Talk:List of highest-grossing films/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

Adjust for Inflation

"Avatar" has the advantage of showing in 3-D (which usually commands an average $3 extra per ticket) and coming out at a time when even 2-D movie tickets are more expensive than ever. According to the National Association of Theater Owners, the average ticket price in 2008 was $7.18, up 56% from prices in 1997 when "Titanic" was in theaters.

A look at domestic grosses adjusted for inflation shows a more realistic view of "Avatar"'s performance.

In the U.S., "Avatar" has grossed $555 million making it the second highest grossing domestic (as opposed to worldwide) film of all time. Titanic is temporarily still in the lead here with $600.8 million. -Source [1] -User:Assyrio —Preceding undated comment added 05:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC).

All grosses should be adjusted for inflation, as per this: http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicmart (talk • contribs) 21:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Dows not seem to make much sense to me. 1$ bought 1$ in 1997, and it buys 1$ in 2010. Of course it is interesting to have a list without inflation influence, but the claim of the "main list" is absolute numbers, I think. Surely, this can be discussed, but why suddenly change this system that has worked out good for the past few years? - 87.139.3.204 (talk) 08:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Please also note, that in 1997 much less tickets were sold in markets like e.g. China. (Also, there were fewer "big" movies in the cinemas 10 or ven 20 years ago, so those movies did not have the same rate of "competition" as nowadays, but that's a different topic.) Maybe the average ticket price grew slightly in US and Europe, but maybe it did not do so in foreign or new markets. It's hard to say how the average ticket price *really* grew world wide. (At least I don't know any reliable source). - 87.139.3.204 (talk) 08:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Epic fail. A list not adjusted for inflation is extremely misleading. Think of the lines of Star Wars compared with Avatar. Star Wars was a much bigger deal. In my opinion, there needs to be both.Valcumine (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Both gross & inflation-adjusted figures would be worthwhile, IMO. It would be interesting to compare, let's say the top 10 or 20, to see how the rankings differ between them. For the world-wide figures, I suppose all figures would be inflation-adjusted to dollars, regardless of the historical inflation of each country.Leon7 (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

i tend to agree that we need an inflation adjusted list would be better however what needs to be done if possible is to break down the revenue as a per country basis and add on the inflation from the individual countries and sum up the adjusted revenue of each country to get a world-wide total. now i do agree with 64.131.146.108 in the fact that with movies released over multiple years need to be separated but if this isn't possible then even have my first idea would be better than nothing. and yes i am aware of how much work this might seem but to at least get a fairly accurate result this i what needs to get done —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.117.37 (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is the purpose of these lists? Answer that question first. If the idea is to measure the "absolute bigness" of a film, the correct figure would be number of TICKETS sold, entirely regardless of dollar figures. With dollars, there's not just the matter of general inflation, but also the fact that the *adjusted* price of a movie ticket is much higher now than in decades past, compared to other goods and services (despite the article's example of 1970-to-1980, the general trend to date has been substantially the other way). Spark240 (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

There should be an inflation-adjusted version of this page. It's silly that WP doesn't have this, when everything else is here. Timneu22 (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Even 'number of tickets' is an imperfect measure. It can be polluted by 'multiple visit' users, and it surely has to be adjusted for the cinema going population of the Earth of each year (otherwise, the same 'future bias' exists). All of this is clearly going to fall foul of 'original research' prohibitions on encyclopedias. If you want to do that, you need to write an article or three in economic journal, and even then it requires judgement calls we aren't qualified to make. 121.208.18.179 (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a very good list here, compiled by BoxOfficeMojo: http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm?adjust_yr=2010&p=.htm --Coin945 (talk) 07:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

And also here: http://www.filmsite.org/boxoffice.html, http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/, http://www.scene-stealers.com/top-10s/top-10-grossing-movies-adjusted-for-inflation/, http://www.the-movie-times.com/thrsdir/alltime.mv?adjusted+ByAG--Coin945 (talk) 07:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

All of those only have domestic grosses adjusted. This article is for worldwide grosses. BOVINEBOY2008 07:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This unadjusted list is worse than useless, because it's actually meaningless. These values are all in inflated money, which makes historical comparison impossible -- and surely the purpose of this list is to provide a historical comparison. Any other measure would be better. Number of tickets, some form of constant or un-inflated money, anything. The present values simply propagate the myth of ever-increasing grosses, which is not a good effort for an encyclopedia. Since we already source Box Office Mojo it would easy to bring in their inflation adjusted domestic list [2] and then apply similar math as they have done to international grosses. Sbwoodside (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

All-time charts don't exist just for historical comparison, it also provides an indicator of success in the modern marketplace, so I'd argue it's far from meaningless, it's just that "all-time" is something of a misnomer. For historical comparison, adjusted or ticket sales charts are more accurate but they don't really exist for worldwide grosses. The Box Office Mojo chart you cite is only for the US box office, and it is cited on the Wikipedia article about US box office. Betty Logan (talk) 06:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Create an inflation-adjusted section or column?

At first glance, it seems like we need to have an inflation-adjusted table, or a new column that is inflation adjusted.

However, BalticPat22 above ("You cannot adjust a film's worldwide gross for inflation") makes a really good point - how can you adjust for inflation when these are global sales? Inflation and purchasing power parity and exchange rates are all mutually exclusive, and vary tremendously from country to country, and economies use an array of goods and services, which are not simply convertible because of their qualitative aspects (taste, preference, etc). I certainly cannot provide a complete opinion on this, but we should discuss this and figure it out. Perhaps we should consult someone who already knows how it will be meaningful and how it would not be meaningful (much is already stated in the article).

I'll continue on the above thread by saying that I am inclined to agree with the others which said that since the global sales are converted to US dollars, then we should then adjust for inflation of the US Dollar to the US Dollar. This would be meaningful from the perspective of the US Dollar. I think that we should just choose a reliable, standard set of data that we stick to and apply it to the nominal values that are listed in the article.

What do you all think? NittyG (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

There are two valid methodologies for assessing a film's income, and both come with problems. Your suggestion presumably is to convert into dollars of the time (which are handily provided by BOM for recent films), and then inflate (using dollar inflation) from the time of conversion. The other method would be to inflate in each native currency and then convert. Out of the two I prefer your suggestion, and let me give an example of why this would be correct: The British pound for many years was fixed at $2.8, but it's worth about $1.5 now. There are two ways to inflate a British pound gross from 1960 for a dollar chart: convert to dollars using the $2.8 rate, and then inflate using US CPI, or inflate the British gross using the British RPI and convert that amount using the $1.5 dollar rate. The reason I think the former is more accurate is because it gives a more accurate picture of the film's income when it was made i.e. the studio would have collected the gross and paid it out as dividends 50 years ago, not last week, so you are really interested in how much 50 year old dollars are worth if you are looking at "take home" money.
The other method requires inflating in each native currency and then converting. I think this would give an inaccurate overview, because if a country's economy collapses (like in Zimbawe) and the currency is rendered worthless, it doesn't really matter to revenue generated ten years ago. If your film grossed $1 million ten years ago, if the value of the native currency deflates that to $100 it doesn't matter because Paramount or whoever have $1 million in the bank, not $100. It would be as bizarre as BOM re-ranking all its films using today's exchange rates rather.
So, I think adding an inflation column to the current chart and adjusting for CPI dollar inflation is legitimate, I think we could and should do that. In a nutshell, we have a dollar value from a particular year, so I don't see the harm in showing what that dollar value would be today. It wouldn't be a "true" worldwide chart because if you converted into pounds or Euros or yen or whatever, the order would different, but that would actually be true for our non adjusted chart anyway due to fluctuating exchange rates.
The caveat is that there are some films on the chart we couldn't do. Something like Star Wars has had multiple releases, so you can't just inflate from 1977. You would have have to track down each release in ever country, convert to dollars and then inflate. Not possible without doing considerable original research. Most recent films though which dominate the chart have had only one release so I suspect there would only be a few blanks. For that reason we couldn't do a chart that would include films like Gone With the Wind and Sound of Music - too many releases in too many countries. It's hard enough tracking down just the American releases for these films, so would be impossible to do it for every country.
So in conclusion, adding a column to the current chart, and inflating single-release film for dollar inflation is possible and I would support that. A separate chart would be a no-go for me. Betty Logan (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to say - sorry for the delay. I will be getting on this shortly :) NittyG (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The problem with all this lies within the fact that by only adjusting films that had a single release, you thus destroy the uniformity of the list itself because you can't compare those films with the films that had multiple releases. Frankly, there is no practical way that you could do the calculations for any of the films without doing some original research. Its that simple. That is why no reputable box-office analyst has even tried it on the worldwide scale to my knowledge. It is a statistician's worst nightmare. Not to mention if the figures are challenged, what are we to tell them? "We have no source, you can't verify anything that the editors of this encyclopedia calculated by themselves based off the CPI of the film's release. Sorry."?
"I think that we should just choose a reliable, standard set of data that we stick to and apply it to the nominal values that are listed in the article."
You are right, but it should be posted outside of this encyclopedia by a reliable source that can be verified, not solved or calculated from within. This is one of the main foundations that this encyclopedia was built upon. There are exceptions such as, "The capital of France is Paris", but this case is clearly not one of them. DrNegative (talk) 00:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I just wanted to suggest a link (and perhaps save you some trouble) if you're still looking for such a list. 114.76.89.85 (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Worldwide highest-grossing films (adjusted for inflation)

Worldwide highest-grossing films (adjusted for inflation)[1]
Rank Name Worldwide Adjusted Gross Year
1 Gone with the Wind $3,861,930,040 1939
2 Avatar $2,797,840,547 2009
3 Titanic $2,478,900,862 1997
4 Star Wars $2,200,588,551 1977
5 Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs $2,116,034,366 1937
6 The Sound of Music $1,955,702,430 1965
7 Jaws $1,913,326,919 1975
8 E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial $1,711,251,022 1982
9 The Exorcist $1,601,950,175 1973
10 Doctor Zhivago $1,551,416,549 1965
11 Pinocchio $1,386,198,614 1940
12 Jurassic Park $1,384,449,890 1993
13 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King $1,340,222,465 2003
14 The Godfather $1,272,986,513 1972
15 The Empire Strikes Back $1,262,094,726 1980
16 Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid $1,219,404,873 1969
17 Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace $1,213,435,878 1999
18 Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone $1,204,434,742 2001
19 Grease $1,203,866,872 1978
20 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest $1,156,672,786 2006
21 The Lion King $1,152,276,076 1994
22 Independence Day $1,139,417,248 1996
23 Airport $1,132,890,862 1970
24 The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers $1,119,984,189 2002
25 Ben-Hur $1,112,344,605 1959
26 The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring $1,075,835,513 2001
27 Shrek 2 $1,065,001,876 2004
28 Toy Story 3 $1,062,806,932 2010
29 Blazing Saddles $1,060,282,534 1974
30 Close Encounters of the Third Kind $1,059,312,822 1977
31 Finding Nemo $1,031,619,346 2003
32 Alice in Wonderland $1,025,575,178 2010
33 The Dark Knight $1,017,781,100 2008
34 My Fair Lady $1,015,947,871 1964
35 Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End $1,013,689,960 2007
36 Spider-Man $1,003,013,065 2002

114.76.85.196 (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

GWTW's 1st place is a joke. Go visit http://www.boxofficemojo.com/forums/viewtopic.htm?t=82668 to get the idea. 77.45.252.16 (talk) 02:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Boxofficemojo spoils your (77.45.252.16) "joke" by putting GWTW on #1 of their (domestic) inflation-adjusted list. So it is likely it'd be #1 world-wide as well, though the grossing might be a bit lower than given above. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Boxofficemojo "spoils" nothing if you read the note placed beside this list and try to understand what's said there. Trust me, it's not too hard. 95.32.89.8 (talk) 05:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Worldwide inflation is almost impossible to do since you have to account for all the different inflation rates; some attempts just use US inflation, which is technically incorrect but probably serves as a rough approximation. One stab at an inflated worldwide chart has Gone with the Wind in the top spot just slightly ahead of Titanic, and Avatar would be in third place off its eventual gross: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/oscars/7144424/Oscars-2010-How-James-Cameron-took-on-the-world.html Betty Logan (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I believe much of the GWTW overseas gross came well after the bulk of its domestic gross (you know, the war and all) so it should adjust to less than adjusted value of domestic gross. And speaking of domestic gross, it should adjust to considerably less than given $1,6bn taking the multiple releases into account. Definitely not all of listed $199mil came in 1939. So i doubt that GWTW is even above Star Wars not to say Titanic and Avatar. 95.32.89.8 (talk) 05:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

My list goes something like this.

