Talk:Lucifer (TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

LUcifer wikipedia page

Because of the fact that Lucifer was cast I took the liberty to create a wikipedia page for the pilot episode. Please edit, change, add more information, etc.etc.etc.etc. Have fun The Ouroboros, the Undying, the Immortal (talk) 09:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Possible inspiration ?

More than "Sandman", the premise of the story is strangely similar to "Seven Days for an Eternity" by Marc Levy... just to point out: same location (Los Angeles); same idea of a Devil/Angel duo, with the angel assimilated to police... --2.28.148.59 (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

This is original research - please give a source that supports what you've stated here. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

recurring characters

are there any recurring characters to be added here??Phoenix (talk) 10:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Probably not. Not every series needs "recurring" characters. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Series reviews

These statements seem premature given that less than half the series has even aired. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

This is the case for every television series. Critics are able to comment on the entire series before it has aired in its entirety. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

-_- which has got to be the dumbest thing ever Phoenix (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Not at all. A true turkey can be spotted on opening night. I didn't have to watch every episode of The Brady Bunch to get a splitting artistic headache. 68.19.6.36 (talk) 03:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The same could be said about BoJack Horseman. the first 5 episodes = dull crap, after episode 6 = one of the best series ever. so no, you cant spot a turkey from opening night.Phoenix (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

this reads like crap ......

"... is an American fantasy police procedural comedy-drama" - good golly - c'mon, folks! COPY EDIT time. 68.19.6.36 (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, it is, is it not? Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I may be too nitpicky, but I don't like "comedy" as part of the descriptor. Granted, there is 'humor,' but "comedy"? I don't think so. Also, given the limited amount of online research I've done, I have not come across any other place that even remotely refers to "Lucifer" as a "comedy."68.231.71.119 (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

So you are saying that you can't find any references that refer to Lucifer as a comedy? Really? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Controversy

In the controversy section, there is only written the firsr petition made by 34 thousand moms (One Million moms). Should the 2nd and now the third (http://www.newsarama.com/28167-one-million-moms-complains-fox-s-lucifer-is-irresistable-to-women.html) petition be added??Phoenix (talk) 11:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Be bold. If you have newer information from a decent source, put it up.

I was going to add a section with this title. This actually applies to a lot of other articles: is there a better word or phrase than "controversy" that we could be using? I don't feel like some petition by a fringe group which basically exists to get upset about things represents a real controversy. 2605:6000:EA51:3700:A8B4:9618:8538:7E9B (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Just adding my agreement to the previous statement, this would be like stating a soldier's funeral was 'controversial' if the Westboro Baptist Church picketed it. It's hardly noteworthy in the context of the show that this group objected to it.121.73.221.187 (talk) 11:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Got a better title for the section, then? Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd keep the section, -an online petition, little better than an online poll, barely qualifies as controversial in this day and age, when they've become completely ubiquitous and ultimately have very little effect. The section also describes it as "a petition to prevent the show's airing" as though it had the ability to directly do that, rather than simply an attempt to discourage it. -If the petition had had an affect it might be noteworthy, it was ignored by Fox though. And considering broad societal attitudes and their fringe positions, it's the AFA's views which are controversial. That such a group objects to popular media is more a noteworthy fact about them, rather than the thing itself, and doesn't really constitute a controversy: 'prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion'. The bit about 'despite the AFA's actions' might read as though their actions weren't totally irrelevant to the decision as well. The only benefit afaics is to have Gaiman's reply there.121.73.221.187 (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Been thinking about this lately, and it's true it's not controversial that a group like that went after it, but it's still sort of notable. In light of how such things are treated elsewhere I'm thinking of renaming the section something more descriptive and perhaps legalistic. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Sex-BRD

AlexTheWhovian and anyone interested. I added the bolded in "She attempts to help Lucifer solve his emotional and personal problems throughout the series, initially in exchange for sex" to the Martin section. In my opinion it is worth noting since it´s a recurring plotpoint/joke for most of season 1 (ends (for now) with episode 8, but referred to in later episodes, "OMG, I had sex with the Devil!"). This was reverted: [1].

