How to deal with All-Time Worldwide Box office

[Torgo]

Since we had countless discussions on this in diverse threads like the ones on iCM 3.0, Official updates, Weekly updates and so on I thought it would be appropriate to start a concrete topic.


As you may have noticed, the position of All-Time Worldwide Box office in the list progress tab changed to "Miscellaneous" for a few days and is now located to "Websites".
Moderator PeacefulAnarchy had the following to say about this:

Imdb finally took down their version of the list, so it will be updated manually from now on and we're going to change the limit. That's why it was changed from the imdb category.

But there's more to it, a solution to how fix the inflationary, excessive growth of the list is in work:

Debating between $250 million, 500 films or a combo of both (i.e. must be above 250 million and in the top 500). Not a huge change but just preemptively keeping it from spiraling out of control. It'll still be a big list with the same stuff as before. 49 movies from the last two years meet that criteria.

Now what would that mean?
If you take a look at the most-reliable source, Box Office Mojo, The Mask of Zorro (1998) at #462 would be the last film to make $250 Mio at the BO out of the current 628.
The list would become a bit shorter, but also lose some of the older titles like The Godfather (1972), Saturday Night Fever (1977), 101 Dalmatians (1961) or Moonraker (1979).
For a new film, it's almost as easy to pass 250 mio as 200 mio (due to higher ticket prices, 3D, China, et al).
For exampe: of the staggering 32 movies released in 2015 which hit the 200 mio mark (so far), only 7 were below 250 mio. For 2014, we have even 43 entries, only 9 below 250 mio; for 2013, it's 39 entries, only 7 below. And so on.

At the current rate, a 500-entry limit for the list would be safely reached by the end of the year. From then on, with so many films making 200 or 300 mio and more, new releases would drive out all older releases step by step.


I know the moderators are doing their best to keep the list from spiraling out of control, so this is not meant to talk down their idea - just to gather more ideas to find a satisfying solution.


What about a more flexible $threshold? Like 1939-1995: 200 mio (like before), 1995-2004: 250 mio minimum, 2005-2010: 300 mio minimum, 2011 and beyond: 350 mio - would that come to close to the "inflation-adjusted" version of the list we already have? At least it would look finer to me, as in: less Pixels and Yogi Bear

[Torgo]

By the way: I'm not even a big enemy of the list as it is now. It's crap and my desire to complete it lessens with each new entry, but it's always relieving to see a shit movie like the latest Transformers or Lone Ranger pop up and think: "Well, at least I've not seen it for nothing!"

[Buksemannen]

The best solution would be to remove the list!

[Hunziker]

What about a more flexible $threshold? Like 1939-1995: 200 mio (like before), 1995-2004: 250 mio minimum, 2005-2010: 300 mio minimum, 2011 and beyond: 350 mio - would that come to close to the "inflation-adjusted" version of the list we already have? At least it would look finer to me, as in: less Pixels and Yogi Bear

What about a "50 top grossing movies per decade" kind of deal? It would limit the list to 400-500 movies, depending on when you set the starting point. It would also be very close to the inflation-adjusted version though.

[Harco]

$250m and 500 entries seem fine. It's called "all time worldwide;" there shouldn't be room for biases.

[PeacefulAnarchy]

What about a more flexible $threshold? Like 1939-1995: 200 mio (like before), 1995-2004: 250 mio minimum, 2005-2010: 300 mio minimum, 2011 and beyond: 350 mio - would that come to close to the "inflation-adjusted" version of the list we already have? At least it would look finer to me, as in: less Pixels and Yogi Bear

What about a "50 top grossing movies per decade" kind of deal? It would limit the list to 400-500 movies, depending on when you set the starting point. It would also be very close to the inflation-adjusted version though.

We've talked about something like that. If that happens, I don't think it would replace this list. I think there's a desire for a list of big blockbusters like this one which is different from what a Top 50 per decade would give.

I think Torgo's suggestion is too cumbersome and deviates too much from the source to be acceptable for everyone.

The inflation adjusted list is U.S. domestic and has its own peculiarities so it wouldn't be all that similar to either of the above suggestions, besides the several dozen all time big blockbusters that will be in all the lists.

