I think the rub most people have with Chaney in Son of Dracula is that he isn't exactly Hungarian--or maybe to put it another way--he's not Bela Lugosi. Of course--if you take the title of the movie literally--and I do, he's not supposed to be Lugosi, he's a descendant.
Also, I don't believe Chaney had a Welsh accent for the Wolf Man, either. I guess I'm saying that I think Chaney is just fine in the role & he seems to be a good precursor to the more animalistic portrayal of the Count, that Christopher Lee would bring to life when he essayed the role for Hammer.
Just count me as one of the fans who like Son of Dracula...
I’ll put it to you this way. SON OF DRACULA is a very good movie as it is. In my opinion, THE LODGER and THE BODY SNATCHER are the two best horror movies of the 40’s. If Lugosi played Lon’s role, SON OF DRACULA would be.
I just don’t think Chaney was an ideal Dracula the same way I think Lugosi was not an ideal Frankenstein monster. It boggles my mind Universal had Lugosi for a seven film contract and misused him mostly in red herring butler roles and the wrong monster. He absolutely could have done SON OF DRACULA and proved it by being awesome in RETURN OF THE VAMPIRE.
Chaney is just OK. Passable, not enough to destroy a good film. I find the romantic couple more interesting than him.
As far as Chaney being a precursor to Lee - perhaps. The physicality for sure, but Lee had a more cultured presence than Chaney that I think suits Dracula better. That’s no knock on Chaney, there’s plenty of roles he excels in, just not an ideal Dracula in my eyes.