Talk:Universal Monsters

Navigation template for Universal Monsters

I feel like there should be a navigation template for the bottom of this page and any other Wikipedia article related to the Universal Monsters franchise. Does anyone agree with me? DarthNick1997 (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

There was one previously. It was deleted when there was no confirmation about what was included in the series. Currently in the article itself, its not 100% clear from Universal or other sources what is or not in the franchise. The current sources in the article are not generally considered invalid by WP:RSP/VALNET standards. I wouldn't re-create one for this reason. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: -- as you know, the years-long discussion/consensus was that reliable sources and/or Universal themselves get to determine what is in the franchise.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

The conversation on using the Universal source (a jokey Facebook post) was between yourself and me and I said the company could be used as a source, I did not agree that it was valid. Please don't imply consensus when it was between a couple editors. It's not a strong consenus. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Additions to "Influences on unrelated media" section

I would like to add a few films onto this section because they are both parodies and homages to the original Universal Monster films: Young Frankenstein (1974), The Monster Squad (1987) and Frankenweenie (2012).

For Young Frankenstein, Gene Wilder himself has stated that he was influenced by the old Frankenstein movies, specifically Frankenstein (1931), Bride of Frankenstein (1935), Son of Frankenstein (1939) and The Ghost of Frankenstein (1942), when he conceived the idea for Young Frankenstein.

In The Monster Squad, it centers on a group of kids going up against Count Dracula and other monsters, each inspired by the Universal Monsters characters, who are in search of a magic amulet that will let them take over the world.

Also, Tim Burton's 2012 film Frankenweenie is both a parody and homage to the original Frankenstein (1931) and features allusions and homages to the other Universal Monsters such as Dracula, The Mummy, The Invisible Man, The Wolf Man and The Bride of Frankenstein. DarthNick1997 (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Again, these are complicated as Young Frankenstein already is specifically about the Frankenstein series which has its own article and is mentioned in that article. The others could get some mention, but you'll need sources to back it up and some context as otherwise it seems trivial. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Each of these projects can and should be included in that other section. You will want to source appropriately the franchise's influence on them, however.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Abigail (2024)

Im not going head and include Abigail in the main article right away but the following article makes strong case that it probably should be: https://www.cbr.com/abigail-draculas-daughter-universal-monsters-cult-classic/ and its also worth pointing out that this ranking by rottenthomatos does indead include Abigail l https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/universal-monster-movies-ranked/ DoctorHver (talk) 04:26, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure why Abigail was removed as this has already been discussed ad nauseum in the archived talk pages. I was one of the people most critical of its inclusion, but I have to concede through this wiki's research that it was developed under Universal's rights to Universal Monsters, and Radio Silence still refer to it as part of the larger Universal Monsters strategy. Leo1452~enwiki (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

It appears that the change was made by @JeremyBrisby without comment. The change went unnoticed and can no longer be reverted due to conflicting changes made since. Can someone please manually restore Abigail unless they have a credible source that states that it is no longer part of Universal Monsters? Leo1452~enwiki (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

The CBR source seems to endlessly ramble about the film but doesn't clarify how it belongs or why it does or does not.The Rotten Tomatoes sources is okayish, but doesn't really match what we have listed as part of the series. For something to be part of a franchise or series, it shouldn't be hidden or need seeking out. If we only find a few stray bits, I don't think it's very convincing. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd previously compared this situation to Werewolf: The Beast Among Us, which was developed as a spin-off of Wolf Man but repurposed later on. Abigail was developed as an adaptation of Dracula's Daughter under Universal's rights to Universal Monsters, but Radio Silence deliberately stripped it of references to make it their own thing.

