They don't want you to watch the movie this way
Credibility score: 58/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "They don't want you to watch the movie this way" and rated it 58/100 for credibility (a BS score of 42/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-09-20. Its weakest claim — "Teasing a 'solution' to immersion issues, building anticipation for their unique viewing method." — scored 20/100 and was flagged as plain sales pitch. 64 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 64 claims analyzed: 3 scored under 40, 32 between 40 and 69, and 29 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Video opens with a highlight reel preview of hidden movie elements. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 0:00
They're setting up the core premise: watching movies in an 'unintended' way reveals production secrets. It's a hook!
Why this score: This intro montage quickly shows examples of 'hidden' elements like boom mics and stunt equipment, framing the video as an exposé of behind-the-scenes details. It's a classic 'what they don't want you to see' framing to grab attention, promising insider knowledge.
Original quote: “Norman? This is Sam Raimi's Spider-Man. Friendly neighborhood Spider-Man. And this is the boom mic. This is a stunt trampoline. And this is a cigarette burn. And we can see these things because we're not watching it the way Raimi intended.”
Presents 'open matte' viewing as raising questions about cropping and color differences. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 0:22
Framing the viewing experience as 'raising questions' implies a mystery or hidden agenda, rather than standard filmmaking choices.
Why this score: By saying 'watching it this way raises a few questions,' the speaker uses loaded language to imply there's something suspicious or intentionally obscured about the standard cinema release. A neutral framing would simply state that 'open matte' versions show differences in aspect ratio and color compared to theatrical releases, without implying a 'question' or 'mystery' behind these common post-production decisions.
Original quote: “And watching it this way raises a few questions. Or quest murder. Why are some shots cropped and some not? Why is the color different to the”
Listing classic films available as 35mm scans — setting the stage for a niche interest. — No Frame (75/100)
At 0:38
Just listing examples of films available in this format. Straightforward setup.
Why this score: The speaker is simply providing examples of popular movies that have 35mm scans available online. This is a factual statement used to illustrate the breadth of this niche, not a rhetorical trick. It's a clean way to introduce the topic.
Original quote: “But Spider-Man isn't the only 35 mil scan available. I've managed to find Jurassic Park. Goodfellas. >> Nobody says that you can't do what you want to do. >> A Clockwork Orange. >> I was cured, all right. >> Even animated movies like Toy Story. >> To infinity and beyond! >> And Shrek. >> Listen,…”
Claiming 35mm scans show films exactly as projected in cinemas, with all imperfections. — No Frame (75/100)
At 0:58
Explaining the nature of 35mm scans and their direct link to original cinema projections. Seems accurate.
Why this score: The speaker is explaining the technical aspects of 35mm film scans, stating that they represent how films were originally projected in cinemas, including imperfections. This is a generally accepted understanding of film preservation and scanning processes. It's a clear, factual explanation of the format they're discussing.
Original quote: “In all of these cases, ignoring the aspect ratio, this is exactly how the film would have been projected when it was in cinemas. Every bit of grain, scratch, or imperfection is because this is a scan of an actual physical reel of film rather than a digital file.”
Suggesting these scans show what directors saw through the viewfinder, minus CGI. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 1:11
This is a bit of a romanticized take — what a director sees through a viewfinder is not the same as a projected film print.
Why this score: While a director sees the raw image through a viewfinder, a 35mm print is a *release print*, which has gone through color timing, sound mixing, and other post-production steps. It's not the 'raw' viewfinder image, even without CGI. The framing here implies a direct, unmediated connection to the director's original vision, which isn't entirely accurate for a finished film print. It's missing the context of the entire post-production pipeline.
Original quote: “But it goes beyond this. Because minus any CGI, this is what Raimi, Spielberg, or Kubrick could have actually seen when looking through the viewfinder on set.”
Framing 35mm scans as 'purest form' of film, unaltered by time. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 1:21
Using 'purest form' and 'unaltered' to elevate these scans — it's a subjective value judgment, not a technical fact.
Why this score: The terms 'purest form' and 'before any alterations are made' are loaded. While 35mm scans can offer a look closer to original theatrical presentations, 'purest' is a subjective term. Films undergo significant 'alterations' (color grading, editing, sound design) in post-production, which are part of the artistic process, not necessarily negative 'alterations.' This framing positions the scans as inherently superior by using emotionally charged language, rather than simply describing their technical characteristics.
Original quote: “By watching movies like this, we're transported across time and space, viewing the real moment captured on film in its purest form before any alterations are made.”
Attributing the scarcity of 35mm scans post-2000 to the shift to digital projectors. — No Frame (75/100)
At 1:58
The decline of film projection post-2000 due to digital transition is well-documented and accurate.
Why this score: The claim that the number of available 35mm scans decreased after 2000 due to the shift from film reels to digital projectors in cinemas is accurate. This technological transition significantly reduced the production and circulation of physical film prints, making them rarer to find and scan. This is a straightforward historical observation about the film industry.
Original quote: “But after 2000, because cinemas were switching to digital projectors and film reels were becoming less common, >> Some of you may die. >> we don't get as many of these scans.”
Framing digital as 'cleaner' but lacking the 'charm' of analog, implying a loss. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 2:09
Acknowledges digital's 'cleaner' look but then uses 'charm that's lost' to subtly push the analog preference.
Why this score: The speaker uses a classic rhetorical move here: acknowledging a positive aspect of the opposing view ('cleaner and polished nowadays') but immediately pivoting to an emotional appeal ('certain charm that's lost'). This framing subtly steers the viewer towards a nostalgic preference for analog, rather than presenting a neutral comparison of the two formats. It's not a lie, but it's definitely guiding the viewer's emotional response.
Original quote: “In a way, watching these versions reveals the lost art of analog film projection. What was once the norm is now hard to come by. >> You don't tip. >> And sure, this means films look cleaner and polished nowadays. >> But you can't do this to me. >> But it's hard to deny that there's a certain charm…”
Speaker frames Spider-Man (2002) as the 'best way' to showcase open matte scans. — No Frame (75/100)
At 2:30
This is a subjective preference, not a factual claim, and the speaker provides clear reasons for their choice.
