0 votes
222 views
asked in Box Office Discussions by Production Accountant (27.2k points)
79% Accept Rate
+3

Srk peak came when social media was not that much in fashion. Additionally, this was a decade when Industry was transforming from Single Screen dominated to Multiplex and makers didn't know what kind of cinema to produce. If you watch movies of early 00s then you will see some drastic difference in them from movies of late 00s but its not the case with last decade. Even the music doesn't sound same of extremes of that decade . Unlike last decade when Masala genre dominated for most of time there for no favourable genre, no formula movies for decade of 00s. Srk was the only one get through it like the king and hence the name he got.
Moreover, for some weird reasons great content didn't get what it got in the adjacent decades. Otherwise 3idiots today would have easily got 4cr footfall, Gajhni would have got atleast 2.75cr footfalls, Welcome would have got a 2.5cr footfalls and OSO ( a much better movie than CE) shouldn't have stopped at 1.75cr footfalls.
So, Srk fans are kind of unlucky

6 Answers

+2 votes

It's a fact that the 2000's were a transformation period for Bollywood. Footfalls weren't much.

Otherwise if you argue that SRK was at his peak in 2000's, then how come a poor movie like Raees has more ffs than Veer Zara, MHN, KHNH?

How come HNY has more FFS than OSO, RNBDJ?

From 2002 onwards the lean phase started and SRK was the only one consistently giving big openings and hits. HR only had the years 2003 and 2006 after 2002, otherwise not a single hit for the rest of the years. Salman ka to pata hi hai. Aamir made a comeback from 2006 onwards while Akshay wasn't big until 2006-2007. Ajay was a non-factor.

SRK was the only one who consistently scored

2000: 2nd highest grosser
2001: 2nd highest grosser
2002: highest grosser
2003: 2nd highest grosser
2004: 1st and 2nd highest grosser
2007: highest grosser
2008: 2nd highest grosser.

2000-04: 5 back to back HGOTY worldwide.

SRK fans aren't unlucky, because everyone knows how tough this decade was and he shone through. If people say that Salman and Aamir this decade show that SRK really wasn't that big in 2000's, then why didn't those 2 actors top the 2000's?

answered by Executive Producer (66.3k points)
edited by
0

Yes even I think there is some serious error by BOI in calculating the footfalls of 00s decade otherwise every other decade have numerous 3cr movies while its hard to find a 2cr footfall movie in 00s.

0

1- Krrish3 FFs 2.18cr (Bollywood's best era)

 Krrish FFs almost 2cr
Dhoom2 FFs 2.15cr

I don't see much difference here same Star though K3 was a bigger movie, Dhoom franchise wasn't that big before D2
2- No entry FFs 1.35cr

Golmaal 3 FFs 1.77cr (Bollywood's best era) 

G3 was a far bigger movie both canvas and brand value wise.
Comedy was never a huge genre in India even Salman khan in his best phase with one of the best trended movie that year Ready could garner only 1.85cr ffs.

Actually all these comparison on the basis of better movies will gross more is all hoax, Don2 was an excellent movie but remained below so called rejected Hny and Raone.
Even Jthj wasn't a good movie, considered as the worst Yashraj movie was a hit in clash.
Fanna had extraordinary craze but sadly
Audience response to Fanna wasn't good, Both Hera Pheri and PHP got huge after release due to satellite run. The power of satelite made Welcome back an excellent opener and we all wondered how such a good movie would have managed in theatrical release.
H2 was one of the best trended movie of Akki's career and you made that a barometer for underperformance.
Kmg was the comeback of Hrithik after his career worst phase same as Salman with wanted which is probably better than any Salman starrer last decade except Bajrangi still the ffs aren't that high despite releasing in better time period than 00's.
Tere naam was a failure because of it's 2nd half, it'll fail even now too, Salman had predicted the same audience can't accept tragic end so it failed after excellent start.
It had everything in it's favor.
MHN was a record opener, weekend so why it failed has more to do with theater response.
Yjhd came when Ranbir was almost a Superstar, it had bumper opening on nonholiday, highest nonholiday weekend, audience wom was excellent, One of the best album last decade, Controversial pairing of Ranbir-Deepika after breakup.
Sorry Chulbul Kabir Singh is the biggest character Bollywood created last decade, it had trending par BB2, it is deservingly a Superblockbuster, on a festival release it was easy peasy 350+ movie with 18+ ratings.
It has more to do with the fact that we can't accept the reality that what we found classic now wasn't embraced like that then.

