Can you name the highest-grossing films by year (U.S.)?

created by Kicking222

Enter a film in the box below
Correctly named films will show up below
Answers do not have to be guessed in order
Source: boxofficemojo
NOTE: Totals are by year of release and only for the original release (does not include any re-releases).
Also try: Highest Grossing SNL Cast Members

You have 7 minutes to guess after you click the button below.

Popular trivia games today

Are You Smarter Than a College Student? III

24987

Geography by Numbers III

12705

Word Ladder 02/13/2012

6951

Missing Word 02/13/2012

4662

Are You Smarter Than a College Student? II

4572

Geography Bunker

4470

Are You Smarter Than a College Student?

4215

Mixed Word 02/13/2012

3845

And more...

Ready? Click to Start

07:00

Show Missed Answers

Year	Film	US Gross
1980		$209,398,025
1981		$209,562,121
1982		$359,197,037
1983		$252,583,617
1984		$234,760,478
1985		$210,609,762
1986		$176,786,701
1987		$167,780,960
1988		$172,825,435
1989		$251,188,924
1990		$285,761,243
1991		$204,843,345
1992		$217,350,219
1993		$357,067,947
1994		$329,694,499
1995		$191,796,233

Year	Film	US Gross
1996		$306,169,268
1997		$600,788,188
1998		$216,540,909
1999		$431,088,301
2000		$260,044,825
2001		$317,575,550
2002		$403,706,375
2003		$377,027,325
2004		$441,226,247
2005		$380,270,577
2006		$423,315,812
2007		$336,530,303
2008		$533,345,358
2009		$749,766,139
2010		$415,004,880

Javascript is not currently enabled on your browser.
If you do have Javascript enabled:
This site uses javascript to make the magic happen.
Please turn on javascript and reload this page, or use a more current browser (like Firefox)

Highest-Grossing Films (Yearly) Quiz

Rating:	Report a mistake
Created by: Kicking222 -
Published: May 1st, 2009
Category: Movies
Plays: 82,759

Tags: film, gross, highest-grossing, year

Loading friend results....

	pistonsnick:	May 1st, 2009 at 04:19 GMT	4 points
	this is harder than expected

	ZeppoMarxist:	May 1st, 2009 at 04:20 GMT	18 points
	Such a nice mixture of quality and crap.

	el_barto:	May 1st, 2009 at 04:28 GMT	13 points
	Where's Gigli on that list?

	amorris525:	May 1st, 2009 at 04:32 GMT	4 points
	Can you please take Star Wars 5, 6, etc, as well as the roman numberals.

	HBar:	May 1st, 2009 at 04:37 GMT	7 points
	Why not accept roman numerals for Spider-Man 3 and Terminator 2? And I think just Sorcerer's Stone should be acceptable in addition to the full Harry Potter title.

	Kicking222:	May 1st, 2009 at 04:39 GMT	2 points
	First off, I love seeing my quizzes pop up, and as always, I hope everyone has fun. Second, amorris, I can guarantee that typing in "Star Wars" followed by either a number or a Roman numeral will work.

	frey553:	May 1st, 2009 at 04:41 GMT	0 points
	Great quiz :-) I just gotta say though, I thought it was a bit odd that all you need to do is time "lord" for the LOTR film. Just sayin.

	DoctorTodd:	May 1st, 2009 at 04:43 GMT	0 points
	I'm a Star Wars nerd and for time sake I am submitting to a shorter way of typing but the real answer should appear!

	Kicking222:	May 1st, 2009 at 04:46 GMT	-1 points
	@frey: I actually didn't program that in- the Sporcle gods did. However, I trust the Sporcle gods, so if that's what they wanted to do, so be it. @Doctor: The full titles do/should show up when you type a shorter accepted answer- they sure do for me.

