The first two are related to this thread:

https://whowatchesthewatchers.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?id=554

Incorrect: The main movie James Bond is multiple individuals using the same identity.
Truth: Dr. No through Die Another Day are all one continuity with the same Bond (see evidence in the above link), with a separate Bond in a separate continuity from Casino Royale (2008 version) to the upcoming No Time to Die and possibly beyond. In particular, a key event in On Her Majesty's Secret Service is often alluded to in subsequent movies.

Related to the above
Incorrect: James Bond is a code name for said multiple individuals.
Truth: It's probably not the best strategy but Bond uses his actual name in adventures a lot and its the same person. And even using the same code name over and over would not be much better strategy. There is no evidence in the movies that Bond is an alias, and in Skyfall someone from Bond's past recognizes him as Bond. Which is not to say that Bond has no code name. He absolutely does: It's 007.

Incorrect: The post-Crisis DC Universe was created by the merging of Earths 1, 2, 4, S, and X.
Truth: Ignoring Hypertime, which complicates the situation, in Crisis on Infinite Earths #10, the heroes went back to the beginning of time and prevented the splitting off of Earths. The new reality thus contains elements even of Earths that were previously destroyed, because in the new reality they were never split off into a multiverse in the first place. In at least one case a pre-Crisis Earth became a separate planet that was still destroyed (the former Earth-6).
 

Incorrect: The Misfits of Science was cancelled because lead actor Dean Paul Martin (Dr. Billy Hayes) was killed in a plane crash.
Truth: The plane crash is unfortunately real but the timing, while close, doesn't add up: Misfits of Science ran from 1985 to 1986. Dean Paul Martin died in March 21, 1987, thus late in the 1986-1987 season. The timing is so close that it raises the question of whether he would have been available to go on the flight had the show been renewed (though even there it's likely filming would have been completed on the remaining episodes). Regardless, ratings are the most likely culprit in the show ending.
 

zuckyd1 wrote:

Incorrect: "Nun" is a valid alternate spelling for "Non"
Truth: It is not.

In much the same way that "Wrong People Keep Getting Things" is a valid rephrasing of "Things People Keep Getting Wrong"

Basically I was trying to deliberately put in an error, but if I "accidentally" called this the Marvel thread it would have caused confusion.

A couple more. Every so often I'll change the subject line. People with Moderator privileges are also welcome to do the same; just make sure you put at least one "error" in the subject somewhere.

Incorrect: Frankenstein's Monster was a well meaning, misunderstood monster even in Mary Shelley's original novel.
Truth: The monster definitely had legitimate reasons to hate Dr. Frankenstein, but he killed quite a few innocent people just because Dr. Frankenstein knew them (and often was related to them). The Boris Karloff movie was when he was first depicted in a sympathetic light.

Incorrect: Bram Stoker, in his novel Dracula, intended pre-vampire Dracula to be the real life Vlad the Impaler.
Truth: That also came later. We only learn a little about pre-vampire Dracula from the novel, but from what we do know, he seems to have been a nicer person than Vlad was. There is nothing in the novel linking Dracula and Vlad.


 

Moderators can change the subject line by clicking Edit on the first post only.

Incorrect: DC's first crack at licensing the Archie superheroes was called the Impact! line.
Truth: DC's first crack at licensing the Archie superheroes was called the !mpact line.

Incorrect: Rick's classic line in Casablanca was "Play it again, Sam!"
Truth: The line was actually, "You played it for her, you can play it for me. Play it, Sam."

Incorrect: A catch-phrase in Star Trek (original series) said by Kirk was "Beam me up, Scotty!"
Truth: Kirk never said that except in non-canon material, He has come close at times though: "Scotty, beam us up!" and even "Scotty, beam me up!" Often though he would tell Scott instead to "Energize".

Incorrect: On the A-Team, BA liked to say, "I pity the fool!"
Truth: While BA's actor Mister T had that as his catch-phrase, BA never said that.
 

Incorrect: All revivals of old shows are reboots.
Truth: It's only a reboot if it's a brand new continuity. Otherwise it's a continuation.

Incorrect: A popular children's book series is The Berenstein Bears
Truth: This is another example of the Mandela Effect. It's actually The Berenstain Bears.

Incorrect: Winnie-the-Pooh as he's largely depicted and all elements thereof entered the public domain.
Truth: The version with the red shirt is owned by Disney has not entered the public domain, though the unclothed version from the first book has. In addition, Tigger was introduced in the second book, The House at Pooh Corner (1928; the first book was from 1926) and is thus not yet in the public domain.

