zen Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 Where did I say great? I said best Indian film in its genre. Also, you didn't understand the purpose of the post at all. I watched Avatar on TV so it didn't leave the impression it would have if I had watched it in a cinema hall. Some films are made for cinema hall. Well you must be talking about yourself .... I have watched Avatar in 3D in cinemas and also own its Blue Ray and it looks good on both so .... And someone can turn the argument and say that he/she has never seen a truly bad film in the cinemas so may it is cinemas that made a crappy film like Bahubali look good to some folks :haha: .... don't forget that even HNY has some nice shots of Dubai and some good music that look good on big screen .... and I have not watched Sholay, Deewar, Mugal-e-Azam, the Good the bad and the ugly, etc. on big screen but .... In the west, films are shown in different formats - for e.g. normal screens, Ultra AVX (that's what I usually watch), 3D, 3D Ultra AVX, DBox, Imax, etc. so tomorrow someone will say that you can only know the true potential of xyz film if watched on UltraAVX 3D with DBox Btw, I also own a HD 3D projector that can turn a wall in to a small cinema screen .... and now a days, many folks have advanced entertainment systems in their home so again not everyone's experience of watching a film at home is going to be the same :P PS Avatar also doesn't have anything other than graphics. Avatar is more like what a quality Bollywood film could be if made for international markets :winky:
rkt.india Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 Well you must be talking about yourself .... I have watched Avatar in 3D in cinemas and also own its Blue Ray and it looks good on both so .... You watched it first in cinema and you liked and got a Blue Ray later. Think if you had not watched in cinema and only on a 22 inch screen TV, would it have had the same appeal. I doubt and it would naive if you think so because it didnt appeal me that much on TV. Same with a film like interstellar. If I had watched it just on TV, dont think I would have liked it as much as when I did on a big screen. For a film like Nightcrawler, it does not matter whether you watch it on a TV or in cinema, you will like it on both. parameter to judge every film is different for the purpose it is made.
zen Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 You watched it first in cinema and you liked and got a Blue Ray later. Think if you had not watched in cinema and only on a 22 inch screen TV, would it have had the same appeal. I doubt and it would naive if you think so because it didnt appeal me that much on TV. Same with a film like interstellar. If I had watched it just on TV, dont think I would have liked it as much as when I did on a big screen. For a film like Nightcrawler, it does not matter whether you watch it on a TV or in cinema, you will like it on both. parameter to judge every film is different for the purpose it is made. Not really. People have watched Avatar on the small screen only and still liked it. It has a good story, overall the acting is good, so is the background music, etc. the visuals only add to the film .... same goes for movies such as 300, Troy, Gladiator, LOTR series, ....
Precambrian Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 Watches pirated camprint in laptop Gives a lecture on evrything from cinematography to VFX The irony is not lost on anyone :hysterical:
rkt.india Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 iirc' date=' it has been discussed that Bahubali was marketed well, has the biggest budget of any Indian movie so far, opened well in other markets as well, .... and it is in its 4th week so people are going to be aware about the movie's appeal. It is not like people living in the caves are yet to find out about the movie :P[/quote'] Marketed well alone does not matter. It still lacked that mass appeal for most of the north Indian viewers because of unknown actors. If only hype or marketing was everything, Ra.One would not have bombed like it did. Ra.One was the biggest budget Indian film ever, in access of 125-150 crores, released with so much hype and marketing with superstar SRK in it and film could barely even recover its cost and distributors were in a loss.
