40 years later, James Cameron's 'Aliens' still beats Ridley Scott’s original. I said what I said 72%

By Dan Girolamo87%

7/18/2026, 5:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 34 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Hasty Generalization, and Unattributed Quote, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 26.1% saturation with 286 hits. Analysis detected 2,122 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,094 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 64.2% and a BS Rank of 72% (6,252 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 71.40% of the article peer group.

In 1986, Ellen Ripley teamed up with the Colonial Marines to fight terrifying extraterrestrial creatures in  Aliens .” 
Written and directed by James Cameron , “Aliens” is the sci-fi sequel to 1979’s  Alien ,” Ridley Scott’s groundbreaking horror that first introduced audiences to the Xenomorph that wreaks havoc on the unlucky humans who cross its path. 
“Aliens,” which celebrates its 40th anniversary in July , is a landmark film. 
It’s probably not as influential as “Alien,” but Cameron’s entry in the franchise carved its own path in film history, where it frequently appears on lists of the greatest sequels and action movies ever made. 
If you give me the choice to watch one, I’ll choose “Aliens” over “Alien” without thinking twice. 
‘Aliens’ is not ‘Alien,’ and that’s the secret to its success 
One thing I want to make clear: I’m not disparaging “Alien” to prop up “Aliens.” 
Scott’s film is truly spectacular. 
“Alien” is a haunted-house thriller that popularized the space horror genre. 
It’s a chamber piece featuring spine-tingling atmospheric horror that induces anxiety and claustrophobia. 
The chestburster sequence remains an all-time scene in the genre’s long history. 
Obviously, there is no “Aliens” without “Alien,” so the latter deserves immense props. 
If I’m sitting down to watch an “Alien” movie, I prefer the boisterous action and thrills of the sequel instead of the suspenseful chills of the predecessor. 
Let’s travel back to the 1980s. 
How do you make a sequel to a flawless movie? 
The easy answer is to remake “Alien.” 
Take what worked in the original movie and repeat it in the sequel, also known as a "sequel-remake." 
I’m sure Cameron’s version of “Jaws in Space 2” would have been effective, but unoriginal. 
Cameron knew he couldn’t remake “Alien.” 
Instead of horror, he pivoted toward action. 
“Aliens” has scary moments, but Cameron didn’t set out to make a scary movie. 
“It’s scary, but it’s not as scary but more intense, and I like to use the word exhilarating,” Cameron told Lofficier . 
“I think you get exhilarated by the intensity of the kind of action that’s in this film.” 
The beginning of the movie spends about 25 minutes setting the scene. 
It’s the calm before the storm. 
After 57 years in stasis, Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) is found by a Weyland-Yutani ship. 
Weyland-Yutani rep Carter J. 
Burke (Paul Reiser) asks Ripley to accompany a group of Marines to investigate a new terraforming colony that has lost contact with the company. 
Once Ripley gets on the spaceship with the Marines, buckle up because this movie is about to fly. 
“Alien” is a movie where you’re waiting for the titular Xenomorph to strike. 
You’re constantly in a state of fear while fully knowing bad things are about to happen. 
Conversely, “Aliens” is a movie built around fast-paced action. 
It’s a war movie, as humans take the fight to the aliens. 
The Marines fight back with guns, bombs, and fire, but most of the weapons prove ineffective in this battle. 
Human invasion in a foreign territory for capitalistic purposes is a theme Cameron would reexamine in his “Avatar” films. 
And the obvious difference between the two movies is one letter: “s.” 
The villain of “Alien” is the lone Xenomorph on the ship. 
Cameron, a filmmaker who loves spectacle, expands the threat from one Xenomorph to dozens of creatures and even throws in a queen. 
Sigourney Weaver becomes an action icon 
(Image credit: Alamy) Had there only been one “Alien” movie, Sigourney Weaver would have still been a respectable action heroine. 
Ripley’s strength in “Alien” is her instincts. 
It’s a survival of the fittest, and Ripley is the last one standing on the Nostromo. 
She has a heroic moment with the alien in the final moments when she opens the shuttle door and blasts the creature into space. 
In “Aliens,” Ripley becomes an action icon. 
Cameron smartly makes Ripley a passive observer to start. 
She’s there to assist the Marines in their journey, not take part in the battle. 
However, the aliens eventually ambush the Marines at the processing station , forcing Ripley to assume command and save the surviving soldiers. 
It’s a riveting sequence that transforms the movie, as the conquerors (humans) become the conquered, and the only shot at getting off the exomoon is to follow the only person who walked away alive from a similar situation: Ripley. 
What makes Ripley such an iconic hero is her relatability. 
She neither wears a cape nor has superpowers. 
She’s brave in the face of danger and uses her wits to escape dire situations. 
I’m not saying I could be Ellen Ripley  I’m likely one of the first ones to die in an alien scenario. 
However, I can at least relate to her feelings of fear, anxiety, and vulnerability throughout the sequel. 
This relatability is what makes her heroic act at the end of the film that much more special. 
The film is building toward a showdown between Ripley and the queen. 
Ripley, acting as Newt’s de facto mother, defends the young girl in an exosuit cargo loader, aka the futuristic forklift. 
Ripley delivers her iconic line and successfully sends the creature out of the airlock into space, cementing her status as an action icon. 
Weaver’s groundbreaking performance resulted in a Best Actress Oscar nomination, a rarity for an actress in a sci-fi movie. 
Without Ripley, there is no Imperator Furiosa, the Bride, Alice, Trinity, Lara Croft, and, of course, Sarah Connor. 
‘Aliens’ lasting legacy 