Incorrect: Superman was the first superhero
Truth: Mandrake (from comic strips) debuted in 1934, Green Hornet (on radio) debuted in 1934, Zorro (from pulp magazines) debuted in 1919. And of course some mythological figures such as Hercules are arguably superheroes. But even if you limit your scope to characters created for modern era American comic books, Doctor Occult (1935) still beats him, even wearing a costume before Superman's debut. This is not to diminish the character as Superman certainly set the template for superheroes and was the catalyst for the sub-genre.

Incorrect: The primary superhero who gets his powers from shouting "Shazam!" is and always was called Shazam.
Truth: This is true since 2011 but prior to that, the superhero was Captain Marvel and Shazam was the wizard who game him his powers. Probably most people on this forum know this but the misconception is more common in the general public.

Incorrect: Jor-El (or Jor-L) and Lara (or Lora) first appeared in Action Comics #1
Truth: Jor-El/Jor-L is mentioned there as an unnamed scientist but isn't actually depicted. Lara/Lora isn't even mentioned. Both first appeared in the Superman comic strip and Adventures of Superman novel before finally making a true comics appearance in More Fun Comics #101 1945. To be fair I haven't found any online references to te incorrect info but I suspect most people assume this to be the case.

Wrong pronunciations:

Incorrect: The e in Jekyll is soft.
Truth: The e in Jekyll is hard.

Incorrect: The eu in Dr. Seuss is pronounced "ew".
Truth: The eu in Dr. Seuss is pronounced "oy".

Incorrect: The first a in Ra's al Ghul is soft.
Truth: The first a in Ra's al Ghul is hard.
Interestingly, characters on Arrow seemed to use both pronunciations interchangably.

 

One I keep seeing brought up in a meme:

Incorrect: Mary Shelley invented science fiction / wrote the first SF story when she wrote Frankenstein.
Truth: Shelley's Frankenstein was massively influential in SF, but as with so many "this was the first example of this thing" claims, it's very, very debatable that it was the first.

1818's Frankenstein certainly includes vital elements of what is now considered SF - mad scientist uses technology beyond what actually existed at the time (or even now) to achieve goals real world science had yet to achieve. That wasn't Shelley's only work that is considered SF - she also wrote 1826's The Last Man, a dystopian tale about humanity being all but wiped out in the 21st century. The trouble is, if Shelley's The Last Man is considered SF, then so should Jean-Baptiste Cousin de Grainville's Le Dernier Homme (which also ironically translates as The Last Man), since it too deals with humanity dying out in the far future, and includes advanced science not existing in the real world as the hero travels the world in an airship. And Le Dernier Homme was published in 1805, thirteen years before Frankenstein...

Noted SF author Brian Aldiss might have been the originator of the claim that Frankenstein was the first "true" SF novel, and if not the one who initiated the claim he certainly spread the idea. But if Aldiss's own SF credentials are seen as making him a good judge of what counts and does not count, allowing him to distinguish "true" SF from "merely proto-SF" then surely famed astronomer Carl Sagan and SF literary giant Isaac Asimov's credentials would make them even more reliable judges of what counts, and both of them cite Johannes Kepler's Somnium from 1634 as the first work of science fiction. 

But what about Lucian of Samosata's True History, published in the 2nd century AD, in which the protagonist travels into space and encounters alien races on the moon and sun? 

The simple fact is that, much like "first superhero" or "first comic," it's hard to place one single thing as the start of these concepts. Rather than a single identifiable dividing line with "doesn't exist" on one side and "now exists" on the other, there are a series of developments on the road to these things evolving. Insisting something was the overall "first" is hard to justify, as you can usually either go "well, what about this earlier example" or "yeah, but that's not really fully developed so the actual first should be this later example" So often what people tout as the first is either based on incomplete knowledge or some personal agenda, and the latter cases tend to be touchy about having their claims challenged - I've been attacked by people online when I've suggested that Superman isn't the first superhero (since I am supposedly only doing so to take credit away from America for coming up with the concept) and that Frankenstein isn't the first SF story (since I am clearly only doing that because "I can't handle the idea that a woman invented SF"). 

Andy E. Nystrom wrote:

In addition, an argument could be made that the original Frankenstein novel wasn't even sci-fi: Victor, while recounting his story, made it clear he was revealing nothing of how he created the monster because he didn't want anyone to repeat the process. This was a key plot point.The whole lightning rod stuff came from the original movie. For all we know he could have mixed supernatural with scientific means and chosen not to tell anyone to throw them off the scent. We know something happened but not what it was.