Why this score: The speaker is upfront about their subjective choice of Spider-Man (2002) and immediately backs it up with two specific reasons: the quality of the scan and the film's genre. This is transparent framing, not manipulative. They're not claiming it's objectively the best, but explaining why *they* think it is, which is fair.
Original quote: “And I think Spider-Man, released in 2002, is the best way to show off these open matte scans for two main reasons. Number one is high quality. Compared to a lot of the scans I found, this is by far the cleanest, yet still filmic-looking scan I've seen. And number two is nature as a superhero film…”
Speaker uses German trailers as 'proof' of authenticity for a 24-year-old German cinema reel scan. — No Frame (75/100)
At 3:20
The presence of German trailers from the era is a strong indicator of the source's authenticity, supporting the claim.
Why this score: The speaker is using a specific detail (German trailers for contemporary films) to support their claim about the authenticity and origin of the film scan. This is a logical inference, not a manipulative frame. It makes sense that a scan from a German cinema reel would include German trailers from that time. It's a good piece of circumstantial evidence.
Original quote: “This goes to show how authentic this copy is. It's clearly a scan of a film reel from a German cinema from 24 years ago. It just so happens that in this cinema, they were advertising Mr. Deeds and Stuart Little before Spider-Man. So, now we get to watch these old trailers.”
Speaker frames film imperfections as enhancing 'intimacy' and 'authenticity' of the viewing experience. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 3:36
Using terms like 'raw,' 'intimate,' and 'authentic' to describe film imperfections is loaded language, steering the viewer's emotional response.
Why this score: This is a classic example of loaded language. The speaker isn't just describing the visual artifacts (grain, scratches, cigarette burns); they're attaching positive, evocative emotional qualities to them ('raw,' 'intimate,' 'authentic,' 'less of a product'). While these are valid subjective experiences, the language is designed to guide the viewer into feeling the same way, rather than neutrally presenting the visual characteristics. A neutral framing would simply describe the visual elements without assigning such strong emotional value.
Original quote: “Anyway, the first thing you'll notice when watching the film is how raw it feels. It somehow feels more intimate, more authentic. LIKE THIS IS LESS OF A product made by a movie studio and more of a film made by filmmakers. By having the grain, the scratches, the cigarette burns, and glimpsing the…”
Speaker claims film imperfections 'break the artifice' and remind us of human creation. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 4:02
Framing imperfections as 'breaking the artifice' and connecting us to 'human beings' uses emotional language to elevate a specific aesthetic preference.
Why this score: Similar to the previous claim, this uses loaded language to assign a specific, positive interpretation to film imperfections. 'Breaks the artifice' and 'reminds us that this was made by human beings' are emotionally resonant phrases that frame these visual elements as inherently good or insightful. While it's a valid personal interpretation, it's not a neutral description. A neutral framing would acknowledge the visual elements and then allow the viewer to form their own emotional or intellectual connection, rather than guiding them with such strong, positive framing.
Original quote: “It draws attention to the fact that every shot was captured on a set with a crew of people. That these aren't just characters that exist in the world of the story, but actors hitting their marks and saying their lines. This is something that actually happened in the real world that was then…”
Explaining boom mic visibility as a feature of 'open matte' — setting up a unique viewing experience. — No Frame (75/100)
At 4:34
Explains why boom mics appear in open matte versions, framing it as a technical detail rather than a flaw.
Why this score: The speaker is laying out the technical reason for boom mics appearing in open matte versions (cinemas crop the top/bottom). This isn't a manipulative frame, but rather an explanation of a visual artifact, setting the stage for their 'ideal' viewing method. It's straightforward and factual about the production process.
Original quote: “But on the other hand, there are a few moments where this authenticity takes you out of the movie. Yeah. The key example being the boom mic. There's no feather weight division here, small fry. Next. Because in cinemas, the top and bottom of the frame would be cropped out by the projector. They…”
Acknowledging boom mics break immersion, but framing it as a 'peek behind the curtain'. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 5:12
Uses 'peek behind the curtain' to soften the negative impact of immersion-breaking boom mics, reframing a flaw as a feature.
Why this score: The speaker admits that seeing the boom mic 'breaks the immersion' but immediately reframes this negative as a positive: 'a peek behind the curtain'. This is loaded language, turning a technical error or limitation into an 'experience' that's 'different to behind-the-scenes clips.' It's an attempt to make a bug feel like a feature, steering the viewer's emotional response. A neutral framing would simply state that the boom mic is visible due to the open matte format.
Original quote: “Now, on some level, whenever we're watching a movie, we know it's just a thing that's been filmed by a crew of people using professional equipment. And this is just a standard way to use the boom mic. I love you. But by actually seeing it, we get to see this process in action, a peek behind the…”
Teasing a 'solution' to immersion issues, building anticipation for their unique viewing method. — Plain Sales Pitch (20/100)
At 5:36
Creates a problem (immersion breaking) then teases a proprietary solution, building suspense for their 'way to watch Spider-Man'.
Why this score: This is a classic setup for a 'solution' that the speaker will reveal later. They've identified a 'problem' (immersion-breaking elements) and are now teasing that they've 'found a way around this' to get 'the best of both versions.' This creates anticipation and positions their upcoming method as the definitive answer, which is a common technique to keep viewers engaged and 'sell' their unique perspective. It's a plain sales pitch for their own content/method.
Original quote: “But I found a way around this, [music] a way to get the best of both versions, the open map and the proper version. And I'll get on to this soon. But for now, this peek behind the curtain effect is revealed by another aspect of the production, the matte box.”
Reiterating 'immersion-breaking' elements and promising their method will remove them. — Plain Sales Pitch (20/100)
At 6:12
Repeats the 'immersion-breaking' problem, then promises their unique viewing method will fix it, reinforcing the pitch.
