Talk:List of highest-grossing films in the United Kingdom

Black Panther

Needs to be updated it's total gross in the UK is 70 million not 50 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:950:3380:7096:37EC:79DE:2FDF (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Problem with sourcing

This article is entirely unreliable in its current form. The problem is that the list is simply a reproduction of that at http://www.25thframe.co.uk/ and there are two problems with that:

1. It is a copyright violation
2. It is not attributable to a reliable source

For the latter in particular, I can find nothing to indicate that the site is either notable or reliable and there are a couple of clues that it is a hobby site:

1. The "feedback" page is entitled "Contact me"
2. whois indicates that the domain registrant is a UK individual.

Unless the list is reliably sourced, it should be removed.

RichardOSmith (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Also the amount of money films have grossed in the U.K. in 2012 is different on this page compared to the page 2012 in film However instead of deleting it why does not someone source it and either correct 2012 in film or this web page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrpequalme (talk • contribs) 21:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Just the UK?

Some sources, such as Box Office Mojo, refer to the 'UK' box office as actually the UK, Ireland and Malta, similar to how the US box office is actually the United States and Canada. Are these figures specifically from just the UK, if not I think the title should be changed to accurately reflect Ireland and Malta's contribution to the totals--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Just 25th Frame? Laughable

There have been several problems with this article recently, the most notible being that 25th Frame being the only source. Several film "totals" are not correct and their "totals" show what they reached when when they dropped out the top ten, not their real final totals. Also, Allthestrongbowintheworld is being very totalitarian, which is a cause of a lot of the inaccuracies. He won't allow any updates that aren't 25th Frame, even when they have a reliable source - this goes against Wikipedia. An example is Skyfall, which overtook Avatar a couple of days ago, but he wouldn't allow the accurate data to be added until his/her hand was forced by the overwelming evidence in the media. He/She says that Skyfall shouldn't be updated daily - there is no reason behind this, if there are sources showing accurate daily data, then yes - the article should be updated where accuate. I look forward to seeing this article improving with the proper final datas for previous films. I feel that while Allthestrongbowintheworld is "in charge" this will not happen. 93.186.23.82 (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Your accusations are baseless and without merit. How exactly am I being totalitarian? Because I have a differing opinion than you? How dare I! I wouldn't allow any data that didn't have a valid citation. Some of the Avatar updates were accompanied with a message of 'it's from Rentrak' or 'search IMDb forums', which most certainly are not valid citations and as such I reversed said updates. The Skyfall gross updates were claimed to be sourced from initially box office mojo and then IMDb. Conveniently no link was given, and when I checked both websites manually neither had the figure that was claimed. As such I also reversed those updates. I am asking for films to not be updated daily because there are conflicting figures from different sources, where as updating after the weekend allows for a definitive figure and gives us time to update the entire table accurately. Lastly, I am not 'in charge'. The way you phrased that, I don't know if that is a thinly-veiled attempt to get me blocked from editing this page, but I have as much right to edit it as you or anyone else. --Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The numbers from Rentrak are the official numbers, they have been the official source for the UK box office numbers for years - you can't say it's an invalid source, because it isn't. 93.186.23.82 (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow, it's getting really hard not to lose my temper. Rentrak is a valid source. I have never said otherwise. However, simply saying 'It's from Rentrak' is NOT A VALID CITATION. Where on Rentrak is it? On what page is it? Is it a table? An annex? That's what a citation reference is supposed to tell someone.--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

BFI

'Is there a list for British movies only.pi.e sky falls Or Harry potter and the deathly hallows part 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.79.4 (talk) 12:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. There's also the problem of classifying what is a British film, since so many these days are co-produced with France or the United States. Then on the flipside there are films like The Dark Knight franchise, which are culturally American but was co-produced with the UK. Would you consider that them British films?

I think the highest grossing films that are sole UK productions are the Full Monty, the King's Speech then The Inbetweeners Movie.--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

BFI 2

We should make the list of britsh or part Britsh films. If a Britsh compony help make it it should be on the list if it made the amount — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hobout

The hobit is no longer in cinima

Add. Highest grossing series

? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 10:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Inflation

If the list tries to avoid mention of the existence of ticket price inflation, then it is merely a list of turnover increases due to unit price increases, and is thus less informative than it could be.

I have removed mention of popularity since the list title does not specifically mention it. However to claim this is entirely Irrelevant to the topic of the list is disingenuous.

Why would this list ever be looked at? Anyone viewing the list would be here to see what films were more attended than most. Since the prices have increased substantially (over 44% in a 12 year period, as per industry's own figures), it should be pointed out that these price increases mean that audience numbers need to be inferred with great caution.

Japanscot (talk) 04:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

You need to make the distinction between what the list is and what you want it to be. The list doesn't claim to measure audience numbers or actual ticket sales or popularity or anything else, it's merely a list of how much money films have made, so to me it seems like an irrelevant 'caution' to add.

Also the inflation argument ignores changes over time in the cinema industry, so comparing films released now to those released in the past by ticket sales isn't even a like-for-like comparison anyway, not to mention there are dubious methodology involved when calculating those apparently astronimical ticket sales that old films apparently achieved.--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 07:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Again I ask the question, if your statements are correct, why would this list ever be looked at by anyone other than economists with a very specific interest in inflation unadjusted amounts of money spent on a product?

Only a fool would make lists pointing out "Cornflakes in 2010 took more money at tills than shreddies in 1970." "British people spent more unadjusted money on brand x bread in 2005 than they did on brand y bread in 1998." Such lists would be tautologies, amounting simply to a statement that "inflation exists". That is all that these "box office record lists" are.

It is most interesting that cinema talks about amounts of inflation unadjusted money spent on their industry but for example music talks about number of copies paid for. By "changes in the industry over time" do you mean- "the decline in popularity of their product."?

Why are you so frightened of having someone point out that increases in unadjusted money spent do not indicate increases in popularity? The information given does not lessen the readability of the page, and I say it again; denying that lists like this will often be misinterpreted as indicating popularity is disingenuous at best.

Japanscot (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

See, I think the problem here is that have a viewpoint on the matter and you assume everyone EVERYONE must think that way. I for one am interested in what makes the most money at the box office, because I appreciate that other factors mean a like-for-like comparison of films over different decades is meaningless. Regardless, it doesn't matter who would look at a wikipedia page. The list is what it is and you need to stop changing it. If you want to add a second table showing inflation-adjusted figures then by all means, but stop trying to distort the current list to fit your pov.

As for 'changes in the industry over time' I mean exactly that. There are more films, more mediums on which to watch them, increased piracy etc.--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Care to prove your accusations?

1. Alleged "pov"

2. "Distortion"

For you "distortion" appears to mean pointing out an incontrovertible fact in an article where it is directly relevant.

Even if your (false) accusation were true it would not be relevant. Pointing out that the list does not directly relate to number of tickets sold (and thus popularity at the box office) does not reduce the readability of the article, it does not change the order films listed in the table. Thus it is you who has pov - that the page shall be less informative than it could be.

As for your own "pov". It is demonstrated by your reducing the utility and informativeness of lists and tables by removing 24 words from a 134 word preamble. You made no attempt to reword or edit for brevity.

Your hasty accusations against those who do not toe your line is clearly a symptom of your ownership

"you assume everyone EVERYONE must think that way" as a response to something you don't like is, again, your ownership. (And is in fact what you are guilty of) A quick look at the history of this article shows you leaping very quickly on other editors who made contributions of which you disapproved.

"The list is what it is and you need to stop changing it."

(i) Article history shows this to be another false accusation. You will find that I never changed the list at any time. I added words to the preamble. (And I removed 3 words that were actively misleading - at one point the preamble claimed that the figures in the table give information on tickets sold.)

(ii) Another editor "needs to stop changing"!? You do not own this page.

Do you have any evidence that "like for like comparison of films in differing decades" is meaningless? Why specifically would it be meaningless? Total number of tickets sold would be just as easy to count as total number of pounds spent, and there has been no inflation in the number of tickets you need to buy to see a film, has there? In particular, do you have evidence that such a list would be more "meaningless" than a list of inflation-unadjusted takings?

One final thought, do you earn your living through cinema tickets being sold, or through talking up the success of cinemas? I suspect you do.

Japanscot (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Replacing 25thframe

It seems several concerns have been expressed in regards to 25thFrame being used as source for the chart in the list, notably at #Problem with sourcing and #Just 25th Frame? Laughable. I had the source vetted at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#25thframe.co.uk and the appraisal there is that it does not meet Wikipedia's WP:Reliable source criteria. Therefore, if there are no objections I intend to replace the source with one from the BFI Statistical Yearbook. The unfortunate side effect of this is that since the BFI only charts the top 20 then the chart in the list will need to be cut down to the same length. If anyone is aware of any other source that we could use in place of 25thFrame then please list it here so it can be vetted; otherwise if there are no objections I will proceed with the alterations. Betty Logan (talk) 00:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Studio column

I think this column should be pulled. It's not particularly relevant (why not the nationality of the film or the director?) and in many cases it doesn't match the studios listed in the main film articles. When I proceed with the source replacement above I will pull this column if there are no objections. Betty Logan (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Craig in Star Wars

An anonymous editor has added the following sentence to the article three times now: "It is worth noting that Daniel Craig appeared in the films ranking 1,2 and 3 in the list."

At best this seems to be trivia, and at worst unconfirmed speculation. There seems to be a rumor going around that Daniel Craig cameos as a stormtrooper in the new Star Wars film. However, according to The Telegraph Craig has denied the rumor. Wikipedia is not the place for rumors per WP:RUMOUR, so unlesss either Disney or a representative for Craig confirms his appearance I do not think the cameo should be referenced. Even if it is true it seems to be a form of WP:EDITORIALIZING: even if Craig did indeed have a small and unrecognizable cameo I don't see what relevance it has here i.e. it's not like it's a starring role and the success of the film can be attributed to him in some way. Betty Logan (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this is both trivia and editorializing, and inappropriate. Popcornduff (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The jungle book

The The Jungle Book (2016 film) has made £50 million on Bom

One of the sources must have made a mistake. The Guardian and Deadline also have the gross down as £46.2 million so it looks like BOM is in error. There are some irregularities in the BOM data: As of June 5 The Jungle Book had earned £44.6 million. The following weekend it earned £412,000 and its total stood at £45.1 million, as of June 12. The weekend after that it grossed £227,000 but its total dropped to £44.3 million, as of June 19 (less than it was two weeks earlier). Across June 24–26 it grossed £105,000 but its total jumped to £48.1 million. Box Office Mojo clearly isn't tracking the pound-sterling UK gross, but is most likely converting the dollar gross to pounds using the conversion rate for that week. That is the only explanation for why the gross starts going down, and when the pound collapsed after the Brexit on June 23 the gross suddenly leaps by £4 million (because the dollar buys you more pounds). Betty Logan (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Highest-grossing films by box-office admissions

When the BFI first published "The Ultimate Film" listing, the film at #100 (The Matrix Reloaded) had 7.96m admissions. I'd be in favour of listing anything above this amount of ticket sales, but I can see that 10 million is a good threshold. I like to keep an eye on updates to the Top 100 though, which 25th frame seems to be useful for, although he's made mistakes in the past - Les Miserables appeared in the list and then went, because in the end the amount of admissions wasn't high enough for inclusion. Maybe the list itself deserves its own page, like the AFI series, although unlike those, the list of top films in the UK by ticket sales is obviously subject to change. The only reliable source for ticket admissions data seems to be the Lumiere one, which might only be updated every June. I'm curious to know if Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them or Rogue One will make the Top 100. The only current way to estimate is to look at the box-office takings and divide it by the average cinema ticket cost in the UK, which seems to be £7.21, although both films will certainly have attracted large audiences of children who pay less, although that is perhaps offset by the adults who pay more. On that basis, the Harry Potter film has had about 6.5m admissions so far, and the Star Wars over 4 million. The former certainly seems unlikely to have 10 million admissions. TrottieTrue (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I sometimes check the 25thframe to make sure I haven't overlooked anything but it's not a WP:Reliable source so we can't actually use it for sourcing. The box office is regularly updated using the BFI weekend figures but everything else is usually updated anually in July/August when the BFI publish the Yearbook. Lumiere has usually published by then too so the admissions chart is updated too. Obviously it means there is often a bit of a lag (we still have Spectre and The Force Awakens highlighted because their figures were not finalised in the last yearbook for instance) but I find that preferable to guesswork (it's not at all straightforward as demonstrated by the substantial difference between the BFI and Lumiere figures). Betty Logan (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Another note under this subject is the differences between admissions data from the BFI and Lumiere. The book based on the BFI Ultimate Film chart has a section about how they compiled the list, which states that for newer films, they divided the box-office gross by the average ticket price at the time. Therefore, perhaps the Lumiere figures from 1996 to 2003 are the more reliable ones, except those from 2002 where Lumiere do not have UK admissions data. This probably explains the gap between estimates for the first Harry Potter film, as I can imagine another five million attendances in 2002, not too long after it had been released. For my own personal listing of the 'Ultimate Films' I am using the Lumiere figures for newer films as they seem to be more accurate. TrottieTrue (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The title seems somewhat mis-leading, the section is about viewers as opposed to box office takings, if anything it's more about box office givings (the viewers ticket as it were). Would it be worth changing the article's title along with this sub section...or indeed splitting this out into it's own article? Robidy (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Many box-office articles have a section about admissions/ticket sales. It is just another metric to measure the success of a film. I disagree with splitting it out; a section on the number admissions helps to provide comprehensive coverage of a film's performance at the box-office. If these sections were excised the article would be skewed towards films made in the last 20 years or so. IMO the historical context is what makes the article interesting. Betty Logan (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2019

Please remove Uk on Star Wars films and Marvel films because they are not British produced. 82.132.218.28 (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC) 82.132.218.28 (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The new Star wars films and some of the Marvel films were produced under international co-production treaties. This is explained in further detail at List_of_highest-grossing_films_in_the_United_Kingdom#British_productions. Betty Logan (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

But HOW?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?86.166.82.169 (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

With the force. El_C 12:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I am being serious here!86.166.82.169 (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

It's all explained in the article in the link Betty Logan provided above. Canterbury Tail talk 13:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

It is all to do with accessing the British subsidy fund. You can read about in detail at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/csylt/2015/02/10/revealed-disneys-only-loss-making-british-movie/#1d775d0e549e. Basically the bottom line is that Disney have got their films classified as British co-productions under UK law so they can access the funding. All the classifications come from the British Film Institute for the purpose of this page. Betty Logan (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The how do you explain these?!

https://www.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/5553f76f56805 https://www.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/5c4615087b730 https://www.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/568f1ba214607 https://www.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/588fe0fbccd94 https://www.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/5a78f054ab1a8 https://www.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/5afcadbfd46a1 2A00:23C6:5492:4300:59A8:AA00:ADBC:4340 (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

It's a clear contradiction and I don't have an answer, but the article draws all of its data (including the national classifications) from the BFI Statistical Yearbook: https://www.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.org.uk/files/downloads/bfi-top-films-of-all-time-2016-2017-06.pdf. More intriguingly, the database lists Avatar as a UK/US production ([1]) whereas the Yearbook just lists it as American. I think it is an issue that needs resolving but the problem with your approach is that if we make the classifications different to that of the Yearbook then it will contradict the source currently used by the article, as well as making the analysis incorrect. I think probably the most sensible approach is to contact the BFI and query why their database contradicts the Yearbook? Once we have established which classification is correct then we can ensure the article uses the correct classifications. Betty Logan (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• OK, I got a reply. Here it is:

There are indeed different criteria in the yearbook and on the BFI Collections Database. The BFI collections database ascribed films nationality based on the nationality of production companies identified on the credits of a film. In the Research and Statistic Unit (RSU) we have a slightly different method. The major difference being that if a film is certified as being a UK production due to it qualify for film tax relief we classify it as a UK film.

In short:

• Film tax relief is available for British qualifying films. Films must either pass the Cultural Test or qualify as an official co-production;
• Films must be intended for theatrical release;
• Films, including those made under official co-production treaties, must have a minimum UK core spend requirement of 10%;
• Tax relief is available on qualifying UK production expenditure on the lower of either: 80% of total core expenditure; or the actual UK core expenditure incurred.
• There is no cap on the amount which can be claimed.
• The film production company (FPC) responsible for the film needs to be within the UK corporation tax net.

By following the Certification process it enables us to present information on the whole of the film production process.

So essentially the BFI database is a catalog that uses the nationality of the production companies. For the Yearbook there are strict criteria, namely that the film must either pass the "cultural test" (basically at least 50 per cent of the cast/crew must be UK citizens) or the film must be made under a legally binding co-production treaty. Since the new Star wars films were made by Americans and produced by Lucasfilm they must have been produced under co-production treaties. Betty Logan (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)