I Can't Believe They Turned This Terrible Series Into A Bad TV Movie Instead
Credibility score: 33/100 — Low Credibility. High BS alert! Many claims lack evidence or are misleading.
BSmeter analyzed "I Can't Believe They Turned This Terrible Series Into A Bad TV Movie Instead" and rated it 33/100 for credibility (a BS score of 67/100 — low credibility), on 2026-07-14. Its weakest claim — "Producers only wanted a sequel for more teen incest — they 'never understand' success" — scored 20/100 and was flagged as straw man. 34 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 34 claims analyzed: 21 scored under 40, 12 between 40 and 69, and 1 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Labels modern media 'incest adjacent propaganda' — loaded framing to stir outrage — Loaded Language (30/100)
At 0:00
Drops 'propaganda' on step-sibling stories like they're political campaigns — emotional button, not analysis.
Why this score: The speaker frames step-sibling romance as deliberate 'propaganda' rather than a long-standing trope in fiction. By equating it with political messaging, the word choice primes viewers to feel manipulated instead of just noticing a recurring plot device. A neutral take would call it 'a popular trope' or 'trending story element' without the loaded intent.
Original quote: “Guys, one word, incest. There's been a weird incest adjacent propaganda happening right now with a trilogy. My fault, your fault, our fault. Adjacent because they're not bloodrelated. They're just step siblings. But it's taboo cuz their parents are together. Nasty.”
Positions 1999 Cruel Intentions as the start of the trend — selective history — Missing Context (40/100)
At 0:17
Acts like Cruel Intentions invented the trope in '99 — ignores decades of earlier step-sibling stories.
Why this score: By anchoring the 'phenomenon' to 1999, the speaker creates the impression this is a modern invention rather than a motif that appears in literature and film long before Cruel Intentions. A fairer frame would acknowledge earlier examples like Flowers in the Attic or classic gothic tales so the timeline feels complete instead of curated to fit the narrative.
Original quote: “But this is not a new phenomenon. And I want to take you on a journey to the past. Circa 1999, Cruel Intentions. We all remember where we were when my video on the sequel TV series dropped.”
Producers only wanted a sequel for more teen incest — they 'never understand' success — Straw Man (20/100)
At 2:03
Reduces studio decision to cartoonish greed and stupidity — classic straw man of 'they just wanted more of the bad stuff.'
Why this score: By putting absurd dialogue in the producers' mouths ('we need more teens [] and incest'), the speaker creates an easy target to mock. This straw man technique makes the studio's choice look purely sleazy instead of the more common 'we have IP that made money, let's milk it' calculation. A neutral version would simply say the original performed well enough that a follow-up was greenlit, without the exaggerated 'they thought the incest was the selling point' framing.
Original quote: “Naturally, the box office success of this incest adjacent story made the producers want to do more. Capitalize on the success, of course, because they never understand what makes a project truly successful. They watched the original and thought, 'Yeah, we need more teens [__] and incest. Oh, and…”
Fox greenlit prequel purely for money, hidden as backstory — loaded framing — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 2:35
Calls the order "masqueraded as creative" — assumes profit motive was the only real reason.
Why this score: Loaded Language: the speaker frames a standard network decision as deliberate deception rather than normal business calculation. A neutral version would be "Fox ordered it hoping to expand the brand" without implying the creative justification was fake.
Original quote: “So, in 1999, Fox ordered a 13 episode season of Manchester Prep. The idea was to make a lot more money masqueraded as the creative endeavor of providing Sebastian and Catherine with a bit more backstory, showing how deplorable teenagers were once deplorable younger teenagers with different faces.”
Network canceled after two episodes because it was obviously bad — confident hindsight — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 3:04
"Could have told you that in an email" — presents 2026 hindsight as obvious at the time.
Why this score: Confidence Mismatch: the speaker acts like the cancellation was inevitable from day one. In reality networks regularly order pilots they later drop; without contemporary internal memos we can't know how obvious it felt in 1999.
Original quote: “They felt unsure about the viability of this show's future, which I mean, could have told you that in an email. Pair that with creative differences between production company Colombia Tristar Television and the Fox Network”
Executives hypocritical for rejecting same themes they approved in original — false equivalence — False Equivalence (30/100)
At 3:19
Treats the original film and TV pilot as identical when one is a finished movie and the other is a series pitch.
Why this score: False Equivalence: the speaker equates the theatrical Cruel Intentions (R-rated, one contained story) with a network TV series aimed at broader audiences and weekly episodes. Different risk calculations apply; the comparison flattens that context.
