Talk:List of highest-grossing films/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Has 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1' already been pulled out of theaters??

Resolved

Ok, confusion here. 'Harry Potter and Deathly Hallows Part 1' was released worldwide only about 5 weeks ago (November 18-19 2010). Has it already been pulled off cinema screens worldwide so soon?? Because it's not highlighted in blue (according to this article). I didn't get news from any of the HP sites regarding the same. I was under the impression that WB was targeting the $billion mark at the BO (& as of now, it's well short of the target). Or maybe, the person who made this change in the article knows something the rest of us don't. I live in India, and 'Harry Potter' (released here on 19 November 2010) is still running in some cinema screens. 59.184.151.29 (talk) 05:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The highlighting was accidentally removed earlier today by User:DeathlyHallows2011 when the position was changed. The highlighting has been restored. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 has not been pulled from the theaters, this information is wrong and largely incorrect Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 is still in theaters where I live and I have friends that live in many places !! Bear (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)User Bear620 (talk)Bear (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Inception

The film, Inception is out of cinemas, and should, therefore, have the blue background taken off it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.149.191 (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

No according to BOM. It is still highlighted there and hasn't put up a closing date. BOVINEBOY2008 21:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Budget-gross

A certainly relevant figure would be a budget-gross comparison at what magnitude the gross exceeded the budget (200%, 300%...). Moreover, it'd certainly also be one way of dealing with the problem of inflation. Lastly, I'm pretty certain that if a section on budget-gross comparison would be introduced, Terry Gilliam's Time Bandits would be pretty high up on that, with a gross exceeding its budget at more than 8 times. --79.193.45.181 (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

But this isn't an article called "List of highest gross-to-budget ratio films". I'm pretty sure The Blair Witch Project would top that list, consider that percentage is 11301%. But that doesn't really reflect the highest grossing film considering it grossed ~$250 million unadjusted, which isn't even close to top 50 in an unadjusted and I'm sure would be even farther down the list in any kind of adjusted list. BOVINEBOY2008 21:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Bovineboy is correct, that is well beyond the scope of the article since it is not concerned with profitability. Even if it were not I'm not sure how practical it would be, for instance, where would we get such a list from? WP:NOR prevents us from compiling one ourselves because unless we compared the gross and budget of EVERY film ever made, how would we know that we had not omitted anything? In fact, I bet it would mostly be low budget films that were a hit on the arthouse circuit or went mainstream that would top such a list, so there is probably no way to compile a complete list—it's probably the reason why no such list exists already. Betty Logan (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The original Star Wars trilogy

The section on the main page that covers the higherst grossing films of each year originally had the three Star Wars films listed with their new names, not the original release names. Each film was released under the 3 titles: Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi. The "Episode" tags were added by George Lucas in the late 1990's during each films rerelease. Never were any of those films during those early years ever refered to in such a manner. I corrected the names ,but was partially reverted. Now I can come up with a ton of sources and waste my time and everyone elses time looking through them, that state the names as they were when they were originally released, but can't we all agree that the actual title of the films at the time of original release did not include the "Episode" in the title? And since this particular section deals only with the amount of box office gross during the original year it was released, shouldn't the original title be used rather than the what it was changed to 20 years later? |- As far as the "All-Time" section goes, the gross of those films include both the original release and the rerelease box office numbers, and most likely should include the current title of the film. Although a case could be made for that section to use the title that grossed the most in the box office, whatever that may be.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you want to get *really* nit-picky, while Empire and Jedi may not have been marketed with "episode" in the titles (even though that has always been present in the opening crawl for those two films - that an uncontestable fact), they *were* marketed as Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back and Star Wars: Return of the Jedi, which would just muck things up even more. I seem to recall (but cannot find) a naming convention (possibly from the television articles) that the name should reflect what is actually shown on-screen in the original release - which in these cases, would lead us to list the films as Star Wars, Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, and Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi - obviously, the Star Wars link will take you to the appropriate page. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't considering this as being "Nit Picky", Only as getting it correct. Since the section in question "only" deals with the box office numbers for the year in which the film was released, its a fair question the validity of using the new titles of the films from 20 years later.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually that section takes account of the lifetime gross of the film. It charts the highest grossing release from each year, not the highest grosser in the year. Star Wars pretty much had annual re-releases in the late 70s and early 80s and those grosses along with special editions are included in the gross; take Avatar for instance, it was actually the highest grossing film in 2010 not 2009, but was the highest grossing release from 2009 which is what the chart ranks. Betty Logan (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Holy Crap it does. It shouldn't do that, its misleading. It should only cover the amount of box office money in the year in which it was released. That should be changed. But thats another topic.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

From what I can find, the films were registered at the BBFC at their time of their initial release with the official titles: Star Wars [1], The Empire Strikes Back [2] and Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi [3]. Betty Logan (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Superfluous information

The main point of these charts is to rank box office performance, but there seems to be a lot of extra information which doesn't really enhance our understanding. I've made a few suggestions below that I believe will bring the focus directly back onto the numbers, so would appreciate a few opinions. I've broken them down so feel free to accept/reject on the basis of each individual proposal. Betty Logan (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think they all should go. All of them except Budget have little to do with grosses and money amounts. And we aren't comparing budgets on this page anyway. BOVINEBOY2008 11:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll get on to it next week then if no-one else objects! Betty Logan (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with removing studio from "Worldwide highest-grossing films", and think it should be included in "Highest grossing films by year" instead of distributor. The studio which created a film is one of the most basic pieces of information about a film, and something I would think most people would want to see in any list of films. It is also information that I think a lot of people would want to know when reading about the highest grossing films of all time. I don't think this information is necessary in the "Timeline of highest-grossing films" if it is included in the "Highest grossing films by year" list earlier in the article, though it wouldn't hurt to add it. For the "Highest-grossing film series" list, I personally don't find the list hard to read even with the studio information causing entries to take up multiple lines. Unless other people find that list hard to read or think that the studio information is inaccurate for some entries and impossible to make accurate, then I don't think it should be removed. For budget and director in the "Highest-grossing films by year", while I don't think that is essential information, it is useful information that I think many readers would be interested in. Those were certainly pieces of information that I was interested in when reading the table. As it doesn't make it harder to read the other information in the table, I don't think it should be removed. It might be good to add that information to the "Worldwide highest-grossing films list", provided it doesn't make the other information on that list hard to read. On my monitor, all that information would fit on the screen at the same time without difficulty, but I'm not sure if adding that information to the first list would make the list harder to read for someone with a non-widescreen monitor or a different screen resolution. Overall, though, I think having extra information that some people would be interested in is good in general as long as it doesn't make the essential information harder to read. I also don't think it is essential to have the same information in every list if that information would make one list hard to read but could fit easily into another list. Calathan (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Budget in Highest grossing films by year

None of the other charts include the budgets, and the budget is only necessary if you are going to include profit/loss analysis. Budgets are usually only estimated too, and often vary for many films. I don't think it adds anything by including budget information, and it's inconsistent with the other charts. Readers can look up the budget information on the article for the film if they really want to know. I propose removing it. Betty Logan (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Director in Highest grossing films by year

Again, irrelevant chart information, and it is inconsistent with the treatment of the other charts. The obvious solution is to either add the field to the other charts or remove it. Adding it to the other charts involves quite a lot of work and I don't really see what information value it would add to the charts - if we want to compare the commercial success of directors we should have a chart ranking directors really - so I propose removing it. Betty Logan (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think it would be better if we created a collumn for directors.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Distributor in Highest grossing films by year

Resolved

Perhaps the most bizarre field on any of the charts. Most of the others list the studio that made the film, but this chart opts for the distributor over studio. It doesn't make sense to list a company that fulfils a less important role, and makes it inconsistent with the other charts. I propose either replacing it with "Studio" to make it consistent or removing it. Betty Logan (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Since removing this information was not contested I've gone ahead with it. Betty Logan (talk) 08:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Studio in Worldwide highest-grossing films

Resolved

 – Removed (see Company information removal below)

I don't think listing the production comapnies/studios is particularly important for interpreting the chart. It is also the most misunderstood field in that editors often mistake distributors for producers because they've seen the Fox logo or whatever. I'm often having to put it right. I think production information should be kept localised to the articles about the films themselves. I prospose removing the field. Betty Logan (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Studio in Highest-grossing film series

Resolved

 – Removed (see Company information removal below)

The same argument above applies here, but there is another argument for scrapping "studio" from teh chart. In the case of long running series like the Terminator films that have changed hands a lot or taken on new partners, there are quite a few production companies to list, and the dates they were active within the series. It's not even clear which companies made which films, and the production information is starting to dominate the chart. I propose removing. Betty Logan (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I support this proposal! It's a complete mess with all the studios listed now. Kjidel (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Follow up

About the Production companies listed of Inception

As we know, Nolan has Dark Knight and Inception on the list, and Dark Knight so far ranks no. 7.

