Talk:List of works influenced by the Cthulhu Mythos/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"Film" section: two inappropriately listed movies

The "Film" section includes the movies Re-Animator (1985) and From Beyond (1986). While these are both terrific movies and both are based on writings by Lovecraft, neither has anything specifically to do with Cthulhu or the Cthulhu mythos. Neither movie makes any mention of Cthulhu or of any entity related to Cthulhu. The texts of the original short stories on which the movies are based do not mention Cthulhu either. Both movies could have been made exactly as they are if Lovecraft had never written a single word about Cthulhu. Neither of these movies qualifies as part of the Cthulhu mythos. I propose removing both from the article forthwith. Goblinshark17 (talk) 03:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: Someone reverted the removal without leaving a comment. I am re-removing these two non-Cthulhu-mythos films. If you revert, please leave a comment explaining why. Goblinshark17 (talk) 05:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The Cthulhu mythos is a term used to describe the fictional universe which was created by H.P. Lovecraft, the central theme of which isn't "Cthulhu" which only turned up in one of Lovecraft's works, or direct reference to "the great old ones" but rather a cosmos where human beings are irrelevant. Authors disagree on what the central element of the Cthulhu Mythos is, but a good blanket ideal would be an Atheistic Materialism where humans are arrogant and irreverent. I understand why you believe these films do not qualify, but I haven't seen anything which separates the Cthulhu Mythos within Lovecraft's work. If such a seperation does occur could you please provide a citation. Please see Cthulhu Mythos for reference.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Coffeepusher, thanks for your reply on the "Cthulhu mythos in popular culture" Talk page. Let me correct you one one point: you said that Cthulhu only occurs in one of Lovecraft's works. This is wrong--Cthulhu is mentioned by name in many of Lovecraft's stories. There's "The Call of Cthulhu", and then his name is mentioned during a character's alcoholic ranting in "The Shadow over Innsmouth", and there's another story whose title I forget in which the narrator finds a small green statue of Cthulhu. More generally, Cthulhu is a recurring motif in Lovecraft's opus. He does not, however, appear in HERBERT WEST, REANIMATOR or FROM BEYOND. Goblinshark17 (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I understood that, notice I said he only appears in one work, assuming the alien creature is male of course. The Cthulhu mythos is a name used to distinguish the entirety of Lovecrafts works and a select canon of other works, which include Herbert West, Reanimator and From Beyond. Cthulhu doesn't need to appear, or any other alien entity for it to be part of the Cthulhu Mythos. Coffeepusher (talk) 03:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

How about putting a note in the NOTES section of each of these film entries to inform the reader that Cthulhu does not appear, and is not mentioned in either movie? Without such a note, the reader might rent or buy the movies expecting to see Cthulhu, or at least something having to do with Cthulhu. Goblinshark17 (talk) 04:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, I don't think that this strict definition of the "Cthulhu Mythos," as being related directly to Cthulhu, is held by anyone who studies Lovecraft's works and the extended writings of other authors which are the body of the Cthulhu Mythos. As the Cthulhu Mythos page makes clear, the Cthulhu Mythos consists of a world of fiction which was inspired by the complete works of H. P. Lovecraft, and consists more of a atheist materialist philosophy than a creature feature. Several writers tried to create a pantheon for Lovecrafts world, but those delineations are controversial among Lovecraftian scholars. For the most part the Cthulhu Mythos is a fictional world where authors build from lovecrafts original works which may or may not make reference to Cthulhu, Yog-Sothoth, or the old ones. If you can find Lovecraftian Scholars who make the argument that the definitive feature of the Cthulhu Mythos are the aliens which come to earth, and then they further delineate these creature features from Lovecrafts other works, then I would love you to share that information, I have yet to see this argument in print. Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 04:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, the first sentence of this article states "This article provides a list of cultural references to the work of author H. P. Lovecraft. These references are collectively known as the Cthulhu Mythos." If a reader doesn't understand that Lovecraft wrote about other things besides Cthulhu, then perhaps they will benefit from the education such an experience will provide.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

