วีดีโอ

Say what you wanna say, but you can't look me in the eye and say 3H was complete when it has so much reused content and a blatantly unfinished route in Edelgard's, and has weaker map design than a great deal of the series. You also gotta consider that 3H was delayed twice, so I wouldn't be surprised if there was a mad dash to get things finished by the release date. There's even some stuff that was in the game's code that was added later, like the sauna and maddening mode, but obviously not everything planned could've been implemented.

I think I tolerate the Linderman stuff in Season 1, but as time went on I could really care less about how it was always him or the Petrellis. And I kind of agree with Sylar. I like Zachary Quinto, but Sylar was more effective as a villain who you never really saw, but felt.

@ I liked how everything always led back to Linderman but I just expected more to come of it. Like he’s connected, and when he finally appears he doesn’t really feel like one of the big bads of the show as he should. I definitely enjoyed Sylar more when he was lurking in the shadows. Quinto is a great actor but sylar is such an obvious weirdo that I don’t see how any of the characters were fooled by his act for a second. Quinto was really good at showing how off Sylar was! I’m on season 2 and was fairly disappointed to see Sylar reappear when his story should’ve ended in season 1 (as well as Niki/Jessica). I really enjoyed your video, it was great. Will be checking out more from you!

The two main illustrations I used were these illustrations done by Bernie Wrightson, who illustrated select scenes from the novel, and Junji Ito's manga interpretation of the story. That one I highly recommend, it's really solid.

I might talk and this more if/when I talk about each adaptation, but if I were to rephrase something in this script, I'd have said something like "the adaptations are the perfect supplement to the VN", because I think a lot of the more prominent issues like the inner monologues are solved once you read the VN and see "between the lines" so to speak. Zero is...interesting, which I'll definitely wanna get to in time lol and I definitely also prefer Riegel's Shirou. Rin being best girl on the other hand...I disagree because of Saber, but to be honest Rin is like my third favorite character so I understand her popularity. She's basically the second protagonist in every route.

See, I understand where you're coming from, but I personally find that between Dracula, Frankenstein, and the Wolf Man, the Mummy is by far the least scary. They all have a similar atmosphere, but there's more peaks in almost all of the Mummy's peers in my opinion. As for the other films, it was mostly because I initially wanted to cover just Imhotep. I think as I scripted it, I only had time to cover a handful of films, and the more I thought of it, the more I realized I couldn't really say much about the other Mummy films. And that's not to say they're bad! I actually like most of the Hammer films. But they were just really...simple and to the point, if that makes sense. The very first draft had a bit where I talked about it more (mostly the first Hammer film), but it was one of the first parts that ended on the cutting room floor.

@@ViviVariety Well maybe The Wolf Man and Frankenstein had more onscreen kills if that's what you're referring to, but Dracula was mostly the same as Imhotep in that most of his kills were offscreen and not shown to us, so I don't see how the 1932 Mummy was all that less scary, when it is essentially a Remake of the 1931 Dracula. I hope you can look at the Kharis films which include the Hammer one since I really like that one as well. Also, I can understand your other critiques about the 1932 version such as the lame romance between Helen and Frank, if that is his name since he is so forgettable I can't remember his name lol, but I feel like Helen's overall character is still interesting for a Female lead in a horror film for the time and the overall storyline of Imhotep, combined with Boris Karloff's performance is engaging enough for me to still enjoy it despite said flaws.

So you actually hit the nail on something I might touch on with Dracula in the future, because to be honest, Dracula ISN'T that scary, and if the Mummy is similar, they're similar overall. But what always tips it over the edge for me is Renfield. The circumstances behind how he's affected always give me a visercal reaction in the pit of my stomach, so to me, because you see someone whose more directly affected by Dracula, it comes off as more scary compared to Mummy. It's not a whole lot, but it's just enough to tip the scales for me. I also quite like Helen a lot as well, and if I were to redo the script, I'd definitely highlight her a little more. After watching a few more older horror movies, she really stands out as a really interesting female lead, and I'd LOVE to have seen her be the actual main character as opposed to Frank lol. I have toyed with the idea of doing something like going through each movie and ranking them, so I'll definitely consider going over ALL the Mummy films in the future. While I sounded critical of the 1932 film, I do still quite like it. In a way I think it was just a little ahead of its time, if that makes sense, and later Mummy films kind of did their own thing as opposed to refine what's in the original.

