[ad_1]
The 2.0 movie starring Rajinikanth and Akshay Kumar is currently on display in the country's movie theaters, but its release has not been without controversy. The Association of Cellular Operators of India, aka COAI, the body that represents the interests of the telephone companies in the country, claimed that movie 2.0 was "defamatory" towards the telephone companies , specifically opposing the way in which the radiation of mobile phones is represented in the film. Akshay Kumar plays the villain of the movie Pakshi Rajan "Pakshi" – a half-human and half-bird giant – who has wings made from mobile phones, and at one point in the 2.0 trailer, grumbling: "Every person who owns a cell phone is a murderer. "The film marks the return to director S. Shankar's big screen after 2015.
Regarded as one of the biggest Bollywood titles of the year, 2.0 is a multilingual movie that hopes to compete with the big Hollywood franchises with the Indian public. The main star of 2.0 is of course Rajinikanth, a Tamil Nadu state actor in the south of the country, which is attracting many followers and who is often referred to as the biggest movie star in India. Version 2.0 presents a post-apocalyptic world in which mobile phones are turning against their users. Scenes from the 2.0 trailer show cell phones pulled from users' hands to the sky, rising like a typhoon and engulfing everything that's happening on the horizon.
In a statement issued to the press on Wednesday, Rajan S Mathews, COAI General Manager, COAI wrote to the Central Board of Film Certification [CBFC] to highlight his concerns about movie 2.0.The film, including his teasers, trailers and other promotional videos, describes mobile phones and mobile towers in a defamatory manner. " Promotional videos from version 2.0 are based on the theme that electromagnetic field emissions from mobile phones and towers are harmful to living things and the environment, including birds and humans, which will create baseless fear and mbadive paranoia by spreading misinformation about harmful effects
A CBFC official was not immediately available for comment.
"COAI baderts that this is defamatory for IBOC and its members, endangers public order, presents anti-scientific attitudes, violates the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. It is contrary to public interest to the extent that it constitutes an infringement of Article 268 (public nuisance), Article 505 (statements resulting in public mischief) and 499 (defamation) of the IPC and is prejudicial to proceedings pending before the Court. Honored Supreme Court of India to determine whether mobile towers have no harmful effects, "the statement added.
The statement continues that COAI requested the CBFC to review the film 2.0 "with due regard for our concerns and ordering that the film be supplied to us in order to allow us
IOC also asked the CBFC to revoke the certification already granted to the 2.0 movie, including for the teaser, the trailer and other promotional videos, as well as for the 2.0 version of the film in Tamil "immediate effect until the CBFC "
IBOC has also requested that the exhibition of film 2.0 be suspended in the meantime, but that obviously did not happen, because the film is now in theaters.
The producers of movie 2.0 could not be contacted immediately for a comment.
Written with Reuters inputs
<! –
->
Source link
