Talk:List of highest-grossing films/Archive 6

Superman Countdown
Box office report

The Superman franchise has grossed $889,412,997. Superman grossed $300,218,018. Superman II grossed $108,185,706. Superman III grossed $59,950,623. Supergirl grossed $14,296,438. Superman IV: The Quest for Peace grossed $15,681,020. Superman Returns grossed $391,081,192. The Die Hard franchise has grossed $1,435,086,362. Man of Steel must gross $545,673,365 in order to breach the top 25 franchises.

Man of Steel: $56,050,000 Difference: $489,623,365 (June 14th reporting) TBWarrior720 (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC) Man of Steel: $196,680,000 Difference: $348,993,365 (June 16th reporting) TBWarrior720 (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Man of Steel: $214,566,491 Difference: $331,106,874 (June 17th reporting) TBWarrior720 (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Man of Steel: $226,077,618 Difference: $319,595,747 (June 18th reporting) TBWarrior720 (talk) 23:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Man of Steel: $235,079,897 Difference: $310,593,468 (June 19th reporting) TBWarrior720 (talk) 08:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Man of Steel: $242,090,947 Difference: $303,582,418 (June 20th reporting) TBWarrior720 (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Man of Steel: $254,791,000 Difference: $290,882,365 (June 21th reporting) TBWarrior720 (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Man of Steel: $283,306,000 Difference: $262,367,365 (June 23 reporting) 69.110.106.23 (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Man of steel: $408,112,745 difference: $137,560,620 ( June 26 reporting) 77.98.167.114

Man of steel: $412,224,818 Difference: $133,448,547 ( June 27th reporting) 77.98.167.114 Man of steel: — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[Special:Contributions/77.98.167.114
 * 77.98.167.114]] (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Man of steel: $416,140,106 difference: $129,533,259  (June 28th reporting) 77.98.167.114

Man of steel: $520,277,598 difference: $25,395,767. (July 1th reporting) 77.98.167.114

Man of steel: $523,321,616 difference: $22,351,749 (July 2nd reporting) 77.98.167.114

Man of steel: $526,105,846 difference $19,567,519 (July 3rd reporting)  77.98.167.114

Man of steel: $528,466,000 difference $14,423,135 (July.4th reporting) 77.98.167.114

Man of steel: $531,476,000 difference: $11,413,135 (July 5th reporting) 77.98.167.114

Man of steel: $535,391,000 difference: $7,498,135 (July 6th reporting) 77.98.167.114

Do you think man of steel will make that much — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.240.59 (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It broke records it's opening weekend and has an 8.3 on IMDb. I am almost certain it will gross that much.TBWarrior720 (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

With the superman series now on the list will we do the same 4 the next planet of the apes flim out next year. 77.98.167.114

Superman
If we were to possibly include Superman what should be considered the first movie? maybe this one? Jhenderson 7 7 7  02:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess, if we could track down the box office figures, although I'm guessing it only did a couple of million at most. Betty Logan (talk) 08:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I was mainly questioning this because we decided to include the 1966 film of Batman. Also what about Spider-Man? Do you know what the gross of the 1977 film is? Jhenderson  7 7 7  13:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's unlikely the Spider-Man gross was tracked with it not being a US theatrical release; it was most likely sold outright to foreign broadcasters who decided to milk it by giving it a limited release, probably as a B-feature on another film. I doubt there's much hope on that one. In the case of Superman and the Mole Men, it's possible some old Variety issues have a record. Betty Logan (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Craig
The seris Iron man is now the 13 th highest grossing seris. I don't agree that it should count as its own seris because Daniel Craig James Bond Is a subseris of regular James Bond and acouding to how ur list is run should be the thirteenth highest grossing franicse. Iron man is a sub seris of marvel chenimatic univers and is included but James Bond is not. Please change the list to be more correct

Other seris that should be included Eon seris James Bond Prequal seris Star Wars Phase one of avengers The Lord of the rings The dark knight trilogily Shrek (excluding puss in boats) Original spider man seris Micheal bay transformers Pierce brosnan James Bond

Please take this into consideration — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.42.132 (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This is covered fully by the discussions at the top of the talk page (see Marvel/MCU/Iron Man questions). Betty Logan (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Yah but still how the hell is The Lord of the rings and middle earth any different than iron man and MCU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.42.132 (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Genres
Should we add highest grossing movie by genres. I.e Animated Toy story 3  $1,063,171,911 And manny more Inculed Action Chismas ( yes it is a genres) Comedy Comic book/superhero Court room Crime/gengster Disaster Documentary epic Fantasy Espionage And many more Genres — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Genres are fairly hard to pin down to specific things as the definitions of genres tend to blur.
 * Many films will draw on a number of genres, such as The Incredibles, which is probably considered to be a Superhero, Action, Family, Animated film. And arguments could then be made for Sci Fi, Comedy, or Adventure, or something...
 * And a lot of people have different opinions on what should be classified as a genre. For example, I wouldn't call "Animation" a genre, as it's a medium. We don't consider "Live Action" a genre, and we don't consider "hand-drawn" or "CGI" to be subgenres of animation, or different types of cameras, subgenres of live action films ("animation" not a genre rant over).
 * Box Office Mojo does have a Genre table, so we would essentially copy that. However, it is a fairly large table, and I don't think it contributes anything particularly to the article, so I don't think a genre table is the best idea... --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I had considered this once before, and it's a nice idea in principle, but in the end I decided it was impractical. It's just too subjective. With something like box office we have factual information that is either right or wrong: there may be discrepencies between sources (especially for older films) but those can be corroborated and quantified i.e. we know there is a correct number, the only real question is to what degree we achieve it. With genres it is entirely subjective: for instance, The British and American Film Institutes don't even recognize "superhero" as a genre (neither do the New York Times, Allmovie, Box Office Mojo or IMDB for that matter), but I'm pretty sure many editors do, so that's an edit war waiting to happen! Secondly, the sources don't even agree over which films belong which genres. For example, the BFI regards Superman 2 to be Science fiction/Fantasy, the AFI Adventure/Romance while Allmovie opt for Science fiction/Action while BOM goes with Action/Adventure. I agree with some more than others, but when there is so little agreement between sources it is difficult to pin down, and won't satisfy everyone. It might not be a bad idea for the actual genre pages though, where the editors who work on those pages can select what they think are the most relevant sources for that particular genre i.e. a horror almanac for horror, a science fiction encyclopedia for science fiction etc. Betty Logan (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with ProfessorKilroy and Betty Logan. If you want to add a list of top-five horror films to the horror films genre page, or the top-five comedy films to the comedy films genre page, that'd be fine by me, but I don't think such delineations should be made here, for as Kilroy said, "definitions of genres tend to blur."  (As an aside, I recall that, some years back, the Academy Awards made a little montage to celebrate the genre of horror.  The montage included Jaws, which I consider an action thriller; Beetlejuice, which I consider a comedy; Twilight, which I consider to be romantic fantasy; Edward Scissorhands, which I consider romantic science fiction; and Silence of the Lambs, which I consider to be a crime thriller.  In order to avoid having these sorts of debates on this page, and in order to keep such debates on the talk pages of the respective genres, I would urge that 77.98.167.114's suggestion not be adopted.)  Allixpeeke (talk) 02:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggest that, instead of adjusting, we should just mention which genres used to gross the most. Of the top 100 films, there are at least 18 Fantasy movies, 10 sci-fi movies and 8 superhero movies; by contrast, there's only a single spy film and two disaster films. Similarily, in the "films by year" list, there's not a single "realist" film since Mission: Impossible II, and since 1990, only three top films (Die Hard 3, Titanic and MI2) weren't some sort of science ficiton, superhero fiction, fantasy or fairy tale. Sure, there's a lot of articles on the trend that can serve as sources.Beaumain (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Highest-grossing films adjusted for inflation vs High-grossing films by year
Hi - bit confused by one thing. The sub-section Highest-grossing films adjusted for inflation seems at first glance to contradict the subsection High-grossing films by year. Highest-grossing films adjusted for inflation lists in position 1 Gone with the Wind (1939) which originally earned $393,400,000–400,176,459 ($32,000,000) which was adjusted to $3,301,400,000 inc inflation. Position 10 is Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) which originally earned $416,316,184 ($8,500,000) which was adjusted to $1,746,100,000 inc inflation. Now I've read the notes regarding the High-grossing films by year from these two films and I understand that there are difficulties in both the original figures and updating for inflation - but I think there needs to some explanation for how (approx figures in this bit) $416m in 1937 becoming $1,746m now when $400m in 1939 (two years less for compound interest) has become $3,301m now. That's seems so off base that I just can't credit it without a decent explanation.

