How to deal with All-Time Worldwide Box office

[xianjiro]

Yearly Top-5 Grossing Since 1975 - 205 films, 7 new official checks
Top 100 Domestic Grossing Films of the 1980s - 100 films, 19 new official checks
Top 100 Worldwide Grossing Films of the 1990s - 100 films, 0 new official checks

Note: I didn't go through each film (especially those on 1 or 2 official lists) to see how many would lose an official check for All-time Worldwide Box Office returning to unofficial status, so real numbers might be a bit different.

So far, my support is behind:

1) Leaving as is - for the time being - until greater consensus is reached on a good solution for iCM

2) A two list solution that locks pre-2000 (or even pre-1990) films in place and is dynamic going forward with a cap on total films

That said, any solution should make Marjin and mod's lives easier, not require more work.

EDIT: Big OOPS! Thanks for putting up those lists, @Tasselfoot

[PeacefulAnarchy]

One thing I just thought of; many people are pointing out that this is an ever expanding list and it will get too unwieldy in the future with so many films added each year and none falling off.

Is this not like the National Film Registry then? It's had 25 films per year since 1988, and there's no sign of them stopping, so this will also be growing continuously each year with no films falling off, but no one seems to be bothered by that.

If it's about the merit of the films, I can't really see the case that some recent blockbusters are not worthy of official status, but some terrible short films from 50-100 years ago most certainly are.

It's not that it keeps increasing, but that it increases at an exponential rate. I absolutely support a blockbuster list and I have no problem with a dozen or two entering every year. I may not like the Transformers films or Fifty Shades of Gray, but they are popular films and undeniably blockbusters. They are what I expect from such a list, films that were talked about on release and entered the conversation as successful for at least a few weeks on release. It's not about the merits of the films themselves, it's about the merits of the films deserving the title "blockbuster." Yogi Bear, Need for Speed and The Expendables 3 were not blockbusters. They were non-failures that made $200 million because making $200 million no longer means "big popular movie" but rather "wide release with a big studio push that doesn't flop." The new Fantastic Four was considered a complete bomb and made $168 Million worldwide, to give you an idea.

It has little to do with being worthy of "official status" to me, but that the list doesn't really represent what it's supposed to with such entries.

[PeacefulAnarchy]

That being said, I'd like the list that Tasselfoot and some others proposed, with an X number of top grossing films per year/decade.

I've found a source and will make this (regardless of whether it will ever be official or not), sometime this week.

I've already done it... not sure this is the exact criteria you're looking for or not. But to save you some work. And my sources are all listed, in case you want to use them for other breakdowns. I'm happy to make more, similar lists as well if you need me to. This stuff interests me a lot more than country lists that I'll likely never see more than 2-3 films off of.

https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/year ... asselfoot/
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/top+ ... asselfoot/
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/top+ ... asselfoot/

Yeah, but I wanted lists going back further:
My source is this book: https://books.google.ca/books?id=rvVhEJ ... &q&f=false

It's about a Top 80 per decade with the cutoffs he uses in the book.
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/hist ... ulanarchy/
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/hist ... ulanarchy/
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/hist ... ulanarchy/
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/hist ... ulanarchy/
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/hist ... ulanarchy/
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/hist ... ulanarchy/
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/hist ... ulanarchy/

To be clear whether these become official or not at some point is completely up in the air, I'm posting these primarily because they're interesting and relate to the conversation. In no event would they replace the current All time worldwide list.

[TheConsigliere]

I've found a source and will make this (regardless of whether it will ever be official or not), sometime this week.

I've already done it... not sure this is the exact criteria you're looking for or not. But to save you some work. And my sources are all listed, in case you want to use them for other breakdowns. I'm happy to make more, similar lists as well if you need me to. This stuff interests me a lot more than country lists that I'll likely never see more than 2-3 films off of.

https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/year ... asselfoot/
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/top+ ... asselfoot/
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/top+ ... asselfoot/

Yeah, but I wanted lists going back further:
My source is this book: https://books.google.ca/books?id=rvVhEJ ... &q&f=false

It's about a Top 80 per decade with the cutoffs he uses in the book.
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/hist ... ulanarchy/
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/hist ... ulanarchy/
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/hist ... ulanarchy/
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/hist ... ulanarchy/
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/hist ... ulanarchy/
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/hist ... ulanarchy/
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/hist ... ulanarchy/

To be clear whether these become official or not at some point is completely up in the air, I'm posting these primarily because they're interesting and relate to the conversation. In no event would they replace the current All time worldwide list.

These lists are great. Such a good way of getting across what were the biggest hits of each decade.

My only gripe would be the time cut-off for each decade - eg. 80s = 1980 - 1989, rather than 1981-1990.

[PeacefulAnarchy]

My only gripe would be the time cut-off for each decade - eg. 80s = 1980 - 1989, rather than 1981-1990.

Yeah, I found that odd too, but it's how the book cuts them off. I'm going to keep looking for other sources, but I've been searching for a while and this is by far the most complete I've found. I wish Variety was available for less than $600.

[Cippenham]

My only gripe would be the time cut-off for each decade - eg. 80s = 1980 - 1989, rather than 1981-1990.

Yeah, I found that odd too, but it's how the book cuts them off. I'm going to keep looking for other sources, but I've been searching for a while and this is by far the most complete I've found. I wish Variety was available for less than $600.

If the first year AD is year 1 AD, then end of first decade 10 AD, like the first actual year of 21st Century should be 2001 not 2000 following same principle so I understand the logic.

[xianjiro]

yeah, but does that really matter if we get better quality box office lists - and by better quality, I mean something that represents the different eras of the cinema industry. Granted, Hollywood-centric, but that's who was keeping score so to speak - I'm just stating what's been stated before with a nod to that, nothing else

interesting lists!

[Tasselfoot]

Cool lists, PA. Thanks. Interesting to see how I have about 15-20 checks on each of the early ones, exactly 50% on 60s, and then about 75% on 70s and 80s list. I also find the breakdown of years to be odd, especially the cutoff at 1931 instead of 1930. I'd also say that, for adoption purposes, they're likely longer than need be... taking just the top 50 or so would seem acceptable.

[Lammetje]

Yogi Bear has been mentioned so often by now that I will probably check it out, even though I'm almost sure it's gonna be bad.

[PeacefulAnarchy]

Yogi Bear has been mentioned so often by now that I will probably check it out, even though I'm almost sure it's gonna be bad.

It's more tediously boring and unoriginal than outright bad. A perfect example of a formulaic kid's movie.
The poster is better than the film:
http://i.imgur.com/FWdGcso.jpg
I still can't believe someone approved that poster.

[MMDan]

My only gripe would be the time cut-off for each decade - eg. 80s = 1980 - 1989, rather than 1981-1990.

Yeah, I found that odd too, but it's how the book cuts them off. I'm going to keep looking for other sources, but I've been searching for a while and this is by far the most complete I've found. I wish Variety was available for less than $600.

If the first year AD is year 1 AD, then end of first decade 10 AD, like the first actual year of 21st Century should be 2001 not 2000 following same principle so I understand the logic.

I've never understood why the TSP 21st century list has films from the year 2000 in it. But so it goes.

[blocho]

Yogi Bear has been mentioned so often by now that I will probably check it out, even though I'm almost sure it's gonna be bad.

It's more tediously boring and unoriginal than outright bad. A perfect example of a formulaic kid's movie.
The poster is better than the film:
http://i.imgur.com/FWdGcso.jpg
I still can't believe someone approved that poster.

Hmm, I like the poster. I love bears. I suppose I should probably see this movie.

Or, barring that, does anyone have any good bear movie recommendations? (already seen Grizzly Man)

[Knaldskalle]

Yogi Bear has been mentioned so often by now that I will probably check it out, even though I'm almost sure it's gonna be bad.

