# Talk:Alien: Romulus

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 5Aliens 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)
Since Scott doesn't actually own the IP, he doesn't get to decide what and is not officially canon, chief. danzig138 (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
This is not Alien 5 is a spin-off see here > https://www.cbr.com/original-plan-alien-romulus-secret-spinoff/ 89.215.226.170 (talk) 09:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
The point is that there have been several projects nicknamed Alien 5, that's why the Alien 5 doesn't redirect here but to a disambiguation page. Also note that WP:CBR is considered to be generally unreliable. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Why not add a section on the main page titled "Streaming On:" so that people can track where they can watch the media? 2600:6C5E:507F:BD78:A44A:3FCB:D398:A666 (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTDB. DonIago (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Why is the film categorized as a "work created using artificial intelligence" when I can't find anything of the sort within the body of the article? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the cast section, and among the references most prominently #11, 12, and 95. —Cryptic 03:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Why does this article contain a big ugly accolades table? There's a separate list article for that List of accolades received by the Alien film series. The version that was reviewed for Good article included a brief prose summary. Why was the table added back? -- 109.78.198.134 (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

This was a spin-off more film and see here https://www.cbr.com/original-plan-alien-romulus-secret-spinoff/ What do you guys think?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.215.226.170 (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC) 

https://www.mensjournal.com/entertainment/alien-romulus-secret-sequel 89.215.226.170 (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Is a spin-off https://screenrant.com/alien-romulus-original-opening-predator-copy-explainer/ 89.215.226.170 (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
More sources that say it is spin-off https://www.inverse.com/entertainment/prometheus-retrospective-alien-romulus 89.215.226.170 (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
More sources https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/that-was-the-original-plan-alien-romulus-was-supposed-to-be-a-secret-spinoff/ar-AA1zgtIK 89.215.226.170 (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
More sources https://lanetechchampion.org/14434/a-e/alien-romulus-revitalizes-franchise-with-slasher-throwback/ 89.215.226.170 (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Is this enough to edit the page of spin-off ? 89.215.226.170 (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Please stop. It is part of the Alien franchise, whether or not it is a spin-off. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes I know it's part of the series! I just want to clarify in more detail that it's more like spin-off film! 89.215.226.170 (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Also note that most of these sources describe what was an early version of the film. And Lane Tech Champion is not a reliable source. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Stop being stubborn and accept the facts, even the sequel calls it part 2, which means the first movie is a spin-off. https://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3837110/alien-romulus-2-disney-actively-exploring-a-sequel-following-rain-andy/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=alien-romulus-2-disney-actively-exploring-a-sequel-following-rain-andy 89.215.226.170 (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
More Alien: Romulus 2 https://alien-covenant.com/news/alien-romulus-2-set-begin-filming-this-fall-rumored-to-new-alien-vs-predator-crossover 89.215.226.170 (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
It is best to WP:DROPTHESTICK. It is part of the Alien franchise. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
You still haven't given me an answer as to whether this is true or not spin-off. 89.215.226.170 (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
No answer is an answer. Mike Allen  20:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
It's another film in the alien franchise... calling it a "spin off" would be incorrect. Spanneraol (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
ok thnaks is more a standalone sequel not so spin-off 89.215.226.170 (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

"Please explain how removing unnecessary adverbs, replacing with relevant text directly from the script, and updating plot elements to actually occur when they do in the film are not improvements. I'm not going to argue that every single edit I made is necessary, but a blanket reversion removes some pretty unimpeachable stuff."
So, firstly, you removed character motivations that limit understanding of the relationship between Rain and Andy. You removed mention that the reason they're going to Yvaga is that it is suppoedly idyllic, yet didn't lower the word count here, just replaced the idyllic part with another system. You changed mention of them taking the disc from Rook, to a damaged station android (It's Rook), so you then have to introduce Rook in the next paragraph. 
The paragraph after this, introduces unnecessary words like "shortly after takeoff" when we've already established they're trying to flee in the Corbellan. You repeat that injuring the xenomorph will cause explosive decompression when we already know that from the earlier mention of the Nostromo alien. You use a contraction in "but rain doesn't" which isn't acceptable in encyclopedic writing. You use unnecessary wordage to explain she took the dose and specifically when she took it and who else was around. It was placed there because it doesn't matter if she takes it now or 5 minutes later, per the PLot writing guidance you can tell events out of chronological order for ease of reading. Without watching I think she literally takes it in the elevator or at the top? So 2 minutes later or something. The important part to convey is that she takes it, it's bad. But I've reworded this. 
You mention she can temporarily shoot them without their blood touching the hull. The "temporarily" is irrelevant, it doesn't come up again in the plot. They enter cryostasis to where? Have they given up? Are they going back to their original planet? 
When someone undoes your edit with an explanation, there are policies such as WP: BRD and WP: STATUSQUO to consider and you should've used the talk page. It's not for me to justify every time someone makes an edit why it has been undone, it's your job to justify it. I've reinserted the character growth moments, trimmed some things, moved the Z-01 injection per your changes. The rest weren't improvements.
For these reasons, I believe the prior version is clearer, more concise, and more in line with Wikipedia's plot-writing guidance. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