Original quote: “In addition, some executives felt uneasy about the themes of teen sexuality and incest portrayed in the story as opposed to the themes of teen sexuality and incest portrayed in the original story that got this one green lit.”
Murdoch personally blocked horse scene because he's "friend of Israel" — unrelated dig — Emotional Button (20/100)
At 3:41
Drops "friend of Israel and the IDF" with zero link to the horse scene — pure emotional button.
Why this score: Emotional Button: the aside has no causal connection to the cancellation decision. It functions only to trigger audience reaction rather than explain the actual production conflict.
Original quote: “Rupert Murdoch, famous friend of Israel and the IDF, took issue with a scene where a girl seems to be aroused by a horse.”
Calls it 'incest adjacent' then 'all the way' — loaded language upgrade — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 4:31
Starts with familiar 'adjacent' label then escalates to full taboo — emotional button before we even see the plot.
Why this score: The speaker frames the movie's content as crossing an unspoken line using the escalation from 'adjacent' to 'all the way.' This primes viewers to expect something shocking rather than letting the story speak first. A neutral framing would simply describe the relationship dynamic without the loaded taboo language.
Original quote: “And I really thought it was just going to be incest adjacent content like we've we've grown used to, I guess, in recent years. But no, no, they go all the way. Yeah, it's not adjacent anymore.”
Lists 'gave a hamster Viagra' as the key transgression — cherry-picked absurdity — Cherry-Picked (45/100)
At 5:10
Highlights the most cartoonish detail while skipping any other context about Sebastian's character or the movie's tone.
Why this score: By isolating the hamster incident as the defining transgression, the speaker frames the movie as purely ridiculous. This cherry-picks one bizarre moment to define the whole character rather than presenting the full range of his actions shown in the film. A balanced framing would mention other transgressions alongside this one.
Original quote: “Sebastian is bad boycoded and amongst many transgressions he gave a hamster Viagra to see how much it would grow.”
Frames two humiliations of the wife as deliberate gendered targeting — missing context — Missing Context (45/100)
At 5:41
Assumes the movie's intent is misogynistic without showing whether these moments serve satire, plot, or just crude humor.
Why this score: The speaker interprets the wife's double humiliation as evidence of deliberate gender targeting. This framing skips the possibility that the scenes are meant to be absurd or satirical rather than malicious. A neutral framing would describe what happens and let viewers judge the intent from the actual movie context.
Original quote: “Because even when men beef, the target ends up being a woman. The principal finds this out when his wife calls him and for some reason she has literal shitty fingers. Cuz we don't just humiliate her once, we got to do it twice.”
The speaker uses highly suggestive and loaded language to describe a character's actions and dialogue. — Loaded Language (20/100)
At 7:42
The 'porno' comment and the explicit description of Mimi Rogers' character's intentions are designed to shock and sensationalize.
Why this score: The speaker's commentary here is highly charged and uses explicit, suggestive language ('what porno did we steal that line from?', 'being promiscuous with one's stepson') to describe the scene. This framing is designed to elicit a strong, often negative, emotional reaction from the viewer, rather than providing a neutral or analytical description of the plot. It sensationalizes the content of the film.
Original quote: “So, what porno did we steal that line from? And Mimi Rogers keeps eye [ __ ] Sebastian because age is just a poultryness and being married to one's father shouldn't hamper one's intentions of being promiscuous with one's stepson.”
Rich people renting cities for weddings — loaded language + emotional button — Emotional Button (20/100)
At 8:26
Calls it 'renting entire cities' — frames normal private events as public nuisance before any facts.
Why this score: The speaker uses hyperbolic scale ('entire cities') and direct insults ('dumbass wedding') to trigger immediate disgust. No specific wedding, cost, or city is named, so the audience is steered by the loaded phrasing alone. A neutral framing would just say 'private events at expensive venues' and let the listener decide if it's tacky.
Original quote: “with rich people who have all this wealth and then insist on being visible and being seen. Like, [ __ ] off. You have all that money. Go away. Stop renting entire [ __ ] cities for your dumbass wedding no one cares about.”
Wealthy people 'demand our attention' — straw man + emotional button — Straw Man (20/100)
At 8:40
Turns being visible into 'demanding attention' — creates an opponent that doesn't actually exist.
Why this score: By redefining mere visibility as an active demand on the audience, the speaker sets up an easy target to attack. The real behavior (existing in public while rich) gets reframed as an intentional imposition. A cleaner framing would separate 'being rich and visible' from any claim that the public is being forced to care.
Original quote: “They have all that money and they still demand our attention. Losers.”
