Salman and Kareena in Kabir Khan’s Bajrangi Bhaijaan


Director par excellence Kabir Khan, best remembered for his film Kabul Express, New York and the 2012 Salman Khan starrer Ek Tha Tiger, is all set to work with Salman again. It is learnt that Kabir is set to work with Salman Khan and Kareena Kapoor for his next film titled Bajrangi Bhaijaan.

The film which will be presented by Salman himself under his own company ‘Salman Khan Ventures’, will have Salman play the role of the title character Bajrangi Bhaijaan. Commenting on the film Kabir says that the story of the film will be very relevant to today’s times and will feature a larger-than-life background with a human story. With the shooting commencing this November, the film will be shot across many parts of India and is slated to release on Eid next year.

Confirming the development Kabir Khan posted on twitter saying, “.@BeingSalmanKhan as #BajrangiBhaijaan is going to be very special… Both of us are very excited to start this journey…” Later adding about Kareena being a part of the film Kabir posted, “Yes Kareena is in #BajrangiBhaijaan and we release on Eid 2015 :-)”

Salman and Kareena were last seen together as co-stars in the film Bodyguard, later Kareena did an item number ‘Fevicol Se’ in Salman’s Dabangg 2.

43 Responses to “Salman and Kareena in Kabir Khan’s Bajrangi Bhaijaan”

  1. The three main Khans still going strong…SRK has some interesting projects, Salman got the Rajshri and now this one, and Aamir is always getting the big ones. This is as good as it gets when it comes to ruling the industry in a post-Amitabh era.


    • It’s been about 24 years now. I think if you go year by year, one of them will have a hit in top 3 every single year.

      I don’t see it stopping for 5 more years. Amitabh era started in 1973 and kind of ended the dream run in mid 80’s. After that he had big films but none of them clicked like his big hits from 70’s to early 80’s. I mean I don’t think amitabh has a hit with money spinner like the ETT, CE, D3 24 years into his career.

      Hrithik is up there too, 14 years and have some big hits to his credit.


      • well but who said longevity is the only criterion here in the absence of everything else? Bachchan had the kind of success in that period you’ve defined that all three put together could not begin to approach (one could take the great trio of the 50s and say the very same.. Rajesh Khanna for that brief period is the only one who can be compared to him in this sense..). Much as the number of hits/superhits/blockbusters or whatever again far exceed the combined films of all three. Much as the most extraordinary number might be something like 6-7 hits running concurrently or only have 6 films or so that actually lost money in that period you’ve mentioned. Again I won’t keep going over all the numbers (and hopefully you won’t force me to reproduce some Taran/Nahta statements in this regard.. not the greatest friends of Bachchan at every point!). But even post-peak and even after he took off for two years for politics in the ’88-’92 period he was still drawing by far the biggest initials which is why many of the under performers still feature in the top grossers for many of those years and often outrank some of the big hits elsewhere.

        And again there is still the problem of ‘combining’ these three. There is simply no reason to do so. The very fact that one keeps putting forward this ‘company’ (limited liability or otherwise!) makes my point. And this by the way isn’t like the great trio of the 50s where they were clubbed together because they were extremely distinct stars, very canonical in their own ways, with very different cultural archives, associated with a whole foundational moment of Bombay cinema in ways too numerous to outline. They weren’t just the Rajendra Kumars of their age.

        I must say I have a Bachchan-Sachin rule in many contexts.. when they’re compared with mere mortals I stop taking the response seriously. Nonetheless because I like to be thorough I still do my best to tear it apart!


