Jump to content

Talk:List of highest-grossing films

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 98.227.77.90 (talk) at 01:18, 13 December 2012 (→‎Definition of "franchises" is very questionable, imo: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured listList of highest-grossing films is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 6, 2008Articles for deletionKept
February 28, 2012Featured list candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured list
Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFilm FL‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
FLThis article has been rated as FL-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.


Missing Franchises

It is clear that there are missing franchises in this page. One is Alvin and the Chipmunks with $1.146 billion dollars in revenue. I suggest that we add Alvin and the Chipmunks and more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.148.222 (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We currently only list the top 25 franchises. The problem with adding more is that we start to hit incomplete data at around the 1.3 billion point. Franchises like Rocky, Superman and Planet of the Apes have all grossed over a billion dollars. We used to only list the top 20, but we were able to expand the list when a few more franchises moved above Rocky's upper bound. You can read more about the problem at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films/Archive_2012#Star_Trek. Betty Logan (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what you mean. If there is some sort of glitch that prevents us from adding franchises with less than 1.3 billion, than I understand. Therefore, I will list some for future consideration: Superman, Planet of the Apes, Iron Man, and Jason Bourne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.148.222 (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is a glitch, in that the foreign data is missing for Rocky, Superman and Planet of the Apes. I estimate (if you double the domestic grosses as a rough guide) these three franchises have all earned in the 1.0-1.3 billion range, so if we go below 1.3 billion the chart stops being accurate. Betty Logan (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see now. I guess then we will just have to wait until the franchises listed in this section gross more than Rocky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.148.222 (talk) 18:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic

Is there any reason why Titanic has stopped being highlighted? Jhenderson 777 22:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be conflicting information on BOM. They still have it highlighted on their main chart but on its main entry it says it closed in June: [1]. Either way they don't seem to be tracking it anymore because the total has stayed the same for weeks. Betty Logan (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am pretty sure BOM (just like Wikipedia) does conflicting mistakes for the ones who is in charge of editing/publishing it. Good catch. Jhenderson 777 19:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Middle-earth

What are we going to do with the Middle Earth movies are we going do divide them or are we going to have as one film universe just like the Marvel Cinematic Universe? I think we need to plan ahead on this. Jhenderson 777 18:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well my preference is to do it like this:
The alternative way is to group all the four LOTR films together and all The Hobbit films together. The problem with that is the six New Line films are all one series, and the 1978 film is just an independent entry, so it makes more sense to have the New Line films together. Box Office Mojo may even treat them as a separate franchise, so we'll have to wait and see. Betty Logan (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you nailed what I was expecting that we should do to it on that example. I was even wondering why we didn't have a link on Middle-earth in film yet. So yeah I am all for it. Jhenderson 777 19:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for it too. But before we go ahead and do it you have to remember to add The Hobbit (1977 film) and The Return of the King (1980 film) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.148.222 (talk) 05:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Hobbit films are included in the The Lord of the Rings franchise. Middle-earth does not make sense. So we should have something like this :

My mistake for my suggestion: The Hobbit and The Return of the King (links sbove) were made for TV. And about the comment above: Middle-Earth is the entire franchise. When J.R.R. Tolkien originally published The Hobbit, every book in The Lord of the Rings trilogy had already been released, so it was really a prequel and not officially part of the series.

Film Series Split

Resolved
 – See Talk:List of highest-grossing films/Archive 2012#Highest-grossing franchises and film series

Does anyone think that we should split the page so we can have just one seperate page for the film series?--Norgizfox5041 (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's been discussed and there was a consensus against it. It was decided it was best to keep all the box-office data together since this is a high-profile page that receives a lot of visits. Betty Logan (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Table headings

My attempted addition of the clarifying wording "(not adjusted for inflation)" to the heading of the table of highest franchise grosses has been reverted for the reason that "Unadjusted charts do not need to be labelled as such; it is made clear in the lede that all values are nominal unless stated otherwise" [2]

I understand that the lead contains the wording "All grosses on the list are expressed in US dollars at their nominal value, except where stated otherwise." However, despite having looked at this article a number of times, I personally had never read the lead, and had always gone straight to the lists. I suspect that many readers are the same, particularly as the lead is fairly long. The said wording also appears at the very end of the lead.

In my view each table should be clearly labelled as to whether it is adjusted for inflation or not. Readers should not be expected to read the entire lead, or presumed to have done so.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule all financial charts in the published world use nominal figures unless otherwises stated. If you adjust figures for inflation, then you have to clarify they are adjusted for inflation, because you are adding an economic interpretation to the raw figures, but it is unnecessary when presenting just the raw data. As a basis for comparison, Box Office Mojo have the DOMESTIC GROSSES and DOMESTIC GROSSES – Adjusted for Ticket Price Inflation; the British Film Institute do the same All Time Top 20 Films at the UK Box Office & Top 20 Highest Grossing Films at the UK Box Office (inflation adjusted) i.e. you have to clarify something you have done, but generally you do not need to clarify something you have not done. It would probably be difficult to find a chart in a high-profile source that is labelled as "not adjusted for inflation". I don't have a fundamental opposition to it, so if other editors are for it then fair enough, but my take is that we should be consistent with other high profile encylopedic sources and industry bodies. Betty Logan (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Someone obviously thought that clarification was needed, hence the text in the lead. My point is that having the clarification there is imperfect as many readers will not actually read it.
The title for franchises currently merely states "Highest-grossing franchises and film series". That is a very definite and non-specific claim, but in fact the unadjusted figures are no more "correct" or "definitive" than the adjusted. For example is Harry Potter or James Bond the highest grossing series? Has Batman grossed more than Marvel Cinematic Universe? The answer is inherently subjective and must in my view be caveated in a manner which does not assume the reader has read the whole text of the article. This is recognised by the caveats in the lead, my concern is that they will not be read.
If we also had a table for franchises which showed the adjusted data then this might be less of an issue.
Since it is merely the addition of five or six words I can't really see what the objection is. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A gross cannot be an adjusted quantity, it is the actual amount of money accumulated i.e. you can inflate a gross to get an adjusted quantity, but the "gross" cannot be an adjusted amount itself. If the chart were labelled "Most-successful film of all-time" or something else that is open to interpretation then you'd have a point, but in this case the charts carry the correct industry-standard titles. BTW, I wrote the lede and included the adjusted/unadjusted sentence to acquaint readers with the metrics and quantities covered by the article, but ultimately we should stop short of labelling data in ways that are not used within the industry itself. No-one refers to "unadjusted grosses", just "grosses" and "adjusted grosses", because that is what they are. Betty Logan (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And yet I see here on the Box Office Mojo site precisely what I am proposing: [3]. The bottom table has "unadjusted" in brackets at the end of its title.
"Gross" simply means total. It has no scientific meaning beyond this and an inflation adjusted gross is still a gross. I fear we are getting unnecessarily tortuous though.
Although I don't doubt that when people in the industry refer to the grosses of current or recent films, it will be taken as read that they are talking of unadjusted and to make this explicit would be unnecessarily laboured (and there would be little or no difference between unadjusted and adjusted).
Here we are talking inherently about historical information, and it is very much the case that there are big differences between adjusted and unadjusted. We are also not catering to a specialist group but to the general public. To state that James Bond has a gross of $5 billion is in fact pretty meaningless. Far more people have paid to see a James Bond film at the cinema than a Harry Potter, and the first Bond film came out 50 years ago. I have nothing against inclusion of the unadjusted information, but I do feel it essential that it is clear exactly what is being presented and at present I don't feel that is the case.
The article is otherwise excellent and I have consulted it many times so it is a pity to me to see this flaw. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sherk, puss in boots, batman and catwoman

