The Sad State of Terminator 2 on Home Video (plus T1)
Credibility score: 47/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "The Sad State of Terminator 2 on Home Video (plus T1)" and rated it 47/100 for credibility (a BS score of 53/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-09-01. Its weakest claim — "Claims full CAV LD is 'sharper' than later digital transfers — no measurements given" — scored 20/100 and was flagged as confidence mismatch. 81 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 81 claims analyzed: 14 scored under 40, 55 between 40 and 69, and 12 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Labels all Cameron releases as 'sad state' — loaded framing sets up the verdict before evidence — Loaded Language (35/100)
At 0:00
Opens with blanket negative verdict before any technical details — frames the conclusion as fact
Why this score: The speaker is choosing to frame the entire Cameron catalog as objectively poor rather than presenting specific technical issues and letting viewers judge. By labeling it 'sad state' upfront, the framing steers reaction before showing the actual evidence like DNR, color grading, or aspect ratio problems that would make this a neutral discussion.
Original quote: “hello and welcome back to this downfall idealistic crusade this video will be a short video after reading a particular discussion on the bluray.com forum it brought back an old video issue to mine so i figured i'd make a video on it and that is the sad state of terminator 2 not to mention every…”
Calls 4K T2 "worst on market" — loaded language, no baseline comparison — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 0:57
Absolute superlative without defining the field — frames it as objectively terrible.
Why this score: By declaring it the single worst 4K UHD release, the speaker uses emotional language to push the viewer toward his preferred older transfers. No other 4K titles are named, so the ranking is untestable. A neutral frame would simply list the specific technical problems (DNR, color timing) and let viewers decide the severity.
Original quote: “the absolutely horrendous 4k uhd release which actually uses the uh conversion for 3d that was released in theaters and hit with a crap ton of digital noise reduction to make it look like a wax face grainless mess addition in addition with a brand new color timing and brand new audio mix which is…”
Positions his personal archive as superior — subtle self-authority framing — Anonymous Authority (60/100)
At 1:39
Implies his collection solves the problem without showing what makes it better.
Why this score: The speaker contrasts the cheap, compromised 4K with his own "best T2 archive" built over years. This creates an unspoken authority: because he owns multiple versions, his curation must be optimal. A cleaner frame would name the specific discs or tracks he recommends and why they preserve the original sound design or grain structure.
Original quote: “and they sell it for so cheap that you know i can understand people buying it but i wanted to throw this together with the uh just go over the additions i've picked up over the years to try and have every extra and compiled like the best t2 archive”
Frames home video history as a 'machine' grinding through repackagings — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 3:01
Calls the release history 'the home video machine' — paints it as soulless churning instead of normal studio commerce.
Why this score: By labeling the cycle of VHS, LD, DVD, Blu-ray, and 4K as a 'machine,' the speaker primes listeners to expect exploitation and disappointment. The neutral framing would be 'the sequence of home video releases' or 'how the film was reissued over time.' This word choice sets up later claims that every new version is a downgrade rather than just a different product.
Original quote: “i think the easiest thing to do would be to just go chronologically and go back to ye olde days of video in 1991 1992 to see how t2 sort of started and then how the home video machine kept it going over the years and various repackagings reissues and so on and so forth”
Presents early releases as pure and complete versus later 'tampered' versions — Missing Context (45/100)
At 3:24
Implies the 1991-92 releases were untouched originals — omits that CAV LD and VHS already involved generational loss and mastering choices.
Why this score: By calling the first LD/VHS releases the untouched 'theatrical cut,' the speaker sets up a purity narrative. A fair framing would acknowledge that even 1991 home video involved telecine choices, audio matrixing, and mastering limits. The later 'tampered' versions are being judged against an idealized first release that itself wasn't a direct print of the 35 mm Dolby Stereo master.
Original quote: “all we had was the theatrical cut which got released on vhs and laserdisc on ld we got the deluxe box set here with the film in cav so it's a full on box with the typical lift box type lid but this also includes the making of documentary which has been ported over and has its own particular transfer”
Claims full CAV LD is 'sharper' than later digital transfers — no measurements given — Confidence Mismatch (20/100)
At 4:16
Says the CAV LD transfer 'is a sharper better looking transfer' with zero numbers or side-by-side evidence — pure assertion.
Why this score: The speaker presents a subjective preference as an objective fact. A neutral version would be 'I prefer the CAV LD's look' or 'subjectively, the LD appears sharper to me.' By stating it as fact without resolution numbers, edge measurements, or even a direct comparison screenshot, the claim relies on the speaker's authority alone.
Original quote: “again this does include the documentary it has some text slides and extras i also really like the transfer on this i do think it is a sharper better looking transfer than the special edition should be because it is full cav it will mean”
Favors LD full CAV despite more side flips — personal preference framing — No Frame (75/100)
At 4:30
States CAV requires more flips but still prefers it — straightforward preference, no manipulation.
Why this score: Speaker openly acknowledges the downside (more flips) while maintaining preference, giving viewers the trade-off instead of hiding it.
Original quote: “transfer than the special edition should be because it is full cav it will mean that you do have to flip sides a lot more but i do like the inclusion of this this is my favorite part of any of the ld packages”
Frames LD letter as uniquely valuable for explaining original scope ratio vs later open-matte versions — No Frame (75/100)
At 4:42
Correctly notes LD letter explains scope ratio vs later open-matte — accurate technical context, no spin.
Why this score: Speaker clearly distinguishes the original intended scope ratio from later open-matte versions, giving viewers the actual technical reason the letter matters rather than just calling it cool.
Original quote: “it first appeared here the printed letter from james cameron talking about uh how they strove to get t2 looking as good as it possibly could on ld and and the best possible video format at the time of release and a little bit of technical notes you know explaining the scope aspect ratio later on…”
Calls 'crank it up' his favorite Cameron thing — personal affection framing — No Frame (75/100)
At 5:18
Labels the goofy letter his personal favorite — transparent subjective taste, no claim about objective quality.
Why this score: Speaker owns the judgment as personal preference ('my favorite') rather than asserting the letter is objectively the best part of any release.
