Why the Difference???? - Page 3

Actually he has been one of the dark horses of the industry. Though he has not left comm. cinema and taken up doing art films or non-commercial films, but still as a supporting character he does certainly a better job than many others. And marketing him has been a no-no for sony. And only today, did I read an article in Times Life on the problems with introverts(I feel Adi sir is somewhat an introvert, even at shows) in the fast paced communicative world of fb and twitter.

agree with u deepika
he also once said the movies in which he plays lead can never be a mainstream one.what does all this indicate towards?

he was there in one commercial ad- the Secure one.

I feel that his decision to stay away from mainstream cinema is prompted partly by his disinclination towards mainstream cinema and partly by his illusion that he cannot be a part of such cinemas.

Originally posted by: cidadp

he was there in one commercial ad- the Secure one.

thats very less for a person who this year completed 20 years in entertainment industry

FW has mostly portrayed Abhijeet as the victim and Daya as the saviour. The same trend continued even in the crossovers. Abhijeet was a victim in Adaalat and Daya was a saviour in Surya.

Umm.. I dont think Aditya Srivastav is at fault for Abhijeet's less popularity. Its been Sony's fault all the way. Daya sir too used to be a reserved man initially, but SONY forced him to attend functions where he represented CID. The actors have no say in that when the channel orders them. SONY never thought of portraying Abhijeet or bringing him to the forefront. And here, I am talking about Abhijeet more than Aditya Srivastav

maybe the ppl at sony are daya fans

Hmmm...let's face it...that role in Adalat required someone of Adi sir's calibre...only he can match up to Ronit. 😛 The channel was forced to accept this.