u/StandardBuy2288

Kannada cinema once made films for entire families
This is not a post against commercial cinema or hero driven films. Kannada cinema has always celebrated larger than life heroes, and audiences have always enjoyed that experience. The issue is not masculinity in cinema. The issue is emotional imbalance. I genuinely feel Kannada cinema slowly stopped making films for everybody. Earlier, films were watched by entire families together. Men, women, children, and elders all found something emotionally meaningful within the same film. The theatre experience itself felt inclusive. A film was not just about elevating the hero. It was about creating a complete emotional world.
That is why films like America America, Milana, Chandramukhi Pranasakhi, many Dr. Rajkumar films, and several Ananth Nag films continue to stay alive in public memory even today. These films are not remembered only because of their heroes. They are remembered for emotional warmth, family relationships, music, innocence, vulnerability, humour, and human connection. Women in these films mattered to the narrative. Relationships mattered to the narrative. Supporting characters had emotional identity. Even silence carried emotion. If you removed certain characters from these films, the emotional structure itself would collapse.

Kannada cinema once respected children as audiences
One thing people rarely discuss is how Kannada cinema once respected children as audiences. There was a time when films were actively made for children and families. Films like Putani Agent 123, Simhada Mari Sainya, and many similar films treated children as important participants in cinema culture instead of ignoring them completely. There were adventure stories, fantasy worlds, and emotionally accessible narratives where children could see themselves on screen. Today, children are mostly expected to consume whatever adults consume. The idea of creating cinema specifically for children has almost disappeared. And when children disappear from theatre culture, family audiences slowly disappear too.

Women once existed as people, not just “glamour”
Another major shift is the way women are written today. Earlier Kannada films were not perfect in terms of representation, but women still felt emotionally relevant to the story. They influenced decisions, relationships, morality, and emotional conflict. Even in commercial films, women were not merely decorative additions. There was also an era where Malashree carried entire films as the protagonist and became one of the biggest stars in Kannada cinema. But what is interesting is that even then, the films still maintained emotional balance. The male counterparts were also important to the narrative. The stories did not feel like gender wars. They felt like complete worlds populated by emotionally important characters.
Today, many mainstream films either reduce women into glamour additions or overcorrect into highly message driven “female centric” films. But I honestly do not think the core issue is the lack of women centric cinema alone. The larger issue is the lack of women participating in storytelling itself. We need more women writers, directors, editors, producers, and creative decision makers. Because when storytelling spaces become heavily male dominated, women slowly stop being written from lived emotional understanding. They start being written from observation, fantasy, stereotype, or market calculation.

Today many female characters feel replaceable
This is probably the biggest issue in mainstream commercial cinema today. Remove the heroine from many films and almost nothing changes structurally. The fights remain. The elevations remain. The climax remains. The emotional arc of the hero remains mostly untouched. This means the female character was never truly integrated into the emotional architecture of the story. She exists mainly for songs, glamour, romance tracks, or hero validation. Audiences may not consciously analyse this, but they can subconsciously feel the emotional emptiness it creates.

Kannada cinema is becoming emotionally one dimensional
As a result, Kannada cinema today often feels emotionally one dimensional. Many films are built entirely around masculine energy, aggression, dominance, violence, elevation scenes, and slow motion heroism. While these elements can absolutely be entertaining, cinema cannot survive only on adrenaline. It also requires tenderness, emotional contradiction, care, family dynamics, vulnerability, intimacy, and human grounding. Older Kannada cinema understood this balance very well. That is why many older films still feel emotionally richer and more complete even when they were technically simpler.

The audience did not become worse. Cinema became narrower.
I honestly do not think audiences suddenly became worse or less intelligent. I think cinema slowly became narrower in emotional perspective. Women began feeling emotionally excluded from mainstream theatre experiences. Children disappeared from storytelling. Family viewing reduced. Relationships became weaker on screen. And slowly, films started targeting only one emotional demographic instead of society as a whole.

A truly memorable film is not one that only creates whistles in theatres for one weekend. A truly memorable film is one where everybody sees some part of themselves reflected on screen. That is what made older Kannada cinema feel emotionally complete. And maybe that is what many modern films are missing today.

For decades, the Kannada film industry survived, evolved, and thrived. From the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and even well into the early 2000s and 2010s, Kannada cinema had an ecosystem. It had stars, writers, directors, technicians, audiences, theatrical culture, and most importantly, continuity.

Today, however, almost every conversation around the industry sounds the same:

“Kannada film industry is doomed.”
“Audiences are not supporting Kannada films.”
“Theatres are dead.”
“OTT destroyed cinema.”

I disagree with many of these conclusions.

