My thoughts on Jasmin Bhasin quitting Naagin 4 - Page 5

i won't say that becoming typecast means that actor can play only such characters.krystle started off with a positive role.but after that she did a grey character n after that she was doing only grey characters until ek hazaron.after that she is doing only positive roles.daljeet was typecast in innocent roles.but after kayamat daljeet is only getting negative roles.so I dont believe that getting typecast  means they can do only one particular type of role.even in nia's case she played grey character only before her first lead role.after that she has done only positive characters on tv.it's in web series that she did a bold role. Even Aditi Gupta who was playing only innocent character got typecast in negative roles.But that doesnt mean that she is better in -ve roles

even if we look at films many super stars n comedians were big villains in the initial years of their career.

Originally posted by: Rein123

Wow you sure seem to have watched everyone mentioned above in their first shows.

@bold again we can agree to disagree here. 

@red isn’t type casting an actor a way of telling them that they play certain type of role better than others?

Nimmo? Was there a show called that? Sorry I never watched it so I can’t say much.

Edited by jasminerahul - 4 years ago

Originally posted by: jasminerahul

i won't say that becoming typecast means that actor can play only such characters.krystle started off with a positive role.but after that she did a grey character n after that she was doing only grey characters until ek hazaron.after that she is doing only positive roles.daljeet was typecast in innocent roles.but after kayamat daljeet is only getting negative roles.so I dont believe that getting typecast  means they can do only one particular type of role.even in nia's case she played grey character only before her first lead role.after that she has done only positive characters on tv.it's in web series that she did a bold role. Even Aditi Gupta who was playing only innocent character got typecast in negative roles.But that doesnt mean that she is better in -ve roles

even if we look at films many super stars n comedians were big villains in the initial years of their career.

Correction, i said that getting typecast is a way of telling the actor that they are better in a certain type of role, not that they can’t play any other shades.

Originally posted by: Rein123

@bold What does being a goody two shoes have to do with being bold and modern? Nothing! You can be modern and a b*%$ at the same time. Shivangi, Shivanya and Bela were positive leads, they did not kill anyone without a reason. And whatever they did was out of reason, so your right they were not the goody two shoes character, however they weren't raunchy either, at the most they were subtle like the other ITV bahus during the romance scenes. If they were then the channel would end up receiving complaints from the audience or people wouldn't be able to watch the show on tv.

Shivanya tried her hand at seduction, but that was only once, and that also with the intention to hurt their enemies, so that would make them cunning not bold. and what they did was not that explicit either.

'Shivanya and shivangi wore sarees with sexy blouses', yes they did but not in every other episode or on a frequent basis as compared to the vamp naagins minus Sumitra. Moreover, when it comes to a saree, its a sexy outfit already regardless of the type of blouse you wear unless you think otherwise, so does that make every woman that wears a saree bold? Plus we have seen quite a lot of actresses wear that in other shows so does that make them bold characters?

My issue is not the saree but rather why Ekta makes it look like women who prefer wearing western outfits as negative characters in her show while  the positive character is mostly seen wearing the traditional indian ethnic wear?

"When Vishakha was positive, she was seductive and flirty" however she was not the main naagin but rather the supporting naagin, same goes for shesha. Nayantara here was not introduced as a supporting character but rather as a main so the expectation for her was to be the opposite.

Now coming to the definition of bold what exactly do you mean by bold, is it skin show? woman who is quite liberal when it comes to sex? Murderous psychopath? having multiple partners or two timing? Consuming tobacco and alcohol etc or is it a woman that is independent financially, who is a leader at the workspace, single mother, intelligent, believes and fights for equal rights? manipulating and opportunistic? Ambitious?

If you have another definition for bold than feel free to add it, but as per me, I don't find the PFL naagins bold in any manner, they may be modern though but not bold.

I dont think you quite got what I said. Let me break it down so it might get easier for you to understand:

First of all, YOU are the one who uses the term "goody two shoes" to describe Brinda, to which i agreed. I have no clue how you deduced that I said that "modern" women cannot be bitches. The two are not related in any form. 

