Ranbir Kapoor vs Raj Kapoor. Bigger superstar? - Page 5

Originally posted by: myviewprem

kl saigal dilip kumar raj kapoor rajendra kumar did not give 11 or 13 super hits continuous all that ran silver jubilee or golden (50 weeks) 

who told you they didn't ? They certainly did. Say that u don't know. You don't have proper knowledge. Do some research.

I have great respect for Rajesh Khanna and I am not against Him as I have nothing against Him. His contribution to Hindi Cinema, and his records and achievements are undeniable. But at the same time, I would tell each and every person here to respect the other mentioned Artists because Their contribution and achievements are no less and they were the actual pioneers of Hindi as well as Indian Cinema as a whole.

Edited by RoNoSarKar7 - 2 years ago

Originally posted by: sharmajikaladka

The major difference between Raj Kapoor & Ranbir Kapoor is kind of films which each of them has done. Raj Kapoor made and acted in  films for a common man. Even a child can enjoy and understand movies like Shree 420, each generation interpret and learn different thing from the same movie, while Ranbir's filmography has movies like Tamasha, Jagga Jasoos, Bombay Velvet even Rockstar which is hard to understand unless you wear STUPID CAP and BLINDFOLD yourself as BHAKTs of Ranbir Kapoor. 

Raj Kapoor was more of showman who had immense talent to understand then audience's demands; his movies were musical blockbusters set on the backdrop of poor India, their social problems and their lifestyle captured with glossy lens.  Maybe he was not par actor like then Dilip Kumar but he had immense fan following both in India and Overseas (Russia, Turkey, China). He was first India actor to be so popular in the overseas, much more popular than Dilip Kumar, Dev Anand. Think they didn't have Internet, mobile, nothing. Still his movies were able to make mark in those countries. 

Compared to Raj's filmography and kind of success he had in terms of box office numbers, fandom, popularity Ranbir has long long way to go even to achieve 10% of what Raj Kapoor has achieved. So this comparison thread is totally unjustifiable. There will be more of Ranbir bashing for such kind of comparison.

  

This is 100% true.

Raj, Dilip, Dev, Amitabh, Dharam, Sunil, Rajesh etc all used to do films for common man. The masses. And often played poorest characters, portrayed life on streets and villages.

This is why masses related to them a lot and loved them as they could see their life mirrored in those films.

Ranbir in contrast is a very urban actor and does films mainly aimed at niche, urban, multiplex audience.

I have mostly seen him in urban roles. No small town or village guy roles nor an urban poor man of the streets type roles. 

And it is true that despite Raj's obsession with showing female anatomy his films were still overall universal in appeal. He had songs and scenes with kids too, which appealed to children who saw him as some lovable uncle.

These kind of mass appeal, cross sectional appeal films are not made any more now.

Films have become totally geared towards multiplex going urban or NRI youth now. 

Ranbir is still good but many other actors of today cannot even speak Hindi properly nor make effort to look or sound Indian. 

I doubt if any man today can do Raj Kapoor's roles like Chhalia or Jaagte Raho. They won't even attempt these ordinary man roles as these films have no scope for glamour nor urban multiplex type appeal. 

Originally posted by: atominis

Today's social media and 'anyone can edit' Wikipedia lot knows nothing or perhaps does not want to know anything. One should read some credible film history website, magazines or books on cinema before making preposterous comments.

First box office phenomenon was Ashok Kumar who is first Indian actor to be paid in thousands and was known as Golden Boy due to his hits. He was first to be paid Rs 10,000 as an actor. A princely amount in his time. His film Kismet is the first ever ATBB in history of Indian cinema.

Amused how hits of past legends are ignored or downgraded to make new guys look better or erase their success as if no BO existed before 90s or 70s.

Most people forget Rajesh Khanna got superstar title due to his rare feat of giving 15 consecutive hits and inspiring crazy fan culture. People had fans earlier too but no one had kind of fans ready to die for them or marry their photos the way Khanna had. Hence that title was used for him.

Just because earlier such titles were not used it does not mean earlier legends had no or less hits. 

Dilip Kumar has had more hits than Dev and Raj. But Raj Kapoor is the first to crack into overseas markets and take Indian films beyond borders. 

Rajendra Kumar also had lots of hits and was called Jubilee Kumar in his times but he had not inspired crazy fandom. He has more hits than many boys labelled superstar today. 

This thread is amusing given the attempts to make Ranbir look bigger star or downgrade success of Raj Kapoor. But then same forum has a thread calling Kumar Gaurav a superstar too so I expect no factual debate on cine history here.

As for talent, for that I must say Ranbir has experimented more as an actor than his grandpa or his father. The only actor in Kapoor family who may have done comparable or better experiments as an actor is Shashi. Other Kapoor men were fairly formulaic and stayed in their comfort zones.

