Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
Polls: Directors (Results), 2019 (Feb 16th), Mini-series (Feb 29th), 2009 awards (Mar 3rd), Favorite Movies (Mar 21st), Doubling the Canon (Mar ??)
Challenges: Academy Awards, Africa, African American/Blaxploitation
Film of the Week: Doa al karawan, March nominations (Feb 28th)
World Cup S4: Round 1 schedule, 1D: Australia vs Hungary vs Portugal vs Tajikistan (Mar 1st), 1E: Czechia vs France vs Georgia vs Mexico (Mar 18th)

How to deal with All-Time Worldwide Box office

Post Reply
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 1289
Joined: Jun 30, 2011
Location: Germany
Contact:

How to deal with All-Time Worldwide Box office

#1

Post by Torgo » January 13th, 2016, 8:41 pm

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:
PeacefulAnarchy on wrote: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 :shrug:

User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 1289
Joined: Jun 30, 2011
Location: Germany
Contact:

#2

Post by Torgo » January 13th, 2016, 8:46 pm

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!" :lol:

Buksemannen
Posts: 312
Joined: Jun 11, 2014
Contact:

#3

Post by Buksemannen » January 13th, 2016, 8:47 pm

The best solution would be to remove the list!

Hunziker
Donator
Posts: 1180
Joined: Nov 03, 2014
Location: Mexico City, Mexico
Contact:

#4

Post by Hunziker » January 13th, 2016, 9:08 pm

Torgo on Jan 13 2016, 01:41:07 PM wrote: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 :shrug:
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.
This is the voice of world control.

iCM -Twitter
ImageImage

User avatar
Harco
Donator
Posts: 422
Joined: May 03, 2013
Location: Groningen
Contact:

#5

Post by Harco » January 13th, 2016, 9:14 pm

$250m and 500 entries seem fine. It's called "all time worldwide;" there shouldn't be room for biases.
Last edited by Harco on January 13th, 2016, 9:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 23798
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#6

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » January 13th, 2016, 9:16 pm

Hunziker on Jan 13 2016, 02:08:53 PM wrote:
Torgo on Jan 13 2016, 01:41:07 PM wrote: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 :shrug:
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
Donator
Posts: 1180
Joined: Nov 03, 2014
Location: Mexico City, Mexico
Contact:

#7

Post by Hunziker » January 13th, 2016, 9:29 pm

PeacefulAnarchy on Jan 13 2016, 02:16:47 PM wrote:
Hunziker on Jan 13 2016, 02:08:53 PM wrote:
Torgo on Jan 13 2016, 01:41:07 PM wrote: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 :shrug:
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.
Last edited by Hunziker on January 13th, 2016, 9:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This is the voice of world control.

iCM -Twitter
ImageImage

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 23798
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#8

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » January 13th, 2016, 9:40 pm

Hunziker on Jan 13 2016, 02:29:37 PM wrote:
PeacefulAnarchy on Jan 13 2016, 02:16:47 PM wrote:
Hunziker on Jan 13 2016, 02:08:53 PM wrote: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.

User avatar
Harco
Donator
Posts: 422
Joined: May 03, 2013
Location: Groningen
Contact:

#9

Post by Harco » January 13th, 2016, 9:42 pm

So when will it get its new cutoff (I see it has just been updated)?
Last edited by Harco on January 13th, 2016, 9:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 23798
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#10

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » January 13th, 2016, 9:43 pm

Harco on Jan 13 2016, 02:42:43 PM wrote: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
Donator
Posts: 1180
Joined: Nov 03, 2014
Location: Mexico City, Mexico
Contact:

#11

Post by Hunziker » January 13th, 2016, 9:44 pm

PeacefulAnarchy on Jan 13 2016, 02:40:59 PM wrote: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. -_-
This is the voice of world control.

iCM -Twitter
ImageImage

jeff_v
Posts: 963
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Another Place
Contact:

#12

Post by jeff_v » January 13th, 2016, 9:54 pm

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.

User avatar
monclivie
Posts: 349
Joined: Sep 13, 2011
Location: Poland
Contact:

#13

Post by monclivie » January 13th, 2016, 11:16 pm

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.
Last edited by monclivie on January 13th, 2016, 11:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
jvv
Donator
Posts: 8502
Joined: May 28, 2011
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#14

Post by jvv » January 14th, 2016, 1:26 am

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

User avatar
Gershwin
Donator
Posts: 7085
Joined: May 17, 2011
Location: Leiden, NL
Contact:

#15

Post by Gershwin » January 14th, 2016, 2:14 am

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% ...
RokP 250

Profiles: Untappd - Last.fm - iCM

User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 3573
Joined: Jun 03, 2014
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

#16

Post by Fergenaprido » January 14th, 2016, 4:59 am

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
Donator
Posts: 4101
Joined: Jun 26, 2015
Location: Springfield, MO, USA
Contact:

#17

Post by Nathan Treadway » January 14th, 2016, 11:45 am

Fergenaprido on Jan 13 2016, 09:59:48 PM wrote: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.
Box Office Mojo on wrote: 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).
iCM

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ (Matthew 25:37-40)

Samlion
Posts: 618
Joined: Sep 03, 2012
Location: Paris
Contact:

#18

Post by Samlion » January 14th, 2016, 1:14 pm

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
Last edited by Samlion on January 14th, 2016, 1:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Gershwin
Donator
Posts: 7085
Joined: May 17, 2011
Location: Leiden, NL
Contact:

#19

Post by Gershwin » January 14th, 2016, 1:27 pm

Samlion on Jan 14 2016, 06:14:42 AM wrote:(...)

