Talk:2008 in film

message: How come Run, Fat Boy, Run only grossed $22 million WORLDWIDE and in the UK grossed $40 million dollars rougly - don't you see anything odd abou that?  Condering the US and austrailia haven't even see it?  LOTRrules (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: yes i see, right, im not good with numbers or anything (gots a barley passing grade in geometrey) but that dont seem possible unless im doing my math wrong
- Devils Never Cry  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.197.82 (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Run, Fat Boy, Run" - ODD

message: Ok, How is Dragonball a sequel? it's just a live-action adaptation of the series, not a sequel to anything.Onepiece226 (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You were damn right to remove it. I agree completely, a movie is only a sequel if it continues the storyline from a previous movie. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dragonball a sequel?

message: That section is in a huge mess. Sure I could take care of it myself, but I also know that others need to be aware of this. We have to fix this before July begins. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fixed.  Tables are dang tricky. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, god. October - December is even worse, I tried to fix that but I just messed it up more. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, I just took care of that, too. :)  I didn't notice it until I scrolled down. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, but I still think that tag has place there. November this year won't be for several months. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  Have tried to fix the formatting in this section, specifically the area around 29th August seems very much out of sink but, I can't spot the difference in the code so having trouble fixing. Would someone else please have a go. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  (in respond to Onepiece226) Nobody said he/she thought anything, it's just that there are some movies that will be out very late this year, and there is a whole summer ahead of us, anything can change during that summer. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I was suggesting the differentiation between films in production and are set for a release date and films merely in development and have an announced release date.  As you can see at Near future in film, there are some "announcements" that have been years in development, like Jurassic Park IV, for instance.  Its release date has been moved numerous times.  We have WP:NFF for this reason because the threshold of creating an article at the beginning of filming is at a point where a film is pretty guaranteed.  However, there's other projects in the film industry that have been in development forever and have been announced to be released every other year or so. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Try to understand how the rows work.  As a hypothetical example, let's say ten films are coming out in the month of July.  The July coding should have "10" rows marked.  Let's say the date of the 11th has five films coming out.  The 11th coding should have "5" rows marked.  Four films come out on the 18th -- "4" rows in the 18th coding.  The last film comes out on the 25th, so just "1" row in the 25th coding.  All rows should equal the total rows given by July.  Usually, going under or over that total will screw it up.  Let me know if you need me to help. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  July - September 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_in_film&diff=194981891&oldid=194929819
On this edit summary, I have to say I disagree. The movie was being rewarded on 2008. So why can't we keep NCFOM in the awards section? I think it belongs in that section, so I'm discussing it, as edits wars aren't worth fighting for, we don't even have a tank to protect ourselves from it.  TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Blaziken, the 80th Academy Awards were to recognize films released in 2007.  You can't very well acknowledge all 2007 films in the middle of 2007 itself, you know?  The awarding has to be after 2007.  All films are acknowledged as part of the one-year timeline in 2007.  We can see the setup at already at 2007 in film#Awards, so it's not necessary here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize if I caused any trouble by adding this. Thanks for letting me know. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The awards section 

message: Hi all!  Just looking at this page (as well as 1997 through 2007) and was wondering about what defines a blockbuster.  According to imdb.com, any movie that generates over $100,000,000 in the U.S. is a blockbuster, and a movie that generates over $200,000,000 worldwide is an international (or worldwide) blockbuster.  However, the 1997 thru 2008 pages merely state that $100m+ is a blockbuster (worldwide proceeds) and $400+ is an international blockbuster (worldwide proceeds).  Which definition is valid?
Also, putting US, UK, Australia and Worldwide gross in the same table doesn't really work.  The top ten in those individual countries don't match the top ten worldwide.  I propose breaking them into two tables, one for US and one for worldwide.
Redjacket3827 (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Domestic (US) versus international (worldwide) blockbusters 

