Talk:Universal Monsters

moderated discussion

I'm going to attempt some moderation here.

NJZombie and StarTrekker, could one/both of you state as briefly as humanly possible what you believe is the ONE most important or crucial edit you're suggesting, along with the minimum number of necessary sources you think best support that edit? (No need to include any explanation for me; I do not need to understand the content dispute.) Valereee (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Adding a history section which details 1) how the 1930s began an era of sound horror for Universal, 2) how the studio began to cross over their popular series, and 3) how the after the end of the initial film series the studio has continued to merchandised and market the monster characters in all kinds of media and products.★Trekker (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

While I do think your thoughts on this are well intentioned, I'd suggest against it because you will not find the material you are hunting for. What you are asking for part 1 and 2 is exactly what I intended to do when I first came to re-writing this article. I found very little backing them up Mainly because they are so loosely connected even as their on namesake series. Take a look at The Invisible Man (film series) or Dracula (Universal film series). Even those films are connected extremely vaguely in terms of characters and narrative. Film production in the past is not as documented as it has been in the later years so finding the how and why things were done in that form came up relatively uneventful when I expanded upon House of Frankenstein. They literally just announced the film and what character would or would not be included. That was all I was able to muster up. I appreciate you guys trying to make this work, but if you have read these individual articles, you are looking for material that is currently non-existent. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to have egg on my face with this, but on further research (apologies for reading the above, but it is relevant to anyone just reading this conversation as well), this book seems to have a wealth of filling in the gaps we are trying to adapt here @StarTrekker. here. I'll try to write something up in a draft and see what you guys think. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

The only crucial edit I felt was necessary, I made, and that was clarifying that it is indeed a media franchise. I think the article could use some cleanup, or even a rewrite, showing more examples of products and places the brand has been used but the sources would depend on how many items were added. NJZombie (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal

So @NJZombie: and @StarTrekker: and @Valereee: and anyone else interested, using the source I found above, I've tried to create something that I think could pass as satisfying for the lot of us. It needs work and copy-editing, but I think it is a good start in how we can actually get some meat and potatoes into this article. I've started a draft of it User:Andrzejbanas/sandbox/Universal Monsters here. I don't think this is complete or final or anything, but feel confident it addresses the issues we've had. I'm genuinely glad we all stuck it through with this article, as I don't know when I would have found this article otherwise that has really addressed many of our concerns. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

If you're talking about adding this into the existing article, go ahead. You don't need anybody's approval to add additional sourced information. Once again though, I don't feel it needs to be a separate or new article. It really has nothing to do with my only concern, which is stated clearly above. NJZombie (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh i'm aware, I'm happy to add it, I'm just curious if it's assisting in what we are doing. With this information, I feel like, its less likely it needs a separate entity that works out. Also, as I was accused to WP:OWN, I feel like it would benefit us everyone to discuss before I make more bold edits. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

"Holy..." is what I have to say about this. The Universal Classic Monsters is a franchise, and is called as much by various reliable sources. In addition to the fact that the movies were retroactively given the label by Universal Pictures (and released various media which should also be included in this article), it's also worth noting that any time there is a remake/reboot/reimagining of one of the studio's monster characters all of the sources note that they are characters from the Universal Monsters franchise. The "Universal Horror" brand (which they started with another series of home video releases) is entirely separate.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey DisneyMetalHead, I've written a draft here with some new sources I've found regarding this. If you or anyone else could weigh in on it, I think that would be great. User:Andrzejbanas/sandbox/Universal Monsters. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

So its been a few days and outside NJZombie and Valereee, no body has really seemed to comment on the addition I was suggesting. I'm going to try and fine tune it a bit and see if we can include the information we want/need for it. I just hope everyone respects that I am trying to reach out to people and am not taking ownership of this article when I make bold changes. If we don't communicate, I'm not sure what I can do to make sure people's issues are addressed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

