Talk:List of highest-grossing films in the United States and Canada/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Mama Mia

Unconstructive? It is simply untrue that Mama Mia is the number one grossing movie of all time in the U.S. and Canada (let alone adjusted for inflation). It made $144 million in North America, $600 million worldwide. Yet, not only is the figure in this article not the figure for North America, it isn't even adjusted for inflation. No wonder so many hate wikipedia.

Box Office Mojo puts the domestic ranking at #201 (unadjusted for inflation). It doesn't meet the criteria for the list. It is on List of highest-grossing films as it should be.--RDBury (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Back to the future

Altough the movie article mentions the gross of $ 381 million, the title doesn't appear in the unadjusted inflation list. Howcome? Khullah (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That's the worldwide total. This article lists the domestic gross, for which it totals $210,614,939 and is placed 88th on the unadjusted list. Feudonym (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The Blind Side

According to this

http://boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?view=&yr=2010&wknd=01&p=.htm

The Blind Side has grossed $208,476,067 as of this weekend, which should place it on the list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.241.76 (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

okay, well i added it, it places at #74 as of 1/14/10, i didn't source on the article because none of the other movies were sourced, but heres the link from box office mojo

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.241.76 (talk) 06:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Have updated it, it has since gone up to #63. Feudonym (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Table w/ Inflation Template

Would there be any opposition to making this list into a sortable table?

Also, would there be any opposition to using the Inflation template that is here in Wikipedia. This will automatically show the adjusted dollars based on the current day's adjusted rate?

Something like this:

List of domestic highest-grossing films

Rank	Title	Year	Domestic gross	Domestic gross, inflation adjusted
1	Gone With The Wind	1939	$198,676,459	$4,351,869,997
2	Star Wars	1977	$460,998,007	$2,317,901,017

Jj04 (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's excellent. I've changed the introduction now so it reflects the fact that there is a second adjusted list. Feudonym (talk) 13:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Original Research: Someone Removed Box Office Mojo Inflation Adjusted Dollar Amounts

Someone changed the Box Office Mojo adjusted gross list to a wiki table with CPI adjusted templates. The two lists are quite different, for example, Titanic is #6 in the Box Office Mojo gross list but it is #1 here. I am concerned that the current list with CPI adjusting is Original Research and that is against wikipedia guidelines. The Box Office Mojo Adjusted list is here: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm Cshay (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

After more thought, I have gone ahead and reverted the CPI adjusting template. It really is Original Research. Let's continue to use the Box Office Mojo figures since that is an external source Cshay (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The current list is still pretty different than the Box Office Mojo one. For example, Avatar is supposed to be #26 on the list. This Wikipedia list needs an overhaul, but it is too much work for me to try to tackle right now. Flyer22 (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right - the current list is the Box Office Mojo list from almost a year ago (I think). So eventually someone will need to copy the latest data from Box Office Mojo into this list. 75.101.11.171 (talk) 06:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Feudonym (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I know how much work that was. Flyer22 (talk) 03:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have been updating the lists and trying to improve the article for a while now. Please comment here if there are any plans for an overhaul, or any drastic changes.

Also please note there two lists; the first one lists by ticket sales and an adjusted gross based on this info and current (2010) average ticket prices, as calculated and maintained by Box Office Mojo. The second lists by actual gross, with a CPI-based adjusted gross for comparison (as well as est. tickets for good measure). Both have many issues as discussed here when comparing films with multiple releases spanning almost a century but for the time being, I think it's the best solution and gives some sense of comparison.

If there are any comments or suggestions for improvement please state them here. Feudonym (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Avatar

Is there a reason why Avatar data hasn't been updated? Perhaps one was afraid that the page would need changing every day, but now that it's gotten to the second highest ever, there's only one more change that could possibly be needed. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Going by the list on Box Office Mojo, they haven't seem to have adjusted the 2009 portion of its gross to 2010 dollars, yet. I will keep a close eye and adjust when necessary. Feudonym (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

As noted a little above, a lot of this article needs updating. It currently seems pointless, with most of it having the wrong data. Flyer22 (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