message: So I am thinking, would that be great idea for this article? Discuss. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if it would be.  Flags have been discouraged in the infoboxes of film articles, and I don't know if they would belong at an article like 2007 in film or this one.  I would suggest going to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (flags) and asking if using the flags are appropriate.  Editors there may know more about when to best implement the icons. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in 2007 stuff on Wikipedia became stricter than ever, that's the year when episode articles got merged into lists. Before you ask, this is relevant because if the flags haven't been removed, it can't be that discouraged. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or someone who knows more about implementing flag icons than us haven't seen this kind of article. :)  Are you too concerned to ask? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all, I did ask. All we have to do now is wait for an answer. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, let me chime in for a second. What's the point of putting flag icons in a list if it's always the same flag (except for an extra British flag in a handful of occasion)? It appears to be a case where any info on country of origin is quite superfluous, whether in flag icon form or not. According to WP:FLAG, I think that's a clear case for removal.--Boffob (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Sounds like a case of adding flags for the sake of adding flags, rather than because they're actually useful. Just naming the country (USA) would be better. Adding so many American flags is overload - it makes it look like a presidential rally, or like you're saying ""America, F*** Yeah!!". Cop 663 (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, somebody needs to clean up the two thousand seven article. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed pointless over flagging Gnevin (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The movie list for [[2007 in film|last year]] has a lot of [[US flags]] 

message: I modified Heath Ledger's to the main 3: 10 Things, Brokeback, and Batman - as those are what he is most recognized for and not just because of this list.  Chantessy  18:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good for you, I said and still say he was way too young to die. But that's all I gotta say, I know the talk pages aren't forums, so I am not going to discuss this further. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead actors' notable movies 

message: Just let you guys know I asked for a protection on this page. And while I wait I will watch WP:RPP temporarily, only until my requests has been accepted or denied. I can't help to notice that there is some IP vandalism. I know how IPs work, there is no limit of IPs, so blocking doesn't do much. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Would someone mind please adding Expelled.  I tried but aren't familiar with the format of the dates grid.  Thank you.  68.253.24.11 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 16:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the details. But the question is should the full name or the word name of the movie be used? I really don't know, that's why I'm asking. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the important thing is simply to get it on the list first, then work on the details.  But I'd say "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" is the name of the film.  That's what the Wiki page and the movie's website says.  Finally, subscripts arent usually cut in Wiki; for example, it's Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, not Harry Potter IV. 68.77.201.117 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 22:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Especially for the sequels.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.88.72 (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expelled 

message: the dates shown for the film relese are the US relese date should that be mentionedFW07 (talk) 09:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it should. But believe me I wouldn't even tough that table, every time I try to update it I screw it up. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 

message: Nobody has given me ANY reason at all for him to be on this page, but I've given a reason why he doesn't belong there. Now by looking at the page, and reading every paragraph I have yet to find any movie at all he is part of. The "Notable deaths" list at the bottom of the page is for notable people in the movie business. However, I've read the article and all I can find are television shows, he's already on the death section in 2008 in television, I'm not removing that guy again, I've been continuously asking for a reason why he belongs to this page. What movie was he part of? Now, I know we need to discuss this. Because I can't see any paragraph on his page that has any mention at all of any movie, only television shows. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 11:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Maltese Bippy, and The Glass Bottom Boat are two theatrical releases he was in. Check his IMDb, it's got a number of films from teh 50's to mid 60's. I guess that's the basis of the addition.ThuranX (talk) 11:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to re-add it if and ONLY if you can movies in the "Notable Films" field. The field has the name notable films for a reason.  Good answer, feel free to readd this guy when you can add those movies to the notable films field. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dick Martin (comedian)|Dick Martin]] 

message: I'm just a little bit curious as to why some the movies are bolded and not italicized?  Aren't film titles supposed to be italicized?  Maybe I'm just going crazy or something.  ONEder Boy (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting?

message: Why is it on the sequels list? It's not a sequel to anything. Plus, Step Up 2 the Streets needs to be added to the list. Etownoilers (talk) 04:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's there because somebody must have added it there by a mistake. (Yeah, I'm not going to say somebody was vandalizing the page, because that would be rude.) TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

text: well expressed sentiment since some seems to take relish in chastising others, even if it is a contribution best placed elsewhere.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.88.72 (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Strangers]] 

message: why is this page so hollywood centric? ¬¬¬  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.113.30 (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because this is the English Wikipedia. And most well known English-language movies come from the United States. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So are english speaking people totally uninterested in world movies? Movies from other places? The Indian film industry is the largest film industry in the world. Shouldn't this page be called "2008 in english speaking films"? Tolstoy wrote in Russian, but there are still a Wikipedia pages about his literature. Just because something isn't from an english speaking country, it doesn't mean english speakers don't want to know about it. (someone anonymous)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.212.50 (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: As some of the regular editors may have noticed, I have begun to edit this article. However, I only do maintenance on the tables. I do not check the information. If it's not to much trouble, could someone keep an eye on the info, that way the quality doesn't suffer. Rau's Speak Page 02:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes I wish I could fix the tables without screwing them up. Oh and by the way, what particular information do you want us to keep an eye on? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The dates. I only have to fix things when people drag and drop movies from place to place. And in order to learn tables, you only have to study them and then play with them. Everything eventually falls into place. It's rather easy, simply time consuming to learn. I learned on episode lists, they are pretty simple, unlike these. Rau's Speak Page 22:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Care to share the site where you found it?. --SkyWalker (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maintenance 

message: While patrolling recent changes, I noticed that an IP changed the numbers in the April-June 2008 section.  Snooping around with Google I found the real numbers for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull were greater than what they were before the edit, but less than after.  Given that other changes were made, I'm just marking this as ; will let somebody who has more interest in the topic clean it up. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Care to share the site where you found it?. --SkyWalker (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Money 

message: I want to discuss if we should include sequels solely or the most popular movies. (Iron Man belongs in the first paragraph, no doubt if we include the most popular ones.)
For starters let's compare the most recent revision (as of when I posted this) and to the beginning of July. As you can see, it was included that sequels are listed here, I don't feel like seeing who removed that fact out or why. What I want is to discuss whether we should use most popular or solely sequel.
Or we could change the wording back to what it used to be, the reason why Onepiece226 found two non-sequel movies is because people that added it are unaware of it, they can't be aware of only sequels are supposed to be there since it doesn't say in the paragraph as of now it's a list of sequels, feel free to revert my recent revert, I was only inviting people for this discussion.
So what do you say? Should we include popular rather than solely sequel? Or should we revert the original wording? (that said only sequels belong to the first paragraph.) TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As of me, I agree with one piece, and I really don't understand why it was reworded the way the word "sequel" was removed in the first place. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

text: To be honest with you I don't think having a long list of blue-links, whether sequels or not, is actually that appealing, I realise that I may be in the minority here.  I think we should perhaps consider varying the information in the opening paragraph a little and mention events other than major releases, although we should mention the top three or five box office hits in the opening paragraph. My idea would be for the opening paragraph to contain a bit more prose and mention the major events, the major films and the most famous deaths of the year, essentially a summary of the most important information from the rest of the article. I think we should do this because a list of hit films is already available at the top of the article but it isn't easy for casual readers, now and in the future, to wade through the information in this article in order to learn that the writers strike forced the cancellation of the Golden Globes ceremony or that Heath Ledger and Charlton Heston died this year. This is just a suggestion, but I would be interested to know what you all think. Rje (talk) 11:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I love the idea, I say go for it. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The beginning paragraph 

message: I disagree with it. Without the field "Notable films" people don't know (without clicking) why the death is notable. I also believe it's to prevent additions of people that wasted most of their lives on television shows but never actually were in any movie. This is "2008 in film" we already have a page where notable deaths of people that helped with television belongs. So does anyone else agree that "Notable films" is needed? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The changing of "Notable deaths" section 

message: People have been changing the top ten grossing films a lot recently... WALL-E is not on that list people, and no films other than Iron Man and Indy 4 have made more than 400,000,000 dollars.  If  you see this sort of thing, check boxofficemojo.com to make sure these numbers are official and not a-wishful thinking...  Popebenedict16 (talk) 12:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing the highest grossing list 

message: Kung Fu Panda has grossed more than this. I don't understand. On the Kung Fu Panda article, it says that it has grossed more 500,000,000$ worldwide. And the 2008 in film article, it says that it has grossed over 300,000,000$ worldwide.TK(film) (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kung Fu Panda 

