Today, I am proud of Ranbir: Rishi Kapoor

CoolP |

126 | October 7, 2009 at 6:15 am | 1,135 views | NaachGaana Bol| Share

Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic.

M Id 112590 wake up Today, I am proud of Ranbir: Rishi Kapoor

Rishi Kapoor is overwhelmed with the kind of response Wake Up Sid has generated for son Ranbir. After some anxious moments spent in the week that led to Friday release of the film, he is also relieved that Ranbir has now been widely recognized as an actor who is reliable and can deliver the goods.

“I can’t explain how proud I feel today as Ranbir’s father”, says Kapoor senior, “His performance has made everyone stand up and notice, whether it’s the audiences, people from the industry or the critics. With the kind of universal appreciation that he is getting, I am happy that he has done so very well for himself.”

With a Kapoor surname to boast of, it was never going to be easy. “Exactly”, says Rishi Kapoor, “People feel it’s an advantage but the fact remains that as an actor, you have to always prove your own worth. He is making some smart choices and working in distinct films. He hasn’t taken an easy route and I am glad that his strategy his paying.”

As a father, he has mixed feelings about seeing Ranbir completely immersed in work. On one end he feels pained to see him slogging day in and night out. On the other hand, he understands that hard work means Ranbir is busy and hence he wants him to carry on.

“Even when Wake Up Sid had to release on Friday, Ranbir was working from Thursday night till 6 AM on Friday to get some promotional activities running for his next release Ajab Prem Ki Ghazab Kahani”, reveals Rishi Kapoor, “He hasn’t been resting. Soon he would be going to USA for the shooting of his next film. Meanwhile, he also has to promote Ajab Prem…. which is releasing in November followed by Rocket Singh – Salesman Of The Year in December and then Rajneeti in January.”

Read the rest here.

Rishi Kapoor on Ranbir

Ranbir Kapoor Sajid Nadiadwala and Siddharth Anand Team Up

No Aamir-Salman, It´s Ranbir Kapoor In ´Andaz Apna Apna 2´!

“I am quite a romantic at heart, but at the same time, being in a relationship or being with a girl is not my priority.” – Ranbir Kapoor

Mani Ratnam to cast Ranbir Kapoor

There Are 126 Responses So Far. »

ACHILLES 5 October 2009
01:51:11 pm

Rishi sounds like Takla Roshan now … maybe if WUS manages to become a hit then we will see fullpage ads in newspapers from rishi … heck if bachchan cud stoop so low, why not kapoors?

If takloo roshan was a megastar and not some sidekick actor, then media wud have made Hrithik #1 by now even with his just 5 hits in 10 years … too bad for hrithik he has a failed actor of a dad!

S T R E E T 5 October 2009
01:57:16 pm

Exactly .. I read the title here and the first thing I am reminded of is Bachchan post-Guru. So, what is now.. WUS is another “event”?

S T R E E T 5 October 2009
02:04:26 pm

I guess the only thing that sux for likes of Ranbir and Abhishek is that no matter how much their films succeed the new offers they get and their new projects don’t get any bigger coz they very much start off with big shot directors and top production houses and their first films are ones that other actors would have to deliver dozens of hits to receive. So where’s the incentive? Can you really claim that any of Ranbir’s present or future projects any bigger than his very first film?

rohitkarnbatra 5 October 2009
05:54:39 pm

The only catch in your comments street is that his first film flopped!

ACHILLES 5 October 2009
06:15:09 pm

The problem for Ranbir/Abhishek is that they literally have nowhere to go … their debut vehicles are the biggest projects possible be it Dutta’s Refugee or Bhansali’s Saawariya … it hardly matters if these movies flop or becomes hit … coz irrespective of the outcome, they will always get projects equal in scale, hype, prestige, whatever. So even when Delhi 6 flops, Abhi still gets to work with ashutosh, saawairiya flopped but Ranbir got YRF, BEH did not become a hit, still all his upcoming projs are backed by big banners and names … what motivation can these guyz have? Why shud they wake up? they will always get these movies even after flops.

Hits are not going to give them any better projects.

Same goes for Hurman – he gets to work with Ashutosh even after colossol flops in LS 2050 n Victory. apart from their lineage and media favoritism, the lack of enuf number of A-List stars makes the scenario worse … the top 3 guys are hardly available, thus makers also dont have much choice but to work with these new bunch – which makes it more easy for them and the wasted sons are further wasted.

BW hardly has any future unless we see the arrival of another SRK.

Doga 5 October 2009
06:30:18 pm

I will give RK sometime, he has potential.

Comparing with Abhi is very harsh as he gave 14 flops in a row.

Doga 5 October 2009
06:38:11 pm

I will say never say never.

When Pete Sampras retired, everyone was saying,his records wont be broken ever(including me).

But didnt Federer come and destroy all the records,so lets be optimistic,lol.

pardesi 5 October 2009
07:31:04 pm

If we can put Harman in this mix (son of a sidey director) then why not Hritik (son of a sidey actor)? It is not who they are but what they make of the opportunities they got. I still see no reasonable explanation for why BAH was not a hit. As for connected actors getting roles despite flops – it is not like Salman, Aamir, Hritik (all connected) gave no flops.

Doga 5 October 2009
07:33:49 pm

Nothing speaks like success, If Ranbir gives a huge blockbuster, all questions will go down.

pardesi 5 October 2009
07:41:49 pm

One has to look beyond the BO success of the films. In every film (including the flop Saawariya) Ranbir has earned praise from a majority of critics. This is very different from say Abhishek, whom Rangan may love but most do not praise overmuch, Harman gets hardly any praise, and when was the last time Salman got good critics response? So Ranbir’s acting is earning him appreciation, and that is the best thing an actor can hope to achieve.

ACHILLES 5 October 2009
08:40:36 pm

I dont see how Federer/Sampras analogy comes in … the point was about ’stardom’ by birth, by surname instead of merit. Fedex/Pete both are greats by merit (not some surname) or media support.

Nor does the names of Salman/Aamir/Hrithik come into the discussion .. they had filmy connections, got easy breaks and delivered blockbusters right away to become superstars. They may have many flops in their career, but their stardom was always justified by their hits/blockbusters.

And essentially its the matter of how some stars are made by the media because of lineage – as for acting – all these bollywood critics praise almost everything to heavens – the likes of SRK/Hrithik gets praised as genius actors for hardly decent performances … the so called critics go ballistic on these, these are essentially stars and no one cares much about them as actors … same goes for the newbies – unless they stop doing commercial potboilers and go into art films.

BEH opened at 20 cr week 1 and folded up by 35 cr approx … the end total was not much different for TRRP from YRF … some may well believe these are hit movies … but the trade wud hardly consider such marginal returns as hit business … even NY a movie of same scale needed 45 cr to get a hit tag.

Anyways, the hulla-boo by the media about a 10 cr opening weekend proves my point more than anything else. It been a long time since we had a new superstar … which makes the nedia more desperate to ‘create’ a few new ones … else what will they write about?

Doga 5 October 2009
08:57:48 pm

Ach, I do agree that the 10-11 cr opening has been a low end one.

Was expecting something higher here.Lets see.

Main concern here is that the movie’s run will be curtailed within 2 weeks as the Diwali typhoon will come(3 movies).

pardesi 5 October 2009
09:09:02 pm

How can a film with Ranbir and Konkona and set entirely in India compare in cost to one with Katrina, John and Neil and set entirely abroad? Is that the same scale? The problem is that Ranbir’s dad did not create a blockbuster vehicle for him as his family fortunes did not permit that. So his blockbusters will have to be earned the hard way. His acting is and has been praised by all, including general viewers who do not give a damn for the next coming.

S T R E E T 5 October 2009
09:19:27 pm

“Anyways, the hulla-boo by the media about a 10 cr opening weekend proves my point more than anything else.”

yea dat seals da deal..
To be fair though, the 10 cr is for the weekend only..the 1st week total should be around 15 cr.

ACHILLES 5 October 2009
09:24:57 pm

Whether the general public likes WUS or not will be clear with its trending over the next few weeks … good WOM will mean good trending … BO doesnt mean much except that it indicates how many people are watching the movie in theaters upon release … high BO returns either means many people have liked the movie else the star can pull public to the theaters … low BO numbers means neither is happening … and of course the last resort is still left – ‘cult movie’.

Low end movies like Fashion/Rock On/etc dont get the hit tag from the trade even though they are considered success by some sections … hopefully WUS will do better and emerge a hit … time will tell.

But if 10 cr opening for WUS is praiseworthy then we shud extend our generosity to the likes of DBH and WUR.

pardesi 5 October 2009
09:32:46 pm

WYR on 457 cinemas did 10 cr in the entire week. One hopes for better from WUS as it did that in a weekend. DBH did about 16 in the entire week and crashed by 75%, so if WUS does the same then a below average tag is on the cards.

Som 5 October 2009
09:37:23 pm

CDI starring SRK released in 422 cinemas netted approx. 20cr
TZP starring Aamir released in 420 cinemas netted approx. 16cr

WUS starring Ranbir (Relatively new to Bollywood) released with around 400 prints netted. 10.5cr. Not a solo release either.

Agree it could have been bit more but is it that bad?

pardesi 5 October 2009
09:40:09 pm

Were those week or weekdend numbers?

Doga 5 October 2009
09:40:47 pm

Well all we can say is that these newcomers are getting openings equal to offbeat kinda/similarly released movies of srk/aamir.

Something to begin with i will say.

