What Bollywood Can Learn from the South: Five Lessons to Revive Its Box Office Success

Among the eight Indian films that have crossed the remarkable Rs 1000 crore milestone, only two—Dangal and Pathaan—are pure Bollywood productions. The remaining six? Five are entirely Southern films (Baahubali, Pushpa 2, RRR, KGF: Chapter 2, and Kalki 2898 AD), while the sixth, Jawan, was helmed by a South Indian director. This raises a crucial question: Is Southern cinema excelling in a way Bollywood isn’t, or is Bollywood making critical missteps?

To find answers, one would need to explore the Southern film industry or, as the Screenwriters Association (SWA) recently did, invite experts from the South to share their insights at its seventh conference. A panel featuring representatives from all four Southern film industries laid out their approach to filmmaking. If Bollywood pays attention, it could apply these five key lessons to regain its box-office dominance.

1. Rootedness: Staying True to the Soil

Vivek Athreya, a Telugu director known for Mental Madhilo, Brochevarevarura, Ante Sundaraniki, and the recent vigilante hit Saripodhaa Sanivaaram, succinctly explained why South Indian films resonate deeply: “In South cinema, the films are rooted. The ideas are rooted. KGF and Pushpa worked not because of the scale of the film, but the rootedness of the characters and emotions.”

Imagine pitching a story to Bollywood producers about a hot-headed villager who turns to looting jungle redwood. The typical response might be dismissive: Who would relate to a village nobody? Too small for the big screen! Not pan-India enough—maybe OTT? Can you make it for two crores? Yet this very concept became the Pushpa franchise, now worth over Rs 2000 crores.

Bollywood’s obsession with creating ‘pan-India’ films often leads to superficiality. In attempting to cater to everyone, it satisfies no one. Like Trishanku, a mythical figure suspended between worlds, Bollywood finds itself neither fully connected to its roots nor successfully universal.

Consider the biggest Indian hits of 2024. Bollywood had Stree 2, a film rooted in the Hindi heartland, featuring ordinary local boys in extraordinary circumstances—eerily similar to the Malayalam blockbuster Manjummel Boys. Tollywood’s biggest success was again the deeply local Pushpa 2.

Ironically, many of Bollywood’s greatest hits—Awara, Mother India, Hum Aapke Hain Kaun, Andhadhun, Piku, 3 Idiots, Lagaan, and Bajrangi Bhaijaan—were not grand spectacles but small stories firmly anchored in their social and cultural milieu.

Tamil filmmaker C. Prem Kumar, known for 96 and Meiyazhagan, even included Imtiaz Ali’s Amar Singh Chamkila in this category. He admired the film and believed, “If it had been released in theatres instead of straight to OTT, it would have been a blockbuster.”

Contrast this with Bollywood’s post-pandemic failures, such as Bade Miyan Chote Miyan. Despite a large-scale premise where heroes save the nation, they couldn’t save the film from bombing at the box office.

2. Single Producer: Cutting Through Corporate Red Tape

Bollywood takes pride in being ‘corporatized,’ which does offer benefits, particularly in contractual security for writers. However, it has created inefficiencies.

Kannada filmmaker Hemanth M. Rao (Godhi Banna Sadharana Mykattu, Kavaludaari, and the Sapta Saagaradaache Ello series) described the advantages of pitching to an individual producer: “I go into a room, pitch my idea to an actor or producer, and if he likes it, the film is on. We’re already discussing release dates. I get to make the story I want to make.”

Prem Kumar shared a frustrating contrast: he once waited six months for a corporate studio’s response, only to receive feedback from a different person than he initially spoke to. “He spoke like he was the other person, starting where the other had left off. I had to ask him, Who are you?” The audience laughed, but the inefficiency was evident.

3. Feedback: The Danger of ‘Autopsy Panels’

Throughout the SWA conference, one word unsettled screenwriters: notes—the dreaded studio feedback process. Sometimes valuable, these notes often originate from executives with little understanding of cinema.

A Mumbai production house reportedly outsourced screenplay feedback to film school students, passing their critiques to directors and writers. Imagine legends like S.S. Rajamouli or Mani Ratnam receiving notes from 19-year-olds with minimal cinematic experience.

A fellow screenwriter analyzed the psychology of corporate executives compelled to give feedback. Many, he suggested, once aspired to be filmmakers but settled for stable jobs in studios, leading to subconscious resentment and unnecessary critiques. One renowned Bollywood director once told an executive, “Don’t try to justify your salary with ridiculous notes on my film.”

Hemanth Rao aptly called these groups autopsy panels—but autopsies are for things that were once alive, whereas these critiques target films not yet made.

4. Algo Filmmaking: Prioritizing Metrics Over Talent

Bollywood increasingly relies on algorithms to select actors based on social media metrics rather than acting ability. The logic appears sound—if an actor has millions of followers, even a fraction watching their film should guarantee success.

However, this approach leads to absurd casting decisions. Filmmakers report being forced to work with actors solely due to their online presence, even if their performances are subpar. This explains why some wooden actors repeatedly land roles while skilled performers struggle.

This metric-driven approach is more prevalent in Bollywood than in Southern industries, where casting prioritizes role suitability over digital influence.

5. Marketing Laziness: The ‘Pan-India’ Trap

Bollywood’s fixation on the ‘pan-India’ label often results in diluted narratives that fail to connect with any specific audience. Instead of tailoring marketing strategies to different viewer groups, studios prefer films that can be mass-marketed without additional effort.

Hemanth Rao warned against creating with a broad audience in mind: “I never want to reach everyone. Out of 10 people, I know only eight will watch the film. My job is to be honest with those eight and ensure they see it.”

Filmmakers create for specific audiences, but corporate studios often fail to market films effectively. As Rao put it, “That’s not the job of the writer, director, or actor. It’s the marketing department’s job to ensure the film reaches the right audience.”

Additional issues raised included the undervaluing of writers. Christo Tomy, writer-director of Ullozhukku, noted that in Malayalam cinema, writers and directors sometimes receive equal IP rights alongside producers—unthinkable in Bollywood, where even securing fair royalties has been a struggle.

Ultimately, the key takeaways for Bollywood are clear:

• Stay true to cultural roots, even in fantastical stories.
• Avoid excessive bureaucratic interference.
• Resist unnecessary corporate feedback that dilutes creative vision.
• Prioritize acting talent over social media popularity.
• Demand more from marketing teams instead of making films overly generic.

These principles seem like common sense, yet Bollywood remains resistant to change. High-paid executives prefer the status quo, and producers continue making money regardless of a film’s artistic merit. The real casualties are fresh ideas, frustrated creators, and audiences deprived of great cinema.

If Bollywood doesn’t course-correct, something will eventually give—but what that will be remains to be seen.