Talk:List of highest-grossing films/Archive 17

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 April 2020
The 'Highest-grossing franchises and film series' section lists some films as 'still in theatres'. However, this directly contradicts the 'Highest-grossing films' list. Joker is/isn't in theatres? The Lion King is/isn't in theatres? The Rise of Skywalker? Frozen II? I am asking for consistency. Please change the Highest-grossing franchises list to reflect what is/isn't 'currently grossing' shown by the Highest-grossing films list. I don't think you need a source to logically determine that a film can't be both 'currently grossing' and not. --Jelroy the second (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody has updated any grosses on this page, and the grosses in the franchise list are the same as the ones on Box Office Mojo. I think it's safe to say that the movies aren't playing any more, so all the "currently playing" markup. However, while I was doing that, it seems that  made the opposite judgment call and  the markup to the other table, so . I'm not sure which is better, but at the moment it is, at least, consistent. TompaDompa (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Most of the world is currently in lockdown due to the Covid-19 pandemic, and at the point of the lockdown all of these films were still playing. Just because theaters in most countries are temporarily closed does not mean these films have been withdraw from distribution. When theaters re-open these films may well resume playing. This is what happened in China with Frozen 2, which resumed playing (although theaters have now closed again). Despite the fact that Frozen 2 resumed playing in China there have been no updates on Box Office Mojo to reflect this, so it may well be the case that Box Office Mojo is not active at the moment. Even if some of these films do not resume playing there may well be updates pre-dating the pandemic that still need to be added in to the totals. We shouldn't be jumping the gun on this because we are in a highly unusual situation and pre-emptive action will just make the situation more confusing than it already is. When exhibition resumes in the countries where the highlighted films were still playing at the time of the lockdown we can review their status then. Betty Logan (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 June 2020
In the highest grossing Franchises section please change Mission: Impossible II to Mission: Impossible 2, which is the official styling of the title. 2601:241:301:4360:8103:87E9:844E:E8DD (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done! GoingBatty (talk) 00:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

the return of cinemas
I just think I should notifc that cinemas are slowing opening in the uk there are mutpily films on this page that will have a re iusse inculd and many more films on this page.
 * Wizarding World films
 * Hunger Games films
 * servel Fast & Furious films
 * serevel Batman films
 * serveal MCU films
 * Jurassic World

Do not know about other countries, so expect a gross incresae here a article with the full list. https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/industry-body-cinema-first-450-films-uk-080010535.html Fanoflionking 10:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC) here the flowling form bom (uk grossing only) Fanoflionking 08:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Are there sources regarding the grosses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:C0B6:7C65:F647:6D0C (talk) 03:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Harry potter marathorm week gross $754 new ww gross $67.3M
 * gressc weekend gross $15K new gross ww gross $397.7M
 * the termiotr $12K new ww gross $78.6M
 * a new hope 9K new ww $775.5M
 * the dark kingt 9k new ww $1.075.7M
 * beauty and the best live action $2K new ww gross $1,263.5m
 * the dark kinght rises 3k new ww gross $1,081m
 * gaurdians of the galaxy 1K new ww gross $786.8M
 * Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation 705 new ww 682.7m
 * spider man far form home 499 new ww 1,131.9m
 * 2001: A Space Odyssey 95 new ww gross 68.8m

Harry Potter discrepancy
The totals in the Franchise section don't seem to match the totals in the main list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:d10e:ffa7:a0c:3d47 (talk • contribs)


 * Some of the Harry Potter figures were altered last month. I don't know what the basis was for those changes. It is likely the figures have changed at Box Office Mojo; ideally they need to be doubled-checked because Box Office Mojo is riddled with errors at the moment. Betty Logan (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Should they be reverted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:6D15:DB10:8E90:8BC3 (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Submitted request below.

Per the previous discussion thread, please revert this edit, as the numbers are inconsistent with the main chart. 2601:241:301:4360:7023:7923:CA9:6604 (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done The above seems to be consensus that the changes were improper, and in any case there is no new source provided so per WP:V I would have undone it of my own right if I had caught it at RC. Since you first answered this IP: the other edits by HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4 probably need to be checked too RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  19:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Here are the various Harry Potter grosses according to source:

has reinstated their edits. First of all, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so figures at this article do not have to conform to figures at other articles. They need to conform to the sources used in this article. As noted at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films/Archive_16 several errors have sneaked into BOM figures when they updated their website last year. Therefore, caution must be exercised in the case of changes to grosses for older films. As you can see in the table above there are two anomalous updates that are not corroborated at The Numbers: a small increase for the Philosopher's Stone and a large increase for Deathly Hallows Part 1. The increase for Philosopher's Stone seems to be due to a 2016 reissue in Russia; once you factor that in the numbers add up. There are other small differences in the table which can be explained by various limited releases.

