Talk:List of highest-grossing films
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Does someone have available the exact algorithm that was used, or access to a way to recreate it? This list is now out-of-date, as for example The Matrix Reloaded is by all accounts somewhere on the top 50, so should be updated. -- Delirium 01:54 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
There are nine films from late '02–'04 ahead of MI2 on the first list which should be on the second --wwoods 17:05, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- There are now 14 films that debuted after MI2 that should be on the second list. MI2 has fallen off the first list now. Rmhermen 03:31, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
The new star wars is a at 692 million and climbing and should go past 850 million. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=starwars3.htm
I updated the list, but got a little mixed up, that's why it's edited so much times by me.
[edit] Ticket Sales
I have changed "ticket sales" to "box office takings" as the former is highly misleading, this is a list of money made not tickets sold. As the list is not adjusted for inflation it is inevitably biassed towards newer films, and against older films. Rje 20:02, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Without Inflation adjusting these stats are meaningless
You mention the fact that inflation matters in the article, but what's the point of just mentioning it? You really need to include the inflation adjusted numbers as the primary list. This list heavily favors new films which are priced in massively inflated dollars. Cshay 19:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The stats are not necessarily meaningless but i do agree that surely the adjusted list should also be included in the article why only mention them? Discordance 02:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
Should this movie be on the list? I think the list would better without it, as all the other movies are $500 million or more, while Crusade is slightly under. I've counted and see that it's a nice round number (40) but since it is not numbered, and few are going to count it, it would probably look better if it just included movies that grossed over half a billion worldwide. Just a thought...Eric Sieck 03:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to remove it if there is no opposition in the next week.Eric Sieck 03:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I say leave it. The fact that it is the only one under $500m is a coincidence, the standings will change in the future. Tnikkel 03:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
So it shall stay. Actually, if it does change, then all the movies indeed will be over half a billion dollars, because Crusade will be knocked off. However, since it doesn't say top 40 at the top, nor as I mentioned before, are they numbered, I still think it would look better as all movies over half a billion dollars. However, disagreement has been shown, so if it is changed in the future, it won't be by me, but my opinion still stands. Eric Sieck 04:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Update needed
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is now 8th, but is still shown as being 12th.
- Based on which data? The list on this page appears to be based on this one at imdb. And Harry Potter is in the correct place according to that page. Tnikkel 20:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 1950's omitted?
Why are the 1950's omitted from the [inflation adjusted] list?
- Well, they're not omitted as such, it just happens that no film from the 1950s was big enough box-office around the world. Why? Post-war austerity, fewer people being able to afford tickets, difficult to say categorically.--Stevouk 18:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Two Towers
Perhaps someone can get an accurate edit on that BJAODN.
[edit] What a terrible article
The list is pretty accurate, but the figures are way, way off! User:Gmeric13@aol.com
[edit] Spider-Man 2
Anyone notice that it appears twice in this list? :P --Nbmatt 00:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
With $964 million unadjusted, shouldn't it be at least somewhere on the adjusted list as well?Ribonucleic 15:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, since no one else did it, I've put it at #15 - based on putting the unadjusted total through the CPI calculator at http://www.minneapolisfed.org/Research/data/us/calc/ Ribonucleic 17:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Asterisks for re-released movies on the Adjusted list
I'm too lazy to look for references on these. But the Disney films used to be re-released every 7 years, I'm pretty sure. The Special Edition of the SW original trilogy definitely played in theaters. ET was re-released twice, I think - back when Spielberg was still pretending he'd never put it on video. I know GWTW was re-released in theaters because I watched it there. The only one I'm iffy on is Lion King. But I think I remember that coming back once. Ribonucleic 00:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This list is not credible.
I first found the equivalent of this list on imdb.com. I'm having a really hard time believing two of the entries: Titanic and Gone with the Wind. Granted, these were both blockbusters among blockbusters, but I find it more than a little odd that Titanic grossed $1.8353 billion in 1997, whereas the next highest gross that year was Jurassic Park at $614.3 million—-ostensibly everybody in the world saw Jurassic Park, so how did Titanic exceed its sales by a factor of 2.99? Other sources quote Titanic's take as much lower (e.g., $789,300,000 listed at http://www.teako170.com/inflation.html, which admittely is reporting only domestic sales; but still, that leaves more than a billion in foreign box office--not likely). Nearer, my god, to thee, indeed.
As to GWTW, according to this table only four movies earlier than 1970 broke more than $200 in box office sales (the other three being Bambi, One Hundred and One Dalmations, and The Jungle Book—-all Disnamations. We're really meant to believe that in 1939 Gone With the Wind sold $390.5 million at the box office, more than any other movie until Jaws came along 36 years later? And that The Wizard of Oz, the other blockbuster from that annus mirabillis, didn't even break two mill? Given the general inflation rates between 1939 and present (1,316.43% ), a movie in 2006 would have to gross $5.14 billion-—almost thrice what Titanic made, though that was unadjusted 1997 dollars-—to be comparable to the cited GWTW box office. But perhaps that calculation is probably skewed because the general inflation rate is not representative of the inflation in box office prices. Well, ok, Box Office Mojo tells us that the average movie ticket price in 1939 was $.23 and that in 2006 it is $6.58; that represents an inflation rate of 2,860.87%, so the GWTW box office would translate to $11.17 billion in 2006 box office sales—-more than 10 times the take of the highest-grossing movie so far this year (Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest).
Finally, and most problematically, there's no citation anywhere on this page about the source of these data, so I honestly don't believe they should be presented as fact on wikipedia.