How about "initially, and for most of season one, in exchange for sex"? Or just "for most of season one, in exchange for sex". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

BTW, you also wrote "why". The article currently doesn´t mention Lucifers trait of being ridiculously attractive/getting sex when he wants (like Joey Tribbiani and Charlie Harper). Likely at least partly superhuman, but he is also cool, rich and handsome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Now the article does mention that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

It's POV or OR to suggest she was helping him in exchange for sex unless you can point to that claim being made explicitly. It may be that it was, but I don't remember it that way. He was her client, he was paying her for therapy. That they also had sex does not make the sex transactional or him a gigolo. At that point, he's having sex (or could, if he chose) with every woman he meets in the series except Chloe, so I don't think it's all that notable he has sex with his therapist too. I'm not for censorshing Lucifers sexuality but it's more of a point of humor through the first season or two, it's not like these are real relationships before the spark with Chloe. So it can be mentioned somewhere in passing if you can find the right words. He's still seeing her as his therapist now, though they're not having sex anymore (she's got it out of her system)? Like I said, I don't recall her saying she was waiving her fee. (By the way what is BRD here?) ZarhanFastfire (talk) 00:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi ZarhanFastfire, thanks for talking! Last things first, BRD refers to a well-known WP-advice-on-how-to-do-things, Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle or WP:BRD for short.

About Lucifer/Martin, The sex for therapy-thing is explicitly mentioned in the series. If you can, look at the last 50s of episode 1: -We can have as much naked cuddle-time as you like, but you have to listen to me too. Deal? -Deal! This comes up now and again until episode 8 ("I realised I was behind on my payments"), when she takes sex of the table (OR: for ethical reasons, she still had the desires). Note also that Martin is the only one (?) he has sex with more than once. Does this convince you?

I´ll make another attempt mentioning Lucifers (bi)sexuality, it is a reasonably basic/integral part of the plot. Hows this: [2]?

I see you also reverted my mention that "Mum" has "earthly" husband and children. This gets some (not a lot) coverage, and I thought it a reasonable thing to mention about a character. I wouldn´t mind a seperate characters-article for this series. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so quickly, and providing the quotes. I'd suggest that the first quote reflects the fact that women (and gay men) for the most part find him irresistable (or they do when he himself is feeling randy--that's not happening as often anyore), and though this is true for her, she is still a professional and wants to help him even though their early sessions turned sexual. She's reminding him that he's there for therapy, not asking him to have sex with her in exchange for therapy. The second quote is certainly suggestive, but someone could very easily say he's speaking figuratively and that it's a bit of a joke between them: again, did she ever say she was going to waive her fee? It's an interpretation either way, so I'd leave that part out. Combining your desired edits together, I think you could just say something like he has a very high sex drive, which, combined with his personal charisma and the good looks of his assumed human form, makes him irresistable to most women and gay men, even including his therapist in season 1.

About Charlotte Richards, well, that's my point: they were Charlotte's family and have not been seen much (I think less than three times between them?). My personal opinion, mentioning them leads the casual reader down the garden path. Like mentioning the doctor's fictional qualifications as appears in the article at present: really, what does a degree being from Stanford have to do with the show or tell us about her--not a lot: I'm inclined to remove that too, not because it's incorrect but becuase it's irrelevant and unpointed: we don't need every detail about every character in the article--but as you say, perhaps those kinds of detais would be appropriate in an article devoted to the characters, if you want to start that. I'm for keeping things plot-relevant in the main article.

By the way, you need to refresh your memory on how verb tense works in English in the third person plural vs singular: very few take something seriously, etc., not takes. Maybe try running your intended edits through a grammar-checker in a word processing document before inserting them? It's too late for me to reliably correct your new edits myself. I'm off to bed... :::ZarhanFastfire (talk) 07:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about the grammar, english is not my first language, but I do my best.

The "Mum"-thing is less important, I think it´s a reasonable addition, but reasonable minds may disagree. I´m unfamiliar with the meaning of "down the garden path" in this context, something like "astray"?

