Talk:List of highest-grossing films/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Reverts by Rhain

Earlier this evening Rhain removed the "in theaters" highlighting from three films: Avengers: Infinity War, Jurassic World: Fallen kingdom, and Incredibles 2. While he was correct to do so in the case of Fallen Kingdom, he was mistaken in his belief that Infinity War and Incredibles 2 had finished their runs. I restored the highlighting in the case of the latter two and made some further updates, all of which were subsequently reverted again by Rhain, who insists these films are no longer playing.

This is a worldwide chart and the highlighting pertains to the global release: Background shading indicates films playing in the week commencing 28 December 2018 in theaters around the world. Now, by checking the sources that accompany each film (in the ref column on the right), it is easy to verify that while these films may have closed in the United States they are still playing globally. You can verify this by clicking on the "Foreign" tab. You can see in both cases that the foreign grosses were last updated on December 30, just two days ago:

• Infinity War foreign gross: December 23 – $1,369,894,435; December 30 – $1,369,894,668
• Incredibles 2 foreign gross: December 23 – $633,931,856; December 30 – $634,017,081

In both cases you can see the foreign grosses have increased over the last week, so how is this possible if the film has closed? Even by checking the article history it is easy to verify that these grosses have increased since Christmas Eve.

I am willing to accept that this is a good faith mistake on Rhain's part (although he really should have raised the issue on the talk page in accordance with WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO), but given the fact I updated the gross for Incredibles 2 which had increased in the last week it should have been obvious that something was amiss. I am going to restore the highlighting because it is demonstrable through the sourcing that the films are still playing, and if he is still not satisfied I hope he comes here to discuss it rather than continuing to revert. Betty Logan (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Franchise Grouping

Hey. I'm not sure what standard or principle exactly is being used to simultaneously group Venom under the Spider-Man franchise and leave Suicide Squad out of the Batman franchise. Is there something I'm missing here, or is it an inconsistency? 65.35.190.94 (talk) 04:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Venom is discussed above at #Venom. Sony has the rights to all the Spiderman characters so pretty much any film it makes with these characters is legally a Spiderman property. If Venom were to be loaned out to an Avengers movie then Avengers wouldn't be added to the Spider-Man entry because it is regarded as a franchise in its own right. I don't really know the answer to your question about Suicide Squad because I don't know much about it. If it only draws characters from the Batman franchise (like Venom) then it should be regarded as a spin-off and added, but Suicide Squad sounds a lot like The Avengers to me: it's a long-running series in its own right that was created 60 years ago and has a rotating line-up. If they do a few of these films I suppose it would need its own entry like The Avengers. Betty Logan (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The Death of Superman

The animated movie the death of Superman/ Reign of the Supermen went into theaters for a limited time. So if The Killing Joke and Batman and Harley Quinn are included this should be too

https://m.the-numbers.com/movie/Death-of-Superman-The-(2018)/Australia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.165.152.42 (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done DCF94 (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Top 25 or 30?

Hi, the subject of extending the Top 25 animated franchises list was brought up by a person and I would like to hear more opinions on the matter before anything is decided, thanks! DCF94 (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

100 films

The page for List of highest-grossing films in the United States and Canada has its list go up to the top 100 entries. Should this list go up to 100 as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:810:2040:46FA:31DD (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

There was an RFC about this and the consensus is to have 50 entries: Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films/Archive_13#RfC:_How_many_entries_should_the_main_table_have?. 100 entries is too long IMO; nobody cares what the 91st highest-grossing film is. Personally I think the other list should come down to 50 entries but that is an issue for the editors at the other article. Betty Logan (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Highest-grossing franchises and film series

Shouldn't there Alien (franchise) and/or Predator (franchise) mentioned in the list? To low grossings or just omitted? - Weapon X (talk, contribs) 21:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Too low grossing. Even if you added all Alien, Predator and Alien vs. Predator films (which I would oppose), they still wouldn't make it. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Ticket sales

I was thinking that there should be a list of highest-grossing films by ticket sales. What do others think about this idea? Maestro2016 (talk) 09:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

The data isn't available for global ticket sales. That is why we have an inflation-adjusted chart instead. Betty Logan (talk) 10:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

What about this Guinness source already posted above? It appears to be listing ticket sales. Maestro2016 (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

There isn't enough data to compile a chart. It doesn't even list sales for Gone with the Wind. The adjusted chart is better for our purposes because we can update it using a inflation index; for example, we have been able to add The Force Awakens because the box-office is readily available, which we wouldn't be able to do if we ranked by ticket sales. The only way we could have such a chart is if a reliable source published one and regularly updated it. Betty Logan (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo has a list of highest-grossing films by ticket sales for North America, BFI has a list for the the UK, and JP's Box-Office has lists for France, Germany, Italy and Spain. Wouldn't it be possible to just WP:CALC those numbers together to get global ticket sales? For example, Gone With the Wind has 202,044,600 in North America, 35 million in the UK, and 27,863,937 in France and Germany, adding up to 264,908,537 worldwide. Maestro2016 (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Gone with the Wind played in more than 6 countries. The Force Awakens played in over 60 countries. Such totals would be incomplete and therefore meaningless for the purpose of a ranked table. You would effectively be compiling your own data which goes against WP:Synthesis and WP:Original research. With the inflation-adjusted table a complete data set already exists and all we have to do is apply the inflation index, which means it is completely accurate to the extent that the index is accurate. Betty Logan (talk) 10:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I also found numbers for Gone with the Wind in South Korea (547,698) as well as Denmark and Netherlands (3,669,343), so that's ten countries in total. Nevertheless, I guess I'll just let it go. It was just a suggestion. Maestro2016 (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

It's a good suggestion. I was the editor who added the admissions table at List of highest-grossing films in the United Kingdom#Highest-grossing films by box-office admissions so I am not against the idea in principle. We'd do it here if we could find a complete set of data, but unfortunately ticket sales are much harder to track down than box-office. You can do it for individual countries but it is virtually impossible on a global scale. Betty Logan (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Batman Animated

I think their may be a slight issue with the way the Batman animated movies are organized. I think Mask of the Phantasm and Batman and Harley Quinn should be organized together under the DC animated Universe since they take place in the same canon. While the Killing Joke should be by itself since it did not take place in the DC animated Universe. Their is already an example of this method of organization since Return of the Caped Crusaders is put under 1960s Batman because they happen in the same canon. At the moment, Batman and Harley Quinn is put under the DC animated Original Movies. I don’t think that makes sense to be organized under since that is just a brand of mostly unconnected movies. Could someone please fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B00F:CD27:CD74:E704:12A0:6F40 (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

We had a discussion like this at the time. From what I read now, it seems that the Harley Quinn film is part of both the DC Universe Animated Original Movies brand of direct-to-video films and the DC Animated Movie Universe timeline. It definitely belongs under both umbrellas, but to avoid listing it twice, I suggest listing them all under one subseries like "Kevin Conroy Batman" suggested in that discussion or something else. DCF94 (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Deadpool 2

Is Deadpool 2 still playing anywhere? If not, it can be unhighlighted from the franchise table. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

It's still playing internationally as of 2/19, there's been only 2 weeks and BOM might still update it in the next few days (BOM does this alot with old releases, they sometimes forget or the info doesn't come in as fast as they do during the initial release). So I say we let it another 2 weeks or so, and if there's no update then we can unhighlight it. DCF94 (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Aquaman

When is someone going to put Aquaman on this list? It smashed through the 1 Billion club. -- Sleyece (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind me. I totally missed it as still playing. -- Sleyece (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit regarding highest-grossing film and franchises series table

