Talk:List of highest-grossing films/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

help

Can you help with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_animated_films#sponge_out_of_water.

To produced a highest grossing live action -/animated film page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.222.110 (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

On the fact Avatar grosses enough to be 14th on the franchise list

Should Avatar (14th) and Titanic (with Avatar above, 24th) be included on the franchise list? I know they are singular films, but should that really disqualify them from the list (not necessarily the text, which appears to be about film series)? —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

A sequel to "Avatar" is in the works (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1630029/). Maybe once it is released, it would qualify to be in the franchise section. Telewski (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Both are singular films so are not film series, and they are not part of a licensed work so don't qualify as franchises either (as Titanic is based loosely around real events and Avatar was an original film rather than an adaptation). It does raise an interesting question as to what would happen if there was a film franchise consisting of only one film that could chart, but it's unlikely. If you are interested, a similar discussion came up before as to whether this was noteworthy and it was indeed agreed upon, so a reference to this fact is included in the text preceding it. It specifically refers to the fact it made over a billion rather than anything else, but it is a bit less arbitrary than saying "top 25" and gets another film (Alice in Wonderland) included as well. Ruffice98 (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, I just thought it seemed a little odd. —Gyaro–Maguus— 15:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Size of page

Resolved

 – Page has been archived and now down to just over 50k

This page is currently 186,517 bytes long; causing some editors difficulty and making it impossible to edit for others.

I recently reset the archiving bot's timeframe to 30 days (down from 120 days), so that it would archive sections which have not been edited from a month or more. I have been reverted, twice, most recently with the edit summary "Feel free to manually archive resolved discussions, but please don't alter the time limit before discussing it first." It is asinine to suggest manual archiving =, when we have a tool which does that for us. The correct - and most straightforward - procedure, as I suggested in my preceding edit summary is to reduce the time limit, let the bot do its work, then reset the counter afterwards if desired.

It is absolutely not necessary to have the page this long, to maintain sections unedited since September last year, or to require archiving to be done manually. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Andy is referring to the size of this talk page, and reduced the archiving cyle from 4 months to 30 days. This is not a particularly fast-moving page and some discussions start up again after several weeks, sometimes months down the line. The "natural" size of the theatrical window is three months so it makes sense to have a discussion cycle of 3-4 months. If the page needs to be shortened for whatever reason then the resolved discussions can be archived; it doesn't make sense to archive open discussions when the reolved ones can be archived instead. That's just my personal preference though, and if the other editors who participate in maintaining the article would prefer a shorter page or feel that reducing the archiving cycle to 30 days would not be detrimental then I will go along with whatever the majority decide. Betty Logan (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Didn't Star Wars briefly become the highest-grossing film of all time again in 1997?

I remember when the Special Editions came out in 1997, Star Wars dethroned Jurassic Park as the highest grossing film of all time again, only to be knocked down when Titanic was released. Stephen Speilberg even had something posted in Variety with ET putting a crown on R2D2's head as a means of congratulating Lucas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:B:CB81:8870:ED37:378E:EF1B:930A (talk) 05:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Star Wars may have beaten ET but it didn't come anywhere near to dethroning Jurassic Park. Jurassic Park made over $900 million on its original release and ET or Star Wars ultimately ended in the 750-800 range. Prior to Titanic taking the record Jurassic Park was first, then Independence Day and Star Wars in third place thanks to the re-release. See Titanic sinks competitors without a trace. Betty Logan (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Number 50 needs to be changed

Resolved

Star Wars grossed $775,398,007 The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies grossed $781,817,000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenl316 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

new page

Can you help with creating a List of highest-grossing live_action-animated films page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

2012

2012 was RE-ISSUE in 2012 and made $21,538,353 making the total $791,217,826 placing 2012 47th and kicking hobbit 2 out the top 50

Great find! We can add this in next week though, since I don't see the point in removing The Hobbit just to add it back in again after the weekend. Betty Logan (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done

References

Frozen

frozen still in theaters

Is frozen still in cinema (On the amatied list frozen unhighlighted) but it still is on this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, if so, Frozen has been released for a while, I think not In the U.S, but could be in other places --Editor49 (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Frozen was in Spain and Japan until this past weekend; it is now closed there. Movie Pilot is reporting that Japan was the last market, but I don't know how reliable that source is. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd say give it a couple of weeks. If there are no more updates forthcoming from Box Office Mojo it can be de-highlighted then, since there won't be all that much we can do with the entry anyway. I'm hoping we get a formal total from BOM too if it has indeed closed. Betty Logan (talk) 07:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Frozen still playing in Spain (155 theaters)

Just when we thought Frozen was gone from theaters, Box Office Mojo reports (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&country=ES&id=frozen2013.htm) it has reopened in 155 theaters in Spain as of October 3 and jumped to the number 7th highest grossing movie there for that week(currently playing for 46 weeks continuously). Prior to that date it was only playing in 4 theaters in Spain. The total income from August 8th to October 12th comes to $405,813 which should bring the current global gross to $1,276,178,323. Telewski (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

DCF94 (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Should it be re-highlighted in green? Telewski (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

frozen going on

I saw that frozen has just went form $1.275 billon to $1.276 billon. Is it still playing? where is it if it is? should we re-highlight It again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It was "re-released" in 155 theaters in Spain on October 3rd according to Box Office Mojo and was listed as #7. Last week it dropped to #9. 46 consecutive weeks in Spain. I asked the same question regarding re-highlighting it in my previous message Telewski (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If it still running this weekend in Spain and gains more, then we should re-highlight, but now we don't know if it is only a "special edition" release for a couple of weeks (seeing that it grown from 4 to 155 theaters) or it will continue with the same number of theaters, if it drops to a very small number of theaters, personally I won't bother re-highlighting it for a few thousand more DCF94 (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. A little research revealed Disney released the Spanish version of the sing-a-long for Frozen in Spain on October 3rd http://www.eleconomista.es/boxoffice/reports_spain/2014/el-cine-espanol-se-marca-un-fin-de-semana-de-grandes-cifras/ Telewski (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Frozen again

Following up on the previous string, it looks like Disney is re-releasing Frozen as the sing-a-long in some foreign markets http://www.eleconomista.es/boxoffice/reports_spain/2014/el-cine-espanol-se-marca-un-fin-de-semana-de-grandes-cifras/ where it maybe wasn't previously released. According to Box Office Mojo, three weeks ago it was re-released in Spain and as of this week it added $107,370 to the gross while being dropped from 155 to 151 theaters http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&country=ES&id=frozen2013.htm. This week it was also re-released in Brazil after initially closing on August 24th and is playing there in 6 theaters (only earned $1,132)http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&country=BR&id=frozen2013.htm Telewski (talk) 03:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I added the Spain gross, but I think the Brazil gross is very insignificant as to the Spain one DCF94 (talk) 13:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Given that the Brazil take works out to less than $200 per theater for the week, my guess it won't stay long in the theaters there. Spain is a little better at $711 per theater, per week. Not really big numbers at all, looks like market saturation. Certainly not going to pass "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2" any time soon. Telewski (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Transformers and Frozen 10/26/14

Resolved

For the past week, Transformers was still playing in Venezuela earning $31,646 on 14 screens (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&country=VE&id=transformers4.htm) and Frozen was still playing in Spain earning $69,488 on 143 screens (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&country=ES&id=frozen2013.htm) Telewski (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

