Talk:List of highest-grossing films/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Untitled

Does someone have available the exact algorithm that was used, or access to a way to recreate it? This list is now out-of-date, as for example The Matrix Reloaded is by all accounts somewhere on the top 50, so should be updated. -- Delirium 01:54 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There are nine films from late '02–'04 ahead of MI2 on the first list which should be on the second --wwoods 17:05, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There are now 14 films that debuted after MI2 that should be on the second list. MI2 has fallen off the first list now. Rmhermen 03:31, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

The new star wars is a at 692 million and climbing and should go past 850 million. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=starwars3.htm

I updated the list, but got a little mixed up, that's why it's edited so much times by me.

NOTE- I have checked all the most respected movie websites (imdb, boxofficemojo, thenumbers, etc) and nowhere does it mention Titanic reaching over 2 billion. You cannot use the inflation on the whole amount because much of its earnings have been somewhat recent. taking the USD worth in 1998 and and calculating it with the whole amount is very inaccurate and misleading.

Birth of a Nation

I have just read an article on wikipedia claiming birth of a nation is the highest grossing film ever, Yet it is nowhere to be seen on this list.

it was, at the time, and is listed on one of the lists on the page.

Ticket Sales

I have changed "ticket sales" to "box office takings" as the former is highly misleading; this is a list of money made not tickets sold. As the list is not adjusted for inflation it is inevitably biased towards newer films, and against older films. Rje 20:02, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Without Inflation adjusting these stats are meaningless

You mention the fact that inflation matters in the article, but what's the point of just mentioning it? You really need to include the inflation adjusted numbers as the primary list. This list heavily favors new films which are priced in massively inflated dollars. Cshay 19:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Without Inflation adjusting these stats are meaningless

The stats are not necessarily meaningless but i do agree that surely the adjusted list should also be included in the article why only mention them? Discordance 02:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

Should this movie be on the list? I think the list would better without it, as all the other movies are $500 million or more, while Crusade is slightly under. I've counted and see that it's a nice round number (40) but since it is not numbered, and few are going to count it, it would probably look better if it just included movies that grossed over half a billion worldwide. Just a thought...Eric Sieck 03:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it if there is no opposition in the next week.Eric Sieck 03:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I say leave it. The fact that it is the only one under $500m is a coincidence, the standings will change in the future. Qutezuce 03:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

So it shall stay. Actually, if it does change, then all the movies indeed will be over half a billion dollars, because Crusade will be knocked off. However, since it doesn't say top 40 at the top, nor as I mentioned before, are they numbered, I still think it would look better as all movies over half a billion dollars. However, disagreement has been shown, so if it is changed in the future, it won't be by me, but my opinion still stands. Eric Sieck 04:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Update needed

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is now 8th, but is still shown as being 12th.

Based on which data? The list on this page appears to be based on this one at imdb. And Harry Potter is in the correct place according to that page. Qutezuce 20:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

1950's omitted?

Why are the 1950's omitted from the [inflation adjusted] list?

Well, they're not omitted as such, it just happens that no film from the 1950s was big enough box-office around the world. Why? Post-war austerity, fewer people being able to afford tickets, difficult to say categorically.--Stevouk 18:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Spider-Man 2

Anyone notice that it appears twice in this list? :P --Nbmatt 00:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

In which list I checked and it doesn't show up twice. -- AlexDB

How many people saw the movie?

I think it would be better to make a list of how many tickets were sold instead of how much money each movie made. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.120.172.142 (talk) 06:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

This list is not credible.

I first found the equivalent of this list on imdb.com. I'm having a really hard time believing two of the entries: Titanic and Gone with the Wind. Granted, these were both blockbusters among blockbusters, but I find it more than a little odd that Titanic grossed $1.8353 billion in 1997, whereas the next highest gross that year was Jurassic Park at $614.3 million—-ostensibly everybody in the world saw Jurassic Park, so how did Titanic exceed its sales by a factor of 2.99? Other sources quote Titanic's take as much lower (e.g., $789,300,000 listed at http://www.teako170.com/inflation.html, which admittedly is reporting only domestic sales; but still, that leaves more than a billion in foreign box office--not likely). Nearer, my god, to thee, indeed.

As to GWTW, according to this table only four movies earlier than 1970 broke more than $200 in box office sales (the other three being Bambi, One Hundred and One Dalmations, and The Jungle Book—-all Disnamations. We're really meant to believe that in 1939 Gone With the Wind sold $390.5 million at the box office, more than any other movie until Jaws came along 36 years later? And that The Wizard of Oz, the other blockbuster from that annus mirabillis, didn't even break two mill? Given the general inflation rates between 1939 and present (1,316.43% ), a movie in 2006 would have to gross $5.14 billion-—almost thrice what Titanic made, though that was unadjusted 1997 dollars-—to be comparable to the cited GWTW box office. But perhaps that calculation is probably skewed because the general inflation rate is not representative of the inflation in box office prices. Well, ok, Box Office Mojo tells us that the average movie ticket price in 1939 was $.23 and that in 2006 it is $6.58; that represents an inflation rate of 2,860.87%, so the GWTW box office would translate to $11.17 billion in 2006 box office sales—-more than 10 times the take of the highest-grossing movie so far this year (Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest).

Finally, and most problematically, there's no citation anywhere on this page about the source of these data, so I honestly don't believe they should be presented as fact on wikipedia.

WTW was re-released in 1947, 1954, 1961, 1967 , 1971, 1989, and 1998 so that's why its numbers seem way off. That said one of the lists is wrong or incomplete as they don't match each other. Back to the Future (1985) is number 6 on the unadjusted list but doesn't even make the inflation list where it should beat Jurassic Park (1993) and Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (1999) (witch isn't even on the first list).Errror1 21:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This list here is inaccurate. There is not a single Bond movie on the list. Using BOX-OFFICE TOP 100 U.S. FILMS Unadjusted and Adjusted list at http://www.filmsite.org/boxoffice.html shows that in adjusted for inflation list there is Thunderball as number 26 and Goldfinger as number 39. If you access Wiki Bond page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_bond you will find out that calculating inflation by using inflation score for budget, Thunderball earned 903 million, Goldfinger earned 812 million, Live and Let Die earned 735 million, You Only Live Twice earned 674 million, The Spy Who Loved Me earned 617 million, Diamonds Are Forever earned 578 million, Casino Royale earned 571 million, Moonraker earned 534 million and From Russia with Love earned 512 million. This error seems quite deliberate and malicious. If some people don't like Bond movies then that certainly doesn't give them a right to lie here and fabricate facts. I dispute this whole page therefore. Ravenlord 09:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Why Box Office grosses have gone up so greatly

Everyone talks about inflation driving up the box office totals and the reason why the top grossing films are from the last twenty years, but I don't think it's as big of a factor as people think. There's something else that's not mentioned: number of screens. This has been the biggest factor affecting box office grosses. The original Star Wars movies only played on about 1000 screens in North America, so they could only make $10 million or so a weekend. (These are ballpark figures, but you get the idea.) Films like Star Wars and E.T. would get their money by stringing together these sorts of weekends throughout the summer. But the last twenty years has seen an explosion of movie theater screens. Modern films play on about 4000 in North America, and we're not even getting into the increase in international grosses. That's why films such as Spider-man and Harry Potter have been able to open with $100 million, and that's why I believe the films of the last twenty years have been able to chart high on the all time list. The population has increased, of course, but more importantly, getting the movies to these people has become easier. If you build a theater closer to where someone lives, you're more likely to get that someone to the movie. The number of screens is so closely linked to the money a film can make, a good site like boxofficemojo will tell you how many a film is going to be playing on when it comes out. Celedor15 19:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

435 Billion for Gone with the Wind?

Apparently, adjusted with inflation, Gone with the wind has grossed 1% of the world's current GDP. I realize this is an extremely faulty comparison, but I felt the only way I could comprehend how ridiculous that number was, was to make that kind of comparison. There is no way that number is accurate. Rocksbush 04:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The list says $4.39 billion now. You may have counted the decimals. Still, that number has no citation. This link has the 2006 inflation adjusted number at about $1.33 billion. Shawnc 00:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Explicit citation needed

The lists require a mention of exactly where or how the numbers are derived. The source must be credible. Shawnc 22:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

But we need some way to prove that Gone with the Wind and Star Wars were comparatively more successful than Titanic!