The same to Inception, Legendary Pictures & Syncopy Films also participated the filmmaking or production of Dark Knight, but the list only has the primary one, Warner Bros. on it. That's why I kept only Warner Bros. of Inception, in order to ease the difference between the two films. Then, should I complete the studios listed of Dark Knight or simplify the production companies of Inception like I did in my version??
TW-mmm333k (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be better to add the other companies to the Dark Knight entry if they were involved in production. It doesn't make sense to list just some of the companies—either list them all or none at all otherwise you present a false overview. In Inception's case it is jointly funded and owned by Warner and Legendary, and was actually made by Syncopy so all these companies have principle involvement in the production. I'm in favor of pulling the column altogether (see the discussion above) because I'm sick to death of the confusion it causes. Some editors add distributors, others pull companies because they don't realise they were producers of the film, and I personally don't see how it contributes to a chart ranking box office. Betty Logan (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I am in charge of the Chinese version of this page. Well, the studio part does confuse editors alot, including me actually. Somehow, I'm fond of "the less the better", so I usually keep the well-known production companies on the list and remove the secondaries while editing the Chinese page. I know it sounds like a wrong doing, haha.

This part is indeed controversial and hard to define, but I'm kinda disapprove of removing them from the chart. It's sad that this page is not so popular, therefore few people would come down here and join the discussion. We are on our own, pal. 加油。
TW-mmm333k (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Company information removal

Over the last few days, an editor has started removing what he calls "non major companies" from the 'studio' columns for the Harry Potter films: [4]. He gives the reason that these smaller companies "do not fit the guidlines [sic] to this page". This is incorrect, but it does highlight the problem that we don't actually have any guidelines for what information we include here. There are essentially five options, so I would like to get some input from the other regular article editors:

1. We include all company information. This is the current situation; we have listed all the company information for all films and it is in line with what IMDB does. The disadvantage might be that it seems like overkill, but on the otherhand it is complete so there can be no disputes over what is a "major" company or not.
2. We just list the company that physically makes the film. In the case of the Harry Potter films this is Heyday Films. That would mean not only removing the smaller companies but also Warner Bros. This is not as extreme as it sounds, since this is what the Harry Potter Wikipedia articles do. The advantage here is that the field would have a clear definition, but might be seen as too restrictive, since production companies can perform different functions on a film.
3. We remove "non major companies", and I guess that means companies that don't have Wikipedia articles about them. The argument for this is that if the companies are not notable enough to have articles they are not notable to be listed. The problem here is that notability is sometimes out of sync with how integral the production company is to the production. We have lots of film articles on Wikipedia made by non-notable companies but we still list them anyway, we don't pretend they appeared out of thin air. The companies that are being removed from the Harry Potter films are the copyright holders, so they're pretty important as companies go.
4. We make the field consistent with the field on other Wikipedia articles. If they list a company in the "studio" field then we do, if they don't we don't. The advantage here is that it gives us a simple criteria for picking which companies to include, but the disadvanatge is that different articles may have different criteria so the information we include could end up being inconsistent from film to film.
5. The final solution. We simply remove the studio column. We are documenting the grosses of films, and the studio information is pretty irrelevant in that capacity since we don't provide any financial analysis for those companies.

There is a problem of consistency for the article. At the moment we list all companies for all films, but if we remove companies from Harry Potter for not having a Wikipedia article should we remove Pacific Western from The Terminator entry? The worst case scenario is that we make the information inconsistent. At the very least, we should choose a criteria and it should be applied across the whole list. In view of that I ask all editors to please refrain from making unilateral changes until there is a consensus for one of the above options, and once a clear decision is made the changes can then be applied systematically across the article. Betty Logan (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I would favor removing the studio column. The values are such a mixed bag and basically says, most of the major studios have had really high-grossing films at some point. The point of the list is to list the films (and of course the related dollar figure), and additional columns can be extraneous or not. For example, the year is very basic and acceptable, where the studio is not quite like that. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

That would be my preference as well. Betty Logan (talk) 14:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

But removing the studio section is one thing, but haveing the studio name their is really important i feel :/ Mjs2010 (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm pleased you've come here to discuss this, so hopefully this issue can be resolved relatively quickly. Whatever approach we use, whether that is listing all the companies, some of the companies, or removing them then the approach needs to be consistent. The problem with your approach is that editors shouldn't be deciding what are the "main" companies, because different editors have different opinions. I've listed several options above. If you think we should list some of the companies but not all, then I think option 2 or 4 is best for you, with option 4 probably being simplest. Betty Logan (talk) 08:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Given that the issue of what information we should be including hasn't been resolved, and that the information isn't pertinent to charting box office grosses, in accordance with the sentiments expressed in this discussion and the earlier one (Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films#Superfluous_information), it is probably for the best that the content is removed. I'm going to go ahead and remove it at the end of the week, so if anyone does feels strongly that the information is essential to the article then hopefully they will join the discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of highest-grossing films

I noticed something odd about this section. Though it's supposed to be the highest-grossing film at the time, it appears that some of the numbers lower on the list are actually lower than higher entries (for example, The Godfather has over 150 million dollars less than Gone with the Wind, but somehow it beat it). This doesn't make much sense to me. I could be overlooking something, but it looks wrong to me. Kevinbrogers (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Barring the possibility of the source being wrong, these films have had multiple releases over the years, especially Gone With the Wind. It's plausible that GWTW acummulated the extra money since The Godfather took the record and eventually outgrossed it. Betty Logan (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand why GWTW was listed twice, I just don't understand how after it made over 400 million, Godfather made around 250 million and took the record. Kevinbrogers (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait, I think I understand. At the time of the record, GWTW could have had less, it's just that it has now made 400 million. Nevermind. Kevinbrogers (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm having trouble buying this theory. Even if you assume The Sound of Music didn't earn a nickel after 1966, that would imply that Gone with the Wind has somehow grossed over $240 million since 1966! That just doesn't seem possible to me. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The case with The Sound of Music is slightly confused, because we only have the domestic gross for SOM while the gross for GWTW is the worldwide take, so it is impossible to compare them like for like. When Variety did a list of highest grossers in 1960, GWTW topped the list with $33.5 million in rentals; that would equate to about $67 million gross (probably domestic), once you factor in the exhibitor and distributor [5], so it's very plausible that SOM overtook it. This source corroborates the current one that Sound of Music became the highest grossing film in 1966, 18 months after release. According to that source, Sound of Music grossed $43 million in its first 12 months of release, so if GWTW had indeed only grossed $67m by 1960 then SOM wouldn't have been that far behind by the start of 1966. SOM was the first film to gross $100m domestic, and GWTW had another two major releases in 1967 and 1971 so must have passed the $100m domestic point during that period if it took back the record before The Godfather knocked it off its perch again. If you double it for the worldwide figures, that looks like it grossed $135m by 1960, at least $200m by 1972, which seems consistent, and then we get this jump to $400m since The Godfather. The $400m figure does seem a bit suspect in that context, but it comes from Box Office Mojo so, so either the figure is wrong or it made an awful lot of money during the 1970s. Betty Logan (talk) 06:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it wouldn't be best to take out the Gross column. It's confusing as heck. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want to take out the grosses I wouldn't object. I'm not sure it adds much to the concept of a "timeline" anyway, since technically a timeline should show how the gross stood at the time of the record. Betty Logan (talk) 10:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Because a movie's gross has not always been static after its first run, this table becomes difficult to make both accurate and useful. -If- the data can be sourced, I would suggest we list the new record holder with the total it had earned at the end of the run which placed it in the lead (and then list the surpassed movie with its total at that time which will often be more than at what that movie was initially listed). This will show the timeline of record breaking as well as the progression of the record, which is not done now. In fact, as it stands now, the table is incomprehensible without the above explanation.

