Do you agree with A.R. Rahman's recent hint that "communal" factors might be a reason for his reduced work in Hindi cinema or is this simply a result of changing market trends?

 

Do you agree with A.R. Rahman's recent hint that "communal" factors might be a reason for his reduced work in Hindi cinema or is this simply a result of changing market trends?

It is just changing market trends

When Rahman was at his prime

• An Average film dedicated 24–36 minutes soundtrack, with 4–6 songs to a theatrical release
• 80% of revenues from Music Rights came from Cassettes (1988–2001)/CDs (2001–2009)/DVDs (2009–2015)
• RR or BGM was never monetized and was regarded an extra
• The Average listener happily spent a full 3 :30 minutes to 6:20 minutes listening to a song he liked
• Rahman was the ONLY music director who owned rights to his songs & leased them for 2–5 years (From Rangeela)
• Music contributed 8% to 15% of a films profits (Devdas for instance broke into profits solely because of its soundtrack)
• A Typical movie had 2 very popular songs, 2 mid wave songs

This is a fully different world now

• An Average film has only 6–12 minutes of barely 1–2 songs to a theatrical release
• 80% revenue comes from Streaming Download revenue sharing, Caller Tune revenue sharing, YouTube Revenue Sharing & Platform revenue sharing
• BGM forms a huge chunk of music revenue (90% of Kingdoms music for instance was it's BGM)
• The Average listener listens to maybe 1–2 minutes of music with concentration
• Every music director owns his songs and leases rights for 1–3 years now
• Music does not contribute to movie revenue except in rare cases. It's like what SAMBAR is TO MASALA DOSA rather than THE MASALA WAS ten to fifteen years ago
• A Typical movie has ONE VERY POPULAR SONG (Monica in Jailer, Kutty story in Master) or Two at most.

Rahman in this world is seen as how Matthew Hayden or Tendulkar are seen in Cricket

A Legend who rocked for 30 years but is now 60 years and is PAST HIS PRIME and geared for a graceful retirement

His Library alone is worth ₹150–250 Crore plus his Panchanathan Studio property around ₹50 Crore

He is a legend and he lost only to TIME

---

This isn't new

Music Directors are not permanent

The once legendary Pancham Da, who had big directors and producers drive to his studio and meet him, and who once worked 350 days a year - ended his days with his credit being refused at his favorite bar and restaurant, his Mercedes being sold (Later purchased back by Vidhu Vinod Chopra and gifted back to him) & being forced to ask for work to new generation film makers

Ilaiyaraja, MSV, Jatin Lalit, Anu Malik have all had their glory days

None lasted 30 years like Rahman did

That's JOHN WILLIAMS level of legend!!!

---

Music Directors go with their Clients

Rahmans biggest clients are shadows of their past selves

• Mani Ratnam
• Shankar
• Aamir Khan
• Ram Gopal Varma
• Asutosh Gowariker
• Rakesh Omprakash Mehra

---

Communalism is absolutely a No No

Rahman,a Muslim composed the Soundtrack of CHAAVA, a film that absolutely endorsed Hindutvava

That alone says a LOT on Communalism in Bollywood

---

India is beset with Communal nonsense but Bollywood is still SO FAR A BUSINESS

Yes there is Jingo patriotism becausea lot of the Audience are Jingos ..

Not because the Industry is becoming communal

Not yet

Has any one else in Indian cinema done so many versatile roles as Kamal Haasan did?

 Perhaps him. If not more he was as versatile as any great actor can be

He has played all genres to perfection be it

Drama

Comedy

Romance

Historical

Costume Dramas

Even Action

He has played the

Lover/Husband

Father

Father in law

Even grandfather to his heroines

10 of his films won National awards, he won 2 of them. One of his films went as entry to Oscars.

He played 10 characters in one film.

He had no qualms playing old characters

He could overshadow the likes of Dilip Kumar and Amitabh Bachchan

He played deaf and dumb character to perfection

He played a mentally challenged character brilliantly

He overshadowed everyone in a female centric film

He worked in art films brilliantly

He was the mainstay of middle road cinema of Hrishikesh Mukherjee and Gulzar

And he was equally effective in commercial masala films

And even after all this he is not as celebrated as he should be

The “Evil in a Wheelchair” Trope: A Look at Cinema’s Long-Standing Archetype

 The first look of Kumbha drew both curiosity and silence. It was noticed, but it failed to surprise. Knowing Rajamouli, this is his strategy. He believes hype should rise, not erupt. He prefers anticipation that grows slows. That is why Mahesh Babu’s first look remains unseen. He wants to avoid the noise of early buzz and prefers to raise temperature towards the end.

Now that Kumbha has entered the frame, it feels apt to trace the long history of cinema’s wheelchair-bound villains, characters who embody weakness but command fear, who appear confined yet control everything around them.

This isn’t an exhaustive list. Cinema’s history is vast and moral interpretations differ, but here’s a chronological look at some notable portrayals up to November 2025, focusing on live-action films where the wheelchair is the character’s primary mode of mobility and they’re portrayed as antagonists or morally compromised figures.

Classic Era (1920s–1950s)

• Blizzard (The Penalty, 1920, Lon Chaney): A double amputee crime lord plotting revenge against the surgeon who ruined his life.

• Clayton (The Man Who Changed His Mind, 1936): A bitter invalid assisting in body-swapping experiments to escape his condition.

• Mr. Potter (It’s a Wonderful Life, 1946): The cold-hearted banker who weaponizes greed and control from his throne-like wheelchair.

• The Professor (Batman and Robin serial, 1949): A misanthropic scientist using a wheelchair while orchestrating crimes through invention.

• Ivan Igor / Henry Jarrod (Mystery of the Wax Museum, 1933 / House of Wax, 1953): The disfigured sculptor who kills victims to rebuild his wax exhibits — one of the earliest horror archetypes combining disability with madness.

Mad Science & Espionage (1960s–1980s)

• Dr. Strangelove (Dr. Strangelove, 1964, Peter Sellers): The ex-Nazi scientist whose wheelchair-bound gestures embody postwar paranoia and absurdity.

• Dr. Durea (Dracula vs. Frankenstein, 1971): A paralyzed scientist performing blood experiments in pursuit of immortality.

• Marcus Valorium (Once Upon a Spy, 1980): A missile-chair-equipped villain scheming for global power.

• David Lo Pan (Big Trouble in Little China, 1986): The ancient sorcerer appearing in an aged, wheelchair-bound form, fusing disability imagery with mysticism.

The Psychological and Grotesque (1990s–2000s)

• Jeffrey Lebowski (The Big Lebowski, 1998): A fraudulent millionaire faking his disability for manipulation and money.

• Dr. Arliss Loveless (Wild Wild West, 1999): The flamboyant Confederate scientist on a mechanized wheelchair plotting to rebuild America — literally.

• Mason Verger (Hannibal, 2001, Gary Oldman): A paralyzed sadist driven by vengeance, commanding others through wealth and cruelty.

• Ong-Bak Crime Boss (Ong-Bak, 2003): A throat-voiced, wheelchair-using crime lord trafficking sacred artifacts.

Modern Depictions (2000s–2020s)

• Obesandjo (District 9, 2009): A Nigerian crime boss exploiting aliens for profit.

• Kaal (Krrish 3, 2013, Vivek Oberoi): A telekinetic mastermind confined to a futuristic chair, blending sci-fi and mythic villainy.

• Athreya (24, 2016, Suriya): A time-manipulating genius’s evil brother whose wheelchair symbolizes his broken obsession with control.

• Howard Clifford (Detective Pikachu, 2019, Bill Nighy): A visionary tech mogul seeking to merge human and Pokémon minds for domination.

These portrayals reflect how cinema historically externalized evil (visible difference as inner corruption). Yet, modern interpretations occasionally subvert this, using the wheelchair as a metaphor for restraint, intellect, or irony rather than wickedness itself.

Which is the first CinemaScope movie of Hindi and also Indian cinema?

 It’s none other than Guru Dutt’s melancolic masterpiece Kaagaz Ke Phool which released in 1959.

The film which is considered a cult classic marked a technical revolution in Indian cinematography. Along with cameraman V.K. Moorthy, Guru Dutt was able to showcase stunning visuals. through the cinemascope format.

The artistic use of light and shadow generated a great film through the cinemascope format which produces a widescreen picture using an anamorphic lens.

Guru Dutt had promised full creative liberty to VK Murthy regardless of the time it consumed. Anamorphic lenses were brought from abroad for this ambitious project.

The film was a commercial failure but gained popularity with time. As Raj Kapoor had rightly commented to Guru Dutt, “You have produced the picture 15 years too early.”

Image(s) Courtesy: Google

How did Divya Bharti manage to star in over a dozen hit films in just one year, setting an unbroken record in Hindi cinema?

 Not true actually. Divya Bharti acted in a dozen Hindi films in just the year 1992–93 including 10 hindi films in 1992 (In Bollywood the record is hold by Reena Roy who had 13 releases in 1982).

Out of those 10 hindi films in 1992

Deewana Superhit

Shola aur Shabnam Superhit

Vishwatma Above Average

Balwan Above Average

Dil hi Dil me Disaster

Dil ka Kya kasoor Disaster

Dil Aashna hai Flop

Dushman Zamana Disaster

Geet Flop

Jaan se Pyara Average

So she had 4 hits out of 10 in 1992. She also had 2 releases in South making her total films in 1992 to 12.

In 1993 she had 3 more releases before her unfortunate d**th. She could have done many more films but couldn't and those roles were passed on to others like Mohra, Laadla, Vijay path etc. Her 1993 releases include

Kshatriya Below Average

Shatranj Flop

Rang Superhit

In total she delievered 5 successful films in Hindi cinema out of 13 total films. This is not really a record as Reena Roy had 8 successes inn1982 and Hema Malini had an unbroken streak of 9 hits. But Divya Bharti was an exceptional talent which was cut short.