When it was announced that Hrithik Roshan was going to star in an action-packed movie titled “Fighter,” expectations were high. As his last venture, “Vikram Vedha,” flopped despite being a great movie.
“Fighter” was intended to be an aerial combat movie, a concept similar to “Top Gun: Maverick.” Despite a promising start at the box office, the movie collapsed after the first weekend. Director Siddharth Anand had a peculiar take on the film’s underperformance.
Siddharth Anand claimed that the reason for the movie’s lack of viewership was that many people had never experienced the thrill of flying in an airplane. According to him, “around 90% of Indian masses have never been on a plane, so they can never know how it feels to fly mid-air. It’s an alien thing for them.”
This argument appears baseless and serves as an excuse for the film’s failure. As someone rightly pointed out, by this logic a movie like “Animal” became a blockbuster because 90% of people wake up and shoot 100 men with a machine gun.
The failure of “Fighter” can be attributed to its poor marketing and a lack of engagement with the general audience. While Hrithik Roshan’s core fans likely attended the movie in the first weekend, sustained success requires broader appeal or solid engagement. For example, in the case of “Pathan,” Shah Rukh Khan’s comeback acted as a driving force, and in “Animal,” the hysteria around Sandeep Reddy Vanga’s promise of violence and controversies fueled interest. “Fighter” lacked these elements, and it couldn’t survive beyond the Republic Week. Share your thoughts on this analysis.
Fighter Director says movie flopped coz 90% people haven’t been to airports.
Animal Film was a blockbuster coz 90% people wake up in the morning and shoot 100s of people with a large machine gun. pic.twitter.com/byH1pk1vYu
— Gabbar (@GabbbarSingh) February 2, 2024