	Gordo:	May 1st, 2009 at 04:46 GMT	18 points
	1987 must have been a really bad year for movies. Three Men and a Baby was the highest grossing for the year? Really? Wow.

	darkangel7:	May 1st, 2009 at 04:52 GMT	-3 points
	I think just Harry Potter should be accepted.

	SporcleAdmin:	May 1st, 2009 at 05:02 GMT	1 point
	Sorry, the LOTR thing has been fixed, you now need a bit more to get this one.

	RunnDMC:	May 1st, 2009 at 05:02 GMT	9 points
	I can't believe I forgot about the new starwars movies... I guess I effectively blocked those memories!

	JohnJF:	May 1st, 2009 at 05:02 GMT	0 points
	Particularly in the last decade, there doesn't appear to be too much of a correlation between being highly grossing and being good.

Comment below threshold: show it

	MovieDynamic:	May 1st, 2009 at 05:11 GMT	1 point
	Oh, and Shoban, 1987 wasn't that bad of a year for movies, people just didn't give their money to the right ones. That year saw some excellent films, chief among them The Last Emperor, Au Revoir les Enfants, Wings of Desire, Empire of the Sun, Moonstruck, Broadcast News, and more.

	jawa88:	May 1st, 2009 at 05:13 GMT	7 points
	I would just like to point out that George Lucas and John Williams made a killing from this list!!!

	chronosaurus:	May 1st, 2009 at 05:17 GMT	9 points
	Three Men and a Baby????? Are you ******* kidding me??? /rant

	danzam:	May 1st, 2009 at 05:48 GMT	1 point
	@JohnJF -- In the last decade there was Return of the King which went 11 for 11 at the Oscars including winning Best Picture and Best Director. Also there was the highly critically acclaimed The Dark Knight last year that won Heath Ledger an Oscar for his powerful performance. But yeah I agree with you that 8 of the movies in the past decade on that list weren't very memorable.

	jkatsalis:	May 1st, 2009 at 06:37 GMT	15 points
	Why is Lord of the Rings automatic for Return of the King (there is only one LOTR movie on this list) and yet Harry Potter is not automatic (there is also only one HP movie). Since I got LOTR with Lord of the Rings and I didn't get HP with Harry Potter, I discarded it. Please fix. Especially as Star Wars 1, 3, 5, 6 worked, as well as Terminator 2.

	pbysr:	May 1st, 2009 at 07:11 GMT	3 points
	It is interesting that all of the films on the left are watchable and a number are classics but about half of the right hand side is total crap.

	SowCrates:	May 1st, 2009 at 07:42 GMT	1 point
	Well, a sequel has been the highest grossing in the last six years, and nine of the last ten have involved a series. The best way to make money is to build suspense, and movies aren't the only example of this.

	SowCrates:	May 1st, 2009 at 07:50 GMT	-2 points
	On a different note, still sickens me how much Titanic made. Yes, I don't like the movie and I wish it didn't earn all the awards, yada yada yada. That's not really what I'm getting at. It's the act of seeing this multiple times in theaters. I mean, is the difference of Titanic in your living room vs the theaters equal to the difference of LOTR/Star Wars in living room vs theater? If it is, my point is moot. But if tragedy and romance were the biggest catches of this movie, isn't it more comfortable to get your doses of those things on the couch?

	RavenEleni:	May 1st, 2009 at 10:36 GMT	5 points
	i think a similar quiz but on world gross takings would be interesting, mix things up a bit!

Comment below threshold: show it

	magister:	May 1st, 2009 at 11:37 GMT	-1 points
	@HalfWelsh: Considering the American version of "Vercingetorix" (Tagline: "You know his name, now know his legend!") is called "The Druids" (Apparently we don't know his name, or his legend) I'm gonna guess they did.

	cocky:	May 1st, 2009 at 12:18 GMT	2 points
	Of the 29 films on the list, eleven were sequals. Then there were the first Batman and Spiderman movies, which were based on well known comic book characters that had already appeared on screen in some fashion previously, as well as the Grinch. Then we have Titanic, a well known historical event that had been made into a movie before. You might include Aladin in the "rip-off" category, but I don't know how familiar the target audience was with the story before seeing the movie. Private ryan was a WWII movie. Of the other twelve, seven inspired sequals themselves. Only ET, Top Gun, Rain Man, Forrest Gump and Independence Day were original, one and done movies.