[Hunziker]

What about a more flexible $threshold? Like 1939-1995: 200 mio (like before), 1995-2004: 250 mio minimum, 2005-2010: 300 mio minimum, 2011 and beyond: 350 mio - would that come to close to the "inflation-adjusted" version of the list we already have? At least it would look finer to me, as in: less Pixels and Yogi Bear

What about a "50 top grossing movies per decade" kind of deal? It would limit the list to 400-500 movies, depending on when you set the starting point. It would also be very close to the inflation-adjusted version though.

We've talked about something like that. If that happens, I don't think it would replace this list. I think there's a desire for a list of big blockbusters like this one which is different from what a Top 50 per decade would give.

I think Torgo's suggestion is too cumbersome and deviates too much from the source to be acceptable for everyone.

The inflation adjusted list is U.S. domestic and has its own peculiarities so it wouldn't be all that similar to either of the above suggestions, besides the several dozen all time big blockbusters that will be in all the lists.

Well, ok... The only thing that worries me about that scenario is that we would end up with 1200+ (500+500+200) movies on BO lists, wich seems a bit too much.

EDIT: But ultimately I guess it would be ok with it if the number does not continue to rise like nowadays.

[PeacefulAnarchy]

What about a "50 top grossing movies per decade" kind of deal? It would limit the list to 400-500 movies, depending on when you set the starting point. It would also be very close to the inflation-adjusted version though.

We've talked about something like that. If that happens, I don't think it would replace this list. I think there's a desire for a list of big blockbusters like this one which is different from what a Top 50 per decade would give.

I think Torgo's suggestion is too cumbersome and deviates too much from the source to be acceptable for everyone.

The inflation adjusted list is U.S. domestic and has its own peculiarities so it wouldn't be all that similar to either of the above suggestions, besides the several dozen all time big blockbusters that will be in all the lists.

Well, ok... The only thing that worries me about that scenario is that we would end up with 1200+ (500+500+200) movies on BO lists, wich seems a bit too much.

EDIT: But ultimately I guess it would be ok with it if the number does not continue to rise like nowadays.

Well, there's plenty of overlap so if I had to guess it'd be more like 8/900 movies, and the new movies on a Top50 per decade kind of list would be from the 20s-70s which would at least provide something different.

Anyway there's no guarantee such a list would happen. It's an idea I've floated before and at least a few of the mods would consider it, but I don't think it's a priority especially now that we've decided the Worldwide Box Office list will stay, in its new limited form.

I'm mostly glad the current list will not be ever growing because while I like a box office list or two on the site, I think the way this one was growing the cutoff was becoming increasingly meaningless.

[Harco]

So when will it get its new cutoff (I see it has just been updated)?

[PeacefulAnarchy]

So when will it get its new cutoff (I see it has just been updated)?

End of January, when we announce the new adoptions.

[Hunziker]

I'm mostly glad the current list will not be ever growing because while I like a box office list or two on the site, I think the way this one was growing the cutoff was becoming increasingly meaningless.

Indeed.

[jeff_v]

Here is a world-wide, inflation adjusted all-time box office list, and it appears to be somewhat up-to-date (there are a few 2015 titles on there, but no Star Wars: TFA yet). However, it's only tracking $1B+ grossing films.

[monclivie]

I'm ok with 250 million or top 500. Please, don't change the rules to make this another list full of old movies. We already have the list of older box office hits.

[jvv]

Just do a top 500. No need for a money cutoff, since that will be growing with time anyway.

[Gershwin]

To be honest, I think a list that doesn't correct for inflation is much more meaningless than one that does. What if another financial crisis arises and inflation would rocket sky-high? Would we just get a post-2016 list then? In 50 years the worth of a US dollar has increased with about 650% ...

[Fergenaprido]

Yes, but how do you calculate inflation for different currencies for a worldwide box office list?

The decade idea is nice, but agreed it should be a different thing, not a replacement.

For worldwide box office, a top 250 or 500 should be sufficient. If films fall off, they fall off. Unless you want to go big and turn this into an eventual top 1000 list, in which case you can have a $200 mil cutoff for now until the list reaches 1000, and then have a cap on the number of films.

