Talk:List of highest-grossing musical films/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

TJB & BATB

Jungle book (2016) and Beauty and the Beast (2017) do not count to there franchies because they are are a public domain so has no legal franchise backing it up, anyone can do whatever they feel like with the content of the books. IT IS NOT THE SAME FRANCHISE.Fanoflionking

Jungle Book and Beauty and the Beast (franchise) are both Disney franchises, which include Jungle Book (2016 film) and Beauty and the Beast (2017), respectively. The original books are public domain, but not the Disney franchises, which are owned by Disney. Any JB or B&B film produced by Disney falls under their JB and B&B franchises. In fact, Beauty and the Beast (franchise)#Box office performance specifically lists both Beauty and the Beast (1991 film) and Beauty and the Beast (2017 film) under the same Disney franchise. Maestro2016 (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

this is the same rule as list of highest grossing film series and franchises if you do not agree we could ask their talk pageFanoflionking

What rule? Do you have a link to whatever rule you're referring to? Maestro2016 (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

See one and See two Fanoflionking

Those are different situations with unrelated film adaptations of the same source material. Beauty and the Beast (2017 film) is heavily based on Beauty and the Beast (1991 film). No other studio could have made the 2017 film without violating Disney rights to the 1991 film. The two films belong together in a Disney franchise which should be listed here (without including films from other studios at Beauty and the Beast#Film). The Jungle Book (2016 film) is more losely connected to previous Disney films at The Jungle Book (disambiguation)#Film and television. But I actually don't think the 2016 film is considered a musical so it doesn't belong here even if it's viewed as part of a Disney franchise. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
The 2016 Jungle Book movie has musical numbers, so how is it not a musical? Maestro2016 (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I haven't seen the film but it's not included in https://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=musical.htm or https://www.the-numbers.com/box-office-records/worldwide/all-movies/genres/musical. The Jungle Book (2016 film)#Music says "Favreau decided not to make the film a musical". A Google search shows some sources do call it a musical. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I haven't watched the movie either, but have seen online clips of it with musical numbers. As far as I'm concerned, if it has musical numbers, then it's a musical. Maestro2016 (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
The first link doesn't say anything about this issue. And in the second link, Betty Logan says the following: "If Universal remake the 1930s Mummy like they were planning at one stage then there would be an explicit link between a new film and the old series." Likewise, if Disney makes a remake of one of their old movies, then that counts as the same franchise. They only count as separate franchises if it's different companies. But if it's the same company remaking one of their older movies, then it's the same franchise. Maestro2016 (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
As it appears the consensus is that remakes from the same studio do count as part of the same franchise, I'll go ahead and restore them. Feel free to let me know what you think. Maestro2016 (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Recentism

There should at least be some mention or discussion in the article about the fact that none of these listed grosses take inflation into account. As such, the list is heavily skewed towards more recent musicals and you end up with a commercial flop like Anastasia seemingly "outperforming" musicals that ran for thousands of performances like A Chorus Line. Even the Playbill article on "The Top 10 Highest-Grossing Broadway Shows of All Time" acknowledges that the biggest determining factor in its list is inflation. The similar List of highest-grossing films has a long explanation of the effects of inflation and an inflation-adjusted list to complement the overall list. Bennv3771 (talk) 08:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

To add on: For this list to be an accurate/meaningful comparison of the commercial grosses (and thus commercial successes) of various musicals, context needs to be given to the reader to explain the heavy bias in favour of modern musicals. As it stands, 31 of the top 50 musicals are those that premiered from 2000 onward, and the ones that didn't are either still running or had recent revivals. This article has some interesting data on the increase in Broadway ticket prices since 1995 and could be useful. Another relatively recent phenomenon that this article doesn't address is dynamic pricing/premium seating and its effect on Broadway grosses. Bennv3771 (talk) 10:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I think a solution to this issue could be to list the number of Broadway ticket sales. Maestro2016 (talk) 12:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
That could be a useful addition. Broadway data only began to be collected from 1984 though, so this will still shut out shows that premiered before that. There's unfortunately no easy way to resolve this because unlike films, successful musicals run for many decades and aren't just released in cinemas for a limited time. Hence it is not as straightforward to adjust their grosses for inflation.
I think firstly, there should be some short explanation in the article that the grosses do not take into account the effects of inflation and hence far more weight is given to more recent musicals. So while this doesn't fix the issue, it at least gives the reader some context. Secondly, the list might be better if it were trimmed down because with today's Broadway prices, the current threshold is just too easy for modern musicals to meet, and it doesn't reflect well on the accuracy/meaningfulness of the list when shows that were considered commercial flops are in it. Bennv3771 (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Inflation

