How to deal with All-Time Worldwide Box office

[joachimt]

I still want to create decade lists as well. Movies will keep dropping off, especially from the WW-list. So it would be a good idea to give a permanent list for the best X movies per decade.

[dirty_score]

Even though I understand the decision based on the source, I can't say i'm happy with this expansion even if it gets me new checks.

I think the mods should have followed a set of rules to cap both lists, like when they do on lists where movies with just 1 or 2 votes don't deserve to enter.

For instance, now the rule of 200k goes out the window and any movie thats makes less money can enter the list. I used to follow the ATWWBO list with some interest but now it just feels exhausting.

It's obviously Box Office Mojo fault for not putting some brakes and everyone should see whatever they want to see, regardless of official check or not but I don't know.. we're reaching a point of making every movie official..

Just my 2 cents.


PS: I'm getting more inclined to thoses decade lists now.

[OldAle1]

Even though I understand the decision based on the source, I can't say i'm happy with this expansion even if it gets me new checks.

I think the mods should have followed a set of rules to cap both lists, like when they do on lists where movies with just 1 or 2 votes don't deserve to enter.

For instance, now the rule of 200k goes out the window and any movie thats makes less money can enter the list. I used to follow the ATWWBO list with some interest but now it just feels exhausting.

It's obviously Box Office Mojo fault for not putting some brakes and everyone should see whatever they want to see, regardless of official check or not but I don't know.. we're reaching a point of making every movie official..

Just my 2 cents.


PS: I'm getting more inclined to thoses decade lists now.

I don't really have a problem at all with the WW list expansion - that list was already at over 800 titles, and given the rate at which new films make it to $200 million it would have hit 1000 titles in probably 3 years - and would then keep on growing. So this feels like a sensible compromise to me.

As to the inflation-adjusted list the real problems from my perspective are 1) that's it almost totally American - but it already was before so that's a moot point, and 2) that the data for earlier decades just isn't that good, so there are precious few films previous to the mid-80s on the list. Only 48/1000 films pre-date 1990 which seems grossly inaccurate, though to be fair the wider opening strategies in recent decades and the focus by studios on smaller numbers of bigger films probably do indicate a greater number of box office hits in recent decades even if we had perfect data. But not 95%!

EDIT - I was actually looking at the wrong list when writing my second paragraph, d'oh! So it's not as extreme in it's focus on recent decades as I wrote - but it's still clearly severely lacking in data prior to the 60s and I'd say probably a bit lacking prior to the 80s - I don't think a lot of regular reporting of box office started to happen until the latter decade, and while there are probably records around, they haven't been incorporated in such a way as to make this list more inclusive of the pre-LucasSpielberg era.

[dirty_score]

Yes, I know that at some point the WW list will inevitably reach the 1000 movies. I just wish that the rule of 200k was kept regardless of the source displaying 1000 titles. top 50 lists display 100 titles but they chose to keep it at 50, because it's better for newcomers and that they probably won't click on the source button.

Anyway, it's the inflated list that's the real problem and maybe this one should be replaced by decade lists?!

[Teproc]

I feel the opposite way. 1000 may be too long for a domestic box-office list, but at least it makes some amount of sense: these are the 1000 most commercially succesful films in the US after 1980, essentially.

The worldwide list, OTOH... using money as a way of measuring success when you can't adjust for inflation makes the whole thing meaningless. Just count admissions, every country reports on admissions... but yes, I know we don't have a handy source for that, so a 1000 cap is preferable to a meaningless 200K cap at least.

[OldAle1]

Wild - I dropped 599 spots on the All Time (Adjusted) list... and gained exactly the same number on the All Time Worldwide. Safely outside the top 1000 on the former list now, and edging closer to breaking into the top 5000 on the latter. If only I cared.

[joachimt]

top 50 lists display 100 titles but they chose to keep it at 50, because it's better for newcomers and that they probably won't click on the source button.

This is absolutely not true. The sourcepage is an advanced search on IMDb which we created. There are no lists of 100 on IMDb. There never have been. It's just that the advanced search results list 100 movies per page by default. We never decided to make a top 100 smaller. We only found a way to continue the old top 50's that used to be on IMDb. We didn't want to ditch those lists when IMDb did, because of legacy-reasons (the IMDb-lists is how iCM once started) and they are a good starting point for newbies.

[erde]

I still want to create decade lists as well. Movies will keep dropping off, especially from the WW-list. So it would be a good idea to give a permanent list for the best X movies per decade.

Me too, absolutely! Especially, since inflation-adjusted list seems to misrepresent older films.

[tommy_leazaq]

I'm happy that the Box Office lists debate is settled for good now. Or is it?

[joachimt]

Or is it?

You never know with these lists.

[xianjiro]

Or is it?

You never know with these lists.

But we consider it settled on our end, right? The "never know" is a reference to BOM making yet more changes - or am I misunderstanding something?

[joachimt]

Or is it?

You never know with these lists.

But we consider it settled on our end, right? The "never know" is a reference to BOM making yet more changes - or am I misunderstanding something?

Yeah, I meant "you never know with BOM". We don't plan to change the listlengths, as long as BOM presents them in the current form.

