The new Spider-Man Brand New Day trailer is weird
Credibility score: 45/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "The new Spider-Man Brand New Day trailer is weird" and rated it 45/100 for credibility (a BS score of 55/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-06-26. Its weakest claim — "Setting up a big reveal about a character without naming them — classic tease." — scored 45/100 and was flagged as emotional button. 7 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 7 claims analyzed: 0 scored under 40, 7 between 40 and 69, and 0 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Setting up a big reveal about a character without naming them — classic tease. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 0:00
They're building hype for a 'big Marvel character' without giving any specifics — it's all about the anticipation. 👀
Why this score: This is a classic 'emotional button' move, specifically 'teasing'. The speaker is creating suspense and excitement around a rumored character without actually naming them or providing concrete evidence from the trailer. It's designed to make the viewer curious and keep watching, rather than presenting information directly. A neutral framing would just state the rumor or the character's name if it's widely known.
Original quote: “All right, so we just watched the new trailer for Spider-Man Brand New Day and I want to talk about it. Not trying to spoil things in the movie, talking about rumors or anything except for that one big one that's the one character that everyone has been talking about probably being in this movie…”
Speaker claims Sony has a specific problem with leaked trailers and even full movie hacks, citing 'rumors'. — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
At 0:30
Mentions 'rumors' of a full movie hack without any specifics — classic anonymous authority move. Who's rumoring this? 🤔
Why this score: The speaker attributes the claim of a full movie hack to 'rumors' without specifying any sources or evidence. This is a common framing technique (anonymous authority) that allows a claim to be made without accountability or verifiable backing. It's hard to assess the truth without knowing where these 'rumors' originated or if there's any substance to them beyond general internet chatter. It's a bit of a 'trust me, bro' situation.
Original quote: “with the Spider-Man movie is they've had a lot of leaked trailers that have made it into the world. I don't know if it's just a Sony thing or if it's an everybody thing, but it seems like Sony specifically has a problem with this and there are even rumors that like the movie has been fully hacked…”
Justifies MJ's return by saying the actors are married and have aged, using personal life to explain plot. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 2:30
Connects actor's real-life marriage to character's screen time — that's a personal assumption, not a plot reason. Also uses actor aging to justify character aging, which is a common but not always acknowledged creative choice.
Why this score: The speaker frames MJ's immediate return as 'unreasonable to assume she's not going to be in the movie a lot' because the actors are married. This is a classic 'Missing Context' move, blurring the lines between actor's personal lives and character's narrative. While actors' real-life relationships *can* influence casting or story, it's not a direct, logical reason for a character's plot arc. It's a speculative justification. Also, using actor aging to explain character aging is a practical production reality, but framing it as a narrative choice for 'letting these characters age' omits the…
Original quote: “We learn here, and we've gotten this a little bit before, this is the final semester at MIT for Ned and MJ. And I know some people are upset that we're getting her back immediately. First off, the actors are married now, so I think it's a little unreasonable to assume she's not going to be in the…”
Describes 'Superior Foes of Spider-Man' as featuring 'seedlist villains' pulling a heist. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 4:30
Calling them 'seedlist villains' is a bit of a loaded term — it downplays their significance right off the bat.
Why this score: The term 'seedlist villains' is subjective and carries a negative connotation, implying they are minor or unimportant. A more neutral framing would simply describe them as 'lesser-known' or 'B-list' villains, or even just name them, allowing the audience to form their own opinion. This choice of word subtly frames the characters as less formidable.
Original quote: “That's the one where a couple of Spider-Mans, I'd say seedlist villains get together to try to pull off a heist.”
Critiques Hulk's philosophical question as out of character, citing his past actions. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 6:30
Speaker confidently asserts Hulk's past actions contradict his current philosophical question, but character development is a thing. It's a strong opinion presented as a definitive character flaw.
Why this score: The speaker confidently states that Hulk 'knows what the bad parts of the mutation are' because he 'got rid of them in Endgame'. While Hulk did become 'Smart Hulk' to control his rage, the question 'How would you decide what parts of nature are good or bad?' can still be a valid philosophical query, even for someone who has experienced the 'bad'. The speaker frames this as a clear contradiction, implying a lack of character consistency, rather than allowing for potential growth or a deeper meaning to the question. It's a strong interpretation presented as a definitive character misstep.
Original quote: “Yeah, like I respect here that it's clearly so that later we can have him not wearing that see it in this trailer and he goes Hulk. I do think his dialogue with Peter is a little funny. Peter wants to help him with like mutated radiated DNA, which makes sense because that's kind of how the Hulk…”
Doubting Jean Grey's villainous role — Basing character actions on established personality traits. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 8:30
Speaker judges character actions based on past portrayals, but new adaptations often recontextualize characters. — It's a common fan reaction, but ignores potential narrative shifts.
Why this score: The speaker is framing their doubt about Jean Grey's villainy based on her established character traits ('it's so mean,' 'doesn't seem like something Jean Grey would do'). While this is a valid fan perspective, it misses the context that new adaptations frequently alter or expand character motivations and actions. A more neutral framing would acknowledge that character interpretations can evolve in different cinematic universes, rather than strictly adhering to comic book canon as the sole measure of possibility. The 'Hulk getting loose' point also relies on a specific interpretation of her…
Original quote: “I'm not convinced this is Jean Grey. Not that I'm not convinced she's in the movie. I'm not convinced she is doing this. Just because like it's so mean. The way she's threatening MJ. I know Jean Grey has gone bad in the past. I know this could be a more severe version of Jean Grey who's like on the…”
Praising Shang-Chi's fight scene as 'probably the best' — a subjective opinion framed as a strong statement. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 10:30
Calling a fight scene 'probably the best' is a strong subjective take, not an objective fact. It's a personal preference framed with high confidence.
Why this score: The speaker uses 'probably the best' to elevate a personal opinion to a near-factual statement. While it's clear it's their opinion, the phrasing gives it more weight than a simple 'I think it's the best.' A more neutral framing would be 'I think Shang-Chi has one of the best fight scenes' or 'Shang-Chi's opening fight scene is a personal favorite.'
Original quote: “Destin Daniel Cretton, also directed Shang-Chi, which has what is probably the best fight scene in the MCU, which is the fight scene from the beginning of that movie. So, you know, having these characters kind of float around feel a little magical, I think is cool.”
See the full analysis with timestamps →