سب سے زیادہ کمائی کرنے والی فلموں کی فہرست (Urdu Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "سب سے زیادہ کمائی کرنے والی فلموں کی فہرست" in Urdu language version.

refsWebsite
Global rank Urdu rank
1st place
1st place
21st place
380th place
3rd place
3rd place
235th place
3,790th place
6th place
4th place
110th place
1,087th place
59th place
636th place
5,353rd place
low place
13th place
647th place
7th place
43rd place
15th place
1,271st place
10th place
589th place
61st place
216th place
1,615th place
6,994th place
4,080th place
low place
504th place
130th place
8th place
17th place
220th place
1,013th place
4,993rd place
low place
8,849th place
low place
low place
9,975th place
low place
low place
2nd place
11th place
5th place
16th place
11th place
2,494th place
24th place
118th place
7,608th place
low place
446th place
234th place
2,465th place
6,118th place
518th place
938th place
490th place
2,495th place
low place
low place
414th place
2,733rd place
35th place
1,871st place
107th place
1,302nd place
269th place
1,316th place

archive.org

archives.gov

bbc.co.uk

news.bbc.co.uk

books.google.com

  • Richard Schickel (1996)۔ D. W. Griffith: An American Life۔ Limelight Series۔ Hal Leonard Corporation۔ ص 326۔ ISBN:978-0-87910-080-3۔ ...there exists a very precise production accountant's statement, drawn up some time after the picture was finished, previews had been held and release prints struck. This document shows that the negative cost of the picture was precisely $385,906.77...
  • Bernard F. Dick (1997)۔ City of Dreams: The Making and Remaking of Universal Pictures۔ University Press of Kentucky۔ ص 168۔ ISBN:978-0-8131-2016-4۔ Jaws (1975) saved the day, grossing $104 million domestically and $132 million worldwide by January 1976.
  • David A. Cook (2002)۔ Lost Illusions: American Cinema in the Shadow of Watergate and Vietnam, 1970–1979۔ University of California Press۔ ج 9 of History of the American Cinema, Charles Harpole۔ ص 50۔ ISBN:978-0-520-23265-5۔ The industry was stunned when Star Wars earned nearly $3 million in its first week and by the end of August had grossed $100 million; it played continuously throughout 1977–1978, and was officially re-released in 1978 and 1979, by the end of which it had earned $262 million in rentals worldwide to become the top-grossing film of all time – a position it would maintain until surpassed by Universal's E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial in January 1983.
  • Peter Krämer (1999)۔ "Women First: Titanic, Action-Adventure Films, and Hollywood's Female Audience"۔ در Kevin S. Sandler؛ Gaylyn Studlar (مدیران)۔ Titanic: Anatomy of a Blockbuster۔ Rutgers University Press۔ ص 108130۔ ISBN:978-0-8135-2669-0۔ On page 130, the list has Jurassic Park at number one with $913 million, followed by The Lion King...
  • James Monaco (2009)۔ How to Read a Film:Movies, Media, and Beyond۔ اوکسفرڈ یونیورسٹی پریس۔ ص 262۔ ISBN:978-0-19-975579-0۔ The Birth of a Nation, costing an unprecedented and, many believed, thoroughly foolhardy $110,000, eventually returned $20 million and more. The actual figure is hard to calculate because the film was distributed on a "states' rights" basis in which licenses to show the film were sold outright. The actual cash generated by The Birth of a Nation may have been as much as $50 million to $100 million, an almost inconceivable amount for such an early film.
  • Janet Wasko (1986)۔ "D.W. Griffiths and the banks: a case study in film financing"۔ در Paul Kerr (مدیر)۔ The Hollywood Film Industry: A Reader۔ روٹلیج۔ ص 34۔ ISBN:978-0-7100-9730-9۔ Various accounts have cited $15 to $18 million profits during the first few years of release, while in a letter to a potential investor in the proposed sound version, Aitken noted that a $15 to $18 million box-office gross was a 'conservative estimate'. For years Variety has listed The Birth of a Nation's total rental at $50 million. (This reflects the total amount paid to the distributor, not box-office gross.) This 'trade legend' has finally been acknowledged by Variety as a 'whopper myth', and the amount has been revised to $5 million. That figure seems far more feasible, as reports of earnings in the Griffith collection list gross receipts for 1915–1919 at slightly more than $5.2 million (including foreign distribution) and total earnings after deducting general office expenses, but not royalties, at about $2 million.
  • Robert Lang، مدیر (1994)۔ The Birth of a nation: D.W. Griffith, director۔ Rutgers University Press۔ ص 30۔ ISBN:978-0-8135-2027-8۔ The film eventually cost $110,000 and was twelve reels long.
  • Robert Lang، مدیر (1994)۔ The Birth of a nation: D.W. Griffith, director۔ Rutgers University Press۔ ص 30۔ ISBN:978-0-8135-2027-8۔ The film eventually cost $110,000 and was twelve reels long.
  • Robert S. Birchard (2010)، Intolerance، ص 45، Intolerance was the most expensive American film made up until that point, costing a total of $489,653, and its performance at the box ... but it did recoup its cost and end with respectable overall numbers. In: Block اور Wilson 2010.