1. Gone With the Wind- $3,424,429,841

2. Titanic- $3,192,472,790

3. Avatar- $2,956,631,080

4. Star Wars- $2,691,883,910

5. E.T- $2,144,094,860

6. The Exorcist- $1,985,826,420

7. Jaws- $1,825,215,290

8. Jurassic Park- $1,760,890,880

9. The Empire Strikes Back- $1,595,111,257

10. Independence Day- $1,543,764,250

11. The Lion King- $1,494,549,990

12. Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King- $1,479,155,150

13. Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace- $1,449,944,440

14. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone- $1,369,135,190

15. The Jungle Book- $1,367,144,650

16. Grease- $1,343,966,410

17. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2- $1,295,555,000

17. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest- $1,295,343,350

18. Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers- $1,269,277,370

19. Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring- $1,226,143,300

20. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets- $1,206,557,350

21. Return of the Jedi- $1,202,094,040

22. Shrek 2- $1,180,533,800

23. Ben-Hur- $1,156,431,170

24. The Godfather- $1,148,928,990

25. The Sound of Music- $1,135,050,500

26. Spider-Man- $1,127,197,440

27. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End- $1,116,055,350

28. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire- $1,115,192,330

29. The Dark Knight- $1,112,160,140

30. Transformers: Dark of the Moon- $1,108,500,000

31. Raiders of the Lost Ark- $1,101,294,750

32. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix- $1,088,792,280

33. Toy Story 3- $1,063,171,911

34. Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith- $1,055,315,990

35. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides- $1,039,000,000

Another thing not taken into consideration

Along with inflation, the amount of people that exist in the world is not taken into consideration either. In 1939 (the year of Gone With the Wind), there were 2.3 billion people in the world, as of 2010 (the year of Avatar), the world's population is 6.8 billion people. That is an extreme difference which makes it so unfair to older films, just as it will be unfair to Avatar in another 81 years when the world population is God knows what? So really, the whole comparing films based upon their gross is highly ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.59.15 (talk) 03:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't take account of the home video market either, which is an even bigger factor, but why should it? This isn't a list of the most successful films, and the list doesn't attempt any comparative analysis. The aim is not to study the socio-economic factors of the film industry. The list does what it says on the tin: present the highest grossing films of all time. Avatar may not be the most successful film of all time due to various factors such as inflation and population growth, or it may well be if you include revenue from home video, TV rights and merchandising, and take account of competitive forms of entertainment but it is indisputably the highest grossing film of all time at the box office. It is an undeniable fact that it has generated more dollars at the box office then any other film. You can draw your own conclusions about that, but the article itself doesn't draw any conclusions about the film's popularity or success. There is a section in the article that painstakingly explains these issues. The chart on the whole provides a yardstick for judging the financial success of films that are released into today's market. If a film makes $500 million then this chart confirms that the film is one of the most successful films in the current marketplace, if it makes $1 billion then it's among an elite few of films that have being able to do that in the modern era, and if it makes $2 billion plus then it shows us that it has made more than twice as much any other film in recent years. So the chart tells us quite a lot really, but its usefulness as a barometer of success is restricted to current films. Betty Logan (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy of the page name

Technically, like someone else pointed out (I think), this is an accurate list of the highest-grossing films. Because highest-grossing means most money. Now, what should happen is there should be a page called "List of most successful films" and then have the films that would make the most money adjusted for inflation. That would make more sense. But if that happens, it would be superfluous to keep this page. AndrewOne (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It would be great if we could have a list adjusted for inflation, it would certainly be more representative of the different eras of film-making, but as pointed out in the discussion in the article it is extremely difficult to construct such a list due to the different rates of inflation around the world. No such chart exists to my knowledge. Even if it did, I don't follow the logic that it would make this chart "superfluous", since this chart gives an overview of the top-performers in the current market; if anything the current chart carries more relevance since it is probably of greater interest for film-makers to see how their films compare to the current competition, rather than films that were doing the rounds before they were even born. Personally I'd prefer to include an adjusted and unadjusted chart on the list to cover all bases, but since an adjusted chart doesn't exist it's a moot point. Betty Logan (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Inflation

There's a page for Bollywood films, adjusted for inflation. It seems like there really should be a section that is adjusted for inflation on this page, if at all possible. I think I might have seen lists like that on other websites before. If there are such lists, maybe they could be used as models for the new section. Alphius (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I just looked at the Bollywood page, and it seems sort of pointless, since it only has five films on it and it skips a bunch of ranks.... Alphius (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
It would be great to have an adjusted chart, but basically none exist. The adjusted charts you have seen are most likely like the ones at Box Office Mojo that just adjust the US chart. That's easy to do because you have just one level of inflation. However, this is a worldwide chart, and as discussed in the "Issues with calculation" section, it's very complicated doing it for a worldwide chart since (to quote) ticket prices have risen at different rates of inflation around the world, making it a complicated process to adjust worldwide grosses. As for editors compiling their own, this would be virtually impossible for us to do because pre-video many films had multiple releases. Gone With the Wind had 7/8 releases in America alone, let alone elsewhere in the world, so basically each different release would have to be adjusted using a different inflation measure. Betty Logan (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Althought the article attempts to address the problem, this article must take inflation into account by way of a "Contents" subcategory.

Dead Wikipedia community and volunteer email reader(s)/editor(s),

This article is very thorough but, in order for it to remain as factual as possible for an English speaking audience, it is missing a subcategory. Attempting to account of inflation in locations other than North America and Europe can be difficult or impossible. This is typically do to language barriers, lack of stability in other governments, or lack of proper records. As this is a en.eikipedia article, it would not be out of line (or "not P.C.") to include a subcategory(s) specifically for primarily English speaking locations, or at the least, the United States.

This article must take inflation into account, otherwise as the article already notes, the concept of utilizing data from various years for comparison is meaningless. Not only that it is, factually incorrect and creates confounding logic; or in a sense, is illogical and presents false representation/claims.

For an example to demonstrate this, I used an inflation calculator that is condoned by NASA [2], and chose the films listed at place numbers 1 and 37; "Avatar" and "Star Wars," for comparison. Accounting for inflation since 2007 till 2010, the film "Avatar" would be listed at $2,617,883,245.87, for "Worldwide gross." Accounting for inflation since 1977 till 2010, the film "Star Wars: 'A New Hope'" would be listed at $2,756,959,489.65, for "Worldwide gross." This is a, no pun intended, gross discrepancy.

I understand that in 2008 the article was up for deletion and was obviously found to be necessary in some way. Though in the act of keeping this article, a caveat should have been made as to make its continued existence worthwhile. This article should be able to retain all of its current content but, a subcategory comprised of a list which takes inflation into account should also be added to its "Contents" list.

Thank you for your time. PhilosophyStudent101 (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

If there's some way we can present a decent inflation table, I would fully support it. I can totally see the need for it, but I'm not sure about the plausibility of the idea. If you haven't already read it, I'll just point you towards a fairly lengthy discussion on this topic, above: Talk:List of highest-grossing films#Adjust for Inflation. It might explain why we don't use one already. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
The main problem is that older films were re-released periodically—Gone with the Wind had something like 8 or 9 releases in the US alone. I keep having to revert an editor on the GWTW article who keeps adjusting its $400 million gross by 1939 inflation, which puts it at $6 billion, but this is inaccurate because it only made $14 million in its first year of release. Even Star Wars made more than half of its gross from re-releases. This has been discussed to death above, but the reason we don't do it is not because we don't want to, but because no-one else does it so we have nowhere to source the data from. We can't even inflate it ourselves with Wikipedia's built-in inflator because of the re-release problem. We have tried to compensate for it by having the year chart and the timeline, so that older films are represented, and there are country specific charts such as the one at List of highest-grossing films in Canada and the United States#Adjusted for ticket-price inflation. Betty Logan (talk) 05:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Highest-grossing films

Resolved

" ... while no film prior to 1977 appears in the chart due to ... " - I dont think this is correct. The only two films older than 1993 (Star Wars & E.T.) both had major re-releases in cinemas 20 years later. This really has to be in the text. 79.254.155.181 (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree it should be mentioned. I have re-worded it to reflect all chart entries have had a theatrical release in the last 20 years. Betty Logan (talk) 04:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

IMDB doesn't match BoxOfficeMojo

Resolved

....which isn't a huge surprise. We should decide who is the top authority here, because even when using inflation matching, this link argues with the BOM results. http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross?region=world-wide

Besides, is bom really all that well known as reliable?Tgm1024 (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo has been cited by many major publications for its box office data. On the otherhand IMDB often fails as a reliable source. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Resources#Box_office and WP:RS/IMDB. Betty Logan (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

High-grossing films by year

Shouldn't the "High-grossing films by year" section only contain the gross of the film from the year, in which it was the highest grossing? Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 14:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

That would be the best way but the figures are so old that they just didn't record the gross for each year. They only recorded the gross for each run. Some films might get released September/October and will finish playing the following year, but there is no way of knowing how much they made in each year. It just isn't that precise. For recent films you can work it out, but even most sources don't do this right: Avatar was released at the end of 2009 and wasn't actually the biggest film that year because it made most of its money in 2010. The sources seem to rank each film by its year of release, so that's why Avatar gets listed as a 2009 film. I don't think it's a good way of doing it but it's what the sources do so we're kind of stuck with it. I tried an estimation approach, but there was too much original research so I scrapped that idea. Unless a source comes along that actually lists the amounts each film made in each year then there isn't much we can do. Betty Logan (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do so many years pre-1939 have multiple highest-grossing films listed? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the chart, especially since the grosses are listed? --Boycool (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The simple answer is that the sources conflict and in some cases the complete grosses aren't known, so it's impossible to know for sure. We could only pick a clear winner if we know the full gross of each film. Another problem is re-releases: in 1931 for example, Frankenstein is obviously the clear winner with 12 mil, but it did that business on re-releases. City Lights easily beat it on its first run, so it wouldn't be an accurate representation if we ignored City Lights. Betty Logan (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I've gone through it again and removed some multiple entries after some cross-referencing, but there are cases where we really don't know. Take 1926 for instance, Filmsite, The Numbers and the 1926 Wikiepdia article all say Alom of the High Seas is the highest grosser, but it doesn't feature on Variety's list of highest grossing silent films whereas two other films from 1926 do. There is the no way we can be certain which film it is. In cases like that it's best to list them both I think and then the reader can judge it themselves. Betty Logan (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The Hunger Games is up to $531,100,000. Somebody really needs to update the chart for 2012.

