Talk:List of highest-grossing films

Lone survivor

Resolved

Lone survivor is the new highest grossing movie of 2014

At this moment PA grossed more than Lone Survivor and secondly, it was released limited on Dec 25th

Go Apes

Last year did you say Rickey, superman, Planet of the Apes have missing box offie detailed. With the new POTA out this year. It should put POTA in the top 25. With 2 series/franchies on the list. Will we make it a top 20 again.(hopefully not) Keep it at 25 (hopefully not) Make it top 30 (hopefully so)

Or something eles.

So far it has made outbout $0.9billion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.38.140 (talk) 10:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

As explained several times, there won't be a "top 30" for the forseeable future. Planet of the Apes will undoubtedly finish in the top 30 after the next film but we can't accurately rank it without the foreign grosses, and Alien is currently in there too which there are conflicting figures for. I think it's better to have an accurate short chart rather than an inaccurate long one. If the Apes franchise finishes in the top 25 we will cut the chart down to a top 20. If it finishes in the top 20, then we will have to change our approach to the chart since I don't want cut it down to less than 20 films. One possible solution would be to rank those over $2 billion and order the rest alphabetically. Betty Logan (talk) 09:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I really don't like the sound of that alphabetical thing Betty. In my opinion, 25 is the perfect number. I know that there were similar issues with the Superman series and we just decided to disregard the overseas grossing. Another solution is for everyone reading this just to not see the POTA movie until it comes to DVD :3 TBWarrior720 (talk) 05:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

We didn't disregard the overseas grosses for Superman though. The fact is, if we don't have the right figures the ranks are meaningless (and misleading) so it basically leaves us with two choices: we either have a safe cut-off point, or we shouldn't rank the table below a certain point if we can't be sure of the data. Assigning an incorrect rank isn't really an option for a table that is supposedly verifiable. Betty Logan (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The thing is we already don't know how much the POTA franchise has grossed. So for all we know, it already has grossed enough to be on the top 25. It may have already grossed 2 billion. What will we do if there are many more POTA films? What if it grows to be in the top 5 even without any of the missing overseas gross? Would we just cut the chart down to a top 4 or a top 3? TBWarrior720 (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The series certainly won't have made $2 billion. We are only missing the foreign grosses for the first five films, and they only made $80 million domestically between them. In the late 60s/early 70s it was unusual for big Hollywood films to make more in the foreign market than the domestic market, so we can probably set an upper bound on our estimate at $160 million (2x the domestic) which means the franchise almsot certainly hasn't earned more than $1.1 billion (and realistically is more likely to be in the 950-1050 range). If the series rises to #3 or #4 then obvioysly we won't be cutting the chart down to three franchises, but it would be incorrect to number them after that point if we aren't sure of the order. I guess there is a reason why The Numbers and Box Office Mojo don't rank their franchise tables... Betty Logan (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

amounted to go to top 25 as of $653,869,445 11/07/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.201.76.106 (talk) 12:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

averaging earth

Resolved

on the Highest-grossing franchises and film series

it says

"while the most consistent series is Peter Jackson's Middle-earth adaptation, with the first four films averaging at about $980 million and each film earning over $870 million"

with The Desolation of Smaug out of cinema scrong $953million

which means the Peter Jackson's Middle-earth adaptation averaging $985 million

The Franchise chart looks great

Definitely no need to make an apocalyptic change to it because of anything that might happen this weekend. TBWarrior720 (talk) 06:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the Apes franchise is going to penetrate the chart, or it may just about scrape in, but I have located most of the historic data. This 1973 source estimates the first four films grossed $150 million worldwide, so basically all we are missing is the foreign gross for the fifth film. That gives us a good approximate worldwide figure for the original series, so unless it finishes within a few million of another franchise there shouldn't be any problems ranking it. Obviously we still have the problem of the individual grosses within the franchise, but at least we now know whether the franchise should be on the chart or not. Betty Logan (talk) 11:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

YAY! You are the greatest Betty! TBWarrior720 (talk) 06:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Age of 2014

Resolved

Transformers AOE is top film of 2014 with $752,531,000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.200.206.45 (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

help

I wondering if you can help http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_animated_films to find the Highest grossing animated films of the years 1938, 1939, 1944, 1946, 1947, 1949, 1952, 1954, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1960, 1962, 1965, 1974 thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Cap

Resolved

The winter solider is out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Modifications

What's with the modifications on the franchise chart??

I don't know, the editor didn't provide an explanation for the alterations. However I have reverted the changes since they do not match up to the sources we use for the chart. Betty Logan (talk) 23:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Age of $1billon

Resolved

With t4 making $1billon+ it should say 19 not 18 films has made $1billon+ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

MCU

In the franchises list, shouldn't Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Galaxy have green shading? I'm not used to the template so I don't know how to add the shading in the back. Jonathansuh (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. Fixed. Removed Winter Soldier as movie currently playing. (BOM says it's done) Jonathansuh (talk) 23:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Only one film can be shaded (it is a constraint of the template), so if both films are still playing then we just use the symbol instead. BTW, According to BOM Winter Soldier is still in release: Winter Soldier. When it closes they issue a close date (as can be seen at Thor). Betty Logan (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to experiment with a hack to allow double highlighting. The table may go wonky over the next hour or so, so don't try "fixing" it. Betty Logan (talk) 00:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I've added a hack to the template which allows us to highlight up to two films. For instance, with Captain American and Guardians which are currently in positions 2 & 4, you can now highlight both with "release=2/4" in the template. Any more than two though and we basically have the same problem again, but it will be very easy now to add a third highlighter to the template if it is needed. Betty Logan (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

MCU and Iron Man subset

The Iron Man series is a subset of the MCU series. Why is the Iron Man series listed on the franchise table if it is already included in MCU. Zginder 2014-08-05T14:17:10Z

Because both the MCU and Iron Man are franchises (MCU was at one point a series, but has since been given the sufficient alterations to be both). The Iron Man franchise is entirely been made within the MCU, but other franchises such as Hulk would clearly not be covered by all the MCU films. Other franchises will no doubt pop up in a similar state if they make enough money (probably the Avengers next). This is what happens when multiple franchises are combined to form a larger one whilst still retaining their individual status. Ruffice98 (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Can we add some kind of note about this in the paragraph preceding this chart? Iron Man is listed twice out 25, which means whichever franchise that is ranked 26^th is kinda getting ripped off... - ^theWOLFchild 05:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hardly, it's a franchise in its own right and used as part of a bigger franchise. That's two franchises out of the 25. Would you be arguing the same if it was the Hulk that was listed? Ruffice98 (talk) 11:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Ruffice here. Iron Man isn't really a subset of the MCU (at least not in a pure sense), it's just that all the films that are in the Iron Man franchise are currently in the MCU so it has the appearance of being a subset. As Ruffice points out this wouldn't be the case with the Hulk franchise, nor the Spiderman franchise if that were ever to return to Marvel. Betty Logan (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Where things might become complicated is if something like Guardians of the Galaxy ever got to a position to enter the chart, as it doesn't to the best of our knowledge possess a separate franchise as many of the other properties do (Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, Captain America, The Avengers, Ant-Man, Doctor Strange etc. were all franchises in their own right before Marvel started reacquiring them). Although I'm sure alternate arguments could be produced to classify it as a "franchise" much like has recently seemingly happened to the MCU as a whole. Ruffice98 (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

not just anybody

I wondering if you can help http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_animated_films to find the Highest grossing animated films of the years 1938, 1939, 1944, 1946, 1947, 1949, 1952, 1954, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1960, 1962, 1965, 1974 thanks — — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Gulliver's Travels (1939 film) was the top animated 1939 film. It grossed $3.2 million domestically according to SFGate (although that is most likely gross rental rather than box-office gross). The article says it was the second feature-length animated film so that would mean there wasn't one in 1938. Betty Logan (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thaanks know what the Highest grossing animated films 1944, 1946, 1947, 1949, 1952, 1954, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1960, 1962, 1965, 1974 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 08:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Why not DC Cinematic Universe?

DC is just like Marvel, so shouldn't the Dark Knight Trilogy and Man of Steel be part of a DC Cinematic Universe, and their totals lumped together just like Marvel's movies are? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.26.33.225 (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The Dark Knight trilogy isn't set in the same universe as Man of Steel so cannot qualify as a series/franchise. To chart it must have at least two movies (at the moment this particular series only has one) and enough money to be in the top 25 franchises/series (and Man of Steel by itself is nearly a billion too short for this). Also I'd point out for your future reference that DC are not just like Marvel, their shared universe model will not be applied to every movie they release and it is as of the moment unnamed. Ruffice98 (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

frozen in time

Is frozen still in cinema ( it not on bom ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

From what I can see it is closed in the US (hence BOM) but is still open elsewhere. Not sure if there is a way of checking that, although there are very recent updates for Argentina and Japan. Ruffice98 (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

It still in japan I just check — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 11:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Apes

What happens if DOTPAdose not reach the top 25 highest grossing film series & franchies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The previous films have made just over $1 billion from my recollection, so we don't need to start number crunching until the new film hits $550-560 million. I think it's just going to get there though. Betty Logan (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo has a sum of $925 million worldwide for the previous films. That does not include international numbers for the original series from the 1970s, but they combined for $81.7 million domestically (which I am including) so the current total of $1,462.3 million is likely not far off. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 03:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Highest-grossing franchises and film series

Resolved

Why does the chart say there are 5 Transformers movies? There are only four so far... Magegg (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I take it you didn't look properly at the chart then, if you expand the entry, it lists all five films. You are just thinking of the modern live action films, there was an animated film that had a theatrical release (and as a result a box office taking) contributing towards the overall franchise total. Ruffice98 (talk) 14:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

BACK TO THe present

Resolved

I was looking @ BOM & I see in the uk there is a BACK TO THE FUTURE (2014 RE-ISSUE) & had gross $2,378,458 so far so should B2TF be updated http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/intl/?id=_fBACKTOTHEFUTURE02&country=UK&wk=2014W32&id=_fBACKTOTHEFUTURE02&p=.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 07:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Putting Avatar and Titanic on franchises list for comparison

I suggest that we put Avatar and Titanic as unnumbered entries on the franchise list for comparison between the individual films and the franchises. They are the only films that made enough to qualify and they both have no franchise. If Avatar 2 is released Avatar should be removed. Zginder 2014-08-15T18:13:04Z

Perhaps as a note in the preceding text, but not in the chart itself. It would just clutter things up too much. Ruffice98 (talk) 14:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree about not adding entries for Avatar and Titanic, since apart from not technically counting as a franchise/series the actual data is already provided in two of the charts above anyway. I have no objection to mentioning it in the chart introduction though. I will write it in, and if anyone objects they can always revert and join the discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

They should not be on the list (unless there a 2 films therte) on the Highest grossing animated franchises it dos not have the like of The Lion King , Finding Nemo , Up_(2009_film), etc

Back 2 the past

Resolved

I was looking on BOM & I saw that in 2010 B2TF was relases in 2010 and made $2,315,159 meaning that b2TF has made $385,802,660 & the trilogy $962,280,245 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The now Queen

Frozan has made $1,274,219,009 NOT $1,275,326,838 on BOM

That change was made by DCF94. I was puzzled by it as well, but he's right because if you look closely at the dates BOM have stopped tracking it despite the fact it is still playing in Japan and Spain so DCF has added on the extra amounts . I am going to make it a bit clearer in the source though. Betty Logan (talk) 09:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Cars solo

I was reeding & note something worng on the page it said

"Pixar's Cars earned $461 million in theatrical revenues[6]—which was only a modest hit by comparison to other Pixar films[7]—but generated global merchandise sales of over $8 billion in the five years after its 2006 release,[8][9] the most revenue ever generated by a franchise consisting of a single film.[10]"

But there 2 (inculeing spin offs 4) here the films and the box office gross as of 22/08/2014

[hide]Cars $1,334,987,398 4 $333,746,850 Cars 2 ($559,852,396)

[hide]Main series $1,021,835,545 2 $510,917,773 Cars 2 ($559,852,396)

1 Cars 2 (2011) $559,852,396

2 Cars (2006) $461,983,149

[hide]Planes series $313,151,853 2 $156,575,927 Planes ($219,788,712)

1 Planes (2013) $219,788,712

2 Fire & Rescue (2014) $93,363,141

Source

So should that be there.

According to the animated list the Cars series (if you include Planes too) has made $1.3 billion, so it doesn't qualify for our chart yet. Betty Logan (talk) 08:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh no you misses understood on this PAGE it make it out that their is one film because it says this quote "When a film is highly exploitable as a commercial property, its ancillary revenues from merchandising can dwarf its income from direct film sales.[5] Pixar's Cars earned $461 million in theatrical revenues[6]—which was only a modest hit by comparison to other Pixar films[7]—but generated global merchandise sales of over $8 billion in the five years after its 2006 release,[8][9] the most revenue ever generated by a franchise consisting of a single film.[10]" while their 4 not 1 so it dose not make sense. Can you make it make sense.

I think it generated $8 billion in merchandise sales before a second film in the franchise was released. That is why it says "in the five years after its 2006 release" . . . it is referring to the 5 years between the release of Cars and the released of Cars 2. During that five year period, the franchise only had a single film, since the second one wasn't released yet. Calathan (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The phrasing is a bit clunky. There is no need to mention the franchise really: there was just one film as of the start of 2011 and it generated merchandise sales valued at $8 billion. I'll remove it from the sentence since the aim is to inform not confuse. Betty Logan (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

when?

DOTPA is at $555millon how much more dose it need if it needs any

I have done a mock-up here: User:Betty Logan/Sandbox/templates/t3. It needs another $20 million or so. It will probably get there by this weekend. Betty Logan (talk) 09:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Tweaking Frozen formula

In the Frozen gross formula, I noticed that the Japanese total through 8/8/2014 is subtracted from the overall 8/8/2014 total, and then the Japanese current total is added back in. However, the old Japanese number being used is through the following weekend, 8/10/2014. Since the international box offices are updated each week, the 8/8/2014 total Box Office Mojo is showing would not include this week but instead would only run up through 8/2/2014, the previous weekend. So I've updated the formula to contain the correct former Japanese total. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 16:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

P.S. When I updated the formula I forgot to remove the separate August 8-10 weekend addition. However, Betty Logan caught it for me. (Spain is a similar position, finally closing this weekend, but the extra total there is less than a thousand US dollars so probably not worth worrying about.) Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 16:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I was pretty confused because I didn't see your message here until afterwards; basically the original formula added on the 8-10 weekend gross, subtracted the total as of August 10, and then added back on the full total. As you said, if the Japanese gross only runs up to the previous weekend then we shouldn't be adding on the following weekend's gross. I took a look at Spain too, but ultimately figured a thousand bucks isn't worth the hassle. Hopefully BOM will issue a final total in the next couple of weeks. Betty Logan (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion, and I'm glad we've got it understood now. On Box Office Mojo, most foreign markets (Japan included) are updated once a week, on Tuesdays US time usually, so the precise international totals for a film seem to jump each weekend in a staircase pattern. I hope we do get a final international total as well, to get a nice one-citation number. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 17:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Titanic for inflation

Titanic has gross $2,2756,800,000 for inflation not $2,413,800,000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It depends how the adjustment is done. There is no definitive method. Guinness have it at 2.4 billion in 2011, while The Telegraph have it at 2.9 billion in 2010. If you have a source giving another figure, then we can add it to the article. Betty Logan (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The Three Caballeros

Do you know who much The Three Caballeros has made? For List_of_highest-grossing_animated_films#High-grossing_animeted_films_by_year — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 07:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

All I can find is this TCM source which states it grossed $700,000 in Latin America. Betty Logan (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

7 days

Can you help compte this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_animated_films#High-grossing_animeted_films_by_year — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 10:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Tracking down old data (especially pre-1980s) is difficult. The best places to look are the TCM database and Variety archives. TCM has free access but unfortunately you will need a sub to search Variety, and I don't know anybody with one. Betty Logan (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Apes

DOTPOTA is at $611,185,000 how much has the franchise made ?l How much more dose it need to be in top 25? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It's probably just entered the questionable area. Might be time to trim it to a top 20 before problems do develop. Ruffice98 (talk) 10:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Betty Logan has a trial listing for the series at User:Betty Logan/Sandbox/templates/t3; I've tweaked the numbers on my own sandbox at User:Dralwik/sandbox#Apes and right now Apes is at $1.537 billion worldwide (missing foreign gross on the original series). Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 19:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

We have discussed extending it before but generally you start hitting dodgy data. The chart used to stand at 20 and I don't think we gained all that much from extending it apart from causing ourselves a few headaches i.e. Superman last year, Planet of the Apes this year. I will add in the Apes franchise anyway since it now makes the cut. Betty Logan (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

And I don't think cutting the list back to 20 would be such a good idea, not for long term anyway, cause a third reboot film will be released in July 2016 and possible putting the franchise in the Top 20

Yeah, it's only a matter of time before both Superman and POTA push up into the top 20 anyway so we may as well deal with the problem now. We are still missing the individual grosses for the original POTA series, but I managed to track down the "total" gross for the first four films (plus the domestic gross for the fifth film) so we can at least rank it. I reckon we are still low-balling the original series by $5-10 million, but it's close enough for our purposes. Betty Logan (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Glad to see the data has been found at any rate, are there any other potential future threats? Superman and Apes were always the two big ones, is there anything else lurking in the top 30 posing a threat? Ruffice98 (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

There are talks of doing a reboot of The Mummy franchise, in which case that would be a big problem as Stephen Sommers' The Mummy has a total of $1.415 billion box office and we still don't know the total box office of The Original Mummy series or Hammer Horror's series, although, at that time and after reading the reviews I don't think that the first 2 series were a big financial success at all, but the reboot series will definitely cause a problem for the list.

so wee staying top 25? is a top 30 possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The Alien franchise is a real mess and lurking in the top 30. There are different figures doing the rounds for the first two films, and then there are the Predator crossovers too. BOM includes the Predator crossovers in the Alien franchise, but I find that inconsistent with the MCU i.e. that would be like putting The Avengers in the Iron man franchise (which BOM don't do), unless you put all the Alien and Predator films together in an extended universe like the MCU. Betty Logan (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh well, at least any future film for the Alien franchise seems to be stuck in development hell at the moment. The Mummy franchise looks to be a problem in future though depending on how the reboot works out. If it performs like the last three it might be safe or it could pose problems. Assuming they make the date and there are no shock box office bombs from the super hero market, with Avengers 2 and Captain America 3 giving us two new potential entries (unless you want to track down the foreign grosses for the 1990 Captain America film which never got a domestic release, that's another problem waiting to happen) and Superman leaping up the chart, the problems come down to Apes (which will be getting another film a month later) and then Madagascar. Ruffice98 (talk) 00:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

What do you meanand by "then Madagascar. " we know the total! And beside TPOM Novemberfthis November. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.220.222 (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Then I must apologise, I thought it had already come out. In that case then the issue is with Star Trek. The problem is not with knowing what value that franchise has (as you said, we already know that), but rather the Mummy franchise potentially overtaking it (and thus getting into the top 25). It should be getting a movie in 2016 as well, but the intention seems to be to tie it in with the 50th anniversary, so it could be much later in that year than the Mummy reboot, it gives us a value to be cautious of at least (just over $500 million). Ruffice98 (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by star trek it on the list now just above Madagascar $1.9 billion each — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.220.222 (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I know it is on the list, we are talking about something that isn't on the list trying to get on it. The next Mummy film is out in June 2016, to figure out if it is a threat or not, we need to have a rough idea what the chart will look like at that point in time. From what we have at the moment, if these films meet their release dates there is a chance it could enter the charts (which is when the problems start). It all depends on when certain films are released (the next Star Trek film), how much a current film can earn (the current Planet of the Apes film) and how much money another film makes (the next Captain America film). At any rate there is a definite risk. At least there are two years for those first two matters to be resolved and for any potentially useful data to be found. Ruffice98 (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the earlier Mummy films topped $75 million in total, but that is based mainly on educated guesswork. Dracula and Frankenstein made about $3-5 million worldwide on original release, and those were Universal's most successful monster movies. It is highly improbable the original six Mummy films grossed more than $25 million in total. As for the Hammer films, again Dracula and Frankestein were their biggest films, grossing roughly $25 million between them; therefore the four Hammer Mummy films couldn't have made more than $50 million in total. I don't fancy our chances of tracking down the data, but provided the franchise doesn't come within $100 million of the chart it should be fine. Betty Logan (talk) 23:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

This really depends on a lot of factors, from what I can see when Planet of the Apes finishes up that will probably be the figure to watch. If Captain America 3 is an absolutely massive hit (bigger than its predecessor), this won't be an issue but it is something to watch out for. Terminator: Genesys might give us some room as well when it comes out next year. It's probably best to leave this until after Apes has closed so we have one less figure to speculate about. Ruffice98 (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Frozen beat Iron Man 3 question

Technically, the extra money Frozen made to surpass IM3, was made in 2014, and since it's considered highest grossing film of 2013, shouldn't money made in 2014 not count to yearly gross? Re-releases don't add to profit, why should this?

You make a valid point but sources generally don't rank films by money made in each year, they rank films by year of release. That's why our chart is labelled as "High-grossing films by year of release" rather than "High-grossing films of each year"; Iron Man 3 may be the highest-grossing film of 2013, but Frozen is the highest-grossing film to be released in 2013. If they published charts showing which films made the most money in each year then we would include them here, but unfortunately they don't. Betty Logan (talk) 00:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Frozen's gross in 2014 was still part of its original run, hence it is counted. If we only went by calendar gross (January 1 to December 31), then we'd have a skew towards spring/summer films and likely lose every US holiday season film due to the rather arbitrary day on which the year changes. Counting the entire first run gross permits an apples-to-apples comparison amongst films regardless of the season in which they are released. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 00:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Frozen total as of 8/31

Sorry for any mistakes, first time user. Checking MOJO I noticed Frozen is still playing in Brazil, Spain, and a new listing for Nigeria ($167,333 as of 8/17/14) in addition to Japan. New total may be $1,275,773,860 if I did the math correctly.--Telewski (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I added in the Nigerian gross since it is a substantial amount. For Spain and Brazil we are only talking a few hundred dollars in each region so I haven't bothered adding them in. Betty Logan (talk) 02:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The Nine Lives of Fritz the Cat

do you have box office gross of The Nine Lives of Fritz the Cat for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_animated_films#Highest_grossing_animated_films_by_year

According to this it bombed, so it probably wasn't much. Betty Logan (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2014

Well, I am very into movies, and some of the grosses on this page are wrong, so I would like to change them to the correct, and I will take it from BoxOfficeMojo.com

Editor49 (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Read your tag, you need to say exactly what you want to do. Much of the information is here in a certain way and there's a good reason for it, Box Office Mojo has several flaws with it so the data has been altered to suit other sources. Ruffice98 (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

To add to what Ruffice has said, all the data here is sourced, so that doesn't make it "wrong" it just makes it inconsistent with Box Office Mojo. We defer to Box Office Mojo mostly out of convenience, but when we don't we usually have good reasons for doing so. Betty Logan (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Batman Vs. Superman

As I was reading what franchise will we put Batman Vs Superman, I think under Superman, because Nolan will not be the director of this one, and Bale wont be Batman, although the director of "Man Of Steal" will direct this one, and Cavill will be in this one, as he was in "Man Of Steal" therefore, BVS should be put under Superman because of the Director, and Star of the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor49 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Probably both, because its a film with both franchises in the "lead role". Also, what on earth would Bale or Nolan have to do with anything? The older series and the Adam West film are listed as part of the franchise for Batman, and the older Superman series is also included in that franchise. Reboots don't result in exclusions. This is a matter to be resolved at the time though, not now. Ruffice98 (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I think there are probably two ways of approaching it. If this incarnation of Batman purely exists as a character in the Man of Steel "universe", then there is an argument for adding the film to the Superman franchise and not the Batman franchise (kind of like Black Widow in Iron Man and Captain America)—this would be my preference at this stage for the interim until we figure out exactly which direction Warner go in. If this version of Batman goes on to appear in other films without Superman, thus establishing a continuity outside of the Superman franchise, then we would most likely have a DCU entry along the lines of the MCU. I am sure there will be a big discussion about this next spring though. Betty Logan (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Well it isn't out until March 2016 now, so hopefully by that point their intentions will be a bit clearer. Some clarification of those plans through to 2020 at some point in the next year and a half would definitely help, it doesn't look to be quite the same route Marvel are taking though (creating several separate cinematic continuities rather than one unified one entirely through choice rather than inter-studio rivalries over the various franchises). Ruffice98 (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Top 50

No where did anyone put that all the films in the "Harry Potter" "The Lord Of The Rings" and (Rami) "Spiderman" series all made the top 50 List, it should be added. and the gross on "Transformers: Age Of Extinction" has not been changed for 5 Days, the gross now is $1,077,000,565, as I saw on http://pro.boxoffice.com/ . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor49 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Beyond being an interesting note about how well some franchises perform it does come into problems, especially Spider-Man given that two of the films aren't on the list and one of the Raimi films will probably soon be joining them. Ruffice98 (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It's probably interesting enough to cover in the section introduction (at least Harry Potter and the live-action Tolkeins), since we are only talking a couple of sentences. I don't want to just stick it on the end of a paragraph though, so I will have a think on how to integrate it in a way that doesn't reduce it to trivia. Betty Logan (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

1 hit wonder

under the franchise list it says "Prior to 2000, only seven film series had grossed over $1 billion at the box office: James Bond,[78] Star Wars,[79] Indiana Jones,[80] Rocky,[81][82][83] Batman,[84] Jurassic Park[85] and Star Trek.[86] Since the turn of the century that number has increased to over forty, excluding one-off hits such as Avatar, Titanic, Frozen and Alice in Wonderland.[87]" but is Alice in Wonderland part of the same franchise as Alice in Wonderland as it is a remake.