@Fanoflionking: The inflation-adjusted list is too short, with only 2 entries. I was attempting to expand it to 10 entries. Yet you keep reverting it. Can you please explain what is your opposition to the expansion? If it only has 2 entries, then it's a pointless list. In the mean time, I have moved it here to the talk page.

Highest-grossing films adjusted for inflation (est. as of 2019)[Inf]
Rank Title Year Worldwide gross (est. 2019 US$) Ref
1 The Sound of Music 1965 $2,564,000,000 [1]
2 Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs 1937 $1,971,000,000
3 The Lion King 1994 $1,598,000,000 [a]
4 Frozen 2013 $1,417,000,000 [b]
5 Beauty and the Beast 2017 $1,311,000,000 [9]
6 One Hundred and One Dalmatians 1961 $1,087,000,000 [1]
7 The Jungle Book 1967 $1,057,000,000 [c]
8 The Jungle Book 2016 $1,020,000,000 [12]
9 Aladdin 1992 $974,000,000 [d]

Maestro2016 (talk) 10:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

when Guinness World Records relese this chart it only gose upto The Exorcist witch as of 2019 stands at $1.944B and we can not proudce a chart with films below that gross. Fanoflionking

What is wrong with the number that Guinness gave for Dalmations? They listed it just below Exorcist, and listed Dalmations with just over $1 billion. If you think there's something wrong with the number, then you're going to have to give an adequate explanation.
And why can't we just fill out the top 10 with CPI inflation? We already have accurate domestic inflation numbers, and overseas numbers can be inflated with CPI rates based on the years in which the sources are dated to, as I've shown in the table above. The only one that's really underestimated is 1967 Jungle Book, as we currently don't have sources for overseas numbers before the 1990s. Maestro2016 (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

because we know for a fact that there are other films that have grossed more than 101 Dalmatians. Guinness seem to be ranking by ticket sales rather than gross in that chart Fanoflionking

Okay, then how about we just get rid of the Ranks column? As in, don't give any rankings, but just list ten films with the highest known inflation adjusted gross. Maestro2016 (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Chiming in here. If we can only say for certain what the inflation-adjusted top 2 highest grossing musical films are, then perhaps we don't need to convey that information with a list. A sentence can just be added in the text before the "Box office revenue" list. E.g. after the note that the list does not take inflation into account etc, we can add: "When adjusted for inflation, the highest grossing musical films are believed to be The Sound of Music, with an inflation-adjusted worldwide gross of $2,564,000,000 (as of 2019); followed by Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, with an inflation-adjusted worldwide gross of $1,971,000,000 (as of 2019). Bennv3771 (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. That would be an okay compromise. Maestro2016 (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