I have now brought all the box-office totals in all but one case into line with the all-release and original-release figures currently listed at Box Office Mojo. The one outstanding issue is gross for Deathly hallows 1. The update here is not consistent with the figures given at The Numbers. These updates may well be correct, but we need to corroborate them before incorporate them into the article. Betty Logan (talk) 23:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Yet other film franchises have their totals changed to reflect box office mojo and their main pages. I'm tired of changing something I've already changed. These films have different box office numbers from previous years and these changes should be reflected. Other films have correct totals so why not harry Potter.Everything should match to the last T .I'm not including original research or unsourced info. Main pages for each Potter film as box office mojo as a citation. All of a sudden their unreliable. I'm going to change it again. Box office mojo is reliable enough. Hpdh4 23:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * First of all, some of the figures you changed were not consistent with with the figures at Box Office Mojo. For example, in this edit you change the gross for Order of the Phoenix to $942,018,451 but the figure at Box Office Mojo is $942,044,613, and you change the figure for Deathly Hallows 2 to $1,342,693,157 when the figure BOM has listed is $1,341,511,219. Some of the other figures you changed do not match up to the figures at Box Office Mojo. ALL the figures now match those at Box Office Mojo. The only one that doesn't is the figure for Deathly Hallows 1, which could be an error explained for the reasons above. Betty Logan (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Please stop reinserting possibly incorrect data into the franchise table as you have done here. The $976 million figure is not consistent with the old BOM figure of $960,431,568 and the current figure at The-Numbers. As explained at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_74, some of the Box Office Mojo data became corrupted when they updated their site last year. Here is an example: Finding Nemo's gross in November 2019 and then June 2020. The data must be corroborated before being added back to the table. Betty Logan (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * All the individual country grosses are listed here: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/releasegroup/gr1728664069/. Anyone fancy the job of totting them up? If they come out to the new figure then it is probably correct. Betty Logan (talk) 00:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The complete sum is $0. TompaDompa (talk) 01:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So, Betty Logan, The increase for Philosopher's Stone seems to be due to a 2016 reissue in Russia; once you factor that in the numbers add up. There are other small differences in the table which can be explained by various limited releases. This means that the Philosopher's Stone updated numbers are correct? And with these sum done by TompaDompa are the updated Deathly Hallows — Part 1 correct as well? El Millo (talk) 01:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, all of the updates seem to be correct. The problem with some of the BOM totals is that in some cases they counted the reissue gross twice, which artificially inflated the overall gross. However, that does not appear to be the case here. In this case Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows 1 will re-enter the main film chart too at the top as well. This will also have implications for the peak of Despicable Me 2. Betty Logan (talk) 01:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 June 2020
Please change the peak for Despicable Me 2 from 19 to 20, as per the previous discussion, it's been determined that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1 had a higher gross. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:D15E:25B1:2CE5:5D88 (talk) 01:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC) 2601:241:301:4360:D15E:25B1:2CE5:5D88 (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1 gross was updated from a re-release in Russia in 2016. Despicable Me 2 was released in 2013, so its peak is still accurate. El Millo (talk) 01:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Per El Millo RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 June 2020
Please change the peak for Transformers: Dark of the Moon from 4 to 5, as due to discussion here, it was determined that due to the correcting of Return of the King's gross, Dark of the Moon would have peaked at 5. 2601:241:301:4360:4871:5352:4B9:9CE7 (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 04:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * by another editor.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 04:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Not done for now: I have reversed the change. It is not appropriate to change data in a Featured article so that it is no longer consistent with the source. There are several films that are affected: besides Dark of the Moon, Spider-Man and Captain Marvel should also drop one place. In addition to that the re-entry of Deathly Hallows 1 pushes down Despicable Me 2. In truth it is very difficult to fix bearing in mind the changes need to be sourced as well. Another solution we should consider is simply removing the "peak" column". We originally included it to try and temper the effects of inflation but we now have the inflation adjusted chart in the article, so maybe we should just consider removing the column? If we are going to retain it them we are going to need a replacement source, or failing that notes for each entry explaining why the peak position doesn't match the source. Betty Logan (talk) 04:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Spider-Man and Captain Marvel's peaks were already changed, so Transformers is the only outlier. As such, the edit reason "A whole bunch of films below Return of the King need fixing" is inaccurate.
 * I'll repeat my comment in the above section here: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1 gross was updated from a re-release in Russia in 2016. Despicable Me 2 was released in 2013, so its peak is still accurate. Regarding the changes triggered by The Return of the King, maybe a note explaining it all would do. El Millo (talk) 05:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The gross for Deathly Hallows 1 seems to have been revised again (in the last few days). Last week the lifetime gross was showing at $976 million but it has since increased to $988 million (which would take it above Philosopher's Stone; the revision seems to have been made to the original gross taking it above Despicable Me 2. Compare the new entry to the old entry. I haven't made any changes to the chart because we need to corroborate the data but I am becoming very concerned about all these changes. Betty Logan (talk) 09:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Goblet of Fire has changed again and Deathly Hallows 2 has suddenly shot up another $15 million. The rest have stayed the same. Betty Logan (talk) 10:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have figured out the problem. The 2018 reissues for the Deathly Hallows 1 & 2 include the original release grosses for the Netherlands. See Deathly Hallows 1 (2018) and Deathly Hallows 2 (2018). That explains why the gross for DH1 has just shot up $12 million and DH2 $15 million. This is absolute chaos! Betty Logan (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So... this new one is wrong, but the one we had is still right... Right? El Millo (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As pointed out Spider-Man and Captain Marvel's peaks were already changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:6412:E7B0:36B8:2C9B (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should get rid of the column, as it seems to be more trouble than it's worth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:30AA:7FF3:C59D:4E0F (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a terrible shame. TompaDompa (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with TompaDompa. I'm sure we'll be able to figure it out. El Millo (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's a question of whether or not it adds anything. It might be useful for films that were once in the top 10, but for example, is it really necessary to note that Aladdin was once the 34th highest grossing film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:355C:911A:3365:1FFD (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This is not the place for a discussion about the merits of a proposed edit. Edit requests should be used only once a consensus has been reached. Please continue this discussion in another section on this talk page before reopening this edit request. Thanks. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 07:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Before we change anything else in the chart we need to get the data corrected first, because it is clearly wrong at the moment. I am going to email Box Office Mojo later today about the errors. Hopefully we can get it corrected over the next week or so and then we can have a proper discussion about how to fix the peaks in the chart. Betty Logan (talk) 10:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * BOM yesterday changed the box office for "Titanic", "Deathly Hallows Part 2", "The Dark Knight", "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" and "Deathly Hallows Part 1"--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. It looks like the Harry Potter data has been corrected, although The Dark Knight update looks like an error (they are now including Norway's 2008 gross in the 2018 reissue). Still, we can get the Harry Potter positions corrected. Betty Logan (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ok thank you, but what about "Titanic"?--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The Titanic update looks legit. It has gone back to the same figure that the old Box Office Mojo had. Betty Logan (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know why, but they changed again the box office for "Deathly Hallows Part 2" and "Philosopher's Stone".....--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 09:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * They have added some original release grosses back into the 2018 reissue gross. This is becoming impossible. The errors are fairly straightforward to isolate so I am thinking we just correct the numbers ourselves and add a note explaining why the lifetime total is incorrect. Betty Logan (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The request was reverted due with the edit "It's not just Dark of the Moon. A whole bunch of films below Return of the King need fixing and we need a new source. It requires a cohesive approach rather than unsourced fixes to random films" However the only other films affected by Return of the King's increase, namely Spider-Man: Far From Home and Captain Marvel, already had their peaks adjusted to account for the increase in Return of the King's gross on February 28]. Therefore, please change the peak for Transformers: Dark of the Moon from 4 to 5 in order to be consistent. Alternatively if this change is deemed not to be appropriate, that please change the peak for Spider-Man: Far From Home from 24 to 23 and please change the peak for Captain Marvel from 23 to 22. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:C0B6:7C65:F647:6D0C (talk) 03:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  ~ Amkgp  💬  11:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Grosses for the final two Harry Potter films have changed (again)
There's been a lot of conversation about it before so I'll keep it short. I was looking on Box Office Mojo, and for whatever reason the grosses for both Deathly Hallows: Part 1 and 2 have increased by several million, and have bumped their places up on BOM. As far as I'm aware, there is no indication that there has been any re-release for either film.

Near the beginning of the year (after Frozen 2 had past it), Part 2 was in #13 with a gross of $1.341bn. Since then (I'd say somewhere in the past few weeks, as I had just been exploring it recently with the grosses untouched) it's somehow bumped up to #12, with a new total of $1.356m, a gain of $14,670,412.

With Part 1, it was originally #54 (or somewhere around there, I had taken screens from an older version of BOM on January 2nd, 2020 and it was marked as #52, as neither The Rise of Skywalker nor Frozen had past it at that point), with a gross of $960.6M. It had an even bigger jump, with a total of $988.6M, around a $27,982,815 increase from the previous gross, and is now ranked #47, ahead of Philosopher's Stone by a little over $10M.

These seem to be discrepancies or corruptions of BOM's database, as there has been no indication of any re-release for these films, and considering the current situation of the cinema industry, there is no way it would have been able to gross this much, even with some cinemas re-opening or preparing to re-open. I've checked The Numbers, and the figures remain the same as they were at the beginning of the year.

