Poll
Question:
Bishop in Alien 3 - Human or Android?
Option 1: Human
votes: 393
Option 2: Android
votes: 266
So at the end of Alien 3, do you believe Bishop is really human or is just an android?
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv94%2Favpgalaxy%2Favpg%2Fforum%2Ffc98e06d.jpg&hash=bcdc9238a63bbda504d19208291176f9e7650d83)
For quite some time, I always believed it was an advanced android but it wasn't until AvP, somebody convinced me that he was really human.
How Ironic,I always viewed him as human until the release of avp. :-\
Human I think, but I can't be sure.
I have started the same topic twice before on other forums, this could get nasty ??? he is a human. period :)
I've always thought he was a 'droid. Still do, especially after AvP.
I still have to say after a blow like that to the head, it doesn't matter how committed you are to the cause of bringing Ripley home, you just don't walk around as unaffected by it as Bishop is. I'm open to the idea that he's not an android, I don't overly care on a personal level what he is, but if so, the fact he can practically ignore that injury and do what he does and say what he says, has got to be some very bad acting combined with bad directing and research, possibly writing as well, which allowed for the complete lack of realism.
While human ears are easier than you might think to tear off, a blow to the head with a solid metal pipe that tears off not only the ear but as big of a chunk of flesh from the skull that's shown in the movie, that's just nothing you get back up from like nothing happened. I know people take more abuse in movies in general than what is normally humanly possible, but that scene is just a bit over the top, imho :)
I really think Bishops clearity and cold focus even after the blow, was intentionally directed and acted out that way to show that he was after all an Android, also adding just another situation where it proves you cannot trust these corporations.
Nice analysis. Truth is, we just don't know. ;D
That was always my thinking. He'd at least have been knocked out or in shock or something.
True. He could be like Terminator, has a robotic exoskeleton bus has blood around it, so he bleeds.
Yeah, well I don't know what the intention was, those are just my thoughts. But I find it very hard to see any realistic explanation for it otherwise.
It's kinda like if you'd see for example a regular action movie with a fight and one guy gets his shin broken off so his leg sticks out 90 degrees to the side with bones protruding. You might say that sure, maybe someone, angry enough, tough enough, whatever, would be able to keep fighting like nothing happened but realistically, you're going to suspect he's either a robot or high on drugs or something when you see it on the screen because it just isn't believable otherwise with how dramatic it's put together. :)
EDIT: Plus, on a more technical note, skin is typically very soft and flimsy in texture. That big flap of skin on Bishops head, especially with the ear weighing it down but otherwise as well, should be hanging down the side of his neck rather than sticking straight out like a sore thumb the way it is. How stiff that is is also an indication it's a synthetic material imho.
imho - In My Honest Opinion?
Hmm. I'm starting to agree more and more with what you say. Though, there is always the big chance that the filmmakers weren't that seriously into it, and didn't mind about the way it looked.
Yeah I know, that could be, and I don't mind those who feel he's human, it's certainly one possible interpretation. I just can't accept that if they had intentionally meant for him to be human, that they would have done it the way they did it. It just seems like they'd have been intentionally aiming for lack of realism and making it hard to believe for the audience that way, and I can't see why they would. :)
imho = In My Humble Opinion, or at least that's how I've learned it.
Humble, okay. ;D
Who knows? Intentionally, I go with your theory, without intentionality, as in they didn't care, he's human.
Quote from: VenomX on Dec 11, 2006, 03:20:32 PM
Yeah I know, that could be, and I don't mind those who feel he's human, it's certainly one possible interpretation. I just can't accept that if they had intentionally meant for him to be human, that they would have done it the way they did it. It just seems like they'd have been intentionally aiming for lack of realism and making it hard to believe for the audience that way, and I can't see why they would. :)
With all due respect, Messrs. Woodruff and Gillis had stated that they had used a special prosthetic appliance to Henriksen's head to show that it was injured and was bleeding red. From a medical standpoint, people react differently to various forms of head injury. Although Bishop II did react to getting hit, more often than you realize, people have suffered that extreme of a head injury and had reacted
less to it.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FConfused%2520and%2520Stoopid%2Feducate.gif&hash=d808eb721c2ee647712e39fce4529b0ec3041b1e)
He was a human. There would be no point in making the fake blood red. AvP just screwed up the time line.
Quote from: wolfboy on Dec 12, 2006, 10:27:55 AM
He was a human. There would be no point in making the fake blood red. AvP just screwed up the time line.
Yep. Anderson wanted to have more than aliens to connect his movie to the
Alien films. He went overboard with all of the cutesy-poo in-jokes like the dipping bird and the green computer lettering. Having Henriksen without an onscreen explanation was a
bad move...
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2Fpwed%2F1171a256.gif&hash=fe72508f3f21f711f5f8dcacbef7fb1adacf48be)
Quote from: Dreikopf on Dec 12, 2006, 10:19:44 AM
With all due respect, Messrs. *snip* Although Bishop II did react to getting hit, more often than you realize, people have suffered that extreme of a head injury and had reacted less to it.
Oh I know it's possible, even my example with the broken leg lies within the borders of realistic possibilities. You're just missing my point slightly. I'm not arguing the impossibility of it, I'm addressing the likeliness. Most audiences who see those scenes aren't going to feel that's a way a human being would react after recieving such a blow. If he hadn't said that line "I'm not a droid", I think almost anybody would have smelled something fishy going on due to how odd it was. I'm just saying, if they had intended the audience to believe he was human, I really think they should have done it very differently, both with regards to Lance Henriksens acting as well as how the torn ear/cheek looked. Especially with the bizarre way in which the ear is sticking out it just looks like an "intended fake", sort of.
As I said I don't care on a personal level what he is, it's allright with me if he's human, but then I still think it was very poorly executed.
All I can say now is that the converse is also true: if the crew wanted Bishop II to be an android, they would have played it up more with him suffering a massive injury and spouting white liquid all over the place.
As for what had actually happened, what would be a suitable alternative? Him passing out and then rolling credits immediately after? Him screaming for the next ten minutes as the recovery team cart him back to the ship?
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FConfused%2520and%2520Stoopid%2Fsmily691.gif&hash=89f6790af782bafeac75f714c4f4eb65ebcaa476)
Haha, good point.
Quote from: Dreikopf on Dec 12, 2006, 11:49:34 AM
if the crew wanted Bishop II to be an android, they would have played it up more with him suffering a massive injury and spouting white liquid all over the place.
I don't think that's too likely since I'm sure they wouldn't just want to copy the scene in Alien, but one thing I just thought of is the fact Call has the same white liquid as Ash and Bishop in Resurrection, being what, 200 years later? I guess that would be at least a vague argument to suggest that androids in general probably have always had the standard white liquid. If they developed a more "evolved" kind with red blood (as I felt was probably the case when I saw Alien 3 and Res wasn't made yet), it doesn't make much sense why Call still stays more true to the original models.
Then again maybe Bishop II was simply an exception, it's of course possible to debate things like these and split hairs back and forth ad infinitum. Either way the red blood instead of white liquid is a good indication of him not being an android, but I still think the acting and directing seems intent on having him percieved as being non-human.
Quote from: Dreikopf on Dec 12, 2006, 11:49:34 AM
As for what had actually happened, what would be a suitable alternative? Him passing out and then rolling credits immediately after? Him screaming for the next ten minutes as the recovery team cart him back to the ship?
Yeah sure if they had wanted to change the script to that instead, but assuming the script was the same, he could have at least shown a bit more pain and trauma than "*grunt* I'm not a droid". Most people tend to freak out a bit when they have an injury like that, not to mention get a bit dizzy even if it takes awhile to feel the actual pain. So, yeah, having him for example drop to his knees briefly, and actually take a few extra seconds to regain his composure and then slowly get back up (with some apparent dizziness, maybe trying to hold the side of his head together with his hands, whatever) instead of just being fine and as perky as can be a split second later would have been better I think.
Personally I really like the screaming for ten minutes until he's finally carried back to the ship option, but I wouldn't necessarily say that'd hit the mark in terms of acute realism either. ;D
QuotePersonally I really like the screaming for ten minutes until he's finally carried back to the ship option, but I wouldn't necessarily say that'd hit the mark in terms of acute realism either
Hahaha, I agree.
I was thinking, your theory of him being an android is far more plausible IMO than him being human. The only argument that stand up in my mind is the idea that it was the acting/filming. But Lance is a damn fine actor, I think he'd try and be obvious as to whatever he was portraying.
Quote from: VenomX on Dec 12, 2006, 01:24:43 PM
Either way the red blood instead of white liquid is a good indication of him not being an android, but I still think the acting and directing seems intent on having him percieved as being non-human.
Well, if the effects guys say that Fincher had intended for Bishop II to be human, and Henriksen had agreed, then the acting and directing seems intent on having him perceived as being
human.
Quote from: Dreikopf on Dec 12, 2006, 11:49:34 AM
As for what had actually happened, what would be a suitable alternative? Him passing out and then rolling credits immediately after? Him screaming for the next ten minutes as the recovery team cart him back to the ship?
Quote from: VenomX on Dec 12, 2006, 01:24:43 PM
Yeah sure if they had wanted to change the script to that instead, but assuming the script was the same, he could have at least shown a bit more pain and trauma than "*grunt* I'm not a droid". Most people tend to freak out a bit when they have an injury like that, not to mention get a bit dizzy even if it takes awhile to feel the actual pain. So, yeah, having him for example drop to his knees briefly, and actually take a few extra seconds to regain his composure and then slowly get back up (with some apparent dizziness, maybe trying to hold the side of his head together with his hands, whatever) instead of just being fine and as perky as can be a split second later would have been better I think.
He
did "drop to his knees briefly, took a few seconds to regain his composure and slowly got back up" and he also held his hand to the side of his head. He also grunted for a bit after the injury and made some grimaces while pleading with Ripley. He was only "fine and perky"
before the injury.
I should re-watch the scene again.
Quote from: Dreikopf on Dec 12, 2006, 03:33:25 PM
He did "drop to his knees briefly, took a few seconds to regain his composure and slowly got back up" and he also held his hand to the side of his head. He also grunted for a bit after the injury and made some grimaces while pleading with Ripley. He was only "fine and perky" before the injury.
Eh?
No, assuming we're talking about the same movie here, he never dropped to his knees, he bent forward a little from his waist due to the force of the blow and spun around, leaning against the fence. The moment he was hit he made an "uhh" noise just as 85 (I think it was) hit him, but other than that there are no noises, no "grunts for a bit after the injury", and there were no "grimaces while pleading with Ripley" either, unless you call a perfectly calm face, slightly excited perhaps from the situation of trying to persuade Ripley, a grimace of severe pain. I guess his personality wasn't "perky" either before or after, but he was obviously equally "fine".
The first thing he says after his injury is he very calmly starts talking to Ripley about all we could learn from them, etc etc, and even though sure, he grabbed his head with his hands at the instant he was hit, he never touches his head again. I mean he has a big flap of the side of his head sticking straight out to the side, exposing the side of his skull and flesh (which can't be seen of course since he's filmed from the front). The flap is palmsized for xenos sake, and he makes no effort to hold it back in, nothing to stop the bleeding, just calmly keeps talking to Ripley. And speaking of that bleeding too, well, there is none! Alien3 wasn't a stranger to showing blood, but except for whatever's right around the actual tissue flap, which can barely be glimpsed unless you look at a freeze-frame image, he's not bleeding at all. He may be human, but I just don't see the obvious evidence for it as clearly as you do apparently.
Don't mean to get all fussy about this but heck, if you enjoy quoting peoples words back to them to try to prove them wrong, maybe you should make sure you're actually correct in what you're saying first. ;)
Not to make a big deal over a little mistake; he didn't kneel down, but he did crumple into himself. He also didn't look that calm and continued to hold his ear and gasp after pleading with Ripley.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FHappy%2520Smilies%2Fe9625f7d.gif&hash=9ed7a7567a71e8fd81352f3d5ace715500e51869)
Actually, you know what I was thinking - are you watching the extended SE version of Alien 3?
I haven't seen that one yet, so I'm only going by the theatrical. In that, I'm not aware of Bishop acting the way you say he is at all, but maybe he does in the longer version?
I was watching the Special Edition...
Quote from: Dreikopf on Dec 12, 2006, 07:13:13 PM
I was watching the Special Edition...
Well then that might actually settle the acting debate as far as I'm concerned anyway. :)
I still think he looks very calm and collected in the scenes that I assume still are in the SE, and the no bleeding is still suspicious, but my impression of the situation from the theatrical version might be as simple as bad judgement on the cutting board then.
I'll have to get around to seeing the special edition sometime soon.
In the longer version of ALIEN 3, he shows pain, and he shows anger by yelling at a Weyland-Yutani camera man, "No pictures!" he says, the cameraman looks a little shocked, because if he was a android he wouldnt show or be violence to a human, unless a human attacks another human, an android is aloud to take action, but not in a very violent way i guess.
He did yell stop when the alien handler/ marine shot morse in the leg
Interesting debate. I think there are definitely reasons on both sides whether Bishop was human or an android.
Tell me maledoro, if you're so convinced he was human, how do you explain Weyland in AvP? Do you just consider Bishop II to be an ancestor or what?
Quote from: Darkness on Dec 13, 2006, 11:16:57 AM
Tell me maledoro, if you're so convinced he was human, how do you explain Weyland in AvP? Do you just consider Bishop II to be an ancestor or what?
I'll let my essay do the talkin':
http://www.alienexperience.com//index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=512&topic=51.0 (http://www.alienexperience.com//index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=512&topic=51.0)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FElves%2F8d294160.gif&hash=d299204951397f1edf44f400a4b854297b959b6d)
Jesus, I can't believe you actually wrote all that.
It was very interesting to read anyway.
Interesting indeed, especially as the DVD backs up your story. However, are you saying he is just a look-a-like, in response to Darkness? To me, thats very far-fetched.
Quote from: The Ultimate Predator on Dec 13, 2006, 02:50:37 PM
Interesting indeed, especially as the DVD backs up your story.
I hope so, considering I got some of my info from there!
Quote from: The Ultimate Predator on Dec 13, 2006, 02:50:37 PM
However, are you saying he is just a look-a-like, in response to Darkness? To me, thats very far-fetched.
First off, how many clones are there walking around?
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FElves%2Frolleyes.gif&hash=d4591911b7d318734fe3a81fda704a1bf6bf7ecb)
Now, how many people are there who look like George W. Bush or Abraham Lincoln? Quite a few. Now, you can say that it's really stretching things to propose that CBW has a lookalike working for the
same company. Mind you, 175 years apart. I can do better,
twice. When I was in junior high school, I was hurrying to get dressed after Gym to get to my next class. The teacher told me that I didn't have to hurry because I had a whole hour yet. He also called me by a name that in no way resembled my own. I figured that he just got my name wrong. A few months later, I found out that there was a kid with that name and that we looked a lot alike.
I still get people stopping me on the street asking if I'm so-and-so.
My told told me that one of his greatest fears is that he'd be arrested (or worse) out of mistaken identity. When he was a kid, he used to cause all kinds of trouble. One of his classmates (who, coincidentally, had the same first name as my dad) would mistakenly take the rap for my dad's misbehavior.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FElves%2F6a044226.gif&hash=6a62c64648a83e252d59402187e1e8901916eb59)
I say android just because i find it hard to believe that after he got hit by a pipe on the side of the head he was not knocked out
Quote from: ShadowPred on Dec 13, 2006, 11:04:35 PM
I say android just because i find it hard to believe that after he got hit by a pipe on the side of the head he was not knocked out
If you find it hard to believe that he wasn't knocked out, read the part about head injuries in my essay. Even if he was hit square in the middle of his head, he doesn't have to lose consciousness.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FElves%2Frolleyes.gif&hash=d4591911b7d318734fe3a81fda704a1bf6bf7ecb)
You know what might help? Video demonstrations. :P
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Dec 13, 2006, 11:14:24 PM
You know what might help? Video demonstrations. :P
I'll get my mallet.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FElves%2Ftongue.gif&hash=67948b7118613467fd6824cee15b5a3ecda68ff5)
Go for it. I'm pretty damn sure its unlikely that yo can get hit and still stay standing.
Quote from: The Ultimate Predator on Dec 14, 2006, 01:32:39 PM
Go for it. I'm pretty damn sure its unlikely that yo can get hit and still stay standing.
You didn't read my essay,
did you?(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FElves%2Fangry.gif&hash=e778497903eb400178786f3a1e02bb490d967e4d)
Plus, as discussed before, he didn't remain standing; he did crumple down after the blow.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FElves%2Fwink.gif&hash=d798d6ae4a389eee348751af55cf24a738272582)
I read, just not sure I buy it. ;D
Glad you got your name back.
Quote from: The Ultimate Predator on Dec 14, 2006, 02:38:28 PM
I read, just not sure I buy it. ;D
Well, it comes from science; not just from the whims and prejudicies of moviegoers. Just because one wants him to be an android because it's "kewl" or that they had little knowledge of head injuries and look-alikes, doesn't make him an android.
Of course, it doesn't hurt to listen to the people involved with putting the character on the screen...
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FElves%2Fwink.gif&hash=d798d6ae4a389eee348751af55cf24a738272582)
Quote from: The Ultimate Predator on Dec 14, 2006, 02:38:28 PM
Glad you got your name back.
Thanks. Me, too.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FElves%2Fsmiley.gif&hash=d276de94d7a68328d1a6658a8b0d3236eff096b0)
QuoteWell, it comes from science; not just from the whims and prejudicies of moviegoers. Just because one wants him to be an android because it's "kewl" or that they had little knowledge of head injuries and look-alikes, doesn't make him an android.
Of course, it doesn't hurt to listen to the people involved with putting the character on the screen...
Its not the move thing, I just know if I hit someone over the head, especially with them bleeding and missing an eye, they would be unconscious/semiconscious or screaming etc.
Ear, you mean? :P
I'm a bit skeptical myself. It's just one of those things I'd need to see to be able to believe without a doubt.
Ear, yes. I dunno, I just feel more inclined to think that he is an android, but I stlil have to re-watch the scene.
I guess that by using that logic, the United Kingdom doesn't exist as I've never seen it for myself.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FElves%2Fundecided.gif&hash=601e5bbb99ef6a34910e1b0a77cc39ed35a70b4f)
Lol, no. Its just by his acting, it seems he appears really normal after it happens, despite the slight bending over.
And the yelps and cries and grimaces, oh my...
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FElves%2Frolleyes.gif&hash=d4591911b7d318734fe3a81fda704a1bf6bf7ecb)
But its not that much.
Anyways, I'm only going by what I remember, I've got to sit down and watch it soon.
Please do. Especially the Special Edition.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FElves%2Fwink.gif&hash=d798d6ae4a389eee348751af55cf24a738272582)
Thats what I watched last time.
Just found some screens in my photobucket account of the scene. From the theatrical I think:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv94%2Favpgalaxy%2Favp%2Fbishop2.jpg&hash=b754fdc798f75fe49060212400438737c0e98ade)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv94%2Favpgalaxy%2Favp%2Fbishop3.jpg&hash=8c5b652a41fd03821064eb3c21e73b048644abf9)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv94%2Favpgalaxy%2Favp%2Fbishop4.jpg&hash=076fa7db9f3405a5e3a6cb10c33951079bc8d716)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv94%2Favpgalaxy%2Favp%2Fbishop5.jpg&hash=724934ad7f55136bb21139ff3cb200a7e08f9d21)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv94%2Favpgalaxy%2Favp%2Fbishop6.jpg&hash=b101455f51ba503c619faf8116048c0d2268e3ad)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv94%2Favpgalaxy%2Favp%2Fbishop7.jpg&hash=1bdac873d204286e54bab559c5efedd5a3acb5be)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv94%2Favpgalaxy%2Favp%2Fbishop8.jpg&hash=0520e8304e5229aad6e38a596099bd95f9c2a210)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv94%2Favpgalaxy%2Favp%2Fbishop1.jpg&hash=6dc0ba0ef6007edce9406a97d73e1ab4853e6981)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv94%2Favpgalaxy%2Favp%2Fbishop9.jpg&hash=881902cfd0d9ca415129d494d47dcc9281c7c919)
I think they're from the special edition. One looks like it's from the bit where they cut out him telling the men to turn off the cameras. And the bit where he looks horrified at his bloody hand. Right around where he screams out "I AM NOT A DROOOOOOIIID!!!!".
;)
Ah, another classic topic we used to argue about on Alien Experience.
I am pretty sure we concluded for this that AvP was not "somehow" canon as Bishop in Alien 3 and AvP are both human. If we can agree on that, then genetics would dictate that the Bishop in Alien 3 would look totally different from his ancestor in AvP.
Quote from: GC_Samaras on Dec 15, 2006, 03:33:45 AM
I am pretty sure we concluded for this that AvP was not "somehow" canon as Bishop in Alien 3 and AvP are both human. If we can agree on that, then genetics would dictate that the Bishop in Alien 3 would look totally different from his ancestor in AvP.
Not necessarily. There are a lot of cases of people looking like their ancestors. I'm one of them.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FElves%2Fwink.gif&hash=d798d6ae4a389eee348751af55cf24a738272582)
Indeed, I know a lot of people that look exactly (and I mean exactly) like their ancestors.
Quote from: The Ultimate Predator on Dec 15, 2006, 02:42:49 PM
Indeed, I know a lot of people that look exactly (and I mean exactly) like their ancestors.
When I went to Italy, I had to endure standing next to paintings of my ancestors so that "we" could be photographed "together" to capture the resemblance.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FElves%2F0f2c4ed9.gif&hash=9bfdf1ccecdbdb4e3151d3820905d3dc8711dd1c)
Lol, know what you mean. A photo was taken of a person two generations ago, and then two generations later down the line, that granddaughter looks exactly the same as in the photo.
To reply to the above, the odds are extremely unlikely of resembing your ancestors so many generations back (200 years is approximately 8 generations). I calculated a 0.4% probability of the resemblance being identical if genetic dominance between the partners is equal (which we will have to assume unless someone can bring me forward something more concrete).
Maybe, but it isn't impossible...
Quote from: GC_Samaras on Dec 16, 2006, 03:43:39 AM
To reply to the above, the odds are extremely unlikely of resembing your ancestors so many generations back (200 years is approximately 8 generations). I calculated a 0.4% probability of the resemblance being identical if genetic dominance between the partners is equal (which we will have to assume unless someone can bring me forward something more concrete).
Therein lies the problem: "
if genetic dominance between the partners is
equal". The Weyland genes may have been stronger than the genes of the Svensens, Doolittles, and Rosenkowskis. If anything, even if your calculation is correct, you can accept that Bishop II, The Ultimate Predator and myself may be part of that "0.4% probability".
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FElves%2Fcool.gif&hash=137d44157ac1fb11f08fcb28d304934d4150927c)
Not to mention that the same actors tend to play ancestors and decendants in various movies, TV shows, etc.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FElves%2Fwink.gif&hash=d798d6ae4a389eee348751af55cf24a738272582)
Could he be a clone?
An excerpt from my essay:
Quote"He's a clone!"
What purpose would that serve? The clone wouldn't contain any more of your personality, memories or any other part of your consciousness than a twin brother. If you are dead, how could this clone still have your memories (a big flaw in Alien: Resurrection), your ego or id? It would not be "you", so why have a clone carry on in your place, to get richer or gain more of your fame that you busted your butt for? Also, this clone probably wouldn't want to be cooped up in a lab for the rest of it's life and would want to walk amongst people. Unless you can show birth records showing it's nativity, your scientists are going to be in a lot of trouble for creating a clone, which is highly illegal! As Woody Allen once said, "Some people want to be immortalized by their work. I want to be immortalized by not dying!" Besides, there would have been a handy explanation for him being a clone in one of the movies.
"I don't buy that he's a descendant of Charles Bishop Weyland."
You don't have to. Bishop II may not have been related to him. There are a lot of people who are dead ringers for other people. When I was in junior high school, there was a kid in the same grade as myself that bore a strong resemblance to myself. When we met, we were both stunned by this. The connection that Paul W.S. Anderson was trying to make is that CBW and BII were somehow related. Maybe by 2179 (or earlier) there may not be any Weylands in charge at Weyland-Yutani (most likely because of events in AVP), and this Bishop II guy was just an engineer in the Company's employ? Even after three or four generations, there could still be a descendant that could resemble CBW. Thanks to the make up artists in both movies and the natural aging process in Lance Henriksen, there are more differences between the two character's facial features.
So, he could be.
;D
Quote from: Mystic Lemons on Dec 16, 2006, 12:22:46 PM
So, he could be.
;D
Uh,
no...(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FElves%2Frolleyes.gif&hash=d4591911b7d318734fe3a81fda704a1bf6bf7ecb)
Quote from: GC_Samaras on Dec 16, 2006, 03:43:39 AM
To reply to the above, the odds are extremely unlikely of resembing your ancestors so many generations back (200 years is approximately 8 generations). I calculated a 0.4% probability of the resemblance being identical if genetic dominance between the partners is equal (which we will have to assume unless someone can bring me forward something more concrete).
Fascinating. How did you calculate this? And what do you mean by genetic dominance? What assumptions have you made? ie; have you discounted the possibility of inbreeding?
And 0.4%? What's that? 1 in 250 people will identically resemble their ancestor? This is NOT extremely unlikely. Extremely unlikely would be 1 in 250,000.
Quote from: maledoro on Dec 16, 2006, 12:27:20 PM
Quote from: Mystic Lemons on Dec 16, 2006, 12:22:46 PM
So, he could be.
;D
Uh, no...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v338/maledoro/Elves/rolleyes.gif
Your essay snippet there just says that in your opinion there wouldn't be much point, not that he couldnt't be.
My essay snippet there also says that it is illegal. From a biological standpoint, cloning is possible. But from a practical standpoint, it's not. There would be too many legal hurdles to overcome in order to let this happen.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FElves%2Fwink.gif&hash=d798d6ae4a389eee348751af55cf24a738272582)
It helps to look at the whole picture.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FElves%2Frolleyes.gif&hash=d4591911b7d318734fe3a81fda704a1bf6bf7ecb)
Sorry, I must have missed the bit where the law on cloning in the fictitious future was mentioned.
Quote from: Mystic Lemons on Dec 16, 2006, 12:39:25 PM
Sorry, I must have missed the bit where the law on cloning in the fictitious future was mentioned.
And the other ways that the Company has to avoid getting caught by the authorities...
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FElves%2Fwink.gif&hash=d798d6ae4a389eee348751af55cf24a738272582)
So it's *possible* that he could be a clone?
Of course it is. We know it's possible and like Lemons said, we don't know if it's illegal or what in the future.
Since there would be no good reason to clone him, no. Why would anyone accept a sci-fi explanation over a realistic one?
Yes, I know that it's a sci-fi movie, but you don't see it as an arena where anything is allowed to happen. Sure, the ships have to break laws of physics in order to visit other star systems, but let's not go overboard looking for things that aren't there just because you'd like them to be.
If you want to accept clones and androids in the Alien Universe, the timeline would read something like this:
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Alien_movies_saga (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Alien_movies_saga)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FElves%2Ftongue.gif&hash=67948b7118613467fd6824cee15b5a3ecda68ff5)
What about a bad reason? Or a stupid one? People often do things for no good reason.
I didn't say I'd like him to be a clone. I'm just saying he could be. Your opinion doesn't really change that fact.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Dec 16, 2006, 12:45:43 PM
Of course it is. We know it's possible and like Lemons said, we don't know if it's illegal or what in the future.
Most likely it will be. Each day, there are tighter laws banning it. If you want to take a sci-fi slant on it, why are all of the movies about cloning showing the horrors of it rather than the benefits? There is no practical reason for it.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FElves%2Frolleyes.gif&hash=d4591911b7d318734fe3a81fda704a1bf6bf7ecb)
This begs the question: why would the Company clone Chuck? (Please don't answer with something that had already been addressed in my essay.)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FElves%2Fundecided.gif&hash=601e5bbb99ef6a34910e1b0a77cc39ed35a70b4f)
Vanity?
Sorry if that's in your essay, I haven't read it.
Quote from: Milo Minderbinder on Dec 16, 2006, 12:52:28 PM
What about a bad reason? Or a stupid one? People often do things for no good reason.
I won't even go there!
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FElves%2Flaugh.gif&hash=768f2b210f959ad696efd0377aca6f3b30725742)
Preservation. You saw how desperate Weyland was so that he'd be remembered. Michael could have just been his idea of living on. I know, I know. "Weylands already dead ::) ) but data is transferable through the ages and Weyland could have made a request.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Dec 16, 2006, 12:59:16 PM
Preservation. You saw how desperate Weyland was so that he'd be remembered. Michael could have just been his idea of living on. I know, I know. "Weylands already dead ::) ) but data is transferable through the ages and Weyland could have made a request.
Already been covered.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FElves%2Fwink.gif&hash=d798d6ae4a389eee348751af55cf24a738272582)
Quote from: Mystic Lemons on Dec 16, 2006, 12:57:04 PM
Vanity?
Sorry if that's in your essay, I haven't read it.
Already been covered.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FElves%2Fwink.gif&hash=d798d6ae4a389eee348751af55cf24a738272582)
Neither arguments have been covered - not from what I've read in that essay at least. Unless you consider the clone not having the memories or personality to have covered the arguments.
Statues are built all the time so that people are remembered and only rarely have more personality than the person they are based on.
And the other point about not wanting a clone of yourself to get richer or more famous than yourself - why wouldn't you want that? I wouldn't mind it, really. I wouldn't care either way.
And as a point of order - any chance you could ditch the smilies? They are really alienating and/or patronising. If in real life you kept on rolling your eyes at someone you were having a discussion with then you wouldn't remain uninjured for long.
Indeed. I'm growing very weary of the patronising attitude towards this forums members.
QuoteIf in real life you kept on rolling your eyes at someone you were having a discussion with then you wouldn't remain uninjured for long.
Hahaha, quite true. ;D
Quote from: Milo Minderbinder on Dec 16, 2006, 01:06:37 PM
Neither arguments have been covered - not from what I've read in that essay at least. Unless you consider the clone not having the memories or personality to have covered the arguments.
Quote from: maledoro on Dec 16, 2006, 01:00:15 PM
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Dec 16, 2006, 12:59:16 PM
Preservation. You saw how desperate Weyland was so that he'd be remembered. Michael could have just been his idea of living on. I know, I know. "Weylands already dead ::) ) but data is transferable through the ages and Weyland could have made a request.
Already been covered.
QuoteThe clone wouldn't contain any more of your personality, memories or any other part of your consciousness than a twin brother. If you are dead, how could this clone still have your memories (a big flaw in Alien: Resurrection), your ego or id? It would not be "you"
If you can't preserve your mind, what can you preserve that is
you?
Quote from: maledoro on Dec 16, 2006, 01:00:52 PM
Quote from: Mystic Lemons on Dec 16, 2006, 12:57:04 PM
Vanity?
Sorry if that's in your essay, I haven't read it.
Already been covered.
QuoteIf you are dead, how could this clone still have your memories (a big flaw in Alien: Resurrection), your ego or id? It would not be "you"
Having a person that looks like you isn't vanity. Especially if there is a chance that doesn't resemble you
inside.
Quote from: Milo Minderbinder on Dec 16, 2006, 01:06:37 PMStatues are built all the time so that people are remembered and only rarely have more personality than the person they are based on.
A statue is a far cry from a clone.
Quote from: Milo Minderbinder on Dec 16, 2006, 01:06:37 PM
And the other point about not wanting a clone of yourself to get richer or more famous than yourself - why wouldn't you want that? I wouldn't mind it, really. I wouldn't care either way.
If you're dead, then it wouldn't matter. If money means that much, then don't blow it on such an expensive project.
Quote from: Milo Minderbinder on Dec 16, 2006, 01:06:37 PM
And as a point of order - any chance you could ditch the smilies? They are really alienating and/or patronising. If in real life you kept on rolling your eyes at someone you were having a discussion with then you wouldn't remain uninjured for long.
Ooh! Easy! I've put down my elves...
QuoteIf you can't preserve your mind, what can you preserve that is you?
People's memory of you.
Quote from: maledoroIf you can't preserve your mind, what can you preserve that is you?
Your body.
Quote from: maledoroHaving a person that looks like you isn't vanity. Especially if there is a chance that doesn't resemble you inside.
What is inside is a total irrelevance to a vain person.
Quote from: maledoroA statue is a far cry from a clone
Indeed, it's far inferior as a vanity project. A living, breathing version of *you* forever is far better than mere statues.
Quote from: maledoroIf you're dead, then it wouldn't matter. If money means that much, then don't blow it on such an expensive project.
You can't take it with you so why not blow it on such a project? A massively expensive project could be a piffling proportion of the overall wealth, anyway.
Quote from: maledoroOoh! Easy! I've put down my elves...
Ta, I appreciate it.
Quote from: Mystic Lemons on Dec 16, 2006, 01:42:55 PM
QuoteIf you can't preserve your mind, what can you preserve that is you?
People's memory of you.
A painting or a statue would be cheaper and legal. Not to mention having a company named after you.
I think a clone would be more effective in preserving the memory. It can actually do things to make sure it isn't forgotten. A statue or painting can't.
"Who's that statue of?"
"Just some old guy"
This legal thing though is an assumption. They may well have legalized it for all we know.
Quote from: Milo Minderbinder on Dec 16, 2006, 01:43:32 PM
Quote from: maledoroIf you can't preserve your mind, what can you preserve that is you?
Your body.
It's not
your body; it's someone else's.
Quote from: Milo Minderbinder on Dec 16, 2006, 01:43:32 PM
Quote from: maledoroHaving a person that looks like you isn't vanity. Especially if there is a chance that doesn't resemble you inside.
What is inside is a total irrelevance to a vain person.
The vanity comes from within. It's part of the person's personality, which wouldn't be preserved.
Quote from: Milo Minderbinder on Dec 16, 2006, 01:43:32 PM
Quote from: maledoroA statue is a far cry from a clone
Indeed, it's far inferior as a vanity project. A living, breathing version of *you* forever is far better than mere statues.
A statue lasts longer than a clone. Not to mention that it's legal and isn't prone to genetic defects.
Quote from: Milo Minderbinder on Dec 16, 2006, 01:43:32 PM
Quote from: maledoroIf you're dead, then it wouldn't matter. If money means that much, then don't blow it on such an expensive project.
You can't take it with you so why not blow it on such a project? A massively expensive project could be a piffling proportion of the overall wealth, anyway.
Not really. Cloning is
expensive. When people start companies, they hope that their business outlives themselves. When they die, they tend to put their money into the business and settle for statues in the courtyard or paintings in the lobby.
Quote from: Milo Minderbinder on Dec 16, 2006, 01:47:59 PM
I think a clone would be more effective in preserving the memory. It can actually do things to make sure it isn't forgotten. A statue or painting can't.
"Who's that statue of?"
"Just some old guy"
"Who's that old guy over by the park bench?"
"I don't know, he doesn't have an engraving."
Quote from: The Ultimate Predator on Dec 16, 2006, 01:53:10 PM
This legal thing though is an assumption. They may well have legalized it for all we know.
With all of the potential for abuse, it's not legal.
I still believe the vanity argument to be plausible. There's plenty of reasons why it might not be the case and plenty why it might. Especially given that vanity is not necessarily logical or reasonable.
And all that is being argued is that it *might* have been a clone and the reason *might* have been vanity. Plausible reasons have been given.
However, maledoro, you appear to be arguing that it definitely isn't the case - and that needs a very high standard of evidence. This evidence has yet to emerge. Conjecture (such as what myself and Mystic Lemons are offering) can support a maybe but your own conjecture cannot prove a definite.
So... are you able to concede that the cloning idea is a possibility?
Quote from: maledoro on Dec 16, 2006, 01:59:09 PM
Quote from: The Ultimate Predator on Dec 16, 2006, 01:53:10 PM
This legal thing though is an assumption. They may well have legalized it for all we know.
With all of the potential for abuse, it's not legal.
Medical science? Who's to say it isn't be using to grow replacement organs and etc.
A clone would be far more impressive than a painting.
"Look there's Bishop! He's, like, awesome at robots and cloning!"
I think we have strayed from the topic here. I appreciate that you feel you have answered the cloning question in your own mind with what you believe to be the facts. However, you seem to be taking a rather self-important stance, stating that it's all been covered by your wondrous essay. I continue to believe that the only actual fact is that he still could possibly be a clone, as nothing in the films state otherwise.
And my opinion on the original question is that his emotional outburst points to him being human. Even if he was a droid programmed to look and act human, with human emotions, screaming "NOOOOO!!!" when it is too late to change Ripley's mind would be pointless and illogical.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Dec 16, 2006, 02:05:19 PM
Quote from: maledoro on Dec 16, 2006, 01:59:09 PM
Quote from: The Ultimate Predator on Dec 16, 2006, 01:53:10 PM
This legal thing though is an assumption. They may well have legalized it for all we know.
With all of the potential for abuse, it's not legal.
Medical science? Who's to say it isn't be using to grow replacement organs and etc.
Exactly.
Quote from: Milo Minderbinder on Dec 16, 2006, 02:02:04 PM
So... are you able to concede that the cloning idea is a possibility?
The more I think about it: no. I'm ashamed of myself for overlooking one of the basic rules of debate: the burden of proof is on the person who claims that something exists. So far, there is no proof that he is a clone. Plain and simple, there would have to be something in the movies or related materials that points to it.
All I can say is show me the evidence that he's a clone; not speculation.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Dec 16, 2006, 02:05:19 PM
Medical science? Who's to say it isn't be using to grow replacement organs and etc.
Read all the hooplah about stem cell research and its legal ramifications.
Stem cells. A fully fuctional clone of a human being is even more shocking.
Isn't the evidence that he's a clone the fact that a human of him was on 20th century Earth and appears to be ages in the future too? Based on the following two assumptions:
The one in Alien3 is in fact human
He does not simply resemble an ancestor identically
Quote from: Mystic Lemons on Dec 16, 2006, 02:05:43 PM
I think we have strayed from the topic here. I appreciate that you feel you have answered the cloning question in your own mind with what you believe to be the facts.
Not to sound condenscending, but they
are rooted in reality. I read science magazines, newspapers and have access to legal documents.
Quote from: Mystic Lemons on Dec 16, 2006, 02:05:43 PM
However, you seem to be taking a rather self-important stance, stating that it's all been covered by your wondrous essay. I continue to believe that the only actual fact is that he still could possibly be a clone, as nothing in the films state otherwise.
Nothing states that he is. A basic rule of debate is that you have to
prove something. I'm under no obligation to
disprove it.
Quote from: Mystic Lemons on Dec 16, 2006, 02:05:43 PM
And my opinion on the original question is that his emotional outburst points to him being human. Even if he was a droid programmed to look and act human, with human emotions, screaming "NOOOOO!!!" when it is too late to change Ripley's mind would be pointless and illogical.
Just because he's human, doesn't mean that he's a clone.
Quote from: maledoroA fully fuctional clone of a human being is even more shocking.
Attitudes change. Many things that were once considered shocking are now commonplace.
QuoteJust because he's human, doesn't mean that he's a clone.
Nobody is saying that.
Quote from: Milo Minderbinder on Dec 16, 2006, 02:22:09 PM
Quote from: maledoroA fully fuctional clone of a human being is even more shocking.
Attitudes change. Many things that were once considered shocking are now commonplace.
Imagine me employing a clone of you to commit a crime to frame you... As long as that is a possibility, cloning would be illegal.
Quote from: Milo Minderbinder on Dec 16, 2006, 02:19:26 PM
Isn't the evidence that he's a clone the fact that a human of him was on 20th century Earth and appears to be ages in the future too? Based on the following two assumptions:
The one in Alien3 is in fact human
He does not simply resemble an ancestor identically
All the more reason that he isn't a clone.
Quote from: Mystic Lemons on Dec 16, 2006, 02:22:40 PM
QuoteJust because he's human, doesn't mean that he's a clone.
Nobody is saying that.
You were pretty sold on the idea, a few posts ago...
No, you've misunderstood. I'm sold on the possibilty of it.
Quote from: maledoroAll the more reason that he isn't a clone.
If my assumptions are correct then he *is* a clone. Your own evidence in that essay thing supports the first one are the second assumption is based on the extreme unlikelihood of that particular ancestor looking identical to the 20th century version. Obviously, I can't prove a negative but the evidence is definitely in favour of cloning over the identical ancestor possibility.
Quote from: maledoroImagine me employing a clone of you to commit a crime to frame you... As long as that is a possibility, cloning would be illegal.
It probably would, yes. Whether or not the legality matters is the issue. It's not unheard of for powerful persons to break the law and not be brought to justice.
Quote from: Milo Minderbinder on Dec 16, 2006, 02:34:17 PM
Quote from: maledoroAll the more reason that he isn't a clone.
If my assumptions are correct then he *is* a clone. Your own evidence in that essay thing supports the first one are the second assumption is based on the extreme unlikelihood of that particular ancestor looking identical to the 20th century version. Obviously, I can't prove a negative but the evidence is definitely in favour of cloning over the identical ancestor possibility.
That's only if you've twisted it to suit your theory. Using your logic, I can prove that due to the fire hydrants in my neighborhood, there are no tigers around.
Quote from: maledoroImagine me employing a clone of you to commit a crime to frame you... As long as that is a possibility, cloning would be illegal.
Quote from: Milo Minderbinder on Dec 16, 2006, 02:34:17 PM
It probably would, yes. Whether or not the legality matters is the issue. It's not unheard of for powerful persons to break the law and not be brought to justice.
All the more reason to keep the technology from not being developed. This is why such laws are in place: to prevent things like that from happening.
Is there a more reasonable explanation for the known facts than cloning? If so, what do you propose? Or will you propose nothing that hasn't been explicitly stated?
Let me reiterate, I am not saying he definitely is a clone.
Quote from: Milo Minderbinder on Dec 16, 2006, 09:28:22 PM
Is there a more reasonable explanation for the known facts than cloning?
Yes. There are these beings known as "natural-born humans". There is nothing that states that he is a clone. No commentary track, book, or script reference. To call him anything other than a natural-born human is to make a faulty syllogism.
Ok. And what is your explanation for his appearance?
*Edit* I'm just trying to clarify that I understand what your opinion is, because it got a bit lost along the way for me*
Maybe AVP2 or another sequel will explain why Bishop is a human in AVP and A3, you never know ???
I think this whole debate on whether cloning will be illegal seem to stem from a very specifically American point of view. After ten trips to the states I know how big this stem cell and cloning debate is over there, but here (Sweden) for example you don't hear any fuss about it at all, it's more embraced than anything. Our society isn't even a fraction as religiously based as the US, and our ethics and values reflect that. I don't know anybody who has a problem with cloning or stem cell research, and from what I can tell from the media, neither has anybody else really. There is not much of a debate, mostly just enthusiasm and looking forward to when these technological advances become standard practice.
There are all sorts of technological advances that can be abused, just because something can be misused doesn't mean there'll be laws against it, or you'd have to ban everything under the sun. From my perspective, I see it as _far_ more likely that cloning will be allowed rather than banned, based on the society I live in today. So, unless current American laws are to dominate even the distant future in the "United Systems" or whatever they mention in some movie, I don't think we can make any assumptions that way. :)
Quote from: Mystic Lemons on Dec 16, 2006, 09:39:19 PM
Ok. And what is your explanation for his appearance?
*Edit* I'm just trying to clarify that I understand what your opinion is, because it got a bit lost along the way for me*
He's just an ordinary guy.
Quote from: VenomX on Dec 18, 2006, 02:43:19 PM
I think this whole debate on whether cloning will be illegal seem to stem from a very specifically American point of view. After ten trips to the states I know how big this stem cell and cloning debate is over there, but here (Sweden) for example you don't hear any fuss about it at all, it's more embraced than anything. Our society isn't even a fraction as religiously based as the US, and our ethics and values reflect that. I don't know anybody who has a problem with cloning or stem cell research, and from what I can tell from the media, neither has anybody else really. There is not much of a debate, mostly just enthusiasm and looking forward to when these technological advances become standard practice.
There are all sorts of technological advances that can be abused, just because something can be misused doesn't mean there'll be laws against it, or you'd have to ban everything under the sun. From my perspective, I see it as _far_ more likely that cloning will be allowed rather than banned, based on the society I live in today. So, unless current American laws are to dominate even the distant future in the "United Systems" or whatever they mention in some movie, I don't think we can make any assumptions that way. :)
The laws that are being drafted to ban cloning aren't coming from the religious Right, but from the "Heathens": the atheistic scientific community.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FElves%2Fwink.gif&hash=d798d6ae4a389eee348751af55cf24a738272582)
maledoro, have you ever written an Alien fiction? That will be interesting...
Quote from: Shaak on Jan 01, 2007, 11:45:16 PM
maledoro, have you ever written an Alien fiction? That will be interesting...
Yes, I have, thank you!
What would be more interesting is to write something about
real aliens...
;)
Yeah
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 02, 2007, 10:54:36 AM
Quote from: Shaak on Jan 01, 2007, 11:45:16 PM
maledoro, have you ever written an Alien fiction? That will be interesting...
Yes, I have, thank you!
Where can I find it?
On the hard drive of my other computer that isn't connected to any phone lines...
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FHappy%2520Smilies%2F9bea56ef.gif&hash=92ed3432e8b898cc66459b21885337891b90edde)
Then I can't find it :D
Nay. You'd need physical access to the library in my home...
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FHappy%2520Smilies%2F9bea56ef.gif&hash=92ed3432e8b898cc66459b21885337891b90edde)
Why is Lance Henriksen saying Bishop II in Alien 3 is a Android what has gotten in to him?. Bishop II is human in Alien 3 not an Android man I hate Lance Henriksen for trying to say he is an Android. In Alien 3 Bishop II is bleeding red blood and groaning in pain, with a gruesome flap of ear and skin hanging from his face. Reeling from the injury, Bishop II reasserts that he is human by screaming, "I'm not a droid!".
Why Bishop II is Human
- Red Blood (In Alien: Resurrection 200 years after Alien 3 Androids still bleed the white milk type blood)
- Acted with more emotion than an Android of his time
- He said he is not an Android
He's just going along with Paul Anderson. In some of the early interviews, he said he wasn't sure himself and later said he was an android.
Henriksen is simply whoring for Fox and for Anderson. He doesn't care about the series; just his paycheck. Since AVP was his latest movie in the series, he reversed himself just so that the plothole would "make sense".
CALL (Alien: Resurrection) was an AUTON, or SECOND GEN; an advanced type of ANDROID. Bishop II in Alien 3 is a human not an advanced Android besides Alien 3 confirmed Bishop II is human.
Oh, he seemed a determined guy in the Quadrilogy.
Quote from: yautja99 on Jan 11, 2007, 06:52:14 PM
CALL (Alien: Resurrection) was an AUTON, or SECOND GEN; an advanced type of ANDROID. Bishop II in Alien 3 is a human not an advanced Android besides Alien 3 confirmed Bishop II is human.
The movie did not confirm anything. Why his blood was red? So is salsa, but that does not make it blood.
In canon, nothing was confirmed, and we are left wondering.
The original Weyland died a century ago. The ancestor thing is lame.
How about a clone? Now I have no idea "why" clone the original Weyland, but I have not seen it as an option yet.
The way I look at it, he was an android with a blood dye job, and a liar. Until I see pure proof he was not, in canon, than that is what I think he was, or a clone.
IN THE BEHIND THE SCENES STUFF:
Alien3: Testamonies from all involved that he's human.
AvP: Comments by Henrikson and Anderson that he's not human.
Ultimately, the intentions of the film-makers - Behind the scenes stuff, commentaries, unfilmed scenes, scenes scripted out, deleted scenes, etc. - mean two things, jack and crap. Anderson and Henrikson say he's a droid, doesn't mean anything. Alien3 script, director, actor, film-makers, etc. say he's human, doesn't mean anything.
Alien3 explicitly shows him to be human, that means something. That's cold hard canonical fact.
From Alien 3 Commentary
Gillis: It's so brief when Lance gets hit with this lead pipe. But we had done this appliance that showed that his ear had been dislodged. The whole point was that Fincher wanted to show that, you know, without a doubt that this is the real guy and not a synthetic person.
Quote from: yautja99 on Jan 11, 2007, 06:21:51 AM
Why is Lance Henriksen saying Bishop II in Alien 3 is a Android what has gotten in to him?. Bishop II is human in Alien 3 not an Android man I hate Lance Henriksen for trying to say he is an Android. In Alien 3 Bishop II is bleeding red blood and groaning in pain, with a gruesome flap of ear and skin hanging from his face. Reeling from the injury, Bishop II reasserts that he is human by screaming, "I'm not a droid!". In Alien: Resurrection 200 years after Alien 3 Androids still bleed the white milk type blood. CALL was an AUTON, or SECOND GEN; an advanced type of ANDROID.
Well, he could be a clone of the original Weyland. Or he is an Android, with red food coloring added to him. Perhaps this was done specialy to him because it may have been well known that Ripley feared and distrusted androids, add in some red so he would be even more convincing.
Well, it is fiction.
You can build on, and intend that it be a certain way, but what is seen and told for sure on camera is all we can really go on.
There is NO Proof either way, human, decendant, clone, android etc...
He said he was human, but it could be a lie.
I think it is one of the great mysteries of the series.
Cloning technology was new in Resurrection.
Why would they make a special driod with red blood...how could they possibly anticipate that Bishop would be injured? Why aren't later models (Call for instance) given the red blood treatment to make them look more human?
Quote from: Fitzley on Jan 12, 2007, 05:37:05 AM
Cloning technology was new in Resurrection.
We can clone now.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jan 12, 2007, 11:33:44 AM
Quote from: Fitzley on Jan 12, 2007, 05:37:05 AM
Cloning technology was new in Resurrection.
We can clone now.
True enough, but in the Alien universe, its new in Resurrection and even then, not perfected.
Quote from: Fitzley on Jan 12, 2007, 05:21:04 PM
True enough, but in the Alien universe, its new in Resurrection and even then, not perfected.
Could you point me to a quote in Res that says that?
You need a quote? How about looking at Ripley 8's "sisters"?
Plus, if it were a viable option, the guys from the Company would have used cloning...
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2Fsa%2Femot-science.gif&hash=2e7e7620625add334d67a446c6a38952eef736f6)
He said it was new. It can't be new since it's already doable - albiet badly.
Maybe not new then, but definately not a viable option before Resurrection. The Alien universe portrays the future (some 200-300 years), but of course they couldn't predict advances in cloning in the "real world" now. From my impression, it was new and difficult, but maybe just difficult according to the Alien universe.
Arghhh, deja vu!
;D
i just sort of gave up on this and decided to go that he is an android based upon my amateur conclusions
Is it going to kill anyone to do a teensy bit of research? The DVD commentary track to
Alien³ says that Bishop II is human. The people on the commentary were the effects guys Alec Gillis and Tom Woodruff, Jr. Also in attendance was Lance Henriksen himself. They even said that David Fincher wanted them to take great pains to let everyone know that he was human.
It's in the script. It's in the novelization. Reviewers of the movie acknowledged his humanity. The only people who say he was otherwise were Anderson (who didn't work on
Alien³) trying to cover his ass over an unforeseen plothole, and Henriksen who had reversed himself in order to help out poor Paul.
To call Bishop II an android is to make a faulty syllogism. Here is a good example of a faulty syllogism, where Dr. House meets a little girl with a stuffed bear:
Quote
Little Girl: I got spinal muscular atrophy.
Dr. House: I guess it's not contagious. Nice bear.
Little Girl: It's a dog.
Dr. House: It's a bear.
Little Girl: His name is Bill. He's a dog.
Dr. House: Words have set meanings for a reason. If you see an animal like Bill and you try to play fetch, Bill's going to eat you, because Bill's a bear.
Little Girl: Bill has fur, four legs, and a collar. He's a dog.
Dr. House: You see, that's what's called a faulty syllogism; just because you call it a dog doesn't make it a dog.
There's a nice little thread that covers the "controversy" elsewhere on this forum.
Quote from: yautja99 on Jan 12, 2007, 01:41:43 AM
IN THE BEHIND THE SCENES STUFF:
Alien3: Testamonies from all involved that he's human.
AvP: Comments by Henrikson and Anderson that he's not human.
Ultimately, the intentions of the film-makers - Behind the scenes stuff, commentaries, unfilmed scenes, scenes scripted out, deleted scenes, etc. - mean two things, jack and crap. Anderson and Henrikson say he's a droid, doesn't mean anything. Alien3 script, director, actor, film-makers, etc. say he's human, doesn't mean anything.
Alien3 explicitly shows him to be human, that means something. That's cold hard canonical fact.
Cool, I wrote that on IMDb!
Nice to see it was read.
If anybody ever meets Lance they should ask him about this, maybe he can clear it up?
Quote from: Mr. Weyland on Jan 17, 2007, 04:37:10 AM
If anybody ever meets Lance they should ask him about this, maybe he can clear it up?
No. He obviously doesn't give a shit. He may go as far as saying Bishop II was an android because it sounds "kewl" and fanboys would want to hear that.
Besides, if one can't accept the script, effects guys, director, etc. all pointing to the same thing, that person should just kill themself and hope that they come back as a crustacean.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2Fpwed%2Ff46db59f.gif&hash=db503083cab4a87418621f9419b24f7704f447b9)
For me, he in avp and he in alien 3 is human. In avp he's human (the real one), in alien 3 he's a clone (is human too). i like to think this way.
Quote from: luispaulo53 on Jan 21, 2007, 10:28:02 PM
For me, he in avp and he in alien 3 is human. In avp he's human (the real one), in alien 3 he's a clone (is human too). i like to think this way.
Let me get the garlic and butter ready for you...
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FConfused%2520and%2520Stoopid%2F0c9b8355.gif&hash=8c118a3e53e78a0b11f1f78179aaddfb04db3e77)
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 21, 2007, 10:55:53 PM
Quote from: luispaulo53 on Jan 21, 2007, 10:28:02 PM
For me, he in avp and he in alien 3 is human. In avp he's human (the real one), in alien 3 he's a clone (is human too). i like to think this way.
Let me get the garlic and butter ready for you...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v338/maledoro/Confused%20and%20Stoopid/0c9b8355.gif
What do you mean?
He means he thinks your an idiot because you think Michael Bishop could be a clone, this thread will then escalate and become a thread detailing reasons of why he can't be a clone.
The name of this thread will morph soon into 'Is Bishop in Alien 3 a human or an android'
frankly I am tired of this arguement, I've seen this topic to many times :o
maledoro tell me. Why can't michael bishop be a clone in alien 3?
Luis, no disrespect, but if you want me to respond to your posts, you really should read others' posts. I had already posted why Bishop II wasn't a clone in earlier posts.
Corporal Hicks and Mr. Weyland are partially correct in seeing this escalate into an argument; "partially" in that it could go that way if you don't bother to read the earlier posts in this thread.
Please read the earlier posts. It's all there.
You are talking about this thread, http://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=8.0, right?
It's your opinion. In my opinion he could be a clone. After Charles Bishop's death in avp (2004), they (Weyland industries) keep his blood on their laboratories to make a clone in the future (with unknow purpose) and after he born (the clone) they thought him things that he would need to know.
Quote from: luispaulo53 on Jan 22, 2007, 04:03:47 PM
You are talking about this thread, http://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=8.0, right?
It's your opinion. In my opinion he could be a clone.
Whoa! That is not my
opinion, as I did not pull that out of my hat. What I had posted came from the people who had created Bishop II. What I had made was not an
opinion but a
statement of fact. An opinion is a personal view, attitude, or appraisal based on a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. A statement of fact is something that can be possibly proven.
When someone has created a character for a story, that person has the say about that character as it is their own creation. Everyone involved with
Alien³ had declared Bishop II to be a human. This is a fact. I reported what they had said; also a fact. They had said absolutely
nada about the possibility of Bishop II being a clone of anyone else. This, too, is a fact.
Here (for the second time on this thread) is an example of a faulty syllogism:
Quote
Little Girl: I got spinal muscular atrophy.
Dr. House: I guess it's not contagious. Nice bear.
Little Girl: It's a dog.
Dr. House: It's a bear.
Little Girl: His name is Bill. He's a dog.
Dr. House: Words have set meanings for a reason. If you see an animal like Bill and you try to play fetch, Bill's going to eat you, because Bill's a bear.
Little Girl: Bill has fur, four legs, and a collar. He's a dog.
Dr. House: You see, that's what's called a faulty syllogism; just because you call it a dog doesn't make it a dog.
As much as you may point at an automobile and call it a jet, you can't point at Bishop II and say that he is a clone or android or anything other than a regular human, which is what every one involved with putting him on the screen said he was.
Quote from: luispaulo53 on Jan 22, 2007, 04:03:47 PM
After Charles Bishop's dead in avp (2004), they (Weyland industries) keep his blood on their laboratories to make a clone in the future (with unknow purpose) and after he born (the clone) they thought him things that he would need to know.
