Hai Jawani Toh Ishq Hona Hai struggles at the box office

https://www.boxofficeindia.com/report-details.php?articleid=9803

Generally, I skip BOI but this time, I took a look and the comparison with Sacnilk again says a lot (even though only marginally with these two movies):

Hai Jawani seemingly got over reported and Bandar underreported... also, both movies have not only a quite limited screen-presence but also hardly an interested audience... multiplexes want to make the most out of Western movies and certain heavily supported Indian ones... there is no interest to 'support' movies like Hai Jawani and even less a thought provoking movie like Bandar (that's why so many discuss-worthy movies land on Netflix and Amazon)... Also the directors/writers are valued if they are 'worth' of additional hyping promotion (which neither Dhawan nor Kashyap obviously are).

I very well know that 'no business is like showbusiness' but nevertheless it is interesting that the sadistic violence imagined in Obsession is far more in demand than the realistic sadistic violence in Bandar... and the psychotic violence in Animal got far more hype than the far lesser but more realistic one out of helplessness and frustration in Chand Mera Dil...

Violence does exist... one hasn't to make a movie about Pakistani crime and terror gangs to display it... a movie like Kartavya shows crime and terror close at home... but would never had made an impact in theatres... right?

Originally posted by: Clochette

Generally, I skip BOI but this time, I took a look and the comparison with Sacnilk again says a lot (even though only marginally with these two movies):

Hai Jawani seemingly got over reported and Bandar underreported... also, both movies have not only a quite limited screen-presence but also hardly an interested audience... multiplexes want to make the most out of Western movies and certain heavily supported Indian ones... there is no interest to 'support' movies like Hai Jawani and even less a thought provoking movie like Bandar (that's why so many discuss-worthy movies land on Netflix and Amazon)... Also the directors/writers are valued if they are 'worth' of additional hyping promotion (which neither Dhawan nor Kashyap obviously are).

I very well know that 'no business is like showbusiness' but nevertheless it is interesting that the sadistic violence imagined in Obsession is far more in demand than the realistic sadistic violence in Bandar... and the psychotic violence in Animal got far more hype than the far lesser but more realistic one out of helplessness and frustration in Chand Mera Dil...

Violence does exist... one hasn't to make a movie about Pakistani crime and terror gangs to display it... a movie like Kartavya shows crime and terror close at home... but would never had made an impact in theatres... right?

I think you're giving far too much importance to external factors and not enough to audience choice.

If multiplexes, distributors and reporting agencies were the decisive factors, every heavily promoted film would be a blockbuster and every niche film would fail. Reality is far more complicated. Many small films have broken out purely on word of mouth, while numerous star-driven, aggressively marketed films have collapsed despite massive support.

The comparison between Animal, Bandar and Chand Mera Dil is also misleading. Audiences did not flock to Animal simply because it contained violence. They came for the scale, performances, music, drama and entertainment value. Violence was just one element of the package. If realistic violence alone attracted viewers, then every gritty social drama would be a box-office success.

Likewise, the theatrical failure of a film does not automatically make it more intelligent, relevant or courageous than a successful one. Sometimes a film simply fails to connect with enough people. That's true for mainstream cinema and arthouse cinema alike.

As for Kartavya, whether it would have worked in theatres depends less on the subject matter and more on the execution. Audiences have repeatedly embraced films dealing with uncomfortable realities when those films managed to engage them emotionally. The issue isn't that viewers reject serious themes; it's that they reject films that don't compel them to buy a ticket.

It's your view and I won't contradict it... yes, connecting to a movie - also to me - is a very important thing (may it be story, subject, performance, visuals etc.).

However, when it comes to emotions... well, they are the easiest to manipulate (imo)... interestingly, one won't get posts here which cite the regularly paid accounts for movies like Bandar

One minute of silence for anyone who would watch tatti like Hai Jawani in the theaters.

One reviewer said this movie would've earned more if they'd given free tickets and charged money for leaving the hall mid cinema. That pretty much sums it up. No one can tolerate such movies for more than 15 minutes in the theaters. How do such movies even get a theatrical release ?

Yet unappreciated gems like Krishnavataram doesn't get enough screens or any hypes, thanks to bollywood screen monopoly. This whole system needs to get destroyed if we ever hope to get good movies.

Krishnavataram is a well supported devotional movie distributed by AA Films and n o t a Mainstream/commercial movie...so, it would not be part of the so-called 'Bollywood' industry (at least not imo). Honestly, I would not compare it to an superficially entertaining movie which rehashes a stale formula.

Originally posted by: MannMeinRadha

One minute of silence for anyone who would watch tatti like Hai Jawani in the theaters.

One reviewer said this movie would've earned more if they'd given free tickets and charged money for leaving the hall mid cinema. That pretty much sums it up. No one can tolerate such movies for more than 15 minutes in the theaters. How do such movies even get a theatrical release ?

Yet unappreciated gems like Krishnavataram doesn't get enough screens or any hypes, thanks to bollywood screen monopoly. This whole system needs to get destroyed if we ever hope to get good movies.

