Talk:List of highest-grossing films/Archive 18

Identifying Franchises and Film series
The table containing this list reads: Franchises and Film series. This raises a few questions: A) Does this mean it includes only film series that are franchises? B) Or does it mean that even film series which are not franchises (and vice versa) are included? C) How is it determined if one qualifies as a franchise or not?

It looks like the answers to these questions could determine whether the following could be added to the list: 1. Harry Potter (8 films) 2. The Lord of the Rings (3 films) 3. Jurassic World (2 films) 4. The Hobbit (3 films) 5. Spider-Man (Sam Raimi) Trilogy (3 films) 6. The Dark Knight Trilogy (3 films) -Rajan51 (talk) 12:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The chart adopts a top-down approach: all franchises should be listed. A film series can belong to a franchise (and occasionally more than one in the case of a shared universe) or be a standalone entity. All of the series you list above belong to franchises and are already included in the chart under their respective franchise. The Harry Potter films for example used to be in the chart as a standalone series, but when the Fantastic Beasts films were released the two series formed a franchise and both now come under the "Wizarding World" entry. You can regard something like The Hunger Games as a franchise comprising just one series for the purposes of the chart, but if they did a new Hunger Games series we wouldn't have two entries in the chart we'd just have one entry comprising two series. Betty Logan (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason why a film series from a shared universe gets multiple entries, both within the shared universe and as its own series while others don't? To continue on the above examples, why would the Harry Potter series and a potential Hunger Games series not get their own entries (assuming the latter makes enough money to be on the list) while film series like Iron Man and Captain America get their own individual entries? Also, could you explain to me what it takes for one to be considered a franchise? -Rajan51 (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * These days it is common for crossovers between different DC and Marvel properties resulting in a film that belongs to more than one franchise. It is easier to understand by looking at the Spider-Man films: the two Tom Holland films belong both the Spider-Man franchise and the MCU. The Maguire and Garfield films just belong the Spider-Man franchise, but not the MCU. Then you've also got Spider-Man appearing in a couple of Avengers films, but these belong to The Avengers franchise rather than the Spider-Man franchise. This is not an issue for Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings. In the case of Harry Potter they just created a spin-off series; they are still Harry Potter properties though, essentially no different to something like Star Wars or Star Trek. In the case of Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit they just adapted a book and its three sequels into seven films, which is essentially no different to the James Bond series. All of these are single-property franchises. You can find more thorough explanations in the template at the top in the "Overlapping franchises" section. Betty Logan (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So, the Harry Potter films and the Star Wars Sequel trilogy both belong to their own film series as well as their larger franchises like Tom Holland's Spider-Man films, with the only difference being that Spider-Man is a franchise. This still does not answer the questions I posed above, so I'll repeat them again.
 * Why does a "non-franchise" film series like Harry Potter or the Star Wars sequel trilogy not get the same treatment?
 * What does it take for a film series to be considered as a "franchise"?   -Rajan51 (talk) 6:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't get it either, and tried to search for previous consensus and cannot find any discussion. So why the exclusions? Kingsif (talk) 08:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The same treatment as what? The first Star Wars trilogy belongs to the Star Wars franchise so that is where it is put. The The Hobbit films and Lord of the Rings trilogy belong to the Middle-Earth franchise so that is where they are put. The Harry Potter films and Fantastic Beasts belong to the Wizarding World franchise so that is where they are put. Something like Spider-Man: Homecoming belongs to the Spiderman franchise and the MCU so it is logged twice. Something like Batman v. Superman belongs to both the Batman and Superman franchises and the DCEU so it is logged under all three. Likewise the Iron Man films belong to the Iron Man franchise and the MCU so they are logged under both. This isn't rocket science fellas! If a film is a crossover between two franchises what do you expect us to do with it? There is no way to avoid multiple entries in the cases of crossovers between franchises and shared universes. Where a film or set of films do not belong to more than one franchise then for obvious reasons they don't need to be logged on the chart more than once. What other franchise do the Harry Potter films belong? What other franchise do the Lord of the Rings belong? Betty Logan (talk) 11:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Once again, you have not answered either of my questions. In case it was not clear, by same treatment, I meant that the Harry Potter series, the Hobbit/Lord of the Rings/The Dark Knight/Spider-Man(Sam Raimi) trilogies do not have their own entries in the list despite belonging to both their own film series and larger 'franchises'. I see that Iron Man, Avengers and other films series have received their own spots because they are 'franchises'. (Also, I'll repeat this other question for the fourth time: What does it take for one to be considered a 'franchise'?) My main question is why does a 'franchise' get its own spot while a film series does not?! -Rajan51 (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) A film series only gets its own spot if it's a crossover between more than one franchise, meaning it cannot be listed as a subseries under one franchise. All your examples are listed as a subseries under their franchise. The only series which currently get a crossover spot are MCU and DCEU. All Wizarding World films are based on works by Rowling in the same universe so they are one franchise. Same for Star Wars created by George Lucas, and Middle-earth created by Tolkien. All MCU films are based on Marvel Comics but have different characters created by different people at different times. Reliable sources don't consider "All films based on Marvel Comics" to be one large franchise so neither do we. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * To quote your statement: "A film series only gets its own spot if it's a crossover between more than one franchise, meaning it cannot be listed as a subseries under one franchise." I can see that this is how it works currently. My question is if there is any specific reason for this rule? Also, you seem to indicate that whether or not something is considered a franchise depends on reliable sources. Which are the reliable sources in this case? -Rajan51 (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources sometimes differ but I haven't seen any with "Marvel Comics films" as one franchise. Box Office Mojo and The Numbers have franchise lists. They don't use a table with expandable subseries like us so they list some subseries separately to be able to give totals for them. They don't display ranks (unlike most of their lists) and they have long lists of all franchises and film series in their database. I think a designated top-25 like us should avoid double listings like Batman and The Dark Knight Trilogy when we can just show the latter under the former. MCU and DCEU cannot be shown under existing franchises when there is no "Marvel Comics films" or "DC Comics films". PrimeHunter (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * First, from the link you mentioned, Box Office Mojo lists Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, The Dark Knight Trilogy and The Hobbit as 'franchises'. Does that mean we can consider those to be franchises? Second, even if they were considered as 'franchises', if we were to avoid double listings, then why should a film series that is a 'franchise' get a reprieve while ones that are not 'franchises' get removed? -Rajan51 (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2021
 * Box Office Mojo chose a single common word as heading but those are clearly not media franchises on their own. Our ranked top-25 list with expandable subseries can use a different organization than their long unranked list without subseries. We do show the box office of The Dark Knight Trilogy and Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. We just show it under their wider franchise and don't claim they are a top-25 franchise on their own. I assume Box Office Mojo and The Numbers omitted ranks in their franchise tables because they know many of the entries aren't actually franchises and a rank would be rather meaningless. Our table and ranks would perhaps be more "clean" by omitting MCU and DCEU but all sources I have seen include them. It was me who marked them with S for shared universe to show their special status. I don't want to remove them. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Whether they are considered franchises or not is not my main concern. I am not asking specifically for the removal of MCU and DCEU film series. Both of those have grossed enough money to be on the list. My main concern is about the inclusion of film series from within these series as their own entries. Why does the 'franchise' status of a film series make it eligible for double listing? If we were to avoid double listings to keep the list clean, it should be applied uniformly to all franchises and film series in the list. If we choose to allow double listings, all eligible franchises and film series should be included, not just film series that are considered to be franchises. The title of the list is 'Highest-grossing franchises and film series', not 'Highest-grossing franchises', so letting film series that are considered to be franchises be on the list while not letting the others be listed seems to suggest partiality. -Rajan51 (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2021
 * This is the only explanation that has actually made sense; I think it is highly inappropriate for you to be "shouting" that the matter "isn't rocket science, fellas!" when both you are the only one who seemed to understand in the face of multiple-party opposition, and you had poor tack at explaining. So you are saying that the "Wizarding World" is a franchise of franchises, or a "parent franchise" alone, and that "Middle Earth" is the same, but the MCU and DCEU also include standalone films that are not part of a "child franchise" - thus making the MCU and DCEU each franchises, both independently and as parent franchises? Which means that, since the MCU/DCEU films not part of child franchises would otherwise go unlisted, there is a need to duplicate the list of all films. So which MCU and DCEU films aren't part of a child franchise? Also, I can see the need to duplicate titles in the case of the Spiderman films, which cross over many parent franchises, but couldn't the parent franchises simply have a list of all their child franchises and then the extra films? Kingsif (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am saying the Wizarding World is one franchise. Middle-Earth is one franchise. Star Wars is one franchise. James Bond is one franchise. Batman is one franchise. Spider-Man is one franchise. Iron-Man is one franchise. Why are they one franchise? Because they are licensed from a singular IP, as explained by PrimeHunter above. As such they have one entry each. The MCU and the DCEU are explicitly conceived as a crossover between multiple franchises. Rajan51's question is based on a false premise because Harry Potter is not treated any differently to Iron Man or Spider-Man; in fact it is treated exactly the same. It is a consequence of treating them consistently that the films that appear in the MCU are also retained in the IP franchises. If we removed the MCU Spider-Man films from the Spider-Man franchise then the chart would misrepresent what the Spider-Man franchise had grossed. If we removed the MCU from the chart (to retain a 1:1 relationship between films and franchises) then we would be omitting the highest-grossing series in history from a table recording the grosses of franchises and film series. So if you want a complete record for Spider-Man and the MCU grosses then multiple entries are unavoidable. If Harry Potter were to added to the DCEU then the subsequent films would appear both under the Wizarding World and DCEU entries, resulting in an entirely consistent treatment. Betty Logan (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * To quote your statement: "As such they have one entry each." You're saying that only franchises should be listed and film series that is not a franchise should not be listed separately. My question is and I repeat: Why is that the rule being used? Why should film series like Harry Potter, The Dark Knight Trilogy, etc not be listed as their own film series when the title reads "Highest-grossing franchises and film series"? It's not "Highest-grossing franchises", so why does a film series have to be a franchise to be listed as its own film series? -Rajan51 (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2021
