Why say good actor based on their box office success?

Just because an actor is commercially successful, mass marketed, and able to attract crowds does not mean they are a great actor.

There are fair number of Indian actors in art house films that could run rings around actors hailed the best so far in bollywood with box office success.

No. Absolutely false.

Promotion is important for small movies..for eg a lunchbox worked cos dharma promoted it well. .apart from the fact that it's a lovely film. .at least word of mouth aur acha trailer ya music matters

Originally posted by: meribaat

No. Absolutely false.

A good actor is a good actor is a good actor. Even if a film fails. There are gems of little films that are yet to be discovered by the masses both in HW and BW. But that's ok because those are what makes cinema art vs entertainment. And people who act in them are generally good actors.

A BO person is generally a STAR who need not be an ACTOR. Biggest example, Tom Cruise. But when he actually acts it produces something like 'Born on the Fourth of July' and that is when cinema becomes art.

or a Jerry Maguire 😃

I want to give one example even after DDLJ,KKHH etc i never thought SRK a good actor .only after seeing CDI ,Swadesh i thought he is pretty good actor .Now I don' think It is his fault ,it is the director who can bring out the best from actors who have become stars and even the best can not bring acting from wooden planks ..It is truth the most of the time we mix actor with star..But there are very few who are actually stars and as well as good actors

jai ho made 100 cr,is daisy considered a good actress??