For all the talk of nostalgia, you know the nostalgic thing that would actually be nice to see in these trailers? The... actual “Ghostbusters” song. You know, the fun, bouncy, ‘I ain’t afraid of no ghosts’ song.

[Taps the screen frantically] This. This.

It’s no “Rain”, but it’ll do. Yes, it’ll do.

Is there someone who’s actually been preventing Daisy Ridley from appearing in action movies, if so she wishes? Anyone? I’m looking at you, dirtside.

Was it not Woody Guthrie who had “This machine sells drugs, kills people and uses women as worthless nothings” inscribed onto his guitar?

Sure, but your point overlooks the fact that what’s being discussed was literally the first Spider-Man movie that was being made; for most of the audience, it would likely be their very first exposure to the character. Under those circumstances, dramatising the origin is more fundamental, because it’s establishing how…

Seems like we’re all missing a point here:

Sure, but James Bond is just a guy with a gun who works for the British government, he doesn’t have semi-supernatural spy-based superpowers, and you also have sixty-plus years of James Bond movies being massive tentpoles of popular / cinematic culture to work with. If people were watching the very first James Bond…

It’s one mildly negative depiction in a five minute scene which presents Bruce Lee as a bit arrogant and pompous, and in which he gets knocked down once in a fight that, in the film, ends pretty much inconclusively. Amid a general cultural reputation which largely venerates the man.

And then we had to destroy it, because it was too perfect and we were too proud of it!

I’m not sure where this whole ‘pirates just loved freedom and progressive social values so much!’ attitude towards pirates has come from. Say what you will about the dominant cultural mores of the British Empire at the time, there’s reasons a lot of these guys became outlaws of the seas and most of them didn’t revolve…

PS Please forgive the lateness of me reply.

I think the answer maybe surprisingly simple: go back to the original stories — as in, the books the original Universal Monster films were based on in the first place — and figure out what makes them scary.

I think outside of comedy or ‘humanised’ takes on vampires, this one’s simply because Dracula’s supposed to be the embodiment of evil, a near-unstoppable demon, which is kind of ruined if you make him a relatable working stiff like 99% of the audience. Making Dracula some pretentious debonair asshole in a castle is a…

“Most successful”, perhaps, but “most reliable”? That would imply multiple successes (at least two given the state of the rest of the DC film universe), which hasn’t happened yet. And there’s definitely a non-zero chance that this one will be a fiasco. Seems like Aquaman has yet to prove his reliability beyond Jason…

I will say, the one thing that gives me any kind of suggestion that Wonka might actually be alright is that it’s by the guy who made the first two Paddington movies. I remember everyone was absolutely demolishing that first movie when it was just a bunch of trailers and promo images, but then it turned out to be really…

How are we counting the original Ghostbusters in this?

“Superficial”? Rogue One is all about setting up the first movie. It literally ends where the first movie starts.

Just seems silly to have an entire GALAXY as your setting, and then say “no one’s allowed to be important except this one guy and his relatives.”

Andor is a great counterexample of a Star Wars show that doesn’t feature a character from the original trilogy that was universally liked.