It's more tediously boring and unoriginal than outright bad. A perfect example of a formulaic kid's movie.
The poster is better than the film:
http://i.imgur.com/FWdGcso.jpg
I still can't believe someone approved that poster.

Hmm, I like the poster. I love bears. I suppose I should probably see this movie.

Or, barring that, does anyone have any good bear movie recommendations? (already seen Grizzly Man)

Annaud's The Bear.

[brokenface]

The Revenant

[Nathan Treadway]

Yogi Bear has been mentioned so often by now that I will probably check it out, even though I'm almost sure it's gonna be bad.

It's more tediously boring and unoriginal than outright bad. A perfect example of a formulaic kid's movie.
The poster is better than the film:
http://i.imgur.com/FWdGcso.jpg
I still can't believe someone approved that poster.

Hmm, I like the poster. I love bears. I suppose I should probably see this movie.

Or, barring that, does anyone have any good bear movie recommendations? (already seen Grizzly Man)

I believe this movie had a bear in it:

WARNING: DO NOT CLICK!Show

Look for the bare necessities
The simple bare necessities
Forget about your worries and your strife
I mean the bare necessities
Old mother nature's recipes
That bring the bare necessities of life

Wherever I wander
Wherever I roam
I couldn't be fonder of my big home
The bees are buzzin' in the tree
To make some honey just for me
When you look under the rocks and plants
And take a glance at the fancy ants
Then maybe try a few

The bare necessities of life
Will come to you
They'll come to you!

Look for the bare necessities
The simple bare necessities
Forget about your worries and your strife
I mean the bare necessities
That's why a bear can rest at ease
With just the bare necessities of life

Now when you pick a pawpaw
Or a prickly pear
And you prick a raw paw
Next time beware
Don't pick the prickly pear by the paw
When you pick a pear
Try to use the claw
But you don't need to use the claw
When you pick a pear of the big pawpaw
Have I given you a clue

The bare necessities of life will come to you
They'll come to you!

[cinephage]

Yogi Bear has been mentioned so often by now that I will probably check it out, even though I'm almost sure it's gonna be bad.

It's more tediously boring and unoriginal than outright bad. A perfect example of a formulaic kid's movie.
The poster is better than the film:
http://i.imgur.com/FWdGcso.jpg
I still can't believe someone approved that poster.

Hmm, I like the poster. I love bears. I suppose I should probably see this movie.

Or, barring that, does anyone have any good bear movie recommendations? (already seen Grizzly Man)

2 good french movies with bears that weren't hurt during the shooting...

Marie Louise ou la permission

Spoiler: click to toggleShow

le voyage aux Pyrénées

Spoiler: click to toggleShow

No official check, though...

[nimimerkillinen]

top-100 both worldwide and USA (different lists) from 20s on would be cool

[xianjiro]

is anyone tracking how many films are being added to All-Time Worldwide Box office, say quarterly? I just scrolled back to see if I could quickly find any data - on January it was X, now it's Y

I'm not sure it's growing as fast as people have said though clearly there are seasons when more blockbusters hit American screens and we just entered one (the Thanksgiving-Christmas holidays being the other)

I guess I just can't get excited about "doing something about this list" at this point.

[PeacefulAnarchy]

About 30-40 a year.

[blueboybob]

Here is my complaint

"All Time" (no hyphen) -- https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/all+time+box+office/
"All-Time" (with hyphen) -- https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/all- ... ox+office/


That pisses me off!

[WalterNeff]

I think the solution would be just to remove "Box Office" from the list, and have a "All Time World Wide" movie list, which would just be every movie made, from all time, world wide. Just think of the new official checks!

[xianjiro]

Here is my complaint

"All Time" (no hyphen) -- https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/all+time+box+office/
"All-Time" (with hyphen) -- https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/all- ... ox+office/


That pisses me off!

agreed! why can't everyone on this planet be consistent (and logical!) for Vulcan's sake! geesh!

