A ₹4,000-crore bet on the 'Ramayana': Why filmmakers keep returning to the epic

The first thing audiences noticed about Nitesh Tiwari's 'Ramayana' wasn't its scale or star cast. It was Ranbir Kapoor's face.

Within hours of the film's first glimpse being unveiled, social media was flooded with opinions. Some praised the visuals, while others felt Ranbir looked too modern to play Lord Rama. Sai Pallavi's casting as Sita also sparked debate, with many questioning whether she possessed the "divine aura" associated with the character. It was a familiar cycle. Every time a filmmaker attempts to retell the 'Ramayana', comparisons with earlier versions begin almost instantly.

Yet, despite the scrutiny, filmmakers continue to revisit the epic.

The ambitious two-part adaptation, mounted on a reported budget of ₹4,000 crore, is among the costliest film projects ever attempted in India. Produced by Namit Malhotra, founder of Prime Focus and the Oscar-winning visual effects studio DNEG, the film stars Ranbir Kapoor, Sai Pallavi, Yash, Sunny Deol and Ravi Dubey. With Hans Zimmer collaborating with A R Rahman for the music, it also marks one of the biggest international collaborations on an Indian film.

But the obvious question remains. Why does the 'Ramayana' keep finding its way back to the screen?

For film critic A Chandrasekhar, the answer is simple.

"There's nothing wrong with retelling a classic. The question is how you interpret it," he says. "Look at Dracula. It has been adapted countless times in different languages. Even Homer's 'The Odyssey' has inspired several films and is now being revisited by Christopher Nolan. These stories survive because every generation finds something new in them."

Indian cinema has been doing exactly that for more than a century.
One of the earliest screen adaptations was Dadasaheb Phalke's silent film 'Lanka Dahan' in 1917. Since then, almost every decade has produced its own version of the epic. Hindi cinema brought audiences 'Sampoorna Ramayan', Telugu cinema gave them classics like 'Lava Kusa' and Bapu's 'Sampoorna Ramayanam', while Ramanand Sagar's television series 'Ramayan' became a cultural phenomenon that united millions of viewers every Sunday morning. More recently, the animated classic 'Ramayana: The Legend of Prince Rama' found a devoted following, while Om Raut's 'Adipurush' reignited conversations on how mythology should be adapted for modern audiences.

According to Chandrasekhar, the success of these adaptations has rarely depended on how faithfully they recreated the original text.
"Every filmmaker goes back to a classic believing they have something new to add," he says. "That's why no two 'Ramayana' films are the same. They all bring a different interpretation."

Perhaps no industry illustrates that better than Malayalam cinema.
Malayalam cinema, however, has largely stayed away from straightforward retellings of the epic. Instead, it has chosen to reinterpret the 'Ramayana' in quieter, more introspective ways.

The finest example is G Aravindan's 'Kanchana Sita', based on CN Sreekantan Nair's acclaimed play. Rather than following the familiar journey from Ayodhya to Lanka, the film picks up after Sita's exile. She never appears on screen, yet her presence is felt throughout the film. It was a radical departure from the grand mythologicals audiences had come to expect, proving that the 'Ramayana' could be retold without recreating its spectacle.

Earlier films like 'Seetha' drew from episodes of the epic, while later Malayalam films such as 'Bharatham', 'Dasharatham', and 'Ravanaprabhu' borrowed its characters, themes and symbolism without attempting to adapt the story in its entirety.

For Chandrasekhar, that's precisely why the 'Ramayana' refuses to become dated.
"Every generation has its own 'Ramayana'," he says. "The story remains the same, but the way people see it changes. Naturally, filmmakers interpret it through the lens of their own time."
That shift is visible not just in storytelling, but in the way audiences imagine its central characters.

"When we were growing up, Rama was N T Rama Rao or Prem Nazir. They had a certain softness to them. After Ramanand Sagar's 'Ramayan', that image slowly changed. Today's Rama is more muscular, more of an action hero. You can see that in 'Adipurush' and even in the upcoming 'Ramayana'. Every generation creates its own image of these characters," he says.

It is perhaps this flexibility that has kept the epic alive for centuries. Unlike stories frozen in a particular period, the 'Ramayana' has constantly evolved with the audience. One generation remembers Arun Govil's calm and composed Rama, another grew up watching an animated prince in 'Ramayana: The Legend of Prince Rama', while younger viewers may remember Prabhas in 'Adipurush'. Now, a new generation will inevitably measure the story through Ranbir Kapoor's portrayal.

That also explains why every adaptation invites intense debate. Audiences are not merely judging a film; they are comparing it with the version of the 'Ramayana' they grew up with. Every new filmmaker walks into a conversation that has been going on for decades, carrying the weight of nostalgia, faith and cinematic legacy.