Originally posted by: Dexterphile
Thats your definition. Mine is different. I find Salman worse than Hrithik when it comes to acting, which is saying a lot. But despite his weakness, he has survived almost 25 years as an "actor". If thats not a star, Idk what is. SRK, Aamir, Salman, Bacchan Sr. are all stars. Their acting potential can be debated, their box office success and failures can vary. But their stardom remains the same. If you can sustain your fan following for all these years, then you definitely have a hold over your audience. That equates to stardom for me.
I agree with everything you said but if you notice, I never denied that he is a star. I was merely commenting on how he cant be called the number one star. Although I should have said that Rajnikanth is the true definition of the number one star, or rather a superstar because he has the crappiest movies ever and by crap, I mean CRAP but dear lord, they somehow become superhits and blockbusters. When Salman Khan's crappy movies were coming out before he made his comeback, even Katrina couldnt prevent his movie from flopping. All his movies were not only flopping big time but also get poor openings, which is not indicative of stardom (e.g Katrina Kaif, every movie of hers gets thunderous openings, Rajni does, Amir does). He is just a temporary star.
And talking about fans, of course they wont let go of their celeb. We have plenty of fanbots of different stars who wont let go of their favourites, no matter how unsuccessful they are. *cough*Sonam*cough*. Salman is a star no doubt, but I doubt he is worthy of the number one position.
comment:
p_commentcount