All the figures have been updated and I will continue doing so for the films which are still showing and are on the list. Feudonym (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Also stated above by me, thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 03:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The position of Avatar in the list adjusted for ticket-price inflation has altered due to the issue of calculating ticket sales (i.e. the difference in 2D/3D/IMAX ticket prices). However, in my opinion, the list is ordered by Adjusted Gross, and so although estimated ticket sales ought to be recalculated, the position should remain the same. This issue is still in the process of discussion and depends on consensus, therefore feel free to add your thoughts here before reverting. Feudonym (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Its position has been reverted and the list ordered by Adjusted Gross.Feudonym (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

this article seems pointless, who cares how much they sold in us & canada, what about the other 99% of the countries? this list is incoherent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.60.254.30 (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of people care, because this is considered the domestic gross list. People care about the domestic gross and the worldwide gross. The List of highest-grossing films is the worldwide gross list, which includes the grosses from all the other countries the film was played in. People would have to somehow find out on their own the specific numbers for each country.

As for this list being incoherent, how so? Flyer22 (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not the only article on Wikipedia you know. It's like saying, "who cares about Michael Jackson's album Thriller, what about the other 99% of albums?" Feudonym (talk) 11:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Plagued with flaws

This list is plagued with flaws.

Some films were released in IMAX or 3D therefore ticket sales are lower. For example, IMAX account for about 9% of The Dark Knight's domestic ticket sales. That alone brings down the ticket sales by 3-5 million. Avatar is the biggest problem with uncertainty on the 3D ticket price which is where the majority of the sales are being made. Rick Evans (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The list is ordered by adjusted gross, not ticket sales. Yes, The Dark Knight and Avatar sold less tickets than other films lower down on the list but it made more money as the tickets were more expensive, which is what the list is comparing. See also the note on this, labelled 'nb 1' and clearly linked right next to the Avatar ticket sales figure which is bothering you so much. It fully explains the difference in ticket format sales, proportions and prices, and calculates the adjusted average ticket price. If you could provide a citation for the 9% IMAX sales for The Dark Knight, then a similar calculation can be done for its ticket sales. Or Be Bold and do it yourself.

You mentioned one flaw, if you could enlighten us with the other flaws it is "plagued" by and not yet mentioned (see Factors in determining “adjusted gross”) it would help us improve the article. Thanks. Feudonym (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Estimated ticket sales

Considering how contentious this issue of calculating estimated ticket sales is, I propose removing it from the second (already bloated) list which is ordered by unadjusted gross anyway. It is also hard to calculate ticket sales for films which were shown in theaters during two different years. Feudonym (talk) 12:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm ok with that, but I have another issue I'd like to discuss. The adjusted numbers in the second chart use the CPI measure to adjust for inflation. In the introduction to the chart this states that it is not applied to films that had multiple releases, except it has been because films like GWTW and Star wars have had their grosses adjusted by this measure. If GWTW's $198 million gross has been altered by the 1939 CPI index then it is is grossly inaccurate, because it only made $32 million on its first run and the rest on re-releases from 1947-1971. Unless each re-release can be adjusted by that year's CPI then I suggest we remove those adjusted grosses. Betty Logan (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are entirely correct. Films with multiple releases are rather more difficult to calculate an adjusted gross for, as I'm sure you're already aware. It might even be possible, since I notice you have researched the years of each of its re-release, although I don't know where one can obtain the box office figures for each of those. I agree though, I think we should remove the 'adjusted' figure for those films (do you know which ones?), with N/A in its place, and maybe a small footnote.

By the way, as has been discussed previously, this means that the ticket sales calculated for the first list is also incorrect for those films, the main culprit being of course the leader Gone with the Wind. If I'm entirely honest with you, that list is something of a headache for me considering it gets quoted by many articles, both here at Wikipedia and elsewhere. Feudonym (talk) 02:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In the bottom list the first three Star Wars films, E.T, The Exorcist, Raiders of the Lost Ark and Gone With the Wind have all had major re-releases. The first three Star Wars films and ET have had three major releases which I can find. Raiders is slightly iffy - it made $209 million on its first run, $21 million during its 1982 summer re-release and had accumulated $240 million by 1989 and has picked up another couple of million since then (possibly a limited release for Crystal Skull?). We could adjust the Raiders gross by the CPI for the first two releases, use the 1989 measure for the next 10 million and use the 2008 measure for last 2 million. The Exorcist made $66 million on its first run, $40 million on its 2000 re-release and $232 million in total, so another $126 million has come inbetween. However, I don't think there is any chance of tracking down the grosses for all The Exorcist releases, and similarly with GWTW. We could mark them as "n/a", or alternatively just list the adjusted first run grosses for all films. In the case of 93 films on that list that will be the same as the overall list, and you can argue that just comparing first runs is a fairer method of comparison, and we have that data for GWTW and The Exorcist. Betty Logan (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Special calculations with estimated tickets for Avatar

From WP:SYNTH, Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. This[1] is a screen-shot of the list we have as our source and how we locate the data to place within the article without using original research.