message: Currently, there are 3 films with inaccurate money amounts on the Top 10 list, and this isn't the first time that this has happened... Someone has been purposely jacking u p the grosses of Disney films... should we lock this page? Popebenedict16 (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lock this page

message: boxofficemojo has been very late with the movie page boxoffice updates
u should use thenumbers.com 
it has accurate numbers at least until boxofficemojo gets fixed  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.207.154 (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boxoffice 

message: It has grossed a bit more than 400 million worldwide. It should b in the top 10.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.149.7.146 (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wall E 

message: In the top box office list of this article it is said that the gross for Prince Caspian is around 380 millions, while in the movie article it states the gross is around 415 millions. I know that the numbers come from diferent sites, but we should have more integrity between articles Shadow phoenix (talk) 10:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused 

message: Is there a reason why some of the titles are in bold italics and some are just italics?  If so it should be mentioned in the key, because aside from the fact that that is purpose of keys, the reason for the bolding is not easily apparent.  I see someone asked about this in May but got no response so I thought I'd give it one more try before I changed them all to italic.  Thanks. -Sketchmoose (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random bolding 

message: Someone does not know their Box Office numbers and is there a reason for that, so I fixed it.
Can you put a stop to whoever's doing it? Thanks a lot. -Mjisnotmylover (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixed 

message: Where the hell did In Bruges go to? Feedback ☎ 19:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wackness is gone too... what the hell is going on? Feedback ☎ 20:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like someone went through and deleted every single limited release, at least a month or two ago too. Seriously not cool. I'll see if I have time to fix the list... that's what I get for not checking back here once in a while. –Fierce Beaver (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The list is still incomplete. Someone should get around to fixing it. Feedback ☎ 18:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Bruges 

message: Is his film career substantial enough to add him to the Deaths section? WP addict 0 (talk) 06:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Don S. Davis]] 

message: Is there a way of making tables with internal sub-boxes sortable?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.88.72 (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tables Sortability 

message: An editor persists in ignoring the hidden note and changing the gross of The Dark Knight from $997 million to $1,004 million. The Dark Knight had an IMAX reissue in 2009 whereby it increased its gross to the higher amount. This is fully documented at The_Dark_Knight_(film)#Box_office and in the sources at this article. The $1,0004 million figure is the lifetime gross. Prior to the IMAX reissue it grossed $997 million. Changing the figure conflates the initial 2008 release and the 2009 reissue and makes this article inconsistent with how we handle re-release grosses on other articles. This article - and every other "XXXX in film" article - only documents the box office from that year's release. It does not document the grosses from reissues in later years, specifically because these articles are focusing on one specific year in film. Betty Logan (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The editor in question hasn't engaged in any talkpage activity to support why they are making these changes against the current consensus. Therefore, the WP:BURDEN is with them to do so (regardless of the current consensus). Their attempt at taking you to WP:3RR is laughable at best. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think WP:BURDEN is the relevant policy, but instead WP:CIVILITY.  It isn't that the person needs to provide sources that prove their information is right, but that they need to start participating in discussion and acting cooperatively. Calathan (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

