Jump to content
Lone Wolf

Prithviraj Trailer

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Clarke said:

 

Does this style/swagger apply to just men down south ? It seems to be in shorter supply among women and there's the need of importing some fair skinned north Indian actresses to dance alongside these stylish men.

 

I've noticed across the years how a few of us have been critical of nepotism & over the top masala flicks in bollywood. This doesn't seem to be much of a trend down south, on the contrary there is proper worship of these sooparstarz and justifying their over the top masala films with such words. 


The “actresses”are from Mumbai/Bangalore cosmopolitan cities not from interiors of Jharkand or Haryana and not sure how you figured they are all from “North” . Yes there is a fair skin fetish but is that limited to just South?

 

As far as Nepotism goes it’s way worse in South than Hindi cinema. 100% agree. Add to that there is casteism.

 

As far as flying soooperstarz go, it still works for guys like Salman and Sunny under the right circumstances. Back in the day when Amitabh was injured entire India was praying for him including the “Madaras region” (refer to 6th standard geo text book for further info on the breakdown )

 

Now it’s not the flying Southie stars problem if Bollywood actors dance around the Kapil Sharma comedy show with men dressed as women and express their half baked braindead opinion on every damn thing under the sun, it takes away their believability when they are fake beating up 1000 baddies. It’s their own damn fault lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, maniac said:


true but also lacks charisma. Good looks doesn’t always equal to charisma or else Dino Morea and John Abraham would be the biggest stars in the country and Rajni Kant would stick to being a bus conductor.

Rajni is so overrated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

Rajni is so overrated.

He might be. I am talking about how you need Charisma to be a superstar. Not good looks.

 

Rajni, SRK, Amitabh all look like regular  middle class people. However they have loads of charisma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cinema itself is a journey into a fictional realm. 

 

For example, look at jersey. A man who is so dead and dumped in life, will realistically, descend into alcoholism or violence. But the hero magically defeats everything to impress his son.  Pretty unrealistic.  Defies psychology. 

 

Another example, a normal mediocre family man defies police, judiciary to hide the dead body beneath the police station. RIght beneath the police station. Pretty improbable and unrealistic. 

 

Yet an another example, NTR comes and hacks 20 guys to death. Highly unrealistic. Defies physics and gravity. 

 

The ultra-sophisticated "Where is the Logic?"  twitter crowd must look into themselves before calling the tastes of normal cinema fans as .."Chi...what is this crap?". They are ok with first two but jump like lemurs when faced with third. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, maniac said:

He might be. I am talking about how you need Charisma to be a superstar. Not good looks.

 

Rajni, SRK, Amitabh all look like regular  middle class people. However they have loads of charisma.

 

How do you define charisma?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, kepler37b said:

Cinema itself is a journey into a fictional realm. 

 

For example, look at jersey. A man who is so dead and dumped in life, will realistically, descend into alcoholism or violence. But the hero magically defeats everything to impress his son.  Pretty unrealistic.  Defies psychology. 

 

Another example, a normal mediocre family man defies police, judiciary to hide the dead body beneath the police station. RIght beneath the police station. Pretty improbable and unrealistic. 

 

Yet an another example, NTR comes and hacks 20 guys to death. Highly unrealistic. Defies physics and gravity. 

 

The ultra-sophisticated "Where is the Logic?"  twitter crowd must look into themselves before calling the tastes of normal cinema fans as .."Chi...what is this crap?". They are ok with first two but jump like lemurs when faced with third. 

 

 

 

You yourself proved that 3rd situation is differnt,then asking why people behave differently.

 

Salman movies also get the same criticism.Its not about South North

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Lord said:

 

How do you define charisma?

Charisma means crowd pulling capability on day one and two. Getting big opening. Such guys are paid big Money who mostly ensures that the film will open big. Take an example of Prabhas after Bahubali. His Saho was big budget movie. It overall wasn't a hit due to big budget but his crowd pulling capability ensured that it wasn't a disaster as well. It's first three day collection was 200 cr. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, rkt.india said:

Charisma means crowd pulling capability on day one and two. Getting big opening. Such guys are paid big Money who mostly ensures that the film will open big. Take an example of Prabhas after Bahubali. His Saho was big budget movie. It overall wasn't a hit due to big budget but his crowd pulling capability ensured that it wasn't a disaster as well. It's first three day collection was 200 cr. 

