Talk:List of highest-grossing films/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Tables

Due it's protected status, I only want to propose, that the tables should be sortable, at least the extensive ones, and at least for the film titles, easy to do (trickier for the budget column). Thanks, MenkinAlRire 15:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you talking about the films by year? I don't really see how that would add anything to the article. --Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 03:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The top two are sortable already while the bottom table can't be made sortable due to restrictions on the code. As for the other two they are basically "timelines" and while I don't oppose making them sortable I am struggling to see what readers would get from it. Betty Logan (talk) 05:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Sisi Ni Sawa

I was looking at Simba's Pride page and it says that it was theatrically released in European and Latin American countries in spring 1999 and and Hakuna Matata was released internationally and in selected cities in the United States do you know how much it made for theHighest grossing animated franchises and film series — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.157.176 (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

It would require about 900,000,000 from those two installments to be eligible for this list. Very unlikely. --Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 03:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I talking about highest grossing animated franchise the first film only puts it 10th — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.157.176 (talk) 08:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Why did you ask it here, then? AFAIK you also asked at Talk:List of highest-grossing animated films, but nobody knows unless you can get the info. PS, please sign your posts with four tildes (~) --Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 18:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The talk pages at the other box office articles don't tend to get much traffic so editors sometimes ask here. But to answer the question, it is very difficult to get foreign box office information for films that don't have a domestic release. Betty Logan (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The thing is that on the sources from Simba's Pride it says "Disney plans a theatrical release" and there is no other credible website mentioning the movie after the supposed theatrical release, at least nothing that I found after my quick research. DCF94 (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Fox Cinematic Universe...?

Now that Deadpool is out and it's being lumped in with the X-Men films, should there perhaps be change, such adding a name for the over-all continuity that links these films? (and any possible future films, such as Fantastic Four). A quick Google check shows that "Fox Cinematic Universe" (and "20th Century Fox Cinematic Universe") is starting be used in various sources. - ^theWOLFchild 04:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Same question applies to the DC Extended Universe when and if we get there. - ^theWOLFchild 04:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not really about how people call it, MCU and DCEU are registered franchises, were FCU is just a term used for the expanding X-Men film series. DCF94 (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is about "registered" vs. "unregistered" franchises, it's about what the sources say. Now, I haven't researched this at all yet, but the fact remains that if and when Fox adds a shared continuity among their films, and if sources start using a term like "Fox Cinematic Universe" (or something along those lines) and then links these films using such a banner, then we can't ignore that. Right now we have these Fox films listed under "X-Men". As more films like Deadpool get added to that sub-list, as we going continue using that title, or will we need to consider something else? That's all I'm asking. - ^theWOLFchild 16:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I recently discussed this issue on the "X-Men (film series)" talk page. I found a source where the writers of Deadpool referred to the continuity as the "X-Universe" (granted, that could be more of a common name than an official universe title, but still, it came from one of the writers). The consensus of our discussion, however, was that given that Deadpool is considered a spin-off of the X-Men film series, it should still be classified as part of the X-Men series, which means that at this point there's no need to change the title of the series to "X-Universe" or "Fox Cinematic Universe" or anything else. I'm not sure yet whether I entirely agree with it, but there are countless hoops to jump through (as I learned) to even get a civil discussion off the ground regarding changing the name of a film series, so I'd wait until you have something more concrete. -Rmaynardjr (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Everything has to change at some point, and all changes begin with discussion. (Or at least, they should.) Anyway, that's all this, an attempt at discussion. - ^theWOLFchild 13:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion is a moot point anyway if we pursue the solution I proposed at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films#Iron_Man_franchises. We would have a separate tables covering properties (X-Men) and "universes" (the X-universe, or whatever it ends up being called), and situations like this reinforce the need for a more embracing solution. Betty Logan (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Batman v Superman - Batman or Superman Franchise (or Both)?

Sorry in advance if this has already been discussed (I've only looked at the titles of each discussion on this talk page so I don't have to wade through masses of information). When 'Batman v Superman' is released in around two weeks time, what franchise(s) will the movie be listed under in the highest-grossing franchise table? It strikes me as more of a Batman movie which features Superman (therefore it'll be listed under the 'Batman' franchise). Unlike, 'Captain America: Civil War' which has been very clearly stated to be a proper Captain America movie - and not an Iron Man movie - the main protagonist of 'Batman v Superman' seems to be quite unclear. Obviously, the movie will be a part of the DC Extended Universe, meaning it'll be coupled with 'Man of Steel' and MIGHT break the Top 30 (in which case the DC Extended Universe will be featured in the table). The 'Superman' franchise, may also break the Top 30, meaning 'Batman v Superman' will be listed three times under three separate franchises in the table. Does anyone know exactly what is going to happen to this movie? (If I've explained myself well enough). 86.136.195.180 (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

If we really get pedantic it should include franchises for every hero included, even those not in the title but that would get ridiculous very quickly. We follow Box Office Mojo primarily who list it under Superman, Batman and the DCEU. There are things in motion at the moment to completely revamp the table and possibly spin it off into its own article if all goes to plan, so things may end up going a bit weird in future (the DCEU is a film series, but not a franchise for example so on creating separate highest grossing franchise and series tables it would be on one but not the other, it would be included in the temporary hybrid table here though). Ruffice98 (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

"There are things in motion at the moment to completely revamp the table..." - What "things"? And by who? Is any part of this effort taking place off-wiki? - ^theWOLFchild 19:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe that referred to the discussion at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films#Iron_Man_franchises. TompaDompa (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

disney

dose any one know the box office for Saludos Amigos and The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.157.176 (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Superman franchise

It is likely the Superman franchise will re-enter the chart at some point. Here is the chart (along with the various sources) which can be updated and then transferred over once it penetrates the chart.

Superman † $1,806,951,166 8 $225,868,896 Man of Steel ($668,045,518) DC Extended Universe † $794,055,518 2 $397,027,759 Man of Steel ($668,045,518) 1 Man of Steel (2013) $668,045,518 2 Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) † $126,010,000 Original series $621,814,456 5 $124,362,891 Superman ($300,218,018) Christopher Reeve films $607,518,018 4 $151,879,505 Superman ($300,218,018) 1 Superman (1978) $300,218,018 2 Superman II (1980) $190,400,000 3 Superman III (1983) $80,200,000 4 Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987) $36,700,000 Supergirl (1984)* $14,296,438 Superman Returns (2006) $391,081,192

Refs

Superman Superman, Superman Returns, Man of Steel and Batman v Superman: "Superman – Worldwide (Unadjusted)". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved June 21, 2014. Superman II, Superman III and Superman IV: Block & Wilson 2010, p. 534. "Superman Franchise Films: All-Release Worldwide Box Office Revenues vs. Production Costs – Equivalent 2005 $s." Block & Wilson 2010, p. xii. "Notes on Adjusting Dollars and Making Estimates – Adjusting Revenues." "Adjusting for Ticket Price Inflation" (Source: MPAA). Box Office Mojo. Retrieved July 7, 2013. "Supergirl (1984)". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved July 7, 2013.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Betty Logan (talk • contribs) 21:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

You know this table, it's markup and layout better than anyone. I'm confident the changes you're proposing are fine. Thanks again for your efforts. - ^theWOLFchild 22:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Why is this called a list?

