Fair-but only partly. Is that the full story? What if the star himself walks onto the set like he's still hosting Bigg Boss, refuses to take direction and phones in a performance so dull it kills the very film meant to ride on his shoulders?

Yes, signing Salman guarantees a 25-30 crore opening-just because his fanbase shows up.

That's the kind of ready-made reach Nawazuddin refers to. But Sikandar didn't succeed because of content-it limped to 100 crores only because of Eid.

Remove the festival weekend and this film wouldn't have crossed 50 crores. The audience showed up, yes-but Salman didn't. And that's the crux.

In Sikandar, Salman looked physically stiff, emotionally disengaged and creatively disinterested. His dialogue delivery was lifeless.

Action scenes felt choreographed around his limitations. Was this the same man who once electrified screens with sheer presence?

It didn't look like he was acting-it looked like a detour between Bigg Boss episodes. A superstar can't coast through and expect fans to stay loyal forever.

And let's not ignore the biggest issue-Salman's control over everything. Directors aren't directing him; they're adjusting around him.

He picks dialogues, dictates scenes and sidelines the vision. So when things go wrong, why blame only the director?

Murugadoss may be past his prime but he still tries to make meaningful cinema. His upcoming Tamil film Madrashi looks promising. Sikandar being a disaster isn't on him-it's on a star who never let him direct.

Yes, Nawazuddin's point holds some weight-directors must do justice when handed a superstar. But what happens when the superstar refuses to be directed?

In Sikandar, the problem wasn't just poor vision-it was zero effort from the lead. Salman assumed his brand would carry the film but even brands need fresh energy.

The fans came. The film didn't. The result? A wasted opportunity and a superstar running on fumes.