There was one where he was a blind pianist (and gets caught reading a dog food label, I don’t remember how the episode resolved). At the time I was under the common impression that he was “inhabiting” the other person but never bothered to question why his mind in a set of non-functioning eyes would suddenly make them work.
He gets temporarily blinded by an early-'60s flashbulb, and has to save the day by listening to Al’s advice (before proving his accuser false, by genuinely failing to see archetypal danger waving right in front of his very eyes).
But, they look exactly like stereotypical aliens to my recollection. (It’s been years since I saw it though.)
What the hell does that have to do with this thread?
In Frankenstein, it’s true that the monster’s name was Frankenstein. With the caveat, of course, that it’s the human scientist who’s the monster, not his hapless creation.
Good points by you and Cal above. It’s interesting to note that Dracula is NOT staked in the novel–he is stabbed in the throat and chest by knives.
Incidentally, the only times I’ve seen an undead corpse turned to dust in folklore is when a priest gives it absolution. Forgive the hell out of the vampire–that’s the ticket!
However, all the female vampires in the novel (Lucy and the three “sisters”, popularly known as the “Brides of Dracula”) are killed by staking.
It certainly does kill the undead. Van Helsing assured the guys that Lucy Westenra was truly dead once staked. The beheading & Host/garlic sanitation of her body & the grave was to prevent Dracula from removing the stake & reviving her with his blood.
Dracula turns to dust.
Why? I seem to misunderstand also.
I though he turned to mist.
As I recall it was a split decision so among the three officials, one thought he had won the fight. But yeah, he loses.
I don’t get people who think the “KHAAAAANNN!!!” yell is anything but a genuine moment of impotent fury, but how widespread this misunderstanding is, I couldn’t say.
[QUOTE=BramStoker]
But, on the instant, came the sweep and flash of Jonathan’s great knife. I shrieked as I saw it shear through the throat. Whilst at the same moment Mr. Morris’s bowie knife plunged into the heart.
It was like a miracle, but before our very eyes, and almost in the drawing of a breath, the whole body crumbled into dust and passed from our sight.
[/QUOTE]
But that’s literature, not folklore.
Along the same lines, Stoker’s Dracula isn’t terribly inconvenienced by sunlight. He makes the bed in the morning and goes to the zoo, though when he’s in the coffin he’s pretty well out of it.
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.
RE: Wonderful Tonight, I remember an interview where he said his ‘inspiration’ was Boyd taking forever to preen for an event they were already late for. When she asked him how she looked, his “you look wonderful” remark wasn’t one of affection but rather an annoyed “Yeah, great, let’s go already”.
I couldn’t find the original interview but from a fan site:
But I agree that the back story doesn’t make it as bad as “Every Breath You Take”. “Wonderful Tonight” isn’t overtly about being annoyed by your wife but EBYT is obviously about stalking if you pay even scant attention to the lyrics.
Get’s even more confusing with “Bride of Frankenstein”.
So it’s bride ‘of’ Frankenstein meaning the bride is his creation and he own’s it but his monster is the future groom.
Exactly.
They were supposed to be super-advanced aliens but due to *extremely *bad design they were made to look like stereotypical “grey” aliens. Hence the confusion.
http://shortstormtrooper.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/robots.jpg
Maybe it was supposed to be an example of someone misunderstanding an aspect of popular culture. ralph124c, please pay attention to the thread topic. Your post did not have anything to do with the actual subject.
OK, she’s truly dead due to staking. And all Dracula has to do is remove the stake and give her some blood, and she’s revived. How is that equal to “truly dead”? When you’re dealing with that which has no life, whether it’s dead or truly dead or really most sincerely dead is confusing.
Anyway, Bram Stoker codified a lot of vampire lore in his novel. But as was said, there are lots of bits of modern vampire lore that aren’t present in “Dracula”, much to our surprise. It’s interesting how much of what “everyone knows” about vampires is not folklore, but literary invention created in the 20th century.
For instance, Joss Whedon decided that vampires should turn to dust when staked so Buffy wouldn’t have to deal with vampire corpses every week, which would be awkward. Now, vampires crumbled to dust earlier. But they didn’t explode just because a little piece of wood hit them in the heart.
Now I’m spacing out on the plot. What do people think it is if not that?
I seem to vaguely recall that shortly afterwards it turns out he can be beamed out any time he wants. Wouldn’t that support a reading of the yell as not genuine impotent fury?