Hrithik: Vogue’s first coverboy
Hrithik: Vogue’s first coverboy
Vogue has come out with its first edition of Vogue Man, a men’s supplement. Hrithik Roshan takes over the cover for the first issue.
The 75-page supplement touches upon fashion, cars, clothes, watches, grooming products and gadgets tips for every man.
Bipasha’s in vogue again!
Bipasha Basu gets ready to adorn the cover of Vogue India for the second time.
Asia’s sexiest woman will show off summer fashion in the May issue of the magazine.
Rohit,
It is for a lack of better word, just a misunderstanding.
Your intentions are pure.
Lets not get hung up on one ...
Satyam, read jayshah's reply on screening. He will educate you a bit.
The most frustrating thing with it comes to ...
For my part, I'll say this, although I was initially going to give Rohit an email myself...
I've been a part ...
Gnight little bro. Hope by the time you wake , this all looks like a dream and not resemble a ...
I hope everything will be normal when i wake up tomorrow..
And this will be my last comment till Satyam shows ...
Have to leave for a meeting now. 
Rocky- Gusse mein log bahut kuch bol dete hain, they don't always mean it or regret it later.
Comment by Ravi on 24 April 2008:
Saw that this morning Myna, he looks amazing as always. No wonder he has fans like u and Julie and the jealous one’s like me.
Comment by Myna on 24 April 2008:
Lol Ravi, yes, very good pic here, Perfect! I think there will be many more pics like these inside the magazine, waiting for it!!
Actually I would like to see hrithik and bipasha in a movie together. They might make a good hot pair.
Comment by Julie on 24 April 2008:
what a picture Myna/Ravi. Suzzane is just so damn lucky. Hey Myna by the way have you seen the Cinthol ad pictures of Hritik? You know Ravi, despite my admiration for Hritik and his personality, my husband also likes him a lot for what he is coz he knows he has nothing to be jealous of. Lol.
Comment by Ravi on 24 April 2008:
Agree Julie, by the way IMO Suzanne is luckier for having a nice person as her husband and does not hurt in him being a handsome hunk.
By the way I think only in my family(me, my wife and both the kids) love Hrithik and Abhi , ofcourse for me anyone is only after Big B and it took me almost 26 odd years to like someone almost(not quite) as the Big B.
Comment by N I T E S H on 24 April 2008:
Great pic of Harman! Is he dating Priyanka chopra?
Bipasha’s pics are disappointment
Comment by Julie on 24 April 2008:
Ravi - yes that is surprising. Actually it is even more surprising where couples agree on the same taste or star preference. BTW Myna I love your gravatar. rks is yet to help me upload mine. rks can I have one with Hritik in solo?
Comment by rks on 24 April 2008:
Julie: I started the process and asked you to email me the password, when you initially asked couple of weeks back.
Check your julie_p… email.
Comment by Julie on 24 April 2008:
okay rks. there is a link in my email that I will forward to you again which I thought I had. I am having trouble setting the password on the Gravatar.
Comment by Myna on 24 April 2008:
Nitesh: “Great pic of Harman!”
Is that a joke?
Comment by N I T E S H on 24 April 2008:
of course Myna. LOL
Hrithik is far more handsome. I just tried to tease and you fell into my trap just like OUAT the apple fell into Newton’s lap.
Comment by Qalandar on 24 April 2008:
Off topic: Hritik is in my opinion the best looking male in the industry, and perhaps that’s the majority opinion too. But there is definitely an undercurrent of sentiment among some women (I say this from personal experience) who are turned off by the whole “waxed chest”, gym manufactured aspect of the new Bollywood “model” (no pun intended); and that undercurrent would even today prefer the ruggedness of an Akshay Kumar, the suave smooth air of a Shah Rukh, the brooding air of an Abhishek, or the potentially dangerous “edge” of a John Abraham (although the last is a model-type for sure, he is certainly far from generic, and has a certain persona when used effectively, as in Dhoom 1 or No Smoking).
Comment by ILG on 24 April 2008:
Agree 100%, Q. Thats what makes women go for a less than perfect physical specimens like Colin Ferrell or Vince Vaughan.
Comment by Myna on 24 April 2008:
Julie, sent you some pics to use as gravatar.
“by the way have you seen the Cinthol ad pictures of Hritik”
Yes, all shirtless, he is exposing a lot these days!! Not that I am complaining!
Comment by satyam on 24 April 2008:
Qalandar let me add my 100% to ILG’s here..
