Jump to content

Talk:Alien: Covenant/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Reviews selection is overly positive compared to metaratings

The reviews that are quoted are almost exclusively extremely positive, apart from the last one. Very strange for a film that scored around 70% overal. Please select better quotes to reflect the general reception of the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:982:3678:1:E5DE:3FB2:4D7:2696 (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Note on the musical themes used from "Prometheus"

I noticed at least some of the musical elements in this film which came from "Prometheus" are from the tracks/cues written by Harry Gregson-Williams (specifically Life Prometheus_(soundtrack)). Do others think it would be appropriate to reword the final sentence of the Music section

from: Themes of Jerry Goldsmith's original score to Alien have been incorporated as well as Marc Streitenfeld's score to Prometheus. to: Themes from Jerry Goldsmith's original score to Alien as well as Marc Streitenfeld and Harry Gregson-Williams's score to Prometheus have been incorporated.

I realize this is original research so I thought it best to check before making the edit

Gsbhle (talk) 09:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC) www.moviezone31.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalakaya (talk • contribs) 12:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Harry Gregson-Williams specifically wrote the theme/cue used in this film (see "Life" and "We Were Right" from the Prometheus soundtrack). I would also change out Marc's credit with Harry under "Music by." Brentray33 (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I think Richard Wagner wrote some of it.Paulturtle (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

H.R. Giger not credited again?

There was a stink when they left his name off earlier movies, it appears he has been left off the credits again although they're using his original designs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.83.115 (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC) Maybe we should wait till the movie is actually made before we decide what is missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.117.1.11 (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe look up the interview with Stan Lee about how Jack Kirby's name was left off the credits for "The Avengers" (even though Jack Kirby's name was in the credits for "The Avengers"), as well as the flack that article got, before making the exact same mistake. As MovieFone quickly learned, there's a big difference between something not being trumpeted by every trailer & poster and something not being credited. 24.14.224.157 (talk) 07:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I saw his name next to O'Bannon's in the credits this time. --79.242.203.134 (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

H.R. Giger was definitely listed in the end movie credits. I just saw the movie in the theater and saw Giger listed there. 71.211.224.137 (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Cast order

We've had a number of disruptive edits, so I should list out the cast list in the studio-released order, so we have it as a resource for the time being. The bold designates starring roles.

1. Michael Fassbender

2. Katherine Waterston

3. Billy Crudup

4. Danny McBride

5. Demián Bichir

7. Carmen Ejogo

8. Amy Seimetz

9. Jussie Smollett

10. Callie Hernandez

11. Nathaniel Dean

12. Alexander England

13. Benjamin Rigby

Everyone else, including Noomi Rapace, James Franco and Guy Pearce go below, perhaps in a paragraph form until we at least know the cast ordering. Regardless, don't change the ordering of these first thirteen names until the studios release otherwise. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 07:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, I should mention that the AvP movies are not a part of the Alien canon/franchise, though this seems to be an angle pushed only to a minor extent by a couple rogue editors. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 23:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Marketing?

No marketing section whatsoever? Such as to mention the treasure trove released in the "Empire magazine" recent photo spread? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinsearach (talk • contribs) 16:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

What makes this an 'American' film?

Producers: 1 Irishman, 1 German, 1 Englishman and 2 Americans.
Production Company: 1 British, 1 American.
Writers: 2 Americans.
Director: Englishman.
Filmed in England and New Zealand.
Cinematography: Polish.
Editor: Italian.
Is this not an Anglo-American film at the very least? Reaper7 (talk) 00:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


The same could be said about many films. Ford is now made in Mexico, and Honda in Ohio. They are still an American and a Japanese car. Kellymoat (talk) 00:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
It's labeled an American film because a reliable source called it an American film. Once it's released, more sources will become available, and we can revisit the question. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
What source called it an American film? Reaper7 (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

there's already a new source reliable source classified it as a British film. http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/alien-covenant-2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.88.32.195 (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

This is getting to be a bit disruptive. Here are several sources for the country:
So far, none of them have said it's British, and nowhere in the BBFC source does it label the film as British, either. This seems like original research to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment It is not the place of Wikipedia editors to determine the nationality of the film. Like everything else, secondary sources are required to explicitly source the nationality; as Template:Infobox_film#Country points out different sources apply different criteria based on funding, the location of the companies involved, the nationalities of the cast and crew and in some cases a "cultural test". If sources state this is an American film then that is the designation we go with. Betty Logan (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
    I concur with Betty and NinjaRobotPirate. The sources that NinjaRobotPirate listed indicate that it is an American film, and I did not see anything at the BBFC link to indicate that it is British. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

BBFC is the most reliable source here, since BBFC is a world class organization and was founded 100 years ago and only British films can be on BBFC as the web site says "British Board of Film Classification". The production company for this film Scott Free Productions is a limited British company — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.88.32.195 (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

It is not true that only British films can be on BBFC. For example, the American film Moonlight is on the BBFC website. BBFC is who assigns ratings for films released in the UK, and they will be British, American, etc. So it is not an argument to label this as a British film. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Any film can be submitted to the BBFC for classification, not just British films. In fact, every video/DVD released in the UK is legally required to be classified by the BBFC. Betty Logan (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Moonlight is not 100% American film since Moonlight has a British company Pastel Productions as its production which is based in the UK that is why Moonlight is listed on the BBFC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.88.37.234 (talk • contribs) 14:07, May 8, 2017 (UTC)

Oh, geez. Fight Club, then. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

the British production company for Alien Covenant Scott Free Productions automatically makes this film not American. and the director for this film Ridley Scott is British and Alien Covenant had it's world premier in the UK, all the actors, actress and producers gathering there, since this film was filmed in studios the UK and had its British Production company Scott Free Productions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.88.37.234 (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Please don't shift the goalposts. This is not the first time this kind of issue has been had, and we have already established guidelines to follow at Template:Infobox film and WP:FILMLEAD. The sources say the country is United States. This does not prevent us from stating the other details like being filmed in the UK or having its world premiere there. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


Star Wars - Like Alien, not Moonlight, is a franchise. An AMERICAN franchise. And both franchises have various elements involved with non-American entities. But, at days end, it is still an American franchise making American movies.
Ford - Today, most of their cars are made in Mexico. Still an American car company.
The opposite is true for Honda, a Japanese company, which makes most of their cars in America.
Fender - Today, most of their guitars are made in China. With fewer than 1% made in America. Still an American company.
Kellymoat (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

sometimes you just have to use your common sense and realize that this film was created by a British company Scott Free Productions, not just follow and believe the sources that you easily find on the first page on google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.88.32.195 (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Star Wars is American because There was only American production company involved. When Alien has a British production company producing the film. use your common sense

religion is based on belief. encyclopedias are based on sourced content.Kellymoat (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

the point is Alien Covenant was produced by a British company Scott Free Productions. unlike Star wars which was only produced by an American production company, there was no British company involved, which made Star wars American, despite the whole Star wars film was filmed in studio in the UK and had British producer behind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.88.37.234 (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Religion is based on the production company that produces the film Scott Free Productions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.88.37.234 (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Note that Scott Free Productions has offices in London and Los Angeles. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Here's a question - who hired Scott Free? Kellymoat (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Scott Free Productions is a British company, registered in the UK as a UK company. it's like saying Coke is not an american company because Coke has offices all over the world. and it doesn't matter who hires Scott Free. the point is This film was made by a British Production company. so you American gonna keep on trying to steal and take credit for American? when it was made by a British company — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.88.37.234 (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

