Aliens (1986)

[Vince W]

3 and 4 tried to return to Alien's horror roots but too many people had seen Aliens and wanted more dead grunts. 4 had some especially gruesome visuals that still unsettle me.

 

[Dan Jones]

I actually liked 4. Prepare the tar and feathers.

I wrote my dissertation (partly) on Alien Resurrection and how it reflected psychoanalytic reactions to cancers etc. There's a lot going on in 4, and I'm very fond of it, and I suppose that means I'll have to join you in line for the tarring and feathering.

 

[Swank]

I wrote my dissertation (partly) on Alien Resurrection and how it reflected psychoanalytic reactions to cancers etc. There's a lot going on in 4, and I'm very fond of it, and I suppose that means I'll have to join you in line for the tarring and feathering.

That director is great. Amilee, City of Lost Children, Delicatessen, etc.

But I really enjoyed Ripley's post-fear character.

 

[paeng]

I think this kind of hole-picking is pointless to argue about. I'm out.

The biggest problem with the first three movies is corporate amnesia. Commonsensically, an alien craft is a major find, like finding a downed UFO on in the real world. Not even any organisms: imagine the tech that could be studied from the craft alone.

Given that, the company would have been very keen to access it and gain first rights to exploiting it, and the first thing it would have obtained are the coordinates to the distress beacon. And yet even after the first movie, it looks like they never had them, which is why they never bothered to investigate the site during the 50+ years that they never heard from the Nostromo, and even after they set up a colony on the same rock. That's not just a hole but a large one, because it would have changed the second movie entirely.

The prequels make matters worse, because from what I remember the second prequel takes place less than two decades before the events of the first movie, but it looks like the company gained little to nothing about the aliens because by the first movie it appears to have operated in the dark, and even after setting up a bio-weapons division and special orders concerning dangerous organisms.

Some of the hole-picking looks minor but have major consequences. For example, there's no logic in launching a warship without a crew, and having a high-ranking officer on board given the fact that it's equivalent to a capital warship, i.e., it has nuclear weapons that can destroy things like colonies. It also makes no sense to leave an orbiting vessel unmanned, etc. But if these are remedied, then they ruin the plot of the second movie, where the team remains stuck on the rock because their dropship crashed and they couldn't bring down the second.

And if the derelict ship was not damaged by the nuclear blast, then it would have been irrelevant to obtain the alien and embryo from the prison in the third film.

 

[paeng]

With later additions to the political situation in earth it makes Aliens harder to understand. In the Alien RPG Weyland- Yutani is now a major force in the Anglo Japanese Three World Empire, even having seats in Parliament, whereas the marines are from The United Americas, these two empires are in competition with full blown warfare expected any time, however for some reason The Three World Empire uses the United Americas colonial forces to defend its own colonial possessions. This is like having the French Empire supply ships and troops for the English East India Company. I guess this is the drawback to retro fitting a history and politics to an existing story.

Indeed, and from what I remember the presence of factions may have also inspired Gibson's unused script for the third movie. The presence of empires also strengthens Cameron's references to the Vietnam War and the military industrial complex, etc.

But there are even more examples of licensed media which fix some problems but also complicate matters for Aliens, if not for the first three movies. For example, the prequels and one novelization explain why the company set up a bio-weapons division and special orders, but they also show that the company knew more about the aliens than was implied in the first movie. Meanwhile, the spores and other new things shown in the prequels were also considered in deleted scenes for the first film.

One military manual and one company report also show that the Nostromo was periodically communicating with the company, which means the company would have known much more about the aliens given that. In addition, they also show the colony sending reports to them before the transmitter goes down, the military expedition sending reports as well before the transmitter is damaged (again), and the Sulaco sending data before it is damaged.

They also reveal that company ships investigated the derelict ship after the events of the first movie, and one game reveals that a privately owned vessel did similar, leading to infestation of a whole space station. But none of these appear to be known by the company when the events of the second movie take place.

 

[paeng]

I think you have strongly held opinions about the unimportant backstory of a silly piece of fiction, and it is off-putting to talk to you.

I'm also out.

It's an important backstory because it makes no sense at all: what would the passengers do if the autopilot malfunctions? Why would military personnel with expensive and specialized training settle for an enlisted rank that would have paid very poorly?

Also, why do you consider it "a silly piece of fiction" and yet post several times in a thread about it?

 

[paeng]

3 and 4 tried to return to Alien's horror roots but too many people had seen Aliens and wanted more dead grunts. 4 had some especially gruesome visuals that still unsettle me.