I think that ‘beauty’ whether male or female can be admired as an ideal when it meets certain cultural ideals but this is often of the order of the ‘plastic’ and hence cannot really be ‘loved’. And the solely ‘beautiful’ star always loses out to the one with the more authentic presence, whether in India or Hollywood or elsewhere. Robert Redford was the Hrithik kind of ultimate pretty boy but you wouldn’t want to put him in a film with Pacino or De Niro!
But it is also the case that in a global sense concepts of beauty as defined by the modeling industry are increasingly plastic, increasingly bland, and from my perspective increasingly unattractive. And of course they veer towards ’sameness’ and impersonality. The woman becomes simply the sum of her legs and her breasts and her cheekbones and so on. The male in the same fashion! Increasingly we find people ‘beautiful’ only to the extent that they look like pictures! But in an interesting move this kind of ‘beauty’ depends on complete desexualization. That we nonetheless find them appealing to some degree is because we are as biological beings offered a set of stimuli to which we then react! We become Pavlovian beings. if we see breasts or a waxed chest or a certain kind of face or what have you (all in the ways defined by a culture, which incidentally is increasingly ‘American’ today) we define it as ‘beautiful’ but we are also ‘attracted’ in a very mechanical sense. This is why actresses or actors ‘excite’ far more than ‘models’. Because they rarely conform to those ‘pre-conditions’ as perfectly as do models (the cinema as a realm of ‘narrativity’ ensures that this does not happen, no matter how much things might veer in that direction).
A nice film in this regard (though it’s not specifically about this or only about this) is Lars and the Real Girl (with the wonderful Ryan Gosling).
There must be something in the ‘beautiful’ subject that subverts that very ‘beauty’. This makes for a truly attractive subject. And Qalandar’s examples are good ones in this sense. of course not all of his examples would be defined as ‘beautiful’ to begin with. But there is another order of physicality that is often at war with notions of ‘beauty’ and that in fact usually emerges the ‘victor’. This involves notions of the imperfect, or a kind of beauty that emerges only when one adopts a certain perspective, a charisma that does not arise out of any traditional sense of ‘beauty’, a degree of particularity and so forth. Also in the final analysis the ‘gestural’ plays a crucial role here. A star in cinema who belongs to the latter group will almost always triumph over one who belongs to the former one.
of course one must also account for gender here. Because this entire set of claims works very differently depending on what gender is in question. But either way the difference is usually between a ‘beauty’ that can be normalized or asserted as a universal within a culture and another that can only be explained as such on its own terms. A quick example. Dharam is far more the traditionally good looking guy (in a rugged sense) than is Bachchan. Dharam’s looks belong to certain universal archives within an Indian context. Bachchan’s do not and can only be explained by the reference to Bachchan. But what happens with the Bachchan kind of star is that another order of ‘beauty’ is sometimes created. So in the context of Indian cinema when people refer to tall, dark and brooding in a positive Bachchan is probably the ultimate ‘model’ who authorizes these notions.
Comment by satyam on 24 April 2008:
To put it yet another way women (and men) who find Hrithik attractive are actually attracted to a certain codified idea of ‘beauty’ that Hrithik represents. But those who are attracted to SRK do not have such an archive to fall back on. because none exists for the SRK kind of physicality. Therefore SRK’s physicality and any attraction that his audiences might feel are much more specific to SRK than hrithik’s attributes are to him.
Comment by ILG on 24 April 2008:
Am glad someone here appreciates Ryan Gosling whom I consider Akshaye Khanna of Hollywood.
Comment by Julie on 24 April 2008:
Ravi/Myna - agreed that beauty is a sum of outer and inner personalities. From that perspective someone like Audrey Hepburn, Clarke Gable, Richard Burton, and Marlon Brando, they definitely supercede current age top female models like Naomi Campbell, Cindy Crawford and a whole lot of standardized male models.
But if a person is endowed with a great mix of both inner and outer beauty, that person certainly will have an edge over a person having only inner beauty. The other extreme could be that the person of supreme inner beauty can surpass a person of supreme physical beauty. Many exs. come to the forefront. A comparison between Nargis and Madhubala - Madhubala scores becasue she is endowed with both. But how do you compare somebody like Lata Mangeshkar with anybody else. By the same token timeless beauties of Hema Malini and Madhuri Dixit surpass any of the Ms. World style plastic beauties.
Among the current lot of course Hritik is an icon because he comes across as not just a physical persona but also a genuine human being (which Ravi has aptly pointed out). So the comparison has to be on both these parameters. While some may accord more weightage to the inner and cultural aspect of the personality, some may opt for a more balanced view, and some may get carried away by pure combination of physical assets. Like anything else in life there is a time element to beauty also. There is a degeneration at times. Looks don’t last forever and even intrinsic personality may undergo some distortion due to circumstances and psychological conflicts. We have seen this happen to Rajesh Khanna, to some extent Dharam, and now we see signs of a similar phenomenon happening to the great Big B. Time has its own traps and few people survive the temptations and come out of the world of mudslinging and are true to the old world saying “lotus like living” which means that lotus resides in the muddy water but still is unaffected by the undercurrents. We still have a few exs. in the Indian cinema who are the true living legends and who do not run after their commemoration by all and sundry and their names do not spark off controversy but generates a feeling of reverence.
To conclude with the famous line of Keats “a thing of beauty is a joy forever”
Comment by rks on 24 April 2008:
“A nice film in this regard (though it’s not specifically about this or only about this) is Lars and the Real Girl (with the wonderful Ryan Gosling).”
Saw it few days back and laughed till midway, then it became serious.
In ‘Planet of Apes’, the Apes use to call humans ugly, while calling themselves beautiful.
Comment by ILG on 24 April 2008:
Hrithik comes across as a nice kid and no doubt is very good looking in every possible way but lacks a certain edge to his persona. In a purely physical sense, that makes him a little less interesting. Wouldnt call him plastic but chiseled looks alone do not neccessarily make someone beautiful.
Comment by don123 on 24 April 2008:
{But there is another order of physicality that is often at war with notions of ‘beauty’ and that in fact usually emerges the ‘victor’. This involves notions of the imperfect, or a kind of beauty that emerges only when one adopts a certain perspective, a charisma that does not arise out of any traditional sense of ‘beauty’, a degree of particularity and so forth.}
Well said. If I understand you correctly, beauty often depends upon the perpective one adopts and a different kind of beauty leaves a more lasting impression than a universal sameness.
I believe a good example is Clint Eastwood. He is not very handsome in the conventional sense but he grabs your attention when he is on screen and slowly builds on you.
I believe actors who are not conventionally very good looking have to build on other factors like personality, style and and over a period of time, this cumulative effect grows on you till you begin to regard their attractivenss on par with the conventional ones.
Comment by ILG on 24 April 2008:
Re:To conclude with the famous line of Keats “a thing of beauty is a joy forever”
For me, on NG that is Q’s mind, Satyam’s pen, Som’s masoomiyat and Ravi’s equanimity.
Comment by rks on 24 April 2008:
“But if a person is endowed with a great mix of both inner and outer beauty, that person certainly will have an edge over a person having only inner beauty. ”
Not disagreeing but outer beauty helps initially when two people interact and inner beauty is kind of dormant or doesn’t help. With increased interaction the value of outer beauty decreases and inner beauty has more importance [in relationship, communication]. With stars they remain stranger to us, so we give more importance to outer beauty in most of the part.
Comment by satyam on 24 April 2008:
ILG: Are you sure you don’t want to rephrase that?! for once you have been asleep at the switch!
Speaking of pens you’ll get a kick out of this:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080424/od_nm/witchcraft_dc_2
As you can see this culture is pre-Freudian! And knew its castration anxieties long ago!
Comment by satyam on 24 April 2008:
“Not disagreeing but outer beauty helps initially when two people interact and inner beauty is kind of dormant or doesn’t help. With increased interaction the value of outer beauty decreases and inner beauty has more importance [in relationship, communication]. With stars they remain stranger to us, so we give more importance to outer beauty in most of the part.”
Rks, why don’t you just say you’re married? Why this long explanation?!
Apologies! But I could only engage in such humor with a friend such as yourself. Or perhaps I shouldn’t call you a friend. The next time you’re moderating some will call you corrupt!
Comment by satyam on 24 April 2008:
Rks: Great example on Planet of the Apes. When the Japanese had their first contact with the ‘white men’ they were totally repelled by the ‘barbarian’ as they saw it. They found skin that white revolting!
Don123: Quite agreed with your thoughts here.
Comment by rks on 24 April 2008:
“Rks, why don’t you just say you’re married? Why this long explanation?!”
LOL…I wrote some stuff in that direction, then I sounded like a teacher and removed it.
