No need to get personal against fellow hubbers. Don't repeat this again!
No need to get personal against fellow hubbers. Don't repeat this again!
For a long time, excuses/abuses/arguments on Vijay's looks, poor choice of scripts, one-dimensional acting and over-the-top dialogues/action were used quite regularly whenever the success/box office discussions were on. Sura was the nadir. What the movie collections were, which I believe is the strongest indicator of an actor's mass value was not often given enough importance. It was hidden under the carpet.
Nowadays the commonly discussed points are the '100-day' theory and SAC, t, no matter whether the discussion is on box office/ reasons for delay in release or Vijay's performance. This is a welcome change, though.
Here, the discussion was squarely on the first-weekend collections in UK and again the dig on the '100-days'. The table is itself self-explanatory and here we are linking that to '100-days' again.
It is a no-brainier that cinema dynamics have changed dramatically over the last 5-6 years. Gone are the days when a 100-day run was considered as a pride-thing. Nobody is giving much importance to such things. If, Vijay and his producers are still serious about 100 days and pride, they will learn their lessons soon.
A closer look at the organized Cinema markets of UK, USA and Malaysia and top 10/25/50 lists for Tamil movies is enough to understand who is the most consistent actor for these markets, whether it may be for the opening weekend or the overall collections.
It is only in the evolving Indian/Tamil markets that different aspects such as Who has the greatest opening? or Who has the most solid family base? are still debated.
It is beyond debate, so as to who is calling the shots, in the above listed international markets for Tamil movies.
In the local Tamil market, Thuppakki to a certain extent quashed a lot of myths/manipulations with authentic/certified data from some industry people. I am sure, the Tamil Industry will get organized, pretty soon.
Param,
Our definition of handsomeness always takes me back by surprise. It's shocking how we consider only fair skinned handsome. Most people we consider handsome in India just because they are fair skinned, wouldn't even be considered average looking outside India.
Oru exampleku many of my friends have told me danush is better looking than mahesh babu (not gonna namedrop TN celebrities here :) ) just because he's got an awesome jaw line/bone structure. On other hand mahesh would be considered a typical butter face.
Vj looked handsome. Period. That's my opinion. Your opinion doesn't bother me because if you do visit the twitter world or fb there are loads of people everywhere who agrees on this with me. Besides I'm a girl. So I'm taking the liberty of assuming I'm a better judge of good looks (of a guy) than you lol.
I don't belong to the generation that has watched MGR's FDFS or loves to watch superstar's FDFS. Sorry to disappoint you there.
Really? If it's not skin colour then what is it about him you don't find attractive? I really want to hear it........not.
What gives people the sense of superiority to tell someone else what they should consider aesthetically pleasing or thoroughly entertaining.
If you don't consider him handsome, say it. That's alright, but why laugh at someone else who thinks he is? If you think a movie is average, have the guts to say you find it average. What audacity to tell someone else to accept it as average.
I respect posters who respect others opinion. End of.