Originally posted by: RaniPreityAish
Juhi Chawla was cast by YRF in Darr and Aaina. This is after having a cameo in Chandni. Both films were meant for Sridevi but she rejected them so they went to Juhi. Baazigar as originally also supposed to go to Sridevi in a double role with her playing both sisters.
Juhi was also first choice for the Nisha role, opposite Madhuri, in DTPH. Juhi refused because she didn't want to play second fiddle to Madhuri and was insulted. Urmila, another outsider, got the role and filmed for a day before quitting and it was Karishma who got the role then (Urmila took her role in Judaai). Even after DDLJ's success, Kajol was never considered for DTPH.
I know less about Divya Bharti but her career ended because she died so young. You can see all the movies she was supposed to do went to a variety of actresses. Kajol only took her Hulchul.
SRK had Chamatkar after Deewana and before Baazigar and Darr, where he wasn't a villain but still the lead actor and romantic interest. He did say that he got those villain roles because most major actors refused negative roles. Also most didn't want to play second to Sunny Deol as Aamir Khan, originally considered for Darr, demanded his role be equal to Sunny's.
Clochette would know more about SRK's start in the industry but from what I read, he was already popular from TV and had done a lot of networking which is how he got to know Salman Khan's family and the Chopras. And they were willing to give him a try.
Heroines did not get villain roles back then. Outside of maybe playing the vamp, you didn't see actresses play villain roles. Look at Filmfare's Negative Performance Award and in all the years it was running, only 2 actresses won: Kajol and Priyanka. And only a few more ever were nominated like Urmila, Preity, and Shabana.
Laadla was one of the first time that a mainstream actress got a negative role. It was meant for Divya Bharti but when she died it went to Sridevi. She had been asked to do the Tamil and Telugu versions but refused because she didn't want to do a negative role at first. She changed her mind after Divya died.
Sridevi: "I refused the Tamil and Telugu version of Laadla because I thought it's a negative role, the audience will hate me. However, when they became big hits, I realised I had made a mistake. So when I was approached for the Hindi version (after Divya Bharati's tragic death), I accepted it, without hesitating. I liked the character. She's not killing anyone, she's not a vamp. I am demanding too, I want everything to be perfect. Whether it's my house or my dress, I never compromise. But that's where my similarity with the Laadla character Sheetal Jaitley ends (laughs!)."
https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/eyecatchers/story/19940415-sridevi-plays-negative-role-in-her-latest-film-laadla-809000-1994-04-14
Sridevi plays negative role in her latest film 'Laadla'
Being bad is now good. After Shah Rukh Khan's success as a psycho-killer in Baazigar, the latest player to join the game is the simpering Sridevi.
Only this time the normally treacly-sweet actress plays the super bitch, Sheetal, in Laadla, her latest film. "Nasty, nasty, nasty" Sheetal is the country's top industrialist given to slapping her manager and being vicious.
Sridevi says: "It was fun. I have nothing against negative roles but I don't want to repeat it." Of course, Laadla's end has Sheetal repenting. But as Sridevi says: "This was a film for the masses. It had to end like this." Especially for her to remain Bollywood's laadli.
You can see from the headline of the magazine that it was SRK's success with Baazigar that inspired more villain roles for mainstream actors, including negative ones for actresses. So Sridevi got Laadla and paved the path for more unsympathetic roles like Kajol in Gupt. Kajol not getting a role like Gupt early in her career isn't because she was a star kid who didn't have to do unflattering roles like that as SRK did, but because those roles barely existed for women.
Hema Malini had Jamai Raja where she's playing a strict mother-in-law but obviously Kajol isn't going to be up for the role of Anil Kapoor's mother-in-law and Madhuri's mother.
I do agree with you that star kids have it easier. They get better debuts usually, more opportunities, and even if they start off bad, they get more of a chance to continue to improve. Like you said with Karishma and her appearance. She wasn't taken seriously as an actress until the late 90s/early 2000s which is something she herself said in interviews about how that's what she wanted all along to finally be seen as a real actress.
My main defense of Kajol here is not that she's a starkid but that for her to become as popular as she did, she had to appeal to audiences. Her Mukherjee family name wouldn't save her like the Bachchan name didn't save Abhishek or Deol name didn't save Esha. For Kajol to keep getting roles with SRK is because audiences were charmed by their pairing. Twinkle Khanna is also a star kid but her career completely flopped despite having a successful debut with Bobby in Barsaat.
Like you said, star kids get better debuts and usually are paired together but that alone can't save them. You're as good as your next film and Twinkle never got accepted by audiences. For Kajol to be accepted, she had to have something in her and no family bloodline can provide that alone. The same way Juhi, Madhuri, Urmila, and Shilpa are not from film families but they still proved to be successes.
And I agree with you that Shilpa deserved more opportunities. She's said in an interview that she felt the industry never praised her work and she didn't get the accolades she deserved. I agree with her and I feel that's because she's also an outsider, although she networks a lot and makes a point of being close to all the important Bollywood bigwigs. She never got an opportunity with SRK again after Baazigar so I do agree with a lot of what you say about how nepokids have it better and easier.
...and very often do my own research. However, how much correct an information might be, it also may get 'tainted' by personal perception. So - with a little more time at hand as generally, I'll go back 8 days in the thread to continue to read your also very informative posts as replies to RPA's 
comment:
p_commentcount