Comment by satyam on 24 April 2008:
I must confess that I claim no access to the ‘inner beauty’ of any star.. I am quite satisfied with the ‘outer’ variety!
Comment by satyam on 24 April 2008:
“We have seen this happen to Rajesh Khanna, to some extent Dharam, and now we see signs of a similar phenomenon happening to the great Big B”
Except that Rajesh Khanna was under 40 when it started happening to him and Dharam because of his love affair with the bottle also lost his looks much earlier than he should have (though one prefers Dharam in the 80s to Sunny in the 80s!). Bachchan though is looking as good as a person of his age (66 this year) could be expected to. In fact Bachchan is the one star his age who could easily be put up against Western stars (who tend to maintain themselves much better) his age and not be inferior to anyone at all.
Of course no one can completely fight the ravages of time. But bachchan is really as good as it gets! I think he remans an extraordinary persona on and off screen.
Comment by Julie on 24 April 2008:
“Bachchan though is looking as good as a person of his age (66 this year) could be expected to.”
Probably because of romancing with and oogling at younger nubile nymphs in movies like Boom, Nishabd, KANK, to some degree in K3G and then proving his manhood in CK…
Comment by satyam on 24 April 2008:
No it just takes something simple (though which is nonetheless rare) called ‘taste’ to appreciate Bachchan!
Comment by aurora on 24 April 2008:
Q: But there is definitely an undercurrent of sentiment among some women (I say this from personal experience) who are turned off by the whole “waxed chest”, gym manufactured aspect of the new Bollywood “model” (no pun intended)
LOL I’m one of them! I find Hrithik sissy and artificial.And this whole body exposure, the makeup and waxed chest is now just sickening.Yuck, enough! Suzzanne for crying out loud lock away your makeup!
Comment by Myna on 24 April 2008:
Very well summarised Julie.
“But if a person is endowed with a great mix of both inner and outer beauty, that person certainly will have an edge over a person having only inner beauty.”
rks, I think here Julie is mainly talking abt stars/celebrities and not abt ppl we interact daily. In that case this makes perfect sense to me.
“Among the current lot of course Hritik is an icon because he comes across as not just a physical persona but also a genuine human being.”
100% agree. If hrithik is not the person that he is, he will loose most of his fans. Its his personality that I like most, simple and humble, and thats what makes him look even more good.
Comment by Fari on 24 April 2008:
Akshay Khanna has nothing on Ryan Gosling.
For those who haven’t seen it Gosling was very good in a movie called Half Nelson as well.
After Akshay’s constipated act(that’s the only word I can think of to describe his acting)in SEI and especially in Race, I just dislike him as an actor.
Anyway, Hrithik’s looking good here. He’s so pretty.
Though I agree with Q. My preference is not the wax chest, body building look on a man.
I was looking at some pics from the sets of Dostana and this is the look John Abraham seems to be sporting for the film– complete with shaved legs and even more bulging muscles.
Comment by yashi on 24 April 2008:
Myna/Julie: LOLLLLLL…..i can’t stop laughing…..is this guy for real ?? Such a long and silly thesis on male beauty and what attracts women!!! What can jealeousy and insecurity reduce people to tsk tsk…ROFL!!
Don’t u know….what Little B ain’t have should be denounced ??
And also…dare not disbelieve this….everyone in the world LOVES shabby, unhygenic looking males with tons of facial and body hair and of course a sweet little paunch…..why ? Arre apna chotta B looks like that naa!!
Comment by Julie on 24 April 2008:
It seems some people are so simple that their sole objective is to appreciate Bachchan. No wonder we hear of Amitabh Bachchan temples being erected in recent times but this “simple” adulation is still far less than for heroes from south like NTR, MGR, Raj Kumar whose death caused several to commit suicide because the very basis of their life was lost. If we encourage this kind of simple appreciation then in this age of logic and science probably we are doing disservice to mankind by leading them to the path of self destruction becasue if their god is no more they possibly cannot survive.
Comment by satyam on 24 April 2008:
No evidently it takes something simpler than ‘taste’ to wax (pun intended!) superlatives about Hrithik all day!
Comment by yashi on 24 April 2008:
John is looking fab in Dostana pics. He will rock in the movie.
Abhishek…well, people say he can’t help but epitomise the ‘Rickshawallah’ look. Anyways, good for him….suits him to the core.
Personally, do not like the dirty, unkempt, ungroomed, unhygenic look that he wears all the time
Comment by satyam on 24 April 2008:
And people who are that offended with hrithik being critiqued in any manner not to their liking are assuredly headed the way of Raj Kumar’s or NTR’s fans! or perhaps Abhishek’s success is also achieving the same results. LOL! Anyway I don’t want to ruin this thread totally. I won’t be responding anymore..
Comment by Qalandar on 24 April 2008:
Re: “Personally, do not like the dirty, unkempt, ungroomed, unhygenic look…”
Fair enough, though (as someone who shaves as little as possible, and only when I have to), while I accept the “unkempt” and possibly “ungroomed” part of your statement (in the sense that I see what you’re getting at*), I resist the notion that such a look is “dirty” and “unhygienic.”
*[If by unkempt and ungroomed you also mean careless and un-thought out, then I would disagree. Many (most?) who let a stubble grow these days do so for vanity. Certainly that's why I do it: more than one woman has told me I look better that way, and for me that settled the argument.]
Comment by satyam on 24 April 2008:
Though I am not going to respond to the specifics anymore (on this thread) it is amusing to see how a rather theoretical argument on ‘beauty’ gets converted into juvenile grade 2 banter on who’s pencil (!) is better!
This is the kind of blackmail that I once referred to in a discussion with Rks. You try to say something constructive and immediately those who cannot or will not respond in kind introduce this kind of ridicule and/or abuse that simply ruins the tenor of the discussion. Why not ignore what one does not like?
I responded in the other thread only because I cannot stand this kind of running down in matters of gender, class, race, sexuality or what have you.
Comment by yashi on 24 April 2008:
Myna : Last i heard Little B’s previous releases JBJ, LCMD etc were Clossal disasters…..weren’t they ? Guess some people will keep hallucinating about ‘Abhishek’s so called success..no matter what !!
Oh yes, i forgot…since he is the husband of a superstar wife and the son of a superstar father, he has earned the right to be also called a superdtar on borrowed success LOL!!
Comment by don123 on 24 April 2008:
If I say anything about the quarrel I will be bogged down in it so I say nothing.
But the way the Hrithik team works together is interesting. They cooperate and buttress each other’s statements. It is like a pack of dogs hot on a scent, and I pity anyone who has the misfortune of being their victim.
Poor Satyam, he stands no chance.
By the way, the African Wild Dog is the most fearsome predator in the plains of Africa, even more so than a lion.
Comment by Eire on 24 April 2008:
I find it rather cacky and immature how anytime a male actor is critiqued in any manner the fans of that actor have to inexplicably attack Abhishek and put him down in order to build up their favourite actor. This type of odd behavior pattern just blows to ruddy hell their arguments or point of view. No need to attack anyone to make your point.
Abhishek is a tall and good looking guy who has a brooding intensity coupled with a fun personality that many women find very attractive. Also many male fans relate to his type of look and personality as well. He has his own fan base of men and women as he is no different than any other actor in this regard. And this does not add or take away from any other actor in the industry. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And every actor in the industry has their own set of fans. So don’t see what the ruckus is about or why the need to bash and belittle others just to build up someone you already hold in high esteem.
Comment by Qalandar on 24 April 2008:
Satyam: I have to agree with you there; a perfectly reasonable and rather abstract/theoretical discussion suddenly became a “star bashing” thread. It’s hard for any constructive discussion to happen if one’s level of identification with a star is such that a statement like “Hritik represents X model of beauty/masculinity; a possibly minority undercurrent prefers other models etc.” leads to a “Abhishek is ugly, dirty and unhygienic” response. Of course I don’t question anyone’s right to say such things, but I do think that sort of response effectively terminates the discussion, and sets the stage for a mere verbal contest.
My two cents, no more to say on this thread.
Comment by rks on 24 April 2008:
Yashi:”Such a long and silly thesis on male beauty and what attracts women!!! What can jealeousy and insecurity reduce people to tsk tsk…ROFL!!”
If you don’t like the comment and not directed to you, ignore it.
DOn123:”But the way the Hrithik team works together is interesting. They cooperate and buttress each other’s statements. It is like a pack of dogs hot on a scent, and I pity anyone who has the misfortune of being their victim. ”
Not needed.
Comment by Julie on 24 April 2008:
“But the way the Hrithik team works together is interesting. They cooperate and buttress each other’s statements. It is like a pack of dogs hot on a scent, and I pity anyone who has the misfortune of being their victim.”
I don’t know whether Hritik or anyone’s fans should take this remark as a compliment or as an insult, but I am sure we can desist from using words like dogs and analogies with African dogs and members of NG. Just my two cents. Of course people can add their two cents to the discussion too but without making it debase.
Comment by Ravi on 24 April 2008:
Julie “Probably because of romancing with and oogling at younger nubile nymphs in movies like Boom, Nishabd, KANK, to some degree in K3G and then proving his manhood in CK…”
For the first time at least for me , you don’t make much sense Julie, you usually are pretty good on backing up what you say, this looks like you are saying this just to spite Satyam, like how I appreciate Hrithik’s looks , Bachchan at this age looks better than any comparable Hwood stars.
Comment by Ravi on 24 April 2008:
I agree with what you said Eire, everyone has their own place.
Comment by Simply Som on 24 April 2008:
“Not disagreeing but outer beauty helps initially when two people interact and inner beauty is kind of dormant or doesn’t help. With increased interaction the value of outer beauty decreases and inner beauty has more importance [in relationship, communication]. With stars they remain stranger to us, so we give more importance to outer beauty in most of the part.”
Very well said rks.You sounded like my dad!!sometimes we get so carried away by someone’s outer beauty that we fail to appreciate the other good qualities and fail to know the “real person” in him/her.The beauty looked at with eyes doesn’t last forever.Beauty in fact is representative of good deeds and kindness.
Comment by Simply Som on 24 April 2008:
“I’m one of them! I find Hrithik sissy and artificial.And this whole body exposure, the makeup and waxed chest is now just sickening.Yuck, enough!”
that makes two of us.I would rather prefer someone like Akshay or even Abhishek with or without beard.
Comment by Simply Som on 24 April 2008:
“I have to agree with you there; a perfectly reasonable and rather abstract/theoretical discussion suddenly became a “star bashing” thread. It’s hard for any constructive discussion to happen if one’s level of identification with a star is such that a statement like “Hritik represents X model of beauty/masculinity; a possibly minority undercurrent prefers other models etc.” leads to a “Abhishek is ugly, dirty and unhygienic” response. Of course I don’t question anyone’s right to say such things, but I do think that sort of response effectively terminates the discussion, and sets the stage for a mere verbal contest.”
I second to that,Qalandar!!
Comment by Myna on 24 April 2008:
don123, your statements doesnt sound good, especially singling out saying hrithik’s fans. Just make a remotely -ve remark on any bachchan and I am sure the reactions will be the same, actually even more.
Agree some comments in this thread should not have been made. But those who are complaining, I dont see them complaining when some of the posts (mostly lies without any logic or reasoning) sole purpose is to put down few actors/films only to praise the other. How constructive are those? One can find many posts like that, but no one complains then.
It is perfectly alright when few ppl say that others have no taste bcoz they dont like bachchan. And sometimes even say their judgement is atrocious, they are blind and pitiable and not worthy and whatnot…all these only to praise their fav actor!!! How constructive are comments like these!!! I never saw ppl complaining then, but the whole “team” (the term as used by don123) nods in agreement.
Ppl cannot stand running down others in matters of gender, class etc…sure, good thing….but can one run down others bcoz of their taste??
Comment by don123 on 24 April 2008:
“don123, your statements doesnt sound good, especially singling out saying hrithik’s fans.”
Myna if my words have hurt you I apologize. I was just observing that Hrihik fans pose a united front and tend to support each other’s comments, thereby butressing the main argument they make.
I see no other star with such a strong united defence on this forum, thus the observation.
But of course if the fans of a certain actor have a grievance they all come blazing, but I believe Hrithik’s fans do it in a more united and complimentary fasion.
Comment by Myna on 24 April 2008:
don, thats ok, I am not really hurt, no apologies needed.
Abt posing united front and united defence..lol..at NG no other defence is united and stronger than bachchan fans.
Comment by beld o beld on 24 April 2008:
>>It seems some people are so simple that their sole objective is to appreciate Bachchan
that about sums it all. I dont believe there are any true cinema lovers who dont appreciate bachchan. but some folks here make it their sole objective. nothing wrong with that - as long as they can allow criticism by others and not respond by calling those folks as dogs/fascists etc etc.
I absolutely believe that it is a personal choice to make fun of any public figure - be it actor or politician or sportsman. i dont care whether it is amitabh or rajnikanth - they are not gods. in some ways the beauty of amitabh and srk and rajnikanth to me is that is there are flawed individuals per se. makes them more human - i would think