This appears to be an article that includes at least five lists. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Stand-alone list articles defines list articles as encyclopedia pages consisting of a lead section followed by a list (my emphasis). If this article is accepted as being a list as covered by the MOS page, should not the MOS definition be edited to meet this article's criteria? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The primary purpose of this page is to chart films by their financial success, and the prose supports the tables, not the other way around i.e. the prose solely describes the tables, and that is why it is categorized as a list. WP:STANDALONE states: Stand-alone lists (also referred to as list articles) are articles composed of one or more embedded lists, or series of items formatted into a list. By that definition this page meets the criteria in that it is composed of "embedded lists" (i.e. five individual tables accompanied by an introduction/summary) so I don't think the MOS needs to be revised in that respect. Betty Logan (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: - Do you have a different page title to propose? - ^theWOLFchild 22:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: If what Betty Logan quotes STANDALONE as saying is true, then there is a contradiction between the guideline I quoted and the guideline they quoted, and one will need to be amended to conform with the other. If MOS:LIST is amended to conform with WP:STANDALONE, then there is no problem here (although personally I think Highest-grossing films would be a more intuitive title). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the title could be considered appropriate as is. Though there are multiple lists, they all contain basically the same info, just broken down according to different criteria; (overall, per year, adjusted, grouped in franchises, etc). So, it basically it is "a" list. I don't really see this as an issue, but we can see if others, who may comment here, feel differently. - ^theWOLFchild 03:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Your interpretation makes sense to a point, and I'm not really that bothered by the issue one way or the other, but if this article is a single list because each table contains the same information organized by different criteria,then Betty Logan's rationale that STANDALONE allows for list articles to contain several lists doesn't really apply here, and the inconsistency between the two guideline pages still exists. But this isn't really the place to argue that; I'll bring it up on MOS:LIST talk page in good time. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no inconsistency between the guidelines: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Stand-alone_list_articles refers editors to Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists which states that list class articles may include one or more embedded lists. How exactly do you interpret that phrase? Moreover, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Stand-alone_list_articles does not impose any type of restriction on the structure or the nature of the list so there is no inconsistency in the MOS. The MOS is a guideline, not a policy i.e. it guides, not prescribes. As for the name, all of the other list articles in this particular family start with "List of..." to make it clear the article is listing films, so dropping that part would not be helpful here. It would create the perception it is an article and not a list, which would misrepresent the content and structure. This is an accurate descriptor for this page since its primary purpose is to list films according to some criteria. If the charts supported the prose then there would be good argument for dropping the "List of..." and re-categorizing the page as an article, but in this particular case the prose supports the tables. You can see this by conducting a thought experiment: if you removed all the prose the page would still be functional as a list, but if you removed the tables the page would not be functional as an article because the prose exclusively introduces and summarizes the content of the tables. Betty Logan (talk) 10:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Frozen earned $8.6 M in 2015

Submitted for your consideration: Hard to believe, but BOM acknowledged FROZEN was playing in the box office of three foreign markets in 2015: Iceland, Turkey and Germany (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=frozen2013.htm). Unfortunately, as previously discussed, BOM used the prevailing currency exchange rate to calculate the total earnings, which due to the stronger dollar, dropped the earnings totals for each country (Germany only showing a modest increase of $13,447). Correcting for this as we have done previously, I obtained the following earnings for the following markets for 2015:

Germany $8,434,756 (7,428,574 €)

Turkey $ 172,292 (458,733 ₺)

Iceland $ 25,618 (3,273,013 ISK)

if I'm correct, this increases FROZEN's earnings to $1,288,485,359. I can provide detailed numbers if requested. Telewski (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I will take a look at this some time over the weekend. I will run through the numbers myself and then we can compare notes. It's better that I arrive at the same figures independently. Betty Logan (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually I have a question. The latest entry for Germany has the gross at 42.5 million euros (as of October 18, 2015), while the last entry prior to that which I can find has the German gross at 35.1 million euros (March 30, 2014). That is a whopping increase of 7.4 million euros. Do you have any idea when Frozen made this money? At the end of March 2014 it was down to 11,000 euros a week, while the October 2015 chart shows it as a new entry with 87 euros. Presumably there was a reissue some time between those dates? Betty Logan (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2016

This is an interesting question and I appreciate your independent confirmation (why I'm not changing numbers on the actual page). I was floored when I ran the numbers myself, not anticipating anything big. The October 18, 2015 entry for Germany indicated it was only in one theater at the time, at #123 for that week, yet BOM reports it as being in week 99 (which is the total number of weeks since it release in Germany in the week of November 28, 2013). My guess is the money was earned between the last entry for 2014 (March 30, 2014) and the October 18, 2015 post. Between March 23, 2014 and March 30, 2014 I calculated the movie as earning 116,448€ (11,611€ is the weekend gross, not the weekly gross). Possibly, the sing-along version may have been released in Germany similar to the UK in December of 2014? But that's a total guess on my part. BOM usually reports the top 40 movies for any given week for the German market (reviewing the weekly reports for 2014). Not sure how Frozen made 7.4 M € between March 2014 and October 2015 and was not reported on BOM unless on a weekly average it never earned enough to appear in the top 40 reported by BOM? Or maybe its a calculation error which under reported initial earnings? Thoughts? Telewski (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Barring the possibility of an incorrect data entry, I think the most plausible (only?) explanation is that the extra 7 million euros are for the sing-along. It is possible that Germany logged the box office for the sing-along version separately, and the totals were then added together at a later date. That leaves us with a problem though: we know how much it has made in euros, but I don't see a way of converting that to dollars without knowing the conversion rates that were in play at the time. Betty Logan (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The sing-along does seem to be the best explanation and the exchange rate is a valid concern. We only have the one reference point for 2015 (October 18th). However, if you look at the EUR/USD conversion chart historywe can see that the exchange rate averaged around 1.34 for the duration of FROZEN's initial release run (Nov 2013 - July 2014) and then dropped precipitously in the last half of 2014 before more or less stabilizing for most of 2015 around 1.10. We could use the conversion rate for October 18, 2015. If anything, it would give a lower biased amount ($8,434,756) as opposed to an inflated bias. I wish I knew what was going on in Germany in the intervening months between March 2014 and October 2015.

Doing some research, I found the following in German from the German movie webpage,"Movie Jones" an article dated January 24, 2014 announcing the release of the Sing-along in the U.S. theaters and pondering if it will be released in Germany. If my translation is correct, it appears the sing-along was released in theaters in Germany on November 20, 2014. The article also acknowledges the release of the English version on DVD in the U.S. Telewski (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Providing a lower-bound would be a sensible solution (if it were my own personal website I would do it) but I am not sure it is a permissable solution here. I am slightly concerned about the original research implications: it is one thing to do basic conversions when we have all the data and the weekly exchange rates which anyone can independently corroborate (which is why I always like to run the numbers myself to ensure they come out the same), but it's quite another to come up with a lower-bound estimate of our own. I am half wondering if we should cut our losses and simply add a note noting the German discrepency. Betty Logan (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

That's a solution. A very reasonable representation for the conversion rate is to use 11/20/14 since it is likely the highest income would be generated in the first few weeks of release. We now have a release date with a citation November 20, 2014. So the exchange rate for October 18, 2015 in not relevant due to it only showing in one theater at the time. The rate for the weekend of 11/20/14 according to BOM was US $1 = 0.80665 Euro, and subsequent weekends at US $1 = 0.8029 Euro, US $1 = 0.8136 Euro, US $1 = 0.8023 Euro, US $1 = 0.82074 Euro, US $1 = 0.8331 Euro through the 1st of January 2015. Unlike my previous comment, BOM was only reporting the top 20 movies at the end of 2014, not the top 40 films as in 2015. Any way you slice it, it would probably be good to note something, even if just a footnote. Telewski (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I have been giving this matter some thought. I think we need to review the other calculations as well since I seem to recall we didn't account for the currency fluctuations until we added in the UK results at the end of 2014. We need a consistent and simple solution which is clearly verifiable and roughly accurate. I think the best approach would be to take BOM's foreign total up to August 2014, which is when it stopped tracking, and then we should document all the subsequent earnings in the local currencies and adjust them using the average annual conversion rates published by CIA World Factbook. The average will iron out these problematic fluctuations, and it will also solve the issue of gaps in the record i.e. we can take the total in local currency, the total when BOM stopped tracking, work out the difference and then convert it to dollars by applying the CIA's averaged conversion rate to give us an approximate dollar amount. Betty Logan (talk) 06:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, to act on my suggestion above. The foreign gross for Frozen stood at $873,481,000 as of August 8, 2014, assuming that is correct. These are the subsequent grosses in the native currency and converted to USD using the CIA Factbook.

