The Real Bhool Chuk is PVR Inox Taking on Maddock Films

This battle isn’t just legal; it’s a cultural misstep. Bhool Chuk Maaf now hits theatres on May 23.

At a time when most studios are turning to digital platforms, Maddock Films has stood firm in its support for theatrical releases. That’s why PVR Inox’s decision to take legal action against them over Bhool Chuk Maaf feels like more than just a business issue. Instead of recognising Maddock as a rare ally in keeping cinema alive on the big screen, PVR Inox’s move could discourage other studios from backing theatres—and disappoint audiences who still cherish the magic of watching films in cinemas. 

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. 

Delaying the release reflects Maddock Films’ decision to put real-world priorities ahead of profits. With the nation facing more serious concerns, this choice comes across as thoughtful, responsible, and grounded in the moment.

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In this context, PVR Inox’s insistence on the outdated windowing model feels less like a business principle and more like a contradiction of its own interests.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.