By T N Ashok
For decades, Bollywood operated on a simple formula. Cast a superstar, spend lavishly on songs and action sequences, release the film across thousands of screens, and wait for the cash registers to ring. The bigger the budget, the bigger the expected success.
That formula is breaking down. Crashing with producers bleeding as the film flops for spectacles alone don’t make a film. A good story does. Many of them do not have new stories or repeat the old formulaic stories which audiences reject outright.
Across India’s film industry, small and medium-budget films are increasingly delivering extraordinary returns on investment while expensive star-driven spectacles are collapsing under the weight of their own ambition. The shift reflects a profound change in audience behaviour, especially among millennials and Gen Z viewers who consume content on smartphones, tablets and streaming platforms and have little patience for weak storytelling.
The message from the box office is becoming impossible to ignore: story is king again. Take the example of 12th Fail. Made on a budget of roughly Rs 20 crore and headlined by Vikrant Massey, an actor without traditional superstar status, the film went on to gross nearly Rs 70 crore. That represents more than three times its production cost and transformed the film into one of the biggest success stories of recent years.
Similarly, Laapataa Ladies, backed by producer Kiran Rao, was reportedly made for around Rs 5 crore and earned approximately Rs 27 crore. The film did not have an army of superstars. It had something increasingly valuable in modern cinema — a compelling story that connected with audiences.
The trend continues with newer releases. Main Vaapas Aaunga climbed steadily from Rs 1.15 crore on its opening day to Rs 4.35 crore on its second Saturday, demonstrating the power of positive word-of-mouth. In Telugu cinema, Samantha Ruth Prabhu’s MaaInti Bangaaram, reportedly produced on a budget of about Rs 20 crore, surged to approximately Rs 51 crore during its opening weekend.
The lesson is straightforward. Audiences are willing to spend money if the story engages them. They are no longer willing to pay merely for spectacle. This creates a serious challenge for big-budget productions.
When a producer spends Rs 100 crore, Rs 150 crore, or even Rs 300 crore on a film, the economics become brutal. Such films require massive nationwide releases, often on 8,000 to 10,000 screens, and need sustained occupancy levels beyond the opening weekend. A successful first week is no longer enough. The movie must hold strongly into the second week and ideally remain dominant into the third week.
The third week is where genuine profits often begin. A film that collapses after its opening weekend rarely recovers its enormous production and marketing costs. This is precisely what has happened to several recent Bollywood spectacles.
Consider Bade Miyan Chote Miyan. Mounted on a colossal budget estimated at around Rs 350 crore and starring Akshay Kumar and Tiger Shroff, the film struggled to recover its investment and reportedly generated only a fraction of its cost at the box office.
Then came Sikandar, featuring Salman Khan, one of the industry’s most expensive stars. Despite its star power and massive promotional campaign, the film reportedly earned far below expectations relative to its production cost.
Tiger Shroff’s Baaghi 4, Ajay Devgn’s Son of Sardaar 2, and the ambitious Maidaan also found themselves trapped in the same vicious cycle: enormous investment, weak audience retention, and disappointing returns.
Perhaps the most striking example is Vishal Bhardwaj’s ambitious O Romeo. Produced at an estimated Rs 150 crore, the film reportedly recovered only a fraction of its cost. Likewise, Varun Dhawan’s Hai Jawani TuIshq HonaHai failed to justify its approximately Rs 95 crore budget.
What explains this widening gap between winners and losers? The answer may lie in how audiences consume entertainment today. The traditional moviegoer of the 1970s, 1980s and even early 2000s belonged largely to the Baby Boomer and Generation X demographics. Cinema was a major form of mass entertainment. Viewers often watched films because of the stars involved.
Today’s audience behaves differently. Millennials and Gen Z viewers live in a world dominated by Netflix, YouTube, Instagram Reels and short-form digital content. Their attention spans are constantly challenged by an endless stream of alternatives. If a film fails to hook them quickly, they disengage.
Many producers mistakenly interpret this shift as a demand for bigger spectacles. The evidence suggests otherwise. Audiences are not rejecting scale. They are rejecting empty scales. A spectacular action sequence can impress viewers for five minutes. A compelling narrative can hold them for three hours.
This distinction is crucial. A producer can spend Rs 50 crore on visual effects, another Rs 30 crore on action choreography, and another Rs 20 crore on exotic locations. But if the screenplay lacks emotional engagement, the audience quickly loses interest. Once negative reviews and social media reactions begin circulating, collections can collapse overnight.
Word-of-mouth has become the most powerful force in Indian cinema. In the social media era, every moviegoer is effectively a film critic. WhatsApp groups, Instagram posts, YouTube reviews and X discussions determine whether a film survives beyond Friday.
This is why smaller films often outperform expectations. Their lower budgets reduce financial risk. More importantly, they are frequently built around scripts rather than star salaries. Industry insiders often point out that major stars can consume 30 to 50 percent of a film’s budget through acting fees and profit-sharing arrangements. In some productions, two lead actors may collectively account for half the total expenditure before a single frame is shot.
That leaves less money for script development and increases pressure on box-office performance. The Telugu actor AdiviSesh recently offered a useful perspective while discussing SS Rajamouli’s upcoming SSMB29. According to Sesh, Rajamouli’s large budgets should not be viewed as reckless extravagance. Nobody calls James Cameron’s Avatar a splurge.
Budgets, he argued, are dictated by the filmmaker’s vision and the demands of the story. That distinction matters. A large budget supporting a compelling narrative is fundamentally different from a large budget designed merely to showcase stars, explosions and visual spectacle.
Audiences appear willing to support the former but increasingly reject the latter. Another controversial question continues to circulate within trade circles: Are reported production budgets always accurate? Some analysts argue that official budget figures can sometimes be inflated. The Indian film industry has long been dogged by allegations regarding opaque financing structures, accounting practices and exaggerated cost declarations.
Critics occasionally wonder whether inflated budgets help explain certain financial outcomes, allowing producers to report lower profits or justify disappointing box-office returns.
There is no conclusive evidence supporting such claims in most individual cases. However, the lack of complete transparency in film financing continues to fuel speculation among trade observers. What is beyond dispute is the growing divergence between investment and returns.
A Rs 5 crore film earning Rs 25 crore represents a phenomenal success. A Rs 300 crore film earning Rs 150 crore represents a financial disaster. Investors care about returns, not headlines. The emerging economics of Indian cinema increasingly favour disciplined budgets, strong scripts and authentic storytelling. Spectacle still matters, but only when it serves a narrative purpose.
Bollywood’s future may therefore belong not to the biggest spender but to the smartest storyteller. The audience has spoken. They are no longer buying tickets for stars alone. They are buying tickets for stories. And in today’s marketplace, a good story may be the most valuable special effect of all. (IPA Service)