Hi all, I wanted to ask if it would be better to reduce the width of the Table of the highest-grossing film and franchises series, because it has content which will easily be able to fit on the defualt size of the cell, otherwise it goes off the page to the right and unnecessarily breaks the presentation (especially visible in a laptop or desktop). The one taking the maximum space is Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 ($1,341,693,157) which will easily be fit in the default size of the cell. So, why not change the size to the default? Thanks! Justlookingforthemoment (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

It's technically complicated. The "table" in List of highest-grossing films#Highest-grossing franchises and film series is actually a bunch of separate tables below eachother. They all declare column widths via templates to try to match up the columns. It fails for me in mobile view (no collapsible tables in mobile is another issue). If the columns are made more narrow then it may fail for more readers. By "default size" I guess you mean to remove size declarations completely and let the browser choose the size. That would currently fail for everybody. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The inner tables are set using percentages rather than hard sizes. The reason they use percentages is because the templates are used on other articles too, so we can't have the template custom fitted to just one article, because this is not a "one size fits all" situation. You set the overall table width with the wrapper, but the smallest width our table can accommodate given the current internal dimensions is 85em. To be fair, there isn't much spare space. The table could be made slightly smaller by reducing the internal dimensions of the "series" and "highest-grossing films" columns, but there is a limit to how small you can make a table with six columns. They require a minimum amount of space. The table width is fine on 1280px upwards. It was designed to work on 1024px displays but the MCU crossed $10 billion at the box-office which required more space for the total gross, which resulted in buffing out the other columns. I will take a look at the internal dimensions and see if we can re-aaportion them, see if we can it back to working on 1024 displays per WP:RESOL, but we won't be able to go lower than that I'm afraid. Betty Logan (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I've managed to shave the spare space off the end column, but as you can see to get the table any narrower some entries would become double lined. That may be preferable to some editors but not to others. It is concerning that it doesn't work in mobile devices but I guess that is because many mobile devices don't have javascript installed. Betty Logan (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2019

Incredibles isnt still showing in cinemas so remove the green background. 2.30.78.61 (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Incredibles 2 IS sill playing in international cinemas! The "Close Date: December 13, 2018" section on the BOM page is only for the domestic/north american run, if you click on Foreign you'll see that it was updated just recently. DCF94 (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done

Inflations?

is it me or have the way the infltions chane for exmaple et $2.487×109 when it used to be et $2,489,000,000 if so is there a reason and can we change backFanoflionking

It changed due to this edit to Template:Number table sorting. @TheDJ: This is about the table in List of highest-grossing films#Highest-grossing films adjusted for inflation and numbers above 1,000,000,000 in the table at List of highest-grossing films#High-grossing films by year. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 172#Poorly interacting templates for a similar case where the edit was reverted.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 23:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the NTS template where the problem occurs because all we actually use it for is the formatting, since the tables are not sortable. However, the affected formatting can be seen here. Betty Logan (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Joker

is The Joker part of the DCEU and the Batman franchiseFanoflionking 20:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

No to DCEU, The Joker is a stand-alone film[2][3], but yes to Batman franchise, because much like Venom with the Spider-Man franchise, it's a movie about a Batman character, whether or not it has Batman in it doesn't matter, it's an establish and copyrighted character of the Batman franchise. DCF94 (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, Bruce Wayne is a character in the film. Ordinary Person (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

different types of lists

While it is discussed in detail why these lists exist the way they are, I wonder if there is a list somewhere ranking movies by the rate of their production cost vs. Income. For something like waterworld that is a rate of under 2, for avatar that is more like 10, roughly. Is such a list available anywhere? 89.8.167.23 (talk)

You are talking about a "Return on Investment" list. No, there is no such list on Wikipedia. Many independent micro-budget films can gross 50x their cost by just making a few million dollars so it would be very difficult to construct such a list. Betty Logan (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

And budgets are often unknown or unreliable per Hollywood accounting. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

James Cameron image caption

I think we can start brainstorming a replacement for The two highest-grossing films were both written and directed by James Cameron., since it seems like a foregone conclusion that Endgame will overtake Titanic at least, and possibly Avatar. How about For many years the two highest-grossing films were both written and directed by James Cameron. or something to that effect? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

There will be eight MCU films on the list, and obviously one of them occupying the top spot should Endgame overtake Avatar. Since the MCU has dominated the last decade and was masterminded by Kevin Feige perhaps we should replace the image, if and when. I like the idea of the image in the main chart being tied to the top film. Since the Avengers poster won't be in the public domain, I think a photo of Feige would be a good alternative. Betty Logan (talk) 00:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, yeah, adding an image of Feige would be fine. I actually briefly considered saying "I don't advocate adding an image of the Russos -- an image of Feige might be appropriate" but decided it would be off-topic. Separate from that, though, the Cameron image caption will be out of date in a matter of days, and it's still up in the air whether it become completely wrong by the time Endgame finishes its run. Since one or another of his films held the top spot consistently for more than twenty years, and for close to a decade his films held the two top spots, it'll be a while before we should be discussing removing the Cameron image outright (if Endgame does overtake Avatar, it'll probably be pretty close, and will depend on whether we adjust for inflation -- in thirty years a bunch of films will probably have overtaken Endgame, just because of how high ticket prices become over time). I don't think we need to be talking about replacing the image, since there's room enough in that section for a second image, and since your argument (and I agree with you) is that the MCU has dominated the last decade an argument could be made that the Feige image should be replacing the Bond image. (Also, I think it's fairly peripheral, but I'm pretty sure Feige would be the first "producer" whose image would be included in this article as a producer as opposed to director, which seems like a fairly WP:BOLD step that shouldn't undermine the obviously uncontroversial of updating a soon-to-be factually inaccurate statement in the Cameron image caption.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The Russo brothers

How are we going to treat the Russo brothers in the High-grossing films by year section? They already top 2 years (2016 with Captain America: Civil War and 2018 with Avengers: Infinity War), and will almost certainly top 2019 as well with Avengers: Endgame. The latter would also mean that they top two consecutive years, which means they will need to be added to the list of directors who have done so. I suppose it is too early to count them as having topped 2019 per WP:CRYSTAL, but they have already topped 2016 and 2018. Should they be counted as a single entity and be added to the list of directors who have directed two films alongside Peter Jackson et al., or should they be counted as two co-directors and be listed alongside John Ford? TompaDompa (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

They are a single directing entity and we would be linking to just one article (Russo brothers), so I would not treat them as traditional co-directors in this case. If they separate later on and have individual careers then we would have to re-evaluate. Betty Logan (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Sortable timeline

An editor is insisting on making the "High-grossing films by year" sortable: [4]. I see no point in having a sortable timeline. First of all the data doesn't sort correctly. If you sort on the gross Avatar ends up in the middle of the table. Also, some of the cells include multiple values and you can't sort a range. So at the moment the table has sortable functionality but the columns don't actually sort in any coherent order. Finally, even if both of these issues could be resolved what is the point of making a timeline sortable? The grosses and budgets span over 100 years so I don't see what purpose it serves to make the table sortable. Betty Logan (talk) 03:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree. It's usually better not to have tables sortable unless there's a good reason to have sortability. TompaDompa (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Highest-grossing films as of 2017 adjusted for inflation

Gone with the Wind (1939) had a 401,776,459 box office, top and based on inflation as of 2017 it is the highest-grossing film record. however, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) had 418,000,000 box office which is clearly more than that and it is not even in the top five! why? Is there possible that inflation for these two years are so different? Kold Heart (talk) 11:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Snow White made most of its unadjusted gross in rereleases in 1983, 1987, 1993. See Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film)#Re-releases, and [5] with domestic numbers (all releases before 1983 are combined there). Gone with the Wind also has rereleases but a much larger part of its unadjusted gross is old with large inflation since then. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2019

Want to update box office. Thouhidwiki (talk) 05:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 07:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Adjusted for inflation chart

Should Avengers: Endgame be added to this, as it as made more than Doctor Zhivago, Jaws and Star Wars: The Force Awakens as of today? BenevolentBeast (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@BenevolentBeast: See #Inflation Adjustment Update. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Lol, just noticed right before you commented. Thanks! BenevolentBeast (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Infinity Saga

I propose putting a new subsection under the MCU listing of the franchise table. We could have the first three phases under Infinity Saga, especially once Spider-Man: Far From Home releases. Any thoughts? TdanTce (talk) 05:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

If the next phase is phase 1 of a new story arc then that would be a good idea. If the next phase is simply phase 4 then it would be better to keep things simple. I don't really know enough about it. Do we know yet what the next batch of films will be known as? Betty Logan (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

They don't have a name for the new films, but I also don't think they are calling them Phase 4 either. Also, Kevin Feige has used the term: https://www.comicbookmovie.com/avengers/avengers_endgame/kevin-feige-has-dubbed-the-first-wave-of-marvel-studios-movies-the-infinity-saga-a167214 TdanTce (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

All released films are part of the Infinity Saga so it would be pointless to make this a "subsection" now. Far From Home is still two months away and we don't know how it will be marketed. And it's a Sony release so the future might be unclear until the next Disney release or longer. The name "Infinity Saga" was announced after the first 21 films as part of the marketing for the 22nd film. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

And apparently Far From Home is part of Phase 3. I agree; let's wait to see what happens after FFH. TdanTce (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Although, a more radical approach might be to remove the phases altogether, and group the films as "Infinity Saga" and "Post-Infinity Saga" as per the MCU films page. TdanTce (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I fear that might get too unwieldy with over 20 films in one section. TompaDompa (talk) 09:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

i also think it's notable that 4 of the top 10 are now the Avengers movies and all of the Avenger movies, at least for now, are in the top 10 no other franchise is comparable in that regard. (also sorry if this should be a new talk section but i'm not sure how to add new ones) ubernaut (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you. It's a remarkable statistic (possible a record) so I have added it to the lead and re-organized things a little. Betty Logan (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Inflation Adjustment Update

Endgame now has more than 2.18 Billion dollars, more than the 2.14 Billion dollars at the number ten of the inflation-adjusted list. Since it is now 2019, and the list uses 2017 dollars, I can presume that Endgame still has a little to go before it breaks the top ten. That being said, it will probably do so very soon. This means the chart also needs to be updated to 2019 dollars. I do not have the time to go ahead and do this, but if somebody else could that would be great. Thanks, _{Integral Python} ^{click here to argue with me} 20:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just saw the note _{Integral Python} ^{click here to argue with me} 20:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is a lag. The 2018 data will be added this year and then the 2019 data some time next year, which means there is a delay in updating it. My guess is that Endgame would need $2.3 billion to crack the chart, but once it does it is not clear where it would rank. Unfortunately the data imposes limitations on how up to date the chart can be. We handled The Force Awakens with a note so this is the best approach here I think. Betty Logan (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

what about the IMF? https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/PCPIEPCH@WEO/WEOWORLD (+ Perhaps it is worth recalculating the data from 2015 to 2017) World 2015 - 2,8%, 2016 - 3%, 2017 - 3,3%, 2018 = 3,7%, 2019 - 3,6% World Bank Chart (which you use now) looks more like US or developed countries + According to the IMF, you can do the top 10 more quickly Tempt1234 02:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I will take a look closer look at it, but most of the business is done in the developed countries: half of the gross comes from just the US and China, with the rest mostly coming from Europe and places like Australia, Japan and South Korea. Sometimes developing countries can push the inflation indeces too high. The aim is to use an index that best reflects the increase where these films make most of their money. Betty Logan (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually, that dataset has an option to exclude developing countries. You are right that it would allow us to get the table up to date though, so thank you for bringing this page to our attention. Advanced economies account for $1.6 billion of the gross so that would be the best index to account for the bulk of the inflation. Betty Logan (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Advanced economies do not include China. Then it is better to use this data. https://data.oecd.org/price/inflation-cpi.htm But there is no data for 2019. Only 2018 Tempt1234

I've learned something new today. Utterly amazed China isn't counted as an "advanced economy". Anyway, looking over the OECD dataset I see it also lists quarterly data and we have the inflation for the 1st quarter of 2019. The annual CPI is basically just the four quarterly indeces averaged so I think we could just use the 1st quarter index as an approximation for now. Unless Avengers finishes its run literally within 15 mil of another film the approximation shouldn't cause a problem. Betty Logan (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Using the G20 dataset kindly supplied by Tempt 1234 above which gives us a 2018 index and also a first quarter figure for 2019 this is what we get:

Highest-grossing films as of 2019 adjusted for inflation^[Inf]

Rank	Title	Worldwide gross (2019 $)	Year
1	Gone with the Wind	$4,033,000,000	1939
2	Avatar	$3,540,000,000	2009
3	Titanic	$2,516,000,000T$3,352,000,000	1997
4	Star Wars	$3,312,000,000	1977
5	The Sound of Music	$2,774,000,000	1965
6	E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial	$2,708,000,000	1982
7	The Ten Commandments	$2,564,000,000	1956
8	Doctor Zhivago	$2,430,000,000	1965
9	Jaws	$2,376,000,000	1975
10	Star Wars: The Force Awakens	TFA$2,305,000,000	2015
*	Avengers: Endgame †	AE$2,238,000,000	2019

Betty Logan (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Should the chart above be placed in the actual article to avoid confusion as it shows 2019 dollars now? Otherwise it appears as if Endgame should be #9 on the chart shown in the actual article. Obviously Endgame doesn’t need to be there, but it probably will help with formatting in the long run (also, $2,188,698,638 in the second week will likely break top 10 next week).

I currently have a young account and cannot edit this article. Thanks to whoever has the ability to do so. Jacket2018 (talk) 02:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The out-of-date grosses are going to cause confusion so I think it will be better to install the new chart and then simply remove the #11 film once Endgame moves into the top ten. However, this article gets a huge volume of traffic so I would like to see if the regular editors are okay with the new table. There is no point installing it if somebody is just going to revert. Also, I think if we keep the chart up to date this will get quite a lot of interest because a film scorching its way up the adjusted list is a once-per-decade occasion nowadays. Betty Logan (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

But one, in the OECD chart you need to choose Currently highlighted G-20 Tempt1234

Just to clarify, are you saying we should use the CPI for the G20 dataset? Actually that does make sense since China is in the G20 but not in the OECD. Betty Logan (talk) 05:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, G-20 can be selected in the OECD CPI database Tempt1234

Okay, I have switched over the dataset. The dataset is now the G20 CPI using the first quarter of 2019 to estimate the 2019 CPI. The 2019 CPI will be revised throughout the year, but it means we can now track the movie. Betty Logan (talk) 06:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

It would be ideal to contact the editors of the Book of Records to find out exactly who made the table, in what way and how he sees it now. I do not exclude that these are rough calculations based on Mojo, The Numbers, US CPI or their combination. UPD: Based on this article https://www.theringer.com/movies/2018/8/2/17641822/box-office-reporting-mojo-the-numbers-marvel-star-wars data source for Guinness Records can be the creator of The Numbers Bruce Nash Tempt1234

