![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Ok, confusion here. 'Harry Potter and Deathly Hallows Part 1' was released worldwide only about 5 weeks ago (November 18-19 2010). Has it already been pulled off cinema screens worldwide so soon?? Because it's not highlighted in blue (according to this article). I didn't get news from any of the HP sites regarding the same. I was under the impression that WB was targeting the $billion mark at the BO (& as of now, it's well short of the target). Or maybe, the person who made this change in the article knows something the rest of us don't. I live in India, and 'Harry Potter' (released here on 19 November 2010) is still running in some cinema screens. 59.184.151.29 ( talk) 05:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I have to say that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 has not been pulled from the theaters, this information is wrong and largely incorrect Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 is still in theaters where I live and I have friends that live in many places !! Bear ( talk) 21:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)User Bear620 (talk) Bear ( talk) 21:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
The film, Inception is out of cinemas, and should, therefore, have the blue background taken off it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.149.191 ( talk) 21:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
A certainly relevant figure would be a budget-gross comparison at what magnitude the gross exceeded the budget (200%, 300%...). Moreover, it'd certainly also be one way of dealing with the problem of inflation. Lastly, I'm pretty certain that if a section on budget-gross comparison would be introduced, Terry Gilliam's Time Bandits would be pretty high up on that, with a gross exceeding its budget at more than 8 times. -- 79.193.45.181 ( talk) 21:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The section on the main page that covers the higherst grossing films of each year originally had the three Star Wars films listed with their new names, not the original release names. Each film was released under the 3 titles: Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi. The "Episode" tags were added by George Lucas in the late 1990's during each films rerelease. Never were any of those films during those early years ever refered to in such a manner. I corrected the names ,but was partially reverted. Now I can come up with a ton of sources and waste my time and everyone elses time looking through them, that state the names as they were when they were originally released, but can't we all agree that the actual title of the films at the time of original release did not include the "Episode" in the title? And since this particular section deals only with the amount of box office gross during the original year it was released, shouldn't the original title be used rather than the what it was changed to 20 years later? |- As far as the "All-Time" section goes, the gross of those films include both the original release and the rerelease box office numbers, and most likely should include the current title of the film. Although a case could be made for that section to use the title that grossed the most in the box office, whatever that may be.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 19:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The main point of these charts is to rank box office performance, but there seems to be a lot of extra information which doesn't really enhance our understanding. I've made a few suggestions below that I believe will bring the focus directly back onto the numbers, so would appreciate a few opinions. I've broken them down so feel free to accept/reject on the basis of each individual proposal. Betty Logan ( talk) 01:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
None of the other charts include the budgets, and the budget is only necessary if you are going to include profit/loss analysis. Budgets are usually only estimated too, and often vary for many films. I don't think it adds anything by including budget information, and it's inconsistent with the other charts. Readers can look up the budget information on the article for the film if they really want to know. I propose removing it. Betty Logan ( talk) 01:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Again, irrelevant chart information, and it is inconsistent with the treatment of the other charts. The obvious solution is to either add the field to the other charts or remove it. Adding it to the other charts involves quite a lot of work and I don't really see what information value it would add to the charts - if we want to compare the commercial success of directors we should have a chart ranking directors really - so I propose removing it. Betty Logan ( talk) 21:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the most bizarre field on any of the charts. Most of the others list the studio that made the film, but this chart opts for the distributor over studio. It doesn't make sense to list a company that fulfils a less important role, and makes it inconsistent with the other charts. I propose either replacing it with "Studio" to make it consistent or removing it. Betty Logan ( talk) 01:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think listing the production comapnies/studios is particularly important for interpreting the chart. It is also the most misunderstood field in that editors often mistake distributors for producers because they've seen the Fox logo or whatever. I'm often having to put it right. I think production information should be kept localised to the articles about the films themselves. I prospose removing the field. Betty Logan ( talk) 01:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The same argument above applies here, but there is another argument for scrapping "studio" from teh chart. In the case of long running series like the Terminator films that have changed hands a lot or taken on new partners, there are quite a few production companies to list, and the dates they were active within the series. It's not even clear which companies made which films, and the production information is starting to dominate the chart. I propose removing. Betty Logan ( talk) 01:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
As we know, Nolan has Dark Knight and Inception on the list, and Dark Knight so far ranks no. 7.
The same to Inception,
Legendary Pictures &
Syncopy Films also participated the filmmaking or production of Dark Knight, but the list only has the primary one,
Warner Bros. on it. That's why I kept only Warner Bros. of Inception, in order to ease the difference between the two films. Then, should I complete the studios listed of Dark Knight or simplify the production companies of Inception like I did in my version??