Using algebra to include a different value other than the one explicitly mentioned within the source used to compile the chart or individual data is original research. Even if we were allowed to compile our own numbers, the stats on the ticket sales per venue (3D, 2D, IMAX, etc) changes day to day and this number would slowly become less reliable. DrNegative (talk) 03:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all, the estimation does not use material from "multiple sources". It uses data provided by Box Office Mojo (the same source you are using) who explictly state in their analysis that 60 million tickets were sold in passing the $600 million threshold. Their ticket sales chart simply divides the gross by the average ticket price, but in their analysis of Avatar's performance they provide a breakdown of the ticket prices and calculate how many ticket have been sold. The more explicit analysis should be preferred over the more generalised list which is clearly incorrect by the admission of the source that published it. It is pretty clear that after selling 60 million tickets to get to $600 million, it hasn't sold another 20+ million tickets getting to $666 million.

If this is unacceptable to you then ticket sales should be removed altogther because the source itself has clearly indicated in its own analysis that the general calculation in the chart isn't am accurate estimate. Its own analysis negates the chart as reliable source for ticket sales with respect to Avatar. Betty Logan (talk) 11:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the extraneous calculations so the argument of "original research" no longer stands and I have restored the ticket sales for the $600 million threshold. Box Office Mojo's in depth analysis of the tickets clearly make their chart (where they simply divide the gross by the average ticket price) an unreliable source for approximating ticket sales. Betty Logan (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I accept your latest edit including all the counts, good compromise. As for calling Box Office Mojo an unreliable source, you need to take that to a community proposal or committee to get it listed as such so that it is removed from the 64,000+ film articles on Wikipedia without drawing your own conclusions. On that note, your source for the alternate calculation also cites the same website you claim to be unreliable which resorts in a "conflict of interest" on your end. If its unreliable, then why should your info from the same website be included as well? Not only that, but the data is 3 weeks old now, (almost $100 million behind) and your are deriving your own formula and calculations to get the estimated ticket number which is clearly WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in contrast to the actual source the entire list is based off of. This was the exact same issue you attempted here on the main Avatar article.

Personally though, I agree with the above section and the editor's statement that the estimated tickets list should simply be removed all together and I would not object to it. DrNegative (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I was actually right about the adjusted list on Box Office Mojo. The chart was saying it had earned more money than it actually had which is impossible when it's on current release and no inflation figures have been released. I contacted Box office Mojo about that issue and they corrected the figure to its current gross. Similarly with the ticket sales, BOM have published a more in depth analysis that offers a more accurate appraisal of the number of tickets sold. If a journal or newspaper publishes an errata does it stop being a reliable source? Similarly, do we still consider the original inaccurate publication reliable when it has been corrected? The formula and calculations are provided by BOM so the formula was not original research since it was correctly applied at the time, but is arguably synthesis when applied to the current gross since the gross is not taken from that particular article. However it seemed like an efficient compromise between a highly inaccurate figure and another figure that is dated. I would support the removal of the Avatar tickets sales completely from the chart because at the moment it is presenting inaccurate information, but leaving the note in the appropriate box to explain why the figure is omitted. Betty Logan (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you were right or not. The only thing we can use is published material that explicitly states the figures in question. This is a main rule of Wikipedia, always has been, always will be. You can post the alternate calculation as stated by BOM alongside their official one, but not your own calculation based on deriving the formula within it, that is WP:OR; your own analysis, which leads to WP:SYNTH as well. Technically you were still incorrect about the other article as well. Over half of the domestic gross was actually made in 2009 and by that measure of rules, one could also take into account the 2009 ticket price for half of the adjustment. But this would still be synthesis as well so there is no point arguing it. From your many posts on this and the other matter, and the replies from other editors including myself, it seems you are misinterpreting the rule of "original research" for Wikipedia. I suggest you read it very carefully if you actually still believe using your own calculations do not fall into this category, especially when it is based on info that is from a publication that is 3 weeks old and counting. You are also completely disregarding WP:V which states "verifiable, not truth." I doesn't matter what you or I think, my source is a verifiable source that is updated every day the figures are updated. If BOM feels the need to use that calculation for their official list, I'm sure they will do so, until then the official list should receive prominence. Especially since its current, regardless of accuracy. DrNegative (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you also need to look up WP:OR since I didn't derive any formulas or calculations - they were all provided by the original reference so they are BOM's calculations not mine, and that is why we have an explicitly referenced estimate for the original date; if they were my calculations then the original estimate would have come out of the article too. All I did was plug in the current gross, which is arguably synthesis, but certainly not OR. I note you also conveniently avoided my concerns about Box Office Mojo issuing a more accurate estimation than the one in the chart, and I'm pretty sure WP:V doesn't prohibit choosing the more accurate estimate from the same source. Betty Logan (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"All I did was plug in the current gross..."

