Talk:List of film sequels by box-office performance

Please help add references

Only five movie-combinations currently (July 22, 2008) have references (sources) for their grosses. If you see this note: please add one or more references. Thanks. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Table Order

Are the tables in any type of order at all? It seems like the movies are just randomly placed in the tables. Shouldn't they actually be arranged by box-office improvement. That seems to be what the title of the article implies. Mollymoon (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

inflation?

I assume the dollar figures are in American dollars. Also, are these amounts taking inflation into account? NorthernThunder (talk) 07:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Sequels or trilogies?

LOTR and a few others probably shouldn't be in the list, they're part of a planned trilogy and not really sequels. 159.233.81.122 (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

pls add Iron Man 3 in Second Sequels by box office improvement

Ram nareshji (talk) Iron Man 2 grossed $312,433,331 whereas Iron Man 3 grossed $409,013,994, so there is improvement is there in second sequel in iron man series so pls add it. —Preceding undated comment added 15:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Multiple issues

I recently discovered this list, and it has multiple issues. Some of them are fixable, such as lacking a WP:Worldwide view and being subject to a large amount of WP:Link rot. The others I'm not so sure about. Lacking WP:Notability (or in other words relying on a metric or mode of comparison that has been made up by Wikipedia editors instead of being used by WP:Reliable sources) and consistent WP:LISTCRITERIA that are supported by reliable sources are dealbreakers. Unless it can be demonstrated that the concept of this list is salvageable by providing reliable sources, I will propose deletion within a few days. TompaDompa (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

While I agree that the page as it stands has multiple issues, I am not keen on editors just deleting things when information is useful. Giving a 11 day notice of deletion seems a bit harsh. There doesn't seem to be pages on box office performances of sequels on Wikipedia and it is a useful topic. I came across this page as was trying to find data on sequels and seems the only one with box office data. Although it would be better to be based on worldwide data, availability of worldwide box office grosses is very patchy and restricted to the last 25 years or so, so worldwide grosses would restrict a lot of older films being listed. Variety have published charts looking at the performance of sequels compared to originals (eg their March 28, 1994 edition) and it has been a theme for years (although mostly focused on reduction as historically most sequels had a lower gross). I think this page would be improved by reducing the list to say a top 5 or 10 and adding other charts related to sequels eg highest-grossing sequels which this page likely has the data for. I don’t mind trying to improve it but can’t do it quickly so would be better if you removed the deletion notice and left it for now.Sudiani (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Now that we have updated the page to give a wider scope, I note that you have added a banner about the name of the article. Maybe it should just be shortened to List of film sequels by box-office? I'm not too keen on the mixed table that you have created at the top. I think if you think that there should be a table to show absolute gross differences that it should be a different table as is confusing otherwise. The problem with absolute data is that as inflation increases a $500m difference becomes a smaller and smaller increase percentage wise so maybe for now show the largest differences and in future this can be limited to a top 5 or 10 rather than just those with a $500m difference.Sudiani (talk) 10:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I was considering List of films sequels by box-office performance, but List of film sequels by box office could also work. I think a hyphen should be used if "box office" is used attributively (i.e. before a noun which it modifies, as in box-office bomb), but not otherwise. I'm not quite sure about the orthographic rules there, however.

I split the table in two. I think a fixed dollar amount is preferable to a fixed number of entries, with the threshold being raised periodically to keep the list from becoming indiscriminate. TompaDompa (talk) 12:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:GLOBAL

This has since been addressed. TompaDompa (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is there any good reason why this list is restricted to North American grosses? Based on the title alone, I would expect this to be about worldwide grosses, not North American ones. I'm starting a worldwide table here on the talk page, and this table can be expanded upon and eventually added to the main article. TompaDompa (talk) 22:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC) Title Year Gross Title (predecessor) Year (predecessor) Predecessor's gross Improvement Number in series Frozen II 2019 $1,450,026,933 Frozen 2013 $1,280,802,282 13% 2 References

Should this list even exist?

Does this meet WP:LISTN, i.e. has this topic been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources? A cursory web search would suggest that no, it has not. The box office performances of sequels have been discussed as a group (e.g. here and here), and individual sequels' box office performances as compared to their predecessors have been discussed (e.g. here and here), but have sequels' box office performances as compared to their predecessors been discussed as a group? TompaDompa (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Is this the right way to compare grosses within series?

I don't think it's self-evident that comparing films to their immediate predecessors is the right way to go. It would be just as valid to compare to the first film in the series or perhaps to the film that was previously the highest-grossing one in the series. I would ask how WP:Reliable sources do it, but as noted above, it doesn't seem like reliable sources do this in the first place—this seems to be a metric made up by Wikipedia editors. TompaDompa (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Variety and other sources do often show the progression of grosses of films, normally in a graphical format. Not sure how easy that is to do in Wikipedia. Potentially for the different charts for the series numbers, you could present a table eg for the 9 films in the Star Wars saga; for the 8 Fast and Furious films etc. Other pages do have these tables but would be better in a visual format rather than adding more tables. Maybe links could be added to those articles. I will create some examples to see if it works.Sudiani (talk) 10:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

What are the criteria for sequels?

It's not always immediately obvious how the sequel number of a film is decided. In some cases, it's clear-cut – for instance, Rocky III is number 3, and the predecessor is Rocky II. In other cases, it's more debatable what the proper way of doing it would be. Some examples:

• Logan is on this list counted as number 2 following The Wolverine, but could also be counted as number 3 with X-Men Origins: Wolverine as number 1, or even higher if it's counted as part of the larger X-Men film series.
• Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is counted as number 2 with Jumanji as number 1, but could also be counted as number 3 with Zathura: A Space Adventure as number 2 (see Jumanji (franchise)), or as a spin-off or stand-alone film rather than a sequel.
• Captain America: Civil War is counted as number 3 with Captain America: The Winter Soldier as number 2, even though the former is more of a sequel to Avengers: Age of Ultron than to the latter. It could also be counted by its number in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. This of course goes for other films in the MCU as well.
  • Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is counted as number 2 with Man of Steel as number 1, but could be counted as a stand-alone film within the same continuity (the DCEU) rather than a sequel.
• Split is counted as number 2, the sequel to Unbreakable, but could also be counted as a stand-alone film in the same fictional universe rather than a sequel.
• Quantum of Solace is counted as number 2 with Casino Royale as number 1. This assumes a reset of the sequel number with the reboot between Die Another Day and Casino Royale, which is not necessarily how it should be.
  • Other reboots of varying degrees of softness/hardness include Rise of the Planet of the Apes (counted as number 1 in a new series), Batman Begins (counted as number 1 in a new series), Mad Max: Fury Road (counted as number 4 with Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome as number 3), and Jurassic World (counted as number 4 with Jurassic Park III as number 3).
• The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is counted as number 3 with For a Few Dollars More as number 2 and A Fistful of Dollars as number 1. These films are sometimes but not always considered a film series (known as the Dollars Trilogy), and not necessarily sequels within that putative series (if anything, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is a prequel).
• This list does not contain any Star Wars films except Return of the Jedi as number 3 with The Empire Strikes Back as number 2. Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith outgrossed Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones and should be included, though it could either be counted as number 3 (with Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace as number 1) or number 6 (with the original 1977 Star Wars as number 1 and The Phantom Menace as number 4). Star Wars: The Force Awakens outgrossed all previous films, and could be included as number 7 or counted as number 1 in a new series (with each trilogy counted separately) and thus not included.

Some of these I think are currently done the right way and some the wrong way, but the main problem is that this shouldn't be decided by Wikipedia editors at all but rather by WP:Reliable sources external to Wikipedia. TompaDompa (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion after AfD

In the recent AfD, it was suggested that the contents be discussed on the talk page. A few weeks have passed and not much has happened, so I figured I'd ping the editors who voted keep. @Clarityfiend, Dream Focus, Toughpigs, Sudiani, Betty Logan, and *Treker: What do you suggest be done?

Personally, I'd suggest removing the "progression" tables because I think it's highly questionable if they can be sourced properly, but other than that I really don't know. TompaDompa (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Something has to be done about the Notes section, it's very cluttered right now and needs sources.★Trekker (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I added sources. TompaDompa (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with scrapping the progression record tables. Betty Logan (talk) 09:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the first thing is to change the article name. I had suggested List of film sequels by box office. I don't agree with the removal of the historical data. I find Wikipedia articles that regurgitate tables from Box Office Mojo or The Number pretty pointless. To me, the history is more interesting than what latest releases have grossed the most money which can be found from multiple other websites. I disagree with the view that the data for those progression tables is "highly questionable". Charts have been published for the past 70 years showing this information. The main caveat to that is that charts prior to the 1990s aren't generally based on worldwide grosses so there is a slight disconnect between worldwide grosses and what those sources show but it's fairly easy to glean what the top films at certain points in time were. With Wikipedia rules, it would be better if the charts were based on US grosses as easier to source but The Numbers table does show most of those films and their worldwide grosses so the figures and positions were all supportable. One option could be to use inflation-adjusted figures which are used on other articles, but I don't really believe in inflation-adjusted charts as they are definitely "highly-questionable" as to how they are calculated, especially on sites like Box Office Mojo which haven't put in sufficient research or have sufficient data to calculate figures that are reliable. Someone earlier suggested merging the first two tables but I disagree with that proposal too. I think those tables are ok as they are, although feel they are unsourced as to which films should be included as I have never seen charts that list films in this way. The sequels table as it is largely lists data from The Numbers and is ok but The Numbers data doesn't seem as reliable as Box Office Mojo for quite a few of the films so have been updated in some instances. I think it is useful to have the chart with the sequels grosses and makes the page a bit more relevant than it was before but generally I'm not interested in the page as it doesn't provide any interesting data that can't be found elsewhere.Sudiani (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I think a single timeline for the record is fine. We have one at the List of highest-grossing films. As you say, it is often noted when a film is the "highest-grossing sequel" and it provides a historical perspective. However I think progression of highest grossing 3rd entry, 4th entry, 5th entry records etc is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Betty Logan (talk) 10:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

It would be good if that chart could be included. I came to this page as Variety had a chart of the top grossing fourth films in a series that they published in the 1990s so I was trying to find the current data but as websites like Mojo and The Numbers don't bother to list the films in that order, I thought it would be useful to have it here given that the data is available just not organised in that format but if others think those charts are indiscriminate, I'm ok with that. At least the history pages here give me the data so that I can keep it for my own records.Sudiani (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Missing non-American films

Dhoom 3 grossed INR 5.58 billion, improving 268% over it's predecessor Dhoom 2 which grossed INR 1.51 billion. However, due to changes in exchange rates, Dhoom 3's USD 88 million is only 171% improvement over Dhoom 2's USD 32.4, thus becoming ineligible for the list.

This doesn't make much sense to me because the film "outgrossed [it's] predecessor by at least a factor of three" by definition in it's own currency where majority of it's revenue came from. Asking for figures in USD only makes things worse, excluding a number of other non-American films.

Since we are talking about "relative improvement", there's no necessity for all the entries to be USD. This issue can be resolved by either:

1. Allowing other currencies in the main table
2. Making a seperate table for relative improvement in "foreign" currencies

I'm fine with either of the options as long as non-American films get more representation. Thanks and regards -- Ab207 (talk) 07:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

You make a good point and I favour the first option. In instances where the vast majority of the gross is in a single currency (typically that of the country of origin), I think it makes more sense to use that currency when assessing relative box-office improvement than converting it to some other currency "for consistency". In instances where the gross is from a mix of various currencies, we should follow the industry standard—which happens to be converting all of it to USD. Ping Betty Logan for input. TompaDompa (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Some countries have periods with hyperinflation where a sequel a couple of years later may improve by a factor 1000 or more without selling more tickets. If we allow local currency then somebody will probably find examples with billions of percent when several years have passed. USD never had hyperinflation. Ticket counts would be optimal but we lack data. I suggest we stick to USD to avoid absurd records. If we try to allow some currencies with much higher inflation than USD but not hyperinflation then where do we draw the line? India had around 85% total inflation between Dhoom 2 in 2006 and Dhoom 3 in 2013. That's local inflation in consumer prices and not just a question of exchange rates. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:54, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Inflation is of course a factor to be considered, but sticking to USD is not really a remedy. See the example with Mary Poppins and Mary Poppins Returns being released 54 years apart. TompaDompa (talk) 03:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The 239% Poppins increase is rather meaningless but 54 years before a sequel is very rare, and it's still only number 17 (and last) on the current list so it doesn't "ruin" the list. I think it would ruin it if the whole list was minor films almost nobody has heard about from hyperinflation countries like Zimbabwe and Venezuela where consumer prices can increase by literally billions of percent during normal time spans between sequels. I haven't examined the film history in hyperinflation countries but I assume they do have sequels. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

While I see your point about hyperinflation, it's pretty much an extreme scenario. Linking performance of a film with exchange rates is more arbitrary. In 2006, 1 USD = 44.5 INR, and by 2013 it's 1 USD = 62 INR, thus reducing Dhoom 3's relative performance by a third. While there's also rise in average ticket price due to inflation, it's a primary factor influencing the film's gross in any country (including the US) unlike exhange rates.

Hyperinflation is an objectively defined period in an economy (50% per month or 1000% per year), so it shouldn't be difficult to excluding them with a note. -- Ab207 (talk) 05:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

But what about high inflation which isn't quite hyperinflation? Three consecutive years with "merely" 200% annual inflation would total 2600%. I guess that even without hyperinflation, at least 99 of a top-100 would be from high inflation countries if we could find the box office data. As I said, where do we draw the line? There is no good solution when ticket counts are unknown but I think USD is the least bad, unless we just hope that nobody bothers to find data and add minor films from high inflation countries. PrimeHunter (talk) 06:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it's somewhat far fetched to say that list will be over-run when local currency is allowed. Even in a country like India which produces 1000 films/year and all the inflation, I could only find two sequels with reliable box office data which fit the definition, out of which only one could be added due to exchange rate issues. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• It should be noted that MOS:CURRENCY states that non-country specific articles should use US dollars, euros, or pounds sterling. Personally I would discount the pound too, except for historical articles (i.e. up to the end of the British Empire). The US$ is generally the global currency of the film industry so the figures will be easier to source than euros. Articles that are logging worldwide box-office should adopt a global perspective, even if the film made most of its money locally. This will iron out effects such as hyperinflation, and even different rates of inflation between various countries. What we are interested in is a film's global performance relative to its predecessors, and therefore a major global reserve currency is the best option. If you don't have a level playing field it could end up with some really weird anomalies: you could have two series from different countries where the first instalments earn identical money, and then the second instalments make identical money too–however due to this arbitrary difference they could have different performance ratios despite the fact they saw identical improvements at a global level.

Also, I should point out that Mary Poppins Returns does not really belong on this list. If you look closely at the box-office for the original film you will notice that no overseas box-office is logged prior to the 1990s. On its original release it grossed $13 million in rental, which would be about $25–30 million gross (so similar to the domestic gross) and that is before you factor in all the reissues too. Betty Logan (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

MOS:CURRENCY talks about the general preference of currencies in prose so that the international audience can comprehend the absolute monetary value. Therefore, using USD for absolute improvement makes sense as you point out. However, relative improvement is not a value in any currency. It is the proportion of increase measured in percentage terms.

"If you don't have a level playing field it could end up with some really weird anomalies". This was my point too, there's no level playing field for non-American films as the article is only concerned about improvement in USD rather than the currency where most of its revenue comes from -- Ab207 (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

To take an example, if houses prices in Russia double then there has been a 100% increase from a Russian perspective; however, if the currency halved in value at the same time relative to other major currencies, then from a global perspective the house costs the same price. In an article that takes the Russian perspective then there has been a 100% increase, but in an article that takes a global perspective there has been a 0% increase. This article adopts a global perspective. Betty Logan (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The above example seems to use USD a factor to iron out the price rise due to inflation. However, as the article states, "the list is not adjusted for inflation." If a Russian sequel improves its relative performance by 100% in RUB, I don't see how it differs from an American sequel improving by 100% in USD. Also, exchange rates are primarily dependent on demand and supply in international trade which should not affect a film's performance domestically. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The argument about (hyper-)inflation is one instance where I think hard cases make bad law. We shouldn't exclude all non-USD currencies simply because someone might add self-evidently silly entries to the list. As for maintaining a WP:GLOBAL perspective, it would seem counterproductive to restrict ourselves to USD if that means we have to leave out entries where we can source the grosses in local currencies but not in USD. Throughout the history of cinema, there have been quite a few films whose releases were effectively (more-or-less) single-market ones because one market dominated the box office. I also suspect that limiting ourselves to USD contributes to a WP:RECENCY bias for similar reasons—the further back we go, the more likely it is that a gross will be known in some non-USD currency but not in USD. TompaDompa (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@TompaDompa, PrimeHunter, Betty Logan

Hello, again. There's another Indian sequel that improved it's box office performance by 500% in the local currency (Karthikeya 2's INR 1.2 billion over it's predecessor Karthikeya's 200 million INR.). Then again, I'm unable to add it in table because

1. Improvement in local currency by itself is not allowed currently.

2. Gross is not available directly in USD (The sequel would've made into the list even in USD. USD 15 mn vs USD 3.2 mn by conversion, an improvement of 368%)

I think it's time to consider relaxing either of the above. Else, more and more non-American films may miss out due to the above reasons. Thanks and regards -- Ab207 (talk) 06:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Zathura

I’m not saying Zathura is not in the Jumanji franchise, but it has been classified as a spin off to the main movies. The main movies including Jumanji, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, and Jumanji: The Next Level. Much like the MCU, this is a shared universe, and Welcome to the Jungle is meant to follow Jumanji, not Zathura, much like how Spider-Man: No Way Home follows Spider-Man: Far From Home, and not the preceding MCU film Eternals. It would be like saying The Force Awakens follows the Clone Wars film for Star Wars. Same franchise, but different categories. Welcome to the Jungle should not be listed as a follow-up and sequel to Zathura, as it’s a direct sequel to Jumanji. Zvig47 (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

What we should really be looking at is not in-universe connections but how sources that discuss the films in a box office context treat it. Right now we have a footnote that says The Numbers includes Zathura: A Space Adventure in the Jumanji franchise, whereas Box Office Mojo does not. and we present both ways of doing it. TompaDompa (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)