  • Hall اور Neale 2010، صفحہ 53. "The Four Forsemen of the Apocalypse was to become Metro's most expensive production and one of the decade's biggest box-office hits. Its production costs have been estimated at "something between $600,000 and $800,000." Variety estimated its worldwide gross at $4 million in 1925 and at $5 million in 1944; in 1991, it estimated its cumulative domestic rentals at $3,800,000."
  • Kevin Brownlow (1968)۔ The parade's gone by ..۔ University of California Press۔ ص 255۔ ISBN:978-0-520-03068-8۔ The negative cost was about $986,000, which did not include Fairbanks' own salary. Once the exploitation and release prints were taken into account, Robin Hood cost about $1,400,000—exceeding both Intolerance ($700,000) and the celebrated "million dollar movie" Foolish Wives. But it earned $2,500,000.
  • Jeffrey Vance (2008)۔ Douglas Fairbanks۔ University of California Press۔ ص 146۔ ISBN:978-0-520-25667-5۔ The film had a production cost of $930,042.78—more than the cost of D.W. Griffith's Intolerance and nearly as much as Erich von Stroheim's Foolish Wives (1922).
  • Patrick Robertson (1991)۔ Guinness Book of Movie Facts and Feats (4 ایڈیشن)۔ Abbeville Publishing Group۔ ص 30۔ ISBN:978-1-55859-236-0۔ The top grossing silent film was King Vidor's The Big Parade (US 25), with worldwide rentals of $22 million.
  • Hall اور Neale 2010، صفحہ 58–59. "Even then, at a time when the budget for a feature averaged at around $300,000, no more than $382,000 was spent on production...According to the Eddie Mannix Ledger at MGM, it grossed $4,990,000 domestically and $1,141,000 abroad."
  • Hall اور Neale 2010، صفحہ 163. "MGM's silent Ben-Hur, which opened at the end of 1925, had out-grossed all the other pictures released by the company in 1926 combined. With worldwide rentals of $9,386,000 on first release it was, with the sole possible exception of The Birth of a Nation, the highest-earning film of the entire silent era. (At a negative cost of $3,967,000, it was also the most expensive.)"
  • Finler 2003، صفحہ 188. "At a cost of $2 million Wings was the studio's most expensive movie of the decade, and though it did well it was not good enough to earn a profit."
  • The Jazz Singer and The Singing Fool
    • Hayley Taylor Block (2010)، The Jazz Singer، ص 113، The film brought in $2.6 million in worldwide rentals and made a net profit of $1,196,750. Jolson's follow-up Warner Bros. film, The Singing Fool (1928), brought in over two times as much, with $5.9 in worldwide rentals and a profit of $3,649,000, making them two of the most profitable films in the 1920s.
    • Donald Crafton (1999)۔ The Talkies: American Cinema's Transition to Sound, 1926–1931۔ University of California Press۔ ص 549–552۔ ISBN:978-0-520-22128-4۔ The Singing Fool: Negative Cost ($1000s): 388
    • Robert S. Birchard (2010)، The Broadway Melody، ص 121، It earned $4.4 million in worldwide rentals and was the first movie to spawn sequels (there were several until 1940). In: Block اور Wilson 2010.
    • Block اور Wilson 2010، صفحہ 46. "Production Cost: $0.6 (Unadjusted $s in Millions of $s)."
    • Mike Cormack (1993)۔ Ideology and Cinematography in Hollywood, 1930–1939۔ Palgrave Macmillan۔ ص 28۔ ISBN:978-0-312-10067-4۔ Although costing $1250000—a huge sum for any studio in 1929—the film was a financial success. Karl Thiede gives the domestic box-office at $1500000, and the same figure for the foreign gross.
    • Hell's Angels
      • Tino Balio (1976)۔ United Artists: The Company Built by the Stars۔ University of Wisconsin Press۔ ص 110۔ Hughes did not have the "Midas touch" the trade press so often attributed to him. Variety, for example, reported that Hell's Angels cost $3.2 million to make, and by July, 1931, eight months after its release, the production cost had nearly been paid off. Keats claimed the picture cost $4 million to make and that it earned twice that much within twenty years. The production cost estimate is probably correct. Hughes worked on the picture for over two years, shooting it first as a silent and then as a talkie. Lewis Milestone said that in between Hughes experimented with shooting it in color as well. But Variety's earnings report must be the fabrication of a delirious publicity agent, and Keats' the working of a myth maker. During the seven years it was in United Artists distribution, Hell's Angels grossed $1.6 million in the domestic market, of which Hughes' share was $1.2 million. Whatever the foreign gross was, it seems unlikely that it was great enough to earn a profit for the picture.
      • Block اور Wilson 2010، صفحہ 163. "It drew $1.4 million in worldwide rentals in its first run versus $1.2 million for Dracula, which had opened in February 1931."
      • John Sedgwick (2000)۔ Popular Filmgoing In 1930s Britain: A Choice of Pleasures۔ University of Exeter Press۔ ص 146–148۔ ISBN:978-0-85989-660-3۔ Sources: Eddie Mannix Ledger, made available to the author by Mark Glancy...