 * Maybe "Highest-grossing franchises and shared universes" would be more accurate, but film series is a better known term. If we start giving separate entries to subseries then where do we stop? Fast and the Furious getting a second entry without Hobbs and Shaw? Peter Jackson's Middle Earth getting a second entry without the old animated film? Eon's James Bond getting a second entry without the two non-Eon films? Shrek getting a second entry without Puss in Boots? They may sound dumb but they are similar to giving a second entry to Harry Potter without Fantastic Beasts. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The point is that every film series should be treated equally regardless of whether it is a franchise (at least as long as the list is titled the way it is now). If that cannot be done, another option would be to change the name of the list to something like the one you've mentioned above. -Rajan51 (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2021
 * Not every series belongs to a franchise. You have entries like The Hunger Games and The Twilight Saga in there. If these series were expanded into franchises with new adaptations or spin-offs etc then they would become sub-entries of the franchise entry because that would be the top-level for the property. This recently happened with Fast & Furious. The IP licensed a spin-off (effectively turning a series into franchise), but it would not be an economical use of the chart to also keep a separate entry for the main series when it is all logged under the franchise entry. As such the chart takes a top down approach where it can, but that is not possible in the case of cross-overs: most of the MCU films can be represented as components of their parent franchise, but many readers will specifically come to this page to find out what the MCU has grossed. If there is absolutely no way to make a series a sub-entry of a franchise (either because the franchise does not exist or because it is a crossover) then the only way to provide that information is to create a separate entry for it. My advice is to not get hung up on the title of the section: the content determines the title, not the other way around. If we changed the title to "Highest-grossing franchises" then I would wager that somebody would come along and ask why we have film series listed. I once thought about calling it "Highest-grossing film properties" but then someone would come along and add Avatar! If anyone can think of a better title I'm all ears. PrimeHunter's suggestion above might be a better fit for the evolution of the chart. Betty Logan (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We agree on what to list but not on the terminology. Franchise is a business concept based on rights. I think a film franchise is at least two films based on the same intellectual property, no matter whether all the films are in the same series. All Hunger Games films are a franchise. All Batman films are a franchise, and so on. It doesn't matter how the films are connected within the franchise. (If somebody made a Batman film without having the rights then it wouldn't be part of the franchise and they would be sued if they tried to release it). MCU is a shared universe with multiple franchises (Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, etc.), so it gets a separate listing. Same with DCEU. Harry Potter and Fantastic Beasts are created by the same person with the same basis so it's one franchise. When we have entries for both MCU and Spider-Man, we have to list MCU Spider-Man films under both. Some have argued that all Iron Man films are part of the MCU so Iron Man shouldn't have its own entry. I disagree. Iron Man was created in 1963, decades before the MCU. It has its own franchise history in multiple media including television films. It shouldn't be disqualified just because the theatrical releases happen to all be in the MCU. If it's discovered one of the old animated Iron Man tv films had a limited theatrical release in a small country then should Iron Man suddenly get an entry but not before? That wouldn't make sense to me. Iron Man is a media franchise by itself so it gets listed now, just like Spider-Man. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we are in agreement on the general approach so this is just a question of semantics. I think you are probably also right in the general definition of a franchise too: it is the act of licensing that creates a franchise, but this effectively occurred when the film rights were sold i.e. just the first film formed a franchise along with the books. I always saw "series" as an unambiguous way of ensuring the criteria was established at a minimum of two films. There are several different ways to address this though, so I'm not hung up on the section title if it is causing issues. Betty Logan (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I was looking up Film series just now. It has the following definition: A film series or movie series (also referred to as a film franchise or movie franchise) is a collection of related films in succession that share the same fictional universe, or are marketed as a series. What do you think of using this definition?-Rajan51 (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2021
 * I understand that film series like Harry Potter, The Dark Knight Trilogy, etc are not franchises, but as long as the list is titled the way it is now, all film series should be included irrespective of whether they are a franchise or not to avoid partiality. There are three possible solutions that I can think of to this situation:
 * 1. List all film series. (franchise and otherwise)
 * 2. Rename the list/table and list only film series. (As per Film series: A film series is a collection of related films in succession that share the same fictional universe, or are marketed as a series.)
 * 3. Rename the list/table and list only franchises.  -Rajan51 (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2021
 * Something is only a solution if there is a problem to start with, and it seems neither I or PrimeHunter agree that there is a problem. You say that all series should be included, but what series are currently excluded? The Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings series' are in the chart under their franchise headings. If readers want this information then all they have to do is expand the franchise entry and get it. It's not entirely clear to me what you are proposing. If you are proposing that we simply break up the franchise charts into component series then I do no agree with that. Separating Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit does not make any sense to me. And how would that be implemented anyway? Do we break up the Star Wars films by trilogy? Do we break up the Bond films by Bond? Do we simply drop Hobbs & Shaw from the Fast & Furious entry? Readers may want to know how much each series grossed, but similarly they may want to know how much all the films have grossed collectively. A reader may want to know how much The Dark Knight trilogy has grossed or they may want to know how much the Batman films have grossed in general. They may want to know how much the Spider-Man films have grossed, and they may want to know how much the MCU has grossed. Under the current organization this information is accessible. By breaking up the franchises into individual series all we would be doing is denying the reader information that they might want. Using a top-down approach is the most informative and efficient approach because the reader can go down to any level they wish to know. You seem to be suggesting that we impose a single perspective and I cannot agree to that. If you want a table that meets a specific criteria at the Film series article then why not go and create such a table at the Film series article? Betty Logan (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I am not proposing that we simply break up the franchise charts into component series. By saying "All series should be included", what I mean is that if the list is to contain film series and franchises as their own individually ranked entries, then all film series and franchises should be listed as their own such entries, not just film series that are considered as franchises. For example, Star Wars would be listed as one franchise the way it is now, but apart from that, the respective trilogies (the ones that have grossed enough money to be on the list) would also be listed in the same way the Avengers and Iron Man film series/franchises are listed. This will not cause any denial of information to the reader as you think. Secondly, if we were to design the list to suit what a potential reader might want to know or learn from the list like you say, we need to keep in mind that there could be numerous things that readers may want to know, which would make it hard for us to keep up with. For example, some readers may want to know how much DC films have grossed in total, they may want to know how much Marvel films have grossed or how much. There could be several more such possibile questions that readers might have and I'm not sure if designing the list based on what potential questions a reader might have when looking up the list is the way to go. Thirdly, I mentioned the definition of film series from the Film series article above since to contribute to the discussion about the definitions of franchises and film series. -Rajan51 (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2021
 * Your suggestion would mean introducing quite a bit of redundancy, which would bump off the lowest entries on the list. I don't think that's a good idea. I quite agree with . TompaDompa (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that redundancy is not ideal. But the list already contains redundant entries (Avengers, Iron Man, etc). So, if we were to not allow redundancy, no redundant entries should be allowed. On the other hand, if redundancy is to be allowed and individual film series are allowed to have their own separate entries, then all film series should be listed irrespective of whether they are considered a franchise or not to avoid partiality. -Rajan51 (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2021
 * Neither the Avengers nor Iron Man are redundant. They are distinct intellectual properties separate from the MCU. TompaDompa (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * How does them being 'distinct intellectual properties' make their individual entries not redundant, when individual entries of film series that are not franchises (or distinct intellectual properties) are considered to be redundant? The list is not titled 'Highest-grossing franchises' nor is it titled 'Highest-grossing distinct intellectual properties.' It is 'Highest-grossing franchises and film series.' So, why should a distinct intellectual property be allowed to have an individual entry when a film series is not allowed to have an individual entry? -Rajan51 (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2021