Alice in Wonderland is in the public domain so has no legal franchise backing it up, anyone can do whatever they feel like with the content of the books. Ruffice98 (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I talking abut the Disney's films the 1951 AIW which has gross $2,400,000 US only  it's remake the 2010 AIW which has made $1,025,467,110 meaning a total of $1,027,867,110

As the 2010 is a REMAKE of the 1951 AIW both are also Disney

As I said, that is irrelevant. They are neither a series nor a franchise (for the reason I just gave). Also please remember to sign your posts with four "~" symbols at the end. Ruffice98 (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

On the whole I would say Ruffice is correct about this. Once the copyright expires then the work effectively stops having a central franchising engine. On the subject of whether Disney's 1951 and and 2010 versions comprise a franchise, this is an interesting question I have not considered before. Is there any evidence substantiating that they are set in the same continuity, for example? Is the script of the 1951 version credited at all in the credits of the Burton film? Are there any characters conceived in the 1951 film that do not appear in the book, but are reused in the Burton film? Betty Logan (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Continuity was definitely different, not certain about any Disney original characters popping up in the Burton film though. Ruffice98 (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I was look at Disney franchise and found this Alice in Wonderland(franchise)== — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikis cannot source each other (even the same one) as it can be edited by anyone. As you will note if you look at the page there is no source given to confirm it is actually a legal franchise (finding this would be your basis for inclusion), as this does not exist you cannot use that route. Your other potential way of getting onto the chart is to abandon the "franchise" and just go for the "series". I see that a sequel is coming out for the live-action movie (which would be required anyway on box office grounds to get into the top 25). As the title of the section is "Highest-grossing franchises and film series" the two films would qualify by themselves as a film series, rather than as a franchise (which would include the animated film if it was at all possible). This also makes things a lot simpler from the point of view of this article, as there appears to be no box office data for the animated film, so ignoring it makes our lives a bit easier. Might mean a few people complaining on the talk page about why it is ignored, but it does help. Also gives us more protection against the threat of the Mummy franchise entering the chart if it does anything like the first film. Also please sign your posts with the four "~" symbols at the end. Ruffice98 (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Adjusted for inflation expansion

I think the section of films adjusted for inflation should be expanded from highest 10 to 30 or so.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.13.126.21 (talk) 22:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Look over those figures, you'll notice something is missing. It's the foreign grosses, and without them the figures are wildly off (we're talking a billion or so in some cases, not exactly a small deviation). Ruffice98 (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who is interested can find the adjusted BOM chart at List of highest-grossing films in Canada and the United States since it just pertains to the American market. The Guinness chart that we currently use is the only global edition I know of. Betty Logan (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

007

On the film series list it says "although the Eon James Bond series is the highest grossing when adjusted for inflation, with a total of over $13 billion at 2011/12 prices.[88]" but how much is it when you add casino royal 1967 and never say never again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.229.233 (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Certainly from the figures I've seen those films are included, and even if they weren't it would still be "over $13 billion". Ruffice98 (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

How much $13.1billon, $13.9 billon ? If it not dose any know these 002 films to add? And if it is why not James Bond series ?

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC) 

In 2011 The Economist calculated that the James Bond series (excluding the 1967 Xasino Royale and Never Say Never Again) had earned $12.5 billion at 2011 prices. I fudged that slightly and added in Skyfall since it came out only a year later and the inflated earnings won't have changed much in a year (maybe a couple of hundred million). If you adjust Never Say Never Again and Casino Royale that would most likely add on at least another 500 mil, so the franchise as a whole has probably earned over $14 billion. Unfortunately we can't add those in because The Eonomist doesn't provide its methodology for inflation adjustment. But at the end of the day, 13 billion, 14 billion doesn't really matter, we are just making a general point about the record. Betty Logan (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Planet of the Apes

-I looked on boxofficemojo.com and found the grosses for the 20th Century Series. Planet Of The Apes- $32,589,624 Beneath the Planet of the Apes- $18,999,718 Escape from The Planet of the Apes- $12,348,905 Conquest of the Planet of the Apes- $9,700,000 Battle for the Planet of the Apes- $8,844,595 ______________________________________________ These are not Domestic grosses. there worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor49 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The grosses of the original series are only domestic grosses. If you look at the page of the oirginal film you can see they don't have any foreign data, just the domestic totals. That is why we use a different source for Planet of the Apes. Betty Logan (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

EDITING

How can I edit this page, if I get to, I Will edit it with reliable and true sources, thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor49 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The list doesn't need editing, it just needs to be kept up to date. We have explained above why some sources are chosen over others, so if you think a source is wrong or that you have found a more accurate source then it is best to bring it to our attention on the talk page. As the Planet of the Apes shows above, sometimes sources can be misinterpreted. Also, any major changes or extensions to the article should also be discussed first before they are implemented. Betty Logan (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If I Do edit this list, it would go back to how it was before I edited it, I do keep it up to date with true facts. Editor49 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2EFF:8870:C95:47AB:B470:CA5C (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

As we have already established though not everything from Box Office Mojo is 100% correct. If you wanted my personal advice, if Box Office Mojo is saying something higher than the figure in the article it is probably because the page is out of date so change it, if Box Office Mojo is lower than the article then it should be left alone (as another source is being used). Also please sign with four "~" symbols. Ruffice98 (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Re-Releases

Lots of movies get Re-Releases, for example, this weekend it was "Forrest Gump", So if it does happen to make the Top 50 list, instead of Shading it green, shade it blue, to indicate A Re-Release of a movie. And also as you have "Highest Grossing Films" "Franchises" "Films by Year" and more... maybe adding a Re-Release (Only of Popular Movies) chart, for example...

Year Of Re-Release	Title	Before Gross	After Gross	Up By
2013	Finding Nemo	$867,893,978	$936,743,261	68,849,274
2013	The Lion King	$768,625,889	$987,483,777	218,857,888

. This is just an Idea. Thanks bye :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor49 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Upcomming Movies Estimates

-2014 Has some big movies to finish off the year, and I think 5 more of the year will -The Hunger Games: Mocking Jay part 1- 1.1 Billion #9 -The Hobbit:Battle Of 5 Armies- 1.2 Billion- #5 -Intersteller- 990 Million- #20 -Guardians Of The Galaxy- 900 Million- #29-34 -Big Hero 6- 794 Million - #50 Behing E.T

AND MAYBE" DOTPOTA, HTTYD2, OR Forrest Gump... Transformers

AOE, already made it...

AOE- can end up with 1.1 Billion, at #7,.... what are your estimates? I also think that Star Wars, Spider Man 2, IJATKOTCS, FAST AND FURIOUS 6, AND E.T WILL LEAVE THE LIST, NAKING #50 at $794 Million — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor49 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum and this speculation belongs somewhere like the boxoffice.com forums. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 09:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Transofmers Age OF EXXCTICTION

- In the related article 2014 In Film, it shows that TAOE grossed $1,089 Billion, Witch states it passes The Dark Knight Rises , it needs to be changed to #10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor49 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what was with that edit, but it was corrected.--DCF94 (talk) 01:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Winnie the Pooh

I've searched through tens of pages and 15-20 biographies, but I can't find any figure for The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh box office, if someone knows a source that I missed, and care to share with me, it will be deeply appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCF94 (talk • contribs)

A poster at [1] speculates it may not get box office data because it basically just combined three previous featurettes. The unsourced List of 1977 box office number-one films in the United States shows box office for two weekends where it was allegedly number 1. I see it was you who asked for sources at Talk:List of 1977 box office number-one films in the United States with no reply. Please sign your posts with ~~~~. The list was made by User:Simpsonguy1987. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

inflation

Do you have a list for the highest grossing Animated film adjusted for inflation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_animated_films#Inflation_Adjusted_Gross_Receipts— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.224.222 (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there is a complete one for worldwide grosses. I have seen lists around but they always miss off the Disney classics like Snow White, Pinocchio, Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty. Betty Logan (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

name wars

should Star Wars be change to Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It was only originally named that, if it were to be changed, it would link to Star Wars, just that, so what's the point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor49 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Avatar Franchise and BVS

Will Avatar 2 be put in a Franchise with Avatar? and with BATMAN VS SUPERMAN IN 2016, I think it should be put in both Franchises. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor49 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Avatar is not a franchise, it is an original film produced, directed, written and created by James Cameron which is getting some sequels. Note that this does not make it a franchise, that makes it a film series (which the chart here also covers). Dawn of Justice will be considered a Superman film as ultimately it is really a Superman film with Batman in it, things may change as the universe expands as some expect but until such a time it will be considered to be only part of the Superman franchise (strictly it uses the Batman franchise as well, but then you open a big can of worms with other crossover involved franchises, like Iron Man or The Avengers). Also please, sign your posts with four "~" symbols. Ruffice98 (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Dawn of Justice should be put only in the Superman category, but BOM is considering puting in both series [2] . Maybe it can get into the Batman category also, because Warner Bros. is preparing a DC Cinematic Universe (or however they will name it), and a separate Batman movie can be made continuing from DOJ's storyline DCF94 (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

No, people have assumed they are preparing a shared universe, when there has been no evidence to support it. They could make one, but there has been nothing official yet. We know they've got three films sharing continuity based around Superman, but everything else they are working on appears to be standalone (for example, Dark Universe and Sandman have both been confirmed to be completely separate from the Justice League efforts). Hate to be pernickety, but that is how things stand at the moment. Ruffice98 (talk) 23:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

SW&T7D

when do you get the source for the adjusted for inflation so I can link it to the animated page (for SW&T7D which is 10th.(include live action). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The source can be found by clicking the little citation number next to the chart. However here is a direct link to it: List_of_highest-grossing_films#cite_note-76. Betty Logan (talk) 07:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Forward 2 the past

The B2TF page nor the B2TF franchise is updated the box office from it's 2010 & 2014 release when I try to update date it they put it back. can you try updated those pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

You were most likely reverted because the figure didn't match the existing source. If you copy the sources from this article into the BTTF article then it should be OK. Betty Logan (talk) 07:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

That what I done i think I try after it has rolled out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.246.122 (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

frozen

Is frozen still in cinema (On the amatied list frozen unhighlighted) but it still is on this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, if so, Frozen has been released for a while, I think not In the U.S, but could be in other places --Editor49 (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Frozen was in Spain and Japan until this past weekend; it is now closed there. Movie Pilot is reporting that Japan was the last market, but I don't know how reliable that source is. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd say give it a couple of weeks. If there are no more updates forthcoming from Box Office Mojo it can be de-highlighted then, since there won't be all that much we can do with the entry anyway. I'm hoping we get a formal total from BOM too if it has indeed closed. Betty Logan (talk) 07:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

