Talk:List of highest-grossing films/Archive 16

Add Distributor/Studio Column
In the table for highest-grossing films, I suggest adding a column for the studio. It helps to have an overall overview of each one of the major studios' performance in the top 50. For example, I came here trying to see how many each studio has but there's no easy way without opening each individual movie. I think studio's performance is one of the most common things that people look for especially now when people are talking about all the box office records Disney is breaking. So, I don't think we can say it's irrelevant.

I can add the studio column and studio info myself but I'm bringing it up here in case there's a reason it was left out since it's such an obvious relevant piece of information. Starforce13 02:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * It has been discussed previously and the consensus is against adding a distributor column. If we were going to add further columns it would make more sense to add "director" and "production company" before distributor. Also, most films have more than one distributor in the global marketplace which would complicate matters. The main purpose of this list is to compare the success of the films not the companies that distribute them. If you are interested in compiling data about a studio's commercial success I would suggest a better choice of article would be an article that specifically covers the studio, such as the one at List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films. The topic can be covered more comprehensively by its own article than trying to shoehorn it into what is already a huge article. Betty Logan (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It could either be distributor and/or the production studio. I was thinking something like “Disney/Marvel Studios”, “Disney/Pixar” etc. And by distributor, I mean the studio that officially releases and owns the film. If Disney doesn’t have a branch in some country X, it is still the owner of Disney movies even if distributes it through some local company. Thus, Disney is the primary distributor that makes the distribution deals with local studios. I think besides Titanic, all the major films are released by the same studio worldwide. The ones with different distributors are from small independent studios which aren’t likely to make the list anyway. And yes, I know we have the studio info on the various studio pages. I’ve worked on some of them. I was looking to provide a centralized repository. But yeah, if it’s already been discussed and a consensus reached, that’s fine. I just wanted to make sure that we’re not overlooking a key piece of information like the studio(s) involved.  Starforce13  04:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Previous discussions can be found at /Archive 2011, /Archive 2013, /Archive_2016, /Archive 2018, and /Archive 2018. TompaDompa (talk) 04:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So, I looked at all those discussions and didn’t find any with actual consensus. Whenever the subject is brought up, it’s blocked by just the same 2-3 editors (some of whom were involved in the initial removal of the studio column without consensus). The excuses are always “the page is too big” - which isn’t true compared to most pages; “there’s a lot of columns we could add” - well nobody asked for the others; “studios are tangential info we don’t need” - which isn’t true because you can’t talk about theatrical releases and distribution cycles without including studios; and obviously “consensus has been reached” which is also not true. The fact that it’s been brought up over 6 times and none of the discussions have actual consensus, shows that this is not a settled issue and it’s an important piece of information that a lot of people care about.  Starforce13  10:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it would be too complicated because there are films that have been distributed by more than one distributor worldwide. It would make a lot more sense to add the directors. -- Maze  waxie  10:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Besides Titanic, which is a special case, what other major films have been distributed by multiple studios? (I’m saying major because smaller ones aren’t likely to even make close to the list). Starforce13  10:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Many of them. For example Aquaman was distributed by ACME in Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia; by Vertical Entertainment in Romania; by Blitz in Slovenia and Croatia and many more. Endgame too, for example, was not distributed by Disney in: Ukraine, Denmark, Vietnam, Colombia, Romania, Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Portugal, Philippines, Turkey and Japan. -- Maze  waxie  11:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Distributor means the studio that owns the movie and makes distribution deals around the world. Aquaman is a Warner Bros film. Since WB is not in every single country, they then make distribution deals with local studios. But the owner and primary distributor is still WB. Likewise, Disney is the studio that makes distribution deals for all Disney studios movies. That’s what makes it a distributor regardless of who might actually deliver it to the consumer in the local market. By your logic, theater chains could be distributors too since Disney just makes deals with them and isn’t directly involved in delivering the movie to the audience. The only time a film is considered to be distributed by multiple studios is if the production company independently makes distribution deals with the local distributors. (Like the case for Titanic.) For Disney movies, Marvel is not involved in making Distribution deals in Ukraine etc. It’s Disney that does that makes the deals. Because Disney is the one in charge of distribution worldwide. Does that make sense? If the term “Distributor” is confusing, then a less ambiguous term would be “Released By” which should be obvious.  Starforce13  12:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I understand what your point is. Let's wait for other opinions. -- Maze  waxie  12:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I just don't agree with this analysis of "distributor". A distributor is simply the company who distributes the film, and nothing more than that. For example, Eon Productions make the James Bond films and the distribution rights are hawked around every few years. Why would the distributor matter in this instance more than the company that makes the film? Let's take your example, Marvel. Prior to being bought out by Disney, Marvel had a distribution deal with Paramount, just as Lucasfilm had a distribution deal with Fox for Star Wars and Paramount for Indiana Jones. Why would the distributor be more important than the production company in these cases? You are taking a classical view of the old studio system when a studio would produce and distribute the film all in house but this is not applicable in many cases. The Hollywood studio model is not a model that fits the global market. Even if it were I would still consider it tangential to the article: we have a 300kb article and all the data and all the analysis is centered on the comparative success of the films and the various trends over the years and documenting the distributor would lie outside the scope of the analysis i.e. the analysis and the data is about the films themselves, not the people or the companies connected to those films. Betty Logan (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I frankly don't see the benefit of adding a distributor column. It would clutter the table without adding to the readers' understanding of the topic. Here's a non-exhaustive list of columns I feel would improve the readers' understanding of the topic more: Adding a distributor column would mostly just make the list look more like a scoreboard. TompaDompa (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this makes the point very succinctly. There are all sorts of things of interest that we can add to the article, but you can't cover it all. When we took this article through its FA review (which was 7 years ago) we took the decision to streamline it and focus all of the data and analysis on the films themselves. That's not to say all these other things are not without merit but the scope of the article is well defined by the title. We could never give enough coverage or analysis over to these other aspects which would be better served by dedicated articles IMO. I would actually quite like to see a genre list (like we do with animated films), and we do have a list covering non-English-language films. That's definitely the way to go. Betty Logan (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Basically, the pieces of information you see listed on BoxOfficeMojo are the common points of interest with regards to Box Office performance in theatrical release. Things like director, awards, languages have nothing to do with theatrical release. The distribution deals are made by the distributor company which also reports the box office numbers. Personally I would prefer the format I mentioned like "Disney/Marvel", "Disney/Lucasfilm", "20th Century Fox/Lucasfilm" like we do in pages like 2019 in film. I would also argue against including those inhouse companies owned by producer/director/writers that get credit but aren't the primary production company. And yes, the global distributor is always the primary company that owns the movie and makes distribution deals with third parties like theater chains and local distributors. All Disney movies will have "Distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures" credit regardless of who the local distributor is. Sometimes, depending on the deal, the local distributor may also get credit but that's in addition to the primary distributor and it's rare. Starforce13 20:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, that is not true of all cases. Box Office Mojo only documents the US distributor, mainly because it is an American box-office tracker (which is why BOM only lists Paramount as a distributor for Titanic, despite the fact that Fox distributed it in more territories and accounted for two-thirds of its gross, and also why it lists Disney as the distributor for Spirited Away). Something like Skyfall had many different distributors all over the world. Sony did not make the film, it just distributed it in the territories it had distribution rights in (negotiated by Danjaq). This is also true of all the early Marvel films: distribution was split between Paramount, UIP, Sony and some independent distributors. You are trying to push a square peg through a round hole. The peg fits in your specifically chosen example of Marvel/Disney backed films, but not for all other films at a worldwide level. Betty Logan (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Premature removal of highlighting
Will editors please not remove the highlighting from the charts until they are sure that the film has closed. removed the highlighting for Shazam on the basis that "BOM says it closed on 25 July." He is correct that BOM says it closed on July 25, but the problem is that this only refers to the US market. According to the foreign tracking Shazam was still playing in a dozen countries last week. While it may be the case that the film closed in those markets too, we will not really know until next week when this week's box-office is logged.

For example, Avengers: Infinity War closed in September 2018 in the US market, but played through to January 2019 in overseas markets, so you can not simply assume that the film has closed everywhere. The only way to make sure is to wait for the box-office results to be published the following week.

Premature removal of highlighting happens a lot on this page and it can be problematic. Having the entry highlighted lets readers know which data has not been finalised and aids editors in checking and updating the grosses. If the film remains highlighted for a couple of weeks after it has closed it is not a problem. We don't actually care if the film is playing or not, but we do care that the grosses might change. If the grosses don't get updated over the next week then there is a good chance BOM has stopped tracking it. Jumping the gun makes it much harder to maintain the page and can potentially lead to an update being overlooked, while waiting a couple of weeks and making sure has no cost to readers and editors. My recommendation would be to wait at least two weeks after the final update date on the foreign grosses tab. Betty Logan (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Horror
dose anyone what to help make a list of highest grossing horror film series and franchise, pelaese go to the talk page Fanoflionking

Franchises or public domain
can someone come and help decide on a topice on Talk:List of highest-grossing musicals Fanoflionking

Meaning of the cross after Endgame
Don't know how this works. Just one question: What does the (†) cross mean next to Endgame?RandomUser0505

It's an indication that the film is still in release based on a date listed above the table dfansteel

Thank you! RandomUser0505

New image for the Highest-grossing franchises and film series section
Should we add an image to the section after the removal of the James Bond one? -- Mazewaxie ( talk  •  contribs ) 16:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you propose?Timur9008 (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Maybe something related to the MCU, but I'm not sure about that since we already have a Feige image in the highest-grossing films section. -- Mazewaxie ( talk  •  contribs ) 19:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Are there any free group photos of the actors from the MCU, such as at comic-con? There are quite a few MCU franchises on the list. Betty Logan (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Batman 1989
According to Box Office Mojo, Batman (1989 film)'s gross is $411,508,343, while this page's franchise section gives it as $411,556,825.
 * The US gross from the 30th Anniversary release was added to the main total on BOM, but the UK gross was not. Our figure is the correct one. Betty Logan (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

"Butts in seats"?
Do we have any way of quantifying this? It's referred to quite a bit on Charting with Dan, and is similar to the "adjusted for inflation" metric, but estimates the number of people who saw the film and the number of times it was seen by those people.

