Female Superstardom

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

lhcj21

@lhcj21

Voyager

Posted: 10 years ago

#11

A reminder to all IF members:

Please avoid making rude comments. You can respectfully disagree without being rude to others. Any rude/disrespectful comments will IMMEDIATELY be reported.

Quote

642126

Hibernated

Posted: 10 years ago

#12

Originally posted by: lhcj21
A reminder to all IF members:
Please avoid making rude comments. You can respectfully disagree without being rude to others. Any rude/disrespectful comments will IMMEDIATELY be reported.

Facts look rude to you? 😆

Go ahead and report.

I didn't know members also acted as self appointed mods here and issued reminders in bold letters. 😆

Whatever makes you happy friend!

Instead of examining how you yourself are shifting goalposts for females and males in a topic supposedly about female superstardom in comparison to male one you're issuing threats of reporting to me? Wow!

I shouldn't have responded in first place itself then if TM expects own self decided style of responses.

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

1039919

Suspended

Posted: 10 years ago

#13

The roles written for men are larger than life roles. Male characters are heroes - fight the bad guys, rescue innocent people and help others. Female roles are usually cliched.

Quote

ponymo

@ponymo

Sparkler

+ 4

Posted: 10 years ago

#14

Female superstardom is considerably easier to achieve but difficult to sustain beyond a limited shelf life.

There are very few female superstars who continued to be active after reaching their so-called 'peak'. Madhuri post '97 could not sustain her stardom and did work sporadically. Even when she came back, after Aaja Nachle was a failure, she hardly got any work for the next 7 years. Sridevi came back with English Vinglish after a 15 year long hiatus and the film was a runaway success. But it's been over three years and she's hardly doing much work (despite her husband being a big producer). It will be interesting to see which way Aishwarya's career goes from now.

The comparison between Madhuri/Sridevi and Aishwarya's careers about BO, as to how the former were superstars and the latter wasn't, is fallacious. Most of Madhuri and Sridevi's work was in the commercial genre and they hardly ever did art films, whereas Aishwarya's films in the commercial genre can be counted on the finger tips. In fact, when I looked up Madhuri's filmography, her success rate is less than Aishwarya's (about 15 hit films out of a total of 70). Aishwarya's Bride and Prejudice netted 150 crore worldwide at a time when none of our heroes even had a 100 crore grosser, in fact it took them 5 years to reach that mark. Not to mention her Tamil and Bengali hits never get credited here (when in fact it's very much a part of her repertoire).

Quote

BhataktiJawani

@BhataktiJawani

Stunner

+ 7

Sarcastic Chatterbox

Posted: 10 years ago

#15

Kareena Kapoor is a Female SuperStar. Recently She was announced as the Top actress of Bollywood of all time 😎

Quote

901054

Suspended

Posted: 10 years ago

#16

I've read some comments here about Aish and even though I'm not a fan, I must admit she's one of the biggest female stars India has ever produced. It's not a joke when my foreign friends who know nothing about Bollywood mention Aishwarya whenever I casually reference Indian cinema. They would be like "Oh my gosh, Aishwarya Rai is so beautiful!"

I think her popularity in India is hyped though. She's more known globally, and that too for her beauty and not her acting.

There's a reason why most of her movies are duds at the Indian BO. It's because the Indian audience doesn't care for her.

If you think that being known for her beauty worldwide qualifies her as a star so be it... but others here consider BO records and craze domestically one of the most important factors for consideration in the superstar category. I wouldn't really call her a superstar tbh, just a star, because I have yet to see the craze that I see for the Khan's, Bachchan SR, and even Katrina and Deepika at their peaks had for Aishwarya. (And some still have that amazing fanbase)

Quote

pallavi25

@pallavi25

Inactive

+ 5

Posted: 10 years ago

#17

Society is chauvinistic, misogynistic! Women are seen as mere chattels, servile and inferior to men.

Women get paid less for the same work in offices, they are stuck in low paid jobs, they have to put up with the "glass ceiling" as far as promotions and top company positions are concerned.

Bollywood is even more chauvinstic than the regular world.

Heroines are paid MUCH less than the heros even if the heroine has a substantial role in the same movie.

Credit goes to the male lead even if the heroine has her own substantial fan base.

But inspite of these injustices, many heroines have become so popular that movies sell on their name, not on hero's.

Nargis, Nutan, Madhubala were the female superstars of the 50s!

In the 60s and 70s, the top heros and heroines were almost equally popular, for example Waheeda Rehman, Vyajayantimala, Sharmila, Sadhna...these heroines had huge popularity and were paired with their respective heros in countless superhits!

The old hit jodis had repeat value, people went crazy for jodis like Rajesh Sharmila, Hema-Dharam, Amitabh-Rekha ...almost all their movies were superhits!

Heroines themselves had huge fanbases even in those days.

Sadhna had such a crazy fan following that many of her male fans broke down and cried when she got married! 😆

Just like when Rajesh Khanna got married, some female fans tried to kill themselves.

In the 80s it was Sridevi and Madhuri. They were paid more than the hero sometimes, they got top billing in posters, especially Sridevi.

They had bigger roles and heros played 2nd fiddle to them. Example Sridevi in Chaalbaaz!

