Draft talk:Dark Universe (film series)

Separate the reboots from the originals

The original films were never at any point referenced as the Universal Monsters Cinematic Universe at any point in time. This is something that needs to be changed and then left changed. The Universal Monsters Cinematic Universe is what the producers have called the new rebooted film series that is being established as a shared cinematic universe. The originals need to instead be filed under the Universal Monsters page which lists all of the original films, while the rebooted, new, cinematic universe can have this page. Burningblue52 (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Requested move 25 May 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved per consensus. (closed by a page mover) (non-admin closure). Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

---

Universal Monsters Cinematic Universe (2014–present) → Universal Monsters (2014 film series) – Or really, anything but this. "Universal Monsters Cinematic Universe" is presented as if it is an official title for an upcoming film franchise. It is not. In the absence of an official name, the article title should be descriptive. My suggestion is the closest I can get to something that complies with WP:NCFILM, but I am open to other suggestions (Cinemablend have called it "Universal's Monster Universe" and "Universal's Monster-Movie Shared Universe", The Guardian have "Universal's monster movie 'cinematic universe'", etc, etc). Rob Sinden (talk) 10:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support: Also an unscientific google search suggests that "Universal Monsters Cinematic Universe" isn't even the WP:COMMONNAME as "Universal Monsters Universe" returns 9,970 more hits.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support: The proposed name is consistent with WP:CONCISE and with the principle of not making up bogus nonsense (WP:OR, WP:NEO). The current title also violates MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dracula Untold

Dracula Untold was originally said to be part of the shared universe, but since it flopped they've apparently decided The Mummy is the first film in the series and swept DU under the rug.

"Dracula Untold (which at this juncture isn’t part of the universe)" [1]

"The studio's ambitious plan to revive and reimagine its classic library kicks off on June 9, 2017, when The Mummy starring Tom Cruise hits theaters." [2]

Maybe the film could be mentioned briefly in the lede? - Forty.4 (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

This is something that appears to be a bit of a debate between the editors on this site. Editors keep deleting information, and changing things without citing sources first. First of all the page's title is confusing as the series started with Dracula Untold which was released in 2014. I would argue that perhaps something along the lines of Universal Monsters (rebooted film series) fits the description better until more is revealed about the film series. Now, for editors that keep on deleting Dracula Untold - I have added a reference directly to the listing of Luke Evans under the Main Cast section, where the producer of Dracula Untold plainly states that the film is a part of launching the new Universal Monsters universe. She further discusses working with Alex Kurtzman on the epilogue scene for the Dracula film. Kurtzman is the director of The Mummy which will be the first rebooted Universal Monster film to entirely take place within the modern day, for the film series. The scene was created specifically for the purposes of launching the series. Though Luke Evans' further involvement in the series is yet unknown, the Dracula Untold movie is a part of this film series. The general consensus could and should be, that Dracula Untold is a prologue to the upcoming larger universe; that is until stated otherwise by a reliable source. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

As I said, the film was originally said to be part of the shared universe but they've apparently since decided that The Mummy is going to be the first film in the series and is not connected to DU. The Screenrant article and video interview added as sources are from 2014. Above I've given two sources from this year (Forbes and The Hollywood Reporter) that state the shared universe begins with The Mummy. And here's an interview with Alex Kurtzman from 2015 [3] in which he says "The Mummy isn’t connected to [Dracula Untold]". -- Forty.4 (talk) 12:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

