Guillermo del Toro on ‘Pan’s Labyrinth’ 3D Re-Release: 'No Goddamn AI’ ⁠67%

By Charisma Madarang⁠48%

7/25/2026, 3:30:08 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Appeal to Authority, and Negativity Bias, with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 17.9% saturation with 35 hits. Analysis detected 295 faulty-reasoning hits from 196 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 60.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠67% (7,257 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 66.80% of the article peer group.

As Hollywood continues to soften its stance on artificial intelligence, Guillermo del Toro remains immovable in his opposition to AI in cinema. 
"What we’re protecting is the beauty and the redeeming power of art," the Oscar-winning director said 
The Oscar-winning filmmaker returned to San Diego Comic-Con to celebrate the 20th anniversary of Pan’s Labyrinth. 
When discussing its upcoming 3D re-release in theaters, premiering Oct. 9, del Toro assured fans that “absolutely no goddamn AI” was used to convert the movie. 
“It’s much more expensive. 
I don’t care. 
The thing is, what we’re protecting is the beauty and the redeeming power of art. 
It’s not about who gets the job,” said del Toro to cheers from the crowd. 
“We are protecting a lineage of art. 
If we cut a generation of people from learning their craft, you’re cutting the rest of the history of that medium away from them for what?” 
Pan’s Labyrinth, a Spanish-language film released in 2006 and praised for its gothic surrealism, garnered $83 million worldwide at the box office and three Academy Awards for Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction, and Best Makeup. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 3.5%Rolling Stone: 2.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.1%Rolling Stone: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 17.9%Charisma Madarang: 3.6%Rolling Stone: 3.2%Availability Heuristic17.9%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.2%Rolling Stone: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.2%Rolling Stone: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 1.3%Rolling Stone: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 11.2%Charisma Madarang: 6.5%Rolling Stone: 5.6%Framing Effect11.2%This article: 7.7%Charisma Madarang: 0.9%Rolling Stone: 0.6%Loss Aversion7.7%This article: 3.6%Charisma Madarang: 1.0%Rolling Stone: 0.8%Status Quo Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.2%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 2.4%Rolling Stone: 2.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.3%Rolling Stone: 1.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 13.3%Charisma Madarang: 11.2%Rolling Stone: 7.5%Negativity Bias13.3%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 3.2%Rolling Stone: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.3%Rolling Stone: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.5%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 2.3%Rolling Stone: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.4%Rolling Stone: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 17.9%Charisma Madarang: 6.2%Rolling Stone: 4.8%Halo Effect17.9%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.1%Rolling Stone: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 3.5%Rolling Stone: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.1%Rolling Stone: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 1.2%Rolling Stone: 1.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.1%Rolling Stone: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 17.9%Charisma Madarang: 5.4%Rolling Stone: 3.4%Appeal to Authority17.9%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.8%Rolling Stone: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 13.3%Charisma Madarang: 0.8%Rolling Stone: 0.7%Slippery Slope13.3%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 5.3%Rolling Stone: 5.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 1.4%Rolling Stone: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.5%Rolling Stone: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 9.9%Rolling Stone: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.9%Rolling Stone: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 2.8%Rolling Stone: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.2%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.7%Rolling Stone: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.5%Rolling Stone: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 2.9%Rolling Stone: 2.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 13.3%Charisma Madarang: 0.2%Rolling Stone: 0.1%No True Scotsman13.3%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 2.8%Rolling Stone: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 13.3%Charisma Madarang: 3.6%Rolling Stone: 1.5%Unattributed Quote13.3%This article: 13.3%Charisma Madarang: 2.8%Rolling Stone: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection13.3%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 6.6%Rolling Stone: 8.6%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 8.2%Charisma Madarang: 1.6%Rolling Stone: 1.3%Indoctrination8.2%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 2.1%Rolling Stone: 1.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.4%Rolling Stone: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.3%Rolling Stone: 3.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

196 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker57%attributed speech84writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageGuillermo del Toro • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageGuillermo del Toro • 26 words • 100.0% coverageGuillermo del Toro • 4 words • 0.0% coverageGuillermo del Toro • 3 words • 0.0% coverageGuillermo del Toro • 15 words • 0.0% coverageGuillermo del Toro • 15 words • 0.0% coverageGuillermo del Toro • 7 words • 0.0% coverageGuillermo del Toro • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Guillermo del Toro

80%flagged-word coverage
112 attributed words100% of attributed speech68% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Unattributed Quote+23.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Guillermo del Toro: 23.2%23.2%Quote-first Misdirection+23.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Guillermo del Toro: 23.2%23.2%Indoctrination+14.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%Guillermo del Toro: 14.3%14.3%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.