TW-mmm333k (
talk)
17:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Over the last few days, an editor has started removing what he calls "non major companies" from the 'studio' columns for the Harry Potter films: [4]. He gives the reason that these smaller companies "do not fit the guidlines [sic] to this page". This is incorrect, but it does highlight the problem that we don't actually have any guidelines for what information we include here. There are essentially five options, so I would like to get some input from the other regular article editors:
There is a problem of consistency for the article. At the moment we list all companies for all films, but if we remove companies from Harry Potter for not having a Wikipedia article should we remove Pacific Western from The Terminator entry? The worst case scenario is that we make the information inconsistent. At the very least, we should choose a criteria and it should be applied across the whole list. In view of that I ask all editors to please refrain from making unilateral changes until there is a consensus for one of the above options, and once a clear decision is made the changes can then be applied systematically across the article. Betty Logan ( talk) 14:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I noticed something odd about this section. Though it's supposed to be the highest-grossing film at the time, it appears that some of the numbers lower on the list are actually lower than higher entries (for example, The Godfather has over 150 million dollars less than Gone with the Wind, but somehow it beat it). This doesn't make much sense to me. I could be overlooking something, but it looks wrong to me. Kevinbrogers ( talk) 19:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
This is off, The Godfather does not belong, given it's current total. Also the number of years for a record held is off with The Godfather being there. Does anybody know what is correct? DanielDPeterson ( talk) 04:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The film The Exorcist out grossed The Godfather but this is not listed. That needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.81.244 ( talk) 16:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please Change number of star wars films from 7 to 6, as there were only six Star Wars Films. DarkHelmet82 ( talk) 17:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Not done: The source used to reference the chart states there are seven films.
Betty Logan (
talk)
17:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I know there are people here who have spent a lot of time on this table, so I thought it would be better just to bring this problem to the attention of other editors to this page instead of trying to fix it myself.
I tried to sort the table in the Highest-grossing film series section by "Average of films" and it kind of sorted, but not exactly. You can see if you go click on it, but basically it creates two groups, each of which are sorted from most to least (or vice-versa) within themselves. It also does this if you sort by "Total worldwide box office". I'm pretty certain that what's causing this error is that some of the figures for total and average contain a summation formula, to aid in incorporating movies that are currently or were recently in theaters. The series that contain a calculation instead of a straight figure are Harry Potter, Pirates of the Caribbean, Shrek, Toy Story, Twilight, Narnia, and The Fast and the Furious, and if you go sort the table, you'll see that this is the exact group that is separate from the rest.
Any ideas on how to make this table fully sortable? I'm wondering if wrapping all the figures in {{ nts}} would be sufficient, or if the #expr thing would be needed too. I lack familiarity with wikitable coding though, so I'll wait and see if there's someone here who knows just how to fix it. Princess Lirin ( talk) 21:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I know it sounds stupid since I tried it once and it was rejected but is it possible to change the "Worldwide highest-grossing films" section from the 50 highest-grossing films of all time to the 100 highest-grossing films of all time? I mean, the other highest-grossing films in the UK, US and Canada alone have got their 100 highest-grossing films in their sections so is it possible to do it on the worldwide article as well? I know it's a bit silly to ask but is it possible? Darkness2005 21:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello all. The problem started on Talk:List of highest-grossing Bollywood films#Copyright concerns, where it was also suspected that there is a copyright problem here too, because the data of boxofficemojo is often based on estimates. On its about page it is stated, "the calendar gross data is generally considered more comprehensive after 2001, while pre-2001 estimates are considered approximate" and "when daily data is not available, estimates are used and are based on weekend and weekly data and historical box office trends." Shahid • Talk2me 07:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. :) I just wanted first to make clear that I did tell Shahid that if he could show that the list was not based on actual statistics (as was the case with the Bollywood film lists), he should tag it for evaluation for copyright concerns. ( Here.) (I did not evaluate the criteria because at that time I was pretty much the only administrator working copyright problems, and the last list article to be tagged for copyright evaluation remained blanked a long time while I waited for somebody else to close it.)
(I have been meaning for some time to launch a community discussion on the question of how to use elements from creative lists (as estimates are), but have been preoccupied by other things...and really reluctant to broach the issue, because it's a messy one. But it needs to happen, and I've put out preliminary at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#Copyright in lists.)