@@ViviVariety I agree with you on many points and I just like talking with someone who even has interests in these classic horror movies since most people would ignore them to talk about the current thing instead.

Wait really?!? That's crazy, I never noticed either! Maybe I'll try to look out for the elusive middle brother to see for myself, but that's honestly insane. It makes you think about the kind of story that could be told about the lone Frankenstein who lived through all that.

@ yes!! It gives me a bit of hope thinking that in the world, at least one Frankestein (maybe) survived and lived a peaceful life. I like to imagine it that way at least. His names was Ernest ! Great video btw!!

What always got me was why couldn't Kring recover afterwards. Most of the writing staff was the same, but Seasons 3 and 4 just couldn't reach that Season 1 bar. The one theory I did come across but ultimately left out because there wasn't a lot of hard info was Bryan Fuller's involvement. Fuller was involved in Season 1, left, and came back for Season 3b, and it sure is a coincidence that those are the best seasons of the show. But again, I didn't have any hard info as opposed to the actual behind the scenes where Kring talks about Season 2.

Lol I was gonna write a rebuttal, but I kind of don't disagree? I really don't feel like going back to DeS nowadays, but I basically cycle between DS3 (I like the bosses), BB, and Sekiro

I'm not sure if your talking to other commenters or me, but I think most people should give the book a chance. It's also like dirt cheap to get nowadays.

OOF I just looked it up and uh...yeah. It's a design alright. I guess a strong script can still save the film, but that design is not it man.

Agreed, I also have a soft spot for the Hammer ones. They're a little generic, but I dunno, they kind of work for me lol

Right?! That was always one of my biggest gripes with Season 4 Peter. I didn't even mind his nerf because it led to more creative storytelling, but when Season 4 rolled around, it felt like the natural progression for his character was to get his full power back. It made sense because it's as you described, it would have been a representation of his character arc, and made a lot of the show come full circle. And yet, here we are lol.

@@ViviVariety I agree, i did enjoy how they played around with a powerless Peter, they didn't do too much, but what was there was at least....something. but i hated that he took the formula to get his powers back. villians was such a mess on every level, and that decision really cemented it as the worst volume for me. i always feel like i'm in the minority when i defend season 4 so it was so nice to see you sing its praises! everything they do with Peter, Hiro, Sylar, and even Matt (who i really never liked honestly) was so wacky and insane but it worked, for me at least. Peter's journey in particular i loved, but i'm 100% biased as he's always been my favorite character--hence the desire to see him get back his full abilities lmao. i suppose it's possible they would've tried to bring his original empathic mimicry back in a future season if it weren't canceled. I would say "we'll never know" but after watching this video, i googled the show and it turns out they're trying another reboot? no news in six months but supposedly Tim Kring is trying his hand at this again. we'll just have to wait and see how that goes. great video! thanks for the dose of nostalgia <3

My goal is to cover Dracula next year! I've been putting it off because it's such a big topic, plus delay ended up being a blessing in disguise since the upcoming Nosferatu remake should be a good addition to the discussion.

@ Oh my god that’s so great to hear! You know what? With the kind of content you pulled off, you can really take all the time you need. Anyway kudos to you sir, and may your channel grow as massive as your dedication. Good luck! 👍

That's the real reason Victor destroyed his second creation. Humanity couldn't handle two bad bitches at once.

Mary Shelley in general is just a really interesting and talented person. I'm also always surprised when I remember how young she was when she wrote the story, like can you imagine a teenager casually writing a masterpiece nowdays? That's crazy.

I'm actually really curious about the changes. I own the 1818 version, so I've always been interested in how they differ, so next time I reread Frankenstein, I'll probably do like a side by side read or something.

I think another commentator pointed that out too about how it's actually vague what the Creature is made from and whether or not it's "assembled" or more likely, "constructed" . I think a lot of the body part interpretation comes from the 1931 film, and for most other interpretations, a reconstruction of different body parts tends to make the most logical sense. Do you think a combination of human and animal body parts could make sense? Or like, synthetic flesh and organs? I also admit to having trouble imagining how Victor would have created his being beyond the reconstruction and assembly interpretation.

