Talk:List of highest-grossing films/Archive 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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 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 admittedly 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.

WTW was re-released in 1947, 1954, 1961, 1967 , 1971, 1989, and 1998 so that's 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)

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 and rereleased.

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

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

4. The average ticket price of the year you're going to convert the movie's release and 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 and rerelease totals are non-existent. Boxofficemojo only lists one clumped up list of what the movie made throughout all the years it was released and 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 and 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)

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 misled 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 transformers 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¤ 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¤ 11:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

King Kong

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

Double it

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