In terms of the data in the list, the US Court of Appeals has found copyright in "approximative statements of opinion" ( 44 F.3rd 61 (2nd Cir. 1994)). It seems that contemporary films in the list are not approximate, but actual gross. (I agree with Betty that the projections may be a problem.) With the pre-2001 films, do they explain how they arrive at their estimates? (Please forgive me if this should be obvious; I've just gotten home from traveling, and I'm definitely not up to speed. :D) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Personally I think to claim these lists are copyright infringements is a little extreme.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Dude. Stop blanking the article. You can have your little talk with the giant tag still there, but blanking the article out of spite is just stupid. -- Boycool ( talk) 14:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
This tag and pageblank should be removed at once. It's clearly against consensus, had no debate beforehand, and seems retaliatory for a copyvio notice on List of highest-grossing Bollywood films in overseas markets. No consensus on this page, or elsewhere on Wikipedia has defined estimated sums in this context as copyrighted. The fact that, given all of the above, the page has been blanked for over 24 hours is simply unacceptable, and could be construed as vandalism. Any such copyright changes regarding this matter should be extensively discussed before being single-handedly implemented; and while I assume good faith, I'm rather surprised at Shshshsh's actions. Nigholith ( talk) 14:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I would like to note that everthing I did on here was definitely not out of spite, and it's quite upsetting to think that someone does not assume good faith on my well intentioned actions. I genuinely wanted to know if the same problem applied here as well rather than create the same kind of turmoil. Considering my previous and recent experience with copyright, I was sure no consensus had to predate the investigation process in such cases, and as I can see from Moonriddengirl here, I was right. I apologise if anyone was offended by my tagging the article. As I said, I hope this discussion helps to prevent any such issues in the future. Shahid • Talk2me 16:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I think under the Highest-grossing films by year section, that I should be able to put hyperlinks on 1918 in film - 1999 in film. It is a good addiction that will make it easier for viewers to access films in that year time period. Secondly, I should be able to put budgets under each of the sections. Jar789 ( talk) 01:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
The billion dollar mark of the Dark Knight was due to the re-release. Then, you should also count Avatar's re-release money, which makes Avatar a 3-billion dollar grosser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.43.150.29 ( talk) 19:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Why are the grosses for some of the films in this section (e.g. Star Wars, Grease, Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, Back to the Future, Jurassic Park) have different grosses then the ones provided on Box Office Mojo? They are not the same. ~ Jedi94 ( talk) 20:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I hate it when two different sites say something different. This and this for example. It might make one Wikipedia article say something different than the other. Jhenderson 777 23:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please unbold "highest-grossing films" in the lead sentence.
According to WP:BOLDTITLE, "if the page title is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface". I regard "List of highest-grossing films" as a generic title and I believe bolding it or any part of it doesn't function as a useful visual cue for the reader's convenience like it does on articles with non-generic titles. -- 87.79.229.232 ( talk) 16:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
hi,
in "1.1 Issues with calculation" there is a word missing i tihink. it´s at the end of the 4th paragraph:
"The 1910 Census in the United States, for example, counted less than 100 million people while the 2010 Census counted than three times that at over 308 million."
shouldn´t there be a "more" before "than" ?
Kirilliz (
talk)
13:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
When you order the table by highest grossing film in series, HP7.2 is 4th, and considering it's now the 3rd highest grossing film, in general, I think something's wrong. -- ProfessorKilroy ( talk) 02:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
i wish to bring the movie box office amount up to date for 2 movies StoneColdScorpio ( talk) 03:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
It has (according to its Wikipedia page) reached $651 million so therefore should be at no. 50 on this list, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.42.125 ( talk) 19:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Could you please update the box-office totals of Deathly Hallows part 2 in the section titled 'Highest Grossing Films by Year'? In the Section titled 'Highest Grossing Films', DH2 currently stands at $1,137,290,382, whereas in the section titled 'Highest Grossing Films by Year', the overall box-office total is currently stuck at $1,134,186,045. So, could someone please fix that? Even in the Wikipedia article for DH2 [12], the box-office total is currently given as $1,137,290,382.
Thanks. 59.184.148.239 ( talk) 13:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm getting your point. But my question is, why is DH2's box office gross at one place in the article different from its gross at another place in the article? It's the same film, right? I understand that you do update the box office tally regularly (I'm not denying that), and I completely rely on this article for box-office grosses. But at least the grosses should be uniform throughout the article. At one place in the article (Highest Grossing Films), the DH2 gross is given as $1.137 bn , and at another place in the article (Highest grossing Films By Year) the gross is given as $1.134 bn. DH2 is currently 2011's highest grossing film, domestically and internationally. So, going by your article, which gross should I consider as the correct one?? $1.137bn or $1.134bn? I know that you have to wait for Box Office Mojo to update their grosses as well. But then, at least keep a uniformity in the numbers. I mean, you can't have one gross at one place in the article, and another gross at another place in the article for the same film. Besides, it's obvious enough that when you change the overall BO numbers for DH2 in the section titled 'Highest Grossing Films', its numbers in the section titled 'Highest Grossing Film by Year' (for 2011) would also change, since DH2 is currently the highest grossing film of 2011. But this is not the case. May I know the reason why? That is what I meant by updating your grosses. I'm not saying you are not updating your grosses. But there is no uniformity in the numbers throughout the article. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say here. Could you please rectify this problem?
