Shah Rukh Khan vs. Nana Patekar
GuruManan
Who is the better actor and why(real reasons)?
My pick for better actor is Nana Patkear. He is a real incredible and powerful
actor. I think Shah Rukh is an entertainer not an actor. He is in mainly
dance and song films unlike Nana who is in more serious films which are
intelligent like Yugpurush and Yeshwant. Well I'd love to debate this topic
with everyone.
REMEMBER WHO IS THE BETTER ACTOR NOT WHO IS THE MORE POPULAR ACTOR.I WANT TO
KNOW WHO THE MORE BETTER ACTOR IS.
t h e g u r u
ra...@rocketmail.com
guru,
I guess u are a ardent fan of NanaPatekar. :-)
Yes, NanaPatekar is a fantastic actor and contrary to
general opinion , he can play light hearted roles too.
(check out ThodisiRumaniHogaye). Personally, i like
seeing him in intense roles. (liked Yeshwant,Krantiveer,Agnisaakshi
and a few other movies).
Regarding SRK, he too is a good actor. But still has a
long way to go (though the hype here makes it look like he
is the God of acting!).
Comparisions would seem out of place here. For every fan,
his favourite is the best actor :-) .
Bottomline: i enjoy watching both of them. if u want
to compare SRK with somebody - that somebody should
be AmirKhan /salman khan etc. Then, i would gladly
say that AmirKhan is a better actor. (strictly my personal opinion).
cheers
raj
Sunil Chawla
I don't think you can compare these two. They both play different types of
roles. But if I HAD to say which was the better actor then I'd have to
disagree and with you and say SRK. I watched DDLJ again the other day for
the umpteenth time and his acting is just marvellous. SRK can do many
different types of roles...from intense to romantic to comic. I'd like to
see Nana do all them. But don't get me wrong, I think Nana is a great actor,
but only his field. Well that's my opinion anyway!!
Sunil
spatel
I think Nana, like RajKumar, is terrific within a specific scope. While
SRK, like AB, is more versatile and can pull off almost any kind off role
with charming ease.
Manoj Bhatia
GuruManan wrote:
> Who is the better actor and why(real reasons)?
>
> My pick for better actor is Nana Patkear. He is a real incredible and powerful
> actor. I think Shah Rukh is an entertainer not an actor. He is in mainly
> dance and song films unlike Nana who is in more serious films which are
> intelligent like Yugpurush and Yeshwant. Well I'd love to debate this topic
> with everyone.
>
> REMEMBER WHO IS THE BETTER ACTOR NOT WHO IS THE MORE POPULAR ACTOR.I WANT TO
> KNOW WHO THE MORE BETTER ACTOR IS.
>
> t h e g u r u
Nana is better actor no doubt.
His best films are the ones where he has to underplay his character.
And they are - Raju Ban Gaya Gentleman,
Khamoshi -the musical and
Yugpurush.
Just like what Amitabh got just one good chance in 'Main Azaad Hoon'.
Nana's other good movies are mostly intense movies like
'Pratighaat', 'Ankush' , 'Prahaar', 'Parinda' , 'Krantiveer' and 'Yeshwant'
where he is sharp and restless.
Comapring Nana and SRK could be like doing the same for Naseeruddin Shah and
Amitabh !
manoj
shri...@hotmail.com
In article <199804300152...@ladder01.news.aol.com>#1/1,
guru...@aol.com (GuruManan) wrote:
> My pick for better actor is Nana Patkear. He is a real incredible and powerful
> actor.
and a good shrieker too. You know why his movies have started flopping,
because he has become stale with his usual gimmicks.Ranting, ranting and more
ranting. I used to like him in Ankush, Prahaar, Krantiveer, Hum Dono and
Yeshwant but his mad man ranting is becoming very routine and hence the
audience rejection. I still like him but think twice now before watching a
movie of his as i don't want the same madman ranting again.
> I think Shah Rukh is an entertainer not an actor.
and what makes you think so ?
> He is in mainly
> dance and song films unlike Nana
Oh..now SRK has become the usual dance and song hero like Akshay Kumar, Saif
Ali Khan, Mithun(sigh !), right ?????
By your theory, you will be thinking of Amitabh as a popular actor whose main
job is to sing and dance( and fight maybe) and not ACT, right ????
You are the genius in rating actors, probably the majority of Indians don't
know how to rate 'em, if i am not wrong, sir ??!!
> who is in more serious films which are
> intelligent like Yugpurush and Yeshwant. Well I'd love to debate this topic
> with everyone.
On a serious note, how come you rate serious films as intelligent and
comedies or any other type as not ??? Maybe that is your opinion but you
should be reasonable in classifying films and not try to think of only your
opinions and try to generalise it. If you think movies like Kabhie Haan
Kabhie Naa and Yes Boss are not intelligent, what are they ?? Shahrukh has
always tried to bring versatility within the commerical film bracket. He
wants his films to succeed in the BO and become famous and i think that is
the first priority of any film actor.Tell me if you have a good pvt sector
job on one hand and a Govt job on the other, will you go for the Govt job ??
Heck, No obviously. Money is the basic criterion in any person's life in the
modern age. The difference is one has to be able to make people see the
difference bewtween the good and the best among the good and sought after.
Coming back to the topic, with movies like Chamatkaar and Raju Ban Gaya
Gentleman, SRK has always tried to bring in a bit of versatility which is
difficult to do in the largely routine script-driven Commercial cinema. You
won't be liking Chaahat because many people derive their opinions from the BO
success of a film(ironically) but he had a good role there too as a person
who is besotted by a female crazed upon him and how he deals with the
situation. You also can't deny his good acting in superhit movies like DDLJ
too where he almost saved the movie from crashing in the 2nd half (which was
entirely his) by doing some very good comic acting coupled with the serious
scenes. In Pardes, he had a restrained role which he did well too considering
he hardly had the script focussed on him. That he came out winners from such
a sidey role itself speaks of his ability to capture the attention of the
audience. Tell me which hero in the modern age likes to play a brother to the
leading female in the movie as he will be playing in the fim Josh.
The catch is that Shahrukh bring a bit of difference to the routine
commercial cinema though largely remaining in the commercial bracket and not
going outside it like Nana. It is this ability of his which makes him a
Winner. People want something different from the Day-Day cinema without it
going completely out of context ie. it should be different but also
entertaining at the same time and that is where SRK scores. He also has a
sharp eye for good scripts which are scarce and can gauge the Directors with
whom he would work well. Look at his upcoming line of films and the Directors
involved and you will understand my point.