text: I think that the page should include the total gross, or better yet, both the initial and total grosses.  These lists do not only document the box office from the year of initial release, as can be seen with any film released late in the year (e.g., Star Wars: The Force Awakens on the 2015 list or Avatar on the 2009 list, both of which made a large portion of the listed gross in the following calendar year).  It is also very common for a studio to give a film a push late in its run to get past a milestone that it just barely fell short of.  With The Dark Knight, it seems to be an odd situation where that push is counted as a separate theatrical run rather than part of the initial run, and also where that push falls across a calendar year boundary from the initial run.  To me, it seems inconsistent to exclude the gross from that late push from The Dark Knight's total when the gross from similar pushes are included in other films totals, especially given that in general we aren't only listing the gross from the calendar year.  It just seems like an artificial distinction to be making.  I think a better approach might be to just list the initial gross and total gross for all the films.  Perhaps it could be listed as "$1,004,000,000 ($997,000,000 initial run)", or as "$997,000,000 ($1,004,000,000 total gross)", or something like that.  That way whichever number someone is interested in seeing is available.  I also want to mention that for older years (e.g. 1975 in film), they seem to be listing cumulative domestic gross (presumably because that is the only number that is known), so it isn't really the case that these lists are all restricted to initial run gross even as things stand now. Calathan (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There may be some years that include the "full" gross but this is probably down to them being changed by editors such as Squid slipping the net. If you look through the other articles they mostly document the gross for the release from that particular year. Take Star wars for example: why would we add the gross from the 1997 release to a chart about 1977? These charts are about the year, not the films and it misrepresents the data for that particular year. This is certainly the convention at something like Box Office Mojo: 1993 (Jurassic Park), 1994 (Lion King), 1997 (Titanic) and 2009 (Avatar). All of those chart films by the initial release gross. Betty Logan (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Star Wars is a good example of why it is problematic to try to list only the initial run on older lists.  Right now, 1977 in film lists a gross for Star Wars that is the total of its initial North American release in 1977 plus its North American rereleases in 1978, 1979, and 1981, but not its 1982 North American rerelease, its 1997 special edition, or any releases outside North America (see Star Wars (film)#Box Office for some more information on the releases).  This is because Box Office Mojo's data doesn't include separate information on releases from before about 1982.  I don't see any reason why someone would want to know Star Wars' gross from the first 4 North American releases, but not including the later releases or even the initial release from outside North America.  Total gross is a much easier number to obtain for older films, and including it would allow us to make the lists for recent years more consistent with what information we have for older years.  Anyway, in my opinion how successful films from year X ended up being seems just as relevant to an article on films from year X as how successful they were over their initial run (especially given that initial runs commonly stretch into the next year), and I don't see any reason not to include both pieces of information when both are available. Calathan (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not limited to using Box Office Mojo if it doesn't go back far enough. We use it out of convenience because it is fairly comprehensive for current releases. As you can see at the Star Wars article the pre-1982 figures are available through other sources so that is easily correctable. Variety has been tracking box office since the 1920s. It seems fairly intuitive to me that the 1977 article should document the 1977 business, or rather the business from the 1977 release. If readers want information about how much a film has earned in total then this is available at the film article itself, as we see in the case of Star Wars. By conflating the data for different years we end up providing the same data twice but not the the actual data for 1977. Betty Logan (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

text: Even Warner said the film grossed $997 million before its re-release in its end-of-year report: http://www.warnerbros.com/studio/news/warner-bros-entertainment-wraps-record-breaking-year. They should know how much their own film made. And this article records box office so it doesn't include DVD releases, TV rights etc. Betty Logan (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

text: Nobody is counting different premiere dates as a "re-release". If you actually click on that link I provide you will see that Warner are calling the IMAX re-release a re-release because it is in actual fact, a re-release. Are you saying that Warner is wrong to call the IMAX reissue a re-release? Are you saying that they are incorrect in claiming it had grossed $997 million prior to the re-release? Which part of Warner's press release do you actually disagree with? Betty Logan (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

text: The gap is not due to the IMAX reissue on the Box office Mojo worldwide chart. The gap is caused by the 2012 reissue. Box Office Mojo for whatever reason does not chart IMAX releases separately (they just add them on to the main gross) which is why the IMAX reissue does not show up on the re-release page. But Box Office Mojo do discuss it here: ; the 997 million figure given in the BOM article is corroborated by Warner's own press release. (On a separate note thankyou for finally coming to the talk page). Betty Logan (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

text: $997 million is not an estimate, it is a rounded figure. The week before its re-release (January 16, 2009) Box Office Mojo had the total down as $997.1 million (see http://web.archive.org/web/20090116175944/http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world). Also, I have only provided one link from Warner (not two), and that is the press release announcing the IMAX reissue in which it states The Dark Knight had grossed $997 million. And yes, at that time it was 4th highest-grossing film. Only three films had made a billion at that point (Titanic, Return of the King and Dead Man's Chest). Betty Logan (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disruptive editing of the grosses