About the Author

author photo

Hi, I am Nitesh. I love Cinema. My hobby is to be updated with the happennings of Indian film industry. Cheers!

See All Posts by This Author

Surya - In a new avataar

May 8th, 2008Related|Filed Under

Dedicated to Q, Satyam, Tango and Shetty!

There Are 27 Responses So Far. »

  1. Comment by N I T E S H on 8 May 2008:

    Man…he is getting younger!

    Ghajini 2?????

  2. Comment by akshay shah on 8 May 2008:

    Surya does look younger, and his new look is quiet cool…..this is where I think SRK failed in some ways as he ended up looking like a stereoid-addicted crack whore rather than a smooth 6 pack muscle bound man!

    I’m quiet keen to see how Aamir pulls his part off!

  3. Comment by Ravi on 8 May 2008:

    Akshay “ended up looking like a stereoid-addicted crack whore”.

    Nice Akshay !!!!

  4. Comment by Myna on 9 May 2008:

    “..SRK..ended up looking like a stereoid-addicted crack whore”

    oh…where are all the people who used to raise big concerns over such words and where did all the moral essays disappear now??? Will they appear only when someone (other than a bachchan fan) uses a b***h word or make a rickshawala comparison???

  5. Comment by Qalandar on 9 May 2008:

    Myna: the problem with this line of argument is that it is never-ending, and double edged. For instance, you could say X has revealed bad faith by NOT protesting this comment; I could say you showed bad faith by NOT protesting the “rickshawalla” comment. Fardeen’s one fan could say everyone shows bad faith by NOT protesting nasty stuff said at his expense. It gets us nowhere: personally I think it’s more constructive to not assume based on other people’s silence (since we don’t know whether someone’s silence reflects agreement, absence from the forum, fatigue, amusement, or horror). A discussion on civility on the forum is one that is worth having; a witch hunt based on who did or did not protest suitably loudly is IMO not worth having.

    Aside: there is a difference between akshay’s comment, and even the “rickshawalla” comment, and the “aish = da bitch” comments by Street. The former two are stray comments; but the latter, according to Street HIMSELF, in a different category. i.e., according to Street, he had made it a personal policy of NEVER taking Aishwariya Rai’s name and ALWAYS referring to her as “da bitch” (”Anyways.. she’s no Ash no more.. She’s da bitch.. any topic and any discussion.. she’ da bitch now”) — surely there is a difference. I don’t think either yashi or akshay shah have made it a policy to never refer to SRK or Abhishek except in a derogatory fashion.

    [Btw, I didn’t protest Street’s comments either, although I do not consider them constructive.]

    Aside 2: On rickshawalla, note that people were not protesting because this was derogatory to Abhishek, but because IT WAS DEROGATORY TO “RICKSHAWALLAS”, as the comment suggested that they are essentially dirty and unhygienic (sadly, a view that is often expressed in Indian drawing rooms).

  6. Comment by Ravi on 9 May 2008:

    I felt that Akshay was being too kind with the comparison.

  7. Comment by satyam on 9 May 2008:

    Not sure if this picture is genuine..

    Qalandar, agree completely with your comments…

  8. Comment by Myna on 9 May 2008:

    Q, I agree to most of what you say. Also I never protested then (never agreed with them too) and I am not protesting to Akshay shah here too.

    But its obvious the reactions are extreme in few instances, ppl will jump onto them and give ‘moral lessons’ only when certain actors are involved. I am against those “selective” preachy moral lessons. I feel this is being done only to put other person in the bad light or to make their argument stronger. If one is really concerned about civility, morality and well behaviour, they will not play this selective blindness. And what would have been the reaction if the word ‘SRK’ is replaced by ‘Amitabh’ above?? That person would have been labelled as some immoral or crazy person by each and everyone.
    When it comes to certain actors, if you abuse them you are actually being patted on your back!!

  9. Comment by satyam on 9 May 2008:

    Actually neither I nor Qalandar nor most others protested when Abhishek was routinely attacked as a monkey here, when Ash was attacked in somewhat more disgusting ways, and so forth. What I did protest though was the fact that between Shetty, Achilles and a few others those posts and comments were dominating the forum every day and I honestly felt that the standard of the forum had completely plummeted. Otherwise most of us ignored most of those comments.

    But I am not falling for this feigned ‘hurt’ and so on here. This whole ‘holier-than-thou attitude!

    As for Bachchan I completely accept an exception here. Usually it’s a more universal one with other stars where I might consider certain language more objectionable and so forth (though I tend to be a little more sensitive when female actresses are treated to this because the insults are usually coded in very sexual ways and regressively so; I am also similarly sensitive to racist humor and the like).

    With bachchan I fully admit that if it’s a derogatory comment I will react even if the other criteria are not fulfilled as a point of personal choice. Everyone’s free to say what they want, I am free to respond angrily!

  10. Comment by satyam on 9 May 2008:

    By the way I see a supreme insult to SRK in Akshay’s remark, just don’t see a significant one otherwise.

  11. Comment by Simply Som on 9 May 2008:

    “By the way I see a supreme insult to SRK in Akshay’s remark, just don’t see a significant one otherwise.”

    yeah thats true,Satyam.for the first time I saw Akshay using such language against SRK.ofcourse i strongly condemn this as much as someone using Bitch for Aishwarya or some people ganging up to ridicule SRK’s sexuality or Abhishek’s unshaven look for that matter.civility can’t be compromised at any cost IMO no matter how much you love to hate a certain star or an actor.

  12. Comment by Myna on 9 May 2008:

    Ofcourse everyone is free to say what they want, everyone is free to respond only ’selectively’. And everyone is free to label others as uncivil, lacking class and whatnot only ’selectively’ and only when it ’suits their argument’.

  13. Comment by rks on 9 May 2008:

    Good discussion and very relevant to discourses we normally have.

    As a stranger, you can call SRK a SACW or Abhi as Monkey or rickshawalla or Bhikhari. It shows that lookwise you don’t find them attractive. Choice of word could have been better but I don’t see a bad faith. But it would be different if you say that he is a liar or thief because you don’t know them to pass that judgement (or the judgement is based on partial knowledge).

  14. Comment by rks on 9 May 2008:

    Here is rickshawalla-link thread

  15. Comment by satyam on 9 May 2008:

    Som: I’m making a very different point. It might be useful to just have a civil discourse all round. But the distinction I’m drawing (that Myna either cannot or will not get) is that:

    1)Akshay says SRK looks like a “whore”. This language might be coarse.

    2)Someone says Ash looks like a ‘whore’ or ‘is’ one.

    The insults are not at all the same. Much as calling Abhishek a ‘monkey’ is not at all the same as calling him a ‘dirty’ unhygienic rikshawala’.

    I am more offended by insults that are sexist, racist, regressive in matters of sex and gender, so on and so forth. Akshay’s reference here is quite specific. Actually the irony here is that one should not really be offended unless one is a SRK fan. Why? Well he says “crack addicted whore” so it’s not even ‘whore’ in a generic sense but one addicted to crack. There aren’t too many different ways one can picturize such a person.

    But also calling SRK this is still different from characterizing an actress in the same way. Because in the latter case gender stereotypes in the worst sense would come into play whereas there is no such danger with SRK.

    Now if the standard is that such coarse language should be completely avoided that’s a different matter and I wouldn’t disagree.

    But Myna’s objection here is disingenuous and insincere. Because she didn’t object with Abhishek! Why not?!

    I incidentally objected even some time back when Beld indulged in what I considered to be racist humor. He wasn’t targeting any actor at the time.

    Now there might be a ‘get Satyam’ effort on the part of Myna here. Probably reveals some frustration from other arguments! It’s like the whole Tango deal. If you can’t argue against Satyam run a smear campaign against him and accuse him of everything in the book!

    As always those who cannot argue on the merits will always resort to these underhanded tactics.

    I will respond to whoever and whatever I choose to whenever I wish (yes I will even borrow from Bachchan!). I think I’m quite consistent in my standards and I’ve restated those here. But those objecting are standing on quicksand.

    Som, your objection is valid because you have always been exemplary in this sense.

  16. Comment by satyam on 9 May 2008:

    And Myna the day you acquire enough maturity to not take disagreement on Hrithik’s physicality and acting skills (not to mention “inner beauty”!) as a personal insult we can talk about civility standards as well. In the meantime let’s not pretend otherwise.

    Akshay is one of the very best, one of the least controversial members on the forum. There is no reason to drag his comment into all of this. I have even been ‘chiding’ Bachchan in some of my responses on his blog so I could hardly be accused of being blind to anyone!

    We all cross the line sometimes, there’s nothing exceptional about what Akshay’s said here.

  17. Comment by Kanwal on 9 May 2008:

    rks enjoying!

  18. Comment by Qalandar on 9 May 2008:

    Re: “But its obvious the reactions are extreme in few instances, ppl will jump onto them and give ‘moral lessons’ only when certain actors are involved. I am against those “selective” preachy moral lessons. I feel this is being done only to put other person in the bad light or to make their argument stronger.”

    But this is true across a wide range of situations; for instance, you go out of your way to “defend” Jodha-Akbar’s box office performance in a way you haven’t for Race; or were more inclined to come out in support of “the Roshans” on the whole Ram Sampat issue. For my part, I am certainly more interested in the box office fate of Sarkar Raj than I am of Krazzy 4 — even if I feel someone is being ungenerous to the latter, I just don’t care enough to expend the energy to fight the issue. I resist the position that a protest is only “legitimate” if one has ALSO voiced it in every instance where it could have been applicable; in the real world protests don’t exist in the abstract, but in the context of particular situations. Not to mention that the comparison between stray comments and Street’s stated intention (subsequently carried out) to consistently refer to Ash as “da bitch” are simply not the same.

    [That being said, if X said that they are on principle opposed to any comments of a certain nature, then they have raised the bar for themselves. Thus if Satyam does not protest a racial comment I make, but protests if others make racist comments, the charge against him would be a fair one (one would nevertheless be faced with the problem of what silence means: what if the person never saw the comment? what if one is non-combative? e.g. I am opposed to various statements, but don’t fight about 99% of them) — because satyam says he’s opposed to such statements. However, satyam has never claimed that he’s opposed to offensive language at a star’s expense in general. I don’t recall him protesting at any of shetty’s comments about abhishek, for instance. In general, however, I am opposed to using someone’s silence as a cudgel to silence him/her when (s)he does speak — thus the fact that you had nothing much to say on X film’s box office performance ought not be held against you when you do point out any unfairness vis-a-vis Jodha-Akbar.]

  19. Comment by rks on 9 May 2008:

    Satyam:”you acquire enough maturity”

    :( not needed. A personal comment based on personal judgement.

  20. Comment by Myna on 9 May 2008:

    “And Myna the day you acquire enough maturity to not take disagreement on Hrithik’s physicality and acting skills (not to mention “inner beauty”!) as a personal insult we can talk about civility standards as well. In the meantime let’s not pretend otherwise.”

    Oh, is that so!!! when did I take the disagreement on hrithik’s physicality or whatever as personal insult?? and accused others as uncivil, dishonest or what not?

    Here is the link that has the related discussion.

    http://www.naachgaana.com/2008/04/24/hrithik-vogues-first-coverboy/

    And few ppl made even not so good comments abt hrithik’s looks there…Did I label them as uncivil??
    I dont pretend like few others!!! And here I am not objecting to what akshay said.

  21. Comment by Myna on 9 May 2008:

    Maybe Satyam you are not mature enough as you always label others who disagree with you as dishonest, liars and start labelling others as uncivil etc. And now calling me immature…all personal comments.

  22. Comment by ILG on 9 May 2008:

    A rather unfortunate choice of words from an otherwise stalwart member. And no question of bad faith as Akshay is not an SRK-hater. Not sure if anyone is. But certainly not Akshay.
    This has no relevance to recurrent and often unpunished derogatory and loathsome meanderings of a certain member who rarely has anything constructive to offer. To try and equate the two smacks of disingenuity and bad faith.

  23. Comment by rks on 9 May 2008:

    Myna: “Maybe Satyam you are not mature enough ”

    My comment was sufficient. This escalation is not going to take the discussion anywhere.

    kanwal: You said, I am enjoying; My hands are always full with water hoses .

  24. Comment by Myna on 9 May 2008:

    “Now there might be a ‘get Satyam’ effort on the part of Myna here. Probably reveals some frustration from other arguments! It’s like the whole Tango deal. If you can’t argue against Satyam run a smear campaign against him and accuse him of everything in the book!

    As always those who cannot argue on the merits will always resort to these underhanded tactics.”

    Oh, why did u get the feeling that I cant argue against you. Looks like you are giving too much credit to yourself. Its you who many times failed to support your arguments, especially in JA BO case. All you would say is all the numbers are false, everyone who believes this are liars, dishonest blah, blah. And ofcourse your frustration then is well known to everyone here, after all your ‘this crash’ and ‘that crash’ theory failed!!! And again when did you even argue on merits???

  25. Comment by Tango on 9 May 2008:

    “Now there might be a ‘get Satyam’ effort on the part of Myna here. Probably reveals some frustration from other arguments! It’s like the whole Tango deal. If you can’t argue against Satyam run a smear campaign against him and accuse him of everything in the book’

    You are too small for me to waste time on you. Its you who is always obsessed by mentioning me because you want to become mebut you cannot.

    There are days when I do not mention you but you come up out of the blue mentioning me, seeking attention, like today.

    Most important I dont have useless time to waste by way of writing GRE/Gmat laden paras, with 100 not so frequently used words.

  26. Comment by Myna on 9 May 2008:

    “My comment was sufficient. This escalation is not going to take the discussion anywhere.”

    rks - I never started anything personal. I never objected to the words used for Ash or srk either. I only said, when someone used not so good words for Ash, many had big concerns, but not when it comes to srk (actually ppl are backing that.) Its satyam who started this personal thing (about being immature and pretense, running campaign against him). I am not going to just sit back and take that.

  27. Comment by Tango on 9 May 2008:

    Myna very well summed up “Maybe Satyam you are not mature enough as you always label others who disagree with you as dishonest, liars and start labelling others as uncivil etc. And now calling me immature…all personal comments.”

    Anyone who does not ascribe to his philosophy “dishonest, liars and start labelling others as uncivil etc”. He still cannot explain why he opposed Jodha Akabar in the first place.

    In fact, its like Hitler. Anything against Hitler is against Germany. Anything against Satyam or IBOS is against Amitabh Bachchan.