Different topic but not worth its own section - in Highest-grossing franchises and film series, shouldn't the section Tolkien's Middle-Earth be green right now? 92.21.70.45 (talk) 00:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The totals for those films are the amount the films have earned over all of their releases. Gone with the Wind earned a lot more of its money in its initial release, while Snow White earned a lot more of its money in later re-releases.  You can get a sense of that from the highest grosses by year table, since it lists Gone with the Wind as earning $32,000,000 (distributor rental) in its initial release, while Snow White earned $8,500,000 (distributor rental) in its initial release.  Box Office Mojo has numbers broken out by separate release (which I think are just for US releases, and I think aren't distributor rentals, hence why they are different than what is in the table here).  It lists Gone with the Wind as earning $189 million in its initial 1939 release, while Snow White earned $66 million in its 1937 release (and later earned another $118 million from re-releases in the 1980's and 1990's (see  and ).  Gone with the Wind has a much higher total adjusted for inflation since so much more of its gross is being adjusted from the 1930's instead of from later releases (though I would guess that the $189 million for Gone with the Wind isn't actually all from 1939, but instead over the course of a number of years where there isn't data on each separate release . . . I'm not really sure how that is handled in the adjusted numbers). Calathan (talk) 02:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There is not much to add to Calathan's explanation. In short only the overall totals are known in most cases and many films prior to the 1980s had reissues. This obviously has an impact on inflation. For example, Gone with the Wind has grossed about 200 million at the US box office, but it made 150 million of that prior to 1970; Snow White has earned roughly the same, but had only grossed around 76 million up to the same year (half the amount of GWTW). Even though Snow White eventually earned more overall, GWTW made much more much earlier so its gross is inflated more than Snow White's. I don't have the full breakdowns for either film, but I checked GWTW myself using educated guesswork by extrapolating the foreign figure from the US figures and my total came to 3.6 billion, so the Guinness numbers look reasonable to me. BOM unfortunately don't provide breakdowns unfortunately so their figures are a bit misleading: by converting the distributor rentals GWTW made 36 mil in the US and Snow White made about 15 million, and you can double those to get the rough worldwide figure. Box Office Mojo don't seem to do actual inflation: they estimate ticket sales and multiply that figure by the current average ticket price. As for Tolkien's Middle-Earth, I'm assuming The Hobbit has closed now and the entry will go green when the next one comes out. Betty Logan (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha. I will just just say that for reasons I don't know, The Hobbit is still showing at my local in the UK - but I do accept not at many others. What is the exact criteria for the greening? It says "Background shading indicates that at least one film in the series is playing in the week commencing 28 June 2013 in theaters around the world." but certainly in the UK, the smaller cinemas get later and show longer. If this does happen in other countries I would say this does fit the dictionary definition of the stated criteria. 92.21.70.45 (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We should probably alter the wording really. Basically Box Office Mojo which we use as the source for the charts indicate whether a film is in general release or has closed, so when it closes we remove the highlighting because it means they are no longer tracking it. It's just there to tell readers the gross is still being updated and to remind editors to update it. Betty Logan (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Series single ranking.
For example.

11	[hide]Ice Age	$2,802,576,893	4	$700,644,223	Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs ($886,686,817)

1	Dawn of the Dinosaurs	$886,686,817 29th

2	Continental Drift	$877,244,782 31th

3	The Meltdown	$655,388,158 63rd

4	Ice Age	$383,257,136       183rd

[|77.98.167.114]


 * Good luck in tracking down the world ranking for Dr No! Betty Logan (talk) 03:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Superman has beaten Die Hard
Superman should be on this list now.68.238.78.137 (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

✅ Betty Logan (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

M.O.S
Should man of steel be above the orange series — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 10:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Consistency
Can I suggest that all references to films are consistently stated as 'adjusted for inflation' or 'not adjusted for inflation' For example the photo reference for Avatar (photo of James Cameron) is inconsistent with other photo references (Gone with the Wind) where adjustments for inflation are mentioned. While the article rightly has a section on adjustments for inflation it is important to make sure that such a criticism of the gross unadjusted figures is even handedly placed throughout the article. There seems to be enough references in articles (such as the Economist one) and website (Box Office Mojo) to warrant this. Further to this point I think the table for 'adjusted for inflation' films should be expanded (a little) to maybe 25 in the list. It looks at though it is either an after thought or there is not enough data to give a more comprehensive list (Box Office Mojo lists 200 - US figures) Futhermore I think the series / franchise list should have an accompanying table for the adjusted figures. This is clearly shown in the Economist article and should be included in the article for balance. I have not edited the article directly because there seems to have been a lot of good work done on this article since I last viewed it (a year or so ago)so would appreciate feedback on what I think will be improvementsRobynthehode (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There is only one adjusted chart in the article, so we just state in the lede that all figures are nominal except where stated. Unfortunately we can't expand the adjusted chart because Guinness itself restricted their chart to ten films. A similar problem exists for the franchise chart: there is no recent chart that ranks franchises by adjusted gross, with The Economist chart already badly out of date. I thought about just updating The Economist chart myself but unfortunately they don't mention which inflation index they used. Betty Logan (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Superrix
Superman has made more monny than the matrix. Please correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Curiosity
In the movie the avengers originally they were going to include oscorp tower ( which is a building in the amazing spider man) into the New York skyline. If they did would the amazing spider man be included into the marvel chenimatic universe area in the franchises list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.224.139 (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

No it not part of MCU.

Spider-Man Ghost rider X - Man etc. Are not part of MCU.

The Flims are those. [|MCU]

77.98.167.114|77.98.167.114 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You'd be better off asking at Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe. Betty Logan (talk) 05:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Budget
As we got a budget for [|Highest grossing films by year]. Can we add budget for Highest-grossing films Timeline_of_highest-grossing_films http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films#Highest-grossing_franchises_and_film_series — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * All the budgets are included in the year chart so it would be a bit redundant to replicate them in the timeline, and I'm not sure it would add anything to it. That said I'm not dead set against it either. Betty Logan (talk) 05:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Batman vs. Superman
I know this is way far out but I'm really interested how we will handle this. Because it's going to gross $1.2b MINIMUM. Do we add it to both Superman and Batman's grosses? And make a new DC Cinematic Universe section including Man of Steel, since they will take place in the same continuity? Suzuku (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It will probably be handled the same way that Iron man is handled. Man of Steel will have an entry under the Superman franchise, and there will be a "cinematic universe" series entry which it will also belong to. The Batman vs Superman film won't be added to either the Superman or Batman franchise since it is a crossover of both franchises, but will come under the "cinematic universe". Betty Logan (talk) 05:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Reason why I asked if it will be put under them is because it's been stated as the sequel to Man of Steel, not just a spin off or crossover, just with Batman in it. And of course it serves as a reboot for Batman as well. So honestly I think it would be appropriate to place it under both franchises, or at the very least Superman's. Suzuku (talk) 05:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The Wolverine!!!!!!
Um, Hello?!?! Is anyone even editing this page anymore? The Wolverine came out three days ago and has grossed 21 million. It's not even in the X-Men section!TBWarrior720 (talk) 01:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The Wolverine scored $141.1 million this weekend. X-Men should be in 16th place. When can I get the right to edit this page? Because it's obvious to me that nobody else wants to. TBWarrior720 (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've added in. Don't worry about it, chart updates are often left until after the weekend so we can get the full weekend figures. Betty Logan (talk) 04:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry Betty. I just freaked out a bit. 2602:306:BD7B:9D00:E0A9:B9F0:2363:69F4 (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Smaller and bigger.
I got I ideal.

Can we short down the highest grossing movies to top 25.

And increased Highest-grossing films adjusted for inflation to top 25.

? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Personally I would support reducing the top chart to 25 films, but there are also editors who would prefer to see it extended to 100. I don't think there will ever be an agreement on this, so I think we're stuck with a top 50. I would also support extending the inflation list, but the problem is Guinness only published a list of ten films. Betty Logan (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

New film in the top 50
Fast and Furious 6 is now ranked 49th. (How often do you edit the top 50 highest-grossing films by the way?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.104.137 (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The LegO movie
Next year the lego movie will be release. With batman Superman Green Lantern And Wonder Woman

Will this go in the DCU section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Well first off, DCU doesn't really have a section yet, the only movie they have released is Man of Steel. If it is anything like MCU, it all has to do with weather or not it is a shared universe (something tells me that it won't be). But, it ultimately depends on what box office mojo says about it. TBWarrior720 (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Inflation Discussion
I feel that the section that discusses inflation leans too favorable towards older films. I agree that Gone With the Wind would be the highest grossing film of all time had the tickets cost then what they do now. There are many other factors that I feel should be mentioned in this article to explain why less people buy tickets to see movies today than they did in 1939. Some of these include: TV Home Video Netflix Redbox Illegal downloading of movies

Also there are many other options in entertainment these days such as video games and internet. There is quicker spread of film reviews from critic and fans. Back in 1939 you saw the good and the bad movies because you had nobody telling you not to.

I feel that these things could make up a lot of the difference in inflation. Obviously not all of it, but it should at least warrent a mention somewhere in the article.

