Talk:List of highest-grossing films

How do Star Wars I and Harry Potter I have 2 as their peaks?

Star Wars I came out in 1999 and Harry Potter I came out in 2001. Titanic (1997) and Jurassic Park (1993) are head of both, so I'm not clear on how Star Wars I or Harry Potter I ever could have gotten higher than #3. --B (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Check the references to the right of both titles. Jurassic Park had only $914m in it's first run, only after the 2013 re-release it gained nearly $1.030b. DCF94 (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, each entry is accompanied by two sources. The second source in every case is a source for the peak position. Films can overtaken during their original run, or sometimes an older film can be re-released. Betty Logan (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2018

According to this, http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/10/media/black-panther-one-billion-box-office/index.html?sr=fbCNN031018black-panther-one-billion-box-office1230PMStory. Black panther has crossed the 1 billion mark change black panther grossing to 1 billion.

Shahlan Saleem (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done yet. Let's just wait until Box Office Mojo (who also reported that it has crossed $1 billion) updates their figures. TompaDompa (talk) 09:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

 Already done BOM updated their listing and it was almost instantly changed here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The updating here is usually very good and very fast. The problem with selective updating is that it requires fresh sources and it can mess up the chart. It is more efficient to do it all in one go just using the one source. Betty Logan (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Not sure how to do this, but the two highest grossing aren't true and aren't in the sources provided. Baahubali: The Beginning made Rs 1,380 crore, according to the source. This is equivalent to 210,093,684.00 US Dollars, which would put it nowhere near this list. This article is actually properly sourced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.37.198 (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Number of $1 billion movies

Number should change from 32 to 33. Black Panther is the new movie that hit the mark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.39.147 (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

 Already done by DCF94. TompaDompa (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Disney

Can someone come and discuss a topic on Talk:List of Highest grossing animted films

Fanoflionking (talk) 11:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2018

علیرضا عابدینی شیرازی (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2018 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Betty Logan (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Highest-Grossing Films Adjusted for Inflation

The section regarding the list of top-grossing films adjusted for inflation has a note stating that the section needs to be updated. Apparently the information used is via the Guinness Book of World Records (2015) which had the grosses as of 2014. However, the All Time Box Office section at the Box Office Mojo website seems to keep a fairly current table of this information: as of now it includes three films in current release, Black Panther (currently No. 40), Star Wars: The Last Jedi (currently No. 42), and Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (currently No. 144). These are the same three films shaded green (currently in release) in the first table in the Wikipedia article (which shows highest-grossing films unadjusted for inflation).

The table includes the top 300 films listed in descending order of DOMESTIC GROSS (USD) ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION. While this is not a perfect solution given the worldwide nature of most high-budget film releases, it can be kept up to date with minimal additional research (Box Office Mojo updates the list) and it reflects the nature of the U.S. film industry as the producer of the overwhelming majority of films on the list. It further guarantees that films made in previous eras ("pre-globalization") do not suffer by comparison.

Note that the main page of the All Time Box Office section identifies three different films as the top grossing: (1) Star Wars: The Force Awakens (domestic/unadjusted); (2) Gone with the Wind (domestic/adjusted); and (3) Avatar (worldwide/unadjusted).

I am not a regular contributor, but this sort of information is valuable to me as a Wikipedia reader/user, and so I think that someone more familiar with the editing process can make the necessary changes to update the section. I would suggest also including some of the technical information that Box Office Mojo uses to explain the table (particularly the current average ticket price).

For clarity's sake, the first and second sections could be standardized (50 films in each list) and a new third section (also 50 films) added showing domestic unadjusted gross, reflecting the distinctions on the All Time Box Office main page (and more importantly that as of now there are three different highest-grossing films, depending on the parameters). Currently, the first section of the Wikipedia article has a detailed table of the top 50 movies by worldwide/unadjusted gross (updated), and the second section a short table of the top 10 movies by domestic/adjusted gross (not updated).

I hope this information proves useful for updating the article.

2605:6000:1701:8007:CD4D:A8D:C587:3C0B (talk) 05:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Scott P., San Antonio, TX.

References

It is not at all clear what you are suggesting. Box Office Mojo's adjusted chart only covers the American box-office, whereas this article covers global box-office, so it is no use to us. BOM's adjusted chart is installed at List of highest-grossing films in the United States and Canada which covers the North American box-office. Even though the Guinness chart is slightly out of date it is still mostly correct (The Force Awakens would most likely be #10 instead of Snow White but apart from that the order is pretty much the same). If we could extend the adjusted chart to a top 50 we would but the information is not available to do so. We cannot create our own because many older films have had re-releases and each release would have to be adjusted separately for the year of release. Good reasons exist for why Box Office Mojo don't have an adjusted global chart: it is very difficult to construct one. Betty Logan (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2018

Change $1,290,000,000 to $1,276,500,000. $1,290,000,000 is incorrect. ElleKhupe (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Frozen edits by Zimanga