First, thank you for incorporating some of my suggested edits in one form or another. I'll also say I came in a bit hot under the collar and yes should have gone to Talk first.
It is odd to me that you did a manual blanket revision with a two word explanation for edits that you now believe had at least some merit. I'm relatively new to editing and am working on picking up the norms, it does seem like it would go against Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary based on the current incorporation. I am open to critique and I agree with a bunch of what you've said above, but my personal impression was that your initial reversion was not warranted and was somewhat dismissive. Like I said, that's my impression, perhaps the brevity is because alot of people make bad edits and giving detailed explanations is neither worthwhile or warranted in most cases.
Anyway, that's my perspective, I don't want to cause an edit war. I'll take another look and share any other proposed edits here before making them in the article itself.  WinstonDewey (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Proposed edits
Add link to android in Plot
"Yvaga III, an apparently idyllic planet unaffiliated with Weyland-Yutani." Bjorn says that Yvaga is the closest independent system, hence the need for more than three years of cryostasis fuel. While Rain and others talk about how nice the planet is, that is the reason they are aiming for it rather than it being idyllic. I propose replacing with something like "Yvaga III, the closest planet unaffiliated with Weyland-Yutani.". Being idyllic or not doesn't play into the rest of the plot summary.
The Bjorn telling Andy about him having to stay back doesn't play into anything in the current plot summary since Rain deciding to bring him isn't mentioned explicitly. Accordingly, I'd either delete it or add a sentence towards the end resolving the dilemma. I'd favor the later.
Rain isn't the one to actually upgrade Andy's security access, its Tyler, she gets the chip. So as written, its not accurate. Not sure how to address without it being clunky, open to suggestions.
"but an infant xenomorph bursts from Navarro's chest, killing her and crashing the ship into Romulus's hangar." Currently reads as the infant does the crashing. Perhaps its pedantic, but would be more accurate to say "causing the ship to crash into Romulus's hangar."
Hoping to reach Yvaga III is a bit odd, maybe something like "After recording an audio log and setting course for Yvaga III, Rain and Andy enter cryostasis."
WinstonDewey (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Done
The distance is established in saying it will take nine years to get there. What does this change improve? The description is just why they would want to go to that specific place; it's apparently great, it's not affiliated with Weyland-Yutani. It's a basic explanation for the reader. The closest planet being 99% lava wouldn't make sense. The second closest planet because it has vegetables? This will not improve the quality of this sentence or be to the betterment of the reader's understanding. Specifically, Andy and Rain are the main characters, and Rain explicitly states that it is terraformed and you can see the sun there. The quality of the planet is a factor as much as it not being Weyland-Yutani affiliated. If it was the 10th closest planet but met these parameters I imagine their decision would be the same. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
It is obvious that by virtue of Andy being her surrogate brother and them being on a mission to facilitate travel to Yvaga III that we are to assume they are going together until this point. The point of that scene is to insert conflict between those characters, which is worsened by the ambiguity over his intentions towards her once he is reprogramed to serve Weyland-Yutani. It's character development. It is resolved at the end when Rain goes back to save Andy, and Andy goes back to save Rain.
This is being pedantic, it's her idea, she gets the chip, she delegates its insertion to someone else because she can't physically reach him. It can't be a play by play or it will go well beyond word count.
Done
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you on 1., 5., and 6.
2. I'll rest my case on idyllic, but why is "apparently" there? There's no need for it, you're basing the descriptor on the character's descriptions and brief glimpses that we get. If it is that that information isn't enough, then we should probably remove the word or change it to something accurate.
3. That's fair, I think what is warranted is a resolution to  "Yvaga III does not allow androids" and noting the decision to bring Andy in spite of that. Seems like someone who hasn't seen the movie would read that and the rest of the Plot and wonder why Andy is going still since they don't allow them and Rain being guilt-ridden implies that he isn't coming. Them rescuing each other on the station doesn't resolve that question, it just indicates they care about each other.
4. Fair enough. I take the broad point, but I'll note that Plot is at less than 600 words currently and it could be as simple as "In desperation, Rain helps them upgrade Andy's security access".  WinstonDewey (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
"Apparently" is there because they haven't been there, they're going off what they're told, so neither they nor we know if it is actually idyllic, and in this universe the likelihood is that it isn't.
There's nothing in the film to say why she is proceeding with Andy to Yvaga, it would just be interpretation. The reality is because he's her "brother", he's all she has left, and they aren't going back to the mining world.
If any other editor wants to chime in and say the point isn't being made as it is, I'll concede. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
