Lets be honest about it. Even though "Businessman" is a hit, it is helpful to understand the context and the scenario emerging in Tollywood. I am no blind fan of any superstar or megastar but would like to take facts headlong and not have sentimental leanings. What is an industry hit? What is a superhit? These definitions easily get smudged. An industry hit means a movie that has made money for the producers and the distributtors but not liked overall by the public. If the public like the movie unanimously, then its a superhit. By all counts, "Businessman" is an industry hit but whether it is a superhit - it is yet to prove. Which is why, despite liking the movie, what I am surprised is when Film heroes give interviews on every channel and every day more regularly than newsreaders in order to make the public believe that it is a superhit. That, I am telling, is an unhealthy trend.
Something similar to what Superstar Krishna did many years ago. When it is becoming clear that Natasekhara Krishna was not likely to get a best actor award in any awards, and there was a title "Superstar" poll in a filmy magazine called "Jyotichitra" (now defunct), all the fans of the matinee idol - about five lakh copies of the magazine - were bought and everybody unanimously voted for Krishna as the only Superstar. I remember this distinctly as it happened during the time I was growing up on movies. Consequently, Krishna was voted "Superstar" and the title became a permanent prefix to an actor who despite his goodness and discipline may have never won an award for best actor. The ongoing saga of superstars vying for the next top slot is similar to that in scale and influence. By drumming up that a movie is a hit, nigh, superhit, they are trying to influence similar type of verdicts- by painting the town red with records, getting guys like RGV to drool over the movie etc. This is not a healthy trend.
Now lets come to the topic of number of prints and collections commensurate with them - are they enough? This is the question everybody is asking. Here I have a diferent take. Yes, collections have definitely undergone a sea change. It is not enough for a movie to run for 50 days or even a month to make money. This is because, cinema prints have also got the benefit of technology. Today, there are broadly, two types of cinema prints - UFO Cube format and the regular print. One format which runs on hard-disk equipment (like a CD Player projector) which is aired on both old-world theatres and multiplexes like Prasads at a cost of Rs.10,000 per week. That means, the same equipment can be used around RTC theaters, Kukatpaly theaters, etc. at a staggeringly low cost. The other format of the print costs less than Rs.50,000. So, gone are the days when a single print used to cost Rs.5 lacs or even Rs.3 or 2 lacs apiece. So, technically, if a film is released with 2000 prints, it is correct to assume that the cost of prints are Rs.12 crores. (2000 *6 lacs each). So, let it be abundantly clear that a film print is no longer exorbitantly higher which can deter a distributor from making more available to an area. Now, I come to the point of the movie's economics and the costs of distrbuting versus bidding costs. You can make helluva money on a movie with more prints and it is not necessary to make it run for 50 days or so. So collections do matter because film print costs have more or less become a lower notional almost variable cost. The only point I want to make is dont chase records and dont tom-tom about the collections in the same breadthy. Agreed, by tomorrow Republic Day, most of the distributors in some areas will make 100% of their bidding amounts from "Businessman" but think everybody has made money. The higher you bid, the more you stand to lose if you dont work out the economics well. The trick in distribution lies in bidding well and not get carried away. Once you bid well, you have the technology to recover the money faster. For example, Kukatpally and Dislukhanagar distributors have made their money almost but UK distributors have lost money in "Businessman" because of over-the-board bidding. But I hope you appreciate the nuances of distribution and the follies of records.
Something similar to what Superstar Krishna did many years ago. When it is becoming clear that Natasekhara Krishna was not likely to get a best actor award in any awards, and there was a title "Superstar" poll in a filmy magazine called "Jyotichitra" (now defunct), all the fans of the matinee idol - about five lakh copies of the magazine - were bought and everybody unanimously voted for Krishna as the only Superstar. I remember this distinctly as it happened during the time I was growing up on movies. Consequently, Krishna was voted "Superstar" and the title became a permanent prefix to an actor who despite his goodness and discipline may have never won an award for best actor. The ongoing saga of superstars vying for the next top slot is similar to that in scale and influence. By drumming up that a movie is a hit, nigh, superhit, they are trying to influence similar type of verdicts- by painting the town red with records, getting guys like RGV to drool over the movie etc. This is not a healthy trend.
Now lets come to the topic of number of prints and collections commensurate with them - are they enough? This is the question everybody is asking. Here I have a diferent take. Yes, collections have definitely undergone a sea change. It is not enough for a movie to run for 50 days or even a month to make money. This is because, cinema prints have also got the benefit of technology. Today, there are broadly, two types of cinema prints - UFO Cube format and the regular print. One format which runs on hard-disk equipment (like a CD Player projector) which is aired on both old-world theatres and multiplexes like Prasads at a cost of Rs.10,000 per week. That means, the same equipment can be used around RTC theaters, Kukatpaly theaters, etc. at a staggeringly low cost. The other format of the print costs less than Rs.50,000. So, gone are the days when a single print used to cost Rs.5 lacs or even Rs.3 or 2 lacs apiece. So, technically, if a film is released with 2000 prints, it is correct to assume that the cost of prints are Rs.12 crores. (2000 *6 lacs each). So, let it be abundantly clear that a film print is no longer exorbitantly higher which can deter a distributor from making more available to an area. Now, I come to the point of the movie's economics and the costs of distrbuting versus bidding costs. You can make helluva money on a movie with more prints and it is not necessary to make it run for 50 days or so. So collections do matter because film print costs have more or less become a lower notional almost variable cost. The only point I want to make is dont chase records and dont tom-tom about the collections in the same breadthy. Agreed, by tomorrow Republic Day, most of the distributors in some areas will make 100% of their bidding amounts from "Businessman" but think everybody has made money. The higher you bid, the more you stand to lose if you dont work out the economics well. The trick in distribution lies in bidding well and not get carried away. Once you bid well, you have the technology to recover the money faster. For example, Kukatpally and Dislukhanagar distributors have made their money almost but UK distributors have lost money in "Businessman" because of over-the-board bidding. But I hope you appreciate the nuances of distribution and the follies of records.
