Pati, Patni Aur Panga To Replace Laughter Chefs 2? Deets Inside
Last Updated:
Gurmeet Choudhary and Debina Bonnerjee, Hina Khan and Rocky Jaiswal are already confirmed to join Pati, Patni Aur Panga.
Colors TV is all set to launch an exciting new reality show titled Pati Patni Aur Panga: Jodiyon Ka Reality Check. The show will bring together celebrity couples who will take on entertaining challenges designed to test their compatibility, teamwork and sense of humour. Confirmed pairs include fan-favourite duos like Gurmeet Choudhary –Debina Bonnerjee and Hina Khan–Rocky Jaiswal. The lineup is expected to get even more star-studded, with several other popular couples likely to join in the coming days.
According to The Indian Express, several more celebrity couples are expected to join Pati Patni Aur Panga: Jodiyon Ka Reality Check. Names mentioned in the report include Sudesh Lehri and his wife, Ankita Lokhande and Vicky Jain, Rahul Vaidya and Disha Parmar, and Krushna Abhishek with Kashmera Shah. Additionally, popular couples like Arjun Bijlani and his wife, Aly Goni and Jasmin Bhasin, and Karan Kundrra and Tejasswi Prakash are reportedly being considered by the makers, although official confirmations are still awaited.
According to sources, Pati Patni Aur Panga: Jodiyon Ka Reality Check is expected to replace Laughter Chefs Season 2. Traditionally, Khatron Ke Khiladi airs on Colors TV around this time of year, but the announcement of this new reality show has sparked speculation about whether Rohit Shetty's stunt-based series has been permanently shelved. Promos for Pati Patni Aur Panga have already been shot and are expected to go on air soon, with the premiere slated for next month.
The show will offer a refreshing twist by capturing the lighter, more playful side of celebrity relationships. From adorable nicknames and silly arguments to inside jokes and mind-reading moments, Pati Patni Aur Panga promises plenty of fun. Viewers can expect to see couples enjoying small wins, completing quirky challenges, and navigating their dynamics with humour and heart, all while competing in a series of entertaining tasks designed to keep the laughter rolling.
First Published:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
Why Reem Shaikh Called Abhishek Kumar ‘Besharam' On Bharti Singh's Podcast
Last Updated: Reem Shaikh opened up about her experience on Laughter Chefs Season 2, her co-contestants and even shared her thoughts about Bigg Boss. Reem Shaikh has become one of the rising stars in the television industry. Starting her journey as a child artist, she has grown into a well-recognised name on Indian TV. Reem is currently entertaining audiences on Laughter Chefs Season 2, a celebrity cooking reality show where popular faces from television come together for fun-filled kitchen challenges and light-hearted moments. Recently, she appeared on the Bharti TV podcast hosted by Bharti Singh and Haarsh Limbachiyaa, where the actress opened up about her experience on the show, her co-contestants and even shared her thoughts about Bigg Boss. While chatting with Bharti and Haarsh, the topic of Bigg Boss came up especially the recent buzz that the show might not return for a new season. Sharing her views, Reem said, 'I've heard Bigg Boss isn't coming back. Right? No Bigg Boss feels strange, right? It's like there used to be a house with four rooms, and now two are empty. Although, honestly, we only used to watch it when we or someone we knew was on the show. I've watched it since childhood. I used to enjoy it. But once you're inside the show, once you get to understand a character, then you start wondering what they'll do next." 'I used to genuinely enjoy Bigg Boss as an audience member. But in the last 2-3 years, I don't know what happened," she added. After Reem shared her thoughts, Bharti playfully reminded her that most of the contestants from the last 2–3 years of Bigg Boss are now working with them on Laughter Chefs. This made everyone laugh and Reem responded with a joke, saying, 'No Abhishek was hurt" referring to her co-contestant Abhishek Kumar. This led to a fun discussion about Abhishek Kumar and Samarth Jurel who are known for their cheerful nature on the sets. Bharti and Haarsh talked about how both of them openly compliment the girls without any hesitation. Reem agreed with them and shared that Abhishek often compliments her directly. She further jokingly said, 'Aur itna besharam hai, abhi mujhe muh pe bol raha hoga, baad mein Nia ko same cheez jaake bolega (And he is so shameless, he'll compliment me now and later say the same thing to Nia)." She even mentioned that she once asked Abhishek whether he ever feels awkward about complimenting so many people. Then, Haarsh jokingly suggested that Abhishek should give compliments to one person at a time and take a little break in between. Everyone had a good laugh, and Bharti added that both Abhishek and Samarth are very cute. Talking about Laughter Chefs, Reem also revealed how much the show means to her. She said that even when she is going through something emotional, being on the set feels like a 'therapy." First Published: June 02, 2025, 11:50 IST
