Why didn't the movie ashoka work??

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

JhansiKiRani

@Mrignaini

Dazzler

+ 4

Posted: 11 years ago

#51

I like SRK but in this enactment, just no.. hammed it up with his nostril flaring and couldn't pull off the period garb.
Also W*F were those weird jokes about drink driving and the whole side 'comedy' track with Johnny Lever, just ruined the pace of the movie.
Nothing memorable about the performances but it marked the beginning of Kareena's acting prowess- her last scene where she confronts Ashok, nicely done.

Edited by AllonsyGeronimo - 11 years ago

Quote

.Rohit

@.Rohit

Rocker

Posted: 11 years ago

#52

I have Only seen songs of this movie ... Not surprised at all it didn't work .

Edited by _Rohit_ - 11 years ago

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

566912

Hibernated

Posted: 11 years ago

#53

Because it was a boring watch. SRK doesn't suit at all as Asoka. And Kareena.. 🤢 pukeworthy performance as always.

Casting, acting, overall picturization, story flow, representation of Samrat Asoka, everything sucked really.

Quote

Kulfii.

@Kulfii.

Dazzler

Posted: 11 years ago

#54

Originally posted by: Targaryen-gal

I think srk also foughg the wars with swords and horses. 😕 😕

What I mean is some are saying that Hitler was puny too & i wanted to convey that in Hitler's time modern war machinery was present but in Ashoka's time war was more about physical power & SRK was misfit in the role of such a powerful king😆

Quote

Anu.nd.Me

@Anu.nd.Me

Navigator

Posted: 11 years ago

#55

Cuz SRK suits only in "stary" roles..😃

Quote

642126

Hibernated

Posted: 11 years ago

#56

Originally posted by: Targaryen-gal

I dont think there are much discriptions on what ashok actually looked like. Srk looked fine to me. Also who said puny guys could not be emperors. Hitler was puny.
I agree that he tend to overact at times but during the anti hero scenes, he was awesome!
What do you mean by 'this is not what ashok was famous for'??

You think he was awesome but many do not.

Please understand that when a historical figure is taken up, mostly audience goes to watch for that figure and not the stars alone. They rather want to see how the star fits in. Here SRK failed.

You are wrong in comparing with Hitler. He used machines! He was not from ancient era.

Ashoka was in an era of alpha males! The weapons, armour and even helmets used back then weighed several kgs! Does SRK even look like someone who could carry those weapons? No.

People have a set image in mind thanks to history accounts, sketches in books, textbooks, comics. That is of a tall, bulky, rough looking, broad built man. Even in general SRK doesn't fit description of a warrior or kshatriya or king.

He can fit in as Majnu or Alibaba at most. But not an emperor. That too whose skill on battlefield was feared world over.

SRK cannot bring that fury. He has weak features, less height, very weak voice.

Frankly warriors were taught emotional control back then as well. So they had to look stoic. This is why going OTT is not accepted.

The famous for statement was about his life. He is famous as a strategist, warrior, ruler, administrator and later his turning to peace. Ashoka is not known for romance! So when people went for Ashoka they felt this was not what they had expected. People might accept romance for a Shah Jahan but not Ashoka!

Sorry to inform you but back then people had laughed at Asoka songs and promos, criticising SRK as someone who only did romantic roles so much so that even when he attempted Asoka he made him a lover boy. The filmy style of songs' picturisation was dismissed.

SRK was not careful in attempt to be authentic. His gelled hair were constantly pointed out and joked about in reviews. SRK looked modern. Never from that period at all.

SRK and co were only left to give defensive interviews later.

I will leave this with a question - why do you think a guy like Mohit Raina was cast as Lord Shiva and not, say, a guy like Barun Sobti?

It is about suitable physicality.

Quote

return_to_hades

@return_to_hades

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 11 years ago

#57

So tiny men cannot be warriors?

Alexander the Great - Height 5'7" estimated to be only 160 LBS. Conquered most of the known world.

Napoleon Bonaparte - Height 5'6". One of the Greatest French Generals.

Julius Caesar - Height 5'7". Prematurely balding. Suffered epilepsy. One of the most legendary figures of history.

The average height of most Roman Emperors was only 5'5". Some like Nero were short and stubby.

Atilla the Hun a well known barbarian is speculated by many to be a dwarf.

Hannibal Barca - Height 5'7". As a leader of Carthage gave the Roman Empire Hell

Shahrukh Khan at 5'8" is taller than most of these leaders. That famous kings and warriors are tall, handsome and well built men is a myth perpetuated by movies. Many of them were surprisingly average and many were ordinary looking. Shahrukh Khan would be more suitable for an indigenous Maurya King who were neither tall nor fair like other invading dynasties. SRK may have failed as an actor to deliver a convincing Asoka, but the casting wasn't really that off.

Those who think warriors cannot be lovers never met the Sacred Band of Thebes or deduced the secret of the once unstoppable Persian Army.

Edited by return_to_hades - 11 years ago

Quote

642126

Hibernated

Posted: 11 years ago

#58

RTH

The Indian view is very different. And SRK does not fit in description of a kshatriya in any historical or mytho text.

The main point is looking rough and tough. Here SRK failed.

Only handsome looks are not the issue.

Prithviraj Kapoor was ordinary looking but he mostly got famous playing emperor/warrior. Thanks to his build, rough face and booming voice.

It is not about warriors cannot be lovers. But this particular one is not known as a lover. Prithviraj Chauhan was famous as warrior and lover. I mean each historical figure is famous for different reasons.

You can't quote foreign text or examples and apply it to Indian context.

SRK was miscast and did not exactly act well, neither was the story true to history. Indians very much know Ashoka was violent and his story had become famous on TV with shows like Bharat ek khoj. But the presentation of this film and handling of subject was not at all relatable to audience.

Quote

642126

Hibernated

Posted: 11 years ago

#59

Other factors for failure were slow pace, clash with Indian starring Sunny Deol who was on a high after Gadar, comparisons with Lagaan. Lagaan was hailed almost universally whereas this got panned. Critics (I am quoting them not stating my opinion! ) argued that Lagaan did something different and "inspirational" when it tried something different with historical period whereas Asoka was just a romance.

Quote

return_to_hades

@return_to_hades

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 11 years ago

#60

@Atominis

Barring Napoleon warriors I mentioned wouldn't be considered "western". They come from diverse ancestries and ethnicities. One point you made was that a smaller built person could not carry armor and weapons. I disproved that saying that much smaller men have wielded weapons in real life.

If we want to look at Indian warriors - Shivaji was only 5 feet tall. The warriors with big built and booming voice you are describing are the Rajputs, Jats, Mughals etc. The Mauryas, Pandyas etc were smaller built as these clans had mostly moved South to North in the Iron Age. SRK was not a miscast in height or built.

However, I can accept other criticisms that he didn't act well or the movie was poorly made. I can even accept that he was a miscast due to his acting range. But his height or built had nothing to do with the miscasting. Even Kshatriyas in general were not all tall and imposing. There were many slightly built Kshatriyas.