It would be cheaper to promote someone else in the Company to do his job.
The female Android Call is the true most advanced Android and she still has the milk type blood. Lance Henriksen knows nothing about advanced Androids
Uh, we're now in the "Clone" part of the discussion...
;)
Now this is about him being a clone
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 22, 2007, 06:14:34 PM
Quote from: luispaulo53 on Jan 22, 2007, 04:03:47 PM
After Charles Bishop's death in avp (2004), they (Weyland industries) keep his blood on their laboratories to make a clone in the future (with unknow purpose) and after he born (the clone) they thought him things that he would need to know.
It would be cheaper to promote someone else in the Company to do his job.
Well, he was the founder of the Weyland Industries so... they might want to "keep" him alive.
Quote from: luispaulo53 on Jan 22, 2007, 11:05:00 PM
Well, he was the founder of the Weyland Industries so... they might want to "keep" him alive.
From my essay, "How Bishop II Is Human":
QuoteWhat purpose would that serve? The clone wouldn't contain any more of your personality, memories or any other part of your consciousness than a twin brother. If you are dead, how could this clone still have your memories (a big flaw in Alien: Resurrection), your ego or id? It would not be "you", so why have a clone carry on in your place, to get richer or gain more of your fame that you busted your butt for? Also, this clone probably wouldn't want to be cooped up in a lab for the rest of it's life and would want to walk amongst people. Unless you can show birth records showing it's nativity, your scientists are going to be in a lot of trouble for creating a clone, which is highly illegal! As Woody Allen once said, "Some people want to be immortalized by their work. I want to be immortalized by not dying!" Besides, there would have been a handy explanation for him being a clone in one of the movies.
whatever happend to the 'ancester' idea ??? that seemed more likely than the clone idea.
Quote from: Mr. Weyland on Jan 23, 2007, 12:43:55 PM
whatever happend to the 'ancester' idea ??? that seemed more likely than the clone idea.
I'm sorry, but was there something in my post that had led you to believe that I had supported the idea that Bishop II was a clone? If my memory serves me well, I've been railing against that notion since Bog knows how long...
Ok im going with he was a human in A3, just down the family tree of CBW a bit. The idea of him being a clone doesnt hold water for reasons listed and others I wont get into because...well I dont care enough to, however I will say this: The chances of a clone looking like the original it was cloned from is slim to nil, look it up, and yes it is the future and Im sure theyve made vast advancements in the science, but hell, isn't it just easier to say that Bishop in A3 was a human, straight-up, plain and simple.
Quote from: Eidotemit on Jan 23, 2007, 03:00:09 PM
Ok im going with he was a human in A3
So, you're going with what
the people who had written, produced, directed, etc., the movie had said? Cool!
Quote from: Eidotemit on Jan 23, 2007, 03:00:09 PM
just down the family tree of CBW a bit.
And maybe a few branches over...
Quote from: Eidotemit on Jan 23, 2007, 03:00:09 PM
but hell, isn't it just easier to say that Bishop in A3 was a human, straight-up, plain and simple.
Yes, it is. What the writers, et al., had put on the screen was that he was human. Those who believe otherwise have to make things up in order to make him an android or a clone. Since these people who insist on going against the writers, et al., think that it's "kewler" that he is anything other than a regular person, these people are "hole-diggers".
Again, here's Dr. House:
Quote"You know it's all nice when people start to dig these holes, but then they start to live in these holes and get angry when someone pushes dirt into those holes. Come out of your holes people!!!"
Oh, I just noticed something in a post you made a little bit up the page, about how the clone memories were a plot-hole in Alein: Res. Yeah, Its impossiblein reality, but what I think that was about in the movie is that the aliens somehow pass down memories through each generation and share in a collecive memore (part of that whole ESP thing they have goin on), not implying that memories and personality will be carried along in any cloning.
Quote from: Eidotemit on Jan 23, 2007, 06:06:51 PM
not implying that memories and personality will be carried along in any cloning.
It was implied in
Alien Resurrection. Remember when Ripley 8 was being tested on naming objects and she cried when she saw the picture of the little girl? She immediately thought of Newt and/or her donor's daughter.
thats only in the SE though so whether its taken as fact or not is disputable
It's proven in Resurrection - not merely implied.
Perez - How can it have memories?
Ripley remembers fragments of her past, when without DNA crossing she would be a blank slate.
I'm sorry, but was there something in my post that had led you to believe that I had supported the idea that Bishop II was a clone? If my memory serves me well, I've been railing against that notion since Bog knows how long...
[/quote]
No, I am just saying to every one, what ever happend to the ancester idea, I've seen many ideas saying he a clone or a new type of andriod, hes a human plain and simple, maybe an ancester, it isnt uncommen to use the same actor to play an ancester of another person, like in 'Back To The Future' and 'The X-files' some of the cast play there own ancesters :-\
If one needs to connect AvP with the other Alien films in that regard, then them being distant relations is the only solution.
I think this is a fun debate because it keeps the Alien and Predator community alive with anger ;D
And its all your fault!!!
But to stay on topic...Bishop II is human....because there is nothing to prove otherwise
Ok, I wasn't saying that when somethings cloned that memories and personality will be passed down, and the movie impies that aswell "How can it have memories", they know about cloning and that it shouldnt have memories.
HOWEVER
what the film was trying to portray is that the aliens seem to pass down memories from generation to generation and the rest of the hive, and due to the DNA mix between Ripley 8 and the xenos, she also became a part of this collective and the memmories were passed on. So the reason she regained memories was not because she was cloned and they imply that that happens in cloning, but because of the DNA mix.
Is it impossible? In reality, yes, but what of the xenos isn't.
anyways, so far off topic. Bishop II - Human
I would love to rub this into Lance Henriksens face that the female android call is the true most advanced Android.
I have a sneaking suspicion he wouldn't give a shit.
I dont ;D
Quote from: Dachande2311 on Jan 24, 2007, 12:00:32 AM
And its all your fault!!!
That's right :D
Quote from: Eidotemit on Jan 24, 2007, 12:01:30 AM
..what the film was trying to portray is that the aliens seem to pass down memories from generation to generation and the rest of the hive...
Is there any other reference about that?
Asie from the line in A:R, I don't recall any about memories being passed down, shloads of stuff hinting at ESP though.
Quote from: Shaak on Jan 25, 2007, 04:02:02 AM
Quote from: Dachande2311 on Jan 24, 2007, 12:00:32 AM
And its all your fault!!!
That's right :D
I am sorry, but I dont see a proplem, all they need to do is fill more gaps with more AVP films, this hole arguement about me being an android or not isnt a prob, we just need answears in other movies, more movies meens more answears (or questions) ;D
Quote from: Eidotemit on Jan 25, 2007, 12:21:22 PM
Asie from the line in A:R, I don't recall any about memories being passed down, shloads of stuff hinting at ESP though.
Yes I remember reading a interview with an Alien Resurrection's producer prior to star the shooting and he talked about the alien's memories ??? and I thought "where did you get that?"
Quoteshloads of stuff hinting at ESP though.
Which can be explained by other things like heightened senses or super/ sub-sonics that don't rely on magic.
The idea of ESP isn't magic. Its just the ability to read or share thoughts. Now I dont personally believe in it, but i think it may be possible through scientific development. Every living thing gives of an electrical charge, in fact sharks have a sense that detects and 'sees' this charge to help them hunt (perhaps the xenos do too), further more every thought in the brain is an electrical signal, EVERY SINGLE ONE voluntary or not, this also sends out a signal that could possibly be picked up and read (we have machines that can pick them up, just not read them yet), perhaps the xenos can, at least from one to the other in a hive 'collective mind' almost.
Here is something good about Lance Henriksen.
Here are some of his films I can remember at the moment.
Hard Target.
Pumkinhead 1,3 and 4.
House 3.
Piranha 2.
Millennium series.
Operation Intercept.
Powder.
The Terminator.
Close incounters of the 3rd kind.
A dogs day afternoon.
Scream 3.
Near Dark.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sideshowtoy.com%2Fplaced%2F040805henriksen_01.jpg&hash=168e4c0c87d6fcbccf716248b712d8cec05458c9)
for more infor click the link below.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000448/
No matter what Bishop is 100% human in Alien 3
Android
Human!
Human (Clone): the original Bishop was killed before he finished the designing the "Bishop" android. The company spares no expense when they know that they'll make even more back.
You do realise that makes no sense.
You can't clone memories. Ripley is a one off due to the DNA crossing.
As for cloning being difficult in 2381 - remember the task was made especially harder by the Ripley-Alien DNA mix. Note the specimen jars near Ripley7's gurney. Wouldn't surprise me if these were Ripley 0.1, 0.2, etc.
If you had a pure template I daresay it'd be a lot more straightforward.
What ever happened to the ancestor idea? ???
Quote from: SM on Feb 22, 2007, 12:16:27 AM
You do realise that makes no sense.
You can't clone memories. Ripley is a one off due to the DNA crossing.
By that time the "Company" had developed memory prints for its top scientists and inner circle. A copy of bishop's memory was taken every six months. Even with cloning, the ancestor theory still holds.
Oh of course... I forgot about that it of the film... ::)
Even a non-scientist like Perez knows that's bollocks.
"But it has memories. How can it have memories?"
Gediman also says "it's unprecedented".
Bishop 2 was a human. Its not entirely inconcievable that two people of relation, despite having been alive hundreds of years apart would look similar.
Is it this hard Alien3 did confirm Bishop II is indeed human >:(
It's a damn ANDROID!!....of course someone idiot of production in ALIEN 3 used a red color instead of white...not to mention that Alien 3 is full of production mistakes and errors..besides being hit like that with your ear almost ripped off---c'mon...it's an ANDROID
Quoteof course someone idiot of production in ALIEN 3 used a red color instead of white
This wasn't a mistake, it was done on purpose. Every member of the cast and crew intended for Bishop to be human, and this is what appears on screen.
Quotebesides being hit like that with your ear almost ripped off---c'mon
People have stayed concious - and lived - through worse.
Heh, I'm going to be in the minority here, but there we are. :)
My view before AVP was that there was no canonical proof, either way, but that there were reasons why it would make more sense for the character to be robotic. After it, my view is that it makes even more sense.
The following is what has contributed to that view.
(1) The third film's character professes to be the designer of the robotic model. Why in the world would Weyland-Yutani suddenly take someone from their robotic design division, not only fill them in on their biggest and darkest secret, but decide they would be the ideal person to transfer to their biological weapons research division, somehow train them at a hypersonic rate to have all the qualifications of an expeditionary team leader on a biological threat capture mission and all of it, without exception, geared towards it being the one likeness of someone who they know Ripley, the one individual so important for them to take somewhere secure, would automatically have suspicions about?
(2) With that in mind, why would they fill him in on knowledge which he would stand to make far more profit by simply going to a competitor with, by simply naming his price?
(3) The thing being robotic is simply much more in line with the entire theme of that trilogy. The one character who keeps either serving the purpose of representating Company interests, is always the robotic one. Ash did it. Bishop 1 did it (even if only indirectly, by the film's conclusion). Bishop 2, from te perspective of a thematic link, would be likely to.
(4) Putting a more advanced robot in charge of the team would be the most efficient choice. Humans are fallable. Humans also retain knowledge. Why not put something there which can be uploaded at lightspeed with all the necessary protocols for hostage negotiation, complete with a proven combat track record (the same model already serving as standard in combat situations) and the ability to have its memories wiped clean, therfore removing the Company of all potential liability? It amkes sense. It fits in with their Modus Operandi.
(5) Why wasn't Call's blood red? Perhaps anything less is illegal. Would it make sense for something incredibly realistic, able to be mistaken for people, to be caught in an accident and have medical rescue teams waste precious tmie and resources on attempting to revive it or having to make the potentially fatal choice of having to rescue the wrong accident victim, truly? Why not make a blanket legal directive for all androids to have white fluids? It would avoid such things from taking place. Those built for infiltration and military intelligence operatives (remember, they would have their sensory input and memories able to be taken away for analysis, unlike with human beings), would have no need for their fluids to be white. More to the point, it would serve their purpose well to be coloured red inside, specifically for events such as those which took place in the film, to okeep their cover hidden until the right time.
So, could the character be robotic? Certainly. It's not only now a lot more likely, but it makes sense. It would be more controllalbe and fit in perfectly with how its owners think.
On the screen, there is absolutely nothing to prove it is human. There are explanations, such as the above, for why it might not have internal white fluid and Call would be subject to any legal directives along those lines.
Could it be a clone? Sure. But why would it be? What benefits would there be to having the company's own creator be resurrected, only to work in a position other than being at the head of it? :)
Could it be a relative? Perhaps. I don't know of anyone who looks precisely like pictures of some old ancestor, personally.
That leaves the most simplest option. A robot. There are already several precedents.
One can also imagine it is human, too, but it is wrong to label anyone who has a different perspective as automatically wrong. Doing so lessens the debate as a whole.
QuoteAsh did it. Bishop 1 did it
You missed the point there. Bishop was supposed to be a red herring right through the film. Made to look suspicious, but never actually doing anything wrong - and in fact doing everything right - as a direct contrast to Ash.
As for the blood, the conversation usually goes like this:
"Hey don't forget to add red food dye to that model just in case some crazed prison warden decides to clonk him on the head with a wrench."
"But the droids reflexes will surely be able to stop some unco warden - especially if said warden figures out what we're up to and shouts "f**king android!" or something - thereby giving the droid ample time to whip around and stop him."
"Hmmm... Good point better dial down those relfex response times too. Don't want to have giving himself away by doing knife tricks or anything."
You forgot that he was also programmed to think he was human ;)
Yeah. They managed to achieve all that pretty quickly too...
Thats stupid Bishop II said to be the creator of the android Bishop it cant be that way ??? :o
Try another edit and include some commas and fullstops.
He did say he created the andriod, but he also said he would take out the baby alien and destroy it, lies upon lies.
Quote from: Hankerson on Feb 22, 2007, 01:30:27 AMBy that time the "Company" had developed memory prints for its top scientists and inner circle. A copy of bishop's memory was taken every six months. Even with cloning, the ancestor theory still holds.
Where is that shown and what would the method be?
Quote from: SM on Feb 27, 2007, 12:58:25 AM
You missed the point there. Bishop was supposed to be a red herring right through the film. Made to look suspicious, but never actually doing anything wrong - and in fact doing everything right - as a direct contrast to Ash.
Not always. Bishop acted, overall, like a red herring, but that was because he truly was engrossed in the specimen and was showing precisely the sort of respect Ash has been. The only difference between them was that one had been deliberately programmed to act on its own mission, but they were both representative of the Company's philosophy which was going on behind the scenes. :)
QuoteAs for the blood, the conversation usually goes like this:
"Hey don't forget to add red food dye to that model just in case some crazed prison warden decides to clonk him on the head with a wrench."
"But the droids reflexes will surely be able to stop some unco warden - especially if said warden figures out what we're up to and shouts "f**king android!" or something - thereby giving the droid ample time to whip around and stop him."
"Hmmm... Good point better dial down those relfex response times too. Don't want to have giving himself away by doing knife tricks or anything."
Bishop 2 was not doing any such things to give itself away. That scene, from teh second film, actually shows how easy it would give itself away. Remember getting the cut and white fluid showing? Imagine if it just got a paper cut while in the middle of infiltrating some enemy base. What's it going to say?
"Oops, don't worry, I have this strange medical condition which just happens to colour my whole blood white. Everything's under control."
:)
And what about the point of a legal directive? Woudl it not be pragmatic for civilian agencies and military tacticians to want their synthetics to not use up valuable medical resources if an accident took place? Why would those apply to intelligence services?
Quote from: SiL on Feb 27, 2007, 01:40:17 AM
You forgot that he was also programmed to think he was human ;)
That was not actually shown in the film. :)
Quote from: Mr. Weyland on Feb 28, 2007, 03:09:04 AM
He did say he created the andriod, but he also said he would take out the baby alien and destroy it, lies upon lies.
That just goes to demonstrate how silly it all is, because it brings up my point of how unlikely it would be to have someone who's allegedly specialist in robotics and simultaneously having both immense security clearances and have enough knowledge to take charge of a biological weapon and medical research division expedition.
In any case, doesn't the Bishop model seem like it's been around for a while? It seems standardised. Like something which has been around for at least five or ten years. Add that to the number of years it would take for research, testing, legal clearances and so on and the designer would have had to start the job about twenty or so years ago. Yet it ends up looking precisely like he is meant to, by the time the third film takes place. :)
Quotebut they were both representative of the Company's philosophy which was going on behind the scenes
Bishop has been variously linked to the ECA and the USCM - he's not WY property.
QuoteBishop 2 was not doing any such things to give itself away.
So in effect it shoots itself in the foot because it ignores some maniac shouting at him and simply stands there to get clonked on the head. Yeah... that makes sense. The Bishop models seem to follow the Asimov laws one of which concerns the robot protecting it's own existance - oh except for this one.
That has red blood.
The leader of the rescue team is a lookalike of Bishop who claims he is the creator of the android, where as in Aliens vs. Predator (set in 2004) the film centers at first on billionaire Charles Bishop Weyland, owner of multinational communications giant Weyland Corporation (which eventually becomes the Weyland-Yutani Corporation of the Alien films), who eventually dies at the hands of a Predator. In the movie Alien 3 it is clear to see that Bishop's wound is bleeding, he appears to also be human. Therefore it is unlikely that they would both be human considering the amount of years between when the films were set
I belive he's an ancestor of Charles Bishop Weyland, they look the same because of genetic skips, it isn't uncommon for relatives who are born different generations apart.
Bishop II will be and always will be a Human in Alien 3
Quote from: SM on Feb 28, 2007, 04:07:46 AM
Bishop has been variously linked to the ECA and the USCM - he's not WY property.Quote
In operation, yes. But they are customers. It's like Boeing being able to use Apache helicopters if it really wanted to and had the pilots adn fuel with which to do so, even though they're primarily operated by certain militaries.
Remember Ash. Ash was secretly being used by the Company. Why would they suddenly no longer lower themselves to such tactics at a future time?
QuoteSo in effect it shoots itself in the foot because it ignores some maniac shouting at him and simply stands there to get clonked on the head. Yeah... That makes sense. The Bishop models seem to follow the Asimov laws one of which concerns the robot protecting it's own existance - oh except for this one.
That has red blood.
They only follow the Asimov Laws if they're programmed with them. Ash was not - and it would absolutely make sense for Bishop 2 to either not be programmed with them or to have them removed. Bishop 1 was specifically for use as support and logistics. It would be pointless building such hardware and to believe that somewhere, some government had not simply removed the laws to enable the things to infiltrate other nations and so on. Combat models would be made. It would be inevitable. Call was a civilian model and would be made with civilian limitations and legal frameworks in mind.
It would not surprise me to learn that Weyland-Yutani regularly used models such as Bishop 2 for industrial espionage.
In fact, Bishop 2 would have to be devoid of Asimov Laws. If it had them, it would be completely unable to affect the rescue of the Queen inside Ripley's body. Therefore, if it was robotic, it would not possess them. Being robotic, however, would make it a superb team leader and crisis management negotiator, complete with teh ability to simply wipe its memories clean of all retained knowledge.
Now, let me ask you: How do you know Bishop 2, the android, would be aware of what the prisoner was going to do? Are you automatically assuming it would have a complete and total 360 degree awareness?
If so, then how do you square that with Bishop 1 being engrossed with the facehugger dissection, in a room with no other distractions and having to pause for a long while, repeatedly asked a question by Spunkmeyer, before it took notice and responded? :)
The things are flawed. They're like anything else! They won't be aware of every single thing.
QuoteIt would not surprise me to learn that Weyland-Yutani regularly used models such as Bishop 2 for industrial espionage.
Well, I suppose - if one is willing to suspend one's disbelief that no-one would recognise the well known visage of WY supposed co-founder.
QuoteNow, let me ask you: How do you know Bishop 2, the android, would be aware of what the prisoner was going to do? Are you automatically assuming it would have a complete and total 360 degree awareness?
Watch the film.
Take note of the crazy warden shouting "f**kING ANDROID!" before running up and belting Bishop. Don't need 360 degree awareness for that.
QuoteIf so, then how do you square that with Bishop 1 being engrossed with the facehugger dissection, in a room with no other distractions and having to pause for a long while, repeatedly asked a question by Spunkmeyer, before it took notice and responded?
The perfectly simple answer here is he wasn't sure he was being addressed by Spunkmeyer ("Need anything els?." isn't necessarily specific) - and as you said he was engrossed similar to Ash. Synthetics obviously have a thirst for new data - you can hear it in his voice. Nor was Spunkmeyer posing any threat to his being - as Aaron was.
AND synthetics can also get testy - Ash is short and sarcastic with Ripley. Bishop could've been annoyed at the interruption.
When Bishop II in Alien3 said he is not a droid that confirms he is human.
Bishop II said he's human its been confirmed when he said I'm not a DROID!. So Paul Andersons and Lance's opinions are not canonical
the opinions of the cast, crew or even filmakers aren't really canonical unless it is clearly portrayed in the movies. If for no other reason, because they change. Like LH has changes his opinion about Bishop 2 since it was made.
Still hold- Bishop 2 = Human
And why didnt he go nuts and spin around spitting milk stuff everyware like Ash from ALIEN ???
Quotethe opinions of the cast, crew or even filmakers aren't really canonical unless it is clearly portrayed in the movies.
As since it is clearly protrayed...
Humans can't vomit white stuff.
Well not normally...
Oddly enough Aaron hit Bishop in about the same spot as Parker hit Ash. Bishops shoulder took most of the blow, but as Aaron was using a different weapon, he copped the head injury too.
Even though the ear is hanging off, if he was an android, shouldnt we have seen some white blood and wire things around the back of the ear?
You'd think so...
Quote from: SM on Mar 05, 2007, 01:40:24 AM
You'd think so...
But no one else thinks of this, thats why hes a human ;)
But surely getting a smack in the head from a metal bar thing (cant remember exactly) would either kill you or knock you out? I've dived into a goal post and that took me out for a while.... and getting it swung at your head would have slightly mroe force behind it.
Using this, i have come to the conclusion that Bishop is a demi-god....
QuoteBut surely getting a smack in the head from a metal bar thing (cant remember exactly) would either kill you or knock you out?
No. People have suffered similar injuries and remained failry lucid throughout.
That's not to say he didn't go into shock after Ripley had done the 9.5 into the furnace.
He is human in Alien 3... in the directors cut release it shows he is in alot of pain!! And clutching his head with RED blood pouring out of the wound!
BuGz :o
His shoulder took most of the impact and the top bit of the wrench ripped his ear off.
he couldnt of been humn in alien 3 cus the bloww would have caused sufficent pain to cause him to become incoherant.
No it wouldn't. Read the rest of the thread.
IIRC - in the scene after Bishop II had been hit over the head with the pipe - I do recall him saying, questionably and quietly to himself, "I'm not at droid"/"I'm human" and then he says the line again but shouts it at Ripley...so this still holds as questionable as to what he is
whether or not cloning isn't possible due to illegal ramifications is completely bull...mainly as this is The Company, one that has enough wealth and power to ignore legalities in law. If they couldn't ignore those legalities then they'd be certainly up for murder charges.
He doesn't mutter under his breath. He screams it out the first time.
That blood was red. Androids bleed white. Bishop in Alien³ was human.
maybe he was a diferent droid in alien3, remember weyland yutani wanted to get the alien queen at all cost, i think they were trying to convince ripley that he was human ???
He is human in A3, partly because of the red blood and the fact that in all movies ever it is just a movie rule that androids will have white 'blood', otherwise you'll have plenty of people *cough*Americans >__>*cough* getting confused over the matter. But that doesnt matter anyways because Anderson screwed everything about Bishop up....
Quote from: Dachande2311 on Apr 09, 2007, 11:47:51 AM
But that doesnt matter anyways because Anderson screwed everything about Bishop up....
Anderson, Why did you mess me up? :'(
but really, who knows what Bishop 2/ Micheal Bishop really was?
Anyone who says he's human knows.
Quote from: SM on Apr 10, 2007, 03:56:48 AM
Anyone who says he's human knows.
I've always said hes a Human, there is just little evidence that proves hes an android :-\
There's a difference between suggests and proves.
There's nothing that "proves" he's an android.
Its Obvious he is an Android cause of AVP. How can Bishop (Weyland) Be around in Alien 3 if he was alive during AVP and Alien takes place 150 years or so in the future. Oh, and he was killed in Alien Vs Predator. Have you guys paid any attention to the movies?
You're assuming the guy in Alien 3 was named Weyland.
You're assuming that because Weyland's middle name is Bishop, that anyone with the last name Bishop must be some sort of relative.
More simply, you're assuming they're even related.
You're also ignoring the fact that there's nothing saying he's not human other than the fact he bares physical resemblance to some man who lived two hundred years beforehand.
Seriously, there are people who look damn near the same as other people, completely unrelated, living on the other side of the world. Today. Let alone hundreds of years in the future, where the same alignment of genes could return to form a similar visage.
That's also ignoring the possibility of cosmetic surgery on the half of The Dude in Alien3 to resemble the founder for some unknown reason. Sound stupid? There are people who get corrective surgery to look like Michael f**king Jackson because they worship him so mu.
In 2004, a man named Charles Weyland who owned the Weyland corporation got killed by an alien monster. Two hundred years later a worker for the expanded company, now Weyland-Yutani, who happens to look like the founder, gets beaned over the head by a lead pipe.
QuoteHave you guys paid any attention to the movies?
Have you paid any attention to this discussion?
I am thinking film-making wise, normally in movies when sombody plays a character they sometimes play there own relatives, like in Back to the future or Tremors 4, if Charles Weyland was played by another actor there might not have been an argument, but I think Lance was choosen to show that the Weyland company was past down to each generation of the Weyland family, maybe there sir-names have changed but not the fact its there company as well as Yutanis, the fact that Charles Weyland and Bishop 2 look the same might just be a coincidence or a genetic skip.
Maybe Bishop 2 did design and build the Bishop android bassed on his own looks, unaware that his great relative look alot like himself.
I have a friend that looks JUST LIKE Richard Jeni; no relation.
Quote from: Mr. Weyland on Apr 11, 2007, 03:05:06 AM
Back to the future
Wow, someone referenced it before me.
He's Human
Quote from: Mr. Weyland on Mar 05, 2007, 01:30:50 AM
Even though the ear is hanging off, if he was an android, shouldnt we have seen some white blood and wire things around the back of the ear?
Somebody mentioned that Bishop 2 was designed to look more human, hence the red fluid... Coloring the white fluid, wouldn't be that hard do to... Also, realistically, a blow that would leave his head wide opened would make a human Bishop pass out, with his ear dangling around and such...
Also, in the Alien3 end credits, Lance Henricksen's character is called 'Bishop II', which would be strange if he was human, wouldn't it...?
if you recall, Bishop I was pale because of the white fluid... So he was a easy give away, hence in order to convince Ripley to do their biding, WY would need a more convincing android, with red fluid instead of the white one...
I don't know if this was adressed bfore, and if it was, my apologies... ;)
Quote from: SM on Mar 05, 2007, 01:21:30 AM
Oddly enough Aaron hit Bishop in about the same spot as Parker hit Ash. Bishops shoulder took most of the blow, but as Aaron was using a different weapon, he copped the head injury too.
This Bishop would supposedly be a model upgraded from the 57-year old A-2 model (Ash)...
Bishop says so 'itself' in Aliens when Ripley discovers he is a droid...
He would probably be more advanced, far more resistant to injury, with new and improved building technology and materials, and so would Bishop II... It was a newer model than the 57-year old A2 model...
I remember someone saying this
the opinions of the cast, crew or even filmakers aren't really canonical unless it is clearly portrayed in the movies. If for no other reason, because they change. Like LH has changes his opinion about Bishop 2 since it was made.
Still hold- Bishop 2 = Human
HE IS A DROID in alien3 at the end, after morse was shot by one of the company guys, 85 screems: "fuc#ing robot" or something similar before hitting bishop 2 in the head! so, why 85 said that? hmm...maybe he knew bishop 2 was a droid... ;)
Quote from: yautja99 on May 10, 2007, 04:28:14 PM
I remember someone saying this
the opinions of the cast, crew or even filmakers aren't really canonical unless it is clearly portrayed in the movies. If for no other reason, because they change. Like LH has changes his opinion about Bishop 2 since it was made.
Still hold- Bishop 2 = Human
I have mentioned this before, particularly the 'Bishop II' end credit, and I doubt a human would still be conscious after such a blow to his head... and the 'I'm not a droid' remark was a bit foolish... and the photo of him with his ear dangling is weird, at best... But what puzzled me was the 'Bishop II' in the end credits...If his name was Michael Bishop, then why the 'Bishop II' name...? Why not the 'Bishop inventor' or 'Bishop voice/Michael Bishop'...?
Fox would have warned Paul Anderson 'hey, we added a few more things at the end of Alien3 and Bishop is human after all'... So Fox and the producers, above all, would be aware of this... So, I still maintain that he was a Bishop android, perfected to look more human, and with red fluid instead of the white one to give more color to him and not that pale white tone of the Aliens movie... to make him look more human...
QuoteHE IS A DROID in alien3 at the end, after morse was shot by one of the company guys, 85 screems: "fuc#ing robot" or something similar before hitting bishop 2 in the head! so, why 85 said that? hmm...maybe he knew bishop 2 was a droid...
FFS... ::)
Read the rest of the thread.
Aaron hit Bishop on the shoulder, only the end of the wrench glanced off his head.
People have survived a lot worse.
Quote from: YutaniDitch on May 10, 2007, 05:13:05 PM
particularly the 'Bishop II' end credit
So the guy credited as 'Company Man's name is actually 'Company Man'? What about 'Unlucky Bastard' in
Jurassic Park: The Lost World/? Edward Norton's character in
Fight Club, named simply The Narrator?
We never know what the guy's name is. It could be Bob Down for all we know; it's never said. But just because the credits say his name is Bishop II in no way evidence that his actual name is Bishop II.
Quoteand I doubt a human would still be conscious after such a blow to his head
A person once walked thirty minutes to a hospital after being impaled through the head with a metal pole.
Quote'hey, we added a few more things at the end of Alien3 and Bishop is human after all'...
After all? It was always the intention he was human. It comes across in the theatrical cut just fine without the added shots.
Quoteto make him look more human...
Ash didn't have abnormally pale skin, nor did Bishop really. Given that they're standing above the warm orange glow of a furnace it's impossible to know what's his colour and what's lighting; at any rate, I don't see why they'd go through the trouble of customizing a droid with red blood just for that mission, considering A) I doubt they counted on him being whacked and B) Red dye is the most expensive, and WY are cheap bastards.
Listen people Alien 3 confirmed Bishop II is human its canonical, Paul Anderson cannot change it!
Quote from: yautja99 on May 11, 2007, 02:45:58 AM
Listen people Alien 3 confirmed Bishop II is human its canonical, Paul Anderson cannot change it!
I don't think he as changed it really, all he as done is created the mystery of who Bishop II really was.
Quote from: SM on May 11, 2007, 12:06:10 AM
QuoteHE IS A DROID in alien3 at the end, after morse was shot by one of the company guys, 85 screems: "fuc#ing robot" or something similar before hitting bishop 2 in the head! so, why 85 said that? hmm...maybe he knew bishop 2 was a droid...
FFS... ::)
Read the rest of the thread.
Aaron hit Bishop on the shoulder, only the end of the wrench glanced off his head.
People have survived a lot worse.
have you ever checked the extended scene? he did not just glanced off his head...his ear dangled (check production photo of LH characterised after the blow... And 85 hit him on the head, not the shoulder...
Quote from: SiL on May 11, 2007, 12:57:17 AM
Quote from: YutaniDitch on May 10, 2007, 05:13:05 PM
particularly the 'Bishop II' end credit
So the guy credited as 'Company Man's name is actually 'Company Man'? What about 'Unlucky Bastard' in Jurassic Park: The Lost World/? Edward Norton's character in Fight Club, named simply The Narrator?
We never know what the guy's name is. It could be Bob Down for all we know; it's never said. But just because the credits say his name is Bishop II in no way evidence that his actual name is Bishop II.
Quoteand I doubt a human would still be conscious after such a blow to his head
A person once walked thirty minutes to a hospital after being impaled through the head with a metal pole.
Quote'hey, we added a few more things at the end of Alien3 and Bishop is human after all'...
After all? It was always the intention he was human. It comes across in the theatrical cut just fine without the added shots.
Quoteto make him look more human...
Ash didn't have abnormally pale skin, nor did Bishop really. Given that they're standing above the warm orange glow of a furnace it's impossible to know what's his colour and what's lighting; at any rate, I don't see why they'd go through the trouble of customizing a droid with red blood just for that mission, considering A) I doubt they counted on him being whacked and B) Red dye is the most expensive, and WY are cheap bastards.
1 -SiL, any extra in a movie is never called by his character name because he hasn't got one! Sheesh... If in the novel his name was supposedly Michael Bishop, then why did they place 'Bishop II' on the end credits...? That is all I am asking... And LH character is not an extra, he plays an integral part in the last 15 minutes...
2 - yeah, that's the same thing, allright... I am talking massive trauma, and exceptions don't make the rule...
3 - You seem to forget the lengths WY took to acquire th Alien...No, it would not be farfetched, especially if they want to convince Ripley to surrender herself and the Queen, something a pale 'white-blooded' droid would not be able to do... Also, there was a reason for the added scene of the gushing blood and the 'I'm not a droid' remark... And if you look closely, you can see his head wide open and his ear dangling...he would not be able to be so casual about it... And again I doubt that Fox would do such an obvious mistake allowing AVP to have a Charles Weyland, having one flesh-and-blood already 200 years after in Aliens... Doesn't add up, now does it...?
Quote from: yautja99 on May 11, 2007, 02:45:58 AM
Listen people Alien 3 confirmed Bishop II is human its canonical, Paul Anderson cannot change it!
Unless Fox releases a press release or official memo declaring otherwise, Charles Weyland's HUMAN character in AVP demonstrates that Bishop II is a DROID... It is unlikely, in 200 years, a descendant (we don't even know if he had kids) with the dsame facial features creates an android in his own image... It is possible, but still in the realm of pure speculation, not fact...
Like I said, what matters is the movies, and the added scenes in Alien3 show his head gushing blood like a hose, and his ear dangling, meaning his head is wide opened... And he only reacts to it once, before saying 'no pictures'... whihchis odd, being his head gushing blood like that... So, the added scenes show a bit more than what we saw in the theatrical... And AVP confirmed Bishop II was (will be, actually) a droid... Movies don't lie... :D ;)
Quote from: SM on May 11, 2007, 12:06:10 AM
QuoteHE IS A DROID in alien3 at the end, after morse was shot by one of the company guys, 85 screems: "fuc#ing robot" or something similar before hitting bishop 2 in the head! so, why 85 said that? hmm...maybe he knew bishop 2 was a droid...
FFS... ::)
Read the rest of the thread.
Aaron hit Bishop on the shoulder, only the end of the wrench glanced off his head.
People have survived a lot worse.
i´m talking about what aaron said, why he said that?
Quote from: slipknotpredator on May 11, 2007, 11:01:04 AM
Quote from: SM on May 11, 2007, 12:06:10 AM
QuoteHE IS A DROID in alien3 at the end, after morse was shot by one of the company guys, 85 screems: "fuc#ing robot" or something similar before hitting bishop 2 in the head! so, why 85 said that? hmm...maybe he knew bishop 2 was a droid...
FFS... ::)
Read the rest of the thread.
Aaron hit Bishop on the shoulder, only the end of the wrench glanced off his head.
People have survived a lot worse.
i´m talking about what aaron said, why he said that?
Aaron was a Company man, so he probably knew what he was talking about...
But then his IQ was 85 so... ;D :D ;)
Seriously though, I don't think, having a son and wife, he would be risking his life by headbutting the creator of the Bishop android...would you...?
I sure wouldn't...So I agree with you, because of what you said and for a lot of other reasons I pointed out...
Paul Andersons and Lance Henriksons opinions are non canonical
Quote from: yautja99 on May 11, 2007, 04:48:43 PM
Paul Andersons and Lance Henriksons opinions are non canonical
The problem with Lance (my favourite actor - just wished I had seen more of the Millenium series, where he kicked arse... ) is that he thought, rightfully so, that he was interpreting a human Bishop but it got changed somehow at studio level to render him ambiguous onscreen, but I think he was being honest when he said that the Bishop II character he played was human... nothing obscure at all... remember that actors aren't always in the loop regarding the whole movie process, especially after the shooting...some scenes are rearranged to appear to be something else, things get cut and placed elsewhere or not at all... it is all part of the editing process...
Long story short, though, the movies are the canon... the opinions, though valid, are not, as you say...
The canon in Alien3 is tricky: on one hand, we have the theatrical version, which points to a human bishop, and then the extended version, which clarly points to a droid Bishop... hard to say...
Though AVP finally established as canon the Bishop II as a droid, no doubt about it...
Now, I don't think that Fox and the producers involved would allow such departure from the Alien3 movie to be filmed if Bishop II was, in fact, the Bishop designer... So I tend to go with the programme on this, because I like to think that the studios know what they are doing, better than us...
So, AVP is the canon now, not Alien3... (bruaah in the background, with boos and others...) :o
Grieves me to say, guys...
AGREE
How exactly does Alien 3 extended point towards Bishop 2 being a droid? if anything it clearly points even more to him being human.
Well, people are arguing that he can't be a droid and others are arguing that he can't be a clone, so there is only ONE logical explanation . . .
Bishop II was Charles Bishop Weyland's evil twin held in cryo-stasis to avoid having share profits and the risk of a hostile takeover :p
Alien 3 was made in 1992 and that confirms Bishop II is human and then AVP comes along then that also has a human Bishop
Face it everyone Bishop II in Alien 3 is officially human there is no evidence in Alien 3 saying he is an Android!.
Quote from: yautja99 on May 12, 2007, 03:11:03 AM
Alien 3 was made in 1992 and that confirms Bishop II is human and then AVP comes along then that also has a human Bishop
Face it everyone Bishop II in Alien 3 is officially human there is no evidence in Alien 3 saying he is an Android!.
Well, AVP says it was so...what do you think is canon now, A3 or AVP...? I tend to think the latter...
There are a number of things on the Extended Edition that shows him to be a droid, like the blood gushing like a hose and a human person with a wound that serious would not remain like that, and saying foolishly 'I'm not a droid'...
But that matters not anymore... AVP demonstrated, beyond a doubt, that Bishop II (?) was a droid, and no matter how you slice it, you can't change what AVP transpired about Charles Bishop Weyland and how it remanded Bishop II to the droid section... I still believe it was named 'Bishop II' for a reason in the end credits...
The only defence Paul Anderson has for this error was he wrote AVP before the Alien 3 exdended edit was made available, ie he probably didn't know there was extended scenes showing Bishop 2 to be human.
Charles Bishop Weyland was a nich touch, but Alien 3 is definitely more canon than AVP.
Bishop 2 is not an android, he has red blood! Even Call, a droid 200 years down the line still has white blood.
People at Fox simply wouldn't care less about such a trivial thing as is Bishop 2 an android at the end of Alien 3, i'd bet many fox execs could hardly remember Bishop was in Alien 3 at all. Hell, in the quadrilogy dvd David Giler struggles to remember much of anything! Hell Alien 3 itself is an example Fox don't know what the hell they are doing with this franchise. Continuity errors can't be blamed on the studio.
Paul Anderson likes to make his own rules up as he goes along. For example, we know nothing about predator's lifespan, Anderson just assumes they live for hundreds of years. He assumes the Preds of the first two films are younger than the Preds of AVP. He assumes that cos he wrote this character, than Bishop 2 has to be an android. its all bollocks. Its very cheeky of him to threten continuity and assume things about elements of other films far superior to his own.
Anderson thinks his film is clever because it apparantly shows how Weyland Yutani will know that the aliens exist come the events of Alien. How exactly? Cos one survivor makes it back in the antarctic saying yes ive just battled these aliens and preds in this big underground temple but its blown up now so there's no evidence to prove it. And i'm sure people will just believe her straight away, yet the Company don't believe Ripley about their existence come Aliens? Very very weak indeed.
Quote from: TheBATMAN on May 13, 2007, 02:16:59 PM
People at Fox simply wouldn't care less about such a trivial thing as is Bishop 2 an android at the end of Alien 3, i'd bet many fox execs could hardly remember Bishop was in Alien 3 at all. Hell, in the quadrilogy dvd David Giler struggles to remember much of anything! Hell Alien 3 itself is an example Fox don't know what the hell they are doing with this franchise. Continuity errors can't be blamed on the studio.
Paul Anderson likes to make his own rules up as he goes along. For example, we know nothing about predator's lifespan, Anderson just assumes they live for hundreds of years. He assumes the Preds of the first two films are younger than the Preds of AVP. He assumes that cos he wrote this character, than Bishop 2 has to be an android. its all bollocks. Its very cheeky of him to threten continuity and assume things about elements of other films far superior to his own.
Anderson thinks his film is clever because it apparantly shows how Weyland Yutani will know that the aliens exist come the events of Alien. How exactly? Cos one survivor makes it back in the antarctic saying yes ive just battled these aliens and preds in this big underground temple but its blown up now so there's no evidence to prove it. And i'm sure people will just believe her straight away, yet the Company don't believe Ripley about their existence come Aliens? Very very weak indeed.
I think it is as much fault of Fox as it is Anderson's... Fox, or the producers involved, have the obligation to be vigilant to any introduced events, scenes or characters that can pose continuity problems...
This Bishop thing, despite being a footnote on Alien 3, gained great importance by the introduction of Charles Weyland in AVP... I agree with you that maybe Anderson never did see the Extended cut, but I disagree about Fox being excused from this... The studios and the producers have the obligation to know more than Anderson about their products, especially what is within continuity and without...
Yes, Paul had too much liberty in AVP but it is because Fox gave it to him... 'Blame never dies single', especially in the moviemaking business...
I think that 'Alien' never showed that WY knew about the Alien specifically, just the transmission of intelligent origin... The order to retrieve it came later... Remember that Ash had access to the Mother booth, so WY could have been in contact with him the whole time... His 'Special Order' was issued after retrieving Kane from the derelict...'bring BACK lifeform, priority one'... WY could have only issued such an order upon acknowledgment of the xenomorph's bio-weaponised potential... And that could only be known after Ash's analysis...
Now, by stating that 150 years before people had advance knowledge of the Alien and even got access to it, would imply that the Nostromo landed on Acheron with the intent purpose to retrieve the xenomorph, which is incorrect... particularly because 57 years later, a colony was already there for 20 years and nobody was sent to investigate the ship and/or retrieve it until Burke sent them AFTER Ripley got back and gave them her report...
So, it is unlikely they knew in advance that the Xenomorph existed...and also, in 150 years, many changes in the WY board would happen, and probably the info would get lost somehow...Come to think of it, this is one way to go in AVP2: they knew but eventually, 150 years later, that info got lost in the dance of chairs that took place in WY over a period of 150 years...!
However, come to think of it, how would they know where to look in the first place...? How would they know that in Acheron there was a Xenomorph, UNLESS they knew THAT from the transmission already...? (I know, pretty flimsy... especially because we never saw anything pointing to that...)
We probably won't know what happened to Lex after the events (she isn't, as far as I know, in AVP2) and bear in mind that Alien takes place 150 years in the future, which is too much time for a company to fixate on a specific goal: boards change, CEOs change, technology is not yet adequate for deep space travelling, etc...
And I realised now how long this is getting, so feel free to smack me around... ;D
I understand ur points and agree to a certain extent yes Fox should have been more careful with their products but they were not. And in my opinion, any continuity errors is the fault of the writer no one else. If it was a big event, then im sure Fox would step in and say no you can't do this cos it will mess this up etc but i just think the fact that weather bishop 2 is an android or not is too trivial for them to even notice.
And Special order 937 was there from the beginning. Ash was a plant on the ship by Weyland Yutani. It mentions in the film that Dallas' regular science officer was replaced two days before they left earth with Ash. Ash's mission was to make sure they landed on the planet, collect the alien and bring it back. Crew expendable.
If you read the novel of Alien it expands on this a lot more and there is some good stuff about Dallas questioning Ash's motives and that he knew what the facehugger was doing to Kane all along.
So the company did know about the existence of the aliens, the question is how? Anderson believes his film answers this. Maybe not directly but he mentions it in his making of docs on the dvd a couple of times. And as i said before, weak.
The novel explains - They deciphered the message and found out what brought the ship down. They wante one. Before then, no-one knew of the Alien.
QuoteThough AVP finally established as canon the Bishop II as a droid, no doubt about it...
Rubbish.
This thread says otherwise.
I just watched Alien 3 and I got a little confused with the whole Michael Bishop thing. Is he a robot and was just lying to Ripley or is he related to Weyland or something?
Its all down to Paul Anderson and his crappy continuety. Bishop in Alien3 was the real human who invented the Bishop android because when his ear is spilt, its human blood that he bleeds. Either that or he was lying to Ripley and was an android with red lquid... :-\
I'm just as confused as you are. Maybe he's a descendant of Weyland? ???
a weyland junior? sounds funny
QuoteI'm just as confused as you are. Maybe he's a descendant of Weyland?
That's the theory I go with.
Inconclusive.
Ok, i will forget about him being a robot...i will say this from now on, he is a descendant from Bishop from AVP that looks just like him...he then (i guess) decided to create the bishop robot....that's my theory from now on.
I would think that Michael Bishop was human, except for the fact that he didn't black out after he was smashed in the back of the head with a pipe. Any normal human would be knocked out after a blow like that. Also, his ear was at a weird angle after he was hit.
Other than that, I think he is human. So, my final verdict is: I don't know for sure if he's human.
well i remember some guy here made a good point, he evn sent a link to a response about this thing
This old chestnut again. :)
The 'is he or isn't he' debate truly is the neverending story. There will never be a consensus, so you'll just have to make up your own mind as to which option you prefer.
Human or droid? Ancestor or Anderson-sucks? ;)
Quotehe was smashed in the back of the head with a pipe. Any normal human would be knocked out after a blow like that.
No he wasn't and not necessarily.
I viewed it as a retcon by Anderson. Bishop in Alien3 is human, but Anderson decided to ignore that fact to make Bishop in AVP the actual human.
I belive that Weyland (before he discorverd the temple) made plans to have him cloned into a android in the near furture.
Grid Alien
Quote from: Grid Alien on Jun 11, 2007, 05:53:16 PM
I belive that Weyland (before he discorverd the temple) made plans to have him cloned into a android in the near furture.
Grid Alien
possibly.... good theory!
QuoteI belive that Weyland (before he discorverd the temple) made plans to have him cloned into a android in the near furture.
Hows that done then?
QuoteNo he wasn't and not necessarily.
Ok, it was a wrench. Mistakes happen, and I haven't seen Alien 3 in a while (perhaps I should soon). But the rest of my post still stands.
If the blow was hard enough to move his ear into a weird angle, then there's no way he'd still be conscious. I'm no expert on this, so if you are more knowledgeable on this subject then I'll happily admit I was wrong.
QuoteI'm no expert on this
That much is evident.
For one, he was actually hit on the back/ shoulder. The wrench glanced off the side of his head - hence the injury to his ear. And two, there are lots of people surviving much worse than what happened to Bishop. It's not hard to find a case of someone with horrific injuries keeping it together enough to get to hospital on thier own. Off the top of my head I remember a case years ago where a guy shot himself in the head with a speargun and remained lucid throughout.
QuoteThat much is evident.
You don't have to be rude about it. I was trying to be polite as possible, while still trying to make a point. But, judging from some other posts you've made, I expected you'd say something along those lines.
But, I admit you're right. Now that I think of it, I remember hearing a case of a kid remaining conscious after getting an arrow shot through his head. I guess I had forgot how much a human head could withstand. However, cases like that are rare.
I believe Michael Bishop was also an Android because when he was hit with the wrench it looked as though his ear and part of his head were almost unnaturally torn off
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1RgfxvwIgA&mode=related&search=
QuoteYou don't have to be rude about it.
Yeah probably. But I've seen the same erroneous arguments for years and it gets tiresome. My apologies anyway.
QuoteBut, judging from some other posts you've made, I expected you'd say something along those lines.
So why are you surprised.
Always best to avoid hard and fast statements like "he was smashed in the back of the head with a pipe. Any normal human would be knocked out after a blow like that"
Yeah, I guess I was thinking too fast when I made that post.
In Alien 3 Bishop II is bleeding red blood and groaning in pain, with a gruesome flap of ear and skin hanging from his face. Reeling from the injury, Bishop II reasserts that he is human by screaming, "I'm not a droid!".
I change my mind...i will believe that he is a droid, i thought that he was when i was a little kid, and i think he is one today.
Quote from: yautja99 on Jun 13, 2007, 02:40:52 AM
In Alien 3 Bishop II is bleeding red blood and groaning in pain, with a gruesome flap of ear and skin hanging from his face. Reeling from the injury, Bishop II reasserts that he is human by screaming, "I'm not a droid!".
It could be dyed red android blood and I thought the droids could feel pain.
I thought it was dyed blood too, and they probably programmed him to believe that he is the real thing, or he is a droid that hates that he is a droid as to why he probably says in anger "I'm not a droid!"
God this is stupid Bishop II is human in Alien 3 and is not an Android that movie did not confirm he was an Android. Second Generation Androids are a more advanced type of Android (Call from Alien: Resurrection is a second generation Android) and they still have that milk type blood and they do not have red blood. Ever since Alien 3 was made that movie never confirmed he was an Android.
A clone, then. He couldn't have been a descandant - he looks exactly like Weyland.
a clone is the only damn new thing that i heard that makes sense out of anderson's **** up in AVP
He's not a clone.
Quote from: yautja99 on Jun 13, 2007, 09:03:09 PM
God this is stupid Bishop II is human in Alien 3 and is not an Android that movie did not confirm he was an Android. Second Generation Androids are a more advanced type of Android (Call from Alien: Resurrection is a second generation Android) and they still have that milk type blood and they do not have red blood. Ever since Alien 3 was made that movie never confirmed he was an Android.
Thats a good point
well, he's not a droid...not a human...not a clone...according to all of us fans...this heated debate will last forever...it is never going to end
Maybe he a Hologram lol
it is the future ;D
I was looking on Amazon.com at some reviews for AVP, and kept on seeing people saying how, what about the Bishop weyland guy in Alien 3, some say he's an android, but androids don't bleed red.
If you do some research, like I did, you will find that in 3 thats Bishop the 4th. In AVP thats Weyland the 1st or whatever.
Just so you know...there might not be many people to agree with you...so just prepare if any other people post after me saying stuff about the never ending dispute of BISHOP. I am done with these disputes.
Quote from: Xenonewborn on Jul 10, 2007, 01:12:36 AM
If you do some research, like I did, you will find that in 3 thats Bishop the 4th.
Only retroactively.
For the record, we have a bunch of threads on this topic too.
What's the controversey on this topic? I must've missed the threads.
Quote from: echobbase79 on Jul 11, 2007, 12:36:47 AM
What's the controversey on this topic? I must've missed the threads.
Are you kidding me?
Anyway here goes...
People dispute whether he is an android or a Human...since supposedly there is now way for someone to get hit with a pipe only to get up immediately and US see that he has a ripped ear.
With the red blood many people say he is human others say advanced android programmed to lie and say that he is the original Bishop.
Anderson the f'd up the dispute even more
anyone want to add anything else I missed?
I guess Fincher and the writers only the know the truth. Personally, I think he was human because in the Assembly cut he was in a lot of pain. I think they wanted to make it ambiguous in the final version though.
Quote
I guess Fincher and the writers only the know the truth.
No - they have told us the truth ad nauseum for those unable to work it out from the film. He is human. Someone link to an exisiting thread and close this bad boy.
In AVP, Lance Henrickson plays Bishop the 1st, in Alien 3 he plays Bishop the 4th,
No, in AvP he plays a guy called 'Weyland'.
Quote from: SM on Jul 11, 2007, 12:47:15 AM
Quote
I guess Fincher and the writers only the know the truth.
No - they have told us the truth ad nauseum for those unable to work it out from the film. He is human. Someone link to an exisiting thread and close this bad boy.
its debatable, but i think he's human.
It's only debatable to those who refuse to accept the facts.
Fight about it on this old thread - Link (http://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=320.0)
Who cares man? It's a movie character for crying out loud. ;) I think it's debatable and don't need any "so" called facts to back it up. And if you'd read my post I said I believe him to be human which is in line with your belief. ;D
You also said it's debatable which isn't in line with me.
As for who cares - have a look at who has posted in this thread and you see 'who'.
Ok chief whatever.
Quote from: Xenonewborn on Jul 11, 2007, 12:52:59 AM
In AVP, Lance Henrickson plays Bishop the 1st, in Alien 3 he plays Bishop the 4th,
You already said that...so again I point out that this is just retroactive continuity. At the time of Alien3's production, Lance was playing
THE human creator of Bishop.
This "Bishop IV" stuff is nonsense. Just for starters, it'd have to be Weyland the IV, not Bishop.
How is he the 4th anyway?
Lance has only played three characters.
It might be possible that Weyland had like 2 kids or something, 1 girl, or something, after his death the board takes over, the girl gets married and has kids, and then we end up with Bishop, not Weyland. Either that or they dropped the last name.
The only verification we have that "androids don't bleed red" is the known examples of the original Bishop, Ash and Call. Let's examine them.
Ash was an early model of robot able to appear and behave exatly like a proper human without external control measures monitoring it. Perhaps even the earliest model. Bishop states that the model did tend to be a bit "twitchy". The fluid we see might be the most efficient stuff used for whatever its function is, back then.
Parker appears to register disbelief that Ash could be a robot, indicating such a thing might not be 'normal' to see.
The viewer is introduced to Bishop, a few decades on. Technology has advanced, as shown by Bishop's remark about how Ash was witnessed as behaving. Bishop is a standard, military-grade systems operator. Bishop is not built for engaging in combat, even as a final resort, as demonstrated by the machine's hesitation at the possibility of encountering Aliens on the way to fix the communications array.
It is likely that with these models being placed in combat zones, the probability of a 'corpse' or injured (malfunctioned) unit mixed in with actual injured or dying field personnel would have required the colour of internal fluids to differentiate them, so as to not waste precious medical resources. This is logical thinking. In the space of just a few decades, it is certainly possible that the ability to simply mix in a blood-like dye would at least be available.
Any units meant to engage in infiltration of enemy lines and facilities, almost certainly, would be given this capability. It's not much use to have an entire operation fail, just because your spy gets a paper cut. Rather pointless, if anything. :)
'Bishop 2', if it was a robot, would most definitely have been such a model. The sort of model 'Bishop 1' exemplifies would be completely useless for the role. Weyland-Yutani would definitely be able to afford those advanced models, even if they do not personally manufacture them. It is likely that, given how they are represented, they might even use them for industrial espionage.
Several hundred years in the future, we are shown Call. She is supposed to be even more advanced, but still has white fluid - why? As above, it is very likely that, as robots get mixed into civilian life (as Call's very purpose was meant to be), they are increasingly likely to be involved in things such as tarffic and industrial accidents. The same logic as above applies, in so mucha s it being foolish to waste the time and resources of emergency personnel in eithe rreascuing or treating a robotic unit, when real people could be in danger.
Yes, a robot could simply communicate it is not human, but what if it had malfunctioned? What if it was rendered incapable of speech? What if it was under the surface of a body of water or trapped in a room, behind sound-proof glass?
The simplest and most direct method to show it would not be human, would simply be to give it white fluid. It's highly visible and is a massive contrast against red.
Therefore, it is is not only possible, but even highly probable that some sort of legal code would have been put together, a long time ago, requiring this to be the standard. It's too logical to ignore as one of the more likely ways society would deal with robots designed to act like humans casually walking around in its midst. Call is of the generation where they're no longer meant to be restricted to the military.
Now... None of this necessarily dictates the Bishop 2 had to be a robot (although I personally favour that as likely, since the last film), but it's certainly valid as a legitimate theory for why B2 'bled' red, if it was robotic.
We can't just say it's impossible for a robot to not have red fluid. That would never make sense. Fluid can be any colour you want, if it's necessary to show it a certain way. The type of model chosen for the type of mission Bishop 2 would have to fulfill, yes, would be given this capability. It would be standard for anything meant to act and behave in an Ash-like way.
Ash, being an early example, would not have had these facets. Bishop 2, with much more mature technology and potentially beign designed, from the offset, to infiltrate, would.
If, of course, he was actually a synthetic.
QuoteThe only verification we have that "androids don't bleed red" is the known examples of the original Bishop, Ash and Call.
ie. Every synthetic in every Alien film. Ever.
Quote from: SM on Jul 11, 2007, 11:35:59 PM
ie. Every synthetic in every Alien film. Ever.
Which is why it was important to look at the context they are placed in.