zen Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 Watches pirated camprint in laptop Gives a lecture on evrything from cinematography to VFX The irony is not lost on anyone :hysterical: I have not watched it on laptop if that makes you feel any better :hysterical: People have watched far better films on small screen and enjoyed those. The irony that crappy Bahubali can only be enjoyed on big screen (even crap movies can be enjoyed) is not lost too
zen Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 Marketed well alone does not matter. It still lacked that mass appeal for most of the north Indian viewers because of unknown actors. If only hype or marketing was everything' date=' Ra.One would not have bombed like it did. Ra.One was the biggest budget Indian film ever, in access of 125-150 crores, released with so much hype and marketing with superstar SRK in it and film could barely even recover its cost and distributors were in a loss.[/quote'] Ra.One grossed over 200 crores world wide which is considered good even know
rkt.india Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 Ra.One grossed over 200 crores world wide which is considered good even know Not really. Here is Ra.One's profit and loss count. Everyone knows, it made losses for distributors; otherwise, it would have seen a sequel by now. http://www.koimoi.com/box-office/shah-rukh-khan-s-ra-one-profit-and-loss-account/
zen Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 Not really. Here is Ra.One's profit and loss count. Everyone knows, it made losses; otherwise, it would have seen a sequel by now. http://www.koimoi.com/box-office/shah-rukh-khan-s-ra-one-profit-and-loss-account/ I am talking about revenues which makes it a hit PS "Upon release, Ra.One received mixed reviews, with critics praising the visuals and music, but criticising the script and direction. Commercially, the film became the third highest-grossing Bollywood film of 2011 domestically, the highest-grossing Bollywood film of 2011 worldwide, and broke a number of opening box office records, though it failed to sustain at the box office after its extended opening weekend. Box office website Box Office India deemed Ra.One a domestic "hit" and overseas "super hit". The film subsequently won a number of awards for its technical aspects, notably one National Film Award, one Filmfare Award and four International Indian Film Academy Awards. Link" Though like Bahubali, I did not like it too
rkt.india Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 I am talking about revenues It still made losses. It did 115 crores gross in India. So, hype and marketing isn't everything. Film can do well for first week with hype, star and marketing, but it will only sustain if it has quality if people are coming to watch it twice or thrice. Because number of cinema going viewers are very limited in India. It has not increased as it should have because of several reasons. A film sustains if those dedicated viewers come back to watch it again. here is the list of Hindi films which did 100 crores in India. http://www.koimoi.com/box-office-india-bollywood-100-crore-club/
rkt.india Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 I am talking about revenues which makes it a hit PS "Upon release, Ra.One received mixed reviews, with critics praising the visuals and music, but criticising the script and direction. Commercially, the film became the third highest-grossing Bollywood film of 2011 domestically, the highest-grossing Bollywood film of 2011 worldwide, and broke a number of opening box office records, though it failed to sustain at the box office after its extended opening weekend. Box office website Box Office India deemed Ra.One a domestic "hit" and overseas "super hit". The film subsequently won a number of awards for its technical aspects, notably one National Film Award, one Filmfare Award and four International Indian Film Academy Awards. Link" Though like Bahubali, I did not like it too Problem is with hype, marketing and presence of SRK, gave Ra,One a great opening, also extended weekend holidays helped, but it didnt sustain after week 1 because it was bad. Its first week gross was great. Getting a great opening is not difficult these days. Take a super star, put some good songs, release in 4500 screens and there you get a 25 plus crore opening. You are now comparing it to Bahubali which has sustained even in its 4th week despite being a dubbed movie, no holiday weekend, it is still doing well even in Hindi belt with screen count not even close to Ra.One for Hindi release and it did 100 crores already. Only a film which is good can sustain that long and that too despite the release of a film like Bajrangi which has also been praised, it has attracted viewers in Hindi belt with some unknown actors. Another big budget SRK film, Don 2 released later same year as Ra.One could not do that great too. Its Indian box office was 106 crores.
rkt.india Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 Here are 200 crore grossers Hindi movies. http://www.koimoi.com/box-office-verdict-bollywoods-top-worldwide-grossers/
zen Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 Problem is with hype, marketing and presence of SRK, gave Ra,One a great opening, also extended weekend holidays helped, but it didnt sustain after week 1 because it was bad. Its first week gross was great. Getting a great opening is not difficult these days. Take a super star, put some good songs, release in 4500 screens and there you get a 25 plus crore opening. You are now comparing it to Bahubali which has sustained even in its 4th week despite being a dubbed movie, no holiday weekend, it is still doing well even in Hindi belt with screen count not even close to Ra.One for Hindi release and it did 100 crores already. Only a film which is good can sustain that long and that too despite the release of a film like Bajrangi which has also been praised, it has attracted viewers in Hindi belt with some unknown actors. Another big budget SRK film, Don 2 released later same year as Ra.One could not do that great too. Its Indian box office was 106 crores. What are you trying to show here when you would say Kick, Dagaang 2, Bodybuard, etc. (Salman Khan films), etc. (which met your BO criteria of good films) are not good .... if i m not wrong, you said that Bajrani Bhaijaan is not good too :haha:
rkt.india Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 What are you trying to show here when you would say Kick' date=' Dagaang 2, Bodybuard, etc. (Salman Khan films), etc. (which met your BO criteria of good films) are not good .... if i m not wrong, you said that Bajrani Bhaijaan is not good too :haha:[/quote'] Good-bad does not matter for Salman films these days. Even a rubbish film like Jay Ho did 100 crore plus. Salman films give them what they want to see him. Stop bringing Salman films into discussion. Salman now has become like Apple. Even if he craps, people will come to watch it. Collections depends on how better a film is from his previous films. Regarding, Bjarangi, yes, it is his best film in recent years and that shows in collections too. It is not great, but great for Salman standards. As I had said previously, you wont compare a Bajrangi to Sholay and say it is bad. You will compare Bajrangi to a Jai Ho and rest of his films then say it is good. Earlier Salman films lasted 2 weeks, it will last 4-5 weeks because it is better than them. As I said, every film of his had a great opening but they didnt last that long to break 3 Idiots record. 200 crores is not a big deal when you have 155 crore first week collection like Ek The Tiger had and that is because of Salman's star power and marketing. When Ek tha tiger had released, it started so well that everyone thought it would surpass 3 Idiots but it didnt because it could not sustain after a point because it was not that good. Only Bajrangi did that because people liked it better than them. It stimulated the emotions. People did not look for logic in this film. Here we are talking about Bahubali a film with unknown actors who are not top tier actors even in their film industry making history which cannot be possible based on just hype. You are comparing Salman's star power to a film with no known actors like Bahubali.
rkt.india Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 In simple words, if Bahubali was just hype, it would have done max around 200 crore in India and died down like lot of other films.
