Talk:Universal Monsters

What constitutes films in this franchise?

First, I would like to say it's so awesome seeing that this page has been overhauled and expanded. Like many others, I just didn't have the time and energy to make the edits I wanted (including sourcing everything), so coming back two years later to all of these changes is so refreshing. Kudos to whomever was able to finally overcome that particular hill.

Anyway, I wanted to open up the discussion on what should be included in the Films section. In my mind, Universal Monsters has always referred to the original monsters from the 1920s-1950s. But what I think is besides the point. Films like Darkman, The Mummy (2017), and Abigail hardly constitute being in the franchise. Are they inspired, based on (i.e. remakes), or include the very monsters of the same name as the originals? Of course. Are they monster films produced by Universal? I don't doubt that. But have they ever been branded with Universal Monsters? I may be wrong, but it doesn't seem like it.

I propose that the films to be included only be ones that Universal has released under the brand (home media lines are probably our best bet)... Otherwise, this article will devolve into "list of monster films produced by Universal," which I don't think is the intention (I mean, let's be honest here, Scorpion King 4?)... Talk of remakes/inspirations/Dark Universe can be expanded in a "Legacy" section instead (see LotR for example) Enter Movie (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Darkman should not be in this article. The Mummy (2017) and Abigail (2024) are both reboot/reimaginings of original Universal Monsters and were called Universal Monster movies by various sources. Resolving this concern that you have -- we can create a Ref(s) column to the Film tables, and include the source that calls the movie a part of the franchise. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Sources referred to Abigail as a Universal Monster film because it began production as a remake of Dracula's Daughter but the final version doesn't even credit any work of Dracula as its basis. If you have an official source from Universal confirming Universal Monsters branding, please add it. The most I can find for now is that they promoted it on their page, but they promote many horror films on their page that aren't related. In addition to your idea for a Ref(s) column, Enter Movie's original question of what constitutes this franchise should be answered.

Werewolf in London and She-Wolf in London are barely featured in Universal Monsters branding compared to The Mole People and This Island Earth, which aren't even on this list. In case someone just added a bunch of films without actually watching them, these werewolf films are unrelated to The Wolf Man despite being grouped with him for home releases.

On top of that, it's worth mentioning that all of Hammer Film Productions' remakes were released through an agreement with Universal and are official remakes with Universal distributing several of them themselves. Some of the films listed here were also not produced by Universal, only distributed, so Hammer's remakes should be linked somewhere like "See also." Leo1452~enwiki (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead:/@Leo1452~enwiki: To be honest, I feel like there should be a distinction between Universal Monsters (the franchise) and monster films produced by Universal Pictures. I've seen articles about The Mummy and Abigail being referenced as "Universal Monster" movies, but those seem to be in the context of them being inspired by or reimaginings of the older films. In fact, you'll probably be hard pressed to find any such branding of "Universal Studios Monsters" in those films' marketing or merchandise (if there are any)... which brings us to this discussion. How are we picking and choosing what gets to be part of this franchise? At one point, Darkman was part of the table... but here are a few sample of articles noting the film should be or is a Universal Monster ([1], [2])... Or how about Lisa Frankenstein ([3])? The writer of that film also notes that it takes place in the same universe as Jennifer's Body, so is the latter film retroactively included in this franchise as well? As you can see, this gets into the territory of cherrypicking and original research. That's why I propose this article list films that have actually been branded as part of the franchise (via home video releases and/or licensing), so that there's a hard delineation of what constitutes films in this franchise. Enter Movie (talk) 04:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I wouldn't want the good, hard work on the coverage of the Dark Universe go to waste. Perhaps it should be spun off in its own article (see Gambit (unproduced film)). Enter Movie (talk) 05:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Is this enough to include Abigail?

The refs only prove the well-known fact that it began development as a remake of Dracula's Daughter, but they ultimately went into a different direction that made it its own thing. These articles don't confirm that the FINAL film is part of Universal Monsters. There must be something more concrete from Universal themselves. They don't even name Dracula or credit any work of Dracula as its basis.

Also, if you believe that you've proven Abigail to be part of Universal Monsters, changes need to be made to its own article. If you go to any article on a Universal Monsters spin-off or remake, it will state "A reboot of the Mummy franchise" or "It is both a prequel and spin-off of The Mummy franchise." Abigail's page should have two statements added. In the intro, it should say, "a remake of Dracula's daughter". In the info box, it should say, "Based on Dracula by Bram Stoker and Dracula's Daughter by Oliver Jeffries, John L. Balderston, Kurt Neumann, R. C. Sherriff, Peter Dunne, and Charles S. Belden". If we haven't proven these statements, then it's not a Universal Monsters film. Leo1452~enwiki (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

It appears the film was originally promoted as a remake of Dracula's Daughter. That said, Manohla Dargis wrote in The New York Times said the "press notes for Abigail name-check a few vampire titles, but Daughter isn't among them, and for good reason because there's little to link these two."(source). That being there doesn't seem to be any standard rule to apply what makes something a "Universal Monsters" film outside of branding on promotional material. Regardless, per the prose in the Abigail article, it appears to have began development as a remake of Dracula's Daughter, then the idea of promoting it this way or narratively pulling material from it seems to have not happened. On that level with the source above, I do not think it should be included, but that being said, I don't know if these remakes at all are part of the brand. This is much easier to apply for saying we should probably talk about the late 20th-century/early 21st century Mummy films in an article about The Mummy franchise from the 30s and 40s a bit, but its hard to say how much WP:WEIGHT we should apply it here as The Mummy franchise is focusing on one character, not a grander "Universal Monsters" scheme. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, unless someone finds a source from Universal themselves officially considering it a remake of Dracula's Daughter, not just something that began that way or was inspired by it, it should be removed from the "Modern era" list for now. As seen here, it was deliberately stripped of its direct connections to Dracula and Universal Monsters. They cite no work of Dracula or Universal Monsters as its basis. The other films you mentioned might be a separate discussion since they do in fact cite the same novels/works as bases or exercise Universal's rights to these monsters. They're not "Universal Classic Monsters," but from a literal standpoint, they are remakes. Leo1452~enwiki (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Additions to the Classic Film List

I think you should Consider adding both "The Mad Ghoul" & "The Climax" to the List

"The Mad Ghoul" Was Officially Recoginsed by Universal as one of there Classic Monster Releases when it Received a VHS Release with the Universal Classic Monsters Branding, Furthermore it was Initially planned for the Mad Ghoul to Make an Appearance in an Early Version of "House of Frankenstein" before script changes, so he's clearly intended as part of the family

Similarly "The Climax" was Created and serves as a spiritual sequel to Phantom of the Opera and was marketed to that same crowd with a similar crew and cast within universals Classic Horror Catalogue 193.17.86.224 (talk) 22:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

There are many more films that have been branded as Universal Monsters but not to the extent of Dr. Jekyll, Quasimodo, Phantom, Dracula, Frankenstein, Imhotep, or the Creature. Sometimes, they just fill home releases, merchandise lines, and attractions with whatever they feel like. However, their current branding seems to be a lot more firm on the above monsters than before. Perhaps there should be a list of films that have been branded as Universal Monsters despite being left out of the (currently) definitive Universal Classic Monsters Blu-ray set. Leo1452~enwiki (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The Hunchback of Notre Dame

The official Universal Monsters site on Facebook states that series began in 1923 with The Hunchback of Notre Dame.

https://www.facebook.com/OfficialUniversalMonsters/about_details 5.173.62.236 (talk) 09:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

That's often the case since Dr. Jekyll's not a "feature film" by today's standards, but that definition was created well after it was made. Despite its short runtime, it was indeed the main "feature" you'd see at theatres. IMP made it exercising Universal's rights to the property, and they would later remake it with Abbott and Costello. Dr. Jekyll may have been left out of the 30 Universal Monsters Classics set, but he's undeniably a Universal Monster. The merchandise, branding, and posts from that very page you cited includes him with the same significance as Quasimodo, Phantom, Dracula, Frankenstein, Imhotep, and the Creature. Leo1452~enwiki (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

BTW some posts from that FB page suggests that list should also include "The Man Who Laughs" and "Tarantula". 5.173.70.251 (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The Man Who Laughs (1928) is a romantic drama, but its article notes that it is often "classified as a horror film" due to its "expressionist gloom" and the "grotesque grin" of the main character. The film's then-innovative "blend of Gothic and expressionist features" in its set design was re-used in several of Universal's subsequent horror films, including Dracula, Frankenstein, The Old Dark House, The Invisible Man, The Black Cat, and Bride of Frankenstein. Dimadick (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

That's for sure but the whole franchise isn't stricte horror-oriented. "Invisible Woman" for example is a comedy, "Invisible Agent" a spy thriller, Abbott and Costello films are horror comedies/parodies, etc. So including a romantic drama (specially one with a "monster" figure in it) seems fine. 2A00:F41:5830:1EE2:0:52:5ECF:7C01 (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

While I have to as that the Universal listing here is probably the best statement received from the company itself on what is or what is not, its still a bit vague. To paraphrase the quote here Universal Monsters or Universal Horror is the name given to a series of distinctive horror, suspense and science fiction films made by Universal Studios from 1923 to 1960. The series began with the 1923 version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame, and continued with such movies as The Phantom of the Opera, Dracula, Frankenstein, The Mummy, The Invisible Man, Bride of Frankenstein, Werewolf of London, Son of Frankenstein, The Wolf Man, and Creature from the Black Lagoon. The iconic gallery of monsters created by Universal has created a lasting impression on generations of avid moviegoers around the world. That being said, there does not appear to be any official listing of what is lumped into the franchise or what is not. Going strictly by this alone, the article would not be reflecting that source. That said, sources currently used in the article also suggest otherwise, such as The Dragon The Classic Universal Monster Franchise Ended in 1956 with The Creature Walks Among Us. This is a university student newspaper, not sure if we take student newspapers as reliable source, but that's a different kettle of fish). While it would be great to solidify this data, I think more in-depth studies of the franchise are required. I'd suggest further research at the moment as Universal is not open with more specific details on what is or is not in a franchise. Regardless, form this, outside the specific films mentioned, no documented list has been pushed and even if one was, others could easily contradict it. Without some definitive answer from Universal, I'm questioning if the list of the films is even appropriate in the article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Other media: board game

Thought I'd point out there is a board game with the Universal Monsters brand, which could be added to the Other Media section. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/403547/unchained 2601:84:8B01:5F47:C1E4:9614:1FE4:FFB4 (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1913)

I would not personally include 1913's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in this list, as it was made by IMP and only distributed by Universal. IMP being one of the predecessors that formed Universal, but still a seperate entity. With strict and pedantic criteria it is not like the films that follow it. 88.193.200.202 (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Then The Mummy (1999) should also be removed. Being a Universal Monsters film doesn't necessarily mean that Universal made it. As long as they execute the rights that Universal legally holds, it's included. That's why I feel that Hammer Horror should be linked under "See also." They reached an agreement to adapt Universal Monsters specifically, not just the original novels. Leo1452~enwiki (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Two points here as these.

• @88.193.200.202: Jekyll and Hyde are a complicated issue. There is material branded with the character and the "Universal Monsters" branding. I can't find much "serious" discussion on it that we can use as a citation, but there is material here: such as this toy. It appears to be related to the 1953 Abbott and Costello "meet" film. here. Again, not sources I would use in an article, but also suggests a connection with some "Universal Presents" with a Jekyll & Hyde, but I don't know if its just a stock character, a character from a specific film, or any Universal package with the film in question.
• @Leo1452~enwiki: This is an issue I brought up earlier in other iterations of the article. The branding of these films is complicated and on trying to find material, I do not think expanding material into different eras such as a "modern era" or anything is appropriate there is no source discussing the films as connected, part of any branding. The article only connects them currently as part of a trend of Hollywood productions making remakes of various horror films from the period.

I'm going to tag that section of films as requiring more sources as material related to what is in the series is more complicated than a more contemporary film franchise. Please ping me if you have any other suggestions and would like a response from me. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

While every major studio is indeed remaking horror classics, there's a certain legitimacy to remakes developed under Universal themselves as they are the originators of the film franchises. Even if the novels on which they are based enter the public domain, they are still exercising the rights to their own films and can freely include whatever iconography or copyright comes from them, similar to what they allowed Hammer to do in the '50s-'70s. They are also the originator of The Mummy franchise, and Hammer, Stephen Sommers, and Tom Cruise's Mummy films are official remakes of that. Someday, when Superman enters the public domain, there'll be remakes from all sorts of studios, but remakes made in association with DC will still be seen as DC's own successor to their own franchise.

I agree that the "eras" are ridiculous and will make my comments in a separate discussion.

As for the topic of Dr. Jekyll, he's one of the most frequently promoted in Universal Monsters branding, merchandise, and attractions.Leo1452~enwiki (talk) 04:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing

Going through additions made in the past few months, I have a few issues with some sources within the article. I've listed the issues more clearly here as the article has grown quite large.

• "F This Movie" and "The Evolution of Horror" podcasts. Not sure about these ones passing WP:PUBLISHED (Like text, media must be produced by a reliable source). Their about page here and here seem to lack editorial oversight and are not part of some more known or organized source and seem to fail WP:SPS.
• MovieWeb and CBR. Both sites are part of Valnet. Per WP:VALNET, "{{gt|opinions presented in editorials or list entries that satisfy WP:SIGCOV may be used sparingly to augment reception where notability has been established by stronger sources." More specifically for CBR, " CBR (formerly Comic Book Resources) is seen as having been reliable pre-Valnet purchase in 2016. Content after 2016 is seen as generally unreliable." Throughout the article, we are applying content from CBR after the stated date. These should be replaced or removed.
• Screaming Soup! appears to be a youtube fan-based source. Their website had no obvious editorial information that could help me classify them as anything more than enthusiastic fans.
• Monsters in Motion appears to be a site that sells genre-related material. No editorial oversite, so I believe it fails WP:RS.
• Indy Critic appears to be a blog which fails WP:SPS (per their overview here: here) .
• Other with banners tangently discuss some films as being part of the series, but do not contain the release, cast, crew or other context to have them fit in. see the "Unsourced lists" sections for more details.

Lists and context

While discussions on the talk page have included citations to a suggested "list of films" section, the current article does not abide by such definitions. Other IPs and wikipedians have brought up the issues of whether some films or characters should be included above or not. As this has not been addressed by most editors patrolling the article, I've found further sources that discuss the content and issues with the Universal Monsters. As I feel these would shake up an interpretation, I'm inviting editors to discuss it before making any major sweeping changes to the article.

Related to the "Sourcing" discussion above, the lists we have in the article seem to fail a few specific rules of Wikipedia. This ranges from our "Films", "Main Cast" "Home Video" and comic, and novel sections. Other content per WP:WEIGHT (" depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery.") I see nothing in an manual of style related to films or franchises that indicates what is needed to understand details of cast, crew, etc. Without prose backing up the relevancy of a screenwriter to the Universal Monsters. As the current history of the article states, the marketing of these characters as the franchise we know them as is a done far later, its probably wrong to view the crew as specifically very important to the development of this as a franchise, as it was not thought of one during the development or several years after. (see the Derek Johnson citation below for more on this)

Since the lists re-addition to the article, there has been no discussion or in-article attempt to apply sources. Per MOS:TIMELINE. Lists require sources and application of weight (The content of a list is governed by the same content policies as prose, including principles of due weight and avoiding original research.). Wikipedia:Verifiability also is required to be applied ("If reliable sources disagree with each other, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight."

I have tried to catalogue some research on the topic using sources from academic and film sites (as well as Universal themselves) that comply with WP:SIGCOV (i.e: sources that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.")

For ease of use, I've placed them behind this collapsible template.

Research found on varying definition and inclusion of Universal Monsters films

From Universal Monsters Facebook run by Universal picture: "Universal Monsters or Universal Horror is the name given to a series of distinctive horror, suspense and science fiction films made by Universal Studios from 1923 to 1960. The series began with the 1923 version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame, and continued with such movies as The Phantom of the Opera, Dracula, Frankenstein, The Mummy, The Invisible Man, Bride of Frankenstein, Werewolf of London, Son of Frankenstein, The Wolf Man, and Creature from the Black Lagoon. The iconic gallery of monsters created by Universal has created a lasting impression on generations of avid moviegoers around the world." (source) Den of Geek, David Crow (2023) "Primarily released in two film cycles by Universal Pictures across the 1930s and ‘40s (plus a few outliers on both sides of this), the legacy of these films and the people who made them endures still." here "We've reduced this list to only include the classic Monsters as generally defined by Universal itself. In other words, if the source of the horror did not appear in this glorious VHS commercial from 1999, we’ve left it off. Apologies to fans of The Raven, The Black Cat, The Old Dark House, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, and the like." here Den of Geek, Jim Knipfel "For nearly 70 years now, a very sad debate has raged among very sad people who either have no problems of their own or far too many to face. Namely, is 1948’s Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein an official entry into the Universal Horror shared universe or a goofy, one-off, standalone picture? It’s a question far too many people feel very strongly about." source "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein is not only a logical and valid continuation of the shared universe, but a culmination of the series. It remains deeply respectful of its heritage, while at the same time taking some gentle, late-‘40s family-friendly piss out of the otherwise stuffy genre conventions. Why not simply think of it as yet another crossover film? Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man crossed between franchises, so what’s so awful or damning about crossing between genres?" source Derek Johnson (2013), "Media Franchising" Johnson argues that the Universal Monster films of the 1930s and 1940s should not be viewed as franchises because "no such discourse was in play to make sense" of these productions, that to do so "would be read back onto it an anachronistic cultural logic" William Proctor in Horror Franchise Cinema There is plenty of academic work on the Universal Monsters, especially on Todd Browning's Dracula (1931) and James Whale's Frankenstein (1931)- both of which can be considered twin pillars of the horror 'talkie' - there does appear to be less sustained interest in the sequels that developed" "Although Universal produced a range of diverse horror films between 1931 and 1935 (see Peirse 2013), including a trilogy of films based loosely on Edgar Allen Poe stories—Murders in the Rue Morgue (1932), The Black Cat (1934), and The Raven (1935)—as well as the first mainstream werewolf film, The Werewolf of London (1935), there are only four films from the period that have been retrospectively branded as belonging to the Universal Monsters category, those being Dracula, Frankenstein, The Mummy (1932), and The Invisible Man (1933), all of which received sequels between 1935 and 1944. This perhaps suggests that the Universal Monster grouping is, for the most part, a franchise brand, a point supported by recent DVD/Blu-ray collections distributed through the umbrella banner, ‘The Complete Legacy Collection,’ of which Dracula, Frankenstein, The Mummy, and The Invisible Man all have dedicated box-sets, as do series from the 1940s and 1950s, such as The Wolf Man, Creature from the Black Lagoon, and the Abbott and Costello parody films. I would argue that it is on the basis of ‘reproduction and multiplicity’ that has led to the construction of the Universal Monsters brand as one characterized by franchising." "From a world-building perspective [...] the idea that 'the Universal film monsters know and interact with each other,' that 'they inhabit the same fictional and timeless universe' is problematic." "Further, the inclusion of 'Mad Doctor' and 'Hunchback' are not transnarrative characters in [the monster rally films, House of Frankenstein and House of Dracula], but intertextual riffs on Henderson's ‘character-types,’ with the 'Mad Doctor' sharing family resemblances with the original Dr Henry Frankenstein, and 'Hunchback' with the Hunchback of Notre Dame, the latter being related to Universal's silent film adaptation of Victor Hugo's novel of the same name, which starred Lon ‘the Man with a Thousand Faces’ Chaney (1923). My argument in this chapter is therefore that the only Universal Monster characters that actually ‘inhabit the same fictional and timeless world’ developed through transfictional storytelling are Frankenstein and the Wolf Man, with Dracula located in liminal (continuity) space. As such, the crossover films—Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, House of Frankenstein, and House of Dracula—are best viewed as transfictions existing within the Frankenstein imaginary world, not as a coherent macrostructure which comprises and interconnects the various Universal Monster franchises into a single diegetic framework." "As Jim Knipfel, writing for Den of Geek, argues, there is no reason that Abbott and Costello Meets Frankenstein should not be taken as a legitimate installment in the Universal Horror World. It does appear that Knipfel, however, is out to castigate fan audiences for caring about continuity, claiming that this is a 'very sad debate' that 'has raged among very sad people who either have no problems of their own or far too many to face' (2019). Perhaps this 'continuity problem' is therefore more of a contemporary game played by 'textual conservationist' fans who, as Matt Hills explains, 'expect adherence to established tenets, characterisations, and narrative "back stories," which production teams thus revise at their peril, disrupting the trust which is placed in the continuity of a detailed narrative world"" (2002, 28)." Kim Newman, from an article on monster movies in the liner of a home video release of Tremors. "The Universal Monsters franchise kicked off in the 1930s with Bela Lugosi as Dracula, Boris Karloff as the Frankenstein Monster (and the Mummy) and Claude Rains as the Invisible Man.". The Palgrave Handbook of Contemporary Gothic (2020) "In the 1920s, the studio produced a number of seminal silent horror classics including The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923), The Phantom of the Opera (1925), The Cat and the Canary (1927) The Man Who Laughs (1928). Entering the sound era and following the Great Crash, Universal was saved from near bankruptcy by the decision of studio executive Carl Laemmle Jr. to invest in an adaptation of Bram Stoker's Dracula. The commercial success of this venture inspired future investment in the genre and the studio developed the distinctive brand identity of 'Universal Horror'." [...] "Universal also introduced iconic actors such as Béla Lugosi, Boris Karloff and Lon Chaney Jr. alongside a gallery of archetypal monsters: Dracula, Frankenstein, the Mummy, the Invisible Man, the Werewolf and the Creature [from the Black Lagoon] (a.k.a Gill-Man). In what follows, we shall sketch the various incarnations of the 'Universal Monsters'." Following Dracula, and Frankenstein and The Mummy, the author describes "The Invisible Man" as the fourth key figure "in Universal Horror’s gallery of monsters.", "[From the Wild Woman trilogy], 'Gorilla Girl' is the strongest candidate for the inclusion of a female figure in Universal Horror's gallery of iconic monsters, but this is unlikely to happen since the consensus is that the trilogy also includes strong contenders for the unwanted accolade of the worst film ever made by the studio."

Generally speaking with the research above, the key points that I can trace from any continuity

• The Universal Monsters are films from the 1930s-1950s, while Universal themselves state they consist of a films from the 1920s and 1960s, outside the Den of Geek article, no sources seems to want to seem to give a proper list, and Den of Geek's was editing to fall in line with a television commercial from Universal as its basis.
• Some characters such as a hunchback, are promoted by Universal, but seem to be based on a narrative archetype and outside some merchandise (see the toy link mentioned earlier), there is no specific attached film to it to relate it to the series, or rather, Universal has not settled on a specific series or film that has a hunchback character presented this way.
• Critics do seem to cycle around Dracula, Frankenstein, The Invisible Man, The Wolf Man, The Creature from the Black Lagoon as the general archetype characters and films, but I'm not sure how to apply that with the content above as I doubt we could ever come up with anything truly solid.

In applying these sources (and any others if any interested editors can come forward with material) is probably a better approach than to give arbitrary lists of content as from all the details I've found on studies on the Universal Monsters (and as one citation above mentioned, there isn't much on them as a "series" or "franchise" as a whole), I believe this is a more neutral and appropriate source that addresses an issue. I look forward to any response discussing this, please ping me if you have any questions or clarification on the content above. (I apologize ahead of time for making this is so long! Was not sure how to re-organize it otherwise.) Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

References

"Eras" and "Legacy" sections?

Why are there separate "eras" called "Remakes and spin-offs" and "Modern era" when 1979's Dracula and 1999's Mummy are 20 years apart, 2018's Scorpion King: Book of Souls was released after 2014's Dracula Untold supposedly started the "Modern era", and the "Modern era" is full of remakes too?

This would be like trying to divide the James Bond films into eras when the "Connery era" has Casino Royale and On Her Majesty's Secret Service released in the middle of it, the "Moore era" has Never Say Never Again, and Never Say Never Again stars Connery. Instead, they found a logical categories that applied to them: Eon Films and other.

All Universal Monsters films since 1956 are only remakes and spin-offs of their individual series, not coordinated efforts from Universal to revive the cinematic universe aside from the Dark Universe, which only had one film, so these aren't eras of Universal Monsters at all. The individual series may have their own eras, and some may overlap, but most of them won't. Leave it to the Dracula, Frankenstein, Mummy, etc. pages to deal with their own eras.

Rather than trying to apply makeshift categories to these remakes and spin-offs, they should either all be listed together under "Remakes and spin-offs" or separated by their series like Dracula remakes and spin-offs, Frankenstein remakes and spin-offs, Mummy remakes and spin-offs, etc. Leo1452~enwiki (talk) 04:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I've said similar statements above, but to re-iterate as you've said Leo I agree we should not arbitrarily name them in such format. Currently, there is no sources for said material and how they relate to the "Universal Monsters" branding either outside that they indeed productions made by Universal that bare resemblance to the classic Hollywood era of these films. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Right now, there is a "Remakes and spin-offs" section, a "Modern era" section, and a "Legacy" section for things that Universal Monsters have influenced. I'd moved Abigail to the latter because it seemed like the place to put it at the time since it began under the working title of Dracula's Daughter but was ultimately stripped of its direct connections to Universal Monsters and cites no work of Dracula or Universal Monsters as its basis, but I now believe that the Legacy section, including Abigail, should be removed entirely. It's hard enough as is to determine whether something counts as Universal Monsters, but the number of productions that they've influenced is unfathomable.

As for The Munsters, since it exercises Universal's rights to Dracula and Frankenstein, why isn't it in the Television section if it must be here?

As discussed above, "Remakes and spin-offs" and "Modern era" are arbitrary distinctions and have been merged into one "Remakes and spin-offs" section. If it's not a direct remake or spin-off of Universal's own Universal Monsters franchises, it shouldn't be there. Many of them still need citations.Leo1452~enwiki (talk) 09:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Release Dates

I'm just wondering this, but would the TCM website (www.tcm.com) be a good reliable source for providing information such as release dates? 206.195.69.108 (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)