Muntashir Calls Adipurush a 'Failed Attempt', Spares Ramayana
- Muntashir calls Adipurush a 'failed attempt'
- Writer refuses comparison with Nitesh Tiwari's Ramayana
- Praises Yash's role in upcoming Ramayana
- Adipurush music was a hit, says writer
- No shame in admitting failure, Muntashir states
Manoj Muntashir stopped the comparison game cold. The writer of the 2023 film *Adipurush* admitted on Wednesday that his movie was a "failed attempt." He explicitly asked the media and the public not to drag Nitesh Tiwari's upcoming *Ramayana* into the discussion. Muntashir spoke to reporters in Mumbai, offering a rare moment of unvarnished honesty in an industry known for spinning failure. "There should be no shame in admitting that *Adipurush* couldn't meet the expectations," Muntashir said. "People who are associated with the film made it with a lot of effort, but it was a failed attempt."
This admission comes just months before the release of *Ramayana*, the most expensive Indian film ever made. The timing is critical. Trade analysts note that separating the two projects is essential for the new film's commercial success. *Adipurush* became a cultural flashpoint for all the wrong reasons. It starred Prabhas, a major pan-India star, and promised a modern retelling of the epic Ramayana. Instead, it triggered a boycott movement and faced legal complaints for its dialogues and visual effects. Muntashir's comments today serve as a formal concession of defeat. They also act as a protective buffer for Tiwari's film. By calling *Adipurush* a failure, Muntashir is trying to quarantine the toxicity that surrounded his project. He wants to ensure that the audience walks into theaters for *Ramayana* with a clean slate.
"It is better not to compare *Ramayana* with *Adipurush*," he insisted. "Everyone associated with the film put in a lot of effort, but it was a failed attempt." The writer did not mince words. He used the specific phrase "failed attempt" three times during his interaction with the press. This repetition signals a deliberate strategy. The industry is watching closely. After a series of high-profile flops, Bollywood cannot afford another misstep with a subject as sensitive as religion. *Ramayana* is not just a movie; it is a litmus test for the industry's ability to handle faith without offending the audience. Muntashir's surrender is perhaps the first step in clearing the air.
The writer previously called *Adipurush* the "biggest mistake" of his life. Today, he doubled down on that sentiment but added a layer of respect for the new team. He acknowledged that while his team tried, the result did not land. "No shame in admitting," he said. This phrase is likely to become the defining soundbite of this saga. It shifts the narrative from defensive explanations to simple acceptance. For US readers unfamiliar with the stakes, understand this: *Adipurush* was supposed to be India's answer to Hollywood's big-budget mythological epics. It crashed hard. Now, *Ramayana* is the next hope. The psychological barrier Muntashir is trying to dismantle is the 'guilt by association' that often plagues genres. If one superhero movie fails, the next one struggles. If one mythological epic offends, the next one is viewed with suspicion. Muntashir is effectively saying, 'Burn the straw man so the real temple can stand.'
Anatomy of a Box Office Disaster
*Adipurush* did not just underperform; it imploded. The film released in June 2023 with a massive budget of approximately $60 million (₹500 crore). It needed to be a blockbuster just to break even. Instead, it saw its collections drop by 70% on its second day of release. Trade experts described the crash as unprecedented for a film featuring a star of Prabhas's caliber. The backlash centered on two things: poor visual effects and cringe-inducing dialogues. Muntashir wrote those dialogues. Lines like "Lanka lagenge" and "Kapda tange nahi, bhi dhang pe nahi" became memes across social media. For a devout audience, these lines felt disrespectful to the source material. The Ramayana is a holy text for millions. Turning its characters into caricatures spouting one-liners was a fatal error.
"The audience felt cheated," said a senior distributor based in Delhi. "They came to see Lord Ram on screen. They saw a cartoon version instead." The financial damage was severe. Producers reportedly lost over $40 million on the venture. The film's failure also triggered a wider debate about Bollywood's disconnect with Indian sentiment. It wasn't just a bad movie; it was seen as a cultural insult. This context explains why Muntashir is so eager to distance *Ramayana* from his film. The shadow of *Adipurush* is long. Nitesh Tiwari, the director of the smash hit *Dangal*, has a massive burden on his shoulders. He has to prove that a mythological epic can be made with both grandeur and reverence.
Muntashir's admission highlights the specific pitfalls Tiwari must avoid. The failure of *Adipurush* wasn't just technical; it was tonal. The film tried to be cool and contemporary. It forgot that the subject matter demands gravity. Sources close to the *Ramayana* production suggest the script has undergone rigorous vetting by religious scholars. They are not taking any chances. The contrast between the two approaches is stark. *Adipurush* relied heavily on green screen technology and rapid-fire dialogue. *Ramayana* is shooting on massive sets with practical effects to ground the fantasy in reality. The cast includes Ranbir Kapoor as Ram and Sai Pallavi as Sita. These actors are known for their intensity and preparation. The difference in intent is palpable even before the trailer drops.
Muntashir recognizes this. His "failed attempt" comment is an acknowledgement that *Adipurush* got the fundamentals wrong. It tried to commodify faith. *Ramayana*, by all accounts, is trying to celebrate it. This distinction is vital for the box office. The Indian audience has shown it will reject films that mock their beliefs. But they will also embrace films that honor them. The success of *The Kerala Story* and *Kantara* proves this point. Muntashir knows this. He knows that for *Ramayana* to succeed, the ghost of *Adipurush* must be exorcised completely. His comments today are an attempt to perform that exorcism publicly. The industry is at a crossroads where the 'woke' or 'modernized' interpretation of ancient texts is facing severe headwinds. The audience wants authenticity, not adaptation. They want the *Ramayana* they grew up with, not a version filtered through a westernized lens of what an action movie should look like.
