Talk:List of highest-grossing films/Archive 14
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 19 |
Last Jedi
ResolvedThe Last Jedi crossed the $1 billion global mark on New Year's Eve, making it the 32nd film to do it. Thirty-one should be changed to thirty-two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.39.147 (talk) 07:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Batman-Dooby-Doo!
Dose anyone have box office for Scooby-Doo! & Batman: The Brave and the Bold Whitch played in cinemas Saturday will this count as a batman film or Scooby-Doo or both and also do you know box of Where's My Mummy? Whitch played in cinemas on May 13, 2005. 82.132.227.242 (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Direct-to-video films that play in a theater for one day seldom have their theatrical gross reported, but if there are reports for it then it would go in the Batman category. If it's not playing until Saturday, I don't know how we would have the box office for it already though. Seeing as Scooby-Doo's film totals are nowhere near high enough to touch this list, that's kind of irrelevant. And I doubt there's any box office information available for Where's My Mummy, since none seemed to be reported at the time. Sock (
tocktalk) 18:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)- dose anyone knew where is the best place to look for theses or how the best way to I give a search on boom and the number but the box office for these films are a mystery 92.232.119.244 (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
The Fate of the Furious
In reviewing recent film grosses I noticed that BOM lowered the gross for The Fate of the Furious from $1,239,078,381 to $1,235,761,498 back in October. I did not update the page, but am asking for editorial confirmation. Thanks, Telewski (talk) 05:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- It was most likely a correction so we should update our chart too. Betty Logan (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
References
@Telewski and DCF94: DCF94 is correct about this: it is mostly the conversion rate for Argentina that has dropped the gross. You can see from DCF's link that the Argentinian gross hits a peak of $20.8 million and then in subsequent weeks drops to $18.2 million, wiping $2.5 million off the gross. I don't know why Box Office Mojo does this because it is obvious a film can not start losing its gross. It is obviously a quirk of their algorithm. It also leaves us with the problem of what to do about it. Earlier today Saiph121 "corrected" the gross to the incorrect figure. This is an honest mistake because all Saiph did was match it to the figure in the source, which is the whole point of having sources. It will also happen again if we don't address the sourcing. Thankfully, Boxoffice.com still has the old figure before the gross started to go down. You can see that the figure they have ($1,238,764,765) matches the last one I can find at Box Office Mojo before it started to drop. The Box Office Mojo figure is clearly wrong in this case and we are perpetuating an error, so do either of you have any objections to me inserting the Boxoffice.com figure and source? Betty Logan (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with this solution. I was trying to do the same thing we did with the Frozen-UK gross, but it appears that even the total in argentinian pesos went down, it wasn't just a currency conversion error like with Frozen, so this is probably the best way to go. DCF94 (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- I did not realise the pesos were going down too. It is interesting to review the peso gross and the dollar equivalents:
Week Pesos Dollar 9 330,381,295 $20,779,874 10 333,632,689 $20,790,840 11 319,089,916 $19,715,285 12 319,098,390 $19,190,656 31 319,135,447 $18,239,438
- As you can see in Week 11 there is a drop of 14 million pesos (roughly $1 million). After that the pesos continue rising while the dollar continues dropping. I think the pesos drop in week 11 is a fix. Sometimes that happens. It probably means that the Boxoffice.com gross is about $1 million too high (if week 11 is indeed a fix and not a mistake by BOM), but I still think it's the best option available to us. Betty Logan (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Betty Logan:Thanks for digging into this. Sadly, as you point out, this is a fine mess thanks to a faulty BOM algorithm. I agree we should represent the best earning figure. The BOM figure prior to the dollar decline reported by BOM, was reported originally by BOM as $1,239,078,381. That's about $250,000 higher than the figure reported on the Wayback Machine archive page you cite. But, if the 14 million drop in pesos is a BOM 'fix' should that also be represented in (subtracted from) the earnings total we present here? Which ever figure you prefer to use I support. However, I wonder if it would be helpful to add a footnote explaining the discrepancy between the figure we report on this page and the current figure as it appears on BOM? That might help deter others from editing this figure in the future as Saiph121 did. Telewski (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- The problem with the old BOM figure is that we don't know if that is correct either. Frozen was actually much easier to fix than this because all we had to do was add on the residual country grosses to the overall toal, but in this case the overall total is going down too so it's not that simple. Boxoffice.com is a reliable source and has a stable figure which I think is closer to the actual gross, whatever that may be, so I think we can just save ourselves a huge headache and go with that figure. Adding a note is a good idea too since the figure has just been "fixed" again. Well-meaning editors will continue to do this unless they are aware of the problem. Betty Logan (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- OK, you convinced me. I agree applying/citing the Boxoffice.com figure in the table along with a footnote explaining the issue with the different number presented in BOM. Good to resolve this. Makes me nervous if any others are lurking out there. I guess we'll see. Telewski (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- I have implemented it so let's just wait and see what happens. Betty Logan (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- OK, you convinced me. I agree applying/citing the Boxoffice.com figure in the table along with a footnote explaining the issue with the different number presented in BOM. Good to resolve this. Makes me nervous if any others are lurking out there. I guess we'll see. Telewski (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- The problem with the old BOM figure is that we don't know if that is correct either. Frozen was actually much easier to fix than this because all we had to do was add on the residual country grosses to the overall toal, but in this case the overall total is going down too so it's not that simple. Boxoffice.com is a reliable source and has a stable figure which I think is closer to the actual gross, whatever that may be, so I think we can just save ourselves a huge headache and go with that figure. Adding a note is a good idea too since the figure has just been "fixed" again. Well-meaning editors will continue to do this unless they are aware of the problem. Betty Logan (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Betty Logan:Thanks for digging into this. Sadly, as you point out, this is a fine mess thanks to a faulty BOM algorithm. I agree we should represent the best earning figure. The BOM figure prior to the dollar decline reported by BOM, was reported originally by BOM as $1,239,078,381. That's about $250,000 higher than the figure reported on the Wayback Machine archive page you cite. But, if the 14 million drop in pesos is a BOM 'fix' should that also be represented in (subtracted from) the earnings total we present here? Which ever figure you prefer to use I support. However, I wonder if it would be helpful to add a footnote explaining the discrepancy between the figure we report on this page and the current figure as it appears on BOM? That might help deter others from editing this figure in the future as Saiph121 did. Telewski (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
serial
Would a serial count to box office if number esisxt for example Batman (1943) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.119.244 (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Personally I would say a weekly serial is distinct from a film and would not qualify for the list. It is a grey area though. Betty Logan (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
How do Star Wars I and Harry Potter I have 2 as their peaks?
Star Wars I came out in 1999 and Harry Potter I came out in 2001. Titanic (1997) and Jurassic Park (1993) are head of both, so I'm not clear on how Star Wars I or Harry Potter I ever could have gotten higher than #3. --B (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Check the references to the right of both titles. Jurassic Park had only $914m in it's first run, only after the 2013 re-release it gained nearly $1.030b. DCF94 (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, each entry is accompanied by two sources. The second source in every case is a source for the peak position. Films can overtaken during their original run, or sometimes an older film can be re-released. Betty Logan (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Number of $1 billion movies
Number should change from 32 to 33. Black Panther is the new movie that hit the mark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.39.147 (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Already done by DCF94. TompaDompa (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Disney
Can someone come and discuss a topic on Talk:List of Highest grossing animted films
Fanoflionking (talk) 11:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2018
 | This edit request to List of highest-grossing films has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
علیرضا عابدینی شیرازی (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Betty Logan (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Highest-Grossing Films Adjusted for Inflation
The section regarding the list of top-grossing films adjusted for inflation has a note stating that the section needs to be updated. Apparently the information used is via the Guinness Book of World Records (2015) which had the grosses as of 2014. However, the All Time Box Office section at the Box Office Mojo website[1] seems to keep a fairly current table of this information: as of now it includes three films in current release, Black Panther (currently No. 40), Star Wars: The Last Jedi (currently No. 42), and Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (currently No. 144). These are the same three films shaded green (currently in release) in the first table in the Wikipedia article (which shows highest-grossing films unadjusted for inflation).
The table includes the top 300 films listed in descending order of DOMESTIC GROSS (USD) ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION. While this is not a perfect solution given the worldwide nature of most high-budget film releases, it can be kept up to date with minimal additional research (Box Office Mojo updates the list) and it reflects the nature of the U.S. film industry as the producer of the overwhelming majority of films on the list. It further guarantees that films made in previous eras ("pre-globalization") do not suffer by comparison.
Note that the main page of the All Time Box Office section[2] identifies three different films as the top grossing: (1) Star Wars: The Force Awakens (domestic/unadjusted); (2) Gone with the Wind (domestic/adjusted); and (3) Avatar (worldwide/unadjusted).
I am not a regular contributor, but this sort of information is valuable to me as a Wikipedia reader/user, and so I think that someone more familiar with the editing process can make the necessary changes to update the section. I would suggest also including some of the technical information that Box Office Mojo uses to explain the table (particularly the current average ticket price).
For clarity's sake, the first and second sections could be standardized (50 films in each list) and a new third section (also 50 films) added showing domestic unadjusted gross, reflecting the distinctions on the All Time Box Office main page (and more importantly that as of now there are three different highest-grossing films, depending on the parameters). Currently, the first section of the Wikipedia article has a detailed table of the top 50 movies by worldwide/unadjusted gross (updated), and the second section a short table of the top 10 movies by domestic/adjusted gross (not updated).
I hope this information proves useful for updating the article.
2605:6000:1701:8007:CD4D:A8D:C587:3C0B (talk) 05:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Scott P., San Antonio, TX.
References
- It is not at all clear what you are suggesting. Box Office Mojo's adjusted chart only covers the American box-office, whereas this article covers global box-office, so it is no use to us. BOM's adjusted chart is installed at List of highest-grossing films in the United States and Canada which covers the North American box-office. Even though the Guinness chart is slightly out of date it is still mostly correct (The Force Awakens would most likely be #10 instead of Snow White but apart from that the order is pretty much the same). If we could extend the adjusted chart to a top 50 we would but the information is not available to do so. We cannot create our own because many older films have had re-releases and each release would have to be adjusted separately for the year of release. Good reasons exist for why Box Office Mojo don't have an adjusted global chart: it is very difficult to construct one. Betty Logan (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2018
| This edit request to List of highest-grossing films has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change $1,290,000,000 to $1,276,500,000. $1,290,000,000 is incorrect. ElleKhupe (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBriTalk 13:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Frozen edits by Zimanga
Zimamga has three times now removed sourced data from the chart relating to Frozen (2013 film) (per [1], [2], [3]. As the note that Zimanga keeps removing explains, the chart includes a correction for the Frozen total because Box Office Mojo stopped updating their total for it while it was still playing. This is explained in some detail at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films/Archive_9#Frozen. As a result a decision was taken to add in the grosses from the weekly charts, and these are all documented in the souces that Zimanga has removed. The $1.276 billion figure that Box Office Mojo gives is demonstrably wrong; the true figure is more like $1.297 billion, but we can only get it to about $1.290 billion with the sources available to us. I appreciate the discrepancy between the figure for Frozen and what BOM has down for its total is not ideal, but up until now the existing approach has had a consensus. Zimanga is obviously aware of the note and sources because he has knowingly removed them and keeps removing the data which obviously has an impact on the integrity of the article so I strongly urge him to discuss the issue here on the talk page before changing the figure again. Betty Logan (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Spiderman: Homecoming (2017) Is Counted Twice In The Rankings????
