This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
List of James Bond films is the main article in the James Bond films series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
This article is within the scope of WikiProject James Bond, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.James BondWikipedia:WikiProject James BondTemplate:WikiProject James BondJames Bond
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2021, when it received 10,028,697 views.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report4 times. The weeks in which this happened:
Why is the inflation figure still based on 2005? Would it not make more sense to update it? 2005 was nearly 20 years ago so seems like there's no point even having an inflation column unless it's something recent for people to relate to. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 2005 index is the one used by the source. That's the simple answer. The point of the inflation column is to enable a financial comparison on a level playing field, so I don't really understand the point you are making. It doesn't really matter which index is used, whether it is 2022, 2005, or 1965 because it's all relative. The table uses the one in the source and adjusts the later films to the index so they can be compared too. Betty Logan (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2005 dollars were 54% more valuable than 2023 dollars. That is a significant difference from the average person's sense of a dollar's worth, which is based entirely on what $1 will buy in 2023. The original purpose of adjusting these dollar amounts was to give the average person in 2005 a sense of the amounts of wealth the franchise has generated (and consumed) over its entire run. The table no longer serves that purpose and should be recalculated and updated, or the adjusted columns removed. Georgelazenby (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of inflation adjustment is to provide a comparative metric for comparing how well the films have performed against each other i.e. it is a normalisation metric. The choice of index—whether it is 2005 or 2023—is in one sense irrelevant, because these films did not collectively gross their revenues in 2005 or 2023. The only valid service it provides is as a basis for comparison, and on that note 2005 is more convenient than 2023 because we only have to adjust the Daniel Craig films i.e. it minimises the overall amount of work and original research. The chart using the 2005 index still tells us the same thing a 2023 index would: Skyfall comes out top, and Licence to Kill is at the bottom, so I disagree that the table "no longer serves a purpose". Betty Logan (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You could always publish 2023 inflation normalisations in a reliable secondary source. Then we, a tertiary source, can cite your work. Tertiary sources are slow to update because they rely on reputable secondary sources to do all the work (ie original research). DonQuixote (talk) 11:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a built-in inflator, which is used to deflate the post-Quantum films. The problem though is that you can't adjust by the original gross because the early films had several re-releases—for example, two-thirds of Dr No's gross came from reissues. Betty Logan (talk) 14:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the nominal figures in that article are incorrect. There are discrepancies between various sources but the George Lucas blockbusting book is generally the most reliable source for the data. You can view a comparison of the figures here from when we designed this page: User:Betty_Logan/Sandbox#Bond_grosses. As you say, the data can be inflated from 2005 using the data from the book. The upside is that it modernizes the numbers, but on the other hand it's quite a bit of work with very little potential gain, because ultimately the adjusted order will remain the same regardless of the base year.
To take Casino Royale as an example, the coding would be as follows:
You obviously know more about this subject than I do, so I can't argue about the validity of the nominal figures in that article, but I would strongly suggest that this page be updated to reflect a more recent year. Otherwise, the page will seem outdated to a casual observer. Assadzadeh (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that this issue has been brought up four times previously:
So, besides the amount of time required, are there any other reasons why you or anyone else would be opposed to updating the table? If not, then I would be willing to take a shot at it. Assadzadeh (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well tell you what, it is fairly straightforward (albeit tedious) prior to the Daniel Craig era, so if you are happy to update the table up to the Pierce Brosnan films I will do the complicated ones at the end i.e. the Daniel Craig films. Basically you need to inflate the adjusted figure from 2005 for both the gross and the budget. This is the format it needs to follow: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_James_Bond_films&diff=prev&oldid=1263047086. If you cut and past that into each entry and then just write in the 2005 figures then it should be relatively straightforward to do. Once you have done that ping me and I will finish off the more complicated Daniel Craig ones. Betty Logan (talk) 11:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The plots are similar, there was some weirdness with the licensing and it is easily the worst of the Sean Connery films, but it is a James Bond film and it is strange that it isn't in the list of James Bond films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davefoc (talk • contribs)
In some cases (mostly where a book exists) there is no clear primary topic. In the case of Octopussy the soundtrack article is a child of the film article. In the case of Dr No, it is difficult to make a case for awarding the primary title to the film when the book exists. Betty Logan (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
