* I don’t do gossip and the content of an argument between a director/star and his ex-mistress certainly qualifies. On the other hand, when that star is Mel Gibson and he has the history he does and he says something as noxious as this, you just can’t ignore it. People say terrible stuff when they’re in the thrall of extreme anger, but Gibson keeps going back to the racist and misogynist well when he becomes unhinged. It’s not nothing.

Also, I hope he avoids anything that looks like preaching ever again. I’m no theologian, but as I understand it,  a devout fundamentalist anti-Vatican II Catholic who openly cheats on and leaves his wife is not exactly walking the walk, but it’s only anyone’s business because of the way he’s made religion part of his career and it’s hard not to think of him as complete hypocrite, on top of everything else. I truly don’t believe that people should decide not to see movies based on a particular actor’s behavior, not matter how bad, but this comment is so repulsive, and the man is so clearly out of control, that I’ll understand if people would just prefer not to look at him anymore.

On the other hand, for those in the talking and making fun of people business, it can be a good thing, and it’s already started, largely via Twitter. Jeff Schneider of the Wrap has compiled some of it.

* I usually also try to avoid stories that are vague and unconfirmed, but this one is a bit too interesting and potentially big to ignore. There’s also a various obvious Gibson connection to the biggest unconfirmed glorified rumor of the day. It’s that it’s just barely possible that two back-to-back “Mad Max” sequels are being directed down-under even as we speak by the Max man himself, George Miller. Certain aspects of the story, especially the putative titles, are hinky, but I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.  If it’s true, I’m guessing Miller is a bit relieved that Gibson isn’t involved this time. (Though can they really be sequels in the usual sense without him, or at least his character?)

* Kevin Jagernauth keeps us up to date and engages in some thoughtful speculation on the business dealings going on around “The Hobbit.” While I was on hiatus, Mike Fleming took some extra Finke pills and broke what turned out to be a grossly exaggerated story that made it sound as if Peter Jackson was practically a lock to direct the films, which is clearly not the case.

* Apparently, will i. am claims that James Cameron will direct a 3-D concert film starring his band, the mostly rather noxious Black Eyed Peas. A Hitfix commenter perfectly summarizes my feelings:

I am agnostic, but I will pray to God daily in the hope that this may turn out to be a joke.

* Carl Icahn’s assault on Lionsgate continues. Boy, the MEGO factor on financial press releases for me is huge. Can you guys read those things…and understand them? I’d rather try my luck with Finnegan’s Wake in 5 pt. type.

* One non-film event I attended at the LAFF was an interview of Edgar Wright by some guy named J.J. Abrams. I’m too lazy to go into it, but Steve Saito at IFC did a very good job of summarizing the event. While the event had many nice moments, it was a bit less exciting and funny than you might expect given the caliber of the talents involved. Nevertheless, my favorite part of the night were some very cool video mash-ups from the upcoming “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” which I hope find their way to the web very shortly. If this movie isn’t as fun as it looks, a lot of  us are going to be very disappointed.

* How bad are the reviews of “The Last Airbender“? Writers are suggesting it’s a “hate crime against film lovers” and comparing M. Night Shyamalan’s career to carbon emission’s effect on the environment. S.T. Vanairsdale at Movieline compiles the best/worst of the critical broadsides.

* The success of “Twilight” and the (I’m still wondering about this) of “Airbender” too, may drive movie theater stocks upward, says THR.

* When it comes to directing styles, I think Rod Lurie is a far cry from Sam Peckinpah. I really wonder what his version of “Straw Dogs” will add to a movie I found kind of pointless the first time around. It almost has to be more conventional, just because of the way Lurie is.

* I don’t know whether this will disappoint or relieve our resident Dr. Who-nik, Ross Ruediger. However, according to io9, there is no evidence of any “Dr. Who” movie being planned and Johnny Depp will not be starring in the non-existent movie. Wouldn’t it be funny if that story turned out to be unsubstantiated rumor, too? In any case, this actually would not be the first Who flick.

Definitely non-canonical — this doctor is no alien Time Lord, just your basic kindly but eccentric professor — but you can actually watch the entire flick on YouTube. There was a sequel, too.