My point is that it's silly to try try and say that it's impossible for anyone to add some red colour to that fluid they have. Of course it's possible. There are good reasons for why the 'ordinary' versions would keep it white, for which I gave some theories, but there is none to say it could
only ever be white, for reasons of practicality.
If they made models specifically designed for infiltration, then it stands to reason they would have done that.
QuoteGod this is stupid Bishop II is human in Alien 3 and is not an Android that movie did not confirm he was an Android. Second Generation Androids are a more advanced type of Android (Call from Alien: Resurrection is a second generation Android) and they still have that milk type blood and they do not have red blood. Ever since Alien 3 was made that movie never confirmed he was an Android.
Remember what yautja99 said
No.. what did yautja99 say?
QuoteIf they made models specifically designed for infiltration, then it stands to reason they would have done that.
So why didn't this inflitration model use his synthetic reflexes to:
a) Reach out and stop Ripley closing the gate to the gantry and simply take the Alien by force? That was his intent after all.
and
b) Actually try to block the maniac who whacked him with a wrench?
Was Aaron in on it too? Did they tell him - "Look. We've put red food colour in this android here, so make sure you whack him on the head so Ripley can see the blood."
Maybe the new models have red blood? :)
Quote from: SM on Jul 15, 2007, 11:31:28 PM
No.. what did yautja99 say?
QuoteIf they made models specifically designed for infiltration, then it stands to reason they would have done that.
So why didn't this inflitration model use his synthetic reflexes to:
a) Reach out and stop Ripley closing the gate to the gantry and simply take the Alien by force? That was his intent after all.
and
b) Actually try to block the maniac who whacked him with a wrench?
Was Aaron in on it too? Did they tell him - "Look. We've put red food colour in this android here, so make sure you whack him on the head so Ripley can see the blood."
1.Wouldn't have gave the movie a great ending lol.
2. He didn't see or expect it.
Guys the assembly cut is not canon. Sorry but it was deleated, therfore meaning non canoicial.
Quote from: Haloxpok3mon on Jul 17, 2007, 02:04:39 PM
Quote from: SM on Jul 15, 2007, 11:31:28 PM
No.. what did yautja99 say?
QuoteIf they made models specifically designed for infiltration, then it stands to reason they would have done that.
So why didn't this inflitration model use his synthetic reflexes to:
a) Reach out and stop Ripley closing the gate to the gantry and simply take the Alien by force? That was his intent after all.
and
b) Actually try to block the maniac who whacked him with a wrench?
Was Aaron in on it too? Did they tell him - "Look. We've put red food colour in this android here, so make sure you whack him on the head so Ripley can see the blood."
1.Wouldn't have gave the movie a great ending lol.
2. He didn't see or expect it.
Guys the assembly cut is not canon. Sorry but it was deleated, therfore meaning non canoicial.
The Ox-burster and the non-burst ending of Alien3 are the only non-canonical things from Alien 3 Directors cut the other stuff in it is canonical..
Quote from: Alienseseses on Jul 17, 2007, 01:19:07 PM
Maybe the new models have red blood? :)
And not the more advanced ones 200 years in the future? ;)
QuoteGuys the assembly cut is not canon. Sorry but it was deleated, therfore meaning non canoicial.
Any officially wide-released version of the film should be canon. The only real contradiction is what the Alien comes out of - Whether the Alien pops out of Ripley or not is inconsequential.
I bet Lance Henrikson is sitting somewhere thinking, I've got those F*ckers wound up real bad.... :)
For my ten cents, he's human.
Quote2. He didn't see or expect it.
So the guy screaming "f**king android!" wasn't a dead giveaway?
Er, no. Try again.
Speaking of which...
QuoteGuys the assembly cut is not canon. Sorry but it was deleated, therfore meaning non canoicial.
This is nothing to do with the assembly cut.
Quote from: SM on Jul 17, 2007, 10:59:21 PM
This is nothing to do with the assembly cut.
I think the assembly cut shows him in pain really badly, or something. That's why people use it as a reference for him being human. I don't have an opinion either way myself.
The AC also has him screaming "I am not a droid!". Still - red blood in the TC = human.
Quote from: SiL on Jul 17, 2007, 09:37:55 PM
Quote from: Alienseseses on Jul 17, 2007, 01:19:07 PM
Maybe the new models have red blood? :)
And not the more advanced ones 200 years in the future? ;)
The red blood was spooky?
Or it turns white with age?
Eh? Eh? ;) 8)
Quote from: Alienseseses on Jul 18, 2007, 12:14:56 AM
The red blood was spooky?
Or it turns white with age?
Eh? Eh? ;) 8)
Oooh, look, straws! ;)
Well who says that the Assembly cut is not cannon, thats like saying that the Special Edetion of Aiens is not cannon, or the Directors cut of Alien, or the SE of Res.
No one can say what's canon and what isn't. There's only the generally accepted view.
Exactly
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Aug 07, 2007, 06:34:06 PM
So long as the general public never finds out about them, continuity is preserved.
No, Aliens were never on earth, period. They can come up with any excuse they want but in the end, the original 4 Alien movies were all about making sure the Aliens never got to Earth.
You're also forgetting the whole Bishop/Weyland inconsistency.
Quote from: KillingJoke on Aug 07, 2007, 06:56:12 PM
No, Aliens were never on earth, period. They can come up with any excuse they want but in the end, the original 4 Alien movies were all about making sure the Aliens never got to Earth.
They were not on Earth
to the knowledge of anyone alive at the time (one of the reasons why the situation for '
Destroying Angels' comic was said to have worked fairly well).
We've got several examples of plague virus in stasis, but if one happens to get out into the real world, it's stlil a massive threat to life as we know it.
QuoteYou're also forgetting the whole Bishop/Weyland inconsistency.
Only applies if you're 100% unable to accept the possibility Bishop 2 might have been a more advanced model of robot.
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Aug 07, 2007, 07:03:57 PM
Quote from: KillingJoke on Aug 07, 2007, 06:56:12 PM
No, Aliens were never on earth, period. They can come up with any excuse they want but in the end, the original 4 Alien movies were all about making sure the Aliens never got to Earth.
They were not on Earth to the knowledge of anyone alive at the time (one of the reasons why the situation for '<i>Destroying Angels</i>' comic was said to have worked fairly well).
We've got several examples of plague virus in stasis, but if one happens to get out into the real world, it's stlil a massive threat to life as we know it.
QuoteYou're also forgetting the whole Bishop/Weyland inconsistency.
Only applies if you're 100% unable to accept the possibility Bishop 2 might have been a more advanced model of robot.
his ear got wounded in A3 and he had REAL blood.
Quote from: PeterKeyes on Aug 07, 2007, 07:05:47 PM
his ear got wounded in A3 and he had REAL blood.
Well, the discussion has gone around numerous times, but all we know is that it's red fluid. There are reasons why it might be illegal for civilian models to have it still white (wasting medical resources on synthetics at an accident site, for instance). Some sort of advanced model, decades ahead of Ash, could easily have that changed for infiltration reasons.
It also depends on whether you believe they would suddenly reveal their biggest secret to a robot designer and then put him in charge of a biological weapons field team, which I always found to be a bizarre course of action, personally.
Previous to the most recent film, it might have been likely he was human, but there was never 100% proof. With the introduction of Weyland, it's just more likely that it really was a synthetic, after all.
Now your grabbing thin air. NOTHING in the Alien series tells about a "android with red blood". Nothing. Therefor they dont exist, therefor, Bishop was human.
Quote from: CelticP on Aug 07, 2007, 09:30:35 PM
Now your grabbing thin air. NOTHING in the Alien series tells about a "android with red blood". Nothing. Therefor they dont exist, therefor, Bishop was human.
thank u!
QuoteNow your grabbing thin air. NOTHING in the Alien series tells about a "android with red blood". Nothing. Therefor they dont exist, therefor, Bishop was human.
You mean nothing in the
movie series.
Quote from: CelticP on Aug 07, 2007, 09:30:35 PM
Now your grabbing thin air. NOTHING in the Alien series tells about a "android with red blood". Nothing. Therefor they dont exist, therefor, Bishop was human.
So? How hard do you seriously think it would be for them add red dye to the stuff? They would only need a purpose for it and infiltration would suit that.
Waht kind of synthetic would be good at infiltrating? One programmed to behave and act like a human. Precisely the traits needed to negotiate with someone like Ripley. Ergo, it would be a lot more useful to send than putting a robot designer in charge of a biological weapons team. :)
Especially as its memory can be wiped.
This discussion is moot. The possibility was always there. It's just a lot more likely now. There's no proof in the films that humans still know how to make parachutes, either, but I'd bet they still do.
Quote
They were not on Earth to the knowledge of anyone alive at the time (one of the reasons why the situation for 'Destroying Angels' comic was said to have worked fairly well).
We've got several examples of plague virus in stasis, but if one happens to get out into the real world, it's stlil a massive threat to life as we know it.
You're not getting me. Thematically, it's inconsistent with the Aliens series because Aliens being on earth cheapens the deaths of all those great characters who died making sure the Aliens never reached Earth.
It's like finding out that James Bond is gay in the next film, when he was only pretending to be straight in the earlier films.
It's just total f**kery of the original series.
QuoteOnly applies if you're 100% unable to accept the possibility Bishop 2 might have been a more advanced model of robot.
No, there's still an inconsistency based on the fact that Bishop 2 even pretended to be the real Charles Bishop Weyland. If Bishop 2 was a droid, why program him to impersonate someone who's been dead for centuries.
Quote from: KillingJoke on Aug 07, 2007, 10:34:49 PM
You're not getting me. Thematically, it's inconsistent with the Aliens series because Aliens being on earth cheapens the deaths of all those great characters who died making sure the Aliens never reached Earth.
No, they died to prevent them being a
threat on Earth and had no
knowledge of any in stasis. That still applies. Either that Queen died in the intervening years or is submerged and frozen, eliminating it as a risk.
It's like trapping a wild tiger in a cage. Sure, it's in your camp, but it's not going to do anything. If you bury it in the ground, it's still there, but nobody's going to know about it.
QuoteIt's like finding out that James Bond is gay in the next film, when he was only pretending to be straight in the earlier films.
Technically, he could be bisexual, for all anyone knows.
QuoteNo, there's still an inconsistency based on the fact that Bishop 2 even pretended to be the real Charles Bishop Weyland. If Bishop 2 was a droid, why program him to impersonate someone who's been dead for centuries.
It never impersonated any one individual. No name was given. There was just a claim that he "designed" the series. There's no indication in '
Alien Versus Predator' that Weyland designed them. Somehow made a fortune in robotics, sure, but that's not even nearly the same thing.
Plese, everyone, just go to a thread that has this damn dispute. I can't believe that Darkness hasn't put this in the Aliens board as a IMPORTANT Topic as this topic has been around for so many damn years, I gave up on this and all of you should just accept it for what you believe, whether you believe it is an androind, human, whatever.
Every android we see on screen - White blood.
Bishop II - Red blood.
What basis in the films is there, exactly, to assume that he would be an android with different coloured blood? Every other robot had white blood. Zero precedence for coloured blood, no reason to colour the blood, and no damned-good reason to even assume he's not a human anyway!
Or should we all start saying Hudson was an android?
This is my last comment on the Bishop 2 thing, because it's been done to death and has a different forum. :)
Just ask yourself why it would be difficult to make it red. It shouldnt' be. It's just colour, there is dye available. I can think of a perfectly valid reason why official models would be legally forced to have white fluid: Preventing medical resources and personnel being wasted on 'rescuing' dead synthetics from an accident site.
There's no real reason I can think of for why it would be difficult to give them red fluid. I can't think of one. If they invent one specifically meant for infiltration purposes, it would make sense for it to come with red as standard. Not much good if some espionage mission goes awry because it gets a paper cut. :)
An infiltration one would be ideal for negotiating with Ripley. It's as simple as that. Ash had white, but seemed to be one of the first prototypes/production models. Parker's reaction implied they were rare, if not unprecedented. Technology would have moved on.
Thus end my comments on this particular subject. :)
Yeah, they totally intended for Bishop II to be beaned over the head with a metal pipe ::)
Quote from: SiL on Aug 08, 2007, 01:01:39 AM
Yeah, they totally intended for Bishop II to be beaned over the head with a metal pipe ::)
Wha...?
Quote from: PeterKeyes on Aug 07, 2007, 09:55:54 PM
Quote from: CelticP on Aug 07, 2007, 09:30:35 PM
Now your grabbing thin air. NOTHING in the Alien series tells about a "android with red blood". Nothing. Therefor they dont exist, therefor, Bishop was human.
thank u!
Well lets just look at the facts. Yes true that they never said the androids had red blood or anything, and if you remember in Alien Resurrection where Call got shot and later she showed her wound and she had white blood...And Alien Resurrection took place 200years after Alien 3 right? So why would Call have white blood if they were making androids more human with that red blood, so clearly Bishop in Alien 3 was meant to be human.....Paul Anderson just f**ked up..... :P
Right? ? ?
Quote from: PatrinAVP11 on Aug 08, 2007, 01:03:59 AM
Well lets just look at the facts. Yes true that they never said the androids had red blood or anything, and if you remember in Alien Resurrection where Call got shot and later she showed her wound and she had white blood...And Alien Resurrection took place 200years after Alien 3 right? So why would Call have white blood if they were making androids more human with that red blood, so clearly Bishop in Alien 3 was meant to be human.....Paul Anderson just f**ked up..... :P
Right? ? ?
I promised I wouldn't continue with this, but it's more of a clarification... :)
I'm fully aware Call had white, but like I said, she's a civilian model. Read back at the theory about legalities and medical accidents. If they make these incredibly realistic synthetics running around, then they're going ot have to come up with some sort of standard to prevent them being confused with people in traffic accidents and so on. Giving them all standard white 'blood' makes sense to avoid any confusion like that, where mistakes cost lives.
Advanced military ones would have different sets of rules applied to them. The question should
not be why a robot
can have red fluid, but why it
couldn't. It makes sense for an infiltration model to have it, in case it has an accident on some mission, as white fluid would immediately give the game away (just as Ash's injury had).
If Bishop 2 was a robot, then it makes sense for it to have been one of those, as its behaviour and such is more natural (in the same way another film franchise contrasted the T-800 and more advanced T-1000).
The recent film simply made it
more likely that it was, indeed, a robot. No proof, no. Just probabilities.
The original Bishop 2 was apparently intended to be human, yes, but then the original Alien was intended to not need a Queen. Other production teams in charge of future stories had different interpretations.
Yeh thats true, because im sure Bishop 2 was intended to be human but after Paul Anderson's AVP movie he kinda killed that so I think we kind of have to except that Bishop 2 is just an android because of AVP, but if AVP was never made this wouldn't be an issue but because it was I have to assume Bishop 2 is just an android.
Quote from: PatrinAVP11 on Aug 08, 2007, 01:19:01 AM
Yeh thats true, because im sure Bishop 2 was intended to be human but after Paul Anderson's AVP movie he kinda killed that so I think we kind of have to except that Bishop 2 is just an android because of AVP, but if AVP was never made this wouldn't be an issue but because it was I have to assume Bishop 2 is just an android.
That's my view, yes. :)
Others have ideas about clones and such, but Weyland was never the creator of Weyland-Yutani. Just Weyland Industries. An advanced synthetic is more typical for the Company's way of doing stuff, in my view.
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Aug 07, 2007, 10:18:24 PM
Quote from: CelticP on Aug 07, 2007, 09:30:35 PM
Now your grabbing thin air. NOTHING in the Alien series tells about a "android with red blood". Nothing. Therefor they dont exist, therefor, Bishop was human.
So? How hard do you seriously think it would be for them add red dye to the stuff? They would only need a purpose for it and infiltration would suit that.
Waht kind of synthetic would be good at infiltrating? One programmed to behave and act like a human. Precisely the traits needed to negotiate with someone like Ripley. Ergo, it would be a lot more useful to send than putting a robot designer in charge of a biological weapons team. :)
Especially as its memory can be wiped.
This discussion is moot. The possibility was always there. It's just a lot more likely now. There's no proof in the films that humans still know how to make parachutes, either, but I'd bet they still do.
Wow...you have issues.
I guess Ripley was an android, why? Who cares! I could come up with some lame ass theory about how Ripley was an android...mabye the companey picked her up, and KILLED HER, then took some scans, and whatnot, and TURNED HER INTO AN ANDROID OMG!! That would totally explain the 50 years thing! OH YEAH!! And Alien 3, she wouldnt have died, but she thought she was human!!!!!! w000t! IM on a role..!
QuoteI guess Ripley was an android, why? Who cares! I could come up with some lame ass theory about how Ripley was an android...mabye the companey picked her up, and KILLED HER, then took some scans, and whatnot, and TURNED HER INTO AN ANDROID OMG!! That would totally explain the 50 years thing! OH YEAH!! And Alien 3, she wouldnt have died, but she thought she was human!!!!!! w000t! IM on a role..!
The irony being that a Ripley Android with red blood actually did exist in one of the stories Xp. Not that I'm taking sides or anything.
There's no reason for him to have red blood.
It's not like they intended for him to bleed all over the place.
And, while we're at it, there's no reason to think he's not human.
End of.
Quote from: Noir-Gojira on Aug 08, 2007, 07:16:56 AM
QuoteI guess Ripley was an android, why? Who cares! I could come up with some lame ass theory about how Ripley was an android...mabye the companey picked her up, and KILLED HER, then took some scans, and whatnot, and TURNED HER INTO AN ANDROID OMG!! That would totally explain the 50 years thing! OH YEAH!! And Alien 3, she wouldnt have died, but she thought she was human!!!!!! w000t! IM on a role..!
The irony being that a Ripley Android with red blood actually did exist in one of the stories Xp. Not that I'm taking sides or anything.
I know, I red it, and it was quite good, and didnt f**k with the series at all...but if he's saying Bishop is an android with red blood, then why not Ripley?
Quote from: SiL on Aug 08, 2007, 01:01:39 AM
Yeah, they totally intended for Bishop II to be beaned over the head with a metal pipe ::)
SiL, the red fluid would be used to render his skin tone more human and more relatable...
I don't think a human would shake off a head trauma like that as easily as Bishop II did...
And there's the Charles Weyland concept introduced in AVP... I don't seriously believe that Fox would allow such a continuity blunder, especially since they are creatively the guardians of the franchises' continuity... Ok, even I can't say that with a straight face... ;D :D
So, there is not any CERTAINTY that Bishop II is human nor a droid... there are some things that feel off, yes, but it is in the realm of pure speculation... The name given to him on the end credits certainly doesn't help matters...Why call a human character 'Bishop II' and not 'Michael Bishop' or something like that...?
To me, it seems he was a droid, further demonstrated by the assembly cut, but there is no point to this discussion...those who think he is a human will maintain he is a human no matter what, and vice-versa, so ... ;)
Quote from: SiL on Aug 08, 2007, 10:03:20 AM
There's no reason for him to have red blood.
It's not like they intended for him to bleed all over the place.
And, while we're at it, there's no reason to think he's not human.
End of.
Sorry, SiL... There is... You don't like it, that's fine, but you're not God, so your opinion, though respected, is still just YOUR personal opinion...and so is mine just MINE and Xenomorphine's, his own...
I agree with Xenomorphine because this is not unheard of, modernising/humanising robots to appear more human...
Take the Terminator saga, for instance, when they did the Schwarzenegger T-101 model, with synthetic blood, and synthetic skin to make it appear more human and perfect for infiltration missions, like Xenomorphine's theory about Bishop...
The colouring of the blood would be easy and to be convincing to Ripley, he had to have not anymore a pale visage, but a more human like one...
Again, the AVP movie clarifies this and I am sure Fox would not allow such a blunt continuity hole to remain in the final cut of the movie as such...
So, although this is just my theory, it is as valid as yours or Xenomorphine's...
But they're just that, personal ideas and theories that because of lack of info in Alien3 and conflicting info in AVP, make them more or less valid...
And I never ignore info just because I don't like it or it just shatters my theories...It exists regardless, whether we like it or not, so...
And that is all I have to say about that... Over and out on that... ;)
Quote from: YutaniDitch on Aug 08, 2007, 04:38:54 PM
Quote from: SiL on Aug 08, 2007, 10:03:20 AM
There's no reason for him to have red blood.
It's not like they intended for him to bleed all over the place.
And, while we're at it, there's no reason to think he's not human.
End of.
Sorry, SiL... There is... You don't like it, that's fine, but you're not God, so your opinion, though respected, is still just YOUR personal opinion...and so is mine just MINE and Xenomorphine's, his own...
I agree with Xenomorphine because this is not unheard of, modernising/humanising robots to appear more human...
Take the Terminator saga, for instance, when they did the Schwarzenegger T-101 model, with synthetic blood, and synthetic skin to make it appear more human and perfect for infiltration missions, like Xenomorphine's theory about Bishop...
The colouring of the blood would be easy and to be convincing to Ripley, he had to have not anymore a pale visage, but a more human like one...
Again, the AVP movie clarifies this and I am sure Fox would not allow such a blunt continuity hole to remain in the final cut of the movie as such...
So, although this is just my theory, it is as valid as yours or Xenomorphine's...
But they're just that, personal ideas and theories that because of lack of info in Alien3 and conflicting info in AVP, make them more or less valid...
And I never ignore info just because I don't like it or it just shatters my theories...It exists regardless, whether we like it or not, so...
And that is all I have to say about that... Over and out on that...
About the AICN script, I forgot to mention earlier that this AICN script review was very unfortunate for FOX because their persecutorial posture about it actually made them look bad and also had the reversed effect, by actually giving credit to their review...
I actually was surprised about their epidermic reaction, especially for a company with a PR and Marketing department that know how to deal with these things maturely and professionally...
And the info we are getting so far, hence the resurgence of this AICN review, is actually very close to that script and therefore explaining why Fox reacted so violently and harshly...
If the script was so wrong, they would have the PR department issue a statement or an official document stating that that was an early script and that the final one had nothing to do with it and they would easily get away with it...
So, that is how that event actually turned on them...
I think that that script was intentionally leaked to take the pulse of the fanbase' feedback, and make changes according to the reactions in forums and such...
I know, it is pretty flimsy, but I find it lhard to believe that a studio with such experience would have that naive and childishly epidermic reaction towards a reviewed draft of the script, especially because they know better...
Although having heard Tom Rothman speak, I kinda have my own doubts about that... ;D :D
Like I said, give me a scene in the MOVIE where there is ANY info about the read blooded android.....not the script, not concept art, THE MOVIE...
Quote from: CelticP on Aug 08, 2007, 05:27:45 PM
Quote from: YutaniDitch on Aug 08, 2007, 04:38:54 PM
Quote from: SiL on Aug 08, 2007, 10:03:20 AM
There's no reason for him to have red blood.
It's not like they intended for him to bleed all over the place.
And, while we're at it, there's no reason to think he's not human.
End of.
Sorry, SiL... There is... You don't like it, that's fine, but you're not God, so your opinion, though respected, is still just YOUR personal opinion...and so is mine just MINE and Xenomorphine's, his own...
I agree with Xenomorphine because this is not unheard of, modernising/humanising robots to appear more human...
Take the Terminator saga, for instance, when they did the Schwarzenegger T-101 model, with synthetic blood, and synthetic skin to make it appear more human and perfect for infiltration missions, like Xenomorphine's theory about Bishop...
The colouring of the blood would be easy and to be convincing to Ripley, he had to have not anymore a pale visage, but a more human like one...
Again, the AVP movie clarifies this and I am sure Fox would not allow such a blunt continuity hole to remain in the final cut of the movie as such...
So, although this is just my theory, it is as valid as yours or Xenomorphine's...
But they're just that, personal ideas and theories that because of lack of info in Alien3 and conflicting info in AVP, make them more or less valid...
And I never ignore info just because I don't like it or it just shatters my theories...It exists regardless, whether we like it or not, so...
And that is all I have to say about that... Over and out on that...
About the AICN script, I forgot to mention earlier that this AICN script review was very unfortunate for FOX because their persecutorial posture about it actually made them look bad and also had the reversed effect, by actually giving credit to their review...
I actually was surprised about their epidermic reaction, especially for a company with a PR and Marketing department that know how to deal with these things maturely and professionally...
And the info we are getting so far, hence the resurgence of this AICN review, is actually very close to that script and therefore explaining why Fox reacted so violently and harshly...
If the script was so wrong, they would have the PR department issue a statement or an official document stating that that was an early script and that the final one had nothing to do with it and they would easily get away with it...
So, that is how that event actually turned on them...
I think that that script was intentionally leaked to take the pulse of the fanbase' feedback, and make changes according to the reactions in forums and such...
I know, it is pretty flimsy, but I find it lhard to believe that a studio with such experience would have that naive and childishly epidermic reaction towards a reviewed draft of the script, especially because they know better...
Although having heard Tom Rothman speak, I kinda have my own doubts about that... ;D :D
Like I said, give me a scene in the MOVIE where there is ANY info about the read blooded android.....not the script, not concept art, THE MOVIE...
And you give me a scene IN THE MOVIE where there is any info pertaining Bishop IS human for a FACT... And him saying it doesn't count, especially since we all know how honest the Company men are... droids or no-droids... ;D :D ;)
Also, does the Assembly Cut count...? ??? ;)
Guys,
i think he's human. I don't have to give any reasons for it other than I believe he's human. u each have your own opinions. Just leave it at that. :-*
Quote from: echobbase79 on Aug 08, 2007, 05:47:22 PM
Guys u each have your own opinions. Just leave it at that. :-*
I know...I was just trying to illustrate the point I made earlier to SiL... ;D :D ;)
I have give up trying to find out what he is, I am just hoping one day another movie will show us the answer put the chances of that are slim :-[
Quote from: CelticP on Aug 08, 2007, 05:27:45 PM
Like I said, give me a scene in the MOVIE where there is ANY info about the read blooded android.....not the script, not concept art, THE MOVIE...
It doesn't have to. Like I said, what's the engineering obstacle to simply putting red dye in there? There isn't any. They eventually had to lace the fuel in B-2 bombers with chemical additives, because the exhaust was once eating away at the rear and reducing the stealth. This is no different. Just for different purposes.
My view differs to the one above over the potential reasons for it. I think civilian ones (such as the original Bishop and Call) would be legally mandated to retain white, because it would make sense in accidents not to waste medical resources and personnel. Likewise, I think more advanced ones
specifically designed for military/Corporate espionage, would be likely to have red, in case they're on a mission and, get a tiny cut and white gives the game away.
If the Company sent one in, it would make sense to be an advanced model: They can negotiate more realistically, lead a team and, most importantly, have their memories wiped.
There was never eany proof of it, no. But
because the recent film had Weyland in it, the
probability of Bishop 2 being an advanced robot now goes up. It's as simple as that.
Unless you want to go for one of the alternative theories about Bishop 2 being a clone or something, but that wouldn't make much sense. Weyland Industries is not Weyland-Yutani. It would be like Microsoft employing a clone of Charles Babbage. What would be the point? It's not like Bishop 2 said he was a Chairman or anything, he just said he was a designer of robots (and a fairly standard robot, at that). That's nothing special. You don't have to be a clone to design robots, just very highly educated and cloning wouldn't help you with that.
It's all about reading between the lines and choosing the most likely theory to keep continuity in effect. Bishop 2 being a more advanced model is just a possibility, but it's now more likely than it used to be, that's all.
But its all bullshit. Where do all these people get these horrid idea's from?
Bishop in Alien 3 was a human. AvP is moot. AC shows the red wound, its as clear as day, you can see the blood. In no way that implys that he is a advanced model. He even shows Ripley his blood and says: Look, blood, im human, or something similer to that....
Its just down right foolish to create these assumptions when they simply dont exist....
But since 'Alien Versus Predator', they become considerably more...
Yes, it's red. Just like dye can be. Read my theory above. It can be accounted for, as can Call being different.
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Aug 08, 2007, 07:11:17 PM
But since 'Alien Versus Predator', they become considerably more...
Yes, it's red. Just like dye can be. Read my theory above. It can be accounted for, as can Call being different.
I cannot agree more. I always thought he was an Andriod.
"no he sed he wuz a humen, he haz to be reel"
I really don't see what the debate is here, it's pretty obvious that he's not a synthetic and he is a human, Androids ears don't fly off when they get hit with a large thing, and start bleeding like crazy.
Quote from: Xenonewborn on Aug 08, 2007, 10:17:03 PM
Androids ears don't fly off when they get hit with a large thing, and start bleeding like crazy.
I'm fairly sure they would if it was done with enough force...
But they wouldn't bleed red blood, human blood.
Indeed.
Even if one accepts the bullshit about putting red dye in his blood - why didn't the android use his lightning reflexes to stop Ripley closing the gate to the gantry, or block the maniac with the wrench?
Quotebut you're not God, so your opinion, though respected, is still just YOUR personal opinion...
Problem with that is - it's no opinion. It's fact backed up by film and production information.
Quote from: Mr. Weyland on Aug 08, 2007, 06:16:02 PM
I have give up trying to find out what he is, I am just hoping one day another movie will show us the answer put the chances of that are slim :-[
Welcome to the ckub, thw withdrawal will be difficult, but quitting on this debate of neverending proportions will make you feel like a new man,
I'm a man of my word...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: Xenonewborn on Aug 09, 2007, 02:19:38 AM
But they wouldn't bleed red blood, human blood.
Not unless it was just color added.
As to not having lightning fast reflexes, they would not add those if they were trying to pass him off as human.
One thing is for sure though, with that much blunt trauma with a blunt metal weapon, as to rip a 3" gash on his head and have his ear hanging there, he would be going into shock and fast.
The swelling would close up his throat, and he would be having difficulty staying conscious.
I have seen head wounds like that first hand. Several times. In NONE of them did the people act like him.
They got delirious quite fast, and worse.
The fact that he even had any situational awareness at all after that blow indicates to me that he is NOT human.
Regardless of him not having T-800 reflexes (which would be a dead giveaway) or dyed red blood.
Probably been quoted before but worth reading again to save having to make things up explain stuff that doesn't need to be explained. (http://www.alienexperience.com/forum/smf/index.php?topic=51.0)
Quote from: SM on Aug 09, 2007, 04:04:11 AM
Probably been quoted before but worth reading again to save having to make things up explain stuff that doesn't need to be explained. (http://www.alienexperience.com/forum/smf/index.php?topic=51.0)
Great read. He was human, but Anderson retconned this fact so it could jive with his story in AVP. I would rather not even consider AVP as cannon than think up some odd reason as to how Bishop II could be an android for the sake of continuity with AVP.
You can ask all the doctors you want, I have seen several head wounds like his, and not one of the people acted anything like he did in the film.
Even if Fincher intended he was human, he sure took the hit like an android.
I think his blood was dyed red, and he just Lied.
nothing more or less. That is what I always thought.
Quote from: Meathead320 on Aug 09, 2007, 05:41:35 AM
Even if Fincher intended he was human, he sure took the hit like an android.
Uh, last time we saw an android beaned, its head came off. Bishop II's head didn't come off. It stayed on.
Quotenothing more or less. That is what I always thought.
And that's fine and dandy, but you've got nothing concrete to back it up.
Quote from: CelticP on Aug 08, 2007, 07:05:18 PM
But its all bullshit. Where do all these people get these horrid idea's from?
Bishop in Alien 3 was a human. AvP is moot. AC shows the red wound, its as clear as day, you can see the blood. In no way that implys that he is a advanced model. He even shows Ripley his blood and says: Look, blood, im human, or something similer to that....
Its just down right foolish to create these assumptions when they simply dont exist....
At least, Xenomorphine is thinking about it, contemplating other explanations and approaches... Your one-worded statement of facts are not convincing at all...
A human would not scream 'I'm not a droid' in panic or despair...! A human would not get a blow like that on the head, with his head wide opened, his ear dangling and only feel 'pain' once...
Also, we all know about the Weyland Yutani's deceptive manner so unless there is hardproof evidence he IS human, there is every bit of reason to presume he isn't...
And AVP is no moot, it is part of the continuity now, so unless you believe Charles Weyland had a spit-image relative who designed a robot to his likeness, even though there is no evidence to support that other than in the realm of speculation, like the one we are ALL doing here, then you can say all you want, Celtic, you will not convince anyone other than yourself... ;)
Quote from: SiL on Aug 09, 2007, 10:37:56 AM
Quote from: Meathead320 on Aug 09, 2007, 05:41:35 AM
Even if Fincher intended he was human, he sure took the hit like an android.
Uh, last time we saw an android beaned, its head came off. Bishop II's head didn't come off. It stayed on.
Quotenothing more or less. That is what I always thought.
And that's fine and dandy, but you've got nothing concrete to back it up.
The Bishop android was built 50 or so years after the Ash android, and why would the designer build the second or third model to his likeness but not the first or second...? Weird...
And it is quite posible that th Bishop model was an improvement in every way, in terms of behavioural chips, tear-resistant materials, etc...so that is no evidence that Bishop's head would fall off if he as a droid...
Furthermore, given the total lack of 'concrete' data assuring Bishop II is human or a droid, this is and will always b in the realm of speculation, even though the Pro-Android faction ;D has won some points after AVP...
There is more 'evidence' pointing o the droid assumption than the human one, altogether...
Quote from: Meathead320 on Aug 09, 2007, 05:41:35 AM
You can ask all the doctors you want, I have seen several head wounds like his, and not one of the people acted anything like he did in the film.
Even if Fincher intended he was human, he sure took the hit like an android.
I think his blood was dyed red, and he just Lied.
nothing more or less. That is what I always thought.
yes, he didn't present dizziness, or passed out, or even fall on his knees...
And given the head wounds, he would not react like that if he was human...
Quote from: SiL on Aug 09, 2007, 10:37:56 AM
Quote from: Meathead320 on Aug 09, 2007, 05:41:35 AM
Even if Fincher intended he was human, he sure took the hit like an android.
Uh, last time we saw an android beaned, its head came off. Bishop II's head didn't come off. It stayed on.
Quotenothing more or less. That is what I always thought.
And that's fine and dandy, but you've got nothing concrete to back it up.
SiL, you too have nothing concrete to back your views on this, so this works both ways...
And this particular subject is just as speculative as it is pointless...
AVP presented Charles Weyland as the REAL Bishop...except for th Bishop in Aliens, where there is CLEARLY stated he IS a droid, regarding Bishop II in Alien 3, there is no evidence to support he is human except for what he says, which is debatable, as we all know how trustworthy Weyland-Yutani is, and how credible it is to have a human Bishop, employee of the Weyland-Yutani Corporation, which Ripley knows is Evil and motivated by greed and deception, so a human Bishop would not make much difference... And his wording is bizarre to say the least... he looks android in EVERY WAY, even before his head got smacked or AVP came out...
The blood is inconclusive, so is his pseudo-pain... A droid can be programmed to look, move, behave more like a human, like Call in Alien Resurrection, though she still had white blood, I'm sure the 'blood' could be dyed and make the droid seem less white and more pink like us...
This doesn't mean he could not be human, it is just that there are a lot of things that are off, if he was to be human... A lot of 'WTF' moments, like how come he could take that blow and shake it off as easily as he did, why would he scream 'he was not a droid' when there are easy ways to prove to Ripley he was, and not just by saying so... Call was only discovered to be a robot when Ripley saw her blood was white, so even she, a hybrid, could not discover there was something biologically wrong with her... So that demonstrates that the Bishop droid theory is not only plausible, it is a valid theory also...
The blood can be coloured, the head trauma looks off, his scream, total lack of symptoms following a head trauma like that, all is debatable, and given the strong performances by the rest of the cast, I doubt Fincher would make the Bishop character that ambiguous unless he wanted it to be...
And the 'Bishop II' name also feeds that speculation...
So, nobody is right on this, because if we were, we would not take these many pages if it was that obvious Bishop II was human... ;)
Couple things...
Quote
And AVP is no moot, it is part of the continuity now, so unless you believe Charles Weyland had a spit-image relative who designed a robot to his likeness, even though there is no evidence to support that other than in the realm of speculation, like the one we are ALL doing here, then you can say all you want, Celtic, you will not convince anyone other than yourself... Wink
So...I have to accept now that aliens gestate in about 10 minutes and grow to full size in another 10 because Paul Anderson didn't do his research?
Because that is what this comes down do...Anderson didn't do his research as the script of Alien3 and from the mouths of the people working on the film themselves have said...he was human.
It is also important to note that Bishop II did not take that blow full on in the head, most of it was his shoulder and a glancing blow to his head that tore his ear. When he writhes in pain for a moment he is moving for his shoulder, not his head.
People have taken extraordinary injuries, objects lodged in their skull for instance, and still managed to do extraordinary things afterwards like continue walking to call for help.
What logical reason do they have to make one droid that we have seen that bleeds red when all others have bled white? If Bishop II was a new, improved android, so was Call...why does she not have this nifty red blood to fool people? What would be the point of making it red? When any logical person who examines the wound more closely or their behavior afterwards might realize they are not human...you know like Call getting up after being shot in the chest (according to Distepheno, though it was more her lower abdomen).
There is no logical reason to make an android's blood red unless after serious injury they will either a) play dead and b) they expect not to be examined closely.
I'am surprised that people think Bishop from Alien 3 is a droid He had red blood and he even said " I'am not a droid I'am not a droid. " is it really that hard to believe that was the real Mr Weyland?
Quote from: aliensetta on Aug 10, 2007, 02:13:30 AM
I'am surprised that people think Bishop from Alien 3 is a droid He had red blood and he even said " I'am not a droid I'am not a droid. " is it really that hard to believe that was the real Mr Weyland?
Why did 85 just before hitting bishop says: "f**king robot!!" ????
Why is he going yo say that if he was a human???
Quote from: slipknotpredator on Aug 10, 2007, 02:15:28 AM
Quote from: aliensetta on Aug 10, 2007, 02:13:30 AM
I'am surprised that people think Bishop from Alien 3 is a droid He had red blood and he even said " I'am not a droid I'am not a droid. " is it really that hard to believe that was the real Mr Weyland?
Why did 85 just before hitting bishop says: "f**king robot!!" ????
Why is he going yo say that if he was a human???
Because he probably thought he was a droid.
Quote from: aliensetta on Aug 10, 2007, 02:18:30 AM
Quote from: slipknotpredator on Aug 10, 2007, 02:15:28 AM
Quote from: aliensetta on Aug 10, 2007, 02:13:30 AM
I'am surprised that people think Bishop from Alien 3 is a droid He had red blood and he even said " I'am not a droid I'am not a droid. " is it really that hard to believe that was the real Mr Weyland?
Why did 85 just before hitting bishop says: "f**king robot!!" ????
Why is he going yo say that if he was a human???
Because he probably thought he was a droid.
Why???
Quote from: slipknotpredator on Aug 10, 2007, 02:19:35 AM
Quote from: aliensetta on Aug 10, 2007, 02:18:30 AM
Quote from: slipknotpredator on Aug 10, 2007, 02:15:28 AM
Quote from: aliensetta on Aug 10, 2007, 02:13:30 AM
I'am surprised that people think Bishop from Alien 3 is a droid He had red blood and he even said " I'am not a droid I'am not a droid. " is it really that hard to believe that was the real Mr Weyland?
Why did 85 just before hitting bishop says: "f**king robot!!" ????
Why is he going yo say that if he was a human???
Because he probably thought he was a droid.
Why???
I don't know you tell me why you think he's a droid
Quote from: aliensetta on Aug 10, 2007, 02:23:32 AM
Quote from: slipknotpredator on Aug 10, 2007, 02:19:35 AM
Quote from: aliensetta on Aug 10, 2007, 02:18:30 AM
Quote from: slipknotpredator on Aug 10, 2007, 02:15:28 AM
Quote from: aliensetta on Aug 10, 2007, 02:13:30 AM
I'am surprised that people think Bishop from Alien 3 is a droid He had red blood and he even said " I'am not a droid I'am not a droid. " is it really that hard to believe that was the real Mr Weyland?
Why did 85 just before hitting bishop says: "f**king robot!!" ????
Why is he going yo say that if he was a human???
Because he probably thought he was a droid.
Why???
I don't know you tell me why you think he's a droid
In my modest opinion and without offending "Human Bishop II fans", i think he was a droid, i think the company was trying to make Ripley believe he was a human in order to ger the queen. Why 85 would say that? well i think he knew he was a droid. And as been discused in many posts, what is in movies is canon, so AVP is, so Bishop II = Robot.
This is just my opinion...
Quote from: slipknotpredator on Aug 10, 2007, 02:29:05 AM
Quote from: aliensetta on Aug 10, 2007, 02:23:32 AM
Quote from: slipknotpredator on Aug 10, 2007, 02:19:35 AM
Quote from: aliensetta on Aug 10, 2007, 02:18:30 AM
Quote from: slipknotpredator on Aug 10, 2007, 02:15:28 AM
Quote from: aliensetta on Aug 10, 2007, 02:13:30 AM
I'am surprised that people think Bishop from Alien 3 is a droid He had red blood and he even said " I'am not a droid I'am not a droid. " is it really that hard to believe that was the real Mr Weyland?
Why did 85 just before hitting bishop says: "f**king robot!!" ????
Why is he going yo say that if he was a human???
Because he probably thought he was a droid.
Why???
I don't know you tell me why you think he's a droid
so AVP is, so Bishop II = Robot.
So Bishop 2 can't be the son or grand son of Mr Weyland from AVP? And Why the hell would they make his blood red then did they know what would happen?
Yeah...maybe, hahah this bishop II thing is so fu**ed up...there are arguments for both theorys... :-\
Quote from: slipknotpredator on Aug 10, 2007, 02:44:52 AM
Yeah...maybe, hahah this bishop II thing is so fu**ed up...there are arguments for both theorys... :-\
yet we all are still arguing about it. :D
Quote from: slipknotpredator on Aug 10, 2007, 02:29:05 AM
In my modest opinion and without offending "Human Bishop II fans", i think he was a droid, i think the company was trying to make Ripley believe he was a human in order to ger the queen. Why 85 would say that? well i think he knew he was a droid. And as been discused in many posts, what is in movies is canon, so AVP is, so Bishop II = Robot.
This is just my opinion...
Lets examine that scene. Bishop asks "Do you know who I am?" Ripley replies that she thinks he is a droid sent by the company, which he denies. Aaron heard all of this and thinks he is a droid. Later, he hits Bishop, Bishop bleeds red blood and exclaims that he is not a droid...thus saying basically to Ripley..."hey I was telling the truth".
How could the company anticipate that they would need a droid that might get injured? How could they possibly have known that "hey...we need a droid that bleeds red...you know...just in case he gets hit on the head or something?" I mean really...does that not sound ridiculous to you?
There are two theories, one you can poke a million holes into. The other has more solid evidence.
Quote from: Fitzley on Aug 10, 2007, 03:06:39 AM
Quote from: slipknotpredator on Aug 10, 2007, 02:29:05 AM
In my modest opinion and without offending "Human Bishop II fans", i think he was a droid, i think the company was trying to make Ripley believe he was a human in order to ger the queen. Why 85 would say that? well i think he knew he was a droid. And as been discused in many posts, what is in movies is canon, so AVP is, so Bishop II = Robot.
This is just my opinion...
Lets examine that scene. Bishop asks "Do you know who I am?" Ripley replies that she thinks he is a droid sent by the company, which he denies. Aaron heard all of this and thinks he is a droid. Later, he hits Bishop, Bishop bleeds red blood and exclaims that he is not a droid...thus saying basically to Ripley..."hey I was telling the truth".
How could the company anticipate that they would need a droid that might get injured? How could they possibly have known that "hey...we need a droid that bleeds red...you know...just in case he gets hit on the head or something?" I mean really...does that not sound ridiculous to you?
There are two theories, one you can poke a million holes into. The other has more solid evidence.
Good points, maybe i should watch it again...but it`s still so confusing...
one question what happened to bishop in Alien 3 was he salvaged or burned
You mean after Ripley used him to hook up the flight recorder? I don't know, she disconnects him, but I don't think its shown what happens to him after that.
Quote from: slipknotpredator on Aug 10, 2007, 03:08:55 AM
Quote from: Fitzley on Aug 10, 2007, 03:06:39 AM
Quote from: slipknotpredator on Aug 10, 2007, 02:29:05 AM
In my modest opinion and without offending "Human Bishop II fans", i think he was a droid, i think the company was trying to make Ripley believe he was a human in order to ger the queen. Why 85 would say that? well i think he knew he was a droid. And as been discused in many posts, what is in movies is canon, so AVP is, so Bishop II = Robot.
This is just my opinion...
Lets examine that scene. Bishop asks "Do you know who I am?" Ripley replies that she thinks he is a droid sent by the company, which he denies. Aaron heard all of this and thinks he is a droid. Later, he hits Bishop, Bishop bleeds red blood and exclaims that he is not a droid...thus saying basically to Ripley..."hey I was telling the truth".
How could the company anticipate that they would need a droid that might get injured? How could they possibly have known that "hey...we need a droid that bleeds red...you know...just in case he gets hit on the head or something?" I mean really...does that not sound ridiculous to you?
There are two theories, one you can poke a million holes into. The other has more solid evidence.
Good points, maybe i should watch it again...but it`s still so confusing...
First of all, WY using a droid would mean them controlling the situation... the red blood is not just to fuel the various droid parts, it would be used to colour the skin as well, like us...
Third, him screaming he was not a droid is pathetic, to say the least...probably why it was removed from the theatrical cut... ;)
There are a million ways he could prove he was not a droid, and that one was ridiculous at best... Again, his head injuries look way off as well... in the assembly cut, he was gushing blood like a fire hose so that is definitely pushing it...
If he was human, that was a very poorly devised scene... if he was a droid, then it would be more in character regarding WY's deceptive, manipulative and greedy nature...
If it was so evident he was human, how could Fox let Paul make the Charles Weyland character, especially since the probabilities of an identical descendant in the same business and devising the Bishop android, especially since the take over by Yutani, would be quite slim...
Quote from: YutaniDitch on Aug 12, 2007, 03:31:27 PM
If it was so evident he was human, how could Fox let Paul make the Charles Weyland character, especially since the probabilities of an identical descendant in the same business and devising the Bishop android, especially since the take over by Yutani, would be quite slim...
Heh...ever seen Back to the Future II or III?
Anyway, there's a looooong established tradition of actors playing multiple members of a family line.
Quote from: Uncanny Antman on Aug 12, 2007, 03:34:27 PM
Quote from: YutaniDitch on Aug 12, 2007, 03:31:27 PM
If it was so evident he was human, how could Fox let Paul make the Charles Weyland character, especially since the probabilities of an identical descendant in the same business and devising the Bishop android, especially since the take over by Yutani, would be quite slim...
Heh...ever seen Back to the Future II or III?
Anyway, there's a looooong established tradition of actors playing multiple members of a family line.
Yes, but Alien 3 was done BEFORE AVP, not after... And I think that unless something is onscreen, it is on the realm of speculation...
And the 'Back To the Future' remark is a joke, right...? My father has three generations, and in none of them, is my father similar to his grandfather or his great-grandfather... nor do any of his brothers and sisters the spitting image of their ancestors, so that is quite stretching...
We are talking 150 years of several Weyland generations, and the probability of one of his descendants having his spitting image AND working on the same field and company (now merged with Yutani) as his 150-year old ancestor is quite unrealistic... 150 years saw Weyland merge with Yutani, and we don't even know if Weyland had any descendants... maybe AVP2 could shed some light on this... ;)
Quote from: YutaniDitch on Aug 12, 2007, 03:31:27 PM
First of all, WY using a droid would mean them controlling the situation... the red blood is not just to fuel the various droid parts, it would be used to colour the skin as well, like us...
Why do they need to do that? Ash and Bishop from Alien and Aliens looked human...human enough that no one knew they were androids until one started spitting white stuff and the other cut himself.
Quote from: YutaniDitch on Aug 12, 2007, 03:31:27 PM
Third, him screaming he was not a droid is pathetic, to say the least...probably why it was removed from the theatrical cut... ;)
Again, why is it pathetic? He was trying to prove to Ripley the whole time he was telling the truth. His goal was to get the specimen, obviously Ripley didn't believe him, he was trying desperately to earn her trust.
Quote from: YutaniDitch on Aug 12, 2007, 03:31:27 PM
There are a million ways he could prove he was not a droid, and that one was ridiculous at best... Again, his head injuries look way off as well... in the assembly cut, he was gushing blood like a fire hose so that is definitely pushing it...
I never saw blood gushing out of him like a fire hose...its on his head and coat. Head wounds bleed a lot, even minor ones. And even so, if it was gushing, than that would be more realistic.
Quote from: YutaniDitch on Aug 12, 2007, 03:31:27 PM
If he was human, that was a very poorly devised scene... if he was a droid, then it would be more in character regarding WY's deceptive, manipulative and greedy nature...
It works better that he is human, because if he is telling the truth, than there is a possibility that Ripley could have been saved. Thus making her sacrifice more powerful.
Quote from: YutaniDitch on Aug 12, 2007, 03:31:27 PM
If it was so evident he was human, how could Fox let Paul make the Charles Weyland character, especially since the probabilities of an identical descendant in the same business and devising the Bishop android, especially since the take over by Yutani, would be quite slim...
Because Fox didn't do their research either. What basis do you have to say that it is a slim possibility that the corporation would not employ members of the Weyland family that have varied talents?
You also need to address these points from my earlier posting:
It is also important to note that Bishop II did not take that blow full on in the head, most of it was his shoulder and a glancing blow to his head that tore his ear. When he writhes in pain for a moment he is moving for his shoulder, not his head.
People have taken extraordinary injuries, objects lodged in their skull for instance, and still managed to do extraordinary things afterwards like continue walking to call for help.
What logical reason do they have to make one droid that we have seen that bleeds red when all others have bled white? If Bishop II was a new, improved android, so was Call...why does she not have this nifty red blood to fool people? What would be the point of making it red? When any logical person who examines the wound more closely or their behavior afterwards might realize they are not human...you know like Call getting up after being shot in the chest (according to Distepheno, though it was more her lower abdomen).
There is no logical reason to make an android's blood red unless after serious injury they will either a) play dead and b) they expect not to be examined closely.
Quote from: YutaniDitch on Aug 12, 2007, 03:41:34 PM
And the 'Back To the Future' remark is a joke, right...? My father has three generations, and in none of them, is my father similar to his grandfather or his great-grandfather... nor do any of his brothers and sisters the spitting image of their ancestors, so that is quite stretching...
No, not a joke. BTTF is a movie, just as AvP is. Your family line is reality, and has no bearing on the film-logic of look-alike descendants.
In movies, different characters are often played by one person. It's just the way it is, and it's highly unlikely that AvP2 will be "shedding light" on this massive conspiracy.
Not to mention that, yes, there are people who're the spitting image of their ancestors.
I saw The Dead Zone yesterday and was amazed by how much Martin Sheen in his younger days looked like his son Charlie.
^Big time. Funny too to watch Charlie get older and older, becoming more like Martin every year.
Quote from: Fitzley on Aug 10, 2007, 03:06:39 AM
How could the company anticipate that they would need a droid that might get injured? How could they possibly have known that "hey...we need a droid that bleeds red...you know...just in case he gets hit on the head or something?" I mean really...does that not sound ridiculous to you?
Or Maybe, just for incase he gets ANY sort of cut, he will not be a dead give away?
The chance Ripley would say, "sure you're not an android, now cut your hand for me to be SURE", then he could just cut his hand and say "see... red blood".
Easy situation to anticipate, White blood was giving away other androids too easy, and this one could be a model designed to pass better for a human, without even being caught after a cut.
If that's the case why did Bishop say "You'll just have to trust me."?
Quote from: SM on Aug 13, 2007, 04:20:26 AM
If that's the case why did Bishop say "You'll just have to trust me."?
::)
Basic Physcology.
By putting it up to her, she is more likely to actually trust him.
He was trying to get her to trust him, so she would believe his LIE.
If you believe he was so human, then
do you also believe that they intended to kill the Alien?B2 also said:
"Can't allow it live".
"You can have a new life, a family, and you will know it is dead"Later he changes his mind:
"you must let me have it, it's a magnificent specimen".Yeah, Right,
he was a liar. He was a
confirmed LIAR. We
KNOW that at least to be a
FACT.
So why would he be telling the truth about being human, and yet lie about his intentions with the Alien Queen?
Answer: He LIED about BOTH.
We already know for a FACT, that he was dishonest, even on the
off chance that he was all of the following1. Lookalike descendant of the original Charles Bishop Weyland
2. Also a robotics engineer/ designer like his ancestor
3. Willing to risk his ass for a dangerous biological specimen
4. Never even claimed to have anything to do with the ownership of WY, and just was the designer of the Bishop model android.
5. Was sent only to show "a familiar face" so that she would trust him.
Now why would they want her to trust him?
Answer: Maybe so that she does not kill the specimen inside her?
The whole thing was just to gain her trust.
Her trust, so they could convince her of the lie.
The red blood, the "can't allow it to live", "you will just have to trust me" etc...
He was just another android, modified just slightly, for the purpose of getting the Queen.
Nothing more or less.
And yet after all that - he still has red blood.
Anything else is fan fic.
Nothing more or less.
Quote from: SM on Aug 14, 2007, 12:28:47 AM
And yet after all that - he still has red blood.
Anything else is fan fic.
Nothing more or less.
So why the
RED BLOOD?
If WY is going through all the trouble of getting the last known source of the Alien, Ripley the Queen host, they send a mission to get it post haste. This is their last chance, and it is ALL RIDING on her trusting B2.
Would they risk all that work, all that effort, and all they stand to gain; by chancing that their negotiating Android might getting a tiny cut, and blow their cover?
Heck no! They would not take that risk. Not in a million years.
The whole thing was riding on her trusting him!
By adding red blood, she could potentially cut his hand to see if he is real, and gain even more trust by seeing the red blood and beliving his "human" story.
Then she might believe his "killing it" and "new life" lies too.
Quote from: SiL on Aug 14, 2007, 12:40:14 AM
Quote from: Meathead320 on Aug 14, 2007, 12:31:15 AM
So why the RED BLOOD?
Because he's human.
Sooo...
He is;
1. Lookalike descendant of the original Charles Bishop Weyland
2. Also a robotics engineer/ designer like his ancestor
3. Willing to risk his ass for a dangerous biological specimen
4. Never even claimed to have anything to do with the ownership of WY, and just was the designer of the Bishop model android.
5. Was sent only to show "a familiar face" so that she would trust him.
But he is also a
Liar (we know that), but all the above points are all true, including the statements from himself?
So?
He's still got red blood and you're making things up to try and counter it.
Quote1. Lookalike descendant of the original Charles Bishop Weyland
Plastic surgery can do wonders as well, y'know ;)
Quote2. Also a robotics engineer/ designer like his ancestor
Even if they are related; so?
Quote3. Willing to risk his ass for a dangerous biological specimen
They sacrificed a multi-million dollar ship - minus payload - a colony, a platoon of soldiers, and were willing to let a penal colony of 25 people die, in order to get this Alien. Yes, I think the company would send a lackey with a familiar face.
Quote4. Never even claimed to have anything to do with the ownership of WY, and just was the designer of the Bishop model android.
Who claimed he did? What relevance does this have?
QuoteBut he is also a Liar
Everyone lies, what's your point?
well he did look like he was incharge...
I thought Hi Chings character was personally. Note on his birth certificate it says "Company Man".
For all we know Bishop 2's real name was B. J. Smegma.
Cookie to whoever gets the reference.
Quote from: SM on Aug 14, 2007, 12:56:08 AM
So?
He's still got red blood and you're making things up to try and counter it.
RED dye, I mean Blood, is the
only supporting evidence you have.
His statements mean nothing, considering he is a liar.
Quote from: Meathead320 on Aug 14, 2007, 01:07:27 AM
RED dye, I mean Blood, is the only supporting evidence you have.
Which is more supporting evidence than you have, which is nothing.
How about original Charles Bishop Weyland has been dead for almost 200 years, and the Bishop model Android being based off of him?
Having ONLY one very questionable piece of evidence, from a known liar, from a known greedy corporation, is not nearly enough to "prove" anything.
I am not saying it was impossible for him to have been human. Just bloody unlikely.
The justifications for him being human all hang on too many, and too loose of theories.
Red Dye, and him lying, are not loose theories, and it they together are FAR more simple.
Clones, look alike descendant etc... + all of the other circumstances having to have been true is just WAY too much complication to justify him having been human, with only one piece of evidence to back up that one story of his. All of them are to back up him as human, how he can also look like CBW, and to back up the red blood.
When to counter it all that is needed is "red dye".
Lost of people here WANT to believe his statements that he was human, and discount the possibility that his blood was simply colored red for deception; because they want to believe Ripley's sacrifice was more powerful.
The way I look at it, you cannot believe anything they said, if for no other reason, than that he Lied about not wanting to let the Queen live.
The guy had a significant blow to the head, he is bleeding plenty enough to go into shock (I have said before that I have seen wounds like this first hand several times with very different effects), and not only does not go into shock, turn pasty white, or have different breathing pattern, look around dazed and confused, or ANYTHING of the norm at all, but he even has the energy to CONTINUE being the negotiator, and then changes his tactic, and story, to wanting the Alien.