[xianjiro]

About 30-40 a year.

but wasn't someone basically claiming the growth is exponential? 20-30 last year, 30-40 this year, 45-55 next, 75-100 in 2020 - that type of thing?

The only reason I'm asking is because I've spent most of this year updating my spreadsheet but didn't feel like I was increasing the total on the Worldwide list very often - some months just one or two, today I noticed it jumped four.

Guess if we're going to dredge this up again, I'd love to see updated numbers for either yearly or monthly additions over time.

That said, I'm still confident that leaving it as is works for now - until we have a revolutionary new suggestion, that is.

[Fergenaprido]

Here is my complaint

"All Time" (no hyphen) -- https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/all+time+box+office/
"All-Time" (with hyphen) -- https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/all- ... ox+office/


That pisses me off!

agreed! why can't everyone on this planet be consistent (and logical!) for Vulcan's sake! geesh!

Hear Hear! (or is it Here Here!)
The other list that irritates my sense of order is The Best 1,000 Movies Ever Made. The comma isn't included in any of the other 1000 or 1001 lists, and it causes the alphabetization to switch in my spreadsheet with The Best 100 Chinese Motion Pictures due to the way Excel orders things.

About 30-40 a year.

but wasn't someone basically claiming the growth is exponential? 20-30 last year, 30-40 this year, 45-55 next, 75-100 in 2020 - that type of thing?

The only reason I'm asking is because I've spent most of this year updating my spreadsheet but didn't feel like I was increasing the total on the Worldwide list very often - some months just one or two, today I noticed it jumped four.

Guess if we're going to dredge this up again, I'd love to see updated numbers for either yearly or monthly additions over time.

You can easily figure this out by sorting the list by year of release....

[joachimt]

The other list that irritates my sense of order is The Best 1,000 Movies Ever Made. The comma isn't included in any of the other 1000 or 1001 lists, and it causes the alphabetization to switch in my spreadsheet with The Best 100 Chinese Motion Pictures due to the way Excel orders things.

The comma is in the title of the source. (didn't check the other 1000-lists though)

[ChrisReynolds]

About 30-40 a year.

but wasn't someone basically claiming the growth is exponential? 20-30 last year, 30-40 this year, 45-55 next, 75-100 in 2020 - that type of thing?

The only reason I'm asking is because I've spent most of this year updating my spreadsheet but didn't feel like I was increasing the total on the Worldwide list very often - some months just one or two, today I noticed it jumped four.

Guess if we're going to dredge this up again, I'd love to see updated numbers for either yearly or monthly additions over time.

That said, I'm still confident that leaving it as is works for now - until we have a revolutionary new suggestion, that is.

Yes, it is exponential due to inflation.
Here's a chart of films added per year:


These days we're looking at more like 40-50 films per year. The list should go over 1000 in another 4 or 5 years. It could go even faster now that other territories, particularly China, have an increasing ability to cross the box office cut off.

[Tasselfoot]

Looks to at least be increasing at somewhat of a constant rate, of about +1 to +2 per year, although it does appear to be speeding up a bit in recent years.

Eventually it'll cap out at the size of the global film industry. Pretty excited for the year when each movie ticket costs $200,000,000. I hope movies still exist then.

[Armoreska]

Looks to at least be increasing at somewhat of a constant rate, of about +1 to +2 per year, although it does appear to be speeding up a bit in recent years.

Eventually it'll cap out at the size of the global film industry. Pretty excited for the year when each movie ticket costs $200,000,000. I hope movies still exist then.

Yes, in this dystopian future movies will be made for only one person - the ruler of the world, - and he will either watch them or discard them. Thus the ones he watches will become "blockbusters". The rest of the people will work full time to get the movies made as well as possible so the leader likes their movie best. He'll also be #1 on ICM.

Spoiler: click to toggleShow

But his life goal will be to overtake Armo by overall checks as well.

