Talk:Alien: Earth

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Feedback from New Page Review process

[edit]

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: good start

North8000 (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'tactical soldiers'

[edit]

As opposed to some other kind? 🤨 148.252.147.36 (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic soldiers, obviously. 2001:9E8:4601:7700:A975:F97:4B95:BBE2 (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First or last name?

[edit]

Should we refer to Joe Hermit by first or last name? Just asking. HiGuys69420 (talk) 01:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Number of episodes

[edit]

There are 8 episodes of Alien:Earth not 6 episodes, as the article says. Can someone change it, it’s very misleading if you are watching it weekly. Jerrywagon (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox is updated only when a new episode airs, since the remaining two episodes of this season do not technically "exist" yet. While it isn't going to happen with this show, there have been many series that have been cancelled or had a season's number of episodes reduced during their run, so we only go by what exists at the current moment. Sock (tock talk) 21:06, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removing plot summaries from "Episode" section

[edit]

I noticed the {{Plot}} tag in the Episode section, and I honestly think we should just completely remove the summaries from this article. Each episode is reliably getting its own article due to the consistent widespread coverage of each release, and those individual articles cover the plot summary just fine. Alternatively, we could adapt the summarized plot descriptions from the leads of each episode's article, but I personally prefer letting the individual articles speak for themselves. Sock (tock talk) 21:08, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Complete removal of the section appears to be outside of regular Wikipedia policy; a premise section occurs in most articles of this type for programs with multiple episodes. I've restored it at present following regular Wikipedia policy; talk page discussion can continue as needed. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:13, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canonicity

[edit]

I was looking into the recent addition to the article that this show takes place in "an alternate timeline that is separate from the original Alien universe", citing the RadioTimes interview with creator Noah Hawley. However, neither RadioTimes or Noah actually say this explicitly. RadioTimes states it "ditches canon" which, by itself, does suggest this sits in its own continuity, but if you read the actual statements from Noah, Noah is really talking about two things: firstly, Alien Earth's own thematic identity ("It's got to be it's own thing", elaborating on this with an example of "tone" and shared (thematic/character) elements with Aliens -- this elaboration illustrates he is not talking about it being its "own thing" in the sense of being separate to established continuity), and secondly, not wanting the show to be obliged to some parts of the broader lore ("I didn't expand it to incorporate everything that had ever been written" and "if you try to chase it all or observe it all, you’ll go mad"). It is this second point that I believe RadioTimes is referring to when it says he's ditching canon; not the show exists outside of canon, but rather that he's "ditching" the inclusion of references to the greater canon/lore/mythos like the black goo from Prometheus, or the David/Ash/Bishop line of android models, etc, etc.

Here is the page used as citation for the article's claim: https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/sci-fi/alien-earth-ignores-canon-greater-good-exclusive/

There was a 2nd citation, but this is just referring to the RadioTimes article (this site seems more sure about non-canon status, but this is seemingly based on RT's language, not Noah's) rather than coming from a different interview/source: https://movieweb.com/alien-earth-noah-hawley-record-straight-canon/

@2601:205:4a7c:1c30:b50f:27fe:393c:5bf1 made an edit that seems to agree with my thinking. What are other people's thoughts? I am removing it for now, since the creator (and really even RadioTimes) do not actually explicitly state it to take place in an alternative universe/continuity. Meszerus (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Just as the Alien vs Predator movies aren't considered canon (to Alien, at least), Alien: Earth also plays a little fast and loose with connections to the wider universe. Specifically, Hawley has chosen to ignore the prequels Prometheus and Alien: Covenant for the most part, just drawing inspiration from Alien and Aliens instead."

What are you talking about? Even if the words "will be its own thing" aren't enough for you, the source text directly compares it to Alien vs. Predator, attributing the show's status as an alternate timeline. The article mentions this more than once. The claim that we should ignore it until the author says it outright is, I believe, an excessive demand. If you can't find sources that explicitly position this series as part of the original canon, I'll be forced to retract the text. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your first quote is from the RadioTimes team. Of the two groups involved, it's Noah's words we should see as authority on the matter. And the thing is, he just never says it's set in a separate universe/continuity, as explained above, so what is the justification for us to prescribe reader interpretation into this Wikipedia article?
RadioTimes compares it to Alien versus Predator, not Noah. But even still, as I explain in my initial comment, his elaborating example shows that he's talking about it being its "own thing" in a thematic/identity, sense. Similar to how Guardians of the Galaxy is a light-hearted galactic romp that is its own thing, compared to the espionage spy thriller Captain America: Civil War: even though they have unique identities in many ways, they share the same universe/continuity. You could, if you wanted then, extend this to Alien versus Predator as a monster-versus-monster film, whereas Alien was a slow survival horror, and Aliens was an action-horror with different themes (trauma, motherhood, military industrial-complex) which were not present in the preceding film.
"The claim that we should ignore it until the author says it outright is, I believe, an excessive demand." - If the author doesn't say something, but a third-party not actually involved in any way with the creation of the show does says it, why would we defer to the latter? They are not an authority on the intentions of the show creators.
"If you can't find sources that explicitly position this series as part of the original canon," - I am not arguing it necessarily it is canon, just that the interview doesn't confirm it as non-canon. Meszerus (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you're currently engaging in your own interpretation of the source material. It's explicitly stated several times that the author intentionally placed the show in an alternate timeline to gain some freedom. In fact, that's precisely the idea the quote about Alien vs. Predator was developing. The very idea is literally stated in the title, not to mention that Noah explicitly states how he ignored the canonical films to achieve this. I don't understand why you keep trying to find ways around this. Let me repeat again, do you have any sources that directly state that the series is in the main timeline of the original films? Solaire the knight (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interpretation is exactly my point. Your own interpretation is relying on the wording RadioTimes is using, and less on Noah's actual words.
"I don't understand why you keep trying to find ways around this" - I'm engaging directly with Noah's words, who is the authority here, he's the one being interviewed because he has the insight into the show's creation and intention.
"Let me repeat again, do you have any sources that directly state that the series is in the main timeline of the original films?" - My point is, this source doesn't state it isn't! The absence of an opposing "canon" statement does not make a "non-canon" interpretation automatically correct. We can only engage with this interview we do have on the subject, and as explained, the interview does not clearly indicate canonicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meszerus (talk • contribs) 16:29, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an interpretation; the article doesn't even attempt to be subtle or ambiguous in this regard. Meanwhile, for reasons unknown to me, you seem to be looking for any way to get around it. You also continue to ignore the fact that, according to the source, Noah himself called the series "its own thing" and, as an example, stated that he ignored the canon films. Also ignoring my requests for any source to prove the contrary, since while we have a source saying this is an alternate timeline, we still haven't had a single source saying this is the universe of the original films. Solaire the knight (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By your own admission, he didn't outright say it. Therefore, interpretation. But anyway, I have addressed those points. I will await the input of other editors. Meszerus (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't say it directly, but he said it almost directly. In terms that didn't require further clarification. Moreover, interviews are always reviewed before publication, and I don't see Noah refuting the outlet's conclusions in any way. Solaire the knight (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You’re operating in logical fallacy right now. There are many established franchises which have multiple different pieces of media as part of them which do not crossover but still maintain the same canon. You are assuming that just because Noah says it is not meant to relate directly to Prometheus and Covenant that it somehow breaks canon, which is never explicitly stated. Lack of evidence is not proof, and it does not give you the ability to add theoretical information to the wiki page. Geoden13 (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what the interview says. Right at the very beginning, he says it will be its own thing, drawing inspiration from the original films and running parallel to them. Including a reference to the TV series Fargo, whose first season is a soft reboot of the original film. There's nothing in the source material that suggests the film continues the overall timeline or universe, and, I remind you again, you haven't just refused, you continue to ignore my request to cite at least one or two sources where Noah explicitly states that the series is set in the same universe. You're trying to accuse me of interpreting things, while you yourself are clearly looking for an excuse to justify why the series is still set in the original universe. Solaire the knight (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are replying to a different user there. To the extent that your reply relates to me, I haven't ignored your requests -- in fact I've even quoted your requests when explaining why I have declined to do so. The conversation I've started is about the use of this source to add the statement of non-canonicity to this Wikipedia page. I have never claimed it is necessarily canon, so your insistence that I back that up with a new source is irrelevant to the matter of this source being used in the way it is. Meszerus (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's very easy to confuse you, because you essentially make the same arguments, insisting that only a direct and unambiguous statement can be considered an argument, while even an unambiguous hint to this effect is "merely an interpretation." Well, except in cases where you yourself interpret the source to prove why these formulations can still be considered canon. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a personal attack. So if you don't take it from me, take it from @Geoden13 who has also tried telling you, "Lack of evidence is not proof, and it does not give you the ability to add theoretical information to the wiki page".
" except in cases where you yourself interpret the source to prove why these formulations can still be considered canon" - how many times must I make it clear I am not making such a claim!!! Meszerus (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, you can call my conclusions from the source "interpetation", but I can't use the same definition for your conclusions? Sorry, but I wasn't the one who refused to even look for sources where the showrunner would directly say otherwise. We have practically direct statements from the showrunner, as well as an article expanding on them in a reputable source. By denying these as sources and attempting to re-evaluate their content, you are clearly engaging in interpretation (Moreover, even another authoritative source citing the interview comes to the same conclusion). Solaire the knight (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have already addressed the MovieWeb article in my very first post. There's no point addressing it here, since you don't like me making "the same arguments".
"but I can't use the same definition for your conclusions?" - You seem to think my conclusion is that it must be canon, just because I disagree this source states it's definitively non-canon. This is the fourth time telling you now that I am not making such a claim. I will continue to wait for the input of other editors. Meszerus (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Things don't work that way. You can't say that once you've responded, these things can no longer be discussed. And since you still haven't provided any sources to contradict to this claims, we're left with the status quo, which supports the claim that the series is set in an alternate universe. Solaire the knight (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Things don't work that way. You can't say that once you've responded, these things can no longer be discussed." - I agree. But when I revisit/continue discussions, you just say I make the same arguments. So what is the point on revisiting this bit of the conversation with you? That was the purpose of me quoting you on this.
Look, like I say, I'm waiting on the inputs of other editors, because we're clearly not getting anywhere on this between us, especially when you've personally attacked me, and I would prefer to keep this civil. The other editors that have removed this bit from the article, and @Geoden13's contribution above, do not seem agree with your conclusion. I understand you've raised a sockpuppet investigation, and I harbour you no ill will on that. But for now, I will await other editors to contribute to this conversation. I imagine this will get fresh eyes on it around the time of the new episode. Meszerus (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between simply writing, "I've already expressed my opinion on this," and simply repeating the same arguments while I continue to comment on them. In the former, you're simply stating that you've already stated your opinion; in the latter, you're simply ignoring any objections to your opinion, endlessly repeating the same points until I stop questioning them. This is a flawed practice. But since we've already started going in circles and you're ignoring the request I notified you of, I will refrain from further comments here until other people appear and/or a decision is made on my request. Solaire the knight (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am having to repeat myself indeed when you keep saying I believe it's canon when four times I have explicitly told you that I do not claim that!
You keep saying I've ignored your request -- no, I have not ignored it, I have explicitly declined it with stated reason.
This will be my final comment to you on the matter. Meszerus (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion

[edit]
  • I decided to do what you declined, look for other sources with the showrunners' perspective on this, and it essentially confirms the same thing. From the fact that the series is a "parallel story to the original films" to the fact that Ridley Scott's prequels don't exist in this timeline, since Noah didn't want to limit himself to the lore they introduced. In another interview, he further elaborates on this, first stating that the series will not feature cameos due to it being "kinda outside the timeline" and that he is "similar to Fargo" (which was a remake of the original film in a different format) only exploring his experiences and feelings from the original films. Actually, I don't understand what we're arguing about. Every time this issue is raised, Noah explicitly states that the show is a parallel story to the original films and only explores the part of the lore that Noah himself finds interesting. Unless you consider Prometheus and Covenant to be non-canonical, the only option is to ignore them entirely and tell a "parallel" story. Solaire the knight (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Those sources don't seem to be saying it's an "alternate timeline that is separate from the original Alien universe" either though.
    The A.V. Club interview states "The show’s premiere brings us to Earth in 2120, two years before the events of Scott’s movie", following that with the question "What was compelling about setting the series before the events of Alien?"
    Noah Hawley is making a prequel in the Alien franchise the same way Prey is a prequel within the Predator franchise, still in the same timeline, but covering a separate part of it, distant from the "big picture". Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this still contradict the idea of ​​an alternate timeline? In those same interviews, he explicitly states that the series is a parallel story to the original films and that he ignored lore that would have prevented him from taking the story in his desired direction. Furthermore, he makes several references to his Fargo, which also expands on the original film's ideas and setting while being a de facto remake with the original characters. So, why can't the film have related dates and worlds, but in an alternate timeline? If you're being critical of Prey, it also has problems with logic and universe consistency, but you could easily fit the film into the original timeline. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't have anything explicitly referring to it as an alternate timeline & to use a collection of sources to come to a conclusion not directly made by any of them would be WP:SYNTH. Also, from what I can see online (haven't seen it) Fargo actually does share a continuity with the original film.
    To note though, in the IndieWire interview you linked, they point out that "There have been a lot of “Alien” movies over the decades, many of which selectively try to erase parts of each other’s lore." I don't see why this movie should be seen as an alternate timeline for doing something other movies in the franchise have also done. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what exactly you're referring to, it's basically a new retelling of the movie's plot with new characters. But getting back to the topic, the whole argument literally started because the OP denied any words other than Noah's own. Has something changed that now we can quote the authors of resources when it's convenient? Why can't we then quote the original source that calls this an alternative timeline (where Noah himself states that it will be "its own thing," which is quite difficult to read otherwise)? Prometheus and Covenant are canonical franchise entries that make significant contributions to the lore, yet Noah explicitly states that he intentionally ignores them in favor of crafting his own narrative. This clearly goes much further than the usual inconsistency between films. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The only thing the OP denied is MovieWeb's interpretation of RT's interview. I agree with that choice due to the interview not supporting that interpretation, but actually contradicting it:
    "That doesn't mean the prequel movies are directly contradicted or written out completely, however. "It's not that I didn’t do a timeline around the events,” clarified Hawley. "But I didn't expand it to incorporate everything that had ever been written.""
    The story doesn't have to explicitly acknowledge & incorporate every aspect of canon to be part of the same continuity. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ...on the basis that these were their words, not Noah's. Why then should we make exceptions for journalists who also draw conclusions from his words, but potentially in a different direction? Besides, as I suggested above, the interview text clearly agreed with Noah, so if he didn't have any objections to the journalist's conclusions, then why should we? Again, I can also say that an alternate timeline shouldn't ignore everything the original did, and just because it wants to explore certain themes doesn't mean it has to adhere to the original continuity. That same year, Gundam was released, which expands on the original Gundam's ideas and setting, while still being set in an alternate timeline where the events of the original series took a slightly different direction. One doesn't necessarily cancel the other out, and I don't understand why you're trying to interpret this solely through opposing extremes. Ultimately, while the controversy centered around the journalist's supposed "misinterpretation" of Noah's words, I have a strong feeling that right now we ourselves are in the process of interpreting his words in the direction you or I want. Solaire the knight (talk) 20:49, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All I'm saying is that we shouldn't put "an alternate timeline that is separate from the original ''Alien'' universe" in wikivoice, let alone the lead as it's an exceptional claim.
    As the content is contested, the WP:ONUS is on you to reach consensus for inclusion, but no one else here has shared your interpretation of the sources, so the consensus remains to exclude it for the time being. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, we're arguing over our personal understanding of the text, which clearly won't help us resolve the issue anytime soon. How about engaging third-party mediators or taking the discussion to a broader field? Solaire the knight (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Five edit requests: Producers, Production Company, Filming, Design, Production

[edit]

I'd like to have an editor make multiple edits to this page, so I will repeat the template for each edit. Please let me know if I need to adjust anything in order to get this approved; I'm still very new to this so apologies for any errors in advance.

Note: I am a paid contributor on behalf of Living Films. I have read through Wikipedia's guidelines and intend to keep to its policies, especially about not adding marketing-type content. Please see my user page for more details. Tetrameles (talk)

Edit 1:

  • Specific text to be added: "Chris Lowenstein" as a producer and "Apinat "Obb” Siricharoenjit" as line producer in the page's infobox.
  • Reason for the change: Since more information about the production of the show has been published, we (Living Films, Chris Lowenstein's company) would like to be directly named since we were involved in its creation.
  • References supporting change:
  1. https://www.bangkokpost.com/life/arts-and-entertainment/3089882/xenomorphs-of-siam
  2. https://www.timeout.com/bangkok/news/bangkok-stars-in-alien-earth-090425
  3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlJWE8R2oUA&t=63s (video should link to specific timestamp where Chris appears)


Edit 2:

  • Specific text to be added: "Living Films" as a production company in the page's infobox, with a hyperlink to the Living Films wikipage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Films.
  • Reason for the change: Again, since more information about the production of the show has been published, we would like to be directly named since we were involved in its creation.
  • References supporting change:
  1. https://www.bangkokpost.com/life/arts-and-entertainment/3089882/xenomorphs-of-siam
  2. https://www.timeout.com/bangkok/news/bangkok-stars-in-alien-earth-090425


Edit 3:

  • Specific text to be added (I've done my best to also include double brackets for links to any relevant wikipages, but please remove them if not needed):
−
Filming Principal photography was scheduled to begin in March 2022, but was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Production on the series began on July 19, 2023, in Thailand. Filming (without the American cast including Sydney Chandler, Timothy Olyphant, and David Rysdahl) was allowed to occur during the 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike due to the series' British cast working under an Equity contract. In late August, the production was halted due to the strike with most of the first episode completed. Filming resumed in April 2024, and wrapped in mid-July. Dana Gonzales, Bella Gonzales and Colin Watkinson serve as cinematographers.
+
Filming Location scouting began in 2021. [citation to Bangkok Post article] Principal photography was scheduled to begin in March 2022, but was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Production on the series began on July 19, 2023, in Thailand and lasted for 123 days. [citation to TimeOut article] The construction for the 82 sets were built in over 13 studios across [[Bangkok]]. [citation to SCMP article]. Locations in Bangkok included the [[Pratunam]] area, the Ashton Asoke-Rama 9 buidling in [[Thong Lo]], and Soi Langsuan, by the [[Embassy of the United States, Bangkok]] and [[Lumphini Park]]. The island locations included [[Ko Samui]] and a hidden lagoon in [[Krabi]]. According to producer Chris Lowenstein, around 80% of filming was shot on stages while 20% was shot on location. [citation to TimeOut article] Filming (without the American cast including Sydney Chandler, Timothy Olyphant, and David Rysdahl) was allowed to occur during the 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike due to the series' British cast working under an Equity contract. In late August, the production was halted due to the strike with most of the first episode completed. Filming resumed in April 2024, and wrapped in mid-July. Dana Gonzales, Bella Gonzales and Colin Watkinson serve as cinematographers.
  • Reason for the change: To add more details about the filming that was done in Thailand.
  • References supporting change:
  1. https://www.bangkokpost.com/life/arts-and-entertainment/3089882/xenomorphs-of-siam
  2. https://www.timeout.com/bangkok/news/bangkok-stars-in-alien-earth-090425
  3. https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/lifestyle-culture/article/3324587/ice-caves-spaceships-thailands-craftsmanship-building-new-worlds-film (paywalled)


Edit 4:

  • Specific text to be added: New section called "Design" with the following text:

"The design of the props, including the Xenomorph eggs, were created by Bangkok-based prosthetics and creature workshop Second Skin in collaboration with New Zealand’s Wētā Workshop. [citation to TimeOut article]"


Edit 5:

  • Specific text to be added:
−
Development In February 2019, Bloody Disgusting reported that two Alien television series were in development, one animated – Alien: Isolation – and one live-action, from Ridley Scott for the network FX on Hulu. In December 2020, as part of Disney's Investor Day presentation, the latter television series project was officially announced to be in development for the network, with Noah Hawley as showrunner and Scott as executive producer, being set on Earth in the near future. On February 17, 2022, The Hollywood Reporter revealed that the series is a prequel taking place before the events of Alien (1979). Hawley himself confirmed that the series would be tied more into the style and mythology of the original 1979 film rather than the prequel films Prometheus (2012), and Alien: Covenant (2017). In April 2023, chairman of FX Productions, John Landgraf, stated that the series was in active pre-production. According to FX Entertainment president Gina Balian, the scale of the production of Alien: Earth was much bigger than that of the 2024 FX series Shōgun, whose budget has been reported as $250 million.
+
Development In February 2019, Bloody Disgusting reported that two Alien television series were in development, one animated – Alien: Isolation – and one live-action, from Ridley Scott for the network FX on Hulu. In December 2020, as part of Disney's Investor Day presentation, the latter television series project was officially announced to be in development for the network, with Noah Hawley as showrunner and Scott as executive producer, being set on Earth in the near future. On February 17, 2022, The Hollywood Reporter revealed that the series is a prequel taking place before the events of Alien (1979). Hawley himself confirmed that the series would be tied more into the style and mythology of the original 1979 film rather than the prequel films Prometheus (2012), and Alien: Covenant (2017). In April 2023, chairman of FX Productions, John Landgraf, stated that the series was in active pre-production. According to FX Entertainment president Gina Balian, the scale of the production of Alien: Earth was much bigger than that of the 2024 FX series Shōgun, whose budget has been reported as $250 million. During the 2023 strikes, producer Chris Lowenstein, of Thailand-based production services company [[Living Films]], continued work on the production in Bangkok. In an interview, Lowenstein said of the hiatus, “For me as a producer it was a blessing in disguise. We kept building in Bangkok. I didn't stop our set-dec, props, and construction teams, which are almost entirely Thai. That really gave us a head start for when we came back” [citation to TimeOut article].

Tetrameles (talk) 09:37, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]