Precambrian Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 Ra.One grossed over 200 crores world wide which is considered good even know So how's it making it a hit? IF 125-150 crore is the budget. It's a disaster.
zen Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 Good-bad does not matter for Salman films these days. Even a rubbish film like Jay Ho did 100 crore plus. Salman films give them what they want to see him. Stop bringing Salman films into discussion. Salman now has become like Apple. Even if he craps, people will come to watch it. Collections depends on how better a film is from his previous films. Regarding, Bjarangi, yes, it is his best film in recent years and that shows in collections too. It is not great, but great for Salman standards. As I had said previously, you wont compare a Bajrangi to Sholay and say it is bad. You will compare Bajrangi to a Jai Ho and rest of his films then say it is good. Earlier Salman films lasted 2 weeks, it will last 4-5 weeks because it is better than them. As I said, every film of his had a great opening but they didnt last that long to break 3 Idiots record. 200 crores is not a big deal when you have 155 crore first week collection like Ek The Tiger had and that is because of Salman's star power and marketing. When Ek tha tiger had released, it started so well that everyone thought it would surpass 3 Idiots but it didnt because it could not sustain after a point because it was not that good. Only Bajrangi did that because people liked it better than them. It stimulated the emotions. People did not look for logic in this film. Here we are talking about Bahubali a film with unknown actors who are not top tier actors even in their film industry making history which cannot be possible based on just hype. You are comparing Salman's star power to a film with no known actors like Bahubali. :hysterical: Ok, so according to you - Salman is a special case but Bahubali, which has the biggest budget of any Indian movie is not :haha: Bajranji Bhaijan did well because it is better than other Salman films, not because it could be a good film. So Bajranji Bhaijaan's number don't matter but Bahubali does because it has unknown actors and we are conveniently supposed to ignore that that it had the biggest budget of any Indian movie And Avatar which grossed more than $1B is just over-rated and has nothing other than graphics but Bahubali's BO numbers show that it is not over-rated ^ All that is cherry picking Now based on your criteria of a film being good or bad based on its BO numbers, are Bajranji Bhaijaan and Avatar good films? In simple words' date=' if Bahubali was just hype, it would have done max around 200 crore in India and died down like lot of other films.[/quote'] Well Bahubali did 200crores+ in its first week with 100crores in the first 3 days so that does not go well with your above point :winky:
zen Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 So how's it making it a hit? IF 125-150 crore is the budget. It's a disaster. The fans of the film, SRK, etc. believe that it is a hit :P .... SRK has said that he would love to do Ra.One Part 2 (As for me, Ra.One is a crap film much like Bahubali)
BlueBee Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 Not really. People have watched Avatar on the small screen only and still liked it. It has a good story' date=' overall the acting is good, so is the background music, etc. the visuals only add to the film .... same goes for movies such as 300, Troy, Gladiator, LOTR series, ....[/quote'] I'm one of them. #justsaying
rkt.india Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 :hysterical: Ok, so according to you - Salman is a special case but Bahubali, which has the biggest budget of any Indian movie is not :haha: Bajranji Bhaijan did well because it is better than other Salman films, not because it could be a good film. So Bajranji Bhaijaan's number don't matter but Bahubali does because it has unknown actors and we are conveniently supposed to ignore that that it had the biggest budget of any Indian movie And Avatar which grossed more than $1B is just over-rated and has nothing other than graphics but Bahubali's BO numbers show that it is not over-rated ^ All that is cherry picking Now based on your criteria of a film being good or bad based on its BO numbers, are Bajranji Bhaijaan and Avatar good films? Well Bahubali did 200crores+ in its first week with 100crores in the first 3 days so that does not go well with your above point :winky: Bahubali doesn't have biggest budget for single. Its cumulative budget is biggest. First part 130, second part 120. Ra.one's budget was 135 approx, rumoured to be 150 when it was released. Bang bang had a budget of 140 crores due to delays, it stretched from 90 to 140. Even if you take Salman's case, his films bar Bajrangi haven't sustained 2nd week. Ek tha tiger had 155 crore first week, but it could barely touch 200 crores. With that kind of start, it was expected to beat 3Idiots but it didn't, same for Kick too, same for HNY too. Hype and stars don't last after first 10 days. If a film has lasted a month and still going houseful means it has repeat value.
Recommended Posts