Latest news with #MrX
Time of India
10-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Time of India
‘Mr India' was originally conceived for Amitabh Bachchan and not Anil Kapoor, says Javed Akhtar: ‘If this voice is so popular, so effective'
Anil Kapoor 's 'Mr India' was one of the most popular movies of the actor. Over the years, it has remained iconic as it was way ahead of its time. Every song, the concept and Kapoor's performance continues to be spoken about, till date. But did you know that the film was originally conceived for Amitabh Bachchan after getting inspired by his baritone voice by writer duo Salim Javed ( Salim Khan , Javed Akhtar ). Operation Sindoor 'Pakistan army moving its troops in forward areas': Key takeaways from govt briefing 'Pak used drones, long-range weapons, jets to attack India's military sites' 'Attempted malicious misinformation campaign': Govt calls out Pakistan's propaganda In a recent interview, Javed Akhtar revealed how exactly the concept was developed but things didn't work out as Salim and Javed split. Later, Akhtar developed the script of 'Mr India', all by himself. He said, 'He had to do the mahurat, and because of some reason, they recorded the voice of Amitabh and played it during the muhurat shot. So, that gave me an idea — if this voice is so popular, so effective, why can't we make the Invisible Man with him? We wouldn't have to take his dates also. Most of the time, we could shoot and he would later dub his voice… That is how the idea started.' He further revealed that the children's angle was added as kids would be fascinated with the idea of an invisible man. When Javed developed the final draft, entire screenplay, dialogue alone after his split with Salim Khan, he did not find anyone who was ready to believe in the script and produce the film. Akhtar said, 'I developed it completely on my own, wrote the screenplay, dialogue. People were like, 'Arey invisible man… arey ye effect… yeh iss tarah ki films thodi chalti hai… it's a gimmick… woh thodi hit hoti hai… pehli bani Mr X, Ashok Kumar was the hero… then Mr X in Bombay… itna badi hit nahi hoti aisi films.'' (People said, 'Oh, invisible man… these kinds of effects… these kinds of films don't usually work, it's a gimmick… they get a little popular, that's it… there was Mr. X with Ashok Kumar, then Mr. X in Bombay, films like these never become major hits).' Boney Kapoor eventually decided to produce it as he liked the concept and wanted to make a film for his younger brother and a big actress like Sridevi . Regarding Bachchan's presence in the film, a while ago, in a book by Diptakirti Chaudhuri, titled 'Written by Salim-Javed: The Story of Hindi Cinema's Greatest Screenwriters', she had revealed that during a chat with journalist Anita Padhye, Salim Khan had said, that Amitabh Bachchan believed that this concept of invisible man wouldn't work as fans come to see him in theatres. However, the writers believed that Bachchan's voice would be the star of the film.
Indian Express
10-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Indian Express
Mr India was originally conceived for Amitabh Bachchan before Salim-Javed's split, Javed Akhtar reveals: ‘I developed it completely on my own'
It's hard to imagine Mr. India without Anil Kapoor, but veteran screenwriter Javed Akhtar recently revealed that he wasn't the first choice for the role. In a recent interview with Mid-Day India, Javed revealed that the original inspiration behind the film came from none other than Amitabh Bachchan, who is known for his baritone. Recalling how the idea was sparked, he said that during a film's muhurat (launch), that was to be done by Amitabh Bachchan, the actor was not available in person. So, it was decided that his voice would be played at the muhurat. 'He had to do the mahurat, and because of some reason, they recorded the voice of Amitabh and played it during the muhurat shot. So, that gave me an idea — if this voice is so popular, so effective, why can't we make the Invisible Man with him? We wouldn't have to take his dates also. Most of the time, we could shoot and he would later dub his voice… That is how the idea started,' he shared. He also recalled how he wanted to weave in a children's emotional angle, believing kids would be fascinated by the idea of an invisible man. However, the idea came to a halt after his professional split with longtime writing partner Salim Khan. Returning to the development of Mr India, Javed recalled writing the story, screenplay, and dialogue on his own — but initially, there were no takers. 