Season 2 possibility confirmed!

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

642126

Hibernated

Posted: 11 years ago

#11

Originally posted by: Spot

In this case, the message could only be: "The wealthy/powerful (especially men) are not really held to account for their heinous misdeeds - the public may complain but nothing changes".

Yes.

In fact even the heroine got justice only after latching on to the rich and famous Dayal Thakur and Dev Goenka.

The fact that a Nitya Mitra cannot get justice, proofs or muster public and media support whereas a Durga "Goenka" can do it all, gives message that only the rich can accomplish anything be it justice or crime! The world belongs to the rich in EHT moral of the story.

Quote

642126

Hibernated

Posted: 11 years ago

#12

@HippoSucks

Please read my post first. Did I ever say they did it to gain attention? No! Then why are you bringing that up again?

I said they did it for face saving. So that if one feels what happened then one can rationalise that maybe there will be a season 2 and accept it as it is whether a new season happens or not.

Maybe they tried to keep option open for some season. But the cast or Mr Siddharth Malhotra never hinted at it. It may or may not happen. So I see a second season as just a faint possibility. The chances are less. And even lesser chances to get the same cast again.

I take these interviews with a pinch of salt. They are not always reliable indicators of eventual future happenings. Thanks for sharing this private interview here.

Quote

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

dey.bh

@dey.bh

Rocker

Posted: 11 years ago

#13

The phone call in the end was just a lolipop. YOu know you give one to hte child so that it stops crying.

Why ? and what do they gain ?

Talking about profit and loss I want to know why the channel refused to accept that this show was going off air ? SOmeone had mailed them and they confirmed instead of this show some other star plus shows were suppose to go off air. I want to know why did they have to lie ?

Well, Star Plus knows it better. It has a good history of its audience accusing or rather abusing it openly. Remember IPKKND got off air and the channel had put all the blame on Sobti ? That time waas not smooth for the channel. The PH also had to fae the wrath of the audience.SO, this time they played a trick. They gave a hope of season 2. The viewers will feel contented that the end is not really an end and there is more to come but eventually will get over the loss and find solace in some other shows.

Sarabhai vs Sarabhai openly claimed to return with another season which however never happened. It was also one of the best of sitcom the Indian television ever produced.

Quote

VintageWine

@VintageWine

Trailblazer

+ 3

Posted: 11 years ago

#14

Nah, nothin as such ... tho the open end did look like return of d dreaded shaurrya !! There'r r so many serials dat end dz way , but the return has totally nothing to do with the previous.

Quote

HippoSucks

@HippoSucks

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

#15

Originally posted by: atominis
@HippoSucks
Please read my post first. Did I ever say they did it to gain attention? No! Then why are you bringing that up again?

I said they did it for face saving. So that if one feels what happened then one can rationalise that maybe there will be a season 2 and accept it as it is whether a new season happens or not.

Maybe they tried to keep option open for some season. But the cast or Mr Siddharth Malhotra never hinted at it. It may or may not happen. So I see a second season as just a faint possibility. The chances are less. And even lesser chances to get the same cast again.

I take these interviews with a pinch of salt. They are not always reliable indicators of eventual future happenings. Thanks for sharing this private interview here.

Please read my first and second response to you again. I said that whether you said it was to gain attention or for face saving, what I said still stood. I have no interest in reiterating what I said, so please just read that again.

Originally posted by: atominis

Yes.

In fact even the heroine got justice only after latching on to the rich and famous Dayal Thakur and Dev Goenka.

The fact that a Nitya Mitra cannot get justice, proofs or muster public and media support whereas a Durga "Goenka" can do it all, gives message that only the rich can accomplish anything be it justice or crime! The world belongs to the rich in EHT moral of the story.

That is a not a moral, but a sociological truth. In our world, especially in third world countries where corruption and bribery are commonplace, it is true that the rich are omnipotent.

Quote

642126

Hibernated

Posted: 11 years ago

#16

@HippoSucks

I think you need to look back on news and refresh memory.

Jessica Lall and Priyadarshini Mattoo cases were brought to justice by middle class people only. They rallied public support. Fought against bigwigs. Got justice.

This is totally wrong that only rich get justice.

Third world countries still give justice to all despite corruption. That was a racist comment to call this as truth of third world countries.

Quote

HippoSucks

@HippoSucks

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

#17

Originally posted by: atominis
@HippoSucks
I think you need to look back on news and refresh memory.

Jessica Lall and Priyadarshini Mattoo cases were brought to justice by middle class people only. They rallied public support. Fought against bigwigs. Got justice.

This is totally wrong that only rich get justice.

Third world countries still give justice to all despite corruption. That was a racist comment to call this as truth of third world countries.

Please tell me that you don't truly believe that wealthy people do not have an automatic "get out of jail free" card. Of course this is all dependent on the severity of the incident and the wealthiness of the defendant.

The two cases you named are famous because numerous people rallied for them and they got justice. However, there are thousands more cases where the contrary happened. For example, Ethan Couch.

I never said that only the wealthy get justice. I said that they have an upperhand in the judicial systems simply due to their money and political power.

Also, my comment on third world countries was by no means racist. It was a simply, statistically proven fact. If you are arguing that America is less corrupt than India, I am speechless.

Quote

642126

Hibernated

Posted: 11 years ago

#18

HippoSucks

Then Durga could have rallied public support too. Bur writer just attached her to rich guys then only she got justice.

And don't put words in my mouth!

I didn't say third world countries are not corrupt. I countered your point on this being the "truth" of third world countries. Sorry this is not the only truth of our countries.

I am not saying rich do not manipulate. I am saying it is wrong to say that only rich can get justice and not middle class or poor.

Quote

HippoSucks

@HippoSucks

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

#19

Originally posted by: atominis
HippoSucks
Then Durga could have rallied public support too. Bur writer just attached her to rich guys then only she got justice.

And don't put words in my mouth!

I didn't say third world countries are not corrupt. I countered your point on this being the "truth" of third world countries. Sorry this is not the only truth of our countries.

I am not saying rich do not manipulate. I am saying it is wrong to say that only rich can get justice and not middle class or poor.

What would rallying gain? There was no substantial proof to base her claims off of, and everyone would be oppressed by the Goenkas.

I will reciprocate what you said to me as well, please don't put words in my mouth. I said that third world countries are more corrupt than other countries. I never said corruption and bribery doesn't exist in North America, Europe etc.

I never said only the wealthy people can get justice. I said it is very difficult to convict people with significant wealth and political power.