Talk:List of highest-grossing films/Archive 4

Directors column in "Highest-grossing films by year"
There was a discussion about removing this column a few months ago but no decision was reached. It's not relevant to the financial analysis of the films or their rankings, so I think it just clutters the charts so we'd better of without it. I think this list will be ready to be submitted for an FL assessment this week, so if we're going to get rid of it now is the time, otherwise we'll have to defend its presence. Anyone with any views on this? Betty Logan (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure. I don't think the directors column has a great deal of importance in the "Highest-grossing films by year" chart. As well as it not really being relevant to the financial analysis, it distracts the other main focus of that particular chart- the year of release. I think the only reason for having a directors column, would be to show connections with directors and high-grossing films (e.g. Cameron with the top two, for a start). In which case, if someone were to argue for the Directors column's inclusion, it would probably be better placed in the overall Highest-grossing films chart. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's worth noting "repeat offenders", but we can do that with prose and it would save a lot more space. Betty Logan (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I totally agree. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I want to submit it for the review this week so I'm going to go ahead and remove the column. If anyone objects they can always reverts it. Betty Logan (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Horizontal expansion in franchise table?
Just thought I should let you know that, at least on my browser, there is a slight horizontal expansion when I expand the Lord of the Rings section of the Franchise table. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 06:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Which browser are you using? Betty Logan (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

TBC
Another example of Wik editors using obscure and unexplained abbreviations. What does TBC stand for? To be concealed? Too Big to Calculate? Come on, follow stand rules of English: explain abbreviations.202.179.16.72 (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "To be confirmed". It's a standard acronym that enjoys widespread usage in the English language, but yeah, it should be explained in the key. Betty Logan (talk) 07:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 March 2012
There have not been '4' Lord of the Rings films, there have only been 3, if the editor of this page is including 'The Hobbit' in this table, then the correct amount would be 5 films, as the Hobbit is split into 2 films, There and Back Again and also An Unexpected Journey, also by this inclusion the editor should also include the fact that there are 8 Batman Films, 5 Transformers films and 4 Spiderman films, and edit the average gross accordingly.

86.29.28.91 (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Declined. There have been four LOTR films in total, and it is perfectly clear from the table we are not including The Hobbit. Betty Logan (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC) EDIT: Yeah, sorry, I forgot you had to expand the table to see the films. Added a note to clarify the function.


 * Click the "show" link to the right of the Series name to see the films. They include The Lord of the Rings (1978 film). PrimeHunter (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

2012
When will the highest-grossing film of 2012 entry finally be added? I know today is only January 7, but surely, the box office results are out. Allen (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess the 2012 numbers won't get put in the article for a while, huh?
 * Allen (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with it... There is a list of highest-grossing films on the 2012 in film page, although it only has one entry. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 12:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I tried to add the current 2012 highest grossing film, Journey 2: The Mysterious Island, and its current gross (of which I provide evidence from by citing Box Office Mojo), but it was removed the next day.  Is there any reason not to put it back?  We can always change the movie name etc. when a higher grossing movie over takes it (which, true, will almost certainly be The Hunger Games). --Ligress06 (talk) 10:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The alleged reference in your edit was an unrelated page  about Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. The edit was reverted  as "not backed up by source".  would be a proper source, both to the gross and the claim that it's the best so far in 2012. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 March 2012
Hello, I got to know that this page is semi-protected. However, can you allow me to edit it? I will never make vandalism, i.e. in this case, that would be putting wrong amounts. Actually you can see my talkpage and the "contributions" hyperlink, and that I have already made several Box Office edit, and no edit was vandalism.

Hopefully you can allow me to edit this. Thanks! Dark Defender Yuki (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Please follow the instructions in the template if you would like to initiate an edit to the article. Betty Logan (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. — Bility (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Four stars, two thumbs up, etc.
I just discovered this article, and I would like to praise the work of the editors who have contributed to it. The attention to detail is impressive, and the table in the Highest-grossing franchises and film series section is kind of amazing. Very nicely done. Trivialist (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I built the templates for the franchise table :) I think it's probably the best thing I've done on Wikipedia! Betty Logan (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Chart
Kirillgus (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting find Kirillgus and it would be great if we could incorporate that into the list. However I have some questions:  Can you provide us with the full bibilographic information i.e. edition, year of publication (I know it's the 2012 version but some are printed last year and some are printed this year with revisions, and also the page number and ISBN number, editor and publisher, since we will need all that reference detail to add the information to the list. Also, can you tell us if they provide a methodology i.e. the inflation rate they used, such as US CPI, UK RPI etc. And can you double check that they give the amounts in dollars and not pounds, because their online version puts Gone with the Wind at $5.3 billion and £2.9 billion; obviously the version you have contradicts the version they have online, so that needs to be double checked. Betty Logan (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Betty. For a start. I live in Ukraine, so I have only the Russian edition of Guinness World Records 2012. But, you know, that this book is all rights reserved, and the data transfer is not any different from those in the original. I can give you all the necessary data. I can provide photos of the pages you need. You are satisfied? Above the list is written (translated from Russian) "The list takes into account the number of sold tickets, seats in theaters and inflation, and more accurately reflects the situation" The figures are in dollars. Kirillgus (talk) 11:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah I believe you, you don't have to send us photocopies. We just need the following reference details so we can properly reference the book just like all the other sources in the article: full title, ISBN, edition, year of publication, publisher, editor (if there is one) and page number. Betty Logan (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * (c)2011 Guinness World Records limited
 * Full title: Гиннесс. Мировые рекорды 2012 (RUS) / Guinness World Records 2012 (Guinness Book of Records) (Hardcover) (Eng)
 * Editor: Craig Glenday
 * Translator: P.I. Andrianov, I.V. Palova
 * Publisher: Guinness World Records limited (Eng) / LLC "Astrel" (RUS) ООО "Астрель"
 * ISBN: (RUS) 978-5-271-36423-5 / ISBN: (Eng) 978-1-904994-68-8
 * Year of publication: 2011
 * Page number: 211
 * screenshot table — (talk •  13:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Prose
Thanks for providing the bibliographic details Kirillgus. I've incorporated your chart into the list (along with a few aesthetic adjustments to bring into line with the others). It's a great find and a worthy addition to the article. Betty Logan (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the figure for Gone with the Wind from the online version of Guinness should be removed. This figure they dubbed when they did not take re-releases into account.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirillgus (talk • contribs) 07:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That might be the case but we are conjecturing and it isn't really our place to question the data. If they didn't take re-releases into account then the amount would be about $7 billion. Their current table looks like it uses American CPI, and is in line with other estimates that use American CPI, so it might be worked out using a different inflation rate.  At the moment we can't really take two estimates from the same source and say one is correct and one isn't unless we know the methodology. I think it's best just to give the reader all the data and let them come to their own conclusions. Betty Logan (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I will try to determine the cause of differences in their tweet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirillgus (talk • contribs) 15:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be fantastic. I'd like to know why they are different too, and frankly it doesn't look good for them having two different estimates. Betty Logan (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Answer the editor of the Guinness World Records: Craig Glenday: "figures adjusted for tkts sold, tkt prices at time of release, and (from memory) CPI. Not just inflation"  Cunning system)
 * I think it's a terrible system. Basically they worked out how many tickets the films has sold (great), how much a ticket for Gone with the Wind cost in 1939, inflated the ticket prices and multiplied the cost by the number of tickets sold. That would be great except for the fact that tickets for GWTW were selling at roadshow prices back in 1939, so they've used the inflated premium price for all ticket sales. In all likelihood the tickets in 1947 were selling for less than the roadshow prices, but the Guinness formula inflates them at the roadshow price, which explains why their website record is so much bigger. On the basis of that I agree the second estimate should probably come out. Betty Logan (talk) 10:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The inflation sections
Now we have an inflation adjusted chart, we've ended up with two sections discussing inflation i.e. Issues with calculation and the chart itself. I think it would be much stronger if these two sections were combined so we have just one section dealing completely with the issue of inflation. It will be an important structural change, but I'll go ahead and try it anyway. If anyone doesn't think it works then feel free to revert the changes. Betty Logan (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Overlinking
James Cameron's name has been wikilinked three times now in his image caption, as per this edit, despite already being linked at two other places in the article.

WP:OVERLINK states: Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead.

Now, in this article, each key term is linked in the lead, and at one other place in the relevant section. For instance, we also link to inflation in the section about inflation, and we again link franchise in the franchise section, since these are the sections that specifically deal with the terms, so it is probably useful to also provide a link to these sections. In addition, James Cameron is also linked again in the High-grossing films by year section where we specifically address the issue of directors.