If Hai Jawani is really as bad as you say, the box office is already delivering the verdict. No need to insult the people who chose to watch it cinema is subjective, and what feels unbearable to one viewer might work for another.

As for Krishnavataram, every fanbase claims their favorite film is an "unappreciated gem" held back by some industry conspiracy. The truth is that screens usually follow demand. If a film generates enough buzz and audience interest, exhibitors are quick to increase shows because that's where the money is.

The bigger issue isn't Bollywood monopoly versus everyone else. Plenty of films from different industries have succeeded nationwide when they genuinely connected with audiences. Good films deserve support, but blaming every underperforming movie on screen allocation oversimplifies a much more complex reality.

Originally posted by: Elvis12

If Hai Jawani is really as bad as you say, the box office is already delivering the verdict. No need to insult the people who chose to watch it cinema is subjective, and what feels unbearable to one viewer might work for another.

As for Krishnavataram, every fanbase claims their favorite film is an "unappreciated gem" held back by some industry conspiracy. The truth is that screens usually follow demand. If a film generates enough buzz and audience interest, exhibitors are quick to increase shows because that's where the money is.

The bigger issue isn't Bollywood monopoly versus everyone else. Plenty of films from different industries have succeeded nationwide when they genuinely connected with audiences. Good films deserve support, but blaming every underperforming movie on screen allocation oversimplifies a much more complex reality.

You're the one insulting public by calling me out you know? Because what I'm saying is purely based on public reactions and their mandate and yes that includes those who have watched the film with their hard earned money and came out regretting it vocally and profusely. I've not watched the film myself nor do I have any intention of watching it. So I think it's absolutely ironic that you're basically looking down on the opinion of those who have watched the movie. So far I couldn't find a single movie goer who came out of the hall and said they enjoyed it.

Rest of your opinion is also only partially true and you know it as well. Yes it depends on common movie goers connecting with a movie which can then explode in the theaters but that is also subjective to many other factors like whether there was any other big movies simultaneously releasing as they immediately take up most the screens initially and even if later they underperform, by then the small movies are already buried under dust and removed from the halls. Also, for audience to connect with a movie it needs a minimum sizeable release for it to have even and fair playing field. I took example of Krishnavataram because I saw many many people showing interest in watching the movie across various platforms yet they couldn't do so as there were no shows at all in their towns or cities even states ! And I'm quite sure it's not the only movie to suffer because of lack of screens. If interested people couldn't even see the movie , how will they connect with it or how will they spread the word?? Through imagination?

So pretending screen allocation is not part of the problem is also very much over simplification of the discussion.

Originally posted by: MannMeinRadha

You're the one insulting public by calling me out you know? Because what I'm saying is purely based on public reactions and their mandate and yes that includes those who have watched the film with their hard earned money and came out regretting it vocally and profusely. I've not watched the film myself nor do I have any intention of watching it. So I think it's absolutely ironic that you're basically looking down on the opinion of those who have watched the movie. So far I couldn't find a single movie goer who came out of the hall and said they enjoyed it.

Rest of your opinion is also only partially true and you know it as well. Yes it depends on common movie goers connecting with a movie which can then explode in the theaters but that is also subjective to many other factors like whether there was any other big movies simultaneously releasing as they immediately take up most the screens initially and even if later they underperform, by then the small movies are already buried under dust and removed from the halls. Also, for audience to connect with a movie it needs a minimum sizeable release for it to have even and fair playing field. I took example of Krishnavataram because I saw many many people showing interest in watching the movie across various platforms yet they couldn't do so as there were no shows at all in their towns or cities even states ! And I'm quite sure it's not the only movie to suffer because of lack of screens. If interested people couldn't even see the movie , how will they connect with it or how will they spread the word?? Through imagination?

So pretending screen allocation is not part of the problem is also very much over simplification of the discussion.

The irony here is that you're accusing me of looking down on moviegoers while simultaneously forming a rock-solid opinion about a film you've openly admitted you haven't watched.I have seen the film and it was a time pass film.

"Everyone I saw hated it" isn't the same thing as "everyone hated it." If online reactions were a perfect reflection of reality, half the biggest blockbusters of the last decade would've been disasters.

As for screen allocation, you're arguing against a point I never made. I didn't say it doesn't matter. I said it's not a magic explanation for every film that underperforms. The industry isn't a charity; exhibitors don't wake up every morning thinking, "How can we suppress this potential masterpiece today?" They allocate screens based on what they believe will sell tickets.

And that's where your argument gets circular. If Krishnavataram had huge demand, distributors should have done better. Fair point. But if the demand was truly as massive as social media made it appear, where are the numbers proving it? Every fanbase thinks its favorite film was robbed. Sometimes that's true. Sometimes the online bubble is simply much louder than the real audience.

The fact is that screen count, marketing, competition, word of mouth and audience interest all matter. What I find amusing is that you're criticizing me for oversimplifying the issue while explaining everything through a single lens yourself.

Cinema history is filled with films that had limited screens and still broke through. It's also filled with films whose fans spent years blaming everyone except the audience's lack of interest.