Thanks. 59.184.180.29 ( talk) 16:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
It's been fixed now. Thanks. 59.184.180.29 ( talk) 17:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Lord of the Rings film franchise does not include 4 movies, the addition of the animated film from the 70s does not properly display the correct averages and total gross of the films. The logic here is if your going to include every film ever associated with a certain character or group of characters that you would have to add in a few more films for the Batman series and others like that, it just doesn't make sense to throw in some animated film that was not even associated to the Peter Jackson films in anyway other than sharing its name, it makes it look as though the franchise underperformed when in fact it has averaged better than Harry Potter which is where I am suspecting the request for the previous change came from last time. The change back to the original 3 movies and average gross would be much obliged and would certainly make it much more understandable to the public, because I know when I saw the change it threw me for a loop and I couldn't figure out where that change had come from.
Knowlwall ( talk) 09:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change it back
Knowlwall ( talk) 15:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Why all of a sudden has it been changed though? It makes no sense that after all these years it gets changed like this. So why not just change it back? No harm no foul, just get it done.
Knowlwall ( talk) 15:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please could you update the overall grossing amount for harry potter and the deathly hallows pt 2 = $1,215,137,355 82.30.115.243 ( talk) 23:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
The title of this page is misleading. It only speaks about films produced in the United States, thus I believe it should be titled "List of highest-grossing American films". There is already a page for highest grossing Indian films (which is actually undergoing a deletion nomination debate). EelamStyleZ ( talk) 21:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
DANZILLAMAN" Harry Potter and James Bond are American, the harry potter books and james bond books are British but the distributor who is Warner.Bro (Harry P) and MGM (James B) are both american. Even though the books are British".DANZILLAMAN
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are three lord of the rings movies.
195.33.129.54 ( talk) 10:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
The Lion King has been rereleased, yet it isn't being shaded in blue to denote that it is in theaters. Please fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.5.78 ( talk) 19:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
The first table on the page has issues. The Year, Ref, and Inflation-adjusted gross columns are all messed up... some of the years are in the Inflation section and some of the Refs are in the year section. Can someone please fix it so that everything is in the right column? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.99.247 ( talk) 23:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Currently Lion King is stated in blue at the top 50 movies, while this should be Pirates of the Carribean: On Stranger Tides. Blue being from 2011 and Lion King being from 1994, while Pirates is from 2011. Something probably went wrong when Pirates was moved up due to increased value.
83.86.200.209 ( talk) 21:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
The template {{ HighestWorldwideGrossMovies}} has been nominated for deletion. Interested parties are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Im not an American hater or anything but can people please stop changing it to Sorcerer's Stone? The book and movie is known as Philosopher's Stone everywhere except the USA. It's also a UK based film and book so should be as it is in the UK, which is Philosopher's Stone. 125.238.96.175 ( talk) 03:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)James
Unfortunately many American's think there is nothing worth knowing, understanding, or watching that doesn't come from the USA. I recall hearing an American film critic purporting to be surprised that Britain had a film industry at all! The reality is that the two highest grossing film series (James Bond and Harry Potter) are British, and the third (Star Wars) was largely filmed and produced in the UK. 124.197.15.138 ( talk) 07:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Not really fair to attack American's like that? Saying we think nothing is worth knowing or understanding? It is not our fault that when the powers that be decided to market the books and movie in America that they changed the name. For whatever reason they did it and it is ridiculous to think it has anything to do with the quality of the literature or movie. People shouldn't throw out judgmental comments that aren't warranted. A lot of movies and books are changed for different regions of the world mostly because words can get lost in translation and have different meanings around the world. The bottom line is the book or movie in question is the same regardless of the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joebova138 ( talk • contribs) 03:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC) You see, I could leave some grand, large comment on this matter, concerning all of the untrue things said within this discussion, legal work, finances, international affirs... But I will not. Instead, I will offer a resoltuion- Harry Potter and the Philosophers's/Sorcerer's Stone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastaguy12 ( talk • contribs) 14:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
The gross revenue of Lion King needs to be changed back to it's original revenue from it's 1994 release. It's 2011 release should be counted as a new movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.240.50.85 ( talk) 22:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Why not? Lets do it. All movies that has had re-releases should have their gross revenues changed back to it's original release's box office. It makes the whole list inaccurate.-- 209.240.50.58 ( talk) 18:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
