Talk:Alien: Romulus

New Title: Alien: Romulus

The article should be renamed to Alien: Romulus as quoted by all the latest sources.--88.14.69.241 (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

For readers curious, the article was moved from "Untitled Alien film" to its current "Alien: Romulus" on 17 October 2023. --82.101.249.36 (talk) 04:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Because there was a new source confirming the title that is actually reliable. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Premise

I know it's not the usual premise we are used to seeing. However, I don't see an issue with how it is presented since this is all the information we have on any kind of storyline. Mike Allen 21:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

MikeAllen; I just located this official looking poster released for the film if its useful and if you know how to load it for the Wikipedia article here: [1]. HenryRoan (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

It must have been deleted. I would keep an eye out on IMP Awards for official posters. Mike Allen 14:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Hatnoting for the "Alien 5" incoming redirect

What is the problem? Alien 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created in 2008, and Aliens 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created in 2017. I am RedoStone (talk · contribs) pointed Alien 5 here back in January. Obviously, there have been other uses of Alien 5, with content on Wikipedia, that is not covered in this article, The way Wikipedia handles these things is with a hatnote. Where is the controversy in pointing out that Alien 5 (disambiguation) can show you to say, Blomkamp's version, or Whedon's version? If your problem is having Alien 5 redirect here at all, then removing the hatnote is not the solution, repointing the redirects to the diambiguation page is the solution, then removing the hatnote. Per WP:DISAMBIGUATION Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be. shows that there should be a hatnote if the redirect point here, which "Alien 5" does; or we need to repoint it to the disambiguation page. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Because this film is not called Alien 5. Mike Allen 22:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

That's not the point and not the purpose of hatnotes. Hatnotes are for navigation only, and are not meant to be content of aritcles. Deleting the hatnote is pointless in misdirecting readers. As long as Alien 5 and Aliens 5 redirect here, there should be a hatnote. If you disagree with those redirecting here, then repoint them to the disambiguation page. If you think they should redirect here, then there should be a hatnote. You have not done anything to the incoming redirect Alien 5, seemingly agreeing with it pointing here. If so, there needs to be a hatnote per WP:HATNOTE The purpose of a hatnote is to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for. Readers may have arrived at the article containing the hatnote because: They were redirected. It is the way Wikipedia is supposed to work, according to the relevant editing guidelines and policies. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

yes, it should not been called that, it's not called Alien 5, it's "Alien: Romulus." 2601:803:47E:570:69B3:68E6:7B8B:18D4 (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't even make sense in the franchise's chronology, as according to Scott (who has produced Romulus) in interviews he gave and tweets he made ever since the mid to late-2000s, only the 1979 film and his prequels are canon now. That's why you don't see the queen in Romulus here, because she's officially nixed, even if Romulus does a few other nods to Cameron's film (and others in the franchise, and I even see some friendly refs to the franchise's seminal Dark Star, namely with the elevator scenes) that are still within Scott's official new canon. As Scott has said in numerous interviews and tweets, the creature's lifecycle was originally designed entirely without a queen between O'Bannon, him, and Giger in the 70s already, and the real origin of the eggs during the creature's lifecycle is hinted at with Dallas's fate in the DC (and with Kay's in Romulus now). --2003:DA:CF25:5A18:CD76:6C88:8E23:9631 (talk) 09:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

What we should say distributor is, rather *how*

Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures distributes all 20th Century films under the 20th Century Studios label. Avatar: The Way of Water, The Creator, etc., see here. Each other article concerned with this method shows 20th Century Studios as the distributor on the sidebar, and "Released by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures under the 20th Century Studios label" under subsection "Release". I wish to keep continuity with every other 20th Century branded film, and, seeing as how this works in every other context, I propose we write it like this in this article. ToNeverFindTheMets (talk) 23:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

i think that Brandywine Productions should be added because Walter Hill is producing. 2601:803:47E:570:69B3:68E6:7B8B:18D4 (talk) 03:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Re-evaluate standalone status

According to the director of this film via The Hollywood Reporter here the film is not standalone but does have connections to the other films. So should this be referenced? 0Detail-Attention215 (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Release Date in Infobox

