Talk:List of highest-grossing films/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Jurassic World

Resolved

 – Positions updated

Can someone please update the Jurassic Park franchise section in the "Highest Grossing Franchise" section? It's fine elsewhere but I believe JW has overtaken JP and the franchise as a whole has overtaken 'X-Men'.109.151.166.227 (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

You should ask Khalid Nezami that, who keeps on editing the number for JW without the proper source to his edits. DCF94 (talk) 02:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

On the subject of these up to the minute grosses I would like to remind editors that there is WP:NODEADLINE. As we have seen with Furious 7, updating using unconfirmed tracker estimates rather that official distributor figures potentially leads to inaccuracies. Betty Logan (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo subtracted the total of Furious 7

How can this be possible? I checked it a while ago and the total worldwide was $1,511,527,910. Now it's listed as $1,511,516,643. How does that work? --Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 17:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

It could be down to several reasons: dollar conversion rates, updating estimates with actuals, correcting an error etc. The discrepancies usual occur in the foreign gross and Universal publish their foreign grosses online if you need to double check: http://upi-boxoffice.com/. Betty Logan (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Broken Source for Toy Story

Resolved

The link for reference 12 is broken. Should be directed to http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-07/more-disney-fun-and-games-with-toy-story-4-in-2017

Somehow someone changed the 7 to a 6 when pasting the link, or maybe bloomberg did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.190.126.228 (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Very strange. The source says it was "updated" on the 7th so I'm guessing that has something to do with it. Good catch anyway, thanks, and I've fixed it. Betty Logan (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

What's with the christian cross in the article?

I was just wondering why the symbol for "films currently playing" is a christian cross. Is there any specific reason or is somebody just trying to insert religion? Any number of non-provocative symbols could replace it. Or perhaps we need to start using the Star of David, the Taijitu, and the Star and Crescent. Maybe even throw in a Buddha while we're at it. MartianColony (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Those are dagger symbols, a standard symbol used for footnotes. They aren't the same thing as a Christian cross, and aren't in any way a religious symbol. Please see the article Dagger (typography). Calathan (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is a formal order for their deployment (see Footnote). Originally the article just used highlighting but the FL review required the article to use a symbol to aid screenreaders. The asterisk was already in use to distinguish US grosses from worldwide grosses so the dagger was adopted as the next formal notation symbol. The "double" dagger symbol was subsequently adopted in the timeline to indicate a reissue gross. I have to say I had never made an association with the crucifix although I can see why someone not familiar with English typography might make that association. Betty Logan (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for clearing that up and informing me. I tend to be on the look out for unnecessary religious iconography, attributions, etc.; in my experience it tends to muddy things up. Anyways thanks again. MartianColony (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Terminator/Despicable Me franchises

Since both franchises have films currently in theatres and are both nearing the top 25, I'm keeping track of the earnings of Minions and Genisys in a table in my sandbox for reference in the near future.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 02:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Blue Shade

I was looking at an archive from long ago (2011) on this page, and it seems instead of a green shade, their was a blue. Why did we change it? Like this...

Highest-grossing films

Rank	Peak	Title	Worldwide gross	Year	Reference(s)
1	1	Avatar	$2,787,965,087	2009
2	1	Titanic	$2,186,772,302	1997
3	3	The Avengers	$1,518,594,910	2012
4	4	Furious 7	$1,511,636,779	2015
5	5	Jurassic World	$1,385,037,000	2015
6	5	Avengers: Age of Ultron	$1,383,499,000	2015
7	3	Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2	$1,341,511,219	2011
8nb1	5	Frozen	$1,279,852,693	2013
9	5	Iron Man 3	$1,215,439,994	2013
10	4	Transformers: Dark of the Moon	$1,123,794,079	2011

References

References

• We were made to change the highlighting in the FL review. Apparently there was not enough contrast between the blue text and the blue highlighting for color blind people so green was selected as an alternative. Betty Logan (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

What is the FL review? Editor49 (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

An FL review is where an article or list is promoted to featured status. There are certain requirements: everything has to be sourced, it has to be MOS-compliant, it has to be stable etc. Betty Logan (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Chronological order of the billion-dollar films

Hello, I was wondering if it's necessary to add a table showing the chronological order of films reaching $1 billion in worldwide gross. I've seen the article of every billion-dollar film and in the Box Office section, there is always indication that the film is the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and so on, to reach the billion-dollar mark, and I'm thinking that it would be much better to put all those films together in one table, like this one:

  indicates films still playing in theaters around the world in the week commencing 25 October 2024.

Order	Film title	Year	Total gross	Notes	Reference(s)
1	Titanic	1997	$2.187 billion	Second film to earn more than $2 billion after the film's 2012 3D re-release
2	The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King	2003	$1.120 billion
3	Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest	2006	$1.066 billion
4	The Dark Knight	2008	$1.005 billion	Reached the billion dollar mark after its 2009 re-release
5	Avatar	2009	$2.788 billion	First film to earn more than $2 billion
6	Alice in Wonderland	2010	$1.025 billion
7	Toy Story 3	2010	$1.063 billion	First animated film to earn more than $1 billion
8	Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides	2011	$1.046 billion
9	Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2	2011	$1.342 billion
10	Transformers: Dark of the Moon	2011	$1.124 billion
11	Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace	1999	$1.027 billion	Reached the billion dollar mark after the film's 2012 3D re-release
12	The Avengers	2012	$1.519 billion
13	The Dark Knight Rises	2012	$1.084 billion
14	Skyfall	2012	$1.108 billion
15	The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey	2012	$1.017 billion
16	Iron Man 3	2013	$1.215 billion
17	Jurassic Park	1993	$1.03 billion	Reached the billion dollar mark after the film's 2013 3D re-release
18	Frozen	2013	$1.279 billion
19	Transformers: Age of Extinction	2014	$1.104 billion
20	Furious 7	2015	$1.512 billion
21	Avengers: Age of Ultron	2015	$1.384 billion
22	Jurassic World	2015	$1.388 billion

References

AdaCiccone (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I like that idea. We should probably add when exactly (some of them did fairly close to each other, and that's not going to become less of an issue as time goes on) they reached one billion, though – and back that up with sources. If nothing else, an article solely for this purpose could be created; this information should be somewhere on the site. TompaDompa (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it is trivia: something being the first billion dollar movie is interesting; something being the 21st billion dollar movie seems to offer little encyclopedia value. We certainly don't need another chart that basically just replicates most of the first chart. We should probably explicitly document the first $1 billion movie and the first $2 billion movie, but beyond that I think it is beyond the scope of this list. Betty Logan (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I do like the idea, but the list will work best if we were doing a 'List of Billion Dollar Films' article, but were not. So if anything, people are also interested in #23-50, right? Not just billion dollar films because their is more on the main list than billion dollar films. Editor49 (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I would then argue that we should create such an article. TompaDompa (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, you certainly don't need our permission or a consensus here to create a new article, and if you believe the topic is a legitimate one to cover then it probably should exist on its own merits. Basically we can't stop you from creating an article but, the mechanics aside, it still seems rather trvial. There doesn't seem to be all that much coverage on the 14th film to gross a billion, the 15th and so on so I question whether it is indeed an encyclopedic topic. There are over 20 billion dollar grossers now. What happens when there are 40 or 50? Does it really matter which film is the 42nd to gross a billion? I can see the logic in recording various milestones such as the first to gross $100 million, the first to gross $200 million, the first to gross $1 billion etc since milestones are generally notable and I think something like that might make an interesting article if done right, but please remember that Wikipedia is WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Betty Logan (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I like the sound of that but I think we need another column days to $1 billion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.134.150.79 (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Inflated totals

I'm not saying there isn't some use in some situation for the unadjusted totals, but really, why would you not adjust for inflation? That just seems misleading... Dustin (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it is necessary to adjust for inflation for a valid comparison across decades, but I am not sure I can really add to the reasons given in the inflation section of the article. In short, it is difficult to do and there is a wide variance in the different attempts at it, especially for global figures where you have different rates of inflation across different countries. For example, estimates for Star Wars' inflated worldwide gross range from $2.2 billion to $2.8 billion, while those for Gone with the Wind range from 3 to 4 billion. The Guinness chart is probably regarded as the most respectable, but there is never going to be a de facto "correct" chart like you get with unadjusted figures. I mean, even our own article concedes defeat on this issue by describing the nominal chart as "largely meaningless" but we are stuck with it for better or for worse. It's much easier to do on a country-by-country basis and where this is possible we do it (see List of highest-grossing films in Canada and the United States#Adjusted for ticket-price inflation and List of highest-grossing films in the United Kingdom#Highest-grossing films by box-office admissions). Betty Logan (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Ghost Rider and Marvel Cinematic Universe

Just a question: If "Ghost Rider" (2007 film)[1] and the sequel are based on Marvel Comics (as presented at the start of the film) why are they not included here as part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe? Thanks, Telewski (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

You would probably be better asking at Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe if you want an exact explanation, but the way I understand it only the films produced by Marvel Studios are part of the MCU. There are many films based on Marvel comics (Spiderman and X-Men being two notable examples) that aren't produced by Marvel Studios and therefore not part of the MCU. Betty Logan (talk) 01:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

To put it more bluntly (this was confusing to me as well originally), the only reason why we list things like The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) and The Transformers: The Movie is because they are of the same content relevance as the franchises that expanded later. The films in the MCU are set in the same universe which is why they are considered a franchise. The rest of the films based on Marvel's comics do not have anything to do with this franchise other than having a common publishing source for the original material. That's why we don't include stuff like Howard the Duck (film) or the Ghost Rider franchise in with a mega-Marvel franchise of sorts. --Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 02:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that explains it. I was just wondering as I caught the beginning of Ghost Rider on TV the other night and saw the Marvel Comic animation, assumed because of that it was produced by Marvel Studios, as it also proceeds all of the other MCU films. Telewski (talk) 11:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Just like Spider-Man, Ghost Rider was Sony not Marvel at the time the movies were made. They weren't a part of the MCU. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 13:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

What you will notice with more recent films there are two separate logos, a Marvel Entertainment logo (that just says "Marvel") and a Marvel Studios logo (that says "Marvel Studios") not that it would have helped in this case, but one appears in MCU films produced now and one appears in non-MCU films (and any other productions). Ruffice98 (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

DC 2016-2020

In 2016, two DC based films will be released, will they all be in one franchise? 'Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice'

Suicide Squad While in 2017. Justice League: Part One

Wonder Woman 2018 The Flash

Aquaman 2019 Shazzam

Justice League: Part Two 2020 Cyborg

Green Lantern Corps

http://www.newsarama.com/21815-the-new-full-comic-book-superhero-movie-schedule.html

As I understand it, it will be DC's version of the MCU right? If that is the case we will probably do the same thing here i.e. a separate entry for each franchise (since there will be Superman and Batman films not in the shared universe) and one for the super-franchise/series. We will review the situation when we have more details although I am beginning to think the complex nature of these franchises have out-grown this article. It feels a bit like we are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole these days. May be time to create a separate article with several tables covering franchises, continuities, crossovers etc. Betty Logan (talk) 05:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

A separate article may be a good way to go about it. The problem is when we start hitting definitions of franchises. The MCU certainly meets this, but this DC shared universe currently does not, but would be valid for inclusion as a series instead. All in all, it is a mess. Ruffice98 (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I am just thinking aloud at this stage rather than saying we should do this or that. It would be a bad idea to run off half-cocked without a clear idea of how to approach it, but by March next year we need to have a clear idea of what we are doing whether it is in this article or a new one. It's not just the DC, but we also have crossovers to deal with too: if Iron Man appears in the new Captain America (in more than an extended cameo) would the next Captain America film also be added to the Iron Man franchise? If it does indeed feature Iron Man and Spiderman what exactly differentiates the next Captain America from an Avengers films in that respect? And then there are franchises like Alien and Predator and their crossover films—the AvP crossover films clearly co-exist in what were separate "universes" up to that point so does that make Alien-Predator a "shared" universe too? Or are they simply crossovers that should be added to both franchises (since they only share a universe through the crossover films)? Above all we need a consistent approach to dealing with these multiple property films. Betty Logan (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Probably the simplest way to be consistent about it is to go by the titles: Captain America: Civil War goes under the Captain America franchise, because that's what it's called. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice goes under both Batman and Superman, and so on. Of course, we may run into major problem if they start going with more idiosyncratic titles.

AvP is trickier. I'd say that since they don't share a continuity outside of the crossover films, they count as separate franchises. The same thing could be said for Freddy vs. Jason. This, too, could get really blurry with future instalments – the distinction is not super clear even now (as there are easter eggs in one franchise that reference the other). TompaDompa (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

You propose a very elegant solution (and I had contemplated this myself). While it does offer the decisiveness we need it is a somewhat arbitrary solution due to the fact some franchises incorporate the franchise name into the film titles and some do not. I would be inclined to agree about Alien V Predator. Betty Logan (talk) 07:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

When can we add top 30 of the highest grossing franchises?

It's quite inevitable that we need to add Top 26-30 in the future. With the ongoing expansion of the DC/Marvel Universes and their individual films, more films that are currently in the low ranks of the Top 25 will be overtaken soon. I mean movie franchises like Captain America, Terminator, Superman or even Kung Fu Panda will get there in the near future, so why not expand this list now? I'm afraid that Star Trek (although it will re-enter next year), Toy Story, and Planet of the Apes are at risk of leaving the chart very soon. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cris.bordon (talk • contribs) 07:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Why is it inevitable? We don't need a top 30 any more than we need a top 40 or 50 really, do we? You have to draw the line somewhere. If you are going to draw an arbitrary line there is no reason not to draw it at a top 20, since most readers will only care about the top ten or so. The reason we go up to 25 is because once you go past that number you start hitting franchises with missing data, and what's the point of having a top 30 when it might not even be the top 30? It wouldn't be a bad thing if Planet of the Apes dropped off the chart since we don't have individual totals for all the films, just the series total. We are not going to have a complete chart, so we may as well have an accurate one. Betty Logan (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo: Furious 7

For whatever reason, Furious 7 has been pushed to $1.520 billion, but then pushed back to $1.511 billion. This also happened a few weeks ago that it was put past The Avengers, but then pushed back. I think that if Box Office Mojo puts it past The Avengers, then we should wait at-least 7 days to add it on Wikipedia, since it would cause confusion to the people reading the article. Editor49 (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it is turning into a p*sstake. By the way, I am going to temporarily revert your correction since there are some other corrections that need to be made and it will just be easier to revert all the changes rather than going through and correcting them one-by-one. Good catch btw. Betty Logan (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

As an alternative suggestion, I would advise comparing BOM's foreign figure with the figure published by Universal themselves at http://upi-boxoffice.com/. Universal's own figures are updated on a daily basis so we would only have to wait a day to verify the information. If Universal's own figure matches BOM's then we can assume it is a legitimate update rather than an error. Betty Logan (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Furious 7 is not listed on that list of figures, for whatever reason. Neither is Jurassic World or Minions. I fdon't think that list has been updated in quite a while. Stolengood (talk) 03:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Stolengood Sorry I should have said that Furious 7 is listed under the international title of "Fast & Furious 7". Betty Logan (talk) 11:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's definitely on the list, as are the other two, and they update more often than Box Office Mojo does. Currently, Jurassic World's total on UPI is $886,249,154, which is a full $9 million higher than BOM's current report of $877,227,111. Sock (tock talk) 11:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Appears they haven't updated since, then, because Jurassic World has now passed Furious 7. Apparently. Stolengood (talk) 03:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The chart has indeed been updated today, but please note that UPI is the international division of Universal and as such only documents the box office in foreign markets. Jurassic World is only ahead once you factor in the "domestic" box office i.e. $1,513 million to $1,511 million; in the foreign markets Furious 7 is still way out in front i.e. $1,161 million to JW's $901 million. If you compare those numbers to the foreign figures at Box Office Mojo you will see they are virtually identical (in fact BOM have JW on $902 million but that is an estimate they published yesterday and likely have just not updated with the actuals Universal have published today). Betty Logan (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Avengers as a Separate Entry?

Um, why are the two Avengers movies listed in the "Highest-Grossing Film Franchises" table on their own? They're a part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which has its own separate entry on the table. This seems extraordinarily redundant. 104.52.53.152 (talk) 03:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

This has already been addressed above in the #Marvel entries in franchise table section. Betty Logan (talk) 07:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Both are legally franchises so it isn't fair to discriminate between the two in our neutral position (as is Wikipedia policy) even if the information is redundant, that's not our call to make. Ruffice98 (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Middle-earth and Marvel movies

I apologize if this has been brought up before, but I noticed a bit of an oddity today. I saw that Iron Man and Avengers are listed as separate franchised from the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which actually makes perfect sense to me. Box Office Mojo lists all three as separate franchises. That said, The Numbers doesn't list Avengers as one, which leads into my next point. It got me wondering why that isn't the same case for The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. Those two series are not grouped together on both sites, unlike Avengers, so why do we have them bundled here? From where I'm sitting, it would make much more sense to separate them how we have Iron Man and Avengers, but negate the "Middle-earth" section, as there's been no source provided that backs up both series of films being considered one franchise. Thoughts? Sock (tock talk) 13:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo actually does have LOTR and The Hobbit together, which is correct IMO, but both sites lack a consistent approach to how they define a franchise. The Lord of the Rings was written as a direct sequel to The Hobbit by Tolkien. The legal relationship between the two works is essentially no different to Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone and Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, and no-one would argue the two Harry Potter books belong to separate franchises. Likewise with James Bond novels. They all form single franchises, even if they result in several different series. Titles like Iron Man, Captain America etc exist independently of each other i.e. Iron Man comics don't use Captain America IP and vice versa, therefore they exist as separate franchises. The worst thing you can do when thinking about this is to think in terms of just films; you need to go back to the original commodity i.e. a franchise is a collection of IP that is licensed across several mediums: the Harry Potter franchise is IP licensed from a series of books to a series of films and computer games; James Bond is IP licensed from a series of books to films, games, radio etc; Tolkien's Middle-Earth series is IP licensed to films, TV, video games and apparently a pub in Southampton. The Avengers is basically a collection of cross-franchise media; it utilises more than one copyright but it still exists as an entity that has been licensed as a unit across different media. The MCU is a completely film specific entity: it is a clearly defined series of films and is not manifested across different mediums. In a strict application of the definition the MCU would not qualify for inclusion on a chart of franchises, but that leaves us with the problem of what to do about it? As a series it can't be made into a sub-section of any of the other Marvel franchises in the same way that we can make the Eon Bond series a sub-section of James Bond, or Peter Jackson's LOTR series a sub-section of the Middle-Earth franchise because it is a series that does not belong to any one franchise; therefore we simply relax the condition a bit and allow it to be a main entry. We don't need to do this with any other series so far because they can all be placed under the main franchise entries. Betty Logan (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I could go through all the details of how and why, but the MCU certainly does meet the legal conditions of a franchise now (it didn't at one point, but it certainly does now). The Avengers is a franchise in its own right, it has nothing to do legally with the Iron Man franchise, the Captain America franchise or any of the others, Marvel are just using them collectively under the MCU which has since in itself been franchised. As I've said in the past, it is a bizarre situation, but it all works out in the end thankfully. Ruffice98 (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

'Batman v Superman' - Batman and Superman Franchise?

When 'Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice' is released next year, will it be counted as a Batman movie, a Superman movie, or both (in the "Highest-grossing franchises and film series" section). The movie will undoubtedly be a success meaning the Superman franchise will re-enter the Top 25 - since it only needs $200,000,000 to re-overtake the Terminator. If that's the case, will the same film be listed twice in the same table (under both the Batman franchise and the Superman franchise)? 109.151.166.132 (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

If I'm reading this correctly, the film will be added to both the Batman and Superman franchise lists, and would also be added to a DC Extended Universe total which would include Man of Steel as well. That probably won't enter the list until at least one or two more films come out, but it would efficiently be started. But to answer your question, yes, I believe it would go in both franchise lists (a la Avengers and Iron Man). Sock (tock talk) 18:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Well DC do have a "super" franchise that crosses their single property franchises, and that is the Justice League franchise, kind of like how Marvel pool their single franchises in The Avengers franchise (which is a slightly different thing to a continuity). If you have Superman, Batman and Wonder-Woman in a film together you have crossed three franchises so that's a Justice League movie in my eyes, rather than a Batman film, or a Superman film etc, regardless of what you call it. Betty Logan (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

How can Justice League be considered a franchise yet? No live-action films about them have been released. For that matter, no theatrical films exist for Wonder Woman either, just some animated ones and a made-for-TV one. The two franchises we know of for sure are Batman and Superman, and then the DCEU is essentially the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I guess I can see the argument not to include it in Batman and Superman, but it would belong in the DCEU franchise rather than the JL one. Sock (tock talk) 19:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know where you have got this notion that a franchise needs to have theatrical films to be a franchise. That is not consistent with any definition of a franchise I have ever read. The fact there have been some animated TV films already quite obviously indicates it is a franchise. By way of comparison, the first Avengers film still belonged to the Avengers franchise rather than the Iron Man franchise, which is why it wasn't added to the Iron Man entry when it was released. When the second Avengers film was released and qualified as a series the franchise was added to the table. As for whether there will be a separate DCU entry, well I imagine that will be added too once there are at least two films and the total qualifies it for inclusion. Betty Logan (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I worded that poorly, but you seem to have cut through my poor expression and answered all my confusion in your reply. I used the word "franchise" when I meant "film series", applying to "Highest-grossing franchises and film series" on this page specifically. Your Iron Man/Avengers example cleared that up considerably. Most of my confusion was coming from the fact that the Batman listing only includes Mask of the Phantasm in terms of animated Batman films, and I assumed that meant non-theatrical films didn't count towards a listing on this page specifically. I'm not entirely sure why I got caught up in that, but thank you I realize now that it sounded kind of stupid, but I'm still trying to get a firm grasp on this, and my hands are slippery.

So to summarize, we're saying that Batman v Superman's total would be added with Man of Steel's to start off a DC Extended Universe total, but would not be added to the individual Superman and Batman franchises? That's assuming BvS makes enough money to boost it over Terminator, anyway. I suck at wording, hopefully this makes any semblance of sense. Sock (tock talk) 20:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Visuals speak louder than words, so let's assume that Batman v Superman makes $1,200,000,000 and overtakes Terminator, its entry would look like this, right?

25	DC Extended Universe	$1,868,045,518	2	$934,022,759	Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice ($1,200,000,000)
1	Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)	$1,200,000,000
2	Man of Steel (2013)	$668,045,518

And the Batman and Superman listings would remain unchanged. Is that what we're going with? Sock (tock talk) 20:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I really don't have a straight answer, it's just one of several ideas I've been mulling over (and I haven't really made up my own mind about how to do this yet). And obviously while I have strong influence over the direction of this article it is not up to me alone how we do this. I do think we need to consider this issue well in advance so we are all on the same page by spring. I don't think the DCU will be an issue, we will just handle it in the same way we handle the MCU: so come spring, Man of Steel and Batman V Superman will be in there. There is a strong possibility it will make the table. The question is what we do with cross-franchise films i.e. do we have separate entries for cross-franchise films or do we allocate them to each franchise? There are essentially three ways to handle cross-franchise films: i) we add each cross-franchise film that doesn't explicitly belong another franchise (i.e. The Avengers) to each individual franchise (in this case BvS would be added to the Batman and Superman franchises and possibly Wonder Woman down the line, and Civil War would be added to the Captain America and Iron Man franchises); ii) we simply add these films to the Avengers/JL franchises; iii) we don't add them to any "name" franchise and just add them to the MCU/DCU entries. Whatever we decide we basically need a consistent approach to both the Marvel and DC films though, otherwise we will end up tied in knots. Betty Logan (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking something like this:

1	Batman	$3,805,543,530	11	$345,958,503	Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice ($1,200,000,000)
Nolan series $2,463,216,216 3 $821,072,072 The Dark Knight Rises ($1,084,439,099) 1 The Dark Knight Rises (2012) $1,084,439,099 2 The Dark Knight (2008) $1,004,558,444 3 Batman Begins (2005) $374,218,673
Burton/Schumacher series $1,335,009,923 5 $267,001,985 Batman ($411,348,924) Main series $1,252,907,544 4 $313,226,886 Batman ($411,348,924) 1 Batman (1989) $411,348,924 2 Batman Forever (1995) $336,529,144 3 Batman Returns (1992) $266,822,354 4 Batman & Robin (1997) $238,207,122 Catwoman (2004) $82,102,379
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) $1,200,000,000
Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (1993) $5,617,391
Batman: The Movie (1966)*R $1,700,000

2	DC Extended Universe	$1,868,045,518	2	$934,022,759	Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice ($1,200,000,000)
1	Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)	$1,200,000,000
2	Man of Steel (2013)	$668,045,518

3	Superman	$2,880,941,166	8	$360,117,646	Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice ($1,200,000,000)
DC Extended Universe $1,868,045,518 2 $934,022,759 Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice ($1,200,000,000) 1 Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) $1,200,000,000 2 Man of Steel (2013) $668,045,518
Original series $621,814,456 5 $124,362,891 Superman ($300,218,018) Christopher Reeve films $607,518,018 4 $151,879,505 Superman ($300,218,018) 1 Superman (1978) $300,218,018 2 Superman II (1980) $190,400,000 3 Superman III (1983) $80,200,000 4 Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987) $36,700,000 Supergirl (1984)* $14,296,438
Superman Returns (2006) $391,081,192

Obviously this is only a rough copy/paste so it won't look EXACTLY like it will in a real article (grossing numbers/totals etc.).109.151.166.132 (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

If we decide to put BvS in the Supermen table, MoS and BvS will be added under Cavill series or Snyder series subentry. DCF94 (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I would have done that if I'd known how to. Like I said, it's just a rough idea of what I'd expect it to look like. 109.151.166.132 (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, with Man of Steel and Batman v Superman I understand being in DC Extended Universe, will films like Suicide Squad, Justice League: Part One ect. be included in the DC Extended Universe? Editor49 (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Chronology column

Minor nitpick, but I really don't like how the Terminator franchise table looks. I'd like to just say "Judgment Day" and "Rise of the Machines" since "Salvation" and "Genisys" don't have 4 and 5 in front of them respectfully, it just looks ugly. What do you think about having a "chronology" section of the franchise table, to show the order of the films that don't have it directly in the title? Since the The Fast and the Furious franchise is not actually chronological with the years of release, this could be the precedent for showing this information in a separate column. --Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 00:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

It would be very difficult to add in another column because the templates would have to be re-written, and we don't really have enough space for it anyway (the table already goes off the edge of the page on sub-1366 resolutions). Besides, the year of release next to each entry explicitly shows the exact order of release anyway (in-universe chronology is not really a concern for documenting box office) so there is little chance for confusion. To this end I agree with you that "2: Judgment Day" is a pretty pointless addition: the film is completely identifiable just as "Judgment Day" so I have no problems with dropping the numbers, since as you say it looks inconsistent. Betty Logan (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Why is Titanic's re-release not included in the adjusted for inflation table?

Star Wars has its 1997 re-release included when adjusting for inflation and Gone with the Wind has all of its re-releases included, why is Titanic the outsider? --TBase2 (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a good question. I did email Guinness about it but received no reply. I think Guinness just made a mistake: their chart was originally compiled before the Titanic re-release and in the latest edition I think they simply adjusted their existing figures, and neglected to incorporate Titanic's reissue. The problem with working it out ourselves is that it is not clear how Guinness calculates the inflation, so we can't work out an exact inflated figure. I thought it best to just add a note and hopefully Guinness will factor it into the next chart; readers can see that it is probably slightly ahead of Star Wars now. Betty Logan (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Catwoman

Can anyone prove that Catwoman (2004) is part of the Burton/Schumacher series? Seems like original research to me and needs to be cited. It also needs to be cited as Batman related. Batman in film does not treat it like it's part of that category. Catwoman is a DC character but that doesn't make her always a Batman character when and if that film has no connection to a Batman film. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