So if these guys have charisma,why did their initial films tank?

 

Obviously after big success they will attract crowds.Even in sports it works like that.

 

So Akshay,Salman etc all have charisma?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Lord said:

So if these guys have charisma,why did their initial films tank?

 

Obviously after big success they will attract crowds.Even in sports it works like that.

 

So Akshay,Salman etc all have charisma?

Charisma develops over time and can wane too. At times, an actor gets type caste as well when Akshay was type casted in Comedies from mid 2000s early 2010s giving multiple comedy hits. Same happened with Salman after Wanted. Swag is different than Charisma. Charisma is ability to pull the crowds. Akshay in his comedy days used to pull big crowds. Same with Salman. Even Salman's worst films like Jai Ho and Tubelight did 100+ crores. Salman has been the biggest crowd puller in modern Hindi films. Since Rajesh Khanna and Big B.

Edited by rkt.india
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Lord said:

 

How do you define charisma?

Charisma is a personaliy trait that attracts others and even have a power to influence 

It doesnt have to be just films, it can be in any field. It doesnt have to be even similar traits. These days many stars have hired Charisma coaches

  • In cricket- Warne, Imran, yuvraj, dhoni, Akthar all had it 
  • Modi is extremely charismatic and he worked on it 
  • hollywood- waha to list hi khatam nhin hogi 

 

1 hour ago, Lord said:

So if these guys have charisma,why did their initial films tank?

 

Obviously after big success they will attract crowds.Even in sports it works like that.

 

So Akshay,Salman etc all have charisma?

 

Akshay doesnt have charsima , neither ajay or amir khan . They all are stars due to different reasons 

In bollywood- Salman, SRK, Amitabh, Hrithik, Dev Anand, Dilip kumar, Rajkumar, Rajesh khanna all these guys had it. Im sure im missing many names 

In South - allu arjun, Rajnikanth, Vijay 

 

Sirf Charisma to film chalti nhin. Ur an audience and its ur hard earned money wud u waste it just for sake of Charisma. 

Now the question is how does many bad films of South star works but not the case in hindi belt (they do but to a limit) South audicene is a much much more loyal audience to their stars unlike hindi belt. They do treat their stars like god not the case here.  

Mahesh babu one after another crap films becomes massive hit but audience here has patience for salman 3-4 bad films at best after that they give up. Also when i say hindi belt it has a huge demographic that involves people with different taste. 

Now how does Aamir khan pull in audience if he doesnt have charisma ?? Simple he has built has reputation over the years of giving quality films , he has given few bad ones in between but his % has been so good. Something now Ayushman is developing. 

 

A film failing or working depends on several factor

 

  • budget- biggest one. Bollywood biggest issue has been budget going out of hands . Its about investment and recovery at the end. So a film like LSD was actually hit coz it was made in 3cr and it made 9 cr but a veer was flop despite making 101 cr coz its budget was 100 and half of it goes in taxes. Kangana manikarnika had the crowd but budget was so so high that it never recovered so it was actually a flop despite all claims. Again here audience isnt very loyal unlike south where telegu films covers its cost in the region itself be it RRR n Baahubali themselves. 
    Nayak which became a hit on satellite was flop theartrically becoz of its huge cost same was the case with hera pheri 1 (although did ok in Mumbai, which was 50% at that time)
  • Marketing - andaz apna apna flopped bcoz of poor marketting . Hera pheri again suffered from it
  • At the end film has to be good- If a film is good it ll work most of the time provided its a theatre going experience which also means entertainment not just larger then life. If someone says Housefull was trash yet a hit well people like that trash 

A film working or failing is way way beyond charisma of a star . Pushpa didnt work pan india just becoz Allu arjun is so charismatic but becoz it was *ing entertaining and hindi  belt have been missing such films post Dabangg 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord said:

 

How do you define charisma?

