This movie page looks at The Top Grossing Movies of 1952. In 1952, 463 movies were released in theaters. Average weekly movie attendance was 51 million. That translates to $2.65 billion (25th best year in movie history) movie tickets sold which generated revenue of $1.24 billion. So with all of this money flying around you would think somebody would have kept track of how each movie was performing. Sadly that was the case!
Currently when you type in the search words….”Top Grossing Movies of 1952″ you do not get much information. Wikipedia provides 10 movies. The Numbers.com provides 10 movies. Stats-a-mania offers up 7 movies. You have to go to the 26th search result to find the next place that lists box office results….UMR’s (that’s us) Marilyn Monroe page which offers up 5 movies. So in an effort to get more information out there…we have decided to unlock our 1952 movie database vault and share the information we have collected over the years.
To make this list a movie had to be made in 1952 (as listed on IMDB.com). Obviously many movies made in 1951 earned box office dollars in 1952. On the other side many movies made in 1952 made money in 1953 and later. This page will looks at 162 Top Grossing Movies of 1952. The movies are listed in a massive table that shows who starred in the movie, had much the movie grossed when it was released and how that gross means in today’s money.
Drivel part of the page: Currently our movie database is down for a massive update which includes a new box office formula and a new formula for our movie ranking equation. So we do not have access to all of our information. For some reason….Wife of Cogerson thinks her full time job takes precendent over this non-revenue generating hobby. Sometimes I just do not understand her….lol. So without the ability to do a page on a actor or actress…I had to pick a year as our the latest movie page.
Our UMR Top 50 of 1952
Top Grossing Movies of 1952 Can Be Sorted 3 Ways In This Table
The really cool thing about this table is that it is “user-sortable”. Rank the movies anyway you want.
- Sort Top Grossing Movies of 1952 by the stars or in some cases the director of the movie.
- Sort Top Grossing Movies of 1952 by domestic actual box office grosses (in millions)
- Sort Top Grossing Movies of 1952 by domestic adjusted box office grosses using current movie ticket cost (in millions)
1952 Box Office Grosses – Adjusted World Wide
How the Box Office Numbers were Calculated
Sadly in 1952….BoxOfficeMojo was not around to keep track of box office earnings. Back then earnings seem to be a secret and a secret that needed to be safely locked up. When studios did report box office stats they used “box office rentals”. Box office rentals were the amount of money the studio got back from the theaters. It is NOT the box office gross. According to Film Daily Yearbook the film rentals as percentage of box office grosses was 36% in 1952. That means that box office gross was 2.75 times greater than box office rentals. It is not an exact calculation….but for 1952 the multiplier we used was 2.75.
Our Other Yearly Review Movie Pages
-
- 1939 Movies Ranked Best to Worst Our movie of the year? Gone With The Wind
- 1946 Movies Ranked Best to Worst Our movie of the year? The Best Years of Our Lives
- 2011 Movies Ranked Best to Worst Our movie of the year? The Help
- 2012 Movies Ranked Best to Worst Our movie of the year? Argo
- 2013 Movies Ranked Best to Worst Our movie of the year? Gravity
- 2014 Movies Ranked Best to Worst Our movie of the year? American Sniper
- 2015 Movies Ranked Best to Worst Our movie of the year? The Martian
Academy Award® and Oscar® are the registered trademarks of the Academy of Motion Arts and Sciences.
If you do a comment….please ignore the email address and website section.
Here are the ten stars named as the top ten of 1952 by the annual Quigley poll of motion picture exhibitors:
1952
Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis
Gary Cooper
John Wayne
Bing Crosby
Bob Hope
James Stewart
Doris Day
Gregory Peck
Susan Hayward
Randolph Scott
https://tbmovielists…mpions-by-year/
I have some difficulty correlating Quigley’s poll with your own list of 1952’s box office receipts, ClassicMovieRankings.
Take, for example, Quigley’s placement of Randolph Scott as the No. 10 star of the year. Yet, on your list his highest ranked film comes in as No. 64.
Then there’s Gary Cooper. On your list his films come in as numbers 12 and 35, yet Quigley’s exhibitors called him the No.2 star of the year.
Now I know there is some confusion by a film like Hans Christian Anderson being on your list, for example, since it was largely a 1953 release, so I assume the Quigley poll for ’52 wasn’t even looking at it. Still, I’m a bit confused by the seeming disparity in some cases between Quigley and your tremendous list of ’52 films, ClassicMovieRankings.
Perhaps someone is aware of the criteria that Quigley used in his own polling that may be causing some confusion. I know, for example, that Quigley would call Gary Cooper the No. 1 star of the following year, 1953. I always assumed that High Noon was probably still in circulation that year to account for such a high ranking. (Ironically, Cooper’s two films released in 1953 rank among the worst of his career).