The key difference is that it still uses the Universal Monsters rights, and Radio Silence still refer to it as part of the franchise. Here they are describing it as such (while erroneously calling it the "MonsterVerse"): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14ELUWsHikU

So I really don't know now. From experience, people are going to keep feeling justified to add and delete it over and over unless a concensus is made. Leo1452~enwiki (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

@Leo1452~enwiki: edits removing information have plagued this article for years. The inclusion of Abigail has been discussed greatly, with various reliable sources calling the project a Universal Monsters film. The arguments against its inclusion were that its story is greatly different from the original Dracula's Daughter, but this is simply because the filmmakers were allowed to reimagine the character as they wish (which they also point out in the video you supplied here). Though they erroneously state "Monsterverse", the interviewer and the duo repeatedly refer other Universal Monsters they would like to explore in the Universal Monsters franchise, as well as its identity as such a project. I will go back and restore its inclusion (with this great interview as a source), though I will have to locate when it was removed first.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Abigail is not a universal monster movie there's no character title it's a universal vampire film like An American Werewolf in London is a universal Werewolf movie neither of them are universal monsters they're there own movies. ~2025-36927-88 (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

New source needed for The Last Voyage of the Demeter

This article is proof of nothing. It's merely the author's opinion that it should've been the start of the Dark Universe. It was originally related to Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) from Columbia Pictures, was acquired by Amblin Partners, and was merely distributed by Universal domestically. This is a very similar arrangement to Hammer Film Productions' Universal-adjacent monster films. Can someone provide a relevant source that credibly states that it was intended by Universal as a Universal Monsters film, not just a Universal film that features Dracula? Leo1452~enwiki (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Seeing as no proof has been provided for this being part of Universal's modern Universal Monster strategy, it must be removed for now. If there is a credible source that a film is part of Universal Monsters, please provide it.

Note: Universal Monsters posting about a horror film doesn't mean it's a Universal Monster. Look through the archived talk pages as this has been discussed before. They regularly promote their wider horror catalogue, including anywhere between The Man Who Laughs and M3GAN. They've also posted parodies featuring such as Lisa Frankenstein and the Minions' Dracula. Leo1452~enwiki (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

The Mummy: From a novel?

The opening of the article currently lists The Mummy as one of the Universal Monsters that is based on a novel. The character's own page doesn't say anything about this novel, and I am not aware of one either. Is there an original The Mummy novel that predates the 1932 film, or should the Mummy be put with the original characters like the Wolf Man or the Creature from the Black Lagoon? RobotWizard42 (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

No, the mummy is an original creation of Universal. Furthermore, the opening sequence doesn't mention The Hunchback of Notre Dame.

They prevent us from editing the page, which already has errors right at the beginning. JOAOHKM (talk) 06:35, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

The article is in a protected status for a reason (look at the talk page history for context). The introductory paragraph will be adjusted. Cheers!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Valnet sources

I have previously tagged the articles relating to Screen Rant, Collider, and other Valnet based sources. Per WP:RS/VALNET, we try to avoid using these sources when possible, specifically that "Valnet, such as TheGamer, Collider, Comic Book Resources, MovieWeb, Screen Rant, and Game Rant, are considered to be of questionable reliability."

I believe the time has to come forward to look at these films individually and as a whole with the sources we have variable to contrast and compare and apply follow the guidelines of WP:WEIGHT, specifically Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. While there has been discussions in the past of using Universal as a source itself on what is or is not on their Universal Monsters catalog, the sources found for it have been limited to Facebook posts. While I believe there could be merit found digging in and finding more direct details, WP:Independent sources specifically states Articles written from multiple independent sources usually are less biased. When an article is written directly and solely based on material from the subject itself, this can create a level of bias. and WP:SCHOLARSHIP When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. It was provided, received one comment, and then not attributed or applied by editors who have since gone on to edit the articles since.

I have tried to address this in the past and the article is currently has more tags on it that it ever has previously.

I've shared this before here, but I've found four sources that could be used along with some other sources in the article to clarify what is or is not part of part of the series in some sort of consensus among our citations. Because currently, its on a bloat of citations that barely include director credits, release dates and has avoided the use of high quality sources then when it was available. I think it would be best to evaluate the content in the table on a film by film (or even series by series) basis when the sources are available. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Believing "the time has come" is not a sufficient enough source to make this comment. We should delete your entire message until we find high-quality scholarly sources that back up your claim that it's "time" to change the sources of this page, per Wikipedia's official doctrine.

If anybody tries to reinstate Andrzejbanas' message, I'll delete it again due to its lack of sources I deem appropriate, until everyone eventually gives up trying to fight me. ~2025-33792-62 (talk) 04:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Uhh, as I stated beforehand, I've shared them here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:30, 16 November 2025 (UTC)