Originally posted by: chocolover89
I don't understand the reasoning behind comparing the early careers of Khans and their records vs other actors of other eras. Many factors change between generations like the kind of films made, audience desires, opportunities, etc. It's not exactly an accurate comparison.
Also, it is not set in stone that to become a big superstar you must follow a career path that is akin to the previous stars. Khans were successful right off the bat. Amitabh Bachchan who is an even bigger star than them took years to make a proper mark with Deewar/Zanjeer ...after which there wasn't looking back. Everyone's career path is different. Just because the newcomers haven't debuted with an ATBB like Khans did doesn't mean they cannot become the next superstar.
Amitabh started making mark from 4th year itself. He also won National Award for best newcomer for Saat Hindustani.
By his 7th year (1975) Big B had captured imagination of nation in a big way. And given ATBB.
He had guts to act alongside seniors and overshadowed them unlike Ranbir who never acts with seniors and seems to be avoiding contemporary young actors too!
Please don't use his example either. He displaced and made irrelevant a guy like Rajesh Khanna in his youth! Most displace oldies. He displaced a young one and finally finished all previous trinities and 60s bunch of Jubilee Kumars etc.
Every dhakka start gaadi cannot be compared to Big B.
Everyone has different path, agreed. But this dragging of Ranbir Kapoor in topics of stardom and calling his first 7 years exceptional is funny. Funnier still is to beg for more time for him and allege that previous stars also did not become huge "so soon". When you have stuff like that then some posts on stats and facts have to be made to clear reality!
Edited by atominis - 11 years ago
0