The way I read the current article, it appears to imply that Endgame just barely edged out Avatar due to ticket prices having increased overall between 2009 and 2019 but that the latter's gross, when adjusted to accommodate that fact, was still close to 500 mill higher in 2019 dollars; but Avatar's gross was also probably inflated by the fact that so many people saw it in 3D. I always heard it was the only way to appreciate the film (which is why I still haven't bothered buying the DVD or Blu-Ray), and that's not something I've seen people saying about Endgame (I'm pretty sure on opening day all showings in every cinema in Tokyo where/when I saw it, be they 2D, 3D, IMAX, 4DX, etc., subtitled or dubbed, were completely booked out).

Anyone know how we can get these figures? A quick Googling indicated that 59 million people saw Avatar in North America, while 100 million saw Endgame worldwide, which is pretty useless information for comparative purposes...

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This information is impossible to obtain. Distributors only track the gross because they are only interested in $$. There have been various attempts over the years to quantify films like Gone with the Wind and Snow White, but it is nowhere near consistent enough or accurate enough to form the basis of a chart. The European Union tracks admissions data, and so does Japan, and Box Office Mojo estimates it for the United States, but beyond those regions you are very unlikely to find the information.The adjusted box-office is probably the best we can do. Betty Logan (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Inflation gross
What happens when/if lion king (2019) surpass The Exorcist on the inflation chart will we make it a top 15? Fanoflionking 16:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally I would be in favor of that but it's highly unlikely that The Lion King will overtake The Exorcist. The Exorcist has grossed $1.94 billion adjusted for inflation and The Lion King only grossed $70 million over the last week. Unless it has further releases in the pipeline it's not going to make it. Betty Logan (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have added a See also to List of highest-grossing films in the United States and Canada which currently has a top-100. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

GWR
question has anyone every tried to contact Guinness World Records to see how the caulate inflation or even if they can give us a longer list Fanoflionking 22:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Images
What if we move the Feige image to the "Highest-grossing franchises and film series" section and change the caption to something like "Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige produced every film of the Marvel Cinematic Universe." and then add a new image in the "Highest-grossing films" section? I think the "Highest-grossing franchises and film series" section deserves an image. Let me know what you think. -- Mazewaxie ( talk  •  contribs ) 13:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The lack of an image in the "franchises" section is not a reason to overrule the reams of discussion that took place regarding the image in the upper section, and we're not giving Feige (or Feige and/or his film series) two images. The Bond image that had been there for years was removed three weeks ago with a rationale that makes a certain amount of sense (when the series was the highest-grossing, adjusted for inflation, that was a decent rationale for the non-free image's inclusion, but not now). Does anyone know if we have a non-non-free image that could be used to reference the James Bond series and solve the problem immediately? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 15:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not say that I want two images for Feige. I was suggesting to move the existing one in the franchise section and add a different image in the top 50 films section. -- Mazewaxie ( talk  •  contribs ) 15:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we can have Feige in the highest grossing films table; and Marvel Cinematic Universe logo in the franchises section. (FYI, MCU passed Bond even when adjusted for inflation. So, MCU deserves to go to be both sections, not Bond. Otherwise, anyone can pick their favorite franchise and use some criteria to put their image.) Starforce13  16:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI, MCU passed Bond even when adjusted for inflation. So, MCU deserves to go to be both sections, not Bond. Otherwise, anyone can pick their favorite franchise and use some criteria to put their image. Again, please drop the tone. "For your information" is an arrogant and presumptuous turn of phrase, especially directed at the editor who drew attention to this same information back in May 2017. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A few days ago I added the MCU logo and wrote that it became the highest-grossing franchise in 2015 (with an appropriate source) but it was removed. -- Mazewaxie ( talk  •  contribs ) 16:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The image in the "Highest-grossing films" section should ideally be related to the top film, and the image in the "Highest-grossing franchises and film series" section should ideally be related to the top franchise. Right now the top film is part of the top franchise, which might be a good reason to make an exception to that rule of thumb. At any rate, I don't think we should add another image if it's just a photograph of a person or some text (which is part of the reason, along with the low image quality). TompaDompa (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the "two MCU images" thing was a reference to the (implied) rule of thumb, not an accusation. The fact that the Bond series was the first to gross more than 1bln and remained the highest grossing for decades, IMO, makes it more relevant than the MCU logo, since that is really something of a "flavour of the decade" that is potentially subject to change (the lack of any Avengers films on the horizon, the recent news about Spider-Man, and the announced shift in focus toward streaming when previously the "MCU" TV series were essentially an unrelated side project that no one seriously believed affected the continuity of the films, would all seem to indicate that grosses for the theatrical films will not be what they have been since 2012, and that the studio probably doesn't even care as much as they once did). Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should reflect the current state, whether it lasts for 20 years or just a few months. We shouldn't keep misleading information simply because that's how it used to be or we think the current state wouldn't last for long. Your personal issues about the MCU TV shows and the Spider-Man split have nothing to do with basic facts like that fact that MCU is currently the top grossing franchise. If another franchise tops MCU, the page will be updated to reflect that. If you start bending rules to favor your favorite franchise, then almost every other franchise has some record that can be used to justify it. You could also say Avengers is the first franchise to have every film top $1bn. So, no, this should be simple non-debatable facts.  Starforce13  03:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should reflect the current state, whether it lasts for 20 years or just a few months. Sorry, but that's not how it works. We're an encyclopedia, not a Marvel fan site, and, where possible, we should be looking to write these articles so that they will still be interesting and make sense 20 years from now. We shouldn't keep misleading information simply because that's how it used to be or we think the current state wouldn't last for long. I don't see what's misleading about saying the Bond franchise was the first to pass 1bln and was the highest grossing, adjusted for inflation, for many decades. Your personal issues about the MCU TV shows and the Spider-Man split have nothing to do with basic facts like that fact that MCU is currently the top grossing franchise. No need to make this personal (!) -- I was just saying that since the "MCU" streaming shows (which don't have theatrical grosses and so can't be included here) are very obviously going to be a more important part of the "MCU" output going forward (they were quite clear about this at SDCC -- Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and the Netflix shows were never included in the "phase" announcements like the Disney+ shows were this year; not to mention the fact that streaming, which this article doesn't cover, is an ever-growing segment of the industry overall, and we have no reason to assume that Marvel will even be fighting to maintain their top spot here in another ten years) and the Spider-Man debacle is being treated by many media commentators (not me personally -- I never stated my personal opinion) as potentially the first serious stumbling block in the MCU, then we really have no reason to assume that the MCU's current status will remain. Clearly Sony Pictures believe that with Venom and the other "Spider-Man adjuncts" they have a rival to the MCU that is viable for them to pull Spider-Man back (FTR, I personally don't think they are correct; much of Venom's box office was likely a result of people mistakenly thinking it was an MCU film), and Spider-Man is only one box office success away from catching up to Avengers. If another franchise tops MCU, the page will be updated to reflect that. Again, you seem to be ignoring the vast sweep of this page's history. The Bond image was there, with the caption "first to reach 1bln, still highest adjusted for inflation", for many years, even after the unadjusted gross clearly placed several franchises ahead of it; I suggested the caption be modified since, precise math aside, it was obvious that "still highest adjusted for inflation" either was not true or would soon become untrue; the caption then read "first to reach 1bln" for ... a while ( about a year? 27 months), before the image was removed, with a rationale that hadn't been raised before, earlier this month; while the argument about inappropriate fair use rationales could have been made at any point in the last year or so, it's obvious given the timing that the immediate cause of the removal was Endgame beating out Avatar, which has nothing to do with relative franchise grosses (the MCU had been at the top of the list for many years with no one questioning the Bond image being there. If you start bending rules to favor your favorite franchise, then almost every other franchise has some record that can be used to justify it. Again, why on earth are you making this personal? I don't particularly like the 007 films (I've only seen about a third of them, and none -- including catching up on the oldies -- since Skyfall was in theatres) while ... yeah, the MCU is probably my favourite "franchise" on the list overall. I'm not "bending the rules", but rather arguing for a preservation of the status quo, and the most neutral, balanced, and encyclopedic content. I agree with Betty Logan that we should avoid non-free images in this article -- but we have a free image of Albert R. Broccoli, which would arguably be better content-wise than another film poster or logo anyway, since we don't currently have any old, black-and-white images of directors/producers in the article. You could also say Avengers is the first franchise to have every film top $1bn. That's really only the case because of inflation and the arbitrary inclusion of largely unrelated films in the lists for older properties, and because of our deciding, based on fairly arbitrary criteria, that films with Avengers in the release title are part of that series but films that are widely reported as "quasi-Avengers films" like Captain America: Civil War (which did gross more than 1bln) are not, therefore excusing us not including Thor: Ragnarok (which featured a cameo by Dr. Strange, carrying on a plotline introduced in the first Avengers film, as well as Hulk in a prominent role). So, no, this should be simple non-debatable facts. But again, you are arbitrarily selecting "simple non-debatable facts", apparently based on which franchise you happen to like (that's really the only explanation for why you've been using the language you have in this discussion); what is wrong with inserting a free image associated with the Bond series and restoring some version of the earlier caption? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how long Bond stayed there or whether it was the first one to 1bn. That's the past. Stop trying to keep an outdated record stay relevant. This page is changed every day. So, I don't see your argument about trying to keep something outdated for over a decade just to avoid changing it. Starforce13 13:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Really, it's quite a silly proposition that the history or progression of a record is irrelevant. Would you be in favour of removing the "High-grossing films by year" and "Timeline of highest-grossing films" sections simply because those are not the current records? TompaDompa (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If it's a section about current highest grossing franchises, which is what this is, then the highest grossing franchise should get the image credit. Not what used to be. If it's section of what used to be at a particular time like highest grossing for a specific year, then that is fine unless some information is revealed to take down that year's record. Starforce13 13:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd be in favour of including the historical datum that Iron Man 3 was the highest-grossing film of 2013 until well into 2014 because Frozen, which was not released in Japan until March 2014, had a massive box office take here, since we already have a lengthy enough note about Frozen's inclusion as the 15th highest grossing of all time... Anyway, how do you propose addressing the balance issue with having two MCU-images? Would you be in favour of moving the Feige photo down and replacing the long-standing Cameron photo? Cameron directed the two films that held the two top spots consistently for a decade, while Feige is arguably less to thank for the Avengers films' success than a combination of Feige with Whedon and Russos. (And possibly RDJ -- certainly he made more money than the directors.) In combination with the above accusations about me, it is really looking like you are just jumping on "This is what it's like now so the article needs to focus as much as possible on this now!" as an excuse to put more emphasis on a film series you happen to like. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * (I think for Frozen vs Iron Man 3, it's just a matter of consensus. Personally, I think unless it's a re-release, the numbers should be based on the year of release. So, Frozen would get 2013.) With MCU, there are a lot of key players - directors, cast - who come and go. So, choosing one over the other can be problematic and biased. But the one constant factor has been Feige and Marvel Studios who are the mastermind behind MCU. So, if we must use a photo of one person, it should be Feige. Other options are an Avengers:Endgame poster, Marvel Studios or MCU logo, Kevin Feige photo or a group photo like the ones proposed below by Brojam. A pair of any two of those five options wouldn't look repetitive. Starforce13  15:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, I suspect if American studios cared to go back in their archives to give their older (say, 1980 through 2005) films theatrical releases in China, the difference would be pretty enormous. Spirited Away made about a third as much as in its native Japan when it was retroactively released in China 18 years late (or, almost as much as Pokemon: The First Movie made in North America when it was new) despite the fact that Chinese subbed and even dubbed DVDs, both import and domestic bootleg, had probably been floating around the market for most of that time. Treating the "initial releases" of films in international markets months or years late differently from "re-releases" is pretty arbitrary, especially given that Endgame actually got a re-release in North America less than five months after its world premier. The only difference is that BOM and other such sources technically, kinda-sorta, tracked the Japanese gross of Frozen without noting that it was a 2014 release (but stopped while it was still playing in cinemas here). Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 15:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The Endgame one wasn't really a true re-release. It was more of an expansion because the film was still playing. A true re-release is when a film comes back years (or months) after leaving theaters. By convention, Wikipedia goes by the US/Canada dates. Also, you will notice a lot of places use "domestic" to refer to US and Canada. Starforce13  17:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There should be no non-free images in the article. You could use the Avengers poster on say a list of Avengers box-office records, or a non-free James Bond image on a list of James Bond films, but not on an article where the topic is simply a list entry. The reason for this is that there are free alternatives available (such as the GWTW or BOTN posters), which revokes the fair use rationale. I think I asked this once before, but are there are any free images of the Avengers cast on the Commons, like from Comic-con or some event? Betty Logan (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There's this, and this, and likely some others as well. - Brojam (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that first one would be perfect IMO for the franchise section. A group photo would be better IMO because if Feige ever steps down and the MCU stays on top for decades then a group photo will stay relevant for much longer. Betty Logan (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. - Brojam (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the group photos too. They also capture most of the key players too instead of focusing on just one person. Starforce13  03:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Problem is, though, we already had something of a sitshtorm working out how to work Feige into highest-grossing films section since Cameron had been there for so long; the Russos were there for a while, I gave an argument that I'm still quite proud of that Feige or even Whedon would be more appropriate, and for a time even Zoe Saldana was in the mix. I would prefer not to have yet another Comic-Con-esque photo in the article, and the suggested cast group photo is so closely associated with the first Avengers film (after whose release the list looked like this), and Clark Gregg is arguably more associated with the Marvel TV series at this point. What do folks think of restoring the Bond caption (or some version thereof), and using something like Commons:File:Albert Cubby Broccoli 1976 crop.JPG? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to the Bond caption, but if the best image we can come up with is a headshot, I think we're better off without it. I wonder if there's any information worth turning into some kind of graph, diagram, or chart in this section? TompaDompa (talk) 09:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If it's wrong to have two Marvel-related images even when Marvel has earned it, then my proposal is to not have an image in the franchise section at all. Otherwise, don't make exceptions to keep outdated records and franchises like Bond stay relevant. Otherwise, other fandoms will come up with their own records too. Avatar fans can argue for the first film to cross 2bn. And it just ends up being an endless fan war when there's clearly a non-debatable fact that should be used. Starforce13 13:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you take such an absolutist stance on this. Why would we want two images on the same subject, especially when we have zero good images? It would not be any more informative to the reader than the current version, and we're WP:NOT here to give the MCU the recognition it has "earned". In order to be more informative to the reader, we could use a Star Wars image (potentially of merchandise) to illustrate it being the most lucrative property when including ancillary income from merchandise. We could even create a chart of several franchises and the breakdowns of their respective revenues into box office and other sources based on the data at List of highest-grossing media franchises, provided that the sourcing is up to snuff. TompaDompa (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What if we move the Feige image to the franchise section (with a new caption) and put back Cameron in the highest-grossing films section? -- Mazewaxie ( talk  •  contribs ) 17:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with using Star Wars or some other current record. I'm only against using a broken record that's based on "it was the first to..." Starforce13  17:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Another proposal: let's just leave it out
How about we just drop the whole issue? The article isn't currently under-illustrated, and the "franchises" section currently has about 200 words less prose than the second shortest section ("adjusted for inflation"). We're spending a lot of energy arguing over what image to include in the "franchises" section, but I see only one editor actually saying they think the franchises section needs an image. I suspect the best solution here might be to agree to disagree regarding what image would theoretically be appropriate and just to agree to agree that no images would be the optimal consensus solution.

Also pinging, since he essentially started this by removing the previous image but it seems it didn't occur to anyone to ping him. (I'll admit this is my bad, since it was me who found the diff of his removal.)

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I am fine with not having an image in the section. Having an image in each section is just a convention, not a rule. I think there are reasonable alternatives, but not having an image is also one of those reasonable alternatives. Betty Logan (talk) 08:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed: not every section needs to have an image. And choosing an image that doesn't reflect the top film/franchise will only cause fandom fights. Starforce13 12:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW, as I said above, doing just that didn't cause any fandom fights for several years. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My personal view with images is they should only be used when necessary. For non-free images, such as the gun logo, this is made clear by "policy with legal considerations", with WP:NFCC. Using unnecessary images for free images is less problematic, but MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE states too many images can be distracting, so try to curb the use of images to ensure maximum infomation can be derived from them by readers. Considering this, I don't believe it's necessary for there to be a photo in the franchise section (especially since it probably wouldn't be a free image). There are plenty of images on here that are free and have some use, so we don't have to be stringent about how significant they really are, but an. So I suggest keeping the section without an image, especially since we have an image about MCU anyway. -- Ted Edwards  00:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Chart including other sources of revenue
I suggested above that we could make a chart showing different sources of revenue. If we did, it would look something like the image to the right. This one may not be entirely accurate (I may have gotten the exact figures from List of highest-grossing media franchises wrong, and I didn't fact-check them), but it should at least give you an idea. The precise layout could be altered, and we wouldn't have to include this many franchises. What do you think, is this something worth working on, provided that it can be adequately sourced? TompaDompa (talk) 22:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The problem is that this article isn't about other sources of revenue; it's about box office grosses. Other sources of revenue are very difficult to quantify. Disney-Marvel make revenue from merchandise related to films produced by rival studios, including two so far (Homecoming and Far From Home) that are technically MCU properties -- in fact #4 on your chart is extremely problematic since the merchandising revenue goes (and I think almost always has gone...?) to Disney-Marvel, not Sony. Also, the problem has been pretty well solved with the above "No image" solution. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

