FANDOM


Archived talk: 1

No, they're not called "Xenomorphs"—at least, not with a capital "X."

The throwaway line in Aliens that spawned decades of confusion.

"All we know is that there’s still no contact with the colony," replies the lieutenant, Gorman, "and that a xenomorph may be involved."

"Excuse me, sir," interjects PFC Frost from the back row, "—a what?"

"A xenomorph," repeats Gorman, emphasizing the syllables. It's one of the few times in all four Alien series films where the creatures are referred to directly, rather than obliquely as "them" or "it."

For more information, see this article here on arstechnica .85.255.197.126 10:14, August 8, 2014 (UTC)

Actually, according the the new novel Alien: Sea of Sorrows, the species' official designation is "Xenomorph XX21". Obviously the book's only just come out, but this information will be added to the relevant pages in the near future.--Leigh Burne (Talk) (Contribs) 10:26, August 8, 2014 (UTC)
Looks like Alien: The Weyland-Yutani Report also uses "Xenomorph XX121".--Toa Quarax (Talk) (Contribs) 18:34, September 4, 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw. I wasn't sure how to act on it at first, given that it was just in the one book, but now that it's also used in this the page should probably be updated to reflect the full designation. (I'll be honest, I was also putting it off because it will be such a mammoth change.)--Leigh Burne (Talk) (Contribs) 07:47, September 5, 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it'd be pretty easy since we'd just have to change the {{Xeno}} template (and any pages that still link to the page with a manual link). I'm pretty sure referring to them as just Xenomorphs after stating their full name is still acceptable (although they now can be just called XX121s, apparently).15:10, September 5, 2014 (UTC)
There are still a few pages that don't use the template (at least, I found one the other day). But yes, I assumed Xenomorph(s) would be used generally, with only the main page and perhaps a few important links giving the full designation.--Leigh Burne (Talk) (Contribs) 07:43, September 8, 2014 (UTC)
Anybody else think this name change is incredibly stupid? Why even change it, when xenomorph was so fitting and effective? It's not like there are other alien species that have that designation anyway, so the suffix is more a waste. Ovomorph is also a dumb alteration, as the eggs don't really change much to deserve the name, though I understand just calling them eggs is generic. Est Nikkas Oth Mithas (talk) (Contribs) 05:03, September 27, 2014 (UTC)
"Xenomorph" just means "alien creature" in Latin. That could apply to any number of aliens. Technically Engineers are xenomorphs. While I'm not a huge fan of "XX121", I do like that it implies there are other documented alien species in the Alien universe. But either way, like it or not, it is the official designation now.--Leigh Burne (Talk) (Contribs) 07:45, September 29, 2014 (UTC)

Alien and Predator articles

Fellow Xenopedians, as it stands, I honestly feel that the Alien and Predator articles on Wikipedia are both less-biased and better researched than ours, so I have temporarily replaced them with their Wikipedia counterparts. (Which, if you were wondering, is OK to do [1], just cite it.) I've also protected the pages from editing except for the other admins. If another admin disagrees with this they can undo it. If you want a copy of your contributions, past versions are always available under "History".

I believe that the Wikipedia articles provide a good overall view of the Alien and Predator characters that we currently can't deliver, and I hope that reading these articles will clear up misconceptions and repeated misinformation and make it easier to work together to make this wiki as good as the other top wikis on Wikia. Thanks everybody :)---CadmiumX99 (talk) (Contribs) 21:05, June 13, 2011 (UTC)


Meh, when this article was changed to Wikipedia's version, the guy who did so did two things:

  1. Stole work from somebody who didn't even work here.
  2. Screwed up the article when we replaced everything with red links and non-existing pictures.

I think we should move it back to its original version...--{{SUBST:User:Shade Link/sig}} 18:49, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

Noted, Shade Link. And if you have any questions about the use of Wikipedia article content, click on the "Creative Commons" link. It's at the top of the page. Thanks.---CadmiumX99 (talk) (Contribs) 20:56, June 14, 2011 (UTC)


Sooo… when do we go back to the old article?--{{SUBST:User:Shade Link/sig}} 19:34, September 30, 2011 (UTC)

change it back

I think you should change it back to the old page or at least un-lock the page so that we can take off those red hyperlinks that make this page look like some dumbass made it. Anybody with me?Chargersphinx (talk) (Contribs) 14:26, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

  • Im with you they have to change it back or reunlock it so we can repair the page.Ultimatex (talk) (Contribs) 16:20, February 11, 2012 (UTC)


Too many Red Links

I have made a comment on the article for the first Alien Film that it has a lot of red links or links that do not have articles, this one does as well, to help keep the articles "looking clean" can someone help with either making articles for the nesecary things or just removing all them, or something? T-888 (talk) (Contribs) 10:17, February 13, 2012 (UTC)

I can't fix red links!

I decided to help this page by trying to fix all the red links. However, this page has been locked, preventing editing. Can someone please unlock it so it can be cleaned up? Bman14 (talk) (Contribs) 01:16, February 21, 2012 (UTC)


"In some predator tribes they accept the predalien as part of their clan." I really, really highly doubt that. Sources, please. 173.11.28.229 06:53, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

The Validity of our 'Proto-Xenomorph' as an actual Xenomorph

Sorry to run on your parade but the urge to argue against the whole Proto-Xenomorph 'fact' had me at hello.

Seeing how Prometheus takes place a few decades before Alien, this creature is most likely a more evolved form of the classic Xenomorph we know. As said in the films dialogue on how the dead Engineers have been, well, dead for approximately 2000 years. Ridley Scott said himself and Dallas (according to his visual report) the Derelict in Alien is well over a million years old. The Engineers in Prometheus lost control of the black goo 2000 years ago while the eggs on the Derelict are VERY ancient

Then again, the black goo's alien might not entirely be what it's supposed to be. I speculate that it's original purpose was to simply zombify sentient beings (which it did to Fifield) by first deteriorating the body. The alien in Prometheus was possibly a mere accident seeing how it originated from a small speck of the goo mixed with alcohol then fused with Holloway's DNA (his semen to be specific) and a massive tentacle monster (evolved or pre-facehugger) which underwent the same process.

I rest my case. Nanosoldier (talk) (Contribs) 15:34, June 10, 2012 (UTC)


  • We know it is not the first Xenomorph, we see them in the AvP movies, we see that the Queen Mother is eons old(Aliens:Female Wars), we know that Aliens were used on earth before humans were around (Aliens:Destroying Angel) And Ridley Scott did say that the Promethus movie would be about the engineers of space and the cleaners of the universe. The last bit is important because he is talking about Xenomorphs.--WAVE (talk) (Contribs) 16:03, June 10, 2012 (UTC)
But Prometheus is set within the Alien universe and completely ignores the events in the Predator and Alien vs. Predator franchise. Nanosoldier (talk) (Contribs) 06:43, June 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • It doesn't ignore the fact that W.Y. hasn't been created yet. Also when one of the writers was asked about canon and AvP the writer said they were respecting canon. If it was noncanon the writer would had flat out said "AvP is noncanon." Besides the new feature in the blu-ray set called "Alien Saga" says that comics, novels, books, and videos are in the saga, ergo those four mediums are canon. --WAVE (talk) (Contribs) 19:41, June 11, 2012 (UTC)

Oh and as stated on the box of the Total Destruction collection, all the movies take place in the same universe.

Canon question

In Predator Concrete Jungle the game & possibly novel I never read, the Xenomorphs make a guest appearance near the end of the game, my question is how did Hunter Borgia get his hands on them and what happend to them, because Scarface did not kill them all & his clan didn't nuke Borgia industries.


Please sign your posts, thats not really a canon question, its more like a "where did the xenomorphs come from and what happened to them?" and its a good question. Who knows how he got them, maybe one of the predator ships/pods or techs he captured contained alien eggs. Xenomorphs in that game were really just a cameo and I thiink even MOTHER says that not even she knew were hunter got them. The Cruentus (talk) (Contribs) 00:32, December 27, 2012 (UTC)


Sorry about not signing my post, still new to the wiki thing. I would like to add my own theory that Hunter recovered a lucky Xenomorph from Antartica or from another temple on Earth. Wrath425 (talk) (Contribs) 02:30, December 28, 2012 (UTC)

Genetic Xenomorph Inaccuracies

The article says the genetic Xenomorphs were Xenomorphs born from the Queen extracted from Ripley 8. This is somewhat false, as there were originally 13 Xenomorphs aboard the Auriga before Ripley 8 killed the first, but there were only five people/lab-rats in "the cargo" that birthed their aliens (Purvis was the sixth). That means that the Xenomorphs extracted from Ripleys 1-7 had to be on the ship as well, so they count as "genetic Xenomorphs", too. (13 (total) - 5 (hosts) = 8, then subtract the 1 Xenomorph killed by its "bunkmates", which Wren didn't know about, and you have 7. If Wren thought that Purvis's alien had also been "born", then he may have excluded the Queen because she doesn't leave the nest. But even if he wasn't aware about Purvis, or wasn't excluding Big Mama, there were still more than 8 Xenomorphs to start out with. Wren also had no way of knowing if any additional crew members had been abducted for use as hosts, so he would have only given the figure he was certain of.)

As for some circumstantial evidence: just because the hosts they came from were severely mutated, it doesn't mean the Xenomorphs inside them weren't functional (for want of a better word/phrase). Considering this species' DNA naturally blends with its hosts', I would assume the genetic crossing that resulted in the severely mutated "Ripleys" would have had very minimal effects on the Xenomorphs themselves. (I say "assume" because, logically, it follows exceptionally well, but I ultimately have no solid confirmation from any authority of the series.) The reason they kept experimenting up until Ripley 8 was because the Xenomorphs produced in Ripleys 1-7 didn't develop into Queens for some reason, and "Her Majesty here [was] the real payoff."

I'll make my changes to the article in 48 hours if there are no objections. Damaijin (talk) (Contribs) 01:49, March 4, 2013 (UTC)

I object becuase first off, its only a movie and you are reading to deep into this. And because it is show that there was many eggs produced by the queen before she developed a uterus. OH and lest I forget . . . THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS ANY XENOMORPH EXTRACTION PERFORMED WITH PREVIOUS RIPLEYS, they were mostly corpses and the only other ripley that had evidence that they attempted to extract a Xeno was ripley 7. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that any viable xenomorphs were made from the ripley clones, this is all just baseless speculation . . . You are just making stuff up. 71.238.243.98 02:39, March 4, 2013 (UTC)
No need to be rude unreg user, be civil.
If it is just speculation, then no changes are to be made. There were more than six lab rats as you say, notice the cryotubes before the egg opening scene? there much more than six. The Cruentus (talk) (Contribs) 03:54, March 4, 2013 (UTC)
Actually that was me (I have been having an issue all day with wikia editing), and there is no need for you to interpret people as rude when they had no intention of being so. Assume good faith, not "assume person is a jerk" ralok (talk) (Contribs) 03:58, March 4, 2013 (UTC)
I also object to the idea. It's pretty clear from the film the only reason they kept trying to clone Ripley was because they didn't get a viable Xenomorph embryo until number 8. The "Her Majesty here [was] the real payoff" line was referring to the fact they were going to keep Ripley 8 alive as well, for study. The Alien DNA for the first 7 clones was all mixed in with Ripely's, hence the half-human, half-Alien-looking mutants. Saying there might've been a viable Xenomorph embryo in there is going against what the film was clearly trying to imply. If your only evidence for suggesting they did get some Chestbursters prior to Ripley 8 is the number of Xenomorphs on board given by characters in the film, then I'd say that's pretty poor evidence - Wren says there's 12 at one point, but in reality he has no way of knowing how many of the personnel on the ship have been impregnated following the breakout, and there are definitely eggs around to allow this because we see some later on.--Leigh Burne (talk) (Contribs) 08:44, March 4, 2013 (UTC)
There is evidence to suggest they may have attempted an embryo removal from ripley 7, perhaps believing that she was "close enough" but there is nothing to suggest that they were successful in the slightest. ralok (talk) (Contribs) 16:40, March 4, 2013 (UTC)
@Ralok, I do assume good faith, its why I have given you loads of chances despite your attitude and uncivil behavior in comments and its why I corrected the Original Poster instead of accusing him of making stuff up. You were being rude (intentional or not) and now hypocritical "you are just making stuff up." which was quite rude, so where was your good faith? Practice what you preach. There was no excuse for it, if you were having a bad day, don't post. Never post when angry, we all get bad days and it is annoying when wikia plays up like it does so I can understand completely, but always take a breather and calm down before making edits or posts. There is no rush to get a post in or to make an edit and the wikia is not going anywhere anytime soon.
@Leigh, I think there was plenty of cargo hosts to make up around 12 xenomorphs, there was two cryotube carriers (those yellow vehicles) and there was about six cryotubes on each one. Might have been four, I can't remember but according to wren there was 12 xenos left and since not all cargo people were killed at once (purvis was still alive and some others were not tied to the bed thingy, so those that were shown waking to the eggs, were not all of the cargo peeps.

And yes there was eggs around, so more could have been made. The Cruentus (talk) (Contribs) 03:01, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but the numbers still don't add up. There were two crates with four tubes each, so them plus the queen still isn't 13. And I don't see why the information Wren provides should be discredited when he was the director of the project. I did mention above that he could not have known how many new Xenomorphs were made, so he would have given the number he was certain of. And the bodies being strewn all over the lab kind of told me that those chestbursters had been born during the chaos after the escape, so he might not have been including them. Also, I knew the "pay off" quote was about Ripley 8, but I used it to emphasize that they were trying for a queen. Also, when Ripley 8 told Gediman she knew her "baby" was a queen, I interpreted his surprise as saying that it could have been something other than a queen that she could have guessed at. The same goes for the "pay off" quote too. It sounded to me like they'd been trying for a queen (so they could "mass produce") but kept winding up with something else.

By no means am I saying I'm right and you're wrong--I probably am wrong--I'm just trying to say that the idea isn't entirely baseless and made up. And @Ralok: yes it is just a movie and I was reading too much into it, but at the same time, THAT'S WHY I PUT IT ON THE TALK PAGE. I don't go around making big changes all willy-nilly without input from others first. That's the point of these things, yes? ...Now would you kindly return my jugular to me, please? Damaijin (talk) (Contribs) 04:16, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

Wait, is there anything indicating that these crates were the only shipment? or that they didnt have anybody on the ship for this already? Wait a minute? are you basing this solely on visual or audio information? because . . . if its visual information . . . BRB I gotta check this. ralok (talk) (Contribs) 04:47, March 5, 2013 (UTC)
@Damaijin My reason for disregarding Wren's comment as hard fact is because it's just one of many inconsistencies in the film's script, which has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. Information contained within a film that can't even be consistent with itself should probably be accepted with caution. Let's say there were 12 bodies brought aboard — at least one (Purvis) didn't hatch. I imagine Wren would have to know that, because, as you say, he's the project director. But Wren seems pretty surprised to see Purvis later on. So what, are they're actually only 11 Aliens? Or where there 13 bodies and 12 birthed?
That's not to mention the fact that Wren saw an Alien get killed by Ripely just before he quotes the number 12, so actually there would have to have been 13 live Aliens to start with. Plus one was killed so that the others could escape their cell, and there's at least enough time between this happening and the outbreak really taking hold for some random soldier to be sent to investigate, so it's possible Wren knew about that too, bringing the original total to at least 14. My point being, the numbers don't really add up whichever way you look at it, and honestly I'm not sure they were meant to.
Anyway, to get back on topic, while I can see where you're coming from suggesting there could have been Xenomorphs harvested before Ripley 8, I think the film is clearly trying to imply that Ripley 8 was their first success. Gediman's surprise when Ripley 8 points out that she knows the embryo was a Queen is just another aspect of the subplot about her having memories from her previous life (remember she found out the embryo was a Queen in Alien3), coupled with the fact she seems to have a telepathic link with the Genetic Xenomrophs.
As for there being more Xenomorphs than we see hosts, as Ralok says there's nothing to suggest there weren't other shipments brought to the Auriga other than the one on the Betty, or even additional bodies from the Betty that we don't see. In the context of what the film shows us, I think that makes far more sense than saying some of the other mutants contained Xenomorphs; the clone flaming scene makes it fairly obvious that the Chestburster parts of Ripelys 1-7 were completely mixed up with the human parts, not happily gestating inside, hence the horrific mutants we see.--Leigh Burne (talk) (Contribs) 12:23, March 5, 2013 (UTC)
Leigh is right, in alien 3 it is stated that the embryo is a queen therefore all the clones would have had a queen embryo in them but due to the mass genetic crossing and mution, there was no balance and the embryo likely died or was not viable. In fact the current genetic xenos and queens were not perfect as the queen eventually lost the ability to create more eggs (eggs which seemed unstable and not properly sealed)
Gediman was surpised because Rilpey 8 knew about the queen, the scientists were hoping that she would not have any memories of Ellen Ripley. You are right about the four tubes per vehicle but we only see two vehicles, there may have beem more that had already been through but as Leigh said, there are errors and continuity problems.
There would need to have been 19 xenos before killing one to escape their cells. 12 xenos left, two of each killed 1 to escape so that is 6 xenos dead, which would bring the number to 18 then add the xeno Ripley killed, its 19 but then... shouldn't the xeno ripley killed been a part of a pair that killed a xeno to escape? so then it would have been 20 in total. The Cruentus (talk) (Contribs) 16:33, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

When they were first named "Xenomorphs"?

In which film or video game the characters begin calling aliens Xenomorphs? Did this type of title for the creatures were metioned in one of the alien films and /or games that is based upon the aliens?


Sign your post please, the word was first used in the film Aliens (film) by Gorman. The Cruentus (talk) (Contribs) 01:18, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

The term Xenomorph was also used by Ripley and Aaron in the extended Assembly Cut of Alien3.--Leigh Burne (talk) (Contribs) 15:49, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

Chordates?

One question about Xenomorphs; are they chordates, just like human beings? Because they possess a skull made of actual bone. I personally think they are chordates. But are they TRUE chordates? please leave me a response.


Sign your posts please.

They do have a skull but they have also been said to possess an exoskeleton and an endoskeleton, however, AVP-R showed a predator peel flesh from a Xenomorph skull, so its a bit muddled up. Personal opinion is not enough to change an article I'm afraid, if you can find more info to back up twhat you believe or go through the many different medias to see if the inner workings of a xeno are explained, then we can consider it. The Cruentus (talk) (Contribs) 20:46, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

Just viewed a Kids program called Ben Ten i think and they have a Creature/Character called XLR8 that looks like a Xenomorph... It also seems similear to MY Fan character Hybrid called Sixnic the Hedgemorph. ( A combination of Sonic and Six. ) 92.18.235.62 18:19, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

Acheron's physical properties.

I'd like to point out an inaccuracy I read about Acheron in this wikia. This moon's diameter measures approximately 12,200 km and its surfice gravity is 0.86g, therefore how can it be a lot denser than the earth??? That's preposterous, because, in fact, it's less dense than our current planet. Could anyone please check this information, thank you.

201.22.28.103 22:46, November 19, 2013 (UTC)

The statement about it being far denser than Earth was related to the original size of the moon given in Alien, which was only 1,200 km diameter. However, the size has now been accepted as 12,201 km. That statement about density clearly wasn't changed when the moon's size was. I'll fix it now. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Although would it not have made more sense to post your comment on the talk page of the article where you found this mistake?--Leigh Burne (talk) (Contribs) 08:44, November 20, 2013 (UTC)

New page?

I'm wondering should there be a new page on the queen chestburster? Deathblade 100 (talk) (Contribs) 01:37, August 23, 2014 (UTC)

Considering a unique Queen Chestburster has only been seen on-screen once, in Alien3 (the one in Resurrection looked more-or-less like a typical Chestburster), I'm not sure we need a separate page just for it.--Leigh Burne (Talk) (Contribs) 14:04, August 25, 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, well didn't the chestburster sort of pull its head out? Deathblade 100 (talk) (Contribs) 02:30, August 27, 2014 (UTC) 
You mean in Alien3? Yes, briefly. You never really get a good look at it though. I couldn't even tell it had four arms or little Queen legs until I saw it in a behind the scenes clip on the bonus DVD.--Leigh Burne (Talk) (Contribs) 07:35, August 27, 2014 (UTC)
Halcyon did release a model kit of the Queen Chestburster, although I'm unsure if the box had a blurb on it; I couldn't find any pictures. Either way, there's not really enough info on it to warrant having a separate article. A section on the Chestburster page will suffice.--Toa Quarax (Talk) (Contribs) 23:18, August 27, 2014 (UTC)
In Resurrection, the Queen sort of slides its head out. Deathblade 100 (talk) (Contribs) 23:29, August 27, 2014 (UTC)
No it doesn't. They redesigned the Chestburster for the film to have a wider mouth, that's all. Plus the infant Queen at the beginning looks no different to the one that erupts from Purvis at the end.--Leigh Burne (Talk) (Contribs) 08:25, August 28, 2014 (UTC)
Ok, we'll just make a new section on the chestburster page. Deathblade 100 (talk) (Contribs) 00:20, August 29, 2014 (UTC)

Plantigrade vs Digitigrade

Digitigrade
In all movies (other than brief glimpses in the first), the xenomorphs are very clearly shown to be digitigrade. I don't think that warrants the claim that, "Xenomorphs have been alternately portrayed as both plantigrade and digitigrade organisms." This also claims that the xenomorphs in AvP were plantigrade while they were clearly digitigrade.

Electric Frog (talk) (Contribs) 16:35, May 24, 2015 (UTC)

"In all movies (other than brief glimpses in the first), the xenomorphs are very clearly shown to be digitigrade."
That's simply not true. The only film that "very clearly" shows the Alien to have digitigrade legs is Alien Resurrection. The creature is also digitigrade in the third film, although to be honest this is pretty hard to see in the movie itself. In the first two they're plantigrade, simply because they were played by people in suits and so that's the only option they had. There is not a single shot in either movie that suggests they might have digitigrade lower limbs. As for Alien vs. Predator, I honestly can't remember what we saw. But based on the Alien movies alone, the Xenomorph's legs changed from the first two films to the second two.--Buck-ark LEIGH BURNE(Talk) 17:02, May 24, 2015 (UTC)
I don't have the movie on hand, but all images I can find of the warriors in the second movie show then with their heels off the ground. Walking in this manner is the very definition of digitigrade locomotion. It's not about the structure of the leg and foot, but the way in which it's used. In Alien: Isolation, for instance, the xenomorph has a noticeably short foot compared to most digitigrade animals, but it walks solely on the toes and balls of its feet with its heel off the ground at all times. Aliens also introduces the queen, which has extremely digitigrade posture. Electric Frog (talk) (Contribs) 17:30, May 24, 2015 (UTC)
First of all, do not edit other people's comments on talk pages. You deleted a line from my previous reply. I'll assume it was an accident, but you should never alter other people's comments, regardless of whether you agree or they are incorrect. By all means argue the point, but comments should be left as the author posted them as they form a record of what was said.
The Queen in Aliens does indeed have digitigrade legs, but the Warriors do not. If you have evidence proving otherwise, then by all means share it. But I don't remember the Warriors' feet ever being shown in the film, save one very brief shot of the Xenomorph hauling Dietrich up the wall inside the Hive, which is just too brief to determine the creature's posture.--Buck-ark LEIGH BURNE(Talk) 07:57, May 26, 2015 (UTC)
I think I may have began replying in the three minutes prior to your edit of your comment? I'm sorry for that, I wasn't aware of the second notification until after I had published and I apologize. It gave me an error when I tried to publish at first.
The merchandise for Aliens had them adopting minor digitigrade foot postures. Do you think that it would be reasonable to state that any plantigrade status in the early films was likely a result of technical limitations? The toys and thee seemingly deliberate avoidance of clear shots of the feet while standing seems to imply they never intended the creature to present as a plantigrade? Electric Frog (talk) (Contribs) 10:47, May 26, 2015 (UTC)
Ah that's OK, no problem. Like I said, I'd assumed it was an accident!
Hmmm I dunno. I'm always wary of second-guessing the filmmaker's intentions. You could equally argue the lack of clear shots of the feet in Aliens is simply a result of the fact there aren't really any clear shots of the Xenomorphs at all — they're largely hidden in the shadows, and apart from the odd shot of a puppet torso getting blown away the only lingering closeups we get are on the jaws. Here's a thought — can we see what posture the Aliens adopt in AVP:R?--Buck-ark LEIGH BURNE(Talk) 08:46, May 27, 2015 (UTC)
I'll try to rewatch it to see, but remember that many scenes in that film are so dark as to be nearly indistinguishable. I will try, though. I'll also rewatch the first AvP movie for a chance at a clearer view. Electric Frog (talk) (Contribs) 13:10, May 27, 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that film was ridiculously hard to see. But you never know. I have AVP on DVD but not the sequel, although I'm off on holiday at the end of the week so I may not get a chance to check it myself any time soon. Incidentally, should I suddenly stop replying to you, that would be why!--Buck-ark LEIGH BURNE(Talk) 15:16, May 27, 2015 (UTC)
The first two films had Aliens with plantigrade legs and feet, the third didn't due to host type, Resurrection messed things up by having the human spawned Aliens with digitigrade legs. AVP Aliens had plantigrade though they did reuse the suits from Resurrection. Can't say much for Requiem because it is indeed very dark and the feet you do see are Chet's, probably for the best considering the quality of the Aliens in it. --PredTriLaser The Cruentus(Talk) 13:03, May 29, 2015 (UTC)

Behaviour

"Xenomorphs are primarily solitary ambush predators, although they have been known to adopt swarm tactics when acting in larger groups. "


Is this true? It was my understanding that the aliens primarily lived in hives, worked together etc, and it's only when one is split apart from the rest of the group that they assume the role of 'solitary ambush predator' so as to maximise it's efficiency and attempt to start a new hive.


Folstaria (talk) (Contribs) 12:14, July 15, 2015 (UTC)

Even when the Marines are inside the Hive in Aliens, the creatures still use lone ambush attacks to pick them off. Dietrich is surprised and grabbed by a solitary individual, and Drake was about to be ambushed by a lone creature when he is killed. It seems to me they prefer to attack alone and use surprise, only resorting to all-out frontal assaults when absolutely necessary (e.g. against the sentry guns). Even in the Operations assault, you could argue the Xenos' attack would've been very different had Hicks not discovered them in the ceiling.--Buck-ark LEIGH BURNE(Talk) 07:45, July 16, 2015 (UTC)

Overhaul

I've just begun a pretty major overhaul of this page. It really needs to be more "in-universe" to bring it in line with our other articles; at the moment there's a lot of "in this film, in that film"-type stuff. All that should really go in the Behind the Scenes section or be reworded and cited so as not to directly mention it exists in a movie. There's also quite a lot of stuff that could probably be moved to other articles/deleted altogether, as its either superfluous or just repetitious. The section on the different life cycle stages in particular is too long-winded, given that each stage has its own separate article anyway. I'll look into moving what needs to be moved and cutting down on the rest.

Being such a big page, it might take me a while to get through it all, but I'll work on it over the next few days. I'm keen to bring it up to snuff as this should really be one of our flagship articles. I haven't exactly checked, but I suspect the Yautja page might be just as bad, so that will probably be my next port of call after I'm done here.--Buck-ark LEIGH BURNE(Talk) 15:39, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

Remove AVH from this site?

I'm of the mind that mention of that Spideroid thing should be deleted from this page and the AVH page be deleted as well, since it's an entirely different creature and not technically a depiction of a Xeno, non-canon or not. Alien 2 was at least written intentionally as a sequel to the first film and for that reason merits inclusion and a page of its own, but AVH, mockbuster or not, is a completely unrelated thing. Its inclusion on Xenopedia, in my mind, is akin to the Walking Dead wiki having a page or pages for Z Nation or the GI Joe wiki having a page or pages for Act of Valor. Ghost Leader (talk) (Contribs) 20:29, November 22, 2015 (UTC)

I have actually considered this before, but didn't feel strongly enough about it to remove it at the time. But if there's no particular disagreement over the next few days or so then I'll delete it and remove the relevant info from this and any other pages that might refer to it. However, I will add mention of the film to the Alien and Predator references pages we have, as I think it would warrant mention there.--Buck-ark LEIGH BURNE(Talk) 12:03, November 23, 2015 (UTC)

Change Article Name

This article name is very tedious to link to plus it's not popular. Xenomorph is more commonly used and just as official. All this XX121 nonsense just needs to listed as a other name, just like all the other not-as-popular name variations.Werebereus - ಠ_ಠ 02:04, March 9, 2016 (UTC)

Like it or not, that is the official name. "Popularity" is irrelevant. It is the name used throughout Alien: The Weyland-Yutani Report and has appeared in other recent canonical releases too. It is the name Fox is now giving to the species. Contrary to what you say, I don't believe "Xenomorph" was ever used officially as a name for the creature; its use in the films is arguably as a generic term for alien life in general rather than as a specific designation for this species in particular. It was simply adopted by the fans. To my knowledge, Xenomorph was never used in the comics or older novels, for example.
If you're having trouble linking to it, I suggest you use the {{Xeno}} template, which will give you this: Xenomorph. Neatly formatted and will link to this article.--Buck-ark LEIGH BURNE(Talk) 09:04, March 9, 2016 (UTC)
Maybe so, but "Xenomorph" is the more common name used both within and outside of universes. It was "officially" used in the films, adopted as the official name by fans, and then officially adopted after it got popular enough and has been used in every major game/book so far. It's as official as any other, I'd say the MOST official, second maybe to the general "Alien" name.Werebereus - ಠ_ಠ 11:54, March 10, 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't change the fact that "Xenomorph XX121" is now the official name being used by Fox. So it's the one that's used for this page.
But like I said, I'm pretty sure none of the novels or comics use the singular word "Xenomorph" to designate the species. Certainly none of the ones I have read. It most definitely hasn't been used in "every major book so far" as you claim, because the sole time I've read the word in a novel was when the Xenomorph XX121 name was first given in Alien: Sea of Sorrows. Only the more recent games seemed to pick up using Xenomorph/Xeno as a name for the Aliens, everything else has been pretty vague on giving the creature a definite name.
Being used a lot by the fans doesn't automatically make Xenomorph correct either — for decades, the Engineers were Space Jockies according to fans, but the official name is Engineers, so that is used for the name of the article on here. And like I explained, the "official" use of the word in the films, as you cite it, likewise doesn't mean very much because there's no proof the word specifically refers to this species individually. Given that it literally translates as "alien form", it could conceivably be a generic blanket term for any undocumented alien life. The manner in which the term Xenomorph is used in the films certainly doesn't do anything to disprove that.
But anyway, regardless of all of that, as the official name, Xenomorph XX121 is automatically the right one to use for the page. Xenomorph is still liberally used as an abbreviation of it throughout this site anyway.--Buck-ark LEIGH BURNE(Talk) 12:25, March 10, 2016 (UTC)

How Much?

How much genetic material does the xeno take from the host? Not much, I think. If Extinction is to be believed, Praetorians are "pure" aliens. Even if it's not, there is not variation amongst them as a caste and no single type of host they come out of. If they end up the same thing regardless of host, which is clearly opposite of what the Xenomorph does, then they could be held up as "pure" aliens. They also turn into Queens, which they too could be called pure aliens.

Look at the Praetorian compared to other Xenomorph castes. They actually don't differ that much. Really, the other castes are maybe dark brown or dark blue and lacking a crest as well as being smaller, but they're...pretty much identical beyond that.

Now look at every Predalien. Predaliens tend to be WILDLY different from other castes of alien. It was said that they introduced 15%-20% of Predator DNA into the Predalien (note: this was said for the predalien specifically, not the xenomorphs as a whole) and that is was 85, 90% Xenomorph. And you can really see it: The Predalien is VERY overtly the product of it's host. What's more, the Predator itself is said to have "potent genes" (Predator Concrete Jungle) which means the Predalien would have to be an outlier.

Warriors/Drone come from humans, Runners from dogs/quadrupeds, but aside from passing similarities to their hosts, they do not differ greatly at all from the "standard model" of Xenomorph (Queens and Praes). So how much do THEY take from their hosts then? It's got to be far less than 10% or 15% of it would be obvious like the Predalien, but it's really not.

Any guesses?Werebereus - ಠ_ಠ 22:27, December 21, 2016 (UTC)

Extinction is non-canon, so its best not to rely on that. Predaliens vary wildly because no can make up their mind on a design, there is no point trying to justify it with an In-universe explanation. Queens and Praetorians take on traits too but they have their own consistent look such as head crest, There has been three Queens I can think of at the top of my head that has been influenced by a host, obviously we got Chet (technically a young Queen) Vampiric Queen but that is non-canon, and then there is the one in Life and Death. Werebereus, I would suggest creating a blog and continuing this there since talk pages are for discussing how to improve a page rather than starting a topic, which is an interesting one. If this is about improving the page, you need to make it more clearly what you are trying to propose, otherwise looking for opinions suggests its better suited to a blog. --PredTriLaser The Cruentus(Talk) 22:42, December 21, 2016 (UTC)
Basically I'm wondering if it's appropriate to append the 10-15% rule to ALL Xenomorphs especially when they doesn't seem to be the case, as seen with Chet. Also, it appeared that the directors were speaking specifically about chet vs the xenos at large( they say "it" -- meaning chet -- instead of "they", meaning the whole xenomorph race).Werebereus - ಠ_ಠ 22:45, December 21, 2016 (UTC)
That is fair enough and a good question, Predators supposedly have potent genes so they may take more traits but as much as I like Concrete Jungle, I found that plot over the top and so personally I don't put too much stock in it, that said some comics had it where a man extended life by eating the hearts of Yautja's. I would say 10-15% may be fair considering that the traits they do take, are supposed to be significant enough to matter to their survival. Runners are just quadrupedal but are consequently faster. It depends on much percentage you would count bipedal/.quadrupedal as. --PredTriLaser The Cruentus(Talk) 22:57, December 21, 2016 (UTC)
That's precisely what I'm wondering. What does the average Xeno take? Because it's host is a Predator, Chet definitely doesn't seem average. She's about as Average as 6.Werebereus - ಠ_ಠ 23:02, December 21, 2016 (UTC)
They were both Queens or were on their way to become one, Six eventually did of course. Six should already had some Praetorian traits but its possible that since there was an existing Queen those traits were not yet triggered. --PredTriLaser The Cruentus(Talk) 23:13, December 21, 2016 (UTC)
Bear in mind that a given percentage of shared DNA doesn't necessarily directly correlate to how alike the two creatures look. For example, humans share 97.5&% of their DNA with rats.--Buck-ark LEIGH BURNE(Talk) 22:06, December 25, 2016 (UTC)

The Number in the name

I have question, does the 121 in Xenomorph XX121 mean that there were at least a hundred and twenty Different Xenomorph Species before it?--Legionnas (talk) (Contribs) 14:30, February 16, 2017 (UTC)

'Infection' instead of 'implantation'/'impregnation'

May we use 'infection', or a synonym , instead of 'implantation'/'impregnation'. The Facehugger page states that no fetus was deposited into the host; a tumor of tailored cancers build the chestburster from the host's own cells. May the fanbase use another word? - BlitzGundam (talk) (Contribs) 04:41, April 2, 2017 (UTC) 

While that may be more accurate, the franchise itself uses the term implantation and impregnation. --PredTriLaser The Cruentus(Talk) 14:08, April 2, 2017 (UTC)

Literacy

Shouldn't it be mentioned, on the basis of the Queen's first inner monologue in the Alien Resurrection novelisation that Xenos, although unable to understand human spoken language, inherit their host's ability to read? And also the fact that they are capable of sorrow over the loss of their young. SkekSam (talk) (Contribs) 23:00, May 7, 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I was never really sure where the hell that should/could go. However, I'd suggest somewhere on the Cloned Xenomorph page, as there's not really any evidence it applies to regular Xenos.--Buck-ark LEIGH BURNE(Talk) 10:57, May 10, 2017 (UTC)

Alien: Covenant - revelations and retcons regarding the Xenomorphs and their origins

It was suggested by The Cruentus that I create a section to discuss how to handle the revelations and retcons that Alien: Covenant introduces to the series' timeline as well as the Xenomorph species. As a warning, this will contain spoilers for Alien: Covenant. This is gonna be a lengthy post, but please bear with it:

From my understanding, the Alien series can be divided into several continuities which both overlap and conflict with each other, not unlike Star Wars and its formerly-convoluted multiple tiers of canon within the Legends continuity. There's the Dark Horse comic series, the Alien vs. Predator series, the Out of the Shadows novel, and some of the short stories in Alien: Bug Hunt anthology - which are essentially set within their own continuities and present the Xenomorphs as being an ancient but naturally-occurring species native to Xenomorph Prime, being used as a bioweapon by the Engineers and seen as the perfect prey by the Yautja/Hish-qu-Ten; and the New Canon - which presents the Xenomorphs as an artificial bioweapon created using the Chemical A0-3959X.91 – 15 mutagen.

For some clarification as to what the New Canon entails, in the runup to the publication of the Out of the Shadows trilogy, one of the authors - I believe it was either Tim Lebbon or Christopher Golden - mentioned that FOX was essentially pulling a Star Wars and jettisoning the old expanded universe in favour of a new streamlined version with Prometheus as the starting point. IIRC the New Canon consists of (chronologically): Prometheus, Alien: CovenantAlienAlien: IsolationAlien: Out of the Shadows (?), Alien: River of Pain (?), AliensAlien: Colonial Marines (?), Alien3, Alien: Resurrection, Alien: Sea of Sorrows, and some but not all of the short stories in Alien: Bug Hunt anthology. Ridley Scott has mentioned the existance of a story bible when discussing what's to come after Alien: Covenant, and the Alien: The Weyland-Yutani Report databook also exists to provide a guideline for the New Canon. The status of the Out of the Shadows trilogy and Fire and Stone comic series - as well as more recently published comics - within the new canon is questionable since I believe Alien: Covenant contradicts aspects of them - especially the inclusion of the Predators, since Ridley Scott has made it abundantly clear that he loathes the Alien vs. Predator crossover and explicitly de-canonized the film duology with Prometheus, which removes the Predators from having any role in the Xenomorphs' origin despite the Xenomorph skull seen in Predator 2 and Mr. Black having a Xenomorph jawbone attached to his mask in Predators and being stated by merchandise to be the youngest Predator ever to slay a Xenomorph in reference to the backstory given in the Alien vs. Predator franchise.

Given comments made by Ridley Scott in interviews  (in which he outright states that David created the Xenomorphs) and promotional materials stating that Alien: Covenant would explore the species' creation and subsequent prequel films would lead up to the events of Alien, within the New Canon the version of the Xenomorph depicted in that film - created through David-8's experiments on an extraterrestrial endoparasitic arthropod similar to a wasp and the ensuing Neomorphs - seems intended to be the first canonical appearance of the species, with the film detailing the creation of the species. Also, Scott has previously stated that people who think the Engineers created the Xenomorphs are wrong, which tosses that origin story out despite evidence presented by Prometheus - that said, the mural could depict a Deacon or other varient of Chemical A0-3959X.91 – 15-spawned monster, since they tend to have eyeless elongated heads and somewhat biomechanical features. Arawn 999 (talk) (Contribs) 13:07, May 18, 2017 (UTC)

I just mentioned my thoughts in reply to your post on The Cruentus' talk page, but to summarise here — I'm not inclined to put too much stock in what Ridley says in interviews; he has a history of completely contradicting himself. Case in point — I actually got to speak to him myself a couple of weeks ago and I asked him if David and Walter were named in reference to David Giler and Walter Hill. He said no. Then, a few days later, there was an interview in the press where he said that David and Walter were indeed named in reference to Giler and Hill. Another example would be how, at one point, he was adamant that the Prometheus sequels would have less to do with the Alien and focus instead of the Engineers, yet here we are with the next film almost completely ditching the Engineers and reintroducing the Alien.
As for the movie itself, I saw at least some things that possibly implied the Alien existed before David created it, but it may well be down to interpretation.--Buck-ark LEIGH BURNE(Talk) 14:36, May 18, 2017 (UTC)
As was Damon Lindelof back in 2012, as I recall. His rewrite of Jon Spaits' Alien: Engineers script still leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and I find it highly amusing that a lot of Spaits' ideas were recycled for Alien: Covenant. But that's getting off-topic. You make a fair point, but script rewrites happen - Prometheus was going to be a direct prequel to Alien. Evidently, fan demand for the Xenomorph after Prometheus came out changed his mind regarding it being "overcooked", though it's unfortunate his statements can't be taken at face value as what TV Tropes calls "Word of God". Lucky you for getting to meet him, though. Even so, Scott's apparently got full creative control of the series now and doesn't intent to lose it until he dies, and his statements regarding Alien: Covenant revealing the origins of the Xenomorphs have been fairly consistent ever since Prometheus 2 was redrafted into Alien: Paradise Lost. Plus, his original idea for the sequel seems to not have been scrapped so much as set aside for an interquel that's apparently already been written up and is set to be the next film in the series. While I have yet to see the movie myself - it comes out tomorrow where I live - his statements that David created the Xenomorphs appear to be backed by the film itself - especially given that the "Protomorph", as fans have taken to calling Covenant's iteration of the Xenomorph, looks... unfinished? Like an intermediary step between the Neomorphs and the Xenomorph from the original Alien. Arawn 999 (talk) (Contribs) 15:22, May 18, 2017 (UTC)
A seemingly "unfinished" Alien could equally just be proof of an imperfect recreation... Point being, I'm not sure the film is definitive. I'm really looking forward to Alan Dean Foster's two novels (the film novelisation and the prequel book) to see if they offer any clarification on exactly what's what.
The main thing that has made me unsure is there are several drawings of Alien-like creatures in the film, some of which have clearly been drawn by David during his experiments, but others of which struck me as being older, potentially drawn by the Engineers before he ever arrived on the planet. But I've no idea whether that interpretation is right or wrong (or perhaps even fuelled by my desire for David not to be the creator), which is why I'm unsure how to deal with it.--Buck-ark LEIGH BURNE(Talk) 09:57, May 19, 2017 (UTC)
Interestingly, I just saw the movie and the Xenomorphs are significantly different from what the original 'Alien' shows them to be. In Covenant, the Chestbursters already have limbs, but in the original series they're just worms. Also, in Alien 3 the dog-spawned extraterrestrial also has its four limbs, and in Prometheus, we clearly see the Deacon fully grown upon emerging from its host. There are just so many inconsistencies that occur but hey, don't they happen in franchises that span a damn long time? (Case in point, Metal Gear) Spirit Slasher
Didn't the Aliens exist as early as 2004, due to the AVP movies? Vertend (talk) (Contribs) 03:24, May 24, 2017 (UTC)
The AvP films - in which the Xenomorphs are presented as being thousands of years old - are no longer part of the Alien series canon - which FOX rebooted a la Star Wars in 2014. Scott (and for that matter James Cameron and Sigourney Weaver as well) has always been open about how much he dislikes the crossover, and one of the writers of Prometheus - I don't remember if it was Spaihts or Lindelof - stated that Scott was very explicit about disregarding and de-canonizing the duology in both the script and promotional material like the official Weyland Corp Timeline: for instance, the company was originally called "Weyland Industries" as in the AvP films, but Scott insisted the name be changed to "Weyland Corporation". Arawn 999 (talk) (Contribs) 04:52, May 24, 2017 (UTC)
I've been reading the novelization of Alien: Covenant, which is evidently based on an earlier version of the script than final version used the shoot the film. In addition to various minor differences, one of the most significant is that in the novel David's lab contains an Ovomorph he says was created by the Engineers and that he was trying to replicate by hybridizing Neomorph specimens. Also, unlike the Xenomorph seen in the film, which deliberately lacked biomechanical features, the novel's version has them. Arawn 999 (talk) (Contribs) 00:27, May 27, 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure the Aliens in Covenant "deliberately" lacked biomechanical features, it was just a slight variation on the design. Glad to hear the novel states the Alien was around before David though.--Buck-ark LEIGH BURNE(Talk) 08:04, May 28, 2017 (UTC)

Conor O'Sullivan, who worked on the creature design, stated in an interview that Alien: Covenant's Xenomorph lacking mechanical features was deliberate.
Objectively speaking, in regard to the other films in the series and their novelizations,  when there are differences between the film and the novel which version is considered to be canon? 
I was personally hoping that the novelization would provide clarification as you'd hoped, but if anything it's only served to muddy the issue further, and is an utter disappointment in my eyes. I personally question exactly how canon the novel can be considered when several events in it either did not occur in the movie (the Xenomorph vs. Neomorph fight being the most prominent example I can think of) or are very different, and the author added "original content" of his own initiative.  
The scene in David's lab is quite different in the novel compared to in the movie, with the Engineer-created Xenomorph egg and mounted proto-Xenomorph specimens being completely absent in the film, and David's explanation of his research also being completely different. Given that in an interview prior to the film's release Scott stated that the Engineers did not create the Xenomorphs; and in his interview with IGN he stated that initially the Engineers were going to be the Xenomorphs' creators, but that he changed his mind late into development and made it so that David was the sole creator because he thought that was more interesting, I can summize that the novel is evidently based on an earlier draft of the script than the one used for the final cut of the movie.
Regarding the veracity of Scott's statements in interviews, he is the film's director and one of the producers, and a lot of creators exposite bits of lore and backstory that go unrevealed in the film/book/game/etc. in interviews, on social media, etc. If he decides to change his mind later on and reveal that the Engineers did create the Xenomorphs in a subsequent film then he'll do so, but for now all we have to go on is the film, his statements - which have been fairly consistent, at least in regards to who created the Xenomorphs,  and the novel - which is contradicted by both of the preceeding. Scott's next film (or rather, the film after the interquel he claims to be working on for 2019) is set to tie directly into Alien and will hopefully answer all the questions Alien: Covenant left unanswered, provided he doesn't change tracks again or FOX doesn't intervene like they did with Alien: Engineers. To draw a parallel to another famous sci-fi franchise, what Scott's doing with his prequel quadrilogy is essentially what George Lucas did with the Star Wars prequel trilogy.
To be honest, comparing the novel to the film is a bit like comparing Alien: Engineers to Prometheus, only less extreme. Perhaps a more accurate comparison would be Eggmorphing, which was present in the the first movie's novelization but absent from the final cut of the film, and is labelled "Scrapped content" as a result. Given the "Engineers created the Xenomorphs" theory is present in the novelization but not in the film (which is where the subsequent films will take their cues from), and is stated by the director/producer to have once been present but scrapped in favour of a new direction, it looks to me like it belongs in the "Scrapped content" page as well (the page even says "Note that some of this material may have been removed from one release in the franchises, whilst still being present in others."), but I guess we'll have to wait and see what the next films have in store to be completely sure. Arawn 999 (talk) (Contribs) 09:17, May 28, 2017 (UTC)
"Conor O'Sullivan, who worked on the creature design, stated in an interview that Alien: Covenant's Xenomorph lacking mechanical features was deliberate."
Ah, my mistake, I hadn't realised that. Even so, I wouldn't put too much stock in its outward appearance as a guide on whether it's meant to be the same creature or not. It might just be how Scott wanted it to look in this film. Cameron changed the Alien's heads to ridges just because he felt like it.
"Objectively speaking, in regard to the other films in the series and their novelizations, when there are differences between the film and the novel which version is considered to be canon?"
It's a bit of a grey area, but usually if it's something that doesn't outright contradict the movie, I include it as part of canon, but if it goes against what we see on screen then it obviously can't be. I'm guessing you've not read a novelisation before — they almost always contradict the film on which they are based, simply because they have to be written before filming and editing are completed. The film will usually change during development, but the book won't because it would simply be too much effort to keep modifying it whilst also trying to complete it in time for release. All of the Alien novelisations contradict their films in some respects. For example, in the first book the Alien actually has eyes and lacks and inner jaw. The novelisation of Predator has a completely different creature to the one seen in the film.
Ridley's statement that he changed his mind about who created the Alien makes sense — the fossilised Egg and Facehugger that David shows Oram in the book, stating they were made by the Engineers, does actually appear in the film. I noticed it on my second viewing (before the book was even released). Its not seen clearly and is never addressed in dialogue, and I immediately thought it looked like something had been cut there; the novel now appears to confirm that. I'd guess the added dialogue from that moment when David states the Engineers created the Alien long before him was actually filmed but was then cut at a later date.
As for how this affects the wiki, I agree the book doesn't overrule what is shown/said the film, although it should definitely be noted in the trivia section on the relevant page(s).--Buck-ark LEIGH BURNE(Talk) 10:34, May 30, 2017 (UTC)

Prometheus Mural

Did anyone else notice that the mural in Prometheus also has Facehuggers attached to Engineers on it?

Will this have any implicatiions on the Xenomorph origin story that has been presented to us in Alien Coevenant? StargateFanBB (talk) (Contribs) 05:41, June 5, 2017 (UTC)

Simple answer — if Ridley truly has his heart set on David being the creator, I don't think he cares about stuff like that.--Buck-ark LEIGH BURNE(Talk) 10:12, June 7, 2017 (UTC)
It'll be inconsistant if doesn't go back to that mural and those Facehuggers and Xeno-like creature and explain it. He cut a scene from Covenant which was left in the novel would have kept the Prometheus Xeno consistant where David reveals he euthanized a type of Facehugger Egg which was left behind on the planet by the Enginners and his experiments were him attempting to re-create the Xenomorph. It would have explain the differences between the Facehuggers in Covenant to the classic ones as well as the differences of Covenant Xeno to the classicXeno. He'd be a fool to leave it out and go with David being the sole creator and not expect fans to remember details like the mural from Prometheus or the Ancient Derelict ship with the Fossilised Enginner from Alien. StargateFanBB (talk) (Contribs) 19:17, June 13, 2017 (UTC)
Going by the novel, the Covenant Xenomorph was identical to the classic Xeno, or at least the version seen in the original Alien, since it was described as having a biomechanical exoskeleton, which the version seen in the film lacks. I'd wager that the change to the Xenomorphs' design was made somewhat cocurrently with the decision to make David the sole creator, seeing as how it was deliberate. Arawn 999 (talk) (Contribs) 20:45, June 13, 2017 (UTC)
And yet it looks more organic in the film than the classic Xeno in the film, then again that may be because of the CGI. Of course the novel was based on an earlier version of the film script and contradicts the film therefore it's not canon. But the Covenant Xeno does look more organic than exoskeleton-esque like the Alien Xeno. I hope Ridley does make the plot point of David trying to re-create the classic Xeno the Engineers made in the novel canon in the next movie Alien Awakening. StargateFanBB (talk) (Contribs) 21:35, June 13, 2017 (UTC)