Starting at 3:26:07 I start explaining my reasoning. The TLDR of it, is the films themselves aren’t talked about as much as what they went on to inspire. Basically being taken for granted at this point.

The scene where he’s hovering over the maid was cut short probably to make it more ambiguous. But in the Spanish version, he was just leaning over to eat a fly (or a spider. I don’t quite remember). I’m also not sure if Renfield has the power to turn others into vampires as I think he’s more of a familiar rather than a vampire (thus why he eats flies and spiders rather than drinking blood). And yes, I have seen the version with the Philip Glass score and acknowledge it in the video. I thought the music itself was great, but it didn’t feel integrated into the film very well (mainly in terms of audio mixing). I prefer the lack of score, but I admit that’s a personal thing. Edit: Didn’t realized you edited it until I already sent my reply :/

I unfortunately have only read the original Frankenstein. That’s why it’s the only one I draw direct comparisons to when it comes to the original novels. I only knew bits and pieces of the original Dracula novel (like how Jonathan Harker was the one to go to Transylvania and not Renfield). But otherwise I was more judging it as its own thing. The same went for The Invisible Man. I intend to read the other novels that inspired these movies (Dracula and The Invisible Man especially) at some point though!

@@JonasMeichel Just read the first 5 chapters. They're a masterpiece or writing and horror. You won't put it down for those first 5. Disregard the rest. It's gets long and boring. But those first 5 are a movie onto itself. It won't take you that long. And you'll want to read them again once finished, they're that good.

@@JonasMeichel And the novel is of course free on digital anywhere you prefer to read.

1. Using real sets and real locations should not balloon the budget that much. If anything, the budget should actually be smaller because they’re not paying for so much CGI to be used in the film (as CGI is expensive and time consuming). The more realistic answer would probably be the actors (Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert De Niro definitely aren’t cheap) and the fact that since it’s a longer film, it would have more shooting days. Thus needing more money for camera rentals (assuming they didn’t just buy them), and extra money going to the already expensive actors and crew. The point was there is absolutely no reason they should’ve gotten that big of a budget in the first place, most big budget decisions are decided before they start production so they can know who to hire to work within that budget. 2. Scorsese has explained that it wasn’t “to spite Marvel fans” he’s even later clarified his statements on Marvel movies that he doesn’t hate them (or at least not the amount that people seem think he does). He felt the film needed to be that long because the script he and Eric Roth wrote was that long. He felt it was necessary for the story, which most would argue was correct. 3. This film is inherently indigenous by nature, he even said so himself (obviously using different words but you get the point). Would it not be better to have someone who fully understands that experience as they may have lived through something similar ? (Or at least have a part of the crew and/or writers that are Indigenous?) To use another film that also focuses heavily on indigenous culture that had a white director, Prey (I even brought it up in the video). Most of the crew members, producers, and writers were Indigenous (hell, the first scripts of the movie were even written in the Comanche language and has a full Comanche dub). Meanwhile this film is written by two white guys, and directed by one of them (and if you want to get even more granular and pedantic, the book was written by a white guy as well) I see your standpoint, but it still feels a bit iffy to me. 4. This is where you’re misunderstanding the video and why I put it in there. That’s what people always jump to when someone didn’t like the movie (or really any of his movies). They just go “oh, you must be a Marvel fan.” Without any of the nuance of what the other person is actually saying. I talked about the film’s runtime because I did think that it felt a tad too long. There’s nothing wrong with longer movies, it’s how it captivates the audience is the problem which is what a lot of people seem to miss. I still liked the film just fine, hence why I gave it a 7/10 (which is not a bad score). I also brought up Scorsese’s views on Marvel as I find them to be more gatekeeping in nature and a lot of people seem to agree with them, and I heavily disagree with them (as I’m sure you could tell). 5. I also couldn’t help but notice most of your response was focused on me talking about Scorsese’s views on Marvel (especially since I only mentioned Marvel directly once in that portion) rather than looking to the other films I rated highly (most of which weren’t Marvel). Oppenheimer, Creed III, Barbie, and Godzilla Minus One are all films in my top 5 that weren’t by Marvel. Hell, only two of my top 15 movies from that year are Marvel and only one of them is actually from the MCU (which is what most people are talking about when they talk about Marvel movies). While yes, I do enjoy Marvel movies, those aren’t the only types of movies I enjoy (hence why the video covers 37 other non-Marvel related films).