Only moments before he said they would kill it.
He was a Liar all along, the red blood was just to back up his lies.
They were still lies, and so was he.
So when he was telling the truth when he was pleading with Ripley about how important and magnificent it was.
Yet why didn't he use his android strength and reflexes to physically stop Ripley. Oh yes of course - he was incognito. More fiction to support the original fiction. And then he doesn't even lift a finger to protect his own safety by blocking Aaron.
SiL - I could tell you, but I'm trying to not be seen.
Gimme my cookie.
Quote from: Meathead320 on Aug 14, 2007, 01:30:28 AM
How about original Charles Bishop Weyland has been dead for almost 200 years, and the Bishop model Android being based off of him?
Doesn't prove didly squat. That's assuming "Bishop II" was in any way related to Weyland.
QuoteHaving ONLY one very questionable piece of evidence, from a known liar, from a known greedy corporation, is not nearly enough to "prove" anything.
It's more than no evidence.
QuoteThe justifications for him being human all hang on too many, and too loose of theories.
As opposed to fan fic. Hm...
QuoteRed Dye, and him lying, are not loose theories, and it they together are FAR more simple.
Occam doesn't need to shave today. And you know what else is more simple? Storks dropping babies down chimneys.
QuoteWhen to counter it all that is needed is "red dye".
When to counter
that is, 'We've never seen a single robot with red blood, even the futuristic super-advance Call made 200 years later, who would've needed it far more than Bishop II'.
QuoteThe way I look at it, you cannot believe anything they said, if for no other reason, than that he Lied about not wanting to let the Queen live.
Don't need what he says. You just need to look at him.
QuoteThe guy had a significant blow to the head,
A
glancing blow to the head which mostly hits his shoulder. It's just strong enough to catch the ear and take it off - Not much force required for that.
Quotehe is bleeding plenty enough to go into shock
People have remained lucid with poles in their head. Not a stretch.
It requires a whole lot more reasoning to say he
wasn't human than to just take what the film says at face value and accept that he
was human. Him not being human requires a complex argument to be created, not the other way around.
QuoteSiL - I could tell you, but I'm trying to not be seen.
Gimme my cookie.
You even got the sketch! You deserve the whole jar.
Sil, when someone's head is impaled, and they remain lucid, there is a big difference in function.
Often it is the object itself preventing bleeding, that keeps the person from going into shock.
Get your ear ripped off (the force does not matter, I was not arguing the force of the blow), lose a pint or two of blood in less than a minute, and see if you at least do not turn ghostly pale.
Since you bring up it being a glancing blow, being hit with a metal rod, with enough force to take off your ear, requires more than a a little force. Otherwise it will just rib off of the skin, damage the ear a bit, and leave on hell of a bruise. Unless it is a glancing blow with a very sharp piece of metal. It may have been, I will have to watch it again.
Is it in the realm of physical possibility that he could take a blow (even a glancing one) like that, and receive that kind of wound and still function? Sure, it is, but it is highly improbable. 1 in 1,000.
Even if they are conscious, they still are not going to behave like B2 (or his human lookalike) did, yammering on about a magnificent specimen and all.
Why on earth would WY go and get a Robotics Engineer to go on this mission?
Is this guy so much of a genius that he is also a Xenobiologist, and wants to study the Alien too?
If he is such a genius, and so important to the company, being a Xenobiologist AND a Robotics genius, is it wise to risk him, being that he is a valuable asset, on a mission to a prison planet with a loose dangerous specimen?
I understand they wanted it really bad, but wouldn't this engineer guy be like: "WTF?" When WY said "hurry up, we got a mission leaving to a prison world, with a hostile organism for your study, since you are a double field uber genius, and we are leaving to get there in less than 24 hours, get packed".
Fair enough, perhaps he is related to the original CBW, and is both a Robotics engineer and Xenobiologist, and can take his ear getting ripped off, and not go into shock, or even show any signs of abuse other than the very moment it happens, and he was also telling the truth about not wanting the Alien, but changed his mind on the spot, and was telling the truth about being human.
SM if the Alien movie Androids have such great reflexes and strength, why did Bishop in A2 not use them to protect himself from the Queen?
Even though there are machines, they are compartively weak, and slow. The Alien-movie Androids are not T-800 with white blood and rubber skin.
Quote from: Meathead320 on Aug 14, 2007, 01:52:35 PM
Is it in the realm of physical possibility that he could take a blow (even a glancing one) like that, and receive that kind of wound and still function? Sure, it is, but it is highly improbable. 1 in 1,000.
Any evidence to back up such a statistic? How do you know what is improbable. Human beings react to injury and pain in different ways and as mentioned, there are many cases of people taking severe injury and still being able to function.
Quote from: Meathead320 on Aug 14, 2007, 01:52:35 PM
Is this guy so much of a genius that he is also a Xenobiologist, and wants to study the Alien too?
Who says he's a xenobiologist? Do you have to be one to admire the creature?
Quote from: Meathead320 on Aug 14, 2007, 01:52:35 PM
If he is such a genius, and so important to the company, being a Xenobiologist AND a Robotics genius, is it wise to risk him, being that he is a valuable asset, on a mission to a prison planet with a loose dangerous specimen?
Again, your just making stuff up, no where is it said he is a xenobiologist or that he is a valuable asset to the company.
Quote from: Meathead320 on Aug 14, 2007, 01:52:35 PM
I understand they wanted it really bad, but wouldn't this engineer guy be like: "WTF?" When WY said "hurry up, we got a mission leaving to a prison world, with a hostile organism for your study, since you are a double field uber genius, and we are leaving to get there in less than 24 hours, get packed".
Remember Dallas in the first movie? "Your job is do whatever the hell they tell you to do."
What would be the point of B2 being human anyways? I alwasy thought it was alot more cooler that he was a robot.
Quote from: Fitzley on Aug 14, 2007, 04:07:04 PM
Any evidence to back up such a statistic? How do you know what is improbable. Human beings react to injury and pain in different ways and as mentioned, there are many cases of people taking severe injury and still being able to function.
Look, I have SEEN with my own eyes, plenty of head wounds, similar to his, and NONE of them acted like he did right afterward. Even if they were still lucid.
Quote from: Fitzley on Aug 14, 2007, 04:07:04 PM
Again, your just making stuff up, no where is it said he is a xenobiologist or that he is a valuable asset to the company.
Then why send him on the mission?
So he can "appreciate" the Alien?
Quote from: Meathead320 on Aug 14, 2007, 05:55:48 PM
Look, I have SEEN with my own eyes, plenty of head wounds, similar to his, and NONE of them acted like he did right afterward. Even if they were still lucid.
Anecdotal evidence...we could swap stories all day and it won't prove anything. I have a friend who took a hammer blow to the head and he drove himself to the hospital. People react and function differently when taking an injury.
Quote from: Meathead320 on Aug 14, 2007, 05:55:48 PM
Then why send him on the mission?
So he can "appreciate" the Alien?
He states quite plainly that the company wanted to send a familiar face and to demonstrate how important she is to them.
Quote from: Fitzley on Aug 14, 2007, 05:55:48 PM
He states quite plainly that the company wanted to send a familiar face and to demonstrate how important she is to them.
So why not just use a Bishop Android, and color its blood red, so as to back up its lie about being human v.s sending the guy who built the Bishop model with, just for his familiar face?
They probably come off an assembly line, making one small mod to one is no big deal.
Look, I am
not trying to
PROVE that he was an Android.
I am just saying, that while there is evidence he may have been human, red blood, we still do
not have proof he was human either.
Granted, he did show a good deal of emotion when Ripley let herself fall.
It is still not so concrete of evidence (meaning not entire proof) that even a bad director cannot get away with making the real CBW live and die almost 200 years before.
That is the biggest reason there is now doubt on B2 being human in AVP.
Trying to tie the two together with look alike decendants, etc... is no less of fanfic than saying it was just an Android with Red Colored blood to help back up its story.
I am having fun with the argument, but at the end of the day it still comes down to an armwerstling match with Fincher and P.Anderson.
Quote from: Meathead320 on Aug 14, 2007, 06:31:31 PM
I am having fun with the argument, but at the end of the day it still comes down to an armwerstling match with Fincher and P.Anderson.
My vote is on Fincher winning that one. ;D
I still maintain though that putting red blood into an android does not fit with what we have seen. Adding red dye to fool Ripley does not make sense. Otherwise, he would not say "you'll have to trust me." He would have pulled out a knife and cut his hand saying "see look, I'm human," thus utilizing the subterfuge.
I don't like him as a descendant of Weyland either, but to me, given that the stronger evidence is that Bishop II is human, that is what we have to go with to explain their resemblance.
Quote from: Fitzley on Aug 14, 2007, 06:52:20 PM
My vote is on Fincher winning that one. ;D
Well, he did have something to do with putting Bishop's creator onscreen, as opposed to
that other guy.
Quote from: Fitzley on Aug 14, 2007, 06:52:20 PM
I don't like him as a descendant of Weyland either, but to me, given that the stronger evidence is that Bishop II is human, that is what we have to go with to explain their resemblance.
I never did either. But, there will always be doppelgängers.
wow, the 18th pg. and were still negotiating on whether he's robot or not. he's human. remember, a3 was just around the time of the ALIENS event. and in the future CALL has white blood too, so the robots don't have red blood.
Quote from: PeterKeyes on Aug 16, 2007, 08:30:00 AM
wow, the 18th pg. and were still negotiating on whether he's robot or not. he's human. remember, a3 was just around the time of the ALIENS event. and in the future CALL has white blood too, so the robots don't have red blood.
Yes. This. Also...
- The script specifies that he's human
- So does the novelization
- So does the comic adaption
Seriously, not a lot of room for debate here...
Quote from: Anomaly on Aug 25, 2007, 04:18:51 AM
My vote? Android. Thats just how i took it. An utterly lying figurehead. I personally dont see a non droid continuing his plead for the specimen like he did with half his face ripped.
If its originally human, then I think they made quite an odd scene there for a human.
His face wasn't ripped. I love how some people who believe that he is human have to exaggerate his injury in order to make their "idea" work. It was only his
ear. It's not a life-threatening injury.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2Fcs2%2Fpwn101.gif&hash=570fe8a8e6cb97e5735d43a215f99eb781361398)
It's always gonna be a human to me. The ending of Alien³ was so cool with the cameo of Lance Henriksen and made it more exciting when he got his injury.
But clearly if you look at AvP the Bishop in Alien³ has to be an andriod. I wouldn't mind him being an android in the third one, but AvP didn't do justice to the franchise so i'm sticking with the original idea. Bishop is a human in the third one.
Quote from: Daunty on Aug 25, 2007, 10:48:12 PM
It's always gonna be a human to me. The ending of Alien³ was so cool with the cameo of Lance Henriksen and made it more exciting when he got his injury.
But clearly if you look at AvP the Bishop in Alien³ has to be an andriod. I wouldn't mind him being an android in the third one, but AvP didn't do justice to the franchise so i'm sticking with the original idea. Bishop is a human in the third one.
I "clearly" looked at both
Alien³ and
AVP and still wasn't confused by his appearances nor did I question his status as a human.
I never thought it messed with the continuity, he human in AVP but if he's a human in Alien 3 he's human, but if he's an android he's an android.
If human, he's either a descendant of Charles Weyland or a look alike who was chosen by the company to talk to Ripley.
If he's an android he must have some kind of modifications to have red blood.
We might never have this question truly answered without another movie, we can only hope that there will be a movie one day with the answers but I am not holding my breath :-\
The only place I've ever heard even the insinuation that he was an android was a brief comment (I believe on Lance Henriksen's part) that was made out of confusion more than anything else. Everything else- the Quadrilogy commentary, the red blood pouring out of the wound, the wound itself, Bishop II's loud statement that he was human- all points to him being human. What happened in AVP as far as Weyland and his appearance is inconsequential to me as far as the facts behind Alien 3.
AVP was a continuity nightmare to begin with. While finding explanations for disasters is a natural facet of human nature, this is one conundrum not worth the philosophical debate.
Quote from: Mr. Weyland on Aug 26, 2007, 02:35:30 AM
We might never have this question truly answered without another movie, we can only hope that there will be a movie one day with the answers but I am not holding my breath :-\
It was never a question to begin with. Anderson f**ked up and some people made an assumption.
I've read Michael Shermer's
Why People Believe Weird Things and he gives several reasons why they do. Not all of them apply to those who believed that Bishop's creator was an android, but here are a couple of reasons that may apply:
QuoteCredo Consolans. More than any other, the reason why people believe weird things is because they want to. It feels good. It is comforting. It is consoling.
Simplicity. Immediate gratification of one's beliefs is all the made easier by simple explanations for an often complex and contingent world. Good and bad things happen to both good and bad people, seemingly at random. Scientific explanations are often complicated and require training and effort to work through.
Now, i don't want to be slapped in the face, but I choose to believe that Bishop II is an android. His injury seemed too severe for him to be anything but a droid (This is really the case when moviemakers intend one thing, but it looks like something else). Everyhting that comes out of the Company's mouhtpiece is a lie. So what I'm saying is, I like the idea if him being a robot even if he is actually human, I just like the idea.
Quote from: Karl on Aug 28, 2007, 11:58:10 AM
Now, i don't want to be slapped in the face, but I choose to believe that Bishop II is an android. His injury seemed too severe for him to be anything but a droid
One more time: it wasn't that severe. People have endured worse without even being aware of it.
Quote from: Karl on Aug 28, 2007, 11:58:10 AM
(This is really the case when moviemakers intend one thing, but it looks like something else).
If one knows of the intention, then they should honor it.
Quote from: Karl on Aug 28, 2007, 11:58:10 AM
Everyhting that comes out of the Company's mouhtpiece is a lie. So what I'm saying is, I like the idea if him being a robot even if he is actually human, I just like the idea.
I like the plaid sky outside my window. I just like that sky...
:D You shouldn't take this Bishop business so seriously lol ;)
Quote from: Karl on Aug 28, 2007, 03:50:20 PM
:D You shouldn't take this Bishop business so seriously lol ;)
It's not the "Bishop" side of it, it's what's behind it. I get uneasy when people start to believe things just because it makes them feel good, and no other reason why.
A while ago, a girl had admitted to me that she had voted for George W. Bush. I asked her why. She answered, "Oh, I don't know. I just like him." Later on, she was bitching about some things that he was responsible for but couldn't accept that he was the root of her troubles.
Ugh, whatever, it's a science fiction movie we're talking about here. It's no the same.
Quote(This is really the case when moviemakers intend one thing, but it looks like something else).
No it's really a case of people watching a film but not paying attention.
Quote from: Karl on Aug 28, 2007, 05:14:52 PM
Ugh, whatever, it's a science fiction movie we're talking about here. It's no the same.
Again, it's the same thought process.
Quote from: SM on Aug 29, 2007, 12:57:33 AM
Quote(This is really the case when moviemakers intend one thing, but it looks like something else).
No it's really a case of people watching a film but not paying attention.
If the filmmakers had said that yes, he is an android, people would be telling a different story here. It had nothing to do with people (me I guess) not paying attention. And maledoro, stop your BS, just stop it. You've been in this topic like a damn looney slapping your "essay" into other people's faces. Fine, he's a human, happy now? Oh nowait.., .I'm still not really sure he is, maybe I should read your "essay" again.
Those that worked on the film said that he is human. That should be enough to end it right there. Maybe you should read his essay again, its well thought out and a reasoned argument...which is more than I've seen for the android argument.
Maybe they made him appear more human since they new Ripley didn't much trust androids.. (though she obviously gained trust after the Bishop in Aliens - THOUGH at the same time, Weyland industries didn't know she had developed a trust for Bishop.).. Tough call, but since he was in AvP as a human... unless he was cloned sometime during the years, I'd have to go with android.
Read his "essay". Cloning is illegal lol.
Quote from: Karl on Aug 29, 2007, 02:43:25 PM
And maledoro, stop your BS, just stop it.
Karl, call off the carpet bombing, please...
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2Fpwed%2Fdramabomb.gif&hash=9168f0559abd3afab10d96c9cfc4529e0cb5b5dc)
Quote from: Cellien on Aug 29, 2007, 05:14:59 PM
Maybe they made him appear more human since they new Ripley didn't much trust androids.. (though she obviously gained trust after the Bishop in Aliens - THOUGH at the same time, Weyland industries didn't know she had developed a trust for Bishop.).. Tough call, but since he was in AvP as a human... unless he was cloned sometime during the years, I'd have to go with android.
"Tough call"? How about a tie-breaker: he's a normal human. You see them everyday. Why not go with something "normal"?
It's a pointless discussion anyway. 8) I'm out of here, for good.
Cheers, Mal. ;D
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 29, 2007, 10:39:40 PM
Quote from: Cellien on Aug 29, 2007, 05:14:59 PM
Maybe they made him appear more human since they new Ripley didn't much trust androids.. (though she obviously gained trust after the Bishop in Aliens - THOUGH at the same time, Weyland industries didn't know she had developed a trust for Bishop.).. Tough call, but since he was in AvP as a human... unless he was cloned sometime during the years, I'd have to go with android.
"Tough call"? How about a tie-breaker: he's a normal human. You see them everyday. Why not go with something "normal"?
Oh ya, normal.. like the f*ckin Aliens sci-fi story that goes on everyday in real life, normally. It's a MOVIE.. it doesn't have to be NORMAL. ::) Besides, it's also NORMAL to see androids in Alien movies..
Weak.
Quote from: SM on Aug 30, 2007, 02:21:32 AM
Weak.
..'Cause this ^ comment is soooooo witty. ::)
Whats weak is Mals comment saying "Why dont you go with something normal..." ya thats a REAL strong case lol..
Quote..'Cause this ^ comment is soooooo witty.
..'Cause your argument was so shitty.
It's simpler to go with the mountain of proof that supports the simple conclusion that he's human rather than making things up.
Quote from: SM on Aug 30, 2007, 02:38:16 AM
Quote..'Cause this ^ comment is soooooo witty.
..'Cause your argument was so shitty.
It's simpler to go with the mountain of proof that supports the simple conclusion that he's human rather than making things up.
First, an argument saying - You see humans everyday, its normal..so he must be a human - is THE WORST argument. That fact is totally irrelavent since its a movie so it doesn't matter. Period. Besides, like everyone else I just posted a simple opinion mostly based on the fact that he is a human in AvP. If you want to ignore that, thats fine. But its a movie set in the same universe so I would assume the Bishop in Alien 3 was a droid, unless some cloning happened that we don't know about. I didn't make that shit up bro.
AvP doesn't need to enter into the equation.
Quote from: SM on Aug 30, 2007, 02:50:58 AM
AvP doesn't need to enter into the equation.
Weak.
So nothing passably intelligent to add and resorting to parroting, I take it.
Quote from: SM on Aug 30, 2007, 02:55:17 AM
So nothing passably intelligent to add and resorting to parroting, I take it.
No.. its truley because you totally disregard a movie in the series so it makes your argument weak :)
I'm not disregarding it at all. Just because there's a dude in 2004 called Weyland doesn't automatically equate to a dude in 2179 being a robot. Especially when there's pretty obvious proof that the dude in 2179 isn't a robot.
Quote from: SM on Aug 30, 2007, 03:16:43 AM
I'm not disregarding it at all. Just because there's a dude in 2004 called Weyland doesn't automatically equate to a dude in 2179 being a robot. Especially when there's pretty obvious proof that the dude in 2179 isn't a robot.
Well, using your logic.. the simple solution would be the dude with the same name, same face, and works for the same company would more than likely be the same guy since so much evidence supports that claim.
That's not my logic.
Fine. The logic you seem to support:
Quote from: SM on Aug 30, 2007, 02:38:16 AM
It's simpler to go with the mountain of proof that supports the simple conclusion...
Fair enough. Especially since the side of the argument that favours android doesn't have a mountain of proof.
Quote from: SM on Aug 30, 2007, 04:18:17 AM
Fair enough. Especially since the side of the argument that favours android doesn't have a mountain of proof.
Ya, no one knows. Really, it's best to just believe what you want cause Fox is gonna do whatever they feel like and throw continuity out the window while doing it. :P I only vote "android" because of AvP... It makes it seem likely. I just threw those other ideas out there for the sake of discussion.
I don't believe a later movie can or should be capable of retconning an earlier one. Okay, so Weyland is human in AVP. So what? Can't he be human in Alien 3 too? I would argue he can. Henriksen's aged so much in the interim 12 years that he looks different enough that Bishop II could just be a distant relative anyway. We know that Weyland was a robotics pioneer. And Bishop II said he designed the Bishop android. You know, those things are FAR from mutually exclusive. This works easily.
Weyland's existence doesn't negate the script/novelization/comic adaption of Alien 3, or the fact that his blood is red.
QuoteCan't he be human in Alien 3 too?
Yep.
Quote from: Cellien on Aug 30, 2007, 03:37:23 AM
Well, using your logic.. the simple solution would be the dude with the same name, same face, and works for the same company would more than likely be the same guy since so much evidence supports that claim.
He didn't have the same name. In fact, his name wasn't mentioned onscreen. There were enough differences in his face (thanks to Henriksen's natural aging) that they weren't an exact match. This guy could be an indirect descendant (such as a grandⁿ nephew), since his surname had been assumed by many as being "Bishop" as opposed to the
AVP guy's surname of "Weyland".
Also, we don't know for sure if he had actually worked for Weyland Yutani. He just said that he was sent by the Company. That doesn't mean that he was employed by them. Hyperdyne may have been the name of the company that made the Bishop android.
Lol...whatever guys. Now who's making up stuff?
Quote from: Cellien on Aug 30, 2007, 03:17:10 PM
Lol...whatever guys. Now who's making up stuff?
If you're insinuating that
I am, then
you are making up stuff (such as that statement). I posted things that came from the mouths of the creators and facts in general.
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 30, 2007, 04:17:19 PM
Quote from: Cellien on Aug 30, 2007, 03:17:10 PM
Lol...whatever guys. Now who's making up stuff?
If you're insinuating that I am, then you are making up stuff (such as that statement). I posted things that came from the mouths of the creators and facts in general.
So they said the Bishop in Alien 3 was a descendant of the AvP Bishop?... Or, a Nephew? Or did you make that up? Cause I truly don't know if they said that somewhere or not. But, I do see a lot of "may have's" and "could be's" in your posts so I tend to think no one ever said that and that's it's something
you came up with which would mean you are
making stuff up.
Quote from: Cellien on Aug 30, 2007, 04:29:10 PM
So they said the Bishop in Alien 3 was a descendant of the AvP Bishop?... Or, a Nephew? Or did you make that up?
They said nothing of the like, nor had I said that they had. I said that Bishop's creator could
possibly be either one.
Quote from: Cellien on Aug 30, 2007, 04:29:10 PM
But, I do see a lot of "may have's" and "could be's" in your posts so I tend to think no one ever said that and that's it's something you came up with which would mean you are making stuff up.
If I had made a
statement of fact that was based on what would be false, I could be accused of "making stuff up". If had made speculations (which I had), that wouldn't be the same thing as "making stuff up".
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 30, 2007, 04:45:48 PM
Quote from: Cellien on Aug 30, 2007, 04:29:10 PM
So they said the Bishop in Alien 3 was a descendant of the AvP Bishop?... Or, a Nephew? Or did you make that up?
They said nothing of the like, nor had I said that they had. I said that Bishop's creator could possibly be either one.
Quote from: Cellien on Aug 30, 2007, 04:29:10 PM
But, I do see a lot of "may have's" and "could be's" in your posts so I tend to think no one ever said that and that's it's something you came up with which would mean you are making stuff up.
If I had made a statement of fact that was based on what would be false, I could be accused of "making stuff up". If had made speculations (which I had), that wouldn't be the same thing as "making stuff up".
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 30, 2007, 04:17:19 PM
Quote from: Cellien on Aug 30, 2007, 03:17:10 PM
Lol...whatever guys. Now who's making up stuff?
If you're insinuating that I am, then you are making up stuff (such as that statement). I posted things that came from the mouths of the creators and facts in general.
All I can say is you go back and forth... Reread you comments man. There's no point in debating with you. You clearly stated that your posts were facts from the creators.. or just facts in general then you say they weren't. Pick one.
Quote from: Cellien on Aug 30, 2007, 04:50:05 PM
All I can say is you go back and forth... Reread you comments man. There's no point in debating with you. You clearly stated that your posts were facts from the creators.. or just facts in general then you say they weren't. Pick one.
You need to reread my posts, instead of painting them with a wide brush. Here's a quick reference for you:
Statement of Fact: He [Bishop II] didn't have the same name [as Charles Bishop
Weyland].
Fact: In fact, his name wasn't mentioned onscreen.
Fact: There were enough differences in his face (thanks to Henriksen's natural aging) that they weren't an exact match.
Speculation: This guy could be an indirect descendant (such as a grandⁿ nephew)
Fact: since his surname had been assumed by many as being "Bishop" as opposed to the AVP guy's surname of "Weyland". [Check the Alien Universe Timeline for the entry "Michael Bishop"]
Fact: Also, we don't know for sure if he had actually worked for Weyland Yutani. [Although I do believe that he was in their direct employ.]
Fact: He just said that he was sent by the Company. [Although I do believe he was in their direct employ.]
Fact: [The statement that he was sent by the Company] That doesn't mean that he was employed by them.
Speculation: Hyperdyne may have been the name of the company that made the Bishop android.
See how that works?
Do you know what speculation means? It means you just made something up. Just as much as I was accused of "making sh*t up" you are doing the same. You straight up don't know what the story is with Bishop..
You are suggesting that the character has some descendant, yet the movie NEVER mentions that. Ever. As you said in another post "You're finding a non-existent black cat in a darkened room." :)
Quote from: Cellien on Aug 30, 2007, 05:16:34 PM
Do you know what speculation means? It means you just made something up.
To speculate is to guess. To "make stuff up" means to lie. Big difference.
Quote from: Cellien on Aug 30, 2007, 05:16:34 PM
Just as much as I was accused of "making sh*t up" you are doing the same.
Nope. I didn't lie.
Quote from: Cellien on Aug 30, 2007, 05:16:34 PM
You straight up don't know what the story is with Bishop..
I straight up know that the people involved with the film that featured Bishop's creator declared him as human.
Quote from: Cellien on Aug 30, 2007, 05:16:34 PM
You are suggesting that the character has some descendant, yet the movie NEVER mentions that. Ever.
Again, O Twister of Words, you are accusing me of making a statement of fact where I hadn't.
Well, I'm being called into a meeting. If you behave yourself while I'm away, maybe I might come back and have some more fun with you. If you're
really lucky, maybe your Uncle
SM will stop and play with you.
Ta!
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FConfused%2520and%2520Stoopid%2F_petnuzzle____TheHalycon_by_Obey_Me.gif&hash=ea60a3f8f6e5c888da15dbee38e170d2777d3a72)
Let up on the condescending statements a bit man..
Back to the topic:
Twist of words.. I never said you lied. I said you are making the assumption Bishop has descendants to justify who he is in AvP when you simply don't know.
If Bishop was declared a human somewhere by the creators then fine (I really was not aware of this)... But AvP screws that up, and you can't deny that movie just because it screws up continuity or because of a dislike for the film.
To sum it up:
You are ASSUMING that Bishop in AvP is someone else, a nephew even... and has no correlation to the previous Bishop other than they look the same, work for the same company, played by the same actor, implied that the androids were modeled after him, shares a similar name, and does things that directly tie him and the company to the other movies (such as the pen/knife around the fingers gag).
In other words, neither one of us know. lol.. Just realized how retarded this debate is. Don't bother "coming back to have more fun"... I'll let you, and the almighty elitist SM play with each other and let the fact-less topic continue on with my absence. :)
Quote from: Karl on Aug 29, 2007, 11:05:01 PM
It's a pointless discussion anyway. 8) I'm out of here, for good.
Ya, took me a few posts to figure this out too.. :-\
Its pointless for you android theorists, because you can't win, you don't have a leg to stand on. Although its pretty pointless for the human proponents as despite the evidence, the android guys don't change their mind.
QuoteIf you're really lucky, maybe your Uncle SM will stop and play with you.
Unky SM don't got any more time for ignoramii.
Quote from: Cellien on Aug 30, 2007, 06:09:20 PM
Let up on the condescending statements a bit man..
I will if you will.
Quote from: Cellien on Aug 30, 2007, 06:09:20 PM
Twist of words.. I never said you lied. I said you are making the assumption Bishop has descendants to justify who he is in AvP when you simply don't know.
I never said that it was a fact. Get off of it.
Quote from: Cellien on Aug 30, 2007, 06:09:20 PM
If Bishop was declared a human somewhere by the creators then fine (I really was not aware of this)... But AvP screws that up, and you can't deny that movie just because it screws up continuity or because of a dislike for the film.
There was no reference to events in
Alien³ made in
AVP, so it doesn't override events in
Alien³.
Quote from: Cellien on Aug 30, 2007, 06:09:20 PM
You are ASSUMING that Bishop in AvP is someone else, a nephew even...
I never stated it as a fact (which you are too slow to learn).
Quote from: Cellien on Aug 30, 2007, 06:09:20 PM
and has no correlation to the previous Bishop other than they look the same
There are enough differences to say that they look different. (Something else you didn't pick up on.)
Quote from: Cellien on Aug 30, 2007, 06:09:20 PM
work for the same company
"Working" for the Company and "being sent" by the Company are two different things.
Quote from: Cellien on Aug 30, 2007, 06:09:20 PM
played by the same actor, implied that the androids were modeled after him
According to the commentary track to
AVP, they only mention
one Bishop android; and it's the one that was featured in
Aliens and was further damaged at the beginning of
Alien³.
Quote from: Cellien on Aug 30, 2007, 06:09:20 PM
shares a similar name
His name was never mentioned in
Alien³.
Quote from: Cellien on Aug 30, 2007, 06:09:20 PM
and does things that directly tie him and the company to the other movies (such as the pen/knife around the fingers gag).
Wow. Like nobody has done that before.
Quote from: Cellien on Aug 30, 2007, 06:09:20 PM
In other words, neither one of us know. lol.. Just realized how retarded this debate is. Don't bother "coming back to have more fun"... I'll let you, and the almighty elitist SM play with each other and let the fact-less topic continue on with my absence.
At least I know that he was human; unlike yourself who thought he was a robot:
Quote from: Cellien on Aug 29, 2007, 05:14:59 PM
Maybe they made him appear more human since they new Ripley didn't much trust androids.. (though she obviously gained trust after the Bishop in Aliens - THOUGH at the same time, Weyland industries didn't know she had developed a trust for Bishop.).. Tough call, but since he was in AvP as a human... unless he was cloned sometime during the years, I'd have to go with android.
Since you are leaving this topic, I will end my arguments against your robot nonsense.
EDIT:
I said more.. but I don't want to egg anymore on. Believe what you want to believe.. Makes no difference since no matter what is said here its all assumptions. :)
Have a good one!
Quote from: Cellien on Aug 31, 2007, 05:43:37 PM
Lol.. Make up and believe what you want dude.. Believe he is a nephew if that's what you want, I am totally fine with that.
But I never said that I had believed that. I said it was a
possibility; you ran off with it. Sorry if you were duped.
Quote from: Cellien on Aug 31, 2007, 05:43:37 PM
It's very obvious this issue is exetremly important to you
No, it isn't.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FHappy%2520Smilies%2Fcool3.gif&hash=096f5c6269c0b89f2ba4f72b14f460680a3e7af2)
Quote from: Cellien on Aug 31, 2007, 05:43:37 PM
and I must have struck a nerve with you (since you resulted to condescending statements)..
I have a rule of thumb: I will act nicer if you act smarter.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FHappy%2520Smilies%2Fmwink.gif&hash=d6aa6c8d7ecb2ea88bfcc535e34d4e46c3a6ee8c)
Quote from: Cellien on Aug 31, 2007, 05:43:37 PM
It's difficult to talk to someone that goes back and forth about what you call fact and what you assume..
It's more difficult for me to talk to someone who is too stupid to tell the difference (even after examples were given!).
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FConfused%2520and%2520Stoopid%2Fsisi.gif&hash=87648ee5cbc4ee9590392993f6f7ce2f0525b032)
Quote from: Cellien on Aug 31, 2007, 05:43:37 PM
So believe what you want
I believe that he's human regardless of who he is; just like the people who had put him on the screen.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FHappy%2520Smilies%2Fe9625f7d.gif&hash=9ed7a7567a71e8fd81352f3d5ace715500e51869)
Quote from: Cellien on Aug 31, 2007, 05:43:37 PM
cause honestly I just think this is the most pointless argument and I can't believe I have exhaused so much time into it.. even this post.
You're not being honest to yourself; you came back for more and will probably continue to do so.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FConfused%2520and%2520Stoopid%2F270530d6.gif&hash=e047e3a469ae0f8622ecd2484f0fccd66bbc14e0)
Actually.. if you had read my post I edited BEFORE you posted yours (you happened to get the quote in before I edited - which shows you took a lot of time to come up with your comment :P) then you would see that I decided to let it go. I am only posting now to defend myself, not in regards to factless, pointless argument of rather Bishop is human or android because frankly, neither me or you know no matter how much you believe it :)
Nice touch calling me stupid for having an opinion.. love that. You've showed your true colors.. don't need to say much more. Thanks!
Quote from: Cellien on Aug 31, 2007, 06:41:10 PM
Actually.. if you had read my post I edited BEFORE you posted yours (you happened to get the quote in before I edited - which shows you took a lot of time to come up with your comment :P)
Interruptions tend to do that...
Quote from: Cellien on Aug 31, 2007, 06:41:10 PM
then you would see that I decided to let it go. I am only posting now to defend myself, not in regards to factless, pointless argument of rather Bishop is human or android because frankly, neither me or you know no matter how much you believe it
So, you're
not letting it go? You keep mentioning it.
Quote from: Cellien on Aug 31, 2007, 06:41:10 PM
Nice touch calling me stupid for having an opinion.. love that. You've showed your true colors.. don't need to say much more. Thanks!
I didn't call you "stupid" for having an opinion; I called you "stupid" for not knowing the difference between speculation and a statement of fact. Does that color you as "stupid" or "deceptive"?
Don't answer yet; I'll be back in a few hours.
Just cool down man lol.. I am letting it go. I said you can assume what you like :) How can I be much more passive than that?
As for calling me stupid for not knowing the difference between facts and speculation.. this whole discussion is speculation. :)
Quote from: Cellien on Aug 31, 2007, 07:03:53 PM
Just cool down man lol.. I am letting it go. I said you can assume what you like :) How can I be much more passive than that?
Not that I need to...
Quote from: Cellien on Aug 31, 2007, 07:03:53 PM
As for calling me stupid for not knowing the difference between facts and speculation.. this whole discussion is speculation.
Okay...
Quote from: wolfboy on Dec 12, 2006, 10:27:55 AM
He was a human. There would be no point in making the fake blood red. AvP just screwed up the time line.
Ditto.
Anderson actually admitted to messing with the timeline just to have him in there as a cameo. It's in an interview somewhere around the internet.
He's human definately they say in the audio commentary
I think he's human, but that flap of skin with his ear hanging off his head looks fake. It looks like something on an android. I'm guessing it wasn't meant to look like it was hanging off the head. It just happened to wind up like that and wasn't really noticed in the production. I have definitely had my doubts as to whether or not Bishop was actually a human and not an android.
In all honesty, you can retcon this stuff to death. I can see how the arguments for both sides are equally justifiable. I know a lot about retcon, believe me. I'm a huge Transformers fanboy. Trust me, there is nothing more confusing than trying to form a coherent and seamless time line in the original G1 Transformers cartoon. There are so many contradictions and discrepancies in that show. Yet hardcore fanboys will argue all kinds of things to explain the different contradictions.
I think what it boils down to is enjoying the franchise for what it is and not getting bogged down arguing over things that seem to be minor in comparission to the series as a whole.
Just my thoughts.
Bishop cant be a human in Alien 3 because he die in AVP and because the first Alien Movie play in the year 2036 and AVP play in 2004. And Bishop in AVP can be a droid because at this time people cant make droits.
Quote from: Elder Alien on Sep 09, 2007, 05:13:10 PM
Bishop cant be a human in Alien 3 because he die in AVP because the first Alien Movie play in the year 2036 and AVP play in 2004. And Bishop in AVP can be a droid because at this time units cant make droits.
I have no idea what you just said.
Why do people think that Charles Weyland is also Bishop 2 in Alien 3?
and ALIEN was set in the year 2121, ALIENS was set in the year 2179 and ALIEN 3 the same as ALIENS.
Quote from: Elder Alien on Sep 09, 2007, 05:13:10 PM
Bishop cant be a human in Alien 3 because he die in AVP
The guy in
Alien³ is
not the same guy in
AVP!
Quote from: Elder Alien on Sep 09, 2007, 05:13:10 PM
and because the first Alien Movie play in the year 2036
How did you come up with that year?
Quote from: Elder Alien on Sep 09, 2007, 05:13:10 PM
And Bishop in AVP can be a droid because at this time people cant make droits.
So, how can he be a droid if people can't make them?
Quote from: The Diesel on Sep 07, 2007, 04:45:27 AM
I think he's human, but that flap of skin with his ear hanging off his head looks fake. It looks like something on an android. I'm guessing it wasn't meant to look like it was hanging off the head. It just happened to wind up like that and wasn't really noticed in the production. I have definitely had my doubts as to whether or not Bishop was actually a human and not an android.
In all honesty, you can retcon this stuff to death. I can see how the arguments for both sides are equally justifiable. I know a lot about retcon, believe me. I'm a huge Transformers fanboy. Trust me, there is nothing more confusing than trying to form a coherent and seamless time line in the original G1 Transformers cartoon. There are so many contradictions and discrepancies in that show. Yet hardcore fanboys will argue all kinds of things to explain the different contradictions.
I think what it boils down to is enjoying the franchise for what it is and not getting bogged down arguing over things that seem to be minor in comparission to the series as a whole.
Just my thoughts.
Well, I agree with your thoughts. :)
Quote from: Cellien on Sep 10, 2007, 01:51:32 AM
Quote from: The Diesel on Sep 07, 2007, 04:45:27 AM
I think he's human, but that flap of skin with his ear hanging off his head looks fake. It looks like something on an android. I'm guessing it wasn't meant to look like it was hanging off the head. It just happened to wind up like that and wasn't really noticed in the production. I have definitely had my doubts as to whether or not Bishop was actually a human and not an android.
In all honesty, you can retcon this stuff to death. I can see how the arguments for both sides are equally justifiable. I know a lot about retcon, believe me. I'm a huge Transformers fanboy. Trust me, there is nothing more confusing than trying to form a coherent and seamless time line in the original G1 Transformers cartoon. There are so many contradictions and discrepancies in that show. Yet hardcore fanboys will argue all kinds of things to explain the different contradictions.
I think what it boils down to is enjoying the franchise for what it is and not getting bogged down arguing over things that seem to be minor in comparission to the series as a whole.
Just my thoughts.
Well, I agree with your thoughts. :)
Cool. I'm glad that someone does.
Quote from: maledoro on Sep 10, 2007, 10:43:54 AM
Quote from: The Diesel on Sep 10, 2007, 04:08:26 AM
Quote from: Cellien on Sep 10, 2007, 01:51:32 AM
Well, I agree with your thoughts.
Cool. I'm glad that someone does.
Did anybody disagree?
Talk about a desperate attempt to start an argument. No, no one disagreed. Your point being?
Quote from: Cellien on Sep 10, 2007, 04:54:51 PM
Talk about a desperate attempt to start an argument. No, no one disagreed. Your point being?
I was asking the other poster a question. He sounded relieved and I was merely asking him if someone had disagreed with him.
Quote from: maledoro on Sep 10, 2007, 05:55:32 PM
Quote from: Cellien on Sep 10, 2007, 04:54:51 PM
Talk about a desperate attempt to start an argument. No, no one disagreed. Your point being?
I was asking the other poster a question. He sounded relieved and I was merely asking him if someone had disagreed with him.
Ah, gotcha, my bad.. :) Damn internet. :P
Quote from: maledoro on Sep 10, 2007, 05:55:32 PM
Quote from: Cellien on Sep 10, 2007, 04:54:51 PM
Talk about a desperate attempt to start an argument. No, no one disagreed. Your point being?
I was asking the other poster a question. He sounded relieved and I was merely asking him if someone had disagreed with him.
I don't know that anyone disagreed. I'm just glad that someone agreed with me. That's all.
I say he may be a longggg longggg grandson of
Charls Bishop Weyland... What you guys think??
I don't know why this is such a hard topic for people to agree on. Damn you Anderson!
Bishop II is human. It is in the script, the novel, the commentary, and the special addition of A3. Not even a question for me. It is so obvious. I can't believe Anderson and Lance had to f**k up like that.
http://www.dailymotion.com/branman887/video/4982524
Quote from: Private Hudson on Sep 13, 2007, 09:58:48 PM
I say he may be a longggg longggg grandson of
Charls Bishop Weyland... What you guys think??
He could be a longggg longggg grandnephew, too, as it's been hinted that his name is Michael Bishop (
sans the "Weyland" surname).
Ahhh.. Good point ;)
Quote from: maledoro on Sep 13, 2007, 10:30:51 PM
Quote from: Private Hudson on Sep 13, 2007, 09:58:48 PM
I say he may be a longggg longggg grandson of
Charls Bishop Weyland... What you guys think??
He could be a longggg longggg grandnephew, too, as it's been hinted that his name is Michael Bishop (sans the "Weyland" surname).
That's one of my strongest beliefs, I think he's a relative to Charles Weyland :P
clone????
I was just wondering was he a droid because it looked like his ear was all ripped open and that. Just was a bit confused?
He's a human.
Red blood.
"I'm not a droid!"
Human emotions when he realizes what Ripley is about to do when she is about to commit her sacrifice whereas Ash was very robotic, and Bishop showed no fear.
Not to mention eu sources confirming he was human.
PA confuses the subject with his interpretation. But thats HIS interpretation. And he misinterprets lots of stuff.
How come its got Bishop 2 next to Henricksons name on imdb. If he were human it would have been Bishop human wayland or what ever his name was in AVP.Hes got blood but his ears totally opened up I dont think any real person could with stand the pain looking like that and maybe he had red blood because he was upgraded model made to be even more human. Also if you remember when he gets hit on the head hes trying to cover it up.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wolfevents.de%2Fexpo-store%2Fimages%2FLance%285%29.jpg&hash=ae3963af699a32667cc295c68ffb24611b550944)
Is Hi Ching's character an android too? He's called Company Man at the credits.
What about all the characters without last names in the script? They androids? Or just humans without a last name?
Or how bout this: They aren't given full names because it isn't relevant to the story in any kind of way.
As for grostesque human injuries. You'd be surprised at how much the human body can take. The wrench came down on his shoulder and swiped his ear in the process. It doesn't damage his head in any other way.
A damaged ear and a broken/dislocated shoulder isn't going to kill a human being.
Aside from that, don't you think an android would've handled the situation differently? Ash would've just had his soldiers kneecap Ripley and take her back without any kind of struggle.
Ash's head would've come off with the blow and he'd start spasming, pissing fluid from his neck ;D
Well look at his ear its completely opened up like it was synthetic and why did he cover it up like he was hiding something and still talking!
Like a synthetic?
Like I said, last time we saw a synthetic beaned over the head, their head came off. Bishop's flappy ear, seen earlier in the film where Ripley repairs him, looks nothing like Bishop 2's. As for covering the ear up, hello? Blood loss? You apply pressure to stem the bleeding.
So why has it got ? for human next to his name in the Alien 3 characters section.
BECAUSE THE GUYS THAT RUN THIS SITE FORGOT TO UPDATE IT/AREN'T SURE!!! EVEN THOUGH IT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED!
Not everything on this site is correct or right, or the holy grail for everything right in the franchises.
>:(
http://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=8.0
http://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=5555.0
My only argument towards him being a droid is when he gets hit he doesn't seem in pain and covers it up secretly.
http://www.dailymotion.com/branman887/video/4982524
Ok I just watched it again and I am a 100% sure he's a droid. I thought he held his head all the time but he didn't atoll and look at the last yell he makes and see his ear and part of head hanging out that bit pretty much confirmed he was a droid. Obviously an advanced droid which looks like human blood. If someone could capture an image of the last yell and circle round his wound he makes your see what I mean.
Theres no way a human could stand up with an ear and part of his hanging out could still be standing up yelling. He only pretended that he was human and probaly had more emotion than the older droids.
Ok I just watched it again and I am a 100% sure he's a droid. I thought he held his head all the time but he didn't atoll and look at the last yell he makes and see his ear and part of head hanging out that bit pretty much confirmed he was a droid. Obviously an advanced droid which looks like human blood. If someone could capture an image of the last yell and circle round his wound he makes your see what I mean.
Theres no way a human could stand up with an ear and part of his hanging out could still be standing up yelling. He only pretended that he was human and probaly had more emotion than the older droids.
He is a human. The director, the script, the novel, and that footage all prove he is human. Did you not see him wince in pain? Androids don't scream in pain when hit, they don't wince in pain and grasp their ear. He is a human. And the injury he sustains is possible. Read this:
http://www.alienexperience.com//index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=512&topic=51.0
Well capture an image of him or someone when he's yelling when hes too his side and your see behind his ear its all opened up like its synthetic skin or android skin. He's called Bishop II because he's an upgraded version like T-850 was in T3 that kind of gives it away. They probaly make them more human like each time there upgraded. Whether Im right or wrong atleast get the image so I can make my point.
None of that matters. On the A3 commentary, the creators said that Bishop 2 is supposed to be human. That is enough proof right there. Whether you interpreted it wrong (like Anderson did) is up to you, but that is the true intention of the director. He is supposed to be human. I guess they didn't make it clear enough for some people.
Anyway, I'll indulge in your assumption with the pictures you requested, cuz I'm such a nice guy.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi110.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn120%2Fbranman887%2FNVE00001-3.png&hash=93592940180823671b04dd38b523891af833cb5f)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi110.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn120%2Fbranman887%2FNVE00003-1.png&hash=990203c18f253e548571984c6485fda54868016f)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi110.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn120%2Fbranman887%2FNVE00005-1.png&hash=6027b69f984a977480c0d09d5d7974730c3f908d)
I don't see how those pictures reveal he is an android. You don't see any synthetics, you see his scalp has been bloodied and his ear is ripped. The film makers were trying to prove he was human, not the other way.
Think of it this way, if the director wanted to show he was an android, wouldn't he have made it more clear and kept the blood white? Screw the advanced android crap, they would have made him have white blood if they wanted to have him be synthetic, not bleed red blood. Up until AVP most people believed he was human. It wasn't until AVP and Anderson that people started getting confused. Kind of pisses me off.
Quote from: nukem11 on Sep 15, 2007, 11:05:08 PM
Ok I just watched it again and I am a 100% sure he's a droid. I thought he held his head all the time but he didn't atoll and look at the last yell he makes and see his ear and part of head hanging out that bit pretty much confirmed he was a droid. Obviously an advanced droid which looks like human blood. If someone could capture an image of the last yell and circle round his wound he makes your see what I mean.
Theres no way a human could stand up with an ear and part of his hanging out could still be standing up yelling. He only pretended that he was human and probaly had more emotion than the older droids.
I was watching World's Amazing Videos or something like that on Spike TV. Had a guy at a rodeo who basically got trampled by a bull. He gets up and he has half of his scalp dangling from his head...it was gross, bloody, and just flapping there. He walked off all on is own, I am sure he was in pain, but not showing it. Been trying to find it on youTube or something, but to no avail.
Advanced droid? Call was an advanced droid...no red blood.
That is sick man. Proves Bishop2's injury was totally possible.
That would be a nice theory if the most advanced droids in the alien series history, didn't look on the inside like the droids of old.
Call had human emotions, but a robotic interior, and she was a "robot, built by robots,".
She's as advanced as they come, and guess what? Gooey milky interior.
Humans can walk around with their faces beaten in, with their arms hanging off, and their body trashed in a hundred places. With adrenaline pumping, you might not even recognize being shot or stabbed until after it starts to leave your system.
Fifty cent was shot 7 times. Once in the face. One of Saddam's sons was shot 17 times in a failed assassination attempt and lived.
The human body can be very frail, or incredibly tough. It depends on the build, the force/angle of injury, the mental/physical makeup of a person, how much adrenaline they have in their system, etc.
Until david fincher tells me other wise (which he won't but has said before that bishop 2 is human). I say he is human.
He's Charles Bishop Welands Great Great Grandson or Nephu!!
Thanks for getting the images. Well if someone had a big cut like that behind his ear wouldnt they be holding it or is Bishop some kind of hard man and doesnt feel pain. And in that last pic you can see his ear hanging out I dont care if your the weediest guy in the world, if you were hit behind the head your ear wouldnt flap out like that. I wished they talked on the commentary a little on that wound. You can see in that last image all the skin hanging out like droid or if he's a human then I wished they never exaggerated on that wound so much then I would defiantly be on the human side much more.
So Ill say for now hes not human but hes not a droid either, I just carnt see how looking like that he can be human.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi218.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc196%2Fnukem11%2FNVE00005-1y.png&hash=acdee556d77a29d8cdfd20000a7da5ec98c03850)
Of course your ear would flap out like that. It's just cartilage and skin.
No it wouldn't unless you've got really thin skin. I've seen people in movies and in real life that have been his behind the head and there skin doesn't open out like that. They just get a bad cut wound. I don't really care what any one else thinks unless Fincher or Hendrickson put this debate to bed officially other wise what's the point of having this thread .
Quote from: nukem11 on Sep 16, 2007, 08:33:18 AM
Well if someone had a big cut like that behind his ear wouldnt they be holding it or is Bishop some kind of hard man and doesnt feel pain.
He was holding his ear; just not in those pics.
Quote from: nukem11 on Sep 16, 2007, 08:33:18 AM
And in that last pic you can see his ear hanging out I dont care if your the weediest guy in the world, if you were hit behind the head your ear wouldnt flap out like that.
There are too many variables that determine whether one's ear "flaps out like that".
Quote from: nukem11 on Sep 16, 2007, 08:33:18 AM
I wished they talked on the commentary a little on that wound.
They had.
Quote from: nukem11 on Sep 16, 2007, 08:33:18 AM
You can see in that last image all the skin hanging out like droid or if he's a human then I wished they never exaggerated on that wound so much then I would defiantly be on the human side much more.
I wish that people would use a
little critical thinking and not jump to the simplest,(and most preposterous) solution to the problem: "Well, I don't understand head injuries or any other part of the natural world, so, goddammit, he's gotta be a droid!"
Quote from: nukem11 on Sep 16, 2007, 08:33:18 AM
So Ill say for now hes not human but hes not a droid either, I just carnt see how looking like that he can be human.
Read: "I can't be bothered with what the
makers of the film say, so I'll just either make something up, no matter how bizarre it is or I'll just give up and discount the notion that there could actually be a human that looks like and had created Bishop and that his head injury does resemble many that have happened before.
Other than this debate I thought Alien 3 was an undderated film in the series better than 4 anyway. Fincher did a great job on it but a shame he killed of Hicks and Newt.
Quote from: nukem11 on Sep 16, 2007, 11:56:49 AM
Fincher did a great job on it but a shame he killed of Hicks and Newt.
I guess if you can't pay attention to the fact that Fincher didn't write
Alien³, then I guess we can't rely on you to pay attention to anything else about the film.
And, FYI, Hicks and Newt were killed off by two of the three people who had created them for
Aliens.
ouch that was uncalled for lol.
Quote from: nukem11 on Sep 16, 2007, 12:46:50 PM
ouch that was uncalled for lol.
Well, I'm sorry. But I find it hard to discuss things with people who ignore facts. As Carl Sagan once said:
Quote"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion."
I'd also like to add that it's also rare that something like that happens when someone assumes that Bishop's creator was an android.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2Fsa%2Feng101.gif&hash=da1365ecb11c5497484470a5ad02324026ad4a1d)
There's a phrase Duke Nukem uses "blow it out your ass"
But if your totally right then whats the point of this thread. I mean aren't people allowed to express there theories. And I did know that Fincher didnt write Alien 3 script because Ive seen the making of each movie.
Quote from: nukem11 on Sep 16, 2007, 01:02:21 PM
There's a phrase Duke Nukem uses "blow it out your ass"
I've been saying that long before Duke's creators were born.
Quote from: nukem11 on Sep 16, 2007, 01:02:21 PM
But if your totally right then whats the point of this thread.
Who said that there was a point to it? If the people involved with the film say that he's human and there is nothing contrary to that onscreen (or offscreen), there shouldn't have to be a discussion.
Quote from: nukem11 on Sep 16, 2007, 01:02:21 PM
I mean aren't people allowed to express there theories.
Sure. But if people want to talk about the "pretty plaid sky", or whatever, they should be prepared for someone to tell them why the sky isn't plaid.
Quote from: nukem11 on Sep 16, 2007, 01:02:21 PM
And I did know that Fincher didnt write Alien 3 script because Ive seen the making of each movie.
Then you should know that the
writers are responsible for killing off characters.
Quote from: nukem11 on Sep 16, 2007, 01:43:31 PM
Blah blah your quite argumentative aren't you
Actually, I'm not. The argumentive person would be the one who carries on in spite of the facts that refute his argument. By the way, that was a nice use of an
ad hominem (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html) on me.
Quote from: nukem11 on Sep 16, 2007, 01:43:31 PM
its a pity I don't take any interest.
It is, otherwise you might post something worthwhile.
Quote from: nukem11 on Sep 16, 2007, 01:43:31 PM
Who said I dint know that the writers killed there characters off
You did. You claimed that Fincher had done so and acknowledged that he didn't write the film.
Quote from: nukem11 on Sep 16, 2007, 01:43:31 PM
I just said it was shame, you need to read peoples post before your make silly judgements.
O rly?
QuoteQuote from: nukem11 on Sep 16, 2007, 11:56:49 AM
Other than this debate I thought Alien 3 was an undderated film in the series better than 4 anyway. Fincher did a great job on it but a shame he killed of Hicks and Newt.
You got me there but I only said that because he directed it I didnt really think of the writers who came up with that. :o
And I only carried on the debate because I thought I was making a point not to piss people off. ::)
Quote from: nukem11 on Sep 16, 2007, 02:06:18 PM
You got me there but I only said that because he directed it I didnt really think of the writers who came up with that. :o
Well, that's what writers do: decide the fates of the characters...
Quote from: nukem11 on Sep 16, 2007, 02:06:18 PM
And I only carried on the debate because I thought I was making a point not to piss people off. ::)
Care to elaborate on that?
Seriously do you know when to stop or maybe your the android lol. I put my theory across and maybe I was wrong or say something incorrect its not the end of the world.
"Duracell keeps going and going.."
Quote from: nukem11 on Sep 16, 2007, 02:54:20 PM
Seriously do you know when to stop or maybe your the android lol. This petty debate doesnt bother me any more but if you wonna persue it thats up to you.
"Duracell keeps going and going.."
I've stopped about the human/android part a long time ago. But since you've decided to make it personal, I have something else to "discuss". Feel free to stop it at anytime.
I just watched the film with the commentary and its official he's human, dammit lol. I take most of what I said back apart from his skin still all opened up they should have just made it a cut wound.
Even Henrickson was there speaking about it but it was to totally confirm he was human by having him bleed and the wound. :-[ :-[
Quote from: nukem11 on Sep 16, 2007, 03:16:12 PM
Just making a point its nothing personal
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FForums%2Forly.gif&hash=b8e8b6db72f7540fd93db5c4d29de2fe3f6ff9a3)
Quote from: nukem11 on Sep 16, 2007, 01:02:21 PM
There's a phrase Duke Nukem uses "blow it out your ass"
Quote from: nukem11 on Sep 16, 2007, 01:02:21 PM
But if your totally right then whats the point of this thread. I mean aren't people allowed to express there theories.
Quote from: nukem11 on Sep 16, 2007, 01:43:31 PM
Blah blah your quite argumentative aren't you its a pity I don't take any interest. Who said I dint know that the writers killed there characters off I just said it was shame, you need to read peoples post before your make silly judgements.
Quote from: nukem11 on Sep 16, 2007, 02:06:18 PM
And I only carried on the debate because I thought I was making a point not to piss people off.
Quote from: nukem11 on Sep 16, 2007, 02:54:20 PM
Seriously do you know when to stop or maybe your the android lol. I put my theory across and maybe I was wrong or say something incorrect its not the end of the world.
"Duracell keeps going and going.."
Quote from: nukem11 on Sep 16, 2007, 03:16:12 PM
and Im sure your an ok guy when your not in debates lol.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FConfused%2520and%2520Stoopid%2F2cbf5d0b.gif&hash=b9b501f00358e77a7eb18b2787dfa89d4509d9be)
I changed my post sorry maledoro our debate was unnecessary. You big me small lol. Well that sums up this thread.