That "proof" doesn't exist.Yoyocoolboy 23:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

And if you look at the old list, NO citations were used to prove the numbers that were posted. Thus, the list, source, or whatever was posted on that page was NOT credible.Yoyocoolboy 23:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete the Worldwide inflation gross list

4 things are needed to know in order to receive how many tickets a movie sold so you can convert a movie's box office gross into an adjusted for inflation gross.

1. What year the movie was released and rereleased.

2. How much the average movie ticket was they year the movie was released and rereleased.

3. How much the movie made during each release and rerelease.

4. The average ticket price of the year you're going to convert the movie's release and rerelease grosses into.

There's no place that we can find all 4 variables for most of the movies that were released before 1990; so we can't go around making up lists and pulling numbers out of our heads unless we know all 4 of those variables.

Gone with the wind's release and rerelease totals are non-existent. Boxofficemojo only lists one clumped up list of what the movie made throughout all the years it was released and rereleased. So whoever posted that 2.6 billion dollar adjusted for inflation gross MADE IT UP. Why should numbers that people make up be allowed to be posted on this site and confuse and mislead people?

I will also prove that Titanic's actual adjusted for inflation gross is over 2.64 billion dollars, not 2.2.

(Using the variable list I created above)

1. 1997

2. $4.59

3. $1,845,034,188

4. 2007/$6.58

I will now take the $1,845,034,188 total and divide that number by the average movie ticket price of 1997 ($4.59) to result in how many tickets were sold. (401,968,233)

I take the number of tickets sold (401,968,233) and now multiply that number by the average ticket price of a movie today ($6.58) to result in the true adjusted for inflation Worldwide gross for Titanic.

I come out with a result of $2,644,950,971.03. (Which means Titanic should at least be number 3 on that BS and made up list.)

That's how you really discover a movie's adjusted for inflation gross.

Because there's just so much we don't know about movie grosses that were released before 1990, there just shouldn't be a list because we just don't have enough information to create one.

... posted at 07:38, 7 June 2007 by Yoyocoolboy

You make some very good points, Yoyocoolboy. Incidentally, how do we even know recent average ticket prices? Presumably people know them for the US, for Brazil, for Hungary, for Uganda, for Brunei, etc etc; but do people actually work out the price in each nation? Because if they don't, even your calculation becomes worthless. Instead, you need the earnings for nation X divided by the average ticket price for nation X, plus the earnings for nation Y divided by the average ticket price for nation Y, etc etc (ad nauseam). It's not impossible that accountants somewhere do compile this information, but do they really? -- Hoary 09:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Look it up on boxofficemojo.com. Here's the link to show the average ticket prices of today.http://www.boxofficemojo.com/about/adjuster.htm

Breaking up the gross by nation is something that can't be done. Which would mean that my calculations aren't exactly 100% true, but that also means that the list that exists right now is also 100% fake. (at least I try to prove my numbers by using math instead of just posting some random numbers)

There's not enough information on each movie's worldwide gross to create a list; so it should be deleted as soon as possible.Yoyocoolboy 00:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Are these even average ticket prices? Or are they instead average US ticket prices? (All of this seems dodgier and dodgier.)

Let's wait a week and see if anyone posts a reasoned defense of the contents of this list. -- Hoary 01:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

That's the only credible list that exists right now. And those are the numbers boxofficemojo uses to create their adjusted for inflation domestic list (so why not have a list that we know is a fact using ONLY the domestic grosses; instead of worldwide)

I'm guessing that that's the US dollar movie ticket prices (though not 100 percent sure)

But either way, the list that's featured on wikipedia presently is very far off and still very untrue.Yoyocoolboy 03:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

PROD removal

This article was "prodded", on the grounds that about half of it was worthless (as argued in the section above). Let's assume for a moment that the charge above is well founded. That in itself is no reason to delete the article. Deletion would have removed the other half too. Despite having no particular affection for this article and being very suspicious of a lot of its content, I therefore removed the prod template. -- Hoary 09:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

In case you still think it should be deleted, you should go to Articles for deletion In fact, I've already come across a listing on the AfD log which I removed, since it was both misspelled and there is currently no no main tag nor discussion page. In case you want to nominate the article, please follow the three steps outlined at WP:AfD#How to list pages for deletion. --Tikiwont 12:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoah, what happened to the second table? It should be put back there.

No it should not. It was 100% made up and had no proof to back it up. Why would you want people to be misled or become confused? I THANK whomever decided to delete that list! May it never be seen again!Yoyocoolboy 23:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I also am happy the list was removed. It was at best misleading, at worst a work of fiction. To my knowledge, no one has yet come out with a domestic or worldwide list of box office grosses properly adjusted for inflation. And I doubt anyone ever will, as such a list would still be misleading and meaningless. Celedor15 03:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

References

All of the figures here should be referenced, so I added a "Source" column to the table as implemented on other list articles (eg, List of best-selling albums worldwide). Tntnnbltn 04:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Transformers

uhh... are you sure transformers made $1,845,034,188,879,765,707? Someone is probably screwing up the article... 68.192.12.173 23:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

tonight we dine in... revert! -74.111.7.3 06:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

War of the Worlds: Galactic Rising??? Even the source code shows it's Titanic, who messed with the page and who can change it back!? 24.127.126.164 17:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Britton.

Highest grossing film series

I just added the highest grossing film series. If anyone feels it is unnecessary they can delete it. APAD 03:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

With the Highest Grossing Series....Can I suggest a High Grossing Series(Average)? Seeing Film Series Like James Bond or Harry Potter (7-8 Films in total) with 21 films to almost 10 films to add to their already total grossing which no doubt puts them on top of the list? It would not be fair to the Films Series like Pirates or LotR who created 3 Films that racked up into Billions of grossing worth.

Edit- Not Sure What I suggested above is already implemented by the "Average of each film" Section of the Film Series Grossing. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 00:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok I Looked at the Film Series Gross Earnings List and Series Like Batman have films that are not related Put into One....I Mean ALL THE Batman Movies are included in the grossing. The Director of the Newer ones did announce that "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight" Has no relations with the older movies and it is its own series. As Said Batman can be added on the chart but with the old movies or the more recent ones. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 11:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

King Kong

King Kong is on there twice which seems to be a mistake —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiliap2 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Merged in a similar list

I've merged in another one of these lists into this article on the "highest grossing films throughout history" which was a little ambiguous. It's now a section at the end of this article as the record holding highest grossing films over time, which made more sense to me. I've redirected the other list to the section itself, so that any links would be picked up. I hope you agree that it makes sense to keep the record holding films in this article as well. If you feel you just have to move it out, please don't forget to fix the other article as well as the link will be broken! Portia1780 (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Highest Grossing at the Time - Missing Jurassic Park

Jurassic Park passed E.T.'s take in 1993, before Titanic came out in 1997. Why is it absent from the list of highest grossing at the time? 68.98.35.111 (talk) 07:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It grossed $357,067,947 in its domestic run. E.T. got $359,197,037. — Enter Movie (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Double it

Let's make it go up to 100 rather than 50 24.186.101.182 (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

How many people saw the movie?

This is a good approach because, unlike any dollar amount, the number of tickets sold can remain fairly static without needing to be adjusted repeatedly, assuming no re-releases. For verifiability, Boxofficemojo has just such a list. If there are no objections, we can include it. Shawnc (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure. But I'm not totally opposed to it either. Flyer22 (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Boxofficemojo's estimated ticket adjuster is a reliable measure of the number of tickets sold. I'm pretty sure it's just putting the Box Office numbers into an algorithm (hence why the list doesn't change order when you alter this variable). But if there IS a reliable source of info regarding # of tickets sold, then it should definitely be added, because there really is nothing more static when it comes to comparing the long-term popularity of films. Box Office gross, ultimately, is better served as a short-term comparison anyway.