DC Dark Universe and DC Extended Universe
With the realese of JOKER. DC is creating an alternative universe to the DCEU. but if they are from the same franchise, the gains could be combined. Dividing them in the DCEU gains and the DC Dark gains.Elmisterioso1979 (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why we would do that; there have been other theatrically released films based on DC comics since 2013, and we don't include any of them. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Spider-Man
With spider man leaving the mcu will we treat this as new reboot rename mcu Spider-Man even with/if Tom Holland carries on playing Fanoflionking  21:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Spider-Man has always existed as its own franchise even before MCU. Homecoming and Far From Home contributed to both MCU and Spider-Man and should remain that way. Future Sony Spider-Man films will contribute to Spider-Man franchise but not to MCU. Starforce13 23:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess the question was only about which subheading to use under Spider-Man if there are future non-MCU films with Tom Holland. I think we should keep "Marvel Cinematic Universe" with two films for now. If a non-MCU film with Holland is released in a few years then we can decide how to treat it at the time. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think Sony is going to officially announce/name their Cinematic Universe which would put their new non-MCU Holland Spider-Mans into the same universe as Venom and Morbius. But we will know for sure by the time they premiere. Starforce13  15:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If the (still hypothetical) future non-MCU Tom Holland films are treated as sequels to Homecoming and Far From Home, then yes, they should be listed under the Spider-Man heading together with those two films. They will presumably be directed by Watts, who I think (?) is still under contract to direct another Spider-Man film for Sony, and so it would actually be better, even in the short run, to call it the "Watts series" so it lines up with the "Raimi series" and the "Webb series". It actually doesn't make sense to say "Marvel Cinematic Universe" where we do, because that heading implies it includes all appearances by Spider-Man in the MCU, rather than specifically the Spidey-centred films directed by Jon Watts and starring Tom Holland. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And no, I don't agree that we should do Sony's marketing for them by retroactively declaring Venom to take place in the same universe as Homecoming and Far From Home; naming the individual Spider-Man series after the directors avoids crufty issues about continuity (there's no way that they could sincerely claim any film not allowed to feature Tony Stark, Happy Hogan, Nick Fury, the Avengers, the Chitauri, the Skrulls, and everything in between actually takes place in the same "universe" as Homecoming and Far From Home and have anyone actually believe them, so there's no reason we should). Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course MCU under Spider-Man is only for pure Spider-Man films. We also say DCEU under Batman and Superman without including Justice League. Homecoming and Far From Home are best known as MCU films, not as Watts films or Holland films, and we don't know for certain who will direct or star the next film(s). Hell, Disney could still make up with Sony for all we know, or buy the Spider-Man rights, or their whole film divison. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but if (and I think it's still unlikely) it comes down to Sony making new films with Holland as Spider-Man, claiming that the films share continuity with Homecoming and Far From Home and also with Venom, then our hands are really tied -- "Marvel Cinematic Universe" is an artificial appellation that when we get down to it is a marketing gimmick that has been applied to things like the Netflix Iron Fist series and the Inhumans TV series. We should be looking for some objective, NPOV, real-world designation for the films. Assuming the next film isn't directed by Watts, I'm not actually arguing for it to be changed immediately (nor am I arguing that it should be changed at all as long as Sony doesn't actually make any new "quasi-MCU" films not associated with Marvel Studios). Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 September 2019
X= $2,516,000,000 $0 Y= $2,516,000,000 $0 Because I don't think that the numbers for Titanic adjusted add up properly. 89.240.14.140 (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's because in the second one you don't mention the 2012 re-issue. -- Mazewaxie ( talk  •  contribs ) 13:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * But it should not factor into it's inflation. 89.240.14.140 (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The original gross is inflated from 1997 and the reissue gross is inflated from 2014, as clearly explained in the note. All the other films in the chart have their re-release grosses counted so there is no good reason to omit Titanic's. Betty Logan (talk) 16:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Reactivate this edit request when you figure it out.  – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Catwoman (film)
Should it remain in the Burton/Schumacher series subset of the Batman film franchise in the highest-grossing section? While the film initially envisioned in the 1990s as a spin-off of Batman Returns staring Michelle Pfeiffer, the final film was a completely different story that had no connections to the Burton/Schumacher films, and indeed, very little to do with the original comics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:8CCF:FC0F:E5C2:A02C:E7C (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Michelle Pfeiffer was supposed to appear in it but it was re-written to accommodate the casting change. However, a photo of Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman appears in a photo which suggests it is still part of the Burton/Keaton lineage. Betty Logan (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Catwoman (film) shares no actors, director, writer or continuity with the four Burton/Schumacher films, and it was released seven years after the last one. The Pfeiffer photo is just a wink to the viewers. The character is different and even changed race. I don't think the film belongs under Burton/Schumacher. It's misleading and gives an annoying extra click to reach the actual films. The 1993 Catwoman considerations might have belonged but not when they finally released a different film in 2004. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have moved Catwoman away from the Burton/Schumacher series.[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_highest-grossing_films&diff=917889459&oldid=917756384] PrimeHunter (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Titanic and Avatar
I am not sure that they are worth that much adjusted for inflation. Titanic because it should not have it's 2012 and 2017 releases added to the inflation. And Avatar because how can 2.79 billion increase to 3.27 billion in 10 years? Also I have this info that might help...

The figure of 97,309,600 is an average value based on Box Office Mojo estimating the number of admissions by dividing gross revenue by the cost of an average ticket. However in the case of Avatar, ticket sales are a combination of the three formats of standard projection, 3D and IMAX used during its theatrical run. Since box office admissions are not tracked, the total number of admissions cannot therefore be accurately determined simply by dividing the gross receipts by the average ticket price. Box Office Mojo revised estimate - by taking account of the ticket prices for all three different formats - is that Avatar sold 75 million tickets by April 21, 2010, by which time it had grossed $745 million of its $760 million total.[5] An extra $15 million of sales would be equivalent to about 2 million more ticket sales, at the average 2D ticket price of $7.50 in 2009; using this revision, Avatar probably sold closer to 77,000,000 tickets.[6]

And here is what it earnt in time. $2,782,275,172 by 25 November 2011. $2,787,965,087 by 13 February 2015. $2,789,679,794 by 21 July 2019. So, what should happen is that we add up what it earnt and adjust it by the money it made in these times. 5.148.85.42 (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't know really what you are talking about in regards to Avatar's admissions, but the inflation index used is the Consumer Price Index as issued by the International Monetary Fund. This is a completely valid inflation index, averaging monetary inflation across the advanced global economies. US ticket price inflation is not relevant here because this is a global figure and ticket prices rise at different rates around the world. The number of tickets is irrelevant too: if it made $2.8 billion from 100 million tickets or 300 million tickets it really doesn't matter, because this list is about monetary inflation. And there is a very valid reason to not exclude Titanic's reissue gross from the adjusted total. As you can at see Box Office Mojo re-release grosses are added on to the total. That is standard practice. The reissue grosses are also included for Gone with the Wind and Star Wars and every other film on the list so it would be inconsistent if we left out Titanic's re-release. This is not a problem provided you only adjust from the date of the re-release and not from the date of release, which the table does. Betty Logan (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * And as for "how can 2.79 billion increase to 3.27 billion in 10 years"...that's how inflation works. That's a 17% increase over 10 years, or about 1.6% per year on average, which is a completely normal rate of inflation. If anything, it seems a little low. Sbb618 (talk) 03:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Lion King in highest grossing film franchise
The movie grosses for lion king 2 Nd Lion king 1½ should also be considered for the total gross of the film series and it's position on the table should be put accordingly. Bodi123 (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The Lion King II: Simba's Pride (1998) and The Lion King 1½ (2004) only had direct-to-video releases. -- Mazewaxie ( talk  •  contribs ) 18:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Simba's Pride was theatrically released internationally in Europe and central America in 1999, but those gross numbers are unknown. Christianster94 (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Avengers should be merge into Marvel Cinematic Universe?
The Avengers are mention as a different series, but are they not part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe? On the main page on Marvel Cinematic Universe they are. So should they not be merge into Marvel Cinematic Universe? Lobo151 (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit: They already are mention in the Marvel series, so they are now mention twice in this overview? Lobo151 (talk) 00:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The Avengers films are included in two of the listed franchises. So are several other superhero films (three for Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice). This is explained both before and after the table at List of highest-grossing films. Below the table it says: "Marvel Cinematic Universe and DC Extended Universe are shared universes for which some properties also have their own entries". PrimeHunter (talk) 00:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to add that this comes up every now and then, and the previous discussions can be found at the "Overlapping franchises" notice at the top of this page. TompaDompa (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Star Trek: The Motion Picture
Does the figure in the franchise section for Star Trek: The Motion Picture include the gross from the 40th Anniversary rerelease? Box Office Mojo only lists the domestic gross, while the worldwide gross is sourced from elsewhere and is probably an older source that wouldn't include the rerelease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:D0F5:96E8:6778:C330 (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Expand some franchise subgroups from the start
It often annoys me how many times I have to click "show" to see the films in List of highest-grossing films, e.g. three times to reach any of the Star Wars episodes or main Middle-earth films. The table uses Highest-grossing films franchise where all collapsible groups are always collapsed from the start. I suggest adding an optional  parameter where the default is still collapsed but a call can choose   like in Template:Navbox. Articles could then use guidelines like: For example, if you click show at Star Wars then the Sky-Walker saga should be expanded but not the trilogies. Middle-earth should expand everything (only 7 films and 6 share continuity). The Fast and the Furious only has one subgroup, the main series which should be expanded. It's annoying to need an extra click to see 8 of the 9 films. Spider-Man also has 9 films but a complicated structure with 4 unconnected subgroups so they might start collapsed. Every subgroup takes up a row for the heading when it's expanded. Wizarding World with 8+2 films is borderline but I would currently prefer expanded subgroups. Everything is always expanded in the mobile version so I don't think we should worry about users with small screens. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The main franchise always starts collapsed.
 * If there are less than around ten films in total then all subgroups start expanded unless there are many subgroups.
 * At most two clicks should be needed to reach a film.
 * I have tweaked it so sub-franchises always expand but series don't. This means that the Skywalker Saga expands but the trilogies don't. Eon Productions expand but the individual Bonds do not. In Middle-Earth the Jackson series expands, but not the LOTR and Hobbit sub-groups. Since The Fast & Furious is a series entry it is unaffected. I think this is fairly unobtrusive and implements something that everyone does manually. Expanding the series based on various rules is a little more complicated because it would affect other articles too, and I don't think templates should be implement the editorial decision of a single article. However, I am fine with adding a "state" parameter that can be used at the discretion of an article. Betty Logan (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