CPI G-20 is really not bad (PPP, economies weights...). http://www.oecd.org/sdd/prices-ppp/CPI-G20-methodology.pdf I like) But something confuses me. The inflation for the period 2011-2014 according to the Book of Records was only 4.2%. Using the CPI G-20 (according to your calculations), we get 4033/3440 * 100 - 100 = 17.2% for Gone With the Wind in period 2015-2019. This is somehow definitely out of the principle of counting in the Book of Records, I think.Tempt1234

Let's take GWTW as an example, using Guinness's figure its adjusted gross increased from 3.30 billon to 3.44 billion between 2011 and 2014 (a rise of 4.2%). These are the figures we get using other indeces (by applying the 2012, 2013 and 2014 indeces):

1. US CPI – 3.48 billion
2. US ticket price – 3.40
3. World Bank – 3.59
4. IMF (world) – 3.65
5. IMF (advanced economies) – 3.42
6. OECD (total) – 3.49
7. OECD (G20) – 3.61

The index that gets us closest to 3.44 billion is actually the IMF advanced economies index. The G20 index massively overshoots. Guinness may well be using a combination of methods i.e. tickets prices for US grosses and an inflation index for foreign grosses. The best we can hope for is a legitimate index that best mirrors the process. The IMF advanced economies index may well be the best choice here. The Chinese box-office boom is very recent and thinking about it didn't contribute in any meaningful way to the other films on the list. Avengers Endgame is the first entry where the Chinese gross is sizeable, and there is no Chinese inflation to account for as yet. This is how the list looks using the IMF advanced economies index:

Highest-grossing films as of 2019 adjusted for inflation^[Inf]

Rank	Title	Worldwide gross (2019 $)	Year
1	Gone with the Wind	$3,728,000,000	1939
2	Avatar	$3,273,000,000	2009
3	Titanic	$2,516,000,000T$3,099,000,000	1997
4	Star Wars	$3,061,000,000	1977
5	The Sound of Music	$2,564,000,000	1965
6	E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial	$2,503,000,000	1982
7	The Ten Commandments	$2,370,000,000	1956
8	Avengers: Endgame †	AE$2,303,000,000	2019
9	Doctor Zhivago	$2,246,000,000	1965
10	Star Wars: The Force Awakens	TFA$2,215,000,000	2015

References

It seems that the starting point in "GWR 2012" is not 2011, but 2010. Adjusted and unadjusted box office money Avatar in the table = $ 2782.3 billion, all the latest records in the cinema section date back to 2010 (for example, Sandra Bullock's earnings 2010, Warner Brothers revenues 2010, and most importantly - budgets "Pirates of the Caribbean" and "Cleopatra" adjusted for inflation 2010 Tempt1234

The $3.30 billion figure was published in Fall 2011, and the $3.44 billion was published in Fall 2014. Guinness may have taken estimates of the 2011 or 2014 indeces, or they may have taken the 2013 and 2010 indeces. If you apply the 2010–2013 range this is what you end up with:

1. US CPI – 3.53 billion
2. US ticket price – 3.40
3. World Bank – 3.68
4. IMF (world) – 3.71
5. IMF (advanced economies) – 3.49
6. OECD (total) – 3.53
7. OECD (G20) – 3.66

These are even further out, but the IMF index for advanced economies is still the closest. Ultimately I don't think it matters whether Guinness uses the 2013 or 2014 index because at most we are only one year out. We obviously can't mirror the process exactly without Guinness publishing its methodology. What we need is an index that best reflects the inflation level where these films grossed their money. If Guinness publish a new table down the line we can reset the process. Betty Logan (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

In these calculations US ticket price closer 3.40/3.44 Tempt1234

I think Guinness may be doing one of two things: they have calculated average "global ticket price inflation", or perhaps they are applying two indeces i.e. used a US index to inflate the domestic figure and perhaps some other index to inflate the international figure. It is evident that none of the conventional indeces are an exact match. Betty Logan (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how he calculates it, but it's pretty close. https://www.imdb.com/list/ls026442468/ Tempt1234

It looks like he has used the Guinness list as a seed like we have and then applied some metric. Betty Logan (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal To recap, Avengers Endgame will imminently penetrate the top 10 adjusted chart. The way this table works is that we have taken the Guinness list from 2014 and applied the World Bank's Global CPI to the grosses. Unfortunately the World Bank CPI is lagging by a couple of years. Another problem is that it seems to be adding too many developing economies to the mix and is aguably inflating the gross too much. Considering the different indeces, the IMF's advanced economies index gives us the closest match to Guinness' methodology. The advanced economies are where the films on the list made most of the money (i.e. US, Western Europe, Austalia, Japan). This would result in the second table in the section. So my proposal is to replace the World bank CPI by the IMF's advanced economies CPI; this would probably match the inflation level better and also allow us to update the table to 2019 so we can add Avengers. Obviously this is a substantive change so I want to judge support for this proposal before moving ahead. Betty Logan (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Support: Your explanation makes sense, and it will prevent an inevitable wave of good faith edits that add and re-add update tags to the article because Endgame isn't on that table. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 20:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Support: I support this suggestion, and I thank you for all of your work. This suggestion is probably the best we can do until Guinness (or someone equivalent) publishes an updated table or their methodology for inflation adjustment. Trempealeau Pi (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Support: sounds perfectly reasonable to me as long as we don't go too far into OR. _{Integral Python} ^{click here to argue with me} 20:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment I think it would be a good idea to update the chart before we go into the weekend so I will give this discussion another 24 hours and if there are no objections I will switch in the new chart on Friday. Betty Logan (talk) 08:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Question about Jaws: Before the table was updated, Jaws was listed as having made more than Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Now after the update it seems that TFA is believed to have made more than Jaws. Just wondering why this is so. dreiss2 (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

It is because in getting an up-to-date data set we switched from World CPI to the advanced economies CPI. The developing countries have slightly higher inflation rates, so when we switched the inflation index the positions of Jaws and The Force Awakens flipped. This is because The Force Awakens had less inflation to start with so was less affected by the lower inflation. Betty Logan (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Another list https://katusaresearch.com/own-them-all-the-next-media-juggernaut/ Also pretty close numbers. Looks like a slightly smaller coefficient was applied. And Titanic is higher than Avatar Tempt1234 16:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Godzilla

It appears that Godzilla will surpass Captain America on the franchise table with the release of Godzilla: King of the Monsters (if it makes $500 million). The Godzilla franchise page has a lot of box office information but not for each film individually. Any ideas on how we may want to deal with that? TdanTce (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Looking at that page, I'd say we should pray that it flops! It will be a nightmare to integrate... Betty Logan (talk) 04:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, judging by the previous 2 MonsterVerse movies doing over $500m, I don't think this one will flop. Also, wheter or not this year's film flops or not, there's Godzilla vs. Kong coming out next year, and I assume that will also be added to the total and this film will almost for sure be a huge box office blockbuster, for all their faults, Warner Bros. invests alot in their marketing campaigns, and whether this will be a good movie or not, it is a pretty easy one to market. So, we will have to decide on how to integrate Godzilla into the list because it will be on this year, if not, 2020. DCF94 (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

We always have the option of just reducing the number of entries so it doesn't make it on there. I seem to recall this being one of the reasons for not expanding the list beyond 25 entries (though I think it was the Planet of the Apes franchise that was the problem back then). TompaDompa (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, for future reference, the King Kong franchise is hovering at around $1.2 billion worldwide, based on a quick sum-up. If Godzilla vs. Kong and a hypothetical sequel both did well, they could be in the top 25. Of course, we won't have to worry about that for 5 years or so, but good to keep in mind. Sbb618 (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

will somthing like this do

Godzilla franchises^[§]