Japan

August 3: ¥25,408,938,940
August 31: ¥25,917,243,749
Diff: ¥508,304,809 ($4,801,670 at an average 2014 exchange rate of ¥105.86:$1)

Nigeria

August 8: n/a
August 17: 26,916,015 NGN
Diff: 26,916,015 NGN ($169,760 at an average 2014 exchange rate of 158.55 NGN:$1)

Spain

July 27: €16,132,267
August 31: €17,955,813
Diff: €1,823,546 ($2,435,000 at an average 2014 exchange rate of €0.7489:$1)

United Kingdom

June 8: £39,090,985
August 31: £41,170,608
Diff: £2,079,623 ($3,426,000 at an average 2014 exchange rate of £0.607:$1)

Germany

March 30, 2014: €35,098,170
October 18, 2015: €42,526,744
Diff: €7,428,574 ($9,919,300 at an average 2014 exchange rate of €0.7489:$1)

Iceland

April 13, 2014: 42,374,779 ISK
January 11, 2015: 45,647,792 ISK
Diff: 3,273,013 ISK ($28,030 at an average 2014 exchange rate of 116.77 ISK:$1)

Turkey

March 23, 2014: 12,140,923 YTL
July 12, 2015: 12,599,656 YTL
Diff: 458,733 ISK ($209,610 at an average 2014 exchange rate of 2.1885 YTL:$1)

Brazil

July 27, 2014: 48,281,304 BRL
November 2, 2014: 53,046,333 BRL
Diff: 4,765,029 ISK ($2,024,660 at an average 2014 exchange rate of 2.3535 BRL:$1)

If you round to $100,000 to avoid rounding errors, then you get a nice round $23,000,000. That would bring the foreign total to $896,500,000 and the worldwide total to $1,297,200. That's a substantial difference between what Box Office Mojo has down and what it subsequently earned. Betty Logan (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC) EDIT: Betty Logan (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Frozen re-released in Australia 3/13/16

According to BOM, http://www.boxofficemojo.com/intl/australia/?yr=2016&wk=11&p=new as of current weekend March 10-13, 2016 Frozen was re-released and is showing in 70 theaters earning an additional $89,442 for the weekend. Should we re-highlight Frozen on the chart or just "Let it Go" this time? Telewski (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

It may be worth adding to the new list I wrote out at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films#Frozen_earned_.248.6_M_in_2015 where I wrote out all the money the trackers are missing (I get the total to $1,295 million). At least then we will have a full record of how much money we are missing. It may be worth just rounding Frozen's gross to $1,280 million as well, since we know it has earned at least that much in reality. Betty Logan (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Betty, I regret to say I missed all of your work in your previous reply. Impressive piece of work. I think rounding the gross to $1,280 million is certainly conservative. Any reason to update your footnote nb1 to reflect earnings since 2014? Footnote #14 could be updated to include your numbers from BOM you present in Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films#Frozen_earned_.248.6_M_in_2015 if we reflect the $1,295 million? It will be interesting to see if Frozen remains on the Australian charts next week or if this is only a 1 week limited release event. Telewski (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Telewski: The problem is that my caluclations above are essentially WP:Original research: I am selecting a coversion rate which may not be representative of the conversion rate at the time it made the money. Another viable solution would be to work in lower bounds i.e. we can see from that the exchange rate between the dollar and euro during 2014 and 2015 never dropped below parity, so we can say with complete certainty that whatever Frozen added in euros since August 2014 it also added at least that much in dollars too! It made at least €9 million in that time, so it is a logical consequence it made at least $9 million too. So I think an approach which would get around the OR problems would be to work out the very minimum it added in dollars since BOM stopped tracking and use that figure. If there are any other films with the same problem we can use the same approach. I would very much like to have a consistent solution to this problem since it makes a mockery of our efforts when we are presenting data we know is not accurate. Betty Logan (talk) 12:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: Sadly, you are likely correct regarding original research. The way you have added the missing earnings previously for Japan, UK, Spain and Nigeria seems to work. If we can't do that for the other markets, I'm at a loss of what to say. In those examples we used BOM's reported exchange rate for the week the numbers were released. The challenge comes where we don't have consistently reported earnings over an extended period as is the case with Germany. Hence your solution in the previous discussion. I reviewed several of the films in the top 50 and don't really see anything like the incomplete reporting for FROZEN. A few films have one or two markets reporting beyond the last reporting date on BOM, but the income is relatively insignificant, usually only in the $10,000 to $100,000 range (Inside Out being a good current example). Maybe the best solution is to just report the inconsistencies and adjusted values in a footnote?Telewski (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@Telewski: It is true that it is only the recent data that is a problem. Looking at it, the largest discrepency is Germany which added €7,428,574, so I suggest we simply add that on as a dollar amount i.e. $7,428,574, since we know for a fact that the euro has never fallen below parity with the dollar. Whatever a film earns in euros, it earns at least that in dollars too. It's probably more like $10 million, but without the exact conversion rate it's probably the best we can do, and it would take the figure closer to its true value. Turkey and Iceland added something like $200–300k between them, so fairly negligible. We can get around that by just rounding the overall total to the nearest million ($1,287 million by my reckoning), and mathematical precision neutralizes the other two problematic countries. Betty Logan (talk) 11:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: You solution sounds most reasonable. You can hypothetically throw into the mix of Turkey and Iceland (compensating for any error) the very negligible $14,000 earned in Brazil (Aug 22 - Nov 2) post the August 9, 2014 BOM last earnings update. So, a conservative figure is not unreasonable. Seems BOM was going through a transition in 2014 and hopefully this will be the only film with this type of inconsistent reporting. Creates one heck of a footnote. BTW, Frozen is not in this week's Australia earnings chart.Telewski (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added in Germany's gross and corrected the note. By my own calculations we are about 3 mil out (it has earned about 1,290 million) but I think it's wise to use the more conservative figure since it is impossible to argue that it earned less than the figure we have down for it should someone challenge it. Betty Logan (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: Looks good. I added Australia (2016) to your footnote nb1. Hopefully, that's OK.Telewski (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Should we have I look at other films on the page if we have a look at TS3 for example it box office stopped on the 1/30/11 but still cared on upto octber 18th 2015 I there other films as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.157.176 (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Good question. I know for Inside Out, the total earnings hasn't been updated on BOM since the end of January, but the earnings in the two markets it played in since that time is relatively minor compared to the total earnings. In the case of TS3, the earnings for 2015 from Brazil appear to be in the range of $4,000. BOM provided a summary ending 1/30/11. With the exception of the Brazilian re-release in 2015, the only market not included after 1/30/11 BOM summary was Lithuania. I see a similarity between Inside Out and TS3. If the earnings are in the range of millions not reported, as is the case for Frozen, then I would think they should considered. There have been other films updated for earnings which were not included in a BOM total if memory serves me correctly, specifically re-releases. Telewski (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I will go through some film for the highest grossing animated film page during the next week is if any animated film on this page I will add below — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.157.176 (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Why list of films start in 1915. What about earlier films.

Films started in 1888.

Display of films to public started in 1890.

Commercial display (charging tickets) of films started in 1895.

So this list should include films from 1895.

Please include all films from 1895 to 1914.

170.248.189.70 (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Variety only started tracking films in the 1920s, and my main reference book only goes back to 1913, and mainly documents American film. Before the first World War Europe was the market leader in film production and there is very little numerical data for this period. The Birth of a Nation was the first film to become a nationwide hit that actual figures exist for so it seems reasonable to start there. Betty Logan (talk) 04:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I dispute, for example The Great Train Robbery (1903 film). There could be one such example for every year starting from 1895. 170.248.189.70 (talk) 06:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

How much did it gross then? How do you know it was the highest-grossing film of the year? YOu are entitled to your opinion but if we can't substantiate claims with sources then they cannot be added to the article. If we can then in theory there is no problem in going further back, but as I stated above, my own sources only go back to 1913/14. Betty Logan (talk) 07:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

peguins

Resolved

POM made $374,714,174 and the Madagascar franchise made $2,258,216,473 check the animated page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.157.176 (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

According to Box Office Mojo Penguins of Madagascar grossed $373,015,621 and I don't see where the extra $1.7 million comes from. If the figure is wrong we will correct it but the correction needs to be verifiable. Betty Logan (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Penguins of Madagascar (2014) – International Box Office Results". Box Office Mojo.
• "Penguins of Madagascar (2014) – International Box Office Results: United Kingdom". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved May 18, 2015.