By rating and inflation-adjusted
I'd like to see a historical ranking by rating and inflation-adjusted. In un-adjusted figures, it seems Joker is already the highest-grossing R-rated film in history, but it'd be interesting to see how it compares when adjusting the figures. --2003:EF:13DB:3B45:5D2D:3A30:52D3:424B (talk) 01:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a global list. It doesn't categorise by the ratings assigned in any single territory. Betty Logan (talk) 03:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo
Due to the Box Office Mojo revamp the franchise figures are now behind a paywall. I think we should avoid knee-jerk reactions (I am hoping I am tripping and BOM will be just fine when I wake up in the morning) but we need to figure out what to do about this. I am favoring transitioning to The Numbers for franchises so that the sources will be visible to readers. What does everybody else think? Betty Logan (talk) 01:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Man, this sucks. I've been waiting for Box Office Mojo to update their site to something more modern, but now that we've got it, they're putting it behind a pay wall? And yes, of course, we can't cite a source that requires subscription. So, we have to switch to the-numbers.com. I'm just afraid that it won't always have complete information. But there's no better alternative. Starforce13  02:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Worth noting that The Numbers gives some different figures for individual films than Box Office Mojo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.209.29.11 (talk) 02:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * On a related topic, after the revamp, some of the grosses have been adjusted, as seen here. Notably Finding Nemo is now in the top 50 again.
 * WTF. Why? The redesign is really bad, it was much clearer before. The problem with The Numbers is that some figures differ from Box Office Mojo. It's a difficult situation. -- Mazewaxie ( talk  •  contribs ) 09:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Somehow Finding Nemo has found an extra $29 million!! What a nightmare. So there are several issues we need to address: i) why the numbers have changed in some cases; ii) how to source the franchises. To be fair the templates do all the calculating anyway, so we don't actually need the franchise totals. If the source for each film's gross is provided then WP:CALC permits us to add up the numbers (we already do this is in some cases such as the "Star Wars" entry (see List_of_highest-grossing_films). The silver lining on this cloud though is that more people will come to Wikipedia for this information if it is now hidden behind a paywall. If we do this right then we can turn it into a win for Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 11:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The Lord of the Rings grosses have changed too. How we deal with the links? They changed the IDs too. -- Mazewaxie ( talk  •  contribs ) 12:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We need to take it one step at a time. First, we need to decide whether we are sticking with BOM or transitioning to a new source. Once we have done that we need to sort out the sourcing. Then we finally need to bring the data into line with the sources. Betty Logan (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * IMO we could stick with BOM, even though I'm really disappointed in the changes they made. -- Mazewaxie ( talk  •  contribs ) 16:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The data for the individual movies on BOM should still be fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.209.29.11 (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Late to the discussion, but I thought I would give my 2 cents. I agree with everyone that this is a mess and will only make our job harder, but I still vote we stick with BOM, on the reason that the layout has changed but the figures are relatively the same (Finding Nemo and LoTR aside, we'll deal with that later) and as long as it keeps being consistent with the updates, don't see why we need to change it...for now at least. The only thing that we should change is the Franchise sources adding the individual film sources since the franchise source is behind the paywall.
 * P.S.: I personally hope there would be enough backlash that will convince IMDb to change it back. But I only saw a couple of articles from major newssites and just some lesser know "famous" people expressing their disappointment so I don't know if that will make a difference but let's hope. DCF94 (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I oppose switching to The Numbers. The reason is that Numbers seems to have a different (and probably wrong) definition of what counts towards a specific franchise. We've been using the Box Office Mojo definition for about a decade. It wouldn't be good to change to The Numbers over a change that could be temporary. What happens if 6 months from now BOM reverts back to normal? Will our list change again?
 * More details on how Numbers franchise definition differs.
 * They do not count Venom as part of Spider-Man. We've all seemed to agree on this talk page that it is a Spider-Man film.
 * They do not include Joker as part of Batman. Pretty much ditto as above.
 * They do not include Lego Batman as part of Batman. That seems like a purely unintentional oversight. I don't see how you could justify it's not a Batman film.
 * They include Joker as part of the DCEU. Again, that seems completely unjustifiable.
 * They include Hobbit as its own franchise. As if it's Avengers, and Lord of the Rings is the MCU.
 * They include Dark Knight trilogy as its own franchise.
 * And that's only looking at the top 25.
 * Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 22:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The consensus above seems to be to stick with BOM. The next step is obviously to get all the links working again. Betty Logan (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Should we start to replace the old links with the new ones? -- Mazewaxie ( talk  •  contribs ) 15:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah I think we can start with the obvious ones that don't require IMDb Pro subscriptions. For those that require subscriptions, I would hold on that because we can't use Wikipedia to send people to a page that asks them to buy a product. That's basically advertisement. And Amazon / IMDb are counting on that free advertisement to sell more IMDb Pro subscriptions. Starforce13 15:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah we may as well get on with it. It's probably best not to correct any of figures at this stage though. We can work through those once we get the links working. Please make sure the links go to the "All release" entry rather than the "Original release entry". Betty Logan (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I started fixing some links. I will do more in the next days. Mazewaxie  ( talk  •  contribs ) 17:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

FYI: Box Office Mojo now showing lower grosses for many films
Hi there. There's a silly conspiracy theory going around on Reddit just now that BOM is "adjusting" older grosses downward to boost the positioning of current-release films, which to be clear I see no evidence of; but in investigating it I happened to confirm that "new" Box Office Mojo shows lower grosses for many films than the old site did. This is particularly evident for Titanic, reduced from $2,187,463,944 to now being listed as only $1,843,221,532 in gross receipts. I confirmed differences for many older films in the top 50, which I won't list individually here.

I suspect that BOM is now silently omitting rerelease numbers from their totals, or hiding them behind the "Pro Subscription" feature. However, I don't actually know the cause. If this is the answer, though, it should be sufficient to change the references to use an archived version of the old pages. I'm posting this here mainly to draw attention to the issue; on the face of it, many current references to BOM don't technically support the numbers given. That needs to be looked at regardless of the cause. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That link for Titanic is the original release entry. If you click on "Title Summary" below the little poster it brings up the lifetime gross. As you can see at this link BOM has Titanic's full gross down as $2,187,463,944. Betty Logan (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, and it looks like there's no way to link directly to the real totals, nor any obvious indication that the default number displayed isn't a real total. Stupid reduced-functionality redesigns are stupid. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Betty Logan already gave a direct link: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt0120338/?ref_=bo_rl_ti. https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt0120338/ also works. If I search the site for Titanic then I get https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt0120338/?ref_=bo_se_r_1 which also works. I don't know where you got your own url https://www.boxofficemojo.com/release/rl3698624001/ but it sounds like what it is: A specific release. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I now see it is the old url http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=titanic.htm which redirects to https://www.boxofficemojo.com/release/rl3698624001/. That seems like an odd choice but at least they did make a redirect. Many sites break all their incoming links when they restructure. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The old links like https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=titanic.htm now redirect to specific release pages, not the title pages.  is just a tracker (a terrible design on their part to use GET for this btw) so we should just do away with it whenever linking (per WP:EL). Nardog (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Doing away with it is simply not viable if it takes the reader to a different set of numbers. That would be akin to a reference directing a reader to the wrong page in a book. Readers should be able to click on the link and it should take them to the page we are citing for the information. Betty Logan (talk) 02:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What? I'm talking about the  part. It's just a tracker for the webmasters to keep track of where the link was followed from. It has no effect on the content to be displayed. See Template:Cite web, where it says Remove tracking parameters from URLs, e.g.  or. Nardog (talk) 02:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at the list, the one's with grosses differing from what's on this page are Avatar, Jurassic World, Furious 7, Avengers: Age of Ultron, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, The Fate of the Furious (possibly), Captain America: Civil War, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, The Dark Knight Rises, Jurassic Park, Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, Despicable Me 2, The Lion King (the original), Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, and Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle. In the case of the last two, Jumanji now has a higher gross than At World's End. In addition, Finding Nemo is once again in the top 50, while Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1 has been bumped from the list. And that's just talking about the main list on this page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.209.29.11 (talk) 23:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We are going to have to go through the figures with a fine toothcomb. In the case of Avatar for example, the difference is minute but the split between the first release and the special edition release is substantial. It doesn't affect any rankings but the figure in the timeline is now misrepresented. We need to start working through the list and at least get the links going to the right entries. The source for Avatar, for example, can be simplified to just a single link (the "All Release" entry). Once we've got all the links fixed we can take a closer look at the numbers. Betty Logan (talk) 00:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Those might also throw off some of the peaks for films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:515C:E557:DA4:F90C (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's going to take a bit of time to clean up. Betty Logan (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Why don't we use this website? https://m.the-numbers.com/box-office-records/worldwide/all-movies/cumulative/all-time 81.101.127.73 (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's an option but i) Although The Numbers is an exceptional website it is slightly more prone to errors (from my personal experience) and ii) since we would have to replace the sources anyway we may as well just fix the BOM links. Betty Logan (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Pixar Theory
Will we add Pixar as a franchise if in the future Disney confirms the "Pixar Theory"? -- Mazewaxie ( talk  •  contribs ) 11:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * If our sources start treating it like a single franchise, we should follow suit. Right now it's definitely in WP:FRINGE territory. TompaDompa (talk) 11:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes I know, I was talking hypothetically. -- Mazewaxie ( talk  •  contribs ) 12:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say no, because it's a gimmick, unless the characters start to do crossovers. Betty Logan (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I think we are already being a bit weird about these "franchises" and "series". Captain America: Civil War is widely discusses as "Avengers 2.5", and was much more closely related to the Avengers films than Rogue One is the "Skywalker Saga" or than Where to Find Them is to the "Harry Potter" series; in the case of Harry Potter, we just decided to treat the Fantastic Beasts films as the same series, apparently because they started to be produced after the original series had ended, but we include all the individual MCU series as their own entries. I don't think "Wizarding World" is a widely known term among the general public ("J.K. Rowling's Wizarding World" was at least fairly self-explanatory), and "Harry Potter and spin-offs" would be more inline with WP:COMMONNAME -- the only problem is that we'd then probably have to treat "Harry Potter" as its own, with a slightly lower total gross than "Avengers". Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable.Halbared (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Update with Joker according to this it's already 984 millions
https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Joker-(2019)#tab=summary