It does matter - WHO hired Scott Free?Kellymoat (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

American 20th Century Fox hired a British company Scott Free Productions to make this film, but that doesn't make this film American. Just like another films that were produced by British production companies and distributed and funded by American companies, but they are never considered American. because they were made by British production companies like Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, The Dark Knight, Interstellar and etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.88.32.195 (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

So, what you just said is --- An American Company owns this film and everything associated with it. And this American Company hired various employees (some of who were from other countries) to make the film. But this is somehow not an American film?Kellymoat (talk) 19:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

It is not about the Employees. It is about the Company that makes this film. The whole film was made by a British company which makes this film British. The Company that produces this film will always be credited. and American company doesn't own the production company that makes the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.88.32.195 (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Wrong. The American Company made the film. They hired people to do various aspects of it. Some of which were not American. But, ultimately, any way you slice it, the film isn't made without the American Company giving the OK. Heck, they can even choose not to release it if that is what they want. It's theirs, it belongs to them. Kellymoat (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The British company Scott Free productions co, ltd. made the film, as already seen and credited on the, poster, trailer or in this article in the production company section. American company 20th Century Fox is seen and credited as a distributor. End of story — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.24.140.134 (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

They made the film as employees of their boss. The American.Kellymoat (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Employee and Company are not the same thing. I see what you are trying to do. Get your facts straight and accept the truth It's a British production company which makes the film. A British production company has its own Boss, CEO and President. the employees are hired by a British production company and belong to the British production company that makes the film — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.24.140.134 (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

If you "know what I am trying to do", then you have already realized that it is an American film.
The American (doesn't matter if it is a person or a company) hired others (doesn't matter if it is a person or company) to do various aspects of the film. Hence, an American film.
It really is no different than the fact that I built my home even though I didn't touch a hammer. Me, a person, hired a person to draw it. I hired a company to use the hammers. That company has employees, they also hired outside workers (some individuals, some companies) to help them do the job that I hired them to do. I built that home.
Ridley Scott was hired to do a job. He was hired because he is good at what he does, not because "let's make a British film". Ridley Scott could have been a Norwegian living in Australia, it wouldn't make this film Norwegian or Australian - the same as it isn't British. Kellymoat (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I never mentioned about Ridley Scott bring British. Why on earth did you bring that up? You have always been trying to ignore that Fact that the Production company for this film is British. A company called "Scott Free productions" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.24.74.92 (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Scott Free is a British Company because Ridley Scott is British and that is where he set up his taxable address. But I doubt that the American Company went to Scott Free and said "make my film". They most likely went to Ridley Scott to make it, who then (as a tax shelter) said "hire my company instead of me." All of which is pure speculation, but is typical of business. No one ever hires me, they always hire my company, even though it is me they want.
None of which changes the fact the film doesn't get made without the American at the top, the one with final approval of everything. Kellymoat (talk) 10:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

100 references needed for your 5 years old butt hurt emotionals and what you are saying . and stop trying to remove the references that make you butthurt hard, and Scott Free is a British Company because it was founded and registered in the UK as a British company headquartered in London. not because Ridley Scott is British. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.88.32.195 (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The thing is -- if you go back and start from the top of this thread, you seem to be the only one (out of the numerous responders) who wants this to be a non-american film. We've provided reliable sources. We've provided Wikipedia guidelines. We've had free-form discussion. You aren't going to win this. And now you've gone and lowered the bar with the personal attacks, which renders any valid argument you may have given null-and-void.Kellymoat (talk) 13:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

the thing is This film was produced by a British company, only disturbed by an American company. You just personalty don't like it being a British since it is a British made film. which makes you mad upset and butthurt. because you seem so butthurt, immature and stubborn, accting like a 7 years old trolling keyboard warrior even There's new references provided, saying it's not American. and you still ignoring and keep deleting the sources. All you try to do is keep changing it to American when it's clearly not American and removing the references that people provide and removing details that you personally don't like in this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.183.100.208 (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The thing is -- if you go back and start from the top of this thread, you seem to be the only one (out of the numerous responders) who wants this to be a non-american film. We've provided reliable sources. We've provided Wikipedia guidelines. We've had free-form discussion. You aren't going to win this. And now you've gone and lowered the bar with the personal attacks, which renders any valid argument you may have given null-and-void.Kellymoat (talk) 13:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


It is not a solely American film, based one the Production Company being UK and Scott the Producer being UK. This is simply a fact. It's not opinion based. BoxRox 14:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I have to agree - after reading all the evidence - this is most certainly a British film. Reaper7 (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Section break new version of Lead section

For the record, that source gives USA/Australia/New Zealand/UK. Others only give the first country. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
There is an FA-article for AVP which is also multinational in origin and its first two sentences in its Lead can be used as a template for this article: "Alien vs. Predator (also abbreviated as AVP) is a 2004 science fiction action horror film directed by Paul W. S. Anderson and starring Sanaa Lathan, Lance Henriksen and Raoul Bova. An international co-production between the United States, the United Kingdom, the Czech Republic, Canada, and Germany, it is the first installment of the Alien vs. Predator franchise, adapting a crossover bringing together the eponymous creatures of the Alien and Predator series, a concept which originated in a 1989 comic book." This can be adapted to something like this: "Alien: Covenant is a 2017 science fiction action horror film directed by Ridley Scott and starring Michael Fassbender. An international co-production between the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand, it is the second installment in the prequel to the original Alien franchise, examining the origin of the human species and the fate of an interstellar society of Engineers as their remnants are encountered by the crew of the colony ship Covenant." ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
You gave no source, and why do you have them in the wrong order from the one source that listed more than one country? - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@Gothicfilm: The source was the BFI cite above from Darkwarriorblake. If putting the countries in your preferred sequence is what the concern is, then it can be done that way. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@ManKnowsInfinity: we have multiple, high quality sources that say it's not an international co-production. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
There are individual articles that claim one country of origin for the film, though the track record of newspaper documentation clearly states that much of it was filmed in Australia, etc. If you want to run the RfC on this then do so. Darkwarrior above does give BFI as a linked source for it being multi-national, and Scott premiering the film in the UK and not the USA is also significant. If you have a source that says that the film was made in one country and one country only, then try to provide us with the link. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Where it was filmed has no bearing at all on this. Please see the consensus above. Per {{infobox film}}, the country of origin is defined by citations to reliable sources. The infobox tells us to favor certain sources: reliable film databases and trade magazines. Screen International, a trade magazine highlighted by the infobox documentation, says it's an American-only production. BFI does not yet have an entry in its database, though a BFI publication, Sight & Sound, lists different information than Screen International. In this circumstance, the infobox documentation to says to include only those countries that are shared by all sources. In this case, it would be America only, since the UK is not in all the sources. I am getting a little tired of repeating myself, so please forgive me if I come across a bit irritable.NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate; After reading the above including the latest comments just posted by other editors, it seems that British seems the preferred country. My point was that the format of separating the production sentence to being a separate sentence in the Lead section was based on the way its done at the FA for AVP and might be a useful approach here. It seems better than the repeat reverts to the opening sentence over and over. At present, the Production and Development sections of the current article here already list separate countries for the production of different aspects and parts of the film. The example of looking at how AVP has dealt with this situation in the past still seems like it can be useful. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
To clarify, the US does not have co-production treaties with any nation whatsoever. As a matter of fact, any article that claims a movie is a co-production between the US and another nation(s) is incorrect. Companies themselves can do co-productions, but that is not the same as co-production by nations under treaty. Also, Brandywine is listed as a production company (they are incorporated in the US as well). Is there a reason they are not listed in the infobox?Foodles42 (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a long tradition of joint film productions going back several decades: See Tora! Tora! Tora!, and Dersu Uzala for two examples. The current Alien:Covenant lists 4 production companies in its credits with one from the UK and three from the US as listed in the Production section of the article. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Again, while companies from various nations can do co-productions, the actual nations themselves are not involved. Foodles42 (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Remove incorrect reference to a 3D release