I do not think Kannada cinema is collapsing because audiences suddenly stopped loving cinema. I do not think OTT alone destroyed theatrical culture. I do not think lack of stars is the problem either.

I believe the industry is facing a systemic creative and economic imbalance that has slowly disconnected storytelling from filmmaking itself.

These are my personal observations and analyses from watching the industry closely.

I may be right in some places and wrong in others. But I believe these conversations are necessary.

1. Story Is King, Not “Content”

First, we need to stop reducing cinema into a corporate word called “content.”

Cinema is not content.

A film begins with:
- story,
- screenplay,
- emotional architecture,
- character,
- rhythm,
- visual storytelling.

Story is king.
Screenplay is king.

And that is exactly where we are failing.

Today, producers are willing to spend:
- crores on stars,
- crores on VFX,
- crores on songs,
- crores on marketing,
- crores on set pieces,

but are unwilling to spend even 1–2% of the total budget on writing.

This is one of the biggest reasons the industry is weakening.

We have normalized mediocre writing for too long.

Somewhere, the dangerous belief entered the system that:
“Anybody can become a writer.”
“Anybody can become a filmmaker.”

No.

Every craft requires discipline, observation, technique, and deep understanding. Writing is not merely putting scenes together. Screenplay writing is architecture. It is rhythm. It is emotional mathematics.

And no technology, including AI, can replace genuinely good writers.

The problem is not that Kannada cinema lacks talent.
The problem is that it is not investing enough in writing talent.

2. We Are Investing in Faces Instead of Stories

One of the biggest contradictions in the industry today is this:

A producer is willing to risk huge amounts of money on a star face even when the story does not suit that actor, but is hesitant to back a strong story with unconventional casting.

The logic is understandable:
a star guarantees initial footfall.

But what keeps audiences in theatres after Day 1?

Not the face.
The story.

A weak film with a big star may open well.
But only a strong film sustains.

Instead of spending heavily on wrong casting choices purely for market value, industries need to learn how to sell stories through conviction and promotion.

If a filmmaker truly believes in a story, then marketing should create curiosity around the film itself, not just around the hero.

Today, many producers ask:
“Who is the sellable face?”

The more important question should be:
“What is the emotional experience we are selling?”

Cinema survives on storytelling.
Not on poster value alone.

3. The Kannada Industry Is Not Investing Properly in Mid-Budget Cinema ecosystem

This, in my opinion, is one of the biggest structural crises in Kannada cinema.

Healthy film industries survive on four pillars:
- small films,
- mid-budget films,
- star-driven spectacles,
- experimental cinema.

Today, Kannada cinema is increasingly becoming polarized between:
- ultra-small survival filmmaking,
or
- massive “pan-India” ambition.

The middle layer is collapsing.

And that middle layer is where industries actually build:
- actors,
- writers,
- directors,
- technicians,
- audience trust,
- and sustainable theatrical culture.

Not every film can become another KGF or Kantara.

Industries cannot survive on miracles.

They survive on consistency.

And consistency is built through strong mid-budget filmmaking.

Today, if a filmmaker proposes a well-written 3 crore film with unconventional but suitable casting, the response often becomes:
“Get a bigger star.”

But that same star may charge 1.5 to 2 crores in remuneration alone.

Eventually:
- the budget inflates,
- the story gets compromised,
- the actor may not even suit the role,
- promotions become insufficient,
- and the film loses its identity.

Ironically, the industry ends up risking more money for weaker storytelling.

4. Pan-India Obsession Without Storytelling Is Unsustainable

The “pan-India” wave changed the psychology of filmmaking.

There is nothing wrong with ambition.
There is nothing wrong with scale.

But scale without storytelling becomes noise.

Today, many films are trying to look “pan-India” before becoming emotionally powerful.

Huge budgets.
Massive elevations.
Larger-than-life action.
Loud background scores.
Visual spectacle.

But where is the screenplay?

Where is the emotional truth?

A film does not become universal because it spends 500 or 600 crores.

It becomes universal because human emotions travel.

Many recent “pan-India” projects failed not because audiences rejected scale, but because audiences rejected hollow storytelling.

Worse, the “pan-India” label has also become a financial tool in many cases:
- inflated budgets,
- artificial valuations,
- pre-sale dependency,
- and business models disconnected from theatrical reality.

5. Audience Trust Has Been Damaged

This is a painful truth.

Today, even when genuinely good Kannada films release, audiences hesitate.

Why?

Because years of inconsistent filmmaking have weakened trust.

Audiences have repeatedly encountered:
- weak writing,
- repetitive narratives,
- artificial emotions,
- outdated comedy,
- poor polish,
- trailers revealing entire films,
- and films that feel desperate rather than confident.

