Talk:Universal Monsters

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Universal Monsters article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4: 3 months

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

Horror High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Media franchises Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media franchises, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to media franchises on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Media franchisesWikipedia:WikiProject Media franchisesTemplate:WikiProject Media franchisesmedia franchise
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

On 7 August 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Universal Classic Monsters to Universal Monsters. The result of the discussion was moved.

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Range for "Universal Monsters"

As requested here. I am bringing up the issue on the talk page. There is inconsistencies with what films consist.

Kim Newman: "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." ^[1]
David Crow of Den of Geek "[Universal Monsters films were] primarily released in two film cycles by Universal Pictures across the 1930s and ‘40s (plus a few outliers on both sides of this)" here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
William Proctor in Horror Franchise Cinema: "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."^[2]"
Proctor also has doubts about including Mad-Doctor or "Hunchback" are not pulled from specific films, but "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."^[3]"
In The Palgrave Handbook of Contemporary Gothic, the author of the chapter on Universal Horror states "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.",^[4]

That's five, and at anyones request, I can provide more that provide inconsistencies. I'm not saying it has to be between a certain range, but I agree with you, that there does not appear to be any straight ahead conclusion or universally agreed upon standard of what is, or what isn't one. There are some characters/series which seem consistent while others are not.

While I think your source from Collider follows the rules for a WP:RS. The sources which I've tagged (and which you removed here) involve an issue with WP:VALNET. MovieWeb is probably not the highest quality source to use, especially when we have the others above. Now. I did not add them and tried to bring this up earlier on this talk page, and your response here did not really respond to the content I posted, but perceived attitudes and behaviors (understandably as I have gone off before, and I was wrong for doing so). As the information above contradicts the Collider source, I do not necisarily think we should just have what I wrote above (as from my previous post, Universal's facebook page says the films range from the 1920s to the 1960s without saying which films are or are not part of the series), I'm just not convinced there is any straight canon, despite our desire to try and set one. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC) Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE/comment: @Andrzejbanas: it is simply stated as pointing out that you are erring in trying to create a continuity and/or chronology. Not every franchise is exclusively a "shared universe" (though some sources have acknowledged that those modern franchises are inspired by the Universal Monsters). Whether a movie is a part of this or not, should be up to the associated production company (Universal Pictures), not scholars/journalists/historians/editors (us). I realize that you are attempting to respond, and you are sharing your various viewpoints. I would caution you however, to not slip back into the very arguments and tactics that you used which caused the problems with this article to begin with (to the point of 3rd party sources to cover the history of the debacle). I would also ask this simple question: who are we to tell a production company who created these characters what they can and cannot include? Furthermore, any movie that is listed on Universal Monsters social media pages should be included on this article. I have checked and there are indeed some that are missing.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, with the remake and modern eras of this franchise -- if the studio announced the movie as a "Universal Monster movie" -- those should be movies included in this article, with their associated sources. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you have tagged me in a response, I am following up. I will quote your questions/suggestions and give a response reflecting on direct questions to me and suggestions of how we should source material.

" it is simply stated as pointing out that you are erring in trying to create a continuity and/or chronology."

I apologize, but I re-read and don't know where I may be suggesting this in our current conversation. I believe I've even said that "I'm not saying it has to be between a certain range" for these works as recently as the last post.

"Whether a movie is a part of this or not, should be up to the associated production company (Universal Pictures), not scholars/journalists/historians/editors"

It would be useful if Universal has created a concrete list of what is and what is not included. Their about page reads: "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." If there is some other material from them that I'm missing that is as direct as this, please bring it to our attention. That said, your suggestion would be going against WP:BALANCE (part of WP:NPOV) "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. and WP:SOURCES ("The best sources have a professional structure for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." and WP:SOURCETYPES, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." In short, it is a core policy of of Wikipedia that we use third-party sources, and when I may have brought up in the past to prioritize the use of scholarly material on the subject, it was not my own personal beliefs, it was what research I had found turned up.

I'm not sure if any of the above clarifies anything, but I will agree we shouldn't let this spiral into a endless commentary. As we have gone through this topic, per WP:NEGOTIATE, it might be a decent time for either of us to post at Wikipedia:Third opinion to help us move forward. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In summary, it sounds like you are looking for a definitive list. The reality appears to be that the studio does so in various ways, including the list that they posted on their social media pages (here). Interestingly enough as I stated before -- each of these movies were previously on this page before it was destroyed years ago. This list that they shared is notable for various reasons (including being a list in order of when each movie was released), including the official franchise logo. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Newman, Kim (2020). "Good Vibrations". Tremors (booklet). Arrow Films. p. 7. FCD2061/FCD2089. {{cite AV media notes}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
^ Proctor, William (2021). "Building Imaginary Horror Worlds: Transfictional storytelling and the Universal Monster franchise cycle". In McKenna, Mark; Proctor, William (eds.). Horror Franchise Cinema. Routledge. pp. 34–35. ISBN 978-0367183271.
^ Proctor, William (2021). "Building Imaginary Horror Worlds: Transfictional storytelling and the Universal Monster franchise cycle". In McKenna, Mark; Proctor, William (eds.). Horror Franchise Cinema. Routledge. p. 44. ISBN 978-0367183271.
^ Jarvis, Brian. "Universal Horror". In Bloom, Clive (ed.). The Palgrave Handbook of Contemporary Gothic. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 684. ISBN 978-3-030-33135-1.

Additions to "Main cast and characters" Table

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I personally think Tommy Nelson (played by Arthur Franz) should be on here since he played The Invisible Man in Abbott and Costello Meet the Invisible Man (1951).

I also feel that Will Kemp, who played The Wolf Man in Van Helsing (2004), should be added into the "Remakes & spin-offs" section in the same box as Benicio del Toro.

Claude Rains' Invisible Man should be moved from the 1920s to the 1930s because he actually debuted in The Invisible Man from 1933, and his "referenced" table in the 1940s should be expanded into the 1950s because he was mentioned and appeared in a photograph in Abbott and Costello Meet the Invisible Man (1951). DarthNick1997 (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Stuffinwriting (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nosferatu, why?

I wanted to come to the talk page for this one. While Nosferatu has a lot in common with Dracula (for many historical reasons), is there an actual reference that calls the movie a Universal Monster? The current one details the studio's work with Bram Stoker's character, but it doesn't seem to call the previously stated movie a Universal Monster.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on re-vamping the Nosferatu article on my own talk page. In my research, no not at all, and the film itself has no connection with anything Universal owns the rights to. So at this moment in history, they have no connection, but who even owns the rights to the "likeness" of Count Orlok? Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[1] Newman, Kim (2020). "Good Vibrations". Tremors (booklet). Arrow Films. p. 7. FCD2061/FCD2089. {{cite AV media notes}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

[2] Proctor, William (2021). "Building Imaginary Horror Worlds: Transfictional storytelling and the Universal Monster franchise cycle". In McKenna, Mark; Proctor, William (eds.). Horror Franchise Cinema. Routledge. pp. 34–35. ISBN 978-0367183271.

[3] Proctor, William (2021). "Building Imaginary Horror Worlds: Transfictional storytelling and the Universal Monster franchise cycle". In McKenna, Mark; Proctor, William (eds.). Horror Franchise Cinema. Routledge. p. 44. ISBN 978-0367183271.

[4] Jarvis, Brian. "Universal Horror". In Bloom, Clive (ed.). The Palgrave Handbook of Contemporary Gothic. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 684. ISBN 978-3-030-33135-1.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]