The horror element appears across all four movies, but they couldn't depict it in the same way. I'll put this in spoilers for those who haven't seen the other films:

Spoiler: Spoiler

For example, the first one uses suspense to depict horror, with one alien lurking in the shadows and then fully revealed in the end.

Given that, the second movie couldn't repeat that, so instead of using one alien attacking another group of human beings, it shifted to multiple aliens, and that plus the point that audiences already knew enough about the alien after watching the first movie led to another subgenre: action.

From there, the third couldn't repeat either, but there's no choice between one or many aliens, so it went back to one alien, and in place of suspense (because, again, audiences already knew about the alien from the the first two movies) used the equivalent of a procedural: how to defeat an alien and lead a group of prisoner-Luddites while company personnel are close to arriving. At the same time, the third film was supposed to have ended Ripley's story, and probably the franchise.

I think they realized that the antagonists, i.e., the alien and the company, were still around, so the story has to continue, which is why they came up with the fourth film. This time, they went back to many aliens but brought in a combination of political intrigue (factions of scientists and military men, mercenaries, and innocent civilians), scientific and technological complexity (more features for the alien, including the ability to sacrifice each other, and on to of the spores, etc., in the prequels, the rapid growth in the first film, the idea of hives and even telepathy in the second, acquiring characteristics of hosts in the third, and by the fourth, processes involving cloning and mutations).

 

[Swank]

It's an important backstory because it makes no sense at all: what would the passengers do if the autopilot malfunctions? Why would military personnel with expensive and specialized training settle for an enlisted rank that would have paid very poorly?

Also, why do you consider it "a silly piece of fiction" and yet post several times in a thread about it?

Because it is a pleasurable piece of film, not a dissertation on 22nd century military design. Your treatment of fictional worldbuilding is the kind of thing that makes people hate genre fans. You are attempting to ruin a nice movie by nitpicking absolutely unimportant details - and you aren't even right about half of it!

Such as: There are many reasons that a pilot would choose to be enlisted - like the ability to get the job without college, while still retaining supplemental pay that matches those of higher rank. And fewer administrative burdens. That's how Navy SEALs are ranked and paid. But instead of wanting a discussion about why a pilot is a corporal, you seem to think that you know such a thing is absolutely impossible and is therefore a flaw in world of the film. But the flaw is your perception, not the actual facts and history.

And as @Phyrebrat suggested, you are making something enjoyable into a total drag.

 

[paeng]

Because it is a pleasurable piece of film, not a dissertation on 22nd century military design. Your treatment of fictional worldbuilding is the kind of thing that makes people hate genre fans. You are attempting to ruin a nice movie by nitpicking absolutely unimportant details - and you aren't even right about half of it!

Such as: There are many reasons that a pilot would choose to be enlisted - like the ability to get the job without college, while still retaining supplemental pay that matches those of higher rank. And fewer administrative burdens. That's how Navy SEALs are ranked and paid. But instead of wanting a discussion about why a pilot is a corporal, you seem to think that you know such a thing is absolutely impossible and is therefore a flaw in world of the film. But the flaw is your perception, not the actual facts and history.

And as @Phyrebrat suggested, you are making something enjoyable into a total drag.

What I'm raising isn't a dissertation or even future military design but commonsensical points about what is a realistic sci-fi military movie, and in a section dedicated to discussing movies and TV shows. If this section is meant only for forum members to say only nice things about shows, then let me know.

My understanding is that flight school is not cheap, and the type of specialization for that leads to a higher pay grade. That's why not just pilots but even personnel such as nurses have higher ranks, and usually commissioned.

BTW, they were not Navy SEALs but Colonial Marines, which means their tasks isn't the same as those of special forces. And in both cases, AFAIK, pilots hold ranks of at least junior officers due to the same specialization.

More important is the use of a nuclear-armed warship, and for me equivalent to a capital ship, with no captain and crew. Never mind the weird decision of asking a corporal to order the use of nuclear weapons to blow up a civilian colony: who operates the ship if the autopilot malfunctions? And would Hicks even have things like launch codes to authorize the use of such weapons?

Finally, why would anyone leave a ship in orbit with no one onboard, and with not even things like backup transmitter? And I even remember Gorman telling Ripley that she didn't have to be on the ground, which reminds me of some viewers saying that it was even pointless to have Ripley as a consultant because everything she knew she already put in the report, and everything new about the aliens they only found out when they arrived at the colony.