Unfortunately, it's going to be very hard to find one that also takes the ever-pesky rerelease into consideration. 75.50.170.213 (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Without Inflation adjusting these stats are meaningless

Inflation stats are meaningless, because they are not properly administered. Firstly, international numbers were not kept until recently, so if you check the sources that adjust for inflation, you'll see they go off domestic numbers. Then people post here at wikipedia with this information and fail to differentiate domestic with international and worldwide, because they don't understand the difference. Secondly, the sources adjust for inflation based off the film's year of release, despite the fact that many of the films on the list made much of their money in rereleases in later years. (Gone with the Wind and Star Wars being two big examples.) In addition, Titanic made most of its money in 1998, not its year of release (1997). While I'm sympathetic to the problem of modern movies looking much more impressives on a list than movies from years ago because of inflation, the quick "adjusted for inflation" fix doesn't work. In fact, we'll never be able to equally compare the box office of films from years ago to today, because films today make so much of their money internationally, and films of yesteryear don't have enough specific data available anymore. 69.215.136.153 (talk) 00:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree with all of the things you (69.215.136.153, above) cited as problems. But, with EITHER calculation/methodology the problems you cite still exist! Isn't it then better to include the inflation adjustment? The results are bound to be more correct than non-adjusted ones! As is, the article calls non-adjusted numbers "meaningless" (which is a generalization, but essentially true for comparing films from different years), but then lists only the non-adjusted amount! That's not cool! ...On a separate matter, don't we know the amounts made in each year (how much Titanic made in 97, how much in 98... how much Star Wars made in 7#, how much in 9#)? It would be simple to calculate these adjusted first, and THEN add them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.146.108 (talk) 09:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Top 40

Why is it specifically the top 40 anyway? Is there are reason for this? 75.50.170.213 (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete the Worldwide inflation gross list

Using this formula for Gone With the Wind you get the following :

1. 1939

2. $.23 (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/about/adjuster.htm)

3. $189,523,031 in 1939 only (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=releases&id=gonewiththewind.htm)

4. 2007 and predicted 2008/$6.88 (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/about/adjuster.htm)

This brings GWTW's total with adjustments for inflation on the original release to be = $5,669,210,664.64. This is more than boxofficemojo's calculations. JCgirlandlegal (talk) 07:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That is because, unlike you, Box Office Mojo and other major sources that attempt to calculate Gone with the Wind's adjusted domestic (i.e., US & Canada) box office (or equivalently, the number of tickets sold) take into account the fact that the film has been released multiple times. The same holds true with other films released multiple times, like Star Wars. Spiderboy12 (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

--If you look above, you will see that it says "adjustments for inflation on the ORIGINAL RELEASE". I left out the re-releases. 76.90.69.223 (talk) 08:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Highest grossing film series

You should define what a Film Series is. Why you don't count the LOTR animated film, or Animatrix, but you count ALL the Bond films (even remakes) and the Batman films (even when they aren't a serie)? -- Gorka Siverio, 25 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.7.112.53 (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is inclined to update this page, please note that the correct worldwide numbers for the James Bond series are listed at The Numbers. These were compiled by MGM at the time of their sale to Sony, and a kind soul forwarded them to me for inclusion on our site. If one includes Never Say Never Again as part of the James Bond canon, then JB is still the highest-grossing film series worldwide.

Please also note that the Harry Potter data is wildly inaccurate on this page. See http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/series/franchises.php for accurate totals for all franchises. (Heck, why not just copy the numbers across from our chart and be done with it... if you see any mistakes in our tally, drop us email and we'll gladly update.)

-- Bruce Nash (The Numbers), 19 April 2008

Just above the chart it says "unadjusted," which I assume means inflation was never included. I am concerned about some of the figures given that some of the series span such long time periods, for instance James Bond and Star Wars. The "total worldwide box office" data contains 1970s dollars and 2000s dollars (and everything in between for some of these films). In short, the values in the table give no useful information since it "compares apples to oranges," to use an idiom. There is a discussion section listed above with good arguments for why we cannot attempt our own inflation adjustments, but just because we can't adjust the values doesn't mean we can go ahead and compare unrelated quantities. Dwr12 (talk) 23:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"but just because we can't adjust the values doesn't mean we can go ahead and compare unrelated quantities."

Why not? The list on top compares Harry Potter with Star Wars, which were released decades apart. The 'highest grossing series' part is just as valid as every other section of the article.

Spinach Dip 05:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Spinach, that doesn't provide justification for the validity of this chart. Certainly it is just as valid as the others, but who ever said the others were acceptable. The reason for listing data in a chart like this is indisputably for comparative purposes. What comparisons can we make though?Dwr12 (talk) 04:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you could change the list to say 'highest average gross' for a film series. That would remove some of the ambiguity of the list.

Spinach Dip 08:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

King Kong

The same 2005 version of "King Kong" is in both 29th and 44th places. The 29th place entry is the only one on the list that seems to be an approximation (listed as "$700,000,000+"), so I am going to delete it and adjust the rest of the list. Unfortunately, I don't know what movie should move into the vacant 50th place spot, so I'll leave it blank. Hopefully, having 49 movies on the list of the top 50 will spur someone more knowledgeable about these things to correct the data.

But it's clear that having "King Kong" twice on the same list is a blatant error that needs to be corrected immediately. BJ Nemeth (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea, but might have been the original (or at least another) version of King Kong? Sandpiper (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Merged in a similar list

That's different information than I remember. Even back in '93-'94 there were articles about Jurassic Park surpassing E.T. Do you have a reference for these numbers? The only numbers I've been able to pull up (admittedly casually) have E.T.'s re-releases, even post '93, included, which inflate the numbers. 68.98.37.37 (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Jurassic Park did pass E.T.'s worldwide take, and was the highest grossing worldwide movie of all time in 1993. However, the list on this page only refers to those who held the domestic box office record. That's why Jurassic Park is missing.Spartacus007 (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Let the love begin and The Promise?????

How are Let the love begin and The Promise the top two highest grossing films ever? Where is Titanic and Lord of the Rings: Return of the King? I think someone's mucking around with the table because I have never even heard of these films and I have not found any website that includes those two films in their lists.

importance of this article

I notice there has been considerable argument about this article, indeed whether it ought to be deleted on the grounds that its content is very hard to verify. I agree there is a big problem with making exact lists. However, it seems to me this informtaion is the sort of thing film moguls have pinned up on the noticeboard of their boardroom. It is very important what sort of films are successfull, and I would presume of interest both to those wanting to see if their favourite film made the list, and to serious film makers. This article ought to exist. I would suggest that anyone who could find information about why films make it to the top, or discussion of the relative merits of different kinds of film, could usefully add it to the article. Sandpiper (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Budget?

This article is fine but where can I find list of movies with highest budgets? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

See http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/budgets.php for a list of most expense movies (and see http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/allbudgets.php for a list of all movies that have known budgets).

-- Bruce Nash (The Numbers), April 19 2008

Somebody f#cked up the list.

YOu better close it. Only registered should be allowed to change. Because somebody allways change the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.33.234.250 (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahaha. Lookslike some idiot counter the first 10 high grossers except Titanic that way. He put together worldwide gross + overseas gross with already included in worldwide. That way he got 1800mil on Lotr3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.33.234.250 (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The Harry Potter series is not, I repeat NOT the most successful film franchise of all time. Just google "most successful film franchises of all time" or whatever.

The top grossing film franchise is arguably either James Band or Star Wars, not Harry Potter. Just go to google, almost every site contradicts this hilarious claime. Badboysbadoyswhatugonnado (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Warning tag is up. Shawnc (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem with googling "most successful film franchises of all time" is that you will find countlees differing opinions on what that term means. According to this article, it is total gross by the series, in which case, HP (apparently) is first.

