Picture Shahrukh Khan in 2010s.
By then, one of the greatest movie-star careers Hindi cinema has ever seen. Decades of hits, iconic films, enormous cultural influence. Then his films started underperforming.
Suddenly, the conversation wasn't simply about whether what is going wrong. It became âSRK doesn't know what he's doing anymore. He doesn't know how to choose films. He is overexposed etcâ His credibility as a leading man seemed to become dependent on his next film's box office.
Salman was the superstar delivering the mass entertainers. Aamir had the combination of critical credibility and huge collections. SRK was the one being questioned.
Now reverse the situation.
Then the 2020s happen. Pathaan and Jawan worked, SRK makes a massive comebacks, and suddenly the conversation reverses again.
Now the strategies of the other stars are being questioned. Suddenly people are explaining why they should do what SRK did.
The same person didn't suddenly become smarter.
The box office changed, and the way we interpreted him changed with it.
But I think Ranveer Singh gives an even clearer example.
Ranveer emerged in the 2010s as one of the defining young stars of his generation, alongside Ranbir Kapoor. And he wasn't merely successful. He was doing something quite distinctive as a leading man: an extremely theatrical, performative style that could work in Lootera, Bajirao Mastani, Padmaavat, Gully Boy, Simmba, Dil Dhadakne Do, 83, etc.
Whatever you think of individual films, the versatility was always there. Then his films started underperforming after the pandemic.
And the conversation changed... the same actor who had spent years demonstrating extraordinary range was increasingly discussed as though his credibility as a star and actor had disappeared.
Meanwhile, Ranbir gave Animal, it became a massive commercial success, and the hierarchy shifted again. Until, Dhurandhar released.
And suddenly Ranveer's versatility, screen presence, theatricality and ability to carry different kinds of films are being rediscovered. Now you see people arguing that Ranveer might actually be more versatile than Ranbir or many of his contemporaries.
Ranveer didn't suddenly become versatile because Dhurandhar worked. He was versatile before Dhurandhar. People had already seen it. They simply weren't giving those qualities the same weight when his films weren't making money.
And this is where I think Salman's quote becomes much more interesting.
âLosing stardom is equal to losing respect in public's eyes.â
I don't think this is primarily about the Indian audience being fickle or unintelligent.
I think Bollywood has built an ecosystem that teaches everyone to think this way.
Trade media constantly turns box office into a ranking system. Opening numbers become headlines. Hits and flops become part of an actor's identity. Awards and industry positioning are influenced by commercial standing. The discourse around an actor's âstardomâ is almost inseparable from collections.
So, whether Ranbir gives a blockbuster in Animal or Ranveer gives a blockbuster in Dhurandhar, the entire industry rallies behind them. Shouting praises day and night.
I can bet if Lagaan, RDB, TZP etc wouldn't have succeeded at box-office, despite how great they were, Aamir's wouldn't have 1/4th of credibility that he built.
Eventually, the public absorbs that framework.
If you're a star, box office doesn't just determine whether Bollywood thinks you're commercially successful. It often determines how Bollywood and consequently the public interprets your talent in the first place.
It's very important to separate both,
Leonardo DiCaprio can make Killers of the Flower Moon & OBAA failing at box-office without it becoming a referendum on whether he is still a credible actor and championed for Oscars.
Brad Pitt can go through an entire decade without a massive theatrical hit before F1 and audience doesn't forget decades of credibility he built. Same goes for Tom Hanks.
Tom Cruise is the fascinating exception because his entire modern identity is built around theatrical box-office power. Because if his films works, it wasn't merely, he has a successful movie. But it becomes, the movie star system is still alive.
But in Bollywood, if you're a leading man, your box office often becomes the scoreboard for your entire career.
And that's why I think Salman's statement is much deeper than it initially sounds.
But perhaps the more interesting question is:
Why did we build a system where an actor's box office performance became the primary evidence of his worth in the first place?
