Talk:Universal Monsters/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Recent edits

So on attempting to clean-up some recent edits made, I've like to point out some thinks which are either falsely applied and should either be removed or re-organized.

• The AV Club article is a fairly poor write up with many historical errors on the history of the studio and the monsters.
  • "[Freund] using expressionistic effects to highlight the monster’s powers." while Gary D. Rhodes notes in his book Tod Browning's Dracula (2014)" that Univerasl specifically stated they didn't want Dracula to be part of the "Caligari-School".
  • "Universal’s horror slate stalled out in the mid-’30s, but returned in force in the ’40s." which is also not true. Per information in the Son of Frankenstein article, the re-release of both '"Dracula and Frankenstein, Son of Frankenstein was released in 1939 and made more money than previous outings, and that "The film performed well at the US box office; according to The Hollywood Reporter, the film had reaped greater returns than any prior horror film in key city openings.".

I wouldn't mind using this article as some context, but as a history of the series would be inappropriate. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Inclusiveness

So I think the current table this page has is one of the best organized the page has had in a while.

However, I think the definition of Universal Classic Monsters can be reworked.

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."

I think this is one of the most inclusive definitions of the brand, and films that fall in this definition seem to be what they'll often use in merchandising.

I think we could create a catch-all "other" category that features films that have been merchandised under other forms of the Universal Monsters/Universal Classic Monsters/Universal Horror brand. In this category, we can include films referenced in official Universal Monster social media, Funko products, the Universal Studio's Classic Monsters Cafe, even the Peacock film franchise category.

Thanks! I normally wouldn't mind, but a social media prose with no attributed source feels a bit weak-ishf or me. I'm kind of waiting for some more scholary person to take a better look at these as it's really iffy what is and what isn't part of the series. As seen through the decades, it's definition of what is and what hasn't been branded varies on home video releases, and whatever Universal seems to have the right to at the time. Again, from all the Universal Film stuff i've read, the term is rarely used to in any serious critique as it's not really a film series, but a loose franchies with no real set details on why some things belong and others don't. (why include a non-horror film with Hunchback of Notre Dame, but completely ignore the Captive Wild Woman series? When i originally tried to re-do the article, my biggest frustration was that there was no real serious scholarly study of the group or how it's organized outside the Billboard interviews where it discussed that the groups were lumped together to market them as a "series" or a recognizable brand. So yeah, i'd kind of want to dance around promo facebook stuff if we could. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

hum...im not sure what would be best method. Universal probably didn't make much coordinated effort of collecting these films into one series/franchise back in 1930s-1950s. Only Dracula, Frankeinstein and Wolfman ever crossed path with each other, and I don't think that was coordinated effort by the studio to build it up to an Avengers: Endgame type climax rather a spur of the moment. Since The Mummy, Phantom of the Opera, Creature from black Lagoon, and the Invisible man never crossed path with anyone.

Just by looking at the individual characters sets that make up the 30-Disc collection:

Dracula: Complete Legacy Collection; Dracula / Drácula / Dracula's Daughter / Son of Dracula / House of Frankenstein / House of Dracula / Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein

Frankenstein: Complete Legacy Collection: Frankenstein / Bride of Frankenstein / Son of Frankenstein / Ghost of Frankenstein / Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man / House of Frankenstein / House of Dracula / Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein

The Wolf Man: Complete Legacy Collection The Wolf Man / Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man / House of Frankenstein / House of Dracula / Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein / Werewolf of London / She-Wolf of London

The Mummy: Complete Legacy Collection The Mummy / The Mummy's Hand / The Mummy's Tomb / The Mummy's Ghost / The Mummy's Curse / Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy

The Invisible Man: Complete Legacy Collection The Invisible Man / The Invisible Man Returns / The Invisible Woman / The Invisible Agent / The Invisible Man's Revenge / Abbott & Costello Meet the Invisible Man

Creature from the Black Lagoon: Complete Legacy Collection: Creature from the Black Lagoon 3D / Revenge of the Creature 3D / The Creature Walks Among Us

Phantom of the Opera : Phanton of the Opera (1943) (the 1925 film is not inlcuded in any shape or form even if it is not a lost film. Maybe Universal decided to avoid it because its a public domian) Note: Abott & Costello play different characters in all of these films so these titles are misleading.

I would argue that only first three have legitimate shot at being considered same franchise or shared universe. While the remaining four don't cross path with anything. In the Animated series Monster Force first three cross path, + the mummy and Creature but no Phantom or Invisible man DoctorHver (talk) 01:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Lon Chaney Phantom of the Opera

It was the first Universal Classic Monster before Bela Lugosi Dracula. Should get representation. Silent Film Era Doremon764 (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

"Monster Mash (upcoming film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Monster Mash (upcoming film) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 1#Monster Mash (upcoming film) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 05:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Universal revivals of the 70s/80s

Specifically, I'm thinking about Universal's return to some of their classic monsters, like the miniseries "Frankenstein: The True Story," the Langella "Dracula," and "An American Werewolf in London." Is there a place to discuss these revisionist remakes in this article? HumanRain81 (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

"Universal Monsters Shared Universe" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Universal Monsters Shared Universe has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 26 § Universal Monsters Shared Universe until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Franchise status

Per the addition of this source from Collider, the article tries to collide the films as a franchise. However, they were not initially conceived this way and the article takes a lot of historical liberties in saying "first" and other statements. For example, "Universal created one of the first (if not the first) franchises in Hollywood history with its monster movies". The idea of this wouldn't have existed in the film then, and the characters in these series were not connected with each other until much later in the 1940s and against other established sources in the article, such as the Billboard articles from the 1990s that's actually the only serious source from Universal on how these films are connected, (i.e: they were connected to try and sell more copies of films on home video by making it appear to audiences they are connected). It would be a historical anachronism to suggest these films are all grouped together, because there is not actual evidence that they were ever set out to do such a thing. This I why I do not suggest describing these films as a series like this, because that would be misleading to readers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

So it appears that you’re confusing a franchise with a shared universe. They are not the same thing. The article doesn’t really imply them as a series either. A media franchise is a collection of related media from which derivative works come from. The relationship does not mean they all take place in the same shared universe. The relationship could be that the same studio owns the films or the licenses to those films. Several years back, New Line Cinema packaged A Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, and Texas Chainsaw Massacre into a media franchise called House of Horror. The House of Horror franchise was licensed out as a package to companies who produced toys, comic books, etc. None of these characters were conceived together or initially planned to be part of any shared universe, yet they were packaged together as a media franchise. Universal Classic Monsters is a package that Universal puts together and licenses out as a franchise that it can license out in the same way. You can buy official merchandise that simply says Universal Classic Monsters with none of the actual monsters appearing on it. You’re buying the franchise logo. Each of the individual characters and their related characters are considered a sub-franchise. NJZombie (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

That's a lot talk but not sources to back it up. My issue is the current source implies things which are not true and gets several things just anachronistically wrong. You can try to explain it to me in as many ways you as you like, but you'll need to back it up with sources. Next, all the films in the Midnite Movies are also related and a franchise if I just want to pick and choose things. I've yet to see any real pull from an article that's worth its salt that groups these films (and apparently comics, which the citation doesn't connect it outside a link saying "this exists"). Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

