What are some inaccurate fan myths you wish would die?

[ProfessorDetective]

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.

Unfortunately, Skyfall was absolutely awful. Everyone gets to hold an idiot ball in that movie. Worst of the Craig films.

Naw, that's Specter AKA James Bond 007 in... The Winter Soldier.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I found SPECTRE pretty underwhelming.

[Deledrius]

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.

Unfortunately, Skyfall was absolutely awful. Everyone gets to hold an idiot ball in that movie. Worst of the Craig films.

Naw, that's Specter AKA James Bond 007 in... The Winter Soldier.

The plot of Specter was a bit tired, but it wasn't reliant on everyone being stupid, and actually brought elements together from the previous films.

No, Skyfall was so awful that none of the other three can even compare.

[FaxModem1]

Another one: I've heard the old chestnut "Bruce Wayne spends all his money dressing up like a bat to punch poor people when he could use his money to fight the sources of crime!". First of all, all the soup kitchens and after school programs in the world aren't going to stop the likes of the Joker or Ras Al Ghul, they're called *super* criminals for a reason.

Second, Bruce Wayne hosting a charity ball (which is then crashed by a supervillain), or his company inventing some new tech (that is stolen by a supervillain) is basically a Batman cliche at this point.

Sure, you'll have people like the Joker or Ras Al Ghul, who will attack no matter what, but you know what they rely on? Henchmen. You have a prospering economy in which people have guaranteed social services like healthcare and are able to afford homes, you don't have things like, for instance, from the Dark Knight, cops so financially compromised that they'll agree to do the Joker's bidding to support their dying mother's hospital bills. If Joker can't financially squeeze people into complying, or Ras Al Ghul can't blackmail or bribe city officials into doing his bidding, then a lot less happens because the system doesn't break down due to the lower classes being unable to survive without turning to crime. If Wayne Industries or some other company is hiring ex-cons with forgiveness programs and giving them second-chances, they're less likely to join Two-Face in robbing banks, lowering the amount of potential recruits Batman's enemies can grab.

We get allusions to Bruce Wayne's charities, or with his bringing jobs to Gotham, but they seem to be so ineffectual that no one really seems to benefit from them, and often, are revealed to be fronts in Batman's war on crime, with some other purpose in place for him to keep taps on people or have information that will lead him to save the day. That's the issue. Batman's efforts seem singularly targeted towards the big costumed people, not to the regular people that prop them up. Maybe it's because it's how Bruce Wayne, as a billionaire, thinks, that he prefers the top-down approach in taking down crime in Gotham rather than fixing the problem at it's source and building up those who have very little choice. And yes, a lot of this is due to DC's wanting to tell the same story over and over, to keep their audience. It makes it frustrating for someone like myself, who has actually worked in the non-profit sector, and knowing that Batman doesn't seem to be approaching the problem correctly.

Yes, a war on crime is a daunting prospect, especially as crime will always exist. But, crime can and has gone down in the real world. We've seen violence go down in the past century. This is part of why, in the real world, legislators have had to introduce minimum sentencing laws to keep the prison population demand up as a way to support the private prison industry, to help keep their profits, as opposed to going with saner law enforcement and dealing with things like drug offenses in rehabilitation methods. It's a big part of why Batman's war doesn't work. Unless Batman really believes that possession of marijuana is worthy of sending entire waves of people to jail, then he runs into ethical issues when we know the reality of how crime works.

We do see some of his attempts at rehabilitation, by having Wayne companies hiring on ex-convicts to try and help them get a fresh start, but it's such an after thought in portrayal and presentation that it's a fresh coat of paint on a rusty boat with holes in it. This is also part of why Batman's portrayal has had issues when dealing with the oppressed, as he is the one on the side of law and order. It's also why his approaches to it, when viewed from a pop culture standpoint, start making him seem like how some fans view him, as a bored or crazy oligarch. Because there are better ways for him to use his money, such as boosting police salaries to prevent them from being easy to bribe, or as shown in the Dark Knight, desperate to pay family medical bills, as opposed to buying a bunch of Batboats.

The main focus of such a story, if Batman is laser targeted towards crime, is how much should Batman be doing towards eliminating the factors that lead to crime. Instead, DC has made it to where Gotham is just unfixable, because crazy people and there's just something plain wrong with the city that even a man that makes Jeff Bezos look middle class can't fix.

Part of the problem is that the whole medical issue is not a Gotham problem. It is a national one. That is why no one batted an eye over the detective needing that money. Fixing Gotham by pouring money into it will encourage people without means to congregate there and exasperate the problem. Then you get villains like the Joker, et al that show up and blow up buildings. Why are once prosperous cities with businesses terrible today? Look at Camden and Detroit. Street level crime came in because money was there. Government got ineffective at curbing it. So businesses left in droves. The city economies fall and more people are now out of work and need to do anything just to survive.
Now in Camden they eventually take policing from the city and gave it to the state. But they basically drove through like it was a high speed run and didn't help. Till they changed policy again. And got out of the cars. Walked beats and got to know neighborhoods. It is better than it was. But still not to the level it had to really encourage businesses to come in.

Your argument boils down to, If Gotham became a prosperous economy, people would immigrate there? Yeah, no shit. That'd be a good thing. Here's the difference between Gotham and Detroit. Wayne owns a Fortune 500 company that can make all sorts of scifi crap, and can use that to employ thousands of people. He can lobby Congress for better medical care. He can influence the Governor to ensure their state has better conditions. He can ensure that Arkham Asylum and Blackgate have better security so that they can't escape every Friday. Or he can compete and build his own mental facilities and prisons that are actually competent. That's the power of being a billionaire.

We also know that reformative justice works. It might not work for someone like the Joker, but making sure that the guy can't get out, while Harleen Quinzeel gets the right antipsychotics and therapy to break out of that abusive relationship would help. We can also see all those crooks who worked for Two-Face getting counseling about why they needed to rob banks in the first place, get help in employment training, and receiving a fresh start. Batman doesn't really do that, and it doesn't seem to be a priority for him.

Then look at something Chuck has brought up. The crab bucket mentality. Being better than your peers. Putting on airs. Etc. The people around you don't want to see you pull yourself up. So they try to sabotage your efforts. Keep you down so they don't seem as bad.
Gotham is the DC equivalent of Camden or Detroit as of now. Struggling because the environment makes it hard to turn it into a self sustaining system again.

Are you arguing that Bruce Wayne isn't helping Gotham be better because he wants to be better than them?

As to Bruce using various charities to aid him as Batman. Look at the data collected on you every day. How they use systems to decipher patterns and get you to shake loose more of your money. Just by watching what you buy on your credit card. Gathering data behind a benign front is hardly new. Bruce just happens to use it for crime fighting instead of marketing.
As to just spend his money fixing things. I don't think the money will fix a broken system. Not by itself. It has to be targeted at the right improvements. As intelligent as Bruce Wayne is shown time and time again. Why is it he can't figure out a solution? Perhaps he has, and it is too big for Bruce Wayne alone.

Remember, he's rich enough to make Jeff Bezos look middle class, and as noted, the problem of crime can be severely curtailed. Increase the general quality of life in Gotham City through infrastructure, through groomed politicians who vote for stopping the causes of crime, such as poverty, lack of medical care, lack of options, etc.Through funding education so that children have better options than dealing on the street as a career choice. Through better training of the police force and giving them adequate salaries so that they'll not see turning to bribery as the only option to survive.

Sure, he'll still have the occasional crazy like Scarface or Killer Croc to deal with, but they'll be much more limited if the police aren't also fighting Gang wars, the mafia, drug dealers, etc. while all their kid dealers are instead working towards becoming future investment bankers, artists, research scientists, and business owners. That then dries up a lot of their income, and Batman can fight the much weakened criminals when they run into income and manpower problems.

More often than not, though, he's not. Because Status Quo is god, and it's better if Batman fights common street punks on the way to getting to their boss, whether that be Falcone, the Joker, Scarface, or Two-Face than actually tries to use his wealth to fix their lives so that they aren't pursuing such options.

[FaxModem1]

Yeah, there was a Superman comic called Peace On Earth, where he tries to end world hunger for a day but isn't able to do so. He comes to the conclusion that it's too big a problem even for Superman to solve like that, but he'll raise awareness and things like that. I feel like expecting Batman (or even if he wasn't Batman, rich philanthropist Bruce Wayne) to solve crime all by himself is the same thing. Also I don't open a Batman comic to see a story about financial plans, so for me it's just enough to say that Bruce is using his resources to help where he can.

I've read it, it's a good book. The main difference is that Superman doesn't want to be King, because he knows where that road would lead. He just does what he can because he's been gifted with these abilities. Bruce Wayne is different in that he was gifted with money, and instead of giving it all away and living like a normal person, or investing it wisely into rebuilding city infrastructure or making education initiatives or politician lobbying, he uses most of it to help with his crimefighting.

A big pop cultural example from The Dark Knight Trilogy is the trains. In Batman Begins, the train system is destroyed by Batman to stop Ras Al Ghul. He never rebuilds it, no matter how much public transportation would benefit the poor people who have to use it because cars are expensive, and getting to work is a problem if you can't afford a car. This will lead to the poor having to turn to crime to better their lives need it to function. Even as of The Dark Knight Rises, where it's been almost a decade, and the train that his father built is still not there. Because helping people, that's not really his priority.