That's nuts. It's currently listed as part of both the "Spiderman" franchise and MCU. I propose it counts only for MCU, as both of the other entries in the "Spiderman" franchise are closed and it is a non-dynamic entry that will only go down. It's part of the larger MCU, and the Rami/Webb films don't have anything to do with each other anyway other than main character and Studio. Why aren't we counting the film from 1977 if thats the only criteria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BROBAFETT (talk • contribs)
- The talk page archives show agreement that a film can be counted both in its own character-based series and as part of a shared universe. Both the MCU and DCEU have multiple examples of this. Our main source Box Office Mojo does the same: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/ includes Spider-Man: Homecoming in both Marvel Cinematic Universe [4] and Spider-Man [5]. The Numbers also does it.[6][7][8] I support this practice. It would be odd if a Spider-Man film wasn't counted under Spider-Man just because it has a connection to other films. At Talk:List of highest-grossing films/Archive 13#Movies counted multiple times in the "franchises and film series" list I metioned we could mark shared universes but didn't follow up on it. The 1977 film and others at Spider-Man in film#Early films were tv films domestically and only had theatrical releases in some other countries. Box office numbers may be hard to find but if you have numbers with a reliable source then we can discuss it. If the box office is tiny then I'm inclined to omit tv films which had small theatrical releases in other markets. There is a similar situation with the Star Wars films Caravan of Courage: An Ewok Adventure#Release and Ewoks: The Battle for Endor#Release which were tv films domestic and are currently omitted. I don't know whether their box office is known. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- We have to bear MOS:INUNIVERSE in mind too. Continuity isn't a sufficient discriminant for organizing intellectual properties. Casino Royale (2006 film) didn't stop being a James Bond film just because it was a reboot, the same with Batman Begins, and the MCU Spiderman films are just a new iteration of Spiderman films. Franchise crossovers are nothing new either: they have existed since Universal set the ball rolling with its monster mashes. In fifty years time they will likely still be making Spiderman films, and they almost certainly won't be part of the MCU. The MCU will likely just form one chapter in Spiderman's cinematic history, so the idea that the Spiderman franchise has been superseded in some way is extremely premature and based on past evidence unlikely to be borne out. Betty Logan (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2018
| This edit request to List of highest-grossing films has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
According to this, http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/10/media/black-panther-one-billion-box-office/index.html?sr=fbCNN031018black-panther-one-billion-box-office1230PMStory. Black panther has crossed the 1 billion mark change black panther grossing to 1 billion.
Shahlan Saleem (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Not done yet. Let's just wait until Box Office Mojo (who also reported that it has crossed $1 billion) updates their figures. TompaDompa (talk) 09:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Already done BOM updated their listing and it was almost instantly changed here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- The updating here is usually very good and very fast. The problem with selective updating is that it requires fresh sources and it can mess up the chart. It is more efficient to do it all in one go just using the one source. Betty Logan (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Not sure how to do this, but the two highest grossing aren't true and aren't in the sources provided. Baahubali: The Beginning made Rs 1,380 crore, according to the source. This is equivalent to 210,093,684.00 US Dollars, which would put it nowhere near this list. This article is actually properly sourced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.37.198 (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Baahubali: The Beginning and Baahubali: The Conclusion shouldn't be on the list.
ResolvedThe sources are for the wrong movies and don't say anything about the movies. Not sure how to do this, but the two highest grossing aren't true and aren't in the sources provided. Baahubali: The Beginning made Rs 1,380 crore, according to the source. This is equivalent to 210,093,684.00 US Dollars, which would put it nowhere near this list. This article is actually properly sourced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films
This highest grossing Indian film only made the equivalent of $330 million USD. I think the person is just confusing crores rupees for dollars. 67.193.37.198 (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- I went ahead and fixed this error. That user has had a recent history of vandalism, and has been warned. Thank you for the heads up! Sock (
tocktalk) 20:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Star Wars suggestion
I propose a small change to the Star Wars entry in the franchise table: putting the three main trilogies under a new heading called Star Wars Saga, while still keeping the trilogy separation intact. Not only would this help delineate the Anthology films (and Clone Wars) from the main films, but also from the new proposed trilogy that will have nothing to do with the Skywalkers. Thoughts? TdanTce (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- It seems like a reasonable idea to me. I have no objections. Betty Logan (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- I admit that I am not sure how to do this exactly, and I'd rather not screw up the table. TdanTce (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- The table is a bit complicated, but the good thing about Wikipedia is that you can always revert screw-ups! We will give this discussion the rest of this week and if there are no objections I will sort it out at the weekend. Betty Logan (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- I have given this some more thought. While I agree that a new sub-group might be helpful I question whether it should be called the "Star Wars Saga". Currently Star Wars saga redirects to the main Star Wars article, and seems to embody all the films, so I don't think the title would be specific enough. Other options would be "Skywalker saga", but Darth Vader also appears in Rogue One so that might not be specific enough either. Another simple option would be "Episodes". Have you got any thoughts on this? Betty Logan (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- I'd suggest "Episodes". TompaDompa (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- Nobody has suggested otherwise so we will go with "Episodes". Betty Logan (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- I'd suggest "Episodes". TompaDompa (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Superhero
There a new page List of highest grossing superhero films dose anyone knew if the can expend the highest grossing superhero section?Fanoflionking 09:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanoflionking (talk • contribs)
- I'm not sure what you are asking. Do you want others to help expanding List of highest grossing superhero films#Highest grossing superheroes to more than 10 entries? I would start at http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/ (only domestic) or https://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchises/sort/World, but I'm not going to work on it. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Peaking the top 50 and just filling in the last list I have a feeling that Black Panther is rank at 11 but not to sure? Fanoflionking 18:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanoflionking (talk • contribs)
- Yes, Black Panther is #11. The Numbers includes Thor: Ragnarok in Hulk movies and then Hulk is #11 but that seems silly to me. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I add a franchise box on the Talk page can anyone help fil in also should we actually include black panther or not as he only has one film?Fanoflionking 09:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanoflionking (talk • contribs)
- is anyone able that peak the Films in the top 50 Highest grossing superhero movies?Fanoflionking 21:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanoflionking (talk • contribs)
Furious 7 UAE gross
Back in 2015, there was some discussion about the gross of Furious 7 on Box Office Mojo going down. I think I may have figured out what happened, or at least part of it. When trying to find the highest-grossing film in the United Arab Emirates, I discovered this discrepancy: its cumulative gross in the UAE decreased by about $8 million from the weekend of 23–26 April to the weekend of 30 April–3 May. A corresponding drop is seen when looking at the figures in the local currency of UAE dirhams, which would seem to suggest that it's not a simple currency conversion error. Box Office Mojo does have kind of a poor track record with regards to keeping foreign market grosses straight, and there may be other markets where the grosses are similarly messed up. Should we do something? TompaDompa (talk) 10:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- There is not much we can do apart from look for corroboration. Universal's international arm has the foreign box-office at $1,166,698,151 as of September 2017 (under Fast & Furious 7). That suggests a discrepancy of $3.6 million, if we assume that Universal's figures are correct and BOM's are wrong (on the balance of probabilities). A correction (using Universal's foreign figure) would take it one place higher on the chart. Betty Logan (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Records
I firmly believe that we should include a new section to the article, something that has to do with global box office records. This is, after all, the List of Highest-grossing Films and this article focuses on the worldwide box office results. There is a page dedicated to the Domestic records, and there is a page dedicated to how fast Domestic and Worldwide numbers were achieved. But there is no page that has to do with actual records of global releases. While an entirely separate page is a good alternative for this, I believe it should be included in this article because of the foundation we have. Someone can look in the records section and see 'Highest-grossing Adapted Film' (which is The Force Awakens), and then see 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens' in the actual list above it. One can argue that by just looking at the official top-fifty list, it can be puzzled together that Avatar is the 'Highest-grossing Original Film', or that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 is the 'Highest-grossing Fantasy Film', but it would be a lot easier and more formulated in an entire separate section of the article. I believe that an entire page that has to do with this will be too shallow and thin, but if it is included in this here article, it will add to the material that we already have. I believe that is our main goal here, to continue to provide both reliable and alluring facts. With a record section, we will not only have the top-fifty, the yearly champions and the franchise chart, but we will also have information on the films that topped every other film in it's respective category.
Editor49 (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- I am not opposed to including records in this article provided they are specifically related to being the highest-grossing film in some capacity, but it seems to me you are proposing turning the article into a broad scope records article which would involve adding significantly more content to a list that is already one of the biggest on Wikipedia. The article is focused on what has been the highest-grossing film by some metric (either all-time or of the year) and doesn't really concern itself with categories i.e. being a fantasy film or original film has little bearing on whether the film has been the highest-grosser or not. Genre records probably belong in articles about those genre i.e. if a film has been the highest-grossing fantasy film then that information really belongs in a list of fantasy films IMO, rather than a list of highest-grossing films. For example, adding a top ten chart to List of fantasy films would be a good way of fleshing out that article. Generally, if a category is notable in its own right it is usually developed into its own article per List of highest-grossing animated films, List of highest-grossing openings for films, List of fastest-grossing films and Second weekend in box office performance etc. It is also worth bearing in mind that most of the records at United States box office records don't actually have anything to do with the topic of "highest-grossing" film, which is why those records were not included at List of highest-grossing films in the United States and Canada in the first place. Betty Logan (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Toy Story 3 footnote
I'm not sure I understand the logic of the note here -- are we saying that we listed it #4 but according to the corrected gross it actually came in at #3, but we still say its peak was #4 for some reason? I could understand if during its run it both surpassed the previous #3 but was itself surpassed, not in that order, so the highest it ever got was #3 (...POTC3...?), but if that were the case why would even bother noting it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- According to the BOM source it peaked at #5. However, Disney issued an erratum for some of its grosses and after taking that into account TS3 would have peaked at #4. I see how the note is confusing (it's my fault as well I think because I wrote the original note) so I have made the note more explicit. If it is still not clear enough feel free to word it as you see fit. Betty Logan (talk) 06:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Betty Logan: That works. Thanks! :) I'm wondering, though, if rather than including the redundant figure it was modified to (the same one already included in the table) in the footnote giving the original pre-erratum figure in the footnote wouldn't be better? Do we have that figure, or just the rounded "$1,063.0" included in the source? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- We don't need an exact figure in the note because it doesn't mean any difference to the correction. I altered it to include both figures, and then this way there should be no further confusion. Betty Logan (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Betty Logan: That works. Thanks! :) I'm wondering, though, if rather than including the redundant figure it was modified to (the same one already included in the table) in the footnote giving the original pre-erratum figure in the footnote wouldn't be better? Do we have that figure, or just the rounded "$1,063.0" included in the source? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Gone with the Wind