- From WP:OR: "Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." From WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research."

"I note you also conveniently avoided my concerns about Box Office Mojo issuing a more accurate estimation than the one in the chart"

- I did address it, like the guidelines, you chose to ignore it. I said that I was OK with an alternate form of estimation that can be placed alongside the official number given by the chart. I also mentioned that the data from that source is now out of date and your attempts to modify it constituted WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.

"I'm pretty sure WP:V doesn't prohibit choosing the more accurate estimate from the same source."

- We don't define accuracy (truth), only verifiability. Both sources are verifiable (considering they both come from the same publisher). You are the one prohibiting it while trying to push your point. DrNegative (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Either way, I will continue to monitor any other replies at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that you posted in regards to the source I am using being unreliable. We can see what others think about it. DrNegative (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The situation is resolved as far as I'm concerned with the compromise. The solution suggested at Reliable sources is the one now implemented. I think you're a good editor for the most part and I don't really want to argue over something that is satisfactorily resolved. Betty Logan (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sound of Music

With regards to The Sound of Music, it has been reissued at least three times to my knowledge: 1967, 1973 and 1990.

I can't find confirmation of the 1967 or 1990 releases but here are some references confirming the 1973 release:

http://www.allmovie.com/dvd/the-sound-of-music-special-edition-2-discs-9286/menu

http://www.filmsite.org/70sintro5.html (Musicals and dance films section)

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=B5PjuAbEPooC&pg=PA106&lpg=PA106&dq=%22sound+of+music%22+1973+%22re-release%22&source=bl&ots=yKEDI-DOtg&sig=F9T3WKaGdwKtllwG1rT9pWXsp0k&hl=en&ei=IQaQS9bhOIzu0gTltLnqDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAYQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=%22sound%20of%20music%22%201973%20%22re-release%22&f=false (page 111) Betty Logan (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

CPI inflation in the second chart for multiple releases

I've removed the adjusted grosses for six films - the original Star Wars trilogy, The Exoprcist, Jaws and Raiders of the Lost Ark. The chart adjusted using the CPI for the year of release which is fine if the film has only been released once but it is meaningless for films that have had muliple releases. In the case of the original Star Wars it earned $138 million on its 1997 re-release, so altering that amount by the 1977 CPI gives a very inaccurate picture. The gross should be adapted for each release.

For the Star Wars films we have:

Star Wars: 1977 - $307.2, 1982: Star wars - $15.5m, 1997: Star Wars - $138.3m [2]
Empire: 1980 - $209.4m, 1982 - $13.3m, 1997 - $67.6m [3]
Jedi: 1983 - $252.6m, 1985 - $11.3m, 1997 - $45.5m [4]

Raiders of the Lost Ark: 1981 - $209.6m, 1982 re-release - $21.4m, 1983 - $11.4m [5]

E.T.: 1982 - $359.2m, 1985 - $40.6m, 2002 - $35.3m [6]

The Exorcist: 1973 - $193m, 2000 - $39.7m [7]

Betty Logan (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Inflation Adjusting in the two lists