Valid. I've seen earlier stories with SF tones being dismissed because they treat the science aspects more like fantasy/supernatural aspects - for example, True History because the trip into space is done in a regular sailing ship rather than some version of a spaceship - but if that discounts them and you need at least an attempt to dress the tale up to look like the fantastical aspects are science-based rather than magical, then your point would disqualify Frankenstein for the same reasons.

Andy E. Nystrom wrote:

Another Frankenstein one:
Incorrect: The literary Frankenstein Monster was misunderstood and persecuted.
Truth: The above is true of some cinematic versions and the literary version did have some legitimate grievances. However, he retaliated by killing every friend or family member of Victor's he could locate, including innocents, just to cause Victor pain. He did have some remorse, but he definitely had a cruel streak when angered and people were right to fear him.
 

Very true. Anyone who knows the original version should be able to recognize that Victor is a scummy excuse for a human being - his initial rejection of the creature based purely on its appearance leads it to somewhat justifiably hate him, and promising to make it a mate so it can simply have some companionship only to then renege leads to murderous retaliation. Victor's worst action though is letting the poor maid be wrongly blamed and executed for a murder the creature committed; maybe no one would have believed him if he'd told them it was the creature, but as a medical doctor he could have pointed out the victim, Victor's younger brother William, was clearly strangled by someone possessing much larger hands than the unfortunate maid. Or told a version of the truth, saying that he'd managed to unwittingly cross some murderous ruffian while away from home, and witnessed said ruffian near his family home when he returned upon hearing of William's death, thus providing a viable, if vague, alternate suspect. Heck, any sort of attempt to at least try to save the poor maid's life, rather than keeping quiet for fear of exposing his own wrongdoings. 

However, for all that Victor was a scuzzball, the monster is not an innocent party. Unlike the early movies the monster is mentally fully developed by the point where it murders William, an innocent child whose only crime was being the younger sibling of Victor. And likewise Victor's unfortunate bride is not guilty of anything other than loving the wrong man. The creature knows full well it is killing people who have done it no wrong and mean it no ill will, merely for the sake of mentally torturing the man it actually has cause to hate. I'm personally very much of the "I am sorry to learn that XXX had a really terrible childhood where they were mentally abused, turning them into a twisted psychopath. I have sympathy for that poor child. However, since they are now a psycho-serial killer slaughtering people, they need to be put down ASAP." mindset.
 

This one's a bit more out of story but I think it's still worth noting:

Incorrect: A US core five network series lives or dies depending on how well it does compared to other shows in the same timeslot.
Truth: People watching other shows instead can certainly contribute to a show's demise, but only indirectly. The bigger factor is how well it does compared to other shows on the same network, as the network wants to maximize the advertising dollars. So if new episodes of a show are routinely beaten in the ratings by reruns on another network but it still manages to be the fourth highest rated show on its network, it'll probably survive because it's bringing in more advertising dollars than quite a few other shows. There are other factors as well, such as whether a show is produced in house, but that's the big one.
 

One I can't say for 100% certain I'm right on, but I'm fairly certain and will lay out the reasoning why.

I recently got into a debate on Facebook about this image of Doc Savage:

where another poster said this was Doc wearing a skullcap, and I said it was just his hair. The other poster pointed out that in the original pulp novels Doc's hair was longer than this, which is entirely true:

but artist James Bama's iconic version, used in later reprints and seen in the first image, influenced his depiction, and the shorter version became more common. Doc did indeed sometimes wear a bronze-colored metal skullcap, though only if he anticipated he'd be going into a gunfight. And crucially, when he did that, he also wore a bulletproof vest, because why protect your head but not the vital organs in your chest? 

Note that on the left he's not wearing the skullcap, but the hairline is virtually identical to when he's wearing the skullcap - the only way you can tell the difference is that the skullcap has longer "sideburns" down the front side of the ears to help hold it in place, and there is texturing drawn on the hair that's not there on the metal skullcap. And here's two other Bama images where you can more clearly see that there's texturing on the stuff atop his head, suggesting hair rather than metal. 

and here's a picture of a man with similarly short hair. Ignoring the exact lines of the hair and just comparing shape and texture and you've got a very similar look. 

Lastly, Bama depicts Doc looking like that on virtually every bit of art he did, but also depicts Doc with a ripped shirt most of the time. So either he ALWAYS drew Doc wearing a skullcap yet not bothering with a bulletproof vest, or else he just liked showing Doc with a buzzcut. My money is on the latter. 

Incorrect: The real name of the original Blue Beetle was Dan Garrett.
Correct: His name was Dan Garret, with one T. The Garret version was a police officer who was a non-powered hero to start with and eventually gained powers by using a super drug named Vitamin 2X. The Garrett was an archaeologist who gained his powers from a magical scarab he had from the beginning of his career.