If you have analysed Mani Ratnam's career, he likes to do one film with all
top actors and his hit parade in Tamil cinema started with a "Naayagan" with
an actor of the calibre of Kamal Haasan, now his first Hindi movie is with
none other than Shahrukh. This alone shows how Mani views the actors around
Bollywood and Mani's opinion is respectable considering he is one of the best
(maybe the best modern day Direcotor) to emerge from Indian film industry.
Kamal Haasan himself has said that he thinks SRK is the best director in
Bollywood and i will respect his opinion as i along with many others consider
him a great actor. Others like Yash Chopra, Rajkumar Santoshi etc who are
also working with Shahrukh consider him the best in Bollywood and i will
respect their opinions too from the type of work they have done till now.He
has also been offered acting alonside Tom Cruise which he rightly refused for
reasons of being neglected in a foreign Hollywood.Now thats one example of
whom Hollywood thinks is capable of a role on par with Tom Cruise.
Lastlly, i think both SRK and Nana are very good actors but Nana has become
stereotyped into a particular type of acting ( and roles) which SRK has not.I
think this is what differentiates them ( besides the age and looks factor
which is in SRK's favour too ) and Shahrukh comes above Nana due to this
particular ability of him to dig out versatility in his roles in the limited
opportunity he gets from Bollywood scripts.
Shridhar
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
s_jag...@yahoo.com
> Oh..now SRK has become the usual dance and song hero like Akshay Kumar, Saif
> Ali Khan, Mithun(sigh !), right ?????
of course not. he's the best thing that EVER happened to Bollywood, nay
Indian, nay Asian, nay WORLD CINEMA !
> If you have analysed Mani Ratnam's career, he likes to do one film with all
> top actors and his hit parade in Tamil cinema started with a "Naayagan" with
> an actor of the calibre of Kamal Haasan, now his first Hindi movie is with
> none other than Shahrukh. This alone shows how Mani views the actors around
But I thought Kamal was a good for nothing fella who just knows to put on
makeup and try to impress ppl. ZERO acting talent.
> Kamal Haasan himself has said that he thinks SRK is the best director in
> Bollywood and i will respect his opinion as i along with many others
Pls. produce documented evidence to prove that Kamal called SRK the best
director in Bollywood.
> reasons of being neglected in a foreign Hollywood.Now thats one example of
> whom Hollywood thinks is capable of a role on par with Tom Cruise.
Rajinikanth acted in a Bollywood film too ... er um ... your point being ?
My guru hath said so ... and so it shall be !
Jagadish - #1 fan of Shridhar
T. Srinivasa Raghavan
And I strongly second that. NP is definitely overrated.
Srini
Ravikrishna wrote:
>
> > guru...@aol.com says...
> >
> >Who is the better actor and why(real reasons)?
> >
> >My pick for better actor is Nana Patkear. He is a real incredible and powerful
> >actor. I think Shah Rukh is an entertainer not an actor. He is in mainly
> >dance and song films unlike Nana who is in more serious films which are
> >intelligent like Yugpurush and Yeshwant. Well I'd love to debate this topic
> >with everyone.
> >
> >REMEMBER WHO IS THE BETTER ACTOR NOT WHO IS THE MORE POPULAR ACTOR.I WANT TO
> >KNOW WHO THE MORE BETTER ACTOR IS.
> >
> >t h e g u r u
>
> Undoubtedly ShahRuk Khan is a better actor. It is not that I suddenly changed
> my opinion about SRK, it is just that I don't rate NanaPatekar as an actor.
>
> I liked NanaPatekar very much in Ankush. That's all.
> Whatever roles he does,he acts the same. His expression set is limited and the
> role which suits him most is that of a cynical man,lamblasting all institutions
> with words like "bhadwa" , "hagna(shitting)", "chutia(you know what it means)",
> "randi" etc etc. I refuse to accept this as any acting.
>
> His acting style is crude and his dialogue delivery is exactly the same. Thank
> God he was mute in Khamoshi. :-)
>
> In nutshell he is the most overrated actor in hindi film industry. And people
> rate him at par with Sanjeev Kumar , Nasir etc. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
>
> Ravi Krishna.
Hemendra Gupta
Manoj Bhatia wrote:
>
> GuruManan wrote:
>
> > Who is the better actor and why(real reasons)?
> >
> > My pick for better actor is Nana Patkear. He is a real incredible and powerful
> > actor. I think Shah Rukh is an entertainer not an actor. He is in mainly
> > dance and song films unlike Nana who is in more serious films which are
> > intelligent like Yugpurush and Yeshwant. Well I'd love to debate this topic
> > with everyone.
> >
> > REMEMBER WHO IS THE BETTER ACTOR NOT WHO IS THE MORE POPULAR ACTOR.I WANT TO
> > KNOW WHO THE MORE BETTER ACTOR IS.
> >
> > t h e g u r u
>
> His best films are the ones where he has to underplay his character.
> And they are - Raju Ban Gaya Gentleman,
> Khamoshi -the musical and
> Yugpurush.
> Just like what Amitabh got just one good chance in 'Main Azaad Hoon'.
Hi!,
About Amitabh Bachchan, please watch more of his 70s movies before
picking Main Azaad Hoon as his only chance (for what I don't know
though). If you had bothered to watch say "Bemissal", "Jurmana",
"Benaam", "Kabie Kabhie", "Kaala Pathar", "Namak Haram", "Chupke
Chupke", other Hrishikesh Mukherjee films he acted in, not to mention
his acting in "Deewaar" and "Trishul" (to name just two) then you will
know what sort of a chance you thought AB missed. It is like another
gentleman here who said that AB was good only as the angry young man and
Dilip Kumar as Tragedy King. These are the roles they are most well
known for but these are not only what they did well.
By quoting the example of "Thoda Sa Romani Ho.." if it can be proved
that Nana can do light roles (in another posting here) then what will
one call "Amar Akbar Anthony", "Naseeb", "Lawaaris" etc. Light and
comedic roles? And about Dilip Kumar let me just say "Ram Aur Shyam" and
"Azaad". Please get out of the mentality of 1990s and 1980s as being
when the film world started. Acquaint oneself with the works of the
actors one so blithely categorize and then lionize the works of one
trick ponies like Nana Patekar who have long run out of new things to
show on the screen and who believe that portraying a cracked pot or
suddenly fulminating on screen in a rash of dialogue is acting. Parinda
was awesome and so was Krantiveer and Khamoshi to a degree but it is
time Nana branched out. It will be interesting to see if he does and if
he is able to. It is time for him to reinvent himself and do something
that is not the same old. After a slew of flops (Yugpurush and Ghulam E
Mustafa is just a start) he will learn and you will understand.
hemu...