"Frozen" still noted as playing in theatres

As of 7 November 2014, "Frozen" is still shaded in green, meaning it is still playing in theatres around the world. Not only is there no source for this information, but "Frozen" seems to have been out of theatres for quite a while now. Could anybody establish a consensus here? StewdioMACK (talk) 04:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, Frozen has been out of theatrical release for a while, and Box Office Mojo seems to not have it shaded, so where is this source coming from?. And if there is a source, is it possibly wrong, because Frozen will be going on one year in a few weeks, and if it is still shaded going into December, then it must be wrong. I can try and figure out if it is still playing or not, but otherwise, it should be unshaded, I wont do it just in case your source is correct, but I don't believe the source unless I see it. --Editor49 (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The consensus from three previous discussions is that it is still playing in Spain: #Frozen still playing in Spain (155 theaters), #frozen going on and #Frozen again. Also, the source for this information is provided in the article: if you click the citation for the Frozen box-office data you will see the Spain figures were updated again just last week. Betty Logan (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Based on Box Office Mojo international box office updates for last weekend, November 9th (posted on Tuesday, 11/11), both Frozen and Transformers appear to have ended their runs as neither films have updates for the weekend of 11/3-11/9. Frozen was still playing in Spain (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&country=ES&id=frozen2013.htm) and Brazil (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&country=BR&id=frozen2013.htm) as of 10/31-11/2, and Transformers was playing in Venezuela as of 10/31-11/2 (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&country=VE&id=transformers4.htm). Given that this weekend is almost upon us, and the international box offices numbers are usually updated on Mojo on the following Tuesday, it may be worth waiting until next Tuesday (11/18) for a final check to see if there are any further box office updates before de-highlighting either or both. Just a suggestion. Telewski (talk) 04:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Believe it or not, Frozen

Just when we thought Disney would let it go, they have re-released Frozen (sing along version) in the United Kingdom (not the Magic Kingdom) last week and according to Box Office Mojo for this past weekend of Nov. 28–30 (yes 2014) it was showing in 398 theaters and earned $278,488 for the weekend (ranked as #7). http://boxofficemojo.com/intl/uk/?yr=2014&wk=48&p=.htm Telewski (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I have added back the highlighting and updated the total. The UK gross seems to have been "corrected" at some point because it has gone down slightly since its last update. Betty Logan (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that and wondered what that was about... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telewski (talk • contribs) 03:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It occasionally happens. When they correct up by small amounts you don't tend to notice it because it could just still be playing in limited release somewhere, but when it goes down it is slightly jarring. We really could do with a proper updated total from BOM; they are obviously still tracking it so I don't see why they can't update their main total. Betty Logan (talk) 03:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Why FROZEN total dropped. USD-Pound exchange rate

I was wondering why the total for FROZEN dropped in the last tally from the United Kingdom. After a little research, it has to do with the US-Pound exchange rate. If you look at the totals in Pounds, the FROZEN total goes up from when it closed in June in the UK until the last week in November when it reopened. Total for the week of June 6-8: £39,090,985 (http://boxofficemojo.com/intl/uk/?yr=2014&wk=23&currency=local&p=.htm) or for the prevailing exchange rate: $65,720,121. Total for the weekend of November 28-30 £40,960,083 which represents a jump of +£1,869,089. However, the exchange rate went from US $1 = 0.59481 British Pound Sterling in June (http://boxofficemojo.com/intl/uk/?yr=2014&wk=23&currency=local&p=.htm) to US $1 = 0.63866 British Pound Sterling (http://boxofficemojo.com/intl/uk/?yr=2014&wk=48&currency=local&p=.htm). So, if the June exchange rate had been used the total would have gone up by $278,488. Rather, the total was reported to decline because the June total of £39,090,985 was recalculated against the November 28-30 exchange rate. Thus,the UK total at the present time should be $65,998,609, not $64,134,411 as reported by Box Office Mojo. The earnings as of June 2014 should be reported using the exchange rate for that time (June 8), not the exchange rate used in November 30. The current method cheats the earned total. If I got the math correct! Telewski (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a possibility. They shouldn't be doing restrospective conversion so I will have a closer look at it tomorrow. If that is what they've done then obviously we will reinstate the old figure. Betty Logan (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I ran through your figures and you are spot on. So what's the next step? Restoring the old UK figure and just adding on the $278,488? That seems the most logical thing to me. Betty Logan (talk) 04:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I think your proposal is the best solution which best represents actual earnings for the movie. Interesting the IMDb BOM's spread sheet equation may not compensate for varying exchange rates which could, especially for movies with long or extended theatrical runs such as Frozen (greater than 6-8 months)artificially deflate or inflate earnings depending upon the direction of the exchange rate in a particular market/country. Telewski (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I've made the modifications; I think it's correct now, although it will probably need another update tomorrow when the UK weekend figures are released. This technically counts as a reissue in the UK so if it makes more than a million we should ideally formalize it in the year chart as per Dark Knight, Avatar etc. Betty Logan (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree about being a reissue for the UK. I guess technically Spain was also a reissue since it formally ended its theatrical run on the weekend of Sept. 5-7, and was reissued as the sing-a-long a month later on Oct. 3-5 which ran for 5 additional weeks ending the second run with a total of $821,091 http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&country=ES&id=frozen2013.htm (already included in the total). Add to that a reissue in Brazil; first run ended on August 22-24, but was reissued as the sing-a-long two months later on October 17-19 but only ran for two weeks with only a total of $13,157 http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&country=BR&id=frozen2013.htm (Currently not included in the total). So the UK + Spain + Brazil reissue total would be $1,112,735. Even without the Brazil re-release total, Spain and the UK will still tally very close to $1 million. So, maybe a formalization of a reissue is appropriate at this time? We'll see what this week's UK total brings.

Well, Frozen earned an additional $172,777 for Dec 5-7, but according to BOM lost an additional $70,913 due to a strengthening dollar. Telewski (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

FROZEN wrap up (?)

Although according to Filmdates UK http://www.filmdates.co.uk/films/4029-frozen/ FROZEN was still playing in a handful of theaters this past weekend and is listed to play in at least two theaters in the UK next weekend, BOM is no longer reporting earnings updates on their site beyond the December 14th weekend as the earnings have dropped below their reporting earnings threshold (and likely very miniscule).

Upon reviewing the earnings for the UK re-release, I've noticed an error in the reporting here (in part my fault). The numbers reported are only for weekend earnings: November 28–30, 2014: $278,488; December 5–7, 2014: $172,777; December 12-14, 2014: $104,763, not weekly earnings which can be calculated from the 'Gross-to-Date' column (subtract previous reported earning for previous week from current earning for a week) based on British Pounds and then converted to USD using the proper exchange rates(http://boxofficemojo.com/intl/uk/?yr=2014&wk=50&currency=local&p=.htm). Thus, based on my calculations, these are the weekly earnings numbers:

   Week                  Earnings in Pounds   Exchange Rate   Earnings in USD
   November 28–30, 2014:    £1,869,098            0.63816         $2,926,593
   December 5–7,   2014:    £  127,682            0.64136         $  199,080
   December 12-14, 2014:    £   82,843            0.63600         $  130,256
   Total re-release earnings:                                     $3,255,930**

This be the case, the latest updated Worldwide Gross should be: $1,277,048,028* + $3,255,930** = $1,280,303,958

• Current Worldwide Gross less the three UK re-release weekend earnings figures reported on this page.