[Nathan Treadway]

Yes, but how do you calculate inflation for different currencies for a worldwide box office list?

My understanding of the 'Adjusted for Inflation" numbers that are floating around websites like Box Office Mojo is it's not a true "Adjusted for Inflation." It seems it's more of a "tickets sold" number.

Adjusted to the estimated 2016 average ticket price of $8.61. Inflation-adjustment is mostly done by multiplying estimated admissions by the latest average ticket price. Where admissions are unavailable, adjustment is based on the average ticket price for when each movie was released (taking in to account re-releases where applicable).

[Samlion]

i'm against a cap at 500 because in 5 years, you will get only very recent movies and lose track of major BO success from the 70/80/90 and even 00. so doing this is a big mistake and it will just increase the presence of recent and crap movies and you will still have the whole transformers or twilight series. you can be sure it will be filled by marvel and other super hero movies.
i'm not sure that the target of this update is to get ride of out of africa or the godfather

now that the list is updated manually, a minimum BO gross can be set by decade. the debate is to determine those minimum for the 00's and 10's
in the 80'S and 90's, 200 m$ worldwide was a huge and true BO success and in 2016 it doesn't mean nothing

[Gershwin]

(...)

now that the list is updated manually, a minimum BO gross can be set by decade.
in the 80'S and 90's, 200 m$ worldwide was a huge and true BO success and in 2016 it doesn't mean nothing

[monclivie]

i'm against a cap at 500 because in 5 years, you will get only very recent movies and lose track of major BO success from the 70/80/90 and even 00. so doing this is a big mistake and it will just increase the presence of recent and crap movies. you can be sure it will be filled by marvel and other super hero movies.
i'm not sure that the target of this update is to get ride of out of africa or the godfather

now that the list is updated manually, a minimum BO gross can be set by decade.
in the 80'S and 90's, 200 m$ worldwide was a huge and true BO success and in 2016 it doesn't mean nothing

There is another box office list for people interested in 70/80/90 where The Gofather has a safe place forever, and Out of Africa.. wtf? It made only 128 million worldwide.

[Cippenham]

i'm against a cap at 500 because in 5 years, you will get only very recent movies and lose track of major BO success from the 70/80/90 and even 00. so doing this is a big mistake and it will just increase the presence of recent and crap movies and you will still have the whole transformers or twilight series. you can be sure it will be filled by marvel and other super hero movies.
i'm not sure that the target of this update is to get ride of out of africa or the godfather

now that the list is updated manually, a minimum BO gross can be set by decade. the debate is to determine those minimum for the 00's and 10's
in the 80'S and 90's, 200 m$ worldwide was a huge and true BO success and in 2016 it doesn't mean nothing

Yes agreed

[Samlion]

i'm against a cap at 500 because in 5 years, you will get only very recent movies and lose track of major BO success from the 70/80/90 and even 00. so doing this is a big mistake and it will just increase the presence of recent and crap movies. you can be sure it will be filled by marvel and other super hero movies.
i'm not sure that the target of this update is to get ride of out of africa or the godfather

now that the list is updated manually, a minimum BO gross can be set by decade.
in the 80'S and 90's, 200 m$ worldwide was a huge and true BO success and in 2016 it doesn't mean nothing

There is another box office list for people interested in 70/80/90 where The Gofather has a safe place forever, and Out of Africa.. wtf? It made only 128 million worldwide.

this is stupid, you prefer to get avengers 4 and fats & furious 11 instead of great, really popular and worldwide known good films
if you cap, you can say goodbye to many 00's movies. but maybe 15 years ago, is already to old for you ?

do you get an idea of the treamendous success that 128 worldwide gross means in 1974 ?

:troll:

[clemmetarey]

What about adapting the minimum to inflation as well ?
For example, 200m$ in 1990 equals 365 something milions in 2015, and 200m$ in 1980 is 580m$ in 2015. It would make quite a difference towards new films if the minimum is 580m$.

