What are some inaccurate fan myths you wish would die?

[clearspira]

Hmm. I thought "Darth Jar Jar" was just a funny joke, until I saw a bunch of posts that seemed to take it as gospel that yes, it really was Luca's intention to make Jar Jar a Sith until fan backlash to the character made him drop that thread after TPM. Which is just . . . there are so many problems with that idea. Not to mention all the "evidence" has the same energy as those youtube conspiracy videos that have a random red circle in the thumbnail.

Ooh, here's another good one "Man, Indiana Jones caused the Holocaust! If he had done nothing, the Nazis would have taken the Ark of the Covenant straight to Berlin and opened it in front of a grinning Hitler!" Um, no. In the movie Bellock clearly states that they should open it first to make sure the tablets are really there, so they don't look like jackasses in front of Hitler.

Oh, and another one: "The Joker's plan in TDK makes no sense!" Sure, like many movie plans things seem to go too perfectly in some cases. But I think people are mistakenly assuming that Harvey Dent becoming Two Face was part of the plan. Joker didn't NEED that to happen, he was probably already planning to blow up a hospital, and when Dent was injured he just seized the opportunity.

I just do not believe Lucas to be subtle enough for Darth Jar Jar nor do I believe any part of the Prequels to be complex enough to support it. If this was real, Episode 1 would have ended with Jar Jar staring into the camera with shifty eyes or talking to a mysterious hologram or something.

[Deledrius]

It's already been discussed here, but I still see it persist: Kirk as brash, impulsive fratboy womanizer. Frustratingly, JJ Abrams "canonized" it to some level by taking the fan myth (presumably because he believes it) and putting it on screen. >_<

That every nerd is a fat ugly complete utter loser with no life, and no family.

I’m a fat ugly complete utter loser with no life who has a wife and kids, thank you very much.

The thing about nerds and geeks etc. is that very few nerds and geeks nowadays are actually nerds and geeks. They're normies who like things that have been rubber stamped by society as being nerdy or geeky and as such have taken on the identity as a matter fitting in.

There's a world of difference between superficially liking something, and actually caring about it. One is what mainstream "geeks" do, and the other is what someone who is a nerd does. Liking "nerdy" things and being aware of them is very popular now, but that's as far as it goes.

It's still deeply uncool to care about something enough to learn about it.

I don't know if this counts, but that theory that James Bond is in fact many different people needs to die.

The evidence that he is one guy is littered throughout the films, the most prominent being the repeated references to Tracy Bond and all of the returning gadgets in Die Another Day.

Yeah, it's an hypothesis that basically only works if all you've seen is Brosnan and Craig (and I recently had someone trying to convince me of its truth who was precisely this sort of viewer). Having watched through them all, it's clear this is not the intent, and the movies go out of their way to reinforce the fact that the actors are playing the same man. The timeline is nebulous and almost Simpsons-like in the way that it is constantly modernizing yet never aging, but that's it.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I can't stand people shoving the theory of Jar Jar Binks being Ray's father down everyone's throats. First off, do we even know how long Gungans live? He must be like 120 years old by the time Force Awaken comes along. Also, why doesn't Rey show any physical traits of a Gungan? Have we been given any evidence that she can breathe underwater? You want to complain about Last Jedi being a crap movie, fine. You want to lament over Legends being tossed to the dogs like scraps only to be regurgitated back into canon by heartless executives who aren't going to do the characters any justice and are probably going to milk them dry and obviously exploit them just to make Abrams' far fetched idea work when it couldn't at all in the first place, fine. Just stop trying to convince me that Jar Jar is Rey's father. It's an absurd idea considering we haven't even seen Jar Jar in not only this set of movies, but the original trilogy as well. Where's he been this whole time?

Is this a parody-theory you just came up with? Because if you did, then thanks for the lolz. If this theory is indeed out there and the creator was serious, then kudos to the trolls who perpetuate it and :facepalm: to everyone truely believing it and a :nail to the central forehead: of the creator.

You saying I was duked?

[TheStarWarsTrek]

All the talk about what makes someone an "actual" nerd or geek is pointless labeling. It's like saying "You're not allowed to say your a fan of <insert band here> unless you've been to X concerts".

[Makeshift Python]

There's a world of difference between superficially liking something, and actually caring about it. One is what mainstream "geeks" do, and the other is what someone who is a nerd does. Liking "nerdy" things and being aware of them is very popular now, but that's as far as it goes.

It's still deeply uncool to care about something enough to learn about it.

Is it?

I don't know if this counts, but that theory that James Bond is in fact many different people needs to die.

The evidence that he is one guy is littered throughout the films, the most prominent being the repeated references to Tracy Bond and all of the returning gadgets in Die Another Day.

Yeah, it's an hypothesis that basically only works if all you've seen is Brosnan and Craig (and I recently had someone trying to convince me of its truth who was precisely this sort of viewer). Having watched through them all, it's clear this is not the intent, and the movies go out of their way to reinforce the fact that the actors are playing the same man. The timeline is nebulous and almost Simpsons-like in the way that it is constantly modernizing yet never aging, but that's it.

