riddled with errors that its status as a reliable source is questionable, but we don't have many other options. The Numbers is also riddled with errors, and they are appear more random than Box Office Mojo's. It's a tragedy that IMDB bought it out. Betty Logan (talk) 00:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't think it's making money from users, because there doesn't seem to be any ads, and I doubt a lot of people pay for their subscription plan, so they don't care much about it. Besides, considering that Amazon is the one that owns it through IMDb, it probably exists just so that journalists can keep track of the box office and write reports that some movie broke some record, and they don't. And Amazon has not done a good job of maintaining sites they bought, so it's not surprising. But even then, things weren't bad before they overhauled the entire site. They kind of shot themselves in the foot with that one. And even now, the people at Box Office Mojo might tell us that they're aware of the issues and everything, but they won't do much because they don't really need to do anything. If they did, they would have already done it by now. I don't think they have enough people to do anything meaningful at this point. - Rajan51 (talk) 05:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 August 2023

In the "highest grossing franchise" section, please update the gross for Jurassic Park (film) to match what's in the main list, as a result of the 30th anniversary rerelease. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 09:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ben hur 1959

I was checking the top 10 biggest office adjusted to inflation table and i don't see ben hur 1959 on the table list. in the 1959 ben hur movie initial release was $145 million.i think ben hur should be on the table.because the Wikipedia article about ben hur said it is second biggest grossing of all time adjusted to inflation.may be i am wrong to suggest that if i am wrong you can correct me .if i am right then please suggest to people who edit this article to make some corrections — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel oppong Asare (talkcontribs) 07:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Ben-Hur article says nothing about it being the second-biggest grosser adjusted for inflation, only that it was the second highest-grossing film at the time. Guinness World Records either deliberately omitted from their list because it didn't make the cut, or they themselves didn't have sufficient information to corroborate its adjusted total, so either way it is not possible to incorporate it into the chart. Betty Logan (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Godzilla?

I don't know exactly how much all the Godzilla films have grossed, but surely, if you combine both Legendary's and Toho's films, they should have made stacks of money. I could be wrong though 2A02:C7C:A4B6:1A00:A7D4:A31A:B9AE:EBC6 (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Godzilla was in the list with almost $2.6 billion total, but now it is not enough to be in the top 20--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bambi adjusted for inflation?

Should Bambi be in the top 10 adjusted for inflation list? The Numbers claims that the gross of the Bambi "franchise" (including Bambi II) adjusted for inflation is $3,105,415,294, and even if Bambi II wasn't included, the number would still be enough to fall around the middle of the list in this article. See this page: https://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchises Alphius (talk) 06:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]