Latest News

Alien: Covenant Opens to $2.6 Million in Japan

Alien: Covenant was released in its last major market, Japan, on Friday the 15th of September. According to Box Office Mojo, the film opened with a debut of  $2.6 million.

“Fox also saw Alien: Covenant launch in its final international market with a $2.6 million debut in Japan bringing the film’s international cume to $162 million. Covenant’s $236.3 global total ranks it as the second largest film in the Alien franchise globally, though it remains $167.1 million behind Prometheus.”

For comparison, Prometheus opened in Japan with $3.8 million and would go on to gross $21.8 million. Alien: Covenant’s current worldwide taking stand at $236.3 with it’s biggest foreign market being China where it took $45.9 million.

 Alien: Covenant Opens to .6 Million in Japan

Alien: Covenant opens with $2.6 million in Japan.

Today also sees the release of Alien: Covenant on home entertainment for the United Kingdom. If you enjoyed the film, be sure to head out and pick up your Blu-ray or DVD copy.

Keep a close eye on Alien vs. Predator Galaxy for the latest on Alien: Covenant! You can follow us on FacebookTwitter and Instagram to get the latest on your social media walls. You can also join in with fellow Alien fans on our forums!



Post Comment
Comments: 112
« Newer Comments 123 Older Comments »
  1. Biomechanoid
    Quote from: kwisatz on Oct 16, 2017, 03:16:28 AM
    Now all i want you to do, is go to some BO site and check out the highest grossing film of all time worldwide, the second highest grossing film of all time worldwide and the 4th highest grossing film of all time worldwide. Then check out their release dates! Genre too!

    So.....I answered your questions. Yet you still fail to answer my question on Aliens.......a film that you brought up to make some kind of point. Instead of delivering, you bring up irrelevant deflections and run. Well.......you certainly showed me! . . . . ;)


    Quote from: kwisatz on Oct 16, 2017, 03:16:28 AM
    but i just wanted point out that you think Sci-fi was on a high in the early nineties

    Then come back here and present a new whack theory.

    I see. Whack theory, huh. .......

    Penn State University research: "However, it is clear from the results presented here that, since the early 1990s, there has been an upwards trend in the number of fantasy/science fiction films..... From the breakdown by decade in Table 1, we see that the proportion of Genre trends at the US box office, 1991 to 2010 fantasy/science fiction films in the top 25 films has increased from 51% to 64% and with an increase from 26% to 50% for top 10 films; and in 2005 alone, fantasy/science fiction films occupied six of the top 7 rankings by total gross. "

    Ooh...."upwards trend".....there's that nasty pattern talk again ..... ;)

    Penn State continues: "This paper has presented an empirical analysis of genre trends at the US box office in the two decades since 1991. Overall, analysis of box office data indicates that the range of genres for the highest grossing films at the US box office has become narrower over the past twenty years. A limited range of special effects-based films from the action/adventure and fantasy/science fiction genres have come to dominate the US box office at the expense of character- and narrative-driven films (crime/thriller and drama films) that were previously identified as the most popular. "
    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.393.8852&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

    Well, well, well, that statement is just oozing with audience trend patterns for SF ..... :laugh:

    Fools! All Penn State University had to do was email kwisatz and you could have told them they wasted their time doing all that research since analyzing audience trends by genre is a "whack theory," according to you. I'm sure they would have held your word as credible because you said so in a movie forum........... ;)



    Meanwhile, still waiting on your answer on Aliens.........tick tock says the croc.  :P





    Quote from: Highland on Oct 16, 2017, 05:30:55 AM
    I guess a simple question I would have is - Why would there be a pattern?
    I have no answer "why" there is a pattern, but there is a pattern. For example, if you reference the Penn State link above they show SF in the decade 1991 to 2000 with 35 top 25 box office films, which increased to 56 top 25 box office films in the decade 2001 to 2010.

    And this is not a case of all genres likely increased. That same chart shows the genres Comedy, Drama, and Crime/Thriller actually decreased during those two decades. A pattern is a pattern no matter how much someone wants to desperately dismiss it as a "whack theory."  ;)
  2. Highland
    I guess a simple question I would have is - Why would there be a pattern?

    Also Sci Fi is like a genre inside a genre. It's most likely going to rule out kids, which rules out mums and dads. Unless you get something like Avatar....which is for kids.
  3. kwisatz
    Too tired for a lenghty answer but i just wanted point out that you think

    QuoteSci-fi was on a high in the early nineties

    and

    Quoteperhaps we are currently riding the bottom end of the sine wave pattern on audience trend regarding sci-fi.


    Now all i want you to do, is go to some BO site and check out the highest grossing film of all time worldwide, the second highest grossing film of all time worldwide and the 4th highest grossing film of all time worldwide. Then check out their release dates! Genre too!

    Then come back here and present a new whack theory.  :D

    Keep it up and have a good night!!!!!!!!!!1111111111------

  4. Biomechanoid
    Quote from: kwisatz
    The spotlight is clearly on you, pal
    So......you couldn't deliver. You can't count how many films in the 1986 Top 50 are sci-fi. How disappointing. I really had high hopes you had a solid grasp on basic arithmetic.

    Quote from: kwisatz
    (Trek, ROTJ etc etc  :laugh:).
    What about Trek? It was in the top ten in 2009.
    What about ROTJ? It was the only SF in the top 20 in 1983.
    No offense, but I think you're struggling with keeping up with the conversation.

    Quote from: kwisatz
    FYI one year doesnt make a pattern!
    The only one suggesting a pattern is based on only one year, is you.

    Quote from: kwisatz
    In the same year 'Avatar' is skyrocketing the BO a critically acclaimed movie like JJs first Trek is struggling to reach the 400mio mark. MONTHLY SWINGS PROB

    Oh ja and as you said:
    I don't even understand your point here. Trek 09 would be considered a box office success and launched two sequels. If you're going to compare it to the box office king, then that would include every other movie made since time began, that should be considered as "struggling" according to your strange logic.


    Quote from: kwisatz
    I know right? TFA and RO nearly bankrupted Disney thats why they refrain from going all space and starships with their other franchises...

    I give up, the daily swing pattern argument i can not beat.  :D


    So was yesterday a good day for scifi? Or no... or so-so?

    The only one suggesting and clinging onto a "daily" pattern, is you. . . . . ;)
  5. kwisatz
    The spotlight is clearly on you, pal (Trek, ROTJ etc etc  :laugh:). FYI one year doesnt make a pattern!

    QuoteHeres another one for your theory:

    In the same year 'Avatar' is skyrocketing the BO a critically acclaimed movie like JJs first Trek is struggling to reach the 400mio mark. MONTHLY SWINGS PROB

    Oh ja and as you said:

    Quoteperhaps we are currently riding the bottom end of the sine wave pattern on audience trend regarding sci-fi.


    I know right? TFA and RO nearly bankrupted Disney thats why they refrain from going all space and starships with their other franchises...

    I give up, the daily swing pattern argument i can not beat.  :D


    So was yesterday a good day for scifi? Or no... or so-so?

  6. Biomechanoid
    Quote from: kwisatz on Oct 16, 2017, 01:10:24 AM
    And again, does this low hold till the the early 90s or what, cause i sure didnt heard Cameron complain bout the BO performance of Aliens.

    I get it. You want me to do the counting for you, don't you. Nope, I have faith in your skill at basic arithmetic.

    Aliens? Go to that link I provided for your benefit, look at the the top 20 in 1986......no, better yet.....look at the TOP 50 and count how many were sci-fi. I counted the total.  I have full confidence you will deliver here the total out of 50 in 1986 that were sci-fi. The spotlight is on you.
  7. kwisatz
    QuoteWhat about Trek 2&3&4?

    And again, does this low hold till the the early 90s or what, cause i sure didnt heard Cameron complain bout the BO performance of Aliens.


    And another one: no significant drop in BO performance from ROTJ to ESB. Unlike the significant drop from ESB compared to ANHs performance.


    good game; no rematch ;D


    Heres another one for your theory:

    In the same year 'Avatar' is skyrocketing the BO a critically acclaimed movie like JJs first Trek is struggling to reach the 400mio mark. MONTHLY SWINGS PROB

    Now let me ask you, was yesterday a good day for releasing sci fi movie? What about tomorrow... You could save Hollywood millions--

  8. kwisatz
    I still fail to see any sort of pattern. What about Trek 2&3&4?

    And again, does this low hold till the the early 90s or what, cause i sure didnt heard Cameron complain bout the BO performance of Aliens.
  9. kwisatz
    Lol and here i thought that Han bit would definitely give away the irony.... oh well.

    Well well i guess audience' interest was magically back up again for the first Terminator? Did it then stay up till the 90s or...?
  10. Biomechanoid
    Despite your less than favorable view of the original Blade Runner, both The Thing and Blade Runner place highly in many All time lists. So yes, this sine wave pattern does raise the question would Blade Runner and The Thing have performed better at the box office if it had not hit a 70% decline in audience desire for SF. I mean, how can anyone simply dismiss a 70% decline as a factor in analyzing a given film's box office performance.
  11. kwisatz
    According to this theory films like Jurassic Park/T2/Back-Future wouldve grossed significantly less if at the start of the 90s there wouldve been some kind of negative audience interest going on in terms of scifi? I highly doubt that.

    I have a counter theory, totally pulled from my own a**: I think scifi movies are then heavily successful if their are linked to some kind of jump in the technological department.

    This would apply to the 77-81 era as well as to the start of the 90s and to this otherwise more or less mediocre film:


    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b0/Avatar-Teaser-Poster.jpg


    This might even be true for something like 'Inception', though its hard to seperate this film from the Nolan-factor.

    But i surely never heard anyone say: "You nedd to see Prometheus duuuuude, cause i never saw anything like it before!"

    And the original Blade Runner just looked like Star Wars directed by R. Scott. It even had that Han dude--
  12. Biomechanoid
    I've read where studios conduct market research on audience trends - what genres are hot and not, during any given period. For example, sci-fi was riding high from 78 to 81. By 1982, their research showed audience desire for sci-fi had dropped by a whopping 70%  (source: John Carpenter interview discussing The Thing's box office failure). Unfortunate timing for Blade Runner and The Thing. ET scored big, but it's dominate family oriented theme carried it to blockbuster profit.

    I haven't seen more recent research results, but I would be curious if it shows a sine wave-like pattern for sci-fi over the years since 82. Even without seeing the research, the pattern seems to indicate this is the pattern. Sci-fi was on a high in the early nineties with Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, Total Recall, Twelve Monkeys, Back/Future trilogy continues, Star Trek films, etc.

    If there is any substance to this theory, perhaps we are currently riding the bottom end of the sine wave pattern on audience trend regarding sci-fi.
  13. monkeylove
    Likely the problem with these movies is that their budgets are too high. And they're high because large amounts of credit are available for investment, which means given competition studios have to make very expensive movies. In order to earn from them, they have to spend large amounts on marketing, spend heavily on special effects and/or A-list actors, and come up with stories that will appeal across many cultures while hitting the PG sweet spot. That's why many of these movies (not all) look alike, and why studios have to resort to remakes, reboots, prequels and sequels, etc.

  14. skhellter
    3rd film will definitely have a smaller budget.
    And that's fine, tbh.

    Prometheus kinda felt like it was wasting some of its
    budget in unmemorable scenes like the sandstorm
    or the scrapped cgi-Mutant-Fifield


    Keep it focused, keep it claustrophobic, plz.
    But also keep it R-Rated, plz.

    plz?
    plz.
  15. SM
    Yep.  It's becoming increasingly obvious that if they want to make good money from stuff like Alien or Blade Runner they need to dial down the budgets and/ or the ratings.
  16. Anthony
    Quote from: Alionic on Oct 14, 2017, 10:00:56 PM
    Quote from: Kane's other son on Oct 13, 2017, 11:44:10 AM
    Blade Runner 2049 opened to a lukewarm $32,7 million, despite glowing reviews.
    Do you still hold the opinion that Covenant, which got pretty decent reviews, failed to crack $100 million because it was "bad" and not because adult sci-fi is unfortunately not a hot commodity in today's infantile cinematic environment?

    It's unfortunate how modern audiences just want their endless comic book movies and Star Wars retreads.

    Have you considered that maybe Blade Runner (which bombed when originally released) and Alien aren't as popular as Star Wars or comic book films?

    Nah screw that! It's much easier to just insult the general audience and bring up completely unrelated films.

    Mind you, I really liked Blade Runner 2049, but it was never going to be a huge hit.
  17. Alionic
    Quote from: Kane's other son on Oct 13, 2017, 11:44:10 AM
    Blade Runner 2049 opened to a lukewarm $32,7 million, despite glowing reviews.
    Do you still hold the opinion that Covenant, which got pretty decent reviews, failed to crack $100 million because it was "bad" and not because adult sci-fi is unfortunately not a hot commodity in today's infantile cinematic environment?

    It's unfortunate how modern audiences just want their endless comic book movies and Star Wars retreads.
  18. 0321recon
    Quote from: Kane's other son on Oct 13, 2017, 11:44:10 AM
    Blade Runner 2049 opened to a lukewarm $32,7 million, despite glowing reviews.
    Do you still hold the opinion that Covenant, which got pretty decent reviews, failed to crack $100 million because it was "bad" and not because adult sci-fi is unfortunately not a hot commodity in today's infantile cinematic environment?

    After Blade Runner, it's a good possibility that hard Science Fiction is sadly going out, and Covenant was the precursor for things to come.
  19. Kane's other son
    Blade Runner 2049 opened to a lukewarm $32,7 million, despite glowing reviews.
    Do you still hold the opinion that Covenant, which got pretty decent reviews, failed to crack $100 million because it was "bad" and not because adult sci-fi is unfortunately not a hot commodity in today's infantile cinematic environment?
  20. bb-15
    Quote from: Scorpio on Oct 12, 2017, 04:09:29 AM
    Quote from: Alionic on Oct 10, 2017, 06:50:58 AM


    I'm willing to bet he'll get to make his fanboy film after Scott wraps up the prequels. Just watch.

    I don't care because after the prequels the series is done.  There is nothing more logically you can do but fan service and reboots.  Oh sure, you could do hundreds of different things, but most of those won't make money.

    I think there is plenty that can be done in the Alien franchise with the Engineers+black goo creatures+out of control androids+the nasty Weyland company.
    New movies can have broader science fiction stories (like Star Trek).

    Can money be made in the future with an Alien / Engineer universe?
    It's possible. The budget just needs to be kept down as Ridley did with "Covenant" (which has allowed the box office to reach about 2.5 times the production budget).

    ;)
  21. Corporal Hicks
    That's not a greenlight or a guarantee, though. It just means Fox is open to a sequel and seems to indicate that whatever story we heard that Scott had worked up previously isn't the right one yet. They're still looking for it.
  22. Alionic
    Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Oct 10, 2017, 04:04:24 PM
    Quote from: Alionic on Oct 10, 2017, 06:50:58 AM
    Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Oct 09, 2017, 03:14:02 PM
    Quote from: kwisatz on Oct 08, 2017, 11:46:06 PM
    Ha! Fox will be pleased to hear that!  :D

    It will certainly be news to them!  :laugh:

    Fox CEO Stacey Snider said there will be a sequel to Covenant a few weeks ago.

    lolnope. Since the story for Covenant II was already written, she's obviously not too keen on it. Any new Alien films (whether Scott is involved or not) will likely try and distance themselves from Covenant even more than Covenant tried to distance itself from Prometheus.

    "It was a disappointment, but I trust Ridley [Scott] and Emma [Watts] to know the right story when they find it.
    -Stacey Snider Fox CEO"

    The Search for Plot continues...

    Thanks for confirming my post about Stacey Snider greenlighting a sequel, I guess?
  23. Prez
    Quote from: Ingwar on Oct 10, 2017, 07:13:19 PM
    People who are responsible for this franchise have no clue what are they doing. Seriously :) First they made Prometheus as kind of sequel to Alien but without Aliens which was fine with me by the way (lack of Xenomorphs is the last problem of this movie). They introduces new characters and we were ready for voyage with Shaw and David to meet Engineers.Then studio changed their minds and served us sequel to Prometheus with Alien in the title and the name of the ship. That title doesn't mean anything to the movie itself. Why Covenant? Why not! They also put there some Xenomorphs by force because .... there weren't in Prometheus. Plus there were Engineers. A new ingredient of the franchise and ... let's wipe them out. Now we gonna have (if it's gonna happen) sequel to Covenant that will focus on AI (like it didn't focus on David before) rather than Aliens. Are they gonna remove Alien from he title again? I'm not surprised that Covenant made much less money that its predecessor.

    Hammer. Nail. Head.
  24. Ingwar
    People who are responsible for this franchise have no clue what are they doing. Seriously :) First they made Prometheus as kind of sequel to Alien but without Aliens which was fine with me by the way (lack of Xenomorphs is the last problem of this movie). They introduces new characters and we were ready for voyage with Shaw and David to meet Engineers.Then studio changed their minds and served us sequel to Prometheus with Alien in the title and the name of the ship. That title doesn't mean anything to the movie itself. Why Covenant? Why not! They also put there some Xenomorphs by force because .... there weren't in Prometheus. Plus there were Engineers. A new ingredient of the franchise and ... let's wipe them out. Now we gonna have (if it's gonna happen) sequel to Covenant that will focus on AI (like it didn't focus on David before) rather than Aliens. Are they gonna remove Alien from he title again? I'm not surprised that Covenant made much less money that its predecessor.
  25. 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔈𝔦𝔤𝔥𝔱𝔥 𝔓𝔞𝔰𝔰𝔢𝔫𝔤𝔢𝔯
    Quote from: Alionic on Oct 10, 2017, 06:50:58 AM
    Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Oct 09, 2017, 03:14:02 PM
    Quote from: kwisatz on Oct 08, 2017, 11:46:06 PM
    Ha! Fox will be pleased to hear that!  :D

    It will certainly be news to them!  :laugh:

    Fox CEO Stacey Snider said there will be a sequel to Covenant a few weeks ago.

    lolnope. Since the story for Covenant II was already written, she's obviously not too keen on it. Any new Alien films (whether Scott is involved or not) will likely try and distance themselves from Covenant even more than Covenant tried to distance itself from Prometheus.

    "It was a disappointment, but I trust Ridley [Scott] and Emma [Watts] to know the right story when they find it.
    -Stacey Snider Fox CEO"

    The Search for Plot continues...
  26. bb-15
    Quote from: Alionic on Oct 08, 2017, 02:30:19 AM
    Ridley Scott flat out says Alien: Covenant made enough money for Fox to greenlight a sequel on the recent empire podcast.

    I hope Ridley is right about a sequel. "Covenant" is still making money in Japan, from disk sales and streaming.

    Current worldwide box office is;  $240,739,641.
    And that is very close to 2.5 times its production budget (of $97 million).

    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=alienparadiselost.htm

    ;)
  27. bb-15
    Quote from: Biomechanoid on Oct 01, 2017, 06:27:42 PM
    Quote from: bb-15 on Oct 01, 2017, 07:37:18 AM
    And back to the topic of the thread. "Covenant" has made enough money, compared with its production budget, that Fox is leaning towards making another Alien movie with Ridley at the helm. I'm hopeful since as you know I enjoy the franchise quite a bit.

    I still reference IMDB quite a bit and saw recently a top summer movie list, which Covenant was in the top ten, I think it was at 7. The breakdown of percentages, net profits, etc......we really don't know for sure. Popular numbers have been bounced around among us fantasy studio executives, such as the studio receives 40-50% of gross return, is the most popular. But we really don't know. No studio is required to comply with the percentages we fans came up with. 

    Both Life and Covenant I have already done replays. If I'm voluntarily doing a replay of a film, it must have made some sort of impact on me.

    - "Life" had its good / interesting moments. I encourage everyone here to see it.
    Sadly its box office didn't do well which continues the trend where sci-if / horror is often neglected.
    Look at "The Thing" from 1982. I think it's brilliant but it flopped at the box office.

    - With "Covenant", I'm doing my part. :D Besides seeing it in a theater twice I own a copy on Blu-ray/streaming.
    For my personal taste it was very enjoyable.

    * As for studio finances, I agree that Hollywood accounting is a mysterious subject with some strange results.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

    * I can only guess at what Fox cares about with the box office performance of an Alien movie.
    - My current speculation is that studios are hoping that a film will have box office at least 2x the production budget to avoid a flop.
    If the box office gets to 2.5 x the production budget, then that's in the range where a sequel is possible.

    * Current box office for "Covenant" has reached $240 million.
    Worldwide:    $240,085,541   
    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=alienparadiselost.htm

    - Japan is doing well enough. I'm hopeful that the final box office will be at least in the $243 million range (~2.5 x the production budget).

    ;)
  28. Biomechanoid
    Quote from: bb-15 on Oct 01, 2017, 07:37:18 AM
    Agreed that the alien in "Life" was interesting with each cell acting in some ways as a complete organism.
    A variation of this idea, of an alien being composed of multiple independent organisms, was mentioned in "The Thing" (1982) by MacReady before he did his blood test.

    Agree that we can pick a few traits similar to The Thing and Alien, perhaps then maybe it was the presentation and tension of the creature's threat that affected my perception. I mean, hard to find a review on Life that doesn't mention Alien. The Thing film or novella don't really describe the individual, but thinking it further, seems logical the alien cell of The Thing would need multiple functions like muscle and nerve. Anyway, this is off topic from the thread......so....

    Quote from: bb-15 on Oct 01, 2017, 07:37:18 AM
    And back to the topic of the thread. "Covenant" has made enough money, compared with its production budget, that Fox is leaning towards making another Alien movie with Ridley at the helm. I'm hopeful since as you know I enjoy the franchise quite a bit.

    I still reference IMDB quite a bit and saw recently a top summer movie list, which Covenant was in the top ten, I think it was at 7. The breakdown of percentages, net profits, etc......we really don't know for sure. Popular numbers have been bounced around among us fantasy studio executives, such as the studio receives 40-50% of gross return, is the most popular. But we really don't know. No studio is required to comply with the percentages we fans came up with. 

    Both Life and Covenant I have already done replays. If I'm voluntarily doing a replay of a film, it must have made some sort of impact on me.
  29. bb-15
    Quote from: Biomechanoid on Sep 29, 2017, 07:42:47 PM
    Quote from: bb-15 on Sep 29, 2017, 07:14:16 PM
    Decent science fiction movies which had horror, "Sunshine" and "Life" were flops.
    And so they didn't get sequels.

    Hey there bb-15, good to see you again. sfmzone of the old imdb days, here.

    Hi SFMzone! (Biomechanoid) Good to hear from you.

    Quote from: Biomechanoid on Sep 29, 2017, 07:42:47 PMWhat did you think of "Life" 2017?

    I found the alien's physiology an intriguing concept. Each cell functioning simultaneously as a muscle cell, nerve cell,  and photoreceptive cell. Or as Miranda put it, all muscle, all brain, all eye. I'm not claiming it's original. I'm just saying it's the first I've been exposed to that concept in cinema/literature.

    Agreed that the alien in "Life" was interesting with each cell acting in some ways as a complete organism.
    A variation of this idea, of an alien being composed of multiple independent organisms, was mentioned in "The Thing" (1982) by MacReady before he did his blood test.

    In addition; I figure you've seen the classic "The Thing From Another World". In that movie the aliens first grow as small plants. Baby Calvin (the alien in "Life") reminded me of this.
    Then in "Life" there is the mouth rape trope and fast growth (from "Alien").

    * Overall imo "Life" is worth watching though I prefer "Alien Covenant" much more.
    As you can see I'm still in the role of a defender of the Alien franchise as I was on IMDb. And so it continues... LOL!

    ;)

    PS. And back to the topic of the thread. "Covenant" has made enough money, compared with its production budget, that Fox is leaning towards making another Alien movie with Ridley at the helm. I'm hopeful since as you know I enjoy the franchise quite a bit.
« Newer Comments 123 Older Comments »
AvPGalaxy: About | Contact | Cookie Policy | Manage Cookie Settings | Privacy Policy | Legal Info
Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube Patreon RSS Feed
Contact: General Queries | Submit News