Misconceptions about stories that bother you

Recommended Videos
Jun 6, 2012
111
0
0
Ok so I have been re-watching a lot of Dragonball/DBZ lately, and browsing the various forums/blogs associated with the series. And one thing that I see constantly brought up is "The story was supposed to end with Frieza. Toriyama wanted Goku to die on Namek."

This is an absolutely false statement. Toriyama never said any such thing. Even if Goku died on Namek, it wouldn't have mattered since Gohan and the others had possession of the Namekian Dragon Balls on Earth. They even tried to wish him back because they thought he was dead!

This bothers me so much mainly because everyone accepts it as "common knowledge" because "everyone knows this, right?". Ugh...I need to get out more :p

Anyways, are there any common misconceptions or falsehoods about stories that bother you?
 
Dec 14, 2009
15,526
0
0
Really?

I've never heard of that one.

I always thought Goku's story was meant to end at the end of the Cell Saga, his place to be taken over by Gohan, but butthurt fanboys being buttfurt fanboys, there was an outrage.

Never heard of the Frieza thing.

'Everyone in the Middle Ages thought the world used to be flat.'

That's actually a load of bollocks. It was established very quickly that the Earth was round.
 

Queen Michael

has read 4,010 manga books
Jun 9, 2009
10,400
0
0
Nineteen eighty-four isn't about a country where you're watched constantly; you might be watched constantly and you can never tell when you are.

Moby Dick, "the white whale," is actually mostly black. But it's got a black spot or two (I don't remember how many exactly).
 

Eamar

Elite Member
Feb 22, 2012
1,320
5
43
Country
UK
Gender
Female
The whole "Tolkien Orcs were originally tortured, mutilated Elves" thing, made popular by the movies.

Admittedly, this is a less obvious "falsehood" than some stories, as it is mentioned in The Silmarillion and it was an early theory that Tolkien had for their origin. However, it's well documented that he later became uncomfortable with this and was in the process of changing it when he died. It also wasn't the only "active" theory in Tolkien's notes, from which The Silmarillion and all the other History of Middle Earth volumes were compiled after his death - the only constant is that Melkor/Morgoth created the Orcs in mockery of the Elves.

It irritates me that the torture/mutilation version has become the most commonly accepted one. The vast majority of Tolkien lore has had to be constructed from unpublished notes which often conflict with each other, so I have no idea why this idea has stuck around just because it was in a manuscript of The Silmarillion when it's a relatively rare example of us actually knowing whether Tolkien intended to keep something or not.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
13,054
6,748
118
Country
United Kingdom
Queen Michael said:
Nineteen eighty-four isn't about a country where you're watched constantly; you might be watched constantly and you can never tell when you are.
Nineteen Eighty-Four is up there as one of the most continuously misunderstood books in the public consciousness. The number of times people abuse the terms "big brother", "Orwellian", "Newspeak", etc...


One that irritates me is the misconception that Stannis Baratheon is a believer in the Red God. It's partially a result of the TV show missing out some very important lines that define his character.
 

Tom_green_day

New member
Jan 5, 2013
1,384
0
0
Eamar said:
It irritates me that the torture/mutilation version has become the most commonly accepted one.
Well if it's the version he most commonly used, that will be the reason why... Even if he didn't like it, he wrote it. I don't like many of the stories I wrote when I was 10 but they still exist.
OT: I don't see why a film (mainly a film but other mediums too) has to be considered dark and stuff to be considered dark and stuff to be considered 'a classic'. Seriously, just look at IMDB top 250. Shawshank Redemption. Godfather. Dark Knight. Schindler's List. Lord of the Rings. Granted I haven't seen all the films on the list but the ones that have light-hearted elements or are in general, are the exception rather than the rule. Even classics, such as Bond, Mission Impossible, Wayne's World, Mad Max, Hot Fuzz/Shaun, Pirates of the Caribbean, and many more are left out.
I think it's mainly that the audience for things like IMDB is one certain kind of people or 'community' so they all choose the films they like and it is 'cool' to like in that culture. It just annoys me when people think this constitutes a good story. Some of the cleverest comedies, like The Hangover, Hot Fuzz, School of Rock, Tropic Thunder etc. are left out in favour of some of the most boring 'serious' films e.g. Slumdog Millionaire, Inglorious Bastards, Gravity etc.
Rant over.
I'm expecting some serious blowback about this :p
 

Eamar

Elite Member
Feb 22, 2012
1,320
5
43
Country
UK
Gender
Female
Tom_green_day said:
Even if he didn't like it, he wrote it. I don't like many of the stories I wrote when I was 10 but they still exist.
This isn't really the same thing though. Tolkien didn't write a finished "story", he wrote notes for various books. It'd be like insisting on calling Thorin Oakenshield "Gandalf" because that was the name Tolkien originally planned to give him (true story, by the way), despite knowing that he decided to change it later.