Zimamga has three times now removed sourced data from the chart relating to Frozen (2013 film) (per [1], [2], [3]. As the note that Zimanga keeps removing explains, the chart includes a correction for the Frozen total because Box Office Mojo stopped updating their total for it while it was still playing. This is explained in some detail at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films/Archive_2015#Frozen. As a result a decision was taken to add in the grosses from the weekly charts, and these are all documented in the souces that Zimanga has removed. The $1.276 billion figure that Box Office Mojo gives is demonstrably wrong; the true figure is more like $1.297 billion, but we can only get it to about $1.290 billion with the sources available to us. I appreciate the discrepancy between the figure for Frozen and what BOM has down for its total is not ideal, but up until now the existing approach has had a consensus. Zimanga is obviously aware of the note and sources because he has knowingly removed them and keeps removing the data which obviously has an impact on the integrity of the article so I strongly urge him to discuss the issue here on the talk page before changing the figure again. Betty Logan (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Bond vs marvel=

How well has the MCU done for inflation and is it lucky to over take bond soon? (Especially with infinity war on its way) what is it at now? Fanoflionking (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, our inflation numbers for Bond are a bit outdated but by plugging the ones we have into a basic inflation calculator Bond stands at about $16 billion now. Of course, the MCU is 10 years old so it may already be ahead if you account for inflation. Betty Logan (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I've tried applying several different methods of scaling to both sets of films. Taking best case for James Bond and worst case for the MCU, it's about $1 billion short as of today (Infinity War is over $1.2 billion right now for future reference). Given current box office projections, we'll be past the point of no doubt once Ant-Man and the Wasp releases later this year. I'd definitely consider bringing the topic up again once that next film releases. Ruffice98 (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I reworded the sentence in question a few weeks ago to remove the direct comparison. The MCU is almost certainly ahead now; the Bond figure is still in there but the comparison is now with Harry Potter in the context of a single property. Betty Logan (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Spiderman: Homecoming (2017) Is Counted Twice In The Rankings????

That's nuts. It's currently listed as part of both the "Spiderman" franchise and MCU. I propose it counts only for MCU, as both of the other entries in the "Spiderman" franchise are closed and it is a non-dynamic entry that will only go down. It's part of the larger MCU, and the Rami/Webb films don't have anything to do with each other anyway other than main character and Studio. Why aren't we counting the film from 1977 if thats the only criteria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BROBAFETT (talk • contribs)

The talk page archives show agreement that a film can be counted both in its own character-based series and as part of a shared universe. Both the MCU and DCEU have multiple examples of this. Our main source Box Office Mojo does the same: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/ includes Spider-Man: Homecoming in both Marvel Cinematic Universe [4] and Spider-Man [5]. The Numbers also does it.[6][7][8] I support this practice. It would be odd if a Spider-Man film wasn't counted under Spider-Man just because it has a connection to other films. At Talk:List of highest-grossing films/Archive 2017#Movies counted multiple times in the "franchises and film series" list I metioned we could mark shared universes but didn't follow up on it. The 1977 film and others at Spider-Man in film#Early films were tv films domestically and only had theatrical releases in some other countries. Box office numbers may be hard to find but if you have numbers with a reliable source then we can discuss it. If the box office is tiny then I'm inclined to omit tv films which had small theatrical releases in other markets. There is a similar situation with the Star Wars films Caravan of Courage: An Ewok Adventure#Release and Ewoks: The Battle for Endor#Release which were tv films domestic and are currently omitted. I don't know whether their box office is known. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

We have to bear MOS:INUNIVERSE in mind too. Continuity isn't a sufficient discriminant for organizing intellectual properties. Casino Royale (2006 film) didn't stop being a James Bond film just because it was a reboot, the same with Batman Begins, and the MCU Spiderman films are just a new iteration of Spiderman films. Franchise crossovers are nothing new either: they have existed since Universal set the ball rolling with its monster mashes. In fifty years time they will likely still be making Spiderman films, and they almost certainly won't be part of the MCU. The MCU will likely just form one chapter in Spiderman's cinematic history, so the idea that the Spiderman franchise has been superseded in some way is extremely premature and based on past evidence unlikely to be borne out. Betty Logan (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Baahubali: The Beginning and Baahubali: The Conclusion shouldn't be on the list.

Resolved

The sources are for the wrong movies and don't say anything about the movies. Not sure how to do this, but the two highest grossing aren't true and aren't in the sources provided. Baahubali: The Beginning made Rs 1,380 crore, according to the source. This is equivalent to 210,093,684.00 US Dollars, which would put it nowhere near this list. This article is actually properly sourced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films

This highest grossing Indian film only made the equivalent of $330 million USD. I think the person is just confusing crores rupees for dollars. 67.193.37.198 (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed this error. That user has had a recent history of vandalism, and has been warned. Thank you for the heads up! Sock (tock talk) 20:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Star Wars suggestion

I propose a small change to the Star Wars entry in the franchise table: putting the three main trilogies under a new heading called Star Wars Saga, while still keeping the trilogy separation intact. Not only would this help delineate the Anthology films (and Clone Wars) from the main films, but also from the new proposed trilogy that will have nothing to do with the Skywalkers. Thoughts? TdanTce (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems like a reasonable idea to me. I have no objections. Betty Logan (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I admit that I am not sure how to do this exactly, and I'd rather not screw up the table. TdanTce (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The table is a bit complicated, but the good thing about Wikipedia is that you can always revert screw-ups! We will give this discussion the rest of this week and if there are no objections I will sort it out at the weekend. Betty Logan (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I have given this some more thought. While I agree that a new sub-group might be helpful I question whether it should be called the "Star Wars Saga". Currently Star Wars saga redirects to the main Star Wars article, and seems to embody all the films, so I don't think the title would be specific enough. Other options would be "Skywalker saga", but Darth Vader also appears in Rogue One so that might not be specific enough either. Another simple option would be "Episodes". Have you got any thoughts on this? Betty Logan (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest "Episodes". TompaDompa (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Nobody has suggested otherwise so we will go with "Episodes". Betty Logan (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Superhero

There a new page List of highest grossing superhero films dose anyone knew if the can expend the highest grossing superhero section?Fanoflionking 09:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanoflionking (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure what you are asking. Do you want others to help expanding List of highest grossing superhero films#Highest grossing superheroes to more than 10 entries? I would start at http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/ (only domestic) or https://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchises/sort/World, but I'm not going to work on it. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Peaking the top 50 and just filling in the last list I have a feeling that Black Panther is rank at 11 but not to sure? Fanoflionking 18:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanoflionking (talk • contribs)

Yes, Black Panther is #11. The Numbers includes Thor: Ragnarok in Hulk movies and then Hulk is #11 but that seems silly to me. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I add a franchise box on the Talk page can anyone help fil in also should we actually include black panther or not as he only has one film?Fanoflionking 09:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanoflionking (talk • contribs)

is anyone able that peak the Films in the top 50 Highest grossing superhero movies?Fanoflionking 21:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanoflionking (talk • contribs)

Furious 7 UAE gross

Back in 2015, there was some discussion about the gross of Furious 7 on Box Office Mojo going down. I think I may have figured out what happened, or at least part of it. When trying to find the highest-grossing film in the United Arab Emirates, I discovered this discrepancy: its cumulative gross in the UAE decreased by about $8 million from the weekend of 23–26 April to the weekend of 30 April–3 May. A corresponding drop is seen when looking at the figures in the local currency of UAE dirhams, which would seem to suggest that it's not a simple currency conversion error. Box Office Mojo does have kind of a poor track record with regards to keeping foreign market grosses straight, and there may be other markets where the grosses are similarly messed up. Should we do something? TompaDompa (talk) 10:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

There is not much we can do apart from look for corroboration. Universal's international arm has the foreign box-office at $1,166,698,151 as of September 2017 (under Fast & Furious 7). That suggests a discrepancy of $3.6 million, if we assume that Universal's figures are correct and BOM's are wrong (on the balance of probabilities). A correction (using Universal's foreign figure) would take it one place higher on the chart. Betty Logan (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Records

I firmly believe that we should include a new section to the article, something that has to do with global box office records. This is, after all, the List of Highest-grossing Films and this article focuses on the worldwide box office results. There is a page dedicated to the Domestic records, and there is a page dedicated to how fast Domestic and Worldwide numbers were achieved. But there is no page that has to do with actual records of global releases. While an entirely separate page is a good alternative for this, I believe it should be included in this article because of the foundation we have. Someone can look in the records section and see 'Highest-grossing Adapted Film' (which is The Force Awakens), and then see 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens' in the actual list above it. One can argue that by just looking at the official top-fifty list, it can be puzzled together that Avatar is the 'Highest-grossing Original Film', or that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 is the 'Highest-grossing Fantasy Film', but it would be a lot easier and more formulated in an entire separate section of the article. I believe that an entire page that has to do with this will be too shallow and thin, but if it is included in this here article, it will add to the material that we already have. I believe that is our main goal here, to continue to provide both reliable and alluring facts. With a record section, we will not only have the top-fifty, the yearly champions and the franchise chart, but we will also have information on the films that topped every other film in it's respective category.

Editor49 (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not opposed to including records in this article provided they are specifically related to being the highest-grossing film in some capacity, but it seems to me you are proposing turning the article into a broad scope records article which would involve adding significantly more content to a list that is already one of the biggest on Wikipedia. The article is focused on what has been the highest-grossing film by some metric (either all-time or of the year) and doesn't really concern itself with categories i.e. being a fantasy film or original film has little bearing on whether the film has been the highest-grosser or not. Genre records probably belong in articles about those genre i.e. if a film has been the highest-grossing fantasy film then that information really belongs in a list of fantasy films IMO, rather than a list of highest-grossing films. For example, adding a top ten chart to List of fantasy films would be a good way of fleshing out that article. Generally, if a category is notable in its own right it is usually developed into its own article per List of highest-grossing animated films, List of highest-grossing openings for films, List of fastest-grossing films and Second weekend in box office performance etc. It is also worth bearing in mind that most of the records at United States box office records don't actually have anything to do with the topic of "highest-grossing" film, which is why those records were not included at List of highest-grossing films in the United States and Canada in the first place. Betty Logan (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Toy Story 3 footnote

I'm not sure I understand the logic of the note here -- are we saying that we listed it #4 but according to the corrected gross it actually came in at #3, but we still say its peak was #4 for some reason? I could understand if during its run it both surpassed the previous #3 but was itself surpassed, not in that order, so the highest it ever got was #3 (...POTC3...?), but if that were the case why would even bother noting it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

According to the BOM source it peaked at #5. However, Disney issued an erratum for some of its grosses and after taking that into account TS3 would have peaked at #4. I see how the note is confusing (it's my fault as well I think because I wrote the original note) so I have made the note more explicit. If it is still not clear enough feel free to word it as you see fit. Betty Logan (talk) 06:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: That works. Thanks! :) I'm wondering, though, if rather than including the redundant figure it was modified to (the same one already included in the table) in the footnote giving the original pre-erratum figure in the footnote wouldn't be better? Do we have that figure, or just the rounded "$1,063.0" included in the source? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

We don't need an exact figure in the note because it doesn't mean any difference to the correction. I altered it to include both figures, and then this way there should be no further confusion. Betty Logan (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Gone with the Wind

This says that it got almost 190M after the 1967 re-release. Nergaal (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

That's just the US gross Nergaal, and GWTW has had several releases since then. Betty Logan (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I meant for the Timeline of highest-grossing films section; if that link is right, GwtW should take all the slots until Jaws. Nergaal (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a different metric. If you look at the chart closely you will see that all the figures up to Star Wars have a little "R" next to them, signifying "gross rental". Box-office grosses didn't come in until the 1970s so we don't know the worldwide gross for Gone with the Wind after its 1967 run, and we don't know the worldwide gross for The Sound of Music either. However, there are many contemporary sources that published the gross rental (which was the metric used at the time) so that is why the chart uses the historic measure instead. There is no doubt whatsoever about The Godfather becoming the highest-grossing film; it is well documented in film literature. Betty Logan (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Wait, so the $116M figure is strictly rental, absolutely no ticket sales? If that is the case it should be stated more clearly in the table. Nergaal (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

It is the distibutor rental from the ticket sales, and it is already clearly stated in the table: it has an "R" next to the figure and right under the table it tells you this denotes "distributor rental". Betty Logan (talk) 08:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, so DR means what the studios got from the cinemas for giving away the tapes, and excludes the net profit made by cinemas - so therefore it is underestimated? So the box office given by the above link is quite possibly correct? Nergaal (talk) 08:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The box-office figure The-Numbers has down is most likely wrong IMO. The George Lucas Blockbusting book (used as a source in this list) estimates GWTW had grossed around $150 million in the United States prior to its 1971 reissue. According to Box Office Mojo GWTW grossed $9 million from its last two releases, and it seems The Numbers has simply subtracted these two figures from the overall total to get its 1967 figure. However, GWTW also grossed $16 million from its 1974 reissue, and it also grossed $6 million in distributor rental (roughly $12 million gross) from its 1971 reissue, which The-Numbers doesn't account for. Box Office Mojo is even worse because they attribute the $189 million figure to the 1939 release because they don't log any of the reissues before 1989. I appreicate it is confusing for readers not familiar with historic rentals, but there is no way around this. The transition from distributor rental to the more accurate exhibition gross is basically the film world equivalent of going from imperial to metric, and in most cases prior to the 1970s we are stuck with the old figures. Betty Logan (talk) 09:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I actually did some rough work on this a few years ago when I was tracking down the figures, and I tried to work out the grosses from the rentals which you can see at User:Betty_Logan/Sandbox#GWTW. The table in my sandbox is in no way authoritative (it contains a LOT of guesswork) and I came up about $20 million short (I think this is mostly due to me underestimating the 1967 release which was absolutely huge—even bigger than that year's Bond film) but it gives you a very basic idea of how the gross evolved. Betty Logan (talk) 09:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

So how would you go about it here: List_of_fastest-grossing_films#Fastest_to_$50_million and 100M? Nergaal (talk) 11:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I think those milestones are for the most part wrong: The Birth of a Nation was almost certainly the first film to gross $50 million, although nobody knows for sure. Gone with the Wind passed the $50 million threshold during its 1954 release, and the $100 million & $150 million thresholds during its 1967 release; however, it was just pipped to $100 million by The Sound of Music (see [9] and [10]). Star Wars was not the first film to gross $200 million; Jaws grossed $190 million on its first release, and then passed $200 million with its 1976 reissue. Betty Logan (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

One Hundred

Can we make the list to 100? Rigor Impossible (talk) 8:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

There was an RfC about the number of entries last year. Consensus was to keep it at 50 entries. TompaDompa (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Highest grossing franchise

If the MCU is already in the table at the end, why are Captain America and Iron Man there as well under separete entries?187.189.90.87 (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

See #Spiderman: Homecoming (2017) Is Counted Twice In The Rankings???? Sources do the same. Captain America and Iron Man have separate publication histories with some crossovers. Captain America (1990 film)#Release mentions an international theatrical release long before the MCU but we lack box office data. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

This comes up a lot. I just added a notice to the top of the page explaining the situation (which I suggested back in 2016 but didn't get around to until now – better late than never, I guess). TompaDompa (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Distributor Column

Can we bring back the distributor/studio column? It's much helpful when sorting things out. my7thsecret (talk) 9:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Rank	Highest position attained in the chart	Title	Distributor	Worldwide gross	Year	Reference(s)
5	5	Avengers: Infinity War	Disney	$1,606,829,103	2018	1

I don't think it's a good idea. There are lots of columns we could add (such as production companies, directors and genres—attributes that I would personally consider ahead of distributor) but it is all basically "white noise". It does not further a reader's understanding of the topic and would just bulk out an already big article. If readers really want to know which company distributed a film the information is literally one click away. Betty Logan (talk) 09:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh I see. That's just sad. Would be nice if we could see a more detailed table without having to click each one of those links. my7thsecret (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree that it wouldn't be a good idea. Information that doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding of the subject (this is a list of highest-grossing films – distribution companies aren't important to understanding film grosses, unlike for instance release years) shouldn't be on the table as it would just get more cluttered. I'd be more inclined to remove a column (the reference one – the references can be placed next to the figures they verify) than to add one. TompaDompa (talk) 10:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I understand. My7thsecret (talk) 10:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2018

In the highest grossing franchises section, please remove the green highlight from the Star Wars section, as The Last Jedi is no longer in theaters. 4.71.249.229 (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The Last Jedi is still playing internationally. Box Office Mojo has updated it as recently as this weekend, and you can see that the total has changed between this week and last week. Betty Logan (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Adjusted gross update from 2017

Is this useful at all? I can't tell the sourcing for it, but DigitalSpy is a reliable source to the best of my knowledge. I just hate that "updated" tag when we don't seem to have further information available to update. Sock (tock talk) 15:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

It looks good to me! Although I didn't quite get how he did the calculations, the Statista source he gave shows a 0.08% increase of inflation in 2018 compared to 2014, but the calculations don't really add up. Or that's just me not doing the math right. Either way, I'll wait to see what others have to say about it before doing any changes. DCF94 (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not completely happy with his figures either because mine don't match when I replicate the calculation, and also the Statista source seems to be estimated because it goes up to 2022!. However, I think his methodology is sound i.e. applying global inflation index to the Guinness figures. I have found some global figures from the World Bank that I think we could use, and it would allow us to bring The Force Awakens into the chart, which is our biggest problem. This is what I get from calculating the World Bank rates:

Highest-grossing films adjusted for inflation as of 2016

Rank	Title	Worldwide gross (2016 $)	Year
1	Gone with the Wind	$3,640,000,000	1939
2	Avatar	$3,195,000,000	2009
3	Star Wars	$2,989,000,000	1977
4	Titanic	$2,662,000,000T$2,516,000,000	1997
5	The Sound of Music	$2,503,000,000	1965
6	E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial	$2,444,000,000	1982
7	The Ten Commandments	$2,314,000,000	1956
8	Doctor Zhivago	$2,193,000,000	1965
9	Jaws	$2,144,000,000	1975
10	Star Wars: The Force Awakens	$2,103,000,000S$2,103,000,000	1937

For the top 9 films you have to apply the 2014 (because the last year Guinness could have used is 2013 data), 2015 and 2016 inflation rates (which is approximately 5.8%), to get them into 2016 $. The Force Awakens only needs to be converted from 2015 $ into 2016 %, which is approximately 1.7% according to the World Bank. I think we should update the chart but using the World Bank data rather than Digital Spy which uses the estimates. The real advantage (apart from using actual data instead of estimates) is that it provides us with a mechanism for updating the chart each year. It would always be a year behind (the 2017 data won't be published until some point later in the year) but it would allow us to keep it more or less up to date. Betty Logan (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sock, DCF94, PrimeHunter, and Nergaal: Do you any of you have any views on my suggestion of using the World CPI index (as supplied by the World Bank) to keep the adjusted chart up to date? Guinness has not updated their chart for several years now and we still don't have The Force Awakens in there, and there is a good chance Infinity War will penetrate the top 10 too. I don't think OR is a problem in this case because Wikipedia has several inflation templates, so this type of calculation is permitted. We wouldn't need to inflate the grosses from scratch, but just from the 2013 level that Guinness used, so it would be quite straightforward. Hopefully Guinness will update their chart at some point but this would be a good approximation until that happens. Betty Logan (talk) 02:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Since Guinness haven't updated their chart, it stands to reason that we find other sources/ways to accurately update the chart. And yeah, I think using your suggestion is a good way to do so. DCF94 (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: Definitely on board with that change. If we can use {{as of}} without issue, I fail to see how a date indicator of when the calculation was done would pose any problem. Sock (tock talk) 15:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

OK I have gone ahead and done this. If you want to check my calculations you can see the formulas by opening the edit page. Let's see if it sticks. Betty Logan (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Can we used this for Snow White update for the highest grossing animted films page? In the last update it was $1.819 billion thanks Fanoflionking 17:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanoflionking (talk • contribs)

It really depends how you intend to use it. We haven't really done anything new here: we have taken the Guinness chart and multiplied the figures by a constant. This ype of chart would not be possible to do if we had to build it from scratch. But if you are asking if you can update the 1.819 figure using the same process as we have used here then there shouldn't be a problem with that. Betty Logan (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sock and DCF94: As you can see, the new chart (updated to 2016 values) now incorporates The Force Awakens. We still have a problem though because it doesn't incorporate the re-release for Titanic from 2012. When Guinness updated their chart in 2014 they simply adjusted their 2011 chart for inflation, but they didn't add in any new grosses. You can see the adjustment at User:Betty_Logan/Sandbox#Guinness (second chart). This means the chart still isn't technically updated to 2016 levels because we are missing Titanic's reissue gross of $344 million. What do you guys think about adding it in? The reason we didn't add it in before is because we were keeping the chart "pure", but we have pretty much tossed that idea out of the window now and done our own adjustment. This also means we should technically add in any reissue grosses too IMO. We can adjust Titanic's reissue gross from 2013 (instead of 2012) meaning we only lose 1-year's inflation, but it would leave the chart in a better state than it is now. Betty Logan (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Well in my opinion, since we're using this method I don't see why not. What stopped us from doing our own list before, even if the World Bank data could have gone further back before 1960, is that the older films had multiple re-releases that would have been difficult to take all of them into account, but thanks to Guinness we don't have to do all the calculations, and today we have much easier access to this kind of data and Titanic's 2012 re-release has a clear number that we can adjust and add it to its total, same if any other old film would be re-released in the future. DCF94 (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Franchises

That table seems to be missing "Disney Live Action Reimaginings" franchise and Indiana Jones. Also, it might be a more sensible table if it uses a fixed cutoff like >2B or >2.5B box office income. Also considering the nature of movies like CA: Civil War, seems quite weird to me to list MCU sub-franchises separately since none of the sub-franchise movies were 100% independent of the MCU. Nergaal (talk) 10:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

"Disney Live Action Reimaginings" doesn't satisfy the normal media franchise definition since the films are unconnected apart form being adapted from unconnected animated films by the same studio. It does have an entry at http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/ but they do many things we don't, for example franchises with a single released film (Avatar would make our list), and separate entries for Harry Potter and J.K. Rowling's Wizarding World where the latter currently adds a single other film. The table doesn't adjust for inflation and three of four Indiana Jones films are from the 1980's. https://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchises/sort/World says the total is $1,961,339,569, not enough for our top-25. I don't see a good reason to make an arbitrary cutoff and vary the number of entries. The Captain America franchise as a whole has lots of content independent from the MCU. And in #Highest grossing franchise I wrote: "Captain America (1990 film)#Release mentions an international theatrical release long before the MCU but we lack box office data". See also the "#Overlapping franchises" box at top of this page. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

It's still not clear to me how CA:CW is part of CA, yet Justice League is not part of Batman. People went to see CA:CW also because it had Ironman in it. If you choose to ignore the blurry divisions, soon 90% of the top franchises will actually be MCU spinoffs. Asides from Spiderman, all MCU subfranchises are just spinoffs. Nergaal (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The studio decides the franchise in the title. Reliable sources like http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=captainamerica.htm and http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=batman.htm follow it so we should also follow it. Branding and remaining trustworthy means studios will not do crazy things with the titles. A film called "Captain America: Whatever" is automatically a Captain America film. Justice League is a franchise by itself and may make the list some day if gets more films. The first film has six superheroes and will not be counted in six different franchises which aren't in the title. Only some of them would currently make our list but imagine if the three Avengers films were counted for every superhero who appears in them. That will not happen. Captain America started in 1941. What you call MCU subfranchises is old franchises from far before MCU started in 2008. They have lots of pre-MCU media and are not MCU spinoffs. Spin-off (media) cannot predate the property they were spun off from. An MCU spinoff would be a film about characters whose first appearance in any media was an MCU film. But all significant MCU characters are from comics. Apart from "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice", no film is counted more than twice: Once for its own franchise in the title and sometimes a second time for a shared universe (currently MCU and DCEU). MCU is not getting 90% of the top-25. That would require 22 separate superhero properties with enough big films named after the property to pass number 3 among non-MCU franchises. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Captain America is considered the primary component in Civil War and the film is ostensibly the next entry in the Captain America series. There is a huge grey area though, and it is mostly up to the studios and secondary sources to determine the attribution. Part of the problem is that Marvel has completely dissolved the traditional understanding of how a franchise operates, and I don't think the trackers such as Box Office Mojo handle it particularly well. The biggest problem as Nergaal points out is that our current rendering is inconsistent i.e. if Disney had called Civil War "Avengers: Civil War" it is an Avengers movie, and if they had called it "Captain America vs Iron Man" it is then also an Iron Man movie; both of those would have been viable titles. Personally I would prefer a more objective approach and if you remember last year I proposed a spin-off article that would separate the chart into single properties, cross-franchise properties and continuities at User:Betty Logan/Sandbox/draft3. The proposal died because we couldn't agree on an approach. I still think an approach on those lines is the way to go though, because I don't think a single table really works any more. Betty Logan (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