This says that it got almost 190M after the 1967 re-release. Nergaal (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- That's just the US gross Nergaal, and GWTW has had several releases since then. Betty Logan (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- I meant for the Timeline of highest-grossing films section; if that link is right, GwtW should take all the slots until Jaws. Nergaal (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- It's a different metric. If you look at the chart closely you will see that all the figures up to Star Wars have a little "R" next to them, signifying "gross rental". Box-office grosses didn't come in until the 1970s so we don't know the worldwide gross for Gone with the Wind after its 1967 run, and we don't know the worldwide gross for The Sound of Music either. However, there are many contemporary sources that published the gross rental (which was the metric used at the time) so that is why the chart uses the historic measure instead. There is no doubt whatsoever about The Godfather becoming the highest-grossing film; it is well documented in film literature. Betty Logan (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- Wait, so the $116M figure is strictly rental, absolutely no ticket sales? If that is the case it should be stated more clearly in the table. Nergaal (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- It is the distibutor rental from the ticket sales, and it is already clearly stated in the table: it has an "R" next to the figure and right under the table it tells you this denotes "distributor rental". Betty Logan (talk) 08:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, so DR means what the studios got from the cinemas for giving away the tapes, and excludes the net profit made by cinemas - so therefore it is underestimated? So the box office given by the above link is quite possibly correct? Nergaal (talk) 08:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- The box-office figure The-Numbers has down is most likely wrong IMO. The George Lucas Blockbusting book (used as a source in this list) estimates GWTW had grossed around $150 million in the United States prior to its 1971 reissue. According to Box Office Mojo GWTW grossed $9 million from its last two releases, and it seems The Numbers has simply subtracted these two figures from the overall total to get its 1967 figure. However, GWTW also grossed $16 million from its 1974 reissue, and it also grossed $6 million in distributor rental (roughly $12 million gross) from its 1971 reissue, which The-Numbers doesn't account for. Box Office Mojo is even worse because they attribute the $189 million figure to the 1939 release because they don't log any of the reissues before 1989. I appreicate it is confusing for readers not familiar with historic rentals, but there is no way around this. The transition from distributor rental to the more accurate exhibition gross is basically the film world equivalent of going from imperial to metric, and in most cases prior to the 1970s we are stuck with the old figures. Betty Logan (talk) 09:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- I actually did some rough work on this a few years ago when I was tracking down the figures, and I tried to work out the grosses from the rentals which you can see at User:Betty_Logan/Sandbox#GWTW. The table in my sandbox is in no way authoritative (it contains a LOT of guesswork) and I came up about $20 million short (I think this is mostly due to me underestimating the 1967 release which was absolutely huge—even bigger than that year's Bond film) but it gives you a very basic idea of how the gross evolved. Betty Logan (talk) 09:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- So how would you go about it here: List_of_fastest-grossing_films#Fastest_to_$50_million and 100M? Nergaal (talk) 11:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think those milestones are for the most part wrong: The Birth of a Nation was almost certainly the first film to gross $50 million, although nobody knows for sure. Gone with the Wind passed the $50 million threshold during its 1954 release, and the $100 million & $150 million thresholds during its 1967 release; however, it was just pipped to $100 million by The Sound of Music (see [9] and [10]). Star Wars was not the first film to gross $200 million; Jaws grossed $190 million on its first release, and then passed $200 million with its 1976 reissue. Betty Logan (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- So how would you go about it here: List_of_fastest-grossing_films#Fastest_to_$50_million and 100M? Nergaal (talk) 11:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- I actually did some rough work on this a few years ago when I was tracking down the figures, and I tried to work out the grosses from the rentals which you can see at User:Betty_Logan/Sandbox#GWTW. The table in my sandbox is in no way authoritative (it contains a LOT of guesswork) and I came up about $20 million short (I think this is mostly due to me underestimating the 1967 release which was absolutely huge—even bigger than that year's Bond film) but it gives you a very basic idea of how the gross evolved. Betty Logan (talk) 09:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- The box-office figure The-Numbers has down is most likely wrong IMO. The George Lucas Blockbusting book (used as a source in this list) estimates GWTW had grossed around $150 million in the United States prior to its 1971 reissue. According to Box Office Mojo GWTW grossed $9 million from its last two releases, and it seems The Numbers has simply subtracted these two figures from the overall total to get its 1967 figure. However, GWTW also grossed $16 million from its 1974 reissue, and it also grossed $6 million in distributor rental (roughly $12 million gross) from its 1971 reissue, which The-Numbers doesn't account for. Box Office Mojo is even worse because they attribute the $189 million figure to the 1939 release because they don't log any of the reissues before 1989. I appreicate it is confusing for readers not familiar with historic rentals, but there is no way around this. The transition from distributor rental to the more accurate exhibition gross is basically the film world equivalent of going from imperial to metric, and in most cases prior to the 1970s we are stuck with the old figures. Betty Logan (talk) 09:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, so DR means what the studios got from the cinemas for giving away the tapes, and excludes the net profit made by cinemas - so therefore it is underestimated? So the box office given by the above link is quite possibly correct? Nergaal (talk) 08:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- It is the distibutor rental from the ticket sales, and it is already clearly stated in the table: it has an "R" next to the figure and right under the table it tells you this denotes "distributor rental". Betty Logan (talk) 08:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- Wait, so the $116M figure is strictly rental, absolutely no ticket sales? If that is the case it should be stated more clearly in the table. Nergaal (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- It's a different metric. If you look at the chart closely you will see that all the figures up to Star Wars have a little "R" next to them, signifying "gross rental". Box-office grosses didn't come in until the 1970s so we don't know the worldwide gross for Gone with the Wind after its 1967 run, and we don't know the worldwide gross for The Sound of Music either. However, there are many contemporary sources that published the gross rental (which was the metric used at the time) so that is why the chart uses the historic measure instead. There is no doubt whatsoever about The Godfather becoming the highest-grossing film; it is well documented in film literature. Betty Logan (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- I meant for the Timeline of highest-grossing films section; if that link is right, GwtW should take all the slots until Jaws. Nergaal (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Bond vs marvel=
How well has the MCU done for inflation and is it lucky to over take bond soon? (Especially with infinity war on its way) what is it at now? Fanoflionking (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Well, our inflation numbers for Bond are a bit outdated but by plugging the ones we have into a basic inflation calculator Bond stands at about $16 billion now. Of course, the MCU is 10 years old so it may already be ahead if you account for inflation. Betty Logan (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- I've tried applying several different methods of scaling to both sets of films. Taking best case for James Bond and worst case for the MCU, it's about $1 billion short as of today (Infinity War is over $1.2 billion right now for future reference). Given current box office projections, we'll be past the point of no doubt once Ant-Man and the Wasp releases later this year. I'd definitely consider bringing the topic up again once that next film releases. Ruffice98 (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- I reworded the sentence in question a few weeks ago to remove the direct comparison. The MCU is almost certainly ahead now; the Bond figure is still in there but the comparison is now with Harry Potter in the context of a single property. Betty Logan (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
One Hundred
Can we make the list to 100? Rigor Impossible (talk) 8:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- There was an RfC about the number of entries last year. Consensus was to keep it at 50 entries. TompaDompa (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Highest grossing franchise
If the MCU is already in the table at the end, why are Captain America and Iron Man there as well under separete entries?187.189.90.87 (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- See #Spiderman: Homecoming (2017) Is Counted Twice In The Rankings???? Sources do the same. Captain America and Iron Man have separate publication histories with some crossovers. Captain America (1990 film)#Release mentions an international theatrical release long before the MCU but we lack box office data. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- This comes up a lot. I just added a notice to the top of the page explaining the situation (which I suggested back in 2016 but didn't get around to until now – better late than never, I guess). TompaDompa (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Distributor Column
Can we bring back the distributor/studio column? It's much helpful when sorting things out. my7thsecret (talk) 9:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
| Rank | Peak | Title | Distributor | Worldwide gross | Year | Reference(s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | 5 | Avengers: Infinity War | Disney | $1,606,829,103 | 2018 | 1 |
- I don't think it's a good idea. There are lots of columns we could add (such as production companies, directors and genres—attributes that I would personally consider ahead of distributor) but it is all basically "white noise". It does not further a reader's understanding of the topic and would just bulk out an already big article. If readers really want to know which company distributed a film the information is literally one click away. Betty Logan (talk) 09:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oh I see. That's just sad. Would be nice if we could see a more detailed table without having to click each one of those links. my7thsecret (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I agree that it wouldn't be a good idea. Information that doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding of the subject (this is a list of highest-grossing films – distribution companies aren't important to understanding film grosses, unlike for instance release years) shouldn't be on the table as it would just get more cluttered. I'd be more inclined to remove a column (the reference one – the references can be placed next to the figures they verify) than to add one. TompaDompa (talk) 10:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Alright, I understand. My7thsecret (talk) 10:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2018
| This edit request to List of highest-grossing films has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the highest grossing franchises section, please remove the green highlight from the Star Wars section, as The Last Jedi is no longer in theaters. 4.71.249.229 (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Not done: The Last Jedi is still playing internationally. Box Office Mojo has updated it as recently as this weekend, and you can see that the total has changed between this week and last week. Betty Logan (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Studio
Can we add the name of the studio in the main chart of the highest-grossing films? (much like there is in the '2018 in films' page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.80.90.246 (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- There was no support at #Distributor Column. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Adjusted gross update from 2017
Is this useful at all? I can't tell the sourcing for it, but DigitalSpy is a reliable source to the best of my knowledge. I just hate that "updated" tag when we don't seem to have further information available to update. Sock (tock talk) 15:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- It looks good to me! Although I didn't quite get how he did the calculations, the Statista source he gave shows a 0.08% increase of inflation in 2018 compared to 2014, but the calculations don't really add up. Or that's just me not doing the math right. Either way, I'll wait to see what others have to say about it before doing any changes. DCF94 (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- I am not completely happy with his figures either because mine don't match when I replicate the calculation, and also the Statista source seems to be estimated because it goes up to 2022!. However, I think his methodology is sound i.e. applying global inflation index to the Guinness figures. I have found some global figures from the World Bank that I think we could use, and it would allow us to bring The Force Awakens into the chart, which is our biggest problem. This is what I get from calculating the World Bank rates:
| Rank | Title | Worldwide gross (2016 $) |
Year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gone with the Wind | $3,640,000,000 | 1939 |
| 2 | Avatar | $3,195,000,000 | 2009 |
| 3 | Star Wars | $2,989,000,000 | 1977 |
| 4 | Titanic | T$2,516,000,000 | 1997 |
| 5 | The Sound of Music | $2,503,000,000 | 1965 |
| 6 | E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial | $2,444,000,000 | 1982 |
| 7 | The Ten Commandments | $2,314,000,000 | 1956 |
| 8 | Doctor Zhivago | $2,193,000,000 | 1965 |
| 9 | Jaws | $2,144,000,000 | 1975 |
| 10 | Star Wars: The Force Awakens | S$2,103,000,000 | 1937 |
- For the top 9 films you have to apply the 2014 (because the last year Guinness could have used is 2013 data), 2015 and 2016 inflation rates (which is approximately 5.8%), to get them into 2016 $. The Force Awakens only needs to be converted from 2015 $ into 2016 %, which is approximately 1.7% according to the World Bank. I think we should update the chart but using the World Bank data rather than Digital Spy which uses the estimates. The real advantage (apart from using actual data instead of estimates) is that it provides us with a mechanism for updating the chart each year. It would always be a year behind (the 2017 data won't be published until some point later in the year) but it would allow us to keep it more or less up to date. Betty Logan (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
@Sock, DCF94, PrimeHunter, and Nergaal: Do you any of you have any views on my suggestion of using the World CPI index (as supplied by the World Bank) to keep the adjusted chart up to date? Guinness has not updated their chart for several years now and we still don't have The Force Awakens in there, and there is a good chance Infinity War will penetrate the top 10 too. I don't think OR is a problem in this case because Wikipedia has several inflation templates, so this type of calculation is permitted. We wouldn't need to inflate the grosses from scratch, but just from the 2013 level that Guinness used, so it would be quite straightforward. Hopefully Guinness will update their chart at some point but this would be a good approximation until that happens. Betty Logan (talk) 02:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Since Guinness haven't updated their chart, it stands to reason that we find other sources/ways to accurately update the chart. And yeah, I think using your suggestion is a good way to do so. DCF94 (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Betty Logan: Definitely on board with that change. If we can use {{as of}} without issue, I fail to see how a date indicator of when the calculation was done would pose any problem. Sock (
tocktalk) 15:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)- OK I have gone ahead and done this. If you want to check my calculations you can see the formulas by opening the edit page. Let's see if it sticks. Betty Logan (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Betty Logan: Definitely on board with that change. If we can use {{as of}} without issue, I fail to see how a date indicator of when the calculation was done would pose any problem. Sock (
Can we used this for Snow White update for the highest grossing animted films page? In the last update it was $1.819 billion thanks Fanoflionking 17:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanoflionking (talk • contribs)
- It really depends how you intend to use it. We haven't really done anything new here: we have taken the Guinness chart and multiplied the figures by a constant. This ype of chart would not be possible to do if we had to build it from scratch. But if you are asking if you can update the 1.819 figure using the same process as we have used here then there shouldn't be a problem with that. Betty Logan (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
@Sock and DCF94: As you can see, the new chart (updated to 2016 values) now incorporates The Force Awakens. We still have a problem though because it doesn't incorporate the re-release for Titanic from 2012. When Guinness updated their chart in 2014 they simply adjusted their 2011 chart for inflation, but they didn't add in any new grosses. You can see the adjustment at User:Betty_Logan/Sandbox#Guinness (second chart). This means the chart still isn't technically updated to 2016 levels because we are missing Titanic's reissue gross of $344 million. What do you guys think about adding it in? The reason we didn't add it in before is because we were keeping the chart "pure", but we have pretty much tossed that idea out of the window now and done our own adjustment. This also means we should technically add in any reissue grosses too IMO. We can adjust Titanic's reissue gross from 2013 (instead of 2012) meaning we only lose 1-year's inflation, but it would leave the chart in a better state than it is now. Betty Logan (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Well in my opinion, since we're using this method I don't see why not. What stopped us from doing our own list before, even if the World Bank data could have gone further back before 1960, is that the older films had multiple re-releases that would have been difficult to take all of them into account, but thanks to Guinness we don't have to do all the calculations, and today we have much easier access to this kind of data and Titanic's 2012 re-release has a clear number that we can adjust and add it to its total, same if any other old film would be re-released in the future. DCF94 (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Avatar vs GwtW
How distinct are distributor rentals vs home sales? Most of GwtW are not actual ticket sales, but DR. Meanwhile, Avatar got another 15% bump in income from DVD+BR sales. Should these not be covered at all when comparing highest BO incomes? Nergaal (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Theatrical rentals have nothing to do with the home video market (which was non-existent prior to the 1980s). They are generated at the box-office through ticket sales. Please read Gross rental. Betty Logan (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Page views
Nice to see this niche list get some audience: Wikipedia:Top 25 Report/May 6 to 12, 2018. Nergaal (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- And it actually had more views the next week but eight of the top-10 were people connected to a certain wedding. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Pixar "franchise"
Another source that dabbles into this idea. Nergaal (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Box Office Mojno regards Pixar as a brand. There is certainly no concerted effort yet to establish and promote a continuity between the films. If we were to accept Pixar as a franchise on those terms then we would have to consider many other brands along the same lines which would change the current chart beyond recognition, andwell beyond what most sources consider a "franchise". It would violate WP:DUE in my opinion. Box Office Mojo has good reasons for separating out "brands" from other franchises. Betty Logan (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
2 for 1
If a film plays with another film will it go towards it box office for example Spider-Man play with MIB and gross $6.6 million [1] Putting SM1 total $828,341,521
And the franchise with
|- | colspan="6" |
| 9 | Spider-Man | $4,850,059,398 | 6 | $808,343,233 | Spider-Man 3 ($890,871,626) | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
13:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Fanoflionking
- It should be handled in the same way we handle crossovers IMO and added to both franchises. There is already a precedent for this in the Twilight entry, although of course that double bill wasn't split over two franchises. Betty Logan (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Franchises
That table seems to be missing "Disney Live Action Reimaginings" franchise and Indiana Jones. Also, it might be a more sensible table if it uses a fixed cutoff like >2B or >2.5B box office income. Also considering the nature of movies like CA: Civil War, seems quite weird to me to list MCU sub-franchises separately since none of the sub-franchise movies were 100% independent of the MCU. Nergaal (talk) 10:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- "Disney Live Action Reimaginings" doesn't satisfy the normal media franchise definition since the films are unconnected apart form being adapted from unconnected animated films by the same studio. It does have an entry at http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/ but they do many things we don't, for example franchises with a single released film (Avatar would make our list), and separate entries for Harry Potter and J.K. Rowling's Wizarding World where the latter currently adds a single other film. The table doesn't adjust for inflation and three of four Indiana Jones films are from the 1980's. https://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchises/sort/World says the total is $1,961,339,569, not enough for our top-25. I don't see a good reason to make an arbitrary cutoff and vary the number of entries. The Captain America franchise as a whole has lots of content independent from the MCU. And in #Highest grossing franchise I wrote: "Captain America (1990 film)#Release mentions an international theatrical release long before the MCU but we lack box office data". See also the "#Overlapping franchises" box at top of this page. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- It's still not clear to me how CA:CW is part of CA, yet Justice League is not part of Batman. People went to see CA:CW also because it had Ironman in it. If you choose to ignore the blurry divisions, soon 90% of the top franchises will actually be MCU spinoffs. Asides from Spiderman, all MCU subfranchises are just spinoffs. Nergaal (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- The studio decides the franchise in the title. Reliable sources like http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=captainamerica.htm and http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=batman.htm follow it so we should also follow it. Branding and remaining trustworthy means studios will not do crazy things with the titles. A film called "Captain America: Whatever" is automatically a Captain America film. Justice League is a franchise by itself and may make the list some day if gets more films. The first film has six superheroes and will not be counted in six different franchises which aren't in the title. Only some of them would currently make our list but imagine if the three Avengers films were counted for every superhero who appears in them. That will not happen. Captain America started in 1941. What you call MCU subfranchises is old franchises from far before MCU started in 2008. They have lots of pre-MCU media and are not MCU spinoffs. Spin-off (media) cannot predate the property they were spun off from. An MCU spinoff would be a film about characters whose first appearance in any media was an MCU film. But all significant MCU characters are from comics. Apart from "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice", no film is counted more than twice: Once for its own franchise in the title and sometimes a second time for a shared universe (currently MCU and DCEU). MCU is not getting 90% of the top-25. That would require 22 separate superhero properties with enough big films named after the property to pass number 3 among non-MCU franchises. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, Captain America is considered the primary component in Civil War and the film is ostensibly the next entry in the Captain America series. There is a huge grey area though, and it is mostly up to the studios and secondary sources to determine the attribution. Part of the problem is that Marvel has completely dissolved the traditional understanding of how a franchise operates, and I don't think the trackers such as Box Office Mojo handle it particularly well. The biggest problem as Nergaal points out is that our current rendering is inconsistent i.e. if Disney had called Civil War "Avengers: Civil War" it is an Avengers movie, and if they had called it "Captain America vs Iron Man" it is then also an Iron Man movie; both of those would have been viable titles. Personally I would prefer a more objective approach and if you remember last year I proposed a spin-off article that would separate the chart into single properties, cross-franchise properties and continuities at User:Betty Logan/Sandbox/draft3. The proposal died because we couldn't agree on an approach. I still think an approach on those lines is the way to go though, because I don't think a single table really works any more. Betty Logan (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- The studio decides the franchise in the title. Reliable sources like http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=captainamerica.htm and http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=batman.htm follow it so we should also follow it. Branding and remaining trustworthy means studios will not do crazy things with the titles. A film called "Captain America: Whatever" is automatically a Captain America film. Justice League is a franchise by itself and may make the list some day if gets more films. The first film has six superheroes and will not be counted in six different franchises which aren't in the title. Only some of them would currently make our list but imagine if the three Avengers films were counted for every superhero who appears in them. That will not happen. Captain America started in 1941. What you call MCU subfranchises is old franchises from far before MCU started in 2008. They have lots of pre-MCU media and are not MCU spinoffs. Spin-off (media) cannot predate the property they were spun off from. An MCU spinoff would be a film about characters whose first appearance in any media was an MCU film. But all significant MCU characters are from comics. Apart from "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice", no film is counted more than twice: Once for its own franchise in the title and sometimes a second time for a shared universe (currently MCU and DCEU). MCU is not getting 90% of the top-25. That would require 22 separate superhero properties with enough big films named after the property to pass number 3 among non-MCU franchises. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- It's still not clear to me how CA:CW is part of CA, yet Justice League is not part of Batman. People went to see CA:CW also because it had Ironman in it. If you choose to ignore the blurry divisions, soon 90% of the top franchises will actually be MCU spinoffs. Asides from Spiderman, all MCU subfranchises are just spinoffs. Nergaal (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
First off, as usual, I think Betty has done remarkable work with this article and appreciate her efforts. That said, a problem I and some other editors have had for some time with the Highest-grossing franchises and film series
table is the repeat entry of some franchises (it's been a few years now, but I believe it started with the Iron Man series being listed a part of the MCU and again as a franchise onto itself). This duplication is problematic, because as the table is limited to the 'top 25', there isn't really 25 franchises listed, and further, whichever series was listed at #25, but then bumped when Iron Man became listed twice, was still actually the 25th series, but was no longer listed. I haven't looked through all the alternate table proposals and attached discussions in Betty's sandbox, but if there is a solution to be found there to address this issue, I'm all for it, as I'm sure others would be as well. Some kind of change(s) will be needed as these franchises become more and more blurred together. (Just wait until Disney's really big cross-over event comes along, and a band of Jedi Knights helps the Guardians of the Galaxy and The Avengers save the universe, by going back in time and teaming up with Indiana Jones to find an ancient, all-powerful Macguffin!) Cheers - theWOLFchild 04:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- A side-note: I remember reading many sources stating that all the Pixar movies happen in the same universe. I think there could be a reasonable case to be made for a "Pixar Universe" franchise. Nergaal (talk) 08:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Pixar universe theory has an article but the theory has low support and shouldn't be claimed true by Wikipedia when Pixar doesn't say it. A hypothetical Avengers and Star Wars film with both properties in the title could be counted in both franchises like Batman v Superman. Disney is unlikely to go beyond that in the title. The Lego Movie includes several characters from our top-25 but it only counts as a Lego film. The double counting of MCU and DCEU does come up a lot. I'm strongly opposed to omitting MCU and DCEU films from their superhero franchises. Should Spider-Man: Homecoming be omitted from Spider-Man just because it shares continuity with some non-Spiderman films? Should Man of Steel be omitted from Superman just because it's in the DCEU? It didn't even share continuity with other films at release because it was the first DCEU film. And I think it's even worse to say something like: If all theatrically released Superhero X films is part of the same shared universe then X doesn't get an entry, but if there are other films then X gets an entry with all the films. Captain America (1990 film)#Release was in theaters in some countries as mentioned, so does Captain America get an entry but not Iron Man? If Iron Man: Rise of Technovore or a future film has a small theatrical release then does Iron Man suddenly get an entry including his three MCU films? This criteria would be too arbitrary to me. If we want to avoid double counting then it's the shared universes MCU and DCEU which should be removed, but I don't support that when all sources count them as franchises. I have previously mentioned that shared universes could be marked in the table so readers can clearly see they are not based on a single property like one superhero or one named superhero team. If people dislike that shared universes can push out individual franchises then we could say that the list gets 25 individual franchises plus all shared universes which are above the 25th individual franchise. That would currently give 27 entries with MCU and DCEU. This assumes we agree that franchises like Star Wars, Wizarding World, Middle-earth and X-Men (including Deadpool) should not be counted as shared universes. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- To be fair it's not a top 25 per se, it's just a list that is simply cut off at 25 entries to keep the data clean. In reality it is the MCU and DCEU that are the anomalous entries and they only take up two spots. It used to be limited to 20, and the only reason we have those limits is because we run into wonky/missing data. There is nothing to prevent us expanding the chart if a bunch of new franchises start to push the older ones down. This is what happened when we went from top 20 to top 25: six years ago the franchise chart had 17 entries that had nothing to do with superheroes, and the current version has 16 entries that has nothing to with superheroes. The proportion has changed in favor of superhero franchises, but that is because they are the ones making big money at the moment, but the number of non-superhero franchises is pretty much the same. If more superhero franchises penetrate the chart there is nothing to stop us expanding to a top 30. Basically what I am saying is that we shouldn't get too hung up on this being a top 25 because all it represents is the limit of our meaningful data. The very next franchise would be Planet of the Apes which is where the problems start because we only have estimated data. Frankly, if Planet of the Apes and The Mummy don't get back in that is better for the chart IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Missing data is for old films and small international releases. It will be a small part of the total due to inflation in franchises with enough big recent films to make a top list. I actually wouldn't mind some entries with missing data and footnotes stating that, even simple footnotes only saying "No known data" or "Only includes domestic box office". Some of the individual films may be way off their real box office but it will be films few people care about today. I think the franchise ranking and big films are more important. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- How about having a big footnote with a disclaimer and don't split anything that has no separate spinoffs, until those get separate spinoffs (i.e. Spider Man has separate spinoffs, but Ironman doesn't). MCU is pretty much the only one creating problems so far, and you can't say for example that Cap America franchise is playing a fair-game when it comes to standalone franchise totals when its into movie tagged the name Avengers, and the two sequels had a huge bump from MCU friends. Nergaal (talk) 11:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Because you would create a completely arbitrary situation. The fact is the Iron Man films set in the MCU are still Iron Man films first and foremost. The MCU setting is basically just an WP:INUNIVERSE continuity and doesn't really have any bearing on whether or not Iron Man is a franchise. The fact that Iron Man doesn't have any films set outside the MCU is purely incidental: if they did an animated movie along the lines of Batman:Mask of Phantasm that made 10 mil then it would completely alter the chart order under such an arbitrary criteria. It doesn't make sense to treat properties differently on the basis of fictional elements. The chart is attempting to break down franchises along the lines of intellectual property, which has a real basis in law. And it's not just the MCU creating problems, because we have the exact same problem with the DCEU as well and their crossovers. We already have Batman and Superman in the chart and it is only a matter of time before Wonder Woman becomes eligible. The real problem is when IP is pooled in a single film; treating something like the MCU like James Bond doesn't work very well because they are two every different types of franchise. Betty Logan (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- One way of doing this without being completely arbitrary would be to remove entries that are entirely contained in another franchise. For example, Batman v Superman could be listed under both Batman and Superman, but remove Iron Man and Captain America unless and until they have a non-MCU entry. It's a sort of compromise, but it would resolve the confusion many, many people seem to have and would allow some difference in the table. Or just reduce the table to franchises with $3 billion or more. TdanTce (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- That would also remove The Avengers. I still think it's far too arbitrary to say that the inclusion of an old multi-billion dollars franchise with decades of pre-MCU publications in other media including tv films should depend on whether they made or make a limited or foreign release of some low-budget film nobody cares about. As mentioned, Captain America (1990 film)#Release had a foreign release but we don't know the box office. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- I have added this above the franchise table so readers are aware of it: "The list includes the shared universes Marvel Cinematic Universe and DC Extended Universe where individual films can also be counted under the specific franchise in the film title." PrimeHunter (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- That's a good start, but I don't think I would've understood that explanation if I didn't already know what we're talking about. I added a {{clarify}} tag. TompaDompa (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- I tried to reword this to make it clearer: "The following list includes the shared universes Marvel Cinematic Universe and DC Extended Universe. Some films in these franchises are grouped both with the MCU or DCEU and with other films featuring the same titular character." TdanTce (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- That's a good start, but I don't think I would've understood that explanation if I didn't already know what we're talking about. I added a {{clarify}} tag. TompaDompa (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- One way of doing this without being completely arbitrary would be to remove entries that are entirely contained in another franchise. For example, Batman v Superman could be listed under both Batman and Superman, but remove Iron Man and Captain America unless and until they have a non-MCU entry. It's a sort of compromise, but it would resolve the confusion many, many people seem to have and would allow some difference in the table. Or just reduce the table to franchises with $3 billion or more. TdanTce (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- Because you would create a completely arbitrary situation. The fact is the Iron Man films set in the MCU are still Iron Man films first and foremost. The MCU setting is basically just an WP:INUNIVERSE continuity and doesn't really have any bearing on whether or not Iron Man is a franchise. The fact that Iron Man doesn't have any films set outside the MCU is purely incidental: if they did an animated movie along the lines of Batman:Mask of Phantasm that made 10 mil then it would completely alter the chart order under such an arbitrary criteria. It doesn't make sense to treat properties differently on the basis of fictional elements. The chart is attempting to break down franchises along the lines of intellectual property, which has a real basis in law. And it's not just the MCU creating problems, because we have the exact same problem with the DCEU as well and their crossovers. We already have Batman and Superman in the chart and it is only a matter of time before Wonder Woman becomes eligible. The real problem is when IP is pooled in a single film; treating something like the MCU like James Bond doesn't work very well because they are two every different types of franchise. Betty Logan (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- How about having a big footnote with a disclaimer and don't split anything that has no separate spinoffs, until those get separate spinoffs (i.e. Spider Man has separate spinoffs, but Ironman doesn't). MCU is pretty much the only one creating problems so far, and you can't say for example that Cap America franchise is playing a fair-game when it comes to standalone franchise totals when its into movie tagged the name Avengers, and the two sequels had a huge bump from MCU friends. Nergaal (talk) 11:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Missing data is for old films and small international releases. It will be a small part of the total due to inflation in franchises with enough big recent films to make a top list. I actually wouldn't mind some entries with missing data and footnotes stating that, even simple footnotes only saying "No known data" or "Only includes domestic box office". Some of the individual films may be way off their real box office but it will be films few people care about today. I think the franchise ranking and big films are more important. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- To be fair it's not a top 25 per se, it's just a list that is simply cut off at 25 entries to keep the data clean. In reality it is the MCU and DCEU that are the anomalous entries and they only take up two spots. It used to be limited to 20, and the only reason we have those limits is because we run into wonky/missing data. There is nothing to prevent us expanding the chart if a bunch of new franchises start to push the older ones down. This is what happened when we went from top 20 to top 25: six years ago the franchise chart had 17 entries that had nothing to do with superheroes, and the current version has 16 entries that has nothing to with superheroes. The proportion has changed in favor of superhero franchises, but that is because they are the ones making big money at the moment, but the number of non-superhero franchises is pretty much the same. If more superhero franchises penetrate the chart there is nothing to stop us expanding to a top 30. Basically what I am saying is that we shouldn't get too hung up on this being a top 25 because all it represents is the limit of our meaningful data. The very next franchise would be Planet of the Apes which is where the problems start because we only have estimated data. Frankly, if Planet of the Apes and The Mummy don't get back in that is better for the chart IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Pixar universe theory has an article but the theory has low support and shouldn't be claimed true by Wikipedia when Pixar doesn't say it. A hypothetical Avengers and Star Wars film with both properties in the title could be counted in both franchises like Batman v Superman. Disney is unlikely to go beyond that in the title. The Lego Movie includes several characters from our top-25 but it only counts as a Lego film. The double counting of MCU and DCEU does come up a lot. I'm strongly opposed to omitting MCU and DCEU films from their superhero franchises. Should Spider-Man: Homecoming be omitted from Spider-Man just because it shares continuity with some non-Spiderman films? Should Man of Steel be omitted from Superman just because it's in the DCEU? It didn't even share continuity with other films at release because it was the first DCEU film. And I think it's even worse to say something like: If all theatrically released Superhero X films is part of the same shared universe then X doesn't get an entry, but if there are other films then X gets an entry with all the films. Captain America (1990 film)#Release was in theaters in some countries as mentioned, so does Captain America get an entry but not Iron Man? If Iron Man: Rise of Technovore or a future film has a small theatrical release then does Iron Man suddenly get an entry including his three MCU films? This criteria would be too arbitrary to me. If we want to avoid double counting then it's the shared universes MCU and DCEU which should be removed, but I don't support that when all sources count them as franchises. I have previously mentioned that shared universes could be marked in the table so readers can clearly see they are not based on a single property like one superhero or one named superhero team. If people dislike that shared universes can push out individual franchises then we could say that the list gets 25 individual franchises plus all shared universes which are above the 25th individual franchise. That would currently give 27 entries with MCU and DCEU. This assumes we agree that franchises like Star Wars, Wizarding World, Middle-earth and X-Men (including Deadpool) should not be counted as shared universes. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
BI doesn't seem to agree with the franchises listed here outside top 20. Nergaal (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- They have many errors and even if we skipped Avengers, Iron Man and Captain America, they are missing clear franchises like Star Trek and Madagascar. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Infinity War
If infinity war outgrosses the force awakens will it be on the top ten adjusted for inflation or will it not be enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.165.152.42 (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- It depends: first of, we won't be able to do the calculations untill late 2019 or 2020 when this years inflation figure will be available on the World Bank website, and second, it probably needs to outgross TFA's inflation number to surpass it on that list (but that also depends on how much the index has changed in the last 2 years). DCF94 (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah unfortunately there will always be a bit of a lag. We are still waiting for the 2017 index so we are going to have to wait at least a year. Given the inflation in that time it is likely Infinity War is going to have to finish closer to $2.2 billion rather than $2.1 billion to have a shot at making the cut. Betty Logan (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Franchise table
Not a big deal, but my OCD is kind of bothering me because of this. Who and why was the franchise table modified and moved the "[show]" to the end of every column? What was wrong with it beeing on the right side of every title? if anything is slightly more inconvenient (especially for people on mobiles) to have to scroll to the end of the column. DCF94 (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- I guess it was caused by this edit to MediaWiki:Common.js. @TheDJ: Each franchise table at List of highest-grossing films#Highest-grossing franchises and film series is made with {{Highest-grossing films franchise}}. It used to have the hide/show link in the second column. It produces code like this:
| 25 | Captain America | $2,238,138,536 | 3 | $746,046,179 | Civil War ($1,153,304,495) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Civil War (2016) | $1,153,304,495 | |||
| 2 | The Winter Soldier (2014) | $714,264,267 | |||
| 3 | The First Avenger (2011) | $370,569,774 |
- I guess the second column was decided by being the only header cell, starting with
!instead of|. Can this functionality be restored? PrimeHunter (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)- ehm, do we have to ? That table is an abomination honestly. Let alone that this was not how collapsible code was ever supposed to be used. Nor how u are supposed to use tableheaders. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- @TheDJ: It doesn't have to be a lone header cell but a way to control which column gets the show/hide link would be great. The table is far easier to use with the toggle in the second column. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Its not really planned, mostly because it makes it harder to support the styling which needs to work, before the JS is loaded. I'd also like to see more than this page depending on something like that. It's usually not a good idea to have unique usecases determine the implementation. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's a featured list with 3 million page views in the past 30 days.[11] {{Highest-grossing films franchise}} is currently used in 10 articles [12], e.g. List of highest-grossing films in the United States and Canada#Franchises and film series not adjusted for inflation. Help:Collapsing#Sortable tables says: "the hide/show button is placed with
mw-collapsiblein the first header cell located or withmw-collapsiblein the right header cell". I'm not sure how to interprete that but it sounds like partial documentation of the former behaviour. I don't recall other tables which were designed to use it and it seems hard to search for. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)- I have to sleep on this. It's seriously stressing me out. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- There is no urgency. And the table does work. Users always get used to features and want them to stay but I know things change in software. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- These film articles are not the only group of articles that use this kind of table format. There is another example at List of snooker players by number of ranking titles, and that looks even more weird than this one with the moved button. Betty Logan (talk) 03:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- There is no urgency. And the table does work. Users always get used to features and want them to stay but I know things change in software. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- I have to sleep on this. It's seriously stressing me out. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's a featured list with 3 million page views in the past 30 days.[11] {{Highest-grossing films franchise}} is currently used in 10 articles [12], e.g. List of highest-grossing films in the United States and Canada#Franchises and film series not adjusted for inflation. Help:Collapsing#Sortable tables says: "the hide/show button is placed with
