Jodhaa Akbar Trade Verdict on IBOS: “Average; Flop in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Gujrat”
I have only one question: How can a movie Flop in Rajasthan when its not released in Rajasthan or Flop in MP where it got banned?
Answer - Just because the movie is on a Mughal Emperor… that has pissed off the communal team behind IBOS!
As expected a cheesy promo!! Shall be watching this one today!!
I envy rockstar, he saw the movie before I did. :) 
Jem was a much superior film than DON IMO! To me..this looks ACE!!!!!!! Dutt in a meaty role....Gadhvi can deliver blockbusters...PLUS Imraan! 
Thanks Akshay! Akshay detractors will cry Looking fwd to this quiet a lot. Excellent review Shahid..thanks for posting! DIL DA MAAAMLAAAA!!! SUPER DUPER HIT:)! 
Thanks folks. Hopefully things will work out for all. 
Excellent stuff on the Joker and Ledger's performance... I must admit when Abhi-Ash were announced (again) I felt this pair is repeated to often. That it could be ... Ha! Brilliant stuff and agree with critisisms voiced about Taran. I guess you know a reviewer is not so great ... "But I just don’t have the confidence in my writing skills to just go for it and write out my ...
"Jesse: did you ever post a review of the music of Sakkarakatti? I might have missed it…"
No Q, I never ...
Thanks rockstar, this is along the lines of what I was expecting from this movie.
Re: "Singh is king tries to ... rockstar where did you watch it? Audience response? 
*** rating
another review on the predictable line.
good thing is that reviews are better than those of Tashan.
this should be enough. thanks rockstar.
going the welcome way! as expected.
with welcome too the first viewing gave the same response.
Most who like the movie, ...
will add : in one of sequence akki do appologise for his improper conduct of being a sikh and gives ...
Comment by henry on 26 February 2008:
If this guy wants to air out his dirty communal thoughts, he should open a blog or something. Why does he do it on a Box Office site? And not only that, it’s clear that he lets his communal bias affect his BO reporting as evidenced here.
Comment by Qalandar on 26 February 2008:
I was initially happy to see IBOS back in action, for the simple reason that however good a data-source (and I don’t even consider BOI good to begin with), I would always like to see a multiplicity of voices, and listen to more than just one. Unfortunately, the site has completely lost credibility with me. Perhaps satyam has a point when he says there’s no evidence IBOS is fudging figures, but when such an extreme bias is manifested, I can’t really take a default position that gives the benefit of the doubt to such figures. So we are back to only one source, with all of its attendant problems, biases, etc. I remain skeptical of it too, but don’t have anything to “set it off against.” And that’s the biggest reason I’d much rather rely on Jay Shah’s analysis than the others out there. I don’t see any evidence or indication of bad faith there.
Comment by jingchak on 26 February 2008:
>>Perhaps satyam has a point when he says there’s no evidence IBOS is fudging figures,
duh!!
Comment by SHETTY on 26 February 2008:
“IBOS = Ridiculous!”
LOl
That’s the milder term you used Ach bhai.
Ibos = Shit
Comment by SHETTY on 26 February 2008:
>>Perhaps satyam has a point when he says there’s no evidence IBOS is fudging figures,
duh!
Lol. Dikchik
Comment by Qalandar on 26 February 2008:
I believe what both of you really meant to write was:
“…but when such an extreme bias is manifested, I can’t really take a default position that gives the benefit of the doubt to such figures.”
Duh!
Or perhaps: “Perhaps satyam has a point when he says there’s no evidence IBOS is fudging figures…”
LMAO
Comment by SHETTY on 26 February 2008:
Disinvestment process has begun.
Tridev will start new BO site IBOI
Comment by jingchak on 26 February 2008:
shet u may know the true meaning of jingchak! jingchak!
Comment by ILG on 26 February 2008:
Re:>>Perhaps satyam has a point when he says there’s no evidence IBOS is fudging figures
IBOS doesnt fudge figures but the guy is now fudging his fingers.Just thta the fudge is of a different variety.
Comment by jingchak on 26 February 2008:
q - now dont you go around trying lawyer speak on us uneducated. we may have to send you to Yuma then
Comment by SHETTY on 26 February 2008:
“shet u may know the true meaning of jingchak! jingchak!”
