Right pricing helps. And PAA is a glittering example of it. The Bachchans and Sunil Manchanda could've sold PAA as a Rs. 30 cr. project, but they didn't. Similarly, Big Pictures could've flooded the market with 1,200 + screens. But PAA isn't a hardcore commercial film like BUNTY AUR BABLI or SARKAR or SARKAR RAJ. Hence, the strategy of releasing it at plexes or A-class single screens made wise business sense.
Like I've always said, it's not the film, but the price that fails. PAA would end up being a paying proposition because it has the merits and also because it was made within a certain budget [Rs. 17 cr., includes P. & A. expenses] and the revenue accrued from theatrical, Satellite and Home Video rights should ensure profits for its investors.
It's high time our film-makers and actors specifically realize that if the pricing is right, it would only benefit them in the final tally. It's a known fact that the budgets of most films have gone haywire thanks to the substantial chunk charged by the actors. We need to get the economics right, to begin with.
The market is picking up and I keep hearing obnoxious figures being paid to some sought-after names. An actor is adamant on 12... A leading actress wants to be at par with her colleagues and is quoting 10... The director has just signed a film for 11... Unbelievable, but true!
RADIO may've recovered its investment [that's what its makers are claiming], but the theatrical business is disappointing. Check out the business in various circuits and you'd know where it stands. Even if you go by the producer's statement of recovering the investment and making profits, RADIO doesn't qualify as a Hit film.
To cite an example, Karan Johar may've made profits on KURBAAN by selling it to UTV for a handsome price, but has UTV also made money on its investment? It may be a Hit for the producer, but what about the distributors?
RADIO hasn't lived up the expectations and that's a fact!