It's fine to be bold. I don't see anyone here saying bold>revert>discuss = ownership. What I see is people saying bold>revert>sealion until everyone else has given up in frustration = ownership. Valereee (talk) 11:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't really want to get into debates about that as I don't think I can say anything here that will make anyone disagree with a pre-conceived notion. If there is no further discussion about the content of the page, I'll try to add some of it later today. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Haven't hard from many of you, but I've expanded the article with new information that should clarify some details. Hope this satisfies people. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I think much has been improved, but I think a move to the shorter name Universal Monsters would be good.★Trekker (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! I'm not sure if it's so long that it requires a re-name and maybe would prefer it to still have the "Classic" in the title. Most of the home video line adopts the term "Classic" when they get their official branding, so I think not including it would nearly be as wild as dropping the term "Universal". Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: you referred to me various times in this thread, but didn't tag me correctly.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the article looks much better than it did with just minimal paragraphs. That being said, I believe it could use a great deal of expansion (detailing the monsters and who played them for example). Why? The franchise is noteworthy for a number of situation, including the iconic status of the various characters.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

You are really obsessed with cast and crew. This would be fine but as established by the prose, the Univeral Classics Monsters is not a typical "franchise". It only became one on home video and as evidenced by the article by multiple sources, it only became promoted as one in the 1990s. It's not about an ongoing plot. WP:INDISCRIMINATE, so an long lasting cast and crew that just lists them is not what Wikipedia is for. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Not nearly as obsessed as you are with insisting that the franchise only began with a 1990s era home video release, which remains untrue. With a simple Google search, I've found products using Universal Monsters being used well before the video release you keep bringing up. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Remco toys released figures that clearly note them Official Universal Movie Monsters, one of the many name variants of Universal Monsters that have been used for decades now. Merchandising, using the Universal Monsters name, began back in the 1960s which can clearly be seen in items such as this and this. There may have been a licensing boom in the 1990s but it did not suddenly begin then. NJZombie (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: Genuine question -- Why are you combative towards other editors? I am not "obsessed" with anything. Rather, it seems like you have preferences that you believe override a formatting standard which every other contributor is trying to point out to you. As pointed out by @NJZombie: the franchise did not begin in the 1990s, but regardless of its date -- it is an established and well-known film franchise at this point with various media.

My initial comment was that you had referenced me various times in your thread but never with the correct formatting/spelling -- so I was not pinged to your proposal conversations.

DisneyMetalhead (talk) 08:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The information I've gathered may not have caught up with marketing, but the article no longer states its just a home video line with new information I've dug up. While those images do make good points, how do we move forward to get an actual "start" date? If we don't have some written sources, I don't know if we can cite what could be very well be a bootleg lunch box. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

“I don't know if we can cite what could be very well be a bootleg lunch box.”

This could be the most sea lion quote yet! NJZombie (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The Six-Year Story of the Universal Monsters Wikipedia Page

Hey everyone.

I'm not an editor, so feel free to delete this, but I have to get this message out to the people behind this article. You deserve to know about it.

My name is Jake, creator and host of the Universal Monsters Podcast. Typically, we cover news relating to the subject and bring our own expertise every week. Our latest episode is a departure, and it involves this article.

I got in to the Universal Monsters in 2018 when the page was clear and concise: The films were laid out in a simple, effective way, and everything was color-coded by what characters overlapped in each other's movies, featured a cast listing at the bottom of the page with actors reprising certain characters, and listed the remakes Universal had produced of all of their films, from 1979's Dracula all the way up to 2017's The Mummy (the latest at the time). This was the basis for our entire "MonsterThon" show (type it in YouTube and we're the first result), and it acted as our guide as we went down that journey with our small, but dedicated fanbase.

In 2018, the page vanished with little explanation why.

For years, I've been following the drama at talk:Universal_Monsters and watched the drama unfold, which almost everybody in the Universal Monsters fandom doesn't even realize exists. The page had been consolidated to an embarrassing one-paragraph summary akin to what you'd find on a movie's RottenTomatoes page, with the entire history of the Universal Monsters media franchise either gutted entirely, or distilled down to a handful of sentences. The reality is that these movies and the characters in them were a part of film history and had a lasting cultural impact on the direction of horror cinema, even to this very day with movies, TV shows, books, dramas, and a litany of other materials constantly being made off of this one, cohesive collection of intellectual properties.