Indian Express
4 hours ago
- Indian Express
Kamal Haasan and Mani Ratnam's Nayakan is not timeless, nor has it aged well; let that sink in
Ok, first things first. My intention is not to dismiss or disregard the impact and influence Nayakan (1987) has had, nor the contributions Mani Ratnam and Kamal Haasan have made to Indian cinema, both of which have inspired many to pursue filmmaking and acting. These are well-documented facts. However, the Nayakan effect on the masses has been so strong, unwavering even with time, that it almost (just almost; not necessarily exactly) feels like a bandwagon effect, where a critical evaluation of the film rarely occurs. You're free to conclude that I have a contrarian bias and move on. But Mani Ratnam himself told The Indian Express back in 1988, 'Whenever I see a film, I view it critically.' Yet, I honestly don't think Nayakan is a bad movie. In fact, it contains several commendable elements, some never-before-seen in Indian cinema. So, let's keep aside the blind devotion to the crime drama, take a step back and ask: Is Nayakan truly 'peak cinema'? Has it aged well? And where all did it falter? Now that Kamal Haasan and Mani Ratnam gear up for their first movie in 37 years, Thug Life, this is the right time. For this, let's work our way inward from the surface by analysing the film's narrative and technical aspects. Undoubtedly one of the finest movie dialogues in Tamil cinema, and one that has repeatedly found its way into pop culture, is the question posed by Sakthivel 'Velu' Nayakkar's (Kamal Haasan) grandson to him at the end, 'Neenga nallavara kettavara? (Are you a good person or a bad person?),' which shatters the old man. As Mani Ratnam once remarked, it 'puts across the moral dilemma of the man in a nutshell'. This is despite Velu's lifelong adherence to his guiding motto, 'Naalu peru saapida udhavumna, edhuvume thappille (If your actions help feed four people, then there's nothing wrong with it).' Although the movie abstains from offering a direct narrative answer to this question, its very title, Nayakan, is a significant giveaway. Yes, one could argue that it's a variation of his surname, Nayakkar (also written as Nayakar, Naikar, Nayaka, Naik, et al) — which also highlights his dominant caste background — but it literally translates to 'Hero' in English. True, its hero cannot be confined to the binaries of good or bad. However, considering the era in which the movie was made and Indian audiences' long-standing obsession with on-screen male heroes, particularly when portrayed by beloved stars, naming a film that seemingly refuses to take a clear stance on its protagonist's morality 'Hero' was an avoidable move. Unless, of course, the intention was a kind of reverse psychology. One of the biggest shortcomings of Nayakan is its overt and unabashed obsession with Kamal Haasan. In a way, Nayakan could be seen as an 'Aandavar fanboy sambavam' by Mani Ratnam, decades before the phrase even entered the Indian cinema vocabulary. Almost every element in the film seems designed to give the actor a moment to deliver an extraordinary performance, whether in the same shot/scene or the subsequent one(s). Considering this was still Mani Ratnam's early period as a filmmaker — having debuted just four years earlier, though impressively directing five films in that time — he had yet to master the art of preventing the star/actor from overshadowing the narrative itself. He revealed recently that they didn't have a bound script for Nayakan initially. By the time he made Thalapathi (1991), Mani had developed a better grip on this balance. The script for Thalapathi reflected his significant growth as a writer, weaving together diverse elements that connected meaningfully to the film's core, which was not Rajinikanth the star-actor. However, in Nayakan, Kamal is the film's soul, the air it breathes and its all-encompassing lordship. While Mani did manage to draw exceptional work from all involved, particularly Kamal, composer Ilaiyaraaja, cinematographer PC Sreeram and editors B Lenin and VT Vijayan, the film ultimately revolves around the actor and his exceptional skill set, especially his ability to emote through facial expressions and body language. Even before Velu becomes Nayakkar of Dharavi — while he is still just a boy who fled his hometown of Thoothukudi after stabbing a police officer who murdered his union-leader father — Nayakan's focus is singularly on him. After the film opens with the murder of Velu's father and his escape to Mumbai, and once the young Velu appears, the film's fixation on Kamal begins immediately. It doesn't spend time offering exposition about young Velu; instead, it jumps straight into showcasing Kamal's acting prowess. From the moment he is arrested by the police for 'acting smart' during a forced eviction in the slums, the camera and script begin to serve the actor's range more than the character as such. Mani Ratnam crafted each shot from this point onwards to highlight the actor's many strengths, even if that meant compromising the script by making everything be about Kamal and not Velu. While the film features a handful of characters here — some named, most not — they are only relevant when in relation to Velu. They lack agency or defined identities when not in his orbit. Even as the movie progresses and we see Velu becoming Dharavi's Nayakkar — inspired by real-life Mumbai mafia don Varadarajan Mudaliar — saving the people, Nayakan doesn't care much to actually show who these people are. They all end up serving merely as contributors to his evolving character arc. The savarna saviour complex here is so pronounced that only the saviour occupies the foreground, while those Mani Ratnam deems in need of saving — members of oppressed communities — are, as usual, relegated to the background, appearing only as part of crowds. Even characters who have names and belong to Dharavi, such as Hussain (MV Vasudeva Rao), the man who raised Velu and meets a tragic end, his daughter Shakila (Tara), and Velu's friend Selvam (Janagaraj), exist solely through their connection to Velu. Although Selvam is almost always by the 'hero's' side and is the only one who has the guts to call him 'Velu' to his face even after he became Nayakkar, he, too, is just a background character with no story of his own. Despite Dharavi having enough people, we also see one 'Iyer' (Delhi Ganesh) appearing out of nowhere and becoming Velu/Nayakkar's source of knowledge. Once Velu becomes 'the chosen one' (self-appointed by the way; no one voted), Mani also cleverly overlooks Velu's illegal businesses, despite the clear historical knowledge that while the dominant caste people may run the operations, it is the marginalised who will ultimately bear the consequences (and they do as well in Nayakan, time and again). 'Naalu perukku udhavumna, edhuvume paavamille (If it helps four people, there's no sin in it)' is the line he keeps repeating. But when the situation demands, he is financially secure enough to send his children, Charumati (Karthika) and Surya (Nizhalgal Ravi), to Madras for safety. What about those without names, identities or financial backing? What about the rest of Dharavi? Nayakan simply doesn't care. Though he is positioned as a saviour, the 'celebration' of which happens in the scene where he refuses to sleep with the underage sex worker Neela (Saranya Ponvannan) after learning she has an exam the next day and wants to study, is he truly one even for his dear ones? Despite knowing her aspirations, Velu soon chains her with a thaali (mangalsutra) without her consent. She lived the rest of her life as a housewife before ultimately being killed by her husband's enemies. Even later, when Charumati questions his system of running a parallel government, Nayakkar insists that he can't stop since he never chose this life of his own free will. 'Are we doing all this because we actually want to? We have no other option, dear,' he tells her. But didn't he? Despite wielding enormous influence, political connections and wealth, we never see him attempting to uplift the broader living conditions of Dharavi's marginalised population, which would have allowed him as well to slowly give up everything. 'I'll buy five ambulances for Dharavi. They won't ply for the rich, only for the poor,' he says at one point. But even after this, we never see Nayakkar stepping back to reflect on or challenge the deeper social stigma against the people of Dharavi. Instead, he grows wealthier by the day, while the marginalised remain his loyal foot soldiers, ever ready to lay down their lives for his protection (they literally do this as well towards the end). So, is there really any doubt left about whether he's a good person or a bad one? While Nayakan presents one of its central themes, 'he who lives by the sword shall perish by the sword', through Velu's gradual downfall, including the loss of his son Surya as well following his wife's murder, Charumati leaving him, and his eventual death on the street after being shot by Inspector Kelkar's son Ajit (Tinnu Anand) whom Velu had been raising ever since he killed Kelkar himself, another question arises: Was the overt humanisation of a man involved in numerous illegal activities really necessary? Although Francis Ford Coppola's The Godfather (1972), based on Mario Puzo's novel and an inspiration for Nayakan, also delved into the inner world of mafia bosses, particularly their interpersonal relationships, it did not overtly humanise them. Their moral ambiguity remained intact and unsoftened. However, in Nayakan, partly because the role was played by Kamal Haasan and partly due to the Indian audience's penchant for melodrama and hero worship, Mani Ratnam un/knowingly infused the character with such a level of drama and cues to make the audience subconsciously perceive Nayakkar as the hero. Circling back to the intro, I wouldn't call Nayakan 'peak cinema'. Pandering to a largely savarna audience, who made up the lion's share of the movie-going public at the time since watching new releases regularly was a luxury only the privileged could afford, and to 'Aandavar' fans does not inherently make a film great. At the same time, completely disregarding the masses among whom the story is set is nothing short of ignorance. And no, the film hasn't aged particularly well. That said, Nayakan is undoubtedly a good film, where the blending of words and visuals happens organically and beautifully, with Ilaiyaraaja's music, as always, elevating the entire experience. One of the strongest aspects of Mani Ratnam's script is how efficiently it omits the unnecessary and includes only what is needed to deliver the filmmaker's vision; unlike the current trend of overwriting and over-filming and mindlessly splitting a movie into multiple parts. Kamal Haasan's performance is undoubtedly exceptional, so much so that it has helped mask many of the film's flaws over the years, leading audiences to blindly believe that Nayakan is 'the one'. He won his second National Film Award for Best Actor for his performance here. Nonetheless, Nayakan proves that just because a movie is good, it doesn't mean it's great or free of flaws. And it's important to analyse cinema critically — to call a spade a spade — and point out its shortcomings and misrepresentations. After all… Cinema cannot exist in a vacuum; it's all about the discussions that follow. In the Cinema Anatomy column, we delve into the diverse layers and dimensions of films, aiming to uncover deeper meanings and foster continuous discourses. Anandu Suresh is a Senior sub-editor at Indian Express Online. He specialises in Malayalam cinema, but doesn't limit himself to it and explores various aspects of the art form. He also pens a column titled Cinema Anatomy, where he delves extensively into the diverse layers and dimensions of cinema, aiming to uncover deeper meanings and foster continuous discourse. Anandu previously worked with The New Indian Express' news desk in Hyderabad, Telangana. You can follow him on Twitter @anandu_suresh_ and write (or send movie recommendations) to him at ... Read More
News18
16 hours ago
- News18
Nimrat Kaur Was Close To Giving Up Before The Lunchbox: 'I Would Cry, Feel Lonely'
Last Updated: Before The Lunchbox changed her life, Nimrat Kaur struggled with self-doubt and low funds. She opens up about the fear, loneliness, and voice that told her not to give up. Before she became a familiar face in films and international shows, Nimrat Kaur was just another hopeful artist in Mumbai, unsure of when her next paycheck would come in—or if it ever would. In a candid conversation with The Indian Express, the actor opened up about the emotionally and financially challenging years she endured before her big break in The Lunchbox. Recalling the uncertainty of those early days, Nimrat said, 'Sometimes I would get worried—where will my next paycheck come from? Am I good enough? Should I go back? Do people like seeing me in what I do?" She added, 'Before The Lunchbox, there was a point where I didn't know what I would do ahead." After moving to Mumbai, Nimrat spent two to three months working in music videos and was frequently cast in advertisement films. Alongside that, she spent four to five years immersed in theater. But even that wasn't enough to sustain her. 'While doing theater, there was a time when my bank balance had fallen very low. It was very difficult to understand where money would come from," she shared. 'There was a lot of fear, and returning home in a situation like that is a different kind of humiliation. There were days when I was very sad, low, things were very difficult, challenging. I would cry, feel lonely, but there was a voice inside me that said, don't give up." Nimrat's perseverance paid off when she landed her breakthrough role in The Lunchbox (2013), opposite Irrfan Khan and Nawazuddin Siddiqui. Directed by Ritesh Batra and produced by Guneet Monga, Anurag Kashyap, and Arun Rangachari, the film went on to win the Grand Rail d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival and changed the course of her career. Before The Lunchbox, Nimrat had small roles in Yahaan, Luv Shuv Tey Chicken Khurana, and the English-language film One Night with the King. Since her breakout success, she has starred in critically acclaimed projects like Airlift and Dasvi, and earned recognition abroad with roles in Homeland, Wayward Pines, and Foundation. Most recently seen in Kull: The Legacy of the Raisingghs and Sky Force, Nimrat Kaur is gearing up for her next release, Section 84. From near breakdowns to global breakthroughs, her journey is a testament to resilience—and the quiet voice that kept telling her not to give up. First Published:
