Originally posted by: flipfl0p
What do you mean, "even though it has an outsider"? I am (or any audience) not biased towards or against insider or outsider. We treat both the same. If it is a good product, we would watch it from any. It is the filmmakers who are biased and audience are expected to componsate for their bias. (Film maker is going to give better product with insider only. To compensate it, you pay money for a bad product of outsider). That is a great logic.
Varun is not a star kid. Till he was launched by KJo, janta did not know him. But as he was an industry kid, he got connections. Bhaaghi or ABCD, Tiger and Varun gave them after they got established. (I watched Tiger much later after his debut. But he kept getting movies till aam janta like me turned to him). People became familiar with their name in some hit movies. Then they started to go to movies, because of their name. But it (familiarity) takes time. Till then, others cannot sustain. When I say better movies, I did not mean, logical ones. In fact, October was not hit. I am speaking about Masala films which have flow (not some random scenes) and better packaging (commercial elements like foot tapping songs).
How is taking an better outsider (I am not saying Vidyut, I found him expressionless) over Armaan Jain or cutting a better trailer or a story with a plot (not just a bunch of action and sleazy scenes) is a sacrifice for production companies?
127