[funkybusiness]

I think the solution would be just to remove "Box Office" from the list, and have a "All Time World Wide" movie list, which would just be every movie made, from all time, world wide. Just think of the new official checks!

or we could have an All Time Mr. World Wide list featuring all the films starring Pitbull.

[mathiasa]

Looks to at least be increasing at somewhat of a constant rate, of about +1 to +2 per year, although it does appear to be speeding up a bit in recent years.

Eventually it'll cap out at the size of the global film industry. Pretty excited for the year when each movie ticket costs $200,000,000. I hope movies still exist then.

Yes, in this dystopian future movies will be made for only one person - the ruler of the world, - and he will either watch them or discard them. Thus the ones he watches will become "blockbusters". The rest of the people will work full time to get the movies made as well as possible so the leader likes their movie best. He'll also be #1 on ICM.

Spoiler: click to toggleShow

But his life goal will be to overtake Armo by overall checks as well.

Not really, since 200k will be worth nothing, everybody will be able to make official movies. Great for wanna be director‘s - not so great maybe for icm users.

I‘m a bit disappointed by some of those who think this is not (yet) a problem because they never at least try go explain what their pain barrier is. I think it be helpful if people (esp. moderaters in charge of adoption) indicated at what yearly rate they feel we would have a problem.

[Tasselfoot]

It's a problem to me because it isn't finite. Regardless of what the growth is or is not. It's why I have, and will continue to be, a strong supporter of changing it to best x number of films per year. Or top x per decade. Such as these:

https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/top+ ... asselfoot/
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/top+ ... asselfoot/
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/year ... asselfoot/

The top 5 per year is a really nice list, imo, capturing the truly blockbuster films of each year, without any chaff. It can go earlier than 1975, but I listed my reason for 1975 as the cutoff on the list: "Why 1975? That's the year of release of Jaws, the first summer blockbuster. Also, the All-Time list only has 4 films on it from pre-1975."

[PeacefulAnarchy]

I‘m a bit disappointed by some of those who think this is not (yet) a problem because they never at least try go explain what their pain barrier is. I think it be helpful if people (esp. moderaters in charge of adoption) indicated at what yearly rate they feel we would have a problem.

We already feel it's a problem. But apparently the userbase (or a vocal part of it) doesn't. Every argument that it's not a problem is essentially "more blockbusters=better" and "why do you hate people working on the list and want to take away their checks?" No one actually engages with responses to that, though. I'm assuming the answer is "when box office mojo decides 200M isn't special and either ups the cutoff or removes it completely."

[Darth Nevets]

I‘m a bit disappointed by some of those who think this is not (yet) a problem because they never at least try go explain what their pain barrier is. I think it be helpful if people (esp. moderaters in charge of adoption) indicated at what yearly rate they feel we would have a problem.

We already feel it's a problem. But apparently the userbase (or a vocal part of it) doesn't. Every argument that it's not a problem is essentially "more blockbusters=better" and "why do you hate people working on the list and want to take away their checks?" No one actually engages with responses to that, though. I'm assuming the answer is "when box office mojo decides 200M isn't special and either ups the cutoff or removes it completely."

The problem is that the forum has inward bias, and really hates films that are popular. It's a problem in film criticism in general, often a film is held in higher regard for losing money (therefore not "giving in" to the marketplace). Case in point this thread, basically the only place where posters rail against the inclusion of films because they are films they find inherently worthless because the masses see them.

In virtually every negative reference in modern criticism to movie taste most critics will cite the Marvel movies in a negative context. Now the reality is that critics have liked most of the movies, virtually all release to critical acclaim far above most blockbusters. Yet the negativity persists, solely due to success, in a world with dozens of releases nowhere near the quality.

So myopic is the viewpoint around here that the worse the solution, the more approval it garners. The top 5 list from 75 on is totally worthless for instance, excluding dozens of major releases. The top 53 films are already on 11 lists and only three films would become official (soon to be four when Karate Kid 2 drops from All Time Box Office).

There isn't, however, a backlash against Stan Brakhage (just to drop a name). He has 123 official films by my count, with over 100 films on only a single list. In base arithmetic Brakhage would be more important than major releases by a factor of 25 in this case.

[PeacefulAnarchy]

I don't disagree that there are people who dislike the box office list for what it represents. But that's not me. I like the list precisely because it represents a populist perspective of the medium which is a very important aspect of cinema. What I dislike is that the list is so bloated that it increasingly includes films that are not blockbusters. A top 100 per decade or so would capture the big popular releases without including films that no one remembers two months after release.

Also there's plenty of Brakhage backlash around if you look. Maybe it's not as common as blockbuster criticism, but that's more because blockbusters are relevant in conversation more often than Brakhage. And I think the AFA list was a bad adoption, not because the site shouldn't have an experimental list or two, it should, but because the list is incredibly incestuous and outdated.

Your arguments aren't in favour of keeping the cutoff, their against a perceived attitude which absolutely exists but is not the reason I, and the other mods, want to constrain the list.

[xianjiro]

1000 horror titles, 1000 noir titles, and yes, all those Brakhage films (as representative of all those experimentals)

vs

742 Blockbusters.

Hmmm ... which do I detest more?

Which would I prefer: to have my left foot or my right foot removed with a rusty teaspoon?

I can support an X films by Y period solution - nice thing about that, prior decades (or whatever) could be seperate lists allowing those who like to actually complete lists to have something to complete.

But guess we'll just have to keep dealing with this as it rears its ugly head.

[Darth Nevets]

I don't disagree that there are people who dislike the box office list for what it represents. But that's not me. I like the list precisely because it represents a populist perspective of the medium which is a very important aspect of cinema. What I dislike is that the list is so bloated that it increasingly includes films that are not blockbusters. A top 100 per decade or so would capture the big popular releases without including films that no one remembers two months after release.

Also there's plenty of Brakhage backlash around if you look. Maybe it's not as common as blockbuster criticism, but that's more because blockbusters are relevant in conversation more often than Brakhage. And I think the AFA list was a bad adoption, not because the site shouldn't have an experimental list or two, it should, but because the list is incredibly incestuous and outdated.

Your arguments aren't in favour of keeping the cutoff, their against a perceived attitude which absolutely exists but is not the reason I, and the other mods, want to constrain the list.

The first problem with a top 100 per decade is that it would lack in modern relevance. If a film from 1922 is worth watching dozens of lists would have pointed it out by now. Adding One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest to the box office list isn't helping people look for hit films, and it is no skin off its back by not getting included. If we want Kong 76 or Son of Kong official or Any Which Way But Loose or more Planet of the Apes movies official I'm sure there is an ape-centric list that honors such movies. Lotta apes on those lists it must be said.

The cutoff argument isn't that great to me either. Rosenbaum's list has almost 400 more items, many of which are unavailable, some of which he only vaguely recalls and some he thinks are important to seek out rather than an actual best. Surely if one person can wield so much influence the entire earth's population must have some sway. There is a bigger list for noirs (not a real genre), horror (ugh), books, newspapers, and single critics. Surely at least a thousand wouldn't be severe in this case.

Now on the blockbuster or not front I still see this as very useful. You might say the Divergent series barely scrapes the barrel as a major series, and there is nothing to be gained by their inclusion. However I'd say we could look deeper. Only the first two made the list and anyone checking the movies would see that the third didn't make the list. Thus they, and we, can presume the third wasn't a success and therefore there won't be the fourth and finale made. This, in fact, matches reality. This is the case for many film sequels that audiences tire of, looking at you Smurfs, and really tracks the ups and downs of audience taste.

[Gershwin]

But do you really think that Box Office success actually truthfully represents the taste of the wider audience? I don't think so. Aspects like smart marketing play a huge role as well. So in the end you don't even have the best films according to anyone, just the films that had the most successful marketing (and weren't complete bombs).