Film series

LOTR is listed with 4 movies...I can only remember 3! pls correct it

7 Star Wars

Currently the list of highest grossing series says there are 7 Star Wars movies. I don't want to edit in case there is something you know that I don't, but perhaps this could be fact-checked.Ordinary Person (talk) 02:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

There indeed are seven. Have you forgotten the animated movie Star Wars: The Clone Wars? --haha169 (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
No, but trying to.Naraht (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • other* "Star Wars: The Clone Wars (film)" although it is a star wars movie, it is more of a spin, and is not part of the saga or series of star wars movies. So in my opinion it should not count. More discussion should be taken until a conclusion is reached —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.68.164.2 (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

This should not count. George Lucas himself considers the series to be six films. If we include every little thing as part of the series, then we also need to include the Star War movies special re-release and their 3D versions, as well as weird stuff like the Holiday Special. Surcer (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on sources. The table heading at List of highest-grossing films#Highest-grossing film series has an inline reference to http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/ which says 7 and includes "Star Wars: The Clone Wars". http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/series/franchises.php says 8 and includes both "Star Wars: The Clone Wars" and "Star Wars: Attack of the Clones (IMAX)". Maybe they have separate numbers for the IMAX version and have to count it separately to be included in the total. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I really don't care about "Wikipedia is based on sources" junk. Star Wars: clone Wars is a spin-off. It is not part of the saga. To make it worse, it's animated. That distinguishes it from the original 6 Star Wars. It really isn't fair to the Star Wars average that it should fall because of The Clone Wars... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.228.56 (talk) 00:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

What counts as a film series?

For the list of highest grossing film series, I noticed that The Scorpion King is currently not counted as part of the Mummy franchise, and it looks like Star Wars: The Clone Wars used to be counted as part of the Star Wars franchise, but no longer is. On the other hand, X-Men Origins: Wolverine seems to be counted as part of the X-Men franchise, so the list isn't entirely limited to the "main" films in franchises. I personally think that the list should include spinoffs, as the source, Box Office Mojo, includes them in the franchise lists (The Mummy franchise, Star Wars franchise). However, if we want to limit the chart to only include the main films in a franchise, then it would need to be done consistently, and also a source would need to be cited to say which films are the main ones in franchises and which ones are spin-offs. Calathan (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously people will have their own point of view as to whether a film is part of a franchise or not, but the criteria should be objective and consistent. For the chart to be meaningful we should source the criteria for all the series on this list from the same place. Since we use BOM's box office data to rank the series it would be convenient to use their franchise criteria too, but there are other options: while BOM includes The Scorpion King and The Clone Wars, the Allmovie film series lists include The Scorpion King [3] but exclude The Clone Wars [4], so there are different views as to what constitute a film series. Either way the franchise criteria should be sourced and not left to the whim of Wikipedia editors. Betty Logan (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Do single films count as a series? Is a series of one valid? If this is the case Avatar and Titanic should be included in the list at positions 7 and 14 respectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.87.82 (talk) 05:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

No that's definitely not true.

Why is The Lord of the Rings movie came out in 1970 being included as part of the Lord of the Rings trilogy by Peter Jackson? That's absolutely ridiculous, makes no sense whatsoever. The LOTR trilogy was just 3 films and the average of the films was like 970 million, you really need to get that fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.55.160.189 (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Avatar as series

Seeing as avatar has grossed past the 2b dollar mark and is planned to become a trilogy, wouldn't it then qualify for the film series section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.53.109 (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

If I plan the tallest building on Earth in my head, does it count for a world record? No. If a sequel is released, then Avatar can be placed on the list, but not until then. Fickce4 (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Marvel Cinematic Universe

I was wondering if the Marvel Cinematic Universe should be included on the list of highest-grossing film series of all time. These movies (which include Iron Man 1 and 2, the Incredible Hulk, and the future releases of Thor, Captain America, and the Avengers) all take place in the same universe, and each is be plotted out as part of a series in whole. I know each character is technically part of his/her own franchise, but they are all part of the same film film series, so should it be added to the highest-grossing film series of all time list? If not, then why is Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, included with the Batman films from the late 1980's and early 1990's, since technically these are two separate series that are part of the same franchise, but take place in different continuities? Kc007 (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

What constitutes a film series is determined by the source for the chart. Betty Logan (talk) 04:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the explanation. Kc007 (talk) 3:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Including "Avengers" as a film series

The Avengers is listed as Film Series on Box Office Mojo's Franchise page, and it's worldwide gross would put it in the top 20 film series list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krutonman (talk • contribs) 07:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Not something I would truly call a film series but it is true that the source puts it on there. So then I would see no problem adding the Marvel Cinematic Universe on the film series. I would help but I haven't really figured out how they estimate the whole gross thing yet. It seems different than what Box Office Mojo estimates to me. :} Jhenderson 777 15:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
The simplest idea is to go with what the source defines as a "series". If it's calling this group of films the "Avengers" series then it's a legitimate candidate for the chart. Betty Logan (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
It is a legitimate candidate for the chart. The Marvel Cinematic Universe is a series, where the first few movies may "feel" separated, but are connected, so as to tie in to "the Avengers" movie. It is just the same as including "X-men Origins: Wolverine" in the "X-men" series along with "X-men: First Class", which is yet to come, which are prequel-type movies as "Iron Man", and "The Incredible Hulk", etc. are to "the Avengers" movie. Marvel Studios is treating the universe as a series, even linking each movie to the next movie that is released, as is often the case with any other series. And as the creators of the cinematic universe are treating it as a series, we should too. As to the current worldwide gross, the sum of the currently released parts of the series ("Iron Man", "The Incredible Hulk", "Iron Man 2", and "Thor") is $1,814,809,113. This gives it a ranking of 13 (which is reasonably significant) and an average movie gross of $453,702,278. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Everyone seems to be in favor, or at least doesn't oppose its addition. I will add it into the chart once the Fast and the Furious franchise overtakes The Mummy franchise in the next week or two; there is no point bumping the Fast series when we'll just have to add it back in next week. Betty Logan (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The main reason I don't oppose is because Box Office Mojo is the official source of this article anyways. It's not something I would quite label as a film series (more of a film universe) but if it's on Box Office Mojo as a series then it should be fine. The Fast and the Furious series has been on there a while, it's definitely getting up. Jhenderson 777 23:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

'Highest-grossing film series' → 'Highest-grossing film franchises'?

Shouldn't the 'highest-grossing film series' heading actually be 'highest grossing film franchises'? A good example is Batman, it says it includes 7 films, and yet those 7 films are a part of 3 different series. Therefore, it seems franchise would make more sense -Joltman (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about requesting this as well. For I agree. Along with Batman, Star Trek has a reboot and Spider-Man going to have one, MCU I would call a franchise more than a film series as well. Also the source is called franchise index so I think that might be more accurate to the source. Jhenderson 777 19:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. We are specifically talking films here. Franchises embrace different mediums—the TV show, the novelisations etc. Since we are exclusively adding up the film box office I think "series" is the more accurate terminology for something like this. While Box Office Mojo is a reliable source for box office data it isn't necessarily a reliable source for defining industry terminology. Betty Logan (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I was just about to suggest this. Franchise is definitely a better choice of words on this one. When films are rebooted, they have nothing to do with previous films, except that they are about the same characters (such as previous Batman and future Spiderman films), so "franchise" better describes this than "series" (which would directly refer to the Nolan Batman trilogy, for example). Also, the word franchise probably better fits the description of the James Bond "franchise" as it follows no specific continuity anyway (as discussed earlier in the talk page), and perhaps also the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which does not immediately sell itself as the one series, but fits together as the one "franchise". --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


I don't think we should get too hung up on "series" implying narrative continuity. It implies nothing more than a sequence of something of a specific type, which the chart currently conforms to. The problem with something like Batman is that the franchise includes much more than just the films, same with Bond and Marvel. Betty Logan (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Betty Logan, that's why we should use the word "FILM franchise". Jhenderson 777 14:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
A "film" franchise doesn't limit the franchise to just films, it includes everything that follows from the films too like novelisations, soundtracks, toys based on the films. For instance, the James Bond franchise includes the Fleming books, the films and the novelisations, whereas the James Bond film franchise excludes the books but include the films and the novelisations of the films. A "film series" restricts the merchandise to just the films themselves. We shouldn't incorrectly use the terminology just because the source has. Betty Logan (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
"Series" does imply narrative continuity. Your definition of a series, means that the Marvel Cinematic Universe should include the 2003 "Hulk" film, and the 1944 "Captain America" film. And while you're implying sequences of something of a specific type, you may as well include every film based on the Marvel Comics Universe (including X-men, Spiderman, Fantastic Four, Punisher franchises, etc.). Perhaps "film franchise" isn't the best choice of words, but it is certainly better than series. However, whether you do call it a franchise or a series, the inclusion of Hulk and Captain America films should be considered. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
A series can have any sort of continuity, it doesn't have to be a narrative continuity: the Bond films for instance have had narrative breaks but they are still part of the same production continuity. Casino Royale quite definitely doesn't follow on from Die Another Day, but it's still part of the EON Bond series. The Marvel films share characters so that is clearly a narrative continuity. Betty Logan (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I've retitled the section "franchises and film series". I think this probably best captures what we actually call the articles we link to: for instance we call the Harry Potter films the Harry Potter (film series) where as we call the analagous Indiana Jones article Indiana Jones (franchise). This is obviously done for a reason, so it's probably best if this article reflects the usage on the articles it charts. According to our own titling conventions we chart series and franchises so on reflection we should probably just say that. Betty Logan (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Chart split

Good idea. But I'm still not sure about the contents of this section. It doesn't seem to be a clear table now. Why should we list the Batman "franchise" in the same table as the MCU "series". I think that, because there had been previous Hulk and Captain America movies that had nothing to do with the current ones (which all combine in the one series), the MCU series cannot be in the same table as the Batman franchise (which does include previous movies that were rebooted). Perhaps there should be two tables... One for franchises which, for example, would include the different continuities of Batman films combined into the one franchise (and either exclude the MCU (including the Iron Man, Hulk, and Captain America franchises as seperate, although they probably not have a high enough gross for inclusion), or include the MCU (with the inclusion of previous Captain America and Hulk films)). The other table for film series, would separate the Batman films into their continuities, and include the MCU as a series, etc. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Even if film franchise can refer to expanded universe stuff, I think it's clear to know that we are only counting whatever is part of the franchise that has a box office score. For example Batman: Mask of the Phantasm is a weird film to count as the film franchise because it has nothing to do with the rest of the films but more related to a tv universe, but since it went to the big screen it counts. Jhenderson 777 17:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
You make a good point. Video games, novelisations, and merchandise of a film proabably aren't going to gross very much at the box office... But my point now is, that it's all very well and good for this table to include something like the Harry Potter film series, which is fairly straight forward. But, with something like the Batman, several seperate narrative continuities are combined to form one franchise, and with something like the Marvel Cinematic Universe, several (what would generally be seperate in film, but not in comics) franchises are combined to form one narrative continuity. Whilst I believe that they are high-grossing series/franchises and deserve to be in the table, I don't believe they can be in the same table, which is why I am proposing that we use two seperate tables. Rather than having one table for series and franchises, have two tables (one for series and one for franchises- or whatever you wish to call them) to make it clearer. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 05:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The source clumps all these films together, so that's why we stuck them all together too. If we use our own series/franchise article titling criteria then we'd end up with Harry Potter, Bond and Star Wars in one chart (which we designate as film series), and Transformers, Indiana Jones and The Matrix trilogy in the other chart (since we designate them as franchises). Readers wouldn't understand why The Matrix trilogy is in a different chart to Harry Potter, and if they clicked on the source the BOM franchise index wouldn't explain it either. Betty Logan (talk) 06:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
It's a confusing problem, but the way it is now just doesn't work. It's comparing two different things in the one table. I'm not sure about the current designation of film series/franchises for the current groups in the table, but I would say that the Harry Potter film series is also the Harry Potter film franchise (ignoring what you would call series/franchises- I'm explaining this using 'series' to describe narrative continuity or something along those lines, and 'franchises' to describe a group of films that involve the same storylines or characters, etc.), so Harry Potter would be listed the same in both the franchises and series table. Batman would be listed in the franchises table as it is now, but in the series table, would be separated into its different continuities (Nolan trilogy, etc.). Marvel Cinematic Universe would be listed in the series table as it is now, but in the franchises would be separated into its different franchises (Iron Man, Captain America, etc.). I'm not saying that my usage of these words is right and yours wrong, but simply trying to explain a point using the words as I know them. Surely you can see that they are two different things and should not be listed together. It's just an idea, and results in several complications, but it is already complicated, so I believe this is the simplest option. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's fair, proper or accurate to compare say Spider-Man 1, 2 and 3 against the entirety of Batman films. If you want to be doing things like that then it should be franchise vs franchise in which you could include the new film as well The Amazing Spider-Man. Harry Potter is a film series, LLOTR is a film series, Matrix is a film series. I personally just don't think it makes sense to compare those to (easiest example I can think of) Batman, Burtons era Batman, presumably animated film Batman and Nolan Batman.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you in a way, but I think if you are comparing the franchises against each other, it is okay to compare the entire Spiderman film franchise (just one series, currently) against the Batman film franchise (three different narrative continuities), so long as there is a comparison provided with another table that compares the original Spiderman trilogy to the Nolan Batman trilogy, and Burtuons era Batman seperately (not the animated film, because it stands alone). --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 12:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
While the current chart may not be perfect, the fact is our chart groups the films together the same as the source does to avoid original research. I mean, creating a separate film series chart would be clear-cut in case like Batman (where there is a clear break in the continuity of the films) but there are many non-obvious cases. For instance, Should the Bond films be broken down by actor (clearly the Brosnan and Dalton Bond can't be the original Connery Bond but there is some character continuity: Lazenby's Bond is clearly the Connery Bond, and the Moore and Dalton Bonds are clearly the Lazenby Bond, while it appears the Brosnan Bond is the Dalton Bond)? With something like the Superman films, is Superman Returns part of the continuity? Is X-Men First Class a reboot or a prequel—this is already hotly disputed on the article itself? Is Star Wars: The Clone Wars part of the series, or a spin-off? You may have strong views on each of these, but other editors may have strong opposing views. That's why we use the BOM source to determine what is included and what isn't—it is objective, it eliminates original research from editors and it is verifiable. Without a source that clearly defines the continuity breaks, I don't see how constructing a second chart is viable. Betty Logan (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Sure, some cases won't be so obvious, and would need to be discussed thoroughly. Surely there would be sources out there that you can use to define which is which. I'm no Bond expert, so can't make my own judgements, but surely those 22 films would be broken up into smaller continuities somehow. It would be difficult and complicated, and some people will always come around trying to change things to what they believe is right (as will always be the case for Harry Potter and the "Sorcerer's Stone"), but it's better than making no sense whatsoever. You just can't compare the MCU to the Batman franchise, and you can't compare the Harry Potter series to the Batman franchise without another comparison. Fact is, franchises and series can not be compared in the same table. It's just not fair, or correct. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
James Bond is James Bond, they're just one series of films with little continuity. Superman Returns is part of the Reeves continuity, X-Men FC is also and it includes that Wolverine cameo to help tie them together. Fast and Furious is a series, I wouldn't discount Tokyo Drift because it features pretty much all new characters.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
You still can't have a chart founded on the subjective judgments of editors. If there were sources that considered the series in this way then I'd be open to it since we could then establish this was a legitimate way of viewing the series, but without the sources this is just an editor's POV. Betty Logan (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Sure. I'm cool with that. It'd take some time to find out the details, but so long as the sources are there, then it's all good. But the question still remains on the names for the tables. Will one be "Highest grossing film franchises" and the other, "Highest grossing film series"? Anyway, from what I know (continuing with these titles), the Franchises table remains virtually the same as the current table, but with the MCU removed (either that or with the inclusion of previous Hulk and Captain America films, etc.- although as these are not part of the same Universe, with the Universe being the whole point of the series, I would prefer the former (removing the MCU)). I'm not sure what the separate franchises within the MCU add up to, but Iron Man probably grosses the most and I doubt that would be enough to make the table, so whatever was previously here should be here. As for the Series table, I know that Harry Potter, Pirates, Shrek, LotR, Transformers, Spiderman, MCU, Toy Story, Ice Age, Twilight, and Narnia all remain the same. Batman is obviously split into the Nolan soon-to-become-trilogy and the Burton era Batman (again, not sure if either of these make the chart). Star Wars should exclude the Clone Wars, as it is considered T-canon (part of the TV series, so is officially part of the continuity, but not of the highest level (G-canon), as defined by George Lucas). X-men would leave some dispute, but I would argue that First Class is part of the continuity, as Vaughn has described it as an "official in-continuity prequel" somewhere. And as for the others (Bond, Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park, Matrix, Fast and the Furious, and Star Trek), I know little about, so should leave them to someone else to find sources (someone who knows a little about what they're researching). --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Film Series Average

Someone has decreased The Lord of the Rings' average gross to something which it cannot possibly be..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.56.185.168 (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It is when a 33-year-old cartoon that only grossed $30 million is factored in. --Boycool (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Just saw the number of films... Thanks for replying! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.56.185.168 (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Changing the source for the franchise chart

Currently the franchise chart uses the Box Office Mojo franchise index as a source. There are several problems with this source in that it has some counter-intuitive series definitions. For instance, it includes the 1978 cartoon as part of the Lord of the Rings franchise, it includes The Scorpion King in The Mummy series, and also groups Iron Man/Thor/Incredible Hulk/Captain America as one super franchise; in reality these are separate series with just a common link, but it's stretching the definition to class them as one homogeneous franchise.

I propose sourcing this chart through The Numbers franchise index instead. Its franchise definitions are more in line with the common view, and it also provides several other advantages too. The BOM chart doesn't provide worldwide totals, or averages, so we have added formulas to the chart to add up the individual totals. The trouble here is that a reader can only verify the totals by adding up the numbers, which isn't ideal. The Numbers franchise index provides a worldwide total and also an average too (see Harry Potter franchise for example) thereby providing a much stronger threshold for verifiability.

It's my personal view that The Numbers source is a better all round source for what we are trying to do with the chart, in terms of how it defines a franchise and also how it presents the numerical data. I'm interesting in hearing other views on whether editors agree/disagree with switching the source for this section. Betty Logan (talk) 16:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's any better. For example, it lists franchises with "0" films in them... Also, it is inconsistent with its definition of a franchise, as it removes the Lord of the Rings animated film, instead putting "Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings" on the list, but it keeps all Batman films there, including the animated one. Besides, the animated film of the Lord of the Rings should be included as it is part of the Lord of the Rings film franchise. Keeping in mind that a film franchise is "an intellectual property involving the characters, setting and trademarks of an original work of media". The MCU fits that definition as well. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
The reason it is better is because it gives us the totals and averages which the BOM chart doesn't do. The reason it has "0 film" franchises is not because these are franchises with no films, it is simply that in some cases they didn't have theatrical releases so there is no box office data for them (and none of them seem to be high profile franchises that affect our chart). Obviously the number refers to releases rather than films, but this is easy to correct for us since any numpty can count up the number of films The Numbers actually lists in its franchise. The chart may have some anomalies but in terms of the information we can actually use, it would make updating the chart much simpler. Betty Logan (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
If they didn't have theatrical releases then they shouldn't gross anything at the box office. However, some of the "0 film" franchises do. I don't understand that. I understand that they're not hugely high profile, but they're contained in the same table as the franchises that we would be sourcing, so I don't think it's entirely trustworthy. "0 film" franchises aside, the Numbers table is still inconsistent. It includes the animated Batman film in the Batman franchise, but completely separates the Lord of the Rings animated film from the Peter Jackson films. And doesn't BOM have averages anyway? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Quit being a noob and just change it back to the way it was, Jesus it shouldnt be this freaking hard people — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowlwall (talk • contribs) 19:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Why can't a separate source be used for the Lord of the Rings trilogy? --Boycool (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Because that would be WP:SYNTHESIS. We can't use a source for the chart and discount the bits we personally disagree with. You either use the source fully, or replace the source entirely. On a side note, Star Wars includes The Clone Wars, and Batman includes Mask of Phantasm so I don't actually see what the problem is with Lord of the Rings alone. Betty Logan (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean by that? Using the Peter Jackson Lord of the Rings alone is the same as using the Nolan Batman trilogy, earlier Batman series, and the Original and prequel Star Wars series. But using Lord of the Rings with the animated one is the same as using the animated one in Batman and Star Wars. However, it would be a useful concept to have two tables to illustrate the difference, and illustrate how successful the Peter Jackson LotR trilogy really was, etc. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
But we don't just list the Nolan franchise do we? So why should we make an exception for Lord of the Rings when the source doesn't? We list the franchises this way because Box Office Mojo does. What I am asking editors to consider here is if they would prefer to use The Numbers as the source for the chart instead. Aside from the franchise criteria, it provides worldwide totals and averages which Box Office Mojo does not do, so I think it would serve our purposes better. Betty Logan (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
But I'm not wanting to make that exception. I want consistency. And BOM does have averages doesn't it? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 01:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

People are getting pissed off about the Lord of the Rings thing. We need to limit this to live-action films only in the live-action film series, including LOTR and Batman. --Boycool (talk) 12:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

If we include animated series such as Shrek and Toy Story there is no logical reason to omit animated films from mixed franchises. The proper way to address this is to switch to a more appropriate source for our franchise definitions. If no sources define it in the way we want, then maybe we have to accept the information as we want to present it has little notable value. Betty Logan (talk) 12:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps, you could consider splitting the franchises table into two parts. One for franchises, which would essentially remain the way it is, and another for series which only includes narrative continuities (i.e. removes the LoTR animated film, removes the Batman animated film, and separates Batman into two different series, etc.) --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 12:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
That would breach policy. It's original research unless you have a source that lists franchises by their narrative continuties. Betty Logan (talk) 12:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I realise that, and I'm working on finding a source. While I'm doing that, I'm trying to get a consensus. I personally believe this one to be a common sense type thing, but understand the need of a source. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
It's not really a consensus issue; we're compelled to proportionally represent all published "points of view". On that basis if we knew of such a chart then would include it, but the only two I know of are BOM and The Numbers. Betty Logan (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
This is really stupid. The Lord of the Rings is three movies- Fellowship, Two Towers and Return of King. The animated movie from the 70's should not count! Although I would hate to see Harry Potter's average eclipsed by LOTR, it is true. The animated movie has nothing to do with the trilogy. You could say the same with Batman and James Bond, but they are all marketed under the same series. I suggest that you use putting "Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings" to distinguish them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.228.56 (talk) 00:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree, as do many others, however, we are unable to do that because there is no source. We have to go with what the source says, and that's it. I would much prefer to have two seperate tables, so that there is a clear definition between the two, but I've given up searching the internet for this. Until someone publishes a list of highest-grossing film series that are actually just trilogies and narrative continuities, etc, we just can't do it. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 03:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Breach policy? Original research? Well then, there is original research in Batman in film, bacause there the films are grouped in sections just as ProfessorKilroy suggested. If it is reasonable & sourced to break them that way there, same reasoning should be possible to use here also. Don't know about other series, though. 85.217.21.105 (talk) 01:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
That isn't true. The box office of all Batman films is presented collectively: Batman_in_film#Box_office_performance. In any case, the context is totally different on this article. There are probably many sources on Batman that break up the franchise into different series, but this isn't a Batman chart, it's a chart that covers all franchises. Franchise charts such as the one at Box Office Mojo and The Numbers group the Batman films together. Betty Logan (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

CommentThis source only counts the trilogy as well. Jhenderson 777 16:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't really work as a viable replacement source though; it's already dated since it doesn't include the latest Pirates, Transformers and Harry Potter films. The only viable charts are those by BOM and The Numbers which keep updating the data and therefore keep the chart verifiable. Betty Logan (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been online for a while to notice your comments, when I mentioned that particular source it was not a intention of that source to be a replacement source but more of what is typically considered as part of that film series but I can see the animated movie counting if you want to count box office scores. This might just get more complicated when the two Hobbit films come out because in a way all the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit movies are in the same universe and are a spinoff of the trilogy. And out of curiosity are we going to count the Puss in Boots film as a part of the Shrek film series? Jhenderson 777 20:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has moved on a bit now. If you skip down to the experimental table you can see what we are planning to do to resolve this issue. Everyone seems to be happy with the proposal, but more opinions are always welcome if you'd like to offer yours. Betty Logan (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Lord of the Rings SERIES has 3 movies - not 4

I know this has been brought up before, but I think it's ridiculous to write that Lord of the Rings has 4 movies, not 3 - especially when you use that statistic to calculate the average gross. The 1978 version is not related to the other 3.

The same applies to the Batman film franchise; I understand that they all involve the same character and have similar plots (Though I've only seen Batman Begins and Dark Knight), but the list of highest-grossing film franchises should be renamed to highest-grossing film series and the Batman and Lord of the Rings statistics updated.

The 1978 version of LOTR and the "modern" version of LOTR (I'm using LOTR as an example, the same applies to the Batman movies) are unrelated in the sense that they are not continuities of one another, do not share directors or actors or producers, and are not grouped together as a series. The same will apply when the new Spiderman movie comes out, by the way, as it is a reboot of the old Spiderman franchise, and thus should not be included as part of the "old" Spiderman series.

So what I'm proposing is:

Change the title of the section to Highest-grossing Film Series. Update the Batman and LOTR information.

And that's.. It. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.189.26 (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The Peter Jackson LOTR series might have three films, but the chart considers all films in a particular franchise, and there is more than just the Jackson trilogy in the LOTR franchise. Similarly, the Batman franchise is all commercial commodities produced under the Batman trademark, and that includes several Batman films series. The same with Spiderman and the Superman films when they come out. The source for the chart doesn't consider each individual series as a separate entity so we don't either. I don't know how many times I have to point this out. If you have a problem with how Box Office Mojo presents its information maybe you should contact them about it. Betty Logan (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason you have to point this out so often is because your logic is flawed. From what I understand, the reason the chart "considers all films in a particular franchise" is because "the source for the chart doesn't consider each individual series as a separate entity so we don't either." But why do we have to have the same chart that Box Office Mojo does? We can take the Box Office Mojo statistics for separate films and then group those films as a series rather than a franchise. So we can take the statistics of each separate LOTR movie rather than the franchise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.189.26 (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a policy against that: WP:Original Research. You are advocating replacing a reliably sourced chart with one constructed by Wikipedia editors which just doesn't fly I'm afraid. Betty Logan (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of that policy - I haven't read through the entire thing, but just the introduction of the policy alone is enough to justify my idea: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists." This is not original research. Like I said, we do take the statistics from Box Office Mojo - we take the statistics of LOTR 1, 2, and 3 (Separately) then calculate the average of their grosses and list it as the average gross. This is not original research - it is based off of a reliable source, BOM. Also, calculating the average is not original research either: "That "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it." Similarly, that the average of 700M, 800M, and 900M (Just making up numbers) is 800M needs no source. We can add a little note at the bottom that says "Averages are calculated by adding separate movies of the series," although I don't think that's necessary.

Also (I added this section after you edited your reply while I was writing mine) this chart would still be reliably sourced - this chart would use BOM statistics. Also, I don't see that charts constructed by Wikipedia editors "don't fly" in the original research policy you linked me to, in fact: "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed." The material in my proposed chart would obviously be attributable to a reliable published source, as the information comes from a reliable published source, even if it's not actually attributed to a specific chart on BOM. 84.109.189.26 (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You still haven't explained why we should drop the chart supplied by Box Office Mojo only for Wikipedia editors to construct a completely new one using Box Office Mojo data. It doesn't make any sense. If Box Office Mojo have published a chart then that makes it perfectly valid for inlcusion here on this list. It's just a classic case of an editor disagreeing with a source, and that isn't a reason for dropping data. If your way is so much better then it is pertinent to ask why Box Office Mojo doesn't do it that way? And for that matter The Numbers too, which groups together all film series in a franchise? Betty Logan (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Uhm, if the problem is Wikipedia editors constructing it, I'm perfectly happy to construct it myself, it's just that the article is locked. Also, if I remember correctly, the chart USED to list LOTR as having three movies, so it's not like this is a radical new idea. And I don't disagree with the source - obviously the source is correct, I disagree with the method with which the chart is organized. It should be organized by series, not by franchise; THIS is the relevant information for the article. We can create another article that lists highest grossing film franchises, but on the highest grossing films list, we should have series, not franchise. So the reason for dropping the data (Which was pointlessly added) is that it's irrelevant information for the article in which it is located. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.189.26 (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The LOTR was changed to four because that is what the source stated. Not including it was also inconsistent with how the chart handled the other entries. Betty Logan (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
While I support the current presentation of four films since that is how Box Office Mojo presents it, I can understand the debate over including the 1978 film. Could we add a note that says that the 1978 film is included in the Lord of the Rings grouping and indicate in that same note how much of the total the Peter Jackson trilogy grossed? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I think that is a perfectly valid solution, and one I'd happily implement. Do you think it should be extended to the other entries that have pan-series representation? For instance, the Bond films include Never Say Never Again which isn't part of the official EON series. Betty Logan (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I personally did not know that! :) I think that particular nuance matters less. While I can see readers wanting to isolate the Peter Jackson trilogy as a film franchise / series, I think that readers would just see Never Say Never Again as part of one series. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
As I've previously stated, I would be very much in favour of the series chart (but would like it to be included as well as the current franchise chart directly from BOM). However, it just can't happen as there's no specific source that states what we all want (which I think is ridiculous and illogical - how would one go about contacting BOM?).
Anyway, a series chart is much too problematic as a series is very difficult to determine. What with the future Hobbit films coming, would you count that in the Peter Jackson set because it's part of the same universe, or would you count it separately because it's not part of the original series that was conceived specifically a trilogy? How do you separate the Bond films, because surely all of them can't directly be in the same series? What happens to the MCU, as the films do link to eachother in a direct narrative continuity kind of way although they were not originally marketed that way? To throw another spanner in the works, what would happen if the plans for a "Justice League" film went ahead, as it includes both the Superman and Batman franchises, but not their current, future or previous series? It's just too confusing, and there are various opinions and no specific source.
I'd love a series chart, but it's a bit like communism. Brilliant theory, just doesn't work entirely well. Having said that, I'm all for giving background information in a separate paragraph that would discuss any issues with continuities and franchises and possibly include the average of the Peter Jackson LoTR films that everyone desires. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The arbitrary nature of what defines a series has always posed a problem, at least with a franchise it is all encompassing. Anyway, I think there is a middle ground along the lines Erik suggested. I think there are two possible approaches: one would be to simply add a footnote and the other would be to create a hover box entry for the Peter Jackson trilogy when you move the cursor over the franchise number. I will add them both as an experiment, and then people can decide if they have a preference, or any ideas for an enhancement. Betty Logan (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Take a look at this: [5]. Specifically the Lord of the Rings entry. I'd like to hear people's thoughts on it because it is a possible way to combine the two approaches, and something we can apply uniformly throughout the chart; it's something we could do for Star wars, Batman, Marvel, Spiderman when the new film comes out, Bond etc. Betty Logan (talk) 20:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
As to the option of footnotes, I think they would become so large, a paragraph would be a better option. As to what is currently implemented, that's Genius. However, it kinda sticks out and makes the chart look weird, but maybe it'll be better with more there. But I think under the Average section, you should only include a figure if there is more than one film.
Now for the questions: What are you going to do for Bond? Could you then use this to divide the X-men trilogy from the prequels? Would you also separate the Original and Prequel trilogies from Star Wars as well as separating Clone Wars? Someone mentioned Indiana Jones ages ago, so what's going on there? Are all 11 movies of Star Trek one series? When you divide MCU into Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, and Captain America, do you include Ang Lee's Hulk, which wasn't in the MCU, but is a "sister film" to the Incredible Hulk? And do you include the Avengers in each of those categories as it includes them, or just as a separate one for itself? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
How would we handle the Star Trek and X-Men movies, where there are reboots that still have narrative continuity? --Boycool (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it does stand out slightly, but that's because there is only one instance at the moment. I am sure if there were two or three more then it would look more normal. Ulitmately if it looks too ugly we can always scrap it. The other option of course would be to make every entry have a sub table, and where there isn't another series we can just list the films (which might be a good idea in its own right, since readers can then see what teh actuial films are!). At least that would make the table look uniform. There are several options to handle the aesthetics, I'll do another example later and then we can decide whether to keep/scrap. In the case where there is only one entry, we can gray out the average, that isn't a problem. As for Boycool's question, that isn't just for me to decide, and always was one of the problems of breaking films up by continuity; but here is why I don't think it actually matters: currently the main X-Men entry includes all five X-Men films, so it doesn't really matter if we have sub-table that breaks the entry up into the main trilogy and the two spin-off films (that are part of the continuity but have a weaker membership of the series overall. We can include both views of the series. The main entry will do the calculations on all five films, and then we can have a sub-table that just considers the main trilogy. Star Trek has effectively been rebooted twice resulting in three different crews in total (well ok the new film uses the original crew but you know what I mean); we could split that into three entries, since with this idea we can also show the strands of a series. Bond could even be more interesting: we could split by EON/non-EON, then we could do a further sub-table within the EON sub-table and split for each actor. In the case of Ang Lee's Hulk, I would say that the Marvel franchise can only include the Marvel Hulk series; however, a Hulk franchise would include the Marvel Hulk series and the Ang Lee film. That could result in a situation where some films/series are represented twice on the chart, but I don't necessarily have problem with that provided franchises aren't represented more than once. It's very likely that soon we will see the Iron Man series represented twice, as part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe franchise and as part of an Iron Man franchise. Betty Logan (talk) 07:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

To get around the aesthetic problem, take a look at what I've done with the Shrek entry. You can click on Shrek and see the films in the series, and how much each one has made. This can be done for every entry which will give the chart a uniform look. Aside from aesthetic considerations, it's an idea worth considering on its own merits since now readers can see each film in the series and what it grossed. It saves the reader from having to go to the series article itself if they want this information. In the spirit of consistency, I have added a further sub-table to LOTR. You can now click on the trilogy and get up all the films in that too. Anyway, take a look and let me know what you think. I didn't experiment with the X-Men series, since editors may get a bit cheesed off if I experiment with active data; anyway I was thinking of structuing that as the X-Men article does it (if this concept does become a go-er): it would have three entries, one for the main series (which would expand into a sub-table), and then another entry for each of the prequels i.e. let the X-Men article editors decide how we structure the data since it makes life simple over here. Here is a permalink in case it all gets reverted: [6] Betty Logan (talk) 08:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You know you're actually a genius. I love that every movie is listed within the table, and with the Shrek one there, I can see that it will look fine if they all have the subtables, however, when they are not hidden that's when it starts to look a little uglier. I'm fine with it, but it still kinda looks weird.
I'm not sure what you mean by your MCU point. Are you saying that we just include Iron Man and Hulk as a separate franchise on the overall table (as BOM does, I think), but as they won't gross enough they won't be there? Or are you trying to fit them into the subtables? I think that when the MCU is spilt into a sub-table, it needs to be separated into the different "sub-franchises" within the MCU continuity (Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, Captain America, Avengers), and perhaps also into the "sub-franchises" in general (this might include the Avengers under each heading or something, but would include the Ang Lee Hulk (which is still Marvel, just not Cinematic Universe Marvel), and I think there's a Captain America movie from ages ago). Argh! It's all so confusing...
Anyway, I'm happy to split Bond by actor, but what's EON? As to X-Men, I would have been happy to list both prequels together, but I guess separately makes sense, and keeps the people calling it a reboot happy. I really hope this concept becomes a goer, cause I think it's the geniusest thing. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 10:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I would break the MCU franchise down into series sub-tables, so there would be an entry for Iron Man, Hulk, Thor etc all under the MCU franchise; however the Marvel Hulk sub-table would only include the Marvel film, since this is the MCU franchise. However, a Hulk franchise also exists which includes the Marvel film and the Ang Lee film. It's not high enough to be on the list but the principle stands: The Marvel Hulk film effectively belongs to two franchises: the MCU franchise and the Hulk franchise. At least that's how I see it. However, this isn't an issue as yet since only the Marvel franchise makes the list, but we could get to a point where we have MCU on the chart and a separate Hulk franchise on the chart, both of which include the Marvel film. This is how BOM does it: their list includes the Avengers franchise (which we call MCU) and an Iron Man franchise for example. But I think this is getting ahead of ourselves, we can address it if and when it happens. As for "EON Bond" this is the "official" series, which basically includes all the Bond films apart from Never Say Never Again and the Casino Royal spoof; so we would have a sub-table for the long-standing EON series, and because that itself tends to be informally broken down by actors we could have a sub-table for that.
Unfortunately there isn't much we can do about the expanded table distorting the rest of it, that is just how the software works, but I figure it at least gives the reader access to all the data which they didn't have before. There may be another approach using scroll tables, or a combination of the two, I'll look into it over the weekend. Betty Logan (talk) 11:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Right, so you were suggesting that we only include the entire Hulk franchise, etc on the overall table and not within the Hulk within the MCU somehow. I'm fine with that, but I think I should point out that using that way condtradicts itself a little. The Batman franchise includes all continuities centred around Batman, but the Avengers "franchise" doesn't include all continuities centred around the Hulk. It may be something we just have to ignore, but if we did include it, I'm not suggesting we directly include it (going against the source), but maybe it could be included somehow amongst the sub-tables. It's just something to think a about... Anyway, good luck with the aesthetics. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 12:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
That is true, but I suppose we have a slight mis-match between our entry and the source, since our entry is the "Marvel Cinematic Universe" which is confined to one continuity. I think it could simply be a misnomer on the BOM site since they only include the Marvel films in their "Avengers" franchise. If we are documenting MCU then entries should be limited to the Marvel films, if you document it as an Avengers franchise then that would possibly include other films from outside the MCU continuity. But this isn't something that should be decided by a couple of editors anyway, when it becomes an issue the correct approach would be follow how the sources group them together. Betty Logan (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment. The LOTR subtable is broken, at least on my laptop. The link to the trilogy overlaps the "show" button for the sub-subtable. --Boycool (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Everything's fine on mine... --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 12:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Could be a browser issue. Which one are you on? Betty Logan (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm also having the overlapping issue, where the "Show" link is completely covered up by the "Lord of the Rings (trilogy)" link and cannot be clicked. I'm using up-to-date Google Chrome and have a 1280x800 screen resolution. Princess Lirin (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Ditto. --Boycool (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Obviously something in the javascript isn't quite working in Chrome. If we decide to keep the layout we'll have to get someone to take a look at it. Betty Logan (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Experimental table

Here is a second attempt. This table has the advantage that the table has row expansion rather than cell expansion meaning the table doesn't become distorted. This is done by effectively making each row a table, rather than putting a whole table in each cell. The main disadvantage is that we lose the sorting capabilities (although I'm not sure being able to sort the table is paramount anyway). Another slight problem, is that there is a disallignment problem when the sub-table has a sub-table (click on LOTR and you will see what I mean), but it's not very noticeable and is fine when the table is not expanded. Take a look anyway (the main two examples are LOTR and Shrek again). We also need to know whether the Chrome problem still persists in this version. Betty Logan (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Table
Highest-grossing film series[3]
Rank Series Total worldwide
box office 		No. of films Average of films Highest-grossing film

Betty Logan (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Having no problems here with Chrome; it looks great. Other than losing the sortability, I like the appearance of this version much better. (And I agree that sortability is probably not absolutely necessary.) Princess Lirin (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

👍 Like Looks better and works for Chrome. Just curious, how many non-EON films are factored into the James Bond gross? --Boycool (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

There are three non-Eon films: Never Say Never Again, the 1967 Casino Royale and a 1950s Casino Royale, but I think only NSNA is factored into the figures which adds about $150 million. Betty Logan (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
That is brilliant! I can't see the disalignment thing with the Lord of The Rings... But yeah, who needs sortability when you have awesomeness right there. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I've added a notice to the article, so we'll give it a couple of days to see if there any objections, or any more browser issues. Hopefully there won't be but you never know, but I have to peer review a Bond article over the next few days so I'll get back on this after I've done that. Betty Logan (talk) 23:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
This may seem like a stupid question, but this format is going to be used for the other 13 franchises, right? --Boycool (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah sure, and the films will be fully listed in each one—the Marvel and Batman entries are two of the franchises that will benefit most from this approach. The reason I didn't do the entire chart is because it's probably another couple of hours work just to code it up, even more when you add in every single film; it's basically an evenings work, so I didn't want to spend that time on it unless there was support for the concept. Betty Logan (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
This has a really nice layout and flow to it. Thankfully, the chart does not look cluttered at all. It's all perfect. However, I do want to add that I had a few problems on Google Chrome with the LOTR section when I expanded the tab. It does look to be like a JavaScript problem. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 10:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately I can't check the Chrome issues, so if anyone has problems with that browser can they please describe the problem here. If there is a clear problem limited to this browser hopefully we can get someone to look into it and correct the problem. Betty Logan (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
    The chart here on the talk page works fine for me, just not the one currently in the article. --Boycool (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
    The one in the main article is effectively obsolete, if we make the change it will almost certainly be along the lines of the one above. I'll remove it to elimate any confusion though. Betty Logan (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
It looks fine at first glance in Chrome 13.0.782.220 on Linux; no overlapping issues. jonkerz♠ 16:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow this is a brilliant compromise.. I have absolutely no problem with this; it displays statistics for both series and franchises, I don't see any problems whatsoever with it. Also, I use Google Chrome (13) and the table works fine.

If we're talking browsers, it's fine for Firefox 6.0.2, and for Explorer 9.0.8... --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
It seems to work in most cases, I imagine any problems will be down to browser settings, so I'm pressing ahead with it. I'm in the process of constructing some templates which will make data entry simpler, since at the moment it is mixed up with a load of wiki code, and editors shouldn't be edged out of editing simply because they don't know the code. Hopefully we can shift it into the main article next week, starting with the films that are not on release (if something goes wrong it will be easy to restore the older figures with the dormant entries). If that goes ok, then the "in release" franchises can be replaced by the new format. I still advocate using the franchise index to define a franchise, so at least it will stop editors "inventing" their own franchises, and structure it internally according to how the respective Wikipedia articles structure the franchise/series divisions i.e. Star Wars would be structured along these lines (three way split): Star_wars#Box_office_performance; X-Men is presented as straight series:X-Men_(film_series)#Box_office_performance; The Bond article splits the Bond films into Eon and non-Eon: James_bond_films#Films; the Marvel Cinematic Universe lists the Marvel entries as a straight series: Marvel_Cinematic_Universe#Box_office_performance: let the X-Men guys have the headache of deciding whether First Class is part of the same series or a separate series. Betty Logan (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Are we still splitting EON Bond into the different actors? And why not seperate the X-men prequels from the original trilogy (that table doesn't but the rest of the page does)? Oh, and although First Class' director has described it as a reboot, he has also described it as an official in-continuity prequel (there's a source for that somewhere). So I think "reboot" is an almost vague word, whereas, if he says its in the continuity then it should be just a prequel. Having said that, you can avoid this headache and another possibly massive argument by seperating the Wolverine Origins from the original trilogy as it is also a prequel. That way, whether First Class was a prequel or a reboot, it would still be considered seperately. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I think grouping the first three X-Men films into the "Main series" is viable since that division already exists on the page. I'd like to at least use divisions that already exist on Wikipedia we can point to, because they represent a certain level of consensus. Similarly Bond can be divided into actor since that is also done on the article, but I'd prefer to get the data into the article in its simplest form first, and then we can look closer at how to group it. Betty Logan (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Sure. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
You still around Prof? Thought this discussion here might be of interest to you: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_September_8#Template:Highest-grossing_films_franchise. I have been developing a template for the new table, and an editor is trying to get it deleted. The rentention of the template depends on its support at this discussion, and if it gets deleted it will completely derail the consensus we've reached on this talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
No problem. I don't understand why they would do that... --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I could see that the problem has moved here and I had full confidence that you are handling it. The table thing looks nice. I am still in debate that the Marvel Cinematic Universe is considered a franchise when another particular source doesn't have it on there on the list though. I don't even consider it a franchise/film series just an entirely new thing that I call a film universe but I am leaving it up to you guys to figure that out. Jhenderson 777 17:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I entirely agree with you, in my mind the MCU is really a collection of franchises, and I kind of wish BOM didn't have it in the table. The problem though, is not so much that some sources don't recognize it is a franchise, but that some sources do. In prose you can capture that distinction, but in a chart it's either there or it's not! At least by including it I suppose readers can make up their own minds, and like my argument for LOTR above, if we use BOM box office data I'm prepared to default to their franchise definitions too to keep life simple. Betty Logan (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Consensus

