Trade experts discuss what went wrong with Hrithik Roshan’s Fighter: “It is neither mass nor class. It’s landing in a no man’s zone; Air Force is a niche subject. Such films don’t have a market in India” : Bollywood News

A lot was expected from the Hrithik Roshan-Deepika Padukone starrer Fighter. Sadly, the film opened below expectations. Though it saw a jump on Republic Day, the collections came down on Saturday and Sunday. The Monday collections of Rs. 7 crores sealed the fate. What shocked the trade and industry was that it was a film that got near-unanimous acclaim and yet, couldn’t grow. We spoke to experts to understand what went wrong with this film.

Trade experts discuss what went wrong with Hrithik Roshan’s Fighter: “It is neither mass nor class. It’s landing in a no man’s zone; Air Force is a niche subject. Such films don’t have a market in India”

What went wrong with Fighter?
Vishek Chauhan, owner of Roopbani Cinema in Purnia, Bihar, said, “Air Force is a niche subject. Such films don’t have a market in India. Secondly, army films in India tend to do well if they are based on real events. Fighter was more of a fictionalized account. Also, two films that have worked big time in this space are Uri (2019) and Border (1997). Border is based on the army and that’s a very massy space. The common man understands it. If the setting in Fighter was changed from Air Force to army, they would have got better results, in my humble opinion. Fighter pilots and air force sound very cool but don't connect with the aam aadmi.”

Vishek added, “Thirdly, Siddharth Anand structures his film in a similar manner. The soundtrack is good but the template of ‘Ishq Jaisa Kuch’ is the same as the songs in his earlier films like Bang Bang (2014), War (2019) and Pathaan (2023). Lastly, his film is neither mass nor class. It’s landing in a no man’s zone. On one hand, you are making a stylized, sexy film like Top Gun. But the villain is over-the-top. Even the protagonist has a shift. He’s quite cool but in the end, he’s made to mouth dialogues that would suit a Sunny Deol. There’s a mismatch of sensibility.”

Vishek Chauhan further explained, “Bollywood’s directors are not organically commercial. They are trying to be commercial. Siddharth should stay true to himself. Atlee didn’t come to Mumbai thinking ‘Main Hindi film bana raha hoon toh thoda slick banana padega’. He made the kind of films that he knows best and that he’s known for down South. And the film, Jawan, worked beautifully. Hence, had Siddharth kept the tone consistent, it would have worked perhaps.”

Trade analyst Atul Mohan agreed, “Fighter was a one-time watch but isme kuch kamiyaan hai; isliye audience ne reject kiya. It was over-stylish and over-classy. There was nothing for the masses.”

He listed the issues with the film, “In the climax, Patty says ‘POK is occupied. Malik hum hai’. He then mouths ‘India Occupied Pakistan’ dialogue. But when you say ‘occupy’, it means that the land is still owned by Pakistan. Instead, it should have been ‘India Owned Pakistan’.”

He continued, “Minni’s father is an educated man who’s running a major airport; he’s not some illiterate villager. His daughter is doing so well for the county. And yet, he’s upset. It wasn’t convincing at all.”

Atul also exulted, “The characters are partying. Roz shaam ko daaru pi rahe hai. They are hardly doing any training. The audience should feel connected with the goings-on. Moreover, the music didn’t work. If the songs were chartbusters, the film would have got a boost. This was not expected from Siddharth Anand. All his films have had great songs.”

A single-screen owner from the heartland of India said, said on condition of anonymity, “Neither I nor my audience have seen Hollywood aerial films. Hence, it took us a while to understand what it means for a fighter pilot to ‘lock’ the enemy pilot. It seemed as if the makers assumed we knew A to Z about fighter planes.”

Trade veteran Taran Adarsh agreed, “The participation of mass pockets was missing. It was evident from the first day itself when the film did not open to the desired numbers. I am sure everyone expected that ‘Ek din toh film Rs. 50 crores maar legi.”

He said, “Fighter is a very well-made film. No two opinions on that. It starred big names, and it was the coming back of Hrithik and Siddharth Anand after War. But we are governed by the box office numbers. In that respect, Fighter has not lived up to the lofty expectations.”