 

[Swank]

What I'm raising isn't a dissertation or even future military design but commonsensical points about what is a realistic sci-fi military movie, and in a section dedicated to discussing movies and TV shows. If this section is meant only for forum members to say only nice things about shows, then let me know.

My understanding is that flight school is not cheap, and the type of specialization for that leads to a higher pay grade. That's why not just pilots but even personnel such as nurses have higher ranks, and usually commissioned.

BTW, they were not Navy SEALs but Colonial Marines, which means their tasks isn't the same as those of special forces. And in both cases, AFAIK, pilots hold ranks of at least junior officers due to the same specialization.

More important is the use of a nuclear-armed warship, and for me equivalent to a capital ship, with no captain and crew. Never mind the weird decision of asking a corporal to order the use of nuclear weapons to blow up a civilian colony: who operates the ship if the autopilot malfunctions? And would Hicks even have things like launch codes to authorize the use of such weapons?

Finally, why would anyone leave a ship in orbit with no one onboard, and with not even things like backup transmitter? And I even remember Gorman telling Ripley that she didn't have to be on the ground, which reminds me of some viewers saying that it was even pointless to have Ripley as a consultant because everything she knew she already put in the report, and everything new about the aliens they only found out when they arrived at the colony.

You didn't understand me. I was a Navy pilot. I am very aware of the pay and bonus structure of various military jobs, and the pay does not attach to the rank. An enlisted person with an important job makes more than a standard line officer.

Nukes and no captain? That's because the filmmaker is being flippant about the use of force - nukes are being handed out like grenades. It is neither realistic nor unrealistic but commentary being made by the filmmaker. That commentary can be for humor, reflection or disquiet. The filmmaker is under no obligation to make everything as realistic as possible.

Aliens, like Star Trek, is a ridiculously unrealistic story. It supposes that humanity can make androids and FTL ships, but uses guys with rifles to deal with threats. But if you wish to be entertained, putting 20th century soldiers on a space ship is a good way of blowing 2 hours. Just don't start thinking too much about realism if you like movies that use dated military concepts superimposed on future technology - because they are not remotely realistic.


You might as well have a discussion about how Scoobey-Doo gang manage to wear the same clothes all the time, or whether the talking computer in Knight Rider gets offended if Michael Knight is flatulent while driving. It isn't real, and it doesn't need to be real.

 

[paranoid marvin]

If you are looking for plot holes in any work of fiction you will find them. The best thing to do is to turn a blind eye and enjoy the ride.

Aliens was an analogy for brave, honest, fearless troops being sent into a situation for which they are wholly unprepared, are poorly led and have not been given the full facts by those sending them on that mission. It also demonstrates what can happen when corporations are allowed to have influence and control of the military.

Remember if you look for plot holes in real life, you will find them. Glaring errors, which can make a situation look unbelievable, implausible or unrealistic; it still doesn't stop them from happening.

Remember also that this is happening in the future. It's not as if Caesar is sending his legions into action with pulse rifles Remember that in the past, the commander, general or ruler would be expected to put themselves in harms way in the heat of the most important battles. Situations change, and what can seem improbable today could be standard practice tomorrow.

 

[paeng]

You didn't understand me. I was a Navy pilot. I am very aware of the pay and bonus structure of various military jobs, and the pay does not attach to the rank. An enlisted person with an important job makes more than a standard line officer.

Nukes and no captain? That's because the filmmaker is being flippant about the use of force - nukes are being handed out like grenades. It is neither realistic nor unrealistic but commentary being made by the filmmaker. That commentary can be for humor, reflection or disquiet. The filmmaker is under no obligation to make everything as realistic as possible.

Aliens, like Star Trek, is a ridiculously unrealistic story. It supposes that humanity can make androids and FTL ships, but uses guys with rifles to deal with threats. But if you wish to be entertained, putting 20th century soldiers on a space ship is a good way of blowing 2 hours. Just don't start thinking too much about realism if you like movies that use dated military concepts superimposed on future technology - because they are not remotely realistic.


You might as well have a discussion about how Scoobey-Doo gang manage to wear the same clothes all the time, or whether the talking computer in Knight Rider gets offended if Michael Knight is flatulent while driving. It isn't real, and it doesn't need to be real.

I think it's pointless to refer to one's background when this board doesn't require verification of one's identity and background.

Also, that important job involves learning to fly spacecraft. That not only involves expensive training it's also paid more, and an enlisted ranks aren't paid enough for that. That's why when even personnel like nurses are hired they're given commissioned ranks because only the latter can offer higher pay.

