Big Budget, Big Bombs

Just in time for the festival of light (Diwali) last month, Indians were treated to the much awaited, big-budget film of the year Blue. But not many moviegoers were too happy. The multi-million film, which starred Bollywood's highest paid actor Akshay Kumar, with A-list stars Sanjay Dutt, Lara Dutta and Katrina Kaif, bombed at the box office. It also didn't help that it was Oscar-winner AR Rahman's music with special participation of singer Kylie Minogue or the film was shot in the Bahamas using the expertise of some of the best underwater technicians from Bollywood and Hollywood. The problem? One movie critic called it a "rubbish served on a silver plate".

The producer Shree Ashtavinayak's Cine Vision Ltd, which gave India big hits like Jab We Met, Bhagambhag, Golmaal and Golmaal Returns was expecting Blue could surpass all their blockbuster hits but it just didn't fly.

Even Akshay, who wouldn't be called the King of Bollywood today if not for a string of box office hits, could not save Blue from sinking.

It turned out that Indian moviegoers still look for good acting and story. One critic noted that Akshay's performance was so-so and Sanjay Dutt looked uninterested. "The only delight in the film was Lara Dutta" while Katrina Kaif went unnoticed.

The production of Blue was a big gamble. The producers were inspired that even if recession has hit Bollywood, there were recent big-ticket releases.

As Hindi films' expert Derek Bose wrote "the doomsday evangelists had predicted blood on the streets—that major production houses would shut shop, movies would remain in the cans for want of distributors, that several big-budget productions were being put on hold, star prices had shot through the roof as too much of dumb money was chasing very little talent, hundreds of artistes and technicians would be rendered jobless... The writing on the wall was loud and clear."

The doomsday never happened. Last year, Shah Rukh Khan's Rab De Bana Di Jodi and Aamir Khan's Ghajini won big-time in ticket sales. Almost miraculously the industry, which was finding it hard to match its 71.5 billion rupees (US$1.37 billion) turnover last year, generated over 80 billion ($1.55 billion) from the box office and still counting.

The box office hits, according to Bose, told a "universal story" that appealed to the global audience.

In Bollywood, "nobody has any qualms about looking westwards for inspiration, even as some might end up with blatant copy-paste jobs of tried-and-tested Hollywood hits". Some Indian filmmakers "habitually turn to Quentin Tarantino's famous words for validation: 'I have stolen from every film I have watched!'"

Speaking of familiarity, Bollywood sequels have, to some extent, sustain ticket sales. But as another film critic Devraj Singh Kalsi wrote: old wine in a new bottle doesn't work for Bollywood sequels.
He said, "the audience is fairly intelligent and observant enough these days to make a distinction."

Though we are quite used to remakes and adaptations in Bollywood for several decades, the idea of making sequels hasn't become a clich?.

Sequels seem to have worked particularly well in comedy or action genre. Hrithik Roshan's Dhoom got a sequel which was a similarly zooming success. Hera Pheri, a laugh riot, had India chuckling while watching its sequel titled Phir Hera Pheri. Golmaal had it in splits. Golmaal Returns also had the producers laughing all the way to the bank. Koi Mil Gaya was a sensation. Kkrish climbed colossal heights of success. Sarkar may not have been a typical blockbuster but the storyline had further potential to spin yet another engrossing Sarkar Raaj.

The concept of making a sequel sounds attractive primarily because of commercial viability though that is not the sole reason. A lot of groundwork is already done, which results in cuts in costs and easier marketability across the world. These add-on benefits make the prospect more lucrative whereas exploring a fresh theme with a new ensemble of stars compounds the risks involved. So, when the first one clicks at the marquee, the production house toys with the idea of offering a sequel. Though there is no guarantee that the sequel will deliver rich dividends like its predecessor did, expectations are pitched high and it is easier to sell the film at a much higher price even if it is not hyped prior to release. The previous fare did whet the appetite to such an extent that the audience would love a delectable smorgasbord another time.

Hence, the curiosity value is already several notches up. This presumption is not incongruous. Film producers can ride piggyback on that. A good initial opening is ensured and sales can pick up over the weekend, critic Kalsi wrote.

As familiarity runs high, it appears that a sequel is easy to make. On the contrary, making a successful one is quite difficult. Not much from the technical point of view but surely from the aspect of content. If, on one side, there are plus points galore as enumerated above, the flip side offers tough challenges for the creative team.

If one sticks to the style and content of the previous film, then it gets repetitive and hence boring. It's a difficult tightrope walk as the freshness has to be preserved and the actors need to do things differently that entertain and add punch.