“Aliens” was well-reviewed upon its release in 1986. 
However, no one was throwing out the phrases “greatest sequel of all time” or “best action movie ever.” 
Eventually, people started coming around and realized Cameron’s movie rewrote the book on how to make a proper sequel, one with fresh ideas and new ways of advancing the story. 
Who knows where the “Alien” franchise would be without “Aliens”? 
The sequel’s success spawned additional films, video games, novels, and comic books. 
That doesn’t even count all of the future franchises it inspired in the years since. 
Cameron broke out with “The Terminator,” but “Aliens” proved he wasn’t a one-hit wonder. 
It also showed he could elevate franchises, a muscle he continued to flex in “T2” and the “Avatar” movies. 
So next time you’re discussing the best sequels, make sure someone mentions the movie where Bill Paxton hilariously says he’s on an  express elevator to hell .” 
Watch "Aliens" with purchase on Prime Video and Apple TV . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.1%Dan Girolamo: 2.9%Tomsguide: 2.9%Confirmation Bias5.1%This article: 1.1%Dan Girolamo: 0.7%Tomsguide: 1.5%Anchoring Bias1.1%This article: 6.7%Dan Girolamo: 3.9%Tomsguide: 3.1%Availability Heuristic6.7%This article: 2.7%Dan Girolamo: 0.9%Tomsguide: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic2.7%This article: 3.5%Dan Girolamo: 1.7%Tomsguide: 0.3%Hindsight Bias3.5%This article: 2.3%Dan Girolamo: 2.9%Tomsguide: 3.6%Overconfidence Bias2.3%This article: 4.0%Dan Girolamo: 1.3%Tomsguide: 4.6%Framing Effect4.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Girolamo: 0.0%Tomsguide: 1.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Girolamo: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 1.6%Dan Girolamo: 0.5%Tomsguide: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect1.6%This article: 1.6%Dan Girolamo: 0.5%Tomsguide: 4.9%Optimism Bias1.6%This article: 2.9%Dan Girolamo: 1.0%Tomsguide: 1.3%Pessimism Bias2.9%This article: 2.7%Dan Girolamo: 0.9%Tomsguide: 4.0%Negativity Bias2.7%This article: 3.8%Dan Girolamo: 3.8%Tomsguide: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias3.8%This article: 4.5%Dan Girolamo: 1.5%Tomsguide: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error4.5%This article: 0.0%Dan Girolamo: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Girolamo: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Girolamo: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 22.6%Dan Girolamo: 9.7%Tomsguide: 5.3%Halo Effect22.6%This article: 0.0%Dan Girolamo: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Girolamo: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.7%Dan Girolamo: 0.9%Tomsguide: 1.2%Recency Bias2.7%This article: 2.4%Dan Girolamo: 0.8%Tomsguide: 0.5%Primacy Effect2.4%This article: 0.5%Dan Girolamo: 0.2%Tomsguide: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.5%This article: 0.0%Dan Girolamo: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Girolamo: 0.5%Tomsguide: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Girolamo: 0.6%Tomsguide: 3.8%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 3.4%Dan Girolamo: 1.3%Tomsguide: 1.6%False Dilemma3.4%This article: 0.0%Dan Girolamo: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 1.2%Dan Girolamo: 0.4%Tomsguide: 0.3%Circular Reasoning1.2%This article: 17.5%Dan Girolamo: 7.7%Tomsguide: 5.2%Hasty Generalization17.5%This article: 0.0%Dan Girolamo: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.6%Dan Girolamo: 3.7%Tomsguide: 0.9%Bandwagon2.6%This article: 9.4%Dan Girolamo: 3.1%Tomsguide: 3.6%Appeal to Emotion9.4%This article: 3.6%Dan Girolamo: 2.2%Tomsguide: 0.5%Begging the Question3.6%This article: 13.7%Dan Girolamo: 6.5%Tomsguide: 1.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.7%This article: 0.0%Dan Girolamo: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Girolamo: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Girolamo: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 2.3%Dan Girolamo: 0.8%Tomsguide: 0.1%Composition/Division2.3%This article: 13.4%Dan Girolamo: 4.5%Tomsguide: 2.7%Anecdotal13.4%This article: 0.6%Dan Girolamo: 0.2%Tomsguide: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.6%This article: 3.3%Dan Girolamo: 1.1%Tomsguide: 2.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.3%This article: 0.0%Dan Girolamo: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Girolamo: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Girolamo: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 1.4%Dan Girolamo: 0.5%Tomsguide: 0.2%Special Pleading1.4%This article: 0.0%Dan Girolamo: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 14.7%Dan Girolamo: 4.9%Tomsguide: 1.4%Unattributed Quote14.7%This article: 3.0%Dan Girolamo: 1.0%Tomsguide: 0.4%Quote-first Misdirection3.0%This article: 26.1%Dan Girolamo: 33.1%Tomsguide: 12.4%Biased Writer Voice26.1%This article: 3.6%Dan Girolamo: 2.0%Tomsguide: 4.2%Indoctrination3.6%This article: 0.0%Dan Girolamo: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Girolamo: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%Dan Girolamo: 1.9%Tomsguide: 14.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.6%

1094 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers3.9%attributed speech1,051writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageJames Cameron • 22 words • 100.0% coverageJames Cameron • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWeyland-Yutani • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

James Cameron

100%flagged-word coverage
39 attributed words91% of attributed speech84% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Quote-first Misdirection+55.4 ptsWriter: 1.0%James Cameron: 56.4%56.4%Biased Writer Voice-27.2 ptsWriter: 27.2%James Cameron: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-15.3 ptsWriter: 15.3%James Cameron: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-3.7 ptsWriter: 3.7%James Cameron: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -3.7 ptsWriter: 3.7%James Cameron: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.