On another note, while checking I did notice that The Dark Knight also had a slight increase in gross (albiet a lot less severe) from $1.004bn to $1.005bn, with an increase of $79,611. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AverageLogic (talk • contribs) 01:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there is a discussion about this at . BOM have made a mistake in their database; they have the original Dutch release gross logged in the 2018 reissue entries for both films, and as such they are counting it twice. The new figures are definitely wrong, or definitely mis-labelled. I have contacted BOM and hopefully they will make the necessary corrections. It is very frustrating! Betty Logan (talk) 06:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Harry Potter films
Worldwide grosses for every Harry Potter film seem to be noticeably up. I think there's a rerelease in the UK and a few other places, but can somebody check if these aren't just corruptions in BOM's database? Fcbcampnou (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * They are corruptions. I don't know what exactly is going on at BOM but the figures keep changing. In some cases they have mixed up the original release grosses with re-release grosses and have counted them twice. I emailed them a couple of weeks ago to point out they had included the Dutch gross twice; they fixed it but now the same thing is happening with New Zealand and some other countries: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/releasegroup/gr1678332421/. It is not just Harry Potter, The Dark Knight has suddenly added $60 million to its gross by counting the Uk gross twice: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/releasegroup/gr1161253381/ Betty Logan (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There have been a lot of glitches on Box Office Mojo. For example, on the yearly Worldwide box office lists, it lists Hotel Transylvania on the 2011 Worldwide Box Office, when it came out in 2012. Likewise, Mission: Impossible III is listed on 2005 Worldwide Box Office, when it came out in 2006. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:85D1:2F79:2B87:9E94 (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

3 of the films of Harry Potter still being of the box office, but I went to box office mojo and I released that the films grossed a little bit more. So I wan't to make this changes just the Harry Potter films Alvrix3108 (talk) 07:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see above. Box Office Mojo keeps changing the Harry Potter figures. It is probably best to wait until it stabilises. Betty Logan (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Philosopher's Stone, Chamber of Secrets and Prisoner of Azkaban are counting some original releases as part of the 2018 re-release. El Millo (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The Dark Knight reissue grosses are now double counting $94 million from the original release. This is getting ridiculous. Box Office Mojo isn't fit for purpose at the moment. Betty Logan (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Rereleased films' gross
Box Office Mojo seems to have made some more errors regarding recent rereleases of films. Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back, Black Panther, Inside Out, Jurassic Park, The Goonies, Jaws, and Gremlins all have their rerelease grosses numbered in the millions, when they should be in the thousands. This error drastically increased the grosses for the films.
 * It believe it is linked to the problem above, in that they are counting the original release gross twice. If you take Black Panther for example, they are saying that the reissue grossed $700.4 million. Clearly this isn't correct. Like with the Harry Potter films the algorithm is counting the original gross in with the reissue gross. It has affected The Dark Knight also. From what you have listed above it seems to be affecting virtually every film that has been re-released. Betty Logan (talk) 23:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The ones mentioned were specifically the ones listed in the most recent weekend gross. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:B610:2484:F653:CB12:53FE (talk) 23:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Does Box Office Mojo still meet the criteria for being a reliable source?
The problems have been ongoing since the revamp last year. The problems have been outlined in earlier threads:


 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_74
 * Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films/Archive_16
 * Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films/Archive_16
 * Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films/Archive_16
 * Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films/Archive_16

There is a broad overview at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_74. You can see from the topics above that the recording of grosses by Box Office Mojo seems to be completely breaking down. The main problems seems to be:
 * 1) Counting the original release grosses again in the re-release grosses (and thus erroneously boosting the lifetime gross)
 * 2) Getting dates wrong and placing films in the wrong chart.
 * 3) Corrupted weekend grosses making the weekend chart listings even more wrong.

In short BOM's whole data set seems to be corrupted to such an extent that we seem to be in a position where we have to compare it to other sources to see if it is correct. In short, I think I have answered my own question. BOM in its current form is very clearly not a reliable source. So the big question is where do we go from here? Betty Logan (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * What other box office sites exist? Personally, I've been using Box Office Mojo's archived pages at Wayback Machine to compare figures. El Millo (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Off the top of my head there is https://www.the-numbers.com/. It would be a massive step transitioning to a new source. Maybe using BOM's Wayback archive for older figures would be an option too, and just using the new version for newer films. So far it only seems to be data for older films that is corrupted. Betty Logan (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The obvious solution would seem to be to make the transition to using The Numbers (website) from here on out, while still using the archived versions of Box Office Mojo for the peaks in the main table. TompaDompa (talk) 05:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The thing is TheNumbers doesn't seem to update the numbers with rereleases, at least not completely. Check Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone page for example: its figures are $973 million, when it should be around $978 million since 2018. El Millo (talk) 07:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I have raised the issue at IMDB's Get satisfaction forum: https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/tons-of-data-corruption-at-box-office-mojo. Time to try a different approach. Betty Logan (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Some of the issues have been corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:B610:B050:270B:92D6:D39D (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The Dark Knight still has some of the foreign gross double stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:B610:ADA4:D47B:9B35:3DF2 (talk) 03:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * BOM appear to be still fixing the problem. Betty Logan (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Task force
The Film project has assembled a task force to tackle the situation with Box Office Mojo. Many of the errors are being caused by grosses being "double counted" in the case of films that have had re-releases. We are compiling the errors in a table at WikiProject_Film/Film_finance_task_force If you have noticed any sudden/unexplained changes to box-office grosses then you need to check the reissue grosses and see if they are including earlier grosses in the reissue (and thus counting them twice) You can find examples of this at the task force page. If you find any errors please add them to the table. If you need any help with the formatting please ask at the task force talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Now also The Lion King--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The Dark Knight and The Lion King changed again....--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Currently playing note
The note currently says "Background shading indicates films playing in the week ending March 19, 2020, in theaters around the world, prior to the suspension of exhibition in many countries in response to the COVID-19 pandemic." However, the Harry Potter rerelease only started playing this month, so it is not accurate to say it was in theaters on March 19. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will restore the old key and then we need to fix the highlighting in the list. Betty Logan (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Captain America Civil War
The film recently had a Vietnam rerelease that slightly increased its gross. However, the numbers given for the original release are slightly different than what's on the list. See here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Several other films on the list have also had recent releases.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 August 2020
According to this, Aquaman had a Ukraine rerelease that slightly increased its gross. Please add the amount listed in the link. 73.110.217.186 (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

✅

New Mutants is now in Theatres
It should added in the X-Men series of the list under the title Spinoff films/series under Currently playing in theatres '+' mark and it's collection should be updated regularly along the collection of the whole series. Ronan Ronin (talk) 08:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC) ✅
 * Here are the box office numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 August 2020
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone has had it's BOM total updated to $1.001bn. It was reported that the film had hit $1bn around August 18th, however Box Office Mojo hadn't updated the figure until today. The updated total should be listed here. AverageLogic (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done TompaDompa (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The Dark Knight
The Dark Knight has earned some more from recent rereleases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 01:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Harry Potter 1 passes $1 billion
The first Harry Potter film has now made an additional $13 Million due to a China rerelease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone/Philosopher's Stone is now the newest addition to the $1 billion club. https://deadline.com/2020/08/harry-potter-and-the-sorcerers-stone-one-billion-crosses-worldwide-box-office-1203016366/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggianoli (talk • contribs) 20:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd update it myself, but don't know how the regular editors would like the notes to be changed. Kingsif (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It is possible that it has not. Box Office Mojo is double counting one of its reissue grosses: WikiProject_Film/Film_finance_task_force. Some of the grosses have been fixed but Harry Potter is one of those still outstanding. Hopefully it will be fixed in the next few days. Betty Logan (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The gross has been corrected on Box Office Mojo, so it hasn't yet hit 1 billion. The currently playing note might be to be change, as Harry Potter wasn't in theaters in March. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, there was mistake at the box office grosses. Now the grosses must be $992,6 million instead of $996,1 million. Box Office Mojo incorrectly calculated Russian re-release. — the 1st weekend of re-release with opening is $29,317, but total is $2,671,766.  — the 2nd weekend with gross is $1,008, but total is already $30,980. Don't you find this obvious mistake? Also Slovak re-release has a mistake with double calculating.  — the 1st weekend of re-release with opening is $3,179, but total is $838,646. The same error in second, third, fifth and seventh parts. I didn't understand why this my revision was partially undid. KIRILL1995 (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I see it now. I'll reinstate it. El Millo (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kirill. You've done some great forensic work tracking down these errors! Betty Logan (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ☺ KIRILL1995 (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it made 1 billion? Look at this page: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/release/rl1481278209/?ref_=bo_gr_rls

China stopped playing on the 17th of August with a total of 17M. But the total above still said 26M. Must be one of BOM's many screw-ups lately. 49.245.64.103 (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is daily grosses, not weekend. KIRILL1995 (talk) 07:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Requesting for editors to not constantly change the all-time, worldwide rankings, for individual years' top 10 highest grossing films
This isn't the right discussion page, but I'm assuming the editors here are the same for the pages for every year in film.

I looked through the Wiki pages for the top 10 highest-grossing films for individual years.

Some constantly change the all-time worldwide rankings of the films to the current ones, some remain unchanged from the year they came out in (peak ranks), some remain unchanged from a few years after they came out (and so, editors stopped bothering to edit the rankings every time they're knocked down).

May I ask whoever is in charge of editing those pages to stop? It is not accurate, for example, to say that The Force Awakens became the "4th highest" in 2015, when it peaked at 3rd highest, and only became 4th in 2019. (On the other hand, Jurassic World was both 3rd and 4th in 2015, although, then again, it became 4th only in 2016. Something to consider. We could state all of these important details)

Do you really want the tedious, extra work, as well?

And for example, The Dark Knight became 4th in 2008. That was a big deal, being the 1st superhero film to hit 1 billion, and to be in the top 5. How is reading about it now, in 2020, where it "became the 46th highest", anything spectacular?

Just like how we're interested in seeing "peak ranks" on this page, it'd be nice to go back to all of those years in films, and see which films hit whatever peak ranks, instead of reading about whatever rank they are NOW.

--138.75.44.187 (talk) 09:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We've discussed this before here and arrived at the same conclusion. The relevant ranking to mention is the peak position, the original. The fact that The Dark Knight is currently the 46th highest-grossing film probably shouldn't even mentioned in the entire article. Apart from being the sensible thing to do, it's easier, given that the peak position won't change, whereas the current position will never stop changing. El Millo (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think all the consensus achieved there should be added in one way or another to the Box office section of the Manual of Style. what do you think? El Millo (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with such a proposed update to the guidelines but obviously such a consensus cannot be created at this talk page, it would need to be created at WT:MOSFILM. Betty Logan (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Would a notice there suffice or should we move all this to a section there? El Millo (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A notice should be fine, and I also agree. Kingsif (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Noticed. El Millo (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Likewise agree, thanks for pinging! Should definitely be added to the Box office section of the Manual of Style imo in order to have clear direction for all on what to do in these types of situations going forward. Otherwise, as GoneIn60 mentioned in the original discussion, we'd end up with a group of established editors aware of the consensus having to constantly sweep up and 'coach' younger and more novice film editors on the protocol, and direct any dissent or objection to the above consensus each time. Davefelmer (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment – Some common questions that come up during MOS proposals:
 * 1. Is there a frequent occurrence or misunderstanding among veteran editors that warrants having MOS clarification?
 * 2. Is the goal to educate or to enforce? The latter rarely works on drive-by IP editors hell-bent on following their own agenda.
 * 3. Will the MOS proposal unnecessarily duplicate existing policies and/or guidelines?

Adding to the MOS often seems like the logical next step in times like these, but examples should still be provided to show why an expansion of the MOS is necessary. The experience of several editors may or may not be enough. When it comes to policies and guidelines, you have to maintain a delicate balance between having too few and too many. The more lengthy and convoluted these pages become, the less likely the message gets across, especially to newer editors. Just some food for thought before moving forward. I think I'd support a very brief statement. Also, it might be best to make the actual proposal at WT:MOSFILM when ready; it just makes it easier to lookup the discussion down the road. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * On the first point, I've just modified |The Dark Knight and |The Dark Knight Rises from the current position to the peak position. Let's see if a somewhat experienced reverts me, starts a discussion or something. On the second point, I think it is to educate. It wouldn't be strange for someone to think that a film's position in a ranking is one more number to update every time it changes, as with the Rotten Tomatoes score or the box office numbers. On the third point, I have no idea. El Millo (talk) 04:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 September 2020
In the highest grossing films section, please change the link to Black Widow (2020 film) to Black Widow (2021 film). 73.110.217.186 (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Done.Crboyer (talk) 04:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Box office of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
Hi, I noticed that the box office of this movie changed (again), it lost $19 million--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you think about this change? Do you think it is correct?--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like a correction to me. I always found the $22 million jump strange, as discussed at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films/Archive_16. On the old site BOM had it listed at $1,120 million and The Numbers still has it listed at $1,120 million. In that respect the new figure of $1,123 million seems more consistent with existing data. I had never coming acorss any other source listing it as high as $1,142 million. Betty Logan (talk) 00:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The box office now is $1,142 million, I don't know what to say.....--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , . The BOM is placed the Dutch re-release (2020) instead of the original release (2003) by mistake. That's why the film was initially lost $19 million. KIRILL1995 (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 December 2020
The note for Philosopher's Stone should be removed, as it states;

''The figure given for Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is the initial box office gross, which in 2001 was the second highest ever, after Titanic. The Jurassic Park figure given is higher than that of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, as it includes proceeds from the 2013 3-D re-release.''

...however, the figure given for the film is the current figure (actively changing due to the 2020 re-release, which pushed it past $1bn). There are plenty of films on the list that have had re-releases that changed their ranking to pass that of another film (The Dark Knight had a higher gross than PS when released, but Philosopher's Stone has passed it due to the re-release. Despicable Me 2 had a higher gross than Deathly Hallows P1 before a re-release increased the gross and had Deathly Hallows surpass Despicable Me).

I think it should be removed, as now there isn't anything significant about Philosopher's Stone having a rank lower than Jurassic Park. AverageLogic (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

✅ You are correct. I have removed it. I am not sure why the note was ever added in the first place since the main chart has always documented the lifetime box office as opposed to the initial box-office run. Betty Logan (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 December 2020
The entry on the list for Lion King needs to determine the difference between the animated version and the filmed version, other than just in the date year they were published. Venonaproject (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done:: The disambiguation guidelines consider the year to be a sufficient disambiguation per WP:PRIMARYFILM. However, if you are challenging the application of the guideline this needs to be done at the articles about those films (The Lion King and The Lion King (2019 film)), not at individual articles such as this one. Betty Logan (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2021
The total for An Unexpected Journey should be corrected. Both The Numbers and Box Office Mojo have the total listed as $1,017,003,568, rather odd as in most situations, the totals for films on both sites don't correlate with each other. The archived peak source for the film here shows a $1.016bn, so it doesn't make much sense that the total listed here has an additional $4.1M for a total of $1.021bn. AverageLogic (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done —  TG HL ↗  (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2021
Change: Avatar, the highest-grossing film, was written and directed by James Cameron.

to

James Cameron's Avatar and Titanic are the highest-grossing and third highest-grossing films, respectively. 103.249.180.118 (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Not a better caption for the image, brevity is useful here. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 01:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Endgame gross
The figure for Avengers: Endgame in "Highest-grossing franchises and film series" under Avengers (film series) doesn't match the figure given in the same section under Marvel Cinematic Universe nor the main list.67.173.23.66 (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo new problems
Guys, several days ago after Box Office Mojo's update, which it moved international grosses under releases, it was discovered that total box office of some films was changed again. This changes are egregious. Example:


 * Titanic — $2,471,751,922 (earlier $2,194,439,542);
 * The Lion King (1994) — $1,083,720,507 (earlier $968,483,777)
 * Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw — $1,104,826,325 as ″all releases″ (but $759,056,935 as ″original release″);
 * Angel Has Fallen — $513,682,818 as ″all releases″ (but $146,661,977 as ″original release″);
 * Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark — $588,017,374 as ″all releases″ (but $104,545,505 as ″original release″);
 * It Chapter Two — $683,955,083 as ″all releases″ (but $473,093,228 as ″original release″) etc.

