Pat Garrett and Billy The Kid 4K UHD Blu-ray Review: Criterion turns its back on Director’s Vision

The speaker implies a problem with the Criterion release's foldout booklet, suggesting a failure of responsibility. — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 0:00

Calling out 'something wrong' with the booklet and linking it to 'elected' officials and 'good wages' is a loaded way to imply negligence without stating specifics.

Why this score: By saying 'there's something wrong with that foldout booklet' and immediately pivoting to 'I believe they elected you and paid you good wages for,' the speaker is using loaded language to imply a dereliction of duty or a failure to meet expectations, even before detailing what the specific 'wrong' is. This frames the issue as a betrayal of trust by Criterion, rather than just a design flaw or factual error. A neutral framing would simply state the specific issue with the booklet first.

Original quote: “there's something wrong with that foldout booklet I believe they elected you and paid you good wages for”

Sources: Criterion Essay Collection - criterionforum.org

Says Criterion paid to "kill" preview cuts — loaded language framing — Loaded Language (20/100)

At 0:30

Metaphor of Criterion as hired assassin frames restoration as betrayal, not editorial choice.

Why this score: The speaker uses loaded language by depicting Criterion as a paid killer working for studio interests, implying the preview cuts were deliberately murdered rather than presenting the actual editorial decisions. This emotional button framing suggests malice where the evidence shows a different cut was chosen for the release. A neutral framing would discuss the specific editorial choices made rather than implying assassination of the director's vision.

Original quote: “that foldout booklet I believe they elected you and paid you good wages for killing the preview Cuts huh you rotten son of a [ __ ] there's cuts across the river aiming at you Studio man on your Trail he'd like to catch you Boutique label too they like to get you Billy they don't like you to be…”

Sources: Loaded Language — Grokipedia, Dressed to Kill Blu-ray Review :: Criterion Forum, Criterion Cuts: “Branded to Kill” | The No-Name Movie Blog

Teaser frames Criterion as betraying Peckinpah's legacy — Emotional Button (20/100)

At 2:30

Opens by calling Criterion's release a 'showdown' that betrays the director — emotional language before any evidence.

Why this score: This is the classic 'betrayal' frame. By using words like 'cut down by the labor who was film's friend' and 'turn your back,' the speaker primes viewers to see Criterion as disloyal rather than presenting the technical and historical facts first. A neutral frame would simply say 'Criterion released a new version that differs from the director's intent' without the emotional weight of betrayal.

Original quote: “Criterion to force a show down Billy don't it make you feel so low down to B cut down by the labor who was film's friend we did have some times didn't we it's got to be pretty hard to turn your back on all that huh”

Claims Criterion 'sold out' to Warner/MGM without evidence — Missing Context (45/100)

At 2:39

Calls it a 'sell out' to Warner/MGM — no evidence presented for this corporate motive.

Why this score: The speaker makes a specific accusation that Criterion 'sold out to the critics Warner and MGM,' but provides no documentation, contract details, or statements showing this motivation. Web context shows Criterion's release includes multiple versions with scholarly essays, suggesting a preservation effort rather than a corporate betrayal. The neutral framing would be 'Criterion's release differs from previous versions' rather than assuming hidden corporate influence without evidence.

Original quote: “you want it straight if that's what you're here for the rights holders want you gone out of the video release but are they telling me or are they asking me I'm asking you but on the Blu-ray UHD combo release I'm making you because I might take over physical media releases of Pat Garrett and Billy…”

Film is 'the saddest ever released by Hollywood studio' — hyperbolic superlative — Emotional Button (45/100)

At 4:42

Absolute claim with no scale — 'ever' is doing heavy lifting

Why this score: Calling it the saddest film a studio ever released turns a subjective tone into an objective ranking. No metric supports this; it's pure emotional framing that makes the later studio interference feel even more tragic.

Original quote: “it is without question uh one of if not arguably the saddest and most somber and most brutally honest film ever released by Hollywood studio so of course it was not released in the intended version nor was the technical intended version ever truly finished”

Theatrical cut 'cheapened and watered down' the film — loaded language — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 4:57

Value judgment stated as fact — 'cheapened' assumes the cuts hurt artistic value

Why this score: Calling the edits 'cheapening' frames any studio change as degradation. A neutral framing would say the theatrical cut differs from the preview versions, then let viewers decide if those differences diminish or alter the film.

Original quote: “the 1973 theatrical cut made a variety of edits that cheapened the film and watered it down although it is better than you would think it is because the original editors mostly Roger spottiswood had to try and fight to keep as much of peek anda's Vision in the film as they could”

James Aubrey labeled 'vengeful idiocy' and 'smiling Cobra' — name-calling — Emotional Button (30/100)

At 5:26

Character assassination replaces evidence — colorful insults do the work

Why this score: The speaker could say Aubrey made decisions that altered the film; instead the loaded nicknames 'smiling Cobra' and 'vengeful idiocy' cue the audience to hate the executive before hearing what he actually did. Classic villain framing.

Original quote: “the vengeful idiocy of the smiling Cobra James Aubrey who ruined many films at during his tenure at MGM”

Theatrical cut caused the film's poor reputation — causal leap — Missing Context (45/100)

At 5:34

One cause presented as the only cause — ignores genre, timing, marketing

Why this score: The speaker links the theatrical cut directly to the film's reputation. A fairer framing would acknowledge other factors: Westerns were fading, marketing leaned on Dylan, and 1973 audiences had different expectations. The cut is one variable, not the sole explanation.

Original quote: “so for years all we had was the theatrical cut and that's what made it to the initial home video releases this meant that the film's reputation was never all that great”

Calls Turner '89 version what Peckinpah intended — loaded framing — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 8:02

Labels preview cut as 'intended' — skips Peckinpah never signed off on a final cut.

Why this score: By saying the 1988 Turner version is what Peckinpah 'intended,' the speaker frames the preview cut as the director's true vision, even though the historical record shows Peckinpah never completed a final cut and the preview versions were studio work prints.

Original quote: “this was the first time you could see the film as peek andpa intended it”

Says death of Pat Garrett at start shows film's themes — circular storytelling framing — No Frame (75/100)

At 8:18

Clean description of narrative structure, no rhetorical tricks.

Why this score: The speaker is accurately describing the film's non-linear structure without adding loaded framing or omitting key context.

Original quote: “and beautifully utilizing the themes that will play out for the rest of the film by showing the death of Pat Garrett at the start of the film”

Calls opening "unbelievably striking" — subjective hype framing — No Frame (75/100)

At 8:30

Personal opinion, not presented as fact — straightforward subjective take

Why this score: Speaker's clear aesthetic judgment about the opening scene. This is clean framing because they're owning the personal response rather than trying to present it as objective consensus.

Original quote: “death of Pat Garrett at the start of the film uh it is an unbelievably striking opening”

Claims Criterion uses damaged preview print — Missing Context on restoration quality — Missing Context (45/100)

At 8:45

Frames damage as Criterion's choice while omitting that preview print is the only surviving source

Why this score: Speaker positions the damage as Criterion's decision when the preview print element is actually the best available source material. This creates a false impression that Criterion chose damaged footage over pristine elements when no pristine elements exist for this version.

Original quote: “it is not a fully restored version it does have damage throughout and is seemingly coming right from that preview print element that thankfully survives”

Questions missing scene's authenticity — Missing Context on editorial history — Missing Context (45/100)

At 9:03

Frames scene absence as Criterion's editorial choice when it's absent from the preview cut source

Why this score: Speaker questions whether the missing scene 'is actually supposed to be there' as if Criterion removed it, when the Turner preview version never included it. This shifts blame from historical editorial decisions to Criterion's restoration choices.

Original quote: “since it doesn't include a particular scene that is in other versions and was in the theatrical cut it's the scene with Garrett visiting his wife at home it's a pivotal character moment but it is not in the Turner preview or first preview version as it's more correctly called uh so it's questioned…”

Claims preview version became 'new standard' — Cherry-Picked on what counts as canonical — Cherry-Picked (45/100)

At 9:31

Frames preview cut as replacing theatrical version when both versions have legitimate claims to authenticity

Why this score: Speaker presents the preview version becoming 'standard' as a natural evolution rather than acknowledging this represents one editorial choice among several competing versions, each with different claims to representing Peckinpah's vision.

Original quote: “this became the new deao standard edition of the film up until the 2005 DVD release so the theatrical cut that had existed in pan and scan on VHS and beta and television airings quickly disappeared so that became the rare version”

Calls it 'maybe what Peckinpah would have made' — speculative framing — Missing Context (45/100)

At 11:07

Frames the 2005 cut as potentially closer to the director's vision while omitting that Peckinpah never endorsed it.

Why this score: This is the classic 'what if' framing — it presents the 2005 reconstruction as a reasonable stand-in for an unmade director's cut. The missing context is that Peckinpah never approved or even participated in this version. The framing makes the reconstruction sound like a respectful preservation effort rather than a critic's educated guess.

Original quote: “the idea being that it would have been maybe what peek andpa would have made had he been able to uh finish the editing process without interference”

Notes Sor's preference — reveals personal bias shaping the reconstruction — Missing Context (55/100)

At 11:16

Slips in that the 2005 cut reflects one critic's taste, not a consensus or archival restoration.

Why this score: This is an honest moment where the speaker undercuts his own earlier 'what the director would have wanted' framing. By acknowledging that Paul Sedor 'very much prefers' this hybrid, he's revealing the reconstruction is ultimately an interpretive act shaped by one person's preferences rather than an objective recovery of lost material.

Original quote: “and it essentially combines elements of the preview version and the theatrical cut which Sor uh very much prefers”

Warner 'took shorthand' making theatrical cut the only version shown — Missing Context (45/100)

At 12:33

Implies Warner deliberately buried the director's cut — but doesn't mention Peckinpah never finished one.

Why this score: The speaker frames Warner's choice as dismissive shorthand, yet the reality is the director died without delivering a final cut. This omission lets the 'studio vs. artist' narrative land harder than the messier truth.

Original quote: “but Warner Brothers took the shorthand of doing that and making it dis one on this release and making it the version that was shown everywhere and in circulation”

2005 DVD remains the best picture quality for the preview cut — No Frame (75/100)

At 13:20

Straight fact, no spin — he even owns the disc-rot problem.

Why this score: He's transparent about the Warner disc rot issue and why the 2005 DVD still matters. Clean framing because he's acknowledging limitations instead of hyping the Criterion release.

Original quote: “unfortunately that is still the best quality we have in picture for the first preview cut of the film”

Criterion omitted all the 2005 Warner extras — Missing Context (45/100)

At 13:58

Frames Criterion's omission as a slight — without noting Criterion rarely ports old commentary tracks.

Why this score: The rhetorical move is 'Criterion left things out' rather than 'Criterion followed their usual licensing model.' It subtly paints Criterion as the villain for not including tracks they likely couldn't clear.

Original quote: “this release is still really important because all of the extras are unique and have not been ported to the Criterion release”

Calling the 1988 master the 'most important' release — strong opinion framed as fact. — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 14:40

Using 'most important' elevates a preference to a universal truth. It's a subjective take presented as objective fact.

Why this score: The speaker is clearly a fan of the 1988 master, citing specific features like picture quality, commentaries, and extras. While these are valid reasons for *their* preference, labeling it the 'most important' is a subjective value judgment. A neutral framing would state 'I consider the 1988 master the most important...' or 'Many fans consider the 1988 master important because...'. The current phrasing uses loaded language to sway the audience towards their view without acknowledging it as a personal opinion.

Original quote: “worst of all is that Pat garon Billy the Kid is the One release that's the most important for having the 1988 Master of the film in slightly better picture quality and having two exclusive commentaries and a host of exclusive extras that make this dvd one you still have to hang hang on to and”

Urging viewers to check their DVDs due to 'rotting' — implies a widespread problem. — No Frame (75/100)

At 15:00

This is a straightforward, practical warning about disc rot, a known issue with older optical media.

Why this score: The speaker is giving a practical warning about 'disc rot,' a known phenomenon where optical discs degrade over time. While the urgency might be slightly heightened, the underlying issue is real and affects many older DVDs, especially those from certain manufacturing batches or storage conditions. It's a helpful heads-up for collectors. A neutral framing would be exactly what they said, as it's a direct observation and recommendation based on a known problem.

Original quote: “unfortunately you need to go and check your copies because if you're like me”

Describing 'building resentment' against the 2005 cut — uses 'most fans' as an anonymous authority. — Anonymous Authority (45/100)

At 15:51

Citing 'most Peckinpah fans' without specific evidence or polls is an appeal to an unnamed majority.

Why this score: The speaker states that 'most Peckinpah fans can't stand the edits and decisions' of the 2005 cut. While this sentiment is echoed in the community comments (e.g., 'Hollywood's total disdain of Peckinpah constantly demonstrates itself perfectly with this Criterion release'), presenting it as a consensus of 'most fans' without any specific data (like a poll or survey) is a form of anonymous authority. It implies widespread agreement without providing verifiable evidence. A more neutral framing would be 'Many Peckinpah fans, including myself, have expressed strong dislike for the 2005 cut due…

Original quote: “There has been a lot of uh building resentment against the 2005 cut since release as myself and most peek andpa fans can't stand the edits and decisions that were made uh in order to favor the theatrical cut of the film uh and also the bad color timing and the bad sound mix and the fact that it was…”

2005 cut was 'just an alternative compilation' — missing context — Missing Context (45/100)

At 16:35

Frames 2005 cut as 'never meant to be standard' — omits it was the only version most viewers had for 20 years.

Why this score: The speaker uses 'what if compilation' language to downplay the 2005 cut's cultural significance. While technically accurate about intent, this framing erases how that cut became the de facto version fans watched for decades. A neutral frame would acknowledge both the limited intent AND its outsized real-world impact on how audiences experienced the film.

Original quote: “to be fair uh the 2005 cut was not intended to become the new standard version of the film it was designed as an alternative what if uh compilation of the different cuts so that that should be stressed”

Warner 'tiny budget' and 'rushed' 2005 cut — anonymous authority — Anonymous Authority (45/100)

At 16:47

Blames Warner's 'tiny budget' and 'rush' without naming sources or numbers — classic anonymous authority move.

Why this score: The speaker presents Warner's budget decisions as fact but offers zero receipts — no budget figures, no timeline documentation, no insider quotes. This is the classic 'everyone knows' framing that sounds authoritative while providing no verifiable basis. A cleaner approach would cite specific production memos or participant testimony about the budget constraints.

Original quote: “and Warner didn't help them out by uh giving them a tiny budget and really rushing them through the process so it it was very compromised and it certainly needed to be redone”

Second preview 'never released before this point' — verifiable claim — No Frame (75/100)

At 17:02

Straightforward fact — web sources confirm this version's first digital release on Criterion.

Why this score: This is clean framing: the speaker states a specific, verifiable claim about the second preview cut's release history. Multiple review sources confirm Criterion's 4K set marks the first digital presentation of this version. No exaggeration, no anonymous sources, just a clear statement of a documented fact.

Original quote: “The theatrical version the first preview version the second preview version which has some slight differences including entirely different end credits and is actually missing some of the footage from the first preview version but does have the scene with Garrett and his wife that's in all the other…”

Crew 'stole' film from MGM, hid in garage — emotional button — Emotional Button (45/100)

At 17:22

Calls it 'stole' and 'hid in garage' — romantic framing that turns archival rescue into heist movie.

Why this score: The speaker uses loaded verbs ('stole,' 'spirit out,' 'hide') to cast preservation as a daring caper rather than standard archival practice. While the story of Peckinpah associates saving the film is compelling, this framing sensationalizes routine film preservation work. A neutral version would say 'preserved' or 'saved' instead of 'stole' and 'hid.'

Original quote: “and this is the version that uh peeken paa and the crew and and cohorts and various people managed to Spirit out of MGM and hide in pack anda's garage for a number of years under an alternate title which for my money is one of the great anecdotes of Hollywood history”

Criterion 'entered the world' of the film — loaded language — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 18:25

'Entered the world' frames Criterion as an outsider intruding — implies they don't belong in this story.

Why this score: The phrasing 'entered into the world' positions Criterion as an interloper rather than a legitimate participant in film preservation. This is subtle loaded language that primes viewers to view Criterion's involvement skeptically before any specific criticism is offered. A neutral frame would simply say 'Criterion has released' without the territorial implication.

Original quote: “so now Criterion has entered into the world of Pat G and Billy the Kid the Myriad of versions the long story filled with”

Setting up the complex history of 'Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid' versions. — Establishing the narrative. — No Frame (75/100)

At 18:30

He's laying out the messy backstory of the film's cuts. — This context is crucial for his later critiques.

Why this score: The speaker is providing necessary background information about the film's production and various cuts. This isn't a framing technique in itself, but rather a setup to explain why the Criterion release is problematic. It's a straightforward explanation of the film's complicated history, preparing the viewer for the main argument.

Original quote: “of Pat G and Billy the Kid the Myriad of versions the long story filled with crazy anecdotes about the intensively difficult production the battle between peek and PAW the crew and MGM and the different versions of the film and how The Cutting process went plus the sort of tumultuous history of the…”

Criticizing Criterion for promoting the 2005 'critic's re-edit' as the definitive version. — Accusation of misrepresentation. — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 19:10

Calling the 2005 cut a 'critic's re-edit' and Criterion's promotion of it as 'gigantic problems' frames it negatively. — This is a strong, opinionated stance.

Why this score: The speaker uses loaded language like 'gigantic problems' and 'understatement' to express his strong disapproval of Criterion's decision. By explicitly stating the 2005 cut is 'merely a particular critic's opinion' and then accusing Criterion of promoting it as the 'director's cut or definitive version,' he is framing Criterion's actions as a significant misstep and a betrayal of artistic intent. A neutral framing would simply state what Criterion included and how they labeled it, then present the speaker's disagreement.

Original quote: “to cover and this is a release that is going to demand multiple discs so teally Criterion did decide to go the route of having a multi-is set with 4K uhds and Blu-rays as well so it's a dual format release containing most of the cuts on both formats but the reason why I explained at least a…”

Criterion 'doubled down' by funding a new 4K restoration of the 2005 'critic's cut'. — Reinforcing the critique. — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 19:59

Saying Criterion 'doubled down' and 'disrespected' Peckinpah's vision. — This is a direct, emotionally charged accusation.

Why this score: The speaker continues with loaded language, stating Criterion 'doubled down' and 'disrespected' the director's vision. He frames the funding of a new 4K restoration of the 2005 cut as a further negative action, rather than a neutral technical upgrade. He implies that by focusing on this particular cut, Criterion is actively undermining what he considers the true artistic intent. A more neutral framing would describe the contents of the release and then explain why the speaker believes these choices are problematic, rather than using accusatory language from the outset.

Original quote: “but they've really doubled down on this because they repeated exactly what Warner did disrespected what we have surviving of peek anda's Vision in terms of uh what they did with only one of the two preview Cuts essentially treating it as a bonus supplemental feature once again but they also have uh…”

Calls Criterion's 50th cut the 'new standard' — loaded framing — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 20:30

Frames a single cut as the 'new standard' when Criterion includes multiple versions — loaded language.

Why this score: The speaker positions the 50th Anniversary cut as the default future version on streaming and in print. This framing choice implies Criterion is replacing the director's vision with one version, when the actual release contains both the restored theatrical cut and the new cut. A neutral framing would note that Criterion is offering multiple versions rather than crowning one as definitive.

Original quote: “50th Anniversary cut Edition which has been fully restored and is in uh 4k on the UHD with dolp vision grading as dis one of this new release thus giving it prominence and now essentially acting as if this is the new standard version of the film”

Equates Criterion's approach with Warner's 2005 mistakes — false equivalence — False Equivalence (45/100)

At 20:44

Lumps Criterion's multi-version release with Warner's single problematic edition — false equivalence.

Why this score: The speaker draws a direct parallel between Warner's 2005 release (which only offered one cut) and Criterion's current set that includes both the restored theatrical cut and the new 50th Anniversary cut. This framing flattens a significant difference: Criterion is providing access to the original theatrical version, which Warner did not. A fair framing would acknowledge that distinction rather than treating both releases as equivalent mistakes.

Original quote: “repeating the same mistakes Warner made with the 2005 special edition DVD release but to add insult to injury uh they nicely did actually also restore the theatrical cut”

Claims 50th cut recreates 2005 decisions 'all of which I disagree with' — opinion framed as fact — No Frame (75/100)

At 21:48

Clear opinion statement — speaker owns disagreement with editorial choices without claiming objective truth.

Why this score: The speaker explicitly states personal disagreement with the 2005 cut's editorial decisions and extends that critique to the new version. This is straightforward opinion rather than loaded framing or factual assertion. The speaker acknowledges the reasoning behind the new cut (editor's preferences, comparisons to The Wild Bunch) while maintaining their own critical stance. No rhetorical tricks here — just clear position-taking.

Original quote: “it is thankfully better and addresses a lot of the problems of the 2005 cut but essentially it recreates everything else the 2005 cut did all of which I disagree with because the mentality while it is sound is basing all of its decisions on the uh person in charge preferring the edits of the…”

2005 cut 'destructive' — labels creative choice as sabotage — Loaded Language (30/100)

At 22:30

Calls a studio cut 'destructive' instead of 'altered' — loaded word frames intent as malice.

Why this score: Speaker equates disagreement with artistic intent to deliberate harm. A neutral framing would call it 'a studio compromise' rather than 'destructive.' The loaded language steers viewers to view the 2005 version as an attack on the film rather than a competing interpretation.

Original quote: “different and explicitly made to not be the Wild Bunch to be uh different in a sort of challenging the audience way and especially challenging what the studio thought they were going to get when they just thought they were going to get bloody Sam ghost Mexico uh so that's always been my problem…”

MGM cut has 'truly gross' additions — subjective judgment as fact — Emotional Button (25/100)

At 23:14

'Truly gross' and 'most egregious' inject moral disgust into technical edits — emotional button instead of analysis.

Why this score: The speaker treats a credit sequence change as morally offensive rather than artistically debatable. Neutral framing would describe the alteration neutrally ('altered end credits') and let viewers decide if it's egregious. The emotional language bypasses discussion of why the change matters.

Original quote: “nor do I think they are uh really the film as it was completed in the preview cuts the preview Cuts really are the film warts and all and needed to be properly restored but with Criterion also restoring the MGM theatric iCal cut which is the furthest from peek anda's original Vision with some…”

Criterion 'buries' director's cut by releasing MGM version — conspiracy framing — Straw Man (35/100)

At 23:42

Frames standard multi-version release as deliberate burial of the 'real' cut — straw man that ignores common restoration practice.

Why this score: Speaker implies Criterion's decision to include the theatrical cut is an active campaign to suppress the preview version. A fair framing would note that releasing multiple versions (including the theatrical) is standard preservation practice, especially when no single 'director's cut' was ever finalized. The straw man turns a routine release strategy into a conspiracy against Peckinpah's vision.

Original quote: “they have restored theatrical cut in 4k given it a UHD release of its own with Dolby Vision grading and made that dis too and since most people are only going to look at the big primary new 4k Masters and think that this is uh how the film is supposed to be that's going to skew people's opinions…”

Criterion's 4K restoration of MGM cut = doubling down on studio betrayal — Emotional Button (30/100)

At 24:30

Frames Criterion's restoration as repeating MGM's 1973 'harm' to Peckinpah — loaded moral language.

Why this score: The speaker equates giving the MGM cut a restoration with actively harming the director's reputation. This emotional framing casts a technical preservation decision as a moral failure, even though the MGM version was the actual theatrical release. A neutral frame would note that Criterion is presenting the historical cut alongside the preview version rather than 'insulting' the work.

Original quote: “the cut down compromised MGM release edit of the film that came out in 1973 and given that its own restoration so you have essentially two altered versions of the film uh one with obviously very good intentions I think misguided ones but at least they are understandable and again that was also done…”

Preview cut 'relegated' to Blu-ray while 4K gets studio cut — deliberate downgrade — Loaded Language (35/100)

At 25:21

Uses 'relegated' and 'merely a raw 2K scan' to frame technical choices as intentional disrespect.

Why this score: The speaker positions the preview cut's placement on standard Blu-ray and its 2K scan status as evidence of Criterion's poor priorities. However, web sources confirm this is the first digital presentation of the second preview cut. The framing ignores that a previously unavailable version is being released at all, instead emphasizing what it lacks (color correction, 4K) to paint the decision as dismissive of Peckinpah's vision.

Original quote: “and if that wasn't bad enough while we do have a version of the preview cuts and it is the previously unreleased to fans second preview version this has been relegated to just a standard Blu-ray disc in terms of the extra discs in the set and also it is merely a raw 2K scan of the surviving second…”

Cites Criterion's booklet to imply they downplayed preview cut's value — Missing Context (45/100)

At 26:30

Assumes booklet language equals intent — no quote shown to prove it.

Why this score: Speaker treats the wording 'for completion sake' as evidence Criterion didn't value the preview cut. Without the actual booklet text, we're guessing at motive. The real missing piece is a direct comparison between what Criterion printed and how other labels handled similar alternate cuts.

Original quote: “so that just boggles my mind and the mentality on this release and also uh in some of Criterion statements and reading the text specs about the actual transfers in the booklet everyone seems to have acted like the preview cut was just um being included for completion sake”

Claims Criterion omitted both the first preview cut and the Turner Master with zero explanation — Missing Context (55/100)

At 26:48

States 'no real answer' — but web reviews show Criterion only licensed what Warner made available.

Why this score: Speaker presents the absence as suspicious without acknowledging that home-video rights for the first preview materials may sit with Warner, not Criterion. Reviews note the set is 'US only at the moment,' hinting at licensing limits rather than deliberate snub.

Original quote: “there is no inclusion whatsoever of the first preview version of the film nor is there even an inclusion of the 1988 Turner Master version even if if it was just in standard definition um there's been no real answer as to why Criterion did this”

Argues both preview cuts must be included because they contain unique footage — No Frame (75/100)

At 27:14

Straight comparison: two distinct edits exist and the speaker names the specific difference.

Why this score: This is clean framing — the speaker identifies the concrete variance (exclusive footage) and states the logical consequence (both or a composite). No loaded language, just a clear rationale for why one version isn't enough.

Original quote: “while uh the two preview cuts are almost exactly the same and most people would actually think they're the same they're actually different so you have to have both of them or you have to make a third version that has all the elements of both preview Cuts”

Frames the credit difference as a 'head-scratcher' that should have been addressed — Emotional Button (40/100)

At 27:28

Calls the credit discrepancy a 'head-scratcher' to cue viewer frustration without evidence of bad faith.

Why this score: The word choice nudges the audience to feel Criterion overlooked something obvious. In reality, inserting Peckinpah's meta-credit into the first preview cut would require editorial decisions about authenticity versus completeness — a legitimate curatorial dilemma the speaker doesn't surface.

Original quote: “but then you run into the issue of the second preview version having different in credits and those are a bit of a heads scratch rning of themselves because they conclude with essentially a note from Sam pekena talking about fighting back against the powers that be even in uh the 1970s as well so…”

Lists deterioration and licensing blocks as possible reasons but keeps them as unverified theories — No Frame (70/100)

At 28:07

Labels the explanations as 'theorized' and admits 'everyone trying to guess' — transparent about uncertainty.

Why this score: Speaker correctly flags the lack of an official statement and offers two plausible technical/licensing explanations without asserting either as fact. The framing is neutral and invites viewers to treat the omission as an open question rather than a conspiracy.

Original quote: “it has been theorized that perhaps the first preview version has deteriorated Beyond use or uh Warner for some reason would not allow Criterion to access the materials of the first preview version or even the materials for the uh Turner Master for the DVD and the laser disc Master originally um…”

Calls Criterion's decision 'baffling' — framing intent as obvious — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 28:30

Labels Criterion's choice as baffling without evidence of their reasoning.

Why this score: The speaker assumes Criterion should have included the 1988-2005 preview cut and calls the omission baffling, but provides no proof of Criterion's actual decision-making process or stated rationale. A neutral frame would acknowledge the uncertainty rather than assigning obviousness to one outcome.

Original quote: “just everyone trying to guess because this has not been explicitly stated um honestly I think it might have been simply that Criterion simply didn't feel there was a need to bother with the first preview version which is baffling because uh it is a completely unique edit”

Claims this cut is 'most fans' preferred — no data cited — Anonymous Authority (45/100)

At 28:41

Invokes 'most fans' preference without any polling, sales, or survey data.

Why this score: The speaker asserts broad fan consensus for the 1988-2005 preview cut as the preferred version, yet offers zero evidence beyond personal preference. A neutral framing would say 'many fans, including myself, prefer' instead of claiming majority status.

Original quote: “and was the version in circulation basically from 1988 to 2005 and is most fans myself included preferred version of what we have surviving of PE Anda vision for the film”

States existing 4K masters 'should have been used' — prescriptive framing — Missing Context (45/100)

At 28:54

Assumes technical feasibility without addressing Criterion's actual sourcing or rights constraints.

Why this score: The speaker presents a clear technical path (use existing 4K masters for preview cuts) as an obvious missed opportunity, but doesn't mention whether Criterion had access to those masters, licensing limitations, or restoration costs. A fair frame would note these practical hurdles rather than implying simple oversight.

Original quote: “in any case uh whichever version of the preview Cuts you would have included in this release the 4K master that had been made uh first of the theatrical cut and then for the uh recut 50th Anniversary Edition should have been used to reconstruct both of the preview cuts”

Calls the theatrical opening removal 'broken' — emotional judgment — Emotional Button (20/100)

At 29:46

Dismisses opposing views as illogical while invoking 'most famous scene' as emotional weight.

Why this score: The speaker labels the theatrical cut's opening as broken and questions the logic of anyone who disagrees, while elevating the riverbank scene's status without evidence it's objectively the film's most famous moment. A neutral approach would present the creative disagreement as differing artistic priorities rather than broken logic versus obvious truth.

Original quote: “and anybody who says different I simply don't understand your logic because it's broken although in defense of the theatrical cut it seems that the uh loss of the opening was a sort of uh giving MGM a win because uh pek andpa and the editors and everyone wanted to fight so hard to retain what is…”

Criterion should have put both preview cuts on one 4K disc — Missing Context — Missing Context (45/100)

At 30:30

Assumes Criterion could easily combine both cuts on UHD — skips disc capacity and authoring limits.

Why this score: Frames Criterion's choice as a simple oversight. A neutral frame would note that branching two full 4K cuts plus Dolby Vision on a single UHD disc often exceeds practical limits, which may explain why Criterion separated them instead.

Original quote: “scene didn't understand it and wanted it removed and so essentially the sacrifice seems to have been the original opening that you only see in the preview Cuts but in any case uh there should have been a UHD disc dis one that was taking the new 4k scan Dolby Vision master and recreating both of the…”

Preview cuts = the only real director's vision; all else is secondary — Loaded Language — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 30:55

Calls preview cuts 'the film' and everything else 'secondary' — steers viewers before they see the evidence.

Why this score: The loaded phrasing ('that is the film') presents one interpretation as fact. A neutral frame would say the preview cuts represent the closest version to Peckinpah's involvement, while acknowledging ongoing scholarly debate over what counts as the definitive cut.

Original quote: “and since that is all we have repres presenting Sam Pena's vision of the film The only Cuts he was involved with that should have been made dis one the film is famously unfinished it exists in a variety of releases and additions and cuts and edits and has a tumultuous history so putting that out…”

Criterion should have added text or extras to explain preview cuts — Cherry-Picked — Cherry-Picked (45/100)

At 31:25

Focuses only on what Criterion left out — ignores the booklet essay and existing extras already included.

Why this score: Highlights the absence of explanatory text while skipping that Criterion's package already contains a booklet essay by Steven Erickson and multiple supplements comparing versions. A fair frame would weigh the included materials against what the speaker says is missing.

Original quote: “you you shouldn't have essentially worried about putting out a as is uh reconstruction of the preview Cuts spiff up as best as you could in an otherwise 4K Master uh as and essentially putting people off who who think oh this is a bad transfer or I don't want to watch something that has lowquality…”

Raw scan on Blu-ray is 'tacked on' and insufficient — Emotional Button — Emotional Button (20/100)

At 32:02

Calls the scan 'raw' and 'tacked on' to trigger disappointment — downplays that it's a new 2K master of the preview cut.

Why this score: The emotive language ('raw,' 'tacked on') paints the Blu-ray version as an afterthought. Reviews confirm it's a new 2K digital master of the final preview cut with uncompressed mono audio. A neutral description would note the technical specs and context instead of implying neglect.

Original quote: “don't relegate a raw scan of the second preview cut complete with damage and and and and color fluctuation and color timing issues without any major restoration work is essentially a secondary Blu-ray disc and an and only a 1080p SDR transfer sharing the disc with other supplements like it's just…”

Calls preview cuts 'the film' Peck made — Loaded Language — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 32:30

Labels unfinished preview cuts as 'the film' — implies final intent without proof.

Why this score: By calling the unfinished previews 'the film' instead of 'an unfinished version,' the speaker frames them as the true version Peckinpah wanted. Neutral phrasing would say 'the preview cuts represent his intended vision at that stage' — this wording skips the unfinished part and steers the audience toward seeing them as definitive.

Original quote: “you have to restore not just one but both of the preview versions because that is the film that's the film that peck and paom made even if it was unfinished”

Labels Criterion's choice 'infuriating' — Emotional Button — Emotional Button (20/100)

At 32:51

Puts personal anger in the viewer's mouth — framing disagreement as outrage.

Why this score: The speaker escalates from technical disagreement to 'infuriating,' treating a restoration choice as a moral injury. A neutral take would be 'I disagree with their technical approach' — the loaded emotion pressures the audience to feel the same heat instead of weighing the evidence.

Original quote: “not restore either of the preview cuts and only include one of them as a raw scan only done at 2K from a worn element with problems I don't know what you're doing I mean this is just it's not only baffling it's infuriating”

Claims preview version 'buried' by industry — Missing Context — Missing Context (45/100)

At 33:08

Treats industry choices as deliberate suppression — omits that multiple versions exist.

Why this score: Calling it 'buried' frames the history as active censorship rather than the complicated release history of a troubled production. A fair frame would note that different cuts have circulated over time, and Criterion is releasing several versions, not hiding one.

Original quote: “it really pours salt in the wound for all of us Peck andpa fans who have been decrying how the actual preview version has been buried by uh home video practices”

Calls 2005/50th cuts 'fan edits' — Straw Man — Straw Man (20/100)

At 33:26

Equates official studio cuts with fan edits — exaggerates to dismiss them.

Why this score: Labeling the 2005 and anniversary cuts as 'fan edits' flattens the distinction between studio-sanctioned reconstructions and unofficial fan projects. Neutral language would call them 'alternate studio-approved edits' — this phrasing makes them sound illegitimate by association.

Original quote: “the new version 2.0 of essentially a fan edit because when you actually dig into what the uh 2005 cut and 50th Anniversary cut are I mean they're a fan at it really at the end of the day”

Calls Criterion's release a 'fan edit' — loaded language to delegitimize — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 34:30

Calling a studio-sanctioned restoration a 'fan edit' frames it as unauthorized — but Criterion's release is officially licensed.

Why this score: The speaker repeatedly tags the release as 'a fan edit' and 'version 2.0 of a fan edit' to undercut its legitimacy. This rhetorical move sidesteps the fact that the Criterion set is an official, licensed product using the actual film elements, not a bootleg reconstruction. By equating studio-approved editorial choices with unpaid fandom tinkering, the framing paints any deviation from the director's cut as inherently illegitimate.

Original quote: “so again it's essentially a fan edit uh with the best intentions and now really well polished with a beautiful you know new 4k master and new transfer of the monomix and things uh but it's a fan edit it's a version 2.0 of a fan edit”

Accuses Criterion of 'vindicating vengeful idiocy' — emotional button framing — Emotional Button (20/100)

At 35:47

Equating a restoration decision with 'vindicating vengeful idiocy' triggers outrage — strong language, zero nuance about studio realities.

Why this score: The speaker jumps from 'they restored the theatrical cut first because the negative was conformed to it' to 'they vindicated vengeful idiocy.' This emotional button framing collapses complex archival constraints (the negative literally was the theatrical version) into a morality play where Criterion is cast as MGM's accomplice. It omits that the same set also includes the preview cut and a new reconstruction attempt — choices driven by what's physically available, not ideological betrayal.

Original quote: “they have essentially disrespected the film in doing this they've not only given preference but they have actually given top-of-the-line treatments to the severely compromised theatrical release version and essentially Vindicated the vengeful idiocy of Jim Aubrey and MGM in 1973 for trying to…”

Calls Sedor's work 'a critic's opinionated cut' — dismisses it as subjective while claiming authority — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 36:30

Frames scholarly reconstruction as mere 'opinion' while positioning own view as definitive — classic authority grab.

Why this score: The speaker contrasts 'their own opinion' with 'how the film is actually finished' — implying an objective standard exists. This is the 'my framing is reality, theirs is bias' move. In reality, all versions of this famously troubled film are reconstructions; none is the untouched original. The loaded framing makes Sedor sound like an arrogant fan editor rather than someone working from the same incomplete materials everyone else has.

Original quote: “sedor has made and again I I I don't mind that he he was behind these and I don't mind the the idea that a Critic comes in and and tries to make a Reconstruction from their best educated opinion but again it's their own opinion it's not how the film is actually finished in any form it's their own…”

Claims Sedor cut 'the most important line' — frames disagreement as deliberate sabotage — Emotional Button (30/100)

At 36:51

Hyperbolic 'most important line in the entire film' with zero evidence it's objectively crucial — pure emotional escalation.

Why this score: This is the 'they removed the soul of the film' framing. By declaring one line 'the most important' without explaining why, the speaker triggers protective instincts in viewers. The real context (which versions exist, what Peckinpah left behind, what 'importance' means across different cuts) gets buried under the outrage. A neutral frame would say 'a line the speaker considers central was omitted' instead of anointing it the film's beating heart.

Original quote: “including the fact that they cut the most important line in the entire film that for whatever reason they just hate and they just don't like they don't like the line reading they don't like the line itself and so that's just out and so now when people come to this they're usually going to be…”

Equates Criterion's release with MGM's 1973 sabotage — frames commercial decision as moral betrayal — False Equivalence (20/100)

At 37:20

Compares a 2020s restoration label choosing one cut to a studio literally chopping a film to ribbons in 1973 — wildly disproportionate analogy.

Why this score: This is the 'they're continuing the crime' escalation. The speaker chains Warner → MGM → Criterion as if choosing which surviving version to present is morally equivalent to the original studio mutilation. MGM fired Peckinpah, recut the film, and buried it. Criterion is packaging existing materials with essays and multiple versions. The false equivalence lets the speaker paint a for-profit label decision as the same sin as 1970s studio butchery, which collapses under any scrutiny of what actually happened in each case.

Original quote: “uh you you won't actually get the most crucial line of the entire film um because you know it's a fan edit it's a revised fan edit it's a version 2.0 of a pre-existing fan edit that uh all of us Peck andpa nerds had gigantic issues with it most of us can't the the sedor versions so and sedor has…”

Calls Criterion's choice their 'single greatest problem' — loaded framing, no receipts — Loaded Language (30/100)

At 38:30

Ranks this as Criterion's worst-ever release issue — strong language, zero comparative evidence.

Why this score: The speaker escalates a specific editorial decision into Criterion's 'single greatest' failure. This is classic loaded language — it steers viewers emotionally before any evidence is presented. A neutral framing would simply state 'Criterion chose not to reconstruct the preview cuts' and let the viewer judge severity.

Original quote: “understand why this happened I think this is the single greatest not just mistake oversight flaw this is the single greatest uh problem that Criterion has ever had on a release and it was completely avoidable this is simply from all that I can tell because you know it's not like people will…”

Claims 'other labels do this all the time' — anonymous authority with cherry-picked examples — Anonymous Authority (40/100)

At 39:03

Says 'other labels do this constantly' — names one (AO Video), implies universal practice.

Why this score: The speaker invokes an unnamed industry standard ('other labels do this all the time') to make Criterion look uniquely lazy. Only one concrete example is given (AO Video's Bruce Lee box). A fair framing would either list multiple labels routinely doing reconstruction or acknowledge this is selective evidence rather than settled practice.

Original quote: “other labels do this all the time with new 4k masters of theatrical Cuts uh and even for the most out there genre films you've never heard of in your life AO video will do this on all kinds of genre titles and of course their Bruce Lee box that they tried to recreate multiple different cuts that…”

Criterion ignored director's vision — loaded language framing — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 40:41

Frames Criterion's choice as deliberate disrespect — "you sure as hell didn't" — without proving intent.

Why this score: The speaker equates "not doing the preview cuts" with "insulting the vision," a loaded leap that assumes Criterion's priorities were malicious rather than pragmatic. A neutral framing would note the absence of the preview cuts and ask why Criterion made that decision.

Original quote: “Cuts I really don't know why Criterion thought this was a good idea for a label that is the most famous of Boutique labels that Prides itself on respecting director's Visions well you sure as hell didn't do that here”

Raw preview cut as bonus = insult — emotional button framing — Emotional Button (35/100)

At 40:53

Uses "insult" and "treasure" to paint the raw scan as a moral failure rather than a technical compromise.

Why this score: By calling the inclusion of the raw preview cut "insulting," the speaker shifts the conversation from "what resources were available" to "how dare they." A fairer frame would weigh the cost of full reconstruction against the value of having the cut at all.

Original quote: “in fact you insulted the director's vision in several different ways and you know the the it's a treasure getting any version of the second preview cut even if it's a raw print scan but the fact that it's been treated as just a secondary bonus option essentially not worked on at all and there is no…”

Repeats "insulting" to escalate moral weight — volume game — Volume Game (30/100)

At 41:31

Repeats "insulting" three times in 20 seconds to manufacture outrage instead of adding new evidence.

Why this score: The speaker leans on emotional repetition rather than new facts. A cleaner approach would list specific editorial decisions that deviated from the preview cuts and let the viewer judge their significance.

Original quote: “um that's just insulting it's insulting to Peck andpa fans it's insulting to the film most of all and of course the director's Vision which you claim to want to respect in every release again you sure as hell didn't hear and uh it has been made uh unbelievably clear that the director's vision is…”

Four discs = should have done more — false equivalence framing — False Equivalence (40/100)

At 41:53

Assumes disc count directly equals restoration capacity — ignores differing rights, costs, and source material quality.

Why this score: The claim treats "four discs" as proof Criterion could have reconstructed the cuts. A neutral frame would compare the actual technical and legal hurdles faced by Criterion versus other labels that did full reconstructions.

Original quote: “which has four discs and still couldn't be bothered to properly restore either of the preview cuts which again other labels would have done”

2005 color grade called 'defective' — loaded framing by equating fan hate with proof — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 43:03

Calling it 'defective' now that fans 'said so' — framing their dislike as validation instead of new evidence.

Why this score: The speaker treats years of fan complaints as retroactive proof the 2005 grade was objectively wrong. 'Defective' is a technical term, but they're using it to validate subjective taste. Neutral framing would say 'revised' or 'adjusted' rather than 'defective'.

Original quote: “the 50th Anniversary release corrects the earlier version's color grading which was defended for years as we all said how bad it was and so now to actually get that confirmed that it was defective is at least some small victory for us peek andpa fans who despise the 2005 cut”

Criterion's claim about 'what Peckinpah wanted' — missing context on sources — Missing Context (45/100)

At 43:58

Doubts Criterion's source for Peckinpah's intent while admitting the booklet doesn't cite one — classic anonymous authority critique.

Why this score: They're pointing out the booklet makes an appeal to the director's wishes without naming evidence. Fair enough, but they're also doing the same move — implying the 2005 cut was closer to intent without showing what that intent was either.

Original quote: “don't know what source they had for that to know what p and paaw wanted but you know you can say stuff like that and I guess it sounds nice in a booklet”

Prostitutes montage cut because 'Peckinpah probably would have' — speculation dressed as insider knowledge — Anonymous Authority (45/100)

At 44:18

No source given for what Peckinpah 'would have' done — belief passed off as fact.

Why this score: They're critiquing Criterion for claiming to know Peckinpah's intent while doing the exact same thing about the montage. 'Believed' is doing the heavy lifting here — it's framing a guess as consensus without showing who believes it.

Original quote: “the only scene the anniversary released does not retain from the 2005 version is the prostitutes Montage this montage is believed uh that peek andb himself would have probably removed it uh had he actually continued working on the film”

Calls Criterion's cuts an 'educated guess' — framing their restoration as speculation — Missing Context (45/100)

At 44:31

Labels the decisions 'educated guesses' — downplays that Criterion consulted archival materials and Peckinpah scholars.

Why this score: The speaker presents the removal of the scene as a subjective hunch rather than a documented editorial choice backed by production records. A neutral frame would note the available evidence they used instead of emphasizing uncertainty.

Original quote: “it is seen in the second preview version that's the raw scan on the bonus Blu-ray again an educated guess one that they're probably right about but again it's an educated guess that they made”

Highlights the theatrical cut's 4K source — contrasts it with the preview cut's 2K source — Missing Context (45/100)

At 44:45

Emphasizes the 'original negative' for the theatrical cut — omits that the preview cut also has a 2K master from a 35mm print.

Why this score: By spotlighting the theatrical cut's superior source while only mentioning the preview cut's lesser source, the speaker frames Criterion's priorities as favoring the studio version. A balanced framing would note both versions received the best available material.

Original quote: “then for the theatrical cut this new 4k master was created from the original negative the original mono soundrack was remastered from the 35mm dialog music effects magnetic track”

Defends the rough preview cut as intentional 'raw' presentation — justifies lower quality — No Frame (75/100)

At 46:23

Straight explanation: Criterion chose not to polish the preview cut to preserve its 'rough-edged' historical feel.

Why this score: The speaker accurately describes the stated intent behind leaving the preview cut unrestored. No loaded language or omission here — just a clear rationale matching the release notes.

Original quote: “unrestored and minimally color corre corrected this presentation is intended to convey the feeling of watching The Raw rough-edged”

Comparing fan-made scans to Criterion's official release — a classic 'fans do it better' framing. — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 46:53

The speaker uses 'Grindhouse scan' and 'fans doing it better' to highlight perceived inadequacy, setting up a strong contrast.

Why this score: This is a classic 'loaded language' move, using terms like 'Grindhouse scan' to evoke a sense of amateur effort, then claiming it's superior to a professional release. It frames Criterion as lazy or incompetent by comparing their work unfavorably to dedicated fans, even if the fan work is niche or less accessible. It's an emotional appeal to the idea of passion vs. corporate indifference.

Original quote: “I have no words the I you get more nowadays from fans doing a Grindhouse scan of a 35mm release print of a film and trying to make it as good as they can than Criterion did with the one surviving copy of the second preview version of Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid”

Criterion's handling of the preview cut is framed as lazy and dismissive, implying a lack of care. — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 47:15

Accuses Criterion of 'too much work' and 'don't give a crap' attitude, using strong, negative language to frame their choices.

Why this score: The speaker employs 'loaded language' to paint Criterion's decision-making in a negative light. Phrases like 'too much work for people' and 'we really don't give a crap about this version' are not neutral observations; they are designed to evoke anger and disappointment in the viewer, framing the company as indifferent or lazy rather than simply making a different editorial choice. This is an emotional button, pushing the idea that Criterion disrespected the film or its fans.

Original quote: “when they have a perfectly good new 4k master that they could have used as a base and then cut to the specific second preview cut scenes if they were only going to include a version of one preview cut and then they should have included the raw 2K Master scan directly as a supplemental then we…”

Criterion's omission of the first preview version is a "major blunder" — loaded language to amplify criticism. — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 48:38

Calling it a 'major blunder' frames the omission as an egregious error, not just a difference in versions.

Why this score: The speaker uses strong, emotionally charged language ('major blunder', 'bizarre note', 'really strange') to emphasize their negative assessment of Criterion's choices. While the differences between versions are factual, the framing amplifies the perceived severity of Criterion's decision to exclude the first preview version, suggesting incompetence or disregard rather than a potentially justifiable editorial choice.

Original quote: “this second preview version is very similar to the first preview version or the Turner Master we used to on video but it does include some scenes not in the first preview version but the first preview version contains footage that is not in the second preview version so not having any version of…”

Criterion's release is "insulting" because it prioritizes other cuts over the director's vision — emotional button to rally support. — Emotional Button (20/100)

At 49:14

Using 'insulting' and 'bastardized' taps into viewer loyalty to 'director's vision' to create strong negative sentiment.

Why this score: The speaker uses emotionally charged words like 'insulting' and 'bastardized' to describe Criterion's choices, appealing directly to the audience's respect for a director's artistic intent. This framing is designed to evoke a strong emotional reaction and align the viewer with the speaker's critical stance, rather than presenting a neutral comparison of the different film versions. It sets up a 'good vs. evil' dynamic where Criterion is disrespecting the director.

Original quote: “so when you watch through this disc again thankfully the encoding is good with a very high bit rate so thank God there's no major encoding issues which plague most Criterion Blu-rays uh this is essentially as close as you get to a raw print scan if I was looking at this and I knew that it was a a…”

Critiquing Criterion's transfer quality – detailing numerous visual flaws from a 'rough preview cut'. — No Frame (75/100)

At 50:30

Speaker is laying out specific, observable technical issues with the Criterion transfer. Sounds like a direct review.

Why this score: This is a straightforward description of perceived technical flaws in the video transfer. The speaker is listing concrete issues like 'emulsion scratches,' 'flashes in the cuts,' 'rough spots,' 'marks,' and 'changeover cues,' attributing them to the source being a 'rough second preview cut.' This is direct criticism based on visual evidence, not a rhetorical trick. A neutral framing would simply state the visual artifacts without the critical tone, but in a review, this is expected.

Original quote: “sounds a bit thin because they're directly transferring the Bonos Source uh there's Emulsion scratches there's flashes in the cuts because this was also a preview version it was a wasn't a finalized version so it's got rough spots throughout uh there's marks all over scenes particularly at the ends…”

Detailed critique of color, grain, audio, and missing frames – highlighting inconsistent quality. — No Frame (75/100)

At 51:04

Continues with a detailed list of technical issues, from color fluctuation to audio noise and missing frames.

Why this score: The speaker continues to provide a detailed, itemized list of technical problems with the Criterion release, including 'color fluctuates wildly,' 'grain structure varies wildly,' 'bursts of audio noise,' 'lines and scratches,' and 'missing frames.' This is a direct, observable critique of the product's quality, presented as a series of factual observations. There's no obvious rhetorical manipulation here; it's a critical assessment in a review context. A neutral framing would simply list these as characteristics without the evaluative language, but again, for a review, this is standard.

Original quote: “the color fluctuates wildly in places and while there's never outright fading There Is frequent examples of the color do being where it should be and also only seemingly the most slight of adjustments and an overall attempt to basically do a sort of basic balancing of the color the grain structure…”

Criterion's premature end credit placement 'ruins' the film's coda ending. — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 52:07

Calling Criterion's credit placement 'ruining' the ending is a strong, subjective judgment. It's a loaded term.

Why this score: The speaker states that Criterion's placement of their end credit 'does ruin the sort of Kota ending of the film.' While the timing of end credits can certainly impact the viewing experience, using the word 'ruin' is a highly subjective and emotionally charged judgment. It frames a stylistic choice as a definitive failure, rather than a debatable artistic decision or a minor annoyance. A more neutral framing might describe the timing of the credit and its effect on the music's fade-out, allowing the viewer to decide if it 'ruins' the ending.

Original quote: “again we have the unique end credits with the Peck and paon note but as the music is fading and we we fade the credits to Black instead of letting the music play out fully uh Criterion doesn't wait to put their uh end Criterion credit and information credit uh until the film film is actually fully…”

Calls Criterion's preview cut a raw scan job — Loaded Language — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 52:30

Labels it 'raw print scan' before acknowledging it's 'as close as you can get to a fan print on an official release.'

Why this score: The speaker frames Criterion's inclusion as lazy ('threw it on a Blu-ray disc') even while admitting this is the first time this cut has been officially released digitally. A neutral framing would note that Criterion chose to include the preview cut without full restoration work rather than implying they did the bare minimum out of laziness.

Original quote: “film is actually fully over so it does ruin the sort of Kota ending of the film as the music Fades out over black um so that was a little bit annoying of course um especially since this is not a restoration this is basically oh we did some basic work on a raw print scan and threw it on a Blu-ray…”

Argues Criterion should have rebuilt preview cuts from 4K master — Missing Context — Missing Context (45/100)

At 52:59

Presents full 4K restoration of preview cuts as obvious next step — omits that Criterion released the final preview cut for the first time ever.

Why this score: The speaker frames the release as insufficient without mentioning that including the final preview cut at all represents new access to material previously only available via degraded work prints or fan scans. A neutral framing would weigh the value of first-time digital access against the cost of additional restoration work.

Original quote: “this is a great inclusion but it should have been as an actual supplement to a 4K UHD with both preview cuts that were reconstructed using the new 4k Master as the base source”

Calls 4K discs 'insult to injury' despite praising their quality — Loaded Language — Loaded Language (20/100)

At 53:27

Praises both 4K discs as 'fantastic' with 'tasteful' HDR and 'solid' timing — then calls them an 'insult' because preview cut lacks same treatment.

Why this score: The speaker uses emotionally loaded phrases ('insult to injury,' 'pours salt in the wound') to characterize a release that includes two high-quality 4K presentations plus a first-time digital preview cut. This framing positions any release short of a full multi-version 4K restoration as actively disrespectful rather than a meaningful but incomplete step forward. A neutral framing would acknowledge the gap between ideal and actual without implying malice.

Original quote: “then you switch over to the uhds which add insult to injury because you get to see the new 4k Master with Doby Vision grading the 50th Anniversary cut is now dis one and the 1973 MGM theatrical cut is disc 2 both of them look fantastic they have nice on codes for criteria uhds um the bit rate is…”

Calls Criterion's encoding 'typical' low bitrate issue — framing routine flaw as company signature — Missing Context (45/100)

At 54:30

Labels lower bitrate as 'typical Criterion thing' — implies pattern without showing other releases

Why this score: By calling it 'typical' without comparing actual bitrates across Criterion titles, the speaker creates an expectation that this is standard behavior rather than specific to this disc. A neutral framing would say 'this disc has lower bitrate than I'd prefer' without the generalization.

Original quote: “to properly fix this issue is to take the 4K Masters put them in editing software and use them to reconstruct the two preview Cuts yourself the uhds and the Blu-rays of the same Masters because these two 4K Masters are also presented in this release on the 1080p SDR Blu-rays they are far better in…”

Says 'you feel insulted' — emotional button to make technical complaint personal — Emotional Button (20/100)

At 54:59

Shifts from 'I prefer higher bitrate' to 'you feel insulted' — makes subjective preference feel like collective outrage

Why this score: The move from personal preference ('lower than what I would like') to assumed shared emotional response ('you feel insulted') is classic emotional button framing. It pressures viewers to adopt the speaker's reaction rather than form their own. A neutral framing would stick to 'the preview cut looks worse than the other versions' without telling you how to feel about it.

Original quote: “um they're well done without any major problems but the overall bit rate is is lower than what I would like it to be and ironically the the preview cut presentation is one of the better Criterion Blu-ray masterings I've seen in a long while thank goodness um but even looking at the new 4k Master…”

Calls lack of reconstruction 'criminal' — loaded language equating artistic choice with crime — Loaded Language (20/100)

At 55:55

'Criminal' for not doing a reconstruction — equates business decision with actual crime

Why this score: Calling an artistic or commercial decision 'criminal' is loaded language that inflates the stakes dramatically. It suggests moral wrongdoing where there's actually just a disagreement about priorities. A neutral framing would say 'I wish they had reconstructed the preview cuts' or 'it's disappointing they didn't.'

Original quote: “I just think it's frankly criminal that Criterion did not reconstruct either of the two preview Cuts using this new 4k Master as a base Source”

Comparing Criterion's audio to older formats — highlights the MGM laserdisc as superior. — No Frame (75/100)

At 56:30

Straightforward comparison, using specific, verifiable older formats as benchmarks. No tricks here.

Why this score: The speaker is providing a detailed, specific comparison of audio quality across different historical releases (MGM laserdisc, Turner Master, VHS Hi-Fi). This is a direct, technical comparison that lays out the evidence for their preference without rhetorical flourishes. They're not omitting context, using loaded language, or making unsubstantiated claims; they're simply stating their expert opinion based on specific, named sources. This is a clean, direct framing of their argument.

Original quote: “and Noise reduction now when I compare all of these to past releases for Fidelity overall I think the best release of the film's original mix is by far the MGM laser disc the letter box edition of the first preview cut or the Turner Master this has the most Clarity and the least amount of excessive…”

Critiques Criterion's theatrical and 50th Anniversary audio mixes for excessive noise reduction. — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 57:03

Uses 'heavy-handed' and 'least sounding' to describe noise reduction, implying a negative impact without fully quantifying it.

Why this score: The speaker uses terms like 'heavy-handed' and 'least sounding' to describe the noise reduction on the Criterion release's audio tracks. While they acknowledge it's 'nothing that's ever heavy-handed' in isolation, the cumulative effect of these descriptors, especially when comparing it unfavorably to older formats, frames the noise reduction as a significant drawback. This is loaded language because it conveys a negative judgment ('heavy-handed', 'least sounding') without providing objective metrics or a clear, neutral explanation of *why* it's 'heavy-handed' or *how* it makes it 'least…

Original quote: “The theatrical audio on the Criterion is obviously coming from the same Source it doesn't have any of the Dropout issues from it being a tape made in say 1983 but you can tell comparing the two that it has had some work done and some noise reduction you know it it still sounds good and solid but I…”

Comparing Criterion's audio to an old laserdisc — setting a high bar for a new release. — Missing Context (45/100)

At 58:30

Comparing a modern 4K release to a laserdisc from decades ago without acknowledging the inherent format differences is a bit of a stretch. — It's like comparing a new car to a vintage one and complaining the new one doesn't have a cassette player.

Why this score: The speaker frames the Criterion release's audio as 'inferior' to an MGM UA laserdisc, even acknowledging the laserdisc had 'baked in issues.' This comparison, while valid for a specific audiophile preference, lacks context for the average viewer. A laserdisc is an analog format, and while some prefer its sound, it's not a direct, apples-to-apples comparison to a modern digital 4K release, which has different goals and technical limitations/advantages. The framing implies Criterion failed, but it's more about a subjective preference for a different audio mastering philosophy, not necessarily…

Original quote: “it's got defects in the actual Source it transferred but it left things pretty much alone and especially for the music and sound effects it sounds so much clearer it has more high-end whereas when you go all the way to the 50th Anniversary release they try to throw more into the low end and it's…”

Criterion's cover art symbolizes desert themes and shattered psyche — a subjective interpretation. — No Frame (75/100)

At 59:22

The speaker is interpreting the artistic choices of the cover, which is a fair and common part of reviewing media. — It's a subjective take, but presented as such.

Why this score: The speaker is offering an interpretation of the cover art's symbolism ('burnt orange color overall to sort of symbolize I guess the the themes of the desert and and depression and failure' and 'shattered mirror reflecting uh portions of his own shattered psyche'). This is a standard part of film or media criticism and is presented as a personal interpretation ('I guess') rather than a definitive statement of fact. It's a straightforward analysis of artistic intent, not a manipulative framing.

Original quote: “overall packaging and artwork we have a deluxe Criterion box with a slip out Digi pack this is done in the usual Criterion style so the back is what you expect and they've gone for a sort of burnt orange color overall to sort of symbolize I guess the the themes of the desert and and depression and…”

Preferring original poster art over Criterion's new design — a personal preference framed as a critique. — No Frame (75/100)

At 60:04

Expressing a personal preference for alternative artwork is a valid part of a review. — It's clearly stated as a 'would have preferred' scenario.

Why this score: The speaker states, 'it's also not the original poster artwork which I would have preferred.' This is a clear expression of personal preference, not an attempt to mislead or manipulate. They acknowledge the current artwork is 'still really good,' but simply prefer a different aesthetic choice. This is transparent and fair framing, as it's explicitly subjective.

Original quote: “it's honestly a great cover from Criterion it's not super Arty as some of their covers do um it's also not the original poster artwork which I would have preferred as we saw on the Warner DVD and even the original VHS tape and I think even the MGM laser disc for just using Stills looks really nice…”

Critiques Criterion's digipack design as 'cheap flimsy' – a subjective judgment presented as a common expectation. — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 60:34

Uses 'cheap flimsy' and 'expect from Criterion digipacks' to frame a design preference as a universal flaw. 😬

Why this score: The speaker frames their personal dislike for the digipack design (specifically the lack of sturdiness without the booklet) as a widely accepted 'cheap flimsy effect that we expect from Criterion digipacks.' This uses loaded language to imply a consensus of dissatisfaction, rather than stating it as a personal preference or a design choice with pros and cons. A neutral framing would describe the design and its characteristics without attaching negative, generalized judgments.

Original quote: “we of course slide out the digi pack we open to find a nice image on the digi pack of Chris kristopherson and James Coburn given the same sort of burnt sunlet orange effect and of course it's just a simple Digi pack so the booklet is just tucked inside and like a lot of Criterion releases when they…”

Criticizes the fold-out booklet and small text – frames a design choice as an outdated practice. — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 61:15

Calls the fold-out booklet an 'unfortunate affair' and implies Criterion is behind the times, framing a design choice as a flaw. 🙄

Why this score: The speaker frames the fold-out booklet as 'unfortunate' and suggests Criterion should 'get with the times' because 'everybody else kind of abandoning this practice.' This uses loaded language to imply that Criterion's choice is objectively bad and outdated, rather than acknowledging it as a design decision that some might prefer or that might have cost implications. The small, hard-to-read text on a colored background is a more objective critique, but the overall tone pushes a subjective preference as a universal standard. A neutral framing would describe the booklet type and text size, then…

Original quote: “The actual booklet with a pretty nice essay is unfortunately a fold out Affair uh Criterion still does this and only does stapled booklets every once in a while um for a set like this you would think they would have done a staple booklet um I mean I'm pretty much used to these by now but with…”

Praises the essay but notes its preference for the 50th Anniversary cut – frames a differing opinion as a point of disagreement. — No Frame (75/100)

At 61:56

Acknowledges the essay's quality while openly stating disagreement with its preference for a specific film cut. Straightforward. ✅

Why this score: The speaker gives credit where it's due, praising Steve Erikson's essay as 'quite a nice essay' and 'substantial enough.' They then clearly state their personal disagreement with the essay's preference for the 'new 50th Anniversary cut' ('which I can't agree with'). This is a transparent and fair framing, distinguishing between the quality of the essay itself and a difference in critical opinion. There's no loaded language or attempt to diminish the essay's value despite the disagreement. This is what clean framing looks like – straight talk, named sources, and clear personal takes.

Original quote: “the essay is by Steve Erikson and is is actually quite a nice essay I I I did enjoy reading this it didn't really have any material that was new to me but it is substantial enough and does show a deep respect for the film although it does seem to really prefer the new 50th Anniversary cut which…”

Calling disc three's lower bit rate 'salt in the wound' — frames technical choice as deliberate insult. — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 62:30

Uses 'salt in the wound' to imply Criterion intentionally shortchanged viewers — emotional framing, not a technical fact.

Why this score: The speaker is conflating a cost-saving decision (branching two versions on one disc) with malice. A neutral framing would note the bitrate trade-off without assigning intent. The loaded phrase steers the viewer toward feeling personally slighted rather than understanding production realities.

Original quote: “booklet so again inside we have the two UHD discs on the left so disc one is the new uh version two uh recut uh disc two is the UHD of the 1973 theatrical cut disc three is the Blu-ray of both of the cuts from the new 4k Masters so they are branched onto the same disc and that means also their bit…”

Framing Sador's commentary as 'doubling down' — implies stubborn defense, not explanation. — Loaded Language (40/100)

At 64:14

Calling it 'doubling down' paints Sador's remarks as defiant repetition rather than clarification or defense of his choices.

Why this score: The neutral description would be 'explaining' or 'justifying' his edits. 'Doubling down' is a loaded verb that suggests the speaker believes the edits were wrong and Sador refuses to admit it. This colors the entire commentary track before the viewer even hears it.

Original quote: “you're probably if you're like me you're coming to this hoping to hear a lot from Roger spottiswood but he's just kind of there he doesn't say a whole lot um but it's it's basically Sor kind of doubling down on why he made certain edits in his 50th Anniversary cut and how this is basically fixing…”

Criticizing Criterion's decision to cut Sam Peckinpah's cameo as 'idiotic' – loaded language to express strong disapproval. — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 64:30

Calling a creative decision 'idiotic' is a strong emotional appeal, not a neutral critique. It frames the decision as objectively bad.

Why this score: The speaker uses emotionally charged language ('idiotic decision') to express a personal opinion about Criterion's editing choice. While they acknowledge it's 'in my opinion,' the word choice itself is designed to evoke a strong negative reaction from the viewer, framing the decision as inherently flawed rather than simply a different artistic choice. A more neutral framing would describe the cut without such a loaded adjective, allowing the viewer to form their own judgment.

Original quote: “certain edits in his 50th Anniversary cut and how this is basically fixing the issues of his first goor round with the 2005 cut it's an okay commentary it's not filled with a ton of insight and uh I think there's actually more insight about the film in the 2005 commentary so it's really kind of…”

Criterion's claim of a 'new 2K digital master' for the final preview cut is misleading, as it's a raw print scan – a clear confidence mismatch. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)

At 65:28

The description on the disc implies a restored master, but the reality is a 'raw print scan' – a significant gap between claim and execution.

Why this score: The speaker highlights a discrepancy between Criterion's marketing language ('new 2K digital master... restored') and the actual product ('merely a raw print scan'). This is a confidence mismatch because the promotional text suggests a higher level of quality and restoration than what is delivered. The framing here is that Criterion is overstating the quality of this particular cut, potentially misleading consumers. A more accurate framing would have been to clearly state it was a 'raw print scan' from the outset, managing expectations appropriately.

Original quote: “infuriatingly we get the the credit that says new 2k digital master of director Sam peeka final preview cut with uncompressed Monaro soundtrack that's basically misleading the consumer and acting like they have restored the final preview cut and then you actually get to that disc and you find out…”

Speaker critiques interview's bias towards Bob Dylan, downplaying Jerry Fielding's role. — Missing Context (45/100)

At 66:30

Points out a potential bias in the interview, suggesting it lacks a balanced perspective on the film's score. — The interviewee's fandom might skew the narrative.

Why this score: The speaker is highlighting 'Missing Context' by pointing out that the interviewee's strong fandom for Bob Dylan likely led to a biased portrayal of Jerry Fielding. This framing suggests that a more neutral perspective would have provided a fuller, more objective understanding of the score's creation and the dynamics between the artists. It's not a direct factual error, but a critique of the interview's framing.

Original quote: “reception and the legacy of the score so it's really helpful for understanding uh the the score's impact and its composition and again where it takes place in terms of Dylan's overall career which was sort of at a Crossroads and ways uh my only issue here with this is of course you as usual the the…”

Speaker praises Mike Siegel's 49-minute documentary as the best supplement, citing his expertise. — No Frame (75/100)

At 67:06

Highlights a specific documentary and its creator, providing clear reasons for its value. — This is a straightforward, well-supported recommendation.

Why this score: The speaker is providing a clear, positive assessment of a specific supplementary feature, the Mike Siegel documentary. They back up their praise by identifying Siegel as 'the world's primary Peckinpah historian and documentarian' and detailing the documentary's length (49 minutes) and content (updated materials, HD). This is a 'No Frame' situation because the speaker is offering a direct, transparent opinion with supporting details, rather than using rhetorical devices to sway the viewer. It's a clean, informative review.

Original quote: “and so usually Dylan fans kind of badmouth Jerry Fielding a little bit and it does kind of come across a little bit that way in this interview which I didn't appreciate because Jerry Fielding is one of the great underrated composers and one of the key people in the overall peek and Paul Canon and…”

Calls archival extras 'priceless' — emotional button — Emotional Button (45/100)

At 68:30

Labels content 'priceless' before describing it — steers feelings before evidence.

Why this score: The speaker uses loaded value language ('priceless', 'extraordinarily well done') to prime the audience to view the extras positively, without first establishing why they merit that reaction. A neutral framing would describe the content type and let the viewer assess its worth.

Original quote: “and it's him getting to go back and basically do a new extended version with new materials so it is uh again filled with archival interviews and Priceless pieces and extraordinarily well done as all of his materials are”