Jump to content

Talk:List of highest-grossing films/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

The lion's share

I just read thishttps://uk.yahoo.com/movies/the-lion-king-stage-show-the-most-successful-single-98148967762.html & it got me wondering how munch has the lion king madia franchise made — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.235.122 (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This is what I can find: box-office - $967m, home video - $1500m, stage show - $6200m, and retail merchandise - $1500m; that means it has generated sales of $10 billion at the very least. Betty Logan (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

By year

Should it be said the Star Wars (1977, 1980, 1973 & 1999) & the James Bond (1963, 1964, 1971 & 1979) Franchise had top the year as the top grossing film the most 4 times each. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I sorry did you say you Resolved it? I can not find it. where did you put it?

As far as I can tell, no edit was made to the article related to this suggestion, and no one commented here, so it clearly wasn't resolved. I've removed the resolved tag. Calathan (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, I must have accidently not saved it or something, I don't know what happened, Sorry :| Editor49 (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
We can probably add something about Star Wars but James Bond is more complicated. With the exception of Moonraker (which had help from a reissue) it's not at all clear if James Bond came top in any other year: it is possible it came top in 1964 and 1971 (but hard to say for sure) but it is very unlikely From Russia with Love beat Cleopatra, even with all of its reissues. Betty Logan (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

animated madia franchise

What is the most sucsedfull animated film franchises including merchandising? & how much has it made ? I think it could be a disney one such as The Lion King or Aladdin franchise. Or maybe a pixar one such as Toy Story orCars (and it's spin off Planes. But I do not know that why I asking you So I can added it to the animated film page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

If your asking for animation its Shrek, heres the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_animated_films.

I not talking just box office gross I talking about the most lucrative animated film franchise ! You know merchandise, home video, etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi 77.102.93.78. You are right to think of Disney. According to a 2013 Variety article, the top 4 media franchises are all owned by Disney:[1]

(Disney Princess actually overlaps with the following Disney franchises: Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Pocahontas, Mulan, The Princess and the Frog, and Tangled).--Coin945

References

  1. ^ http://variety.com/2013/biz/news/disney-star-wars-princesses-licensing-1200498040/
Eh... you are aware that every single one of those so called "Disney franchises" you just listed amongst the Disney princesses are all public domain characters or real life people, so there is no franchise? There may be a cause to have the overall "Disney princesses" as a franchise, but the individual components certainly aren't franchises. Ruffice98 (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The last 2 not so much, but every other one has spawn a multimedia franchise, no question. Films, TV shows, stage musicals theme park rides, music, video games, and tonnes of other merchandise. Disney generally alters the original source material to create its own characters and story. So their franchises are distinct and notable in their own right. Not to mention unfathomably successful. This isn't some arbitrary decision I have made. The Disney execs have already decided for us.--Coin945 (talk) 12:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Have you got a source to confirm them though? By its definition to franchise something requires transferring the rights to another company to work on, and while they will indeed be covered by a multitude of media, if its always been done in-house by Disney, it won't count (which most TV shows and theme park rides will all be done under Disney themselves). For another example on a slightly unconnected matter, Iron Man would count as a franchise because the rights have been leased out to other companies other than just Marvel themselves (even though in the end all the films were produced in-house), are there similar circumstances for these sets of characters that can be verified? Ruffice98 (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks you for finding this how should I word this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

remake

I reccetly ask a question about Disney remake of AIW you said it was not part of the same franchise. But what if Disney remakes one of there own stories like lilo & stitchBrother Bear would they go in the be same in fanchies as the amated ones as they were created by Disney — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.235.122 (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem is the definition of a franchise. The Wikipedia page gives the following definition: "A media franchise is the licensing of intellectual property (IP) from an original work of media (usually a work of fiction), such as a film, a work of literature, a television program or a video game, to other parties or partners for commercial exploitation". As it would almost certainly be Disney themselves making it, it probably wouldn't count on franchise grounds, but Disney aren't exactly ones to "reboot", they'd normally just make a new film, so it would be included on the chart on series grounds instead. Alice in Wonderland for example isn't a franchise because it is in the public domain, so Disney aren't franchising it off anyone, they can just use the characters as they feel like it (as can anyone), but if the sequel makes enough money it would qualify for the chart on "series" grounds (which would exclude the original animated film, but include the two live action films due to shared continuity). Everything on the list at the moment is a franchise, but things may change. Ruffice98 (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeh but if they do will you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

If it isn't a franchise or a series then no, because its a franchise and series list. There's a list of conditions, if it doesn't meet those conditions it doesn't get included, simple as that. Ruffice98 (talk) 12:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

What are these conditions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Fairly simple to understand the basic concepts, but they can get complicated when you look into them. To qualify as a series they must have two theatrically released films that share continuity (in other words, it must have a sequel, prequel, sidequel, spin-off, etc. that isn't straight to video and isn't a reboot or remake). To qualify as a franchise the original creator of the IP must have at some point leased off their creation to another company to do something with it (in other words, they have franchised it off, hence the term).
The franchise condition as you can guess can become a bit problematic. There's two obvious reasons why this wouldn't happen, one is the rights are in the public domain so they haven't leased the rights off the original creator(s) as they don't need to due to the copyright expiring, the other is that the original creator(s) have done everything in-house, and as a result didn't lease the rights out to anyone else. As you can guess, that second option is what trips up Disney a lot as obviously most of the stuff they do is done in-house. Some aren't, but a lot of them are. If you wanted to call it a franchise, you'd need to find some sort of licensing agreement between Disney and another company leasing off the rights to this other company in some way. Find that, and you can call it a franchise. Ruffice98 (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

successfull

is there anywhere saying who are the most successful studios, Directors, Producers, actor, etc (any other film people)of all time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