Ok, unless other editors weigh in on the Lucifer/Martin relationship, this is a dead end, we won´t agree. The sex for therapy deal is fun for the audience, but within the fictional universe, it´s actualfactual, though they may also have fun doing it. This is the nature of their relationship until episode 8, where she decides to end the sex-bit. This is obvious (to me), for example in the "I realised I was behind on my payments" scene (and the other one, too). Lucifer starts undressing, she stops him, and he leaves since he was just there for sexual reimbursment, but will return for therapy at the appointed time. Money is never mentioned, and can only be fan-boy speculated about: Maybe she asked him for a fee from day one, and he accepted since money is not a problem. Maybe he started paying after episode 8, or maybe she didn´t ask for payment for her own reasons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

BTW, lucifer trades sex for favors at least one other time, that thing with the judge, so this is not unique. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, I give in! He said it that way very clearly and with an absolutely straight face in the latest episode when he blurted out that he'd slept with the doc (saying she'd decided in the end not to take payments in the form of sex anymore), getting her into deeper trouble than she was in already. Who knows, maybe this is how he's always raised capital or obtained what he needed since arriving on earth. But yeah, there it is from the horse's ass--er, mouth. That section needed re-writing anyway, and I've included a bit about the payments. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 05:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks ZarhanFastfire, I appreciate it. The don´t-trust-what-the-characters-say perspective is a respectable one. They are often wrong or lying, for reasons of plot or, sometimes, later retcon.

Hot Tub Highshcool/Chloe's film career

I´d like to get a mention of Hot Tub Highschool[3] in there somewhere, but that may be to much detail at this point. Maybe I could start a "list" article, List of fictional pornographic films? Hot Tub Highschool, Cinnamon's Buns, and, of course, the masterpiece Feral Pleasures. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you'd get more traction with the latter idea than giving it a mention in this article as a one-off appearance of a fictional porno is pretty trivial (I see it came from a fan wiki: they are, shall we say, a lot more indulgent than encylopedias). Once you start giving weight to really minor things in a series (on the main page), where do you stop? Do we note what make/model of gun the characters carry? Do we count the number of kisses? A running total of Lucifer's known partners? The number of times a recurring character has "recurred"? I'm not even making some of those up. No, all of that stuff is discouraged as nonconstructive and off-putting to the casual reader of an encyclopedia. But I imagine there's already a list of fictional works somewhere, a list of imaginary places, so probably if there's not a list of fictional pornos, you can find some people willing to work on that with you. I'm not sure what project it would fall under (not that I'm encouraging it: do remember WP:WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT, which proscribes indiscriminate lists of "stuff". I am not knowledgable enough to know whether such a list would meet notability guidelines. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 00:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I really like List of fictional demons. Hm, someone is missing...

Slightly more seriously, Chloes filmcareer pops up now and then, and I don´t think it´s that minor a character-thing to mention, but, possibly to much detail at this point.. The name of the film is not necessary to include (The go-to project would of course be Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

For the purposes of a main page article (as opposed to a character article), it should be concise and not distract from her principal roles in the series. I only remember it being relevant to one story myself, but it cannot have been talked about throughout the run. Really, just a word of advice, it's not a good idea to fixate on minutiae in general, and for the purposes of a page devoted to an entire series it's impractical. We are better off focusing on real-world aspects of the show that are sourced. Character sketches generally are not easily sourced and it too easily reflects personal bias when you start cherrypicking like that. Best to stick to what matters most over the long run. Another way of looking at it is, it's L.A.: practically everyone is a former or struggling actor, singer, or screenwriter. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Like Lucifer said, (something like) "Even the hobos have imdb-entries." I´m all for sourcing and keeping things short where appropriate in general, but a "Cast and characters" section such as this, falls largely (by no means completely) under MOS:FICTIONPLOT, so we try to describe the fictional people and what matters about them as WP-best we can, with the fiction itself as the source (avoiding "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source"). Cruft begone, but there are things that can be reasonably added as the series progress. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Bear in mind I don't remember all these details of early episodes, I get the feeling you do (you were right about the payments after all), perhaps you have seen them more than a few times. Now, following what you've just said, how much does Chloe's past film career "matter" over the course of the entire series? How many times has it come up, other than that single episode where the movie is mentioned? Or, when they brought up her acting background, did she talk about maybe using that experience in undercover work? She's a plainclothes detective, I can see it being relevant to her job that way--but only if explicitly stated in the show, otherwise to suggest that would be WP:SYNTH) and then including a single-episode event would seem to give undue weight to it. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 05:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Per the Lucifer-wiki linked above (not an RS of course) it has come up 4 times. Pilot, where it provides some plot/humor elements, laterepisode1, how-to-tell-Trixie-plot culminating in the the adorable "I have the internet" scene, laterepisode2, don´t remember that one, and laterepisode3 (season 2), where it´s something of the last thing her father talks about before he dies. So, I´d say weaker case for inclusion than "payments", but not super-minor either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Four episodes out of thirty is not all that significant, but... not just once either. Maybe we wait and see, seems like they might be going somewhere with it. Even if we do, that's not a strong enough reason to mention the title of her film. By the way, I got confused because you brought up fictional pornos in the same thread--were you under the impression her film was a porno? ZarhanFastfire (talk) 07:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I was under the impression it was some sort of Softcore pornography, but perhaps it´s just a film with boobs. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Never judge a book or a film by its cover. I figured a sex-comedy like American Pie or who knows something more off-the-wall (Hot Tub Time Machiine rings a bell). And maybe this is why that list you thought of isn't an article yet. Hard to find reliable secondary or primary sources that tell you exactly what the content of a made-up film is, never mind verify whether it counts as a certain kind of porn or not. I think a lot of people these days don't even consider "soft-core porn" to be porn anymore. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 02:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hard but not impossible:[4] should be good enough for an entry in a list article. Of course, one would ideally want some sources that discuss the topic itself to show notability. Anyway, this is off topic for this talkpage, if I make a go at it I'll let you know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Home media section