I dunno bhai
Duh
Comment by Qalandar on 26 February 2008:
Re: “Disinvestment process has begun.”
What is this supposed to mean? Read in the context of my comments, I can only read this as an insinuation that I have some kind of financial stake in IBOS. This is manifestly absurd: any money I have to give to a film-related site would go to NG, and (as should be obvious to all) do I seem like the sort of chap who would be putting money into right-wing extremistm?
Comment by ILG on 26 February 2008:
Q wont go on 3.10 to Yuma.For him it is Ek Chaalis ki Local.
Comment by Eire on 26 February 2008:
The guy at IBOS is a crackpot. He should have just kept his verdict at average for JA which at this current stage seems to be true about its collections in India so far. The guy should just stick with box office reporting.
Comment by satyam on 26 February 2008:
Agreed with many of the criticisms here. But for all the commentary they are calling JA average at this point. I think this proves my idea.
Having said that I completely agree with Henry’s and Qalandar’s sentiments here.
Comment by Tango on 26 February 2008:
JA flop in Rajasthan (without releasing)
Madhya Pradesh does Ganesh want to see the first week numbers.
Comment by Tango on 26 February 2008:
what is amazing is that we Indian’s have been crying abt IBOS specifically targetting Pakistan time and again but the citizens of that country are still giving knee jerk reactions, or justifying why they still dont find it as bad as BOI! What is it to us !
As they say ‘Begani shaadi mein Abdullah deewana’
Comment by SHETTY on 26 February 2008:
“does Ganesh want to see the first week numbers.”
What is his name Tango bhai?
Ganesh, Gautam or Vishaal?
Comment by SHETTY on 26 February 2008:
“but the citizens of that country are still giving knee jerk reactions”
Comment by Tango on 26 February 2008:
His name is Vishal Ganesh/Gautam Nath.
Some refer to his name as Vishal others as Ganesh.
Comment by Tango on 26 February 2008:
**some refer to his middle name as Ganesh others Gautam**
Comment by Ravi on 26 February 2008:
So, who are citizens of that country???
Comment by SHETTY on 26 February 2008:
“I can only read this as an insinuation that I have some kind of financial stake in IBOS”
Sabko pata hain. Kisne kitne paise lagaaya hain.
Comment by Tango on 26 February 2008:
Hai Ravi bhai itne bhi bhole mat bano
Ye bhola pan tumhara teh shararat aur yeh shokhi, Zaroorat kya tumhein talwar ki chakoo ki khanjar ki
Comment by Rocky on 26 February 2008:
Tango bhai , Vajpayee kee tarah baat ko Uljhao na, what are you trying to say???
Comment by Tango on 26 February 2008:
Q- I I know you did not put in money in IBOS, take that on record.
Aap logon ke hi yaar dost bata dete hain mujhe udhar kya ho raha hai, now that they have seen what is the truth regarding my publicised IBOS phobia.
Comment by Ach on 26 February 2008:
“But for all the commentary they are calling JA average at this point. I think this proves my idea.”
IBOS calling Average means a Hit in reality
considering its propaganda and stance towards the movie … but a trade verdict based on week 1 (under-reported) figure?
What kind of a BO site is this? Crap!
Comment by Ravi on 26 February 2008:
I really don’t know Tango bhai , the only thing I can remotely think of was Bond bhai sometime saying that he was brought up in Pakistan or something like that.
Anyhow I am not the type who has one thing in mind and says something else, so ifI did know would not have asked you bhai.
Comment by Tango on 26 February 2008:
Ach aap yaad kariye IBOS flash abt IInd week pathetic prospects that was put up by …
Comment by Tango on 26 February 2008:
Ok Ravi bhai, dont take it seriously.
Controversial ho jaye gai and I awant to keep my new low profile resolution 2008 running. But will continue to expose the hypocrites.
Comment by Oye Oye on 26 February 2008:
“Aap logon ke hi yaar dost bata dete hain mujhe udhar kya ho raha hai”
Comment by satyam on 26 February 2008:
Tango: LOL! Your god Nahata is saying the same thing! Even Taran has come down from his original verdicts!
