Bollywood megastar Salman Khan recently deployed questionable logic, defending his latest blockbuster film Tiger 3’s relatively disappointing box office performance. He claimed the action thriller intentionally adopted affordable ticket pricing, depressing revenue totals compared to other recent hits charging premium rates, which inflated earnings.
Experts counter that Tiger 3 actually utilized typical pricing models during the initial weeks, only discounting tickets in certain regions afterwards when momentum slowed over narrative issues, not generosity. Hence, Salman appears to be scapegoating pricing strategies rather than acknowledging that the movie itself simply underdelivered expectations for various reasons.
In northern states with crucial box office impact, Tiger 3 opened across premium multiplex chains like PVR Cinemas or INOX at standard historical solo rates near ₹900–1000. Similarly, mainstream single screens maintained established regional ticket ceilings around ₹150–200.
Differential pricing only kicked in after the second week, when collections tapered off remarkably. This strategy aligned with recovering waning viewer interest rather than initial largesse, limiting profitability from strong early turnouts.
In reality, flat ₹150 ticket schemes only emerged reactively to sustain sales given uninspiring word-of-mouth, not intentionally reducing potential earnings and estimating huge responses that never materialized.
Trade analysts noted Bollywood hits rarely ever voluntarily constrict budgets through dramatic ticket discounts, jeopardizing profits unless creatively flailing after opening weekends.
Since Tiger 3’s trajectory indicated front-loaded performances tapering quickly, slash pricing appears not from premeditated generosity but necessity stemming from audience complaints on social media.
Salman’s assertions about sacrifice seem highly dubious beyond face-saving public relations spins lacking factual corroboration. Obviously, Tiger 3 anticipated much loftier box office responses, which were subsequently adjusted downward through last-ditch price cuts, which cannot be spun for magnanimity.
Potentially the strangest aspect within Salman’s damage-control ticket pricing defense refers to his next projects charging higher rates for better financial outcomes. But this obvious contradiction exposes Tiger 3’s low-cost claims as a one-off aberration compared to his slate’s usual norms.
Why would Khan’s future films demand greater customer prices if Tiger 3 truly adopted reduced pricing solely to assist Indian families, as claimed?
The flimsy, reversible logic makes little coherent sense and largely confirms attempted spinning, not conveying genuine intentions behind the latest underperforming installment’s sudden price drops after lackluster results.
In actuality, the unusual Salman Khan film sequel encountered multiple wider industry headwinds challenging most Bollywood offerings, like growing post-pandemic audience selectivity, cricket’s seasonal dominance siphoning eyeballs, and appealing creative alternatives through South offerings on OTT platforms. Combined with uninspired filmmaking itself, these elements likely factored far more than discounted pricing into Tiger 3’s lackluster outcome beyond just Salman’s incredible fame.
Of course, the effects split opinion, with die-hard fans vigorously defending the aging superstar’s wares. But rather than acknowledging legitimate critiques, Salman appears to lean on imaginative bogeys around self-inflicted fiscal negligence on producers’ behalf, explaining revenue shortfalls. When persuasive scapegoats crumble under scrutiny, however, the flaws in Tiger 3 itself demand confronting.