Talk:Alien: Covenant

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)

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:

• AllMovie: United States
• British Film Institute: United States
• Screen International: United States

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)

Fucking Yanks, you're so arrogant and ignorant. Bunch of pathetic cretins. You Septic twats like to take credit for everything, don't you? And by the way, personal attacks do not make arguments null-and-void. That's utterly ridiculous and goes to show you're not interesting in listening to arguments. You lot make it so easy to dislike you. So, so arrogant.

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 vs Protomorph

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 creatures specifically as "Neomorph" (the pale white ones) and "Xenomorph" (the classic Alien). This leads me to think that the creature in the film is truly intended to be a Xenomorph. However, if anyone can find a concrete source for the name "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)