Original quote: “my favorite part is of course on all of these copies of this letter it simply says enjoy and don't forget to in all caps crank it up this is my favorite cameron thing ever this little goofy letter”
Claims full CAV set gives 'same exact transfer' plus extras — equivalence framing — No Frame (75/100)
At 5:53
States the CAV box set uses the identical transfer as the standalone LD — clear comparison, no hidden difference claimed.
Why this score: Speaker explicitly says 'same exact transfer' while highlighting the packaging extras, so viewers know they're not getting a different master, only different presentation and extras.
Original quote: “this is what the standard release looks like which we'll get to in a second so you've got that reproduced and the actual book so you don't lose out on having the awesome poster artwork and then unlike that because it is full cav as you can see the film itself is spread over multiple sides then the…”
Presents laserdisc box set as ideal — framing it as the obvious choice without caveats. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 7:12
Calls it 'the one you want' — ignores that it lacks 5.1 audio, a dealbreaker for many.
Why this score: The speaker frames the CAV box set as the go-to choice for fans wanting the theatrical cut plus documentary, but immediately undercuts it by noting the PCM stereo-only soundtrack. This omission is buried in the next sentence, making the recommendation sound cleaner than it actually is.
Original quote: “if you want the theatrical version on laserdisc and you want the making of documentary this is the one you want to find”
Claims full CAV gives 'little uptick' in quality — vague on what that actually means. — Confidence Mismatch (40/100)
At 7:40
Says 'little uptick' like it's measurable — no specifics on resolution, noise, or mastering differences.
Why this score: The speaker repeatedly asserts the CAV laserdisc transfer is superior without providing any concrete technical comparison. Terms like 'little uptick' and 'looks better' are subjective and unquantified, leaving viewers to take the quality judgment on faith rather than evidence.
Original quote: “again i do think this looks better than the special edition versions and again it's full cav so it does have that little uptick in picture quality”
Frames the standard CLV release as ultra-cheap — implying low value or abundance. — No Frame (75/100)
At 8:05
Straightforward market observation — matches reality of used laserdisc pricing.
Why this score: Unlike the earlier subjective quality claims, this is a simple statement of observed market value. The speaker bought their copy for fifty cents and notes these are common, which aligns with how secondary markets actually price abundant CLV pressings.
Original quote: “you should not pay more than a dollar or two for it i think this one cost me a whole 50 cents”
Calls 1991 PCM 2.0 mix a 'perfect replication' — assuming without proof — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 8:58
Says 'perfect replication' like it's fact — really just 'educated guess' per next sentence.
Why this score: The speaker immediately undercuts his own confidence by admitting it's only a guess, yet still frames the audio as definitively matching the theatrical 1991 mix. This is classic confidence mismatch — the language sells certainty while the actual evidence is speculation.
Original quote: “this has the same adobe stereo matrix pcm 2.0 mix which should be a perfect replication of the 1991 standard release audio that everybody else heard”
Calls T2 Special Edition box 'one of the great behemoths' — hyperbolic nostalgia framing — Volume Game (45/100)
At 9:09
Stacks 'great behemoth,' 'everybody's collection,' 'home video history' — pure superlative inflation.
Why this score: The speaker uses layered hyperbole ('great behemoth,' 'one of the great,' 'everybody has it') to build emotional weight before actually describing the item. It's the classic volume game — quantity of praise substituting for specific evidence of why it's historically significant.
Original quote: “and now it's time to move on to the special edition and one of the great behemoths of laserdisc packaging one of the great laserdisc box sets this is something that's in everybody's collection everybody has it sooner or later”
'Still one of the best packages in home video history' — sweeping historical claim with zero comparators — Missing Context (35/100)
At 9:30
Ranks it among 'best in history' without naming any other contenders or criteria.
Why this score: The framing technique here is the naked superlative — 'one of the best in home video history' functions as an emotional button that asks the viewer to accept the ranking without any evidence or comparison. A neutral version would say 'widely regarded as impressive' or name specific design elements that influenced later packaging.
Original quote: “and it's still one of the best packages in home video history i'm of course talking about the big old t2 special edition box set this is in its full faux leather slip case with the actual metallic plate for the t2 special edition logo”
Calls CLV 'unfortunate' — framing technical choice as downgrade — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 12:26
Labels CLV as lesser without explaining why it actually matters for this release.
Why this score: The speaker sets up a negative frame by calling CLV 'unfortunate' — implying CAV is the superior format here. In reality, T2's runtime makes CAV impractical (it would require 5+ discs), so CLV is the standard choice. By omitting that context, the word 'unfortunate' steers the viewer toward disappointment instead of understanding the technical trade-off.
Original quote: “unfortunately the film is not in cav it's clv um unlike the theatrical cup”
Calls theatrical CLV version 'better' than SE — subjective preference — No Frame (75/100)
At 12:30
States his personal ranking — no loaded language or missing context.
Why this score: He's comparing the same film across two different disc formats and clearly labeling it his opinion. Straightforward framing choice — no tricks here.
Original quote: “unfortunately the film is not in cav it's clv um unlike the theatrical cup box that's another reason why i think that theatrical cut box set version actually looks better than the special edition”
Says 'apparently' overseen by Rydstrom — hedges with anonymous authority — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
At 12:36
Uses 'apparently' instead of citing a source — classic anonymous authority move.
Why this score: Instead of saying 'according to the liner notes' or 'Gary confirmed in 1997,' he leaves it vague. That single word weakens the claim without actually lying.
Original quote: “however the special edition has a brand new custom created dolby surround pcm mix which is uh it was apparently overseen by gary rydstrom the original sound designer”
Claims later remixes 'can't make it sound bad' — confidence mismatch with evidence — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 13:07
Sweeping claim with zero examples or receipts — sounds confident but unsupported.
Why this score: He asserts that every remix stays 'not bad' without naming one, showing a clip, or referencing actual listener feedback. The confidence level doesn't match the evidence provided.
Original quote: “even the later remixes of t2 they they keep changing stuff and adding stuff but you still can't quite make it sound bad uh it you just make it sound different”
Equates T2 remix to Star Wars Definitive Collection — false equivalence — False Equivalence (45/100)
At 13:27
Two very different restoration projects treated as identical — apples to oranges.
