Talk:List of highest-grossing films/Archive 11

Road to...
I've found that when adjusted for inflation, the Road to... films starring Bing Crosby, Bob Hope and Dorothy Lamour have grossed 1,088 million (1.08 billion) domestically. See Should we put in an entry for that? (Utzdman55 (talk) 06:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC))
 * This article doesn't cover domestic box office. Betty Logan (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if it did and the films were counted as a franchise, I don't think they would make the top-25 domestically when other franchises are also adjusted for inflation. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/ shows 17 above it without adjusting. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Star Wars franchise entry
Currently the Star Wars entry divides the "episodes" into two entries: the prequel trilogy and the original trilogy. Since the new film is essentially a sequel to the original trilogy it doesn't make much sense creating a separate entry for it, so I am proposing we simply eliminate the division and have just a single "episodes" entry. You can see how this would look below. If anybody else has any other suggestions we may as well consider them along with this one, but either way, this needs to be settle before next Friday. . 86.29.69.126 (talk) 09:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This discussion happened before, if no one else has something to say against this I say we do the edit. DCF94 (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm on board with this. Betty Logan (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't like this suggestion. People often refer to the original trilogy and prequel trilogy as separate entities.  I think people would be interested in seeing how much each grossed, the average gross for each trilogy, etc.  It would also seem inconsistent to how we have handled other franchises on the list, such as dividing the Marvel Universe into two sets of films.  I think the best way to group the films would be to have a main series group, but then have subgroupings within that group for the original trilogy, the prequel trilogy, and the new main series films.  That would let people see the main series films separately from the Clone Wars film, but also let people separate out the original trilogy, the prequel trilogy, and the new films.  If sub groups within groups aren't possible though, then I would prefer to see the original trilogy, the prequel trilogy, and the new main series films all kept as separate groups. Calathan (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have reverted pending further discussion. The template can certainly accommodate your proposal, so it's basically just a question of how we want to approach it. The thinking behind merging them into a single entry is that it seems a bit incongruous to separate the new films from the original trilogy when it is essentially a straight sequel. I guess there is no hurry though. I think we will get a few more opinions over the next week. Betty Logan (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm with Calathan; I would also prefer having the trilogies separate from each other. TompaDompa (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There's the Original trilogy, Prequel trilogy, the upcoming Sequel trilogy and the upcoming Anthology series, what happens if Disney decides to make Episode X or another trilogy? How are we gonna classified that? are we gonna put it separately like Clone Wars or classify it as Trequel trilogy? I know that there's no talk yet about a Ep X but if Disney will have huge success with this films, most likely they will, they would want to continue making money. DCF94 (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The sequel trilogy needs a separate box. George Lazenby's Bond has its own box, why shouldn't this when more films are being planned?  Molandfreak  (talk,   contribs,  email) 22:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really answere my question. DCF94 (talk) 11:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It does, it just probably could have been clearer. You don't just shove in a massive number of films with no sub-division for no good reason. If and when Episode X comes out as part of a new trilogy, the new trilogy gets its own box. Since neither the films, nor the release structure have been announced we can't even begin to consider what it would be called. Episode IX isn't due until 2019, so we've got several years before we'll even need to consider Episode X here. What might be worth considering is to do it like the James Bond or The Lord of the Rings films. Rather than just having a large "Episodes" category, have that large category be subdivided as it currently is (so within "Episodes" you'll have "Original Trilogy", "Prequel Trilogy" and "Sequel Trilogy"), and have a separate category for the "Anthology" films, and a further entry fro Clone Wars. Ruffice98 (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I can see Calathan's point, especially since the films are specifically numbered 1 thru 7 (and ultimately 9... or more), so personally it wouldn't bother me to do it his way. But, that said, I agree with others here that many people come here looking at the series as a group of trilogies. They want to see numbers for the PT, the OT and now the ST. It's probably better to keep them grouped. - the WOLF  child  18:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Fastest films to $1 billion
how abut fastest film to $1billon column — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.157.176 (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This idea is a non-starter. First of all Box Office Mojo doesn't record this information so it is not clear how we could source it. Second of all, apart from the record the rest of it is largely trivia. Who cares if Frozen took 101 days to pass $1 billion? There is a reason box-office trackers don't supply this information. This is a large article—one of the biggest on Wikipedia—so it needs to stay focused on the task at hand: ranking grosses and providing quantitative and qualitative analysis. Anything beyond that is simply white noise. Betty Logan (talk) 10:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Betty Logan, this is Top 50, not Top Films That Grossed $1 Billion, if you were to do this, you would have to say, Shrek 2 took days to get to $900 million and Independence Day took  days to get to $800 Million, its completely unnecessary.  Editor49 (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * BOM, as far as I can tell, only tracks fastest to a gross amount up to 500M$, and it is only for the domestic gross earnings. — al-Shimoni  (talk) 04:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

fastest to $1billon
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.157.176 (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Good idea, but we're gonna need some sources on that :) --rayukk &#124; talk 21:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Multiplexes
An editor has twice added the claim that one of the reasons that older films are no longer ranked near the top of chart is because of multiplexes exhbiting films on "far more screens". I have reverted the edit because i) it is unsourced; ii) the purpose of the lead is to summarize the article content, not to float theories that are not expanded on in the article body and iii) the data doesn't support the assertion anyway. Multiplexes and the ability to show films on multiple screens have probably had an impact on opening weekends, but it is less clear how this has impacted on overall admissions: This is a classic example of WP:Original research. There are many factors that possibly had an impact on cinema grosses: inflation, population changes, international trade agreements, other film viewing technologies etc. Multiplexes may even have a positive impact in places such as China, where there is a lot of market growth, but we cannot really make such claims unless we back them up with data. In the case of this article we have the Guinness chart available to us: we can quantify how the pecking order changes once we compensate for the effects of inflation. We can categorically state that inflation disadvantages older films in relation to recent films, but we should not overstate the claim by making claims about various factors we can't quantify. Betty Logan (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) If you look at the Guinness inflation chart lower down, there is a relatively even distribution of eras excluding silent film. You have a film from the 1930s, a film released in 1939 which went on general release in 1941, a film from the 1950s, one from the 60s, two from the 70s, and one from each of the 80s, 90s and 21st century. In fact, if you look at the multiplex era (from the 1980s onwards) you basically have three films from the last 30 years or so and seven films over a 40 year period from the late 30s to late 70s. There is no demonstrable evidence that multiplexes have given the highest-grossing modern films an advantage.
 * 2) In the United States (which accounts for about a third of the global box office) multiplexes have had negligible impact on admissions statistically. In 1980 the annual admissions stood at just over 1 billion, and last year stood at just over 1.3 billion (see ). However, that is not the full story; in 1980 the US population stood at 226 million (so a per capita admissions rate of 4.5) while in 2015 the population was estimated to stand at 321 million (a per capita rate of 4.2). In fact the per capita rate has been more or less the same since the mid-1960s, so there is no correlation established between multiplexes and overall admissions. The trend is similar in the UK, and although I haven't seen the data it is probably the same throughout the developed world.
 * I completely agree. The natural assumption to me (but also original research) would be that the total number of seats will adapt to costs and demand, no matter how those seats are divided by seats per screen and screens per theater. says there were 17,500 US theaters in 1940, far more than today. Maybe theaters were more spread out because transportation was harder for most people. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2016
Katyar kaljat ghusli movie collection 29.79 cr

Kiran R. Gavhane (talk) 10:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This isn't a highest grossing by country article, and so it does not make sense to include a move that grossed 4 million USD here when the lowest grossing film currently on this list made 20,000% more Cannolis (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

