Baahubali 2 Trailer!!!! Where’s Tamanaah??????

Yaaaaaay!  The trailer is out!  And I missed it last night because I can’t understand time changes!  Karan announced when it would be released, but I thought it would be early this morning, not late last night.  Oh well.  It’s here now!



Well, firstly, the facial hair of Bahubali and Bahubali Jr. has somehow met in the middle and now I can’t easily tell them apart.  They both seem to be going to war against Rana, but maybe it’s just one of them and I am confused?

The editing is great in the trailer, I love the way all the war scenes seem to be happening at once with that beat in the background.  But that doesn’t tell us much about how the war scenes will be in reality.  And still no information on why Kattapa killed him!

Although I think I heard a thing there with the Rani Maa being all horrified at the idea of a civil war?  Is it possible that Baahubali decides to sacrifice his life in order to end or prevent a civil war which will tear apart the kingdom?

(Also, just a reminder that Rani Maa totally made Shahrukh her little sexual plaything 20 years ago)

I am also delighted that we get to see tough Anushka and her romance with Prabhas!  Love her little slow mo sword fight scene, and her dance, and Prabhas’s “I’m in love at first sight!” look.

But, here’s my question, WHERE’S TAMANAAH?????

She disappeared for the second half of Baahubali 1 and we (meaning me and my friends) all thought “oh, okay, but she’ll come back in 2 for the resolution of her story and maybe to lead the rebel group in battle.”  But, NO!

At least, not from this trailer.  It’s possible they decided not to show her because they thought the big draw would be solving the mystery of what happened in the past to get Anushka chained up and Baahubali Sr. dead.  I hope so!  I would hate it if we have a whole movie, and then waaaaaay at the end, just a little glimpse of her character standing on the dias at the coronation or something.

20 thoughts on “Baahubali 2 Trailer!!!! Where’s Tamanaah??????

  1. Tamanna is there for a second (literally) at 1:42. She is fighting in the war.

    Funny, I could easily tell Amarendra and Mahendra apart. I thought Prabhas did a great job in that I could tell them apart just from the expression in their eyes and body language. But yes, Bhallaladeva (Rana) does fight with both of them. To tell which is which, see whether he has a beard or not, and especially, if the beard is grey streaked or not.

    Liked by 1 person

      • I just watched it again. My mistake, young Bhalla has a beard, too, although it’s shorter and more trimmed than old Bhalla’s. Another clue for the Amarendra/Mahendra difference is the shape of their tilaks. Amarendra has a crescent moon one and Mahendra has a conch shell shaped one.

        Liked by 1 person

        • I’ve now watched it 3 times (once real quick so I could write a post before work, twice with no sound on my phone on the way to work), and I think the part where I really start getting confused is at the end when they keep cutting between battle scenes. I assume there will be two big battles, one in the past and one in the present. It might be kind of cool if they cut like that in the film as well! So we really get the sense that the father and son are doing the same thing. Only, presumably, the father will lose and the son will ultimately win.

          On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 9:41 AM, dontcallitbollywood wrote:



  2. I replayed it like 5 times, and I agree with Moimeme that Tamanaah is in a fight scene for half a second at the 1:42 mark.kick ass killing a soldier with a big swipe of her sword. She isn’t facing us, so it took me a couple times to confirm it’s her.

    I’m very happy that we’re going to see the romance backstory between Baahubali and the Queen in chains (Anuskha) from Baahubali 1.

    And of course they’re going to keep us in suspense about Katappa! This is only the first trailer!


    • It took me forever to figure it out, but the hashtag #WKKB at the end is clearly for “Why Kattappa Killed Bahubaali”

      On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 9:40 AM, dontcallitbollywood wrote:



  3. Meant to say she isn’t facing us at first, and it’s so quick that it took a couple of times to confirm its Tamanaah.

    My husband is home today because he threw out his back,and I just showed him the trailer. He pointed out that it does say Baahubali 2;: The Conclusion. “At least he’s not going the Peter Jackson route and making it a trilogy.” Amen to that.