Why this score: Star Wars had original multi-track elements and George Lucas's direct involvement. T2's remix started from a 1991 4-track matrix. Calling them 'akin' flattens important technical differences.
Original quote: “so i really think this is very much akin to the star wars definitive collection boxset remastered audio that made brand new dolby surround tracks from the original sources”
LD theatrical cut has best picture — comparative judgment, no numbers shown — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 15:10
Calls theatrical LD 'best picture overall' — but comparing only early discs, not later HD releases.
Why this score: The speaker is narrowing the comparison pool to 'early releases on laserdisc' right after praising the theatrical cut. This lets him declare a winner without addressing the 2015 or 2017 Blu-rays that community feedback calls unwatchable due to DNR and color shifts. By leaving those out, the claim feels stronger than the evidence provided.
Original quote: “in short in terms of the ld boxes the original cab theatrical cut i think has the best picture overall in terms of all the early releases on laserdisc and has the seemingly theatrical audio from the standard 35 millimeter release whereas the special edition box gets you the new cut with the new…”
Calls box set 'disappointing' for matching standalone disc — framing technique — Missing Context (45/100)
At 17:06
Frames identical content as 'disappointing' — assumes buyers expect unique CAV transfer without saying why.
Why this score: The speaker treats the duplication as a flaw rather than a practical design choice. A neutral framing would explain what CAV offers versus CLV and whether the buyer actually needs that difference for their setup.
Original quote: “this is exactly the same as the uh movie disc inside the box set so that's one of the reasons why when you get the box it's a little disappointing because it's not cav and the movie is identical to this standalone release”
Calls gatefold 'condensed' — neutral description, no loaded framing — No Frame (75/100)
At 17:20
Straightforward technical description — just noting layout choices without judgment.
Why this score: The speaker is simply describing how the special features are physically arranged. No rhetorical spin; it's clean reporting of format details.
Original quote: “they condensed everything down into a custom gatefold so first you get another copy of the james cameron letter but this is sort of combining the letter from the theatrical box with the updated version in the special edition box that's printed so here you get it like this”
Claims 'identical' transfer without naming which box set — Anonymous Authority — Anonymous Authority (30/100)
At 18:41
Says 'the box set' like there's only one obvious choice — which one though?
Why this score: The phrase 'the box set' assumes the viewer shares context about which specific release. This creates authority through implication rather than explicit reference. A neutral framing would name the specific box set edition being referenced.
Original quote: “and again this replicates the box set transfer and audio completely because the discs are identical”
Positions speaker as collector authority via personal anecdote — soft expertise claim — No Frame (75/100)
At 19:05
Straightforward personal experience — no loaded framing here.
Why this score: They're simply stating their collecting history as context for wanting the 4:3 version. This is clean framing that establishes relevant background without claiming broader authority or making unsupported assertions about the discs themselves.
Original quote: “i would like to find one someday because i have collected some of the other cameron four to three variants like true lies and the abyss”
Explains technical concept clearly — good explanatory framing — No Frame (80/100)
At 19:39
Breaks down 'squeeze anamorphic' with plain language — actually helpful framing.
Why this score: They're using the phrase 'by squeeze I mean' to define technical terminology for the audience. This is clean explanatory framing that adds information rather than steering opinion. The comparison to DVD encoding makes an abstract concept concrete.
Original quote: “in particular there are some late releases there is a squeeze anamorphic japanese version as well and by squeeze i mean it is literally a 16 9 encoded anamorphic image just like a dvd encoded onto a laserdisc”
Calls 1998 LD 'possibly the best looking' — hedges while hyping — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 20:52
Says 'possibly the best' then immediately admits 'I don't know' — confidence and evidence are at war.
Why this score: The speaker builds up the 1998 LaserDisc as potentially the best US disc based on it being a late release and a new transfer, but immediately undercuts that by admitting they've never seen it. This creates a confidence mismatch where the claim is presented with positive framing while the actual evidence level is zero. The framing works by making the viewer feel like this is a desirable holy grail, even though the speaker has no basis for comparison. A neutral framing would simply say 'this release has features that might make it preferable, but I haven't seen it.'
Original quote: “now uh the final release on laserdisc was in 1998 so it means it's a very late release and it does have ac3 5.1 i've never been able to get a copy because it's very rare and usually goes for quite a bit when it does pop up but it is the theatrical cut it's the movie only it has both matrix 2.0 pcm…”
Frames CDS failure as 'naturally' happening — downplays the tech's flaws — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 21:35
Calls the premiere crash 'naturally' — makes catastrophic audio failure sound like normal growing pains.
Why this score: The speaker uses 'naturally' to describe what was actually a significant technical failure — the complete loss of audio during a 70mm premiere. This loaded language frames the CDS system's fatal flaw (no backup track) as an expected part of the process rather than a critical design failure. A neutral framing would acknowledge that the lack of redundancy caused real-world problems that killed the format. Instead, the word choice makes the technology's demise seem inevitable rather than a consequence of poor engineering decisions.
Original quote: “the 5.1 is actually the theatrical cds mix and by cds i mean cinema digital sound it was a very short-lived process it was a 5.1 system that actually encoded a digital pcm of i should say full bitrate pcm at cd quality in terms of the 5.1 characteristics itself it was encoded onto the film print…”
Calls T2 the most important sound mix — framing it as the pinnacle — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 23:11
Ranks it above Jurassic Park without acknowledging it's opinion — subjective ranking presented as fact.
Why this score: The speaker elevates T2 as 'the most important' and 'most aggressive' mix, then immediately compares it to Jurassic Park's DTS debut two years later. This creates a hierarchy where T2 is positioned as superior, but there's no external evidence cited — it's just the speaker's personal valuation dressed as historical importance.
Original quote: “t2 i think is the most important of these because it's the most aggressive and a really incredible mix that pushes the art of sound mixing forward”
Frames Laserdisc CDS mix as 'very important' to preserve — loaded value judgment — Loaded Language (35/100)
At 23:27
Calls the CDS mix 'very important' without explaining why — emotional weight added to a niche audio format.
Why this score: By labeling the CDS mix as 'very important,' the speaker assigns cultural significance to preserving a specific 5.1 mix from 1991. This framing elevates the Laserdisc release as a preservation artifact, but the importance is asserted rather than demonstrated — it's a value judgment about what counts as worth saving.
