›

The highest grossing movie franchises & number 1 is...

JawsJaws
edited June 2013 in Bond Movies Posts: 11
zuppcz6.jpg
«1

Comments

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,281
    I'm actually quite surprised by that, you know. It must be the Skyfall Effect.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    Bond has almost always been number one inflation adjusted. Now, that won't change.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,281
    I thought that it was Harry Potter for a while, though maybe that was just in the UK.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited June 2013 Posts: 13,355
    Without inflation, Potter is number one, but with it always has and will be Bond.
  • hullcityfanhullcityfan Banned
    Posts: 496
    I thought it might have been Harry Potter too but always thought Bond might win.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,281
    Yes, I see, inflation adjusted. Glad to hear it. Seems fair, proper and just that the James Bond franchise should come out on top!
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Without inflation, Potter is number one, but with it always has and will be Bond.

    With the Star Wars series picking up speed & Yearly releases we will fairly soon fairly soon see if that is till the case in a few years time when Bond has its next release and Star Wars on its third.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,281
    SaintMark wrote:
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Without inflation, Potter is number one, but with it always has and will be Bond.

    With the Star Wars series picking up speed & Yearly releases we will fairly soon fairly soon see if that is till the case in a few years time when Bond has its next release and Star Wars on its third.

    I think Bond will still be ahead of them all, though.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    Star Wars & Harry Potter beateh by a 24 movie franchise while they carry 6 and 8 movies, somehow I cannot be really impressed.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    Love that chart! Nice to see Bond way out in front! :-bd
  • Sir_James_MoloneySir_James_Moloney
    Posts: 388
    SaintMark wrote:
    Star Wars & Harry Potter beateh by a 24 movie franchise while they carry 6 and 8 movies, somehow I cannot be really impressed.

    It's a 25 movie franchise as CR67 an NSNA have been (rightly) counted.

    And it's very impressive. The return-per-film is obviously far lower for Bond but it's the fact that the series has lasted for so many instalments over so many decades that is the achievement. No other franchise has retained popular support and attracted audiences to nearly the same level.

    That said, I wonder about their definition of "franchise" - would be interesting to see the numbers for Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan and Frank L Baum's Oz saga, to name a few.

  • Perilagu_KhanPerilagu_Khan
    Posts: 2,483
    SaintMark wrote:
    Star Wars & Harry Potter beateh by a 24 movie franchise while they carry 6 and 8 movies, somehow I cannot be really impressed.

    Yes, well we'll see if Star Wars and Harry Potter can still gross over a billion dollars at age 50.

  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    Sir_James_Moloney wrote:
    That said, I wonder about their definition of "franchise"

    I am wondering this as well because they have Marvel Cinematic Universe and Spider-Man and X-Men listed separately. Technically speaking, shouldn't Spider-Man and X-Men be included in the Marvel Cinematic Universe? I think that they should rename the category to The Avengers Universe or something to that effect.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited June 2013 Posts: 4,520
    Avatar also belongs in this list and should be credit between Transformers and Aliens franchise with 2,782.3(00.000). Because there going to be 3 movies.

    And Jaws have 4 movies not 3.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    Wow. I AM impressed.
  • SoundofthesinnersSoundofthesinners
    Posts: 3,236
    pachazo wrote:
    Sir_James_Moloney wrote:
    That said, I wonder about their definition of "franchise"

    I am wondering this as well because they have Marvel Cinematic Universe and Spider-Man and X-Men listed separately. Technically speaking, shouldn't Spider-Man and X-Men be included in the Marvel Cinematic Universe? I think that they should rename the category to The Avengers Universe or something to that effect.

    The Marvel Cinematic Universe refers to the interconnected superhero movies appearing in the Avengers. Spider-man and the X-Men aren't connected to that group.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,585
    M_Balje wrote:
    And Jaws have 4 movies not 3.
    :)) If you look closely, they've actually included the fourth Jaws film on the chart, but we could forgive them if they failed to mention it, right? ;)
  • WhyMustISighWhyMustISigh
    Posts: 5
    As a fan of both franchises, I find it interesting that Bond and Bourne hold the top and bottom of this list.