Hopefully, this is a wrap! Telewski (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I will get on to this tomorrow. I had noticed the error with just the weekend grosses (this was down to the fact the total started going down so we just added the weekend figures after that point) so I can sort out the corrections too. Betty Logan (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done

Minor edit, in your footnote #9, it should be November 30, 2014 not December 30, 2014. Yes? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telewski (talk • contribs) 17:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

one last hope

How did frozen went from $1,276,596,763 to $1,275,011,053 And is it still in cinema? How long has it been out now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.232.190 (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The reply from Betty Logan above in response to "Believe or not, Frozen" posted earlier on this page explains the discrepancy. "It occasionally happens. When they (sic. IMDb Box Office Mojo) correct up by small amounts you don't tend to notice it because it could just still be playing in limited release somewhere, but when it goes down it is slightly jarring. We really could do with a proper updated total from BOM; they are obviously still tracking it so I don't see why they can't update their main total." Frozen, the sing-along version was re-released in Great Britain last week. It is still playing there this week. Frozen has been in theaters, on and off, for one year now. Telewski (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

HG of 2015

Resolved

So either Blackhat or The Wedding Ringer would actually be the first one to be qualified as the highest-grossing film of 2015 after they release this week-end. DCF94 (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Lone survivor

Resolved

Lone survivor is the new highest grossing movie of 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.240.59 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 19 January 2014‎

At this moment PA grossed more than Lone Survivor and secondly, it was released limited on Dec 25th — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCF94 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 19 January 2014‎

averaging earth

Resolved

on the Highest-grossing franchises and film series

it says

"while the most consistent series is Peter Jackson's Middle-earth adaptation, with the first four films averaging at about $980 million and each film earning over $870 million"

with The Desolation of Smaug out of cinema scrong $953million

which means the Peter Jackson's Middle-earth adaptation averaging $985 million — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.38.140 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 22 May 2014‎

2011 park

Resolved

Jurrisc park was re issue in 2011 and made $786,021 bringing the franchie total $2,017,359,711 and a average of $672,453,237 per film — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

ahould you also update the film and year list as well  Done

References

F&F 6 peak

Resolved

Fast & Furious 6 was technically on 44 since we found out now that 2012 had a 2012 re-issue that put's it over F&F 6 at the time of it's release. DCF94 (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've added a note to clarify why the number doesn't match the source. Box Office Mojo has really gone to pot recently, not adding in foreign reissue grosses, not updating Frozen for ages etc. Betty Logan (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

American Sniper vs. Wedding Ringer

Resolved

I notice that Wedding Ringer is currently listed as 2015's highest-grossing yearly film. American sniper already had an opening weekend in excess of $100 million --2600:100C:B207:7C91:9420:1A99:D2E0:113 (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

American Sniper was released in 2014 before expanding last week so technically counts as a 2014 release even if it makes most of its money in 2015. Betty Logan (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Films and more...

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies grossed as of now $807 million, it only has about a 58% chance of passing The Desolation of Smaug, and only a 42% chance of still making $1 billion, but even if it passes TDOS, it would be the 3rd highest grossing Tolkien movie worldwide, anyways with my math, if the film grosses over $838 million by the end if the weekend, it would probably pass Smaug, but it would need a huge China gross to do that, the film can still make $1 billion, but if it does, it would only make up to about $1.002 billion (If my math is correct), but the point is, their lately has been sections that pointed out the chart should expand to 100, I use to think it was a good idea, but now, we should in about 2017, when atleast 30 films gross $1 billion, then it would be enough to expand to even just 60 or 75. Editor49 (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

There have also been suggestions to cut it down to films that grossed $1 billion or more; it's a bit short to do that now but it would be viable if there are more than thirty billion grossers. The last year to fail to produce a $1 billion grosser is 2007, and in reality I don't think readers are all that interested in films that have earned less than that amount i.e. we are just listing films for the sake of it. I think once we get to twenty-five $1 billion brossers we should limit the top chart to films that grossed $1 billion or more. Betty Logan (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Great, except that might be this year, with 19 so far, The Avengers 2, Star Wars 7, Bond 24 (now called Specture), and maybe Jurassic World, but maybe, limit it to films with over $900 million, so films big like Despicable Me 2, The Hobbit 2, The Lion King, The Two Towers (etc.), I think $1 billion is to much money to stop the ranking, $800 million is even a lot. And, with 2012 (film), on BOM's list, it is #53, I understand that it grossed an extra $21 million by a re-release, but I think we should stick with BOM's ranking, it really doesn't matter. And to my understandings, 2014 (even though it is 2015 now) will be the first year since 2008 to only have 2 films on the list, and if I did my math correctly, Mockingjay - Part 1 can gross up to $785-820 million, unless it preforms a miracle in China. Editor49 (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

fast & furious, toomerland, inside out, terimoter, ant man, fanyisc 4 and maybe one I miss we got a laset 3 avergers, bond, star wars — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but most of those are not likely to even gross $700 million. Editor49 (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

A

Resolved

 – Adjusted chart updated with new data

found this: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rBd4BAAAQBAJ&pg=PT163&lpg=PT163&dq=guinness+world+records+2015+60+years+on+screen&source=bl&ots=9UJ0Wz-nnn&sig=hI6OwDnMDVR61fnbQQ2R87WcRcs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=icXUVM7ROMLwUo-DgIAH&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=guinness%20world%20records%202015%2060%20years%20on%20screen&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow, thanks, that's a great find. Unfortunately the preview in my browser only shows the first page, meaning I can't see all the grosses. Is this the same for everyone? Betty Logan (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

so dose this have any use for this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we have a lot of use for it, but obviously to update the chart we need the second page too, because we can't update just half the grosses. If anyone can see page 161, then I would appreciate it if they could list the adjusted grosses here. Betty Logan (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Here are the films that I see on page 161.

Jaws: $2.027 billion Star Wars :$2.825 billion ET: $2.310 billion Titanic: $2.516 billion Avatar: $3.02 billion Jonathansuh (talk) 04:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that is incredibly helpful. Unfortunately it seems that Guinness hasn't incorporated Titanic's reissue gross into the total though, which is a bit annoying. I was hoping to get an updated rank for that film too. Betty Logan (talk) 10:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

So what happen with this

sM

Resolved

Spider man has join the MCU what are you planing to do when the frist MCU spider man film out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Luckily for us, it's another reboot by the looks of things, so this keeps things clean. The solo Spider-Man movie coming out in July 2017 will be included in both the MCU and Spider-Man franchises (under a separate listing from the current two series but under the same over arcing franchise group), his cameo in the other MCU film prior to this that has yet to be confirmed (presumably Civil War, but unconfirmed obviously) will remain just the MCU as has previously been decided on. Ruffice98 (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

list of mcu films

Resolved

The page which the marvel cinematic universe redirets to hasnt added the new spider man movie yet despite the fact that it will be a mcu film could you fix this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.141.19 (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

This is something that utterly bewilders me, there's a talk page for that article, why on earth are you asking this here? If you take a look at that talk page you'll see there is already a HUGE argument about it raging on. They won't add it until somebody explicitly says its in the MCU, even though it is obvious for anyone to see if they don't have to take the literal point of view of a Wikipedia editor (which only gets you as far as the intention to set them in the MCU). Ruffice98 (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

What's about the worlds population

1950 there were many fewer people on earth. Is this calculated in the results? You can't compare movies today with the results from 1950. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.89.190.222 (talk) 10:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I know what you mean bye this, but that is what inflation is for, we have a list of it below the not-inflated chart. Editor49 (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing films#Highest-grossing films adjusted for inflation is about adjusting for the purchasing power of money. The question was about adjusting for the number of people on Earth. An adjustment for that would make more sense if we listed the number of sold tickets but we don't do that. When we are all about money, an adjustment for World Gross domestic product would maybe make more sense but I don't actually support that. Anyway, there are lots of reasons it's hard to compare today and 1950, for example competition from television, dvd's and Internet. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The "inflation" section does offer the caveat that inflation adjustment alone isn't really an "apples for apples" for comparison:

Another complication is release in multiple formats for which different ticket prices are charged. One notable example of this phenomenon is Avatar, which was also released in 3D and IMAX: almost two-thirds of tickets for that film were for 3D showings with an average price of $10, and about one-sixth were for IMAX showings with an average price over $14.50, compared to a 2010 average price of $7.61 for 2D films.[18] Social and economic factors such as population change[19] and the growth of international markets[20][21][22] also impact on the number of people purchasing theater tickets, along with audience demographics where some films sell a much higher proportion of discounted children's tickets, or perform better in big cities where tickets cost more.

That said the same problems that affect the adjusted list also afflict the unadjusted list too i.e neither chart addresses the question of the "most successful" film in a completely objective manner. If I had the data available (which I don't) and I was not restricted by Wikipedia's WP:Original research policy I would rank the films by market share i.e. if a film takes a ten percent market share, it has outperformed the competition to the same extent as any other film that takes a ten percent share, regardless of the era, the demographic changes, competition from other platforms and formats etc. In lieu of a definitive solution we offer several different approaches: we provide the nominal chart, the adjusted chart, and also the timeline for the highest-grossing film record (which incidentally does have a high correllation with the adjusted chart). Betty Logan (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The big problem though is that even if the data did exist, it would go beyond the scope of this article. Might make an interesting basis for another article, but it would be away from the raw gross figures. Ruffice98 (talk) 01:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

penguin

Resolved

TPOM is at $365,847,895 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

References

International

Why on BOM dose http://boxofficemojo.com/intl/ some country's has not updated since nov 16th 2014? Will they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 10:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Because those are the latest figures for the films.

LION KING

Resolved

The Lion King grosses an extra $15 million ($15,686,215) bringing its total to $1,002,674,481, will we add this? http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=lionkingimax.htm, BOM did not add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor49 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

That was in 2002 and it is already included in the gross: [1] and [2]. Betty Logan (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Should Better Luck Tomorrow count as a Fast and Furious film?

Resolved

I think it should not. But my friend on another site keeps insisting that it should. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Better Luck Tomorrow has nothing to do with the F&F series whatsoever, the only connection between the series and this movie is the character Han played by Sung Kang. DCF94 (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Final Battle

Resolved

Since The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies finished its domestic run and there wasn't a foreign updated since March 8, should we unhighlight it? DCF94 (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, probably, if it looks like it is played out. Betty Logan (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Franchise timeline

Resolved

Does anyone know if it's possible to do a timeline of the highest grossing franchise? I can see we have one for highest film but not for the highest franchise. Tracland (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It is not clear which franchise was the highest-grossing prior to James Bond assuming the record in the 1960s. Since then it has been overtaken by Harry Potter and obviously the MCU will take pole position this summer so a timeline at this stage would amount to an incomplete list of 2-3 films. So basically we don't have the info to do it properly and it's not worth doing one for what we have. Betty Logan (talk) 08:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, the best we could provide is a very short list with three (soon to be four) entries in it (because we don't even know exactly when James Bond took the record, so we'd be down to Harry Potter in 2007, James Bond in 2008, Harry Potter again in 2009 and presumably the MCU in 2015). Not exactly the most informative of lists, its a miracle Quantum of Solace reclaimed the record for 007 to allow it to even be a list. Ruffice98 (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

ok thanks for letting me know. I didn't know if there was infornation on the older ones and was interested seeing as Marvel is clearly going to take #1 soon. Cheers Tracland (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Marvel is not a franchise. It cannot take #1. That's like saying DC or WB is going to take #1 soon. That's comparing studios. The highest grossing franchise is Harry Potter since 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Severus01 (talk • contribs)

Introduction of errors by Editor49

Unfortunately, it seems Editor49 has been corrupting information in the article for some time. Today I noticed this edit to the Battle of Five Armies that made the figure inconsistent with the accompanying source. At first I thought it was an honest mistake, but I recalled a similar edit last month that I had to revert for the same reason.

It seems this has happened on several occasions:

• Jan 31: Frozen, reverted be me: [3] for not matching the source.
• Jan 18: Jurassic Park, corrected by DCF94: [4]
• Sep 10: Age of Extinction, reverted by DCF94: [5]

In the spirit of good faith we must assume these are genuine errors rather than deliberate attempts to corrupt the data, but good faith only extends so far. All figures in this article are accompanied by sources to corroborate them so editors—especially regular contributors—should take care to provide a source if it is different to the existing one. In the case of The Battle of Five Armies none of the usual sources (BOM, Boxoffice.com or The Numbers) have it down for $957 million, so if this is a genuine error perhaps Editor49 will elaborate on where he sourced the new figure he installed today?

Regardless of the nature of the edits or the motivation behind them it remains a problem if the data do not match the sources, so I will stress that if figures are updated using a different source then the source must be provided otherwise the data fails WP:V. It may be wise to double check Editor49's edits too until he demonstrates more care. Betty Logan (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I saw on Box Office Mojo that the film finished it's run (The Battle of the Five Armies) and saw $955,119,232 i put that and previewed it, i then went to Google, where I looked for international numbers for the film, Box Office Mojo has $700,000,000, which is of course possible, but I'm 99.9% sure the foreign total is not exactly $700,000,000, so I did research and found $702,000,000 (with out the 6 zero's I just dont recall the exact numbers, but the exact numbers I saw were much more understandable that ,000,000) for a foreign total, now I do not remember my source (which I understand is a big mistake), but I am looking at my computers history for the site I found it on. But I did find a $702 million foreign total, it's just Box Office Mojo not updating foreign total's. Though the same with The Deselation of Smaug, An Unexpected Journey and probably a selection of other films. Editor49 (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have to say given your work on the article I was slightly puzzled by these edits, but if you update figures—and this goes for anyone including me—then we have to provide a source for the data. We need to be able to corroborate the figures and we also need to validate the source as well. We have encounted this problem before when BOM stopped tracking Frozen, but in that case we have taken extreme care to provide sources for the extra gross. Betty Logan (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

DC Comics' shared universe films

Should 'DC Comics' shared universe films' not be included in the Top 25 chart of franchises? Because Men of Steel is the first one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.211.249.196 (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

You mean Man of Steel. It's the first and so far only of the planned DC Comics' shared universe films. One film does not make a franchise. If a single film and future plans were considered a franchise then we would list Avatar, but Man of Steel earned far too little to approach the top-25 by itself. We certainly may list DC Comics' shared universe in the future when there are at least two films and they actually earn enough. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

You are confusing film franchises with film series. They aren't franchises because they are original films, not because there's only one of them. It needs to qualify as one or the other to get listed, and the chances of a one film franchise ever making enough money to get listed are exceptionally slim, but you can never be too careful (The Avengers could have done it if the editors had found the necessary sources at the time to confirm the franchise existed, we have them now which gets it and its sequel listed, they certainly aren't a film series on their own).

At any rate, Man of Steel isn't able to enter the Top 25 by itself because its not a Top 25 candidate, never mind its legal situation. Ruffice98 (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Correction, there are over 2 dozen DC films dating back to 1960 and another dozen Marvel films. Both are studios, not franchises. You can't count a studio as a franchise. Fans will blow up.

Adding a column for country of origin to the 50 highest grossing films

There are a number box office lists list the country of the origin of the movie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films_in_China and http://www.cbooo.cn/Alltimedomestic and https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hk/香港最高電影票房收入列表 As it is a list of highest-grossing films worldwide, it would be helpful to list the country which it was produced by. I understand that some of you don't want to add another column, but the country of that film is certainly an important piece of information to a movie. Ryopus (talk) 00:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of this list is to compare the financial performance of films at the box office and so far you have not provided an adequate reason as to why a column listing the countries would help facilitate that. There is a lot of information we could include, such as the director or the studio, and the chart did indeed include these columns at one time but were removed on the grounds that they were not directly relevant to the goals of the article. It is worth noting that the Box Office Mojo chart that the data is sourced to does not consider the country to be relevant either. There is no uniform approach to which information should be included on box office articles (List of highest-grossing films in China lists the countries, List of highest-grossing films in Canada and the United States does not, while List of highest-grossing films in the United Kingdom just highlights British films) and it is largely left to editorial discretion. I do know that whether we include the information or not, it should be included in all the charts (and supported by analysis) or none of them, otherwise the article becomes inconsistent. Betty Logan (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2015

Resolved

please change the number of star wars films listed on the table to 6 as episode 7 has not yet been released. Mvangorden (talk) 06:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The is 7 films 6 live action 1 animated film — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 08:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2015

Rank Series Total worldwide box office No. of films Average of films Highest-grossing film 1 [show]Marvel Cinematic Universe film currently playing $7,786,852,712 11 $707,895,701 The Avengers ($1,518,594,910) 2 [show]Harry Potter $7,723,431,572 8 $965,428,947 Deathly Hallows – Part 2 ($1,341,511,219) 3 [show]James Bond $6,159,601,036 25 $246,384,041 Skyfall ($1,108,561,013) 4 [show]Middle-earth $5,880,468,587 7 $840,066,941 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King ($1,119,929,521) 5 [show]Star Wars

Marvel Cinematic Universe is not a franchise. It is a studio. Avengers is the 18th highest film.

Severus01 (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Betty Logan (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Remove tab 1. That's the change I want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Severus01 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Marvel Studios is a studio. Marvel Cinematic Universe is considered a franchise by reliable sources including http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

As another note, this is a list of highest grossing franchises AND series. Even if it wasn't a franchise (which it is, they've been franchising it off to the likes of Netflix and ABC for TV productions set in that universe) it most certainly comes under a film series as it is a shared continuity across the eleven films. Ruffice98 (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Age of the MCU

Resolved

Bit of an issue here:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=avengers2.htm

http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Avengers-Age-of-Ultron-The#tab=box-office

Just a minor one, Box Office Mojo haven't updated their foreign total yet, but The Numbers have. If we take The Numbers value the MCU becomes the highest grossing franchise. I'm going to do the edit, but just wanted to alert everyone as to what the source was as it deviates from Box Office Mojo. Ruffice98 (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I have overhauled the second paragraph in the franchise section to account for the MCU/Avengers as well. I have also had to make a minor template change to the series "average" field to accommodate the Avengers, but I was having some problems resizing because the old template was stuck in my cache. I think I've got it right now, but if the template looks "broken" in then it is probably some old javascript stuck in the browser cache, and you might need to delete your temporary internet files to push the new version through. Betty Logan (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I realize many Avenger's fans are passionate, perhaps obsessive, but let's be realistic. Avenger's is a franchise. Iron Man is a franchise. You can't equate a franchise with a studio. Marvel is a studio.

Indeed Marvel Studios is a studio, which has created a large franchise to encompass its smaller franchises to simplify the legal situation for other studios that get involved with productions (like ABC or Netflix). Avengers and Iron Man are franchises mainly because of old pre-existing deals, something like say Guardians of the Galaxy would not be, regardless of the number of films they produced. Ruffice98 (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Franchise table dimensions

Following this discussion at my talk page, I have resized the table and template so that each entry fits on a single line. I have done this by hard-sizing the table and altering the template ratios for inside the table. Apart from the single line entries another benefit is that table should now also be viewable on small screens. The disadvantage is that it no longer adapts to the size of the monitor screen so on small displays it goes off the side of the page and you have to scroll it. Anyway, let me know what you think and we can decide whether we want to go back/stick with it/refine etc. Remember though that ultimately we can't tailor it to any one user's monitor size. Betty Logan (talk) 05:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Star Wars organization within the franchise table

It's a while off but we may as well prepare for it. Currently we have three entries: the original trilogy, the prequel trilogy and the standalone Clone Wars. Considering the new films are more or less direct sequels to the original trilogy it doesn't seem logical to group them separately. I was thinking of simplifying it and just combining the two trilogy entries into a single "Episodes" entry; the Episodes group would list episodes 1-7 as a straight series and we can keep listing the spin-offs separately as we do with Clone Wars. Any thoughts? Betty Logan (talk) 23:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this, although the "Episodes" thing didn't appear on the first three films only after they release the Star Wars box-set DVDs and started calling them Ep. I-VI. And also the next entry will be the "Anthology series" which is how Lucasfilm is calling the upcoming stand-alone films. DCF94 (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Top Franchise Divisions

I'm a little confused on what constitutes a specific franchise to be included in the list.

MCU is included in this list, and so is Iron Man, Avengers, which are both already counted in MCU. However, Middle Earth is included by itself, and Lord of the Rings is not. And Spider man is included as a whole, but the Toby McQuire series alone is not.

It is my understanding that Middle Earth is a Franchise, and Lord of the Rings is a series included in it (as is Hobbit). Which is the same as MCU is a franchise, where Iron Man, Avengers, Thor, are series included in it.

Where is the line drawn? — DLManiac (talk) 07:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)4

It has to do with official, legally recognized boundaries that studios draw around their properties. Apparently, Hobbit and Lord of the Rings are the same property and therefor the same franchise. MCU is a film series. It is included because both The Numbers and Box Office Mojo include it in their lists. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Franchises like Iron Man and Thor exist independently of the MCU. Marvel can only incorporate properties into the MCU if they own the rights to those properties. It is the reason why there are films in these franchises that do not exist in the MCU, the 2003 Hulk being the most prominent example and some DTV stuff we don't include. Personally I would say that the MCU is just a series rather than a franchise since there is actually no such thing as an MCU film: Iron Man is part of the Iron Man franchise, Thor is part of the Thor franchise, The Avengers is part of The Avengers franchise etc. It is included here for several reasons: i) most importantly our sources list it separately; ii) we fudge our chart slightly to include both franchises and series to accommodate the grey area; iii) ultimately this list is not about media law, it is about box office, and regardless of whether the MCU is a franchise or not the films are often regarded as a set for the purposes of box office analysis which is the bottom line for this list i.e. readers are interested in the financial performance of this set of films. As for the others, Lord of the Rings was conceived as a sequel to The Hobbit by Tolkien and is based on the same underlying intellectual property, so is ultimately not a separate franchise i.e. The Lord of the Rings could only be created if you owned the copyright to The Hobbit so they effectively exist on the same licence, even if the film rights are licensed off to different companies. Betty Logan (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, that kind of makes sense. I think maybe the article could use some rewording then so it just says "franchises" (as this is what they are listed by at BOM) not "franchises and film series" as there are specific series not included. I'll point out that The Lord of the Rings (film series), The Hobbit (film series), The Dark Knight Trilogy, are all listed as film series on Wikipedia. And you can't really argue that the 78 LOTR is in any way connected to the same series, they're just all part of the Tolkien Franchise, I get that. Or it's possible that the list should be broken up into series and franchises (Obviously there would be some overlap). But for example, there is the Batman franchise including all batman film, and then there is the Dark Knight Trilogy which is a series within that franchise. But clearly isn't the same series as Batman Forever or something. Same with the Raimi Spiderman trilogy and the rest of the Spiderman franchise. Another one I can think of: when Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is released next year, it will be a part of the "JK Rowling's World of Harry Potter" franchise, but certainly not part of the Harry Potter series. Anyway, I think it's worth talking about doing something to clear up the confusion. — DLManiac (talk) 03:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Series are actually included in the table: if you want to see what The Dark Knight Trilogy has grossed you just need to expand the Batman entry by clicking "show" and the information is there, along with its total and average and the gross for each film (if you expand it a further level). Same with the Spiderman and Middle-earth entries. When the Harry Potter spin-offs come along they will still be listed under the Harry Potter property, but presumably will have their own series listing under the main property heading. We do appreciate there are natural "divisions" within franchises and try to take a hierarchical approach to the data. Betty Logan (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The issue that seems to be coming from whether being a series and franchise list should mean a series and a franchise should have separate listings. Given what the 25 listings are at the moment, we could potentially remove the word "series" until we get any candidate entries that really are not franchises (at the moment, that's probably until Avatar 2 comes out). Ruffice98 (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that—the title predated my editing on this article—and it is probably a legacy heading now because the title also predated the collapsible table. Betty Logan (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes! This, I agree with, and believe would make the section much clearer. — DLManiac (talk) 07:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

How is Madagascar still playing?

The highest grossing franchises section highlights Penguins of Madagascar as still being played in theater. This film was released in November 2014. I'm gonna remove the "currently playing" tag in two days. Pagen HD (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

It is obviously still playing somewhere because the gross is still going up so it is best to leave it highlighted for now. Betty Logan (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&country=UK&id=penguinsofmadagascar.htm currently has May 8–10 numbers. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Billion dollar franchise

Resolved

After Age of Ultron will surpass the $1 billion mark, is it worth mentioning in the Highest grossing franchise and film series section, that Marvel Cinematic Universe has the most films that grossed over $1 billion? Plus, I think Captain America: Civil War will also gross $1b next year, so that will make 4, more than other series could make. DCF94 (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

It's probably worth mentioning. When it passed a billion I was going to make slight alteration to the "consistency" part anyway, so I will make both changes together to make it a bit more organic. Betty Logan (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Franchises in the Top 50

The Harry Potter and Live Action Middle Earth Films are included in the top 50 earnings, but since Avengers is its own series as well as MCU, should the Avengers be included where it says "All of the Harry Potter and Middle Earth films are included in the top 50 earnings", should Avengers be their also? Editor49 (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The lead is only a very general overview of the films we cover in the article just to give readers a flavor, and we've already got the Avengers covered with the MCU. There are lots of films we don't cover in the lead, so I think it would be overkill to cover the same films more than once, unless one of them actually became the highest-grossing film. Betty Logan (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Civil War

I got a question about Captain America: Civil War.

will it also be in the Iron man and Ant-Man,etc franchise?

as there also appear in it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

By that logic we would put both Avenger films in the Iron man franchise too. As I understand it—although I am no expert on the inner workings of the MCU—this is contractually a Captain America film. Chris Evans is contractually obliged to appear in it, while Robert Downey's appearance has had to be negotiated. Is it splitting hairs? Perhaps, but the whole of the MCU is this type of splitting; I mean, if they started a Black Widow franchise it would technically be the highest-grossing franchise if we included every film she appeared in! We should stick to the approach of allocating each MCU film to one franchise and to the MCU to keep things consistent. Betty Logan (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

No, any actor is on a blank contract with a fixed number of films decided at initial negotiations, Marvel then decide which films to lock the actor into after this. RDJ had separate negotiations for Civil War because he'd already been locked in for his full set of films, so without any remaining films on his contract, they needed to sign him up for another two films (Civil War and Infinity War Part II). The big problem is that there are plenty of franchises already in use, including the Black Widow franchise you just mentioned, they just haven't released any films under it, but have used the licensing agreement (admittedly an agreement to themselves). With over 30 film franchises known to be in use in such a way it could result in a lot of complication, it's simpler just to do it as it currently is, although inevitably problems arise when this method breaks down (for example Guardians of the Galaxy is not a franchise, so if its films ever made enough we couldn't give it an entry on the chart). Ruffice98 (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Edits by FlawlessViper

For some inexplicable reason FlawlessViper has started to corrupt the franchise chart by converting the chart to table format.

This is how the table looks before his edit: [6]

This is how it looks after his edit: [7]

Clearly this is not an aesthetic improvement. Since he is too ignorant to come to the talk page and explain what the problem is, I am perplexed by these edits. It looks like clearcut vandalism to me; however, on the off-chance that the table is not rendering properly in some browsers can editors let me know if they are encountering any rendering problems please. It would be a good idea if you could post a screencap too if there is an issue that needs fixing. Betty Logan (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Betty Logan (talk · contribs). From what I can see is that your reverted version is too wide for Wikipedia (I have tried both PC and IOS. In PC I have to scroll to the right to see all of it if the size of the browser zoom is more big than small) and his wasn't. That was clearly his intentions to try to fix. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 02:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I am aware that the table goes off the side on some displays, but his version of the table was all scrunched up so that the columns were no longer aligned with the headings. Any editor should realize that is not an acceptable state to leave the article in. The reason the table goes off the side on some displays is simply because it is a wide table with six columns in it! This is a common occurrence on Wikipedia with tables that have several columns, and you have to scroll left and right to view the entire table. This isn't a flaw in the table, this is just the reality of different users having different sized displays. The reason browsers have scroll bars built into them is to accommodate different sized displays because there is no such thing as "one size fits all". To my knowledge the table fits fully on all screen resolutions of 1280px and above, so that is basically all modern notebook resolutions (you can compare them at [8]). The problems kick in on tablets: even if we make it fit fully on a 1024px display then you will still have to scroll to view it on an 800px display; and if we manage to fit it fully onto a 800px display it will still go off the side on even smaller resolutions such as an ipad. So where do you draw the line? Also, by making the table smaller we have to make the columns narrower which will split many titles over multiple lines which is completely unnecessary on 1366px, 1600px and 1900px resolutions where the table fits easily on to the page. Editors have to realize we can't tailor a page to individual requirements because there is a wide range of resolutions we have to cater for. All we can do is choose a "cut-off" resolution for when the scroll bar kicks in, but that won't eliminate the scroll bar completely: any user with a lower resolution will need to use the scroll bar to view the whole table. According to statcounter, the most common browser resolution by far in 2014 was 1366px so it seems logical to me to tailor the table to a 1366px resolution. If anybody has any better suggestions or a different perspective on the issue I'm all ears. Betty Logan (talk) 03:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Betty Logan (talk · contribs)I wasn't insinuating that you did anything wrong. I was just explaining that I think I know the reason why he did what he was doing. I just don't think his attempt was to vandalize. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Betty Logan (talk · contribs) I'm not ignorant, you idiot. Tbh, you're the one who's ignorant. Every time I edit something there's a purpose. I don't vandalize. All I want is this page fixed so it doesn't looked messed up. Find a different table that works for that section or get someone smarter to do it.. Flawless Viper (talk) 12:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from attacks such as calling editors "idiots" and explain the problem that you are talking about. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 05:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The only person who seems to think the table needs "fixing" is you! Why don't you do a screencap and SHOW us the problem? It could be your computer display, your browser settings or anything and nothing to do with the table! There is not much anybody can do unless you EXPLAIN to us what the issue is. If it's just a case that the table isn't exactly customised to your liking, then—as I've already explained—the table is customised to the most common screen resolution. Betty Logan (talk) 05:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hobbit Extended Edition

Resolved

https://uk.yahoo.com/movies/the-hobbit-the-battle-of-five-armies-extended-118949167426.html if The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies does get an extended edition Imax release, will we add to the $955.1 million that the theatrical version made? Or count it as a separate film. --Editor49 (talk) 22:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It will count as a reissue just like the Titanic and Avatar reissues were, so the grosses will be all added up for the purposes of the main chart. Betty Logan (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo

I don't know what is going on at that website but in the last week Ray Subers who ran it has been let go and now they aren't tracking foreign grosses. I don't know if this permanent or whether it will resume once Subers has been replaced. It does leave us with a sourcing problem though because BOM is no longer suitable for tracking films currently in release. Until the issue is resolved my recommendation is to use Boxoffice.com rather than The Numbers; nothing against The Numbers, but Boxoffice magazine is an official NATO publication so it has stronger credentials and is usually fairly up to date. Betty Logan (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

There is also Rentrak which is a well respected resource in the industry, although it seems to lag some of the other trackers. Box Office Mojo has since updated some of its totals so the site doesn't seem to be completely dead, so hopefully its just a transitional phase. Betty Logan (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Frozen's Total seems like Original Research

Betty Logan says BoxOfficeMojo dud not update Frozen's foreign totals, so the site says: Foreign total $873,481,000 as of 8/8/14 and there are countries that were updated after 8/8, therefore Betty is correct. Looking at the missing numbers, it seems like it is missing Nigeria at $167,333, Japan at around 1.6 million, Spain around 824,000 and UK at 556,028. However, I get a different total than Betty and this type of synthesis, finding which countries are missing feels like original research, which is against policy WP:NOR. I think the 8/8/14 total should be used, even though it is missing about 4 million dollars (depending on which countried you use). In addition, the slightly incorrect total of 1.274 billion is used in multiple places other places in Wikipedia, so it could confuse a user on why only this page has a higher number. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that we should intentionally place incorrect information in the article. Since in this case we can tell that the 1.274 billion number is not accurate by using reliable sources, we should not report it as fact. I also disagree that the simple math used to get the more accurate total is original research or synthesis. The policies about original research prohibit presenting conclusions that aren't supported by the sources. I don't think adding up some numbers is the sort of thing WP:OR is talking about, as anyone could do the same basic math when presented with the same sources and reach the same total. However, I think adding a footnote for Frozen as is currently done with 2012 would be helpful, to make it clearer that the raw total on Boxofficemojo isn't the actual total, and that several pages on Boxofficemojo had to be used to get the actual . Even though that information can be gleaned by looking at the references section, I don't think a lot of people will actually look there, and adding a footnote will make it more clear how we got the total for Frozen. Calathan (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Adding a footnote is a good idea. I will get on to it. Betty Logan (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The figure that Box Office Mojo has down as the total is demonstrably incorrect: you can see it is the same in May 2015 as it was in August 2014, despite the fact the film was still playing in some territories up to January 2015. All the extra totals are clearly sourced and it is not OR to perform simple arithmetic per WP:CALC. If anything the figure we have is still too low, because in some cases we were only able to source the weekend figures rather than the full weekly totals; by my estimation it should be $2-3 million higher (and that would be original research if I added in my estimations!). This is not an isolated case either: there are other films that have been re-released that Box Office Mojo has not tracked, such as the Chinese reissue of 2012 and also the Toy Story gross is missing a reissue. We are not beholden to any one particular source, we just mainly rely on Box Office Mojo because up until the editor departing this month it was the most comprehensive tracker: if we locate extra data on top of what we already have then there is no reason not to incorporate it. On another note, it is not my total: we use built-in Wikipedia functions to add up the numbers (to elminate user error) and several editors constructed the formula. If you have detected an error in the formulas then obviously that can be reviewed, but it could equally be true that you have overlooked something or something is not clear from the sources. Ultimately though I think the goal here has to be to make the data as accurate as the sources allow. Betty Logan (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Although not an issue for this page (more so for Highest Grossing Animation page), Box Office Mojo stopped foreign tracking/updating of earnings for "Big Hero 6" on 3/29/15, but they were still reporting foreign market earnings well into May 2015 (similar to the "Frozen" example). But they have been updating the earnings total for the U.S. market. Add to that I haven't seen a report listed for the Japanese market from 11/16/14 to 4/26/15 [9]on Mojo for any films. Telewski (talk) 02:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Independence Day peak

There have been a couple of edits altering the peak position of Independence Day from 2nd to 3rd. The ranking is sourced to Film Review 1997–98 (p. 161) which states "Independence Day grosses $772.4 million, making it the second highest-grossing movie of all time, after Jurassic Park". Aside from the fact that sourced content is being replaced with unsourced content (which explicitly goes against one of Wikipedia's core policies), there is no indication the source is incorrect in this instance, and it is in fact fairly easy to corroborate.

As of the end of 1998, the top films were Titanic ($1.8 billion), Jurassic Park ($914 million), Independence Day ($811 million), Star Wars ($776 million), The Lion King ($768 million) and E.T. ($700 million) per the Hartford Courant. Titanic came out at the end of 1997 while Independence Day was released in the summer of 1996, so obviously Independence Day was in 2nd place before being pushed down one spot by Titanic. Furthermore, all the sources seem to indicate that The Lion King did not move ahead of Independence Day until the 2011 reissue: prior to the re-release Box Office Mojo has the gross at $784 million, including $15 million from a 2002 IMAX reissue, increasing to $987 million in the four years since then.

On the basis of that there are plenty of sources that directly corroborate or indirectly support the claim that Independence Day was #2 on the all-time chart so I think the edits are simply failing to account for The Lion King's three re-releases in this case. Betty Logan (talk) 09:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The Desolation of Smaug Peak

Since The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug was at $958 million, but is now at $960.3 million, (passing Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1), i think that the $2 million was made in it's initial run, but didn't get added until a bit over a year later, but was always made, so the Peak should not be 24 it should be 23, since it passed the DH - Part 1, but just was not added. --Editor49 (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a plausible theory, but there are any number of explanations and more importantly we don't know at which point it reached that total. Unless we have a source telling us exactly how much it made and when it would be original research to alter the rankings based on just our own assumptions. Betty Logan (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

animated opening

do you know lists for the biggest worldwide opening weekends of stop motion animated, computer animated, Traditional animated, anime animated for the List_of_highest-grossing_openings_for_animated_films page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Star Wars Strikes Back

Star Wars Strikes Back has gotten a reissue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

That's interesting. Box Office Mojo is lagging a bit in its UK updates, but once they catch up we will incorporate the gross into the Star Wars entries. Betty Logan (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

It back up todate And has made $467,057

References

Jurassic Park

Resolved

Can someone fix the franchise section pertaining to Jurassic park. Tried to fix the gross total messed up. Broncosman12 (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I was just about to comment the same thing, it's totally messed up. 109.158.4.158 (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Penguins of Madagascar again

Box Office Mojo lists a closing date of May 7, 2015. Could someone provide proof that it's still playing somewhere? I'm tempted to unhighlight it, but someone claimed that it was still on release in the U.K. as of May 28.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 03:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Disregard that. http://marcustheatres.com/Theatre/TheatreDetail/168/?showdates=6%2F17%2F2015&eventSort=1#movieList --Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 05:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Film industry should state the number of tickets sold

Film industry should always state the number of tickets sold along with the total gross. Stating only the total gross with year after year records is extremely misleading and nothing more than marketing hype!

Movies will continue to break monetary records because of:

1. Inflation.
2. Population Growth.
3. Distribution to more countries over time.

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. Besides, why would the film industry care how many tickets were sold? They aren't trying to get ticket sales, they are trying to get the money from the ticket sales. Ruffice98 (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Just because the film industry doesn't report ticket sales numbers to the public doesn't mean the public doesn't want to know the ticket count. The number of tickets is very closely related to the gross of a film, thus it is a related subject matter, thus shouldn't be slandered as a "forum topic". • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the article at hand. Maybe it does have some connection in the real world, but this is a Wikipedia talk page, you use these to talk about issues in the article, not to discuss the subject of the article. Ruffice98 (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Marvel entries in franchise table

What new franchises can we expect on the Top 25 in 2015?

What new franchises will be probably included in the Top 25 chart by the end of this year? The only two I can think of are Terminator and Despicable Me. Are there any others I am forgetting? Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

You mean bye??? Wikipedia is not a forum. Editor49 (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

There are genuine editorial reasons to keep an eye on this, namely because of the threat of The Mummy franchise entering the chart. At this stage it is of course wrong to speculate what will happen in the coming years but certainly those two film series (and the Avengers franchise) present the most likely candidates to enter the chart in the coming year. However, people are certainly keeping an eye over this already, and simply entering the chart may not be enough (because they could all end up knocking each other off, having a rather minimal effect). Ruffice98 (talk) 09:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

So the Avengers counts as its own franchise? I was always under the impression that it did not. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It's legally registered as a film franchise in its own right, we have sources confirming this (and ultimately it makes sense given that characters like Captain America, Thor, Iron Man, etc. were at one point scattered across different studios, so where would you put the Avengers if not in its own franchise?). Some people have jumped to conclusions because of misunderstandings of terms. Someone at Marvel supposedly said the MCU isn't an Avengers film series, so people assume there is no Avengers franchise, which simply isn't true, it is one of several dozen franchises Marvel hold and use within the MCU setting, it's just not the whole thing. Might have problems with other properties (Guardians of the Galaxy as an example) which seemingly remained at Marvel and were never franchised off (as the Avengers, Captain America, Iron Man, etc. all were). Ruffice98 (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Iron Man

Just noticed Iron Man appears twice in the franchise list- once as part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and once on its own as an 'Iron Man' franchise. Shouldnt this second listing be removed?--ERAGON (talk) 10:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Iron Man is a franchise in its own right, outside of MCU, there was already a discussion about this [10] DCF94 (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a historic artifact that exists because of the way Marvel's film deals were set up. Lots of rights packages were franchised off, but are now also being used within the MCU. As a result Iron Man is a franchise in its own right (you can see the history of its transference on the Marvel Studios page and also on various other related articles), and as I am sure we are all aware, another Marvel franchise is due to enter the chart, which due to its history it will have to be treated as a separate franchise also (as well as included in the MCU listing). Might start running into problems if something like Guardians of the Galaxy ever qualified for inclusion as it was never franchised as Iron Man or The Avengers were, but we'll get to that when and if it happens. Ruffice98 (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Spider-Man confusion

All future spider-man films will be a part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe but the 5 films that make up number 6 in the highest grossing franchise list are not should that entry be changed to Sony's spider-man or something — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.41.224 (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

We already split Spider-Man up into Sam Raimi and Marc Webb subseries. 2017's Spider-Man film will still be a Spider-Man film, so it will be listed under Spider-Man. It will also be separately listed under Marvel Cinematic Universe, just like Iron Man. A film can be part of multiple franchises in the table. Reach Out to the Truth 13:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Spider-Man is a Marvel film. Sam Raimi is the director. Marvel is a studio.

PLEASE FIX

Guys can you please fix this? The Avengers series is on the list for highest-grossing film series, but it's part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which is already on the list. Please fix!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.60.250 (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

So is the Iron Man series. Age of Ultron is a sequel to The Avengers, making it it's own franchise within an even bigger franchise (the MCU).109.158.4.158 (talk) 13:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

This has already been discussed on at least two previous occassion. You can see the reasons for their inclusion at #What new franchises can we expect on the Top 25 in 2015? and #Iron Man. Betty Logan (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a list of highest grossing franchises, which has a certain legal definition. Both the Marvel Cinematic Universe and The Avengers meet this definition so both have to be listed even though the information seems redundant (there are other cases where it won't be, for example the Spider-Man franchise won't be entirely contained within the MCU when the new film hits in 2017). Ruffice98 (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Multiple entrants in the franchise listing

Avengers and Iron Man have their own listings in the Highest Grossing Franchise table. After the third Thor movie, the second GOTG movie and the third Captain America movie, we can anticipate that they all will have their own listings as well. All of these are included in the MCU figure, so fully 5 out of the 25 will be covering information already presented in the table. Is this the best way?

Ordinary Person (talk) 02:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Minions

Since Minions is more of a prequel than a sequel, how will we put this on the franchise chart? Since it only needs to make about $168 million worldwide (which it is most likely going to make) to pass Superman to enter the Top 25 chart, but will it be like this.

TBA	Despicable Me	$1,526,379,253	3	$508,793,084	Despicable Me 2 ($970,761,885)
1	Despicable Me 2 (2013)	$970,761,885
2	Despicable Me (2010)	$543,113,985
3	Minions (2015)	$12,503,383

Or will it be sort of like this?

TBA	Despicable Me	$1,526,379,253	3	$508,793,084	Despicable Me 2 ($970,761,885)
Main series $1,513,875,870 2 $756,937,935 Despicable Me 2 ($970,761,885) 1 Despicable Me 2 (2013) $970,761,885 2 Despicable Me (2010) $543,113,985
Minions (2015) $12,503,383

Editor49 (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

If it's a sequel, prequel, spin-off, it always differ from the main series, so we're gonna go with the second one. DCF94 (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Furious 7 vs. The Avengers for the bronze

I was looking on The Numbers, and noticed that it reports Furious 7 with a gross of $1,520,400,553, and The Avengers with a gross of $1,519,557,910. I know that generally speaking, we go with Box Office Mojo, but they have lately been failing to update international totals with higher and higher frequency. Additionally, The Numbers is considered just as reliable as BOM (as far as I know). So, should Furious 7 usurp The Avengers, and if not, how do we decide upon that conclusion? Do we need to wait for a news story stating it? I'm relatively new to editing this page, so I just wanted some insight from the more experienced among you. Sock (tock talk) 17:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo has been updating international totals, but it takes them a while to do so, which means Furious 7 probably did pass The Avengers, and if it did, it will take BOM about a week to update it. But Jurassic Worlds foreign total has been updated so we still have hope for the site, but i suppose that we could place Furious 7 at #3 with a peak of 3 also, and if BOM does update the site's international total for Furious 7, and its global does not add past $1.52 billion, then we could put it back at 4. Editor49 (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

This is nothing new. The Numbers has had Furious 7 about $10 million ahead of Box Office Mojo for a couple weeks now, so this isn't just a case of a delayed update. The question is really which is correct? Is Furious 7 on $1.511 billion as Box Office Mojo claims or as $1.52 billion as The Numbers claims? There is no way of knowing for sure, but Boxoffice.com corroborates Mojo's figure. Rentrak was also in line with BOM's figure until it dropped out of the world's top 10 at the start of June. So as I see it there are plenty of sources corroborating BOM's figure but none corroborating The Numbers' figure. With respect to that we should stick with the corroborated figure for now. Betty Logan (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This article has seen further disruption today regarding the gross of Furious 7. These are what all major trackers say as of the time I post this:

1. Box Office Mojo (the source presently used in the article): Domestic-$351,032,910; Foreign-$1,160,483,733; Worldwide-$1,511,516,64
2. The Numbers: Domestic-$351,032,910; Foreign-$1,169,487,691; Worldwide-$1,520,520,601
3. Boxoffice.com (official NATO site): Domestic-$351,032,910; Worldwide-$1,511,517,668
4. Universal (the film's distributor): Foreign-$1,160,484,758

Clearly the only tracker that puts the gross at $1,520 million and therefore in 3rd place is The-Numbers. All sources agree on the domestic gross while there is a slight discrepency with the foreign total i.e. The-Numbers has foreign at $1,169 million as opposed to the $1,160 million that all other trackers have down. Even Universal have the foreign gross at $1,160 million and presumably they know how much their film has grossed! There is absolutely no reason to defer to a source with an uncorroborated figure when all other trackers and the film's distributor have something else down. If the corruption of the data continues I will make enquiries about having the article protected. Betty Logan (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

On 23 June, BOM reported the worldwide gross of Furious 7 as $1,520,032,910. On 24 June, it reported it as $1,511,516,643. There was even a period of time when the list of worldwide grosses had it at rank #3 but displayed the lower gross (such that ordering by gross and ordering by rank did not place the movies in the same order). I'm fairly certain we can assume good faith here. TompaDompa (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Should we assume good faith and put it back to the 3 slot, then, without inquiring with Betty Logan the great and powerful? Stolengood (talk) 04:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

If you come to the Emerald City I have a brain waiting for you. By assuming "good faith" TompaDompa means that we should assume benign intentions behind your edits i.e. reverting to a figure contradicted by the accompanying source, reverting without leaving an edit summary etc. I don't think he means restoring a figure that is contradicted by the source and Universal itself. From what Tompa says it sounds like Box Office Mojo perhaps published an estimate and then corrected it with the actual figures which seems to have caused some confusion. As it stands now all trackers (except The-Numbers) and Universal have it at $1.511 billion which puts it in 4th place, which is where we should leave it for the time-being. If this isn't satisfactory then I suggest starting an RFC which is the proper course for determining the outcome of a dispute. Betty Logan (talk) 10:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Interesting problem. I wondered if this might be a currency exchange issue like we experienced previously in international gross totals (reference FROZEN). Doing some forensic accounting, I came across the following: On BOM, the total earning for F7 in Finland is reported as $2,424,607 at the end of week 6, and jumps to $24,963,173 at the close of week 6 (and final total)[11]. That's a heck of a jump for the 6th week in a small country! For perspective, the total earnings for Japan are reported as $23,323,274 [12]. The final gross reported for Finland on The Numbers is only and a more realistic $2,600,362 [13]. Maybe the final total reported on BOM is a typo (maybe delete the 4?). This doesn't resolve the current issue, but it does point to discrepancies between the two reporting web pages. I'll keep looking to see if I see something that can account for the discrepancy reported here. Telewski (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)