Original quote: “so to have that cds mix on disc is very important for the theatrical cut and so the fact that the laserdisc has it is is really great that we have an ability to enjoy it”
Calls LD 'easiest and best way' to hear original mix — opinion framed as fact — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 24:30
Says 'best way' like it's objective — actually means 'my favorite version' 🎧
Why this score: Speaker frames personal preference as the clear winner. Neutral version would be 'my preferred version' or 'the one I find most faithful.' By calling it 'the easiest and best' without comparison data, the claim gets boosted beyond personal taste.
Original quote: “a lossy version of what's on the ld and most importantly it has that 5.1 ac3 this is also anamorphically enhanced so you can watch this on a modern display and you don't have to worry about it being litter boxed and not you know not anamorphic letterboxed but anyway this is the easiest and best way…”
Claims every reissue drifts further from 'original design' — no sources named — Anonymous Authority (35/100)
At 24:52
Says 'further and further away' without citing any mix engineers or official notes — classic anonymous authority move 🕵️
Why this score: Speaker builds a narrative of successive degradation but never names who made the changes or what the official intent was. A neutral frame would reference specific engineers, memos, or Cameron's own comments about the remixes. Instead, the authority stays hidden behind 'they would tweak' and 'they went to the well.'
Original quote: “the balance i think is is best overall there are much greater t2 nerds than than me who know all the intricate differences and can tell you two seconds which mix you're listening to but basically after the cds mix you have the home versions and after this point every time they reissued the film…”
Repeats 'best sounding version' and calls later mixes 'not as good' — repeated personal judgment — No Frame (75/100)
At 25:24
Sticks to 'I think' and 'I don't think' — owns the subjectivity, no tricks here 👍
Why this score: Speaker consistently signals this is his own take ('I think') rather than universal truth. That's clean framing: he compares the mixes, states his preference, and doesn't pretend it's an objective ranking. Viewers know they're getting one informed opinion, not a fact.
Original quote: “so if you've never had the opportunity to listen to it this way i still think this is the best sounding version of t2 it has nice aggression to it but it doesn't uh go overboard and also the balance overall between channels eq effects levels music levels i think is best here i think every mix on…”
Labels 70mm CDS mix as the definitive theatrical version — Missing Context — Missing Context (45/100)
At 26:46
Skips the fact that most theaters ran the standard 35mm mix — framing 70mm as the only 'intended' version.
Why this score: By calling the 70mm CDS the 'intended' mix, the speaker erases the reality that the vast majority of screenings used the regular 35mm Dolby Stereo or 5.1 tracks. A neutral framing would note that the CDS version was an exclusive premium presentation rather than the default theatrical audio.
Original quote: “i still think this is the best sounding version overall and this is how you listen to the intended 5.1 theatrical mix it was only heard on the 70 millimeter releases”
Implies CDS 'working' was rare — Volume Game — Volume Game (45/100)
At 26:56
Uses 'when it was actually working' to suggest frequent failures, yet offers zero data on how often it actually broke.
Why this score: The phrase quietly amplifies the impression of unreliability without evidence. A fair version would simply state the CDS system was used on 70mm prints and leave reliability for a separate, sourced discussion.
Original quote: “with the cds system implemented and of course that meant when it was actually working then we keep on into the dvds”
Calls the 2000 DVD remixes 'new' without clarifying they're matrixed, not discrete — Missing Context — Missing Context (45/100)
At 27:49
Says 'new mix' but omits that 5.1 EX/ES were mostly matrixed, not true discrete like the original CDS.
Why this score: Viewers may assume the later releases finally delivered the full discrete 5.1 experience the speaker just praised. A neutral line would note that true discrete center-rear audio remained rare on DVD and that these were largely matrixed extensions of the same core 5.1 stems.
Original quote: “however the audio has been remastered again and so we now have a new mix in both dolby digital 5.1 ex and dts 5.1 es those are the two systems with rear center matrix or discrete information”
2003 mix 'not theatrically accurate' — loaded comparison to prior version — Missing Context (45/100)
At 28:51
Calls it 'not theatrically accurate' — but never says what changed or why it matters.
Why this score: Speaker uses the term 'theatrically accurate' as the gold standard without defining it or showing that the previous DVD was any closer to the cinema mix. This creates an implied downgrade that feels authoritative but lacks the actual technical comparison that would ground the claim.
Original quote: “i will say this still sounds pretty good but it is not the cds of the previous dvd the balance isn't quite as good and they do play around with some things but again it still sounds good it's just again different so it's not you know completely theatrically accurate”
Extreme DVD 'new 1080p master' — anonymous authority on lineage — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
At 29:46
Says 'I think this may be the start' — guessing the source of later releases with zero receipts.
Why this score: The speaker hedges with 'I think' and 'may be' while still positioning this 2003 Extreme DVD as the root of all subsequent HD versions. Without showing the actual transfer chain or citing any studio documentation, the claim rests on speculation dressed up as informed speculation.
Original quote: “this is 2003 where we get the extreme dvd package which again has multiple versions i don't have the the fancy slip case but this is optimized further it's a new 1080p hd master so i think this may be the start of the stuff that started turning up on hdtv airings and then the eventual first couple…”
Claims 5.1 EX replaces DTS-ES, calls it a downgrade — Missing Context (45/100)
At 30:38
Frames the loss of DTS-ES as an obvious downgrade without explaining why the 5.1 EX might have been chosen instead.
Why this score: This is the classic 'missing context' move — the speaker presents the removal of DTS-ES as a pure loss, but doesn't mention that many home theater setups in that era couldn't decode DTS-ES anyway, or whether the 5.1 EX track was actually an improvement for most listeners. A neutral framing would acknowledge the trade-off rather than implying it was strictly worse.
Original quote: “it has 5.1 ex audio it drops the dts es from the previous release so you will have to have that for the dtscs version”
Calls the Skynet Blu-ray the same master plus 'additional layers' of DNR — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 31:35
Says 'I think' and 'additional layers' like it's obvious, but the evidence is thin.
Why this score: This is a confidence mismatch — the speaker hedges with 'I think' but then describes the DNR and remixing as established fact. A neutral framing would either cite a source for the DNR claim or be upfront that it's speculation based on listening impressions rather than documented transfer notes.
Original quote: “the skynet edition blu-ray which again i think is is using this the same master but was hit with additional layers of digital noise reduction and has had further audio remixing into the then newer techniques that we're getting into 6.1 and 7.1 territory”
Claims 'pretty decent outcry' over the Skynet Blu-ray — Missing Context (45/100)
At 32:08
Uses 'pretty decent outcry' without showing how widespread or vocal it actually was.
Why this score: This is missing context — the speaker implies significant backlash, but doesn't clarify whether that was a niche collector complaint or a broader audience issue. A neutral framing would either quantify the reaction (forum posts, reviews, sales impact) or acknowledge that the perception of 'outcry' might be amplified by the kinds of enthusiasts who post on home theater forums.
Original quote: “there was a pretty decent outcry over the issues with that release they did it several different ways there are many different packaging versions”
Calls this disc the one without 'crazy levels of DNR' — framing via loaded contrast — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 32:30
Sets up previous release as 'crazy' then positions this one as the sane choice — loaded language doing the selling.
Why this score: By calling the 2017 remaster's DNR 'crazy levels,' the speaker primes the viewer to see any reduction as automatically better. The framing omits that some viewers actually prefer the cleaner look, making 'less DNR' sound like the only reasonable preference.
Original quote: “so this takes that master and doesn't have the same levels of digital noise reduction applied to it”
Labels the 2015 disc 'the best overall version' — confidence mismatch without side-by-side data — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 33:31
Calls it 'the best' while only comparing it to two other discs — the framing narrows the field so the claim sounds bigger than the evidence.
Why this score: The speaker has shown three releases total. Declaring one 'the best overall' assumes those three represent the entire universe of options. The missing context is every other release (including the 2000 Extreme DVD, 2003 DVD, and any future restoration) that might change the ranking.
Original quote: “if you just want a version of terminator 2 you want the best overall version this is what you want to go for”
Recommends 2015 Lionsgate Blu-ray as 'best version' — a subjective opinion framed as fact. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 34:36
Calling something 'the best' is a strong subjective take, especially in media where 'best' can mean many things.
Why this score: The speaker frames the 2015 Lionsgate Blu-ray as 'the best version' without specifying the criteria for 'best.' For home video, 'best' can refer to picture quality, audio, extras, or even personal preference for a specific transfer. This is a loaded term that implies objective superiority when it's often subjective. A neutral framing would be 'This is a highly recommended version for X reasons' or 'Many consider this the best for Y.'
Original quote: “this is the one you want to go for this is still currently the best version”
Claims original DVD with CTS 5.1 audio is 'best sounding' — another subjective claim presented as objective. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 35:02
Again, 'best sounding' is a subjective judgment about audio quality, not a universally agreed-upon fact.
Why this score: Similar to the previous claim, the speaker states that the original DVD's CTS 5.1 audio is 'still the best sounding T2 out there.' Audio preference is highly subjective and depends on equipment, listening environment, and individual taste. While it might be a popular or well-regarded mix, presenting it as definitively 'the best' is a loaded statement. A more neutral framing would acknowledge it as a 'highly praised mix' or 'many fans prefer this mix.'
Original quote: “original dvd with the cts 5.1 audio again this is still the best sounding t2”
Explains collection size as 'spiraling out of control' like 'all Cameron films do' — a humorous, relatable framing. — No Frame (75/100)
At 36:12
This is a self-deprecating, humorous observation about collecting, not a factual claim or manipulative framing.
Why this score: The speaker uses a lighthearted, self-aware framing to explain his extensive collection, attributing it to the nature of James Cameron films 'spiraling out of control.' This is a personal anecdote and a relatable observation for collectors, not a claim intended to mislead or persuade with loaded language or missing context. It's a transparent and honest reflection of his own collecting habits, framed with a touch of humor. It's a 'No Frame' because it's just a personal, casual observation.
Original quote: “so that's why i've got so many t2s that's what my collection looks like i never intended to get this many but i just sort of spiraled out of control as all cameron films do”
2015 Blu-ray is best despite compromised master — Missing Context — Missing Context (45/100)
At 36:47
Calls 2015 Blu-ray 'the way to go' while admitting the master is compromised — leaves out what 'compromised' actually means.
Why this score: The speaker positions the 2015 Blu-ray as the practical winner by comparing it to 'previous Blu-rays' and DVDs, but never defines what the compromised master actually contains — whether it's DNR, color timing, or resolution. Viewers are told to supplement with older formats for audio without being told how significant the video compromise is or why a better master hasn't been used. This frames the 2015 release as an acceptable compromise without showing what the actual trade-offs are.
Original quote: “basically i think the 2015 blu-ray is the way to go still it's it's a shame that you're still having to deal with a compromised master and that's the best you can do but in terms of the disc itself it doesn't have as much dnr the encoding is better than the previous blu-rays it has a version of the…”
LaserDisc is 'really crazy' best option for Cameron films — Emotional Button — Emotional Button (35/100)
At 37:27
Calls LaserDisc the strongest transfer for multiple Cameron films — uses 'really crazy' to make the claim feel shocking rather than factual.
Why this score: The speaker leans on the emotional weight of 'what's really crazy' to sell the idea that 30-year-old LaserDiscs are superior to modern Blu-rays, but never shows side-by-side evidence or explains the specific technical advantages. By framing the situation as absurd rather than laying out concrete metrics (resolution, color space, audio specs), the argument relies on the viewer's sense of disbelief instead of verifiable data.
Original quote: “and then if you want to go down the rabbit hole further i'd say go into laserdisc where cameron films really are at their strongest and what's really crazy is if that's still the best way to watch a number of cameron films you know true lies in the abyss are still stuck in that era of transfer in…”
Frames Cameron as constantly 'revising' films — loaded word choice — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 38:37
Calls it 'revisionism' like it's malicious — neutral word would be 'remastering'
Why this score: The speaker picks 'revisionism' which carries a political connotation of deliberately distorting history. A neutral framing would say 'remastering' or 'updating' — words that describe the process without implying bad intent. By choosing the loaded term, they steer the viewer to see Cameron's color-timing and grain-reduction choices as destructive rather than just creative decisions.
