In targeting a studio known for its steady support of the big screen, PVR Inox risks alienating the very audience it seeks to serve. Maddock Films ‘Bhool Chuk Maaf’ to now release in theatres on May 23.
In an industry where theatrical releases are becoming increasingly rare, Maddock Films has remained one of the few champions of the big screen. So when PVR Inox chose to legally challenge the production house over the release of Bhool Chuk Maaf, it felt less like a stand for exhibitors’ rights and more like a regressive move that could hurt the very ecosystem it depends on. Instead of supporting a studio that continues to bring films to theatres, this action risks alienating audiences.
Taking Maddock Films to court for their recent release Bhool Chuk Maaf was not only an aggressive move, considering the studio’s consistent support for theatrical releases. Maddock Films has been responsible for generating over ₹2,500 crore in the past two years alone with films like Stree 2, Chhaava, Teri Baaton Mein Aisa Uljha Jiya, and Munjya. Even post-pandemic, they backed theatres by releasing Zara Hatke Zara Bachke, a small-town film that surprised with its box office success. Maddock Films has been one of the few production houses championing theatrical cinema, and deserved collaboration, not confrontation and blame.
Postponing the release of its film shows that Maddock Films is prioritising the current situation over commercial gains. At a time when the country is dealing with more important matters, the decision reflects maturity and a sense of responsibility.
PVR Inox's primary concern was that Maddock Films violated the traditional *8-week window rule*, which mandates that a film must play exclusively in theatres for at least eight weeks before moving to an OTT platform . While such guidelines may have made sense in the past, when digital access was limited and theatrical viewing was the norm. Now the audience behavior has significantly evolved. Today, especially during uncertain times like the India-Pakistan conflict, many viewers prefer the safety and convenience of watching films at home.
Rather than adapting to the changing landscape, the move comes across as an attempt to safeguard their own business interests at the expense of production houses trying to make more agile, audience-focused decisions.
In this context, PVR Inox’s insistence on the outdated windowing model feels less like a business principle and more like a contradiction of its own interests. After all, theatre chains
themselves have adjusted windowing timelines in the past when it suited them. By clinging to rigid norms in this case, especially with a studio that has been a consistent contributor to the box office, it appears more like an optical ego battle than a genuine concern for industry standards.
Instead of embracing a collaborative, forward-thinking approach, PVR Inox's actions suggest a stubborn defence of outdated practices that could ultimately hold the industry back.