I have fixed the page to remove the false reference to there being a 3D release of this movie and have been undone repeatedly. There is NO 3D release. All the ticket pre-sales are up. The burden of proof is on the people undoing this edit to show a 3D release exists. It doesn't. Putting the burden of proof on someone to prove a negative, that there is no 3D release, is completely improper and unfair.

One supporting example though is that this reliable site tracking 3D movie production does not list Alien: Covenant: http://www.realorfake3d.com/

unsigned comment by 71.175.63.229


There are sources stating it will be in 3d. If, in the future, it does not come out in 3d, we can make the appropriate changes. Until that point, WP relies on sourced content. The content stays. Kellymoat (talk) 12:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

There's no need to look into the future anymore as all ticket pre-sales have been live for days. The sources you refer to pre-date the tickets going on sale. Check Fandango as another source. Compare the listings for Alien: Covenant and Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2. There is no 3D option for Alien: Covenant. The idea of waiting for an official source to announce it's "not" in 3D is silly. Announcements like that aren't made. The lack of any showings up for pre-sale in 3D is the proof that there is no 3D theatrical release. What are you waiting for? Someone to visit every theater in the world and confirm none of them were showing it in 3D? If they visit every theater in the first week, are you going to leave the 3D listing up because it "might" show up in 3D somewhere in the 2nd week of release? Does someone have to visit every theater every day for the entire theatrical run before you're satisfied there was no 3D release?

http://www.fandango.com/alien:covenant_188982/movieoverview

https://www.fandango.com/guardiansofthegalaxyvol.2_190573/movieoverview

unsigned comment by 71.175.63.229


learn to sign your posts. Kellymoat (talk) 12:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Learn that misleading people to waste their time searching out for a non-existent 3D release of this movie is the height of irresponsibility and sloppy reporting, the kind of misinformation that gives Wikipedia a bad name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.63.229 (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Another source, IMDB lists a 3D spec for Guardians 2, but not Alien: Covenant:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2316204/technical

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3896198/technical — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.63.229 (talk) 12:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


I may agree with a lot of what you are saying, but WP has guidelines that we all must follow. We don't edit based on "personal beliefs", we edit based what is verifiable. We have two weeks before the movie opens. Anything could happen between now and then - including 3d ticket sales.
FYI, Not only am I not responding to anymore unsigned posts from you (including if sinebot signs them), I am going to delete them as well. Kellymoat (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Is the definitive format not yet known?--81.32.17.41 (talk) 08:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
There are sources stating it will be released in 3d. Kellymoat (talk) 10:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
But still no one can confirm whether or not it is 3D? Is incredible. Not a single primary source!!--81.35.240.233 (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
You have to change the categories from 3D to 2D.--81.33.192.222 (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Film plot

@Kellymoat — there is nothing in MOS:PLOT that says an article cannot have a plot recount until the film has had a worldwide release. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

please see WP:PLCUT Reb1981 (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Try WP:FILMPLOT and MOS:FILM instead. Spoilers are not a reason to remove the plot. The fact that it hasn't been released worldwide is not a reason to remove it. THe only viable reason to remove it at this point would be becuse the plot is 1) in violation of copyright rules at WP:COPYVIO or 2) it was wildly incorrect in every possible way (which would essentially make it vandalism). Additionally, plot summaries do not generally require a source. Only if there is information that is contentious would we require a source for individual elements of the plot. Plot sections in fiction articles are one of the very few things on Wikipedia that we can source to the primary source, in this case the film itself. The removal of this plot summary was entirely inappropriate. Millahnna (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
A plot summary can be available now if the film is publicly available somewhere. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, widespread accessibility is not required for verifiability. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Erik and Millahnna. Once the film is accessible to the general public in some form—even if that is only a release in a single country—the film then qualifies as a primary source for the plot. I know having the plot in there is frustrating for editors in countries where the film has not yet been released, but if it's that big a deal I recommend taking some time off from the article. I avoid working on articles about films I actually want to see! Betty Logan (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
"Spoilers are not a reason to remove the plot."

Indeed. Once upon a time, Wikipedia used to preface plot sections with a red spoiler warning. However, the wider editing community felt that this was unnecessary—if someone visited an article after a film, video game or novel were released, then they could reasonably expect to encounter plot details, and so the practice was abandoned. Removing content on the basis that it is a spoiler is a form of censorship, and Wikipedia is not censored. There are only three valid reasons for removing plot content after release: the content is incomplete; the content is incorrect; or the content is poorly written (as this one was; "unfortunately offs her" is not an example of encyclopaedic language). If the content in question is poorly written, then editors should attempt to revise it to adopt a more acceptable form before cutting it completely. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

You should worry less about the plot being there and more about the complete fabrications made by whoever wrote it because half that shit is not said at all in the film or seen so it's a lot of logical leaping. Oh and the made up creature names. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Xenomorph/Protomorph name usage

It has come to my attention that certain users have been insisting on the usage of the name "Protomorph" for a specific type of creature in the film. Most of the sources provided are from fan sites that are speculative in nature. Upon seeing the film, I paid attention during the credits and it lists the titular creatures under the following names: "Neomorph" and "Xenomorph". This leads me to think that the creature featured in the climax of the film is intended as a new rendition of the Xenomorph. However, if anyone can find a concrete source for the name usage of "Protomorph" without the use of fan sites, I'm more than happy to discuss about this. Demented-P (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't see the name Xenomorph in the credits either time I watched it, but I could have missed it. Is there any other official source that states that this is in fact a Xenomorph? Also, what do you consider official sources?

Additionally, an argument for why it isn't a Xenomorph would be that it is born in a baby form rather than a larva that must shed its skin and it has an overwhelmingly organic appearance rather than the typical bio mechanical look of the Xeno. MrShiek (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Official merchandise and interviews with Ridley Scott identify the creature as a Xenomorph. "Protomorph" is just a fan-term. 154.20.99.252 (talk) 01:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, it definitely says "Xenomorph" in the credits, an actor is credited as playing it in the cast list. 174.67.121.190 (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree I saw Xenomorph, too. When I saw it last night. Reb1981 (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
There are several different creatures in Alien: Covenant. There is no classic alien aka xenomorph until David gets the captain facehugged. I think the earlier creatures implanted not by faehugger but by spores are really deacons. Plus, there are probably hundreds of other breeds conserved in David's zoological collection that he's bred. --79.242.203.134 (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Quick survey on film's nationality

Just saw IMDb has the film listed as UK, Australia, New Zealand, USA in that exact order [1]. Quick survey just to see where the editors are whether it is worth taking this further.