BvS & CA
Since the subject of 'franchises' was brought up, I want to clarify something in advance so there will not be any confusion last minute. In 3 months Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice will be released and we know that it is part of the DC Extended Universe and building on the example Betty Logan offered earlier with Alien vs Predator, the movie is looking like a cross-over giving that the title includes both names, so it should be added in both Superman and Batman franchises also. Different thing with Captain America: Civil War, aldoe Iron Man plays a big role in it, it's just an appearance not a cross over, giving that the title, and many sources, calls it a Captain America film. DCF94 (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that Cap:Civil War is part of the Capt America franchise/series/trilogy (whatever you want to call it), it is Capt America "3", the third film. An interesting question is; if Cap:CW makes over $750M (which I think it can, it could be a billion dollar film) then the Capt America trilogy will have surpassed the Terminator series at #25 for total box office. Does this mean we will list the Capt America trilogy separately, just as we have with Iron Man? If so, then along with the MCU, we'll have 2 more positions taken on the list with duplicate entries. What about other MCU series? If Thor, Ant-man, GotG or any other series reach high enough box office numbers to be on the list, then the MCU will essentially take over this list with multiple duplicate entries, bumping off other franchises that should to be there. Also, are we going to do this duplicate entry scheme with DCEU films, once they get going and if they make enough money? In ten years the "top 25" list will be SW:TFA, Avatar, Titanic, MCU, DCEU and 10 super-hero films, listed twice. We should re-think this... - the WOLF  child  18:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * If it's a franchised property, then it is valid for inclusion. Captain America was a licensed property and remains so (even if it is now in the hands of the original source of the material). All of the MCU's properties (with the exception of Guardians of the Galaxy and Captain Marvel from what I have seen so far) would be valid for inclusion. Ruffice98 (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but... that doesn't even remotely address the questions I posed. - the WOLF  child  05:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In some cases the films will be listed twice given the nature of the overlap, but even if these cinematic "universes" had never been created and we just treated the films like traditional franchise crossovers then these franchises would still be represented. At worst, the MCU and DC universe only effectively take up two places in the chart; that is two places out of 25 chart positions, so I don't really see it as a case of them monopolising the chart. If the DC universe is added then it just pushes a single franchise off the chart, and if we remove the MCU we just replace it with a single franchise. Their inclusion doesn't have a dramatic impact overall. Betty Logan (talk) 11:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You are, of course, correct (as I was exaggerating). But the fact still remains that the positions being taken through this duplication are basically bumping off legitimate entries. Right now there are 24 entries on this 'top 25' list. - the WOLF  child  02:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No there isn't. EVERYTHING on that list is valid for inclusion. You might not particularly like it, but fact of the matter is when you have a list of franchises and some films are operating under multiple franchises you will get duplication if both of those franchises earn enough to make it onto the list. Ruffice98 (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for putting the word "everything" is all caps, or else I might've missed it. I'm not talking about what is "included" so much as I am about what is excluded, since one entry is taking up two places on this list. If Iron Man were only listed once, then what other franchise/series would be added to the list? And to that end, when CA:CW comes out in the spring, if it makes enough for the Cap trilogy to warrant it's own duplicate inclusion on this list, it'll bump off yet another entry. (good bye, terminator). That'll mean 23 entries on a 'top 25' list. Also, this isn't about what I "like" or don't "like"... I'm just pointing out facts, so relax. - the WOLF  child  17:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I would point out that's a problem with including series in a franchise chart. Imagine if an Iron Man film came out unconnected to the MCU. Why wait for something like that to happen when it is already valid for inclusion right now? Nobody bats an eyelid about Spider-Man being there, Captain America would be fine because there's the 1990 film sitting there (may only have officially made about $10,000 at the box office, but it's something). Iron Man may not have that data exclusive to that particular franchise, but it is no less valid an entry. I've mentioned in the past the best course of action would be to rename that section to remove the word "series" because that's just creating problems at the moment (but those problems will raise their head again in future so it would only be a temporary fix). Ruffice98 (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

So, just to be clear... are you for the status quo or for change? Because your comments are... not clear. - the WOLF  child  19:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * List is fine, details around it aren't perfect but nothing can be done to sort those issues if you want the best results for the table. Ruffice98 (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, that's one opinion. Thanks. Bye. - the WOLF  child  01:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not an opinion, it is a fact. The section isn't ideal and ultimately the current situation (a list of franchises with each individual entry sub-divided into individual series) is the best compromise on that. This has been discussed in the past and decided by consensus as the ideal situation for the chart. Ruffice98 (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's not perfect, but so far it has been the best compromise version i.e we don't have all-out edit wars going on anymore. The collapsing table is far less limited than it used to be. There is only so much that can be achieved with a single table: we've achieved far more than what can usually achieved as well since that table had to be literally programmed into Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Betty, the table is fine, as far as lay-out goes. I realize it's a lot of work and that is certainly appreciated. I also realize that compromises have been made. But these compromises raise questions. I'm certainly not only one to bring this up. And regardless of what has been decided previously, things change. This table is not static, it's always changing, and more changes only bring more questions. I'm certainly not complaining, just bringing some of these issues up for discussion. The more people that address this, and the more it's discussed, the better chances at improvement and resolution. Again, thank you for your all your work. - the WOLF  child  20:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not an opinion, it is a fact. - Well, it's a "fact" that it's your opinion, but that's about it. Seriously, if you have nothing new to contribute, then take a break. You don't have to follow every. single. one. of. my. posts. with a reply. I hope you realize this. - the WOLF  child  20:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2016
In the Highest-grossing franchises and film series category please change #17 to the lord of the rings film series. The 3 movies combined made $2.917.506.956 whilst the Ice age franchise only made $2,808,672,643.

105.184.175.46 (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The Lord of the Rings is listed under Middle-Earth. Betty Logan (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Minions?
When checking BOM, I see the current Worldwide gross for Minions is currently $1,081,308,355 http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=minions.htm. Where does the reported total $1,118,053,895 come from?Telewski (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * updated the figure in this edit. He's a good editor so I am presuming that is what the source said when he made the edit. Box Office Mojo has made several mistakes this summer which have been subsequently corrected within a few hours and it has led to considerable confusion in some cases. I would wager that is the case here. Betty Logan (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the confusion, the edit comes from The Numbers ,I got a little anxious because BOM didn't update it already and I made that edit based on The Numbers' update, BO.com also puts the total at $1.18b so the figure is correct, I should have mentioned that in the "edit summary" or add the source temporally. DCF94 (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. BOM has now updated their gross and it is a bit more than either The Numbers or Boxoffice coming in at $1,118,759,726. Telewski (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * As of January 8, 2016, this film is still in theatres? Somewhere? - the WOLF  child  19:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not clear from Box Office Mojo. Their last update was for December 17, so it was certainly still playing in the last month and they still have it highlighted on their charts. It makes sense that it would play through xmas though. We tend to de-highlight when they do, unless there is a good reason for us to do otherwise. Once we remove the highlighting editors tend to stop checking the figures and updating them so it's best to be sure. Betty Logan (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Studio columns
Can you please add a new column for Studio? Because I think it is very interesting to see how different studios have relied on bankable franchises to stay afloat in tough economic times. I think this is an important part of the story that is not being told in this article.--Coin945 (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The studios are listed on the Box Office Mojo list, which is a major source for this page. - the WOLF  child  06:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It used to have the production companies listed but they cluttered the tables without really adding much to our understanding of the performance of these films so they were scrubbed. I would agree that this article does not really "tell the story" of the financial history of the major Hollywood studios, but I would counter that is beyond its scope. Betty Logan (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * That form was rather cluttered, yes. When you have 3 different film studios listed for one film that can get confusing very quickly. I'm sure, if the "beyond its scope" thing wasn't as issue, there could be a compromised way to include some valuable info without overwhelming the reader in trivia.--Coin945 (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The reason some of them have three companies listed is because in some cases three companies were involved in making them. The only compromise that I can see is that you either include them or you don't. We decided to rid of them when we revamped the article pending its review because they are superfluous to the goals of the article i.e. ranking film grosses. There are lots of things we could add (production companies/directors/stars etc) but it is not really needed to rank film grosses. Betty Logan (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