Spinach Dip 08:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Error

In the section titled "Record holding highest grossing films throughout film history (United States and Canada)", how did the Sound of Music break Gone With the Wind's record of 189 mil if it only grossed 158 mil? Aaron Bowen (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

In the reception article of The Sound of Music, it says the film displaced Gone with the Wind as the all-time champion MAKING The Sound of Music the highest-grossing film at that time. The numbers are just incorrect due to so numerous re-releases so please put the film back in the category. Christianster45 {talk} 9:37, 7 July 08 (UTC)

Ranking of Indiana Jones 4

Does anyone know if it's 33rd or 34th? I've been hearing both. Thanks! Ehccheehcche (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It's climbing fast and it depends when the count was updated. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/ currently has it as 33rd slightly ahead of 34. But if all current World figures were in then it would probably be 31 (it opened in Japan in the weekend). PrimeHunter (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Indiana Jones Series

What is the source to say this is in the highest grossing series? Calculated from the figures, take off the Crystal Skull and each other film has to have earned $540 million each on average, but non of them are in the top 50 so this isn't possible. Canterbury Tail talk 12:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The currently listed total $2,282,272,933 appears to be too high. http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/series/franchises.php currently says 8th place with $1,908,935,783. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Dark Knight is the third highest grossing film ever

Choose one of the many links, oh, and why isn't this included? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dark+knight+third+highest Hellothar999 (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The Dark Knight is the third highest grossing film on the US market or possibly the "domestic" market which also includes Canada. But our article is about worldwide grosses where The Dark Knight is currently much lower. See for example http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/ which lists it as number 30 at the moment. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

random

"Pirates: At world's end" is in top 10 now...how to update it? I wish it crosses the 1 billion mark !!!!!!!!!

According to the header of this page Harry Potter and the philosophers stone was one of 4 films to hit the billion dollar mark. Acording to the list it is about 25 million shy so I adjusted the header accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeDSileo1988 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Expansion

• Highest grossing film series needs to be added with more film series and maybe some more info for the wikitable. Please expand this page soon. Vinh1000 (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

New titles for the original Star Wars series

These should clearly not be used here, and are a symptom of fancruft. Both in their original 1977, 1980 and 1983 releases, and in the huge 1997 theatrical director's cut re-releases, the films were not known and advertised as Star Wars Episode Whatever, but simply by their given titles. It is only since the 1999 release of Episode I: The Phantom Menace and the subsequent prequels, that the originals have been retitled by Lucasfilm ON DVD, to make it seem as if the entire series has more consistency than was originally planned. However, the original three have never seen wide THEATRICAL re-releases under those re-titles, and this is an article about theatrical box office rather than DVD revenue. Only a minuscule proportion of each of their theatrical box office could possibly have made under the post-1999 re-titlings. For the same reason it would be confusing and inappropriate to refer to Raiders of the Lost Ark in this article by its retitle Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark, it is wrong to refer to the originals by the fanboy-preferred titles, which are lesser known among the general population and especially confusing in the case of the original Star Wars, (so-called) A New Hope. 70.21.85.195 (talk) 04:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point since the films were orignally promoted and billed without the episode prefixes, but the concept of six episodes was in the mind of Lucas from the start. Also the he original triogy WERE presented as episode's: IV A New Hope, V The Empire Strikes Back and VI Return of the Jedi in the openeing scrolling introduction text of each movie. The only exception were on the initial relaeases of the first movie where the studio requested "Chapter IV" be omitted to not confuse the audience, but this WAS put back in on the 1980 re-release that preluded the first screenings of Empire (I personally remember being confused by this as this was the first time I watched Star Wars, so the studio had a point). Having completed the seies it would be fair, albeit rectoavtive, to refer to the titles as creatively intended and shown in the opening titles and while I accept the opposite view (since the movies were promoted and billed wihtout chapter titles) it is not as strong as you put forward for the reasons I gave above. Also, surely it would normally be considered fair to properly call a film by what is given in its opening credits?. I'm trying to think of a parallel here in film but here goes one in music: Just because the Beatles album "The Beatles" is widely referred to and often promoted and advetised as "The White Album" its true title is "The Beatles". Dainamo (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The Blair Witch Project

Shouldn't The Blair Witch Project be in one of the lists? It had a budget of 22000 USD and the gross revenue is $248,639,099 (as of January 20, 2008). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skele (talk • contribs) 20:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It tops a list at [1] called "Most Profitable Movies, Based on Return on Investment". But we have no similar list and budget information is problematic, for example regarding reliability of figures and which things are included in the budget. Copying that list might be a copyright violation, and making our own list could easily become original research. The Blair Witch Project doesn't qualify for any of the tables in List of highest-grossing films. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think copying what is a factual list would be considered breach of copyright. The failure of the Fred Worth law suit against the makers of Trivual Pursuit for using his book as a source of many of the questions would seem to indicate this. [2] Dainamo (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

How many people saw the movie?

While I agree that the number of tickets sold is one of the better representations of how popular a film is, I also believe something has to be said for the dramatic rise in home entertainment technology over the past couple years. With the boom in HD television and Blu-Ray technologies, I believe many people today are more than happy to experience the movie for the first time on their 50+ inch High Definition Blu-Ray. I expect movie tickets to begin to decline sharply, and I do NOT believe it will be due to a dip in popularity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.6.84.110 (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Even if we had a reliable way of measuring the number of ticket sales, we would still have the problem of changing population size over time. Even if you adjusted for that however, you would still have a myriad of other factors to take into account. The popularity of going to movies has changed over time, the availability of other forms of media entertainment has changed over time There are more movie theaters now than there were 50 years ago, movie theaters were once segregated, etc. Perhaps you could solve this problem by comparing a movie to it's peers. How many times more money did this movie make than the average movie of it's time(figure out how to define that), but even that runs into problems. When movies were relatively new, was it easier to do extremely well relative to the average movie? Was it harder? I think that none of these pursuits, while they may be interesting, are going to give you an "objective" way to compare movies across eras; and, like in sports, comparisons across eras are doomed to some level of subjectivity. That doesn't mean it's not a worthy pursuit, but it probably isn't something that belongs on a Wikipedia page unless it was already a recognized and common means of comparison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Czerhusen (talk • contribs) 22:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Without Inflation adjusting these stats are meaningless

I think that it is a bit silly to call one list "more correct," than another without having a very clear definition of what it's supposed to be correct about. Is it more correct to adjust for inflation but not population? Or should we use the Consumer Price Index or average ticket prices for that year? Pure unadjusted gross numbers are the only type of number that don't include any type of analysis, and so are the most relevant for an encyclopedia.--Czerhusen (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

People read an encyclopedia not only for raw data but also to understand that data. In other words, analysis of the data. If they read this list without understanding what inflation really means, then they leave having an inaccurate idea of the importance of the films on the list. I would argue that is worse than not having any list at all! By the way, for those people reading these comments who don't understand what inflation is, check back here in 10 years when some random middle of the road film from 2019 is listed as ranked higher than Titanic!! :) Cshay (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Irrespective of whether inflation-adjusted or actual revenue is the better way to go: Either this list also needs an inflation-adjusted version or the inflation-adjusted version for US/Canada needs to be eliminated. Having two different approaches in use for world-wide and US/Canada cannot possibly be justified in a rational way. The Arkady (talk) 09:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The Two Towers

Perhaps someone can get an accurate edit on that BJAODN.

What a terrible article

The list is pretty accurate, but the figures are way, way off! User:Gmeric13@aol.com

Hi. It sounds like you have access to more up-to-date figures. If they are from a reliable source which you can cite as a reference, why not be bold, and help to improve the article. Trafford09 (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone with access to more information than I have, should create a List of the Top 5 highest grossing films per year. All these modern entries strike me as so biased or weighted as to be less than notable. We might all argue about the very 'top' but there would be less argument if it were concerned solely with the Top Five. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

IMDb

Is there a need for this article given the IMDb list (the article doesn't match up by the way)?--RossF18 04:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was thinking; leave it to the professionals instead of this chaotic unrepresentative list. 220.233.41.31 (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

gross what??

gross sales? gross revenue? gross profit? gross income? It's not specified! Please clarify in the beginning of the article!--Sonjaaa (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Your questions all ask the same thing... Gross sales, revenue and income are the same thing. Gross profits is an oxymoron - This is the GROSS revenue (i.e. profits are worked out after expenses are deducted. 202.6.152.164 (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Expansion

How about expanding it to up to top 20 for a start?