❌ The figure at The-Numbers is inconsisten with the one at Box Office Mojo. Since the chart uses BOM as the main source we would need a very good reason to switch to another source for just one entry,such as evidence that BOM is incorrect in this case. The discrepancy could be just down to a delayed update which means the problem will naturally fix itself in due course. Betty Logan (talk) 10:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 November 2019
Joker has grossed enough to become the 44th highest-grossing film of all time (I think). 87.231.1.19 (talk) 12:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Betty Logan (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Joker has surpassed the gross of Philosopher's Stone at $984,691,507, according to Box Office Mojo
This would put it behind The Dark Knight, making it the 44th highest grossing film of all time, and thus should be put on the top 50 list: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt7286456/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by AverageLogic (talk • contribs) 15:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2019
Please add Finding Nemo to the list, as according to Box Office Mojo, it is currently at $969,023,261, which would put it at #47, in between Despicable Me 2 and The Lion King. In addition, the gross for Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End is listed as $960,996,492, which would put it below Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle. 2601:241:301:4360:4540:476E:F51E:6E20 (talk) 03:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Not done for now: See. The revamp of Box Office Mojo has led to revisions for several figures. Most of the changes are minor and will be updated in due course, but some of the ones with larger changes such as Finding Nemo will have to be double-checked to ensure they are correct. Also, some of the updates will have implications for historical ranks so a careful and orderly overhaul is the best course of action. I have been busy recently but I hope to work on this article soon. Betty Logan (talk) 04:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

adjustment for inflation, number of theaters, world population and GDP of each country where films are shown
is needed...almost all highest earned movies are from 2019 which indicates not the quality, but just shear increase in availability and surplus money amount — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.140.159.110 (talk) 07:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * An inflation adjusted chart is provided in the article. As for the other information it is not provided on an international scale. Betty Logan (talk) 12:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. The only adjustment I have seen is for inflation, and even that is rarely attempted for Worldwide box office. Wikipedia editors should not invent their own criteria, make original research to apply the criteria, and declare one film to do "better" based on that. There are also big problems with your suggested criteria. For example, if a city doubles the number of theaters then is doesn't double the number of people who can see the film there. Most population growth is in poor countries where many people don't have access to theaters or cannot afford them. China has huge GDP growth but most films are banned there. If we try to only count countries where the film is shown in theaters then it depends on where the distributor chooses to spend resources on a theatrical release, and a film with low international appeal may end up looking "better". By the way, gross is an indicator of popularity and is only indirectly related to "quality". And only 7 of the top-50 are from 2019. It may become 9 in the end but still far from "almost all". Global box office grows slower than global GDP, probably due to new entertainment options like television, home video, computer games, Internet and streaming. Another success measure could be percent of total worldwide box office that year, but that also has problems. We stick to the sources. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. The only adjustment I have seen is for inflation, and even that is rarely attempted for Worldwide box office. Wikipedia editors should not invent their own criteria, make original research to apply the criteria, and declare one film to do "better" based on that. There are also big problems with your suggested criteria. For example, if a city doubles the number of theaters then is doesn't double the number of people who can see the film there. Most population growth is in poor countries where many people don't have access to theaters or cannot afford them. China has huge GDP growth but most films are banned there. If we try to only count countries where the film is shown in theaters then it depends on where the distributor chooses to spend resources on a theatrical release, and a film with low international appeal may end up looking "better". By the way, gross is an indicator of popularity and is only indirectly related to "quality". And only 7 of the top-50 are from 2019. It may become 9 in the end but still far from "almost all". Global box office grows slower than global GDP, probably due to new entertainment options like television, home video, computer games, Internet and streaming. Another success measure could be percent of total worldwide box office that year, but that also has problems. We stick to the sources. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Finding Nemo mistake?
Ok, as a couple of editors have commented the gross for Finding Nemo changed considerably after the Box Office Mojo revamp, increasing from $940.3 million to $969 million. I am now convinced Box Office Mojo has made a mistake.

Prior to the 3D reissue in 2012 Finding Nemo had grossed $867.9 million according to Box Office Mojo. This figure is backed up by The-Numbers. At this point there is a consensus between the two websites. Both sites have the exact same foreign gross of $528.179 million (this figure is important!)

Then you have the reissue in 2012. After this reissue Box Office Mojo logs the gross as $940.3 million and The-Numbers has it down as $936.4 million. The slight discrepancy is due to slightly different figures for the foreign figure: BOM has the foreign gross as $559.5 million, and The Numbers as $555.9 million. It is not unusualy for BOM and The-Numbers to differ by a few million, and they are still broadly consistent.

Then comes the Box Office Mojo revamp and the gross jumps to $969 million worldwide. This includes a foreign gross of $588.1 million. This is where the problem occurs. BOM previously had the foreign gross down as $559.5 million, accounting for a $29 million increase. However, Box Office Mojo also provides a breakdown of this gross: The problem here is that the foreign gross for the original release at Box Office Mojo now matches the foreign lifetime gross at The-Numbers, which incidentally was very close to Box Office Mojo's original figure. I think Box Office Mojo has made an error here because both sources prior to the reissue were consistent. Betty Logan (talk) 07:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Original foreign: $555.9 million
 * 3D release: $31 million
 * Thailand release: $1.28 million
 * Maybe one could contact the Website about this mistake?
 * I have contacted them about errors before and got no response. But it may be different now it is has been incorporated into IMDB so I will give it a go. Betty Logan (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have emailed them about it. Hopefully they will get back to me. Betty Logan (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at the webpage, they seem to have changed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:94E8:ECB0:93A9:5C52 (talk) 02:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Adjusted
Every source I have checked says that Titanic is above Avatar adjusted for inflation. Like this one. https://www.thestreet.com/lifestyle/top-30-highest-grossing-movies-of-all-time-adjusted-for-inflation-14995975 2A02:C7D:8EA5:D500:1816:64FB:CAD9:81FA (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Clearly not every source because Guinness have Avatar in 2nd place. It is fairly close though so it depends on the methodology and inflation measure. This is discussed in the article which does actually mention that in some charts Titanic is in 2nd place. However, when it comes to inflation adjustment no two charts will be the same if they use independent methodologies. Guinness is probably the most authoritative source we have which is why the Guinness chart is used in this particular case. Betty Logan (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Marking films out of theaters as no longer in theaters (Aladdin, Spider-Man: Far From Home, etc.)
Look at Aladdin and Spider-Man: Far from Home. Even though they are both not in theaters, they are marked as such. This should be changed immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WakandaForever188 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

✅ Betty Logan (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! WakandaForever188 (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Toy Story 4 should also no longer be marked as active because its run ended on December 5, 2019. -WakandaForever188 (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Toy Story 4 is still in theaters in some countries. TompaDompa (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Seems funny to mention top 4 being MCU but not that they are all Avengers movies
seems like a somewhat notable distinction seeing as the avengers are only 4 out of 23 MCU movies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubernaut (talk • contribs) 01:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "mention top 4 being MCU". Please quote the text you refer to. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, the explanation is that, Black Panther was in the top 10 and it read Five of the ten highest-grossing films, including Avengers: Endgame at number one, were produced by Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige. When Black Panther was knocked off the top 10, only the number , not the rest of the phrasing. TompaDompa (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As TompaDompa explains, it is incidental. The subject of the photo is Feige, the architect of the MCU. It is notable that four Avengers films are in the top ten and this is already noted in the lead: The most successful superhero film, Avengers: Endgame, is also the highest-grossing film overall on the nominal earnings chart, and there are four films in total based on the Avengers comic books charting in the top ten. Betty Logan (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

ok i guess i missed that thanks for pointing it out :) ubernaut (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Avengers: Endgame reportedly getting corrected gross receipts in China
See https://twitter.com/gavinfeng97/status/1212228906683523072. Now, obviously, this article shouldn't change based on a random person's Twitter post, but if it's accurate then the totals reported on Box Office Mojo and The Numbers may change as well. This is mostly a heads up to watch for any official reports of a change to the gross receipts from a better source than the one linked. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting us know, we'll keep an eye on it. Betty Logan (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Frozen 2
Frozen 2 the amount listed doesn't agree with the link it pertains to. 86.163.227.156 (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

✅ Betty Logan (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Top 30 on franchise list?
If we expand the franchise list by 5 slots, we would include every franchise with more than $2 billion in total gross. Via The Numbers franchise list, the Box Office Mojo grosses for consistency, and this page's edit history, these would be slots 26 to 30. Would adding these rows be a good idea, or would we just open up a "Why not n rows?" slippery slope.

Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 05:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Eh, I'd be more inclined to reduce the number of entries to 20 than increase it to 30. As of right now, one could make the same argument for that as the one made above, only with $3 billion instead of $2 billion. I think 30 is a more conspicuous number than 25 or 20, so it would give off the impression of having been chosen for some other reason than being a nice, round number. Increasing the number would indeed lead to the question of "why don't we add more rows?", which I think we should strive to avoid. TompaDompa (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think we gain anything by extending it to 30 (with the exception of Captain America they are all dormant franchises). It would also bring Planet of the Apes back into the chart; while we have some basic data for it, it isn't very exact and I think the chart is better with exact data. I think 25 is a nice round number because it is exactly half the size of the main chart. The one chart I would really like to increase in size is the adjusted chart which I am currently growing in my sandbox. Betty Logan (talk) 13:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, I made an extended version in my sandbox, and there is an impending kaiju-sized mess with the Godzilla franchise summing to $2.125 billion, less than $300 million from 25th place with Godzilla vs. Kong coming next November. With Aliens and Planet of the Apes having contradictory information, to say nothing of the mess that is the Japanese Godzilla film grosses, I now have a better appreciation of the difficulty in even compiling such a list. In the event that Godzilla would seem likely to break the top 25 next November, I would be in favor of TompaDompa's curtailing to the top 20. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 23:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Star Wars Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker
Hello, just wondering why there still isn't any information about the gross of this movie in this page. I've been following it for a while and it's usually updated daily so I don't think that's the problem. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.49.12.148 (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker has currently earned $918.8 million so it hasn't made the top-50 yet but it soon will. It has been included under Star Wars at List of highest-grossing films since it opened. Click "show" at Star Wars and then "Sequel trilogy" to see it. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Wrong figure for an old Star Wars film
Both references to the Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace now lists $924 millions as gross, not $1027 millions
 * Box Office Mojo updated their site so the initial release is the default page. If you click on the "summary" tab it brings up the lifetime gross: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt0120915/?ref_=bo_rl_ti. Betty Logan (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Avengers Endgame Box office update
Endgame gained $3 million at the China Box Office after they updated it. The numbers have to be updated as it surpasses $2.8 billion Ankitskaterx (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Avengers Endgame Box office update
China box office numbers have been updated and Endgame gained another $3 million. Ankitskaterx (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Extend highest grossing franchises edit request on 14 January 2020
- BluePower4 (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2020 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Joker
According to Box Office Mojo, Joker has surpassed the gross of Toy Story 3.
 * The citation for its peak needs to be updated as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:81D4:B5B9:FD5:7735 (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Add 5 franchises to the highest grossing franchise list
+ Highest-grossing franchises and film series BluePower4 (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2020 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Also this was just visited above, and the consensus was that 25 is sufficient. Indeed, a shorter list may be more suitable than a longer list. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 22:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2020
Alinmehr (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Betty Logan (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

why Age of Ultron's gross changed? it was $1.405B! change it from $1.402B to $1.405B!
 * See discussion below. Betty Logan (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Pending the results of the discussion below on source reliability. Until interested editors come to a consensus on what is or is not a reliable source for box office totals, changing entries is moot. Especially over a 0.21% difference. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Age of Ultron gross
The gross for Avengers: Age of Ultron appears to have decreased today, just as Frozen II passed it. It matches the gross shown by Box Office Mojo, however, it does not match the currently shown gross in the highest-grossing franchise list, as these results have remained unchanged. Is there an explanation? Or did someone mess it up when updating the gross of Frozen II? Clearly one list is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jelroy the second (talk • contribs) 00:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Just for fun, The-Numbers lists Age of Ultron's total gross as $1.403 billion, not matching either total from Box Office Mojo. I have no idea which total is correct, but it isn't straightforward. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Box Office Mojo is a mess at the moment. See above and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_74. They have also completely messed up Toy Story too by adding in the double bill to first film's gross. This is provably wrong. I would strongly urge editors not to "correct" grosses for older films on the basis of a new figure turning up at Box Office Mojo. Every single change so far I have come across has been a mistake; the redesign seems to have corrupted the data. If grosses change we need to check them out. Betty Logan (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you tried contacting them about the disparities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:A4E3:A07B:E47:3677 (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I managed to get Finding Nemo, The Matrix Reloaded and Toy Story 2 fixed. Toy Story is half fixed but they are still including the gross from the double-feature in the overall Toy Story gross. The new grosses for Ultron can be viewed at new BOM and the old grosses at old BOM. If we can figure out which gross changed we can get it checked out. Betty Logan (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 January 2020
Change the release date for Joker, it first premiered August 2019, at the Venice Film Festival, not May 2019. Amig0animad0 (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 January 2020
It's a minor point, but the Endgame footnote under the inflation-adjusted table still refers to 2019 as the current year. Changing the word 'current' to 'basis' should be enough to fix it. Dan Hartas (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. I wonder why these numbers are calculated manually instead of using a template like Inflation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * IIRC before Endgame came along the basis year hadn't been changed in years. This is actually a list that hardly ever changes, and the basis year being old doesn't affect the order or the relative magnitude, so I guess it was felt unimportant. Dan Hartas (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge the template does not provide a global index, only country specific ones. Since these are worldwide grosses it seemed more appropriate to use a global index supplied by the IMF. Betty Logan (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The Fast Saga?
Why the change from 'The Fast and the Furious'? 'The Fast Saga' as a franchise could be easily confused with F9. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jelroy the second (talk • contribs) 18:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The franchise has been officially rebranded with http://www.fastandfurious.com now redirecting to http://www.thefastsaga.com/. See also http://www.thefastsaga.com/fast-saga/ff1. It's not just about F9 although it may be part of marketing for that film. Fast & Furious was moved to The Fast Saga. The table follows that. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * According to Screenrant the franchise is still called Fast & Furious, and it is just the main component of the franchise that has been rebranded The Fast Saga. Too early for this change IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh right, it appears the spin-off Hobbs & Shaw is not part of 'The Fast Saga'. I think we should change the main heading to Fast & Furious. We could then consider saying The Fast Saga instead of Main series in the subheading. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. Betty Logan (talk) 01:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

DC Multiverse
On List of highest-grossing superhero films, in the franchise section, an entry was added for DC Multiverse, based on Crisis on Infinite Earths (Arrowverse) tying together various DC properties together. Is this considered a valid franchise for the purposes of this list? I'm personally weary of this inclusion, as it's more of a retroactive thing. For context, here's the new section on that page:


 * {{legend|#b6fcb6|size=50%| Background shading indicates that at least one film in the series is playing in the week commencing in theaters around the world.}}


 * I agree. This should not count as a franchise because they were never developed as a connected franchise nor were the connections made in the movies. Starforce13  20:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed as well. Should be removed from the table. - Brojam (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It has been removed from List of highest-grossing superhero films after discussion at Talk:List of highest-grossing superhero films. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Avatar's gross has increased
I checked Box Office Mojo, and it appears the gross has increased by $759,206 (from the original $2,789,679,794 number to $2,790,439,000). https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt0499549/

Not sure what's gone on, and there's nothing on Box Office Mojo (or anywhere, for that matter) that explains it. I don't know if the total on this page should be updated to reflect the one seen on the website or left in its current state, as it might be an error akin to The Fate of the Furious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AverageLogic (talk • contribs) 01:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting us know. There have been a lot of errors on Box Office Mojo recently (see ). The rule is not to change until we have checked it out and made sure the numbers pan out. I don't know what is going on at BOM but I wish they'd get their act together. Betty Logan (talk) 08:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The Incredible Hulk's, Aquaman's and Shazam!'s grosses has increased
Hi, i was checking BOM and it appears that they have updated international numbers for The Incredible Hulk (2008), Aquaman (2018) and Shazam! (2019) thus increasing overall gross. Should the table be updated or it is another error on BOM site? 94.112.90.3 (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * All the mistakes I have found so far in lifetime grosses have been when the film had a re-release. If the film has not had a re-release then it is probably a legitimate update. I will sort it out this evening unless someone does it before then. Betty Logan (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Pedantic correction to minor wording issue
"Background shading indicates that at least one film in the series is playing in the week commencing 13 March 2020 in theaters around the world."