Do we have a source for what any given movie made during each of its runs? If someone can point out an acceptable source, I'll compile the table data accurately. Also, such a source would help make a new table (highest grossing first runs of movies) that in my opinion is more interesting than the main table of this page...I really don't care how much GWTW added in its multiple rereleases or how much Star Wars added with its. The impact aspect I came here seeking is the impact of that first run...exactly how big was GWTW during its opening run? Huge, but not $400 million huge.BugSwat (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be great, but it's virtually impossible to track down worldwide box office. You'd probably have more luck constructing a domestic timeline of first run grosses. Gone With the Wind made something like $75 million domestically on its first run; The Sound of Music was the first film to gross $100 million on a first run, and eventually overtook GWTW; The Godfather may have taken the domestic record with $134 million; The Exorcist may have held the record; not sure how much Jaws made but Spielberg once said in an interview it made $150 million and became the highest grossing film; Star Wars made $215 million on its first run; ET made $359 million; following Star Wars' brief return to the top in 1997, Titanic took the record with $600 million and finally Avatar with $750 million. These figures could probably be tracked down at least back to Snow White if you have acces to 80 years of Variety. Betty Logan (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest taking down the current chart -- until we can accurately represent the box office totals at the point in time the film is listed on the chart, the whole thing is far more confusing than informative. To research the totals through Variety would cost $600, which is more than I'm willing to spend for a Wiki chart -- although if anyone wants to sponsor the account, I'll do the research. :) BugSwat (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I think taking down the full chart would be a bit drastic. Basically we know that GWTW was the highest grossing film until it was overtaken by The Sound of Music, and we know that The Godfather became the highest grosser at some point and was usurped by Jaws — all of this seems to be backed up by other sources. It's pretty clear-cut up to the Sound of Music and from The Godfather, it's just unclear if GWTW took back the record. I think taking down the figures pre-Jurassic Park would clear up the confusion, and clarify the GWTW/SOM dispute with a note. Betty Logan (talk) 08:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

This is off, The Godfather does not belong, given it's current total. Also the number of years for a record held is off with The Godfather being there. Does anybody know what is correct? DanielDPeterson (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting the list. The total is what a film has earned as of now, not what it had earned when it was the highest grossing release of all time. Gone with the Wind has had many rereleases, with IMDB listing at least 20 in various countries since 1972 [6]. It is certainly possible that The Godfather had a higher total from 1972 to 1975, but that Gone with the Wind has since passed it due to being rereleased many times. Calathan (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a bit misleading though, and there is a discussion above proposing the removal of the grosses, at least for the earlier films. Ideally it should list how much the film had made when it held the record rather than the totals, but I don't know where you'd find that information unless Variety or some place lists it. There is some confusion though: this reference says The Sound of Music took the record and was ultimately displaced by The Godfather, although that could just apply to the US box office. The Sound of Music ultimately made $286m, while The Godfather eventually pulled in a total of $245m, and GWTW went on to bring in $400m. I think the grosses are about right for The Sound of Music and The Godfather, and it's not inconceivable GWTW has made another $150m or so in foreign box office, over the last 30 years given the number of releases it has had. Betty Logan (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The film The Exorcist out grossed The Godfather but this is not listed. That needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.81.244 (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from DarkHelmet82, 28 April 2011

Please Change number of star wars films from 7 to 6, as there were only six Star Wars Films. DarkHelmet82 (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: The source used to reference the chart states there are seven films. Betty Logan (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Right. The source [7] includes Star Wars: The Clone Wars (film). PrimeHunter (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Bug in highest-grossing film series table

Resolved

I know there are people here who have spent a lot of time on this table, so I thought it would be better just to bring this problem to the attention of other editors to this page instead of trying to fix it myself.

I tried to sort the table in the Highest-grossing film series section by "Average of films" and it kind of sorted, but not exactly. You can see if you go click on it, but basically it creates two groups, each of which are sorted from most to least (or vice-versa) within themselves. It also does this if you sort by "Total worldwide box office". I'm pretty certain that what's causing this error is that some of the figures for total and average contain a summation formula, to aid in incorporating movies that are currently or were recently in theaters. The series that contain a calculation instead of a straight figure are Harry Potter, Pirates of the Caribbean, Shrek, Toy Story, Twilight, Narnia, and The Fast and the Furious, and if you go sort the table, you'll see that this is the exact group that is separate from the rest.

Any ideas on how to make this table fully sortable? I'm wondering if wrapping all the figures in {{nts}} would be sufficient, or if the #expr thing would be needed too. I lack familiarity with wikitable coding though, so I'll wait and see if there's someone here who knows just how to fix it. Princess Lirin (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It's just a case of the wrong template. Template:Nts is used for alpha sorting, but we want the table to sort numerically, so you have to use Template:Val instead. It's, erm, sorted. Betty Logan (talk) 23:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible to change the "Worldwide highest-grossing films" section from the 50 highest-grossing films of all time to the 100 highest-grossing films of all time?

I know it sounds stupid since I tried it once and it was rejected but is it possible to change the "Worldwide highest-grossing films" section from the 50 highest-grossing films of all time to the 100 highest-grossing films of all time? I mean, the other highest-grossing films in the UK, US and Canada alone have got their 100 highest-grossing films in their sections so is it possible to do it on the worldwide article as well? I know it's a bit silly to ask but is it possible? Darkness2005 21:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally speaking I don't think increasing the size of the chart offers much more encylopedic value i.e. the highest grossing film of the year will almost certainly penetrate the top 50, so we can see how it compares to other recent films just as easily with a top 50. I would probably drop it to a top 25 because I don't think it really matters what the 40th highest grossing film is, but a top 50 seems to strike a happy medium. Betty Logan (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, OK. That's fine by me for a Top 50. But I was thinking what are the other users wanting to know what the Bottom 50 were. But, hey. A Top 50 is fine by me. Darkness2005 22:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You can always ask for opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, you'll probably get more responses there. I don't really have a strong opinion on it personally, and am happy to go along with what the majority decide, but there are a few regular editors who work on the charts so they should get a say before anything is done. Betty Logan (talk) 12:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Darkness2005 is right on this one. I want to know what the Bottom 50 were! Cineplex (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyright concerns

Hello all. The problem started on Talk:List of highest-grossing Bollywood films#Copyright concerns, where it was also suspected that there is a copyright problem here too, because the data of boxofficemojo is often based on estimates. On its about page it is stated, "the calendar gross data is generally considered more comprehensive after 2001, while pre-2001 estimates are considered approximate" and "when daily data is not available, estimates are used and are based on weekend and weekly data and historical box office trends." Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no legal advice that relates to this website whilst there is advice that relates to boxofficeindia.com. The two websites are different in many respects, one of which is that boxofficemojo attempts to explain how they create the estimates where they are used (which is not everywhere, so many numbers are statistics rather than estimates), further boxofficemojo offers to let you reuse the numbers if you ask - "To publish or use the stats for professional purposes, please inquire at mail@boxofficemojo.com". This copyvio report seems a hasty and pointy response to List of highest-grossing Bollywood films in overseas markets being reported only hours before which I cannot consider a coincidence considering your contribution history on this topic. Fæ (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this is easily resolvable. There is a case that the weekend estimates are a copyvio, but BOM updates the weeken figures Monday/Tuesday with the actuals. All we have to do is delay updating the weekend figures until the estimates are replaced with the real figures. As it stands, no estimated data is currently included on the chart so the copyvio notice is unwarranted at the moment. Betty Logan (talk) 11:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Fæ, please assume good faith and do not accuse me of acting in a "hasty and pointy" way. Whether you consider it a coincidence or not is of least interest to me. Actually, it is not a coincidence. This has definitely prompted me to check the copyright issue here as well, and I have full right to question the info presented here (which has been questioned in the past by other editors as well). Boxofficemojo clearly states, "the calendar gross data is generally considered more comprehensive after 2001, while pre-2001 estimates are considered approximate" and "when daily data is not available, estimates are used and are based on weekend and weekly data and historical box office trends." That's something that must be explained. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

In which case, why have you used the copyvio process and blanked the entire article rather than flagging verifiability as the issue here? Fæ (talk) 11:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability is not the issue here, copyright is. That's what I've learnt from you guys. I'm not at all making a petty act of sweet revenge here, if that's what you felt or implied; I really want to check if the same problem exists here as well, and I think it does. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all, most of the films listed are post 2001, so the chart contains mostly factual data. BOM can't exercise copyright over factual data. In the case of estimates, then some concern has to be exercised. In the case of pre-2001 films, the data is still presented as "factual" and not estimated data. There is quite a wide margin between inaccurate (i.e. incomplete data, rounded data) and estimates (weekend projection figures). I agree we probably shouldn't include projections, because that is the result of analysis as opposed to reporting (and probably breaches WP:CRYSTAL too), so as long as we wait until the actuals are released, then I don't think there are any reasonable copyvio concerns. Betty Logan (talk) 13:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

In addition I would say the estimation process is sufficiently explained that no creative content can be claimed. Any estimate based on "historical box office trends" is a calculated forecast rather than the sort of completely unexplained expert estimate that was the the copyright issue referred to in the BoxOfficeIndia. I support removing the unnecessary copyvio notice as there is no legal advice or current guideline that applies. The issue of whether there may be a verifiability issue for projected figures is a separate issue for an improvement discussion rather than blanking. Fæ (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I too would support reverting the pageblank and removing the copyvio notice; with haste. Considering there's been no complaint from a third party—and the shaky nature of the copyvio argument—I'm rather surprised such a highly viewed page would be blanked for a whole day, especially without debate and certification on this talk page first. Nigholith (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that there's been no complaint does not mean it's acceptable. What do you mean by "sufficiently explained"? Would you kindly elaborate? That's the same story with BOI. And still, this exists: "the calendar gross data is generally considered more comprehensive after 2001, while pre-2001 estimates are considered approximate" and "when daily data is not available, estimates are used and are based on weekend and weekly data and historical box office trends." - this is something serious.

"I'm rather surprised such a highly viewed page would be blanked for a whole day" - that's the nature of the tag, and that's happened in the past to other "highly viewed pages". If there isn't any copyright violation, then I'll be more than happy to know that, but I want to wait for those who are responsible for this. I was encouraged by Moonriddengirl to tag this article.

"The issue of whether there may be a verifiability issue for projected figures is a separate issue for an improvement discussion rather than blanking" - So? Maybe that's what should be done on the recent list you tagged (and blanked) as well? I see no point having to discuss one issue without the tag, and the other using the tag. There should be no double standards on Wikipedia. I can't see the point. First resolve the issue, then I'll be happy to see it removed. Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no clear rationale for the copyvio notice and you have no consensus to blank this article. You will note that at Talk:Bollywood films of 2011 I attempted discussion on the topic in advance of blanking the section, you made no such attempt here. You will note that in previous cases we have had clear legal advice relating to the specific source website, there is no such advice for this case and the rationale of creative content of expert estimates does not apply. I shall leave a note for Moonriddengirl as you refer to her advice to blank the content of this article which I cannot find at the moment but accept this may have been given off-wiki. Fæ (talk) 09:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

She did not at all advise me to do so, if that's what you want to know. I consulted her several times, and she explained to me how this should be handled, that was my meaning. She said she would help me out with that. She did not want to tag the article upon my request because according to her she could not take care of every possible copyright infringement. At the beginning I was not willing to tag the article because it would seem quite inappropriate. Now that it's become a sort of a trend I would really want to know if the same problem exists here as well. As for the consensus you are talking about, even when the Bollywood list was blanked at first, there wasn't any consensus - it was just blanked.

Now, I see that you are repeating several times that it's not the same issue, but you do not cite anything and seem to be ignoring the quotes I provide. If you can give me a rational explanation on why this is not the same and what exactly you are referring to when you're saying, "the estimation process is sufficiently explained that no creative content can be claimed", I will remove the tag myself today. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I have made references in the thread to boxofficemojo where there is a limited description of the estimation process, "you do not cite anything" is a ridiculous parody of the thread above. BOM may not print a full description of the calculation they make but the fact that they use a historical trend rather than just ask an expert for an opinion shows there is no basis for anyone to worry about creative content. As for my actions being a trend, I assume that you are relating my raising copyright issues for articles that repost full lists of expert estimates from boxofficeindia. There are very few such articles (I have only noted 4 that are relevant) and I would object to it being called a trend as this is limited to certain types of reuse of ranked material and only applies to mass reuse of that website. I have no intention of going on a disruptive deletion spree across Wikipedia without a consensus for mass changes. --Fæ (talk) 10:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) I just wanted first to make clear that I did tell Shahid that if he could show that the list was not based on actual statistics (as was the case with the Bollywood film lists), he should tag it for evaluation for copyright concerns. (Here.) (I did not evaluate the criteria because at that time I was pretty much the only administrator working copyright problems, and the last list article to be tagged for copyright evaluation remained blanked a long time while I waited for somebody else to close it.)

(I have been meaning for some time to launch a community discussion on the question of how to use elements from creative lists (as estimates are), but have been preoccupied by other things...and really reluctant to broach the issue, because it's a messy one. But it needs to happen, and I've put out preliminary at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#Copyright in lists.)