0

More importantly ignore all these FFs thing as you don't believe boi but even in terms of numbers 00's decade didn't grew well as we can see during 1st quarter of last decade 100cr was the barometer for superstars and now anything below 300cr seems less such is the growth despite last 3 years gone stagnant.
Even if we ignore giant 90's Blockbusters like Hahk, ddlj, RH the hgoty of 1999 was at 39cr and until 2006 All hgoty were in same range only (Gadar excluded)
That clearly states why ffs were so low, it's not like collections were huge and boi gave low ffs not to forget after multiplex started kicking in India TP were skyrocketed.
BOI has many loopholes too but it's not like industry was delivering big it's only during 2010-12 industry reestablished itself.

0

Yes even I think there is some serious error by BOI in calculating the footfalls of 00s decade otherwise every other decade have numerous 3cr movies while its hard to find a 2cr footfall movie in 00s.
all era ff are same 80s, 90s 2010s...only in between-2009 People have gone hibernation and come back to cinema in 2010...boi calculated all those ff in 2015 with constant 5%-10% increased ATP every year..

Roman u said 2000 decade have produced more urban movies compare to 2010 decades.... no w u r telling big canvas movies are being produced today....seriously....first of all u havent reply my question about mnik mhn msk php which has almostsimilar ff, then do u think all r urban movie? khakkee on of the big budget massy movies has less ff than toh, tubelight etc...there r lot of example...jhms has, DZ has similar ff of action movie garve, which was huge in small center...fan has more ff than tere naam, cc and almost similar ff of garam masala,qayamat.....among these which are more penetrated movie in mass circuit.....

in terms of numbers 00's decade didn't grew well as we can see during 1st quarter of last decade 100cr was the barometer for superstars and now anything below 300cr seems less such is the growth despite last 3 years gone stagnant

this not new...every era has same barometer....early 2000 it was 2ocr range regular for superstars ...by 2004..30cr....2006 it was 45-50 cr and so on....previous decade also similar pattern 100 cr till 2011, 140-150 till 2014 and so on...infact no of grossers has increased in 2000 decade than previous decade 140cr of dabang has 2.4cr ff whiile after 9 year toh released it has 1,12 cr ff dispite less collection....in 1999 hsss did 39cr with 2.85cr ff while after 7 year fanaa released wgich did 15 more cr and not even half ff...yeh kya logic hai...

Even if we ignore giant 90's Blockbusters like Hahk, ddlj, RH the hgoty of 1999 was at 39cr and until 2006 All hgoty were in same range only (Gadar excluded)

39 cr ff was 2.85 cr....after 7 year simiilar or better collection than hssh was fanaa 52, don 51, kank 44, php 43, rdb 53cr...now see ff of these movie 1.39, 1.24, 1.06, 1.16. 1.25 non of movies have half ff of hssh dispite 5-15 cr more collections....
(5-15cr difference collection are equivalent to 15-50cr in 2016-17)

now see 2010 decades gajini released in 2008 with 115cr and 2.41 ff see below some films
colections of bag bang 140, dilwale 140, raees 140 but ff are more than half....

3 idiots released in 2009 coll 202 cr. ff 3.17...while golmal 4 205 cr but in 2017 and ff are almost 2cr,,,which is far more than half

there are many such kind of examples

+2 votes

agree srk excelled at a time when it was industry in a difficult phase he remained at a top position for almost 12-13 which in itself is an incredible feat
IMO srk and salman only fulfill the criteria of a true superstar which nowadays is thrown around for everyone

answered by Location Scout (4.2k points)
+2

Only if Salman would have been giving hits right now but he lost it after TZH and only Eid has rescued him as can be seen from the trending of his movie after TZH. He only has 7 years as a top star which is much much lesser than 12-13 years of SRK.