Why this score: The speaker doubles down on the 'immersion-breaking' aspect of the matte box, similar to the boom mic. They then explicitly state that 'in the ideal way to watch Spider-Man, this wouldn't be there. So, in my way, it won't be.' This directly positions their upcoming method as superior and problem-solving, further building the 'sales pitch' for their specific viewing recommendation. It's not just an observation; it's a promise tied to their unique offering.
Original quote: “Like the boom, it's a charming glimpse into the production, but in an immersion-breaking way. I understand the plan. In the ideal way to watch Spider-Man, this wouldn't be there. So, in my way, it won't be.”
Comparing 'proper' vs. 'open matte' versions of a scene to show 'movie magic' — a classic reveal. — No Frame (75/100)
At 6:38
They're literally showing you the difference between the theatrical cut and the raw footage. It's a direct visual comparison.
Why this score: This segment is a straightforward demonstration. The speaker is showing two different versions of the same movie scene to highlight how editing and framing (cropping) create an illusion. They're not making a claim that needs external verification; they're providing visual evidence for their point about 'movie magic.' This is clean, direct framing to illustrate a technical point.
Original quote: “Here's how it plays out in the proper version of the film.
>> Wow.
>> It looks impressive. The items seem to be coming from quite high up, and they all land perfectly. Now, let's look at the open matte version.
>> Wow.
Okay, so MJ slips, throwing the stuff in the air. And then we can see the crew…”
Explaining the 'tray catch' scene: no CGI, but the height is an illusion — then pitching their 'best of both worlds' version. — Plain Sales Pitch (45/100)
At 7:11
They confirm the 'no CGI' part, then pivot to how their 'best of both worlds' version will fix the perceived issues. It's a subtle pitch.
Why this score: The speaker starts by clarifying a common misconception about the 'tray catch' scene (no CGI, but the height is an illusion). This part is factual and well-demonstrated. However, they then transition into promoting their 'best of both worlds version,' claiming it will 'retain this illusion, while keeping the authenticity and intimacy we get from this more filmic scan.' This is a subtle sales pitch for their own edited version of the film, framing it as superior without fully detailing what that 'version' entails or how it achieves these benefits. It's a classic move: identify a problem, then…
Original quote: “In the proper version, it looks like it's coming from quite high, but here, we can see someone just gently dropping it slightly above the tray.
>> Wow.
Quick reflexes.
>> And just for good measure, here's the boom.
>> Thanks.
>> No problem.
>> A lot has been made about this scene online, how…”
Explaining why certain frames are cropped vs. uncropped: it's about hiding CGI elements. — No Frame (75/100)
At 7:43
They're showing a direct correlation between cropped frames and the presence of CGI, which is a common filmmaking practice.
Why this score: This segment presents a clear, visually supported explanation for why certain frames are cropped while others are not. The speaker identifies a pattern: shots containing CGI (like Goblin on his glider or the massive balloons) are often cropped to hide elements outside the intended frame, such as practical effects rigs or green screen edges. This is a well-known aspect of film production and the speaker is effectively demonstrating it with specific examples from the movie. The framing here is educational and direct, using visual evidence to support a technical explanation.
Original quote: “But for now, there's another reason why watching the tray catching open matters interested.
It's because the frame isn't cropped.
And this is part of the bigger question.
Why are some frames cropped
>> [screaming]
>> and some not?
>> [music]
>> When I first watched it, I wasn't sure why. It seemed…”
Framing the video as a 'peek behind the curtain' to reveal hidden CGI. — No Frame (75/100)
At 8:39
This is a classic 'invitation to discovery' framing — makes you feel like you're getting exclusive info. It's effective storytelling.
Why this score: The speaker is setting up the premise of the video by inviting the viewer to 'peek behind the curtain.' This framing creates a sense of intrigue and suggests that the video will reveal hidden truths or insights about filmmaking, making the viewer feel like they're getting an exclusive look. It's a common, non-manipulative way to engage an audience.
Original quote: “So, [music] in order to get more of a peek behind the curtain, let's look at some unexpectedly cropped frames and try to find the CGI.”
Inferring CGI use to remove a visible wire in a cropped frame. — No Frame (75/100)
At 9:11
They're showing the evidence (the wire) and then logically deducing the CGI's purpose. This is clean, evidence-based analysis.
Why this score: The speaker is presenting a clear visual observation (the wire in the cropped frame) and then making a logical inference about the use of CGI in the wider shot to remove that wire. This is a straightforward, evidence-based explanation of a filmmaking technique. It's not manipulative; it's simply explaining a technical detail based on visual cues.
Original quote: “At the top of the frame, we can see a wire, seemingly to help Maguire thrust himself back upright so quickly. So, the CGI in the wide shot must have been to remove the wire.”
Highlighting practical effects by noting uncropped shots of real flames and explosions. — No Frame (75/100)
At 9:31
They're using the 'uncropped' observation as direct evidence for practical effects. It's a solid, visual argument.
Why this score: The speaker is using the absence of cropping in certain shots as evidence that the elements shown (flames, explosions, rubble) were practical effects present on set. This is a direct and verifiable observation from the video's premise (cropped vs. uncropped frames) to support a claim about filmmaking techniques. It's a clear, non-manipulative way to highlight the use of practical effects.
Original quote: “But what's interesting is that the other shots aren't cropped, meaning all of these flames, all of the explosions, all of the rubble, were actually there on set. This is two stuntmen in costume in a building that's actually burning.”
Framing practical filmmaking from 2001 as 'satisfying' in 2026. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 9:46
Calling it 'satisfying' taps into nostalgia for older filmmaking, even if the practical vs. CGI debate is more nuanced now.
Why this score: The speaker is using the word 'satisfying' to evoke a positive emotional response towards practical filmmaking, especially when contrasted with modern CGI. While it's a subjective feeling, framing it this way plays on a common sentiment among film enthusiasts who appreciate practical effects. It's not a factual claim, but an appeal to emotion that subtly elevates practical effects over contemporary methods without necessarily providing a balanced comparison of their respective merits or drawbacks in 2026.
