Two good movies totally different from each other. Followed by silent movie (the peak) I liked his version of to have or have not.
I like the look of Young Frankenstein. The black and white is very effective. The camera work. It is more visually appealing to me. The jokes are funnier in Blazing Saddles.
These comparison threads always go a little off the rails for me when someone suggests that not only do they themselves prefer one thing over the other, but they go so far as to say that one is just indeed generally more popular today and also still more viewed. I think your experience is anecdotal, as is mine; the only person I've ever heard bring up Blazing Saddles in decades is my own dad. Young Frankenstein, while still having some adult moments, is rated PG, while Blazing Saddles is rated R, and the latter is as we all know, ripe with fart jokes, cleavage jokes, the "n" word, etc. I think the films may be for slightly different tastes, so it would not surprise me if one person and their acquaintances prefer one and rarely if ever mention the other, and vice versa. Mel Brooks himself made an interesting delineation in this regard when he said:
Yep. So is Gene Hackman who plays the blind man in the spot with the soup. That scene still makes me laugh so hard I stop breathing....
This a "Beatles vs. Stones" question (or Mercedes vs. BMW), and to me, there's no crime in liking both without preferring one over the other.
Basically everyone has seen at least one western, so the humor is very accessible in Blazing Saddles. How many people from the younger generations have seen the Universal Frankenstein movies? Mostly just the film buffs.
As I said before, they are both great films, and while I'd give a slight edge to Blazing, Young F is great as well. One of the reasons I mentioned his first film, the Producers, (which is my favorite Mel Brooks film, tho blazing and yf are certainly great) is that The Producers is a brilliant film, insanely wild plot, comic perfection in the leads (has there ever been anyone funnier then Zero Mostel?) .... and unlike all his films from Blazing Saddles on, its not a 'let's make fun of x genre' kind of thing. Blazing made fun of westerns, YF the old Universal monster movies, silent movie-silent movies, high anx. -hitchcock, spaceballs- star wars, etc etc. When its done well (as in blazing and yf) its great, but there's something special about a film that's brilliant on its own without relating to 'x' genre-- one Mel Brooks film (which I havent seen in 20 years) no one mentions is 'the twelve chairs'--- i only found out recently its a story that was told in film at least one or two times before- i don't think its top flight Mel, but it is worth checking out, i think. Frank Langella gives a great performance. (and i think dom delouise in in there as well?) one other thing I should mention, I think as Mel Brooks got older, the films became more 'let's telegraph the broad joke here, do the joke, and then do it again'... and for me it became a little much, (especially in later films like spaceballs, dracula dead and loving it, etc)
I agree most people today have not watched the original Universal films - including me. But the classic Frankenstein elements have been referenced and spoofed so many times in media for so long now. By the time I saw Young Frankenstein as a kid, I felt thoroughly soaked in all the well-known trappings of the original, without even seeing it. From 80's films like Weird Science to things like this, more recently:
Blazing Saddles is funnier, but YF is a better film. It stands the test of time as one of the best American films of its era.
YF is a better film overall, but BS gets extra points for taking the time to point out how stupid racism is.