As I stated earlier from sources, it was the author who stated The Mummy is the beginning of the shared universe. Those involved in the studio have not said 'this is the first movie'. There is simply a lot of confusion about where the shared universe sits at this time (hence the need for this topic on the talk page). In that interview with Alex Kurtzman that you reference he states that The Mummy isn't connected to it 'but that's an ongoing conversation' and says nothing else about it. The studio worked with him to create the modern-day scene in Dracula Untold. I think that this issue is somewhat petty as the film at that point is still a part of the larger universe - as cited by the producer of Dracula Untold who mentions Kurtzman by name. You have not cited any references that blatently state that the film is not a part of the larger universe, while I have added sources which state it is. Until the studio states otherwise, the movie needs to be listed as such, within this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DisneyMetalhead (talk • contribs) 05:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes I have, I've cited two reliable secondary sources (the type of sources Wikipedia prefers), both of which are from 2016 and both of which state that The Mummy is the first film in the series, and one of which (Forbes) states explicitly that Dracula Untold is not part of the series "at this juncture". And I've also cited a primary source (Kurtzman) who says the same as Forbes - that, as things currently stand ("at this juncture"), DU is not connected to The Mummy. The article needs to reflect the current facts. I do think a section on DU and its former (and possible future) inclusion in the series would be appropriate. -- Forty.4 (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Dracula Untold was never officially part of the cinematic universe. The reshoots took place in order to keep the possibility open, but nothing official ever arose from it (aside from assumptions and speculation). DarkKnight2149 18:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, the source that was added before included an interview [4] with the producer of DU stating that it was reconceived mid-production as the first film in the shared universe, so it was more than assumptions and speculations. But newer sources have stated that it isn't part of the series, so the article needs to reflect that. -- Forty.4 (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Dracula Untold was re-tooled while in production to be a part of the Monster Universe, and it was actually Alex Kurtzman who acted as creative consultant for the final scenes of the movie, so that it would fit in with future films. With the creative forces behind the film, stating it as such; and other sources stating that The Mummy will 'kick of'/'launch' the new shared universe; and Kurtzman stating that The Mummy "is not connected to Dracula Untold, but that's on ongoing conversation..." - as Forty.4 stated, the page should include a section about Dracula Untold stating these facts, as well as the fact that at this point (or "this juncture"), it is not clear as to whether or not Dracula Untold will continue to be a part of the universe, with the possibilities of it being more deeply integrated in the series in the future. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The ending was re-filmed to leave Dracula Untold open to being part of the shared universe, but there are very few reliable sources that directly "confirm" that it would be. Many of the statements are vague in that regard, and we now have sources directly stating that it won't be in the shared universe. Honestly, I think we should just wait to see what happens before adding anything about it at all. We're not in a hurry and if we go ahead and add something about the film's ending being reshot for it to fit in the universe, then it will be a magnet for users to jump to conclusions and state it is part of the universe (which was exactly what happened when it was mentioned in this article, leading to persistent edits and assumptions such as this). DarkKnight2149 01:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is your confirmation right here, fresh off the press. Dracula Untold has nothing to do with this cinematic universe. DarkKnight2149 16:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Retitle this page

Again here is another article in which one of the creative minds behind the new shared universe explicitly calls the series the Universal Monsters Cinematic Universe. As a screenwriter for two of the films, and obviously being heavily involved in its development, I would say this warrants the page's name to change. You can read it here.

--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I suggest this page to renamed as Universal Monsters Cinematic Universe.It is more appropriate as title.What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.86.255.128 (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I suggest this page to renamed as Universal Monsters Cinematic Universe.This is because it is more appropriate as title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.86.255.128 (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Universal Monsters cinematic universe is already a redirect, but I don't think we can do what you're suggesting (yet) because I don't think that has been confirmed as the official title of the cinematic universe. I believe that "shared universe" is also more formal than "cinematic universe". DarkKnight2149 22:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Support This page should be moved back where it was, at "Shared Universe". As it stands now "2017 film series" is a terrible title because only one film is coming out in 2017. It's a shared universe, if you doubt the universe exists as the sources aren't enough, why does the article pass GNG then? Should be back at "Universal Monsters (shared universe)" JesseRafe (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Support It's pretty clear that simply Universal Monsters is not the common name for this series.★Trekker (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose (even though this isn't a proper WP:RM). No clear official title for this series, and has been variously been described in sources as "Universal's Monster Universe", "Universal Monster Universe", "Universal Monsters Shared Universe", etc, etc... --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The newest international TV spot states that The Mummy will be the beginning of "a Dark Universe". If this isn't a confirmation for the official title, then perhaps it reinforces what we stated earlier. This series is intended to be a shared universe, not just a film series. The fact that it's titled 2017 film series makes no sense as the only film being released that year is The Mummy as User:*Treker stated above. The TV spot can be viewed here.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Users: ★Trekker, Rob Sinden and JesseRafe - FYI, thought you'd like to know since this page has been updated: The official shared universe title has been released as Dark Universe. Dang, I was on the right track in my previous comment -- eerily close. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Cool! It's nice to have all this confusion over with.★Trekker (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Move works for me. Seems awkward and non-specific but I'm sure we'll get used to it. JesseRafe (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC on page title change

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The page is currently titled "Universal Monsters (2017 film series)". Some editors feel as though the title will suffice until an official title to the franchise is released. Others believe that the page's title is inaccurate, since as one film will be released in 2017, which is The Mummy. A title change to Universal Monsters (shared universe), or Universal Monsters Universe is proposed. --50.232.205.246 (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support the name change, as the film series has consistently be referred to as a 'shared universe' in every press release, trailer, and poster. The title of "(2017 film series)" doesn't really cover what this page is about, and sounds restrictive. Only one movie comes out in 2017.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
• At this point anything but the page's title would make more sense. The page is title too specifically confining and is definitely restrictive in nature. It excludes the already announced release dates for future movies with its "(2017 film series)" inclusion. I would support a move for a Universal Monsters (shared universe) move for the time being; as it is much more in-line with what this page is about. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• I support a move to the Universal Monsters (shared universe) title, which I believe is a title more in tune with what the studio is trying to accomplish. It also removes the date issue if they change their minds and decide to include an older film such as Dracula Untold in the future.★Trekker (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support a name change, but would Universal Monsters (film series) not be better suited, as is quite standard with comparable articles (X-Men (film series), Harry Potter (film series)? Mark E (talk) 12:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

No, as that is not sufficent to disambiguate from Universal Monsters. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:PRECISION: "Universal Monsters (shared universe)" or "Universal Monsters Universe" could be about anything related to Universal Monsters. There is no clear indication of the article's scope based on the title alone. "(film series)" is clear that article is about a series of films. "Universe" is fan jargon that the average reader may not understand.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Precision is exactly why it should be moved, as this isn't a single franchise and its spin-offs (unlike Transformers, for instance). DarkKnight2149 20:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support name change - This is a shared universe consisting of multiple intertwined film series, not a singular film series in itself. DarkKnight2149 14:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Lots of series have spin-offs, reboots etc, but ultimately what we are dealing with is still a series of films. Per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA "film series" is more recognizable than "shared universe" for somebody trying to identify an article about the films. Per WP:NCF the disambiguator should be "film series" instead of "2017 film series". Betty Logan (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I disagree. We are dealing with multiple interconnected (yet distinct) film series, not a single series. The Mummy isn't the same series as Dracula, though they will eventually crossover. DarkKnight2149 15:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

    You are arguing for the naming criteria to adopt an "in universe" perspective and that conflicts with MOS:INUNIVERSE. By definition a "series" is simply a sequence where the constituent parts are connected in some way, which is true of these shared "universes". Moreover, since the title is not official then it needs to be explicitly clear to readers that the article is about films, and the proposed disambiguator does not do this. Betty Logan (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

    • There is a distinction between a cinematic universe that multiple franchises inhabit, and a single series. Universal Monsters is not the latter. And there are already articles on Wikipedia about shared film universes. This isn't "in-universe" by any means. DarkKnight2149 16:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
      • See shared universe. DarkKnight2149 16:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

      I know what a shared universe is, but the distinction does not matter here because we avoid an INUNIVERSE perspective. Also, regardless of what you think of the "film series" disambiguator the proposed "shared universe" is not an acceptable disambiguator anyway. Wikipedia is not a fan wiki and its disambiguators need to identify the subject matter to casual readers, so the disambiguator needs to make it clear the article is about films. Betty Logan (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

