Aliens (1986)

88 corrected entries

(12 votes)

Corrected entry: In the part of the film where Ripley and Gorman are inside the APC, and Ripley is trying to get the marines to get out of the bowls of the atmosphere processor before anymore get killed, she has the headset on, then in the next shot of her she doesn't, then she does, and then it gets ripped off by Gorman.

Correction: She never actually has the headset 'on' per se. She holds the ear pieces up to her one ear and speaks into the microphone. When Gorman appears to rip it off, you can see that it comes out of her one hand that she was holding it in.

That's completely false, there is a very clear moment where Ripley has the earpiece completely on her head. This mistake is correct, it is indeed a continuity error.


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 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: During the inquest of what happened to the Nostromo and its crew, Van Leuwen refers to Ripley's company ID number as NOC14472 while the data screen in the background displays NOC14672.

Correction: Either the display or Van Leuwen are wrong, but either way, the error is possible within the context of the film, with him being a human and the display being created by information supplied by then entered by a human. Not really an 'error'.


Corrected entry: This isn't a mistake, but a funny little thing: When you look closely to Drake's an Vasquez' Auto-cannons, you can clearly see, that these are modified German machine guns, produced by Heckler & Koch. In some shots, when firing, you can also see the ammo-belts hanging out of the guns (e.g. when Drake is firing his last rounds, just before he drops the gun). These machineguns are also carried by some Stormtroopers in "Star Wars" - almost unmodified.

Correction: The auto-cannons are actually German World War II era MG-42s, according to the special edition DVD.

Correction: The Stormtrooper E-11 Blaster was in reality the Sterling smg, manufactured in the UK.

The original poster was referring to the Star Wars rifle "DLT-19", which is in reality the older brother of the MG-42, an MG-34. Other blaster rifles in the films are based on the MG-42 as well (Dengar's, for example).


Corrected entry: In the scene where Ripley drives the APC into the hive to save the marines a flamethrower accidentally ignites the APC. When this happens Hudson yells "Fire in the hole" to tell everyone that the vehicle is on fire. Any marine would know that this phrase means that an explosive charge has been placed by the speaker and has nothing to do with anything being on fire.

Correction: In 200-300 years this phrase could have changed. Also he may actually be saying "fire in the hull", as in the hull of the APC, not necessarily "fire in the hole".

Corrected entry: When Ripley goes to rescue Newt, she only uses the tracker bracelet to try and find her. Why didn't she also take along a motion sensor? It could have not only helped her find Newt quicker, but would have given her warning if there were any aliens closing in.

Correction: They only had two motion sensors on the planet. At the beginning of the final battle, Hudson has one, which was presumably lost with him, and Ripley has the other. She carries this for some time, but seems to drop it in the lift (she has it when they enter, she's lost it by the time they leave) either to help the injured Hicks, or possibly it's been damaged by acid from the alien who attacked them there. If there were no spares on the second dropship, and there's no indication that there were, then she simply doesn't have a motion sensor available to take with her.

Tailkinker Premium member

Continuity mistake: In the sequence when the APC is fleeing the hive, and the alien punches a hole though the windshield to get to Ripley. The hole disappears in the next shot when the light reflects off of the glass. (01:07:05)

More mistakes in Aliens

[The alien queen advances on Newt.]
Ripley: Get away from her you bitch!

More quotes from Aliens

Trivia: To make the Aliens' blood smoke and burn, the SFX department came up with an idea to put two separate chemicals side by side in bags inside the Alien puppets, on top of the explosives. When the two chemicals mixed together, it created a nasty, acidic burning affect.

More trivia for Aliens

Question: What ever happens to the female doctor that evaluates Newt? She evaluates Newt, says one line or so, then disappears forever.

William Bergquist

Chosen answer: Down in the tunnels, she is the soldier that says "Maybe they don't show up on infrared at all." and is then grabbed and hoisted to the ceiling by an Alien. Later, Hudson says "The Sarge and Deitrich (the female medic) aren't dead. Their signs are real low but they ain't dead." So she was cocooned and played host for new aliens.

Grumpy Scot
More questions & answers from 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.