Lately, other users have been removing this film's release date from the infobox. So, when has it been a thing not to put future release dates in the infobox? Why just this film when some others (like Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga, Twisters and Wicked) still have theirs in their infoboxes?CRBoyer 17:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

You may want to ping @Gonnym: since they removed it in this edit. It's been my understanding for years that any sourced release date can be added into the infobox. Mike Allen 13:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Film dates are very fluid and even if sourced can and do change a lot. I personally find it a very bad idea to place information that can become false pretty quickly in very prominent place, but feel free to re-add it. It's funny how to similar templates, film and television have very different thoughts on this parameter. Gonnym (talk) 08:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

It's highly uncommon to remove future release dates from WP articles as long as the studio doesn't officially put something on-hold. In fact, the only two cases I've seen were with the recent new entries in the Terminator and Alien franchises, and it always smacked like some furious haters of the new material with a "LET IT DIE ALREADY!!!" attitude were trying to deny the serieses were going on, as they were violently removing release dates in those cases with fire pretty much until the very day the latest entry hit theaters, in at least four cases (Prometheus, Covenant, Genesys, and Dark Fate), always calling them "canceled", or removing any references to them whatsoever. --2003:DA:CF25:5A18:CD76:6C88:8E23:9631 (talk) 09:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Plot notes

@Nyxaros: It is certainly standard practice to include explanatory notes for connections to other installments in a series within the plot summary. See, for example, Avengers: Endgame (GA), Terminator 2: Judgment Day (FA), and The Empire Strikes Back (FA). It is absolutely relevant to readers to explain what they are seeing onscreen, and we are only noting the references that are important to the overarching plot — for example, we do not need to mention that Rook is of the same model as Ash, or that the characters quote lines by Ripley. If the plot summary should not include in-universe connections, we shouldn't be using jargon such as "Xenonorph", "facehugger", and "chestburster". When viewers see the Nostromo, the black goo, and the Engineer, they are meant to understand what these are. The plot summary is meant to aid readers to reach those conclusions.

An administrative note: WP:BRD is an optional process, though in the interest of preventing an edit-war I will go through the discussion process. I will say that I was a little irked at first when you falsely claimed at first that these additions were "speculation/misinformation", without bothering to check the many sources in the Production section. This wasn't assuming good faith. It seems you are now pivoting to an alternative justification for not including the notes, but I will assume good faith and assume your intentions are genuine.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Did not falsely claim anything, so it does not mean not assuming good faith. "Largely positive" is clearly written in the source. The mention of character names don't create in-universe connections. Then you have to put the note "As depicted in..." or something similar next to each of these names, which you may realize is ridiculous. There's zero mention of the "black goo" and the Engineers in the film. We don't lead the reader to conclusions, we just summarize the plot of the film as seen on the screen. Since commenting on the film in an interview or elsewhere does not change the plot of the film as seen on the screen (the screen remains the same), it leads to the insertion of content that is already not there, as if it were explicitly shown in the film. The only acceptable situation here is the Nostromo part, and that's linked, but the wreckage may be noted with Alien. ภץאคгöร 18:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I am only referring to the three changes to the plot summary (the Nostromo, the Prometheus strain, and the Engineers). The black goo is explicitly shown and mentioned in the film; after the characters touch the goo, Rook calls it the "Prometheus strain" and we hear the Prometheus score as he describes the events of that film. The hybrid's face is clearly that of the Engineers, which Álvarez confirmed. These are both explicitly shown onscreen (and confirmed off-screen), and the plot summary is meant to inform readers who may not have fully understood — such as yourself. I've already shown that this is a common and acceptable practice. And yes, "speculation/misinformation" is a false accusation, given the sources cited. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Did you even read my reply? We don't add "as depicted in/previously shown here" notes in every sentence for the reader just because the same or similar thing from another film is also in this film (and its score is playing, lol). The source likens the creature to an Engineer, then notes that Alvarez says that human-Xenomorph offspring come from the same life source as Engineers but are a new species, not Engineers. The only thing we could potentially add is the Nostromo part because it is a direct continuation of the important plot point that happened in the story of the first film. Not only are you still making an absurd accusation, you are trying to misinterpret what is written in the source(s). ภץאคгöร 20:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The addition to the plot summary didn't claim that the creature was an Engineer, it said with the face of an Engineer, which is what Álvarez stated: ... we thought, if it affects your DNA, and the Engineers clearly came out of the same root of life, it made complete sense to me that [the offspring of a human and a xenomorph] was going to look like that. Other highly reputable sources corroborate this obvious fact: [2] [3] [4]. As for the black goo, the plot summary currently reads: Andy finds samples of a fluid scientists had extracted from the Xenomorphs, which Rook calls the 'Prometheus strain', intended to 'perfect' humans. Like the opening scene on the Nostromo, this is literally a direct continuation of Prometheus' storyline. Rook goes on to literally recount the plot of that film, as noted by several sources: [5] [6] [7]. As I wrote above, I agree we don't put explanatory notes for everything, for instance "Entry of the Gods into Valhalla" from Covenant playing in the background, but these are all points that are explicitly shown onscreen and highly relevant to the plot.. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, that's not it. You think "with the face of an Engineer" = "looks like" an Engineer? My previous points and MOS:FILMPLOT still stand and none of these (mostly trivial) references are "obvious" to the average reader or "highly relevant". They are already mentioned in another section, why do you insist on adding it again in the plot summary? ภץאคгöร 22:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