I looked through the discussion page and I could not find this issue addressed. I see that there are two lists on this article, one which orders based on inflation and one that orders based on actual income of the movies listed. However, the adjusted inflation for each section is different, for example on the top list Gone With The Wind is around 1.5 million dollars, yet on the bottom list it is over 3 million dollars, what is wrong with that? User:Zach111493 (talk) 03:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That's because the two lists use different methods of calculating adjusted figures. The first list calculates using ticket-price inflation - that is, estimates how many tickets were sold, then multiplies by the average ticket price of today (i.e. this year). The second list is ordered by actual unadjusted grosses, but also has inflation-adjusted figures using the US consumer price index (CPI) listed alongside for comparison purposes. Of course the reason why there is such a discrepancy for Gone With The Wind (which has since been relegated to no. 101, and is hence off the unadjusted list) is because it has been released multiple times and so there is no single year of release for which its CPI can be used. This has since been corrected by removing adjusted figures for films with multiple releases from the second list (as detailed below by Betty Logan). Feudonym (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer both lists to use the same inflation adjustion, otherwise the article is quite confusing. (I tend to prefer the first list's adjustion, not least because its numbers are perfectly referenced.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Base Year?

Whats your base year for all this inflation adjustments? You should state it to give the adjusted figures some meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.41.31 (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It's 2010 for the ticket price inflation adjusted list, and this has been added. For the second adjusted list based on consumer price index, it uses the ((inflation)) template, and I'm guessing this updates itself, and therefore must be 2010. Feudonym (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the template, is that it is different than the first list which is based off of box office mojo- so the numbers are very different Zach111493 (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I don't even know why there are adjusted box office figures in a section called "Not adjusted for inflation". The two inflation methods in this article both have their merits: you can measure ticket price inflation like BOM does (although technically not a valid economic measure but probably the most accurate in this case) or by using CPI (which is the official economic measure for measuring inflation). I can see the logic in including both these measures, but surely it would be better to have the CPI column in the top chart rather than the lower one and have both inflation figures together? Betty Logan (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Avatar's 3 numbers

Avatar has 3 numbers of estimated ticket totals, but they are from a while ago and definitely do not represent how many tickets can be estimated that were sold as of April 19th, so I removed the two numbers 62 million and 60 million. If anyone really thinks that they should be included, please bring it up here. Zach111493 (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It is important to keep the older numbers because the current number is derived from dividing the gross by the average ticket price. As explained in the Box Office Mojo reference that accompanied the older numbers this method over-estimates the number of tickets sold because 3-D and IMAX ticket prices were much higher. In reality Avatar has sold only 70-80 million tickets so the older numbers are probably still a closer estimate. Ideally we need more up to date references because none of the estimates are accuaret at the moment. Betty Logan (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Based on the percentages, I can get an even closer number to add, I will check into it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach111493 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Zach111493, the older estimates being almost 3 months old now, should go. DrNegative (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

In reality being outdated doesn't make much difference. Avatar has only added 25% to its gross since those figures were determined, and the other figure was more than 25% out by their own calculations. I've made it explicit in the chart that these are older figures, but they still provide an important counter-balance to another inaccurate figure. It would just be bizarre to remove an estimate in favor of a more inaccurate estimate. Since none of them are that accurate now it would probably be wiser to remove all estimates and just leave it at the adjusted dollar amount, but the last time we had the discussion you were fairly adamant that the ticket calculation from the BOM chart should remain. Betty Logan (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Whether its 25% or 1%, the figures are almost 3 months old and my point remains, they should go. The one you claim to be inaccurate, is also WP:V and the most recent, so I agree with Zach, its too confusing to the reader anyway. DrNegative (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you are saying. You are saying that they should be pulled out because they are inaccurate, but that argument also applies to the figures from the BOM chart. BOM published a detailed analysis pointing out how inaccurate their methodology was based in respect to this particular film - their chart showed that Avatar had sold 77 million tickets, but their subsequent analysis showed that the figure was closer to 60 million tickets. I argued for pulling these figures out on the basis that BOM's own analysis had shown how inaccurate their chart figure was for Avatar, but you argued that accuracy was not the issue! You said the criteria for inclusion was the verifiability and the reliability of the source, both of which BOM met. Now, the alternative figure which was the result of analysis is also published by BOM which still meets the verifiability and reliability criteria no matter how dated the figures are! They meet the criteria by which you argued for the inclusion of the chart figure. We have two figures from BOM, one that they say is inaccurate through their own analysis, and one that has become inccurate through being dated. If you are arguing that a figure should be removed on the basis of accuracy then all the figures should come out because BOM have declared their chart figure to be inaccurate in the case of Avatar. A month or so ago you argued accuracy was a not a criteria we could apply to references, but you are now saying we should apply it to one set of figures and not the other. You want to scrub one set of figures because they are inaccurate on the basis of being dated, but want to keep the other set despite the fact that the publisher published an analysis showing the flaw in theor own methodology and came to the conclusion that their calculation was out by almost 30%. Either accuracy is a criteria for inclduing information or it is not, but you can't apply it selectively. We either include all inaccurate information, or we remove all of it. I don't mind either way as long as the criteria is consistent. Betty Logan (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