"Success" is a very ambiguous term. Probably your best bet is to look up how much money (or how many awards depending on your angle) they currently have rather than anything directly from the raw figures here. Ruffice98 (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

O.K is their anywhere I find the highest grossing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 08:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

New Series

|} So, it doesn't come out till 2016, but when it does, I think this should be put as a franchise/series. anyone agree?

This is fairly clean cut, it would be included, not really any debate in this. It is the same franchise (and also the same "series" in a slightly vaguer sense), as would the two sequels. Wouldn't qualify for a separate listing by itself (as say Iron Man does) but does definitely qualify for inclusion under "Harry Potter" (might need to be renamed though). Ruffice98 (talk) 17:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah it will be fairly uncomplicated. I'm guessing it will be structured along the lines of the Middle-earth entry. Betty Logan (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
So, is it a yes or a no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.239.248.135 (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it should, and the franchise list should be expanded to 30, can someone find the correct data for me? thanks Betty Logan (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor49 (talk • contribs)
We've been over this before, there appears to be absolutely nowhere that has published the correct data for two of the apparent entries in the next five, so 25 makes sense while this situation continues. By the way, don't try to impersonate somebody on the talk page, there's an edit history that shows it was you, not to mention there is the wrong time in the signature and the fact an automated signing bot spotted your "unsigned" post and took care of it for you. Four "~" in future.
If you want the figures for personal reference as far as I can tell the next five seem to be The Chronicles of Narnia, The Hunger Games, Alien, Die Hard and The Mummy (unless I've missed one or two others), with problems existing with entries 28 and 30 as I'm sure you'll discover when you try to track down the values yourself, Alien has multiple quoted values (even across Wikipedia articles) and The Mummy is missing several from all the earlier films. Until we can track down the accurate values for these two, nothing can be done in terms of extension even if we wanted to. If you really care about it that much, my advice would be to track down figures for those early Mummy films, then a 30 entry chart may be a possibility a couple of years from now when the chart has moved around a bit more. Ruffice98 (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Just for the sake of discussion, after THG, Despicable Me would be 28th. DCF94 (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Would Die Hard & Cars must be around the top 30 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 08:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Die Hard appears to be 30th at the moment, Cars is lower than the existing figure for The Mummy, which we've just established isn't even in the Top 30 (due to me missing Despicable Me, thanks for pointing it out) so Cars definitely isn't there. Thanks to Despicable Me, this makes things slightly neater for a hypothetical top 30 move, but still not all that nice. The Mummy still poses a threat all the same, Alien will probably be knocked out the top 30 by Terminator (The Avengers already has a guaranteed place because the first film made so much) so you could make the hypothetical move to a top 30 sooner (the earliest date has gone from May 2016 to July 2015), but it still depends on those Mummy figures being found. Ruffice98 (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you produce a mock up what the top 30 might look like? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No, even if I knew how to create a table (I can edit them, but creating I'll leave to those in the know) it wouldn't be possible at the moment. The problem is the Alien franchise, just look at Alien, specifically the box office figures. This problem runs across many of the films. The top of the range of values place it at 29th, but in at 30th would be Die Hard which is about $1.6 million below it. As you'll have seen, that first film has a potential discrepancy of nearly $100 million, I'm sure you can understand the concerns (especially when there is such a narrow margin involved). It's one thing to not be certain over the exact numbers (for example "The Mummy") but another if even the ranking could be wildly off. Ruffice98 (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

alphabetically

How about alphabetically the film series & franchise list. Like the number — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.213.213 (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

What if

What happens if the new Star Wars avergers or anorther film makes more the Snow White on the adjust chart will we added it on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 13:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No. That is Guinness's chart, not ours, so it would be WP:Synthesis to alter it since we don't know which inflation index they used or their methodology. We would simply add a note like we did for the Titanic issue, and hopefully Guinness would issue a new chart at some point. Betty Logan (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

30

Okay, is this good enough?

I finally got it all!!!, but THE MUMMY, has 4, not including Universal or Hammer Horror, it shows the same gross as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mummy_(franchise) for it all together, now, can this be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor49 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

There are ten other films in The Mummy franchise. We can't add it until we track down those grosses. Betty Logan (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
And on top of that we don't know the value for Alien, I've had a look around and the highest value is just above Die Hard by the smallest of margins, so it is very definitely a threat. So not only do we need the Mummy figures we need to ensure the bottom of the chart is clear of the top estimates unless accurate figures can be found. As for the chart itself The Hangover should be 30th on your basis (ignoring the upper Alien estimate). Ruffice98 (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, is this good enough?

I finally got it all!!!, No problems because the Mummy series is gone, now here it is!

