Talk:List of highest-grossing films/Archive 7

2014
Paranormal activity the marked ones is the top movie of 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.193.10.119 (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Superman and the Mole Men
I am still thinking if the 1966 Batman movie is allowed from the Batman franchise. I think that this might be allowed on the Superman franchise. Where are good places to look for the gross again? Jhenderson 7 7 7


 * I think the only place you would find the figures would be the Variety archives. Betty Logan (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Gone With the Wind
Box Office Mojo lists Gone with the Wind as active. I think there was a very limited re-release of the movie around Thanksgiving time but couldn't confirm. Anyway, should it be listed as active again? Jonathansuh (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The total doesn't seem to be changing at any source, but we should keep an eye on it. Betty Logan (talk) 05:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Second page
I am asking the people in charge of this page to create anorther "list of the highest grossing films 2" so we can put more list. This page can inculd info form the following box office

- Highest worldwide oping. - highest grossing series/franchise by number of films. - time line of highest grossing series/franchise. - highest grossing film genre. (And highest grossing of that genre) - highest grossing film studio. (And highest grossing of that studio) - highest grossing film minus it budget - highest grossing film sereis minus it budget.

And what ever eles anyone can think of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 13:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * We have to abide by WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. In short, if no-one else compiles these types of lists then we can't either. Betty Logan (talk) 07:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it's time we split this article
We should turn it into List of Highest Grossing Films and List of Highest Grossing Franchises. Any thoughts? TBWarrior720 (talk) 13:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've opposed it in the past and still do, mainly for practical reasons. The problem I have with splitting it is that it would simply isolate the franchise table on its own page and I think it's more accessible for readers to have all the information in a single place. If we can host the chart here I honestly don't see the point in making readers go to another page just to look at a single chart. If there were plans to develop a franchise/series article using a multiple chart structure along the lines of List of highest-grossing openings for films then I would support an article fork for franchises (in the same way I forked out the highest openings a couple of years ago), but I'm against just ripping out a chart for the sake of it and sticking it on a page all on its own. Betty Logan (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It might be possible that we can have a smaller version on here along with a main article with more...but of course your problem is that a lot of those older film series (Rocky, Alien) we apparently are not sure of the gross outside of Box Office Mojo. That of course complicates it.  Jhenderson  7 7 7  15:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Years ago
The list for series had franchies/series below $1.3[|$1.3 billion]? Why did it? Can it happen agin? Now we got 30 with more than $1.3 billion can we have a top 30? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you
Can i say thanks, from a fellow editor, for the fantastic job you all have done on this article? ive really enjoyed reading it so far, learned a lot, plan to finish it. the formatting is wonderful, especially the franchise list. i can forget im an editor while reading this!(User:Mercurywoodrose)99.157.204.185 (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

paronmel acticity
im just wondering could paranormel activity be getting close to being on the chart — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.240.59 (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

No. Not really. It has less than $800 million at the moment. And that is with the 5th movie already out. TBWarrior720 (talk) 09:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Frozen
Frozen is in 50th place — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.240.59 (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Future of each franchise
This doesn't really belong in the article itself, but I thought it would be nice information for people to know. So I'm just going to leave this right here.

1. Harry Potter: Dead, but may be revived with this. Will likely be overtaken by MCU after Age Of Ultron.

2. Marvel Cinematic Universe: Pretty much immortal. Will be number 2 by the end of this year and will become number 1 during 2015.

3. James Bond: Completely immortal. Will be overtaken by MCU after The Winter Soldier as well fainly other film Universes. bond 24 out in 2015 when it should cross $7 billion.

4. Tolkien's Middle Earth: Led a good life but is terminally ill. Will never again be higher than 4th place.

5. Star Wars: Has a good future and is showing signs of immortality. May be as high as 2nd or 3rd place someday. will become a film Universe

6. 10. Spider-Man: Healthy and will become a film Universe. Will be 6th place by the end of this year.

7. Pirates of the Caribbean: Alive. Will most likely not achieve immortality due to reliance on Johnny Depp. Will be brought down to 7th by Spider-Man this year. coming sumer 2016

8. Batman: Immortal, but sleeping. Will be consumed by the Justice League for an indefinite amount of time. Will be brought down to 8th by Spider-Man this year.

9. Shrek: Alive apparently. Return is "TBA" but I really wouldn't bet on it. Will be brought down to 9th by Spider-Man this year.

10. The Twilight Saga: Dead as a door knob. Will be brought down to 10th by Spider-Man this year.

11. Ice Age: Alive. Will be thawed out in 2016. Will be brought down to 12th by Transformers this year.

12. Transformers: Alive. Will be 11th by the end of the year.

13. Iron Man: Alive? Not really sure. MIA. Will be brought down to 14th by the end of this year.

14. The Fast And The Furious: Has cancer. :'( Fast 7 is a guarantee.  Fast 8 and 9 that Vin Diesel had planned may not happen.  There is also talk of a Hobbs spin off.  Will be brought down to 15th by X-Men this year.

15. X-Men: Surprisingly healthy. :D Will be 13th by the end of the year. will become a film Universe

16. mission impossible Alive. Will return to duty in 2015.

17. Jurassic Park: Alive. Will walk the earth in 2015.

18. Indiana Jones: new films TBA it wont be until 2015 0r 2016.

19. Toy Story: Appears dead, but it could be faking.

20. Star Trek: Immortal. Will boldly go to the theatres in 2016.

21. Madagascar: alive. Needs to be poked with a stick going wild in 2015

22. Superman: Immortal, but sleeping. Will be consumed by Justice League for an indefinite amount of time. returns in 2016

23. Men in Black: alive new films TBA.

24. The Matrix: alive new films TBA.

25. The Chronicles of Narnia: Technically alive but completely insignificant. Wont come back until 2018 at the earliest. Just waiting to be passed up by The Hunger Games.

TBWarrior720 (talk) 09:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't belong in the article and nor does it belong here. You provided no information - just speculation. A talk page is not a forum.
 * "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." Stanley Oliver (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You mister stanly Oliver just made a complete dick move tbwarirrior works really hard on thins article and u just come and tell him what he can and can't do that real low — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.240.59 (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You forgot Despicable Me!....$1.497 billion, a spin-off 'Minions' coming out next year (~$200-$400 million) and a third movie in 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCF94 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

the wind rises
the wind rises is the new worldwide ighest grossing movie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.240.59 (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I guess you mean for 2014 films but The Wind Rises is from July 2013 and very far from the 2013 top. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I guess he thinks that the 12 billion yin the movie made translates to 12 billion US dollars. TBWarrior720 (talk) 08:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Stats
Here are some interesting stats:

Betty Logan (talk) 01:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * List created: 2002
 * Total number of hits 2009–2013 (5 years): 0
 * Average number of hits per day: 0
 * Most hits in a month: 1,136,857 (January 2010)
 * Most hits in a day: 100,100 (January 27, 2010; 2 days after Avatar broke the record)
 * Article ranking on Wikipedia: 837

The $1 billion doller freezer
With Frozon making $1 billion wordwide It makes the 18th film & the 2nd amited film (after toy story 3) to make $1 billion the list only stay 17  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.38.140 (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Titanic
Should RMSTitanic be in the highest grossing film series & franchies list. $2.2. Billon so far and it will grow.