@JonasMeichel (1) You are completly wrong on this. CGI is of course cheeper than building actuel sets, transforming a town on paper to that of a historical period. Why do you think studios use CGI. Its to cut costs. Do your homework. The train alone cost a fortune since it was a rare classic train that they had to use. Then there is the cost of the cars, furnature, clothes etc. Even the pictures on the wall or the type of wallpaper costs extra when looking at period setting. The cost of set design and production is nearly a third of the budget of a movie. The explosions and fire and other practical effects are more expensive than if they had just used CGI. The same is true of the cinematography. Its easier to paint sky onto the screen than it is to wait for the real sky to get it just right.when you take the costs of the builders and carpenters, materials, special items such as the train and cars, the materials needed, the cost of fklming on location in real streets where you have to work around people and get permits etc. All this adds up. It os idiotic to claim that CGI is more expensive. Of course its not. That why today studios film in studio and just paint the scenery on. Its cheaper and less time consuming. Its also why those movies date so quickly. Because CGI dates fast. Its also why Scorsese took the bother to make this film without cgi. Because he wants it to last. 50 years from now this movie will still look great. Thats a lot more than you can say for other cgi movies 5 years from now. Stop drinking the Disney cool aid. Do your own reserch and you will see that I'm right. (2) what are you talking about? Did you even read my point? (3) someone who lived through it? What did they use? A time machine? most native americans have stated that they would rather a great director like Martin Scorsese tell tue story than a bad one. That makes sense. Scorsese is the best director out there. There is nothing to stop a native American director telling the story if he wants to. And if Scorsese didnt step forward to tell this story nobody else would have. They didnt so far. And what about you, offering an opinion. Are you native American? Why are you speaking out on ther behalf? Did they ask you to. Are you npt being hiprocritical when you say who should speak out on behalf of native Americans? Why not let them decide. They already decided that they were glad that scorsese made the movie. Lets be clear. The osage people wanted scorsese to tell there story. Its there story. The only people who said otherwise was a native american actress who was not a part of that tribe. And her view was the minority of 1. If its ok with the osage its ok with me. (4) Scorsese was pointing out that there is a difference between the adult movies he makes and the kiddie movies that Disney makes. Take KOTFM for example. It deals with deeper issues than Disney would deal with. Real cinema treats it viewers like adults who can think for themselves. It is not afraid to let you do just that. To come up with your own conclusions. Disney cant do that. Instead they offer a rollercoster ride and lambast you with ther own moral lecture. Real cinema lets you think for yourself, disney does not. And if you dont like ther movie it is because you are a a racist, homophobic, evil person. (5) Great you dont just watch Marvel. You also watch Barbie, Creed 2 and Oppenheimer. Killers of flower moon is better paced than Oppenheimer in my view but we will agree to disagree. My point is that Barbie and Creed 2 are plot driven, high concept movies. Its paced the same way as Disney films. Killers of flower moon is a character driven story. Your saying you dislike steak because it dosent taste as sweet as icecream.

