The best director in Tamil, who was formerly renowned for making timeless, unforgettable films, is returning with "Indian 2." The verdict is in, amplified form: questions about whether the shankar era is finished have been raised by this sequel. shankar divided "Indian 2" into "Indian 2" and "Indian 3," with the latter's trailer even shown in theatres.
 
This is a sobering reminder to all filmmakers who are growing avaricious in the wake of the box office success of sequels such as "KGF 2." Actually, no movie—aside from "Baahubali 2"—had a legitimate cliffhanger or a genuine need for a sequel. The strange thing is that some filmmakers, after months of work on the set, abruptly declare that the scope of their film demands two parts.
 
Is this a joke? Was the filmmaker unaware of the film's scale when they locked the screenplay and began filming? Once more, it all comes down to business and selfishness. In the hopes that the first part would be popular and they could make easy money from the second part, they left room for a sequel. Some filmmakers even fall short of telling their tale in a coherent three hours, citing world-building and other factors as justification for the need for a sequel.


Now, Shankar, who produced a typical commercial movie like "Indian 2," has divided his movie into two halves as well. This concept has been rejected by audiences, which will undoubtedly affect "Indian 3" if he is still committed to publishing it. It's obvious that shankar used out-of-date scenes and rambling narration to bore viewers to death for the purpose of two parts. In reality, the "Indian Throne" teaser got a mixed reception when it debuted in theatres. shankar could have given at least one good viewing if he hadn't chosen to divide it into two halves.
 
Not just shankar has gained new insight. This should serve as a warning to any avaricious filmmaker who divides their work into two sections just to maximize profits rather than because the narrative requires it.
 
 

 
 
 

 
 

Find out more: