Talk:List of highest-grossing films

Ticket Sales

I have changed "ticket sales" to "box office takings" as the former is highly misleading, this is a list of money made not tickets sold. As the list is not adjusted for inflation it is inevitably biassed towards newer films, and against older films. Rje 20:02, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

How many people saw the movie?

I think it would be better to make a list of how many tickets were sold instead of how much money each movie made. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.120.172.142 (talk) 06:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

This is a good approach because, unlike any dollar amount, the number of tickets sold can remain fairly static without needing to be adjusted repeatedly, assuming no re-releases. For verifiability, Boxofficemojo has just such a list. If there are no objections, we can include it. Shawnc (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure. But I'm not totally opposed to it either. Flyer22 (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Boxofficemojo's estimated ticket adjuster is a reliable measure of the number of tickets sold. I'm pretty sure it's just putting the Box Office numbers into an algorithm (hence why the list doesn't change order when you alter this variable). But if there IS a reliable source of info regarding # of tickets sold, then it should definitely be added, because there really is nothing more static when it comes to comparing the long-term popularity of films. Box Office gross, ultimately, is better served as a short-term comparison anyway.

Unfortunately, it's going to be very hard to find one that also takes the ever-pesky rerelease into consideration. 75.50.170.213 (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Without Inflation adjusting these stats are meaningless

You mention the fact that inflation matters in the article, but what's the point of just mentioning it? You really need to include the inflation adjusted numbers as the primary list. This list heavily favors new films which are priced in massively inflated dollars. Cshay 19:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The stats are not necessarily meaningless but i do agree that surely the adjusted list should also be included in the article why only mention them? Discordance 02:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Inflation stats are meaningless, because they are not properly administered. Firstly, international numbers were not kept until recently, so if you check the sources that adjust for inflation, you'll see they go off domestic numbers. Then people post here at wikipedia with this information and fail to differentiate domestic with international and worldwide, because they don't understand the difference. Secondly, the sources adjust for inflation based off the film's year of release, despite the fact that many of the films on the list made much of their money in rereleases in later years. (Gone with the Wind and Star Wars being two big examples.) In addition, Titanic made most of its money in 1998, not its year of release (1997). While I'm sympathetic to the problem of modern movies looking much more impressives on a list than movies from years ago because of inflation, the quick "adjusted for inflation" fix doesn't work. In fact, we'll never be able to equally compare the box office of films from years ago to today, because films today make so much of their money internationally, and films of yesteryear don't have enough specific data available anymore. 69.215.136.153 (talk) 00:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree with all of the things you (69.215.136.153, above) cited as problems. But, with EITHER calculation/methodology the problems you cite still exist! Isn't it then better to include the inflation adjustment? The results are bound to be more correct than non-adjusted ones! As is, the article calls non-adjusted numbers "meaningless" (which is a generalization, but essentially true for comparing films from different years), but then lists only the non-adjusted amount! That's not cool! ...On a separate matter, don't we know the amounts made in each year (how much Titanic made in 97, how much in 98... how much Star Wars made in 7#, how much in 9#)? It would be simple to calculate these adjusted first, and THEN add them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.146.108 (talk) 09:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

Should this movie be on the list? I think the list would better without it, as all the other movies are $500 million or more, while Crusade is slightly under. I've counted and see that it's a nice round number (40) but since it is not numbered, and few are going to count it, it would probably look better if it just included movies that grossed over half a billion worldwide. Just a thought...Eric Sieck 03:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it if there is no opposition in the next week.Eric Sieck 03:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I say leave it. The fact that it is the only one under $500m is a coincidence, the standings will change in the future. Qutezuce 03:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

So it shall stay. Actually, if it does change, then all the movies indeed will be over half a billion dollars, because Crusade will be knocked off. However, since it doesn't say top 40 at the top, nor as I mentioned before, are they numbered, I still think it would look better as all movies over half a billion dollars. However, disagreement has been shown, so if it is changed in the future, it won't be by me, but my opinion still stands. Eric Sieck 04:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is it specifically the top 40 anyway? Is there are reason for this? 75.50.170.213 (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Update needed

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is now 8th, but is still shown as being 12th.

Based on which data? The list on this page appears to be based on this one at imdb. And Harry Potter is in the correct place according to that page. Qutezuce 20:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

1950's omitted?

