Jodha Akbar discussion corner! - Page 31

Originally posted by: adiana12

Shyamala, hrithik's akbar was more of a romanticized one as the tall handsome emperor. But Rajat's akbar is closer to the real one in terms of height and build. And definitely Rajat is the superior actor as he made us see Akbar on screen while with Hrithik one was always seeing Hrithik. In fact AG's JA had the better Jodha as Ash exudes royalty unlike EK's Begumsa who was so pedestrian. And of course AG was smart enough to get the likes of Tanishq on board thus managing to further enhance the royal aura. An acumen EK singularly lacks.

adi cannot agree more! to me hrithik was hrithik but rajat was akbar and i cannot imagine any other face as akbar, only rajat's face comes to my mind! and ps on the other hand just played the role but aish was more elegant in playing jodha!

Many times rajat got handicapped also bcoz of the script nd also lack of proper action directors. Hritik had got far better treatment than rajat. Whtever rajat did was his past experience but im sure if he would have got sum better action directors he would have done much better. Hritik had got more facilities than rajat. Hritik has a great physique nd height which he used very well in the film but tht made him more of an actor than a character. I can't say whether rajat was better or Hritik but rajat was more into the character than an actor.

shyamala, another wonderful take on episode 5! as donjas mentioned that BK could have killed jalal when he was young and himself taken over the throne, but as far as i know in those times only royal blood could claim the throne, and BK was mughal sultanat's wafaadar whose prime motive was to expand the empire wherever their sword could take them, and i would not be wrong in saying that BK played a major role in laying a solid foundation of the mughal empire and yes his thinking was like a tunnel but i guess that was his prime focus initially and also akbar's for that matter, only after he did expand or thought that the empire is big enough is when he started putting forth his strategies to make it more structured and secular state and that is where Akbar's far sighted ness and ahead of his times thinking came into play and i must say BK's initial ruthlessness/perseverance and Akbar's control later was a perfect combination to make akabr's era the golden era of mughal empire!

and as far as akbar's and hamida's relation is concerned we do not know what might have happened in history but at some point akbar must have thought of his childhood a not so pleasant experience and as mentioned by you shyamala certain scars never go in fact they become nasoor with time!

sorry, i skip all amer and jodha scenes, cannot watch them again but rajat's jalal can be watched repeatedly😳!

Aunty, I think one big misconception about jalal hb angle is jalal hates hb. But thts not the case. He loves his mom nd thts why this anger bcoz he had longed for his mother for so long thts why sumtime later we had seen him feeling for tht child. If he had hated HB he never would have listened to her or taken her advice. this reel jalal was not only away from his mom but was also under the influence of Maham who had saved his life many times as we were shown in the show. whtever had happened in real history thts a different story but in the show it was clearly shown tht maham jumping in front of the canons or maham trying her best to save him. In the show it wasn't shown HB taking any hardships to protect him but maham took all the hardships. Jalal was bitter towards her but valued her as well. whether he is right or wrong thts a different issue but the thing which we call hatred is actually the longing nd the gap which even maham is unable to fill.

Originally posted by: munnirony

Many times rajat got handicapped also bcoz of the script nd also lack of proper action directors. Hritik had got far better treatment than rajat. Whtever rajat did was his past experience but im sure if he would have got sum better action directors he would have done much better. Hritik had got more facilities than rajat. Hritik has a great physique nd height which he used very well in the film but tht made him more of an actor than a character. I can't say whether rajat was better or Hritik but rajat was more into the character than an actor.

very well said munni!..the movie had more budget..better director..and best of everything! whatever rajat did is his won hard work, and to play the same character for two long years is no joke! the creativity of the actor fades away in repetitions but still he maintained the aura to some extend even during the worst of times!..and i will say this zillion times and each time convincingly that hrithik looked more of a star whereas rajat looked the character!

munni and anjali missing the pics by you both😭

Originally posted by: ghalibmirza

munni and anjali missing the pics by you both😭

But I was not always seeing Hrithik! Is that my fault?And I do not compare them, nor do I agree that Rajat is the superior actor. They are too different.

I adore Rajat, as everyone knows, but he can ham it up with the best of them, with his nose all crinkled up like a misshapen potato to express uncontrolled rage. Why even recently, when Salima came in to inform Jodha and him that the masalas were all wet, he glared open-eyed in the most odd fashion! You can attribute it to bad direction, as I have done often, but after 500 episodes, he should have an idea of what looks good on screen.

Yes, he has been superlative so many times, but then he got so much more telecast time to showcase himself, about 140 hours of telecast time as against 3 hours 20 minutes. Now I shall have Munni down my throat trying to tick me off for this, but it is the truth! Why on earth do we always compare one to the other anyway?

Shyamala

Originally posted by: adiana12

Shyamala, hrithik's akbar was more of a romanticized one as the tall handsome emperor. But Rajat's akbar is closer to the real one in terms of height and build. And definitely Rajat is the superior actor as he made us see Akbar on screen while with Hrithik one was always seeing Hrithik. In fact AG's JA had the better Jodha as Ash exudes royalty unlike EK's Begumsa who was so pedestrian. And of course AG was smart enough to get the likes of Tanishq on board thus managing to further enhance the royal aura. An acumen EK singularly lacks.

Mandy, what does a budget have to do with acting? For doing a series of superlative scenes, you need TIME, and Rajat got that. About 140 hours of telecast time as against 3 hours and 20 minutes for the film. How many superlative scenes could have been crammed into that?

As for having it easy with the best of everything, Hrithik had a bad knee problem at that time - and I know now what that is like! - and yet he sat with his legs bent under him in scene after scene. The rehearsals and the shooting must have taken a lot of time. That could not have been easy.

As I said, I adore Rajat here, and I adored Hrithik in the film as well. I do not compare them or their very different Akbars. As for you, you have every right to your views, but these constant comparisons are unnecessary and pointless. The two were too alag from each other to be compared at all.

Shyamala

Originally posted by: ghalibmirza

very well said munni!..the movie had more budget..better director..and best of everything! whatever rajat did is his won hard work, and to play the same character for two long years is no joke! the creativity of the actor fades away in repetitions but still he maintained the aura to some extend even during the worst of times!..and i will say this zillion times and each time convincingly that hrithik looked more of a star whereas rajat looked the character!