You clearly picked up on my Hangover comment but conveniently ignored my note about the Alien franchise. It's not going to a top 30 until we can be absolutely certain there are no major errors or missing data in the chart, and the Alien franchise could potentially still be in there. In practice this means knocking Die Hard off the chart as well, but even then it is only a temporary solution because The Mummy franchise will almost certainly re-enter the chart about a year after Die Hard has fallen off the chart. Also, please sign your posts with four "~" symbols (don't know how many times I've had to say that on this page alone, must be going for a record here). Ruffice98 (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The Mummy franchise almost certainly scrapes into the top 30 anyway, if you allow for a reasonable margin of error to compensate for the grosses of the earlier films. Betty Logan (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, it's all a horrible mess. By the way, concerning the Mummy films (specifically the Universal films) I've had a minor breakthrough. I've found a reference book that quite explicitly references box office statistics on a few occasions. It doesn't actually mention the figures themselves sadly, but it does give some general details on how a couple of the films compared to each other (apparently The Mummy's Tomb was a record breaker in 1942, so another chart may be under threat). You can read some of it here:

http://www.lesliehalliwell.com/monsters/index.html

Doesn't give us a figure, but does tell us the figures exist somewhere, there is hope yet. Ruffice98 (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Gross



This is the total gross for Alien, and AVP, It's not more than THE HANGOVER, unless there is some mysterious Alien movie that no one knows of, its only 1.3 Billion! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor49 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a $50 million dollar range on the second film as well, which adds a potentially fair bit to the total. I'll have a look and see if I can find where the other bit is coming from, but the total is still fairly close. Ruffice98 (talk) 07:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, as an additional note just to give you some more reasoning behind the decision to keep it at 25 for now, what would you do when the new Mummy film comes out? Or what about Prometheus 2? Both are in the works, The Mummy has a date even and Prometheus can't be far behind it. So even if they weren't on the chart now, what happens when they do enter the chart? Are you going to be happy taking it back to a top 25? Ruffice98 (talk) 10:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, but none of the new Mummy films are going to make over 700 Million (I'm guessing) and other new franchises are coming out, witch will let it stay beyond 30, and if it does, like Planet of The Apes, put TBD for the Universal, and Hammer Horror Series, and it will show the gross of $1.415 or more billion still, if the Mummy does have a Sequels, there is 99.9% it will pass THE HANGOVER, because MUMMY is at 1.415 Billion, and when Prometheus 2 comes out, Alien Franchise will grow higher, what's the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor49 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that The Mummy is in the top 30; the only reason you don't have it on your chart is because you don't have all the grosses i.e. your chart is incorrect due to ignoring some very successful earlier films. With Alien there are conflicting estimates, so while it does not make the top 30 currently it almost certainly will when they release another film, but we won't be able to to chart it properly because there is a $100 million discrepency for the gross of the first film. This chart used to be a top 20 and we only extended it to a top 25 when we could do it without introducing inaccuriacies; if we could have extended it to a top 30 we would have done. Extending the chart doesn't really improve it if we are missing data and the franchises are in the wrong positions. This case is not comparable to Planet of the Apes because we know the overall total, just not the individual grosses, so we can still rank it. There is more to working on this article than just making bigger charts: the real work goes into researching it, so if you really are dedicated to improving the article then your time would be better spent by tracking down the missing grosses of the earlier films. Betty Logan (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, The Mummy is supposedly just behind The Hangover at the moment, by about a million. While we haven't found any figures I have found a source describing a Mummy film from 1942 as a record breaker at the box office, which I'd say is a very good sign it made quite a bit of money at the time (a good few million at least), so it absolutely is in the top 30 for now. I wonder, are there any film experts out there we could get in touch with who would know these figures? The figures definitely exist as we've established (at least for the Universal films) so somebody must surely know them or how to track them down at least. Ruffice98 (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

pixar

I am right thing that Pixar got highest average per film with $607 million — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

In Franchises? because no, Harry Potter has 965 Million average — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor49 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Pixar is a studio, not a franchise. Ruffice98 (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I am talking about film studio dose Pixar have the highest average per film — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 22:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Tolkien's Middle-Earth

Why is Ralph Bakshi's version of Lord of the Rings included, but not Rankin-Bass' Hobbit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.5.132 (talk) 04:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Because The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) was in theaters while The Hobbit (1977 film) is a television film. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I need a BIG hero

as I understand Big Hero 6 is not a MCU film but a Disney film. could marvel ever make a big hero 6 as Disney owns marvel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

That is up to Disney and Marvel to the Decide Editor49 (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Peak of Film

Maybe in the Chart, we can include the peak of a film, what is the highest rank the film is, or was once at, for example ..

Rank Title Worldwide Gross Year Peak
12 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest $1,066,179,725 2006 3
13 Toy Story 3 $1,063,171,911 2010 5
14 Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides $1,045,713,802 2011 6
15 Jurrasic Park $1,029,153,882 1993 1
16 Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace $1,027,044,677 1999 5

I just started from 12, but yeah. Is is a good idea? I will be happy to find the Peaks --Editor49 (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

sounds good — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 16:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
So should I do it???, and please sing your name. Editor49 (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't oppose the idea in theory (it will better illustrate the impact the film had on original release), but remember each "peak" would need to be sourced. Many of these films were in simultaneously release or had reissues, so it would be original research to try and guess what positions the films were based on how much they grossed and when. For example, The Phantom Menace was actually the second-highest grossing film when it came out (not the fifth—see [1]). Sourcing this data will be considerably harder if Box Office Mojo is gone for good so I suggest waiting to see if it comes back online. Betty Logan (talk) 02:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I like the idea in theory but agree it would be hard to source. We might instead show how a film would rank on current total gross (the gross already in the table) if all newer films (measured by original release date) are ignored. I think that would be allowed by Wikipedia:No original research#Routine calculations, but it would give an unfair advantage to films with significant earnings on reissues years later when inflation has raised ticket prices. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I think the problem with that is that we would be inventing our own metric (i.e. a rank that doesn't exist and never existed outside Wikipedia). However, you gave me an idea (through your suggestion at the BOM thread at the Film project) of a very straightforward solution to this: we could use the Wayback machine to capture "freezes" of BOM's all-time chart. As you can see at Wayback-BOM we have page freezes going all the way back to 2001. We would only have to find extra sources for seven films on the list (four of which are already sourced in the Timeline table), so it means we only have to track down sources for three films. Betty Logan (talk) 07:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

We have a big problem

Box Office Mojo has... well vanished. All links go to the same IMDB page, literally every link going to Box Office Mojo has been destroyed and all figures will need to be resourced. Is there a particular reason why this has happened? Has there been a take over of some form because I've certainly seen no warnings this was going to happen. Ruffice98 (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ruffice98: Thanks for pointing this out. I've notified WikiProject Film here. We'll monitor the situation. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
And that is our Number One Source isn't it?, and if so, does Imbd have a chart? --Editor49 (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
IMDB appears to be continuing monitoring the domestic gross but is making no effort whatsoever to track worldwide grosses which is what our chart is using (that's certainly what I'm seeing anyway). Ruffice98 (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I doubt this matter is permanent. There is probably movement going on behind-the-scenes. Just not sure what the final presentation will look like, but hard to believe that all of Box Office Mojo's data will be excluded if this consolidation is indeed going through. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
It may just be temporary, but if it is permanent it is not as disastrous as it first seems. Most of the data can be alternatively sourced via Boxoffice.com, and we can use the Wayback for older data if it comes to that. It is only the nominal top 50 chart and the franchise table that are heavily affected anyway. We should observe WP:LINKROT though until we know for sure what the fate of BoxOfficeMojo is going to be. Betty Logan (talk) 01:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
It seems to be back online, although no weekend updates thus far. Betty Logan (talk) 08:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
It also says it was last updated in 1969, so something is definitely up with it at any rate. I've also noted that a few of the links are still playing up (Guardians of the Galaxy seems to be affected, although you can still get to it if you go through alternate links). Ruffice98 (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Legoman

there is gonna to be a lego batman movie spin off

will this go in

the lego franchise

or the batman franchise

or both

or none


https://uk.yahoo.com/movies/a-lego-batman-spinoff-movie-is-in-the-works-99679373082.html


Lego is not really a franchise, and Son of Batman is not included in Batman, so this probably also wont, though The Lego Movie if it does have a second film, it will become a film series, and the Lego/Batman spin-off just might be included in The Lego Movie, we will have to see what other people say. --Editor49 (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The Numbers

On The Numbers, I looked to see how much a difference it is to BOM, and its very, for example for #50, The Lost World: Jurassic Park, and Star Wars in at like 47, or 48, so will we have to change some on the chart? although we have BOM's figures, The Numbers is a new reliable source, will we do the chart they want??? or continue with BOM other data, and go on from The Numbers? Editor49 (talk) 03:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

For the moment we can use the existing Box Office Mojo data already on the page (as it was reliably sourced even if the source no longer exists). For any currently released films that are still being tracked (say Guardians of the Galaxy) we will have to rely on updates from The Numbers instead until we find out what happens with Box Office Mojo (this happened with absolutely no warning whatsoever, even the BOM team didn't appear to know that it was about to happen).
It may be worth having a look through the charts for any MATCHING figures and changing the source, but where discrepancies arise leave it at the figure we already have. But we'll need to see if everyone else agrees with this first. Ruffice98 (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
It would be best if there isn't any source changing until we establish what exactly is happening with BOM. If it definitely isn't coming back then it's possible a bot can be programmed to add archive links to all the dead BOM links per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Box_Office_Mojo. If people start replacing the links manually we won't be able to do that and we'll end up making a lot of unnecessary work for ourselves. This will be sufficient for about 90% of the BOM sources used in this article; as for the five films we are currently tracking these can easily be replaced if necessary. Betty Logan (talk) 12:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment: I agree with Betty Logan, it'd be best and most ideal if we get a bot to archive those links, really in any regard. In that manner, the links will have both and archived link and original link, which will help prevent linkrot -- regardless of the final status of the website. Hope that's helpful, — Cirt (talk) 03:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Back to the present

I have tred a few times to update B2TF but some keeps putting it back. I mange to do the franchies for now at least. Can you tryed to update the gross. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Peak

Resolved
Rank Title Worldwide Gross Year Peak
12 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest $1,066,179,725 2006 3
13 Toy Story 3 $1,063,171,911 2010 5
14 Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides $1,045,713,802 2011 6
15 Jurrasic Park $1,029,153,882 1993 1
16 Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace $1,027,044,677 1999 5