Why are the 1950's omitted from the [inflation adjusted] list?

Well, they're not omitted as such, it just happens that no film from the 1950s was big enough box-office around the world. Why? Post-war austerity, fewer people being able to afford tickets, difficult to say categorically.--Stevouk 18:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The Two Towers

Perhaps someone can get an accurate edit on that BJAODN.

What a terrible article

The list is pretty accurate, but the figures are way, way off! User:Gmeric13@aol.com

Spider-Man 2

Anyone notice that it appears twice in this list? :P --Nbmatt 00:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

With $964 million unadjusted, shouldn't it be at least somewhere on the adjusted list as well?Ribonucleic 15:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, since no one else did it, I've put it at #15 - based on putting the unadjusted total through the CPI calculator at http://www.minneapolisfed.org/Research/data/us/calc/ Ribonucleic 17:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Asterisks for re-released movies on the Adjusted list

I'm too lazy to look for references on these. But the Disney films used to be re-released every 7 years, I'm pretty sure. The Special Edition of the SW original trilogy definitely played in theaters. ET was re-released twice, I think - back when Spielberg was still pretending he'd never put it on video. I know GWTW was re-released in theaters because I watched it there. The only one I'm iffy on is Lion King. But I think I remember that coming back once. Ribonucleic 00:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This list is not credible.

I first found the equivalent of this list on imdb.com. I'm having a really hard time believing two of the entries: Titanic and Gone with the Wind. Granted, these were both blockbusters among blockbusters, but I find it more than a little odd that Titanic grossed $1.8353 billion in 1997, whereas the next highest gross that year was Jurassic Park at $614.3 million—-ostensibly everybody in the world saw Jurassic Park, so how did Titanic exceed its sales by a factor of 2.99? Other sources quote Titanic's take as much lower (e.g., $789,300,000 listed at http://www.teako170.com/inflation.html, which admittely is reporting only domestic sales; but still, that leaves more than a billion in foreign box office--not likely). Nearer, my god, to thee, indeed.

As to GWTW, according to this table only four movies earlier than 1970 broke more than $200 in box office sales (the other three being Bambi, One Hundred and One Dalmations, and The Jungle Book—-all Disnamations. We're really meant to believe that in 1939 Gone With the Wind sold $390.5 million at the box office, more than any other movie until Jaws came along 36 years later? And that The Wizard of Oz, the other blockbuster from that annus mirabillis, didn't even break two mill? Given the general inflation rates between 1939 and present (1,316.43% ), a movie in 2006 would have to gross $5.14 billion-—almost thrice what Titanic made, though that was unadjusted 1997 dollars-—to be comparable to the cited GWTW box office. But perhaps that calculation is probably skewed because the general inflation rate is not representative of the inflation in box office prices. Well, ok, Box Office Mojo tells us that the average movie ticket price in 1939 was $.23 and that in 2006 it is $6.58; that represents an inflation rate of 2,860.87%, so the GWTW box office would translate to $11.17 billion in 2006 box office sales—-more than 10 times the take of the highest-grossing movie so far this year (Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest).

Finally, and most problematically, there's no citation anywhere on this page about the source of these data, so I honestly don't believe they should be presented as fact on wikipedia.

GWTW was re-released in 1947, 1954, 1961, 1967 , 1971, 1989, and 1998 so thats why its numbers seem way off. That said one of the lists is wrong or incomplete as they don't match each other. Back to the Future (1985) is number 6 on the unadjusted list but doesn't even make the inflation list where it should beat Jurassic Park (1993) and Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (1999) (witch isn't even on the first list).Errror1 21:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This list here is inaccurate. There is not a single Bond movie on the list. Using BOX-OFFICE TOP 100 U.S. FILMS Unadjusted and Adjusted list at http://www.filmsite.org/boxoffice.html shows that in adjusted for inflation list there is Thunderball as number 26 and Goldfinger as number 39. If you access Wiki Bond page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_bond you will find out that calculating inflation by using inflation score for budget, Thunderball earned 903 million, Goldfinger earned 812 million, Live and Let Die earned 735 million, You Only Live Twice earned 674 million, The Spy Who Loved Me earned 617 million, Diamonds Are Forever earned 578 million, Casino Royale earned 571 million, Moonraker earned 534 million and From Russia with Love earned 512 million. This error seems quite deliberate and malicious. If some people don't like Bond movies then that certainly doesn't give them a right to lie here and fabricate facts. I dispute this whole page therefore. Ravenlord 09:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Birth of a Nation: Ihave just read an article on wikipedia claiming birth of a nation is the highest grossing film ever, Yet it is nowhere to be seen on this list.

it was, at the time, and is listed on one of the lists on the page.

Why Box Office grosses have gone up so greatly

Everyone talks about inflation driving up the box office totals and the reason why the top grossing films are from the last twenty years, but I don't think it's as big of a factor as people think. There's something else that's not mentioned: number of screens. This has been the biggest factor affecting box office grosses. The original Star Wars movies only played on about 1000 screens in North America, so they could only make $10 million or so a weekend. (These are ballpark figures, but you get the idea.) Films like Star Wars and E.T. would get their money by stringing together these sorts of weekends throughout the summer. But the last twenty years has seen an explosion of movie theater screens. Modern films play on about 4000 in North America, and we're not even getting into the increase in international grosses. That's why films such as Spider-man and Harry Potter have been able to open with $100 million, and that's why I believe the films of the last twenty years have been able to chart high on the all time list. The population has increased, of course, but more importantly, getting the movies to these people has become easier. If you build a theater closer to where someone lives, you're more likely to get that someone to the movie. The number of screens is so closely linked to the money a film can make, a good site like boxofficemojo will tell you how many a film is going to be playing on when it comes out. Celedor15 19:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

435 Billion for Gone with the Wind?

Apparently, adjusted with inflation, Gone with the wind has grossed 1% of the world's current GDP. I realize this is an extremely faulty comparison, but I felt the only way I could comprehend how ridiculous that number was, was to make that kind of comparison. There is no way that number is accurate. Rocksbush 04:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The list says $4.39 billion now. You may have counted the decimals. Still, that number has no citation. This link has the 2006 inflation adjusted number at about $1.33 billion. Shawnc 00:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Explicit citation needed

The lists require a mention of exactly where or how the numbers are derived. The source must be credible. Shawnc 22:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

But we need some way to prove that Gone With The Wind and Star Wars were comparatively more successful than Titanic!

That "proof" doesn't exist.Yoyocoolboy 23:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

And if you look at the old list, NO citations were used to prove the numbers that were posted. Thus, the list, source, or whatever was posted on that page was NOT credible.Yoyocoolboy 23:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete the Worldwide inflation gross list

4 things are needed to know in order to receive how many tickets a movie sold so you can convert a movie's box office gross into an adjusted for inflation gross.

1. What year the movie was released/rereleased.

2. How much the average movie ticket was they year the movie was released/rereleased.

3. How much the movie made during each release/rerelease.

4. The average ticket price of the year you're going to convert the movie's release/rerelease grosses into.

There's no place that we can find all 4 variables for most of the movies that were released before 1990; so we can't go around making up lists and pulling numbers out of our heads unless we know all 4 of those variables.

gone with the wind's release/rerelease totals are non-existent. Boxofficemojo only lists one clumped up list of what the movie made throughout all the years it was released/rereleased. So whoever posted that 2.6 billion dollar adjusted for inflation gross MADE IT UP. Why should numbers that people make up be allowed to be posted on this site and confuse/mislead people?

I will also prove that Titanic's actual adjusted for inflation gross is over 2.64 billion dollars, not 2.2.

(Using the variable list I created above)

1. 1997

2. $4.59

3. $1,845,034,188

4. 2007/$6.58

I will now take the $1,845,034,188 total and divide that number by the average movie ticket price of 1997 ($4.59) to result in how many tickets were sold. (401,968,233)

I take the number of tickets sold (401,968,233) and now multiply that number by the average ticket price of a movie today ($6.58) to result in the true adjusted for inflation Worldwide gross for Titanic.

I come out with a result of $2,644,950,971.03. (Which means Titanic should at least be number 3 on that BS and made up list.)

That's how you really discover a movie's adjusted for inflation gross.

Because there's just so much we don't know about movie grosses that were released before 1990, there just shouldn't be a list because we just don't have enough information to create one.