"Marvel/MCU/Iron Man questions" - revisited
I was having another look at this and something came to mind. Why do we have the 1978 LOTR film included in the "Middle Earth" franchise, and not 'all Marvel based films in the Marvel MCU franchise? In the case of LOTR (1978), it has nothing to do with the Peter Jackson films, other than retelling a same (or similar) story found in the Tolkien books. In the case of Marvel, there are plenty of films doing the same thing, Spider-man, Fantastic Four, X-Men, Punisher, Blade, etc. - all telling stories found in Marvel comics (and graphic novels). All part of a shared universe. There is certainly an inconsistency here that needs to be addressed. - the WOLF  child  18:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, can we look at expanding the list to 26, to include the 25th franchise that has been knocked off by the double Iron Man entry? - the WOLF  child  18:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Not all Marvel fillms are in the MCU while LOTR 1978 is based on the same I.P as the P.J films. Yes there are smartly between the marvel films but they are not only ones we do not have The Pixar universe. They are not a Franchies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.157.176 (talk) 2015-12-30T18:13:24


 * Not quite clear on what it is you're trying to say, but ALL the Marvel characters share a universe at the source, which is the comics. There is no "Pixar Universe" because the characters do not share a universe in film and they don't have a literary source, so your Pixar example is irrelevant. The only reason that not all Marvel films are in the MCU is because different production companies own the character film rights. Just as different production companies produced the "P.J" films and the 1978 film. (not sure what "I.P" means...)


 * Another issue I brought up before, and even Betty Logan stated it would have to be addressed if it came to fruition is; what happens when any of the Fox or Sony owned characters show up in a MCU film? Well, now that's happening. Spiderman will be in Captain America: Civil War and then have his own MCU-co-produced solo feature. Do we add the Spiderman franchise now? Also, if we're going to add the 1978 animated LOTR, why don't we add any of the Marvel Animated Features to the MCU? Seems to be the exact thing, no? - the WOLF  child  00:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "I.P." means Intellectual Property. Different production companies owning the character film rights is what this refers to (I'm not sure what the precise legal definition of a franchise is – perhaps someone who does know could clarify for future reference?). The Marvel Animated Features haven't been added because their box office returns are nil, being direct-to-video. TompaDompa (talk) 03:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, in the case of "intellectual property", everything in Marvel belongs to Marvel... the only exception is Fox has the film rights to certain characters. But everything they film is based on characters from a shared universe (in print) with everything in the MCU. And regardless of release (theatrical or home video) or returns, the animated features are films, with the same characters from the same shared universe (both print and most cases film). If anything, this makes the inclusion of the 1978 LOTR film questionable, if not problematic. Perhaps we need a clearer definition of what a "film franchise" is. To address both the LOTR and the double Iron Man entry, as well as the upcoming Spiderman question. Another thing to consider is the Alien, Predator and AVP franchise(s). They are all linked with the same characters sharing the same universe. It's even come out that Blade Runner is part of that universe, sharing commonality with Alien. That is a possible "franchise" standing at 11 films, $1.73Billion with 2 or 3 upcoming sequels. - the WOLF  child  08:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment A franchise is basically a property that is licensed out. All the media based on the Tolkien middle earth books form a cohesive franchise: Tolkien wrote The Hobbit, and then he wrote The Lord of the Rings as a sequel to it, and those have been adapted down the years, most notably by Peter Jackson. The 1978 film while obviously not part of the Jackson series is still part of the franchise. It's no different really to say Never Say Never Again, which was just another adaptation of the James Bond novel Thunderball, but not made by Eon. If they decide to re-do the Harry Potter books they would still be part of the franchise but just a new series in the franchise. That's not a particularly new concept: they rebooted Batman with the Nolan trilogy and also James Bond with Casino Royale.


 * Marvel and MCU are a different kettle of fish, and there isn't a straight analogy. Marvel is not a franchise, it is a company that owns/leases various properties. Before the creation of the MCU things like Iron Man, Spiderman, X-Men, The Incredible and Thor were all independent franchises. When Marvel decided to produce their own films they created the MCU: the MCU is a precisely determined sequence of films; Marvel are very specific about what films are in the MCU. Once Spiderman joins the MCU, that doesn't mean to say the previous Spiderman films are added to the MCU. In that sense it is less like a franchise and more like gigantic cross-over series. Personally I think it is controverisal calling the MCU a franchise (since Marvel determine which films are included rather than the licensing) but enough sources call it a franchise for us to not be able to ignore that. With the advent of these cinematic universes the very concept of a franchise seems to be evolving with the emergence of the meta-franchise.


 * As for Alien-Predator this is very easy to understand in traditional terms. Alien and Predator are essentially two different properties and therefore two different franchises. The original Alien trilogy had nothing to do with the original Predator films, so they don't really form part of a cinematic universe. The two Alien vs. Predator films were essentially franchise crossovers: they probably count as Alien films, and as Predator films, but clumping them all together in one big franchise makes as much sense as dumping Tobey Maguire's Spiderman films into MCU.


 * Ultimately I think it is best to keep things in perspective: this is not an article about franchises so what a franchise is or isn't, is not our priority. This is a box office article, and our overall aim is to give our readers information packaged in the ways they might want it: if you want to know how much all middle-earth films have made we have that information. If you are just interested in the Jackson series just expand the table and it is there. Not interested in The Hobbit and just want to know how much the Lord of the Rings trilogy made, well you can have that too. Likewise with the MCU, readers might want to know how much this set of films have made and we have that information for them. If you want to know how much the Iron Man films have made then that info is there too. Betty Logan (talk) 11:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I have posted a comment in the section below that also addresses the issues in this section. - the WOLF  child  18:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * As I am sure you are aware but I will repeat for the sake of anyone unaware, a franchise is where a property is leased off to another company to be adapted for another medium. For the sake of our chart, we include both sets of films created from franchises and sets of films that have resulted in franchises. I'm sure nobody would want to question Star Wars being on the chart (which is a case of the latter, a set of films which were then franchised to be adapted to other mediums rather than originating elsewhere), the MCU is such a case having been adapted for television by ABC Studios (and several other companies). Arguably it fits into BOTH descriptions. Ruffice98 (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This can be summed up as addressing two points; 1) the issue of the double Iron Man entry, which is addressed in more detail below, and 2) the inclusion on LOTR 1978, the criteria for that inclusion, and how such criteria might apply to other films. Beyond that, we could discuss just what a franchise/series/expanded universe is, and isn't, if there is an appetite for such a discussion. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  05:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Imagine if there was a list of the most populated "areas" of the world, China and India would both come in above Europe or North America, but so would Asia as a whole. They are all perfectly valid within the terms of what the table is displaying. At the moment this table depicts which franchise deals have resulted in the highest box office grosses. Sometimes producers and execs use more than one franchise at the same time, under the shared universe model. At the moment this is incredibly clear cut at the moment without any problems. The problem happens when DC build up a shared film universe without leasing it off for adaptation elsewhere (at the moment this would not meet the definition of a franchise, only a series). The same thing would affect Avatar if it ever got a sequel, because it is not a franchised work. A simple way round this is to include film series as well as film franchises (which is what has already happened in advance, even though all 25 entries meet the definition of a franchise, many without meeting the definition of a series).