$7billon cinematic universe

Resolved

MCU is @ $7billon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Franchise List

There is only the top 25, but there are very popular movies out there (franchise/series) and I think it should be up to Top 30, because at 26-The chronicles of Narnia 27-(The hangover I think) 28- could be the hunger games, 29-Die hard? or The Mummy(Full Franchise), if it is increased to 30, then hopefully well be able to figure it out --Editor49 (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor49 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Generally we run into major problems outside of the 25. You start to run into missing data problems like we had for Planet of the Apes (in the end we tracked down some obscure source from the 1970s for that) but the major problems currently are The Mummy and Alien franchises. For The Mummy we are missing the data for the original Universal and Hammer series, and sources are inconsistent for the Alien films. You can read more about it at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films#Apes_2. Whether you have a top 25, 30, or even 50 there will always be something left out. Betty Logan (talk) 07:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

"Popular" is a rather ambiguous term, obviously these have made a lot of money, but that's not really a good enough reason to just extend the list. There are reasons for it sitting at 25, which are explained above. Perhaps if things like the Mummy or Alien weren't causing such problems it would be possible but until such a time, the list is stuck as it is. Ruffice98 (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

What Source

So, I understand that in other sections on the Talk Page it was explained that Box Office Mojo is used, and in other, it said that its not always right, but there is more, like The Numbers, and more... witch do we use? and I know its not exact, it is accurate, but on The Numbers, The Lord of the rings: the return of the king is at 7, with Dark of The Moon at 8, I know its wrong, so what is the most reliable source? --Editor49 (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

We use the source which is most likely to be correct i.e. we try to find another source to corroborate it. For example, for Return of the King Boxoffice.com has nearly the same value as Boxoffice Mojo; there is actually a $800,000 between their two figures, but Return of the King had a reissue which grossed $800,000, so basically BOM include the reissue gross and Boxoffice.com haven't updated their total. The Numbers figure seems to be incorrect in this case, or maybe it just used a different exchange rate. Betty Logan (talk) 07:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

SUNDAY

I've noticed that every Sunday, the grosses change, is it usually on Sunday? or how often do you change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.241.85 (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo usually updates its foreign grosses after every weekend. They release their estimates on Sunday, and then correct them Monday/Tuesday. Betty Logan (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

represented

Could change "All of the films from the Harry Potter franchise and Peter Jackson's Middle-Earth series are included in the nominal earnings chart, while the Transformers and Pirates of the Caribbean franchises both feature prominently." To "the most represented is harry potter with 8 films on the list" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the current wording is more informative. Readers can see for themselves that there are eight Harry Potter films in the chart, and it isn't really an interesting observation in itself; however the significant point here is that there are the only two series that are fully represented, which is worth noting. The purpose of the lede is to just give a general overview of what the list covers. Betty Logan (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Will you say what is the most represented when their is not series with all films along the top 50 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

when you wish upon a Star Wars

Disney are planing Stand-alone films films how will you do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Then I think we will put it along with "Star Wars" as long as its a spin-off, but if Disney wants to start a whole new series/ Chapter of the Star Wars Saga, then we will probably put it by- itself in a Series/ Franchise. Editor49 (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

100?

---

Highest-grossing films

Rank	Title	Worldwide gross	Year	Ref
1	Avatar	$2,787,965,087	2009
2	Titanic	$2,186,772,302	1997
3	The Avengers	$1,518,594,910	2012
4	Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2	$1,341,511,219	2011
5	Frozen	$1,275,772,511	2013
6	Iron Man 3	$1,215,439,994	2013
7	Transformers: Dark of the Moon	$1,123,794,079	2011
8	The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King	$1,119,929,521	2003
9	Skyfall	$1,108,561,013	2012
10	The Dark Knight Rises	$1,084,439,099	2012
11	Transformers: Age of Extinction †	$1,080,587,189	2014
12	Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest	$1,066,179,725	2006
13	Toy Story 3	$1,063,171,911	2010
14	Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides	$1,045,713,802	2011
15	Jurassic Park	$1,029,153,882	1993
16	Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace	$1,027,044,677	1999
17	Alice in Wonderland	$1,025,467,110	2010
18	The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey	$1,017,003,568	2012
19	The Dark Knight	$1,004,558,444	2008
20	The Lion King	$987,483,777	1994
21	Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone	$974,755,371	2001
22	Despicable Me 2	$970,761,885	2013
23	Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End	$963,420,425	2007
24	Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1	$960,283,305	2010
25	The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug	$958,366,855	2013
26	Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix	$939,885,929	2007
27	Finding Nemo	$936,743,261	2003
28	Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince	$934,416,487	2009
29	The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers	$926,047,111	2002
30	Shrek 2	$919,838,758	2004
31	Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire	$896,911,078	2005
32	Spider-Man 3	$890,871,626	2007
33	Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs	$886,686,817	2009
34	Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets	$878,979,634	2002
35	Ice Age: Continental Drift	$877,244,782	2012
36	The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring	$871,530,324	2001
37	The Hunger Games: Catching Fire	$864,565,663	2013
38	Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith	$848,754,768	2005
39	Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen	$836,303,693	2009
40	The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 2	$829,685,377	2012
41	Inception	$825,532,764	2010
42	Spider-Man	$821,708,551	2002
43	Independence Day	$817,400,891	1996
44	Shrek the Third	$798,958,162	2007
45	Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban	$796,688,549	2004
46	E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial	$792,910,554	1982
47	Fast & Furious 6	$788,679,850	2013
48	Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull	$786,636,033	2008
49	Spider-Man 2	$783,766,341	2004
50	Star Wars	$775,398,007	1977
51	2012	$769,679,473	2009
52	The Da Vinci Code	$758,239,851	2006
53	The Amazing Spiderman	$757,930,663	2012
54	Maleficent	$756,203,484	2014
55	Shrek Forever After	$752,600,867	2010
56	Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted	$746,921,274	2012
57	X-Men: Days Of Future Past	$746,913,838	2014
58	The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe	$745,013,115	2005
59	Monsters University	$743,559,607	2013
60	The Matrix Reloaded	$742,128,461	2003
61	Up	$731,342,744	2009
62	Gravity	$716,392,705	2013
63	Captain America: The Winter Soldier	$714,083,572	2014
64	The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1	$712,171,856	2011
65	The Twilight Saga: New Moon	$709,827,462	2009
66	Transformers	$709,709,780	2007
67	The Amazing Spiderman 2	$708,294,944	2014
68	The Twilight Saga: Eclipse	$698,491,347	2014
69	Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol	$694,713,380	2011
70	The Hunger Games	$691,247,768	2012
71	Dawn of the Planet of the Apes †	$681,234,449	2014
72	Forrest Gump †	$677,908,435	1994
73	The Sixth Sense	$677,792,716	1994
74	Man of Steel	$668,045,518	2013
75	Kung Fu Panda 2	$665,692,281	2011
76	Ice Age: The Meltdown	$655,388,158	2006
77	Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl	$654,264,015	2006
78	Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones	$655,388,158	2002
79	Thor: The Dark World	$644,783,140	2013
80	Kung Fu Panda	$644,783,140	2008
81	The Incredibles	$644,783,140	2004
82	Guardians of the Galaxy †	$632,435,494	2014
83	Fast Five	$626,137,675	2011
84	Hancock	$624,386,746	2011
85	Men in Black 3	$624,026,776	2012
86	Iron Man 2	$623,933,331	2010
87	Ratatouille	$623,722,818	2007
88	The Lost World: Jurassic Park	$618,638,999	1997
89	The Passion of the Christ	$611,899,420	2004
90	Mamma Mia!	$609,827,661	2008
91	How To Train Your Dragon 2 †	$609,073,355	2014
92	Life of Pi	$609,016,565	2012
93	Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa	$603,900,354	2014
94	Casino Royale	$599,045,960	2008
95	Tangled	$591,794,936	2010
96	War of the Worlds	$591,745,540	2005
97	Men in Black	$589,390,539	1997
98	The Croods	$587,204,668	2013
99	The Hangover Part II	$586,764,305	2011
100	Quantum of Solace	$586,090,727	2008

References

If no, tell me why we cant do Top 100? or atleast, do Top 65 or 75 or something, just a list... I THINK MOST PEOPLE WILL AGREE Editor49 (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

We have discussed it before and have decided to stay at 50 films for now. We have already got into trouble for using too much Box Office Mojo data in the past and have been asked to reduce the amount of data we use, and this would effectively double the amount we already use. If we alter the size of the chart it will almost certainly be to cut it down in size (we already use more data than BOM's licensing agreement permits us to use). Also, we're not Smash Hits at the end of the day, and I don't think extending the chart would add much value: 21 of the 50 films on the chart were the highest-grossing films of the year; if you extend the chart to 100 then the number of year toppers remains at 21 i.e. none of 51-100 were the highest grossing film of the year, which is what we are supposed to be recording. Betty Logan (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

HungerGames

?	The Hunger Games	$1,555,813,431	2	$777,906,716	The Hunger Games: Catching Fire ($864,565,663)
1	Catching Fire (2013)	$864,565,663
2	The Hunger Games (2012)	$691,247,768
3	Mockingjay - Part 1 (2014)	$0

So, in November I'm about positive Mocking Jay-1 will do better than both CF, AND THG, so It probably will make the top 25, so here is the Hunger Games , add it in November, (MOKCING JAY1, will be put with gross (I think its #27, 0r 28) as of now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor49 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC) |}

This should be left until November for rather obvious reasons, just remember this is not a forum, so really the speculation doesn't belong here. Obviously though this gives us some breathing room should it make a decent amount of money for the "Mummy" problems looming on the horizon. When it does make it into the top 25 as it probably will it will be added, don't worry about it, it isn't being ignored. Also, please sign your posts with four "~" symbols. Ruffice98 (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

By year

Should it be said the Star Wars (1977, 1980, 1973 & 1999) & the James Bond (1963, 1964, 1971 & 1979) Franchise had top the year as the top grossing film the most 4 times each. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I sorry did you say you Resolved it? I can not find it. where did you put it?

As far as I can tell, no edit was made to the article related to this suggestion, and no one commented here, so it clearly wasn't resolved. I've removed the resolved tag. Calathan (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I must have accidently not saved it or something, I don't know what happened, Sorry :| Editor49 (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

We can probably add something about Star Wars but James Bond is more complicated. With the exception of Moonraker (which had help from a reissue) it's not at all clear if James Bond came top in any other year: it is possible it came top in 1964 and 1971 (but hard to say for sure) but it is very unlikely From Russia with Love beat Cleopatra, even with all of its reissues. Betty Logan (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The lion's share

I just read thishttps://uk.yahoo.com/movies/the-lion-king-stage-show-the-most-successful-single-98148967762.html & it got me wondering how munch has the lion king madia franchise made — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.235.122 (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This is what I can find: box-office - $967m, home video - $1500m, stage show - $6200m, and retail merchandise - $1500m; that means it has generated sales of $10 billion at the very least. Betty Logan (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

remake

I reccetly ask a question about Disney remake of AIW you said it was not part of the same franchise. But what if Disney remakes one of there own stories like lilo & stitchBrother Bear would they go in the be same in fanchies as the amated ones as they were created by Disney — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.235.122 (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem is the definition of a franchise. The Wikipedia page gives the following definition: "A media franchise is the licensing of intellectual property (IP) from an original work of media (usually a work of fiction), such as a film, a work of literature, a television program or a video game, to other parties or partners for commercial exploitation". As it would almost certainly be Disney themselves making it, it probably wouldn't count on franchise grounds, but Disney aren't exactly ones to "reboot", they'd normally just make a new film, so it would be included on the chart on series grounds instead. Alice in Wonderland for example isn't a franchise because it is in the public domain, so Disney aren't franchising it off anyone, they can just use the characters as they feel like it (as can anyone), but if the sequel makes enough money it would qualify for the chart on "series" grounds (which would exclude the original animated film, but include the two live action films due to shared continuity). Everything on the list at the moment is a franchise, but things may change. Ruffice98 (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeh but if they do will you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

If it isn't a franchise or a series then no, because its a franchise and series list. There's a list of conditions, if it doesn't meet those conditions it doesn't get included, simple as that. Ruffice98 (talk) 12:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

What are these conditions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Fairly simple to understand the basic concepts, but they can get complicated when you look into them. To qualify as a series they must have two theatrically released films that share continuity (in other words, it must have a sequel, prequel, sidequel, spin-off, etc. that isn't straight to video and isn't a reboot or remake). To qualify as a franchise the original creator of the IP must have at some point leased off their creation to another company to do something with it (in other words, they have franchised it off, hence the term).