While it’s been clear that each Bond actor was playing the same character, SKYFALL certainly put the theory completely to rest as it actually delved into Bond’s background, which had only been brought up in the novels.

All the talk about what makes someone an "actual" nerd or geek is pointless labeling. It's like saying "You're not allowed to say your a fan of <insert band here> unless you've been to X concerts".

I think some just get off on the idea of being an “outsider” of sorts, whether nerds, goths, punks, the rich, etc. I mean, they should feel free to express themselves, but they shouldn’t be surprised if people roll their eyes at them when they proclaim how they’re more hardcore than others. That’s more about boasting, which is not exclusive to nerds. It’s like the equivalent of buying an expensive sports car just to show it off.

[clearspira]

While it’s been clear that each Bond actor was playing the same character, SKYFALL certainly put the theory completely to rest as it actually delved into Bond’s background, which had only been brought up in the novels.

I disagree as Craig is not the same Bond as the previous 5. All it does is mean that the actor or actress that replaces Craig will be the same person.

[TheStarWarsTrek]

I think some just get off on the idea of being an “outsider” of sorts, whether nerds, goths, punks, the rich, etc. I mean, they should feel free to express themselves, but they shouldn’t be surprised if people roll their eyes at them when they proclaim how they’re more hardcore than others. That’s more about boasting, which is not exclusive to nerds. It’s like the equivalent of buying an expensive sports car just to show it off.

Well said.

[Rocketboy1313]

Astrology.

[Beastro]

Though if I were to actually contribute to this thread, I guess it would be that the Imperium of man is an explicitly Facsist state, it's way too decentralized to really be called Fascist, Authoritarian definitely but not explicitly Fascist. Then again (I swear that's my catchphrase on this forum) people often conflate Fascism with Authoritarianism.

That gets into weird territory around Fascism's ideas of what the state is and what peoples relationship to it is.

One key element to Mussolini's ideas was that they looked on the state as the effectively the "personality" of its country and all people within as mere cells that should be fully dedicated to serving the body - they do no matter on their own, at all, their good is only valued as to what they can do to grow and expand the might of the state. This position is very much making a national god out of the state, which can touch on elements of WH40k.

That was a major difference between Fascism and Nazism in that Nazism accepted the base premise but argued that the body of a people wasn't their the state but their base group - people like Baltic Germans, Transylvanian Saxons and Mennonites in Russia shouldn't serve nations as we know them that they'd live in for generations, they should serve their base ethnos. If they could be called lost cells, then lands previously occupied by the German people were thus lost body parts that had to be reclaimed. Hence the scouring for any hint of Germanic inhabitation around the world and the ardent claims over Poland, which had been the heartland of many Germanic tribes before they migrated into Germania and left a vacuum for the West Slavs to fill.

The question is then raised over how much that mindset could be applied to the Imperium. If one takes the idolatrous reverence for the Emperor as synonymous with the Imperium then it could be, as much of the fiction around the setting showd how much people demand and speak of subordinating themselves to him (The Dawn of War's Dreadnought saying "It is better to die for the Emperor than live for yourself" being a good example).

If one doesn't want to hold the two as synonymous then things fall apart and the Imperium is just a feudalistic mishmash of people who worship a man serving the state which he founded.

Yeah, it's an hypothesis that basically only works if all you've seen is Brosnan and Craig (and I recently had someone trying to convince me of its truth who was precisely this sort of viewer). Having watched through them all, it's clear this is not the intent, and the movies go out of their way to reinforce the fact that the actors are playing the same man. The timeline is nebulous and almost Simpsons-like in the way that it is constantly modernizing yet never aging, but that's it.

It's the, old style of TV and movie making that was incoherent from a broad perspective but one fully focused on the essence of a setting a more continuity focused, realistic show couldn't be like.

It's very dream-like in structure.

Another example are old Westerns where some could last anywhere from a few seasons to 20, like Gunsmoke ran for, yet most if not all, were frozen in time. In Gunsmoke it's always the late 1870s even though it arguably began around 1878ish and would have ended right before the turn of the century. For it to bow to reality and allow time to move on even at moderate pace (multiple seasons taking place within one year) would mean losing its focus on that iconic period of time Westerns see as the height of the genre.

[Makeshift Python]

While it’s been clear that each Bond actor was playing the same character, SKYFALL certainly put the theory completely to rest as it actually delved into Bond’s background, which had only been brought up in the novels.

I disagree as Craig is not the same Bond as the previous 5. All it does is mean that the actor or actress that replaces Craig will be the same person.

My point is they’re all supposed to be James Bond. Craig Bond has a new continuity, but his background (orphan, Naval Commander recruited to MI6) largely lines up with the others and the literary version (aside from that Blofeld nonsense). And as far as the producer Barbara Broccoli is concerned Bond will never be a female.