In terms of the data in the list, the US Court of Appeals has found copyright in "approximative statements of opinion" (44 F.3rd 61 (2nd Cir. 1994)). It seems that contemporary films in the list are not approximate, but actual gross. (I agree with Betty that the projections may be a problem.) With the pre-2001 films, do they explain how they arrive at their estimates? (Please forgive me if this should be obvious; I've just gotten home from traveling, and I'm definitely not up to speed. :D) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Moonriddengirl, now that you're in, I trust your judgement. If you come to the conclusion that there isn't any copyright infringement, please remove the tag. I hope the issue is resolved and this discussion helps to prevent any such issues in the future. Thank you. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think to claim these lists are copyright infringements is a little extreme.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I think there is an important distinction between the older approximate data and the weekend projections. I can't find any explanations of how they do anything, but in the case of older data I don't think the "approximations" are based on a creative process. The grosses omit a lot of international figures for older films, and the domestic figures are typically rounded. I don't think the older figures actually involve making up figures. Basically, anyone determined enough can sit down and go through the dailies in Variety from the 1930s onwards and come up with approximate figures. If you are reliant on old data for your figures, then they will never be completely accurate, which is possibly why BOM refer to the older grosses as approximates (I concede that I am making an assumption here, but I think it is reasonable because BOM is unlikely to make up figures when approximate data is readily obtainable). In that sense, the older Box Office Mojo data can be reproduced by a non-expert process, but just a lot of hard slog. The Weekend projections on the otherhand involve interpolating the weekend estimates from Friday and Saturday data. That is, someone has to analyse the data and the figures are a product of expertise. No-one else can reproduce this particular set of data because it is the result of a creative process. I think that is the crux of the issue: the older data can be reproduced by going through the dailies, so I think the copyright argument is tenuous in regard to these figures, whereas the BOM weekend projections can't be reproduced by any process. In view of that, I think the charts probably include copyvios if they include the projected weekend figures, but if we introduce a guideline on the article such that the figures should not be updated using the weekend estimates, then I think that would eliminate the most severe problem. It just means that instead of updating the charts on Sunday, we wait until Monday. I have no background in copyvio policy, so I'll have to leave the judgment call to someone else, but if the chart has to go I'll understand. Betty Logan (talk) 13:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken about how weekend estimates work. It is my understanding that weekend estimates are released by the studios, and would not be made by Box Office Mojo themselves. I'm not exactly sure how the studios give out the boxoffice numbers, but as they are released with the intent of being reported and are in fact very widely reported on the Internet, TV, radio, etc., I don't think it would be reasonable to say that they can't be used for copyright reasons. On the other hand, while most studios release daily numbers, Box Office Mojo claims that they make estimates for some studios (see the note at the bottom of their daily listings [8]). At some point the total for a film would be based on real numbers released by the studios. I'm guessing that this would be when the weekend numbers are reported, but I think that mid-week some totals might be estimated. So I think there isn't any concern about using weekend estimates, but that there might be a concern about updating totals daily instead of weekly. Calathan (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

If we could ascertain that BOM simply report estimates and don't create them themselves that would resolve matters. However, in the daily updates BOM actually label their estimates as "estimates", so that's fairly easy to identify (see [9]). If this isn't permitted we can easily just use the reported amount from the previous day. The worst case scenario with current films is that it only leaves us a day or two out of date, but that isn't a problem really. Betty Logan (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Dude. Stop blanking the article. You can have your little talk with the giant tag still there, but blanking the article out of spite is just stupid. --Boycool (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

This tag and pageblank should be removed at once. It's clearly against consensus, had no debate beforehand, and seems retaliatory for a copyvio notice on List of highest-grossing Bollywood films in overseas markets. No consensus on this page, or elsewhere on Wikipedia has defined estimated sums in this context as copyrighted. The fact that, given all of the above, the page has been blanked for over 24 hours is simply unacceptable, and could be construed as vandalism. Any such copyright changes regarding this matter should be extensively discussed before being single-handedly implemented; and while I assume good faith, I'm rather surprised at Shshshsh's actions. Nigholith (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is not needed to tag an article for a copyright investigation (see WP:CONEXCEPT). Wikipedia is conservative when it comes to copyright issues; it is our practice to pull content from publication when doubts are raised while we evaluate them. I see no reason to believe that Shshshsh is acting in anything other than good faith, based on his understand of copyright after witnessing similar issues at other articles. User:Fae can certainly attest to the fact that other users doubted her good faith in raising issues about those articles...even after our attorney verified the problem. These issues are complicated, even for attorneys.

Looking at the article, it seems that even if pre-2001 content is a problem, the top table should be okay. It does list some pre-2001 films, but interspersed with unquestionable "fact". Even if the figures for those earlier films are copyrighted, their use in this context should comfortably fall within fair use. I've moved the blanking template down to the table that lists mostly older films. I think based on the conversation above that this will probably also be okay, but more information on their figures for those dates would be helpful. Do they have a page on their website where they talk about how they estimate these figures? One of the things our attorney noted with the last article of this sort was the difficulty in determining in the absence of that information. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I've looked and I can't find any explicit explanation. However, although this isn't explicitly clear in the article and should be addressed once this issue is resolved, in the disputed section BOM is only used to source the grosses from 1989 onwards. Prior to 1989 Worldwideboxoffice.com is used to source the earlier figures, and that site uses dailies from Variety, Screen International, Showbiz, Reuters, Yahoo, Exhibitor Relations etc. No mention of estimation/approximation. So if BOM is the issue here, then it's only the films from 1989–2000 that are a concern. We could make this very simple and use Worldwideboxoffice.com entirely up to 2000. Betty Logan (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Obviously in this case consensus is not required, though it would have certainly been desired; and to sidestep that long-standing philosophy when there was no urgent need to pageblank the article simply isn't in keeping with my view of good Wikipedia editing. The better way to have resolved Shshshsh's concern would have been to debate the issue first, and then to take action on the article if needed. I'm rather disappointed with the way certain editors handled this situation. Nigholith (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

But that's not the way copyright concerns are handled on Wikipedia. Every day, we get articles blanked and listed at WP:CP; sometimes they turn out to be problems, and sometimes they don't. If a contributor has strong reasons to suspect an issue, we don't talk and then remove; we remove and then talk. :) (One of the reasons why we handle content this way is to prevent its reuse once issues are discovered, since our reusers may not be as easily able to handle issues as we are.) The good news here, though, is that it looks like this is going to be resolved more swiftly than the usual seven day minimum.

Betty, that sounds like a great solution. Can you help implement that? I think there'd be no issues with your just removing the blanking template once the clearer source is in use. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I can do that. What I will do is create a reference column like with the top chart. That way it will be obvious that only 2001– films are sourced by BOM. Betty Logan (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like to note that everthing I did on here was definitely not out of spite, and it's quite upsetting to think that someone does not assume good faith on my well intentioned actions. I genuinely wanted to know if the same problem applied here as well rather than create the same kind of turmoil. Considering my previous and recent experience with copyright, I was sure no consensus had to predate the investigation process in such cases, and as I can see from Moonriddengirl here, I was right. I apologise if anyone was offended by my tagging the article. As I said, I hope this discussion helps to prevent any such issues in the future. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Shahid, my apologies if I overreacted and got stuck in the argument. Based on my previous experience with BOI, I was rather cautious in the way I approached Bollywood films of 2011 and gave time on the talk page for any observations or alternative solutions before implementing the copyvio notice. Although one might be in the right to go ahead and blank, for these long standing articles I felt that a less heavy hand could apply and though the end result is that I did use the copyvio for the whole article, I can point to the fact that nobody felt passionately enough to find an alternative source or explain why our interpretation of creative content might not apply. Moonriddengirl is correct in observing that I got a fair amount of grief over similar issues and I should have tried harder to stick to AGF in this case. I hope you will want to continue to contribute to the guidelines that Moonriddengirl is proposing and help identify how it may or may not be interpreted for these subtly different cases. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• I pulled all the BOM stuff up to 2000 in the year chart, and have sourced it mainly with WorldwideBoxoffice; BOM still sources 2001 onwards. We still need to decide whether we can include the weekend estimates or if we have to wait for the actual figures. I also suggest archiving this discussion, because there are some editors who believe Box Office Mojo is the bible and will try to restore the BOM figures at some point. Betty Logan (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

By Year

I think under the Highest-grossing films by year section, that I should be able to put hyperlinks on 1918 in film - 1999 in film. It is a good addiction that will make it easier for viewers to access films in that year time period. Secondly, I should be able to put budgets under each of the sections. Jar789 (talk) 01:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to linking to the year in film articles. The budgets were removed because most of them were unsourced. If you can find sources for the budgets by all means add in the budget but please make sure it is sourced. Betty Logan (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Avatar and The Dark Knight

The billion dollar mark of the Dark Knight was due to the re-release. Then, you should also count Avatar's re-release money, which makes Avatar a 3-billion dollar grosser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.43.150.29 (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

All the films on the chart include any re-release grosses, including Avatar. Avatar isn't a 3 billion grosser, nowhere near; it made something like 2.7 billion on its first release and made about 30–40 million on its re-release. Betty Logan (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Highest-grossing films by year