      • John Sedgwick (2000)۔ Popular Filmgoing In 1930s Britain: A Choice of Pleasures۔ University of Exeter Press۔ ص 146–148۔ ISBN:978-0-85989-660-3۔ Sources: Eddie Mannix Ledger, made available to the author by Mark Glancy...
      • Finler 2003، صفحہ 188. "The studio released its most profitable pictures of the decade in 1933, She Done Him Wrong and I'm No Angel, written by and starring Mae West. Produced at a rock-bottom cost of $200,000 each, they undoubtedly helped Paramount through the worst patch in its history..."
      • Alex Ben Block (2010)، She Done Him Wrong، ص 173، The worldwide rentals of over $3 million keep the lights on at Paramount, which did not shy away from selling the movie's sex appeal. In: Block اور Wilson 2010.
      • Kendall R. Phillips (2008)۔ Controversial Cinema: The Films That Outraged America۔ ABC-CLIO۔ ص 26۔ ISBN:978-1-56720-724-8۔ The reaction to West's first major film, however, was not exclusively negative. Made for a mere $200,000, the film would rake in a healthy $2 million in the United States and an additional million in overseas markets.
      • Block اور Wilson 2010، صفحہ 135. "Total production cost: $274,076 (Unadjusted $s)."
      • Bernard F. Dick (2008)۔ Claudette Colbert: She Walked in Beauty۔ یونیورسٹی پریس آف مسیسپی۔ ص 79۔ ISBN:978-1-60473-087-6۔ Although Columbia's president, Harry Cohn, had strong reservations about It Happened One Night, he also knew that it would not bankrupt the studio; the rights were only $5,000, and the budget was set at $325,000, including the performers' salaries.
      • Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
        • Paul Monaco (2010)۔ A History of American Movies: A Film-By-Film Look at the Art, Craft, and Business of Cinema۔ Scarecrow Press۔ ص 54۔ ISBN:978-0-8108-7434-3۔ Considered a highly risky gamble when the movie was in production in the mid-1930s, by the fiftieth anniversary of its 1937 premiere Snow White's earnings exceeded $330 million.
        • Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
          • Paul Monaco (2010)۔ A History of American Movies: A Film-By-Film Look at the Art, Craft, and Business of Cinema۔ Scarecrow Press۔ ص 54۔ ISBN:978-0-8108-7434-3۔ Considered a highly risky gamble when the movie was in production in the mid-1930s, by the fiftieth anniversary of its 1937 premiere Snow White's earnings exceeded $330 million.
          • Hall اور Neale 2010، صفحہ 283 ."The final negative cost of Gone with the Wind (GWTW) has been variously reported between $3.9 million and $4.25 million."
          • Michael Barrier (2003)۔ Hollywood Cartoons: American Animation in Its Golden Age۔ New York: اوکسفرڈ یونیورسٹی پریس۔ ص 266۔ ISBN:978-0-19-983922-3۔ The film's negative cost was $2.6 million, more than $1 million higher than Snow White's.
          • Thomas Schatz (1999) [1st. pub. 1997]۔ Boom and Bust: American Cinema in the 1940s۔ University of California Press۔ ج 6 of History of the American Cinema۔ ص 466۔ ISBN:978-0-520-22130-7۔ Boom Town ($4.6 million).
          • Block اور Wilson 2010، صفحہ 258259. "Production Cost: $2.1 (Unadjusted $s in Millions of $s) ... Boom Town was the biggest moneymaker of 1940 and one of the top films of the decade."
          • Block اور Wilson 2010، صفحہ 267. "With worldwide rentals of $7.8 million in its initial release, the movie made a net profit of over $3 million."
          • Finler 2003، صفحہ 301. "The studio did particularly well with its war-related pictures, such as Sergeant York (1941), which cost $1.6 million but was the studio's biggest hit of the decade aside from This is the Army (1943), the Irving Berlin musical for which the profits were donated to the Army Emergency Relief fund."
          • Block اور Wilson 2010، صفحہ 281. "Worldwide rentals of $3,449,353 barely recouped the film's nearly $2 million production cost."
          • Block اور Wilson 2010، صفحہ 281. "Worldwide rentals of $3,449,353 barely recouped the film's nearly $2 million production cost."
          • Mark Glancy (1999)۔ When Hollywood Loved Britain: The Hollywood 'British' Film 1939–1945۔ Manchester University Press۔ ص 9495۔ ISBN:978-0-7190-4853-1۔ Mrs Miniver was a phenomenon. It was the most popular film of the year (from any studio) in both North America and Britain, and its foreign earnings were three times higher than those of any other MGM film released in the 1941–42 season. The production cost ($1,344,000) was one of the highest of the season, indicating the studio never thought of the film as a potential loss-maker. When the film earned a worldwide gross of $8,878,000, MGM had the highest profit ($4,831,000) in its history. Random Harvest nearly matched the success of Mrs Miniver with worldwide earnings of $8,147,000 yielding the second-highest profit in MGM's history ($4,384,000). Random Harvest was also the most popular film of the year in Britain, where it proved to be even more popular than Britain's most acclaimed war film, In Which We Serve.
          • Block اور Wilson 2010