Qalandar 5 October 2009
09:41:45 pm

The general point being made on this and another thread lacks foundation: abhishek was hardly celebrated on account of his lineage — he was hardly celebrated to begin with! And to this day it cannot in any way be said that the media is soft on him (IMO, most of the English-language media coverage I have seen on him is grossly unfair). So the notion that the media are celebrating him for his lineage is untrue — what is true is that the public seems to have a general curiosity and excitement about the children of actors they have loved.

Doga 5 October 2009
09:44:01 pm

Bang on Q Bhai.

And its not that someone has give Abhishek a superstar tag.
He still needs to prove himself to be star of that calibre and so on.

Qalandar 5 October 2009
09:59:31 pm

PS– It is all well and good to complain about nepotism (I myself, whether or not I am a fan of the particular actor concerned, admire the fact that the likes of Akshay Kumar and SRK and Aishwariya Rai are completely self-made (obviously luck will always play a huge role), in the sense of having no industry connection whatsoever), but we should also acknowledge that there doesn’t appear to be the slightest demand in the public for more “outsiders”. In fact, all things being equal, people seem more excited about a film featuring a star-son/daughter debuting than a film featuring “unknowns” debuting. To the extent this is a problem, it is an audience problem, not just a film-industry problem. And this is even more true of politicians.

Qalandar 5 October 2009
10:10:47 pm

PPS — The general issue of class-consciousness raised by STREET is a valid one, but that is a separate issue from the family/lineage/dynastic issue. The latter seems to me to be a wider social issue, apparent in almost every sphere of Indian public life. One can hardly belittle Ranbir Kapoor or Abhishek Bachchan when the likes of Rahul Gandhi, Uddhav Thackeray, Stalin, Akhilendra Yadav, etc. etc. etc. are running around in politics.

[Aside: In any sphere, the biggest advantage insiders have is access: Salman and Aamir were not the children of superstars, but they had access to the right people's ears/eyes. That is no more true of abhishek, ranbir, akshaye khanna (I might add that the fathers in the first two cases did NOT make films for their sons; Vinod Khanna did, although Akshaye would have been better off without Himaalayputra). i.e., the fact that one's father is bigger than another's doesn't really matter all that much if we are talking about access; if we are talking about fathers and mothers who actually made films for their offspring, then the biggest advantage/luck was that of hrithik, fardeen, etc.]

pardesi 5 October 2009
10:13:04 pm

Kangana Ranaut may have been the last actor to become visible without star surname or beauty queen visibility.

ACHILLES 5 October 2009
10:16:25 pm

its all so easy to blame the voting public or the movie audience in defense of the nepotism in both domain.

The concept that Abhishek was not celebrated as a star by the media is difficult to digest … more so that his surname wasnt the main reason for that. Just like now a 10 cr opening weekend is celebrated by the media … similarly average runners like BM/Dus/etc with marginal returns were made into hits by the media to make their new superstar. The point here is not a moot one, even though the fans of ranbir/abhishek will do anything but agree to the whole picture as is evident here … there are a few of us here who are still waiting for Abhishek to prove his worth as a superstar, but the media never wanted proof.

Som – Good that you refered to 20 cr for CDI and 16 cr for TZP week 1 numbers … why not mention DBH has done 15-16 cr and WUR 13-14 cr in week 1? how much better will a 15 cr week 1 number for WUS be?

I dont see TZP like trending here in any case.

The media has just started on Ranbir … aage aage dekho hota hai kya!

pardesi 5 October 2009
10:19:42 pm

Yes – Hritk had all the luck because his Dad was already a successful director – haath saaf kiya thaa Sallu aur SRK ke saath!

pardesi 5 October 2009
10:31:29 pm

“WYR on 457 cinemas did 10 cr in the entire week. One hopes for better from WUS as it did that in a weekend. DBH did about 16 in the entire week and crashed by 75%, so if WUS does the same then a below average tag is on the cards.”

Quoted from above. So of course it was mentioned – but in any event it is repeated HERE. No point in inflating WYR numbers, but even if one does we are comparing Priyanka Chopra and Ashutosh Gowarikar to Ranbir and Aayan Mukherjee (WHO?) and still think it is Ranbir’s last name that is getting him these comparisons? How can we see trending in 3 days?

ACHILLES 5 October 2009
10:42:55 pm

HAHA … so now WUR has done 10 cr in entire week??? is it to tally with WUS weekend number?

No more comments from my side.

Qalandar 5 October 2009
10:49:04 pm

Re: “Just like now a 10 cr opening weekend is celebrated by the media … similarly average runners like BM/Dus/etc with marginal returns were made into hits by the media…”

There could be various reasons for this: for instance, class-bias might explain why a Wake Up Sid or a Bluffmaster! is celebrated when a Bewafaa that might conceivably have sold more tickets is not. I resist the notion that it was mere surname — else what would explain the lionization of a film like Johnny Gaddar or a Dev D, that won’t be making what the likes of a Bluffmaster! or a Wake Up Sid did/will do? [You're not really suggesting that neil and abhay are being celebrated on account of their last names/lineage, are you?]

[Note: I repeat that the advantage even a Neil or an Abhay have is that of ACCESS -- if I am Dharam's nephew, someone will at least agree to see me, grant me an audition etc. (as Salman himself said the Barjatyas did with him). I still have to be good and impress them, but that initial hurdle is what keeps out 99% of aspirants. But it is inconsistent to try and draw distinctions between those who had advantages because of ACCESS -- which includes just about everybody imaginable over the last 2-3 decades, except for Mithun, SRK, Akshay, and Ash among the biggies; and a few others like Jackie, Govinda among the men (there used to be lots of "outsider" women in the 1980s) -- and those who are offspring of illustrious parents, even if those parents didn't actually make films for them (it surely cannot be argued that Rishi and Anil have the ability to get Bhansali and YRF to cast Ranbir and Sonam; and Amitabh must have no clout whatsoever if Tera Jadoo Chal Gaya and Bas Itna Sa Khwab Hai is what he came up with). In practical terms, I think any star son would rather have the deal of a great launch, rather than the imagined value that the lineage brings to, of all things, media coverage. In a country where, for the most part, reviews have little impact on a movie, anyone would rather take the prospect of a hit film over soft coverage, assuming the latter even existed. Stated differently, it seems that the whole argument is being constructed to put abhishek and ranbir in the doghouse, while simultaneously ignoring the advantage of having Director Daddy make a film for the likes of Hrithik -- Vinod Khanna was a 100 times bigger than Rakesh Roshan back in the day, but would you rather have your dad make Kaho Na Pyar Hai or produce Himalayputra? If we are going to de-legitimize the likes of abhi and ranbir on the grounds of nepotism, let's be fair and acknowledge that many many more will have to join them in the doghouse.]

pardesi 5 October 2009
10:55:30 pm

I am no BO expert, I go by the most reputable BO site and it says 10 cr for WYR. Oops 10.13 cr.

http://www.boxofficeindia.com/

I already mentioned that of all the stars with famous last names, Hritik had the most advantage as his father was a director of many a blockbuster, and already had a successful production business going.

Qalandar 5 October 2009
10:59:24 pm

And the converse is also true: the fact that Raj Kapoor was a star son, as was Rishi Kapoor, did not foreclose them from being very talented (conversely, Rishi’s first cousin Karan Kapoor was not). The fact that Jeetendra was self-made and Rishi a star son tells us nothing about who was the more talented chap (heck until Himmatwala, by which time Jeetu had spent two decades in the industry, Rishi was clearly the bigger star too). But by the logic of this thread one would say that Rishi was being celebrated over Jeetu in 1978 on account of his lineage (one could counter and say it was because Rishi was simply better). Mere citation to someone’s last name and lineage doesn’t prove bias, especially where other factors also exist.

Qalandar 5 October 2009
11:04:02 pm

Re: “…of all the stars with famous last names, Hritik had the most advantage as his father was a director of many a blockbuster, and already had a successful production business going.”

This is manifestly true. As a statement of objective fact, hard to see how one can quarrel with this statement. IMO, Abhishek had the biggest visibility advantage — being the son of Amitabh Bachchan — and also the biggest disadvantage — being the son of Amitabh Bachchan; while Hrithik had the biggest PRACTICAL advantage — a father who was a proven success as a director, with films as different as Khudgarz, Khoon Bhari Maang, Karan Arjun; and a father who could always bail out his son with films too (Koi Mil Gaya was a godsend, all will agree). Does any of this belittle Hrithik? Not at all: he was and is good, popular, and, consequently, a huge star. But no shame in acknowledging that he was the recipient of huge advantages that the likes of Ranbir, Abhishek, Kareena Kapoor, Rani Mukherjee, did not have.

I might add that it especially perverse to suggest that Ranbir is getting all this favorable coverage because of lineage when his own father, because of the long shadow cast by the Bachchan-era, never got the due he deserved. It strains credulity to imply that Rishi has suddenly been re-discovered in this decade; the fact is that Rishi Kapoor is one of the relatively under-appreciated talents of the last three decades; if Ranbir ends up half the actor his dad was, he’ll do fine.

pardesi 5 October 2009
11:05:20 pm

And if all it took was a last name why did Randhir not get the chances Rishi got?

Qalandar 5 October 2009
11:09:32 pm

True — and I might add that Randhir got many chances, with huge directors like Manmohan Desai (Chacha Bhatija), and prominent films like Harjaee (replete with blockbuster soundtracks). But clearly there was a gulf between him and Rishi Kapoor.