Why are the grosses for some of the films in this section (e.g. Star Wars, Grease, Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, Back to the Future, Jurassic Park) have different grosses then the ones provided on Box Office Mojo? They are not the same. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

We had to replace the BOM sources because of a copyright problem (see Copyright concerns above). Apparently we can now only use BOM for films released after 2001. Since box office records are usually incomplete for older films, it means box office trackers often have different figures since they have to piece together the figures. It's not ideal that the figures don't match the figures in the top chart (we are allowed to use the BOM figures in the top chart because there are only about half a dozen films that are pre-2001), but there is not much we can do about it—we either change the source or have the article replaced by a huge copyvio notice. If you use another source you tend to end up with different numbers. BOM says Star Wars made 775 mil, WorldwideBoxoffice and The Numbers says 798. I don't know who's right or who's wrong, but it's irrelevant anyway since we have to use the figure in the source. Betty Logan (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

All right then, thank you for the clarification.~ Jedi94 (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

1990's highest grossing film

I hate it when two different sites say something different. This and this for example. It might make one Wikipedia article say something different than the other. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I think World Box Office is out there, The Numbers gives the same figure as BOM for Home Alone. They give slightly different figures for Ghost but both have it top. World Box Office is a weak source and just a temporary solution to the BOM problem above; I'm going through the list replacing the reference as much as I can. Betty Logan (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

So..honestly which one seems to be the highest grossing film of the year, Home Alone or Ghost? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess there is no way of knowing for sure; BOM and The Numbers seem to both agree Home Alone made less than $500m and Ghost more than that. The figures are slightly different, but they seem to agree on the order. We should therefore go with Ghost as the top film, unless we find a credible source that backs up Worldwide Box Office. Betty Logan (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

edit request

Please unbold "highest-grossing films" in the lead sentence.

According to WP:BOLDTITLE, "if the page title is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface". I regard "List of highest-grossing films" as a generic title and I believe bolding it or any part of it doesn't function as a useful visual cue for the reader's convenience like it does on articles with non-generic titles. --87.79.229.232 (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Kirilliz, 5 August 2011

hi,

in "1.1 Issues with calculation" there is a word missing i tihink. it´s at the end of the 4th paragraph:

"The 1910 Census in the United States, for example, counted less than 100 million people while the 2010 Census counted than three times that at over 308 million."

shouldn´t there be a "more" before "than" ?

Kirilliz (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Done Seems like it was fixed now thanks. Jnorton7558 (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Deathly Hallows in franchises

Resolved

 – The sort key is now gross based Betty Logan (talk) 09:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

When you order the table by highest grossing film in series, HP7.2 is 4th, and considering it's now the 3rd highest grossing film, in general, I think something's wrong. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 02:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have fixed a parameter which had not been updated.[10] PrimeHunter (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from StoneColdScorpio, 10 August 2011

i wish to bring the movie box office amount up to date for 2 movies StoneColdScorpio (talk) 03:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to edit the article yourself you may ask at Requests for Page Protection for it to be unprotected, become auto-confirmed or post here with the exact things you would like to have changed. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If they are highlighted films the grosses will be updated after the weekend anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 09:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II

It has (according to its Wikipedia page) reached $651 million so therefore should be at no. 50 on this list, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.42.125 (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It was added 4 hours before your post.[11] You may have to bypass your cache to see the current version of a page. It should continue to move up quickly. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you please update the box-office totals of Deathly Hallows part 2 in the section titled 'Highest Grossing Films by Year'? In the Section titled 'Highest Grossing Films', DH2 currently stands at $1,137,290,382, whereas in the section titled 'Highest Grossing Films by Year', the overall box-office total is currently stuck at $1,134,186,045. So, could someone please fix that? Even in the Wikipedia article for DH2 [12], the box-office total is currently given as $1,137,290,382.

Thanks. 59.184.148.239 (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I assure you that the grosses are being updated daily, if not more often. When BoxOfficeMojo updates, so do we. --Boycool (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting your point. But my question is, why is DH2's box office gross at one place in the article different from its gross at another place in the article? It's the same film, right? I understand that you do update the box office tally regularly (I'm not denying that), and I completely rely on this article for box-office grosses. But at least the grosses should be uniform throughout the article. At one place in the article (Highest Grossing Films), the DH2 gross is given as $1.137 bn , and at another place in the article (Highest grossing Films By Year) the gross is given as $1.134 bn. DH2 is currently 2011's highest grossing film, domestically and internationally. So, going by your article, which gross should I consider as the correct one?? $1.137bn or $1.134bn? I know that you have to wait for Box Office Mojo to update their grosses as well. But then, at least keep a uniformity in the numbers. I mean, you can't have one gross at one place in the article, and another gross at another place in the article for the same film. Besides, it's obvious enough that when you change the overall BO numbers for DH2 in the section titled 'Highest Grossing Films', its numbers in the section titled 'Highest Grossing Film by Year' (for 2011) would also change, since DH2 is currently the highest grossing film of 2011. But this is not the case. May I know the reason why? That is what I meant by updating your grosses. I'm not saying you are not updating your grosses. But there is no uniformity in the numbers throughout the article. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say here. Could you please rectify this problem?

Thanks. 59.184.180.29 (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, but everything is consistent now. --Boycool (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It's been fixed now. Thanks. 59.184.180.29 (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Knowlwall, 10 August 2011

The Lord of the Rings film franchise does not include 4 movies, the addition of the animated film from the 70s does not properly display the correct averages and total gross of the films. The logic here is if your going to include every film ever associated with a certain character or group of characters that you would have to add in a few more films for the Batman series and others like that, it just doesn't make sense to throw in some animated film that was not even associated to the Peter Jackson films in anyway other than sharing its name, it makes it look as though the franchise underperformed when in fact it has averaged better than Harry Potter which is where I am suspecting the request for the previous change came from last time. The change back to the original 3 movies and average gross would be much obliged and would certainly make it much more understandable to the public, because I know when I saw the change it threw me for a loop and I couldn't figure out where that change had come from.

Knowlwall (talk) 09:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

From what I can tell the reason that it uses all 4 movies is that the source for the table has 4 listed there. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

A possible solution to this would be to create two seperate tables as mentioned before. To create one for franchises, which would include the animated film, and one for film series, which would directly refer to films produced in a narrtive continuity sort of way. This would not include the animated film, as the film series would be "Peter Jackson's 'Lord of the Rings'". --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 01:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Knowlwall, 15 August 2011

Please change it back

Knowlwall (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Why all of a sudden has it been changed though? It makes no sense that after all these years it gets changed like this. So why not just change it back? No harm no foul, just get it done.

Knowlwall (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. — Bility (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 82.30.115.243, 15 August 2011

Please could you update the overall grossing amount for harry potter and the deathly hallows pt 2 = $1,215,137,355 82.30.115.243 (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Topher385 (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing American films?

The title of this page is misleading. It only speaks about films produced in the United States, thus I believe it should be titled "List of highest-grossing American films". There is already a page for highest grossing Indian films (which is actually undergoing a deletion nomination debate). EelamStyleZ (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The James Bond and the Harry Potter films are not American films, so the suggested title would not fit. Is there a source that says that there are any films made in any country that have made more money than any film on this list?--Jojhutton (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

These are the highest-grossing films, the nationality is irrelevant. As Jojhutton points out, your assertion isn't correct anyway: the highest-grossing films of 1962, 1963 and 1964 were Bond films which were full British productions back then. Warner Bros produced Harry Potter through a British production company and similarly New Line produced Lord of the Rings through a New Zealand production company, so there are other countries represented. No films are omitted on grounds of their nationality, most of them are American because Hollywood happens to make the most successful films. Betty Logan (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it would be worth mentioning the highest grossing film not originally in English. Is it Spirited Away? It is currently number 273 at http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/worldwide.php and 271 at http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/?pagenum=3&p=.htm. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's "Passion of the Christ" actually which is in Aramaic and ranked at 55. I have no objections to including the highest grossing foreign language film if editors want to add a more international flavor to the charts. It's also worth noting that we do have a few national charts on Wikipedia which can be found at Lists of highest-grossing films. Betty Logan (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Passion of the Christ looks right. I haven't seen it and didn't think of an American film. That they didn't make it in English (unlike most American films supposed to be about non-English talking people) seems more like a curio than a record to me. I was thinking more like something qualifying for Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film but maybe the criteria would be odd for an international encyclopedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we could include a list of top 10 non-English language films if editors feel the article should try and adopt a more international flavor. Betty Logan (talk) 11:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that works well too, but finding sources for international box offices seems to be quite difficult at the moment, considering this debate and many others like it. EelamStyleZ (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

DANZILLAMAN" Harry Potter and James Bond are American, the harry potter books and james bond books are British but the distributor who is Warner.Bro (Harry P) and MGM (James B) are both american. Even though the books are British".DANZILLAMAN

The distributor has nothing to do with the nationality of a film. Many foreign films get picked up by American distributors but it doesn't make them American. Similarly, when an American film gets distributed by a foreign distributor the film doesn't stop being American. Betty Logan (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 195.33.129.54, 17 August 2011

There are three lord of the rings movies.

195.33.129.54 (talk) 10:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

There are 4 because it is counting an older version. Please see the other discussions on this page about that. Jnorton7558 (talk) 12:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Lion King

Resolved

The Lion King has been rereleased, yet it isn't being shaded in blue to denote that it is in theaters. Please fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.5.78 (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It has been fixed VegetaSaiyan (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Table issue

Resolved

 – Removed column. It was original research anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The first table on the page has issues. The Year, Ref, and Inflation-adjusted gross columns are all messed up... some of the years are in the Inflation section and some of the Refs are in the year section. Can someone please fix it so that everything is in the right column? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.99.247 (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 6 October 2011

Currently Lion King is stated in blue at the top 50 movies, while this should be Pirates of the Carribean: On Stranger Tides. Blue being from 2011 and Lion King being from 1994, while Pirates is from 2011. Something probably went wrong when Pirates was moved up due to increased value.

83.86.200.209 (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

What does the blue represent? The current year? Because only three of the four 2011 movies would be highlighted after making this fix. It should probably say somewhere in the article what it means. — Bility (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Background color       indicates films playing 6 October 2011 in theaters around the world. Which The Lion King is currently playing places in 3D now. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:HighestWorldwideGrossMovies

Resolved

The template {{HighestWorldwideGrossMovies}} has been nominated for deletion. Interested parties are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Harry Potter Philosophers's Stone VS. Sorcerer's Stone

Im not an American hater or anything but can people please stop changing it to Sorcerer's Stone? The book and movie is known as Philosopher's Stone everywhere except the USA. It's also a UK based film and book so should be as it is in the UK, which is Philosopher's Stone. 125.238.96.175 (talk) 03:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)James

It's actually an American Film because the film rights were purchased by an American company--JOJ ^Hutton 21:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not how films work. If it was written, produced, cast, and filmed in Country X, it isn't a Country Y film simply because the money trail ultimately ends up there. - SudoGhost 21:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Like Star Wars? Or Treasure of the Sierra Madre? Shooting on location doesn't make it a film from that country. Its not a money trail either, its about purchasing the rights to the film.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

If the movie had simply been shot in that country, your argument would have merit. Rights to a film doesn't transfer the films country. If I buy a Japanese car, it doesn't become an American car simply because I'm American. - SudoGhost 04:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You are confusing/comparing "intellectual rights" with "material goods". They are not one in the same. Fact is that the right to make the movie was purchased by an American company, was written by an American, was directed by an American, composed by an american, and co-produced by an American company. These may be inconvenient truths, but they are truths non the less.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The producer and production company were British, was filmed in Britain with a British cast. They had to redub mentions of "Philosopher's stone" for the American version of the film. If it were an American film, why write the script contrary to their country's version, then redub their own film specifically for their own country, leaving the original film for every other country? That Americans had a part in the movie does not make it American, nor does having rights to the film change the film's country, as Warner Bros is ultimately an American company, yet the company has a studio in England, which produces British films, not American, yet Warner Bros owns those films as well. There is nothing inconvenient about your statements, they are simply irrelevant. - SudoGhost 23:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You only mentioned one producer. The film was co-produced with 1492 Pictures. An American production company. Why was it dubbed one way and not the other? Who's to say? Directors choice? Or perhaps the actors were more familiar with the British version so they decided to do the British version on set to make the actors more comfortable. My guess is that they were both dubbed, as its common to redo many lines in the studio afterwards. Anyway, its irrelevant guess work. Only facts matter. Fact is that when an author creates a work of fiction, such as a novel, they usually sell the rights to publish the written work to a publisher (if they are lucky), and if they are really lucky, they will get a chance to sell the film rights to a movie studio. The studio who purchased the film rights, and in fact owns the "intellectual film rights" of the fictional work is Warner Brothers. They didn't just provide the funding, they own film rights, outright. JK Rowling was paid, she cashed the check (I assume). When an author sells the rights of a fictional work to a studio, they in fact give up the intellectual property of the film. (She did however retain some rights in the contract, but those have to contracted rights, they are not automatic.) Another notable British story that was made into a movie by an American Company, but had principally British actors was Mary Poppins (film). It is possible for an American Company to own the film rights to a story, while the story as a whole remains British.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The film was not dubbed both ways, and it is highly unlikely they would use the word philosopher over sorcerer to make the actors "comfortable". However, while we can discuss what kind of film it is in adfinitum, our opinion, no matter how well we argue it, ultimately does not matter. We must use what reliable sources use, and reliable sources call it a British film. These may be inconvenient truths, but they are truths nonetheless. - SudoGhost 18:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the need for the British Film Industry recognize and embrace the Harry Potter Film Series as one of its own. Much of the cast is British, It was filmed in Britain, it's based on a British book series, and has a British producer. But in just about all countries, ownership has its privileges. It would seem, based on the sources that you provided, that the British Film Industry has a numerical formula to determine whether or not a film is British or not. Understandable, given the circumstances, but a numerical formula does not pass ownership of a film to another company, nor does it provide the justification for ignoring the millions of Americans who know and love the film by its US title. Many more fans in the US than in Britain. I understand the frustration by many in Britain that one of their beloved film series is in fact actually owned by an American Company. Don't get mad at us. If you have anyone to get mad at, get mad at the author who sold the rights to the film. There are plenty of highly respectable British studios that I am sure would have easily purchased the film rights, but the fact remains that they don't. A US film studio owns them.