So, in relation to this subject, I would like to bring up likely movie inclusions which for some reason aren't showing on the main page, namely: Stuart Gordon's Dagon (if his Re-Animator and From Beyond apply, I have no idea how this one couldn't, seeing that as an adaptation of The Shadow over Innsmouth, even if the setting is changed from New England to Spain, it's far more tied to the Mythos than the two others, what with Dagon worship and Deep One miscegenation being so central to the plot (the town's name, Inboca, is probably how Innsmouth would be called in Spanish); the black-and-white, retro-style The Call of Cthulhu and The Whisperer in Darkness by the H.P. Lovecraft Historical Society, which are mostly faithful adaptations of the HPL stories of the same name, both with overt Mythos elements as part of the plot; and the Brian Yuzna anthology Necronomicon, which, while it takes liberties with the source material, still has appearances by Cthulhu, the Necronomicon (obvious, really, with that title) and even HPL himself as good old Jeffrey Combs.

There's also the two The Unnameable movies, but they may be pushing a bit too far away from Lovecraft from what I remember. And while not a movie, there was an episode of the The Real Ghostbusters cartoon called The Collect Call of Cathulhu where the Ghostbusters explicitely fought Cthulhu and its spawn (the extra A in the name was due to fears they could infringe on someone's IP, but it's obviously Big C himself; there's also a "shuggoth", the Necronomicon and several other Mythos tomes, mention of Miskatonic University in Arkham, and almost all of the one-shot characters are shout-outs to Mythos-related authors), and the later episode Russian About is about the team going to Russia to stop another "Old One" from rising.

There are more (and from more categories) I'd like to bring up later; also, please forgive me if this has been brought up already as despite having created my account years ago I haven't been very active and so am still very much a noob at this. In any case, if these don't pass muster I'd like to have an explanation, since most of the titles I brought up seem to me like they easily pass muster on the inclusion criteria. Thanks. Paireon (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Why did The Courtyard not make the cut? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.224.111 (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090413025700/http://www.nightgallery.net:80/index.html?title.html&0 to http://www.nightgallery.net/index.html?title.html&0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010109213600/http://www.deathrock.com/rudimentarypeni/cacodisc.html to http://www.deathrock.com/rudimentarypeni/cacodisc.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121012191408/http://www.drwhoguide.com/who_na27.htm to http://www.drwhoguide.com/who_na27.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Vodyanoi

Vodyanoi are NOT a part of any Cthulhu mythos. They predate Lovecraft by some centuries, you can find the description in here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vodyanoy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.57.112.9 (talk) 14:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Film section

There's a comment at the beginning of the Film section, visible when you are editing the page, that says, "Please don't put adaptations here--they go in the main H. P. Lovecraft article." I take this to mean that the Film section of this article should include movies inspired by the works of Lovecraft, or that include Lovecraftian elements, but not movies that are based more closely on actual Lovecraft stories. Are we enforcing this? Because the section as it currently stands does include some of the adaptations. Also, there might be some movies that are in a grey area, where they're loosely based on particular stories. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Does anybody have an opinion about this? (Pinging some recent contributors to the H. P. Lovecraft article: @Canterbury Tail, JezGrove, MagicatthemovieS, Palindromedairy, and Susmuffin:) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 14:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The rule was added in 2013. Honestly, it would simply clutter the main article with a list of adaptations. Remove it. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I just realized that @Susmuffin: recently removed the "Film adaptations" section from the main article, as part of this edit. I was really thinking that it was a good fit for the main article. All those movies have their own Wikipedia articles, and each had a footnote in the main article too. And since each entry in the list was short, it didn't take up that much real estate. So I'd be in favor of putting it back. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 16:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Lovecraft's article should be focused on his life and works. This article is a better place to list adaptations. Indeed, it already does. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 16:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Susmuffin: What would you -- or anyone else -- think if I replace the current Film section of this article with the Film Adaptations section that was removed from the other article? I think that would be a big improvement to this one. There are more films, with better descriptions, better links, and better references. Most of the ones listed here now are already included in the other section. The rest could be added back here at our leisure. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 16:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Do it. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Done! — Mudwater ^(Talk) 17:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Let's compose "Inclusion Criteria"

Ok, we leave it too long. I propose following criteria to incuding entries on this list.