* Yes, they weren’t kidding. Ben Stiller and Tom Cruise are teaming up to make a Les Grossman movie, declares Nikki Finke. I try never to prejudge films, and I really did think Cruise was hilarious in “Tropic Thunder.” However, I think writer Michael Bacall, Ben Stiller, and whoever winds up directing really have their work cut out for them in terms of this not turning into some kind of inverted ego-fest (“look at me — I’m willing to act all crazy!”) like what we saw on MTV a few nights back.

* A new James L. Brooks romantic comedy by any name will probably be worth a look, and maybe better than that.

* It’s always seemed to me that the best part of the guilty pleasure appeal of “Entourage” — aside from Ari, Lloyd, and Johnny Drama, anyway — is the lightning fast pacing that nearly always leaves fans wanting more. Now, producer Mark Wahlberg is determined to give us more in the form of a movie to follow up from the conclusion of the television show. I’m concerned about whether he gets the concept of why you want to always leave an audience wanting more. If not, “Entourage”  could become the male equivalent of “Sex and the City” in theaters as well as the small screen.

* I’m getting more and more jazzed about the upcoming Jason Segal/Nicholas Stoller/James Bobin “Muppet” film. This freewheeling AICN interview with Stoller and Jonah Hill, which is naturally mainly about “Get Him to the Greek,” whets my appetite some more. If they can make the material as accessible to kids as they can make it funny for adults, they’ll have a huge hit on their hands. It’ll also be an interesting challenge for all of them to not have raunchy humor to fall back on. I think they’re up to it.

* Joseph Gordon Levitt is “rumored” to be in “early discussions” to play the Riddler in the third Christopher Nolan Batman movie, which as far as we know also features Bat-mite and a major role for all the former members of Menudo. In other news, I’m currently rumored to be in early discussions to write, direct, and star in the title rule of a reboot of the Francis the Talking Mule franchise.

* I haven’t seen “Splice” yet. Nevertheless, I am really tired of writers like Patrick Goldstein glibly implying that critics are somehow inherently wrong or “out of touch” every time they give decent reviews to a movie that does badly or, heaven forfend, gets a poor grade from Cinemascore — an organization that polls the self-selected group that paid to see the movie opening night, not a randomly selected audience. Cinemascore seems to be a fair enough predictor of whether a film will do well since the people who go opening night will form the nucleus of the word of mouth, but it does not look at the possibility that a given film will do badly because it attracted the wrong audience that night.

As I wrote on Sunday, “Splice” was heavily marketed as an R-rated horror film. In today’s movie world, that means an ultra-frightening and/or ultra-gore-laden film. Since I understand it’s actually more of a creepy odd-ball thriller and neither a gorefest nor a jump-out-of-your-seat scare-athon, of course the horror audience that went to see it opening night were, by definition, disappointed. If “Zombieland”  had been sold as a horror film, rather than as primarily a comedy, it might have failed too. The audiences  expectations are key.

Now, if Goldstein personally disliked “Splice,” that’s fine. So did 26% of Rotten Tomatoes critics and even many of the positive reviews noted what the writers saw as fairly serious flaws, so it’s not like they were all declaring it a masterpiece or a surefire hit. Just because critics notice interesting things in movies doesn’t mean they’re aliens from the planet Cinephile.  To paraphrase whoever paraphrased F. Scott Fitzgerald, the critics are different. They see more movies.

* Michael Fassbender, the outstanding Irish actor with the German name who broke through last year as dashing movie critic Archie Hickox in “Inglourious Basterds” and real-life IRA martyr Bobby Sands in “Hunger” is, according to Roger Friedman, on the horns of a supervillain dilemma. Should he play young Magneto opposite James McAvoy‘s young Professor Xavier in “X-Men: First Class” or should he be whichever villain Spiderman will be facing in the Marc Webb reboot? That’s what I think most struggling actors would consider to be a very high-class problem.

* Even though I cover a number of them, I have limited patience with casting stories, especially since so many of them are so speculative and vague. If you can’t get enough of them, however, Anne Thompson has more  on who’s thinking about what.

* Salma Hayek’s absolute terror of snakes is kind of funny but I feel slightly wrong even posting about it here. Put me near a beehive, and I’m not sure I’d be any more composed. I’m okay with most animals but stinging insects are another matter.