Taran Adarsh also said, “The way it dropped on Monday; it sent shockwaves. It was the real mirror that showed that masses ka kitna disconnect raha hai. If your Sunday was Rs. 30 crores, one expects Monday to touch at least Rs. 20 crores, even with reduced rates.”

Vishek Chauhan shared, “That urgency was never there. Aaram se tickets mil rahi thi. Jo maara maari hoti hai tickets ko leke, which happened for Animal, Gadar 2, Jawan and Pathaan or Dunki and Salaar on the first day, woh iss film ke liye kisi bhi din nahin hui.”

Film exhibitor and distributor Akshaye Rathi explained, “What Fighter lacked is the support from mass areas beyond the urban centres not due its content but also the communication around the film – the promos, songs, the marketing and PR. The mass audience is critical to capture if you want to look at blockbuster collections, given the kind of stakes involved and also the benchmarks set by Pathaan, Gadar 2, Jawan and Animal. This is where Fighter fell short, despite being well-made. I hope Pan-India success can be aimed at in the future because both Hrithik Roshan and Siddharth Anand have what it takes to do so. All it takes is targeting the mass audience and it cannot start four weeks before the release of a film.”

Did the marketing go wrong too?
Many feel that Fighter’s marketing also failed the film. Atul Mohan opined, “If the film had better marketing, the opening number would have been better by Rs. 2-4 crores. The same increase in collections would have happened on Republic Day. So, every day, your collections would have been more than what they eventually were. In the long run, it would have benefited the film.”

He added, “There could be two explanations. Either they saw the film and realized it was not going to work. Hence, why spend? Or they must have assumed ‘Film mein Hrithik hai, Deepika hai, Siddharth hai. Kyun zyada effort karna hai?’. And when critics, who don’t have credibility, are promoting the film, then how is it going to help?”

Akshaye Rathi stated, “A lot of focus of marketing for not just Fighter but most films are using digital media. For these blockbuster films, you need to go way beyond that. You need to be on the streets, find vehicles that reach out to the common man and generate excitement around the star. That can’t happen by getting something trending on social media. That’s very superficial and doesn’t add too much value.”

Taran Adarsh differed, “A lot of people said that awareness nahin tha. I tend to disagree. For any big film to work, you need to have patronage from not just the multiplexes but also the mass pockets. The latter is very important. In this case, that patronage was absolutely missing, except for a few days in the extended weekend. Also, there were complaints about music. I feel music, hype etc, falls into place if the content works. So many films have done well despite low-key publicity.”

Vishek Chauhan also disagreed, “Marketing can only be as good as the film. It cannot make a film run. The makers released the teaser, trailer and songs. What else could they have done?”

Was the 3D version unnecessary?
Fighter was released in 3D version and it was deemed unnecessary. Many theatre managers that Bollywood Hungama spoke to confirmed that the 2D version is being preferred. Vishek Chauhan opened up, “I still can’t figure out why it was released in 3D. I thought they would have some shots or VFX which will enhance the moviegoing experience and will offer the Indian audience something that they have never seen before. But this was a disappointment and it backfired on them. 3D was a gimmick.”

He also said, “People are enjoying it more in 2D. I guess from the second week, we might play it in 2D only at reduced rates so that more people can come to see it.”

Atul Mohan thundered, “3D doesn’t make sense just for 10-15 minutes of action. People get irritated wearing glasses. Only some stories are fit for 3D like Avatar or Brahmastra as these films give unique visual experiences. In Fighter, why should I wear glasses to see characters partying?”

Akshaye Rathi had a slightly different opinion, “3D was an interesting element as it was an aerial thriller and there were enough takers for 2D as well as 3D versions. It’s a matter of personal choice. But it seemed like 3D was an afterthought because the shot-taking didn’t feel like it was done for 3D. That limits the impact of 3D.”

Fighter’s lifetime predictions and final thoughts
When asked how much will be Fighter’s lifetime collections, Taran Adarsh confirmed that it’ll end its run below Rs. 200 crores. Atul Mohan predicted, “The lifetime will be in the range of Rs. 150-200 crores. It’ll be less than Dunki.” Vishek Chauhan said, “It’ll fold around Rs. 170 crores in the best scenario.”

Also Read: Hrithik Roshan addresses criticism towards Fighter’s writing; says Siddharth Anand is a headstrong filmmaker: “It breaks your heart to power down and say no”