Posted:
Originally posted by: godisone
I think it's really unfair how people make such a big deal with comparisons of the old and new Ramayan when some people say the old one was better or whatever, but in this thread, there are two pages already with people saying Ankit Arora is better than Sunil Lahri, and are there fights or aguments? No. But if someone makes a thread saying Sunil Lahri is better than Ankit Arora, in the first page itself there will be heated arguments already going on.
..............So I have just one question I want answered. Why is it so unfair to say Sunil Lahri was better than Ankit Arora, or Deepika was better than Debina, or Arun Govil better than Gurmeet, when it is perfectly alright to say this new cast is better than the old? Everyone has already agreed not to bring in the old ramayan into discussions. Fine. I agree to that, but when this new Ramayan is being cast up as better than the old, why must the old Ramayan fans sit still and not say anything? Is this called fairness? Why isn't this topic being locked on the claim that comparisons between old and new Ramayan are not allowed, as they cause arguments?
Please read my post which I wrote in reply to the posts of viri_7 and radhika_cute. They called Ankit better than the Laxman of old Ramayan. Nothing wrong as such, because opinions are fine. But still I replied that comparisons should not be made. Personally, I do not find comparisons bad. But, since it always results into fights, therefore, I am saying that comparisons should be avoided.
If it is wrong to call old casts better than new ones, then it is also wrong to call new casts better than old ones. That is why, I replied not to make comparisons.