... posted at 07:38, 7 June 2007 by Yoyocoolboy

You make some very good points, Yoyocoolboy. Incidentally, how do we even know recent average ticket prices? Presumably people know them for the US, for Brazil, for Hungary, for Uganda, for Brunei, etc etc; but do people actually work out the price in each nation? Because if they don't, even your calculation becomes worthless. Instead, you need the earnings for nation X divided by the average ticket price for nation X, plus the earnings for nation Y divided by the average ticket price for nation Y, etc etc (ad nauseam). It's not impossible that accountants somewhere do compile this information, but do they really? -- Hoary 09:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Look it up on boxofficemojo.com. Here's the link to show the average ticket prices of today.http://www.boxofficemojo.com/about/adjuster.htm

Breaking up the gross by nation is something that can't be done. Which would mean that my calculations aren't exactly 100% true, but that also means that the list that exists right now is also 100% fake. (at least I try to prove my numbers by using math instead of just posting some random numbers)

There's not enough information on each movie's worldwide gross to create a list; so it should be deleted as soon as possible.Yoyocoolboy 00:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Are these even average ticket prices? Or are they instead average US ticket prices? (All of this seems dodgier and dodgier.)

Let's wait a week and see if anyone posts a reasoned defense of the contents of this list. -- Hoary 01:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

That's the only credible list that exists right now. And those are the numbers boxofficemojo uses to create their adjusted for inflation domestic list (so why not have a list that we know is a fact using ONLY the domestic grosses; instead of worldwide)

I'm guessing that that's the US dollar movie ticket prices (though not 100 percent sure)

But either way, the list that's featured on wikipedia presently is very far off and still very untrue.Yoyocoolboy 03:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Using this formula for Gone With the Wind you get the following:

1. 1939

2. $.23 (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/about/adjuster.htm)

3. $189,523,031 in 1939 only (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=releases&id=gonewiththewind.htm)

4. 2007 and predicted 2008/$6.88 (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/about/adjuster.htm)

This brings GWTW's total with adjustments for inflation on the original release to be = $5,669,210,664.64. This is more than boxofficemojo's calculations. JCgirlandlegal (talk) 07:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That is because, unlike you, Box Office Mojo and other major sources that attempt to calculate Gone with the Wind's adjusted domestic (i.e., US & Canada) box office (or equivalently, the number of tickets sold) take into account the fact that the film has been released multiple times. The same holds true with other films released multiple times, like Star Wars. Spiderboy12 (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

PROD removal

This article was "prodded", on the grounds that about half of it was worthless (as argued in the section above).

Let's assume for a moment that the charge above is well founded. That in itself is no reason to delete the article. Deletion would have removed the other half too.

Despite having no particular affection for this article and being very suspicious of a lot of its content, I therefore removed the prod template. -- Hoary 09:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

In case you still think it should be deleted, you should go to Articles for deletion In fact, I've already come across a listing on the AfD log which I removed, since it was both misspelled and there is currently no no main tag nor discussion page. In case you want to nominate the article, please follow the three steps outlined at WP:AfD#How to list pages for deletion. --Tikiwont 12:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoah, what happened to the second table? It should be put back there.

No it should not. It was 100% made up and had no proof to back it up.

Why would you want people to be mislead or become confused.

I THANK whomever decided to delete that list! May it never be seen again!Yoyocoolboy 23:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I also am happy the list was removed. It was at best misleading, at worst a work of fiction. To my knowledge, no one has yet come out with a domestic or worldwide list of box office grosses properly adjusted for inflation. And I doubt anyone ever will, as such a list would still be misleading and meaningless. Celedor15 03:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

References

All of the figures here should be referenced, so I added a "Source" column to the table as implemented on other list articles (eg, List of best-selling albums worldwide). Tntnnbltn 04:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

transformers

uhh... are you sure tranformers made $1,845,034,188,879,765,707???someone is probably screwing up the article...

68.192.12.173 23:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

tonight we dine in... revert! -74.111.7.3 06:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

War of the Worlds: Galactic Rising???

even the source code shows it's Titanic, who messed with the page and who can change it back!?

24.127.126.164 17:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Britton.

Highest grossing film series

I just added the highest grossing film series. If anyone feels it is unnecessary they can delete it.

