This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Conjuring Universe article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 180 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Conjuring Universe article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 180 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)