Talk:Universal Monsters

Werewolf: The Beast Among Us (2012)

Is there a particular reason why this film isn't listed in the Universal Monsters series? It certainly seems to tick all the boxes... Vegan4Life (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

While it seems to be produced by Universal, what is it promoted as one in any way or described by any source as such? Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:28, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Like Jaws An American Werewolf in London and Abigail they should to be on the influence on unrelated media section. ~2025-40589-47 (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Not "seems to be" but is produced by Universal. The article for The Wolfman currently states that "Werewolf: The Beast Among Us was originally planned as a spin-off from the film but was ultimately unrelated."

The latter's DVD and Blu-ray have a "Monster Legacy" featurette with clips from the 1941 original film interspersing cast and crew interviews, in which they talk of their pride at becoming part of the Universal Classic Monsters franchise and honouring its legacy.

Further, some discs have a "100 Years of Universal" start-up featurette, highlighting the fact it was released in 2012, the company's centenary year. Whatever else this film is, it's hardly "unrelated." Vegan4Life (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Originally being planned as one, and then not would connect it potentially with a Wolf Man film series. I'd like to see an exact quote, but also, a third-party source would be better. The latter doesn't seem to mean anything relevant. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Insufficient evidence for The Last Voyage of the Demeter

I'd like to mention that NONE of the three sources provided for The Last Voyage of the Demeter prove that it's a Universal Monsters film.

Cinemablend states that it "SHOULD'VE started the Dark Universe," not that it IS in the Universe.

Comicbook quotes Brad J. Fischer as saying, "I will not encourage, deny or sway anything in terms of rumors along those lines."

CBR wrongfully states "Universal opted to focus on the smaller story." Universal didn't have any part in the development of this film. It was conceived around the time of Columbia Pictures' Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992), and the rights eventually ended up with Amblin Partners, NOT Universal. Universal are merely the distributor, as they were for several of Hammer Film Productions' Dracula, Frankenstein, and Mummy films. They were also the distributor of The Mummy (1999), but they had a strong part in its development and financing its production, and it was made specifically as part of THEIR franchise and using THEIR rights. That's why The Mummy counts, but I see no evidence that The Last Voyage of the Demeter does too. Leo1452~enwiki (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I'd agree that the sources do not state what is being said per your quotes. Honestly, if a film is part of a bigger franchise or if Universal wanted to do so, their ad campaign would not be subtle about it and we'd probably find it very easy to clarify if it was a reboot or anything. My opinion would be that it should be removed per WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead I see that you were the one to add back The Last Voyage of the Demeter with new refs. Forgive me if I'm looking at the wrong refs, but they appear to be the same ones discussed here, which are not evidence of being a Universal Monsters film. Cinemablend says that it SHOULD'VE started the Dark Universe, not that it IS, comicbook.com quotes Brad J. Fischer refusing to confirm that it is, and CBR mistakes Universal for having any creative input at all. Universal had nothing to do with the development of this film. Universal has distributed Dracula, Frankenstein, and Mummy films for Hammer Film Productions, but as you can see, those are not listed here. Leo1452~enwiki (talk) 08:38, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

This all is ok to hypothesize, but appears to be against WP:OR. ~2026-34287-06 (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

This link might be the connection we are looking for unless it s not proper source https://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3777090/universal-monsters-movie-the-last-voyage-of-the-demeter-now-available-at-home/ DoctorHver (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Interestingly, this source calls it "Hammer-style." Universal has distributed Hammer films before, but had nothing to do with the development of them, same as this. Like CBR, this author appears to be mistaking it as part of the Universal Monsters strategy, but it doesn't exercise any rights of Universal Monsters, and Universal had nothing to do with it creatively. Leo1452~enwiki (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

These sources are all correct and valid. Bloody Disgusting is one of the most reliable horror sources out there... Leo is just being selective as to what they choose to understand. The Last Voyage of the Demeter is indeed a Universal Monsters film. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Notice how you fail to address any specific argument I provided for each source, yet call ME selective. It doesn't matter how credible they are when Universal factually had nothing to do with the development of the film. They've distributed many films ABOUT their monsters before that are not included here, such as the Hammer films. These publications are mistaking the distributing studio for a producing studio, just like you are. Literally in this very article, how this film was developed is told, with sources to back it up. It is in direct contradiction with these sources and what you are saying. Do you have new evidence proving that Universal actually DID develop this film, or are you just going on vibes? Leo1452~enwiki (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't know you and you don't know me. Please do not shout with your capslock formatting. It does not appear in good faith when you choose to do so. The sources all are reliable and include the details we are discussing. You in turn have no sources stating otherwise, but instead choose to state that Universal Pictures was not involved. Where is your source? DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't mean to appear to shout. I am just emphasizing certain words. I will use italics from now on. Perhaps I should've stated more clearly that the sources on how this film was produced are in the film's very article. Visit the "Development" section and read it for yourself. It is appropriately cited. I would also appreciate it if you scrolled up to my first comment on this and addressed exactly what I said instead of vague accusations with no examples to back them up. Every time you avoid addressing specific arguments, it makes you seem less in good faith. You clearly value your page a lot, so we're all just trying to make your page as precise and correct as possible. No need to take any counterargument so personally. Once again, feel free to quote specific arguments I said and dismantle them objectively. Leo1452~enwiki (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Paula the Ape Woman

Just curious....why is SHE WOLF OF LONDON listed as a Universl monster series, but not Paula Dupree, THE APE WOMAN? The 3 Ape Woman films are referred to in other articles as a Universal monster series and she was a real stand-out monster character (very similar to THE WOLF MAN), and her films all came out in the 40s, the heyday of the Universal monster series. I'm surprised she's not on the Universal monsters page, as she seems to meet all the requirements, that's for sure. Please reconsider poor Paula ?? ~2026-32265-7 (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

whoa! I just noticed "CAPTIVE WILD WOMAN" is on the list! But the two Ape Woman sequels are not ("Jungle Woman" and "Jungle Captive"). Shouldnt all three films be on the list, as they were a series (just like "The Wolf Man") ?? Something's wrong here...... ~2026-32265-7 (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Could not agree more. She had an entire trilogy of films about her, and her first film was included in the original Universal Monsters home video collection from the 1990s, the line of home media that dubbed the term "Universal Monsters" in the first place. ~2026-13251-20 (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

But this isn't a list of good monster films from Universal, it's a list of films specifically considered "Universal Monsters" by Universal, and Universal-driven productions that specifically use their rights and iconography. Leo1452~enwiki (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Then why is SHE WOLF OF LONDON on the list? That's not even a real monster movie, there's no monster in the film! And why is just one of the three ape woman films listed?? It doesnt make sense. ~2026-32265-7 (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Because it’s considered part of the Wolf Man branch of the franchise, to the point that it’s included in the Wolf Man Complete Legacy Collection set. NJZombie (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Being included on a home video release is not a marking that it is or part of a franchise. This would make Boo! part of Frankenstein franchise for appearing on a few of their home video releases. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Not the same thing at all actually. The Legacy Collection sets specifically included the films that were part of each respective character’s film series. Boo appearing “on a few of their home video releases” is hardly the same thing. A year and a half ago, you couldn’t bring yourself to refer to the topic being a franchise. Now you’re making calls on the qualifications of what makes a film part of the franchise or not? NJZombie (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm using your logic and showing where it is faulty. Regardless, if you want a contemporary opinion of min. we should be using third-party sources over citing a box set inclusion. Per Wikipedia:Independent sources. We have a lot more scholarly information to pull from than Collider listicles Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Yet your example wasn’t even a reasonable example of the same logic. NJZombie (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

What are you trying to get at then? If I misunderstood you, please tell me, if you are confused, I'm happy to clarify. Otherwise, assume good faith. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I made myself perfectly clear and there’s no confusion on my end. Nothing more to speak about with you. NJZombie (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I've asked to clarify and they have said you had no interest. If you can't clarify statements, it can't lead to good faith discussions. As they have opted to not to explain I can not in good faith assume they are here to improve the article if they refuse to discuss it. If one can't handle a discussion with another editor I'm not sure how we can be productive on these articles. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

"She Wolf of London" has NOTHING to do with the Wolf man franchise, i'm sorry. It's not even a monster movie, there is no real werewolf even in it. Universal was just short one film on their Wolfman set.