Not trying to put you on the spot here, ClassicMovieRankings, because you’ve done a tremendous amount of work here which, I’m sure, we all deeply appreciate. But, still, I can’t quite understand the differences between Quigley’s well known annual poll and your own findings.
The Quigley Polls were not for a calendar year. The ballots sent out to thousands of exhibitors in the U.S. and Canada asked them to rank the top moneymakers for something like Sept. 1 to Aug. 31. This way, all the ballots would have been returned and tabulated, and the rankings published, by the end of the year. So, yes, the results can be skewed, as your mention of HIGH NOON, which made most of its money the last few months of 1952, and into 1953, thereby reflecting in Coop topping the list in 1953.
I agree with you on this. The results are very skewed. And in the end….the bigger the names on the list…the better it will be received. Probably why someone like John Wayne (and I love him) made the list for so many years. They probably said….”did The Duke make a movie this year….yes he did ….well he is on the list…we need 9 more”.
Hey Tom. Pretty sure they did not really look at box office grosses….first of all the information was not readily available. Talked with my father-in-law about this subject many years ago. His dad ran the Auburn movie theater for years…and he grew up playing in that theater. He compared that survey to the current way coaches vote for the best teams in the country in certain sports….most got votes based on what were their name was versus actually how good the team really was.
That still happens today…George Clooney made the top 10 in a year in which is one movie did not even gross $30 million. Even giving him credit for the previous year his box office totals were not in the Top 50 much less the Top 10. Even with today’s information out there…their Top 10 do not really make sense. Here is the best example of how it makes no sense. In 2011 Quigley said Streep was the 9th biggest star. She made no movies in 2010. She made one movie in 2011…The Iron Lady…it grossed a little over $30.00 million….which was the 100th biggest hit of 2011. So with one movie that earned $30 million she got 9th…meanwhile Seth Rogen’s movies grossed almost half a billion and did not make the Top 10.
I think if you look at every Quigley Top 10 it will never make sense when you actually look at the box office grosses. It is still a fun list. But the fact that they do not really explain their rules shows that they leave lots of wiggle room to come up with their list. Just my thoughts.
Hello Bruce. Contrary to what Film Daily Yearbook and the Thesis from Australia have to say about the rentals being 36% of Box Office Grosses I think your 2.2 multiplier is closer to the true gross. I’ve seen some of the film grosses in other publications that put “The Quiet Man” gross at $8.4m and “High Noon” at $7.6m and “The Greatest Show on Earth” at $32.0m. As for “Plymouth Adventure”, according to MGM it’s domestic rental was $1,909,000 and it’s worldwide rental was $3,025,000. For me the rentals are much more important than the grosses anyway because they show how successful a film was. At a cost of $3,185,000 “Plymouth Adventure” was a flop at the box office. Thanks for doing another yearly box office page.
Hey Lyle. I was comparing the numbers using my old 2.2 multiplier and the new “yearly specific number” before the database broke and looking at the new grosses it seemed somewhat more logical….granted it is still dealing with an average…but I think each year the % would change as the movie industry changed the way it made movies. Obviously getting a source that mentions the gross is the best way….but I think a lot of books do not even take the time to understand that rentals are not the same as gross.
Plymouth Adventure….wow….that is a huge difference between Variety and the MGM ledgers. Variety 7th, 1953 has it at 3.0 million in rentals and the 14th biggest hit of 1952….and then almost 30 years later on February 24th 1982 they still report the rentals of 3.0. Normally that Variety list which has movies over 3.0 million rentals is the one I trust the most. But the ledgers would seem to have the best information. That would take the adjusted gross from 18th place to 52nd place. It looks like MGM gave the worldwide box office rental to Variety…and never went back and fixed the error…..I will fix that….as you will notice Plymouth Adventure falling down the table. As always….thanks for stopping by and commenting. This frustrating but fun search continues!
Actually the 2.2 multiplier (Rentals=45%) is wrong for the movies before the 70’s. Variett often gave figures of the rentals, and to the 70’s they are always around 35%. Sometimes, the truth is not on the web. Sadly, many publications takes internet datas only, without reserch.
Hey Laurent….after really looking at the numbers….I have realized my universal 2.2 multiplier was not the best way to go. The fact that the % of rentals to gross changed every year makes a lot of sense. I think the 2.2 multiplier got us into the correct city….but using the yearly multiplier we get into the correct neighborhood…when it comes to getting box office grosses correct. Sadly we will never get the actual address…as that information was probably never even collected correctly in the first place.
This a fascinating list. Great work.
However, a couple of comments re. the one star that is listed. Firstly, some films had more than one star, often each responsible for having people show up and pay to see the film. The top two moneymakers are good examples: THE GRESTEST SHOW ON EARTH is an all-star affair, and so selecting one person is not reflective.of the drawong power. Likewise, THE SNOWS OF KILIMANJARO featured Susan Hayward and Ava Gsrdner, both huge stars at that time, and possibly equally responsibel to the film’s success as Gregory Peck.