The franchise condition as you can guess can become a bit problematic. There's two obvious reasons why this wouldn't happen, one is the rights are in the public domain so they haven't leased the rights off the original creator(s) as they don't need to due to the copyright expiring, the other is that the original creator(s) have done everything in-house, and as a result didn't lease the rights out to anyone else. As you can guess, that second option is what trips up Disney a lot as obviously most of the stuff they do is done in-house. Some aren't, but a lot of them are. If you wanted to call it a franchise, you'd need to find some sort of licensing agreement between Disney and another company leasing off the rights to this other company in some way. Find that, and you can call it a franchise. Ruffice98 (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

animated madia franchise

What is the most sucsedfull animated film franchises including merchandising? & how much has it made ? I think it could be a disney one such as The Lion King or Aladdin franchise. Or maybe a pixar one such as Toy Story orCars (and it's spin off Planes. But I do not know that why I asking you So I can added it to the animated film page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

If your asking for animation its Shrek, heres the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_animated_films.

I not talking just box office gross I talking about the most lucrative animated film franchise ! You know merchandise, home video, etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi 77.102.93.78. You are right to think of Disney. According to a 2013 Variety article, the top 4 media franchises are all owned by Disney:

• Disney Princess (No. 1)
• Star Wars (No. 2)
• Winnie the Pooh (No. 3)
• Cars (No. 4)

(Disney Princess actually overlaps with the following Disney franchises: Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Pocahontas, Mulan, The Princess and the Frog, and Tangled).--Coin945

References

Eh... you are aware that every single one of those so called "Disney franchises" you just listed amongst the Disney princesses are all public domain characters or real life people, so there is no franchise? There may be a cause to have the overall "Disney princesses" as a franchise, but the individual components certainly aren't franchises. Ruffice98 (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The last 2 not so much, but every other one has spawn a multimedia franchise, no question. Films, TV shows, stage musicals theme park rides, music, video games, and tonnes of other merchandise. Disney generally alters the original source material to create its own characters and story. So their franchises are distinct and notable in their own right. Not to mention unfathomably successful. This isn't some arbitrary decision I have made. The Disney execs have already decided for us.--Coin945 (talk) 12:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you got a source to confirm them though? By its definition to franchise something requires transferring the rights to another company to work on, and while they will indeed be covered by a multitude of media, if its always been done in-house by Disney, it won't count (which most TV shows and theme park rides will all be done under Disney themselves). For another example on a slightly unconnected matter, Iron Man would count as a franchise because the rights have been leased out to other companies other than just Marvel themselves (even though in the end all the films were produced in-house), are there similar circumstances for these sets of characters that can be verified? Ruffice98 (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks you for finding this how should I word this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

New Series

1	Harry Potter	$7,723,431,572	9	$858,159,064	Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 ($1,341,511,219)
Harry Potter $7,723,431,572 8 $965,428,947 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 ($1,341,511,219) 1 Deathly Hallows – Part 2 (2011) $1,341,511,219 2 Philosopher's Stone (2001) $974,755,371 3 Deathly Hallows – Part 1 (2010) $960,283,305 4 Order of the Phoenix (2007) $939,885,929 5 Half-Blood Prince (2009) $934,416,487 6 Goblet of Fire (2005) $896,911,078 7 Chamber of Secrets (2002) $878,979,634 8 Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) $796,688,549
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) $0

|} So, it doesn't come out till 2016, but when it does, I think this should be put as a franchise/series. anyone agree?

This is fairly clean cut, it would be included, not really any debate in this. It is the same franchise (and also the same "series" in a slightly vaguer sense), as would the two sequels. Wouldn't qualify for a separate listing by itself (as say Iron Man does) but does definitely qualify for inclusion under "Harry Potter" (might need to be renamed though). Ruffice98 (talk) 17:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah it will be fairly uncomplicated. I'm guessing it will be structured along the lines of the Middle-earth entry. Betty Logan (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

So, is it a yes or a no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.239.248.135 (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it should, and the franchise list should be expanded to 30, can someone find the correct data for me? thanks Betty Logan (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor49 (talk • contribs)

We've been over this before, there appears to be absolutely nowhere that has published the correct data for two of the apparent entries in the next five, so 25 makes sense while this situation continues. By the way, don't try to impersonate somebody on the talk page, there's an edit history that shows it was you, not to mention there is the wrong time in the signature and the fact an automated signing bot spotted your "unsigned" post and took care of it for you. Four "~" in future.

If you want the figures for personal reference as far as I can tell the next five seem to be The Chronicles of Narnia, The Hunger Games, Alien, Die Hard and The Mummy (unless I've missed one or two others), with problems existing with entries 28 and 30 as I'm sure you'll discover when you try to track down the values yourself, Alien has multiple quoted values (even across Wikipedia articles) and The Mummy is missing several from all the earlier films. Until we can track down the accurate values for these two, nothing can be done in terms of extension even if we wanted to. If you really care about it that much, my advice would be to track down figures for those early Mummy films, then a 30 entry chart may be a possibility a couple of years from now when the chart has moved around a bit more. Ruffice98 (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Just for the sake of discussion, after THG, Despicable Me would be 28th. DCF94 (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Would Die Hard & Cars must be around the top 30 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 08:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Die Hard appears to be 30th at the moment, Cars is lower than the existing figure for The Mummy, which we've just established isn't even in the Top 30 (due to me missing Despicable Me, thanks for pointing it out) so Cars definitely isn't there. Thanks to Despicable Me, this makes things slightly neater for a hypothetical top 30 move, but still not all that nice. The Mummy still poses a threat all the same, Alien will probably be knocked out the top 30 by Terminator (The Avengers already has a guaranteed place because the first film made so much) so you could make the hypothetical move to a top 30 sooner (the earliest date has gone from May 2016 to July 2015), but it still depends on those Mummy figures being found. Ruffice98 (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you produce a mock up what the top 30 might look like? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No, even if I knew how to create a table (I can edit them, but creating I'll leave to those in the know) it wouldn't be possible at the moment. The problem is the Alien franchise, just look at Alien, specifically the box office figures. This problem runs across many of the films. The top of the range of values place it at 29th, but in at 30th would be Die Hard which is about $1.6 million below it. As you'll have seen, that first film has a potential discrepancy of nearly $100 million, I'm sure you can understand the concerns (especially when there is such a narrow margin involved). It's one thing to not be certain over the exact numbers (for example "The Mummy") but another if even the ranking could be wildly off. Ruffice98 (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

successfull

is there anywhere saying who are the most successful studios, Directors, Producers, actor, etc (any other film people)of all time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

"Success" is a very ambiguous term. Probably your best bet is to look up how much money (or how many awards depending on your angle) they currently have rather than anything directly from the raw figures here. Ruffice98 (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

O.K is their anywhere I find the highest grossing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 08:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

30

Okay, is this good enough?

26	The Chronicles of Narnia	$1,580,364,900	3	$526,788,300	The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe ($745,013,115)
1	The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe (2005)	$745,013,115
2	Prince Caspian (2008)	$419,665,568
3	The Voyage of the Dawn Trender(2010)	$415,686,217

27	The Hunger Games	$1,555,813,431	2	$777,906,716	The Hunger Games: Catching Fire ($864,565,663)
1	Catching Fire (2013)	$864,565,663
2	The Hunger Games (2012)	$691,247,768

28	Despicable Me	$1,513,875,870	2	$756,937,935	Despicable Me 2 ($970,761,885)
1	Despicable Me 2 (2013)	$970,761,885
2	Despicable Me (2010)	$543,113,985

29	Die Hard	$1,435,086,363	5	$287,017,273	Live Free or Die Hard ($383,531,464)
1	Live Free or Die Hard (2007)	$383,531,464
2	Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995)	$366,101,667
3	A Good Day to Die Hard (1995)	$304,654,182
4	Die Hard 2 (1990)	$240,031,094
5	Die Hard (1988)	$140,767,956

30	The Mummy	$1,415,408,499	4	$353,852,125	The Mummy Returns ($433,013,274)
1	The Mummy Returns (2001)	$433,013,274
2	The Mummy (1999)	$415,933,406
3	Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (2008)	$401,128,639
4	The Scorpion King (2002)	$165,333,180

I finally got it all!!!, but THE MUMMY, has 4, not including Universal or Hammer Horror, it shows the same gross as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mummy_(franchise) for it all together, now, can this be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor49 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

There are ten other films in The Mummy franchise. We can't add it until we track down those grosses. Betty Logan (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

And on top of that we don't know the value for Alien, I've had a look around and the highest value is just above Die Hard by the smallest of margins, so it is very definitely a threat. So not only do we need the Mummy figures we need to ensure the bottom of the chart is clear of the top estimates unless accurate figures can be found. As for the chart itself The Hangover should be 30th on your basis (ignoring the upper Alien estimate). Ruffice98 (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, is this good enough?

26	The Chronicles of Narnia	$1,580,364,900	3	$526,788,300	The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe ($745,013,115)
1	The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe (2005)	$745,013,115
2	Prince Caspian (2008)	$419,665,568
3	The Voyage of the Dawn Trender(2010)	$415,686,217

27	The Hunger Games	$1,555,813,431	2	$777,906,716	The Hunger Games: Catching Fire ($864,565,663)
1	Catching Fire (2013)	$864,565,663
2	The Hunger Games (2012)	$691,247,768

28	Despicable Me	$1,513,875,870	2	$756,937,935	Despicable Me 2 ($970,761,885)
1	Despicable Me 2 (2013)	$970,761,885
2	Despicable Me (2010)	$543,113,985

29	Die Hard	$1,435,086,363	5	$287,017,273	Live Free or Die Hard ($383,531,464)
1	Live Free or Die Hard (2007)	$383,531,464
2	Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995)	$366,101,667
3	A Good Day to Die Hard (1995)	$304,654,182
4	Die Hard 2 (1990)	$240,031,094
5	Die Hard (1988)	$140,767,956

30	The Hangover	$1,416,248,289	3	$472,082,763	The Hangover Part II ($586,764,305)
1	The Hangover Part II (2011)	$586,764,305
2	The Hangover (2009)	$467,483,912
3	The Hangover III (2013)	$362,000,072

I finally got it all!!!, No problems because the Mummy series is gone, now here it is!