- Its not really planned, mostly because it makes it harder to support the styling which needs to work, before the JS is loaded. I'd also like to see more than this page depending on something like that. It's usually not a good idea to have unique usecases determine the implementation. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- @TheDJ: It doesn't have to be a lone header cell but a way to control which column gets the show/hide link would be great. The table is far easier to use with the toggle in the second column. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- ehm, do we have to ? That table is an abomination honestly. Let alone that this was not how collapsible code was ever supposed to be used. Nor how u are supposed to use tableheaders. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- I found the reason for the contradictory quote in Help:Collapsing#Sortable tables. It used to say:
- "the hide/show button is placed with
collapsiblein the first header cell located or withmw-collapsiblein the right header cell" - The first
collapsiblewas incorrectly changed tomw-collapsiblelike the second in a find-and-replace edit of the whole page in 2016.[13] Testing with pages cached by Google and the Internet Archive indicates the old version was correct until yesterday: If a table usedcollapsiblelike our list then hide/show was placed in the first header cell marked with!. If a table usedmw-collapsiblelike List of hash functions#Non-cryptographic hash functions then hide/show was placed in the last cell. It's currently the last cell for bothcollapsibleandmw-collapsible. If there is no longer a choice between two classes then I would prefer the first cell. The first column is usually the key of the table and it's logical to users to show the keys instead of whatever is in the last column. The first cell is seen first to help spot the link. And the last cell may require scrolling to reach so the link isn't even visible. This is currently the case for me with List of highest-grossing films#Highest-grossing franchises and film series on a desktop with default zoom and full-screen window. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)- Reverted, as i cant think of a viable fix for this. Guess all the pages will ship with that extra 1800 bytes a little while longer... —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking into this. Maybe an article talk page isn't the best place to discuss the general behaviour of collapsible elements, and it may give biased input from editors of that article. I have corrected Help:Collapsing#Sortable tables to describe the current behaviour and mentioned that it may change.[14] PrimeHunter (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Reverted, as i cant think of a viable fix for this. Guess all the pages will ship with that extra 1800 bytes a little while longer... —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2018
| This edit request to List of highest-grossing films has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Would this really let me edit things in here? 173.72.98.202 (talk) 03:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- This template is used to ask that a specific edit be made (for example, I want to change X to Y). Someone who has the permissions to edit the page (such as myself) will then look at your edit, and if it's constructive we will make the edit (possibly with minor changes). It does not give you the right to edit the article - this article is semi-protected, which means that you can edit it when you have an account over four days old and with at least 10 edits. LittlePuppers (talk) 03:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Just a thought
Should we separate the Jurassic Park films? There are many sources citing this new films as "Jurassic World trilogy"[1][2][3][4] and there are distinct differences between this films and the original ones. Is it any worth in doing this? DCF94 (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Presumably you mean split them into two sub-groups like the "Wizarding World" entry? I don't mind either way. I don't think it's necessary but I agree that there is a natural divide between the original trilogy and the new films. Betty Logan (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- We do something similar with Star Trek (The Original Series vs. The Next Generation). We don't with X-Men (Original Trilogy vs. First Class Trilogy). However we do it, we should try to be consistent. TompaDompa (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- The only argument I'd have against not separating the X-Men main series is that the Jurassic World trilogy is considered just a trilogy (for now at least) and it's justifiable enough to separate them from the Original trilogy to compare the two distinct trilogies, but in X-Men's case the First Class and beyond films are more of a continuation (with different actors but same characters) and there are other films coming up (X-Men: Dark Phoenix), also X-Men: Days of Future Past uses the casts from both series so you can't really call it "The First Class series" when it has a movie that's 50/50, and yeah yeah, Star Wars sequel trilogy does include the cast from the original trilogy, but this new films are predominantly concentrating on the new characters and more importantly it is marketed as a new trilogy, same with the Jurassic World trilogy hence why I brought it up. But that's just my opinion! DCF94 (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- We do something similar with Star Trek (The Original Series vs. The Next Generation). We don't with X-Men (Original Trilogy vs. First Class Trilogy). However we do it, we should try to be consistent. TompaDompa (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ http://www.slashfilm.com/jurassic-park-quote-inspired-jurassic-world
- ^ http://jurassicoutpost.com/exclusive-colin-trevorrow-talks-jurassic-world-2-surprise-guest-j-bayona
- ^ https://www.forbes.com/sites/bryanrolli/2018/02/22/jurassic-world-3-release-date/#3aafa5836ae5
- ^ http://ew.com/movies/2018/04/18/jurassic-world-3-colin-trevorrow/
ACU
Using the source for above https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films#Adjusted_gross_update_from_2017 can we used it to work out the MCU inflation gross Fanoflionking 16:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
21 vs 2001
In the chart it states “All of the films have had a theatrical run (including re-releases) in the 21st century, and films that have not played during this period do not appear on the chart because of ticket-price inflation, population size and ticket purchasing trends not being considered.” But should it be 2002 since that where the oldest film (HP1 was realese at the end of 01 and played though to 02 and even had a reissue in 16 (grossing $23K in uk and $2.7M in Russia[1] Making The oldest film played in 04 Fanoflionking 15:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
References
- There are problems with that quote but I don't think the precise year is one of them. 21st century just means somewhere after 2000. Titanic would be number 4 with 1.8 billion in 1997-98 if it didn't have a rerelease. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- I am struggling to understand the point, but whether a film played in 2001 or 2002 doesn't really matter because we are just making a broad point about the makeup of the list i.e. most of the films are fairly recent. Basically all of the films on the list are from the last 25 years or so. It might be simpler to just say that though because technically Titanic, Jurassic Park and The Phantom Menace would still be on the list even without reissues. Betty Logan (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's fine the way if is. The fact is, even though Titanic came out in the 90's, it is still the second highest grossing film to date, now in the 21st century. - theWOLFchild 17:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2018
| This edit request to List of highest-grossing films has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The group # to main references 2001:EE0:4141:268D:35B2:75FE:A554:6C00 (talk) 09:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Betty Logan (talk) 09:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Mouse eats fox
With the Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox and Disney having a chance of buying them and with that the return of x men and Fantastic four to the Marvel Cinematic Universehow will it be helnd? I.E will future Deadpool films still count as x men? ertcFanoflionking 06:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, because it will still be part of the X-Men intellectual property. TompaDompa (talk) 07:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Again franchises
How is Harry Potter not a stand-alone entry with Wizarding World, while Iron Man and Cap Am exist with MCU? What is the distinction? Nergaal (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- It's not just about films but about media franchises which happen to include films. Wizarding World has one creator and all works are in the same shared universe. Also, it would look silly to have one entry for 8 Harry Potter films and a second entry for the same 8 films plus a single other (I know Fantastic Beasts is planning more films). Iron Man and Captain America have different creators, and many works (mostly in other media) are not a shared universe. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- The Fantastic Beasts series was specifically established as a spin-off from Harry Potter too i.e. it is all part of the same intellectual property. IP is the main criteria here, not "shared universes", because ultimately Wikipedia adopts a real world perspective. Betty Logan (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- But Marvel IS the only IP here. It's just that it's so big it has its own cinematic segment labeled MCU. Nergaal (talk) 10:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Marvel is not an IP, it's a publisher of many titles. Betty Logan (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- I think that the best way to put it is like this: Fantastic Beasts (because it's a spinoff from Harry Potter) has it's own story yet it ties into the HPU(Harry Potter Universe). While Iron Man and Cap for example are different stories that are in one universe, but are not connected in the way Beasts is with Potter. Iron Man 3's story takes place within the MCU, but it is it's own seprate franchise in the sense that watching the three Iron Man movies don't require watching the three Captain America movies. Take Middle-earth for example: You have three stand alone films and another three stand alone films which are all connected as one story, despite both trilogys having their own stories as well. When it comes to Potter/Beasts, you will have thirteen stories connected in one universe and possibly as one story (depending on how the next four films go). But with the Iron Man trilogy, you can watch it without even hearing about the Cap trilogy. You can watch Guardians 1 and 2 without watching Avengers 1 2 and 3. I'm not saying that you MUST watch Potter to watch Fantastic Beasts, but they are all connected with one creator whereas Cap and Iron Man are their own properties existing in one universe. 107.77.216.203 (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- That's not the reason, and there are many crossovers in MCU. If the characters Captain America (1941) and Iron Man (1963) had been invented for the MCU (2008) then they would probably be considered part of the same franchise. But both characters have old and different stories in other media. Also, Captain America (1990 film) had a limited theatrical release internationally. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- I think that the best way to put it is like this: Fantastic Beasts (because it's a spinoff from Harry Potter) has it's own story yet it ties into the HPU(Harry Potter Universe). While Iron Man and Cap for example are different stories that are in one universe, but are not connected in the way Beasts is with Potter. Iron Man 3's story takes place within the MCU, but it is it's own seprate franchise in the sense that watching the three Iron Man movies don't require watching the three Captain America movies. Take Middle-earth for example: You have three stand alone films and another three stand alone films which are all connected as one story, despite both trilogys having their own stories as well. When it comes to Potter/Beasts, you will have thirteen stories connected in one universe and possibly as one story (depending on how the next four films go). But with the Iron Man trilogy, you can watch it without even hearing about the Cap trilogy. You can watch Guardians 1 and 2 without watching Avengers 1 2 and 3. I'm not saying that you MUST watch Potter to watch Fantastic Beasts, but they are all connected with one creator whereas Cap and Iron Man are their own properties existing in one universe. 107.77.216.203 (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Marvel is not an IP, it's a publisher of many titles. Betty Logan (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- But Marvel IS the only IP here. It's just that it's so big it has its own cinematic segment labeled MCU. Nergaal (talk) 10:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- The Fantastic Beasts series was specifically established as a spin-off from Harry Potter too i.e. it is all part of the same intellectual property. IP is the main criteria here, not "shared universes", because ultimately Wikipedia adopts a real world perspective. Betty Logan (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I would like to 2nd the idea that Harry Potter should also be a separate entry on the list. 73.60.66.214 (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- If we did that we would then have to separate out stuff such as the Star Wars anthology films and Minions and any other spin-offs. It would then be a table of series rather than franchises. Betty Logan (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2018
| This edit request to List of highest-grossing films has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Incredibles 2 has become 46-47th highest grossing movie at $940,435,440 68.192.246.95 (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Done PrimeHunter (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
openings
I know, I know this is not a forum, but I've posted a proposal on the highest-grossing openings list, and I'd appreciate an input. DCF94 (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Inaccurate Frozen gross
Frozen actually grossed $1,276,480,335
Check the cited source. A perfect 1,290,000,000 always seemed suspicious. Why has no one corrected it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.90.37.77 (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- See the note in the table, which says:
TompaDompa (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Box Office Mojo stopped updating its main total for Frozen in August 2014, while it was still in release. The total listed here incorporates subsequent earnings in Japan, Nigeria, Spain, the United Kingdom and Germany up to the end of 2015 but omits earnings in Turkey, Iceland, Brazil, and Australia (2016) which amount to a few hundred thousand dollars. It was re-released in the United Kingdom in December 2017 with Olaf's Frozen Adventure earning an additional $1,655,398. The total is rounded to $1 million to compensate for the numerical inaccuracy.
J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle-earth Number of Movies?
What movies are included in the J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle-earth section on this article? (Highest-grossing franchises and film series table) As it list seven but there were six Peter Jackson films. Not sure if any of the non Peter Jackson films are included in there but not sure why only one would considering there were three animated and a few knock offs from the USSR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proto765 (talk • contribs)
- It is the Jackson series and the 1978 film. If you click where it says "show" then it says which. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Proto765: Click the "show" links to see the films. The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) is included. There are no other theatrical releases. Television films are never included in the table. It shows gross in theaters. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- @PrimeHunter: Strictly speaking, television films and made-for-video films that have limited theatrical runs in some territories, for which some reliable sources can be located for some kind of theatrical gross can be located, are also included (this seems to be the case with up to three of the entries listed under Batman, although I'm not quite sure), so saying "never" is not entirely accurate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
"Wizarding World"?
Why was "J. K. Rowling's" removed? I've seen more secondary sources call the whole franchise "Harry Potter" (or "Harry Potter and spinoffs") than use this phrase, and if I hadn't been monitoring this article on-and-off for a number of years I honestly would probably not be able to guess without uncollapsing the list of films what it was referring to. Comparing "J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle-earth", I think there's probably a much wider understanding of what "Middle-earth" by itself refers to, even if some sources do prefer to just pretend the Hobbit movies didn't happen and just call the franchise Lord of the Rings, so if disambiguation is the concern then I think we really can't drop Rowling's name without also dropping Tolkien's name. (I guess one could make an argument that she doesn't have complete creative control over the recent films for which she was the screenwriter, unlike the earlier novels on the straight film adaptations of those novels, but she definitely has more control than Tolkien, who was dead years before the first theatrical film adaptation of his work.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- I don't ever recall it being discussed but the Wizarding World article says the franchise was "previously known as J. K. Rowling's Wizarding World" so I suspect what happened is that the name here was altered when the main article was renamed, which is what usually happens when editors fix redirects etc. I don't think there is much value in adding Rowling's name back if the franchise has a proper title. As for Middle-earth I don't mind either way: the Tolkein franchise doesn't seem to have an official name, but the main Wikipedia article is called Middle-earth in film so I wouldn't have an objections to dropping Tolkein's name either. Like you said, it was probably done for consistency but that consistency is gone now. Betty Logan (talk) 05:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well, the LEDECITEs in Wizarding World imply the change was the result of trade publications examining the updated logo introduced in a trailer for the upcoming film earlier this year, but I wonder how recognizable it is among our readership. Now that "J. K. Rowling's" is gone, what would you say to changing it to "Wizarding World (Harry Potter)"? As of right now, the only film in the franchise that didn't have Harry Potter in the title is the second-lowest-grossing, despite being by far the most recent with inflation and the like bloating its gross relative to the earlier ones, and while "J. K. Rowling's Wizarding World (Harry Potter)" would have been excessively long, it also didn't need the parenthetical for clarity like, I would argue, the shortened title does. With all the other arguably similar cases (Star Wars, Batman, etc.) the "super-series" title is more recognized than any "sub-series" title, but this is an exception (I too could go both ways on "Middle-earth", but that name is definitely much better-established than Wizarding World). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- I think a substantial portion of the readers aren't going to know what "Wizarding World" refers to. I'd just add "J. K. Rowling's" back. TompaDompa (talk) 09:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- @TompaDompa: Yeah, but apparently that's an outdated "former official title"; I honestly think a parenthetical Harry Potter would be more recognizable and not have this problem. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- I want to avoid using parentheses if possible. TompaDompa (talk) 09:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- The problem isn't this article if indeed a problem does actually exist, the problem is with the main Wizarding World article. If the title doesn't conform to WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME then the title should ideally be fixed at the main article rather than here. Betty Logan (talk) 10:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- It's obvious from the first paragraph of that article what it's talking about, but here we're telling readers that this weird term is the third highest grossing film franchise of all time and they need to uncollapse to find out that it's talking about Harry Potter, which is not the case with any other entry near the top of the list. And judging by a quick GNews search it seems that post-Beasts sources that continue to use "Harry Potter film franchise" far outweigh those that refer to it as the "Wizarding World film franchise".[15][16] (Yes, removing "film franchise" from the search gives more results, but most of them are not using it to refer to the film franchise.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- The problem isn't this article if indeed a problem does actually exist, the problem is with the main Wizarding World article. If the title doesn't conform to WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME then the title should ideally be fixed at the main article rather than here. Betty Logan (talk) 10:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- I want to avoid using parentheses if possible. TompaDompa (talk) 09:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- @TompaDompa: Yeah, but apparently that's an outdated "former official title"; I honestly think a parenthetical Harry Potter would be more recognizable and not have this problem. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- I think a substantial portion of the readers aren't going to know what "Wizarding World" refers to. I'd just add "J. K. Rowling's" back. TompaDompa (talk) 09:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well, the LEDECITEs in Wizarding World imply the change was the result of trade publications examining the updated logo introduced in a trailer for the upcoming film earlier this year, but I wonder how recognizable it is among our readership. Now that "J. K. Rowling's" is gone, what would you say to changing it to "Wizarding World (Harry Potter)"? As of right now, the only film in the franchise that didn't have Harry Potter in the title is the second-lowest-grossing, despite being by far the most recent with inflation and the like bloating its gross relative to the earlier ones, and while "J. K. Rowling's Wizarding World (Harry Potter)" would have been excessively long, it also didn't need the parenthetical for clarity like, I would argue, the shortened title does. With all the other arguably similar cases (Star Wars, Batman, etc.) the "super-series" title is more recognized than any "sub-series" title, but this is an exception (I too could go both ways on "Middle-earth", but that name is definitely much better-established than Wizarding World). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
2001 A Space Odyssey 2018 re-release
Maybe a minor point, but 2001: A Space Odyssey has been in re-release for 59 days and is still playing in IMAX theaters nationally. According to BOM it has earned $1,283,820 so far this year. Should it be highlighted as currently in theaters in the "High-grossing films by year of release" section and the earnings total updated? Telewski (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- We have to bear in mind the original figures are very non-specific (the upper figure of $190 million looks like it has precision of $10 million so we probably shouldn't alter it) but it seems reasonable to me to raise the lower figure from $138 million to $139 million on the basis of WP:CALC. Betty Logan (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2018
| This edit request to List of highest-grossing films has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Avengers: Infinity War peaked as Number 1 on release TheAwesomeNinjaUK (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
- Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Spider-man ‘77
I was looking at List of highest-grossing media franchises and it had under the Spider-Man franchise the box office for $9 million and is using this source https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5pSt_4L0Y4IC&pg=PA95&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false Fanoflionking 16:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- That's an interesting find. I can't access the source myself but I have no problem with incorporating the film into the table. Betty Logan (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- Betty Logan I do not agree with this inclusion. If this "film" is incorporated into this list then the "films" Spider-Man Strikes Back ('78) and Spider-Man: The Dragon's Challenge ('81) should also be noted. ALL are made-for-television and ALL had a small theatrical run ABROAD. There is also another Japanese film Spider-Man (1978), also a TV-series that initially hit Japanese theaters at a cartoon festival. I think it should be all or none of these four "films". SassyCollins (talk) 09:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- There is no such thing as "abroad" on a global scale. We wouldn't omit something if it just had a theatrical release in the US and played on TV everywhere else. It is often the case that a film with a limited release will exhibit theatrically in some countries and premiere on either video or TV in others. One good example of this would be Spielberg's Duel which was broadcast in TV in the US but had a very successful theatrical release in Europe. That is just the nature of worldwide distribution. However, reading the article at Spider-Man (1977 film) it appears it was actually a pilot for a television series, making it an extended TV episode that was exhibited theatrically in Europe rather than a film that was just broadcast on TV in the US. The "sequels" were episodes edited together. I agree we need to draw the line somewhere and at the end of the day this article is fundamentally a list of films so I agree it shouldn't be on the list. Before we pull it though I'd like to get a couple more opinions. Betty Logan (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- I get the impression that it was a film that also served as a pilot, rather than an extra long episode that was also released theatrically (unlike the sequels, which were apparently two episodes edited together). TompaDompa (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- This is the type of "film" where I say we draw a line. Include this and we'll have to include all kinds of list-bloat. Pull it. - wolf 23:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- I get the impression that it was a film that also served as a pilot, rather than an extra long episode that was also released theatrically (unlike the sequels, which were apparently two episodes edited together). TompaDompa (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- There is no such thing as "abroad" on a global scale. We wouldn't omit something if it just had a theatrical release in the US and played on TV everywhere else. It is often the case that a film with a limited release will exhibit theatrically in some countries and premiere on either video or TV in others. One good example of this would be Spielberg's Duel which was broadcast in TV in the US but had a very successful theatrical release in Europe. That is just the nature of worldwide distribution. However, reading the article at Spider-Man (1977 film) it appears it was actually a pilot for a television series, making it an extended TV episode that was exhibited theatrically in Europe rather than a film that was just broadcast on TV in the US. The "sequels" were episodes edited together. I agree we need to draw the line somewhere and at the end of the day this article is fundamentally a list of films so I agree it shouldn't be on the list. Before we pull it though I'd like to get a couple more opinions. Betty Logan (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- Betty Logan I do not agree with this inclusion. If this "film" is incorporated into this list then the "films" Spider-Man Strikes Back ('78) and Spider-Man: The Dragon's Challenge ('81) should also be noted. ALL are made-for-television and ALL had a small theatrical run ABROAD. There is also another Japanese film Spider-Man (1978), also a TV-series that initially hit Japanese theaters at a cartoon festival. I think it should be all or none of these four "films". SassyCollins (talk) 09:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Venom
Has a decision be made about Venom will it be included in the Spider-Man franchise and the Marvel Cinematic Universe, neither Fanoflionking 17:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- It will be included in the Spider-Man franchise because it is a Spider-Man character, but (as of this point in time) it will not be in the MCU because it has nothing to do with the current iteration of Spidy movies nor with the MCU. DCF94 (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- As correctly stated above, Venom has indeed nothing to do with the current iteration of Spidey movies. However, it also has nothing to do with past iterations of Spidey movies. Sony made a clear choice to NOT involve Spider-Man whatsoever in Venom --> NOT part of Spider-Man franchise. SassyCollins (talk) 07:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
- A film doesn't need to share a continuity to be part of the franchise, it is about how the intellectual property is connected. For example, if you made a Lex Luthor film that didn't feature Superman at all it would still be part of the Superman franchise because Lex Luthor is a Superman character. When you buy the Superman rights you presumably also get the rights to Lex Luthor, Brainiac, General Zod, Bizarro etc. I don't know much about the background of these characters, but if Sony acquired the rights to Venom as part of their Spiderman rights then they are by the definition of a media franchise part of the Spiderman franchise. Betty Logan (talk) 08:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, if that's the definition, then I concede. However, I'd like to point out the following: Wolverine (and by default Logan) and Deadpool are clearly part of Fox's X-Men franchise, not only due to the internal references to said films. Venom is very much a Spider-Man character and certainly, as stated above, part of the Marvel property rights Sony acquired. The Venom film has been made purposely WITHOUT any connection to the Spider-Man character (most visible by lack of iconic spider-logo on costume). How much is this film really part of the Spider-Man-franchise as opposed to it being just a Sony film about a character, part of the Marvel (Spider-Man) rights, acquired in that deal? Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver are properties of both Fox and Marvel Studios. We're not combining the Quicksilver X-Men-films with the MCU-films either. (Speaking of which, when the Fox/Marvel-deal becomes a fact, will X-Men-, Deadpool-, Fantastic Four- and MCU-franchises become one in this list?) The Venom film is (for now at least) a standalone "franchise". SassyCollins (talk) 11:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
- As Betty Logan said, Venom doesn't need to have any continuity with the other films, the only thing Sony did is not integrading it into the MCU, cause that's a different franchise that incorporates multiple SELECTED franchise, so yeah even though Venom is part of the Spider-Man franchise (and yes it is, I'll get to that in a sec), it's not part of the MCU because as I said that's a brand new franchise that selects what to trademark as MCU film, so whether or not Venom is in the MCU or is part of the Tom Holland Spider-Man story is irrelevant! Venom is a trademarked character created for the SM story, just like Wolverine is an X-Men character and has its own films but it's still part of the X-Men franchise. So in conclusion, yes it most definetely does belong in the Spider-Man franchise on the fact alone that it's called VENOM, doesn't matter if it's a little modified, the film is created based on the Venom character. DCF94 (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
- Pretty sure I did not implicate that Venom is/should be in MCU. I did, however, already state the fact that Venom is a character acquired by Sony in the Spider-Man rights deal and that Wolverine is part of the X-Men-franchise, so thanks for that addition. The other stuff you wrote about "irrelevance" is somewhat unclear. You did manage to completely ignore the comments I made about Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver though (both Fox & Marvel properties). My point in that being this: are the franchises (and the characters within) on this list arranged by IP or by the character-association itself? The former then not being applied to Quicksilver (X-Men AND Avengers) and the latter now (as you have already placed Venom on the Spider-Man list) NOT being applied to the Venom-film (where Sony is deliberately NOT including the history with Spider-Man, origin-wise or otherwise). Check out this article from Forbes today, which will most likely be used in the Wikipedia Venom-article, on how much Venom is NOT part of the Spider-Man-franchise. Here's just one quote: "...a weekend over $66m would put it behind only The Da Vinci Code ($77m in 2007) as the biggest non-Spider-Man/non-James Bond debut in Sony’s history." Cheers. https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2018/10/06/box-office-superhero-fatigue-fails-again-as-venom-nabs-record-33m-friday/#221f83d7c28d SassyCollins (talk) 13:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- As Betty Logan said, Venom doesn't need to have any continuity with the other films, the only thing Sony did is not integrading it into the MCU, cause that's a different franchise that incorporates multiple SELECTED franchise, so yeah even though Venom is part of the Spider-Man franchise (and yes it is, I'll get to that in a sec), it's not part of the MCU because as I said that's a brand new franchise that selects what to trademark as MCU film, so whether or not Venom is in the MCU or is part of the Tom Holland Spider-Man story is irrelevant! Venom is a trademarked character created for the SM story, just like Wolverine is an X-Men character and has its own films but it's still part of the X-Men franchise. So in conclusion, yes it most definetely does belong in the Spider-Man franchise on the fact alone that it's called VENOM, doesn't matter if it's a little modified, the film is created based on the Venom character. DCF94 (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, if that's the definition, then I concede. However, I'd like to point out the following: Wolverine (and by default Logan) and Deadpool are clearly part of Fox's X-Men franchise, not only due to the internal references to said films. Venom is very much a Spider-Man character and certainly, as stated above, part of the Marvel property rights Sony acquired. The Venom film has been made purposely WITHOUT any connection to the Spider-Man character (most visible by lack of iconic spider-logo on costume). How much is this film really part of the Spider-Man-franchise as opposed to it being just a Sony film about a character, part of the Marvel (Spider-Man) rights, acquired in that deal? Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver are properties of both Fox and Marvel Studios. We're not combining the Quicksilver X-Men-films with the MCU-films either. (Speaking of which, when the Fox/Marvel-deal becomes a fact, will X-Men-, Deadpool-, Fantastic Four- and MCU-franchises become one in this list?) The Venom film is (for now at least) a standalone "franchise". SassyCollins (talk) 11:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
- A film doesn't need to share a continuity to be part of the franchise, it is about how the intellectual property is connected. For example, if you made a Lex Luthor film that didn't feature Superman at all it would still be part of the Superman franchise because Lex Luthor is a Superman character. When you buy the Superman rights you presumably also get the rights to Lex Luthor, Brainiac, General Zod, Bizarro etc. I don't know much about the background of these characters, but if Sony acquired the rights to Venom as part of their Spiderman rights then they are by the definition of a media franchise part of the Spiderman franchise. Betty Logan (talk) 08:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
- As correctly stated above, Venom has indeed nothing to do with the current iteration of Spidey movies. However, it also has nothing to do with past iterations of Spidey movies. Sony made a clear choice to NOT involve Spider-Man whatsoever in Venom --> NOT part of Spider-Man franchise. SassyCollins (talk) 07:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
- Venom, Black Cat, Morbius and Silver Sable are all like extended Spider-Man based characters that Sony could do because of the company’s rights to Spider-Man. Another example is like Warner Bros. Catwoman of the Batman films IMO. Which is already in this list. So I say the list is fine. Jhenderson 777 22:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, at the end of the day it is a franchise list not a character list. If it were a character list you'd have to have Civil War and Infinity War listed under the Spiderman too. That would make an interesting list but it's not the list we are doing. As such this list has always included spin-offs. Another approach would be to add a further sub-division to the Spiderman entry for films that feature Spider-man and spin-offs that don't. That would definitely makes sense if they do a Sinister Six film too. We've always attempted to take the widest possible view of a franchise because it is difficult to anticipate what information readers expect, so it's better if they can simply expand the entry to the level they want. Betty Logan (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- Venom, Black Cat, Morbius and Silver Sable are all like extended Spider-Man based characters that Sony could do because of the company’s rights to Spider-Man. Another example is like Warner Bros. Catwoman of the Batman films IMO. Which is already in this list. So I say the list is fine. Jhenderson 777 22:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Sony's Marvel Universe
Should Venom be under Sony's Marvel Universe under the Spider-Man heading? Or should we wait until a second film is released under that name? TdanTce (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2018
| This edit request to List of highest-grossing films has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
89.242.129.251 (talk) 11:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I think the adjusted for inflation grosses are incorrect. Justify your numbers.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 11:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2018
| This edit request to List of highest-grossing films has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Film such as ET have adjusted for inflation grosses estimated at 2.4 billion,say. I think this is questinable. Ticket prices in 1982 for adults were about 1.95 pounds nd children, maybe 80p. Modern adult prices are about 11 pounds. This give a 5 times increase in prices. So with ET having taken 700million in its initial run, that would give about 3.5 billion when adjusted to 2018 prices. The same applies to all other film. I think all your adjusted grosses are in error. The population is also bigger than it was in the past.. A film like ET probably sold more tickets worldwide than Avatar. 88.108.66.122 (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- Not done: Please state specifically (change X to Y) what change you want made, including citations to Reliable Sources. RudolfRed (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- I think you are wrong. According to Box Office Mojo's adjusted list E.T. grossed $1.3 billion domestically, at today's prices. E.T. grossed 55% of its gross domestically, so if you assume that overseas ticket prices rose proportionally with US prices then that would cap the adjusted worldwide gross at $2.6 billion, which isn't that far off the $2.5 billion figure in the table. And yes, you may be correct that E.T. sold more tickets than Avatar in the countries they both played, but Avatar played in more markets (such as China and Europe's Eastern bloc) and carried a 3D and IMAX premium so it's not surprising it made more money. Betty Logan (talk) 12:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Mcu
Can we use the world inflation bank witch is use for highest grossing films for inflation to work out the mcu made I try and got this
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
We could just quickly say the marvel cinematic universe has also made the most for inflation with over $18 billion. Fanoflionking 16:51, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- Inflation hardly makes any difference at all to the MCU since the unadjusted gross stands at $17.5 million anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- Betty Logan, well, my maths says that $18 billion is more than a thousand times more than $17.5 million, so, yeah inflation should be taken into account.[FBDB] Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 20:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- It is only 3.5% bigger, so the difference is negligible. Inflation only needs to be taken into account if since it fundamentally alters the ranking, which it doesn't in this case. If inflation put Star Wars out in front then that would be worth mentioning, but the MCU is way out in front regardless. Betty Logan (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- Betty Logan, well, my maths says that $18 billion is more than a thousand times more than $17.5 million, so, yeah inflation should be taken into account.[FBDB] Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 20:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
As you mentioned Star Wars I use the WIB (world inflation bank) to work out where the Star Wars films come in I done all release 1997 and a new hope it should possible to do return and empire if anyone wants to help fill in here is what I got so far
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
$170,000,000
Fanoflionking 00:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Cleanup tags added on 5 December 2018
I invite Loginnigol to elaborate on this series of edits, preferably after reading the information at #Overlapping franchises. TompaDompa (talk) 10:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- I have removed the tag. This article has been peer-reviewed at the highest level and passed, so Loginnigol should raise the issue here rather than drive-by tagging a featured list. If he had checked the sourcing for the franchise chart he would see that the duplicate overlapping entries mirror the sources, so what he seems to be suggesting is for us to deviate from the sources into WP:Original research. If he has any suggestions (rather than just complaints) then they will be considered, but there is no getting away from the fact that crossovers by definition belong to more than one franchise. Betty Logan (talk) 11:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Once Upon a Deadpool
Just to clarify, should we add Once Upon a Deadpool release to Deadpool 2's total, or add it as a separate figure without counting it as the 12th movie like "Harry Potter IMAX Marathon"? DCF94 (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- WP:RELIABLE sources seem to treat it differently – Rotten Tomatoes and Box Office Mojo treat it as a separate movie, whereas The Numbers treats it as a re-release of Deadpool 2. Since Box Office Mojo is our main source, I think we should follow their lead. TompaDompa (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- The question wasn't whether or not it's a different movie, because it's not! It's a PG-13 cut re-release, no more different than a 3D re-release or any other edited version re-released from before, and there's enough reliable sources that attest to that[17][18][19][20][21].My question was how to add the gross in our table. If that's what you ment, to add it separately like BOM then ok, but not add it as a new movie like BOM does because that's not the case. DCF94 (talk) 11:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- The fact that sources are treating it as separate makes me feel that we should not include it's gross for Deadpool 2's gross as usual. It's not just a regular rerelease.★Trekker (talk) 09:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- I wouldn't read too much into BOM's cataloging. They regularly list reissues separately—just check out all the Star Wars entries. What really matters from our perspective is if the lifetime gross on the main entry is incremented. We will have a clearer picture when they start tracking the gross. Betty Logan (talk) 10:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- I believe that Once Upon a Deadpool will not only be a PG-13 cut of Deadpool 2, but also the first Deadpool. I could be wrong, but that is the impression I got along with certain "confirmations". We cannot add it's gross to Deadpool 2 if scenes from Deadpool 1 are also in the film. Editor49 (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- There is already a precedent for that with the Twilight entry. We added a new entry but didn't increment the film count. In reality if they do that it would make life simpler for us. Betty Logan (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- I believe that Once Upon a Deadpool will not only be a PG-13 cut of Deadpool 2, but also the first Deadpool. I could be wrong, but that is the impression I got along with certain "confirmations". We cannot add it's gross to Deadpool 2 if scenes from Deadpool 1 are also in the film. Editor49 (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- I wouldn't read too much into BOM's cataloging. They regularly list reissues separately—just check out all the Star Wars entries. What really matters from our perspective is if the lifetime gross on the main entry is incremented. We will have a clearer picture when they start tracking the gross. Betty Logan (talk) 10:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- The fact that sources are treating it as separate makes me feel that we should not include it's gross for Deadpool 2's gross as usual. It's not just a regular rerelease.★Trekker (talk) 09:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- The question wasn't whether or not it's a different movie, because it's not! It's a PG-13 cut re-release, no more different than a 3D re-release or any other edited version re-released from before, and there's enough reliable sources that attest to that[17][18][19][20][21].My question was how to add the gross in our table. If that's what you ment, to add it separately like BOM then ok, but not add it as a new movie like BOM does because that's not the case. DCF94 (talk) 11:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Update: It seems that BOM puts Once Upon as a continuation of DP2's gross[22], and I did hear an interview with Reynolds where he clearly says that it's a DP2 cut only, so I guess we will update the DP2 total since we establish that it isn't a new movie and now we have BOM adding it to DP2's total. DCF94 (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Be
should Bumblebee be put under the bay series as it is a preqaul to the film? Fanoflionking 09:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think the Middle-Earth entry would be a good model for the Transformers series. You basically have the main series, a prequel, and a standalone film that does not share the same universe of the others. At the moment Bumblebee looks like a completely standalone film and that is not really the case if it is a prequel. Betty Logan (talk) 18:04, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, like Middle-earth, or even like Star Wars' Anthology and Main series, they are all on the same timeline, but they are marketed differently as their own series, plus Bumblebee isn't a Michael Bay directed movie, I know that's not necessary the criteria for the "Bay series" but that's how I looked at it when it was added to the table. DCF94 (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
The return of the king
will The Lion King (2019) cout as a Lion King film as in will if gross anorthr the lion king franchise beanke to go in the list of highest grossing film series and franchise? Fanoflionking 15:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a remake based on the first film. Just like there are different versions of Batman in the Batman franchise, there will now be different versions of The Lion King in the Lion King franchise. Betty Logan (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)