Total as of February 15, 2015: $12,365,306

Total as of May 10, 2015: $13,527,386 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.157.176 (talk)

That code is from [1] by DCF94 18 May 2015. Maybe Box Office Mojo had incomplete or inconsistent numbers at the time and DCF94 tried to deal with it. I don't see a current problem in Box Office Mojo so I think we should just report their number normally. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the previous note which I deleted. Hopefully no one saw it... Dyslexia struck again. BOM clearly reports a final total of $373,015,621 with the last tally for international markets as of 11/3/15. Penguins was not playing in any market on or after 11/3/15. Telewski (talk) 03:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

New draft

Dose any want help with Draft:List of animated box office bombs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.157.176 (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Inside Out

I see Edggjhh has removed the currently playing highlight for Inside Out. If one actually checks we see BOM has not updated the German box office since 4/17/2016 http://www.boxofficemojo.com/intl/germany/. So, we don't know what is actually happening in Germany at the current time. It might not be playing, but we have no confirmation. Also, when listings are updated, it would be awesome if the person updating the listing would PLEASE update the access date at the same time. Thanks! Telewski (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not going to revert him when we can't substantiate that the film is still playing, but I will say that it is not necessary to remove the highlighting as soon as a film closes and may even be counter-productive. We have a lot of information on this list and the highlighting helps editors keep track of what needs to be checked. It is not unknown for BOM to update a film several weeks after it closes. Betty Logan (talk) 02:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2016

This list is not correct. GONE WITH THE WIND is the world's highest box office collected movie. 59.90.13.128 (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - the article refers to Gone with the Wind 38 times, but, although it was the highest grossing movie for 25 years, it has long been overtaken - Arjayay (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

What's more, it does top our adjusted list: List_of_highest-grossing_films#Highest-grossing_films_adjusted_for_inflation. Betty Logan (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Captain America

Captain America (1990) had a limited theatrical release, yet is not listed as part of the Captain America franchise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:44:8901:5E28:80A9:5486:CDCF:68DF (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Captain America (1990 film)#Release says: "It was given a limited theatrical release internationally.[2] The source doesn't specify countries and [3] only says "$10,173 (UK)". I don't think a tiny foreign release of an American direct-to-video film is worth including. It gives a film count and average most people will probably find misleading. Caravan of Courage: An Ewok Adventure#Release and Ewoks: The Battle for Endor#Release also mention international releases but these American television films are not included under Star Wars. If a film got a limited release in its home country or a significant foreign box office then matters might be different. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

"It gives a film count and average most people will probably find misleading." Why? Are those for e.g. Middle-earth or Batman misleading in any way? Regarding the two Ewok-movies, it is talked about them above, the point for the currently missing inclusion being incomplete data. "If a film got a limited release in its home country" seems to be why Batman: The Movie (1966) is listed. What exactly would be "a significant foreign box office"? Isn't it significant to know that not every iteration was a success? C4ntfindafittingn4me (talk) 08:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

If we had a reliable source for the gross then it would be added (same for the Ewoks), but IMDB is not reliable per WP:RS/IMDB. It's not really down to editorial discretion whether a film should be added or not, but whether information is available or not. If readers want to know what media a franchise includes they would be better off visiting the article for that franchise; the sole purpose of this article is to record box office grosses, so we wouldn't include TV films and DTV releases. As for the averages, this is simply a computation on the information we have. Betty Logan (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The Fast and the Furious re-release

The Fast and the Furious is getting a re-release on June 22 to commemorate the 15th anniversary of its original release. It will be playing in 1,500 theaters. Come June 22, should we highlight it in the franchise box? http://deadline.com/2016/05/the-fast-and-the-furious-15th-anniversary-re-release-1201762427/--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 02:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

It probably will be. If it is playing at 1500 theaters then I guess the trackers will be updating the box office so we will do likewise. Betty Logan (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Lion king

Resolved

Lion king grossed has gone down to $968,483,777 on bom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.157.176 (talk) 09:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks to me like that's a mistake on their part. Looking at their cumulative foreign gross for the movie shows that it's grossed negative (sic!) 19 million USD since May 2012, which is obviously not possible. Something is amiss. I would suggest emailing them to ask what's up with that, except I'm pretty sure that'd be in violation of WP:OR. According to this page, the new figure is the correct one. TompaDompa (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I wish Disney would flipping well do one for Frozen. Betty Logan (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

According to BOM : « As a brief aside, some may have also noticed Zootopia passed The Lion King at the worldwide box office recently while also noticing The Lion King's international total on BoxOfficeMojo declined $19 million on Thursday afternoon. This came as a result of a correction issued by Disney to BoxOfficeMojo, alerting us the original release of The Lion King made $450.6 million internationally, an additional $3.8 million with the 2002 IMAX reissue, and another $91.3 million from 2011's 3D reissue for an international total of $545.7 million. As a result, The Lion King now ranks 29th on Mojo's all-time worldwide chart with $968.5 million. » Boxofficegeek (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Since

Should it be The films on this list have all had a theatrical run (including re-releases) since 2001. Films that have not played since then do not appear on the chart due to ticket-price inflation, population size and ticket purchasing trends not being considered.

Not

The films on this list have all had a theatrical run (including re-releases) in the 21th century. Films that have not played since then do not appear on the chart due to ticket-price inflation, population size and ticket purchasing trends not being considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.157.176 (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The phrases are synonymous. There is no semantic difference in English. Betty Logan (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Try everything

Resolved

With Zootopia supposing a billon it should be update to 26 films has supass a billon dollars15:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

It did, son! Zootopia finally did it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.58.55 (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Lion King footnote

Ooops, never mind Telewski (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2016

this article needs to be updated to include the Marvel Cinematic Universe films Phase Three film "Captain America: Civil War".

Onega3607 (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

It has been included since 28 April and is currently mentioned six times. Do you think something is missing about it? PrimeHunter (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Batman v superman

Batman v superman is getting re realized with the ultimate cut — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B115:8E0E:615D:79DA:501E:1C40 (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Scart

Ice Age: Collision Course is now out and The ice age series has gross$2,828,697,616 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:7910:B800:ED2E:C824:CA6E:2008 (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Star Trek is at 2.033 billion according to its franchise page

Resolved

Yet it isn't listed while Indiana Jones and Toy Story are. Why the inconsistency?

Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 00:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The figures aren't even consistent in the Star Trek article, so the problem is at their end, not ours. Betty Logan (talk) 00:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Star Trek franchise entry (now transferred to main article)

While we are on the subject here is the Star Trek entry with its source (retrieved from an earlier version of the franchise chart): Star Trek $1,989,674,856 13 $153,051,912 Into Darkness ($467,381,584) Kelvin Timeline $912,662,030 3 $304,220,677 Into Darkness ($467,381,584) 1 Into Darkness (2013) $467,381,584 2 Star Trek (2009) $385,680,446 3 Beyond (2016) $59,600,000 The Original Series $621,900,000 6 $103,650,000 The Motion Picture ($139,000,000) 1 The Motion Picture (1979) $139,000,000 2 IV: The Voyage Home (1986) $133,000,000 3 VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991) $96,900,000 4 II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) $95,800,000 5 III: The Search for Spock (1984) $87,000,000 6 V: The Final Frontier (1989) $70,200,000 The Next Generation $455,112,826 4 $113,778,207 First Contact ($150,000,000) 1 First Contact (1996) $150,000,000 2 Generations (1994) $120,000,000 3 Insurrection (1998) $117,800,000 4 Nemesis (2002) $67,312,826 Star Trek "Box Office History for Star Trek Movies". The Numbers. Nash Information Services. Retrieved July 8, 2016. It is likely to re-enter the chart at some point so We can update it here and then copy it back in. Betty Logan (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Zootopia headline

To Betty Logan, thanks for putting Zootopia to the Disney also enjoyed later success with films line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.58.55 (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

franchises

In the franchise section it stays that, although the Star Wars, Harry Potter, Pirates of the Caribbean and Jurassic Park franchises and Peter Jackson's Middle-earth adaptation also average over $1 billion adjusted for inflation but dose Toy Story franchise (and also finding Nemo ) also average over a billion as well be — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.157.176 (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

There has only been about 50% inflation since the late 90s so Toy Story won't average $1 billion. Finding Dory would have to reach something like $920 million before the franchise averages out to 1 billion on an adjusted basis according to Box Office Mojo. Betty Logan (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

how about Despicable Me 82.38.157.176 (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The killing question