i added it in Fanoflionking

Notes

  1. ^ The Lion King adjusted for inflation in 2019:
    • United States and Canada – $422,783,777 nominal – $828,366,378 adjusted[2]
    • Other territories – $455,300,000 nominal – $769,675,864 adjusted
      • 1994 – $358 million nominal[3] – $609,725,707 adjusted
      • 1995 – $92,394,268 nominal[3][4] – $153,065,064 adjusted
      • 1996–2002 – $4,905,732 nominal[5][6] – $6,885,093 adjusted
  2. ^ Frozen adjusted for inflation in 2019:
    • United States and Canada – $400,738,009 nominal – $455,698,974 adjusted[7]
    • Other territories – $891,271,927 nominal – $960,845,390 adjusted
      • 2013 – $243,500,000 nominal[8] – $263,877,656 adjusted
      • 2014 – $637,909,782 nominal[# 1][7] – $686,488,780 adjusted
      • 2015 (Germany) – $7,428,574 nominal[# 1] – $7,954,513 adjusted
      • 2017 (United Kingdom) – $2,433,571 nominal[# 1] – $2,524,441 adjusted
  3. ^ The Jungle Book (1967) adjusted for inflation in 2019:
    • United States and Canada – $141,843,612 nominal – $684,648,480 adjusted[10]
    • Other territories – $249 million nominal (up to 2002)[6] – 372,686,299 adjusted (minimum)
      • 1993 re-release – $67.5 million nominal[11] – $117,954,816 adjusted
      • Other releases – $181.5 million nominal – $254,731,483 adjusted (minimum)
  4. ^ Aladdin (1992) adjusted for inflation in 2019:
    • United States and Canada – $217,350,219 nominal – $487,304,796 adjusted[13]
    • Other territories – $287 million nominal[6] – $486,581,707 adjusted (minimum)
      • 1993 – $200 million nominal[14] – $349,495,753 adjusted
      • 1994 – $50 million nominal[15] – $85,157,222 adjusted
      • 1995–2002 – $37 million nominal[6] – $51,928,732 adjusted (minimum)
  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference frozen was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  1. ^ a b Records, Guinness World (2014). Guinness World Records. Vol. 60 (2015 ed.). pp. 160–161. ISBN 9781908843708.
  2. ^ "The Lion King (1994) - Domestic Total Adj. Gross (2018)". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved 22 June 2019.
  3. ^ a b "Standard & Poor's Industry Surveys". Standard & Poor's Industry Surveys. 164 (2). Standard & Poor's Corporation: 28. 1996. However, none of these matched the impact of Disney's The Lion King, which brought in $358 million at foreign theaters in 1994. The Disney animated film added another $103 million of 1995 international sales, bringing its worldwide theatrical total to more than $700 million.
  4. ^ "The Lion King (1994) - Weekly Box Office Results". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved 22 June 2019.
  5. ^ "The Lion King (1994) - International Box Office Results". Box Office Mojo. 13 July 2009. Retrieved 22 June 2019.
  6. ^ a b c d D'Alessandro, Anthony (October 27, 2003). "Cartoon Coffers - Top-Grossing Disney Animated Features at the Worldwide B.O." Variety. p. 6. Retrieved 22 June 2019.
  7. ^ a b "Frozen (2013) - Domestic Total Adj. Gross (2018)". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved 22 June 2019.
  8. ^ "Frozen (2013) - International Box Office Results (December 27–29, 2013)". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved 22 June 2019.
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference beauty2017 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ "The Jungle Book (1967) - Domestic Total Adj. Gross (2018)". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved 22 June 2019.
  11. ^ "Outbreak' strikes European box office". United Press International. 8 May 1995. Retrieved 22 June 2019.
  12. ^ Cite error: The named reference jungle2016 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  13. ^ "Aladdin (1992) - Domestic Total Adj. Gross (2018)". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved 24 June 2019.
  14. ^ "Aladdin' still dominates in Europe". United Press International. 3 January 1994. Retrieved 22 June 2019.
  15. ^ "A Perfect World' tops 'Aladdin' in Europe". United Press International. 24 January 1994. Retrieved 22 June 2019.

Globalize

In addition to the recentism highlighted above, there is also an issue of Broadway grosses being over-represented. Many of these entries only take into account a show's Broadway gross, but not its West End or international gross (and some of these shows have run for decades in London/Germany/Japan where ticket prices aren't far off from Broadway prices). As such, a musical like Blood Brothers that ran for over 24 years in the West End doesn't even make the list while Broadway shows that ran for less than two years do. Of course, the problem is that non-Broadway data isn't readily available. Hence I propose that instead of comparing apples to oranges, this section should be renamed to "List of the highest-grossing Broadway musicals", and any additional international grosses (if known) can be added as further information. Bennv3771 (talk) 11:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I think a solution to this issue could be to have two tables, one for known worldwide gross figures and the other for the Broadway gross. Maestro2016 (talk) 12:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
@Maestro2016: That's one option. But any worldwide gross figures should be kept short (a top 10 or even just a top 5) because except for the most successful musicals of all time, there will be no updated or reliable source for any other musical. Bennv3771 (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree. I was thinking we should maybe make the worldwide list a top 10, and keep the Broadway list as a top 50. Maestro2016 (talk) 13:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
@Maestro2016: I've gone ahead and replaced the top 50 worldwide list with a top 15 Broadway one. I strongly oppose a top 50 Broadway list as I think that is overkill. I understand that film-related lists use a top 50, but there are also thousands of new films released each year compared to just a handful of new Broadway shows. As a result, we end up scrapping the bottom of the barrel to fill out a top 50 and the list ends up being padded out by a bunch of commercial flops. Bennv3771 (talk) 06:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I've added a separate top 10 worldwide list. And extended the Broadway list to a top 20, as a top 15 is not a standard cut-off point for such a list (top 10, top 20, top 25, etc.). Maestro2016 (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
@Maestro2016: Ok, that's fair. Thanks for working with me on this to address the two issues. Bennv3771 (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