The reason I've posted is because our latest episode actually covers the full timeline of events and goes over the edits in this page with a fine-toothed comb, highlighting the significant conversations/debates behind-the-scenes, and singling out one individual in particular seemingly responsible for the past six years: Andrzejbanas. We reported as fair and as diplomatic as we could, but we also didn't sugarcoat anything along the way.

Like I said, feel free to delete this if you feel that's what's right. I'm not an editor, and I have no interest in editing this article - not that I even could if I wanted to since it's been heavily gatekept since 2018. But I felt as though everybody involved deserved to be aware of this episode, as several of you are mentioned in it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoSBX9WjfS4

Thanks, and I genuinely hope the best version of this article can one day make a return. I’m seeing a lot of progress in recent months. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pleasefixthispage (talk • contribs)

I don't know how to feel about this. On the one hand this is very interesting and I do think that happenings on Wikipedia should be studied and recorded by interested persons for future research. On the other hand I am always uncomfortable when anything involving me or my friends get publicity. I just hope the episode is respectful and understands that none of us (including Andrzejbanas who I have disagreed with) have acted in bad faith.★Trekker (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Pleasefixthispage: So I have listened to the podcast now, and you seemed to be pretty civil about the whole thing, so thanks for that. (Tho the one time you refered to me you called me a "he", which I am not.) And all your points about what has happened here are pretty much correct.

What @Andrzejbanas: was doing is called on Wikipedia "stonewalling" and "sealioning". He didn't (and still doesn't) technically hold power over the page but he argued for so long and so much that everyone else got tired out and kinda gave up. The reason it was finally put to a stop was because he had an ANI (Administrators Noticeboard Incidents) against him because he was doing similar things on bigger horror articles and people finally got tired of it and put in the effort into reporting him to the admins who told him to knock it off or risk being banned from editing horror film articles. I am glad he was not banned because despite screwing up this article he has done wonderful work on other pages.★Trekker (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh boy. I'm not really a fan of Wiki Drama and even cataloguing internet drama is even less of a popular topic for me. I'm glad the conclusion came to that you are more content with how the article has become (as am I, that new source has been a godsend). I've tried to search up stuff to back it up before and I'm glad it's here with sources. I'm sorry to everyone who may have struggled with me on the topics, but I'm glad that further research has made it better. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

In response to the post from the unregistered editor, I too am one of the individuals who has attempted to respond to User:Andrzejbanas on various articles -- but very quickly got sick and tired of trying to keep up with their constant threads/edits/deletions. I agree that the current state of the article is small and has very little details. Anyone looking at the edit threads, and/or talk pages can see that there were various editors attempting to improve this article, and while I believe the stated editor has good intentions, they have the repeated tendency to delete details (see the ongoing discussion at the released Universal Classic Horror page for The Inner Sanctum Mysteries (film series) article, for a recent comparison). I personally continue to try an improve these articles, with in collaboration with various editors, whether we agree on structure or not.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Your improvements include removing sourced material and adding unsourced material. These aren't improvements if you can't find any sources to back you up. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

And here, again -- you are caught in a cycle (seemingly) of responding to other editors with ire. I have repeatedly told you that I am assuming WP:GOODFAITH, but you have a recurring habit of deleting various sections/details based on preferences. As I stated on the other talk page, add the references you have. Don't delete entire sections based on your preference for only prose. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 08:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Films section