 * No, because films about Titanic don't share a continuity nor are based on the same copyrighter material (unless of course there are two films based on the same book about the event). If we had entries for thematically linked films we could have a World War 2 franchise which would beat everything else on the list. Betty Logan (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

MOS
Should man of steel be above superman returns.

--77.101.38.140 (talk) 14:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC) g

Avengers series
Question!: Next year's Age of Ultron movie will be the second Avengers movie, so technically it will be a film series, but since BOM ranks only franchises, which usually needs at least three movies, are you gonna rank The Avengers series in the Top 25? because we know that it will make the top and from what I know wikipedia deals with facts, and the fact is that a film series is made out of at least 2 movies — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCF94 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * IMHO, a sequel does not a series make (sorry, it sounds better when I said it out loud), it would take a sequel of a sequel. Looking at film series though, they do list two-films. Either way, you cannot crystal ball the box office results, so just wait and see what happens.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  23:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm just saying that the first film did a $1.5 billion and if the sequel does only half of it, it will still have enough for the top, I mean since the Iron Man made the top The Avengers should also... anyway, this was a question, not a speculation, not a future prediction, it was just a question that I asked to clarify things for myself — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCF94 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The Avengers "series" is the MCU i.e. Iron Man 1, Iron Man 2, Iron Man 3, Avengers 1, Avengers 2 i.e. they continue on from each other, so it's already charted. The reason we have a separate franchise entry for each superhero is because some of them exist as a franchise away from The Avengers i.e. if the Hulk franchise made the chart we couldn't put Ang Lee's Hulk in the MCU entry; same with Spiderman if he ever should return to Marvel. However, there shouldn't be any reason why we can't put all the Avenger films in the MCU, even if the characters completely change over the series. Betty Logan (talk) 08:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Although it makes some sense for the "Avengers series" to be the MCU (particularly seeing as that's how BOM treats it), it's worth noting that this isn't how the franchise divisions are treated on pages to do with the MCU (in particular, this table), and that Producer, Kevin Fiege, has stated that the MCU is not an Avengers series. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * So, bottom line, it can be a Iron Man series, Thor series, Captain America series, but it can't be a Avengers series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCF94 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Paper cut
Could films based on based on books

ever be in the highest grossing film series/franchises

I.e the jungle book/ second jungle book,  lassie comes home, The Hundred and One Dalmatians, etc

If they ever made engorth money — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.38.140 (talk) 11:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes of course. Many of the existing entries in the list are based on books. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Harry Potter is number one. :P  But I think he was asking what I had asked earlier about Alice and Oz and if movies made off of the same book could be considered a franchise.  The answer is no for the three you listed because they are all public domain.  Unless they were part of a series made and owned by the same person or company.  Like if they made several sequels to that Oz movie from last year, they could potentially form a franchise.  TBWarrior720 (talk) 05:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

MCU
They moved the MCU movies section to a separate page, should we put that as source for the highest grossing fanchises? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCF94 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Good catch, I've changed the link. The split article has the box office totals so it's better that it goes to that page. I've also added Winter Soldier to the table since the foreign totals will start coming in tomorrow, and in doing so I've discovered a bug in the table. Since Thor is still release that means two films in the table need highlighting but we can only highlight one. There is no way to fix this without completely re-writing the template. Therefore I have de-highlighted both films and I suggest just leaving the release daggers next to the titles until Thor formally closes. Betty Logan (talk) 11:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Going going going gone
On BOM Catching Fire is no longer highlighted.

It has a total of $864,565,663.

For a total of $1,555,813,431 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.38.140 (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2014

 * The film "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (released in the United States, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and India as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone)". The film is based on the book, which is "Philosopher" and it being a British movie, the wiki title of the movie is Philosopher.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  02:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

In the Highest grossing movies by year it says for 2001 Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. It should be Harry Potter and the sorcerer's stone

Missing night
There is a missing batman film

Entitle Batman: Gotham Knight

It has made $8,057,722

Puching the franchies to $3,731,149,873

Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.38.140 (talk) 07:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Batman: Gotham Knight was released direct-to-DVD and the $8,057,722 is DVD sales. The list is only for theatrical box office. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Star Trek
some one may want to check out how much Star trek has made from being on Television the last estimate that i found put it somewhere near $5 Billion dollars and more before merchandising and films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.123.8.54 (talk) 23:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This article is only aout theatrical gross, so nobody cares how much it made on TV. TBWarrior720 (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Thor the close world
Thor 2 has closed with $644,783,140 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.38.140 (talk) 09:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Check on Inflation List
How can Avatar have almost as much in inflation adjusted dollars as it does in regular dollars? Is this an error? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.97.23 (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The chart was published in 2011 by Guinness so it would have used a 2010 index, or possibly even a 2009 index depending on when the chart was compiled, so basically there was no inflation to add on for Avatar. Betty Logan (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Bad news
Box Office Mojo predicted that Dawn of the Planet of the Apes would gross $700 Million. How much would it have to gross before it becomes a threat to the top 25?

On a side note, how much would Godzilla have to gross before it became a threat? TBWarrior720 (talk) 02:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

A lot (about $1.1 billion) the total for Godzilla is $502,668,077 & for POTA about $500million — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.123.8.54 (talk) 23:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.38.140 (talk)

Good news everyone.
I found the worldwide grossing for Planet of the Apes. Right here. On Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_of_the_Apes_(franchise)#Reception So if Box Office Mojo is right and the movie grosses 700 million, it will land right at 25th place. We wont have to cut the chart, we won't have to switch anything around and we will all live happily ever after. TBWarrior720 (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that information is erroneously labeled. The source being used is Box Office Mojo which only lists the domestic grosses for the earlier films. Betty Logan (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the people who made those movies know how much money they made? There has to be somewhere where it says the grossing. We found it for Superman and his movies were even older. TBWarrior720 (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Critical reception
I'm not sure if this has already been discussed, but I suggest that an additional colomn should be added to the first table, which shows the critical rating for each film. There is much debate on whether the *best* films make the most money, or whether it is just due to marketing or being part of a bankable franchise. So I think having the information there will allow the reader (such as me, who thoguht it was sorely lacking), to be able to analyse the data and come to their own conclusions.--Coin945 (talk) 10:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's simply not relevant. The purpose of this list is to track and contextualise gross figures, and the "critical rating" (whatever that may be) is tangential to the scope of the topic. Betty Logan (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

How about it on. Different page like list of the most critical reception films of all time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/77.101.38.140 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.38.140 (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Superman
Can someone explain to me, where are the figures of Superman series coming from? cause I checked and the figures are increased, more than they really are, Superman II, III and IV are highly increased, as BOM, The Numbers and even boxoffice.com says otherwise. This means that Superman should have a total of $1.557 million, and should be on #25 not #22.
 * BOM et all don't provide worldwide figures for Superman 2-4, only domestic. The worldwide figures come from the Block book listed in the bibliography. Betty Logan (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up!