"Goody two shoes" means someone who is naive and a sacrificial lamb, which Brinda is. You said it and I agreed. This point had nothing to do with whether modern women can or cannot be "b$%%es". 

Now coming to my definition of 'bold': It is a woman who is resourceful, assertive, never backs down and does not hesitate to fire back when attacked. Or alternatively, it may mean a woman who makes unconventional choices. 

So yes, the main Naagins are BOTH modern and bold women by that standard. 

And you're contradicting yourself here. 

First you argue that Shivanya and Shivangi were not that raunchy so they cannot be "bold". But in the last paragraph, you're implying that boldness does not mean only skin show. So if being "bold" doesn't mean only skin show, then why did you write so many paragraphs on how Shivangi and Shivanya were not that sexually outgoing? Clearly you associate "boldness" with sexual forwarders here, but are contradicting yourself by claiming the opposite.

I don't feel that they are getting typecast bcz they are better in such roles.I don't think Anita is typecast as she is better in negative role or daljeet aditi got typecast as she is better in negative role.

Originally posted by: Rein123

Correction, i said that getting typecast is a way of telling the actor that they are better in a certain type of role, not that they can’t play any other shades.

Originally posted by: jasminerahul

I don't feel that they are getting typecast bcz they are better in such roles.I don't think Anita is typecast as she is better in negative role or daljeet aditi got typecast as she is better in negative role.

That again is a difference of opinion

Originally posted by: Mahisa22

I dont think you quite got what I said. Let me break it down so it might get easier for you to understand:

First of all, YOU are the one who uses the term "goody two shoes" to describe Brinda, to which i agreed. I have no clue how you deduced that I said that "modern" women cannot be bitches. The two are not related in any form. 

"Goody two shoes" means someone who is naive and a sacrificial lamb, which Brinda is. You said it and I agreed. This point had nothing to do with whether modern women can or cannot be "b$%%es". 

Now coming to my definition of 'bold': It is a woman who is resourceful, assertive, never backs down and does not hesitate to fire back when attacked. Or alternatively, it may mean a woman who makes unconventional choices. 

So yes, the main Naagins are BOTH modern and bold women by that standard. 

And you're contradicting yourself here. 

First you argue that Shivanya and Shivangi were not that raunchy so they cannot be "bold". But in the last paragraph, you're implying that boldness does not mean only skin show. So if being "bold" doesn't mean only skin show, then why did you write so many paragraphs on how Shivangi and Shivanya were not that sexually outgoing? Clearly you associate "boldness" with sexual forwarders here, but are contradicting yourself by claiming the opposite.

@bold yes I do, so? And If you look at the last paragraph, it as per me is a question as per what is considered bold not a claim. Know the difference. Yes for me, being raunchy or the skin show part is bold which is something you cannot equate with a traditional sanskaari girl Nia tried to portray or the PFL naagins I have seen till date, almost everyone is like a sanskaari  Pujaran of Lord Shiva projected as a righteous character fighting against evil, the type that people would mock by calling them behenji or say a “nun” in those youth based campus dramas, so no I never denied it. The latter for me including your own definition minus the unconventional choices part is what I would consider to be normal for a strong modern and independent woman. So no there is no contradiction in what I was implying unless you misunderstood or that’s what you wish to believe yourself.

Edited by Rein123 - 4 years ago

Originally posted by: Rein123

Wow you sure seem to have watched everyone mentioned above in their first shows.

@bold again we can agree to disagree here. 

@red isn’t type casting an actor a way of telling them that they play certain type of role better than others?

Nimmo? Was there a show called that? Sorry I never watched it so I can’t say much.

googled 😛 it's "Kya hoga Nimmo kaa " by BT Ekta In Starone Channel 😎 Jenny, Eizaz, Anasrashid ,Barkabisht in list  

Originally posted by: ratna.nanda

Unpopular opinion:jasmin was a total misfit in the show.