Yash and the Ravana Challenge
The conversation inevitably turned to the cast of the new film. Muntashir specifically praised Yash, the superstar who plays Ravana in Tiwari's *Ramayana*. "Yash is a very good actor, and there is no doubt about that," Muntashir told reporters. "My best wishes are with every film that takes our story to the world stage." This is a significant endorsement. Yash became a global sensation with the *KGF* franchise. His casting as the ten-headed demon king sent shockwaves through the industry. Ravana is a complex role. He is a villain, but also a scholar, a devotee of Shiva, and a warrior of immense skill. In the Indian tradition, he is not a one-dimensional bad guy. Playing him requires nuance.
*Adipurush* failed in this regard. Its villain, Raavan, played by Saif Ali Khan, was criticized for a look that resembled a barbarian or a pirate rather than the learned king of Lanka. The portrayal lacked the gravitas and the tragic arrogance that defines the character in the epic. The audience felt the character was reduced to a generic heavy, devoid of the philosophical weight that makes Ravana such a compelling antagonist. Yash faces the opposite challenge. He is a 'mass hero'—an actor defined by his ability to command the screen and drive box office numbers through sheer charisma. Can a star known for playing the hero effectively play the villain without upstaging the protagonist?
This is a delicate balancing act for Nitesh Tiwari. If Yash is too charismatic, the audience's sympathy might shift, altering the moral fabric of the story. If he is subdued, it wastes the actor's primary asset. Early reports suggest that Tiwari is treating Ravana as the 'hero of his own story,' a tragic figure brought down by his ego (ahankara). This approach aligns with classical interpretations of the Ramayana. Muntashir's praise for Yash suggests that the industry believes the *KGF* star has the range to pull this off. Unlike *Adipurush*, which seemed to cast stars first and fit them into roles later, the casting of *Ramayana* appears to be driven by character suitability. Yash's involvement also guarantees a massive opening in the South Indian market, a territory that was unforgiving toward *Adipurush*. By securing a star who respects the source material's gravity, the new film is already correcting the PR missteps of its predecessor.
The Nitesh Tiwari Factor: Restoring Credibility
While Muntashir's mea culpa is significant, the true weight of carrying the *Ramayana* legacy falls on director Nitesh Tiwari. As the director of *Dangal* and *Chhichhore*, Tiwari has established himself as a filmmaker who understands the emotional core of the Indian family unit. His films are rarely about spectacle; they are about relationships, sacrifice, and resilience. This is precisely the tonal shift required to wash away the bad taste left by *Adipurush*. Where *Adipurush* prioritized visual flair over narrative substance, Tiwari's filmography suggests a return to storytelling fundamentals.
The production design of Tiwari's *Ramayana* further emphasizes this shift. Unlike the green-screen heavy aesthetic that doomed *Adipurush*, reports from the sets indicate the construction of sprawling, practical sets in Mumbai and other locations. This commitment to physical reality helps actors perform with a grounding that CGI often lacks. When an actor touches a real pillar rather than a tennis ball on a stick, the performance changes. This tactile approach is expected to lend the film a sense of 'epic realism' that bridges the gap between mythology and history.
Furthermore, Tiwari is navigating the minefield of religious sensitivity with extreme caution. The team has reportedly consulted with various religious scholars and historians to ensure that the depiction of the characters aligns with the Sanatan Dharma tradition. This is a direct response to the *Adipurush* controversy, where the 'creative liberties' taken with the characters' appearances and dialogues were seen as distortions rather than interpretations. Tiwari's track record suggests he will not use the 'it's just fiction' defense. He understands that for a billion-plus people, this is not fiction; it is history. The burden on Tiwari is immense. He is not just making a movie; he is attempting to restore the credibility of the Bollywood mythological genre. If he succeeds, he could open the floodgates for high-quality, respectful adaptations of Indian epics. If he fails, the industry may shy away from these subjects for a decade.
The Economic and Cultural Stakes for Bollywood
The fallout from *Adipurush* extends beyond hurt feelings; it has economic ramifications that threaten the financing model of big-budget Indian cinema. The ₹500 crore loss on *Adipurush* made studios risk-averse. Investors are now wary of pouring money into VFX-heavy projects that lack a solid script. The success of Nitesh Tiwari's *Ramayana* is therefore crucial not just for cultural reasons, but for the financial health of the industry. It is rumored to have a budget exceeding ₹700 crore, making it the most expensive Indian film to date. A second high-profile failure of this magnitude could trigger a recession in the production of tentpole films.
Culturally, the film represents a test of the audience's evolving maturity. The Indian audience has proven that they will accept modern filmmaking techniques—witness the success of *Baahubali* and *RRR*—but they will not accept a modernization of the ethos. *Adipurush* tried to make Lord Ram speak in 'tapori' (street slang) lingo, a decision that backfired spectacularly. The audience is demanding that the form be modern (cinematography, sound, visual effects) but the content remain traditional (dialogue, costume, demeanor).
This dichotomy presents a unique challenge for the writers of the new *Ramayana*. They must find a language that is poetic and Sanskritized enough to sound authentic, yet accessible enough for a modern, younger audience. They must create action sequences that rival Hollywood blockbusters without turning the characters into Marvel superheroes. The 'what comes next' for Bollywood depends on finding this balance. If *Ramayana* succeeds, it will validate the 'Indian aesthetic'—a blend of high production values and deep cultural roots. It will signal to the industry that you don't need to westernize Indian stories to make them global; you just need to execute them with excellence. Manoj Muntashir's admission is the first step in acknowledging the errors of the past. The release of *Ramayana* will be the final verdict on whether Bollywood has learned from them.