Biggest female Superstar of all time?

Only talking about Bollywood.

I don't get why media often calls Madhuri as "biggest female superstar of all time" even though she was a No 1 only from 1991 to 1996. Just 5 yrs. Almost every other top heriones of a particular era had a much more longer reign than her.

Vyjayantimala is so underrated. She remained as one of the top 5 actresses from 1950 to 1969(till she quit the industry)..

https://www.instagram.com/p/B1F3Jb1BonQ/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

https://www.instagram.com/p/B1oporEhnYS/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

Where is alia?

Madhuri & Sridevi

Sridevi. Domimated 3 industries and became number one in all

only BW, its Madhuri, Sri being second.

Madhuri had 6 HGOTY same as AB Sr and more than the likes of SRK, Rajesh Khanna, HR, Dharmendra and so on. Only Sallu(10), Dilip Kumar(9) and Mammu(7) have more than her.

Originally posted by: Fluffyalexis

I don't get why media often calls Madhuri as "biggest female superstar of all time" even though she was a No 1 only from 1991 to 1996. Just 5 yrs. Almost every other top heriones of a particular era had a much more longer reign than her.

In an unfair, male-centric, shamefully rigged system any number of years of domination for a female star is a big thing + stars like Madhuri and Sridevi made the decision to put their careers on hold (unlike their usually less talented costars) + Madhuri did dethrone Sri, so it's justifiable to give her a special status. Also, many actresses before those two were forced to stop acting after getting married, so, again, the number of years is a tricky point of reference.

The thread is pointless without clear criteria, anyway. Cumulative box office? Cumulative footfalls? Number 1 box office hits in respective years? Remuneration? Number of endorsements and followers on social media? - OK, just kidding with this one. LOL

My main criterion would be the legacy and how those stars function in the collective consciousness.

Originally posted by: dedh

In an unfair, male-centric, shamefully rigged system any number of years of domination for a female star is a big thing + stars like Madhuri and Sridevi made the decision to put their careers on hold (unlike their usually less talented costars) + Madhuri did dethrone Sri, so it's justifiable to give her a special status. Also, many actresses before those two were forced to stop acting after getting married, so, again, the number of years is a tricky point of reference.

The thread is pointless without clear criteria, anyway. Cumulative box office? Cumulative footfalls? Number 1 box office hits in respective years? Remuneration? Number of endorsements and followers on social media? - OK, just kidding with this one. LOL

My main criterion would be the legacy and how those stars function in the collective consciousness.

Criteria is upto you to decide because footfalls and box office numbers are facts, so asking for opinion is not needed.

Originally posted by: Looney86

Criteria is upto you to decide because footfalls and box office numbers are facts, so asking for opinion is not needed.

On second thoughts, even those "facts" can be manipulated. For example, a bunch of Salman Khan's fans on social media are still trying to present HAHK as a Salman film, even when the director himself said, time and again, that HAHK belongs to Madhuri. And exactly does one compare the commercial success of films when the ticket prices differ so much between decades?