The “Thalapathy Boys” Controversy: Did Vijay Ignore the Architects of His Stardom?
The sprawling lights of Malaysia witnessed what was meant to be a euphoric celebration: the audio launch of Jananayagan, potentially one of the final cinematic outings for Thalapathy Vijay before his full-time plunge into the volatile waters of Tamil Nadu politics with his party, Tamizhaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK). However, amidst the roar of the fans and the flashbulbs, a quiet storm of criticism has begun to brew on social media—a storm centered not on who was present, but on who was missing.
The event’s most viral image features Vijay flanked by three of contemporary Tamil cinema’s most celebrated young filmmakers: Nelson Dilipkumar, Atlee, and Lokesh Kanagaraj. Dubbed the “Thalapathy Boys” by social media teams and fans alike, this quartet represents the modern, stylish, and box-office-shattering face of Vijay’s recent filmography. Yet, as the photos circulated, a sharp counter-narrative emerged. Long-time observers of the industry and distinct voices on social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter) have raised a poignant question: “In his final lap, has Vijay forgotten the hands that first taught him to run?”
The “New Age” Bias: A Strategic Snub?
The controversy ignited when director Nelson Dilipkumar reportedly revealed on stage that the trio (himself, Atlee, and Lokesh) did not just arrive voluntarily but were specifically summoned for the occasion. This admission has inadvertently fueled a perception battle. Critics argue that by spotlighting only the directors who are currently “trending” and hold sway over the Gen Z audience, Vijay is curating an image of youth and relevance, perhaps to bolster his political appeal among first-time voters.
However, this strategic optics management has clashed with traditional Tamil cultural values of Nandri (gratitude). Netizens have unleashed a barrage of posts detailing the history of Vijay’s career, pointing out that his current superstardom stands on the foundation laid by directors who were conspicuously absent from the guest list.
One viral post, translated from Tamil, scathingly remarks, “If he were truly grateful, he should have invited the men who turned his failures into stepping stones. Instead, we see only the spotlight hunters.”
The Forgotten Titans: A Walk Down Memory Lane
To understand the gravity of the criticism, one must look at the specific names being cited by the disgruntled fans. The list reads like a history of modern Tamil commercial cinema:
-
Vikraman and the Family Audience: Perhaps the most cited name is Vikraman. In the mid-90s, when Vijay was struggling to shed an image often associated with glamour-centric and critically panned films, it was Vikraman who gave him Poove Unakkaga (1996).
“He took a man acting in films equivalent to B-grade glamour and transformed him into a soft, romantic hero loved by families,” notes a widely shared critique. Without the “family hero” tag bestowed by Vikraman, Vijay’s longevity in a conservative market like Tamil Nadu would have been arguably impossible.
-
Fazil and Critical Acclaim: Before he was an action star, Vijay needed to prove he was an actor. Fazil, the legendary director, handed him Kadhalukku Mariyadhai (1997). The film didn’t just win box office numbers; it won hearts, specifically targeting the college demographic and female audiences, creating the first wave of “die-hard” Vijay fans.
-
Ramana and the Action Shift: The transition from a romantic “Chocolate Boy” to an action powerhouse wasn’t accidental. It was engineered by director Ramana with Thirumalai (2003). This film introduced the stubble, the punch dialogues, and the aggressive body language that would become Vijay’s trademark for the next two decades.
-
Dharani and the Blockbuster Era: If there is one film that defines Vijay’s mass hysteria, it is Ghilli (2004). Director Dharani redefined what a “commercial blockbuster” meant in Tamil cinema. Ghilli gave Vijay a dominance in the B and C centers that remains unshaken. Ignoring Dharani, fans argue, is ignoring the very architect of his “Mass” image.
-
A.R. Murugadoss and the Resurrection: The most potent criticism involves A.R. Murugadoss. Following a string of massive failures (including Sura), Vijay’s career was written off by many pundits. It was Murugadoss who delivered Thuppakki (2012), a slick, intelligent thriller that catapulted Vijay into the ₹100-crore club and modernized his appeal.
“He was on the verge of disappearing from cinema. Thuppakki wasn’t just a hit; it was a resurrection,” a fan commented.
Comparisons with Rajini and Kamal
The criticism is sharpened by inevitable comparisons to Vijay’s predecessors, Superstar Rajinikanth and Ulaganayagan Kamal Haasan.
Rajinikanth is renowned for his unwavering respect for S.P. Muthuraman, the director who crafted his commercial image in the 80s. Even today, Rajini prioritizes his mentors at public events. Similarly, Kamal Haasan frequently honors Singeetam Srinivasa Rao and his guru K. Balachander, attributing his growth entirely to them.
By contrast, the narrative being spun around the Jananayagan launch paints Vijay as focusing on “fair-weather friends”—directors who are currently successful—rather than those who stood by him during his formative and struggling years.
The Fan Defense and Political Undertones
Of course, not everyone agrees with the harsh “ungrateful” label. Supporters of the actor argue that an audio launch is a promotional event, not a retirement party. They contend that the producers likely invited directors who have a current connection to the youth to generate maximum social media buzz for the film.
“Vijay skipped A.R. Murugadoss because of the Sarkar controversy and flop, but Nelson gave a flop with Beast and was still invited. This proves it’s about who is in the spotlight now,” argued one user, suggesting the decision was purely business-driven. Others believe that inviting younger directors like Lokesh and Atlee signals a handover of the baton to the next generation of filmmakers, aligning with Vijay’s own transition from cinema to political leadership.
Conclusion: A Question of Legacy
As Vijay prepares to bid adieu to the silver screen, the scrutiny on his actions has intensified. Every move is viewed through a dual lens: that of a fading movie star and a rising politician. While the Jananayagan event was undeniably grand, the “Thalapathy Boys” photo op has left a bittersweet aftertaste for many.
The consensus among the critics is clear: Success is not just about where you are, but remembering who helped you get there. As the industry whispers about the “missing guests,” the question remains—will Vijay address this perceived oversight, or will his political journey begin with the accusation that he forgot his cinematic roots?