            • Mrs. Miniver: Douglas Burns (2010)، Mrs. Miniver، ص 279، Mrs. Miniver's galvanizing effect on Americans spawned a record-breaking ten-week run at Radio City Music Hall and garnered a $5.4 million take in domestic rentals (making Mrs. Miniver 1942's top grosser), with a $4.8 million profit on worldwide rentals of $8.9 million.
            • Frank McAdams (2010)، For Whom the Bell Tolls، ص 287، Despite the early furor over the novel being "pro-red and immoral," the film opened to strong and favorable reviews and brought in $11 million in worldwide rentals in its initial release. In: Block اور Wilson 2010.
            • Finler 2003، صفحہ 356–363
            • Block اور Wilson 2010، صفحہ 420. "(Unadjusted $s) in Millions of $s – Production Cost: $1.0"
            • Block اور Wilson 2010، صفحہ 420. "(Unadjusted $s) in Millions of $s – Production Cost: $1.0"
            • Eric Schaefer (1999)۔ "Bold! Daring! Shocking! True!": A History of Exploitation Films, 1919–1959۔ Duke University Press۔ ص 197–199۔ ISBN:978-0-8223-2374-7۔ Leading the pack of postwar sex hygiene films was Mom and Dad (1944), which would become not only the most successful sex hygiene film in history but the biggest pre-1960 exploitation film of any kind. At the end of 1947, the Los Angeles Times reported that Mom and Dad had grossed $2 million. By 1949 Time had estimated that Mom and Dad had taken in $8 million from twenty million moviegoers. And publicity issuing from Mom and Dad's production company indicated that by the end of 1956 it had grossed over $80 million worldwide. Net rentals of around $22 million by 1956 would easily place it in the top ten films of the late 1940s and early 1950s had it appeared on conventional lists. Some estimates have placed its total gross over the years at up to $100 million, and it was still playing drive-in dates into 1975...The film was made for around $65,000 with a crew of Hollywood veterans including director William "One Shot" Beaudine, cinematographer Marcel LePicard, and a cast that sported old stalwarts Hardie Albright, Francis Ford, and John Hamilton.
            • Eric Schaefer (1999)۔ "Bold! Daring! Shocking! True!": A History of Exploitation Films, 1919–1959۔ Duke University Press۔ ص 197–199۔ ISBN:978-0-8223-2374-7۔ Leading the pack of postwar sex hygiene films was Mom and Dad (1944), which would become not only the most successful sex hygiene film in history but the biggest pre-1960 exploitation film of any kind. At the end of 1947, the Los Angeles Times reported that Mom and Dad had grossed $2 million. By 1949 Time had estimated that Mom and Dad had taken in $8 million from twenty million moviegoers. And publicity issuing from Mom and Dad's production company indicated that by the end of 1956 it had grossed over $80 million worldwide. Net rentals of around $22 million by 1956 would easily place it in the top ten films of the late 1940s and early 1950s had it appeared on conventional lists. Some estimates have placed its total gross over the years at up to $100 million, and it was still playing drive-in dates into 1975...The film was made for around $65,000 with a crew of Hollywood veterans including director William "One Shot" Beaudine, cinematographer Marcel LePicard, and a cast that sported old stalwarts Hardie Albright, Francis Ford, and John Hamilton.
            • Neal Gabler (2007)۔ Walt Disney: the biography۔ Aurum Press۔ ص 438۔ Still, the film wound up grossing $3.3 million...
            • Douglas Burns (2010)، The Best years of Our Lives، ص 301، The film made a $5 million profit on worldwide rentals of $14.8 million. In: Block اور Wilson 2010.
            • Hall اور Neale 2010، صفحہ 285 (note 6.56). "The cost of Duel in the Sun has been reported as both $5,255,000 (Haver, David O'Selznick's Hollywood, 361) and $6,480,000 (Thomson, Showman: The Life of David O'Selznick, 472); the latter figure may include distribution expenses. Forever Amber cost $6,375,000 (Solomon, Twentieth Century-Fox: A Corporate and Financial History, 243)."
            • Mike Chopra-Gant (2006)۔ Hollywood Genres and Post-war America: Masculinity, Family and Nation in Popular Movies and Film Noir۔ I.B. Tauris۔ ص 18۔ ISBN:978-1-85043-815-1۔ Forever Amber: $8 million; Unconquered: $7.5 million; Life with Father: $6.25 million
            • Sarah Street (2002)۔ Transatlantic Crossings: British Feature Films in the United States۔ Continuum International Publishing Group۔ ص 110۔ ISBN:978-0-8264-1395-6۔ Although both films had higher than average budgets (The Red Shoes cost £505,581 and Hamlet cost £572,530, while the average cost of the other thirty films for which Rank supplied information was £233,000), they resulted in high takings at home and abroad.
            • Michael D. Eisner؛ Tony Schwartz (2009)۔ Work in Progress۔ پنسلوانیا اسٹیٹ یونیورسٹی۔ ص 178۔ ISBN:978-0-7868-8507-7۔ Cinderella revived its fortunes. Re-released in February 1950, it cost nearly $3 million to make but earned more than $20 million worldwide.