The new chart seems to have the general support (editors are either for it or not against it). I've finalized a template (currently residing in my sandbox) at User:Betty Logan/Sandbox/Template:Highest-grossing films franchise. I will transfer it into main template space over the weekend and then we can start installing it in the chart. The template will provide us with several options to organize the information, but editors should try to follow the structure presented on the main franchise/series articles so we're consistent. Betty Logan (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

There are currently some slight alignment issues, which is most likely down to the column widths. There isn't much point trying to correct it now because it will probably need further correction when more data is added. I'll have a look at it once we've got all the data into the chart. Betty Logan (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Sweet. It all sounds good. I'm a little bit excited. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 03:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I just changed the names of the Batman continuities from "Original" and "Reboot" to "Burton/Schumacher" and "Nolan", because I figure if it happened to reboot again twenty years in the future, we can't say "Reboot Reboot"... --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Good catch, if anything can be better titled feel free. My priority is just getting the data into the chart rather than think of titles, so I just use the first thing that comes into my head. If I miss anything out, or group anything that you feel isn't a good way to do it then feel free to change it or bring it up here. Betty Logan (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


Why is the new chart not applied to the last ten franchises? --Boycool (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It will be, I did half today and it will be finished off tomorrow. Some of the grosses are out of date so I've been checking them against BOM as I work through it so it's taking longer than anticipated. Betty Logan (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
All right, me gustan. --Boycool (talk) 02:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Did we decide whether or not we were splitting EON Bond into actors or not? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 06:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I suggested it since it is done on the main article; if no-one opposes here it I'll divide it that way after I've got all the data in. X-Men divide their article into "main series" and "prequels" which is probably the way to go here, but likewise I'll wait and see if there is any opposition before I go ahead with that one. Betty Logan (talk) 10:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, I don't oppose... --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 11:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
With X-Men I'm not sure having a "prequel" group is the best approach. I think maybe it's better to have three entries within the franchise: "main series", "Wolverine", "First Class"; there is really nothing that connects Wolverine and First Class other than the fact they are prequels, and in fact each of those films have more in common with the main series than they do with each other: the series and Wolverine share a cast, whereas First Class is a proper X-Men film unlike Wolverine. If either Wolverine or First Class develop into their own series, then they would naturally develop into their own grouping. In the case of Star Trek, the new series supposedly takes place in the same lineage, so I think a basic three group structure would be best for that. Betty Logan (talk) 12:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
The way I see it, Fox doesn't want Marvel to get the rights back, so they'll keep making movies until they start running out of money. Then we'll all be too sick of X-men movies for Marvel Studios to reboot it into the MCU. And I think the most likely ones to come would be a First Class sequel or a Wolverine sequel (or the Deadpool thing), but that's beside the point. But certainly, yeah. Don't group Wolverine with First Class. As you said, they both have more in common with the trilogy than each other, but also, those two bring up more problems with the continuity than anything else, simply because of the different visions behind them in creating different origins for the same thing. I can't really judge the Star Trek thing because I don't know about it, but the wiki page groups it in three, so I'll go with it.
Now, I know we've said earlier that we wouldn't group the franchises within the MCU, which would have involved including Ang Lee's Hulk in a Hulk franchise within the MCU without it counting towards the actual MCU, which would have been confusing and inconsistent with the rest of the table. But I'm thinking that we should group them, but as their series. I mean, we've divided Star Wars into separate series even though it's part of the same continuity, so I suggest we group Iron Man within the MCU, and then in 2013, we can group Thor (But we won't group Hulk until an Incredible Hulk 2 comes, if it comes...) --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll set up a sub-group for Iron Man within MCU. Basically, if you regard MCU as just a series, then the Marvel Iron Man films are a sub-series in much the same way that each Bond actor forms a sub-series of the Eon series—connected, but self-contained. MCU only really becomes a problem when you consider it as a franchise that includes other franchises that include non-MCU films. Betty Logan (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I capitalised 'series' because it was done so (and in italics) here --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I've restored it. Basically, we capitalise formal names and don't capitalise descriptions, but if the "original series" is formally marketed as the "Original Series" then it should be capitalised. I don't know enough about it so I agree it's best to follow the format used on the article. Betty Logan (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't know anything about it either, but I figured italics at least were a sign... --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Table size

Nice Tableception you have done there, Betty.

However, I think that the new table is too big, caused by its multiple borders. It takes up the whole 768 px high screen with just 20 rows, compared to the old table that could take about 26 or 27 rows. I know that screen resolution is getting bigger and bigger, but I believe there are still many people that use 768 px high screen. Does anyone else think that the new table is too big?

I have tried removing the border of the first table, and collapsing the borders with style but both failed. I am not sure what I did wrong, does anyone know of an idea if we were to remove the border? Wiikipedian 14:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

We can work on the aesthetics over the next few days. Coincidentally I'm currently working on an old 1024x768 CRT screen but it should be possible to make the table slightly smaller; if I can't do it from outside the table, I can adjust the sizes in the templates do you have any suggestions in regards to the table width? The reason there is a border is because from the perspective of Wikipedia the chart is now a group of tables in a table. There may be a way to get rid of it, I'll see if I can find solution. Betty Logan (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the outside border (although the expanded table still has inner borders) and it seems to work fine on IE, Firefox and Opera. IE seems to render the table dividers in grey lines that are thicker than in the other tables, although this doesn't occur in Firefox and Opera. Could by my IE settings or just how IE renders the tables. Betty Logan (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I did think that it was a little big, but I personally don't mind that. Having said that, any way to compress it could be a good idea. However, the current format (with the outside table borders removed) makes the table look weird. Technically, it's weird because more emphasis seems to be put on the sub-tables with them having borders and the rest of the table not. And aesthetically, it just looks weird. So, I'll happily welcome any way to improve this current design. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
So you'd prefer it we restored the borders and tried to just reduce the size of the table? Here are some possible formats:
  1. Without border
  2. Table width set automatically by Wikiepedia
  3. Table width reduced by 5%

Betty Logan (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't think the width is a problem. It can take up a fair bit of room that way can't it? So, I don't particularly go for the width reductions. Also, because they then make some rows take up two lines, they effectively make the table bigger length-wise, which is where it needs cutting most. The most effective format for that is the borderless one, which might be growing on me. I don't know... --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I might just not be seeing the problem. I have a small screen—1024x768—and the chart looks pretty compact to me; on my screen it has the same width as the "highest grossing films by year" table. I wouldn't want it much smaller than that because as you say, I start to get double lines—for example, knocking 5% off splits the MCU over two lines. If people have small screens, then presumably they well get more line breaks. If they have larger ones, does the table get stretched out?? Betty Logan (talk) 06:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't know the dimension things of my screen, but I don't ever have the MCU over two lines. The Wikipedia automatically set one makes about half of them "2-liners" for me. Whereas knocking off 5% just makes Narnia split over two. However, that was split over two before, when we weren't reducing width. So, 5% is probably the best bet, but as I said, I'm not sure width is the problem here... --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
There's no point me altering it so it looks worse on my monitor when I can't be sure it's an improvement anywhere else, so I'm going to leave it as it is unless a clear preference is expressed for one of the versions above, or someone makes changes that are more balanced across a wider range of monitor sizes. Betty Logan (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps we should bring the options up at the film project talk page for some third and fourth opinions... Plus, we can see how it turns out on other screens. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 01:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Batman

Batman has 8 films. You forgot Batman (1966) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.5.78 (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I actually checked this, but I couldn't find any box office data for it, so there's a question of how we handle it. First of all I wasn't even sure it had a theatrical release which is a criteria for inclusion in the chart; even if it did, and we decide to add it there's a question of how we present the data: if we say there are eight films, then the total should be averaged out over the eight films, but that would be misleading if the total is only based on seven films. I have no set opinion on how to handle this case, so I'm open to suggestions. Betty Logan (talk) 02:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
This wikia says it was theatrically released, but it provides no source. If this is true, then it probably should be included, but until we find a source for any box office data, it's probably best just to leave it. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 06:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Marvel Cinematic Universe

A suggestion: Under list of highest grossing films series group the iron man films together under marvel cinematic universe. Also, I suggest this be done with all subsequent films in the series, such as with the upcoming Thor 2.

Oh, yeah. I forgot we were going to do that. I don't know how to with the fancy table and all, so I'll just leave it to Betty. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 09:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah we agreed to do that, but I'm leaving it until Captain America comes off release. We would have to replace the series box with a franchise box, and the total in the franchise box isn't automated so the data has to be entered twice. There is no great hurry so I thought I'd save editors a bit of work. Betty Logan (talk) 11:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Also, do you reckon we could get the actual films (within series or franchises) that are currently screening highlighted blue as well? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
You can highlight the sub-tables by setting the release parameter, just as you do with the main table i.e. release=yes. However, you can't highlight the actual films in the series tables, this was a trade/off in making data entry simply. This was to allow the template to automatically assign a variable to each film and gross. The simple way to add highlighting would be to parameterise the template i.e. film1=Shrek, gross1=...., film2=Shrek 2, gross2=...; it would be easy to add a highighting parameter then by adding in highlight1=yes etc. I don't want to do that though because it keeps the tables looking simple for editors adding the data if they don't have to assign parameters. However, there may be hack that would allow us to highlight one film in each sub-table i.e. we could highlight Casino Royale under Daniel Craig, Die Another Day under Pierce Brosnan etc at the same time (but not Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace), which would be ok for us about 99% of the time since not many series have more than one film on release. I have an idea about how this could be done but I'd to test it out first. I should have some time later in the week so I'll have a look at it then. Betty Logan (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Sure. It doesn't really matter, but it was just an idea... --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I've added the extra highlighting which can be "hacked" by specifying the film entry number with the "release" parameter. The main drawback is that we can only highlight one film in each series: if all the LOTR trilogy were to be re-released simultaneously then that would cause problems because we would be limited to one film, but ruling out re-releases most series only have one film on release at any one time so I think it should be ok. To be able to add highligting to each film would require some major code changes, but the hack was relatively easy to do and should be fine in most cases. Anyway I'll leave this open now for feedback. Betty Logan (talk) 09:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
That should be fine. I think in the MCU, Thor and Captain America came out pretty close together, and the ones from the MCU are probably always going to be the ones more at risk of being close to each other. But you shouldn't have to worry about that until at least 2014... All of the confirmed release dates so far are reasonably spread out. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 10:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
MCU won't be a problem once they are grouped into their sub-franchises; since we can highlight one film in each franchise/series then having a Thor or Captain America film coming out simultaneously won't be an issue. Betty Logan (talk) 10:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Puss in boots

Should Puss in Boots be counted as part of the Shrek series? It may be a spin-off, but so is the next generation of star trek, and it's still counted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.5.78 (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah it probably should be, it has a character from the Shrek films set in the same "universe" from my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong), so in that sense it is no different to Wolverine. There isn't a good reason to exclude it from the Shrek franchise entry, although as with Wolverine, there is a case for creating a separate sub-table for it. If no-one objects to its addition I will add it in once the weekend actuals are released tomorrow. Betty Logan (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh ya. Same characters, same fictional universe, and same studio. No-brainer as far as I'm concerned.--JOJ Hutton 17:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I believe the first four shrek films should be separated from puss in boots within the Shrek film series table (sub-tables) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.5.78 (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I also think that we need a sub-table for the Main Series of Shrek films, so that the spin-off is somewhat separated. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
It will get done but I'll leave it until it finishes its run; once you set up sub-tables in means the figures have to be entered twice so may as well save editors a bit of work. Betty Logan (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Mission: Impossible

I was looking at data from Box Office Mojo and noticed that the Mission: Impossible films as a series have grossed more than several of the film series on this list. Mind you, that is largely because the latest installment is in theatres now and adding to the overall total. So should we add the series to the list now, or wait until the current film is finished its box office run and then add the series to the list? Right now the Mission: Impossible series would be good for 17th place (bumping Star Trek out of the top 20) but obviously the current Mission movie is still making money and by the time it is done the series will be higher up overall. Here is the link to the current numbers from BOM: http://boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=missionimpossible.htm --Andrew Filipe (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added it to the chart. Betty Logan (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Star Trek

Any opinions on what to do about Star Trek now it has been bumped from the top 20 in the franchise chart? Generally we would just delete a series once it drops out of the chart, but I'm slightly reluctant to do that here; there will be a new Star Trek film out next year so it will be back in at some point, and it is one of the three iconic series that have been represented in at least four different decades, along with Bond and Star Wars. I don't really want to extend the chart to 25 places because I don't want to bloat the chart, but I think it's worthwile extending the chart an extra place to accommodate such a notable series; a 21 place chart seems to suit the notability of the entries better than a 20 place chart at the moment. Betty Logan (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should extend it to 21. We're trying to display the top grossing franchises of all time, but we want to add Star Trek, because it's notable enough for an "honorable mention". But I think it's better to stick with a round-ish number and say, "Right. Here's the cream of the crop. The top 20 grossing film franchises of all time", than to say "Here's the number of films we think are notable enough, so we'll show that many." So, my opinion is that if Star Trek is notable enough, we extend it to 25. If not, we just leave it out, and add it back in again when more films are released. By the way, what franchises would make the list if it was extended? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know exactly what would be on, but Terminator, the Da Vinci Code films and The Mummy series have all dropped off over the last year or two. Betty Logan (talk) 05:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I figured Mission Impossible franchise would be on there. Honestly I am not sure why the film series isn't it's own list article. This is titled the list of highest-grossing FILMS and film series can qualify as something different of that title subject. Jhenderson 777 00:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Betty Logan just out of curiosity what are the next highest grossing film series. I am guessing the Terminator and the Mummy franchise and if so that would make 23 then what's next. IMO i feel the same way about the Terminator franchise that you said about the Star Trek franchise. Jhenderson 777 00:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The Terminator is another enduring series, sustained for 25 years so maybe we should extend it to the top 25, since we have a couple of iconic franchises hovering around the 20 mark. The fundamental question is does the list carry more weight by including these franchises? Personally speaking, I think it does, because both of these franchises have made their mark on the film industry by being around for a quarter of a century or more. This was the list from a couple of years ago: [7]. Betty Logan (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

What would be the next four currently if the list did go to 25 though. I doubt that the Dan Brown saga would count anymore. I bet Planet of the Apes could even beat that now. It's hard to believe that was more higher grossing than the Die Hard franchise at the time. Jhenderson 777 01:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is a definitive list, since quite a bit of the box office data is missing for older films. The Numbers has a decent list, but is missing international data for the original Planet of the Apes series, but even with it I think it would only put it in the 1-1.1 billion region. The Rocky series is probably the highest grossing series with missing data, and that stands at $1.13 billion, and going off the box office pattern for the others would be about $1.3 billion. Basically I think the list would go like this: 21-Star Trek (1.46), 22-The Mummy (1.41), 23-Terminator (1.4), 24-Kung Fu Panda (1.3), 25-Da Vinci (1.25), 24/25/26-Rocky (1.23-1.3). We can go down to The Terminator without any trouble, but after that we'd need to track down the international gross for Rocky 3 to determine its position. Betty Logan (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The Rocky movies I did wonder about. Just another note there a opinion on the article that I had to remove because of it being a opinion and you should never use the phrase "I" on a article but you might want to look up the opinion. Last I remembered it had something to do with determining how much the films makes determines what should be included. It seems the Number is outdated on some areas. Where is your source that you determine the actual gross of the film anyways? Jhenderson 777 16:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Box Office Mojo is the source of preference because it does seem more on the ball, but we use The Numbers for Star Trek and James Bond because BOM is missing international data for those franchises. Both Superman and Planet of the Apes are billion dollar franchises too if you estimate the missing data, but neither would trouble the top 25. Basically we can be certain about the top 23 (down to The Terminator), but then we can't really go any further than that without a source for Rocky 3's international gross (which neither BOM or the Numbers provide). So the choice here is to stick to the top 20, or go as far as we can before we hit missing data, which would be a top 23. Personally I favor the top 23 option, because then the chart will at least be as complate as we can make it, and we can eventually make it a top 25 when newer franchises penetrate the chart. Betty Logan (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Well it if it's too hard to figure out by sources then I would just recommend saying the same as what the film series article said. Their source is probably Box Office Mojo. Jhenderson 777 02:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The film series article doesn't actually use a source, but it matches up exactly to The Numbers (BOM doesn't have the international figures for the Rocky series); if you go back far enough it had all the data except the Rocky 3 international gross. This figure was filled in by an IP, which hardly fills me with confidence. Betty Logan (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't really feel comfortable with 21 or 23 of them, because I really think that the approach of selecting the top group of a round number of film franchises is the right way to go. As opposed to selecting as many as we can that are known, or as many as we feel like.
Can we show an approximate value for Rocky and make a note of it? Or something like that, so that it expands to 25? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
It would be original research to drop in an estimate, which apart from going against the rules it would also ruin the "purity" of the chart, because then the order can't be guaranteed. I'd rather just rank it on the data we do have, but then we'd end up with a situation where Rocky is not on the chart and it probably should be and Da Vinci is on the chart and it probably shouldn't be. I understand where you are coming from, a top 20/25 looks better than a top 23, but if those are the options it is best to just stop at a top 20, because at least that doesn't compromise the chart. Instead of deleting Star Trek, I will just comment it out so when the new film is released next year at least all the data will still be there. Betty Logan (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, fair enough. I guess it's better to keep a smaller, but correct chart. If you're wanting to keep the Star Trek data though, you can just copy it to a sandbox or something? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If there was a chance to change it to 25 it could be best in the year 2013 when films like Avatar 2, Man of Steel, Star Trek 2 etc come out. I am pretty sure Avatar probably needs just a second movie to make it in the list. And we might have to debate if the Marvel Cinematic Universe should probably count in that year due to Iron Man 3 and Thor 2. It will probably sound ridiculous at that point. Jhenderson 777 02:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Although to be fair Man of Steel actually makes the case stronger for sticking to 20, because it will almost certainly penetrate the top 25, but the Superman series is missing international data for Superman 2-4. On that basis the cut-off point seems to be in a good place for the time being. Betty Logan (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Man, I forgot about Avatar 2... That's gonna be ridiculous. It would already make 7th position in the franchise chart by itself... And I imagine there will come a time when the MCU is really massive, but I don't think you can count it as a separate thing (like a film universe, and therefore, potentially not count it in the franchise chart) at least until there's another one like it... So, maybe if DC starts connecting their films, we should reconsider it. But having said that, the MCU intertwines the films so much, that to separate them would be like separating Spin-offs like Puss in Boots and Wolverine from their main series. And we already have a franchise with 24 films, so I don't see the MCU as a problem at all. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, knowing James Cameron it could be a while before Avatar 2 arrives. The MCU is vaguely ridiculous because it really is several franchises with some cross-over, but Box Office Mojo is the bible to some editors, so pulling the MCU is going to be like pulling teeth without anaesthetic! I mean, when Iron Man 3 comes out we're going to have the ridiculous scenario of having the series twice on the chart. Anyway, I've re-worked some of the prose and added a couple of free to use images, and I think this article is about 90% of the way to Featured List level which I think it has a decent shot at. Betty Logan (talk) 10:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, apparently he's planning on releasing it in December 2014, with a third part in December 2015... Well, I don't look at the MCU as several franchises with a cross-over. On the surface, that's what it is, and it's probably what the comics were in the 60s, but 50 years later, all of the character's stories are so intertwined that it has become the one franchise. The Marvel franchise. And Marvel Studio's plan was to recreate the whole franchise cinematically. They realised they still owned the rights to enough characters to make the Avengers, and part of what makes the Avengers "the Avengers" is that that it's members were all pre-existing heroes. Which is why they had to establish them in their own films first, which looks like crossing over different franchises, but it's more like connecting the parts that make the whole. The pre-Avengers MCU films aren't just being crossed over. They all led to this moment, as the films after the Avengers will lead to a climax of what Kevin Fiege calls "Phase 2" (so long as the Avengers does well at the box office). And if it's all part of the one big story, what makes it less of a franchise or series than reboots or spin-offs that are included? But yeah, if this is near Featured List level, that's fantastic. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and the prose re-working stuff you've done is fantastic as well. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 13:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah the 2014 mention seems to be correct. I imagine the article 2013 and beyond in film is a little outdated. I think it's kind of important to find out the Superman franchise's gross for the past even though it's probably hard to do just in case the Man of Steel threatens that spot. I do think this a pretty decent list article but if I may say so I think the article should avoid overlinking. Particular in one section. Jhenderson 777 15:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed some of the excessive overlinking; we only really need to have the years linked in the year chart, since that is the only chart where the year provides a context i.e. Avatar just happened to be released in 2009, but in 2009 the highest grossing film was Avatar. I've also removed the linking from the highest grossing film from the franchis chart, since we don't need a film linked twice in the same table entry. Betty Logan (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Good job :) Jhenderson 777 23:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Worldwide Inflation-Adjusted Highest Grossing Films Of All Time". Retrieved November 28, 2010.
  2. ^ http://cost.jsc.nasa.gov/inflate.html
  3. ^ "Franchise Index". Box Office Mojo. IMDb. Retrieved July 18, 2010.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films/Archive_3&oldid=1136941205"