    • I have heard the stories that he is expanding it, but supposedly he is expanding “the universe”, not this particular story. So I guess he might be looking at telling the story of one of the soldiers or some prince in the past going on a quest or something, but in the same setting with the same odd rules of physics and weaponry.

      On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 9:45 AM, dontcallitbollywood wrote:



      • Yeah, Rajamouli said that he plans to tell stories within the same universe. They released a comic book recently called the Rise of Sivagami which apparently has her backstory.

        By the way, Rajamouli was jokingly saying that he wants to make a movie without any vfx as his next while talking to the press at the trailer launch. I can see him doing something like that since he followed up a huge movie like Magadheera with a smaller budget comedy, Maryada Ramana, which starred a comedian in the lead role.


    • Oh that’s interesting! In like a meta way. I used the link from Karan’s tweet, so I guess he posted the Hindi. Which shows that Dharma is still firmly focused on promoting it as a national film and ignoring the Telugu roots.

      On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 9:48 AM, dontcallitbollywood wrote:



      • I think everyone thinks of Bahubali as an international film now. 🙂 And naturally Karan Johar will promote the Hindi version since that’s the only version he’s associated with. Hindi does not equal “national”, certainly not for Bahubali. Everyone is aware of its Telugu (or at least South Indian) origin.


  4. I suppose I haven’t yet crossed the film-obsessed line since my reactions was, “Hey, cool trailer” — and I did not feel the need to deconstruct it frame by frame and consider the geopolitical implications.

    But anyway, “Hey, cool trailer!”

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I’m surprised at your surprise over lack of minimally important female character in the trailer of a Telugu film. Others have pointed out that it hers is a blink and miss appearance. I have a theory behind how the character came to exist.

    Wiki tells me that the film was first announced in 2011. Around mid 2014, the makers decided to split the movie into two parts. About similar time came out the news that Tamanna will be playing the lead opposite the younger Bahubali.

    So my big guess is that Tamanna was cast only after the makers had decided to split the movie and probably needed a female lead (correction: female romantic lead because how else would the movie work?) for the first one. So if Avanthika appears to be an afterthought, it is because she most likely was.

    I kinda feel sorry for Tamanna though. I find her a better actress and dancer that most others. She has a huge following based on looks alone. In spite of being a star, she hasn’t had a single big hit in her entire Telugu career for which she is considered bad luck and was already fading when she was cast in Bahubali. Her Hindi films have been more than abysmal. Bahubali won’t do anything for her either.

    Also if you haven’t watched already, there is this making teaser trailer was released sometime in the Autumn of 2013. (I’m not sure how much it is new now, but we were super excited when it first came out three years ago) It features Bahubali along with appearances from the principle supporting cast Ramya Krishnan (Sivagami), Nasser (Bijjala Deva) and Sathyaraj (Kattapa)

    There are similar featurettes for Devasena and Bhallaladeva as well.


    • I bet you are absolutely right. That the original conception was Anushka as the “female lead” for both halves, as the mother and the love interest. And then when the future part turned into more of its own film instead of just a 20 minute epilogue or prologue, they had to write in Tammanna. And the part that was expanded and written after she was added in includes her very well, but all the rest of it that was already in place before her character was brought in doesn’t really have a space for her.

      That would explain what really bothered me in the first movie! How she just disappears after the intermission, even though she was like a co-lead for the whole first half. I was hoping it was just because the end of her story was planned for this movie, but it looks like her story was only planned for that first half and then there is nothing else for her to do.


  6. The 1st part had Tamanna cause she had a role of a catalyst, by making Shiva/ Mahernda aware of whohe really was. I guess the second part mostly concentrates on what happened to Amearndra Baabubali and Shiva’s vengeance. Therefore Tammanna cannot be there in all the places, but yes I wish they could have given her a bit more time in the trailer.


    • That’s a great way to put it. It would be nice if Tamanna had her own personality and purpose besides just serving as a tool in Prabhas’ story, but if she was created to be a catalyst, they may never have planned for anything more for her.


  7. Pingback: Bahubali Posts Index – dontcallitbollywood

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.