Meanwhile, the Universal Wiki page here lists "Captive Wild Woman" as a Universal monster film (which it is), but then fails to list the other two Ape Woman films, ("Jungle Woman" and "Jungle Captive"). Isn't that obviously incorrect? Either list all three Ape Woman films, or take "Captive Wild woman" off the list. But you cant' have it both ways. ~2026-24590-72 (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Actually, despite its similar title to Werewolf of London, many elements are instead shared with The Wolf Man, there's just a twist that there is no real She-Wolf. Even then, it's officially part of Universal's own definitive set right now. Leo1452~enwiki (talk) 05:46, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

What delineates "Remakes and spin-offs" from the "Modern era" ?

There is a clear, tangible line that clarifies what the Classic era is: Contemporary black-and-white films included on various re-releases connected to the Universal Monster home media line, the last of which being The Creature Walks Among Us. 1979's Dracula was the first remake by Universal, followed by 1999's The Mummy, and so on and so forth... So what denotes 2010's The Wolfman as the final film of the "Remakes" era and Dracula Untold as the first film in a "Modern" era? Both are remaking a classic Universal Monster with a blockbuster budget as a part of the larger franchise in Universal's canon. Where would 2017's The Mummy fall? Had the "Dark Universe" taken off, that would be a pretty clear and obvious line in the sand to draw moving forward, but it was a failed experiment that started and ended with one film, so it's not as if 2017's Mummy should be considered any differently than, say, Van Helsing from 2004.

One man's opinion here: Merge "Remakes" and "Modern" into an overall list of remakes of the classic Universal Monster films. There's no objective reason for keeping it the way it is. ~2026-17131-59 (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

This all is ok to hypothesize, but appears to be against WP:OR. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

The way the article's currently structured seems to rely entirely on WP:OR to divide "Remakes and spin-off" (not even gramatically correct) from a non-existent "Modern era." All I proposed was to actually remove the dividing line since it simply doesn't exist. ~2026-24375-83 (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

The current structure was decided because of the fact that the "Modern era" are considered to be reboots, as opposed to "remakes". Though the Dark Universe franchise was a failed launch, the studio determined to continue to release each reboot as its own standalone installment, instead of a connected universe -- but they are still reboots. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

So if Universal went back to standalone films after the Dark Universe failed, why are they "reboots?" What are they rebooting?

Is the criteria for a "reboot" just a movie that's intended to launch a franchise? What about Dracula 1979's ending where Dracula's cape flies away to hint at his return? Or is that just a "remake" because the term "reboot" wasn't as widely used in 1979? And does a "remake" not count as one if it DOES intend to start a franchise, like the 2010 Wolfman film whose sequel was scrapped after it bombed and retooled into Werewolf: The Beast Among Us?

All I'm asking for is some consistency here. Classic Era, Remake Era. I really don't see any objective argument against this. ~2026-42413-12 (talk) 09:35, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to say thank you to whoever restored this page to a more complete version with all the movies listed. I remember my disappointment many years ago when some autist had deleted it completely, claiming that "Universal Monsters" was just the name of a video boxset or some shit. Good to know there's still some leftover common sense in this website. PhiteWower1488 (talk) 07:56, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

It was a TON of work by a number of editors, but given that I was a part of this overhaul to reinstate all the movies and also to expand it to detail the larger franchise -- I appreciate the acknowledgement. I am sure that all the others also are grateful for this message. Cheers m8! DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:29, 29 July 2026 (UTC)