TOI : Reason why BK & Sid left the show:/ - Page 9

Originally posted by: eshasrk

First thing that should be considered is how much truth is there in this article ???
Sid himself has replied that he does not know where this came from and I mean let's be honest Behzaad has too much respect for Shaleen to talk abt him like this, so I have my doubts a little
Behzaad himself has said in an interview that he'll be busy with some personal work and he won't be able to give time to the show.
Now we all know that he got married recently...

Next thing we all know that the show is named Arjun, then why didn't CV's make Arjun the Chief of the ETF team in the 1st place and Rathore second in command ???
We know that whenever a show is named after a certain character, it's that person portraying that specific character that will be in the limelight and I feel here is where the CV's went wrong.
It is not right that a second in command is ALWAYS right and that the Chief of a team always has to go with the opinion of the 2nd in command...it just doesn't work like that.
But when they did not consider that, at least they could have divided the screenspace as such that both parties would be happy...

About Sid...well his role was the same as when the show started first, so I don't really know what character development Sid was actually expecting from his role as Shree...I am somewhat confused here, so maybe someone can help me out please...
CID has been running for 16 years successfully now ( sorry for comparing ) and the character graph of everyone is after 16 years more or less the same...
Than what did they expect from Arjun after barely a year ????
Besides if there was some professional problem whatsoever, why didn't they talk it out with PH ????

Originally posted by: Vampire-queen

I don't know, if there is any truth in this article. But the reason they gave have some point to notice.
Exactly, the chief of an elite class force of the country is not a fool as shown in this show.
Better they should talk with PH.

Actors are not be blamed, as the characterization is in the hand of creatives.

Originally posted by: eshasrk

First thing that should be considered is how much truth is there in this article ???
Sid himself has replied that he does not know where this came from and I mean let's be honest Behzaad has too much respect for Shaleen to talk abt him like this, so I have my doubts a little
Behzaad himself has said in an interview that he'll be busy with some personal work and he won't be able to give time to the show.
Now we all know that he got married recently...

Next thing we all know that the show is named Arjun, then why didn't CV's make Arjun the Chief of the ETF team in the 1st place and Rathore second in command ???
We know that whenever a show is named after a certain character, it's that person portraying that specific character that will be in the limelight and I feel here is where the CV's went wrong.
It is not right that a second in command is ALWAYS right and that the Chief of a team always has to go with the opinion of the 2nd in command...it just doesn't work like that.
But when they did not consider that, at least they could have divided the screenspace as such that both parties would be happy...

About Sid...well his role was the same as when the show started first, so I don't really know what character development Sid was actually expecting from his role as Shree...I am somewhat confused here, so maybe someone can help me out please...
CID has been running for 16 years successfully now ( sorry for comparing ) and the character graph of everyone is after 16 years more or less the same...
Than what did they expect from Arjun after barely a year ????
Besides if there was some professional problem whatsoever, why didn't they talk it out with PH ????

Originally posted by: Vampire-queen

I don't know, if there is any truth in this article. But the reason they gave have some point to notice.
Exactly, the chief of an elite class force of the country is not a fool as shown in this show.
Better they should talk with PH.

Actors are not be blamed, as the characterization is in the hand of creatives.

Originally posted by: Sadhana_pr

I am beginning with a clarification - this is neither to 'blame' nor 'defend' an actor.

The roots of an art called acting lies in a simple belief " There are no small parts,only small actors".

And by no means are the actors in question small. For if indeed there roles were so badly written,then we would not have been missing them at all. They managed to rise above the on paper role and make a mark for themselves. Credit to them for that and for another thing. For making us understand that there is no place for the idealism presented in stories of Satyajit Ray of how an actor could derive satisfaction by just playing a guy bumping into the hero and saying a "ah". How he could do it with so much of heart and passion,that went beyond the fact that it was an insignificant role. Just holding on to the belief that this is a team game,and every individual, however small, contributes to the larger picture. But this is the world of opportunism and every thing is fair.

So,we blame the Cvs,for blame we must. But let's not be naive. This is the entertainment industry,and just like any other is guided by the basic demand and supply rules-give what the customer wants. But here the case is a bit more interesting. It's like they had a product X,but the customer was wanting Y, so they got Y and gradually stopped the production of X. That is when the customer suddenly woke up and protested by wailing that " but,I really,really liked X"!

So, spare a thought for the poor guy donning the writer's hat before writing him off.

But this is not to say that they are without fault. They failed Rathore as a character,more than the actor. For they misunderstood that the only way to show a difference in ideologies was by showing a difference in IQ. Thus, instead of showing how in spite of personal differences,the two worked together professionally- they went on showing how they could never ever agree upon anything- including the culprit! It seemed interesting for an episode or two,but went on to become ridiculous after that.

But all said and done- we do not know the whole picture. No one leaves a prime time show in a top channel unless they have good reasons. And no production house accepts the resignation of such key characters without a solid reason too.

Yes,that we are kept in the dark about both the reasons is the only sour point.

Originally posted by: -Carrie-

👏👏👏 Such a balanced viewpoint! Wish I could express like you.

Originally posted by: Sadhana_pr

I am beginning with a clarification - this is neither to 'blame' nor 'defend' an actor.

The roots of an art called acting lies in a simple belief " There are no small parts,only small actors".

And by no means are the actors in question small. For if indeed there roles were so badly written,then we would not have been missing them at all. They managed to rise above the on paper role and make a mark for themselves. Credit to them for that and for another thing. For making us understand that there is no place for the idealism presented in stories of Satyajit Ray of how an actor could derive satisfaction by just playing a guy bumping into the hero and saying a "ah". How he could do it with so much of heart and passion,that went beyond the fact that it was an insignificant role. Just holding on to the belief that this is a team game,and every individual, however small, contributes to the larger picture. But this is the world of opportunism and every thing is fair.

So,we blame the Cvs,for blame we must. But let's not be naive. This is the entertainment industry,and just like any other is guided by the basic demand and supply rules-give what the customer wants. But here the case is a bit more interesting. It's like they had a product X,but the customer was wanting Y, so they got Y and gradually stopped the production of X. That is when the customer suddenly woke up and protested by wailing that " but,I really,really liked X"!

So, spare a thought for the poor guy donning the writer's hat before writing him off.

But this is not to say that they are without fault. They failed Rathore as a character,more than the actor. For they misunderstood that the only way to show a difference in ideologies was by showing a difference in IQ. Thus, instead of showing how in spite of personal differences,the two worked together professionally- they went on showing how they could never ever agree upon anything- including the culprit! It seemed interesting for an episode or two,but went on to become ridiculous after that.

But all said and done- we do not know the whole picture. No one leaves a prime time show in a top channel unless they have good reasons. And no production house accepts the resignation of such key characters without a solid reason too.

Yes,that we are kept in the dark about both the reasons is the only sour point.