Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
NOTE: Board emails should be working again. Information on forum upgrade and style issues.
Podcast: Talking Images (Episode 22 released November 17th * EXCLUSIVE * We Are Mentioned in a Book!!! Interview with Mary Guillermin on Rapture, JG & More)
Polls: Directors (Waiting for results), 1929 (Results), Directorial Debut Features (Mar 12th), DtC - Nominations (Mar 20th)
Challenges: UK/Ireland, Directed by Women, Waves from around the World
Film of the Week: Lean on Pete, April nominations (Apr 1st)

How to deal with All-Time Worldwide Box office

Post Reply
User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 33405
Joined: February 16th, 2012, 7:00 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#321

Post by 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.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"
dirty_score
Posts: 417
Joined: October 10th, 2016, 6:00 am
Contact:

#322

Post by 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. :think:


PS: I'm getting more inclined to thoses decade lists now.
User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 5585
Joined: February 9th, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#323

Post by OldAle1 »

dirty_score wrote: February 15th, 2020, 12:43 pm 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. :think:


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
Posts: 417
Joined: October 10th, 2016, 6:00 am
Contact:

#324

Post by 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. :imdb: 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?! :shrug:
User avatar
Teproc
Posts: 1026
Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 6:00 am
Contact:

#325

Post by 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.
User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 5585
Joined: February 9th, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#326

Post by 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.
User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 33405
Joined: February 16th, 2012, 7:00 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#327

Post by joachimt »

dirty_score wrote: February 15th, 2020, 2:46 pm :imdb: 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.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"
User avatar
erde
Posts: 376
Joined: January 2nd, 2019, 9:13 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Contact:

#328

Post by erde »

joachimt wrote: February 15th, 2020, 7:43 am 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.
Image Image
tommy_leazaq
Donator
Posts: 3624
Joined: May 18th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Chennai, India
Contact:

#329

Post by tommy_leazaq »

I'm happy that the Box Office lists debate is settled for good now. Or is it?
User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 33405
Joined: February 16th, 2012, 7:00 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#330

Post by joachimt »

tommy_leazaq wrote: February 19th, 2020, 7:09 pm Or is it?
You never know with these lists. :shifty:
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"
User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 8945
Joined: June 17th, 2015, 6:00 am
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#331

Post by xianjiro »

joachimt wrote: February 19th, 2020, 8:11 pm
tommy_leazaq wrote: February 19th, 2020, 7:09 pm Or is it?
You never know with these lists. :shifty:
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?
User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 33405
Joined: February 16th, 2012, 7:00 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#332

Post by joachimt »

xianjiro wrote: February 19th, 2020, 8:40 pm
joachimt wrote: February 19th, 2020, 8:11 pm
tommy_leazaq wrote: February 19th, 2020, 7:09 pm Or is it?
You never know with these lists. :shifty:
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.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"
dirty_score
Posts: 417
Joined: October 10th, 2016, 6:00 am
Contact:

#333

Post by 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. :mw_confused:
User avatar
albajos
Posts: 6942
Joined: May 24th, 2016, 6:00 am
Location: Norway
Contact:

#334

Post by 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.
User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 33405
Joined: February 16th, 2012, 7:00 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#335

Post by joachimt »

dirty_score wrote: February 19th, 2020, 8:53 pm 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.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 2110
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

#336

Post by 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. :o 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). ^o) There they go - my most precious official checks.
User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 25938
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#337

Post by 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.
User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 6142
Joined: December 23rd, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#338

Post by Onderhond »

PeacefulAnarchy wrote: November 20th, 2020, 4:41 am 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.
User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 33405
Joined: February 16th, 2012, 7:00 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#339

Post by joachimt »

Torgo wrote: November 20th, 2020, 3:41 am 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. :o 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). ^o) 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.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"
User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 25938
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#340

Post by PeacefulAnarchy »

Onderhond wrote: November 20th, 2020, 6:17 am
PeacefulAnarchy wrote: November 20th, 2020, 4:41 am 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.
joachimt wrote: November 20th, 2020, 6:54 am
Torgo wrote: November 20th, 2020, 3:41 am 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. :o 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). ^o) 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.
User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 33405
Joined: February 16th, 2012, 7:00 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#341

Post by joachimt »

Oh right, forgot about that. :facepalm:
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"
User avatar
kongs_speech
Posts: 989
Joined: April 4th, 2020, 10:32 pm
Location: FL
Contact:

#342

Post by 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.
Quartoxuma wrote: A deeply human, life-affirming disgusting check whore.
Image
User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 8945
Joined: June 17th, 2015, 6:00 am
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#343

Post by xianjiro »

Onderhond wrote: November 20th, 2020, 6:17 am
PeacefulAnarchy wrote: November 20th, 2020, 4:41 am 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 :lol:

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
Posts: 677
Joined: May 22nd, 2013, 6:00 am
Contact:

#344

Post by 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).
User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 33405
Joined: February 16th, 2012, 7:00 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#345

Post by 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.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"
beasterne
Posts: 677
Joined: May 22nd, 2013, 6:00 am
Contact:

#346

Post by 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.
Post Reply