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
:poshclap:
RokP 250

Profiles: Untappd - Last.fm - iCM

User avatar
monclivie
Posts: 349
Joined: Sep 13, 2011
Location: Poland
Contact:

#20

Post by monclivie » January 14th, 2016, 1:35 pm

Samlion on Jan 14 2016, 06:14:42 AM wrote: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
Donator
Posts: 12967
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#21

Post by Cippenham » January 14th, 2016, 1:40 pm

Samlion on Jan 14 2016, 06:14:42 AM wrote: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 :thumbsup:
Turning over a new leaf :ICM:

Samlion
Posts: 618
Joined: Sep 03, 2012
Location: Paris
Contact:

#22

Post by Samlion » January 14th, 2016, 1:53 pm

monclivie on Jan 14 2016, 06:35:46 AM wrote:
Samlion on Jan 14 2016, 06:14:42 AM wrote: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:

User avatar
clemmetarey
Donator
Posts: 2266
Joined: Nov 20, 2011
Contact:

#23

Post by clemmetarey » January 14th, 2016, 2:41 pm

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$.

User avatar
monclivie
Posts: 349
Joined: Sep 13, 2011
Location: Poland
Contact:

#24

Post by monclivie » January 14th, 2016, 5:25 pm

Samlion on Jan 14 2016, 06:53:24 AM wrote: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?

User avatar
ChrisReynolds
Donator
Posts: 2500
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Location: Berlin, Germany
Contact:

#25

Post by ChrisReynolds » January 14th, 2016, 5:36 pm

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.

User avatar
1SO
Posts: 736
Joined: Dec 30, 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

#26

Post by 1SO » January 14th, 2016, 5:45 pm

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.

User avatar
Tasselfoot
Posts: 414
Joined: May 06, 2014
Contact:

#27

Post by Tasselfoot » January 14th, 2016, 6:14 pm

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
Donator
Posts: 1180
Joined: Nov 03, 2014
Location: Mexico City, Mexico
Contact:

#28

Post by Hunziker » January 14th, 2016, 6:27 pm

I think I hate more that list for the eternal discussions it provokes than for its movies themselves.
This is the voice of world control.

iCM -Twitter
ImageImage

tommy_leazaq
Donator
Posts: 3523
Joined: May 18, 2011
Location: Chennai, India
Contact:

#29

Post by tommy_leazaq » January 14th, 2016, 6:57 pm

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
Donator
Posts: 12967
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#30

Post by Cippenham » January 14th, 2016, 7:29 pm

tommy_leazaq on Jan 14 2016, 11:57:59 AM wrote: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.
Last edited by Cippenham on January 14th, 2016, 7:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Turning over a new leaf :ICM:

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 23798
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#31

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » January 14th, 2016, 8:37 pm

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
Donator
Posts: 12967
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#32

Post by Cippenham » January 14th, 2016, 9:01 pm

PeacefulAnarchy on Jan 14 2016, 01:37:36 PM wrote: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.
Turning over a new leaf :ICM:

User avatar
monclivie
Posts: 349
Joined: Sep 13, 2011
Location: Poland
Contact:

#33

Post by monclivie » January 14th, 2016, 9:42 pm

Cippenham on Jan 14 2016, 02:01:42 PM wrote: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.

User avatar
Gershwin
Donator
Posts: 7085
Joined: May 17, 2011
Location: Leiden, NL
Contact:

#34

Post by Gershwin » January 14th, 2016, 9:59 pm

monclivie on Jan 14 2016, 02:42:29 PM wrote: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.
RokP 250

Profiles: Untappd - Last.fm - iCM

User avatar
Lammetje
Donator
Posts: 3695
Joined: Oct 04, 2013
Location: Poland
Contact:

#35

Post by Lammetje » January 14th, 2016, 10:07 pm

monclivie on Jan 14 2016, 10:25:16 AM wrote: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.
iCM | IMDb | Last.fm | Listal

Image
PeacefulAnarchy wrote:Active topics is the devil. Please use the forums and subforums as intended and peruse all the topics nicely sorted by topic, not just the currently popular ones displayed in a jumbled mess.
More memorable quotesShow
maxwelldeux wrote:If you asked me to kill my wife and pets OR watch Minions, I'd check the runtime and inquire about sobriety requirements before providing an answer.
flaiky wrote::o :satstunned: :guns: :down: :facepalm: :yucky: :mw_confused: :pinch: :ph43r: :ermm: :sweat: :folded: tehe :cowbow: :think: :finger: :rip:
monty wrote:If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. iCM ain't for sissies.
OldAle1 wrote:stupid double post bullshit crap shit fuck
mightysparks wrote:ARGH. RARGH. RARGH. DIE.
Kowry wrote:Thanks, Art Garfunky.
Rich wrote:*runs*

User avatar
monclivie
Posts: 349
Joined: Sep 13, 2011
Location: Poland
Contact:

#36

Post by monclivie » January 14th, 2016, 11:05 pm

Gershwin on Jan 14 2016, 02:59:12 PM wrote:
monclivie on Jan 14 2016, 02:42:29 PM wrote: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.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 23798
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#37

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » January 14th, 2016, 11:33 pm

monclivie on Jan 14 2016, 04:05:40 PM wrote:
Gershwin on Jan 14 2016, 02:59:12 PM wrote:
monclivie on Jan 14 2016, 02:42:29 PM wrote: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
Posts: 618
Joined: Sep 03, 2012
Location: Paris
Contact:

#38

Post by Samlion » January 15th, 2016, 12:08 am

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

User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 1289
Joined: Jun 30, 2011
Location: Germany
Contact:

#39

Post by Torgo » January 15th, 2016, 12:11 am

Samlion on Jan 14 2016, 05:08:29 PM wrote:i only miss 19 movies. i still refuse to see Yogi bear
:lol:

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 23798
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#40

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » January 15th, 2016, 12:13 am

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.

Post Reply