      • • Again, this has nothing to do with INUNIVERSE or WP:FAN, as this is not from the perspective of characters in the films. Calling it film series simply isn't accurate, because we are not dealing with a singular film series or spin-offs of one. And Wikipedia already has plenty of articles about shared film universes, some of which currently hold Good Article status. DarkKnight2149 21:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Betty Logan's reasoning and WP:NCF. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • NCF doesn't address cinematic film universes. As previously mentioned, this isn't a singular film series. DarkKnight2149 14:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
    • None of the suggested alternatives work, so WP:NCF is the only guideline we have that is applicable. And for the sake of this article as it stands, these can be considered to be part of the same film series. Maybe an "official" series title is round the corner... --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I hope so. An official title would make the situation much less complicated. Aside from the (shared universe) DAB, I would also propose the title Universal Monsters shared universe films. Or, if there is still controversy, we could just wait for The Mummy to be released before making a decision. An official title could surface before then and, if Mummy hypothetically flops, the other films have a high chance of getting scrapped (which would render the discussion moot). DarkKnight2149 21:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

None of these are sufficient to disambiguate from Universal Monsters, which could also be loosely described as a "shared universe". --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Robsinden: Even so, disambiguating it as (shared universe) isn't accurate. Perhaps the original article might need a DAB of its own. Also, there is currently a discussion at AFD to merge this article with Universal Monsters. DarkKnight2149 20:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

It is a singular film series regardless of whatever title, protagonists or continuity issues the individual films may have.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I too hope that an official title is around the corner, just as I hope the same for the X-Men cinematic universe. I proposed the change to begin with given the proposterous page title it currently has. As-is, it is incorrect.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not a singular film series. Dracula and Frankenstein are not the same franchise, they just inhabit the same film universe. This isn't any different from the original Universal Monsters, or any other cinematic universe that currently has an article. We shouldn't treat this any differently simply because it was planned that way from the beginning. DarkKnight2149 20:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose both proposed titles, but support a title change in theory if someone can come up with a more reasonable proposal. The original films from the 1930s to the 1950s (which are indisputably more noteworthy, better-known, and more encyclopedic) also took place in a shared universe of sorts. It was inconsistent, with retcons and plot-holes galore, but sources referring to it as the ancestor of the modern cinematic universes like the MCU are not hard to find (8:00~ in this video, to give an example I just happened to have seen a few days before seeing this RM). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

As previously mentioned, Universal Monsters might need a DAB of its own. I don't think "It doesn't disambiguate it from the original article" is a good enough reason to keep it where it is. (2017 shared universe) is another possible DAB. Of course, all of this might not even matter, as this article will most likely end up merged with Universal Monsters or The Mummy (2017 film).

You are correct about the original also being a cinematic universe, despite the continuity errors. Oddly enough, continuity issues seem to plague horror franchises in general. Evil Dead, Friday the 13th and Texas Chainsaw Massacre are probably the biggest offenders of this, where nearly all of the sequels contradict each other in some way. DarkKnight2149 16:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• There are plenty of examples and references where the new films are referenced as 'shared universe' that could be referred to here, if someone disagrees with my opinion.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
• My concern with this RfC, is that those editors who have been a part of this discussion previously have not commented. Perhaps acquiring the attention of all of them would be beneficial.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• Why do we even have a film series article at all? We only have one guaranteed film. The other films are in development and have no guarantee of being made. The Mummy could bomb badly, or the writers' strike could happen. Either of these or other extenuating circumstances could lead to a film "series" never happening. We should merge this to Universal Monsters until we see two or three films actually produced. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• That's a good question.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, Dracula Untold was going to be part of this universe, but it bombed. The other films are also far enough in development that the existence of this page is justifiable. Whether or not it stays that way depends on what happens. DarkKnight2149 22:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear Erik, and TriiipleThreat -- There's an article just like there is for the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the DC Extended Universe, the X-Men film universe, the MonsterVerse, and the Transformers Cinematic Universe (i.e.: Yes, I do know that I changed the titles of the X-Men and Transformers pages....this is because the editors of Wikipedia have been so petty as to keep the titles incorrect, and I choose to call them a more accurate name). Even though Dracula Untold is currently "non-canon", the studio is clearly 'testing the waters' with The Mummy and could reintroduce the film back into the universe. This, as well as the fact that all of the above-stated pages have a list of films which are not yet released....that's why this page exists. The concept that they aren't released yet is irrelevant. The studio has green-lit the projects and each of them is in various stages of development. And no, this page doesn't merge with the original Universal Monsters page.... the two series are VASTLY and incredibly separate. No need to fortune-tell and decide that the franchise is going to 'bomb' either. That hasn't happened, yet and so the page will not reflect such a prediction either.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

DisneyMetalhead, it is absolutely relevant to consider that there is only one film that has been produced. We do not assume that the other films will be produced. Being in development does not guarantee entering production, as WP:NFF indicates. It is fortune-telling to assume this. Wikipedia does not lead; it follows. This content will need to be merged until there is an actual film series established, not the possibility of one. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a very good point. Sent to AFD. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

There have been two films produced, though Dracula Untold is in limbo right now as to what the studio plans to do with it. The other films have release dates. Just because the studio hasn't released information regarding the next installment, doesn't mean that it is 'not in production'. There are steps to a film's production. Usually it takes years of writing and planning. With the way that shared universes have become (the new modern story-telling format), the production process has needed to be speeded up. The Mummy newest TV-spot itself states 'witness the beginning....of a Dark Universe'. Though that may not be the official title of the franchise in the future, this definitely states the obvious. Not to mention all the behind the scenes videos of the writers, director, and even Tom Cruise mentioning that they are thrilled to bring back the classica monsterS (emphasis on the 's' there) to the modern-audience. All of this negates your arguments. Not to mention that ever franchise page has a 'upcoming projects' or 'films in development' section on their page. If you merge this page without coming to a consensus on a talk-page first, you are violating Wikipedia rules.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Erik, when the film studio has announced a planned schedule of films, we are not assuming a series as you stated above. The studio has a plan as they have announced. Just no release dates yet. No need to twist and constrict the matter here.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The article opens with, "The Universal Monsters series is a shared universe of action-adventure/horror films that includes rebooted versions of films from the original series." It is a de facto film series article. There is no actual set of films; there is only one actual film. To claim otherwise is misleading. This coverage only exists because of the fame of Universal Monsters in the past, which is why merging there is appropriate. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

And now User:Erik, you can officially eat crow as per [5]. Haha, I love it when pretentious argumentative editors are proven wrong.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't be a dick. This announcement does not mean a film series is guaranteed. A Wikipedia article is still not warranted. The content should still be merged to Universal Monsters#Dark Universe. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Erik, you're still on about this. You just violated, WP:PROFANE in your comment above. You need to refrain from responses with offensive/profane expressions (yes, that word is considered a profane and vulgar word in the English language). As far as your claim goes regarding "This announcement does not mean a film series is guaranteed..." you're wrong there too. Your personal opinion is void as the shared universe's next installment will be released in 2019.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Will be? Unitl filming commences that can easily change. There have been many cases where good intentions have fallen by the wayside. Just recently, plans for Guy Ritchie's six-film King Arthur series were scraped because of Legend of the Sword's poor performance.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

DisneyMetalhead, WP:PROFANE says at the top, "This page is about the use of potentially offensive words and images in articles." It was dickish of you to make this a personal matter. I am not arguing against a stand-alone article to spite you. I am arguing this because this same excitement happens with individual planned films when they are first announced. That is why WP:NFF exists, to recognize that nothing in the film industry is guaranteed. If a second film is produced, we can establish that there is a series underway. There cannot be a series of one film. Just because this is announced means that it will come to pass. If it does come to pass, then we'll have a film series article forever. There is no rush to get ahead of ourselves here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Erik the film series exists. The second film is under production. The casting will be announced shortly. The series has an official web page. Do your research before you spout ignorant opinions. There was a similar page when only Man of Steel existed in the DCEU, with announced films below it. You are not the Wikipedia king, nor does your opinion state what is and what will not be. Thankfully you can't do squat to this page without a consensus. Good luck.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cast