RAJ 5 October 2009
11:14:00 pm

Surnames and lineage gives an easy entry like in the case of HR,AB,RK etc…People will be excited for first movie because of your lineage…But from there on its a lonely battle…Smart and better talents like HR would do well even not using their lineage thereafter and lousy talents like Abhishk forever will need their lineage to survive..

In this context i believe RK would do well because he definitely is taleneted from whatever i have seen of him and the most important thing is he connects to the audince big time as HR did early this decade…

pardesi 5 October 2009
11:38:24 pm

But Hritik will continue to act in films directed by his father and produced by the family stable. And no matter what happens to Abhi – Big B will not direct a film for him. To call Abhi a lousy talent is hardly fair, anyone who says that needs to see Yuva!

Giddh 6 October 2009
02:03:33 am

Wait a minute, whats the issue here? What a father is supposed to say – “I hate my son” or something like that?
If Rushi is proud of his son then what is your problem?? Pointless criticism…

RAJ 6 October 2009
03:43:18 am

“”To call Abhi a lousy talent is hardly fair, anyone who says that needs to see Yuva!”"

One or two movies doesnt prove anything…Talent is not a one off event…Its about consistency and persistency too…

A dog will act decently under a seasoned and good director..

“”"But Hritik will continue to act in films directed by his father and produced by the family stable. And no matter what happens to Abhi – Big B will not direct a film for him. “”"

So whats the fuss…?? HR cant refuse his fathers movie..Abhishek cant forgo his surname(Without Bacchan surname i wonder he would have retired by now ..Yuva or otherwise)…so why Blame RK??

sputnik 6 October 2009
07:04:43 am

Abhishek is a great actor because he of one good performance in Yuva but Jeetu is a bad actor because of all the bad films like Himmatwala, etc.

Jeetu’s hits were mostly remakes of remakes of Telugu movies and he was just imitating the Telugu actor Krishna. Krishna was a horrible dancer and Jeetu was just copying him. Jeetu once said in a TV interview that he used to be given a wig by the producers even though he had hair because Krishna was bald.

Jeetu also gave some good performances in movies like Parichay, Khusboo and Kinara. Yeah it was Gulzar who directed him in those movies but still if Abhi gets credit when Mani directed him then why not Jeetu?

Qalandar 6 October 2009
07:20:49 am

Sputnik: No one was comparing Jeetendra and Abhishek, the point was to compare Jeetendra and Rishi Kapoor — as between the two, I think the latter is the better actor any day of the week. [I also believe that Abhishek is a better actor than Jeetendra, but that wasn't the subject here -- in any event the issue was the claim made by some that certain actors were being celebrated for lineage; that argument could be used to suggest that the same was true of many other actors, completely ignoring other possibilities, such as that e.g. star-son Rishi was a better actor than Jeetendra; or that he was bigger star pre-Himmatwala, etc.). Himmatwala was not used to condemn Jeetu as an actor -- it was used to make the point he wasn't a big star prior to that phase in his career.]

pardesi 6 October 2009
07:37:57 am

Jeetu never really acted well at all, Gulzar or not. Whereas Abhishek never really acted badly even in Guru, Dostana, B he was always decent. Yuva is a towering performance worthy of note. As for Mani – many here consider him talentless.

pardesi 6 October 2009
07:38:14 am

I meant B and B.

sputnik 6 October 2009
07:44:31 am

Hrithik’s father was already a reputed director and he launched his son under his direction. For a “sidey” actor Rakesh did do quite a number of good movies like Khel Khel Mein, Khatta Meetha, Khoobsoorat, Kaamchor and was decent in them.

Salman may have had just access but Aamir was launched under his family productions and directed by his cousin. Aamir delivered a hit in his first movie and Salman in his second.

Rishi Kapoor was launched by Raj Kapoor with Bobby too and the movie was a super hit. Rishi won a Best Actor for his debut movie Bobby, the same year in which Amitabh did Zanjeer.

Amitabh got Abhi his debut movie with J P Dutta who had just directed a critical and commercial hit movie with Border. Amitabh is not a director so he obviously did not direct a movie with Abhi.

Bas Itna Sa Khwaab Hai was directed by Goldie Behl, Abhishek’s friend and thats the reason why he did that movie and that disaster Drona.

Others just make movies but Amitabh invents awards so that his son get nominated and receives awards. If you watch IIFA its a Amitabh family show. The cameras are always on them. Abhi gets nominated in 3 categories and gets a style icon award. Abhishek himself said on Oye! Its Friday that after numerous flops he went to his dad and said that he would quit. Amitabh told him to hang in there. Miraculously, a few weeks later he gets a call from Mani. Yeah Papa did not pull a few strings.

pardesi 6 October 2009
07:49:52 am

What strings attach Big B to Mani? There is no connection there.

Qalandar 6 October 2009
07:55:25 am

How many times have IIFA awarded abhishek over other contenders? Please go and consult the list of Best Actor, Best Film, etc. awards handed out by IIFA. The cameras are trained on the Bachchan family even at non-IIFA events: amitabh, ash, and abhishek sitting together is a lot of wattage to ignore.

The notion that Bachchan got Abhishek Yuva is laughable: there are very few actors in his three decade career whom Rathnam has used in three films — the obvious explanation is that Mani likes abhishek. Maybe he is a fool for doing so, but there it is

PS– how is Abhishek doing films with his friend Goldie Behl relevant? I might add that he also did Bunty aur Babli and Bluffmaster! with his good friends Shaad Ali and Rohan Sippy. But in any event, that is not relevant to the lineage issue or the access issue — that might go to the question of judgment, but has simply no bearing to the discussion at hand. How I wish Sanjay Dutt had done fewer films with and for his friends! (Sallu fans will say the same about him; by contrast Aamir isn’t the kind of guy to do anything for a friend — even Dharshan was dropped after Mela, and there was no second chance for his dad after Tum Mere Ho. It seems a bit cold, but in this industry, can’t blame him).

sputnik 6 October 2009
07:58:34 am

Pardesi,
Have to disagree that Jeetu never really acted well. Jeetu in Parichay is much better than Abhi in most of his movies.

Abhi was excellent in Yuva but I did not like him in Guru. I thought he was just imitating Amitabh with all his mannerisms. I did not like him in Dostana either, have not watched B and B. I did like Abhi in KANK but did not like him in Sarkar or Sarkar Raj.
Abhi has not been even been decent in numerous movies.

Qalandar 6 October 2009
08:03:15 am

In any event, even if — for the sake of argument — one accepts the notion that amitabh invents awards for abhishek, do you think that’s a bigger advantage than someone being able to direct credible potentially big hit films for his son. There’s no shame in Hrithik being the son of a big director, but it is grossly unfair to pretend that abhishek is the only one who has benefited from the insular Bollywood system. The fact that Hrithik’s first film was a success and abhi’s was not — that goes to who the bigger star is at present (Hrithik, by far) — not to who had the most advantages as an insider.

sputnik 6 October 2009
08:06:22 am

Abhi said in that same interview that when Mani called him he did not know that he was being offered a role. He said that he went to Mani thinking it was about some movie distribution with ABCL. Mani Ratnam’s Bombay was distributed by ABCL.

pardesi 6 October 2009
08:09:19 am

Sputnik, there is no accounting for tastes, you like Jeetu more, I like Abhi more. In Guru Abhi hardly imitated Amitabh, but again, no accounting for opinions either.

pardesi 6 October 2009
08:14:03 am

ABCL was done by 1999 and Yuva came in 2004, that is some clout for a failed distribution company.

Qalandar 6 October 2009
08:15:27 am

The implicit assumption of these insinuations is that abhishek is so crappy that if Rathnam is repeatedly taking him, there must be an ulterior motive or explanation (meanwhile no one raises any questions about anyone else being cast by any other director). It might seem incredible to some, but there are talented directors like Rathnam who apparently like working with him.

sputnik 6 October 2009
08:19:18 am

Pardesi,
May be you should watch the interview before you make any assumptions. Abhi clearly said he thought it was about ABCL.

I like Jeetu in Gulzar’s movies for sure. Lot of people will agree with that Abhi imitated Amitabh and if you don’t think so good for you.

Doga 6 October 2009
08:24:45 am

A superhit is all that matters, the day when Abhi starts delivering solo superhits, all questioning will stop.

Now that has to be seen if he does it or not.

pardesi 6 October 2009
08:25:50 am

Link to that interview? Abhi is self-deprecating at the best of times, and I would not be surprised if he said that. But a company failed 5 years ago has no clout with Mani. Let us not forget that Abhi gave Mani his first Hindi film HIT. And Mani keeps casting Abhi, so he must like what Abhi can do.

sputnik 6 October 2009
08:27:45 am

“How many times have IIFA awarded abhishek over other contenders? Please go and consult the list of Best Actor, Best Film, etc. awards handed out by IIFA.” Abhi nominated in 3 categories these past year and winning one and getting a style icon award. What about Ash winning outstanding contribution to International Cinema, the same year in which Rahman wins 2 Oscars and Anil and Frieda star in a Oscar winning movie and attend the Oscars.

“The notion that Bachchan got Abhishek Yuva is laughable: there are very few actors in his three decade career whom Rathnam has used in three films — the obvious explanation is that Mani likes abhishek. Maybe he is a fool for doing so, but there it is”
After 12-13 flops Mani decides to take Abhi for Yuva. Its not that Abhi was critically being appreciated in all those flops. If Mani thinks that he will be able to extract a good performance from him ala Yuva then good for him.