First off the prior discussion was when those numbers were fresh, this is now. You are the only one who feels those dated figures should stay. Second, even though both figures are not accurate, yet both are verifiable, the figures you alone propose to keep in the article are dated, whereas the one I want to keep in is updated daily from the primary source. Like I said in the previous discussion, if you contest BOM reliability as a source, I suggest you take it to the reliable sources noticeboard to have it blacklisted, until then only verifiability comes into play here.

More importantly lets not forget the standard of the list itself. This list was based on the table that BOM compiled yet you are wanting to take a special calculation which BOM did to explain the list's inaccuracy and only apply it to Avatar. Any person knowledgeable of box-office analysis knows that Avatar isn't the only film on the list that has discrepancies in its estimated total. Other films with multiple releases over the years with fluctuating ticket prices are also presented on the list but BOM adopted a standard across the board to the list which was: divide the revenue by the estimated ticket price. All the films regardless of their discrepancies adhered to this standard until you decided to make a notable exception to one film on the list, that being Avatar. This could skim NPOV in some editors' eyes.

Lets not forget to address your argument of accuracy from a more respectable standpoint, and that being the formula of calculation itself for the film you singled out from the list. That formula was based on ticket sales and demographics across the board from the film's release up to the first week of February. On March 7, Alice in Wonderland stole over half of the available 3D screens from Avatar, followed by How to Train Your Dragon and Clash of the Titans which both took what few 3D screens Avatar had left. This means for the last month and a half, roughly 90% of ticket sales for Avatar came from standard 2-D screens. Basically what all this means is, that formula is completely moot now, in the present status of this chart and is just as inaccurate if not more so now. On top of that, the numbers you want to keep in are a "static" number. It was calculated at a certain time (3 months ago), while under a certain formula (based on screens held (3 months ago) and never intended for progressive calculation as you were doing when I first stumbled across this article. I stand by my point, it is simply too confusing to the reader and unless you can give a logical reason why I or Zach are wrong by seeing the need to remove them from the chart, they should go. DrNegative (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you file for an RFC to move the discussion along if you really want the figures to come out, because it's obvious that the issue won't be resolved between just us. Betty Logan (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I was just hoping on the off-chance that you would see what I was trying to say. Keep them in if thats what you really want. DrNegative (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a moot point now - Zach has found us brand spanking new reference! Betty Logan (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

That looks a lot better and it shouldn't age as quickly now that Avatar is at the end of its initial theatrical run. DrNegative (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

He's re-releasing it in August ;) Betty Logan (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, well we'll cross that bridge when we get there. ;) DrNegative (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Gone With The Wind Ticket Estimate

The 202,044,600 figure for "Gone With The Wind" has some issues. For one thing, it's accurate to 7 significant digits, while I'd expect such an estimate for a 70-year-old movie to be accurate to 2 or 3 significant digits at most. Also, the figure is most likely exaggerated. Following the links, it seems this figure assumes the tickets were sold for $0.23. This may have been true For the average movie in 1939, but I think a longer film such as Gone With The Wind may have had a higher price, so fewer total tickets were sold. 200,000,000 tickets is more than the number of people alive in the US and Canada in 1939. Can anyone confirm such a high figure with a specific link? 70.75.188.13 (talk) 08:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a few issues with this chart since it includes so much original research but Gone With the Wind had 10 re-releases so that probably explains why the ticket sales are more than the population of the time. Betty Logan (talk) 10:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Betty, the Original Research was only recently added on Jan 22. We can go back to the published Box Office Mojo adjusted list I think.... Cshay (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I checked this out - Gone With the Wind had a limited release during 1940 and went on general in 1941 when the average ticket price was 25 cents. During its first release it grossed $32m, which works out roughly at 128 million tickets (although it's more than likely that an expensive Hollywood film like GWTW would have charged at least twice as much as the average ticket price on a first run (and certainly during the roadshows). It was further released in 1947, 1954, 1961, 1967 and 1971. It had further releases in 1989 and 1998 although it had been released on video and broadcast on TV by then. Betty Logan (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Between Dec1939 and Mar1942 Gone With The Wind was seen by 52 million people and grossed $32million(New York Times-March 17, 1942). Indications are that Gone With The Wind has sold at most 185 million tickets. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/forums/viewtopic.htm?t=82668 Angkor14 (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This is nonsense

