“Phoonk 2” collected Rs.5.12 Crores all India for the first 3 days excluding the Tamil and Telugu versions and “Rann” collected only around 2.6 Crores for the same time.
Considering that “Phoonk 2” is made in a budget of a fraction of “Rann” and its publicity budget is ½ of “Rann”, it is a relative super hit.
The interesting point is to debate on what it exactly means when someone asks “how did the film do?”.
A film can be seen by 100 people and 90 of them might have liked it. Another film might be seen by 1000 people and 990 of them might not have liked it. But the 1000 people’s tickets money will show that the 2nd film is a much bigger hit. That’s rightfully so if you take only the commercials into consideration. Similarly if a film is made in 4 Crores and it collects 6 Crores it’s a hit but if the same is made in 8 Crores it’s a flop.
A film’s success ratio is measured either by the cost versus recovery pattern or what it was expected to collect by whom or what did the so-called critics say or what did each individual who saw the film feel about it?
To know what each individual felt about a film is an impossible task as it’s physically not possible to meet and interact with each of them. So you have to make do with the few you get to interact with. For example even on this blog you can see extremely varied reactions and comments made on the same film.
As per expectations of a particular person if the person expects the film to collect Rs.1000- and it collects only Rs.500- it’s a flop but if the person expects it to collect only Rs.500- and it collects Rs.1000-, then it’s a hit. This also cannot be an exact science as the expectations on a said film are arrived upon due to a variety of reasons. For instance “Darr” is a super hit for Shahrukh Khan, but for Sunny Deol it’s a super flop as it has finished off his stardom in comparison to Shahrukh. People wanting to see a film is a function of the ad campaign which will give them an idea of the subject matter, maybe a point of interest and maybe a star quotient etc and if enough people are excited because of that they will go to see the film thereby resulting in it’s collections.
The days when mouth publicity used to make a film pick up are extremely rare because the window of exhibition has become lesser and lesser due to the multiplex culture.
Films used to run for silver jubilees, than 100 days, than 50 days and now finally the biggest of hits in Hindi are reduced to 2 to 3 weeks and most only for the weekend.
This does not really tell the quality but it only reflects the distribution system which operates on the principle to create as much hype as possible for the release weekend and draw out the revenue as fast as one can. This again comes from the marketing psychology of consumer products. Compared to the emotional way of a filmmaker feeling happy in the past that there are crowds not getting tickets for his film, the distribution system now works on the principle of anyone who wants to see the film should get a ticket.
The Coke’s marketing principle is that if a consumer feels like having a Coke it should be within his arms reach, in his fridge or in a store next to his house or wherever his eyes turn to. Pretty much this is what film marketing and distribution is moving towards and this is primarily because like I said a film is being treated as a consumer product.
A film might be an art form for the maker and possibly for some viewers but overall what makes the film get made and released in theatres is connected very much to a consumer product manufacturing process.
You will be surprised to know that I did not make any money on “Rangeela” but I made a lot of money in “Daud”. That’s because in the trading practices back then in 1995 the distribution system was so disorganized that I never got my due money for “Rangeela”. But since at the grass roots the distributors knew how much money “Rangeela” really made they bought “Daud” for very high prices because of which I made money but since the film didn’t work for the prices, they lost money. So in terms of commercials “Rangeela” was a flop for me and “Daud” was a hit.
“Satya” a lot of people think is a hit but the truth is that “Jungle” collected 3 times more money than “Satya”.
That’s because “Jungle” released in more theatres than “Satya” and it had a much bigger opening across the country whereas “Satya” had a much smaller release and did well only in places like Mumbai, Nizam and Delhi city. Even in Nizam “Satya” did 1.25 Crores and “Jungle” did 1.75 Crores. Apart from this in many other places “Satya” was taken off in the 2nd or 3rd say due to lack of audience.
So is “Jungle” a better film than “Satya” on this yardstick? Not necessarily because many of the people who saw “Jungle” might not have liked it and most who have seen “Satya” might have liked it. Years later everyone I meet say that “Satya” is my best work but the year “Satya” released a far bigger hit, probably 10 times more in terms of collections was a Salman Khan film called “Bandhan” directed by K.Murali Mohan Rao which I doubt even Salman Khan will remember. But “Satya” was a super hit for me in terms of my credibility as a filmmaker in concerned circles.
Now coming to a individual’s perception a girl I know saw “Nishabd” one year after it was released on her laptop and she thinks it’s my best work.
A guy in a certain group told me that “Sarkar” is a masterpiece and another guy in the same group told me that it’s an apology of a film and an insult to Godfather.
Coming to critics, Khalid Mohammed wrote in Times of India review that “Raat” is an unintended comedy and for my first film “Shiva” he wrote that he hung his head in shame as he walked out. Deepa Gehlot ripped apart “Satya” and “Company” got maximum 2½ to 3 stars from most reviews. My second film after “Shiva” the supposedly cult classic “Kshana Kshanam’s” review was that it proved me to be a one film wonder.
Anyway the bottom line is that due to all the above reasons if you keep the critics, individuals opinions and trading practices aside the only thing that matters at the end of the day is that for you to make a film such as what you are wanting to make and for the considerations of various concerned in the project it should atleast make back what was spent on it. Beyond this you should take everything else with a pinch of salt.
Also no film ever loses money as in literally the way people think. One often hears that 90% of the films lose money in the industry, but what does this really mean? What happens is that the money never gets lost but it just exchanges hands. When someone says that 20 Crores has been wasted on a such and such film what does it really mean? It means that those 20 Crores went into the hands of some technicians, equipment suppliers, actors and various other people who have their livelihoods and that of their family’s dependent upon that film for that particular time. So the money didn’t vaporize but it just went into their pockets. What flopped is the vision of the guy who put 20 Crores with the intention of making a profit on it. So in this case he is a flop but the guys who got in the money into their pockets are super hits. So in a massively over-budget film if some 300 people are involved the producer might loose money, the director and actor their credibility but 297 of the 300 will make money. Anyway the economic upturns and downturns of how the industry functions is a little too complex to make you understand in just an article but I hope I gave a birds eye view of it.
I can answer a question if I personally liked a particular film or not, but since I don’t know the financials, the expectations and the view points and the considerations of the various people involved with the said film, I can never ever really answer the question, “How did the film do?”
Considering that “Phoonk 2” is made in a budget of a fraction of “Rann” and its publicity budget is ½ of “Rann”, it is a relative super hit.
The interesting point is to debate on what it exactly means when someone asks “how did the film do?”.
A film can be seen by 100 people and 90 of them might have liked it. Another film might be seen by 1000 people and 990 of them might not have liked it. But the 1000 people’s tickets money will show that the 2nd film is a much bigger hit. That’s rightfully so if you take only the commercials into consideration. Similarly if a film is made in 4 Crores and it collects 6 Crores it’s a hit but if the same is made in 8 Crores it’s a flop.
A film’s success ratio is measured either by the cost versus recovery pattern or what it was expected to collect by whom or what did the so-called critics say or what did each individual who saw the film feel about it?
To know what each individual felt about a film is an impossible task as it’s physically not possible to meet and interact with each of them. So you have to make do with the few you get to interact with. For example even on this blog you can see extremely varied reactions and comments made on the same film.
As per expectations of a particular person if the person expects the film to collect Rs.1000- and it collects only Rs.500- it’s a flop but if the person expects it to collect only Rs.500- and it collects Rs.1000-, then it’s a hit. This also cannot be an exact science as the expectations on a said film are arrived upon due to a variety of reasons. For instance “Darr” is a super hit for Shahrukh Khan, but for Sunny Deol it’s a super flop as it has finished off his stardom in comparison to Shahrukh. People wanting to see a film is a function of the ad campaign which will give them an idea of the subject matter, maybe a point of interest and maybe a star quotient etc and if enough people are excited because of that they will go to see the film thereby resulting in it’s collections.
The days when mouth publicity used to make a film pick up are extremely rare because the window of exhibition has become lesser and lesser due to the multiplex culture.
Films used to run for silver jubilees, than 100 days, than 50 days and now finally the biggest of hits in Hindi are reduced to 2 to 3 weeks and most only for the weekend.
This does not really tell the quality but it only reflects the distribution system which operates on the principle to create as much hype as possible for the release weekend and draw out the revenue as fast as one can. This again comes from the marketing psychology of consumer products. Compared to the emotional way of a filmmaker feeling happy in the past that there are crowds not getting tickets for his film, the distribution system now works on the principle of anyone who wants to see the film should get a ticket.
The Coke’s marketing principle is that if a consumer feels like having a Coke it should be within his arms reach, in his fridge or in a store next to his house or wherever his eyes turn to. Pretty much this is what film marketing and distribution is moving towards and this is primarily because like I said a film is being treated as a consumer product.
A film might be an art form for the maker and possibly for some viewers but overall what makes the film get made and released in theatres is connected very much to a consumer product manufacturing process.
You will be surprised to know that I did not make any money on “Rangeela” but I made a lot of money in “Daud”. That’s because in the trading practices back then in 1995 the distribution system was so disorganized that I never got my due money for “Rangeela”. But since at the grass roots the distributors knew how much money “Rangeela” really made they bought “Daud” for very high prices because of which I made money but since the film didn’t work for the prices, they lost money. So in terms of commercials “Rangeela” was a flop for me and “Daud” was a hit.
“Satya” a lot of people think is a hit but the truth is that “Jungle” collected 3 times more money than “Satya”.
That’s because “Jungle” released in more theatres than “Satya” and it had a much bigger opening across the country whereas “Satya” had a much smaller release and did well only in places like Mumbai, Nizam and Delhi city. Even in Nizam “Satya” did 1.25 Crores and “Jungle” did 1.75 Crores. Apart from this in many other places “Satya” was taken off in the 2nd or 3rd say due to lack of audience.
So is “Jungle” a better film than “Satya” on this yardstick? Not necessarily because many of the people who saw “Jungle” might not have liked it and most who have seen “Satya” might have liked it. Years later everyone I meet say that “Satya” is my best work but the year “Satya” released a far bigger hit, probably 10 times more in terms of collections was a Salman Khan film called “Bandhan” directed by K.Murali Mohan Rao which I doubt even Salman Khan will remember. But “Satya” was a super hit for me in terms of my credibility as a filmmaker in concerned circles.
Now coming to a individual’s perception a girl I know saw “Nishabd” one year after it was released on her laptop and she thinks it’s my best work.
A guy in a certain group told me that “Sarkar” is a masterpiece and another guy in the same group told me that it’s an apology of a film and an insult to Godfather.
Coming to critics, Khalid Mohammed wrote in Times of India review that “Raat” is an unintended comedy and for my first film “Shiva” he wrote that he hung his head in shame as he walked out. Deepa Gehlot ripped apart “Satya” and “Company” got maximum 2½ to 3 stars from most reviews. My second film after “Shiva” the supposedly cult classic “Kshana Kshanam’s” review was that it proved me to be a one film wonder.
Anyway the bottom line is that due to all the above reasons if you keep the critics, individuals opinions and trading practices aside the only thing that matters at the end of the day is that for you to make a film such as what you are wanting to make and for the considerations of various concerned in the project it should atleast make back what was spent on it. Beyond this you should take everything else with a pinch of salt.
Also no film ever loses money as in literally the way people think. One often hears that 90% of the films lose money in the industry, but what does this really mean? What happens is that the money never gets lost but it just exchanges hands. When someone says that 20 Crores has been wasted on a such and such film what does it really mean? It means that those 20 Crores went into the hands of some technicians, equipment suppliers, actors and various other people who have their livelihoods and that of their family’s dependent upon that film for that particular time. So the money didn’t vaporize but it just went into their pockets. What flopped is the vision of the guy who put 20 Crores with the intention of making a profit on it. So in this case he is a flop but the guys who got in the money into their pockets are super hits. So in a massively over-budget film if some 300 people are involved the producer might loose money, the director and actor their credibility but 297 of the 300 will make money. Anyway the economic upturns and downturns of how the industry functions is a little too complex to make you understand in just an article but I hope I gave a birds eye view of it.
I can answer a question if I personally liked a particular film or not, but since I don’t know the financials, the expectations and the view points and the considerations of the various people involved with the said film, I can never ever really answer the question, “How did the film do?”