Video

I agree 100% it works better as a Wolf Man film and from memory think the first half is decent. When you say Bela Lugosi’s dialogue do you mean the specific lines or generally them being cut and what impact it had?

@@kangarooMonkee I mean both. While I'm a bit mixed on Ghost's decision to swap the Monster's brain with Igor's, it certainly leaves us with interesting possibilities in Story telling. And I felt that Igor himself outshined the monster in both Son and Ghost, and they couldn't replicate Karloff's performance in future installments. So really, meets the Wolfman could've been a half decent Frankenstein installment.

@@BubbaUltra I don’t know what his lines were (or if they were released, if they were and you know a site, article, video, etc, where I can fine them please tell because that would be pretty cool) so I can’t really comment on them. As for their impact, I don’t think Igor ever stood a chance. Even if he had his original dialogue he’d still be the same character as Ghost and I’d probbaly have the same problems with him. I don’t like Igor and the monster switching brains, but I agree it opens up more opportunities and wouldn’t call it a conceptually bad idea. If Igor went back to his roots and relied more on manipulation and strategy up until the final showdown he could’ve made for a really good villain. I also really wish they didn’t reverse the monster being blind because (aside from looking ridiculous) it adds a really interesting dynamic to the fight where the monsters body is powerful enough to easily kill the Wolfman but he has a clear weakness that makes it a lot harder.

@@kangarooMonkee the only way to read the original shooting script is to buy it online, though someone called "Scribbles to Screen" did a recreation of what it would've looked like.

@@BubbaUltra alright, seen the video and… wow. It wouldn’t have fixed all my issues but it’s definitely a serious upgrade, and shame it had to be changed. Thanks for telling me about it.

My problem with them cheering isn’t because I think they were cheering them on for their heroics or bravery, my problem is that they’re being cheered for at all. I like your reading of them because that makes more sense in the narrative to me, but I can’t see it that way because there’s nothing within the scene that implies it. If Wolfe talked closer to how he did when first meeting them where he was trying his best to smile, and maybe we to see the villagers faces it could’ve been really cool, but we didn’t. About the monster, I’m almost positive they had to have known about it, because if it didn’t kill the people then who did? Igor couldn’t have done it because he has an alibi? And why did Wolfe kill Igor? Self defense? Why did Igor go after Wolfe? Like I said in the video, I’m sure you can come to your own conclusions, but I think the film relies too heavily on the audience to fill in gaps for itself.

@@kangarooMonkee now that I think about it, it was pretty much all but confirmed to the citizens that the Monster was killing these people. And I do agree with a lot of your other points

Strongly disagree but I get it, and thanks.

I don’t actually hate the college reason as that felt like the straw that broke the camels back. He was already struggling with how it impacted him and by extension May, but then when his friends who were completely unrelated to his problems started getting hurt, that was it. Yeah, it could’ve been better, but honestly that’s one of the lesser issues around Dr Strange in the movie. Yes I’ve seen ATSV. And yes I do know about Iron Boy Jr, and I do not care for that criticism, but tbf it’s been a while since I heard someone out about them so I’m open to having my perspective changed, although even if it was it probably wouldn’t impact how I view/judge the film as I’d still like it as a film.

@@kangarooMonkeebut they do have a point especially making Spider-Man be connected to Tony Stark was pretty lazy because why just Mysterio just be a con artist or just some guy who worked in a film industry because the only villains that should connected to Ironman is Norman Osborn, Kingpin and Roderick Kingsley as they’re both businessmen and Doc Ock and the Lizard as they are both scientists like in Spectacular Spider-Man series that Otto used to work at a different company before Oscorp. About across the spider Verse you got the “Spider-Man why did you create that guy” scene which it’s funny how it always Spider-Man getting blamed for everything especially if it’s out of his hands especially for the Spot and Venom in the original comics because of a miscalculation on a report about the Sin Eater and what is this canon thing that Miguel talks about how is it supposed to work? Especially that you mention about the Liz part where it reminds me of the first Andrew Garfield Spider-Man movie where he stole a man’s identity to sneak into Oscorp and not happened after that because you think that guy would be the next villain and I’m under the impression that Peter doesn’t know the Oscorp as the sequel feels very forced.

@@srstriker6420 I don’t see the villains being connected to Ironman as a problem because they’re still Peter’s villains. Vulture targets Tony but he specifically doesn’t want to be his enemy because he’s avoiding attention, and in FFH Tony’s dead. Most Spider-Man villains origins weren’t tied to Peter, they were just doing their own thing, started doing crime, Peter stops them, and they swore revenge.