 * There is no redundancy. The MCU entry does not tell you what the Iron Man franchise has grossed, only the Iron Man entry does this. Betty Logan (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You're going about this a bit backwards, methinks; Iron Man and the Avengers are not the anomalies in the table, the MCU and DCEU are. The easiest way to avoid redundancy while having a consistent approach would be to remove the shared universes, but those would be extremely conspicuous omissions. The current approach is consistent (though perhaps not immediately intuitive), avoids conspicuous omissions, and minimizes redundancy.Starting to add each individual series within a franchise would cause a lot of redundancy, which I don't think you fully appreciate. To the current list where the lowest entry has a total gross of $2,423,918,805, we would be able to add: That's a minimum of 12 and a maximum of 18 additional entries, depending on how we delineate series. Assuming we want to keep the number of entries fixed at 25, we are going to have to replace at least the bottom six: The Skywalker Saga or the Sequel Trilogy gets one spot, Harry Potter gets one spot, the Eon James Bond series gets one spot, the Fast Saga gets one spot, the Bay Transformer series gets one spot, and either the Peter Jackson Middle-earth series (if we count it as one series rather than counting The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit separately) or the main X-Men series (if we count The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit separately) gets one spot. We could replace as many as eight, by adding the Skywalker Saga, Sequel trilogy, Harry Potter, Eon James Bond series, pre-reboot Eon James Bond series, the Fast Saga, the Peter Jackson Middle-earth series, and Bay Transformer series. This is, to my eye, a self-evidently terrible idea.I don't think it would be a consistent approach to remove the Iron Man and Avengers entries, since I agree with when they said Iron Man was created in 1963, decades before the MCU. It has its own franchise history in multiple media including television films. It shouldn't be disqualified just because the theatrical releases happen to all be in the MCU. If it's discovered one of the old animated Iron Man tv films had a limited theatrical release in a small country then should Iron Man suddenly get an entry but not before? That wouldn't make sense to me. Iron Man is a media franchise by itself so it gets listed now, just like Spider-Man.I'm certainly not averse to the idea of changing our approach—it's hardly perfect—but the new approach would have to be an improvement. The things that are important are the ones I mentioned above: consistency, avoiding conspicuous omissions, and minimizing redundancy. If the issue you have is that the section heading poorly describes the content, I would much prefer to change the former to match the latter, rather than the other way round. TompaDompa (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So, if I understand it correctly, the point of the chart is for all franchises and film series to be accessible. In that case, considering that the anomalies are caused by only the Marvel and DC properties, I can think of a different solution that will make more slots available. We can create two new entries based on Marvel Comics and DC Comics. List all their respective child-franchises, film series (MCU, Avengers, Spider-Man, X-Men and Iron Man with Marvel and Batman, DCEU and Superman with DC) and standalone films under them. That way, six more slots can be created in the chart which can be utilized. The only thing I am not fully sure about is whether Marvel Comics and DC Comics can be considered as franchises. Since they have their own brands, I think they can be considered as their own franchises. I had been working on a a table like this that can be viewed here:User:Rajan51/Highest-grossing franchises and film series. There are some more franchises and films that need to be added under both Marvel and DC.-Rajan51 (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2021
 * I don't think it's a good idea to treat companies like franchises like that. Apples-to-oranges comparisons aside, the obvious question were we to implement that change is "Why not Disney?" (or some other company). And indeed, there would be no good way to justify excluding Disney (or whomever) if we do that. It would completely change the scope of the list, and I hardly think that's what people come here expecting to find. TompaDompa (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * is correct when he states above that it is the MCU and the DCEU that are anomalous. If you remove those two entries then you'd have a completely consistent approach i.e. a tautological relationship between one property and each entry. The only real question is whether you include shared universes or not. Grouping all the Marvel franchises under one entry would be even more inconsistent than adding a shared universe (which can be regarded as a "super franchise" of sorts). Would we then group all the Pixar franchises under one entry too? Adding in the MCU and DCEU only takes up two slots in the chart and provides the figures for arguably the most successful and documented grouping of films that the industry has ever produced. I would wager a significant number of readers visit the page for this information. Personally I think we would be doing our readership a disservice to remove the MCU and DCEU and bringing in two franchises that have only earned a fraction of what the shared universes have. Betty Logan (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with virtually everything said here by Betty Logan, TompaDompa, and PrimeHunter. At first glance I also thought "Yeah, why not give The Dark Knight trilogy its own individual entry?" or the same with just the Harry Potter films without the Fantastic Beasts ones. But then you see how that logic applied will just fill up the table with redundant entry after redundant entry. —El Millo (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The inclusions of Disney, Pixar and other such potential entries would depend on whether they are franchises. If Marvel and DC are indeed franchises like I think they are, why should they not be listed in the chart? On the other hand, if the MCU and DCEU are allowed to be listed despite causing anomalities for being among the most successful groupings of films, why should Pixar's grouping of films not be listed? The Pixar films have collectively grossed over $14 billion so far, more than most other franchises and film series on this list. I would wager that a significant number of readers visit the page to see how much Pixar films have grossed, the same way others might visit to see how much the MCU or DCEU have grossed like you say. If the removal of the MCU and DCEU is a disservice to readers, then the same thing can be said about the absence of Pixar among the listings. -Rajan51 (talk) 7:43, 9 June 2021
 * Multimedia franchise says: "A media franchise, also known as a multimedia franchise, is a collection of related media in which several derivative works have been produced from an original creative work of fiction, such as a film, a work of literature, a television program or a video game." Unrelated films produced by the same company or based on works by the same publisher are not a franchise. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "Collection of related media"; is that the definition being used here? That would mean the films themselves have to be related, which does not seem to be the case in several entries here. Nolan's The Dark Knight Trilogy does is not related to Burton's Batman and vice versa. The same can be said for Superman and Spider-Man films. The live action Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit trilogies are related to each other but not to the 1978 animated Lord of the Rings film. I have not seen Bond films myself, but based on discussions I've seen here on Wikipedia, it looks like some of the films/series might not be related. If this is the definition that we use, then neither the Marvel nor the DC franchise that I had suggested could be considered as a franchise, but by the same definition, the Middle-Earth, Spider-Man, Batman and Superman (and possibly Bond) collection of films listed in the chart cannot be considered as franchises either. -Rajan51 (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2021
 * They are related by way of being derivative works based on the same intellectual property. TompaDompa (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have three questions: 1) What exactly is the definition we use here for a 'distinct intellectual property'? 2) If films are related by way of being derivative works based on the same intellectual property, what happens when the intellectual properties are themselves related? According to the above definition, it looks like they could be considered as a franchise. There have been several instances of characters from distinct intellectual properties cross over in various media like comic books, novels, etc. 3) implied above that works created by the same people are considered to be one franchise, giving the examples of Star Wars by George Lucas and Middle Earth by Tokien. In that case, if characters created by the same person are considered to be the same intellectual property, does that mean Spider-Man, Iron Man, X-Men and other characters that were created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby can be considered to be one franchise? -Rajan51 (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A franchise is defined by the licensing of copyright, thus creating intellectual property (IP). The first Star Wars film created the Star Wars copyright. That copyright was licensed for books, toys, games and sequels to create a unique intellectual property. Everything to do with Star wars is part of that IP. George Lucas took the sequel and merchandise rights to Star Wars instead of a salary because he needed to own the IP to create a franchise. Ne needed the rights to Star Wars to make the prequel trilogy (thus making it part of the franchise) but he didn't need the rights to Star Wars to make Indiana Jones, thus making that franchise a separate IP. Likewise, if you license the rights to Batman you get the rights to that stable of characters (i.e. Batman, Catwoman, the Joker, the Penguin etc) but you don't get the rights to Superman. Fantastic Beasts was created as a sequel/spin-off to Harry Potter and is thus part of the Harry Potter IP. The Middle-Earth IP was created by The Hobbit; no work can use the setting of Middle-Earth without appropriate licensing. If you or I make a film set in Middle-Earth then we can expect to be sued for copyright infringement. Sometimes intellectual property can be combined to create a "crossover". The key to understanding franchises is to understand copyright. The relationship between copyright and intellectual property is what defines a franchise. Betty Logan (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, while this does not apply to all books, some books within the same series are often copyrighted separately. In that case, if a franchise is defined by the licensing of a copyright, that would mean each book within the same series could be considered as their own franchise since each book would have its own separate copyright. If this is the definition we use and it is found that a book (let's say The Lord of the Rings hypothetically, for example) was copyrighted separately, would it be considered as its own franchise? And if this is the definition we use, it will most likely contradict the definition given above by for some cases. Also, is there any reliable source that supports whatever definition of franchise we use? If not, I'm afraid it might fall under original research -Rajan51 (talk) 6:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * See Copyright protection for fictional characters and Derivative work. Others are not allowed to make an Iron Man film just because they don't copy a specific Iron Man story. If they change his name but base a character too closely on him then it's also disallowed. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the information but that does not seem to answer my question. -Rajan51 (talk) 11:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Those links make it perfectly clear that the copyright for a book goes beyond copying the specific text of the book. You asked "would it be considered as its own franchise?" NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT. I hope you think that answers your question clearly enough. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * PrimeHunter's reply completely answers your question. Every creative work is protected by its own unique copyright, but under copyright law you also get derivative rights to your work. Tolkien used his derivative rights to The Hobbit to create Lord of the Rings. George Lucas traded in his salary for the derivative rights to Star Wars, despite the fact that Fox owned the copyright to Star Wars. Much has been written on the Star Wars issue, and Fox's decision is widely regarded as the most costly error ever made by a film studio because it effectively allowed Lucas to franchise the IP rather than Fox. A clear explanation of derivative rights can be found at https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works-under-copyright-law. Betty Logan (talk) 11:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 June 2021
Hi. I would like to change the box office collection for one movie Moviegovernment (talk) 08:59, 29 June 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.--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 09:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Infinity Saga
It was suggested earlier that the MCU films the post-Infinity Saga films be divided from the earlier ones in MCU's section in the highest grossing-chart, much like how the Skywalker Saga is in its own section of the Star Wars entry, with each of the three phases of the Infinity Saga being subsections like how the three Star Wars trilogies are subsections of the Skywalker Saga. With Black Widow (2021 film) coming out in a few weeks, the issue seems relevant.2601:241:300:B610:6D32:F50C:8BA9:4117 (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * yes I think that should happen Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed; we can create a new section called Post-Infinity Saga for the moment. TdanTce (talk) 10:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I think we should have the Infinity Saga section and a phase 4 section we do not need a ‘’Post-Infinity Saga‘’ as of yet until it gets a official name Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to implement this as Fan Of Lion King suggested and I cannot figure out how to do so correctly. TdanTce (talk) 03:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I can do it, I just scan add it the main page