Calling the limo arrival 'tacky' — loaded language without context — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 8:42
Labels the limo 'tacky' and 'ew' — judgment presented as objective taste.
Why this score: The word 'tacky' carries a strong negative value judgment with no supporting standard or comparison. The speaker is signaling personal disgust rather than describing an observable fact. A neutral version would note 'they arrive by limo' and leave the evaluation to the viewer.
Original quote: “Sebastian and Catherine attend Manchester Prep, a very hoy toy private school in New York City. Well, yes. And they go to said school in a limo. Tacky. I'm going have to say it. It's very tacky. Ew.”
Sebastian faked his entire academic record — plain recounting, no frame — No Frame (75/100)
At 9:22
Just describing what the character did on screen — straight plot summary.
Why this score: The speaker is relaying events from the movie without adding loaded adjectives or hidden implications. This is clean narration of fictional actions, so no framing technique is being deployed.
Original quote: “he falsified all the reports that his old school sent this school. So now he's got a 4.0 GPA, a bunch of glowing letters of recommendation from his teachers, including the principal. Yeah, that guy. And he was the president of a bunch of clubs that he never attended.”
Irony that the principal's daughter heard the insult — missing context on timing — Missing Context (45/100)
At 9:49
Highlights the irony but skips that Sebastian didn't know she was the daughter when he said it.
Why this score: By presenting the reveal as immediate comeuppance, the speaker implies Sebastian knowingly insulted her father to her face. The actual sequence is that he made the comment before learning her identity. Adding that single detail would remove the manufactured 'gotcha' effect.
Original quote: “The pretty girl enters the room who turns out is Danielle, the daughter of the principal. The same guy that this guy just called a total joke.”
Sheree is the only 14/15-year-old not 'railed by the entire faculty'. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 10:44
Uses 'railed by the entire faculty' to dramatically highlight the inappropriate relationships. — It's a strong, provocative choice of words.
Why this score: The phrase 'railed by the entire faculty' is highly loaded language. While the speaker is clearly trying to emphasize the pervasive and inappropriate nature of the relationships depicted in the film, this phrasing is hyperbolic and designed to elicit a strong emotional reaction. A more neutral framing might describe the extent of the inappropriate relationships without such a graphic and exaggerated term, allowing the audience to form their own judgment on the severity.
Original quote: “She's the only 14/15year-old in this entire school who hasn't gotten railed by the entire faculty. We'll get to that in a bit.”
Labels trope as 'rape culture' — emotional button framing — Emotional Button (20/100)
At 12:47
Drops 'rape culture' on a fictional seduction scene to trigger instant outrage.
Why this score: The label reframes a bad writing choice as systemic cultural harm. A neutral framing would say 'the film reverses typical power dynamics' without invoking the loaded term.
Original quote: “What's the two words I'm looking for? Oh, yeah. Rape culture.”
Rich kids fire chef over sushi — exaggeration for absurdity — Emotional Button (35/100)
At 14:27
Repeats "can't have sushi" three times to paint them as cartoonishly spoiled — emotional button to make the plot feel ridiculous.
Why this score: The speaker keeps hammering the sushi grievance and the limo detail to steer the audience into seeing these characters as out-of-touch brats. A neutral framing would simply note the plot point without the repeated emphasis on their wealth. By choosing the loaded repetition, the narration turns a minor subplot into evidence of how absurd the movie is.
Original quote: “we needed a plot similar to the originals. Okay. Other points of business in this meeting include discussing grievances such as the chef won't make sushi for students, and these students want sushi. No, like they really want sushi. They get him fired by putting a dead rat in someone's food. Yeah.…”
Both leads are secretly poor — backstory dump for relatability — Missing Context (50/100)
At 15:02
Drops the full family trauma in one breath so we instantly root for the "poor rich kids" — classic missing-context sympathy play.
Why this score: By front-loading every sad detail (divorce, rehab, fourth marriage) right after calling out Sebastian's harassment, the narration flips the characters from antagonists to underdogs without showing how the story itself earns that shift. A cleaner framing would let the plot reveal their backgrounds instead of using the summary to manufacture instant empathy.
Original quote: “Meanwhile, Sebastian harasses Danielle enough that she goes on a coffee date with him, but only 15 minutes. And it turns out Danielle isn't rich. E. She only attends Manchester Prep for the free tuition given her father is the principal. And Sebastian, turns out, also didn't grow up with money. No.…”
"Manchester brothel" punchline — loaded language for shock — Loaded Language (30/100)
At 15:39
Turns one virginity mention into the blanket label "brothel" — loaded language that sells the whole school as sleazy.