Original quote: “with cameron films you're just stuck with constant revisionism”
Frames grain removal as 'mania' and 'destroying' — emotional button + loaded language — Emotional Button (35/100)
At 38:42
Calls it 'mania' and 'destroying' — strong emotional words that paint Cameron as obsessive rather than deliberate
Why this score: The speaker pairs 'mania' (suggesting irrational obsession) with 'destroying' (suggesting violent loss). Together they create an emotional reaction before the viewer even sees the images. A neutral framing would say 'choosing to reduce grain' or 'applying noise reduction.' By using destructive language, the speaker makes any change feel like vandalism.
Original quote: “apparent mania for destroying film grain trying to make them look and sound like you know completely different films”
Claims rarity without evidence — anonymous authority, no receipts given — Anonymous Authority (50/100)
At 39:24
Says 'probably the rarest' and 'exceptionally uncommon' — no numbers, no sources, just confident assertion
Why this score: The speaker uses 'probably' and 'exceptionally' to sound authoritative while giving zero data. A neutral framing would cite sales figures, known pressing quantities, or collector-market prices. Without those, the claim rests on the speaker's vibe rather than verifiable scarcity. The audience is asked to trust the assertion because it sounds insider, not because evidence is shown.
Original quote: “this is actually probably the rarest version in the us on laserdisc... this is exceptionally uncommon”
Calling a 1980s laserdisc the 'first proper version' — framing all prior releases as improper — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 40:42
Calling earlier VHS copies 'not proper' is loaded — sets up everything before this disc as inferior by default.
Why this score: The speaker uses the word 'proper' to elevate this particular laserdisc release above all earlier formats. It subtly dismisses any VHS or broadcast versions as somehow unofficial or second-rate, even though they were the standard way people watched the film for years. The loaded term does the persuasive work without evidence that earlier releases were technically invalid.
Original quote: “this was the first time you had a proper version of this film to watch and enjoy on any format”
Claiming these two releases are 'probably the best' mono experiences — subjective ranking presented as consensus — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 41:27
Says 'probably the best' with zero comparison data — sounds authoritative but it's just one person's ranking.
Why this score: The speaker presents a personal preference as if it's a widely accepted fact. Without referencing other mono mixes or explaining why these two are superior, the claim rests on implied expertise rather than evidence. The word 'probably' softens it just enough to avoid sounding absolute, yet still carries an air of definitive judgment.
Original quote: “this and the first dvd that ported this are probably the best ways to experience the mono”
Calling one specific DVD 'definitely the hardest' to find — absolute claim without market data — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 42:23
Uses 'definitely' on a collectibility claim with no sales figures or scarcity proof — sounds certain but unsupported.
Why this score: The speaker asserts rarity with total confidence while providing no numbers, listings, or secondary-market evidence. 'Definitely' turns a subjective impression into an unchallenged fact. Without data on print runs or current availability, the statement functions more as emphatic opinion than verified claim.
Original quote: “it is definitely the hardest version of terminator 1 to get on dvd”
Calls 5.1 remix "technically superior" — loaded framing — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 43:01
Labels remix superior before immediately calling it "completely inferior" — contradictory framing.
Why this score: Speaker sets up a false hierarchy: technical metrics vs. artistic fit. By calling it "technically superior" first, the audience is primed to expect something good, then the rug-pull lands harder. The neutral framing would simply compare the two mixes without pre-labeling either as superior.
Original quote: “the new 5.1 ex remix which was done from the ground up”
Calls original mono "perfect" and "one of the great mono mixes" — emotional button — Emotional Button (20/100)
At 43:28
Absolute language ("perfect," "greatest") replaces comparative analysis — sells nostalgia over evidence.
Why this score: Speaker invokes the sacred original mix without citing any objective metrics or contemporary reviews. The framing positions any deviation as sacrilege. A neutral approach would reference specific scenes where the mono excels and where the 5.1 remix changes intent.
Original quote: “the original mono mix is perfect it's one of the great mono mixes because it is very late for mono it's it's full of you know gunfire and various effects and things and it's really effective”
"Not the way to watch the film" — confidence mismatch — Confidence Mismatch (30/100)
At 43:44
Dismisses remix outright without showing why modern thinking automatically fails 1984 intent.
Why this score: Speaker assumes Cameron's 1984 intent is the only valid one, ignoring that directors often revisit their work. The neutral framing would acknowledge both perspectives: preserving original intent versus allowing later reinterpretation.
Original quote: “while it's nice they got to go back and do a mix that was more in line with their modern thinking it is not the way to watch the film”
Calls 5.1 remix 'ungodly awful' — loaded language framing — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 45:07
Labeling it 'ungodly awful' signals bias before any technical explanation.
Why this score: The speaker uses emotionally charged language to characterize the remix as inherently bad, but provides no specific technical flaws or comparison criteria. This framing steers the viewer toward rejection before examining what the 5.1 mix actually does differently. A neutral framing would describe specific changes in the mix rather than declaring it 'awful' outright.
Original quote: “i can't really watch this or really any version of on blu-ray of the official releases because it only has the ungodly awful 5.1 remix”
Labels teal grading 'dreaded' — loaded language plus anonymous authority — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 46:21
'Dreaded' plus 'a lot of people' creates consensus without naming sources.
Why this score: The speaker invokes an unnamed group ('a lot of people') who supposedly debate the teal coloring, then calls it 'dreaded' — both classic loaded moves. The transcript cuts off before the speaker completes the thought, but the framing is already clear: the new grading is presented as objectively problematic because 'people' don't like it. A cleaner framing would either cite specific critics or acknowledge that color grading preferences vary.
Original quote: “it's been hit with a complete modern color grading that is full of the dreaded teal coloring that a lot of people like to go on and on about in terms of debating it but it's definitely”
New scan is beautiful but ruins experience — loaded language framing — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 46:30
Calls scan 'beautiful' yet immediately says it's worse — framing aesthetic value against viewer experience.
Why this score: Speaker sets up a false contrast: a 'beautiful' scan is still bad because it alters the intended look. Neutral framing would separate visual fidelity from artistic intent instead of pitting them against each other.
