Talent is irrelevant in Bollywood , do you agree - Page 4

Its just Kangana who has turned irrelevant which is why none of her movies really work at the box office anymore. URI did mammoth business with nationalism. While Kangana and her sister kept shouting about Manikarnika being a national hero and how she deserves respect and love from the citizen of this country so much so that they literally shamed the audience for not watching their movie yet couldn't do half the business as URI . So its not Talent but just Kangana who irrelevant not only to the industry but also to the movie-going audience.

In an industry where connections are more important than talent...what can you say? Kangana is no exception. She is getting stale with her harp on her against the world and nepotism. As if she doesn't have someone underground funding her here and there. I am sure there has to be something going on.

There are probably rarely few who have any connection to anyone in BW these days. It's so over saturated.

Thank you for your comments.

But how do you define talent, for eg a varun may be excellent in dance but lack in acting or a tiger can do well in action but lack in drama, so how will we define talent in bollywood.

Can acting be the only criteria for judging talent in Bollywood or other considerations can be accepted.

For me personally, acting is the main criteria to be considered as talent in Bollywood and from that perspective, talent is irrelevant here.

For eg, a really talented person who excels in acting ( again Subjective) could achieve a lot less than a person who has more network and power.

I do agree that network and diplomacy does prove to be fruitful in any industry you work in but should it overpower or be more relevant than talent is the question.

for example , tomorrow you as a producer has 2 boys auditioning for you

One is super natural as an actor and shows immense talent in the acting department

other one has super connections in the industry who can give you benefits in the long run

whom will you pick ?

Ignoring who the thread is about and by, I'd like to put my opinion here. Whenever success is defined by mass popularity, it will never be talent driven. Why? Because masses are ignorant of the nuances and technicalities of any art form. Very rarely can one person have a deep and thorough technical and literary knowledge of multiple art forms and I doubt there's anyone who could be called a connoisseur for every art form that exists. Even to know one art form well is so much work that very few people can claim to have that knowledge. Masses are made up of regular people who go about their work and just use art as a form of entertainment. So, they are obviously never going to be good judges of talent. This is true for all art forms.

If success is based on body of work though, I think that is definitely talent driven even in Bollywood. But if people count their awards, even national awards, to proclaim what great actors they are, then that's again mistaken as it is obvious looking at the history of all these awards that they are not credible.

If some people are just complaining about not getting enough opportunities because there is a network or mafia then I think it's more of a rant and about the industry as a means of livelihood(money and fame) then just trying to be successful in the art form itself.

Just think about it, if you love singing, does it matter that how many people praise you for it? Wouldn't you just want to do more of it and learn more of it? But those singers to whom the appreciation matters is because it is not just their passion but a means of livelihood for them. And once you're in it to earn money, it becomes business. And in business, if you try to mix this talk about talent and passion then that's just you being manipulative to get ahead in something. BW is just business and while people can rally for it to have more transparent processes etc, in the end businesses are about money and not passion.

Originally posted by: astha36

Ignoring who the thread is about and by, I'd like to put my opinion here. Whenever success is defined by mass popularity, it will never be talent driven. Why? Because masses are ignorant of the nuances and technicalities of any art form. Very rarely can one person have a deep and thorough technical and literary knowledge of multiple art forms and I doubt there's anyone who could be called a connoisseur for every art form that exists. Even to know one art form well is so much work that very few people can claim to have that knowledge. Masses are made up of regular people who go about their work and just use art as a form of entertainment. So, they are obviously never going to be good judges of talent. This is true for all art forms.

If success is based on body of work though, I think that is definitely talent driven even in Bollywood. But if people count their awards, even national awards, to proclaim what great actors they are, then that's again mistaken as it is obvious looking at the history of all these awards that they are not credible.

If some people are just complaining about not getting enough opportunities because there is a network or mafia then I think it's more of a rant and about the industry as a means of livelihood(money and fame) then just trying to be successful in the art form itself.

Just think about it, if you love singing, does it matter that how many people praise you for it? Wouldn't you just want to do more of it and learn more of it? But those singers to whom the appreciation matters is because it is not just their passion but a means of livelihood for them. And once you're in it to earn money, it becomes business. And in business, if you try to mix this talk about talent and passion then that's just you being manipulative to get ahead in something. BW is just business and while people can rally for it to have more transparent processes etc, in the end businesses are about money and not passion.

wow I absolutely loved your thoughts on it and agree too esp the bold parts.

Thank you for at overlooking who the thread is about and by.....

It’s a weird argument. Nothing is black and white. Talent isn’t irrelevant but neither is it the only factor. If it were simply all nepotism and no talent, Twinkle would have ruled BW yesterday and this generation of BW would be ruled by Abhishek Bachchan, Uday Chopra, and Tusshar Kapoor. On the other hand anyone can see nepotism - whether by blood, sex, or friendship -can’t be denied.

Who is to say what talent is anyway? IMO art is beyond technique. Real art connects and moves its audience. So by that definition different audiences have different art. BW defines art and talent differently than HW. It doesn’t make one right and one wrong.

Bottom line - this is just another excuse for Kangana to explain her failure without accepting any personal or professional responsibility. True to form.

Surviving in Bollywood is a talent itself, how many come and go every year? only few make a mark

Talent does matter yes, but its not just talent in acting- one has to be charismatic enough to strike a chord with the audience (who more often than not don’t care about the technicalities of the profession) and to build enough goodwill in their industry. These three factors are needed to succeed in any customer-facing profession- 1) Be good at your job 2) Get your customers to like you 3) Make sure your colleagues, supervisors and reportees respect you.