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2014
Quote:

CIThe Cinerama figures represent gross amounts. Since the Cinerama corporation owned the theaters there were no rental fees for the films, meaning the studio received 100% of the box-office gross, unlike the case with most other films where the distributor typically receives less than half the gross. Since Variety at the time ranked films by their US rental, they constructed a hypothetical rental figure for the Cinerama films to provide a basis for comparison to other films in their chart: in the case of This Is Cinerama, the $50 million worldwide gross was reconfigured as a $12.5 million US rental gross; this is exactly 25% of the amount reported by Cinerama, so Variety's formula seemingly halved the gross to obtain an estimate for the US share, and halved it again to simulate a rental fee. Variety's 'rental' amounts are often repeated, but have no basis in the reality of what the films actually earned—they are hypothetical figures conceived for comparative analysis.[45] All five Cinerama features collectively generated $120 million in worldwide box office receipts.[46] end of quote

"the $50 million worldwide gross was reconfigured as a $12.5 million US rental gross" You can't reconfigure worlwide into domestic gross. In reference, it says that it made $82 million in US (not $50 million) and additional $38 million worldwide. (Was situation across the border the same as in US?) In conclusion, I believe it is 25% of $82 million.

185.18.60.22 (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: It is Wikipedia's job to cite what Variety reported, not to correct their figures. They reported the US "rental" for This is Cinerama as $12.5 million. As the source points out there is no right or wrong "rental" figure for This is Cinerama because the film was never leased to theaters. Because of this the source given for that figure says Variety "adopted an arbitrary rule" so that Cinerama's reported $50 million worldwide gross could be compared to their US rental figures (US rental figures at that time were typically half the US gross, which were approximately half the worldwide gross). If we altered this then we would not be accurately reflecting the number that Variety reported. In any case, the $82 million figure is the US gross for all five Cinerama features not just the first film, so if you wanted a comparable rental value from that figure you would simply halve it. Betty Logan (talk) 10:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Days out in cinema
X man 5 is oeut — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.38.140 (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2014
Under Highest grossing franchises and film series, and under the movie X-Men: Days of Future Past in the X-Men franchise, the total worldwide money: $340,701,835, needs to be changed to $346,418,186. Thank You!

Nbladue (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks, Older and ... well older (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Batman VS Superman
The sequel to man of steel will feature both Batman and Superman, so will it go into the "Batman" series category or the "Superman" series category? Or will it go into both? (Yes, I know right now is quite an early time to ask the question, but I think it should be decided right now.) --Zettion (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It won't be decided right now because it depends mostly on how our source does it. If it were entirely up to me I'd put it in the Superman section since this is a new version of Batman that is originating in an established Superman series. However, if Warner subsequently make Batman films with this version of Batman then it will probably end up like Marvel with its own cross-franchise section. Betty Logan (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Surely it be in none (expect the DCCU). If you put in superman ($1.5billion) You got to put in in the Batman ($3.7billion) Wonder Woman Cyborg And who ever eles is in

Althing you will prolly put in the DCU ($0.6billion) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.38.140 (talk) 07:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Where
Where do you get. The info for the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.38.140 (talk) 07:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Click on the little number in the ref column and it will take you to the source. For the franchises they are just listed at the bottom of the page. Betty Logan (talk) 09:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The bare necessit
The jungle book top film of 1967 has gross 	$205,843,612 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.227.107 (talk) 07:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not at the time it wasn't; the Jungle Book has built up its gross through reissues. The Graduate was the third highest-grossing ever at the time of its release behind The Sound of Music and Gone with the Wind. There are discrepencies over how much The Jungle Book ultimately made, but one source gives a figure of $170 million and another $199 million. Betty Logan (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

you got SW&T7D as $416,316,184 I sure it did not make in it's 1st run,  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.38.140 (talk) 11:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We include both the total gross and the first run gross, which is why Snow White has two grosses listed. 1967 has two entries listed because two films have been the top 1967 release at some point. All of this is explained in the introduction to the section. Betty Logan (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Amazing Spider-Man Gross
It now grossed $757,930,663. Could someone change that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.41.145 (talk) 06:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it where dose it say that? On bom it says $698 million — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.232.217 (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The first one not the second one. On the highest-grossing film section of the highest-grossing franchises, the gross is still $752 while on the series section shows $757. Could someone get that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.41.145 (talk) 01:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Go Apes
Last year did you say Rickey, superman, Planet of the Apes have missing box offie detailed. With the new POTA out this year. It should put POTA in the top 25. With 2 series/franchies on the list. Will we make it a top 20 again.(hopefully not) Keep it at 25 (hopefully not) Make it top 30 (hopefully so)

Or something eles.

So far it has made outbout $0.9billion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.38.140 (talk) 10:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * As explained several times, there won't be a "top 30" for the forseeable future. Planet of the Apes will undoubtedly finish in the top 30 after the next film but we can't accurately rank it without the foreign grosses, and Alien is currently in there too which there are conflicting figures for. I think it's better to have an accurate short chart rather than an inaccurate long one. If the Apes franchise finishes in the top 25 we will cut the chart down to a top 20. If it finishes in the top 20, then we will have to change our approach to the chart since I don't want cut it down to less than 20 films. One possible solution would be to rank those over $2 billion and order the rest alphabetically. Betty Logan (talk) 09:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I really don't like the sound of that alphabetical thing Betty. In my opinion, 25 is the perfect number.  I know that there were similar issues with the Superman series and we just decided to disregard the overseas grossing.  Another solution is for everyone reading this just to not see the POTA movie until it comes to DVD :3 TBWarrior720 (talk) 05:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * We didn't disregard the overseas grosses for Superman though. The fact is, if we don't have the right figures the ranks are meaningless (and misleading) so it basically leaves us with two choices: we either have a safe cut-off point, or we shouldn't rank the table below a certain point if we can't be sure of the data. Assigning an incorrect rank isn't really an option for a table that is supposedly verifiable. Betty Logan (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The thing is we already don't know how much the POTA franchise has grossed. So for all we know, it already has grossed enough to be on the top 25.  It may have already grossed 2 billion.  What will we do if there are many more POTA films?  What if it grows to be in the top 5 even without any of the missing overseas gross?  Would we just cut the chart down to a top 4 or a top 3? TBWarrior720 (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The series certainly won't have made $2 billion. We are only missing the foreign grosses for the first five films, and they only made $80 million domestically between them. In the late 60s/early 70s it was unusual for big Hollywood films to make more in the foreign market than the domestic market, so we can probably set an upper bound on our estimate at $160 million (2x the domestic) which means the franchise almsot certainly hasn't earned more than $1.1 billion (and realistically is more likely to be in the 950-1050 range). If the series rises to #3 or #4 then obvioysly we won't be cutting the chart down to three franchises, but it would be incorrect to number them after that point if we aren't sure of the order. I guess there is a reason why The Numbers and Box Office Mojo don't rank their franchise tables... Betty Logan (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

amounted to go to top 25 as of $653,869,445 11/07/2014  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.201.76.106 (talk) 12:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Age of 2014
Transformers AOE is top film of 2014 with $752,531,000  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.200.206.45 (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The Franchise chart looks great
Definitely no need to make an apocalyptic change to it because of anything that might happen this weekend. TBWarrior720 (talk) 06:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the Apes franchise is going to penetrate the chart, or it may just about scrape in, but I have located most of the historic data. This 1973 source estimates the first four films grossed $150 million worldwide, so basically all we are missing is the foreign gross for the fifth film. That gives us a good approximate worldwide figure for the original series, so unless it finishes within a few million of another franchise there shouldn't be any problems ranking it. Obviously we still have the problem of the individual grosses within the franchise, but at least we now know whether the franchise should be on the chart or not. Betty Logan (talk) 11:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * YAY! You are the greatest Betty! TBWarrior720 (talk) 06:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

help
I wondering if you can help http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_animated_films to find the Highest grossing animated films of the years 1938, 1939, 1944, 1946, 1947, 1949, 1952, 1954, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1960, 1962, 1965, 1974 thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Cap
The winter solider is out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Modifications
What's with the modifications on the franchise chart??
 * I don't know, the editor didn't provide an explanation for the alterations. However I have reverted the changes since they do not match up to the sources we use for the chart. Betty Logan (talk) 23:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Age of $1billon
With t4 making $1billon+ it should say 19 not 18 films has made $1billon+ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