@@kangarooMonkeebut I guess you haven’t heard of the misconception of Norman Osborn on Tumbler then?

@@srstriker6420 no?

:D

There’s actually quite a few places, I’m guessing you looked up the story or the directors filmography, but if not either of them. Failing that, Peter Cushing had a very small role in this, so if you watch Dark Corners Reviews they mentioned it.

:D

Oh yeah the makeups great, my only issue is the eyes but that might be down to the performance. I obviously disagree but totally get why you’d feel that way about the other movies. With Meets, do you think it’s bad or good but not as good as Ghost?

As helpful as that is, would you like to push back on anything I said in particular?

You are too much of a fanboy to face reality

Think I’m gonna step back from Universal Monsters for a bit, if I get too comfortable in something I’ll have a hard time leaving. But not a bad idea, and sinking my teeth into a research focussed video could be fun format to screw around with.

Funnily enough, after rewatching Ghost for part 2 I completely agree that the title is incorrect, but not because the old movies aren’t great enough.

I’m not sure I understand what point you’re trying to make. My problem isn’t that he didn’t repent, it’s that we didn’t see it. I didn’t feel satisfied by the ending because the film spent so long on the tension between the villagers and Frankenstein family, slowly escalating things until the villagers wanted to storm the castle, only to end in a 40 second scene where Frankenstein gives them his stuff and says goodbye forever.

I would always want a longer version. Unfortunately they choose to cut a scene or not film it. Son was the longest Frankenstein movie ever at the time. I certainly would have enjoyed watching Wolf plead his case with the villagers. Remember. I didn’t cut the scene and neither did you. I wish they had kept scissored scenes. No market for them at that time.

@@richardthomas754 I don’t think the scene was cut, according to IMDB the film was being filmed as it was written, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they realised they were running out of money and needed to just get it over with. But either way, I agree 100% an extended cut would be awesome.

In hindsight I do think I was too harsh on the monster because I brushed over his relationship with Frankensteins kid, which continues his want for companionship from the previous films, although I stand by that this was a more watered down version as it wasn’t given as much focus as it deserved, and that death scene really did leave a bad taste in my mouth. But at the end of the day I still love the movie, and it really feels like everyone involved put their heart and soul into it. Anyway, thanks for watching.

@@kangarooMonkee Actually, that affinity for children was one of the few things that Lon Chaney emphasized in Ghost of Frankenstein, and that was because his own affinity for children was even greater than Karloff's. But we'll go into that further when you get to commenting on Ghost.

Thanks. It needed to be as short as possible so that if I linked it people would actually watch it. Also, only just saw your other comment, yes I do watch Eyezayer.

@@kangarooMonkee I think catering to the niche audience of people who enjoy longer vidoes and video essays is a better route than general, dopamine craving, low attention span kids but maybe you want to do that later once you work up an audience? Eyezayar funnily enough is sorta proof of that, people watch his 35 minute videos about one mission in rdr2 all the way through. I feel like short bite size content is almost too saturated of a market at this point, but maybe you know something I don’t

@@sockpocketpre-alpha8258 oh no you misunderstood my point, or at least I didn’t explain very well. Part of the reason I made this was so that if I ever get into a dumb twitter argument or something, instead of typing multiple paragraphs I can just link this, and not many people are gonna watch a 10 minute video for an argument. As I said in my pinned comment, this isn’t what I plan to make usually, it’s just a quick video to fill time in between my last and next video. My next video will be longer, although even that probably won’t crack the 10 minute mark. There’s several factors to how long a video is, and none of them involve an an intentional choice to keep them short.

Dang, surprised you remember that, it was over a year ago. But yeah. This isn’t my first video, it’s just the first of this kind. I’m still interested in media analysis but in the past year my interests shifted and I noticed a fair few mistakes in my previous video, so I decided to start again. I won’t blame you for unsubscribing since this isn’t what you subscribed for in the first place.

@@kangarooMonkee what did you post before?

@@sockpocketpre-alpha8258 a video on why the Wonder Woman courthouse scene sucks. Which I still stand by for the most part.

@@kangarooMonkee​oh yeah it was good dawg. You can’t be so ocd about your past content to where you delete it, especially when it’s in the same genre as your new stuff. Just keep it up and evolve your stuff in a new direction. There’s nothing wrong with doing that and having a decent collection of videos is a good way to get viewers engaged .

@@sockpocketpre-alpha8258 you’re right, but at the same time judging movies by how logically consistent they are isn’t very respected, so I wouldn’t want people to dismiss my whole channel because they think I do nothing but “nitpick”.