Talk:List of highest-grossing films in the United States and Canada/Archive 2

Avatar
Somehow, two years after the fact, we still can't seem to agree what to do with the tickets. It is completely ridiculous to suggest that Avatar has 97 million, plus or minus twenty million, especially if it's based on years-old data. If the rest of the list (MANY items of which had combined 2D/3D/IMAX tickets) is acceptable to just use the flat "estimated tickets" number BOM uses, then Avatar is no different. I suggest we use the number the site gives us (97,255,300), and be done with it. Otherwise, split the two and enumerate the 77mil figure with an asterisk instead of a rank. Including it like that opens the door for endless speculation as to the "actual tickets sold" when in reality we have no access to that figure beyond the estimations and figures of sites like BOM.


 * (As an aside, while aesthetics should never be the primary focus of an article, Avatar's entry makes that portion of the list look pretty ridiculous.) Rickie-d (talk) 04:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The lower figure for Avatar is based on data that is as dated as the other figure, since it had virtually completed its run. As per WP:NPOV we are obliged to present both figures to remain neutral, not our favorite figure, regardless of whether it is aesthetically pleasing or not. The other alternative is to simply remove the column since the estimated tickets sold is only an intermediate step to calculating the inflated gross i.e. it is not a real number. Guinness World Records puts Gone with the Wind's tickets at 283 million which is pretty far off the BOM figure. I don't see the point in including widly estimated figures, since they don't even use a good methodology. Betty Logan (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If we're not going with rigid figures, we shouldn't be using them (or perhaps the whole list) at all. But if a single BOM number is good enough for the rest of the list, then we should be holding Avatar to the same standards.  Estimates are a dime a dozen, no matter what formula is applied.  But comparing BOM's Jurassic Park estimate with a non-BOM Avatar means working with stilted figures that don't line up.  We need to use uniform estimates if we're using estimates at all, lest the whole list be filled with a range of possible ticket sales numbers.  Rickie-d (talk) 06:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, having re-read the articles again, I'm seeing the issue. In which case, if the Avatar figure quoted in the article is the lower result (and the one on the page is automated) then we should be using the more-correct figure.  Avatar's ticket sales should be listed as under 80 million. Rickie-d (talk) 06:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Personally I don't think we should be just reproducing the BOM list, and we should be finding other estimates where possible. However, true tickets sales are generally unavailable in most cases; that BOM list is really a middle step to calculating the adjusted gross. This article is a list of box office grosses, so generally I'm in favor of simply removing the column, given the general inaccuracies in the chart, and just retain the adjusted gross. But I generally agree we shouldn't be making a special case for Avatar, but that means tracking down more accurate info for the other films rather eliminating an accurate figure. Betty Logan (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Not adjusted for inflation: new column suggestion
As tomorrow afternoon we'll be entering a bit of an unusual grey area (The Avengers will cross Titanic's initial-run total ($600.8m), while still being behind the re-release total ($658.6m), I wonder if we should add a column to the table that lists initial run figures. Obviously the above wouldn't be the only case of realigned figures if someone chooses to sort the list that way, but it could be useful information.  The figures wouldn't even be particularly difficult to find.  Thoughts?  Rickie-d (talk) 06:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to adding an extra column for the initial run (we do something similar on the year chart on List of highest grossing films, since it does add some seasonal context. Some observations though:


 * 1) You will only be able to do it on the second chart, since the top chart is comprised of mainly of films that did have reissues.
 * 2) It should still be sorted by the total gross.
 * 3) Titanic isn't the only films that had a reissue. Even Avatar did adding something like 20 mil. You can get most first run grosses off Box Office Mojo but they are wrong in some cases; case in point: Star wars didn't earn 309 million on its first run—BOM has clumped the 1977, 1978, 1979 and and 1981 releases all together. You can get the first run for Star Wars off the main Star Wars article though (it was about 218 million IIRC).
 * 4) If you add an extra column you may have to remove the studio column, since the table already looks a bit cramped in 1024 res.
 * Betty Logan (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll take some time later tonight and see if I can work it out; there are definitely a large number of films on the list with re-releases and in cases where the figures are clumped together BOM does have a page to separate and disambiguate for re-released films (even if the main page is still showing combined figures like Titanic -- which only does it for domestic totals, weirdly enough. The worldwide figures are completely distinct...)  I'll get cracking on it later and put something in a sandbox to see how it looks on 1024s. Rickie-d (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the first run grosses are in the chart already. If you click edit on the second chart, you will see the inflation adjuster adjusts the gross for each release, so all you need to do is copy the first release gross to a new column. Betty Logan (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That will make this considerably easier, thanks. Rickie-d (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, a working table is up in my sandbox. Thoughts?  (Should be noted that with the increase in rereleases in recent years, as well as a number of high-profile rereleases scheduled for this year, having this information separate from lifetime gross will become more useful.) Rickie-d (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah it's looks good, although The Exorcist figure is incorrect. That is the gross rental. Prior to the 2000 reissue The Exorcist had earned 89 million rental (which was equivalent to 193 million gross according to BOM). Ideally we need an accurate source for the original gross, but rule of thumb is that rental is about half the gross, so the Exorcist probably made about $130 million on its first run. Betty Logan (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that one was a little strange, it had a very different set of figures listed in the table before I did anything, dividing some by .46 (which I assume means the figure was an estimated 46% of total gross). Didn't want to mess with it unless I knew for sure. Rickie-d (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It made $128 million according to this source: http://books.google.com/books?id=axFSjNH1oRkC&pg=PA102 (citation details:, pg 102). Betty Logan (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, BOM puts it even higher at $193 million... what to do, what to do? Rickie-d (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Box Office Mojo is wrong in this case; I mean, Jaws only made 196 million on its first run, and while it was a big hit it was no Jaws—in fact The Sting was the top 1973 film. If you check their releases section they don't list its 1976 and 1979 reissues. The Exorcist took 66 mil in rentals in 1973, that went up to 79 mil with the 1976 reissue, and then to 88 mil with the 1979 reissue. That's an extra 23 million in reissue rental, which will have added roughly 50 mil on to the 128 million gross. They do that on several films: they list Star Wars as making 309 million on its first run (which was actually the cumulative gross from the 1977, 78, 79, and 1981 releases). According to BOM Gone with the Wind made 189 million on its 1939 release: not so, it actually made 36 million, and the rest came from releases in 1947, 1954, 1961, 1967, and 1974. BOM is a good source gross totals, but they sometimes miss out releases. Betty Logan (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Jurassic Park
Jurassic Park in the second list isn't updated to include new 3D version's profits.  D r e a m Focus  21:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Films that are not playing
Oz the Great and Powerful has ended its run and Box Office Mojo still has it highlighted. Box Office Mojo should definitely unhighlight it. Are they gonna take care of that anytime soon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.38.25.25 (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It occasionally happens. They probably haven't collated all the figures yet even though it has closed. Betty Logan (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

utterly useless article
there is no sense in reporting business figures, it would be more revealing to list the numbers of admission, possibly in relation to the population in total, this would make up for a far better definition of a box office success, especially comparing between nowadays and decades when there was no competition from television or home video — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.49.81 (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

franchises and film series
Why not make a list of highest-grossing franchises and film series? you have the base source for it