Cameron pointed out in his audio commentary that he wanted to depict the movie not only in a realistic way but also in light of the Vietnam War, the East India Company and colonization of India, and the Bhopal Disaster. In short, not flippant, as that would lead to humor, but arrogant.

That's why when you see this movie, you will realize that it's not the same as Star Trek. There are no energy beams, holodecks, transporters, replicators, characters like Q, and the ability to travel back in time. It helped that they had to cut costs, which is why they had to do things like make dropships from parts of aircraft and APCs using second-hand airport towing tractors. In fact, many of the props and vehicles came from surplus shops and junk yards.

The result is a very realistic movie, but one that still had to use sci-fi to explain various things. For example, why did they still need to go into cryo-sleep given a trip that took only three weeks? Because FTL tech in the film involves tachyon shunt drives, which speeds up vehicles but also time. They had to go into cryo-sleep or else they would age rapidly. But that still creates problems like the point that the vehicle itself would have decayed quickly, too.

Given all that, why are the examples I gave important? Because if decisions to nuke a colony are made based on rank, then that means the next highest rank after the squad leader would be the warrant officer. And that's connected to the second example, as even the Navy itself has warships commanded by officers and manned by experienced personnel. Even Star Trek did the same, not to mention the Nostromo. In which case, not only would one of the main conflicts of the story be ruined, i.e., they could easily send down another dropship because the Sulaco would have been--and should have been--manned, even the plan to nuke the site would have required a high-ranking official with access to safeguards that would not easily allow for the launch of nuclear weapons.

Finally, your last paragraph sounds so ridiculous I don't see the point in even addressing that.

 

[paeng]

If you are looking for plot holes in any work of fiction you will find them. The best thing to do is to turn a blind eye and enjoy the ride.

Aliens was an analogy for brave, honest, fearless troops being sent into a situation for which they are wholly unprepared, are poorly led and have not been given the full facts by those sending them on that mission. It also demonstrates what can happen when corporations are allowed to have influence and control of the military.

Remember if you look for plot holes in real life, you will find them. Glaring errors, which can make a situation look unbelievable, implausible or unrealistic; it still doesn't stop them from happening.

Remember also that this is happening in the future. It's not as if Caesar is sending his legions into action with pulse rifles Remember that in the past, the commander, general or ruler would be expected to put themselves in harms way in the heat of the most important battles. Situations change, and what can seem improbable today could be standard practice tomorrow.

The best way to enjoy the ride is not to read threads that talk about movies because eventually some will start asking questions. Meanwhile, some viewers become discerning such that they are eventually able to see plot holes, etc., not only in movies and TV shows but even in literature. Those are the ones who join discussion forums about the same movies.

In addition, when you read about directors and writers, and in this case, Cameron was both for this movie, they are very concerned with plot holes, etc., and even try to address them as best as they could. For example, take a look at this article that he wrote years after the movie came out, where he counted critics and viewers who complained about his movie:

James Cameron's responses to Aliens critics

For example, some astute viewers asked why the company didn't investigate the landing site during the decades that Ripley was gone as the distress beacon was still operational. Isn't that a very valid question? They even built a colony on the same rock, and given such a find (advanced alien tech and organisms) would have been very important for the human race itself (imagine discovering advanced alien technology on Earth itself). Also, isn't it an important question? Recall that the second movie was based on the premise that the company did nothing because they did not know the location of the landing site and lost contact with the Nostromo.

Cameron's response:

Briggs' next problem was "Why do the colonists not pick up the derelict SOS?" by which I assume he is referring to the acoustic beacon broadcasting a "warning." As some readers may know, scenes were filmed but cut from the final release version of the film which depicted the discovery of the derelict by a mom-and-pop geological survey (i.e.: prospecting) team. As scripted, they were given the general coordinates of its position by the manager of the colony, on orders from Carter Burke. It is not directly stated, but presumed, that Burke could only have gotten that information from Ripley or from the black-box flight recorder aboard the shuttle Narcissus, which accessed the Nostromo's on-board computer. When the Jorden family, including young Newt, reach the coordinates, they discover the derelict ship. Since we and the Nostromo crew last saw it, it has been damaged by volcanic activity, a lava flow having crushed it against a rock outcropping and ripped open its hull. Aside from considerations of visual interest, this serves as a justification for the acoustic beacon being non-operational.

I'm not sure what he means by this, but I think he visually portrayed the derelict ship as ripped open in a deleted scene (that was later brought back in a special edition) due to volcanic activity, and that it was the latter that caused the beacon to malfunction.

