The marketing strategist behind Dhurandhar has explained why Ranveer Singh was largely absent from the film's conventional publicity campaign. In an interview discussed on October 21, 2026, Varun Gupta of Max Marketing said the decision was deliberate and supported by the actor, director Aditya Dhar, producers and campaign team. The idea was to let the film's promotional material carry the message rather than relying on repeated star appearances. The comments are a fresh explanation of an earlier campaign, not an announcement of a new release or evidence that Singh refused to promote the project after a dispute.
The decision behind the quiet campaign
Gupta described a coordinated choice to keep Singh away from the familiar cycle of interviews and promotional stops. He said the team believed the film's footage, music and other assets could communicate its scale without the lead actor explaining every detail. That approach challenged an expectation in Hindi cinema that a major release should be accompanied by extensive media appearances. It also created a risk: audiences and commentators might mistake fewer public appearances for weak marketing. Gupta acknowledged that the team faced precisely that criticism before the film opened. His account reframes the absence as strategy rather than neglect.
Why Ranveer Singh's recent career was considered
Gupta compared the circumstances around Singh's project with those of other actors approaching major releases. His argument was that a promotional plan must respond to a star's current public image and the particular film, rather than copying a successful campaign. In his telling, the team felt the project would benefit from having audiences encounter the work directly. That is a marketer's retrospective assessment, not an objective rule that publicity harms an actor after an uneven run. Different films have different audiences, and the effectiveness of a quiet campaign cannot be established simply because one project later performed well.
Aditya Dhar's reported response to criticism
The interview also described Dhar's reaction when negative commentary appeared about the campaign's lack of buzz. Gupta said the director remained calm and trusted the team rather than demanding a sudden change. That detail matters because a publicity strategy can unravel if the filmmakers abandon it under pressure. Still, it is a recollection from a participant, not an independent account of every internal discussion. It should not be used to claim that nobody in the production ever disagreed. The reported point is narrower: Gupta felt the director supported the approach through a period of public questioning.
The long-form promotional asset
Gupta highlighted the release of an unusually long early promotional video, saying the team had put substantial material before audiences months ahead of the theatrical launch. A longer asset can help establish a film's tone, world and scale without requiring the cast to describe it in interviews. It also invites a different kind of online discussion, with viewers analysing scenes rather than reacting to celebrity appearances. Whether that technique works depends on the strength of the material and the audience's appetite for it. The Dhurandhar case is one example, not proof that every film should follow the same formula.
What the box-office outcome can and cannot show
Dhurandhar and its follow-up became major commercial successes, which makes the earlier marketing debate interesting in hindsight. Strong ticket sales are compatible with an effective campaign, but they do not prove that the absence of star interviews caused the success. Script, cast, reviews, timing, audience recommendations and competition also influence performance. A campaign can be thoughtfully designed and still benefit from factors outside the marketing team's control. The responsible conclusion is that the unconventional plan did not prevent this particular film from reaching a large audience. A causal claim would require evidence that isolates the effect of the publicity choices.
The controversy around paid criticism
Gupta also discussed allegations that film campaigns face organised negative publicity. Such concerns have become common in conversations about celebrity reputation and opening-weekend performance. However, an industry participant's belief that smear campaigns exist does not identify who funded a particular attack. The interview should not be read as proof that a named rival sabotaged Dhurandhar. Audiences can recognise the incentive to manipulate attention while still demanding evidence before accepting a charge against another person. The same standard applies to claims that positive buzz was secretly bought. Suspicion alone does not establish either form of misconduct.
Why publicity is changing
Actors now reach audiences through trailers, creator interviews, social clips, live events and direct online accounts. That variety makes it possible to build a campaign around material rather than celebrity access. Yet public appearances still matter for films that need to introduce an unfamiliar cast, explain a difficult premise or connect with regional audiences. Gupta's explanation highlights the value of choosing channels based on the film rather than a fixed checklist. It also shows why fans should be cautious when interpreting a star's silence as a sign of conflict. Sometimes the absence is part of the message the team has chosen to send.
The role of trust within a film team
A coordinated marketing approach requires agreement between creative and commercial decision-makers. The director may worry about spoilers, the actor about overexposure and the distributor about ticket awareness. Gupta's account suggests that the Dhurandhar team accepted a shared plan despite criticism. That does not make the approach universally better, but it illustrates how consistent execution can matter. Changing direction every time a social post complains may confuse the audience. Equally, refusing to respond to genuine signs of weak awareness can be risky. Good publicity work involves judgement about when to stay the course and when to adjust.
What readers should take from the interview
The fresh October 21 development is an explanation from a campaign insider about why Singh did not lead the promotional push. It does not establish that the actor was unhappy, that a feud occurred or that the filmmakers hid him for an undisclosed reason. It also does not settle allegations about paid attacks on films. The useful insight is how a high-profile production deliberately departed from a familiar publicity template. Viewers interested in entertainment industry strategy can examine that choice without inventing backstage drama. For now, Gupta's interview is a case study in a calculated marketing gamble and the debate it generated.
