What is more important: facts or their interpretation?

Random musing, guys, please bear with me.

Do you guys agree that facts are one thing, their interpretation another? Facts don't explain why they become facts, or why we care about certain facts more than others.

So for example -- Chappaak opened at 4 crores is a fact. Now, someone may interpret that as a low opening, and someone like me who is a Deepika fan may have a counter-argument ready that it's a good opening for a film of that subject and genre.

So do you think ultimately all interpretation is subjective and contingent on our personal biases?

Or is there an "objective" way to look at facts? This interests me a lot!

Discuss.

The example u gave isn't interpretation, they're reasons.

Reasons lead to facts. And reasons are based off facts too.

Like in Chhappak's 4 Cr opening, the subject, the genre but most importantly, the JNU incident were responsible. The former is a fact while the remaining are reasons.

Interpretation can be clouded due to biases. Like if we take Hindu scriptures, some write Vishnu is the ultimate reality, whereas others equivalate Shiva to Brahman and the remaining consider Shakti as the source of it all. These interpretations are due to biases. But there is a fact that combines all three together along with their reasons.

I hope I make sense to you.

Originally posted by: Ashley.Tisdale

The example u gave isn't interpretation, they're reasons.

Reasons lead to facts. And reasons are based off facts too.

Like in Chhappak's 4 Cr opening, the subject, the genre but most importantly, the JNU incident were responsible. The former is a fact while the remaining are reasons.

Interpretation can be clouded due to biases. Like if we take Hindu scriptures, some write Vishnu is the ultimate reality, whereas others equivalate Shiva to Brahman and the remaining consider Shakti as the source of it all. These interpretations are due to biases. But there is a fact that combines all three together along with their reasons.

I hope I make sense to you.

Very interesting. Yeah, I completely get your point. You are saying reasons lead to facts, and I feel that the weightage we give to these reasons comprise our interpretations. For example - someone may give weightage to the JNU incident, someone may not. The former will conclude that 4 crore opening is good under the circumstances. The latter will conclude 4 crore opening is bad.

It's definitely subjective, and this subjectivity is coloured by our accumulated experiences in life, our upbringing, our social/economic status, and so much more.The way we look at a thing is never in isolation, it has the weight of our prejudices behind it.

Fact is 4 crore opening for any movie regardless of genre is low opening.

Interpretation is Deepika Padukone, the so called Female superstar of the generation, who doesn't need male stars to make her movies hit, fails to even cross a 5 crore margin is pathetic.

A 4 crore opening for someone like Tapsee or Bhumi is excellent, but for someone like Deepika just exposes her pull when not padded.

And that isn't a slug on her, it is just a fact that Deepika without glamour avatar doesn't have that box office pull. And that is true for all female stars and most male stars barring Salman Khan.

If we leave out Deepika and just look at the subject , than yes a movie like Chappak opening at 4 crore, while poor isn't horrible. But when we have Deepika, than expectations go high.

Also you need to understand mocking happens because of fan war and PR annoyance and not just because someone dislikes Deepika.

We had Deepika fans groups in twitter claiming Tanhaji should be afraid of Chappak, which obviously irates people. And on top of that Tanhaji was criticised by liberals, while Deepika with her stupid JNU visit became aligned with liberals, which led to people even more irritated with Chappak, and on top of that, movie itself was dull. So all that led to the even more mocking of Deepika.

A movie like Tanhaji was stupidly branded anti-Muslim and jingoistic, while not fault of Deepika, but it indirectly contributed to people mocking her even more.

And it isn't like people haven't appreciated off beat movies in last 5-10 years, but the thing is Chhapak itself was not a good movie, and Deepika herself isn't capable of carrying the movie to box office success. So all this talk of her being female superstar is limited. Yes she has been top female actress for years, and only rivalled by Alia at times, but as a larger picture her stardom is nothing special and she like everyone else, depends on glamour and strong supporting cast/crew to give hits. Her name just isn't enough, as her "Highest paid actress" gimmick suggest.

Facts are more important because down the road that is all that people will remember.

I may say mean spirited things but I’m basing them off the facts. Bollywood actresses face hardships after a certain age. I don’t take glee in it. Maybe a little but it’s also not my fault. I actually watched Aaja Nachley, Mom in cinemas. Wasted my perfect Saturday’s 😆

Originally posted by: Ashley.Tisdale

Interpretation can be clouded due to biases. Like if we take Hindu scriptures, some write Vishnu is the ultimate reality, whereas others equivalate Shiva to Brahman and the remaining consider Shakti as the source of it all. These interpretations are due to biases. But there is a fact that combines all three together along with their reasons.

I hope I make sense to you.

I’m trying to understand. Like a false sense of reality 😆

Originally posted by: Maroonporsche

I’m trying to understand. Like a false sense of reality 😆

Its anything but false 😆

Fact was Deepika asking for maal in WhatsApp chats.

Deepika's interpretation of maal was choti cigarette and moti cigarette.

What is more important?

Agenda!!!