If your concern is with the wording, I have no problem with changing it. It's an easy fix: with the face of an Engineer → that resembles an Engineer. I've explained several times why this information is relevant and not "trivial", but I'll re-explain it. The plot summary should summarize what the viewer sees onscreen — I think we agree on this part. Here, we see that a crew enters the wreckage of a spaceship and recovers a Xenomorph. If the viewer pays attention and remembers what happened in the original film, they should be able to connect the dots and recognize that this is the Nostromo after the events of Alien. Since the latter part isn't explicitly stated onscreen, to convey this key plot point, we must use an explanatory footnote. Simply telling the reader "the crew enters a spaceship, and the spaceship is called the Nostromo" isn't helpful. What is the Nostromo, and why is there an alien? Likewise, when viewers see the black goo and the hybrid, they are meant to realize this is the goo from Prometheus, and that the creature looks like an Engineer. But this isn't explicitly stated onscreen (because the characters can't break the fourth wall), so we must use an EFN.

I hope your next reply will be more amenable, but in the meantime, I will ping additional editors for their input: @MikeAllen, John315, MinionsFan1998, and Watagwaan (note: spoiler warning if you haven't seen the film). I'll also note that two other editors (MinionsFan1998 and an IP) have attempted to restore a version of the contested edit, meaning at least two other users agree this information is pertinent and not "trivial". For reference, this is the edit being contested. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

This feels beyond my pay grade (heh). ...Is some sort of "half-and-half" compromise possible, or not really? Just wondering. I'm sure that folks on both sides have some good-faith-intended arguments. Thanks. John315 (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

We're all on the same page in trying to improve the article. We may see differently, but there is no need to argue—we can come to a conclusion through a levelheaded discussion. Objectively, are the footnotes integral to the plot? I have seen the film, and even as a huge fan of the Alien franchise… I honestly do not think the footnotes are necessary. They CAN help but if you weren't aware of this beforehand… does it affect the telling of the plot? To me, I don't personally think so. But I don't see it causing harm by being added. Watagwaan (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I've tried my best to have a civil discussion, though it's hard to keep your patience with an editor known for their hostility (you can see this in comments like the baseless "misinformation" accusation, "did you even read my reply?", and them questioning my intelligence). My rationale for the footnotes being relevant is that without them, readers will not understand the significance and context of the Nostromo, the black goo, and the hybrid. A Weyland-Yutani space probe investigates the wreckage of the USCSS Nostromo, collecting an organic object containing a Xenomorph — OK, but what is the Nostromo and why is a Xenomorph in there? (Because it's from the first Alien film!) Andy finds samples of a fluid scientists had extracted from the Xenomorphs, which Rook calls "Prometheus fire", intended to "perfect" humans capable of better surviving the colonization of other planets. — That sounds familiar... (because it's the plot of Prometheus!) The Engineer thing is simply part of the hybrid's description, so if there's one part I'd be willing to drop it's that one, though I don't see how a basic description of a character is problematic (no more irrelevant than the relationships listed in Tyler, his pregnant sister Kay, cousin Bjorn, and Bjorn's girlfriend Navarro). InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Nyxaros: You and the IP user(s) appear to be engraved in a slow-moving edit-war. Instead of endlessly reverting each other, I urge you both to talk it out on the talk page. While I don't condone the IP's edit-warring, I'll note that we now have multiple users who agree these explanatory notes are beneficial to readers in understanding the plot. Thus far, you've been the only editor expressly opposed to their inclusion; every time the notes are restored, they are left unchallenged for hours until you revert them. It seems you may be in the face of WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS here, no? Will also notify WT:FILM. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