APAD 03:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

With the Highest Grossing Series....Can I suggest a High Grossing Series(Average)? Seeing Film Series Like James Bond or Harry Potter(7-8 Films in total) with 21 films to almost 10 films to add to their already total grossing which no doubt puts them on top of the list? It would not be fair to the Films Series like Pirates or LotR who created 3 Films that racked up into Billions of grossing worth.

Edit- Not Sure What I suggested above is already implemented by the "Average of each film" Section of the Film Series Grossing. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 00:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok I Looked at the Film Series Gross Earnings List and Series Like Batman have films that are not related Put into One....I Mean ALL THE Batman Movies are included in the grossing. The Director of the Newer ones did announce that "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight" Has no relations with the older movies and it is its own series. As Said Batman can be added on the chart but with the old movies or the more recent ones. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 11:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You should define what is a Film Serie. Why you don't count the LOTR animated film, or Animatrix, but you count ALL the Bond films (even remakes) and the Batman films (even when they aren't a serie)?

-- Gorka Siverio, 25 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.7.112.53 (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is inclined to update this page, please note that the correct worldwide numbers for the James Bond series are listed at The Numbers. These were compiled by MGM at the time of their sale to Sony, and a kind soul forwarded them to me for inclusion on our site. If one includes Never Say Never Again as part of the James Bond canon, then JB is still the highest-grossing film series worldwide.

Please also note that the Harry Potter data is wildly inaccurate on this page. See http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/series/franchises.php for accurate totals for all franchises. (Heck, why not just copy the numbers across from our chart and be done with it... if you see any mistakes in our tally, drop us email and we'll gladly update.)

-- Bruce Nash (The Numbers), 19 April 2008

Just above the chart it says "unadjusted," which I assume means inflation was never included. I am concerned about some of the figures given that some of the series span such long time periods, for instance James Bond and Star Wars. The "total worldwide box office" data contains 1970s dollars and 2000s dollars (and everything in between for some of these films). In short, the values in the table give no useful information since it "compares apples to oranges," to use an idiom. There is a discussion section listed above with good arguments for why we cannot attempt our own inflation adjustments, but just because we can't adjust the values doesn't mean we can go ahead and compare unrelated quantities. Dwr12 (talk) 23:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"but just because we can't adjust the values doesn't mean we can go ahead and compare unrelated quantities."

Why not? The list on top compares Harry Potter with Star Wars, which were released decades apart. The 'highest grossing series' part is just as valid as every other section of the article.

Spinach Dip 05:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Spinach, that doesn't provide justification for the validity of this chart. Certainly it is just as valid as the others, but who ever said the others were acceptable. The reason for listing data in a chart like this is indisputably for comparative purposes. What comparisons can we make though?Dwr12 (talk) 04:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you could change the list to say 'highest average gross' for a film series. That would remove some of the ambiguity of the list.

Spinach Dip 08:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

IMDb

Is there a need for this article given the IMDb list (the article doesn't match up by the way)?--RossF18 04:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

King Kong

King Kong is on there twice which seems to be a mistake —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiliap2 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The same 2005 version of "King Kong" is in both 29th and 44th places. The 29th place entry is the only one on the list that seems to be an approximation (listed as "$700,000,000+"), so I am going to delete it and adjust the rest of the list. Unfortunately, I don't know what movie should move into the vacant 50th place spot, so I'll leave it blank. Hopefully, having 49 movies on the list of the top 50 will spur someone more knowledgeable about these things to correct the data.

But it's clear that having "King Kong" twice on the same list is a blatant error that needs to be corrected immediately. BJ Nemeth (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea, but might have been the original (or at least another) version of King Kong? Sandpiper (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Merged in a similar list

I've merged in another one of these lists into this article on the "highest grossing films throughout history" which was a little ambiguous. It's now a section at the end of this article as the record holding highest grossing films over time, which made more sense to me. I've redirected the other list to the section itself, so that any links would be picked up. I hope you agree that it makes sense to keep the record holding films in this article as well. If you feel you just have to move it out, please don't forget to fix the other article as well as the link will be broken! Portia1780 (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Highest Grossing at the Time - Missing Jurassic Park

Jurassic Park passed E.T.'s take in 1993, before Titanic came out in 1997. Why is it absent from the list of highest grossing at the time? 68.98.35.111 (talk) 07:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It grossed $357,067,947 in its domestic run. E.T. got $359,197,037. — Enter Movie (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That's different information than I remember. Even back in '93-'94 there were articles about Jurassic Park surpassing E.T. Do you have a reference for these numbers? The only numbers I've been able to pull up (admittedly casually) have E.T.'s re-releases, even post '93, included, which inflate the numbers. 68.98.37.37 (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Jurassic Park did pass E.T.'s worldwide take, and was the highest grossing worldwide movie of all time in 1993. However, the list on this page only refers to those who held the domestic box office record. That's why Jurassic Park is missing.Spartacus007 (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Double it

Let's make it go up to 100 rather than 50 24.186.101.182 (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Let the love begin and The Promise?????