Quote from: nukem11 on Sep 16, 2007, 03:58:05 PM
I changed my post
I see. I see. Did you change your vote?
Quote from: nukem11 on Sep 16, 2007, 03:58:05 PM
sorry maledoro
Your apology is accepted.
Quote from: nukem11 on Sep 16, 2007, 03:58:05 PM
our debate was unnecessary.
It was. All it took was for one to listen to the commentary track.
Quote from: nukem11 on Sep 16, 2007, 03:58:05 PM
You big me small lol.
That was never my intention.
Quote from: nukem11 on Sep 16, 2007, 03:58:05 PM
Well that sums up this thread.
Until the next android-humper arrives.
I dont think I can change my vote now but oh well its just I only saw the making of not the commenetry untill now.
Quote from: nukem11 on Sep 16, 2007, 04:15:26 PM
I dont think I can change my vote now but oh well its just I only saw the making of not the commenetry untill now.
That's how George W. Bush got elected and re-elected. Few people did any research until
after they had cast their votes.
Quote from: nukem11 on Sep 16, 2007, 04:33:14 PM
Im English so I dont have to worry about that just the prats that are in charge of our country lol.
Well, since your "prats" are part of the Coalition of the Willing, Bush is your problem, too.
Quote from: nukem11 on Sep 16, 2007, 04:33:14 PM
I always liked Clinton until he messed up. Not sure what Americans thought of him.
I liked him. At least when he left Office, our economy had a
surplus. Now, thanks to Bush, we're in a recession (though no one will dare to admit it). As for the other Americans, most forgave Clinton for his indiscretion. I never could see the connection between having an affair and ruining our country, as some of his opponents thought that they could see.
In fact, I found Kenneth Starr's crusade against Clinton to be pathetic. For one thing, Clinton wasn't the only president to have had an affair. Around the time that he was on trial, it was revealed that many Republicans had been caught with their hands up the wrong skirts (and, in some cases, down the wrong trousers), and none of them were called to step down. Secondly, the only sleaze that I could find in connection to that trial was the questions that Starr had asked Clinton in such excruciating detail. It was almost as if he was getting horny from the details.
If anybody should be put on trial, it shouldn't be the guy who didn't do anything to his country, but it should be the guy who had invaded another country on false pretenses; failed to read any of the recommendations that were given to him on how to maintain control of the situation and rebuild that country; and plunged our economy into a shambles (A classic case in point is that only 1 in 8 of the Humvees have armor. This is due to short supply and budget. Why hadn't any of the auto makers or other companies made armor for the vehicles instead of automobiles that the public can't afford to purchase?).
So Bishop had nothing to do with waylan apart from maybe be being his grandson or something. And the AVP world and alien do not relate and are separate or they do relate lol?.
I just get a bit confused with that probaly like others now.
He's probably his ancestor or something.
As for what is canon and what isn't.........PA initially said AvP was going to be a standalone movie.........about a month later he said it was meant to fit in with series canon.
Geeze Maledoro! You are hardcore about this topic.. :o :P
Edit: Minor misspelling.
Quote from: Celerylien on Sep 18, 2007, 03:37:43 AM
Geeze Maledro!
Who are you talking about,
Celerylien?
Quote from: Celerylien on Sep 18, 2007, 03:37:43 AM
You are hardcore about this topic.
Not really. For example, if I know that the sky is blue and someone comes on here and says, "Nyah ha! The sky is
plaid! I'll believe what I want!", I can't reply with something to the effect of, "That's f**ked up, you little retard!" I have to ask for them to give reason(s) for their misperception and then explain why it contradicts the laws of nature, etc.
Is the topic of his humanity important to me? No. Do I like to debate? No. Does it bother me when I encounter delusional people? No, it scares the shit out of me! When I hear the insane ramblings of such people, it makes me wonder why they were not taught critical thinking in school. It makes me wonder how many other people are like them and what else they and the other people believe.
There are groups of people who are trying to crumble the scientific community with their pseudoscientific bullshit by trying to get their drivel taught in public schools and, for reasons unknown, they want to throw our knowledge of the world and universe back to the Dark Ages. Everytime I see someone post something that goes against an established fact, I think of those glassy-eyed zombies who follow those special interest groups' "teachings" and wonder why they won't accept the words of those who had created the character in question and why they can't used previously observed data to come to a conclusion.
Here endeth the lesson.
(Irony intended)
Science is paved by the devil's footsteps!
Just the sort of thing one would expect from you Kentucky (http://www.creationmuseum.org/) types!
How can you doubt obvious facts such as the ones presented in the museum?
Oh my God (and mine only) you're right!!
How could I be so blind??!!! I have seen the light!!!
And Bishop IS AN ANDROID!!!!!!
Funny thing is EVERY damn thing said here is pure speculation, yet some people seem so sure.
Yeah but only because this - "Funny thing is EVERY damn thing said here is pure speculation" - is pure incorrectness.
Quote from: SM on Sep 19, 2007, 01:17:06 AM
Yeah but only because this - "Funny thing is EVERY damn thing said here is pure speculation" - is pure incorrectness.
Lol.. ya right. No one knows for sure... you can make educated guesses all day, doesn't make it fact. It's plausable he is a distant relative, but no one knows and really should just let it be. I made the mistake of thinking too much into it when Fox doesn't even give a sh*t about continuity. Alien 5 (if ever made) could have some other character show up and I'd love to see how the fans justify their existence.
QuoteNo one knows for sure... you can make educated guesses all day, doesn't make it fact.
Yeah it does.
Quote from: SM on Sep 19, 2007, 01:33:44 AM
QuoteNo one knows for sure... you can make educated guesses all day, doesn't make it fact.
Yeah it does.
Okey dokey :)
Its been confirmed by the Alien 3 creative team he was a human.
That makes it a pretty nondescript issue doesn't it?
Quote from: Kimarhi on Sep 19, 2007, 02:10:23 AM
Its been confirmed by the Alien 3 creative team he was a human.
That makes it a pretty nondescript issue doesn't it?
Sure, then AvP came along.. Theories (keyword) suggest he is just a distant relative. I am fine with that, but it still makes it speculative.
The debate isn't about the connection between Bishop and Weyland.
Quote from: SM on Sep 19, 2007, 02:26:19 AM
The debate isn't about the connection between Bishop and Weyland.
It brings up questions is all. I swear this is the most redundant discussion on this forum.. yet I keep getting sucked in! :P I gotta quit... :) Done for good! (I hope lol...)
QuoteIt brings up questions is all
Only if one wants it too. It's just as easy to ignore.
Quote from: SM on Sep 19, 2007, 02:40:00 AM
QuoteIt brings up questions is all
Only if one wants it too. It's just as easy to ignore.
Want... to.. comment.. Must ... resist...
I did it! I resisted the
allure! ;D
But you commented about not commenting...
Quote from: SM on Sep 19, 2007, 02:49:05 AM
But you commented about not commenting...
Self-owned I guess! :P Baby steps...
Well before 85 hit Bishop with the wrench he said "f**king android" later on bishops ear was sticking out and he didnt seem to be in pain altough there was red blood,wich is weird.I would say that bishop was indeed an android.
Quote from: Mr.Hyde on Sep 19, 2007, 03:08:26 PM
Well before 85 hit Bishop with the wrench he said "f**king android" later on bishops ear was sticking out and he didnt seem to be in pain altough there was red blood,wich is weird.I would say that bishop was indeed an android.
No, no, & no. If the script, novel, and the film makers themselves say Bishop II is a human, he is. When 85 said, "f**king android!", he was wrong.
With AVP in regard I think Bishop 2 is a clone of Charles Weyland. This option wouldn't ruin the continuity of the movies.
DB
Wasnt the alien films set in the future when there was more space travel and Waylands character was still in our time so Bishop 2 is just some kind of future relative to Wayland or there separate films which have nothing to do with each other.
This thread is pointless and there should be a thread on Bishops connection to Wayland really.
Quote from: Dragonblaster on Sep 19, 2007, 06:25:01 PM
With AVP in regard I think Bishop 2 is a clone of Charles Weyland. This option wouldn't ruin the continuity of the movies.
DB
Neither would them being two natural born guys.
Hmm.
Human or android?
Human- red blood
Android- AVP Bishop
I...
choose...
Replicant.
Quote from: Alienseseses on Sep 20, 2007, 12:17:47 AM
Hmm.
Human or android?
Human- red blood
Android- AVP Bishop
I...
choose...
Replicant.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2Fpwed%2F5904ba0e.jpg&hash=221ccb3b1601c2b0fc075baa9c5ec50a971bd589)
i would say android couse after he got hit over the head with a pipe his ear hangs off the left side of his head and white stuff is visible comming out the wound.
...No.
Quote from: Yellow Alien on Sep 22, 2007, 03:49:11 PM
...No.
just tellin ya what i (think) i saw in the film so please dont be so negative, pole is kinda ment to give suggestions aint it?
I die a little inside every time a newcomer shows up to announce that he is an android. :'(
Quote from: Mac L.T.S. on Sep 22, 2007, 03:52:42 PM
Quote from: Yellow Alien on Sep 22, 2007, 03:49:11 PM
...No.
just tellin ya what i (think) i saw in the film so please dont be so negative, pole is kinda ment to give suggestions aint it?
Listen, I'm not trying to be mean to you. I'm just saying, it doesn't matter what you think. The film makers and script say he is a human, therefor he is. End of story.
Quote from: Mac L.T.S. on Sep 22, 2007, 03:46:15 PM
i would say android couse after he got hit over the head with a pipe his ear hangs off the left side of his head and white stuff is visible comming out the wound.
Thats the reason why I thought he was an android apart from the white blood but they do comfirm on the Alien 3 dvd commentry hes a human.
Where do you guys see white blood? I have seen the movie many times, from childhood up until now, and I never saw white blood. It's all red.
Quote from: Mac L.T.S. on Sep 22, 2007, 03:46:15 PM
i would say android couse after he got hit over the head with a pipe his ear hangs off the left side of his head and white stuff is visible comming out the wound.
I love how people exaggerate his injury or just flat out lie about it. He doesn't get "hit over the head with a pipe," he gets hit on the ear. His ear doesn't "hang off the side of his head," it's very well attached. There is no "white stuff coming out of the wound," it's red blood.
Hm.
I still say Replicant.
Quote from: Alienseseses on Sep 23, 2007, 02:03:50 PM
I still say Replicant.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FAnimal%2520Smilies%2Ffaad8575.jpg&hash=42ba6e665ade3d4f46dd2e294076af1c7dfbd9ad)
Quote from: Yellow Alien on Sep 22, 2007, 10:15:00 PM
Where do you guys see white blood? I have seen the movie many times, from childhood up until now, and I never saw white blood. It's all red.
hmmm it has bee a while when i last saw the film, i just watched it again and you're right, human it is.
my bad :-X
they still kinda messed up by putting the
Original bishop in AvP, but hey P.Anderson is a giant douch anyways ;)
Yeah! Someone changes their mind, my heart soars with joy.
I just think, "What the hell took you so long?"
Of course, it's refreshing to know that the person who had the epiphany isn't one of those who claim that Bishop's creator is a droid just to be argumentive.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FConfused%2520and%2520Stoopid%2F7cbab284.gif&hash=35b572625d38fbff1143e3f2b0d6971db4613d2f)
I think that the Bishop we saw in Alien 3 was a clone of the Bishop that was in AVP. I know it sounds a bit bizzare, but just think about it. I know that it took along time for people to create a clone in Alien 3, but this may have something to do with the Alien inside of Ripley?
There was no Bishop in AvP.
Quote from: Joshy boy on Sep 24, 2007, 07:54:38 AM
I think that the Bishop we saw in Alien 3 was a clone of the Bishop that was in AVP. I know it sounds a bit bizzare, but just think about it.
We did think about it. Read the earlier posts to see why it was swept aside.
Quote from: maledoro on Sep 24, 2007, 09:55:08 AM
Quote from: Joshy boy on Sep 24, 2007, 07:54:38 AM
I think that the Bishop we saw in Alien 3 was a clone of the Bishop that was in AVP. I know it sounds a bit bizzare, but just think about it.
We did think about it. Read the earlier posts to see why it was swept aside.
Sorry about that, could you tell me what page that's on?
Quote from: SiL on Sep 24, 2007, 08:07:56 AM
There was no Bishop in AvP.
Charles Bishop Weyland, the human.
Quote from: Joshy boy on Sep 24, 2007, 09:58:30 AM
Sorry about that, could you tell me what page that's on?
Page 3; Reply #30, click on the link.
Quote from: maledoro on Sep 24, 2007, 10:27:07 AM
Quote from: Joshy boy on Sep 24, 2007, 09:58:30 AM
Sorry about that, could you tell me what page that's on?
Page 3; Reply #30, click on the link.
Thanks for that.
Ok: After reading the arguments against the clone I still think that he is a clone. One of the main points is that a clone would not have the same memory- that's not nessisarily true, we have yet to discover the mystery of cloning a human in real life, and diffrent films treat clones diffrently, some of them don't have a merory, but in others, such as ALien they do. Plus, even if you were to say that they have not got the same identity, you have to think about what a clone might do. If I was a clone, I would find out as much out about the real me as I could, and if he was dead, it is likely that I would carry on with his work.
Quote from: Joshy boy on Sep 24, 2007, 10:33:11 AM
Thanks for that.
Ok: After reading the arguments against the clone I still think that he is a clone.
Considering that what I had posted is based on science and fact, why do you still choose to believe that he is something other than a natural human?
Quote from: Joshy boy on Sep 24, 2007, 09:58:30 AM
One of the main points is that a clone would not have the same memory- that's not nessisarily true
Actually, it
is necessarily true. The only explanation(s) for being able to transfer the memories of a donor to a clone was/were given in trite sci-fi movies, in ways that are implausible. Not so much that we don't have the technology, but they break the laws of logic and nature.
Quote from: Joshy boy on Sep 24, 2007, 09:58:30 AM
we have yet to discover the mystery of cloning a human in real life
We have done it, but the clone was destroyed after 32 cell divisions (not sure of the number, but the clone was never brought to term).
Quote from: Joshy boy on Sep 24, 2007, 09:58:30 AM
and diffrent films treat clones diffrently, some of them don't have a merory, but in others, such as ALien they do.
So, you're saying that you would go with the word of movies, never mind that they themselves can't decide on a clone's behavior than take the words of scientists?
Quote from: Joshy boy on Sep 24, 2007, 09:58:30 AM
Plus, even if you were to say that they have not got the same identity, you have to think about what a clone might do. If I was a clone, I would find out as much out about the real me as I could, and if he was dead, it is likely that I would carry on with his work.
But that is the view of the original
Joshy boy. How do you know that
Joshy boy 2 (or
Joshy boy 3) would be interested in knowing who you are/were? He could very well be interested in nothing more than his skateboard or collection of squirrel heads.
Quote from: maledoro on Sep 24, 2007, 10:48:50 AM
Quote from: Joshy boy on Sep 24, 2007, 10:33:11 AM
Thanks for that.
Ok: After reading the arguments against the clone I still think that he is a clone.
Considering that what I had posted is based on science and fact, why do you still choose to believe that he is something other than a natural human?
Quote from: Joshy boy on Sep 24, 2007, 09:58:30 AM
One of the main points is that a clone would not have the same memory- that's not nessisarily true
Actually, it is necessarily true. The only explanation(s) for being able to transfer the memories of a donor to a clone was/were given in trite sci-fi movies, in ways that are implausible. Not so much that we don't have the technology, but they break the laws of logic and nature.
Quote from: Joshy boy on Sep 24, 2007, 09:58:30 AM
we have yet to discover the mystery of cloning a human in real life
We have done it, but the clone was destroyed after 32 cell divisions (not sure of the number, but the clone was never brought to term).
Quote from: Joshy boy on Sep 24, 2007, 09:58:30 AM
and diffrent films treat clones diffrently, some of them don't have a merory, but in others, such as ALien they do.
So, you're saying that you would go with the word of movies, never mind that they themselves can't decide on a clone's behavior than take the words of scientists?
Quote from: Joshy boy on Sep 24, 2007, 09:58:30 AM
Plus, even if you were to say that they have not got the same identity, you have to think about what a clone might do. If I was a clone, I would find out as much out about the real me as I could, and if he was dead, it is likely that I would carry on with his work.
But that is the view of the original Joshy boy. How do you know that Joshy boy 2 (or Joshy boy 3) would be interested in knowing who you are/were? He could very well be interested in nothing more than his skateboard or collection of squirrel heads.
Ok, we have acomplished cloning a human being, but did we find out if he has a mermory or not? If we haven't, then the mystery remains.
If I'm watching a movie, and in the movie clones have the same identity as their normal human counterpart, then I believe that while I'm watching the film. If I'm watching a movie like Star Wars and the clone is completly diffrent, then I accept that for the film. It has allready been shown that clones in the alien world do have the same identity, persona and memory as the real person, therefore it would be possible to have the same rule apply to Bishop.
True, some Clones may not do that, but some clones may choose to do that.
As well as all of this, you have to think: if someone can replicate a body, what would stop them from replicating their brain? It is entirely possible (for a movie in the furure.
Quote from: Joshy boy on Sep 24, 2007, 07:53:55 PM
Ok, we have acomplished cloning a human being, but did we find out if he has a mermory or not? If we haven't, then the mystery remains.
No, it doesn't. If clones could inherit memories from their donors, something similar would happen with people and their parents. Psychologists have stated many times before that a person's psychological makeup is due mostly to experience. Even in the novel
The Boys from Brazil, where the Nazis who had fled to Brazil had planned to clone Hitler and resurrect the Third Reich, Josef Mengele knew the shortcomings of having to train a new Adolf Hitler. He knew that if he were to go back in time and put the clone through the same paces as the original Hitler had gone through that the clone would most likely turn out differently than from the original man.
Quote from: Joshy boy on Sep 24, 2007, 07:53:55 PM
If I'm watching a movie, and in the movie clones have the same identity as their normal human counterpart, then I believe that while I'm watching the film. If I'm watching a movie like Star Wars and the clone is completly diffrent, then I accept that for the film. It has allready been shown that clones in the alien world do have the same identity, persona and memory as the real person, therefore it would be possible to have the same rule apply to Bishop.
For the same reasons that you may think that it would apply to this, it actually wouldn't based on one great point: nowhere in
Alien³ (or anywhere else) is it stated that Bishop's creator is a clone.
Quote from: Joshy boy on Sep 24, 2007, 07:53:55 PM
True, some Clones may not do that, but some clones may choose to do that.
That doesn't put you anywhere closer to your argument.
Quote from: Joshy boy on Sep 24, 2007, 07:53:55 PM
As well as all of this, you have to think: if someone can replicate a body, what would stop them from replicating their brain? It is entirely possible (for a movie in the furure.
Well, the brain
is part of the body, but you can't duplicate memories, attitudes, etc.
Again, you still didn't answer my question as to why you choose to see something that isn't there. Why do you feel that you have to choose an orientation that is not only different that what the creators of the film had chosen for the character, but have to go out of your way to try to prove it? Why not just accept the actual concept?
QuoteIf we haven't, then the mystery remains.
No. Even if you put science aside for a moment and pay attention to the rules laid down in the Alien films themselves - Perez' reaction to the tainted Ripley clone having memories ("How does it have memories?"), tells us that clones DO NOT inherit memories.
Quote from: maledoro on Sep 24, 2007, 10:27:46 PM
Quote from: Joshy boy on Sep 24, 2007, 07:53:55 PM
Ok, we have acomplished cloning a human being, but did we find out if he has a mermory or not? If we haven't, then the mystery remains.
No, it doesn't. If clones could inherit memories from their donors, something similar would happen with people and their parents. Psychologists have stated many times before that a person's psychological makeup is due mostly to experience. Even in the novel The Boys from Brazil, where the Nazis who had fled to Brazil had planned to clone Hitler and resurrect the Third Reich, Josef Mengele knew the shortcomings of having to train a new Adolf Hitler. He knew that if he were to go back in time and put the clone through the same paces as the original Hitler had gone through that the clone would most likely turn out differently than from the original man.
Quote from: Joshy boy on Sep 24, 2007, 07:53:55 PM
If I'm watching a movie, and in the movie clones have the same identity as their normal human counterpart, then I believe that while I'm watching the film. If I'm watching a movie like Star Wars and the clone is completly diffrent, then I accept that for the film. It has allready been shown that clones in the alien world do have the same identity, persona and memory as the real person, therefore it would be possible to have the same rule apply to Bishop.
For the same reasons that you may think that it would apply to this, it actually wouldn't based on one great point: nowhere in Alien³ (or anywhere else) is it stated that Bishop's creator is a clone.
Quote from: Joshy boy on Sep 24, 2007, 07:53:55 PM
True, some Clones may not do that, but some clones may choose to do that.
That doesn't put you anywhere closer to your argument.
Quote from: Joshy boy on Sep 24, 2007, 07:53:55 PM
As well as all of this, you have to think: if someone can replicate a body, what would stop them from replicating their brain? It is entirely possible (for a movie in the furure.
Well, the brain is part of the body, but you can't duplicate memories, attitudes, etc.
Again, you still didn't answer my question as to why you choose to see something that isn't there. Why do you feel that you have to choose an orientation that is not only different that what the creators of the film had chosen for the character, but have to go out of your way to try to prove it? Why not just accept the actual concept?
I'm not trying to prove that it is a clone, I am simply stating that it would male perfect sense if the film makers did decide this.
Also, where you have said that I haven't gotten any closer to my argument, you are wrong. My argument is that it would be possible for Bishop to be a clone.
To what end?
Quote from: Joshy boy on Sep 25, 2007, 07:07:53 AM
I'm not trying to prove that it is a clone, I am simply stating that it would male perfect sense if the film makers did decide this.
That sounds like you're trying to prove that he's a clone...
Quote from: Joshy boy on Sep 25, 2007, 07:07:53 AM
Also, where you have said that I haven't gotten any closer to my argument, you are wrong. My argument is that it would be possible for Bishop to be a clone.
The argument you made was, "True, some Clones may not do that [learn about their donor], but some clones may choose to do that." How does that put you any closer to proving your point?
Quote from: maledoro on Sep 25, 2007, 10:17:05 AM
Quote from: Joshy boy on Sep 25, 2007, 07:07:53 AM
I'm not trying to prove that it is a clone, I am simply stating that it would male perfect sense if the film makers did decide this.
That sounds like you're trying to prove that he's a clone...
Quote from: Joshy boy on Sep 25, 2007, 07:07:53 AM
Also, where you have said that I haven't gotten any closer to my argument, you are wrong. My argument is that it would be possible for Bishop to be a clone.
The argument you made was, "True, some Clones may not do that [learn about their donor], but some clones may choose to do that." How does that put you any closer to proving your point?
It proves that even if the Alien series does decide that to go with the "clones are completly diffrent to their Doners" then it would still be possible for Bishop to be a clone.
Quote from: Joshy boy on Sep 25, 2007, 07:49:28 PM
It proves that even if the Alien series does decide that to go with the "clones are completly diffrent to their Doners" then it would still be possible for Bishop to be a clone.
But, the series doesn't say that he is a clone, therefore your argument is moot.
QuoteIt proves that even if the Alien series does decide that to go with the "clones are completly diffrent to their Doners"
There is no "if". They already have decided that. They say in regards to Ripley8 in Resurrection - "It's unprecedented".
Quote from: SM on Sep 25, 2007, 10:53:30 PM
QuoteIt proves that even if the Alien series does decide that to go with the "clones are completly diffrent to their Doners"
There is no "if". They already have decided that. They say in regards to Ripley8 in Resurrection - "It's unprecedented".
Do you mind putting that in English for those of us who don't speak unnessisarylongwordswhenalittlewordwouldhavebeensufficient?
Quote from: Joshy boy on Sep 26, 2007, 06:49:41 AM
Quote from: SM on Sep 25, 2007, 10:53:30 PM
QuoteIt proves that even if the Alien series does decide that to go with the "clones are completly diffrent to their Doners"
There is no "if". They already have decided that. They say in regards to Ripley8 in Resurrection - "It's unprecedented".
Do you mind putting that in English for those of us who don't speak unnessisarylongwordswhenalittlewordwouldhavebeensufficient?
Allow me.
"It had been said in
Alien Resurrection that Ripley 8 was the first clone to inherit the memories of its donor. It's never been done before."
click:unprecedented (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unprecedented)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2Fsa%2Feng101.gif&hash=da1365ecb11c5497484470a5ad02324026ad4a1d)
Quote from: maledoro on Sep 26, 2007, 10:20:14 AM
Quote from: Joshy boy on Sep 26, 2007, 06:49:41 AM
Quote from: SM on Sep 25, 2007, 10:53:30 PM
QuoteIt proves that even if the Alien series does decide that to go with the "clones are completly diffrent to their Doners"
There is no "if". They already have decided that. They say in regards to Ripley8 in Resurrection - "It's unprecedented".
Do you mind putting that in English for those of us who don't speak unnessisarylongwordswhenalittlewordwouldhavebeensufficient?
Allow me.
"It had been said in Alien Resurrection that Ripley 8 was the first clone to inherit the memories of its donor. It's never been done before."
click:
unprecedented (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unprecedented)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v338/maledoro/sa/eng101.gif
Hmm, I remember that bit, but I assumed that he meant the 1st Ripley clone to inherit memories.
Quote from: Joshy boy on Sep 26, 2007, 07:42:06 PM
Hmm, I remember that bit, but I assumed that he meant the 1st Ripley clone to inherit memories.
Considering that Ripley 8 was the first one that was tested, she was the first example of a clone retaining memories.
QuoteDo you mind putting that in English for those of us who don't speak unnessisarylongwordswhenalitt lewordwouldhavebeensufficient ?
Sorry. I'll try and speak 'Ignorantish' next time.
Who doesn't know what unprecedented means!?
Unprecedented? I thought he was talking about "it's"?
Who the hell doesn't know what "it's" is!?
Arrrgh!! You said the word the Knights of Ni cannot hear!!!
Quote from: SM on Sep 26, 2007, 10:35:46 PM
QuoteDo you mind putting that in English for those of us who don't speak unnessisarylongwordswhenalitt lewordwouldhavebeensufficient ?
Sorry. I'll try and speak 'Ignorantish' next time.
::)
There, there. Nevermind. I'll speak it for you too. :-*
6704 views and only 117 votes :-\
I voted human, AVP just screwed the timeline
Quote from: Der_Meister on Sep 29, 2007, 09:59:29 AM
6704 views and only 117 votes :-\
I voted human, AVP just screwed the timeline
As far as Chuck Weyland and Bishop's creator, I feel that
AVP didn't really mess with the timeline; it was just the matter of a bunch of wild-eyed fanboys who don't understand coincidence or biology.
There is a scene in A3 where 85 hits bishop and says: "you f**king android" As a result he gets killed, and bishop's ear almost tore off. So he is clearly an android.
^Woah, 40+ pages and no one ever even brought that up before now. I'm surprised, to be honest.
"Clearly"?
So humans can't get their ear torn off? So I guess that means if my ear gets torn, I'm an android.
Quote from: Ficodemus on Sep 30, 2007, 01:52:38 PM
There is a scene in A3 where 85 hits bishop and says: "you f**king android" As a result he gets killed, and bishop's ear almost tore off. So he is clearly an android.
Do you know why Aaron is called "85"?
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FConfused%2520and%2520Stoopid%2Fac16674b.gif&hash=de09e6e7e8de011ae6ce5aa23c48764118a9bd7f)
I just always assumed he was another android + that having the apperance of Bishop gave the governmant a better chance of convincing Ripley 2 give them the Alien Queen b/c of setimental this + that.
Quote from: Spidey3121 on Oct 01, 2007, 10:16:26 PM
I just always assumed he was another android + that having the apperance of Bishop gave the governmant a better chance of convincing Ripley 2 give them the Alien Queen b/c of setimental this + that.
A human being would be able to pull that off better than a droid that might malfunction. Besides, no governmental body wanted the alien; it was the Company who did.
Why bother sending a droid that looks like Bishop to deceive her when they can just send the real guy? The android theory makes no logical sense. It just complicates the plot even further.
Quote from: Yellow Alien on Oct 01, 2007, 11:22:06 PM
Why bother sending a droid that looks like Bishop to deceive her when they can just send the real guy? The android theory makes no logical sense. It just complicates the plot even further.
the one problem here is that the real guy is charles weyland, long dead before michael bishop's time. You can thank paul anderson for not researching the intentions of the writers of alien 3. lol
However, its hardly believable another human that happens to look like him is the designer of the bishop model androids.
I don't see how he couldn't have been an android(other than the intentions of the writers of alien 3). You really don't get a clear shot to see his blood is red and even if it is, who says that weyland yutani does not posess the tecnology to do that?
There's no need to give all androids red blood as there was no purpose to that, but in trying to convince ripley who had the specimen they were looking for, I'm sure they would spare no expense and go to great lengths. And clearly bishop 2 a.k.a michael bishop, was a liar in the film, so you can't really take it too seriously when he says "i'm not a droid" in the special edition. Ripley was right there, of course he wanted to convey the idea that he wasn't a droid.
QuoteThere's no need to give all androids red blood as there was no purpose to that, but in trying to convince ripley who had the specimen they were looking for, I'm sure they would spare no expense and go to great lengths.
So why not, as Yellow Alien said, just send the real guy.
So far all we get is people rabbiting on about "Oh they gave him red blood", but can't answer basic questions like:
- Why does the advance model android 200 years later STILL have white blood? Surely if Call was on the lam and she was so advanced so could've given herself red blood - yet she didn't.
- Why doesn't Bishop use his android reflexes to stop Ripley closing the door to the gantry?
- Why doesn't Bishop use his android reflexes to stop Aaron bashing him with a whacking great wrench?
alien resurrection went in a weird direction, seems the weaponry and even ships like the betty were not advanced from ripley's time. I think its supposed to be that there were wars or other setbacks that affected human progress and there kind of rebuilding.
The guns for the most part were not more advanced than the colonial marines ones.
The androids were autons, who were made by other androids. I don't know why they'd have any reason to give them red blood, especially if their original programming didn't call for them to have an envy of humanity.
Quote from: ballzanya on Oct 01, 2007, 11:30:44 PM
Quote from: Yellow Alien on Oct 01, 2007, 11:22:06 PM
Why bother sending a droid that looks like Bishop to deceive her when they can just send the real guy? The android theory makes no logical sense. It just complicates the plot even further.
the one problem here is that the real guy is charles weyland, long dead before michael bishop's time. You can thank paul anderson for not researching the intentions of the writers of alien 3. lol
However, its hardly believable another human that happens to look like him is the designer of the bishop model androids.
I don't see how he couldn't have been an android(other than the intentions of the writers of alien 3). You really don't get a clear shot to see his blood is red and even if it is, who says that weyland yutani does not posess the tecnology to do that?
There's no need to give all androids red blood as there was no purpose to that, but in trying to convince ripley who had the specimen they were looking for, I'm sure they would spare no expense and go to great lengths. And clearly bishop 2 a.k.a michael bishop, was a liar in the film, so you can't really take it too seriously when he says "i'm not a droid" in the special edition. Ripley was right there, of course he wanted to convey the idea that he wasn't a droid.
All of that had been covered many times before. Can anyone offer something new?
I'm thinking not. We are up to page 43 after all...
Quote from: SM on Oct 01, 2007, 11:59:29 PM
I'm thinking not. We are up to page 43 after all...
well i wasn't about to read that much bullshit. lol I looked at the last page and replied.
And you like everyone else who says he's a droid, can't answer the question I asked either. Quel surprise.
These sites really need a FAQ regarding the franchise.
Why don't people just forget the fact that Weyland and Bishop 2 look alike. No where in AVP is it stated that Weyland is the basis of the Bishop android. Sure Anderson says it, but like always, there is no point to the ideas he makes because they go nowhere. However, it is stated in A3 that Michael Bishop is the creator of the android. I take that as fact. Face it, Weyland and Bishop 2 don't have to have any connection if you don't want them to. Just say they are 2 different characters from 2 different time lines who happen to be played by the same actor. Kinda like how Bill Paxton played 2 different characters from 2 different time lines. They are not the same, they don't have to be related at all. Weyland was the founder of the Weyland Corporation and Michael Bishop was the designer of the Bishop android. Forget all the bullshit cloning theories and all that crap. All we know is that Bishop 2 is supposed to be human, AVP came along, screwed everything up, you make the connections that you want to, as long as they are not completely stupid (cloning).
Quote from: Yellow Alien on Oct 02, 2007, 01:58:38 AM
Why don't people just forget the fact that Weyland and Bishop 2 look alike. No where in AVP is it stated that Weyland is the basis of the Bishop android. Sure Anderson says it, but like always, there is no point to the ideas he makes because they go nowhere. However, it is stated in A3 that Michael Bishop is the creator of the android. I take that as fact. Face it, Weyland and Bishop 2 don't have to have any connection if you don't want them to. Just say they are 2 different characters from 2 different time lines who happen to be played by the same actor. Kinda like how Bill Paxton played 2 different characters from 2 different time lines. They are not the same, they don't have to be related at all. Weyland was the founder of the Weyland Corporation and Michael Bishop was the designer of the Bishop android. Forget all the bullshit cloning theories and all that crap. All we know is that Bishop 2 is supposed to be human, AVP came along, screwed everything up, you make the connections that you want to, as long as they are not completely stupid (cloning).
hmm..but you'd have to pretend taht both bishop from aliens and bishop 2 from alien 3 did not look like lance henriksen. impossible to do. lol. Its clear now that charles weyland is the prototype who is played by lance henriksen, and if bishop is modelled after him then he'll look like him.
The guy in alien 3 and charles weyland cannot BOTH be the human who the bishop android model was based on. One has to be an android for the sake of continuity. What's worse thinking that bishop 2 is an android or that charles weyland was in avp? Obviously it makes no sense for charles weyland to be an android, since avp was set in modern times.
Decendants.
Quote from: SM on Oct 01, 2007, 11:38:07 PM
- Why doesn't Bishop use his android reflexes to stop ...
What 'android reflexes'?
We have one example of Bishop being able to perform the knife trick at superhuman speeds, but plenty of examples of droids reacting at human capacity. Plus, the knife trick is neat, but not proof that he has good reflexes. It's a programmable motion, and one that he demonstrably can't adapt to right away when new variables are introduced. (By putting Hudson's hand under his own, he makes a mistake for the first time.)
But Ash doesn't stop a cylinder clangin' him in the head, Bishop fails to notice the Queen about to impale him, and Call stands still and gets gut-shot. She also has a very lackadaisical approach to a chestburster birthing right in front of her.
Don't mistake this for "Bishop II is a droid" kinda talk...just focusing on a specific point is all. :)
Well, whatever the case, this thread is about whether or not Bishop 2 is human or an android. It is fact that he is intended to be human in A3. That should be that, but we're going to keep getting people who claim he is an android, solely because they saw AVP. Was this a huge debate before AVP? I have always thought he was human, ever since I first saw Alien 3 as a kid.
Quote from: Yellow Alien on Oct 02, 2007, 03:30:08 AM
Was this a huge debate before AVP? I have always thought he was human, ever since I first saw Alien 3 as a kid.
I don't know about huge, but the debate dates back to when Alien 3 was first released. AvP simply fanned the flames, so to speak.
QuoteWhat 'android reflexes'?
Ash ripping out a clump of Ripley's hair?
Besides I personally consider the knife trick to be an example of android reflexes - it's certainly nothing a human could do, ergo... If Ash and Bishop could move that quickly, then why didn't the supposed Bishop android on Fiorina reach out and stop Ripley closing the gate. He was within arms reach.
As for Ash getting clonked on the head - slightly different in that Aaron shouts out "f**king android!' as he's hoiking the wrench and Bishop doesn't even react to protect himself. Ash was concentrating on choking Ripley and had no warning that Parker was going to brain him.
Call's a slightly different kettle of fish. She possibly is programmed differently, or at least has tried to pass for human so long in order to hide, that she can't quickly switch back into Superhuman Synth Mode (TM). She needs time to dial down her Self Loathing Overdrive (TM).
Quote from: SM on Oct 02, 2007, 05:09:14 AM
Ash ripping out a clump of Ripley's hair?
Aww man, that ain't no 'droid magic, and you know it. :)
QuoteBesides I personally consider the knife trick to be an example of android reflexes
I do consider it an example of android
speed. It's just an oddity that there are no other
concrete instances of advanced reaction time anywhere else in the four films.
QuoteAaron shouts out "f**king android!' as he's hoiking the wrench and Bishop doesn't even react to protect himself.
You don't need super reflexes to protect yourself from that kind of obvious attack. Maybe the real argument should be, "Bishop II - Human or Oblivious?" ;)
QuoteShe possibly is programmed differently, or at least has tried to pass for human so long in order to hide, that she can't quickly switch back into Superhuman Synth Mode (TM)
You've shot down much less flimsy arguments than that.
Ash manhandles a much bigger parker with one hand when he's trying to seperate him from Ripley.
I think the thing is they weren't made for combat, and thus they aren't super effective combat ready personnel.
Quote from: Yellow Alien on Oct 02, 2007, 01:58:38 AM
Why don't people just forget the fact that Weyland and Bishop 2 look alike. No where in AVP is it stated that Weyland is the basis of the Bishop android. Sure Anderson says it, but like always, there is no point to the ideas he makes because they go nowhere. However, it is stated in A3 that Michael Bishop is the creator of the android. I take that as fact. Face it, Weyland and Bishop 2 don't have to have any connection if you don't want them to. Just say they are 2 different characters from 2 different time lines who happen to be played by the same actor. Kinda like how Bill Paxton played 2 different characters from 2 different time lines. They are not the same, they don't have to be related at all. Weyland was the founder of the Weyland Corporation and Michael Bishop was the designer of the Bishop android. Forget all the bullshit cloning theories and all that crap. All we know is that Bishop 2 is supposed to be human, AVP came along, screwed everything up, you make the connections that you want to, as long as they are not completely stupid (cloning).
So you can draw your own conclusions since facts are fuzzy.. You can make the link, or you can choose to make up a theory based on what two different filmmakers have said. This is why this is a dumb argument and anyone that thinks they know the definitive answer should just cool down with their obsessive posting on how they
think their answer is the only opinion when clearly fans are divided, which makes it obvious there's plenty to question.
Quote from: Cellien on Oct 02, 2007, 03:03:31 PM
So you can draw your own conclusions since facts are fuzzy.. You can make the link, or you can choose to make up a theory based on what two different filmmakers have said.
Here's where the fuzziness clears: one of the filmmakers
created the character in question.
Quote from: Cellien on Oct 02, 2007, 03:03:31 PM
This is why this is a dumb argument and anyone that thinks they know the definitive answer should just cool down with their obsessive posting on what they think the answer is.
Anyone who can't bring themselves to listen to what the creators of the character had said and have to go out of their way to prove something that isn't there shouldn't have started in the first place.
Ok gotta go back a bit...
QuoteSo humans can't get their ear torn off? So I guess that means if my ear gets torn, I'm an android.
I just mentioned by a side note that his ear torn off. I was not basing my argument on torn off ear. But I can do that now. Firstly he doesn't seem to suffer any kind of pain, from sewered off ear. Secondly if your ear would be torn off, there would be nice flow of blood coming out. Android doesn't need blood. So it doesn't have vains in it's head, hence no blood or that white whatever it is coming out. And even if it has, I'm pretty sure he has a metal skull. If that's the case, why would the "vains" be outside of skull? Surely it would be better to place them inside a metal skull, to add some protection.
Also going back for the ear, it stays still after being half torn away. If it would be attached to his head with skin, it would wave, since skin is somewhat flexible. However androids are covered with something that looks like skin, but ain't skin in reality, to make them feel more like they would be humans. Like prosthesis have.
Hope you got it clear cause I don't wanna write something so nerdy anymore.
QuoteDo you know why Aaron is called "85"?
So because his IQ is lower than normal he just came up in his mind: "Hey that guy is an android" and wasn't right. How come he would've just made an assumption that bishop 2 was an android? Obviously he
knew it was an android.
QuoteWhy bother sending a droid that looks like Bishop to deceive her when they can just send the real guy? The android theory makes no logical sense. It just complicates the plot even further.
Your thinking is what makes things complicated. The company never did anything that seemed too logical. If they would've been logical they wouldn't have sended out guy who Ripley definitely would consider as an android, hence untrustworthy. And there are couple of examples out there why company isn't acting logically.
Quote- Why does the advance model android 200 years later STILL have white blood? Surely if Call was on the lam and she was so advanced so could've given herself red blood - yet she didn't.
Now I'll make an assumption about this "android blood". First of all it ain't blood. It's hydraulic fluid. That's how they're able to move. Or can anyone tell me how they're able to move without hydraulics? Also it might be used like oil in car engine, to clean and grease them. Maybe even cool them. Ok you could make oil that looks like blood. Honestly why the f**k???
Quote from: Ficodemus on Oct 02, 2007, 05:23:46 PM
Ok gotta go back a bit...
QuoteSo humans can't get their ear torn off? So I guess that means if my ear gets torn, I'm an android.
I just mentioned by a side note that his ear torn off. I was not basing my argument on torn off ear. But I can do that now. Firstly he doesn't seem to suffer any kind of pain, from sewered off ear. Secondly if your ear would be torn off, there would be nice flow of blood coming out. Android doesn't need blood. So it doesn't have vains in it's head, hence no blood or that white whatever it is coming out. And even if it has, I'm pretty sure he has a metal skull. If that's the case, why would the "vains" be outside of skull? Surely it would be better to place them inside a metal skull, to add some protection.
http://www.dailymotion.com/branman887/video/4982524
Flow of blood-check
Pain-check
This debate is stupid. How many times does someone have to say it? The script and the film makers said that he is human. Therefor he is. That is proof. Maybe they didn't emphasize that enough, but he is still human.
QuoteI do consider it an example of android speed. It's just an oddity that there are no other concrete instances of advanced reaction time anywhere else in the four films.
When is there a chance for androids to display it? The knife trick was perfect opportunity.
QuoteYou've shot down much less flimsy arguments than that.
Thought the liberal use of (TM) was an obvious enough giveaway that it was deliberately flimsy.
QuoteFirstly he doesn't seem to suffer any kind of pain
Yes he does.
QuoteDo you know why Aaron is called "85"?
So logically, anyone who thinks he's android like Aaron did also has an IQ of....
Quote from: Ficodemus on Oct 02, 2007, 05:23:46 PM
I just mentioned by a side note that his ear torn off. I was not basing my argument on torn off ear. But I can do that now. Firstly he doesn't seem to suffer any kind of pain, from sewered off ear.
His ear was still pretty much attached, and he did show pain.
http://www.dailymotion.com/branman887/video/4982524 (http://www.dailymotion.com/branman887/video/4982524)
Quote from: Ficodemus on Oct 02, 2007, 05:23:46 PM
Secondly if your ear would be torn off, there would be nice flow of blood coming out.
Not if a subdural hematoma were involved.
Quote from: Ficodemus on Oct 02, 2007, 05:23:46 PM
Android doesn't need blood. So it doesn't have vains in it's head, hence no blood or that white whatever it is coming out.
But Bishop's creator needs blood and had bled out.
Quote from: Ficodemus on Oct 02, 2007, 05:23:46 PM
And even if it has, I'm pretty sure he has a metal skull.
Ash didn't, and there was nothing that indicated that Bishop did.
Quote from: Ficodemus on Oct 02, 2007, 05:23:46 PM
If that's the case, why would the "vains" be outside of skull? Surely it would be better to place them inside a metal skull, to add some protection.
With the exception of arthropods (and maybe some other creatures),with most creatures the cranial veins are on the exterior of their skulls.
Quote from: Ficodemus on Oct 02, 2007, 05:23:46 PM
Also going back for the ear, it stays still after being half torn away. If it would be attached to his head with skin, it would wave, since skin is somewhat flexible. However androids are covered with something that looks like skin, but ain't skin in reality, to make them feel more like they would be humans. Like prosthesis have.
The pinnae (or, outer ears) are made of cartilage, which is a connective tissue that is tougher than skin.
Quote from: Ficodemus on Oct 02, 2007, 05:23:46 PM
Hope you got it clear cause I don't wanna write something so nerdy anymore.
Although I am an atheist, I will pray for you to achieve clarity.
Quote from: Ficodemus on Oct 02, 2007, 05:23:46 PM
So because his IQ is lower than normal he just came up in his mind: "Hey that guy is an android" and wasn't right. How come he would've just made an assumption that bishop 2 was an android? Obviously he knew it was an android.
He didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. He only made his mind up when others led him.
Quote from: Ficodemus on Oct 02, 2007, 05:23:46 PMYour thinking is what makes things complicated. The company never did anything that seemed too logical. If they would've been logical they wouldn't have sended out guy who Ripley definitely would consider as an android, hence untrustworthy. And there are couple of examples out there why company isn't acting logically.
The only times that the Company had acted illogically is on matters that directly involved the alien. If the Company were as bad as you think they were, they wouldn't have lasted as long as they had.
QuoteAsh didn't, and there was nothing that indicated that Bishop did.
Didn't Johner refer to Call as "plastic"? I never got the impression Bishop was metal from the remains Ripley spoke to,
Quote from: SM on Oct 02, 2007, 10:53:27 PM
When is there a chance for androids to display it? The knife trick was perfect opportunity.
But why display it there if not to set it up for something else? Without any further use, it shows it was only really there for comedic effect, and to shortcut us to the revelation that Bishop is a droid.
If we discount moments when the android in question is 'undercover' there still leaves moments like Bishop being speared by the Queen, Call's reaction to Purvis' chestburster, Ripley's fall into the viper pit not being potentially arrested by a quick-acting Call, Call being snagged 'round the throat by the Newborn...
I guess they're mostly Call stuff, but Bishop spends so much of Aliens 'somewhere else' :)
QuoteThought the liberal use of (TM) was an obvious enough giveaway that it was deliberately flimsy.
It was, I was just making fun.
The whole thing reminds me of Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan blurring away from the droidekas during Phantom Menace...speed which is never seen again anywhere in the films, even though it would have come in super handy. :)
Quotespeed which is never seen again anywhere in the films
Luke jumping out of the carbon freeezing pit.
(To the tune of Yakity Sax)
Aww, snap! Good point. :)
Quote from: SM on Oct 02, 2007, 11:27:20 PM
QuoteAsh didn't, and there was nothing that indicated that Bishop did.
Didn't Johner refer to Call as "plastic"? I never got the impression Bishop was metal from the remains Ripley spoke to,
I don't re"call" (sorry) if he did, but funny that you should mention that. Yesterday, I watched some of the
Alien Resurrection preproduction videos and saw how they had made Call's chest cavity: no metal.
Hydraulic fluid is used to lift parts and stuff around through the use of extreme pressure. I'd think Ash and Bishop and Call while having some stored somewhere, spew out more of a lubricant than anything else.
Unless in the future they can use milk to generate force under massive amounts of pressure.
http://www.dailymotion.com/branman887/video/4982524
This scene ain't in my version of the movie!!! I've been tricked by some sort of 'bishop is an android' conspiracy or something.
Though it still is hard for me to change my belief, this debate is over for me.
Quote from: Ficodemus on Oct 03, 2007, 02:57:42 PM
http://www.dailymotion.com/branman887/video/4982524
This scene ain't in my version of the movie!!!
If you don't own the Quadrilogy, you are four years behind the times.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FConfused%2520and%2520Stoopid%2F386bbc8f.gif&hash=175a7a2cfb583a715946ca1300ed75b49738e52f)
Quote from: Ficodemus on Oct 03, 2007, 02:57:42 PM
I've been tricked by some sort of 'bishop is an android' conspiracy or something.
You mean "Bishop II Is Human" conspiracy. It's not really a conspiracy if the people who had created that character have gone on record saying that he was human.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2Fcs2%2F6f2fd444.gif&hash=656cedc14f0caaa7feecb3082574f4c3204976a9)
Quote from: Ficodemus on Oct 03, 2007, 02:57:42 PM
Though it still is hard for me to change my belief, this debate is over for me.
That's okay. There are some adults out there who still believe in the Easter Bunny. As for the debate being over; you'll be back.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2Fcs2%2Fdead.gif&hash=7a485229e0142030e6e577071276e966125c40af)
he was an andriod
after #85 hit BISHOP dead squarely on the side of the head with a metal pipe
i saw no evidence to support the theory that he was in fact human
his whole side of his too rubbery afterwards
a human hit that hard would not have gotten up so quickly period
also there was no sign blood from what i could tell
Quote from: LAWNMOWERMAN on Oct 13, 2007, 06:14:00 AM
he was an andriod
after #85 hit BISHOP dead squarely on the side of the head with a metal pipe
i saw no evidence to support the theory that he was in fact human
his whole side of his too rubbery afterwards
a human hit that hard would not have gotten up so quickly period
also there was no sign blood from what i could tell
androids blood is white...his was red
He got up to quick? its a movie
Rubbery face? it was 1992...
and yes there was blood on his ear
JOBALLS45
i'll give you the benefit of the doubt here on the blood and rubber face - i'll have to go back and check it again
but i still stand by my statement that he was andriod
RIPLEY's reaction gave it way
- she clearly believe him up to that point but changed your whole stance afterwards, after BISHOP got hit - why because she knew BISHOP was lying and in fact was just another andriod sent by the company to try to lure her
...Not another android believer. Look, the commentary on Alien 3 said that he is human. In the script he is human.
http://www.dailymotion.com/branman887/video/4982524
Quote from: LAWNMOWERMAN on Oct 13, 2007, 06:14:00 AM
he was an andriod
The people involved with
Alien³ say he's human. You lose.
Quote from: LAWNMOWERMAN on Oct 13, 2007, 06:14:00 AM
after #85 hit BISHOP dead squarely on the side of the head with a metal pipe
i saw no evidence to support the theory that he was in fact human
From what you had posted here and in your next post, there is no evidence that you've seen
Alien³, either.
Quote from: LAWNMOWERMAN on Oct 13, 2007, 06:14:00 AM
his whole side of his too rubbery afterwards
No, it wasn't.
Quote from: LAWNMOWERMAN on Oct 13, 2007, 06:14:00 AM
a human hit that hard would not have gotten up so quickly period
Humans who had been hit harder have gotten up just as quickly. Some never knew that they were injured.
Quote from: LAWNMOWERMAN on Oct 13, 2007, 06:14:00 AM
also there was no sign blood from what i could tell
Oh, LAWNMOWERMAN! You have a long overdue appointment with Dr. Angelo!
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FConfused%2520and%2520Stoopid%2Fcfad6fc0.gif&hash=9c7818dd7e82e17999b2a7ac1e97df5036663f49)
Quote from: LAWNMOWERMAN on Oct 13, 2007, 06:36:55 AM
JOBALLS45
i'll give you the benefit of the doubt here on the blood and rubber face - i'll have to go back and check it again
but i still stand by my statement that he was andriod
RIPLEY's reaction gave it way
- she clearly believe him up to that point but changed your whole stance afterwards, after BISHOP got hit - why because she knew BISHOP was lying and in fact was just another andriod sent by the company to try to lure her
listen just take it from us he was human...
I always thought he was an android. I know it he bleeds red after being hit in the head by 85 but even so i just always thought he was an Android. People can argue that he was a human all they want but nothing will prob change my mind. I'm sure people who always thought he was human would never buy that he was an Android either.
i dont understand how anyone argue the script it says hes a human...
Quote from: joballs45 on Oct 13, 2007, 07:53:00 PM
i dont understand how anyone argue the script it says hes a human...
Psssst! I have to whisper this because certain people on this thread feel very strong about this topic.. but it has been said that AvP screws with the continuity of the first films by having a character that walk, talks, sounds, looks, smells, feels like a humanoid version of Bishop. People have their theories about that too.. The problem is.. .... ... ....OH NO! I have to go! Someone's coming! shhh I wasn't here. :P
there also years and years apart...
What is written in the script doesn't always translate in to the film. The script might very well state that he's a human but when watching the movie i always thought he was an android + just because the script states otherwise won't change my mind on that. It is not clearly shown in the film that he is a human in my opinion. It might not be clear that he is for sure an android either but i probably won't be convinced he's a human. Besides the script for Alien 3 was a constant work in progress. Even as they were filming they were altering the script along the way, making changes upon changes because the film was basically forced into production by Fox. In terms of AvP... well, since i always thought Bishop in Alien 3 was an android i found it pretty nifty to his creator in the AvP movie.
...But what do you say when the film crew actually says, in their own words, "He is indeed human?" What do you say to that? It's just like Anderson saying Weyland is the original human. The 2 films contradict each other, because Anderson didn't do his homework. Am I going to have to upload the commentary on the internet, because people seem to totally ignore that stuff.
And yes, the script is fact. So just because it isn't clearly shown in the film, what is written in the script isn't valid? Have you seen the assembly cut? He winces in pain. Androids don't feel pain.
If you using the Assembly Cut as reference then might someone use the Directors Cut of the original Alien + say they don't need a queen to reproduce? You can put all that stuff out on the table but it won't change my original thought that he was an android. If other people believe he is human that's fine by me, as it all seems to be based on people's opinions anyways.
Quote from: Yellow Alien on Oct 13, 2007, 09:16:57 PM
...But what do you say when the film crew actually says, in their own words, "He is indeed human?" What do you say to that? It's just like Anderson saying Weyland is the original human. The 2 films contradict each other, because Anderson didn't do his homework. Am I going to have to upload the commentary on the internet, because people seem to totally ignore that stuff.
And yes, the script is fact. So just because it isn't clearly shown in the film, what is written in the script isn't valid? Have you seen the assembly cut? He winces in pain. Androids don't feel pain.
he also YELLS im not a android! i dont see how people think hes not human HE IS!
Because androids are always truthful...
Believe it or not, yes people do take the director's cuts as fact as well. The cacooning in Alien doesn't contradict the Queen if you think about it. Plus, the cacooning is a totally new scene. The new Bishop 2 stuff is little excerpts that Fox cut out to tighten the pace. So you are saying if the editors cut out 3 seconds of Bishop wincing in pain, he is suddenly an android? Even without the assembly cut, the filmmakers said he is human. That should be that. There is no opinion if the creators came out and confirmed it already. Hell, even Lance Hendrikson himself said Bishop 2 is supposed to be human. But once AVP came around, suddenly he changed his mind.
I believe that people take Directors Cuts as facts. In fact it's possible there are certain movies where i would do the same... perhaps anyways. Maybe the behind the scenes facts support that he was human but upon my original viewing of the movie i always was convinced of him being an android. Nothing will change my mind on that. You can go on + try to convince me i'm wrong but i'm checking myself of this debate since i know i'm not going to be convinced he's human + your firm in your belief that he is.
Spidey3121!!! My favorite poster from Albania! How's it going?!
Instead of beating a dead horse, why don't you people who believe that he's human dispute what I had said instead of issuing the same arguments that I had already refuted?
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2Fcs2%2Fa3cc4ae0.gif&hash=662d1d8aa74dd0278f6f025f84fcb1cb7aedfda2)
As my favorite TV doctor said:
QuoteYou know it's all nice when people start to dig these holes, but then they start to live in these holes and get angry when someone pushes dirt into those holes. Come out of your holes people!!!
I'm not from Albania...
FAIL!
Quote from: Spidey3121 on Oct 14, 2007, 01:37:22 AM
I'm not from Albania...
Of course you are. If you can interpret what you see on a screen to your liking, then by your logic
anyone can interpret
anything their own way.
maledoro your crackin me up lmfao :D
he defo a human....
He'sA Human Alright. Evidents:He Bleeds Red Blood Not White Blood.
To me, the main thing that makes him appear to be an android is that unnatural-looking flap of skin hanging off of his head. That flap just doesn't look normal for an injury like that. I think it wasn't supposed to look like that. It probably fell-off more during filming and was unintentional. That is the main thing that made him appear to be an android. From what has been said from the makers of the film he was human. I take that as fact. It is just a fluke because of the way that that skin-flap looks that makes it seem like an android.
Well, at least you admit he is human, unlike some people. You have to understand though that he was hit on the shoulder and it grazed his ear, pulling it off. It makes sense and is physically possible. Like someone here said, they saw a man get his scalp torn off by a bull to the point off it hanging off his head(!) and he was still able to get up and walk away. And if you've seen the special edition, he grasps his ear, blood squirts out, and he winces in pain.
He grabs his head and falls against the fence in the theatrical version - nevermind the AC.
Quote from: The Diesel on Oct 22, 2007, 05:47:04 AM
To me, the main thing that makes him appear to be an android is that unnatural-looking flap of skin hanging off of his head. That flap just doesn't look normal for an injury like that. I think it wasn't supposed to look like that. It probably fell-off more during filming and was unintentional. That is the main thing that made him appear to be an android. From what has been said from the makers of the film he was human. I take that as fact. It is just a fluke because of the way that that skin-flap looks that makes it seem like an android.
I have yet to see this "unusual flap of skin" that some people talk about. All I've ever seen was his ear slightly dislodged.