Original quote: “people like to go on and on about in terms of debating it but it's definitely here it should not be there and it ruins what is otherwise a great scan so while this has a beautiful new source scan in terms of the experience you're much better off with the old master on this disc”
You need Blu-ray + DVD + 1995 laserdisc for 'full experience' — volume game framing — Volume Game (45/100)
At 46:43
Lists four separate discs as mandatory, turning a format choice into an overwhelming checklist.
Why this score: By framing completeness as requiring every release, the speaker makes modern options feel inadequate without acknowledging that most viewers won't need every audio mix or extra.
Original quote: “and neither one has the all-important original mono which to even get a copy of and one that sounds pretty good you have to go all the way back to the mgm disc which again this dvd has more extras well i should say all the ones that were created for this film are here so at the very least you've…”
Must own multiple versions to get everything — framing as consumer burden — Missing Context (45/100)
At 46:43
Frames having to buy multiple discs as the 'sad state' of home video — omits that studios often separate features across releases for sales reasons.
Why this score: The speaker presents the need for multiple purchases as an inherent problem without acknowledging the industry practice of splitting content across editions. A neutral framing would note this is common studio strategy rather than an accidental oversight.
Original quote: “and neither one has the all-important original mono which to even get a copy of and one that sounds pretty good you have to go all the way back to the mgm disc which again this dvd has more extras well i should say all the ones that were created for this film are here so at the very least you've…”
Studios 'didn't want it' or were 'lazy' — confidence mismatch about intent — Confidence Mismatch (20/100)
At 47:19
States 'they didn't want it' or 'lazy' as fact about studio motives — speculation presented as certainty with no evidence.
Why this score: The speaker asserts definitive knowledge of studio decision-making ('they didn't want it', 'people were too lazy') without citing sources or evidence. This is the classic confidence mismatch — presenting opinion about corporate intent as established fact. A neutral framing would say 'it appears the original mono wasn't included' rather than assigning motive.
Original quote: “yeah 95. so there you have it and it doesn't have to be this way there is no reason why this new master couldn't have proper color timing proper grain structure intact and have the original mono mix plus the handful of bits of the dvd extras that weren't included so this one is just they didn't…”
Studios lazy or unwilling — confidence mismatch framing — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 47:19
Assumes malice or laziness with zero evidence of studio reasoning or technical constraints.
Why this score: Speaker presents 'didn't want it' or 'too lazy' as the only explanations, skipping the possibility of licensing, rights, or restoration choices. Neutral framing would note that we don't know the actual decision process.
Original quote: “yeah 95. so there you have it and it doesn't have to be this way there is no reason why this new master couldn't have proper color timing proper grain structure intact and have the original mono mix plus the handful of bits of the dvd extras that weren't included so this one is just they didn't…”
T1 requires four separate discs for 'all the best stuff' — volume game framing — Volume Game (45/100)
At 47:52
Turns having the 'best' into owning every release, making any single purchase feel incomplete.
Why this score: Speaker frames quality as additive across formats rather than subjective per viewer. A neutral version would clarify which specific features matter to whom instead of implying everyone needs the full stack.
Original quote: “it's a bit less convoluted than t2 there are of course many repackages just like that film but in terms of overall editions if you want everything terminator one related and you want all the best stuff you pretty much have to have the new blu-ray just have the new master with crappy audio and…”
Concludes with need for multiple versions — framing the situation as consumer frustration — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 48:25
Wraps up by emphasizing the 'collection' requirement — uses consumer frustration as the emotional hook to end the segment.
Why this score: The speaker chooses to close with the practical burden on collectors rather than any positive aspects of available releases. This framing technique leaves viewers with a sense of frustration rather than information. A neutral closing would balance the practical requirements with acknowledgment that different releases serve different viewer preferences.
Original quote: “so that's my overall terminator 1 and 2 video collection why”
Presents owning 'many editions' as evidence of thorough research — classic collector authority move — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
At 48:30
Opens with 'so that's my overall collection' — uses possession as proof of expertise instead of naming sources.
Why this score: The speaker's framing treats physical ownership of multiple formats as a stand-in for authoritative knowledge. A neutral framing would mention specific technical sources or restoration documentation rather than relying on the 'look at my shelf' argument.
Original quote: “so that's my overall terminator 1 and 2 video collection why i have so many different editions and a very cliff notes run through of the various quirks of all the versions on dvd blu-ray and laserdisc”
Framing multiple editions as a necessity — Missing Context — Missing Context (45/100)
At 48:30
Speaker assumes collecting everything is required — omits that many fans are happy with one good version.
Why this score: By saying 'you really do need a mix of things,' the framing implies a single release can't satisfy anyone. A neutral framing would acknowledge that most viewers just want one solid transfer and don't care about every audio mix or laserdisc quirk.
Original quote: “so that's my overall terminator 1 and 2 video collection why i have so many different editions”
Frames fragmented releases as 'unfortunate' necessity — positions consumer frustration as industry failure — Emotional Button (35/100)
At 48:40
Calling it 'unfortunate you really do need a mix' triggers collector anxiety while skipping whether studios ever promised complete editions.
Why this score: This framing casts the consumer as victim of corporate neglect without acknowledging that home video releases historically prioritized different markets, audio formats, and technical constraints over preserving every possible mix. A fairer framing would note which specific technical decisions created these gaps.
Original quote: “what you're looking at if you're trying to get you know all the various extras and audio mixes and just figure out the whole uh terminator scenario for the first two original films on disc and unfortunately you really do need a mix of things”
Technical flaws presented as universal — Confidence Mismatch — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 48:52
States 'color timing issues' as fact without naming which release or showing evidence on screen.
Why this score: The speaker treats the existence of problems across 'every camera film' as given, but never specifies which version has what issue. A fairer framing would name the exact release and the exact problem (DNR, contrast, etc.) so viewers can judge for themselves.
Original quote: “unfortunately you really do need a mix of things because not everything is carried over the original audio has not carried over there are color timing issues here and there”
Normalizes 'color timing issues' as inevitable — downplays specific restoration choices as generic industry problems — Missing Context (40/100)
At 48:56
Lumps intentional color grade changes with technical transfer errors under 'issues here and there' — erases the difference between accident and revisionism.
