This entry is trivia, which is cool and all, but not a trope. On a work, it goes on the Trivia tab.
God Never Said That
"I really didn't say everything I said."
— The subtitle of a book by Yogi Berra
Sometimes, creators say stuff about important gaps in canon.
Sometimes, creators say stuff about important gaps in the canon, but they change their mind afterwards.
Sometimes, people close to the creator say stuff about important gaps in the canon.
Sometimes, fans make stuff up to fill in important gaps in canon, and the result can even end up being taken as the next best thing to canon.
Sometimes, people just make stuff up, and falsely attribute it to the creators, or the original canon (sometimes unintentionally).
This is about that fifth one.
Differs from Beam Me Up, Scotty! in that Beam Me Up, Scotty! is about things not said or done by the characters. This is about things not said or done by the creators. Compare Urban Legend of Zelda, which propagates itself by similar means.
This is occasionally what happens when the line between Fanon and Canon is blurred.
Note that while God'swords can fall victim to this trope, it also applies to human authors who are gods of the worlds they create.
open/close all folders
Anime and Manga
A mistranslation of a line in the Pokémon episode "Bye Bye Butterfree" led to the mistaken belief that it was canon that Butterfree die after they mate.
This was pretty common during the airing of Gundam Seed Destiny as an interview from Fukuda was altered, leaving many a fan to actually think that the director actually believed that ChairmanDurandal was right for his actions in the last episodes.
Another was Gundam Seed Destiny's infamous Morosawa interview, which was also a fake. This was caught by a forum administrator when they looked for the original article. By that time, not many people were interested in SEED anymore.
Happens quite a bit in Ranma ˝, partially thanks to its age and its copious amount of Fanon. Three of the most common "falsely canonical" statements are:
"The Jusenkyo Guide took Ranma and Genma to Joketsuzoku to investigate a cure": He didn't. No reason why he took them there is ever given, though the fact that the two are in China to train and the fact that the village is full of martial artists, plus the fact he is doing the tour-guide routine when they reach the place, may indicate he took them there per request after Jusenkyo turned out to be such a flop for training.
"Happosai/Nabiki is a Complete Monster": Rumiko Takahashi has never said anything about their villain status; the most that happened was that she once reported in an interview that being a Karma Houdini is what makes Nabiki funny and has called her nothing more than "a greedy girl with an impure heart". She also thrice drew non-canonical pieces of artwork showing Nabiki in a stereotypical "devil suit".
"There is no cure for Jusenkyo": Takahashi has, in fact, stated that the water of Nanniichuan will undo a Jusenkyo curse for Ranma or any of the other cursed men, and showed a temporary version of Nanniichuan curing him and Genma for its duration. This likely came from the fact that nobody ever managed to get their hands on Nanniichuan water and use it (which can actually be explained quite easily as Status Quo Is God), and the fact a minor villain managed to use Jusenkyo to create a Mix-and-Match Critters curse (though he was one to begin with).
There's a rumor in the Digimon Adventure 02 fandom that not only did the couples of Ken/Miyako and Yamato/Sora end up married, but they originally slated Mimi/Koushiro and Takeru/Hikari for marriage as well. Since the ending was ambiguous many fans like to make that as an excuse to ship them stating that "technically, they got married". In fact the rumor was started by a fansite, and since every single All There in the Manual extra material has been leaked in every possible place and nobody can get a copy of the "interview" saying so, it's most likely false. (Especially since Mimi/Koushiro is particularly illogical given that the most screen time they had within four feet of each other was in only one minor episode.)
Another bit of fanon is that Yamato and Sora were divorced. Many a fan were certain they'd heard it mentioned on the original episode, but the facts turned out to be false.
While there is no evidence that Yamato and Sora were ever married, the Distant Finale of Adventure 02 claims that Ken and Miyako did wind up being married. Thus the idea that Ken/Miyako was never stated to happen ended up being false, instead of the idea of their eventual marriage being false.
In addition, it's sometimes said that the Show Within a Show in Digimon Tamers was explicitly said to not be Digimon Adventure or its sequel...except the only thing Konaka actually said on the subject was that he wasn't going to tie the two continuities together or have characters from Adventure interact with the Tamers characters for the sake of fanservice. Further materials released after Tamers actually go as far to imply that it was, after all, Adventure and Adventure 02.
One Piece creator Eiichiro Oda is frequently claimed by fans to have said a great many things that he never actually said. Not helped by the fact that he really does give regular Word of God answers to fan questions, but not in a language that most English-speaking fans can read.
Also not helped by the fact that some of his answers seem crazy even by One Piece standards. Some of them are clearly jokes (for example, claiming that Chopper eating four Rumble Balls within six hours results in Oda turning into an uncontrollable monster), but sometimes it's impossible to tell.
In an interview with Animerica, director Masashi Ikeda said that he didn't write the relationship between Heero and Relena as romantic because he "can't write boy-girl relationships" and considered their symbolic relationship more important. Some yaoi fans gleefully seize on this as proof that Heero/Relena is non-Canon and never would be, which ignores what Ikeda said after that, which was (paraphrased) "I wouldn't rule out the possibility, though." They also ignore the fact that he said he didn't intend ANY romance at all.
There's currently a faked Bokurano novel translation circulating the 'net, which was actually based off a wildly canon-divergent fanfic which includes, among other things, Waku as the Dead Man Writing who narrates the story. It took in a fair few tropers on this very site, so watch out for that.
In the Macross Frontier fandom, former BNF Shaloom made multiple fake interviews by a supposed writer of the series, Hiroshi Ohnogi (who did work in the Macross metaseries... but not in Frontier itself, though there were some Shout outs to stuff he did for Macross Zero). They also referred frequently to series's creator Shoji Kawamori, but in a pretty... bad light. Everyone believed him until someone actually went searching for the interviews in question. Here is the Macross World FAQ on the whole deal.
The Axis Powers Hetalia fandom has numerous instances of this, often as a result of fans mistranslating/misinterpreting the source material and Word of God. The most infamous examples are Sweden's "grunting speech" (in canon he speaks with a Tohoku Regional Accent which was mistranslated and consequently Bowdlerized by fandom into grunting and mumbling), and America's Idiot Hero behavior being a case of Obfuscating Stupidity (what Word of Godactually said was that America could read the atmosphere if he cared, but he doesn't).
There was also the claim that the to-be-created fifth season of Hetalia would make certain pairings, like US/UK, canon. Nothing was said by Word of God on this, and it was apparently just started up by fans.
Many fans of Dragon Ball Z believe that the creator, Akira Toriyama, had once stated he planned to end the series at the Freeza arc, yet he has never once stated this. He has also never said anything about Broli, since as a movie character, Toriyama's only involvement was creating his base-form design. That hasn't stopped Broli fans from claiming Toriyama has said he was "the strongest" in one place or another, even fabricating "interviews" out of whole cloth to "prove" their point. Likewise, Toriyama has never gone on record stating a dislike of Dragon Ball GT, and was actually rather positive about it while it was on the air in Japan. The only Dragon Ball property he has gone record stating his dislike for is Dragonball Evolution, and he is hardly alone in that.
Puella Magi Madoka Magica: Word of God stated that Mami Tomoe's wish was "to connect to life" - as in remain connected to her own life because she was going to die. Editors on this very wiki seemed to think it actually meant "connecting other lives" and stated that Mami had lied about her wish in the anime.
According to several fans in the Soul Eater fandom, it is official that Crona is male. This claim is based on the Funimation dub of the anime and Yen Press translation of the manga, both which use male pronouns. So that should mean that Atsushi Ohkubo intended for Crona to be male in the first place, right? Wrong- official translators admitted that they only used male pronouns because they didn't want to insult Crona by using "it" or "they". Ohkubo hasn't settled on a gender for Crona, and probably never will.
Fans flew into a panic when a magazine article stated that Doki Doki Pretty Cure would end in December, a whole month earlier than usual.note Most Pretty Cure series ends at the end of January/beginning of February, usually just ahead of that year's Super Sentai series The director of the series went onto his Twitter that very day and reassured fans that it was still committed to a full 49 episode series.
Films — Animation
As the Roger Rabbit of video games, Wreck-It Ralph has a ton of cameos from real video game characters. A number of Nintendo-owned characters and references show up, but Mario himself didn't get a direct cameo. A rumor spread like wildfire that Mario didn't get in because Nintendo demanded too much money, and that the director said so. As it turns out, this is patently false. In a video interview (around 15:30) with FirstShowing.net, director Rich Moore debunks the rumor, positing that it grew out of a joke John C. Reilly made at Comic-Con when he said "Luigi wants more money than Mario."
George Lucas has occasionally, and admittedly, changed his mind about some things about the Star Wars saga (which, let's be fair, is a saga that has gone on for several decades), but he has gained a largely unfair reputation of shifting his ground willy nilly about every topic under the sun which is based on a combination of misquotes, false rumors, and misunderstandings of things he actually did say. For example, it is commonly asserted that he made Greedo shoot first because it "matched his original intentions" and he didn't want Han to be a poor role model for kids, but the actual reason he changed the scene was because the MPAA threatened the film with a PG-13 rating if he didn't (when the original Star Wars debuted, the PG-13 rating was not in existence and PG films had more leeway). There is a well known photo of him in a "Han shot first" shirt to confirm his agreement with the fans, though if that was his intention, he shouldn't make the claim that the re-releases were his vision as originally intended.
There have been claims that George Lucas is all over the place with regard to the canonicity of the Star Wars Expanded Universe alternating between calling it canon and not. Actually, he's been pretty consistent in calling it a alternate universe.
Lucas supposedly changes his position on how many movies there were originally supposed to be every other week. The official position is that, at his most ambitious, he wanted twelve, but, realizing it was unfeasable, decided on nine. At some point very early into the original trilogy he realized that he did not want to make nine movies, and incorporated the sequel trilogy into Return of the Jedi. In interviews he refers to his planning process in all its stages, leading to the confusion.
Reportedly Josef Stalin was once asked, at one of his conferences (Yalta or Potsdam) with Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, how he knew that he would become ruler of the Soviet Union. Stalin says that God came to him in a vision and told him so (let's forget he was a staunch atheist for the purpose of the joke). FDR turns to Stalin, and says, "Now wait a minute Joe, I never said any such thing!"
There used to be a rumor about a gratuitous sex scene in the last book. Everyone heard that rumor (from everyone else), and all the sources claimed to have heard it straight from the author. A video on The Onion about Rowling including a date rape in an upcoming Potter book may have had something to do with the rumor.
It was rumored that Rowling had confirmed Harry Potter and the Green Flame Torch / Pillar of Storge / Fortress of Shadows as the title of books six/seven. She responded by suggesting Harry Potter and The Toenail of Icklibogg.
J.K: I am trying very hard not to feel offended that anyone thought this was possible. 'Storgé', for crying out loud. Come on, people, get a grip.
There was an article Harry/Hermione shippers would sometimes cite which claimed Rowling had said Harry would develop "more of an interest in pal Hermione" in book 5. Nobody was able to trace this to an actual interview, and it ended up being Jossed. More information here.
Rowling never said that she may have subconsciously let the name "Harry Potter" from the Troll series seep into her story, regardless of what Phelous or any number of other people may tell you. What she actually said is that she took the name "Potter" from a family she was friends with as a child, and "Harry" simply because she has always loved that name.
There's a quote floating around on the Internet which confirms the fanon belief that Nagini is the snake Harry set free from the zoo, specifically "Yes, it’s rather funny, really, that next to no one realized the snake that Harry set free in Philosopher's Stone turned out to be Voldemort's final Horcrux, Nagini." It never happened. There's also a scientific hole in the theory, incidentally. Harry set a boa constrictor loose, which in the movies, was a python. Neither one is venomous or has fangs. Nagini is and does.
There are persistent rumors that Rowling said "In a fight between a wizard and a muggle with a shotgun, the muggle will win every time." This quote has never been traced, and whether muggles or wizards would win is a continuing debate.
Rose/Scorpius Shippers will often claim that Rowling has confirmed that Rose and Scorpius eventually ended up together. She hasn't.
A really old one that people love to misquote, but Rowling never actually said that people were delusional if they ship H/Hr, that was the owner of Muggle.net.
Many Twilight fans have claimed that Stephenie Meyer ruled out vampires being able to have children. Meyer herself claims she only said that female vampires couldn't have children but got misinterpreted.
She did, however, say that all fluids in a vampire's body turn to "venom," later redacting this to all fluids except semen
Due to the complicated mess that resulted in the wake of L. Sprague de Camp's additions to the Conan the Barbarian mythos, many things which were introduced with De Camp or others are mistakenly attributed to Robert E. Howard, the creator of Conan. Some of these include:
The idea that Howard said Conan and the Hiberno-Norman warrior Cormac Fitzgeoffrey, who is stated to be 6'2" and 210lbs, were "physical doubles." This myth is even referenced on The Other Wiki. Not only is this very interesting factoid completely absent from Howard's letters, notes and stories, but the very numbers are incorrect—Cormac is a fraction of an inch over 6 feet, and 200lbs.
Howard's Hyborian Age is often placed in 10,000 BC, give or take a millennium or two, as established by L. Sprague De Camp in the later Conan novels and stories. In fact, Howard never dated the Hyborian Age at all, but he did date the Thurian Age (the time period of his other barbarian king Kull of Atlantis) as 100,000 BC. Calculating the centuries that pass in the "Hyborian Age" essay, one can place the age of Conan in any period from 90,000 BC to 10,000 BC.
Though the Dragonriders of Pern fandom mostly believes in the veracity of Anne McCaffrey's infamous "Tent Peg" interview (in which she states that anal penetration will instantly turn a man gay, by way of explaining how riders of green and blue dragons can all be gay), there's no actual evidence that it's more than an internet legend. She did, however, espouse similar, if much much milder ideas in her "Renewable Air Force" essay—in which she says green dragons tend to pick males with more feminine personalities and blues tend to pick Straight and Manly Gays.
Often people in the fandom claimed that author Victoria Holmes said that Brambleclaw would not succeed Firestar as ThunderClan leader. In reality, she said that the leader after Firestar "might be unexpected", and noted later that her editor made her change who the leader would be.
She is also cited as saying that Ivypool and Bumblestripe would hook up, when she actually told a fan that they could support whatever shipping they wanted to.
One of the people who worked on the "Scorpion Rain" hoax later went on to become a writer for the show itself. He wrote the 10th anniversary episode "Forever Red", loosely hinting at events that took place in the "Scorpion Rain" hoax. In essence he made events analogous to Scorpion Rain canon within the show.
The producers of LOST never said that the show would never have time travel. They once said that the then ongoing season two had no time travel — and it didn't — but never that there would never be time travel. Additionally, they never stated that there was one huge clue left in the pilot — in fact, they explicitly said there wasn't, and the last one to be made significant was the single white tennis shoe Jack found. Yet this is repeated to this day.
In an example of "Word of Mistaken God," an excellent way to see if someone is making something up about a producer comment is to see if they attribute it to J.J. Abrams, who has had little involvement in the series since season 1, helping to set it up, write and direct the pilot, and contributing to only a very few episodes since (the last being in S3).
L'Osservatore Romano—a perpetual source. Just because the newspaper of the Papal States pans Avatar does not mean that The Vatican condemns it. It's just a newspaper.
This actually happens quite frequently in The Bible, as numerous (mis)translations over centuries and additional Word of Dante have turned accidents into traditions.
For example, Moses is referred to as having rays of light, not horns, emanating from his face; the forbidden fruit is never identified as an apple; Joseph's coat may have been "richly ornamented" or "of many colors" depending on the translation; the sea creature which swallowed Jonah was never specified to be a whale or fish (such distinctions not having been established yet). Likewise, poems like Dante's Divine Comedy and Milton's Paradise Losthave influenced a great many Christians into believing things about Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, and the battle between good and evil on which the Bible never actually elaborates.
The sea creature that swallowed Jonah is expressly called a דג גדול - a big fish. However, as noted above, at the time whales were generally considered to be just a large kind of fish; the distinction between whales (which are mammals) and fish (which are, well, fish) wouldn't be made for several centuries yet.
The Ten Commandments themselves. Aside from slight differences in dividing up the commandments between the original Hebrew and subsequent Christian versions, there are a few cases where people have deliberately tried to mistranslate or misread earlier versions, such as with the Commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill." The original word used in the Hebrew version, רצח (r-ṣ-ḥ), clearly means just murder of the premeditated kind, as in "lie in wait for innocent blood" and the like. (Elsewhere, the command is that murderers and other criminals are to be executed, and accidental killings are not to be punished.) Capital punishment and war are clearly not breaches of this Commandment
And "taking God's name in vain" is a rather sparse translation. It more literally means something like "You are not to take God's name up for nothingness" i.e. don't go using it casually to back up worthless and dubious claims, or claiming God as an ally in some scheme you're trying to pull. (This means you especially, politicians!)
Go look for the sentence "God helps those who help themselves" in the Bible. Nope, it's not there. Aesop originally coined the idea in a fable about Hercules, and the present wording comes from Ben Franklin, neither of whom were Christians (although Franklin was raised one and converted to Anglicanism on his death bed, he was a Deist when writing that). There's a list of such sayings wrongly attributed to the Bible.
The New Testament provides an example recounted within the Gospels; God gave a number of general rules, but by Jesus' time these had been analyzed and quantified into strict rules by the Pharisees. When the Pharisees tried to call Jesus on his "rule breaking", he often explained that they had over-analyzed the letter of the law and missed the spirit completely. For example, at one point Jesus is accused of violating the ban on working on the Sabbath by healing someone; Jesus explains that while the Sabbath is a day of rest, it is never against God's law to help another person or to show mercy to them.
Though, interestingly enough, it's possible that he wasn't actually "working on the Sabbath" at all. Based on the precise wording of the commandment, modern Judaism considers that "work" in the context of the Sabbath consists of several dozen types of actions that "would be useful in building the Temple of God—healing, miraculous or otherwise, is not one of them (even if some actions that form part of a regular hospitals routine might be.)