Original quote: “And this probably wasn't uncommon in 2001, but in 2026, this kind of hands-on practical filmmaking feels very satisfying.”
CGI companies only render within the final aspect ratio to save money and time. — This is a straightforward technical explanation. — No Frame (75/100)
At 10:30
Explains a common practice in film production for efficiency. — Sounds totally legit, this is standard industry stuff.
Why this score: The speaker is explaining a technical limitation and cost-saving measure in film production. This is a common practice where visual effects are only rendered for the visible portion of the final output, as rendering outside that area would be a waste of resources. This is presented as a factual statement about production workflows, not a manipulative frame.
Original quote: “very expensive. So, to save money and time, the special effects companies only animated and rendered the digital elements within the intended aspect ratio. There's no point paying attention to the top and the bottom of the frame, as that won't be in the final movie. So, they just didn't bother…”
Speaker's version avoids letterboxing on CGI shots while keeping the original color. — Setting up their solution as superior. — Plain Sales Pitch (45/100)
At 10:43
Pitches their 'version' as a superior solution, promising a better viewing experience. — Classic 'I fixed it' framing.
Why this score: The speaker is framing their 'version' as a solution to a perceived problem (letterboxing on CGI shots) while retaining a desirable quality (color). This is a classic 'plain sales pitch' technique, even if they're not selling a product directly, they're selling the idea that their approach is better. They're setting up a contrast where their method overcomes a limitation of the original, implicitly positioning it as the preferred way to watch. A neutral framing would simply describe their method without the implicit superiority.
Original quote: “And my version, which I'll show you at the end, manages to avoid this letterboxing effect on CGI shots completely, while retaining what attracted me to the scan in the first place.”
Compares colors of official release to open matte scan, calling official 'less vibrant' but 'more cinematic'. — Uses subjective terms to describe visual differences. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 11:12
Uses 'less vibrant' and 'not as warm' to describe the official release, subtly implying inferiority, then 'more cinematic' as a counter. — It's all about how you frame the visual differences.
Why this score: The speaker uses loaded language to describe the differences between the official release and the open matte scan. Terms like 'less vibrant' and 'not as warm' carry a negative connotation, subtly guiding the viewer to perceive the official version as inferior in color. While 'more polished' and 'more cinematic' are offered as counterpoints, they are also subjective and serve to frame the official version in a specific aesthetic light. A neutral framing would simply describe the objective color differences (e.g., 'the official release has a cooler color temperature and lower saturation')…
Original quote: “The colors are less vibrant, and it's not as warm as the open matte scan. Overall, it looks more polished and in a way, more cinematic.”
Claims the digital remaster was 'intended' and Sam Raimi 'approved' the new look. — Assumes intent and approval without evidence. — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
At 11:19
Asserts 'intended' and 'I'm sure Sam Raimi approved' without any direct quotes or sources. — Classic anonymous authority, guessing at intent.
Why this score: The speaker is using a form of 'anonymous authority' by stating that the digital remaster was 'as intended' and that they are 'sure Sam Raimi approved this new look.' There's no direct evidence, quote, or source provided to back up Raimi's explicit approval or the specific intentions behind every aspect of the remaster. This frames the official version as definitively approved by the original creator, which might be true, but it's presented as a certainty based on the speaker's assumption rather than verifiable fact. A neutral framing would state, 'This is the result of the digital remaster…
Original quote: “And all of this is as intended when undergoing the digital remaster process. I'm sure Sam Raimi approved this new look to the film.”
Claims the open matte version is 'much closer' to how it was seen in cinemas in 2002. — Presents a subjective comparison as a near-fact. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 12:06
Asserts 'much closer' to 2002 cinema experience without specific criteria or evidence for the comparison. — A confident claim without clear metrics.
Why this score: The speaker makes a confident claim that their open matte version is 'much closer' to the 2002 cinema experience. While they acknowledge it's 'not an exact match,' the assertion of 'much closer' is subjective and lacks specific criteria or evidence for comparison. What exactly makes it 'much closer'? Is it color, contrast, aspect ratio, or a combination? This is a 'confidence mismatch' because the certainty of the claim isn't fully supported by explicit, verifiable details. A neutral framing would say, 'This version aims to replicate certain visual qualities of the 2002 theatrical release,'…
Original quote: “And what's interesting is that this, although not an exact match, is much closer to how it would have been seen in cinemas in 2002.”
Claims the open matte version (ignoring aspect ratio) is 'literally a finished cut' as Raimi intended. — Uses strong language to assert authenticity. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 12:14
Uses 'literally a finished cut' and 'Raimi intended it' to elevate the open matte version's authenticity. — Strong, definitive language to sway opinion.
Why this score: The speaker uses loaded language like 'literally a finished cut' and 'Raimi intended it' to imbue the open matte version with a sense of definitive authenticity, especially when discussing its visual qualities (ignoring aspect ratio). The phrase 'literally a finished cut' suggests this is the purest, most unadulterated form, directly from the creator's vision. This framing aims to convince the viewer that this version is superior because it aligns more closely with the original intent and production process. A neutral framing would simply describe the technical state of the film stock before…
Original quote: “Ignoring the aspect ratio, this isn't not how Raimi intended it. This is literally a finished cut that has undergone all the chemical processing and mastering ready to be viewed by audiences in cinemas.”
Comparing 'original incarnation' to 'later revisions' to elevate one version. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 12:33
Framing the 'standard' version as 'muted' and a 'product of later revisions' subtly diminishes its value.
Why this score: The speaker uses loaded terms like 'vibrancy,' 'warmth,' and 'original incarnation' for the preferred version, while describing the 'standard' version as 'cleaner, polished, more muted' and a 'product of later revisions.' This creates a clear bias, implying the 'original' is inherently superior and the 'standard' is a degraded, altered version, without fully explaining the artistic or technical reasons for those revisions.
Original quote: “So the vibrancy, the warmth, the saturation is all much closer to the film's original incarnation and the cleaner, polished, more muted look of the quote-unquote standard version of this film you'll see today is actually a product of later revisions and remasters.”