 * I gather you have some issues with having both the MCU and Iron Man as entries, both make the definition of a franchise so are valid for inclusion under this definition. However, there is also the other side to it. As Wikipedia editors we cannot truly create new information, our information is compiled from several sources to create this list. These would not be on the chart if there wasn't a source to back it up. Ruffice98 (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 1. Imagine if there was a list of the most populated "areas" of the world - By areas, do you mean "countries", "continents" or some other geographical descriptor?
 * 2. I gather you have some issues with having both the MCU and Iron Man as entries - You "gather" that, huh?
 * 3. As Wikipedia editors... - You've made 250 edits, 80% of which are to talk pages. But, please, do go on... - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  17:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * That was a note on policy, you are now somehow trying to turn this into a "who is the better Wikipedia editor" argument. Quantity means nothing. I'm sure there's spam bots out there that could make thousands of edits providing no new information at all. The facts have been presented, unless you can provide new information contradicting what we have already presented to you please move on. Ruffice98 (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how your obnoxiously condescending arguments stand as the either "facts" or the last word in this matter. If you would like to "move on", then by all means, be on your way. I however do not post here by your leave. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  19:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You want to repeat a discussion that has been had numerous times previously. We have explained to you what the current situation is. The definition of a franchise has been given. The situation cannot be made any clearer. The table is correct as a list of the top 25 highest grossing franchises at the worldwide box office. You have questioned if one of them is incorrect because all the films are listed elsewhere, and the answer is "no" because it is its own franchise. What else are you wanting to question? Ruffice98 (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the re-cap, as incorrect as it may be. I "question" why you feel the need to keep harping at me about this. You obviously have nothing more to offer and I really don't feel like continuing this back-and-forth with you. Like I said, feel free to be on you way. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  01:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * What is incorrect about my recap exactly? The discussion has indeed happened numerous times before (everything is on archive for anyone to see), definition of a franchise is above at the top of this chain. If you are questioning whether Iron Man is actually a franchise, that evidence can be found in previous discussions relating to this same topic, as well as on the numerous articles relating to that particular franchise. The evidence is all there, as is the source that we follow. I don't know how to explain it otherwise, perhaps somebody else would have better luck than I'm clearly having. The table as presented is accurate and doesn't need amending (short of any corrections to box office figures). Ruffice98 (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

- NI;DR - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  02:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Well done, you've just confirmed exactly what I suspected, that you are simply trying to cause trouble. May I recommend this section be closed because this editor is refusing to listen or accept that they are wrong in spite of evidence to the contrary Ruffice98 (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I am just finished listening you. You've said what you've needed say, repeatedly. Now you're just filling up this section with needless spam and nonsense. I hate to break it to you, but you have neither the only or final say here. Now, quit bloating this page with your endless rants and give others an opportunity to contribute. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  20:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

suggestion
Perhaps an alternative solution could be found in changing the way in which the MCU is divided. Currently it is sub-divided by "phases"... (not sure why). Perhaps instead it could be done by properties. List the films by the character or group. The Iron Man trilogy, The Incredible Hulk, the Capt America trilogy, Thor trilogy and the Avengers quadiligy. It seems the intention of Marvel to stretch every property into a trilogy of films... GotG, Ant-Man, and likely Capt Marvel, Black Panther and so on. As each of these individual properties gains more sequels, there is the likelihood of gaining a place on this list, meaning more and more duplication, as we currently have with Iron Man and are about to have with Capt America and The Avengers in the coming months and years. If the table allows for it, perhaps a notation or color-coding can be added to denote the phase of each film, if that is really needed. Just a suggestion... - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  22:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually quite like that idea, and there is reasonable precedence in the article already. For example, one could argue that the Daniel Craig James Bond movies are their own series that happens to be a part of the overall James Bond film franchise (just like the Iron Man trilogy, Thor trilogy, etc. are their own series that are a part of the overall Marvel Cinematic Universe). However, The Daniel Craig Bond movies aren't listed separately on the list. The four films have grossed over $3 billion, which is more than enough to earn them a place on the list, but they aren't included (and I'm not arguing that they should be!) If we restructure the MCU series as mentioned above, each series based on a different property can be "filed" under the MCU and will not be listed separately so as to take up another slot. -Rmaynardjr (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That would appear to be a good solution, but there's a problem. Namely, that those are not franchises within the MCU, but franchises that overlap with the MCU. There are movies that are part of those franchises, but not part of the MCU (the most obvious example would be Ang Lee's Hulk). TompaDompa (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * We've also got Spider-Man sitting as a definite case of overlap in future, Captain America may as well thanks to [Captain America (1990 film)|a certain film] having box office data, so if it makes enough to enter the chart, we'd have to have a series break down as well. Ruffice98 (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I know you are sick of the sight of me, but please try to read what I am saying. The MCU is released and produced in "phases". In the overall context this is no different from Star Wars being broken up into trilogies. This is the official breakdown of the MCU storyline. What you are suggesting here was considered when Iron Man 3 came out, the conclusion at the time was that because of the separate Iron Man listing that this was redundant, and that by having the phase breakdown a unique listing could be provided within the MCU franchise. Please note, this is not my opinion, these are the facts being laid down for you and everyone else to consider.


 * My personal opinion on the matter is that the phase option is still ideal as it matches the style of the other entries on the chart (franchise broken down by series/sub-series, rather than franchise broken down by properties), although your suggestion is a lot more valid now there is some new information that may be obtained by doing this which wasn't the case the last time it was suggested back in 2013 when it would have just been Iron Man which is listed elsewhere and so is worth considering if anyone else agrees with you. Ruffice98 (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The "Ang Lee Hulk", "1990 Capt America film" and other "Spider-man" films (Sony?) don't need to be factors here. I'm talking about the films that are already listed as part of the "Marvel Cinematic Universe", and only them, and taking these entries and re-organizing them by title character or group, instead of by phase. All (or most) these titles are going to be trilogies (or quadrilogies), likely earning enough to gain a separate duplicate entry on this list. It's potential problem I'm trying to address early. We can kill two birds with one stone here, we group the trilogies, such as Iron Man and the ones to come, and eliminate the duplication. If we can find a way to denote what phase each film belongs to, then that's just a bonus on top. We're basically taking all the already existing info and containing under a single major entry. We don't lose anything, except the duplication. I really don't see a downside here. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  04:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * There are two problems I can see. We have legally registered franchises such as Iron Man being excluded from the chart for the sake of a style issue but as a far more urgent issue, we can't use original research and the table is already not in ideal circumstances (it gives us the list but not the order). You would need to find a website with a table or list excluding the inclusive franchises which matches the rest of our data exactly. Everything at the moment is sourced, we even have separate back up sources beyond the Box Office Mojo list to verify Iron Man and the Avengers are indeed independent franchises and not just some listing convenience on their part.


 * The issue I see is that we will always have duplication. With some franchises impossible to eliminate, why create a duplicate listing elsewhere of the same data? For example why list the Captain America trilogy as part of the MCU and CA franchises? That's part of the initial motivation to list phases instead of inclusive franchises so we can present the same data in two totally different ways so the duplication is minimised. Ruffice98 (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

example
Just for the sake of visualization; this is what I'm (basically) suggesting;

It could be modified of course, say perhaps add a column or color-code to denote which phase each film belongs to. This table only uses existing info... whatever is already there. I haven't added or removed anything. With additional sequels, if any title itself makes enough at the box office to warrant inclusion, (which we know will happen with Avengers and Captain America at the least), this will eliminate the need for a duplicate entry. Meanwhile, we can figure which franchise was bumped out of it legitimate spot at #25 and add it back to the list, and avoid bumping out any more franchises with duplicate entries. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not very hard to find out what #26 and #27 are (Avengers and Iron Man are both already on the chart so you would need the next two entries for your proposed chart), I'm sure most of the editors of this page know exactly where to find the required data if necessary, I don't have it to hand but know the procedure for obtaining data as of the moment.