“PS– how is Abhishek doing films with his friend Goldie Behl relevant?”
You brought up Bas Itna Sa Khwaab Hai directed by Goldie Behl. “and Amitabh must have no clout whatsoever if Tera Jadoo Chal Gaya and Bas Itna Sa Khwab Hai is what he came up with”

Doga 6 October 2009
08:28:19 am

Personally though i think Abhi is past it. He will never become a superstar etc.

He has been great in few movies(Guru and Yuva are in my top 5 performances this decade), but overall lacks the charisma of a top star.

pardesi 6 October 2009
08:51:09 am

I thought even Salman was past, but then we had 2009.

Doga 6 October 2009
09:26:37 am

I dont think Salman is a superstar, he lost it back in 2006 with JEM, lets see if any of his next 3 movies work big, till then the verdict is still out.

sputnik 6 October 2009
10:50:32 am

“Link to that interview? ”

The conversation actually starts at the end of the 2nd part when Farhan asks him about what is between him and Mani. But this 3rd part has him talking about Yuva and Mani.

http://www.dailymotion.com/vid.....shortfilms

nostarthegreatest 6 October 2009
04:05:29 pm

Sputnik: So Abhishek had 17 flops, yes, he went ahead and told his father he wanted quit movies, yes. and maniratnam offered him one out of three roles in Yuva. Where in this is amitabh pulling few strings with mani? how can you simply thrwo around a statement like that? Ia m speaking here for Mani. this puts Mani as someone who will compromise his artistic integrity in my eyes. I dont think that is fair.

1. Amitabh has gone on record on kwk stating that between rgv and maniratnam he will choose rgv because mani has never cast him. If amitabh can pull strings for his son why not for him. Amitabh has a friend ship with yash raj, he has stated in an interview that when he was in financial mess, he went to yash chopra and asked him for a role, thats how he got mohabettein.
So, if you say he has strings that he pulled wtih yashraj that has facts to be backed up with, in this case amitabh’s own admission. Does your current allegation has facts like this?

2. Regarding mani casting abhishek again and again, Mani has always done this, casted karthik, Madhavan and arvindswamy repeatedly in his movies. There was no amitabh for these people!
Just because abhishek has a amitabh you cant cast motives on maniratnam. Mani did try working with Kareena and aamir, unfortunately that didnt materialize. Acc. to shahrukh, Mani had approached him for raavan but by the time they could discuss, adi had already booked him for rnbdj.

3. If amitabh had indeed pulled his strings, why would he make him as one of three heroes, why not a single hero? where exactly is the string? is there anything to state that amitabh and mani had some sort of equation?

You can escape from all this argument stating this is just your assumption, to say something bad about some one i would assume that someone would have some facts to state. that is the responsibility that comes with freedom of expression. else it is yellow journalism.

Coolp 6 October 2009
04:44:48 pm

nostarthegreatest – Welcome to NG !

rohitkarnbatra 6 October 2009
04:52:12 pm

Welcome nostarthegreatest!

Also sputnik please answer this from Tyler in SB:

Tyler: Ask Sputnik if his theory of AB getting Mani to take Abhi applies to the other star kids in the movie especially the flop ones like Esha and Kareena at the time?

Tyler: if there family applied begged for them or applied pressure

pardesi 6 October 2009
05:04:56 pm

Abhishek clearly mentions in other interviews that Mani called him, he was surprised and happy to say yes! Maybe Mani saw Lallan in him and that is why he called. It is not good to cast aspersions on the integrity of Mani like this, I do not think he deserves it.

Coolp 6 October 2009
05:07:11 pm

I hope people will watch Mani’s work in Tamil before commenting on his abilities as a director.

Qalandar 6 October 2009
05:08:41 pm

Nostarthegreatest: welcome to NG; hope you won’t mind if we abbreviate that screen name

Coolp 6 October 2009
05:08:55 pm

Aside – Recent posts is back on NG front page, on the side bar.

pardesi 6 October 2009
05:22:39 pm

Welcome NSG; and it is great to have the recent posts window!

sputnik 6 October 2009
06:20:45 pm

“Tyler: Ask Sputnik if his theory of AB getting Mani to take Abhi applies to the other star kids in the movie especially the flop ones like Esha and Kareena at the time?

Tyler: if there family applied begged for them or applied pressure”

May be Yes. Atleast Kareena starred in Chameli before Yuva where her performance was critically appreciated. Even her Refugee was performance was critically appreciated.

sputnik 6 October 2009
06:21:05 pm

nostarthegreatest,
Those comments were in response to other comments which stated that Abhi did not have the big advantage compared to others.
“Where in this is amitabh pulling few strings with mani? how can you simply thrwo around a statement like that? Ia m speaking here for Mani. this puts Mani as someone who will compromise his artistic integrity in my eyes. I dont think that is fair.” “1. Does your current allegation has facts like this?”

After numerous flops he says in that interview that he lost confidence and decided to quit. His father asked him to not quit. He gets Yuva a while later. I just added 2 and 2 together.

So why cannot I doubt that Amitabh may have pulled a few strings. Did I say someone said it? When I said Amitabh pulled strings, others said they were no strings. When I bring out the strings its suddenly Mani’s artistic integrity that is being questioned. Did Yuva not save Abhi despite being a flop because Abhi’s performance was good and he got all the awards.

Regarding your point 2 I did not say anything about Mani working with Abhi again. All I said was if Mani thinks if he can get a performance like Yuva from him again then good for him.

“3. If amitabh had indeed pulled his strings, why would he make him as one of three heroes, why not a single hero? where exactly is the string? is there anything to state that amitabh and mani had some sort of equation?”
Mani was doing a movie with multiple roles. Amitabh and Mani obviously shared a equation with Bombay having been distributed by ABCL. May be Amitabh requested and Mani agreed. Abhi got the best role in the movie. Poor Vivek got the weakest role of all of them despite having given a award winning performance in Company in 2002.

Doga 6 October 2009
06:38:08 pm

Success Success Success, thats the mantra.

pardesi 6 October 2009
08:19:54 pm

Completely different story in this interview!
http://www.rediff.com/movies/2004/may/17abhi.htm

ABCL was dead for four years prior to Yuva. If Big B had that much clout with Mani why did he opt for rejuvenating his career via KBC? Why not ask Mani for a role? If 2 and 2 are added to make 6 then the buyer has to beware.

nostarthegreatest 6 October 2009
08:29:38 pm

Sputnik:
A director should cast according to the role’s requirement. To say that he casted some one because somebody powerful said (because that is what pulling strings mean. requesting is different, most of the actors from Kareena to Saif to Aamir have expressed their desire to work with directors and spoken to them so) would mean the director was ready to compromise on his script. This is why Imitiaz ali fought so much with his producer in his third film to ensure Deepika padukone was cast. This is why I used the word artistic integrity.

You might not like Mani’s movies for whatever reason but if you are blaming anybody even if it is in a completely different argument, I think you still need to substantiate with argument.

“Amitabh and Mani obviously shared a equation with Bombay having been distributed by ABCL. ” If that is the case, why couldnt Amitabh ask Mani to direct him?

“May be Amitabh requested and Mani agreed. ”
Now, it is may be? and ‘requested’.

Regarding the best role, the same film when made in Tamil, Surya walked away with the accolades. Even after Yuva, Mani when questioned clearly stated he isnt interested in launching careers.

I am not stating that Mani is above it all. But if it is not the truth, that is bad. From the signs, it is something that you threw in just like that. Which is bad.

rohitkarnbatra 6 October 2009
08:41:43 pm

“A director should cast according to the role’s requirement. To say that he casted some one because somebody powerful said would mean the director was ready to compromise on his script.”

nostarthegreatest: As a film-maker I agree with you that a director SHOULD do cast as per what he/she wants however, your statement, unfortuantely, is extremely naive statement.

Most film casting is a political process dominated by producers, egos and self-indulging. Usually, at the core, the politics are dominated, directly or indirectly, by money.

All directors compromise on some level, even if they don’t want too.

For example, if a director wants an actor who is “perfect” – is he’s not available or interested in the role. What choice does the director have to do? If the producer who gives all the money and access to the director is forcing the director to pick a particular actor, what is one to do?

Qalandar 6 October 2009
09:06:24 pm

Re: “Most film casting is a political process dominated by producers, egos and self-indulging.”

That might be true, but it would be generally true — i.e. that can’t be specific to Rathnam and Yuva alone (not suggesting Rohit is making that point re: Yuva). [aside: Bachchan was neither a producer nor a financier nor a distributor of Yuva; given that Rathnam's power-base is primarily in an industry --the Tamil industry -- where Bachchan doesn't have the "soft power" that he does in Hindi, I just don't see what leverage Bachchan could have had over Rathnam.]

rkb 6 October 2009
09:11:21 pm

Q – my statement has nothing to do with Yuva, Ratnam or Bachchan. It is a general statement about the engineering of film casting.

On that, to think that even casting in this movie had nothing to do with some level of politics, specifics of which no one can say (unless directly involved), is simply naive.

rkb 6 October 2009
09:34:56 pm

PS – A film like “Luck by Chance” did a great job at showing what I’m talking about…

sputnik 6 October 2009
09:51:03 pm

Pardesi,
When I told you about the strings you said that there are no strings. You asked for the link as if I am saying something that Abhi did not say. The link that I gave clearly shows what Abhi said. I am skeptic as to why Mani chose him after so many flops and bad performances and that’s what I said.