 * I've asked this a week ago, so if nobody wants to discuss it, I will go ahead and create the list. DCF94 (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You should just go ahead and do it, and if someone reverts/objects you can discuss it then. Betty Logan (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Highest Grossing films Domestically by Year of Release
I only did 2000-2015 to test it out, we can start from 1980 (where BOX OFFICE MOJO starts). ill do it, but will this work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor49 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see why not. The main list has a year chart. Betty Logan (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Alright, I will do it!!! Editor49 (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Highest Grossing films Domestically by Year of Release
Is this good enough to add to the list? Editor49 (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The only problem I see in this, is that this section appears already partially on the List of highest-grossing films page, all the years, from 1915 to 1976, are domestic gross, I'm all for this section, I just don't want other users to look at this section as a useless add and ask for deletion of the section. DCF94 (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * All grosses from 1956 onwards (except for 1966) are global on the main article; some of them are just theatrical rentals rather than gross (since that was the metric in use at the time and the grosses are unavailable). All grosses prior to 1940 (except for 1916, 1917 & 1929) are also global, so it is only 1940-55 which is mainly domestic data. I don't mind either way whether this chart is added or not but it would have sufficiently different figures to justify its inclusion. Betty Logan (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Inflation adjustment
I notice there are a substantial number of inflation adjusted figures in this list. Since they are hardwired into the article it will take quite a lot of work to update them every year. This could be automated by a template. You can get the estimated ticket sales from here and the current estimated ticket price from here and this can be used to create a formula which automatically updates the tables. To take an example, we see at this chart Gone with the Wind has grossed $1,685,052,200. Using the template I have knocked up at User:Betty Logan/Sandbox/templates/t2, the template can calculate the adjusted gross using the admissions and ticket price data:

gives.

You can see that the results are virtually identically. To update the figures you would only need to update the ticket price in the template, which would take less than a minute, instead of having to update every single figure in the article. Betty Logan (talk) 01:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Help
Dose anyone want to help with Draft:List of highest-grossing animted films in Canada and the United States82.38.157.176 (talk) 11:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Years
Why was the list of highest grossing movies by year taken down I thought that was interesting to read and see and was a good addition to the list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.243.240 (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't recall it ever having one. Do you know who removed it? Betty Logan (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry what I said was misunderstood I meant the template up the page a little I just assumed it was on the list at one point I just think it would be a good addition — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.243.240 (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Titanic
I'm pretty sure Titanic adjusts over $1.1 Billion http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm . Yet, on the chart (the unajusted chart) it says that it adjusts to $956 Million, which is incorrect. Editor49 (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The chart at the top adjusts by average ticket price while the chart at the bottom adjusts by inflation. $956 million is really the proper inflation figure in terms of economic inflation. BOM's chart doesn't really work out inflation; what it does is count admissions and then projects them at current ticket prices. As you can see ticket prices have risen faster than inflation, but that is probably mostly due to 3D and IMAX surcharages. It's not an exact science and they are basically just two different methodologies. That said I am not convinced the second chart actually needs an inflation column when an admissions chart is included above. Betty Logan (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 13 March 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved as requested, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 23:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing films in Canada and the United States → List of highest-grossing films in the United States and Canada – Unites States dominance. Formal requested move started after a few posts. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Should the article title be changed to refer to US and Canada rather than Canada and the US? Why is the title "Canada and the US"?

This isn't a list of the highest-grossing films in Canada.