 * As I've said elsewhere, the issue isn't with what you are suggesting, which is reasonable for the situation you are describing. The problem is getting the table to the situation you are describing, you need to find a source listing the franchises as you are describing them (I've had a quick check out of personal curiosity to see what alternative source lists could be found, I could eliminate The Avengers but Iron Man remains throughout the lists I could find) and a rule set to get the list exactly as you want it. In short, Iron Man and The Avengers are currently legitimate entries, you need to find a way to knock them off the list. I hope you can understand that it's not a simple matter taking them off. It's not just a style choice, if it was they'd probably be long gone by now. Ruffice98 (talk) 12:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As I've said elsewhere... - Exactly. Elsewhere and everywhere. You've had your say. I know where you stand. Like I said, you don't have to reply to me every single time I post here. Why don't you try contributing elsewhere on the project, instead of only posting replies to this talk page? Your replies in this section are not helpful for me. I would like to try and solicit feedback from others, without you constantly bloating every section and sub-section I post with your repetitive and argumentative opinions. Let others have a say for once. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  13:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

What does the 'Peak' mean?
Avatar and Titanic are both at number one. While second is further down the list, below actual peak 3, with Return of the King being 2. What does this mean? How does it help the article or what is 'peak' trying to say or in reference to? Charlr6 (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The highest position the movie has ever reached. There was a time when Return of the King was the second highest grossing movie of all time, for instance. TompaDompa (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I have added a hoverbox to try and make this clearer. Betty Logan (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It's mostly a way of acknowledging old movies. Newer movies have no chance of getting a very high "peak", while old movies do that easily. Pagen HD (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The Force Awakens
Soon, Star Wars: The Force Awakens might beat the record used by Avatar in the near future, and in the coming days, if Batman v. Superman beat The Hunger Games, they might be the 2016 highest grossing film of the year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:c8:c001:8a3a:45be:a2b2:7a3b:49c (talk) 2016-01-09T19:26:03
 * Yep... they "might". And...? - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  03:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And "both been directed and written by James Cameron" will have to go, probably his photo will go too. Pagen HD (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  20:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

BOM has a Problem in accounting
There's likely not a darn thing any of us can do about this, but if anyone knows how to contact BOM,I wish we could. The problem is with conversion rates first pointed out last year while trying to figure out why the Dollar earnings totals for FROZEN dropped despite continuing to earn more in the local currency (Euros). I experimented and ran the latest numbers for STAR WARS: The Force Awakens in Germany. Because BOM converts the total earnings using the prevailing conversion rate, the reported dollar earnings are either deflated or inflated depending on what the previous conversion rate was:


 * BOM currency and exchange rates as reported at: BOM webpage


 * Weekly earning is calcuated by subtracting the new total in local currency from the previous total.


 * The Calculated weekly rate is determined by dividing the weekly earning by the prevailing exchange rate.

So, BOM is currently reporting earnings for STAR WARS as of this week of $93,332,171, or € 81,967,113. However, if one converts the weekly earnings using the prevailing exchange rate for that week when the money was earned you get the last column of dollars and an actual earning total of $91,114,986, not $93,332,171. This was a good month to demonstrate this due to the wild fluctuation in the exchange rate.

What is of major concern is the 'real' earnings of movies which had their run from early 2014 to the end of 2014 when the exchange rate changed so dramatically. Because of BOM's flawed formula, these films are under reported for earnings. And yet the whole world relies on these flawed figures. Food for thought. Telewski (talk) 03:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * There are other sources for box totals, no? What do they say? - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  04:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The country totals fluctuate with the conversion rate (we already know this) but I don't know if the fluctuations have an impact on the overall total (for example, with Frozen, Japan kept going up while the overall foreign total stayed the same). There are several sources we can compare for the foreign total up to this weekend:
 * Box Office Mojo: $921.4 million
 * Rentrak: $921.4 million
 * The Numbers: $921.4 million
 * Box office.com}: $921.4 million (by subtracting the domestic figure from the worldwide figure)
 * Rentrak even does its own tracking, yet they all have the same number. It's likely that the foreign total is simply the figure released by the distributor every week. Betty Logan (talk) 06:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Good to see the independent confirmation on earnings totals. Thanks Betty.  I wonder if the earnings by country chart provided by BOM is not truly represented (included per se) in the reporting of the actual earnings total.  The reason I say this is because when I summed up all of the individual foreign market totals, it did not add up to the reported total foreign earnings for the same frame (in addition to the example Betty mentioned above).  I admit, this might be much to do about nothing.  But academically, it is interesting.  Thanks!Telewski (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2016
In the highest grossing films section, the list(table) of the 50 highest grossing films includes both live-action and animated film. In my opinion, there should also be another list with just the 50 highest grossing "live-action" films. I was wondering if I may add another list(table) below it with the 50 highest grossing live-action films. This is just a suggestion though. Thank you.

Annonymos93 (talk) 10:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: This is a list of highest-grossing films, not a list of highest-grossing live-action films. The distinction is not particularly relevant or necessary to document here. If you want to create a chart for live-action films I suggest you start a new article along the lines of List of highest-grossing animated films. Betty Logan (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 40 of the current top-50 are live action so I don't think it would make much sense to create a new page or table for them. It would be possible to indicate live action or animated in the existing table but lots of other information with no direct relevance to the gross could be added. I don't see why to single out live action. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I do agree it would be slightly redundant. I really don't think it's a defining trait: while people talk about the highest-grossing animated film they don't really talk about the highest-grossing live-action film. In many ways it would make more sense to point out animated films since they are the anomaly, but then again we have a whole other article which covers this topic, so why bother? Betty Logan (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Quo Vado?
Not that this is very important right now, because Kung Fu Panda 3 will be released soon and will overtake Quo Vado?, but the reason I didn't converted the euros from the budget when I added the movie is because, by my thinking, the time of the production is unknown, it's easy to try to convert box office gross when you know the dates the money was earned, but when the production money were used to produce the film, the rate could have been very different seeing how we don't know the exact dates of production. I just think it's not right to convert with today's rate money that were used probably 1, 2 years ago. DCF94 (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you make a sound point. The reason I added the conversion in brackets is because another editor converted the budget to dollars. I didn't fully agree with this because the budget is in euros and the dollar amount changes on a daily basis. On reflection though the metric of this article is the USD, and the number was effectively meaningless for readers who don't know the value of the euro. More often than not a conversion rate fluctuates between certain levels so usually it is possible to pin down an approximate conversion: for example, over the last year the USD:euro exchange rate (which is probably when the film was made) was between 1.05 and 1.15, which translates to a range of $10.5–11.5 million. I think $11 million gives an approximate idea of the scale of the budget for readers who wish to compare it the gross. Anyway, as you said this is a non-issue in this particular case because it will be quickly replaced in the next few weeks, but it would be interesting to get more opinions on this issue, since it is conceivable that Chinese films could start to enter the chart in years to come. Betty Logan (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2016
Star Wars:Force Awaken in [Highest-grossing films adjusted for inflation as of 2014] table and entitle is at [Highest-grossing films adjusted for inflation as of 2015]

117.220.31.178 (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Betty Logan (talk) 13:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Is this accurate?
The article currently mentions (as of Dec 14, 2015) : The only films in the top ten that are not adapted from a pre-existing property or a sequel are the top two, Avatar and Titanic, both directed by James Cameron.

