Originally posted by: No2Pencil
I pretty much agree with all of the points. Educating and making it palatable for the younger generation can be tricky but its not undoable and that's where the director's creativity/imagination shines, and seems like it became a missed opportunity for the director. How awesome it would have been if they could made it in 2 or 3 separate movies. It is not just a storyline but there is lot of symbolism/life lesson to take it with - if they did it in a part wise, showed more depth to it - every person would have enjoyed regardless of age, or religion.
Cast was misfit for sure. In Ramayna, Ram is depicted as a gentle with soft look and has such an aura that with his mere look people start to get teary-eyed with the wholesomeness that they felt. Prabhas IS handsome, however with the macho man look, it just took away Ram's essence. With Sita ji too, I find Kirti to be bit more on a harsher side - probably someone like Alia would have been a better cast since she has this innocence to her face. Ravaan - idk, I haven't seen the movie so I have no opinion it. Just to put it for you, even though Ravaan is considered to be villain and was from a Rakhasa clan - he is depicted in Ramayna as a highly sophisticated, highly intellectual with the knowledge of all scriptures and highly devoted person but his vices which is represented as his heads took him to his downfall.
Wow that was insightful for all. So basically Google has Adipurush linked with Vishnu instead.
Now that you explained the characteristics of Rama, then yes I see why Prabhas was a wrong choice. Who could ideally have played his character do you think?
Suggestions / Comments
Mahadev And Sons
Anupamaa
Sports
