Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal Monsters (2017 film series) - Wikipedia


Article Images
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was convert to draft. The consensus is that because only one film has been released so far, it is too early to have an article about a series for the film. A few editors pointed out that Dracula Untold (2014) was originally intended to be the first film in the series; however, since those plans were discarded, most editors agreed that it does not represent the first film in this series.

On the other hand, since it is likely that the subject will warrant coverage in Wikipedia in the future, there is also a consensus to avoid deleting the article and instead convert it into a draft so that it can continue to be maintained and moved back to mainspace when and if additional information about future installments is released. Content from the now-drafted article may be merged to other articles at editorial discretion, namely to The Mummy (2017 film) or Universal Monsters. Since there is a pretty clear consensus that this article should be moved to "Dark Universe (film series)" on the talk page, I will be moving this article to Draft:Dark Universe (film series). Mz7 (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Universe (Universal Monsters) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is for a film series that does not yet exist. Only one film produced so far, so article fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: It doesn't fail CRYSTAL by any means. This Universal Monsters series has been developing for a few years now to the point that 2014's Dracula Untold was nearly considered to be part of it, The Mummy will be released a mere month from now, at least two of the films already have release dates for 2018 and 2019, they all have producers with Alex Kurtzman heading the universe, and a few of the upcoming films already have writers. They are also currently talking with actors and directors for the upcoming films, with Guillermo Del Toro, Bill Condon ([1]), and Angelina Jolie considered for Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein. Most of this is cited in the articles. DarkKnight2149 15:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But none of them have started filming yet. See WP:NFF. Also, it is very rare for us to have film series articles until there are three films in a series. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These are frankly concerns that should have been raised before the article was created. Really, this should have been a draft before anything else. At this point, the universe is so far in development that there's no point in a straight deletion unless something does happen in the vain of a cancellation. DarkKnight2149 15:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's appropriate to have it in both articles, but more important to have it at The Mummy. -- Forty.4 (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to The Mummy (2017 film) for now (per nom and Gene) GtstrickyTalk or C 03:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - i see no reason for merging or deletion. Sources are good. The article is good and relevant.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Per above --Impending IP (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources only verify information related to the individual films but the fact remains that only one film exists at this time. One film does not constitute a series, therefore there is no series as stated in the article. The other films listed in the article are so early in development that it's is a real possibility that this "series" may never come to fruition. That's why it is being suggested that the information be merged until such time the series is more likely to exist.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • But again, bare in mind that this shared universe (It's not a "film series"; it's multiple film series) is far enough along that 2014's Dracula Untold was on the cusp of being the first film, which only changed when it flopped. It goes without saying that the actors and creative teams for the future films are already set. This isn't quite as black-and-white as you are making it. DarkKnight2149 14:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • As WP:NFF states "there is no "sure thing" production". Anything can happen and all these well intentioned plans can go away at an instance, even for high-profile releases. The Amazing Spider-Man 3 went away, after AS2 tanked. Same thing for the sequel to 2015's Fantastic Four. King Arthur was set for a six-film series before that bombed. Again, we should wait until the series is more likely to exist.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You completely missed my point but, given that I didn't vote Keep, it doesn't really matter. DarkKnight2149 18:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I feel like this should be draftified to avoid loss of edit history and because there is a decent chance that this series does indeed become a hit.★Trekker (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft: The film buff in me wants to keep this page, but the level-headed Wikipedia editor in me says the appropriate action would be to remove this from the main space and allow us to edit it behind-the-scenes. After the second film in the shared universe has begun production, I would be in favor of returning this to the main space under the name "Dark Universe (film series)". DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 21:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft There's a lot of work that would be a pitty to lose if the article is eventually renamed into (film series) and kept. Hoverfish Talk 15:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This proposition is completely ridiculous. The same could have been said about the DC Extended Universe when it was first announced and only Man of Steel existed therein. With the mass information regarding the series being released, a webpage, a graphic design, a theme, directors and writers attached - what would the constructive nature be in deleting the page?! Makes zero sense. No, this film series is a-go and has a second film in pre-production currently. Definitely keep this page as is. Just needs to be retitled to Dark Universe (film series).--50.232.205.246 (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First WP:OTHERSTUFF, If I recall there were many problems with that page when it was announced. It doesn't mean we should repeat them here. Secondly, its not "a-go" until the second film has been completed, although that likelihood increases when filming begins. Many of film have died in pre-production. Superman Lives anyone?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Second" - WP:OTHERSTUFF User:TriiipleThreat -- Superman Lives never entered the filming stage. You just contradicted yourself. Not to mention Superman Lives was never going to be a film series. In regards to the current state of this page, it is definitely a film series, as Dracula Untold was originally the first film in the series, (though it has since been down-played). Dracula Untold information, The Mummy and Bride of Frankenstein --- that's three films. To say "Hey let's delete a page simply because the second "official" movie isn't out yet - is super counterproductive.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now, who's on Third?!....--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? OTHERSTUFF has to do with arguments to avoid during deletion discussions, in this case the IP suggested this article should be kept because DC Extended Universe existed. Superman Lives is an example of a film dying in pre-production since the IP seemed to suggest that the next installment is guaranteed to be made because it's in pre-production. That's not contradictory they are unrelated points. Dracula Untold is not an installment in this this series. You can't have it both ways. There is no guarantee that the Bride of Frankenstein will get made so we can't treat it as a part of a series per WP:CRYSTAL. Removing this article for the time being is very productive as this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site devoted to speculative future events.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Draft, merge relevant information to Universal Monsters or The Mummy (2017 film): Per WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL, the article is misleading on a fundamental level. There is no film series, and there are no films. There is only a film. The article can be maintained in draftspace until such time filming commences as suggested by Wikipedia guidelines.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Seriously don't get how this deletion is even plausible. With a release date, directors, writers, producers, actors, a webpage, a theme score/logo, and various stages of development --- how is this even in question? Talk about petty nitpicking.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I still support moving the page to a draft, but I think the main point that people are continuing to neglect with the "There's only one film" argument is that 2014's Dracula Untold was also intended to be in the Dark Universe. Sure, Universal changed this when the film failed, but this is still nonetheless important to take into consideration. The "one film" argument isn't quite as black-and-white as people here are making it sound. DarkKnight2149 21:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is Dracula Untold a part of the series? If the answer is no, then we cannot count it as one. Who knows if The Mummy fails they can just say the same thing and keep kicking the can down the road--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not, but it is still important when considering Dark Universe's development as a body of films, and it merits some consideration, though it is by no means a game changer. That's largely why I still think draft space is the best immediate option. DarkKnight2149 21:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dracula Untold may still prove to be re-worked into the franchise in a way, following further releases. It remains to be seen. As User:Darkknight2149 pointed out, and I tried to up there^ it was innitially film #1. It was the case prior to the studio having a solid plan in place with a series name, logo, etc. The point I'm making is the studio is much more invested in the series at this point; and will have two films released within two weeks, and one in pre-production. That's a film series, no matter how you look at it.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Come back when it is reworked into the franchise. As of now, sources indicate that it is not and therefore there is no series at this time.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. When the second and third film enter production then it warrants its own article, but as of now, no - it doesn't need its own article here in this site.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal discussions