'I developed it completely on my own, wrote the screenplay, dialogue. People were like, 'Arey invisible man… arey ye effect… yeh iss tarah ki films thodi chalti hai… it's a gimmick… woh thodi hit hoti hai… pehli bani Mr X, Ashok Kumar was the hero… then Mr X in Bombay… itna badi hit nahi hoti aisi films.'' (People said, 'Oh, invisible man… these kinds of effects… these kinds of films don't usually work, it's a gimmick… they get a little popular, that's it… there was Mr. X with Ashok Kumar, then Mr. X in Bombay, films like these never become major hits). However, things changed when producer Boney Kapoor came onboard. According to Javed, Boney liked the concept and wanted to use it to launch his younger brother Anil Kapoor alongside a big-name actress — which finally got the film off the ground. Also Read | Javed Akhtar recalls drinking '18 bottles of beer' in one sitting after getting allergic to whiskey: 'Koi hai toh achi baat hai, nahi toh main akele pee leta tha' Javed said that many believed that the reason behind his split with Salim Khan was his closeness with Amitabh Bachchan, but that wasn't the case, which is why he stayed away from working with Big B for the next decade. 'Many people thought, because I was very friendly with Amitabh Bachchan, because I was closer to him, so I parted because of that. So for the next ten years, I didn't do any film with Amitabh Bachchan. I had some offers, but I didn't take them because I didn't want this tag on me that I broke this partnership because of some support,' he said. In the book titled 'Written by Salim-Javed: The Story of Hindi Cinema's Greatest Screenwriters' by Diptakirti Chaudhuri, this incident is revisited in detail. As per the author, Salim Khan gave a lengthy interview to journalist Anita Padhye for her Marathi book 'Yahi Rang, Yahi Roop' where he spoke about the same. He shared that the director duo presented this idea to Amitabh but the Sholay actor wasn't keen on it. Apparently, Bachchan believed that the invisible-man concept wouldn't work as his fans came to the theatres to see him. The writers believed that Bachchan's voice would be the star of the show, and as per him, this triggered the end of their writing partnership.
Times
28-04-2025
- Times
Rein in immigration judges or lose the public
An immigration tribunal has just ruled that a jailed Congolese drug dealer may remain in Britain because he has a sick son who would benefit from having his father here. The dealer, Mr X, was given three years for Class A drug dealing in 2023. As with every foreign prisoner sentenced to longer than 12 months, he was an automatic candidate for deportation. Sending such foreign criminals home has been law in Britain since 2007, and the Home Office says it is a 'longstanding national priority'. Only those who successfully argue that they qualify for legal exceptions may stay. Yet a string of successful appeals have left the impression that the balance between offenders' rights and those of UK citizens has gone awry. Mr X's
Zawya
17-04-2025
- Business
- Zawya
South Africa's Supreme court ruling: lapsed contracts can't be revived without written reinstatement
In business, timing can make or break a deal – especially when it comes to legal agreements. A recent decision by the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in Vantage Goldfields SA (Pty) Ltd v Siyakhula Sonke Empowerment Corporation (Pty) Ltd and Another has clarified an important principle: once a contract has lapsed due to an unmet suspensive condition, you can't simply treat it as alive and binding again without starting afresh by reinstating the lapsed agreement in writing and, in such reinstatement agreement, amending the cause relating to the lapse. This case serves as a reminder to business leaders, especially in property, mining, and commercial sectors, that contracts with suspensive conditions (conditions that must be met before the agreement takes full effect) are not flexible by default. Unless those conditions are fulfilled - or the deadlines for fulfilment are properly extended in writing before they expire - the contract will lapse / be null and void. And once dead, it doesn't spring back to life on good intentions or conduct alone. A simple practical example will easily explain the above principle: - Mr X sells his property to Mrs Y and the agreement contains a suspensive condition to the effect that the Mrs Y must obtain bond approval on or before the 19th of February 2024. - The bond approval is granted on the 26th of February 2024 and, on the same day, the parties sign an addendum to the effect that the bond approval due date is extended to the 26th of February 2024. - The agreement between Mr X and Mrs Y lapsed when the bond grant was not issued on the 19th of February 2024. - The fact that an extension was signed on the 26th of