(The films in each franchise can be viewed by selecting "show")

Rank Series Total worldwide box office No. of films Average of films Highest-grossing film

N/A Godzilla $1,924,935,515 35 $54,998,158 Godzilla ($529,076,069) Amrican films (1954–2018) $1,089,719,319 Japanese films (1954–2018) $835,216,196

if/when godzilla makes it Fanoflionking

The above table is not a bad idea. Maybe have all the Toho productions combined, and have the Hollywood ones listed individually. TdanTce (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Question: Why wouldn't Planet of the Apes be listed on the Franchises listing? What was the argument to exclude them? They do seem to, at least on the face of it, qualify for the top-25 listing. Batman has a complicated entry on there, which includes several iterations of the franchise that are basically several successive in-universe reboots. I'm just trying to understand that, so rather than my hypothesizing more, I figured I would ask this question. dreiss2 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

  It was on. It was bumped by the Terminator franchise a few years ago: [6]. Here is the entry with updated figures. As you can see it would literally be the next franchise on the list:

Planet of the Apes $2,203,568,141 9 $244,840,905 Dawn of the Planet of the Apes ($708,835,589) 21st Century films $1,984,188,211 4 $496,047,053 Dawn of the Planet of the Apes ($708,835,589) Reboot series $1,681,356,401 3 $560,452,134 Dawn of the Planet of the Apes ($708,835,589) 1 Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014) $708,835,589 2 Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011) $481,801,049 3 War for the Planet of the Apes (2017) $490,719,763 Planet of the Apes (2001) $362,211,740 20th Century seriesPA $160,000,000 5 $32,000,000 1 Planet of the Apes (1968) TBD 2 Beneath the Planet of the Apes (1970) TBD 3 Escape from the Planet of the Apes (1971) TBD 4 Conquest of the Planet of the Apes (1972) TBD 5 Battle for the Planet of the Apes (1973)* TBD

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Betty Logan (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict) Godzilla (franchise)#Box office performance and Planet of the Apes#Box office performance have films with unknown box office. List of highest-grossing films#Highest-grossing franchises and film series shows the box office of each film. Batman in film#Box office performance has no problems. Reboots are not an issue. Personally, I don't think we should let some uncertainty about small box office numbers of old films stop us. We can just make notes about it. The large numbers from more recent films appear to always be known. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Splitting franchises

Since the MCU has been split into single entries, shouldn't Middle-earth and the Wizarding World be splitted too?--Mazewaxie 15:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The MCU has not been "split". Some films from separate superhero franchises are also listed under the shared universe MCU because those films share continuity, just like DCEU. Batman and Superman happen to have many films outside DCEU while Spider-Man is the only such MCU superhero but the same rule is used. The Marvel superhero franchises predate the MCU by decades in other media even if many of them don't have theatrical releases before. Middle-earth is all based on books by JRR Tolkien set in the same world and considered a single franchise. Same for Wizarding World which is all based on works by J. K. Rowling. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Iron Man and Captain America only had theatrical movies set in the MCU but they have been separated too. Wouldn't that be unnecessary too?--Mazewaxie 15:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

If some franchises in the MCU and DCEU have their own entries and some don't then the chart becomes inconsistent. You can't have Spider-Man in the table but leave out Iron Man. The existence of the Iron Man franchise precedes the existence of the MCU and the creation of the MCU does not invalidate that. In fact both The Iron Man and Captain America have produced plenty of visual media outside of the MCU, which hasn't received a theatrical release. On the other-hand, all the Middle-Earth films are based on books in the same series; splitting those up would be like turning each James Bond book into its own franchise. If you want a more in-depth explanations I suggest reading the discussions linked to in the header at the top of this page under "Overlapping franchises". Betty Logan (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) MCU started in 2008. The Captain America franchise is from 1941 and was already in theatres in Captain America (serial) in 1944 but we don't have box office (not sure whether a serial had its own registered box office). See also Captain America (1990 film)#Release. The Iron Man franchise is from 1963 but appears to only have animated non-theatrical films outside the MCU. We don't cheat old franchises with a stand-alone history out of an entry just because all films with known box office happen to be in a shared universe. Should they suddenly change to have their own listing if we find box office from a tv film briefly released theatrically somewhere in the World? PrimeHunter (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I got it. Thanks for the explanations.--Mazewaxie 09:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

auto-populate earnings and the like

When it comes to things like TV shows, it's normally possible to link to the main article and get that information directly from one source. Especially things like the number of seasons and number of episodes.

{Template parameter value|The Simpsons|Infobox television||num_episodes|}=775

{Template parameter value|The Simpsons|Infobox television||num_seasons|}=36

The curly brackets are actually double open and double close in the markup. I just wanted to include a reference so people can how this kind of reference works.

Articles can even reference themselves for information that is located elsewhere in the article. The opening paragraphs about Saturday Night Live reference the number of SNL episodes from the info-box. That means it does not need to be updated more than once and keeps parts of articles from becoming out of sync with other parts of themselves.

I bring this up because every time movies like Avengers: Endgame or Captain Marvel have their box office updated, they normally need to be updated in several places in this article. If there was some way we could get it so that the information would only need to be updated once, that would probably save time end effort here. Ideally I think, if possible, we should look at maybe directly pulling the information from the main articles for the various movies. But when I look at that, it seems the information is stored in slightly different formats in those respective articles. For example, instead of saying $2,624,908,610 currently, the Endgame article says $2.625 billion.

Alternatively, I was wondering if it was possible to set one of the tables in some way which could become the reference for the several other times Endgame's box office total is referenced around the article?

Anyway, does anyone think something like this would be possible? Right now I see a bunch of little roadblocks that seem to make it impossible. Figured I would mention it here in case somebody with more knowledge knows ways around those seemingly small roadblocks. dreiss2 (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The problem with using the template function is that you would get something like this: $2.799 billion. As you can see it wouldn't be properly formatted. Another option would be to set up a dedicated data page along the lines of this: {{Infobox snooker player/rankings}}. Basically, that allows a player's ranking to be input once and can then be used across the whole range of snooker articles, so we don't have to update hundreds of articles every time the rankings change after a tournament. We could set up a data sub-page for films with an option to return the gross formatted or as a raw number (which would be necessary for the franchise table). That wouldn't be too difficult I guess. Betty Logan (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Benefits of doing that would probably be a reduction in vandalism (because there would be an extra step in figuring out how to vandalise the page), all tables on the page showing the same figure for the same film, and fewer edits to this page. TompaDompa (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2019

Someone changed titanic's name to dark Krystal Sarath krishna marath (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

 Already done The vandalism was reverted by User:Mazewaxie. Thanks for pointing it out! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Aquaman

Is Aquaman still playing anywhere? If so, should it be unhighlighted? I don't think the BOM figure has been updated for over a month now. Same goes for Bumblebee. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

They look played out but sometimes it takes a few weeks for BOM to finalise the grosses. That said, neither have been updated in over a month so it is probably okay to remove the highlighting now. Betty Logan (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The Towering Inferno source

@Mazewaxie: Will you please preview your edits before saving them. Your latest edit once again replaced the invisible character in the title parameter with the blank code. As the note in the reference explains, there is a specific reason why the invisible character is used. This is not just me being bloody-minded, the blank space code for some reason triggers empty quotation marks in the reference.

• Here is how the reference should look (with the invisible character): [7]
• Here is how the reference looks after you insert the blank space code: [8]

It appears to be a glitch in the citation template. The problem is that the article doesn't have a title which means that this field is empty. I appreciate it is difficult to spot, but I am sure that if you compare the two renderings you will agree with that having empty quotation marks in the title citation looks weird. Betty Logan (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

As I wrote in your talk page, I don't know why but it seems to change automatically. Maybe because I use wikEd? I'm sorry for that, I'm not doing that on purpose. In the future I will be more careful about that. --Mazewaxie 16:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

There might be a setting you can turn off. Does anyone else use this tool? Betty Logan (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I can confirm that is indeed wikEd that automatically changes it when I publish any change. So I have to deactivate it. From now on it shouldn't be a problem anymore. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Mazewaxie 17:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

It might just be easier to write out the reference manually without the template. It's a not a good thing that we have to hack the template. Betty Logan (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2019

Endgame should be $2,732,800,292 Coliwood Studios (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The current figure of 2,733,401,768 is sourced. NiciVampireHeart 23:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Top 50 in Highest grossing movies adjusted for inflation

Is there any source where we can find top 50 highest grossing movies adjusted for inflation. Ashokkumar47 (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. The problem is that many older films accumulated their grosses over multiple releases, so unless you can isolate those grosses it is not possible for us as editors to do. Our current chart is seeded from Guinness's own top 10, and we can keep updating it on an annual basis because we only have to adjust the grosses from Guinness's base year (which WP:CALC permits us to do) but to go beyond that would take us into original research. We could get the chart up to a top 12 (because Snow White and The Exorcist currently lie in 11th and 12th place), and next year up to a top 13 (because we could add Infinity War once we get the 2018 index) but I don't think we gain much from doing that. If a couple more films penetrate the chart I would support a top 15. Betty Logan (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

BoxOfficeMojo has a list of movies by all-time box office adjusted for average ticket price based off of data from the MPAA. I know this isn't the same thing, but it may be as close as we can reasonably get. They have a nice explainer up too, describing how they adjust as best they can for multiple releases and incomplete data.

Mojo's adjusted chart is just domestic so it's no good to us on this article. That chart is already available at List_of_highest-grossing_films_in_the_United_States_and_Canada#Adjusted_for_ticket-price_inflation, which is the correct place for it. Betty Logan (talk) 10:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

How much has The Exorcist made for inflation? Fanoflionking 21:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

$1.93 billion. Betty Logan (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

What the minimum gross a film must make to be on the inflations list?Fanoflionking 11:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Well it would have to gross more than The Exorcist, so at least $1.93 billion for us to be certain of the ranking. But that is at 2017 prices so it would probably need to be slightly higher than that. For example inflation was 2.2% in 2017 so if it's the same this year a film would need to gross $1.97 billion to have a shot at getting in the top 15. Betty Logan (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Should 101 Dalmatians also be included in GWR 2015 is has at 10th (post 1955 films) with a gross of $1.003Bn https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rBd4BAAAQBAJ&pg=PT163&dq=guinness+world+records+101+dalmatians&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwif25uBlPXeAhUKY1AKHSUVDlkQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&q=guinness%20world%20records%20101%20dalmatians&f=falseFanoflionking 18:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

No, because we know for a fact that there are other films that have grossed more than $1.003 billion. Guinness seem to be ranking by ticket sales rather than gross in that chart. Betty Logan (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

We could also try simply listing box office admissions. The four largest historical markets for movies: the United States, China, India, and the Soviet Union all already have admissions lists here on Wikipedia. There is even a List of highest-grossing non-English films by box office admissions already. --Mαuri ’96 (talk · cont) 04:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Films cannot be ranked by admission counts because global admissions are not tracked, unlike global box-office, which is why we do it the way we do it. This is explained in detail below at #Ticket_sales. The list at List_of_highest-grossing_non-English_films#Box_office_admissions looks like a load of WP:SYNTHESIS to me and should be deleted IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking of adding another column to the Top 50 list, with the values of the Worldwide Gross calculated for 2019 inflation using the CPI Inflation Calculator at https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

Is there any reason this should not be done? Potherca (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Firstly the CPI measure only documents US inflation and not global inflation. Secondly what value would it add to the article? Why do we need to add an adjusted column when the article already has an adjusted chart? Betty Logan (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Question re Star Wars: The original movie had a re-release back in the late 1990s. I believe they touched up the special effects and included some directors' cut material. Does anyone know if that additional time in the theaters is included in its total and the addition inflation adjustment (c.1998 to present) calculated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.127.253.13 (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Guinness doesn't clarify, but I would say it almost certainly does. I have a "lifetime" adjusted figure from a book published by George Lucas that estimates the "all release" gross of the first Star Wars to be $2.02 billion in 2005. Using a basic US dollar inflator this would adjust to $2.4 billion in 2011. Guinness estimated the adjusted gross to be $2.7 billion in 2011 and $2.8 billion in 2014, so they do seem to be factoring in the reissue. Using a worldwide CPI on the last Guinness figure we get it to $3 billion in 2019. Star Wars had grossed $530 million by 1983, and if you adjust this figure from 1977 using a dollar inflator it comes to $2.25 billion, so I would say that a $3 billion lifetime gross sounds about right. Betty Logan (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Casino royal

Casino Royale (2006) has just revived a Secret Cinema re-iusse and made $1.1M so far see https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=casinoroyale2019.htm can we added this in P+T Fanoflionking

What is P+T? Betty Logan (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

please and thanks you. i tryed added the re relase but failed. Fanoflionking

It doesn't need to be added in separately because it is a re-release. The gross includes the reissue gross. Betty Logan (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Toy Story

Just throwing it out there that the Toy Story franchise will be replacing the Captain America franchise in the table within the coming days. Most people probably knew this but hey. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I already added it using "<!-- -->"--Mazewaxie 12:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Avatar anomaly

I have been looking over the Avatar grosses, and there are some inconsistencies in the first run figure.

• Avatar has grossed in total $2,787,965,087 ([9])
• The Special edition grossed $33,210,844 ([10])
• If you subtract the special edition gross from the total gross you get $2,754,754,243

However, we have $2,749,064,328 in the timeline as the first run total. This would seem to be incorrect. However, I did this calculation myself and I calculated it exactly the same way i.e. by subtracting the special edition gross from the lifetime gross and didin't think I had made a mistake. However, looking back through the figures I used $2,782,275,172 as the lifetime gross. It turns out this figure was correct when I made the calculation at the time, but Box Office Mojo altered the figure in 2014, after I made the calculation.

• $2,782,275,172 (June 2014)
• $2,787,965,087 (July 2014)

The alteration was made to the main release figure, not the special edition gross which remained the same. Does anybody know if there was an Avatar reissue in 2014 or whether Box Office Mojo just corrected its figure? If there was not a reissue and the update was indeed a correction that means Avatar's first-run figure needs to be corrected too. Betty Logan (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo foreign numbers can be inconsistent. I have heard they sometimes change the currency conversion for totals when they update something, while past weekends may not change. Comparing Foreign from 8 July 2014 to 12 July 2014 shows Foreign total 6 million more, China 13 million less, France 17 million more, Germany 5 million more, Japan 15 million less, and no other changes. The four country changes add up to 6 million less, not more, but some countries are not specified. France currently looks odd. The left column says 175 million total while the right column says 158 million after the last listed weekend. The last weekends in release are often omitted but there is no way it could make 17 million there, and [11] says the Special Edition only made 0.5 million. Germany and Japan are similar, giving the total listed on 12 July 2014, but the last weekend matching the different total on 8 July 2014. China has no weekend numbers. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Now that Endgame has apparently beaten Avatar's original run, should we mention that it has the highest initial run of all time and Avatar is only higher grossing thanks to the Special Edition re-release or is there no need for that?109.150.232.185 (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The clue is in the name: "all-time". It doesn't matter when it made its money or how many runs it had. Avengers Endgame will have to wait a few weeks longer for the record I'm afraid. Betty Logan (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

It actually looked like Endgame would miss Avatar until a version with additional footage was announced a few days ago.[12] Now it's uncertain who ends on top ("end" could still change with future re-releases). Some sources call the new footage and possible theater expansion a re-release but that term is usually reserved for films which had left theaters. Endgame is still playing in 985 domestic theaters and many foreign countries. If it counts as a re-release then Endgame may not even get the largest original release since it hasn't passed Avatar's original release yet, but soon would have done it even without the "re-release". We don't have to decide how to count it when we don't make claims about the largest original release. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Wasn't Avatar still playing when its Special Edition was released? Either way, I guess it doesn't really matter because the first-run gross is simply not relevant as far as the record goes. I have never heard of a "first-run" record, and I am pretty sure this is an invention of Marvel fans to try and lay claim to the record. I think if a version with new footage hits the theaters it would definitely count as a re-release though because you are putting a new product with a new copyright into circulation. Betty Logan (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The "first-run" record has been mentioned on several articles such as one on Forbes located here. Although, this makes me wonder if we're going to put whatever Endgame makes from now on in the brackets, because it is still in theaters and is more of a re-expansion. From what we can see so far, Box Office Mojo isn't counting it as an official one.109.150.232.185 (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Venom

Apologies if this has already been discussed, but why is Venom part of the Spider-Man franchise according to the film series table? The film is in it's own 'Sony's Marvel Universe' and makes no reference to Spider-Man other than the trailer for Into the Spider-Verse at the end of the credits. It is not a Spider-Man film and just seems very overcomplicated, so I therefore believe it should be removed. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 10:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

It has. See Talk:List of highest-grossing films/Archive 14#Venom. As far as I can gather, it's part of the Spider-Man franchise because that's how the property rights work (the reason Sony can make a Venom movie is that they have the film rights to Spider-Man). TompaDompa (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2019

In the "Highest-grossing franchises and film series" section, please add the following:

"A series must have at least two films to qualify for the list. Otherwise the individual film Avatar would have made the list as of July 2019." 73.209.29.11 (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

The suggestion mimicks an undiscussed addition I made to List of highest-grossing superhero films#Top 25 Highest-grossing superheroes film series in May.[13] 73.209.29.11 has added it to several unprotected articles, e.g. [14]. I support the request but will let somebody else review it. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I have implemented the suggestion, although in a manner in keeping with the current prose style. I think it is self-explanatory anyway but it doesn't hurt to make it explicit, since the mathematical defeinition of a series doesn't exclude a single instance. Betty Logan (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Cameron Image caption

Cameron's Image caption is definitively factually incorrect and should be updated ASAP. Endgame has long overtaken Titanic, and Cameron no longer holds the two top grossing. DeviaI (talk) 07:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done TompaDompa (talk) 08:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Image in highest-grossing films section

For the last few years this section was illustrated with an image of James Cameron, as the director of the two highest-grossing films: [15].

In the last couple of months further images were add to this section without any discussion or consensus:

• [16] (the Russo Brothers are added)
• [17] (Zoe Saldana is added)
• [18] (by now Saldana is gone and JJ Abrams is added)

Images are meant to be illustrative, not decorative. We don't need a gallery to illustrate a table, when a single image will suffice. On this basis I proposed replacing the gallery with a single image of Zoe Saldana: #Image for highest-grossing films section. Nobody else commented/objected to this proposal so I implemented the edit: [19]

This was subsequently reverted by Brojam on the grounds I did not have a consensus for the edit. He provided no substantive reason for the revert, other than that I did not have a "consensus". However, this goes against WP:SILENCE which states a consensus can be assumed unless an objection is made. So on that basis, I proposed an edit, nobody objected and then I implemented the edit. Brojam is reverting this edit under the false claim that there is "no consensus" and instructed me to obtain a consensus on the talk page. However, since nobody objected to my proposal, policy permits me to assume a consensus exists for it. If somebody chooses to reject the edit for a substantive reason then the consensus ceases to exist, but you cannot revert an edit by an editor on the grounds they have not been given permission by the community for that edit, and no substantive objection has been voiced.

WP:Communication is required so if somebody has objections to the image of Saldana then they are obliged to join the discussion here. Simply reverting and instructing somebody to "go and get a consensus" is not a sufficient response. I would also welcome an explanation as to why other editors have not been asked to build a consensus for adding four white guys to the article (which means we would have five images of white guys in the article excluding film posters) but why I am being explicitly asked to build a consensus for adding an image of a black woman? Also, perhaps somebody could explain to me why we need four images to illustrate a chart? Only one image is really needed to illustrate a section, four are just decoration. Since the two top films have a common link in Zoe Saldana (who is arguably more recognisable than the four directors) then she is a logical choice. Also, given that it looks like Avengers: Endgame will at some point overtake Avatar she is also the more "stable" image choice, since the image will not need to be changed in the positions flip. That said, if editors believe that saldana is an unsuitable choice then we should perhaps return to the single James Cameron image, and when Endgame overtakes Avatar replace that image with the Russo Brothers. There is no need for a coatrack gallery. Betty Logan (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I really don't get why you are bringing race into this since that really has nothing to do with my revert of your edit. It was simply because you changed the focus from the directors (which the article primary focuses on while giving no mention to any of the stars of any of the films) to one of the actors, which to me is wrong, especially since Saldana really had nothing to do with the placement of Endgame on the list and honestly Avatar as well (but that's not the point). Honestly, we should revert back to one pic of the director of the top film so Cameron until/if Endgame surpasses Avatar then we can change it to one picture of the Russo brothers. - Brojam (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The images don't have to provide reasons for a film's placement, they just exist to illustrate the subject matter. Anything with a visible association with the film will suffice. Posters are better but a poster for Avatar/Avengers would not qualify under fair use for the section. But a creator or an actor will suffice, but we only need a single image unless we are drawing comparisons, which we are not doing. The race and sex of the person in the image does matter, because Wikipedia is predisposed to coverage of white men; women and black people are under-represented so it's not a good look to replace an image of a black woman with four white guys unless of course there is a strong justification for the switch. That said I am happy to go back to the single image of Cameron and update it to the Russo Brothers when Avengers overtake Avatar, since it is the gratuitous indulgence of the gallery that I find the least justified. Betty Logan (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Going back to just Cameron sounds good to me and yes, I do get your point about the unnecessary need for a gallery. - Brojam (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Hijiri88: Do you have anything you would like to add to this discussion. We did discuss the possibility of Kevin Feige as an image at #James Cameron image caption because he is the real auteur behind the MCU and his films dominate the table. Betty Logan (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

  I like the idea of Feige for the image. I will also note that I have edited the caption to include Titanic for now, but failing Feige would support Hijarri's "For many years the two highest-grossing films were both written and directed by James Cameron" but didn't change it given the general tumult over images. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

  I am relaxed about the choice of image. My point is simply that we don't need a gallery to illustrate a table. I think it looks messy, is entirely decorative and has a whiff of a "coat rack" about it. The image should probably be connected to the top film, and given the dominance of the Marvel films I think Feige would be a really good choice once Avengers usurps Avatar. It is only $8 million away now, so it looks inevitable. It would be nice to have this issue settled in advance though. Betty Logan (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

  Another option could be to replace the Bond image with a picture of Feige in the "Highest-grossing franchises and film series" section. - Brojam (talk) 04:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  Replacing Bond with Feige seems a great idea. --Mazewaxie 11:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  While I agree that it would make sense to replace the Bond image with an MCU one, I have to say that I find photographs of people really dull. Other kinds of images are a lot better for the visual appeal of the article. TompaDompa (talk) 12:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  Having a Marvel-related pic for the franchise section would be a better fit, but I agree with TompaDompa that the James Bond image looks better aesthetically. Betty Logan (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  Maybe we could add a screenshot from the final battle of Endgame when it comes out on Blu-ray, the shot in which the Avengers confront Thanos in the climax of the film. --Mazewaxie 09:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  We can't use copyrighted images in the article. We can only use material that is the public domain. The fair use rationale is only valid if the work is the main subject of the article, so you can uses a screenshot in the Avengers: Endgame article but not in an article where it just appears on the list. It's basically why we have photos of James Cameron but not an Avatar poster. We have a Gone with the Wind poster because that is in the public domain now. Betty Logan (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  Oh, I forgot about that. --Mazewaxie 10:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  We can use the MCU logo. - Brojam (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  Frankly, text is not that much better in terms of dullness. TompaDompa (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Image for highest-grossing films section

Originally this was just James Cameron on his own, but recently the Russo Brother were added to the section too. Yesterday, Zoe Saldana was added. I reverted this because having three images stuck together is indulgent. I also think having two images stuck together is more decorative than illustrative. One image should suffice IMO. I think we should go back to either i) a single image of James Cameron or ii) go over to a single image of Zoe Saldana. I think the image should be linked to the highest-grossing film so both Cameron and Saldana qualify on this basis; however, since Saldana is in the top two she covers both bases depending on which film comes out on top. Betty Logan (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with this change. No reason why Saldana (who barely even appears in Endgame) should be prioritized over the directors of these four films. Also I see no problem with having three pics (which can easily be changed to two pics). Per WP:BRD, we should return to the previous format until a consensus can be formed for the change. - Brojam (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about including the Russos. This is their fourth MCU film, their second in the Avengers series, and the culmination of more than 20 prior films, most of which they had nothing whatsoever to do with -- they as the directors probably had far less to do with the financial success of the two most recent Avengers films than Feige (who has produced all the MCU films and has far more direct involvement in those productions than most producers) and arguably also Whedon (who directed the first two Avengers films and had a hand in several of the other films leading up to them). On top of this, since they are a directing team, the recent versions of this article that included their photos had a WP:WEIGHT problem due to the directors of Nos. 2 and 5 taking up twice as much spaces as the director of Nos. 1 and 3 despite the fact that their numbers were lower, not higher.

Including a photo of Abrams is worse on almost all fronts -- The Force Awakens was not an auteur project of his, and its financial success had far more to do with George Lucas, Kathleen Kennedy, and probably even Lawrence Kasdan.

Obviously Saldana is an even worse fit. Her role in the most recent Avengers film was very minor in terms of screen time, and she didn't even get poster billing (although that probably has a lot more to do with keeping spoilers out of the poster, since she certainly was a lot more prominent in the film than Gurira, Wong, or Favreau), and while I actually have never seen Avatar (I had seen Star Trek, mind you), it's pretty clear that in 2009 her presence in the film was not a major draw for audiences -- just compare our article on Saldana the day to film came out to the corresponding article on Cameron.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Captain Marvel

Is this still in theaters anywhere? Box Office Mojo doesn't have any daily receipts after July 4. If it's not, it shouldn't be highlighted as a current release. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 04:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

According to Box Office Mojo it was still playing last week in Brazil, Finland, Germany, Poland and Singapore. The box-office only gets updated weekly in foreign countries so we won't know if it is playing this week until next week. Betty Logan (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2019

I would like to change the worldwide box office collection numbers of new latest movies. I daily visit this site to check the box office numbers. but, compared to other sites. This site is updating slowly. So, i want to update the numbers as fast as possible and I assure that I'll edit only genuine numbers. Jayanth0078 (talk) 09:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. MadGuy7023 (talk) 09:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

• This page is updated on a daily basis, often within hours of the data become available. This is fast enough, and un-protecting the article would actually result in more inaccurate/fraudulent data being added since this is what happened in the past. Betty Logan (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Endgame has surpassed Avatar - Edit required?

Can anyone confirm? Seems that major news sources has stated such. Elissabulkin (talk) 04:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2019

Please change the position of "Avengers: Endgame" on the "Highest-grossing films" list because that movie has now surpassed "Avatar" in box office numbers. TopHatTurtle (talk) 01:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done The sources cited both state that this has not yet happened, but is expected to during the weekend. TompaDompa (talk) 09:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2019

Change Avengers : Endgame's worldwide gross from $2,782,984,193 to $2,789,184,193 and change it's position from #2 to #1. JustSomeonePassingBy (talk) 08:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. TompaDompa (talk) 10:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Endgame has not surpassed Avatar yet

According to Forbes, Endgame is "$500,000 away" from Avatar and "Disney expects to earn that additional $500,000 by tomorrow (Sunday)" so we should wait for BOM weekend and foreign updates to change that IMO. --Mazewaxie 10:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes you are right. Unfortunately editors have jumped the gun, and it wouldn't have killed them to have waited for the official figures. However, we are literally a few hours from the box-office updates that will confirm the new record. If we revert we will end up reverting a lot of useful work that will simply need to be restored again in literally 5/6 hours time. Betty Logan (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you. Let's hope BOM will update it soon so we can fix everything. --Mazewaxie 10:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2019

I request that Endgame has both it's peak and rank changed from 2 to 1. 2A00:23C6:548B:C100:2D0D:F919:F778:F44F (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done yet. Let's wait until the official figures are in. We are in no hurry. TompaDompa (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done now, by another editor. Box Office Mojo updated just after I replied. TompaDompa (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Spider-Man: Far From Home

Hi, the Box-office from Spider-Man: Far From Home has been updated in the top 50, and at the mcu under the heading from the franchises. But not at the Spider-Man movies at the franchises. Can someone change this. Thanks in advance. RuedNL2 (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• The Spider-Man franchise has also surpassed the James Bond franchise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:8CCF:ACF5:7336:FF6D:6475 (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Avengers: Endgame's actuals haven't been updated on certain parts

Avengers: Endgame's actuals haven't been updated for adjusting for inflation and highest grossing films per year.--86.142.163.16 (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Mazewaxie 14:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 July 2019

change "this pales in comparison to the $6 billion earned at box offices around the world by the stage adaptation." to "this pales in comparison to the $8 billion earned at box offices around the world by the stage adaptation." Source: 71.69.168.164 (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Mazewaxie 15:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Hobbs & Shaw

The film is promoted as a spin-off of the F&F franchise, but in the series isn't clearly defined like, is Tokyo Drift a spin-off? because it doesn't have the original cast members from the first 2 films (except for the short cameo from Vin Diesel), and the other 3 films before Fast Five have some actors in one film but not in the others. My point is: how we should add the Hobbs & Shaw into the franchise list? normally we do "Main series" and the spin-off as a different subentry, or should we just add it on the list as it is? DCF94 (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The next main film seems to be getting referred to as "Fast & Furious 9" so I would add it as a sub-entry. Betty Logan (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)