But as a star, filmmaker, icon, public figure Prithiviraj and Raj Kapoor are way better. PK had also done theatre. Prithvi theatre is named after him. Ranbir is sadly known more for his relationships than his work. Unlike his ancestors whose work was making more headlines. 

I once read he wanted to revive RK Studios. Wish he manages to fulfil such dreams than kill time in faltu affairs. He has potential and talent to revive RK banner glory if he was as industrious and savvy as his grandpa and great grandpa were. 

Nobody is putting anyone down. You're just getting butthurt for no reason. 

Some posters really think only they have all the "knowledge" in the world.😆

Wikipedia and internet is wrong. But old film magazines are completely right. They weren't influenced by PR or biased writing. Whatever they wrote was God's word.🤣

What a joke!

If Rajesh Khanna ain't the only actor with 17 consecutive "Hits", then what's special about him? 

Why was he the first actor to get Superstar title if other actors before him also have continuous Hits?😆

Khud hi apna statement contradict karna hain.😆

Originally posted by: AwaamKiJaan

If Rajesh Khanna ain't the only actor with 17 consecutive "Hits", then what's special about him? 

Why was he the first actor to get Superstar title if other actors before him also have continuous Hits?😆

Khud hi apna statement contradict karna hain.😆

Comprehension issues? Read again.

Rajesh Khanna got superstar title for inspiring crazy fandom and giving 15 consecutive hits in just 5 years.

Others gave hits, lasted way longer than him as successful heroes, succeeded way more than him in other departments but it does not mean they were not superstars or had no hits or were average at box office. They just had no crazy fans ready to die for them or marry their photos. They also worked in an era when cinema was mostly looked down upon as an industry and called a spoiling influence on society. That was a time when parents considered watching films as awaaragardi or an adult activity and admonished kids if they wanted to see films. We are talking 1920, 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s here. Things changed a lot only in 70s. When stigma against cinema reduced. Otherwise ask grandparents' generation how kids were told they could watch films in theatres only after growing up or getting married or going to college or not until they got a job.

MK Gandhi had called cinema a low brow industry and corrupting influence for society. Ashok Kumar who himself became top BO draw of his time had called film industry and acting a profession of harlots. Anyone who wanted to enter industry was shamed, looked down upon or disowned from family and community. That is how bad reputation of cinema and film industry was and people were conservative. 

Amused someone claims magazines and cine history were PR when there was NO PR in 1940s or 50s at all. PR is new to Indian film industry and came here in late 80s. Forget PR even film magazines and trade journals were rare in times of Ashok Kumar, KL Saigal, Dilip, Dev, Raj. Professional trade journals came to industry in 70s. 

And film history was documented better from 1970s. In 80s and 90s Stardust, Screen and Filmfare brought out special issues on history of stars and influential films. 

Just because there is less information from that time unlike media boom later it does not mean there was no star or icon or star of masses before Rajesh Khanna.

Actors of old generation disliked speaking to media, had no PR agents and never understood modern day media or PR culture either or blackmail tactics by trade  journals who would threaten to declare films flops or give lower verdicts unless stars and producers kept good terms with them. Aamir had also exposed corruption of trade journals in 1999 when he listed some of his hit films that were deliberately labeled average, semi hit or flop. 

BOI is not a reliable site at all as it has deliberately reduced verdict and collections of many hit films of pre 2000 era. It has even less data for films pre 80s, which it admitted once. 

It is like mocking collections of all films released pre 2008 since there was no 100 crore or 200 crore or 300 crore clubs then and forgetting how high priced tickets are now compared to Rs 5 ticket in 1960s and Rs 7 ticket in 70s. 

Anyway, like I said it is not worth it when only source of information is assumptions and not even Wikipedia.

Anyone in real life would laugh off if someone said there was no star giving hits or loved among audience before Rajesh Khanna or gems like Raj Kapoor is not a superstar but Ranbir is or other gems like 'Yash Raj Chopra' added Raj to his banner name because Rajesh Khanna gave him one hit film in Daag. 

Lulz.

There are good cine history sites and blogs with old magazine scans also if one is indeed interested in history.

Otherwise anyone can make any comment. Doesn't matter. 

Taimur is also bigger star than Raj Kapoor since he has been trending on social media since the day he was born. Jo bolna hai bolo. 😁

Ignore it. You know the level of awareness when there is a topic with such title and changing implications of term 'superstar' to pretend as if any star before Rajesh had no hits or the absolute gem like 'Yash Chopra added Raj to YRF name because of Rajesh Khanna as Rajesh gave him lot of success'. Wikipedia and IMDb gyan could not even be accessed to see Raj is Yash Chopra's middle name and his brother BR also added Raj to his and his banner name. 

Who cares about facts when you can cook anything yourself and make up assumptions as facts?

Tomorrow we will see people claim there were no hits and smaller stars before Aamir Khan and no star in history of Indian cinema is as big as Aamir because no one gave 100 crore, 200 crore and 300 crore grossers earlier. And pre 2008 stars are lesser, had no star power as their films could not earn 300 crore.