[dirty_score]

How frequent the list will be updated? On a weekly basis?

It seems to me the WW is more volatile than the other. 12 monkeys dropped off and now it's back at 1000th.

[albajos]

That depend how BOM handle rereleases. Sometimes they continue the previous Box Office stats, sometimes they start anew (last one seem like a huge error, but they do)

With rereleases and recalculating the box office things will change. Older movies will usually get a boost either way. Gone with the Wind seems impossible to beat as it is recalculated higher and higher and higher as ticket prices rise.

[joachimt]

How frequent the list will be updated? On a weekly basis?

I don't know how often BOM updates it, but I scheduled to update it every Tuesday.

[Torgo]

Just checked the entry for Murder on the Orient Express (1974) these days - it's ranked #996 on the Adjusted Box Office list. 5 more, newer, hipper blockbusters to enter - Chinese ones, probably - and poof, it will be gone! And by that, it will be rendered unofficial. Quite the popular movie to vanish into the depths of listlessness.
Scrooged (1988), Bill Murray's hit, will also be gone and unofficial, already with a new BO entry with a rank of at least #999. Also, soon, Spy Kids 2 (#997) and Legally Blonde 2 (#984). There they go - my most precious official checks.

[PeacefulAnarchy]

All those movies shouldn't be on the list anyway because there are several hundred movies from the 30s 40s and 50s that made more inflation adjusted but box office mojo doesn't have data for them.

[Onderhond]

All those movies shouldn't be on the list anyway because there are several hundred movies from the 30s 40s and 50s that made more inflation adjusted but box office mojo doesn't have data for them.

I wonder if there would be any unofficial checks among that batch.

[joachimt]

Just checked the entry for Murder on the Orient Express (1974) these days - it's ranked #996 on the Adjusted Box Office list. 5 more, newer, hipper blockbusters to enter - Chinese ones, probably - and poof, it will be gone! And by that, it will be rendered unofficial. Quite the popular movie to vanish into the depths of listlessness.
Scrooged (1988), Bill Murray's hit, will also be gone and unofficial, already with a new BO entry with a rank of at least #999. Also, soon, Spy Kids 2 (#997) and Legally Blonde 2 (#984). There they go - my most precious official checks.

So far those Chinese movies don't enter the adjusted list that quickly. There's not that much change in the adjusted list. The non-adjusted is another matter.

[PeacefulAnarchy]

All those movies shouldn't be on the list anyway because there are several hundred movies from the 30s 40s and 50s that made more inflation adjusted but box office mojo doesn't have data for them.

I wonder if there would be any unofficial checks among that batch.

Yes, quite a few.

Just checked the entry for Murder on the Orient Express (1974) these days - it's ranked #996 on the Adjusted Box Office list. 5 more, newer, hipper blockbusters to enter - Chinese ones, probably - and poof, it will be gone! And by that, it will be rendered unofficial. Quite the popular movie to vanish into the depths of listlessness.
Scrooged (1988), Bill Murray's hit, will also be gone and unofficial, already with a new BO entry with a rank of at least #999. Also, soon, Spy Kids 2 (#997) and Legally Blonde 2 (#984). There they go - my most precious official checks.

So far those Chinese movies don't enter the adjusted list that quickly. There's not that much change in the adjusted list. The non-adjusted is another matter.

The adjusted list is North America only, so they don't enter at all. North American box office is dead, so who knows when that list will update next.

[joachimt]

Oh right, forgot about that.

[kongs_speech]

The Chinese blockbusters are why completing Worldwide is a very low priority for me. A handful of those? Sure, whatever. 50 of them, and likely to be more? Pass. I'm making a serious attempt at Adjusted, watching every expiring film from it that I come across on a streaming service. I'm not far from my bronze, but then I'll have 500 more to go.

[xianjiro]

All those movies shouldn't be on the list anyway because there are several hundred movies from the 30s 40s and 50s that made more inflation adjusted but box office mojo doesn't have data for them.

I wonder if there would be any unofficial checks among that batch.

maybe not: they're probably all on the Noir mega list

but seriously, I'm sure there are some, that while popular back then, haven't stood the test of time. When I've done top box office searches by a given year, it's interesting to see the trend that first emerged in the 50s when films aimed at the youth market became much more prevalent. And while many titles I recognize in such searches, it's interesting to see which movies I'd never heard of (and aren't official)

[beasterne]

Have we ever considered going to a Top 10 films at the box office by year approach? Advantages are that older films aren't bumped off the list due to inflation and middling successes from later years aren't included. Disadvantages are that the list is no longer ranked, and wouldn't follow a source (unless we start sourcing from a different reference list, like Wikipedia or etc).

[joachimt]

Yes, we have. A lot of data has been collected as well. We discussed a top 25 per year, I think. This was on the modsboard. It's been a while since, though.

[beasterne]

Glad that the discussion is out there at least! I am not sure if the appetite would be there for a 3rd BO list, but my vote would most likely be to add this as a third official list, rather than replacing either of the existing lists. We would still have the all-time ranked lists, which I think is important (whatever that means), but a list of top 10 or 25 per year would help to fill the gaps in methodology between the two existing lists.