Talk:The Conjuring Universe

Short Films Section

Can whoever completely removed ALL information regarding the Annabelle: Creation short films contest put it back?? There was no need to remove the section as it belongs in this page. It appears that the section was removed due to the fact that these short films are not canon to the conjuring universe, stating that they were only made for a contest. Although they are made for a contest, the films are set within the conjuring universe, as stated by the director of Annabelle: Creation and the creator of the contest, David F. Sandberg himself. Please put it back in its place Kaito Nakamura (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I have a question. On Blu ray of The Conjuring:The Devil Made Me Do It as one of special features will be The Conjuring:The Lover #1 as a motion comic. And I wanted to ask if this counts as a shirt film? Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

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)

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. -Kaito Nakamura (talk) 05:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

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 -Kaito Nakamura (talk) 22:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

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 -Kaito Nakamura (talk) 09:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

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 Manson Family 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)

I say keep the timeline the same. This whole issue arose in the Annabelle Comes Home article. On that article, the year of the plot should not be mentioned. On this article however, we should keep the timeline years the same to avoid confusion, and so that the timeline actually works. Kaito Nakamura (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

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)

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. @Cardei012597:, may I get your opinion on this please? — Kaito Nakamura (talk) 08:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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 and (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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

References

New drafts for upcoming films

Two new drafts have been created for the upcoming Untitled The Nun Film and The Crooked Man. These should be changed to articles once either one of the projects release dates have been confirmed or when principal photography has begun. Please see my talk page to access these drafts. Thank you! Kaito Nakamura (talk) 11:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Wolves at the Door

I wanted to ask if it is worth mentioning that Eric Lapin who played Detective Clarkin in Annabelle reappears in Wolves at the Door? It makes it connected and in a way set in The Conjuring Universe although it isn't officially part of the franchise (like The Curse of La Llorona with the difference La Llorona had more connections)... Just asking 😅 Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

From memory someone added this to the article a few years back but got removed since no source could confirm that it was an official entry into the franchise nor was it of much notability. I personally haven't seen the film but it seemed to be a small cameo appearance since the director and writer also worked on Annabelle. KaitoNkmra23 (talk!) 01:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I haven't seen the film myself yet. But am going to do it today, so I'll let you know if it was just a cameo. And I totally understand. Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 08:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah watched it, and forgot to say it. It was just a pretty small cameo. But the connection is there Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, as I saw few days ago here was a "edit war" about this film. Can we discuss it or you think that the topic is closed? In my honest opinion the movie should be mentioned. But that's just my opinion Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, this movie should be counted. It's exactly how universes works. A character from previous movie appears in it. And Annabelle is refrenced. The same was with La Llorona but there was also a flashback. Still, this is how universes works. Also people who did work on previous films worked on this. So yeah. It should be counted. If it was a theatrical release it would already be counted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4DD6:8B77:0:8432:A51D:329C:B203 (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

This isn't something like with Caged (2020) where an actor who plays a character in conjiverse appears in another movie and has the same last name as the character in conjiverse. Yup Tony Amendola plays a character with last name Perez in Caged (2020) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4DD6:8B77:0:8432:A51D:329C:B203 (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

There's not enough coverage with reliable sources for it. La Llorona had plenty at the time of and even following release. You can't add your own information per WP:ORIGINAL. Unless you want to keep this discussion going I'd close this discussion. KaitoNkmra23 (talk!) 22:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

well I mean La Llorona was a theatrical release. And Wolves was released with no echo. Almost no one knows the movie exists. That's the difference between the two films. La Llorona was a theatrical release with some marketing, Wolves was a theatrical movie like in 3 countries with just one trailer released once and that's it. No one talked about it. And it has just 7 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. And yeah. Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it's linked. If not necessarily part of the Conjuring franchise, it is certainly part of the universe since it was the exact same character from Annabelle and it had the same creatives work on it. It should at least be mentioned on the page if it's not going to be added as an instalment of the series, considering it's the same world. ProBot1227 (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%. The same creatives, the same character played by the same actor. It's literally the same case as it was with The Curse of La Llorona Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't say its the same. Again, barely any media coverage and reliable sources to satisfy notability. KaitoNkmra23 (talk!) 07:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

it's hard to have any sources when no one knows this movie exists. It was released as quietly as possible because of controversies. La Llorona was in theaters its why you have sources on that. Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

And that's great... but we go by the sources. If it hasn't been clearly "claimed" by producers, then we don't include it. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

So by that delete La Llorona it wasn't also called by the producers part of it. In fact the director said it isn't. But wait you keep fighting on that if someone removes it. Oh well. The movie needs to speak for itself. I bet if there was an article by screenrant or other news site about it, you would just let it in. But that there's just one source on the internet by small horror site, you're ignoring it. The film is evidence enough. Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if you're getting the point here. The film itself can't be constituted as evidence. Multiple, reliable third-party sources are needed. KaitoNkmra23 (talk!) 21:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Are they really needed? Why? I don't understand why the film itself can't be considered as evince? Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced information tends to be considered as original research, which is not allowed per WP:ORIGINAL. Reliable sources are required per WP:RELIABILITY and WP:VERIFIABILITY. KaitoNkmra23 (talk!) 01:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

It should be noted that the Polish wikipedia considered it reasonable enough to add.

I'm not asking for much. Just a small reference to it on the page to denote the connection. It's clear that this appearance is more than an easter egg because of serveral things, like the timeline setting, the shared character, the shared creatives, and how Annabelle references the Sharon Tate murder.

It's pretty hard to argue it's not connected when you take into the facts. I do understand the hesitation to add it as part of the series, but a small reference like "additionally, Eric Laden reprised his role as Detective Clarkin in Wolves at the Door" couldn't hurt. ProBot1227 (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, at least in this way. Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)