No one agreed to include the notes here (see above comments). I don't think we follow random IP users' actions, especially when they are, in fact, the infamous Colorado sock that follows me. ภץאคгöร 17:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know who you're talking about so I can't comment on that, but the latest IP was not the only user to add or modified the footnotes, indicating implicit consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about too. I'm talking about the IP you sent a message to. All I see is that IP sock and that IP sock's reverts only, which clearly does not indicate "implicit consensus". ภץאคгöร 18:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Users that restored or modified the footnotes: my original two edits, 73.169.111.180 (Colorado), 97.120.173.111 (Oregon), 198.59.47.10 (Ohio), 2601:803:47e:570:b8c0:c591:14c9:9595 (Indiana), and 99.129.230.134 (Wisconsin). (Meanwhile, the only users to revert said edits have been me and you.) Unless you're suggesting that the same person traveled all across the country to evade detection, I think it's safe to say these were all different people. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why you are showing modifications and IP edits as consensus but sure, yeah. If we add random features like that, we will of course see more than one IP. ภץאคгöร 21:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:EDITCONSENSUS.

IP contributions count the same as accountants. Paradoctor (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

"Accountants"? ...Joke?? John315 (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Policy is not. Paradoctor (talk) 02:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Policy does not state to use non-revert edits and sock reverts to build consensus and keep reverting during the dispute discussion(s)... ภץאคгöร 10:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

If you claim there are socks, report them. If not, go barefoot. Paradoctor (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, you are going off-topic for no reason and I already reported the sock, so. ภץאคгöร 09:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I respect everyone in this conversation, but thinking about it, I don't see a problem with giving readers the extra info that InfiniteNexus wants. Then again, I don't see the problem with mentioning that Rain ejected the cargo pod along with the creature, or mentioning that the fluid/serum is meant to strengthen humans for space colonization particularly, not just generally "perfect" them like a glass of carrot juice with added vitamins would... John315 (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Having notes in a plot summary is indeed standard practice, and extremely common in the case of film franchises. The present notes seem perfectly acceptable, help the reader, are somehow necessary to the understanding of the story and allow a more elegant phrasing. They can and in my view should stay. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There isn't necessarily a "problem" with explanations. But in this case it's just unnecessarily repeating what is already mentioned in another section and prolonging the plot just because a character said XYZ that is actually a reference to another film and a character appeared like another character in another film according to some sources. ภץאคгöร 18:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, notes a and b seem unnecessary to me, while note c seems to discuss information that would be better included in the article proper. DonIago (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

At the moment, the plot section seems relatively even handed. There is some info relevant to the wider franchise, but not too much. The only potential issue I can see is the description of Bjorn's death, which is perhaps too much info ("before it kills him" is probably enough), but I've left it alone for now.

I think part of the challenge is describing events in such a way that the reader doesn't go "Eh? That doesn't follow," when moving from one plot point to another. If the plot points flow into each other, then it's easier for people to understand what's going on.

At the moment, this section works well. E.g., briefly mentioning Andy's personality switch explains why Bjorn and Navarro run away from him, without also having to go into the details of why Bjorn hates synthetics in general. One little bit of detail in the right place avoids the need for lots of detail in other places.