Those who call anyone star based on number of hits of their social media post or video online will make any new criteria of stardom to pretend yesteryear legends and stars were nothing compared to today's newbies. 

It's laughable that such comments can even be called a discussion. Looks more like trolling and banter. 

Originally posted by: atominis

Comprehension issues? Read again.

Rajesh Khanna got superstar title for inspiring crazy fandom and giving 15 consecutive hits in just 5 years.

Others gave hits, lasted way longer than him as successful heroes, succeeded way more than him in other departments but it does not mean they were not superstars or had no hits or were average at box office. They just had no crazy fans ready to die for them or marry their photos. They also worked in an era when cinema was mostly looked down upon as an industry and called a spoiling influence on society. That was a time when parents considered watching films as awaaragardi or an adult activity and admonished kids if they wanted to see films. We are talking 1920, 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s here. Things changed a lot only in 70s. When stigma against cinema reduced. Otherwise ask grandparents' generation how kids were told they could watch films in theatres only after growing up or getting married or going to college or not until they got a job.

MK Gandhi had called cinema a low brow industry and corrupting influence for society. Ashok Kumar who himself became top BO draw of his time had called film industry and acting a profession of harlots. Anyone who wanted to enter industry was shamed, looked down upon or disowned from family and community. That is how bad reputation of cinema and film industry was and people were conservative. 

Amused someone claims magazines and cine history were PR when there was NO PR in 1940s or 50s at all. PR is new to Indian film industry and came here in late 80s. Forget PR even film magazines and trade journals were rare in times of Ashok Kumar, KL Saigal, Dilip, Dev, Raj. Professional trade journals came to industry in 70s. 

And film history was documented better from 1970s. In 80s and 90s Stardust, Screen and Filmfare brought out special issues on history of stars and influential films. 

Just because there is less information from that time unlike media boom later it does not mean there was no star or icon or star of masses before Rajesh Khanna.

Actors of old generation disliked speaking to media, had no PR agents and never understood modern day media or PR culture either or blackmail tactics by trade  journals who would threaten to declare films flops or give lower verdicts unless stars and producers kept good terms with them. Aamir had also exposed corruption of trade journals in 1999 when he listed some of his hit films that were deliberately labeled average, semi hit or flop. 

BOI is not a reliable site at all as it has deliberately reduced verdict and collections of many hit films of pre 2000 era. It has even less data for films pre 80s, which it admitted once. 

It is like mocking collections of all films released pre 2008 since there was no 100 crore or 200 crore or 300 crore clubs then and forgetting how high priced tickets are now compared to Rs 5 ticket in 1960s and Rs 7 ticket in 70s. 

Anyway, like I said it is not worth it when only source of information is assumptions and not even Wikipedia.

Anyone in real life would laugh off if someone said there was no star giving hits or loved among audience before Rajesh Khanna or gems like Raj Kapoor is not a superstar but Ranbir is or other gems like 'Yash Raj Chopra' added Raj to his banner name because Rajesh Khanna gave him one hit film in Daag. 

Lulz.

There are good cine history sites and blogs with old magazine scans also if one is indeed interested in history.

Otherwise anyone can make any comment. Doesn't matter. 

Taimur is also bigger star than Raj Kapoor since he has been trending on social media since the day he was born. Jo bolna hai bolo. 😁

I'm sorry I can't write such long essays like you. So I will just ask two questions.

Wasn't Rajesh Khanna the FIRST actor to get "Superstar" title from media?

Isn't Rajesh Khanna the only actor ever in Bollywood to give 17 consecutive successful films in whatever years?

If not, then PROVE IT, or STFU!

Edited by AwaamKiJaan - 2 years ago

Raj Kapoor had a career that spanned over five decades as an actor, producer, director, and much more. He was amidst the first few on the ground floor of a nascent budding industry and played a role in shaping its future. He was one of the first few Indian movie celebs gaining immense popularity in the Soviet Union, Poland, and other Eastern European nations. 

Ranbir hasn't been in the industry for even two decades and has done much little besides acting. He still has a long way to go and even at the end of his career - he may not match Raj Kapoor. And that's fine. Comparing generations often ends up being apples to oranges comparison. 

Nobody is questioning Rajesh Khanna had not given consecutive hits. 

It is you who is changing terms now and diverting from topic when you tried to prove Raj Kapoor had less hits or was not a superstar.

And do NOT change terms of superstardom by using current standards of the word to call Ranbir a  superstar but shift to Rajesh Khanna era criteria to claim Raj Kapoor was not one.

Anyway I do not expect you to read much so doesn't matter. 

Not interested in stretching it further when agenda is clear. 

Good luck proving Raj Kapoor had no stardom and was no superstar and that Ranbir is bigger star than Raj Kapoor. Sweet dreams. Whatever that floats your boat.