What about Frozen which currently holds #8? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.158.76 (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Frozen is an adaptation of Hans Christian Andersen's The Snow Queen. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 06:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The adaption is so far removed from The Snow Queen (to the point where one should use "inspired by" instead of "adaption of") that even Avatar and Titanic would be considered adaptions by such a standard. Any known references that could be used to reënforce there being a difference? — al-Shimoni  (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The de facto reference is the film credits. Frozen credits The Snow Queen as its source material; albeit it may be a loose adaptation but it is not the place of editors to determine who and what gets credited. If the film credits source material then it is an adaptation, regardless of how closely it resembles the oirginal story. Betty Logan (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Dralwik, Betty Logan... Just rewatched that movie. 30 seconds into the credits, the credits don't say it's an "adaption", but rather, it actually says, " Story Inspired By " (at time 1:33:05 of the English version on the Blu-Ray). — al-Shimoni  (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Adaptations don't always use the word "adaptation". Something like Moonraker only uses a few character names but has a completely new story, but it is still regareded as an adaptation. The pertinent point here is that the film credits an existing work for its creation. Even the Frozen (2013 film) article credits The Snow Queen as its source material so maybe you should take your concerns there if you think this is being misrepresented. If they drop the source credit there then we can re-think our position here. Betty Logan (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Arrows
Is it my imagination or have little arrows appeared next to the film titles in the chart? It is obviously not my imagination they are there but I don't remember the table having little arrows all the way down the title column??


 * Betty, there's a discussion about that at Help talk:Sorting. Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing out the discussion. It seems Village Pump is on top of it though: Village_pump_(technical). Doesn't really affect the article apart from looking slightly weird. Betty Logan (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2016
Hello,

My name is Alfred. I have some suggestions, if I may.

I saw that the X-Men movies are put in a folder and Deadpool is outside of said folder. Can you create a folder for Deadpool? And a folder for the Wolverine movies? It feels out of place having Deadpool outside of the X-Men movies while the Wolverine ones are inside.

You could edit the list so that all 25 franchises have folders, and nothing outside of them.

Batman could have two main folders: Live-Action and Animated (this could be applied to Star-Wars, LOTR, Transformers, etc.). In the Live-Action folder you could have three sub-folders with the Nolan era, Burton/Schumacher era and Adam West era. And in the Burton/Schumacher folder you could have another two folders: Batman and Catwoman. Batman would have 4 movies and Catwoman 1 movie. Just an example of a way of improving the list, from my point of view.

Star Wars could also have Live-Action and Animated. In Live-Action: Episode Series and Anthology Series (this is for next December when Rogue One comes out).

For LOTR and Transformers: Live-Action and Animated.

For Harry Potter I would do it like this: Harry Potter Series and FBaWtFT Series (that title is way to long to use) (when the time comes).

Bond: Main Series, Pardody and Remake.

The reason I suggest using folders is because I, personally, don't like having things outside folders. It makes things feel incomplete.

In hopes of being heard, I thank you.

Necrophobius (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Are you on the right talk page for the article you want changes made? There is no mention of Deadpool on this article. I also am not sure what you are describing when you say "folder" Cannolis (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Deadpool is split off from the X-Men here for legal reasons, please see the above discussions. It is a separate franchise deal from the X-Men so the category is separated so that there can be a listing for the series and for the two franchises that make it up. Wolverine simply spins off from the X-Men deal (as does the upcoming Gambit film). If the Wolverine films were to be placed in a folder it would be within the X-Men franchise listing, within the X-Men film series listing. Ruffice98 (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)



Something like this. This way no movie is without a "folder". I would've shown you what I mean for the whole Star Wars franchise if I knew how. It would be like this: Live-action: Prequel - Sequel - Original; Animated: The Clone Wars. And when Rogue One comes out, I would add another "folder" to live action called "Anthology".

This is what I meant for Batman to.

@Ruffice98 I understand. And speaking of Deadpool, this is what I meant for his movie being in a folder:

Necrophobius (talk) 10:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It looks very redundant IMO. The box expands and gives you exactly the same information, so what's the point? I am aware there is a redundant "George Lazenby" drop-down box in the James Bond entry, but that is mainly because it needs to be clear it stars a different actor to the other films. Betty Logan (talk) 09:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

X-Men and Deadpool classification
This isn't an issue right now but is something to look at going forward. As a few of us are aware (those not can read more on the related articles for more information and sources) the X-Men and Deadpool are covered by separate franchise deals but share a continuity.

While the shared universe certainly meets the franchise conditions and is fine for the moment as the difference won't be that big unless Deadpool starts breaking box office records, things might start to skew long term as we end up with sequels (Deadpool 2 has already been greenlit).

So is there anything we want to do immediately to reflect this or shall we leave this for a later day? It wouldn't be anything big at this stage, just figuring out the long term plan. Ruffice98 (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * What about separating the main series in a new sub-box and making Deadpool a separate entry? At the very least, we should add a footnote that it wasn't registered as part of the main franchise if we choose not to include it.

-- Molandfreak  (talk,   contribs,  email) 21:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Or for my aforementioned footnote idea,
 * -- Molandfreak  (talk,   contribs,  email) 21:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't know enough about the origins of the character, or the relationship between the character and the X-Men, or indeed the placement of the new film within the X-Men film universe so I am not in a position to make a sound call on this one. I am aware that Deadpool has appeared already in one of the X-Men films though (played by a different actor) so in the absence of having a better suggestion I support Molandfreak's suggestion i.e. we just treat it as a crossover for at least the time-being unless there is a reason why this is a bad idea, and if this shared universe evolves beyond what can be considered crossovers a separated universe entry can be created then. We are talking about a Ryan Reynolds movie here so there is a good chance it will flop anyway and we won't see any more of these Deadpool films. Betty Logan (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * That was Ryan Reynolds as well in the previous film, he's been working on this film for well over a decade (his involvement even predates Fox or any X-Men connections). We've got a shared universe made from two franchises. Box Office Mojo are ignoring it from their X-Men listing so is there is good grounds to ignore it entirely and just make a note about why it is missing (although there are other inconsistencies with their future release listings that may suggest that's more to do with being a spin-off than a separate franchise) or to consider it as all one series but then split the franchises within the listing (as in the proposed table above).


 * Given the table is about the highest grossing film franchises and series, I do think we should split it as suggested above. That way we have distinction between the franchises and keep the series as a whole intact for that listing, but can also provide the information on the X-Men franchise (and just keep a separate franchise listing away from the matter for the moment until the distinction becomes noticeable enough). Ruffice98 (talk) 09:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Deadpool does not show up on BoxOfficeMojo's franchise list for X-Men, and it looks like the film won't actually share a universe with the other X-Men movies for now.Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Box Office Mojo is our first port-of-call, but it is not entirely consistent in its approach. I think this is mostly down to three staff changes in the last year so we should always bear that in mind and consider what other sources have to say on the matter. Betty Logan (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * That's definitely not true, and I don't know where you got that from but the universe is very definitely shared. They are separate franchises, but sharing a universe and as a whole make up a film series from the two franchises so it is fine to list them together (obviously as long as the franchise division exists within the listing). Ruffice98 (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Now BOM is listing Deadpool with the X-Men franchise anyway, so there's really no reason to exclude it at this point.-- Molandfreak  (talk,   contribs,  email) 05:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * That was an example, there's plenty of other sources I have provided in the past to confirm this. As I've said before it is very definitely part of the series, the problem is how do we tackle it as two separate franchises within the one series. The current structure deals with that issue. The labeling isn't ideal, but we are rather stuck until somebody locates a source for a name for the universe. Ruffice98 (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Kung Fu Panda 3
- It doesn't matter that it's "only February", the fact still remains that KFP3 is the highest-grossing film of 2016 (so far), and that's why it's been added to the to table. With that said, did you even bother to look at your edit after you saved it? You left the table in a mess. Please use the WP:PREVIEW function to check your edits before saving them. I would also suggest learning WP:MARKUP before editing complex entries such as tables. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  02:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Thewolfchild. It seems to you are mis-applying a WP:CRYSTAL argument to this table: while it is true it is only February and the information will almost certainly change, the highest-grossing 2016 film is just as notable now as it will be next year, or in ten years so it is a valid entry and it's a established fact based on current information. It's not the same as a prediction. Betty Logan (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

