Rani ruins another roundtable - Page 10

Originally posted by: TommyZenny

what she said that????

During the round table conference with Galatta Plus, Karan Johar recalled his chat with Alia Bhatt, where he asked her, “A lot of this is going to be difficult for you” to which Alia said “But I’m dying to wear the chiffon, saree, ask me first.’” This is when Rani intervened and took a sly jibe at Karan Johar. She wittily said, “They’re so lucky that they’re being asked, in our time, nobody asked us if we’re feeling cold. ‘Pehno saree, perform karo’.”

https://www.koimoi.com/bollywood-news/rani-mukerji-takes-a-sly-dig-at-karan-johar-after-he-reveals-asking-alia-bhatt-about-wearing-a-chiffon-saree-theyre-lucky-nobody-asked-us/

Reading this and is it true that Rani called 18-year old Anushka ugly in public? Adi is not better since I remember Anushka said that he told her when he cast her for RNBDJ that since she is not beautiful, she will need to learn how to act.

https://www.reddit.com/r/BollyBlindsNGossip/comments/17fte4k/unpopular_opinion_kjo_has_a_dysfunctional/

Originally posted by: Filmistan

Because you have to be honest to your roots. Mughal-E-Azam was a story of the Mughal era with Mughal sensibility. Someone wouldn't have to justify it, right? Just own it. That's what I'm saying.

Someone mentioned Rahman and Sufism, that's exactly it. Rahman is proud of his Sufi aesthetics. Rajamouli didn't have to go out of the way to talk about his secularism. He can be one, but he's a filmmaker who makes movies based on Hindu mythos and symbols.

India isn't just a country with a monolithic culture/language. It's diverse, moreso than any other country in the world.

But it's also the truth that most Indians crave validation of the West. So, it's kinda like, "sure I make these movies based on my culture, etc., but I'm a secular, okay? Will you accept me now?"

I don't know why it's shocking for some of ya'all but there's a really snooty attitude against Indian Cinema that a lot of Western folks harbor like MaxMayfield mentioned.

Why is this shocking, btw? Look at our own elites in Bollywood, they coversate mostly in English. Saif and Karan thought they were being humorous when they didn't understand the term "putrmoha" in KwK.

That's all I'm saying.

Indian Cinema isn't accepted the same way as Korean, Iranian, or Japanese Cinemas as they're closer to home for Western folks than Indian Cinema.

Take a look at Tarantino even. He supports cinema worldwide but he's rarely spoken about Indian Cinema in the same light. There is this attitude of "other-ness" against Indian Cinema. That's something we can't deny. It has nothing to do with Hindus, Christians, or Islam. I don't know why Indians love to make it about religion. Rajamouli was an example. If Rahman would have done that, I'd have said the same.

Despite knowing how Bollywood elites love West and Western stars, why are we acting totally surprised here?

Whether it's the Puranas, Sufism/Islamic aesthetics, or the Gnostics, when you make something in India, in an Indian language, own it. Be proud of your tradition.

The RRR team were fanboying so hard during Oscar season, it was embarrassing. Calling Hollywood the "mecca of cinema" and whatnot. Jeez man.

Did Bong-Joon Ho act like that during Parasite? He didn't. He was a proud representative of South Korea. He was respectful but also firm.

Lmaooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. You are dictating what Rajmouli's roots are and how secularism is somehow antithetical to Indian aesthetics is antithetical to Hinduism.

Firstly he doesn't require to profess anything to be an Indian. He might as well believe that fish are birds, and his film about British colonisation of India and his identity still would be Indian.

Secondly, Hinduism is not a narrowly-defined religion. There are many ancient and medieval schools of Hinduism which were blatantly atheistic or hedonistic. Your faith has nothing to do with his faith or roots lol.

People were having a meltdown when he did blatantly assert the film's Telugu roots. So...

Drawing false equivalencies between Rehman and Rajmouli's social positions is deliberate and hilarious.

Sufism is woven into the cultural fabric of India just like Bhakti is. Padmavat is a sufi epic as much as Saibaba of Shirdi can followed by Hindus.

There is a common heritage of India that is shared by a lot of people cutting across religious lines. People (do) not have to perform their identities to conform to someone else's idea of them.

http://eprints.soas.ac.uk/8578/1/Krishna_is_the_Truth_of_Man.pdf

Myths and mythos in India, believe it or not, have never been restricted to narrowly defined religious lines. :)

Honestly Indian movies are not as famous ad china, south korea, iran etc because we only promote bollywood in name of indian movies

Bollywood movies are worst story and quality compared to regional movies

Like bengali and malayalam movies have great global stories and film makers

For big movies(like bansali and historical) south movies are way better than bansali

I mean movies on history where mughals or maurya or mahabharat have been done in telegu/kannada/tamil in 1960s and 1970s and 1980s with good actors and better written screen play than bollywood jodha akbar/ baji roa mastani or khilji

But who watched them or sent them to oscars etc none

They send mediocre bollywood movies with mediocre actors like SRK/amir/hrithik etc to hollywood/oscar so no wonder indian cinema is not so famous because quality of script or actor is not good

Bahubhali and RRR and Salaar proved that south can do historical and with better story and acting than bollywood

Only problem is bengali/south or marathi movies are not considered global indian movies only hindi bollywood movies are considered as indian movies hence world thinks its low quality

If world/hollywood would see some historicals done in 60s/70s/80s in south or bengali//malayalam movies as indian movies they would also think indian movies are on par with china/iran/korea movies in quality and story

Sadly that never happened till bahubhali. Only for that Prabhas should be lauded for giving 6-7 years to that one movie and making south movie a global phenomenon. Now USA/Europe/hollywood understand even indian movies can make a Thor/Helen level movie from india(south)

The difference between bollywood historical and south historical are the script making and acting, after 80s there are no good actors for historical or writer/directors other than bhansali/Deepika/Ranveer

Even bhanasali is not good at story hes all about beauty and costly sets and actor looks than script and acting. But south its director whose captain and even hero obeys his orders unlike bollywood where star power/hero dictates terms especially khans.

Imagine the khilji/ratan singh last war scene if south director had done it would be best scene of movie but so caricature in bollywood. Even deepika last scene would have been much better if most south directors had done that. Because in south only director is hero and captain not the actors, they just follow orders. Even biggest actor of bachchan stature will obey director in south like ranikant, vijay, yash, prabhas, ram charan. Will bollywood do same not really here most heroes dictate.

Otherwise too outsiders are not allowed in bollywood unlike south where most writers/directors/assistants/music/heroines are all outsiders mostly. Only heroes mostly are film family related but they do not order director around or producers and listen decently to directors. Also south heroes/heroine are more educated almost all are college gradutaes, engineers, doctors so they have broad looking knowledge about life and cinema unlike bollywood guys.

Originally posted by: myviewprem

Honestly Indian movies are not as famous ad china, south korea, iran etc because we only promote bollywood in name of indian movies

Bollywood movies are worst story and quality compared to regional movies

Like bengali and malayalam movies have great global stories and film makers

For big movies(like bansali and historical) south movies are way better than bansali

I mean movies on history where mughals or maurya or mahabharat have been done in telegu/kannada/tamil in 1960s and 1970s and 1980s with good actors and better written screen play than bollywood jodha akbar/ baji roa mastani or khilji

But who watched them or sent them to oscars etc none

They send mediocre bollywood movies with mediocre actors like SRK/amir/hrithik etc to hollywood/oscar so no wonder indian cinema is not so famous because quality of script or actor is not good

Bahubhali and RRR and Salaar proved that south can do historical and with better story and acting than bollywood

Only problem is bengali/south or marathi movies are not considered global indian movies only hindi bollywood movies are considered as indian movies hence world thinks its low quality

If world/hollywood would see some historicals done in 60s/70s/80s in south or bengali//malayalam movies as indian movies they would also think indian movies are on par with china/iran/korea movies in quality and story

Sadly that never happened till bahubhali. Only for that Prabhas should be lauded for giving 6-7 years to that one movie and making south movie a global phenomenon. Now USA/Europe/hollywood understand even indian movies can make a Thor/Helen level movie from india(south)

The difference between bollywood historical and south historical are the script making and acting, after 80s there are no good actors for historical or writer/directors other than bhansali/Deepika/Ranveer

Even bhanasali is not good at story hes all about beauty and costly sets and actor looks than script and acting. But south its director whose captain and even hero obeys his orders unlike bollywood where star power/hero dictates terms especially khans.

Imagine the khilji/ratan singh last war scene if south director had done it would be best scene of movie but so caricature in bollywood. Even deepika last scene would have been much better if most south directors had done that. Because in south only director is hero and captain not the actors, they just follow orders. Even biggest actor of bachchan stature will obey director in south like ranikant, vijay, yash, prabhas, ram charan. Will bollywood do same not really here most heroes dictate.

Otherwise too outsiders are not allowed in bollywood unlike south where most writers/directors/assistants/music/heroines are all outsiders mostly. Only heroes mostly are film family related but they do not order director around or producers and listen decently to directors. Also south heroes/heroine are more educated almost all are college gradutaes, engineers, doctors so they have broad looking knowledge about life and cinema unlike bollywood guys.

You would probably prefer Ponniyin Selvan then.

my question is what notable work she did in 2023 for her to be invited to the roundtable. I would have remembered if her movie came it which was praised to the ends of the world for her to be invited to the round table.

Originally posted by: RaniPreityAish

You would probably prefer Ponniyin Selvan then.