You clearly picked up on my Hangover comment but conveniently ignored my note about the Alien franchise. It's not going to a top 30 until we can be absolutely certain there are no major errors or missing data in the chart, and the Alien franchise could potentially still be in there. In practice this means knocking Die Hard off the chart as well, but even then it is only a temporary solution because The Mummy franchise will almost certainly re-enter the chart about a year after Die Hard has fallen off the chart. Also, please sign your posts with four "~" symbols (don't know how many times I've had to say that on this page alone, must be going for a record here). Ruffice98 (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The Mummy franchise almost certainly scrapes into the top 30 anyway, if you allow for a reasonable margin of error to compensate for the grosses of the earlier films. Betty Logan (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, it's all a horrible mess. By the way, concerning the Mummy films (specifically the Universal films) I've had a minor breakthrough. I've found a reference book that quite explicitly references box office statistics on a few occasions. It doesn't actually mention the figures themselves sadly, but it does give some general details on how a couple of the films compared to each other (apparently The Mummy's Tomb was a record breaker in 1942, so another chart may be under threat). You can read some of it here:

http://www.lesliehalliwell.com/monsters/index.html

Doesn't give us a figure, but does tell us the figures exist somewhere, there is hope yet. Ruffice98 (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Gross

26	The Chronicles of Narnia	$1,580,364,900	3	$526,788,300	The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe ($745,013,115)
1	The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe (2005)	$745,013,115
2	Prince Caspian (2008)	$419,665,568
3	The Voyage of the Dawn Trender(2010)	$415,686,217

27	The Hunger Games	$1,555,813,431	2	$777,906,716	The Hunger Games: Catching Fire ($864,565,663)
1	Catching Fire (2013)	$864,565,663
2	The Hunger Games (2012)	$691,247,768

28	Despicable Me	$1,513,875,870	2	$756,937,935	Despicable Me 2 ($970,761,885)
1	Despicable Me 2 (2013)	$970,761,885
2	Despicable Me (2010)	$543,113,985

29	Die Hard	$1,435,086,363	5	$287,017,273	Live Free or Die Hard ($383,531,464)
1	Live Free or Die Hard (2007)	$383,531,464
2	Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995)	$366,101,667
3	A Good Day to Die Hard (1995)	$304,654,182
4	Die Hard 2 (1990)	$240,031,094
5	Die Hard (1988)	$140,767,956

30	The Hangover	$1,416,248,289	3	$472,082,763	The Hangover Part II ($586,764,305)
1	The Hangover Part II (2011)	$586,764,305
2	The Hangover (2009)	$467,483,912
3	The Hangover III (2013)	$362,000,072

30	Alien	$1,360,665,061	7	$194,380,723	P ($403,354,469)
1	Alien (2011)	$203,630,630
2	Aliens (2009)	$131,060,248
3	Alien 3 (2013)	$159,814,498
4	Alien Resurrection (2013)	$161,376,068
5	Alien Vs. Predator (2013)	$172,544,654
6	Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem	$128,884,494
7	Prometheus	$403,354,469

This is the total gross for Alien, and AVP, It's not more than THE HANGOVER, unless there is some mysterious Alien movie that no one knows of, its only 1.3 Billion! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor49 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a $50 million dollar range on the second film as well, which adds a potentially fair bit to the total. I'll have a look and see if I can find where the other bit is coming from, but the total is still fairly close. Ruffice98 (talk) 07:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, as an additional note just to give you some more reasoning behind the decision to keep it at 25 for now, what would you do when the new Mummy film comes out? Or what about Prometheus 2? Both are in the works, The Mummy has a date even and Prometheus can't be far behind it. So even if they weren't on the chart now, what happens when they do enter the chart? Are you going to be happy taking it back to a top 25? Ruffice98 (talk) 10:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but none of the new Mummy films are going to make over 700 Million (I'm guessing) and other new franchises are coming out, witch will let it stay beyond 30, and if it does, like Planet of The Apes, put TBD for the Universal, and Hammer Horror Series, and it will show the gross of $1.415 or more billion still, if the Mummy does have a Sequels, there is 99.9% it will pass THE HANGOVER, because MUMMY is at 1.415 Billion, and when Prometheus 2 comes out, Alien Franchise will grow higher, what's the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor49 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that The Mummy is in the top 30; the only reason you don't have it on your chart is because you don't have all the grosses i.e. your chart is incorrect due to ignoring some very successful earlier films. With Alien there are conflicting estimates, so while it does not make the top 30 currently it almost certainly will when they release another film, but we won't be able to to chart it properly because there is a $100 million discrepency for the gross of the first film. This chart used to be a top 20 and we only extended it to a top 25 when we could do it without introducing inaccuriacies; if we could have extended it to a top 30 we would have done. Extending the chart doesn't really improve it if we are missing data and the franchises are in the wrong positions. This case is not comparable to Planet of the Apes because we know the overall total, just not the individual grosses, so we can still rank it. There is more to working on this article than just making bigger charts: the real work goes into researching it, so if you really are dedicated to improving the article then your time would be better spent by tracking down the missing grosses of the earlier films. Betty Logan (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, The Mummy is supposedly just behind The Hangover at the moment, by about a million. While we haven't found any figures I have found a source describing a Mummy film from 1942 as a record breaker at the box office, which I'd say is a very good sign it made quite a bit of money at the time (a good few million at least), so it absolutely is in the top 30 for now. I wonder, are there any film experts out there we could get in touch with who would know these figures? The figures definitely exist as we've established (at least for the Universal films) so somebody must surely know them or how to track them down at least. Ruffice98 (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

alphabetically

How about alphabetically the film series & franchise list. Like the number — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.213.213 (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

What if

What happens if the new Star Wars avergers or anorther film makes more the Snow White on the adjust chart will we added it on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 13:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No. That is Guinness's chart, not ours, so it would be WP:Synthesis to alter it since we don't know which inflation index they used or their methodology. We would simply add a note like we did for the Titanic issue, and hopefully Guinness would issue a new chart at some point. Betty Logan (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

pixar

I am right thing that Pixar got highest average per film with $607 million — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

In Franchises? because no, Harry Potter has 965 Million average — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor49 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Pixar is a studio, not a franchise. Ruffice98 (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I am talking about film studio dose Pixar have the highest average per film — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 22:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Tolkien's Middle-Earth

Why is Ralph Bakshi's version of Lord of the Rings included, but not Rankin-Bass' Hobbit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.5.132 (talk) 04:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Because The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) was in theaters while The Hobbit (1977 film) is a television film. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Peak of Film

Maybe in the Chart, we can include the peak of a film, what is the highest rank the film is, or was once at, for example ..

Rank	Title	Worldwide Gross	Year	Peak
12	Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest	$1,066,179,725	2006	3
13	Toy Story 3	$1,063,171,911	2010	5
14	Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides	$1,045,713,802	2011	6
15	Jurrasic Park	$1,029,153,882	1993	1
16	Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace	$1,027,044,677	1999	5

I just started from 12, but yeah. Is is a good idea? I will be happy to find the Peaks --Editor49 (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

sounds good — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 16:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

So should I do it???, and please sing your name. Editor49 (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't oppose the idea in theory (it will better illustrate the impact the film had on original release), but remember each "peak" would need to be sourced. Many of these films were in simultaneously release or had reissues, so it would be original research to try and guess what positions the films were based on how much they grossed and when. For example, The Phantom Menace was actually the second-highest grossing film when it came out (not the fifth—see [3]). Sourcing this data will be considerably harder if Box Office Mojo is gone for good so I suggest waiting to see if it comes back online. Betty Logan (talk) 02:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea in theory but agree it would be hard to source. We might instead show how a film would rank on current total gross (the gross already in the table) if all newer films (measured by original release date) are ignored. I think that would be allowed by Wikipedia:No original research#Routine calculations, but it would give an unfair advantage to films with significant earnings on reissues years later when inflation has raised ticket prices. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the problem with that is that we would be inventing our own metric (i.e. a rank that doesn't exist and never existed outside Wikipedia). However, you gave me an idea (through your suggestion at the BOM thread at the Film project) of a very straightforward solution to this: we could use the Wayback machine to capture "freezes" of BOM's all-time chart. As you can see at Wayback-BOM we have page freezes going all the way back to 2001. We would only have to find extra sources for seven films on the list (four of which are already sourced in the Timeline table), so it means we only have to track down sources for three films. Betty Logan (talk) 07:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I need a BIG hero

as I understand Big Hero 6 is not a MCU film but a Disney film. could marvel ever make a big hero 6 as Disney owns marvel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

That is up to Disney and Marvel to the Decide Editor49 (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

We have a big problem

Box Office Mojo has... well vanished. All links go to the same IMDB page, literally every link going to Box Office Mojo has been destroyed and all figures will need to be resourced. Is there a particular reason why this has happened? Has there been a take over of some form because I've certainly seen no warnings this was going to happen. Ruffice98 (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ruffice98: Thanks for pointing this out. I've notified WikiProject Film here. We'll monitor the situation. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

And that is our Number One Source isn't it?, and if so, does Imbd have a chart? --Editor49 (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

IMDB appears to be continuing monitoring the domestic gross but is making no effort whatsoever to track worldwide grosses which is what our chart is using (that's certainly what I'm seeing anyway). Ruffice98 (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I doubt this matter is permanent. There is probably movement going on behind-the-scenes. Just not sure what the final presentation will look like, but hard to believe that all of Box Office Mojo's data will be excluded if this consolidation is indeed going through. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It may just be temporary, but if it is permanent it is not as disastrous as it first seems. Most of the data can be alternatively sourced via Boxoffice.com, and we can use the Wayback for older data if it comes to that. It is only the nominal top 50 chart and the franchise table that are heavily affected anyway. We should observe WP:LINKROT though until we know for sure what the fate of BoxOfficeMojo is going to be. Betty Logan (talk) 01:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be back online, although no weekend updates thus far. Betty Logan (talk) 08:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It also says it was last updated in 1969, so something is definitely up with it at any rate. I've also noted that a few of the links are still playing up (Guardians of the Galaxy seems to be affected, although you can still get to it if you go through alternate links). Ruffice98 (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The Numbers

On The Numbers, I looked to see how much a difference it is to BOM, and its very, for example for #50, The Lost World: Jurassic Park, and Star Wars in at like 47, or 48, so will we have to change some on the chart? although we have BOM's figures, The Numbers is a new reliable source, will we do the chart they want??? or continue with BOM other data, and go on from The Numbers? Editor49 (talk) 03:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

For the moment we can use the existing Box Office Mojo data already on the page (as it was reliably sourced even if the source no longer exists). For any currently released films that are still being tracked (say Guardians of the Galaxy) we will have to rely on updates from The Numbers instead until we find out what happens with Box Office Mojo (this happened with absolutely no warning whatsoever, even the BOM team didn't appear to know that it was about to happen).

It may be worth having a look through the charts for any MATCHING figures and changing the source, but where discrepancies arise leave it at the figure we already have. But we'll need to see if everyone else agrees with this first. Ruffice98 (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It would be best if there isn't any source changing until we establish what exactly is happening with BOM. If it definitely isn't coming back then it's possible a bot can be programmed to add archive links to all the dead BOM links per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Box_Office_Mojo. If people start replacing the links manually we won't be able to do that and we'll end up making a lot of unnecessary work for ourselves. This will be sufficient for about 90% of the BOM sources used in this article; as for the five films we are currently tracking these can easily be replaced if necessary. Betty Logan (talk) 12:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with Betty Logan, it'd be best and most ideal if we get a bot to archive those links, really in any regard. In that manner, the links will have both and archived link and original link, which will help prevent linkrot -- regardless of the final status of the website. Hope that's helpful, — Cirt (talk) 03:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Legoman

there is gonna to be a lego batman movie spin off

will this go in

the lego franchise

or the batman franchise

or both

or none

https://uk.yahoo.com/movies/a-lego-batman-spinoff-movie-is-in-the-works-99679373082.html

Lego is not really a franchise, and Son of Batman is not included in Batman, so this probably also wont, though The Lego Movie if it does have a second film, it will become a film series, and the Lego/Batman spin-off just might be included in The Lego Movie, we will have to see what other people say. --Editor49 (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Back to the present

I have tred a few times to update B2TF but some keeps putting it back. I mange to do the franchies for now at least. Can you tryed to update the gross. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Frozen still playing in Spain (155 theaters)

Just when we thought Frozen was gone from theaters, Box Office Mojo reports (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&country=ES&id=frozen2013.htm) it has reopened in 155 theaters in Spain as of October 3 and jumped to the number 7th highest grossing movie there for that week(currently playing for 46 weeks continuously). Prior to that date it was only playing in 4 theaters in Spain. The total income from August 8th to October 12th comes to $405,813 which should bring the current global gross to $1,276,178,323. Telewski (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

DCF94 (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Should it be re-highlighted in green? Telewski (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

frozen going on

I saw that frozen has just went form $1.275 billon to $1.276 billon. Is it still playing? where is it if it is? should we re-highlight It again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It was "re-released" in 155 theaters in Spain on October 3rd according to Box Office Mojo and was listed as #7. Last week it dropped to #9. 46 consecutive weeks in Spain. I asked the same question regarding re-highlighting it in my previous message Telewski (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If it still running this weekend in Spain and gains more, then we should re-highlight, but now we don't know if it is only a "special edition" release for a couple of weeks (seeing that it grown from 4 to 155 theaters) or it will continue with the same number of theaters, if it drops to a very small number of theaters, personally I won't bother re-highlighting it for a few thousand more DCF94 (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. A little research revealed Disney released the Spanish version of the sing-a-long for Frozen in Spain on October 3rd http://www.eleconomista.es/boxoffice/reports_spain/2014/el-cine-espanol-se-marca-un-fin-de-semana-de-grandes-cifras/ Telewski (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Peak

