I've wondered about the writers as well. I also wonder how much was the studio insisting on set-pieces. Given all the good advice and idea that were presented in that first commentary, it's like they've forgotten all they knew about writing between films.

Or maybe it's just the problem of only having half the story... I would have preferred two self-contained sequels rather than something that's continued in the next part. It's a literary conceit that seldom works as well as it should in cinema.

My memory is that Rush was mentioned on the poster, but both you and Grant have me wondering now. It may have been a standee, or perhaps our local cinema dragged out one of the old standees, giving the game away. I don't look for spoilers online, and seldom keep up with movie news in general, so it must have been something pretty big and obvious for me to find out.

What I do know is that when I sat down in the cinema, really looking forward to the film, I was wondering how they were going to get Rush back into it. The first time we saw the boots in an early scene, I knew who it was.