C I myself after reading all the evidence am going for C. Reaper7 (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree this is pointless. Maybe it is time for RFC? Reb1981 (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
When I mentioned an RFC earlier, that was more of a pessimistic observation than a suggestion. But, yes, someone could start one. I think I'm about done with this article, personally. I have little interest in arguing over every minor detail, and I'm quite willing to leave that to those who care deeply. If you guys need admin help, though, you can ping me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Short films

They made a series of short films to promote the movie. There's information about them at Alien_(franchise)#Alien:_Covenant_Promos. Someone should add that information to this article too, or at least add a section to this article that mentions them, then links to the other article for additional information. I'd do it myself, but I can't, because the article is protected, and I'm unregistered. - 72.184.128.205 (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Why are the Alien:Covenant tie-in shorts (crew messages, last supper, etc) covered in Alien (franchise) instead of in this article, Alien: Covenant ? They are companion films to that film, so should be in this article -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is now unprotected, so I added the information about the promotional shot films. But someone deleted that information from both this article and the article for the franchise. When deleting them from this article, he said the section had undue weight. I don't find Wikipedia sections particularly lengthy, as they're easy to skip. But I'll let other people comment on it. Here's the section. - 173.171.160.127 (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

A series of short films were released as a viral marketing campaign for Alien: Covenant.

Alien: Covenant — Prologue: Last Supper

The first film, subtitled "Last Supper", was released on February 23, 2017, via 20th Century Fox's official YouTube channel. It was directed by Ridley Scott. Last Supper contains numerous references to Alien. The entire sequence where Upworth chokes is a clear reference to Kane and the infamous Chestburster scene; Tennessee's response when he sees Upworth is in trouble — "The food's not that bad!" — is the same reply Parker says when Kane begins choking in Alien. There is also a dippy bird visible on the table, just as there was on the Nostromo in Alien. The short serves as an introduction to the crew of the Covenant; the film is set prior to their appearance in Alien: Covenant, revolving around the crew's "last meal" before entering hypersleep for their long journey. After Captain Branson turns in, Upworth begins choking on the food, causing Walter to step in to dislodge the offending item to save her life. Daniels makes a speech about their journey together and the whole crew toast to the Covenant.[1]

Alien: Covenant — Prologue: The Crossing

The second film, subtitled The Crossing, was released on April 26, 2017, via 20th Century Fox's official YouTube channel. It was directed by Ridley Scott. The film serves as a bridge between the events of Prometheus and Alien: Covenant; Noomi Rapace and Michael Fassbender respectively reprise their roles as Dr. Elizabeth Shaw and David 8. The film details what happened to crew members Dr. Elizabeth Shaw and the synthetic David after the events of Prometheus. Set aboard an abandoned Engineer vessel, Dr. Shaw repairs David as they continue their search for humanity’s creators. Limited footage from the film would be incorporated into Alien: Covenant.[2]

Alien: Covenant — Meet Walter

There's a short film providing an in-universe introduction of Walter.[3]

Alien: Covenant — Crew Messages

There are a series of short films in which crew members Daniels, Tennessee, Rosenthal, Lope, and Oram send messages back to their families on Earth.[4]

Alien: Covenant — She Won't Go Quietly

Following the release of the Alien: Covenant - Prologue short films, a short promotion film called She Won't Go Quietly directed by Ridley Scott's son, Luke Scott, was released. The short takes place on board the Covenant, wherein Daniels speaks to the onboard computer MU/TH/ER and plays cards with Tennessee. MU/TH/ER stops replying to what Daniels and Tennessee say. The short then cuts to a scene set during the climax of Alien: Covenant, showing Daniels asking where the protomorph's location is on the Covenant, to which the reactivated MU/TH/ER responds, 'Four meters above you', before the protomorph appears to attack from above. This scene is absent from Alien: Covenant, having specifically been conceived for the purposes of a promotional short film by Ridley Scott.[5]

Alien: Covenant — Rick and Morty

Main article: Rick and Morty

A short film called Alien: Covenant - Rick and Morty, conceived and designed by Justin Roiland on the behest of 20th Century Fox,[6] was released on May 13, 2017. The short starred Justin Roiland as his Rick and Morty characters Rick Sanchez and Morty Smith.[7] The short revolved around Rick and Morty arriving in the dimension in which the Alien movies are set, and Morty urging Rick to respond to a distress call coming from an Engineer's ship. Rick is attacked by a facehugger, only for it to die from "all the drugs and alcohol swirling about in [his] system".[8][9] The film continues a plot thread included in second season episode "Auto Erotic Assimilation", where-in Rick Sanchez mentions the value of facehuggers in his universe.[10]

References

  1. ^ Alien: Covenant - Prologue: Last Supper - 20th Century FOX
  2. ^ Alien: Covenant - Prologue: The Crossing - 20th Century FOX
  3. ^ Alien: Covenant | Meet Walter | 20th Century FOX
  4. ^ Alien: Covenant | Crew Messages
  5. ^ Alien: Covenant | She Won’t Go Quietly | 20th Century FOX
  6. ^ Alien: Covenant (13 May 2017). "Alien: Covenant - Rick and Morty - [sponsored content]". Retrieved 13 May 2017 – via YouTube.
  7. ^ "Rick and Morty enter Alien: Covenant in Semi-Official Crossover". Nerdist.com. Retrieved 13 May 2017.
  8. ^ Andrew Liptak (13 May 2017). "Watch Rick & Morty cross over with Alien". The Verge. Retrieved 13 May 2017.
  9. ^ Dan MacRae (13 May 2017). "'Rick And Morty' Prove They Should Just Promote Every Movie In This Crossover With 'Alien: Covenant'". Uproxx. Retrieved 13 May 2017.
  10. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pry4IKq1Zak

Plot

Is there a guideline somewhere about using "inside-language" like neomorph, xenomorph, engineer etc in the plot as now written? To a newbie, it´s not very helpful. Wikilinks can help, but still. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know of anything like that specifically but it could be argued that without explanation, it could push too far into in universe problems. Plot summaries are a bit special in terms of a lot of wiki policies and guidelines, but that one still applies. Millahnna (talk) 12:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I saw someone make an edit that worked around this by describing the aliens as-is with basic descriptions (pale alien, black biomechanical alien, spider-like creature etc.), while linking to their respective articles with their in-universe names. It's just unfortunate the another user reverted the edit with the reason being that of extensive edits made by other users. --Demented-P (talk) 07:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies. I think what Demented-P writes could be an improvement, or something like " an alien creature (Neomorph) bursts from Ledward's back,". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Possibly the article should mention where terms like neomorph etc comes from (credits?). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Neomorph and Xenomorph is mentioned in the credits. Reb1981 (talk) 22:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Didn't 20th Century Fox start releasing official guides or promo material relating to the Alien & Prometheus universe, including alien breeds, ships, androids, and planets? Those could be used as sources. I could even imagine a List of characters, creatures, and planets in the ''Alien'' franchise. --79.242.203.134 (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, we do have
Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2017

Replace "Weiland-Yutani Corporation" for "Weiland Corporation" on the cast section under Michael Fassbender. Reason: Weiland Yutani corp wasn't formed by the time the David models were created. EVargas (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Done Izno (talk) 03:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Another edit request

I think it may be notworthy that the film was shot on Arri Alexa XT cameras and in the ArriRaw format, source: [2] --79.242.203.134 (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

79, IMDB is not a reliable source. --Izno (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

No Xenomorphs?