I added this a few weeks ago, and Betty Logan gave me the page of http://web.archive.org/web/20110801000000*/http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/, I went there, and it is pretty good, so I think we can use it for after 2001, and somehow track down the others, it should be pretty easy though so, I can add a example so we can se how it turns out, should I do that? --Editor49 (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you can construct it at Talk:List of highest-grossing films/sandbox, and then once we have tracked down all the data we can copy it into the main article. Also, I think it would be better if the "peak" column was the second column after the "rank" column instead of at the end. It would make more sense that way, at least to me. I have a ton of 1990s sources bookmarked so it won't be too difficult finding the pre-2001 sources. The sources can just go in the existing ref column. Betty Logan (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, ill do it, ill also put the peak after the rank! it does make more sense. Editor49 (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I've copied the chart into the sandbox for you so we don't lose the MOS compliant formatting: Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films/sandbox#Peaks. All you have to do is fill in the ranks and add the sources. I will sort out the pre-2001 ones. Don't worry about the "blank refs", those will be srestored once the chart is copied back over. Editors will have to make sure this version is kept up to date as well though. Betty Logan (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, its done!Editor49 (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
You need to add the source for each one, otherwise readers can't check the data. Betty Logan (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Its done.Editor49 (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Those references aren't formatted properly. I will do the first five to show you how to do the formatting and then you can do the rest. Betty Logan (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
On second thoughts, I will take care of the formatting and I will find those 1990 sources while I'm at it. Betty Logan (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The refs are all formatted now, and the older sources have been added. All that remains is simply copying the chart back into main list. Since it was your idea you should do that and claim the edit. Betty Logan (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, should I just add it? Editor49 (talk) 11:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, a simple cut and paste will do it. Betty Logan (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2014

128.140.51.129 (talk) 11:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC) the transformerz2014 is 1 080 933 450

Not done: According to the source in the article, the present figure is correct. Betty Logan (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

timeline

I got a question About http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_animated_films#Timeline_of_highest-grossing_animated_films

–My question is did snow white really hold the record for 55 years as the highest-grossing animated film of all time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Snow White was a very well known and successful movie, even at the time and there weren't many other animated films at the time to be compared financially to SW, granted, SW holds the record because of many re-releases through the years, when it first premiered in '37 it had a gross of about $8.5 million, which was high box office performance even for a live-action film, other successful animated films at the time (i.e Bambi, 101 Dalmatians, The Jungle Book) had accumulated a total of $200+ million each, only after many re-releases. So yes I do think SW held the record for the highest-grossing animated film for so many years. DCF94 (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
It's hard to know for sure. It's possible that it may have been briefly overtaken at some point (just like Gone with the Wind temporarily lost the record in the 1960s), but either way, Snow White was back in pole position at the time of its 50th anniversary since its total at that time ($330 million) was higher than the totals for any other Disney. We know that neither The Little Mermaid and Beauty & the Beast overtook it, so it definitely held the record at the time Aladdin came out; Aladdin played in the US in 1992 and internationally in 1993, so Snow White definitely held the record going into 1993. What happened then we don't know, because we don't have SW's final foreign grosses: Aladdin either beat it in 1993, or The Lion King took the record in 1994. The timeline is certainly correct from the late-80s anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding the timespan into Franchise section

I added the timespan of earliest to latest film in each franchise as I thought the data would provide valuable insight into how some franchises have tended to become very successful over shoter spans of time, while others have a long history stretching back many decades etc. I didn't think the rationale for undoing my edit was justified, so undid it. But I also figured a discussion was in order, so hear we go:

(P.S. I wanted to unbold the timespans, but am not sure how to do that. That would probably nullify the "messy" comment).--Coin945 (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Highest-grossing franchises and film series