He has to be human. His android self died. he is the real one
There could be more than 1 Android model of him could there not. I'm not saying he is android i'm just saying the fact that 1 Android Bishop dies doesn't rule out there could be another Bishop Android.
I feel that there are valid reasons to ask whether he's an android, a human or even a cyborg which would be something in between, but exactly what he is, I don't know
i allways thought he was human maby beguse i belive in what he said that he was human and then that new version came and i saw the blood and all then i was sure that he was human.
i can say this for sure ( ouch my ear) XD
Quote from: dallevalle on Nov 02, 2007, 03:28:23 PM
i allways thought he was human maby beguse i belive in what he said that he was human and then that new version came and i saw the blood and all then i was sure that he was human.
i can say this for sure ( ouch my ear) XD
that might be a very reasonable set of reasons to make such an assumption
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Nov 08, 2007, 12:30:56 AM
that might be a very reasonable set of reasons to make such an assumption
Not to mention that the intentions of the filmmakers go a long way...
human
he bleed blood
simple as human
nothing more
that one of reasons AvP was a let down to me
he was human in AvP and human in Alien3...not fcukn possible
fcukd up hated tht gets me annoying thinking about it
Quote from: MartyPredator on Nov 12, 2007, 01:27:18 PM
human
he bleed blood
simple as human
nothing more
that one of reasons AvP was a let down to me
he was human in AvP and human in Alien3...not fcukn possible
fcukd up hated tht gets me annoying thinking about it
I can't see how people get hung up on this. Two different people can live centuries apart and look alike. Ancestors and descendants, for example.
Quote from: maledoro on Nov 12, 2007, 02:08:48 PM
Quote from: MartyPredator on Nov 12, 2007, 01:27:18 PM
human
he bleed blood
simple as human
nothing more
that one of reasons AvP was a let down to me
he was human in AvP and human in Alien3...not fcukn possible
fcukd up hated tht gets me annoying thinking about it
I can't see how people get hung up on this. Two different people can live centuries apart and look alike. Ancestors and descendants, for example.
please only idientical twins look alike
ancestors have similar looks but not idientical...only diff in this was the age...young in alien 3 old in AvP
he was the founder of the company and then hes a worker...lame
that just messed up the Alien saga and AvP for me
Quote from: MartyPredator on Nov 12, 2007, 03:48:06 PM
please only idientical twins look alike
I've seen paintings and photos of my ancestors that look extremely similar over the centuries. You need to get out and notice things.
Quote from: MartyPredator on Nov 12, 2007, 03:48:06 PM
ancestors have similar looks but not idientical...only diff in this was the age...young in alien 3 old in AvP
Then they don't look identical, do they?
Quote from: MartyPredator on Nov 12, 2007, 03:48:06 PM
he was the founder of the company and then hes a worker...lame
He's not the same guy... Not to mention that judging from the way Bishop's designer was dressed, I'd say that he was well-to-do.
Quote from: MartyPredator on Nov 12, 2007, 03:48:06 PM
that just messed up the Alien saga and AvP for me
I'm sure that once you realize that they're two different people and that look-alikes exist in real life you'll get over it. Give it time.
in the middle of alien 3 he's an andriod,
at the end i think he's an human
Quote from: Liet Mike Harrigan on Nov 12, 2007, 09:53:17 PM
in the middle of alien 3 he's an andriod,
at the end i think he's an human
At the middle of
Alien³ we see only the smashed up remains of the android. The guy who designed the android shows up at the end of the film. Not too confusing.
Quote from: maledoro on Nov 12, 2007, 09:31:57 PM
Quote from: MartyPredator on Nov 12, 2007, 03:48:06 PM
please only idientical twins look alike
I've seen paintings and photos of my ancestors that look extremely similar over the centuries. You need to get out and notice things.
Quote from: MartyPredator on Nov 12, 2007, 03:48:06 PM
ancestors have similar looks but not idientical...only diff in this was the age...young in alien 3 old in AvP
Then they don't look identical, do they?
Quote from: MartyPredator on Nov 12, 2007, 03:48:06 PM
he was the founder of the company and then hes a worker...lame
He's not the same guy... Not to mention that judging from the way Bishop's designer was dressed, I'd say that he was well-to-do.
Quote from: MartyPredator on Nov 12, 2007, 03:48:06 PM
that just messed up the Alien saga and AvP for me
I'm sure that once you realize that they're two different people and that look-alikes exist in real life you'll get over it. Give it time.
he was the guy that founded the Welyi company..or whatever company it was
then in alien 3...he designed bishop...but he still worked for the company...you think if he was a ancestor he would be higher up in the company?
its just the facted they used the same guy to play in atleast a hundred year gap spam
and fair enough ancestors look the same...not identical tho...in AvP he was old...in Alien he was young and besides that they look the same...
im sorry but thats the biggest let down of the alien and AvP saga for me :(
Quote from: MartyPredator on Nov 13, 2007, 09:46:01 AM
he was the guy that founded the Welyi company..or whatever company it was
That would be Chuck Weyland.
Quote from: MartyPredator on Nov 13, 2007, 09:46:01 AM
then in alien 3...he designed bishop...
That would be the other guy.
Quote from: MartyPredator on Nov 13, 2007, 09:46:01 AM
but he still worked for the company...you think if he was a ancestor he would be higher up in the company?
Not necessarily. The Ford Motor Corporation had several descendants of Henry Ford working various middle- and upper-management positions within the company at times when someone outside of the family was in the top chair. As I had pointed out before, Bishop's designer didn't just look like a factory worker; he was wearing some nice quality clothes.
Quote from: MartyPredator on Nov 13, 2007, 09:46:01 AM
its just the facted they used the same guy to play in atleast a hundred year gap spam
TV shows and movies have been doing that for decades. Why single these two movies out?
Quote from: MartyPredator on Nov 13, 2007, 09:46:01 AM
and fair enough ancestors look the same...not identical tho...in AvP he was old...in Alien he was young
Well, since we all know that people don't age in reverse, there shouldn't be a problem figuring out that they're two different people.
Quote from: MartyPredator on Nov 13, 2007, 09:46:01 AM
and besides that they look the same...
That's already been addressed. Move on.
Quote from: MartyPredator on Nov 13, 2007, 09:46:01 AM
im sorry but thats the biggest let down of the alien and AvP saga for me
I'm sorry, but everything that you lamented was explained to you. Although this is a science fiction film, in order to maintain its realism you have to base alot of what you see on reality. I've given you several answers that are based on real life models. I don't know why you can't accept something that's based on fact instead of deliberately wallowing in needless disappointment.
lol
im not "wallowing in disapointment" im just saying why i didnt like the AvP movie as much as i would of
ya ok tv programmes being do that for years...but the people are playing two different chacaters inless it a split personality...but that different
+ i dont watch tv as much as i did anymore
anyways i was just saying why i disliked the movie
It was the robot. But probability of 50%.
Quote from: MartyPredator on Nov 14, 2007, 11:10:11 AM
im not "wallowing in disapointment" im just saying why i didnt like the AvP movie as much as i would of
But you are wallowing in disappointment. If I had said, "I'm bummed out that they had used the same character in both movies," and someone responded, "No, they're supposed to be two different guys," I would then say, "Wow! I didn't realize that! Now I feel better knowing this!" Instead you keep going back to lamenting the movie because you won't let go of your old stance.
Quote from: MartyPredator on Nov 14, 2007, 11:10:11 AM
ya ok tv programmes being do that for years...but the people are playing two different chacaters
That is what TV shows and movies have been doing for years:
same actor/two different characters.
Quote from: MartyPredator on Nov 14, 2007, 11:10:11 AM
inless it a split personality...but that different
Way different! They're two different characters.
I think that there could be a possibility that bishop was an android but I think that he was human. He was probably Weylands son or family relative.
Quote from: AVP66 on Nov 19, 2007, 08:07:06 PM
I think that there could be a possibility that bishop was an android but I think that he was human.
Well, all of the reasons that he could be an android had been refuted. Not to mention that the people who had created the character say that he's human should be enough for everybody.
Quote from: AVP66 on Nov 19, 2007, 08:07:06 PM
He was probably Weylands son or family relative.
You'll have to go further down the line than just "son"...
He's definatly human, it just makes sense, thats what DG and WH wanted too.
Hes a human,because after the blow to the head you can see him bleeding real blood.
Has to be an android or at least a clone. Even if you disagree, because it was never explained by the directors and I guess is meant to cause speculation and debate, Anderson could use Henrikson in AVP and say he was the origional. Plus, if Weyland/Yutani was around during "Alien", then wouldn't Bishop have been/looked much older. Not only that, but the way his head opens up, and his ear kinda just hangs out like that when he's hit in the head by 85, also has me thinkin he's meant to look human for the purpose of bagging Ripley, but he is actually a more sophisticated version of Bishop 1.
Sorry, wrong. Script and director prove other wise. He is human.
Quote from: Wolf Sazen on Nov 23, 2007, 01:49:39 AM
Has to be an android or at least a clone.
If you've been reading earlier posts on this thread, you'd know that every android or clone claim had been shot down.
Quote from: Wolf Sazen on Nov 23, 2007, 01:49:39 AM
Even if you disagree, because it was never explained by the directors and I guess is meant to cause speculation and debate
The effects people and Henriksen had already said that he was human. They even said how Fincher had wanted for everyone to know he was human. This was never open to debate.
Quote from: Wolf Sazen on Nov 23, 2007, 01:49:39 AM
Anderson could use Henrikson in AVP and say he was the origional.
You're speculating.
Quote from: Wolf Sazen on Nov 23, 2007, 01:49:39 AM
Plus, if Weyland/Yutani was around during "Alien", then wouldn't Bishop have been/looked much older.
Chances are, Bishop wasn't manufactured by the time of
Alien. Not to mention that I wasn't aware that androids aged.
Quote from: Wolf Sazen on Nov 23, 2007, 01:49:39 AM
Not only that, but the way his head opens up, and his ear kinda just hangs out like that when he's hit in the head by 85, also has me thinkin he's meant to look human for the purpose of bagging Ripley, but he is actually a more sophisticated version of Bishop 1.
The appliance that made the side of his head look split was put there to show his being human. If he showed no sign of injury, then it would look more like he was an android.
If one were to use a little bit of research and critical thinking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking), they will come to the conclusion that he was human.
i say android, hes ear was ON his shoulder XD
somebody needs to do an FAQ.
Human, but only because in A3 he says that all Androids are based on a real person. But then again... he could have lied? Can Androids be programmed to lie?
???
Quote from: purebreedalien on Nov 28, 2007, 01:42:31 PMbecause in A3 he says that all Androids are based on a real person.
No one in the film makes any such claim.
Lance Henrickson says in the commentary (on the Quadriology) that David Fincher intended him to be human. He says he thinks it was very interesting to play the human Bishop but that he didn't like it as much because he's evil where as the android Bishop is good.
He was always supposed to be human. Anderson ignored this is AVP.
he is meant to be human
I think he's a droid and I do believe that hes lieing because in the first Aliens movie there was a droid who lied that he was human.
Quote from: XxZareenxX on Dec 08, 2007, 12:14:55 AM
I think he's a droid and I do believe that hes lieing because in the first Aliens movie there was a droid who lied that he was human.
First, it's okay to believe that he's human, since he had been explained as such by the filmmakers. Plus, his humanity was proven after he was hit by 85. Thirdly, not only did Ash not say that he was human (if he had, please show me the dialogue), but by using your logic, Bishop (from
Aliens) would be a human, as you are implying that androids lie about their state of being.
Quote from: XxZareenxX on Dec 08, 2007, 12:14:55 AM
I think he's a droid and I do believe that hes lieing because in the first Aliens movie there was a droid who lied that he was human.
:D
i'm sure this has already been covered but hasn't anyone seen avp? doesn't that kind of make it undeniable that bishop was an android? unless weyland not only made artificial copies of himself he also had his cells preserved for later cloning. and i don't know many guys who get their ear knocked nearly off of their head and are still able to scream and shout, i think he was clearly an android because instead of playing knocked out he pleaded to ripley in a last ditch effort to preserve his objective which was to capture and study the alien.
Quote from: def on Dec 16, 2007, 06:16:19 AM
i'm sure this has already been covered but hasn't anyone seen avp?
I think that we all have...
Quote from: def on Dec 16, 2007, 06:16:19 AM
doesn't that kind of make it undeniable that bishop was an android?
Bishop was an android. This was made clear in
Aliens. Now, if you were referring to his designer who was seen in
Alien³, not only does
AVP not make Bishop's designer an android, there is nothing in the movie to suggest that he is.
Quote from: def on Dec 16, 2007, 06:16:19 AM
unless weyland not only made artificial copies of himself he also had his cells preserved for later cloning.
And that was clearly shown in one of the movies or background info, huh? I didn't think so...
Quote from: def on Dec 16, 2007, 06:16:19 AM
and i don't know many guys who get their ear knocked nearly off of their head and are still able to scream and shout
His ear was not "knocked nearly off". Stop exaggerating his injury. Even if it was, an injured ear wouldn't prevent screaming and shouting. If anything, it would be a catalyst.
Quote from: def on Dec 16, 2007, 06:16:19 AM
i think he was clearly an android because instead of playing knocked out he pleaded to ripley in a last ditch effort to preserve his objective which was to capture and study the alien.
Once again, his head injury wasn't that severe. Please read the earlier replies in this thread regarding this.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FElves%2Frolleyes.gif&hash=d4591911b7d318734fe3a81fda704a1bf6bf7ecb)
He. Was. Human. The. Sky. Is. Blue.
This shouldn't be difficult to understand, despite what Alien Loves Predator might do to confuse Alien fans to the contrary.
I think that whenever Maledoro takes a look at the ear injury of Bishop II in the Alien 3 movie, he must be looking at a copy of the movie that comes from a parallel universe or maybe one further away than that, and so this is why he comes up with the statement "His ear was not "knocked nearly off"."
I think in A3 he is a human; those emotions when ripley is falling in the fire cant be from an android even its so advanced...
but then, yeah... the avp version^^ thats the problem... but in A3 he is definitly a human
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Dec 21, 2007, 10:23:15 PM
I think that whenever Maledoro takes a look at the ear injury of Bishop II in the Alien 3 movie, he must be looking at a copy of the movie that comes from a parallel universe or maybe one further away than that, and so this is why he comes up with the statement "His ear was not "knocked nearly off"."
You
would believe such a parallel univere would exist...
Quote from: maledoro on Dec 22, 2007, 12:45:58 PM
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Dec 21, 2007, 10:23:15 PM
I think that whenever Maledoro takes a look at the ear injury of Bishop II in the Alien 3 movie, he must be looking at a copy of the movie that comes from a parallel universe or maybe one further away than that, and so this is why he comes up with the statement "His ear was not "knocked nearly off"."
You would believe such a parallel univere would exist...
well, I'm wondering how far to go with acknowledging people's different perceptions as having a value.
A lot of people I know are experiencing different parallel timelines where they go from to another and some buildings might be different and events from the past seem to be different too, and certain famous people are reported dead and then have died again several years later or are still living healthy lives. So loosely I'm wondering if maybe there are different versions of Alien and Alien 3 that people have been watching that spring out from these different time lines, and we're just putting together our understanding of the dominant version of these Alien movies in this present experience of a timeline.
So I don't want to rule anything out so soon.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Dec 22, 2007, 02:50:38 PM
A lot of people I know are experiencing different parallel timelines where they go from to another and some buildings might be different and events from the past seem to be different too, and certain famous people are reported dead and then have died again several years later or are still living healthy lives. So loosely I'm wondering if maybe there are different versions of Alien and Alien 3 that people have been watching that spring out from these different time lines, and we're just putting together our understanding of the dominant version of these Alien movies in this present experience of a timeline.
So I don't want to rule anything out so soon.
You might not rule out too much DMT...
I always thought he was an android, but maybe they'd gone to the trouble of making his blood red and stuff so that Ripley would believe he really was human.
If he was an android, it would expalin how he could pretty much get over that huge head injury so quickly. But somebody, I think it was SiL or Maledoro, said that humans have taken much worse injuries and reacted less, which is very true. Some injuries can't even be felt at all, but you know they're there, because you can see them.
I once buried a Stanley knife in my thumb while cutting down a piece of plastic, I could see the thing stuck in there, but I couldn't feel anything, so I just walked into the bathroom, started running some cold water, and pulled it out. I know that's not the same as having your ear ripped off by a piece of metal, but it's just an example.
One guy once got a nail shot into his head by his boss on a building site. The guy didn't scream at all, he just calmly told his boss that he'd shot a nail into his head, and that he needed to go to hospital. And that thing went through his skull and into his brain.
A while ago, I was getting a checkup at my doctor's office and asked if he could answer a question for me. I told him that I saw a movie where [I had described the incident in Alien³]. He then smiled and said that he saw "one of the Alien movies; I think it was Aliens, where that same thing happened." He then told me that type of injury is more common than one would think it would be, and that people had endured worse head injuries with even less-notable effects.
I always thought he was a droid...
Otherwise he can ignore a led pipe to the head pretty well. Not to mention his ripped off ear...
Read the post above yours, NikTh.
Oops, sorry my bad!
Quote from: maledoro on Dec 24, 2007, 12:08:03 AM
A while ago, I was getting a checkup at my doctor's office and asked if he could answer a question for me. I told him that I saw a movie where [I had described the incident in Alien³]. He then smiled and said that he saw "one of the Alien movies; I think it was Aliens, where that same thing happened." He then told me that type of injury is more common than one would think it would be, and that people had endured worse head injuries with even less-notable effects.
well, the way that you described the incident to him might be very important. But the fact that he saw Aliens and thought about the head injury experienced by someone in that movie is interesting to know
Quote from: maledoro on Dec 23, 2007, 11:49:55 AM
You might not rule out too much DMT...
well, I'd like to try out DMT , but would prefer to try out Ayahuasca
I always assumed he was human, that is untill the real Bishop was revealed in AvP. All future incarnations are either Androids or Clones.
Quote from: Flaming Firefox on Dec 24, 2007, 05:03:39 AM
I always assumed he was human, that is untill the real Bishop was revealed in AvP.
It's not too hard to accept that there are two different people who look somewhat alike, centuries apart. The commentary tracks and script drafts that mention Bishop II all point to him being a human.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FXmas%2Fwink.gif&hash=001ea3b8584e96112a653a47c7e0f7ead64df49f)
As Lance puts it, you can make a map of Antarctica on Weyland's face. It's not much of a difference, but that's good enough for me. Ultimately, it's just a canon screw-up on Anderson's part, who should have put more thought into what he was doing. It doesn't change the fact that Bishop II was a human.
Quote from: The Chibi Kiriyama on Dec 24, 2007, 04:59:26 PM
As Lance puts it, you can make a map of Antarctica on Weyland's face. It's not much of a difference, but that's good enough for me. Ultimately, it's just a canon screw-up on Anderson's part, who should have put more thought into what he was doing. It doesn't change the fact that Bishop II was a human.
But was he a clone? Since Cloning popped up in Alien 4 I don't see it as unreasonable.
Quote from: Flaming Firefox on Dec 24, 2007, 08:51:58 PM
But was he a clone? Since Cloning popped up in Alien 4 I don't see it as unreasonable.
No, for the many reasons I had listed before. Not to mention that he would have been explained as such.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FXmas%2Fwink.gif&hash=001ea3b8584e96112a653a47c7e0f7ead64df49f)
Quote from: maledoro on Dec 25, 2007, 01:20:23 AM
Quote from: Flaming Firefox on Dec 24, 2007, 08:51:58 PM
But was he a clone? Since Cloning popped up in Alien 4 I don't see it as unreasonable.
No, for the many reasons I had listed before. Not to mention that he would have been explained as such.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v338/maledoro/Xmas/wink.gif
The doctor's office visit thing doesn't prove or disprove whether he was a clone. The red blood doesn't prove or disprove he was a clone. The story doesn't either.
But the commentary by Lance himself on 2nd Disc of Alien3 does. He himself states that Bishop ll is human. And before you go saying "In the interview with Anderson, he said Bishop in Alien3 was an android" he meant the smashed up Bishop from ALIENS seen a few moments in the middle of the film, not the one seen at the end.
Lance states it, script states it, novel states it, the movie itself states it, therefore, it is proven that the Bishop seen at the end of Alien3 is indeed human.
Reasons could be an android
He's appears as a mysterious character and doesn't come across as if you trust him.
Ripley says you were sent by the f**king company and doesn't trust him one bit
Then the main thing for me is his ear that hangs out after being hit.
Reasons for being a human
He says no he was the creator of bishop
When he gets hit its blood which comes out
Disc 2 Lance states it was to show he was completely human when he gets hit
Quote from: nukem11 on Dec 25, 2007, 10:18:14 AM
He's appears as a mysterious character and doesn't come across as if you trust him.
Which is all the more to believe he's human.
QuoteRipley says you were sent by the f**king company and doesn't trust him one bit
I don't this is an entirely valid reason. Just because she doesn't trust him it doesn't mean he's an android
QuoteThen the main thing for me is his ear that hangs out after being hit.
Again, not an entirely valid reason. A lot of things like this have happened to human beings. That and it doesn't really hang that far out in the movie.
QuoteHe says no he was the creator of bishop
So? For all you know, he could be lying(Which of course is proven wrong, but still).
QuoteWhen he gets hit its blood which comes out
Another reason that points out to him being human.
QuoteDisc 2 Lance states it was to show he was completely human when he gets hit
Exactly. It's already been proven several times he's a genuine human being, and this is the most concrete right here.
Quote from: Flaming Firefox on Dec 25, 2007, 02:02:55 AM
The doctor's office visit thing doesn't prove or disprove whether he was a clone. The red blood doesn't prove or disprove he was a clone.
When did I say that it disproved he was a clone?
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FXmas%2Fhuh.gif&hash=23706039bfb143dbbe85e431c441e725b6301c73)
Quote from: Flaming Firefox on Dec 25, 2007, 02:02:55 AM
The story doesn't either.
What is it about the Negative Proof
fallacy that people feel makes a strong argument?
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FXmas%2Frolleyes.gif&hash=ce9b5de9fe4c4e585150e5da47d45c9937c51b70)
Quote from: The Cleaner on Dec 25, 2007, 10:36:19 AM
Quote from: nukem11 on Dec 25, 2007, 10:18:14 AM
He's appears as a mysterious character and doesn't come across as if you trust him.
Which is all the more to believe he's human.
QuoteRipley says you were sent by the f**king company and doesn't trust him one bit
I don't this is an entirely valid reason. Just because she doesn't trust him it doesn't mean he's an android
QuoteThen the main thing for me is his ear that hangs out after being hit.
Again, not an entirely valid reason. A lot of things like this have happened to human beings. That and it doesn't really hang that far out in the movie.
QuoteHe says no he was the creator of bishop
So? For all you know, he could be lying(Which of course is proven wrong, but still).
QuoteWhen he gets hit its blood which comes out
Another reason that points out to him being human.
QuoteDisc 2 Lance states it was to show he was completely human when he gets hit
Exactly. It's already been proven several times he's a genuine human being, and this is the most concrete right here.
Im not trying to say hes not human Im just tryin to lay out the evidence and thats all we have. Theres more reason to see him as a human but there is that slight spectical whether he could be a droid. Because he could be an advanced droid which is more human. Great scene though and brilliant that lance made a cameo.
Not saying that you are, though your reasons aren't necessarily valid nor hold any weight whatsoever. I highly doubt the Company would invest a bunch of money just to have one android be more human, and considering Call in A:R didn't bleed red(And the movies states her as being more advanced than the Bishop series) I highly doubt he's an advanced android.
No offense to all the skeptics out there, but it looks like you have nothing more than unfounded speculation to back up your points on him being an android.
imagine...
after surviving the events of avp1 weyland manages to escape from the pyramid with fatal injuries before it exploded.
yutani company saves his comatosed body for many years and makes him healthy again by infusing him predator blood - a technology adapted from the 700 years old japanese predator-hunter gideon suhn lee who just died in the present.
this way weyland is brought back to life, weyland-yutani corporation fuses and the leaders of the company manage to stay alive for a few houndred years.
the bishop-series of the WY-Synthetics are designed after weyland of course.
the weyland we saw in the end of alien3 was the real one.
...everything made sense.
Quote from: Alvar on Dec 30, 2007, 05:07:02 PM
imagine...
after surviving the events of avp1 weyland manages to escape from the pyramid with fatal injuries before it exploded.
yutani company saves his comatosed body for many years and makes him healthy again by infusing him predator blood - a technology adapted from the 700 years old japanese predator-hunter gideon suhn lee who just died in the present.
this way weyland is brought back to life, weyland-yutani corporation fuses and the leaders of the company manage to stay alive for a few houndred years.
the bishop-series of the WY-Synthetics are designed after weyland of course.
the weyland we saw in the end of alien3 was the real one.
...everything made sense.
well this must either be part of a script idea for Aliens vs Predator in Underworld or Alien vs Predator vs Blade
Quote from: Alvar on Dec 30, 2007, 05:07:02 PM
imagine...
after surviving the events of avp1 weyland manages to escape from the pyramid with fatal injuries before it exploded.
yutani company saves his comatosed body for many years and makes him healthy again by infusing him predator blood - a technology adapted from the 700 years old japanese predator-hunter gideon suhn lee who just died in the present.
this way weyland is brought back to life, weyland-yutani corporation fuses and the leaders of the company manage to stay alive for a few houndred years.
the bishop-series of the WY-Synthetics are designed after weyland of course.
the weyland we saw in the end of alien3 was the real one.
...everything made sense.
Are you on crack?
AVP really messed up all the Alien franchise. :(
He is a clone ;)
Quote from: Neukku on Jan 02, 2008, 06:56:55 PM
He is a clone ;)
You are a clown.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FHappy%2520Smilies%2Fe9625f7d.gif&hash=9ed7a7567a71e8fd81352f3d5ace715500e51869)
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 02, 2008, 08:29:44 PM
Quote from: Neukku on Jan 02, 2008, 06:56:55 PM
He is a clone ;)
You are a clown.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v338/maledoro/Happy%20Smilies/e9625f7d.gif
and your on crack! :D ;D
Quote from: Khan on Jan 02, 2008, 09:47:43 PM
and your on crack! :D ;D
Why am
I on crack?
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FConfused%2520and%2520Stoopid%2F_hmm__Reworked_by_E_motive.gif&hash=b1e699facc2cabc646af80ebd28712bba555e33b)
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 02, 2008, 09:55:24 PM
Quote from: Khan on Jan 02, 2008, 09:47:43 PM
and your on crack! :D ;D
Why am I on crack?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v338/maledoro/Confused%20and%20Stoopid/_hmm__Reworked_by_E_motive.gif
shit happens!
Quote from: Neukku on Jan 02, 2008, 10:52:54 PM
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 02, 2008, 09:55:24 PM
Quote from: Khan on Jan 02, 2008, 09:47:43 PM
and your on crack! :D ;D
Why am I on crack?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v338/maledoro/Confused%20and%20Stoopid/_hmm__Reworked_by_E_motive.gif
shit happens!
So, nobody can explain why
Khan accused
me of being on crack? That figures...
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FConfused%2520and%2520Stoopid%2Ffbe2516d.gif&hash=7675a879edce5f6bc7cde9cab71ea8cd47dd9d0c)
This thread:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.amnestyusa.org%2Fpub%2Famnestyusa%2Fdeath-penalty%2Fbeating-a-dead-horse.gif&hash=55693468066b423eadc0713056c45a4edd909ad7)
That reminds me of Office Space.
I think hes a human.
Quote from: That Yellow Alien on Jan 03, 2008, 11:18:59 PM
That reminds me of Office Space.
Yeah I think it's Michael Bolton (the Office Space character) rotoscoped into that pic. :)
I think he is an Android because when 85 hits him with a wrench he justs stands back up with the side of his face torn off.
And the fluid is red (like blood) because the people that make the androids wanted them to appear more human. 8)
*sighs*
No. There is no "I think." The script, writers, and everyone involved with the film have said he is supposed to be human.
Quote from: That Yellow Alien on Jan 04, 2008, 11:17:31 PM
*sighs*
No. There is no "I think." The script, writers, and everyone involved with the film have said he is supposed to be human.
Then why the f**k did some one make this poll!!! ???
and if I got hit with a wrench and had the side of my face torn off I would be crying :'(
Not yelling at ripley to not kill herself!!!
As people have pointed out earlier in this thread, which I am sure you understandably haven't read, people have reacted less to worse. Someone said they were watching one of those animal attack shows, and saw a bull tear the scalp off of someone, and they simply ran away.
There two different scenarios: one is geting chased by a bull the other is being protected by armed guards with nothing there chasing him. My point is that I would'nt stop and cry if I was being chased by a bull, and I would stop and cry if I was being protected by armed guards.
Do you see my point? ???
Quote from: AWC 3117 on Jan 04, 2008, 11:51:42 PM
There two different scenarios: one is geting chased by a bull the other is being protected by armed guards with nothing there chasing him. My point is that I would'nt stop and cry if I was being chased by a bull, and I would stop and cry if I was being protected by armed guards.
Do you see my point? ???
Did you make one? ???
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FConfused%2520and%2520Stoopid%2F435a273d.gif&hash=572bac6e33032347486bcab73415967b0cac2036)
Ok due to AVP....which has screwed the original storyline of Aliens a little i would say android...but before AVP was made i would have said human
Well his blood is red....human....Anderson was prob to dumb to notice that seen as there is no explanation as to why his human and alive in AVP ???
Quote from: Valtiel on Jan 06, 2008, 06:08:41 PM
Ok due to AVP....which has screwed the original storyline of Aliens a little i would say android...but before AVP was made i would have said human
The events in
AVP didn't set off any ripple effect, altering future events. So, he's still human.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FConfused%2520and%2520Stoopid%2F0c9b8355.gif&hash=8c118a3e53e78a0b11f1f78179aaddfb04db3e77)
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 06, 2008, 10:00:31 PM
The events in AVP didn't set off any ripple effect, altering future events. So, he's still human.
Yes it did. Before AvP every one thought that the bishop in Alien 3 was human, but then in AvP there he is again like 200 years before. So the bishop in Alien 3 isn't the real bishop because the real bishop is in Avp, because the bishop in Avp is human. ;)
What I'm thinking is that the people at Wayland-Yutani coverd up his death by making an android that looked like him. Why? I don't know. ???
Quote from: AWC 3117 on Jan 06, 2008, 10:22:57 PM
Yes it did. Before AvP every one thought that the bishop in Alien 3 was human, but then in AvP there he is again like 200 years before. So the bishop in Alien 3 isn't the real bishop because the real bishop is in Avp, because the bishop in Avp is human. ;)
I think you misunderstand. He was human before
AVP per the people who had made the film and he was still human afterward. There wasn't some shock wave that ripped open our universe and he was replaced by another being. Instead of running around claiming that people are robots, why not accept the fact that two humans can exist at different times and still look kinda similar? There's no need to change what was before.
Quote from: AWC 3117 on Jan 06, 2008, 10:26:57 PM
What I'm thinking is that the people at Wayland-Yutani coverd up his death by making an android that looked like him. Why? I don't know. ???
Read this explanation (http://www.alienexperience.com//index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=512&topic=51.0) as to why he isn't an android, and you can reason why they didn't make one based on him.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2Fsa%2Feng101.gif&hash=da1365ecb11c5497484470a5ad02324026ad4a1d)
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 06, 2008, 11:45:57 PM
Quote from: AWC 3117 on Jan 06, 2008, 10:22:57 PM
Yes it did. Before AvP every one thought that the bishop in Alien 3 was human, but then in AvP there he is again like 200 years before. So the bishop in Alien 3 isn't the real bishop because the real bishop is in Avp, because the bishop in Avp is human. ;)
I think you misunderstand. He was human before AVP per the people who had made the film and he was still human afterward. There wasn't some shock wave that ripped open our universe and he was replaced by another being. Instead of running around claiming that people are robots, why not accept the fact that two humans can exist at different times and still look kinda similar? There's no need to change what was before.
Quote from: AWC 3117 on Jan 06, 2008, 10:26:57 PM
What I'm thinking is that the people at Wayland-Yutani coverd up his death by making an android that looked like him. Why? I don't know. ???
Read this explanation (http://www.alienexperience.com//index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=512&topic=51.0) as to why he isn't an android, and you can reason why they didn't make one based on him.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v338/maledoro/sa/eng101.gif
What he said pretty much. Case closed.
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 06, 2008, 11:45:57 PM
Read this explanation (http://www.alienexperience.com//index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=512&topic=51.0) as to why he isn't an android, and you can reason why they didn't make one based on him.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v338/maledoro/sa/eng101.gif
Reading that article you call an explanation only makes you look bad! Thats one of the most shit arguments I've ever read!!! And the most fun thing is that he was being f**king serious! What a joke!!! ::)
Quote from: AWC 3117 on Jan 07, 2008, 02:38:37 AM
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 06, 2008, 11:45:57 PM
Read this explanation (http://www.alienexperience.com//index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=512&topic=51.0) as to why he isn't an android, and you can reason why they didn't make one based on him.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v338/maledoro/sa/eng101.gif
Reading that article you call an explanation only makes you look bad! Thats one of the most shit arguments I've ever read!!! And the most fun thing is that he was being f**king serious! What a joke!!! ::)
Um i dont see what's wrong with it, its a very good articles pretty much proves it, especially with the extract from the commentary at the end.
Quote from: severen76 on Jan 07, 2008, 02:48:23 AM
Um i dont see what's wrong with it, its a very good articles pretty much proves it, especially with the extract from the commentary at the end.
I can't explain all the faults in it, if you can't see them then I don't want to take the time explaining.
P.S. I love you sig severen76, its damn funny!!! :D
You cant explain them because there arent any
I don't see the leap in logic in saying that he was human which would be required to say, instead, that he was an android. Saying he survived a hard blow is less of a stretch than saying he was a type of android that still wasn't available by the time Resurrection rolled around.
Quote from: AWC 3117 on Jan 07, 2008, 02:38:37 AM
Reading that article you call an explanation only makes you look bad! Thats one of the most shit arguments I've ever read!!! And the most fun thing is that he was being f**king serious! What a joke!!! ::)
The fact that you have to resort to personal insults against me rather than poking holes in my argument makes you look even worse.
Of course his human, Alien3 was made years before AVP just coz Anderson is a dumbarse and prob never saw alien3 he thought he'd put him in AVP as a human.
Anderson should not be allowed to make films full stop!
Has Anderson or Lance ever explaind why his human in AVP?
Quote from: Attack.no1 on Jan 07, 2008, 07:09:25 PM
Of course his human, Alien3 was made years before AVP just coz Anderson is a dumbarse and prob never saw alien3 he thought he'd put him in AVP as a human.
Anderson should not be allowed to make films full stop!
Has Anderson or Lance ever explaind why his human in AVP?
Because he is the founder of Weyland Industries.
If i remember corectly He is human Because when he was hit on the Head he tougcht it and looked at his hand and it had Blood on it. And in AvP they might have took some blood to clone him so thats how he's in Alein3 Just a tought.
Quote from: BlkSoul on Jan 09, 2008, 06:59:50 AM
If i remember corectly He is human Because when he was hit on the Head he tougcht it and looked at his hand and it had Blood on it. And in AvP they might have took some blood to clone him so thats how he's in Alein3 Just a tought.
He isn't a clone. This was brought up and shot down before.
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 09, 2008, 01:19:06 PM
Quote from: BlkSoul on Jan 09, 2008, 06:59:50 AM
If i remember corectly He is human Because when he was hit on the Head he tougcht it and looked at his hand and it had Blood on it. And in AvP they might have took some blood to clone him so thats how he's in Alein3 Just a tought.
He isn't a clone. This was brought up and shot down before.
i dnt say he IS a clone i just said they might have!!
Quote from: BlkSoul on Jan 09, 2008, 01:33:45 PM
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 09, 2008, 01:19:06 PM
Quote from: BlkSoul on Jan 09, 2008, 06:59:50 AM
If i remember corectly He is human Because when he was hit on the Head he tougcht it and looked at his hand and it had Blood on it. And in AvP they might have took some blood to clone him so thats how he's in Alein3 Just a tought.
He isn't a clone. This was brought up and shot down before.
i dnt say he IS a clone i just said they might have!!
I didn't say that you had said he was a clone.
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 09, 2008, 02:15:25 PM
Quote from: BlkSoul on Jan 09, 2008, 01:33:45 PM
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 09, 2008, 01:19:06 PM
Quote from: BlkSoul on Jan 09, 2008, 06:59:50 AM
If i remember corectly He is human Because when he was hit on the Head he tougcht it and looked at his hand and it had Blood on it. And in AvP they might have took some blood to clone him so thats how he's in Alein3 Just a tought.
He isn't a clone. This was brought up and shot down before.
i dnt say he IS a clone i just said they might have!!
I didn't say that you had said he was a clone.
Okay but in A3 hes human
Bishop in A3 is a human.
I dont get why 87 people think hes an android
Because, apparently, its impossible to think that two people, of the same family line, could look the same. This must mean Hudson is also an android, since he looks exactly like Jerry from P2, and that just can not be. ::)
He is human!!!!! hence the blood! you kno? that red stuff coming out of his ear...not white stuff!!
Quote from: Attack.no1 on Jan 13, 2008, 03:46:13 PM
He is human!!!!! hence the blood! you kno? that red stuff coming out of his ear...not white stuff!!
yup I thought that was an obvious give away too
Anyone else also notice how the Bishop human is more passionate than the bishop android?
When ripley jumps he screms NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
i really felt his NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
thats cause he is a human. End of
Quote from: severen76 on Jan 11, 2008, 06:18:14 PM
I dont get why 87 people think hes an android
bcoz they are blind?
Quote from: Attack.no1 on Jan 13, 2008, 06:35:37 PM
Quote from: severen76 on Jan 11, 2008, 06:18:14 PM
I dont get why 87 people think hes an android
bcoz they are blind?
Or they put to much faith in paul anderson >:(
It's a combination of things. Some want him to be an android because it's "kewler". They don't understand something commonplace like how some head injuries are, or the fact that people can look alike, whether they are related or not; even in different times.
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 13, 2008, 07:26:45 PM
It's a combination of things. Some want him to be an android because it's "kewler". They don't understand something commonplace like how some head injuries are, or the fact that people can look alike, whether they are related or not; even in different times.
Well i said his human because of the head wound.
Quote from: Eidotemit on Jan 11, 2008, 06:20:50 PM
Because, apparently, its impossible to think that two people, of the same family line, could look the same. This must mean Hudson is also an android, since he looks exactly like Jerry from P2, and that just can not be. ::)
That's an excellent point. Why the heck isn't this argued about nearly as much?
It's obvious.
Jerry is related to Lambert in Alien.
Same with Dillon and Dillon.
And, Dallas is related to, uh... I'll stop right there.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FBodily%2520Function%2520Smilies%2Fe3a70d98.gif&hash=49529f4871dc462f7324b8439f4a00a6dfe277b8)
His ear is smashed up pretty badly and can be compared to the damaged Bishop seen earlier in Alien3.
Quote from: Chaim Witz on Jan 14, 2008, 11:42:00 AM
His ear is smashed up pretty badly and can be compared to the damaged Bishop seen earlier in Alien3.
An elephant can be compared to a feather, too.
Gillis or Woodruff's claim that Bishop 2 was hit by a lead pipe was too much of a red herring, they either had no clue what was going on or couldn't remember
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Jan 15, 2008, 01:27:04 AM
Gillis or Woodruff's claim that Bishop 2 was hit by a lead pipe was too much of a red herring, they either had no clue what was going on or couldn't remember
What makes you say that? ???
Quote from: The Chibi Kiriyama on Jan 15, 2008, 01:35:42 AM
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Jan 15, 2008, 01:27:04 AM
Gillis or Woodruff's claim that Bishop 2 was hit by a lead pipe was too much of a red herring, they either had no clue what was going on or couldn't remember
What makes you say that? ???
well, it certainly wasn't a lead pipe, that's for sure.
It was something looks as if it has a wide curved implement on the end which I suppose was the thing that cut deep into the flesh area behind Bishop's ear making it seem like a flap sticking out slightly
it was a fire extinguisher if I remember correctly.
Quote from: The Chibi Kiriyama on Jan 14, 2008, 07:28:06 AM
Quote from: Eidotemit on Jan 11, 2008, 06:20:50 PM
Because, apparently, its impossible to think that two people, of the same family line, could look the same. This must mean Hudson is also an android, since he looks exactly like Jerry from P2, and that just can not be. ::)
That's an excellent point.
I do what I can ;)
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Jan 15, 2008, 01:40:24 AM
well, it certainly wasn't a lead pipe, that's for sure.
That's cheap. The focus of that scene's commentary wasn't about what he was hit with.
in famly some d look sorta alike down the famly tree
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 15, 2008, 11:37:42 AM
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Jan 15, 2008, 01:40:24 AM
well, it certainly wasn't a lead pipe, that's for sure.
That's cheap. The focus of that scene's commentary wasn't about what he was hit with.
well, one thing for sure, to identify what the character was hit with or even understand the fact it wasn't just a weapon as blunt as a pipe would changes my perspective on the injury, and maybe other people's too
Before Aaron hits Bishop he says "f**kin' android"
But after there is blood on bishops hand!
Quote from: BlkSoul on Jan 15, 2008, 02:36:46 PM
But after there is blood on bishops hand!
The red blood is not proof enough that he was human. He was probably a different model.
Well its sufficent. Because why would the Soldiers with him help him up if he was a robot/cyborg?
If he is human then Paul Anderson didn't really take Lance Henriksen's appearence in Alien 3 into much consideration when putting him and his character into AVP. Anyway we all have different opinions/ideas/theories. Every single person will never agree the same on something, but I guess that's what makes debating on something fun :)
Quote from: wolf66 on Jan 15, 2008, 02:33:05 PM
Before Aaron hits Bishop he says "f**kin' android"
what do you think inspired him to believe that Bishop 2 was an android?
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Jan 15, 2008, 03:41:26 PM
Quote from: wolf66 on Jan 15, 2008, 02:33:05 PM
Before Aaron hits Bishop he says "f**kin' android"
what do you think inspired him to believe that Bishop 2 was an android?
Because ripley says that hes a bishop model sent by the company.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Jan 15, 2008, 03:41:26 PM
Quote from: wolf66 on Jan 15, 2008, 02:33:05 PM
Before Aaron hits Bishop he says "f**kin' android"
what do you think inspired him to believe that Bishop 2 was an android?
like i said we all have different opinions/ideas/theories. Every single person will never agree the same on
Okay, I'm combining four posts together because they were done in a row, and I'm being told that this is not allowed, but it doesn't really help me if I am trying to respond to different posts and seperate what I'm typing as responses from the other ones, I think if someone wants to respond to something I said in one of the posts and not the rest, it all makes it a bit messy, but I suppose it probably doesn't pay to try to be orderly around here. Okay here we go!
Quote from: BlkSoul on Jan 15, 2008, 02:36:46 PM
But after there is blood on bishops hand!
there was blood coming out of Bishop 2's ear too, but what makes everyone feel the urge to take in the notion that on the basis of just because the blood is one colour or another that it proves or disproves that Bishop is an android or not. It seems that everyone expects the android blood to be coloured white throughout time in the universe of Alien.
At the end of the day in behind the scenes reality, the ear was prosthetic and the blood was fake but we are supposed to believe that the blood looks real in the film story, and people such as myself would question how real the injured head part is supposed to be and it takes me some years to get to the point of wondering what the weapon actually was used to get to the point where we have this half severed ear that's possibly supposed to be real for the character
Quote from: wolf66 on Jan 15, 2008, 03:47:28 PM
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Jan 15, 2008, 03:41:26 PM
Quote from: wolf66 on Jan 15, 2008, 02:33:05 PM
Before Aaron hits Bishop he says "f**kin' android"
what do you think inspired him to believe that Bishop 2 was an android?
like i said we all have different opinions/ideas/theories. Every single person will never agree the same on
but still, it's your opinion, and I don't want to attack it because the film is going to be experienced in multitudes of different ways, but how did you get to that point where you decided that this was valid for you?
Quote from: severen76 on Jan 15, 2008, 03:46:08 PM
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Jan 15, 2008, 03:41:26 PM
Quote from: wolf66 on Jan 15, 2008, 02:33:05 PM
Before Aaron hits Bishop he says "f**kin' android"
what do you think inspired him to believe that Bishop 2 was an android?
Because ripley says that hes a bishop model sent by the company.
thanks, I'll take another look at that. Now I'm wondering what made Aaron finally get to the point where he agreed
Quote from: wolf66 on Jan 15, 2008, 03:11:41 PM
If he is human then Paul Anderson didn't really take Lance Henriksen's appearence in Alien 3 into much consideration when putting him and his character into AVP.
it certainly looks that way for me too, or maybe he read about James Cameron's interest in making a further Alien movie, maybe it was at the time of number four was on the horizon, and he was actually said to have wanted to make Bishop 2 into an android as well, I suppose this would have been his attempt to get the Alien saga back on track for Cameron's point of view
Did you really just make 4 posts in a row? You could have done that in one post. ::)
Quote from: Eidotemit on Jan 15, 2008, 04:16:50 PM
Did you really just make 4 posts in a row? You could have don't that in one post. ::)
No! I didn't :)
actually I prefer to seperate responses to different people's posts
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Jan 15, 2008, 02:22:29 PM
well, one thing for sure, to identify what the character was hit with or even understand the fact it wasn't just a weapon as blunt as a pipe would changes my perspective on the injury, and maybe other people's too
Maybe
some people...
::)
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Jan 15, 2008, 04:19:59 PM
Quote from: Eidotemit on Jan 15, 2008, 04:16:50 PM
Did you really just make 4 posts in a row? You could have don't that in one post. ::)
No! I didn't :)
actually I prefer to seperate responses to different people's posts
The rules don't though
Either its a clone, android, or weylend himself!
Maybe they recovered him and put his body in an experimental camber for preserving people?
Quote from: Killer185 on Jan 16, 2008, 02:17:03 AM
Either its a clone, android, or weylend himself!
Maybe they recovered him and put his body in an experimental camber for preserving people?
I believe the self-destruct device's explosion did away with magic sci-fi revivals.
Quote from: Killer185 on Jan 16, 2008, 02:17:03 AM
Either its a clone, android, or weylend himself!
Maybe they recovered him and put his body in an experimental camber for preserving people?
Those claims have already been addressed.
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 16, 2008, 10:41:43 AM
Quote from: Killer185 on Jan 16, 2008, 02:17:03 AM
Either its a clone, android, or weylend himself!
Maybe they recovered him and put his body in an experimental camber for preserving people?
Those claims have already been addressed.
And its a bad idea.
Cant we just say that anderson isnt as big a fan of alien franchise as he says, and didnt realise he was contradicting parts of it.
Could be as you say
Regardless of what the filmmakers said, if us movie goers have any question as to whether he's human or not, then it wasn't explained enough. You shouldn't have to watch an interview with directors to know what they intended him to be. That's like an artist trying to explain to his art director why his human figure drawing looks more like an elephant. When the intended viewer can't tell what they're looking at, then something is wrong.
Yes, it could have been vague on purpose.. but for the sake of the movie-goer, I'd classify it as an unknown or just that's it's left open for the viewers to decide. When viewing the movie, I really can't tell one way or the other..
Quote from: Killer185 on Jan 16, 2008, 02:17:03 AM
Either its a clone, android, or weylend himself!
Maybe they recovered him and put his body in an experimental camber for preserving people?
Or maybe its none of those things! Maybe its actually a different person! Maybe a descendant of some kind!
Again, by this logic Jerry and Hudson are either A) the same person, B) Hudson is an android, or C) a clone.
Also Weyland's body was vaporized in the explosion.
If you were being sarcastic ... my bad.
Quote from: Cellien on Jan 16, 2008, 03:48:23 PM
Regardless of what the filmmakers said, if us movie goers have any question as to whether he's human or not, then it wasn't explained enough. You shouldn't have to watch an interview with directors to know what they intended him to be.
I didn't need to watch any interview to know he was human. It was never an issue to me, nor was it intended to be for anybody.
Quote from: Cellien on Jan 16, 2008, 03:48:23 PM
Yes, it could have been vague on purpose..
But, it wasn't.
Quote from: Cellien on Jan 16, 2008, 03:48:23 PM
but for the sake of the movie-goer, I'd classify it as an unknown or just that's it's left open for the viewers to decide.
There are some things that aren't left open for interpretation by the movie goers. Kubrick had stuck to his interpretations over that of the moviegoers, as had David Lynch; and these guys have directed films more surreal than Fincher had.
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 17, 2008, 12:42:29 AM
Quote from: Cellien on Jan 16, 2008, 03:48:23 PM
Regardless of what the filmmakers said, if us movie goers have any question as to whether he's human or not, then it wasn't explained enough. You shouldn't have to watch an interview with directors to know what they intended him to be.
I didn't need to watch any interview to know he was human. It was never an issue to me, nor was it intended to be for anybody.
Good to know your take on it!
I never questioned whether he was human or not I always thought he was, I didnt even entertain the idea after I saw AvP.
Quote from: Cellien on Jan 17, 2008, 04:04:21 AM
Good to know your take on it!
And David Fincher's. And Walter Hill's. And David Giler's. And Rex Pickett's.
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 17, 2008, 12:29:29 PM
Quote from: Cellien on Jan 17, 2008, 04:04:21 AM
Good to know your take on it!
And David Fincher's. And Walter Hill's. And David Giler's. And Rex Pickett's.
Like I said, it's interesting to see how the viewers and creators viewed it or intended it, respectively.. :)
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 17, 2008, 12:42:29 AM
[
There are some things that aren't left open for interpretation by the movie goers. Kubrick had stuck to his interpretations over that of the moviegoers, as had David Lynch; and these guys have directed films more surreal than Fincher had.
one thing about David Lynch, he does his best to keep his own interpretations to himself so that they don't get in the way of the movie goers and their own interpretations, and he's often interested in other people's interpretations as long as that person doesn't claim that it's the only one or expect David to agree with it. So with his last couple of films he's been saying even less than before about what they mean. I suppose with his last movie, he has almost said nothing about it's meaning
Quote from: severen76 on Jan 17, 2008, 09:50:28 AM
I never questioned whether he was human or not I always thought he was, I didnt even entertain the idea after I saw AvP.
I did entertain the idea once I first saw the odd looking prosthetics used for his injured face. Maybe just as the original version of the Bishopa animatronics android remains was nicknamed Boshup, maybe they ought to rename Bishop 2 as Boshup 2
Quote from: Eidotemit on Jan 17, 2008, 09:38:42 PM
Seriously, one post. Its not that hard. Hell if you find it easier, address one person at a time in a post, post it, and go back and modify it with the next response.
really I suppose it takes a while for me to get the hang of all this cutting and pasting, while I'm deep in thought about the discussion subject matter. I ought to employ a secretary to do all this cutting and pasting maybe
(three posts amalgamated into one after reminder from Eidotemit)
Seriously, one post. Its not that hard. Hell if you find it easier, address one person at a time in a post, post it, and go back and modify it with the next response.
Quote from: Cellien on Jan 17, 2008, 03:52:11 PM
Like I said, it's interesting to see how the viewers and creators viewed it or intended it, respectively.. :)
Yeah, it's called "propriety". But since you think that the audience is a higher authority than that the author (notice how "author" is part of "authority"?), I want to thank you for agreeing with me and admitting that I am right. After all, you gave me license to interpret your work that way.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Jan 17, 2008, 09:01:40 PM
one thing about David Lynch, he does his best to keep his own interpretations to himself so that they don't get in the way of the movie goers and their own interpretations, and he's often interested in other people's interpretations as long as that person doesn't claim that it's the only one or expect David to agree with it. So with his last couple of films he's been saying even less than before about what they mean. I suppose with his last movie, he has almost said nothing about it's meaning
Funny, considering that to this day, Lynch still says that whenever someone tells them their interpretation of
Eraserhead that they have no idea what the film is about, not that they were not close to his own interpretation.
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 18, 2008, 01:02:52 PM
Funny, considering that to this day, Lynch still says that whenever someone tells them their interpretation of Eraserhead that they have no idea what the film is about, not that they were not close to his own interpretation.
well, they'll have no idea what it the film was about for David Lynch certainly if they haven't come close to his interpretation of all the ideas that went into the movie, I think he mentioned that only one essay writer came close but he didn't mention which. But he usually isn't going to be responsible for other people's interpretations, often he might say "interesting" when someone does say mention their own interpretation and he likes some aspect of it. As far as it goes, usually one can offer an interpretation but asking whether it has anything to do with his version of the movie is another thing, the answer will usually be no. I think he prefers the the idea of interpreting what it is for yourself and not what it means for David Lynch.
But with the last movie he made, Inland Empire, he basically gave almost no clues at all as to what it's about, didn't answer any questions in interviews as to what it's about and none of his actors mentioned anything either. And he managed to do that almost with Mulholland Drive, and he got very annoyed with Barry Gifford when Barry started giving out his own interpretation to the public in some detail about what Lost Highway is about for himself.
It doesn't matter that he isn't responsible for the interpretations of viewers. If they want to say that all of the characters were a certain way different than what he had intended, he has every right to say that the viewers are wrong. It's his film, not theirs.
After being in The Glass Menagerie, I had read a review of it by a critic who claimed that one of my costars played her role as "spacy". The instructions by Williams were for the character to be played in a manner that would imply being physically ill. The director, cast, and everyone else followed the writer's notes to the letter. The girl played the part brilliantly and convincingly. There was nothing "spacy" about her performance. He went on to point out other things that weren't there. He may have seen things, but that doesn't mean that they were there.
As for Inland Empire, it is one of the occasions where a director or screenwriter would deliberately leave things open to interpretation. But that isn't the rule with all films.
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 18, 2008, 01:02:52 PM
Yeah, it's called "propriety". But since you think that the audience is a higher authority than that the author (notice how "author" is part of "authority"?)
I never doubted what the authors meant (if it came across that way, I apologize), but it doesn't change how the viewers interpret. :) Ultimately, these movies are being made for the audience after all.
Quote
I want to thank you for agreeing with me and admitting that I am right. After all, you gave me license to interpret your work that way.
No problem. I do believe your view is correct in that it's in-line with the the creators intentions.
Quote from: Cellien on Jan 18, 2008, 03:37:57 PM
it doesn't change how the viewers interpret.
That's true. A person can see a tree as an automobile.
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 18, 2008, 03:46:05 PM
Quote from: Cellien on Jan 18, 2008, 03:37:57 PM
it doesn't change how the viewers interpret.
That's true. A person can see a tree as an automobile.
If it's dark outside and not very clear as to what it is, yes that's very possible.
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 18, 2008, 03:24:46 PM
It doesn't matter that he isn't responsible for the interpretations of viewers. If they want to say that all of the characters were a certain way different than what he had intended, he has every right to say that the viewers are wrong. It's his film, not theirs.
oh well, the way that David Lynch's mind works, if you found a book by someone who's died and found various things in it that you wanted to ask questions about, the writer isn't going to be able to tell you. I suppose he has every right to say that viewers are wrong about what he's thinking but that's about how far it goes, but there are a number of things in his movies to understand that not even he has caught up with. For instance, Lost Highway, David agrees that this was inspired somewhat by the OJ Simpson murder case, but although Bill Pullman caught onto this when by the time he was doing the interviews for the movie, it took David at least several years to catch up with this revelation about his own work and admit it. As it goes, his work is connected with the realms of the collective consciousness and he acknowledges that there is more going on in the ideas of his movie that he is personally aware of, and also his films often develop synchronistic connections with events and ideas outside of his film and he is aware of that. And we can take notice of the movie Eraserhead, he acknowledged that there he discovered more levels to this movie that he originally saw over the years following
I know that David Lynch does have a lot to say about the idea of a film being taken for what it is with nothing taken away and nothing added, and so the interviews and documentries don't add to the film to make the film what it is and I suppose the synchronicities don't add to the movie either.
However I stand as someone who wants documentaries and interview material to read and to know what was going on in the people's minds as the movie was being made, but that's my personal preferance
Quote from: Cellien on Jan 18, 2008, 03:53:16 PM
If it's dark outside and not very clear as to what it is, yes that's very possible.
I'm talking about under ideal conditions. Even with darkness and clouds, it's still a tree.
Friend of mind spoke with Lance Hendrikson not too long ago and during the conversation he asked Lance whether Bishop 2 was human or an andriod.
The answer was Android. That's the actor's interpretation of it right there.
but that is after he made avp no doubt
Quote from: Springer69 on Jan 23, 2008, 11:09:58 PM
Friend of mind spoke with Lance Hendrikson not too long ago and during the conversation he asked Lance whether Bishop 2 was human or an andriod.
The answer was Android. That's the actor's interpretation of it right there.
didn't he also say it was human before AvP?
