Talk:Dracula (Universal film series)

Spanish Dracula

Wouldn't the 1931 Spanish language film of Dracula also be considered a part of this "series"?★Trekker (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Normally I'd jumpt into saying "of course!" but this is where things get complicated. It's like, a film made simultaneously with the English version of Dracula 1931. There is no sequels to the Spanish one and it follows the same story per-se. As there is very little info talking about the series as a whole and what it contains (Rhodes summarizes it best that it's the films that refer to follow Dracula 1931 and refer to its plot points or charcters(s) (usually only the Count himself!). Spanish-language Dracula isn't really part of the narrative because it's just like, a film that technically exists, but isn't really a unique entry into the series other than the era it was made in. If you want a more concrete answer, the main two sources I found that discuss and list the series as a whole do discuss Spanish-language Dracula as part of the series for the above reasons. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Cross-over films

House of Frankenstein, House of Dracula, and Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein need to be added to this article. Each of these films features Dracula to some degree.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

They have Dracula in there, but my two sources that I've found discussing the film as a series in any serious or scholarly manner only strongly argue for the first three films to be connected and the last two having Dracula basically be a different character, who makes very brief appearances that barely relate to the original films anymore, and barely relate to the plots they are in. I wouldn't mind including a brief summary of what Dracula does in House of Frankenstein, House of Dracula and the Abbot and Costello film, but historians really seemed iffy about stating that these films are really connected in any serious manner as after Son of, it's practically a different Dracula who either looks and behaves entirely different and requires little to no knowledge of what has transpired beforehand. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

This might well be true, but it creates a discrepancy within Wikipedia, where List of vampire films clearly lists six entries under "Universal Studios Dracula series". I, for one, came to this article from there expecting to find all six of those mentioned in greater detail. The article also includes a "see also" that points to Frankenstein (Universal film series), where House of Dracula is listed as part of that series. What we're saying is that Universal Studios made a Dracula series and a Frankenstein series, and somehow one of their films with Dracula in the title is part of the latter but not of the former. One could easily argue that "the series of films about Dracula by Universal Studios" inherently includes all films about Dracula that were made by Universal Studios. The article might then bring sources that question how well the films in the series respond to its own criterion, instead of preemptively picking and choosing which films Universal should have titled and marketed differently. --Kumagoro-42 (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

We can argue it is, but you'll have to find sources that back it up. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Addition with Van Helsing etc.

I've removed the new content with Van Helsing and some of the later films that feature Dracula. Per the prose in the article which actually discusses the film in the series, the sources indicate the film series is basically films that require you to have working knowledge of the 1931 English film. The other films are surely films about a character named Dracula but are not related. This is also why we don't include the 1970s remake or the Van Helsing films. We don't pick and choose what belongs to the series and we have two seperate sources that indicate what is in the series (and even those ones are back and forth if Son of Dracula should be included.) Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I've re-removed it again, the article had cited information but none of it backed up how it's part of a series other than it's a "Reboot" which was not in any of the sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Von vs Van Helsing

Why in the "Dracula's daughter" section, is it spelt "Von Helsing" throughout? Nikolaih^☎️📖 22:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

It's explained in the prose, but the character has a name change in the sequel. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Is it a Dracula movie? Is it by Universal? So it belongs here

Recently, many movies were removed from this page, but they should be here, they are Dracula movies made by Universal, so they belong to this franchise, the one who thinks they don't belong here is wrong, if they were made by Hammer or Sony I would understand, but the movies that were removed should be back here 2804:389:1025:E30E:0:63:280:4801 (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

That's not what the citations state and the content. Per the critical overviews, the authors who wrote about the films seem to only include films that would have plot lines or stories that would make sense to an audience who was either a) familiar with Dracula (1931) or flat out have seen it. That's why 21st century films generally aren't included. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Renfield

Earlier today, Chris McKay confirmed that Renfield will serve as a direct sequel to Tod Browning's original 1931 English language Dracula film, marking "[t]he longest time between the original movie and the sequel". 89.19.67.200 (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

McKay saying it would've been funny to market it that way doesn't necessarily mean it will be considered a direct sequel, despite Fangoria's enthusiastic headline. We'll have to see what secondary sourcing says. And even if that does pan out, that isn't a reason to put a half dozen other films into this article as well. MrOllie (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Those other films were explicitly reboots of the Universal Monsters film series, which included this specific (Universal) Dracula film series. It's not a controversial statement, just literally the truth. Same with McKay confirming this about Renfield. 89.19.67.200 (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

You might benefit from a read of Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth MrOllie (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I have read it. And it is really easily verifiable. The films (and those explicit sequels to this incarnation of Dracula) exist. It is that simple. The DVD box set for the series, Dracula: The Legacy Collection, includes Dracula, Drácula, Dracula's Daughter, Son of Dracula, House of Frankenstein, House of Dracula, and Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein. 89.19.67.200 (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

No. You don't get to wave your hands and say they exist, therefore they are part of the same series. Reliable sources (in this case, that means film scholars and/or reputable critics) have to say so. Wikipedia is not supposed to follow the personal opinions of its users, or even the opinions of whatever exec it was that picked some movies from the back catalog to sell as a bundle. MrOllie (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is not supposed to follow the personal opinions of its users. Every individual film page does say they are part of the same series, with plenty of sourcing to back it up. Only every time it is added to the various film series pages, it is removed a few months later by one editor and one editor only (I checked): Andrzejbanas. Your own presence here today marks a pleasant outlier, but if you looked into it, you would find I am correct. 89.19.67.200 (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Then we should wait for their appearance on this talk page to see what they have to contribute to discussion. MrOllie (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Reading through the article, the title of Fangoria's title just states something that their research does not. As for home video releases, I wouldn't chalk that up to much as per the Universal Classic Horror article which states that these films were just lumped together to sell them as a package. Besides, that would make films that lack the Wolfman all of a sudden be lumped into that series if you wanted to strictly go by that logic. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Just to follow this up now that Renfield has been released, I've added some connection to the original film. The director again clarified that the film is a "quasi-sequel" at best to the 1931 film so i've included that statement. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Re-vamp

I re-arranged some content in the article and tried to give it some more juice with some information found when re-doing the Universal Classic Monsters article. I've dropped the infobox as there doesn't appear to be any clear consensus of what is or what isn't in the series. I believe we addressed well enough in the article, so it should be good enough here. I think the only thing I really want to do is try to find reviews for the series as a whole or it's legacy as a whole to expand it further. But I think the article is better now. I'm open to hear any thoughts on the topics here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Per the last edit. I've removed the infobox from the article. While infoboxes are common through film articles (and film series), I don't believe it would be much help here. Very few re-occuring cast or crew members work between these films and its not even 100% clear what films are part of the series per different critical perspectives. Outside having a poster which would only represent Dracula, I don't think there is enough concise information to warrant the infobox in the article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dracula (Universal film series)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Andrzejbanas (talk · contribs) 12:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Paleface Jack (talk · contribs) 19:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• Hello Andrzejbanas. I normally am not the reviewing type so this might be an unconventional one outside the usual structure that one might expect. Look forward to reviewing this.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   So far as I can tell, the prose is very strong.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The beginning portion of the Films section could be placed under an Overview sub-section, for better flow.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Tried to tinker with this idea, What do you think? Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems decent now. My only concern is the text for each image, which probably can just be placed in the main body with the images having a shorter accompanying text. Paleface Jack (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I've shortened down some of them and re-wrote the first one. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Citations #19 and #20 should be combined.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I apologize, I've moved some sources around since you posted this, which sources were these? Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Same goes for the following citations:

• 1. 26-27; #28-30; #64-65.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I know I've moved some sources around so I'm not sure which you meant, I did try to combine some that I assumed you may have been talking about. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Dont be afraid to cite the access date in your citation of American Film Institute within your citation.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I did a little digging and found some additional sources on Google Books that you ccan add to the article. They are as follows:--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Hollywood Gothic: The Tangled Web of Dracula from Novel to Stage to Screen (2004) by David J. Skal
• Count Dracula Goes to the Movies: Stoker's Novel Adapted, 1922-1995 (1999) by Lyndon W. Joslin
• Dracula in Visual Media: Film, Television, Comic Book and Electronic Game Appearances, 1921-2010 (2014) by John Edgar Browning and Caroline Joan Picart
• Dracula in the Dark: The Dracula Film Adaptations (1997) by James Craig Holte
• The Darkling: A Treatise on Slavic Vampirism (1989) by Jan Louis Perkowski - gives a little info on the first Dracula film.
• Of Gods and Monsters: A Critical Guide to Universal Studios' Science Fiction, Horror and Mystery Films, 1929-1939 (2015) by John T. Soister

1. It is broad in its coverage.

While I was unfamiliar with some of these sources, I did not find much specifics that aren't available in the Weaver or Rhodes books which are more current or have a grander scope. I'll add something from Count Dracula Goes to the Movies, but the others seem to mostly contain information about the films individually, with little about them as a series as a whole. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

1. a (major aspects): b (focused):

Out of curiosity have you seen any influence of this series on anything?--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

There is some information about this in the legacy section. The first two films set tropes of how classical vampires are seen and shown in classic Hollywood films, with the two sources specifically mentioning the first two films. The rest of it would probably go back and forth between how individual films are influential. It is difficult to write about film franchises or series without making them just regurgitate information that probably should go into their own articles, so I'm mostly trying to be concise here and find information on how the films relate or how they do not, and how the sum of them influences others. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. Paleface Jack (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

1. Nothing out of the ordinary here and perfect lies within the scope of GA.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The text in that first image has a couple of typos and should be shortened. Further information from each image, if not found and cited in the main body can be sortened and uncited if necessary.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

   You can also shrink the final image slightly so it fits the bottom better. Paleface Jack (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I've shortened the descriptions and re-wrote the text in the first one. I don't think we need to change the size or scale of the images though, as everyone can easily change the text size and layout in the browser or are reading the article on their phone, the scale and size of images to fit text doesn't really hold anymore. Anyways, I think I've addressed everything @Paleface Jack:. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

@Paleface Jack:, outside the numeral sources, I think I addressed what you have discussed so far. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Well done, you have passed.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2024 (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.