    • The ‘Khans’ have certainly leveraged their stardom well. However this picture should be complicated. First off I continue to remain deeply suspicious of this very label. It has a communal coding even if most people don’t of course use it in this sense. But it also has practical consequences. How did it matter to Salman for the longest time when he was more or less irrelevant for many years leading unto Wanted as to how Aamir or SRK were doing? Or how did it matter to Aamir when the Yashraj phase was at its peak and SRK was the only beneficiary? One could multiply these examples. First off this label wasn’t used in the 90s or for a number of years after this when these stars were actually much younger. Why not? The problem is that you can look a 20 year history and say ‘the Khans did well throughout’ because you only ever have to point to one or two of them to make the case for all of them. But again no one was saying in the 90s that ‘the Khans’ were doing well. Now is there a case to be made that at this point in time and for wholly different reasons there might be more parity across the three than there has ever been at any other point? Perhaps (even if the trajectories are very different and I’ll get to this in a minute). But this says nothing about 2002 or 1998 or whatever. Now I’ve made the case before that Aamir beyond a point and looking at all the contexts had a very good hit ratio in the 90s. Salman came back too in his Dhawan phase and had some other stuff. He too did well again for a few years. But still no such label was used. I think rightly. Because SRK simply had the most iconic films of the age (even if he had a poorer ratio than Aamir). Cinema is never just about the pure numbers unless a star is totally dominant. It’s also about perceptions and the films that define the age. Aamir post-Lagaan has defined the age more than anyone else. Perhaps less so with Salman’s resurgence only to the extent that his constantly big initials have become a big alternative narrative. SRK earlier wasn’t able to provide this and even now he cannot really match Salman pound for pound in this sense. But now that label becomes a bit convenient for all sorts of ideological reasons. it is convenient for the SRK partisans but even moreso for an anti-Bachchan coalition (not those who dislike him but who feel his anxiety greatly.. or the idea that he continues to be the ultimate horizon even at his age.. and in ways that are no longer measurable solely by the box office.. in other words the latter keeps his vitality undiminished.. this is not just a theoretical matter because in real terms we see this impact elsewhere from ads to TV ratings and so forth). Much as in a different sense the 100 crore club came about after Aamir had already done 200 with 3I. Rather unfair to use a lower bar when the higher one already exists. As if someone were to say in Hollwyood that the 300m barrier really counted and this would included everything from TDK to Avengers to Cameron or whatever. Of course then when because of higher initials many films have either appeared in that 200 zone or in a few cases breached it suddenly the 200 club gains more currency. So there is always politics to all this stuff. All of this doesn’t mean that the iconic appeal of the three Khan stars in an individual sense ought to be denied. Or that they haven’t shown remarkable longevity in some sense but this very neat narrative has lots of deep holes in it. For instance it’s one thing to have longevity as a defining star throughout that 20 year period and quite another to have it in some patches and to simply be important in others. SRK was defining once, has not been so for very long, though he’s still an important star. Salman has never been a defining star. But he is currently an important one. Aamir has been a defining star since Lagaan. The reason this matters is that you can get in the Bollywood past a number of stars who lasted 20 or even 30 years. even in the contemporary period you have Devgan who’s been around forever or Akshay Kumar. Both stars did better later in their careers, especially Akshay who was really in the top bracket for a while before he self-destructed with junk. But nonetheless still a significant star.

      The great trio of the 50s started out in the mid-40s and were all very important box office forces for about 20 years. But longevity isn’t everything. Yes Rajesh Khanna had the briefest period as a defining star but with just about any other star all the longevity in the world cannot equal the absolute hysteria and success rate that he for that brief period. As a psychological matter I might prefer being Jeetendra for 30 years than Rajesh Khanna for 5 but that’s a different matter. Jeetendra is not more significant because he had 30. One couldn’t even say this for Dharmendra, otherwise a true legend in his own right.

      The other point I’d make here is that longevity though extremely creditable in one sense (because it shows a star keeps himself relevant across different generations.. notice how women are rarely afforded this chance.. once upon a time ‘new India’ laughed at ‘old India’ for heroes like Dharam or whoever who appeared with women half their age. All the ‘Khans’ and some others have been very happy to do the very same) might not mean as much over the longer span. Dharmendra seemed much more vital a presence one, much more permanent than he does today. In fact he probably survives only because of sholay at this point for a large audience. And the reason is that in the absence of a genuine body of work the success of an age (Jubilee Kumar anyone?) or even the longevity of earlier periods will mean far less. Shammi Kapoor’s films are revisited way more than Dharmendra’s ‘classics’. No one cares how long each one was successful and so forth. So forget important work even with ‘classics’ things change.

      To then get back to these three we started out with Salman won’t mean anything (zilch) once he’s done. First off whether he can maintain even this pace for very long remains to be seen. I too am of the view that he might have reached his absolute box office high. He might still keep generating very strong initials but I think the films might perform less well overall. Even if I’m wrong about this it’s not a long term plan (and to Salman’s credit he’s someone who understands this better than anyone else and takes himself least seriously). Aamir is project-oriented so he has no issues. Yes age is still the star’s enemy (as elsewhere in life!) but in a Hollywoodized age you can find projects more appropriate in this sense, specially if you have Aamir’s mind. Yes you’ll start meaning less ultimately but you’ll extend your meaningful body of work. SRK is somewhere in between. Hasn’t done much to be remembered by, might survive as an important chapter of Bollywood cultural history or perhaps his films might be work as classics some day (I doubt this for a few reasons but one must allow that possibility). However the reinvention bit has been tricky for him. He’s now in a better place after a number of years. Or where he couldn’t capitalize after the OSO-CDI double he’s now possibly doing better. But he’s also tying himself to super-productions that have lots of padding in terms of other stars and a certain circus economy and so forth. He hit a big one, even unexpectedly with CE, and he’s quickly building on that with HNY but then his next two projects are far more low key. He will keep trying to mix it up but again it keeps getting harder to do this stuff with age. Specially when a star does not have the same iconic base to rely on.

      All of this is still not to say that these stars haven’t done enough in terms of longevity, just that this feature might seem a bit exaggerated in the present. This happens even to the greatest stars. Even with the latter longevity only matters to the extent that there might be reinvention. Otherwise it’s only the important stuff (assuming there is this). And even in the present in an age when films like 2 States and Ek Villain do 100 crores and get the same sorts of hysterical narratives the significance of doing better even as a bigger star is far less than one might think, in the absence of films that have a shelf life.