The question then arises whether it is necessary to link to him again in the image caption. In accordance with the policy we are allowed to make exceptions for tables and image captions, and we exploit that loophole in the tables since it would be strange to have some films linked and not others. However, we don't link any of the key terms in the image caption, except Jedi94 for some reason is insisting linking James Cameron's name, and only James Cameron's name. Why not Steven Spielberg's name in his caption? Why not Gone with the Wind in the caption for the poster. Just linking one term in one caption makes it inconsistent with how we deal with other captions, because if it is in the article's interest to link a term that is already linked twice in the article then surely the same argument applies to the other captions. So the issue we need to resolve is whether this caption needs to have James Cameron's name linked, and whether we should treat the linking consistently across all the captions.

Personally I don't think we need links in the captions, it is highly unlikely someone will simply want to read an article about James Cameron simply by looking at his photo. However, if we do decide that his name should be linked I think the linking should be applied consistently across all captions. There is no reason why one search term should be treated preferentially to the others. I would appreciate some further input from the other article editors, and I'm especially interested in Jedi94's reason for linking in such an inconsistent manner. Betty Logan (talk) 01:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I apologize for my edits. I haven't been reading the talk page for this article in some time nor did I notice the over-linking. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 07:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That's ok, I don't really have a strong opinion either way whether we link the captions or not, after all there is an exception in the rules that allows us to link captions. However, if you have strong feelings about linking the name it I just think the linking should be applied consistently i.e. link all the caption terms or none at all. Betty Logan (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The Dark Knight was re-released...?
According to the table, The Dark Knight was re-released January 23rd and grossed another $2.3 million?

If there was no gap between the releases, how is it a re-release? It was still playing in theaters. How can a movie be in theaters and get "re-released" to theaters. I don't get it. DanielDPeterson ( talk ) 19:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Apparently while it was still playing in normal theaters it had closed on the IMAX circuit, and that was where it was re-released, so it counts as a re-release. Betty Logan (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hell's Angels and other Hughes' movies
I am missing Hell%27s_Angels_(film) (1930) in the list: High-grossing films by year of release ($ 8,000,000). I think there are more Hughes' films with a notable box office revenue.

Akirakonenu (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * According to Variety's 1932 "highest-grossing films" edition it made $2.5 million gross rental  and $2.5 million gross rental would be equivalent $6–7 million gross revenue, so it is most likely that the $8 million figure represents its gross earnings. If that is the case then it most likely didn't outgross All Quiet on the Western Front. The $8 million figure can't have been gross rental because The Singing Fool was the highest-grossing talkie ($5.9m) until it was displaced by Snow White ($8.5m).  Betty Logan (talk) 10:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 May 2012
Under the Highest-Grossing Franchise and Film Series Section, Transformers is listed having four films and I believe there are only three.

174.140.77.169 (talk) 06:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ❌ The Transformers: The Movie (1986) is the fourth one, which is not a highest-grossing film. --MuZemike 19:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Gone with the Wind poster
The link included in the text box under the poster leads to the article for the book, not the movie. Please fix this. 207.255.135.158 (talk) 23:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. --Boycool † (talk) 03:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Star wars title
There was an edit that changed Star Wars to Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. I've reverted it back temporarily, although it's not a big deal really, but it has been a point of contention down the years so I think we should decide how to handle this so we have a hard consensus that we can refer editors to. There have been a couple of relevant debates but they never drew to a conclusion:
 * Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films/Archive_1
 * Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films/Archive_2

The question, then, should we use the titles they were mostly known by at the time i.e. Star Wars/The Empire Strikes Back/Return of the Jedi, or use the episode styling as per Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope etc?


 * Case for using the new titles
 * 1) The articles about these films use the modern titles.
 * 2) The films are now released on DVD using these titles.


 * Case for using the traditional titles
 * 1) The films were mostly known at the time using the Star Wars/ESB/ROTJ titles without the episode styling.
 * 2) The "episode number" wasn't included at all on the scroll of the first film on its initial release.