When dealing with cast members, let's be careful not to get ahead of ourselves. Being in talks isn't quite the same thing as being officially cast. DarkKnight2149 17:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, though the cast is officially announced now. Likewise Angelina Jolie was "in talks" to be in Bride of Frankenstein (2019), while Dwayne Johnson was "in talks" to be in Wolfman -- however they should not be listed on the cast listing, as no one knows whatever came of that.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Name change

I think we should change the title of this page into Dark Universe. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCm2PX5Iz00&t=0s Unknown 0987 (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Official press release backs this. Page title is changed, and pending a more accurate title.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Official cast photo

An official cast photo was released with the offiial announcement of the shared universe, and can be seen here. I suggest replacing the conglomerate of photos at the top, with this. Also, the official Dark Universe logo needs to be added to an infobox at the top of the page.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:NFCC#1 we don't use non-free images of living people because a free equivalent can theoretically be found.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, good point. The hunt is on for a free equivalent, then.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 22 May 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved, but also converted to draft. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal Monsters (2017 film series). Mz7 (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

---

Dark Universe (Universal Monsters) → Dark Universe (film series) – Per WP:NCF, the proper disambiguation for film series is (film series).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• No, that title is superfluous. (See Has Fallen talk page for why this is too much). Just Dark Universe is enough. The whole "(Universal Monsters)" section needs to be deleated though.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Dark Universe (film) and Dark Universe (novel) already exist.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Which is why Dark Universe is enough. If the title moves us to a disambiguation page, then "film series" works.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Dark Universe with no qualifier would only be appropriate if this article were the primary topic, which it definitively is not at this point. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The proper designation would be Dark Universe (shared universe), per WP:PRECISION. Remember, we are dealing with a shared universe of multiple interconnected film series, not a single series in itself. DarkKnight2149 20:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I can get behind this argument. Each film is intended to be its own film series; while as a whole it is a shared universe. Agreed.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

No, Dark Universe (film series) is the correct name per WP:PRECISION. Dark Universe (shared universe) is ambiguous, it could be about any type of universe real or fictional and across any medium; literature, film, television, etc. Also despite the films' titles and in-universe continuity it is a single film series from a WP:Real-world perspective.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Shared universe, by definition, is fictional and the medium is explained in the first sentence of the lead. My only issue with (film series) is that it technically is inaccurate, unless the implication is that "series" is plural. If that's the case, we should specify in the lead that there are multiple series. Even then, however, the title can still be misleading. DarkKnight2149 21:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

That maybe but the term isn't WP:RECOGNIZABLE enough for that to be clear and WP:PRECISION only pertains to article titles, not article content. The title must be precise so that it is clear what the content is about.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support per TriiipleThreat. Per WP:NCF (film series) is the correct disambiguator for a series of films. I can't really add any more to what TriiipleThreat has already said except that it should be clear from the disambiguator what the subject matter of the article is and the current "Universal Monsters" disambiguator does not make it clear the article is about films. Betty Logan (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NCF. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support TriiipleThreat brings a solid case regarding WP:NCF and Dark Universe (film series) seems like the appropriate, more specific title. Armegon (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Triiiple. Also, I wouldn't go to the "(shared universe)" disambiguation until "(film series)" was no longer applicable, for instance if TV series get added to the universe and the scope of the article no longer solely covers films. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:NCF the correct disambiguator in that case would be (franchise).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

(franchise) is even more inaccurate than (film series), as "series" can at least be seen as plural. Franchises like The Mummy and Dracula are genuinely distinct, and aren't separated by title alone. Bare in mind that all of this is pre-established, and that these Universal Monsters series are nothing new. Given the current rise in cinematic shared universes, the guidelines at WP:NCF and WP:FILM may need to change. DarkKnight2149 18:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think they need to be updated. It seems you kept wanting to apply some in-universe context to article titles when we should be trying to maintain real-world perspective.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Nobody has tried to provide an INUNIVERSE perspective to anything. INUNIVERSE only applies when someone tries to treat fictional material as real life, which no one has attempted to do. Shared universes are, by definition, fiction. This isn't a matter of INUNIVERSE, it's a matter of accuracy. I don't see anything wrong with calling it Dark Universe (shared universe films), as that acknowledges the medium, what it is, ETC. DarkKnight2149 19:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