How are Let the love begin and The Promise the top two highest grossing films ever? Where is Titanic and Lord of the Rings: Return of the King? I think someone's mucking around with the table because I have never even heard of these films and I have not found any website that includes those two films in their lists.

importance of this article

I notice there has been considerable argument about this article, indeed whether it ought to be deleted on the grounds that its content is very hard to verify. I agree there is a big problem with making exact lists. However, it seems to me this informtaion is the sort of thing film moguls have pinned up on the noticeboard of their boardroom. It is very important what sort of films are successfull, and I would presume of interest both to those wanting to see if their favourite film made the list, and to serious film makers. This article ought to exist. I would suggest that anyone who could find information about why films make it to the top, or discussion of the relative merits of different kinds of film, could usefully add it to the article. Sandpiper (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Budget?

This article is fine but where can I find list of movies with highest budgets? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

See http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/budgets.php for a list of most expense movies (and see http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/allbudgets.php for a list of all movies that have known budgets).

-- Bruce Nash (The Numbers), April 19 2008

Somebody f#cked up the list.

YOu better close it. Only registered should be allowed to change. Because somebody allways change the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.33.234.250 (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahaha. Lookslike some idiot counter the first 10 high grossers except Titanic that way. He put together worldwide gross + overseas gross with already included in worldwide. That way he got 1800mil on Lotr3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.33.234.250 (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The Harry Potter series is not, I repeat NOT the most successful film franchise of all time. Just google "most successful film franchises of all time" or whatever.

The top grossing film franchise is arguably either James Band or Star Wars, not Harry Potter. Just go to google, almost every site contradicts this hilarious claime. Badboysbadoyswhatugonnado (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Warning tag is up. Shawnc (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem with googling "most successful film franchises of all time" is that you will find countlees differing opinions on what that term means. According to this article, it is total gross by the series, in which case, HP (apparently) is first.

Spinach Dip 08:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Error

In the section titled "Record holding highest grossing films throughout film history (United States and Canada)", how did the Sound of Music break Gone With the Wind's record of 189 mil if it only grossed 158 mil? Aaron Bowen (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

In the reception article of The Sound of Music, it says the film displaced Gone with the Wind as the all-time champion MAKING The Sound of Music the highest-grossing film at that time. The numbers are just incorrect due to so numerous re-releases so please put the film back in the category. Christianster45 {talk} 9:37, 7 July 08 (UTC)

gross what??

gross sales? gross revenue? gross profit? gross income?

It's not specified! Please clarify in the beginning of the article!--Sonjaaa (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ranking of Indiana Jones 4

Does anyone know if it's 33rd or 34th? I've been hearing both. Thanks! Ehccheehcche (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It's climbing fast and it depends when the count was updated. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/ currently has it as 33rd slightly ahead of 34. But if all current World figures were in then it would probably be 31 (it opened in Japan in the weekend). PrimeHunter (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Indiana Jones Series

What is the source to say this is in the highest grossing series? Calculated from the figures, take off the Crystal Skull and each other film has to have earned $540 million each on average, but non of them are in the top 50 so this isn't possible. Canterbury Tail talk 12:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The currently listed total $2,282,272,933 appears to be too high. http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/series/franchises.php currently says 8th place with $1,908,935,783. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Dark Knight is the third highest grossing film ever

Choose one of the many links, oh, and why isn't this included?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dark+knight+third+highest

Hellothar999 (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The Dark Knight is the third highest grossing film on the US market or possibly the "domestic" market which also includes Canada. But our article is about worldwide grosses where The Dark Knight is currently much lower. See for example http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/ which lists it as number 30 at the moment. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

random

"Pirates: At world's end" is in top 10 now...how to update it? I wish it crosses the 1 billion mark !!!!!!!!!