Comment by Qalandar on 26 February 2008:
Re: “what is amazing is that we Indian’s have been crying abt IBOS specifically targetting Pakistan time and again…”
A clarification here: I think most on NG are offended because IBOS is offering rabidly anti-Muslim “commentary”, and NOT because it is offering anti-Pakistan “commentary.” In fact, he draws no distinction between “Muslim” and “Pakistan”, and uses the latter as a stick to beat the former, or anything else about India, that he doesn’t like (e.g. commenting on the similarity between Mughal flag and Pakistani flag).
Comment by Street Pharmacist on 26 February 2008:
ROFL… too funny to comment on.
Didn’t satyam claim that this guy didn’t allow his personal political stance affect his BO-reporting? then how is it that such absurd verdicts are given for Jodha Akbar ? Am I missing something here?
As for jay.. well when he finally decided to use teh same methodology for every movie regardless of who stars in it, then we can talk of him. Rest he doesn’t have anything.. those other guys at least have a direct contacts with the distributers, have more collections data at hand, have access to other factors such as cinema count, distribution prices and what not.. All jay has is a methodlogy using a few centres from Taran’s IFM.. and even there not only does his totals not match up with his ource (Taran) but that methodlogy that he uses doesn’t consistent for every film. Changes and modifications are made if, say , his system yields a greater total for a SrK-starrer (for e.g. Chak De), or else making outragous unique changes to his method to ensure the lowest possible total for a movie like OSO. Jay is simply a toned down Vishal Gautam Nath in-disguise and there’s no other reason why satyam has been trying to held him high for the past 15-18 months. How long before, jay comes out in the clear like IBOS? or maybe, jay satyam and that vishal gautam nath can have a joint BO site… seems really practical .. doesn’t it. They all share the common cause and can work very well with each other.
Comment by texas_swat on 26 February 2008:
“Perhaps satyam has a point when he says there’s no evidence IBOS is fudging figures…”
Q, cant believe you and satyam still havent seen the evidence
“and I don’t even consider BOI good to begin with….”
ok, now I understand how this logic goes….
Comment by jayshah on 27 February 2008:
‘Rest he doesn’t have anything.. those other guys at least have a direct contacts with the distributers, have more collections data at hand, have access to other factors such as cinema count, distribution prices and what not..’
This adds up to nothing without ‘knowing’ their method. As I said and am sure many will agree, the tools matter, but its what you do with them that matters even more. And I have never denied I have less information and zero contacts. But the simple fact that I can stick a number up on a website like others can and have like Satyam/Texas suggests this is not some kind of Einstein theory of relativity we are dealing with. Its not like I’m adding up the IndiaFm numbers and getting to 30Cr and BOI is having 20Cr for gods sake LOL!
You simply cannot imply that the method imposed by BOI is any better or worse until you see it. And thats the bottom line.
And here is the flaw in your analysis. IBOS has all of the above I am guessing. Why is it then my number is usually closer to BOI then IBOS ever is? Check out all the numbers barring a few anamolies and I am always in the middle. So what does that mean?
‘Jay is simply a toned down Vishal Gautam Nath in-disguise and there’s no other reason why satyam has been trying to held him high for the past 15-18 months. How long before, jay comes out in the clear like IBOS? or maybe, jay satyam and that vishal gautam nath can have a joint BO site… seems really practical .. doesn’t it. They all share the common cause and can work very well with each other.’
You have zero evidence to make such an absurd claim. I’ve seen similar backhanded comments and it boils down to desperation. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Instead of making such absurd claims why don’t you do us all a favor and prove BOI numbers to be correct? Can you?
Comment by Tango on 27 February 2008:
There is no method at all. BOI adds up the collections from the different circuits to arrive at a total. And that is the India nett !
They have direct access to those totals as they demonstrated time and again, even 10-12 hours before Taran.
Comment by Tango on 27 February 2008:
The recent most examples are those of JA, before that Welcome Pakistan numbers and prior to that Goal.
Comment by jayshah on 27 February 2008:
Erm this is simply untrue. With OSO they showed only collections of 33Cr. They found ‘7CR’ extra somehow. They don’t have all collections - there is almost certainly estimation. Even with Welcome they did not have all collections. They have only showed Goal thats all.
Comment by jayshah on 27 February 2008:
Out of say 150-200 films released in past 18months, they’ve only had close to full collections for Metro & Goal. Only recently have they started to show collections like IndiaFm. And even these are not complete.