* I have no idea how the remake of “Fright Night” will turn out; I’ve never even seen more than a few minutes of the original, but the cast is sure shaping up in an interesting way. It’s another example of the truism that yesterday’s B-movies are today’s mainstream productions. The latest additions to the cast are Andy Tennant of “Dr. Who” fame and Christopher Mintz-Plasse. Mint-Plasse is playing another nerd character, but I really think he’s well on his way to avoiding becoming the Eddie Deezen of our era and getting past his McLovin success.  If he can do a credible London accent(s), I have a suggestion of a role Mintz-Plasse might play just a few years down the road (if anyone could ever get the movie bio rights, which may be doubtful).

* I’m really not sorry I didn’t run the new trailer for “Gulliver’s Travels” with Jack Black last week. One of the worst trailers I’ve seen in a while. Did anyone even bother to read Jonathan Swift for this one?

* “The Cove” is finally being seen in Japan by at least a few people in Japan, threats from rightist groups notwithstanding.

* RIP Steven Rivers, the second Hollywood figure in his fifties to pass on in as many days. PR people don’t always have the best reputation, but he apparently found ways to do some good while doing well in his job. Among his many clients were both Robert Redford and his Sundance Institute as well as Arnold Schwarzenegger.

With the completely and utterly sold-out Comic-Con starting mid-week, Hollywood publicists seem to be working overtime to fulfill your no doubt insatiable need for geek news. I could probably write seven or eight posts catering to nerd proclivities. But you’re getting just one today, (and, with the help of few snafus, this one took much longer than it should have). A few highlights

* Leonardo DiCaprio’s company has signed writer Rand Ravich (“The Astronaut’s Wife,” the TV series “Life”) to do a new film somehow tied to Rod Serling’s classic anthology science-fiction/fantasy TV series, “The Twilight Zone.” Many of you will remember the 1983 film, which utilized multiple writers and directors and consisted of three adaptations of well known episodes from the original series, one tale loosely drawn from a pair of episodes (sadly infamous due to the accident which killed actor Vic Morrow and two illegally hired children, very nearly ending the career of director John Landis), and a framing story featuring Albert Brooks and Dan Aykroyd. No word on what form this new film would take — a single tale would be missing the entire point of “The Twilight Zone,” IMO — and I’m unfamiliar with Ravich’s work. So, it’ll be interesting to watch this one move further along the pipeline.

[Update: Apparently, one year ago at least, the idea was to make a single film drawn from an episode of the series. Why, I have no idea. I learned this via Monika Bartyzel, you can read her post and my messed up comments here.

* The word on the overseas grosses for “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” are in and they’re a new worldwide five day record of $297 million. Blimey.

* Will Dr. Who’s most recent incarnation’s next voyage on the Tardis take him to Middle Earth? All I can say is that I can’t imagine any of the guys whose names are being bandied about turning into Ian Holm in their later years, but then I just watched the 1939 version of “Beau Geste” in which rangy Gary Cooper as a child is played by future sprightly “Singin’ in the Rain” song and dance man Donald O’Connor. Movies haven’t really changed much.

* Seth Rogen‘s no-doubt unconventional vision of “The Green Hornet” is still alive, with modern-day surrealist comedy specialist Michel Gondry at the helm. However, I have to alert you that it is not, strictly speaking, a comic book adaptation. The character was originally created for radio — though no doubt with comics and movie serials in mind — by Fran Striker, who also brought us the not-dissimilar Lone Ranger character

* Anne Thompson says the Peter Biskind Vanity Fair article now available online about the late Heath Ledger is “must-read” material. She also mentions that scenes from Ledger’s final film, Terry Gilliam’s “The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus” will be screened at Comic-Con this week.

* Which brings us back to the week’s big event. The entire schedule is viewable and searchable online, but who’s got time for that? Critic, actor, and full-time fellow geek Luke Y. Thompson has an outstanding rundown of the more filmic aspects of the fanboy mishegas in San Diego over at Nikki “I don’t do geek” Finke’s place.

Luke and I had a great time chatting and doing our film fanboy thing at the Los Angeles Film Festival a couple of times, but does he really think Dracula author Bram Stoker wrote more believable dialogue than Joss Whedon? I understand but strongly disagree with those who find Whedon’s stylized, witticism heavy quasi-Hawksian dialogue annoyingly arch to the point of causing their brain to hurt — but it seems to me that’s doubly true of the humor-free Stoker, which is kind of a strange comparison in any case Stoker was all melodrama and Whedon’s a genre-blender par excellance. It’s been some time since I read the book, but all I can remember in terms of dialogue is everyone constantly reminding each other in high flown Victorian terms how much they loved each other and hated Drac.