Anyway, I just wanted to give my thumbs up for those still following. Lewisguile (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Useful source

[8] a useful source for expanding production. Another couple: [9] [10] Lankyant (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

AI faceswap *AND* voice conversion

According to these sources: LA TIMES and Business Insider, the re-creation of Ian Holm's likeness was rather complex. They used both an actor *AND* torso and face animatronics on the set, and then they used AI technology both to swap the face into Ian Holm's *AND* they used voice conversion (as is available via apps such as RVC, voice.ai, ReSpeecher, and/or Replay) in order to also convert Daniel Betts's voice into Holm's. As can be seen at the two sources, director Alvarez goes to great lengths to explain that it was not *GENERATIVE* AI that could potentially force actors out of jobs, it's more like *CONVERTING* AI that simply converts the work of real actors (and animatronic puppets) on set.

He's forced to make these explanations, as there's quite a lot of fan backlash about it already by people who think it would be *GENERATIVE* AI stealing jobs from real actors when in fact it's not, and by people who think the deliberate animatronic face twitches used because of Rook's heavy damage as an android (just like on Andy as well whenever he's damaged or re-booting, or on the severed Engineer's head in Prometheus as they're resurrecting it in the lab) would be "bad AI effects". Other fan backlash is because they think they're "dishonoring" Holm's legacy by "stealing" his likeness without consent, when in fact Holm's entire family greenlighted it beforehand and felt honored, saying he definitely would've wanted to be in the film had he still been alive.

On that note, it should also be noted that this is pretty much the first AI rejuvenation faceswap done in Hollywood that looks decent (after the abysmal results with Clu on Tron: Legacy, Luke Skywalker in the recent Disney Star Wars entries, and Data in the new Picard series), and the first AI voice conversion aka STS done in Hollywood (as in, distinctively *NOT* being mere TTS voice-cloning). As far as I know, there's only been one commercial use of AI STS voice conversion on earth before, the 2023 German TV series Neue Geschichten vom Pumuckl produced by RTL, where they used the technology to resurrect the character's original voice actor, Hans Clarin, from the 1970s and 1980s, who had died in 2005. Again, it's the same crucial difference between *GENERATIVE* (CGI, TTS, both from scratch) and *CONVERTING* (requiring real actors on set) AI. While *GENERATIVE* AI can force real actors out of jobs, *CONVERTING* AI runs much less of a risk in that way. --2003:DA:CF25:5A36:E1FA:D0B4:275F:41CE (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Also a good source here from the Hollywood Reporter: [11] Lankyant (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, the Hollywood Reporter source and interview only mentions the faceswap, not the voice conversion. --2003:DA:CF25:5A36:E1FA:D0B4:275F:41CE (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Box office success or flop

Should it be written yet as a success or fail financially? 0Detail-Attention215 (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

What are sources calling it? DonIago (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The-numbers.com "worldwide box office is 2.9 times production budget"[12] Films are generally considered a success if they make 2.5x to 3.0x of their budget (remember theaters on average keep half the gross). All signs are pointing to it being a success. You can expect articles calling it success to be along soon, probably next Monday or Tuesday, from Deadline or Variety or others. (Variety already called it a hit in China.[13] NYTimes said last week presumptively: "With the successful release of “Alien: Romulus” (20th Century), the company has now delivered four consecutive hits."[14]) -- 109.79.162.114 (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Navarro

Didn't Fede say in an interview that she's Bjorn's adopted sister? 118.101.169.71 (talk) 11:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. There was early speculation that they're lovers, which a lot of people have assumed from their relationship, but Fede has clarified and it's covered in early cast info. Lewisguile (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Since a few people want to keep changing this back, here are the sources:

Variety: Aileen Wu says, "Spike [Fearn], who plays my brother Bjorn, trying to take that off my face..." https://variety.com/2024/film/news/alien-romulus-made-facehuggers-chestbursters-1236103040/

Radio Times: "Who is Navarro? A tech-savvy young woman who pilots the Corbelan, a utilitarian spaceship. She was taken in by Bjorn’s family on Jackson’s Star and now thinks of Bjorn as a brother." https://www.radiotimes.com/movies/scifi/alien-romulus-cast/

Less reliable, Slash Film: "...and Bjorn's adopted sister, Navarro (Aileen Wu)" https://www.slashfilm.com/1635865/alien-romulus-title-meaning-explained-horror/

Lewisguile (talk) 07:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Add to this list: Total Film, August 24, p. 36: "Bjorn's adopted sister Navarro (Aileen Wu)" Lewisguile (talk) 08:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)