Bollywood and the art of minting money

[hmasalia]

@ Spacescreamer
@ asingh

This is not a personal argument, I too love watching good movies,
You need to know the fact, everyone loves to make money.
How they make it, it depends on the film maker.

 

[saumilsingh]

Fact is that a successful movie feeds not just the director and the marquee stars in it, but also the families of 100s of technicians involved with it. A less successful or unsuccessful one (commercially) cannot do that. These masala films bring back far more money, and livelihood, to the industry than any of those 'different' films, which do a few rounds of film circuits, and earn praises from critics, but fail to gross anywhere near as much to go much beyond breaking even - and these are then termed as 'successes' by the media which, like with all other topics, has little to no clue what they are talking about.

The more visible actors, directors, music directors etc. walk away with their money, least bothered about if the others who earn per shift or day, have got their due. Even in this regard, Rohit recently paid for the technicians himself when Bol Bachchan when the producers made a mess of it. Haven't heard of Anurag Kashyap or Vishal Bharadwaj or other 'good' directors doing anything like that. Oh wait, their films don't earn so much for them to be able to do it.

Everything you said makes perfect business sense. But it still doesn't make Rohit Shetty 'one of the best directors today'.
It's great that he looks after his team and sounds like a good person, but all of that is outside the scope of his prowess as a movie maker.

I don't blame him. If I wanted to make money in Bollywood and didn't have the creative vision, I too would churn out popcorn flicks with mass appeal.
But it would be a very clinical business venture sort of approach to the profession.

It's pretty much impossible to make an argument for either side; whether you want to make an easy buck or you want to make good films. But it's easy to see that only one of them is being true to the medium.
And in the end, I am proud that a film like Dev.D is now part of our zeitgeist rather than 'products' like Bol Bacchan. Even if Dev.D made a fraction of the money.

 

[agantuk]

Everything you said makes perfect business sense. But it still doesn't make Rohit Shetty 'one of the best directors today'.

I said so because his films are genuinely good, and I speak as an audience. Whether he does charity or not is really none of my business. As an audience I expect movies to provide paisa vasool entertainment, and directors like Rohit, Sajid and Prabhudeva provide that in abundance. I don't think I really need to prescribe to a certain school of thought and work for the 'betterment' of something, though I definitely feel that Hindi films have been fast losing their appeal since the early 2000s. The audience connect is gone. It is nothing like the 70s or the 90s, heck not even like the 80s.

And in the end, I am proud that a film like Dev.D is now part of our zeitgeist rather than 'products' like Bol Bacchan. Even if Dev.D made a fraction of the money.

Again, isn't this really subjective? I mean, just because one likes something doesn't mean the other should like it. Or worse, that the other is wrong. I couldn't tolerate Dev D, but then if that's what the director thinks this generation is about, it is his opinion. A director should have the freedom to make the type of movies he likes, or would like to see as an audience. As an audience, I have every right to appreciate or criticise his work. Neither can I tell the director how to do it, nor can the director decide what I should or should not be watching. I find it funny when many actors and directors say they do 'different' films. No one does. They do films of a certain type, which may be different from what the general trend is, but are very similar within the realms of their own work.

That is quite a flawed argument to be honest, agantuk. If we are terming movies as good/bad based solely on revenue then this thread should not even exist. We can just read the statistics of the web. That way the paintings of Rembrandt or da Vinci or Van Gogh, should be ignored, cause those artists earned hardly anything from them...! Just because R.Shetty is doing goodwill by paying his working staff, does not liberate him or exonerate him from being sub-par or bad as a professional. Comparing Vishal to Rohit: Of course the fomer has better films out there, and they did just as well. Revenue connotations are not the only factor. A lot of people here are noir and aficionados of films, and reading this type of logic is fallacy at the minimal. You are trying to template-ize a measurement system which is really dynamic and vivid. Can you not see that, when it comes to the critique on movies. Hope this makes sense.

I repeat, I have liked his films as an audience. And no, I am not a daily wage labour (as some think are the only audience for such films). I am not one, and I even manage to read, speak and write a little bit (not illiterate). I have a not so bad IQ (which I believe some folks thinks is needed to be used while watching and making films). However, I absolutely despise the fact that some people who think they have a niche taste, also feel it their prerogative to enlighten the 'dumb' around them.

