South Indian Movies Overrated

The term "South Indian Cinema" is used to refer to all four of the different cinema industries of Sandalwood (Kannada), Mollywood, and Tollywood (Telugu). Based on conservative box office projections provided by industry sources, the following is a list of the highest-grossing South Indian movies. The official tracking of statistics is absent, and those who disclose data are regularly persuaded to raise their projections. According to a Mint story from December 2021, the South Indian cinema industry—primarily Tollywood and Kollywood—represents 50% of India's box office data. Cost-effective film production has long been a hallmark of South Indian cinema. But recently, it has made several of the most expensive movies in Indian cinema, like 2.0, Enthiran, Baahubali, and RRR, among others. Rajinikanth and Shriya Saran featured in the 2007 Tamil film Sivaji, which became the first South Indian movie to earn more than 100 crores globally. Enthiran, starring Rajinikanth and Aishwarya Rai, was the first South Indian movie to gross over 300 crores. The 2015 Telugu and Tamil bilingual film Baahubali: The Beginning was the first South Indian movie to earn more than 600 crores globally. The 2017 sequel film Baahubali 2: The Conclusion, which was directed by S. S. Rajamouli, became the first South Indian film as well as the first Indian film to earn more than 1000 crore globally. The principal actors in Prabhas, Rana Daggubati, Anushka Shetty, Tamannaah, Ramya Krishna, and Subbaraju's respective films, Baahubali: The Beginning and Baahubali 2: The Conclusion. With a domestic revenue of $1,429.83 crore, Baahubali 2: The Conclusion (2017) is the highest-grossing movie in India. Are South Indian Movies Really Overrated? The claim that south industries produce superior films to Bollywood is not one we accept. There has recently been this strange belief that south industries produce superior films to Bollywood. This isn't always the case. Let's discuss the content of the two sectors. In recent years, the south has produced some excellent films, like Jallikatu, Super Deluxe, and Vikram Vedha. However, there are ten additional awful masala flicks for every great work. People portray Bollywood as a bad movie-making industry. The Lunchbox, Paan Singh Tomar, Ship of Theusus, Tumbbad, Andhadhun, Badhaai Ho, Trapped, etc. are a few examples of classics. In actuality, south movies continue to serve as the model for worldwide memes about Indian films. People compare the poorest Bollywood movies with the finest south movies, which leads them to believe that the south is the model for excellent content. People would remark that "see, we produce films like Jallikattu while Bollywood continues to produce dreck like Baaghi." Why don't we contrast the greatest Bollywood films with the worst South Asian films for those people? The world will appear extremely different. Why not compare Theri to something like Rang de Basanti? In actuality, the south boasts more naive supporters than Bollywood. Just take a peek at Rajnikant's followers. He used to be a superb actor, but his recent films have been complete garbage and fan service. Temples are constructed for him. What specifically did he do for that? They squander gallons of milk on his posters, they cretins. Fighting has broken out when people discuss their favourite actors. Bollywood fans are far superior in this regard, at least. Fans of Salman may be completely insane, but they haven't been that stupid. Yes, Bollywood does really produce gritty masala films. But how does it differ from south Indian masala films? Both the south and Bollywood have their fair share of great films and humiliating movies. The only argument against it that we can agree on is that Bollywood has a wider audience and hence more resources to produce better films. The majority of folks are simply joining the bandwagon aside from this. ALSO READ: When To Expect Call Of The Night Season 2 Release Date? Are South Indian Movies Underrated In Terms Of Story And Music? Yes, south Indian films are stupid and foolish. Bollywood falls into the same category, although South Indian films are sillier. Allow me to explain. The first example is Robot, which was intended as a joke about how cheap science fiction can be (the animation appears to have been created by Rajnikanth at random using an animation program), yet the crowd couldn't stop laughing. The fact is that south Indian movies have a lot of action that seems to defy science and everything looks completely inconsequential. Songs are the more stupid component. In most songs, the hero acts out some embarrassingly cheesy romance scene as two teams, one male and one female, led by the main performers, move their bodies irrationally in various directions. The communist indoctrination in the films just serves to increase how unpleasant these films are. Even some heroes go by the moniker of Stalin! Songs are the more