My view on this is that we are documenting the films at specific stages of release. For example, in the timeline, the film was simply known as Star Wars when it took the record and at the time it lost it. If you look at the reliable sources we have for that period they never use the Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope variant, so in the case of historical analysis we should probably use the title in use at the time. The same argument applies to the "highest-grossing by year" chart. We are principally documenting its 1977 release, when it was known just as Star Wars. For the 'current' chart, the case is slightly more complicated because the film is now widely catalogued under its new title, and we are documenting the gross as it currently stands now, so in this case there is a strong argument the later title should be used, although this would lead to an inconsistency in the article. Considering we also include the year there is obviously no ambiguity about which film is being referred to, so I think I'm more inclined to be consistent and stick with the traditional title in all instances. Anyone with any views either way? Betty Logan (talk) 07:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Highest-grossing franchises and film series
We should move this section to a new article : List of highest-grossing franchises and film series because this article is only about individual films and not franchises. Furthermore, we could expand the new article instead of including only the top 20. __ Boxofficegeek (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As you can see, this has already been done here : List of highest-grossing animated films. __ Boxofficegeek (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) The article is called List of highest-grossing films but its scope is defined in the lead. Franchises have been covered in the article pretty much since its inception. Many of the highest-grossing films form series, in fact the current top 50 is dominated by them, so not covering series in the article would mean leaving out a major aspect of the subject. We cover the films in terms of their contemporary and historical achievements, their singular and collective achievements.
 * 2) Splitting the article undeniably weakens this article. Having all the international box-office data in a single article makes this list more comprehensive i.e. it provides an all encompassing overview of global film box-office. If someone looks up an article about the highest grossing films, it is not unreasonable to assume they would want to read about the highest grossing series too, and how they compare against other films in the series.
 * 3) Splitting the franchises from the article was mooted during its FL review, where the decision was explicitly made to retain this chart. Therefore the inclusion of the chart was a factor in its FL promotion.
 * 4) List of highest-grossing animated films is not the result of a split. It never was, or has been a part of this article or any other as far as I can see. It was conceived as a genre specific list, and you could do one for pretty much any genre, so it would not be appropriate to include that list in this article i.e. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
 * 5) The size of the chart is not an issue for the list. There is nothing to prevent us increasing the franchise chart beyond 20 entries, and indeed it was discussed. However, the reason it is limited to 20 entries is because we are limited to how much data we can source.  We literally can't get down to 25 franchise before we run into the problem of incomplete data. We'd get down to 22/23 franchises, and then we start to hit franchises like Rocky that have data missing.  Estimating it ourselves would be original research, leaving it out would make the chart misrepresentative. Limiting it to a top 20 means the chart is complete and accurate.
 * 6) When splitting an article, you must not only consider the impact on the article that is being split, but the overall aims of the new article. As discussed above, the possibility of extending the chart is limited due to a lack of data so I don't really see much scope for developing a franchise/series list beyond what we already have.  If such a list couldn't possibly fulfil the requirements of becoming an FL list in its own right then you have to question the logic of weakening this article to create another that will never come up to the standard of the article it is currently part of.
 * 7) This is a heavily visited article that regularly receives in excess of 200,000 hits per month and ranks in Wikipedia's top 1000 articles: . It is clearly a popular article that readers find useful, and splitting the content when we don't need to over several articles would be counter-productive, and detrimental to what readers get from it and hope to find.
 * Betty Logan (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support- If you'll bear with me counterpointing Betty Logan...
 * (1): The scope defined in the lede is not set in stone; although similar in scope, the title of this article suggests a slightly different scope than the "franchises" section provides. The editing history of this article has no bearing on the appropriateness of a split.  As articles grow they are split, this is a normal part of the article building process.  Moving the content from an isolated subsection to another article would not "leave out a major aspect", we're completely capable of linking the articles.
 * (2): I deny it, I would therefore say that it isn't undeniable. List of highest-grossing animated films is not part of this article, yet this article is not harmed as a result.  Every thing you stated in point #2 could also be said of the animated films list just as easily, yet it's clear List of highest-grossing animated films is perfectly fine as a standalone article.  I think this split would create a similar situation.  Wikilinking solves any issue of readers wanting to read this additional content, they are not denied anything by this split.  Articles can be overly comprehensive, and splitting the articles to be concise and stick with the scopes suggested by the titles do not damage either article.
 * (3): Unless I'm overlooking something, splitting this section was never once brought up in the FL discussion, but rather the "collapsible table" aspect was discussed. In fact, it appears to be quite the opposite, that this section was the only issue with the article, and splitting it off would in fact resolve any concerns about the table, making this article even more appropriate as an FL.
 * (4): Irrelevant, but actually refutes the point you made in #2, that "if someone looks up an article about the highest grossing films, it is not unreasonable to assume they would want to read about the highest-grossing animated films too, and how they compare against other films in the series." Yet this article is a FL without the inclusion of this separate article, there's nothing to suggest that splitting this content would be any different.
 * (5): The size of the chart is not an issue, but the size of the article is. WP:SIZERULE suggests that an article over 100kb "almost certainly should be divided", and at ~153k, this article certainly meets that criteria, and I agree with the guideline.
 * (6): I'm sure the same might have been said about earlier incarnations of this article, and look where the article is now.
 * (7): This is why the material is being discussed before being split: the number of viewers should certainly be a factor in keeping the article stable, but has no bearing on the content itself. - SudoGhost 17:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I think someone interested in reading about the highest grossing films would also likely be interested in the highest grossing film franchises. I think the decision on whether to have those in a single article or to have those in separate articles should mainly be based on whether having them in the same article makes the article too long.  In this case, I do not think the article is too long.  Above, User:SudoGhost has referenced WP:SIZERULE, but has mistakenly looked at the total article size when that guideline is about readable text.  Using the script linked to from that page, the readable text of this article appears to be about 15kb.  I'm not sure if that is really accurate, but looking at the article, the majority of the content is tables, and there also are a huge number of references, so the prose text is clearly well under half the article.  This article clearly isn't too long to be readable in one sitting, and per WP:SIZERULE, the size alone should not be used as justification to split.  WP:Article size also mentions total size being a reason to split for technical reasons, but the guideline suggests that is no longer a very important consideration for articles under 400kb, and I do not think this article is so big that it will cause problems.  This appears to be the 1113th largest article on Wikipedia in total size (according to Special: Longpages), which makes me think it is well within acceptable size limits.  On the other hand, I don't think splitting this article will cause the quality of the article to decrease.  I think it will be a high quality article regardless, but I still think there is no reason to have two articles when the information can reasonably be presented in a single place. Calathan (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Mostly oppose: I think the scope of this list is just fine as it is. However, there's nothing to stop the creation of an expanded version of a franchise-based list, which treats franchises in a greater depth than they are here. What is currently present here would work as a good summary of such a fork, while a new list would allow for greater depth of focus given its narrower scope. Franchises which have grossed over a certain amount could be the new criteria, rather than the top so many, which would allow a new list to define a clear scope to work with. GRAPPLE   X  20:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I agree it's more convenient for the reader to have all the info in one place. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Agree that this doesn't breach WP:SIZERULE, and agree that the common location provides more ease for readers (and editors). If the list were to grow to much more than 20, eventually it could warrant it's own article.  Just not yet, IMO.  Kevinbrogers (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Currently in theaters
Films still currently in the theater appear with a green background. This should be removed for all references to Star Wars. I tried to fix the first one but someone keeps reverting it. I also had a hard time removing it from the franchise section. Star Wars Episode I was released in 3D in February 2012 for a limited time. That was four months ago. It is not playing anymore. Can someone please fix this. --Jimv1983 (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The source on the page confirms this, but I'll reproduce a more direct link here. It shows that there are still 17 theaters showing the film, which is enough to be considered still released.  Kevinbrogers (talk) 04:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That Box Office Mojo page doesn't have anything for this weekend -- looks like its release ended Thursday, May 10.  Trivialist (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I figured they would wait until the weekend was completely over before posting anything on the page, but you're right... according to the daily view, it looks like they haven't added anything. I'm not too familiar with how they operate, so I'm not 100% sure if they add daily grosses immediately the next day.  If so, then yes, Star Wars's run is over.  Kevinbrogers (talk) 04:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It may well have closed domestically, but this is a worldwide list and it is possible it is still playing in other parts of the world. Once Box Office Mojo stops tracking the film they will add the close date to the summary. Compare the summary data for the old release to the data for the 3D release. Films that have finished release have a close date added. Also, you can see that it is still being tracked on world chart. This isn't brain surgery folks; if BOM are still tracking it then it follows we are. Once they add a close date and remove the highlighting from their chart we'll do the same. Betty Logan (talk) 04:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also Jim, this isn't a particularly helpful edit. If someone points out that the source being used for the box office data has not provided a "close date" as yet, then they have provided a source. The onus is on YOU to provide a source that the film has closed. The edit history clearly shows the total is still being updated, as you can see here and here. Betty Logan (talk) 05:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Avengers
Isn't Avengers a bit high. Box Office Mojo puts it at the 12th highest-grossing film below The Dark Knight. I have no doubt that it will be higher...but this list looks like it jumped the gun when compared to Box Office Mojo's list. Or is the Box Office Mojo list slow? Jhenderson 7 7 7  20:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like the weekend estimate has been updated with the actual, and it moved it down notch. Someone has fixed the position now anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I know. I saw it. The editor changed it on other articles as well. Apparently this wasn't the only article on Wikipedia that said it. Jhenderson  7 7 7  21:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Avengers is #5
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=avengers11.htm

Just sayin'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.253.197 (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

JAMES BOND IS TOP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_James_Bond_films LOOK TOTAL IS 12 BILLION — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.168.187 (talk) 05:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

As you can see the 12 billion dollar for Bond series is adjusted for inflation, and in this ranking there are actual values included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.37.21.68 (talk) 02:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Worldwide openings
why don't you add a section with the Top 10 worldwide openings? It's interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.235.106.214 (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You can find such a list at List of highest-grossing openings for films. Betty Logan (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 May 2012
In the list of highest-grossing franchises under the "Marvel Cinematic Universe" there are 6 films listed and the counter next to the total box office says that there are only 5. The average per film is miscalculated therefore as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.37.21.68 (talk) 02:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Now, when somebody has added 2003 'Hulk' (which isn't actually part of the MCU film series), the number should be 7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.37.21.68 (talk) 03:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've changed it back. Betty Logan (talk) 03:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

2003 Hulk Film in MCU
Someone reverted my addition of the 2003 Hulk film to the MCU list saying "by that logic, you could add Spiderman to the list". My rebuttal: while the 2008 film The Incredible Hulk was not billed as a sequel to Hulk, the plot of the second film is mostly a continuation of the first. The first ends in Brazil, the second begins there. There might be some minor continuity issues, but this is common across several other series as well. Different actors, but again this is not uncommon. Look at the list for Batman, which is quite broad. To be consistent overall, should include all films that are about the characters featured in The Avengers, which would obviously include Hulk.Brandonlee25 (talk) 03:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, Batman is a franchise entry so includes all Batman films. If the Hulk franchise was included on the chart then the 2003 film would certainly be included as a franchise entry. However, this entry is for the Marvel Cinematic Universe that is a clearly defined series which includes a defined set of films. Clearly it is asburd to include the film in the entry for the MCU when our own article about the MCU does not include it. You are actually conducting the discussion in the wrong place; if it were included on the MCU article then it would be included here as matter of course, so I would suggest starting a discussion there. This list is basically an umbrella article that tabulates the data from the other franchise/series articles. Betty Logan (talk) 03:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Point well taken. Thanks.Brandonlee25 (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request June 18, 2012
Under the timeline, the phrase "Roger Ebert has reasoned it possibly did earn this much on paper..." should be changed to "Roger Ebert has reasoned it possibly did earn $600 million on paper..." As is, it is difficult to tell from the text whether Ebert meant $25 million or $600 million, since the former number is the last number given in the text. Ebert clearly meant $600 million according to the cited source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.163.0.5 (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

✅ Doesn't hurt to make it explicit. Betty Logan (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Crunched franchises table
I'm not entirely sure why this edit was so quick to be reverted, but allow me to explain why this edit (adding an 80%-width to the outermost table) is appropriate.

The table currently appears on my 1366x768 resolution screen like the first two images at right.

As you can see, with the subtables closed, nine of the twenty franchises (eight shown, and Harry Potter) bloat the rows two double-sized entries, with the Marvel Cinematic Universe and The Fast and the Furious entries being too long to fit otherwise. With the subtables open, not only do the Lord of the Rings and Indiana Jones subtables expand the whole table horizontally when clicked (and Pirates of the Caribbean actually condenses the table slightly), but entries such as Mission Impossible - Ghost Protocol also do not fit horizontally.