The "Development" section says there are no xenomorphs in the film. The plot section (and the pictures of, you know, Xenomorphs) suggests otherwise. I'm assuming the Development section hasn't been changed in a while? Someone who has actually seen the film should probably fix it. john k (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

To repeat what I've said above: There are several different creatures in Alien: Covenant. There is no classic alien aka xenomorph until David gets the captain facehugged. I think the earlier creatures implanted not by faehugger but by spores are really deacons. Plus, there are probably hundreds of other breeds conserved in David's zoological collection that he's bred. --79.242.203.134 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
They are not Deacons. They are separate creatures known as Neomorphs. See Alien (creature in Alien franchise)#Neomorph, but beware that (outside of that section), the article tends to be uncited and poorly written. DarkKnight2149 15:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I solved it:[3] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Box office

I'm already reading a lot of rumors coming down to that Alien: Covenant would be a dramatic box office desaster both domestically and internationally just in order to deny there will be another sequel (just like they did with Prometheus where they've pretty much denied that Covenant would be made until the very day Covenant hit theaters). I mean, it's not even been released yet in important foreign markets such as China and Japan, plus it's cost only about two thirds of Prometheus and has already made half the money in absolute figures (if compared to the budget of both films, that would even be 75% of the money "Prometheus" has made!) in the domestic market within only two weeks compared to what Prometheus has made in 15 weeks domestically. Covenant has domestically made 23 million in the second week alone, and within the following 13 weeks, it will only have to make another 10 million domestically to make the same money compared to production cost that did Prometheus. Internationally, most films make about 60-80% of their money, which means that the overall total (domestic + internationally) will probably lie around 200-470 million.

So, do we already have sources or any other reasons to include a judgment upon whether the film is or can be considered a financial success or a failure? I mean, over at Terminator Genisys that film was called an utter box office bomb even when it had already made its own budget back four times over just because some rouge editors hated the film so much, even in spite of several sources given in the article saying that the studio was very happy with the earnings and that the film has much more than broken even, just like rouge editors on the article Prometheus (2012 film) have constantly deleted any information about Covenant being greenlighted until pretty much the very day it hit theaters. --79.242.203.134 (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Move the short films info from the franchise article to this article

Hello, Alien: Covenant. You have new messages at Talk:Alien (franchise).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have suggested that the short films sections be moved from Alien (franchise) to this article Alien: Covenant. For the discussion, see Talk:Alien (franchise) -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Alien (franchise)

Edit request

Please add a content merge tag

{{move portions from|Alien (franchise)|discuss=talk:Alien (franchise)}}

-- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Done —MRD2014 talk contribs 17:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

"Daniels Branson"

Is there a source for that being her full name? It seems unlikely to me that "Daniels" is her first name, and that the whole crew use it while referring to absolutely everyone else by their surname. I know she's married to Branson, but I'd suggest she's just kept and is known by her own surname and we don't actually learn her first name. "Danny" Daniels is a nickname based on her surname, just as "Tennessee" is presumably a nickname. Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Uncredited castmembers

In the "everyone else" paragraph of the Casting section, I have removed one name which was placed there, Javier Botet. Mr. Botet claims to have participated in the making of this film, claims which he has repeated elsewhere on WP as well as IMDb, despite the fact that his name appears nowhere in the credits. His claim is that his work on Covenant was "uncredited", and in fact on IMDb this is how his name is listed in the cast section for Covenant — placed prominantly above Covenant's other legitimate uncredited roles by Franco, Pearce, and Rapace. He claims his work on the film was in motion capture camerawork. If this is the case, then his appearance on IMDb is against IMDb's own rules for motion capture actors, which require an on-screen credit to be listed. This is the reason why IMDb is not an acceptable source for WP. Nonetheless, Mr. Botet's name was placed on WP's Alien: Covenant page where it sat, undetected and unverified, for well over a month. Editors ought to be on guard for any future "uncredited" appearances in the cast section, taking care to note that this film's only genuine uncredited roles are the three mentioned earlier: Franco, Pearce, and Rapace . — SpintendoTalk 15:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh God, we actually were duped by that? Three years ago, two Australian college students called Josh Kervarec and Oscar Zhang fooled various databases and news publications into thinking that they were cast members with As Above, So Below. It looks like a similar thing happened with Javier Botet. I feel so embarrassed! DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 21:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I have located the name "Javier Botet" listed in the screen credits for Alien: Covenant. At just over seven and a half minutes in length, the screen credits for Alien: Covenant are exhaustive, containing hundreds of names. Approximately three minutes and 40 seconds into the credit scroll, Javier Botet's name appears as "Movement Artist (Motion Capture)". Despite this appearance, I believe the removal of his name from this article remains justified. The position of his name within Covenant's own screen credit hierarchy does not warrant the position just below the main cast that he (or his surrogates) have attempted to assert within WP Alien-related articles — edits which emplaced at that level serve only to inflate his contributions in the film to WP's readers. His role as movement artist in the production of Alien: Covenant was no more or less important than the hundreds of other artists, assistants, technicians, compositors, supervisors, developers, coordinators, colorists and engineers found within its listing. Thus, the fact that he (or his surrogates) have gone out of their way on several WP article pages to magnify what was essentially a minimal role ought to be considered nothing less than vandalism should it reappear again in the future. — SpintendoTalk 03:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Alien: Covenant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Minor fan-boy point, but...

About the "replica" of David. Weyland is richer than God, is it perhaps meant to be the original? Size looks about right. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Fictional biology or The reproductive nature of the common facehugger (faciem amplexator vulgaris)

Scribolt and whoever is interested. I disagree with this plot-edit [4], IMO the earlier version is clear enough. A facehugger is a parasite, or if you like parasitoid, they don´t impregnate (see for example Parasitoid wasp). This is well established within geek-dom, see for example facehugger or [5] (hmm, there may be a wp:copypaste problem with these articles). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

No problem, I don't feel very strongly about it and I've reverted. I'm not sure that I entirely agree with the description of the facehugger as a parasite as it states in the plot (the implanted alien is parasitic, the facehugger itself isn't really), but I freely admit that this is my own personal interpretation and I wouldn't want to argue with geek-dom on this... Thank you again for your copy edits after my trim, I was planning to get back to it after my initial hack. Scribolt (talk) 13:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for talking! The plot is now at 659 words and college graduate reading level (!), wordcounter.net tells me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

International figures not final yet

The international BO figues ain't final yet even though the article makes it sound as if they would be. The film is still about to be released in Japan two weeks from now. Is it even out of theaters in every other country yet? It's been two months since the Chinese release, and not even four weeks since the Cambodian release, for instance. --79.242.203.134 (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Neutrino blast

I wonder how much harm a neutrino blast would do considering that a thousand billion neutrinos from the sun pass through our bodies each second without us noticing. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC).

