Talk:Prometheus (2012 film)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Prometheus (2012 film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 90 days

Prometheus (2012 film) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 26, 2016.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 8, 2011	Articles for deletion	Kept
September 12, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
January 16, 2013	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
May 31, 2013	Featured article candidate	Promoted
April 3, 2013	Peer review	Reviewed
June 9, 2020	Articles for deletion	Speedily kept
Current status: Featured article

Alien (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alien, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.AlienWikipedia:WikiProject AlienTemplate:WikiProject AlienAlien articles

20th Century Studios Mid‑importance

	20th Century Studios portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject 20th Century Studios, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 20th Century Studios and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.20th Century StudiosWikipedia:WikiProject 20th Century StudiosTemplate:WikiProject 20th Century Studios20th Century Studios articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: British / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Horror High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Science Fiction Mid‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

2010s Low‑importance

	2010s portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Section sizes

Section size for Prometheus (2012 film) (31 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	4,384	4,384
Plot	4,790	4,790
Cast	9,841	9,841
Themes	5,588	5,588
Production	16	22,066
Development	4,913	4,913
Writing	8,266	8,266
Pre-production	1,697	1,697
Filming	3,365	3,365
Post-production	2,587	2,587
Music	1,222	1,222
Design	527	13,680
Costume design	1,804	1,804
Sets and vehicles	3,328	3,328
Creature effects	4,905	4,905
Sound effects	592	592
Visual effects	2,524	2,524
Marketing	4,338	8,811
Viral campaign	4,473	4,473
Release	598	8,226
Pre-release	1,764	1,764
Box office	3,823	3,823
Home media	2,041	2,041
Reception	15	11,161
Critical reception	6,441	6,441
Accolades	4,705	4,705
Sequels	2,110	2,110
References	15	123,445
Citations	122,387	122,387
Journals	1,043	1,043
External links	3,143	3,143
Total	217,245	217,245

Worms and Genesis

I've just watched Star Treks 2 (Khan) and 3 (The Search For Spock) on Channel 4 Catchup, which was either filling a gap in my cultural knowledge or three hours of my life which I'm never going to get back. I'd seen bits of both of them in the early 90s, but had never watched either right through.

There's a bit in the third film where they go down to the Genesis Planet, on which life evolves quickly and unstably as a result of some experiment or other done by Kirk's son. They find the pod which carried Spock's body after his death (the tomb is already empty and he has been reborn). They find it surrounded by insectoid creatures the size of a human foot, and it is explained that they must have evolved from "space microbes" on the capsule. A little later the Klingons arrive, and the creatures have evolved into large snake-like creatures, big enough to wrap themselves around the arm and torso of a Klingon, who kills it by poking out its throat with his thumb. Klingons are bigger than humans, so presumably the snake creatures would be big enough to kill a human.

I wonder whether this was - either consciously or unconsciously - the inspiration for the worms which evolve in the black goo into snake creatures strong enough to break the arm of and then kill Milburn the biologist. The origin of the creatures is not explained at all in "Prometheus", no doubt because it was assumed to be obvious (actually it isn't, on first viewing).

We'd need a source - a published review - obviously. Paulturtle (talk) 08:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing sentence in plot

The closing sentence in the plot describes content which was not picked up in any of the subsequent films in the franchise. It looks like a non sequitur. It should at least state, "In the lifeboat left behind on the planet, an alien creature bursts out of the Engineer's chest." HenryRoan (talk) 06:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth or seventh in franchise?