 * {{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) 09:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think now it is correct, because Black Widow is not a single movie, is the first movie of Phase Four--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 10:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Controversial list
This list is REALLY controversial, some people say that Avatar, Avengers Endgame, Star Wars and even Gone with the wind is the highest grossing film. But who ACTUALLY has this record?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoãotheWikiFan (talk • contribs) 20:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ignoring inflation, they all had the Worldwide record at some time as shown at List of highest-grossing films. Avatar currently has it after a rerelease retook the record from Avengers: Endgame. List of highest-grossing films discusses challenges in adjusting for inflation. Do you have a specific problem with the article? PrimeHunter (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The transclution of tables in the article
I propose that the table found in the highest grossing films by year section, should be moved into a template titled Highest grossing films by year, and then transcluded into that section, in order to decrease the article's size; as the specified section is the longest section of the article with over 170Kb:

Thanks. Realmaxxver (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support DLManiac (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Don't see the point. If it is transcluded then it's a completely artificial solution because it doesn't reduce the amount of content that needs to be loaded. Also, the article's size (of about 50kb of readable prose) does not warrant a reduction. This is just a solution looking for a problem. The article is fine as it is. Betty Logan (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

spidy versa
Can someone help with discussion on Talk:List of highest-grossing superhero films 92.236.253.249 (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * To elaborate, it on whether Sony's Spider-Man Universe should be listed as a separate franchise.67.173.23.66 (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

wolvpool
Can someone help with discussion on Talk:List of highest-grossing superhero films 92.236.253.249 (talk) 23:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's about whether the Wolverine and Deadpool franchises should be listed separately from X-Men.67.173.23.66 (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Peak
What does peak mean? If a movie grosses over 1 billion and I want to add it to the list, what do I put for peak. Can someone explain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijick (talk • contribs) 12:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Peak" is the highest rank it has reached. "Rank" is the current rank. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Adjustment for inflation in the 'Highest-grossing franchises and film series' section?
At present we have no inflation factored into the section on highest grossing film franchises, apart from a brief mention in the text that caveats that recent times have seen a number of high-grossing franchises due to inflation and the tendency for more franchise films to be made. The lack of an inflation adjustment means that over time the section is going to be more and more skewed to current events. For an example I went over to King Kong (franchise), which is at present not in the list of the 'top 25 highest grossing series/franchises' here, and used the tool at to calculate the inflation-adjusted worldwide box office, which is $3,649,061,091. That would place King Kong as #16 on the present list (but that doesn't take into account adjustments further up of course). Godzilla (franchise) is another prime target to be similarly reviewed, with many more films and a higher nominal worldwide gross (but I haven't done the inflation maths on that yet). I imagine that other franchises with films dating back further back in the 20th century such as James Bond, Batman, and Superman would likely see jumps in their ranking compared with recent films.

I just wanted to post this as a "to do" idea, as we should be trying to present the information in a way that takes into account the impact of films earlier in the 20th century and doesn't fall foul of WP:RECENTISM. My suggestion would be to have another table in the Highest-grossing films adjusted for inflation section that collects the top 10 highest grossing franchises, adjusted for inflation. We need to find a way of doing that that doesn't fall foul of WP:Original research.

