Whatever became of Krrish 2?
Caroline wanted to watch Krrish 3 because she saw a preview of it and wanted to see more of the wonderful special effects. I wanted to watch it because I enjoyed watching Koi..Mil Gaya and Krrish (perhaps that is why this film is titled as number 3), and because I wanted to discuss the dearth of certain things and topics in India.
India has about 1.236 billion inhabitants; the United States has about 0.317 billion people. India has almost four times as many people so, in theory, it should have four times more of everything.
It should have four times as many professional sports teams as does the U.S. In the U.S., baseball, basketball and American football are extremely popular, each with crores (tens of millions) of followers. They each have more than 30 professional teams. In India, there is only cricket* with a paltry 8-10 professional teams.
*(There is football/soccer and field hockey--which may or may not be the National Sport--but I rarely see news articles about them, let alone see them on television.)
It should have four times as many centenarians as does the U.S. The U.S. has 53,364 (as of 2010). In theory, India should have about 2 lakh (200,000) centenarians. Instead, it has no more than 20,000, far fewer than those in the U.S.
It should have far more Academy Award nominations for Best Foreign Language Film than it does. More films are produced here than anywhere else, including the United States. Instead, it has only three: Mother India (its very first submission); Salaam Bombay! (featuring a young Irrfan Khan); and Lagaan (starring Aamir Khan). Even more disheartening is that none of them won.
It should have far more comedians. I may elaborate upon comedy in another post in the near future, but here I want to acknowledge that this may be an unfair observation. After all, "dying is easy; comedy is hard". Even Jim Carrey seems to do as many dramatic roles as he does comedic roles. In India, there are (or were) people like Asrani, Johnny Walker, Mehmood and Kader Khan, but they are either dead, retired, or have negligible roles now. Currently, there is only Govinda, who was surprisingly good in Sandwich. There are Akshay Kumar, Anupam Kher, Paresh Rawal and Boman Irani but they (especially Paresh Rawal) are versatile actors and have also done action, dramatic, romantic and villain roles. When they do comedy, they are usually good only in ensemble films. There are also Johnny Lever and the television series Comedy Circus, but there must be more to comedy than simply having bulging eyes and a female host with a very, very, very annoying laugh.
It should be noted that satire is done very well here, and is appreciated (except by HRH Mamata Banerjee). Perhaps it is because it is so easy, with criminal politicians and incompetent police (yes, both of these are redundancies) being so prevalent in India. Regardless, I enjoy watching The Week That Wasn't with Cyrus Broacha.
It should have far more (fictional) super-heroes. This, too, may be an unfair observation. After all, in the U.S. most of the credit goes to Stan Lee. If the situation were reversed and if India did have someone of Stan Lee's stature, and the U.S. did not then the results might also have been reversed.
It may be an unfair observation also because there have been some attempts at introducing super-heroes on film. There was Ra.One but critics usually found it disappointing, as did I. Drona was one of the biggest flops in the history of Indian cinema. Mr. India was a wonderful film that had wonderful potential, but it was made in the time before sequels were known in India. There is talk of making a sequel now, but it seems to be just that--talk.Shaktiman may be the best example of an indigenous superhero, although it was shown only on television.
In the U.S., superheroes came about from comic books and then evolved to larger audiences through television and films. In India, superheroes in comic books were nipped in the bud "with the advent of cable television, Internet and other modes of entertainment in India".
Having watched Krrish 3, I think that it is the best attempt at creating a superhero for all ages, for many ages to come.
It should have four times as many cinema screens as does the U.S. On the same day that we watched Krrish 3, Caroline asked me why movies do not run for long in India. Many years ago, many films would complete a Silver Jubilee (running for 25 weeks). Now, almost no film lasts more than 4 weeks in cinemas. (Although DDLJ is still going strong at the Maratha Mandir theatre in Mumbai after 18 years). It was serendipitous that she asked me that question as I had been thinking about that topic for awhile. There are two easy answers and one somewhat problematical answer,
1) The number of screens. Again, India has four times as many people so there should be four times as many movie screens as there are in the U.S. According to this map, there are slightly more than 40,000 cinema screens in the United States and only slightly more than 10,000 screens in India--four times fewer screens. The figure for the U..S. is probably accurate but I suspect that of India is far lower than it actually is. I suspect this because a) the film industry--although the largest in the world--is not consistent with figures. It is often difficult to determine the true amount that an Indian film grosses because one reporting agency will report one figure and another reporting agency will report another figure. Wikipedia and Imdb almost never report the same amount, and other sources may report yet another figure.and b) other articles report higher figures for the number of screens. This article indicates that there are slightly more than 10,000 single screens in India--the implication that it ignores the growing number of multiplexes in the country. This article gives a higher figure of 13,000 theatres. This still raises the questions of the number of the number of screens, and what exactly is a theatre? The Inox is a large chain of multiplexes, with almost 300 screens throughout India. Are all these screens considered to be one theatre? I suspect that there are still more single-screen cinemas that multiplexes in India. However, since multiplexes--by definition--have more screens there could be another 10-13,000 (or more) screens. Still, it may not approach the number in the U.S. Why is this?
Since it is based not on population, I believe that it is based on geography. The U.S. is far larger in area, and there are small towns with populations of 5,000 people that are separated from other populated areas and which, most likely, have their own cinema hall (or even multiplex). If Kolkata were to have one cinema screen for every 5,000 of its 1.44 crore (14,400,000) inhabitants in its metropolitan area then it would have 2,880 screens! Obviously, it does not have that many.
This lower-per-capita number of screens ought to result in films lasting longer in the cinema. When Star Wars was first shown in 1977, the only theatre in all of Northern California that showed it was the Coronet Theater (now closed and demolished) in San Francisco. Needless to say, there were extremely long lines for it, forcing people to wait a very long time to watch it, and forcing the theaters to keep showing it for a very long time.
There is some evidence that this has made an impact in India, even now. Even now, blockbusters are often housefull/sold out during the first week. However, films still rarely last more than four weeks.
2) Perhaps a more accurate answer is that it is a result of television, Youtube and pirated versions. As I wrote in Television Programs, television sets and programs were relatively rare even just 30 years ago. Thus, the only entertainment was the movies. There certainly were no multiplexes then so each of the fewer cinema halls had more people watching the films, necessitating the halls to screen them for a longer period of time. Now, films--even mega-hits like Chennai Express are shown a few weeks after the end of its theatrical release. Thus, many people simply wait for it to be shown on television.
Both Caroline and I have maintained, though, that good films ought to be watched on the big screen to get a better(?) experience. Unfortunately, this being India, the film-going experience means hearing very many mobiles ringing and seeing many people use their smart-phones. This could be yet another reason why people do not go to the cinemas as much now.
Similarly, Youtube (as well as DVDs and downloads) could be other reasons. However, this being India, pirated versions can be a more significant and unique reason. A few years ago, while I was away on one of my mandatory departures from India, Caroline and her mother watched Ra.Onenot in the cinema hall but from a pirated DVD! (Although I do not think that they were aware of the concept of piracy at that time.)
These reasons are verified in this article.
3) Perhaps the most accurate reason is that there may be fewer films worth watching a second time. Especially now, for a film to last a long time, it must be worth watching more than once. In the U.S., I watched Field of Dreams three times, and The Usual Suspects, Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna and Om Shanti Om twice in the cinema halls. Since I arrived in India, the only films worth watching more than once are 3 Idiots and Robot, and perhaps English Vinglish, OMG: Oh My GodandBarfi. Chennai Express did gross a lot of money, but only because a great many people decided to watch it once, and it ended no more than four weeks after it began.
It should have far more Academy Award nominations for Best Foreign Language Film than it does. More films are produced here than anywhere else, including the United States. Instead, it has only three: Mother India (its very first submission); Salaam Bombay! (featuring a young Irrfan Khan); and Lagaan (starring Aamir Khan). Even more disheartening is that none of them won.
It should have far more comedians. I may elaborate upon comedy in another post in the near future, but here I want to acknowledge that this may be an unfair observation. After all, "dying is easy; comedy is hard". Even Jim Carrey seems to do as many dramatic roles as he does comedic roles. In India, there are (or were) people like Asrani, Johnny Walker, Mehmood and Kader Khan, but they are either dead, retired, or have negligible roles now. Currently, there is only Govinda, who was surprisingly good in Sandwich. There are Akshay Kumar, Anupam Kher, Paresh Rawal and Boman Irani but they (especially Paresh Rawal) are versatile actors and have also done action, dramatic, romantic and villain roles. When they do comedy, they are usually good only in ensemble films. There are also Johnny Lever and the television series Comedy Circus, but there must be more to comedy than simply having bulging eyes and a female host with a very, very, very annoying laugh.
It should be noted that satire is done very well here, and is appreciated (except by HRH Mamata Banerjee). Perhaps it is because it is so easy, with criminal politicians and incompetent police (yes, both of these are redundancies) being so prevalent in India. Regardless, I enjoy watching The Week That Wasn't with Cyrus Broacha.
It should have far more (fictional) super-heroes. This, too, may be an unfair observation. After all, in the U.S. most of the credit goes to Stan Lee. If the situation were reversed and if India did have someone of Stan Lee's stature, and the U.S. did not then the results might also have been reversed.