Also, some films are listed with the star being not the main star, but it seems might be the best known name now. DREAMBOAT was a star vehicle for Clifton Webb, and was most likely the main reason people went to see the film, although Ginger Rogers is the generally better known name now. Or PHONE CALL FROM A STRANGER, whose biggest name in a starring role was Shelley Winter; Bette Davis had a small role, a cameo really. The biggest role was that of then-husband, Gary Merrill. Similarly, ISLAND OF DESIRE starred Linda Darnell, and was the main reason people went to see the film. Tab Hunter made his film debut in this, but he was not why people bought tickets for it; his days as a matinee idol were 2-3 years away. But he is the better known name today.
Other than these quibbles, this is some great work.
Hey Arturo. Thanks for the compliment, visit and the feedback….they are all greatly appreciated. You are 100% correct about the stars….or lack of stars in the star column. Normally I include two stars for each movie. Not sure who would have been not been included between Gardner and Hayward when looking at Snows of Kilimanjaro. Sadly my database is under construction….so I had to manually type all of this information in…versus….running a report and having all the information pulled and moved to the page. So in other words….I got lazy when it came to the star column. When my database comes back online…I will be including the second stars…as well as Oscar nominations, Oscar wins, Critic Reviews and other stats from the movie. Your classic movie knowledge is very impressive. I replaced Tab Hunter with Linda Darnell on the Island of Desire line. Great comment.
Sorry, One more comment…….it seems misleading to state that the list is for films.made in 1952. I believe the intent might have been for films.released in 1952. Many films released in 1952 were actually made wholly in 1951, just like many films made in 1952 weren’t released until 1953.
Anyway, keep up the great work.
Hey Arturo….this list is all the movies made in 1952 according to IMDb. When going through all my box office records…I took out the 1951 movies that made the 1952 box office hit list….movies like…Quo Vadis (2nd biggest hit in 1952…but released at the end of 1951) and then I went to my 1953 box office hits and pulled out all of the movies released in late 1952 that made a ton of money in 1953….like Hans Christian Andersen (7th in 1953 but made in 1952). So far I have done 9 years like this….and using the IMDb year is the best way to make sure I do not forget a movie.
The greatest example is Gone With The Wind…..it is listed as the biggest box office hit of 1939….but the reality it made almost no money in 1939. It was 1st in 1940, 2nd in 1941 and 56th in 1942….but it always gets put with the rest of the 1939 movies…..that is the same rule I use when doing these pages.
What I mean is this….GONE.WITH THE WIND was.made mostly in 1939, AND released in 1939. So, yes your list will have it for that year, even if it made the bulk of its money later. The previous movie Clark Gable made, the 1939 release IDIOT’S DELIGHT, was MADE in 1938. Likewise, movies released in early 1940, like THE GRAPES OF WRATH or HIS GIRL FRIDAY, were made in 1939. In 1952, movies like FIVE FINGERS or.CLASH BY NIGHT were made.in 1951, but were released in 1952.
Hey Arturo….it would be a lot easier just to use Variety’s Top Grossers list….at a first I was…..but on my other yearly pages I have included lots more information…including Oscar nominations and Oscar wins. I quickly found out that I needed to go by IMDb’s year so I could include the Oscars and the grosses on the same page. So I went with the way BoxOfficeMojo,Hollywood Reporter and others group their movies together.
You list Abbott AND Costello, but not Martin AND Lewis?
Hey John…..well Martin and Lewis have been added to the star column….they are not listed as Martin & Lewis because I have page on each actor….while Bud and Lou share a page….so they get to be listed as Abbott and Costello. Thanks for stopping by and commenting.
Oh yeah, I’ve always had a soft spot in my heart for the year 1952, and especially the month of March of that year.
(…yeah, you guessed it…that was when this here classic movie fan whose top five favorite movies of all time would include the title SINGIN’ IN THE RAIN made “his debut” into the world)
Hey Dargo…..I am not much of a musical fan….but I really like Singin’ In The Rain. One of the highlights on my website was when Michael Kelly (Gene’s grandson) commented on my Gene Kelly Movie Page….granted it was to fuzz at me a little…but it was still a good comment to get. I got a kick out of watching The Artist…and knowing that borrowed heavily from Singin’ In The Rain.
Thank you for posting. This is really interesting. Who would have guessed that THE SNOWS OF KILIMANJARO was #2 on the box office list?
Hey KingRat….Snows of Kilmanjaro was the 4th biggest hit of 1952….and when looking at the biggest hits of the 1950s…it was ranked 55th. Gregory Peck along with Marlon Brando ruled the box office in the 1950s.