A photograph of Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman is briefly seen in the Catwoman film for the record, which places it in the original continuity. Moreover, regardless of whether it is part of the continuity or not Catwoman is still part of the "Batman" franchise in that it uses Batman intellectual property i.e. she is still part of a set of characters that originates in the Batman universe ("based on characters created by Bob Kanes" see the AMPAS credit listing). For example, we wouldn't exclude a film about Ewoks from the Star Wars franchise for example, nor Supergirl from the Superman franchise, because they all derive from the same copyright. "Batman in film" has a slightly different emphasis, since it is documenting the appearance of the character in film. Betty Logan (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Strictly speaking Supergirl is a separate franchise from Superman (the producers had to acquire the rights separately) but they do share continuity, which complicates things for the chart. Ruffice98 (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Catwoman appearing in a Batman comic book is irevalant to me. Wolverine first appeared in a Hulk comic book and Punisher first appeared in a Spider-Man comic book. That doesn't make them associated characters to those heroes. Catwoman got her own comic book series just like those characters. Even Supergirl I am not fully sure of. I am not questioning that Catwoman's relation in the comic books. I am questioning the films relation. Also an Easter egg does not make it part of a film series. Warner Bros. does things like that. They even put Batman and Scooby Doo in a Looney Tunes feature film just because they have the rights of the characters to it. There are Batman Easter eggs in a Watchmen movie. I don't think your excuse is valid enough to put Catwoman in a certain series much less a Batman film. Definitely when the film series article doesn't include it, making an contradiction in Wikipedia. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I checked the DC database which is familiar to canon regarding DC. Catwoman is NOT part of the same universe. They describe the Batman film series as the "Burtonverse". Also while Catwoman is an Batman character. That is Selina Kyle Catwoman. This is an totally different Catwoman entirely. An original idea Catwoman who doesn't have any association to Batman. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

How is it an "original idea" Catwoman when the film itself says "based on characters created by Bob Kane and published by DC Comics"? Also, Wikipedia articles don't trump film credits when it comes to sources; in fact Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources at all, so it is irrelevant what is included at the other article. Regardless of whether this is a different take on Catwoman, this is still Catwoman based on the comic book character, and the events that form the plot of a film are not "easter eggs". I can't believe we are actually having a discussion about whether Catwoman is part of the Batman franchise or not, but here is a Washington Post article that calls it a "spinoff of the Batman franchise". So these are the hard facts: i) the film itself credits Bob Kane and DC Comics as the creator of the character; ii) the film establishes that it is set in a continuity that Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman exist in; iii) there are reliable secondary sources that refer to it as a "spinoff" of Batman. I think this discussion has less to do with facts and more to do with Batman fans "disowning" the film, but the reality is this film was intended as a vehicle for Michelle Pfeiffer and the story was simply changed a bit to accommodate the recasting. Betty Logan (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I meant original research. It is harder to type in a tablet. Forget about that anyway. I am not sure that the writer knew what he was talking about when he said that. Writers can say stuff like that they thought it was true. But he isn't Warner Bros. is he? Just because it is reliable doesn't mean they don't have flawed statements. In this case creators words are more reliable. Also the character is LOOSELY based. The name is still the only similarity. I am aware that they cited Selena's character as an inspiration. That is obvious! But still an original alter-ego character too. No matter what though, the film is not part of the Burtonverse film series. Batman spinoff or no. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

This just sounds a lot like your opinion. And Warner Bros has made a decision in this regard: it chose to reference the Michelle Pfeiffer character in the film itself and they chose to credit Bob Kane and DC Comics as the creators of the character. Sure, it might be a different take on the character but that doesn't change the fact it is the same underlying property. It is not original research to look at the film credits to determine authorship; we do that all the time on film articles. However, what is original research is to discount the film credits and use our own personal interpretation of the film to determine whether it is part of a franchise or not. Betty Logan (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I am saying it could be an Easter egg. Like what Disney and Disney Pixar do commonly. It's a very unclear suggestion that they can be connected at best. Also why the the obvious statement that the film Catwoman is based on the character. I never said differently. That argument doesn't help prove Batman relation. Just DC relation. Which is obvious. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a source saying it is spun-off from the Batman franchise. It is thus part of the Batman franchise, end of discussion. What you can certainly debate is whether it is right to include it under the Burton sub-listing or if it should be kept separate but it certainly belongs under the Batman listing. In other words its definitely part of the Batman franchise, we need to determine if its definitely part of that particular series within the overall franchise.

As a related note, can we please add an FAQ to the top of the talk page explaining exactly what the definitions of a "Film franchise" and a "Film series" are, because this keeps coming up over and over again. Ruffice98 (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

My take on this is that until we know better it is part of the same continuity i.e. the makers of the film could have created a totally separate universe, but instead they establish a mythology that there are many "Catwomen", and hint that Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman is also part of that mythology. You can argue it is a half-assed way of doing this (I won't disagree) but it seems to be a bit more than an in-joke. If it was a genuine design decision then it is unequivocally part of the Burtoniverse; if Michelle Pfeiffer's photo was just slipped in for a lark then the argument probably stands it is not. There is no way of knowing for sure, but if it had just been a joke why not slip in photos of Eartha Kitt and Julie Newmar too? I think Warner had a bit of insurance in mind as well: the Batman reboot could have been a bust and if Catwoman had been a huge hit then they probably wanted to retain the option of co-opting Halle Berry into a Batman film. I really don't see the big deal about including the film though: it is separated from the actual Batman films so it's pretty clear it's a spin-off; we could even add a note to explain the weak connection. Betty Logan (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

p.s. Adding an FAQ wouldn't be a bad idea. I have never created one before so do you know of any "models" we can use? Betty Logan (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

ruffice98. I ain't questioning that being a reliable source. Although I feel like film review article should stick to being a reliable for film reviews. we are uncertain that THAT editor was an expert on the subject. We have had issues with sources descring characters as archenemie of heroes s which wouldn't be admitted to the creators of the heroes in article like these. A better source would have been Box Office Mojo which didn't include Catwoman. Even that source is dodgy at best. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Christ, here is an interview with the actual producer of the film (who actually produced Batman Returns): http://uk.ign.com/articles/2004/07/02/an-interview-with-denise-di-novi?page=1. It details the whole gestation period for the film. It is pretty clear the film started off more or less a Catwoman sequel to Batman

Returns and just evolved into a different take on the character. Betty Logan (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing about that anymore. Goodness gracious! No need to get bent out of shape. I was just saying that the source is a good source to quote that it was described as an spinoff only in quotation and note. But a film review quote? Also yes...an source of the producer is fine. But the only helpful quotes in that source are "Well, you know, we had a real challenge with Catwoman because as you know fans of these comics are very into being true to the comics. The challenge that we had with Catwoman is there are 12 versions of Catwoman. She was a prostitute, she was a jewel thief, she was an orphan, runaway street girl, there were a lot of versions of her. So, unlike Spider-Man or Batman where there's a pretty clear origin story and pretty clear rules to follow, there are many versions of Catwoman. I mean, her costume ranged from a dress with a cape to a garter belt. She's just all over the map. So, what we tried to do was sort of look at all these things and stay true to the essence of the character that was consistent throughout all these versions. Batman Returns is one version, and it's the only movie version, so the nod that we gave to that version was the cats breathing life into her. It's not really re-treading ground, because we've developed a whole rationale and back story and origin story of why the cats do this, going back to true, actual historical myths of cats, going back to Ancient Egypt. We actually have the real cat &#Array; that was a temple cat, going back to Ancient Egypt in the Temple of Bast, which is the cat goddess, the protector of women. So we have brought in all this kind of true back story, that really goes so much deeper and wider than anything you saw in Batman Returns, but there is a slight nod to that history. " and "There's no reference to Batman in the final film. I think part of it is that Chris Nolan is shooting Batman right now. He's in the market place, he's in the world actively. There were comics, there were stories about Catwoman that did not involve Batman. There were some where they intersected, there were some where they didn't. We felt that as I said earlier, she deserved a story where she just stood on her own terms."

If you find an source that proves it was created as an spinoff. I of course will be happy. It's not that I don't want it on there it's that I am looking out in the best of interest of an an article (which happens to be an FL) and I have/had skepticism of an inclusion. If you think otherwise then please assume good faith next time. I know this is your baby, Betty Logan. So I am trying to be as reasonable as I can. Just don't work against me that I shared a different opinion. It's not like I removed it. I wanted to talk it out. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 02:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Inside Out: Box Office Mojo

[[2]] has Inside Out at $2,489 Billion for some reason, i'm almost 100% sure it has not even passed $800 Million yet so, i'm sure this is just mistake... But Box Office Mojo seems very confident about it, since they placed it at #2 of All-Time... I'm confused... --Editor49 (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Once they mistakenly updated the figure on the IO page, the movie automatically moves up on every list that the movie is added to.DCF94 (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Titanic's adjusted gross

There have been a recent spate of edits challenging the claim that Titanic's reissue gross is not included in the total in the adjusted chart. This is the reason both the 2012 and 2015 Guinness books are sourced by the chart. By comparing the two charts and the Box Office Mojo reference for the reissue gross it is a plain and straightforward observation that Guinness do not factor in the reissue:

1. In 2011, Titanic's adjusted total according to Guinness is $2,413,800,000.
2. The 2012 Titanic reissue grossed $343 million.
3. In 2014, Titanic's adjusted total according to Guinness is $2,516,000,000 (an increase of $102 million/4.2%)
4. With the sole exception of Avatar (where Guinness used the original unadjusted 2009 gross instead of an adjusted figure for the 2011 edition) every other total in the 2014 chart is 4.2% higher than the corresponding total in the 2011 chart.

Two things are very obvious from the chart: i) firstly, the 2014 figure has seen the same 4.2% increase as the other films in the chart, suggesting that the same rate of inflation was applied to the 2011 figure; secondly, even if there had been no inflation, Titanic's total would have increased to $2,756,000,000 if you just add the reissue gross to the adjusted figure. Since the 2014 figure is lower than this total, then it is plainly obvious Guinness have not accounted for the re-release. I also dispute this basic deduction is original research: WP:CALC explicitly allows editors to perform basic arithmetical calculations. This is just a case of pointing out the obvious to readers to help prevent confusion. Betty Logan (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

On a related note, and I know this is gonna be tricky, seeing how well Jurassic World did at the box office with its impressive $1.6 billion gross, I think its safe to assume that another very anticipated movie, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, will do very well too, with many sources (check the film's page) saying "Force Awakens will hit $1 billion without blinking" and a very possible $2 billion. So my question is if that happens, what will we do regarding the adjusted for inflation table? DCF94 (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

If its gross is high enough to put it on the table without adjusting for inflation, I figure we'd just put it in the proper spot with the unadjusted gross and a note explaining the whole thing. Am I missing some complicating factor?TompaDompa (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

There are two options which I consider legitimate. The first would be to leave it out of the chart and simply add a note and wait for the next edition of Guinness for the update i.e October 2016. The problem with adding films ourselves is that we don't know how Guinness are working out the inflation so it is possible the other totals could have increased by 2-3% etc. In the case of Snow White, Guinness confirmed it was in 10th place and we knew there had been 4.2% inflation since the last edition so that was straightforward to do, but in the case of Star Wars we wouldn't know the inflation level or the exact chart position. The second option would be to add it to the chart using the unadjusted gross but leave the original ranks in place so we wouldn't be corrupting Guinness's order i.e. if it grosses $2 billion:

9) Jaws - $2,027,000,000

– ) The Force Awakens - $2,000,000,000 [note]

10) Snow White - $1,819,000,000.

While it is important to keep charts up to date, we have to be careful we don't attribute an update to Guinness that they haven't done themselves. We have to take particular care with this chart because it is not a "factual" chart we can source from somewhere else i.e. we are completely dependent on Guinness working out the inflation for us. Betty Logan (talk) 04:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

??????

How do u stop someone Change gross one a page Scabab keeps changing the gross for Shaun onvHighest-grossing animated films page I have change it back 8 times. He using from in ref which is over 2 months ago. So far Shaun reports a us gross $13 million And overseas of $70 millon What should I do ( it be going on sinces wenseday). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

References

You request page protection, but before anybody is stopped from doing anything you need to both go to the talk page and discuss the issue. It seems there are contradictory figures based on the sources you use; since any single source can be incorrect ideally you need to find a corroborating source to eliminate human error. For the record Box Office Mojo has made several mistakes in the last few months, so it is not a bad idea to cross reference any recent figure from that site. Betty Logan (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Do u know any more upto date frogin gross for Shaun as we upto date as of the 7/27/2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Frozen 2015

While poking around wondering if there would be any report for income for Frozen now playing at the El Capitan https://elcapitantheatre.com/event/664 I came across the following on The Numbers: http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Frozen-%282013%29/Turkey#tab=box-office </ref> where they report Frozen was re-released in Turkey playing for 31 days from late June to late July 2015. Go figure. The total earnings for Turkey at the end of the run drop, and are lower than those reported on BOM, but this is again an artifact of a rapidly dropping exchange rate http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=USD&to=TRY&view=2Y. Unfortunately, BOM does not report box office earnings for Turkey beyond May 8, 2015 http://www.boxofficemojo.com/intl/turkey/?yr=2015&currency=us&p=.htm . Accounting for the exchange rate and the earnings reported on The Numbers, it looks like Frozen earned an additional $561,483 for the frame in Turkey, which would increase the total earnings for Frozen to $1,280,414,176. This maybe too vague to add, but thought I'd bring it to the attention of this group. If interested, I can provide details regarding my determination of the total earnings. Frozen is also still showing in the UK at a single theater: http://www.filmdates.co.uk/films/4029-frozen/ Since it is only in two theaters, (one in UK, one in US) it is probably not necessary to re-highlight the movie. Telewski (talk) 02:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

While WP:CALC permits us to perform basic calculations, we probably risk running foul of WP:SYNTHESIS if we perform calculations by mixing data from multiple sources. Unless BOM provides the data at some point we should probably let this one go, since it only makes fractional difference anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 06:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The Hobbit

In late December 2014, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug was pushed too $960.3 Million, but now BOM seems to have put it back at $958 Million... I'm starting to think that with International grosses, that they don't seem to have their foreign grosses together. Editor49 (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Avengers 2012

Why is The Avengers highlighted? Box Office Mojo doesn't have it highlighted, so why? --Editor49 (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't really know. Molandfreak added the highlighting yesterday saying it had been re-released. It could be a limited reissue and BOM are simply not tracking it, but then again they have been a bit sloppy in recent months. If Molandfreak could provide us with a source though it would be much appreciated since we run a tight ship here. Betty Logan (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The highlighting should be removed unless a source is provided. I'll do it, unless you would like to. - ^theWOLFchild 01:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I was planning on doing myself on Monday if Molandfreak doesn't provide a source by then, but if you feel it should come out now then by all means it is your right to do that per WP:BURDEN. Betty Logan (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The Numbers

The Numbers (http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Frozen-%282013%29/Turkey#tab=international)state at the bottom of their page state: "For comments or corrections, please email us at corrections@the-numbers.com". I inquired via e-mail about the recent 2015 earnings for FROZEN in Turkey dropping even though it was still showing suggesting it might be an error in the application of the exchange rate. I received a very nice reply from Ryan Urban stating: "Thanks for the correction. This is a re-release of the January 2014 film. The error was a typo, it was not related to exchange rates. Thanks for putting together the historical data. We recently began international box office tracking and we are slowly adding more data as we go along. I'll get these numbers added to our database in the near future. If you see any other errors, please let us know." So, if you see an error on The Numbers page, The Numbers and Ryan seem to be quite receptive to respond. This might be helpful to this group. Interesting comment regarding 'recently began international box office tracking' and 'being slow' adding it. This could explain some of the discrepancies between TN and BOM. I don't think they will argue in comparisons with BOM numbers, but they will look at their own figures. Telewski (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The Numbers can be a useful resource but it should always be used with extreme care. As we have seen recently, their figure for Furious 7 even contradicts Universal's own figure (see #Furious 7 vs. The Avengers for the bronze)! I have many issues with its inaccuracy—especially where they misinterpret gross rentals of older films as the box office gross which I have observed for The Birth of Nation, 2001: A Space Odyssey and Cleopatra (as outlined at Talk:The_Birth_of_a_Nation#Box office and budget and Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey (film)/Archive 9#Box-office/The Numbers). Some of their Bond grosses contradict the more established figures that are provided in numerous other sources too which is why we don't use them here any more. My preference is to defer to one of the other sources, and only use The Numbers when we are left without a choice. Betty Logan (talk) 06:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

F7

I think it's time to unhighlight Furious 7, although, it doesn't say on the film's BOM page "Close Date", the domestic run pretty much ended in june, so does on The Numbers & BO.com, and internationally, according to BOM, it ended in july, and according to IMDb, it doesn't have other int premieres. DCF94 (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Is it out on DVD yet? If it is and the gross hasn't been updated for a few weeks then we can probably call it a day on this franchise. BOM has been at sixes and sevens in recent months so I wouldn't be surprised if the close date has been overlooked. Betty Logan (talk) 06:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Flash

Hello I wondering if any can help created a highest grossing flash animted films on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_animated_films#Flash_animation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

New Section

I think we can add things like...

Header text	Header text	Header text	Header text
Highest Grossing Trilogy	The Hobbit	$2,934B.	Example
Highest Grossing Sequel	Jurassic World	$1.65B.	Example
Highest Grossing Prequel	Minions	$1.05B.	Example
Highest Grossing Second Film in a Series	Avengers: Age of Ultron	$1.4B.	Example
Highest Grossing Third Film in a Series	Iron Man 3	$1.22B.	Example
Highest Grossing Fourth Film in a Series	Jurassic World	$1.65B.	Example
Highest Grossing Fifth Film in a Series	The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug	$958M.	Example
Highest Grossing Sixth Film in a Series	The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies	$956M.	Example
Highest Grossing Seventh Film in a Series	Furious 7	$1.51B.	Example
Highest Grossing Eight Film in a Series	Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2	$1.34B.	Example

etc... And i think The Hobbit 2 and 3 should count as 5th and 6th film in series or franchises since they are technically the 5th and 6th film of release.

Also, i will replace the $1.34B. to the actual number...

If im missing categories that are interesting, let me know.. Editor49 (talk) 01:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I strongly disagree with this inclusion. Many of these listings are fairly pedantic (really, fourth+ for film in a series is absurdly excessive). This just feels extraneous at its core. Sock (tock talk) 02:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Sock here. It seems a bit WP:INDISCRIMINATE and we have to think twice before extending one of the largest articles on Wikipedia. The scope of the article is "highest-grossing films", so going beyond what is the highest-grossing film in the franchise/series is slightly beyond our remit. With all these reboots and spin-offs doing the rounds it is also difficult to define what exactly is the 5th or 6th film in some cases. Betty Logan (talk) 06:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I understand why you think this should not be here, but its Highest Grossing film of that sort. And the people who come and read the articles have to be kept interested, they come twice a day and see the chart and see that a film in release went up $1 Million worldwide, not so interesting right? We need something new eventually... Editor49 (talk) 02:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The article gets over 5000 hits per day, so we have no shortage of visitors. People come to this article to see what the highest-grossing film is, what the highest-grossing film last year was etc, not to find out what the highest-grossing third film in a series is. They are not going to come looking for information nobody cares about: Wikipedia is WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Betty Logan (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Understandable, but how do you see how many people come per day? Editor49 (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

If you click on the "history" tab there is a link at the top called Page view statistics. Betty Logan (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Date

"03[or 02] October" should be changed to normal English.Kdammers (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing we can do about that on this page. The {{Box office table legend}} template does the timestamping, and it affects other articles too so you will need to raise the issue at the template talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Monday BO

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was released in limited theaters across the U.S last night (Monday, October 5, 2015), but there is no where where it says how much money it made in those limited theaters (A Bit over 500 theaters I think) where cab we find this data? 2602:30A:2EFF:8870:F893:DDF8:4F98:20D1 (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

If it is a limited release the distributor will probably publish the numbers in next week's figures if they release the numbers at all. Betty Logan (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Exorcist

Is it really necessary to add The Exorcist in the adjusted table? DCF94 (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Personally I don't think it is. If you want to remove it there will be no objection by me. Betty Logan (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Nay the force be with u

Star Wars has now closed (on 27tn of September) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Intro

" All of the films from the Harry Potter franchise ... are included in the nominal earnings chart ". This needs to be updated ! HP3 is now 51st. Croullon (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

New page

Can anyone help complete Most Expensive animated Film.  ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.157.176 (talk) 23:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

AFI

Is there anywhere for the worldwide adjust gross of Poppins, Fantasia and Song of the South for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Telewski/sandbox#Live_Action-Animation_films_adjusted_for_inflation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Kung Fu Panda 3

The film has quickly overtaken Ride Along 2 and Quo Vado? as the highest grossing film of 2016. This should probably be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazeezes (talk • contribs) 21:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Jurassic World

Jurassic World has now shot up to 8th with $1.238 billion - a fairly considerable leap which I feel should be amended. Apologies if this is simply getting ahead of the normal process and timeframe for updates... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgonagone (talk • contribs) 17:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Back to the Future Day?

"Back to the Future Day" appeared as a single day presence on Box Office Mojo http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=backtothefutureday.htm grossing $1,650,000 on Wednesday in 1,815 theaters. Was this a showing of Back to the Future I or II? If BTTF I, then the total should be updated? I've not seen anything else about this event on the net. Telewski (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The result was merge. rayukk | talk 20:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

List of 1 billion dollar grossing films duplicates part of the first table in this article, listing only the first 23 films (currently -- the ones over $1 billion). The article has a minimal lead and offers nothing that isn't in this article, except references. I suggest turning it into a redirect to this article, or alternatively it could be deleted. Gap9551 (talk) 03:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support redirect There is nothing to merge really, but it's a valid search term so a redirect would be best in this instance. Betty Logan (talk) 03:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support redirect That is a rather pointless and empty article, it ought to redirect here (Maybe specifically to the list of highest grossing films.? – DLManiac (talk) 08:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I think they should remain difference the 1 billion dollar grossing films is just for $1 billon dollar films as This is one of the biggest pages on wiki what happens when there more then 50 $1 billon films will we just miss the rest? Or expend as people like to reed up on films that make mor then a Billon dollars? Maybe to make it different we could do a Oder like? May be talk about it up on that page as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.157.176 (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

When there will be over 50 $1 billion films, I don't think it would be special enough anymore to warrant listing them all. But that can be decided when it happens — a table can always be made longer if deemed desirable. An order table could be added, but that's a separate issue and not relevant to this discussion; right now List of 1 billion dollar grossing films has no content that's this article does not have. Gap9551 (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support redirect The second article is a senseless copy of the first tenth of this article. I personally don't even think we need a redirect but the article should definitely not be kept. rayukk | talk 21:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all, a redirect has been made already. Gap9551 (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Highest-grossing films adjusted for inflation unadjusted

on the Highest-grossing films adjusted for inflation section can their be a new column with their unadjusted gross as well I was think smoothing like this

rank	title	gross after inflation	gross before inflation	year
1	Gone with the Wind	$3,440,000,000	$400,176,459	1939
2	avatar	$3,020,000,000	$2,787,965,087	2009
3	star wars	$2,825,000,000	$775,398,007	1977
4	titanic	$2,516,000,000	$2,186,772,302	1997
5	sound of music	$2,366,000,000	$286,214,076	1965
6	E.T	$2,310,000,000	$792,910,554	1982
7	The Ten Commandments	$2,187,000,000	$90,066,230	1956
8	Doctor Zhivago	$2,073,000,000	$65,500,000	1965
9	jaws	$2,027,000,000	$470,653,000	1975
10	snow white	$1,819,000,000	$418,000,000	1937

• If Guinness supplied the nominal grosses alongside the adjusted grosses then we would include them to show exactly which figures they are adjusting. This would at least clear up the ambiguity regarding Titanic where they seemingly have not corrected for the reissue. However, we don't really know which figures Guinness are using: the worldwide grosses for Doctor Zhivago and The Ten Commandments are unknown to us (we only have the data for the gross rental) and our figure for Snow White is missing several releases while different sources have different figures down for Gone with the Wind. Betty Logan (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Improve

How can I improve List_of_highest-grossing_openings_for_animated_films — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.134.7.30 (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Just curious...

With Titanic, I remember it never originally grossed 2+ billion at the box office. I got around 1 billion 800 or something like that. Then it wasn't until 2012 re-release that it got a good few hundred million again helping it past 2 billion. For a quick look - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Titanic_(1997_film)&oldid=467024654 - that is dated four years ago today before the 3D re-release. Then the obvious gross now is the one including re-release.

But should this list really include re-release gross? Quite a few films have re-releases, and I was thinking out of curiosity should this list just show their original grosses? Because there won't be figures for every single re-release. For example movies like Hunger Games that would have a double bill before the next one, or when Lord of the Rings was re-released before The Hobbit (I remember multiple cinemas showing them all in one day week before Hobbit 1). Of course for some it will only be a few extra million, but wouldn't a list be better suited listing original release gross instead of some originals, some re-releases?

Like I said this is out of curiosity, but if anybody wants or others reply with interesting things, it could become something. But as I type, just for a discussion about it. Charlr6 (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Mainly we include reissue grosses because that it is how Box Office Mojo do it, and most other trackers too. For the all-time chart I think it is the correct approach, because ultimately Titanic has still grossed 2 billion (across all- of its releases) regardless of how it did it. I think you have a point when it comes to the year charts though; for example we just use the gross from the 1997 release in the chart at 1997 in film because it wouldn't make much sense to factor the gross from the 2012 release into the 1997 chart. Betty Logan (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes. Reason it got me thinking was for new Star Wars, and has been thought by analysts to be only film in a while and long while still to likely join the 2 billion territory, or even have a chance at becoming highest grossing film. With that, I wonder if they will do major re-releases of the very first film. I'm surprised there weren't loads recently, I don't remember any in UK. But in 2017 likely to be one for the first film, and as Episode VIII is proposed to be out then, they would probably make it a big deal. But be interesting to see then how much it grosses. Charlr6 (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Gone With The Wind and other earlier films

As has been pointed out again and again in the talk section, and as is now included by way of caveats on the current page, there is no credible information regarding ticket sales for movies that are decades old. There is no objective justification for inserting GWTW as the greatest ticket seller, worldwide, of all time. Speculation can be included in an (extended and historically interesting) relevant passage, but only those sales which can be confirmed should be on the list. Other records would be treated this way (Guinness sloppiness notwithstanding), so why not here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.20.227.30 (talk) 08:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

There are many credible sources in some cases. In the particular case of MGM films released prior to 1948 costs and earnings (to the nearest $1000) were recorded in the Eddie Mannix Ledger, so film historians have a very good idea of how much GWTW has earned. Betty Logan (talk) 08:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Gross per capita edits

An editor is attempting to add a new section which inflates the grosses and then re-ranks them based on "gross per capita". I have reverted for the following reasons:

1. The first chart doesn't even belong here: this article specifically covers worldwide grosses only, and data relating only to domestic data belongs at List of highest-grossing films in Canada and the United States.
2. As for the second chart, the adjusted worldwide grosses are sourced to [3]. On what basis is this WP:Reliable source? This looks a like self-published website and such sites are prohibited by WP:SPS. Indeed, the adjusted grosses listed in this chart are substantially different to the ones published by Guinness World Records which are documented here. The methodology at that website is clearly incorrect for a start: it states that Snow White grossed $184 million in 1937, which is incorrect. According to Box office Mojo that is the lifetime cumulative gross, so obviously you cannot adjust all of that figure for inflation since 1937. There are films missing such as The Sound of Music and The Ten Commandments which both earned over $2 billion adjusted according to Guinness.
3. I do not believe adding "per capita" based earnings is consistent with WP:CALC. WP:CALC states "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations." I do not agree this is a routine calculation, nor do I accept it is a correct calculation either. Furthermore WP:CALC is not an editorial right, it is a privilege which is only permitted if there is a consensus.
4. I do not believe per capita adjustment offers any meaningful insight. For a start, many older films such as Snow White and Gone with the Wind were released periodically over many decades. Adjusting the inflated lifetime gross (which we have already established is not correct anyway) for the population size at the time of release does not make sense if much of its sales came much later on. For example, Gone with the Wind has generated over 200 admissions since it was released, but only 60 million during its 1939 release, so averaging the gross across a population size of 130 million does not make any sense. The only way this would be valid is if every release wave was normalized for the population size at the time.
5. Finally, no other box-office tracker normalizes its data for population size. This is clearly a case WP:SYNTHESIS which has resulted in constructing an entirely new data set. For one it is misleading: even though the population size is much larger now than what it was in 1939, theater admissions have actually declined. For example, in 1940 weekly theater admissions topped 80 million in the United States, while in 2000 they stood at 27 million; so while the population size has more than doubled cinema attendance has more than halved. Simply ranking sales per capita completely fails to capture this nuance, and misrepresents the popularity of older films in comparison to later films. It makes no sense to normalize for population size if you don't normalize for admissions.

Betty Logan (talk) 03:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

peak

Can you help find & sources the peak of Highest-grossing traditionally animated films for Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_animated_films#peak_of_Traditional_animation ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.157.176 (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)