It is a list of the highest-grossing films in the US which also includes grosses from Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudiani (talk • contribs) 15:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The US is the dominant territory in this distribution market but alphabetical order (i.e. Canada coming before the US) is more neutral in Wikipedia naming terms, which is probably why it ended up the way it did. Personally I don't think it matters either way, but by the same token I wouldn't object to switching the country names in the title. Canada needs to be in the title somewhere though. Betty Logan (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support It has previously been List of top-grossing movies in the United States and Canada and List of highest-grossing films in the United States and Canada. It was changed to alphabetical in 2010 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_highest-grossing_films_in_the_United_States_and_Canada&action=history] without discussion. I support "United States and Canada" given the far larger US market, nearly all the films being from the US, and many sources only calling it United States while no sources only call it Canada. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support name change. Good cases made.   D r e a m Focus  01:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per naturalness criterion of WP:CRITERIA. To me it simply sounds 'right' when said as proposed. Not the best reason, I admit, but I do support. Shadow007 (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support name change. Not only is the US the producer of the majority of these films, it is the major market and generates the vast majority of the income/grosses/ticket sales relating to them. Canada is only a tiny shadow thereof. As such it would only make more sense to have 'US and Canada' instead of the existing title. Abul Bakhtiar (talk) 08:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Why is this suddenly an issue, I don't know. It makes no difference whatsoever to me, as long as both the "US" and "Canada" names stay in, because the "domestic" gross is coming from both "Northern America" countries. DCF94 (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not suddenly an issue. It's been an issue since whoever changed it in 2010 and as I have only recently decided to contribute to Wikipedia, I thought I would flag up the misleading title.  This list is not a list of the top grossing films in Canada which the title seems to imply.  It is a list of the top grossing films in the United States which happens to also include data from Canada.  If you were to remove the Canadian grosses the list would be very similar.  If you were to remove the US grosses, the list would be completely different. Sudiani (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This page represents the highest-grossing Domestic films (i.e.: the U.S. and Canada), not just U.S., so the title should include both Canada & U.S. names in whatever order. Putting Canada first doesn't misleads nothing, the title is "List of highest-grossing films in Canada and the United States", how is that misleading? Now if the page was titled "...in North America", that would have been misleading, as North America can mean more than just US and Canada. But like I said, it doesn't really matter to me which order is, it just so happens it's Canada first because it's in alphabetical order. DCF94 (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you don't think it's misleading and maybe to many it isn't but if I were to look for a list of highest grossing films in Canada I might be mistaken with the title into thinking that this list provides such a thing (albeit including grosses from the US) whereas it is the other way around. Currently Wikipedia does not seem to provide a list just for Canada.  I don't know how accurate it is, but this encyclopedia seems to give a list during 2010 (http:// netlibrary.net/articles/eng/List_of_highest-grossing_films_in_Canada) which lists Gone With the Wind at number 2 at the time in Canada whereas for the US figure with Canada it is not in the top 100 nor would be if only the US only figure was reported which is why I say it is really a US list (with Canada figures also reported). I'm not suggesting Canada should be removed from the name as it is rightly listed just not rightly listed in alphabetical order given the size of the figures and markets, in my opinion.  Sudiani (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Relationship between multiple theatrical releases and availability of home video?
Hey, I made this edit just now as a grammatical fix (the previous version wasn't wrong, but it was kinda garden-pathy and awkward), but I'm wondering if it would be better to say something like Many of the films on this list, particularly those released prior to the availability of home video, have had multiple releases. This would further address the problem that several films on the list (Jurassic Park, Titanic...) definitely post-date the advent of home video and were also re-released in theaters, and it would also fix a problem my edit may have inadvertently introduced that the implied relationship between availability of home video and theatrical reissues is lost. Thoughts? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Missing italics tag
This page was showing up at Special:LintErrors/missing-end-tag due to the practice of formatting film titles with a year like:. The way to avoid generating these errors is to format it like. The &amp;nbsp; is necessary to avoid having stray apostrophes show up. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 20:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Subtemplates of Highest-grossing films franchise are adding italics around film parameters. This could cause too many consecutive apostrophes when the caller also used apostrophes. I fixed it by changing  to   in the subtemplates, e.g. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Highest-grossing_films_franchise/series&diff=prev&oldid=850136565]. This means &amp;nbsp; is no longer necessary and I have removed it. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Number of entries
Having lists of 100 entries is clearly excessive, bordering on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I would suggest reducing the number to 50 or lower. TompaDompa (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think bringing it into line with the worldwide list would be a good idea. The scope of the topic is meant to be the "highest grossing" films, so it's a bit of a stretch to describe those films outside of the top 50 in such terms. I appreciate that many of them were once, but when was the last time (if ever) that the highest-grossing film of the year failed to crack the top 50? Really what you are interested in is having enough context for judging a blockbuster's success and a top 50 should be sufficient. Betty Logan (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What makes 50 a better number than 100? why not cutting it to top 10? or have just nr. 1 if the ideea is to determinate the "highest grossing" film. My point is that this page has been 100 since forever and it's a pretty high viewed page, not like it's a stub barely viewed. There is not a precis number defined on WP:INDISCRIMINATE, so where you would consider "less is best", I consider the page fine at a round 100 entries, I enjoy and find the information useful, and so does probably many of the thousands daily readers of this page, and cutting it down will confuse many of those recurring readers. And also, whether this has any weight on the argument or not, I have made sure since like 2014 to constantly update the page and make sure to keep it up to a certain standard and not let it be a mess of a page like other similar pages are. If this page is cut off in half, I will not only find it disappointing as a reader, but I will also feel like my work here as a creator was tarnished. DCF94 (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's true that the threshold is somewhat arbitrary i.e. is 100 indiscriminate? is 200 indiscriminate? is 50 indiscriminate? In truth, the longer the list is the more indiscriminate it is, so we should keep the list as short as possible as to still be useful. For example, when TompaDompa decided to cull a lot of the films at List of films considered the best he deleted a lot of my work on the article, but I actually helped him do that because I accepted that making the article tighter and more focused made it into a more useful article. A WP:STATUSQUO argument only applies to keeping a list the way it is unless there is agreement to change it, it's not an argument in itself to not change it. Having a slightly shorter chart at List of highest-grossing films allows us to add other charts to the article without making the article too large, such as the timeline and the year-topper, which I think is better than just having one really long chart. Betty Logan (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you can tell by my comments here and in the past that I'm obviously not as well educated with the WP guidelines as you are, I'm mostly just a reader who tries to respectfully edit and updated pages that he likes within those guidelines. Yes your argument about having a shorter main chart can allow us to add other charts and paragraphs is very valid! But I am speaking from a reader point of view now, and I don't want to generelise or to discredit the List of highest-grossing films page, but when I go on a "list" page, I generally want to read the charts and not so much the descriptive paragraphs, and so I strongly belive that the 100 chart is a undiscriminating number that I and many find interesting, and seeing how I've been on this page for almost 5 years, page that has a pretty big traffic, and in those 5 years I only think I've read 2 or 3 times (maybe a little more) that someone finds 100 "excessive". You brought up a while ago on List of highest-grossing films that you wanted to reduce the Top 50 chart to 25 and it was put up for a debate and it ended up staying the same, now I don't know if this is the same or will end up the same, but if you really want to go forward with this edit, I want to call for a debate and whatever the resolution will be, I will conform, but till then I don't agree with this edit. DCF94 (talk) 09:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Should there be a debate on this question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.209.29.11 (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Batman
Batman return of the caped crusaders is not under the batman section despite being on it in the main worldwide list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.243.240 (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Its gross was on the international market, not domestic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:A9E3:ABF7:9CCB:F6C0 (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The Skywalker Saga should have separate section like the Avengers has with the MCU
The Skywalker Saga should have a separate section like the Avengers has with the MCU  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowbokunohero (talk • contribs) 15:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The "Skywalker Saga" is not a franchise, The Avengers is. That is why The Avengers has its own entry. Betty Logan (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Some tickets
Some of the ticket numbers are wrong. what are we going to do?87.75.119.80 (talk) 13:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If you list them here someone will correct it. Betty Logan (talk) 13:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Go to this page then go to the one with adjusted to 2020.