            • Michael Barrier (2003)۔ Hollywood Cartoons: American Animation in Its Golden Age۔ اوکسفرڈ یونیورسٹی پریس۔ ص 401۔ ISBN:978-0-19-516729-0۔ It cost around $2.2 million, little more than each of the two package features, Melody Time and The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad (as Tluo Fabulous Characters had ultimately been named), that just preceded it, but its gross rentals—an amount shared by Disney and RKO—were $7.8 million, almost twice as much as the two package features combined.
            • Ray Zone (2012)۔ 3-D Revolution: The History of Modern Stereoscopic Cinema۔ University Press of Kentucky۔ ص 71۔ ISBN:978-0-8131-3611-0۔ Produced at a cost of $1 million, This is Cinerama ran 122 weeks, earning $4.7 million in its initial New York run alone and eventually grossed over $32 million. It was obvious to Hollywood that the public was ready for a new form of motion picture entertainment. The first five Cinerama feature-length travelogues, though they only played in twenty-two theaters, pulled in a combined gross of $82 million.
            • Douglas Burns (2010)، The Greatest Show on Earth، ص 354–355، By May 1953, Variety was reporting that the Best Picture winner had amassed $18.35 million in worldwide rentals. In: Block اور Wilson 2010.
            • Hall اور Neale 2010، صفحہ 147148. "To take full advantage of CinemaScope's panoramic possibilities, shooting was delayed for the sets to be redesigned and rebuilt, adding $500,000 to the eventual $4.1 million budget...It ultimately returned domestic rentals of $17.5 million and $25 million worldwide, placing it second only to Gone with the Wind in Variety's annually updated chart."
            • Block اور Wilson 2010، صفحہ 367. "It brought in $16.7 million in domestic rentals, $9.4 million in foreign rentals, and made a net profit of $8.1 million."
            • Block اور Wilson 2010، صفحہ 420. "Domestic Box Office: $19.6 million; Production Cost: $3.8 million."
            • Hall اور Neale 2010، صفحہ 149. "VistaVision was first used for the musical White Christmas (1954), which Variety named the top grosser of its year with anticipated domestic rentals of $12 million."
            • Finler 2003، صفحہ 320. "It was up and running in time to handle Disney's most elaborate expensive feature, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, based on the book by Jules Verne, starring James Mason and Kirk Douglas and directed by Richard Fleischer at a cost of $4.5 million."
            • Block اور Wilson 2010، صفحہ 327. "Production cost: $13.3 million; Domestic Film Rental: $31.3; Foreign Film Rental: $23.9; Worldwide Box office (estimated): $122.7 (Initial Release – Unadjusted $s in Millions of $s)."
            • Block اور Wilson 2010، صفحہ 327. "Production cost: $13.3 million; Domestic Film Rental: $31.3; Foreign Film Rental: $23.9; Worldwide Box office (estimated): $122.7 (Initial Release – Unadjusted $s in Millions of $s)."
            • Hall اور Neale 2010، صفحہ 153. "South Pacific also became for a time the most successful film ever released in the United Kingdom, where it earned a box-office gross three times its negative cost of $5,610,000. Anticipated global rentals after three years were $30 million."
            • Steven J. Ross (2011)۔ Hollywood Left and Right: How Movie Stars Shaped American Politics۔ اوکسفرڈ یونیورسٹی پریس۔ ص 278–279۔ ISBN:978-0-19-991143-1۔ Costing $15 million to produce, the film earned $47 million by the end of 1961 and $90 million worldwide by January 1989.
            • Block اور Wilson 2010، صفحہ 324. "Worldwide box office: $146.9 million; Worldwide rentals: $66.1 million; Production cost: $15.9 million. (Initial Release – Unadjusted $s in Millions of $s)"
            • John Howard Reid (2006)۔ America's Best, Britain's Finest: A Survey of Mixed Movies۔ لولو ڈاٹ کام۔ ج 14 of Hollywood classics۔ ص 243–245۔ ISBN:978-1-4116-7877-4۔ Negative cost: around $4 million; Worldwide film rentals gross (including 1968 American reissue) to 1970: $30 million.
            • Patrick Webster (2010)۔ Love and Death in Kubrick: A Critical Study of the Films from Lolita Through Eyes Wide Shut۔ McFarland & Company۔ ص 298 (note 2.23)۔ ISBN:978-0-7864-5916-2۔ Spartacus cost $12 million and grossed some $60 million at the box office, figures Kubrick rarely again matched.
            • Patrick Webster (2010)۔ Love and Death in Kubrick: A Critical Study of the Films from Lolita Through Eyes Wide Shut۔ McFarland & Company۔ ص 298 (note 2.23)۔ ISBN:978-0-7864-5916-2۔ Spartacus cost $12 million and grossed some $60 million at the box office, figures Kubrick rarely again matched.
            • Hayley Taylor Block (2010)، West Side Story، ص 449، With its three rereleases, it took in over $105 million in worldwide box office ($720 million in 2005 dollars). In: Block اور Wilson 2010.
            • Hayley Taylor Block (2010)، West Side Story، ص 449، With its three rereleases, it took in over $105 million in worldwide box office ($720 million in 2005 dollars). In: Block اور Wilson 2010.
            • Hall اور Neale 2010، صفحہ 164. "West cost $14,483,000; although it earned $35 million worldwide in just under three years, with ultimate domestic rentals totaling $20,932,883, high distribution costs severely limited its profitability."