According to the header of this page Harry Potter and the philosophers stone was one of 4 films to hit the billion dollar mark. Acording to the list it is about 25 million shy so I adjusted the header accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeDSileo1988 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Does someone have available the exact algorithm that was used, or access to a way to recreate it? This list is now out-of-date, as for example The Matrix Reloaded is by all accounts somewhere on the top 50, so should be updated. -- Delirium 01:54 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There are nine films from late '02–'04 ahead of MI2 on the first list which should be on the second --wwoods 17:05, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There are now 14 films that debuted after MI2 that should be on the second list. MI2 has fallen off the first list now. Rmhermen 03:31, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

The new star wars is a at 692 million and climbing and should go past 850 million. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=starwars3.htm

I updated the list, but got a little mixed up, that's why it's edited so much times by me.

NOTE- I have checked all the most respected movie websites (imdb, boxofficemojo, thenumbers, etc) and nowhere does it mention Titanic reaching over 2 billion. You cannot use the inflation on the whole amount because much of its earnings have been somewhat recent. taking the USD worth in 1998 and and calculating it with the whole amount is very inaccurate and misleading.

Expansion

• Highest grossing film series needs to be added with more film series and maybe some more info for the wikitable.

Please expand this page soon. Vinh1000 (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Dark Knight film series

Do 2 films count as a series? im curios as [ ithink] all the other series have has at least 3 films in the series. Im probeley just been stupid but, you never know 90.194.94.67 (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

oh sorry about this, i thought this only counted for the 2 new films. my bad people. sorry for wasting your time. But does i list need 2 or 3 films to count as a series? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.94.67 (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think 2 would be enough but there is currently no case of a series with only 2 films which would be anywhere near the displayed top-10 for unadjusted grosses. They would need a sum around $1,900,000,000. The best 2-film series at http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/series/franchisesW.php is The Chronicles of Narnia (film series) with a sum of only $1,168,328,447. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Lucas' retitlings of the original Star Wars series

These should clearly not be used here, and are a symptom of fancruft. Both in their original 1977, 1980 and 1983 releases, and in the huge 1997 theatrical director's cut re-releases, the films were not known and advertised as Star Wars Episode Whatever, but simply by their given titles. It is only since the 1999 release of Episode I: The Phantom Menace and the subsequent prequels, that the originals have been retitled by Lucasfilm ON DVD, to make it seem as if the entire series has more consistency than was originally planned. However, the original three have never seen wide THEATRICAL re-releases under those re-titles, and this is an article about theatrical box office rather than DVD revenue. Only a minuscule proportion of each of their theatrical box office could possibly have made under the post-1999 re-titlings. For the same reason it would be confusing and inappropriate to refer to Raiders of the Lost Ark in this article by its retitle Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark, it is wrong to refer to the originals by the fanboy-preferred titles, which are lesser known among the general population and especially confusing in the case of the original Star Wars, (so-called) A New Hope. 70.21.85.195 (talk) 04:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point since the films were orignally promoted and billed without the episode prefixes, but the concept of six episodes was in the mind of Lucas from the start. Also the he original triogy WERE presented as episode's: IV A New Hope, V The Empire Strikes Back and VI Return of the Jedi in the openeing scrolling introduction text of each movie. The only exception were on the initial relaeases of the first movie where the studio requested "Chapter IV" be omitted to not confuse the audience, but this WAS put back in on the 1980 re-release that preluded the first screenings of Empire (I personally remember being confused by this as this was the first time I watched Star Wars, so the studio had a point). Having completed the seies it would be fair, albeit rectoavtive, to refer to the titles as creatively intended and shown in the opening titles and while I accept the opposite view (since the movies were promoted and billed wihtout chapter titles) it is not as strong as you put forward for the reasons I gave above. Also, surely it would normally be considered fair to properly call a film by what is given in its opening credits?. I'm trying to think of a parallel here in film but here goes one in music: Just because the Beatles album "The Beatles" is widely referred to and often promoted and advetised as "The White Album" its true title is "The Beatles". Dainamo (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The Blair Witch Project

Shouldn't The Blair Witch Project be in one of the lists? It had a budget of 22000 USD and the gross revenue is $248,639,099 (as of January 20, 2008).