While this article is growing back to where it was prior to the mass deletion of various sections, the current formatting of this sub-section is odd at best. While it's understood that the current table is intended to show which movies were included with the various re-releases of the movies on home video, wouldn't a format more similar to other various film series and/or franchise articles be better? Or, even in addition to what is here? A table which shows the creatives involved in these movies would be constructive in that it allows the average reader to see the credits of the various filmmakers involved (i.e.: Title, release date, director, writer(s), producers). Thoughts?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I think if we can write a draft. I think a list would be useful when it show cast/crew who worked between them. That said, the list of films is already kind of monstrously long (pardon the pun). Maybe write just the headings in the table you think would be good and we can find some happy medium? Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Puns or not, as you pointed out the current status of the page is not in the best form. The reason its a "monstrosity" all runs right back to your frequent deletion of sections, and data in articles to meet your personal demands. As I have pointed out to you at various times the necessity to take to the talk page and/or at a source request tag (instead of deleting data) -- if you would do so, editors would perceive your intentions as leaning more towards collaboration. I will work of the film table. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what to say here, but regardless of what editors say, I'm trying to go by what reliable sources state and that's all I've asked from editors. These aren't my own personal rules, per WP:LISTCRITERIA is not to just repeat information we can find on individual articles. In short, we have casts listed on other articles, and individual actor filmographies. I'm honestly wondering if my own original suggestion of just including the "big" monster films is appropriate, per " Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources." in the same rule above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposed film table

Classic era

Film	U.S. release date	Director(s)	Screenwriter(s)	Story by	Producer(s)
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde	March 6, 1913 (1913-03-06)	Herbert Brenon			Carl Laemmle
The Hunchback of Notre Dame	September 2, 1923 (1923-09-02)	Wallace Worsley	Edward T. Lowe, Jr. & Perley Poore Sheehan
The Phantom of the Opera	November 25, 1925 (1925-11-25)	Rupert Julian and Lon Chaney and Edward Sedgwick and Ernst Laemmle & Frank McCormick	Walter Anthony, Elliott J. Clawson, Bernard McConville, Frank M. McCormack, Tom Reed, Raymond L. Schrock, Jasper Spearing & Richard Wallace
Dracula	February 14, 1931 (1931-02-14)	Tod Browning	Garrett Fort		Tod Browning and Carl Laemmle, Jr.
Drácula	April 24, 1931 (1931-04-24)	George Melford	Baltasar Fernández Cué and Garret Fort	Garret Fort	Carl Laemmle Jr. and Paul Kohner
Frankenstein	November 21, 1931 (1931-11-21)	James Whale	Francis Edward Faragoh & Garrett Fort	John L. Balderston	Carl Laemmle Jr.
The Mummy	December 22, 1932 (1932-12-22)	Karl Freund	John L. Balderston	Nina Wilcox Putnam & Richard Schayer
The Invisible Man	November 13, 1933 (1933-11-13)	James Whale	R. C. Sherriff
The Bride of Frankenstein	April 20, 1935 (1935-04-20)	James Whale	William Hurlbut	William Hurlbut & John L. Balderston
Werewolf of London	May 13, 1935 (1935-05-13)	Stuart Walker	John Colton, Robert Harris, Harvey Gates, Edmund Pearson, James Mulhauser & Aben Kandel	Robert Harris	Stanley Bergerman
Dracula's Daughter	May 11, 1936 (1936-05-11)	Lambert Hillyer	Garrett Fort	Oliver Jeffries	E. M. Asher
Son of Frankenstein	January 13, 1939 (1939-01-13)	Rowland V. Lee	Wyllis Cooper		Rowland V. Lee
The Invisible Man Returns	January 12, 1940 (1940-01-12)	Joe May	Kurt Siodmak & Lester Cole	Kurt Siodmak & Joe May	Ken Goldsmith
The Mummy's Hand	November 20, 1940 (1940-11-20)	Christy Cabanne	Griffin Jay and Maxwell Shane		Ben Pivar
The Invisible Woman	December 12, 1940 (1940-12-12)	A. Edward Sutherland	Robert Lees, Frederic I. Rinaldo & Gertrude Purcell	Curt Siodmak & Joe May	Burt Kelly
The Wolf Man	December 12, 1941 (1941-12-12)	George Waggner	Curt Siodmak		George Waggner
The Ghost of Frankenstein	March 13, 1942 (1942-03-13)	Erle C. Kenton	W. Scott Darling	Eric Taylor
Invisible Agent	April 17, 1942 (1942-04-17)	Edwin L. Marin	Curtis Siodmak		Frank Lloyd
The Mummy's Tomb	October 23, 1942 (1942-10-23)	Harold Young	Griffin Jay & Henry Sucher	Neil P. Varnick	Ben Pivar
Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man	March 5, 1943 (1943-03-05)	Roy William Neill	Curt Siodmak		George Waggner
Phantom of the Opera	August 12, 1943 (1943-08-12)	Arthur Lubin	Samuel Hoffenstein & Eric Taylor	John Jacoby
Son of Dracula	November 5, 1943 (1943-11-05)	Robert Siodmak	Eric Taylor	Curtis Siodmak	Ford Beebe and Donald H. Brown
The Invisible Man's Revenge	June 9, 1944 (1944-06-09)	Ford Beebe	Bertram Millhauser		Ford Beebe
The Mummy's Ghost	July 7, 1944 (1944-07-07)	Reginald LeBorg	Griffin Jay, Henry Sucher & Brenda Weisberg	Griffin Jay & Henry Sucher	Ben Pivar
The Mummy's Curse	December 22, 1944 (1944-12-22)	Leslie Goodwins	Bernard Schubert	Leon Abrams & Dwight V. Babcock	Oliver Drake
The House of Frankenstein	February 16, 1945 (1945-02-16)	Erle C. Kenton	Edward T. Lowe	Curt Siodmak	Paul Malvern
House of Dracula	June 29, 1945 (1945-06-29)	Eric C. Kenton	Edward T. Lowe	Dwight V. Babcock & George Bricker
She-Wolf of London	March 29, 1946 (1946-03-29)	Jean Yarbrough	George Bricker	Dwight V. Babcock	Ben Pivar
Bud Abbott and Lou Costello meet Frankenstein	May 17, 1946 (1946-05-17)	Charles T. Barton	Robert Lees, Frederic I. Rinaldo & John Grant		Robert Arthur
Bud Abbott and Lou Costello Meet the Invisible Man	March 19, 1951 (1951-03-19)	Charles Lamont	Robert Lees, Frederic I. Rinaldo & John Grant	Hugh Wedlock Jr. & Howard Snyder	Howard Christie
Bud Abbott and Lou Constello Meet Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde	August 12, 1953 (1953-08-12)	Charles Lamont	Lee Loeb & John Grant	Sidney Fields & Grant Garrett
Creature from the Black Lagoon	February 12, 1954 (1954-02-12)	Jack Arnold	Harry Essex & Arthur Ross	Maurice Zimm	William Alland
Bud Abbott and Lou Costello Meet The Creature from the Black Lagoon	February 21, 1954 (1954-02-21)	Sid Smith & Edward Sobol	John Grant		Edward Sobol
Bud Abbott and Lou Costello Meet The Mummy	May 23, 1955 (1955-05-23)	Charles Lamont	John Grant	Lee Loeb	Howard Christie
The Creature Walks Among Us	April 26, 1956 (1956-04-26)	John Sherwood	Arthur Ross		William Alland

A remake section would include any remakes (by Universal) of these individual movies. A section detailing in prose the "reboot" plan that was indented for Dark Universe, would give insight into what the plans were (interconnection), to what they became -- standalone movies that are modern interpretations of the characters. These sections would follow a similar format to what I have suggested above.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what this lists improves upon as it contains no sources. If you want it based on the "primary" sources, She-Wolf of London has no monsters in it and I don't think I've heard of The Hunchback of Notre Dame included in discussion or promotional material related to this series at all. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You haven't heard Hunchback discussed as a part of the franchise? Here's an example. Furthermore, She-Wolf of London is regularly included in the Wolf Man collection... here. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Cast section

This article does not have anything remotely within the parameters of this kind of common element in franchise articles, but once again for the average reader -- wouldn't a cast table be helpful? Prose can always mention details above a table, but similar to other film series/franchise pages, if we include both: Recurring characters (Phantom of the Opera, Dracula, Frankenstein, Wolf Man, the Mummy, Invisible Man, Creature from the Black Lagoon for example), and main/primary characters (Bride of Frankenstein for example was in one movie) -- it would give constructive insight to expand this article's topic.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps of the main monsters this could be good as they are generally the more re-occuring ones. I'm leaning towards you want it with the ones that are more consistently involved with the series, (i.e: Phantom, Creature, Dracula, Frankenstein, Bride, Wolf Man, Invisible Man, etc.) and maybe not like...Sheena the ape woman. I think this would reflect what is more commonly part of the series. What specifically were you suggesting? Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

As I stated in my post^, I am talking about the official Universal Classic Monsters. As pointed out in my original post, the inclusion of these characters would be constructive and bring the page back to what it was originally (prior to the rat race this article has become). DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I apologize, you listed them as an example, could you post like, a basic table here to see where you think we'd be going with this? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Because there are so many movies in this franchise, I would suggest a format for the cast list, to something similar to the following. It consolidates data into decades (instead of films), and then with efn's it clarifies which movies the actor portrayed the character(s) in. Additionally, in prose we can state where the monster characters were called part of the franchise (whether in box sets, in the Dark Universe announced slate, or elsewhere).

Cast table proposal

Main cast and characters

Character	Decade
	1910s	1920s	1930s	1940s	1950s
Dr. Henry Jekyll Mr. Edward Hyde	King Baggot				Boris Karloff
Quasimodo		Lon Chaney
The Phantom of the Opera		Lon Chaney		Claude Rains
Count Dracula			Bela Lugosi Carlos Villar	John Carradine Bela Lugosi
Frankenstein's monster			Boris Karloff	Lon Chaney Jr. Bela Lugosi Glenn Strange
Imhotep The Mummy			Boris Karloff
Dr. Jack Griffin The Invisible Man		Claude Rains	Referenced
The Monster's Bride			Elsa Lanchester
Dr. Wilfred Glenn Werewolf of London			Henry Hull
Countess Marya Zaleska Dracula's Daughter			Gloria Holden
Geoffrey Radcliffe The Invisible Man				Vincent Price
Kharis The Mummy				Lon Chaney Jr.
Kitty Carol The Invisible Woman				Virginia Bruce
Lawrence "Larry" Talbot The Wolf Man				Lon Chaney Jr.
Frank "Raymond" Griffin The Invisible Man				Jon Hall
Count Alucard Son of Dracula				Lon Chaney Jr.
Robert Griffin The Invisible Man				Jon Hall
Phyllis Allenby She-Wolf of London				June Lockhart
Gill-Man The Creature					Ben Chapman Tom Hennesy Don Megowan}
Klaris The Mummy					Eddie Parker

Notes

...I will come back to working on this later today, but looking at the format I would imagine that you get the idea.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I have added each of the main Universal Monster characters and their actors. These are the primary monsters typically included in the various collections. Are there additional monsters, that others believe should be included in this list?

DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Seeing as the persistent User:Andrzejbanas continues to reach out to me on my talk page though they are blocked here, I will compile a list of references regarding each of these characters being a part of the Universal Monsters franchise. It is not/should not be a controversial topic, but evidently it is (facepalm). I will not look to include all references nor each of the same sources, but rather a reliable source that identifies each character with the Universal Monster label. Here it goes: Hunchback, Phantom of the Opera, Dracula, Frankenstein's monster, various iterations of the Mummy, various iterations of the Invisible Man, Bride of Frankenstein, Werewolf of London, Dracula's Daughter, the Invisible Woman, the Wolf Man, Son of Dracula, She-Wolf of London, Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde, and Gill-Man.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

It may also be worth noting that additional sources credit Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1913) as the first Universal Monster movie.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Break/discussion

Reviewing the various tables, it appears as though there are no reservations about re-implementing these details and tables in addition to adding more information through prose. I will work on reintroducing these details into the article. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Crew and production details section

This article also has nothing within these kinds of parameters. As is common on other franchise/film articles, the other production details are both: 1. notable, and 2. insightful for the average reader. By including these details on a page like this, it allows all users to see various details about each movie in one location. Further reading can be done at each page's individual article, but I don't see a reason to leave this out of the article. Thoughts?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

While this is common, this one I'm a bit more against as this series is huge and was only branded later. Per WP:SOURCELIST, we should reach some sort of consensus here as these probably are better expanded upon in the individual film articles if need be (Frankenstein (Universal film series) etc., otherwise I feel like we're repeating information a bit ad nauseum in comparison to listing the monsters or something which might be more unique and useful to the content of this page. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

was only branded later

Please drop this already. 'Branding' from the start isn't the be-all/end-all end of a series or franchise, this thing was brought up in the video above which talked extensively abour your unreasonable demands. I don't know if you watched it like I did but I think it really summs up all the issues here. It does not seem like you have been able to truly get over the core problems you have on this issue.★Trekker (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what to say, but sure, let's drop that. I'd like to focus on how detailed a cast and crew information would or should be without being trivial. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm really trying not to beat a dead horse, but I want to find some solution for when the term came to be with proper reliable sources. We have the Billboard and the academic article talking about the branding starting in the 1990s or marketing the monsters together. However, there have been decent points of people showing off items and products that promote the monsters on toys and other knick knacks from the 60s or 70s. I'm not sure how we approach this per WP:RS and WP:OR. My heart is not set on keeping the article the way it is as I once was, but I feel like ignoring the sourced content is probably its own kettle of fish. I don't think we should ignore it, but I'm not sure how we should handle it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

As pointed out to you through numerous edits of others, and various statements already -- the original of the "branding" date is not the deciding factor of this article. Go watch the video that has been referenced. You may learn how it is being perceived. Administrators additionally previously notified you of how to avoid doing so. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about branding in this last paragraphs. But there has to be some standards of what films are included that can't be our own attribution (or any YouTubers honestly). Per WP:SOURCELIST, "all individual items on the list must follow Wikipedia's content policies: the core content policies of Verifiability (through good sources in the item's one or more references), No original research, and Neutral point of view, plus the other content policies as well." I encourage you to contribute DMh, but so far your suggestions have just been to removed sourced content with...well, not sure where your information is coming from. When I ask, I get accused of sealioning. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: I haven't removed any data, as I have stated various times. If you're referring to The Inner Sanctum Mysteries (film series) article, I simply reverted the whole page to what it was before you went in and deleted large portions of the page. That was a revert, not an edit. Furthermore, I have previously asked you that when you refer to me in your messages you ping me so that I can see what you are saying. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 7 August 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Moved as an uncontested request with minimal participation. If there is any objection within a reasonable time frame, please ask me to reopen the discussion; if I am not available, please ask at the technical requests page. Valereee (talk) 10:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

---

Universal Classic Monsters → Universal Monsters – By far the common name. It was a massive mistake to have it moved years ago, I don't recal if I supported it then, but if I did (which is possible) it was probably under the delusion that we would eventually have separate articles for the classic releases, the overall grouping of the characters by Universal and the Dark Universe, hence three articles to cover everything in depth. As the Dark Universe never became a thing there is no reason to not just cover everything in the same article by the common name (unless someone wants to put in extra effort into having Universal Monsters and Universal Monsters (1931–1956) to cover only the classic period. But that seems unlikely as of now.) ★Trekker (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Waqar💬 14:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

No strong feelings either way. I know this has changed from my last time. Perhaps somewhere in the article it could be split up with an active period and the aftermath as some sort of consolidation or maybe as Universal Monsters in popular culture. It's sort of already organized that way with when the films were in production and the more mass market (the toys, the home video, the various knick-knacks), etc. Otherwise, I don't think anyone would be confused by this name change. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe "Universal Classic Monsters" was chosen because of the wording used on the home video collections. In other areas however, and perhaps a more common name for the franchise of characters is indeed "Universal Monsters". I support this move.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe if the article is "Universal Monsters", and it covers the official movies (i.e.: ones released in the collections), as well as remakes/reboots (including the Dark Universe), and then the home video releases which have been branded several ways, in addition to other media (toys, attractions, the new themepark) -- this article might somehow be finally back in good standing. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