MCU
In the franchises list, shouldn't Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Galaxy have green shading? I'm not used to the template so I don't know how to add the shading in the back. Jonathansuh (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Never mind. Fixed. Removed Winter Soldier as movie currently playing. (BOM says it's done) Jonathansuh (talk) 23:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Only one film can be shaded (it is a constraint of the template), so if both films are still playing then we just use the symbol instead. BTW, According to BOM Winter Soldier is still in release: Winter Soldier. When it closes they issue a close date (as can be seen at Thor). Betty Logan (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to experiment with a hack to allow double highlighting. The table may go wonky over the next hour or so, so don't try "fixing" it. Betty Logan (talk) 00:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added a hack to the template which allows us to highlight up to two films. For instance, with Captain American and Guardians which are currently in positions 2 & 4, you can now highlight both with "release=2/4" in the template. Any more than two though and we basically have the same problem again, but it will be very easy now to add a third highlighter to the template if it is needed. Betty Logan (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

not just anybody
I wondering if you can help http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_animated_films to find the Highest grossing animated films of the years 1938, 1939, 1944, 1946, 1947, 1949, 1952, 1954, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1960, 1962, 1965, 1974 thanks — — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Gulliver's Travels (1939 film) was the top animated 1939 film. It grossed $3.2 million domestically according to SFGate (although that is most likely gross rental rather than box-office gross). The article says it was the second feature-length animated film so that would mean there wasn't one in 1938. Betty Logan (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thaanks know what the Highest grossing animated films 1944, 1946, 1947, 1949, 1952, 1954, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1960, 1962, 1965, 1974 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 08:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Why not DC Cinematic Universe?
DC is just like Marvel, so shouldn't the Dark Knight Trilogy and Man of Steel be part of a DC Cinematic Universe, and their totals lumped together just like Marvel's movies are? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.26.33.225 (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The Dark Knight trilogy isn't set in the same universe as Man of Steel so cannot qualify as a series/franchise. To chart it must have at least two movies (at the moment this particular series only has one) and enough money to be in the top 25 franchises/series (and Man of Steel by itself is nearly a billion too short for this). Also I'd point out for your future reference that DC are not just like Marvel, their shared universe model will not be applied to every movie they release and it is as of the moment unnamed. Ruffice98 (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

frozen in time
Is frozen still in cinema ( it not on bom ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * From what I can see it is closed in the US (hence BOM) but is still open elsewhere. Not sure if there is a way of checking that, although there are very recent updates for Argentina and Japan. Ruffice98 (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

It still in japan I just check — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 11:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Highest-grossing franchises and film series
Why does the chart say there are 5 Transformers movies? There are only four so far... Magegg (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I take it you didn't look properly at the chart then, if you expand the entry, it lists all five films. You are just thinking of the modern live action films, there was an animated film that had a theatrical release (and as a result a box office taking) contributing towards the overall franchise total. Ruffice98 (talk) 14:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

MCU and Iron Man subset
The Iron Man series is a subset of the MCU series. Why is the Iron Man series listed on the franchise table if it is already included in MCU. Zginder 2014-08-05T14:17:10Z
 * Because both the MCU and Iron Man are franchises (MCU was at one point a series, but has since been given the sufficient alterations to be both). The Iron Man franchise is entirely been made within the MCU, but other franchises such as Hulk would clearly not be covered by all the MCU films. Other franchises will no doubt pop up in a similar state if they make enough money (probably the Avengers next). This is what happens when multiple franchises are combined to form a larger one whilst still retaining their individual status. Ruffice98 (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Can we add some kind of note about this in the paragraph preceding this chart? Iron Man is listed twice out 25, which means whichever franchise that is ranked 26th is kinda getting ripped off... - the WOLF  child  05:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hardly, it's a franchise in its own right and used as part of a bigger franchise. That's two franchises out of the 25. Would you be arguing the same if it was the Hulk that was listed? Ruffice98 (talk) 11:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ruffice here. Iron Man isn't really a subset of the MCU (at least not in a pure sense), it's just that all the films that are in the Iron Man franchise are currently in the MCU so it has the appearance of being a subset. As Ruffice points out this wouldn't be the case with the Hulk franchise, nor the Spiderman franchise if that were ever to return to Marvel. Betty Logan (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Where things might become complicated is if something like Guardians of the Galaxy ever got to a position to enter the chart, as it doesn't to the best of our knowledge possess a separate franchise as many of the other properties do (Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, Captain America, The Avengers, Ant-Man, Doctor Strange etc. were all franchises in their own right before Marvel started reacquiring them). Although I'm sure alternate arguments could be produced to classify it as a "franchise" much like has recently seemingly happened to the MCU as a whole. Ruffice98 (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

BACK TO THe present
I was looking @ BOM & I see in the uk there is a BACK TO THE FUTURE (2014 RE-ISSUE) & had gross $2,378,458 so far so should B2TF be updated http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/intl/?id=_fBACKTOTHEFUTURE02&country=UK&wk=2014W32&id=_fBACKTOTHEFUTURE02&p=.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 07:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Putting Avatar and Titanic on franchises list for comparison
I suggest that we put Avatar and Titanic as unnumbered entries on the franchise list for comparison between the individual films and the franchises. They are the only films that made enough to qualify and they both have no franchise. If Avatar 2 is released Avatar should be removed. Zginder 2014-08-15T18:13:04Z


 * Perhaps as a note in the preceding text, but not in the chart itself. It would just clutter things up too much. Ruffice98 (talk) 14:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree about not adding entries for Avatar and Titanic, since apart from not technically counting as a franchise/series the actual data is already provided in two of the charts above anyway. I have no objection to mentioning it in the chart introduction though. I will write it in, and if anyone objects they can always revert and join the discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

They should not be on the list (unless there a 2 films therte) on the Highest grossing animated franchises   it dos not  have the like of  The Lion King, Finding Nemo , Up_(2009_film), etc

Apes
What happens if DOTPAdose not reach the top 25 highest grossing film series & franchies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The previous films have made just over $1 billion from my recollection, so we don't need to start number crunching until the new film hits $550-560 million. I think it's just going to get there though. Betty Logan (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Box Office Mojo has a sum of $925 million worldwide for the previous films. That does not include international numbers for the original series from the 1970s, but they combined for $81.7 million domestically (which I am including) so the current total of $1,462.3 million is likely not far off. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 03:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Back 2 the past
I was looking on BOM & I saw that in 2010 B2TF was relases in 2010  and made  $2,315,159  meaning that b2TF has made $385,802,660 & the trilogy $962,280,245 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The now Queen
Frozan has made $1,274,219,009 NOT $1,275,326,838 on BOM


 * That change was made by . I was puzzled by it as well, but he's right because if you look closely at the dates BOM have stopped tracking it despite the fact it is still playing in Japan and Spain so DCF has added on the extra amounts . I am going to make it a bit clearer in the source though. Betty Logan (talk) 09:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Cars solo
I was reeding & note something worng on the page it said

"Pixar's Cars earned $461 million in theatrical revenues[6]—which was only a modest hit by comparison to other Pixar films[7]—but generated global merchandise sales of over $8 billion in the five years after its 2006 release,[8][9] the most revenue ever generated by a franchise consisting of a single film.[10]"

But there 2 (inculeing spin offs 4) here the films and the box office gross as of 22/08/2014

[hide]Cars 	$1,334,987,398	4	$333,746,850	Cars 2 ($559,852,396)

[hide]Main series	$1,021,835,545	2	$510,917,773	Cars 2 ($559,852,396)

1	Cars 2 (2011)	$559,852,396

2	Cars (2006)	$461,983,149

[hide]Planes series 	$313,151,853	2	$156,575,927	Planes ($219,788,712)

1	Planes (2013)	$219,788,712

2	Fire & Rescue (2014) 	$93,363,141

Source

So should that be there.


 * According to the animated list the Cars series (if you include Planes too) has made $1.3 billion, so it doesn't qualify for our chart yet. Betty Logan (talk) 08:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh no you misses understood on this PAGE it make it out that their is one film because it says this quote  "When a film is highly exploitable as a commercial property, its ancillary revenues from merchandising can dwarf its income from direct film sales.[5] Pixar's Cars earned $461 million in theatrical revenues[6]—which was only a modest hit by comparison to other Pixar films[7]—but generated global merchandise sales of over $8 billion in the five years after its 2006 release,[8][9] the most revenue ever generated by a franchise consisting of a single film.[10]" while their 4 not 1 so it dose not make sense. Can you make it make sense.
 * I think it generated $8 billion in merchandise sales before a second film in the franchise was released. That is why it says "in the five years after its 2006 release" . . . it is referring to the 5 years between the release of Cars and the released of Cars 2.  During that five year period, the franchise only had a single film, since the second one wasn't released yet. Calathan (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The phrasing is a bit clunky. There is no need to mention the franchise really: there was just one film as of the start of 2011 and it generated merchandise sales valued at $8 billion. I'll remove it from the sentence since the aim is to inform not confuse. Betty Logan (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

when?
DOTPA is at $555millon how much more dose it need if it needs any
 * I have done a mock-up here: User:Betty Logan/Sandbox/templates/t3. It needs another $20 million or so. It will probably get there by this weekend. Betty Logan (talk) 09:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Tweaking Frozen formula
In the Frozen gross formula, I noticed that the Japanese total through 8/8/2014 is subtracted from the overall 8/8/2014 total, and then the Japanese current total is added back in. However, the old Japanese number being used is through the following weekend, 8/10/2014. Since the international box offices are updated each week, the 8/8/2014 total Box Office Mojo is showing would not include this week but instead would only run up through 8/2/2014, the previous weekend. So I've updated the formula to contain the correct former Japanese total. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 16:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. When I updated the formula I forgot to remove the separate August 8-10 weekend addition. However, Betty Logan caught it for me. (Spain is a similar position, finally closing this weekend, but the extra total there is less than a thousand US dollars so probably not worth worrying about.) Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 16:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I was pretty confused because I didn't see your message here until afterwards; basically the original formula added on the 8-10 weekend gross, subtracted the total as of August 10, and then added back on the full total. As you said, if the Japanese gross only runs up to the previous weekend then we shouldn't be adding on the following weekend's gross. I took a look at Spain too, but ultimately figured a thousand bucks isn't worth the hassle. Hopefully BOM will issue a final total in the next couple of weeks. Betty Logan (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the confusion, and I'm glad we've got it understood now. On Box Office Mojo, most foreign markets (Japan included) are updated once a week, on Tuesdays US time usually, so the precise international totals for a film seem to jump each weekend in a staircase pattern. I hope we do get a final international total as well, to get a nice one-citation number. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 17:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Titanic for inflation
Titanic has gross $2,2756,800,000 for inflation not $2,413,800,000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It depends how the adjustment is done. There is no definitive method. Guinness have it at 2.4 billion in 2011, while The Telegraph have it at 2.9 billion in 2010. If you have a source giving another figure, then we can add it to the article. Betty Logan (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The Three Caballeros
Do you know who much The Three Caballeros has made? For List_of_highest-grossing_animated_films — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 07:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * All I can find is this TCM source which states it grossed $700,000 in Latin America. Betty Logan (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

7 days
Can you help compte this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_animated_films#High-grossing_animeted_films_by_year — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 10:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Tracking down old data (especially pre-1980s) is difficult. The best places to look are the TCM database and Variety archives. TCM has free access but unfortunately you will need a sub to search Variety, and I don't know anybody with one. Betty Logan (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Frozen beat Iron Man 3 question
Technically, the extra money Frozen made to surpass IM3, was made in 2014, and since it's considered highest grossing film of 2013, shouldn't money made in 2014 not count to yearly gross? Re-releases don't add to profit, why should this?
 * You make a valid point but sources generally don't rank films by money made in each year, they rank films by year of release. That's why our chart is labelled as "High-grossing films by year of release" rather than "High-grossing films of each year"; Iron Man 3 may be the highest-grossing film of 2013, but Frozen is the highest-grossing film to be released in 2013. If they published charts showing which films made the most money in each year then we would include them here, but unfortunately they don't. Betty Logan (talk) 00:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Frozen's gross in 2014 was still part of its original run, hence it is counted. If we only went by calendar gross (January 1 to December 31), then we'd have a skew towards spring/summer films and likely lose every US holiday season film due to the rather arbitrary day on which the year changes. Counting the entire first run gross permits an apples-to-apples comparison amongst films regardless of the season in which they are released. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 00:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Frozen total as of 8/31
Sorry for any mistakes, first time user. Checking MOJO I noticed Frozen is still playing in Brazil, Spain, and a new listing for Nigeria ($167,333 as of 8/17/14) in addition to Japan. New total may be $1,275,773,860 if I did the math correctly.--Telewski (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I added in the Nigerian gross since it is a substantial amount. For Spain and Brazil we are only talking a few hundred dollars in each region so I haven't bothered adding them in. Betty Logan (talk) 02:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The Nine Lives of Fritz the Cat
do you have box office gross of The Nine Lives of Fritz the Cat for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_animated_films#Highest_grossing_animated_films_by_year
 * According to this it bombed, so it probably wasn't much. Betty Logan (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Apes
DOTPOTA is at $611,185,000 how much has the franchise made ?l How much more dose it need to be in top 25? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It's probably just entered the questionable area. Might be time to trim it to a top 20 before problems do develop. Ruffice98 (talk) 10:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Betty Logan has a trial listing for the series at User:Betty Logan/Sandbox/templates/t3; I've tweaked the numbers on my own sandbox at User:Dralwik/sandbox and right now Apes is at $1.537 billion worldwide (missing foreign gross on the original series). Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 19:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * We have discussed extending it before but generally you start hitting dodgy data. The chart used to stand at 20 and I don't think we gained all that much from extending it apart from causing ourselves a few headaches i.e. Superman last year, Planet of the Apes this year. I will add in the Apes franchise anyway since it now makes the cut. Betty Logan (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * And I don't think cutting the list back to 20 would be such a good idea, not for long term anyway, cause a third reboot film will be released in July 2016 and possible putting the franchise in the Top 20
 * Yeah, it's only a matter of time before both Superman and POTA push up into the top 20 anyway so we may as well deal with the problem now. We are still missing the individual grosses for the original POTA series, but I managed to track down the "total" gross for the first four films (plus the domestic gross for the fifth film) so we can at least rank it. I reckon we are still low-balling the original series by $5-10 million, but it's close enough for our purposes. Betty Logan (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Glad to see the data has been found at any rate, are there any other potential future threats? Superman and Apes were always the two big ones, is there anything else lurking in the top 30 posing a threat? Ruffice98 (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There are talks of doing a reboot of The Mummy franchise, in which case that would be a big problem as Stephen Sommers' The Mummy has a total of $1.415 billion box office and we still don't know the total box office of The Original Mummy series or Hammer Horror's series, although, at that time and after reading the reviews I don't think that the first 2 series were a big financial success at all, but the reboot series will definitely cause a problem for the list.
 * so wee staying top 25? is a top 30 possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The Alien franchise is a real mess and lurking in the top 30. There are different figures doing the rounds for the first two films, and then there are the Predator crossovers too. BOM includes the Predator crossovers in the Alien franchise, but I find that inconsistent with the MCU i.e. that would be like putting The Avengers in the Iron man franchise (which BOM don't do), unless you put all the Alien and Predator films together in an extended universe like the MCU. Betty Logan (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh well, at least any future film for the Alien franchise seems to be stuck in development hell at the moment. The Mummy franchise looks to be a problem in future though depending on how the reboot works out. If it performs like the last three it might be safe or it could pose problems. Assuming they make the date and there are no shock box office bombs from the super hero market, with Avengers 2 and Captain America 3 giving us two new potential entries (unless you want to track down the foreign grosses for the 1990 Captain America film which never got a domestic release, that's another problem waiting to happen) and Superman leaping up the chart, the problems come down to Apes (which will be getting another film a month later) and then Madagascar. Ruffice98 (talk) 00:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

What do you meanand by "then Madagascar. " we know the total! And beside TPOM Novemberfthis November. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.220.222 (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Then I must apologise, I thought it had already come out. In that case then the issue is with Star Trek. The problem is not with knowing what value that franchise has (as you said, we already know that), but rather the Mummy franchise potentially overtaking it (and thus getting into the top 25). It should be getting a movie in 2016 as well, but the intention seems to be to tie it in with the 50th anniversary, so it could be much later in that year than the Mummy reboot, it gives us a value to be cautious of at least (just over $500 million). Ruffice98 (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by star trek it on the list now just above Madagascar $1.9 billion each — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.220.222 (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I know it is on the list, we are talking about something that isn't on the list trying to get on it. The next Mummy film is out in June 2016, to figure out if it is a threat or not, we need to have a rough idea what the chart will look like at that point in time. From what we have at the moment, if these films meet their release dates there is a chance it could enter the charts (which is when the problems start). It all depends on when certain films are released (the next Star Trek film), how much a current film can earn (the current Planet of the Apes film) and how much money another film makes (the next Captain America film). At any rate there is a definite risk. At least there are two years for those first two matters to be resolved and for any potentially useful data to be found. Ruffice98 (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think the earlier Mummy films topped $75 million in total, but that is based mainly on educated guesswork. Dracula and Frankenstein made about $3-5 million worldwide on original release, and those were Universal's most successful monster movies. It is highly improbable the original six Mummy films grossed more than $25 million in total. As for the Hammer films, again Dracula and Frankestein were their biggest films, grossing roughly $25 million between them; therefore the four Hammer Mummy films couldn't have made more than $50 million in total. I don't fancy our chances of tracking down the data, but provided the franchise doesn't come within $100 million of the chart it should be fine. Betty Logan (talk) 23:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This really depends on a lot of factors, from what I can see when Planet of the Apes finishes up that will probably be the figure to watch. If Captain America 3 is an absolutely massive hit (bigger than its predecessor), this won't be an issue but it is something to watch out for. Terminator: Genesys might give us some room as well when it comes out next year. It's probably best to leave this until after Apes has closed so we have one less figure to speculate about. Ruffice98 (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2014
Well, I am very into movies, and some of the grosses on this page are wrong, so I would like to change them to the correct, and I will take it from BoxOfficeMojo.com

Editor49 (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Read your tag, you need to say exactly what you want to do. Much of the information is here in a certain way and there's a good reason for it, Box Office Mojo has several flaws with it so the data has been altered to suit other sources. Ruffice98 (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * To add to what Ruffice has said, all the data here is sourced, so that doesn't make it "wrong" it just makes it inconsistent with Box Office Mojo. We defer to Box Office Mojo mostly out of convenience, but when we don't we usually have good reasons for doing so. Betty Logan (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Top 50
No where did anyone put that all the films in the "Harry Potter" "The Lord Of The Rings" and (Rami) "Spiderman" series all made the top 50 List, it should be added. and the gross on "Transformers: Age Of Extinction" has not been changed for 5 Days, the gross now is $1,077,000,565, as I saw on http://pro.boxoffice.com/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor49 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Beyond being an interesting note about how well some franchises perform it does come into problems, especially Spider-Man given that two of the films aren't on the list and one of the Raimi films will probably soon be joining them. Ruffice98 (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It's probably interesting enough to cover in the section introduction (at least Harry Potter and the live-action Tolkeins), since we are only talking a couple of sentences. I don't want to just stick it on the end of a paragraph though, so I will have a think on how to integrate it in a way that doesn't reduce it to trivia. Betty Logan (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Batman Vs. Superman
As I was reading what franchise will we put Batman Vs Superman, I think under Superman, because Nolan will not be the director of this one, and Bale wont be Batman, although the director of "Man Of Steal" will direct this one, and Cavill will be in this one, as he was in "Man Of Steal" therefore, BVS should be put under Superman because of the Director, and Star of the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor49 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Probably both, because its a film with both franchises in the "lead role". Also, what on earth would Bale or Nolan have to do with anything? The older series and the Adam West film are listed as part of the franchise for Batman, and the older Superman series is also included in that franchise. Reboots don't result in exclusions. This is a matter to be resolved at the time though, not now. Ruffice98 (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I think there are probably two ways of approaching it. If this incarnation of Batman purely exists as a character in the Man of Steel "universe", then there is an argument for adding the film to the Superman franchise and not the Batman franchise (kind of like Black Widow in Iron Man and Captain America)—this would be my preference at this stage for the interim until we figure out exactly which direction Warner go in. If this version of Batman goes on to appear in other films without Superman, thus establishing a continuity outside of the Superman franchise, then we would most likely have a DCU entry along the lines of the MCU. I am sure there will be a big discussion about this next spring though. Betty Logan (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Well it isn't out until March 2016 now, so hopefully by that point their intentions will be a bit clearer. Some clarification of those plans through to 2020 at some point in the next year and a half would definitely help, it doesn't look to be quite the same route Marvel are taking though (creating several separate cinematic continuities rather than one unified one entirely through choice rather than inter-studio rivalries over the various franchises). Ruffice98 (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Adjusted for inflation expansion
I think the section of films adjusted for inflation should be expanded from highest 10 to 30 or so.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.13.126.21 (talk) 22:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Look over those figures, you'll notice something is missing. It's the foreign grosses, and without them the figures are wildly off (we're talking a billion or so in some cases, not exactly a small deviation). Ruffice98 (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Anyone who is interested can find the adjusted BOM chart at List of highest-grossing films in Canada and the United States since it just pertains to the American market. The Guinness chart that we currently use is the only global edition I know of. Betty Logan (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

