Is the Indian movie industry overrated? - Page 2

Originally posted by: King-Anu

Lets look at this week's holly box office. lol.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/10/showbiz/box-office-posession-ew/index.html

Chances are, you weren't at the movies this weekend. Not a single film at the box office reached $10 million. Call it the curse of "The Oogieloves." The Top 12 films grossed a depressingly low $51.9 million ' the worst Top 12 total since Sept. 5-7, 2008, when Nicolas Cage flop Bangkok Dangerous led the chart with $7.7 million and the Top 12 films earned $50.3 million.

Summer at holly

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/02/summer-box-office-2012_n_1850332.html

LOS ANGELES -- Studio executives expected their biggest summer ever this year as they loaded their lineup with huge action movies and superhero franchises.What they got were two colossal blockbusters, a handful of backup hits and plenty of duds that just didn't deliver, resulting in what may prove the lowest summer movie attendance in 20 years.

I am only saying that each industry should be rated on its audience, resources and environment. The masses in India probably go to cinema to watch senseless comedies or to see their favorite stars rather than sophisticated movies. Thats is the demand.

If you see from that point of view bolly is not doing bad. It has given bol bachan, agneepath, housefull, ek tha tiger, rowdy. And there are always few hits and more flops at any specific time. Thats not a surprise.

Originally posted by: Heart

And Hollywood has given pretty massive blockbusters this summer like Madagascar, DKR (based on comics), Avengers (based on comics), Amazing Spiderman (based on comics), Bourne Legacy (based on books), Hunger Games (based on books) and the hit count of Holly is much better than Bollywood movies.

And they say Bollywood is not original. Madagascar had the only original characters and script.

Also hit or flop does not constitute good or bad movies. Take for example both Gangs of Wasseypur part 2 and Shirin or Farhad Ki Nikal padi. Both movies had original characters, scripts, were well made and different from the usual fare. Bollywood has had movies like The Dirty Picture, Kahaani, Paan Singh Tomar, Gangs of Wasseypur which are well made and radically different. People don't always give Bollywood credit for things it does right.

As for movies like Ek Tha Tiger, Bol Bacchan and other mindless sort of flicks that become hits. It is what the audience demands. Throughout time the Indian audience has been escapist seeking masala entertainers rather than quality cinema. Most Hollywood blockbusters are not much different. They have superior technology and SFX, but script, acting, etc are not that special - consider Transformers, Indiana Jones, Twilight.

In the end we have to admit, when a business identifies its target market, caters to it and is highly profitable - that business is a good business. It is not overrated, it is making exactly what it deserves for its efforts. Bollywood masala entertainers do just that. They are not trying to be passed on as quality cinema, the point is just to entertain and they do it magnificently.

There is a recent hollywood action movie called Expendables 2. It has a expendable star cast with a combine age of 600 years led by Chuck Norris. Some of the cast members have expandable waist circumference as well.

Bollywood is not overrated. It is hardly considered an acclaimed film industry around the world. In fact, most people around the world won't even recognize Bollywood actors or the movies.

But I guess that's true for most film industries.

Yes, There is no doubt about the fact that majority of the Hindi movies now a days are copies- either of Hollywood films or of other Indian movies from different regions. Like you said , there do exist exceptions as directors like Anurag Kashyap , Prakash Jha ,Sudhir Mishra give us new works each time they have somethign to present.