Also Rekha, Hema Malini can be called superstars as some movies sold on their names only. Like Khubsoorat which was entirely Rekha's film. Seeta aur Geeta was Hema's!

They had massive fan following just like the top heros of that time, same as Sri and Madz had later.

The problem is all these facts are not so well publicized today and the current generation doesnt know abt the star heroines of yesteryears!

But actually the present times IS the BEST for the top heroines. In last 5-6 years we have seen the emergence of the new female superstar, who can carry a film on her shoulders, whose name can sell a movie, who does female centric movies which are superhits!

Kangana, Deepika, Priyanka Chopra, Vidya Balan, these are the female superstars of today even though they are not called so by the misogynistic media!

People actually go to watch movies starring them because THEY are in it!

PC in Mary Kom, Vidya in Dirty Picture and Kahaani, Deepika in Piku, Kangana in Queen and TWMR, Rani in Mardaani.

I think based on their massive fan following and all round appreciation for their movies, they ARE the female superstars!

Quote

lhcj21

@lhcj21

Voyager

Posted: 10 years ago

#18

Originally posted by: tennant
The roles written for men are larger than life roles. Male characters are heroes - fight the bad guys, rescue innocent people and help others. Female roles are usually cliched.

Lol, wasn't fighting bad guys and being macho and heroic cliched for guys too?? Regardless, the industry was always male-dominated and focused on the hero.

Quote

lhcj21

@lhcj21

Voyager

Posted: 10 years ago

#19

Originally posted by: ponymo
Female superstardom is considerably easier to achieve but difficult to sustain beyond a limited shelf life.
There are very few female superstars who continued to be active after reaching their so-called 'peak'. Madhuri post '97 could not sustain her stardom and did work sporadically. Even when she came back, after Aaja Nachle was a failure, she hardly got any work for the next 7 years. Sridevi came back with English Vinglish after a 15 year long hiatus and the film was a runaway success. But it's been over three years and she's hardly doing much work (despite her husband being a big producer). It will be interesting to see which way Aishwarya's career goes from now.

The comparison between Madhuri/Sridevi and Aishwarya's careers about BO, as to how the former were superstars and the latter wasn't, is fallacious. Most of Madhuri and Sridevi's work was in the commercial genre and they hardly ever did art films, whereas Aishwarya's films in the commercial genre can be counted on the finger tips. In fact, when I looked up Madhuri's filmography, her success rate is less than Aishwarya's (about 15 hit films out of a total of 70). Aishwarya's Bride and Prejudice netted 150 crore worldwide at a time when none of our heroes even had a 100 crore grosser, in fact it took them 5 years to reach that mark. Not to mention her Tamil and Bengali hits never get credited here (when in fact it's very much a part of her repertoire).

It's unfortunate that an actress's career span is much shorter than her male counterpart's. Sridevi was the reigning queen of the 80's and Madhuri of the 90s. But none could keep their stardom after a decade. Partly due to actresses getting married and starting a family and also producers and audiences wanting actresses to stay young. Finding strong mature roles for actresses is also hard especially nowadays since Bollywood is so obsessed with glamour and sex appeal. As for Sridevi, she is probably the most successful with the best comeback. I don't know if she can't find work or if she actually wants to work more. But Madhuri's comeback with Aaja Nachle wasn't as strong although she looked slim and fantastic and gave a good performance. I think the film could have been made better. That's why if an actress wants to make a comeback, she has to come back with a huge bang too keep viewers interested.

Quote

lhcj21

@lhcj21

Voyager

Posted: 10 years ago

#20

Originally posted by: Maseera.
I've read some comments here about Aish and even though I'm not a fan, I must admit she's one of the biggest female stars India has ever produced. It's not a joke when my foreign friends who know nothing about Bollywood mention Aishwarya whenever I casually reference Indian cinema. They would be like "Oh my gosh, Aishwarya Rai is so beautiful!"

I think her popularity in India is hyped though. She's more known globally, and that too for her beauty and not her acting.

There's a reason why most of her movies are duds at the Indian BO. It's because the Indian audience doesn't care for her.

If you think that being known for her beauty worldwide qualifies her as a star so be it... but others here consider BO records and craze domestically one of the most important factors for consideration in the superstar category. I wouldn't really call her a superstar tbh, just a star, because I have yet to see the craze that I see for the Khan's, Bachchan SR, and even Katrina and Deepika at their peaks had for Aishwarya. (And some still have that amazing fanbase)

My understanding of superstardom has two things:

1) Being skilled at what you do

2) Popularity/Mass appeal

The Khans, Amitabh Bachchan, and Rajesh Khanna had both. Madhuri and Sridevi also had both. Aishwarya just had the second one. That's why I consider Aishwarya somewhat of a superstar, but not on the same level as the others I mentioned. I hope that makes more sense.

She is not nearly as talented as the others but somehow she achieved international fame which is something that no other Bollywood actor or actress achieved until that time. Even the Khans nor Amitabh Bachchan could achieve that even though they are better actors and were more successful in Bollywood. Aishwarya just got lucky. So that's why I said she has some aspects of being a superstar but she's not a complete superstar or not on the same level as the others.