Rashmika Mandanna Reveals Sikandar Was Very Different Initially: “Things Change According to Performances”!

When a big-budget film releases with massive expectations, audiences often assume everything was carefully planned from the very beginning. But cinema is rarely that simple. Recently, actress Rashmika Mandanna offered a rare and honest glimpse into the unpredictable journey of filmmaking while talking about her experience in Sikandar. Her statement — that the script was “very different at first” and that “things change according to performances” — has sparked discussion across the film industry and among fans alike.

As someone who closely follows cinema and its behind-the-scenes processes, I find Rashmika’s comments not only interesting but also important. They highlight a reality that many viewers don’t see: films evolve constantly, and what starts as a powerful story on paper can transform drastically once actors step in, scenes are shot, and edits are made.

A Promising Script at the Beginning

When Rashmika Mandanna first signed Sikandar, it was backed by strong names and high expectations. The project carried the weight of being a major commercial entertainer, pairing her with Salman Khan under the direction of A.R. Murugadoss. Naturally, anticipation was high. Rashmika herself has said that what convinced her initially was the script and the emotional depth it carried.

According to her, the version she heard in the narration stage had a different rhythm, structure, and perhaps even a different emotional focus. Actors often commit to films because of the story they are promised — the arc of their character, the way the plot unfolds, and the message the film wants to convey. For Rashmika, that initial script was compelling enough to make her come on board with confidence.

However, filmmaking doesn’t stop at narration. Once shooting begins, the reality of performance, chemistry between actors, location challenges, audience expectations, and commercial pressures all come into play. That is where Rashmika says Sikandar began to change.

“Things Change According to Performances” – What It Really Means

One of Rashmika’s most striking comments was, “Things change according to performances.” This line reveals a lot about how films grow organically on set.

When actors start performing their roles, directors often see new possibilities. A scene that looked good on paper may feel flat on camera. Another moment might suddenly shine because an actor brings unexpected emotion or intensity. As a result, scenes are rewritten, dialogues adjusted, and sometimes even entire character arcs are modified.

In big star films, especially, performances can influence the narrative heavily. If a lead actor’s screen presence dominates, the script may tilt in their favor. Supporting characters may get reduced, expanded, or altered. Emotional beats might be replaced with action, romance, or drama, depending on what works better visually.

Rashmika’s statement suggests that Sikandar went through exactly this kind of transformation. The story she signed up for didn’t remain frozen. It adapted to what happened on set, and while that can improve a film, it can also move it away from its original intention.

How Scripts Change During Filmmaking

To understand Rashmika’s experience better, it’s important to know how common script changes are in cinema.

1. Performance-Driven Changes

Actors interpret characters differently from how writers imagine them. Once the camera rolls, directors may rewrite scenes to suit the actor’s strengths.

2. Star Image and Commercial Pressure

Big stars come with expectations. Sometimes, scripts are altered to suit fan expectations — more action, more hero moments, fewer slow emotional scenes.

3. Editing Room Decisions

Many films are actually rewritten in the editing room. Scenes that felt powerful while shooting may not work in the final cut, and entire subplots may be removed.

4. Audience Targeting

Producers may push for changes to make the film more mass-appealing, especially if early footage suggests a different tone.

5. Time and Budget Constraints

Sometimes, practical limitations force writers and directors to simplify or replace scenes.

Rashmika’s comments indirectly point toward these realities. Her experience reflects how filmmaking is not just art, but also negotiation between creativity and commerce.

The Final Version vs the Original Vision

By the time Sikandar reached theatres, it had already gone through many layers of evolution. Rashmika acknowledged that what audiences saw was quite different from what she initially signed for.

This doesn’t mean the changes were wrong — but it does raise questions. Did the emotional core get diluted? Did character arcs shift? Did the story lose focus while trying to balance performance, spectacle, and mass appeal?

Many viewers felt that Sikandar struggled with coherence and emotional depth. Rashmika’s revelation gives context to those reactions. When a film moves too far from its original blueprint, it risks losing the clarity that made it special in the first place.

Rashmika’s Graceful Honesty

What I admire most about Rashmika’s statement is its maturity. She didn’t criticize anyone directly. She didn’t blame the director, co-actors, or production team. Instead, she explained the process with honesty and balance.

Rather than saying, “The film failed,” she said, “Things change.” That’s a very professional way of acknowledging that cinema is collaborative and unpredictable. It also shows that she understands her responsibility as an artist — not just to act, but to grow with each project, success or failure.

Her approach reflects her evolution as a performer. Rashmika is no longer just choosing films for popularity. She’s aware of storytelling, structure, and the long-term impact of her choices.

The Pressure of Big-Star Films

Sikandar wasn’t just another movie. It was a massive commercial project with high stakes. In such films, creative decisions are often influenced by box-office potential more than narrative purity.

When a movie stars a megastar, the story sometimes becomes secondary to spectacle. Action sequences, heroic elevation, and fan-service moments start replacing quieter emotional beats. That can be thrilling for some viewers, but risky for storytelling.

Rashmika’s comment subtly highlights this pressure. The script she heard may have been more character-driven, while the final product leaned more toward mass entertainment. That shift can leave actors feeling disconnected from the version of the story they initially believed in.

What Actors Actually Sign Up For

When actors agree to a film, they don’t just sign a contract — they sign up for a story, a journey, and a character’s emotional arc.

If that arc changes drastically, it impacts the actor’s connection to the role. Rashmika’s experience reflects what many actors quietly go through but rarely speak about: the gap between narration and release.

By openly acknowledging that gap, Rashmika brings transparency to an industry that often hides its creative struggles behind marketing and glamour.

Lessons for Filmmakers and Audiences

Rashmika Mandanna’s statement carries lessons for both filmmakers and viewers.

For Filmmakers

• Respect the original script’s emotional core.

• Balance star power with storytelling.

• Don’t let performance changes destroy narrative clarity.

• Remember that consistency matters more than constant improvisation.

For Audiences

• Understand that films evolve in complex ways.

• Not every flaw comes from acting alone.

• Creative processes are often messier than they look.

Her words encourage a more thoughtful way of judging cinema — beyond box-office numbers and social media noise.

Rashmika’s Career Beyond Sikandar

Despite Sikandar’s mixed reception, Rashmika Mandanna continues to grow as one of the most versatile actresses across Indian cinema. From emotional dramas to commercial entertainers, she has shown adaptability and depth.

What makes her stand out is her ability to reflect instead of react. Instead of distancing herself from a project, she chooses to talk about it honestly. That builds trust with audiences and respect within the industry.

Her journey proves that a single film does not define an actor — but how they learn from it certainly does.

Why Her Statement Matters

In an industry where public relations often control narratives, Rashmika’s simple line — “Things change according to performances” — feels refreshingly real.

It tells us:

• Scripts are living documents.

• Performances reshape stories.

• Cinema is collaboration, not certainty.

• Growth comes from understanding, not denial.

As someone who observes cinema closely, I believe Rashmika’s honesty opens up healthier conversations about filmmaking — where success and struggle are both part of the same journey.

Final Thoughts

Rashmika Mandanna’s revelation about Sikandar is not just about one film. It’s about how cinema truly works behind the scenes. Her words remind us that movies are not born perfect — they are shaped by people, performances, pressure, and possibility.

When she says the script was very different at first, she’s really saying that filmmaking is a living, breathing process. And when she adds that things change according to performances, she’s acknowledging the beautiful but risky nature of creative evolution.

In a world obsessed with final results, Rashmika chose to talk about the journey. And that honesty, more than any box-office number, is what makes her voice meaningful in today’s film industry.