† indicates that at least one film in the series is playing in the week commencing 22 November 2024.
Highest-grossing franchises and film series[§] (The films in each franchise can be viewed by selecting "show")
Rank Series Total worldwide
box office 		No. of films Average of films Highest-grossing film
  • *Canada and U.S. gross only.
  • RDistributor rental.
  • PAIndividual worldwide grosses are unknown for the original Planet of the Apes series.
If they click show, they can see the years of the films. Take it away, and if you wanna do that, add another Margin, something like this.
Highest-grossing franchises and film series[§] (The films in each franchise can be viewed by selecting "show")
Rank Series Year Span Total worldwide
box office 		No. of films Average of films Highest-grossing film
I don't really see the point in this, all the dates are already shown, so what would be gained by this addition? Ruffice98 (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I have reverted it for the second time. It looks cluttered, it looks ugly and I don't really see what encyclopedic value it has. Knowing the time-span of the series has very little value overall i.e. the Batman series made neglible revenue prior to 1989. If readers want this information each film is labelled with the year of release. Betty Logan (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
@Ruffice98: I have already stated this above but for convenience I will repeat my sentiments here: The notion of franchises are about films spanning over many years. Even decades in many cases. We need a framework to be able to compare these to each other in a way that is not currently available in the table - timespan-wise. This information would go hand in hand with the number of films in the franchise. You could, for example, compare Harry Potter's 6-film 10-year franchise span to James Bond's 25-film 50-year franchise span and start to draw conclusions about the nature of how the notion of "film franchise" has evolved over time. I think this is a vital piece of information that is sadly missing from the table, and as I have already said, many of the individual year released are imbedded into the table and can only be accessed after 2-3 clicks. I know you've all put a lot of work into this article and you feel very protective of it, but this is such a minor addition that I don't see what a potential problem could be. If you could help even one user out there with an extra column or whatnot, I would say go for it. :)--Coin945 (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
@Betty Logan:If pre-1989 films were commercially unsuccessful, then that is a vital piece of information in its own right as it demonstrates how that particular franchise has evolved over time.--Coin945 (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
There's an issue with that however, year of release doesn't really mean much other thanshowing how long it has lasted for. However, time frames really are irrelevant as it serves little purposes for the whole figure. The number of films directly ties into the average figure so obviously has some value, but the time span serves no purpose as older films can do brilliantly, and new films can do poorly. In short, we aren't gaining anything from the addition. Ruffice98 (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I am proof that this us important information. My testimonial is enough to suggest that the notion of wanting to get an understanding of the scale of these franchises has value. I sadly didn't find the information here do put if in myself.--Coin945 (talk) 09:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
As we've said though, it is redundant information, it is simple enough to open up the breakdown and see how long it lasted (and on top of that, get more information about how these time frames have affected grosses over the years at the same time). Ruffice98 (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, we don't include information simply because someone might want to know it i.e. we only include information if it directly relates to the purpose of the list or informs the context. For example, knowing that Batman started in the 1960s and Indiana Jones in the 1980s doesn't necessarily tell us anything about the performance of these franchises: Indiana Jones, for instance, made most of its money in the 1980s and after 2000 but nothing in the 1990s, while Batman made pretty much everything from 1989 onwards. In the case of something like Planet of the Apes it is even more extreme, with most of the money generated in the 21st century, despite being one of the "oldest" franchises on the list. Simply knowing how long the series has been active for doesn't really allow for valid comparisons. Betty Logan (talk) 01:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
With James Bond, you have to click "show" 3 times to even start to get a feel of the years these films were released in. Surely that is a little excessive...--Coin945 (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
What does the range "1966–2012" tell you about the earnings of Batman? It could have made most of that money before 1989, or after 1989, so it is meaningless unless you actually provide the date for each gross. This list is not a general information page; its sole purpose is to document box-office earnings and to facilitate analysis. Betty Logan (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
What would you say to the subsections having their year spans displayed? For example for the Eon series (James Bond), or The Original Series (Star Trek), or the 20th Century series (PotA)? That way you split up the spans in regard to the different film series taht were based on the same property. By extension, at the level-1, you could have, for example: "1968-1973, 2001, 2011-2014" instead of "1968-2014".--Coin945 (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Franchise

Can we put timeline of highest grossing film series & franchise?

Like the films timeline?, if so, then construct it, you need to make sure you have sources, going back to the first film series, and, or franchise because it obviously will be #1 at a certain time, but that would take lot's of research, BOM, probably doesn't have the data, but from what I understand, from about 1980, James Bond took the place, and was then passed by Harry Potter, I'm not entirely sure, but you probably just have to find before James Bond became #1, what year, and the #1's before that. --Editor49 (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
And, going back, The Godfather, could have held the place at one point. --Editor49 (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
James Bond has pretty much held it since the 1960s before it was surpassed by Harry Potter. I have no idea what held it prior to that, but there is no point creating a timeline that only lists two franchises. Betty Logan (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
IF we found sources of older franchises/series, I don't see why not do a Timeline section for the series, we almost know for sure of 2 of them and we know that MCU will soon be #1. DCF94 (talk) 01:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Where best to search? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.222.195 (talk) 11:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Nowhere, because most of the data either doesn't exist or has never been made publically available unless somebody has seen some use for it. Becoming the highest grossing film of all time was certainly viewed on as an achievement, film series though far less so. Even if you could figure out what James Bond overtook you'd probably be struggling to find any data for the films within that series. It's a rather horrible mess and isn't something that can be done, at least with the data that has been made public by studios over the years. Ruffice98 (talk) 00:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Could it be a feature thing? Like if The MCU & DCCU keeps over take each other — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem is as I said above, we have no idea what was before James Bond, and more importantly, we don't know when James Bond took the record, so we can't even start the chart as we don't know what year James Bond got the record in.
On another note of what you raised there (also noting that this isn't a forum here) there isn't much risk of the MCU and DCCU overtaking one another regardless of any fan's perspective on the matter so you aren't going to get much when it comes to that. Given current projections for Marvel's performance over the next five years, DC would need to be hitting Avatar like levels on every single film to pose a threat in that same time frame which isn't going to happen. The MCU simply has too much of a head start and too high a quantity of output over the coming years for anything to pose a threat (at least for the foreseeable future). Ruffice98 (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I might have a beginning for the list (with data available) but I'm missing the middle, I need to find the data for The Mummy series and/or the Frankenstein sequels. DCF94 (talk) 04:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Both Sherlock Holmes and Tarzan spawned numerous films too, so I wouldn't be surprised if one of those superceded Universal's monsters. It was difficult enough tracking down worldwide data for Planet of the Apes, but for franchises from the 30s and 40s it is next to impossible. I think the only people who'd have those figures are the studios that made the films. Betty Logan (talk) 04:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought that Sherlock Holmes and Tarzan were public domain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 11:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

We have managed to find a source confirming the Mummy film data exists (at least for the Universal films) although finding the data itself poses another problem. I'm certain there must be somebody out there in the film industry or amongst the critics who must have the data in some way as some have mentioned it in reviews. Ruffice98 (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Only 4 SH films were made in public domain, and the Weissmüller Tarzan films are a series since it shares continuity. DCF94 (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone put a mock up on this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.238.166 (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure somebody could (tables aren't my strong point) but you'd be very disappointed to see how little we could offer with existing data. From a quick look over the figures as far as I can tell it would go "2007 Harry Potter", "2008 James Bond" then "2009 Harry Potter" (with various figures included). Not very informative as I'm sure you can tell, but with the data at hand that's all we can say for certain (I'm genuinely surprised there's even multiple entries, but it seems James Bond did briefly reclaim the title). Ruffice98 (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Domestic

Resolved
Highest-grossing films[1]
Rank Title Worldwide gross Year Ref
1 Avatar $760,507,625 2009 [# 1][# 2]
2 Titanic $658,672,302 1997 [# 3][# 4]
3 The Avengers $623,357,910 2012 [# 5][# 6]
4 The Dark Knight $534,858,444 2008 [# 7][# 8]
5 Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace $474,544,677 1999 Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).[# 9]
7 The Dark Knight Rises $448,139,099 2012 [# 10][# 8]
8 Shrek 2 $441,226,247 2004 [# 11][# 12]
9 E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial $435,110,554 1982 [# 13][# 14]
10 The Hunger Games: Catching Fire $424,668,047 2013 [# 15][# 16]

References

  1. ^ "All Time Worldwide Box Office Grosses". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved August 7, 2011.

we can add this, from BOM http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic.htm ? Editor49 (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

No, because this is for worldwide grosses, there is a separate article for US grosses which already has a table like this. Ruffice98 (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

toy story

On this page it says "Pixar also had another huge hit with Toy Story 3, which generated almost $10 billion in merchandise retail sales in addition to the $1 billion it earned at the box office" But should it also include the franchise as a whole (the first 2 film, etc) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 13:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The earnings of the franchise as a whole are irrelevant as far as that particular section is concerned. We are specifically addressing the question of which film is the highest-earner and examining that question within the context of ancilliary revenues. Betty Logan (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

TPOM

Resolved

Will the new Penguins of Madagascar be in the MADAGASCAR FRANCHISE? Like Puss in Boots did with Shrek? Editor49 (talk) 02:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it will be. DCF94 (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Toy story

Resolved

Question TS2 was on it's own for the 2009 realise so surly Toy story was as well? (And the $361 millon was for it oringer relase?) so us they any where with this detail — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The 3D re-release of TS2 was added to the total of the film. DCF94 (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I talking about the frist one was that also release — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.236.222 (talk) 12:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

We seem to have resolved this now. Some territories had a double bill while others got them as separate films. Betty Logan (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

ice age

Resolved

why is ice age highlighted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 21:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It has had a 3D release in China. Betty Logan (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

life's a treat

Resolved

on the 2015 in film it is missing a film Shaun the Sheep due out 6th of February USA date.

can you give it a try?

I have ask the page but there no respond!

The editors on that page are not answerable to us any more than we are answerable to them about this page. However, if the release date of the film has been confirmed why not just add it to the table? The most likely reason for it not being there is simply because the editors are unaware of it. Betty Logan (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

how do you do this?

I will take care of it. --Editor49 (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
It seems the release date is not February 6, 2015.. There must have been a mistake. It is in April 2015. Editor49 (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

DVD sales

I think we should add a Highest Grossing Films including DVD sales, maybe a top 10 of films with their total Theatrical Gross, and DVD sales gross together. For example, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest earned $1.066 billion, ad including DVD/Home-Media, earned about $320 million, making a total of about $1.386 billion, Ill create a mock of the top 10 soon, after I get the data. Editor49 (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think they publish complete data for DVD/blu-ray sales. I've never come across a chart ranking all-time home video sales anyway. Betty Logan (talk)
http://www.the-numbers.com/alltime-bluray-sales-chart Editor49 (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
That's just domestic blu-ray though. It doesn't include DVD/video, and they are not worldwide figures. For instance, Avatar grossed a total of $345 million across DVD and blu-ray selling 16 million units in just the United States alone, but sold over 30 million units worldwide. The top home video title is The Lion King which grossed $1.5 billion on video and DVD, but that only ranks 17th on the blu-ray chart with $88 million. Betty Logan (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

HUNGER GAMES

Resolved


http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hungergames3.htm, ill continue to update the gross on the section everyday, until... if or when the series grosses $1.623 billion passing THE MATRIX... (if)... Editor49 (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

And obviously it's now #26, right???, it should get to the top 25 by the end of this weekend, I think... Editor49 (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Nativity dude where mine page

how many films do you need for a film series/franchise page because the Nativity! franchise got 3? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk • contribs)

Usually three. If there are only two films in a series it is a convention just to have a "sequel" section in the first article. Betty Logan (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

the third is out now? I ask the talk pages on all 3 films pages but there no replay? should I ask again?

It's Wikipedia, if you think there is a decent enough reason for inclusion and since nobody is objecting go ahead and make it. If there are any issues it can be dealt with. Although for your own personal note taking, it is a film series as opposed to a franchise (being an original work, rather than based on a licensed IP). Ruffice98 (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Still no responds?

Is it possible to create one?

I have no ideal how to do one?

And Debbie Isitt the director has said this is a Franchies

The director could also say they've seen the Loch Ness Monster, wouldn't mean it is true. A franchise has a very strict legal definition, and that certainly does not meet it. Ruffice98 (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

so how do you make one for the film series then

Exactly the same as a franchise, except you call it a "film series" instead. So in this case "Nativity (film series)". Ruffice98 (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I have created a Draft but it might need some work. I have not submitted it. can you have a look at it. and help me work at it.

men's best friend

do you know the box office gross of Son of Lassie & The Magic of Lassie (for the Lassie page)

The problem will be the date. While records are regularly kept today, they can be hard to find in older cases, such as this one. This problem has come up here with regards to The Mummy franchise. Sadly, you'll have to keep digging, because there doesn't appear to be any sources out there giving the data (at least not obviously at any rate). Ruffice98 (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

2001: A Space Odyssey (2014 re-release)

2001: A Space Odyssey was released this past week in the United Kingdom according to Box Office Mojo http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/intl/?id=_f239&country=UK&wk=2014W48&id=_f239&p=.htm adding $108,927 to the 1968 highest grossing movie total. Not a huge amount, but it will be interesting to see if it will be re-released on a wider basis. Telewski (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

A hypothetical concern regarding crossovers

As I'm sure some of us are aware, news has recently broken that recently Marvel Studios and Sony Pictures entered negotiations of some form regarding adding Spider-Man to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The initial story stated that the talks "broke down" but other sites claiming to have access to the same information have reported that it was only one part of the talks and that other discussions are ongoing.

At any rate, it is probably worth discussing now what we would do with regards to the franchise chart entry if this was to go ahead. The Marvel Cinematic Universe is divided into the phase system, but obviously Sony are not operating under that system, so how would we deal with the two entries in the situation that something does come of these talks? If there was a reboot and either Marvel worked exclusively on it or Sony operated under the phase system in future this obviously wouldn't be a problem, but if this was a continuation of the current "Amazing Spider-Man" films, or indeed if Sony continued producing films set in the MCU under Marvel guidance but not under the phase system problems could arise.

I'd propose the easiest method would be to split the Marvel Cinematic Universe into two separate sub-categories within itself, one for the Marvel produced films (further sub-divided into phases) then another sub-category for anything produced by Sony, or if Sony operate under the phase system in the future but it's a continuation, we add the two existing films into a separate sub-category alongside the current phases.

Obviously it might not come to anything, but it is worth getting this discussion out of the way now. Ruffice98 (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

My first inclination would be to leave the Sony films out of the MCU even if they did have some crossover unless of course they were co-produced by Marvel; if that were the case it would probably be clear how the films fit into the MCU canon. After all the MCU is more than just a continuity, it is also a series produced by Marvel. So basically if the Garfield films had cameos by Robert Downey Jr then I would have been for leaving them out (it's just a bit of crossover with another series) but if Spiderman were rebooted and produced by Marvel and fully integrated into the MCU we would incorporate those films. Betty Logan (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Though that creates problems because is it right to exclude a film purely on the basis of who produced it? I'm personally of the position that if there was a unified series it should be treated as such here, even more so if the cameos start going both ways. If it was a one off cameo and things weren't made all that clear I could see a good reason to exclude it (after all, I'm sure if you have an infinite number of parallel universes Spider-Man would look like Andrew Garfield in more than one of them) but if it was made clear that the existing films were indeed set in the MCU and that future continuity would be shared that should be enough to have it treated as one shared continuity, and as a result one shared film series. Ruffice98 (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

?????

is there anywhere saying who are the highest grossing studios, Directors, Producers, actor, etc (any other film people)of all time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I know that there is a Director (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_directors), but other than that, no, and the page I'm linking you too, is all their films gross, not their Net Worth. --Editor49 (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
There are huge problems maintaining such a page because of large amounts of "missing" data. Specifically if it isn't of notable historical worth the studios simply don't release it. This goes all the way up to the late 1980s, so there are plenty of directors, producers and actors who will be affected and studios will absolutely be hit unless they are relatively recent. Even on this page there are several discussions about the threat to the franchise chart if certain series/franchises made a bit too much (notably Alien or The Mummy). Ruffice98 (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

animated bomb

Is there anywhere with the biggest animated box office bombs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want to know, check yourself, goodness you people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor49 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

New section

In the new section Most Profitable films based on investment There some wrong gross for example on this list it. Says Snow White $187 million when it made $416 million. There is all so a few more should they be change — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 10:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I checked http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=snowwhite.htm, and it seems that $187 million is it's domestic gross, as it says on box office mojo ($184 million), so the chart is domestic, not worldwide. --Editor49 (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Oops, it seems that Snow white is only domestic, maybe because box office ojo only has its demostic gross. We need a source for it's worldwide gross. Editor49 (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the section anyway since it is beyond the scope of this topic and full of original research. This list records the highest-grossing films, not the most profitable. It is a completely different topic! Betty Logan (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The title of the page is "List of highest-grossing films", bit of a clue in the title there, we are talking about "gross" values. Ruffice98 (talk) 23:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=#> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=#}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films/Archive_8&oldid=953130215"