My point is that who's to say that Gone With the Wind was more of a cultural phenomenon than Avatar or Titanic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joross73 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This list isn't an article, it's a list. We present sets of data and introduce it. In this particular case the Guinness figures only consider inflation so we introduce that concept to the reader to help them understand the Guinness figures. There are many other factors that affect the changing landscape of box office earnings over time (availability in different mediums/foreign market growth/ticket buying trends/population growth/internal and external market competition) but none of these are taken into account by the dataset, so would not be relevant to our introduction of the data. Betty Logan (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Exorcist is first movie to gross more than the Godfather
Ram nareshji (talk) pls add this in "Timeline of the highest-grossing film record" Godfather movie collection was first break by the Exorcist 1973 before Jaws 1975 —Preceding undated comment added 15:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No, that isn't correct. Jaws took the record from The Godfather. The Exorcist wasn't even the highest gropssing film of 1973, finishing in second place behind The Sting. The Exorcist didn't overtake The Godfather until its re-release in 1979, but The Godfather had been overtaken by both Jaws and Star Wars by then. Betty Logan (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Ram nareshji (talk) Exorcist in 1973 grossed $193,000,000 without considering 1979 re-release but Sting just grossed $159,616,327 so Exorcist 1973 will be first movie to gross more than Godfather before jaws 1975 did. —Preceding undated comment added 15:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should link to your source so we can compare the figures. Don't forget the timeline uses distributor rentals, not the exhibition gross. Betty Logan (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

see in this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_in_film you can clearly figure out that Exorcist 1973 is first movie to gross more than the Godfather before Jaws 1975 did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ram nareshji (talk • contribs) 08:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's chart is only for US grosses, and our list covers worldwide earnings. Our source for the timeline states that as of 1974 the top 4 films were The Godfather, Gone with the Wind, The Sound of Music and then The Exorcist: . Betty Logan (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Lord of the iron.
As we got iron man *2 Under MCU. And under Iron Man.

Could we list Lord of the rings as it own series.

To see how later this/Next week  I will make a mock version of this ad version 5. ( early this week I added version 3 & 4). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Unlike Iron Man, Lord of the Rings isn't a franchise in its own right because Tolkien wrote it as a straight sequel to The Hobbit. Betty Logan (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Highest-grossing franchises and film series

 * Tolkien's Middle-Earth

I've no problem with Peter Jackson's six Middle Earth films being listed together, as they are indeed all part of the same cinematic series. But the animated films from the '70s and '80s should not be included, as they are not part of that same cinematic universe.


 * Batman

I see that, according to the chart, there are allegedly nine Batman films in a single series. In actual fact, the chart is wrong.

The Burton/Schumacher series included four films. The Nolan series contained three. The 1966 Batman film was neither part of the Burton/Schumacher series nor of the Nolan series. None of these separate series should be grouped together, as they are not part of the same cinematic universe.


 * Spider-Man

The three Spider-Man films directed by Sam Raimi are a completely separate film series from the Amazing Spider-Man series being directed by Marc Webb. These separate film series should not be grouped together, as they are not part of the same cinematic universe.


 * Iron Man

There is no reason to list Iron Man twice. It's already listed as part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, as it should be. To list it as part of the seven Marvel Cinematic Universe films and as its own separate film series implies that it is somehow both part of the Marvel cinematic universe and, at the same time, part of its own, separate, independent, utterly unique universe. Obviously, that violates the law of noncontradiction. Either it's part of its own, separate, independent, utterly unique universe (which it obviously is not), or it's part of the broader Marvel Cinematic Universe (which it obviously is). Iron Man should not get its own slot because it is already part of a broader cinematic universe.


 * Superman

Although this is not an issue yet, I wish to make it clear in advance that the Man of Steel series that is soon set to begin is not part of the same Superman series that began in the '70s. They will not be part of the same cinematic universe.

But, if the decision is ultimately made to put the new Man of Steel in the same universe as other DC Comic characters, a veritable DC equivalent to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, then Man of Steel should not be given its own special Man of Steel section, but should instead be included in the yet-to-be-created DC Cinematic Universe category. After all, neither Man of Steel nor Iron Man should be counted twice.

allixpeeke (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The chart adopts a franchise view rather than a series view i.e. all the Batman properties, all the Spider-Man films, all the James Bond films etc. You can view the internal series divisions by clicking "show" and expanding the entries. Iron Man/MCU is a special case, and is covered in detail above. Betty Logan (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Jesus Christ. We've already had this discussion like ten times.  Scroll up, Allixpeeke.  Scroll up! TBWarrior720 (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * So, because you have already had this discussion, nobody else is allowed to weigh in and express an opinion? I hope that's not what you intended to say.
 * You say, "Scroll up, Allixpeeke." Everything I skimmed above before writing what I wrote seemed to dissect just certain series, such as focusing simply on Iron Man, etc.  I wanted to make a contention about the entire section.  The mistake others have made is not seeing the problem as encompassing the entire section, thinking instead that the problem extents only to certain series within the section.  But what applies to one series applies to them all, methinks.  Thus, I decided to start this topic about the entire section.
 * Respectfully yours,
 * allixpeeke (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I just want to express my opinion that I like the way the chart is currently organized, and would not like to see it changed in the way Allixpeeke suggests. I think it is good how it currently allows you to view larger franchises (such as all Batman films) and individual series within those franchises (such as the Nolan batman films).  Calathan (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * In light of Calathan's comment, how about a compromise, wherein we (A) change the name of the "Highest-grossing franchises and film series" section to "Highest-grossing franchises" and otherwise leave that section exactly as it is, and then (B) create a new section just below the "Highest-grossing franchises" section, called "Highest-grossing film series," wherein the chart is set up generally how I described above, focusing on cinematic universes rather than mere character names (thereby clearly differentiating Burton's Joker from Nolan's Joker from the 1966 Joker). (In the case of Star Trek, it would be a cinematic multiverse instead of a cinematic universe, of course.)
 * I set up a temporary sandbox here to demonstrate how I think this would look.
 * I think this is a reasonable compromise. After all, by separating franchises from series, neither the-people-coming-to-this-page-to-learn-about-franchise-rankings nor the-people-coming-to-this-page-to-learn-about-series-rankings would discover, to their disappointment, that the information they seek is not readily available.  This way, a person like Calathan who wishes to learn the rankings of franchises could see immediately that movies-with-Bruce-Wayne-in-them have made more money than movies-with-Indiana-Jones-in-them, while I, not caring at all about franchises generally, would be able to see immediately that while the Nolan Dark Knight series ranked higher than the Indiana Jones series, the Burton/Schumacher Batman series ranked lower than the Indiana Jones series.
 * Do we all agree that this is a reasonable compromise?
 * Best regards,
 * allixpeeke (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's Vote
On 18 June 2013 (see immediately above), I made a compromise proposal, one I think everyone can get behind.

The counter-proposal was that we include a section for highest-grossing franchises and one for highest-grossing series.

I created this temporary sandbox in order to create two possible mock-ups, labelled Version 1.0 and Version 2.0.

I've encountered no dissension for my compromise proposal, and I think it would be wise of us to vote. (Please review the aforementioned temporary sandbox before voting. If you wish to add a Version 3.0 to the temporary sandbox, feel free; but please do not remove Versions 1.0 or 2.0.)  Allixpeeke (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Version [|3]& Version 4 are now listed. [|Version 5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 08:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Adopt the proposal —  Reasons:  This proposal makes it easier for everyone, not just the people (e.g., me) who wish to search through film series based on profitability, but also for people (e.g., Calathan) who wish to search through film franchises based on profitability.  This compromise proposal will make Wikipedia a more-valuable resource for users, and it takes absolutely nothing away from anyone. Allixpeeke (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The versions you are proposing contain a lot of redundant information, since most high-grossing series are identical to franchises and those that aren't will generally be listed as subsections under the franchises in the franchise chart. I do not think there are many other people who actually want the series list, so my opinion is that it would clutter up the article while only providing something that is useful to a very small number of people (obviously, if a lot of other people come here and vote for it, then I'll be proven wrong on this).  I also don't understand why you say this would make things easier for everyone (including people like me) . . . the version I want is already there, so how does adding a different version make things easier for me?  In addition, the highest grossing franchise table is already basically an addendum to the main article which is primarily about highest grossing individual films.  While I've expressed the opinion in the past that I like the franchise chart in this article, I don't think that section should be allowed to grow so large that it represents a large portion of this article.  If there is a need to have multiple versions of that chart, then I think having one version in this article and any alternative versions in separate articles would be preferable to having multiple versions in this article. Calathan (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * [(1) Calathan asks, "[H]ow does adding a different version make things easier for me?" I originally meant that my compromise counter-proposal makes everything easier on everyone, including you, than my original proposal.  Recall that my original proposal was to merely replace the franchise list with a series list.  Although I respect your desire to have a franchise list, I personally would prefer a series list over a franchise list, and I'd suspected that only a very small number of people would prefer the franchise list to the series list, which is why I made the initial proposal to solely focuses on series on the list.  But, that proposal would make things less easy on you and Betty Logan, so I made the new, current proposal as a compromise, one that would make things easier on everyone. (2) Calathan proposes that, if my current proposal is adopted, a separate article might be created to contain the various lists.  I have no objection to this idea. Allixpeeke (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)]


 * Oppose I oppose on the grounds that the chart we have now is the compromise version, between those who wanted to rank franchises and those who wanted to rank series. The top-down collapsible approach provides both views: you can see how much the Batman franchise has grossed as a whole and by expanding the entry, the franchise is divided into series groupings for those readers who want to see how much The Dark Knight trilogy has made. A two-chart approach was nixed in the original discussions simply because a second chart would be largely redundant, essentially providing much of the same data on an already very large article. If you wish to explicitly provide this data through hard groupings, I would suggest adding your prototype chart to Film series which I feel would be a more appropriate home for it since it is actually dedicated to the topic. Betty Logan (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Over 40
Over 40 series has supper pass $1 billion worwide not 30 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

What?Ordinary Person (talk) 06:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Error
On Highest-grossing_animated_franchises_and_film_series under Cars (franchise). It dose not have the box offie rusuilts for Planes Which it dose under [office performance] Please sort it out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Resolve (talk) 17:43 24 August —Preceding undated comment added 16:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

On box office mojo it says 17 films has made more than $1 billion. And that film is Jurassic park — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 09:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Billion park
On box office mojo it says 17 films has made more than $1 billion. And that film is Jurassic park — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Genis ideA
You should have highest grossing series adjusted for inflaction I saw another page with it and it was really cool — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.193.85 (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We would if we could, but the only source we have is The Economist one and it's a bit outdated now. We could update it ourselves if we knew the methodology, but unfortunately they don't provide it. Betty Logan (talk) 10:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Series with highest aver
On the page it said this "At constant prices the live-action Star Wars films are also the most consistent performers, earning on average more per film than any other series,[25] while Peter Jackson's Middle-Earth series is the nominal record-holder, averaging at about $980 million with each film earning in excess of $870" But including star Wars: The Clone Wars in the Star Wars series &  The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) in middle earth. The amount goes down. And a number of series in the top 25 along with  iron man, spider man, Pirates of the Caribbean,Harry potter  as well as a number of series outside the top 25 And out side the top 25 there  the lion king, So what has the highest grossing on average. What is the seieres with the best average? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The language was a bit confusing so I have clarified it. Harry Potter is the most consistent franchise and the Peter Jackson Middle Earth films the most consistent series (since the animated film is part of the franchsie but not part of the live-action series). Betty Logan (talk) 10:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Top cinema
Top gun still in cinema — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 09:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you got a source? Box Office Mojo says it was only in release for two weeks, and the gross doesn't seem to have changed. Betty Logan (talk) 10:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Quick Q
What series minus the budget has made the most. What single film minus the budget has made the most. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Year of release should be mentioned in the section "Highest-grossing franchises and film series"
Since franchises often span multiple decades like the Indiana Jones film series, I think mentioning the year of release is relevant beside the individual film name and the individual movie gross. Example, for the terminator series, The terminator grossed less than $80 million while Judgement Day grossed above $500 million, and Terminator Salvation grossed less than $400 million.

What I am suggesting is making the page look like this:
25	Terminator	$1,402,938,658	4	$350,734,665	Terminator 2: Judgment Day ($519,843,345)

1	2: Judgment Day (1991)	         	        $519,843,345

2	3: Rise of the Machines (2003)	     	        $433,371,112

3	Terminator Salvation	 (2009)        	        $371,353,001

4	The Terminator	 (1984)        	                $78,371,200

instead of this:
25	Terminator	$1,402,938,658	4	$350,734,665	Terminator 2: Judgment Day ($519,843,345)

1	2: Judgment Day				$519,843,345

2	3: Rise of the Machines			$433,371,112

3	Terminator Salvation				$371,353,001

4	The Terminator					$78,371,200


 * Yes, i think it's a good idea ! Boxofficegeek (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't mind either way. Betty Logan (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. -  thewolfchild   01:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I concur. Allixpeeke (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, i will start with Harry Potter and James Bond ! Boxofficegeek (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Will this do
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jakel11/the-highest-grossing-movie-franchises — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 09:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting find. Unfortunately though, it leaves out animated franchises. For example, if you compare it to The Economist you will see that the Shrek franchise has made a similar amount to the Pirates of the Caribbean films once you add in the gross from Puss in Boots (which came out shortly after that chart was published). Similarly, Buzzfeed doesn't include Toy Story, Ice Age etc, so it's not a complete chart. Also, the Buzzfeed chart has an extra 2 billion for Star Wars and reading their methodology I don't think they allowed for the fact that a lot of the gross came from reissues. Betty Logan (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

On
BOM has JP @  $1,023,553,882  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Fast & out
On BOM t says fast & furious 6 is no longer in cinema. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 08:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Jurrsic up
JP @ 1,029,153,882 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Box offie king
Is the lion king back in cinema on BOM & highest groing movie it say it @ $962 million. But on Highest grossing amited film it says it $952 million — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 07:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Rowling's Wizarding World
J.K. Rowling's world of wizardry is coming back to the big screen — but without Harry Potter. The new main character will be Newt Scamander. 

JK Rowling says, "Although it will be set in the worldwide community of witches and wizards where I was so happy for 17 years, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is neither a prequel nor a sequel to the Harry Potter series, but an extension of the wizarding world" Hp33 (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This isn't the place for movie news. Unless you're discussing how it should be tackled in the franchises table. If so, I expect we'll treat it just like Shrek, or any franchise with a spin-off film. But either way, it's just been announced that Rowling's writing the screenplay, so it's a long way away. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we will have something similar to Tolkien's Middle-Earth:   Hp33 (talk) 13:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * However, unlike "Middle Earth", "World of Wizardry" or "Wizarding World" aren't official titles for the series or universe. And we don't know that there will be more than one Fantastic Beasts film at this stage. The movie won't happen until 2015 at the earliest, but probably later. It's really just too early to know what we're dealing with here. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Man of franchise
On BOM it says man of steel is no longer in cinema. so the series have finish 22nd (maybe). So are we reducing. Or stil stay 25. Or incresend it.

I think we should vote on it or @ lesat talk about.

I vote 2 make it top 30. Any more ideal or do you agree. Please say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Iron out
Iron Man is out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 10:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Franchise are still green.
The movies in those franchises are done, but those franchises are still highlighted in green. Can you unhighlight them? It's Marvel, Iron Man, Star Trek, and Superman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.108.5 (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

To infinity and beyond
Toy story 2 is listed 2 times As

19	[hide]Toy Story	$1,948,143,626	3	$649,381,209	Toy Story 3 ($1,063,171,911)

1	Toy Story 3 (2010)	$1,063,171,911

2	Toy Story 2 (1999)	$485,015,179

3	Toy Story (1995)	$361,958,736

4	Toy Story/Toy Story 2 (3D)	$32,284,600

5	Toy Story 2 (3D)	$5,713,200

Should it be

1	Toy Story 3 (2010)	$1,063,171,911

2	Toy Story 2 (1999)	$ 490,728,379

3	Toy Story (1995)	$361,958,736

4	Toy Story/Toy Story 2 (3D)	$32,284,600 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Rereleases
Should we handle rereleases of movies as part of the income? For example, we have Titanic with $2billion, but we didn't count the rereleases of The Dark Knight before Rises was released? Rereleases aren't supposed to affect the original film, but for some reason, the income is adjusted for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.63.51.49 (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, income from re-releases counts towards the totals. The Dark Knight total also includes the gross from reissues. Betty Logan (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Just thought we need to rewrite about animated films
CGIAnimated family films have performed consistently well, with Disney films enjoying lucrative re-releases prior to the home video era. Disney enjoyed later success with its Pixar brand, of which the Toy Story films and Finding Nemo have been the best performers; beyond Pixar animation, the Shrek, Ice Age, Madagascar and Despicable Me series have met with the most success. Beyond CGI, Traditional animation film form disney have done well Lion King, Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast And anime, Pokemon aswell as Stop-motion with the Aardman Animations Wallace & gromit, chicken run. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Since none of those films—other than the Lion King—are among the highest grossing films then it's simply not relevant to the article. Betty Logan (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The king
Lion king upto $987,483,777  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 09:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Madagascar Franchise
Madagascar 3 grossed over $746 million. Put that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.104.135 (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you not seeing the message? Madagascar 3 has over $746 dollars. Please edit that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.108.221 (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Man, SuperMan
Is superman retern part of the frist series of superman. I find this of superman rertens "he film serves as an homage sequel to the motion pictures Superman (1978) and Superman II (1980), ignoring the events of Superman III (1983) and Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987)"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Different studio, different producers, different actors, so not really even though it continues on from Superman 2. Betty Logan (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Rereleases
Should we inculding Rereleases years aswell

I.e Jurassic Park	$1,029,153,882	1993 (2011)  (2013)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it would be overkill. Unless you are going to document the box office from each release it wouldn't really tell the reader that much. Betty Logan (talk) 03:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Eeor man
Something has happen with x man series can someone fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 08:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Fixed in [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_highest-grossing_films&diff=579735716&oldid=579665890#Highest-grossing_franchises_and_film_series]. A template parameter didn't permit commas. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The averges king
The is a wrong prit on the page. It said "In nominal terms, Harry Potter is also the most consistent franchise, averaging at around $965 million with each film earning in excess of $790 million" but it not. It got $965 million per film. But their one with even more. The lion king franchises got a outstanding amounted of $987,483,777	 per film. About $22 million more. So please chance this so it right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 10:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The Lion King is not a franchise; there is only one theatrical film. And if you include the two video sequels then the average comes down to $330 million. Betty Logan (talk) 11:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

77.98.167.114
Attention 77.98.167.114, can you please just create an account. It is really annoying to see your unsigned comments followed by your damn IP address. It's really easy and it takes like two minutes. TBWarrior720 (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thor: The Dark World has begun grossing
Thor: The Dark World has grossed $45,200,000. As you can see here TBWarrior720 (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It has now made $109,400,000. TBWarrior720 (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I see that that is already up there. Anyway, it should say 8 movies and not 7 though.

