Why did Saif get national award??? - Page 11

Originally posted by: lovelyaddiction

True that, SRK'S Swades stood out, it got me to tears.

Originally posted by: Nishita123

Shit happens...

Don't know much abt NA awards/credibility, but most of BW awards are fixed/rigged... and over rated.

Atleast Saifu won't brag about his NA since he also knows he was that deserving. SRK would have gloated about it like the way he cribs about everything else.😆

Originally posted by: -Maddy-

@ bold... Hmmm... 90% of india... Then shouldnt Swades have been a bigger hit than 3 Idiots... if we are talking abt the Indian response to both these movies... Its actually HT that majority in India liked... It was a BO success unlike Swades...

Originally posted by: guess_wh0

People do realize that the Jury consists of 13 members right. Not 1. These are all Big name experts in their fields. To even suggest that they can be influenced by one member is insane. These are 13 members hand picked by the Broadcast ministry. If SRK was so good and Sharmila was biased, which I'm sure she was, he would have won 12-1.

He didn't though. Live with the facts. Saif displayed great versatility playing a 20 to a 40 year old guy each with different mannerisms. SRK played a guy who could be mistaken for a gunga in the film.

The same people whining about Manoj Kumar crying foul over a film that's half a decade old are crying foul over an award that's even older.

[quote]People do realize that the Jury consists of 13 members right. Not 1. These are all Big name experts in their fields. To even suggest that they can be influenced by one member is insane. These are 13 members hand picked by the Broadcast ministry. If SRK was so good and Sharmila was biased, which I'm sure she was, he would have won 12-1.[/quote]

Originally posted by: blue-ice

Lets agree to disagree ,...but just on this part i would like to say AGAIN...that we are talking about performances here and not how commercially viable the movies were...ETT made a 198 cr...Talaash made 90 cr...does that mean that Salman's performance was better than Aamir's...maybe some people liked ETT over Talaash...but the very same people might have like Aami's performance over Salman's performance...When it comes to NA...commercial viability of a movie and performances of the actors are independant of each other..I hope u got my point maddy😛

Originally posted by: anonymous39

[quote]People do realize that the Jury consists of 13 members right. Not 1. These are all Big name experts in their fields. To even suggest that they can be influenced by one member is insane. These are 13 members hand picked by the Broadcast ministry. If SRK was so good and Sharmila was biased, which I'm sure she was, he would have won 12-1.[/quote]

You think someone's mommy being on the jury has no influence? These people make quid pro quo deals. You do something for me, I do something for you. Those jury members would also be her friends. One rotten apple is enough to spoil the whole bunch.

I'm not even talking about the merits of Saif's acting here. Even if he was a better actor than Amitabh Bachchan and Dilip Kumar combined, winning an award courtesy of mummy ji will never been seen with respect. Deal with it. It's a tainted win and it will always be looked at with suspicion. If Abhishek won for Yuva, even that would be fine. Its not like SRK had to win. Anyone who won without parental support right in the jury.

I can't believe it's even allowed. Sharmila should have stepped aside or been forced out. It's like Amitabh being on a jury and giving Abhishek an award. Who would take it seriously?

Originally posted by: anonymous39

[quote]People do realize that the Jury consists of 13 members right. Not 1. These are all Big name experts in their fields. To even suggest that they can be influenced by one member is insane. These are 13 members hand picked by the Broadcast ministry. If SRK was so good and Sharmila was biased, which I'm sure she was, he would have won 12-1.[/quote]

You think someone's mommy being on the jury has no influence? These people make quid pro quo deals. You do something for me, I do something for you. Those jury members would also be her friends. One rotten apple is enough to spoil the whole bunch.

I'm not even talking about the merits of Saif's acting here. Even if he was a better actor than Amitabh Bachchan and Dilip Kumar combined, winning an award courtesy of mummy ji will never been seen with respect. Deal with it. It's a tainted win and it will always be looked at with suspicion. If Abhishek won for Yuva, even that would be fine. Its not like SRK had to win. Anyone who won without parental support right in the jury.

I can't believe it's even allowed. Sharmila should have stepped aside or been forced out. It's like Amitabh being on a jury and giving Abhishek an award. Who would take it seriously?

If jury's can be influenced so easily then it's fair to call them rigged. And if the NA is rigged, and you do believe it then why the hoopla. Sharmila got Saif a vote, maybe 2 or 3 but to claim 7 people were willing to put their credibility on stake to impress one member is fat fetched.

Kat can have half her family in the jury and yet she won't win it. It cannot be given to someone non deserving. I think Saif was brilliant and I really don't see anybody in Bollywood who was heads and shoulders better than him than Hum Tum but I do agree its tainted. One because comedy films are not considered NA worthy generally and secondly because of Sharmila.

Another fun fact about the NA. Two actors can be crowned in the same year. AB sr and Sunny Deol won it in 1990 for Agneepath and Ghayal because they were both equally good. If the jury feels you deserve it, you will get it. So stop blaming Saif, if SRK deserved it they would have given it to him.

See if SRK had lost NA to Vikram in Pithamagan...I would have agreed...cz Vikram was bloody brilliant in tht role...but he lost to Saif's mediocre performance...that's what irks me...and I am sure it irks SRK too 😆