If batman inculed cat woman Rank Series Total worldwide box office No. of films Average of films Highest-grossing film 1 [show]Harry Potter $7,706,147,978 8 $963,268,497 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 ($1,328,111,219) 2 [show]James Bond $5,131,470,822 24 $213,811,284 Casino Royale ($596,365,000) 3 [show]Star Wars $4,382,359,868 7 $626,051,410 Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace ($1,027,044,427) 4 [show]Marvel Cinematic Universe $3,802,227,995 6 $633,704,666 The Avengers ($1,511,757,910) 5 [show]Batman $3,793946754 9 $463,980,547 The Dark Knight Rises ($1,077,564,067)

If it dose not include it should Shrek include puss in boots if not.

5 [show]Pirates of the Caribbean $3,727,735,967 4 $931,933,992 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest ($1,066,179,725) 6 [show]Batman $3,711,844,375 8 $463,980,547 The Dark Knight Rises ($1,077,564, 7 [show]Spider-Man $3,248,563,075 4 $812,140,769 Spider-Man 3 ($890,871,626) 8 [show]Shrek $2,955,807,005 4 $702,103,246 Shrek 2 ($919,838,758) 9 [show]The Lord of the Rings $2,947,978,376 4 $736,994,594 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King ($1,119,929,521) 10 [show]Ice Age $2,792,423,617 4 $698,105,904 Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs ($863,697,183) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.79.4 (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion above about Catwoman. The key difference between the Catwoman movie and Puss-in-boots was that PIB was in the Shrek movies so it's a legitimate spin-off. The sticking point for Catwoman is that it was a different version of Catwoman to the Batman films. If it had been Selina Kyle it would be included. Personally I would include it in the Batman franchise since it's still a version of Catwoman, but another editor disagreed so it has been kept out for the time being. Betty Logan (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1.3 billion

You said 30+ have got more then 1,300,000 surly we can make it top 30 at lest then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.79.4 (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

30+ have made more than a billion but only 25 have made 1.3bn+, so we can't extend the chart to 30 series yet. Betty Logan (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the 'in release' highlighting from The Amazing Spider-Man

There have been several recent edits effecting this alteration, but please note that this is an international chart, and just because it is no longer playing your local theater it does not mean it is not still on release in some countries. The highlighting indicates to editors which films need to be checked and updated, and lets readers know the box office figures are still subject to change. Even if Box Office Mojo is not updating the figures periodically anymore, it does not mean they are no longer tracking it. When a film finishes its general release they ascribe a "close date" in the box-office summary and remove the highlighting from their own chart. Since we source through Box Office Mojo we should abide by their tracking decisions, and it makes no sense for us to stop tracking a film if BOM are still tracking it, so please refrain from removing the highlighting until BOM either remove it or formally record a close date. Betty Logan (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casino Royale Gross

Resolved
 – Someone had assigned the Skyfall gross to the wrong variable. It's been corrected. Betty Logan (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The gross for Casino Royale on the table of highest-grossing film series is inconsistent. On the right, it says it made around $599 million. But if you look at the movies that starred Daniel Craig by using the other side of the table, it says it made around $538 million. I assume that one of those must be wrong. Alphius (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Madagaser 3 UK most wanted

On here it said Madagascar 3 not in cinema. But it is in the UK . So it can earn more. Than $737,591,482. Unless we do not count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.79.4 (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to BOM it is now at $740,491,482 so it is obviously playing somewhere, so I've added the highlighting back since the gross is still changing. Betty Logan (talk) 02:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Man

Quick question: if Iron Man 3 manages to bring the Iron Man films to over 1.3 billion and manages to get onto the Top 25 franchises, will we list the series as a sub-series, a separate series, leave a note saying that it is part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, or just let it remain where it is?