Batman: The Killing Joke is in cinemas now and has gross $369,100 so far pushing the batman franchise to $4,678,575,261 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.157.176 (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Classification of MCU films

You can't have in the list of franchises MCU films as a collective and then break them up individually to fill out the list - surely it should be one or the other? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.93.187 (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

That is how we do it... I agree that it does seem a bit odd, but while the MCU is its own film series, the Iron Man films also comprise a series. -RM (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

You are not the fist editor to question this approach. I don't expect you to search through the archives since they are huge but the upshot is that since some franchises have pre-existed the MCU/DCU then there is no way to avoid including the constitutent franchises i.e. Spiderman is in the MCU now but not all Spiderman movies are in the MCU. Not all Hulk films are in the MCU either. At some point the DCU will make the table (probably in the next few months with Suicide Squad) but obviously most of the Batman/Superman films lie outside of the DCU. The upshot is that there is no way to avoid including some of the individual franchises, and if you include some of them you really have to include all of them or the approach becomes inconsistent. By including the MCU/DCU super-franchises as well you do end up with some redundnancy but in reality we have in fact only got two "duplicate" entries. There was some talk about creating a spin-off franchise article at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films/Archive_11#Iron_Man_franchises. It would basically involve replacing one table with three tables, organized by franchise, series and continuity/universe. We can still push ahead with this. I can handle the technical stuff but I will need someone like Ruffice to help me with some of the divisions because I am not sure how some of these franchises glue together. Betty Logan (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

A franchise is where a property is adapted into a new medium. This occasionally creates overlaps and doubling up. For example, Iron Man and The Avengers are adapted from comics, but the overall film series has also been adapted into TV shows and comics (the DCEU has also been reversed into comics). At the moment the table is structured almost entirely by franchises, barring two exceptions (Deadpool in the X-Men series and Supergirl in the 80s Superman films) which are included due to having to list several things at once. Remove those two films and you have the franchise chart.

Universe and series charts are a bit simpler to get your head round, but will still need to be compiled and ordered. Ruffice98 (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2016

89.241.237.19 (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC) Comparing film such as The Force Awakens, Titanic and Avatar, with those released before 1990, like Star Wars A New Hope or Gone With the Wind, in the same chart, is a bit misleading, as prior to 1990ish, the former Communists Countries, such as China, Russia, and Poland and Romania, to name just a few, never showed these films. So for example, for The Force Awakens, to make a more accurate comparison, if about 180million is deducted from its 2068,000,000 total, leaving almost 1.9 billion, then this represents how much it has make worldwide, minus the former communists countires. Therefore, Jaws, for example, has still made much more. Has Jaws been released in China and Russia and other since they opened up their boarders?

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. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

While an interesting point of discussion, it gets far too complicated. You really aren't demonstrating anything by tearing chunks out of the box office takings to compare to totally different films. A slightly more constructive approach would be to examine films that have now been released in these countries that had not been previously (for example Star Wars). That however is a minor footnote as inflation reduces many early films to insignificance, so re-releases of any form regardless of country are incredibly large comparatively. This is covered in the article already, you are just looking at one particular part of this subject. Ruffice98 (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2016

--Francishooton (talk) 15:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam, I think the ranks of the top 10 grossing film are incorrect and many are too small. Currently Gone with the Wind is at no 1, with 3.4 billion and Jaws is no 9 with 2.04billion roughly.

Ticket prices in 1981, for adults were £1:95 and children £1. In 1960, adult ticket prices were between 25 to 50p and in 1940, they were about 18p for adults tickets. The 1981 prices, mean that ticket prioes for adults tickets have rises over 5 times, to the current price of £10:75. Given this, when ET is adjusted for inflation, its 700million initial run gross, becomes 3.5 billion. Jaws becomes about 2.7 billion, if tickets in 1975 to 1978 period were about £1:50. Gone with the Wind, made £32million in it's first year I believe, and adjusting that for inflation, gives 1.9 billion. Gone with the Wind did get released several times over the following 4 decades as well. Star Wars 1977, when adjusted for inflation, if ticket prices in 1977 to 1980, were about £1:80, it comes to about 3.3billion. I think it is possible, that ET when one adjusted for inflation, may have made more than Gone with the Wind.

Perhaps someone could look at this, and make corrections appropriately. Sincerely Mr FW Hooton, Film director

Francishooton (talk) 15:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedians do not calculate these numbers—they are drawn from reliable source material that provides the information. In this case, that's Guinness World Records. Usage of your own calculations, possible or not, would violate Wikipedia's policy against original research. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Spider-Man

Shouldn't Captain America: Civil War be listed under the section for Spider-Man in the franchise list, since the character was actually in the film? Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

No. It's sourced to http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/ which only includes it in Captain America and Marvel Cinematic Universe, not Iron Man, Spider-Man or Avengers. See also the "Franchises" section of http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=marvel2016.htm. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Marvel for whatever reason decided to classify it as part of the Captain America series. It is slightly arbitrary though. They could have just as easily have made it as an Avengers film. I think it's because it was supposedly just a straightforward Captain American sequel to begin with, but other characters were added along the way to compete with Batman vs Superman. We generally just follow the sources though: if Box Office Mojo or The Numbers or other reliable sources treated it as an Iron Man/Spiderman crossover then we would too. Betty Logan (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

You could, but it would eventually reach ridiculous level where literally every approved reference made it valid for inclusion. Spider-Man 2 includes a reference to Doctor Strange made possible because Sony held both franchises and used both of them at once. It gets very complicated other than to focus it down to the eponymous franchises. Ruffice98 (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Dory

On the page it says "all the films from Peter Jackson's middle earth series are included in the nominal earnings chart"

Now should u add the Finding Nemo franchise as both films are on the chart — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.157.176 (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Well there are only two Finding Nemo films, as opposed to half a dozen films in the Middle-Earth series so as an achievement it's not really in the same league. If Finding Dory cracks a billion it might be worthy of mentioning in the lead then. Betty Logan (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Expansion

I predict that by 2018, at least 50 films will cross $1 billion. And in the years after that, it will increase. Meaning, if we keep doing the top 50, then the billion dollar movies will be moving out the list, beginning with the The Dark Knight, The Hobbit, Zootopia etc. It really wouldn't be fair for those movies to be taken out. We could expand the list to 75 or 100 or we could call this 'List of Billion Dollar Films' and just track those films. But I believe we should expand the list. What do you guys think? Editor49 (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

If we change the title to 'List of Billion Dollar Films' what do you propose we do with the year table and the timeline? What happens once there is more than a hundred billion-dollar films? Do we extend the size of the list to 200? Grossing a billion hasn't guaranteed the top spot since 2010 so it seems rather arbitrary to me. If readers just want a list of films that have made $1 billion then they can easily get this at Box Office Mojo. This article is best served by focusing on the topic at hand i.e. those films that have been the highest-grossing in some way. Currently 20 films in the top 50 were the highest-grossing films of the year, while 23 of the top 100 were year toppers; so doubling the size of the list only gets three more films that were highest-grossers. It seems to me we would be just adding a lot of white noise to the article. A top 50 keeps it manageable and on topic. Betty Logan (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Zootopia

For the fast of finger on the keyboard, please, not so fast, BOM stated Zootopia ended its domestic run this week http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=4214&p=.htm. But I seriously doubt it has ended its international run. I have a feeling it will need to be re-highlighted when this weekend's international earnings are posted and updated for Zootopia in the coming week. Always check the movie page, especially the foreign earnings page (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=disney2016.htm) before de-highlighting a film.Telewski (talk) 02:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

As you poijnted out, Zootopia is still playing internationally according to Box Office Mojo so I have reinstated the highlighting. As a general note to editors it is not necessary to remove the highlighting straight away; it is best to give a couple of weeks to make sure BOM is done tracking it and then we won't miss any updates. Betty Logan (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

DC Extended Universe

The DCEU may join the list of top 25 franchises soon (it's $50 million short of Indiana Jones); here is a template ready to go. I hope this is helpful!

25	DC Extended Universe †	$1,924,662,877	3	$641,554,292	Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice ($872,662,631)
1	Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)	$872,662,631
2	Man of Steel (2013)	$668,045,518
3	Suicide Squad (2016) †	$383,954,728

TdanTce (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)TdanTce

Highest grossing films after inflation

Should the top 10 films after inflation be updated to the current one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annonymos93 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

In a perfect world yes, but we can't update it until Guinness publish a new list. Betty Logan (talk) 07:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Top 25 Franchises

If Captain America (currently #23) is also included in the Marvel Cinematic Universe(Currently #1), is it not a duplication to list it separately? Other franchises included within a 'universe franchise' eventually could be split out as well as earnings increase. Telewski (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as this is a topic that comes up every now and then, I think it's time we consider adding a consensus headbar to this talk page.

As for the question: apparently not, due to the legal definition of a franchise. I'll leave the specifics to someone who understands the issue better than I do. TompaDompa (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

It's discussed above at #Classification_of_MCU_films. Yes there is some redundancy, but we can't really eliminate something like the Captain America franchise if you intend to keep the Batman franchise on the list. The redundant entries are in fact the two "cinematic universe" entries since they overlap with other franchises, but at the end of the day it's only two entries so there isn't that much redundnancy really. Once the summer is out of the way and the chart activity cools a bit we will probably be pursuing a three chart solution proposed above on its own article. Betty Logan (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

It is conceivable, in the future, that a Captain America film is released that is not part of the MCU. As a counterexample, consider the Peter Jackson Hobbit films. They alone have grossed enough to make the top 25, but they are, by definition, a subset of the Middle-earth franchise. There is no way, in the future, a Hobbit film could be made that is not also a Middle-earth film. Can a three chart solution be implemented without original research as to what constitutes a universe/franchise/continuity/etc.? TdanTce (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)TdanTce

That's a discussion that we'll have to have. Franchises and series' are easy enough to source, so the only potential OR problem I can foresee is with continuities. In cases where it is obvious (i.e. The Dark Knight trilogy is a clearly different continuity to the previous Batman films) we can turn a blind eye to soft OR, but in cases where it is not obvious then explicit sources would presumably need to be found. Betty Logan (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

There's two (possibly minor) issues I can foresee. First is that something like the MCU is both a franchise and a shared continuity, whereas Batman is a franchise but does not share continuity. I assume people will be questioning why some things appear in multiple charts whereas others do not. Second is how strong a connection needs to be to establish continuity. Does a passing reference to a previous film place them in the same continuity? An easter egg? We could end up in a Tommy Westphall situation. I'm not arguing against a three chart solution, just considering potential issues. TdanTce (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)TdanTce

The first issue is very simple to sort out, if providing three separate tables then there will have to be an explanation as to what each shows as well as an explanation of the definition of each term which should explain multiple listings as well as multiples of the same film appearing on the chart. The second one could get complicated, but will probably be dealt with in the construction of such a table. In this particular case, there already is a non-MCU Captain America film, it is excluded from the chart as we have yet to locate a reliable source for its box office earnings (they were low enough not to ultimately have a big impact on the overall total, but the film still exists as a demonstration of the principle).

Personally, I suspect it will be the "series" chart that is hardest to put together. There will be plenty of sources for franchises, and will almost certainly be some for shared universes (as spin-offs will be advertised as such). Trying to find somebody separating The Hobbit from The Lord of the Rings, or Iron Man from Captain America, or Sean Connery from Daniel Craig may be more troublesome. Ruffice98 (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Highest-grossing films by year

You missed an edit in the high-grossing films by year section. Toy Story 3 has $1.067 billion. And you missed that Toy Story 1995 has $373 million. Nice that you changed it in the top 50 list, even the gross of Finding Nemo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.58.55 (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done Betty Logan (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

X-Men

Under the X-Men main series franchise it says there are only 6 films even though 8 are listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:44:8901:5E28:C73:3868:8652:C257 (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Fixed it. Ruffice98 (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Wow, thanks, I wonder how long it has been like that?? Betty Logan (talk) 02:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Had a look through the edit history, it appears that at the start of July somebody tried to split the Wolverine spin-off films from the "main series" (they are held together to keep the X-Men franchise intact within the shared universe), this was then restored to a single entry, but the number was accidentally left behind. Ruffice98 (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Guys

Various movie studios tried to look up at acquiring Sean Penn's latest directed film The Last Face which was at the 2016 Cannes Film Festival. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.150.63.155 (talk) 00:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The film is not part of a franchise and has no relevance to this list. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey!

Will Suicide Squad keep the #1 box office tomorrow, thus it became the first film since Star Wars: The Force Awakens to top the box office for four consecutive weekends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.150.63.155 (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I guess you refer to domestic (US + Canada) box office. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=4217&p=.htm expects Don't Breathe (2016 film) to make more than twice as much. Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the associated article, not the subject of the article, and that would be List of 2016 box office number-one films in the United States anyway and not this list. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh wait

Next week, Morgan and The Light Between Oceans both opened to critical acclaim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.150.63.155 (talk)

Wikipedia is not a forum. None of your posts belong on this talk page. If you want a forum to discuss box office then you can for example try http://forums.boxofficetheory.com. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Jurassic park

On Box Office Mojo, the international gross for Jurassic Park is $626,700,000, meaning BOM does not have the exact data. However on the Numbers, they do have the exact international gross. We should take The Numbers forigen gross for Jurassic Park of $643,104,279 and add it with the films Demostic gross if $402,453,882 for a worldwide total of $1,045,558,161. Editor49 (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's a simple as that, because precision doesn't always translate to accuracy. As an example, Box Office Mojo says JP grossed $402,453,882 domestically while The Numbers says it grossed $395,708,305. They both have the same precision but obviously one of them is wrong. It is likely whichever source has the incorrect domestic figure also has the incorrect international figure too, so before we make any corrections we need to determine which source is more likely correct. Betty Logan (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Even though it may not be correct, it is much more accurate. Editor49 (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

You are confusing accuracy with precision. Just because something is more precise does not make it more accurate. What you are proposing is guaranteed to make it more inaccurate, because we would then be taking information form at least one inaccurate source. At the moment there is a 50% chance it is inaccurate, because we don't know which source is wrong. Betty Logan (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

My Edits

Earlier today, I added "both films from the Finding Nemo franchise were included in the nominal earnings chart. But I come back and see it was taken away. Why did someone take it away? It makes sence to put since both Finding Nemo and Dory are on the list. I mean, if we don't put that on there, we might as well take out "Seven out of the eight Harry Potter films" right? Editor49 (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

My Edits

Earlier today, I added "both films from the Finding Nemo franchise were included in the nominal earnings chart. But I come back and see it was taken away. Why did someone take it away? It makes sence to put since both Finding Nemo and Dory are on the list. I mean, if we don't put that on there, we might as well take out "Seven out of the eight Harry Potter films" right? Editor49 (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Read the lead, the Finding Nemo franchise is already mentioned along with the other Pixar films. We don't need to mention it twice! Betty Logan (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Star Wars franchise incomplete

Shouldn't the two Ewok movies Caravan of Courage and The Battle for Endor be included in the listing as they were released theatricaly overseas in several countries? Don't know though where to get the grossing-numbers. C4ntfindafittingn4me (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I did some research and was at least able to find the estimated numbers grossed in Germany for both as well as the gross for Caravan of Courage in Spain.

• Germany:
  • Caravan of Courage: 197,530 * DM 7.43 / (DM/$)2.94 ≈ $499,200
  • The Battle for Endor: 502,304 * DM 7.45 / (DM/$)2.17 ≈ $1,724,500
• Spain:
  • Caravan of Courage: 476,234 * ? ≈ €729,613 = $?

This leaves out quite a bit but shouldn't it be included?

C4ntfindafittingn4me (talk) 11:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Very first edit. Interesting... - ^theWOLFchild 11:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

We would add them if we had the data available. IMDB is not a WP:Reliable source, and regardless, it seems to be too incomplete. I don't think it makes a huge difference to the overall total to be honest. Betty Logan (talk) 12:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed they were missing and therefore mentioned it here, so those who might know where to find the data might look it up and afterwards add them. I searched myself and just pointed out what I found (by now I could add another 64,812 italian visitors to Caravan of Courage). It would certainly make no huge difference to the overall total - especially going forward - but The Battle for Endor (where I could only find the German data so far) already grossed more than Batman: The Movie (1966) which is included with incomplete data. C4ntfindafittingn4me (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I now calculated the estimated gross from Italy to be $580,757. Caravan of Courage grossed $AUD 930,000 ≈ $652,074 in Australia and within its first two weeks got 44,567 visitors in France. C4ntfindafittingn4me (talk) 10:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I've searched a bit more and was able to find the Taiwanese gross (NT$7,930,040≈$267,000) and visitor count (68,610) for The Battle for Endor. C4ntfindafittingn4me (talk) 07:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The new Guinness World Records book for 2017 has a different gross for the franchise: $6,470,365,105 (page 173) instead of the $6,460,177,429 in the article while omitting one film (probably The Clone Wars) from it. A higher gross with less movies? What's going on there? It were only $6,452,324,357 as of February though (page 203). Regarding The Force Awaken's inclusion into Highest-grossing films adjusted for inflation: There is no such figure in the 2017 edition, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is stated to have grossed $1.6 bn inflation-adjusted (page 184), which is less than what can be found in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C4ntfindafittingn4me (talk • contribs) 17:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

References

DCEU & Star Trek

Currently the DCEU is listed at #24 and Star Trek at #25, despite Star Trek having a higher total gross. I recall the DCEU passing Star Trek, and I'm not sure if the grosses have changed that drastically for Star Trek to regain the higher position. I don't want to switch the two in case there's an error in the grosses (and in case I mess the table up inadvertently). TdanTce (talk) 00:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)TdanTce

This a long weekend on the US, the grosses are estimates, until Tuesday will be the real grosses, but, for the moment a think that must be upgrade Star Trek franchise again.OscarFercho (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Star Trek has just had a massive opening in China which probably explains the huge increase in gross. Betty Logan (talk) 01:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Is it fair to compare Avatar with Gone with the wind?

Avatar made in 2009, Gone with the wind -in 1939.- so "Gone with the wind" has 50 years of rereleases and moneymaking, while Avatar is only 7 years? list is not correct? Sergey Woropaew (talk) 12:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing films#Highest-grossing films adjusted for inflation clearly says it compares numbers adjusted for inflation. So do reliable sources. Inventing our own comparison could be done in lots of ways but would be original research against Wikipedia policies. The film industry has changed and the potential in rereleases is limited today while films can instead make money from home video, streaming and television, and also contribute to total revenue via various merchandise. But there are rarely known reliable numbers for anything other than theater box office so that's what everybody compares. The World population tripled between 1939 and 2009. But films have increasing competition from other media like television, home video, computer games and the Internet. Theater going has increased in some countries, probably mainly countries which were very poor in 1939, while it has gone down in other countries. And so on. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

A level playing field doesn't exist for comparing films over a wide span of time, but the adjusted chart (which draws from seven different decades) is certainly more representative of high box office attainment than the nominal chart, which doesn't stretch back more than two decades. The list approaches the question from several different perspectives, and the adjusted chart is on the whole largely consistent with the record-holders chart with seven films in common. Betty Logan (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Zootopia and Civil War

I un-highlighted Zootopia since it's prettyour much finished its run. Also, BOM has un-highlighted Civil War and they seem to have actual grosses so I think we should un-highlight Civil War as well. --Editor49 (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo is primarily a US based website that goes by US release dates and closing dates whereas Wikipedia is a global concern. We remove the highlighting once the films have finished their run entirely, not when they have "pretty much finished their run" which basically translates to "still playing at theaters around the world". Both films are still playing and the grosses are still in the process of being updated and the highlighting tells readers the figures are not finalized. It also helps editors keep track of what needs to be updated. It does not serve anybody's interest to remove the highlighting before the film finishes its run. Betty Logan (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Peak

I think that the peak of the film doesn't make any sense. I mean whats the point of it? It has nothing to do with what the movie ranks at today, for example, Transformers: Age of Extinction has a Peak of 10, but what does that tell you about the film? Yes, it tells how high the movie got up to once, but it still has nothing to do with the 'Highest Grossing Films'. We should get rid of the Peak column, what do you guys think? Movieman1808 (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The rationale was briefly discussed in January 2016.

It's mostly a way of acknowledging old movies. Newer movies have no chance of getting a very high "peak", while old movies do that easily.

I'm inclined to agree that that's a good reason to keep it. TompaDompa (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

At first I wasn't a huge fan of the idea but I think it probably tells us more about how successful the film was than the current rank does. The Lion King and Finding Dory are separated by just one place in the chart but the "peak" rank tells just how successful The Lion King was on its original release, which the current rank doesn't do. Betty Logan (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Stop motion

Dose anyone know any stop motion films that has made more than a $100,000 at the box office for highest grossing stop-motion animted films list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.157.176 (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

This is the List of Highest-grossing Films, if you want data for that article, find it yourself, we are not responsible for that, sorry.Editor49 (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I have look and the list currently got 35 I just was asking if anyoneelse know any sources for stop motion films it sometimes useful to ask other pages so other wiki users can help us with a few things every now and agin 82.38.157.176 (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Finding

Resolved

The Finding Nemo fanchise has now made over $962 millon unadjusted has made more than a billion adjusted if so show we added it to "although the Star Wars, Harry Potter, Pirates of the Caribbean and Jurassic Park franchises and Peter Jackson's Middle-earth adaptation also average over $1 billion adjusted for inflation"82.38.157.176 (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2016

186.31.183.102 (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC) When the article talks about movie franchises, The Clone Wars movie should be removed of the Star Wars franchise, as the 1978 Lord of The Rings movie should be removed from the middle earth franchise, becaue, they are bot part of any franchise.

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Betty Logan (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Harry potter

The weekend there is going to be a Harry Potter Marathon Harry Potter IMAX Marathon will this be added to the Harry Potter (film series) box office when the numbers come in?82.38.157.176 (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes BOM doesn't document these special screenings so it depends on whether the numbers become available, but if we can get the figures they will be added. It sounds like BOM are tracking it though. Betty Logan (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

box office numbers r up http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=harrypotterimaxmarathon.htm they also added J.K. Rowling's Wizarding World aswell82.38.157.176 (talk) 08:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Betty Logan (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

box office update know upto $1,784,557 82.38.157.176 (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Though it says $1,729,226 as of my writing this. I'm guessing it'll be updated/adjusted a few more times. TompaDompa (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Fantastic Beasts and Where to find Them

It may not, but if Fantastic Beasts and Where to find Them enters into the Top 50 Highest-grossing films of All time, will we put "eight of the 9 films from the Harry Potter universe" and all the films from Middle-earth. Or would we put "seven of the eight Harry Potter films and Fantastic Beasts and Where to find Them are included in the list? Editor49 (talk) 10:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Well it's still all part of the same franchise so we would probably go along with some version of the first. It depends how the franchise is referred to after the film comes out i.e. Harry Potter universe, Harry Potter franchise etc. Betty Logan (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, as I recall, the list use to say "Films from the Harry Potter, Pirates of the Carrabean and Middle-earth franchise dominate the top end of the list", I think instead, we could say something like "the list is primarily made up of films from Peter Jackson's Middle-earth saga and J.K Rowling's Wizarding World" Since by the time Rogue One rolls around, The Fellowship of the Ring will move out of the list. Editor49 (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Captain America

As far as I'm aware, Civil War isn't been shown anymore (it has been 6+ months too). Can somebody clarify this? If proven true, it needs to be rid of the green highlight. 109.151.163.193 (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

There was a previous post about this. Civil War is still making money in its forigen markets. Same with Zootopia and The Jungle Book. Let's give it about a month or so, if it's gross dosent change from its current $1,153,304,495 then I think we could un-highligh it. Editor49 (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Apologies - just seen it. In fairness, that post was made nearly two months ago. Thanks for clarifying, anyway.109.151.163.193 (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Peak of franchise

Can we peak franchise chart Series. Peak

1. MCU 1

2. Harry Potter 1

3. James Bond . 1

4. Star Wars TBA

5. Middle earth TBA

6. Batman TBA

7. Xmen TBA

8. Spider-Man TBA

9. TF&F. TBA

10. Transfers. TBA

11. Pirates TBA

12. JP. TBA

13. Shrek. TBA

14. Twiglht TBA

15. Ice age TBA

16. Hunger games TBA

17. Avengers 16

18. Mission impossible TBA

19. Despicable me TBA

20. Superman TBA

21. Iron man TBA

22. DCEU 22

23. Star Trek TBA

24. Madagascar TBA

25. Captain America 25

82.38.157.176 (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

It sounds difficult to compute the peaks. I think it would be original research without a good source. I wouldn't trust Wikipedia editors to do it correctly. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that it would be WP:OR. Per WP:CALC:

"Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources."

Statements such as "At point in time X, the gross of Franchise Y was USD Z" should be covered by that. And obviously declaring one figure to be larger or smaller than another (which is necessary for a ranking) is. I would still want the working out to be displayed (in a footnote or whatever), though. It also gets iffier and iffier the further one goes down the list and back in time, and may therefore not be possible for all entries.

With all that said, I'm not sure if it would improve this article any (the only thing I imagine most people might be interested in is which franchises have been number one at some point in time – analogous with List of highest-grossing films#Timeline of highest-grossing films). It might however be of greater interest on an article specifically about franchise grosses than it is here. TompaDompa (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Routine calculations have to be obvious and their conclusions need to be demonstrable. This would be possible with perhaps the top 2/3 franchises (it would be straightforward to track the Bond franchise) but once you are outside the top 5 it becomes an immensely difficult task, especially considering that Box Office Mojo does not rank its franchises. Just look how complicated it becomes when we get the odd exception in the film list. With the timeline at least it's a binary conclusion i.e. something was either the highest-grossing film at that time or it was not. Also, part of the argument for having peak positions in the film chart is to give the figures a historical perspective; that is, you can show just how big a film was on original release. This doesn't really work with franchises because some of them have grosses spanning decades. Betty Logan (talk) 04:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Batman franchise and Suicide Squad

So I'm curious whether the Batman franchise should include the gross for Suicide Squad as Batman is in the movie and many of the central characters (The Joker, Harley Quinn, etc.) are villains that originated from Batman-related media. I personally believe that it should be included, but I wanted to have a discussion on this before making any changes. AtlasBurden (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

If Joker and Harley Quinn were just freelancing from the Batman franchise then you'd possibly have a point, but I believe Suicide Squad is a franchise in its own right in the same way that The Avengers are i.e. in this context they are being used as Suicide Squad property rather than a Batman property. Betty Logan (talk) 05:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Technically it is, but following the structure we have established it would not be included. Especially with these large sprawling universes you would have to include literally every film that has ever referenced the character as it has used the franchise (so for example Spider-Man 2 would end up under Doctor Strange if it could chart). As a result, we just stick to eponymous characters/groups. Ruffice98 (talk) 11:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Fantastic question

Will the Harry Potter series and Fantastic Beasts series count as their own saprted series (like MCU & iron man) or will it just be J.K. Rowling's Wizarding World 82.37.96.247 (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The new film is a spin-off so it will be handled the same way to Middle-Earth/Lord of the Rings. Betty Logan (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, when Fantastic Beasts comes out, we will change the title in the franchises list to "Wizarding World"? DCF94 (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that is the most likely outcome. Betty Logan (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

SINGAM 2

Under the franchise section it says the Eon James Bond films have earned over $14 billion in total when adjusted to current prices. but how much has the MCU made after being adjusted82.37.96.247 (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

It's pretty much impossible to calculate exactly. Taking rough estimates I'd place the MCU at $10.7 billion, which as you can see isn't very much of an increase. The best way to imagine the adjusted figure is to think of "number of tickets" sold as it's pretty much directly proportional to it so more people have gone to see James Bond films than MCU films. Ruffice98 (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the MCU has been going less than a decade and a vast chunk of its business has only been done in the last 4 years. Inflation won't play a huge part here, unlike with the Bond series which has been going five decades. Betty Logan (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Inhumans

So the Marvel Cinematic Universe is getting a new tv show called Inhumans now I know that fv shows aren't included but the first two episodes of the tv show are being put in theaters so I'm just wondering if it will be included or not — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.243.240 (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it depends on if it is actually part of the MCU. The X-Men series is of the Marvel brand, but not in the MCU. I'm not sure if Inhumans is part of the actual Cinematic Universe. It could just be like Agents of Shield. Editor49 (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

"Just like Agents of SHIELD" would put it firmly in the MCU. Just because it is a different medium does not negate the fact it is part of the same franchise (in fact it is an integral part of the definition of a franchise spreading over multiple media). If it's part of the MCU (which it will be, I know it's original research to say so and the people over on the MCU pages would throw a fit if they saw that remark, but we all know Marvel aren't going to break tradition now) then yes it will be included, it wouldn't be part of the Phase system though which is going to complicate matters, probably just add it to the overall listing to keep things simple. Ruffice98 (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

FB

I just got done adding J.K. Rowling's Wizarding World to the highest-grossing film series list. And now, it's come time for us to settle how were going to handle the phrase, "Seven out of eight films from the Harry Potter franchise and all the films from Peter Jackson's Middle-earth series are included in the nominal earnings chart, while the Jurassic Park, Transformers and Pirates of the Caribbean franchises feature prominently" and in a previous post, I said we should change it to "The list is primarily made up of films from Peter Jackson's Middle-earth saga and J.K Rowling's Wizarding World. What does everyone think? Editor49 (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The list not "primarily made up of" them if only 13 out of 50 spots belong to those films. TompaDompa (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to change it that radically. You've still basically got seven Harry Potter films in the chart so let's just say that. If the new film gets into the chart we add the new franchise name to the lead then. I've tweaked the lead; if it's not acceptable then simply revert and we can discuss it further. Betty Logan (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to add the creators name into the title? could we just say Wizarding World? I know it's marketed as "JK R's WW", but so are every MCU film, and also, I think we had a thing like this before, with the Middle-earth series, at one point it said J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle-earth but it was changed.DCF94 (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not against dropping the J.K. Rowling bit but the difference here is that MCU and Middle-Earth have entered standard parlance in box office literature while "Wizarding World" has not so far (Rowling's name seems to be always included). I suggest we wait and see what the Harry Potter editors do with the main franchise article. Presumably at some point they will rename/split the current article and we can just follow their naming conventions to stay consistent. Betty Logan (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2016

The James Bond movie "Faulty Vengeance (2017)" under the heading "Highest grossing franchises and film series" was just added in the last edit, and appears to be vandalism. Please remove - the text should not be replaced. 128.163.236.75 (talk) 06:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done - and user warned - Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 08:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2016

I forgot my account password because I haven't edited in a while, but the map picture with the caption "Inflation rates around the world vary, complicating inflation adjustment." needs to be changed. The current map is a map of INTEREST rates (not inflation rates) in 2009. I would suggest the following file be substituted: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/World_Inflation_rate_2007.PNG That file is imperfect, because it covers only one year, but it's already in Wikimedia, and at least it is illustrative of the correct topic - different inflation rates in different countries. Thanks.

KevinScott77 72.66.88.26 (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

If you are referring to this map it clearly stipulates that it is a map of inflation rates sourced to the CIA Factbook. In fact the description says it is an update of the 2007 map. Betty Logan (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Removed Civil War and Apocalypse from currently playing status

After looking at BoM's foreign weekly charts, I removed Captain America: Civil War and X-Men: Apocalypse from the "currently playing" status. It doesn't seem to have been updated in a month. If I'm incorrect in this, I apologize. Also, the X-Men entry is still green; I can't seem to figure out why. TdanTce (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)TdanTce

It hasn't been updated since mid-November so it's probably ok. If aby further updates are made we can add back the highlighting. Betty Logan (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Anime

Can someone help expend List of highest-grossing anime films, Highest-grossing anime films by year and Highest-grossing anime franchises?82.38.157.176 (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Bats

Batman: Return of the Caped Crusaders is missing it made $57,343

Resolved

DCF94 (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

It now appears under "1960s TV series" 212.143.237.180 (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Smurfs

Is there any box office for The Adventures of the Smurfs? 82.38.157.176 (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)