‘Inception’ attacks ‘X-Men: First Class’; pushing back against 3D; Lisbeth Salander does not eat pray love; more: leftover links

Every week my browser gets cluttered up with tabs for stuff that I stumble across and figure I might be able to use as a Question of the Day or a WTF Thought for the Day or grist for some other post. And inevitably, I end the week with most of that material unused. But there’s no reason to let this stuff go to waste: I can still share it with you, for your amusement, and start the new week with a clean slate.

Herewith this week’s leftover links, in no particular order:
A Lesson from “Inception”: How the Right-Wing and Corporate Media Brainwash Americans

Why is it that the older you are the more you can’t stand ‘Inception’?

Inception Is Causing The X-Men: First Class Script To Change

Why ‘Mad Men’ Has So Little to Do With Advertising

Resistance Forms Against Hollywood’s 3-D Push

Lisbeth Salander Is The Cure To Elizabeth Gilbert

How Elizabeth Gilbert Ruined Bali

No E-Books Allowed in This Establishment

Why I like vicious, anonymous online comments

Is The Anonymous Sperm Donor The Modern Dream Man? [re The Kids Are All Right and The Switch]

Why does Hollywood have it in for cats?

Twitter is Now Officially a Film Critic

Superman Comic Discovery Prevents Family’s Foreclosure

‘Thirtysomething’ Actor Now an Advisor to ‘Good Morning America’

Director Davis Guggenheim Backs Out of Justin Bieber’s Concert Film

Canceled ‘Justice League’ Movie was “Dark, Brutal and Gory”

Ridley Scott’s ‘The Forever War’ Gets a ‘Blade Runner’ Screenwriter

Starlets Need to Stop Dressing Up Like Other Starlets for Photo Shoots

Leading actors and actresses condemn plan to scrap UK Film Council

Will You See a Will Ferrell Movie with English Subtitles?

Warren Ellis: The death of TV as we know it

Rob Reiner’s ‘Flipped’ is getting careful handling from Warner Bros.

share and enjoy
If you haven’t commented here before, your first comment will be held for MaryAnn’s approval. This is an anti-spam, anti-troll measure. If you’re not a spammer or a troll, your comment will be approved, and all your future comments will post immediately.
notify of
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
view all comments
Sun, Aug 08, 2010 2:32pm

To paraphrase Terry Pratchett, everyone knows cats are mean, but they got style, so they can get away with it. If cats looked like frogs, we’d realize what nasty bastards they can be. But they can be villains we love to hate because of it.

Sun, Aug 08, 2010 3:55pm

From “Why I like vicious, anonymous online comments”:

The self that we show in anonymous comments, the fantasy self, the self we see in the mirror when we fantasize about being tough and strong and feared, the face we would present to the world if there were no such thing as consequences: That’s the real us.

The civil self is the mask.

I’m not so sure. I’m skeptical of the notion that our fantasy selves are our true selves (isn’t that already an obvious contradiction?). And I object to the assumption that our private, unvarnished, spontaneous thoughts (which can now be broadcast anonymously on the Net) are more “real” than the more civil and responsible actions we take when we’re identifiable members of society. We all have dark sides and “bright” sides; why do we so often assume that it’s the dark side, or only the dark side, that’s “real”? Many people are civil–online and in the real world–not just out of fear of consequences, but because they genuinely think it’s the right thing to do. Of course, many people aren’t; but it’s a gross oversimplification to say that we’re all intrinsically nasty and that we’re only good when we’re being watched.

Take this forum. Many commenters here use pseudonyms, myself included. Yet we’re still civil, despite the fact that our true identities are hidden. The civility isn’t a mask. It’s who we are.

…I also thought this (completely civil) post by “ThatFuzzyBastard,” in the article’s comments section, was interesting:

I’m not so sure the online self is the mask. Or at least, I’m not so sure the mask isn’t the real self.

The persona one has on the internet is a creation upheld by a vast amount of very recent infrastructure, including but not limited to a military-built computer network, a publication-sponsored comment board, an ISP, and steady electricity. Why would the person who exists via that vast artificial network be more real than the person who exists in a social context, with parents, (perhaps) a spouse, a town, a face, and all the other things that have existed since the Neolithic Era or so?

There’s a predisposition in our individualistic society to treat the solitary individual as more real than the socially-embedded one, but that flies in the face of how the vast majority of people have actually lived their lives through all of human history. Internet anonymity may bring out the worst in people precisely because it’s such a strange and new and unusual way to exist, which evokes strange and new behavior—who you are on the internet may be closer to who you are in a video game than who you are in your heart.