Talk:List of film sequels by box-office performance

message: Only five movie-combinations currently (July 22, 2008) have references (sources) for their grosses. If you see this note: please add one or more references. Thanks. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please help add references 

message: Are the tables in any type of order at all? It seems like the movies are just randomly placed in the tables. Shouldn't they actually be arranged by box-office improvement. That seems to be what the title of the article implies.
Mollymoon (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table Order 

message: I assume the dollar figures are in American dollars. Also, are these amounts taking inflation into account? NorthernThunder (talk) 07:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  inflation? 

message: LOTR and a few others probably shouldn't be in the list, they're part of a planned trilogy and not really sequels.  159.233.81.122 (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sequels or trilogies? 

message: Ram nareshji (talk) Iron Man 2 grossed $312,433,331 whereas Iron Man 3 grossed $409,013,994, so there is improvement is there in second sequel in iron man series so pls add it.  —Preceding undated comment added 15:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  pls add Iron Man 3 in Second Sequels by box office improvement 

message: I recently discovered this list, and it has multiple issues. Some of them are fixable, such as lacking a WP:Worldwide view and being subject to a large amount of WP:Link rot. The others I'm not so sure about. Lacking WP:Notability (or in other words relying on a metric or mode of comparison that has been made up by Wikipedia editors instead of being used by WP:Reliable sources) and consistent WP:LISTCRITERIA that are supported by reliable sources are dealbreakers. Unless it can be demonstrated that the concept of this list is salvageable by providing reliable sources, I will propose deletion within a few days. TompaDompa (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that the page as it stands has multiple issues, I am not keen on editors just deleting things when information is useful. Giving a 11 day notice of deletion seems a bit harsh. There doesn't seem to be pages on box office performances of sequels on Wikipedia and it is a useful topic. I came across this page as was trying to find data on sequels and seems the only one with box office data. Although it would be better to be based on worldwide data, availability of worldwide box office grosses is very patchy and restricted to the last 25 years or so, so worldwide grosses would restrict a lot of older films being listed. Variety have published charts looking at the performance of sequels compared to originals (eg their March 28, 1994 edition) and it has been a theme for years (although mostly focused on reduction as historically most sequels had a lower gross). I think this page would be improved by reducing the list to say a top 5 or 10 and adding other charts related to sequels eg highest-grossing sequels which this page likely has the data for. I don’t mind trying to improve it but can’t do it quickly so would be better if you removed the deletion notice and left it for now.Sudiani (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that we have updated the page to give a wider scope, I note that you have added a banner about the name of the article. Maybe it should just be shortened to List of film sequels by box-office? I'm not too keen on the mixed table that you have created at the top. I think if you think that there should be a table to show absolute gross differences that it should be a different table as is confusing otherwise.  The problem with absolute data is that as inflation increases a $500m difference becomes a smaller and smaller increase percentage wise so maybe for now show the largest differences and in future this can be limited to a top 5 or 10 rather than just those with a $500m difference.Sudiani (talk) 10:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I was considering List of films sequels by box-office performance, but List of film sequels by box office could also work. I think a hyphen should be used if "box office" is used attributively (i.e. before a noun which it modifies, as in box-office bomb), but not otherwise. I'm not quite sure about the orthographic rules there, however. I think a fixed dollar amount is preferable to a fixed number of entries, with the threshold being raised periodically to keep the list from becoming indiscriminate. TompaDompa (talk) 12:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Variety and other sources do often show the progression of grosses of films, normally in a graphical format.  Not sure how easy that is to do in Wikipedia. Potentially for the different charts for the series numbers, you could present a table eg for the 9 films in the Star Wars saga; for the 8 Fast and Furious films etc.  Other pages do have these tables but would be better in a visual format rather than adding more tables.  Maybe links could be added to those articles.  I will create some examples to see if it works.Sudiani (talk) 10:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple issues 

message: Is there any good reason why this list is restricted to North American grosses? Based on the title alone, I would expect this to be about worldwide grosses, not North American ones. I'm starting a worldwide table here on the talk page, and this table can be expanded upon and eventually added to the main article. TompaDompa (talk) 22:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:GLOBAL]] 

message: Does this meet WP:LISTN, i.e. has this topic ? A cursory web search would suggest that no, it has not. The box office performances of sequels have been discussed as a group (e.g. here and here), and individual sequels' box office performances as compared to their predecessors have been discussed (e.g. here and here), but have sequels' box office performances as compared to their predecessors been discussed as a group? TompaDompa (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this list even exist? 

message: I don't think it's self-evident that comparing films to their immediate predecessors is the right way to go. It would be just as valid to compare to the first film in the series or perhaps to the film that was previously the highest-grossing one in the series. I would ask how WP:Reliable sources do it, but as noted above, it doesn't seem like reliable sources do this in the first place—this seems to be a metric made up by Wikipedia editors. TompaDompa (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Variety and other sources do often show the progression of grosses of films, normally in a graphical format.  Not sure how easy that is to do in Wikipedia. Potentially for the different charts for the series numbers, you could present a table eg for the 9 films in the Star Wars saga; for the 8 Fast and Furious films etc.  Other pages do have these tables but would be better in a visual format rather than adding more tables.  Maybe links could be added to those articles.  I will create some examples to see if it works.Sudiani (talk) 10:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this the right way to compare grosses within series? 

