Tamil’s top director, once known for creating memorable films that never fade, is back with “Indian 2.” The result is loud and clear: this sequel has raised doubts about whether the Shankar era is over.
Shankar split “Indian 2” into two parts: “Indian 2” and “Indian 3,” with the trailer for “Indian 3” even being played in theaters.
This serves as a harsh lesson for all directors who are getting greedy after seeing the success of sequels like “KGF 2.” In reality, except for “Baahubali 2,” there was no film that genuinely required a second part or had a true cliffhanger.
The odd thing is that some directors, after spending months on set, suddenly announce that their movie requires two parts due to its large scale.
Is this a joke? Did the director not have any idea about the scope of the film when they locked the script and started shooting? Again, it’s all about greed and business. They leave room for a second part with the hope that the first part will be successful so they can mint easy money from the second part.
Some directors even fail to narrate their story in a solid three-hour film and then use the excuse that they need another part to complete the story because of world-building and other reasons.
Now, Shankar, who delivered a regular commercial film like “Indian 2,” also split his film into two parts. Audiences have rejected this idea, which will surely impact “Indian 3” if he is still serious about releasing it.
It’s clear that for the sake of two parts, Shankar bored audiences to death with outdated scenes and disjointed storytelling. In fact, the “Indian 3” trailer received somewhat positive responses in theaters. Had Shankar not thought of splitting it into two parts, he might have delivered at least a one-time decent watch.
It’s not only Shankar who has learned a lesson. This is a lesson for every director who gets greedy and splits their films into two parts to make money, rather than because the story demands it.