    You could almost say they were the bookends. B-)
  • timmertimmer
    edited June 2013 Posts: 4,622
    Isn't there a movie missing from the Marvel cinematic universe?
    I count 3 x Ironman 2 X Hulk 1 Capt America 1 Thor and 1 Avengers which totals 8 films, yet the graph only includes 7
    Let me guess, the first Ang Lee Hulk is considered stand-alone and not part of the Marvel universe which followed. I don't quite get why that distinction would be made though, considering all the Batmans have been lumped together, and there was even lose continuity between the two Hulk films.
    Also I can't make out a 4th Reeve Superman. Then again I can barely make out the 4th Jaws film. Maybe Superman 4 is an even thinner sliver.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    Soundofthesinners wrote:
    The Marvel Cinematic Universe refers to the interconnected superhero movies appearing in the Avengers. Spider-man and the X-Men aren't connected to that group.
    Well no s*** Sherlock Holmes. My point was that is was grammatically incorrect. Spider-Man and the X-Men are arguably a much bigger part of the Marvel Universe than the Avengers are. That is why those films were made first.
  • Sir_James_MoloneySir_James_Moloney
    Posts: 388
    pachazo wrote:
    Soundofthesinners wrote:
    The Marvel Cinematic Universe refers to the interconnected superhero movies appearing in the Avengers. Spider-man and the X-Men aren't connected to that group.
    Well no s*** Sherlock Holmes. My point was that is was grammatically incorrect. Spider-Man and the X-Men are arguably a much bigger part of the Marvel Universe than the Avengers are. That is why those films were made first.

    Are you just questioning the name of the franchise? Marvel chose that name for it.

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Where are the Carry On films?

    Did they even clear £1 mil between them? Does anyone know of anybody who every went to see a Carry On in the cinema. I suppose the fact that they were literally made for nothing is how they managed to keep going for so long.
  • Sir_James_MoloneySir_James_Moloney
    Posts: 388
    TheWizardOfIce wrote:
    Where are the Carry On films?

    Did they even clear £1 mil between them? Does anyone know of anybody who every went to see a Carry On in the cinema. I suppose the fact that they were literally made for nothing is how they managed to keep going for so long.

    They were largely made for the UK domestic market and only sold internationally to some Commonwealth countries so their overall box office was pretty low.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Sir_James_Moloney wrote:
    TheWizardOfIce wrote:
    Where are the Carry On films?

    Did they even clear £1 mil between them? Does anyone know of anybody who every went to see a Carry On in the cinema. I suppose the fact that they were literally made for nothing is how they managed to keep going for so long.

    They were largely made for the UK domestic market and only sold internationally to some Commonwealth countries so their overall box office was pretty low.

    It was indeed low. Although some of them cost less than 100k, which won't surprise many people. I think some of the earlier ones like 'Nurse' actually topped the UK B.O. in their year of release. Granted, we're still probably talking peanuts in the late 50's. On the subject, I still think Carry On Screaming is a minor masterpiece.
  • Suivez_ce_parachuteSuivez_ce_parachute
    Posts: 2,015
    RC7 wrote:
    I think some of the earlier ones like 'Nurse' actually topped the UK B.O. in their year of release. Granted, we're still probably talking peanuts in the late 50's. On the subject, I still think Carry On Screaming is a minor masterpiece.

    And Carry On Camping may have beaten OHMSS to the UK box office. Only a "Bond source" (and numerous copy/paste of it) give OHMSS as a #1, while more general sources give Carry On Camping.

    Well, the next Bond movie after OHMSS topped the world box office, so the affront was soon forgotten :)
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    That statistic ic scientific proof that it was Dalton who brought the franchise ahead of the competition :D .
  • timmertimmer
    Posts: 4,622
    Anyone know why only 7 movies are shown for Marvel Universe and not 8? :-?
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited June 2013 Posts: 13,355
    Hulk isn't part of the Universe, it's a one-off standalone film.
  • timmertimmer
    edited June 2013 Posts: 4,622
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Hulk isn't part of the Universe, it's a one-off standalone film.
    but is that really established, as there is continuity between the two films.
    Hulk 2 was effectively a re-boot but not a clean re-boot.
    If the two sets of Batman films can be lumped together then there is no reason not to include both Hulk films IMO.

  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    Hulk and The Incredible Hulk are separate films, there are only seven Marvel Universe at the moment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_Cinematic_Universe

    I understand you reasoning. The Batman films should too be separated.
Sign In or Register to comment.