Corrected entry: Near the start, Burke gives his phone card to Ripley in her cabin, and his name is spelled "Bourke." But in the credits, his name is spelled "Burke."

Correction: On the card, it reads "Carter J. Burke." It's a bit hard to read because of the design of the card, but it does say Burke.

Corrected entry: When Ripley and Hicks are discussing their defence plans after the first encounter, they decide to put one of the auto guns in each of three locations, leaving one left over. When we see the guns in place they have actually used two guns in each of two locations, that is, two pairs.

Correction: Ripley discusses 3 separate locations with Hicks, but their plan is to station two guns each at two points and seal off a third. I don't believe there to be any issues with this part of the film.

Corrected entry: When Ripley and the others are trying to figure out what they are dealing with Ripley suggests something is laying these eggs since there must be over 100. But she knows there already are hundreds if not thousands of these eggs so there is no reason to assume something is laying new ones. (01:34:40 - 01:35:15)


Correction: That's exactly what she means. She's saying something must've laid the eggs, and will likely continue to lay more.

Jason Hoffman

But there is no reason for her to say there must be a queen lying these eggs, she knows there are eggs, there have been eggs there for decades.


In Alien, she doesn't know that though. She and the rest of the crew don't know what they've seen and what they're up against. Yes, she knows it's an alien but that's it.

Ripley is making the (correct) assumption that because the colonists are being taken deeper into the colony, and that the aliens have built a hive in the colony itself; that the eggs found there were laid there. If the hive had been built inside the derelict spacecraft, then Ripley likely wouldn't have made that assumption.


But why not think the aliens had taken the eggs from the derelict craft and taken them closer to the incubators, thus inside the colony? I just think it's far-fetched she immediately starts talking about a possible queen whilst there is hardly any reason to do so, where did the queen come from supposedly? All they know is some people from the colony brought aliens inside them into the colony and then all hell broke loose. Her assumption is nothing more than to help the plot along.


I don't think her assumption is far fetched at all. She assumes that the eggs must have been laid by something; which is logical. She then assumes the thing that laid the eggs is continuing to do so; which is also logical. Where the queen came from in never addressed in Ripley's conversation with Bishop. The two are merely speculating that there must an alien lying eggs and it must be something they haven't seen yet. It's quite a bit of a leap to think that the aliens somehow know that there are additional eggs miles away from the colony and they should go get them and bring them back. This borders on clairvoyance. It is much more logical, based on what the characters know and see, that the eggs in the colony were laid there.


But those eggs in the derelict ship have been lying there for an eternity, even if you would only count the amount of time Ripley has been asleep since she encountered them, no reason to think at all new eggs have been laid, no reason. Thousands of eggs were inside the derelict ship, the colonists were exposed to the aliens through those eggs, brought back to their colony inside themselves (they didn't bring eggs). It's ridiculous to think something then came, a queen, and nested inside the colony, unless a queen was brought along by the colonists, but Ripley and nobody in general have any idea how the aliens reproduce. It's more logical to think the aliens can reproduce on their own, not that a queen is needed. That's more of my point, the name "Queen" being used. That's what borders on clairvoyance. We know the Aliens have extrasensory perception (as shown in this movie) so them being able to sense the eggs that far away is a lot more believable to me.


I'm struggling with understanding your reasoning for why it is so unbelievable that Ripley and Bishop deduce that something is lying the eggs. Their explanation doesn't come anywhere close to clairvoyance. They make a logical guess that eggs are laid. They deduced, along with Hudson, that the creatures behaved in a similar fashion to ants or bees. That would mean logically a queen is lying the eggs. Once again, where the queen "came from" is never addressed in their conversation because it is irrelevant. The characters have much more than a general idea of how the creatures reproduce, they know everything pertinent except where exactly the eggs come from. I'm not understanding why you say it to be more logical that "the aliens can reproduce on their own, not that a queen is needed." If you are saying it to be more logical to think of the aliens as closer to chickens than ants (i.e., each creature lays it's own eggs), that doesn't make sense because they are basing their "ants" theory on the presence of a hive.


