OPINION: Homebound Is Out; But Do Audiences Turn Up For Great Films?

The Generic Belief That Lingers

Ask a regular moviegoer on the street whether they know about Homebound and the chances are high that the answer is yes. Follow that question with whether they plan to watch it and the response often swings to no, accompanied by the dismissive idea that it must be one of those 'slow, serious festival' films. This instinctive categorization tells us a lot about how films are boxed in the public imagination.

The issue is not that festival cinema is dismissed. It is about how the lines between so-called festival films and mainstream films are drawn based solely on first impressions. Packaging, tone, or subject matter leads to sweeping judgments before audiences even experience the story. It is understandable why a Ship of Theseus or a Margarita With A Straw might not attract the average viewer. These films operate in distinct worlds, often shaped by language, urban realities, or socioeconomic distance. But Homebound is not that.

This film is not slow, inaccessible, or detached from everyday experiences. It is deeply rooted in social realities that ordinary audiences encounter. Its narrative is immersive, emotionally direct, and powerfully gripping, qualities that any commercial film would be proud of. Yet the hesitation persists.

The paradox is painful: while viewers today appear smarter and more open to new kinds of content, they are still reluctant to part with money for a film like this. That, unfortunately, is the reality.

Do Audiences Really Embrace Good Content?

This is not meant to be a straightforward attack on audiences. There are striking case studies that suggest otherwise. Films such as Mahavtar Narsimha, Saiyaara, and Lokah: Chapter 1 – Chandra demonstrate that viewers are willing to embrace quality storytelling when it reaches them in the right form. The applause these films generated was a genuine reaffirmation that audiences are not as rigid as critics sometimes claim.

But then comes a contradiction. When a film like Homebound arrives, many of these same audiences either insist they were unaware of its existence or make clear they are not inclined to see it. Personal choice is of course undeniable, but what complicates matters is that the same groups later lament the lack of strong, meaningful cinema.

And here is where the confusion sharpens. Homebound is not an obscure indie project. It is not an esoteric festival film that speaks in a language foreign to its home viewers. It may not carry the markers of a blockbuster or offer the lighthearted moments that are broadly appealing, but it is an engaging cinematic experience that pulls you in from the start. In the end, is that not what audiences consistently claim to seek?

The Numbers That Refuse to Speak

The numbers are sobering. Karan Johar has long been associated with high-gloss mainstream storytelling and has often been the center of criticism for leaning too heavily on familiar formulas. Yet, in recent years, his production house has consciously shifted gears.

Films like Kill, Dhadak 2, Jigra, and now Homebound indicate an interest in backing narratives that are not driven purely by box office mathematics.

Johar himself has admitted that Homebound was not produced with the expectation of a roaring opening. He knew what the first day might realistically bring. Even so, the opening figure of 29 lakh is stark. If the film does not make sharp jumps over the weekend, it may not even cross two or three crore in its early run. That is a number that makes financiers and exhibitors nervous, regardless of the love it has received globally.

The irony here is telling. A filmmaker often criticised for producing star-driven spectacles is now the one championing smaller but meaningful stories under a major studio banner.

Yet the audience, who often demand precisely such a shift, are reluctant to show up. The contradiction exposes a larger issue in the ecosystem that goes beyond one film’s performance.

Can the Cycle Change?

This is where the conversation becomes more complex than just numbers. Homebound works with themes of caste, nationalism, social prejudice, and friendship, but it does so without alienating viewers. The writing and direction avoid stereotypes, instead drawing from situations that feel lived and immediate.

To label such a film as lacking commercial appeal is not only lazy but damaging to the larger discourse.

The bigger challenge is perception. Viewers are conditioned to think in binaries: festival film or commercial film, serious cinema or popcorn cinema. Once slotted, it becomes incredibly difficult for a project to break free of the tag. Changing this mindset is not going to happen overnight. It may not even happen within a few years. But the conversation has to begin with acknowledging that a film like Homebound does not fall into those neat boxes.

One cannot dictate taste or force preferences, but one can hope for a gradual shift in awareness. Cinema has always thrived on unexpected moments of acceptance. When an unconventional film finds love, it often rewrites the rules for what comes next. That is the hope for Homebound.

It may not be burning the box office now, but its presence in conversations, in classrooms, in critical circles, and in the minds of creators can slowly ripple outward.