2. We don't know how much knowledge they have of the planet, for all we know they've seen video, visited, etc. Per your previous reply, you seemed fine taking their words enough to say idyllic, you can't have it both ways. We either trust the knowledge shared by the characters in the movie or that knowledge isn't sufficient to characterize the planet and "idyllic" should be removed. Either way, "apparently" should be removed.
3. What I'm saying is that there's a very reasonable question that someone reading the plot summary would think, which is why is Andy going to Yvaga with Rain when he isn't allowed there per "Bjorn taunts Andy with the fact that Yvaga III does not allow androids, meaning he will have to remain behind, leaving Rain guilt-ridden." . Towards the end of the film, Rain explicitly says she does not care about Yvaga's rules and Andy is coming with her regardless. Noting that in the plot summary is both accurate and resolves a point of confusion/conflict. Something like "Rain tells Andy that he is coming with her to Yvaga III regardless of their rules. As they prepare for the trip, Kay—having...". It's messy in the film, for sure, they say he could go with them, but be decommissioned once they arrive or he can stay (but they want him to come to monitor cryo), he says he'll stay once he has the chip, then he seems surprised when she says he's coming and doesn't address the decomis question. But the point is there's an internal inconsistency in the plot summary that is not resolved as currently written.  WinstonDewey (talk) 03:51, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
The first point I just disagree with. We need a third opinion. Saying it is apparently idyllic is not controversial, it's never shown in the film, there's no evidence any of them have ever seen it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
I'll rest my case, thanks for making the edit on 3.  WinstonDewey (talk) 05:16, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
I'd lean slightly towards retaining "apparently idyllic" as this gives additional information about their motivations for choosing it as their destination, as well as alluding to the fact that the way they talk about it makes it seem as though they're basing this characterisation on not very much hard evidence. Scribolt (talk) 07:40, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Not wanting to start this up again, just explaining my reasoning. I think unless we were to get confirmation later that the planet is not idyllic (along the lines of the Green Place in MM: Fury Road), there's no reason to include apparently there. Either we use what the characters say and the glimpses we get when they're talking about it or we don't. In the former case, it's a question of what word best describes the planet. If the later, then we can just say they are going there without an adjective since we don't know much about it. I imagine there are many many examples of taking much less information that is not confirmed within the film and stating it as fact in other plot summaries for films and other media so setting this high standard is odd to me.   WinstonDewey (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Oh I get your point, and don't entirely disagree. But I still think it's better to include the fact that they hope that that where they're going is going to be great, while also indicating that the characters and us as viewers have no idea whether or not it is. The mystery surrounding their eventual destination which we never see is worth conveying imo, but I do understand your reservation. Scribolt (talk) 07:17, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
The Green Place has been seen by the person leading them there. As far as we are informed, it is definitively idyllic because we have first hand evidence of such. Noone involved in Romulus has seen Yvaga, and we know there is already a knock against it because it has a prejudice against androids. Any idyllic nature is theoretical. They're going there because they believe it to be better than where they are. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
I was not claiming the Green Place is analogous to this, I was using it as an example of a case where I could see this kind of language being used accurately (aka there's knowledge of a place that is later shown to be incorrect within the film).  WinstonDewey (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

In Production > Filming part there's a mention of use of aspheric lenses:
"Cinematographer Galo Olivares shot the film using Arri Alexa 35 digital cameras with Arri Master Prime and Ultra Prime aspheric lenses for a 2.39:1 aspect ratio. This was chosen to be a visual balance between Alien, which was shot using anamorphic lenses in a 2.39:1 aspect ratio, and Aliens, which was filmed using aspheric lenses for a 1.85:1 aspect ratio."
In my opinion "spherical" lenses were meant to be used instead of "aspheric" when used in comparison against "anamorphic". This mistake originates in Variety article transcription of the interview with Galo Olivares (linked at the top of the article). The video captions correctly show "spherical", it's just Spanish language speakers often pronounce words starting with "s" as "es" thus "spherical" sounding as "espherical".
While there really exist camera lenses marketed as aspherical or ASPH, these are used to indicate they contain some aspherical elements (among others). The terminology is not used to differentiate use of lenses for different wide aspect ratio technologies / distortions.
Another example to illustrate comparison of anamorphic vs spherical lenses:
https://cinelenses.com/blog/410/Anamorphic-Vs-Spherical-Lenses-Which-Is-Best-for-Your-Film
Warkomitz (talk) 00:41, 27 September 2025 (UTC)