Notice, too, how Cameron shows how he's a great fan of the franchise (which is why he pointed out later that one of his favorite movies is Alien), and even goes into detail and debates with critics and viewers about the reasons why the alien warriors were designed in such a manner, which he decided to focus on a movie that in many ways can be seen in light of The Alamo and Zulu Dawn (which gives additional points to consider about the idea of what Keegan would see as "the mask of command") and even why Ripley was able to adjust to a world after being gone for six decades:

A second point is that there have been 57-year periods in history where little or no social or technological change took place, due to religious repression, war, plague or other factors. Perhaps technology had topped out or plateaued before the Nostromo's flight, and the changes upon Ripley's return were not great.

This is a notable point, especially for sci-fi fans, because it allows for a more enriching backstory, and one that might also explain what happened in the third and fourth movies. Remember the issue concerning Luddites in the first and what happened to the company in the next?

 

[Swank]

I think it's pointless to refer to one's background when this board doesn't require verification of one's identity and background.

Also, that important job involves learning to fly spacecraft. That not only involves expensive training it's also paid more, and an enlisted ranks aren't paid enough for that. That's why when even personnel like nurses are hired they're given commissioned ranks because only the latter can offer higher pay.

Cameron pointed out in his audio commentary that he wanted to depict the movie not only in a realistic way but also in light of the Vietnam War, the East India Company and colonization of India, and the Bhopal Disaster. In short, not flippant, as that would lead to humor, but arrogant.

That's why when you see this movie, you will realize that it's not the same as Star Trek. There are no energy beams, holodecks, transporters, replicators, characters like Q, and the ability to travel back in time. It helped that they had to cut costs, which is why they had to do things like make dropships from parts of aircraft and APCs using second-hand airport towing tractors. In fact, many of the props and vehicles came from surplus shops and junk yards.

The result is a very realistic movie, but one that still had to use sci-fi to explain various things. For example, why did they still need to go into cryo-sleep given a trip that took only three weeks? Because FTL tech in the film involves tachyon shunt drives, which speeds up vehicles but also time. They had to go into cryo-sleep or else they would age rapidly. But that still creates problems like the point that the vehicle itself would have decayed quickly, too.

Given all that, why are the examples I gave important? Because if decisions to nuke a colony are made based on rank, then that means the next highest rank after the squad leader would be the warrant officer. And that's connected to the second example, as even the Navy itself has warships commanded by officers and manned by experienced personnel. Even Star Trek did the same, not to mention the Nostromo. In which case, not only would one of the main conflicts of the story be ruined, i.e., they could easily send down another dropship because the Sulaco would have been--and should have been--manned, even the plan to nuke the site would have required a high-ranking official with access to safeguards that would not easily allow for the launch of nuclear weapons.

Finally, your last paragraph sounds so ridiculous I don't see the point in even addressing that.

No kidding it doesn't have lasers like Star Trek. Are you not even understanding that I'm talking about realistic technology levels.

You are free to call me a liar about being a pilot. But all the pay scales and supplemental pay are available online.

I'm going to go ahead and put you on ignore because you are not only wasting everyone's time, but now you've just being insulting. You can keep blasting away at every old Alien thread, but I imagine most of the regulars have tuned you out already.

 

[Judderman]

Meanwhile, some viewers become discerning such that they are eventually able to see plot holes, etc., not only in movies and TV shows but even in literature. Those are the ones who join discussion forums about the same movies.

Please don’t post here again.
I’ve seen a few forums spoilt by such dull , argumentative drivel as this before.

 

[Phyrebrat]

You are free to call me a liar about being a pilot. But all the pay scales and supplemental pay are available online.

I can confirm he (Swank) was as he’s claimed. It’s easy to believe these things when you have buddies on the forum. I’ve had the pleasure of PMs, voice notes and emails with Swank.

 

[Brian G Turner]

@paeng I get it - you see plotholes in Aliens. That's fine, you made you point. But you're repeating them to the point that this is becoming an argument, and that's unnecessary to the thread.

Additionally, you are always going to find plotholes in fiction, so if your mission is to point these out for every piece of fiction discussed on these forums, you're going to end up working against the spirit of the community.

So, to sum up thsi thread so far, most people really enjoy Aliens, but some prefer Alien, but you can nitpick anything if you really want to

 

[paeng]

Please don’t post here again.
I’ve seen a few forums spoilt by such dull , argumentative drivel as this before.