Why this score: The speaker takes Catherine's single line about Sebastian liking "boring virgins" and immediately escalates it into a running joke that the entire prep school is a brothel. This framing choice makes the movie sound uniformly trashy rather than letting the audience decide how edgy the dialogue actually is. A neutral version would just quote the line without the extra label.
Original quote: “nice first day, [__] Amy Lou Adams, sometimes known as night [__] language. Catherine says Sebastian has a thing for boring virgins. After all, Danielle is a virgin, and she's the only one in her class that is a virgin. Told you everyone's [__] like it's a brothel. Manchester prep, more like…”
"Written by a man" zinger — quick moral framing — Straw Man (40/100)
At 16:00
Blames the dumb plot on "a man" writing it — straw man that skips any actual script analysis.
Why this score: Instead of critiquing the specific writing choices that made the father leave the door open, the speaker pivots to a gender-based punchline. This lets the audience feel clever about spotting "male writing" without engaging with whether the scene is just bad plotting or something more specific. A fairer framing would name the actual flaw instead of the writer's gender.
Original quote: “He says, "Careful, Catherine. I'm better at this than you." And we leave the conversation without knowing what this is. Sebastian then catches his father on the phone to his mistress and tells him to be careful not to screw up the good thing that they got going on. You know, this huge mansion, all…”
labels plot 'incest town' and ties it to earlier 'incest adjacent' — escalating loaded label — Loaded Language (25/100)
At 18:26
Repeats 'incest town' escalation — uses the word to color the entire story rather than specific scenes.
Why this score: By branding the movie 'incest town' and linking it back to the opening, the speaker creates a running loaded label that makes the whole film sound defined by taboo content. A neutral recap would specify the actual relationships shown instead of applying the broad, inflammatory shorthand.
Original quote: “Capital eye town. Incest town. I want to take you back to the beginning of this video, right? Incest adjacent.”
Assumes real-life twins kissing equals crime — false equivalence — False Equivalence (25/100)
At 19:30
Blurs fictional role-play with actual sibling incest by asking 'isn't incest a crime?'
Why this score: The speaker treats two adult actresses (playing cousins, not sisters) kissing on camera as if they are committing real incest. By sliding from 'they are twin sisters in real life' straight to 'isn't it a crime to hook up with your sibling?' the framing erases the difference between actors performing a scene and actual relatives. A cleaner framing would separate the actresses' real relationship from the characters they play.
Original quote: “They are twin sisters in real life, identical, and they were naked in the shower making out. full tongue action, breast on breast touching, and these girls are insane. What do you mean? Listen, I get that this was written by a man, you know? It's always I guess I guess it's it's a straight man's…”
Twist reveal frames gay teacher as predatory — loaded language — Loaded Language (20/100)
At 22:01
Calls the gay teacher a predator for rejecting the student — flips decency into deviance.
Why this score: The setup pretends to praise a 'decent man' then undercuts it with 'he's just gay and wants the twink.' This frames homosexuality itself as the punchline and the real problem, not the rejection.
Original quote: “And he refuts her advances. And you might think, 'Oh my god, finally a decent man who is not going to just let a teenager push him around, right?' Wrong. He's just gay and he'd rather do that twink instead.”
Mocks Catherine's breakdown by sarcastically listing her 'burdens' — straw man framing — Straw Man (25/100)
At 23:30
Turns her emotional scene into a punchline by exaggerating it into 'she only gets money' — ignores the actual plot stakes.
Why this score: The speaker reduces Catherine's breakdown to 'she's just upset she has money,' which isn't what the scene is doing. It's a straw man that makes her complaint sound ridiculous by stripping away the power dynamics and blackmail context the movie actually sets up. A fair framing would acknowledge the character's stated problem before mocking it.
Original quote: “It's like really difficult being a privileged, spoiled, rich, evil teenager. Okay, so you need a minute. She has all of the responsibilities of having all of this wealth and what does she get in return? Huh? loads and loads of money every week”
Drops 'vaguely racist' as a side comment — no evidence, just vibes. — Missing Context (20/100)
At 24:20
Throws the accusation then immediately moves on — classic drive-by labeling.
Why this score: The speaker plants a serious claim with zero elaboration or examples, leaving the viewer to either accept it or wonder what exactly triggered it, which weakens any actual point about racism in the film.
Original quote: “Did I mention the movie is vaguely racist?”
Narrator reframes non-consensual kiss as 'not the right time' issue — Loaded Language (35/100)
At 24:30
Downplays consent violation by calling it a timing problem instead.
