Talk:The Conjuring Universe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Timeline

I changed the timeline listing in regards to Annabelle Comes Home. As stated in the film itself, The main events of the movie take place one year after the Warrens take ownership of the doll. They received the doll in 1968 so that means it takes place in 1969 (and it slotted between that Annabelle prologue scene in The Conjuring and the rest of that movie, matching up with interviews that says it takes place "during" that movie, as there's a three year time jump that isn't explicitly acknowledged as it is in the new film). -Fireheart14 (talk) 04:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn’t make sense as the music box from the original Conjuring is placed in the artifice room already. Meaning that Annabelle Comes Home must be set after The Conjuring. -
talk) 05:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Could IP Address users stop changing the Timeline? The timeline is correct as it is. Annabelle: Creation starts off in 1943, then the main story takes place in 1955, then connects to Annabelle, which takes place in 1967. The section should be protected -
talk) 22:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The IP Address user who informed of everybody that the timeline is incorrect on the main page instead of the talk page has clearly not seen the other films in the Conjuring Universe. It is told to us from the beginning in Annabelle: Creation is set in 1943 then 12 years later in 1955 (main story). And the Annabelle case which is described in the first Conjuring film (and also the same as Annabelle Comes Home) tells us that it is in 1968, with the first Annabelle film set a year prior in 1967, which is 12 years after Annabelle: Creation. Please do research and watch the films instead of editing a whole franchise timeline based off of watching one film -
talk) 09:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I think I've figured out the source of confusion on the timeline—and it's an error (or just a change) the filmmakers made between The Conjuring and Annabelle.
  • In The Conjuring, the scene with the nurses who have ended up with the Annabelle doll is clearly labelled as "1968 Case Files". In that scene, it is also clearly established the events that were later depicted in Annabelle (i.e. the first Annabelle movie but the second one in the Conjuring franchise), happened a year before, which would place those events in 1967.
  • However, in an early scene in Annabelle, the Forms are watching TV news coverage on the
    Tate murders
    with commentary about Manson awaiting trial. The murders happened in 1969, and a newspaper shown on-screen covering the in-movie murder of the Higgins lists the date as 1970.
So it seems like the filmmakers, between The Conjuring and Annabelle, decided the Annabelle events happened in 1970, not 1967. This still places them before the events of The Conjuring, which were in 1971 (although I guess it means the scene with the nurses happened the same year as the events in The Conjuring... which is still plausible and actually makes the "one year later" in Annabelle Comes Home fit better, I think). And because our dates for Annabelle: Creation are based off "12 years before" and "24 years before" the events of the Annabelle, this would put Annabelle: Creation's main story in 1958 and the prelude in 1946. Given The Conjuring was first out of the gate before there was any series or spin-offs planned or mapped out, I personally would go with the dates given in the later films when no doubt they'd started to put together a coherent timeline.
This partially jives with The Nun featurette discussing the timeline, which shows Annabelle happening in 1970. Unfortunately, they list Annabelle: Creation as taking place in 1955, not 1958. So as for the two time periods depicted in Creation, it's still a little murky. However, whether 1955 or 1958, it still (generally) fits. What seems clear from the Annabelle movie and subsequent sources, though, is that Annabelle takes place in 1970. —Joeyconnick (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I say keep the timeline the same. This whole issue arose in the
talk) 02:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Except the timeline doesn't work and is directly contradicted by later films, which is why it's often the subject of debate. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and agree with your point. However, the media/internet has publicised so many timelines that is coherent with the current timeline that changing the timeline only now doesn’t seem right. I say keep it the same for now until we get a clear answer. @
talk) 08:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Honestly, I don't think we'll ever get a defined clear answer on the timeline. Its obvious that paid screenwriters f*cked up the time line, not as bad as the "X-Men" or "Star Trek" time lines, but I do see the glaring mistakes. I don't truly know which to agree with, yours or Joey's, because the Conjuring timeline is kind of broken. So, to sum up, I kind of don't side with even trying to explain this franchise's timeline because it won't ever feel correct or consistent. Thats probably why there isn't a specific section within the "X-Men" franchise that tries to explain its time line, nothing makes any sense or can be agreed upon. Similar for the Conjuring franchise, maybe consider having events within films described as "before The Conjuring" or "after The Nun", something like that, instead of trying to arrange the films with a year, as clearly even the screenwriters didn't research/watch their own films. I doubt my idea would be considered, but I think it is a less stressful way to describe a broken timeline. Cardei012597 (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's enough evidence by now to confirm that Annabelle takes place in 1970 (several references and news reports about the Tate-LaBianca murders that happened in 1969, some of them even