I do realise a lot of folks online prefer a different type of cinema, but then that doesn't give them honorary rights attacking people who don't or who like something completely in a different zone.

 

[Sei]

Again, isn't this really subjective? I mean, just because one likes something doesn't mean the other should like it. Or worse, that the other is wrong. I couldn't tolerate Dev D, but then if that's what the director thinks this generation is about, it is his opinion. A director should have the freedom to make the type of movies he likes, or would like to see as an audience. As an audience, I have every right to appreciate or criticise his work. Neither can I tell the director how to do it, nor can the director decide what I should or should not be watching. I find it funny when many actors and directors say they do 'different' films. No one does. They do films of a certain type, which may be different from what the general trend is, but are very similar within the realms of their own work.

Why I would agree here with Saumil here is that films like Dev D push the boundaries of acting, direction etc. It's definitely not a genre defining film but what it shows is that the director had a vision, and he brought that vision on the screen! Of course, a few commercial films along the way are good and fine but if you look at the movies churned out by Rohit Shetty, it's the same thing recycled again and again - Golmaal 1,2,3 and All the Best. Even Bol Bacchan seemed to be made from the same mould. Maybe with the exception of Singham, which itself was inspired by Dabangg.

He's playing it safe, earning money for everyone. All well and good. But that doesn't make him a good director. Maybe a sound businessman, but it would be far-fetched to label him a director with any sort of vision.

 

[asingh]

I repeat, I have liked his films as an audience. And no, I am not a daily wage labour (as some think are the only audience for such films). I am not one, and I even manage to read, speak and write a little bit (not illiterate). I have a not so bad IQ (which I believe some folks thinks is needed to be used while watching and making films). However, I absolutely despise the fact that some people who think they have a niche taste, also feel it their prerogative to enlighten the 'dumb' around them.

I do realise a lot of folks online prefer a different type of cinema, but then that doesn't give them honorary rights attacking people who don't or who like something completely in a different zone.

I was not attacking you, but your argument. I fail to see, how come you did not understand that. I really do not need to: pen-down, what I think about you, or where you stand in my understanding of humans. It holds no value or precedence. Can we re-try..?

 

[agantuk]

I was not attacking you, but your argument. I fail to see, how come you did not understand that. I really do not need to: pen-down, what I think about you, or where you stand in my understanding of humans. It holds no value or precedence. Can we re-try..?

OK, I didn't mean to say that your post was aggressive, I was talking about some folks who talk that way. My post was for general consumption, in reaction to something you mentioned.

- - - Updated - - -

Why I would agree here with Saumil here is that films like Dev D push the boundaries of acting, direction etc. It's definitely not a genre defining film but what it shows is that the director had a vision, and he brought that vision on the screen! Of course, a few commercial films along the way are good and fine but if you look at the movies churned out by Rohit Shetty, it's the same thing recycled again and again - Golmaal 1,2,3 and All the Best. Even Bol Bacchan seemed to be made from the same mould. Maybe with the exception of Singham, which itself was inspired by Dabangg.

He's playing it safe, earning money for everyone. All well and good. But that doesn't make him a good director. Maybe a sound businessman, but it would be far-fetched to label him a director with any sort of vision.

I still think liking films is a subjective matter. I am probably old fashioned. Or nuts. But I think that not everyone can like the same thing. I might be absolutely wrong. If we start putting a blanket categorisation of films, no one really is different. Even the great (not in my opinion exactly) Anurag Kashyap has a template - dark films, low light, loads of swearing, and pretty much everyone playing a negative (not villainous) character. Not to forget most of his films portray characters living in not the brightest or cleanest of places. Isn't that a template?

There is also a general perception that masala films are pretty easy to make. I wonder if that was the case why do most films bomb - most directors attempt masala, only a handful succeed. The audience isn't exactly stupid to keep watching the same stuff again, and again, and again, and again. I keep hearing that this is a passing phase, people will get fed up eventually. But this is being said for almost 3 years now. Apparently people don't seem to be tiring out fast.

 

[sharktale1212]

I still think liking films is a subjective matter. I am probably old fashioned. Or nuts. But I think that not everyone can like the same thing. I might be absolutely wrong. If we start putting a blanket categorisation of films, no one really is different. Even the great (not in my opinion exactly) Anurag Kashyap has a template - dark films, low light, loads of swearing, and pretty much everyone playing a negative (not villainous) character. Not to forget most of his films portray characters living in not the brightest or cleanest of places. Isn't that a template?