Why this score: The narrator explicitly says the kiss happened 'without her knowledge or consent' then immediately pivots to 'it wasn't the right time' as the real issue. This is classic loaded language — reframing a consent problem as a romantic timing problem so the audience doesn't sit with the first description. A neutral framing would just say she didn't want the kiss and leave it there.
Original quote: “Danielle decides to come clean and be honest with Sebastian. Listen up. The reason she ran off after he kissed her without her knowledge or consent isn't because he kissed her without her knowledge or consent. It's because that was her first kiss, right?”
Mocks the mistress for believing the dad was single — calls it 'two brain cells' writing. — Emotional Button (25/100)
At 26:54
Dismisses the character as stupid instead of acknowledging the dad was actively lying to her.
Why this score: By calling her an 'extra' who got one brain cell, the speaker shifts blame onto the victim rather than the married man deceiving her. A fair frame would note the deception, not mock the deceived.
Original quote: “And I got to say, I've seen how this movie ends. CC Gerald's game. He's going to have to slice his entire hand off just to get free. It's going to be gory. Sebastian then ends up comforting the woman by the pier and she's inconsolable. She really thought he was single. See, the writers only had two…”
Mocking incest plot as acceptable — sarcastic Loaded Language — Loaded Language (20/100)
At 28:23
Uses deadpan 'Right. Right. Okay. Good.' to signal the premise is absurd without saying it outright.
Why this score: The repetition and flat tone frame the mother-stepdaughter incest setup as obviously ridiculous, steering the viewer to reject it before any plot defense is offered.
Original quote: “What did I say earlier? Age is right. Right. And being married to one's mother shouldn't hamper one's intentions of being promiscuous with one's stepdaughter. Right. Right. Okay. Good.”
Speaker points out the visual contradiction and public setting — emphasizing the character's hypocrisy and absurdity. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 29:16
Highlights the visual action contradicting the spoken words, and the public setting. — The framing emphasizes the character's hypocrisy and the implausibility of the scene.
Why this score: The speaker draws attention to the visual context ('as she aggressively fondles his penis') which directly contradicts the character's spoken desire to wait for marriage. They also remind the audience of the setting ('public park on a park bench'), adding another layer of absurdity and implausibility to the scene. This framing choice is designed to highlight the show's poor writing and the characters' lack of self-awareness, creating a sense of disbelief in the viewer. A more neutral framing might just describe the scene without the added commentary on the contradiction or the public nature…
Original quote: “Okay? And she says all that as she aggressively fondles his penis. Now, let me remind the audience. Um, they're on a public park on a park bench, right?”
Horse-riding scene = first orgasm euphemism. Over-the-top recap — Emotional Button (20/100)
At 30:30
Turns a weird scene into a punchline by spelling out the innuendo — exaggeration for shock value.
Why this score: The speaker frames the scene as literal sex education on a horse, leaning on crude language and repetition to land the joke. No neutral description offered; the loaded phrasing steers the viewer to find it ridiculous rather than just odd.
Original quote: “Catherine teaches Sheree how to ride a horse with ulterior motives. Yes, she actually wants Sheree to rub one out on this horse. Don't believe me? You better. cuz she she tells her how to go up and down, front and back, faster, faster, up and down, front and back, faster, faster. And Sheree keeps…”
Mocks the ending as 'fighting the patriarchy' — straw man of the movie's intent — Straw Man (25/100)
At 33:39
Reduces the final scene to 'lesbians fighting the patriarchy' when the movie never frames it that way.
Why this score: The speaker sarcastically claims the characters are 'fighting the patriarchy one girl at a time,' but the movie itself never uses that language or presents the threesome as political. The framing turns a sleazy twist ending into something the film never actually said, making the movie look more pretentious than it is.
Original quote: “The girls kiss and they tell him you're more than welcome to join us. Two's company. Thre's a fuckload of fun. And he says, 'If you can't beat him, join him.' ... This is this is my imaginary camera. ... Lesbians together fighting the patriarchy one girl at a time.”
Highlights 'real life twin sisters' making out — emotional button for shock value — Emotional Button (30/100)
At 35:10
Drops the 'real life twin sisters' detail to trigger an immediate 'whoa' reaction instead of just describing the scene.
Why this score: The speaker chooses to emphasize the real-life sibling relationship and the nudity together, which is a classic emotional button move. A neutral framing would simply say 'two characters who are sisters make out' without spotlighting that the actors are twins. The added detail is there to provoke a stronger audience response.
Original quote: “my favorite moment was when those two real life twin sisters agree to nakedly make out on screen. Oh, just thinking about it.”
See the full analysis with timestamps →