Now Abhi in the link says “Mani was calling me and I didn’t pick up the phone. I don’t take a call unless I recognize the number that flashes on my screen as people uselessly call and disturb me. Then Shaad [Ali], a dear friend of mine and his [former] assistant, called me. He told me Mani Sir wanted to get in touch with me. I asked why. He said Mani Sir wanted to meet me as he was in Mumbai. I said okay. When we met, Mani narrated the story of Yuva. He then asked me whether I would like to work with him. I thought that was bit weird [laughs]. I agreed immediately. That is how it happened.”

This story is diff from what he said in the video. So what is the truth the one in the video or the interview to rediff.

“ABCL was dead for four years prior to Yuva. If Big B had that much clout with Mani why did he opt for rejuvenating his career via KBC? Why not ask Mani for a role? If 2 and 2 are added to make 6 then the buyer has to beware.”
Amitabh’s career was already rejuvenated by 2004.

nostarthegreatest 6 October 2009
10:16:51 pm

Sputnik: You do realize that a role might have some requirements and casting might be based on that, right? That Abhishek suited the role to the T is a proof enough for Mani’s casting process.

As they say casting is half the job done.

RKB: that is different if they cant get the actor they were looking for. For example, Alaipayuthey was orig. written with Shahrukh in mind, that didnt work out. nor did rani mukherjee. So Madhavan and Shalini were brought in and story was made in tamil. But Madhavan and Shalini werent cast coz their father called.

Kamal recently said in an interview to IBN how during Nayagan, the producer has actually refused to give any more film to shoot and Kamal volunteered some stock from his office. Thats where these guys come from.(trying quite a bit to fight off the same pressures you mention).

There is a bit of track record of Mani
that is hard to ignore. He made Roja with Madhoo and Arvindswamy, both newcomers. Iruvar was made with Prakashraj and Mohanlal, neither a crowd puller in tamil nadu. Ash once stated how she had asked Mani why he didnt cast her after Iruvar(her concern was it coz he was dissatisfied with her work?) and Mani had replied Manisha’s features suits more the role of some one from the north east. He isnt a thoughtless filmmaker sitting in a corner waiting for Amitabh’s call as Sputnik statement suggests.

I am sure most of you arent aware of this track record. but the audacity to consider that is ok to blame anyone without knowing(ccould be anybody from srk to Kareena) is plain horible.

sputnik 6 October 2009
10:25:55 pm

“A director should cast according to the role’s requirement. To say that he casted some one because somebody powerful said”
You are telling me that Amitabh requesting and some guy on the street requesting is the same. Kishore stopped singing for Amitabh when Amitabh refused to do a guest appearance. Everyone knows how the SRK-Salman fight started with SRK refusing guest appearance in MAMK.

“You might not like Mani’s movies for whatever reason but if you are blaming anybody even if it is in a completely different argument, I think you still need to substantiate with argument.”
Did I say I do not like Mani’s movies anywhere. I think Mani’s Iruvar/Iddaru is his best movie followed by his Telugu movie Gitanjali starring Nagarjuna. I don’t think his Hindi movies have been as good as his southern ones.

“Amitabh and Mani obviously shared a equation with Bombay having been distributed by ABCL. ” If that is the case, why couldnt Amitabh ask Mani to direct him? “May be Amitabh requested and Mani agreed. ” Now, it is may be? and ‘requested’.
Why should Amitabh ask Mani to direct him? He was doing well. His son was the one struggling not him.

“Regarding the best role, the same film when made in Tamil, Surya walked away with the accolades. Even after Yuva, Mani when questioned clearly stated he isnt interested in launching careers.” I have’nt seen the Tamil version so cannot comment but usually the negative/shades of grey role is more powerful than a
idealistic role.

“I am not stating that Mani is above it all. But if it is not the truth, that is bad. From the signs, it is something that you threw in just like that. Which is bad”
An assumption was being made that all star sons get launched and they are on their own except some who get relaunched by their dad and that Abhi had no better advantage than others. That skeptical comment was response to that.

In your previous comments you said that Amitabh stated that he went to Yash and asked for roles. Do you really think Amitabh, Abhi or Mani will say that Abhi was chosen because Amitabh called/requested even it was a fact. An actor begging for a role is different.

Anyways here is Mani’s interview. He says he cast Abhi because it was against the grain.
“Why did you choose Abhishek Bachchan [Images] for the role of Lallan in Yuva [Images]?
Like I told you, sometimes it’s good to cast against the grain.
Up until then, he had not had a very good run of films.
Not just that, he was doing all these goody-goody roles. It was an experiment, which could have fallen flat. Both if us took the risk, you know. But when it works out, it comes out really fresh. He had to work hard. It’s very different from his background and his upbringing — we had to work hard to get the language, body language, to get a feel of it.”

Here is the link.
http://www.rediff.com/movies/2008/apr/30mani.htm

In the same interview he explains why he chose Shahrukh for Dil Se.
“Why did you choose Shah Rukh Khan [Images] for Dil Se?
It was just a feeling. I hadn’t seen too many of his films before. You feel that you want somebody who would be a common man, who would represent All India Radio, which is the voice of the ordinary citizen, and still be able to carry the film on his shoulders. I needed somebody who would take us across the line. It was a difficult subject, it was the 50th year of Indian Independence but there are corners which still have darker areas. We tried to cover it and this film was trying to explore into the gray thing. And we wanted this happy mood to control that side of it. So he somewhere represented that kind of mood.

When you were picturing the film in your head, were you seeing it always with him in the role?
Not really. I don’t think you see it 100 percent with a particular actor in mind. To be honest, I was working on another script with him, the Tamil film, Alai Payuthey. It was done in Hindi by my friend and assistant, Shaad Ali, as Saathiya [Images] later. So I was working on that script with Shah Rukh, and I told him the outline, which is just a simple city-based love story. But the script didn’t fall fully into place so we moved to something else. So I was thinking of Shah Rukh for Aley Payuthey, and I ended up doing it with totally new people.”

The answers explain that he chose SRK because of his star value also. As far as choosing an actor based on role’s requirement he says “I don’t think you see it 100 percent with a particular actor in mind.”

Anyways lets agree to disagree. Any statement one makes here is greeted with bias and accusations of being a fan of somebody else. For the record I am not a fan of any actor.

rkb 6 October 2009
10:27:32 pm

“I am sure most of you arent aware of this track record” — isn’t such a statement grossly judgmental?

Explain to me how you are “sure” please.

Qalandar 6 October 2009
10:48:15 pm

Re: “Any statement one makes here is greeted with bias and accusations of being a fan of somebody else.”

It is unfair to suggest that those who disagree with you on this thread are merely biased. To my mind you have offered a lot of insinuation, but nothing else. The other point is that even if everything is as you claim, you still haven’t shown how this is a bigger advantage than (e.g.) Hrithik’s dad being a successful director — your position seems to be a moving one, ranging from Amitabh inventing awards for his son; to amitabh getting Mani to cast his son in Yuva; to a comparison of Jeetendra and Abhishek as actors, even though no-one had raised this issue — without addressing the substantive question of how anyof these (even if true) is more of an advantage to abhishek than what the likes of Hrithik had received. My point on the other hand is a simple one: all these sons and daughters of insiders have received advantages; and it is factually incorrect to say that Abhishek Bachchan has received the most practical advantage from his father as compared to Hrithik Roshan. The same goes for Ranbir Kapoor, who has not received the practical advantage that a Hrithik has. In short, my objection is to singling out abhishek and ranbir as if they have received advantages no-one else has done; and to focus on possible reasons for Mani casting abhishek in Yuva when no such inquiry is being made with respect to any other film featuring any other actor.

Second, who in this thread has accused you of being a fan of somebody else? I don’t think your being a fan or non-fan of any actor is relevant to the point either you or I are making (e.g. I am not a fan of Ranbir Kapoor but am a fan of Rishi Kapoor; however, an unfair argument remains an unfair argument, and it cannot be doubted that Rishi had a far bigger advantage than his son ever did: a successful director for a father.)

PS– thanks for the links you posted re: casting abhishek in Yuva and SRK in Dil Se, both of which seem to be consistent with the view that no secret behind-the-scenes narrative need be attributed to the Yuva casting: in both cases, Mani rathnam has quite consistently suggested that he was casting based on intuition and gut feeling, perhaps against the grain, and that idea appealed to him (it does not follow from the fact that SRK’s star value was a factor, that it will ALWAYS be the determining factor: witness Roja, Bombay, Anjali, Alai Payuthey, Iruvar; and, since I take it you would say that abhishek isn’t a draw, let’s add Guru and Raavan to the list too; with respect to the comment about SRK, one could just as easily read Rathnam as saying that because the film was edgier than most, and most of Rathnam’s own films, he was looking for someone who could carry this commercially — there can be little doubt Yuva and Guru were safer films than Dil Se, and in fact fared better at the domestic box office). And there is nothing hard to swallow about Rathnam’s insight that Abhishek was being miscast in goody goody roles and needed to be more bad-ass (indeed, he has been consistent in this regard, since, based on what we know of Raavan, none of the three roles he has given Abhishek are of the goody goody variety).

sandhya 6 October 2009
10:55:00 pm

Rohit is quite right about the ‘politics’ that is involved with casting actors. I know for a fact – as admitted by Esha Koppikar to me- that Hema Malini called up Karan JOhar and asked him to take her daughter for Kaal. At this point Koppikar was already signed for the role but was unceremoniously dropped.

Also, I don’t mean to imply there were any ’strings’ involved bagging Yuva – Honestly, Abhi is not a bad actor at all (though the likes of Ranbir and Shahid are gaining quick ground now) and doesn’t need that sort of recommendation from his father. But again, in an industry where the only yardstick for success is the boxoffice, it’s very possible that since Abhishek’s career was in doldrums, Amitabh could have approached Mani Ratnam to give him a good role. I don’t see anything wrong there. Mani might have been considering 3-4 actors at that point and probably decided to tip the scales in Abhishek’s favour. It’s all very possible, so I don’t see any reason for an outrage at that suggestion. Obviously, Ratnam won’t take a non-actor, but it obviously helps when you have connections in the industry.

And I don’t think Mani is above it either. I have it on good source that Esha’s inclusion in Yuva happened over some idli-sambar bonding

Qalandar 6 October 2009
11:04:58 pm

Sandy: you are missing the other point here: this sort of thing might happen with respect to any number of films; why are we talking about Yuva alone? It is not a question of a Saint Mani being “above” anything, it is that casting aspersions on him alone and no-one else is unfair. I take it it isn’t your position that Mani does this more than others, right? And if not, then why not talk about the politics of casting Ghulam (was Rani’s rumored affair with aamir decisive here?), or any film made by Sanjay Gupta, Johar, Farah Khan, Rohan Sippy, who seem to cast their buddies; and then, in Ash’s case, surely merit does not explain her removal from projects like Mangal Pandey or Chalte Chalte. In fact, why single out the film industry? There is a reason so many deals get done over rounds of golf, and it isn’t because cold hard merit is the only criterion. I don’t think anyone is naive here (Rohit will confirm that I have some tangential experience of the sort of politics he is talking about), if utterly pure motives exist, I haven’t seen ‘em, but the singling out of Rathnam’s casting of Abhishek as due to Bachchan pulling strings (for which there is no evidence; candidly, if Bachchan could have pulled those strings I am sure he would think of a director more commercially saleable than Rathnam) implies something exceptional about him for which there is no basis.

PPS — if we must divide the industry up in the way that has been implied in this and other threads, the division is not “abhishek and everyone else” or “children of big-time actors (but not big-time directors) and everyone else”; but should be “the likes of SRK, Akshay Kumar, Aishwariya Rai, Mithun, Jackie Shroff, _______ [fill in the blanks] and everyone else.” I do not see how an industry populated by the likes of imran khan, hrithik roshan, sanjay dutt, tushar kapoor, rishi kapoor, kareena kapoor, karan johar, aditya chopra, shaad ali, farhan akhtar, salman khan, ad infinitum, gets to occupy the moral high ground vis-a-vis abhishek and/or ranbir (Rathnam himself was the son of a producer; Ramesh Sippy was G.P. Sippy’s son; Raj Kapoor was Prithviraj Kapoor’s son — is tarah to subah ho jaaye gi NYC mein). That some/many on this list might be more successful than them is a separate question, and has no bearing on the issue under discussion here.

sandhya 6 October 2009
11:39:52 pm

Q: The topic here appeared to be about Mani Ratnam, Yuva and Abhishek, so I’m talking in that context. I’m saying he was benefited by the connection. That does not mean he is not talented and it does not automatically imply that no one else has got that advantage. But to completely ignore the fact that he was in doldrums after 15 or so flops and not even entertain the idea that Bachchan could have put in a word for him is in my opinion to be in denial of how things work in a practical world.

nostarthegreatest 7 October 2009
12:01:32 am

“Explain to me how you are “sure” please.” – Rohit I do take it back sputnik does seem to be aware of his track record of where Mani comes from. If I am wrong, I am wrong, I will take it back. I am not going to be afraid and defend a sentence where i was clearly wrong.

but if he did know already the history, it does leave me even more stumped.That if you are aware of the sincerity of the film maker how could you make the sort of allegation he made!

Tango 7 October 2009
12:16:01 am

Ranbir, Abhishek and Hrithik

Yes no doubt all the three have had the advantage of their surnames/filmy background

Ranbir – He got many big banners at the start of his career(due to his being in contact with the rt ppl), and to his credit his first success came via just his second film (mind you not a hit but an above average) and his next WUS also looks like succeeding. BUT he has to prove himself (to an extent he has quite early) to be a star or superstar in the coming years.

Abhishek

He too got many big banners due to his family background (Dutta himself admitted it) but due his limited acting and dancing capabilities, it took him 16 films to get a success (co-starring John Abraham) and to date has only one solo super hit Guru. He has lost out on a lot of precious time, as he is no longer a spring chicken but all is still not lost as he has a few good projects lined up.

IN CASE OF BOTH RANBIR & ABHISHEK I must give credit to their dads who did not launch them in taylor made project via their home banners.

Hrithik

He got a plush project in his home banner (that already had many big hits under Filmkraft) and directed by his father, who highlighted all the plus points that Hrithik had. Unfortunately most of his movies post Kaho Na Pyaar Hai failed (barring K3G – a multi-starrer) but once again he got a revival via Koi..Mil Gaya. But as far as talent and star power goes, including screen presence, he has it all, though he has not done justice to his talent. Once again he too (like Abhishek) has lost out on a lot of precious time, but then he has many successes to show (3 in his home banner though). And being choosy is fine but over choosy NOW is wrong career move.

sandhya 7 October 2009
12:25:39 am

I cannot fathom how Abhishek’s ‘connection’ was less useful than Hrithik’s as Qalandar is suggesting. Yes, Rakesh Roshan is/was a successful filmmaker, but was there a guarantee that his films would work? He was in fact on a bad wicket having suffered two high profile flops with King Uncle and Koyla.

And in any case, none of those films he did with his son were particularly good, if you remove Hrithik from the equation. And from here, it’s going to be diminishing returns for Hrithik where papa Rakesh Roshan is concerned since he’s certainly old schoolish for the multiplex era. Why do you think he’s letting Anurag Basu direct his son?

Hrithik will have to do it on his own and he had been doing it well. With Abhishek somehow, he’s always Amitabh’s son or Aishwarya’s wife. Even Ash herself is referred by the media as Amitabh’s bahu and not Abhi’s wife. It almost appears to me that Ash is the legitimate heir, not Abhishek.
And no one has been more astute about this than RGV. If the first Sarkar was about the heir apparent where Abhishek takes over from Amitabh, Sarkar 2 subverts that theory totally. RGV is clever to recogonise that the ‘bahu’ will take the centrestage from now on and the son will be incidental. So what does he do? He kills Abhishek in the film. If one can argue relentless on how RGV was tapping into the collective consciousness of the audience by hailing Abhishek as the heir, Sarkar 2 demolishes that idea altogether.

sandhya 7 October 2009
12:44:51 am

Is there a thread of Do Knot Disturb, because I so need to warn anyone planning to watch it. I mean, this is a league lower than Dhawan’s Banarasi Babu, so you know what I’m talking about here. It’s so so so bad! The film starts with a guy on a toilet seat and from there the rest of the film literally gets flushed down the drain.
It’s really something that this film inspite of having some really funny actors manages to be so unfunny. Everyone is hamming their way through the film. Govinda- who is generally reliable in this genre is so forced and loud. I mean this is the kind of film you shouldn’t see even if your sole purpose is to make out in an empty hall, because the voices are so loud, you’ll be ‘disturbed’ until you’re pulling your hair.

And looks like gangsters threatened the makers to increase Ranvir Shorey’s role at the last minute. Because he starts of being a dead body in the film and then suddenly, the last 20 minutes of the film is all about him and that too in a double role!

rudresh 7 October 2009
01:28:11 am

Hey Sandy mana he (abhi)is not famous as Amitabh or Ash but still he is Ashwarya’s Hubby not wife
Sandy :”With Abhishek somehow, he’s always Amitabh’s son or Aishwarya’s wife”

Giddh 7 October 2009
01:46:52 am

“I mean this is the kind of film you shouldn’t see even if your sole purpose is to make out in an empty hall”
ROFL.

sputnik 7 October 2009
07:41:50 am

Thanks Sandy for the support.

Qalandar
“It is unfair to suggest that those who disagree with you on this thread are merely biased.”
I did not suggest that others are biased.

“To my mind you have offered a lot of insinuation, but nothing else. The other point is that even if everything is as you claim, you still haven’t shown how this is a bigger advantage than (e.g.) Hrithik’s dad being a successful director — your position seems to be a moving one, ranging from Amitabh inventing awards for his son; to amitabh getting Mani to cast his son in Yuva; to a comparison of Jeetendra and Abhishek as actors”
You argued that Hrithik had the biggest practical advantage because his dad was a director. But his dad made Koyla a flop before KNPH. Why does a father have to be a director to give his son the best advantage? Ranbhir is better off getting roles in other director’s movies than starring in a movie directed by Rishi Kapoor if Rishi comes up with a movie like Aa Ab Laut Chalen. Watch last year’s IIFA awards and tell me if the show is not just about Amitabh and his family. Amitabh has even blasted the critics who blasted Delhi 6. It is extremely naive to think that Abhi did not get any greater advantage being Amitabh’s son.

You brought up the Rishi/Jeetu analogy that one is a star son and the other the outsider and its ok to support the star son as he was more talented and that Rishi was even a bigger star than Jeetu till Himmatwala (83). Jeetu was already a star when Rishi made his debut and gave a lot of hits even in the 70s and before 83. Jeetu is vilified for being a bad actor but even he starred in some good movies. The comparison that I made was that most people think Abhi’s performances have been best in Mani’s movies and so were Jeetu’s in Gulzar’s movies. I agree that Rishi is a better actor than Jeetu but Rishi was content playing second fiddle to Amitabh. Rishi’s best performance was in Karz and he was excellent in LBC.

“Second, who in this thread has accused you of being a fan of somebody else?”
No one has but it’s my observation that one cannot comment about any actor without his fans coming to defend that actor. It happened to me in another thread. I checked the SB and there were lot of comments thrown around implying I must be somebody else’s fan to have said this.

Anyways lets agree to disagree.

ACHILLES 7 October 2009
07:51:07 am

Almost 100 comments now – to what result? the core question put forward by me and street remains unanswered!!!!

Abhishek and Ranbir dont have box-office results (the only yardstick in this industry by any means) .. but according to the media coverage both are stars … why???

Obvious answer is their surname and family connections.

The defense cannot be made by pointing 6 fingers at Hrithik … Hrithik has 5 big solo hits in the last 10 years, Khans and Kumar dont have much answer to these blockbusters that Hrithik has delivered over the years (count these stars’ blockbuster hits this decade in case someone has doubts and compare the grosses considering inflation) … Hrithik is a superstar on his own merit, even though he has family connection advantage … till Krrish he was mainly seen as Papa’s boy, but post Dhoom 2 and Jodhaa Akbar he has curved out a space for himself – but all the while he always had the BO to justify his superstardom … anyways, bringing hrithik into the discussion does not give any argument to the original question itself … just an attempt to meander the question by fans of the so-called ’stars’ under scrutiny.

ACHILLES 7 October 2009
08:07:41 am

anyways i am still congratulating Ranbir Kapoor … not for the 10 cr opening … but for the media coverage of this opening! LOL … not sure Ranbir wud like to recieve such flattering congratulations … LOL

btw, while people keep beating around the bush, i may have a plausible counter theory to the main question:

Its not just the presence of a Kapoor son .. its also the KJO brand responsible for the media overdrive … after all Dostana recieved similar reception … that movie never had the BO collections … but still was hailed as a hit.

So here is the formula:

KJO + a Bachchan son/a Kapoor son == Hit by media even with marginal returns!

btw, its not my formula, but KJO’s! Does Ranbir has a brother?

ACHILLES 7 October 2009
08:10:41 am

“Does Ranbir has a brother?”

this question is the key to BW’s next superstar! hehe

pardesi 7 October 2009
08:22:10 am

Yes it is about the Box Office and commercial success. That is why it is laughable that anyone would approach Mani Rantan to get a failing Abhishek a role!!!! Were Mani’s films commercially viable up to that point? Roja and Mumbai (dubbed) and Dil se had all been failures in India. Why not approach a Chopra or a Johar to get the son a role? One hears that Abhishek had a role in K3G but it was chopped in the casting/editing, so obviously Mom and Dad could not influence that.

Did people forget timelines in the case of Rakesh Roshan? Yes King Uncle and Koyla flopped but in between was the blockbuster Karan Arjun! Does anyone doubt that RR was a very successful producer when Hritik came on the scene? As for Hritik – 3 out of his 5 successes have come with the home banner. And now we have Kites and Krrissh 2 coming up. To deny that his father had a huge role in launching a successful career for him is plain delusional. This is only in the context of nepotism that is being invoked for Ranbir and Abhishek.

The comparison can only be made if the other two get family productions to bolster their careers. Otherwise let us simply look at success and failure ratios for the entire career.

ACHILLES 7 October 2009
08:34:49 am

HAHA … mujhe mera troll se bhachao!!!!

who is denying the fact that hrithik has family advantage? He has and he has used it to full advantage … unlike Ranbir (as of now) or Abhishek (even after 10 long years) … thats why no one questions Hrithik’s star status but Ranbir/Abhishek will always be questioned (without answers).

And hrithik will keep doing home productions like Kites or Krrish 2 (if that happens) as many times as he does a Guzarish/JA or Vishal’s next. So will Ranbir and Abhishek keep using their advantages … but the problem is – If they make good use of the oppurtunity, they will be stars … AND if they cant, then STILL they will be stars!

Wah Wah! Kya Baat Hai!

Enuf from my side – let the discussion and 6 finger pointing begin once again! Lagey Raho …

pardesi 7 October 2009
08:59:43 am

Some believe that the world rests on Shiva’s trishul and revolves around that point, others think the world revolves around them and thus every comment is directed at them. There is no explanation for such self-centeredness, it just happens, and clouds understanding of all discussion to the point of calling others trolls.

Angels and Belds 7 October 2009
08:59:49 am

wow – what a discussion. somewhere i lost the plot on what the argument was here.

anyway my thoughts on some of the characters
i think ranbir is a bonafide superstar. He has oodles of charisma and its just a matter of time till he gets a blockbuster.
abhishek is a very decent actor. Yes he got lot of coverage and opportunites bcoz of amitabh but i think abhishek is a classic case of relationship hurting a son rather than helping. Abhishek’s behaviour has been exemplary and its difficult not to like him. But Amitabh’s wierd behaviour and Ash’s character has hurt abhishek more imo. Also, i think he got lot of useless movies handed to him becoz many folks thot they could ride the bachchan name to success.
mani – it really isnt that big a deal to bag any of his hindi movies. he is a pretty average hindi movie director. a superlative tamil one.
whats wrong in people taking actors on reference. as long as its reference and not force – its perfectly justified and reflects the corporate world. For people in the know, hiring based on reference is the best form of hiring in the corporate world.
Finally did some member just talk about making out in a theater? what does that mean? any elaboration pls

sv 7 October 2009
08:59:58 am

Achilles,wait for 2 years.Ranbir will leave Hrithik far behind.

pardesi 7 October 2009
09:03:27 am

That is the real fear, is it not? That with or without his family name, (after-all many have that and are star sons or connected), Ranbir will leave others FAR behind. How long has he been around for? To compare him to any other star sons simply reflects unease with his visibility in such a short time.

ACHILLES 7 October 2009
09:12:11 am

Hi sunil – how are you doing? nice to see your fortune telling still working … after CCTC, Tasveer, KI i thot u needed a small break? Anyways, welcome to the long que at NG (now in some offshoot blog) who for last 10 years have waited Abhishek to take over the crown, it might be another long wait for Ranbir fans now …. but i hope not.

Anyways, howz the advance bookings for Blue? This movie i believe will make Akshay number one??? (as Aamir/SRK are retiring according to you) but then Blue is not an Akshay film but Akshay has an important role in it?

Oh … I so love such futuristic visions.

ACHILLES 7 October 2009
09:20:50 am

Ranbir has been around for 2 years now … but his lineup is starting to release now … he may well become the bonafide superstar in time … but till the point he does something to substantiate his claim to stardom the media coverage about the same will generate skepticism … if hrithik or SRK or even aamir is in danger from some newbie then they are hardly the superstars they are believed to be … but hrithik was introduced in this thread by fanatic supporters of clairvoyance to defend RanbirAbhishek’s media coverage without any justification.

btw, if anyone does get affected IF Ranbir becomes big, it will be SRK – if successful he will be the substitute for all that SRK stands for.

Coolp 7 October 2009
09:22:40 am

Wow… Abhi & Hrithik as usual are generating lots of comments on this thread. Looking forward for Kites & Raavan.

Aside : When i posted this i had no idea that we will get here. More power to Rishi !

Angels and Belds 7 October 2009
09:34:16 am

>>btw, if anyone does get affected IF Ranbir becomes big, it will be SRK – if successful he will be the substitute for all that SRK stands for.

yup – i am with you on this. I also think so. like i said in my last comment – what ranbir has going for him is oodles of charisma and i think everyone would agree that SRK is the king of charisma.

frankly i hope there are a couple more contenders like neil mukesh or imran – else blog world will be boring. i am surprised yrf or kjo hasnt done a movie with ranbir and srk. to me that will be an all time blockbuster and the abdication of the throne by SRK. SRK i think has 2-3 years at the top max! If i was him -i would do about 5-6 movies between now and 2012. after that SRK will be a background powerhouse like yash chopra..

pardesi 7 October 2009
09:34:44 am

Actually Ranbir is a great dancer, will be a threat to dancing superstars

sv 7 October 2009
09:39:00 am

Achilles,wait for sometime for my predictions to come true.
I didn’t say Ranbir will become No1.There is time for that.

Qalandar 7 October 2009
11:11:51 am

Please refrain from referring, directly or indirectly, to other NGites as “trolls”. It isn’t very polite, especially given the rest of the discussion has been quite civil from ALL parties.

pardesi 7 October 2009
11:25:18 am

Thank you, the discussion was indeed civil up to that point. Regarding predictions, I want someone to pull up Kites predictions at the appropriate time. Predictions are just that, and they do merely represent hope and some intuition (right or wrong) on part of fans or detractors.

ACHILLES 7 October 2009
12:17:57 pm

Lack of argument == moderation begins in the name of civility … mtto is somehow shut-up the opposition who dare question ur fav!!!!! grrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

rkb 7 October 2009
12:52:36 pm

What are you talking about Ach?!

No one is shutting anyone up — just no below the belt, namecalling etc as Q said.

Qalandar 7 October 2009
12:53:14 pm

Achilles, your last comment is grossly unfair, and it is difficult to see how it could have been made in good faith: no one has remotely tried to shut you (or anyone else) up across your multiple comments on this or other threads, or in any context regarding “my favorites”. You have simply been asked to refrain from calling other NGites names. Surely your point isn’t that you are so inarticulate that you cannot make your points without such incivility? Your own comments belie any such notion.

Qalandar 7 October 2009
12:54:37 pm

Oops Rohit, our comments crossed.

rkb 7 October 2009
12:57:51 pm

No problem – he had to hear it twice!

ACHILLES 7 October 2009
01:53:30 pm

HAHA – i was kidding Q … the grrrrrrr was a mimicry though not of mine (i am not that involved in this thread to get angry or hold a ‘moral’ torch on you) … no offence.

julie 7 October 2009
02:03:54 pm

what a long long thread of discussion to a rather simple interview given by a proud father. To be honest I like Ranbir. I think he will go really far. He already is heads up over many of his predecessors who had possibly similar advantage but couldn’t scope out their careers well becasue of perhaps lack of direction, ambition and maybe even talent. Ranbir proved himself well in BAH and he made a fairly simple theme in WUS watchable.

Maybe unfair to compare him with Hrithik as yet, becasue advantage or no advantage, Hrithik had his first solo BB in his debut film, the biggest so far by a debutanat actor. And as sandy mentions, being RRs son did not really guarnatee a certified hit (as RR had tasted a spate of failures by then). Hrithik did have a period of failures, but then he has resurrected himself post 2003. I think his future lineup is interesting to keep him going and engaged.

It is not even fair to compare Ranbir with Abhishek. If there has been an actor who has survived the dust of failures without getting (except the sheen seems to be wearing out), it is the latter. Interesting thing is that Abhishek does have his string of strong supporters amongst both men and women (my sis likes him too and so does my best friend) but somehow when it comes to his films, he is not able to I don’t know why he is not able to amass enough support to get him good BO hit. In my view Ranbir truly has had no failure so far. Sawariya was a flop but Ranbir walked away with the accolades. The other two films that have follwed have been decent at the BO. Amongst the younger lot it is definitely Ranbir and Shahid to lookout for.

ACHILLES 7 October 2009
02:23:55 pm

Julie – this thread is unnecessarily long … neither me nor Street or anyone had the intention of comparing ranbir with abhishek or hrithik … whats the point in comparing a newbie with guys 10 years senior? what does such comparison prove? nothing.

I had asked in this forum why Ranbir or abhishek gets preferential treatment from media even when they dont have much success behind them?

This does not mean comparing ranbir with abhishek by any means! The comparison was done and hrithik brought in as a ‘line of defense’ which goes nowhere to answer the question raised!

You like ranbir … good. But tell me how is he more preferentially placed than the likes of neil/imran? what BO success does Ranbir have? a 35 cr grosser from YRF camp? Neil has a 45 cr grosser … Imran has a 55 cr blockbuster! then why does the media treat ranbir preferentially over these poor guys?

Tango or you may say yes you guyz predict he will someday make it big coz you like his dancing acting good loks whatever … but why wud a 10 cr opening be overhyped? and put a star mark on this guy by wide media coverage without a single hit in his name?

Street has some explanation in another post, and thats just the way it is … like it or not.

Qalandar 7 October 2009
02:29:11 pm

It’s obvious to me that a Jaane Tu Ya Jaane Na redounds a lot to Aamir’s credit — as a producer and a promoter — whereas Bachna Ae Haseenon and (from what I have heard) Wake Up Sid are more dependent on Ranbir Kapoor. I don’t mind Imran Khan (himself a kind of star-son in that the aamir connection meant him getting an excellent launch too, replete with abbas tyrewaala, ARR, and a powerful godfather in his uncle), and I’m not a Ranbir Kapoor fan as such, but fair’s fair. BTW, Ranbir has never had turkeys like Kidnap, Luck, and Aa Dekhen Zara on his resume either — he is manifestly a better actor than these two.

Re: “I had asked in this forum why Ranbir or abhishek gets preferential treatment from media even when they dont have much success behind them?”

The foundational assumption is questionable: abhishek does NOT get mostly favorable media coverage, and in fact receives more negative coverage than most. Where is the preferential treatment? Insider access might mean more films/opportunities for any particular insider, but that isn’t the same as favorable media treatment.

ACHILLES 7 October 2009
02:40:10 pm

Saawariya was a colossol flop Q – bhansali/sony – who can ask for a bigger disaster? JTYJN had aamir’s backing … NY/BAH had YRF backing … now WUS has KJO backing … all these camps have their loyal set of followers .. i wont ignore one and count the other.

and again JTYJN was a blockbuster when BAH and WUS (till now) are marginal grossers. If a guy is generally accepted the movie will minimally do 40 cr … below that somewhere something is wrong … these days flops like CCTC/D6 do 30 cr or so.

Again if NY was a john abraham movie, so was dostana? but we didnt hear that argument before.

apple to apple – there is nothing much to pick between the likes of Neil/Imran/Ranbir … BUT the media was already taken a side wherein lies the objection.

ACHILLES 7 October 2009
02:44:23 pm

Q – i am not talking about ‘certain’ media coverage over ‘certain time’ … but in general … specially remember the dhoom1-guru timeline … it was at that time when the media was most liberal to herald the new superstar … i dont need to bring up the BO of most films that were made hits by the media to support their superstar theory … with time it may have decayed with all the subsequent failures … essentially the media has a pattern when in comes to sons from a dynasty … which is not difficult to see.

Zen 8 October 2009
04:14:20 am

Sandy, that is one hilarious comment I will treasure. For this we hope there are more Do not Disturbs!

These star son arguments are never ending and its especially interesting on NG as you get the odd fandom insecurities, or should I say random?

The Star name can only help with the first 2 or 3 movies, after that you will struggle, but we cannot rule out the persistent family help, because lets face it, we are talking about a deeply institionalised country where Nepotism is even celebrated. Nearly everyone is looking for a patriarch dynastic succession on their favourites. Some are probably looking for another Sachin from his offspring.

On the Yuva issue, I don’t think Big B played any part in that. At the same time, one should not count the Yuva signing for Abhishek, as part of the accusations of getting preferential treatment due to family name. Mani has always taken small stars for most of his projects, and repeated them too, from Arvind Swamy (2 sucessive movies) to Madhavan (4) to Abhishek (3). What these 3 have in common is that none of them were the biggest stars whilst he was working with them. It is not a sidenote to mention here that Mani is an MBA holder who is therefore trained to achieve maximum results from his risky ventures.

In cost minising, Junior B is actually a priceless asset, low cost with a prestige name. All you have to do is work on his performance which is easy for Mani.

sv 8 October 2009
05:11:54 am

The reason for Rathnam taking Abhishek is because he couldn’t afford big stars.
Achilles,you still did not understand.

sandhya 8 October 2009
05:19:24 am

Hey Zen, finally I get to reply when you are around! Because you say these sweet things about me (you know what I’m talking about) and I hardly have had a chance to interact with you.

I agree that nepotism is celebrated, not just in India but everywhere I think. So yes, star kids have it easy. Obviously they need to have some talent, otherwise they fade away. But like Qalandar pointed out, it’s the ‘entry point’ that keeps away 99 per cent of aspirants. It’s all about getting that elusive break. Star kids like Imran Khan and Sonam are no doubt very good looking and have decent talent. But I’m sure there are many out there like them, but they don’t get the same launch pad. That is the difference.
Star kids get a good break. If they are even half-decent, they get a couple of more films and by that time, they become more equipped. That luxury non star kids do not have.

The same applies to directors as well. I see more and more directors from within the industry or with connections gettting breaks. But fortunately, a certain skill set is expected here, so it becomes a little more democratic.

Zen 8 October 2009
08:18:57 am

Thanks Sandy, I was just being honest! And I agree with you to some extent though its not about the entry point. I for one am quite sure that a star kid will never be number one, and so far it has not happened. Raj kapoor came closest, but was sidelined by the power of Dilip Kumar. Hrithik too came close, though its another argument whether he is really a star son as his father was like the Aftab Shidavsani of his time, good for him he became a director. You see its all about the struggle, and those who make the struggle come out on top.

BTW, I was not on line technically for the past 3 hours, because I tried to log out from the post but it was not working. RKB please check that as with Mozilla I always try to log out from the bottom of the post I made the comment but it never worked, so today I just closed the browser and went to a meeting. This just started recently.

nostarthegreatest 10 October 2009
08:54:00 pm

There is still no concrete proof to say Amitabh got Abhishek the role. My only contention Mani isnt that insincere to go ahead and budge to some influential forces.

Who could have played Lallan? – except for Sanjay dutt, no one’s physicality comes close to this role.

It is another matter to actually compromise because of inavailability of some stars.

Qalandar 10 October 2009
09:05:35 pm

Re: “There is still no concrete proof to say Amitabh got Abhishek the role….”

In fact, there is no proof whatsoever. Those who have been arguing to the contrary have only said that this possibility cannot be ruled out (of course it can’t; it cannot in the case of any film/role — how would one prove a negative in the absence of evidence?! For instance, let me illustrate the flimsiness of this position by noting that I also cannot rule out the idea that abhishek was given Delhi-6 because he slept with rakesh mehra; or that sonam kapoor was given the role for that reason — “but there’s no evidence…” I hear you cry, but so what? It could have happened! and we all know that in the film industry it DOES happen that way all the time; heck, no-one is a saint, etc. etc.), or have offered insinuations. The real question isn’t whether Rathnam COULD have done x, but why are we only looking at this film/role where x is concerned and not asking the same question of any other film…

rkb 10 October 2009
09:16:17 pm

“BTW, I was not on line technically for the past 3 hours, because I tried to log out from the post but it was not working. RKB please check that as with Mozilla I always try to log out from the bottom of the post I made the comment but it never worked, so today I just closed the browser and went to a meeting. This just started recently.”

– Zen, has this been resolved?

You must be logged in to post a comment.

CoolP

Related Posts

There Are 126 Responses So Far. »

Leave a Reply