That's where I believe you are mistaken, its not a medium. Film is the medium, the shared universe is an aspect of the medium. It reads as an attempt to group these together by continuity rather than focusing on the films themselves. (film series) for series of films and (franchise) for multi-media series is simple, direct and accurate.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Since we disagree and this probably warrants a larger discussion altogether, this will be my final elaboration on my thoughts of this here, for the moment. While the NCF is very much simple and direct, I do not believe it is accurate. To me, a franchise represents a series of films and all of its spin-offs, reboots, sequels, ETC (Examples: Transformers, Star Wars, Texas Chainsaw Massacre). A cinematic universe, on the other hand, consists of multiple distinct franchises that happen to crossover and share the same universe (examples: Universal Monsters, Godzilla vs Kong, and pretty much every upcoming Hollywood project). While Universal's The Mummy, Dracula, ETC are no doubt interconnected, they began as their own thing in the 1930s and the reboots are each meant to establish franchises of their own. DarkKnight2149 19:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd be willing to change my vote to Support, on the condition that the lead makes it clear that this is about multiple interconnected film series, not just a single one. DarkKnight2149 04:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support the move for Dark Universe (film series) as it specifies what the article is about. The "(Universal Monsters)" section makes zero sense, though I understand what it was trying to do. The leader paragraph which I wrote when the page was created states that it is based on the Universal Monsters anyhow. DarkKnight2149 with the intention for each film to be the start of its own series, I agree that the intro paragraph should include such information.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support ... (film series) is the proper title here. Hoverfish Talk 15:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support per TriiipleThreat. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support as it's specific enough to specify what this article is and what it is about. The shared universe is simply a film series currently. If they add other media, it can be "Dark Universe (shared universe)".--50.232.205.246 (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I do believe we have reached a solid consensus, with a landslide support for Dark Universe (film series), which I support as well. Shall we go on ahead and change the name of the article? Armegon (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support as appropriate title if a film series actually solidifies. Currently we have only one film that exists and no guarantee that others will be made. The second film was delayed from 2018 to 2019, and production for this film is not yet underway. So the next discussion we should have is to merge this to Universal Monsters until we can see a second film in production, not just in development. One established film does not make a series. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Erik: That is the topic currently being discussed in the AfD.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Introductory paragraph

As currently stated the opening paragraph is poor sentence structure. It should read something closer to "The Dark Universe is a shared universe of films....." something along those lines. It has to be stated that it is a shared universe, and series (multiple form) of films. As is, it is too wordy.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

How about "The Dark Universe is a cinematic shared universe, composed of film series, that consists of rebooted versions of the Universal Monsters franchise....." If something like this is stated it can be assumed that the word 'series' is multiple form. Just as TV series can mean one, or multiple TV series.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Darkknight2149 what do you think about an intro being "The Dark Universe is a shared cinematic universe, made up of monster movie films. The series is based on characters from the Universal Monsters franchise."?--50.232.205.246 (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

"Film studio"??...

The current upcoming title for this page is inaccurate. The sub-studio of Universal, is merely a moniker that is intended to be a shared-universe title. As such, the current title makes no sense to the average reader, as the Dark Universe is really a film series sharing a name with the sub-studio that makes them.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that "film studio" is the incorrect disambiguation here. I don't find that it matters much right now since it is not in the mainspace, but we should have a requested-move discussion if there is merit to move. The latest news, Bride of Frankenstein, does not seem to bode well, though. From what I can tell from sources, words other than "series" being used to describe Dark Universe are "banner" and "brand". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

October 5, 2017

• Universal Takes 'Bride of Frankenstein' Off Release Schedule

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

November 8, 2017

• Universal's "Monsterverse" in Peril as Top Producers Exit (Exclusive)

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

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) 23:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)