Comment by jayshah on 27 February 2008:
Out of say 150-200 films released in past 18months, they’ve only had close to full collections for Metro & Goal. Only recently have they started to show collections like IndiaFm. And even these are not complete.
Comment by jayshah on 27 February 2008:
Everything is up for scrutiny
1) Collections reported - hardly any issues with Film Info here
2) Prints/cinema’s reported - hardly any issues with Film Info here
3) Unreported collections - how is this calculated?
4) Prints/cinema’s un-reported - how is this information retrieved?
5) Total Prints/cinema’s - how is this information retrieved?
On Point 5) EROS said something like 1400 prints for OSO for example, BOI shows 900 odd cinema’s. How is that figure arrived to?
On 3) & 4) how does one ‘estimate’ this? What is the underlying rationale and assumptions of the model?
Is it independant
Based on distributor information
Based on occupancy %
Based on pegging against movies from past
Is it regionalised
Is it city/centre specific
Is entertainment tax taken into consideration for every single centre (because it differs across territories)
Is the size of the cinema taken into account
Is the price of the ticket taken into account
Is it based on cinema’s or prints
There are loads of other things probably. If there is a super model like this in the background then all the more power. Somehow I doubt it is ‘this’ sophiscated.
Or is it simply a case of - lets take what ‘we’ think as the un-reported prints and just mulitply it by ‘whatever’ print average ‘we’ feel is ‘fair’ and ‘right’. Of course this print average if it is 1lakh or 1.5lakhs can make a difference of 2.5CR on 500 prints un-reported. BUT if 4) and 5) are ‘wrong’ we have the opportunity to ‘drive up’ or ‘drive down’ a total by suggesting ‘more’ prints or ‘less’ prints un-reported.
If you want flaws in a method I can lay them out too ! Let’s see the method and then we can see the ‘detail’ we have here.
Comment by Tango on 27 February 2008:
Read again “There is no method at all. BOI adds up the collections from the different circuits to arrive at a total. And that is the India nett !”
They are not our obedient servants to give colection for each and every centre/city of india.
They get the total for the ENTIRE CIRCUIT and add them up.
At times just to show their detractors, they give the centrewise total.
There is acertain respect and trust for them in the industry and that is why they are given these totals FIRST.
Comment by jingchak on 27 February 2008:
My god, we are still at this debate, are we! Move on guys. Jay, innuendo is not evidence. So you don’t like boi, fine. But they are still the most accurate my friend. You are close but hey you are close.
Comment by ILG on 27 February 2008:
Re:Jay is simply a toned down Vishal Gautam Nath in-disguise and there’s no other reason why satyam has been trying to held him high for the past 15-18 months
I hope you are proud of this Beld.
Comment by jingchak on 27 February 2008:
Ilg, I will give you the benefit of doubt that it was a honest mistake from your side. Please verify the source of comments before attributing to me. I did not make that comment you alluded to. And yes I am proud of what I say usually, thank you very much.
I stand by my own opinions unlike the jalra in display from some of you guys.
Comment by ILG on 27 February 2008:
Beld,
Thanks for giving me the benefit of doubt. I made no mistake. This is from person you were praising yesterday for being a great writer and making more sense than Jay.
Comment by jingchak on 27 February 2008:
good for you ILG. I was praising Street’s insightful writing on films and BO and said he makes more sense than Jay - and that is very accurate. I also said i dont condone the personal comments he makes on Jay. I would strongly suggest that you go and read my comment again. if you have difficult understanding - let me know - i will arrange for some classes for you
Comment by ILG on 27 February 2008:
Whatever, Beld. A civil and respectful exchange seems beyong your capacity. You feel the need to react with insults and rudeness at the drop of a hat. Lets stay away from each other.
Comment by jingchak on 27 February 2008:
ILG - dont act civil yourself. you started this and brought my name and you have essentially lied here and its for all to see. if you want to stay away - be my guest - i will comment when i feel like
as for insults or rudeness - you can take a class on that dude. I dont for a moment believe that you are less abusive now then you were before. so dont try this supercilious nonsense on me. good riddance
Comment by Qalandar on 27 February 2008:
Re: “Jay is simply a toned down Vishal Gautam Nath in-disguise and there’s no other reason why satyam has been trying to held him high for the past 15-18 months. How long before, jay comes out in the clear like IBOS? or maybe, jay satyam and that vishal gautam nath can have a joint BO site… seems really practical .. doesn’t it. They all share the common cause and can work very well with each other.”