Rank	Title	Worldwide Gross	Year	Peak
12	Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest	$1,066,179,725	2006	3
13	Toy Story 3	$1,063,171,911	2010	5
14	Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides	$1,045,713,802	2011	6
15	Jurrasic Park	$1,029,153,882	1993	1
16	Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace	$1,027,044,677	1999	5

I added this a few weeks ago, and Betty Logan gave me the page of http://web.archive.org/web/20110801000000*/http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/, I went there, and it is pretty good, so I think we can use it for after 2001, and somehow track down the others, it should be pretty easy though so, I can add a example so we can se how it turns out, should I do that? --Editor49 (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you can construct it at Talk:List of highest-grossing films/sandbox, and then once we have tracked down all the data we can copy it into the main article. Also, I think it would be better if the "peak" column was the second column after the "rank" column instead of at the end. It would make more sense that way, at least to me. I have a ton of 1990s sources bookmarked so it won't be too difficult finding the pre-2001 sources. The sources can just go in the existing ref column. Betty Logan (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, ill do it, ill also put the peak after the rank! it does make more sense. Editor49 (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I've copied the chart into the sandbox for you so we don't lose the MOS compliant formatting: Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films/sandbox#Peaks. All you have to do is fill in the ranks and add the sources. I will sort out the pre-2001 ones. Don't worry about the "blank refs", those will be srestored once the chart is copied back over. Editors will have to make sure this version is kept up to date as well though. Betty Logan (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, its done!Editor49 (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You need to add the source for each one, otherwise readers can't check the data. Betty Logan (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Its done.Editor49 (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Those references aren't formatted properly. I will do the first five to show you how to do the formatting and then you can do the rest. Betty Logan (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I will take care of the formatting and I will find those 1990 sources while I'm at it. Betty Logan (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The refs are all formatted now, and the older sources have been added. All that remains is simply copying the chart back into main list. Since it was your idea you should do that and claim the edit. Betty Logan (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, should I just add it? Editor49 (talk) 11:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, a simple cut and paste will do it. Betty Logan (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding the timespan into Franchise section

I added the timespan of earliest to latest film in each franchise as I thought the data would provide valuable insight into how some franchises have tended to become very successful over shoter spans of time, while others have a long history stretching back many decades etc. I didn't think the rationale for undoing my edit was justified, so undid it. But I also figured a discussion was in order, so hear we go:

(P.S. I wanted to unbold the timespans, but am not sure how to do that. That would probably nullify the "messy" comment).--Coin945 (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Highest-grossing franchises and film series

† indicates that at least one film in the series is playing in the week commencing 13 September 2024.

Highest-grossing franchises and film series^[§]

(The films in each franchise can be viewed by selecting "show")

Rank Series Total worldwide box office No. of films Average of films Highest-grossing film

1 Harry Potter (2001–2011)' $7,723,431,572 8 $965,428,947 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 ($1,341,511,219) 1 Deathly Hallows – Part 2 (2011) $1,341,511,219 2 Philosopher's Stone (2001) $974,755,371 3 Deathly Hallows – Part 1 (2010) $960,283,305 4 Order of the Phoenix (2007) $939,885,929 5 Half-Blood Prince (2009) $934,416,487 6 Goblet of Fire (2005) $896,911,078 7 Chamber of Secrets (2002) $878,979,634 8 Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) $796,688,549

2 Marvel Cinematic Universe (2008–2014) † $7,117,969,112 10 $711,796,911 The Avengers ($1,518,594,910) Phase One $3,811,026,406 6 $635,171,068 The Avengers ($1,518,594,910) 1 The Avengers (2012) $1,518,594,910 2 Iron Man 2 (2010) $623,933,331 3 Iron Man (2008) $585,174,222 4 Thor (2011) $449,326,618 5 Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) $370,569,774 6 The Incredible Hulk (2008) $263,427,551 Phase Two † $3,306,942,706 4 $826,735,677 Iron Man 3 ($1,215,439,994) 1 Iron Man 3 (2013) $1,215,439,994 2 Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) † $732,636,000 3 Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014) $714,083,572 4 Thor: The Dark World (2013) $644,783,140

3 James Bond (1962–2012)' $6,159,601,036 25 $246,384,041 Skyfall ($1,108,561,013) Eon series $5,957,856,318 23 $259,037,231 Skyfall ($1,108,561,013) Daniel Craig Bond $2,293,697,700 3 $764,565,900 Skyfall ($1,108,561,013) 1 Skyfall (2012) $1,108,561,013 2 Casino Royale (2006) $599,045,960 3 Quantum of Solace (2008) $586,090,727 Pierce Brosnan Bond $1,479,008,618 4 $369,752,155 Die Another Day ($431,971,116) 1 Die Another Day (2002) $431,971,116 2 The World Is Not Enough (1999) $361,832,400 3 GoldenEye (1995) $352,194,034 4 Tomorrow Never Dies (1997) $333,011,068 Roger Moore Bond $1,151,600,000 7 $164,514,286 Moonraker ($210,300,000) 1 Moonraker (1979) $210,300,000 2 For Your Eyes Only (1981) $194,900,000 3 The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) $185,400,000 4 Octopussy (1983) $183,700,000 5 A View to a Kill (1985) $152,400,000 6 Live and Let Die (1973) $126,400,000 7 The Man with the Golden Gun (1974) $98,500,000 Sean Connery Bond $621,500,000 6 $103,583,333 Thunderball ($141,200,000) 1 Thunderball (1965) $141,200,000 2 Goldfinger (1964) $124,900,000 3 Diamonds Are Forever (1971) $116,000,000 4 You Only Live Twice (1967) $101,000,000 5 From Russia with Love (1963) $78,900,000 6 Dr. No (1962) $59,500,000 Timothy Dalton Bond $347,400,000 2 $173,700,000 The Living Daylights ($191,200,000) 1 The Living Daylights (1987) $191,200,000 2 Licence to Kill (1989) $156,200,000 George Lazenby Bond $64,600,000 1 $64,600,000 On Her Majesty's Secret Service ($64,600,000) 1 On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969) $64,600,000 Never Say Never Again (1983) $160,000,000 Casino Royale (1967) $41,744,718

4 Tolkien's Middle-earth (1978–2013)' $4,923,348,799 6 $820,558,133 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King ($1,119,929,521) Peter Jackson series $4,892,877,379 5 $978,575,476 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King ($1,119,929,521) The Lord of the Rings $2,917,506,956 3 $972,502,319 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King ($1,119,929,521) 1 The Return of the King (2003) $1,119,929,521 2 The Two Towers (2002) $926,047,111 3 The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) $871,530,324 The Hobbit $1,975,370,423 2 $987,685,212 The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey ($1,017,003,568) 1 An Unexpected Journey (2012) $1,017,003,568 2 The Desolation of Smaug (2013) $958,366,855 The Lord of the Rings (1978) $30,471,420

5 Star Wars (1977–2005)' $4,382,359,868 7 $626,051,410 Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace ($1,027,044,427) Prequel trilogy $2,525,197,773 3 $841,732,591 Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace ($1,027,044,677) 1 I: The Phantom Menace (1999) $1,027,044,677 2 III: Revenge of the Sith (2005) $848,754,768 3 II: Attack of the Clones (2002) $649,398,328 Original trilogy $1,788,879,251 3 $596,293,084 Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope ($775,398,007) 1 IV: A New Hope (1977) $775,398,007 2 V: The Empire Strikes Back (1980) $538,375,067 3 VI: Return of the Jedi (1983) $475,106,177 The Clone Wars (2008) $68,282,844

6 Spider-Man (2002–2014)' $3,962,966,341 5 $792,593,268 Spider-Man 3 ($890,871,626) Raimi series $2,496,346,518 3 $832,115,506 Spider-Man 3 ($890,871,626) 1 Spider-Man 3 (2007) $890,871,626 2 Spider-Man (2002) $821,708,551 3 Spider-Man 2 (2004) $783,766,341 Webb series $1,466,912,986 2 $733,456,493 The Amazing Spider-Man ($757,930,663) 1 The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) $757,930,663 2 The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014) $708,982,323

7 Batman (1966–2012)' $3,805,543,530 10 $380,554,353 The Dark Knight Rises ($1,084,439,099) Nolan series $2,463,216,216 3 $821,072,072 The Dark Knight Rises ($1,084,439,099) 1 The Dark Knight Rises (2012) $1,084,439,099 2 The Dark Knight (2008) $1,004,558,444 3 Batman Begins (2005) $374,218,673 Burton/Schumacher series $1,335,009,923 5 $267,001,985 Batman ($411,348,924) Main series $1,252,907,544 4 $313,226,886 Batman ($411,348,924) 1 Batman (1989) $411,348,924 2 Batman Forever (1995) $336,529,144 3 Batman Returns (1992) $266,822,354 4 Batman & Robin (1997) $238,207,122 Catwoman (2004) $82,102,379 Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (1993) $5,617,391 Batman: The Movie (1966)*R $1,700,000

8 Transformers (1986–2014) † $3,756,596,275 5 $751,319,255 Transformers: Dark of the Moon ($1,123,794,079) Live-action series † $3,750,746,628 4 $937,686,657 Transformers: Dark of the Moon ($1,123,794,079) 1 Dark of the Moon (2011) $1,123,794,079 2 Age of Extinction (2014) † $1,080,939,076 3 Revenge of the Fallen (2009) $836,303,693 4 Transformers (2007) $709,709,780 The Transformers: The Movie (1986) $5,849,647

9 Pirates of the Caribbean (2003–2011)' $3,729,577,967 4 $932,394,492 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest ($1,066,179,725) 1 Dead Man's Chest (2006) $1,066,179,725 2 On Stranger Tides (2011) $1,045,713,802 3 At World's End (2007) $963,420,425 4 The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) $654,264,015

10 Shrek (2001–2011)' $3,510,794,482 5 $702,158,896 Shrek 2 ($919,838,758) Main series $2,955,807,005 4 $738,951,751 Shrek 2 ($919,838,758) 1 Shrek 2 (2004) $919,838,758 2 Shrek the Third (2007) $798,958,162 3 Shrek Forever After (2010) $752,600,867 4 Shrek (2001) $484,409,218 Puss in Boots (2011) $554,987,477

11 The Twilight Saga (2008–2012)' $3,345,177,904 5 $669,035,581 The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 2 ($829,685,377) 1 Breaking Dawn – Part 2 (2012) $829,685,377 2 Breaking Dawn – Part 1 (2011) $712,171,856 3 New Moon (2009) $709,827,462 4 Eclipse (2010) $698,491,347 5 Twilight (2008) $392,616,625 6 Twilight/New Moon Combo $2,385,237

12 X-Men (2000–2014)' $3,050,971,565 7 $435,853,081 X-Men: Days of Future Past ($746,045,700) 1 Days of Future Past (2014) $746,045,700 2 The Last Stand (2006) $459,359,555 3 The Wolverine (2013) $414,828,246 4 X2 (2003) $407,711,549 5 X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009) $373,062,864 6 First Class (2011) $353,624,124 7 X-Men (2000) $296,339,527

13 Ice Age (2002-2012)' $2,802,576,893 4 $700,644,223 Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs ($886,686,817) 1 Dawn of the Dinosaurs (2009) $886,686,817 2 Continental Drift (2012) $877,244,782 3 The Meltdown (2006) $655,388,158 4 Ice Age (2002) $383,257,136

14 Iron Man (2008–2013)' $2,424,547,547 3 $808,182,516 Iron Man 3 ($1,215,439,994) 1 Iron Man 3 (2013) $1,215,439,994 2 Iron Man 2 (2010) $623,933,331 3 Iron Man (2008) $585,174,222

