Two SCP Movies Are Coming in 2027, and Only One Promised to Share
Neon says it is making its own SCP Foundation movie for theaters in 2027, and promises to release it under a sharing license called Creative Commons ShareAlike, or CC BY-SA. Like a recipe card anyone can copy if they give credit and share the same way, it lets others reuse and adapt the film. The Verge
Neon talked to the SCP Foundation Wiki team about the project first. That early contact, and the sharing promise, shapes how the Wiki leaders describe the effort.
The film is not an official SCP film. No Wiki staff are writing or making it. The Wiki team is not being paid for it. It does not endorse projects like Neon's movie.
At the same time, the Wiki leaders said they appreciate Neon's clear communication and promise to follow the license rules and community spirit. No endorsement. No help. No pay. Just acknowledgment that the process was followed.
A separate SCP Foundation movie was announced by Spooky Pictures and Image Nation Studios with A24 on board, also for theaters in 2027 through A24. Deadline That project has been called a V/H/S: SCP movie. The Verge
A24 announced its SCP film without contacting the Wiki team and without promising a Creative Commons license. The Verge
The Wiki team said it chose a Creative Commons license so fans can tell their own stories and build on its stories. SCP Wiki
The broader context here is easy to grasp. Permission was already given. Clear contact and care with the rules still shape whether a community sees business reuse as fair, even with no endorsement and no pay.
In my view, two movies aimed at 2027 make a dry license topic concrete. One started with outreach and a sharing promise. The other went ahead without that contact or promise, based on the latest reporting. The movies will compete on quality. How they started may guide other studios using stories written by a community.
Looking at what this enables for makers and viewers, a theater movie under CC BY-SA is easier to legally translate, remix, and adapt than a normal all-rights-reserved movie. That does not decide quality. It does widen what others can build next.
Worth flagging here, the Neon case shows what following the rules without endorsement looks like for a large studio. No staff help. No pay. No official label. Open communication plus a public sharing promise brought a polite acknowledgment instead of a fight. Legal permission starts the work. Respectful handling shapes how it lands.
The final point here is simple. Open licenses were made to allow this kind of reuse. Whether viewers get two different SCP films in the same year now depends on production schedules, not permission.