explicitly dated 1970 in the film itself), with the first Conjuring opening being merely retconned to take place the same year as the rest of the movie. This fits with what's mentioned in Annabelle Comes Home, which is set one year after the Warrens acquire the doll (considering the retcon, that would've happened in 1971 rather than 1968, further explaining why Annabelle Comes Home is set in 1972). Also, the music box from the first Conjuring appears in the Warrens' artifact room, which completely rules out any possibility of the film taking place before 1971. This would also mean that Annabelle: Creation, taking place 12 years prior to Annabelle, is actually set in 1958. All of this is supported even further by the timeline IGN put out on YouTube a few days ago. Just my 2 cents. MiaHarris74 (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as though filmmakers have created a plot hole in terms of the timeline with Annabelle Comes Home, but now with multiple sources and the official social media handles of the films themselves claiming the new timeline, I think we can add it to the article. @Cardei012597: and @Joeyconnick:, could I get your word on this? KaitoNkmra23 talk 12:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If several reliable news sources are added into Annabelle Comes Home's plot summary to confirm the year the film is set in, I can be willing to allow this into the film page. Cardei012597 (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been following news on the franchise closely to avoid spoiling the latest film. However... I would say we'd be better off sticking to a real-world timeline (i.e. the year of release of the films) which is not going to change. Trying to come up with a fictional timeline is more in keeping with a fan wiki, not an encyclopedia. We already know there are several inconsistencies in the in-universe timeline between films; trying to untangle that or constantly update it based on however the filmmakers attempt to retcon things seems like a classic losing battle and I'm not at all convinced it adds anything to the articles. —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The timeline is definitely messed up, but I just watched the movies chronologically based on the order in this article and it feels wrong, specifically the Annabelle Comes Home placement. The references in this article point to one Looper article [1] that says the film takes place in 1972, but if you watch the film, a bulk of the film clearly takes place one year after the interview with the nurses which is 1968 in the prologue of The Conjuring (1), putting the events of Annabelle Comes Home in 1969. I think that Looper article is just incorrect and shouldn't be referenced as a source. Two other news articles [2] and [3] (which I also got from this wiki article and here both have the filmmakers saying it takes place before The Conjuring.Dc3k1 (talk) 06:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That can’t be right, since the music box from The Conjuring is present in Annabelle Comes Home. The newspaper we see towards the beginning of the film also further proves that 1972 is the year in which the film takes place. KaitoNkmra23 talk 08:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I undid revision by Dariosipunct because it makes no sense. I know in Annabelle Comes Home there is "One Year Later" but they forget about that the Annabelle Scene was in 1968. And placing Annabelle in 1970 makes no sense because how the baby grows. They just made a mistake in Comes Home that's it. Let not retcon the whole timeline because they made a little mistake. Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to ask. Can Timeline have its own section? To add there the comic book and one of the short films because only the creators of The Confession said where it takes place on the Timeline. Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only the timeline for the feature films is necessary. KaitoNkmra23 talk 22:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KaitoNkmra23 well I don't know. I think that people would like to know the whole timeline. But I get it. :) Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 04:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, 1967 is just so wrong in so many ways! The First Annabelle Movie is set in 1970 - the untertitle of the first conjuring was just wrong. The Makers said it to: 1967 is WRONG. Damn it. Stupid-serienjunkie (talk) 11:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! I mean, since Annabelle is supposed to take place in 1967, then tell me how the hell is Mia watching a news report on the Manson murders that occurred in 1969? It makes no sense, that's why the film is actually set in 1970. The only REAL problem is the title card for the Annabelle case that shows up in the first movie. If we ignore that detail in favor of the larger picture (as the creators themselves have done, mind you), everything starts to organically fall into place. MiaHarris74 (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.looper.com/161412/the-entire-conjuring-universe-story-finally-explained/
  2. ^ https://thegww.com/james-wans-annabelle-3-eyeing-october-production-start-in-los-angeles/
  3. ^ https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2457389/annabelle-3-is-set-during-a-surprising-point-on-the-conjuring-timeline

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, the original work is The Conjuring, so it's "The Conjuring universe" per
MOS:THETITLE
.
The Beatles have nothing to do with it... "The Beatles" is not a
MOS:THECAPS
.
Hope that clears things up. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply
]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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
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)[reply
]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
All sounds good to me! —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Conjuring_Universe&oldid=1205368050"