Talk:List of highest-grossing films

"Pirates: At world's end" is in top 10 now...how to update it? I wish it crosses the 1 billion mark !!!!!!!!!

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 This list is now out-of-date, as for example The Matrix Reloaded is by all accounts somewhere on the top 50, so should be updated.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.

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)

How many people saw the movie?

I think it would be better to make a list of how many tickets were sold instead of how much money each movie made. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.120.172.142 (talk) 06:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

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)

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. Qutezuce 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)

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. Qutezuce 20:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

The Two Towers

Perhaps someone can get an accurate edit on that BJAODN.

What a terrible article

The list is pretty accurate, but the figures are way, way off! User:Gmeric13@aol.com

Spider-Man 2

Anyone notice that it appears twice in this list? :P --Nbmatt 00:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.

GWTW was re-released in 1947, 1954, 1961, 1967 , 1971, 1989, and 1998 so thats why its numbers seem way off. That said one of the lists is wrong or incomplete as they don't match each other. Back to the Future (1985) is number 6 on the unadjusted list but doesn't even make the inflation list where it should beat Jurassic Park (1993) and Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (1999) (witch isn't even on the first list).Errror1 21:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This list here is inaccurate. There is not a single Bond movie on the list. Using BOX-OFFICE TOP 100 U.S. FILMS Unadjusted and Adjusted list at http://www.filmsite.org/boxoffice.html shows that in adjusted for inflation list there is Thunderball as number 26 and Goldfinger as number 39. If you access Wiki Bond page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_bond you will find out that calculating inflation by using inflation score for budget, Thunderball earned 903 million, Goldfinger earned 812 million, Live and Let Die earned 735 million, You Only Live Twice earned 674 million, The Spy Who Loved Me earned 617 million, Diamonds Are Forever earned 578 million, Casino Royale earned 571 million, Moonraker earned 534 million and From Russia with Love earned 512 million. This error seems quite deliberate and malicious. If some people don't like Bond movies then that certainly doesn't give them a right to lie here and fabricate facts. I dispute this whole page therefore. Ravenlord 09:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Birth of a Nation: Ihave just read an article on wikipedia claiming birth of a nation is the highest grossing film ever, Yet it is nowhere to be seen on this list.

Why Box Office grosses have gone up so greatly

Everyone talks about inflation driving up the box office totals and the reason why the top grossing films are from the last twenty years, but I don't think it's as big of a factor as people think. There's something else that's not mentioned: number of screens. This has been the biggest factor affecting box office grosses. The original Star Wars movies only played on about 1000 screens in North America, so they could only make $10 million or so a weekend. (These are ballpark figures, but you get the idea.) Films like Star Wars and E.T. would get their money by stringing together these sorts of weekends throughout the summer. But the last twenty years has seen an explosion of movie theater screens. Modern films play on about 4000 in North America, and we're not even getting into the increase in international grosses. That's why films such as Spider-man and Harry Potter have been able to open with $100 million, and that's why I believe the films of the last twenty years have been able to chart high on the all time list. The population has increased, of course, but more importantly, getting the movies to these people has become easier. If you build a theater closer to where someone lives, you're more likely to get that someone to the movie. The number of screens is so closely linked to the money a film can make, a good site like boxofficemojo will tell you how many a film is going to be playing on when it comes out. Celedor15 19:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

435 Billion for Gone with the Wind?

Apparently, adjusted with inflation, Gone with the wind has grossed 1% of the world's current GDP. I realize this is an extremely faulty comparison, but I felt the only way I could comprehend how ridiculous that number was, was to make that kind of comparison. There is no way that number is accurate. Rocksbush 04:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The list says $4.39 billion now. You may have counted the decimals. Still, that number has no citation. This link has the 2006 inflation adjusted number at about $1.33 billion. Shawnc 00:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Explicit citation needed

The lists require a mention of exactly where or how the numbers are derived. The source must be credible. Shawnc 22:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

But we need some way to prove that Gone With The Wind and Star Wars were comparatively more successful than Titanic!

That "proof" doesn't exist.Yoyocoolboy 23:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

And if you look at the old list, NO citations were used to prove the numbers that were posted. Thus, the list, source, or whatever was posted on that page was NOT credible.Yoyocoolboy 23:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete the Worldwide inflation gross list

4 things are needed to know in order to receive how many tickets a movie sold so you can convert a movie's box office gross into an adjusted for inflation gross.

1. What year the movie was released/rereleased.

2. How much the average movie ticket was they year the movie was released/rereleased.

3. How much the movie made during each release/rerelease.

4. The average ticket price of the year you're going to convert the movie's release/rerelease grosses into.

There's no place that we can find all 4 variables for most of the movies that were released before 1990; so we can't go around making up lists and pulling numbers out of our heads unless we know all 4 of those variables.

gone with the wind's release/rerelease totals are non-existent. Boxofficemojo only lists one clumped up list of what the movie made throughout all the years it was released/rereleased. So whoever posted that 2.6 billion dollar adjusted for inflation gross MADE IT UP. Why should numbers that people make up be allowed to be posted on this site and confuse/mislead people?

I will also prove that Titanic's actual adjusted for inflation gross is over 2.64 billion dollars, not 2.2.

(Using the variable list I created above)

1. 1997

2. $4.59

3. $1,845,034,188

4. 2007/$6.58

I will now take the $1,845,034,188 total and divide that number by the average movie ticket price of 1997 ($4.59) to result in how many tickets were sold. (401,968,233)

I take the number of tickets sold (401,968,233) and now multiply that number by the average ticket price of a movie today ($6.58) to result in the true adjusted for inflation Worldwide gross for Titanic.

I come out with a result of $2,644,950,971.03. (Which means Titanic should at least be number 3 on that BS and made up list.)

That's how you really discover a movie's adjusted for inflation gross.

Because there's just so much we don't know about movie grosses that were released before 1990, there just shouldn't be a list because we just don't have enough information to create one.

... posted at 07:38, 7 June 2007 by Yoyocoolboy

You make some very good points, Yoyocoolboy. Incidentally, how do we even know recent average ticket prices? Presumably people know them for the US, for Brazil, for Hungary, for Uganda, for Brunei, etc etc; but do people actually work out the price in each nation? Because if they don't, even your calculation becomes worthless. Instead, you need the earnings for nation X divided by the average ticket price for nation X, plus the earnings for nation Y divided by the average ticket price for nation Y, etc etc (ad nauseam). It's not impossible that accountants somewhere do compile this information, but do they really? -- Hoary 09:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Look it up on boxofficemojo.com. Here's the link to show the average ticket prices of today.http://www.boxofficemojo.com/about/adjuster.htm

Breaking up the gross by nation is something that can't be done. Which would mean that my calculations aren't exactly 100% true, but that also means that the list that exists right now is also 100% fake. (at least I try to prove my numbers by using math instead of just posting some random numbers)

There's not enough information on each movie's worldwide gross to create a list; so it should be deleted as soon as possible.Yoyocoolboy 00:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Are these even average ticket prices? Or are they instead average US ticket prices? (All of this seems dodgier and dodgier.)

Let's wait a week and see if anyone posts a reasoned defense of the contents of this list. -- Hoary 01:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

That's the only credible list that exists right now. And those are the numbers boxofficemojo uses to create their adjusted for inflation domestic list (so why not have a list that we know is a fact using ONLY the domestic grosses; instead of worldwide)

I'm guessing that that's the US dollar movie ticket prices (though not 100 percent sure)

But either way, the list that's featured on wikipedia presently is very far off and still very untrue.Yoyocoolboy 03:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

PROD removal

This article was "prodded", on the grounds that about half of it was worthless (as argued in the section above).

Let's assume for a moment that the charge above is well founded. That in itself is no reason to delete the article. Deletion would have removed the other half too.

Despite having no particular affection for this article and being very suspicious of a lot of its content, I therefore removed the prod template. -- Hoary 09:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

In case you still think it should be deleted, you should go to Articles for deletion In fact, I've already come across a listing on the AfD log which I removed, since it was both misspelled and there is currently no no main tag nor discussion page. In case you want to nominate the article, please follow the three steps outlined at WP:AfD#How to list pages for deletion. --Tikiwont 12:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoah, what happened to the second table? It should be put back there.

No it should not. It was 100% made up and had no proof to back it up.

Why would you want people to be mislead or become confused.

I THANK whomever decided to delete that list! May it never be seen again!Yoyocoolboy 23:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)