Interested to hear thoughts on this. Mountaincirque talk 11:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's simply not possible to do at this time on Wikipedia. It's hard enough tracking down grosses for some of the franchises, but virtually impossible to know when they made that money. Some of the films had delayed international releases and others had reissues, both of which impact on inflation adjustments. It has been done in some cases (for example Star Wars and James Bond) but those are isolated cases. We didn't even have an adjusted list of films until around 2014 when Guinness published one. Once they did that we could update it by just adjusting the base year; if such a chart existed for franchises we would do it, but without such a chart it is not possible to do without introducing WP:Original research. Also, you are misinterpreting WP:RECENTISM. That policy governs notability and its purpose is to ensure that notability is enduring. The extent of its application here ensures that such a top 10 will be notable in 20 years time, it doesn't mean there has to be an even spread of new and old films. I agree from an encyclopedic point that such a spread makes for a more interesting article (hence why there is an adjusted list, a year list, and a timeline of the record), but ultimately as with every other article on Wikipedia we are bound by the limits of what has been published elsewhere. Betty Logan (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information, it may be too ambitious to do so right now, maybe we just need to keep an eye on sources with a mind to including it later. For me it is 'recentism' to have the 'most recent films' over-weighted due to economic inflation, I realise that this isn't directly aligned with the textbook definition of recentism we have here at Wikipedia. It's not about 'wanting it to be balanced' as ultimately we are bound by the financial totals that each film made rather than 'balance'. To make a hypothetical argument, if this list is still here in 50 years it will very likely be dominated by films/franchises in the 2050-2070s, even though films today might have sold more tickets and made more money when adjusting for inflation. To me this is a 'fairness' argument, Godzilla/King Kong shouldn't be relegated down (out of the top 25) because the purchasing power of money has reduced over time by the laws of economics, even though they might have sold more tickets and pulled in more inflation-adjusted money than a number of entries here. Can we not aggregate inflation-adjusted entries from sources such as this from IMDB ? It seemingly has the 'top-1000 highest grossing films adjusted for inflation', so we might miss off a few of the lowest-grossing films with a caveat. I don't see how this is very/any different to the totalling that we have in the current franchise table. Mountaincirque talk 15:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem with the BOM list is that it only adjusts the domestic grosses. Incidentally, your suggestion is a good one and it is indeed implemented on the US/Canada (i.e. domestic) page: List of highest-grossing films in the United States and Canada. Betty Logan (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Much like the suggestion to add a "peak" column to the franchise table that was made a while ago, this is a good suggestion that unfortunately cannot be implemented (at least not right now) because the sources that would be needed simply do not exist. TompaDompa (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks both, I hadn't realised that there was a separate page for the US and Canada, that's interesting to see. I see the difficulties in aggregating the inflation globally, maybe a signpost to that article section could be built into the franchises section text here, so that readers can at least see the North American adjusted figures?  Mountaincirque talk 10:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion of edits
Hey there. The box office figures for Spiderman No Way Home have not been added in (it should come at 37th place as of Dec 26 2021) but as I do not know how to edit from source, requesting any others to edit it. Billuhero287 (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betty Logan (talk • contribs) 00:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Should Spider-Man: No Way Home be added to the Raimi/Webb franchises in the Highest-grossing franchises and film series list?
Seeing as No Way Home is a crossover with both the Raimi and Webb Spider-Man series, should the film also be apart of both franchises? Or would it not count because No Way Home is a crossover/the film was not directed by Raimi/Webb? Randitor (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. For example, Homecoming doesn't count towards the Iron Man films even though Iron Man appears in it, nor do any of the Avengers films towards the individual characters' film series. —El Millo (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 December 2021
The Highest Grossing movie for 2020 is wrong. Accordingly to diverses sources, Worldwide Yearly Box Office, ALL-TIME BOX OFFICE HITS BY DECADE and YEAR. The Highest Grossing Movie is Bad Boys for Life with a Total Gross of $2,103,085,767 Pedro.martins98 (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ That figure is the total gross of all films between 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2020, not the gross for Bad Boys for Life. The source also doesn't say that Bad Boys for Life was the highest-grossing film released in 2020 (which is what we're listing), but rather that Bad Boys for Life had the highest gross between 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2020. You'll note that Avatar isn't listed as the highest-grossing film of 2009, but it is listed as the highest-grossing film of 2010. TompaDompa (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 December 2021
The Dark Knight Rises worldwide collection is 1,081,142,612 as per BOxOfficeMojo Sherifkk (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

2022
Why has the page not be updated to the number 1 film of the year Hit the Road with a gross of $4,930 82.37.120.189 (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note; the film you linked to has the same title but was released in 1941. What you want is Hit the Road. There is no article for this film on the English Wikipedia as of yet. But here is a review from Variety, here is the Box Office Mojo page and here is the film's entry on Rotten Tomatoes. When you previously added this question, it was removed as "Not an edit request". I've re-added it as it does appear to be related to this page. If this is an edit request, typically you would use the edit request template and post your request in a "please change 'x' to 'y'" format. Otherwise, you should clarify the reasons for your comment. If you need assistance beyond what is available on this page, you can contact the Help Desk. Good luck -  wolf  06:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

A Proposal - Current top 50 list vs list of $1bn films
The current list of highest grossing films is the top 50 highest grossing films. We are approaching a point where this is almost exclusively films which have grossed more than $1bn. I'm wondering whether it would be useful going forwards to maintain the list as being a list of films to have grossed over $1bn (which will ultimately include more than 50 films) or to retain at the current list of just a top 50. If retained as a list of the top 50 would it be useful to maintain a separate article of a list of $1bn films as this feels like quite an important milestone.

ThanksTracland (talk) 07:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Doesn't it become progressively a less important milestone the more films achieve it? There doesn't seem to be something inherently important about reaching any specific amount of money apart from there being very few films that do. When more and more films start becoming $1 billion films, then the "important milestone" will be at $1.5 billion. When that becomes more common, reaching $2 billion will become the important milestone and so on. —El Millo (talk) 08:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It used to be a notable milestone, but these days (pre-pandemic) we were getting 3–4 per year, and in 2019 we got nine. I think No Way Home proves that the billion dollar blockbuster is going nowhere. It is very likely the number of $1 billion grossers will double before 2030 (it stood at just 14 ten years ago) and what then? Do we go past 100 films? It's large list and my preference would be to limit the nominal chart to a top 50. I have no personal objections to creating a separate article of $1 billion grossers but it could run into problems with WP:LISTN and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Betty Logan (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 January 2022
Titanic grossed $2,201,647,264 according to Box Office: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt0120338/?ref_=bo_cso_table_3. Jotzy (talk) 07:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ Box Office Mojo is double counting some of its reissue grosses. Please refer to WP:BOXOFFICE for more information. Betty Logan (talk) 09:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The Lion King (1994) box office
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt0110357/ https://www.boxofficemojo.com/chart/ww_top_lifetime_gross/

As per Box Office Mojo, The Lion King (1994) crossed the billion dollar mark due to 2011 3D re-release and is the 37th Highest grossing film of all time. But it's not listed here. Daredevilskull (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is a Box Office Mojo problem, watch WP:BOXOFFICE for more information, this is the correct gross--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * BOM is including the foreign reissue grosses in the original gross. We know it grossed $763 million worldwide on its original release (this is widely documented and Disney has even confirmed this figure). Since then it has grossed a further $205 million from reissues, $95 million of which came from overseas. For some reason BOM is adding the overseas reissue gross to the initial release gross (763+95) for $858 million. They then add on the $205 million from the reissues, effectively counting the foreign reissue grosses twice. I don't have a clue why BOM make such basic errors but it is a recurring problem fro many films that were re-released. Betty Logan (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 January 2022
The 355 is the highest grossing film of 2022 and should be added to the year chart see https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt8356942/ 92.236.253.249 (talk) 10:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ that film isn't the highest grossing film of 2022, see 2022 in film--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Spider-Man: No Way Home's gross on Box Office Mojo has been inflated
Just a heads-up, currently the site claims that the gross is $2,095,985,629, but the film's gross in Germany jumped to $759,409,290.