Today, if someone says:
“This film is good.”

People still wait.

They wait for reviews.
Then OTT.
Then clips online.
Then maybe never.

This is not entirely the audience’s fault.

Trust is earned through consistency.

6. Marketing Is Not Decoration: It Is the Second Layer of Storytelling

One of the biggest misunderstandings in Kannada cinema is marketing.

Marketing is not a post-production ritual.

Marketing is storytelling.

The first storytelling happens inside the film.
The second storytelling happens through promotion.

A trailer should not merely “inform” audiences that a film exists.
It should create curiosity.
Mystery.
Emotion.
Discussion.

Many films today are promoted mechanically:
- poster,
- teaser,
- trailer,
- interview,
- release.

But audiences today are flooded with entertainment every second.

To pull someone into a theatre, a film must create emotional urgency.

If filmmakers genuinely believe in their stories, they must market those stories with equal conviction.

And one should understand that EVERY story requires UNIQUE marketing.

7. The Distribution System Is Deeply Broken

Another major issue is the distribution structure itself.

Many filmmakers/ producers quietly know this but rarely speak openly about it.

There is a severe lack of transparency in distribution systems:
- unclear accounting,
- weak marketing support,
- poor release planning,
- inconsistent show allocation,
- and films being abandoned within days.

Some distributors behave less like long-term growth partners and more like short-term traders minimizing exposure.

A film cannot survive if:
- audiences are unaware it released,
- shows disappear in two days,
- and promotion is insufficient.

The industry urgently needs:
- greater transparency,
- healthier distributor relationships,
- or stronger producer-to-exhibitor models.

8. Directors Are Becoming Too Desperate to Make Films

This may be uncomfortable to say, but it needs to be said.

Many directors today compromise too early.

A filmmaker may deeply know that:
- the wrong actor is being cast,
- the screenplay changes are weakening the film,
- the emotional rhythm is being damaged,
- compromises are hurting the vision,

but still remain silent because they desperately want the film to happen.

Somewhere, “getting the project” became more important than protecting the film.

Films should come out of conviction.
Not compromise.

A director must have the courage to say:
“This script works this way.
Either make it honestly, or don’t make it.”

Because deep down, filmmakers usually know when a film is getting ruined.

9. OTT Is Not the Villain

I do not believe OTT platforms destroyed Kannada cinema.

OTT is reacting to market behavior.

Today, OTT platforms hesitate to acquire Kannada films because the industry itself weakened theatrical confidence.

Instead of theatrically proving our strength and making OTT platforms come to us, we became dependent on pre-sale economics.

Today, many projects are evaluated backward:
- “What is this actor’s OTT value?”
- “How much satellite recovery is possible?”
- “How much loss can we tolerate?”

Cinema cannot survive only through recovery mathematics.

A healthy industry must first build theatrical trust through storytelling.

Then OTT value naturally follows.

Not the other way around.

10. Kannada Cinema Does Not Need Miracles. It Needs an Ecosystem.

Right now, Kannada cinema survives largely through occasional spectacles and rare breakthroughs.

But industries cannot depend on one miracle every few years.

They need systems.

They need:
- strong writing culture,
- healthier producer vision,
- transparent distribution,
- sustainable mid-budget cinema,
- meaningful marketing,
- theatrical confidence,
- and long-term audience trust.

Most importantly, the industry must stop treating storytelling as secondary.

Because stars will change.
Trends will change.
Platforms will change.

But cinema will always survive on stories.

And if Kannada cinema truly wants to rebuild itself, the rebuilding must begin from the writing table itself.

Daali is extremely desperate to look young and he is looking disastrous in every movie he is making. Even in 666 his hair looks odd. Constant drinking n smoking has damaged his skin and bro looks 50.

I think the reason why most of the ppl are finding it okay or good is because the expectations about it were in minus numbers. Its like the previous movies from them like Martin and The villain was so bad that this is looking watchable. But honestly, the film is not good! Especially the over dramatic dialogues n costumes is intolerable. Tale nov bantu. First half antu proper cringe fest. The heroine’s character irritates u a lot. People who have seen Martin will feel Dhruva is better in this but people who haven’t seen Martin will puke at his performance. Second half’s second half is what is saving the film ashTe. The story is also nothing fresh. It is purely fan service film. Those who enjoy massy cringe n abrupt whistle moments can enjoy the film. Don’t expect the film to make sense in lot of places. Characterisation too is very shallow. N some of the scenes of old Bangalore recreated looks very fake.

Most of the paper reviews are giving it 2-2.5 stars. I think they are right after watching the film.