edit

I propose that we copy the current article into draft space (for if we need to resurrect the article). Then, we add the details of the planned cinematic universe to Universal Monsters and create a Future section at The Mummy (2017 film). In short, this would be an amalgamation of everyone's suggestions. DarkKnight2149 00:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That article doesn't really say anything relevant to this AFD: yes, a lot of people think the whole adventure is stupid and the movie looks not-good, but that doesn't necessarily mean the adventure won't happen at all, since a lot of movies people think look bad wind up making money and getting sequels anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If audience/critical reception was always the same as the box office returns, then the Transformers films and Star Wars prequels would have performed much more poorly. Only time and The Mummy will tell if these shared universe plans will be realised. DarkKnight2149 00:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously User:BD2412 -- What on Earth does one article's opinion have to do with this shared universe? Who cares what Megan Farokhmanesh has to say. The studio has and is putting forth money for a film series; that is based on properties that they own, and even some characters they created themselves. That article is not applicable here at all.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 21:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was thinking the opposite. Third-party criticism of the shared universe in a reliable source is evidence of its notability. bd2412 T 21:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Third party criticism is important to keep in mind when predicting if The Mummy will be successful enough for the other films to happen. However, public and journalistic opinions of a movie don't always line up with the box office, as seen with films like Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace and Transformers: Age of Extinction (for instance). DarkKnight2149 21:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, though opinions matter - this film hasn't even been released yet. It has zero relevence to this movement.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.