Before today, the film was sitting at a worldwide gross of $1.541bn, and considering the past week has only seen the number go up by a few million per-day, it doesn't seem logical that it would be boosted by over $500M in a single territory.

Considering that the film is being updated daily they're probably going to correct it soon, but Box Office Mojo has left films unfixed for months, and even films like Titanic and The Lion King still haven't had their grosses corrected on the site despite the issue being persistent for well over a year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AverageLogic (talk • contribs) 03:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yup, we should at least wait to see what TheNumbers does. —El Millo (talk) 04:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Box Office Mojo is very wobbly these days. Betty Logan (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The mistake has been fixed. —El Millo (talk) 07:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

“Star Wars” changed to Star Wars: A New Hope
This would mainly be due to the other Star Wars films being mentioned often and calling it only just Star Wars wouldn’t make much sense. This could also be a bit confusing even if though the date is there. RobbyB3ll4s (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This article uses the WP:COMMONNAME for articles, on the basis that the common name is the least confusing for general readership. Each entry in the charts is accompanied by the year ​so that should clear up any possible ambiguity if any exists, but if the article name is confusing the correction needs to take place at Star Wars (film) rather than here. Betty Logan (talk) 12:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not only is Star Wars the WP:COMMONNAME, but it's also the article title and the film's original release title. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

original Lion King needs to be re-added
The original Lion King has racked up $1,063,611,805, good for 37th all time, but I don't know how to adjust it w/o completely wrecking the place. Can someone help?

Here's the link because I'm also struggling with how to reference the link: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt0110357/?ref_=bo_cso_table_37 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamus248 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Box Office Mojo's figure is erroneous. See the discussions at . Betty Logan (talk) 07:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Duplicates in highest grossing franchises table
Avengers movies listed under MCU and their own entry (position 6)

Iron Man movies listed under MCU and once as separate series (position 25) 74.72.158.116 (talk) 02:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed many times in the talk archives. The mobile interface is limited. Click "Desktop" at the bottom of mobile pages to see or search the archives. The consensus is to allow both a shared universe like MCU or DCEU, and a specific franchise (intellectual property) like Avengers or Iron Man. They are far older than MCU and could include non-MCU films in the future. It's considered an irrelevant coincidence that currently all their theatrically released films are part of the MCU (they both have animated tv films). They are treated the same as Spider-Man, Batman and Superman which happen to have both their own films and MCU/DCEU films. Shared universes are currently marked with S which links the note "Shared universes for which some properties also have their own entries." PrimeHunter (talk) 07:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is sophistry. The original poster is correct that it's misleading. It's also inconsistent because there are other groups that do not have their individual components separated out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C3:4001:9220:60B0:A404:9869:62D3 (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * When studios make spinoffs, crossovers and shared universes, every choice will be considered misleading or unfair by some users. I think we are consistently following that shared universes and individual franchises with their own intellectual property get an entry, but people may disagree whether something qualifies. You didn't give examples but for example, Harry Potter and Fantastic Beasts have the same creator who set them in the same universe so they are one franchise, and Potter doesn't get a separate entry from Wizarding World. This is a different situation from Iron Man when you consider the whole franchise. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The original poster is not correct. It is the "duplication" that maintains the consistency, except that there really is no duplication, because there are no totals in the chart that count a gross more than once. No film is counted twice under a franchise heading, but occasionally a film counts under more than one franchise. This isn't duplication in the sense that it is redundant; we must count Spider-Man: No Way Home under the MCU entry and also under the Spider-Man entry so we have an accurate valuation of both franchises. If we were to remove it from one of those franchises, so it only appears once in the whole table that is what would produce the inconsistency. Even if we barred shared universes from the table we would still be stuck with the problem of crossovers such as Batman v. Superman. How do we avoid listing this twice in the table? All the franchise entries maintain the same top-down structure i.e. there are no franchises that have "their individual components separated out". Two of the entries are shared universes whose entries also belong other franchises, which is a defining concept of a "shared universe". A shared universe does not negate the legitimacy of the other franchises, all of which have produced media at some point that is not a part of that shared universe. Betty Logan (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Harry potter and the sorcerer's stone box office
Sorcerer stone earned 1.017 billion after 2021 re-release. It should be updated 106.214.148.89 (talk) 07:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Box Office Mojo's figure is not correct, watch WP:BOXOFFICE for more information--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 11:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Box office update
Deathly hallows part 1 surpassed Sorcerer's stone at box office at that time. it means it was 8th highest grossing movie of all time at the time of release ahead of pirates of the caribbean and Harry Potter and the sorcerer's stone. The peak should be updated from 10 to 8 106.214.148.89 (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The initial release figure is incorrect. Death Hallows 1 grossed $960.4 million during its initial release, meaning its peak position was #10. A reissue in 2020 saw it gross a further $16 million; unfortunately, Box Office Mojo screwed up and also added it to the initial release figure, therefore double counting the gross ($996 million). BOM then "fixed" the error by incorrectly deleting the 2020 entry and leaving the 2020 reissue gross under the initial release gross. This means that the total figure is now correct, but the 2020 reissue gross is incorrectly counted under the initial gross. Unfortunately this is an ongoing problem with Box Office Mojo; if a film has a re-release and the original gross suddenly changes then it is most likely an error. Betty Logan (talk) 12:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Spider Man No Way Home
I’m not sure if this is a reliable source but, if it is, can someone please change number 1 from Avatar to No Way Home? https://comicbook.com/marvel/news/spider-man-no-way-home-passes-avatar-box-office/ GamerKlim9716 (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's on the domestic box office, i.e. the American box office, where No Way Home just became the third-highest-grossing film passing Avatar. —El Millo (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Avenger’s Endgame Peaking At #1?
How is this possible? It came out a decade after Avatar. 2604:3D09:1475:CE00:615A:AD79:5A59:E29E (talk) 05:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Avatar was re-released on its 10th anniversary, passing Endgame, which had become the highest-grossing film. —El Millo (talk) 06:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

suggestion
I think Harry potter and the Deathly hallows part 2 deserves a wikipedia page about box office records it broke back in 2011. It is one of the biggest release of this century and it broke almost every major box office record at the time of release. It deserves a wiki page. Star wars 7 and Endgame also have one. (ps: I know this isn't the best place to discuss this but I don't know where else I can do this discussion) 223.229.250.95 (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Since the content would have to be split out of the Harry Potter article you would be better off proposing it at Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2. Betty Logan (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There now a draft for this page. 92.236.253.249 (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

error in Batman series grosses
The listed gross don't add up correctly for the Batman franchise, but I can't spot the error. TdanTce (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Several of the numbers added in the source to get the total are different from the displayed numbers. The largest difference is The Dark Knight with 1,004,558,444 in the addition but 1,005,973,645 displayed. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

talk
Is it possible to added a inflation column tp the First list for example — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.253.249 (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There is literally no point to this. We have a separate table adjusted for inflation in the section below. Betty Logan (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Betty Logan is correct, there doesn't seem to be a point to this as inflation is addressed already. On second look, does that cover what you're looking for? Or are you seeking something else? In that case you will have to clarify. -  wolf  05:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I guess I mean this was just a suggestion 92.236.253.249 (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Shaolin Temple
Back in the 1980s, Shaolin Temple was reported to have sold over 300 million tickets in China and grossed over 160 million yuan (about $85 million at the time). Several Chinese sources in recent years have estimated its inflation-adjusted gross to be around 30-40 billion yuan ($4-5 billion) based on current Chinese ticket prices, such as Tencent QQ News and Sohu for example. Should this be added to the inflation-adjusted list, or mentioned somewhere in the article? It's worth noting that there were also several other films that reportedly sold 300M+ tickets in China during the late 1970s to early 1980s, when there was a box office boom after the Cultural Revolution ended. Maestro2016 (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Those sources are next to worthless. They are just guess work and supposition. Since 1987, ¥100 in 1987 is worth ¥467.65 in 2022. So ¥160 million in 1987 would be worth ¥750 million in 2022 i.e. $117 million at the current exchange rate of ¥6.4 to $1. However, 1987 doesn't go back quite far enough: the Yuan experienced 60% inflation between 1987 and 1992, so let's say it experienced something similar between 1982 and 1987: that would take the inflated gross to ¥1,200 million ($187 million).
 * Perhaps monetary inflation is not the best way to assess its inflated gross? According to Shaolin Temple (1982 film) it had 300 million admissions. At today's prices that would be equivalent to ¥12 billion (at ¥40 per ticket), which would be equivalent to $1.875 billion.
 * You can't adjust a gross by comparing it to the cost of rice, as those articles do. You need to stick to economic data, such as a nationally accepted inflation index. AT best it did Spider-Man money. Betty Logan (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * According to Guancha (which cites a bunch of older Chinese sources from the 1980s) the 300M tickets figure is a minimum, as that's what was reported for only urban areas. Guancha estimates a further 100M tickets for rural areas (400M tickets total), while there are other Chinese sources that estimate as high as 500M tickets (like this book). Presumably, the ¥30B+ ($4B+) inflation estimates from QQ News and Sohu are derived from the higher-end 500M ticket estimates. But if we go with the lower-end 300M tickets figure, then you're right that it would be less than $2B (i.e. Spider-Man ball park) at current Chinese ticket prices. Of course, this is based on film ticket price inflation and not currency inflation, as Chinese film ticket prices inflated at a significantly higher rate than the yuan currency. Maestro2016 (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem here though is that if you adjusted 500 million admissions by the modern Chinese ticket prices you'd get over $3 billion, which is clearly anomalous. It simply doesn't work like that on an economic level because it doesn't account for affordability. Despite the fact there are many more theaters in China today, their films still can't hit $1 billion, let alone $3 billion. By the same token, if you put Chinese ticket prices up from ¥40 to ¥400 then far fewer people would buy a ticket i.e. to put it another way, Wolf Warrior 2 wouldn't have grossed $8 billion. Betty Logan (talk) 11:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point. A big reason why some Chinese films were able to get such high ticket sales back then was because the tickets were so cheap (same could be said for Indian and Soviet movies to a certain extent). Chinese films today like Wolf Warrior 2 wouldn't be able to pull off those same ticket sales numbers at much higher ticket prices compared to back then. Still, I think it's worth mentioning Shaolin Temple in the article just for the high ticket sales. Maestro2016 (talk) 12:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is already covered at List of films by box office admissions. Betty Logan (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

James Bond
Can someone tell me why No Time To Die is still listed as "in theaters". And if so, can you please provide a source showing it is still in theaters. Otherwise it should not be listed as so. Zvig47 (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The movie is still in theaters in Australia--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

talk
Looks like Godzilla (franchise) has passed Iron Man in total box office gross. Godzilla is now at $2.429 billion, passing Iron Man's $2.424 billion. I think Godzilla should be added to the list now. Maestro2016 (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Godzilla is at $2.393 billion--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , sorry for the question, but why in the Godzilla tracker we are at $2.393 billion but in the Godzilla franchise page we are at $2.431 billion? (If you know the answer)--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's an incomplete figure. When that number was calculated last year, there was a lack of sources giving complete numbers for various older Godzilla movies. For example, a number of films only included distributor rentals (a fraction of the gross) rather than total gross, and there were no overseas numbers included for a number of movies. There are now more complete numbers listed at Godzilla (franchise), with some recently added newspapers (from the '80s and '90s) giving more complete figures for some of the older Godzilla movies. Some movies still have incomplete numbers, but the list is certainly more complete now than that older list from the archives. Maestro2016 (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We need to review the figures and sources first, to make sure they are properly sourced. The last time I checked the franchise page there were some very dodgy sources in use. If you could list the films in the tracker that need updating then that would help. Betty Logan (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is one example of the problem with that table in the franchise page. It estimates box-office from admissions and arrives at a figure of $295,638,492 for the first 13 Godzilla films. On the other hand Forbes states the first 13 films grossed $293.6 million. I make no jugdement about the accuracy of either, but one of those figures is reliably sourced and the other is original research. Betty Logan (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at the tracker list, two examples that need to be updated:
 * Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla II (1993) - $36,000,000
 * Godzilla (2014) - $529,076,069
 * Maestro2016 (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla II should be updated with the actual box-office figure. However, Box Office Mojo has Godzilla (2014) at $524 million. I see no reason to assume The Numbers is correct in this case, and we defer to Box Office Mojo on this page unless there is a good reason for using another source . Betty Logan (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I have just checked the BOM archives and the old figure matches the figure at The Numbers. In this case I agree we should go with the $529 figure until we can find out why BOM changed the gross. Betty Logan (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Now we are at $2.415 billion, there is something else to update?--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I have just checked the BOM archives and the old figure matches the figure at The Numbers. In this case I agree we should go with the $529 figure until we can find out why BOM changed the gross. Betty Logan (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Now we are at $2.415 billion, there is something else to update?--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The Forbes ref noted above is unreliable per WP:RSP. -  wolf  00:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There are alternative sources for the foreign gross ($130 million). Are there any alternative reliable sources for the domestic gross of the first 13 Godzilla films? By reliable, I mean without editors estimating the gross based on admissions and then converting into US dollars? Betty Logan (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There's this source which states that the first 13 films grossed $130M overseas and more than $130M in Japan:
 * Maestro2016 (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that the first 13 films grossed over $130 million in Japan? The source clearly says that the films grossed $130 million "outside Japan". I think it's a good bet that they did but we need a reliable source to actually state that. Betty Logan (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The source says that "the Japanese domestic grosses swell that sum vastly" implying that it grossed more than $130M in Japan. Maestro2016 (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That does not imply it grossed more than $130 million. It could easily mean $200 million or $100 million. What that implies is that the author did not know the figure, but he assumes it is a substantial sum. Betty Logan (talk) 07:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * : After some looking around, I've found a source that states the Godzilla films had grossed $500 million by 1986:
 * Now that we finally have a total gross for the earlier films up until 1986, I think it's safe to say that Godzilla has definitely surpassed Iron Man. Maestro2016 (talk) 06:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's always been a given, we just needed to locate a for source it. I will sort it out over the weekend. Don't use the chart below; it appears to be missing large sums of money. I have one in my sandbox that I will update and then add to the table. Betty Logan (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We have the Godzilla tracker from a previous discussion--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's an older version. In some cases the rentals have been replaced by box-office grosses. The most recent version is here: User:Betty Logan/Sandbox/templates/t4. Betty Logan (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have updated the Godzilla tracker (the table below) some days ago, and it's the same table you have in your sandbox, the only difference is that you forgot to move Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla II (1993) to the top of the "Heisei Era", as you can see in the table below :)--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's an older version. In some cases the rentals have been replaced by box-office grosses. The most recent version is here: User:Betty Logan/Sandbox/templates/t4. Betty Logan (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have updated the Godzilla tracker (the table below) some days ago, and it's the same table you have in your sandbox, the only difference is that you forgot to move Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla II (1993) to the top of the "Heisei Era", as you can see in the table below :)--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Here a box office chart for Godzilla franchise 92.236.253.249 (talk) 11:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have updated the table--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have incorporated the new figures. As explained in the sources, I have taken the half billy as the Showa gross. If you subtract the gross for Return of Godzilla/Godzilla 1985 ($15 million) and add in the reissue gross for the original film and Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla (which comes to about $14.6 million) it more or less evens out. I don't think we have to worry about a few hundred thousand dollars when the rounding is done to half a billion. Unless there is anything else to correct then we can probably transfer this table in. Betty Logan (talk) 07:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update, but I have a question: now we are at 2.567 billion, but in the Godzilla franchise page there is 2.571 billion, why?--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 13:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Different sources may have been used leading to variations, but in others the figures at the franchise page don't always match the sources. For example, the gross for Godzilla 2000 is sourced to Toho Kingdom which has the gross at $25 million (matching the figure here), but the franchise table has it listed as $27.9 million. We shouldn't worry about being just a few million out. The reality is that given how inexact the older figures are the most realistic outcome is to pin down the total within $100 million. Betty Logan (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, so the table below is correct? Can we update the "Highest-grossing franchises and film series" table or there is something else to update/fix?--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's ready, but let's wait until tomorrow in case anybody else wants to raise an issue or has a suggestion. Betty Logan (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Could some update the main Godzilla the page with this info 92.236.253.249 (talk) 08:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion
Can we add 'peak' list in section of Highest grossing movie franchises? 223.236.88.47 (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it is not something we able to source. Betty Logan (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

MonsterVerse
Out of curiosity, why is Godzilla vs. Kong listed separately from the other MonsterVerse films in the Godzilla entry? I was going to change it but I thought there might have been a reason. TdanTce (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no idea! I would suggest leaving your question up for 24 hours and if nobody provides a valid reason then we should assume it is a mistake and group it with the other two. Betty Logan (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This was the edit made by an IP--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like there is an identifiable "main" series for Godzilla in the Monsterverse. It looks like the plan from the start was to have the monsters appear together. I would suggest remerging the films, and if a clear Godzilla strand materialises down the line then we can re-think the approach. Betty Logan (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Done! TdanTce (talk) 02:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

This needs to be updated because of No Way Home
Under the “Highest grossing franchises and film series” section, at the end of the last paragraph it says “The four Avengers films and the two Frozen films are the only franchises where each installment has grossed over $1 billion. Along with Jurassic Park and The Lion King, these are also the only franchises to have a series average of over $1 billion per film.”

But the MCU Spider-Man trilogy also has an average of over $1 billion, even though Homecoming only made $880 million. 2600:1011:B13A:63C:59A5:4C9:6847:A944 (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The MCU Spider-Man trilogy is not a franchise; as a whole the franchise does not average $1 billion. The situation you describe is no different to the Star Wars sequel trilogy, or Phase 3 of the MCU, and we don't single those out. Betty Logan (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Bondversary
All James Bond films are being re-release for the 60th anniversary It started on 15th of April with Dr No and will be released week on week I could not find any box office reports so far 92.236.253.249 (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Here Dr No witch gross £8K (GBP) 92.236.253.249 (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 April 2022
Morbius needs to be added to the list 1plus1is11 (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌  Morbius hasn't made enough money to be listed anywhere. It was already added to the franchise table, but only as a matter of course. If you want another result, you will need to be more specific and include sourcing. -  wolf  20:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Question about a sentence in the lede
I'm having trouble understanding this, is there any difference between Star Wars/Superman and James Bond/Star Trek? It feels quite awkward and tripped me up for a bit while reading it, what's the difference between the first group of two and the second group? I didn't want to just WP:BOLDly rewrite it because this is an WP:ECP WP:FL and because I might be missing something. But perhaps it should read simply ? Leijurv (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Star Wars and Superman are both mentioned in the preceding paragraph of the WP:LEAD, whereas this is the first mention of both James Bond and Star Trek. That's also why the latter two are linked but the former two are not. TompaDompa (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * In my judgement, those mentions are too far away for this strange sentence construction to make sense. Just my opinion - I don't think it's actually grammatically incorrect or anything, just awkward. Leijurv (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Like any section, the lead is supposed to be read as a whole, and the "besides" helps the paragraph follow on smoothly from the preceding paragraphs. Betty Logan (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Duplicate in Godzilla section
In the franchise list under "Godzilla", Godzilla vs. Megalon is listed twice, while Godzilla Raids Again isn't listed.67.173.23.66 (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I think it's just a good old fashioned error so I have fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out! Betty Logan (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 May 2022
I want to add morbius please 342$ morbillion dollars 70.81.55.231 (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: no joke edits. we may all say Morbius has grossed morbillions of dollars, but as long as it remains a joke it may not be added. &#128156; melecie   talk  - 00:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 June 2022
Change Avatar to Morbius 195.55.225.154 (talk) 07:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: No. Not interested in adding joke edits.  Grey joy talk 07:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Inhumans IMAX screening add to MCU Box office?
Inhumans's first 2 episodes were screened for 2 weeks in Imax and grossed 3.5 million dollars [Source: https://deadline.com/2017/10/imax-marvel-inhumans-experiment-1202196112/] and should be included in the overall total. Maybe have a TV shows section for it so it could also include the Ms. Marvel theatrical screening that will happen in Pakistan. 2600:1702:3D20:E1C0:C437:399A:E913:D0E4 (talk) 02:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The article only covers films. Betty Logan (talk) 09:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Typo found (Riewa era > Reiwa era)
Under the "Highest-grossing franchises and film series" heading there is a section: Godzilla > Toho films > Riewa era

However, "Riewa" here should be spelled "Reiwa".

My apologies if this request is formatted incorrectly, this is my first request like this. Bramako (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to Jurassic World
Jurassic World 3 has gross $55.5M — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.253.249 (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 June 2022
According to the given source, Spider-Man No Way Home grossed $1.9 billion worldwide. Lists should be updated. XT RedZone (talk) 07:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 09:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Jurassic World trilogy?
Now that Dominion is out, should we call it the Jurassic World trilogy in the franchise table? Wcdowchb (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Spider-Man No Way Home is still in theaters?
Only in this article it's still says that Spider-Man No Way Home is still in theaters, but it isn't in the "2021 in film" article or anywhere else. I'd believe the movie's theatrical run time ended couple of months ago. Is there's any reliable sources regarding it's still at cinemas? XT RedZone (talk) 01:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it is still in theatres. I checked online and couldn't find any theatre playing the movie, but I did find this source that says the movie is returning to theatres in September. The wording of that article also supports the idea that the movie is not currently playing in theatres. - Aoidh (talk) 01:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed the "now playing" from No Way Home based on what I found online. For example, I was able to easily see that Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is still in theatres, but couldn't find a single instance of No Way Home still being in theatres. If I'm wrong please feel free to revert me. - Aoidh (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The film is still in theaters, as clearly indicated by the source used for its entry. The source was last updated two days ago (on June 24), and you can see the accompanying edit here. This page is well maintained and the regular editors keep on top of this sort of thing. Removing the highlighting prematurely is incredibly unhelpful because it means the film may be overlooked when the grosses are updated. Betty Logan (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

50 billion dollar grossers / The Lion King
Just a heads up. It is being universally reported everywhere that Maverick is the 50th film to crack $1 billion. This is factually incorrect. Box office Mojo's chart is erroneously reporting that The Lion King (1994) has grossed $1 billion. As documented at WikiProject Film/Film finance task force BOM is double-counting its international reissue grosses. We know this is true because Disney themselves have directly issued corrected grosses for The Lion King. This is what we have for the overseas grosses:

As the table show, the $95.1 million overseas gross from the reissues is being double counted in the overseas gross of the original release. I am just logging the issue here in the event that a well-meaning editor may attempt to "correct" the table in good faith. If this happens please revert the edit, and please include an edit summary directing them to this explanation. Betty Logan (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 July 2022
Jurassic Park (1993) is being re-released. If you check on box office mojo you'll see the right box office. Also Jurassic World the Fallen Kingdom (2018) has to be updated. Henjin Dono (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ Box Office Mojo is double counting some of its reissue grosses. Please refer to WP:BOXOFFICE for more information--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 10:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, Jurassic Park apparently got a re-release in Mexico on May 20, and has thus increased its gross by $270,700 according to Box Office Mojo. I'll update the article accordingly. Ping, who I believe keeps track of this kind of thing? TompaDompa (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the re-release is finished, the movie was in theaters at the end of may, but we are in July now, we should remove it from the "currently playing" films--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it needs updating but will require a little bit of care. We just need to add in the 2022 gross. I can't do it right now but I will sort it over the weekend. Betty Logan (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)