February 2024 and / or that the bond was approved on the 26th of February 2024 does not bring the agreement back to life. - To ensure that the agreement stayed alive, the extension should have been signed on or before the 19th of February 2024, prior to the lapsing of the agreement. - The correct and only way to reinstate the lapsed agreement, would be to sign a reinstatement agreement which must also contain a clause to the effect that the Bond Approval due date is extended to the 26th of February 2024. - If the reinstatement agreement does not contain a clause to extend the due date, the original reinstated agreement will self-destruct immediately due to the original bond approval due date not being met. Case Background In 2017, Vantage Goldfields entered into a R310m share sale agreement with Flaming Silver Trading. The contract was subject to several suspensive conditions, including: - Securing full financing by a specified date; - Payments that had to be made by a specified date; - Obtaining regulatory approvals, such as ministerial consent under the MPRDA. The agreement clearly stipulated that if these conditions weren't met by the due dates, the deal would lapse - unless the deadlines were extended in writing before they expired. Despite some payments being made and several "addenda" (contract amendments) being signed between the parties, these extensions were not signed on or before the due dates for the fulfilment of the suspensive conditions. Vantage argued that the various addenda effectively revived the original agreement - even though it had lapsed. The company pointed to cases that suggest lapsed contracts can be revived, provided the parties clearly agree to it and amend the problem clauses. But the SCA disagreed. In its January 2025 judgment, the court found that: - The agreement had indeed lapsed due to non-fulfilment of suspensive conditions (particularly the payment condition); - The parties never expressly revived the lapsed contract in a way that complied with the legal requirements; - Even the attempt to "deem" certain conditions as fulfilled after the deadline was legally ineffective; - A R1m payment made as a so-called non-refundable pre-payment was not enforceable and had to be repaid. In short: the contract lapsed as soon as the deadlines, relating to the suspensive conditions, passed without proper extension. Trying to stitch it back together with addenda simply didn't hold water. What does this mean for business? This case is more than a technical legal ruling - it offers real-world lessons for companies negotiating deals that hinge on suspensive conditions, especially in sectors like property, mining, finance, and M&A. Here are the key takeaways: 1. Suspensive conditions are not flexible suggestions When an agreement includes specific deadlines for the fulfilment of suspensive conditions, those deadlines are binding. If you miss them without having agreed - in writing - to an extension beforehand, the agreement automatically lapses. No amount of post-deadline cooperation or continued engagement can reverse that legal consequence unless very specific steps are taken. 2. Paper trails protect your position Good intentions and business relationships mean little without a formal, signed amendment. If a contract says that changes must be made in writing and signed by both parties, any attempt to alter it informally - even if both sides verbally agree - will likely fail in court. Be sure to follow the contract's rules for amendment and variation. 3. You can't pretend a dead Contract is still alive Reviving a lapsed contract is possible in theory - but only through a new agreement or a clear, written reinstatement agreement that properly addresses the expired condition. Courts will not infer revival from conduct alone, and simply continuing to act as though the contract is still in place can lead to confusion, disputes, and expensive litigation. 4. Deeming Clauses don't override legal reality The parties in this case tried to include clauses stating that the conditions were "deemed" to have been met - even when they weren't. The court made it clear that such clauses can't rewrite history. A fiction remains a fiction, and courts deal in facts. Compliance must be real and timely, not constructed after the fact. As this case shows, even sophisticated parties with the best intentions can run into serious trouble when timelines and formalities are not respected. If you're dealing with a lapsed agreement, speak to your legal advisors before attempting a revival - otherwise, you may be trying to breathe life into a contract that's already buried. All rights reserved. © 2022. Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (
