Why Vidyut Jamwal failed but not Tiger?

If audience just wants to see a massy action hero, isn't Vidyut a better option than Tiger? He looks better, he can act, he can talk properly, deliver his dialogues without making the audience cringe, his masculine body suits with his face and he also has a personality. His action is much more than just flying kicks. He's better trained in martial arts.

Then why audience went to watch Baaghi but not Commando? Junglee became a Blockbuster on television, but why it failed at Box office? I know nepotism and all is a factor. Bollywood didn't give him enough projects. But audience too never accepted him.

Forgot Nepotism?

the way industry shall look at tiger they wouldn't look at Vidyut anyway, still he has managed to do some decent action stuff and has a niche following for himself which i think is good for an outsider without any strong backing. getting films as solo action leads is not less than an achievement in these tough times of competition

My thoughts exactly. Vidyut is a more wholesome package than Tiger, be it physicality wise or looks wise.

I guess it's case of pure faulty luck and slight nepotism.

I can only imagine the kind of creativity, Vidyut's presence would have brought, if he was cast instead of Tiger.

Tiger is a sasti copy and is ultimately getting overshadowed by Hrithik. He got pretty much sidelined in most of the praise tweets for the teaser. Vidyut might have been able to hold his own place

Tiger hit the jackpot with Baaghi series and having a successful producer like Sajid backing him up in his earlier days also helped.

Coz of Sajid Nadiadwala.

nepotism and Sajid N

Vidyut is better looking and a better actor

Tiger doesn't bring in any variety. He is same everywhere.

Firstly, I think it's because of the film choices. Tiger showed his talent in good entertaining films like Heropanti and Baaghi, while Vidyut hasn't been in any good film worth mention.

Secondly, Tiger has amazing screen presence and aura alongside an X-factor, which Vidyut lacks.

Thirdly, Tiger has better masculine voice and dialogues delivery.

Finally, Tiger is a much better dancer

Originally posted by: heartbleed

Firstly, I think it's because of the film choices. Tiger showed his talent in good entertaining films like Heropanti and Baaghi, while Vidyut hasn't been in any good film worth mention.

Secondly, Tiger has amazing screen presence and aura alongside an X-factor, which Vidyut lacks.

Thirdly, Tiger has better masculine voice and dialogues delivery.

Finally, Tiger is a much better dancer

🤣Your profile picture goes with your comment.

Backing of Nadiadwala and nepotism. Baaghi would have been the same hit with Vidyut. It wasn't a hit because of Tiger's GREAT screen presence or something 😆