Aspects of pop culture people seem to misunderstand

[Son_of_a_Rich]

@CalMeacham

That is indeed one interpretation, but ( as the great Master himself pointed out in a long-ago column) there are many methods of killing vampires, and some of them involve putting stakes through parts of the body and in ways that don’t actually work as if you’re really trying to staple the vampire to the ground, like driving the stake sideways through the head. A lot of these seem to be pure magic, with no “rational” basis to them. One of the more interesting “rational” solutions was to bury the vampire face-down, so that when it tries to dig itself out of the ground it’s really just digging itself deeper. Reminds me of some people I know.

Besides, there are plenty of old fictional examples where the staking was done with a coffin out of the ground, as in one scene in Varney the Vampire, or in Carmilla, both 19th century stories predating Dracula. The misunderstanding, if that’s what it is, has been around about as long as Vampires have been pop culture (as opposed to superstition and legend).

For all the talk of proper ways to “kill” a vampire, didn’t Harker end up just cutting the guy’s head off with a hunting knife?

[moriah]

@FriarTed

Dracula turns to dust.

@Son_of_a_Rich

For all the talk of proper ways to “kill” a vampire, didn’t Harker end up just cutting the guy’s head off with a hunting knife?

Is that how you kill draculas? With beheadings? And frankensteins are killed with fire, right?

[Alessan]

@Hermione

You know, now that I’ve seen that ending (though not the whole movie), it DOES work pretty well even if it takes a major liberty.

Generally speaking, beheading and fire are effective against most monsters. Those, and wood chippers. Wood chippers pretty much trump everything.

[Boyo_Jim]

No love for pitchforks?

[Son_of_a_Rich]

@Boyo_Jim

No love for pitchforks?

Only with torches.

[Alessan]

Honestly, has a monster *ever *been killed by a pitchfork? At best, they’re can be used to help mobs direct the creature to a conveniently combustible windmill; in and of themselves, they’re useless.

[Boyo_Jim]

@Son_of_a_Rich

Only with torches.

I thought that was so obvious that I didn’t even mention it.

@Alessan

Honestly, has a monster *ever *been killed by a pitchfork? At best, they’re can be used to help mobs direct the creature to a conveniently combustible windmill; in and of themselves, they’re useless.

I disagree. They are a powerful psychological weapon when wielded by mobs of peasants.

[salinqmind]

@Son_of_a_Rich

For all the talk of proper ways to “kill” a vampire, didn’t Harker end up just cutting the guy’s head off with a hunting knife?

Dracula was killed in a joint effort, Jonathan Harker slashed his throat and Quincy Morris (an American cowboy-type from Texas) stabbed him in the heart.

[Quimby]

Another one that I thought of:

Many people seem to misunderstand what happens at the end of The Empire Strikes Back. R2 doesn’t repair the hyperdrive. It was already fixed by Lando’s people. After they fixed it, the Empire deactivated it. R2 learned this from Cloud City’s Main Computer. So while Chewie and Lando struggle to fix an already fixed hyperdrive (that is why Chewie is so frustrated because he can’t find anything wrong), R2 undoes whatever the Empire did and reactivates the Hypedrive.

[Alessan]

Which is one more reason why R2-D2 is the true hero of the Star Wars films.

[Irishman]

@CalMeacham

Partly. More than one commentator has observed the ludicrousness of the scene of dinosaurs lighting up. The electrically-charged stunners may give some rationale for the image, but they’re ridiculously inappropriate – if the scene were lit by their discharges, we’d have lightning-like brief flashes of light, instead of the sustained light beams moving around that we do have.

There’s two sets of lights in that scene. The first is the giant spotlights at various odd positions casting the harsh light streams around, glowing through the cage slits and whatnot. The second are the bright flashes from the electrical stun sticks.

@Krokodil

Having seen none of them, I have to ask: Since diamonds don’t refract light into pink (It would be a White Panther, if anything), is the gem ultimately revealed as a fake?

Daria-i-Noor

The Darya-ye Noor (Persian: دریای نور‎ which means “Sea of Light”, or “Ocean of Light” in Persian; also spelled Darya-i-Noor, Darya-e Noor, Daria-i-Noor and Darya-i-Nur) is one of the largest cut diamonds in the world, weighing an estimated 182 carats (36 g). Its colour, pale pink, is one of the rarest to be found in diamonds.

Yes, real diamonds can be pink. So no, the movie did not find the gem to be a fake.