• The element must has signification impact in the work. Simply "having word Cthulhu as grafiti in one comic panel" doesn't noaable enough. Nor does "having Deep One as one of minor enemies in games". "A Necronomicon can be spot on main character's bookshelf" doesn't count either. As enemy in games, the thing must be at least a major boss. The necronomicon must has vital role (and it must be Lovecraft necronomicon, second-hand derived from Evil Dead doesn't count).
• If the names are different from mythos, citation need. Nope, similar name isn't enough. You may think it's obvious, but there is chance that the name actually derived from something else or the author simply want weird name. In fact, many of deities in Aztec mythology has name as weird as Cthulhu. Term like "Old Gods that create the elemental", as noted, was there since Greek Mythology. In other words, there is nothing obvious if they aren't identical.
• If it has exact name with mythos, it can't be just name droping. Has a village name Innsmouth isn't enough even if the village is center of story if there is no connection between this Innsmouth and Innsmouth. For video game example, Innsmouth village overrun by Orcs wonn't count even if it's RPG and story take place there for good portion. However, An isolated village infested by various Merman-type enemy, with sign say "Welcome to Innsmouth" can be seen at start will be fine even if this is action game and the scene is just single stage. In short, would it loss some meaning if you change the element's name? Of cause, parodic story will has somewhat lower standard.

How about that? L-Zwei (talk) 06:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Those seem pretty good to me, and seem to reflect the rough consensus around the article. I support applying them systematically. They're actually exclusion criteria, not inclusion, though. :) —chaos5023 (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The first seems too subjective. Arguments predicted on how much is "significa[nt]." How about that a reliable source says is signifigant? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts: We're going to have to have some sort of subjectivity. Really, this is no different than any time we make an editorial judgment saying "X is important enough (DUE) for the article, but Y is not." However, we should limit it to only those cases where only the lightest of subjective decisions is needed--in other words, it must be pretty clear to all involved editors that the reference is actually significant and to the Mythos, not a similarly named or vaguely related entity/character/place/whatever. And I believe that it is fine to default to exclusion, rather than inclusion (less good material is better than excess questionable material). So, if I was going to write inclusion criteria, I think I'd say, "This list includes books, video games, movies, and other works that include significant references to some aspect of the Cthulhu mythos." I'd add in hidden text that we do not allow individual songs, tv show episodes, chapters of video games, etc.; and that only works that have their own Wikipedia page (i.e., have already been determined to be notable) may be listed. So, if I were looking at the list right now, I would say, for example, that A Study In Emerald, Army of Darkness vs. Re-Animator, and Sherlock Holmes: The Awakened immediately jump out as good inclusions, while America: The Book (trivial mention), American Gods (not clearly connected to the Mythos), and Practical Demonkeeping (not significant enough inclusion) are all definite exclusions. I know this is a little ragged; I'll try to refine at a later point, but if there's immediate feedback, please let me know. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Would "A Night in the Lonesome October" by Roger Zelazny qualify? 81.15.239.117 (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that "The Prodigy" has a vague but plausible Lovecraft reference in their "Music for the Jilted Generation" track "Intro". With typewriters and everything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-nmztotn7g — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.109.117.95 (talk) 04:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem with this criteria is that is is TOO restrictive and locks out movie adaptions that changed the name. But retained the other elements. Omega2064 (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)