With the 80% width added, as you can see in the third and fourth images, we reduce the double-rowed entries to five (all five of which are because of the "highest-grossing film" entry being too long, something that could be solved a number of ways, including slightly decreasing the font size or removing the dollar amount as it is in the clickable subtables already) and no series titles take up more than one row. Even internally, no individual films cause length problems, with "Lord of the Rings film trilogy" being the only part of any subtable that expands past one row. Furthermore, by actively defining the width of the outermost table, no subtables expand or condense the width of the table as a whole.

With a page-percentage width, we have a table that will fit on all screens without unnecessarily crunching into the middle of the screen, creating an ugly-looking table.

(I would also like to point out that internally, the percentages for each of the columns currently only total 95%.)

Rickie-d (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that tables have to operate on a resolution of 1024 (see Manual_of_Style/Accessibility). The field widths were chosen with this in mind and tested on all the major browsers. By reducing the width to 80% you broke the inner alignment on 1024 resolution monitors, and rather than reducing the number of splits over double lines, it actually increased it. The internal template dimensions are slightly less than the table dimension because if they are the same you lose inner alignment again on a 1024 setting. It's not really a case of what looks better, it's a case of what works in 1024 resolution which we have to do. Betty Logan (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Except if you'll notice, on the 1366px resolution, the addition of the 80% parameter actually widened the table, which was the whole point. This "crunched" look didn't exist a week or two ago at this resolution, something appears to have changed. Rickie-d (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I didn't reduce a 100% figure to 80%. I added a 80% parameter where there previously was none. Rickie-d (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can see in your image caps it widened the table, but if you put your screen in 1024 resolution you will see that it reduced the table. Without the width parameter the table filled the page at 1024 res, and when you added the 80% parameter it knocked 20% off the table. If you put your monitor in 1024 res and compare the two you will see what I mean. I agree your version looked better, but the problem is that the columns became disaligned on the 1024 version, which is just unacceptable because it makes the table useless. Even if 99% of readers have a res higher than 1024 it still has to work on 1024. I don't know why it scrunched, I guess the tech guys did something.  I've set it to 100% which allows the table to use the full width of the page, does that sort your problem?  We could make the fonts smaller but we would have to do it all the tables otherwise it would look odd. We could even lose the last column at a pinch. Maybe em would be better then percents to set the size of the tables, because then the width would be controlled by the font size rather than the browser resolution. There are plenty of options open to us, but whatever we do has to work in 1024 res. Betty Logan (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've played around with the templates and got the 100% setting to work inside the template. Basically the problem was the 12.5% settings, so I rounded them. Anyway it has reduced some of the lin splitting at 1024, although it hasn't made much difference at 1280. I do wonder if we need the last column with the highest-grossing film; that was basically hangover from the old chart before we listed all the films in the table. Since you can expand the chart and see how much the films have made I reckon we could scrub the last column. Anyone care either way? Betty Logan (talk) 04:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've set up a sandbox at Highest-grossing films franchise/sandbox and some test cases at Highest-grossing films franchise/testcases for anyone who wants to experiment with layouts. The size settings need to be altered in both the sandboxed template and the test cases. Betty Logan (talk) 04:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Genre toppers?
I have been mulling over having a section of genre toppers i.e. highest grossing horror film, highest-grossing comedy etc, so would like to see what other editors think. If we do add such a section, we need to be clear which genres we need to cover. I'd like to stay away from sub-genres (e.g. slasher/gangster/comic book adaptations/kung-fu/disaster etc), cross genres (e.g. romantic-comedies) and film types (e.g. 3D/reboot/silent/epics etc) or the list would become too unwieldy, so the main genres I think are:


 * Action
 * Adult
 * Adventure
 * Animation
 * Biography
 * Comedy
 * Crime
 * Drama
 * Family
 * Fantasy
 * Film-noir
 * History
 * Horror
 * Musical
 * Mystery
 * Romance
 * Science-fiction
 * Sport
 * Thriller
 * War
 * Western

In case you are wondering, to keep this purely objective all these genres come from IMDB's top 250. Anything they listed as a main 'genre' I added to the list, anything they didn't has been left off. Since sources disagree over genres, I think to be added to a genre a film should require two independent RS sources to agree about the genre of a film. Anyone think this is a good or crap idea? If we do it we have to be careful to not open a can of worms and leave it open to genre edit-warring which is a real problem on film articles, so if we go ahead with it we need to agree on which genres to cover first and how a film should be eligible for the genre. Betty Logan (talk) 08:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I might be a little late in saying my opinion, but this does sound like a good idea. Over at the article for highest grossing animated films there is a section devoted to anime films. So I guess genre toppers here would be interesting to add, but their would have to be a definitive consensus on what genres we should and should not use. The ones listed above appear to be fine. If we do go ahead with this, I suggest we include about 10-15 films for each genre. ~ Jedi94  (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Titanic highlighted?
Including Titanic in the green highlight for "films released in 2012" is not factually accurate. The vast, vast majority of revenues for Titanic were made in 1997 when it was a worldwide sensation. In fact the whole article should have as its top, main section only films that grossed X in its FIRST release. I'm confident this issue and incorrect reporting will become worse as even more films are released in 3D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.139.146 (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Green doesn't mean "released in 2012", it means "currently in theaters". Rickie-d (talk) 06:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Spider-Man
I came up with a design for the Spider-Man franchise portion that we can incorporate into the "highest grossing franchises and film series" chart, once the reboot film is released. (Of course, the zero will be replaced when official box office numbers are in next week.) I separated the franchise between Sam Raimi's trilogy and 2012's The Amazing Spider-Man. I was originally going to divide it between Raimi's series and Webb's reboot series, but since there is only one finished film in the latter, I decided not to do it that way.

What does everyone think? ~ Jedi94  (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm cool with that. The inner naming convention is consistent with what has been done on Batman, and I agree it's better to use the "single film" table for the new film for the time-being; it would look weird if the series box expanded into just one film. Betty Logan (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It's good that we are planning ahead. :) Jhenderson  7 7 7  14:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Awesome! ~  Jedi94  (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * While we are on the subject, I've set the template to align the titles in the inner tables. If you recall, the title in Iron Man sub-table was centered, and it looked kind of weird when the films above and below it had their titles aligned to the left. I've made them all align to the left, so take a look and see what you think. It was only one line of code so I can easily take it out if no-one likes it. Betty Logan (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I had to take some time to figure out on what you are talking about at first...but I am ok with what you did. ;) Jhenderson  7 7 7  00:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Same here! ~  Jedi94  (talk) 00:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. You can compare the table with the old version at Template:Highest-grossing_films_franchise/testcases. Betty Logan (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest changing "Raimi films" to "Raimi trilogy", but otherwise it looks fine. Rickie-d (talk) 06:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't mind either phrasing, but I think Jedi chose the wording to match up to the main article: Spider-Man_in_film. Betty Logan (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * BTW this is the release date for the next Spider-Man film in some countries. Jhenderson  7 7 7  14:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The next editor to update the franchise chart should probably stick it in the table. They may as well copy in the extension above too, since there seems to be a firm consensus for it. Betty Logan (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I just updated the numbers in the franchise/film series table, and I added in the agreed-upon Spider-Man section. ~  Jedi94  (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Ghostbusters 1984
According to Box Office Mojo, Ghostbusters earned 230 mil domestic and 53 mil foreign. I find the foreign gross a bit suspect, since 53 million is very low for a film that grossed 200 mil+ in the US. In the 1980s, foreign gross was typically 50-100% the domestic take, so I don't think BOM has a complete figure there. It's highly likely that it made at least 100 mil which would make it the 1984 winner, so if anyone knows the correct gross/knows where we can find up to date data then we can correct it. Betty Logan (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

franchise
I see that four more has been added o the franchise table. I don't have a problem with adding more but I really believe if there is to be more adding 25 seems to be the most logical next amount to be added...and also I think Star Trek franchise is missing. Jhenderson 7 7 7  14:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * ...and also I think a consensus needed to be added if there hasn't been. Just to headstart consensus I would be ok for it if those films added plus Star Trek does equal top 25. Jhenderson  7 7 7  14:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the edits. This was discussed at some length atTalk:List_of_highest-grossing_films/Archive_3 where the consensus was against it, because we ended up running into franchises with missing data. The biggest problem is that Rocky should be in a top 25 but we don't have all the data for the franchise. We did consider going to 23, but the view was that we should stick at 20 if we can't get to 25. Betty Logan (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah I was on that discussion. It beats me how in the world do you know that's Rocky is in the top 25 if you don't even know the data though. Jhenderson  7 7 7  14:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking at his most recent list, with Madagascar and the recent addition of Mission Impossible to teh chart he has got it to a top 25, albeit with Star Trek in the wrong order. If we fix Star Trek with the old data that would have The Terminator at 25 with 1.4 billion, with Rocky possibly below that at 26. In theory we can get it to 25 now with the two new franchise additions, and don't have to worry about missing data. Shall we do it? Betty Logan (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I would say that's up to you. You are the one who has contributed on this article most...and I am sure you have made a lot of bold edits to make it this good. So I have been trusting you to know what you were adding. I will say this, you already have Rocky mentioned on this article so I don't think you need to worry on it being left out. Jhenderson  7 7 7  15:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not my call alone on the basis of what I've done; writing prose and adding content is a bit different from extending the charts, since chart bloat is an issue we should take seriously; that said, we were all for a top 25 at the start of the year and the reason it didn't go ahead was because we didn't have the data for Rocky, which isn't a problem now, because Rocky would be at 26 below The Terminator. We'll give a it a few days and see if anyone else objects extending it to 25. This is what 21-25 would look like:

Betty Logan (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it looks good and I can't think of any negative reasons against it. So I would say I am in. :) Jhenderson 7 7 7  15:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks decent and uniform. I'm all for adding it in the existing chart too. ~  Jedi94  (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Go for it! --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've transferred this in now, since editors have taken to updating the talk page chart! Betty Logan (talk) 22:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Nominal values first?
Real values (ie those adjusted for inflation) seem like it would be the best metric for describing the most successful films, as it would accurately indicate the purchasing power generated from movie revenue. Because of inflation, using nominal values will naturally make more recent films gravitate towards the top of the list. I think there is value in both lists, but perhaps in reverse order. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therewillbefact (talk • contribs) 17:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see where you are coming from, and as you rightly point out the adjusted chart provides a better comparison across the decades. However I am against changing the order for one very basic reason: the unadjusted list presents factual information while the adjusted list presents analysis rather than facts. As the introduction to the adjusted list points out, different methods come up with different numbers, there isn't anything concrete about the methodology. If we had definite metric like ticket sales I would certainly support switching the order of the tables then, but the adjusted chart really is just clever guesswork so I don't think it should come before the facts. The way I look at is that the unadjusted chart is the data set and the adjusted chart is an interpretation. The way the article is written also reflects that: we introduce the data, and then we explain the shortcomings of the unadjusted chart and present the adjusted chart. Betty Logan (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * After thinking it over, the order of the article sections are fine as is. If the article were titled List of most successful films, it may warrant providing a list in real terms. But nominal terms seem to be the most appropriate for a list of the highest grossing films. Thanks for the input Betty. FactoidDroid (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Catwoman
Shouldn't the the Catwoman movie be included under the batman franchise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.245.193 (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a good point! It's certainly no less eligible than The Scorpion King in The Mummy franchise, for example. Betty Logan (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Box Office Mojo doesn't include that in it's list while I think BOM includes Scorpion King in the Mummy franchise. If Box Office Mojo doesn't include the Scorpion King movies in the franchise then it shouldn't be included. Jhenderson  7 7 7  00:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, I've just gone and added it! Anyway I've reverted because this needs checking more carefully. Basically this is how I see it: Box Office Mojo is convenient to rely on for most cases because it's a good source for the box-office data, but it may not be definitive (lots of sources have oversights). That said, if we are going to add a film not covered by the BOM franchise index then we do need a another source for it. Our own Wikipedia article on the character says the character was created by Bob Kane and Bill Finger and first appeared in the batman comics, so the character certainly started out under the Batman franchise. The article on the film says that the Michelle Pfeiffer character is briefly referenced in the film so it at least acknowledges a Batman continuity in the way spin-offs usually do. On the basis of this it seems to satisfy the requirements of being a franchise entry: despite having weak or little continuity with the series it does seem to be a commercial property of the Batman franchise. On the otherhand, our own Batman in film article doesn't even acknowledge the film. If this is an oversight by us guys, then I would say the proper process is to get the film added to Batman in film and then we can use the same sources and add it here, so it's probably more appropriate to have this discussion on the main Batman article. Betty Logan (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Box Office Mojo might not be definitive but it definitely the best we got. For one thing we are supposedly getting Batman returning in the big screen (along with Superman) in Lego form. In the future I have no doubts that we are going to question if it belongs. But thankfully we have Box Office Mojo deciding for us to help us out unless we have a different consensus in the near future. I believe Catwoman has no similarity except that it's Warner Brothers. Jhenderson  7 7 7  21:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Population adjustments
I would be interested in adding a population "inflation" section. Besides monetary inflation, the increasing audience pool tends to artificially inflate recent films. If you are aware of such computations, whether RS or not, could you add them here? Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We do touch on other factors such as different ticket prices, population changes, market forces in the introduction to the inflation section to try and provide some context, but as for adding a per capita chart I'm not sure one even exists. Obviously if the Wall Street Journal or Variety published such a chart we could consider adding it to the article, but I'm not sure one would even be possible since the population isn't tracked in many parts of the world. We can't really do it ourselves because there would be no way to construct one without doing our own calculations. Betty Logan (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Titanic
Is there any reason why Titanic has stopped being highlighted? Jhenderson 7 7 7  22:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There seems to be conflicting information on BOM. They still have it highlighted on their main chart but on its main entry it says it closed in June: . Either way they don't seem to be tracking it anymore because the total has stayed the same for weeks. Betty Logan (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well I am pretty sure BOM (just like Wikipedia) does conflicting mistakes for the ones who is in charge of editing/publishing it. Good catch. Jhenderson  7 7 7  19:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Film Series Split
Does anyone think that we should split the page so we can have just one seperate page for the film series?--Norgizfox5041 (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's been discussed and there was a consensus against it. It was decided it was best to keep all the box-office data together since this is a high-profile page that receives a lot of visits. Betty Logan (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Missing Franchises
It is clear that there are missing franchises in this page. One is Alvin and the Chipmunks with $1.146 billion dollars in revenue. I suggest that we add Alvin and the Chipmunks and more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.148.222 (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We currently only list the top 25 franchises. The problem with adding more is that we start to hit incomplete data at around the 1.3 billion point. Franchises like Rocky, Superman and Planet of the Apes have all grossed over a billion dollars. We used to only list the top 20, but we were able to expand the list when a few more franchises moved above Rocky's upper bound. You can read more about the problem at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films/Archive_3. Betty Logan (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean. If there is some sort of glitch that prevents us from adding franchises with less than 1.3 billion, than I understand. Therefore, I will list some for future consideration: Superman, Planet of the Apes, Iron Man, and Jason Bourne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.148.222 (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes there is a glitch, in that the foreign data is missing for Rocky, Superman and Planet of the Apes. I estimate (if you double the domestic grosses as a rough guide) these three franchises have all earned in the 1.0-1.3 billion range, so if we go below 1.3 billion the chart stops being accurate. Betty Logan (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I see now. I guess then we will just have to wait until the franchises listed in this section gross more than Rocky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.148.222 (talk) 18:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Table headings
My attempted addition of the clarifying wording "(not adjusted for inflation)" to the heading of the table of highest franchise grosses has been reverted for the reason that "Unadjusted charts do not need to be labelled as such; it is made clear in the lede that all values are nominal unless stated otherwise"

I understand that the lead contains the wording "All grosses on the list are expressed in US dollars at their nominal value, except where stated otherwise." However, despite having looked at this article a number of times, I personally had never read the lead, and had always gone straight to the lists. I suspect that many readers are the same, particularly as the lead is fairly long. The said wording also appears at the very end of the lead.

In my view each table should be clearly labelled as to whether it is adjusted for inflation or not. Readers should not be expected to read the entire lead, or presumed to have done so.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * As a rule all financial charts in the published world use nominal figures unless otherwises stated. If you adjust figures for inflation, then you have to clarify they are adjusted for inflation, because you are adding an economic interpretation to the raw figures, but it is unnecessary when presenting just the raw data. As a basis for comparison, Box Office Mojo have the DOMESTIC GROSSES and DOMESTIC GROSSES – Adjusted for Ticket Price Inflation; the British Film Institute do the same All Time Top 20 Films at the UK Box Office & Top 20 Highest Grossing Films at the UK Box Office (inflation adjusted) i.e. you have to clarify something you have done, but generally you do not need to clarify something you have not done. It would probably be difficult to find a chart in a high-profile source that is labelled as "not adjusted for inflation". I don't have a fundamental opposition to it, so if other editors are for it then fair enough, but my take is that we should be consistent with other high profile encylopedic sources and industry bodies. Betty Logan (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Someone obviously thought that clarification was needed, hence the text in the lead. My point is that having the clarification there is imperfect as many readers will not actually read it.
 * The title for franchises currently merely states "Highest-grossing franchises and film series". That is a very definite and non-specific claim, but in fact the unadjusted figures are no more "correct" or "definitive" than the adjusted. For example is Harry Potter or James Bond the highest grossing series? Has Batman grossed more than Marvel Cinematic Universe? The answer is inherently subjective and must in my view be caveated in a manner which does not assume the reader has read the whole text of the article. This is recognised by the caveats in the lead, my concern is that they will not be read.
 * If we also had a table for franchises which showed the adjusted data then this might be less of an issue.
 * Since it is merely the addition of five or six words I can't really see what the objection is. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A gross cannot be an adjusted quantity, it is the actual amount of money accumulated i.e. you can inflate a gross to get an adjusted quantity, but the "gross" cannot be an adjusted amount itself. If the chart were labelled "Most-successful film of all-time" or something else that is open to interpretation then you'd have a point, but in this case the charts carry the correct industry-standard titles. BTW, I wrote the lede and included the adjusted/unadjusted sentence to acquaint readers with the metrics and quantities covered by the article, but ultimately we should stop short of labelling data in ways that are not used within the industry itself. No-one refers to "unadjusted grosses", just "grosses" and "adjusted grosses", because that is what they are. Betty Logan (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And yet I see here on the Box Office Mojo site precisely what I am proposing: . The bottom table has "unadjusted" in brackets at the end of its title.
 * "Gross" simply means total. It has no scientific meaning beyond this and an inflation adjusted gross is still a gross. I fear we are getting unnecessarily tortuous though.
 * Although I don't doubt that when people in the industry refer to the grosses of current or recent films, it will be taken as read that they are talking of unadjusted and to make this explicit would be unnecessarily laboured (and there would be little or no difference between unadjusted and adjusted).
 * Here we are talking inherently about historical information, and it is very much the case that there are big differences between adjusted and unadjusted. We are also not catering to a specialist group but to the general public. To state that James Bond has a gross of $5 billion is in fact pretty meaningless. Far more people have paid to see a James Bond film at the cinema than a Harry Potter, and the first Bond film came out 50 years ago. I have nothing against inclusion of the unadjusted information, but I do feel it essential that it is clear exactly what is being presented and at present I don't feel that is the case.
 * The article is otherwise excellent and I have consulted it many times so it is a pity to me to see this flaw. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Sherk, puss in boots, batman and catwoman
If batman inculed cat woman Rank	Series	Total worldwide box office	No. of films	Average of films	Highest-grossing film 1	[show]Harry Potter	$7,706,147,978	8	$963,268,497	Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 ($1,328,111,219) 2	[show]James Bond	$5,131,470,822	24	$213,811,284	Casino Royale ($596,365,000) 3	[show]Star Wars	$4,382,359,868	7	$626,051,410	Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace ($1,027,044,427) 4	[show]Marvel Cinematic Universe	$3,802,227,995	6	$633,704,666	The Avengers ($1,511,757,910) 5     [show]Batman 	$3,793946754 9    $463,980,547	The Dark Knight Rises ($1,077,564,067)

If it dose not include it should Shrek include puss in boots if not.

5	[show]Pirates of the Caribbean	$3,727,735,967	4	$931,933,992	Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest ($1,066,179,725) 6	[show]Batman 	$3,711,844,375	8	$463,980,547	The Dark Knight Rises ($1,077,564, 7	[show]Spider-Man 	$3,248,563,075	4	$812,140,769	Spider-Man 3 ($890,871,626) 8 	[show]Shrek	$2,955,807,005	4	$702,103,246	Shrek 2 ($919,838,758) 9	[show]The Lord of the Rings	$2,947,978,376	4	$736,994,594	The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King ($1,119,929,521) 10	[show]Ice Age 	$2,792,423,617	4	$698,105,904	Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs ($863,697,183) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.79.4 (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a discussion above about Catwoman. The key difference between the Catwoman movie and Puss-in-boots was that PIB was in the Shrek movies so it's a legitimate spin-off. The sticking point for Catwoman is that it was a different version of Catwoman to the Batman films. If it had been Selina Kyle it would be included. Personally I would include it in the Batman franchise since it's still a version of Catwoman, but another editor disagreed so it has been kept out for the time being. Betty Logan (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

1.3 billion
You said 30+ have got more then 1,300,000 surly we can make it top 30 at lest then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.79.4 (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 30+ have made more than a billion but only 25 have made 1.3bn+, so we can't extend the chart to 30 series yet. Betty Logan (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of the 'in release' highlighting from The Amazing Spider-Man
There have been several recent edits effecting this alteration, but please note that this is an international chart, and just because it is no longer playing your local cinema it does not mean it is not still on release in some countries. The highlighting indicates to editors which films need to be checked and updated, and lets readers know the box office figures are still subject to change. Even if Box Office Mojo is not updating the figures periodically anymore, it does not mean they are no longer tracking it. When a film finishes its general release they ascribe a "close date" in the box-office summary and remove the highlighting from their own chart. Since we source through Box Office Mojo we should abide by their tracking decisions, and it makes no sense for us to stop tracking a film if BOM are still tracking it, so please refrain from removing the highlighting until BOM either remove it or formally record a close date. Betty Logan (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Casino Royale Gross
The gross for Casino Royale on the table of highest-grossing film series is inconsistent. On the right, it says it made around $599 million. But if you look at the movies that starred Daniel Craig by using the other side of the table, it says it made around $538 million. I assume that one of those must be wrong. Alphius (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Madagaser 3 UK most wanted
On here it said Madagascar 3 not in cinema. But it is in the UK. So it can earn more. Than $737,591,482. Unless we do not count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.79.4 (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * According to BOM it is now at $740,491,482 so it is obviously playing somewhere, so I've added the highlighting back since the gross is still changing. Betty Logan (talk) 02:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Iron Man
Quick question: if Iron Man 3 manages to bring the Iron Man films to over 1.3 billion and manages to get onto the Top 25 franchises, will we list the series as a sub-series, a separate series, leave a note saying that it is part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, or just let it remain where it is?


 * I believe at the moment, the plan is to list Iron Man as another franchise, as well as having it included in the Marvel Cinematic Universe section. Main reason being, it's what the source, Box Office Mojo does. It also makes sense that the Iron Man franchise has its own section, so if it is rebooted outside the MCU, then those films would still count towards the Iron Man franchise. However, it does seem a little weird having films that get to show up on the list twice.
 * Another film I'm curious about is Man of Steel. What happens if it manages to bring the Superman gross into to the top 25, 'cause there's incomplete data for some of the old films, right? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 08:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Iron Man is a franchise in its own right (i.e. you have to own the Iron Man licenses to put him in The Avengers) so is eligible for inclusion in the chart on that basis, even though as you say it would be redundant. There is also a case for being consistent too: if say the Hulk franchise made it onto the list, that would include the Ang Lee film which isn't part of the MCU, so listing the franchises separately makes sense even if it is sometimes redundant. As for Man of Steel, it will almost certainly put Superman into the top 25 unless it tanks. If it finishes outside of the top 20 it may be easier to just go back to a top 20; if it does a billion there is no way to avoid including the franchise. Estimating it ourselves is OR, so we would have to just list what we do know and perhaps add a note or something explaining the figures are incomplete. It will mess up the "cleanness" of the chart, but there are limits to what we can document as a volunteer project. Betty Logan (talk) 08:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Marvel Cinematic Universe
Is Marvel Cinematic universe a proper series. When each one get 3 it should become a film series in it own rights.


 * Yes, the Marvel Cinematic Universe is a proper series. It's a rather unique one at the moment, as it connects a bunch of franchises into the one continuity, but that's also part of the reason as to why it is a series, and why it is included on the list. Also, we go by the source, Box Office Mojo, which includes the MCU as a franchise on its list, so removing it from this one would be original research. Also, for reasons of consistency, when the individual character franchises that make up the Marvel Cinematic Universe make enough money to be listed on this chart, they will be listed, as well as included in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. This is because the individual character franchises are franchises in their own right, as Betty Logan explains in Talk:List of highest-grossing films. This seems a little unnecessary for characters such as Iron Man, whose only films are within the MCU continuity. However, for characters such as Hulk, there are films in the franchise that are outside MCU continuity that need to be included. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 07:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

How about muppets
Their is 7 flims in at and a planed 2 flims — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.79.4 (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

DC Universe
Is their a Marvel universe should their be a DC universe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.79.4 (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * So far, none of the characters in DC films share a collective universe, so no. However, there are plans for a Justice League film in the future, so that may change. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Definition of "franchises" is very questionable, imo
Isn't it only a franchise if it takes place in the same continuity? The older Lord of the Rings isn't, IMO, a part of the Lord of the Rings franchise; nor is the Spider-Man reboot logically a part of the franchise that Sam Raimi directed.

A good example is Batman.

Now, there have been several Batman "franchises"; first, the Adam West show/movie. Then the Tim Burton/Joel Schumacher series (I believe it was all one continuity). Then the Paul Dini/Bruce Timm animated franchise (part of their larger DC animated universe franchise). And finally, the Chris Nolan trilogy. These things are all called Batman, all feature the same character, but none of them really has anything to do with any of the others. They are very distinct, and the differences are clear to the public, who never think of them together.

That continuity is the key to the definition of franchises you're going is implied by the inclusion of the "Marvel Cinematic Universe". Or rather, by what's omitted from that universe. You leave out every film that did not tie in to Avengers. Why? Only due to continuity, presumably - the source characters of all the non-Marvel Cinematic Universe Marvel movies are still Marvel Comics characters. In fact, some of them (see Ang Lee's Hulk) are the very characters who would later be included in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. So how can one Hulk be in, and one Hulk be out, while all Batmans are included under the Batman heading?

It's inconsistent and illogical.

If the films are not all in one continuity, they do not all belong to a particular film franchise. Otherwise, remakes would belong to a "franchise" with the films they're re-making. Which is obviously absurd.

I mean, are the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes movies in a franchise with the Downey movies? Obviously not. Only the source property is the same. Are the two recent Jules Verne-inspired movies (Journey to the Center of the Earth, and Journey 2) in a franchise with any much older adaptation of Verne's stories? Obviously not.

Use common sense, please, and make it consistently continuity-based. Otherwise, why isn't Transformers: The Movie (the cartoon movie) included in the Transformers franchise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.77.90 (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read Media franchise, in particular the second paragraph, which defines a difference between film franchises and film series. The older Lord of the Rings film is part of the same franchise as the trilogy that followed, as they are both films within the franchise of the Lord of the Rings. Later this year, the first part of the Hobbit will be added to that group.


 * Likewise, both series of Spider-Man are part of the Spider-Man franchise. Just as the animated Batman film, the original live-action Batman films, and the Nolan Batman trilogy are all a part of the Batman franchise.


 * Now, the Marvel Cinematic Universe is a unique one here (perhaps not for long if Warner Bros. follows through with plans for a Justice league movie, and if Fox follows through with their own cinematic universe containing X-Men and the Fantastic Four), but it is still consistent. The Marvel Cinematic Universe is a franchise on its own, and is recognised as such. To answer your question about the Hulk, all of the franchises that are used within the Marvel Cinematic Universe are also considered themselves as franchises. Meaning that if Iron Man 3 makes enough money at the box office, the Iron Man franchise will appear on this list. Also, if Hulk was to be given some sequels allowing it to appear on this list, the Ang Lee film would be included as it is a part of the Hulk franchise.


 * Also, Transformers: the Movie is, in fact, included on the list.


 * But most importantly, as this is wikipedia, we can't make our own definition of what a film franchise is and isn't by including some films in a certain way and others not. So, to avoid original research, we use reliable sources to go from. The franchise table is developed from the source, Box Office Mojo, and we follow their definition of a film franchise. I hope this has answered some of your questions and cleared up any doubts you had about consistency. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You are confusing franchises and series due to Hollywood's bastardisation of the definition, but legally a franchise has a very clear meaning. A franchise is just a set of licensing rights: everything that is in the Batman franchise is licensed from the commercial rights that is implied by the ownership of the Batman copyright: every single Batman film ever made, the TV series, the comics, the toys, the burger meal etc. The Burton and Nolan Batman films are clearly different series, but they belong to the same franchise. Same with the Holmes films, the Rathbone and Downey films are different series but they are derived from the Sherlock Holmes copyright, so are both part of the Sherlock Holmes franchise. The only entry which is slightly inconsistent is the MCU, but since it is a series that does not belong solely to any franchise it is represented by itself on the chart. If we restricted the chart to strict franchise definitions, then the only change to the chart would be the removal of the MCU. The reason we haven't done that is because we use the Box Office Mojo franchise index to determine what we include in the chart. We do respect the internal continuity by breaking the franchises into groups, so readers can still assess the Nolan Batman films on their own. It's also worth noting that the chart entries have nice symmetry with the individual franchise articles, such as Batman in film which also covers all the Batman films. Betty Logan (talk) 10:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

rocky, superman and plant of the apes
Rocky has 	made $1,126,271,447 Superman has made $889,412,997 Planet of the apes has made $925,320,856 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.79.4 (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually they have made more than that, but some of the worldwide grosses are missing so we don't really know how much, which is why the chart is limited to the top 25. The Rocky films have made about 1.3 billion, Superman about 1.1 billion, and Planet of the Apes about 1.0 billion. The problem is discussed further above. Betty Logan (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Change of link to the page of "Transformers" film series
Please change the link of Title "Transformers" in table/list "Highest-grossing franchises and film series", row 12 (rank 12), from 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformers' (which directs to Transformers entertainment franchise) to 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformers_(film_series)' (which directs to an actual intended page, The Transformer Film Series.

Shrik.a.patil (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Transformers (film series) is only about the live-action film series, which does not cover the animated entry in the franchise. As it stands, the main franchise entry links to the Transformers franchise article (which covers everything), and if you expand the entry you will see the sub-entry about the live-action film series links to Transformers (film series). Betty Logan (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

films series that has 1
The avengers film series has got $1,511,757,910 with 1 film making it the  23rd highest. And Avatar has $2,782,275, making it 13th highest  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.79.4 (talk) 11:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You'll notice that the Avengers is already included in the Marvel Cinematic Universe series, which is 4th on the list. Howevever, Avatar is a single film, and so is not, by definition, part of a film franchise or series. Likewise, the Avengers is not going to be considered as a candidate for a franchise on its own until 2015, when Avengers 2 is released. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure
List of flim seieres that has more then 1.2 billon boxofficemojo says

1 Harry Potter	$2,390.1	8	$298.8	Harry Potter / Deathly Hallows (P2)	$381.0 2 Star Wars	$1,918.0	7	$274.0	The Phantom Menace	$431.1 3 Batman	$1,897.8	8	$237.2	The Dark Knight	$533.3 4 James Bond	$1,892.2	24	$78.8	Skyfall	$283.7 5 Avengers	$1,746.7	6	$291.1	The Avengers	$623.4 Shrek	$1,419.6	5	$283.9	Shrek 2	$441.2 6 Spider-Man	$1,375.9	4	$344.0	Spider-Man	$403.7 7 Twilight	$1,354.2	5	$270.8	The Twilight Saga: Eclipse	$300.5 8 Pirates of the Caribbean	$1,279.2	4	$319.8	Dead Man's Chest	$423.3 9 The Lord of the Rings	$1,240.3	5	$248.1	Return of the King	$377.0