Hemendra Gupta
Ravikrishna wrote:
>
> > guru...@aol.com says...
> >
> >Who is the better actor and why(real reasons)?
> >
> >My pick for better actor is Nana Patkear. He is a real incredible and powerful
> >actor. I think Shah Rukh is an entertainer not an actor. He is in mainly
> >dance and song films unlike Nana who is in more serious films which are
> >intelligent like Yugpurush and Yeshwant. Well I'd love to debate this topic
> >with everyone.
> >
> >REMEMBER WHO IS THE BETTER ACTOR NOT WHO IS THE MORE POPULAR ACTOR.I WANT TO
> >KNOW WHO THE MORE BETTER ACTOR IS.
> >
> >t h e g u r u
>
> my opinion about SRK, it is just that I don't rate NanaPatekar as an actor.
>
> I liked NanaPatekar very much in Ankush. That's all.
> Whatever roles he does,he acts the same. His expression set is limited and the
> role which suits him most is that of a cynical man,lamblasting all institutions
> with words like "bhadwa" , "hagna(shitting)", "chutia(you know what it means)",
> "randi" etc etc. I refuse to accept this as any acting.
>
> His acting style is crude and his dialogue delivery is exactly the same. Thank
> God he was mute in Khamoshi. :-)
>
> In nutshell he is the most overrated actor in hindi film industry. And people
> rate him at par with Sanjeev Kumar , Nasir etc. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
>
> Ravi Krishna.
HEAR HEAR.
hemu...
GuruManan
Well I have been reading everyone's responses to my original question about who
is the better actor. SRK or Nana. and here is something I'd like to reply to
everyone:
Some of the responses said of how Nana was overrated as an actor. No not
really. SRK is overrated and overhyped as an actor. People complained of how
they were sick and tired of Nana's mad man antics. Some people even said how
they know Nana's acting and SRK isnt.
Is it just me or has India's consience gone whack? I mean living in America, I
have seen some damn good English films in my life(The Godfather, Scarface, The
Usual Suspects, The Rain Man.). Now maybe it's just me, but I know that when I
go to see a movie, I want to see some good acting and a good plot. Maybe I
have a problem with SRK's movies and acting because they are the same damn
movies. A love triangle with the same old song and dance. Isn't it funny
that SRK"s Blockbuster movies all have SUPER HIT songs. I'd love to see SRK in
a movie without good songs. Lets see if the movie is still a blockbuster.
SRK is always in a damn romance film. I mean evey damn Indian movie these days
are so boring. It's always about this one rich ass indian guy who has these 2
chicks up his butt and they are singing songs at like the Himalayas? What is
up with that. I have just become totally sick and tired of that so I only like
to see Nana's films cause they are different from the usual plotless films we
see. And they have good acting. People complain that he is just the same old
mad man in every film. People, that is not a mad man, that is a sign of a
great actor. Have you ever seen Al Pacino in Scarface? The only reason Nana's
films flop is because India's Consience is so whack, they can't accept serious
films that doesn't have a romance line in the plot or good songs? It's not
like I'm just a Nana fan, I know there are plenty of other good actors, but SRK
isn't one of them. I like Nasarudeen Shah, Paresh Rawal, Amrish Puri, and
Anupum Kher. They are very good actors. I'd love to hear from ya, cause I
know I'm gonna have like 90 million people complain how SRK is da bomb. SRK is
just one of those people with good looks who happens to come into films that
has good songs and a romance story that drives the girls insane and make them
all want him just like Leonardo Di Caprio did with Titanic. Leo didn't do real
good acting in the movie , just good looks and a killer romance story.
HYDERBAD
I found it humorous that Jagdish finds Shah Rukh Khan a better actor than
Nana, Amitabh, and even Dilip Kumar. Its like a saying that Tim Hardaway is a
better basketball player than Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, or even Michael Jordan
(More analogies available upon request). You just have to laugh at such
statements. Dilip Kumar was always more than the thespian. Did you know that
Dilip Kumar was so involved into a character that in the film Kohinoor he
actually learned to play the Sitar for the sole purpose of providing close-up
shots wih his own hands to add realism. Amitabh Bachan in his early and
mid-career carried films solely with his acting without hit music or dancing
that has benefited Shah Rukh. Shah Rukh is best known for playing the light
romantic heroes which Salman, Aamir and the earlier heroes such as Dilip Kumar
or Amitabh could carry off easily. But I don't think Shah Rukh could play
Prince Salim in Mugle-Azam, Ana in Parinda, or Vijay in Deewar. I like Shah
Rukh Khan but he is not in the class of Amitabh, Nana, or Dilip Kumar. With
his recent success he has relied on his style of acting rather than seek
diverse roles which would challenge him. Aamir Khan has at least seeked out
diverse roles such as in Rangeela or in his early art film Raakh. Now I am
sounding too much filmi so I'll end it here.
Minhaj
sjag...@my-dejanews.com
> I found it humorous that Jagdish finds Shah Rukh Khan a better actor than
> Nana, Amitabh, and even Dilip Kumar. Its like a saying that Tim Hardaway is
And I found it humorous that you have reached this conclusion without noting
the sarcasm or realising that I've been a fervent Shridhar fan all along.
> Dilip Kumar was so involved into a character that in the film Kohinoor he
> actually learned to play the Sitar for the sole purpose of providing
> close-up shots wih his own hands to add realism.
Did you know that Shahrukh became mad for a few days and whacked his wife
around, tried to throw her off a 20 storey building etc. during his
Baazigar-Darr-Anjam days ? :))
jagadish
shri...@hotmail.com
In article <199805042055...@ladder03.news.aol.com>#1/1,
guru...@aol.com (GuruManan) wrote:
> Some of the responses said of how Nana was overrated as an actor. No not
> really. SRK is overrated and overhyped as an actor. People complained of how
> they were sick and tired of Nana's mad man antics.
Tell me whether your priority in rating actors is to consider only those who
do art or pseudo-art films or those who do entertaining films
too.(considering both are appreciated). Do you even consider Amitabh to be a
great actor ? If you consider Sanjeev Kumar, Amol Palekar and the likes
better actors than Amitabh, i rest my case here and won't like to go any
further.
> I mean living in America,
Indian emigre population is distributed everywhere and not only in America.
And as far as i know, people have started logging in from India too nowadays.
> Maybe I
> have a problem with SRK's movies and acting
and we can't make this out ! :-)
> A love triangle with the same old song and dance.
Oh Yeah, thats how you see all his movies till now including KHKN, RJGG,
Chamatkar, Baazigar etc. Well then, God bless your way of seeing and
analysing movies.
>Isn't it funny
> that SRK"s Blockbuster movies all have SUPER HIT songs. I'd love to see SRK in
> a movie without good songs.
For that, you will need to change the whole spirit of Indian movies. If you
have any plans, wish you the Best of Luck as i too would want the same and am
waiting for an enlightened soul like you to bring about the change ! :-)
> Lets see if the movie is still a blockbuster.
Till now, the success ratio has been very less, the latest casualty being
"Hazaar Chaurasia ki Maa".
> I mean evey damn Indian movie these days
> are so boring.
And Hollywood is at its entertaining best with great movies like
"Lost in Space", "City of Angels", "Newton Boys" etc etc !!!
> It's always about this one rich ass indian guy who has these 2
> chicks up his butt and they are singing songs at like the Himalayas?
AFAIK, they never shoot in the Himalayas. And they don't show porno scenes in
mainstream movies like Hollywood likes to do.
> I have just become totally sick and tired of that so I only like
> to see Nana's films cause they are different from the usual plotless films we
> see.
Can i use your method of describing Nana's movies ? Okay, one mad man, a
corrupt system and mad man howling at the corrupt system, a woman(supposedly
the heroine) thrown in for good measure, becomes his wife, mad man hates her
for being too docile, goes to jail, comes back, starts howling again and
finally beats up a few goondas all by himself and we are to beleive that the
system has been restored in the country ! :-)
> People complain that he is just the same old
> mad man in every film. People, that is not a mad man, that is a sign of a
> great actor. Have you ever seen Al Pacino in Scarface?
Yeah and i've also seen him in the "Scent of a woman". You know how Pacino's
movies started flopping badly, when he started repeating himself in the same
old mafia roles like in City Hall, Donnie Brasco etc etc.
> The only reason Nana's
> films flop is because India's Consience is so whack, they can't accept serious
> films
True to an extent but same is also quiet true everywhere else. Tell me which
was the last serious Hollywood movie which was a success ? [well, very few do
succeed there likt eh English Patint] but then keep in mind, that Bollywood
cinema is targeted towards the masses who want entertaining stuff for
"Paisa-Vasuli"( after a day of hard work) and not for writing reviews about
it in RAMLI after its release :-).
> I like Nasarudeen Shah, Paresh Rawal, Amrish Puri, and
> Anupum Kher.
One common bond among them is they are all character actors.
Its like saying i like only Morgan Freeman, Sean Connery, Ed Woods as actors
and not Tom Cruise, Tom Hanks, Brad Pitt etc.
> I'd love to hear from ya, cause I
> know I'm gonna have like 90 million people complain how SRK is da bomb.
Its 900 million and not 90. Looks like you have stayed in America for your
whole life.
> SRK is
> just one of those people with good looks who happens to come into films that
> has good songs and a romance story that drives the girls insane and make them
> all want him just like Leonardo Di Caprio did with Titanic.
Holy Smokes ! I got news-- SRK is the teenybopper, not Chandrachur or Akshaye
Khanna.Hmmm.
> Leo didn't do real
> good acting in the movie , just good looks and a killer romance story.
Yeah, the good acting was done by Claire Danes and hence nominated so
rightfully for the Oscars, right ??? :-)
Shridhar
Subbarao G.S.S.
> I found it humorous that Jagdish finds Shah Rukh Khan a better actor than
> better basketball player than Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, or even Michael Jordan
> (More analogies available upon request). You just have to laugh at such
> statements. Dilip Kumar was always more than the thespian. Did you know that
> actually learned to play the Sitar for the sole purpose of providing close-up
> mid-career carried films solely with his acting without hit music or dancing
> that has benefited Shah Rukh. Shah Rukh is best known for playing the light
> romantic heroes which Salman, Aamir and the earlier heroes such as Dilip Kumar
> or Amitabh could carry off easily. But I don't think Shah Rukh could play
> Prince Salim in Mugle-Azam, Ana in Parinda, or Vijay in Deewar. I like Shah
> Rukh Khan but he is not in the class of Amitabh, Nana, or Dilip Kumar. With
> his recent success he has relied on his style of acting rather than seek
> diverse roles which would challenge him. Aamir Khan has at least seeked out
> diverse roles such as in Rangeela or in his early art film Raakh. Now I am
> sounding too much filmi so I'll end it here.
AT the risk of getting flamed by ShahRukh fans,.......I think Aamir Khan
is a better actor than Shah Rukh. I think if not for his physique, Aamir
would have done roles which were more diverse without looking stupid.
Dandimaar
DAMN!! u are RIGHT...................
I loved the whole comparison u did to Titanic and stuff..........
in fact I can safely say......... I LOVE U MAN!!!!!
Dandimaar
You MORON!!! atleast get the names right before u dicide to tear
someone's response to Shreads........ (with idiotic comments).
The girl was Kate Winslet not Claire Daines........
IDIOT..................
Meenakshi Abbi
I would pick Nana over SRK.
Though no one seems to like his role in Khamoshi...
I thought he was EXCELLENT!
To convey so many emotions without even saying anything..
now thats acting.
I still haven't gotten over
NAna and MAnisha losing to Aamir and Karisma in 1996
As for the most versatile actor, I would go with Anil Kapoor.
Or with this KHAN-mania going on.. has everyone forgotten about him?
Anil Kapoor is STILL the most versatlie actor of the bunch.
Don't get me wrong.. I am a strong KHAN fan (SRK, AK and SK) but
Anil is definetly the most versatile.
Dandimaar
I agree with u a 100%............ the key to good acting is to be very slective
and spend a lot of time on your work, not like the mainstream actors who try to make
like 10 movies a year.........
Dandimaar
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! Thanx a lot man........ u gave me the response I
was just looking for........
actually I bet ($100) a friend that I could get someone dud to say the
F-word on the newsgroup........ and u just happened to be that
dolt......... (I know how jealous u guys are of of NRI's and I decided
to play up that factor)
Thanx for the entertainment........
PS : don't worry...... u will never lose your idiocy.......
HYDERBAD
>And I found it humorous that you have reached this conclusion without noting
>the sarcasm or realising that I've been a fervent Shridhar fan all along.