It may be an unfair observation also because there have been some attempts at introducing super-heroes on film. There was Ra.One but critics usually found it disappointing, as did I. Drona was one of the biggest flops in the history of Indian cinema. Mr. India was a wonderful film that had wonderful potential, but it was made in the time before sequels were known in India. There is talk of making a sequel now, but it seems to be just that--talk.Shaktiman may be the best example of an indigenous superhero, although it was shown only on television.
In the U.S., superheroes came about from comic books and then evolved to larger audiences through television and films. In India, superheroes in comic books were nipped in the bud "with the advent of cable television, Internet and other modes of entertainment in India".
Having watched Krrish 3, I think that it is the best attempt at creating a superhero for all ages, for many ages to come.
It should have four times as many cinema screens as does the U.S. On the same day that we watched Krrish 3, Caroline asked me why movies do not run for long in India. Many years ago, many films would complete a Silver Jubilee (running for 25 weeks). Now, almost no film lasts more than 4 weeks in cinemas. (Although DDLJ is still going strong at the Maratha Mandir theatre in Mumbai after 18 years). It was serendipitous that she asked me that question as I had been thinking about that topic for awhile. There are two easy answers and one somewhat problematical answer,
1) The number of screens. Again, India has four times as many people so there should be four times as many movie screens as there are in the U.S. According to this map, there are slightly more than 40,000 cinema screens in the United States and only slightly more than 10,000 screens in India--four times fewer screens. The figure for the U..S. is probably accurate but I suspect that of India is far lower than it actually is. I suspect this because a) the film industry--although the largest in the world--is not consistent with figures. It is often difficult to determine the true amount that an Indian film grosses because one reporting agency will report one figure and another reporting agency will report another figure. Wikipedia and Imdb almost never report the same amount, and other sources may report yet another figure.and b) other articles report higher figures for the number of screens. This article indicates that there are slightly more than 10,000 single screens in India--the implication that it ignores the growing number of multiplexes in the country. This article gives a higher figure of 13,000 theatres. This still raises the questions of the number of the number of screens, and what exactly is a theatre? The Inox is a large chain of multiplexes, with almost 300 screens throughout India. Are all these screens considered to be one theatre? I suspect that there are still more single-screen cinemas that multiplexes in India. However, since multiplexes--by definition--have more screens there could be another 10-13,000 (or more) screens. Still, it may not approach the number in the U.S. Why is this?
Since it is based not on population, I believe that it is based on geography. The U.S. is far larger in area, and there are small towns with populations of 5,000 people that are separated from other populated areas and which, most likely, have their own cinema hall (or even multiplex). If Kolkata were to have one cinema screen for every 5,000 of its 1.44 crore (14,400,000) inhabitants in its metropolitan area then it would have 2,880 screens! Obviously, it does not have that many.
This lower-per-capita number of screens ought to result in films lasting longer in the cinema. When Star Wars was first shown in 1977, the only theatre in all of Northern California that showed it was the Coronet Theater (now closed and demolished) in San Francisco. Needless to say, there were extremely long lines for it, forcing people to wait a very long time to watch it, and forcing the theaters to keep showing it for a very long time.
There is some evidence that this has made an impact in India, even now. Even now, blockbusters are often housefull/sold out during the first week. However, films still rarely last more than four weeks.
2) Perhaps a more accurate answer is that it is a result of television, Youtube and pirated versions. As I wrote in Television Programs, television sets and programs were relatively rare even just 30 years ago. Thus, the only entertainment was the movies. There certainly were no multiplexes then so each of the fewer cinema halls had more people watching the films, necessitating the halls to screen them for a longer period of time. Now, films--even mega-hits like Chennai Express are shown a few weeks after the end of its theatrical release. Thus, many people simply wait for it to be shown on television.
Both Caroline and I have maintained, though, that good films ought to be watched on the big screen to get a better(?) experience. Unfortunately, this being India, the film-going experience means hearing very many mobiles ringing and seeing many people use their smart-phones. This could be yet another reason why people do not go to the cinemas as much now.
Similarly, Youtube (as well as DVDs and downloads) could be other reasons. However, this being India, pirated versions can be a more significant and unique reason. A few years ago, while I was away on one of my mandatory departures from India, Caroline and her mother watched Ra.Onenot in the cinema hall but from a pirated DVD! (Although I do not think that they were aware of the concept of piracy at that time.)
These reasons are verified in this article.
3) Perhaps the most accurate reason is that there may be fewer films worth watching a second time. Especially now, for a film to last a long time, it must be worth watching more than once. In the U.S., I watched Field of Dreams three times, and The Usual Suspects, Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna and Om Shanti Om twice in the cinema halls. Since I arrived in India, the only films worth watching more than once are 3 Idiots and Robot, and perhaps English Vinglish, OMG: Oh My GodandBarfi. Chennai Express did gross a lot of money, but only because a great many people decided to watch it once, and it ended no more than four weeks after it began.
Having watched Krrish 3, I think that it is also worthy of watching again.