sorry about being late to this covetions but i perfer the old way it was much easer to read if we do this way (what is currecly on the page) i sujest we go in it to way effer make it a top 50 or insert a minnamin gross Fanoflionking

@Fanoflionking: I prefer a shorter list for the reasons I laid out above. But if the consensus is to go back to a top 50, I certainly won't stand in the way. Bennv3771 (talk) 12:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Since it's now been renamed to theatre franchises, I think it would be good to make the Broadway list a top 25, which would be in-line with movie franchise lists. Maestro2016 (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree that 25 should be the maximum number of Broadway shows, because, as noted above, Broadway is much over-represented on the list. Someday, I hope, more of the international information will become available to balance the Broadway info. If people really want to add more Broadway shows, I'd agree that the article should be called List of highest-grossing Broadway musicals (and film musicals), and just add whatever international info is available as an admittedly incomplete column. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of Coco

[1]. Nothing much to add other than the summary. Also see this discussion. 2.51.21.142 (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

i think this is like what i ask above i think the qustion we should ask "what makes somthing a mussicel"? Fanoflionking

I am removing Coco from the list. There is no source currently to prove Coco is a musical. In fact, the vast majority of sources call it not a musical, which is somewhat rare. It is WP:SYNTH to state so with a link to only Box Office Mojo, which only provides the figures. If anyone wants to readd it back, WP:BURDEN lies on them to prove it. 2.51.21.142 (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
As to answer your question, a musical song furthers the film's plot. Unlike in Coco, narrative events take place during the course of the film in these songs. The songs in Coco are meant to be songs, and do not disrupt the narrative like a musical is meant to. For instance, a robbery may take place in a musical film during a song, and the characters run around trying to solve it for the rest of the film's course. See Musical film for more background. I feel like each film should determined on a case-by-case-basis with a source to prove that so-and-so film is a musical. 2.51.21.142 (talk) 10:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

footnotes?

Is there a particular reason this articles uses two different styles of footnotes? It's using both arabic footnotes (1, 2, 3, ...) and lowercase roman letter footnotes (a, b, c, ...). Is there a reason that a consistent style isn't adequate? -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Definition

do we ha a definition of a mussicel flim what makes The muppets films a mussicel to Rugrats flims both films have songs sing by the characters and in the backgourd but muppets is inculed but rugrats is not? Fanoflionking

Songs alone don't make a musical film. A Musical film should have songs "interwoven into the narrative". There are some grey areas, so when in doubt reliable sources are needed. For example look at the primary genres listed by the BBFC
Not only is musical listed as a genre it is listed first.
In any case you should be looking for sources that help keep this list as short and meaningful as possible, and include only the most top musicals. For film musicals here are two lists of Top Grossing Musicals (the Numbers) Top Grossing Musicals (Box Office Mojo) and I would strongly advise you to only include films from those lists. -- 109.79.95.89 (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I see now this question has been asked and answered before. If in doubt leave it out. -- 109.79.95.89 (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I removed One Hundred and One Dalmatians, Bambi and Lilo & Stitch from these lists as none of the sources I checked: AFI, IMDb, Wikipedia, Box Office Mojo, Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide refer to them as musicals. AFI refer to the first two as "with songs". As noted above, songs alone don't make a musical film. I do not have time to round out the lists to be top 50 or whatever after these removals.Sudiani (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The Jungle Book (2016)

Does The Jungle Book (2016) really qualify as a musical? There are only a couple songs and some sources explicitly say it isn't. Alphius (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

We have had a perviso discuss about it. Fanoflionking 14:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_musical_films/Archive_1&oldid=1093362444"