Ladies and gentlemen, let me ask you of this one favour. The unsophisticated answer to the question above. The simple minded may hereupon think me to be not quite sane, or at best take me to be yet another arrogant smartypants. But before you form your own independent opinions of me (of which you are very much entitled to) consider the following.
Mr. Karan Johar has till date directed (or in the process of directing) 4 films. Out of those 4 films, 3 films are set abroad (US or UK).
He has produced (or in the process of producing) 8 films out of which 4 films are set abroad.
He is also the writer of the story or screenplay of 6 films, out of which an unprecedented 4 films are set abroad.
Why such obvious biasness to frame films in foreign lands, I earnestly ask of you, when the stories are as good (or as bad) of being set up in Indian locales as well. The usual motivation behind the the setting of stories in foreign lands should at least theoritically have something to do with the land itself, and/or its people. Johar's film's alas, fail to achieve either objective. His films and scripts have absolutely nothing do with the ordinary people, their struggles or their opinions. And he most certainly cares neither for the history or culture of those foreign lands. He simply chooses the foreign locations just for the girls in bikinis, high-end and glamorous lifestyle, the 'cool' look and for their exotic beauty. Pretty disgusting for any person who appreciates fine cinema.
For example why was Kal Ho Naa Ho shot in the US? And what difference did that make other than in the categories mentioned above? Nothing. He got even the 'firangees' to dance and sing (really pity them!). The story could just have been set in India too.
That's the real difference between classy directors like Meera Nair and irritating filmmakers like Karan Johar. Films like Monsoon Wedding and The Namesake made full utilization of the lands they were set in. Monsoon Wedding smelled so incredibly full of that Punjabi-Delhi marriage spirit, while The Namesake could convey the meaning of the busy Kolkatan landscapes as well as the loneliness amidst the snowy vastness of the American-scape. But films like Kal Ho Naa Ho, Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna, Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham and Dostana make a mockery of the audience. And I certainly cannot ever appreciate that.
Some people say he is supposedly catering to the NRI markets abroad, and that he is finding new markets for Bollywood films. But I say he is doing nothing other than branding out C grade films in Hollywood packaging to infantile foreign audiences, to the detriment of the art called Cinema of India (and that's NOT Bollywood!).
By the way I am confused about what Johar is trying to show in his films. He most certainly isn't showing India (or REAL Indians for that matter), and he most certainly isn't showing US. Any suggestions?