What is Digg?133 Comments
- malfourmed, on 10/10/2007, -2/+151The article actually goes on to list 16 franchises:
1. James Bond $4.5B lifetime worldwide gross
2. Star Wars $4.4B (excluding reissues & IMAX)
3. Harry Potter $4.1B
4. LOTR $2.9B
5. POTC $2.7B
6. Spider-Man $2.5B
7. Shrek $2.1B
8. Jurassic Park $1.9B
9. The Matrix $1.6B (tie)
9. Batman $1.6B (tie)
11. Mission Impossible $1.4B
12. Indiana Jones $1.2B (tie) (excluding reissues)
13. X-Men $1.2B (tie)
14. Star Trek $1.1B
15. Die Hard $1.0B
16. Jason Bourne $0.368B (excluding global gross of Bourne 3)
Some observations:
a) The grosses are NOT adjusted for inflation
b) Reissues are not included; if they were Star Wars would probably be ranked at #1
c) Success is measured only in theatrical release $$, not spin-offs & merchandising, longevity (though Bond would top the stakes on this measure too) or critical acclaim.
d) Hard to believe there's such a big gap between Die Hard at $1B and the Bourne movies at $368M. For instance I'm convinced the five Superman movies grossed more than $368M worldwide. Maybe someone was just looking for an excuse to slip Bourne into the article? - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -6/+133JAMES BOND
so you don't have to waste time with Aol Articles - completerobot, on 10/10/2007, -6/+82Okay, internet? Top Ten lists should go from 10 to 1. Honestly, where's the excitement this way?
- LoungeActx, on 10/10/2007, -2/+22damn...no Back to the Future? no Godfather?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+20Buried as inaccurate.
Apply inflation to those numbers then come back to me with the real results.
Star Wars *alone* (as in, Episode 4) brought in 1.5 billion when adjusted properly for inflation - and that was just the THEATER gross. - Racerx52, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16Christopher walken
- zabaf, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16Mine was Land Before time. I swear they have over 50 movies.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -9/+22Looks like Harry Potter will be #1 pretty soon.
- stillfocus, on 10/10/2007, -5/+18I liked the Spider-man series until this last one came out... I'm still recovering.
- rheaume, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13So they are saying the Bourne series (1 and 2 global, #3 domestic) have only made 368$M? Sounds like a misinformed number
- standalonematt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Total for Bourne is innacurate.
Bourne Identity - $214m
Bourne Supremacy - 288.5m
Thats a total of just over 500m - well above the 368m the site lists. Add in Ultimatum's 168m (and counting) - it brings the total to almost almost 700m (probably closer to 800m when its done)
Source: Box Office Mojo
I wonder now about the accuracy of the other numbers. - xstarsprinklesx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Interesting, but I'd really like to see a list that is adjusted for inflation and which does include reissues. Otherwise, how is it really indicative of how successful the franchise is?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13Emma Watson is a babe.
- Spideristic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Absolutely.... BTTF trilogy should have made the list, it grossed $926 million.
http://www.worldwideboxoffice.com/index.cgi?order=worldwide&start=1900&finish=2007&keyword=Back+to+the+future&links=allposters.com&popups=yes - sportbikepilot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8can't we have all the info on one friggin page?
- nubnub, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Shrek was a book first..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrek%21 - centran, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9I agree with you. Don't know why people are digging down. Lists should start at the end and go to number 1.
TV TopWhatever Lists do it this way but almost all internet/magazine/newspaper do not. I don't understand it. - louiemantia, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Yea, James Bond would be number one, but this list seems really unfair. Forbes has a better list: http://www.forbes.com/2005/06/15/batman-movies-franchises-cx_lh_lr_0615batman_2.html
I mean how can you forget Superman, Back to the Future, Home Alone, Indiana Jones, Austin Powers, Terminator, and Hannibal Lecter?! - ClayDragon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8You really were surprised? James Bond was my first thought.
- Shakermaker, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7They said "successful" movies.
- Morphinity, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Gone With the Wind: A New Gust
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7when did how much money a movie make start to matter? who the f cares about if other people made money on a movie? i care about how it is to watch a movie.
- nubnub, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Shrek was based on a book.
- Shorties, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7she is legal in less then a year
- ICSU, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Matrix earned more.
- mos6507, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Top 10 grossing lists are MEANINGLESS unless adjusted for ticket prices. I think if you did that, Gone With the Wind would be #1 followed by Star Wars.
- DeFex, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Eat *****!
One billion flies cant be wrong! - SuperSloth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Even so, the list would then go:
12. Indiana Jones $1.2B (tie) (excluding reissues)
12. X-Men $1.2B (tie)
14. Star Trek $1.1B
15. Die Hard $1.0B
16. Jason Bourne $0.368B (excluding global gross of Bourne 3) - birdman2473, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7no police academy??
- Shorties, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6POTC was a ride but your correct on the matrix, Star Wars, and The Matrix were the only completely original movies on that list.
- AnimalTaglits, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I love that picture of Stan Lee. I bet he's shooting out money from his veins instead of webbing.
- gmoney1, on 10/10/2007, -6/+10This isn't really fair, since james bond has done over 20 movies, and star wars did 6. And it still made billions.
- fnaqzna, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3If the list isn't adjusted for inflation, it's meaningless.
- xstarsprinklesx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Ah, thanks. =)
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The other thing this misses is merchandising.
The Bond films may have a slightly higher total gross, but the sheer amount of Star Wars tie ins sold probably doubles the flim's profitability. - fli7e, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The real spoiler is how ***** that article presents the information everyone who clicked on it wants.
- Spideristic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm
Although this lists only US domestic gross of individual movies, not franchises. - Jack9, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6If most successful was the point of the article, not just gross, I'd digg this. It's clearly inaccurate as franchises like the Muppet movies had the best return for investment making them WILDLY successful beyond the LOTR and Harry Potter franchises. BURIED.
- Kyouto, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2...Star Wars was a book first too......
- Rocketbird, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Wait, so The Godfather doesn't count as a franchise?
- mbradbury, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2She's been legal in most of the western world for over a year now.
- chocobomog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Bond would still be at the top when adjusted for inflation. The older the movie the higher its grosses when adjusted for inflation (Gone with the Wind is 1.3 billion after inflation, Star Wars is 1.17 billion after inflation, etc). Since Bond had at least 10 movies prior to the first Star Wars which, after inflation, each grossed from 400-800 million, Bond is pretty much unbeatable after adjusted for inflation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bond#Films
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm - psykiv, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2WTF? Where the hell do you work?
- Ultramagnus0001, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Now a TV show
- dagamer34, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Besides the fact that series that have millions of sequels pumped out are hugely overrepresented, Hollywood has thankfully toned it down to where if the first one sucked, you only have to live through 2 more.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3who is Emma Watson?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Innacurate. Not adjusted for inflation.
- Hardspoken, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3You would think Terminator would be up there?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 121 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is