It's not even a case of it being used "most often," seeing as it's not written about at massive length. There were four or five different theories Tolkien was playing with when he died, all given relatively equal weighting.
 

Colour Scientist

Troll the Respawn, Jeremy!
Jul 15, 2009
4,722
0
0
I don't think it's that common but it bothers me when people think Wuthering Heights is like a Mills and Boon love story.

It's a pretty dark novel with complicated and completely fucked up characters.
It wouldn't be the amazing book it is if it were just another tome of trashy romance fiction.
 

Sniper Team 4

New member
Apr 28, 2010
5,433
0
0
The Eagles. I swear, I am so sick of hearing, "Why didn't the Eagles just take them all the way to the mountain?" I lay this solely at Jackson's feet. The Eagles explain full well in the book why they don't take the Dwarves to the Lonely Mountain, and why they come when Gandalf calls for help. All Jackson had to do was put those lines of dialogue in the movie and the problem would have been solved. But no. Instead, I am doomed to hear people making that witty remark for the rest of my life. Ugh...

And as for the Lord of the Rings: Giant flying birds flying into a barren wasteland with a giant Eye that watches everything...Sauron would bring his whole army down on them in seconds. The whole point of only sending nine walkers was to move in secret and keep the quest hidden, because as we saw, the more people who know about it, the worse it gets.
 

Padwolf

New member
Sep 2, 2010
2,062
0
0
Colour Scientist said:
I don't think it's that common but it bothers me when people think Wuthering Heights is like a Mills and Boon love story.

It's a pretty dark novel with complicated and completely fucked up characters.
It wouldn't be the amazing book it is if it were just another tome of trashy romance fiction.
This one is mine too. Heathcliffe was one very angry man who ruined the lives of many. Cathy was one hell of a nutcase. It's one gripe I have with Twilight, for mentioning it and trying to compare Edward and Bella with Heathcliffe and Cathy. It just isn't at all. Also the same with 50 Shades of Grey trying to compare itself to Tess of the D'Urbervilles.
 

Padwolf

New member
Sep 2, 2010
2,062
0
0
MarsAtlas said:
Oh yes, the book is full of little nods to it, like comparing Grey to Alec, Anastasia to Tess. It's bloody ridiculous because they are nothing alike. That's just one of the many problems with that book. Thankfully it hasn't gone down the Twilight route yet. On some copies of Wuthering Heights I saw a sticker that said "The love story Bella loves in Twilight!" If I ever saw something like that on a copy of Tess I think I would flip my lid.
 

Lieju

New member
Jan 4, 2009
3,044
0
0
Eamar said:
The whole "Tolkien Orcs were originally tortured, mutilated Elves" thing, made popular by the movies.

Admittedly, this is a less obvious "falsehood" than some stories, as it is mentioned in The Silmarillion and it was an early theory that Tolkien had for their origin. However, it's well documented that he later became uncomfortable with this and was in the process of changing it when he died. It also wasn't the only "active" theory in Tolkien's notes, from which The Silmarillion and all the other History of Middle Earth volumes were compiled after his death - the only constant is that Melkor/Morgoth created the Orcs in mockery of the Elves.

It irritates me that the torture/mutilation version has become the most commonly accepted one. The vast majority of Tolkien lore has had to be constructed from unpublished notes which often conflict with each other, so I have no idea why this idea has stuck around just because it was in a manuscript of The Silmarillion when it's a relatively rare example of us actually knowing whether Tolkien intended to keep something or not.
I thought it had to do with the idea that Morgoth couldn't really create anything new, just corrupt.
 

Eamar

Elite Member
Feb 22, 2012
1,320
5
43
Country
UK
Gender
Female
Lieju said:
Eamar said:
The whole "Tolkien Orcs were originally tortured, mutilated Elves" thing, made popular by the movies.

Admittedly, this is a less obvious "falsehood" than some stories, as it is mentioned in The Silmarillion and it was an early theory that Tolkien had for their origin. However, it's well documented that he later became uncomfortable with this and was in the process of changing it when he died. It also wasn't the only "active" theory in Tolkien's notes, from which The Silmarillion and all the other History of Middle Earth volumes were compiled after his death - the only constant is that Melkor/Morgoth created the Orcs in mockery of the Elves.