@Quimby

Another one that I thought of:

Many people seem to misunderstand what happens at the end of The Empire Strikes Back. R2 doesn’t repair the hyperdrive. It was already fixed by Lando’s people. After they fixed it, the Empire deactivated it. R2 learned this from Cloud City’s Main Computer. So while Chewie and Lando struggle to fix an already fixed hyperdrive (that is why Chewie is so frustrated because he can’t find anything wrong), R2 undoes whatever the Empire did and reactivates the Hypedrive.

:smack: Lando’s people did fix it, then the Stormtroopers deactivated it, that’s how C3PO got waxed.

Alternate interpretation: Guy looks at stormtrooper, looks at Lando, “Of course we fixed the hyperdrive, Lando, just like you told us to.” Looks back at stormtrooper and swallows.

[Little_Nemo]

@Alessan

Honestly, has a monster *ever *been killed by a pitchfork? At best, they’re can be used to help mobs direct the creature to a conveniently combustible windmill; in and of themselves, they’re useless.

I think it’s the mob itself that overwhelms the monster. Collectively, they’re too strong for the monster to defeat. The pitchforks are useful because they give the people in the mob confidence which keeps them together in a mob.

[Johanna]

@Hermione

I’ve just come from seeing a production of Hair at the same theatre where I saw the aforementioned production of A Chorus Line. It’s occurred to me that the song “Let The Sun Shine In” is often misunderstood. (Note that I’m talking about the stage version of Hair, not the film version, which, as I understand, has quite a twist to the ending.)
…
the song isn’t saying that the sun’s shining on us and everything’s terrific…it’s saying that we have to LET the sun shine in to keep tragedies like this from happening. [/spoiler]

I have never been able to pin down for certain whether the title is “Let the Sun Shine In” or “Let the Sunshine In.” I have been seeing it spelled both ways for what, 45 years now, until I can’t unscramble what the canonical spelling was supposed to be.

[Johanna]

I thought of an oldie from 1915. When *Greenmantle *by John Buchan is mentioned at all, people make out like it ominously foretells the scary Islamic hordes rising up to wreak scary Islamic revenge on Europe. I read it to see what they were talking about, and it had essentially none of that scenario. The Big Bad in that novel is the scary Germans, masterminded by a completely non-Muslim German lady. The kid who’s supposed to be the big Islamic messiah dies on his own well before the end of the book without ever actually having done a thing, without even showing up in the narrative. Big whoop. There are hardly any Turkish bad guys even appearing, and those who do show up briefly are minor minions of the big bad German lady. I can’t think of any other novel that has been so drastically misrepresented.

[Little_Nemo]

@Johanna

I have never been able to pin down for certain whether the title is “Let the Sun Shine In” or “Let the Sunshine In.” I have been seeing it spelled both ways for what, 45 years now, until I can’t unscramble what the canonical spelling was supposed to be.

I always figure it’s supposed to be “Let the Sun Shine In”. When they sing the chorus “let the sun shine/let the sun shine in” makes more grammatical sense than “let the sunshine/let the sunshine in”. And there are other parts where they sing “let it shine”. So shine appears to be used as a verb.

[Rhiannon8404]

@MilTan

This one I can give a pass to (especially compared to “Every Breath You Take.”) Sure, Clapton may have written it about another man’s wife, but that’s just surrounding context. Taken on its own, the song is perfectly appropriate for a wedding. On the other hand, “Every Breath You Take” is about a fucking stalker.

Layla was written about another man’s wife. Wonderful Tonight was about his own wife. Of course, they are the same person.

[Peter_Morris]

@WordMan

Or playing Every Breath You Take at your wedding.

Or Here Comes The Bride, for that matter.

Bridal Chorus

[Nobody]

A few years ago I started a thread titled, Literary characters who come to symbolize the opposite of how they were portrayed.

I think that fits what the OP has in mind, so here are the two examples that were in my OP:

@Nobody

I never have read Uncle Tom, but I’ve always herd it used as a pejorative. So one day I looked it up on-line and was surprised to see

@Wikipedia

In the novel the Uncle Tom character is a black Christian martyr, morally superior to his white owners in an antebellum fiction whose subtext was an argument that the institution of slavery was immoral. Numerous adaptations altered the depiction substantially, often rendering him feeble, servile, or a race traitor. These adaptations, along with critical distaste for the original character’s passivity, contributed to the strongly negative connotations of the name in modern popular use.

Also, I never read about Little Lord Fauntleroy but have always heard the name in a negative connotation. So I was surprised to see

@Wikipedia

“Little Lord Fauntleroy” is now most often used as a term of derision. It describes a pompous spoiled brat, usually a young male, who takes his wealth and privilege for granted (while this is obviously not consistent with the original character, it is inspired by the perceived self-righteousness of the little lord, and an assumed odiousness in his overweening goodness).