0 votes

Though i troll srk sometimes i respect him for being self made superstar

He is a true generation superstar who never saw a dip in his career almost till 2016 from debut
He was the only one perhaps who succedded in tough times when it was even difficult to survive and to give a hit movie neither did he needed genres festivals to aid him unlike these 2010 born stars
He is the biggest star our industry saw after BACHCHAN and haters mocking him would not change this fact though i hope akshay will also become huge in 3/4 years

answered by Set Designer (2.3k points)
0

sounds like the former saaransh

0

Haa bhai even I troll him but its not because of him for sure. I never ever thought that Srk will have such a downfall as it was him that made me curious about boxoffice no. Before Ra.one I didn't even use to follow boxoffice. So, how much I troll him I do agree with the fact that he is the biggest superstar of our age because of his consistency at very high levels for 2 and a half decade. Self made and a visionary but degraded by his bad choices in the later half of last decade.

0 votes

If those Mohabbatein, K3G, devdas, Veer zaara, kal ho naa ho, Main hoo naa, swades...Came after one another in 2010s ...others would have no choice but watching the show..00s was really poor decade in term of ffs..Srk was such giant Star still theatre visitors were less...he just build up Bollywood ready for another era and started doing shitty films...such a bad luck for SRK fans. In 2010s it was all about festival and release size...a mediocre films in festival scores big..Even Hollywood/South movies also got advantages of 2010s.

answered by Editor (89.8k points)
0 votes

I try to refrain from this what if kinda thing that just doesn't matter,
Amitabh movies still used to open to bumper response in 90's what if they worked.
They didn't simple and straight there's no what if.
Salman is often get slammed for craps movie this decade barring 3/4 movies, what if he wouldn't have been a supporting force for his family in bollywood like other khans.
It's not like audience weren't coming, there were many bumper openers Srk had back to back Record openers, movie used to record bumper openings on diwali day which considered as the worst day for movie business now. But they couldn't work in long run while some despite getting low opening used to collect big numbers like CDI.
SRK has consistently given big openers last decade, Salman movies used open big until 2006,HR was a huge phenomenon during 1st and 3rd quarter of lmast decade.
Every decade had his own advantages and disadvantages.
Pre 90's there was no entertainment option, cinema was the main source but then there were no millenials, cinema was an event and luxury option.
Then in 90's audience had satellite option, family audience stopped going to cinemas due to poor maintenance and multiplex culture entered in 00's SS were converting into multiplexes, industry had to find a balance to strike a chord with the audience.
If the content is good it'll get it's due no matter what otherwise we have seen many poor movies recording better ffs than good movies that's an excuse.
Just that we are overhyping it, Aamir almost doubled ATG in last decade only it's not his fault nobody else could do it. Festivals had an existence then too. Maybe what we consider great now had failed to garner same response then
3cr ffs isn't halwa, even in this decade no NonSalmir has got to those numbers
Now audience have numerous entertainment options too .

answered by Assistant Director (55.8k points)
0

Yes increase in the sources of entertainment is a big big factor todays time but even that has emerged towards the end of this decade. 3cr footfall is never a joke I agree but how 00s decade has almost none of them for 8-9 years. Whichever movie had 3cr came either at the beginning or at the end of the decade. Even crossing 2cr footfall looks a difficult task then. You agree it or not but getting footfalls looked like a much much difficult task in 00s.

0

Mass penetration, maybe because majority of movies last decade were urban movies, Mass and SS audience refrained from going to movies.
All the major grossers as you can see were urban centered and this decade all major hits except Dangal (which was desi at heart) were massy.
As Ghajini came some mass penetration happened and Dabangg is credited for reviving single screen business that section was completely.
The very section contributed the most in 2010-2013 Masala era.
Families (Especially North) preferred SRK in 00's now they have left him alone, In Mumbai/East and South he's the same Srk now.
Movies used to open huge no matter holiday or nonholiday unlike today but long runs were limited maybe because limited appreciation but that wasn't going to hindsight due to less screen space now we get to witness huge drop due to huge capacity.

0 votes

SRK always got support of strong script. A poor movie like jai ho had more ffs than good movies like vz, mhn, khnh etc it shows he has less star power than Salman.

answered by Set Decorator (1.3k points)
0

So by this logic each and every actor had lesser stardoms in 00s than the last decade. Is thi waht you meant?

0

Yes mostly 90s stars

0

Who are u arguing sandeep...he does not even have general Bollywood/bo knowledge.

0

I was just serving the purpose since he answered on my post but I guess should leave it now.

Related questions

+2 votes
2 answers 138 views
+8 votes
4 answers 137 views
...