Finding Nemo gross
Finding Nemo grossed $936,743,261. Someone put that there please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.108.89 (talk) 05:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

50 movies?
Is there any reason why 50 movies is chosen as the highest-grossing films? I feel that I am welcome for a bit more personally. Jhenderson 7 7 7  14:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 50 is the "status quo" number. Some editors want to put it up to 100, and some editors would rather restrict it to films that have made $1 billion. I think it's probably best left as it is since it's already a big list and I don't think there is that much value in knowing what the 70th highest-grossing film is. After all, we are documenting the highest grossing films. Seven of the top 10 were the highest-grossing of the year, 14 out of the top 20 were top grossers, 15 out of the top 25, 17 out of the top 30, 18 out of the top 40, and 20 out of the top 50. Once you go beyond 40 the majority of the films aren't the highest-grossing of anything. Betty Logan (talk) 14:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand what you mean. I also do like the one million dollar idea too. I just am afraid that movies that I do like being put in the list like Spider-Man 2 and Star Wars etc. is going to be excluded over new films making more jut because it's only 50 movies. Each year it seems easier and easier for that to happen.  Jhenderson  7 7 7  19:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The top list has a lot of mobility due to inflation. That's why I prefer the year chart and the timeline: the films that actually come out on top will always be on the list. Star Wars will eventually drop off the top chart whether it is 50 films, 100, or even 1000, but it will still be on the list in some form because of the records it set. I wouldn't rule it out of cracking the $1 billion either, since I think a 3D release should bag the 200 mil or so it needs. Betty Logan (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah I got you. It's going to have to be a loss though. After Thor 2 or Hobbit 2 comes out. I am sure that there will be new faces in the list. With there being so many films on a billion dollars. I still don't think that billion dollar idea is a bad idea myself. Jhenderson  7 7 7  17:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I I think we should only put films part of the $1 billion doller culb (or in other words had made $1 billion or more if that what u talking about.== 77.98.167.114 == — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Planes
Planes which is part of the cars series (which sand @ 1.2 billon) if planes makes cars 1.3 billion can we make it the top 30. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 08:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * First of all, I doubt that Planes could get another $60 million to get the Cars series to $1.3 billion, and second, I already debated that problem on my comment right above yours


 * Even though from different studios from Disney. Planes is a spin-off no matter how you look at it. I doubt that the spinoff made enough to make it top 25 though. Jhenderson  7 7 7  03:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Top 30 Series
As I saw here on the Talk section, the top 25 series won't extend to 30 because of some missing data from some series and the only series that can get on the list would need to have over 1.3 billion $. So when (not if), when The Hunger Games series will make over $1.3 billion, I think there is no reason why they should not extend the list to 30 because, besides THG series, there are 4 more correct series and the continuation of the list will look like this:

26.Despicable Me   $1,454,889,985 27.Die Hard        $1,432,061,296 28.The Terminator  $1,402,938,658 29.Monsters, Inc.  $1,305,724,667 30.The Hunger Games $1,300,000,000+


 * The Hunger Games will probably be in the top 25 (I am thinking after the third movie). No problem. 30 will probably make sense in the future since 25 is a bit of a odd number for a list but I am not sure we are ready for it now. We are still probably unsure if some franchises belong on there (like Rocky) among other problems. Anyways I am awaiting Betty Logan's late responses lol. The real moderator in this page IMO. Jhenderson  7 7 7  19:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ideally we would chart all the "billion dollar" franchises, but there is currently too much missing data outside of the 25. Planet of the Apes probably lies outside of the top 30 now, but Rocky would be in there most likely, and there are discrepencies over Alien too (some figures but the BO at 1.2b and others 1.4b). I don't think the chart especially needs to be over 25, but if we can add accurate data to it then I don't mind extending it some point in the future. Betty Logan (talk) 02:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

25 is such a perfect number though. 5 x 5 is way better than 2 x 3 x 5. I'm not sure I'm ready for such a big change in my life. TBWarrior720 (talk) 06:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

God of thunder
Thor 2 is just under $480 million the Thor series is just over $900 million.

If Thor 2 push the Thor series to $1.3 billion could we have top 30? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The Hobbit
I assume that your gonna put The Hobbit in the Top 25 film series, like you did with Iron Man and MCU series, after the second film The Desolation of Smaug hits $600 million thus making the series over $1.6 billion — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCF94 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware The Hobbit and LOTR don't have separate franchise licenses unlike the Marvel properties because LOTR was created as a direct sequel to The Hobbit. It mainly depends on what BOM do though. Betty Logan (talk) 03:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thor into top 30
If we do put top 30. And if Thor make 1.3 billion we can. The 1st film gross = $449,326,618 So it needs about $850 million

As of 23/11/13 $959,304,618. To go utill 1.3 billion $340,695,382 As of 24/11/13 $959,304,618. To go $340,699,382 As of 25/11/13 $301,836,382 to go utill $1.3 billion As of 28/11/13  $298,454,097 to go to $1.3 billion As of 29/11/13. $256,111,382 to go to $1.3 billion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The huger games: huger for top30
To go to to 30 $474,252,232 as of 23/11/13 $301,027,232 as /25/11/13 $275,795,861 as of 28/11/13 255,096,232 as of 29/11/13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Never a Top 30 Series
I tryed for a few weeks now to convince you to extend the top series to 30 but after reading your replies and after doing a little bit more research, I gone to the conclusion that it will never be a top 30 and possible the top 25 will be gone after what I'm about to say now. So, some series (Rocky, Alien, Planet of the Apes) are some series that have missing data, therefor it can't be a top 30, for now at least, Rocky series isn't really a trouble because the Wiki page of the series found an old article about the first 3 films (those considered incomplete), for PotA I hardly doubt that it has more than $1.3 billion, give or take, BUT a new instalment will be out next year and also a possible new trilogy as I heard, as for the Alien or Alien vs Predator series, the BOM says it has over $1.2 billion and The Numbers says $1.4, we know that a Prometheus 2 film will be out and possible some new instalments. After all this I can safely say that because of those 2 series that can't be a top 30, and if there will be no future block buster series I think that it can afect the top 25 also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCF94 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

==The Hunger Games 2

The huger games has made $1.3 billion

It joins

Monster inc, The Terminator Die Hard Despicable Me The Chronicles of Narnia The Matrix Men in Black Superman Madagascar Star Trek Toy Story Indiana Jones Jurassic Park Mission: Impossible X-Men The Fast and the Furious Iron Man Transformers Ice Age Spider-Man The Twilight Saga Shrek Batman Pirates of the Caribbean Middle-earth Star Wars Marvel Cinematic Universe James Bond Harry Potter

In the top 30

James Bond
Hi

Should Never Say Never Again and Casino Royale(1967) be under the James Bond title as they are not official James Bond films? Or do you put films in franchises that aren't officially part of it the franchise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RD1988 (talk • contribs)19:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Casino Royale and Never Say Never Again are both official adaptations: Casino Royale (67) is still based on the Fleming book even though it's a comedy, and Never Say Never Again is based on Thunderball. Betty Logan (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes but they are not made by EON, but you still count them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RD1988 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * A James Bond film is a James Bond film at the end of the day. We count all of them regardless of who they are made by. Betty Logan (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * If you click "show" at James Bond then you get separate numbers for the Eon series, Never Say Never Again and Casino Royale (1967). PrimeHunter (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Cool my son wanted to know. Do you like James Bond? Eyua (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding The Lego Movie
Will this count as a Batman and Superman movie within the gross of the franchises? Jhenderson 7 7 7  00:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't a clue, we'll have to see if BOM counts it. I would say it's a cross-franchise film so probably shouldn't be allocated to any single franchise, but it's such a strange film who knows how it will be handled. Betty Logan (talk) 11:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Additional related comments
I think u should handle the lego movie as it's own movie and not as some other seris. Because it is the lego movie, part of the lego seris. It just happens that dc characters are in it that doesn't make it part of that seris, for example there was a looney tunes movie that had Scooby doo and batman it it but that doesn't make it part of the Scooby doo and batman franchises

Another thing that is debated is the batman vs superman movie this movie is not a crossover it is a sequal to man of steel that just happens to have batman in it like the Incredible Hulk that had tony stark at the end but it was not a sequal to iron man — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.157.219.131 (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC) Another thing what is this BOM website I would like to see it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.157.219.131 (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * BOM is BoxOfficeMojo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCF94 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The top 30 can now happen
The huger games has made $1.3 billion

It joins

Monster inc, The Terminator Die Hard Despicable Me The Chronicles of Narnia The Matrix Men in Black Superman Madagascar Star Trek Toy Story Indiana Jones Jurassic Park Mission: Impossible X-Men The Fast and the Furious Iron Man Transformers Ice Age Spider-Man The Twilight Saga Shrek Batman Pirates of the Caribbean Middle-earth Star Wars Marvel Cinematic Universe James Bond Harry Potter

In the top 30 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo vs. The Numbers
I would just like to clarify the policy of this article in sourcing for the franchise table. For most of the franchises, BoxOfficeMojo.com is used as the primary source. However, two exceptions are made for series that BOM lacks complete data on: Star Trek and Superman. In the case of Star Trek, the statistics from the-Numbers.com are used while Superman used a combination of BOM and a book. The issue I have with using the-Numbers is its inconsistency with BoxOfficeMojo. Generally these differences are small but they do not agree with the numbers listed in the table ( Harry Potter, James Bond, Star Wars, Iron Man, etc...). Additionally, a major barrier to expanding this list to 30 has been the lack of BOM for the Planet of the Apes and Rocky franchises and the BOM data for the Alien series conflicting with the-Numbers. As such, I would suggest the inclusion of Star Trek warrants the expansion of the list to a Top 30 or that Star Trek should be reevaluated using alternate sources, although these may be difficult to find. Personally, I feel that figures given by the-Numbers should be excluded as this list is based primarily off of BOM and including such figures invalidates to many of the grosses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halophile (talk • contribs) 19:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be kept at 25. Even if we did have numbers for Rocky or Planet of the Apes. TBWarrior720 (talk) 04:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with TB on the current limit for the table, I don't think a top 30 offers a whole lot more than a top 25, apart from perhaps more errors. Outside of the top 25 we run into more and more inaccurate cases because the films generally get older when box offce tracking was less reliable. As for the conflation of the sources, we basically take data where we can get it, especially in the case of older films (if you look at the year chart it comes from about 200 different places). BOM is just convenient since it is the most complete, but it is not infallible, so we go with the sources that are the most consistent. If you can find a source to corroborate a source, then the data is more likely to be correct. For example, if Boxoffice.com and The Numbers agree and contradict BOM then we'd go with the consistent figure. To be honest, I don't see how expanding the table to 30 would help us find more "correct" figures for Star Trek. The Numbers is the only source I know of which has them, but if we became aware of another source and it massively contradicted the figures we currently have (as is the case with the Alien franchise that has a 200 mil difference) we'd be more likely to cut the table down than expand it to include more inaccurate data. The bigger the table gets the more inaccurate it will become; if something like Star Trek or Alien shoots up the chart, including it may be unavoidable, but a sensible cut-off point helps us to minimize the amount of incorrect data. It's a trade-off, and a I think a top 20/25 gives us the best deal at the moment. The only other way I can think of would be to add the $1 billion grossers to the bottom of the chart but not give them a rank, or maybe even just list the franchises alphabetically like what BOM do. Betty Logan (talk) 05:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Could Alice or Oz ever be included?
Under the strict legal definition of "franchise", if for example another billion dollar remake of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland was released, would its gross be added to Alice in Wonderland 2010 and Alice in Wonderland 1951 and all the other Alice movies? Or would Alice and Wonderland not work the same because it is public domain. TBWarrior720 (talk) 04:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * A franchise is usually linked to intellectual property, but if something is PD then technically it can't be intellectual property. Alice is PD now, so even though the 1951 film and the Burton film are based on the same source material they are now separate intellectual properties (technically) i.e. you could make your own Alice film without licensing the film rights, but you couldn't make a straight sequel to either Disney film, so they are separate franchises (technically). Once the copyright runs down you get a huge proliferation of films (it would be a nightmare adding all the Sherlock Holmes films ot the table), so if we weren't beholden to sources my preference would be for franchise entries to share a unique licence. It's best not to think too hard about it though. BOM is slightly inconsistent, so in reality if they group both films together we probably will, and if they don't we won't. Betty Logan (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, excellent explanation. I was wondering the other day about films on the same subject matter, such as Alice, and even the Titanic. But this is a logical response for not including them. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 08:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, if something can be called a series like Sherlock Holmes (2009 film) and Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows then it could be counted, but not unconnected films with different studios, actors, etc. The Three Musketeers in film would also be really bad. The first is from 1903, decades before Doyle stopped Sherlock Holmes. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Sherlock Holmes wouldn't be the only nightmare in public domain. Count Dracula. Frankenstein's Monster. Snow White. Hamlet. Is this the reason why we avoided the Mummy movies before the remakes perhaps? I was wondering on that. Jhenderson  7 7 7  15:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * With something like The Mummy I don't think there was even any common source material. They just had an Egyptian mummy in common, but I don't think there were any common characters between the two Universal series. If Universal remake the 1930s Mummy like they were planning at one stage then there would be an explicit link between a new film and the old series. Betty Logan (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok. Just checking. It doesn't matter. It's not here anymore. Although it's being rebooted in the future. Jhenderson  7 7 7  18:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Would you mind if I say something too about the subject? If my memory it's right, I remember that 2,3 years ago before it was a Top 25 franchises, it was only a Top 20 and in that Top 20, on the #20, it was Stephen Sommers' The Mummy franchise with over $1.4 billion, and as Jhenderson777 said, they are planning a reboot, so if the first reboot movie will get enough for the franchise to come back up on the top 25, will you put it in the Top 25?


 * It depends on how they reboot it. If it's just another series about a Mummy, that would be like adding Salem's Lot to Twilight. If it is linked to the Brendan Fraser series, then we would add it in the same way we added the Nolan Batman films and the Daniel Craig Bond films to those franchises. Betty Logan (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Alice in wonderland (2010) has a sequel coming in 2016 would that put Alice in the chart span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

MCU
Is Spadidar Man and xman part Of the stupid MCU film series please say no. It will. Make the list worst if they are in MCU. In understand ME series but not MCU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.79.4 (talk) 13:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * These are the films in teh MCU: Marvel_Cinematic_Universe Betty Logan (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Iron Man/MCU franchises
I'm proposing that the Marvel Cinematic Universe entry on the franchises table, have its films regrouped into the "phases" as seen here: Marvel Cinematic Universe. One reason for this is that the third installment of the Iron Man films is coming out in May, and it only needs to gross $200 million to be listed as its own franchise on the table. This means that the Iron Man "series" will be counted twice in the table, which we came to accept as a possibility ages ago for consistency reasons. However, having the MCU entry grouped into franchises or "sub-franchises" means that the table has the appearance of listing the Iron Man franchise twice. Grouping the entry by phases means that Iron Man 3 would be separated from the other two, so it does not appear this way. Also, it appears to be a grouping that is similar to that of the trilogies of Star Wars. It's also an official grouping used by Marvel, as well as whoever it was that distributed the Phase One box set. Obviously it's going to be a little silly to use the phases grouping now, but once Iron Man 3 comes out, perhaps we should change it. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with that. I really don't see the point in representing the Iron Man franchise as an entity twice, so if the series has its own internal divisions (represented on our own MCU article too which is sensible to defer to for groupings) then I'd be ok with switching to that. It would probably be best leaving the switch until Iron Man 3 comes out though, since currently there isn't a Phase 2 to add to the table nor does the Iron Man franchise independently place on it. Betty Logan (talk) 05:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent! --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are proposing to list them as two sub series in the same franchise, such as the way middle earth is split into the Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, then I am fine with this. However, if you are proposing to list them as two entirely sepearate franchises in the table, i believe this is wrong, as they are clearly the same franchise. Frogkermit (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I just assumed he meant sub-groupings under the MCU entry. In fact I am sure that is what he means. Betty Logan (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't really like the fact that the Iron Man movies appear twice (first under MCU, then down the table under Iron Man series). I mean we don't have the LOTR series twice, do we? It just appears once under Middle Earth.Ordinary Person (talk) 14:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I really don't like the idea at all, it looks like a POV attempt at pushing the MTU universe. Twobells (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

MCU phase
The MCU franchise is in 3 phase Phase One: Avengers Assembled Iron man till the avengers Phase 2 Iron man 3 till the avengers 2 Phase 3 Ant man till TBA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You're right. And that's how we'll be ordering the Marvel Cinematic Universe once Iron Man 3 comes out. Because there's only one phase at the moment, it doesn't make sense to order it by phases just yet. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Ironman 3 is out - the marvel universe now includes phase 1 and Ironman 3 and the Ironman trilogy appears again on it's own. This doesn't look right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.165.220 (talk) 11:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Iron Man "franchise"
The three Iron Man movies will soon (like I mean today) acumulate more than The Mummy franchise. However, it CAN NOT, SHOULD NOT, and WILL NOT be included in the franchise list for the following 25 reasons:
 * It is already part of MCU.
 * It wouldn't make any sense.
 * We would have the same 3 movies appear on the list twice.
 * That's like including a string of James Bond movies that all star the same person as it's own franchise
 * It would be fine to do that with James Bond but not MCU because of continuity.
 * We can't have the same movies on the list twice.
 * You would be saying basically the same thing more than once.
 * That's like including both Japan and Honshu on a list of most populated countries.
 * The list would become rubbish.
 * People with OCD who view the list will have nervous breakdowns.
 * The list would become quite redundent.
 * Iron Man's my favorite, but it can't be on the same list twice.
 * That's like including the first three LOR movies and also including Tolkien's Middle Earth
 * You'd be creating a list where the same thing appears twice.
 * It is'nt okay.
 * That's like including MCU and including both Thor movies.
 * MCU belongs on the list while Iron Man does not.
 * That's like including Wurmple's five evolutions and Dustox's three evolutuions as seperate entries to a list of evolution sets.
 * Nobody wants it on the list
 * All of my sock puppets agree with me.
 * We can't let this happen
 * The list would become very redundent.
 * It would not be fair to other franchises.
 * The list would be plauged with redundency.

Don't you see how horible redundent lists are, for real. Please Betty, you have to back me up on this one. TBWarrior720 (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's a lot of points, but they're really all the same. There are a couple of reasons as to why Iron Man 3 will be presented on the list.
 * Firstly, we plan to put it on the list because that's what Box Office Mojo does, and they are the source we are using in creating this table. To say that Iron Man doesn't belong on the list is Original Research, and would need to be sourced properly. But as far as we know, Box Office Mojo is the most reliable source at the moment, in terms of providing tables and data for grosses.
 * Secondly, it's a list of highest-grossing franchises and film series. There are the individual character franchises, and the entire series that are different things, and should be represented. So, it does kinda make sense to include individual character franchises as separate to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It makes even more sense for characters such as the Hulk (who at the moment, has a very long way to go before he could appear on this list by himself), who have solo films that are a part of their own character franchise, but not a part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
 * Finally, we plan to reorder the films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe entry by their "phases", so that the Iron Man series isn't counted on the list twice, although the individual films that make up the series are. In fact, now might be a good time to do that. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem isn't really Iron Man, it's the MCU: Iron Man is indisputably a franchise, whereas the MCU is a series. You could argue that the Iron Man franchise is actually already on the list so it's true that adding it would be redundnant, but that raises the "Hulk" question: if we were discussing the Hulk franchise, that includes the Ang Lee film which is not part of the MCU, so it would not be redundant in this case i.e. a Hulk franchise entry would include the Lee film, but the MCU group of Hulk films would not. And if we included the Hulk franchise, it would then be inconsistent to not include the Iron Man franchise. It's a sticky one, because we either end up with redundancy or inconsistency whatever we do. If it were left to me I would just pull the MCU since it is not a franchise, it's a specific sequence of films, and is therefore technically a series. Box Office Mojo have fudged their definitions. I think the bottom line for this is that we find a better source for our franchise list, or we are lumbered with what BOM do. Betty Logan (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The reason I'm so upset is that I was planning on writing the scripts for a series of "Crossover" movies, each staring five of the lead characters from the top 25 franchises. Based on my calculations, "Iron Man / Tony Stark" played by Robert Downey Jr. would be the lead character of both franchises. I supose I'll just have to cut any movies that appear twice on the list from the larger franchise out of my equation. I'm guessing that would make... "Captain America / Steve Rogers" played by Chris Evans the most significant eligible character. Also, good-bye "Rick O'Connel" played by Brendan Frasier.TBWarrior720 (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I just added two phases in the MCU ! Boxofficegeek (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It might be best to leave the Phase 2 drop-down heading out until Thor: The Dark World comes out. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we can probably leave it in, since it's a "grouping" rather than a break in the series. A similar scenario to the James Bond groupings where we just have one film in the Lazenby group. If you remove the grouping you could potentially mislead the reader into thinking it is not a continuation of the phase 1 films, whereas this was never a problem with Batman Begins or the new Spiderman, which may or may not have developed into series in their own right. Betty Logan (talk) 13:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. That makes sense. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow I find it odd that it was decided to include both "Iron Man" and "MCU" after so many good, logical arguments. I feel it should be reconsidered again though. --DesignDeath (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The Franchise is the MCU, not Iron Man
I would like to ask why, after our lenghty conversations about Iron Man which seemed to result that splitting the MCU into phase one and two banners would mean that there isn't a need for Iron Man to have its own franchise entry on the list, is it now suddenly on there? it is stupid having films appear of the list multiple times when they can obvously be defined into another franchise, the MCU. As all the Iron Man films are in the MCU, what is the point of having it's own entry on the list. It isn'tlike the hulk, where there is and MCU enrty and the stand alone Ang Lee entry. There is also and MCU franchise page, yet an Iron man in Film page, not franchise, showing that Iron Man is not it's own franchsie, it is just a sub-series in the MCU, which is the franchise. Iron Man should NOT get it's own franchise listing on the franchise table, as it is clearly part of the MCU. Frogkermit (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You might want to take note that the section is franchises and film series. Box Office Mojo, where we get this info from, also has it split into its own film series. Just because it's a part of the MCU does not discount the fact that Iron Man itself is its own film series as well. Suzuku (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We've discussed it a couple of threads up, but the gist of the argument for including them both is that the source we use for defining our franchises represents the MCU and Iron Man separately. It's not perfect, but the BOM franchise index gives us a clear decision in ambiguous cases. For what's worth, The Numbers also has separate entries for the MCU (The Avengers) and Iron Man. Betty Logan (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually it's the other way around. Iron Man is the franchise, MCU is just the film universe IMO. Jhenderson  7 7 7  15:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * If a separate entry is to be made for Iron Man, then the duplication is taking a spot from the 26th franchise/series that would otherwise be on the list. (What would that entry be, anyway? Anyone know?)
 * Has there been any discussion about including The Avengers (a.k.a. Iron Man 2.5) with the Iron Man listing? -  thewolfchild   01:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * (Just looked it up... Terminator has been kicked off because of the Iron Man duplication. Doesn't seem right.) -  thewolfchild   03:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Why do we need the 'Phases'? (I missed the discussion) All the films are MCU and are listed as such, so just what do these sub-groupings contribute? Also, the phases divide the Iron Man movies up, which just leads to more confusion. -  thewolfchild  03:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * IMHO... Iron Man 1, 2 & 3 is a series. Thor 1 & 2 is a series. They are all a part of the Marvel Franchise. (as are all MCU and Non-MCU films) -  thewolfchild   03:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I've grouped the discussions together now so editors can read the full discussions that led to this organization. Betty Logan (talk) 09:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Marvel
Instead of "Marvel Cinematic Universe", why not have a broader franchise heading like "Marvel Based ..." (or something...). Then you can have ALL Marvel movies listed (Spider Man, X-Men, Dare Devil, Fantastic Four, Punisher, etc,) with sub- and sub-sub-groupings like Disney/Sony/Fox, MCU/Non-MCU, Phases, Series, Cross-overs, etc. It would be huge, ranked number 1, cool and, of course, factual.

Thoughts anyone? -  thewolfchild  02:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Because Marvel isn't a franchise, it's a company! It would make as much sense as having all the Pixar films under one entry. It might make for an interesting chart if we were charting studios, but that is not what we are doing. We take our franchise definitions from the franchise index at Box Office Mojo, and even though it may lead to the odd anomalous or inconsistent listing it is something concrete we can defer to. Betty Logan (talk) 10:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, Marvel is a company, and the MCU is a franchise that belongs to them. As for Non-MCU films, when Sony and Fox allow Spidey and some Mutants to show up in the next Avengers installment (and thus now part of the MCU), what'cha gonna do then? Cuz that changes everything -  thewolfchild   04:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * We will do what we do already and abide by the source for the chart. If BOM add Spider-Man to The Avengers series then we will do likewise, if they don't then we don't. Betty Logan (talk) 09:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I know this may be a dated discussion, but I'll just share my two cents by saying that boxofficemojo is not a very reliable source for things like these. They specialize in box office numbers, not what constitutes a franchise. I feel like we should look at what this very website lists as a franchises, since all of them have their own articles and we can precisely see which films are considered a part of which franchise. It would make everything a lot less contradicting. --DesignDeath (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no contradiction. What we have is some redundancy because in some cases the films overlap. However, this isn't always the case with Marvel franchises: the MCU includes the 2008 Incredible Hulk film but not the 2003 Hulk film; but if you include franchises where the films don't all overlap and omit those where they do you end up being inconsistent i.e. it wouldn't make sense to represent the Hulk franchise but not the Iron Man franchise. I also disagree that Wikipedia is a good basis for organization: the editorial decisions taken on another article don't trump the ones here, and vice versa, so an external source is always superior. Whether that source should be BOM is an open question, but it's convenient for us because it's where we get most of the data. Betty Logan (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, but not the entire Wikipedia uses BOM as the source when discussing franchises, so it can definitely be awkward and contradicting at times. And as I've said, BOM isn't really the most reliable source when discussing things like this, since their franchise index it is often incomplete and perfunctory. I personally think that including certain films twice on the chart is a bit silly and makes things overly crowded and inaccurate, not to mention it's not fair to other franchises that might've been included if the chart was being handled differently. --DesignDeath (talk) 13:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Iron Man isn't taking another franchise's place in the chart! It's there because it is demonstrably a franchise, no different to the James Bond franchise or the Batman franchise. The Iron Man character didn't originate in the MCU; the franchise dates back to the 1960s. This isn't even a BOM issue, since this information is easily obtainable from many other sources (eg. The Numbers or Allmovie). The fact that Marvel have created a crossover between some of its films is neither here nor there, since it doesn't mean Iron Man stops being a franchise simply because the character appears in another series. If James Bond were to appear in an MCU film obviously we wouldn't delete the main entry because it's still a franchise, so duplicate entries are an unavoidable consequence when franchises do crossovers. Betty Logan (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree that a film can be a part of more than one franchise. That's the first time I've heard of such a thing! Iron Man 1-3 are a part of the MCU exclusively, according to this very website. So charting three films that are connected to each other but are already a part of a larger franchise as a single entry is not a very good idea. And yes, I think Terminator would appear on the chart if Iron Man is to be included in the MCU only, so I'd say it is in fact "taking up a slot". --DesignDeath (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Non MCU