Top 50 Bboxofficemojo says

Rank	Title	Studio	Worldwide	Domestic / %	Overseas / %	Year^ 1	Avatar	Fox	$2,782.3	$760.5	27.3%	$2,021.8	72.7%	2009^ 2	Titanic	Par. $2,185.4	$658.7	30.1%	$1,526.7	69.9%	1997^ 3	Marvel's The Avengers	BV	$1,511.8	$623.4	41.2%	$888.4	58.8%	2012 4	Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2	WB	$1,328.1	$381.0	28.7%	$947.1	71.3%	2011 5	Transformers: Dark of the Moon	P/DW	$1,123.7	$352.4	31.4%	$771.4	68.6%	2011 6	The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King	NL	$1,119.9	$377.8	33.7%	$742.1	66.3%	2003^ 7	The Dark Knight Rises	WB	$1,081.0	$448.1	41.5%	$632.9	58.5%	2012 8	Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest	BV	$1,066.2	$423.3	39.7%	$642.9	60.3%	2006 9	Toy Story 3	BV	$1,063.2	$415.0	39.0%	$648.2	61.0%	2010 10	Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides	BV	$1,043.9	$241.1	23.1%	$802.8	76.9%	2011 11	Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace	Fox	$1,027.0	$474.5	46.2%	$552.5	53.8%	1999^ 12	Alice in Wonderland (2010)	BV	$1,024.3	$334.2	32.6%	$690.1	67.4%	2010 13	The Dark Knight	WB	$1,004.6	$534.9	53.2%	$469.7	46.8%	2008^ 14	Skyfall	Sony	$978.0	$283.7	29.0%	$694.3	71.0%	2012 15	Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone	WB	$974.8	$317.6	32.6%	$657.2	67.4%	2001 16	Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End	BV	$963.4	$309.4	32.1%	$654.0	67.9%	2007 17	Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1	WB	$956.4	$296.0	30.9%	$660.4	69.1%	2010 18	The Lion King	BV	$951.6	$422.8	44.4%	$528.8	55.6%	1994^ 19	Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix	WB	$939.9	$292.0	31.1%	$647.9	68.9%	2007 20	Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince	WB	$934.4	$302.0	32.3%	$632.5	67.7%	2009 21	The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers	NL	$926.0	$342.6	37.0%	$583.5	63.0%	2002^ 22	Finding Nemo	BV	$921.6	$380.7	41.3%	$540.9	58.7%	2003^ 23	Shrek 2	DW	$919.8	$441.2	48.0%	$478.6	52.0%	2004 24	Jurassic Park	Uni. $914.7	$357.1	39.0%	$557.6	61.0%	1993^ 25	Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire	WB	$896.9	$290.0	32.3%	$606.9	67.7%	2005 26	Spider-Man 3	Sony	$890.9	$336.5	37.8%	$554.3	62.2%	2007 27	Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs	Fox	$886.7	$196.6	22.2%	$690.1	77.8%	2009 28	Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets	WB	$879.0	$262.0	29.8%	$617.0	70.2%	2002 29	Ice Age: Continental Drift	Fox	$875.1	$161.1	18.4%	$714.0	81.6%	2012 30	The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring	NL	$871.5	$315.5	36.2%	$556.0	63.8%	2001^ 31	Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith	Fox	$848.8	$380.3	44.8%	$468.5	55.2%	2005^ 32	Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen	P/DW	$836.3	$402.1	48.1%	$434.2	51.9%	2009 33	Inception	WB	$825.5	$292.6	35.4%	$533.0	64.6%	2010 34	Spider-Man	Sony	$821.7	$403.7	49.1%	$418.0	50.9%	2002 35	Independence Day	Fox	$817.4	$306.2	37.5%	$511.2	62.5%	1996^ 36	Shrek the Third	P/DW	$799.0	$322.7	40.4%	$476.2	59.6%	2007 37	Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban	WB	$796.7	$249.5	31.3%	$547.1	68.7%	2004 38	The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2	Sum. $796.2	$283.0	35.5%	$513.2	64.5%	2012 39	E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial	Uni. $792.9	$435.1	54.9%	$357.8	45.1%	1982^ 40	Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull	Par. $786.6	$317.1	40.3%	$469.5	59.7%	2008 41	Spider-Man 2	Sony	$783.8	$373.6	47.7%	$410.2	52.3%	2004 42	Star Wars	Fox	$775.4	$461.0	59.5%	$314.4	40.5%	1977^ 43	2012	Sony	$769.7	$166.1	21.6%	$603.6	78.4%	2009 44	The Da Vinci Code	Sony	$758.2	$217.5	28.7%	$540.7	71.3%	2006 45	Shrek Forever After	P/DW	$752.6	$238.7	31.7%	$513.9	68.3%	2010 46	The Amazing Spider-Man	Sony	$752.2	$262.0	34.8%	$490.2	65.2%	2012 47	The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe	BV	$745.0	$291.7	39.2%	$453.3	60.8%	2005 48	The Matrix Reloaded	WB	$742.1	$281.6	37.9%	$460.6	62.1%	2003 49	Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted	P/DW	$742.1	$216.4	29.2%	$525.7	70.8%	2012 50	Up	BV	$731.3	$293.0	40.1%	$438.3	59.9%	2009

I could not find anything on Variety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.79.4 (talk) 11:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Highest goriest flim by decide
1910s 	The Birth of a Nation	$15,000,000–18,000,000R 1920s    The Big Parade	$18,000,000–22,000,000R 1930s Gone with the Wind	$390,525,192 ($32,000,000)R GW	$3,850,000 1940s Bambi	$268,000,000 ($3,449,353)R	$2,000,000 1950s Peter Pan	1953	Peter Pan	$145,000,000	$3,000,000–$4,000,000 1960s The Sound of Music	$286,214,286 ($112,481,000) 	$8,100,000 1970s Star Wars	$775,398,007 ($530,000,000)SW	$11,293,151 1980s E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial	$792,910,554 ($619,000,000)	$10,500,000 1990s 	Titanic	$1,843,201,268 2000s Avatar	$2,782,275,172 2010s The Avengers	$1,511,757,910	$220,000,000  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.79.4 (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Highest gore sting by cenrety
1900s Titanic	$2,185,372,302	1997 2000s Avatar	$2,782,275,172	2009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.79.4 (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Middle-earth
Obvious

What are we going to do with the Middle Earth movies are we going do divide them or are we going to have as one film universe just like the Marvel Cinematic Universe? I think we need to plan ahead on this. Jhenderson 7 7 7  18:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well my preference is to do it like this:


 * The alternative way is to group all the four LOTR films together and all The Hobbit films together. The problem with that is the six New Line films are all one series, and the 1978 film is just an independent entry, so it makes more sense to have the New Line films together. Box Office Mojo may even treat them as a separate franchise, so we'll have to wait and see. Betty Logan (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you nailed what I was expecting that we should do to it on that example. I was even wondering why we didn't have a link on Middle-earth in film yet. So yeah I am all for it. Jhenderson  7 7 7  19:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for it too. But before we go ahead and do it you have to remember to add The Hobbit (1977 film) and The Return of the King (1980 film) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.148.222 (talk) 05:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The Hobbit films are included in the The Lord of the Rings franchise. Middle-earth does not make sense. So we should have something like this :

My mistake for my suggestion: The Hobbit and The Return of the King (links sbove) were made for TV. And about the comment above: Middle-Earth is the entire franchise. When J.R.R. Tolkien originally published The Hobbit, every book in The Lord of the Rings trilogy had already been released, so it was really a prequel and not officially part of the series.


 * ...what? The Hobbit was published in 1937, and the Lord of the Rings trilogy was published two decades later.  --Rickie-d (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

As it stands right now, "Middle-earth" makes incredibly little sense. The series is well-known in the modern age as The Lord of the Rings (yes, this technically refers to the trilogy of books/movies following the Fellowship, but The Hobbit is frequently combined with). Moreover, Middle-earth is a location, and is in no way an "official" name for the series. I would suggest "J. R. R. Tolkien" (a majority of his works take place in a single universe) or "J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle-Earth" or something, but "Middle-earth" on its own stands out in an uncomfortable way. Rickie-d (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The place to raise this issue is at the article that covers the "Middle-Earth" franchise. It doesn't make sense for this article to use a different name to the main franchise article on Wikipedia. As per WP:COMMONNAME the article about the franchise should use the name that is most commonly used to describe the franchise in English language sources; it's not an issue for this article, we just respect the name that Wikipedia chooses for the franchise, so if they call it Middle-earth that's what we call it, if they call it J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle-Earth then we will change our entry so it matches the name of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

gross update
Skyfall now,as of December 28,grossed $980,805,000, based from the website Box Office Mojo.

67.164.7.15 (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Ice Age: Continental Drift has now grossed $875,115,339, based on Box Office Mojo.

67.164.7.15 (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

error on number of movies with more than $1 billion
With the addition of Skyfall grossing over $1 billion, it should say that there are fourteen movies that grossed at least $1 billion.

67.164.7.15 (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The sky is falling
On the 50 highest earning flims it says that skyfall is 14	Highest earning flim of all time	at $1,000,200,000 But on highest earning flim seieres under James Bond under the Eon part under Daniel Craig bond it says Skyfall 	$997,105,000 One is worng. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.79.4 (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

✅ It seems that the series chart just wasn't updated, but it's been sorted out. Betty Logan (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Alivin and the chipmunks
The 4 flims in the seieres has earned $1,112,966,348 Sadly we have to wait for the 5th flim witch may put it their. That if they make a 5th one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.79.4 (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)