Talk:The Conjuring Universe

Lla Llorona (2019) - Section Removal

Someone keeps reverting my edits about "The Curse Of La Llorona" movie. It was already confirmed that it doesn't belong to the "universe". So why keep reverting it?

Also, the recent bonus feature about the universe timeline, from "The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It", completely dismiss La Llorona from the franchise. Also, it puts Annabelle to 1970, not 1967.

Aglaopothis (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

To the above - Confirmed: ‘The Curse of La Llorona’ Is DEFINITELY Not Part of the Official ‘Conjuring Universe’ - Wetdogmeat (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

It's part of the same universe, but it's not part of The Conjuring franchise. Strange distinction, but regardless, its place alongside Wolves at the Door on this page is absolutely fitting. It's a related film, not a main instalment. Similar to Constantine (2014) to the Arrowverse, I'd say. ProBot1227 (talk) 13:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Italics in page title and lead sentence are technically wrong

It's "the Conjuring universe", not "The Conjuring universe", just like it's a Beatles album and not a The Beatles album. (If you absolutely insisted on keeping the The in the title part, then it would still have to take the form "the (whatever) universe", i.e. "the The Conjuring universe, which sounds inane.) Equinox ◑ 22:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

No, the original work is The Conjuring, so it's "The Conjuring universe" per MOS:SERIESTITLE. If a work starts with "The", we drop the duplicate article to avoid the awkwardness of "the The" or "a The", per MOS:THETITLE.

The Beatles have nothing to do with it... "The Beatles" is not a MOS:MAJORWORK. It's a band, so it's governed by MOS:THECAPS.

Hope that clears things up. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are wrong. Similarly some time ago I moved the page Truman Show delusion, because you'd say "he has the Truman Show delusion" (it's "the ... delusion" of that kind), not "he has The Truman Show delusion". Equinox ◑ 22:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

The Beatles are relevant is this case, as they are both creative works that start with "The" that people ignore all the time, such as "a Beatles album" or "a Conjuring film". CitationsFreak (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

No, the Beatles are a group of people who made music. The Conjuring is a creative work. 100% not the same thing. —Joeyconnick (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

What do sources say? This one from Entertainment Weekly refers to the universe as "the Conjuring universe". While there are films titled The Conjuring, the universe seems to just be titled Conjuring. It could also be that when used as a modifier, "the" in a proper name is sometimes just lowercase, as shown in this example of "the New York Times reporter". --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Came here to say this. If I’m understanding MOS:THETITLE correctly, this should generally be referred to as “the Conjuring Universe”. But I’m not 100% sure if that would apply to the article title or just the article body. “Conjuring Universe” works in a sentence but seems a little weird as an article title. But idk. — Will • B ^[talk] 23:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The Curse of La Llorona and other related films

This film was never confirmed to be a part of the series (there is no source in the article supporting that conclusion, and in fact one that mentions "Warner Bros. swearing up and down that it wasn't" and "New Line’s insistence that [it] does not “count”"), it was just assumed to be on the basis that the priest character from Annabelle shows up in it. It's now been officially confirmed by both La Llorona director Michael Chaves (who also directed The Conjuring 3 and The Nun 2) and Conjuring Universe producer Peter Safran that the film is NOT part of the Conjuring universe.

"There's so much debate about it and I think I've played coy in the past," Chaves says. "The idea was that [the Annabelle cameo] was going to be this little hidden thing that you were going to discover as you watch the movie. One of the reasons that it couldn't formally be a part of the Conjuring universe is it didn't include one of the key producers, which is Peter Safran. The Conjuring is his baby, him and James, and they are still the two core producers on it."

Chaves explains Safran wasn't involved in The Curse of La Llorona "because it was such a small low-budget movie." He adds, "Peter still gave his permission to let the character be in there. The funny thing is that it was supposed to be a secret, it was supposed to be this Easter Egg, and [when the film premiered at] SXSW, there was a slip-up. The presenter introduced the movie as the next entry in the Conjuring universe. So that was a big kind of faux pas. It was a big mess-up, and that's the truth of how that all came together."

Safran himself insists, good-naturedly but firmly, that The Curse of La Llorona is "not part of The Conjuring universe."

"You can't count it!" he says. "It periodically gets lumped in because of Chaves and because of Atomic Monster, but it is not officially part of the universe. By the way, I think Chaves did a great job on the movie, which is why we stole him for the Conjuring universe."

So the idea was for an easter egg, just as there are Conjuring-related easter eggs in Aquaman and Shazam, but the guy who presented the screening at SXSW misunderstood or misspoke and incorrectly announced it as part of the universe.

I'd propose this be moved to a new section titled something like Connections in other films, which could collect information about the various easter eggs in other James Wan and Gary Dauberman productions, including the appearance of the cop character in Wolves at the Door and the appearance of the Annabelle doll in Aquaman and Shazam.

The short films should also be moved into this section, since there's no source supporting their place in the official canon. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

For a while now, my stance on this has been that we keep it in the article as multiple sources have also referred to it as an official entry and simply because of the direct link with Father Perez and his association with the events of Annabelle (2014). I wouldn't classify it as an easter egg either and disagree with the argument that they are of the same sort like you have with the Aquaman and Shazam examples.

However, with more and more sources and even interviews from filmmakers clearly saying it outright that it isn't an official entry, I can vouch for moving it into a new section like you've mentioned, also adding in Wolves at the Door. And with regard to the short films, I'm all for removing this section entirely, as there's no evidence to support their inclusion in the canon and no sources cited at all for that section anyway.

I'm open to more discussion as it seems to be a topic of high importance for this article. KaitoNkmra23 (talk!) 11:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The Forbes article linked above is from 2019 and mentions both WB and New Line insisting right from the beginning that the film is not part of the Conjuring Universe. There's never been an official source to support its inclusion.

I agree that the inclusion of the priest character is a more significant easter egg than the fleeting inclusion of the Annabelle doll in the DC movies, but I don't think the mere fact that a character owned by the same studio is included necessarily implies the film is to be taken as part of the larger continuity of the Conjuring Universe. For example, despite the inclusion of Patrick Stewart's Professor X in Doctor Strange 2, we wouldn't assume that makes that movie part of the Fox X-Men continuity. I'm sure there are lots of examples one could dig up of studios allowing filmmakers to play around with their library of characters in creating easter eggs that aren't meant to be taken too seriously and 'canonised' by fans. Looks like this is one of those cases and it was just misunderstood. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't even call it an easter egg, but yeah I agree with everything else. I'm happy to incorporate a new section dedicated to the two films mentioned and remove the short films section if a few other editors are ok with it, or if further discussion is needed then that's completely fine as well.

I also think we need an updated discussion on the timeline for the films in this franchise since promotion for The Nun II once again implies that the one we have in this article is incorrect, but we can leave that for another day. KaitoNkmra23 (talk!) 04:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, those shorts belong in the Annabelle: Creation article. The competition could be briefly mentioned in the Annabelle: Creation subsection here, but they definitely don't need their own section. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I’ll wait until the end of this week in case any editors object or want to add anything to this discussion. If not I’ll edit accordingly. KaitoNkmra23 (talk!) 11:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

All sounds good to me! —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

THE CURSE OF LA LLORONA

Why la llorona is not part of the universe if they use 2 characters? Father ferez and Annabelle Even the church of father ferez returned to this film?

Annabelle doll in the film is not use in other films before This is the first time a film was used it as part of their film same as the character of father ferez and his church.

Even there's no source saying it was part of the film series, By watching it you can say that it was really part of this universe. Abskiee (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)