Do you have a proposal for improving the article? The talk page is not meant for personal comments on the film or discussion not related to improving the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
If I remember the dialogue correctly, the harm comes from the "stellar burst", the neutrinos were more early warning. Anyway, WP:FILMSCI. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Neutrinos are virtually massless, therefore they can travel at more than 90% of the speed of light - and as they are produced by various stellar events, they arrive at a point in advance of matter with much greater mass, as that matter cannot reach relativistic speeds (due to the incredible amount of energy required); in the movie's case, they act as a warning indicator that something major has happened in the vicinity of the spacecraft that can be dangerous - as when the supercharged/heated gas of the burst hits the ship.104.169.17.5 (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Sequels

The quote linked to from Scott's audio commentary on the sequels is pretty ambigious, both on the original commentary and in the second source linked for it. Rather than saying that Covenant 2 would "cap" his prequel series, Scott says that the story will begin moving towards the original 1979 Alien after Covenant 2 ("then we’ll probably come in the back end of Alien 1"). And ot even that is fully clear yet, he's only saying that the story will "probably" only begin to move in the general direction of Alien 1 after Covenant 2, since he's also said before that "I'm fully willing to crank another six films out of it to make it more interesting" and that it's at least gonna be four films when including Prometheus, where he's been talking about at least a "trilogy" to follow Prometheus. So, bottom line: The source given does not include the information that Covenant 2 would "cap" the prequel series somehow, especially when relating the ambigious audio commentary quote to many interviews he's given on his prequel series.

For goodness sake, you guys have been doing the same stuff for years on the WP article to Prometheus where you've been deleting any mention of Covenant pretty much up until the day Covenant hit theaters, and you've been doing the same with the planned sequel to Terminator: Genisys on its respective WP article, calling it either "cancelled" or "retconning Genisys out of existence" when the studio simply said they're temporarily delaying the Terminator: Genisys sequel to survey the overseas market in order to fine-tune on where the plot should go with the sequel because the studio itself was so surprised the profit margings were so different on the domestic and overseas market. You guys are always doing this by entirely misrepresenting linked sources, be it on the articles of Terminator: Genisys, Prometheus, and now you're also doing this regarding the sequels to the Alien prequel series after Covenant 2. All just because you're using your personal hatred as an excuse to misrepesent sources and call sequels "cancelled", delete all mentions of their being in development, or claim they would be "retconning the film I personally hate so much". Since the sources are too clear this time that Covenant 2 is well on its way, now you're using an ambigious quote to try and deny that Scott keeps saying he's gonna make more than just Covenant 2. --2003:71:4E16:4B46:D9C5:81A1:4A71:8F5D (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

David as Walter

Asked for input at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_69#Spoiling_the_spoiler. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Sequels again

Time again, a cabal of rogue Wikipedia editors, their very biased interpretation of legitimate sources and hack sources have single-handedly canceled Scott's entire prequel series. In the past, Wikipedia has violently denied that any sequel to Prometheus would be made and vigitantly deleted any mention of AC up until pretty much the very day that AC hit theaters.

After Scott said time and again already during the lead up to AC that the prequel series will be at least a quintology, Wikipedia *AGAIN* single-handedly cancelled all sequels after the release of AC, by simply linking to an interview where Scott said that someday, his prequel series will somehow lead into the 1979 original film someday, which Wikipedia used to claim that was perfect proof there would be only one single sequel to AC.

And now that this has been pointed out as BS (see section Sequels on this talkpage above), Wikipedia *AGAIN* cancels the series and declares there would be only one single sequel to AC, by pointing to Collider which itself only points to a hack conjecture statement from Hollywood Reporter, where even Collider admits they can't make much sense of what the hack conjecture on behalf of Hollywood Reporter is supposed to mean (quote: "What this means is unclear"). All that Hollywood Reporter as the ultimate source to the rumor that there will be only one sequel to AC does is report incorrect box office figures and calls it an "underperformance" that AC has made less money than Prometheus (which is BS because AC cost less than half the money of Prometheus and still made more than twice its own budget back) and uses *THAT* to claim they've "heard somewhere" that Fox is going to "reassess" any further sequels after the one to AC, which the given source Collider comments with "What this means is unclear", which is a pretty nice thing to say to such unconfirmed hack conjecture on behalf of Hollywood Reporter.

So, bottom line: Rouge Wikipedia editors are once again using BS to cancel the prequel series. Plus, the article is contraditing itself massively in the Sequel section only because of this desire of rouge editors to cancel the prequel series again: First, Scott according to the given source Sdyney Morning Herald had the script for the upcoming AC sequel already fully finished when they began filming AC in 2015, and a bit further down in the same section, the article points to the audio commentary to AC to claim that what had been finished in 2015 is still not finished in 2018. --2003:71:4F2A:8E21:3DB6:E234:969D:DBC3 (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Also what nonce has removed movie sequels from the box on the right? that is the most logical convenient place for them. it pisses me off to on end that some nonce is constantly editing them out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.240.184 (talk) 01:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Origae/Auriga Mondegreen

Hello folks;

I am just arguing with someone on german Wikipedia about the correct spelling of the constellation mentioned in the movie. I am convinced "Origae" is a "Lady Mondegreen" and actually "Auriga" is correct. Any opinions and suggestions? :)Nolispy (talk) 06:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

It's spelled "ORIGAE-6" in big green letters on the screen approximately six and a half minutes into the movie. 73.70.13.107 (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Covenant prologues

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Alien (franchise)#Covenant prologues, about the 2 (or more?) Convenant prequel shorts, and where to cover them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

"Janet"

Is there actually a genuine, solid source for Daniels' first name being "Janet", or is it just something that fandom has decided? In the film, the screenplay and the novelization she's only ever referred to as Daniels (or "Danny"). In the Phobos short film a screen reveals her first initial as "R". Sites like Wikipedia and Xenopedia have been trying to call her Janet since the film came out, but where does that come from? The only "source" anyone lists is a catalogue entry for a Funkopop figure, but that post-dates the name being on wiki sites, meaning whatever staffer wrote the catalogue entry almost certainly turned up the name from a wiki (it isn't on the figure's packaging). Likewise, any other random blog where "Janet" shows up has simply picked up the name from wikis. This is an example of that circular thing where fandom decides something bogus, someone else uses it in good faith, and fandom then uses that as a source. Unless there's a genuine, definitive source for "Janet" that I'm not finding, it should just be left as "Daniels" here, in the way that it's just Ricks, Ledward, Cole etc. Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 08:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea whatsoever. Perhaps Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Timeline

There seems to be some confusion about the amount of time that elapses between Covenant and the first Alien, so let's clear this up. We don't know exactly what century "Aliens" and "Alien 3" takes place in, but we know that they take place at least 200 years after the eradication of cholera. We also know that "Aliens" takes place in a year ending in "79", since Burke's directive to investigate the derelict space jockey ship was signed 6/12/79. This means that "Aliens" and "Alien 3" cannot take place any sooner than 2279. We also know that they take place 57 years after the events of "Alien" because that's how long Ripley was in hypersleep, so "Alien" must have taken place no earlier than 2222 (give or take a year because all stated time gaps are approximate). Prometheus mostly takes place in December 2093, and Covenant takes place in December of 2104. This means there's a gap of at least 118 years between Covenant and Alien. Any materials which state otherwise are incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.70.13.107 (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

What you say may or may not be "correct", but it's outside the scope of WP per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Consider finding a Wikia-wiki and use this there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Brag(g)a

It should be noted that the claim about the next sequel being "delayed at best" is considered questionable and "has to be taken with a grain of salt" by two secondary sources: Both by Screenrant, which is what this article links to source the claim, and by AVP which is where Screenrant links to source the claim or validate an opinion on it. The reason for that is that the original source for the claim is a shady post on a more or less anonymous online forum by somebody who, as AVP notes, merely *CLAIMS* to have been a title designer on AC, a claim which AVP itself obviously finds fishy.