[Nealithi]

@FaxModem1Okay avoiding a quote as we are starting to get a bit deep with them.
First I was talking the medical issue. That police officer from the movie with the sick mother? That was accepted by movie goers because it is easy to empathize with. Being ill in the US is expensive. If Bruce Wayne throws billions to making the healthcare superior. It will be swamped by an influx of those from other regions that can't afford it where they are.

Bruce Wayne the way they write him varies as the richest man on the planet to one of the top one hundred. Seriously up there. But not on the create a politician from scratch and rewrite entire infrastructure levels. And it has been shown that politicians love pools of money laying around. Bruce puts a city endowment to improve the schools? The city will reduce their funding by a similar amount so they can spend it on a pet project. Like putting vacuum tube around to send messages or some drivel. Something that actually won't help.

As the recent video was about humanity can be better. Gotham is a mirror of the worst cities we have now. And just throwing money at it does not help.

Oh and you seemingly did not understand the crab bucket metaphor.
A way of thinking best described by the phrase "if I can't have it, neither can you". The metaphor is derived from a pattern of behavior noted in crabs when they are trapped in a bucket. While any one crab could easily escape, its efforts will be undermined by others, ensuring the group's collective demise.

The analogy in human behavior is claimed to be that members of a group will attempt to reduce the self-confidence of any member who achieves success beyond the others, out of envy, resentment, spite, conspiracy, or competitive feelings, to halt their progress. It is the people of Gotham helping to keep it poor. Not Bruce Wayne.

Now I would like to debate more. But this seems to be getting heated and appears to be getting off the thread topic. Should a separate thread to debate this be started?

Edit: The colored area is a direct quote on the subject from Wikipedia. I don't want to be cited for plagiarism. =^_^=

[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.

Unfortunately, Skyfall was absolutely awful. Everyone gets to hold an idiot ball in that movie. Worst of the Craig films.

Naw, that's Specter AKA James Bond 007 in... The Winter Soldier.

The plot of Specter was a bit tired, but it wasn't reliant on everyone being stupid, and actually brought elements together from the previous films.

No, Skyfall was so awful that none of the other three can even compare.

Sounds more like THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH.

[Artabax]

Jon Snow is rightful King of Westeros by right of being the heir of Mad king Aegon.

#1 Danny is the true Targaryen heir, she nuked the City just like her dear old dad.

#2 Danny nuking the City reminds everyone why Westeros abolished the Targaryen dynasty in the first place.

#3 Tarquinians ruled by right of conquest, therefore Baratheon's conquest was legit and Grey council of Victors/Survivors elected their own King legitimately.

[MerelyAFan]

Pop culture and retelling of factoids dating back to the convention circuit days has rendered many myths about Trek that get a bit more dodgy the more you look at them.

The Kirk drift phenomenon (where the character's nuanced and complex personality was rendered into a womanizing alien punching rebellious cowboy in the public consciousness) has been mentioned numerous places but its perhaps the most obvious example of how a seemingly defined element was re-imagined by the culture at large. To the point where the Reboot films feel more drawn from that concept than the original character.

But in general things that were taken as gospel once upon a time like Gene adding Chekov after from a native Soviet wrote about the lack of Russians, NBC resisting Roddenberry's attempts at a diverse cast, Kirk/Uhura having the first interracial kiss, the network not wanting a female second in command and even Nichelle Nichols' encounter with MLK Jr? Greater scrutiny has made the veracity of such claims a lot murkier especially in the internet age.

Even fans themselves aren't immune to this, with the significant female fandom TOS, including the large amounts of women running fanzines and organizing conventions in the 70s being lost in the pop culture zeitgeist that deemed Trek fans as predominantly male, socially inept nerds. The entire subculture of fan fiction and particularly slash fic of Kirk/Spock is an aspect that makes little unless without understanding just how much women were present in the ST scene at the time, especially in comparison to traditional science fiction fanbases.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

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.

Unfortunately, Skyfall was absolutely awful. Everyone gets to hold an idiot ball in that movie. Worst of the Craig films.

Naw, that's Specter AKA James Bond 007 in... The Winter Soldier.

The plot of Specter was a bit tired, but it wasn't reliant on everyone being stupid, and actually brought elements together from the previous films.

No, Skyfall was so awful that none of the other three can even compare.

Sounds more like THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH.

Personally I'm not sure how any Bond movie undermines its audience. The films are so consciously blasé in backdrop. Everything is a dire circumstance but it's played out so vapid at the same time.