As a side note, I enjoy having this discussion with you, although its probably a complete misuse of the talk page. Now then, can you name the non-British actors who have speaking parts in the first movie? I can think of three, including one American.--JOJ ^Hutton 14:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a british film, for many reasons as stated above, and also as sourced. I've enjoyed reading this conflict, but as you said, this talk page isn't the place for this discussion. The place for it is on the talk page of the film itself, and I believe that they've argued about it for years, and the solution they've come up with time and time again was to use "Philosopher's". So, if you are so desperate to use "Sorcerer's" here, fight for it over there first, and then if the consensus chooses to change it to "Sorcerer's" with valid reasons and verifiable sources, then go ahead and use "Sorcerer's" here. However, I doubt that will happen. I admire your strong will and persistance, and you've put up a better fight than I could have imagined in support of "Sorcerer's", but now's the time to drop your weapons, or continue by all means. I'll just go get some popcorn... --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be much more to say on the subject. However, I think there is some confusion to my nationality. I am not British, and have never been to Britain. I have lived in the United States my entire life, and have never left the country. I know the books (and then films) by their American titles. So my statements are not one of frustration, but of an objective consideration of what the facts and sources present. But, I agree that if you wish to change the film's title, the appropriate article's talk page would be the best place to bring that up. - SudoGhost 21:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for their input. Very interesting how perceptions can take hold in our minds, even when the facts are presented opposite of those perceptions. In this case the fact is that a US film studio owns the intellectual property of the film. Whether some want to continue to transfer ownership of the film, in their minds, based on the simple fact that it was shot on location using local talent, is up to them. I always attributed the nationality of a film to the intellectual property owner, but I guess others use a different calculation. Guess we have to go through and look at hundreds of US films and chamge their nationality if they were filmed on location outside the United States.--JOJ ^Hutton 19:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been following this discussion, and while I find the notion of a film being made by people from many different countries having a "nationality" to be absurd, I agree that if you want a purely objective way of defining which country a film comes from following the legal ownership of the copyright is the cleanest way. This can lead to some counter-intuitive logic though: the Harry Potter films are American; the Bond films are half British/half American; Fox's films are Australian (meaning the highest grossing film of all-time is Australian!) since their takeover by Newscorp; Columbia films are Japanese since their takeover by Sony. It is probably for this reason that we don't generally attribute nationality through copyright ownership, because it doesn't really reflect the "genetics" of the film i.e. one day a film is American, but if it were made a year later then it would be Japanese even though the exact same people worked on it. For the purposes of Wikipedia however, one thing is for certain: editors deciding the nationality of a film is original research; therefore any such claims about nationaly should be sourced just like any other claim really. Betty Logan (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Those are very fine points. It would be great to not have to worry about nationality of a particular film. (I didn't know that the Bond films were half American).

The infobox on the first film's article, lists both countries and that is understandable. Co-ownership of films is not uncommon. Look at Tora! Tora! Tora!. Problem, though, is with the variations in spelling and of course the different titles. Obviously consensus on the topic has concluded that the British spelling and title be used as it is viewed more as a British film, than American. Most people, however are completely unaware that an American company actually owns the intellectual property rights of this particular interpretation of the film. I was hoping to enlighten the topic with some cold hard truths.

Regardless of which side of the debate one stands, it does seem clear that when it comes to the articles title on related articles, (ie:Chris Columbus (filmmaker)), the title of the film relates to the country in which they hail from, or where it was worked on. Unfortunately there are still some articles that are incorrect by this standard.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Article titling should follow WP:COMMONNAME regardless of the official/original name. The case for Philosopher/Sorcerer really depends on which title was most ubiquitous during release: if "Sorcerer" was limited to the US then the policy effectively states we should go with "Philosopher"; if "Philosopher" was used just for the British release then "Sorcerer" should be used instead. This is automatic for foreign language films, where the English title is the common name for release in English speaking countries but the same criteria still applies here. That is a debate for the article page though, and I'm not familiar enough with the film to know whether the current title choice is in keeping with the titling guideline. As for how the title is "used" on other articles, then I would say that in an article about an American film director then there is a case for using the American variant; in an article about a British director there is a case for the British variant as per WP:ENGVAR. In articles such as this one where there isn't a clear national tone, then I think it's best to avoid a redirect or piped link and just use the article name. Betty Logan (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately many American's think there is nothing worth knowing, understanding, or watching that doesn't come from the USA. I recall hearing an American film critic purporting to be surprised that Britain had a film industry at all! The reality is that the two highest grossing film series (James Bond and Harry Potter) are British, and the third (Star Wars) was largely filmed and produced in the UK.124.197.15.138 (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it's only fair for the Brits to obsess over it, since they don't really get top grossing films. That's usually up to the Americans. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 23:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I started this and I'm not a 'Brit' thanks I'm a New Zealander and believe it or not we actually do have a top grossing film... or at least a film thats in the top ten that was made in NZ.219.89.137.146 (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as the bulk of the gross came from the US ($317,575,550) as opposed to the UK ($91,289,356), I believe it is reasonable to use the US title. Fickce4 (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Not really fair to attack American's like that? Saying we think nothing is worth knowing or understanding? It is not our fault that when the powers that be decided to market the books and movie in America that they changed the name. For whatever reason they did it and it is ridiculous to think it has anything to do with the quality of the literature or movie. People shouldn't throw out judgmental comments that aren't warranted. A lot of movies and books are changed for different regions of the world mostly because words can get lost in translation and have different meanings around the world. The bottom line is the book or movie in question is the same regardless of the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joebova138 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC) You see, I could leave some grand, large comment on this matter, concerning all of the untrue things said within this discussion, legal work, finances, international affirs... But I will not. Instead, I will offer a resoltuion- Harry Potter and the Philosophers's/Sorcerer's Stone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastaguy12 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

We don't display alternative titles like that. The list should use the title of the article. See Talk:Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film)#Philosopher's Stone vs Sorcerer's Stone debate summary for links to discussions with large support for Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, and failed attempts to change it. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Lion King 3D

Resolved

 – Original theatrical run grosses included where known

The gross revenue of Lion King needs to be changed back to it's original revenue from it's 1994 release. It's 2011 release should be counted as a new movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.240.50.85 (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Considering that you would have to do that with Star Wars and E.T. as well, I think it is too late for that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.5.78 (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Why not? Lets do it. All movies that has had re-releases should have their gross revenues changed back to it's original release's box office. It makes the whole list inaccurate.--209.240.50.58 (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

How does it make the list inaccurate? If a film has made X million dollars, the fact that it earned its money over several releases doesn't change the fact that it has earned that much money. The article is called "highest grossing films" not "highest grossing releases". Betty Logan (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that including re-releases here is accurate in principle. But one could say that a re-release of a film with substantial differences (3D added, extended version...) to the original constitutes a different film, technically. After all, people might watch it a second time just to see the changes, which they wouldn't have done with an identical re-release. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah it could be viewed that way, but generally the industry, movie going public and the media don't tend to. Generally films that are re-edited or converted in some manner (3D/colorization/remastered etc) are classed as the same film. It's not like Avatar was treated as three different films when it was released across the three different formats (2D/3D/IMAX). In this particular case box office trackers (and principally Box Office Mojo which is used as the source for the chart) regard them as the same film and include both release grosses towards the total takings, so what the IP editor is advocating effectively goes against how the source considers the film. The Avatar article provides a breakdown of the gross across the different formats which strikes me as the correct approach in cases like these. Betty Logan (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Star Wars

Resolved

There is an inconsistency in the list for the gross for Star Wars. According to the list of top 50 highest grossing films, it grossed less than E.T. But, on highest grossing films per year it says Star Wars grossed more than E.T. It doesn't make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.5.78 (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

According to IMDb (which-granted-is not the most reliable source), Star Wars was re-released, which returned it to its place as #1 highest grossing movie (until Titanic). --Boycool (talk) 02:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

There is an inconsistency simply because the charts use different sources. The top 50 uses BOM and the year one uses The Numbers. The reason the sources are different is because it's much tougher to track older films, so some of the older figures are based on estimations. Because of this, using BOM was found to be a copyvio (see Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films/Archive_2#Copyright_concerns) so we were advised to replace the source for the year chart. We were allowed to continue using BOM for the top 50 because most of the numbers come from tracked (rather than estimated) data. It's not ideal that it's inconsistent but that's the explanation. Given the fact that we don't know which one is correct I'd prefer to use the lower BOM amount and make the charts consistent (i.e. both sources agree the film grossed at least 775 mil). If we had another source we could use to independently corroborate the gross then that would solve the problem, but as it stands we can't use BOM for the year chart, and I would be against elevating Star Wars in the top 50 if we don't know the correct figure. The situation is a bit ridiculous, but it basically is caused by a flaw in Wikiepdia policy and there isn't much we can do about it. Betty Logan (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)