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt4154796/rankings/?ref_=bo_tt_tab#tabs 87.75.119.80 (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And I think Avatar should be lower as well. 87.75.119.80 (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason seems to be because there hasn't been a 2020 update yet and the figures in this article are still at 2019 rates. The adjusted table on this page operates by multiplying the admissions by the ticket price and that makes it easy to update, because you only have to copy in the new ticket price instead of updating every single figure. If you look at adjusted chart though all the films are still in the correct order e.g. Avatar at #15, Endgame at #16. It should self-correct once the 2020 data becomes available. Betty Logan (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, what about the ticket numbers? 87.75.119.80 (talk) 14:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

This is what Box Office Mojo as down for ticket numbers: "*15	Avatar	$879,516,601	$760,507,625	97,309,600	2009 . That is identical to Wikipedia's table. Betty Logan (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 16	Avengers: Endgame	$861,072,074	$858,373,000	95,268,900	2019"

What about Forest Gump, age of ultron and Spider man? 87.75.119.80 (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have fixed them and added in Rise of Skywalker. Betty Logan (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Others that need correcting are Gone with the Wind, Star Wars (1977), Empire Strikes back, Phantom menace, back to the future, Two towers, the Rise of Skywalker, The Last Jedi and the Godfather. 87.75.119.80 (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Overlap with Film series
Film series has a box office table similar to List of highest-grossing films in the United States and Canada. It's discussed at Talk:Film series. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)