Hi Darkwarriorblake. I saw your recent reversion here and while I agree that it's probably better to refer to this as the fifth film, it's unfortunate anyone who clicks the link to the franchise article will see that the AvP films are listed as part of the franchise, and so it's technically the 7th in order of release. For consistency / accuracies sake I think it would be better to add a small qualifier here, but I'm not certain what would be best. Fifth film in the mainline/main/core Alien franchise? Not particularly happy with these, but at least it's correct. The franchise article refers to the actual Alien films as Anthology or Original, but I'm not a fan of using these either. Thoughts? Scribolt (talk) 07:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It already has a qualifier, "fifth installment in the Alien franchise", Alien vs. Predator is a separate franchise. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that what you've stated above is the common view, so I still think we need to further qualify the term "Alien franchise". Our article for the Alien franchise, which is linked in the lead, includes the AvP films (the table of films includes them as part of the franchise, with the franchise being sub-divided into the "Anthology" of which this is the fifth and the "cross-over films"), and the info box breaks this up further with the original series, and the Prometheus films (of which this is the first). Obviously Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, but we are linking to it. A bunch of sources [1], [2], [3]), [4], [5], [6], [7]) also see the AvP films as part of the "Alien" franchise or series of films. I also noticed a few sources that don't list them, but including them seems more common and the best I think we can say is that it's inconsistent. Therefore we should be clearer here as to what we're referring to, especially as we link to our own article that doesn't obviously support the number quoted.

I don't really care whether it's better to describe this film as the 5th of the non-crossover films (i.e. Alien Franchise + a qualifier), or the 7th film featuring Xenomorphs (i.e. just Alien Franchise as per our article and multiple sources) or to not link to our franchise article at all, but the as-is wording seems inaccurate or at best ambiguous. Scribolt (talk) 10:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People including the AvP films on the Aliens franchise page doesn't shift reality, those spin off films are of course linked to the ALien franchise because they ahve aliens in them, but is it canon that Predators exist in this universe? No. They're fan fiction spin offs and any serious discussion of the franchise doesn't include them. Even the table of films you have linked to explicitly segregates them. Aliens has crossed over with Terminator, Superman, Batman, and the Avengers, are we including those as legitimate aspects of the franchise? If anything, the Alien franchise page needs updating to explicitly separate out the Alien vs Predator films as spin offs instead of trying to treat them as some form of loose canon, else we wouldn't have a separate Aliens vs Predator franchise page. That page is a mess overall, Alien: Romulus takes place between Alien and Aliens but it's a spin-off? This "It is the first film installment of the Alien vs. Predator franchise, the fifth film in the Alien franchise and third film of the Predator franchise," is genuinely embarrassing and a mess, and now we're trying to further segment the alien series into a prometheus series? You can't even say Prometheus is the first chronological film because we have to account for freaking Aliens vs Predator 1? Embarrassing. It's a separate franchise of spin off fanfiction based on a comic book. The alien series are films dealing exclusively with the xenomorphs/Weyland/Yutani, and if you ain't down with that, I got two words for ya: WikiProject: Film Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that page isn't a mess, or wrong, but we link to it. We could remove the link, as I suggested above, rather than link to possibly incorrect or contradictory information. I also wasn't suggesting any of the other film franchises you mentioned are part of the Alien franchise, they're clearly not (as well as failing the common sense test there isn't any sourcing). My original suggestion was something like "the 5th installment of the main (or) core Alien Franchise". I agree with you that it's better for from an editorial perspective to place Prometheus in the context of the films dealing with the narrative of the xenomorph.

However, there are enough sources that (however grudgingly) include the AvP films as part of the alien franchise (which is a marketing term ultimately) for there to be enough reason to make it clear to the reader what we're doing. Some google search statistics in addition to what I mentioned above;

"alien film franchise" Prometheus Covenant Predator" gives 8200 hits (310 if you restrict to books),
"alien film franchise" Prometheus Covenant -Predator" gives 3990 (126 if you restrict to books).

There may not be much serious discussion of the AvP films, but that's because they're fucking terrible, not because the sources consistently don't include them in the overall franchise (here's another one, [8]). Do you have any comments on the sourcing I'm providing, or anything that supports your assertion that RSs don't generally consider AvP part of the overall franchise?

Again, all I'm asking is that we make it clear with a single word that we're not including the AvP films when we talk about it being the 5th film in the lead. Scribolt (talk) 12:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even the official boxset doesn't consider them genuine installments [9]. It needs input from Wikiproject film ultimately because adding something like "main" or "core" is us making up a caveat to explain something that, IMO, doesn't need explaining, but as we're both on different sides of the aisle and the use of "fifth" is longterm, it needs outsider input.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, requested. Maybe a TP watcher here will also chime in. Again, to be clear, I think 5th is the best number to choose, I just think additional clarity is better to avoid confusion (and also edits & reverts which is what caught my eye). Scribolt (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and just to add that we wouldn't be making up a caveat, I believe we'd be just be reflecting what the sources are saying. Whether or not anyone else agrees with me, I guess I'll see. Scribolt (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to weight in on this we might be putting unnecessary weight on whether this is the fifth/sixth/etc. I know it's been popular on wikipedia to say a film or item is the nth film in a series, but we probably should not but so much emphasis on these points unless its discussed within sources, and I can't say I've done a lot of research on Alien, but I very rarely see films being discussed like this in other sources. With that, I'm going to say numbering these films fails WP:WEIGHT and WP:SIGCOV.

On the topic of what film are or aren't in the series, I would try to find scholarship on how the series is seen as a whole. We can run around all day finding sources casually referring to a film belonging to a series, but if its truly a complex issue, maybe investigate what outside sources have described as the film as a series as a whole. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree, that part wasn't in the version that passed featured article, it was in the second paragraph when discussing it's initial development as a fifth entry. The problem is the IPs constantly adding it if we take it out. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Came here from WT:FILM. I would personally be much more likely to refer to it as the fifth film in the Alien franchise than the seventh. I might add an explanatory footnote reading "Not counting the two Alien vs. Predator films." I see that the sentence was just changed to "It is the fifth main film and seventh installment overall in the Alien franchise", which I suppose works but is a bit wordy. All this being said, the "correct" answer is of course whatever the WP:BESTSOURCES say, as noted above. TompaDompa (talk) 07:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the reference to it's numbered place in the franchise from the first paragraph of the lead entirely to avoid further disruption. If it's included in the lead, then it should really be addressed (and sourced) in the body unless it's very uncontroversial. Sources (including some of the more scholarly ones I checked in the book results) are divided on the definition / scope of the "franchise", so if we're not going to provide the full picture it's better not to do it all than mislead / confuse the reader. If the fifth is re-instated I would also support the footnote approach. Scribolt (talk) 09:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was well-established that the Alien vs. Predator films weren't canon to the Alien franchise. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is but the ALien franchise page, and mainly IP editors, treat it based on chronological release, so even though AvP is a separate franchise, they treat those films as installments in both the Alien and Predator franchises. I believe there may be hints in some of the lesser Predator sequels post AvP that treat those films as canon but the alien franchise explicitly does not. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did a basic search for "alien franchise" and these are the first results that came up:

doesnt include AVP

does include AVP

Anecdotal research but in general they primarily don't count AvP or even explicitly state it is not part of the Alien series. Even the IPs on Alien: Romulus don't count it, using the very, very gross statement " it is the seventh installment in the Alien franchise (ninth if one counts the Alien vs. Predator films)". I think at this point I'd be inclined to go with fifth or not include it at all. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before the official website was taken down, only the six canon Alien films were listed as part of the franchise. There are Alien Blu-ray/DVD collections available for purchase, none of which include the AvP films. And, of course, it is a widely known fact that the AvP films are not canon to Alien. It shouldn't be difficult to find sources that confirm the placement; here are a bunch of recent sources calling Romulus the seventh: [10] [11] [12] [13] InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is when we play counting games like this, it doesn't really clarify that "more is more right". As per @Darkwarriorblake: stating whether or not its a fifth or sixth or however entry in a series, I would again stress the arguments here are probably better addressed by seeing how films are viewed as part of the larger Alien franchise. While this information would generally seemingly could be responded with a simple 'well it's obvious isn't it?" the research above clearly shows that some sources consider some films "proper" Alien films. Others do not. I don't really think playing it to a numbers game is appropriate here, so I would try to look at bigger views of the series. Not to mention that while some of these sources seem like reliable sources (Fangoria, The Independent, Time, etc.) some are not (the fandom page for example) many of them are kind of listicles that are just for google searches for finding narrative consistency or where the films can be streamed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only included the fan site to show even fans, who don't have the same standards we do on Wikipedia, don't include AvP. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but you didn't state that at the time. This is not to dismiss your opinion, but even a fan wiki is not representitive of an audiences POV as it can't speak for them as a whole. Regardless this approach of saying who has or who has not listed the film as part of the series does not bring any conclusive response. Many people include the AvP films, many do not. Who is to say that majority rules here? Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The films themselves make it clear AvP is not part of the series. The official website did not include the AvP films. It's not "majority rule". InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it's a majority rule. I'm not sure how the AvP as a film alone makes it clear its not part of the series, as discussed in "The (Im)Perfect Organism: Dissecting the Alien Media Franchise", the term ""media franchise" "should not be taken as self-evident." The article goes into detail on how our own perceptions as an audience can suggest what is a "real/proper" part of the Alien series, when that's not really up to us. If they were presented as part of the product, I'd say its part of the Alien series, even if they make the films not connect narratively, at one point, they were presented as such and we shouldn't really ignore this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If no consensus is reached here after extended discussion, the status quo (restoring the sentence) should be retained by default. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like make a couple of points based on the discussion above.

Whether something is canon or not, is not a defining feature as to whether it is considered part of a media franchise (which is what the franchise articles represent, see WP:MFILM. It's worth noting that terminology film franchise / film series are not consistently defined within sources for most IP that I've seen.
The narrative scope of a film series also does not define whether or not films are part of a franchise. The Dark Knight trilogy and The Batman are both clearly part of the Batman media franchise, but would be usually described as separate series and do not share canon. Again, whether or not something is made available as part of a box set by rights holders is not necessarily indicative of anything at franchise level.
My takeaway away from Darkwarriorblake's additional research is that there there is disagreement as to whether the Alien media franchise includes the AvP films, but that the Alien series does not. My original request for a qualifier isn't needed if we talk about the series as opposed to the franchise, most sources group all the main films together.
From a reader perspective, stating something in the lead which isn't really discussed in the body text, which isn't supported by a overwhelming majority of sources, and links to a WP article that directly contradicts the claim is not a good solution.
IMO the status quo version for this content is without the sentence, not with. This is what was FAC approved in 2013 and the reference to "installment number" was only introduced without discussion in June 2023 (and has been disputed ever since via editing).

Therefore, I'd be happy with either; "5th installment in the Alien film series" or no reference at all (i.e. FA version)

I would slightly lean towards the film series variant, as I think that this will come up again if not. We can still link to the franchise article as although they name things a little differently there, at least readers will see it's the 5th in something. Thoughts? Scribolt (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about "canonicity", it's about sharing the same continuity. A franchise is different from a series; the latter must share the same continuity while the former can include reboots. For example, The Dark Knight is the second installment in The Dark Knight trilogy (i.e. series), but also the 14th installment in the Batman film franchise; No Time to Die is the fifth installment in the Daniel Craig James Bond series, but also the 25th installment in the James Bond franchise; Avengers: Endgame is the fourth installment in the Avengers film series, but also the 23rd film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe franchise. So, now that you mention it, I agree that an acceptable compromise would be to say "It is the fifth installment in the Alien film series", as the AvP films are explicitly not part of the same continuity as Alien, Aliens, Alien 3, Alien Resurrection, Prometheus, Alien: Covenant, Alien: Romulus, and Alien: Earth (all of which acknowledge/reference each other). InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly fine without "instalment" mentions at all but I agree that the IPdiots will keep adding it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't think this is codified in the MoS, I think noting the installment number in the lead is pretty standard/good practice on film articles, as it provides helpful context for readers. Whether this constitutes WP:FANCRUFT would be a question for WT:FILM. If we were to deviate from this fairly widespread/ubiquitous convention, someone will most likely come along and add it back. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]