      • I can understand the communal coding but I don’t think many means it. “Khans” simply means SRK/Salman/Amir. Otherwise there are plenty of useless “khans” in the industry.

        No matter how we slice it and dice it, to be at top after 24 years in to your career means something. all of these jubilee kumar, dharmendra, or anybody else didn’t last this long at top. Same with amitabh, once it started going down from mid 80’s, it never came back to his 70’s and early 80’s days.

        With these 3 khans, the fact is they had big hits in form of ETT, CE and D3 and each new release is expected to make huge money. All top producers/directors stil wants to work with them and they are the lead in the movies they’re in, not a side actor.


        • You’re happy right? That’s all that matters. Don’t challenge yourself with a serious discussion. and here I must apologize. I didn’t mean to put you at a disadvantage by introducing some history. By the way you’ve disappointing me by just talking about another 5 years. I thought that much as Bachchan gave Black or Paa 35-40 years after his debut and in these sorts of different subjects, that SRK would be doing the same in 2025 or 2032. Or at least that he would get the overall kinds of projects Bachchan has done with just about any director worth his salt over the last 15 years or so with central roles. You’re saying 5. That’s a bit disappointing.. maybe there’s still hope.. maybe SRK will create TV history in 2022? Maybe he’ll get that many ads? No. Well never mind.. since I refuse to combine the three I certainly think Aamir will have lots of important films left in him five years on. In the meantime you’ve moved SRK from ‘top’ to ‘top 3’. You can keep expanding the latter bracket..! as I said as long as you’re happy..! No price on alternative history or fantasy..!


          • Once again, as soon as you have no defence you resort to name calling and showing your padesterian ways. But that’s expected as i’ve been beating you down at your own game since naachgaana days 🙂

            My knowledge of hindi cinema is much greater than yours. My knowledge is not limited to bachhan era and trying to put everybody else down.

            We’ll see what SRK does in 2022 but as of right now, He gave CE at age 48, what big hit film did amitabh give at that age?

            you can put srk anywhere you in top 3, the fact is he is there in top 3 just about every year.

            That leads to question of the past few years, when will abhi get back in top 10? 🙂


          • I thought by your longevity argument Abhishek has done pretty well..! I’ll be he does 20 years and more! Now if you’re saying he’s not even in the top 10 and still does this what credit is it to do so as a much stronger box office star?! LOL.. I’ll let you sit on that one for a while..!

            on the rest a spade has to be called a spade sometimes..


          • Naveen Nischol and Vinoe Mehra were in business for long tie too, abhi will be there too, just not in top 10. I’ll let you sit on that as you have been for many years.

            I thought Henrys whole post was on khan being in top for many many years. We’re not talking about the bracket bachhans are in which has no value at this point. Even new comers like Varun, Arjun Kapoor have ran past them now.

            Agree on calling out spade a spade, that’s why i’ve been calling you out…


          • But the point remains the same.. if one can have longevity without being at the top why does longevity at the top mean something? Since not everyone can have longevity even at the bottom?!

            Incidentally Naveen Nischol and Vinod Mehra were done in a decade or even less and even within that decade were never more than B,C grade stars for the most part in terms of their projects. Nischol was briefly considered a rising star.

            By the way glad you shifted to ‘Bachchans’. Have also seen your comments on Aamir elsewhere. This whole Abhishek thing is a red herring on your part.

            But again if you really believe what you’ve been trying to convince yourself forever probably there’s no issue.. because facts don’t change one way or the other because I assert something or you assert it. Either a star is around or he isn’t. Either he gets a certain kind of project or he doesn’t. I forget what Shetty did before CE but you might remember the name..!

            And finally, yet again, I’ll just say this, I know you secretly value everything I say which is why you’ve followed me from NG to here..!


          • and here a sports analogy is in order..

            Firstly it’s a bit like saying Messi’s numbers matter (since we are watching the WC these days) only if he also plays professional football longer than everyone else. Obviously he will have longevity in any case but he doesn’t have to outlast everyone else. And his numbers are such a mountain that he’s untouchable whether he has the greatest longevity or not. THis is Bachchan example. The point is not just to be a ‘top’ star in an impoverished age when you can often go years without very significant grossers or without really beating the competition (as is the case with SRK and something I’ve pointed out in detail in the past.. for instance between OSO and CE, a 6 year period, there are no huge benchmarks for SRK whereas Aamir or Salman have multiple ones.. I could multiply these examples.. on the other hand when Bachchan is on top for the longest time he’s untouchable year after year, most years most of the top films and then top 5 belong to him and the gulf with everyone else is huge). So longevity means something in general, moreso if one maintains a higher position and it’s really astonishing if one does a Sachin or a Bachchan. the SRK kind of star is in the mid category much like Dev Anand in an earlier age or the two others in that trio (even Raj Kapoor who became less viable as a lead actor earliest for other reasons still had 20 year career. Sangam, one of his big hits, released in 18 years or so after his debut). And this is why I’ve contested the ‘Khans’ label even here. The idea that one of them has something or the other every year is absurd. It’s a bit like saying either Laxman or Dravid or Ganguly (let’s leave aside Sachin for the moment) always have important knocks among them every year. Even there one has a better case to make if one is referring to the overall strength of the team. But cinema doesn’t work like this? SRK would still be where he is if Aamir or Salman never existed and vice versa. The ideological agenda then is to account for the gaps in each stars career by using the other two as safety. And I’ll for further than this and say this only really helps SRK since Aamir or Salman weren’t getting the benefit of the doubt when SRK was doing better! When the tables turned it’s suddenly an ‘all for one, one for all’ structure foisted upon them by the media and happily accepted by many partisans.