Keep in mind that the reason why we have discussion forums and is to raise arguments. Whether or not they are dull or considered drivel will be seen in responses.

In this case, my argument stands: just as we talk about not only plot holes but even devices like foreshadowing in science fiction novels and stories, then we should be free to do the same in science fiction movies and TV shows.

 

[paeng]

@paeng I get it - you see plotholes in Aliens. That's fine, you made you point. But you're repeating them to the point that this is becoming an argument, and that's unnecessary to the thread.

Additionally, you are always going to find plotholes in fiction, so if your mission is to point these out for every piece of fiction discussed on these forums, you're going to end up working against the spirit of the community.

So, to sum up thsi thread so far, most people really enjoy Aliens, but some prefer Alien, but you can nitpick anything if you really want to

Not just plot holes but even reasons why Cameron decided to have aliens (i.e., many) instead of just having one, the connections between the second movie and the prequels, etc. In fact, I have even more points to say, but how is discussion about Aliens unnecessary in a thread about Aliens?

Also, I have no intention to discuss every "piece of fiction" as I've not all of them, but I saw this one.

Given that, what if I create a new thread and entitle it "Aliens (1986) - A Real Discussion Thread"? Would that help?

One more thing: my points are not meant to nitpick but to show how they significantly change the overall story arc. For example,

Let's say that some are right in arguing that the company knew about the signal before the Nostromo left, which is why the writers brought in what looks like a minor point but might now be verified by the prequels, i.e., the science officer was replaced by the company with Ash, then wouldn't that mean that the company would have had the location of the beacon, and thus the derelict ship, and thus render the whole 50+ years they had to wait to get the same from Ripley's lifeboat flight recorder, illogical?

 

[paeng]

I wrote my dissertation (partly) on Alien Resurrection and how it reflected psychoanalytic reactions to cancers etc. There's a lot going on in 4, and I'm very fond of it, and I suppose that means I'll have to join you in line for the tarring and feathering.

Check out this article from Slate:

Why Are Academics So Obsessed With Alien? And Will Prometheus Get the Same Treatment?

After a marketing campaign of such ever-evolving ingenuity that it’s put certain alien life forms we could mention to shame, Prometheus has almost...

slate.com

Hence Ripley’s fears in James Cameron’s sequel of 1986, Aliens: “Just tell me one thing, Burke. You’re going out there to destroy them, right? Not to study. Not to bring back. But to wipe them out.”

It’s one reason Alien scholars tend to be a little down on James Cameron, although they love the elevation of Ripley to post-feminist action figure—“get away from her you bitch!”—and approve of the fact that all the white males become dead white males at a faster rate than all the nonwhite males (see Greenberg, Harvey. “Fembo: Aliens’ Intentions”). Marxists, too, have clucked with approval at the series’ clear-eyed take on corporate malfeasance and outer-space worker rights. And Freudians, needless to say, have had a field day, at least with the first film. A movie more in need of a trip to the analyst would be harder to find.

I think they are looking at the movies from a feminist viewpoint, and were disappointed that Cameron did not do enough of that. Meanwhile, they're more interested in Freudian issues in the first movie.

But I just found similar in the second movie, and discussions on it have been strange. It's about Ripley rescuing Newt and they finding themselves in the middle of the hive, with numerous eggs, the queen, and several warrior aliens. From what I remember, she points her flamethrower at the eggs and ignites it slightly, causing the queen who's staring back at her to hiss. The queen then looks to her right, at a warrior alien who withdraws, and the same thing is repeated at the warrior to her left (some believe that the reason why she has appendages that move outward is because the creatures have some way of communicating with each other mentally, such that even the aliens that were attacking the turret guns and later attacked the team from the ceiling were working in tandem; it's like some weird combination of bees and the Borg).

Ripley withdraws, thinking that's she's in the clear, until one of the eggs start to open, signaling that a facehugger is about to leap out. You can see in Ripley's expression that she and Newt are not going to leave alive, as both facehuggers and warrior aliens will pursue them. Some ask: why did she shoot at the eggs and not at the queen? One belief is that even the grenade launchers would not do much damage to the queen because of her size, and that the warrior aliens would attack them anyway. A more practical point is that she probably thought that they cared much for the eggs that if Ripley destroyed some and set others on fire (which she did), then the aliens would be so busy trying to rescue eggs that she and Newt would be able to get away. But somehow I get this feeling that there's more to this scene than what looks obvious.

Finally, might this be connected to the reason how eggs were found on board the Sulaco, as revealed in the third movie?