message: It's not always immediately obvious how the sequel number of a film is decided. In some cases, it's clear-cut – for instance, Rocky III is number 3, and the predecessor is Rocky II. In other cases, it's more debatable what the proper way of doing it would be. Some examples:
* Logan is on this list counted as number 2 following The Wolverine, but could also be counted as number 3 with X-Men Origins: Wolverine as number 1, or even higher if it's counted as part of the larger X-Men film series.
* Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is counted as number 2 with Jumanji as number 1, but could also be counted as number 3 with Zathura: A Space Adventure as number 2 (see Jumanji (franchise)), or as a spin-off or stand-alone film rather than a sequel.
* Captain America: Civil War is counted as number 3 with Captain America: The Winter Soldier as number 2, even though the former is more of a sequel to Avengers: Age of Ultron than to the latter. It could also be counted by its number in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. This of course goes for other films in the MCU as well.
** Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is counted as number 2 with Man of Steel as number 1, but could be counted as a stand-alone film within the same continuity (the DCEU) rather than a sequel.
* Split is counted as number 2, the sequel to Unbreakable, but could also be counted as a stand-alone film in the same fictional universe rather than a sequel.
* Quantum of Solace is counted as number 2 with Casino Royale as number 1. This assumes a reset of the sequel number with the reboot between Die Another Day and Casino Royale, which is not necessarily how it should be.
** Other reboots of varying degrees of softness/hardness include Rise of the Planet of the Apes (counted as number 1 in a new series), Batman Begins (counted as number 1 in a new series), Mad Max: Fury Road (counted as number 4 with Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome as number 3), and Jurassic World (counted as number 4 with Jurassic Park III as number 3).
* The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is counted as number 3 with For a Few Dollars More as number 2 and A Fistful of Dollars as number 1. These films are sometimes but not always considered a film series (known as the Dollars Trilogy), and not necessarily sequels within that putative series (if anything, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is a prequel).
* This list does not contain any Star Wars films except Return of the Jedi as number 3 with The Empire Strikes Back as number 2. Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith outgrossed Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones and should be included, though it could either be counted as number 3 (with Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace as number 1) or number 6 (with the original 1977 Star Wars as number 1 and The Phantom Menace as number 4). Star Wars: The Force Awakens outgrossed all previous films, and could be included as number 7 or counted as number 1 in a new series (with each trilogy counted separately) and thus not included.
Some of these I think are currently done the right way and some the wrong way, but the main problem is that this shouldn't be decided by Wikipedia editors at all but rather by WP:Reliable sources external to Wikipedia. TompaDompa (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are the criteria for sequels? 

message: In the recent AfD, it was suggested that the contents be discussed on the talk page. A few weeks have passed and not much has happened, so I figured I'd ping the editors who voted keep.  What do you suggest be done?
Personally, I'd suggest removing the "progression" tables because I think it's highly questionable if they can be sourced properly, but other than that I really don't know. TompaDompa (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Something has to be done about the Notes section, it's very cluttered right now and needs sources.★Trekker (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: . TompaDompa (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with scrapping the progression record tables. Betty Logan (talk) 09:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

text: I think a single timeline for the record is fine. We have one at the List of highest-grossing films. As you say, it is often noted when a film is the "highest-grossing sequel" and it provides a historical perspective. However I think progression of highest grossing 3rd entry, 4th entry, 5th entry records etc is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Betty Logan (talk) 10:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be good if that chart could be included. I came to this page as Variety had a chart of the top grossing fourth films in a series that they published in the 1990s so I was trying to find the current data but as websites like Mojo and The Numbers don't bother to list the films in that order, I thought it would be useful to have it here given that the data is available just not organised in that format but if others think those charts are indiscriminate, I'm ok with that. At least the history pages here give me the data so that I can keep it for my own records.Sudiani (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion after AfD 

message: I’m not saying Zathura is not in the Jumanji franchise, but it has been classified as a spin off to the main movies. The main movies including Jumanji, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, and Jumanji: The Next Level. Much like the MCU, this is a shared universe, and Welcome to the Jungle is meant to follow Jumanji, not Zathura, much like how Spider-Man: No Way Home follows Spider-Man: Far From Home, and not the preceding MCU film Eternals. It would be like saying The Force Awakens follows the Clone Wars film for Star Wars. Same franchise, but different categories. Welcome to the Jungle should not be listed as a follow-up and sequel to Zathura, as it’s a direct sequel to Jumanji. Zvig47 (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: What we should really be looking at is not in-universe connections but how sources that discuss the films in a box office context treat it. Right now we have a footnote that says  and we present both ways of doing it. TompaDompa (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zathura