Mediocre films and the money they make - Page 2

Very interesting topic...thanks for sharing.

Originally posted by: .tanya91.

If u ask me, the main reason of falling standard of Hindi films past especially past 2000 is majorly due to:

1. Corporate sector investments, that tackles movies not as piece of art, but as factory products

2. Gone are the days when individuals with extreme passion for true performing arts invested in films, which were their dream... money was not their priority.
Corporate sector turned films from artistic pieces to factory products, main focus is on packaging, smart publicity and earning money... unlike past when films used to took one to 3 years in making with original locations, heavy work on script and direction...nowadays every film is prepared within just a few months with main aim is to milk as much money as possible

3. MULTIPLEX culture is another culprit... in past films HAD to do jubilees to earn profits on single screens , and for that people needed to watch it again and again hence a QUALITY film was the ONLY option to make a film successful.
BUT due to multiplexes the WAY to earn money has changed... 200% increase in prints, multi shows make it an easier way for even a crap film to earn as much as possible just within a week and even in the starting weekend 3 days... if a crap film can sustain well for 2 weeks even it can be a BB or atleast a superhit due to huge prints and multiple shows which was not the case before and films HAD to sustain on cinemas for like 6 months (silver jubilee) to one year (golden to diamond jubilee) and for that they had to be really well made and of high standards of true artistic values.

so for me CORPORATE SECTOR INVESTMENTS and MULTIPLEXES are the main reasons of heavy downfall in Hindi cinema's quality.

First, "give what people want" is a very "consumeristic" view. you are treating your movie audience as customers where your goal is to make profit- your goal is not even to entertain but to make profit! there is a difference! if you were making a movie to entertain, the movie will not necessarily be crappy! it will entertain because that was your intention- and most probably will also make money.

Instead what people do is this: x has a lot of fans so let's put her in an item song, y is loved by the masses let's get him, people love to see z's arms so let's make sure to show those, people love to see k in a bikini so make sure to put her in one...let's publicize the affair of the lead pair, let's hype the movie to death, let's release it on this day...ok now think of a story that fits all this...how about this? people will love this...blah blah blah! You see what I am saying. So if you just give what people want you are giving them crap- I would love to see Sonam & Deepika mud fighting for 2 hours! Give it to me! In fact I think that might be a blockbuster :P

Second, not all good films will make money...there are certain topics, certain styles that will never make as much money as an entertaining film. The problem is the way we value them- we value only the films that make money and completely ignore other films. Why can't we/media value films for their content and not for the money it earned? It is not necessary to de-value money spinners to value quality films! They can share the space!

Having said all that, Mr Aamir Khan has managed to break this conflict! I think his movies are enjoyable and they are money spinners. They are not super quality films in terms of art but they are entertaining but not crappy/mindless!

Thanks for the replies everybody :) It was really interesting to read everyone's responses! I will reply more in detail tomorrow with fursat. 😆

Originally posted by: chocolover89

Thanks for the replies everybody :) It was really interesting to read everyone's responses! I will reply more in detail tomorrow with fursat. 😆

IMO people who lack creativity and guts make excuses like "I am giving the public what they want to see". I am not surprised to see Sneha argue in favor of mediocrity as she belongs to the TV industry. But lets not forget mediocrity sells only for a limited time. After a point it becomes irrelevant. For instance Govinda did plenty of mediocre films with David Dhawan in his heydays. They used to sell like hot cakes. Today both David and Govinda are irrelevant. No one wants to work with them. There is nothing completely wrong in doing more of what's working for you but you should also take care to give the public something new each other.

isnt the definition of "quality" itself subjective?

Originally posted by: pathaka

isnt the definition of "quality" itself subjective?

One man's quality is another man's trash...so Rowdy rathore might be trash acc to some people, but it isnt trash acc to all those repeat audience who went in for the film to make that amt of money...

it all boils down to taste eventually, therz always people who will love and hate a film...if the former number outweighs the latter, then its a hit...

As for filmmakers looking at it from a consumerism POV, so are the audience right...? every bad review always has this phrase abt "money/time being wasted" and every good review says "paisa vasool"...so the audience themselves consider films to be a "product" that is supposed to deliver for the money they paid for it...

apart from the critics, none of the general audience come out of the theatre and say "oh the film wasnt too nice, but i liked the cinematography and the screenplay technique...and the sound engineering"...they say "picture acchi hai..." or "picture bakwaas hai"...

most of them watch films in their spare time, or as a recreational activity, and the one time they do that, they wanna have fun...if a filmmaker's gonna get over-indulgent with showing off his art, they r gonna trash it...the common man dosent have the time or patience to appreciate the "Art" in filmmaking when he has a million other things going on in his life (unless they are a filmmaking student, or a film journo or someone really interested in filmmaking)...the first n foremost thing they look for is the fact tht the movie is engrossing n entertaining and that their hard earned money is well spent...

i wouldnt necessarily look at "giving wht the audience want" as a bad thing...it is like telling the people "we know wht u paid for, so here u go..enjoy"

thts being honest...and honest crappy cinema >>>> pretentiously artistic cinema...

EG: id take a dabangg over saawariya any day...

Originally posted by: Enycedoll

Mostly i agree with ur saying, it has been, and still is, my stance.

But Who makes art movies these days? And no one really wants to see them. I wouldnt classify a 3 idiots, or munnabhaii or even ghajani as art films (didnt like ghajani much). They were engrossing and entertaining without being meaningless. There was a sound script with exceptional performances, which is why theyre remembered even now. Thats all we, the minority that we may be, ask for. A decent movie with a good script and decent performances. But the focus from that has shifted drastically...its all about roping in the flavor of the season with comedy or action.

^ It's a little unfair, in my opinion, to call those sorts of movies "indulgent"...