I bet that many Bond films, for instance, will be much more popular by a wider audience than a random film that topped the 200 million barrier last year. Maybe it's my fault, but I don't think the B.O. list has many Bond films, does it?

Edit: I'm not saying your criticism of Rosenbaum, Brakhage e.a. doesn't make any sense, but I just don't understand why you don't think the Box Office list is badly flawed.

[Tasselfoot]

My issue with the list is purely that it continues to expand forever. The 1000 horrors or noirs, while I feel are too large, at least have a known cap to them.

Nobody complains about the All-Time inflation-adjusted list, even when it expanded from 100 to 200 and then to 300. Because it's still finite and some old film has to drop off in order for a new one to join. If we capped the current list at 500 (or 1000), I'd have no issue with it, and would even be more inclined to finish it.

[Darth Nevets]

But do you really think that Box Office success actually truthfully represents the taste of the wider audience? I don't think so. Aspects like smart marketing play a huge role as well. So in the end you don't even have the best films according to anyone, just the films that had the most successful marketing (and weren't complete bombs).

I bet that many Bond films, for instance, will be much more popular by a wider audience than a random film that topped the 200 million barrier last year. Maybe it's my fault, but I don't think the B.O. list has many Bond films, does it?

Edit: I'm not saying your criticism of Rosenbaum, Brakhage e.a. doesn't make any sense, but I just don't understand why you don't think the Box Office list is badly flawed.

As a person who has seen every Bond, I actually did a recent rewatch of purely mediocre entries in the series, that seems like a very valid point. However the Bond series is old enough that the classic entries are covered by other sources (the action list in particular) and the latest films (from Brosnan on) are on the BO list. Such is the case that every Bond film is an official check. If the action book got updated Tomorrow Never Dies would likely be in the list, but since that will never happen the BO list enables it to get official now.

Now obviously many great films are overlooked, but there are other lists for that.

On the marketing point it is certainly the case that trends help movies. The entire DC slate seems predicated on people not differentiating between superhero films in general. However that doesn't mean they still aren't important films in discussing the art of cinema, the failures of Batman v Superman are very important to study and note. Certain movies are helped by advertising but nowadays most hits are purely organic. With people abandoning the franchise its worthwhile to note that Wonder Woman is bigger than JL, and if Aquaman can even make the list at all will be fascinating.

Now many films barely make the list, but it really isn't that easy to do so for most movies. Even pretty good films adapted from theoretically popular franchises, like Power Rangers last year, can fail to find an audience. Often something can be huge in certain markets, looking at Europe for Paddington 2, and influence what gets made going forward. Tomb Raider (2018) actually couldn't hit the list if it wasn't for the Chinese. These are worthwhile trends, often pointing out that our insular definition of popular doesn't hold water for everyone and especially everywhere.

[Gershwin]

Those are all very interesting notions, I have to admit, but not ones you get from looking at the Box Office list as such, or even the general numbers behind it. You'll have to delve into the details, and they are not readily available (whereas most book or critics based lists do have an immediately accessible source that tells us why those specific films are on a list).

So putting those films in this already quite huge list isn't a very valuable contribution to make us understand the trends and dynamics of box office cinema a bit better. And even if they did: trends are very interesting, but do you need a few dozen examples of a trend from every year? Or do we get more insight from, let's say, a critic's book that discusses about 50 of the most relevant superhero movies from the last decade? I don't think such a book exists yet, but you'll get what I mean.

I would really prefer a yearly popularity poll from a lowbrow movie magazine, for instance. I bet there are some movie magazines out there that are aimed more at the consumer-friendly end of Hollywood's output, and I bet they have end-of-year-lists as well. Wouldn't such a list be more satisfying for everybody, both arthouse snobs and superhero movie lovers?

Edit: apart from that, how do you value the notion of inflation? I find that a very valuable argument, actually, and I'd prefer to have a nice way to correct the list for inflation (though I know no such method has popped up yet).