The problem in this case was not the healing itself, it was that he mixed water and dirt to make mud and spread it on the man's eyes to cure his blindness. This, if I recall correctly, is indeed one of the types of work used in making the temple.
Jewish tradition as practiced today holds that any commandment can be broken in order to save a life, except for three: No Murder, No Forbidden Sexual Relationships* As in incest, bestiality, adultery, and the like, and No False Gods are absolute. Healing on the Sabbath would be permissible if the person in question was very ill, even if work was done as part of the healing process.
Despite the common interpretation, not once in the Bible does it mention that the angels sent down to Earth (i.e. Gabriel) have wings. Indeed the descriptions of them are often vague at best, describing them only by what they wore or being surrounded by bright light. The ones that are described as having wings have multiple pairs and some have eyes on their wings too... others are far closer to Eldritch Abominations (One angel* Ezekiel 1:15-17 is described as a 'wheel full of eyes') than Winged Humanoids, the latter a creation of Medieval European art (Rule of Cool was around even then).
Also, there is ambiguity about the term 'angel' itself. Occasionally it is used almost interchangeably with God himself (perhaps similar to 'avatar').* The Hebrew word "mal'ach" and the Greek word "angelos" both mean "messenger". And the more... colorful descriptions tend to use other words, such as 'seraph'. Also these descriptions take place solely in heavenly visions and revelations, and whether they are to be taken literally is highly debatable.
'Angel' has such a feminine connotation in modern English, despite the fact that the only times angels have a specified gender in the Bible, it is male, and the fact that angels are typically protrayed doing very... shall we say "masculine" things (leveling cities, destroying armies, etc.).
Also found in the Scofield was James Ussher's chronology of the Universe, which dates Creation to the 22 of October 4004 BC. Which is still what Young Earth Creationists believe.
A common mistranslation of Deuteronomy 23:17 forbids women from becoming prostitutes and men from becoming "sodomites." The verse actually forbids both Israelite men and women from becoming cult prostitutes; the same word is applied to both sexes (in feminine and masculine forms).
One important blessing of the Jewish Shaharit (morning) Service thanks God for giving "(something) the ability to distinguish day from night." In one Reform prayerbook, the "something" is translated as the mind. In one Orthodox prayerbook, the "something" is translated as the heart. In reality, it is an ancient Hebrew word for rooster, the alarm clock of the pre-Industrial era.
Due to the meaning of the word evolving over time, it is likely that the prohibition against cooking a kid (young goat) in its mother's milk originally banned cooking the kid in its mother's fat. That's right, to the ancient Israelites, there may not have been anything wrong with a cheeseburger. Unless it was fried.
Poultry was declared meat in the rabbinical era, some time after the above line was interpreted to mean "don't mix dairy products and meat." Initially it was pareve (food that can be eaten with either milk or meat) like fish still is because birds don't nurse their young. The issue comes up frequently because kids, when learning the above line, start asking Kids Say the Darnedest Things-esque questions about how one milks a chicken.
According tobook 9 of The Dresden Files, "Suffer not a witch to live" from Exodus is a mistranslation. The Hebrew word that gets translated as "witch" means something akin to sorceress. The use of the word "witch" and the accompanying implication that some such separate race of magical people exists, is an invention of the King James Version.
The continuous argument of the creation of earth and life by God being completed in 6 Days (popularized as 7 Days). For many, religious or not, this has been interpreted as meaning: 24 hours for each day in a humans grasp of time.
The wise men in the New Testament are never given names, and there isn't even a mention of how many there are. All that's mentioned is what gifts they brought, but it could just as easily been five men carrying three gold things, two things of frankincense, and one thing of myrrh, as it could have been three wise men each carrying one gift.
The Bible never says that homosexuality is a sin, despite what certain people have said for centuries. The interpretation of the supposedly inflammatory verse, Leviticus 20:13 ("If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."), is a result of Values Dissonance between now and then - Leviticus was all about putting things into categories and keeping them there. A man's wife was considered his property back then. The verse was about treating men not as property (and not allowing oneself to be treated as property), but as fellow men. This is starting to become more well-known in modern times, as people are beginning to do their research more - the "homosexuality is bad" interpretation and those who interpret it that way are becoming less and less credible as homophobia is beginning to become more generally seen as unambiguously evil.
During the Adventurers' Island Story Arc in Dino Attack RPG, PeabodySam was careful to never confirm OOC which temple was actually the Maelstrom Temple, deliberately invoking this trope to keep his fellow players from guessing his true intentions until The Reveal.
Probably the most wide-spread and believed example is ZUN outright forbidding any Anime of the Game from being made; what he actually said was if any anime was made (say, Musou Kakyou: A Summer Day's Dream) that the creators make it obvious that it is a fan-made endeavor and is not at all official.
Similarly, it is generally accepted that the reason ZUN won't give permission for an official Touhou anime is because he doesn't want Adaptation Displacement to occur, which would almost certainly happen given that the actual games, despite the popularity of Touhou as a phenomenon, is still an obscure shmup series. ZUN hasn't yet explained this refusal.
Many fans (including this wiki) think that ZUN confirmed the names of Daiyousei and Koakuma, two background characters for whom fans invented names and personalities. What he said was that "Daiyousei" and "Koakuma" are the names of specific types of youkai, of which those two are members, and said nothing about the names of the individuals.
Misquoted and falsified information prior to a game's launch can easily persuade people. For example, a rumor was started in the months leading up to the launch of Deus Ex: Human Revolution that it would only be five hours long. The game is actually said to be over twenty five hours long.
Mario and Luigi being from Brooklyn is often attributed to Shigeru Miyamoto, but it began in The Super Mario Bros. Super Show. (Indeed, the first Mario game with an actual plot depicted the Mario Bros. as being from the Mushroom Kingdom - and twins, at that). Miyamoto also did not give them their last name of Mario (again, the cartoon did - the movies, commonly cited as the source for this, came later), and indeed has officially come out and said that it is not their name, even though no other name makes sense (why else would they be the Mario Bros.?). Then again, Miyamoto also did not give them their first names, either - "Mario" was borrowed from Nintendo of America's then-landlord, Mario Segale (along with their Italian heritage), and "Luigi" apparently came from a (now-defunct) Seattle-area pizzeria called "Mario and Luigi's".
Before Halo Wars, Halo fanon had claimed that the armor worn by Arbiters was the same exact suit that it had been through history, the successor receiving it after his predecessor had died. However, the Arbiter of Halo WarsRipa 'Moramee was killed and pushed down a chasm before his body was destroyed in an Earth-Shattering Kaboom. Henceforth, that meant the armor had been destroyed with it. Fans were annoyed, but it was later pointed out that since the Arbiter is intended to be sent on suicide missions, there would have been many cases where the armor was destroyed and/or impossible to recover.
Not only that, but Ripa 'Moramee was also a considerably larger warrior than the average Sangheili. He would have had to have armor that fit his larger body better than later Arbiters like Thel 'Vadam. Another interesting thing to look at is the "The Duel" section of Halo Legends. When that story takes place, the Arbiter is a position of power and a major leader(if not THE leader) of the Sangheili, and his armor was gold. This means that they had to make a new set of armor to replace the gold one, as the set(s) we always see in (chronologically) future installments is silver.
Though this does raise the question of why, exactly, Thel's armor is inferior to his squadmates in Halo 2. The Covenant are known for making intentionally outdated and crippled machinery thanks to their Obstructive Code of Conduct, so perhaps they just remake the centuries-old model every time.
Fans have wondered why the Evokers of Persona 3 —devices used to summon one's Persona in this game, and purely for symbolic effect in Persona 4 Arena— are shaped like guns, which one "shoots" into one's head. A fan then spread around the "fact" that they were given that shape so Akihiko, Mitsuru's first official recruit in the fight against Shadows, would be drawn into the Dark Is Edgy and Rule of Cool aspect. This fan then stated that The Answer, Persona 3's Playable Epilogue, provided this explanation. This is false: the Evokers were shaped like guns because, as stated in an interview with Producer & Director Katsura Hashino in Persona 3 Official Design Works, they generate a level of tension similar to Russian Roulette, where the Persona user's resolve is tested every single time they pull the trigger. The appropriate cutscene in The Answer explicitly shows that the only thing Mitsuru did was show Akihiko the "guns" straight away so he'd be intrigued, but their design had already been decided upon without Akihiko's input (in-universe and in the original version of the game.)
In Persona 4, Troy Baker, the voice actor of Kanji Tatsumi, revealed during a con that he was instructed by his voice acting director to act as if Kanji was actually gay. When he shared this info, he also offered his own interpretation that he felt Kanji was gay as well. This is often used as proof of Kanji's orientation despite the actual Word of God stating that Kanji's orientation is up to the interpretation of the player.
Akuma's ultimate attack, the Raging Demon (Shun Goku Satsu or "Instant Hell Murder" in original Japanese) is often touted as an attack in which Akuma grabs his opponent and sends them to Hell where demons do all sorts of unspeakable things to them while the screen briefly cuts to black and the sounds of dozens of heavy blows are heard. This is often claimed to have been stated in a "Japanese sourcebook" or stated by "Capcom executives", but no copies of said book have been found and no one can pinpoint exactly where this information came from. It's just as likely that the attack involves Akuma attacking the enemy many, many times at Super Speed and the black-out is simply to let your imagination fill in the blanks.
Thanks to the rather vehement Broken Base surrounding Metroid: Other M, it has been persistently reported that Yoshio Sakamoto declared the Metroid Prime games to be Canon Discontinuity, a talking point that frequently factors into arguments that he is taking Metroid down the wrong path. In reality, he has said that he considers them to be fully canonical side-stories; the closest any statement has come to declaring the Prime games non-canon is him admitting he didn't specifically factor them into the plot of Other M.
When Satoru Iwata said in early 2013 that reaching a certain operating income target for Nintendo's profits in that fiscal year was a commitment of his, it somehow got broadly reported that he was promising to resign if the goal was not reached (which it wasn't). He had to directly refute the resignation rumor during a shareholder's meeting later that June.
The Invader Zim fandom seems quite prone to this, possibly especially because the show has been canceled for quite some time now (2001) and many of its fans were in primary school then and only teenagers now. Some things are attributed to Jhonen Vasquez that were actually said by Steve Ressel or Eric Truehart, and then there's a lot of things that weren't said anywhere except perhaps in some particularly influential fanfic. Dib being an artificial creation of Professor Membrane's is an example of the former, Zim being "16 in Irken years" is an example of the latter.
Many fans also claim that Jhonen hated the show and that he "would never work in animation ever again." However, he makes himself makes appearances at conventions, and has even admitted on his blog that he enjoyed working on the show, and actually got a lot of leeway of content, (the only real Executive Meddling was not allowing deaths and planned future episodes of Zim travelling all over space.
Lauren Faust never planned to have any major over-arcing plots for the show: the intention was always an episodic comedy/adventure.
Apparently inverted/subverted (as in, "God Never Said She Didn't Say That") in regards to the notion that Faust hated the earlier My Little Pony shows: What she has certainly said is that she never liked cartoons based on girls' toys (without naming names, but...) but, on the other hand, that she loved the original toys. Possibly people have got confused over the statement that "She hated/didn't hate G1," which could refer to either.
Lauren Faust was particularly susceptible to this trope during her time with the show, it seems. Late during her tenure as the show's executive producer, when asked about the popular background character Derpy Hooves, she said there was an unseen character in an upcoming episode by the name of Ditzy Doo, and the name might at some point be applied to the character. What fans failed to notice was that she was just speculating at this, and didn't actually have any plans to use that name for the character. Furthermore, the fans seemed to blind themselves to the fact that, while she speculated on that, in the very same post she said that if the fans liked Derpy, then the name would remain Derpy. This has caused a bit of a Broken Base about which name was "canon" or "better", that persists to this day.
This wasn't helped any when Amy Keating Rogers made a statement about the Season 2 episode The Last Roundup, in which she claimed they originally were going to use the name Ditzy Doo for the character's comic bit near the beginning of the episode, before being asked to change it to Derpy. Of course, the reasoning for this is likely because the episode was being written right around the time Lauren had originally speculated on using that name for that character, before the production team really adopted the name of Derpy Hooves.
Despite what an Adventure Time behind-the-scenes video (that was quickly taken down) implied, Marceline and Bubblegum were never romantically involved in canon. Even the video in question only raised it as a question rather than stating it as a fact.
Young Justice creator Greg Weismaninteracts quite a bit with fans, and naturally gets misunderstood from time to time. One of the most persistent examples: he stated that there would be deaths in season one, and that not even the main characters were safe. This is often misquoted as him saying that a main character definitely would die in season one, with fans speculating who it would be.
The show Bonkers (which Greg had a hand in) was thought to be a Roger Rabbit TV series, with Bonkers being an expy of Roger due to copyright issues. Greg has repeatedly pointed out that while Roger Rabbit was an inspiration, it was just that.
Greg Farshtey actively invokes this in the BIONICLE fanbase, as he's been known to "confirm" or "reject" plausible theories in order to throw fans off the trail of his actual plans; and when called on it would point out the Exact Words in his original statements.
Unfortunately true for the Nasuverse, due to the large amount of untranslated extra materials leading to certain fans making up plausible theories and passing them off as truths.