1. If we’re talking about the same kinds of films (which I’m assuming we are), do you know how time consuming (and expensive) it is to make a single shot in a VFX heavy film? I’ll use Quantumania as my example as it’s probably the most recent film I can think of with literally hundreds of pure VFX shots. It had over 1000 VFX artists and over 800 shots with VFX in them. Every creature design, every background, every explosion, every “light”, every “camera” and where they’re positioned, and even keying the actors into the actual scene have several people attached to EACH PART of the process. Even if they’re underpaid to shit, that’s still hundreds of workers under VFX alone. The little things will add up after a while, especially when like 80-85% of the runtime has plenty of VFX in each shot. And “drinking the Disney Kool-Aid” goddamn, it’s worse than I thought. I’ve been doing my own research for years on this subject. In fact I’ve even taken animation classes which use a lot of the same programs as these big companies use for their CGI. Did you know most big film companies outsource their CGI, thus another reason why it’s a bit cheaper? It’s very rare that all CGI is done in house. You didn’t even mention how time consuming CGI is. Rendering alone is a huge time waste (and sometimes they’ll have to render a shot several times just to make sure it looks right and/or is to a directors liking). If we’re going to talk about practical Vs. CGI, maybe also do your homework on how CGI is actually done and how it works. Also if we’re using examples of films with practically no CGI. Oppenheimer has half the budget, is only 26 minutes shorter, and also has a ton of practical work done both in sets and special effects. You didn’t even mention my point on how most big budget decisions are made BEFORE they start production on a film. That’s why the phrase “over-budget” even exists, as there was a clear budget given but they’ve went over that for one reason or another. Scorsese was given a budget of $200 million before any cameras started rolling. Which I think is ridiculous for this kind of film (especially given how if a movie isn’t based on an already existing IP that’s known to make money, they’re lucky if they even get half that much). The utter irony of telling me to do my homework when you don’t even acknowledge a few of my main points or how things like CGI actually works is hilarious. Also if I’m going to be even more pedantic, I said, “CGI is expensive…” not, “CGI is more expensive”. The difference I’m referring to is THE AMOUNT of CGI they’d have to pay for which is another factor you failed to mention. 2. Yes, I did read your point. Your point was that “The movie was long because it was not meant for a Disney fan used to watching cgi movies and who have low attention spans.” Which was not true. It wasn’t to spite those kinds of people, which you make it sound like it was. You even later clarify that Scorsese’s points about Marvel wasn’t to spite Marvel fans either. I gave you the answer on why the movie was long. Because Scorsese felt it necessary. It’s the same reason Oppenheimer is 3 hours long. It’s the same reason the Snyder Cut of Justice League is 4 hours long. Because that’s what the filmmaker thought was necessary for the story they wanted to tell. 3. I never said, “someone who lived through it” I said, “Would it not be better to have someone who fully understands that experience as they’ve lived through something similar?” Key words being “something similar”. I’m not seriously suggesting they actually get someone who lived those events as that was literally around 100 years ago. Also to suggest that nobody else would’ve stood up to tell the story is preposterous. Especially since the film is literally based on a book (which in itself, is based on a real event). I even stated that I understood your point, but also I felt the need to explain my viewpoint as well. You didn’t need to double down on this, I already got it. 4. It’s not just Disney/Marvel. I think that’s the main thing everyone forgets that he just used Marvel films as the example because of how popular they were. His views on cinema honestly apply to most big film companies (Disney, Warner Bros, Sony Pictures, MGM, etc). And you’re further demonstrating what I was trying to get at in the video (granted not very well I will admit). It’s this idea that there’s this superiority when it comes to liking Scorsese’s films or other films like his. Are films like Disney/Marvel/whatever the hell deep thought provoking stuff? No. But it’s how people treat them and people who like them is what I was getting at. This idea that anyone who DOES like those kinds of films are lesser then the ones who likes films by Scorsese or whoever (that may not be entirely the case, but that’s certainly how I perceive it). 5. That’s not what I’m saying. You are so hung up on me being a Marvel and/or Disney fan that I gave you examples of films that weren’t by them that I also enjoyed, as I found your arguments incredibly biased and needlessly belligerent. Different people have different tastes, and that’s fine. It’s the treatment of others based on those different tastes that I have a problem with. This is also still under the assumption that I didn’t like the movie (I will remind you again, I liked it just fine. I just called it “overhyped”. It wasn’t me saying that it was bad, it was me saying that I personally didn’t like it AS MUCH as others and felt people were over exaggerating about it).

Yeah that was the goal to (hopefully) filter out unboxing videos (especially since I only have so many Blu-rays and/or DVDs I can cover) so I can make longer form videos like this.

@@JonasMeichel Please do! This was a treat to watch, and I didn't want it to end.

Yeah the Blu Ray boxset commentary tracks on these are kind of interesting. Some are amazingly detailed. Some, such as Weaver as ya noted on The Wolf Man and the original Creature from the Black Lagoon as I remember eating my dinner and watching 'em with commentary earlier this year, sounded either like he was reading from a script. Or like he needed to be somewhere very imported less then ten minutes after the commentary track was recorded. He has an odd sound, I get what you mean. Nothing against him but I just wished many classic genre journalist writers took a note from Tim Lucas' commentary on the Mario Bava's Bay of Blood Blu-Ray. 🤔

I unfortunately had to learn that the hard way. I’m not sure if you could tell by the video itself, but that was already starting to happen (mainly to Disc 3 I noticed).

Sounds a lot like my story, as I'm only a year older. 😉

Well, there might not have depicted blood and gore in these old horror flicks, however they DID feature DISFIGURMENT (like Frankenstien's misshapen brow and head for example), and THAT was something pretty freaky and gruesome to audiences back THEN. Probably was THEIR equivalent to gore in fact.

I didn’t even know those versions existed to be honest. I also tried to not just list every interpretation of those characters (Dracula and Frankenstein’s Monster especially), as that would’ve made the video even more obscenely long than it already is.

Yeah, if the originals have fallen into obscurity, the likes of Naschy (Spanish Lon Chaney) & Co. are definitely not gonna be on anyone's radar unless they're hardcore genre enthusiasts.

@@trevthomscultclassiccorner2037 Yeaa, I didn't mean focus a lot of time on them. Just maybe give them a little brief passing mention during the LAST segment (at 2:26:09).

I more meant “dated” in some of their depictions of certain things and the certain kinds of humour in these films. As some of that would probably not fly today. I didn’t really mean “dated” as in “look how old these films look/sound” and meaning that in a negative way.

Sadly you underestimate the masses' capacity for being as shallow & current as possible.

I agree. I hate that word "dated".

WHAT, for example, WOULD be "scary" by "today's standards"?

I got it from Criterion’s official website, but it might also be on Amazon

I watch them on Turner Classic Movies, uncut and with no commercials. They show this genre of film fairly often, especially at Halloween.