Framing the preferred version as a 'celebration' of 'playful roots' versus 'cinematic prestige'. — False Dilemma (20/100)
At 13:08
Pitting 'cinematic prestige' against 'playful roots' as if they're mutually exclusive choices for a film.
Why this score: The speaker sets up a false dilemma, implying that a film must either aim for 'cinematic prestige' and a 'grounded look' OR be a 'celebration of its cartoonish and playful roots.' This ignores the possibility that a film can achieve both, or that 'prestige' can come from embracing its source material in a sophisticated way. It's a rhetorical move to justify the 'comic booky' aesthetic as a deliberate, superior choice rather than a potential limitation or different artistic direction.
Original quote: “Is less concerned with having a cinematic prestige or grounded look and rather acts as a celebration of its cartoonish and playful roots.”
Acknowledging director's intent but immediately pivoting to personal preference. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 14:06
Mentions Raimi's intent but then quickly dismisses it by emphasizing personal visual preference.
Why this score: The speaker briefly acknowledges Sam Raimi's original intent for the film's aspect ratio (1.85:1 theatrical release) but then immediately pivots to their personal preference for the 'film version' based on its 'richer and deeper' look. While personal preference is valid, framing it this way downplays the significance of the director's vision, which is usually considered authoritative for how a film should be experienced. It's a subtle way to justify watching a version not intended by the creator.
Original quote: “And also, this isn't how Raimi intended the movie to be seen. He didn't want it to be in this taller aspect ratio. He wanted it to be in the theatrical 185 by 1.”
Proposing a 'solution' by cropping open matte, presented as a novel idea. — Plain Sales Pitch (75/100)
At 14:37
Presents a standard cropping technique as a unique 'solution' to a perceived problem. It's a common practice, not a groundbreaking discovery.
Why this score: The speaker frames a simple cropping of an open matte version to a 1.85:1 aspect ratio as 'my version' and 'my solution.' While it addresses the issues of visible production equipment (boom mics, trampolines) and maintains a 'filmic quality,' this is a very standard post-production technique. It's not a novel invention, but rather a common way to present content. The framing makes it sound like a unique innovation rather than a practical application of existing methods.
Original quote: “So, this leads us to my version. How do we retain the intimate feeling while avoiding all of the downsides of the open matte's bigger aspect [music] ratio? This is my version. This is my solution. What if we take the open matte and just crop it? Add some black bars at the top and the bottom. Make…”
Proposing a 'solution' by cropping open matte to 1.85:1 to keep filmic quality. — No Frame (75/100)
At 14:37
This is a straightforward proposal for a specific viewing format, clearly stating the intent and method.
Why this score: The speaker is presenting their personal solution to a perceived problem (retaining filmic quality while avoiding open matte downsides). They clearly outline the steps (cropping, adding black bars, making it 1.85:1) and the intended benefits (removing boom mics, keeping filmic quality). This is a direct, transparent explanation of their approach, not employing any deceptive framing. A neutral framing would be exactly this: stating the problem, proposing a solution, and explaining the rationale.
Original quote: “So, this leads us to my version. How do we retain the intimate feeling while avoiding all of the downsides of the open matte's bigger aspect [music] ratio? This is my version. This is my solution. What if we take the open matte and just crop it? Add some black bars at the top and the bottom. Make…”
Proposes a 'solution' to open matte downsides — frames it as a unique discovery. — Plain Sales Pitch (75/100)
At 14:37
Presents a common editing technique as a novel 'solution' to a perceived problem. It's a straightforward proposal, not really a claim.
Why this score: The speaker frames cropping an open matte as 'my version' and 'my solution,' implying a unique discovery or innovation. In reality, cropping to a specific aspect ratio to remove unwanted elements (like boom mics) is a standard practice in video editing and post-production, especially when working with open matte sources. It's not a groundbreaking 'solution' but a practical application of existing techniques. The framing here is to build anticipation for a simple, effective method.
Original quote: “So, this leads us to my version. How do we retain the intimate feeling while avoiding all of the downsides of the open matte's bigger aspect [music] ratio? This is my version. This is my solution. What if we take the open matte and just crop it?”
Proposing a 'solution' to open matte downsides by cropping it to 1.85:1, while maintaining 'filmic quality'. — No Frame (75/100)
At 14:37
This is presented as a novel solution, but cropping open matte to a standard aspect ratio is a common practice. It's a straightforward technical suggestion.
Why this score: The speaker frames this as 'my version' and 'my solution' to a problem, but the act of cropping an open matte to a specific aspect ratio (like 1.85:1) to remove unwanted elements (boom mics, trampolines) is a standard post-production technique. It's not a unique discovery, but a practical application of existing methods. The 'filmic quality' is subjective, but the technical steps are clear.
Original quote: “So, this leads us to my version. How do we retain the intimate feeling while avoiding all of the downsides of the open matte's bigger aspect [music] ratio? This is my version. This is my solution. What if we take the open matte and just crop it? Add some black bars at the top and the bottom. Make…”
Proposing a 'solution' to open matte downsides by cropping it to 1.85:1, framing it as a novel fix. — No Frame (75/100)
At 14:37
They're presenting a common aspect ratio adjustment as a unique 'solution' to a perceived problem. It's a standard practice, not a groundbreaking discovery.
Why this score: The speaker frames cropping an open matte to a 1.85:1 aspect ratio as 'my version' and 'my solution.' While it addresses the issues they raised (boom mics, trampolines), cropping to a standard cinematic aspect ratio like 1.85:1 is a very common post-production technique, not a novel invention. The framing implies a unique discovery rather than a practical application of existing standards.
Original quote: “So, this leads us to my version. How do we retain the intimate feeling while avoiding all of the downsides of the open matte's bigger aspect [music] ratio? This is my version. This is my solution. What if we take the open matte and just crop it? Add some black bars at the top and the bottom. Make…”
Proposes a 'solution' to open matte downsides — framing it as a novel invention. — Plain Sales Pitch (75/100)
At 14:37
Presents a common editing technique as a unique 'solution' to a problem they've set up. It's a straightforward pitch for their preferred viewing method.
Why this score: The speaker frames cropping an open matte as 'my version' and 'my solution,' implying a novel approach. In reality, cropping to a specific aspect ratio (like 1.85:1) to remove unwanted elements from an open matte source is a standard post-production or home viewing adjustment, not a groundbreaking invention. They're selling their specific crop as the definitive answer to the 'downsides' they've highlighted.
Original quote: “So, this leads us to my version. How do we retain the intimate feeling while avoiding all of the downsides of the open matte's bigger aspect [music] ratio? This is my version. This is my solution. What if we take the open matte and just crop it?”
Proposing a 'solution' to a problem they just framed, using 'my version' language. — Plain Sales Pitch (75/100)
At 14:37
They're presenting their idea as a unique 'solution' to a problem they've just spent time building up.
Why this score: The speaker is framing their proposed method as 'my version' and 'my solution' after detailing the perceived flaws of other viewing methods. This builds anticipation and positions their approach as the definitive answer, which is a classic sales pitch technique for an idea. It's not a factual claim, but a rhetorical setup.
Original quote: “So, this leads us to my version. How do we retain the intimate feeling while avoiding all of the downsides of the open matte's bigger aspect [music] ratio? This is my version. This is my solution. What if we take the open matte and just crop it?”
Proposes 'my version' solution to open matte issues — framing it as a unique innovation. — Plain Sales Pitch (75/100)
At 14:37
Presents a straightforward solution, but frames it as 'my version' and 'my solution' to emphasize personal contribution.
Why this score: The speaker is introducing their proposed method for viewing the film. While the solution itself (cropping open matte) is practical, the repeated use of 'my version' and 'my solution' frames it as a personal innovation rather than a commonly known or obvious technique. It's a mild form of a 'plain sales pitch' for their specific approach, even if the approach is simple and effective. It's not misleading, just a way to brand their idea.
Original quote: “So, this leads us to my version. How do we retain the intimate feeling while avoiding all of the downsides of the open matte's bigger aspect [music] ratio? This is my version. This is my solution. What if we take the open matte and just crop it?”
Claiming cropped open matte is 'closest' to original cinema presentation. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 15:01
Asserts this version is the 'closest' without fully accounting for all original presentation variables.
Why this score: The speaker confidently states that their cropped open matte version is the 'closest we can get' to the original 2002 cinema presentation. While cropping to 1.85:1 (a common theatrical aspect ratio) and using a source with better color fidelity might improve the visual experience compared to some digital remasters, it's a strong claim to say it's the 'closest' without considering other factors like projection quality, specific film stock characteristics, or even the original sound mix. Different cinemas might have had slight variations in presentation. It's a subjective 'closest' based on…
Original quote: “This is the closest we can get to watching it how it was originally presented to audiences in cinemas in 2002.”
Claims their version is the 'closest' to original 2002 cinema presentation — a strong, specific claim. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 15:01
Asserts 'closest we can get' without showing direct comparison to 2002 cinema prints or industry standards.
Why this score: The speaker makes a very confident claim about their method being the 'closest' to the original 2002 cinema presentation. While their method (cropping open matte to 1.85:1) might indeed be a good approximation, stating it's the 'closest' without providing specific evidence, comparisons to actual 2002 projection standards, or expert testimony, is a confidence mismatch. It's a strong assertion that lacks the direct, verifiable evidence to back up the superlative claim. It's possible, but the confidence exceeds the presented proof.
Original quote: “This is the closest we can get to watching it how it was originally presented to audiences in cinemas in 2002.”
Claims their cropped version is the 'closest' to original 2002 cinema presentation. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 15:01
Asserts their specific crop is the 'closest' to original cinema presentation without showing direct evidence of that original presentation.
Why this score: The speaker confidently states their cropped open matte version is the 'closest' to how it was shown in cinemas in 2002. While 1.85:1 is a common theatrical aspect ratio, claiming it's the 'closest' without providing specific documentation (e.g., original projection specs, director's intent for home vs. theatrical) for *this specific film's* 2002 theatrical release is a strong assertion. It's possible, but the confidence exceeds the presented evidence.
Original quote: “This is the closest we can get to watching it how it was originally presented to audiences in cinemas in 2002.”
Claiming their cropped open matte version is the 'closest' to the original 2002 theatrical presentation. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 15:01
Asserting this is the 'closest' without showing direct comparison to actual 2002 theatrical prints. It's a strong claim based on a subjective edit.
Why this score: The speaker confidently states their cropped open matte version is the 'closest we can get' to the original 2002 theatrical presentation. While their method aims to replicate a cinematic feel, without direct evidence (like comparing it side-by-side with a 2002 theatrical print or a director's statement on the intended aspect ratio for home viewing), this remains a subjective assertion. The 'closest' claim is hard to verify definitively and relies on the viewer accepting their interpretation.
Original quote: “This is the closest we can get to watching it how it was originally presented to audiences in cinemas in 2002.”
Claiming their version is the closest to the original 2002 cinema presentation. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 15:01
Asserts 'closest we can get' without showing direct evidence of 2002 cinema aspect ratios or projection methods.
Why this score: The speaker makes a strong claim about historical accuracy ('closest we can get to watching it how it was originally presented to audiences in cinemas in 2002') without providing specific evidence or sources for the original 2002 cinema presentation's aspect ratio or visual characteristics. While their method might be a good approximation, stating it as 'the closest' without backing implies a level of certainty that isn't demonstrated. A more neutral framing would acknowledge the goal of approximation without such a definitive, unverified claim about being 'the closest'. What's missing is a…
Original quote: “This is the closest we can get to watching it how it was originally presented to audiences in cinemas in 2002.”
Claiming their cropped open matte version is the 'closest' to the original 2002 cinema presentation and 'a lot better' than the digital remaster. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 15:01
Calling it the 'closest' to original cinema presentation is a strong claim without direct evidence of the exact 2002 projection standard. 'A lot better' is subjective.
Why this score: The speaker asserts their method is the 'closest' to the original cinema presentation. While cropping to 1.85:1 might approximate a common theatrical aspect ratio, claiming it's the 'closest' without specific technical documentation of the 2002 theatrical release (e.g., specific print details, projection standards) is a confident assertion that lacks direct, verifiable evidence. The 'a lot better' part is a subjective opinion, which is fine, but the 'closest' claim is presented as a factual statement.
Original quote: “This is the closest we can get to watching it how it was originally presented to audiences in cinemas in 2002. And I think it's a lot better than the digital remaster.”
States his version is 'a lot better' than the digital remaster — a subjective opinion presented as a strong preference. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 15:08
This is a subjective opinion about visual quality, not a fact-checkable claim. 'Better' is in the eye of the beholder.
Why this score: The speaker expresses a strong personal opinion that his version is 'a lot better' than the digital remaster. While he provides visual comparisons to support his preference (e.g., 'filmic quality,' 'character of the movie'), the judgment of what constitutes 'better' in terms of visual aesthetics (color, grain, aspect ratio preference) is inherently subjective. This is a statement of personal taste and preference, framed as a definitive improvement, but it's not a claim that can be objectively verified or falsified. The community comments show many viewers share this subjective preference.
Original quote: “And I think it's a lot better than the digital remaster.”
Stating this version is 'a lot better' than the digital remaster, a subjective aesthetic judgment. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 15:08
This is a personal opinion on visual quality, not a fact-checkable claim. 'Better' is subjective here.
Why this score: The statement 'I think it's a lot better' is a subjective aesthetic judgment. While the speaker provides reasons for their preference (retaining filmic quality, avoiding downsides of open matte), the ultimate assessment of 'better' is based on personal taste and visual preference. It's an opinion, not a claim that can be objectively verified or refuted.
Original quote: “And I think it's a lot better than the digital remaster.”
Stating their version is 'a lot better' than the digital remaster, framing it as a superior viewing experience. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 15:08
This is a subjective preference presented as a definitive improvement, appealing to nostalgia and perceived 'filmic quality.'
Why this score: The speaker declares their version 'a lot better' than the digital remaster. This is a subjective aesthetic judgment, not an objective fact. While they've explained *why* they prefer it (filmic quality, color), framing it as definitively 'better' leverages an emotional appeal to viewers who might also dislike modern digital remasters, rather than presenting a neutral comparison. It's designed to elicit agreement based on shared taste.
Original quote: “And I think it's a lot better than the digital remaster.”
Declares his version 'a lot better' than the digital remaster — subjective opinion presented as fact. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 15:08
Uses strong, subjective language ('a lot better') to sway opinion without objective criteria.
Why this score: Stating 'I think it's a lot better' is a subjective opinion, but the phrasing implies a definitive superiority. This uses an emotional button to appeal to viewers who might already dislike digital remasters, framing his version as objectively superior without providing specific, measurable criteria for 'better.'
Original quote: “And I think it's a lot better than the digital remaster.”
Stating their version is 'a lot better' than the digital remaster, presented as a personal opinion. — No Frame (75/100)
At 15:08
This is clearly stated as a personal opinion ('I think it's a lot better'), making it a subjective preference rather than a factual claim.
Why this score: The speaker explicitly uses 'I think,' framing this as a personal judgment rather than an objective fact. While they've shown visual comparisons throughout the video to support this preference, the phrasing clearly indicates it's their subjective take. This is transparent and doesn't attempt to present opinion as universal truth.
Original quote: “And I think it's a lot better than the digital remaster.”
Subjectively states his version is 'a lot better' than the digital remaster. — No Frame (75/100)
At 15:08
Clearly states this is a personal opinion ('I think'), which is fair and transparent.
Why this score: The speaker explicitly uses 'I think,' signaling that this is a subjective opinion rather than a factual claim. This is a transparent and honest way to present a preference, making it a 'No Frame' situation as there's no attempt to disguise opinion as fact or manipulate perception beyond a personal preference.
Original quote: “And I think it's a lot better than the digital remaster.”
Subjective preference presented as a definitive improvement over digital remaster. — Emotional Button (75/100)
At 15:08
A clear subjective opinion stated as a personal preference, not a universal fact. It's fine to have preferences!
Why this score: The speaker explicitly states, 'I think it's a lot better than the digital remaster.' This is a straightforward expression of personal opinion and preference, which is perfectly valid. It's not framed as an objective truth but as a subjective judgment based on their viewing experience. This is a clean framing of a personal take, inviting the viewer to consider their perspective without making a false claim.
Original quote: “And I think it's a lot better than the digital remaster.”
Stating their version is 'a lot better' than the digital remaster. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 15:08
This is a subjective opinion framed as a definitive improvement, tapping into nostalgia for 'better' old versions.
Why this score: The speaker is expressing a strong subjective preference ('a lot better') for their version over the digital remaster. While personal preference is valid, framing it this way is designed to evoke a similar emotional response in the viewer, playing on the common sentiment that older, 'original' versions of media are often superior to modern remasters. It's an appeal to feeling rather than objective fact, which is a classic emotional button.
Original quote: “And I think it's a lot better than the digital remaster.”
Framing the comparison as a revelation of how 'visual standards have changed' between the 2000s and now. — No Frame (75/100)
At 15:12
This is a fair observation about evolving visual aesthetics in filmmaking and presentation over time.
Why this score: The speaker is making a general observation about how visual standards and audience expectations for film presentation have evolved since the early 2000s. This is a common and generally accepted idea in film history and media studies. They are using the comparison of the different versions of Spider-Man to illustrate this broader point, which is a reasonable way to frame the discussion.
Original quote: “And if there's one thing that this exercise reveals, it's how visual standards have changed since the 2000s. Back then, this was normal. This was how you'd expect movies to look. But, now this is normal.”
Uses a 'then vs. now' comparison to highlight shifting visual standards. — No Frame (75/100)
At 15:12
A straightforward observation about evolving visual preferences in filmmaking and audience expectations.
Why this score: The speaker makes a general observation about how 'visual standards have changed since the 2000s,' comparing what was 'normal' then to what is 'normal' now. This is a common and generally accepted idea in film history and audience reception. There's no specific claim being made that requires fact-checking, nor is there any manipulative framing. It's a reasonable, descriptive statement setting context for their preference for the older aesthetic.
Original quote: “And if there's one thing that this exercise reveals, it's how visual standards have changed since the 2000s. Back then, this was normal. This was how you'd expect movies to look. But, now this is normal.”
Contrasting 'normal' visual standards of the 2000s with current 'normal' standards. — No Frame (75/100)
At 15:18
This is a fair generalization about shifting aesthetic norms in film, supported by the visual examples shown.
Why this score: The speaker is using the visual evidence presented (the older, filmic look vs. the newer, digital look) to illustrate a broader point about evolving audience expectations and industry standards. This is a common and generally accepted idea—that what's considered 'normal' or high-quality in media changes over time. The framing is straightforward, using the comparison to make a clear point.
Original quote: “Back then, this was normal. This was how you'd expect movies to look. But, now this is normal.”
Acknowledging the modern digital version isn't 'that bad' compared to recent films, but still feels 'some character is lost' compared to the 35mm. — No Frame (75/100)
At 15:24
This is a balanced and nuanced take, acknowledging positives of the digital while still preferring the 35mm for 'character'.
Why this score: The speaker is offering a balanced perspective here. They concede that the modern digital version isn't inherently 'bad' and even has good color compared to *other* recent superhero films. However, they maintain their preference for the 35mm version, articulating a subjective feeling that 'some of the character of the movie is lost' in the digital remaster. This shows a willingness to acknowledge different viewpoints while still holding a personal preference, which is a fair way to frame a subjective comparison.
Original quote: “And, let's be real. The modern digital version of Spider-Man isn't that bad. When compared to more recent superhero films, it's got a nice level of color. But, when compared to the 35 mil version, I can't help but feel that some of the character of the movie is lost.”
Expresses a subjective feeling that the digital version loses 'character' compared to 35mm. — No Frame (75/100)
At 15:30
Uses 'I can't help but feel,' making it clear this is a personal, subjective observation about aesthetic quality.
Why this score: The phrasing 'I can't help but feel' clearly indicates a personal, subjective aesthetic judgment. This is a transparent expression of opinion about the 'character' of the movie, which is inherently subjective and not a claim that can be objectively fact-checked. It's a straightforward statement of preference without manipulative framing.
Original quote: “But, when compared to the 35 mil version, I can't help but feel that some of the character of the movie is lost.”
Expressing a feeling that the digital remaster loses 'character' compared to 35mm. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 15:30
This is a subjective feeling about the 'character' of a film, not a verifiable claim.
Why this score: The speaker uses phrases like 'I can't help but feel' and refers to 'some of the character of the movie is lost'. This is a highly subjective assessment of aesthetic quality and emotional impact, not a factual claim about measurable differences. The 'character' of a movie is an intangible quality, and its presence or absence in different versions is a matter of personal perception and artistic interpretation. A neutral framing would be exactly this: expressing a personal feeling or aesthetic judgment.
Original quote: “But, when compared to the 35 mil version, I can't help but feel that some of the character of the movie is lost.”
Suggests 'character' is lost in digital vs. 35mm — vague, subjective comparison. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 15:30
Uses the vague term 'character' to imply a qualitative loss without defining what that means.
Why this score: The term 'character of the movie' is loaded language. It's an abstract concept that evokes a sense of authenticity or soul, making the digital version seem inferior without specific, tangible reasons. This framing encourages an emotional agreement rather than a critical assessment of visual differences.
Original quote: “But, when compared to the 35 mil version, I can't help but feel that some of the character of the movie is lost.”
Suggesting the 'character' of the movie is lost in digital remasters compared to 35mm, using subjective language. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 15:30
Using 'character of the movie is lost' is loaded language that implies an intangible, valuable quality is missing, rather than just a visual difference.
Why this score: The phrase 'some of the character of the movie is lost' when comparing digital to 35mm is loaded language. 'Character' is an abstract, emotionally resonant term that implies a deeper, almost spiritual degradation of the film rather than just a technical or visual alteration. It's designed to evoke a sense of loss and reinforce the idea that the older, 'filmic' version is inherently superior, appealing to a romanticized view of traditional filmmaking.
Original quote: “But, when compared to the 35 mil version, I can't help but feel that some of the character of the movie is lost.”
Expresses a personal feeling about the 'character' lost in digital remasters. — Emotional Button (75/100)
At 15:30
Uses subjective language like 'I can't help but feel' and 'character is lost' to convey a personal preference.
Why this score: The speaker states, 'I can't help but feel that some of the character of the movie is lost' when comparing digital remasters to the 35mm version. This is a clear expression of personal opinion and subjective aesthetic judgment, using emotionally resonant but undefined terms like 'character.' It's not a factual claim but an appeal to a shared sense of artistic quality or nostalgia. This is a classic 'emotional button' framing, inviting the viewer to share in the speaker's subjective feeling rather than presenting an objective analysis. It's valid as a personal take, but it's not a verifiable…
Original quote: “But, when compared to the 35 mil version, I can't help but feel that some of the character of the movie is lost.”
Subjective feeling that 'character' is lost in digital vs. 35mm. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 15:30
Using 'character is lost' is vague and subjective, designed to elicit an emotional agreement.
Why this score: The speaker is using subjective language like 'I can't help but feel' and 'some of the character of the movie is lost' when comparing the digital and 35mm versions. 'Character' is an abstract concept that's hard to quantify, making this an emotional appeal rather than a factual comparison. It's designed to resonate with viewers who might also feel a similar, undefined sense of loss when comparing older film formats to newer digital ones, pushing an emotional connection to their argument.
Original quote: “But, when compared to the 35 mil version, I can't help but feel that some of the character of the movie is lost.”
See the full analysis with timestamps →