007
On the film series list it says "although the Eon James Bond series is the highest grossing when adjusted for inflation, with a total of over $13 billion at 2011/12 prices.[88]" but how much is it when you add casino royal 1967 and never say never again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.229.233 (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Certainly from the figures I've seen those films are included, and even if they weren't it would still be "over $13 billion". Ruffice98 (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

How much $13.1billon, $13.9 billon ? If it not dose any know these 002 films to add? And if it is why not James Bond series ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * In 2011 The Economist calculated that the James Bond series (excluding the 1967 Xasino Royale and Never Say Never Again) had earned $12.5 billion at 2011 prices. I fudged that slightly and added in Skyfall since it came out only a year later and the inflated earnings won't have changed much in a year (maybe a couple of hundred million). If you adjust Never Say Never Again and Casino Royale that would most likely add on at least another 500 mil, so the franchise as a whole has probably earned over $14 billion. Unfortunately we can't add those in because The Eonomist doesn't provide its methodology for inflation adjustment. But at the end of the day, 13 billion, 14 billion doesn't really matter, we are just making a general point about the record. Betty Logan (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Planet of the Apes
-I looked on boxofficemojo.com and found the grosses for the 20th Century Series. Planet Of The Apes- $32,589,624 Beneath the Planet of the Apes- $18,999,718 Escape from The Planet of the Apes- $12,348,905 Conquest of the Planet of the Apes- $9,700,000 Battle for the Planet of the Apes- $8,844,595 ______________________________________________ These are not Domestic grosses. there worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor49 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The grosses of the original series are only domestic grosses. If you look at the page of the oirginal film you can see they don't have any foreign data, just the domestic totals. That is why we use a different source for Planet of the Apes. Betty Logan (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Re-Releases
Lots of movies get Re-Releases, for example, this weekend it was "Forrest Gump", So if it does happen to make the Top 50 list, instead of Shading it green, shade it blue, to indicate A Re-Release of a movie. And also as you have "Highest Grossing Films" "Franchises" "Films by Year" and more... maybe adding a Re-Release (Only of Popular Movies) chart, for example...

. This is just an Idea. Thanks bye :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor49 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

EDITING
How can I edit this page, if I get to, I Will edit it with reliable and true sources, thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor49 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The list doesn't need editing, it just needs to be kept up to date. We have explained above why some sources are chosen over others, so if you think a source is wrong or that you have found a more accurate source then it is best to bring it to our attention on the talk page. As the Planet of the Apes shows above, sometimes sources can be misinterpreted. Also, any major changes or extensions to the article should also be discussed first before they are implemented. Betty Logan (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If I Do edit this list, it would go back to how it was before I edited it, I do keep it up to date with true facts. Editor49 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2EFF:8870:C95:47AB:B470:CA5C (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * As we have already established though not everything from Box Office Mojo is 100% correct. If you wanted my personal advice, if Box Office Mojo is saying something higher than the figure in the article it is probably because the page is out of date so change it, if Box Office Mojo is lower than the article then it should be left alone (as another source is being used). Also please sign with four "~" symbols. Ruffice98 (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Winnie the Pooh
I've searched through tens of pages and 15-20 biographies, but I can't find any figure for The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh box office, if someone knows a source that I missed, and care to share with me, it will be deeply appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCF94 (talk • contribs)


 * A poster at speculates it may not get box office data because it basically just combined three previous featurettes. The unsourced List of 1977 box office number-one films in the United States shows box office for two weekends where it was allegedly number 1. I see it was you who asked for sources at Talk:List of 1977 box office number-one films in the United States with no reply. Please sign your posts with  . The list was made by User:Simpsonguy1987. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Transofmers Age OF EXXCTICTION
- In the related article 2014 In Film, it shows that TAOE grossed $1,089 Billion, Witch states it passes The Dark Knight Rises, it needs to be changed to #10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor49 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know what was with that edit, but it was corrected.--DCF94 (talk) 01:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

1 hit wonder
under the franchise list it says "Prior to 2000, only seven film series had grossed over $1 billion at the box office: James Bond,[78] Star Wars,[79] Indiana Jones,[80] Rocky,[81][82][83] Batman,[84] Jurassic Park[85] and Star Trek.[86] Since the turn of the century that number has increased to over forty, excluding one-off hits such as Avatar, Titanic, Frozen and Alice in Wonderland.[87]" but is Alice in Wonderland  part of the same franchise as Alice in Wonderland as it is a remake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 6 September 2014‎


 * Alice in Wonderland is in the public domain so has no legal franchise backing it up, anyone can do whatever they feel like with the content of the books. Ruffice98 (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I talking abut the Disney's films the 1951 AIW which has gross $2,400,000 US only it's remake the 2010 AIW which has made $1,025,467,110 meaning a total of $1,027,867,110

As the 2010 is a REMAKE of the 1951 AIW both are also Disney — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 6 September 2014‎


 * As I said, that is irrelevant. They are neither a series nor a franchise (for the reason I just gave). Also please remember to sign your posts with four "~" symbols at the end. Ruffice98 (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * On the whole I would say Ruffice is correct about this. Once the copyright expires then the work effectively stops having a central franchising engine. On the subject of whether Disney's 1951 and and 2010 versions comprise a franchise, this is an interesting question I have not considered before. Is there any evidence substantiating that they are set in the same continuity, for example? Is the script of the 1951 version credited at all in the credits of the Burton film? Are there any characters conceived in the 1951 film that do not appear in the book, but are reused in the Burton film? Betty Logan (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Continuity was definitely different, not certain about any Disney original characters popping up in the Burton film though. Ruffice98 (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I was look at Disney franchise and found this Alice in Wonderland(franchise)== — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikis cannot source each other (even the same one) as it can be edited by anyone. As you will note if you look at the page there is no source given to confirm it is actually a legal franchise (finding this would be your basis for inclusion), as this does not exist you cannot use that route. Your other potential way of getting onto the chart is to abandon the "franchise" and just go for the "series". I see that a sequel is coming out for the live-action movie (which would be required anyway on box office grounds to get into the top 25). As the title of the section is "Highest-grossing franchises and film series" the two films would qualify by themselves as a film series, rather than as a franchise (which would include the animated film if it was at all possible). This also makes things a lot simpler from the point of view of this article, as there appears to be no box office data for the animated film, so ignoring it makes our lives a bit easier. Might mean a few people complaining on the talk page about why it is ignored, but it does help. Also gives us more protection against the threat of the Mummy franchise entering the chart if it does anything like the first film. Also please sign your posts with the four "~" symbols at the end. Ruffice98 (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