I strongly disagree with the insinuation that satyam and jay shah are communal. This is in fact a pretty mystifying claim, for which street there is not a shred of evidence! I’ll add that if everything is seen through the communalism prism, then pretty soon one ends up as hysterical as Mr. IBOS. To believe that these people are communal is to disregard everything written by them on the site, and to cling to the (unsupported) notion that folks with the BO views that satyam and jay have “must” be communal. That’s dogma (reminiscent of IBOS holding up the fact that the Filmfare award winner is Muslim as “evidence” of some “Islamist” conspiracy in Bollywood!), not reasoned argument.
Texas Swat: You quoted half a sentence from my comment; I hope you read the other half of that sentence as well! As an aside, evidence of bias extraneous to the numbers suggests a possible motive for fudging numbers (i.e. it goes to the source’s credibility), but is not in itself evidence of fudged numbers. Maybe I’ve been a lawyer too long, but to assume that numbers are fudged would mean that I was confusing MOTIVE with EVIDENCE (”motive” of course can support an inference, hence I said IBOS’ credibility had gone down drastically). [Aside: see my paragraph above addressed to Street; by your logic, should I simply dismiss his criticism of Jay's METHOD because he insists on repeatedly insinuating Jay is communal, without any evidence to that effect?]
Comment by Tango on 27 February 2008:
I agree jingchak. Street knows more than many abt BO. He has been watching things for the last 6-7 years or so.
His memory is also very sharp abt who did/say what when and that is why his presence here is uncomfortable
I must add ( and i have told him too) that he spoils his insightful views on BO by putting in too much condiments
Comment by satyam on 27 February 2008:
Qalandar: Those statements are pure garbage and seem to multiply every time certain members are more visible on the site. Notice how civil it was in the absence of the same!
Comment by jingchak on 27 February 2008:
Agree Satyam. This place was so civil when you and ilg weren’t around. You should try that again sometime. Now that you have lost your job at ibos….. Or was that a lie too?
Comment by som on 27 February 2008:
“Jay is simply a toned down Vishal Gautam Nath in-disguise and there’s no other reason why satyam has been trying to held him high for the past 15-18 months”
this was uncalled for. directing someone for being communal just because he does not agree with what you say is very ungracious and uncivilized.I strongly condemn..
Comment by Qalandar on 27 February 2008:
The communalism charge cuts both ways: it is very serious, and should not be used to browbeat anyone just because they happen to be from a “majority.” If this keeps happening, then no-one will take even founded charges seriously.
Comment by som on 27 February 2008:
“This place was so civil when you and ilg weren’t around. You should try that again sometime. Now that you have lost your job at ibos….. Or was that a lie too?”
jingchak(beld): I complete disagree with you on Satyam.I may not completely agree with him what he says all the time, but i do feel Satyam knows how to engage in a discussion without taking jibes at someone and resorting to throw slurs.He is much more civilized in that sense.
ILG well.. i dont really like his crass humour and do think his comments at times tend to spoil a discussion.
Comment by som on 27 February 2008:
“completely disagree”
Comment by rockstar on 27 February 2008:
“Jay is simply a toned down Vishal Gautam Nath in-disguise and there’s no other reason why satyam has been trying to held him high for the past 15-18 months.”
simply idiotic well one should not be fool to start branding people as that how will they react if others start calling them as the toned version of mr x or mr y for e.g osama - bin - laden
Comment by jingchak on 27 February 2008:
som/q - points noted.
som i was just kidding on that comment. i was just responding to satyam’s.
anyway guys - i’m off this thread - if you actually look at it - i was just responding to an ILG accusation but all the same enough of this. time to move on to new things
Comment by Qalandar on 27 February 2008:
For the record jingchak, my comments weren’t directed at you, since you didn’t make the statement I was responding to…
Comment by jingchak on 27 February 2008:
i know q - the problem here is no one here in their right mind would condone comments like what street has made here. It is a little disheartening to see folks like ILG use that to score brownie points and then talk about class. reeks of desperation IMO
Comment by rks on 27 February 2008:
Some of the comments are outright deplorable.