First off, as usual, I think Betty has done remarkable work with this article and appreciate her efforts. That said, a problem I and some other editors have had for some time with the Highest-grossing franchises and film series table is the repeat entry of some franchises (it's been a few years now, but I believe it started with the Iron Man series being listed a part of the MCU and again as a franchise onto itself). This duplication is problematic, because as the table is limited to the 'top 25', there isn't really 25 franchises listed, and further, whichever series was listed at #25, but then bumped when Iron Man became listed twice, was still actually the 25th series, but was no longer listed. I haven't looked through all the alternate table proposals and attached discussions in Betty's sandbox, but if there is a solution to be found there to address this issue, I'm all for it, as I'm sure others would be as well. Some kind of change(s) will be needed as these franchises become more and more blurred together. (Just wait until Disney's really big cross-over event comes along, and a band of Jedi Knights helps the Guardians of the Galaxy and The Avengers save the universe, by going back in time and teaming up with Indiana Jones to find an ancient, all-powerful Macguffin!) Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 04:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

A side-note: I remember reading many sources stating that all the Pixar movies happen in the same universe. I think there could be a reasonable case to be made for a "Pixar Universe" franchise. Nergaal (talk) 08:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Pixar universe theory has an article but the theory has low support and shouldn't be claimed true by Wikipedia when Pixar doesn't say it. A hypothetical Avengers and Star Wars film with both properties in the title could be counted in both franchises like Batman v Superman. Disney is unlikely to go beyond that in the title. The Lego Movie includes several characters from our top-25 but it only counts as a Lego film. The double counting of MCU and DCEU does come up a lot. I'm strongly opposed to omitting MCU and DCEU films from their superhero franchises. Should Spider-Man: Homecoming be omitted from Spider-Man just because it shares continuity with some non-Spiderman films? Should Man of Steel be omitted from Superman just because it's in the DCEU? It didn't even share continuity with other films at release because it was the first DCEU film. And I think it's even worse to say something like: If all theatrically released Superhero X films is part of the same shared universe then X doesn't get an entry, but if there are other films then X gets an entry with all the films. Captain America (1990 film)#Release was in theaters in some countries as mentioned, so does Captain America get an entry but not Iron Man? If Iron Man: Rise of Technovore or a future film has a small theatrical release then does Iron Man suddenly get an entry including his three MCU films? This criteria would be too arbitrary to me. If we want to avoid double counting then it's the shared universes MCU and DCEU which should be removed, but I don't support that when all sources count them as franchises. I have previously mentioned that shared universes could be marked in the table so readers can clearly see they are not based on a single property like one superhero or one named superhero team. If people dislike that shared universes can push out individual franchises then we could say that the list gets 25 individual franchises plus all shared universes which are above the 25th individual franchise. That would currently give 27 entries with MCU and DCEU. This assumes we agree that franchises like Star Wars, Wizarding World, Middle-earth and X-Men (including Deadpool) should not be counted as shared universes. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

To be fair it's not a top 25 per se, it's just a list that is simply cut off at 25 entries to keep the data clean. In reality it is the MCU and DCEU that are the anomalous entries and they only take up two spots. It used to be limited to 20, and the only reason we have those limits is because we run into wonky/missing data. There is nothing to prevent us expanding the chart if a bunch of new franchises start to push the older ones down. This is what happened when we went from top 20 to top 25: six years ago the franchise chart had 17 entries that had nothing to do with superheroes, and the current version has 16 entries that has nothing to with superheroes. The proportion has changed in favor of superhero franchises, but that is because they are the ones making big money at the moment, but the number of non-superhero franchises is pretty much the same. If more superhero franchises penetrate the chart there is nothing to stop us expanding to a top 30. Basically what I am saying is that we shouldn't get too hung up on this being a top 25 because all it represents is the limit of our meaningful data. The very next franchise would be Planet of the Apes which is where the problems start because we only have estimated data. Frankly, if Planet of the Apes and The Mummy don't get back in that is better for the chart IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Missing data is for old films and small international releases. It will be a small part of the total due to inflation in franchises with enough big recent films to make a top list. I actually wouldn't mind some entries with missing data and footnotes stating that, even simple footnotes only saying "No known data" or "Only includes domestic box office". Some of the individual films may be way off their real box office but it will be films few people care about today. I think the franchise ranking and big films are more important. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