wolverine
in the x-men franche gourp be main series, wolverine series and deadpool — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.157.176 (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The case with the Wolverine films is unique. It isn't legally a separate franchise, but a series of films within a larger franchise. On the other hand, Deadpool is another franchise altogether which happens to exist in the same universe as the X-Men and Wolverine films. I have no strong opinion on this, but I can see arguments for and against separation.-- Molandfreak  (talk,   contribs,  email) 00:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Legally"...? - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  01:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, as in Fox have a legally binding contract with Marvel regarding the film rights of "X-Men" characters and they have a legally binding contract with Marvel regarding the film rights of "Deadpool" characters (and the same again for the Fantastic Four, although that's not relevant for this case). Wolverine is covered by the X-Men contract, Deadpool is not. Ruffice98 (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Harry Potter Franchise title
If we're going to add the Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film)(s) to the Harry Potter franchise, we should consider renaming it the "J.K. Rowling's Wizarding World". Actually, come to think of it, are we including those films in that franchise? Smith (talk)  21:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * They will be added to Harry Potter franchise entry if they are set in the same "universe", but on what basis would we change the title to "J.K. Rowling's Wizarding World"? Is this some sort of official name? Betty Logan (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There is nine months to the first film opens so it's a waste of time to discuss it now. We can just wait and see what the common name is at the time in reliable sources like http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/, assuming sources consider it part of one big franchise (they probably will, but also keep Harry Potter as a "subfranchise"). PrimeHunter (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You're mixing up series with franchises. If it's all on the same deal it's the same franchise, so classification isn't the issue. We can wait for a name to present itself then go with that. Ruffice98 (talk) 12:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Addressing those points in the order they came: Yes, it's confirmed to be in the same universe. Yes/Maybe/It seems so - see here, and various other articles; the trailer for the film bears it as some sort of subtitle (supertitle? Again, not sure).  I agree that there's no hurry to figure it out at least until the movie is released.  Smith  (talk)  23:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Add Star Wars: The Force Awakens to the "Highest-grossing films adjusted for inflation" list
The current earnings for Star Wars: The Force Awakens have already surpassed the 10th and last entry on the "Highest-grossing films adjusted for inflation" list, Snow White. Since the earnings on Star Wars: The Force Awakens is current and needs no adjustment, shouldn't the "Highest-grossing films adjusted for inflation" table be updated, and continue to be updated as the earnings figure increases?

112.134.33.56 (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This question came up back in August. No consensus was really reached. The discussion is archived here. TompaDompa (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The problem with adding it is that the chart is slightly dated now since the other grosses will have increased in the interim due to inflation. I don't know how Guinness carry out the adjustment but the chart was published in 2014 (possibly using a 2013 index) so it is not even clear if Star Wars has made the top 10 as yet (despite the beating the 2014 gross of Snow White) or where it would rank. I just checked the World Bank and global inflation is currently running at 2-3% so Snow White could be around $1.9 billion now. I have added a date to the chart to try and make it clear why Star Wars doesn't appear, but I think "best" practice in this case would be to simply add a note explaining the situation and leave updating the chart to Guinness. Betty Logan (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It's now reached 2 billion, according to this. Even at 4% inflation, it's now definitely on the list. I'm not sure if adjusting the grosses in the table based on inflation rate would be WP:OR, though, or if it's WP:COMMONSENSE.  Smith  (talk)  20:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it is undoubtedly on the list, but that still doesn't make it possible for us to add it in a way that is conistent with Wikipedia policy. By my own calculations you can probably assume the figures in the chart are 50-100 mil higher so you can get a rough idea of how it compares. Betty Logan (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Surely there is something we can do here? We are knowingly listing incorrect info. I understand that with the current layout, our hands are tied by wiki-policy, but why not just adapt the layout, even temporarily, to accommodate SW:TFA? - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  01:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We are knowingly listed dated info, which isn't quite the same: the table is clearly dated and there is a note. I think that is the best we can do until Guinness publish a new chart. Anything beyond that will simply be a guesstimate by us. The only other solution I can think of is to remove the chart until Guinness publish a new one. Betty Logan (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Is Guinness the only source we can go by on this? - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  13:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge it is. It is certainly the most credible at any rate. The problem is it's not factual data like nominal box office grosses. As you can see from the other estimates in that section the adjusted figures are usually dependent on who does the adjusting. It's not ideal having out-of-date information, but Guinness will publish a new book in October so that's only 8 months to wait and I don't really see that as a huge issue. Betty Logan (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, it shouldn't be a huge issue, but SW:TFA has drawn significantly increased attention to SW related-articles here from SW fans. For some, 8 months just may be an eternity. I have put "ST:TFA" in bold in the notation below the table. Hopefully that will help draw the eye of some of these fans to the notes and head off any more needless edits to the table and repeated talk page enquiries. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  14:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. This comment is only a procedural response to the edit request and has no bearing on the outcome of the discussion above. Mz7 (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I propose we adjust the figures in the table by adjusting them for inflation, and adding Star Wars: The Force Awakens. I argue that this is WP:COMMONSENSE, not WP:OR, because we aren't compiling the list from scratch; furthermore, theres precedent, as Snow White currently has the revenue estimated by adjusting for inflation. Smith (talk)  23:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And how do you propose adjusting the grosses when it is not known which inflation index Guinness uses? In the case of Snow White it was possible to deduce the inflation by comparing the current list and the previous list, but it is not possible to work out the new inflation rate until Guinness publish a new list. At the end of the day there is WP:NODEADLINE. Betty Logan (talk) 13:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Iron Man franchises
I know that the Iron Man franchises is on the-numbers.com, but should it really be under a separate category in 'Highest-grossing franchises and film series'? As it is a part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and counted under the number of movies. Skjoldbro (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The current iteration of Iron Man films are part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but the Iron Man franchise itself is not part of the MCU. It is easier to understand in the context of the Incredible Hulk films: the 2003 Hulk belongs the Incredible Hulk franchise, but not the MCU, while the 2008 Incredible Hulk film belongs to both the Incredible Hulk franchise and the MCU. If there were ever enough Hulk films for the franchise to qualify for the chart then it would require a separate entry. This will become clear with the new Spiderman films: they will belong the MCU and the Spiderman franchise, but that doesn't mean all the pre-existing Spiderman films should be placed under the MCU i.e. we wouldn't put the current Spiderman entry under the MCU entry, we would just add the new films to both the Spiderman and MCU entries. This brings us to Iron Man: while all the current Iron Man films are also part of the MCU the redundancy is basically a happy coincidence i.e. it is an illusion created by the fact that there were no theatrical Iron Man films made prior to the MCU. That doesn't alter the fact it is still a franchise in its own right though, because the Iron Man franchise was producing media for decades before the MCU was ever conceived. It is basically no different to Hulk or Spiderman in that respect, so to not have an Iron Man entry would create an inconsistency in how we approach the chart. It would also create a falsehood too, because we would end up leaving out a legitimate franchise and all the franchise ranked below it would be artificially raised by one place in the chart. If you search through some of the previous discussions on this subject look out for the comments by since he explains it much better. Betty Logan (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It all comes back to the definition of a franchise. The simplest way of describing it is as a legal deal taking a property from one medium into another, so Harry Potter started off as a series of novels which became a series of films so it is a franchise. Star Wars was a series of films which resulted in novels, video games, TV shows, etc. so it is also a franchise. Iron Man started off as a comic book series, but spawned films, cartoons, and lots of other things. The Marvel Cinematic Universe started as a series of films constructed from literally dozens of smaller franchises, but has as a combined entity become a franchise in its own right (as an example being adapted for TV).