Well all right they may have guessed how the aliens behave and reproduce correctly, they did see all colonists together and probably incubated, a nest, fine. To me its all about the idea Ripley starts talking about a queen being down there from the fact there are over 100 eggs down there. Again, she knows there are thousands of eggs on the derelict ship already. What we know doesn't work for Ripley who knows nothing about those things. They aren't even sure how the aliens got to the colony and Ripley never mentions the derelict ship that had thousands of eggs again. For all she knows the colonists had already taken eggs from the ship back to the colony, why not think that's what going on? But she immediately jumps to the queen theory, which helps her later on.

Ripley mentions the derelict and the thousands of eggs both in the inquest and again on the Sulaco, both prior to the mission starting. Once they arrive on the planet and discover the hive they deduce that it might work like an ant colony or bee hive. Ripley questions "So what's lying these eggs?" to which Bishop responds "It must be something we haven't seen yet." Hudson is the first to suggest a possible queen. This conversation doesn't help Ripley later on in the movie. She literally just runs into the queen's chamber completely by accident. The conversation is just there to plant an idea in the audience's mind that there is an alien queen. You are arguing that based on what the characters know, they should have come to an incorrect conclusion (the aliens are taking eggs from the derelict back to the colony) rather than the correct one, if they came to any conclusion at all. You also say that "what we know" doesn't apply to what Ripley knows about the creatures, except that isn't true at all. At this point, Ripley knows everything about the aliens that the audience knows. Coming up with the idea that "these things built a hive like bees do. I wonder if that means they have a queen like bees and ants do?" is completely rational.


Let's agree to disagree then. What we know as the audience is that some colonists went to the derelict ship and brought back aliens inside them, Ripley and the marines don't know that as contact was lost and Newt isn't telling anything. Where do the eggs come from? The derelict ship should be the first idea, not that something is lying them, inside the colony even. Sure something once has laid them but that could have been thousands of years ago, where would a queen come from? All this, no logical reason to assume there is a queen. That's my opinion and why I posted the mistake.


Corrected entry: Whilst the phrase 'Fire in the hole' may have changed in the future, it is unlikely it would have two separate meanings. For example, the first is when the APC catches fire, (as in fire in the APC) and the second is when Vasquez throws the cannister in front of the sentry guns (the more traditional meaning-i.e. throwing a grenade). Both these phrases have nothing to do with each other, but are still used in exactly the same way.

Correction: The simple act of shouting "FIRE" will get people's attention, while the knowledge of fire is one of danger. Adding the phrase "IN THE HOLE" is a message that immediately tells our brain "A place is involved". Thus "Fire in the hole" is a easy verbal short hand for "There is a dangerous situation that you need to be away so look at the direction I am pointing in, running from or looking at" which would be a bit difficult to should out quickly.

Correction: Hudson didn't say 'Fire in the hole' he said 'Fire in the hull' as in the hull of the APC.

Sam Montgomery

Corrected entry: When Michael Biehn's character reaches for Newt for the first time while she's cowering in the recess of the hallway, he cries out just before she bites him. (00:45:55)

Correction: We see Newt bite Hicks and it's not until the camera changes from Newt to Hicks do we hear him cry out. But by then, he's already bitten.


Corrected entry: When Ripley shows off her skill with the power-loader, another walks along in the background. Look carefully, it's Ripley driving.

Correction: It is Spunkmeyer, who was already in his own power-loader just moments ago. If you look closely, there is an American flag on his shoulder and he has black boots, while Ripley's are grey and red.


Corrected entry: In Alien, Kane refers to the eggs as "leathery objects, like eggs or something" but does not say how many. In Aliens, Ripley says in her deposition, "Kane, who went into that ship, said he saw thousands of eggs there. Thousands." After Kane comes out of his coma, he couldn't have told anyone about the number of eggs. When Dallas asks him, "Do you remember anything about the planet?" he just shakes his head no. (00:13:10)

Correction: During Kane's report BEFORE this exert he does state he sees hundreds of eggs, maybe thousands. Where he is initially lowered into the pit and looks out and sees all the eggs.

Just watched this scene, in both the theatrical and director's cut, Kane does not mention how many. Could you please point out the moment in which he said there thousands of them potentially?

Sam Montgomery

Corrected entry: If an alien creature comes from an implanted human, there would only be as many creatures as humans, but there are far too many aliens. Remember the tunnels with the automatic machine guns? Those guns, supposedly, killed hundreds of aliens.


Correction: The aliens were bred from the implanted inhabitants of the colony. There were plenty of them to supply the amount of aliens seen.

Corrected entry: When Gorman is knocked unconscious, his eyes are open. Only dead people keep their eyes open; Gorman is in a deep sleep - he's not dead.


Correction: This entry is completely wrong. Many people have been knock unconscious with their eyes open. And being unconscious is NOT a deep sleep (although I have witnessed people who sleep with their eyes open).


Corrected entry: in the extended version especially, the fact that Ripley was lost in space for almost 60 years and at the exact time when she arrives on earth the colonists find the eggs and the company loses connection to them is an unbelievably huge coincidence. In the theatrical version the timing of the events remains a bit more unclear - the colonists may have died even years ago, at any time between those 57 years time period and the company noticed that after they found Ripley and decided to communicate with them to check. But in the extended version this possibility is killed as we see the colonists' situation, and one just has to believe the above described huge coincidence.

Correction: Coincidence? It's made very clear in the film that it's anything but. Once Ripley was found and told her story, Burke sent instructions to the colony ordering them to investigate the reported location of the derelict alien ship, leading directly to the infection of the colony and the death of all the colonists bar Newt. There's a pivotal scene where Ripley confronts Burke about it, angrily telling him that it was all his fault, something that he attempts to dismiss as "a bad call" on his part, shortly before he attempts to infect her and Newt by releasing the facehuggers. Rewatch the movie; the chain of events is made very clear. It's no coincidence.

Tailkinker Premium member

Corrected entry: When the marines are in the dropship and ready to go to the planet below, the couplers release and the ship literally drops from the Sulaco which is in a gentle orbit. The dropship should have continued to move with the Sulaco in orbit.

Correction: Assuming that the planet has the same gravity pull as our Earth, all that would be required for the dropship to appear to "drop down" would be for the Sulaco to give the it "a push" and/or the dropship to push back.


I think it's the dropship's own propulsion system which sends it plummeting at high speed towards the planet.

Corrected entry: Bishop's programming about "he is not allowed to harm, or by omission of action allowed to harm, a human being (paraphrased) is the same prime directive of the androids in Isaac Asimov's "Robot's of Dawn" series.

Correction: The rule is invented by Asimov, however it is a widely used rule by other writers/ filmmakers for robots in general, not for androids specific.

Corrected entry: One of the sets for Aliens was later re-used as the Axis Chemical plant in Batman.

Correction: Incorrect. When the crew for Batman went to Acton Power Station (closed down and used for filming), they found part of the old set from Aliens. They didn't actually use any part of that set, they simply found it.


Corrected entry: When the crew are in the drop ship going down to the planet, Hicks is asleep in one shot, but when Hudson is ranting at Ripley about the weapons that are available, Hicks can be seen behind him, wide awake. Hicks is then both awake and asleep in the following shots, and Apone even tells someone to wake Hicks up, when we can see he is already awake and laughing with the others.


Correction: This is all meant to demonstrate how seasoned a soldier Hicks is that he can "sleep" through the drop. At no point is he ever actually asleep, he's just very relaxed. He opens and closes his eyes as the conversation interests or disinterests him. Apone is making a joke about this.

Phixius Premium member

Corrected entry: There is NO WAY that the entire crew of a Marine Transport is composed of two squads. When the Marines all go down to the surface, it's ALL the Marines, resulting in having to remote pilot the second landing craft down. As someone with over 20 years experience in the Military, I can safely say that this vessel would have a crew that would include -among others- a pilot, copilot, navigator, engineer, communications officer, medic, and several crew members to maintain the food and life support systems, various cargo loaders, drop ships, and weapons systems of the ship (which are visible in exterior shots). There is no way that a bunch of Privates would be qualified to do those tasks- their Military Occupation Specialties are 0300 series/combat related NOT support related. Those are apples and oranges.


Correction: This mistake makes several assumptions. The Sulaco demonstrably has enough automation to travel to LV-426 without a crew. So why crew her? The Corporation thinks that 2 squads are enough. 2 squads of Marines must have been enough to handle similar situations in the past. So why send a company or more? The Sulaco is entering a situation where there will be no hostile starships, so why man her weapons or provide a warship escort? Ferro, Gorman and Bishop provide the specialized skills deemed necessary for this mission. So why send more officers or techs? The company, always concerned about the bottom line, sent exactly what they thought was necessary and not a bit more.

Grumpy Scot

Corrected entry: After they escape the planet, the nuke goes off, and they are back on the spaceship, where they should all be weightless, including the alien, and would be floating around on the ship, not walking around like they were on solid ground. This totally unscientific approach to the movie is annoying.


Correction: Well, you must just hate science fiction, then. Practically every sci-fi film set in space features a ship or station with artificial gravity. This is a fictional technology, as are faster-than-light drives, hibernation pods and androids made in human form, all of which feature in the Alien series of films, all of which are unscientific and all of which presumably annoy you as well. Unfortunately for your sense of scientific indignation, the use of a fictional technology in a science fiction film is not only not a mistake, it's practically a requirement.

Tailkinker Premium member

Corrected entry: When Vasquez goes to weld the piece of pipe back in place part of it has already been welded. Look at the right of the screen. The piece has already been tack welded before she fires up the torch. (01:41:05)


Correction: It's not tack welding seen at the right, it's slag from the torch cutting.

Corrected entry: At the end, when Ripley has her arm slung through that rung in the airlock and the queen alien is hanging from her foot AND the decompression that has everything in the cargo hold whipping by her head...she only loses a shoe as the queen is swept into space? By all rights, shouldn't only her arm be left dangling there? (02:11:25)

Correction: First, the amount of force needed to rip a person's arm out of its socket is incredibly strong. This wasn't an explosive decompression... the door opened gradually, so the force pulling her into space wasn't that violent. Many of the objects that get blown out are heavier, but they also have more surface area than a human. Much of the air went *around* Ripley. People don't have their heads ripped off while walking through hurricane-force winds capable of lifting rooves off houses and overturning airplanes.

JC Fernandez

Corrected entry: In the scene where Bishop "does the thing with the knife," it appears Ripley is sitting at the end of the table with the rest of the marines. She is watching the events with Bishop and Hudson. However when Bishop sits next to Ripley, she's at a different table and her back is to the other marines. Did I see this right?

Correction: Almost. Ripley has spun round 90 degrees to watch what is happening at the other end. Because the camera is low down it looks as if Ripley is at the same table. In some shots you can see her legs however, indicating she has just swivelled round on her stool.


Corrected entry: At the beginning of the movie, when Reidecker is discussing Newt's parents' prospecting claim with Al, he refers to them as "a mom and pop survey team" as if he did not know who they actually were by name. However, this remote colony had only 158 members, so they would have all known each other very well.

Correction: He's describing the team. Saying "a Bob and Shirley survey team" doesn't make any sense.

Phixius Premium member
Aliens mistake picture

Revealing mistake: When Newt is sliding across the grated floor, Bishop reaches out to save her and you can clearly see he's standing in a hole to make him look cut in half. (02:11:40)

More mistakes in Aliens

[All ammunition has been confiscated.]
Marine: What are we supposed to use? Harsh language?.

More quotes from Aliens

Trivia: The name 'Sulaco' was taken from a novel by Joseph Conrad. The name of the novel? 'Nostromo' of course.

More trivia for Aliens

Join the mailing list

Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.