The most epic that in Top Lifetime Grosses ″Hobbs & Shaw″ has now a 29th place, ″It Chapter Two″ has a 128th place, ″Scary Stories″ — 167th, ″Angel Has Fallen″ — 212nd! I don't understand this. What will happen next? KIRILL1995 (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am absolutely sick of BOM. It is next to useless these days. And to think they actually charge people now! Obviously we should retain the older grosses and with any luck this new set of problems will be ironed out over the next week or so. If anybody tries to "fix" the grosses in the article then I recommend reverting (with a polite edit summary) and including a link to this discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As the Titanic page at BOM shows, the new $2.4B figure includes the 2012 3D re-release, which grossed over $343M. There is no contradiction here. BOM previously treated Titanic 3D as a separate release, but now combines both releases into one. It makes no sense to treat Titanic 3D as a separate film from Titanic. Maestro2016 (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I just realized the original $2.1B figure already included Titanic 3D. Maestro2016 (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ironically though, the mistake you made is the exact same mistake BOM made. However, it took you only 7 minutes to correct the error, whereas we are still waiting for BOM to fix its mistake almost 2 months on... Betty Logan (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

James Bond
In 2015, the British Film Institute and International Business Times sites reported that the James Bond franchise was worth £9 billion ($ billion at the time) in box office revenue. That's almost twice the $7 billion figure listed here and at The Numbers site. Should the James Bond entry be updated to over $13 billion? Maestro2016 (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * They don't state it clearly but it's inflation adjusted numbers and doesn't belong here. They for example show a chart with around £700 million for Thunderball (1965). The World record at the time was below $100 million. We give Bond numbers adjusted to 2005 in List of James Bond films. That also shows near twice the actuals. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. I was thinking there may have been some inflation adjustment involved. Maestro2016 (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Avatar's grossed has been changed... again
A year ago, I mentioned that the gross had increased by $759,206, for a total of $2,790,439,000. It seems that Box Office Mojo has reverted that change back to $2,789,679,794.

I opted not to request an edit as I know that BOM hasn't been very consistent with totals lately, but to me I never got why it spontaneously jumped by $759,206 before, and they've corrected it back. However, knowing BOM, it might increase later on.

I do want to note that now it lists the 2020 re-release with a gross of $1,263,659, which wasn't the case two days ago. They've also eliminated the total for a purported 2011 re-release.

EDIT 3/13/21: It seems I spoke too soon. Definitely won't be needing to change it back now.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by AverageLogic (talk • contribs) 21:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Airport figure queried
After finding that Variety chart from 2002 of the top 50 grossing Paramount films worldwide at that time from which I added the Love Story worldwide gross, I tried to see if I could find a worldwide gross for Airport but unfortunately have not found one yet. However, I want to query the figure reported in this article for Airport as I don't think it can be correct. Firstly, I've not heard of The Bryan Times so not sure how reliable they are for box office information. Secondly, the article doesn't stack up, especially when linked in with other reported data of the time. The Times article reports that it "returned $75 million in worlwide box office receipts" and Wikipedia show that as the rental. At the time of the Times article in June 1979, Variety was reporting domestic rentals of $45.3 million. Most recent sources list a domestic gross of $100.5 million, which, given the normal distributor share, the rental per Variety seems reasonable. If the $75 million is a worldwide rental, then this suggests that it had rentals of $30 million outside the US/Canada.

However, the article then goes on to say that Airport 1975 "earned half as much at domestic turnstiles, about $30 million, but doubled the foreign take, bringing in $16 million from coffers abroad for a total of $46 million". So they are suggesting here that the original only earned $8 million overseas compared to $30 million if their $75 million is to be believed. Again, looking at Variety 1979 chart, Airport 1975's domestic rental was listed at $25.8 million, which is similar to the "about $30 million" they report.

They then go on to report that Airport '77 had earned "$50 million, collecting four times as much as the original abroad". Again, looking at Variety 1979 chart, Airport '77's domestic rental was listed at $15.1 million, so if its worldwide rental was $50 million, that would give international rentals of $35 million, which is roughly four times $8 million.

Therefore, it seems more likely that the worldwide rental was around $53 million ($45 million domestic plus $8 million international). Possibly they had a transposition error from $57 million to $75 million or maybe it was just a typo. With the $45 million coming from a gross of $100 million, then the worldwide gross is likely around $120 million.

In addition to the fact that the article suggests that Airport only earned rentals of $8 million, other data reported by Variety suggests that a $30 million international rental is extremely unlikely.

In a report of Universal's rentals from 1965 to 1975 in February 1976, it shows the following:

1969 - $41m domestic; $29m foreign; $70m total 1970 - $65m; $30m; $95m 1971 - $36m; $22m; $58m 1972 - $37m; $25m; $62m 1973 - $60m; $28m; $88m

So although Universal saw a spike in domestic rentals in 1970 from Airport's gross, it didn't see any spike in foreign rentals, suggesting that Airport wasn't as much of a success overseas and, if the $30m is to be believed, it would suggest that hardly any other Universal film made any money overseas at the time. The same article suggests that Airport 1975 worldwide rental was about $50m, so The Byron Times' figure seems reasonable for that one.

As it is sourced, I didn't just want to delete the Airport figure but would be interested in whether others think The Byron Times reported figure seems accurate and reliable, and if it isn't, then Airport probably should be removed from the article. Sudiani (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur with your analysis. I don't think The Bryan Times is the issue here: it is just republishing a UPI story so they won't have fact-checked it, but it is probably an accurate rendering. Regional dailies often buy these stories to pad out their pages. The UPI is certainly reliable for this type of info, but in this case their figures just seem to be wrong. They are internally inconsistent for a start: they imply Airport grossed 60m domestic rentals and 8m foreign, which doesn't tie up with the 75m figure anyway. But even if they were consistent we know the 60m domestic rental figure is incorrect. Even if we are generous and round up it is unlikely Airport topped 60 mil in global rentals. On that basis I am happy for you to remove it; the only reason it was ever included was because on the surface its gross seemed too close to that of Love Story for us to call it. On the subject of Love Story I would still like to retain the rental figure because it helps with contemporary comparisons. Betty Logan (talk) 01:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I hadn't spotted that it was a UPI report. I will update the list. Sudiani (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that I did have some details of Universal's highest-grossing films overseas and see that by December 1989, Variety reported that Airport had grossed $27.9 million overseas so its total worldwide gross is $128.4 million. Sudiani (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Poor reference grouping
In the highest-grossing films section, references are grouped into their own "#" group, which is fine. However, the reference to the right of each film reference is always the same (All Time Worldwide Box Office Mojo), and so, instead of reusing the same reference, we end up with a reference clutter that cites the same exact thing but at different locations, as seen in the box office sources section. I will change it so that the repeated references are the same group and are together in one place. I will also fix the "#" grouping since the article seems to mix both these and normal numbered references. Wretchskull (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not the same one. If you click on the citations you will see they are in fact different, reflecting different chart orders to corroborate the different positions in the article. They all use the same title which I agree is slightly confusing, but entirely in keeping with referencing practices. You will also notice they all have different dates, which is the giveaway here. Where the sources are duplicate they have been merged (see #10 for example), but if they were to all be merged then the archived links would be lost and the citations would in effect be useless. Also, box-office sources used in the chart are specifically and intentionally separated out from the other sources in the article used to source the prose. This has been done to help streamline maintenance of the article (~300 box-office sources need to be regularly checked and updated while the ~100 sources making more general claims do not). A handful of references may be replicated between the box-office and prose sources but this is done for consistency and the redundancy is minimal. Betty Logan (talk) 11:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Several films
Such as Lion King, (1994), Titanic and others have earned more. https://www.boxofficemojo.com/chart/ww_top_lifetime_gross/?area=XWW&ref_=bo_cso_ac 2.96.104.244 (talk) 11:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Read WP:BOXOFFICE--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Avengers (Marvel Cinematic Universe)
This was recently created. Is it possibly a better link for the Avengers on the franchise and film series section? Or is it fine as is? Jhenderson 7 7 7  00:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If Avengers (Marvel Cinematic Universe) hosted box-office data then I think it would be better to link to that article, but until it does I think we should stick with the status quo. Betty Logan (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. Thanks for clearing it up. Jhenderson  7 7 7  16:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