If you can find sources that back these statements up, I have no objections. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Branding and term

As I don't have access to the article, I think this might help address a few editors. I've come across an article by Kim Newman discussing the monsters which might help settle the branding things issue (sort of). I can cite it here as I think it helps bring a second view point on the branding of the monsters. Newman states

• "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." This doesn't really help settle a what is, or what isn't in the franchise discussion, but maybe assists with the branding of the term as in Newman's idea, the franchise starts in the 1930s when these films were made, over the other two sources who relate it closer to the branding of the home video line. I've added the source here if anyone would like to try and apply it.
• {{Cite AV media notes|last=Newman|first=Kim|authorlink=Kim Newman|title=Tremors|publisher=[[Arrow Films]]||chapter=Good Vibrations|page=7|id=FCD2061/FCD2089|year=2020|type=booklet}}.

Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This is almost exactly what many editors have been stating from the start. If you're encouraging the use of the reference in the article, it would only assist with constructive/supportive data for the page. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

As stated, we required sources to find this. When asked before, no sources were provided, and that was my only argument against it per WP:OR and WP:RS. This isn't really a sky is blue statement or anything either, as if it was, it'd be easily citable, and we've discovered it was not.Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

...@Andrzejbanas: you make it very difficult to respond to which has been pointed out to you as WP:SEALIONING before. There was no dispute regarding the name of this article nor the reality that it is a franchise. Just your insistence that it wasn't one.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what response you want, it's up to you to try and apply the source with content within the article or discuss its use here. I don't think it over-rides anything in the article currently, but hey, we can at least discuss it here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Release Dates

Hi everyone, I’ve been noticing that most of the release dates for each of the films are wrong. I’ve been checking on other websites such as www.imdb.com, www.blu-ray.com and www.universalmonsters.fandom.com, and they have most of the correct release dates for the movies. Will someone please address this? I’d really appreciate it. 206.195.69.108 (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

IMDb and Fandom sites are not considered reliable sources and the third site may also be considered unreliable. Your previous date changes were reverted because you fail to provide inline cited reliable sources when you make the changes. This will continue to be the case should you continue to change dates without providing sources that are not the examples you’ve mentioned above. NJZombie (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

If my sources are unreliable, may I ask where you got your sources and what makes you sure they’re accurate? 206.195.69.108 (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I haven’t added information here as you have, so there’s no source to quote. You should read up at WP:RS though to Lear what types of sites are considered reliable and what isn’t. Follow that with WP:CS which will instruct you on how to format and place those sources within the article. WP:CITEIMDB is an essay which will help explain why IMDb is not considered reliable. NJZombie (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay I understand. So would you be kind as to find out the correct release dates of the films for me, please? I would really appreciate it and it would make the page more accurate and reliable for fans and everyone. 206.195.69.108 (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

No, if you feel the information is incorrect, which it very well may be, you can research those dates on your own and make the changes with the appropriate sources added. NJZombie (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you suggest any websites I should look up for the release date with the appropriate sources? 206.195.69.108 (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I've been noticing that some of the release dates for the list of films in the "Classic Era" section are either inaccurate or contradictory to what other pages or sites described or listed. The films with the incorrect release dates on the page are The Phantom of the Opera (1925), Bride of Frankenstein (1935), The Mummy's Hand (1940), The Invisible Woman (1940), Invisible Agent (1940), House of Frankenstein (1944), House of Dracula (1945), She-Wolf of London (1946), Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948), Abbott and Costello Meet the Invisible Man (1951), and Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy (1955). I found the release dates that I felt were correct on different websites, but I'm told that those sources were unreliable. So can somebody please help me find the correct release dates from a reliable and trusted site or source, please? I would very appreciate it. 206.195.69.108 (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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 it'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)

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)