Question:
Who is Shridhar? Is he a non-hindi actor?
Minhaj
sjag...@my-dejanews.com
May the earth open up and may I be buried. May the heavens open up and flood
the earth like the deluge of Noah. Shridhar is India's greatest contribution
to the world of Usenet Newsgroups. He is the one who has descended upon
newsgroups to spread the word of Shahrukh Khan and Ajay Jadeja so that us
ordinary mortals can appreciate them better !
jagadish - pleads with his idol not to raze this questioner to the ground.
MrsJKhan
I totally agree with Minhaj! And that's all I have to say.
GuruManan
I have a question for everyone denying Nana's acting ability and complaining
that he does the same type of roles everytime..Have any of you whiners seen
Yugpurush? If you have, then you shouldn't be talking. That movie blew my mind
and I cried in the end. Nana's acting was superb. I'd love to see SRK be a
mentally retarded man instead of a rich ass chasing girls and singing songs all
day long.
Peace.
<<<<<<<<<----------------------t h e g u r u----------------->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
HYDERBAD
>
>> >And I found it humorous that you have reached this conclusion without
>> >noting the sarcasm or realising that I've been a fervent Shridhar fan all
>> > along.
>
>> Question:
>> Who is Shridhar? Is he a non-hindi actor?
>
>May the earth open up and may I be buried. May the heavens open up and flood
>the earth like the deluge of Noah. Shridhar is India's greatest contribution
>to the world of Usenet Newsgroups. He is the one who has descended upon
>newsgroups to spread the word of Shahrukh Khan and Ajay Jadeja so that us
>ordinary mortals can appreciate them better !
>
>jagadish - pleads with his idol not to raze this questioner to the ground.
Sorry to inquire about this great man known as Shridhar!!!! I beg forgiveness
for questioning your article considering that you were a worshiper of Shridhar.
NOT!!! What does being a worshiper of Shridhar have to do with the article
you posted. If you can't respond to my critisism of your article logically
then why write them? Maybe you should beg Shridhar to answer my postings.
Minhaj
(All in Good Fun Dost)
shri...@hotmail.com
In article <199805070008...@ladder01.news.aol.com>#1/1,
Your id Hyderabad says a lot about yourself and your views.
And no it is not what would have immediately crossed your mind,
Mr. "Minhaj".
Shridhar
sjag...@my-dejanews.com
> Sorry to inquire about this great man known as Shridhar!!!! I beg
> forgiveness for questioning your article considering that you were a
> worshiper of Shridhar.
> NOT!!! What does being a worshiper of Shridhar have to do with the article
> you posted. If you can't respond to my critisism of your article logically
> then why write them? Maybe you should beg Shridhar to answer my postings.
Shridhar pardon him, for he knows not what he is talking ! :)
jagadish - kuch to log kahenge ... logon ka kaam hai kehna :)
shri...@hotmail.com
In article <6irici$htg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
sjag...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> jagadish - kuch to log kahenge ... logon ka kaam hai kehna :)
Who helped you type the above ;-) ?
"Kuch Log Kahenge toh Kuch Log Sunenge
Yahi Kehne Sunne me Zindagi ki Anmol Ghadi beethti Jaayegi
Lekin Yahi to Jeena hai Mere Yaar "
Aaadab-Arz
Shridhar
shri...@hotmail.com
In article <199805062043...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
guru...@aol.com (GuruManan) wrote:
>
> I have a question for everyone denying Nana's acting ability and complaining
> that he does the same type of roles everytime..Have any of you whiners seen
> Yugpurush? If you have, then you shouldn't be talking.
No, we haven't. Thats why we are talking :).
> I'd love to see SRK be a
> mentally retarded man instead of a rich ass chasing girls and singing songs all
> day long.
So you get your entertainment seeing mentally retarded men ranting than say a
guy chasing gorgeous girls ? Hmm..... :-)
You say that SRK does nothing but chase girls and sings songs, then why are
you comparing only him and Nana. Why don't you compare Akshay Kumar or
Akshaye Khanna to your idol, huh ? Admit it, the majority are not elevating
these actors to SRK's level, so there must be something he has which has
gotten him so far.
Shridhar
>
> Peace.
> <<<<<<<<<----------------------t h e g u r u----------------->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
shri...@hotmail.com
In article <354F9721...@voyager.atc.fhda.edu>,
Meenakshi Abbi <ma05...@voyager.atc.fhda.edu> wrote:
> As for the most versatile actor, I would go with Anil Kapoor.
> Or with this KHAN-mania going on.. has everyone forgotten about him?
> Anil Kapoor is STILL the most versatlie actor of the bunch.
> Don't get me wrong.. I am a strong KHAN fan (SRK, AK and SK) but
> Anil is definetly the most versatile.
Hmm...Anil made his debut around '83 and admittedly his debut was good in Woh
Saat Din (a remake of a Bhagyaraj hiit in Tamil). Anil was upto reenacting
hit roles of other languages for Hindi audiences from that time itself :).
And then in his first 6 years(on an equal footing to SRK), had hit films in
Tezaab(angry young man, nothing new), Rakhwaala(again the same),
Ram-Lakhan(though it came in '89-90) (a funny young man) and Eashwar(again a
copy of a Telugu movie was it Swati Muthyam starring Kamal), Kishan Kanahiya
(good Raj Kapoor type of antics shown) and of course Mr. India(a '87 release)
(a funny young man).Of course i am forgetting Karma here where he played a
funny young man again. In between acted in a lot of flop films like
Yudh,Vijay, Ram Shankar( or what was the name of the movie having the song
"Ungli mein Angoothi Angoothi mein Nagina" ) etc etc.Oh yeah, i forgot "Meri
Jung" which was a good role as a young man taking revenge as a Lawyer.
But in all, in most of his movies(hit or flop), Anil was either an angry
young man or a comic funny young man or both. These type of roles had already
been done and made popular by Amitabh previously in the late 70s and early
80s.Anil was just following up on them. The only reason he was being
considered the next Superstar was because of the success of his movies from
'87-89.
Now consider SRK. Has no Godfather. Starts off with Deewana where he dosen't
have a typical Hero role (the Hero was Rishi Kapoor) but steals the thunder
out of him in the film in his short role. Next comes Chamatkaar where he is
in an unusual role of a country bumpkin lost in the city who gets help from a
ghost to survive( kinda different and funny with its silly comedy for a Hindi
film), then comes Raju Ban Gaya Gentleman where he is an educated and
ambitious young person who comes to the city with big money dreams and goes
through various ups and downs(going out of the honest path on the way) and
finally realises what is more important-Love or Money. These were not Hit
films(except Deewana), were average but Shahrukh was being noticed all along
as an emerging Hindi Film Star who is different from the previous
generation(mid to late 80s) of Film stars like Anil, Jackie, Aamir who had
nothing different or unusual to offer.[of course i knew at that point and
from following SRK in his various interviews that here was an intelligent man
who was different from the usual and would make it big soon). That time i
used to say this to my friends who would not beleive an inch of it. Of
course, then came Baazigar where he defied all what a Hindi Hero could be
(mind you negative roles had been done before by Amitabh and other heroes but
not ruthless to this extent) and the rest is History. Now, everyone falls for
SRK(as he is a big draw in the BO) and i smile quietly round the corner
recollecting what people would say to me some 4-5 years back. A Kabhie Haan
Kabhie Naa just added spice to the overall "Verstality of Shahrukh" which was
evident from the beginning.
Shridhar
< #1 fan of Shahrukh,Sachin and "Shridhar" ;-).The Ss rule ..... :)
....getting excited as usual :) >
Ankit Desai
Aamir, as a "previous generation (mid to late 80s)", you have
obviously made your way up SRK's, a little too much and it's obviosu
from your recent comments you will never be able to get out of it
either. As I recall, Aamir's first film was in the late 80s, think
late '88 or early '89, with QSQT. And he was neither a angry young
man nor a funny young man. He too went after a girl just like SRK has
done forever. As for you comments on SRK's first few movies and how
they were different. Raju Ban Gaya Gentleman, different? Yeah,
you're right, Shri 420 had nothing in common with that one. Deewana,
a side role but then again look at who he is up against, Rishi Kapoor,
yeah, people just can't get enough of this old, over-weight who still
thinks he is 20! SRK had to go a long way to steal the thunder in
this one! Chamatkaar, hmm.. again a little Shri 420 combined with a
little Hamlet and voila! Definitely an original there.
>from following SRK in his various interviews that here was an intelligent man
Intelligent? Yes, I agree he is intelligent. But then again, a
Masters in Communications has to be useful somewhere.
>who was different from the usual and would make it big soon). That time i
>used to say this to my friends who would not beleive an inch of it. Of
>course, then came Baazigar where he defied all what a Hindi Hero could be
>(mind you negative roles had been done before by Amitabh and other heroes but
A hero in Baazigar? My, how quickly have we forgotten the definition
of a "hero". To refresh your mind, it's this: a man of distinguished
bravery; a person reverenced and idealized. Yes, everyone want to be
just like SRK's character in Baazigar. So, he was not a "hero" in the
movie by any means. So look at him as a villain, and there have been
worse villainous roles and ruthless, Kajol in Gupt was quite ruthless
to me. Gabbar Singh, if you remember was not that good either. I
don't know where you grew up but in my "chali" mothers scared their
children using his name to scare the kids. I have yet to see any mom
scare their child uing SRK's character in Baazigar or Darr. The only
reason SRK is such a big draw is because he of his popularity. Want
examples of how far popularity can get you? Take a look at HS
elections, do the winners actually know how to run a student govt? Or
was it his popularity that won it for him? Amitabh or Sonia Gandhi
for Presidency? Sunil Gavaskar as a governor or whatever the title,
of Maharastra? Yeah, they know all about politics, heck they must
"have something" in them to get them however far they got right? Oh
yeah and Nana Patekar's role as a mute, SRK can't even dream that role
in deep REM sleep. That's ACTING, a "middle-aged angry man" who plays
a mute and does it so effectively. But then again, you would have no
idea of what a mute goes through so of course you disregard that role
for Nana alltogether saying it was crap! And, oh yeah, you haven't
even seen Yugpurush and even if you did, you would never understand
the movie anyways!!!!.
>not ruthless to this extent) and the rest is History. Now, everyone falls for
>SRK(as he is a big draw in the BO) and i smile quietly round the corner
>recollecting what people would say to me some 4-5 years back. A Kabhie Haan
>Kabhie Naa just added spice to the overall "Verstality of Shahrukh" which was
>evident from the beginning.
>
>
>Shridhar
Versatility of SRK? Thanks for the laugh!!!! Now do us us a favor,
shut up!!! Oh.... sorry, you worship SRK, nuff said! And another
thing, you have no idea on how to evaluate actors and you never will
learn how to either. All you know is how to write long essays about
nothing!!! Seinfeld could have used you as a sript writer over the
past 3 seasons for sure.
Sorry to all others who actually read till the end, I tolerated him
for months but when this Nana Patekar issue came up and then this Anil
Kappor coments, something had to be said!!!
- Ankit
sjag...@my-dejanews.com
> Hmm...Anil made his debut around '83 and admittedly his debut was good in
> Woh Saat Din (a remake of a Bhagyaraj hiit in Tamil). Anil was upto
> reenacting hit roles of other languages for Hindi audiences from that time
> itself :).
Aha ! then can we blame SRK for acting in copies or lookalikes of many other
movies (Baazigar, Anjaam, DDLJ etc.) SRK was overacting roles from other films
from that time itself :)
What has SRK shown so far -
Romantic, Psychopathic, common man ... THATS it ! Isnt that sort of what Anil
Kapoor also has done so far ?
> < #1 fan of Shahrukh,Sachin and "Shridhar" ;-).The Ss rule ..... :)
> ....getting excited as usual :) >
Sorry sir, I'm the #1 fan of Shridhar, no one else :)
jagadish
Ankit Desai
On Fri, 08 May 1998 04:29:28 -0600, sjag...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>> Hmm...Anil made his debut around '83 and admittedly his debut was good in
>> Woh Saat Din (a remake of a Bhagyaraj hiit in Tamil). Anil was upto
>> reenacting hit roles of other languages for Hindi audiences from that time
>> itself :).
>
>Aha ! then can we blame SRK for acting in copies or lookalikes of many other
>movies (Baazigar, Anjaam, DDLJ etc.) SRK was overacting roles from other films
>from that time itself :)
>
>What has SRK shown so far -
>
>Romantic, Psychopathic, common man ... THATS it ! Isnt that sort of what Anil
>Kapoor also has done so far ?
I am not saying that. My response was that SRK's roles HASN'T been
that different from other actors. Shridhar claims that SRK has done
movies that were different than other actors, I merely pointed out
that no he hasn't. Howver, Anil has done a wider variety of roles.
Meri Jung was quite different from other movies, his Viraasat was a
different role, though a remake of a South Indian movie. Judaai was a
different movie and a different role for Anil as well. Shridhar
claims SRK to be the best actor and having more talent than Nana and
Aamri and others. Until SRK can emote like Nana in Yugpurush or
Khamosi or tries different roles even if the movie fails, then only
can he even be considered as a good actor. Right now, he's the most
popular that's all.
shri...@hotmail.com
In article <35530735...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
an...@ix.netcom.com (Ankit Desai) wrote:
>
> On Fri, 08 May 1998 04:29:28 -0600, sjag...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >Aha ! then can we blame SRK for acting in copies or lookalikes of many other
> >movies (Baazigar, Anjaam, DDLJ etc.) SRK was overacting roles from other films
> >from that time itself :)
Hold on, there is nothing like lookalikes, if a film is a remake it is a
remake, there is no question of lookalikes or kind of inspired etc etc.
Anyways, there was no similar role in HAHK to SRK's role in DDLJ.
> >
> >What has SRK shown so far -
> >
> >Romantic, Psychopathic, common man ... THATS it ! Isnt that sort of what Anil
> >Kapoor also has done so far ?
I was comparing the first 6 years of Anil and SRK. SRK has shown more
versatility than even a certain favourite of yours in his first 6 years,
hasn't he ? ;-). BTW, that should be an obsessed man and not a psychopath !
> I am not saying that. My response was that SRK's roles HASN'T been
> that different from other actors. Shridhar claims that SRK has done
> movies that were different than other actors, I merely pointed out
> that no he hasn't. Howver, Anil has done a wider variety of roles.
> Meri Jung was quite different from other movies, his Viraasat was a
> different role, though a remake of a South Indian movie. Judaai was a
> different movie and a different role for Anil as well.
Ankit, as i said above, i was comparing the first 6 years of SRK and Anil. A
Virasat or a Lamhe( wonder why people don't point this out as i think this is
the best Anil performance till now ) dosen't come into the picture. When Anil
was considered a superstar in and around '89, his roles had been just
follow-ups to the ones Amitabh had popularised previously ie. acting either
as an angry young man seeking revenge or in a comic role. If you ask me to
tell in one sentence how SRK differed from Anil, i would say that he brought
about a change to the usual revenge themes which were making Bollywood stale
through his "simple man with various emotions" kind of roles as in
Chamatkaar(though done in a comic way), RBGG and KHKN besides enacting the
obsessed ruthless lover. Bollywood had not seen this since Amitabh
popularised the revenge/action themes. Besides the above, SRK has also acted
in revenge themes like in Koyla and Karan Arjun and totally comic roles as in
Yes Boss.So Jagadish, that makes it romantic(DDLJ, DTPH),common man with
varying emotions(RBGG,KHKN and Chamatkaaar done in a comic fashion), obsessed
lover(Darr and Anjaam), revenge seeker( Baazigar, Karan Arjun, Koyla),totally
comedy(Yes Boss and now Duplicate).Now, thats 5 different types of roles in 6
years in the industry and all within the commercial film bracket.(which of
course is his field as i had told in an other thread).
Let me be accepting in saying that even Amitabh was versatile in his early
years but then succumbed to the action/comic roles. Lets just hope SRK
dosen't commit the same mistake and get stereotyped in a particular role
after his BO successes.
> Khamosi or tries different roles even if the movie fails,
RBGG and KHKN were moderate hits which did well only in the cities. Also,
always remember that SRK is first a Superstar "Hero" who has to satisfy the
mainstream audience, if he does some unusual roles in between, then it will
be of credit to him. Also, Nana is middle aged and while not doing( because
of obvious non-acceptance) the Hero roles, will have more tendency to do the
offbeat roles.
Lastly, we'll have to wait till SRK gets old to evaluate his whole career.
But he has not done bad(in fact done a great job) for his first 6 years in
Bollywood, thats all i have to say.
> can he even be considered as a good actor. Right now, he's the most
> popular that's all.
Who told popular actors cannot be good. If so, no one will claim Amitabh to
be a good actor.Why can't you think like this, any tom, dick and harry can't
be labelled a Superstar, he has to act well and have something special about
him, otherwise Popular people like Akshay and Bobby will become Superstars.
> >Sorry sir, I'm the #1 fan of Shridhar, no one else :)
Well, i don't think i have sold the rights over me to anyone. ;-)
Shridhar
< who in no way says that Anil, Nana, Aamir etc are not very good actors >
Ankit Desai
Actually, I "he" didn't bring about the change in the usual revenge
themes, people did, the movies weren't huge hits like they were
previously, people got tired and so directors went for different types
of movies which is why HAHK was such a mostrous hit. A few years from
now there will be another change because then people will get tired of
trianglular love stories and we will want different stories. And good
actors will succeed even then because they can simple "act."
>obsessed ruthless lover. Bollywood had not seen this since Amitabh
>popularised the revenge/action themes. Besides the above, SRK has also acted
>in revenge themes like in Koyla and Karan Arjun and totally comic roles as in
>Yes Boss.So Jagadish, that makes it romantic(DDLJ, DTPH),common man with
>varying emotions(RBGG,KHKN and Chamatkaaar done in a comic fashion), obsessed
>lover(Darr and Anjaam), revenge seeker( Baazigar, Karan Arjun, Koyla),totally
>comedy(Yes Boss and now Duplicate).Now, thats 5 different types of roles in 6
>years in the industry and all within the commercial film bracket.(which of
>course is his field as i had told in an other thread).
>
>Let me be accepting in saying that even Amitabh was versatile in his early
>years but then succumbed to the action/comic roles. Lets just hope SRK
>dosen't commit the same mistake and get stereotyped in a particular role
>after his BO successes.
They succumb to a vertain role because that's what directors and
producers give them as roles and nothing else because they know they
can sell that roll with him playing it.
>> Khamosi or tries different roles even if the movie fails,
>
>RBGG and KHKN were moderate hits which did well only in the cities. Also,
>always remember that SRK is first a Superstar "Hero" who has to satisfy the
>mainstream audience, if he does some unusual roles in between, then it will
>be of credit to him. Also, Nana is middle aged and while not doing( because
>of obvious non-acceptance) the Hero roles, will have more tendency to do the
>offbeat roles.
RBGG was nearly the same story as Shri 420 so it wasn't a different
role. More comments below... Nana is not doing good because most
people in India can't understand his movies because it requires an
educated person to understand it and most people in India are
illiterate and so don't understand the point, sadly. Take Krantiveer
for example, most people will look at him as an angry but how many
understand his point for being mad or many of his stupendous
monologues, like the one about who teaches their child about who's
Hindu and who's Muslim. About how w have become ants and so on.
Yugpurush is too the same way, it's an intelligent film made for
intelligent people, it was not for the masses. But personally, he is
a very succesful actor considering he was the first to get 1 crore per
movie.
>Lastly, we'll have to wait till SRK gets old to evaluate his whole career.
>But he has not done bad(in fact done a great job) for his first 6 years in
>Bollywood, thats all i have to say.
Yes, lets wait to evaluate his whole carrer, hopefully he won't turn
into a Rishi Kapoor but instead goes into different roles as he getss
older and then only we will know how good of an actor he really is.
And yes, he HAS done a great job, and he will do so if he doesn't pick
a few Guddus and Zamana Deewanas in a row like he did a couple years
back. Most actors to do the same old roles because thats what they
are offered and that's what sells. Also, a young actor doesn't want
to take a completely different role early in his career because if the
movie fails, his career is in jeopardy. But SRK has established
himself and hopefully he will go into different roles in a couple
years. His role in Yes Boss was excellent as a hero but a chamcha,
that was a new thing, a different thing and he was good in it too.
>> can he even be considered as a good actor. Right now, he's the most
>> popular that's all.
>
>Who told popular actors cannot be good. If so, no one will claim Amitabh to
>be a good actor.Why can't you think like this, any tom, dick and harry can't
>be labelled a Superstar, he has to act well and have something special about
>him, otherwise Popular people like Akshay and Bobby will become Superstars.
No one said popular actors can't be good. SRK right now is not a
"good" actor, he's popular. Can he be a "good" actor? Yes but he
needs to emote better and in a wider array. As for a superstar,
nowadays, it's not acting, its the box office draw that makes one a
superstar. Because after all, most directors make movies to make
money and they will go with the guy who can draw in the masses.
sjag...@my-dejanews.com
> Hold on, there is nothing like lookalikes, if a film is a remake it is a
> remake, there is no question of lookalikes or kind of inspired etc etc.
Aah ... how abt "A kiss before dying ?"
> I was comparing the first 6 years of Anil and SRK. SRK has shown more
> versatility than even a certain favourite of yours in his first 6 years,
> hasn't he ? ;-). BTW, that should be an obsessed man and not a psychopath !
my favourite, as junta would know, is Kamal Haasan. I'd love to see you prove
to people on RAMLI that SRK has been more versatile than Kamal ! :)
> Well, i don't think i have sold the rights over me to anyone. ;-)
i've been ur fan for longer than u have been ur own fan ... so there ;)
jagadish
shri...@hotmail.com
In article <6j0qlu$1do$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
sjag...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> my favourite, as junta would know, is Kamal Haasan.
If junta would know, you won't have to tell it. :)
>I'd love to see you prove
> to people on RAMLI that SRK has been more versatile than Kamal ! :)
Why would i waste my time on it ? RAMLI would know Kamal only through
Apppu Raja and Velu Nayakan, both of which didn't come in his first 6 years
at Kodambakkam. But even then, you never know who might win in RAMLI.
> i've been ur fan for longer than u have been ur own fan ... so there ;)
Zzzzzz...... :-)
Shridhar
sjag...@my-dejanews.com
> Why would i waste my time on it ? RAMLI would know Kamal only through
> Apppu Raja and Velu Nayakan, both of which didn't come in his first 6 years
> at Kodambakkam. But even then, you never know who might win in RAMLI.
Perhaps its worth reminding you that RAMLI is rec.arts.movies.local.INDIAN
YOU are talking about "Bollywood". Your narrowminded outlook prevents you from
seing ANYONE beyond Shahrukh Khan and Ajay Jadeja. Crawl out of that hole
you've put yourself in ! If you are still going to argue that SRK has been
more versatile than Kamal was in his first 6, I'll be glad to debate on it !
Jagadish
shri...@hotmail.com
In article <6jet71$612$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
sjag...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>
> > Why would i waste my time on it ? RAMLI would know Kamal only through
> > Apppu Raja and Velu Nayakan, both of which didn't come in his first 6 years
> > at Kodambakkam. But even then, you never know who might win in RAMLI.
>
> Perhaps its worth reminding you that RAMLI is rec.arts.movies.local.INDIAN
> YOU are talking about "Bollywood". Your narrowminded outlook prevents you from
> seing ANYONE beyond Shahrukh Khan and Ajay Jadeja. Crawl out of that hole
> you've put yourself in !
Moron, you better crawl yourself out of the sensitive hole that you have dug
for yourself namely "i am SouthIndian" and start giving credit where it is
due. And you will be the last person i will come to for knowing the meaning
of "Broad mindedness".Read my post again and start wondering whether i am
right or wrong in saying now that i meant most RAMLIers would not be aware
of Kamalahaasan's first 6 years in Kodambakkam. You better stick to the
related topic ie. either Cricket or Movies in the respective newsgroups or
keep your blabber-mouth shut for ever.
> If you are still going to argue that SRK has been
> more versatile than Kamal was in his first 6, I'll be glad to debate on it !
Yeah, then why don't you start it instead of shooting your mouth off on
crappy irrelavant issues !
Shridhar
sjag...@my-dejanews.com
> > > Why would i waste my time on it ? RAMLI would know Kamal only through
> > > Apppu Raja and Velu Nayakan, both of which didn't come in his first 6
> > > years at Kodambakkam.
Mr Moron, this is what you said - thereby implying that RAMLI knows about
Kamal only when he acted in HINDI movies (Appu Raja and Velu Nayagan are both
dubbed versions of Tamil movies). Interestingly BOTH these movies were
released AFTER 1990 or so. I might remind you that Ek Duje Ke Liye was around
1982-83. So RAMLIers (or Bollywood - which is what you are talking about)
knew about Kamal LONG before Appu Raja or Velu Nayagan. All I asked you to
do was to STOP thinking that RAMLIers are by default Bollywood movies
watchers. If you want to start a newsgroup
rec.arts.movies.local.indian.bollywood, do so by all means !
> Yeah, then why don't you start it instead of shooting your mouth off on
> crappy irrelavant issues !
Since you first talked about Kamal's 1st 6 yrs in relation to SRKs, pls do the
honours. Besides I dont have anything to prove. Kamal v/s SRK is certainly
not a war I want to indulge in and have muck thrown all over me.
jagadish