It for a character (or in this case team) page there a few of them now for the mcu and is very unlikely to include box office, cast, etc Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The New Mutants
Is The New Mutants (film) still in theaters?2601:241:300:B610:3CA0:6613:D3DC:917B (talk) 03:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 May 2021
In the section "Highest-grossing franchises and film series", the Dceu has not the right total, because the box office of "Shazam" is not updated. It's just a couple of millions more. You can check it on box office mojo as I think you did for all the other movies. Greetings Henjin Dono (talk) 12:33, 29 May 2021 (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.  Bsoyka  ( talk &middot;  contribs ) 23:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Original box office of Titanic
On Box Office Mojo, now it says that the original box office of Titanic was $1,843,478,449. 

That original number is still $1,843,201,268 at certain places in this list.

Please decide what to do.

(It's possible Box Office Mojo is "corrupted" again, like it was once.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surge elec (talk • contribs) 20:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the error, they added the 1998's Russia box office to the 2017 re-release--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's the 2017 reissue figure (and therefore the overall total) that is corrupted, but the original release figure looks correct to me. It has increased by $270,000, but it looks like a legitimate correction to me. Betty Logan (talk) 07:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The 3D reissue figure has changed too, and the grosses no longer add up to the stated total. Given how the numbers keep changing I am going to restore the original figures for now and we will see how it plays out. Betty Logan (talk) 08:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have corrected WP:BOXOFFICE page, and I think the correct box office is $2,194,690,964 ($2,201,647,264 - $6,956,300), or maybe $2,195,170,133 --Luke Stark 96 (talk) 11:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The 3D gross has inexplicably gone up from $343 million to $350 million. This could also be an error because the individual grosses don't add up to $350 million. Betty Logan (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Chinese gross of Avengers: Infinity War
According to Box Office Mojo, the final gross of Avengers: Infinity War in China is $359,543,153. A further look at the film's Chinese Box Office chart shows that the gross decreased from $368,735,506 at the end of its sixth weekend to its final gross of $359,543,153. It looks like this could be due to changes in currency exchange rates(The value of $1 increased from CNY6.3314 on the day of release (11 May 2018) to CNY6.64 on the last weekend listed on Box Office Mojo (6-8 July 2018)). This seems to be similar to the declining grosses of Frozen in certain countries. I had brought this up at Talk:Avengers: Infinity War months ago, but there has been no reply. I think an approach similar to the one used for handling the issue with Frozen should be taken here. ~Rajan51 (talk) 13:14,9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem with Frozen was not due to exchange rates, it was due to the fact that Box Office Mojo stopped updating the total while it was still playing in several countries, so we added them in ourselves. The worldwide total on Box Office Mojo is cumulative, so if a conversion reduces a total for a country then that does not bring down the worldwide total. If you compare the foreign total for the week ending July 1, 2018 (when China was at $366 million) the foreign gross stands at $1,363.9 million. A week later, the only significant difference is that China's gross has dropped to $360 million, but the foreign gross stands slightly higher at $1,365.1 million, despite the drop of $6 million. In other words the worldwide total was unaffected by the drop in the Chinese exchange rate. The global gross is seemingly created by adding in each week's grosses, rather than adding up each country's grosses. Betty Logan (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I got confused. The Fate of the Furious was the one that had drops in totals in Argentina and a few other countries. But after checking the archived international box office, it looks like there were no anomalies for Infinity War. ~Rajan51 (talk) 17:31,9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We use an older figure for The Fate of the Furious in the chart. I have a vague recollection of the issue but I'm not sure if we ever got to the bottom of why that happened. When something weird happens to a gross we take it on a case-by-case basis and deal with it the best we can. We are always open to revising figures if they are possibly incorrect. Box Office Mojo has been plagued by problems since its revamp too. Betty Logan (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

LOTR
Is the 78 LOTR part of the same franchise as the peter Jackson films we having a discussion about it on Talk:List of highest-grossing fantasy films anyone fancy getting involved Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The various animated LOTR/Hobbit films are all part of the same franchise as discussed above at . Betty Logan (talk) 15:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The discussion on that page seems to be whether or not this standard should be applied to that page.2601:241:300:B610:18CE:FDE2:A529:1679 (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Same Movies in serveral franchises
It's seems not good. For an example, Avengers and MCU Spiderman movies are already in the MCU list too. So I don't think they need a another separated franchise list in Highest Grossing Franchises list.

But I have a suggestion. Keep the Sony Spiderman movies in the list. remove the Avengers and MCU Spiderman movies (because they already in MCU list). After that Sony Spiderman movies will belong how it was performed on box office. I hope someone could make that happen. Thank you. Game for Game (talk) 11:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * See for why it is like this. TompaDompa (talk) 11:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

On Forbes contributor Scott Mendelson
I didn't read this article in particular, but keep in mind that WP:FORBESCON says that. I think that Mendelson qualifies as a subject-matter expert on this. —El Millo (talk) 01:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally I would accept Mendelson as reliable (I enjoy and trust his articles), but I think there are plenty of non-subject specialists who would not. If there were no other options then I would argue for his inclusion, but I question whether it is worth replacing non-controversial sources with a potentially controversial one just to consolidate two sources into one. Ultimately this isn't an issue for me. If other editors would rather rather have the Mendelson source I genuinely have no objections to that (as I said I am an admirer of his work), but at least you now know my thinking on this issue. Betty Logan (talk) 02:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Basically my intention is avoid discussions of this nature: Talk:List_of_biggest_box-office_bombs. Betty Logan (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it's for this article only or if it changed for him generally, but the byline for the source says instead of, so it would fall under WP:FORBES instead of WP:FORBESCON, therefore being clearly reliable. —El Millo (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for drawing that to my attention, I didn't realise that. It must be a recent thing because I am pretty sure he used to be only a contributor. Obviously this makes the issue a non-issue so I reverted my revert. Betty Logan (talk) 02:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * FYI, he tweeted about becoming a staff member back in January. So, it's not just for this article. But, even though he's an expert in BO, if there's ever a discrepancy between him and sources like Deadline, THR, Variety, I would choose them over him because sometimes he tends to get carried away in his opinions and inside jokes that can be easily misinterpreted as facts. —  Starforce13  03:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Godzilla
The Godzilla franchise is close to overtaking Iron Man on the top 25 franchise chart, but according to the former's page on Wikipedia, we don't have data on the first few films individually, only the sum total. Any ideas on how we should handle that? TdanTce (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is how it done on List of highest-grossing science fiction films