There is also a general perception that masala films are pretty easy to make. I wonder if that was the case why do most films bomb - most directors attempt masala, only a handful succeed. The audience isn't exactly stupid to keep watching the same stuff again, and again, and again, and again. I keep hearing that this is a passing phase, people will get fed up eventually. But this is being said for almost 3 years now. Apparently people don't seem to be tiring out fast.

A little known secret, when anyone condemns or trashes a film, he is giving his opinion. Think admins should enable a default IMO tag before each movie ranking posted. ex:
IMO
Vishwaroop - 5/10
So that everyone sees thats the person's opinion.

Is bombing or making money a yardstick for success. Yes certainly is. ROI is the one part we all love to look at. The Maruti ad - "Kitna deti hain" really sums our thinking, how much was put in and how much was achieved.

That all said, IMO, most of the "money success" is based on Star Power. So before you say "masala flicks" too bomb; take a look at the stars in it. Salman, SRK, Akshay along with Katrina, Anushka etc make sure the money is made back. So its rather build a hype, sell tons of rights (music, tv, ringtones and what not) and make money back (if not a profit). With that there is no need to make a good movie. Tell me one movie, which has a named star and has "bombed", as in not recovered its money. I assure you there are none.

As to why people are not fed up? Well, with our multiplex growth and what not most people have one thing to timepass during the weekends. That is watch movies. Many of my colleagues go to watch some bad (bad IMO, Rohit and non-Rohit both) just cause they need to do something. Even if I tell them how the f**king producers in Talaash have been fooling people and the movie not being a suspense/psychological thriller, they would still watch it.
If you dont believe my reasoning, just watch this year IPL. Even after the shittest performances in last year, you'll still see the people flocking to watch IPL matches, tuning into matches.
Ask any average Indian, whats his favourite weekend timepass, top two will be cricket and movies. Thats not gonna change very soon.

 

[Mephistopheles]

I'd like to add one thing here, when directors are asked why they make such films I have heard them say a lot of times that they make films only for one thing: Entertainment. I never understood this argument, are they implying that entertainment and good films are mutually-exclusive?

If so, why would anyone bother watching them? Or are they implying that only comedy movies are entertaining?
Well, that's completely untrue. Sorry, but I really don't find movies with no emphasis on cinematography, performances, storytelling or the story itself (The most important aspects of a film) entertaining. These aspects are what make a good film, not the star-cast or the genre.

Any good movie regardless of the genre is entertaining. The least they can do is come up with genuine reasons.

 

[raja_mastana]

There must be a certain section of public which must be liking the movies which we call bull crap. That must be the reason all these masala movies like Son of Sardaar, Bodyguard, Ready, Bol Bachan are in the 100 crore club

Good movie like Talaash, which we appreciate, did not make it to the 100 crore club.

As OP rightly mentioned this is a high risk game. The producers are playing it safe - they do not want to experiment and increase the risk. Even good directors are forced to make masala movies.

There is absolutely no content in today's movies - it is just tried and tested forumula, remake or sequel

Recently heard that Rohit Shettly has opened a new office at a prime location in Mumbai - so expect more bull crap being made as we speak!

 

[OinkBoink]

Man, I wish we had some smart movies that portray educated Indians (or even uneducated ones in a realistic way) and real life situations and problems (or which even have good fictitious plots). Not movies which have cheap imitations of fancy Hollywood scenes made to appease the masses. Not movies which have dumb gawaar jokes (although these are fun once in a while) and defy the laws of physics and reality.

If there are movies like that, I'm ignorant of them.

Also, have you guys ever noticed how they tend to make children act in Indian movies and soaps ? It's almost as though they're retarded and overly simple.

 

[ALPHA17]

If there are movies like that, I'm ignorant of them.

There are a few in that vein --

• Dev-D
• Udaan
• Shaitan
• A Wednesday

 

[kvikram]

There have been some really good Tamil movies lately such as Nadavula Konchum Pakkatha Kanum, Pizza, Nanban, Thuppakki and Kumki. Kollywood doesn't seem to take the despicable path that Bollywood does.

 

[OinkBoink]

There are a few in that vein --

• Dev-D
• Udaan
• Shaitan
• A Wednesday

I've watched Shaitan. Some of it was good, some of it was crappy. Potentially, Indian movie makers could do much much better. But again, it's about the money and returns that come in. The kind of movies we make and consume reflects our mindset as a society. And it's not a very pretty reflection in our case.

 

[Mr.J]

• [*] Dev-D
  [*] Shaitan
• Udaan
• A Wednesday

Even though first two are not my favourites, I'd recommend to watch at least once.
And I'd add Kahaani and Gangs of Wasseypur to the list.

 

[ALPHA17]

I've watched Shaitan. Some of it was good, some of it was crappy. Potentially, Indian movie makers could do much much better. But again, it's about the money and returns that come in. The kind of movies we make and consume reflects our mindset as a society. And it's not a very pretty reflection in our case.

I agree Shaitan was uneven in its overall pacing and narrative.

Try Udaan, it is better than Shaitan in most aspects and you will relate to it at most levels if not all.

A Wednesday is a good thriller, really head and shoulders over what most Bollywood 'thrillers'.

Dev-D is DevDas through a modernist lens. Really tight performance all around.

Even though first two are not my favourites, I'd recommend to watch at least once.
And I'd add Kahaani and Gangs of Wasseypur to the list.

Don't know about Kahani but Gangs of Wasseypur ne to keh ke lee thee.

 

[MAGNeT]

^ Dont worry, we are getting some good movies too along with the crappy ones.

Kahaani made more than 10X the money of its budget, Can Ek tha tiger, Ra.one, rowdy etc give such ROI

Not to forget other good movies we enjoyed in 2012 like:

Paan Singh Tomar
Vicky Donor
English Vinglish
OH My God
Barfi( inspired movie but still a decent watch)
Gangs of wasseypur 1 & 2
Shanghai
Makkhi
Agneepath
etc..

So just vote with your wallet and watch the good ones in multiplexes, you can avoid the crappy ones based on trailers.

And the most important point: Keep following this thread for weekly ratings and views of fellow TE members which are much better than any professional critc review and ratings

I disagree with the bold one.The original one was cult even though it flopped.This one was total ham.

Fact is that a successful movie feeds not just the director and the marquee stars in it, but also the families of 100s of technicians involved with it. A less successful or unsuccessful one (commercially) cannot do that. These masala films bring back far more money, and livelihood, to the industry than any of those 'different' films, which do a few rounds of film circuits, and earn praises from critics, but fail to gross anywhere near as much to go much beyond breaking even - and these are then termed as 'successes' by the media which, like with all other topics, has little to no clue what they are talking about.

The more visible actors, directors, music directors etc. walk away with their money, least bothered about if the others who earn per shift or day, have got their due. Even in this regard, Rohit recently paid for the technicians himself when Bol Bachchan when the producers made a mess of it. Haven't heard of Anurag Kashyap or Vishal Bharadwaj or other 'good' directors doing anything like that. Oh wait, their films don't earn so much for them to be able to do it.

Well i guess Rohit himself was reason for creation of this mess.

SHree asthavinayak cine vision was in mess in past with previous cheque bounce cases.Still he went ahead with his this past partner.Bol Bachan was made under Fox studios and also Ajay devgan productions was its producers.Still they went ahead with same bankrupt distributor.After the movie declared hit.News spread producers dancing and partying for film crossing 100 crores.But still technican and daily wage workers not paid upto 20 crore rupee of their daily wages.I guess that was producer worried not about distributor.But somehow he was caught on wrong foot.

Rohit is a good directer.His first Golmaal , All the Best and Singham was good movies.Though others were mostly ham if you one person who enjoy movies like Sanghai and Rocket Singh.

Why I would agree here with Saumil here is that films like Dev D push the boundaries of acting, direction etc. It's definitely not a genre defining film but what it shows is that the director had a vision, and he brought that vision on the screen! Of course, a few commercial films along the way are good and fine but if you look at the movies churned out by Rohit Shetty, it's the same thing recycled again and again - Golmaal 1,2,3 and All the Best. Even Bol Bacchan seemed to be made from the same mould. Maybe with the exception of Singham, which itself was inspired by Dabangg.

He's playing it safe, earning money for everyone. All well and good. But that doesn't make him a good director. Maybe a sound businessman, but it would be far-fetched to label him a director with any sort of vision.

