Bollywood, there is a diff between nepotism and access. - Page 4

Originally posted by: Maroonporsche

But I liked that movie 🍿

You liking it proves a lot. No one thought she shined in any way. She doesn't have a single acting bone in her body. She ruined a potentially very good film. You clearly don't get the difference between nepotism and access. Or you do and refuse to acknowledge it.

The point is she got a TITLE role for her second movie. Which was a very big budget and aptly promoted. Now compare that to Vicky, who worked with no one heard of film maker in Zubaan. Who did roles not even worth mentioning. Clearly nepotism versus access.

Originally posted by: Maroonporsche

You want me to answer why I think a reviewer didn’t think highly of Vicky enough to mention his name ? 😆

Point is not whether Vicky had access. He did. But he didn't get roles because of his dad or last name.

The likes of Ranbir, Sonam, Alia, Jahnavi did, and Anupama conflated the 2 to pooh pooh Vicky's own hard-earned success.

If I knew someone in publishing from my hometown, I'd call him. That wouldn't make me a nepo baby. Because trust me, no one's publishing my book unless it's good. Stephen King's son would get his book published because publisher would want the next Stephen King. That's nepotism.

Originally posted by: Grumpydwarf24

You liking it proves a lot. No one thought she shined in any way. She doesn't have a single acting bone in her body. She ruined a potentially very good film. You clearly don't get the difference between nepotism and access. Or you do and refuse to acknowledge it.

I don’t see any difference.

An I’m sorry that means you’ll just start discussing my film choices for some odd reason

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Point is not whether Vicky had access. He did. But he didn't get roles because of his dad or last name.

Originally posted by: Maroonporsche

I don’t see any difference.

An I’m sorry that means you’ll just start discussing my film choices for some odd reason

Vicky had far less things served to him on a platter. He had to work his way up to a lead. Meanwhile Jhanvi got the title role in her second movie and still could not make something of it. There is a huge difference.

I am saying that there has to be a consensus Jhanvi shined in the movie which there wasn't. One person liking it does not prove anything. You brought up the fact you liked it. You brought up your own film choices.

You want me to compare the reviews for Gunjan Saxena to the reviews Vicky got for Sardar Udham. A title role he got after six years in his career. To show you the difference between the consensus of what people thought of the title actor's performances.

You still wont see the difference between access+talent and nepotism. But here is goes,.

First of all, I have only had one glass of wine. How this topic already at page 5?!

Originally posted by: Maroonporsche

I’d say his merit is same as anyone’s

Joke of the bloody century. I am going to have to show you the difference between when Vicky got a title role after six years in his career. And when Jhanvi got it for her second film.

Originally posted by: Grumpydwarf24

You want me to compare the reviews for Gunjan Saxena to the reviews Vicky got for Sardar Udham. A title role he got after six years in his career. To show you the difference between the consensus of what people thought of the title actor's performances.

You know why ? Because the Anupama everyone is criticizing is a reviewer.

In this very thread you’re telling me this woman Anupama is thrash. But now the reviews of her and her ilk are important ? Their not lol and that’s counter intuitive lol

Originally posted by: Maroonporsche

I’d say his merit is same as anyone’s

I'm not sure what you mean by merit. Talent? That's your opinion. We are discussing getting roles handed to you because of your family versus working to get those roles. Vicky did work quite hard for his success. The others get movies made for them without moving a finger.