It already has a source, despite whether you agree with it or not. That doesn't mean that new ones need to be found to suit your liking. Once again, you have some false idea about what a franchise is. Regardless of whether it was conceived as such during each film's creation, Universal decided to group them together under one franchise name. To say that the quote about Universal creating one of the first franchises in Hollywood history is false, is a falsehood itself. It's simply stating that they were producing these films that were connected via their genre that would years later be licensed under the collective banner of Universal Monsters or Universal Classic Monsters. They did create a franchise, even if they weren't thinking of it as such at the time. They own those films and package and license them however and whenever they choose. Looney Tunes and the original Disney character cartoons were not created with the intention of being franchised characters who interact with each other but they certainly are now. Wikipedia's own article defines a media franchise as "a collection of related media in which several derivative works have been produced from an original creative work of fiction" Also, "Multimedia franchises usually develop through a character or fictional world becoming popular in one medium, and then expanding to others through licensing agreements, with respect to intellectual property in the franchise's characters and settings." As far as the Midnite Movies comparison, it doesn't relate. Midnite Movies was a video line consisting of B-movies collected from various film libraries MGM had acquired. With the exception of the DVDs and one toy line of small figures, they seemingly have not been licensing that out as a franchise, although if they decided to lump those films into one collective license for use in other media, then yes, that too would be considered a franchise. NJZombie (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Against you'll need sources to back this up and currently you have one source which has historical anachronisms and yes it's calls it a franchise, but then goes on to say it's one of the first film franchises. I would try to find something a bit more high quality. And yes there are toys of the characters, but not under this headline. I wonder if it might be better to rename the article to something like "Universal Monsters" as some sort of collective, because I think that would solve our situation. I find that term a lot more than specific headlines here and it might eliminate the weird sort of issues of what is or isn't included (i.e: Universal's early home video items having MGM titles which seemed to be in the collection once) for example. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article states right at the beginning that the franchise is also referred to as Universal Monsters and Universal Studios Monsters. All three are used on various merchandise, including toys. Some even use Universal Studios Classic Monsters. It's all the same franchise. If changing the article name to just Universal Monsters suits you, and nobody else has an issue, have at it. I don't think it really changes anything though because they're all synonymous with each other. As far as the existing source, I thoroughly disagree with you that it contains an anachronism as I've already explained that the creation of the franchise might have happened retroactively, but it did happen nonetheless, including the MGM titles in question. NJZombie (talk) 04:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The lead says there are toys, and I've tried to find articles about how they are connected and not just Universal releasing toys of their properties, but they weren't marketed under any connecting banner. At least from the 1960s ones, so you keep saying this and that, but you aren't providing back up for any of it. I don't want to go back and forth, but the reason why a lot of the article is how it currently despite people saying I'm wrong, no one has found anything outside lines of people saying "it's a franchise" but all the evidence they provide is just assumptions without sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure what you’re reading, but the lead makes no mention of toys. The merchandising section does mention toys and even specifically mentions the model kits released by Aurora. That line is sourced. There’s also a section on some of the comic books published by different companies and based on the line, also with sources. There are certainly numerous specific items that can be added but these are all examples of franchising… licensing out a brand to make derivative works. NJZombie (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to remind you about sealioning here, @Andrzejbanas. If you are experiencing despite people saying I'm wrong multiple times over this issue, which from a check of the archives it seems you are, you should consider whether you may be exhibiting civil POV pushing, which you've been warned about before. Pings to @StarTrekker, @DisneyMetalhead, @Joltman, @Enter Movie, @Jc37, who have been involved here in what look like very similar conversations with you going back several years. Valereee (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pinging me. I've been considering for years to get to the bottom of this issue, but have not had the energy. Yes I'm inclined to agree there is some level of OWN issues going on here.★Trekker (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand the concern. Obviously I've been trying to clean up a lot of the old Universal film articles, and when I came to this one I came from it from same poi t if view as you guys had. ut when I tried to back it up with research, I feel flat. I'd love to have some sort of hybrid that makes sense, but when it comes to specific sources that just call it a one thing or another, the only ones I found that are actual discussion from Universal or are more thought our research say what I have been going by. Trust me, I don't like arguing with people, but we can only post what we've found. And if we had franchise, the article then co tradicts itself. So what's the solution?Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you like arguing with people but I think you have a way too strict view of how a franchise and it's articles should look like, not everything is standardized.★Trekker (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean, if it's not standardized, why even apply something to a group that's going to have different meanings to different people, even in basic English? Without context for that, this doesn't help readers. I think one other alternative I was going to discuss is maybe re-phrasing this term to Universal Horror with some discussion about the monsters within it as a subsection. The monsters are definitely discussed, but trying to lump together is a bit patchy. I find so much more academic and well-written things stating "Universal Horror" which is usually discussing the films between Dracula and A&C Meet Frankenstein from Universal than I do for the monsters and trying to connect the dots about it being a series or a cinematic universe or anything. That would require a substantial re-write and I don't want to just knee-jerk reaction into that idea, but That would probably satisfy you guys and definitely be something I think I could actually work at. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

You're doing it again.★Trekker (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't mind a response, but just saying "I'm doing it again" without context isn't going to get me to understand what you mean. I suggested earlier moving the articles name to actually make it inyo something expandable, you said sure, and I suggested it again and you said "I'm doing it again". I haven't been explained why my concerns aren't valid and have only been called out of being trying to control the article. I think from my other work on the other articles I've worked on you can safely assume I'm trying to follow rules and make the article expandable. Everyone else seems to want to toss in single Google searches and then get mad when I say it contradicts more thorough research. What is and isn't acceptable? Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas, why don't you tell editors here in a single sentence what other people want to include that you're objecting to? Seriously, a single sentence. Valereee (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

...or even what the perceived anachronism is. All I've seen is that you're stating that it can't be described as a franchise because they didn't conceive of it that way. It also doesn't mean that the films need to be seen as one continuous series or a cinematic universe, although that can and is the case in many franchises. None of these circumstances define what a franchise is and a company can decide retroactively to package their owned similar items out, in this case due to their genre, and license that package out to other companies for derivative merchandise. That's a franchise. That's it. What's the anachronism? NJZombie (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, regarding your claim that there were no toys "marketed under any connecting banner", here are links to photos of a handful of the many toys all packaged and marketed with a connecting banner/logo. I'm not suggesting any of these be used as sources, of course. It's just one set of examples of how the collection of characters were franchised as Universal Monsters or whatever variation was used on a specific set of items.

2006 Toy Island line

1998 Sideshow Collectibles line

1999 Hasbro/Kenner line

2009 Diamond Select line

1997 Burger King promotional line

2022 Jada Toys line

2006 Imperial line

2022 NECA line

2014-2015 Funko pop figures

2022 Mego line

2022 Super7 ReAction line

1991 Placo Products line

2021 Noble Toys line

1990 JusToys line

NJZombie (talk) 02:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I was referring to toys released in the 1960s. There definitely have been the ones you mentioned, and I even added information about some of these in the Count Dracula in popular culture article. My main issue with this again, is this is after the home video line again. It is difficult to analyze this as a franchise as it's all a retrospectively done after the home video line is established.

As for the anachronism. The article (Collider) in the current article states "its one of the first film franchises" and is going under the assumption that these were all a franchise since the films releases, which we have established is not the case. There isn't a lot of information about the specific marketing and arrangement of the Universal Classic Monsters, so citing this article would be misleading to readers.

So again I apologize but this is two separate points. I know I have been going on about this, as @NJZombie: stated, the franchise relationship is complicated because I'm not sure what the message we are trying to get across for saying its a franchise as "does not mean they all take place in the same shared universe." True, but as I can't discern what the Collider is talking about it when it says franchise (it says its among the oldest, but the film series isn't clear what they are referring to in the article.)

Anyways. I know i'm dancing between topics, but I've brought this up in the past, I think it would be easier to try and re-organize this article under some branch of "Universal Horror". That is a term I hear a lot more when discussing Universal's output from this era and we can discuss the monsters within it, because as it currently is within limitations, its more difficult to write about as jouranlists, scholars, and writers and wikipedians on their own can't seem to find conclusive agreements on what this is and what it isn't. I apologize for the complications, but please assume good faith that I'm trying to improve the article, not stop people from editing it, I'd really relish the idea that we could all work together to make this work. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

You keep accusing the article of making claims that it doesn't state. It simply states that it is a franchise, which it is, and that they accidentally created what may be one of the first shared universes, which is a separate claim in its entirety. You keep conflating franchises with the need to be a shared universe, which is not a requirement. You're also stuck under the impression that the intent to make something a franchise has to be there from the beginning which is doesn't. That being said, it never claims that that's what they were trying to do either. If the franchising of the characters began with the home video line, then that's where it began. That would be the first instance. If a film studio had a half dozen movies about talking dogs, made 20-30 years ago and with no other connection to each other than theme, and decided tomorrow to put them under a collective banner for licensing, then that's the franchise. Retroactively bundling properties into a franchise happens. The article cited is simply there to confirm to yourself, and anybody else who may question it, that it is indeed a franchise. I made no statement or implication whatsoever that the franchise relationship is complicated, because it's not. That's another line you read that simply isn't there. I will say the article definitely needs a rewrite and bringing some of the numerous other products that have been released featuring the franchise, along with sources, can definitely be done. However, the article does not need to be renamed Universal Horror or moved into a branch of of an article named as such. At this point, I'm in full agreement with Valereee and ★Trekker that this a case of sealioning and WP:OWN. NJZombie (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas, I'm losing patience with your unwillingness to be concise. It's starting to feel like a CIR issue as well as OWN and SEALION.

This is the second time I'm aware of that these exact same issues have come up at a film article. That ANI very nearly ended with you being indeffed from the topic of film, broadly construed. I think you should step away from this article and remove it from your watchlist. Valereee (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

100% agree.

NJZombie (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Wow. Uhh. Be sure to look into WP:CIVIL. I've been on wikipedia for years. I've written over 60 Good articles. Outside people saying I'm claiming to own the article (which I'm do not and have no expectations to do so ever). I'm comfortable with it being a franchise, but I think there needs more context for the reader, and that we could probably find a better more clear one than the Collider source (it's current use is okay, but it has other information which seems to be unfactual. I apologize, I may have been a bit harsh there. I know you weren't trying to use it for other things NJZombie.) Anyways, I don't give into people saying "think you should step away from this article and remove it from your watchlist." as friendly, or co-operative into building any article @Valereee:. I'm not really sure what to say to that, but just felt like trying to scare me away from contributing. I'll try to ignore as you both seem frustrated with me and think any change I may suggest is automatically a poor one. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on any changes you are suggesting, and as an admin at this article I have zero opinion on them. I'm commenting on your behavior, which I believe is problematic, and I hope you won't ignore that concern. Valereee (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

The source in question "Collider" says it's a franchise. My understanding that is what NJZombie states is fine on the most basic terms, the citation says that. However, other research states the content was not lumped together as line of work until the home video series in the early 1990s. But the Collider article suggests its a franchise that dates to the 1930s. Is it not wrong to say "hey, this source seems to be misled on the history of this media". What i'm trying to propose is two-fold: one would be to find a source that's a bit more specific on this element. If not, I think that can sort of stand. My second point is to actually expand upon the article, but people are just saying "the article does not need to be renamed Universal Horror or moved into a branch of of an article named as such." I'm curious on their reasoning why we shouldn't, as I've given reason why we should, and can only interpret it as WP:OWN from others who do not want me to edit an article further. I apologize as I know this has been frustating for both of you, but I suggest we take this as a fresh slate to try and improve the article instead of assuming I'm here to undermine anyone editing it. I hope you both can find it within yourself to try to make this work instead of vague accusations of WP:OWN. I'm trying to talk it out and i'm also trying to explain what I think may be an issue. What is the point of Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle if you want to discuss me instead of the content in question? Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Not discussing you. Discussing your behavior. Valereee (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for my ignorance, but is there a difference? Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

No worries. Yes, there's a profound difference between discussing an editor and discussing that editor's behavior. Valereee (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Here is a behavioral issue: My issue is the current source implies things which are not true and gets several things just anachronistically wrong. You can try to explain it to me in as many ways you as you like, but you'll need to back it up with sources. This is you saying that since you disagree with a source, you won't accept it. That is not about you. It's about your behavior. It is an example of ownership and original research, both of which are behavioral issues. Valereee (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not that I don't accept it, I'm not sure if it should be used as the basis of their definition of it being a franchise is based on their ideology that it existed within the 30s, which sources directly related in the article suggest as an impossibility. What should we do in such situations if they come up with the "correct" answer, it how they came to the answer is flawed for the reasons mentioned above? Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

We report what sources say. If we disagree with those sources, we go find other sources that say something else and include those too. What we don't do is reject sources generally considered to be reliable because we personally disagree with them. WP:CORRECT isn't actually a thing here. WP:VERIFIABILITY is. Valereee (talk) 20:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:CORRECT is an essay, not policy and I did not say I personally disagree with the source, I pointed out that the source came to the conclusion of it being a franchise via logic which has been proven false by the material presented in the article, so you are misunderstanding where I'm coming from. Per WP:NONRS, "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight". I'm focused on the "lack meaningful editorial" oversight here as when the source in question tries to explain how they came to their conclusion as mentioned above. This is my issue currently with the citation. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I linked to correct so you could understand the point I was making, which is what essays are useful for. I linked to verifiability to explain the policy.

We don't use our own knowledge to correct content we believe to be incorrect. We use sources to do that, and if two reliable sources are disagreeing, we consider whether to present both. Collider appears to have editorial oversight. Valereee (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Once again, the article does NOT suggest that. It only suggests that the idea of a shared universe dates back to the 1930s and even then makes it clear that it was an accident. Shared universe does not instantly equate to franchise. So yes, it would be wrong to say the source is misled, because it is not.

As far as expanding, have at it. Expanding does not require renaming it or making it a branch of another or new article which was what I objected to. NJZombie (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about a shared universe NJZombie. The article itself in question states " Universal created one of the first (if not the first) franchises in Hollywood history with its monster movies, and absolutely created the first cinematic universe when they started having those monsters meet each other and hang out with Abbott and Costello." This is wrong on various levels that related to historical (the monsters have met before meeting A&C, and the earliest I can find them being referred to as "Universal Classic Monsters" or some variation from Universal themselves is in the home video line. So its surely a something that has been franchized out, but this sources is just questionable on where it comes to this conclusion. Is it that hard to try and find some second source? I hate to admit it, but since working on some of the older articles I have found a really good source discussing it I suggest we can apply: https://www.google.ca/books/edition/Gothic_Mash_Ups/YjBcEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Universal+Classic+Monsters+franchise&pg=PA3&printsec=frontcover Thoughts @NJZombie? Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)