The makers of Rajkummar Rao, Wamiqa Gabbi starrer ‘Bhool Chuk Maaf‘ cancelled the theatrical release of the film which was supposed to take place on May 9. This was due to the escalating tensions between India and Pakistan last week. The film is produced by Maddock Films which has backed many successful movies like ‘Stree 2’, ‘Chhaava’ among others. The makers released a statement that they have now decided to directly stream the movie on OTT from May 16 onwards.Thus, due to the sudden cancellation of theatrical release PVR filed a lawsuit of Rs 60 crore on Maddock Films. As per the latest update, the Bombay High Court has given relief to PVR and restrained the OTT release of the film. The matter is still subjudice. But here’s what trade experts have to say.
Breach of contract?
Exhibitor-Distributor, Akshaye Rathi says, “It’s tough to take sides out here. If you look at it legally obviously you know I mean after a contract has been signed and a release has been committed theatrically to pull out of it unilaterally is a breach of contract and that obviously you know wouldn’t go down well with the partners who signed up which is theatres. Having said that I mean the leader standpoint apart if you look at it from an angle that is slightly more holistic, Maddock is a company that has delivered three blockbusters for the cinemas one after the other – ‘Chhaava’, ‘Stree 2’ and ‘SkyForce’ which have done well for the cinemas.”
Poll
Is the legal route the best way to handle disputes in the film industry?
Taking the amicable route
Trade expert Taran Adarsh believes that this court route could have been avoided and both the parties could have sat across the table and solved this issue amicably. He said, “I genuinely feel that they shouldn’t have come to a stage where they had to go to court. It would have been better if they had sat across the table. Both the parties have dealt with each other in the past. There has been a win-win situation for both, from ‘Stree 2’ to ‘Chhaava’. PVR INOX have released those firms and they have made money on it and so has Dinesh Vijan. They should have sat across the table and sorted it out. Sitting across the table solves a lot of things. They are very respectable in their respective fields. I feel, that hear out both the points and then come to a common ground.”He added, “I am no one to comment as to who did right and who did wrong, because from the other point of view, they would be wrong. The other point of view, they would say that, oh, they are wrong. we are no one to comment and take sides. But I would just say that, you know, I wish they had sat across the table. It’s a small industry – just pick up the phone and talk to each other.”Rathi echoes his sentiment and said, “Maddock has shown serious commitment towards theatres with these movies, I wish this could have been resolved in a manner that’s slightly more you know cordial and civil and I wish it hadn’t gone legal so there is a bit of regret in you know I’d say you know feeling that that things could have been resolved in a better manner but having said that now that this slugfest is underway let’s hope that the concerned parties resolve it amicably without really escalating this matter in the courts or getting into a uglier legal battle because the film has good potential and the situation at the border also seems to have de-escalted. It looks like hopefully things will be back to normal in the country, so hope for the best.”Taran further says, “The advance bookings had opened. The intentions of the producer were very clear that he had opened the advance booking. He was ready for the theatrical release, so, it was not that he suddenly cancelled it. These tensions between India and Pakistan were unforeseen. But I guess this question can be best answered by Dinesh Vijayan himself. But both PVR Inox and Maddock have had a great professional relationship and things could have been solved out of court.”ETimes reached out to Maddock Films but as this matter is still subjudice, they were unavailable for comment. We also reached out to Kamal Gianchandani, CEO, PVR, but he responded to us saying, “No Comments.”
Are film-makers opting for OTT to avoid risk which comes with box office?
Rathi adds, “The nature of this business involves a bit of risk. you can make a film for the streaming platforms and there may be no streaming platform that’s willing to buy it and that is the case for hundreds and hundreds of movies that are made and ready which producers thought they may can license it to an OTT platform and no there are no takers similarly in cinema halls. There are enough scenarios that we know where movies were made at a certain budget and OTT platforms gave it an offer that was borderline humiliating and they took cut losses. Atleast the theatrical releases and performance of the film serves as a price finding mechanism for them to acquire films. The streaming platforms also to just play a punt on a film because it’s got a certain cast or something can be extremely risky. So, this age-old model of going to the theaters first first and then home entertainment later has stood the test of time because there’s a lot of merit to it.”