I might have overlooked some series, but here is what I think the next 10 film series by worldwide gross is:

• 11. Ice Age $1,653,373,284
• 12. The Matrix $1,623,967,842
• 13. X-Men $1,523,676,268
• 14. Star Trek $1,445,064,613
• 15. Mission: Impossible $1,401,394,476
• 16. Terminator $1,388,224,542
• 17. The Mummy $1,250,075,319
• 18. Narnia $1,164,662,685 (only 2 movies)
• 19. Madagascar $1,134,989,437 (only 2 movies)
• 20. Rocky $1,126,350,503
• 21. Ocean's $1,124,774,054
• 22. Die Hard $1,122,739,477
• 23. Men in Black $1,031,209,342 (only 2 movies)
• 24. Back to the Future $957,581,847
• 25. Jason Bourne $945,358,579

Kjidel (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/series/franchisesW.php also lists:

• "Judd Apatow Movies" (not a film series)
• Transformers (only 2 movies)
• Da Vinci Code (only 2 movies)
• Variations below $1,000,000,000 (may depend on source)

PrimeHunter (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess we should leave the Apatow movies out, or else we might even include Pixar films on the list, with a total of $5,181,669,493! As for the movie series with only two series, most of them have a second sequel coming up, so i can't see why we should not include them … Kjidel (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

New titles for the original Star Wars series

On the topic of Lucas, I changed all 'Highest-grossing films by year' distributors from LucasFilm to whatever it was, since LucasFilm didn't distribute them; just produced them. -Vincetti (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Mamma Mia

I know this may sound stupid, but surely this is the most successful fim of all time. It is still being shown in the cinima even though it came out on DVD last week and the DVD sales alone, everywhere has sold out of them. So why is Mamma Mia not higher on the list if it has been out at the cinima for far longer then anything else on the list?194.81.189.20 (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No Mamma Mia grossed only $601,651,799 doesn't matter how long was in cinemas so don't ask stupid question inform your self first. -- AlexDB —Preceding undated comment added 05:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC).

Tagging misleading article

I am placing a POV tag since the article is sort of unbalanced by not talking into account the adjusted grosses for ticket-price inflation, as has already been discussed above (here, here, here and here). Thantalteresco (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not see how the article is misleading or should be tagged as not being neutral all because it mainly focuses on the box office gross of films unadjusted for inflation. I mean, that's the way films are considered the highest-grossing anyway these days. Titanic is called the highest-grossing film of all time. Why should we consider that misleading just because it's due to being unadjusted for inflation, when that's the way things work these days in regards to films?

In my view, the neutrality tag should be removed from this article. If someone wants to make this list longer and add the highest-grossing films based on adjusted inflation, other than that link to it in the External links section, then do so, but acting like this article is being biased is off (especially since it mentions that this list is based on films unadjusted for inflation). Flyer22 (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Guinness World Records

Just a thought ... with this article, aren't we trying to out-do people who make a living out of compiling such lists? Is that what we Wikipedians should be doing? Providing a useful set of external links to such sites is fine and useful. But attempting to have our own tables - and keep them up-to-date and WP:POV-free - is this wise?

I haven't tried too far yet to find an on-line search list. No doubt there are some referenced in the article or discussion. The only one I found so far via Guinness World Records is http://viewer.zmags.com/showmag.php?magid=51235#/page0/ , where one can enter 'movie' into the Search facility. It's not very useful! I'll perhaps return and look further. Trafford09 (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Inflation-adjusted better than not

Admittedly, no definitive inflation-adjusted top box office list exists, although many of us (including me) would love to believe it does. We do know that the unadjusted list for domestic box office dollars is greatly skewed toward newer films, and is therefore statistically unrealistic. Does anyone really believe that 84 of the 100 most popular (i.e. highest grossing) films ever were released after 1990? Inflation-adjusted lists are not perfect but do appear to offer a more realistic view.

Interestingly, inflation-adjusted lists are still skewed toward newer films - in terms of number: I counted the number of films in both the Box Office Mojo and The Movie Times inflation-adjusted lists that were released from 1989-2008.(It was during the mid to late 1980's when VHS became affordable and Blockbuster and other rental chains really began to take off.) Then, I counted the number of films released from 1969-88, and 1949-68.

In the "Box Office Mojo" list, 24 films appeared in the 1949-68 group; 31 in the 1969-88 group; and 36 in the 1989-2008 group. In the "Movie Times" list, the numbers were 22, 29, and 40, respectively. On the surface, newer films are NOT at a disadvantage. In fact, they are more common in both lists. However, when you look at average inflation-adjusted box office dollars per film, the problem becomes evident: Films in the 1949-68 and 1969-88 groups are nearly equal, but films in the 1989-2008 group have grossed a significantly lower amount (22% lower in the "Box Office Mojo" list and 28% lower in the "Movie Times" list). This would indicate something is going on. (My hunch is that it's a "VHS/DVD effect".) To this point in film history, people have always gone to see "big" films. But, perhaps newer films are actually handicapped in terms of repeat theatrical viewings. How much so? Nobody knows. The calculations I have noted above would indicate that it is somewhere in the vicinity of 25%.

As far as Gone With The Wind, it is #1 in most inflation-adjusted lists and #90 in unadjusted lists. Obviously, its "real" inflation-adjusted rank lies somewhere between #1 and #90. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to state that it is probably closer to #1 than it is to #90. It did benefit from 10 releases, but earned $32 million during its first release - at a time when a film earning $5 million was huge. Quimby123 (talk) 05:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is that inflation rates keep changing and aren't exactly a perfect science anyways. BOVINEBOY2008 17:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Give it another 5 or 10 years until all the favorite films of the Wikipedia generation are no longer in the top 10 (including Titanic) and I think people will start to understand the folly of ignoring inflation. Titanic can't last more than another couple years with inflation rates (and ticket prices) heading upwards. I'm from the Star Wars IV Generation and anyone who was a kid in the 70s understands that it is certainly a top ten film (when adjusted for inflation that is). Cshay (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, listing numbers that are not adjusted for inflation is pure publicity propaganda for the film industry. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to be informative, not to help promote the latest films, and it would be vastly more informative to give any inflation-adjusted number rather than nonadjusted receipts. It would be perfectly reasonable, for example, to convert all numbers into 2000 dollars (to pick a round year) via the US Bureau of Labor's consumer price index (see http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl), which gives a standard measure of how much consumers were willing to pay for the film relative to other uses for their money. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Highest-grossing films by year Distributors

Just went through and put in around 50 of them (literally). If its wrong, change it. If something changes, change it. When you add another film, change it. -Vincetti (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't The Clone Wars Be Included With the Star Wars Series?

I mean, it may not be part of the Prequel or Original Trilogies, but it's still a Star Wars film that was released in theaters, nonetheless. - Enter Movie (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

From my understanding, it is. I've compared the entire franchise's gross on this page to the one on the official Star Wars franchise page and they're the same. -Vincetti (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: add a column to the list with grosses in 2000 current dollars

A simple proposal: add a column to the list with grosses converted into 2000 dollars via the Consumer Price Index. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics has a handy calculator for this. (Or any other year, but 2000 is a round number and seems as good as any.)

This is a simple, standard way to adjust for inflation, and would be vastly more informative than emphasizing numbers nonadjusted for inflation. The current table is about as meaningful as listing some films in dollars, some in euros, and some in pounds sterling.

—Steven G. Johnson (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I just learned that there is a template (Template:Formatprice) to convert to current US dollars automatically (and to automatically keep the numbers up-to-date), which is even better. So, let me revise my proposal to suggest adding a column with {{CURRENTISOYEAR}} US dollars. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 01:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't discourage this idea, but Box Office Mojo adjusts for inflation if you sign up for their premium service. Just sayin'. - Enter Movie (talk) 03:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Some old films run for years or get new runs so it would be misleading to correct the whole box office for inflation since the original premiere. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I can hardly imagine anything more misleading than what we are doing now. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

proposal

can we highlight the movies of the current year in another color? 201.173.220.73 (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why not but I don't see any purpose for it. Why would you want that? BOVINEBOY2008 02:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it'd be useful and they also use it on BOM [3], which currently highlights Ice Age 3 HP6 and Transformers 2 (A&D didn't make it to the top 50) 201.173.220.73 (talk) 05:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this list box office receipts or is it....