There is an inconsistency in the list for the gross for Star Wars. According to the list of top 50 highest grossing films, it grossed less than E.T. But, on highest grossing films per year it says Star Wars grossed more than E.T. It doesn't make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.5.78 ( talk) 20:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Ok, confusion here. 'Harry Potter and Deathly Hallows Part 1' was released worldwide only about 5 weeks ago (November 18-19 2010). Has it already been pulled off cinema screens worldwide so soon?? Because it's not highlighted in blue (according to this article). I didn't get news from any of the HP sites regarding the same. I was under the impression that WB was targeting the $billion mark at the BO (& as of now, it's well short of the target). Or maybe, the person who made this change in the article knows something the rest of us don't. I live in India, and 'Harry Potter' (released here on 19 November 2010) is still running in some cinema screens. 59.184.151.29 ( talk) 05:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I have to say that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 has not been pulled from the theaters, this information is wrong and largely incorrect Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 is still in theaters where I live and I have friends that live in many places !! Bear ( talk) 21:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)User Bear620 (talk) Bear ( talk) 21:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
The film, Inception is out of cinemas, and should, therefore, have the blue background taken off it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.149.191 ( talk) 21:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
A certainly relevant figure would be a budget-gross comparison at what magnitude the gross exceeded the budget (200%, 300%...). Moreover, it'd certainly also be one way of dealing with the problem of inflation. Lastly, I'm pretty certain that if a section on budget-gross comparison would be introduced, Terry Gilliam's Time Bandits would be pretty high up on that, with a gross exceeding its budget at more than 8 times. -- 79.193.45.181 ( talk) 21:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The section on the main page that covers the higherst grossing films of each year originally had the three Star Wars films listed with their new names, not the original release names. Each film was released under the 3 titles: Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi. The "Episode" tags were added by George Lucas in the late 1990's during each films rerelease. Never were any of those films during those early years ever refered to in such a manner. I corrected the names ,but was partially reverted. Now I can come up with a ton of sources and waste my time and everyone elses time looking through them, that state the names as they were when they were originally released, but can't we all agree that the actual title of the films at the time of original release did not include the "Episode" in the title? And since this particular section deals only with the amount of box office gross during the original year it was released, shouldn't the original title be used rather than the what it was changed to 20 years later? |- As far as the "All-Time" section goes, the gross of those films include both the original release and the rerelease box office numbers, and most likely should include the current title of the film. Although a case could be made for that section to use the title that grossed the most in the box office, whatever that may be.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 19:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The main point of these charts is to rank box office performance, but there seems to be a lot of extra information which doesn't really enhance our understanding. I've made a few suggestions below that I believe will bring the focus directly back onto the numbers, so would appreciate a few opinions. I've broken them down so feel free to accept/reject on the basis of each individual proposal. Betty Logan ( talk) 01:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
None of the other charts include the budgets, and the budget is only necessary if you are going to include profit/loss analysis. Budgets are usually only estimated too, and often vary for many films. I don't think it adds anything by including budget information, and it's inconsistent with the other charts. Readers can look up the budget information on the article for the film if they really want to know. I propose removing it. Betty Logan ( talk) 01:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Again, irrelevant chart information, and it is inconsistent with the treatment of the other charts. The obvious solution is to either add the field to the other charts or remove it. Adding it to the other charts involves quite a lot of work and I don't really see what information value it would add to the charts - if we want to compare the commercial success of directors we should have a chart ranking directors really - so I propose removing it. Betty Logan ( talk) 21:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the most bizarre field on any of the charts. Most of the others list the studio that made the film, but this chart opts for the distributor over studio. It doesn't make sense to list a company that fulfils a less important role, and makes it inconsistent with the other charts. I propose either replacing it with "Studio" to make it consistent or removing it. Betty Logan ( talk) 01:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think listing the production comapnies/studios is particularly important for interpreting the chart. It is also the most misunderstood field in that editors often mistake distributors for producers because they've seen the Fox logo or whatever. I'm often having to put it right. I think production information should be kept localised to the articles about the films themselves. I prospose removing the field. Betty Logan ( talk) 01:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The same argument above applies here, but there is another argument for scrapping "studio" from teh chart. In the case of long running series like the Terminator films that have changed hands a lot or taken on new partners, there are quite a few production companies to list, and the dates they were active within the series. It's not even clear which companies made which films, and the production information is starting to dominate the chart. I propose removing. Betty Logan ( talk) 01:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
As we know, Nolan has Dark Knight and Inception on the list, and Dark Knight so far ranks no. 7.
The same to Inception,
Legendary Pictures &
Syncopy Films also participated the filmmaking or production of Dark Knight, but the list only has the primary one,
Warner Bros. on it. That's why I kept only Warner Bros. of Inception, in order to ease the difference between the two films. Then, should I complete the studios listed of Dark Knight or simplify the production companies of Inception like I did in my version??
TW-mmm333k (
talk)
17:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Over the last few days, an editor has started removing what he calls "non major companies" from the 'studio' columns for the Harry Potter films: [4]. He gives the reason that these smaller companies "do not fit the guidlines [sic] to this page". This is incorrect, but it does highlight the problem that we don't actually have any guidelines for what information we include here. There are essentially five options, so I would like to get some input from the other regular article editors:
There is a problem of consistency for the article. At the moment we list all companies for all films, but if we remove companies from Harry Potter for not having a Wikipedia article should we remove Pacific Western from The Terminator entry? The worst case scenario is that we make the information inconsistent. At the very least, we should choose a criteria and it should be applied across the whole list. In view of that I ask all editors to please refrain from making unilateral changes until there is a consensus for one of the above options, and once a clear decision is made the changes can then be applied systematically across the article. Betty Logan ( talk) 14:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I noticed something odd about this section. Though it's supposed to be the highest-grossing film at the time, it appears that some of the numbers lower on the list are actually lower than higher entries (for example, The Godfather has over 150 million dollars less than Gone with the Wind, but somehow it beat it). This doesn't make much sense to me. I could be overlooking something, but it looks wrong to me. Kevinbrogers ( talk) 19:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
This is off, The Godfather does not belong, given it's current total. Also the number of years for a record held is off with The Godfather being there. Does anybody know what is correct? DanielDPeterson ( talk) 04:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The film The Exorcist out grossed The Godfather but this is not listed. That needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.81.244 ( talk) 16:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please Change number of star wars films from 7 to 6, as there were only six Star Wars Films. DarkHelmet82 ( talk) 17:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Not done: The source used to reference the chart states there are seven films.
Betty Logan (
talk)
17:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I know there are people here who have spent a lot of time on this table, so I thought it would be better just to bring this problem to the attention of other editors to this page instead of trying to fix it myself.
I tried to sort the table in the Highest-grossing film series section by "Average of films" and it kind of sorted, but not exactly. You can see if you go click on it, but basically it creates two groups, each of which are sorted from most to least (or vice-versa) within themselves. It also does this if you sort by "Total worldwide box office". I'm pretty certain that what's causing this error is that some of the figures for total and average contain a summation formula, to aid in incorporating movies that are currently or were recently in theaters. The series that contain a calculation instead of a straight figure are Harry Potter, Pirates of the Caribbean, Shrek, Toy Story, Twilight, Narnia, and The Fast and the Furious, and if you go sort the table, you'll see that this is the exact group that is separate from the rest.
Any ideas on how to make this table fully sortable? I'm wondering if wrapping all the figures in {{ nts}} would be sufficient, or if the #expr thing would be needed too. I lack familiarity with wikitable coding though, so I'll wait and see if there's someone here who knows just how to fix it. Princess Lirin ( talk) 21:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I know it sounds stupid since I tried it once and it was rejected but is it possible to change the "Worldwide highest-grossing films" section from the 50 highest-grossing films of all time to the 100 highest-grossing films of all time? I mean, the other highest-grossing films in the UK, US and Canada alone have got their 100 highest-grossing films in their sections so is it possible to do it on the worldwide article as well? I know it's a bit silly to ask but is it possible? Darkness2005 21:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello all. The problem started on Talk:List of highest-grossing Bollywood films#Copyright concerns, where it was also suspected that there is a copyright problem here too, because the data of boxofficemojo is often based on estimates. On its about page it is stated, "the calendar gross data is generally considered more comprehensive after 2001, while pre-2001 estimates are considered approximate" and "when daily data is not available, estimates are used and are based on weekend and weekly data and historical box office trends." Shahid • Talk2me 07:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. :) I just wanted first to make clear that I did tell Shahid that if he could show that the list was not based on actual statistics (as was the case with the Bollywood film lists), he should tag it for evaluation for copyright concerns. ( Here.) (I did not evaluate the criteria because at that time I was pretty much the only administrator working copyright problems, and the last list article to be tagged for copyright evaluation remained blanked a long time while I waited for somebody else to close it.)
(I have been meaning for some time to launch a community discussion on the question of how to use elements from creative lists (as estimates are), but have been preoccupied by other things...and really reluctant to broach the issue, because it's a messy one. But it needs to happen, and I've put out preliminary at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#Copyright in lists.)