@@ViviVariety Quite honestly, given that it was written by a nineteen-year-old in 1818, I think she stayed away from it on purpose. For instance, when we read comic books and see Superman flying, we just accept it. But every time someone tries to "explain" how Superman flies, it violates the laws of physics. Better left a mystery! I believe there is a quick blurb in Shelley where she says something like "gathering parts from charnel houses and graves," or something like that. From that I take it that in some way, the creature was created from existing organic materials; but the "what" and the "how" remain a mystery. When Robert Louis Stevenson wrote "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde," he penned it as a murder mystery. Only at the very end do we discover that Jekyll and Hyde are the same person. But film versions, being a visual medium, need string visuals to make the film compelling. Thus, even as far back as 1931, the "transformation scene" has been the highlight of every Jekyll and Hyde film. Likewise, with Frankenstein, the films make much use of the scenes of him digging up bodies, stitching parts together, etc. It's good visual storytelling, and often exciting. But it was not paramount to Shelley, who almost ignores the process entirely so that she can focus on the themes and characters. Another advantage that Hollywood had: the creature is never eight feet tall, so they never had to explain where the eight-foot tall corpses came from. Even the Hallmark version, that wisely avoided the green-skinned, flat-topped, bolted neck character, only had the creature being around 6'2".

I can definitely see that, I tended to look at their relationship a little more positively because they seemed at least amicable in the early scenes, but I can see how that relationship can be worse than it actually seems. I think the time period plays a role as well. I also think the remake shaped my perception of the relationship as well, because in the remake, the relationship between the Talbots is framed much worse compared to the original. Obviously there's a lot more issues with the remake, but I tended to interpret the 1941 Sir John as "not good, but could be a lot worse", whereas 2010 removes any subtext at all.

It's from the TV series Penny Dreadful, which adapted parts of Frankenstein in Seasons 1 and 2.

@ thank you ❤️

Have you by chance read Mahoyo yet? I was actually gonna use...well, a character...as an example somewhere, but I cut it because it veered on spoiler-y. But otherwise I agree, I was surprised to find out that Nasu hasn't used werewolves too much, especially since it very much seems to be in his wheelhouse. But that aside, what did help that I couldn't quite express in the video is I actually have a bit more appreciation for werewolves overall. Their history in folklore is fascinating, and movies like Ginger Snaps really take the concept and run with it. And of the upcoming remakes/reboots, the Wolf Man is definitely the one I'm most interested in.

@@ViviVariety I am reading Mahoyo. I just haven't reached the meat of the story yet, and I'm balancing that and the Tsukihime Remake on my Switch (Which as a person who started the Nasu rabbit hole with the OG am *REALLY* enjoying). Also I forgot to ask this in my comment, but do you have any Werewolf films or shows that you'd recommend (It's obvious you made it *very* clear to stay away from a certain movie here)? The last werewolf flick that I ever watched was Nickelodeon's "The Boy Who Cried Werewolf" with Victoria Justice. It's been *years* since I've watched that, but I remember really liking it for what it was. So yeah, as you can see my tastes in media aren't very "refined" here. But still, anything helps!

Ah gotcha, well in that case you might get something interesting with Mahoyo once the story picks up! As far as other shows/films, I think the ones that stood out to me were... -Ginger Snaps, a movie about a teenage girl who gets bitten, -Dog Soldiers, a British film about a soldiers who run into a werewolf, -and Brotherhood of the Wolf. This one is interesting in that it's not really about a werewolf, but it's a fictional retelling of the story that inspired a lot of werewolf stories. So technically it's "werewolf adjacent". Still, highly recommend if you're interested in a sort of period piece...and I'm also 90% the costume design influenced Bloodborne. I will say the hard part with a lot of werewolf movies is that it's hard to find some that play it straight. For example, Ginger Snaps, Dog Soldiers, and an American Werewolf in London (another classic werewolf film) are a little cheesy, which is totally fine, but serious werewolf films or shows are tougher to find. When I get around to it, I hope to look around for any "serious" werewolf books as well, because there's gotta be something out there. Just gotta keep looking lol.

@@ViviVariety Thank you. I'll keep this in mind. Also, you've said nothing about who the werewolf in Mahoyo might be, but I think I *might* have an idea who... And let's leave it at that.

This is how the book always came across to me as well. It might not feel as scifi as later stories but the heart of the novel is VERY scifi. If you swap the Creature out for an android or cyborg (kind of like Ex Machina), the story remains mostly the same.

Physically I like your suggestions (maybe more like back in their prime lol), but my main concern would be their acting ability. Both Arnie and Stallone can bring it when the time calls for it, so I suppose we'd need a director who can really draw out the emotion from them for a great Creature portrayal.

@ViviVariety yeah, i was talking about them in their prime, maybe in the 90s. Do you think Henry Cavill could work?

I'd have personally preferred if he were a little more grotesque, but I understand that budget was likely a huge limiting factor. But the interpretation nailed the spirit of the character, and for that I couldn't me more happy.

This is kuudere erasure and I will not stand for it.

Yeah I agree 1000%, the Creature’s appearance is something I thought about covering more, but at the time I wanted to focus on other aspects. Still, hindsight is always 20/20 lol. But yeah I'm in the same boat. It's wild how the 1931 Frankenstein is so visually iconic when it's almost entirely made-up, and I think you lose something by making the Creature more...digestible, for lack of a better term. I always felt that the Creature needs to be horrifying AND sympathetic, as the contrast between the two elements is more interesting and creates a more interesting conflict with readers/viewers. Sadly I'm not sure if we'd ever get a "new" interpretation Creature because the 1931 film is so iconic, big I guess we'll see next year.

It's REALLY good, like I've always liked a lot of Ito's work, but I can tell he had immense respect for the original story in his adaptation. His creature design is also one of my favorites.

I feel like that OST makes it into like every video I make lol.

I can understand that, while I love the novel, there's a certain style and tone that definitely isn't for everyone. The verbosity to me stands out as a "love it or hate it" sort of thing.

I'm fairly certain I mention Dracula came first, although I didn't really talk about Dracula here. Plus Frankenstein did come out in 1931, but Dracula predates it by a few months, since Frankenstein came out in November that year and Dracula was...January or February I think.

Lol I can understand that, especially since the 1931 film feels so different. I imagine if I read the books before watching the film, I'd probably feel similarly.

Nice! What'd you think?

@@ViviVariety I think it's very dated, but still pretty entertaining.

Sounds about right, I felt the same. That said, I do think my stance on the 1931 film has changed for the better after watching more Classic horror films. Don't get me wrong, I thought and still think the 1931 film is great, but after checking out a lot of older films from that era, Frankenstein stands out even more. I think Dracula is a litttllle better, but both Dracula and Frankenstein are stronger than most later films imo.

Or even a regular guy lol Victor's story really is like given a dozen opportunities to do something different and constantly making the wrong choices.

It absolutely does, and it especially stands out when you watch other classic horror movies. For me, this Frankenstein and Dracula stand head and shoulders over the others.

@@ViviVariety Totally with you on that - include the Wolf-Man, The Mummy, The Invisible Man. The Creature, Phantom of the Opera, and Dr Jekyl and Mr Hyde. I know what I'm doing for Halloween!!!

That reminds me, I gotta rewatch Young Frankenstein lol

So the illustrations I used were two kinds; some were from Bernie Wrightson's Frankenstein illustrations, and the rest were from Junji Ito's adaptation of the story.

What did the teachers think?

@@Crabtrademark it was my mom so probably nepotism but I got a good grade

Lol I wish my middle school was as cool, I think the most interesting story we read was Beowulf. Which I did enjoy, but I definitely would have liked Frankenstein too.

@@ViviVariety lol yeah

I mention that about a third of the way through, but basically: FE7, FE8, FE9/Path of Radiance , Shadow Dragon, and Awakening. And if you want a better story, go Shadows of Valentia or FE4.

@@ViviVariety yeah i wasnt sure if i was gonna have time to watch the whole thing but i did get to that part thanks for replying! Great video!