Neon Plans SCP Horror Anthology for 2027 Under Open License
Neon is developing an anthology horror film based on SCP Foundation community fiction for theaters in 2027, and says it will release the finished film under a Creative Commons ShareAlike (CC BY-SA) license, which means users must give credit and must share copies and remixes under the same terms. Engadget reported the project on Oct. 1, 2026, describing direct outreach to the administrators who run the SCP Wiki.
Neon contacted the SCP Wiki admin team about the project. The admins confirmed that contact in a wiki page titled 'Statement On NEON Film' published on Sept. 30, 2026. SCP Wiki According to that account, none of its staff are involved in production and there is no compensation involved.
The wiki team also said it will not endorse the film, because endorsement would break its own rules. That position was documented in the same statement, which appears in the site's New Pages Feed with the date September 30, 2026 and is referenced from the SCP Foundation homepage.
The announcement follows a separate SCP-based project from A24. A24 unveiled a V/H/S film based on the SCP Foundation without contacting the SCP Wiki team or promising to release it under the required open-source license. A24 plans to release its film in theaters in 2027. Deadline That project faced pushback over licensing. Indiewire
Neon's project was positioned as a counter to the A24 film. The timing is tight. A24's theatrical plan was reported on Sept. 11, the licensing pushback and Neon's compliant approach were both documented on Sept. 30, and consolidated coverage followed on Oct. 1.
Looking at what this means for licensing practice, the license choice carries the weight here. CC BY-SA is a copyleft system familiar in software and open publishing, where credit is required and later versions must keep the same terms. For a theater movie, that raises practical questions around cuts, trailers, artwork and reuse by others that do not come up with a normal all-rights-reserved release. The answers will matter more than the pledge.
In my view, the administrative handling deserves attention. The wiki team acknowledged contact, said there was no involvement and no pay, and withheld endorsement on procedural grounds. That keeps community management separate from commercial marketing. It preserves the ability to allow reuse exactly as the license permits, without turning permission into promotion.
The broader context here is structural. An anthology fits a collection with many authors and short, separate stories. It avoids forcing a large shared archive into one single story. It also spreads risk. If one segment does not connect, the others still test what open fiction can do on screen.
Looking ahead to 2027, if both films reach theaters as planned, audiences and practitioners will get a direct comparison. One path works around an open license without applying its terms to the finished work. The other applies those terms to the finished work itself. For anyone who has worked through permissive versus copyleft tradeoffs in code and documentation, the parallel is immediate. The long-term upside is a clearer template for building commercial releases on shared culture without closing it off.