It irritates me that the torture/mutilation version has become the most commonly accepted one. The vast majority of Tolkien lore has had to be constructed from unpublished notes which often conflict with each other, so I have no idea why this idea has stuck around just because it was in a manuscript of The Silmarillion when it's a relatively rare example of us actually knowing whether Tolkien intended to keep something or not.
I thought it had to do with the idea that Morgoth couldn't really create anything new, just corrupt.
That's correct - originally they were meant to be created from the slime and general disgustingness of his dungeons, but then Tolkien decided that evil couldn't create life from nothing and came up with the Elves theory. However, when he decided against that he suggested that they might have been created from corrupted/enchanted animals or men instead, among other things. It's also implied that some of the most powerful Orcs might be fallen Maiar who've taken a physical form.
 

Nimzabaat

New member
Feb 1, 2010
886
0
0
Sniper Team 4 said:
The Eagles. I swear, I am so sick of hearing, "Why didn't the Eagles just take them all the way to the mountain?" I lay this solely at Jackson's feet. The Eagles explain full well in the book why they don't take the Dwarves to the Lonely Mountain, and why they come when Gandalf calls for help. All Jackson had to do was put those lines of dialogue in the movie and the problem would have been solved. But no. Instead, I am doomed to hear people making that witty remark for the rest of my life. Ugh...

And as for the Lord of the Rings: Giant flying birds flying into a barren wasteland with a giant Eye that watches everything...Sauron would bring his whole army down on them in seconds. The whole point of only sending nine walkers was to move in secret and keep the quest hidden, because as we saw, the more people who know about it, the worse it gets.
This ^.

Mind you, one of the interesting things about LOTR is that the Elves are leaving. So Elrond Half-Elven (seriously, where did the half-breed hate in the movies come from?) sends a group with the weapon Sauron needs to him because... why not? The Elves have no stake in Middle Earth anymore, they are off to the Grey Havens. It would have been funny (to me, at least) if when they returned to Rivendell victorious, Elrond goes "Holy shit, that actually worked? Wow. Look I had one foot on the boat. I'm not even kidding."
 

Grottnikk

New member
Mar 19, 2008
338
0
0
Misconception: AIDS began back in the 70's with some French Canadian guy.

Truth: AIDS is 100 years old and most likely crossed over to humans when the blood from monkeys with a similar virus got into the bloodstream of human hunters in west Africa. See the book "Spillover" by David Quammen for a very interesting look at the history of not only the AIDS virus but of cross species infection in general. Scarey shit.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
20,519
5,335
118
Nimzabaat said:
Mind you, one of the interesting things about LOTR is that the Elves are leaving. So Elrond Half-Elven (seriously, where did the half-breed hate in the movies come from?) sends a group with the weapon Sauron needs to him because... why not? The Elves have no stake in Middle Earth anymore, they are off to the Grey Havens. It would have been funny (to me, at least) if when they returned to Rivendell victorious, Elrond goes "Holy shit, that actually worked? Wow. Look I had one foot on the boat. I'm not even kidding."
Maybe you could answer something for me, because this always confuses me... But why, for sake of argument Sauron reclaims the Ring and takes over all of Middle-Earth, could he then not simply cross the ocean and lay waste to the Undying Lands? I mean, I know it's supposed to represent Heaven, but it's still, like... on the ground, right? And humans already once tried to conquer them, but failed. So it's obvious they can be reached.

The Elves act like leaving Middle-Earth means leaving Sauron, but they still share the same "planet", right? Or am I just missing something obvious here?
 

Eamar

Elite Member
Feb 22, 2012
1,320
5
43
Country
UK
Gender
Female
Casual Shinji said:
Maybe you could answer something for me, because this always confuses me... But why, for sake of argument Sauron reclaims the Ring and takes over all of Middle-Earth, could he then not simply cross the ocean and lay waste to the Undying Lands? I mean, I know it's supposed to represent Heaven, but it's still, like... on the ground, right? And humans already once tried to conquer them, but failed. So it's obvious they can be reached.

The Elves act like leaving Middle-Earth means leaving Sauron, but they still share the same "planet", right? Or am I just missing something obvious here?
The Undying Lands are protected by the Valar (basically the gods), who way outrank Sauron (a Maia). When the men of Numenor tried to reach the Undying Lands (spurred on by Sauron, incidentally), the Valar sank the entire island and killed all of its inhabitants, including Sauron's physical body.