EXCLUSIVE: Aamir Khan offers Imran Khan a comeback role in Mahabharat.

First Previous

Page

Frequent Posters

springkissed

@springkissed

Dazzler

+ 3

Posted: 7 years ago

#31

Originally posted by: JustMySelf

much that i appreciate your love n loyalty towards ranveer..n wholeheartedly agree he
is a fantabulous actor..bt i slightly disagree on him playing Krishna...
in fact there is no one of past or present lot who can play Krishna from bollywood..
i am speaking as a devotee of Krishna not on the basis of being a fan or something..
fangirling has never been my cup of tea fortunately or unfortunately 😆
so do not take it as my offense if i say that ranveer would rather fit like a champion
if he essays the role of Duryodhana..he will blow up the screen..

i agree with u vehemently that i would really sulk seeing amir playing
Krishna n delivering Bhagawad Gita ..not just because he is advanced in
ageing as compared to the ageless Krishna bt also because Krishna is someone
truly awe inspiring in gait tranquility as well by mere appearance ..
amir i guess does nt actually fits in here ..

n i agree again that imran can play sahadev..coz sahadev after eating
one atom of Pandu's flesh learned entire future n past..since then he never
spoke to anyone unless asked to speak..n imran can rightly fit in there..

I totally agree with Ranveer being fit to play Duryodhan. And I also agree about your assessment of Aamir not being fit to play Krishna bhagwan. Krishna bhagwan has the playfulness, but there is always tranquility, forgiveness, largeheartedness, and acceptance in his manner, while Aamir can portray that playfulness, but I think he has that shrewd craftiness more. Which is not a bad thing, but just does not fit with the demeanor and persona of Krishna bhagwan as even while he was confronting various wrong doings, his eyes were always nonjudgmental as he was not looking at it from a human perspective but from a larger deity's perspective. Idk if i'm even explaining it right.

Edited by springkissed - 7 years ago

Quote

807116

Hibernated

Posted: 7 years ago

#32

Looks like a Mahabharat war for the roles.

Let my favourite play Karan, Arjun, Krishna.

Your favourite can take up Duryodhan, Dushyasan.

I don't have any wish list for prime roles. At least let Uttar Kumar be played by Rajpal Yadav.

Quote

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

807116

Hibernated

Posted: 7 years ago

#33

Originally posted by: springkissed
I love Aamir, but why does he have to touch Mahabharat of all things? The last thing this world needs is for mahabharat to be bollywoodified. It's a religious epic that is very close to peoples' hearts and also includes bhagavat geeta. Just... I'm gonna be so pissed if this is not handled well if he is so hell bent on doing it. It better be done with the utmost respect, sincerity, and not a speck of ignorance on the part of the team.

I don't agree. Most Indians (at least one generation) know mainly two shlokas of Bhagvat Geeta.

One; Yada yada hi dharmasya ... Second; Paritranaya Saadhunam...

Both, not because of any RSS or Hindutva organisation. Only BR Chopra's Mahabharata.

Quote

springkissed

@springkissed

Dazzler

+ 3

Posted: 7 years ago

#34

Originally posted by: flipfl0p

I don't agree. Most Indians (at least one generation) know mainly two shlokas of Bhagvat Geeta.
One; Yada yada hi dharmasya ... Second; Paritranaya Saadhunam...
Both, not because of any RSS or Hindutva organisation. Only BR Chopra's Mahabharata.

And?? Bhagvad geeta is the main takeaway of Mahabharat, it is literally the focal point. Take out the part of Krishna Bhagwan reciting the geeta to Arjun on the battlefield, then you take out the very essence and point of Mahabharat. Can bollywood do justice to Mahabharat as faithfully as BR chopra has done? Can they maintain that purity of intent and purpose and have that recitation of Bhagwad geeta? No. They will run away from the religious aspect of it, and try to take into a wholly different direction by commercializing it. But, this is NOT an epic anyone should commercialize. Either present it with its holy entity intact or don't do it at all. And I could give a rat's ass about RSS or any "hindutva" organization, I say this because this is my culture and I'm very proud of it. I can't see its glory being diminished by misrepresentation in a film like this. Though, I'm jumping horses now as I don't know what Aamir will end up doing. But, my opinion will mostly stay the same because Bhagavad geeta and as an extension of mahabharat itself is very important to me personally.

Edited by springkissed - 7 years ago

Quote

JustMySelf

@JustMySelf

Rocker

Posted: 7 years ago

#35

Originally posted by: springkissed

I totally agree with Ranveer being fit to play Duryodhan. And I also agree about your assessment of Aamir not being fit to play Krishna bhagwan. Krishna bhagwan has the playfulness, but there is always tranquility, forgiveness, largeheartedness, and acceptance in his manner, while Aamir can portray that playfulness, but I think he has that shrewd craftiness more. Which is not a bad thing, but just does not fit with the demeanor and persona of Krishna bhagwan as even while he was confronting various wrong doings, his eyes were always nonjudgmental as he was not looking at it from a human perspective from a larger deity perspective. Idk i'm even explaining it right.

yes i am understanding it perfectly..i agree with u totally ..
i would hate it if they try to give it a cinematic expression
i would prefer the divine treatment..somethings u should never mess with..
much that i love the different interpretations that now days ppl give
for example what krishna udayashankara gave..bt bollywood has the
tendency to glamorize something as completely different from its original
essence..which i find very hard to digest..particularly handling draupadi ..
Krishna n Draupadi are like an empty canvas..that can never be filled even
if u try paint it with the choicest colors..they are so magnanimous that even after
centuries new authors finds a different angle to write abt them..
initially i hated Vyasa ..coz that time i saw him as a grieving father of suta
who after loosing son went ahead to impregnate the two sister in laws..i thought
he just wanted his progeny..bt then i started reading many other books..n each time
every char expands more..as if i can never gauge the depth of each one..
now i bow to Vyasa..the genius ..he who is giving employment to thousands more
even at this age..n he who knew humanly emotions in such intricacies..

Edited by JustMySelf - 7 years ago

Quote

springkissed

@springkissed

Dazzler

+ 3

Posted: 7 years ago

#36

Originally posted by: JustMySelf

yes i am understanding it perfectly..i agree with u totally ..
i would hate it if they try to give it a cinematic expression
i would prefer the divine treatment..somethings u should never mess with..
much that i love the different interpretations that now days ppl give
for example what krishna udayashankara gave..bt bollywood has the
tendency to glamorize something as completely different from its original
essence..which i find very hard to digest..particularly handling draupadi ..
Krishna n Draupadi are like an empty canvas..that can never be filled even
if u try paint it with the choicest colors..they are so magnanimous that even after
centuries new authors finds a different angle to write abt them..
initially i hated Vyasa ..coz that time i saw him as a grieving father of suta
who after loosing son went ahead to impregnate the two sister in laws..i thought
he just wanted his progeny..bt then i started reading many other books..n each time
every char expands more..as if i can never gauge the depth of each one..
now i bow to Vyasa..the genius ..he who is giving employment to thousands more
even at this age..n he who knew humanly emotions in such intricacies..

Yes, I would prefer the divine treatment, too. Something I really liked even about Bahubali 2 was the immense respect they showed to the gods in the beginning and ending sequences of the movie. While I usually prefer not to have any religious elements in movies, but when the topic requires it, I don't think people should shy away from it especially if they feel entitled to make it into a movie. And I agree with you totally about bollywood's tendency to glamorize things, and not just krishna and draupadi, I can see even Krishna and Radha's relationship being glamorized into more than what it was, which was a gopi/bhakt/devotee to krishna into a full fledged romantic love, which was really not what it was about. (Though I know people have different interpretation of their love). But for Mahabharat itself, story wise that was not the focal point of the epic. Though as for Veda Vyasa, I do not know much about him other than the fact that he wrote mahabharat, vedas, and puranas. Have been meaning to read the original mahabharat, but don't know any sanskrit, so I can only rely on english translations. And as for the Vyasa's life and different meanings behind it, I don't know why but I tend to rely on symbolism to explain much of the past story and epics. Even in mahabharat, ramayan, puranas, there are sometimes literal events happening that are not realistic per-say, but I end up seeing them as being symbolic for something else as each and every story has something deeper to tell and to teach, you just have to decode the meaning from the super hard sanskrit slokas which carry many interpretations. But then I'm not even a novice in understanding any of this hard stuff. I have to start right from the basic which is the bhagavad geeta and read it and understand it from front to back, learn some sankrit, and then try going further into reading the epics, vedas, etc. Though it is a pure shame that our society does not know sanskrit as it once did, it's shame that all that literature and knowledge is not being actively read by common public. There is so much to learn from it.

Edited by springkissed - 7 years ago

Quote

JustMySelf

@JustMySelf

Rocker

Posted: 7 years ago

#37

^^^ yes ur so much resonating with me..
Radha n Krishna ppl try see as conjugal ..
which is so wrong..
hardly people understands that Narada n Radha are
transcendental devotees whom mere mortals like us can never
mirror however much we try..
even i hear ppl telling Krishna stole cloths of Gopis..
it is so damn irritating to hear such nonsensical interpretations ..
when He is the creator He is the nurturer what nakedness is left
for Him to see or enjoy?the stealing of cloths were only symbolical
representation that bare me ur soul as the body is just the container
which u do not need to drape n hide from His Divine eyes..

hey try this it has the sanskrit slokas with the meanings too ..

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bhagavadgita.gallery&hl=en

sorry i pasted the hindi by mistake so edited n posted the eng link

Edited by JustMySelf - 7 years ago

Quote

springkissed

@springkissed

Dazzler

+ 3

Posted: 7 years ago

#38

Originally posted by: JustMySelf
^^^ yes ur so much resonating with me..
Radha n Krishna ppl try see as conjugal ..
which is so wrong..
hardly people understands that Narada n Radha are
transcendental devotees whom mere mortals like us can never
mirror however much we try..
even i hear ppl telling Krishna stole cloths of Gopis..
it is so damn irritating to hear such nonsensical interpretations ..
when He is the creator He is the nurturer what nakedness is left
for Him to see or enjoy?the stealing of cloths were only symbolical
representation that bare me ur soul as the body is just the container
which u do not need to drape n hide from His Divine eyes..

hey try this it has the sanskrit slokas with the meanings too ..

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bhagavadgita.gallery&hl=en

sorry i pasted the hindi by mistake so edited n posted the eng link

Wow, finally found someone outside of my near surrounding who agrees with me about the interpretation of Krishna and Radha's relationship. And I like that you compared Radha to Narada, she was also comparable to shabari and narsinh mehta, the two devotees of Krishna that come from the top of my mind whose stories I have often heard. I even tried explaining the pure devotee/supreme soul relationship of radha and krishna to my friends one time but they were not convinced. I think this radha/krishna romantic relationship is too rooted in the popular indian culture now and the people that believe it actually haven't bothered reading the actual sanskrit slokas that describe their relationship and the pure spiritual love and have just ran away with their superficial understanding into creating Radha/Krishna mandirs all over India, etc. It is SO irritating and ridiculous when they try to portray Krishna as some girl-crazy young boy, who was "naughty" with gopis. It was literally never supposed to be taken in that manner, even in his most playful form, he was the supreme soul and they were the devotees. And as you said, a lot of was never literal and pure symbolism, It even all goes so deep spiritually that it goes over my own head at times and is hard to explain.

Thanks for that link btw, will definitely download the app and use it. 😳

Edited by springkissed - 7 years ago