Is this list box office receipts or is it box office + DVD + cable rights + TV rights. That info should be in the lead. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Box office implies theatrical receipts. Otherwise, it would be best-selling films, or something similar. BOVINEBOY2008 21:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

titanic

i do think titanic should be put in the highest grossing film franchise bit, expecially that it has earnt 1.8 billion dollars. even if it is mentioned in that section, but not neccesarily put in the table, franchise.... even with one film? and i do know that it is in the above sections, but the table is highest grossing film franchises, not film series. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it should go in the franchise section, the only reason being that it is not a franchise.-Vincetti (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

batman

Has this been discussed before? highest grossing film franchies.... batman consists of two film series, based off the same source material. i'm of the thinking that a reboot and remake ends the preceeding franchise sorta thing. thoughts?IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I dissagree because that would mean the same for James bond - they remakde Casino Royale. 90.205.34.15 (talk) 09:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Harry Potter 7 Issue

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) will be split in two parts, and I'm pretty sure both parts of the film will make it here, will the films be added into one entry (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows) or split in two entries (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 & Part 2)? We should take into consideration it's the same film but only divided in two parts, so I propose to add them together. --201.173.220.73 (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes i agree, its the same film but spilt into two because it would be too long. so yes count it as one film when it comes out. Blazemon (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

it should count as 2 different movies Mark (talk) 23:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Deathly Hallows is to be two different films. They are different releases and different movies, and should therefore be regarded as such. If not, it will meet inflation risks as Nov. 2010 dollars will not be worth the same as July 2011 dollars and will be misplaced on the list. It's an unfair combination. The films will have to stand as two different films at the box office and should be treated as such. Don't discriminate on the Part 1 and Part 2 in the title. As I recall, The Godfather, The Godfather Part II, and The Godfather Part III are regarded as different movies but continue to have the same title. If they are considered different movies, so is Deathly Hallows. --66.91.111.103 (talk) 10:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Up.

For some reason, fanboys/fangirls are consumed with determination to see Up listed among the Top 50 highest-grossing films. But according to Box Office Mojo, it ain't happening just yet. The worldwide box office is approximately $506 million. The chart on this article's page has it well above $600 million. Please keep an eye on that and be revert-ready in case anyone tries to falsely adjust it. If for some reason B.O.M.'s tallies are incorrect, there's yet to be a verifiable source to prove otherwise. I've got my eye on the 2009 in film page, because the score is constantly being inflated; in addition, the blurb below the table on that page, which lists the 3 films to make the top 50, is constantly having Up added to it as well.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 16:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo doesn't update frequently the foreign market box office numbers, it took them a while to update Ice Age 3 (sometime in august, they cited it as having 720~ million worldwide while The-Numbers.com had the right information of around 760 or something like that). In this case, the information for foreign box office performance is incomplete in Box Office Mojo, but the numbers.com [4] has the correct info: 645million already. --201.172.177.34 (talk) 03:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

ROI

The ROI column is misleading, well just plain wrong. Gross is what is taken at the cinema, not what the studio receives. Rich Farmbrough, 19:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC).

Mooving up the list

Can you place a starting number on the citations? I noticed Avatar which has only been out a couple weeks is already climbing past Matrix. I would like to see a three week ranking as a starting point to indicate where the movies fair in time. Or perhaps if a film is only out a week --or two, or three-- then compare it to one two or three week grosses and place in in the list accordingly.. It's very interesting to see how society accepts and markets these works. sparky@navpoint.com

I'm confused at your request. Films run for long periods of time, some for months. And most are pulled when they stop grossing significant amount. So to compare films in general seems fair to me. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 21:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Titanic vs Avatar

Please state that 2D films are $3 cheaper than 3D films —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.205.148.188 (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe in theaters near your place. In other regions or countries, ticket prices differr in completely other ways. E.g. at my place, 2-D was 1.50€ cheaper than 3-D. At the cinema in the next town, the difference was only 1.00€. IMAX tickets are generally more expensive than "normal" cinema tickets. - 87.139.3.204 (talk) 08:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Remember, Highest-grossing is entirely different from Number of admissions, and it is the former we are comparing and ordering. Especially seeing as the cinema industry doesn't track ticket sales/admissions, and there are a whole host of issues in calculating this, not least the difference in 2D/3D prices which you mentioned. There is also the difference in IMAX 2D, IMAX 3D, child, senior citizen, student and family ticket prices, 2 for 1 deals, annual cinema passes, other loyalty discounts and offers, different chain/theater pricing (cheap dollar theaters, expensive multiplex), premium seats, as well as different pricing in hundreds of different nations. Taking all that into account, it is very hard to calculate accurate ticket sales which is what you are referring to when suggesting 2D films are $3 cheaper than 3D films (which is also entirely incorrect). For this reason the cinema industry tracks box office revenue as opposed to sales, and this is what is listed here on Wikipedia. Feudonym (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistent Highlighting

I noticed that the highlighting for this page is inconsistent. At the top of the page it states that films from 2009 are highlighted while elsewhere it states that films currently in theaters are highlighted. This needs to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.137.110 (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Avatar's Position on the Main List

avatar went to 1,372,993,105 please change it

As I'm sure everyone is aware, Avatar is rapidly rising in position, so much so that its position on the Worldwide Highest Grossing list is now completely wrong. As of this moment, Avatar has grossed over a billion dollars and should be 4th on the list, well above its current incorrect position. Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0321198020100103?type=marketsNews 19:00, January 3, 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: The page has now been correctly edited for this rapid growth. Avatar is now listed as 4th in the highest-grossing films list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.95.55 (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

someone please update, according to Box Office Mojo, Avatar has overtaken Pirates of the Caribbean —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.222.177 (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: Avatar is now 2nd highest - http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news/a194624/avatar-surpasses-return-of-the-king.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.37.34 (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The Avatar listing should be updated every day. It keeps making more money.146.115.115.160 (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Warning: by Wednesday, it might surpass titanic, as it is just 2,000,000 shy of the record. Source: http://movies.yahoo.com/news/movies.ap.org/avatar-tops-box-office-sixthstraight-week-ap --JereMerr 22:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)--JereMerr 22:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)--JereMerr 22:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)--JereMerr 22:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremerr (talk • contribs)

It has now surpassed Titanic, as noted on the Wikipedia Main Page. A link to this list is also provided, but the list is currently still listing Titanic as #1.

Furthermore, Titanic is marked as "currently in theaters" instead of Avatar. How silly! Bobber0001 (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Half blood prince gross

The film has made 934 million you are off by five million check 2009 in film the movies file or the harry potter film series and it's there so fix it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.235.215 (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

dollars v. tickets

Of course, home viewing of movies (on disc or broadcast) has never been a component of these lists, and I would argue that private viewings, even on the largest screens, are simply not the same thing as theater attendance. I imagine many films have reached the majority of their all-time composite audiences by way of television, but that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with anything here. Spark240 (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Another source

I found a top 10, all-time, worldwide, adjusted list, it' wihout citations, so I don't know if it's credible [http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/toptenlists/Highest_Grossing_Movies_of_All-Time_(inflation_adjusted) ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.103.34.170 (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: add a column to the list with grosses in 2000 current dollars

WP:OR seems to be under cited here. Such a statistic must surely offend against that policy, right? Otherwise, we could have 'theoretical number of tickets sold based on the inflation adjusted price relying on the US being exactly the arithmetical mean for world inflation figures' which is such a horrendously useless parameter the best it can do is lie. Not only is it original research, it can't be right. I sympathise with the 'inflation is a monster that must be accounted for', but inflation is not the only factor impacting on ticket sales (population surely must be, as must economic conditions outside pure macroeconomic inflation). 121.208.18.179 (talk) 12:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Avatar

Avatar recently crossed the 1 billion mark, making it in the top 5 movies. I visited this article when i noticed this, an found it was incorrectly placed. Can you please fix this error? Thank you. (Pyramid Productions (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC))

EDIT: This has been fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.95.55 (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Number of Movies

I believe we should change the highest grossing list back to 50 as many other Wikipedia articles reference this list as a top 50 list and some of the information on this article does not correspond with 100 movies but rather 50 films. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sufi34745 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You cannot adjust a film's worldwide gross for inflation

If anyone has any basic knowledge of macroeconomics, they would know that inflation is, "the overall general upward price movement of goods and services in an economy". An "economy" is defined by a nation or region, and not by a general global rise in prices. It's impossible to calculate, due to different national inflationary rises in each nation, as well as different monetary figures (US Dollar, Euro, Pound, etc). For example the List of highest-grossing films in the United States and Canada gives inflation-adjusted figures for North America, which is a region in which inflation can be utilized. My point is, don't add "before inflation" when info regards worldwide grosses of films, because it is impossible to calculate. Thanks. BalticPat22Patrick 02:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• However, world-wide gross isn't reported as multiple economies/currencies, it's reported in a single economy, the US Dollar. Does a movie's world-wide gross change daily because of changes to exchange rates? No, because by the time the figures are reported that foreign currency has already been exchanged for the dollar and is "in the bank". Since this conversion has taken place and we're now reporting as a single currency, there is still value in knowing the inflation-adjusted value. Jj04 (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It is reported in US Dollars, but of course isn't made up of just US dollars, all sorts of economies were involved. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 20:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit ROI percentages that don't compute

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change the ROI % with the following values:
1918 The Road to Ruin, ROI: 99,900
1973 The Exorcist, ROI: 3,254
1976 Rocky, ROI: 20,355
1978 Grease, ROI: 6,476
1982 E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, ROI: 7,452
1985 Back to the Future, ROI: 1,745
1989 Batman, ROI: 761
1994 The Lion King, ROI: 1,642
1995 Toy Story, ROI: 306
1997 Titanic, ROI; 824
2001 Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, ROI: 680
2003 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, ROI: 1,091
2009 Avatar, ROI: 378

If you are able to change them, then go ahead. I have found that many film's ROI's are either miscalculated or outright ridiculous. BalticPat22Patrick 15:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, it can be changed as long as you provide a reliable source to back this information up.  fetchcomms☛ 15:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't provide new information. The old information wasn't properly calculated. Using the numbers in the table (Worlwide Gross as Vf, Budget as Vi) and the formula from the ROI article the table links to: (Vf - Vi)/Vi gives different ROI % for the 13 films mentioned.Gijswijs (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Done after verifying the math, however, Not done: on Avatar. My math shows 396. I updated it to this number. Please verify this. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 08:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Verified. The Worldwide Gross of Avatar changed after I proposed this edit. Formula's would help in tables like this. Thnx for the edit. Gijswijs (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

2010

So, the year is 2010. Would anyone agree that the highlighting of films of 2009 is still relevant? Would the creative highlight-adder be offended if the highlights of 2009 films were replaced with highlights of 2010 films? I am guessing that the objective was to note current-year films. Please provide your thoughts :) GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind, but since we are fresh out of 2009, they are still relevant. I think we should wait a while, or wait until a 2010 film ends up on this list. Either way, the notes will need to be updated when it happens. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 03:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I would wait until a 2010 film ends up on the list. Which, could take months. :) —Mike Allen 03:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup, wait for a 2010 film. -- Love, Smurfy 18:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we should keep it how its been and highlight the movies that are currently in theater. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.178.177.198 (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

In this case, Avatar should still be coloured since it's apparently still playing in some theaters (at least the US gross still increases each day on Boxofficemojo).--Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Both Avatar and Alice in Wonderland are still playing in several theaters throughout northeastern Oklahoma where i live, so it would be a safe assumption that they are playing in theaters across the country and globe. And yet neither are highlighted as "Still in Theater". Whoever continues to remove highlights from films that are still obviously grossing and in theater should stop and wait till they are clearly out of theaters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.178.177.198 (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Wrong numbers

umm.. there's a title that says: Highest-grossing films: This list includes those films which have held the record for highest grossing film released in the United States and Canada, before inflation. It says that the numbers are only from USA and Canada. However, in Titanic's and Jurassic Park's gross the numbers are from the worldwide gross. Also, Jurassic Park didn't set a record, so it should be like this

1915- The Birth of a Nation - 6 years held - $9,283,673 gross at time record.

1921- The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - 16 years held -$10,000,000 gross at time record.

1937- Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs - 2 years held - $66,596,803 gross at time record.

1939- Gone with the Wind - 34 years held - $189,523,031 gross at time record.

1973- The Exorcist- 2 years held - $232,671,011 gross at time record.

1975- Jaws- 2 years held - $260,000,000 gross at time record.

1977/1997- Star Wars- 6 (non-consecutive)years held - $307,263,857 gross at time record.

1982- E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial -15 years held - $399,804,539 gross at time record.

1997-Titanic - 13 (ongoing) years held- $600,788,188 gross at time record.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.13.164 (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Request

I'd really like to see a list of highest grossing films by year of release, if anybody is interested in putting that together.[5] Thank you!—RJH (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Mickey

I was surprised that some film I've never heard of (Mickey) made $18M in 1918. That would make it the highest grossing silent after Birth of a Nation. It's on IMDB the same, but these 'facts' get copied from site to site and acquire faux legitimacy. Various sites including Wikipedia's Silent Film entry quote a 1932 list in Variety of top grossing silents - with no Mickey. It's surely an error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.192.78 (talk) 08:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I found a 1939 source [6] claiming 8,000,000. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

New Avatar Gross

Avatar is now at $1,637,262,209 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy741 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

make that 1.841 BILLION dollars....here is the source: http://movies.yahoo.com/news/movies.ap.org/avatar-tops-box-office-sixthstraight-week-ap--JereMerr 22:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)--JereMerr 22:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)--JereMerr 22:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)--JereMerr 22:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremerr (talk • contribs)

vandalism.

Someone put "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" as "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" Mr. Slashy Man (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is the international title and the name of the Wikipedia article so this is correct and not vandalism. "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" is the US title. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes Sorcerer's Stone was used as USA title only. As its a UK based book and movie it should be known in the article as what it was in the UK which is Philosopher's Stone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.96.175 (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

ROI Column

This should be removed from the tables as it is totally incorrect. Since the ROI is calculated solely from the production budget, it does not include marketing and distribution costs (which, in this day and age, can be astronomical). Furthermore, the term "ROI" means Return on Investment and does not reflect what studios make from their films as theatres often take up to 45% of the gross for themselves. Since the percentage theatres take varies a great deal, there is no possible way to calculate (even roughly) what kind of a return the studio will get. MassassiUK 09:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Avatar highest-grossing film of 2009?

Is it based on the amount of money made from its opening day (December 10, 2009) to December 31st, 2009? Or is it just the fact that it was released before 2009 ended that it can technically be counted as the highest-grossing film of 2009? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It is the highest-grossing film that was released in the year 2009. That is how it is interpreted. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 02:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

What you do with Titanic, you should do with Avatar. Titanic made the massive bulk of it's money in 1998 and there are probably other split grosses all down that list. What makes sense is doing it by the release day! Avatar is the top film of 2009 and The Book of Eli is the top for 2010.Dante2308 (talk) 05:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Historical USD rate

Does the article take into consideration the dollar's value throughout different years (like 1990s as compared to 2000s for example), which may affect film's places? 85.132.99.243 (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't. The article explicitly notes that due to the complexities of currency exchange rates and inflation rates, there are no accurate depictions of such a list. --haha169 (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

New List: Ticket Sales per Capita??

Hey there,

"Highest-grossing" is another way of saying "popular", isn't it? I mean, this list basically tries to quantify how successful the movie is, right?

To do this, I think you need to adjust for 2 things:

   #1 Inflation
   #2 Changing population of the USA, the world, etc

As an example, inflation has changed the worth of $1 by 15x since Gone with the Wind was released in 1939. Also, the USA population has doubled since then also.

My idea: making a list of TICKET SALES PER CAPITA might be more accurate at estimating "popularity", although very labor intensive to do.

http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.56.138.53 (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not trying to quantify how popular it is. It's quantifying how much money it's made. Vimescarrot (talk) 10:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"Highest-grossing" is another way of saying "popular", isn't it?

No, not at all. Those are two completely different things as ticket prices differ in a single cinema alone, let alone in a country such as the United States, and others all over the world. Ticket sales per capita would be absolutely useless as ticket sales are near on impossible to calculate as it is, especially for a film like Gone With the Wind which has been released multiple times over the last 70 years. Feudonym (talk) 02:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Split Article

This article is too large, it can be very slow to load for many computers, i propose that it should be split into 2 articles, i will make sample pages in my user page and people can decide if we should Zach111493 (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

did it, the three pages are: 1; 2; and 3 Zach111493 (talk) 01:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It's convenient to have all information related to grosses on one page rather than many IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.56.169.148 (talk) 08:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I find it very convenient to have all the information listed upon one page and most computers built in the last half decade have no problem loading this page. Even my father's computer (which is the slowest computer i have ever used) has no problem with it. I find the convenience of one page far outweighs the possibility of some computers not loading it. (S. J. Emigh 21:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottemigh1994 (talk • contribs)

I guess my 2007 vista is slower than your father's computer, I'm going to delete the test pages and remove the suggestion bar. Zach111493 (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you noticed!