The word charisma itself is self explanatory.

 

however in a film context it can mean multiple things talent, style, screen presence, dialogue delivery.

 

remember jaani raaj kumar. He says every dialogue the same way like he has throat cancer but there was something about it and masses loved it. Look at his acting 0 emotions. May be he was a good actor when he was younger but it was his dialogue delivery captivated people.

 

similarly Irrfan Khan, even in small roles you can’t take your eyes of him because of his screen presence. He wasn’t a conventional handsome guy.


Mithun made a lot of crap movies but he still has that appeal and presence.

 

There are a lot of moving parts.

 

SRK made stammering cool, Rajni made simple things like lighting a cigarette, wearing sunglasses  or putting a towel over your shoulder filled with swag, Amitabh had intensity even in comedy scenes in his prime. These are not something than can be measured. It just subconsciously sticks with you. I am sure when I am describing you know exactly what I am taking about. That’s what I mean by charisma.

 

Some people are in the right place at the right time and some people can elevate the most basic things with their charisma. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, maniac said:

The word charisma itself is self explanatory.

 

however in a film context it can mean multiple things talent, style, screen presence, dialogue delivery.

 

remember jaani raaj kumar. He says every dialogue the same way like he has throat cancer but there was something about it and masses loved it. Look at his acting 0 emotions. May be he was a good actor when he was younger but it was his dialogue delivery captivated people.

 

similarly Irrfan Khan, even in small roles you can’t take your eyes of him because of his screen presence. He wasn’t a conventional handsome guy.


Mithun made a lot of crap movies but he still has that appeal and presence.

 

There are a lot of moving parts.

 

SRK made stammering cool, Rajni made simple things like lighting a cigarette, wearing sunglasses  or putting a towel over your shoulder filled with swag, Amitabh had intensity even in comedy scenes in his prime. These are not something than can be measured. It just subconsciously sticks with you. I am sure when I am describing you know exactly what I am taking about. That’s what I mean by charisma.

 

Some people are in the right place at the right time and some people can elevate the most basic things with their charisma. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Irrfan was a top notch actor. Thats why we watched him.

 

Mithun was good too though not sure a crowd puller

 

Dialogue delivery again is something a good actor must have.

 

SRK didn't make stammering cool. I don't see anyone doing it knowlingly. Kids who stammer are still laughed at.

 

You are just describing someone who's good at their trade (in this case acting)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

 

Charisma is a personaliy trait that attracts others and even have a power to influence 

It doesnt have to be just films, it can be in any field. It doesnt have to be even similar traits. These days many stars have hired Charisma coaches

  • In cricket- Warne, Imran, yuvraj, dhoni, Akthar all had it 
  • Modi is extremely charismatic and he worked on it 
  • hollywood- waha to list hi khatam nhin hogi 

 

 

Akshay doesnt have charsima , neither ajay or amir khan . They all are stars due to different reasons 

In bollywood- Salman, SRK, Amitabh, Hrithik, Dev Anand, Dilip kumar, Rajkumar, Rajesh khanna all these guys had it. Im sure im missing many names 

In South - allu arjun, Rajnikanth, Vijay 

 

Sirf Charisma to film chalti nhin. Ur an audience and its ur hard earned money wud u waste it just for sake of Charisma. 

Now the question is how does many bad films of South star works but not the case in hindi belt (they do but to a limit) South audicene is a much much more loyal audience to their stars unlike hindi belt. They do treat their stars like god not the case here.  

Mahesh babu one after another crap films becomes massive hit but audience here has patience for salman 3-4 bad films at best after that they give up. Also when i say hindi belt it has a huge demographic that involves people with different taste. 

Now how does Aamir khan pull in audience if he doesnt have charisma ?? Simple he has built has reputation over the years of giving quality films , he has given few bad ones in between but his % has been so good. Something now Ayushman is developing. 

 

A film failing or working depends on several factor

 

  • budget- biggest one. Bollywood biggest issue has been budget going out of hands . Its about investment and recovery at the end. So a film like LSD was actually hit coz it was made in 3cr and it made 9 cr but a veer was flop despite making 101 cr coz its budget was 100 and half of it goes in taxes. Kangana manikarnika had the crowd but budget was so so high that it never recovered so it was actually a flop despite all claims. Again here audience isnt very loyal unlike south where telegu films covers its cost in the region itself be it RRR n Baahubali themselves. 
    Nayak which became a hit on satellite was flop theartrically becoz of its huge cost same was the case with hera pheri 1 (although did ok in Mumbai, which was 50% at that time)
  • Marketing - andaz apna apna flopped bcoz of poor marketting . Hera pheri again suffered from it
  • At the end film has to be good- If a film is good it ll work most of the time provided its a theatre going experience which also means entertainment not just larger then life. If someone says Housefull was trash yet a hit well people like that trash 

A film working or failing is way way beyond charisma of a star . Pushpa didnt work pan india just becoz Allu arjun is so charismatic but becoz it was *ing entertaining and hindi  belt have been missing such films post Dabangg 

 

How do Akshay,Ajay bring crowds? They arent great actors nor have reputation of quality films

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lord said:

 

How do Akshay,Ajay bring crowds? They arent great actors nor have reputation of quality films


What is a quality film in Indian context anyways?

 

Andaz Apna Apna is everyone’s fav movie including mine but if you look at it from a technical perspective it is very poorly made.

 

Karishma has moustace and bushy eyebrows in one scene and next she looks like Karishma from the mid 90’s, Salman Amir Raveena all their looks keep changing from scene to scene, there wasn’t really a story. It was poorly edited, there is no real story but a bunch of gags thrown in together, the music sounds like it is from the 50’s but it worked didn’t it?

 

Simple a movie in theatre should give you a good immersive experience. A movie at home should be fun for the entire family to watch without any stress. That’s about it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Lord said:

 

Irrfan was a top notch actor. Thats why we watched him.

 

Mithun was good too though not sure a crowd puller

 

Dialogue delivery again is something a good actor must have.

 

SRK didn't make stammering cool. I don't see anyone doing it knowlingly. Kids who stammer are still laughed at.

 

You are just describing someone who's good at their trade (in this case acting)


so what is your conclusion?

 

Rajnikant is neither a conventionally handsome looking man and neither does he have the range to do multiple roles and since charisma doesn’t exist, how do you explain his stardom?

 
I am assuming 

 

rajnikanth is a superstar only because people from Tamil Nadu are idiots. Would that be it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Lord said:

 

How do Akshay,Ajay bring crowds? They arent great actors nor have reputation of quality films

they are stars .......nothing works like success. They have longevity and many successful films. What Charishma or talent did katrina had ?? but she had hits in line one after another so she is a star. 

They have their own genres which they are good at. Akshay is a such a natural with comedy , he is actually bloody good. Ajay is good with Once upon a time or company kind of roles and even action films. 

None of our top stars are actually great actor but they have cracked genres for themselves which others cant beat them at . 

 

Charisma also doesnt guarntee u stardom

Farooq sheikh was extremely charismatic but cant be called a star 

Vinod khanna another one, he was a star but not at Rajesh khanna or bachhan level 

Sanjay dutt had it but made so many wrong choices on n off screen 

Saif has it but doesnt have many big hits as a solo star neither relatability with audience 

Shahid Kapoor is miles better as an actor then these 2 but doesnt have hits infact has flops mot of his career. Neither can he crack don kind of roles like Ajay or excel in comedy like Akshay 

Ranbir kapoor is an actor of different class yet he hasnt had the longevity of ajay or akshay so his pull isnt as good as those 2 same case hrithik currently (but will be in next 5-10yrs) . Yes they can pull in crowd but ajay n akshay longer career does give them extra edge

 