In terms of the data in the list, the US Court of Appeals has found copyright in "approximative statements of opinion" ( 44 F.3rd 61 (2nd Cir. 1994)). It seems that contemporary films in the list are not approximate, but actual gross. (I agree with Betty that the projections may be a problem.) With the pre-2001 films, do they explain how they arrive at their estimates? (Please forgive me if this should be obvious; I've just gotten home from traveling, and I'm definitely not up to speed. :D) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Personally I think to claim these lists are copyright infringements is a little extreme.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Dude. Stop blanking the article. You can have your little talk with the giant tag still there, but blanking the article out of spite is just stupid. -- Boycool ( talk) 14:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
This tag and pageblank should be removed at once. It's clearly against consensus, had no debate beforehand, and seems retaliatory for a copyvio notice on List of highest-grossing Bollywood films in overseas markets. No consensus on this page, or elsewhere on Wikipedia has defined estimated sums in this context as copyrighted. The fact that, given all of the above, the page has been blanked for over 24 hours is simply unacceptable, and could be construed as vandalism. Any such copyright changes regarding this matter should be extensively discussed before being single-handedly implemented; and while I assume good faith, I'm rather surprised at Shshshsh's actions. Nigholith ( talk) 14:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I would like to note that everthing I did on here was definitely not out of spite, and it's quite upsetting to think that someone does not assume good faith on my well intentioned actions. I genuinely wanted to know if the same problem applied here as well rather than create the same kind of turmoil. Considering my previous and recent experience with copyright, I was sure no consensus had to predate the investigation process in such cases, and as I can see from Moonriddengirl here, I was right. I apologise if anyone was offended by my tagging the article. As I said, I hope this discussion helps to prevent any such issues in the future. Shahid • Talk2me 16:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I think under the Highest-grossing films by year section, that I should be able to put hyperlinks on 1918 in film - 1999 in film. It is a good addiction that will make it easier for viewers to access films in that year time period. Secondly, I should be able to put budgets under each of the sections. Jar789 ( talk) 01:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
The billion dollar mark of the Dark Knight was due to the re-release. Then, you should also count Avatar's re-release money, which makes Avatar a 3-billion dollar grosser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.43.150.29 ( talk) 19:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Why are the grosses for some of the films in this section (e.g. Star Wars, Grease, Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, Back to the Future, Jurassic Park) have different grosses then the ones provided on Box Office Mojo? They are not the same. ~ Jedi94 ( talk) 20:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I hate it when two different sites say something different. This and this for example. It might make one Wikipedia article say something different than the other. Jhenderson 777 23:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please unbold "highest-grossing films" in the lead sentence.
According to WP:BOLDTITLE, "if the page title is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface". I regard "List of highest-grossing films" as a generic title and I believe bolding it or any part of it doesn't function as a useful visual cue for the reader's convenience like it does on articles with non-generic titles. -- 87.79.229.232 ( talk) 16:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
hi,
in "1.1 Issues with calculation" there is a word missing i tihink. it´s at the end of the 4th paragraph:
"The 1910 Census in the United States, for example, counted less than 100 million people while the 2010 Census counted than three times that at over 308 million."
shouldn´t there be a "more" before "than" ?
Kirilliz (
talk)
13:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
When you order the table by highest grossing film in series, HP7.2 is 4th, and considering it's now the 3rd highest grossing film, in general, I think something's wrong. -- ProfessorKilroy ( talk) 02:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
i wish to bring the movie box office amount up to date for 2 movies StoneColdScorpio ( talk) 03:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
It has (according to its Wikipedia page) reached $651 million so therefore should be at no. 50 on this list, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.42.125 ( talk) 19:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Could you please update the box-office totals of Deathly Hallows part 2 in the section titled 'Highest Grossing Films by Year'? In the Section titled 'Highest Grossing Films', DH2 currently stands at $1,137,290,382, whereas in the section titled 'Highest Grossing Films by Year', the overall box-office total is currently stuck at $1,134,186,045. So, could someone please fix that? Even in the Wikipedia article for DH2 [12], the box-office total is currently given as $1,137,290,382.
Thanks. 59.184.148.239 ( talk) 13:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm getting your point. But my question is, why is DH2's box office gross at one place in the article different from its gross at another place in the article? It's the same film, right? I understand that you do update the box office tally regularly (I'm not denying that), and I completely rely on this article for box-office grosses. But at least the grosses should be uniform throughout the article. At one place in the article (Highest Grossing Films), the DH2 gross is given as $1.137 bn , and at another place in the article (Highest grossing Films By Year) the gross is given as $1.134 bn. DH2 is currently 2011's highest grossing film, domestically and internationally. So, going by your article, which gross should I consider as the correct one?? $1.137bn or $1.134bn? I know that you have to wait for Box Office Mojo to update their grosses as well. But then, at least keep a uniformity in the numbers. I mean, you can't have one gross at one place in the article, and another gross at another place in the article for the same film. Besides, it's obvious enough that when you change the overall BO numbers for DH2 in the section titled 'Highest Grossing Films', its numbers in the section titled 'Highest Grossing Film by Year' (for 2011) would also change, since DH2 is currently the highest grossing film of 2011. But this is not the case. May I know the reason why? That is what I meant by updating your grosses. I'm not saying you are not updating your grosses. But there is no uniformity in the numbers throughout the article. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say here. Could you please rectify this problem?
Thanks. 59.184.180.29 ( talk) 16:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
It's been fixed now. Thanks. 59.184.180.29 ( talk) 17:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Lord of the Rings film franchise does not include 4 movies, the addition of the animated film from the 70s does not properly display the correct averages and total gross of the films. The logic here is if your going to include every film ever associated with a certain character or group of characters that you would have to add in a few more films for the Batman series and others like that, it just doesn't make sense to throw in some animated film that was not even associated to the Peter Jackson films in anyway other than sharing its name, it makes it look as though the franchise underperformed when in fact it has averaged better than Harry Potter which is where I am suspecting the request for the previous change came from last time. The change back to the original 3 movies and average gross would be much obliged and would certainly make it much more understandable to the public, because I know when I saw the change it threw me for a loop and I couldn't figure out where that change had come from.
Knowlwall ( talk) 09:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change it back
Knowlwall ( talk) 15:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Why all of a sudden has it been changed though? It makes no sense that after all these years it gets changed like this. So why not just change it back? No harm no foul, just get it done.
Knowlwall ( talk) 15:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please could you update the overall grossing amount for harry potter and the deathly hallows pt 2 = $1,215,137,355 82.30.115.243 ( talk) 23:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
The title of this page is misleading. It only speaks about films produced in the United States, thus I believe it should be titled "List of highest-grossing American films". There is already a page for highest grossing Indian films (which is actually undergoing a deletion nomination debate). EelamStyleZ ( talk) 21:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
DANZILLAMAN" Harry Potter and James Bond are American, the harry potter books and james bond books are British but the distributor who is Warner.Bro (Harry P) and MGM (James B) are both american. Even though the books are British".DANZILLAMAN
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are three lord of the rings movies.
195.33.129.54 ( talk) 10:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
The Lion King has been rereleased, yet it isn't being shaded in blue to denote that it is in theaters. Please fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.5.78 ( talk) 19:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
The first table on the page has issues. The Year, Ref, and Inflation-adjusted gross columns are all messed up... some of the years are in the Inflation section and some of the Refs are in the year section. Can someone please fix it so that everything is in the right column? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.99.247 ( talk) 23:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Currently Lion King is stated in blue at the top 50 movies, while this should be Pirates of the Carribean: On Stranger Tides. Blue being from 2011 and Lion King being from 1994, while Pirates is from 2011. Something probably went wrong when Pirates was moved up due to increased value.
83.86.200.209 ( talk) 21:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
The template {{ HighestWorldwideGrossMovies}} has been nominated for deletion. Interested parties are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Im not an American hater or anything but can people please stop changing it to Sorcerer's Stone? The book and movie is known as Philosopher's Stone everywhere except the USA. It's also a UK based film and book so should be as it is in the UK, which is Philosopher's Stone. 125.238.96.175 ( talk) 03:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)James
Unfortunately many American's think there is nothing worth knowing, understanding, or watching that doesn't come from the USA. I recall hearing an American film critic purporting to be surprised that Britain had a film industry at all! The reality is that the two highest grossing film series (James Bond and Harry Potter) are British, and the third (Star Wars) was largely filmed and produced in the UK. 124.197.15.138 ( talk) 07:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Not really fair to attack American's like that? Saying we think nothing is worth knowing or understanding? It is not our fault that when the powers that be decided to market the books and movie in America that they changed the name. For whatever reason they did it and it is ridiculous to think it has anything to do with the quality of the literature or movie. People shouldn't throw out judgmental comments that aren't warranted. A lot of movies and books are changed for different regions of the world mostly because words can get lost in translation and have different meanings around the world. The bottom line is the book or movie in question is the same regardless of the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joebova138 ( talk • contribs) 03:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC) You see, I could leave some grand, large comment on this matter, concerning all of the untrue things said within this discussion, legal work, finances, international affirs... But I will not. Instead, I will offer a resoltuion- Harry Potter and the Philosophers's/Sorcerer's Stone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastaguy12 ( talk • contribs) 14:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
The gross revenue of Lion King needs to be changed back to it's original revenue from it's 1994 release. It's 2011 release should be counted as a new movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.240.50.85 ( talk) 22:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Why not? Lets do it. All movies that has had re-releases should have their gross revenues changed back to it's original release's box office. It makes the whole list inaccurate.-- 209.240.50.58 ( talk) 18:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
There is an inconsistency in the list for the gross for Star Wars. According to the list of top 50 highest grossing films, it grossed less than E.T. But, on highest grossing films per year it says Star Wars grossed more than E.T. It doesn't make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.5.78 ( talk) 20:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)