stupid component. In most songs, the hero acts out some embarrassingly cheesy romance scene as two teams, one male and one female, led by the main performers, move their bodies irrationally in various directions. The communist indoctrination in the films just serves to increase how unpleasant these films are. Even some heroes go by the moniker of Stalin. Why do South Indian Movies do so Much Extra? We understand the question's underlying meanings, and these findings are applicable for someone who is unfamiliar with the pop cultural standards of any particular cultural presence from anywhere around the globe. It's true that many south Indian movies used to have so much "overacting" and childish material that most of it was considered to be cringe-worthy. The evolution of the business into a unique kind of entertainment with its own clever framework designed by veterans in the field at that time was more pronounced during the golden age of south Indian film when cinema became much more than mere drama. Prior to it, cinema was more of a cutting-edge extension of drama and the theatre as a result of the world's rapid technical growth that time south Indian movie cinema didn’t grow much at that time and didn’t create well artists. This appeared to attract more of the "theatre soldiers" actors from the stage acting they had previously been doing into the film business. You should see one of these stage dramas if you are unfamiliar with them. They really do exhibit what you would term "overacting." However, it was unavoidably a grandiose requirement for the populace at the time. The stage players took great delight in portraying persons, emotions, and other things in imaginative and exaggerated ways. It was considered socially acceptable for artists to fully display their talents in order to gain the audience's respect and admiration. In contrast to now, entertainment back then had a more direct and intimate manner of expressing emotions, aspirations, and imaginative, fictional themes and concepts to people. It was the zenith of something really human, a need for more than simply the bare minimum. These historical lessons demonstrate how the requirements of the population have changed through time and how the business world has adapted to meet those changes. But to get to the point, acting in movies started to become more of a speciality after the Indian film industry's golden period. A common progenitor led to the separation of drama and film. And during this crucial transitional period, when the film was still in its infant stages of innocence, visionaries, adventurists, and more inquisitive individuals came across it. They lacked any strongholds or a lighthouse to direct them, especially the directors of the south movie who didn’t understand the need for modern cinema and kept producing movies that didn’t get much popular. And they invested what they knew in this new sector. Stage acting, exaggerated postures, dances, and a graphic demonstration of skillfully manipulating the human body to their whims were all there. True, there was a wider variety of workers on the film crew besides only the performers. However, the performers were the heart of the business, and in later years they took on the role of the industry's spokespersons. Additionally, the preservation of the past and "norms" is highly valued in Indian and some movies do not depict that culture. This facet of culture has also permeated the world of film. When cinema entered its golden era and advanced further into colour and digital formats, it nonetheless carried over certain vestiges from earlier eras. Although contemporary artists in the field are progressively changing, if you look closely you may still detect traces of the past. Even now, South Indian films appear to have a lot more of this thing in their movies There is now a new generation of directors, performers, and technicians. The "overacting" and "illogical action" that south Indian movies, in general, were criticized for have long since disappeared. Actors nowadays are more relaxed, more authentic, and more conscious of the image they need to project to the current audience. And even on a global scale, Indian film is one of the most advanced forms of art. As an additional note, I would mention that the question was asked between five and ten years ago. But we also acknowledge, with a twinge of slight humiliation, that certain movies still use these archaic motifs in this highly evolved and technologically advanced day. But their presence is not illogical or unjustified. The previous generations are still alive now. They remain, healthy and prospering. Such movies are still produced for this group of people and those who like the subject matter. Where there is a demand, there will also be a supply, as the saying goes south movies are of repetitive action and story which is overwhelming. READ NEXT: Call Of The Night Episode 4 Release Date And All Other Updates!