            • Hall اور Neale 2010، صفحہ 164. "West cost $14,483,000; although it earned $35 million worldwide in just under three years, with ultimate domestic rentals totaling $20,932,883, high distribution costs severely limited its profitability."
            • Douglas Burns (2010)، Mary Poppins، ص 469، In its initial run, Poppins garnered an astounding $44 million in worldwide rentals and became the company's first Best Picture Oscar contender. In: Block اور Wilson 2010.
            • Hall اور Neale 2010، صفحہ 188. "The negative cost of Warners' adaptation of Edward Albee's play Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966)—filmed in widescreen and black-and-white, largely set in domestic interiors and with a cast of only four principal actors—amounted to $7,613,000, in part because stars Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton received up-front fees of $1 million and $750,000 respectively, against 10 percent of the gross apiece. (Their participation was presumably added to the budget)."
            • Chris Welles (7 ستمبر 1970)۔ "Behind the Silence at Columbia Pictures—No Moguls, No Minions, Just Profits"۔ New York۔ جلد 3 نمبر  36۔ ص 42–47۔ While Columbia, battling Ray Stark over every dollar, did Funny Girl for around $8.8 million, a million or so over budget, Fox spent nearly $24 million on Hello, Dolly!, more than twice the initial budget, and the film will thus have to gross three times as much to break even.
            • Hayley Taylor Block (2010)، Love Story، ص 545، The final cost came in at $2,260,000. In: Block اور Wilson 2010.
            • Block اور Wilson 2010، صفحہ 549. "Fiddler had the highest domestic box office of 1971 (it was second in worldwide box office after Diamonds Are Forever), with more than $100 million in unadjusted worldwide box office on its initial release. The soundtrack album was also a huge seller. The 1979 rerelease was not as successful, with the $3.8 million print and ad costs almost as high as the $4.3 million in worldwide rentals."
            • Block اور Wilson 2010، صفحہ 549. "Fiddler had the highest domestic box office of 1971 (it was second in worldwide box office after Diamonds Are Forever), with more than $100 million in unadjusted worldwide box office on its initial release. The soundtrack album was also a huge seller. The 1979 rerelease was not as successful, with the $3.8 million print and ad costs almost as high as the $4.3 million in worldwide rentals."
            • The Godfather
              • 1974: Newsweek۔ ج 84۔ 1974۔ ص 74۔ The original Godfather has grossed a mind-boggling $285 million...
              • Diane Jacobs (1980)۔ Hollywood Renaissance۔ Dell Publishing۔ ص 115۔ ISBN:978-0-440-53382-5۔ The Godfather catapulted Coppola to overnight celebrity, earning three Academy Awards and a then record-breaking $142 million in worldwide sales.
              • Robert Henry Stanley؛ Charles Side Steinberg (1976)۔ The media environment: mass communications in American society۔ Hastings House۔ ص 76۔ ISBN:978-0-8038-4681-4۔ ...further reflected by the phenomenal successes of The Sting, Chinatown and The Exorcist. The latter film, which cost about $10 million to produce, has grossed over $110 million worldwide.
              • New York، ج 8، 1975، ...Jaws should outstrip another MCA hit, The Sting, which had world-wide revenues of $115 million. (Online copy آرکائیو شدہ اپریل 4, 2023 بذریعہ وے بیک مشین at گوگل بکس)
              • Block اور Wilson 2010، صفحہ 560. "Production Cost: $5.5 (Unadjusted $s in Millions of $s)."
              • Hall اور Neale 2010، صفحہ 206–208. "The most successful entry in the disaster cycle was the $15 million The Towering Inferno which earned over $48,650,000 in domestic rentals and about $40 million foreign."
              • Steven Priggé (2004)۔ Movie Moguls Speak: Interviews With Top Film Producers۔ McFarland & Company۔ ص 8۔ ISBN:978-0-7864-1929-6۔ The budget for the first Jaws was $4 million and the picture wound up costing $9 million.
              • Hall اور Neale 2010، صفحہ 214. "Rocky was the "sleeper of the decade". Produced by UA and costing just under $1 million, it went on to earn a box-office gross of $117,235,247 in the United States and $225 million worldwide."
              • Alex Ben Block (2010)، Rocky، ص 583، The budget was $1,075,000 plus producer's fees of $100,000. In: Block اور Wilson 2010.
              • Hall اور Neale 2010، صفحہ 218. "Eventually costing $11,293,151, Star Wars was previewed at the Northpoint Theatre in San Francisco on May 1, 1977."
              • Robert Hofler (2010)۔ Party Animals: A Hollywood Tale of Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'N' Roll Starring the Fabulous Allan Carr۔ ReadHowYouWant.com۔ ص 145۔ ISBN:978-1-4596-0007-2۔ Despite the fact that Grease was well on its way to becoming the highest-grossing movie musical in the world, and eventually grossed over $341 million...