            It’s an ideological agenda when categories are invented purely to favor one star. And this 3-in-1 argument is actually one of the more absurd ones even by those standards. And here I am not even going to get into the incredible bad faith and dishonesty that is introduced in all of these debates in other ways.

            What I will say though that Aamir’s is the only record really likely to last among these three ‘Khans’. SRK if he’s lucky might find an afterlife as Shammi Kapoor but even that I very much doubt. He strikes me as a Rajendra Kumar type. ‘dead’ once the era is over. Already his peak films seem ancient, most of them fairly unwatchable. Even for those of us who saw them in real time. It’s not just about me. Most would agree with this. Notice how JJWS or AAA seem far more fresh today. I think QSQT still holds up very well. In SRK’s own oeuvre something like KHKN is still fine. Even DDLJ is a classic of sorts. The rest is very hard to sit through. Of course leaving aside Dil Se or Swades. Not much different with Salman. He might have something here and there but overall it’s one larger disposable career. It is just a fact that over time while some films might be reinvented as classics for the most part it is the meaningful film that survives. Not every meaningful film is reinvented (as in any other field of art and entertainment) but you need a body of work to even stand the chance. Even with Aamir no one will care about Dil or HHRPK let alone Raja Hindustani. It’s all the other stuff he has. Some of it even in the 90s.

            What’s the point of longevity any which way if one is going to be a historical loser? Does anyone care today about how many jubilees Rajendra Kumar had? In SRK’s own larger age no one thinks he has the best body of work. What hope does he have for the future?


      • I didn’t mean it in a communal sense at all, it’s just easy to refer to them that way…..I am not such a deep thinker after all lol.

        And I didn’t mean they have all been at the top throughout their tenure, but that they have had a steady amount of success more or less after the Rajesh Khanna and Amitabh blitzkrieg. It’s a creditable achievement.


        • And Salman could have been in an better position all those years when his films were doing nothing, but he has always been reckless.


          • true.. though given his rather limited talents otherwise he was never going to be considered for too many serious roles. Then it was about the commercial stuff. He started off with a bang, then faded, then reinvented himself for a while with Dhawan and through HDDCS did quite well. Then he had the longest fade, even went into irrelevance. and we know the rest.

            On that note Dharmendra was never the top star but had a pretty remarkable run otherwise which would have been better without Bachchan. Even as late as ’87 and after many lean years he had 3 hits in a year. Yes in the Bachchan age any other star seemed minor. The gap was simply too profound. But things have also changed greatly in terms of how these things are measured.


        • I wasn’t referring to you Henry nor to anyone else for that matter.. but some of these labels have deeper unconscious coding. Kind of like people automatically finding actresses who are fairer more beautiful.

          On the rest I too wasn’t denying their success. And here too I know you don’t have any agendas. I was just making a statement for a somewhat larger audience. The better yardstick might even be the fact that in some ways Aamir and Salman hit their absolute peaks after 40 or with Salman even a bit later than this. That’s unusual, and a true first in many ways. SRK has done well to keep up but nonetheless it’s not his peak in a comparable sense.


  2. Always good to know when Salman signs a movie outside his brotherhood & ‘Chelas’. I am assuming Kabir Khan would have taken positives out of ETT experience and give us better content and rest leave to Bhaijaan.

    Happy that Salman will have two releases next year as 2012 was empty and wait until Nov 2015 for PRDP would be just too long.


  3. I don’t have much hope from Kick as songs have been very underwhelming and I still cannot remember the tune of Jumme Ki Raat and Hangover is such a crap song. They cannot even get a humming song? The only redeeming factor of a Sallu movie is smashing songs with paisa vasool moments but it seems we have to wait for that until next year.

    Now storyline is the only hope and hope they don’t make a mockery with bhai ke naam par sab chalta hai attitude


  4. BajrangiBhaijaan – will it be a superficial masala or something more deep keeping in mind Salman fascination with sarva dharma sama bhava and celebration of Ganesh Chathurthi with Eid.


  5. Looking forward to it. I hope it’s full on masala.


  6. Is this going to be a YRF ? Or is Kabir & Salman going independent ?


    • It’ll be independent of YRF. Kabir Khan has finished his standard 3-film YRF contract which is why his Phantom is being produced by Nadiawala. As far as I know, Kabir and Salman are co-producing this.


  7. One thing I will disagree with is that only SRK’s films have dated. Everything has a shelf life. The majority of pre-2000s films are dated by now, even the classics. And I know that people love their 70s masala here but it’s very hard for me to sit through most masala films I enjoyed, and I know for a fact this is true for a lot of people. Today’s generation who are into films like Vicky Donor or a Kahaani will never watch these movies.

    And I don’t see any star these days has a chance of being remembered for a long time, not even Aamir….we live in a much more cynical time now where there needs to be a return on every investment, and nothing lasts beyond a month or two. Then if you do one stupid movie, and you become a joke on the internet. In fact, Aamir lost a lot of respect for Dhoom 3. To stay relevant, he has to continue doing the kind of films that made him a brand name. People are expecting a 3 idiots or TZP out of him every single time, which is not easy.


    • Some years ago there was a survey done on Indian TV where it was found that it was impossible to go through any 24 hr cycle without finding a Bachchan film on one channel or the other, sometimes more than once. So his films have certainly remained current (which is why they’re being remade!). But history is a game of relative claims not absolute ones, at least not in most cases. Given enough time even the greatest artists can be forgotten (or have been forgotten for centuries). One day if cinema becomes extinct, only an archive for specialists, no star will be worth very much! There are great sporting legends known by relatively few sports enthusiasts. Masala though has been reinvented (even if in debased form) in contemporary Bollywood via the Telugu route. These are today the biggest grossers. The multiplex films even on their best days cannot compete. Not so long ago it was the opposite. And even these masala films are hardly exhausting the potential of the genre. Most of these are terrible films that get big initials and little else. In the same sense Shammi Kapoor’s persona seems to register with people in a way that Rajendra Kumar’s does not. People are more willing to watch the former than the latter but either way it’s still a subset of viewers. In the US where you have extraordinary institutional support for archives and so on even here it is only a small group of people interested in the older stuff and so on. Their opinions count have an impact that goes far beyond their numbers but that’s a different debate. Certain films just become dated more quickly than others. Relative to their initial iconic appeal. Over a period of time people stop watching older films, stop taking an interest in older sports figures, don’t listen to older music very much. The majority is always on the side of the present. But not everything that isn’t seen is the same as being ‘dated’. Awara still seems very fresh and vital, most of Dilip Kumar’s iconic films are dated. Just as many authors get dated even though they have often been very famous at one point. This is different from genuinely important authors who are nonetheless only read by minorities. It might well be the case that at some point masala or certainly Bachchan’s cinema starts seeming too remote. But it has already held on uniquely in Bombay history. No one in 1985 was watching Dilip Kumar’s 50s films, a lot of people today though watch Bachchan’s 70s or 80s. Now some of their choices might not be mine (Satte Pe Satta for example! an Agneepath which itself is almost a quarter of a century old) might seem more important to many than Trishul and so on) but that body of work is very much around. Which is one of the reasons by the way why Bachchan is still so vital a presence. Will the same hold 50 years from now? Maybe, maybe not. But ‘datedness’ is something different. Dil is a very dated film, QSQT is not. It might be that not that many more people are watching the latter either.

      On the rest I do agree to an extent. I wouldn’t necessarily say it’s because of cynicism but more so for the reason that there are too many distractions. Cinema for a long time has been receding in terms of influence (I made this point somewhere else but this is why for instance the entire debate about who’s the #2 star and who’s #8 makes little sense anymore beyond some very obvious facts.. not because there aren’t greater and lesser stars.. rather because the very meaning of being that sort of star is far far less than what it once was.. cinema in general has lost its transcendence, this is true even for art house cinema.. people today largely watch films as products.. they are there to consume entertainment, not experience it..) anyway. But at the same time technology also enables different possibilities. for instance between cable/satellite TV and DVDs and now of course various streaming/donwload possibilities you have far greater exposure to every kind of cinema than was ever the case before. Before video for example even a minority that was interested could only have accessed the history in a limited sense. Today everything is available. Even if you’re not that interested you might come across all sorts of films if you’re just flipping channels. You might recognize a song and stop there and you might find something else curious about a film that you otherwise don’t know and indulge in it more. It doesn’t have to be masala. It could be anything. But these archives are far more available than ever before. Much as online people have a great deal of access to foreign cinema. Again it’s always about minorities but these minorities can define trends. For instance Parwana was suddenly reinvented by cable TV and became a cool film. So much so that an entire other film was based on it in certain ways (johnny Gadaar). So as long as the archives are available things happen. And I’m not completely shutting the door on SRK either. All I’m saying is that his iconic cinema is of the sort that history normally doesn’t remember too kindly. It’s entirely possible that a future generation sees him only as the actor of KHKN or Darr or Dil Se or Swades and a few others and finds him to be ‘legible’ only in this sense. Aamir just has many more of those films. There’s no guarantee of course but even a minority today that’s interested in older films is much more likely to watch the important stuff first and not the average Rajendra Kumar film, huge though it might have been in a different age. SRK’s Yahsraj/Johar stuff could be reinvented some other way, it’s just a lower probability event because the films are rather basic (let’s be kind!).


  8. Agreed on most points, and especially that Bachchan is stiil far ahead of anyone in terms of attracting eyeballs to his older films, but I was just making the point that people don’t care about movies and movie stars in general the way they used to. I personally feel Bachchan’s best films (other than Sholay which still surprises me) did not get the direction, editing, sound etc. they deserved. You can still watch The Godfather, and not find a single directorial mistake in the way they are conceived and presented. For me, Deewar and Trishul are equals of The Godfather in terms of script but direction is another matter, and it’s not just the lack of technical finesse.

    Majority of SRK movies will probably be remembered as enjoyable fluff that evoke nostalgia for those who grew up in the 90s. And that’s exactly what these movies were, pure fluff, but Chopras and its ilk presented them as if they were reinventing cinema. In fact that is the most common affliction in Hindi Cinema where everything from Dhoom to Ek Villain are claimed as pathbreaking.


    • Bandra.NRI Says:


      I don’t want to get in the middle of THE discussion here, BUT, when you say “Bachchan is still far ahead of anyone in terms of attracting eyeballs to his older films”, What are you really saying?

      The segment that can be defined as “eyeballs to older film” is so insignificantly minuscule that you cannot “live off” this segment. In the scheme of things what the market cares is the segment that can be defined as “eyeballs to current films”. This is the locomotive engine that drives the industry.

      Someone can claim that in Guiness Book of records he holds the title for being able to squat the most flies in a minute. Well, you respond to that person by saying “so what, squatting flies has no real economical value”.

      Hence this debate that my star is somehow better than your star is demeaning to both stars. Time, era etc make the comparasion difficult. We can argue all we want but yet not convince anyone. It is better to accept that all are good in their own ways. 70s/80s was Amitabh’s time, today it is perhaps SRK’s time and tomorrow it will be, who knows, Tiger’s time.


    • wouldn’t disagree there at all.. but then why would one expect Coppola-like direction in that setup in the first place? Ramesh Sippy was really the exception. In the cinema of the 50s the best directors often displayed those virtues you’re referring to. Having said that the ‘mass aesthetic’ of the 70s was a conscious decision even if this didn’t preclude a more refined filmmaking at very many levels. Deewar is still better than most. Zanjeer was pretty good too on this score. But yeah Sippy was in a different league altogether.


  9. Weird title. Bajrangi = Hindutva flavor and Bhaijaan = muslim flavor.

    Was this movie part of Modi’s budget 2014 agenda (movie announced same day) as well? To make a mass commercial movie with Salman Khan and have a title Bajrang in it?


    • Bandra.NRI Says:

      Salman perhaps play a “uniter”, not a ‘divider” .

      But as strange as it may seem, I am really not convinced about Kabir Khan the director. I think ETT was more YRF than Kabir Khan. Also it came at Salman’s peak.

      Without YRF and Salman running slower laps, it might be a different story.


      • True, lets see few directors who left YRF after their 3 film contract.

        1) Sanjay Gadhvi after Dhoom1 & 2 – Kidnap and Ajab Gazab Love – both disasters and struggling to start next film.
        2) Kunal Kohli after Hum Tum & Fanaa – Thoda Pyar Thoda Magic and Teri Meri Kahaan – both disasters and struggling to start next film.
        3) Siddharth Anand after Salaam Namaste & Bachna Ae Haseeno – Anjaana Anjaani(2008) – Flop and Bang Bang coming after 6 years.


  10. Comparisons are completely natural, don’t people compare jordan and lebron even though the game has changed a lot? Anyway, I was just saying that of all the old movies, it seems like amitabh’s have the most viewership on TV, and that’s not something trivial that I would compare with squatting flies.

    As for demeaning stars, I actually find it amusing when I see people doing that on this forum and others. I am just not attached enough to constantly obsess over a star or dislike someone intensely. Yeah, if I started getting money for it, then I will even promote Tushar lol.


    • I agree about promoting Tushar (if the money was right).

      See this is what I mean. You cannot use a person’s record at squatting flies to somehow equate him to the person scoring the most goals in the first 30 minutes of a World Cup Semi-Final.

      One record is just amusing while the other can or break an empire.

      I don’t want to be dragged into this debate, because like you, I am not attached to any of this. But it still needs to be said, this re-run on TV is not some prestigious achievement. It is not as if a Amitabh Bachchan re-run is bringing the country to a halt. It is not even as if these re-runs are demolishing the competition. These re-runs to begin with are not even at prime time. There are many ways you can demonstrate Amitabh Bachchan’s stature. Some will argue that Amitabh greatness does not need to be placed on evaluation (I agree). But to talk about re-runs is to drag his standing down to equivalent of an ordinary filler. Look at what the 100s of TV channel fill those time slots with ? Even if his reruns are the winners, it is a disservice to talk about it.


      • don’t think there’s anything odd about this. A star’s movies are constantly in demand which is why they’re screened. As for prime-time and so on those are usually reserved for newer releases anyway. But your point is a bit like saying that if a star’s films are re-run theatrically they’re not screened in the best theaters or they don’t gross as much as new releases! There are constantly Bond reruns on American TV, the Godfather is constantly rerun, there are many other films too but not everything gets this treatment. Once again it’s a measure of the continuing audience interest in those films. Otherwise they don’t need to rerun the Godfather again and again. Obviously you can’t expect the Godfather to start attracting the same audience as a current major Hollywood release! The fact that these Bachchan movies are rerun constantly is incredible for films that are 30 or 35 or 40 years old or whatever. This doesn’t mean one starts expecting Dhoom ratings from them. How is that even possible?

        I don’t think anything is beyond discussion or debate no matter how great the subject (if you will). The question as always is about the terms of the debate. Certain stars (in cinema or sports) have to be kept in a different stratosphere. But they can sill be debated in different ways.


        • Manure is in demand too. It is constantly required at farms.

          The protein off a pig’s butt cheek is also in demand as a filler in hotdogs. But one does not show the existence of such sales to equate butt cheeks to filet mingnon. Hence, at times, the best that can be said about say some tough chef cuts (contrary to the name, they are not the prized cuts), is that they are not used as fillers in a hotdog.

          It is in this vein that I say that it is counter productive to tout some demand. All demand is not equally prestigious. Some use you hide.


          • don’t you think that’s a ridiculous comparison? So the Godfather being on American TV all the time is the same as that? By the same token some movies always getting theatrical reruns is the same? Must say quite disappointed by your comment. It’s the sort of thing I might have expected from some others. But here’s what the appropriate answer would nonetheless be? What is filet mignon showed the kind of demand that one normally expected from hot dogs? or if it was at least on the same spectrum if not directly comparable?

            Secondly you’ve missed the point completely. ‘Demand’ in this case is not about prestige. It’s about lasting relevance. If the Godfather is screened where many other even significant movies from the same period don’t get a tenth as many screenings it is for a reason. For ‘fillers’ one can screen anything. One does not need to keep going back to the Godfather. Of course nothing on TV is just a ‘filler’. Even at the lowest end some things still get better ratings than others.

            The other point I’d make here is that this is still a world of popular entertainment. So even the most prestigious film or actor still operates within its confines. Using your argument one might ask what the greatest success in such a field means anyway since it is hardly high art? That hot dog analogy could come in even here. What’s the audience one is playing to?! When Bachchan did a number of those films in the 80s as the one man industry though this was a box office phenomenon (and ongoing from the 70s) unequaled in any industry of the world (as far as I know.. and I know a little bit about most significant industries) what was the nature of many of those films? Why is it prestigious to do Khudaar and Satte Pe Satta and Yaarana and whatever but not so to have one’s films show up in reruns for later generations? By the way I have never advanced the ‘anything goes’ argument even for Bachchan. Inasmuch as the debate is about box office facts there is not counterview possible about his unsurpassable, never seen before, never to be seen again, dominance. But I have otherwise always argued against his 80s work (with exceptions here and there), even on his blog and countless times. I’ve been clear on this. But to the extent that you introduce that hot dog analogy why doesn’t it hold even here? It’s one thing to do that great work of the 70s or some of the better stuff in the 80s and quite another to do some of the movies I’ve listed? Were those a great tribute to his skills and prestige? Even if he made all those films watchable and successful? If anything the TV argument is a better one. You do Godfather or Deewar or whatever and it keeps turning up on TV because audiences 35 or 40 years later or whatever can still connect with the films. This is very different from doing certain kinds of films in one’s present.


    • Agree with Henry and Bandra.

      And that’s where I have problem that satyam is always trying to degrade srk. Of course in return i do same by bringing down amitabh/abhi. it’s little unfair and boring in current situation since bachhans are not in top 10 currently. Plus satyam in his tricky ways tries to emulate that bachhan of 73 to 85 is same as 85 to current. So while he is degrading every other actor (except bachhans and aamir) left and right, he should see what bachhans have done in past couple decades.

      Comapre apple to apple, era to era.

      Bachhan run was great 73 to 85 (Helped largely by salim-javed script and yash chopra, desai, mehra), but let’s not degrade other actors using something that happenned more than 30 years ago. Use that actors current film and see how it hold up to the current actor films.


      • You at least do the job of providing some NG nostalgia.. there were many like you over there once..

        here the hot dog/filet mignon analogy perhaps has some merit. Those who are used to hot dogs should not bother with filet mignon. They get exposed rather royally! Bad taste and delusion are both permitted in democracies. Unfortunately so for the rest of us but I’d rather not have it any other way.


        • In current era, SRK/Salman/Aamir/Hrithik are filet mignon.

          Than you have second cut which has likes of ranbir/akshay, then 3rd cut with likes of arjun/farhan/ranveer/saif and few other who are like hot dog.

          Then you have abhi who is not in top ten. Just curious, would he be even in top 15? I mean even females like Katrina, deepika, vidya has more pull…


          • Your statements show how much you can tell hot dogs from filet mignon! Nothing need be added here..! on Abhishek by the way the problem you’re refusing to confront is that I’m not bothered by these sorts of juvenile statements that even those who make them really don’t believe in (many clues betray this). My sense of where he is or has been or can be does not exist independent of the facts but is also least affected by folks like yourself.

            LOL, when it comes to Salman and Hrithik there might even be some unintended hilarity here.. ‘beefsteak’ for sure..! look it up..


      • “Helped largely by salim-javed…..”

        Of course everyone needs good scripts to succeed, but Amitabh is one of the few actors who used to make even the most pedestrian scripts work….can you imagine anyone else making films like Sharaabi and Satte Pe Satta so entertaining? He has been so marvellous, so effortless that it still astounds me.


        • Not that one should take anything Z says seriously for obvious reasons but saying Bachchan is helped by Salim-Javed is a bit like saying Lawrence Olivier was helped by Shakespeare’s play! The great actors are tested precisely in the greatest scripts. You can’t imagine lesser actors even taking them on. But even beyond this you want a great actor to appear in a script commensurate with his talents and furthermore have those sorts of costars. For instance in my favorite film of all time, Trishul, the Bachchan-Sanjeev Kumar face-offs are priceless. It wouldn’t work if you had someone inadequate in that part. We live in perverse times where stars by and large don’t even want adequate supporting actors but this wasn’t always the case. What would those great films be without not just the supporting actors but even the bit parts? Don for instance is unimaginable without IFitikhar or Kamal Kapoor. Leone used to spend more time casting for his bit parts than the leads and sure enough in his films even the guy who shows up for a minute is memorable (this is true in Shakespeare as well) and the Hindi cinema of the 70s did this too. Macmohan died recently. You could never have confused him with anyone else and there were so many like him. All of these choices add greater texture to the film. The later films you’re referring to might be very entertaining because Bachchan essentially does a stand-up act in most of them but they are infinitely poorer as films compared to this earlier work.


        • Agree, specially Satte Pe Satta. That movie was something. The songs were awesome too.

          What i’m trying to say if you take away salim-javed scripted films (zanjeer, majboor, deewar, sholay, trishul, don, kaala pathhar, dostana, shaan and shakti) and couple that with desai/mehra films like sharaabi, there isn’t much left. of course amitabh acting/persona brought those films to another level. The movies after19 85 didn’t match the 73 to 85 level at all.


          • This shows once again your incredible lack of knowledge..

            Bachchan has tons of hits without those directors. The last Salim-Javed script was Shakti which didn’t do too well at the time, decently enough but poor compared to his extraordinary standards. Kaala Pathar before this was itself though successful not along the lines of Trishul before it. But even in either decade there are scores of films not directed by those guys. Scores literally. And actually Bachchan’s last hit before he left for politics in the 80s was Aakhree Raasta in ’86. He then returned only in ’88 with Shahenshah, easily one of his most iconic films though it still didn’t match the extraordinary box office expectations of the time. But in the 80s Yaarana, Kaalia, Dostana, Khudaar, Ram Balram, Satte Pe Satta, Barsaat Ki Ek Raat, Aakhree Raasta, weren’t directed by Desai or Mehra (of course whether the director was doing anything in films like Mard or Sharaabi or Coolie or Namak Halal is another matter!). And this is a high number because he didn’t have the vol in the 80s that he did in the 70s. Shaan though a huge grosser was a disappointment for some because it had an impossible follow-up act to Sholay. Shakti too didn’t satisfy people. With Chopra his last film was Silsila, also a box office disappointment. In the 70s you have an even longer list of films not made by those directors. Actually even these lists are absurd. Just about any film of his you touch in that period is more likely than not a hit. So either you don’t know what you’re talking about or just being delusional once more. Probably both. Because the latter is usually based on the former. Won’t even get into the question of concurrent hits and so forth.

            The question for Bachchan must always be: what films actually failed?! And further what films actually lost money?!

            Ultimately I find it absurd to point this stuff out myself. Because Bachchan was just inhabiting a different universe in those days. Truffaut famously called him the one man industry. In the Bombay cinema of those days it used to be said he was everything from 1-10. And it was true. Because other otherwise major stars were pygmies at the box office compared to him. One could really go through the films of all the peers. They all pretty much became irrelevant in this sense. Bachchan was ‘miraculous’ in every sense of the word.

            Nonetheless delusion is not often defeated by the facts!


  11. Salman needs to be careful here. He should not try to be same in all movies. I think his next with Barjatya, Prem Ratan Dhan Paayo still remains an extraordinary choice at par with PK by Aamir at the moment.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s