I believe at the moment, the plan is to list Iron Man as another franchise, as well as having it included in the Marvel Cinematic Universe section. Main reason being, it's what the source, Box Office Mojo does. It also makes sense that the Iron Man franchise has its own section, so if it is rebooted outside the MCU, then those films would still count towards the Iron Man franchise. However, it does seem a little weird having films that get to show up on the list twice.
Another film I'm curious about is Man of Steel. What happens if it manages to bring the Superman gross into to the top 25, 'cause there's incomplete data for some of the old films, right? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 08:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Iron Man is a franchise in its own right (i.e. you have to own the Iron Man licenses to put him in The Avengers) so is eligible for inclusion in the chart on that basis, even though as you say it would be redundant. There is also a case for being consistent too: if say the Hulk franchise made it onto the list, that would include the Ang Lee film which isn't part of the MCU, so listing the franchises separately makes sense even if it is sometimes redundant. As for Man of Steel, it will almost certainly put Superman into the top 25 unless it tanks. If it finishes outside of the top 20 it may be easier to just go back to a top 20; if it does a billion there is no way to avoid including the franchise. Estimating it ourselves is OR, so we would have to just list what we do know and perhaps add a note or something explaining the figures are incomplete. It will mess up the "cleanness" of the chart, but there are limits to what we can document as a volunteer project. Betty Logan (talk) 08:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Cinematic Universe

Is Marvel Cinematic universe a proper series. When each one get 3 it should become a film series in it own rights.

Yes, the Marvel Cinematic Universe is a proper series. It's a rather unique one at the moment, as it connects a bunch of franchises into the one continuity, but that's also part of the reason as to why it is a series, and why it is included on the list. Also, we go by the source, Box Office Mojo, which includes the MCU as a franchise on its list, so removing it from this one would be original research. Also, for reasons of consistency, when the individual character franchises that make up the Marvel Cinematic Universe make enough money to be listed on this chart, they will be listed, as well as included in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. This is because the individual character franchises are franchises in their own right, as Betty Logan explains in Talk:List of highest-grossing films#Iron Man. This seems a little unnecessary for characters such as Iron Man, whose only films are within the MCU continuity. However, for characters such as Hulk, there are films in the franchise that are outside MCU continuity that need to be included. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 07:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about muppets

Their is 7 flims in at and a planed 2 flims

How about muppets

Their is 7 flims in at and a planed 2 flims — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.79.4 (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DC Universe

Is their a Marvel universe should their be a DC universe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.79.4 (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So far, none of the characters in DC films share a collective universe, so no. However, there are plans for a Justice League film in the future, so that may change. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of "franchises" is very questionable, imo

Isn't it only a franchise if it takes place in the same continuity? The older Lord of the Rings isn't, IMO, a part of the Lord of the Rings franchise; nor is the Spider-Man reboot logically a part of the franchise that Sam Raimi directed.

A good example is Batman.

Now, there have been several Batman "franchises"; first, the Adam West show/movie. Then the Tim Burton/Joel Schumacher series (I believe it was all one continuity). Then the Paul Dini/Bruce Timm animated franchise (part of their larger DC animated universe franchise). And finally, the Chris Nolan trilogy. These things are all called Batman, all feature the same character, but none of them really has anything to do with any of the others. They are very distinct, and the differences are clear to the public, who never think of them together.

That continuity is the key to the definition of franchises you're going is implied by the inclusion of the "Marvel Cinematic Universe". Or rather, by what's omitted from that universe. You leave out every film that did not tie in to Avengers. Why? Only due to continuity, presumably - the source characters of all the non-Marvel Cinematic Universe Marvel movies are still Marvel Comics characters. In fact, some of them (see Ang Lee's Hulk) are the very characters who would later be included in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. So how can one Hulk be in, and one Hulk be out, while all Batmans are included under the Batman heading?

It's inconsistent and illogical.

If the films are not all in one continuity, they do not all belong to a particular film franchise. Otherwise, remakes would belong to a "franchise" with the films they're re-making. Which is obviously absurd.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films&oldid=527791123"