Note that the point here is in no way to state any definite answer on whether the sequel is or is not canceled, it's simply that the original source for this claim is considered shady and questionable by two more authoritative secondary sources on the matter, and I think either that fact should be mentioned, or the claim that the sequel would be "delayed at best" should be removed from the article. There may well be more valid sources that state the sequels would be canceled (just as long as they're not merely citing and kinda misrepresenting these Screenrant or AVP articles or pointing to the questionable original online forum post), but the original source used here is obviously not a solid, trustworthy source, as is confirmed both by Screenrant and AVP. --2003:EF:13C6:FE10:8CB3:1606:AFD3:A321 (talk) 09:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Question.

Is Captain Branson's character named after Richard Branson?PC 5002 (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Look here, I might be happened again.

--Stephenfisher2001 (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC) https://www.slashfilm.com/alien-covenant-sequel-update/

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Alien: Covenant/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Arcahaeoindris (talk · contribs) 10:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I can review this. Please give some time to look through it; I will ping you when I am finished.

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):
    In "Production design" and other sections, there is probably no need to quote the release date and title of the articles - just go straight into the prose.
    ..."article for Cinemablend from May 2017 titled "Mythbusters' Adam Savage Toured The Set Of Alien: Covenant, And It's Wonderful""
    "...The Hollywood Reporter on May 18, 2017, titled "'Alien: Covenant': How the Xenomorph Continues to Horrify Audiences Decades Later..."
    "writing for Vulture magazine in an article titled "What Other Blockbuster Villains Can Learn From David in Alien: Covenant"..."
    The "post-production" section is almost entirely made up of a single, long quote from a single source. Are there any other sources that could supplement this, and could the quote be streamlined to its most important point(s)? It's almost worth using a quote box for a quote this long.
    I still think this quote is far too long. Can't this quote be shortened, and its key points summarised in Wikivoice? It will read much better.
    In the opening of "Plot", it might be good to indicate where this exchange takes place: "Business magnate Peter Weyland speaks..." You could potentially add a footnote note explaining it takes place after the events of a previous film.
    Thanks for addressing but I also actually meant where geographically - do they meet on a certain spaceship, on a certain planet?
    This sentence is slightly awkward, possibly the double use of the word "planet": "Despite the protests of Daniels, Branson's widow, that this new "perfect" planet is too good to be true, the new captain, Christopher Oram, decides they will investigate the new planet."
    Propose to change: "Despite the protests of Daniels, Branson's widow, that this new "perfect" planet is too good to be true, the new captain, Christopher Oram, decides they will investigate."
  • As per WP:LEAD, please ensure the lead summarises the body. This statement needs to also be in the body (likely in "Post-production") with a reference if it is going in the lead: "Scott said the first cut of the film was two hours and 23 minutes long, which was eventually edited down to the 2 hours and 3 minutes of the released version."
  1. The "Analysis" section appears to be a bit superfluous - it covers two sources praising the film within the franchise, and one (the Vox article) that comments on the film's themes. As per MOS:MOVIE, usually a "Themes" section would cover analysis, which this does not appear to be. Propose to merge this section with "Critical reception" and summarise the result, unless there was enough to justify a whole section on "Themes".
  • More background is needed in "Development"; i.e. outline that this follows previous releases in the Alien series, and then go into: "In 2012, prior to the release of prior instalment Prometheus". Treat this section as if the reader has never seen the franchise before. You could look at the start of the same section in the Prometheus article for an example.
  • Please add punctuation/commas to this sentence as it is very long and reads awkwardly: "In an article for Cinemablend, Connor Schwerdfeger included a five-minute video..."
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    What makes these sources reliable:
    Ref 128: a YouTube video that appears to be removed, and is not possible to verify with the archive link either. Does not specify which channel this is from. Not automatically failed, but another source would be preferable.
    Ref 133: forum.blu-ray.com: this is a forum post and not generally considered a reliable source.
    Who is "Savage" in "In an article for Cinemablend, Connor Schwerdfeger included a five-minute video of Savage's discussion.."
    In Cast: No citation for Guy Pearce or Logan Marshall Green's roles, and no source for Noomi Rapace not being in the final cut. It's also not clear how an archived Youtube link to the prequel film shows that Nooni was in the prequal - she is not listed as being in the clip in the video description. Is there a better source for this?
    This note in "Adaptations" is unsourced: "The novel's first edition and audiobook mistakenly refer to Jacob Branson as Jacob Brandon throughout."
    R20: loreleiking.com/ this is a primary source blog, and does not directly support the statements this person read for Audible, or was a friend of Helen Horton. Is there a better source that could be used, or if not could this sentence be changed to only support the statements directly in the source?
    R86: WP:IMDB is not a reliable source.
    The last sentence of "adaptations" is unsourced.
  • In lead, the statement "not including marketing costs" needs to also be in the body with a reference.

Spot check time:

  • R9: "She is the third in command after Branson and Oram.." could you include a link to the source?
    • Thanks for adding a link and verified except for "third in command".
  • R28: "Prometheus co-writer Damon Lindelof cast doubt on his own participation..." this link is broken and directs to a 404.
    • Fixed and verified.
  • R34: "With Alien: Covenant, I just really wanted to write something..." Verified.
  • R42: "In late August 2015, Scott confirmed that he had started scouting locations for the film" - 404ed.
    • Now verified.
  • R49: "In 2016, Ridley Scott stated that Noomi Rapace would not reprise her role of Elizabeth Shaw" - it says "it was long reported she would not be back to reprise her role", not that Scott stated this - needs slight tweak.
    • Fixed.
  • R65: "Some footage was also filmed at Leavesden Studios in England" - verified.
  • R80: "A version of "Nature Boy" sung by Norwegian singer and songwriter Aurora was used..." this is a YouTube mirror - a better source would be ideal.
    • Fixed, thanks.
  • R94: "The film was released in Japan on September 15, 2017" - verified.
  • R103: "The trailer is a first-person experience in which the viewer plays the role of a neomorph" - verified.
  • R114/115: "It went on to open to $36.2 million, down 34% from Prometheus's debut, but still finishing first at the box office, as the third-highest debut of the series when not counting for inflation." Verified part of this but could not verify "finishing first at the box office" or the "third-highest debut".
    • Thanks for amending.
  • R126: "Collider's review of the film stated that Scott..." verified.
  • R148: "Scott responded to a question about Sigourney Weaver reprising her role..." verified.
  1. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Can the "accolades" section be expanded? A tabulation of key awards, or an excerpt from the linked article, would be good as this is typical for film articles.
    Are awards from the Golden Trailer Awards generally considered notable? I am not sure, just asking.
    I think the "Sequel" section is pretty long and detailed, and there is quite a lot of speculation here that appers to be from several years ago - is there a way this section could be more concise? It is also quite unclear as to whether this content describes a single sequel that was in development or several. Some of this content could potentially be better placed in Alien (franchise)#Future, or it could just do with some copyediting for greater focus and clarity.
    More broadly, I think the "Production design" section could provide a more encyclopaedic summary of key elements of the production design. For instance, this sentence: "...regarding the involvement of the San Diego Zoo and its representative Rick Schwartz as a consultant for the design of the realistic effects of the creatures and Xenomorphs appearing throughout the film". What "realistic effects"?What "key elements"? No need to go into immense detail but good to actually outline the content of the sources in an enclyclopedic way.
    The article is still a little on the long side, with "Production" being by far the longest section. Not essential for passing, but if there is anything that could be summarised or made more concise (particularly in "Production" and "Development") will suggest this.
  2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    A few points:
    "likely because of censorship required by the Chinese State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television due to the monstrous violence depicted in the film".... "likely" is not WP:POV - this needs to be attributed to a source (e.g. according to X, this was likely because of censorship). Also "monstrous violence" is worded awkwardly and is a non-neutral description - could this be changed to just "violence"?
    Propose to change link from "Mainland China" to "China"
  3. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Seems to be fairly stable from a quick review.
  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):
    Passes. Do you think that any free images of the filming locations could be included in "filming"?
  5. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Some structural and formatting suggestions:

  • Could the sections "Filming countries" and "filming" be combined?
  • Could "Novelization" and "Virtual reality experience" be under the same section (e.g. something like "Home media and adaptation"). Does not make much sense to me that "Novelization" goes under "Release"?
  • Propose "Music" be a separate main heading, rather than going under "production".
  • Please fix all bare URLs in the references, I can spot a few (R71, R134) but please convert these into properly formatted references with source details.
  • ...was six minutes shorter than the version released elsewhere due to censorship...
    • Propose to link to film censorship in China
      • Propose to change link text from "Chinese censorship" to just "censorship" as clear that this is what is refers to.
  • Propose to add relevant sub-headings to "Home media and adaptations" (e.g. virtual reality, novelisations, etc.) and also propose to link to novelization upon first instance.
    • Please move the Blu-ray release sentence to the "release" section (it is currently under "novelization") and rename this section to "Adaptations"
  • Propose to link to the David and Walter character pages in the image of Fassbender in "Reception".
  • In "Sequel", propose to change: "Michael Reyes, writing for Cinema Blend in July, quoted Scott as saying, in response to a question about Sigourney Weaver reprising her role as Ellen Ripley in the prequels... "
    • "Scott responded to a question about Sigourney Weaver reprising her role as Ellen Ripley in the prequels... "

I have addressed the above issues. Lankyant (talk) 04:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Arcahaeoindris I have addressed the new above issues I think. Golden Trailers is used in Prometheus article so thought it would be appropriate here. Let me know if you need more expansion and if the changes are okay by you. Thanks for doing this mate! Lankyant (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
@Lankyant: No worries! Have crossed out most of the comments and added a few more points above. Once these are resolved, I'll do a quick spot check to verify bits of the article with sources. Article is otherwise looking good! Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
@Arcahaeoindris I have addressed the points, still need to cut down the Production section and rework that long ass quote but the other points have been actioned. Might struggle for time this weekend but I'll see what I can do :) Lankyant (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
@Lankyant: No worries - just let me know when you are done :) Arcahaeoindris (talk) 11:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
@Arcahaeoindris Hey mate, sorry for the wait, I think I am now done with the proposed edits. Please check the post production, I cut out most of the quote and made it more readable. Do you still want some cuts made elsewhere? Lankyant (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @Lankyant: for your patience while I responded. Thanks for your work resolving these. As a final check, I have done a quick verification spot check of references above and unfortunately are a few issues with the references (many of them have now 404ed). Could you please rectify these? Arcahaeoindris (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
@Arcahaeoindris Hey mate! So I've gone through and archived all the sources and changed the 404 error ones to the archive pages so should be all good on that front I think :) Lankyant (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
@Lankyant: Nice work! Note that as per comments above, References 28 and 42 still direct to a 404 so need archiving, and ideally there would be better sources for R9 and R80, and also please tweak the statement next to R49. Thanks! Arcahaeoindris (talk) 08:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
@Arcahaeoindris Hey, apologies I didn't see the list above, you must have thought I was ignoring you! I've addressed everything, added the link to IGN interview and added a few refs to clarify and verify the wording. The 404s have been corrected too, I missed a few on my archive frenzy, what I get for doing it after a long day at work. Lankyant (talk) 00:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
@Lankyant: Hey no worries at all, I appreciate that all Wikipedia work is done by hobbyists in spare time! The article is looking great, thanks for your work amending those issues above. The last thing I can see is this sentence is unsourced: "Dante Harper later wrote a new script, but an extensive rewrite was performed by screenwriter John Logan. Logan had previously worked with Scott on Gladiator." Please reference or remove this and otherwise think this article is good to go. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 11:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Isn't that covered by R34? Or should I just reference it again and have it twice? Lankyant (talk) 17:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Ah yes, it is! Verified. Yes, you should just add <ref name="TheWrap"></ref> inline so that it is clear that the statement in referenced. In any case this passes, nice work! Arcahaeoindris (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by RoySmith (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Lankyant (talk). Self-nominated at 22:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Lankyant: Good article! Im going to assume that this is your third DYK nomination and approve this. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

@Lankyant and Onegreatjoke: The Forbes source for this claim wasn't reliable, I've removed it – and I don't really trust The Beijinger for a claim like this. Can a better source be found? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 17:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron and Onegreatjoke: I cannot find a source that doesn't rely on The Beijinger and so I have changed the hook to focus on the gay kiss between Michael Fassbenders characters instead and have sourced it. THanks Lankyant (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
I would recommend not overwriting the original hook, and instead adding it as an ALT1, like so :) Onegreatjoke, do you approve of the new hook? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Apologies, thanks :D Lankyant (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cain, Rob (June 18, 2017). "China Box Office: 'Alien: Covenant' Falls Flat On Day 2". Forbes. Archived from the original on September 26, 2022. Retrieved September 26, 2022.
  2. ^ Liu, Charles (June 8, 2017). "China Censored Version of 'Alien: Covenant' Has Next to No Alien in It". The Beijinger. Archived from the original on September 28, 2022. Retrieved June 11, 2017.
  3. ^ Brzeski, Partick (June 18, 2017). "Chinese Censors Cut Michael Fassbender's Gay Kiss From 'Alien: Covenant'". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved October 26, 2022.

Proto/Praeto/Xenomorphs

Does anyone have any RS for referring to David's creation as Proto/Praetomorphs? As the film credits identify it as a Xenomorph (as our own article indicates), I'd be tempted to remove the term to reflect this as it just introduces confusion for the reader. I couldn't find anything obvious and there's a short (old) discussion in the archives that also didn't come with up anything. Scribolt (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alien:_Covenant/Archive_1&oldid=1239833644"