Why this score: By treating all color timing variations as equivalent problems, the speaker obscures the distinction between unintentional transfer errors and deliberate artistic changes made during restoration. A clearer framing would separate technical limitations from creative decisions that altered the original look.
Original quote: “because not everything is carried over the original audio has not carried over there are color timing issues here and there so again with every camera film you go through this stuff”
Comparing T1/T2 favorably to other films — Missing Context — Missing Context (50/100)
At 49:05
Claims other films are worse off but gives no examples — the comparison stays abstract.
Why this score: The speaker sets up T1 and T2 as uniquely salvageable by compiling releases, then contrasts this with unnamed 'other films.' A neutral version would either name those films or drop the comparison entirely, since the point is really about T1/T2, not a universal rule.
Original quote: “again with every camera film you go through this stuff and at least with terminator 1 and 2 you can compile all these different releases and you can get everything together whereas the other films especially the ones without blu-ray releases you can't do that”
Creates false equivalence between 'compiling everything' and 'having the definitive version' — ignores that no single release contains the complete intended experience — False Equivalence (30/100)
At 49:07
Suggests piecing together multiple releases equals having 'everything' — but no combination restores the original theatrical experience the way the speaker implies.
Why this score: The framing presents a scavenger hunt through bargain bins as a solution rather than acknowledging that some elements (original audio mixes, unaltered color timing) may simply not exist in any current release. A more honest framing would clarify which specific pieces remain permanently missing.
Original quote: “and at least with terminator 1 and 2 you can compile all these different releases and you can get everything together whereas the other films especially the ones without blu-ray releases you can't do that”
Cheap prices framed as obvious — Cherry-Picked — Cherry-Picked (45/100)
At 49:21
Focuses on bargain-bin finds while ignoring that desirable editions (laserdisc box sets) cost more and are harder to locate.
Why this score: By repeatedly stressing 'very cheap' and 'bargain bins,' the framing downplays the cost and effort of the laserdisc sets the speaker just said are the most expensive part. A balanced take would acknowledge that the 'complete' experience isn't uniformly cheap or easy to assemble.
Original quote: “it's possible and very very fortunately all this stuff is very cheap again what you'll have to pay most for if you're willing to dig through bargain bins and and record stores and and various places you can pretty much find all the dvds and blu-rays for very cheap”
Frames the scavenger hunt as 'very cheap' and 'doable' — downplays time, effort, and specialist knowledge required — Missing Context (50/100)
At 49:21
Calls hunting through 'bargain bins and record stores' an easy solution — omits the expertise needed to identify which specific releases contain which audio mixes.
Why this score: The speaker presents cost as the only barrier while glossing over the research, format identification skills, and patience required to navigate multiple incompatible releases. A more accurate framing would acknowledge that this approach works best for people who already understand the technical landscape rather than casual fans seeking the 'best' version.
Original quote: “um so it's possible and very very fortunately all this stuff is very cheap again what you'll have to pay most for if you're willing to dig through bargain bins and and record stores and and various places you can pretty much find all the dvds and blu-rays for very cheap what's going to set you back…”
Prices presented as manageable — Confidence Mismatch — Confidence Mismatch (50/100)
At 49:37
Says laserdisc sets 'shouldn't cost more than 10-20 dollars' while immediately walking it back — no current market data shown.
Why this score: The speaker gives a price range, then concedes it may be higher depending on condition. Without showing actual recent sales data or average completed listings, the claim floats between optimistic and realistic. A clearer framing would either cite real numbers or drop the specific dollar range.
Original quote: “what's going to set you back a little bit is the big heavy laser just special edition box sets which honestly shouldn't cost you more than 10 to 20 dollars plus shipping but again trying to find one complete in good shape you'll probably pay a little bit more than that but just be patient it is…”
2015 Blu-ray + original DVD = best T2 combo — Missing Context (45/100)
At 50:30
Presents this combo as the simple best choice — skips that 2015 Blu-ray has the controversial color timing.
Why this score: By calling it the 'best overall' without acknowledging the color-timing debate that commenters keep flagging, the speaker frames the 2015 disc as the default upgrade path while downplaying its most common criticism.
Original quote: “if you don't want to get into the laserdisc realm and you just want to do it simply and and get the best overall for t2 i think you need the 2015 blu-ray plus the original dvd for the cds audio track”
Claims 2015 Blu-ray + original DVD is best combo — frames all later releases as compromised — Missing Context (45/100)
At 50:36
Calls later masters 'dodgy' without naming what's actually wrong — steers you away from newer releases before you check them.
Why this score: This is the classic 'older is purer' framing. By labeling the color timing 'dodgy' without showing side-by-side evidence or explaining what changed, the speaker makes the 2015 disc sound like the last trustworthy version. Viewers aren't told the 2017 remaster's actual differences or why some prefer it. A neutral frame would list specific technical changes across releases instead of dismissing newer ones with one loaded adjective.
Original quote: “for t2 i think you need the 2015 blu-ray plus the original dvd for the cds audio track and then for terminator 1 you know you can have the new version if you want the new master even though it's got the dodgy color timing and or the original blu-ray release but the very least go get yourself a copy…”
New T1 master is 'dodgy' — loaded language — Loaded Language (30/100)
At 50:42
Drops 'dodgy' like it's obvious fact — never says who's calling it dodgy or why.
Why this score: That single adjective steers viewers away from the newer master without evidence or named sources. A neutral frame would say the color timing 'differs from the theatrical' instead of labeling it 'dodgy.'
Original quote: “and then for terminator 1 you know you can have the new version if you want the new master even though it's got the dodgy color timing”
MGM DVD = must-own for extras and mono track — No Frame (75/100)
At 50:50
Straight recommendation — names the specific disc and what it offers without hype or shade.
Why this score: Here the speaker simply lists the practical value of one release. No loaded adjectives, no 'best ever' claims — just a clear, verifiable reason to own it.
Original quote: “and or the original blu-ray release but the very least go get yourself a copy of the mgm dvd so you can at least have all the extras in one place plus the original mono”
See the full analysis with timestamps →