 * When some franchises cross over, this can create the appearance of duplication. So for example The Avengers and Iron Man both appear entirely included within the Marvel Cinematic Universe as a film entry, but if you were to view the franchises on a far larger scale beyond just the theatrical films you would see there are plenty of unique things in each franchise. The problem is that these other parts of the franchises weren't released in cinemas so never made a box office figure. Just take a look through the List of films based on Marvel Comics, you'll see there are plenty of animated films that were released direct to video. Their box office gross will be $0 so they don't get included on this chart, but they do ultimately make up a part of the franchise. Ruffice98 (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Since it was brought up again, I'll suggest again that we group the films by franchise (ie: Iron Man, Captain America, etc.) instead of phase, as I demonstrated above. We can still denote the phase in which each film takes place, but there is nothing that we says we must! group the films into phases. If we do it per the example table (see below), we can eliminate the needless duplication that is continuing to be problematic.


 * - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  01:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - Do you have comment on this suggested table layout? (I used your template ☺ ) - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  12:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * While it looks intuitive I think it is structurally shortsighted. The "phases" are "hard" divisions whereas the franchises are not. To illustrate the point let's consider the DC version for a moment. Sooner or later the DC Universe will probably make the list and if the main entry were divided by franchise where would you put something like Batman vs. Superman? It is basically a crossover that belongs to both the Batman and Superman franchises, but you can't list it twice or it will mess up the totals, numbers and averages. Ordering the films by phases gets over this potential problem with the MCU since any single film can only belong to a single phase. Does have anything to say on this matter? Betty Logan (talk) 07:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a suggestion and certainly open to variation. Perhaps we could add another column to the table for the phases, make it sortable and voila... all fixed. In one sub-table, we can group by phase or franchise. This would eliminate the pesky duplication. I just don't see why we need to be beholden to grouping the films by phases, instead of other means, such as franchises (or lead characters, or whatever). At some point, DC might break into this table, but I say let's cross that bridge when we get to it and in the meantime work on improving the Marvel entries. We apply whatever remedies to DC, or any other multi-blockbuster entries, as they come. As for BvS, I would think it would be listed like any other cross-over, such as Justice League, which is on the horizon. -  the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  08:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Does Ruffice98 have anything to say on this? - Why? He has a total of 250 edits, half of those on this talk page, only 50 to article space, only 1 to this article. Why not solicit comments from others with more... experience? Or just others period? - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  08:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not technically possible to make a collapsible table sortable; you either have one or the other. And treating an crossover like any other crossover doesn't make sense in the context of what you are proposing i.e. you would have a single film listed twice under a single entry. For instance, if Captain America Civil War is treated as a crossover between Captain America and Iron Man then it would be represented under the main Iron Man franchise entry and the main Captain America franchise entry, but that would result in two entries under the MCU entry. There's no point "fixing it" when it occurs, when we can simply avoid the problem by just not doing it in the first place. Marvel organizes its MCU in phases so it is organic for us to simply follow suit. Betty Logan (talk) 11:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I didn't "propose" listing anything twice. In fact that's what I'm trying to avoid. I didn't mention Cap3, and it's not an official cross-over anyway. But films like Avengers, BvS and JLA are, and they only need to be listed once, just like Avengers is (within the Marvel sub-table). I didn't realize that you couldn't sort collapsible tables, but there always others solutions to be found to denote the phases without needing to list the same films twice. There's color coding or adding another column with phase numbers, as examples. I'm just looking for a way to get the legitimate 24th and 25th ranked franchises back into the top 25 list (the ones bumped out by Iron Man and Avengers). And I have no problem addressing the DC films now, in a way I suppose that's what I'm doing. If they're successful enough, I don't want to see them filling up the table with duplicate entries either, bumping out even more legitimate entries. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  12:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * As I have said before, these are legitimate franchises and we've got sources to back that up so please stop saying otherwise, all the entries on the chart are legitimate entries (if anything at the moment we're actually one short because of the whole X-Men/Deadpool thing). Iron Man is a franchise, Avengers is a franchise and the MCU is a franchise. Those deals and contracts create groupings of films, and when comparing the box office grosses of those groupings they are all within the top 25. What you are looking for is something entirely different. A bottom to top approach, rather than what we are doing here. The table isn't about the individual films, it's about the link between them. Ruffice98 (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You realize I don't even bothering reading your posts anymore? I'm just trying to create discussion to find solutions. You keep trying to shut everything down with your "everything must be my way" replies. There are problems with this table. The community has voiced concern about them, repeatedly. These problems aren't going to go away, no matter how many dismissive and condescending comments you post. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  04:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I am very well aware of your opinion of me, but I will continue as I am because you are continuing as you are. Giving out false information is not helping your position. We have a genuine problem, it is with the table itself, not with the information contained within. I personally support stylistic change to clarify the situation that exists, you support structural change to the table itself. But to do that, you need to come up with something that is structurally sound, and not simply removing entries people don't like. Ruffice98 (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The wikipedia software is very limited so what we have is basically a set of compromises. It was also developed before these cinematic universes really took off, so it is inevitable that as franchising becomes more intricate a single and simple table won't be able to capture all the nuances. We do the best we can with what we've got. The obvious solution to me is to construct a complete fresh article for film franchises which can house three separate tables each with a particular criteria i.e. properties/continuities/series etc. That looks to me to be the obvious way to go. As an example, Middle-earth would be a property (seven films) while the Peter Jackson films would be continuity (six films), and LOTR and The Hobbit are each definable series (three films apiece). For something like Star Trek the continuity and the property is identical, but you arguably have three different series. I just think we are trying to do too much with a single table and if either of you are serious about comprehensively covering film franchising then that's the direction we should be going in. At the moment you are both arguing about the best way to shove to a square peg in a round hole! If we had a proper article covering this stuff then we could just ditch the franchise section of this article and it could just focus on single films. Betty Logan (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Excellent post, Betty... I couldn't agree with you more. These multi-picture, multi-in-universe block-buster franchises aren't going away, in fact we're going to be getting more and more of them. And with the kind of box office numbers they're achieving, they will be finding their way onto all the top-whatever tables. Wikipedia will need to adapt. As an editor that has created several large tables, and maintains a few more, I know their is a lot of work that goes into to even creating an example table for an RfC/consensus (I've been following your efforts at the List of box office bombs talk page.) So with that, if you want to start on any proposals, I'm happy to help with whatever you need; research, tedious populating of info, etc., etc. Let me know. Cheers - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  17:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Seems like a good idea to me; it's getting kind of "apples and oranges"-y as it is. TompaDompa (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Does have any views on creating a fresh article to cover this topic? It would be good if everyone were on the same page (figuratively as well as literally) in moving forward. Betty Logan (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it would be a smart move. Keeps things cleaner and allows us to provide a far more thorough explanation as to why the table is the way it is, as well as provide alternate tables presenting the other data rather than trying to do multiple different things on the one table. This table works almost perfectly as a list of the top franchises (knock Deadpool out of the X-Men listing and it is perfect), having an alternate table for series as well would provide a table with no duplication of individual films which is what some people are also looking for. This provides a solution for both sides so has my support. Ruffice98 (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Well there seems to be a consensus about the direction we are going in at least. I have been holding back for further comments and I also wanted to complete the Box office bomb list which is done now, so we should probably push on with this. I think the most practical approach would be to create three tables in some draft space (for properties, series' and continuities), and then construct the article around the three tables, and once it is in a functional state move it into article space. Betty Logan (talk) 01:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)