Adipurush - Movie Reviews & Box Office - Page 52

Originally posted by: OriginalJuhi_04

Even Ramanand Sagar was not entirely right as it was taken from Tulsidas version who according to some wrote a toned version during Mughals to make ot readable for all religions. Valmiki version was only right. There was also a case on Sagar Arts regarding their Ramayan show which ran for 10 years. Aldo during lockdown we were shown highly edited version of the serial. Several scenes were cut. Many are pointing to Kriti dressing sense as Sita when she is at least wearing blouse which real Sita did not. Ramanand Sagar too knew that and spoke about it in news during lockdown and he said that he could not show Sita without blouse due to people 's reaction. Today I read articles that Ramanand Sagar's Ramayan was on stay for 2 years just because Sita was given sleeveless blouse earlier so they had to change the costume. I don't understand why people can't accept the reality of dressing during that time instead of linking it with morality code which was imposed by British. I hope this news is spread and makes people open minded instead of moral policing. They don't understand that blouse did not even existed till Britishers came. But BR Chopra's Ramayan which had Smriti Irani has Sita had her in sleeveless blouse. So Kriti's look was appropriate as Sita.

Ramayan happened in Tretha Yug. After which came the Dwapar Yug and then came the current Kali Yug. One yuh is roughly around 4,500,000 years. Who are we to tell what they wore and what they did not? Lol.

Btw, BRChopra made Ramayan? That too with Smriti Irani? That too without blouse?

Oh boy it exists. I just googled and found this. I had no idea BRC made Ramayan too.😳🫣

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramayan_(2002_TV_series)

Originally posted by: 1t1svat1t1s

Ramayan happened in Tretha Yug. After which came the Dwapar Yug and then came the current Kali Yug. One yuh is roughly around 4,500,000 years. Who are we to tell what they wore and what they did not? Lol.

Btw, BRChopra made Ramayan? That too with Smriti Irani? That too without blouse?

Oh boy it exists. I just googled and found this. I had no idea BRC made Ramayan too.😳🫣

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramayan_(2002_TV_series)

Exactly. Objecting to Sita's blouse proved that they got affected by morality code of British and Mughals. Aise to 100-200 saal baad people will demand to see Sita in full-sleeved blouses with face covering ghunghat. Putting a stay of 2 years for such a small issue was too much. I wonder who was controlling DD channel then.

Not without blouse but sleeveless blouse. I watched few scenes of BR Chopra Ramayan. During that time some other channel ran repeat telecast of Ramanand Sagar Ramayan. So I guess we watched both a little for timepass. For years I was confused between two. Since I was a kid then I found everyone looking similar. I realised years later that the other Ramayan we watched was of BR Chopra with Smriti Irani as Sita.

https://youtu.be/eGuuA2yhxG4

How is the movie doing , collection wise ?

Is it a hit? Average? Flop ?

Originally posted by: atominis

No. He had joined Congress earlier.

Has he shifted to BJP now?

He was always known to be Congressi. In 80s he joined INC

In the 80s, for a brief period, he supported the Congress & campaigned against VP Singh for Sunil Shastri in the (then) Allahabad Lok Sabha by-election after Amitabh Bachchan resigned that seat. But he has been dormant since & joined the BJP in 2021

In his YouTube video channel, he focuses a lot on faith, and has weighed in on the Ayodhya mandir movement

Originally posted by: atominis

Joke of the century! So did BJP leaders approve and promote a foreign conspiracy against Hinduism?

Censor Board cleared a foreign conspiracy against Hinduism?

Yeah! The BJP is NOT a Hindu party, if one reads their constitution, & also follows the statement of Nadda. Their activities, particularly in the last 4 years, have been pretty anti-Hindu, from support to suppression of Hindu festivals (Nadda's wife is one of the main figures behind the anti-fireworks campaigns before Diwali) to the various triptikaran schemes of the BJP govt

Problem w/ the current BJP is that they've become too narcissistic and too obsessed w/ being liked by anti-Hindu people, particularly in Bollywood. Which is why they came out swinging in support of what is easily the worst "Ramayan" ever conceived

Originally posted by: pathaka

I completely agree with this being a badly made film that fails to bring the essence of Ramayana out in all its glory

But I’m not in support of the toxic hate the makers get (to the extent where people say they should be banned from working , the film should be banned, they should be jailed, they are terrorists, they should be mobbed )

Religious sentiments getting hurt is not an excuse to pass these kinds of threats or such vitriol against people ..they made a bad film that’s it ….they didn’t go massacre innocent lives for the kind of hate they are receiving

Most people agreed this isn’t a good depiction of the Ramayana so why take it so personally that ur religion was insulted ?

I’m a practicing Hindu and I chant hanuman chalisa regularly …my religion or faith isn’t so weak that I get offended by some randos wierd interpretation of it …that weird interpretation can also exist along with my faith and it’s not “threatening it” …
And I am definitely not saying nonsense against someone just coz I didn’t agree with their views

So here's a question: what do you think would have been the reaction had it been a movie about Mohammed - as in the founder of islam? Just assuming, just for a moment, that they would have dared make it, do you think that such a movie would have been even remotely accepted as Adipurush has been?

Originally posted by: atominis

To make it palatable to young audience they should also add laser, missile, X ray vision etc and show Ramayan and Mahabharat in same way as X Men.

Creative liberty zindabad.

Also show explicit intimate scenes between married couples and hope it will mint lot of money at BO.

Adipurush crashing is propaganda by liberandu and Jihadist anti national forces.

Who exactly is the audience when you have the epics shown in a style that resembles movies out of Marvel and other comic superhero genres?

Young audiences throughout the last 5 decades have completely enjoyed animated Ramayans, which used to be frequently made. If they're hooked on Marvel comic superheroes today, they'd likely not be the viewership for any Ramayan

Originally posted by: Briaahna

😆https://twitter.com/nishitshawhere/status/1670859635245318147?s=46&t=vevCm3I0SGjUvmq-Bjkadg

This was a case of the production's loose use of "Bharat" - a term that was not used then to describe the subcontinental extent of those who followed Vedic & Puranic dharm - coming back to bite them in the hiney

The correct term to have used to describe Janakpur would have been as a part of either "Aryavarta" or "Jamboodweep": the former described the Indian subcontinent, and the latter the entire Hindu realm from the Caspian Sea to IndoChina. It's true that Nepal didn't exist then, but neither did Bharat - a term that only took hold in the Dwapar Yuga. (Although I've heard Sai Deepak theorize that the "Bharat" that India is named after is Manu, the founder of Ayodhya, rather than the son of Raja Dushyant & Shakuntala). By inserting Bharat in, Om Raut & his crew managed to piss off Nepal, and even now, Kathmandu mayor has decided to ban the movie

I normally don't think much of Nepal's post royal secular & communist settings, particularly their affiliation w/ Beijing, but I fully congratulate Nepal for making the right call wrt this horrendous movie

Originally posted by: LiveDaemon

So here's a question: what do you think would have been the reaction had it been a movie about Mohammed - as in the founder of islam? Just assuming, just for a moment, that they would have dared make it, do you think that such a movie would have been even remotely accepted as Adipurush has been?

we can make up hypothetical situations all u want and assume whatever . There is no concrete answer to this…and it surely does not justify getting heavily personal and declaring the makers as public enemy no 1 …

They made a film which was an interpretation of a sacred text yes, but it is a story none the less and is open to adaptation…don’t agree with it and trash it that’s fine ….they don’t deserve this kind of personalised venom that’s for sure …

How did films like Kashmir files and Kerla story become such big hits then If the alternative narrative u have here about “oh but the other religion would have not spared a bad depiction of their beliefs” was true?

Clearly those films didn’t show a specific religion in positive light but still went on to be accepted by the masses right?

This isn’t some contest about “who gets more offended at cinematic depictions of their religious beliefs” that we are trying to win here

Originally posted by: LiveDaemon

So here's a question: what do you think would have been the reaction had it been a movie about Mohammed - as in the founder of islam? Just assuming, just for a moment, that they would have dared make it, do you think that such a movie would have been even remotely accepted as Adipurush has been?