I'm not a hater or anything but from the initial promos and later the episodes..it was clear she lacked the aura or talent to play a naagin.not any random actor can just play a naagin to perfection. And her acting and dialogue delivery was horrible🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️.

Mouni,Addah,Surbhi jyoti,Sayantani,Anita hassnandani,..even the actor who played surbhi's younger sister in naagin 3 ..all of them were perfect as naagins.

But jasmin ..a big NO.

I was sceptical about nia too.but she proved to be a good choice and did full justice to both faces of her role...the innocent brinda and the fierce naagin  brinda.even now the writing is all over the place and absolute trash,still sayantani,nia and vj are doing their job just fine.

So if jasmin is leaving...good for the audience and the show.

Choosing jasmin to play a naagin was a bad decision..and if the cvs are correcting that mistake..good for them.

No offence to her fans..I have watched all 4 seasons of naagin ...especially naagin1 and naagin3 almost all episodes. And like many other viewers of the franchisee..I can see clearly when an actor is a total misfit in the show.

Being her fan I felt the same 👍🏼

I feel she can play only happy go lucky characters and rest of characters she is misfit.

The characters where she has to be angry or serious she can't play such emotions. She goes OTT in her acting skills. If jasmine really want to be successful then she got to invest in her acting skills. Hope she has understood from this experience. I always felt ekta wasn't happy with her casting yet she gave her a chance due to recommendation. If jasmine proved her wrong she would be very happy.

Naagin is crap show 😆 but actors needs to good enough to attract audiences to watch or tolerate the show.

there was a time aditi daljeet sara aashka were typecast in positive roles.there was also a time where krystle shilpa shinda were typecast in negative roles.so which roles suit these characters more? 

also which roles do suit many superstars n comedians of today as once they were typecast in negative roles?

Originally posted by: Rein123

That again is a difference of opinion

Originally posted by: jasminerahul

there was a time aditi daljeet sara aashka were typecast in positive roles.there was also a time where krystle shilpa shinda were typecast in negative roles.so which roles suit these characters more? 

also which roles do suit many superstars n comedians of today as once they were typecast in negative roles?

Are you asking for my opinion? If so, then I would say it would be the roles they play or are offered more frequently I.e. compare the number of positive roles they have played with the negative or grey shaded and that should help us answer this. 

 This again is a subjective matter and opinions are bound to differ from person to person including those who are responsible for the casting unless you wish to assert that everyone is supposed to feel the same about what role suits an actor or actress. You see “die hard” fans of an actor or actress at the end of the day will continue praising their favourite regardless of the type of role they play and be accepting towards the change even when they aren’t doing a great job at it, but that may not be the same for viewers that are indifferent to an actress or actor. Moreover even a section of those die hard fans tend to resist the change of image, I know many, in fact Jasmin herself is an example, her fans didn’t like the fact that she’s negative or that she got sidelined and feel she is better off doing positive main lead characters even though she was doing pretty fine as a grey shade, then we had Namik who rose to fame through EDKV on Sony, when he took up the character of a ghost that was projected as a villain in EDT his fans didn’t like it and kept spamming the PH and the channel and at the end the PH changed the story to make him the hero. In fact they got sick of him getting cast in supernatural shows and prefer him playing normal human characters. It’s normal fan behavior.

Remember Sonarika? The lady who played Goddess Parvati on lifeok, she was trolled or say moral policed for wearing a bikini and posting the pics online since ppl just couldn’t get over her image of playing a goddess. And this case wasn’t even that of playing a role, but rather she was just being herself. If you got the point. So no I don’t agree with you over that breaking away or doing away with an actors image is not big deal, it is! 

The only ones who will be accepting are the ones watching the actors for the first time, that is the neutrals or the fans who support their favorite unconditionally in any type of role they play minus the resisters.

However if an actor or actress has played a balanced mix of both the type of roles frequently and with not much gap between the positives and the negatives then I guess they fall in the versatile category, I.e. they look good in any role they play which requires a hell lot of skills. Example Ronit Roy and his brother.