As the anecdote on the landing page suggests, the exigence for this project is born out of my own teaching experience. As a self-professed true believer of digital and multimodal composition pedagogy, I have been eager to adapt my composition classroom to the changing environments in which we consume and compose. To reflect that change, I’ve found that theories usually relegated to the final unit of comp courses—remix, remediation, and assemblage—as becoming not only central to my course design, but informing my own understanding of composition as a process, product, and concept. But as I’ve been teaching these theories, they have sometimes fallen short of student expectations, as the concepts are so conceptually similar that they have a hard time differentiating between them. I am coming to this project with this very practical goal in mind: so that I might be able to better explain to students the differences between remix, assemblage, and remediation. But perhaps more importantly, I am attempting to differentiate between the three for those of us interested in this particular brand of post-process composition; given the similarities, these concepts tend to overlap and we can sometimes use them interchangeably. For example, the abstract for Johnson-Eilola and Selber’s “Plagiarism, Originality, Assemblage,” specifically mentions remix culture and practice. Given our tendency to conflate these terms, this project demarcates some tentative differences between remix, assemblage and remediation. I set out to accomplish this by pushing each term to its analytical limit in a case study, analyzing a unique artifact that can be read through the lenses of all three theories. The artifact is a theatrical production known as Terminator the Second, a Shakesperean adaptation of James Cameron’s 1992 sci-fi/action opus, Terminator 2: Judgment Day. Analyzing three specific aspects of the play through three different lenses, I hope to gain a sense of what each concept is and is not, what they can and cannot do.