name wars
should Star Wars be change to Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It was only originally named that, if it were to be changed, it would link to Star Wars, just that, so what's the point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor49 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

inflation
Do you have a list for the highest grossing Animated film adjusted for inflation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_animated_films#Inflation_Adjusted_Gross_Receipts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.224.222 (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is a complete one for worldwide grosses. I have seen lists around but they always miss off the Disney classics like Snow White, Pinocchio, Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty. Betty Logan (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Avatar Franchise and BVS
Will Avatar 2 be put in a Franchise with Avatar? and with BATMAN VS SUPERMAN IN 2016, I think it should be put in both Franchises. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor49 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Avatar is not a franchise, it is an original film produced, directed, written and created by James Cameron which is getting some sequels. Note that this does not make it a franchise, that makes it a film series (which the chart here also covers). Dawn of Justice will be considered a Superman film as ultimately it is really a Superman film with Batman in it, things may change as the universe expands as some expect but until such a time it will be considered to be only part of the Superman franchise (strictly it uses the Batman franchise as well, but then you open a big can of worms with other crossover involved franchises, like Iron Man or The Avengers). Also please, sign your posts with four "~" symbols. Ruffice98 (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that Dawn of Justice should be put only in the Superman category, but BOM is considering puting in both series . Maybe it can get into the Batman category also, because Warner Bros. is preparing a DC Cinematic Universe (or however they will name it), and a separate Batman movie can be made continuing from DOJ's storyline DCF94 (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, people have assumed they are preparing a shared universe, when there has been no evidence to support it. They could make one, but there has been nothing official yet. We know they've got three films sharing continuity based around Superman, but everything else they are working on appears to be standalone (for example, Dark Universe and Sandman have both been confirmed to be completely separate from the Justice League efforts). Hate to be pernickety, but that is how things stand at the moment. Ruffice98 (talk) 23:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

SW&T7D
when do you get the source for the adjusted for inflation so I can link it to the animated page (for SW&T7D which is 10th.(include live action).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The source can be found by clicking the little citation number next to the chart. However here is a direct link to it: List_of_highest-grossing_films. Betty Logan (talk) 07:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Forward 2 the past
The B2TF page nor the B2TF franchise is updated the box office from it's 2010 & 2014 release when I try to update date it they put it back. can you try updated those pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You were most likely reverted because the figure didn't match the existing source. If you copy the sources from this article into the BTTF article then it should be OK. Betty Logan (talk) 07:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

That what I done i think I try after it has rolled out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.246.122 (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

$7billon cinematic universe
MCU is @ $7billon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

What Source
So, I understand that in other sections on the Talk Page it was explained that Box Office Mojo is used, and in other, it said that its not always right, but there is more, like The Numbers, and more... witch do we use? and I know its not exact, it is accurate, but on The Numbers, The Lord of the rings: the return of the king is at 7, with Dark of The Moon at 8, I know its wrong, so what is the most reliable source? --Editor49 (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * We use the source which is most likely to be correct i.e. we try to find another source to corroborate it. For example, for Return of the King Boxoffice.com has nearly the same value as Boxoffice Mojo; there is actually a $800,000 between their two figures, but Return of the King had a reissue which grossed $800,000, so basically BOM include the reissue gross and Boxoffice.com haven't updated their total. The Numbers figure seems to be incorrect in this case, or maybe it just used a different exchange rate. Betty Logan (talk) 07:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

SUNDAY
I've noticed that every Sunday, the grosses change, is it usually on Sunday? or how often do you change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.241.85 (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Box Office Mojo usually updates its foreign grosses after every weekend. They release their estimates on Sunday, and then correct them Monday/Tuesday. Betty Logan (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Franchise List
There is only the top 25, but there are very popular movies out there (franchise/series) and I think it should be up to Top 30, because at 26-The chronicles of Narnia 27-(The hangover I think) 28- could be the hunger games, 29-Die hard? or The Mummy(Full Franchise), if it is increased to 30, then hopefully well be able to figure it out --Editor49 (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor49 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Generally we run into major problems outside of the 25. You start to run into missing data problems like we had for Planet of the Apes (in the end we tracked down some obscure source from the 1970s for that) but the major problems currently are The Mummy and Alien franchises. For The Mummy we are missing the data for the original Universal and Hammer series, and sources are inconsistent for the Alien films. You can read more about it at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films. Whether you have a top 25, 30, or even 50 there will always be something left out. Betty Logan (talk) 07:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "Popular" is a rather ambiguous term, obviously these have made a lot of money, but that's not really a good enough reason to just extend the list. There are reasons for it sitting at 25, which are explained above. Perhaps if things like the Mummy or Alien weren't causing such problems it would be possible but until such a time, the list is stuck as it is. Ruffice98 (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

represented
Could change  "All of the films from the Harry Potter franchise and Peter Jackson's Middle-Earth series are included in the nominal earnings chart, while the Transformers and Pirates of the Caribbean franchises both feature prominently." To "the most represented is harry potter with 8 films on the list"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the current wording is more informative. Readers can see for themselves that there are eight Harry Potter films in the chart, and it isn't really an interesting observation in itself; however the significant point here is that there are the only two series that are fully represented, which is worth noting. The purpose of the lede is to just give a general overview of what the list covers. Betty Logan (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Will you say what is the most represented when their is not series with all films along the top 50  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

when you wish upon a Star Wars
Disney are planing Stand-alone films films how will you do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Then I think we will put it along with "Star Wars" as long as its a spin-off, but if Disney wants to start a whole new series/ Chapter of the Star Wars Saga, then we will probably put it by- itself in a Series/ Franchise. Editor49 (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

100?
If no, tell me why we cant do Top 100? or atleast, do Top 65 or 75 or something, just a list... I THINK MOST PEOPLE WILL AGREE Editor49 (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * We have discussed it before and have decided to stay at 50 films for now. We have already got into trouble for using too much Box Office Mojo data in the past and have been asked to reduce the amount of data we use, and this would effectively double the amount we already use. If we alter the size of the chart it will almost certainly be to cut it down in size (we already use more data than BOM's licensing agreement permits us to use). Also, we're not Smash Hits at the end of the day, and I don't think extending the chart would add much value: 21 of the 50 films on the chart were the highest-grossing films of the year; if you extend the chart to 100 then the number of year toppers remains at 21 i.e. none of 51-100 were the highest grossing film of the year, which is what we are supposed to be recording. Betty Logan (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

HungerGames
So, in November I'm about positive Mocking Jay-1 will do better than both CF, AND THG, so It probably will make the top 25, so here is the Hunger Games, add it in November, (MOKCING JAY1, will be put with gross (I think its #27, 0r 28) as of now  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor49 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * }


 * This should be left until November for rather obvious reasons, just remember this is not a forum, so really the speculation doesn't belong here. Obviously though this gives us some breathing room should it make a decent amount of money for the "Mummy" problems looming on the horizon. When it does make it into the top 25 as it probably will it will be added, don't worry about it, it isn't being ignored. Also, please sign your posts with four "~" symbols. Ruffice98 (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)