Comment below threshold: show it

	Rose:	May 1st, 2009 at 13:20 GMT	4 points
	@Dan Zam: again, you have to remember how much interest sequels manage to drum up. Sure, Dead Man's Chest isn't a particularly memorable movie, but the first Pirates movie WAS innovative, memorable, and included a very noteworthy acting performance. Thanks to the first movie, the second one made the list. The same goes for Shrek and... well... I guess I just disagree with you that the first Spiderman wasn't memorable.

	sub:	May 1st, 2009 at 14:20 GMT	4 points
	Are these the totals for that year or for the entire run of the film? For example, Titanic was released on 12/19/1997 so it basically ran for 12 days in 1997.

	loose_cannon:	May 1st, 2009 at 14:22 GMT	1 point
	I was being facetious, for the record.

	sub:	May 1st, 2009 at 14:27 GMT	1 point
	OK... These totals are wrong, or at least the BoxOfficeMojo list is wrong. Men In Black had ~$250M in 1997: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=meninblack.htm Titanic had at most $150M in 1997: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=titanic.htm I think the quiz should specify "by year of release" because it's not the highest grossing movie of that particular year

	themaskedlemur:	May 1st, 2009 at 14:42 GMT	3 points
	i feel like if "star wars episode 5" is acceptable, "star wars episode 6" should be as well.

	Steve_Perry:	May 1st, 2009 at 14:55 GMT	1 point
	1987 was a weak year at the box office. Only 4 movies made over $100 million. 1. Three Men and a Baby 2. Fatal Attraction 3. Beverly Hills Cop 2 4. Good Morning Vietnam 5. Moonstruck 6. Untouchables 7. Secret of My Success 8. Stakeout 9. Lethal Weapon 10. Witches of Eastwick Not knowing the box office totals, if I was asked to guess what the top grossing movies for 1987 were, I would have guessed that Fatal Attraction, Beverly Hills Cop 2, Lethal Weapon, and maybe even Good Morning Vietnam, would have all made more than Three Men and a Baby.

	CraigR:	May 1st, 2009 at 15:07 GMT	2 points
	1992 yeah!!!!!

	AtomicIce:	May 1st, 2009 at 15:15 GMT	0 points
	Nice quiz. For me personally, I found the 2 ends easier to get than the stuff in the middle. I got the first 5 and the last 8 fairly quickly, but found most of the middle ones harder to come up with.

	JohnJF:	May 1st, 2009 at 15:26 GMT	2 points
	@SowCrates: I will concur that Titanic was a brutally overrated film. I wouldn't say bad, just overrated. Consider how many weak sequels are on this list though. Frankly, most of these movies were not very good. Only a small handful (Rain Man, Forrest Gump, Titanic) won Best Picture.

	jesus:	May 1st, 2009 at 15:34 GMT	-1 points
	@Loads of moaners: just because you don't like a film doesn't mean everyone else does.

	squirrelito:	May 1st, 2009 at 15:49 GMT	6 points
	Star Wars 5???? It was called "Empire Strikes Back" when I queued for it. Must be my age showing ;-)

	ku_sucks:	May 1st, 2009 at 16:30 GMT	-1 points
	spider man 3 really surprised me. i worked at a movie theatre that summer, and i seem to remember hordes of people coming to see the new pirates of the caribbean and harry potter movies, with virtually nobody seeing spiderman. the only explanation i can think of is that spiderman stayed in theatres for an inordinately long amount of time, so it had the chance to keep making revenue, even if the revenue near the end of its run was very small.