Weeks cannot commence on a Friday! Is there a better way to phrase this? I don't have enough background knowledge to provide the solution for this (i.e why Friday is important/significant), but surely you either need to use a synonym of "cinema week" or something like "in the week including". I only sent this message as I can see all of the effort that has gone in to this, but that you may miss small things like this as they are not the focus of the work per se. --Ed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.86.143 (talk) 09:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * A week can mean any 7-day period. Films are usually released on a Friday (ignoring Thursday evening previews in recent years) and close on a Thursday (giving room to new Friday openers), so "cinema weeks" are Friday to Thursday. See e.g. https://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekly and https://www.the-numbers.com/weekly-box-office-chart in our main sources. Wikipedia articles generally follow the conventions of the field they are about. This is standard terminology and I don't see a good way to explain it in a short description like this. Relevant sources just say "week" with no explanation. I don't think "cinema week" is a used term. "Box office week" is in use but only to discuss box office numbers in a week, not to mention when a film is playing. Maybe we could say "the week commencing Friday, 13 March 2020" to make it clear it's a Friday. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You could replace "the week" with "the 7-day period", but is it really necessary? Betty Logan (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No, not according to any dictionary. Nardog (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Gross revenue of Jumanji Welcome to the Jungle
According to Box Office Mojo, the gross amount of Jumanji Welcome to the Jungle, is more of 962 millions of dollars, upset of Pirates of the Caribbean At World's End, with almost 961 millions of dollars.

Jumanji Welcome to the Jungle is still the 50th gross film of all times.

Can we verify this?OscarFercho (talk) 02:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I suspect it is an error along the lines of those outlined at and WT:FILM. Box Office Mojo seems to have made a lot of mistakes when it revamped the website. The revised gross may be correct, but previously they had $963,420,425 for "At World's End", a figure backed up by The Numbers. On the basis of this I suspect the previous, slightly higher, gross is the correct one. We shouldn't change it unless we can find a source that predates the new BOM that corroborates the new figure. In any case, this isn't going to be a problem for much longer because the new Star Wars will be bumping it off in the next few weeks. Betty Logan (talk) 09:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The thing is box office mojo also corrected the gross of Harry Potter 7 (2010) Matias2027 (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Rank Peak of Franchises?
Is there any possible way to include the highest rank that the film franchises have had? Is there a specific reason that it hasn't been or shouldn't be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jelroy the second (talk • contribs) 04:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Box Office Mojo has never ranked the franchises so there would be nothing to source the historic peaks to. Another issue is missing data. For example, BOM doesn't have worldwide grosses for all the James Bond and Superman films, so even if we could find a source it wouldn't necessarily reflect the positions we have. Betty Logan (talk) 13:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be impossible to peak a franchise Matias2027 (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Correct the peak and add movies
Transformers 3 actually ended in 5th place and we should add Harry Potter 7 (2010) to the list Matias2027 (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Box Office Mojo has tons of errors since its revamp. As of last summer BOM and The NUmbers had Harry Potter 7 on $960,431,568, so there is a serious question of where the extra $17 million came from. Likewise The Return of the King. I have emailed BOM about the errors and some have been corrected but many have not. If we start "correcting" figures on the basis of new BOM data we are probably just going to make the problem worse. Betty Logan (talk) 05:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

LOTR: Return of the King's 22M jump
I noticed that BOM updates figures regularly.

Most of the time, it's 1 to 4M. Like Avatar going from 2.787B to 2.789B. Then, it's now at 2.790B

Titanic recently went from 2.187B to 2.194B. A 7M jump, quite big.

Then, I noticed the same thing for Return of the King. That's a MASSIVE jump.

What is going on here? Is this sort of thing only happening for older films? Where tracking wasn't as effective? A few millions here and there, I can understand if it's an error.

I once went back and noticed the same for Deathly Hallows Part 2. If I remember correctly, it was once at 1.320+, then it made a jump to 1.342 within the SAME year (the re-release didn't make that much either), then now 1.341.

It's kind of scary to think about it, because it can change a lot of rankings.

If ROTK really did make 22M more, then Age of Extinction, Far From Home, and Captain Marvel's peak ranks should be lowered

180.129.74.216 (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the LOTR revisions are incorrect, but it's a case of tracking down the errors. BOM's database has become corrupted. See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film. The issue seems to affect every film that had a re-release. Betty Logan (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

If we are going to ignore BOM's changes, we need to revert the edit done by one user who increased ROTK's gross here, on ROTK's own page, and the LOTR film trilogy's page.

Anyway, this problem has been around before. One time, I went back to look at past versions, and Avatar's gross was at 2.782. Now, that's just a 5M difference from the 2.787 we've seen for the longest period, but it's just to point out that BOM regularly does this. And maybe a small difference is really just looking at actual errors.

That doesn't explain an already non-green DHP2's gross jumping by around a large 20M as well. And this was before the update to BOM.

Films like The Dark Knight Rises, Jurassic World, Age of Ultron, Furious 7 (last 3 are all 2015 films), never had re-releases, and they were lowered by 1-4M AFTER the update to BOM.

Grosses can go up and down even long after a theatrical run, which is not exactly comforting.

180.129.74.216 (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The revisions prior to the revamp are probably legitimate corrections, so I think we need to just focus on those since the Fall. We must bear in mind that legitimate corrections will continue, and all the errors I have uncovered so far have only involved re-releases. It is this reason why I believe the LOTR totals are incorrect; the reason I haven't outright reverted is because the revision for Fellowship of the Ring now matches the figure at The Numbers, so we can't rule out the possibilty the LOTR revisions is legitimate. If it is, then as you point out the peaks will need to be corrected. At the moment I am trying to get the weekend tables fixed because that is a more pressing problem, and once that is sorted I will take up these other anomalous revisions. What I would suggest though is no further "corrections" to historical grosses for films that had re-releases, and rather just list them here. We can then try and figure out if the revision is legitimate or an error. If we cannot isolate the error then I suppose we must accept the revision at face value. Betty Logan (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * One way to check the totals for Ultron and Jurassic World would be to simply add up the country totals and see how they come out. Betty Logan (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We also need to consider that this affects what rank certain films peaked at. Spider-Man: Far From Home, Captain Marvel, and Transformers: Dark of the Moon would have all peaked one spot lower than what they are currently listed as. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:F10C:5892:CE0C:91 (talk) 06:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What about Dark of the Moon? It should've peaked at 5. ROTk was 3rd when DHP2 pushed it down to 4th. 180.129.74.216 (talk) 04:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of problems with the BOM grosses at the moment. We need to get the grosses right and then the peaks can be sorted out. Until we get all the grosses fixed we are going to have just accept some of the peaks will be inconsistent. Betty Logan (talk) 07:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

That would mean Transformers 3 ended its run as the 5th highest-grossing movie in the world (behind Avatar, Titanic, Harry Potter 8 and The Lord of the Rings 3) Matias2027 (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2020
In the Highest grossing franchise section, please change the year for Fast & Furious 9 from 2020 to 2021, since it has been delayed. 2601:241:301:4360:6D2C:A62F:9CD3:FFA (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2020 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Betty Logan (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * In the "Highest-grossing franchises and film series", under the "The Fast and the Furious" section, there is a commented out note that says "Fast & Furious 9 (2020)". Please change the year 2020 to 2021, as the film has been delayed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:868:f675:b51f:e2a2 (talk) 21:55, March 26, 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Fast and Furious 9 is not stated anywhere in the article. Also, please create and account. PLEASE copy and paste the code to reply (Talk) 22:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It is stated in the following table in a commented out note in the "Highest-grossing franchises and film series". I'll copy it below. The markup currently reads <! -- |Fast & Furious 9 (2020)


 * 0 -- >, so it is not visible unless you go into edit mode.


 * To be clear, I'll repost the table again without the commented out mark up.

It lists Fast & Furious 9 as a 2020 film, when it has been delayed to 2021. The title should probably also be changed to F9. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:1047:e6f0:e878:7ec9 (talk • contribs)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The year is 99.9% certain of being updated before or within hours of displaying the film. It's not worth an edit request. I don't even like that somebody added it as a source comment but it has also been done for other scheduled films. I could have fulfilled the request but I hope to discourage more of this. Unknown titles far in advance is another issue we really shouldn't be spending time on here. I'm surprised we don't already have a source comment about the Avatar films. Then we could be edit warring for years on invisible comments about rumored titles. . PrimeHunter (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If you feel it should be removed, please do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:580F:549:C176:64A3 (talk) 00:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Then somebody will probably add it back, if not soon then still long before it opens. Editors who want to spend time on source comments can do so. Let's keep it off the talk page. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'm indifferent to whether or not it stays, I just think leaving it in its current form is inaccurate. Sorry for belaboring the point, was just pointing out that the date change went unnoticed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:C14C:A746:EEC4:2E6E (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ WP:Don't bite the newcomers, people. TompaDompa (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The Eternals has also been delayed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:5168:11B1:CAF9:B235 (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Also ✅. TompaDompa (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Films still grossing at box office?
So are The Lion King and Joker still making money, or not? The franchises list still shows that both are making money, while the film list shows that they are not. Although...is anything making box office money right now? Most (if not all) theatres have closed, or will close soon.
 * how about Frozen and Star Wars? i think they're stopped making money.213.230.117.134 (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The Lion King looks like it has closed but Joker is still in release, in the sense it has not been withdrawn from distribution. Same goes for every other highlighted film. Betty Logan (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The Lion King is still highlighted in the franchise section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:4556:7BE2:AB62:31DC (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Betty Logan (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There is still the character next to the film and series' names in the Franchise section.
 * TompaDompa (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Is Hobbs & Shaw still playing, as it's still highlighted in the Highest-grossing franchises and film series section?

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2020
Please change the data sort value for Joker in the top grossing films list from data-sort-value="2019-05" to data-sort-value="2019-10". 2601:241:301:4360:790E:B8D9:3FCB:8850 (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ TompaDompa (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)