 * 20th Century Fox related:

X man
Is the x man film series part of MCU?
 * ( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think so, in fact I'm pretty sure it's not. The films are listed at Marvel_Cinematic_Universe. Betty Logan (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah definitely not. Since the X-Men film series have been around longer than the MCU and are still continuing the movie rights are still attained by Fox. Just like Spider-Man with Sony.  Jhenderson  7 7 7  19:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

X 4
"20th Century Fox's creative consultant for films based on Marvel Comics, Mark Millar, stated that the upcoming reboot of the Fantastic Four film series will exist in the same universe with the X-Men film series. In December 2013, Simon Kinberg and his Genre Films banner have signed a three year first-look deal at 20th Century Fox and will create a movie universe similar to Marvel Cinematic Universe."

How are you planing to do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The wolverine
In the x- man series. Wolverine has 2 solo films. Should we have this as a sub series? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Right now it wouldn't make enough anyways to make enough anyways...but I would say no unless Box Office Mojo says differently. Jhenderson  7 7 7  18:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think they're suggesting to make a sub-section in the X-Men series on the table, for the Wolverine spin-off films. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You're right and I should have seen that before. That I am not sure of though. Navboxes like the films based on Marvel Comics divide them all together on saying one's about X-Men and the other two is about Wolverine. Although still the first Wolverine spinoff actually has "X-Men" in it's title despite it being more about Wolverine. So I suppose a consensus can be order. Jhenderson  7 7 7  00:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I could have sworn the X-Men entry had subdivisions, and at the start of this year it did: . I'm guessing somebody altered the structure when The Wolverine was released; it wasn't me though and I don't recall any discussions about it. Betty Logan (talk) 02:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yep. We at first made it out on having a main trilogy and the spinoffs were divided. I can see compications with that though with The Wolverine being a sequel of The Last Stand and Days of Future Past is going to be a half prequel to The Wolverine and a sequel to First Class. Origins: Wolverine along with cancelled Origins Magneto is what first made the studio use the word spinoff. But I can see it not be considered that now. Jhenderson  7 7 7  03:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Sony related:

Spider universe
Sony are planning a spider man universe "We do very much have the ambition about creating a bigger universe around Spider-Man. "

"How would we do this?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It will still Spider-Man involved mostly. Venom and Sinister Six is mostly what they confirmed. Spider-Man might still be in them in all honesty. So just like Supergirl is considered a spinoff of the Superman franchise. We will just add it like that. 20th Century Film is probably more complicated IMO. They are planning to merge Fantastic Four films within the X-Men film series. Jhenderson  7 7 7  16:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Open all hours
Should we add higher grossing oping weekend.

I have made a mock to show

1	Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2	WB	$483.2	$169.2	35.0%	$314.0	65.0%	2011

2	Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince	WB	$394.0	$158.0	40.1%	$236.0	59.9%	2009

3	Marvel's The Avengers	BV	$392.5	$207.4	52.8%	$185.1	47.2%	2012

4	Transformers: Dark of the Moon	P/DW	$382.4	$162.6	42.5%	$219.8	57.5%	2011

5	Spider-Man 3	Sony	$381.7	$151.1	39.6%	$230.5	60.4%	2007

6	Iron Man 3	BV	$372.5	$174.1	46.7%	$198.4	53.3%	2013

7	Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides	BV	$350.6	$90.2	25.7%	$260.4	74.3%	2011

8	Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End	BV	$344.0	$128.0	37.2%	$216.0	62.8%	2007

9	The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2	LG/S	$340.6	$141.1	41.4%	$199.5	58.6%	2012

10	Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix	WB	$332.7	$139.7	42.0%	$193.0	58.0%	2007

11	Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1	WB	$330.0	$125.0	37.9%	$205.0	62.1%	2010

12	Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith	Fox	$303.9	$158.4	52.1%	$145.5	47.9%	2005

13	The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1	Sum. $291.0	$138.1	47.5%	$152.9	52.5%	2011

14	The Twilight Saga: New Moon	Sum. $274.9	$142.8	52.0%	$132.1	48.0%	2009

15	Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull	Par. $272.2	$125.2	46.0%	$147.0	54.0%	2008

16	The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King	NL	$250.0	$124.1	49.6%	$125.9	50.4%	2003

17	The Dark Knight Rises	WB	$248.9	$160.9	64.6%	$88.0	35.4%	2012

18	Avatar	Fox	$241.6	$77.0	31.9%	$164.5	68.1%	2009

19	The Da Vinci Code	Sony	$232.1	$77.1	33.2%	$155.0	66.8%	2006

20	2012	Sony	$230.5	$65.2	28.3%	$165.2	71.7%	2009

21	The Twilight Saga: Eclipse	Sum. $228.9	$157.6	68.8%	$71.3	31.2%	2010

22	The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey	WB	$222.6	$84.6	38.0%	$138.0	62.0%	2012

23	Iron Man 2	Par. $220.8	$128.1	58.0%	$92.6	42.0%	2010

24	Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen	P/DW	$219.9	$200.1	91.0%	$19.8	9.0%	2009

25	Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs	Fox	$218.4	$66.7	30.6%	$151.7	69.4%	2009

26	The Hunger Games	LGF	$211.8	$152.5	72.0%	$59.3	28.0%	2012

27	Alice in Wonderland (2010)	BV	$210.1	$116.1	55.3%	$94.0	44.7%	2010

28	The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug	WB	$209.0	$73.6	35.2%	$135.4	64.8%	2013

29	Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban	WB	$207.2	$93.7	45.2%	$113.5	54.8%	2004

30	War of the Worlds	Par. $203.1	$100.6	49.5%	$102.5	50.5%	2005

31	Man of Steel	WB	$202.0	$128.7	63.7%	$73.3	36.3%	2013

32	The Matrix Revolutions	WB	$201.4	$83.8	41.6%	$117.6	58.4%	2003

33	Iron Man	Par. $201.2	$102.1	50.8%	$99.1	49.2%	2008

34	The Dark Knight	WB	$199.7	$158.4	79.3%	$41.3	20.7%	2008

35	Transformers	P/DW	$191.7	$155.4	81.1%	$36.3	18.9%	2007

36	The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers	NL	$189.9	$102.0	53.7%	$87.9	46.3%	2002

37	MIB 3	Sony	$189.9	$54.6	28.8%	$135.3	71.2%	2012

38	Spider-Man 2	Sony	$189.4	$152.4	80.5%	$37.0	19.5%	2004

39	Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire	WB	$188.2	$102.7	54.6%	$85.5	45.4%	2005

40	The Amazing Spider-Man	Sony	$188.2	$137.0	72.8%	$51.1	27.2%	2012

41	Hancock	Sony	$182.5	$103.9	56.9%	$78.6	43.1%	2008

42	Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest	BV	$182.3	$135.6	74.4%	$46.6	25.6%	2006

43	Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones	Fox	$179.3	$110.2	61.5%	$69.1	38.5%	2002

44	X-Men: The Last Stand	Fox	$179.0	$102.8	57.4%	$76.3	42.6%	2006

45	The Hangover Part II	WB	$177.8	$117.6	66.1%	$60.3	33.9%	2011

46	Skyfall	Sony	$173.6	$90.6	52.2%	$83.0	47.8%	2012

47	The Simpsons Movie	Fox	$170.9	$74.0	43.3%	$96.9	56.7%	2007

48	The Matrix Reloaded	WB	$165.9	$134.3	81.0%	$31.6	19.0%	2003

49	The Hunger Games: Catching Fire	LGF	$164.4	$158.1	96.2%	$6.3	3.8%	2013

50	X-Men Origins: Wolverine	Fox	$158.2	$85.1	53.8%	$73.2	46.2%	2009

We did use to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds like something maybe for a different article but too much for this one. Jhenderson  7 7 7  15:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)