That IMDb,s and Box Office Mojo's chart aren't accurately the same. Just look at where Lord of the Rings:The Two Towers and Star Wars:The Phantom Menace are. Since they are reliable, who to believe? Jhenderson777 (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess you compare http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross?region=world-wide and http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/. Box Office Mojo was acquired by IMDb in 2008 (see Box Office Mojo#References), and IMDb refers to it for box office stats on its own pages. IMDb is not known for its box office stats and I think the list should continue to use Box Office Mojo. The differences are small but as you note, they can swap close films like The Two Towers and The Phantom Menace. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

20 the limit for highest grossing film series?

I've noticed that The Chronicles of Narnia and The Twilight Saga have disappeared from the list. Is there any reason for not expanding the list past 20 film series?

APAD (talk) 08:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering that films from both series appear in the worldwide top 50 chart above it I think maybe it would be a good idea to expand the chart to take these two films in. Obviously we don't want an endless list which is why it has been truncated, but I think all franchises represented on the main list should be placed on the franchise list. Betty Logan (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Still in theatres?

Avatar and Alice can NOT possibly still be playing in theatres. Maybe in like one or two theatres in the world currently, but not really. I think it's time we un-blue them. Arilicious (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

According to Box Office Mojo, Avatar is still playing in 17 theaters and Alice in Wonderland is playing in 140. DrNegative (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, these are international charts and they are still on their cinema runs in many territories. Alice is still in the top 10 internationally and Avatar is still making six figure sums every week. Their totals are still being updated regularly. To keep this simple we should just de-highlight when BOM de-highlight the films on their chart [7] since that is where we get most of the figures from. Betty Logan (talk) 05:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Highest-grossing films by year

I've edited the section so when the year is clicked, it will lead to the Wikipedia page for the films of that year. Is this a good idea? and could everyone help add the rest of the links? APAD (talk) 06:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not the recommended practice to do that anymore. Personally I don't care either way, but the view is that you shouldn't link the "film years" to "XXXX in film" because it's an "easter egg" link in that if someone clicked "2009" they would expect to go to an article about 2009, not an article about films released in 2009. Something like "2009 release" would be ok to link or something like "Avatar is a 2009 film" with "2009 film" linked would be okay because the linked phrase indicates that the link is about 2009 films in some way, but by just linking the years on their own the over-linking squad will probably move in at some point and de-link all the years. Betty Logan (talk) 07:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

What is considered for "opening"?

I know it was common for Opening Weekend to be used, but how does that work now that movies are consistently coming out on Tuesday/Wednesday/Thursday? Are the first 3 days used?

Just wanting to make sure the listing is consistent.

Jared555 (talk) 04:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

TNBT Incorrect.

'TMNT' is in 14th place with a gross of $900,456,327, this is clearly wrong and has crappy reviews and it's page says it has 95,608,995. Though that may only be US. Anyway, the film clearly hasn't made as much as it says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.122.54 (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Discrepancy in the gross revenue of 'The Twilight Saga: Eclipse'

According to the Wikipedia page for 'The Twilight Saga: Eclipse', the gross revenue of the film is currently standing at $666,291,146, which makes it the 42nd highest grossing film of all time (as of 13 August 2010). But this article lists the gross revenue of 'The Twilight Saga: Eclipse' at only $650,191,146, putting at no. 45 on the all-time highest grossing list. Why the discrepancy? Or does this page need to get updated more frequently? Thanks. 59.184.138.79 (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

According to the source it is correct, so either the one on the article is wrong or they're using a different source. Betty Logan (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

There are two different sources with two different total numbers. Mojo ($671,600,129) and The Numbers ($679,398,466). Eclipse's wikipedia page uses both of them as sources ,but shows higher gross from The Numbers, and List of highest-grossing films page uses only Mojo, where the total gross is smaller. So which one is right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SomaQ (talk • contribs) 18:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think its a question of which one is right (because both could be wrong for all we know), but both are reliable sources. However, it would be best to use what all of the other films are using on this article for a reasonable comparison. BOVINEBOY2008 18:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't have an objection to either source, but obviously we face a decision over which to use. At the moment the chart is based on BOM but as far as I am aware there is no underlying consensus to just use BOM data. It's not unsual for discrepencies to occur and as BovineBoy points out probably neither are completely accurate. All things being equal it makes sense to go with the lower figure - both sources are consistent in stating it has grossed $671 million but they aren't both consistent in stating it has grossed $679 million. Betty Logan (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

DVDs

does this list include money made through DVD and video sales? 82.24.148.141 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC).

I think this is just box office takings, either way it should be made clearer in the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

'The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe' has been re-released?!? WHEN???

Resolved

Has the film 'The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe' been re-released?? If yes, when did it happen??? In the list of highest grossing films (worldwide), the film has been highlighted in blue, indicating that it is currently running in cinemas. Or has somebody in their haste to show the ever-rising BO figures of 'Inception', somehow messed up the whole thing??? Seeing 'Narnia' highlighted in blue in the table has given me the biggest shock of my life!!! 59.184.141.57 (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

forever after trumps up

here is the earning from box office mojo for shrek 4, it has now outgrossed up, if someone would update that please.

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=shrek4.htm

86.130.232.158 (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

"Current release" highlighting.

The blue highlighting indicates which films are still showing in theaters, but there has been a recent spate of edits removing the highlighting from some films, the reason given that they are no longer on general release: [8]

This is incorrect, and the accompanying Box Office Mojo references clearly indicate that the films have not yet closed:

Avatar: [9]
Toy Story 3: [10]
Twilight Saga – Eclipse: [11]

None of these films have been issued with a close date. If you compare to two other recent releases (below), films are updated with a close date once they have closed (recorded just below "Domestic Summary"):

Alice in Wonderland: [12]
Shrek 4: [13]

The comparison clearly indicates that these films have not formally closed yet. What's more, the main Box Office Mojo All-time chart which is also used as a source for the first section also has the above films still highlighted on its chart: [14].

The sources clearly indicate that these films are still on general release, so please don't remove the highlights without checking Box Office Mojo first to make sure that the films have indeed closed. Thankyou. Betty Logan (talk) 08:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 76.126.217.163, 12 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} I think the title for Harry Potter should be Sorcerer's Stone, not Philosopher's Stone.

76.126.217.163 (talk) 09:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: It is known as "...Sorceror's Stone" in the US and India, but everywhere else it is called "...Philosopher's Stone." If you follow the wikilink, you'll see that described in the article. Since the movie is a UK movie, it is generally appropriate to use the UK name. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 114.76.85.196, 29 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change "Worldwide highest-grossing films" section title to "Worldwide highest-grossing films (unadjusted)"

Please insert the following above the aforementioned section:

Not done: Since no claim of adjusted or unadjusted is made, the presumption is unadjusted. Further, the section after this cannot be added because it is not from a reliable source. For more on what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source, please see WP:RS. If this info has been published in a reliable source, then we should consider adding in a new section. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

wrong

harry potter 7 is number 41 and new moon is number 40 ..but yet harry is on top of the list.so please fix it and put the right numbers in there place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.225.159 (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The Ref column has references to http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=harrypotter7.htm and http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=newmoon.htm which show Harry Potter ahead. Maybe you saw another source saying something else but the list uses one source to be consistent. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

2007 and 2010

Resolved

In the top it says 2009 has the most films on the list, and that 2007 and 2010 are tied for second. However, do to Harry Potter coming out recently 2010 is now one film above 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.191.207 (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Average Ticket Sales

Would it make sense to include an additional column for comparison that indicates the average price of tickets while the movie was viewing in theaters? 173.161.150.137 (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It can't be done because the average ticket price is different in every country. Betty Logan (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)