Happens quite often to the US Constitution, to the point that one of the major debates of American legal philosophy concentrates on what was or was not the "original intent" of the Founders who wrote it. The fact that the text itself is available to anyone doesn't stop blatant lies about the document entering the public discourse, with people often surprised when someone reads the actual text aloud. "Original intent" is a logical fallacy. The problem comes from a difference in opinion over whether one should interpret the document to the letter or based on context including other relevant documentation. The job of this interpretation is up to the Judicial Branch.
The constitution itself is notable for defending slavery* many of the Founders DID want to get rid of slavery, as they knew that it would eventually boil over into a civil war several generations down the line (and, indeed, it did, a good decade before the country's 100th birthday!), but pressuring from the Southern States' representation at the Constitutional Convention made them finally throw up their hands and just let it stay for another generation to handle down the line. It's funny how much politics then can resemble politics now, so the more, ahem, "creative" politicians saying that the Founding Fathers banned slavery is hilarious.
The Constitution did, however, show a clear intent to ban the slave trade in 1808. Article 1, Section 9: "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person." i.e. the slave trade would not be banned until 1808, but it could be taxed before that. And the slave trade was indeed banned in 1808, on schedule. However, unlike in other slaveholding countries, banning the importation of slaves did not lead to slavery dying out as the slaves did; the slavers were able to make do with domestically born slaves. Related to this: it was the slaveowners who wanted slaves counted as full persons in the Census, and abolitionists who wanted them not counted at all (slavers wanted their slaves' extra voting power* not that the slaves themselves got to vote, you understand; it was just *cough*makingthingsup*cough* assumed they'd vote the way their masters did, since their masters obviously had their slaves' best interests at heart *cough*blatantlie*cough* to inflate their representation in congress and the electoral college, while the abolitionists wanted to deny them that; the slave being worth three-fifth of a freeman was a compromise). Look it up.
Another issue one must consider is that in the 1780's, most people thought American slavery was a dying institution as it was becoming somewhat impractical. All but the most strict abolitionists (and those were few at that time) were comfortable with the constitution's recognition of slavery as they assumed that slavery would automatically eliminate itself within the next few decades. What these people didn't anticipate was Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin in 1793, which enabled the large-scale cultivation of cotton and the revitalization and expansion of slavery in the South during the first half of the 1800's.
A major source of the problem is that people who claim to have a perfect understanding of "the Founders' original intent" tend to portray the Founders as a Hive Mind, when in fact they were just as divided in their opinions as any other body of politicians. The Constitution was the result of 4 months of extensive debate and compromise until they came up with something everybody present was willing to sign their name to. Nobody got everything they wanted, and afterward there continued to be disagreement among the Founders as to what many sections actually meant. And the fact that both Congress and the Supreme Court were full of people involved in writing the Constitution didn't stop some early laws from being overturned as unconstitutional.
There was little to no disagreement over what the words meant. The disagreement was over which words to include. Once the articles had been adopted, their meaning was considered by most people to be fairly unambiguous.
The Constitution also goes against the left as well, as it is not written in the Constitution itself that there is a "separation of church and state". Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter that the Establishment Clause is intended to "erect a wall of separation between church and state", which is where we get that particular phrasing.
Regardless of what the Founders themselves may have believed or not believed, they knew they'd have a hard time selling an official state religion to their constituency, many of whom were descended from people who emigrated from Britain to escape just exactly that, where the Sovereign of the United Kingdom was also de jure Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and were not anxious to repeat it, thank you very much. And that's the group the Establishment Clause was intended to pacify.
On the other hand, the Establishment Clause also forbids Congress to disestablish a State church, and the last of them hung on until about 1830.
Law in general, especially older law codes that may not have changed despite years or centuries of interpretation, misinterpretation, reinterpretation, scholarly pontificating, simple copy errors...and that's just on the stuff that stays the same. Heaven help you if changes are made...
Since Everyone Is Satan in Hell, Charles Darwin gets this a lot. Oftentimes, things that Häckel or Huxley said are attributed to Darwin. Huxley being especially notable, having earned the name "Darwin's Bulldog" vociferously defending evolution, because Darwin was too shy and too afraid to defend his theory himself.
The big one is that Darwin didn't use the word "evolution" (a misnomer that has caused problems) to refer to the process he explained, though "evolved" is the last word of his book. He called it "descent with modification".
Social Darwinism even has his name tacked on it, even though he was dismayed by his theories being misused in social context, in extremely unscientific ways. Even today people from both sides talk about eugenics like Darwin had anything to do with the practice, which he in fact opposed.
When the idea of intentional "improvement" of humanity through selective breeding was first brought up (the term eugenics had yet to be coined), Darwin referred to it as "utopian" (as in impractical or unrealistic).