To begin with, this article states "The figures in the first list are shown with adjustment for ticket-price inflation, based on total receipts or tickets sold". Well, that's NOT true. There's a note+link beside BOM adjusted chart that clearly explains "estimated tickets" are NOT "tickets SOLD". It's nothing more than provisional intermediate result used only for the gross adjustment (which is based on very shacky grounds if you ask me - hell, even the BOM admits this chart is to be used to give "general idea", NOT in any way accurate data, and is based on incomplete sources). Also, why there's a special case for Avatar (and only Avatar)? Many films on the list presumably had actual ticket prices very different from average price (main culprit being GWTW with 2-3 times more expensive tickets, infamous 3D surcharge not even being close) - that's why CPI adjustment is much better IMO (though lack of exact re-release shedule hampers it as well). So it's bad idea to cram different ticket numbers for Avatar (or any other film) in the chart, just make several separate notes and keep it consistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.32.238.98 (talk) 01:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is only used as an 'intermediate' step to inflate the gross by the average ticket price of the time. It is misrepresentative to measure ticket sales in this manner. Personally I think this column should be removed. While it remains though I don't think we should remove more accurate data (such as in Avatar's case) to make the chart 'consistent' - accuracy is more important than consistency IMO. If we are going to keep the column we should indeed be trying to expand upon the example of Avatar and adding more accurate estimates to the chart. Betty Logan (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Should the lead have a link to the other list?

Since I've had my edit reverted twice, I figured I'd seek opinions here. Please respond. [8] The second it was reverted was with the edit summary "The lede should only introduce the charts on this article." Mentioning the second list, but not linking to it, makes no sense at all. Further edits were done linking to another Wikipedia page in the lead, which had nothing to do with the second list though. So I have no idea what the problem is. Should we mention the other list in the lead but not link to it, or go ahead and put a link to it? Dream Focus 12:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What doesn't make sense is wording the lede to make it sound like the unadjusted chart is on another article. The lede should decribe the charts on this list before mentioning any other list. The "See also" section is provided for links to other lists, and already includes a link to the one you want to include. Betty Logan (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. I didn't realize there were two different list here. Never mind. Dream Focus 23:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Chart length

Does anyone else find the cut-off point at 100 arbitrary? Obviously we have to cut them off at some point, and 100 is a convenient and round number which is why many charts adopt it, but Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion is notability.

For example, on the unadjusted chart there is no difference between the notability of a film that grosses $205 million and $210 million, although one makes the chart and the other doesn't. $200 million is often regarded as the the lower-bound target for a big summer blockbuster, and the threshold for being considered a hit (a bit like $100 million about 15-20 years ago). I therefore would favor a threshold for inclusion rather than a chart cut-off point.

As for the adjusted chart, at worst it is considered a popularity contest between films from different eras, and at best it shows the shifting market trends from era to era. For either interpretation most of the years from 1937 until the modern day need to be represented which a $400 million threshold would achieve. Anyone esle with any views on this? Betty Logan (talk) 07:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Why just have the top 100 highest grossing films? I'd support listing everything that got at least $100 million dollars. The list is 33,278 bytes now. Doubling it in size shouldn't matter too much. Dream Focus 13:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I rather disagree. $200 million or $400 million is just as arbitrary a cut-off as "100 best". And since inflation decreases money value over time, such a fixed monetary threshold for inclusion would become ever lower over time. I prefer the lists as they are now. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Factual Error - Directors in the Top 20 Films

George Lucas did not direct The Empire Strikes Back or Return of the Jedi, and as such the assertion that "ten of the films currently in the top 20 were directed by one of just three men" is not accurate. Rather than eliminate this line, I simply changed the word "ten" to "eight" to reflect the correct number. Lioux (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It used to say "eight"; checking through the edit history an IP altered it some time in February. Good catch. Betty Logan (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)