Do we "do" this? It seems PROMO to me, but maybe it´s harmless. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we note the home media releases in television series' articles. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Home media. -- Alex^TW 22:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The future Mrs Smith

AlexTheWhovian, I agree with most of your last edit[5], but why reinstate "She uses the alias "Mazikeen Smith" as her legal identity on Earth."? I think it´s (so far) been in one episode, so it seems very minor. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, reverted back too far. I agree; I've restored the correct version. -- Alex^TW 07:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Filming locations

I'm thinking that as the show no longer films in Vancouver and has moved to LA that we should just drop the (Pilot) tag from Los Angeles, and (seasons 1-2) from Vancouver and just have them listed as Los Angeles, California and Vancouver respectively. Having the (Pilot) tag next to LA just complicates things I feel. Thoughts? 82.15.11.92 (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Based on / not really based on

Is there a proper Wikipedian way to indicate that the characters, backstory and storylines bear practically no relation to the graphic novel(s) on which they claim to be based? Inopinatus (talk) 05:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Inopinatus I would suggest trying find some sources that discuss it and try to summarize it with proper WP:WEIGHT (not a lot IMO, that there will be differences is the basic assumption). For example, we could add "loose adaption" into the procuction section. [6] I agree that there are huge differences compared to say Constantine (TV series), but Lucifer quitting Hell and running a nightclub called Lux in LA with Mazikeen can reasonably defend "based on". "Not David Bowie" is in the article already.

A "Differences from the original" section is not unthinkable, but again, WP:WEIGHT, and it should summarize WP:RS that discuss the differences, not be a long list of things like *comic-book Lucifer has no genitals, he is smooth like a Ken-doll. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2017

Reguest to edit some things in the Lucifer wikipedia page Camera setup is wrong I have something to add to the Home media section Saxo Broko (talk) 07:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Per request instructions: "This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". -- Alex^TW 08:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Gaaah

Years ago, I was reading Lisa Cuddy before watching the latest episode of House, and some helpful bastard had added a good new plot-twist to that article. You´d think I learn, but now it happened again! It´s my own fault, but damn you WP:SPOILER!! Just venting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Please be aware that Wikipedia is not a forum. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 13:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Yesyes, but "The Sin Bin" aired yesterday!! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Policy still stands: In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article. -- Alex^TW 14:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Mazikeen in season 3

Is she still a main this season? She hasn't been in all the episodes.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

If she is credited in the opening credits, then she is main cast. -- Alex^TW 03:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Lesley-Ann Brandt was on maternity leave as she had a baby in July. It's all on her instagram account. Esuka323 (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Development and casting

Please check who played Dan Espinoza in the pilot - looks to me like Kevin Alejandro, not the Nicholas Gonzalez mentioned in the Development and casting section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.50.232.134 (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Unaired pilot and aired pilot, different things. -- Alex^TW 22:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

There's an unaired pilot? But yes, that is Gonzales in the pilot. Noone has told imdb, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Alex, I hadn't picked up that there was an unaired pilot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.50.232.134 (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2018

The last episode of season 3 A Devil of My Word is the Highest Rated TV Episode in imdb. 150.107.99.32 (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -- Alex^TW 16:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Season 4 premiere date

I saw an edit reverted stating Season 4 will premiere in April. It probably comes from here. It is only speculation from a cast member so this source shouldn't be used obviously. Someone in SoCal Area (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Jeff Russo

He's credited as a composer on the main page but there's nothing on his personal page to reflect this? Jellinator (talk) 02:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Source, WP:SOFIXIT. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

At this point, based on all current evidence, it is inappropriate and misleading to continue saying "final" season outside of historical context

Season 6 has not been announced and the show has not been renewed. However, in light of the fact that Tom Ellis has officially signed a contract to film a season 6, it is overwhelmingly likely (though not certain) that the show will have a sixth season.

Therefore, the lead is inaccurate to continue stating that season 5 is the final season. At this point, the show's future beyond season 5 is very much in the air. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.33.122.152 (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Plz plz dont make season 6 the final season

Hello im new to this and i really never done anything like this but i can not loose this show my kids and myself sit and watch this show as a family and with teens that is almost impossible to get them off their phones but when its lucifer time they are all in and so am i..plus i love the meaning and my god do we need this as Americans right now..to except ppl for who they are and NOT what they look like or who they were before..everyone is different on the show white black mexcian and Lucy lol the show has so much diversity and has such a great message so plz reconsider because we all over the world need this in our lives!!! Samfranklin419 (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, just reiterate what the top of this page says:

"This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lucifer (TV series) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject"

There are plenty of other places on the internet to air your concerns. Thank you. Someone in SoCal Area (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Episode count

Season 2 is listed as having 18 episodes. While the text below claims it started with 13 and got a 9 episode extension totaling to 22. Which of these numbers is right or am I missing something? Jehgebname (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I found what I missed. Disregard this question. Jehgebname (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Netflix?? or Amazon Prime video

The following question:

The article introduction says: "Netflix picked up the series for the fourth season, which received high ratings and critical acclaim. Netflix renewed the series for a fifth season of 16 episodes, the first half being released August 21, 2020. "

Now: Is this show running really on Netflix anywhere in the world, specifically in the US? Because here in Germany it is running on Amazon Prime Video. And I am having a hard time believing that Netflix would sell one of its shows to Amazon anywhere in the world, specifically in a country where Amazon Prime Video is available, such as Germany. I would appreciate that info. Because to me it seems that 'Netflix' is just plain wrong. Dietzel65 (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, since the 4th season premiere, the opening of the show says "Neflix presents" so it is Netflix. Sometimes other streaming services pick it up in other countries. When it starts does it say that(Netflix presents)? Someone in SoCal Area (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

It is a U.S. production, Netflix is the domestic distributor.. you can get it later on Amazon for a fee.. you have to buy it for a separate fee... but it airs normally on Netflix. Spanneraol (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. No, in Germany it does not read "netflix presents" when you watch in on amazon prime (included in fee, no extra payment, all seasons and episodes released so far). It does say pretty much nothing at the beginning, it just starts. After the end-credits, there is for the fraction of a second a screen on which it says that it is produced by Warner Bros. But they seem to be shy about it, no chance to see that without pausing at the right moment. Strange anyway. Maye that's because Amazon was streaming already the fist 3 seasons, which originally aired on TV. Would be nice to know more about it. Dietzel65 (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Initally the show was owned by fox which distributed the streaming rights to prime video and the license still exists in Germany, and that's why you're still able to stream it. Although, netflix owns lucifer but the rights and everything that happened post buying of lucifer by netflix, netflix has to deal with it. So, Amazon still have rights in germany and that's why they're able to have it on that platform They have exclusive rights to stream it in Germany and Austria. (For a period of time after release). No other streaming service can buy rights for the show in these countries. Netflix has the ownership of the copyright. It's a big difference.