15 The Fast and the Furious (2001–2013)' $2,380,084,668 6 $396,680,778 Fast & Furious 6 ($788,679,850) 1 Fast & Furious 6 (2013) $788,679,850 2 Fast Five (2011) $626,137,675 3 Fast & Furious (2009) $363,164,265 4 2 Fast 2 Furious (2003) $236,350,661 5 The Fast and the Furious (2001) $207,283,925 6 Tokyo Drift (2006) $158,468,292

16 Mission: Impossible (1996-2011)' $2,096,647,856 4 $524,161,964 Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol ($694,713,380) 1 Ghost Protocol (2011) $694,713,380 2 Mission: Impossible II (2000) $546,388,105 3 Mission: Impossible (1996) $457,696,359 4 Mission: Impossible III (2006) $397,850,012

17 Jurassic Park (1993–2001)' $2,016,573,690 3 $672,191,230 Jurassic Park ($1,029,153,882) 1 Jurassic Park (1993) $1,029,153,882 2 The Lost World (1997) $618,638,999 3 Jurassic Park III (2001) $368,780,809

18 Indiana Jones (1981–2008)' $1,983,841,081 4 $495,960,270 Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull ($786,636,033) 1 Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) $786,636,033 2 Last Crusade (1989) $474,171,806 3 Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) $389,925,971 4 Temple of Doom (1984) $333,107,271

19 Toy Story (1995–2008)' $1,948,143,626 3 $649,381,209 Toy Story 3 ($1,063,171,911) 1 Toy Story 3 (2010) $1,063,171,911 2 Toy Story 2 (1999) $490,728,379 3 Toy Story (1995) $361,958,736 4 Toy Story/Toy Story 2 (3D) $32,284,600

20 Star Trek (1979–2013)' $1,930,671,933 12 $160,889,328 Star Trek Into Darkness ($466,978,661) Alternate Reality Series $852,659,107 2 $426,329,554 Star Trek Into Darkness ($466,978,661) 1 Into Darkness (2013) $466,978,661 2 Star Trek (2009) $385,680,446 The Original Series $622,900,000 6 $103,816,667 Star Trek: The Motion Picture ($139,000,000) 1 The Motion Picture (1979) $139,000,000 2 IV: The Voyage Home (1986) $133,000,000 3 VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991) $96,900,000 4 II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) $96,800,000 5 III: The Search for Spock (1984) $87,000,000 6 V: The Final Frontier (1989) $70,200,000 The Next Generation $455,112,826 4 $113,778,207 Star Trek: First Contact ($150,000,000) 1 First Contact (1996) $150,000,000 2 Generations (1994) $120,000,000 3 Insurrection (1998) $117,800,000 4 Nemesis (2002) $67,312,826

21 Madagascar (2005–2012)' $1,883,502,299 3 $627,834,100 Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted ($746,921,274) 1 3: Europe's Most Wanted (2012) $746,921,274 2 Escape 2 Africa (2008) $603,900,354 3 Madagascar (2005) $532,680,671

22 Planet of the Apes (1968–2014) † $1,704,363,214 8 $213,045,402 Dawn of the Planet of the Apes ($700,350,425) 21st Century films † $1,544,363,214 3 $514,787,738 Dawn of the Planet of the Apes ($700,350,425) Reboot series † $1,182,151,474 2 $591,075,737 Dawn of the Planet of the Apes ($700,350,425) 1 Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014) † $700,350,425 2 Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011) $481,801,049 Planet of the Apes (2001) $362,211,740 20th Century seriesPA $160,000,000 5 $32,000,000 1 Planet of the Apes (1968) TBD 2 Beneath the Planet of the Apes (1970) TBD 3 Escape from the Planet of the Apes (1971) TBD 4 Conquest of the Planet of the Apes (1972) TBD 5 Battle for the Planet of the Apes (1973)* TBD

23 Superman (1978–2013)' $1,680,941,166 7 $240,134,452 Man of Steel ($668,045,518) Man of Steel (2013) $668,045,518 Original series $621,814,456 5 $124,362,891 Superman ($300,218,018) Christopher Reeve films $607,518,018 4 $151,879,505 Superman ($300,218,018) 1 Superman (1978) $300,218,018 2 Superman II (1980) $190,400,000 3 Superman III (1983) $80,200,000 4 Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987) $36,700,000 Supergirl (1984)* $14,296,438 Superman Returns (2006) $391,081,192

24 Men in Black (1997–2012)' $1,655,236,118 3 $551,745,373 Men in Black 3 ($624,026,776) 1 Men in Black 3 (2012) $624,026,776 2 Men in Black (1997) $589,390,539 3 Men in Black II (2002) $441,818,803

25 The Matrix (1999–2003)' $1,632,989,142 3 $544,329,714 The Matrix Reloaded ($742,128,461) 1 Reloaded (2003) $742,128,461 2 The Matrix (1999) $463,517,383 3 Revolutions (2003) $427,343,298

• ^*Canada and U.S. gross only.
• ^RDistributor rental.
• ^PAIndividual worldwide grosses are unknown for the original Planet of the Apes series.

If they click show, they can see the years of the films. Take it away, and if you wanna do that, add another Margin, something like this.

Highest-grossing franchises and film series^[§]

(The films in each franchise can be viewed by selecting "show")

Rank Series Year Span Total worldwide box office No. of films Average of films Highest-grossing film

I don't really see the point in this, all the dates are already shown, so what would be gained by this addition? Ruffice98 (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted it for the second time. It looks cluttered, it looks ugly and I don't really see what encyclopedic value it has. Knowing the time-span of the series has very little value overall i.e. the Batman series made neglible revenue prior to 1989. If readers want this information each film is labelled with the year of release. Betty Logan (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ruffice98: I have already stated this above but for convenience I will repeat my sentiments here: The notion of franchises are about films spanning over many years. Even decades in many cases. We need a framework to be able to compare these to each other in a way that is not currently available in the table - timespan-wise. This information would go hand in hand with the number of films in the franchise. You could, for example, compare Harry Potter's 6-film 10-year franchise span to James Bond's 25-film 50-year franchise span and start to draw conclusions about the nature of how the notion of "film franchise" has evolved over time. I think this is a vital piece of information that is sadly missing from the table, and as I have already said, many of the individual year released are imbedded into the table and can only be accessed after 2-3 clicks. I know you've all put a lot of work into this article and you feel very protective of it, but this is such a minor addition that I don't see what a potential problem could be. If you could help even one user out there with an extra column or whatnot, I would say go for it. :)--Coin945 (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@Betty Logan:If pre-1989 films were commercially unsuccessful, then that is a vital piece of information in its own right as it demonstrates how that particular franchise has evolved over time.--Coin945 (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

There's an issue with that however, year of release doesn't really mean much other thanshowing how long it has lasted for. However, time frames really are irrelevant as it serves little purposes for the whole figure. The number of films directly ties into the average figure so obviously has some value, but the time span serves no purpose as older films can do brilliantly, and new films can do poorly. In short, we aren't gaining anything from the addition. Ruffice98 (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I am proof that this us important information. My testimonial is enough to suggest that the notion of wanting to get an understanding of the scale of these franchises has value. I sadly didn't find the information here do put if in myself.--Coin945 (talk) 09:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

As we've said though, it is redundant information, it is simple enough to open up the breakdown and see how long it lasted (and on top of that, get more information about how these time frames have affected grosses over the years at the same time). Ruffice98 (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, we don't include information simply because someone might want to know it i.e. we only include information if it directly relates to the purpose of the list or informs the context. For example, knowing that Batman started in the 1960s and Indiana Jones in the 1980s doesn't necessarily tell us anything about the performance of these franchises: Indiana Jones, for instance, made most of its money in the 1980s and after 2000 but nothing in the 1990s, while Batman made pretty much everything from 1989 onwards. In the case of something like Planet of the Apes it is even more extreme, with most of the money generated in the 21st century, despite being one of the "oldest" franchises on the list. Simply knowing how long the series has been active for doesn't really allow for valid comparisons. Betty Logan (talk) 01:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

With James Bond, you have to click "show" 3 times to even start to get a feel of the years these films were released in. Surely that is a little excessive...--Coin945 (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

What does the range "1966–2012" tell you about the earnings of Batman? It could have made most of that money before 1989, or after 1989, so it is meaningless unless you actually provide the date for each gross. This list is not a general information page; its sole purpose is to document box-office earnings and to facilitate analysis. Betty Logan (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

What would you say to the subsections having their year spans displayed? For example for the Eon series (James Bond), or The Original Series (Star Trek), or the 20th Century series (PotA)? That way you split up the spans in regard to the different film series taht were based on the same property. By extension, at the level-1, you could have, for example: "1968-1973, 2001, 2011-2014" instead of "1968-2014".--Coin945 (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Frozen again

Following up on the previous string, it looks like Disney is re-releasing Frozen as the sing-a-long in some foreign markets http://www.eleconomista.es/boxoffice/reports_spain/2014/el-cine-espanol-se-marca-un-fin-de-semana-de-grandes-cifras/ where it maybe wasn't previously released. According to Box Office Mojo, three weeks ago it was re-released in Spain and as of this week it added $107,370 to the gross while being dropped from 155 to 151 theaters http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&country=ES&id=frozen2013.htm. This week it was also re-released in Brazil after initially closing on August 24th and is playing there in 6 theaters (only earned $1,132)http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&country=BR&id=frozen2013.htm Telewski (talk) 03:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I added the Spain gross, but I think the Brazil gross is very insignificant as to the Spain one DCF94 (talk) 13:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Given that the Brazil take works out to less than $200 per theater for the week, my guess it won't stay long in the theaters there. Spain is a little better at $711 per theater, per week. Not really big numbers at all, looks like market saturation. Certainly not going to pass "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2" any time soon. Telewski (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2014

128.140.51.129 (talk) 11:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC) the transformerz2014 is 1 080 933 450

Not done: According to the source in the article, the present figure is correct. Betty Logan (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

timeline

I got a question About http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_animated_films#Timeline_of_highest-grossing_animated_films

–My question is did snow white really hold the record for 55 years as the highest-grossing animated film of all time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Snow White was a very well known and successful movie, even at the time and there weren't many other animated films at the time to be compared financially to SW, granted, SW holds the record because of many re-releases through the years, when it first premiered in '37 it had a gross of about $8.5 million, which was high box office performance even for a live-action film, other successful animated films at the time (i.e Bambi, 101 Dalmatians, The Jungle Book) had accumulated a total of $200+ million each, only after many re-releases. So yes I do think SW held the record for the highest-grossing animated film for so many years. DCF94 (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to know for sure. It's possible that it may have been briefly overtaken at some point (just like Gone with the Wind temporarily lost the record in the 1960s), but either way, Snow White was back in pole position at the time of its 50th anniversary since its total at that time ($330 million) was higher than the totals for any other Disney. We know that neither The Little Mermaid and Beauty & the Beast overtook it, so it definitely held the record at the time Aladdin came out; Aladdin played in the US in 1992 and internationally in 1993, so Snow White definitely held the record going into 1993. What happened then we don't know, because we don't have SW's final foreign grosses: Aladdin either beat it in 1993, or The Lion King took the record in 1994. The timeline is certainly correct from the late-80s anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Franchise

Can we put timeline of highest grossing film series & franchise?

Like the films timeline?, if so, then construct it, you need to make sure you have sources, going back to the first film series, and, or franchise because it obviously will be #1 at a certain time, but that would take lot's of research, BOM, probably doesn't have the data, but from what I understand, from about 1980, James Bond took the place, and was then passed by Harry Potter, I'm not entirely sure, but you probably just have to find before James Bond became #1, what year, and the #1's before that. --Editor49 (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

And, going back, The Godfather, could have held the place at one point. --Editor49 (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

James Bond has pretty much held it since the 1960s before it was surpassed by Harry Potter. I have no idea what held it prior to that, but there is no point creating a timeline that only lists two franchises. Betty Logan (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

IF we found sources of older franchises/series, I don't see why not do a Timeline section for the series, we almost know for sure of 2 of them and we know that MCU will soon be #1. DCF94 (talk) 01:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Where best to search?

Transformers and Frozen 10/26/14

For the past week, Transformers was still playing in Venezuela earning $31,646 on 14 screens (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&country=VE&id=transformers4.htm) and Frozen was still playing in Spain earning $69,488 on 143 screens (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&country=ES&id=frozen2013.htm) Telewski (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)