@@ferociousgumby Agreed with you, Ferocious Gumby. Honestly if the original poster sounds a bit depressed, alas there is no reason to be. Both the standard def DVD format, as well as glorious Blu-Ray, have a lot of notable box sets that are now much cheaper due to physical media oddly disappearing. A lot of this stuff on Amazon isn't like buying a new car or anything price range wise. And I'm sure most people space range wise can stand to horde sixty titles or so somewhere in their master bedroom or their living room home theater setup. 👍

@@Jimvanhise I didn’t know that!

This depresses me, as I not only enjoy the newer icons, but recognize the importance of the OGs. It's really sad how people will only pick & acknowledge one thing, without realizing how important the two things are to each other.

That sounds like a great childhood memory to me! 👍

I hate that kind of musical background noise. Even with a good sound mix, it almost always makes narration harder to absorb. Seems some people are so used to constant over-stimulation, that they can't bear to just be still and listen.

To each his own, but I pretty much had the opposite reaction. Just narration - narration of this quality - is more than enough to hold my attention for 3 1/2 hours. If things are overscored, I feel like I'm being told what my reaction should be. Music, used sparingly, is much more effective (see Bride of Fra nkenstein, which runs the gamut from stark to melancholy to wildly romantic). I saw echoes of this romanticism in the brilliant tribute/parody, Young Fra nkenstein. The references pertain to at least the first three in the series. Mel Brooks must have really loved these classics to give us such a memorable, loving, even respectful tribute. And need I say, it featured the thoroughly charming Terri Garr, who passed very recently. I would LOVE to see a video on this subject! Who's with me on this?💗

@@Jean-rg4sp What? Other than Bela Lugosi, the Spanish version is widely recognized to be the superior Dracula even among English speaking critics. The only thing the English version gets praised for is Lugosi's tour de force performance

@@MistahJigglah Nothing I wrote contradicts your comment. Most people watching this English language video would be familiar with the superior Spanish version of _Dracula._ Here in Spain, of course, it is a different story.

@@Jean-rg4sp Yes, it most certainly contradicts every major point in your original post which is about the English speaking perception of the Spanish language film. If you meant that the other way around like in your response, that's not what you said in the op.

@@Jean-rg4sp Also, it's a shame most Spaniards miss out on Lugosi's genius

@@MistahJigglah I believe my original comment was clear enough.

Yes, although the Creature didn't have any lines he wasn't the stereotype "Grrr" and walking around stiffly you see in Frankenstein impressions. If go back and watch it Karloff has subtle expressions on his face.

Except that the real Frankenstein monster spoke english clearly and fluently, and was much more of a vengeful monster.

@@ClutchCargo001 I remember hearing about that in one of the Documentaries I watched in preparation for this video. I might have to check it out!

@@MistahJigglah The intent was not to anger with that title, as it is a genuine sentiment that I believe. I later start defending my position starting at around 3:26:07 (give or take). If I wanted a clickbait title just to garner clicks, it would probably work better if I painted these films in a more negative light, rather than a positive one.

@JonasMeichel Is your next video going to be about how you honestly believe American airports aren't that busy the day before Thanksgiving or that you don't think there's been enough written about Napoleon Bonaparte?

No, as those aren’t subjects that I’m interested in, let alone ones that I’d cover on this channel. I guess I wasn’t clear enough at the end of the video, but luckily there have been others that have pointed this out in this very comment section. They’ve started to lose popularity in recent years (last 10-15 give or take), especially the films themselves. That’s what I was trying to get at, the fact that the films themselves weren’t nearly as recognized as the things they helped popularize. That they were taken for granted at this point. There’s a reason I titled it, “underappreciated” and not “underrated”. It’s because the films themselves aren’t as widely recognized as the things they helped popularize despite the fact that without those films, we wouldn’t have those other things (or at least not the way we have them now). They’re not “underrated”, far from it, but people don’t think about what they did for horror, cinema, pop culture, etc. That was what the penultimate part of the video was about, I guess I could’ve made that more clear.

@@MistahJigglah Thank you for saying the truth

@@MistahJigglah Thank you for saying the truth

You're largely right, but I know for a fact there are plenty of Millennials and Generation Alphas who've had limited exposure to these. We grew up with these films, they not so much. The market is infinitely more crowded now.

He makes very valid points about their relevance though. Sure, they have various things referencing them, but most people have forgotten these originals unless they're enthusiasts. Just think how hard Universal is trying to reinvent them & not really succeeding in a big way. There's very much a prevalent attitude that they're "passe", which you just demonstrated, & we shouldn't assume they'll be remembered forever. They're almost like campfire stories where people are only familiar with the echoes now.