              • Block اور Wilson 2010، صفحہ 609. "Steven Spielberg, by far the most successful director of the decade, had the highest-grossing movie with 1982's E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial, which grossed over $664 million in worldwide box office on initial release."
              • Block اور Wilson 2010، صفحہ 652. "Production Cost: $12.2 (Unadjusted $s in Millions of $s)."
              • Finler 2003، صفحہ 268. "The studio had a record operating income of $212 million in 1982, the year of Spielberg's E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (which had cost only slightly over $10 million) and $150 million in 1985, mainly due to another Spielberg production, the $22 million Back to the Future, which became the top box office hit of the year."
              • Frank McAdams (2010)، Top Gun، ص 678–679، Production Cost: $19.0 (Millions of $s) ... Despite mixed reviews, it played in the top 10 for an extended period and was a huge hit, grossing almost $345 million in worldwide box office. In: Block اور Wilson 2010.
              • Finler 2003، صفحہ 190–191.
              • Finler 2003، صفحہ 244. "Rain Man: 30.0 (cost in million $s)"
              • Block اور Wilson 2010، صفحہ 694–695. "Production Cost: $55.4 (Unadjusted $s in Millions of $s) ... The film went on to haul in over $494 million worldwide."
              • Block اور Wilson 2010، صفحہ 776. "Production Cost: $30.0 (Unadjusted $s in Millions of $s)"
              • Finler 2003، صفحہ 123.
              • Block اور Wilson 2010، صفحہ 509. "Production Cost: $140.0 (Unadjusted $s in Millions of $s)."
              • The Atlantic Monthly۔ ج 231۔ 1973۔ ص 2۔ As of the end of 1971, GWTW stood as the all-time money-drawing movie, with a take of $116 million, and, with this year's reissues, it should continue to run ahead of the second place contender and all-time kaffee-mit-schlag spectacle.
              • New Times۔ ج 2۔ 1974۔ Coppola is King Midas, the most individually powerful U.S. filmmaker ." His credits include directing the first Godfather (worldwide earnings: $142 million, ahead of Gone with the Wind, The Sound of Music and The Exorcist)... (Online copy at گوگل بکس)
              • Finler 2003، صفحہ 358
              • David Parkinson (2007)۔ The Rough Guide to Film Musicals۔ Dorling Kindersley۔ ص 28۔ ISBN:978-1-84353-650-5۔ But they had previously succeeded in showing how musicals could centre on ordinary people with Sunny Side Up (1929), which had grossed $2 million at the box office and demonstrated a new maturity and ingenuity in the staging of story and dance.
              • Hall اور Neale 2010، صفحہ 67. "For similar reasons of accountability, Variety has typically used figures for domestic (U.S. and Canadian) rather than worldwide revenue. This became its standard policy in 1940, when the advent of war in Europe persuaded the American film industry (temporarily, as it turned out) that it should be wholly reliant on the home market for profitability. Where specific rentals data are reported in Variety before this (which tended to be only sporadically) they were often for worldwide rather domestic performance. This was also the case with other trade sources, such as Quigley's annual Motion Picture Almanac, which published its own all-time hits lists from the early 1930s onward. The subsequent confusion of domestic and worldwide figures, and of rental and box-office figures, has plagued many published accounts of Hollywood history (sometimes including those in Variety itself), and we have attempted to be diligant in clarifying the differences between them."
              • Joseph McBride (2011)۔ Frank Capra: The Catastrophe of Success۔ یونیورسٹی پریس آف مسیسپی۔ ص 309۔ ISBN:978-1-60473-838-4۔ According to the studio's books It Happened One Night brought in $1 million in film rentals during its initial release, but as Joe Walker pointed out, the figure would have been much larger if the film had not been sold to theaters on a block-booking basis in a package with more than two dozen lesser Columbia films, and the total rentals of the package spread among them all, as was customary in that era, since it minimized the risk and allowed the major studios to dominate the marketplace.
              • Block اور Wilson 2010، صفحہ 129. "Domestic Rentals: $30,015,000 (61%); Foreign Rentals: $18,964,000 (39%)...Gone with the Wind includes initial release plus four rereleases (1941,1942,1947 and 1954) since foreign rental revenues were available only cumulative through 1956."
              • Christine McDermott (2010)، Life with Father، ص 307، No matter what the billing, the movie became a worldwide hit with $6.5 million in worldwide rentals, from Pappa och vi in Sweden to Vita col padre in Italy, although it booked a net loss of $350,000. In: Block اور Wilson 2010.
              • Hall اور Neale 2010، صفحہ 145. "The commercial success of the five Cinerama travelogues, which earned an aggregate worldwide box-office gross of $120 million by 1962 (including $82 million in the United States and Canada), nevertheless demonstrated to the mainstream industry the market value of special screen formats."