I did not really like Ponniyan selvan that much

There have been better historical movies before that in south

Yes PS is on very big budget and grand scale but not that great scripting or direction

There have been movies on mughals or alexander or maharbharat etc in south too before in 60s, 70s, 80s although not much in 90s and 2000s and better actors have acted and even script was better no glossy stuff like bhansali does

Bhansali has no good scripting its all beauty of set, dress of actors, beauty of location, huge sets, color co ordination etc thats not really good story writing actually

But in south story writing is always better because most audience will not really come to watch grand sets and dances and dresses of actors in historical movies if script is not good

Its not like hindi that salman will get 20 crore opening or SRK will get 2 million USD abroad even if movie is crap

Since south market is very small they do put more emphasis on script and dialogues etc (indeed most famous dialogues of salman and akshay and ajay are written for south movies like singham, and akshay jo main bolta hun woh definetly kartha hun or salmans famous dialogues all are from south movies only copied or singham dialogues all were not written by bollywood writers in first place which made these stars famous in last 20 years. These dialgoues first were told by south heroes like vijay, suriya in original movies than copied by salman, akshay,a jay etc).

But since before no one knew singham, wanted, tere naam etc are all copied movies and dialogues from south india ppl had no idea who wrote these movies orginally or who acted in them originally. Now because of youtube some awareness there. Even many movies of amitabh bachchan from 70s and 80s are originally south movies but who knows whats original movie and original actor no one knows. Like AB don or angry young man type movies fighting system were there in south before AB did Don or became famous. Mostly the scripts were copied with some changes by bollywood without giving credit to original. Now after youtube they are unable to do that much

You will be suprised to know how much music was copied in 50s to 80s from hollywood etc but since indian audience had nnever heard US carrebian etc singers they had no clue those soongs are copied whether its CV Ramchandra, Lakshmikant Pyarelal or RD burman. We only blame anu malik because by 90s ppl had access to world music especially US/UK/Hollywood

Originally posted by: myviewprem

I did not really like Ponniyan selvan that much

There have been better historical movies before that in south

Yes PS is on very big budget and grand scale but not that great scripting or direction

There have been movies on mughals or alexander or maharbharat etc in south too before in 60s, 70s, 80s although not much in 90s and 2000s and better actors have acted and even script was better no glossy stuff like bhansali does

Bhansali has no good scripting its all beauty of set, dress of actors, beauty of location, huge sets, color co ordination etc thats not really good story writing actually

But in south story writing is always better because most audience will not really come to watch grand sets and dances and dresses of actors in historical movies if script is not good

Its not like hindi that salman will get 20 crore opening or SRK will get 2 million USD abroad even if movie is crap

Since south market is very small they do put more emphasis on script and dialogues etc (indeed most famous dialogues of salman and akshay and ajay are written for south movies like singham, and akshay jo main bolta hun woh definetly kartha hun or salmans famous dialogues all are from south movies only copied or singham dialogues all were not written by bollywood writers in first place which made these stars famous in last 20 years. These dialgoues first were told by south heroes like vijay, suriya in original movies than copied by salman, akshay,a jay etc).

But since before no one knew singham, wanted, tere naam etc are all copied movies and dialogues from south india ppl had no idea who wrote these movies orginally or who acted in them originally. Now because of youtube some awareness there. Even many movies of amitabh bachchan from 70s and 80s are originally south movies but who knows whats original movie and original actor no one knows. Like AB don or angry young man type movies were there in south before AB did Don or became famous. Mostly the scripts were copied with some changes by bollywood without giving credit to original. Now after youtube they are unable to do that much

I actually felt that the PS films did not seem as grand in scale as I expected. Maybe for South Indian films it was considered lavish, but as someone used to Bhansali, it felt like the VFX was not the best. I remember on Reddit, many people were criticizing the trailer because everything seemed smaller in scale than expected. Much criticism was also that the hair and makeup was influenced by North Indian fashions and not historically accurate. Reddit was complaining that the costumes and looks seemed closer to Jodha Akbar.

I have not seen many South films so PS is one of the few looks I have had into their industry. Script-wise, wasn't it heavily praised especially for being accurate to the novel?

Bhansali has gotten that criticism lately, especially with his last few films, that everything looks beautiful and he has stunning actors but the writing is not the best. I've noticed that especially with Bajirao Mastani and Padmaavat. Both were good films to look at but story-wise, I would not be interested in rewatching them. The songs have more repeat value than the actual films.

Gloss over substance seems to be a typical complaint leveled against Bollywood vs South films. I'm thinking of Sairat which was heavily praised but when Bollywood remade it as Dhadak, it got a lot of flack for being very glossed up and getting the Bollywood Karan Johar treatment, right down to the ending being somewhat sanitized. How there was artifice in the film and performances compared to how raw and real the original one was.

I didn't know that so many of the iconic writers and dialogues really come from the South and were used there before BW actors became known for these lines. It makes sense considering how often BW copies other films and industries with unofficial remakes. I had no idea that films like Tere Naam or even Amitabh Bachchan's films like Don were all heavily based off of south films and there was little awareness of this until now. Very revealing information.