Vikram Malhotra; Stills from his titles 
Insight

'Actors Don't Put a Gun To Your Head': Producer Vikram Malhotra on Star Fees, Entourage Costs, and Film Economics

The Abundantia Entertainment chief argues audiences aren’t fickle but value-conscious, urging the industry to back disruptive stories and choose platforms by ROI (Return on Investment), not vanity

Justin Rao

In the current entertainment landscape, uncertainty is the only constant. Between a shifting market and the confusing trial-and-error of what resonates on screen, the role of a producer has never been more demanding. Vikram Malhotra’s response to the chaos is simple: trust your instincts and play for the decade, not just the weekend.

Which is why, when legendary filmmaker Steven Spielberg recently warned at Comic-Con that Hollywood’s IP-dependency would eventually lead to creative exhaustion, Malhotra wanted to frame his words at his office.

“That is the truth of movie business," says Malhotra, founder and CEO of Abundantia Entertainment, which has backed disruptive hits like Baby, Airlift, Sherni, Jalsa, Chhorii, and more recently, Prime Video’s Daldal and Subedaar. "You don’t chase comfort, you have to disrupt monotony and always, no matter what, push yourself to rake risks."

In a deep dive with THR India, the producer discusses navigating the economic pressures of 2026, the strategy behind his robust new slate, and why the "safe bet" is often the most dangerous one to take.

In the current entertainment landscape, what is the biggest concern for producers in 2026?

Relevance. I am disappointed when people call today’s audience "fickle." Fickle implies they don’t know what they want. Today's audience is decisive; they exercise choice based on value for time and money. If they reject us, it’s because we aren't relevant.

The wrong response to this is fear—the fear that we don't know what people are watching or who will buy what. When the industry operates out of fear, we compromise and play it safe. People see Subedaar work and then try to make action films with older actors, but that boat has sailed. We need to focus on being relevant to an evolving audience rather than operating out of fear.

How do you view rising entourage costs and actors' fees? Both have been one of the biggest pain points in the industry...

It is unjustified to pin the blame on one constituent, like actors or directors. You have to rationalise costs across the entire value chain. I'm not saying that all such claims are unjustified. But, in my opinion, actor fees aren't unviable at the top or bottom rungs; they are unviable at the middle rung because that is an uncertain rung.

So I'm not somebody who looks at actor fees as the thing that's absolutely wrong or the reason why economics are failing in the business. The metrics of what qualifies the ability of a story is something that you must first look at and then cast accordingly.

Also, no actor puts a gun to the head of the director or the producer and comes on to a film or charges a certain amount. We need to move away from a scared mindset in casting and let the story speak. The casting decisions for our 2026 slate—Daldal, Subedaar, Maa Bhen, and Family Business—are economically viable for us and our streaming partners. This is a business, and it must be about Return on Investment (ROI).

When you started Abundantia Entertainment in 2013, what gap did you see in the Hindi film industry, and has it been filled?

I don’t believe in building businesses to service gaps alone; I believe in identifying consumer needs and understanding how to disrupt the movement of value. India is an entertainment-hungry nation, and the average Indian remains grossly underserved in terms of the "entertainment fix" they need.

In 2013, I realised that while demand was vast, suppliers were fragmented and weren't necessarily focused on the creative quality of the content. You had corporate studios on one side and independent production companies on the other, both catering to an under-analyzed demand.

Abundantia was formed on two levers: Understanding where audience demand is going, not just where it is today, and providing a differentiated entertainment fix that they aren't getting in their average consumption.

Can you give us an example?

When we started, there was a "one-size-fits-all" approach to content. We differentiated by targeting a progressive audience. Our first films were Baby and Airlift. When we pitched Airlift, people said it sounded like a documentary and doubted if the audience even understood what an "evacuation" was. It became Akshay Kumar’s highest-grossing film domestically and overseas up to that year.

We continued that with Subedaar. It’s an action drama, but we differentiated it with depth, emotional heft, and an unlikely hero, staying away from typical tropes. The same holds true for Daldal. There are many procedural shows, but Daldal resonates because it’s about the characters, not just the crime. We are constantly looking around the corner. In our business, what you dream of today takes 15 to 18 months to reach the screen, so you have to anticipate where tastes will be by then.

Despite backing theatricals, you were one of the first to move into streaming with Breathe. Was there apprehension initially about streaming?

In 2016, I saw the Western world taking to Netflix and realised that long-form, episodic, genre-breaking content was the future. When we began production on Breathe in 2017, people looked down on us. They said it was "low-grade content" for YouTube and that no film actor or director would do it.

Parallelly, we were working on a robust theatrical slate, but we saw that the audience was moving toward high-quality content they could watch at their convenience. This move was further catalyzed by the pandemic with Shakuntala Devi, which was one of the first films to go straight to streaming.

But there seems to be a more streaming-heavy shift in your recent work compared to pre-COVID times, which was more theatrical-led. Is this the strategy for the next five years?

It’s actually the opposite of a shift; we’ve stayed true to our strategy. We aren't driven by vanity or the convenience of screens; we are driven by where the audience wants to consume the content and which screen best suits the story.

For example, Sarfira and Pippa were films we wanted fans to experience on the big screen. Conversely, Chhorii 1 and 2 went straight to Prime Video because we wanted to ensure they were discovered by a massive audience through high-decibel marketing, rather than just being "also-rans" in theaters.

Dhurandhar is a big-screen, clap-and-whistle experience. Subedaar, while massive, is an internalized action drama best enjoyed at one's own convenience. Moving forward, it will be a mix. In fact, the first five films from our AI division are set for theaters because they are disruptive stories built for community viewing.

Couldn't a well-made, massy film like Subedaar or a horror film like Chhorii benefit from the theatrical community experience?

Your thought process is undisputed. Subedaar and Chhorii were written, filmed, and treated as theatrical films with no corners cut. However, we weigh pros and cons like reach, discoverability, unit economics.

By going to streaming, Chhorii became a franchise with a third installment now in the works, and Subedaar reached more than 200 countries with a global marketing campaign. I would rather have a fantastic film where people say, "You should have taken this to theaters," than take a film to theaters and hear, "What were you thinking?" It’s a judgement call, and we go with full conviction.

Steven Spielberg at Comic-Con said that if Hollywood continues to focus on IPs, they will run out of gas and exhaust its creative potential. In India, the exhibitors often argue that stars need to do more IP films to bring in people to theatres. How do you look at it?

IP is a strategic path, not something you think of only after a film succeeds. In India, IP is often confused with sequels, titles, or remakes. That isn't true IP. It took decades to build the MCU; they didn't just make three more films because one worked.

Sequels and remakes are often referred to as IP, but that's jargon. To me, what builds IP is differentiating content that has legs beyond one outing. We are currently working on creating worlds with a dozen characters where each could technically be a standalone spin-off. That is true world-building. I don’t refer to Chhorii as a "universe" because that’s just pointless jargon until you’ve built content that truly sustains itself long-term.