[monclivie]

this is stupid, you prefer to get avengers 4 and fats & furious 11 instead of great, really popular and worldwide known good films
if you cap, you can say goodbye to many 00's movies. but maybe 15 years ago, is already to old for you ?

do you get an idea of the treamendous success that 128 worldwide gross means in 1974 ?

:troll:

I'm just asking to not change the rules in favor of older movies because they already have their place. If this was my choice I wouldn't change the limit because I'd like to have them all, but since the change seems inevitable - yes, I prefer to have at least one official list with really popular and worldwide known avengers 4 and fats & furious 11, than another list with The Godfather. Not because they are better, but because the name of the list is all-time worldwide box office not all-time greatest popular movies and this is icheckmovies, not icheckgreatclassicmovies or icheckfavoritemoviesofelitefilmbuffs. Leaving some place for recent blockbusters won't hurt anyone and watching them shouldn't be worth less than watching tvrips of obscure noirs, Finnish movies with one vote in some poll or a short with people pissing on each other.

Do you get an idea that Out of Africa was released in 1985 and wasn't a big commercial success and was never on the list?

[ChrisReynolds]

Im against setting different cutoffs per decade as I think it unnecessarily complicated things for an aim which is essentially the same as the inflation adjusted list.

A simple top 500 for the Unadjusted box office list should be fine.

[1SO]

I wouldn't get complicated adapting the list to cover different inflation rates over different decades. You want an Adjusted For Inflation list, then that should be separate.

As for the current list, I'd raise the minimum threshold to 500 million, or even 750 million. Better to create a long term solution than one that will overwhelm the list soon.

[Tasselfoot]

No reason to set it for inflation or set it per decade. We already have that list, in the Top 200 Inflation Adjusted Domestic list. The All-Time Unadjusted Worldwide list is PRECISELY for newer movies... that's basically it's whole point. It isn't meant to be some historic chronicle of successful films across the years (that's the point of the other list!)... it's to chronicle successful films of today and recent years, and it accidentally includes some older films because they were super successful and still meet the criteria of today.

Make it top500 now or $250m+ now with a 500 cap... makes almost no difference; as has been said, by the end of 2016, we'll have 500+ films over $250m. I'm just glad it'll have a cap. IMO, I'd cap it a lot higher (top200)... but that's my opinion, which I've stated before in other threads.

[Hunziker]

I think I hate more that list for the eternal discussions it provokes than for its movies themselves.

[tommy_leazaq]

Top 500 would be ideal. This list should be for the general audience. So I'd rather have the likes of pirates 15, avengers 8.5 at the expense of godfather and 2001.

[Cippenham]

Top 500 would be ideal. This list should be for the general audience. So I'd rather have the likes of pirates 15, avengers 8.5 at the expense of godfather and 2001.

IT would up as list of films from last 3 or 4 years, a terrible fate indeed. That is Not an all time list at all as you have excluded the older films.

[PeacefulAnarchy]

Older films are already excluded. The current decade break down:
30s: 1
40s: 1
50s: 0
60s: 1
70s: 9
80s: 29
90-94: 47
95-99: 79
2000-2004: 109
2005-2009: 128
2010-2015: 223

There are more movies from the last 5 years (185) than from before 2000 (168). There are more movies from 2015 alone (32) than from before 1988 (28).

A limit doesn't significantly alter the general composition of the list. It is and will always be, with or without a limit, a list dominated by recent blockbusters. Losing a few of the older films in exchange for losing a bunch of recent films that are actually considered flops has gotten to the point where it's worthwhile in our view. Those older films are represented elsewhere. It's a list is of recentish blockbusters and it's best to accept that and if we feel there should be a list with older blockbusters then that can be addressed elsewhere because this list can't be that for a variety of factors.

[Cippenham]

Older films are already excluded. The current decade break down:
30s: 1
40s: 1
50s: 0
60s: 1
70s: 9
80s: 29
90-94: 47
95-99: 79
2000-2004: 109
2005-2009: 128
2010-2015: 223

There are more movies from the last 5 years (185) than from before 2000 (168). There are more movies from 2015 alone (32) than from before 1988 (28).

A limit doesn't significantly alter the general composition of the list. It is and will always be, with or without a limit, a list dominated by recent blockbusters. Losing a few of the older films in exchange for losing a bunch of recent films that are actually considered flops has gotten to the point where it's worthwhile in our view. Those older films are represented elsewhere. It's a list is of recentish blockbusters and it's best to accept that and if we feel there should be a list with older blockbusters then that can be addressed elsewhere because this list can't be that for a variety of factors.

That's OK as,long as you accept it could consist only of films in last 5 years at some point so you could then consider a separate list for older blockbusters if there is a demand from ICM more general users.

[monclivie]

That's OK as,long as you accept it could consist only of films in last 5 years at some point so you could then consider a separate list for older blockbusters if there is a demand from ICM more general users.

You mean suddenly 500 movies will beat Avatar and Titanic? It's not going to happen. Even Jurassic Park is still in the top 20, and Star Wars and E.T in top 100. It's easier to make the list because of China, but all the real blockbusters of 80s and 90s will be there for many years. The list of older blockbusters already exists and whatever would be created wouldn't be much different.

[Gershwin]

It's easier to make the list because of China, but all the real blockbusters of 80s and 90s will be there for many years.

Do you think so? Because those are my main concern, not really old films like Gone with the Wind. As long as they stay there, I won't be calling for correction for inflation any more. If there's a plain 'popular taste' list, I like it to have the occasional film that appears on TV every few months, like for instance some bad comedy with Mel Gibson from the 90s.

[Lammetje]

Leaving some place for recent blockbusters won't hurt anyone and watching them shouldn't be worth less than watching tvrips of obscure noirs, Finnish movies with one vote in some poll or a short with people pissing on each other.

Well put!

And Torgo, I love the topic description. It has proven to be an apt one judging by the various replies here.

[monclivie]

It's easier to make the list because of China, but all the real blockbusters of 80s and 90s will be there for many years.

Do you think so? Because those are my main concern, not really old films like Gone with the Wind. As long as they stay there, I won't be calling for correction for inflation any more. If there's a plain 'popular taste' list, I like it to have the occasional film that appears on TV every few months, like for instance some bad comedy with Mel Gibson from the 90s.

I don't know about Mel Gibson, but looks like Back To The Future, Indiana Jones, Terminator 2, all the Star Wars, Independence Day, Mrs. Doubtfire, Home Alone and many others will stay there for a very long time.

[PeacefulAnarchy]

It's easier to make the list because of China, but all the real blockbusters of 80s and 90s will be there for many years.

Do you think so? Because those are my main concern, not really old films like Gone with the Wind. As long as they stay there, I won't be calling for correction for inflation any more. If there's a plain 'popular taste' list, I like it to have the occasional film that appears on TV every few months, like for instance some bad comedy with Mel Gibson from the 90s.

I don't know about Mel Gibson, but looks like Back To The Future, Indiana Jones, Terminator 2, all the Star Wars, Independence Day, Mrs. Doubtfire, Home Alone and many others will stay there for a very long time.

Yeah, the current growth is mostly in the 200-400M range, the really big hitters won't be moving for a long time.

To put it another way, if those films end up out of the Top 500, then the list of films over 200M will be in the several thousands and I don't think anybody wants the box office list to have several thousand titles.

[Samlion]

why 200 m$ has been decided in the beginning, because in the 90's a movie was considered to be success with 100m$ domestic (usa+canada) gross and 100m$ worldwide. double the us gross before china, russia or mexico was really an achievement. and gathering BO figures from foreign countries was a big challenge.
if we miss so much 70/80 movies it's because boxofficemojo is uanble to get date from foreign countries
now to be a success, you have to, at least triple the us gross

another idea could be to put a number per year like 10

for the record, i think there is too many movies in this list, it became a monster. however i like it, i only miss 19 movies. i still refuse to see Yogi bear

[Torgo]

i only miss 19 movies. i still refuse to see Yogi bear

[PeacefulAnarchy]

At least Yogi Bear will be gone so you won't have to watch it. I refuse to watch the Fast and Furious movies and those aren't going anywhere.