Is International Acclaim Important? - Page 2

Your examples are very different.

I am not turning my nose up at SKR movies doing well outside of India. Box office is box office and it all gets added to the total. But his audiences are primarily NRIs. Outside of the desai community (to a much smaller scale maybe Middle Eastern communities) he doesn't have an international audience.

Then we have Irfan Khan who was in an Oscar winning movie (Life of Pi), one of the biggest successes (Jurassic World) and has a movie with Tom Hanks. To me his international acclaim is much more impressive because he's getting a lot of non-Desai exposure. His International acclaim really is international. It doesn't matter how small his roles were because he's getting a much bigger exposure out there, and he's obviously impressed the right people as he's getting more work. Same with Priyanka and Quantico, if the show clicks. Ash was on the right track, but it seems like bad luck combined with her own inhibitions got in her way. She would never agree to do something like Priyanka's car sex scene. Still, getting interviewed by 60 Minutes and being on Letterman is no small feat.

Originally posted by: .Hajmola.

Yes it impresses me if the acclaim is REAL. Like Irfan Khan's. Or like PC's TV show. But fake acclaim like Aishwarya's or PC's singing career doesnt impress me. Celebs shouldnt forget that today on the internet its easy to find out how much of real work they are doing outside their countries.

SRK's international fanbase is impressive and the best one among any Indian actor despite not doing a single international project. THAT is what a star should be about.

International acclaim even if smal is still good! I'm interested in Ali fazal now. Let's see what he does

Originally posted by: IAmLuvBolly

Your examples are very different.

I am not turning my nose up at SKR movies doing well outside of India. Box office is box office and it all gets added to the total. But his audiences are primarily NRIs. Outside of the desai community (to a much smaller scale maybe Middle Eastern communities) he doesn't have an international audience.

Then we have Irfan Khan who was in an Oscar winning movie (Life of Pi), one of the biggest successes (Jurassic World) and has a movie with Tom Hanks. To me his international acclaim is much more impressive because he's getting a lot of non-Desai exposure. His International acclaim really is international. It doesn't matter how small his roles were because he's getting a much bigger exposure out there, and he's obviously impressed the right people as he's getting more work. Same with Priyanka and Quantico, if the show clicks. Ash was on the right track, but it seems like bad luck combined with her own inhibitions got in her way. She would never agree to do something like Priyanka's car sex scene. Still, getting interviewed by 60 Minutes and being on Letterman is no small feat.

yeah you have a point

I think I meant success by Indians abroad, in general

Any Indian getting any kind of praise for his/her work internationally is a proud thing for me, keeping bashing aside, whoever has bring our country a name by working internationally also is worth praising.

For me it is a good thing but that's it. Much of so called international achievement is overhyped and exaggerated.

And it is worse if one is so called global icon but has no credible achievement on own country.

Your films keep flopping here and you're just famous for modeling assignments or red carpet appearances then what's the big deal?

Most achievement of our people is more hype than substance. Only a few are indeed solid achievers.

Originally posted by: blue-ice

Exactly...this is what the TM wants to know...why is an international acclaim not important???Why is DDD an underperformer despite doing so well overseas?

Cause maybe the home audience just did not lap it up they way the should've . IDK but the reason alludes me as well . Its just the way Trades operate...😲😲

^ trades don't lie

I mean if a movie got international revenue, it will reflect in numbers.

It's people that refuse to give it equal credit to domestic revenue. THAT was what I'm questioning

Originally posted by: Chippeshwini

^ trades don't lie

I mean if a movie got international revenue, it will reflect in numbers.

It's people that refuse to give it equal credit to domestic revenue. THAT was what I'm questioning

90% of an Indian film's revenue comes from domestic collections. Overseas constitutes just 10%. This is why only overseas collection is not enough. Nor it reflects a film's acceptance.

It is a no brainer that acceptance among 1.2 billion people in own territory is more important and significant than acceptance only in niche audience overseas.

Only overseas revenue cannot save a film. Like Dil se did well abroad but was a colossal flop and total reject in India.

^ That's fair enough, makes sense.

The theory isn't always applied though. Like PK may was well be a colossal grosser counting both domestic and international earnings (with international making up a very large portion of that ratio, because of random China 😆)

yet there's still questioning of Aamir's dependability because of the lesser financial performance of his 90s movies