How about having a big footnote with a disclaimer and don't split anything that has no separate spinoffs, until those get separate spinoffs (i.e. Spider Man has separate spinoffs, but Ironman doesn't). MCU is pretty much the only one creating problems so far, and you can't say for example that Cap America franchise is playing a fair-game when it comes to standalone franchise totals when its into movie tagged the name Avengers, and the two sequels had a huge bump from MCU friends. Nergaal (talk) 11:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Because you would create a completely arbitrary situation. The fact is the Iron Man films set in the MCU are still Iron Man films first and foremost. The MCU setting is basically just an WP:INUNIVERSE continuity and doesn't really have any bearing on whether or not Iron Man is a franchise. The fact that Iron Man doesn't have any films set outside the MCU is purely incidental: if they did an animated movie along the lines of Batman:Mask of Phantasm that made 10 mil then it would completely alter the chart order under such an arbitrary criteria. It doesn't make sense to treat properties differently on the basis of fictional elements. The chart is attempting to break down franchises along the lines of intellectual property, which has a real basis in law. And it's not just the MCU creating problems, because we have the exact same problem with the DCEU as well and their crossovers. We already have Batman and Superman in the chart and it is only a matter of time before Wonder Woman becomes eligible. The real problem is when IP is pooled in a single film; treating something like the MCU like James Bond doesn't work very well because they are two every different types of franchise. Betty Logan (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

One way of doing this without being completely arbitrary would be to remove entries that are entirely contained in another franchise. For example, Batman v Superman could be listed under both Batman and Superman, but remove Iron Man and Captain America unless and until they have a non-MCU entry. It's a sort of compromise, but it would resolve the confusion many, many people seem to have and would allow some difference in the table. Or just reduce the table to franchises with $3 billion or more. TdanTce (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

That would also remove The Avengers. I still think it's far too arbitrary to say that the inclusion of an old multi-billion dollars franchise with decades of pre-MCU publications in other media including tv films should depend on whether they made or make a limited or foreign release of some low-budget film nobody cares about. As mentioned, Captain America (1990 film)#Release had a foreign release but we don't know the box office. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I have added this above the franchise table so readers are aware of it: "The list includes the shared universes Marvel Cinematic Universe and DC Extended Universe where individual films can also be counted under the specific franchise in the film title." PrimeHunter (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a good start, but I don't think I would've understood that explanation if I didn't already know what we're talking about. I added a {{clarify}} tag. TompaDompa (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I tried to reword this to make it clearer: "The following list includes the shared universes Marvel Cinematic Universe and DC Extended Universe. Some films in these franchises are grouped both with the MCU or DCEU and with other films featuring the same titular character." TdanTce (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

BI doesn't seem to agree with the franchises listed here outside top 20. Nergaal (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

They have many errors and even if we skipped Avengers, Iron Man and Captain America, they are missing clear franchises like Star Trek and Madagascar. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Studio

Can we add the name of the studio in the main chart of the highest-grossing films? (much like there is in the '2018 in films' page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.80.90.246 (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

There was no support at #Distributor Column. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Avatar vs GwtW

How distinct are distributor rentals vs home sales? Most of GwtW are not actual ticket sales, but DR. Meanwhile, Avatar got another 15% bump in income from DVD+BR sales. Should these not be covered at all when comparing highest BO incomes? Nergaal (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Theatrical rentals have nothing to do with the home video market (which was non-existent prior to the 1980s). They are generated at the box-office through ticket sales. Please read Gross rental. Betty Logan (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

2 for 1

If a film plays with another film will it go towards it box office for example Spider-Man play with MIB and gross $6.6 million Putting SM1 total $828,341,521

And the franchise with

|- | colspan="6" |

9	Spider-Man	$4,850,059,398	6	$808,343,233	Spider-Man 3 ($890,871,626)
Raimi series $2,502,979,488 3 $834,326,496 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 4 spiderman/man in Black $6,632,970
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
Marvel Cinematic Universe $880,166,924 1 $880,166,924 Homecoming ($880,166,924) 1 Homecoming (2017) $880,166,924

13:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Fanoflionking

It should be handled in the same way we handle crossovers IMO and added to both franchises. There is already a precedent for this in the Twilight entry, although of course that double bill wasn't split over two franchises. Betty Logan (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Page views

Nice to see this niche list get some audience: Wikipedia:Top 25 Report/May 6 to 12, 2018. Nergaal (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

And it actually had more views the next week but eight of the top-10 were people connected to a certain wedding. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Pixar "franchise"

Another source that dabbles into this idea. Nergaal (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Box Office Mojno regards Pixar as a brand. There is certainly no concerted effort yet to establish and promote a continuity between the films. If we were to accept Pixar as a franchise on those terms then we would have to consider many other brands along the same lines which would change the current chart beyond recognition, andwell beyond what most sources consider a "franchise". It would violate WP:DUE in my opinion. Box Office Mojo has good reasons for separating out "brands" from other franchises. Betty Logan (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Infinity War

If infinity war outgrosses the force awakens will it be on the top ten adjusted for inflation or will it not be enough