Once u crack a genre its helps. Take tiger shroff example- na chu*** ko acting aati hai, na charisma na personality but he is a star and he has cracked a genre for himself. He is very popular among kids and what he does cant be done by others Apart from vidyut but vidyut lacks packaging 

 

PPl want to see every kind of film so if its comedy they ll trust Akshay 

 

Also it depends film to film - Ajay n akshay still dont have a pull of all 3 khans . Their films chances of crossing 200 cr are still very low 

Runway got no audience

Bell bottom nothing great, even prithviraj opening day wud be 10cr which isnt great for his level of star. Bhool bhooliya 2 advance was thrice then Prithviraj doesnt mean kartik has become a bigger star just that ppl wanted to see that film. 

 

As i told a film working or failing has several factors. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, maniac said:


so what is your conclusion?

 

Rajnikant is neither a conventionally handsome looking man and neither does he have the range to do multiple roles and since charisma doesn’t exist, how do you explain his stardom?

 
I am assuming 

 

rajnikanth is a superstar only because people from Tamil Nadu are idiots. Would that be it?

Same like Salman I guess. Masala movies.Although hes a good actor when he wants to be.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, maniac said:


What is a quality film in Indian context anyways?

 

Andaz Apna Apna is everyone’s fav movie including mine but if you look at it from a technical perspective it is very poorly made.

 

Karishma has moustace and bushy eyebrows in one scene and next she looks like Karishma from the mid 90’s, Salman Amir Raveena all their looks keep changing from scene to scene, there wasn’t really a story. It was poorly edited, there is no real story but a bunch of gags thrown in together, the music sounds like it is from the 50’s but it worked didn’t it?

 

Simple a movie in theatre should give you a good immersive experience. A movie at home should be fun for the entire family to watch without any stress. That’s about it.

 

 

Rules remain the same. Good story,direction and acting.Good songs can elevate it.

 

As for AAA, its a 90s comedy movie and they got comedy part right.Although similar jokes might not work today

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

they are stars .......nothing works like success. They have longevity and many successful films. What Charishma or talent did katrina had ?? but she had hits in line one after another so she is a star. 

They have their own genres which they are good at. Akshay is a such a natural with comedy , he is actually bloody good. Ajay is good with Once upon a time or company kind of roles and even action films. 

None of our top stars are actually great actor but they have cracked genres for themselves which others cant beat them at . 

 

Charisma also doesnt guarntee u stardom

Farooq sheikh was extremely charismatic but cant be called a star 

Vinod khanna another one, he was a star but not at Rajesh khanna or bachhan level 

Sanjay dutt had it but made so many wrong choices on n off screen 

Saif has it but doesnt have many big hits as a solo star neither relatability with audience 

Shahid Kapoor is miles better as an actor then these 2 but doesnt have hits infact has flops mot of his career. Neither can he crack don kind of roles like Ajay or excel in comedy like Akshay 

Ranbir kapoor is an actor of different class yet he hasnt had the longevity of ajay or akshay so his pull isnt as good as those 2 same case hrithik currently (but will be in next 5-10yrs) . Yes they can pull in crowd but ajay n akshay longer career does give them extra edge

 

Once u crack a genre its helps. Take tiger shroff example- na chu*** ko acting aati hai, na charisma na personality but he is a star and he has cracked a genre for himself. He is very popular among kids and what he does cant be done by others Apart from vidyut but vidyut lacks packaging 

 

PPl want to see every kind of film so if its comedy they ll trust Akshay 

 

Also it depends film to film - Ajay n akshay still dont have a pull of all 3 khans . Their films chances of crossing 200 cr are still very low 

Runway got no audience

Bell bottom nothing great, even prithviraj opening day wud be 10cr which isnt great for his level of star. Bhool bhooliya 2 advance was thrice then Prithviraj doesnt mean kartik has become a bigger star just that ppl wanted to see that film. 

 

As i told a film working or failing has several factors. 

 

Agree, acting, charisma takes backseat as long the movie makes money. AK looks jaded in OP, as long as it is a hit , who cares in Bollywood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...