Talk:Universal Classic Monsters/Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:UniversalHorrorCharacters.jpg
Image:UniversalHorrorCharacters.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Universal-Classic-Monsters-Essential-Collection/dp/B008H45YSO/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1508419545&sr=8-9&keywords=halloween+box+set

See above link. This appears to be a much more recent and accurate logo for the title "Universal Monsters".

Lyra-Nymph (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The logo for Universal Monsters that Wikipedians from the USA see is shaped slightly different than this one from the UK that you linked to. I'm curious, is Amazon.co.uk the default Amazon portal you see when accessing Amazon from Ireland?  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   05:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

List
Just because they're black and white, Godzilla and King Kong are not Universal monsters. BoosterBronze (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Lon Chaney as Dracula
The table says that Lon Chaney, Jr. played Dracula but shouldn't there be a separate row for his Dracula as he was supposed to be a descendant of Dracula? Emperor001 (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Lon Chaney is credited as Dracula and makes no mention that he is the son. The title was to cash in on Dracula Daughter. (talk) 27 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.194.15 (talk)


 * I actually happen to agree. Chaney Jr, is not the same Dracula as Lugosi was as evidenced by the title of the movie.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, he was indeed playing the same Dracula as Lugosi, not his son. The "Son" business was merely marketing. Alucard, of course, was Dracula spelled backward. It's a crime on the level of a breach of the Geneva Accords that the Universal brass, who loathed Lugosi, wouldn't let him play Dracula again until the comedy with Abbott & Costello. Whirlspeed (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Shared Universe
A shared universe in film is when multiple characters/franchises come together for a film. Dracula, Frankenstein, and the Wolf Man had their own solo films, then they came together for the House series and Abbot and Costello. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.194.15 (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see the section above. Reliable sources are needed.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The evidence is on film. REmmett — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rreemmett (talk • contribs) 14:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And as explained in the section above, this is WP:OR without a reliable source. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think you're describing a "crossover". --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * A Crossover is for two franchises ie. AVP or Freddy v Jason. A shared universe is more than 2 franchises coming together. Would you call the Marvel Universe a crossover? User:rreemmett (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * When the Hulk first appeared in the Fantastic Four comic series, for example, that was known as a crossover. The concept of "shared universe" didn't exist yet. The Avengers were a big team of crossovers, born because the brilliant Bill Everett hadn't finished penciling the first issue of Daredevil yet and Marvel needed something to go to press with. And yes, the Marvel Universe is an ever-expanding web (so to speak) of crossovers. Whirlspeed (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Dark Universe
Surely this needs some explanation - and there must be some sources for all this ? -- Beardo (talk) 01:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There used to be a different page for this shared universe before it was officially named, and it had sources, but I can't tell what happened to all that information. This is very threadbare.  Nevermore27  (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It was moved to a draft page - here: Draft:Dark Universe (film series) . (Until next time... Anon e Mouse Jr.) Anon e Mouse Jr. (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

when do you make the dark universe page?
dracula and the mummy are not in a dark universe page ? wtf ?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.207.75.83 (talk) 12:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Complete Universal Monsters
So, I am obsessed with the Universal Monsters. These past few years I have been driving myself crazy with putting together a comprehensive scope of what should be considered "Universal Monster" films. I would have been fine with just having the movies featuring the core monsters, but several sources, including wikipedia, list a bunch of one-off horror films among them, considering Universal started with the one-off Hunchback film. For a while, I thought I had it figured out and had curated a list of 90 original films (which are the films currently listed on this wiki), but lately, I have been having some doubts. I'm worried that there might be other Universal movies from this era which fit the tone of the movies on this wiki. There are even some movies currently on this page that detestably don't fit, like Night Key.

Should any of these movies be added?

1934 - Secret of the Chateau

1934 - The Man Who Reclaimed his Head - Stars Claude Rains

1934 - The Vanishing Shadow - Serial

1935 - Life Returns

1935 - Night Life of the Gods

1935 - The Great Impersonation

1938 - The Black Doll - part of the Crime Club (Any other CC films on her which should be included?)

1939 - The Missing Guest - Remake of Secret of the Blue Room

1939 - Mystery of the White Room

1939 - The House of Fear - Remake of The Last Warning

1940 - The House of Seven Gables

1940 - Dark Streets of Cairo

1941 - Hold That Ghost

1942 - Nightmare — Preceding unsigned comment added by AxelGripp (talk • contribs) 05:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

1943 - Flesh and Fantasy 1944 - Ghost Chasers

1944 - Murder in the Blue Room - Musical remake of Secret of the Blue Room

1944 - Destiny

1945 - That's the Spirit

1946 - Night in Paradise

1946 - The Time of Their Lives

1953 - Abbot and Costello go to Mars

1957 - The Man of a Thousand Faces - Lon Chaney Sr. Biopic

1959 - 4-D Man - Independent Film

and finally, most of all The 12 Sherlock Holmes pictures produced by Universal between 1942-1946. B-Movies which contained many elements of Universal Horror gave us such characters as The Creeper, played by Rondo Hatton, and the Spider Woman, played by Gale Sondergaard

Do any of these belong on here? are there any I missed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AxelGripp (talk • contribs) 05:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Truth is that the definition is vary vague and you would need sources for all these that call them universal monster films.★Trekker (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * @AxelGripp, the real honest issue with this whole article is that there are no sources for any of these films. The page is bloated, and very fan-site style in format. No film pages should list main actors/code colors for what characters are in which films/and then have a bunch of floating films. Most of these movies should probably be on a page titled 'Universal Pictures Classic Horror' or something along those lines. As-is, the page is inaccurate seeing as any publishing of the Universal Classic Monsters only includes the 'classic monsters' (i.e: Dracula, Frankenstein, Mummy, Invisible Man, Wolf Man, Gill-man, etc etc). The reality is that this page needs some major reformatting. For the time-being, I don't see any harm in you adding each of those horror films, that were released by Universal. They fit right in with how the page currently is, and would be constructive to a list of films in the horror genre that Universal released. because this page is so vague on the definition of 'classic monsters' and needs reformatting, I've posted some of my suggestions below.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree the article is a mess. Not sure how to go about fixing it all tho.★Trekker (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

and @AxelGripp, check out my suggestions in the section below.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Format overhaul
The format of this page, in terms of an encyclopedia is atrocious. In an online encyclopedia, the format should list facts regarding the production/crew credits of a film giving on overview of the film. Not list the 'main actors' and color code which characters are in the film, with a majority of the list featuring a 'white' color box meaning...'other film'? First issue of this page is: "What exactly designates a move to be Universal Classic Monsters?", and secondly: "What do we call the rest of their vast output of horror films?". Might I suggest that the 'Classic Monsters' moniker only applies to the films that they have released under that franchise title? The title did not exist at the time of their release, but is what the studio considers them to be at this time. For example: The studio calls Dracula a 'Universal Classic Monster', but Tarantula! is never released with that classifier. Note/thought: Is there even a definition from the studio, other than what they release with the Universal Classic Monsters logo/franchise title on it?....

What we can see from these issues is that this page is entirely bloated. It is a list of horror films released by Universal Pictures during a set time-period, rather than a page specifically about the Universal Classic Monsters. The solution very well may be to have two separate pages, one listing all horror films from the studio (in decades as has been done on this page), and one specifically about the franchise (this article).

Lastly, the format of the table is so fan-site in composure, I have created a suggested reformatting in correspondence of what the page currently exists as. As I drafted the suggested reformated table, is when I realized: "What part of this ****ing movie, makes it a Universal Classic Monster movie?". This is why I am bringing it to the talk page. We have to be careful in not straying into WP:OR in this, which is why I pose the question to all editors. What is the defining characteristic, if there is any? And if there's not, other than the video releases that they have classified as "Universal Classic Monsters" - most of these films need to be moved to another page.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Suggested format for tables #1
Below is a draft of a more encyclopedic version of what a film table should include. The main actors, is not necessary, nor are the characters that appear in said films. Should this page be reformatted to only include films that are released with the title/classier: Universal Classic Monsters, perhaps dividing the page into sub-sections/film series: Dracula, Frankenstein, Wolf Man/werewolves, etc. is the format to use on this page. The example below may be more fitting for a "Universal Pictures horror films" list page (or the equivalent thereof. Thoughts?/Suggestions?


 * 1920s


 * 1930s
 * 1940s


 * 1950-1960

This page needs some serious work, and we need a game plan. That's the fact.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There have been no comments in over a month. It seems to indicate that no one opposes this change(?). Will implement new format within the next week if no comments.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the first time I've looked at this page for several months and immediately see one of the most important elements excised for no apparent reason. What happened to the mention of the lead actors in each film? That's the most interesting aspect when considering most of these pictures, especially since it illustrates which actors dominated the studio's output each decade (Chaney in the '20s, Karloff and Lugosi in the '30s, and Chaney Jr. in the '40s with Karloff and Lugosi gradually fading out). This is worse than "burying the lead," it's a case of actually deleting the lead. That element should be restored to the table. Figure Out What&#39;s Right (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to pare down the list of "classic" films to those released under the "Monsters" banner
Instead of throwing in nearly every Universal horror/sci-fi film made between the 1920 and 1960, maybe a better litmus test would be whether the film was released on home video under some sort of Universal Monsters banner (and films not released as such but directly related to the aforesaid, marked by an asterisk). A bit of cursory research indicates that the following titles from 1925 to 1956 would qualify, everything else from that time period being expunged. 2601:CA:4000:FDC2:EC50:D0CA:93C7:1CC9 (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The Phantom of the Opera (1925)*
 * Dracula (1931)
 * Frankenstein (1931)
 * Murders in the Rue Morgue (1932)
 * The Mummy (1932)
 * The Invisible Man (1933)
 * The Black Cat (1934)
 * Werewolf of London (1935)
 * Bride of Frankenstein (1935)
 * The Raven (1935)
 * Dracula's Daughter (1936)
 * Son of Frankenstein (1939)
 * Tower of London (1939)
 * The Invisible Man Returns (1940)
 * The Mummy's Hand (1940)
 * The Invisible Woman (1940)
 * Man Made Monster (1941)
 * The Black Cat (1941)*
 * The Wolf Man (1941)
 * The Ghost of Frankenstein (1942)
 * Invisible Agent (1942)
 * The Mummy's Tomb (1942)
 * Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943)
 * Captive Wild Woman (1943)
 * Phantom of the Opera (1943)
 * Son of Dracula (1943)
 * The Mad Ghoul (1943)
 * Jungle Woman (1944)*
 * The Invisible Man's Revenge (1944)
 * The Mummy's Ghost (1944)
 * The Pearl of Death (1944)*
 * House of Frankenstein (1944)
 * The Mummy's Curse (1944)
 * The Jungle Captive (1945)*
 * House of Dracula (1945)
 * House of Horrors (1946)
 * She-Wolf of London (1946)
 * Bud Abbott and Lou Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948)
 * Bud Abbott and Lou Costello Meet the Invisible Man (1951)
 * Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954)
 * Revenge of the Creature (1955)
 * Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy (1955)
 * The Creature Walks Among Us (1956)


 * Totally agree that this page is too inclusive. It's also noteworthy that Universal Studios has been releasing volumes of collections of what they're calling 'Universal Classic Horror' movies. These have included (so far) the other classic horror movies from the studio. So it seems as though Universal has two banners: the Universal Classic Monsters, and the Universal Classic Horror. This page should be split into two articles, with jump-links showing the two are related but separate.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * @2601:CA:4000:FDC2:EC50:D0CA:93C7:1CC9 there has been no reply since my last response. Your suggestion was in the start of June. I'm going to move forward with separating the article into two separate ones: Universal Classic Monsters and Universal Classic Horror (as the studio has been doing so with collection releases) as stated above. Additionally, each page can have a brief description of how the two banners are related, with "See also" links in them. This is going to take some time.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would agree the list is very confusing when it comes to film dating 1920s to 1960s but the list from remake era and Dark Universe are more easy to understand so I did be in favor of splitting into Universal Classic Monsters and Universal classic Horror list as it is currently is to inclusive as privous comments states I think the 30-Disc Blu-ray collection should be the guide on how the list should be divided. https://bluray.highdefdigest.com/60426/universalclassicmonsterscomplete30filmcollection.html DoctorHver (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I decided to carry out the cull considering the age of previous comments. Al though it did bit f*** up the tables. Anyone feel free to fix those I also started seperate list for everything eslse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Classic_Horror DoctorHver (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it would be extremely difficult to distinguish between Universal Classic Horror and Universal Classic Monsters. This is obviously a pair of random titles for the purpose of marketing current collections. When the collections themselves change names, as they inevitably will (especially as DVDs disappear and downloads as well as who knows what take over as the delivery system), Wikipedia will be stuck with an inscrutable separation that will confuse anyone looking these films up, and the whole thing would eventually have to be reversed. Figure Out What&#39;s Right (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The page definitly needs reinterpreting on what belongs under the "Universal Classic Monsters" banner, and otherwise. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * while I do agree that the main article for this did need to be pared down to the official films, I also think that maybe a page for Universal's Horror & Sci-Fi output as a whole wouldn't be a bad idea, especially since some of the films not currently considered part of the Universal Classic Monsters lineup seem to have been part of it in the past(I've definitely seen several tie-ins from the past treat Hunchback of Notre Dame, The Mole People, and This Island Earth as part of it at various points for example) and that bears mentioning(and would be a useful page to have anyways)Drrockso20 (talk) 08:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Dark Universe - franchise is still active!!
Today (October 28, 2019) - an interview with Paul Feig confirmed that the Dark Universe is indeed still an active/current entity. At this point, the franchise/banner as a whole covers each of the anthological installments created. Because of all of these things - Dark Universe should be moved back to a mainpage. The sections can discuss the fact that originally it was going to be a shared universe, and now it is a generalized title to their individual adaptations. Regardless - this confirms what I've stated for years now: this is not a 'dead franchise'.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right, so the page needs to be restored. Please an administrator can do it? --Kasper2006 (talk) 19:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * we can bring an admin's attention to this page. Overall this entire article needs to be condensed. Discussions have stated that only Classic Monster franchises should be on this page, while the film studio releases other films through its "Universal Classic Horror" banner. The current article is more or less a list of all horror movies from Universal. There's nothing wrong with that, but the article is just cluttered. Working on these changes. Do you know how to get an admin?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry I don't know any cinema admin :( --Kasper2006 (talk) 11:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

"Dark Universe" could be a film collection instead of a cinematic universe.
Greetings. I was thinking that "Dark Universe" could be a film collection instead of a cinematic universe, like the DC Universe Animated Original Movies, with several films existing on their own continuities. There could be a "Dark Universe (franchise)" article, but it could be edited on a very different way. Thank you. F. E. Puricelli (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * That is a good observation. The current article there, which was attempted to be removed is essentially that. An article about the tabloid-term/colloquial title used for the standalone reboot films.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The main issue was with the last version of the Dark Universe article was that it only has one film in it's "series". There's no list article to be made, unlike that list of animated films there. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Splitting proposal
Hello. During the past year I've focused a lot of time editing the 1930s and 1940s Universal horror films, trying to bring them up to snuff after a mild push for it at WP:HORROR. On trying to find anything about "Universal Classic Horror" or specific branding of "Universal Monsters", there is no real official branding of these series until the 1990s until the Universal Classic horror line, a home video series that was strictly the home video division of MCA/Universal trying to make their collection of horror films they had the rights to into a film series. So here's where it becomes complicated. Here' an image of the original VHS tapes from the series here. There are some films in this series that are not even Universal Productions, namely The Monster and the Girl and Island of Lost Souls are Paramount productions that Universal had the rights to. So should they be included? The series also includes films that are not later considered Monster movies and are not part of other promotions, such as the Edgar Allen Poe adaptations. This gets further complicated when Shout Factory has been releasing their own Universal Horror collections which include other non-Universal films such as Murders in the Zoo. As this article seems to try and tackle them all as a big series, there is little interlock outside the Monster rally films and from all my research from the past year, there is little connection between them outside a marketing brand that's existed really since the 1990s to sell home video.

I propose splitting these articles up into their own series that have character or plot connections. For example, we have The Wolf Man (franchise) article. I suggest separate articles for more continuing series such as Frankenstein (Universal film series) and such, which all have their own articles anyways. Mentioning the Universal Monsters in articles when needed in articles is easy to explain as being major horror series of the 30s, 40s and 50s as that's all that they really seem to be from my research. If we can get more information about entire thing as a whole rather then just repeating information in their own individual series I think it would be fair. I know people will want to keep this, but currently it's an uncited mess which doesn't explain why this series is a full series on its own outside my own recent addition.

Following this, I feel that the Dark Universe section should have it's own article as its related to a contemporary series which Universal is pushing as it's own contemporary franchise using what they happen to have the rights too. Which is something they have been doing since the 1990s with their Mummy series, Van Helsing and others. Again, I'd love to keep this article as it is as I'm a fan of the series, but it's something that is not set in stone what it is and what it isn't. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I support giving each series their own article, but I also think we should absolutely have an article about the concept of the Universal Monsters.★Trekker (talk) 15:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd love to have that article but as stated from the research there is no concrete statement of what they are, what series belong, and what do not. Everytime I've brought this up as well, I've basically met with people who want this article to exist, but cannot find any specific infomration outside these films being older horror films from the 1930s-1950s that are sometimes packaged as part of home video line up. No more. No less. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I've given this over a months time and very few have come in to weigh in despite messages in WP:FILM and WP:HORROR. If there is no further discussion or evidence brought up, I'll seperate the article into this being its own article for the home video line, Dark Universe to be it's own development. I'll scrap the re-occuring cast and lists as they can be listed as their own. Still welcoming new research and ideas in the meantime, preferably with sources to back them up! ;) Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There has been no other push to not have the articles split so I am assuming consensus. I will be moving the articles into Dark Universe (franchise) and leave the home video information here and remove the unsourced information. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that this page should be leaved but the information about Dark Universe should be moved to the eponymous page. Also I think we should make the section "Other films" about Universal horror films, which aren't officially included in the franchise but still be horror films, produced by Universal. I think this is the best solution. --Дейноніх (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think a list of horror films by Universal may be better. Having a "related stuff" section on this page will only make it messy here.★Trekker (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, pretty good proposal. But I saw only now that the article was changed. It is described only as a home video line but it is a franchise and a cinematic universe too. I haven't read the whole discussion but I think it's not good change. --Дейноніх (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Now I read a discussion. There are many sources in Internet that describe it as a cinematic universe and a franchise, not just as a home video line. Sorry, I just haven't time for searching them now. Please, just search in Google. As I remember ScreenRant and CBR made many articles about Universal Classic Monsters but I can be wrong. --Дейноніх (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've seen similar things but there is no stable statement of what it is, when it was created (outside of a home video line, which is when the term first starts being used). So what is included? What isn't? I've been trying to update the articles lately on these 1930s and 40s horror film articles and the term is used very little outside what I have found for this home video line. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * no offense but you need to stop acting like everything has easy awnsers, film franchises did not work the exact same way they do today, the simple fact is that Universal did do crossovers many many times with its horror characters and the term "Universal Monsters" is not confined to home video releases.★Trekker (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I personally wanted to find information to clarify this article, but as no one else brought up stuff other than they feel is the series and isn't. It's been purely subjective, if you need proof of that, look a the previous templates and article that has several films and it was all a mixed bag. nobody has brought anything else to the table. Does the film Jungle Woman belong? If so, where does anyone state this? if not, why not? Nobody can seem to agree what belongs where. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your're doing the exact thing I said again. An article about Universal Monsters doesn't need to be a list of movies, it should discus the history of the term and how its been applied, hard to define or not "Universal Monsters" is undoubtably a thing that exists and has for a long time, otherwise stuff like Universal Monsters Live Rock and Roll Show wouldn't exist.★Trekker (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's what I've been trying to do and currently, this is all I've found. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There have been several books on the topic, 1, 2, 3, 4.★Trekker (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Great. Find material within them to expand. I've been using that Universal Horrors for example and I don't even think once in it is phrase "Universal Classic Monsters" used. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Univeral Monsters" without the "Classic" is the common name, this article was moved from that title a while ago (it really shouldn't have been), if you only search for "Universal Classic Monsters" you're likely only going to find stuff about the specific home video series.★Trekker (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, does it? As stated before its not clear and I can't find anything that backs it up. And if that's the case, are some things like Murders in the Rue Morgue included? The book on Universal Horror for example covers non-horror films as well that were part of the Shock Theatre television expansions. Are those included? Are they not? You are saying a lot of things Trekker and I appreciate it but you need your research outside a quick google search to back this stuff up. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, please stop asking open questions, its not a "yes or no" game.★Trekker (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to play games, I'm trying to make the article's content be sourced and be accurate to what its describing. So yes, discussion is going to involve asking questions. I don't really have much more to respond to at the moment if people responding can't answer my questions as it won't be going anywhere. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is that (as I've already said) your questions don't have simple answers, and honestly aren't even that important overall to what should be done about a Universal Monsters article. You're hung up about what films should be included, but there is no need to have a list of films at all because the "Universal Monsters" is not primarily a "film series" in the modern sense, its a pop culture term for several of the characters that had films made by Universal in the same period that eventually came to be grouped together. Hence its a lose and bendable term. Asking "is this movie and this movie part of the franchise" is not helpful. We should just focus on what sources say, if the sources contradict each other then we just mention that and explain each authors reasoning.★Trekker (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Then go for it, I haven't seen anyone add to this article relating to this yet. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I just don't know what to say. Yes, it wasn't named "franchise" or "cinematic universe" at first. These films were grouped together only with home video release. But that's just because these terms just didn't exist or were rarely used in the time of making these films. Even if "Universal Classic Monsters" wasn't named "franchise" and/or "cinematic universe" before, it is established as franchise and cinematic universe now. I don't see big problem with it. Probably we should just involve more people in the discussion. That's all I wanted to say. Oh, and I think a list of films also should be on the page. Thanks in advance. --Дейноніх (talk) 07:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You see that's where the issue comes in, I've tried to include what does or what does not belong, but as there is no hard set of rules, it's not clear what is and what isn't part of the series. You guys keep saying to add things, and I'd normally so go ahead, but things have sat on this article for so long without citations and constant change of what does or does not belong, there appears to be no established setting of what does or does not belong. That's what made me want to separate this article as I have done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand. For example, ScreenRant calls The Hunchback of Notre-Dame part of the series but I don't know was it included in the home video line or no. I don't know where to search reliable sources about Universal Classic Monsters. Also I like discussions not very much. As I said before, we just should involve more people in the discussion. --Дейноніх (talk) 13:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've previously posted that we are discussing it on the talk page for WP:HORROR and WP:FILM to little response outside. That is why I eventually went bold and included what I have. From what I've read and seen, Hunchback films are not horror films and outside a few outliers are rarely discussed when discussing horror films of the period, let alone the Universal Classic Monsters. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Template missing
I have happened to notice that the template is missing, I see you all came to a consensus.
 * The discussion concluded here: Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_15 Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

What About the Languages?
Since I heard that this article had changed to shorten it for just the home video release and moved many monsters series to their own articles. However there's one thing that's bugging me: what about the other languages? This article was changed but just for the English version. What about the Spanish version? What about the Japanese version? How come those languages (including the two that I mentioned) still include the whole thing (including both the 1923 Hunchback and the 1925 Phantom) but not the English version? 94-kun (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is what I discussed before that there is no definition of what does or doesn't belong in this "series". I'd suggest removing these external links as they don't seem to relate or hope they catch up with the same issue we had here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

What the hell happened to the page?
This is unacceptable. Where is the page? Where are the film listings? Undo it now it's vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.122.228 (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * See the above sections to see what happened. In short, it couldn't be proven what consisted of the Universal Monsters and it was mostly a term for a home video label. Nobody has been able to find any serious sources stating otherwise, so it's been shortened down to what is actually sourced. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll be fixing this nonsense one day when I have the energy.★Trekker (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm curious what you mean by "fixing", I've searched for content to clarify what is or isn't in this series and the only information i can find still is it being a home video series. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's this kinda stuff that really frustrates those who are not Wikipedia insiders. I don't get the point of making the page less informative. At least list the 30 films found in the Blu-Ray. I'll look through my film books to see if I can find a scholarly reference, but the idea of "Universal Monsters" series of film far pre-dates the video line. PenguinElvisBonsai (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, i've said it before but the specific term and what is considered part of the series and what isn't seems really vague. Everyone's argument seems to be that they want information included, but few seem to be willing to add anything other than saying "bring it back" on the talk page. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Completely agree - I frequently visited this page to see all the antecedents and related films to the "Official" titles. I have no problem them existing as two lists, a "core" list and an "expanded" list, but now the only place I can find the complete table is here on the Talk page (glad I thought to look here). 2601:18C:4300:2950:F81D:3C42:7AB5:5C55 (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The fact that there is no longer a Wikipedia page for the “Universal Monsters” as a group of characters and series of films is a travesty that needs to be corrected as soon as possible. As others have said, this isn’t a concept that was introduced in the 1990s for home video, it’s been a thing since the 1940s at least. FIX THIS. Willhohenstein (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * See above. If you want an article on this be my guest, but good luck finding the sources to back this up. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

This article will be reinstated when I have the energy/time to go through and re-add each of the specified/titled "Universal Classic Monsters". The source that is valid enough is the various boxset collections that Universal has released. Your argument of other VHS collections is moot. The article can cover the fact that other collections have been released with slightly different collection titles (this is not an issue). Furthermore it can also state that the VHSes included other films, in their collection. The article should not have been de-constructed for this.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The very issue that we are just using a release set on home video for your argument actually increases the fact that its a home video line, especially if you can't back it up with anything else. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

This really feels like a great article was dismantled due to a technicality. Maybe 'Universal Classic Monsters' is officially just a home video line, but it's pretty widely accepted that it refers to a specific set of movies. Not to mention variations of the name have been used for other products, such as Universal Monsters comics published by Dark Horse or a bunch of Universal Studios Monsters merchandise. And it's very obvious that the general public thinks of these as Universal Monsters, for example the fan sites Universal Monster Army and Universal Monsters Universe. -Joltman (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey . That's the issue here, I've looked and looked and this term is only used after the home video release. I even struggled to find information that says what films belong or not. And per wiki standards we don't use fansites. That being said, the current article does state what monsters are generally included on this set. I'm curious that people want it "changed back" but no one can even state what was the "correct" or accurate version, because there is no source. At one point it only included the usually promotional bunch, (Dracula, Frankensten, Mummy, Wolf Man, etc.) while others say "well shouldn't we include Captive Wild Woman?" others included the Poe adaptations. I don't like wikipedia to just cite fancruft and I know people want more here, but the information is not there outside a fandom built off a home video label. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * . Here's a Universal Monsters lunchbox and some Universal Monsters Halloween costumes, all from the '70s. Notice the branding as "Universal Movie Monsters" and simply "Universal Monsters", and how This Island Earth, The Mole People and even Tarantula are included under that branding. Willhohenstein (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool. That's not really citable information though. And your extra bits of information not reliable sources. And as said before, there's little information that really lumps these together other than branding and products. And those other films you mentioned, I'll repeat myself for the nth time, but you'll need some sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m not arguing that these movies are a concrete franchise like Star Wars or the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It’s more loosey-goosey than that, for sure. But the monsters and their films have been grouped together in pop culture and the public consciousness for decades before the ‘90s home video line, and this article needs to reflect that. Willhohenstein (talk) 01:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure. As i've said before, find sources that back this up. Months have gone by with people saying it's wrong but nobody (myself included) can't seem to find any writing on the subject. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if we can emphasize it as a franchise that grew out of the popularity of the classic horror films. Something like:

Universal Classic Monsters is the name given to an American media franchise based on a collection of thirty horror films produced by Universal Pictures from 1931 to 1956. Although not initially conceived as a franchise, the enduring popularity and legacy of the films and/or the characters associated with them has led Universal to market them under the collective brand name of Universal Classic Monsters.

The 30 films would be the ones included in the 30-film box set released in 2018. Other sources I'm seeking to support it include this book and this book, as well as this and this. However, I admit other articles include some 1920s horror films as well (such as Hunchback), so the films included in this franchise is kinda blurry. But one cannot deny that it a distinct brand that Universal promotes and fans adore. And for that reason, I think it deserves a more fleshed-out article (while being well-sourced, of course). Enter Movie (talk) 06:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Any comments? Upon further research, the actual brand name is Universal Studios Monsters. I'll start off writing the introduction, but I think it'll take a group effort to write about the history and such. Enter Movie (talk) 04:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, the problem is there is no definitive third party sources that discusses what is in the brand and what isn't. I'm not denying its a brand, but we can't seem to find any specific sources and there isn't really a history of the brand, because these films only really became lumped together (outside the House of films and Abbott and Costello Meets series) when they released them on home video. So your additions of it being "created in the 1920s" and other unsourced material isn't really the case. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, that doesn't matter Andrzejbanas. Primary sources (such as what the owner of a brand calls that brand or what said owner includes as part of that brand), are just fine. So for example, if DC Comics says that Hal Jordan is a Green Lantern, we can include that information. we don't need a third party source to verify it. We have several policy pages that talk about this. Identifying and using primary sources, being one example.  - jc37 06:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for responding! I was kinda waiting on your comments, since you spearheaded the overhaul of the page, but decided to be bold instead. Like I said, the content and sourcing is a work in progress that I'm sure will take months of group effort to document (there's even an "executive in charge of Universal Monsters"), but it's hard for others to add on if you keep reverting the article to the way you want (although I don't doubt you have good-faith intentions). As for history of the brand? This one documents it pretty well. Here is another documenting how Universal licensed the brand for toys and figurines. This one may be good to source as well, but I'd have to check on the verifiability of it since it's a blog. And what constitutes films as part of the brand? I think the home video lines released in 1991, 1999, 2004, and 2018 are very good indicators (perhaps a table with 4 columns for each home video line and rows for up to 37 films). I think the fact that Universal releases them with the brand attached is as real as an "official statement." But what about The Hunchback of Notre Dame, right? Well, that's where body paragraphs would explain how Universal has included the character in its Universal Studios Monsters licensing. I think had the right idea of explaining that all because we don't have an article explaining "Quasimodo is a Universal Monster" doesn't mean it is not one; the fact that Universal, the owner of the brand, licenses the character as such is enough evidence. So as you can see, there are lots of sources that can back up the brand. Let me know your thoughts. Enter Movie (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * All that aside, I spose this might be worth looking at. it lists the monsters in question and talks about the brand/franchise. - jc37 06:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The situation isn't so much that others say what it or isn't, it's that people keep adding information like "oh it started in the 20s/30s, etc." whatever. A history is never part of these sources as lumping these characters together is (as sourced in the article) a way to sell Universal properties as a brand. Now, as for including a list of these films, we can find many, but there is no set selection of what does or does not belong. And from previous edit histories you'll see several people tossing in several Universal properties into the mix with no real rhyme or reason. These sources do not really go into detail and it would be wrong to interpret them as any sort of historical fashion. And Universal makes no real official statement of what does or does not belong. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey ! Let me check through your response. I'm really frustrated because when I attempted to re-do this article, I meant to give it an overhaul and keep most of the content there (just to have it sourced). However, the "Universal Monsters" and "Universal Classic Monsters" is rarely studied as a topic itself. Usually just casually referring to them as an era instead of a "cinematic universe" or whatever. I didn't want expect it to turn out the way I got it, but so far nobody has really been able to cut through and find more specific info outside of "oh it's obvious" (which I disagree with as we've had several variations of what is or isn't in the series) or just flat out original research. As for your sources, let's go through them.


 * the Variety source here, the monsters are mentioned for sure but there's not a lot of info here other than the reivewer seems to toss in the Hunchback of Notre Dame (the 1920s one...i'm guessing?) Perhaps finding information regarding Holly Goline, the current executive in charge of the Monsters brand for Universal could help.
 * As for the article here, i'm a bit torn because it feels like its written as being about the Universal Monsters but like....it sort of goes against other material we have in the article (it starts tossing in information about the Inner Sanctum Mysteries and the Poe adapatations seems to hunt and pick at what does and what doesn't belong. It also sort of just starts rambling about roles Lugosi and Karloff did (The Grinch, etc.) as well. I see what you mean, but like, it's not a serious overview as much as i kind of feel like it's slightly more streched out listicle. The toy one just sort of doesn't say much to me other than "hey! these toys exist!" and has little context to it, which we kind of need on wikipedia. The blogspot one appears to be a bit better, but is unfortunately, a blog post so it seems to fail WP:RS and WP:SPS.
 * Your suggestion of the https://universalmonstersuniverse.com/ article seems to contradict other information we have listed above. Of that History site gives a history of the films in a vague scatter-shot way, this one (which appears to be a fan site) which would enforce that this hybrid of these monsters is a home video line (which the current article states). So which is it? And as for your argument that if Universal owns the property, it should be considered a "Universal Monster". However, Universal owns the rights to several early Paramount films, and has released them under the "Universal Horror" brand (or licesned them out ot Shout Factory). Would it be correct to include Island of Lost Souls or Murders in the Zoo? Again, sources are all over the place and the sources above are sort of casual references to it without any serious journalism or research or are self-published sources. I think we might be on track if we can find more information about these toy publishings in the 60s and what not, since that seems to be lumping these generally unrelated film into a series and if we can get some research on that, we will probably be on to something. Otherwise, I feel like we're a bit lost still. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Let me say that what I'm suggesting is emphasizing Universal Studios Monsters as a brand and not necessarily a cinematic universe... a brand that is based on a series of prolific monster movies produced by Universal in the 1920s-50s, but a brand first and foremost. Do you agree with that? That was the point of most of my sources: we have Universal trademarking "Universal Studios Monsters" and licensing it out, we have an "executive in charge of Universal Monsters," we have Universal featuring them prominently as part of their theme parks, we have them promoting an art contest based on it, we have dedicated fanbases... I mean, with all of that, I think it's disingenuous to seriously suggest it is just a series of home video lines.


 * Second, that https://universalmonstersuniverse.com/ article was actually written by Ian Bates of the official Universal Studios Monsters Instagram page as a guest contributor writer (see bottom of article), so it's kind of ironic that you question it... which kinda circles back to my comment earlier of "it's hard for others to add on if you keep reverting the article to the way you want." I'm not questioning your good-faith intentions, but combing through everyone's sources, shooting them down, and gatekeeping this article is not productive. I mean, I'm sure there are many articles out there that are essentially one-man projects, but Wikipedia oftentimes involves teamwork. Every article starts somewhere, and if this one has to have "more citations needed" or "cleanup" templates at the top to get things going, then so be it.


 * And, lastly, I would say movies released with the "Universal Studios Monsters" branding by Universal are counted as part of this brand. We can settle with not including the 1920s films for now (and later on expand about Universal including them in their licensing), but the 1991, 1999, 2004, and 2018 home video lines are as official as it gets. You mention some other movies, which I've checked here, but there is absolutely no Monster branding there. They are just some other horror movies Universal produced during that time period.


 * I hope I've cleared things up a bit. - Enter Movie (talk) 03:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact we have to sort of agree amongst ourself of what it is suggests we are applying WP:OR. It's not up to us to decide really "oh this is include, but this isn't". There's no research or sources to back it up. i looked at the profile of the Universal Monsters Universe site and saw not mention of the connection to Universal. Also to clarify, no. We don't include information that just has a "citation needed" tag. That would be really irresponsible. Per WP:BURDEN, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.". Now as for the branding of the "Universal Monsters" we reach further issues. If we just go by home video, we'll have VHS (as seen here) specifically Island of Lost Souls and The Monster and the Girl. If we wanted to expand this into an article with the information I think people want. My suggestion would be to re-name the article into "Universal Horror" opposed to the monster line. That way we can clarify the information and still include the "Universal Classic Monsters" info, which, from my own research above, appears to be strictly a promotional line for home video. I wish I found serious writing that said otherwise, but it's all really loosey goosey. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I think there are two separate discussions at play here: first, whether Universal Studios Monsters is a brand that is more than just a home video line. That shouldn't even be up for debate at this point. See the first paragraph of my first response to you (trademarked, licensed, someone heads the division, etc.). Second, what are the movies that this brand is based on? I think this is the one at the center of your argument and the one you've been claiming is WP:OR, which is surprising to me. You've gone through all the trouble of overhauling the article and making it about the home video line... yet you don't consider the movies released on said home video lines as a source? Why is that? I'm actually curious as to how you reconcile this. - Enter Movie (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's great that you found the info about how someone heads a division on promoting the Universal Monsters, but it doesn't really say anything other than "it exists" and it's got some promotional material being made. What information do you want to pull from this is more what i'm curious. As for the video line, it becomes a bit of an issue on further examination: I'm not sure if you saw it the first time, but Universal released two films that were not originally Universal products as part of their Universal Monster line (again: Island of Lost Souls and The Monster and the Girl). However, this hasn't been in included in any major branding, advertising, promotional material either. I've found little discussion on these films additions (other than I know Universal owns the rights to Paramount's backlog of films from the 30s and 40s I believe). My issues is people originally want to create a "history" or "list" of films, but we can't find solid info on what qualifies as part of the series and what doesn't. Do we include Paramount Feature films? And if so, can you find any info that backs up their inclusion? I personally don't like including home video releases that are packaged together as a definition of what a series is as its sort of taking a release out of context. For example, Universal's release of The Wolfman in compilation forms includes Werewolf of London and She-Wolf of London. No promotion or any material I've found connects the series, nor are they connected by plot ("She-Wolf" for the record, doesn't even have a were-wolf in it. oof!) The biggest factor in my push for me to reconcile the connection in this series is the interview with a head of Universal Marketing (which is in the article) where he specifically says they have lumped these Universal's characters together to sell as a home video line as having them connected this way "makes them look like a line". In other words, it makes them appear connected. Now, i'm going back to my earlier suggestion. I'm more in favor of re-naming this article to be about "Universal Horror", a term in all my research on these Universal Films (i've written several GAs on the topic in the past few years) is the far more common catch-all term. We can still include information in this article that way. I'd like your thoughts on that . Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

"Other than the fact that there were a couple books and merchandise released with it, Star Wars is just a film series."

Were they branded with Universal Studios Monsters when released on the home video line? Then, by product of this page [currently] being about the home video lines, you should be able to answer that yourself.

The. Home. Video. Lines.

Wikipedia is about facts, not feelings.

At this point, I'm just trying to convince you to include the very content that you overhauled this page into (i.e. the home video lines). It's not a series that is narratively connected more so than, say, George A. Romero's zombie films.

Yes, connected in the sense that they are monster movies primarily produced by Universal during a prolific period in the first half of the 20th century. It doesn't necessarily mean he was selling the line to narratively connect them.

I haven't researched much about "Universal Horror" itself, but just off the top of my head, it would seem that going down that path would essentially change the article to a list, not unlike List of horror films of the 2020s. That would lose out on a lot of the body paragraphs explaining such and such (when it's eventually written), so I don't prefer that. - Enter Movie (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to apologize then as I don't see what you want to change with the current article if you seem content with it's current status as a home video line? I can sort of summarize that "Universal Horror" would basically just be a lot more a blanket statement for the horror films Universal produced in the 1930s and 1940s. I could create a draft idea of what it might be like.Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm working on one thing at a time. It's clear you'll keep reverting this page to a home video line, unless it's decently written and sourced as a brand, and that can be done later. So as a home video line it currently is, there should be no objections to including a table of films released on said home video lines. - Enter Movie (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you can find specific sources that state they are part of the line be my guest. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, the home video lines are my sources. - Enter Movie (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Which ones specifically? Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The ones adorned with the Universal Studios Monsters logo - Enter Movie (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, I mean, go ahead. Just clarify any extra details that may not be included on the packaging of these (i'm specifically thinking of things like release dates next to them etc.). Perhaps clarify that those are the release dates of the films, and not the home video themselves (depending on how you are doing it of course). Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

,, , , , if you all were curious about the inclusion of films on the page, I have finally included a table and sourced up to 41 films that have been branded with Universal Studios Monsters on their home video releases. I will work on sourcing the brand next. Enjoy - Enter Movie (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I 1000% aggree, . This page was butchered and to do so purely based off of feelings/opinions regarding the interconnectivity (or lack thereof) of these films was unfounded. The film studio created the moniker/label/title for these movies, even if retroactively (in some cases). The article should reflect that, and additional work to include all the movies under its umbrella is needed. Thank you for adding the identified table. When I have some extra time, I will contribute to the work. As stated before, a section detailing previous releases of VHS vs DVD vs Bluray and how they have had slight variations of the title would be constructive. Thanks m8!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The last thing we need is slight interpretations of titles that do not help anyone. See WP:COMMONNAME. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Edits like this one are part of the reason why i was hesitant to include a list in this article. People are going to have their own interpretations but can not provide any real research on how things are part of this series which really only exists to sell certain films as part of a home video collection. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Be patient. It will eventually be added into the article. I can't guarantee it will happen in the next month or two, but I will write something up eventually.
 * Only exists as a home video line? That's like saying, as I mentioned above: "Other than the fact that there were a couple books and merchandise released with it, Star Wars is just a film series." It may have started as a branding for a home video line, but similar to Star Wars, it is clear it is used for much more:  . Nevertheless, hesitant or not, the current page is a home video line, so the table should be kept as is - Enter Movie (talk) 01:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BURDEN, its up to you to add sources. That list specifically is for the home video releases. How else do we know it's officially in the branding? I'm not against the other forms of marketing being added here or elsewhere, but It will require context other than citing the material itself. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

your rhetoric of "I will require" seems to be borderline taking ownership of this article. I know you are trying to be constructive, but you cannot make statements like that. We are all editors trying to make a better article. The article was a trainwreck before and for years I tried to add/correct adjust the article. Together we can bring it to a "good article" status. But you cannot assume that the franchise is only a home video marketing technique. As has been shown by various editors -- this is an official franchise that Universal made to encompass these "classic horror" characters. This article still needs a lot of work. I will contribute when I have more time. Cheers m8s!.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You've said you'd add sources and more than once have you added content to this article either without a source or that seemed distrupt the the flow of the article (i.e: adding something not part of a home video series). The suggestions of "you will require" wasn't specifically for this page, but for wikipedia in general. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey guys. Why don't we just use the definition that Universal themselves give to us. Idk how sourceable an official Facebook page is, but this is the definition the official Universal Monsters Facebook page uses (https://www.facebook.com/OfficialUniversalMonsters/):

"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."

This seems to be pretty inclusive of all the films Universal uses in their Universal Monsters brand. Thoughts? Hydraboy (talk) 18:31, 27 Sep 2021 (UTC)

Moving article to "Universal Studios Monsters"
Does anyone have any objections to this? "Universal Studios Monsters" is the main trademarked name of the brand, and "Universal Classic Monsters" it the name of a 2012 and 2018 home video line release. I have shifted the article to expand outside of the home video line - Enter Movie (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, per your edits the last batch of home videos was called "Universal Classic Monsters" still. Which is it? Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The last batch of home video release for these dinosaur films was called Jurassic World. Would you rename that article/franchise to Jurassic World? - Enter Movie (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, because that's just one home video set. And that doesn't appear to be what happend on the Jurassic Park franchise article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Not exactly following what you're asking. If your line of reasoning is that Wikipedia franchise articles should be named after the most recent home video release of the franchise, shouldn't the franchise of those dinosaur films be renamed Jurassic World? - Enter Movie (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

where is your source for the "Universal Studios Monsters" name?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It's the name of the trademark - Enter Movie (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I had no opposition to this move. Cheers m8s!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just because that's a copyright made, how do we know they are related to this title? Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Are you talking to me? Can you clarify your question? I'm not quite following. - Enter Movie (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, i know there is a new copyright title, but how do we know this is replacing the old title or that they are even interchangeable? Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just move it back to its proper common name at Universal Monsters, expand it and stop pretending like a home video line in the most noteworthy part of the concept. The movies literally had crossovers in the 40s its not "just" some after-constructed grouping, there was a genuine era of Univeral making horror films that historians have studied. This article is a stub compared to what Wikipedia should have.★Trekker (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Remakes/reboots and other films
This article has been in dire need of assistance for a long time, and I'm glad we're moving the right direction. My statement at this point is what would be required to include the other "Universal Studios Monsters": The Phantom of the Opera (original), The Hunchback of Notre Dame, and Abbott and Costello meet Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde? While these were not released in the home video packaging that is detailed greatly in the home release table, they are often credited/included within this franchise.
 * Another argument to be made is this page should have a section regarding remakes, as well as a section detailing it's "reboot" with the individual films that have been released.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Jekyll and Hyde are in one Abbot and Costello comedy, from all my research they are in fact not brought up often as part of this group. Outside that Rotten Tomatoes publication, can you show me some evidence of them being connected? I have mixed feelings about the silent Phantom, as Universal seems to focus on the Claude Rains one only in their promotion. It's a bit like how Disney sneaks in Alice from Alice in Wonderland as Disney Princess I guess. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The AV Club article even suggests The Hunchback of Notre Dame shouldn't be included with this statement "Though Hunchback is often cited as Universal’s first “monster movie,” the 1925 Phantom has more in common with the studio’s ’30s and ’40s classics, right down to a villain who has understandable desires, no matter how violently he expresses them." Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I definitely plan on adding the 1920s Hunchback and Phantom one day. By product of Universal allowing the films/characters to be licensed as Universal Studios Monsters, I think that is enough proof in itself that they are part of the franchise. But I will have to continue looking for sources. - Enter Movie (talk) 17:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be good if we could fine more clarifying text from this. Knowing when and how often these characters are included and in what from Universal would provide more information of how regularly they are lumped into the collection. (i.e: like how we did with the home video releases). Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)