 * {{legend|#b6fcb6|size=60%| Background shading indicates that at least one film in the series is playing in the week commencing in theaters around the world.}}

Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I like this, but we can probably list out the American films individually since we have data on all of them. TdanTce (talk) 02:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We had a similar porblem with Planet of the Apes a few years ago: . Betty Logan (talk) 03:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at the Box office performance section on the franchise page, it seems there are individual numbers for the Japanese films from Godzilla vs. Megalon onward.67.173.23.66 (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Specifically, here's the table:

67.173.23.66 (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * These figures look very suspect in some cases. For example, the source for Godzilla: Megalon states: "By the late 1970s, Godzilla films settled down to a comfortable formula. Toho was making two films a year. Each cost in the neighborhood of $1.2 million and could be counted on to earn about $20 million." Also, there seems to be an abundance of gaps and original research. The "worldwide" gross for The Return of Godzilla is just the Japanese gross (so not a worldwide gross at all). Given the number of gaps I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't already in the top 25. It is fairly evident looking at this that it will be next to impossible to document the grosses of each individual film. I don't think that is necessary for what we aim to do here though. If we could locate a "collective" source for the total Toho gross like we did for Planet of the Apes that would be sufficient for the purposes of actually ranking the franchise. Betty Logan (talk) 08:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I found two sites that seem to have grosses for each film: https://medium.com/@peterkarakiozis/the-box-office-history-of-the-godzilla-franchise-3efbecfd8acb and https://wikizilla.org/wiki/List_of_Godzilla_movies#:~:text=This%20is%20a%20list%20of,three%20produced%20by%20Legendary%20Pictures. The first one has grosses in USD, but no references. The second one has references, but many of the grosses are in yen, and those would need to be converted to USD for the year the film came out. TdanTce (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The wikizilla is just a wiki that anyone can edit, while the Medium site while highly informative is not a reliable source and doesn't give its sources. It might just be getting its figures from Wikipedia. The Japanese are usually pretty on the ball on when it comes to recording this type of stuff so I would be extremely surprised if there were no records at all, but we probably need to look to Japanese sources. Betty Logan (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Please do not add data in the manner you did . Other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. The sources must be provided at this article, in the same manner all other films/franchises are sourced here. The problem is further exacerbated by the fact that many of the sources used at Godzilla_(franchise) are other Wikipedia articles and WP:SPS sources. These are not acceptable sources. They may be good enough for a fan wiki, but not for a Featured List on the English Wikipedia. If Godzilla is to be added we need better quality sources first. Betty Logan (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I think I have solved this situation might need some changes but there are sources.

{{Highest-grossing films franchise|type=franchise|rank=n/a|title=Godzilla|total=2445907076|number=36|highest=Godzilla (2014 film)|gross=529076069
 * {{Highest-grossing films franchise|type=series|sub=y|title=MonsterVerse|total=1305891207|number=3|highest=Godzilla (2014 film)|gross=529076069

}}
 * Godzilla (2014)
 * $529076069
 * Godzilla vs. Kong (2020)
 * $390215000
 * Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019)
 * $385900138
 * {{Highest-grossing films franchise|type=franchise|sub=y|title=Japanese films|total=761001008|number=32|highest=Shin Godzilla|gross=78046505


 * {{Highest-grossing films franchise|type=series|sub=y|title=Showa Era|total=369761450|number=15|highest=Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla|gross=34122958{

}}
 * Godzilla - Godzilla Vs Gigan
 * $295638492{{efn|name=Thirteen|The first 13 films are estimated to have grossed {{US$|163 million|long=no}} in Japan and $132,638,492 in other territories,{{efn|name=Overseas}} for a worldwide total of $293,946,455.}}
 * Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla (1974)
 * $34122958
 * Godzilla vs. Megalon (1973)
 * $20000000{{efn|name=Thirteen|The first 13 films are estimated to have grossed {{US$|163 million|long=no}} in Japan and $132,638,492 in other territories,{{efn|name=Overseas}} for a worldwide total of $293,946,455.}}
 * Terror of Mechagodzilla (1975)
 * $20000000{{efn|name=Thirteen|The first 13 films are estimated to have grossed {{US$|163 million|long=no}} in Japan and $132,638,492 in other territories,{{efn|name=Overseas}} for a worldwide total of $293,946,455.}}
 * {{Highest-grossing films franchise|type=series|sub=y|title=Heisei Era|total=192116710|number=7|highest=Godzilla vs. Destoroyah|gross=54147140

}}
 * Godzilla vs. Destoroyah (1995)
 * $42000000
 * Godzilla vs. Mothra (1992)
 * $33900000
 * Godzilla vs. SpaceGodzilla (1994)
 * $32000000 {{efn|Godzilla vs. SpaceGodzilla grossed {{US$|32 million|long=no}} worldwide.{{efn|name=SpaceGodzilla|See {{Section link|Godzilla vs. SpaceGodzilla|Box office}}}} Japan gross was {{¥|2.81 billion}} ({{US$|{{#expr:2810/102.208 round 1}} million|long=no}}). }}
 * Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla II (1993)
 * $31100000
 * Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah (1991)
 * $25200000
 * The Return of Godzilla (1984)/Godzilla 1985
 * $15116710 {{efn|Including $4,116,710 from US gross}}
 * Godzilla vs. Biollante (1989)
 * $12800000
 * {{Highest-grossing films franchise|type=series|sub=y|title=Millennium Era|total=117815710|number=6|highest=Godzilla 2000|gross=27924063

}}
 * Godzilla 2000 (1999)
 * $27924063
 * Godzilla: Tokyo S.O.S. (2003)
 * $22724345
 * Godzilla: Final Wars (2004)
 * $21167302
 * Godzilla, Mothra and King Ghidorah: Giant Monsters All-Out Attack (2001)
 * $20000000
 * Godzilla Against Mechagodzilla (2002)
 * $16000000
 * Godzilla vs. Megaguirus (2000)
 * $10000000
 * {{Highest-grossing films franchise|type=series|sub=y|title=Riewa Era|total=83778604|number=4|highest=Shin Godzilla|gross=78053145

}} }} }}
 * Shin Godzilla (2016)
 * $78053145
 * Godzilla: Planet of the Monsters (2017)
 * $3285291
 * Godzilla: The Planet Eater (2018)
 * $1523168
 * Godzilla: City on the Edge of Battle (2018)
 * $917000
 * {{Highest-grossing films franchise|type=film|sub=y|title=Godzilla (1998)|total=379014294 }}
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenz41 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for your assistance Greenz41, but many of the sources seem to be of dubious origin. Also there is too much original research for my liking.I have reconstructed the table below and left question marks next to figures of dubious merit. If we can get the table to a satisfactory state then we can get to a position of integrating it into the article. Most of the problems occur in the 80s and 90s. In the entries I have highlighted somebody has converted admissions to grosses, to dollars. This is clear OR. The source provides "distribution earnings" which we could use instead, but this would lowball the overall gross. It would be better if we could obtain the actual grosses. Betty Logan (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * There seems to be several inconsistencies in the numbers for the Japanese Godzilla. The total in the table at the top ($835,216,196) is higher than the figure at Godzilla (franchise) ($761,001,008). However, there seems to be several inconsistencies at the franchise article. The figure for the first 13 films ($293.6 million) actually runs up to Godzilla vs. Megalon (per Forbes), so the franchise table is actually counting this gross twice. There are various other inconsistencies too. I get the overall total for the Japanese films to $628,276,334, although this is a lower bar. For the films between 1989 and 1995 only the distributor rental can be reliably sourced, which shaves an estimated 80 mil off the total. So we can say for definite that the Japanese Godzilla has grossed at least $630 mil, but it is almost certainly over $700 mil. The bottom line is that we can prove through reliable sourcing that the franchise as a whole (including the American films) has grossed at least $2.3 billion. Betty Logan (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Well I’m dumb the sources didn’t transfer over, the sources however are in yen so I do not know if this page has agreed to using conversions for films, since everything will be in yen.
 * This is the source for the gross of Godzilla vs Biollante however as mentioned before it is in yen. http://www.eiga-ranking.com/movie/11497.htmlGreenz41 (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Greenz41. The problem though is that using numbers from sources written fully in Japanese and then feeding those numbers through conversion calculators may be considered original research by some editors. I think this should be the very last resort and kept to a minimum if we have to resort to that. In the grand scheme of things an $80 million shortfall doesn't make a huge difference to this chart: there is a $130 difference between the franchises at #24 and #25, so you are literally talking one place out at the most if the grosses are close, which we can clarify with a note. The most problematic grosses date from 1989–1995. These are not old films. The grosses must be recorded somewhere by somebody. Betty Logan (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Found the gross for Godzilla vs Destroyah, and had a longer read through the biography, and the rental grosses for Godzilla vs Spacegoszilla and Godzilla vs Biollante are close enough to the actual grosses.Greenz41 (talk) 07:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The distributor income is about 60–70% of the box-office, so we are low-balling by about $30–50 million. In terms of the franchise total in the table that amounts to a 2% error margin, which I can live with. I will build the table here and then we can transfer it to the main article. Betty Logan (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * This is what I could do if anyone can added to it you can if you find reliable sources, we can tidy it up later Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We can use this table to develop the new Godzilla entry. It's going to be pretty complicated so we'll take a top down approach. Betty Logan (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't bother with adding in the sources to this table. Just add the films and the grosses for now. The sources will be added separately to the franchises sources section once when it is transferred to the main article. Betty Logan (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Franchise and series sources


 * Godzilla
 * {{cite book |last=Edelson |first=Edward |title=Great animals of the movies |date=1980 |publisher=Doubleday |page=85 |isbn=9780385147286 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EbwaAAAAMAAJ |quote=By the late 1970s, Godzilla films settled down to a comfortable formula. Toho was making two films a year. Each cost in the neighborhood of US$1.2 million and could be counted on to earn about {{US$|20 million|long=no}}.}}
 * American films: see "godzilla", Box Office Mojo.
 * Toho grosses
 * Godzilla (1954): see Bean (2019) for Japanese gross ($1.6 million) and Box Office Mojo for US gross (approx. $600,000). For the American re-edit, Godzilla, King of the Monsters! ($2 million), see Ryfle (1998, p. 58)
 * 1954–1973 cum: see Bean (2019).
 * Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla (1974): see Edelson (1980) for initial worldwide gross ($20 million), and Box Office Mojo for 2002 Japanese reissue ($14,122,958).
 * Terror of Mechagodzilla (1975): see Edelson (1980).
 * The Return of Godzilla (1984): see Toho Kingdom; see Box Office Mojo for Godzilla 1985 gross.
 * 1989–1994; 1999–2000: see Toho Kingdom.
 * Godzilla vs. Destoroyah (1995): see Ryfle (1998, p. 346).
 * 2001–2018: see Box Office Mojo.
 * The Return of Godzilla (1984): see Toho Kingdom; see Box Office Mojo for Godzilla 1985 gross.
 * 1989–1994; 1999–2000: see Toho Kingdom.
 * Godzilla vs. Destoroyah (1995): see Ryfle (1998, p. 346).
 * 2001–2018: see Box Office Mojo.


 * The Toho films can additionally be divided by era.2601:241:300:B610:F103:5D13:2872:DF5E (talk) 12:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Here you go might need a tidy up this is the best I could do {{Highest-grossing films franchise|type=franchise|rank=n/a|title=Godzilla{{†|alt=film currently playing}} |number=36|highest=Godzilla (2014 film)|gross=529076069
 * {{Highest-grossing films franchise|type=series|sub=y|title=MonsterVerse {{†|alt=film currently playing}}|number=3|highest=Godzilla|gross=524976069|DUPLICATE-release=Y

}} }} }} Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)~
 * Godzilla (2014)
 * 524976069
 * Godzilla vs. Kong (2021)|release=Y
 * 390957654
 * Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019)
 * 386600138

I think we should use the sum of the first 13 Showa Films that way there is only really one film to worry about because we have information for the rest of the films. It means that even if we don't find a gross for the film, we are at most missing out on $900,000-$1million on the franchise total gross which isn't much. That way when Godzilla vs Kong releases in the rest of Europe and Japan where it would most likely make another $50-$130 million, pushing it into the top 25 we have the grosses all in order.Greenz41 (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

As mentioned before this is most likely the best way to have the table because all but one gross has been sourced and there is the sum for the Showa era films.Greenz41 (talk) 04:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Godzilla tracker

 * Franchise and series sources


 * Godzilla
 * American films: see "godzilla", Box Office Mojo.
 * Toho grosses
 * Godzilla (1954): see Bean (2019) for Japanese gross ($1.6 million) and Box Office Mojo for US gross (approx. $600,000). For the American re-edit, Godzilla, King of the Monsters! ($2 million), see Ryfle (1998, p. 58)
 * 1954–1973 cum: see Bean (2019).
 * Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla (1974): see Edelson (1980) for initial worldwide gross ($20 million), and Box Office Mojo for 2002 Japanese reissue ($14,122,958).
 * Terror of Mechagodzilla (1975): see Edelson (1980).
 * The Return of Godzilla (1984): see Toho Kingdom; see Box Office Mojo for Godzilla 1985 gross.
 * 1989–1994; 1999–2000: see Toho Kingdom.
 * Godzilla vs. Destoroyah (1995): see Ryfle (1998, p. 346).
 * 2001–2018: see Box Office Mojo.
 * Terror of Mechagodzilla (1975): see Edelson (1980).
 * The Return of Godzilla (1984): see Toho Kingdom; see Box Office Mojo for Godzilla 1985 gross.
 * 1989–1994; 1999–2000: see Toho Kingdom.
 * Godzilla vs. Destoroyah (1995): see Ryfle (1998, p. 346).
 * 2001–2018: see Box Office Mojo.

Is there enough for this franchise to replace #25? Or is it just being added as #26? - wolf  11:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is just being prepared at this stage. The chart is being kept at 25 but Godzilla will probably enter it in the next couple of months if the new film continues to have a normal roll-out. Betty Logan (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The King Kong (franchise) page has a gross for the 1960s King Kong vs. Godzilla of $10,367,650.2601:241:300:B610:6C8C:BA4F:6FE:C61 (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is it's full of OR. Whoever has worked it out has estimated the gross from admissions, so it's not a reliably sourced figure. The earnings from this film are still included in the overall total though because we have a total gross up to the early 70s. Betty Logan (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Is there any box office for Godzilla: City on the Edge of Battle? Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 09:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've looked but can't find anything concrete. Betty Logan (talk) 01:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)