boxoffice.com

pro.boxoffice.com

boxofficemojo.com

boxofficepro.com

caixinglobal.com

cinemaweb.com

cnbc.com

deadline.com

doi.org

entgroup.cn

english.entgroup.cn

ew.com

filmsite.org

focusfeatures.com

  • 1938
    • You Can't Take It with You:"You Can't Take It With You Premieres"۔ Focus Features۔ 2012-09-13 کو اصل سے آرکائیو کیا گیا۔ You Can't Take It With You received excellent reviews, won Best Picture and Best Director at the 1938 Academy Awards, and earned over $5 million worldwide.

google.co.uk

news.google.co.uk

hollywoodreporter.com

measuringworth.com

news.google.com

newsbank.com

nl.newsbank.com

newsweek.com

nytimes.com

nytimes.com

select.nytimes.com

  • Aljean Harmetz (18 مئی 1980)۔ "The Saga Beyond 'Star Wars'"۔ نیو یارک ٹائمز۔ 2013-05-20 کو اصل سے آرکائیو کیا گیا۔ اخذ شدہ بتاریخ 2012-01-30۔ "Star Wars" has brought 20th Century-Fox approximately $250 million in film rentals ... "Star Wars" grossed $410 million, and his share was enough to allow him to finance its sequel, "The Empire Strikes Back," himself.

pqarchiver.com

pqasb.pqarchiver.com

semanticscholar.org

api.semanticscholar.org

tcm.com

the-numbers.com

thefreelibrary.com

time.com

turner.com

tcm.turner.com

vanityfair.com

variety.com

varietyultimate.com

web.archive.org

webcitation.org

  • 1938
    • You Can't Take It with You:"You Can't Take It With You Premieres"۔ Focus Features۔ 2012-09-13 کو اصل سے آرکائیو کیا گیا۔ You Can't Take It With You received excellent reviews, won Best Picture and Best Director at the 1938 Academy Awards, and earned over $5 million worldwide.

worldcat.org