Rightly said.Rohit is playing safe.Now to others

Though i still fail to understand how come Phir hera pheri was a bigger hit than original Hera pheri.

 

[harryneopotter]

Though i still fail to understand how come Phir hera pheri was a bigger hit than original Hera pheri.

was it ?

May be coz even though Hera Pheri was a terrific comedy, it wasnt promoted well enough. On the other hand, PHP was promoted and hyped coz of how good its prequel was.

 

[Sei]

Even the great (not in my opinion exactly) Anurag Kashyap has a template - dark films, low light, loads of swearing, and pretty much everyone playing a negative (not villainous) character. Not to forget most of his films portray characters living in not the brightest or cleanest of places. Isn't that a template?

You are correct in saying that he has a template. In that sense, even Martin Scorsese has a template. But if you base your template on how much money it is going to earn and keep recycling that, it doesn't make you a good director. However, if you don't agree please tell me if Mr. Shetty has had an original story/concept/script in any of the movies he has made.

Like I said earlier, I have nothing against him. But if you start putting directors like him in a list of the best directors we have, then I do not agree.

There is also a general perception that masala films are pretty easy to make. I wonder if that was the case why do most films bomb - most directors attempt masala, only a handful succeed. The audience isn't exactly stupid to keep watching the same stuff again, and again, and again, and again. I keep hearing that this is a passing phase, people will get fed up eventually. But this is being said for almost 3 years now. Apparently people don't seem to be tiring out fast.

Film-making has no formula. Something might be rejected outright by the audience and something might be liked even though the concept sounded stupid and dull. For e.g. a recently released movie - Warm Bodies has this summary -

This film focuses on the development of the relationship between Julie (a young girl) and R (a zombie) and how their romance sets in motion a sequence of events that might transform the entire lifeless world.

A movie about the relationship between a zombie who devours a girl's boyfriend's brains and is overcome with love for her because he now has the thoughts of her dead boyfriend. Really?! Now this movie has gotten good reviews and is apparently earning well.


As for the part about people getting fed up with these movies -

1. A big budget movie releases on an unprecedented number of screens. Dabangg 2 released on 3700 screens. Ek Tha Tiger released on 3300 screens. Whereas a movie like Paan Singh Tomar released on 300 screens and Kahaani released on less than 1000 screens. They completely take over the weekend, with back-to-back shows. After some time, people get numb and go out just for the sake of going out. It's the harsh truth.

2. It's all about choice. Before we had Flipkart and other sites that have now become reliable, didn't we always use eBay for most online purchases? If films like Paan Singh Tomar start getting as much publicity, we will have more choices and maybe they will have a better chance of earning more money in the first weekend.

3. Lastly, the major part of India has not seen brilliant direction/acting as probably most of us have. I'm talking about shows and movies in English and other languages. For e.g., The pilot of Last Resort (or even Lost for that matter) was at par, if not better, than most action/thriller movies I have seen.


Now, we can blame money, exposure, technical expertise and whatnot.. but the crust of the matter is that Bollywood today is going by a recycling trend where everyone wants a share of the 100 crore pie. I really, really hope it ends soon.

 

[Spacescreamer]

1. A big budget movie releases on an unprecedented number of screens. Dabangg 2 released on 3700 screens. Ek Tha Tiger released on 3300 screens. Whereas a movie like Paan Singh Tomar released on 300 screens and Kahaani released on less than 1000 screens. They completely take over the weekend, with back-to-back shows. After some time, people get numb and go out just for the sake of going out. It's the harsh truth.

May i add, With the soaring population we have, even if every movie going person decides to watch 1/3 of all the movies.. ie skipping 2 and going for just one .. i think even then these heavily and sham marketed movies will recover the money

Apparently people don't seem to be tiring out fast.

That is debatable. Who exactly are going, and are they going in again for such trash movies? We dont have the data to back that up.

And it was a happy co incidence that while we were discussing such movies.. this article appeared: Rs 100 cr scale has lowered focus on film's quality: Farooq - Times Of India

 

[asingh]

I disagree with the bold one.The original one was cult even though it flopped.This one was total ham.

I totally agree to that. Though the original IS a cult....! The new one was such BS, I could not believe it. The moment I heard they were remaking it I groaned, and when it was announced Mithun's role has been cut, I vomited. Have you seen the first cut release, where Big B speaks in a different voice. That is classic.