Quote from: Eidotemit on Jan 23, 2008, 11:25:30 PM
didn't he also say it was human before AvP?
yes,
I wish that Lance Henriksen would talk more deeply about the confusion of the matter
all he'll say now is that Bishop II was an android. He wants to promote, or wanted to, AvP as he was in it, and as such would try to say that there aren't continuity errors. Even though him being a human in both creates none.
I suppose it was almost interesting for me to read him talking about how what Bishop II actually was at the end of Alien 3 was never actually a hundred percent spelt out but I wish that he continued to expand on that point of view, even if he did play the role as a human being , but I suppose he's not out to share intellectual points of view about the matter
Slightly of topic But if i remember In Alien 3 and AVP He wore the same kind of jacket.
Dude he wasn't either,he was a damn bird :P
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fracer.livecd.net%2Fworks%2Fbirdy.png&hash=0b7db7bc9acb0c3faafb1655e2d85282fe373355)
but na I think he was the ACTUAL bishop,f**k Paul Anderson's AVP,it messed up everything with the timeline and mythos.When Aaron hit Bishop in A3 he went down pretty quick,I don't think an android would have gone down that fast.And he seemed to have much more emotion than the bishop android,even his tone of voice was different.
Anderson didn't really mess anything up in this regard, its perfectly believable that they are both humans.
Quote from: Iron Hide on Jan 24, 2008, 03:40:42 PM
but na I think he was the ACTUAL bishop,f**k Paul Anderson's AVP,it messed up everything with the timeline and mythos.When Aaron hit Bishop in A3 he went down pretty quick,I don't think an android would have gone down that fast. And he seemed to have much more emotion than the bishop android,even his tone of voice was different.
if Cameron had made a sequel, would he have made Bishop II into an android as Henriksen claims, and if so, what would we make of that.
Also, could there be any demand in that era to make androids who seemed more real than real, in the way that replicants were being designed in the movie Bladerunner. If Bishop II was some kind of an android, then he acts as if he didn't know it himself, and from the information we have, there is no way to prove in the Alien 3 movie by itself that he was an android.
Anderson's Plot Twist: Wayland was actually taken from the temple before it exploded by an elder predator that was watching the training mission to make sure the Aliens didn't run loose and take over the planet. The elder took Wayland to their ship, revived him, and froze him for about a hundred years, then sent him back to earth just before alien3 took place...oh, and he somehow got alot younger thanks to the predator tech.
See people? Anderson fixed the whole continuacy thing, no more problems... ;D ;D ;D
Thats kind of hard to believe. ???
I think he was being facetious
Quote from: megachu17 on Jan 25, 2008, 12:18:45 AM
Anderson's Plot Twist: Wayland was actually taken from the temple before it exploded by an elder predator that was watching the training mission to make sure the Aliens didn't run loose and take over the planet. The elder took Wayland to their ship, revived him, and froze him for about a hundred years, then sent him back to earth just before alien3 took place...oh, and he somehow got alot younger thanks to the predator tech.
See people? Anderson fixed the whole continuacy thing, no more problems... ;D ;D ;D
*cocks shotgun*
Quote from: Iron Hide on Jan 25, 2008, 12:58:24 AM
Quote from: megachu17 on Jan 25, 2008, 12:18:45 AM
Anderson's Plot Twist: Wayland was actually taken from the temple before it exploded by an elder predator that was watching the training mission to make sure the Aliens didn't run loose and take over the planet. The elder took Wayland to their ship, revived him, and froze him for about a hundred years, then sent him back to earth just before alien3 took place...oh, and he somehow got alot younger thanks to the predator tech.
See people? Anderson fixed the whole continuacy thing, no more problems... ;D ;D ;D
*cocks shotgun*
Run megachu, run cause I sure as hell wont stop him from blowing you away ;)
Quote from: severen76 on Jan 25, 2008, 06:46:52 PM
Run megachu, run cause I sure as hell wont stop him from blowing you away ;)
I bet that Fox have hired Megachu to work as a doctor for the AVP3 script
after avp its no question that he is obviously an android in A3
there shouldn't even be a topic about this!
why should he obviously be an android?
I think Bishop is human.
If you watch where Aaron hits bishop with that wrench you can see bishop's ear hanging off..... it bleeds red blood.
Quote from: Iron Hide on Jan 31, 2008, 08:06:43 AM
If you watch where Aaron hits bishop with that wrench you can see bishop's ear hanging off..... it bleeds red blood.
Yes. He doesnt bleed milk, that alone must be one of the key factors as to why he's human.
And he shouts 'See im not an android!' or something along those lines.
Quote from: Alien3 on Jan 31, 2008, 12:48:38 PM
And he shouts 'See im not an android!' or something along those lines.
hmm,I don't remember that,and I've watched the movie five times in the past couple of days.
Clicky (http://www.dailymotion.com/branman887/video/4982524).
oh, but obviously it was, a special secret red-blood android sent by the company to trick Ripley into coming back, and it had to bleed red in case it was hit with a fire extinguisher.....'cause since AvP it has to be an android. ::)
Did you know that Hudson is also an android? 'Cause you know, he looks just like Jerry from Predator 2. ::)
Quote from: Eidotemit on Jan 31, 2008, 03:28:30 PM
Did you know that Hudson is also an android? 'Cause you know, he looks just like JErry from Predator 2.
I knew it that explains why he moans alot, he was malfunctioning. ;D
Quote from: Eidotemit on Jan 31, 2008, 03:28:30 PM
oh, but obviously it was, a special secret red-blood android sent by the company to trick Ripley into coming back, and it had to bleed red in case it was hit with a fire extinguisher.....'cause since AvP it has to be an android. ::)
Did you know that Hudson is also an android? 'Cause you know, he looks just like Jerry from Predator 2. ::)
Bishop 2 was obviously a time traveller popping into the Alien 3 movie to give David Fincher a clue or two about the movie The Game that he would make some years later
Quote from: Eidotemit on Jan 31, 2008, 06:16:58 AM
why should he obviously be an android?
because the Alien monster in that movie has to be a transformer that transforms from man form to quadruped, so there's got to be some odd reason for everything
Quote from: Eidotemit on Jan 31, 2008, 03:28:30 PM
Did you know that Hudson is also an android? 'Cause you know, he looks just like Jerry from Predator 2. ::)
While that's pretty funny, you can't really compare Paxton's characters from a Predator film to an Alien film. The link to Bishop and Weyland in AvP was obviously deliberate unlike Paxton's characters in Predator 2 and Aliens. Now if Paxton was in AvP.... :P
Quote from: Cellien on Jan 31, 2008, 04:18:53 PM
Now if Paxton was in AvP....
It would be sooooooooo cool ;D
Quote from: severen76 on Jan 31, 2008, 04:19:56 PM
Quote from: Cellien on Jan 31, 2008, 04:18:53 PM
Now if Paxton was in AvP....
It would be sooooooooo cool ;D
I think this forum would esssplode from people going nuts over continuity errors. :P
Quote from: Cellien on Jan 31, 2008, 04:18:53 PM
Quote from: Eidotemit on Jan 31, 2008, 03:28:30 PM
Did you know that Hudson is also an android? 'Cause you know, he looks just like Jerry from Predator 2. ::)
While that's pretty funny, you can't really compare Paxton's characters from a Predator film to an Alien film. The link to Bishop and Weyland in AvP was obviously deliberate unlike Paxton's characters in Predator 2 and Aliens. Now if Paxton was in AvP.... :P
I'm only really half kidding about that, because it does serve a good purpose in this argument. If AvP is considered canon, we've now fused the two franchises. Thus Jerry and Hudson, two identical people, now exist in the same universe. While this is coincidence and Bishop was deliberate, its really shouldn't be any more excusable.
Just because Charles Bishop Weyland was in AvP doesn't mean that Bishop II was an android. Bishop II showed pain, emotion, bled red. It is not impossible that two people would look so similar, especially if the were in the same blood-line.
Yeah, I just mean that it was obvious there was some sort of deliberate link to Bishop/Weyland Ind./Charles Weyland unlike Hudson/Jerry which was just a casting coincidence. :)
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 31, 2008, 03:24:48 PM
Clicky (http://www.dailymotion.com/branman887/video/4982524).
shit,forgot about the DC,I lost my copy,so I resorted to the original version.
and as far as that clip goes,it should be the ultimate answer to this whole thread.
In order for AVP to seriously count as canon in the Alien series, Bishop II has to be an android in Alien 3. I believe Paul Anderson and Lance Henriksen discuss this in the commentary. It's quite irriritating though, having to overlook or justify the events at the end of Alien 3 just because Anderson wanted the human Charles Bishop Weyland in his film. I'm not sure I can subscribe to the idea that Bishop II is a descendent of Charles Weyland and happens to be the spitting image of him.
I have to go with Bishop II being slightly modified (in 'blood' colour and reaction to pain etc) in order to convince Ripley he's human. You never know, if Ripley hadn't have died she might have requested a blood sample from him to prove he was not an android.
It might be worth noting that Call still has the white fluid 200 years later in Resurrection, so red blood obviously hasn't caught on as a standard advancement in android technology.
I vote for Bishop II as android.
That Bill Paxton scenario is a bit poo too. Strangely, though, I don't really think of them as the same person when I watch the films, despite the fact that he's a wise-cracking shabbut in both.
Quote from: wolfboy on Dec 12, 2006, 10:27:55 AM
He was a human. There would be no point in making the fake blood red. AvP just screwed up the time line.
he gets it why doesnt anyone else!!! y!
After alien3 do you think they knew there was going to be an AVP film? No.
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 01, 2008, 11:45:50 AM
In order for AVP to seriously count as canon in the Alien series, Bishop II has to be an android in Alien 3.
Why? Why can't there be two people living at two different times who look somewhat alike? Ever heard of reality? It happens there.
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 01, 2008, 11:45:50 AM
I believe Paul Anderson and Lance Henriksen discuss this in the commentary.
Not really. The only android that they discuss in the commentary to
AVP is the one from
Aliens. They don't even comment on the guy who arrives at the prison at the end of
Alien³. Anderson didn't work on
Alien³. Listen to the people on the commentary track to
Alien³.
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 01, 2008, 11:45:50 AM
It's quite irriritating though, having to overlook or justify the events at the end of Alien 3 just because Anderson wanted the human Charles Bishop Weyland in his film.
It is. That's why it makes sense to drawn on real life examples.
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 01, 2008, 11:45:50 AM
I'm not sure I can subscribe to the idea that Bishop II is a descendent of Charles Weyland and happens to be the spitting image of him.
Sorry if you've failed basic biology (and post reading). I had already explained that over generations people tend to either look like their ancestors and that there are look alikes. And, Chuck Weyland and Bishop's designer don't look
exactly alike.
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 01, 2008, 11:45:50 AM
I have to go with Bishop II being slightly modified (in 'blood' colour and reaction to pain etc) in order to convince Ripley he's human. You never know, if Ripley hadn't have died she might have requested a blood sample from him to prove he was not an android.
What's Ripley going to do? Drink his blood and make sure it isn't Kool-Aid? If he was a robot, for the sake of the narrative, they would have built up the revelation more by making it obvious that he was artificial (i.e. white blood, electronically distorted voice, less damage to head, etc.).
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 01, 2008, 11:45:50 AM
It might be worth noting that Call still has the white fluid 200 years later in Resurrection, so red blood obviously hasn't caught on as a standard advancement in android technology. I vote for Bishop II as android.
Funny. Using your logic,
one robot is pumped full of red liquid to fool a lowly ex-flight officer, but a series of androids which have been made illegally and need to keep their identities a secret do not have red blood in the off chance of getting nicked or "injured" in any other way? Yeah, that makes sense.
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 01, 2008, 11:45:50 AM
That Bill Paxton scenario is a bit poo too. Strangely, though, I don't really think of them as the same person when I watch the films, despite the fact that he's a wise-cracking shabbut in both.
They were making fun of the "Bishop II Is an Android" bit.
Oh dear me, I've been told off! You certainly showed me, well done you!!
It's a shame you felt the need to go on the attack in responding to my points, rather than just answering them. Were you bullied at school?
I don't disagree with you - there can certainly be two people living at two different times who look somewhat alike. It might be a little more of a stretch to have a look-alike to Charles Weyland in the future (even if he is a descedent) who is also a robotics expert, at the right age at the right time, with an extremely similar voice, ready to ship out with the Company to the prison planet to try and con Ripley. I think colour dye in the android 'blood' might be a little more likely, personally, in my very humble opinion, but that's just me speculating on science fiction. I was, after all, trying to decide for myself if I could accept 'Bishop II' as an android or as a human.
Toodle-pip old sport!!
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 01, 2008, 02:18:01 PM
Oh dear me, I've been told off!
Really? Who told you off?
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 01, 2008, 02:18:01 PM
You certainly showed me, well done you!!
I doubt it.
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 01, 2008, 02:18:01 PM
It's a shame you felt the need to go on the attack in responding to my points, rather than just answering them.
Sorry you felt defensive. I didn't attack you or your points.
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 01, 2008, 02:18:01 PM
Were you bullied at school?
Nope. Got along with everyone.
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 01, 2008, 02:18:01 PM
I don't disagree with you - there can certainly be two people living at two different times who look somewhat alike.
Since you said that you "couldn't subscribe" to that notion, that would be a disagreement.
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 01, 2008, 02:18:01 PM
It might be a little more of a stretch to have a look-alike to Charles Weyland in the future
They didn't look
that much alike.
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 01, 2008, 02:18:01 PM
(even if he is a descedent) who is also a robotics expert
It would be no different than Henry Ford having his descendants working in the automotive industry.
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 01, 2008, 02:18:01 PM
at the right age at the right time
I'd say that there was about 10 to 20 years difference in their appearance.
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 01, 2008, 02:18:01 PM
with an extremely similar voice
I have the same gravelly voice that my father had.
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 01, 2008, 02:18:01 PM
ready to ship out with the Company to the prison planet to try and con Ripley.
Give or take a couple of days. The prison could have been a few days' travel from Earth. The Company could have easily put Bishop's designer onboard a ship within hours.
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 01, 2008, 02:18:01 PM
I think colour dye in the android 'blood' might be a little more likely, personally
The simplest explanation is not always the best.
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 01, 2008, 02:18:01 PM
I was, after all, trying to decide for myself if I could accept 'Bishop II' as an android or as a human.
No, you had your mind made up as you decided to "vote for Bishop II as android."
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 01, 2008, 02:18:01 PM
Toodle-pip old sport!!
Apologies for the aggro, dear boy. Cheerio!
Quote from: maledoro on Feb 01, 2008, 01:05:05 PM
Ever heard of reality? It happens there.
That was my favorite part of the whole post. :D
I do want to contest on thing, and thats where you said the simplest answer isn't always the best, which is true (though, from what I've seen it usually is, but not always); however Bishop being human is the simplest answer. Its biologically common, makes sense, disrupts neither canon in either way, seems fairly simple, especially when compared to some elaborate redesign of an android to fool Ripley in case she wanted a blood sample, or injured it or whatever. Bishop being an android is an unnecessarily complex answer.
Quote from: Attack.no1 on Feb 01, 2008, 11:57:42 AM
Quote from: wolfboy on Dec 12, 2006, 10:27:55 AM
He was a human. There would be no point in making the fake blood red. AvP just screwed up the time line.
he gets it why doesnt anyone else!!! y!
After alien3 do you think they knew there was going to be an AVP film? No.
well, the special effects team for Alien 3 obviously found a point for making the fake blood red, for the sake of the cinematic illusion we were being presented. Actually the only way I would have been 100% convinced that Bishop 2 wasn't synthetic was for the actor playing the role to actually be physically injured and to bleed his own blood
How would that make it any more believable? Are all people 'injured' in the movies assumed to be synthetic if they do not actually bleed themselves?
Bishop got smacked in the head in alien3, he had blood on him, red blood, not milk, he had a piece of his flesh hanging off, in the comintarty, lance even says they did that(the flesh hanging off) so the audiance would KNOW that he was a person, not a synthetic, maybe wayland was cloned, or maybe his desendnt looks a WHOLE lot lik him, i dont no, but bishop in alien3 WAS human.
I have thought about this, and I think that the simplest conclusion is probably that maybe the Bishop from AVP had his DNA stored until there was a time when his cancer could be cured? (Allegedly Walt Disney froze himself and now lives under Magic Mountain so who knows? lol.)
Plus it would kind of fit the whole WY company ethics, ie he is that megalomaniacal that he wants to control the company forever by way of constantly cloning himself? Obviously just pure speculation on my part though.
BTW lovin the "comintarty" bit ^ lol
This topic is seriously still going on? Bishop in alien 3 was a human- FACT
Yeah, I can't believe it either. It shouldn't even be an issue. Just because he is in AVP does not in any way indicate that he would have to be an android in Alien 3. It is biologically plausible that people of the same family line would look like each other (not mention that not only is it not rare, it is probable that it will occur at some point)
Bishop II bled red blood, showed emotion and pain when he was hit, skin peeled off (compare this to Ash's beating with a fire extinguisher). They are both human, and there doesn't even have to be any cloning, or frozen DNA or whatever for this to be possible. Like I said, it is not only genetically plausible that people of the same family line would look like each other, its actually pretty likely that it would happen at some point.
Quote from: Harkus on Feb 01, 2008, 09:09:44 PM
This topic is seriously still going on? Bishop in alien 3 was a human- FACT
lol some people just like to argue for the sake of arguing
We wouldnt have to argue If everyone just agreed he was human :)
I think that some people want things too simple. On the other hand, I found that there are things in my day to day reality too complicated to explain in a simple way
Quote from: Eidotemit on Feb 01, 2008, 05:35:12 PM
I do want to contest on thing, and thats where you said the simplest answer isn't always the best, which is true (though, from what I've seen it usually is, but not always); however Bishop being human is the simplest answer.
Here's the thing: for some of those, being an android is the simplest explanation. The pro-android crowd do not understand head injuries. They do not observe basic biological concepts.
Quote from: Eidotemit on Feb 01, 2008, 05:35:12 PM
Its biologically common, makes sense, disrupts neither canon in either way, seems fairly simple, especially when compared to some elaborate redesign of an android to fool Ripley in case she wanted a blood sample, or injured it or whatever. Bishop being an android is an unnecessarily complex answer.
For us, yes. But, when Anderson was (indirectly) confronted about this, he wasn't going to launch into a lesson on biology (which most of his fans had slept through ever since they were twelve years old). He just gave a quicker answer: "Well, uh, the other guy is a robot."
I'm not sure if anyone else has made this point since i haven't read every page (it would take me all day) but isn't Bill paxton in Predator 2? Why is no-one saying that he is an android in aliens because he looks the same as in predator 2? The red blood and the fact he felt the pain of being hit (unlike ash who hardly flinched) should be enough to convince people that Bishop is a human in alien 3
Exactly. I just look at it as one actor playing two different characters.
Thats been addressed, it's just coincidental.
Quote from: Cellien on Jan 31, 2008, 05:07:51 PM
..it was obvious there was some sort of deliberate link to Bishop/Weyland Ind./Charles Weyland unlike Hudson/Jerry which was just a casting coincidence. :)
The evidence proves that bishop was human in alien 3
What a bunch of mad scientists you are, and what a tax return form from 1996 I'm not.
Alien 3 was made with 'Bishop II' intended to be the human engineer who designed the Bishop android (in his own likeness, to boot).
Dear old Mr Anderson was clearly more excited about the larger 'continuity' of having Charles 'Bishop' Weyland as the father of modern robotics (and hence having the Bishop androids modelled on him by future robot designers) and tying it more closely to Aliens (and enabling him to have Mr Henriksen in his film), but destroying the continuity with the end of Alien 3.
Obviously this means that us fans are left scrabbling for some sort of resolution to a little continuity problem that, quite frankly, has no simple resolution.
I'm very much a fan of all those fine folk who find this business of "basic biology" and reality a more satisfactory answer to the problem posed in a series of science fiction films. Personally I chose the 'Bishop II as android' route because I didn't feel that stretching the unlikely (though possible) look-alike scenario to fit the situation was really unsatisfactory to me. I wouldn't really say that it's an over-complicated route to take. I never stated categorically that Ripley would ask for a blood test from 'Bishop II' (hence "You never know", and "might" thrown into the sentence), I was just tossing about possible reasons why they might stick some red dye in his blood. Ripley didn't believe he was human, after all. If she had survived it's doubtful she'd have trusted his word. I've actually asked Weyland-Yutani to fax me written confirmation regarding the biologial nature, or otherwise, of 'Bishop II'. I didn't know how to get in touch with them directly so I sent my request to the BBC World Service instead, I expect they'll pass it on. I'll let you know the results.
Kind regards,
Bishop III (human with android legs and real feet)
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 04, 2008, 12:44:18 PM
What a bunch of mad scientists you are, and what a tax return form from 1996 I'm not.
Alien 3 was made with 'Bishop II' intended to be the human engineer who designed the Bishop android (in his own likeness, to boot).
Dear old Mr Anderson was clearly more excited about the larger 'continuity' of having Charles 'Bishop' Weyland as the father of modern robotics (and hence having the Bishop androids modelled on him by future robot designers) and tying it more closely to Aliens (and enabling him to have Mr Henriksen in his film), but destroying the continuity with the end of Alien 3.
Obviously this means that us fans are left scrabbling for some sort of resolution to a little continuity problem that, quite frankly, has no simple resolution.
I'm very much a fan of all those fine folk who find this business of "basic biology" and reality a more satisfactory answer to the problem posed in a series of science fiction films. Personally I chose the 'Bishop II as android' route because I didn't feel that stretching the unlikely (though possible) look-alike scenario to fit the situation was really unsatisfactory to me. I wouldn't really say that it's an over-complicated route to take. I never stated categorically that Ripley would ask for a blood test from 'Bishop II' (hence "You never know", and "might" thrown into the sentence), I was just tossing about possible reasons why they might stick some red dye in his blood. Ripley didn't believe he was human, after all. If she had survived it's doubtful she'd have trusted his word. I've actually asked Weyland-Yutani to fax me written confirmation regarding the biologial nature, or otherwise, of 'Bishop II'. I didn't know how to get in touch with them directly so I sent my request to the BBC World Service instead, I expect they'll pass it on. I'll let you know the results.
Kind regards,
Bishop III (human with android legs and real feet)
you poor lost soul :'(
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 04, 2008, 12:44:18 PM
What a bunch of mad scientists you are, and what a tax return form from 1996 I'm not.
Thank you for complimenting us with the "mad scientist" label, and for the puzzling "non-label" for yourself.
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 04, 2008, 12:44:18 PM
Alien 3 was made with 'Bishop II' intended to be the human engineer who designed the Bishop android (in his own likeness, to boot).
Yep.
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 04, 2008, 12:44:18 PM
Dear old Mr Anderson was clearly more excited about the larger 'continuity' of having Charles 'Bishop' Weyland as the father of modern robotics (and hence having the Bishop androids modelled on him by future robot designers) and tying it more closely to Aliens (and enabling him to have Mr Henriksen in his film), but destroying the continuity with the end of Alien 3.
But, with a little common sense, one can see that the continuity isn't destroyed.
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 04, 2008, 12:44:18 PM
Obviously this means that us fans are left scrabbling for some sort of resolution to a little continuity problem that, quite frankly, has no simple resolution.
Maybe
you fans, but
we fans don't have to scrabble for any resolution to a continuity problem. There is already a solution: two different guys. I think you & I had already discussed this.
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 04, 2008, 12:44:18 PM
I'm very much a fan of all those fine folk who find this business of "basic biology" and reality a more satisfactory answer to the problem posed in a series of science fiction films.
Thank goodness for realism!
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 04, 2008, 12:44:18 PM
Personally I chose the 'Bishop II as android' route because I didn't feel that stretching the unlikely (though possible) look-alike scenario to fit the situation was really unsatisfactory to me.
So, you took an alternative not based on realism.
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 04, 2008, 12:44:18 PM
I wouldn't really say that it's an over-complicated route to take.
What did I tell you,
Eidotemit?! What did I tell you?!
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 04, 2008, 12:44:18 PM
I never stated categorically that Ripley would ask for a blood test from 'Bishop II' (hence "You never know", and "might" thrown into the sentence), I was just tossing about possible reasons why they might stick some red dye in his blood.
And I had just tossed around a reason why it would be implausible.
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 04, 2008, 12:44:18 PM
Ripley didn't believe he was human, after all.
At first. Now, if he was indeed an android, he might as well have either stopped Ripley from cutting him off with the gate or used his android strength to open it. (Thanks to
SM for pointing this out a while back.)
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 04, 2008, 12:44:18 PM
If she had survived it's doubtful she'd have trusted his word.
Based on?
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 04, 2008, 12:44:18 PM
I've actually asked Weyland-Yutani to fax me written confirmation regarding the biologial nature, or otherwise, of 'Bishop II'. I didn't know how to get in touch with them directly so I sent my request to the BBC World Service instead, I expect they'll pass it on. I'll let you know the results.
Well,
uh, good luck with that...
Quote from: Harkus on Feb 02, 2008, 05:32:14 PM
The red blood and the fact he felt the pain of being hit (unlike ash who hardly flinched) should be enough to convince people that Bishop is a human in alien 3
based on that little arguement, comparing Bishop 2 to Ash who was built about fifty years before this incident, I wouldn't make the comparison unless it turns out that there was a good reason why for the last fifty years, they stopped developing their android technology
What i was saying was that if ash couldn't feel much pain then an android made over 50 years later should be more advanced and not weaker.
Quote from: Harkus on Feb 04, 2008, 06:42:56 PM
What i was saying was that if ash couldn't feel much pain then an android made over 50 years later should be more advanced and not weaker.
But surely they would want androids to appear more human
yes but that doesn't mean that they should lose their strength. Plus look at call she had white 'blood'
Quote from: Harkus on Feb 04, 2008, 06:42:56 PM
What i was saying was that if ash couldn't feel much pain then an android made over 50 years later should be more advanced and not weaker.
well, okay, if it's down to Ash having the ability to feel pain or not, and not behaving like a human when he feels the need to defend himself, and we can look a modern version fifty years later that even when ripped in half can operate itself enough to save a girl from death. Since Bishop is able to deal with that amount of damage and continue to work beyond any notion of a super-human capacity, then this Bishop 2 entity if he is an android, certainly wasn't built to display any such strength in any situation given, but shows resilience never the less, that would be by many people be seen to be within a normal human's abiltiies.
Quote from: Harkus on Feb 04, 2008, 06:58:40 PM
Plus look at call she had white 'blood'
it beats me why they kept that idea going, but then if you're going to come out and claim that Bishop 2 must be human because Call in Alien Resurrection had white blood. Based on the Alien 3 film and what came before it rather than what unknowingly would come after it, I'd say that they stuck that white blood thing in just to satisfy all the people who think "oh androids must have white blood all the time! Yes, indeed, even two hundred years later"
Well, I suppose other than having the ability to breathe underwater and recover from gunshot damage, looking at her ability to punch someone, I don't think that Call must have been built with strength in mind apart from resilience
Quote from: severen76 on Feb 04, 2008, 06:47:57 PM
But surely they would want androids to appear more human
I could see that some developers might want to do this to create a synthetic human rather than a human shaped machine
Quote from: maledoro on Feb 04, 2008, 05:09:45 PM
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 04, 2008, 12:44:18 PM
What a bunch of mad scientists you are, and what a tax return form from 1996 I'm not.
Thank you for complimenting us with the "mad scientist" label, and for the puzzling "non-label" for yourself.
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 04, 2008, 12:44:18 PM
Alien 3 was made with 'Bishop II' intended to be the human engineer who designed the Bishop android (in his own likeness, to boot).
Yep.
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 04, 2008, 12:44:18 PM
Dear old Mr Anderson was clearly more excited about the larger 'continuity' of having Charles 'Bishop' Weyland as the father of modern robotics (and hence having the Bishop androids modelled on him by future robot designers) and tying it more closely to Aliens (and enabling him to have Mr Henriksen in his film), but destroying the continuity with the end of Alien 3.
But, with a little common sense, one can see that the continuity isn't destroyed.
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 04, 2008, 12:44:18 PM
Obviously this means that us fans are left scrabbling for some sort of resolution to a little continuity problem that, quite frankly, has no simple resolution.
Maybe you fans, but we fans don't have to scrabble for any resolution to a continuity problem. There is already a solution: two different guys. I think you & I had already discussed this.
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 04, 2008, 12:44:18 PM
I'm very much a fan of all those fine folk who find this business of "basic biology" and reality a more satisfactory answer to the problem posed in a series of science fiction films.
Thank goodness for realism!
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 04, 2008, 12:44:18 PM
Personally I chose the 'Bishop II as android' route because I didn't feel that stretching the unlikely (though possible) look-alike scenario to fit the situation was really unsatisfactory to me.
So, you took an alternative not based on realism.
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 04, 2008, 12:44:18 PM
I wouldn't really say that it's an over-complicated route to take.
What did I tell you, Eidotemit?! What did I tell you?!
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 04, 2008, 12:44:18 PM
I never stated categorically that Ripley would ask for a blood test from 'Bishop II' (hence "You never know", and "might" thrown into the sentence), I was just tossing about possible reasons why they might stick some red dye in his blood.
And I had just tossed around a reason why it would be implausible.
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 04, 2008, 12:44:18 PM
Ripley didn't believe he was human, after all.
At first. Now, if he was indeed an android, he might as well have either stopped Ripley from cutting him off with the gate or used his android strength to open it. (Thanks to SM for pointing this out a while back.)
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 04, 2008, 12:44:18 PM
If she had survived it's doubtful she'd have trusted his word.
Based on?
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 04, 2008, 12:44:18 PM
I've actually asked Weyland-Yutani to fax me written confirmation regarding the biologial nature, or otherwise, of 'Bishop II'. I didn't know how to get in touch with them directly so I sent my request to the BBC World Service instead, I expect they'll pass it on. I'll let you know the results.
Well, uh, good luck with that...
Ah, here he/she is again, the stomach of the forum, rejecting my little morsel and sending it back whence it came to be vomited back into the ruddy face of it's humble chef. If Mother sees another homework essay returned to me, dissected line by line, covered in red ink from Teacher's cruel pen, then she'll have me locked in the shed again scrubbing Grandad's dirty sheets with a nail brush.
Hallucinations and hysteria are more reality-based than extra-terrestrial hunters with cloaking devices, so I think a more reasonable explanation for the events of 'Predator's is that it was all an experiment a' la Jacob's Ladder, and we are merely seeing the hallucinations of the soldiers through their own eyes as they slay each other in the jungle, the victims of a goverment experiment gone wrong. Hallucinations are, after all, a fact of biology. I didn't win the 'Best Person' award three years running you know.
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 04, 2008, 08:01:07 PM
Ah, here he/she is again, the stomach of the forum, rejecting my little morsel and sending it back whence it came to be vomited back into the ruddy face of it's humble chef.
Funny how dissent works.
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 04, 2008, 08:01:07 PM
If Mother sees another homework essay returned to me, dissected line by line, covered in red ink from Teacher's cruel pen, then she'll have me locked in the shed again scrubbing Grandad's dirty sheets with a nail brush.
Here's to hoping!
And I really hope they make a prequel to Alien where the space jockeys act human enough that we understand what's going on.
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 04, 2008, 08:30:58 PM
And I really hope they make a prequel to Alien where the space jockeys act human enough that we understand what's going on.
That's nice. Perhaps that statement might be better suited on a related (and existing) thread?
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FForums%2Fofftopic.gif&hash=a9a3b009b3734e9ecc3b99b7f1fa45c5d02002d3)
Hes human - the end.
Quote from: maledoro on Feb 04, 2008, 05:09:45 PM
What did I tell you, Eidotemit?! What did I tell you?!
I...I'm just at a loss. I don't get it. No matter how many times, you, or I (or anyone) explain it....it doesn't stick.
Quote from: maledoro on Feb 04, 2008, 08:41:31 PM
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 04, 2008, 08:30:58 PM
And I really hope they make a prequel to Alien where the space jockeys act human enough that we understand what's going on.
That's nice. Perhaps that statement might be better suited on a related (and existing) thread?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v338/maledoro/Forums/offtopic.gif
I know, I was just answering your hope with a jovial hope of my own, in relation to a comment you made on a different thread. You'd better bring in the lawbringers to deal swift justice to me, and cut my hair to boot!
Quote from: Eidotemit on Feb 04, 2008, 11:03:04 PM
Quote from: maledoro on Feb 04, 2008, 05:09:45 PM
What did I tell you, Eidotemit?! What did I tell you?!
I...I'm just at a loss. I don't get it. No matter how many times, you, or I (or anyone) explain it....it doesn't stick.
I think the human/android debate is almost a moot point on this thread now. The reason the thread exists is because of a plothole. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that everyone agrees it's a plothole.
If it wasn't a plothole there would be no room for debate. People can therefore post their arguments but no-one here is really in a position to state, categorically, "THIS IS THE ANSWER", unless the question happens to be such a black-and-white issue as Who Played Ripley in Aliens? (Who was it, by the way? Was it Liz Taylor?). What folk are doing here is stating the explanation that they think fits best.
Therefore you can't make something "stick", because it's open to interpretation, it's not fact. Writing an essay about this subject doesn't make it any more 'true'. Nor would publishing a scientific paper on head injuries, or making a television program about real-life look-alikes. It's just weight for one argument.
So please continue to express your exhasperation at a poor, lowly dimwit like me who just doesn't get it, but also acknowledge that you are not the authority on what is, or is not, correct in the Alien canon regarding a topic that is a PLOTHOLE.
If I had a pint of hot, stinking, yellow wee for every person who claimed.
Kind regards,
Festoon
First, don't double post.
Second, what Mal, and I and several others have been trying to show is that it is
not a plot hole.
Quote from: Eidotemit
Just because he is in AVP does not in any way indicate that he would have to be an android in Alien 3. It is biologically plausible that people of the same family line would look like each other (not mention that not only is it not rare, it is probable that it will occur at some point)
Bishop II bled red blood, showed emotion and pain when he was hit, skin peeled off (compare this to Ash's beating with a fire extinguisher). They are both human, and there doesn't even have to be any cloning, or frozen DNA or whatever for this to be possible. Like I said, it is not only genetically plausible that people of the same family line would look like each other, its actually pretty likely that it would happen at some point.
There is no plothole.
why can't we all say that they just cloned him like they did Ripley? he was clearly human, so why not a clone?
other than that this thread is doing nothing except getting bigger with no conclusion.
Quote from: Master Ravager on Feb 05, 2008, 05:49:46 PM
why can't we all say that they just cloned him like they did Ripley? he was clearly human, so why not a clone?
other than that this thread is doing nothing except getting bigger with no conclusion.
well, I'm sticking to an idea that he's really a cyborg and if he was in a sequel, people would be asking themselves if he's more machine than human or more human than machine, and that's probably because of ADI's dodgy prosthetics., otherwise there's no further mystery about him for me. Well actually this sounds a bit like the Ripley clone and we're asking if she's more alien than human or more human than alien and quite honestly that curiosity didn't interest me that much
And now that AVP's film made him into someone with the face of Charles Weyland, I'm going with the clone idea and maybe because the clone had some trouble being grown, cybernetics were necessary to keep him functioning well.
I think though that if someone else can find an answer more satisfying to me than the one I have for myself, I'll be intrigued to see it when it comes. I'd rather that than force everyone to agree on one thing or another the day after tomorrow
Quotehe was clearly human, so why not a clone?
Because he's not a clone.
I really don't understand why people want this to be so complex like him being a clone, or an altered android. The simplest answer is he is human. It creates no plot hole, its biologically plausible and makes perfect sense.
Quote from: Master Ravager on Feb 05, 2008, 05:49:46 PM
he was clearly human, so why not a clone?
In addition to the reasons I gave in my essay, by using your logic why must assume that everyone who is "clearly human" is a clone?
Quote from: Eidotemit on Feb 05, 2008, 10:59:44 PM
I really don't understand why people want this to be so complex like him being a clone, or an altered android. The simplest answer is he is human. It creates no plot hole, its biologically plausible and makes perfect sense.
Because a normal human just isn't "kewl".
Quote from: Eidotemit on Feb 05, 2008, 10:59:44 PM
I really don't understand why people want this to be so complex like him being a clone, or an altered android. The simplest answer is he is human. It creates no plot hole, its biologically plausible and makes perfect sense.
I suppose they (including me) want to make him into a character that's part of the science fictional confusion where so far in the movie very little has been explainable in a simple way
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 11, 2007, 10:43:19 AM
Henriksen is simply whoring for Fox and for Anderson. He doesn't care about the series; just his paycheck. Since AVP was his latest movie in the series, he reversed himself just so that the plothole would "make sense".
"...plothole..."
Quote from: Beldy on Feb 06, 2008, 09:50:48 AM
"...plothole..."
Oh, I'm sorry: "Anderson's f**k-up." Happy?
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FConfused%2520and%2520Stoopid%2F5d87fbd9.gif&hash=f4dc5784147df6a04278e71470cb00cf8458b656)
here's an image of Henriksen as Bishop 2 with his dodgy looking ear injury prosthetics
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhomepage.mac.com%2Fwmmvrrvrrmm%2Fbishop2.jpg&hash=eca065e6c7ad49b85a3468496945e265af62d050)
Which is a behind-the-scenes makeup test shot. He never had that expression in the film itself; he was too busy yelling and crying out with pain.
Here's an "equally valid" robot pic:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FAVP%2FPic1239.gif&hash=839bc006aa5d230d4d6efb3b5d5c4d984f21994c)
I always thought that Bishop II is android too... Serial production of this model...
but with him were scientists and squad of special troopers... maybe they were androids too?.. 0.o conspiracy of androids? :o
I can't speak for the people he came with, but Bishop II was human.
what we see as Bishop II is an actor with dodgy prosthetics on
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Feb 21, 2008, 09:37:15 PM
Bishop II was an actor with dodgy prosthetics on
Like Cher ;D
Quote from: severen76 on Feb 21, 2008, 09:38:51 PM
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Feb 21, 2008, 09:37:15 PM
Bishop II was an actor with dodgy prosthetics on
Like Cher ;D
this must be so
Quote from: maledoro on Feb 21, 2008, 12:31:21 PM
Which is a behind-the-scenes makeup test shot. He never had that expression in the film itself; he was too busy yelling and crying out with pain.
well, whatever it represents for people, it certainly wasn't from a shot used in the final film. I imagine though that it was taken on the set, and there are brief moments when he does have his mouth shut, but not seen from this angle. But one thing to say about it is that it shows the special effects used for the injury that the character has, you can see it on the DVD from numerous angles but none of the still frames from the DVD on my TV are as good as this photo image really in my opinion,
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Feb 21, 2008, 09:40:36 PM
I imagine though that it was taken on the set, and there are brief moments when he does have his mouth shut
Amidst the stifled cries of pain.
Back a way long time ago, I used to discuss the Alien trilogy (as it was back then) with some of the guys I used to work with. We had a number of discussions about whether Bishop II was an android or a human. IIRC, we normally agreed that it was an android. I always figured that Bishop II was an android. It just makes more sense to me than it being a human.
This was years before DVD (and laser discs were only in the hands of the wealthy--which my family certainly was not) and before many movies had things like "Director's Cuts" or documentaries about them, and commentaries were simply unthought of. You took what the tape offered, compared that with what you got off HBO or regular TV if it went over the air, and maybe added on an article from a magazine or one of early BBS systems.
I remember watching the (admittedly battered) VHS tape several times to try and figure it out. Some of the wear on the tape made the poor prosthetic look even worse (and gave the flap behind the ear an odd glint) and the way that Bishop II reacts just does not have the verisimilitude needed for it to be a human. Yes, believe it or not, I am fully aware (being from farm country and having family work on the railroad and in factories) of the types of damage that a human being can walk away from seemingly unphased or only mildly bothered. But when I stacked up the evidence, it pointed to Bishop being an android.
And then I'd start to think about things like: "A guy who designs not mere robots but androids is probably a pretty valuable commodity," "A guy who designs androids is probably pretty smart--maybe even moreso than the typical rocket scientist" and "A guy who designs androids is probably not accustomed to getting his head smashed in by a huge wrench." Those kind of thoughts also put me in the "Android" camp.
The Xenomorph might be a valuable addition to the company's assets, but it's also a huge investment...Sending an android makes better financial sense than sending one of the people who are designing the androids--one is an asset, the other makes assets. Sending an android makes more sense for the designer as well because Xenomorph activity led to the destruction of both the Nostromo and the colony on LV-426, so it seems almost painfully obvious that there will be severe losses in any unit (if not the whole unit) sent to obtain it and androids would be better suited to capturing/subduing it through their superior reflexes, speed and strength. And then there's the whole getting one's head caved in by a giant wrench bit. I hit my head getting into a car once...I'm a big guy (6' and at the time about 200 lbs) who isn't known for being a wimp...I cried it stung so badly. To see a guy take a shot like that and get right back up without a sign of stress in his voice (and little more than a "whunh!" when hit) and not much in the line of noticable blood (although that could be explained by advanced medical tech sealing the wound quickly, a sensible precaution for a smart and valuable individual) who is still very rational and seemingly unconcerned that his ear is barely still attached to his head--well that doesn't say human to me, either. Especially not after you consider the rest of the evidence and theory.
It also would not have surprised me if "special" androids had been designed to represent important figures (company presidents, political heads, etc.) or if the Asimov laws had been "left off" certain models. That just seems like logical extrapolation to me. So that's another point for "Android."
I also feel that Bishop II being an android adds another level of menace when dealing with the company. IMO, it fits better atmospherically and does a better job of inhumanizing the company and creating a sense of unease.
The points for human, so far, are A) Bishop II claims to be human--but he/it is from the company and anything it/he says is automatically suspct and B) a human could take a shot like that and still keep going.
Two points (one of which is at best unreliable) for Bishop II being a human and five for android (three and a half plus the addition of another conjectured point and a half).
But what about AvP? OK, what about it? Two people from the same family line can very easily look eerily similar to each other. Heck, two people from different families can look eerily similar...So even if Bishop II is human and isn't part of the same family it's still possible that he would have had an uncanny resemblance to someone living a few hundred years ago. I can accept that as easily as I could accept saying that the Bishop android was designed to look like an important figure in company history. AvP brings nothing (one way or another) to the issue at hand.
But Bishop II does thrash around and does bleed! Not in the version I have, and any fluids leaking could easily be colored to resemble blood if one wanted an android to pass as human. So, again, this adds nothing to either side.
But a human could take a shot like that! And a human could be KOed or even killed by it, too. And while a human might have survived, Androids in Alien and Aliens have survived more dramatic injuries with little in the line of ill effects.
But so-and-so says that he's supposed to be human! That's nice. Movies and their events are interpreted by not only those who made them, but also by those who watch them. Just because the intent was to do "X" or "Y" does not mean that the audience will not come away with "X" and "Z" instead.
YMMV.
Now, having gone through all that, if I'd seen what seems to be included in the Director's Cut (Bishop bleeding and flailing about and even screaming at Ripley as she dared take away his prize), I would have said "human" without thinking twice. But I haven't, and so can't.
Pinky, most of what you had written was already answered. Proper debate procedure is to answer your opponent's points, not reassert the original points that he had responded to.
Now, you did respond to some points I had, but you didn't provide any evidence that disqualified them. If anything, you had to change a few things in order for your argument to work, such as distorting facts. For instance, his head injury wasn't as severe as you said it was. You said that his head was caved in when it wasn't:
Quote from: Pinky Narfanek on Feb 23, 2008, 10:10:39 AM
And then there's the whole getting one's head caved in by a giant wrench bit.
You also said that there was little blood and reaction to his injury, where he did bleed out and cried out:
Quote from: Pinky Narfanek on Feb 23, 2008, 10:10:39 AM
To see a guy take a shot like that and get right back up without a sign of stress in his voice (and little more than a "whunh!" when hit) and not much in the line of noticable blood (although that could be explained by advanced medical tech sealing the wound quickly
(Of course, I had already linked a spiffy article about hematomas and how they affect blood flow.)
Lastly, you made the error of discrediting those who had worked on a film:
Quote from: Pinky Narfanek on Feb 23, 2008, 10:10:39 AM
But so-and-so says that he's supposed to be human! That's nice. Movies and their events are interpreted by not only those who made them, but also by those who watch them. Just because the intent was to do "X" or "Y" does not mean that the audience will not come away with "X" and "Z" instead.
As much as it pains you to read this, the film makers have the final word. If two guys were arguing over something in
Aliens and in walked James Cameron, he would be the one who'd decide which one of those two guys is correct. Yes, I know that it's cool to defy authority (and quack pseudo-scientists like to attack peer-reviewed scientists in order to further their agenda), but the film makers are the tie-breakers, referees, judges, etc., who know more about their films than anybody and whom one must turn to when it comes to off-screen info. (Despite this reality check, you are not in any danger of losing your free-thinking priveleges.)
Quote from: Pinky Narfanek on Feb 23, 2008, 10:10:39 AM
I remember watching the (admittedly battered) VHS tape several times to try and figure it out. Some of the wear on the tape made the poor prosthetic look even worse (and gave the flap behind the ear an odd glint) and the way that Bishop II reacts just does not have the verisimilitude needed for it to be a human. Yes, believe it or not, I am fully aware (being from farm country and having family work on the railroad and in factories) of the types of damage that a human being can walk away from seemingly unphased or only mildly bothered. But when I stacked up the evidence, it pointed to Bishop being an android.
I'm wondering about this "wrench" or whatever it was that was used to hit Bishop. It has these two semi-circular planes of metal sticking out of the top of this tool which I think must have caused the injury rather than it be just a basic bludgeoning injury, (and ignoring the oddity of the injury of Bishop 2's in light of ADI's troubles making anything these days that looks that good on screen.) If we look at the idea that the character had the back of the flesh behind the ear sliced into (and well from the side shots in the extended version, it shows the extent of the rip behind the ear) , do you think that such an injury could be ignored by the injured person until he realises the full extent of what has happened to him?
Maledoro: Please do not reply to any post I make ever again--I, of course, cannot stop you from doing so, but I can assure you that I will not read it.
I am not entering into a debate with you (or anyone else) about anything. I am merely stating, as you graciously concede me the right to do so, my opinion as to why Bishop II would be an android and not a human. I am not going to change my mind (at least not until such time as I own, or otherwise have access to, the Quadrilogy and am able to watch that version) and you will not change yours.
Good-bye. I'm sorry to have met you and bothered you with my opinion about a movie two decades old. With a bit of luck, both our lives will be more enjoyable when we don't meet again.
wmmvrrvrrmm:
QuoteIf we look at the idea that the character had the back of the flesh behind the ear sliced into (and well from the side shots in the extended version, it shows the extent of the rip behind the ear) , do you think that such an injury could be ignored by the injured person until he realises the full extent of what has happened to him?
I think that's a very good point. If it's a slice, I can accept more of a delay in reaction (and would expect less pain) than a blunt force injury (even if I think it would be rather silly to continue to let one's ear flop around).
Not long ago I nearly sliced a 1/2"x3/8" section of the tip of my finger off on a vent in my house and it took several seconds before the blood really started to flow and before the throbbing set in. When compared to the (similarly sized) chunk of skin I ripped off of a knuckle on the trunk of someone's car, I'd say that the delay was about twice as long for the slice versus the delay on the gouge.
Quote from: Pinky Narfanek on Feb 24, 2008, 01:26:47 AM
Maledoro: Please do not reply to any post I make ever again--I, of course, cannot stop you from doing so, but I can assure you that I will not read it.
So, you think it's fair that you are the only person to post a view?
Quote from: Pinky Narfanek on Feb 24, 2008, 01:26:47 AM
I am not entering into a debate with you (or anyone else) about anything.
Nevermind that you took some points that I had made and had used them as points to counter (with points that were previously countered by those points I had made). That smacks of debate.
Quote from: Pinky Narfanek on Feb 24, 2008, 01:26:47 AM
I am merely stating, as you graciously concede me the right to do so, my opinion as to why Bishop II would be an android and not a human. I am not going to change my mind (at least not until such time as I own, or otherwise have access to, the Quadrilogy and am able to watch that version) and you will not change yours.
That's okay. If you choose to believe what you do, feel free.
Quote from: Pinky Narfanek on Feb 24, 2008, 01:26:47 AM
Good-bye. I'm sorry to have met you and bothered you with my opinion about a movie two decades old.
Damn! It's 2012 already? I guess I'd better prepare for the flying saucer invasion some people are ranting about!
Quote from: Pinky Narfanek on Feb 24, 2008, 01:26:47 AM
With a bit of luck, both our lives will be more enjoyable when we don't meet again.
I'm sorry if you were left emotionally scarred by my fact-checking. It wasn't my intention to ruin your life.
android.....im sure the makers of avp would have checked an important plotline like that,surely.
thats as improtant as remembering the c3p0 memory wipe at the end of star wars III.
gotta be android.the fact that he's fine after the pipe on the head is a give away.and i thought that after i first saw it yrs n yrs ago...it obvious.
Start again.
Quote from: Nightwalker on Mar 05, 2008, 01:09:53 AM
android.....im sure the makers of avp would have checked an important plotline like that,surely.
well, the whole world of Anderson plotholes can make a number of people wince, Well, I'm making a decision acknowledge the fact that I'm not entirely sure whether he ought to be an android or not, whatever other people think. The honest confusion that people are having there interests me a great deal
Quote from: Nightwalker on Mar 05, 2008, 01:09:53 AM
gotta be android.the fact that he's fine after the pipe on the head is a give away.and i thought that after i first saw it yrs n yrs ago...it obvious.
whatever you decide Bishop 2 is, remember that the weapon used was not a pipe, it has some curved apparatus on the end that if hit with could cut into the flesh pretty nastily
so in the theatrical movie, what we can just about make out that the injury is a flap of flesh opening up behind the ear, and in the extended version we see more of the flap and how it sticks out by about an inch , and to some degree from side shots the extent of the big gash behind the ear.
Quote from: Nightwalker on Mar 05, 2008, 01:09:53 AM
android.....im sure the makers of avp would have checked an important plotline like that,surely.
The makers of
AVP either overlooked it, didn't think that it would be an issue or just didn't care.
Quote from: Nightwalker on Mar 05, 2008, 01:09:53 AM
gotta be android.the fact that he's fine after the pipe on the head is a give away.and i thought that after i first saw it yrs n yrs ago...it obvious.
That concern was answered a long time ago, in that his
ear took the brunt of the blow and not his head. Not to mention that he cried out and held his ear.
maybe he was a mandroid...
Bishop II is android, blood was colored there as the company knew that Ripley wouldnt trust android. Or hes cloned version of real bishop as they have the capability to do it in resurection.
Xenomorphine has really good points
http://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=8.195
And as the coloring blood, well in case of accident or it would be shot or done any harm it would be clever to had it bleed red than white. So if you dont beleave it to be human and stick knife in its arm that would poor red substance, it would make you consider "umm.. maybe he is human after all.."
if it poors out white substance "HA! i knew it, your ar a robot!" in military point of view you have to make the assumption that som one will try to hit, stick, shoot, or to harm to you.
As to say about the cloning prosess in resurection, well its hard to clone something specific when you have two melted as one. I presume that it would be really hard to separate Ripleys dna from Aliens, thats why there is so many unsuccesful clones. So cloning Bishop would be easy except the memory part.
Quote from: OxygenNarcotic on Mar 05, 2008, 10:08:12 PM
Bishop II is android, blood was colored there as the company knew that Ripley wouldnt trust android. Or hes cloned version of real bishop as they have the capability to do it in resurection.
Already been covered.
Quote from: OxygenNarcotic on Mar 05, 2008, 10:08:12 PM
Bishop II is android, blood was colored there as the company knew that Ripley wouldnt trust android. Or hes cloned version of real bishop as they have the capability to do it in resurection.
because we want to explain his presence in light of Charles Weyland's presence in AvP, and after reading about some unused or unspecified ideas for Blade Runner's Eldon Tyrell, I would see how this could just about fit in. I admit that this is not Blade Runner 2 that we're talking about, but the world of their ideas are neighbours
well the way that avp co starred weyland kind of messed with us avid fans but if you look close and turn up the brightness of ur tv you can see white blood running down his neck after he his in alien 3, my opinion, droid
No you can't.
Quote from: Coaxke on Mar 06, 2008, 12:19:53 AM
but if you look close and turn up the brightness of ur tv you can see white blood running down his neck after he his in alien 3
And tune out the color into black and white. Very important.
Holy shit!!1 Not only is Bishop II a droid - he's BLACK!!!
lol and i never turned the color off and its purty hard to notice
Quote from: Coaxke on Mar 06, 2008, 12:45:03 AM
lol and i never turned the color off and its purty hard to notice
Droid's head aside, I wouldn't drink any milk if it was that color:
http://www.dailymotion.com/branman887/video/4982524 (http://www.dailymotion.com/branman887/video/4982524)
one question are we talking about dvd or the original vhs, cuz i have the latter
So have I and I've never seen any white blood on Bish the Elder.
well ima go check again but i swear there is white visable in some way on the ear area and if it happend to a human the blood would be everywhere soooo
Quote from: Coaxke on Mar 06, 2008, 01:06:19 AM
well ima go check again but i swear there is white visable in some way on the ear area and if it happend to a human the blood would be everywhere soooo
Feel free to click on that link I provided. If you are wondering about "blood not being everywhere", also feel free to read up on hematomas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hematoma).
not sure if thats attitude but its not need, hence the fact that im a freshman in highschool i just got out of biology and yes there would still be blood on his neck and jacket
Quote from: Coaxke on Mar 06, 2008, 01:13:26 AM
not sure if thats attitude but its not need, hence the fact that im a freshman in highschool i just got out of biology and yes there would still be blood on his neck and jacket
No attitude, except for a friendly invitation.
:)
When I studied biology in high school, we didn't cover things like blunt force trauma and entry wounds. I had to wait until college in order to learn those things. I guess I can blame my public school system.
than im sorry lol i offer a warm hand shake lol im just a kid so wat do i know? lol maybe he's just a droid with red blood like in Aliens female war the book. i hate to you this if you havent read this but it turns out ripley has a droid clone just like weyland, ironic huh?
The Ripley in Female War is just an android - not a clone.
lol sry u know what i mean, so you read it too huh? howd u like it? only part i didnt like was where she gave up becuz she was a droid. that whole pitty me act with her thinking that everything that happend was due to a very careful programing
Quote from: Coaxke on Mar 06, 2008, 01:24:51 AM
than im sorry lol i offer a warm hand shake lol im just a kid so wat do i know? lol
No prob.
Quote from: Coaxke on Mar 06, 2008, 01:24:51 AM
maybe he's just a droid with red blood like in Aliens female war the book. i hate to you this if you havent read this but it turns out ripley has a droid clone just like weyland, ironic huh?
I read it. The fact that the author had to resort to that was one of many things I disliked about that series. For the most part, I disregard the Dark Horse novels and comics because they contradict the films and each other. Not to mention that they were written by people not connected to the films, hence the lack of conformity and continuity.
there is blood squirt at the flick around 17-18seconds, it drops to Bishops shoulder but doesent stay, i think Bishops coat has waterproof on it.
Quotehowd u like it?
Honestly, I dug many of the comics and novels when they first came out. I thought making Ripley an android wasn't a bad idea on the surface, but once you look into it, it's flawed. And as I've 'matured' (if only slightly) and can analyse stories a bit better, the flaws get bigger and are easier to spot. Perry was following the DH directive to rewrite the stories to fit in with Alien3, and I'm guessing he did the best he could given the circumstances. He would've preferred to just leave it as Hicks and Newt, rather than Wilks and Billie but what can you do.
These days some of the comics and novels are interesting 'what ifs'; others aren't that good.
yahh... and the sexuality thats not really alien material. and do u know what the creature that saved them on the alien planet was? at first my mind screamed "YAY PREDATOR" then i reread it and it said an elephant like creature with a small tail so im clueless
It was a Jockey.
possibly...
Definately.
ok i agree
ok....just checked the definative edition dvd of alien 3,
firstly....bishop is hit on the head with a metal....what looks like large tool or componant of some machinary thats lying around.its long,thin and is larger at each end,kinda like a big spanner hehe
2. bishop does NOT cry out when hit...he merely grunts or makes a sound from the impact.
as aaron is shot dead he is seen in the background grasping his ear.no crys.
then...se edition only....an omitted scene in which he lifts his head up showing the ear hanging of with blood pooring out from behind,alot of it i might add....more than just a ear injury methinks....he screams out to ripley...'im not a droid'
but this little scene was taken out of the original so......that leads me to think maybe bishop is a droid as the scene with him screaming out he's not a droid does seem genuine and why else would they omit it?
maybe because they wanted u to think he was a droid in the cinema version?
again though....why is the character called bishop 2? if he was human he would have a proper name....charles bishop or something.obviously this is before avp so he was not looked apon as mr weyland at the time,but surely he wouldnt be just called bishop 2.
another tiny omitted scene......shows bishop...after saying 'u must let me have it'
he grimaces and shows a look of desperation and frustration.....as if to say.....my lies arent working and ripley isnt buying this...she knows im not human.
alot of the facial expressions do give alot.
basically..u have to think that a human would not be able to take a blow of that degree to the head or side of the head(as it WASNT just the ear for christs sake)and still remain as conscious as bishop does....especially being able to shout.the blood loss and shock alone would probably take u down.
ok.....i have this book called 'dissecting aliens',i've had it for numerous yrs now,since i was about 15 probably.its an indepth look at the alien franchise and contains all 4 previous story ideas for alien 3.
it goes into the final story and script in one section and then continues into cast,effects etc..
under cast we have a small section on henriksen and his role of bishopII,again..strange name.
now this book is not the underlining rule here i know but its pretty definative and came out not long after the film.
in the book it says....and i quote....'his return to the bishop role,which he credits as a major breakthrough in his career,gave henriksen the chance to play a dual role as the faithful android and his badass creator'
now..the key word there is DUAL.dual role as both android and creator.this leads me to think bishopII is an android who is trying to give the impresion of being a human to fool ripley into giving him the alien.
it wouldnt be badass creator trying to be an android would it? it simply must be as it states....a dual role.....meaning henriksen was able to play bishop the android trying to be bishop the creator.
bishop II was infact an android.
find the book and check if u dont believe me.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi162.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ft259%2Fphubbs%2Fbook.jpg&hash=48afc2913edad43502030a5cb33f38551d29d220)
I'm very much for a debatable complicated back story regarding who or what Bishop 2, I hope that Fincher would have liked the arguements over what this entity is who many people wont believe is an android whatever the people in production will say. There was the low budget movie Android starring Klaus Kinski where he's a scientist who creates the androids turns out to be an android himself (that came out 1982). But the way this Bishop 2 plays itself out for me, for me whether he's an android or a human, it's too late for him to claim to be human whatever the case, he'll just turn into an android anyway
My opinion- Theatrical cut: Android
Assembly cut: Human
So I say he's human.
What I say, he is Weylands great great great, etc, etc grand nephew/son.
Quoteas aaron is shot dead
He doesn't cry out either - he must be a droid.
Bishop cries out when he's stabbed by the Queen - he must a human.
Quoteagain though....why is the character called bishop 2
And the character played by Hi Ching has 'Company Man' on his birth certificate. The character played by Valerie Colgan in Aliens has 'ECA Representative' on her birth certificate.
Quoteanother tiny omitted scene......shows bishop...after saying 'u must let me have it'
he grimaces and shows a look of desperation and frustration.....as if to say.....my lies arent working and ripley isnt buying this...she knows im not human.
alot of the facial expressions do give alot.
Uhm... tee-hee?
Quote(as it WASNT just the ear for christs sake)
Finally some sense. You're correct. His shoulder to the brunt of Aaron's blow.
Quotenow..the key word there is DUAL.dual role as both android and creator.this leads me to think bishopII is an android
Assuming Dissecting Aliens actually makes any difference (which it doesn't) - if this were so they would've said 'android and other android'. Robots didn't create robots until the 24th century. So by your rationale you've just argued (correctly) he is in fact, human.
Nice one. :)
ok....i only mention the crying out part cos it was said that because he DID cry out..that makes him human.the fact is he did not cry out so that persons comment is incorrect and doesnt really effect wether he would be human or not.
didnt know about the characters strange name choices...but bishop 2 sounds like an android name doesnt it.
i would say the side of his head and the top of his shoulder down to the fact that aaron is using a rather long metal object yes.its still unusual how he remains conscious after this....that one sequence was the factor that made me believe to this day he is an android.it certainly implies it.
the face grimace..if u watch..does give the impression that bishop is frustrated with the way the senario is going haha it implies...shit!! this aint working.it could be...shit my head hurts....but i think that would be more like screams.check it out....i believe its all down to reading a persons expression.
as for what the book says...yes..i agree it can be taken the wrong way.saying android and creator can imply the two roles from aliens and alien3.but it can also imply two roles for one character in one film..namely alien 3.....thats why the words dual role is important.
not dual roleS but dual role....implying one role for one film..alien3.
i still believe...mainly cos of the book,that henriksen played a dual role in alien3 as bishop 2.at first trying to be human to fool ripley,then after being smashed about the head and surviving..its possible he's just another droid......i could be wrong,but i just cant believe that they could arse up the timeline this badly if i am wrong.(avp people)
but everyone i have known since seeing the film believe he was an android purely because of the head whallop moment.
the book is quite important by the way....the author knows all the writers and producers etc..all info is gathered from them so its pretty final...unless u know fincher ;)
this argument is as bad as the 'is deckard a replicant' one lol
he is by the way ;)
i have the 5disc tin.
Depends who you ask - Scott says yes (as does the Directors Cut from years ago); Ford says no.
Quoteok....i only mention the crying out part cos it was said that because he DID cry out..that makes him human.the fact is he did not cry out so that persons comment is incorrect and doesnt really effect wether he would be human or not.
No it doesn't affect it. But I think you're getting a bit picky over the term 'cry out'. I think the point is he sounds like a person would after they get whacked by a big wrench. Some may call it a grunt, some may call it crying out. Doesn't matter.
Quote...but bishop 2 sounds like an android name doesnt it.
He's actually credited as 'Bishop II'. Might be 'Bishop the Second'? The name in the credits proves nothing either way.
Quotenot dual roleS but dual role....implying one role for one film..alien3.
An actor can play 'dual roles' or 'a dual role'. Means he plays two different characters and add nothing to the argument.
Quotethe book is quite important by the way....the author knows all the writers and producers etc..all info is gathered from them so its pretty final...unless u know fincher
I know Fincher said Bishop II is human. I know the producers/ writers said he's human. And I don't believe Flynn knows the writers and producers personally. If he knew them personally his book would likely be officially sanctioned by Fox - which it's not. It's a very well-researched 'fan' work.
Quote from: Nightwalker on Mar 06, 2008, 02:31:00 PM
again though....why is the character called bishop 2? if he was human he would have a proper name....charles bishop or something.obviously this is before avp so he was not looked apon as mr weyland at the time,but surely he wouldnt be just called bishop 2.
well, I think the character is referred to Bishop 2 in the credits because he was at in the script story visually revealed as a replica of the original Bishop , sometimes he's the the man who made Bishop and other times he's only just the prototype, and there he is as an entity amongst all this confusion from other characters about whether he is a android or not. I don't think that they put a lot of thought into who he was other than someone who was supposed to be acted as a human being
If they're putting an egg in at the beginning despite the fact they know it doesn't make sense, he's a character made up from fragmented remains of ideas. It's a good thing they cut out the speech his character made in an earlier draft where he says" it's structural perfection is matched only by its hostility. We admire its purity" otherwise we'd probably have that reason to think that he was an android although in that draft (18/12/90) he's killed by Golic using Dillon's axe and just shown to be obviously human.
Quote from: SM on Mar 07, 2008, 12:40:12 AM
Depends who you ask - Scott says yes (as does the Directors Cut from years ago); Ford says no.
one thing about Scott, he's open to people having their discussions and different views and getting them to work it out rather than saying it has to be obvious immediately
Quote from: Nightwalker on Mar 07, 2008, 12:27:38 AM
this argument is as bad as the 'is deckard a replicant' one lol
he is by the way ;)
i have the 5disc tin.
well, it seems interesting to project onto the Bishop 2 character the scenario about the background story they were thinking about for Eldon Tyrell, probably even more now that Bishop 2 stands now in the shadow of his late billionaire lookalike who starts off one of the megacorporations that grows to something comparable to Tyrell's
Quote from: Nightwalker on Mar 07, 2008, 12:26:28 AM
but i just cant believe that they could arse up the timeline this badly if i am wrong.(avp people)
well, whether you are right or wrong, I'd urge you to come to terms with the fact that Paul Anderson could easily arse something up like this
mr sm.....how do u know fincher et all say bishop is human?
what have u seen or heard?
do u know them personally?
if this is correct...then why this whole argument lol
just show the proof and lets be done with it.
as for deckard...i'll go with the director.....ford is just the moving prop haha
anyway...ridley states in the extras that yr an idiot if u dont see it haha he's pretty blunt.
also....the sequence with rachel and deckard together in his flat with their pupils glowing that replicant glow...as all reps are suppose to do.according to ford,he just stood in the beam from the camera or whatever which created that effect....by accident hehe it should never have been like that.
Quotemr sm.....how do u know fincher et all say bishop is human?
Interviews, the script, the film.
The script written by the producers says he's human. The ADI boys tell Richard Edlund on the commentary track that Fincher told them he wanted the blood to be red so the audience would see he was telling the truth. Henriksen said at the time he was playing the human creator of the Bishop android.
But then all this was covered enough 66 pages back for those willing to actually look.
Quote from: Nightwalker on Mar 07, 2008, 01:29:24 AM
mr sm.....how do u know fincher et all say bishop is human?
what have u seen or heard?
do u know them personally?
if this is correct...then why this whole argument lol
just show the proof and lets be done with it.
as for deckard...i'll go with the director.....ford is just the moving prop haha
anyway...ridley states in the extras that yr an idiot if u dont see it haha he's pretty blunt.
also....the sequence with rachel and deckard together in his flat with their pupils glowing that replicant glow...as all reps are suppose to do.according to ford,he just stood in the beam from the camera or whatever which created that effect....by accident hehe it should never have been like that.
I myself had no idea that Deckard was supposed to be a replicant until years later, well quite honestly I didn't have anyone to converse with about the film for a good decade after I saw it. Well I suppose Ford was supposed to play the character as if he was a real human being and didn't appreciate it when his character was to be turned into a replicant so it's natural that he's living in denial. And I believe that the European audience were supposed to have caught onto the fact that Deckard was a replicant before the rest.
And on top of that, if you were just thinking about the character from Do Android's Dream Of Electric Sheep, expecting Deckard to be an android himself would have been perhaps the last thing on a lot of people's minds until they wisened up to the other level of the film that showed a twist
Quote from: Nightwalker on Mar 07, 2008, 12:26:28 AM
i would say the side of his head and the top of his shoulder down to the fact that aaron is using a rather long metal object yes.its still unusual how he remains conscious after this....that one sequence was the factor that made me believe to this day he is an android.it certainly implies it.
I think this injury that he had made me wonder if he was a cyborg rather than wanting to buy into the question of whether he was an android or not, and so maybe after that, I might have been asking if he was more machine that man or more man than machine, although with limbs no more powerful than typical advance prosthetics designed to balance out with the rest of the body's ability to function, and so with that he had prosthetic replacements on the side of his head to account foe the dodginess of ADI's makeup
Quote from: SM on Mar 07, 2008, 12:40:12 AM
I know Fincher said Bishop II is human. I know the producers/ writers said he's human. And I don't believe Flynn knows the writers and producers personally. If he knew them personally his book would likely be officially sanctioned by Fox - which it's not. It's a very well-researched 'fan' work.
maybe it might be an idea to read this interview with John L.Flynn about his book
http://www.alienexperience.com/index.php?view=article&catid=36%3Ainterviews&id=89%3Ajohn-flynn-author-dissecting-aliens&option=com_content&Itemid=50
I read it back when SiL first posted it. Anything in particular I need to revisit?
Quote from: SM on Mar 07, 2008, 03:14:55 AM
I read it back when SiL first posted it. Anything in particular I need to revisit?
I suppose if you had any desire to know, it'll tell you about the brief relationship that he had with Fox and the extent of their interest in his book
Yeah I just re-read that bit.
okay! :D
If you observe properly after when Ripley hit Bishop with a steel (or wood) pipe, you'd saw the ear of Bishop is almost cut out. And Bishop doesn't feel anything about his ear. So, it means his an Android.
Other evidences is that Charles Bishop Weyland is DEAD.
Quote from: Secret Hero on Mar 07, 2008, 08:44:46 PM
If you observe properly after when Ripley hit Bishop with a steel (or wood) pipe, you'd saw the ear of Bishop is almost cut out. And Bishop doesn't feel anything about his ear. So, it means his an Android.
Other evidences is that Charles Bishop Weyland is DEAD.
The part of the skin around the back of the ear looks almost cut out, but I don't know how closely one must judge ADI's special effects. I ought to really put up photos from the film in this thread just to allow others to see what is specifically being talked about, and indeed a photo of the actual weapon
well, there are about three or four different things that Bishop II could be in relation to Charles Weyland being who he is in AVP, so using that as evidence, an android or some sort is one possibility
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Mar 07, 2008, 08:51:24 PM
Quote from: Secret Hero on Mar 07, 2008, 08:44:46 PM
If you observe properly after when Ripley hit Bishop with a steel (or wood) pipe, you'd saw the ear of Bishop is almost cut out. And Bishop doesn't feel anything about his ear. So, it means his an Android.
Other evidences is that Charles Bishop Weyland is DEAD.
The part of the skin around the back of the ear looks almost cut out, but I don't know how closely one must judge ADI's special effects. I ought to really put up photos from the film in this thread just to allow others to see what is specifically being talked about, and indeed a photo of the actual weapon
well, there are about three or four different things that Bishop II could be in relation to Charles Weyland being who he is in AVP, so using that as evidence, an android or some sort is one possibility
58% of possibility.
Quote from: Secret Hero on Mar 07, 2008, 08:55:09 PM
[
58% of possibility.
well, I'm not much of a mathematician to comment so precisely
If Bishop II was human, it makes sense. His great great great grandfather was killed by something unknown, so the myth of a monster goes down generations. One of the generations gives way to a man who hears about a creature beyond the stars. He joins the company for personal reasons.
Quote from: Alienseseses on Mar 07, 2008, 09:22:47 PM
If Bishop II was human, it makes sense. His great great great grandfather was killed by something unknown, so the myth of a monster goes down generations. One of the generations gives way to a man who hears about a creature beyond the stars. He joins the company for personal reasons.
hmm, this could easily be a snippet of someone's fan fiction
QuoteAnd Bishop doesn't feel anything about his ear. So, it means his an Android.
No and no. Watch the film again.
Quote from: SM on Mar 07, 2008, 11:31:07 PM
QuoteAnd Bishop doesn't feel anything about his ear. So, it means his an Android.
No and no. Watch the film again.
I just watched it, the part where the guy holds a steel pipe and hits Bishop in the back of it's ear, and Bishop reacted a very little pain. And when I saw the injured ear, the back of the it almost torn out. See? He's an Android. Just like the android in Alien:Resurrection, Call.
Ear is just skin and cartilage over bone. It does hang like that.
And people have reacted less to much worse. Stories of shark attack victims who don't even realise they're missing half a leg until they see it spring to mind.
But still, Bishop died in AVP.
Quote from: Secret Hero on Mar 07, 2008, 11:54:44 PM
But still, Bishop died in AVP.
Bishop wasn't in
AVP. It was Charles Bishop Weyland; a different guy than Bishop's designer.
Its his great great...etc grand nephew!!
Quote from: Secret Hero on Mar 07, 2008, 11:33:50 PM
Quote from: SM on Mar 07, 2008, 11:31:07 PM
QuoteAnd Bishop doesn't feel anything about his ear. So, it means his an Android.
No and no. Watch the film again.
I just watched it, the part where the guy holds a steel pipe and hits Bishop in the back of it's ear, and Bishop reacted a very little pain. And when I saw the injured ear, the back of the it almost torn out. See? He's an Android. Just like the android in Alien:Resurrection, Call.
Androids have white blood.
Quote from: Private Hudson on Mar 08, 2008, 12:35:42 AM
Androids have white blood.
Do you think that there some law that states that every type of of android must always have white blood in every single Alien movie ?
Yes, every single movie. ;D
Quote from: Private Hudson on Mar 08, 2008, 04:03:11 AM
Yes, every single movie. ;D
well, in Alien 3, the Bishop that we fully understand to be an android, there's no fresh decision to make it white, it has to be white because of the need for continuity with Bishop as he was in Aliens.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Mar 08, 2008, 01:38:47 AM
Do you think that there some law that states that every type of of android must always have white blood in every single Alien movie ?
Every single android we've ever seen has had white blood. That was the reason they gave him red blood; to show he wasn't an android. Androids made
200 years after
Alien 3 were still using white blood.
There is absolutely nothing to support "Well maybe they just gave
this one red blood!". We have a precedence to go by.
Quote from: SiL on Mar 08, 2008, 04:26:25 AM
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Mar 08, 2008, 01:38:47 AM
Do you think that there some law that states that every type of of android must always have white blood in every single Alien movie ?
Every single android we've ever seen has had white blood. That was the reason they gave him red blood; to show he wasn't an android. Androids made 200 years after Alien 3 were still using white blood.
There is absolutely nothing to support "Well maybe they just gave this one red blood!". We have a precedence to go by.
Agreed.
I really still can't see how this vote is so close.
1) The script specifies he's human.
2) So does the novelization.
3) So does the comic adaption.
4) There is no evidence to support that he's an android.
Quote from: SiL on Mar 08, 2008, 04:26:25 AM
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Mar 08, 2008, 01:38:47 AM
Do you think that there some law that states that every type of of android must always have white blood in every single Alien movie ?
Every single android we've ever seen has had white blood. That was the reason they gave him red blood; to show he wasn't an android. Androids made 200 years after Alien 3 were still using white blood.
There is absolutely nothing to support "Well maybe they just gave this one red blood!". We have a precedence to go by.
at that time, we've only seen two androids that we know are androids in the series. All the red blood shows me is that his interior fluid that we might call blood is the same colour as a human beings and this would inspire us to think he was a human being. After there's all this confusion about who or what Bishop II is, I remain suspicious and maybe all the red blood is for is to show us he's human whether he is or is not. For you there is nothing to support it, and well for me, since I'm watching it as a post-Blade Runner movie, I remain suspicious.
And at the time of the release of the movie, I can not anticipate what is going to come up as an idea in the Alien Resurrection movie. I'm not going to take anything in Alien Resurrection as being part of Alien 3 because that came afterwards, otherwise we may as well say Bishop 2 is possibly an android because of what we've seen in AVP which seems now to be part of the Alien series
A theory, he is human: because when they shot that one guy who hit bishop 2 with the bar or whatever, would a droid try to stop them? "i can harm or allow to be harmed a human being" bishop aliens
Quote from: DarkStar117 on Mar 08, 2008, 05:57:11 PM
A theory, he is human: because when they shot that one guy who hit bishop 2 with the bar or whatever, would a droid try to stop them? "i can harm or allow to be harmed a human being" bishop aliens
Hmm, good point, but was this, "A mission of action"?
True but wouldnt the shooting cause conflict with his bylaws or whatever?
Not if it wasn't a mission of action,because
Quote from: DarkStar117 on Mar 08, 2008, 05:57:11 PM
"i can't harm or allow to be harmed a human being"
"
during a mission of action"
If it wasn't a mission of action, he would not have cared.
Point taken.
"I cannot harm, or by
omission of action allow to
be harmed, a human being."
Not "a mission of action" :P
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Mar 08, 2008, 05:05:29 AM
at that time, we've only seen two androids that we know are androids in the series.
Yes. All the androids we've ever seen, white blood. Guy says he's not an android, bleed reds blood. I do not see how "Even though
every android we've ever seen has bled white blood it doesn't mean this guy can't be an android even though he bleeds red blood" works. Because it doesn't.
You might as well start saying Aliens can fly - Just because the ones we've seen haven't, doesn't mean they all can't!
Omission?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/omission
1 a: something neglected or left undone
So basically, he can't actively hurt somebody, nor can he allow someone to be hurt by not doing anything about it.
my point exactally
Quoteat that time, we've only seen two androids that we know are androids in the series.
Yep. 100% of androids have white blood.
True as per movies, but as far as novels go....
Don't count in this instance.
i know ;D
Quote from: SiL on Mar 08, 2008, 09:01:27 PM
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Mar 08, 2008, 05:05:29 AM
at that time, we've only seen two androids that we know are androids in the series.
Yes. All the androids we've ever seen, white blood. Guy says he's not an android, bleed reds blood. I do not see how "Even though every android we've ever seen has bled white blood it doesn't mean this guy can't be an android even though he bleeds red blood" works. Because it doesn't.
You might as well start saying Aliens can fly - Just because the ones we've seen haven't, doesn't mean they all can't!
I think that you're putting heavy limitations on the technological development in the world of Alien, I'm not interested in doing that.
I wonder what you would think if an alien that came from a bird that could fly, couldn't fly
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Mar 08, 2008, 11:43:28 PM
I think that you're putting heavy limitations on the technological development in the world of Alien, I'm not interested in doing that.
No, I'm just looking at the evidence provided by the films. Zero precedence for androids having anything other than milky white blood.
QuoteI wonder what you would think if an alien that came from a bird that could fly, couldn't fly
I would be thankful.
Quote from: SiL on Mar 08, 2008, 11:51:58 PM
No, I'm just looking at the evidence provided by the films. Zero precedence for androids having anything other than milky white blood.
QuoteI wonder what you would think if an alien that came from a bird that could fly, couldn't fly
I would be thankful.
So this is what you are doing. ........ Oh! ............... Well I wouldn't want to be in your shoes. Well, I'd rather that you had your fun going ahead with this process of thinking than me.
So basically, you can't think of anything solid to back up your claim, so you're just going to be a condescending ass? Great!
Quote from: SiL on Mar 09, 2008, 12:59:41 AM
So basically, you can't think of anything solid to back up your claim, so you're just going to be a condescending ass? Great!
well, not from my point of view, I don't know what you define as a "condescending ass", that's going to be based upon your own perception
I don't really know what you expect me to say, if the whole world of technology in the universe of Alien so that people can only build androids that bleed white fluid just because we only have seen seen two androids from one company (one android a more advanced version than the other based on the same technology) that we fully know about in the first three movies, it's pretty dead and uninteresting as a film universe
So I stated earlier that for you nothing to support my claim, and well for me, since I'm watching it as a post-Blade Runner movie, I remain suspicious
lol
he's an android hahaha
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Mar 09, 2008, 01:10:56 AM
if the whole world of technology in the universe of Alien so that people can only build androids that bleed white fluid just because we only have seen seen two androids from one company (one android a more advanced version than the other based on the same technology) that we fully know about in the first three movies, it's pretty dead and uninteresting as a film universe
I'm saying, you've got absolutely nothing to support he's an android. You have to go out of your way to read into it to make it an android, and then go out of your way to explain the counter evidence, whereas simply looking at the film tells you everything you need to know. Aside from him being played by the same actor who played another vaguely related character in another movie set several hundred years before - Which would mean half the characters in Monty Python movies are clones, or most of the central characters in Dr. Strangelove - there's nothing to suggest he's anything but human.
Exactly what SiL said.
Quote from: SiL on Mar 09, 2008, 01:48:35 AM
I'm saying, you've got absolutely nothing to support he's an android. You have to go out of your way to read into it to make it an android, and then go out of your way to explain the counter evidence, whereas simply looking at the film tells you everything you need to know. Aside from him being played by the same actor who played another vaguely related character in another movie set several hundred years before - Which would mean half the characters in Monty Python movies are clones, or most of the central characters in Dr. Strangelove - there's nothing to suggest he's anything but human.
Well, I've already stated a few times that I haven't got any proof.
well, my claim is that I don't know whether he is an android or not, and then seeing Blade Runner would certainly make me suspicious that he was an android of some sort. And finding this man sticking himself there trying to convince others that he wasn't an android
And I'm not entirely interested in exploring the possibility that he's an android because of AVP, because that came much later after the movie. I could be interested to look at that as a separate matter and explore the possibilities that he's either a clone, a descendant, someone with his face redesigned to look like a historical figure or even ponder on how he could be a replicant or android of some sort, so for me that's about four different plausible possibilities
But if the characters in Monty Python movies or the Dr Strangelove movies were arguing about whether they were clones or not, or even maybe androids and the scenario took place in the distant future, I might start wondering if one or more of them was an android or even a clone.
And well I'm going now back to the original theatrical release and hearing that thud on of the long metal object on the back of Bishop's head and seeing the damage on the side of his face and am told to ignore it because under certain situations people can withstand such a fierce blow and ignore it. If the thud wasn't so loud, maybe I might ignore it a little easier. But in that version of the film, we don't get to experience him as a human experiencing the pain. Maybe we're just told to ignore the possible oddities to question and just say he's a normal human because he is seen to bleed red blood. Maybe if someone hit him with a boxing glove, I wouldn't be so surprised about him having some sort of an injury and staying on his feet. I think that the attempt to make him seem human seems to forced that it's just backfired and so not everyone one really believes he is even if he does say he is
I actually think seeing this man being fiercely whacked on the head and then up straight with half of the side of his face sticking out yelling out to Ripley does seem Pythonesque to me
But my experience of seeing the film makes me ask if he is an android , a human or something half way. And making me conform to one idea or another probably wont do. I'm very much interesting in getting involved in the film in this way. It's a very subjective experience that I'm mapping out, but it's how I feel about it
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Mar 09, 2008, 02:35:18 AM
I actually think seeing this man being fiercely whacked on the head and then up straight with half of the side of his face sticking out yelling out to Ripley does seem Pythonesque to me
I would think that too, if that were indeed the case...
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 09, 2008, 02:40:20 AM
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Mar 09, 2008, 02:35:18 AM
I actually think seeing this man being fiercely whacked on the head and then up straight with half of the side of his face sticking out yelling out to Ripley does seem Pythonesque to me
I would think that too, if that were indeed the case...
I'd like to replace the word "half of the side of his face" with "the area of flesh around his left ear"
A correction which undermines your point.
Quote from: SM on Mar 09, 2008, 03:50:32 AM
A correction which undermines your point.
well, I think that the point for me is my actual experience, and I'm not sure what other people are likely to interpret my point as. Maybe I need to emphasise how descriptively weird it Bishop II's injury looked but surely people know what it looks like anyway so maybe I can't be bothered
What do 'normal' injuries look like? To me it seems consistent with a blow just above the ear.
The wound is exactly what you'd expect to happen to that area. It's only skin and cartilage, and when skin tears (take a look at shark bites) it gets awful loose. There's nothing unrealistic about the wound.
Quote from: SM on Mar 09, 2008, 04:41:50 AM
What do 'normal' injuries look like? To me it seems consistent with a blow just above the ear.
well, this injury as a special effect looks from one angle like a rounded flap when we see a side shot of his head as he yells after Ripley with the side of his face against the fence, and then when he's seen with his hand on his ear as it bleeds (which is in the extended cut), the flap looks more like a ragged semicircle around the back, but the latter image isn't really that clear as to what the extent of the damage is behind the ear, maybe the Blueray version will allow people to see more clearly what's shown, and so the back of the flap sticks out about a couple of inches and a brown wet looking mess extends three or four inches further to the back of the head around the hair that might make me wonder if the skull had been damaged there or it just might be matted hair reflecting the golden light, but I can't be certain.
If Fincher just filmed it as if there was no reason for anyone to even begin to ask whether this Bishop 2 has any superhuman qualities or not, the rest of us who haven't got there yet might have less of a problem acknowleding that he's simply a typical human being
OK...i have checked the commentry on alien 3 and.......yes,the humans have it aparantley.
alec gillis (i think) clearly states that fincher wanted bishop2's ear to hang of and show plenty of red blood to prove he was in fact the genuine real creator....charles bishop....im guessing thats his name cos at that time im sure he wasnt suppose to be weyland.
this now means that avp truely is shit and anderson has fudged the whole damn timeline completely.
as it stands now...we have the creator..charles bishop weyland alive in our present time and being killed by a predator.then....100yrs+ into the future at alien3's time u have the creator...charles bishop,again,alive n well.only difference is he's not weyland in alien3.
>:(what a load of crap.
There's nothing in AvP to say Weyland created the Bishop series androids. I think Paulie's intention was that later - MUCH later - WY created androids using Weyland as a template.
It creates no continuity error whatsoever having CBW in AvP and BishopII in A3.
In spite of Andersons efforts to create one.
im lost...
weyland is alive in avp.he's the creator of weyland..half of weyland yutani.he may not create the bishop series himself ok....the company does that for him way in the future ok.
but he's still the creator,the original weyland or bishop.
so in alien 3....how can bishop2 also be the original creator as well? cos they say in the commentry he is the father figure or creator of the bishop series.
so how can that be? there's two of em.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Mar 09, 2008, 05:32:51 AM
If Fincher just filmed it as if there was no reason for anyone to even begin to ask whether this Bishop 2 has any superhuman qualities or not, the rest of us who haven't got there yet might have less of a problem acknowleding that he's simply a typical human being
The entire reason Bishop 2 gets bonked over the head is to show he's human.
Quote....the company does that for him way in the future ok.
but he's still the creator,the original weyland or bishop.
No the guy in Alien3 is.
Quote from: Nightwalker on Mar 09, 2008, 05:56:45 AM
so in alien 3....how can bishop2 also be the original creator as well? cos they say in the commentry he is the father figure or creator of the bishop series.
They don't say that in the commentary to
AVP. They don't mention a line of droids. They say that some of Chuck Weyland's quirks are remembered and were programmed into the Bishop android. How a future programmer could know that Chuck Weyland was fond of 5-Finger Fillet (nevermind the programmer
wanting to give this talent to his droid) is stretching things a bit.
Quote from: Nightwalker on Mar 09, 2008, 05:56:45 AM
so how can that be? there's two of em.
You (as well as others in this threads) have answered your own question: there are two different people.
Quote from: SiL on Mar 09, 2008, 06:16:39 AM
The entire reason Bishop 2 gets bonked over the head is to show he's human.
So the plan backfired to some degree, I was left feeling that he wasn't entirely human and it confused a fair number of other people too.
Obviously it would be an urge of mine now to have a chat with David Fincher about this. I suppose I'd want to ask him about the other copies of Bishop that he wanted seen running around at the end of his original vision for Alien 3 and ask him if he secretly wanted to confuse people like some other auteurs might want to, although I don't expect him to change his mind about the intention he had to make him into a real man, but I'd ask him if it is plausible to ask questions about how human the character is from his point of view in maybe the way that Ridley Scott might entertain lots of different questions about many things in his Alien movie. and well of course Fincher wouldn't have any such interest in his old movie anyway
I suppose it's a pity that Fincher hasn't had too many decent discussions in interviews about the movie because his relationship with the studio fell foul and I suppose this is an obvious product of searching to understand the movie as with a lot of people.
Quote from: Nightwalker on Mar 09, 2008, 05:35:46 AM
OK...i have checked the commentry on alien 3 and.......yes,the humans have it aparantley.
alec gillis (i think) clearly states that fincher wanted bishop2's ear to hang of and show plenty of red blood to prove he was in fact the genuine real creator....charles bishop....im guessing thats his name cos at that time im sure he wasnt suppose to be weyland.
on my DVD, he says "and it's so brief when Lance gets hit with this lead pipe but we had done an appliance that showed his ear had become dislodged and the whole point was that Fincher wanted to show, you know, without a doubt that this is the real guy and not a synthetic person"
and well in the end, what happens was, as Lance remembers it when he was doing interviews for this film and this one was in Starlog (July 1992) " Bishop 2 gets clobbered with a piece of steel. It almost takes my ear off. It opens up the side of my head." which is visually more accurate than what Gillis or Woodruff said on my DVD's commentary
i still dont understand how the bishop in alien3 and charles bishop weyland in avp are two different people?? when they are obviously meant to be the same person.
when they made alien3 bishop 2 was the real creator of the bishop series.
in avp they also intend him as the creator.
the only way they could be different is if they were related to each other,and thats stupid.
Quote from: Nightwalker on Mar 09, 2008, 05:46:53 PM
i still dont understand how the bishop in alien3 and charles bishop weyland in avp are two different people?? when they are obviously meant to be the same person.
How is it obvious? Could it be that Charles Bishop Weyland has gray hair, an older appearance, and an onscreen name and Bishop's designer doesn't? That CBW died 175 years before Bishop's designer was called to Fiorina? Could it be that they were intended to be
two different people?
Quote from: Nightwalker on Mar 09, 2008, 05:46:53 PM
when they made alien3 bishop 2 was the real creator of the bishop series.
What "Bishop Series"? In the commentary tracks to both DVDs, there is mention of only
one Bishop android, and it was the one posted on the
Sulaco and was damaged enroute to Earth and was smashed up further on Fiorina. The commentaries make no reference to any other Bishop androids.
Quote from: Nightwalker on Mar 09, 2008, 05:46:53 PM
in avp they also intend him as the creator.
There is no mention of either Bishop or his creator in
AVP.
Quote from: Nightwalker on Mar 09, 2008, 05:46:53 PM
the only way they could be different is if they were related to each other,and thats stupid.
You won't accept a basic proven biological concept such as heredity, but you'll go out of your way to claim someone was a robot? That's not exactly smart itself. Not to mention that they may not be related.
QuoteHow a future programmer could know that Chuck Weyland was fond of 5-Finger Fillet (nevermind the programmer wanting to give this talent to his droid) is stretching things a bit.
He liked a wank...?
OOOOH...
;D
Quote from: SM on Mar 09, 2008, 08:58:59 PM
QuoteHow a future programmer could know that Chuck Weyland was fond of 5-Finger Fillet (nevermind the programmer wanting to give this talent to his droid) is stretching things a bit.
He liked a wank...?
OOOOH...
;D
No, dammit! That's "Five Against One"!
ok if they are two people...avp's weyland the company founder and alien3's bishop2 the android creator...fine.but then how come they look the same??
ok they are two different people that look the same,thats the prob.if weyland in avp had been cast with someone other than lance h,there wouldnt be a problem,its just he plays both roles and there lies the confusion.its stupid.
thats why everybody has assumed that alien 3 was an android cos everybody thought it was the same guy.
Quote from: Nightwalker on Mar 09, 2008, 10:07:24 PM
ok if they are two people...avp's weyland the company founder and alien3's bishop2 the android creator...fine.but then how come they look the same??
For the same reason that I look like my father, grandfather, great grandfather, etc...
Quote from: Nightwalker on Mar 09, 2008, 10:07:24 PM
ok they are two different people that look the same,thats the prob.if weyland in avp had been cast with someone other than lance h,there wouldnt be a problem,its just he plays both roles and there lies the confusion.its stupid.
Anderson tried too hard to make
AVP part of the
Alien stable. You'd think that having aliens in the movie would be enough, but
no...
Quote from: Nightwalker on Mar 09, 2008, 10:07:24 PM
thats why everybody has assumed that alien 3 was an android cos everybody thought it was the same guy.
Nevermind that they live in two different times and that the guy in the future looks
younger. Of course, skipping the lecture on heredity in Biology 101 in favor of getting stoned helps that notion, too.
bottom line for me..if they had cast someone else as weyland....no worries all round,using lance caused huge confusion although it was kinda cool to get an aliens cast member in there.still wrong.
Quote from: Nightwalker on Mar 09, 2008, 10:38:00 PM
using lance caused huge confusion
For some people.
Quote from: Nightwalker on Mar 09, 2008, 10:38:00 PM
although it was kinda cool to get an aliens cast member in there.still wrong.
That was the goal: The Kewl Factor. Anderson tried too hard.
Quote from: Nightwalker on Mar 09, 2008, 05:46:53 PM
i still dont understand how the bishop in alien3 and charles bishop weyland in avp are two different people?? when they are obviously meant to be the same person.
when they made alien3 bishop 2 was the real creator of the bishop series.
in avp they also intend him as the creator.
the only way they could be different is if they were related to each other,and thats stupid.
I think that the fact that you don't understand might be a very important part of whatever appreciation you have for the series. The next stop in your journey of not understanding might be the discovery of the extent which you don't understand, and that point of self discovery of yours may well leave us speechlessly jealous
its not that important haha i have a life.
Quote from: Nightwalker on Mar 11, 2008, 02:36:32 AM
its not that important haha i have a life.
It was important to you (haha) that you devoted the past three days of your life to the topic.
The only reason this thread is 71 pages long is because whatever was intended in the movie wasn't portrayed clearly. I personally don't adhere to one or the other.. Both theories work well, I originally came in thinking he was an android, but listening to the views of others I feel both views, as of now, are completely viable.
Considering that one may see a movie featuring what the writers and director had intended and filmed to be a turtle and said individual interprets said creature as a cougar; the viewer is either blind or psychotic. It doesn't change the fact that the film had featured a turtle.
QuoteThe only reason this thread is 71 pages long is because whatever was intended in the movie wasn't portrayed clearly.
Red blood is red blood and is not white blood.
How is that not clear?
Quote from: SM on Mar 13, 2008, 10:55:41 PM
Red blood is red blood and is not white blood.
How is that not clear?
Blindness or psychosis.
;)
Well yeah - there is that.
I suppose if Fincher directly told the creature department that he wanted the alien to be a sphinx, it may never have happened. Maybe the production wouldn't have been so cursed either
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Mar 13, 2008, 11:03:28 PM
I suppose if Fincher directly told the creature departmenet that he wanted the alien to be a sphinx, it may never have happened. Maybe the production wouldn't have been so cursed either
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________
. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-'". . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ."-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ":,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:". . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . ."~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . "~,_. . . .."~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . ."=,_. . . ."-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~"; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . ."=-._. . .";,,./`. . /" . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . .."~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-"
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`\.
Quote from: Cellien on Mar 13, 2008, 07:00:58 PM
The only reason this thread is 71 pages long is because whatever was intended in the movie wasn't portrayed clearly. I personally don't adhere to one or the other.. Both theories work well, I originally came in thinking he was an android, but listening to the views of others I feel both views, as of now, are completely viable.
Going by what Fincher was having to deal with in his movie, all he could seem to control is the vaguest skeleton of a plot, and it seems that anything he wanted to do, the producers and studio bosses were likely to be up at arms against. So I would continue to wonder what we're discovering in the final film that might be more than the basic story is revealing and even might have started to look a certain way because of the editing of the theatrical cut that was out of the director's hands. As it goes, he doesn't seem to have much to say about the movie, and when he is forced to cast his memory back to that time, he can't remember much about the details of the production because it was a bit like being in a car accident for him. Gillis and Woodruff don't seem to be a hundred percent sure about all of his intentions either. I think people really have to work on digging into this movie by themselves.
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 13, 2008, 10:07:45 PM
Considering that one may see a movie featuring what the writers and director had intended and filmed to be a turtle and said individual interprets said creature as a cougar; the viewer is either blind or psychotic. It doesn't change the fact that the film had featured a turtle.
If half of said viewers see it as a cougar, the director, or producers didn't portray their thoughts correctly on screen if he intended it to be a turtle. It doesn't matter what they intended if the target audience doesn't see it. I don't blame any one person, but the outcome isn't clear. Red blood as a few of you cling to is a great argument, I buy it. But, I'm not going to say Bishop and Charles Weyland don't share a striking resemblence and an obvious tie-in to the same franchise and ignore the obvious relation Anderson was setting out to acheive. Also, when you say it's easier to believe he's a human rather than an android.. Why? They are in the future... with other androids, and a story that has you believe that androids are constantly trying to blend in. It's not hard to believe at all. It's also not hard to believe he's human. There is no point in telling people it's one way or another when the filmmakers and cast can't even agree.
I've learnt to appreciate it as a very abstract painting, like a Francis Bacon
Quote from: Solarpixy on Mar 14, 2008, 03:56:06 AM
I've learnt to appreciate it as a very abstract painting, like a Francis Bacon
and he had his mythical creatures and dopplegangers of one kind or another too in his paintings
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Mar 14, 2008, 12:10:30 AM
Gillis and Woodruff don't seem to be a hundred percent sure about all of his intentions either.
QuoteGillis: But we had done this appliance that showed that his ear had been dislodged. The whole point was that Fincher wanted to show that, you know, without a doubt that this is the real guy and not a synthetic person.
Quote from: Cellien on Mar 14, 2008, 02:44:54 AM
If half of said viewers see it as a cougar, the director, or producers didn't portray their thoughts correctly on screen if he intended it to be a turtle. It doesn't matter what they intended if the target audience doesn't see it.
You'd have to be either blind or psychotic to imagine a turtle running at break-neck speeds and to mistake the hard shell for soft fur. Said "half" audience should spend more time at the zoo.
Quote from: Cellien on Mar 14, 2008, 02:44:54 AM
Red blood as a few of you cling to is a great argument, I buy it.
Are you saying that only a few people saw red blood?
Quote from: Cellien on Mar 14, 2008, 02:44:54 AM
Also, when you say it's easier to believe he's a human rather than an android.. Why?
Are you expecting a different answer than before?
Quote from: Cellien on Mar 14, 2008, 02:44:54 AM
They are in the future... with other androids, and a story that has you believe that androids are constantly trying to blend in.
And all of the "definite droids" (Ash, Bishop, Call) bleed white.
Quote from: Cellien on Mar 14, 2008, 02:44:54 AM
There is no point in telling people it's one way or another when the filmmakers and cast can't even agree.
They all agreed he's human. Henriksen changed his tune to bail out his new buddy, Anderson.
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 14, 2008, 11:58:55 AM
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Mar 14, 2008, 12:10:30 AM
Gillis and Woodruff don't seem to be a hundred percent sure about all of his intentions either.
QuoteGillis: But we had done this appliance that showed that his ear had been dislodged. The whole point was that Fincher wanted to show that, you know, without a doubt that this is the real guy and not a synthetic person.
.
Well, if we take that certain point, although the established intention amongst them appears to be that they wanted to show that this Bishop II character was a real guy for whatever reason, I wish that Gillis had mentioned that they had designed an appliance to show that his face was ripped open because that would tell us a little more and I wish that Gillis hadn't mentioned that Bishop II was hit with a lead pipe because that didn't happen in the final film, so really for me that Gillis comment just seems to turn into a bit of a blur
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Mar 14, 2008, 12:21:08 PM
Well, if we take that certain point, although the established intention amongst them appears to be that they wanted to show that this Bishop II character was a real guy for whatever reason, I wish that Gillis had mentioned that they had designed an appliance to show that his face was ripped open because that would tell us a little more
His face wasn't ripped open.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Mar 14, 2008, 12:21:08 PM
and I wish that Gillis hadn't mentioned that Bishop II was hit with a lead pipe because that didn't happen in the final film, so really for me that Gillis comment just seems to turn into a bit of a blur
You're splitting hairs with that. All Gillis was responsible for in that scene was the prosthetic makeup; not large metal props.
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 14, 2008, 12:34:35 PM
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Mar 14, 2008, 12:21:08 PM
Well, if we take that certain point, although the established intention amongst them appears to be that they wanted to show that this Bishop II character was a real guy for whatever reason, I wish that Gillis had mentioned that they had designed an appliance to show that his face was ripped open because that would tell us a little more
His face wasn't ripped open.
that's the mistake I made last time, and what I mean is the side of his head, but it is the far side of his face and with that the ear was dislodged, and so the actual edge of the tear is around the back of the ear but it would surely where the skin begins to peel from the flesh would begin before the ear if it was dislodged
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 14, 2008, 12:34:35 PM
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Mar 14, 2008, 12:21:08 PM
and I wish that Gillis hadn't mentioned that Bishop II was hit with a lead pipe because that didn't happen in the final film, so really for me that Gillis comment just seems to turn into a bit of a blur
You're splitting hairs with that. All Gillis was responsible for in that scene was the prosthetic makeup; not large metal props.
well, if he had taken notice of the movie, he might have noticed it wasn't a lead pipe.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Mar 14, 2008, 12:53:44 PM
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 14, 2008, 12:34:35 PM
His face wasn't ripped open.
that's the mistake I made last time, and what I mean is the side of his head, but it is the far side of his face and with that the ear was dislodged, and so the actual tear is around the back of the ear
You keep making that "mistake".
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Mar 14, 2008, 12:53:44 PM
well, if he had taken notice of the movie, he might have noticed it wasn't a lead pipe.
Shifting the focus of the argument. Nice try.
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 14, 2008, 01:04:28 PMQuote
his face and with that the ear was dislodged, and so the actual tear is around the back of the ear
You keep making that "mistake".
well, this isn't going to be the last time I make that 'mistake'.! So I put it straight that my mind tells me that the side of his face has been ripped open.
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 14, 2008, 01:04:28 PM
Shifting the focus of the argument. Nice try.
Well, I think it's a question of whether one can ultimately know what was going on behind the scenes based on the interviews for this film, I might well ask whether Gillis and Woodruff really have a clue about what they're talking about especially when it comes to this certain movie, especially with all the changes that kept going on and the need to keep up with other people's ideas. And Fincher's memory of the film appears from his point of view to be like being involved in a carcrash.
I am wondering maybe if Gillis and Woodruff intended to have the injury as a dislodged ear with some blood and then somehow at the last minute it was turned into a head that's ripped open at the side.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Mar 14, 2008, 01:55:04 PM
well, this isn't going to be the last time I make that 'mistake'.! So I put it straight that my mind tells me that the side of his face has been ripped open.
Watching the film puts it in my mind that his injury wasn't that severe.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Mar 14, 2008, 01:55:04 PMWell, I think it's a question of whether one can ultimately know what was going on behind the scenes based on the interviews for this film, I might well ask whether Gillis and Woodruff really have a clue about what they're talking about especially when it comes to this certain movie, especially with all the changes that kept going on and the need to keep up with other people's ideas. And Fincher's memory of the film appears from his point of view to be like being involved in a carcrash.
Again, they effects guys were responsible for making the prosthetic to the guidelines that Fincher had given them. They probably weren't on the set when the scene was shot (or were far away from the action) so they wouldn't have known what he was going to be hit with. Knowing that you are told to make the audience know that he's either a human or an android is one thing. Knowing the exact piece of metal that was used is another. It could be a simple matter of Fincher telling them, "We're gonna hit him with a pipe," then seeing a more menacing-looking wrench and using it instead.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Mar 14, 2008, 01:55:04 PM
I am wondering maybe if Gillis and Woodruff intended to have the injury as a dislodged ear with some blood and then somehow at the last minute it was turned into a head that's ripped open at the side.
I doubt it, considering that "at the last minute" it was still a dislodged ear.
;)
Quote
You'd have to be either blind or psychotic to imagine a turtle running at break-neck speeds and to mistake the hard shell for soft fur. Said "half" audience should spend more time at the zoo.
Considering in the Aliens franchise, androids look exactly like humans, that comparison to turtle anatomy to furry creatures is straying too far to mean anything. :) If androids looked like Pinocchio, then you'd be on to something.
Quote
Are you saying that only a few people saw red blood?
Not at all. I'm simply saying that if one can assume Charles Weyland has no ties to Bishop even though they look, walk, and talk exactly the same (and ignore a deliberate tie-in), then one can also make assumptions that androids are continually trying to blend in so red blood is an obvious step to do that. It only took Ripley one glance at Bishop's cut finger in Aliens to realize he was a synthetic. It's just as believable they dropped some dye into their white blood. Either have no proof, and are both completely legitimate.
Quote
Are you expecting a different answer than before?
Not expecting much of anything really. Both claims have about the same amount of assumption.
Quote
They all agreed he's human. Henriksen changed his tune to bail out his new buddy, Anderson.
The fact that it's been a flip-flop issue means as far as the full series goes, it's been said both ways.
Quote from: Cellien on Mar 14, 2008, 02:56:30 PM
If androids looked like Pinocchio, then you'd be on to something.
In a
figurative sense, they do. When it is revealed that the characters are robots, their blood is white. Red blood=human; white blood=robot.
Quote from: Cellien on Mar 14, 2008, 02:56:30 PM
I'm simply saying that if one can assume Charles Weyland has no ties to Bishop even though they look, walk, and talk exactly the same (and ignore a deliberate tie-in), then one can also make assumptions that androids are continually trying to blend in so red blood is an obvious step to do that.
That's a leap, considering that not only they look different (hair, wrinkles, etc.), but thanks to the age-old discovery known as "heredity", one can logically say, "I'll bet those guys are related somehow!"
Quote from: Cellien on Mar 14, 2008, 02:56:30 PM
It only took Ripley one glance at Bishop's cut finger in Aliens to realize he was a synthetic. It's just as believable they dropped some dye into their white blood.
It's a nice idea, but since there is no precedent for it in this series, it's baseless.
Quote from: Cellien on Mar 14, 2008, 02:56:30 PM
The fact that it's been a flip-flop issue means as far as the full series goes, it's been said both ways.
Not so. Only Henriksen and Anderson flip-flopped on this issue, and only one of them was involved with
Alien³. Everyone else involved with that film says "human".
Quote
Not so. Only Henriksen and Anderson flip-flopped on this issue, and only one of them was involved with Alien³.
Well that's why I said in the whole series. It's confusing to the fan base to have a movie that everyone states is one way, then another that comes out and contradicts it in addition to crew stating what they did. Both ideas are still possible, that's why Anderson did what he did.
Hey maybe AvP3 will come out and clear it up for us... yeah right. :D
With even a basic understanding of genetics though, its not confusing at all really.
As for Gillis being confused about the lead pipe thing, shit;
I would'a said it was a lead pipe, and I can't even count the number of times I've seen the movie.
Besides which, say hello to Mr. Script:
QuoteAaron starts. Picks up a pipe from the debris --
...whats the argument for him being an android??, hes obviously human, u can see blood when he gets hit with the pipe, and on the comentary, lance even points out that the blood and junk was put in to show that he wasnt an android...??
Quote from: SiL on Mar 14, 2008, 09:21:21 PM
As for Gillis being confused about the lead pipe thing, shit; I would'a said it was a lead pipe, and I can't even count the number of times I've seen the movie.
Besides which, say hello to Mr. Script:
QuoteAaron starts. Picks up a pipe from the debris --
well, from what I've seen in the theatrical edit the difference in the final film is I think the difference between a bludgeoning weapon appropriate wound, and a hacking weapon with appropriate wound. I think Gillis and Woodruff designed for the former and what they had at the end was I think the latter so for me there's a difference and they're only talking about a dislodged ear appliance.
Quote from: megachu17 on Mar 15, 2008, 07:45:51 PM
...whats the argument for him being an android??, hes obviously human, u can see blood when he gets hit with the pipe, and on the comentary, lance even points out that the blood and junk was put in to show that he wasnt an android...??
I can't find this on the commentary on my DVD. I had Gillis or Woodruff talking about the ear appliance on my DVD commentary saying just about that, but I'm sure that Henriksen was playing this character as a human being since that's what he said. If this was an android, it would have to be one that was realistic enough to bleed red blood coloured fluid and certainly not white fluid, but I don't consider it out of the question that he might be one because I don't believe that all types of androids must have white blood
Bishop 2-People,don't be idiots.Doesn't the name right there give you his origin?
ANDROID
Says the guy calling others 'idiots'.
Try actually paying attention next time.
Quote from: SM on Mar 16, 2008, 01:08:49 AM
Says the guy calling others 'idiots'.
Try actually paying attention next time.
I don't get it.
Quel surprise.
Quote from: Zero on Mar 16, 2008, 01:05:33 AM
Bishop 2-People,don't be idiots.Doesn't the name right there give you his origin?
ANDROID
well, in the script, it was a name for the character to be referred to by as he looked just like Bishop
I still say he is human but was actually a clone. They company had their hand in advanced robotics and wanted to exploit the Alien genetics and in Alien 4 they clone Ripley. He was a clone.
Quote from: Flaming Firefox on Mar 16, 2008, 07:49:45 PM
I still say he is human but was actually a clone. They company had their hand in advanced robotics and wanted to exploit the Alien genetics and in Alien 4 they clone Ripley. He was a clone.
I'm sorry but that was not Weyland Yutani.That was
Wal Mart I'm serious
Quote from: Flaming Firefox on Mar 16, 2008, 07:49:45 PM
I still say he is human but was actually a clone.
That had already been addressed months ago.
Quote from: Flaming Firefox on Mar 16, 2008, 07:49:45 PM
They company had their hand in advanced robotics and wanted to exploit the Alien genetics and in Alien 4 they clone Ripley. He was a clone.
As Zero pointed out, it wasn't the Company who had cloned Ripley. Not to mention that if the Company could have cloned Chuck Weyland, they would have done the same with Ripley.
Quote from: Zero on Mar 16, 2008, 09:59:10 PM
I'm sorry but that was not Weyland Yutani.That was Wal Mart I'm serious
It was the United Systems Military. I'm serious, too.
If I remember the insipid details of Resurrection right, Wal Mart only bought out the Company. They had nothing to do with the cloning project.
Quote from: The Chibi Kiriyama on Mar 16, 2008, 10:23:48 PM
If I remember the insipid details of Resurrection right, Wal Mart only bought out the Company. They had nothing to do with the cloning project.
Yeah thats right, Wren doesn't mention anything about them being funded by weyland-yutani/ wal mart.
QuoteI still say he is human but was actually a clone.
Let's pretend this hasn't been shown to be nonsense months ago - what do you base this on?
Quote from: SM on Mar 16, 2008, 10:45:21 PM
QuoteI still say he is human but was actually a clone.
Let's pretend this hasn't been shown to be nonsense months ago - what do you base this on?
On the basis that the whole argument is flawed. We can clone people right now. Alien 3 is set so far in the future that it would be science fiction to assume we couldn't clone someone. Cloning tech is around at the time of Alien Res, but who says that it is the first time it was used. They did have trouble getting their clones to work which some people accredit to the fact that cloning was new. But they did have the aim of extracting the alien DNA too. The Ripley DNA was basically contaminated by the virtue it had alien DNA with it. This makes it harder to clone a succesful person. Bishop was a human in Alien 3. We know he wasn't the original Bishop though. The likelihood of an identical person out of the same bloodline would be extremely improbable.
Quote from: Flaming Firefox on Mar 16, 2008, 11:38:27 PM
The likelihood of an identical person out of the same bloodline would be extremely improbable.
They weren't identical. Not to mention that it will be a cold day in Hell before laws allowing clones to grow to term will be passed.
Well, in real life you're supposing that people would follow the law. It'd be illegal to let that clone grow to term, but we know that in real life and in the Alien franchise itself the legality of an issue can be skimmed around by motivated people.
Still, just to keep my position clear: I don't think "Bishop dos" was a clone.
QuoteWe can clone people right now.
Technically yes - but for what purpose would you clone Weyland into Bishop? It's not like he's going to retain Weyland's memories or personality.
Yes, they can clone people in the 24th century - but those clones don't retain memories or personality either. Ripley was unprecedented in that regard.
Quote from: SM on Mar 17, 2008, 12:33:05 AM
QuoteWe can clone people right now.
Technically yes - but for what purpose would you clone Weyland into Bishop? It's not like he's going to retain Weyland's memories or personality.
Yes, they can clone people in the 24th century - but those clones don't retain memories or personality either. Ripley was unprecedented in that regard.
But how did she start to get her memories back then?
Quote from: SM on Mar 17, 2008, 12:33:05 AM
QuoteWe can clone people right now.
Technically yes - but for what purpose would you clone Weyland into Bishop? It's not like he's going to retain Weyland's memories or personality.
he would be an ideal person to clone because he was a pioneer in robotics, and a clone of his would be an ideal person to train in robotics and have working in a robotics lab and well Bishop 2 was working in the world of robotics
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 17, 2008, 12:01:35 AM
Not to mention that it will be a cold day in Hell before laws allowing clones to grow to term will be passed.
now we'll have to play with the question of whether the human race has had their cold day in hell by the time of Aliens. Maybe they have already by the time of Alien looking at the way the crew of the Nostromo were considered so expendable
QuoteBut how did she start to get her memories back then?
As Wren hypothesizes "I'm guessing they're passed down generationally like it's strength". The Alien DNA mix allows her to retain some memories of her former life.
Quotehe would be an ideal person to clone because he was a pioneer in robotics, and a clone of his would be an ideal person to train in robotics and have working in a robotics lab and well Bishop 2 was working in the world of robotics
Sorry - I'm not seeing how that makes sense.
Quote from: SM on Mar 17, 2008, 01:54:05 AM
Quotehe would be an ideal person to clone because he was a pioneer in robotics, and a clone of his would be an ideal person to train in robotics and have working in a robotics lab and well Bishop 2 was working in the world of robotics
Sorry - I'm not seeing how that makes sense.
well I don't know what you don't understand
If you were able to clone the person responsible for the works of William Shakespeare, you might get the clone interested in perhaps mythology, philosophy, writing and acting .and he might well be expected to be very successful with these, if it's in the blood
Quote from: SM on Mar 17, 2008, 12:33:05 AM
QuoteWe can clone people right now.
Technically yes - but for what purpose would you clone Weyland into Bishop? It's not like he's going to retain Weyland's memories or personality.
Yes, they can clone people in the 24th century - but those clones don't retain memories or personality either. Ripley was unprecedented in that regard.
You just pointed out a flaw in your own argument. Ripley was a clone and she had genetic memory. Genetic memory has already been established in aliens. So his knowledge would be important to clone. He knew he was dying in AvP. He was rich. He could have easily set it up back in 2004 to be cloned. There are people today that have their bodies cryogenically fozen after death in the hopes that someday medicine can revive them.
Here is why I don't think Bishop II was a descendent-
Your talking about 8 + generations from the Weyland in AvP. Genetic dilution through these generations would make it unlikely that the Bishop II would look so similar to Weyland in AvP. Certainly he could have certain dominant traits the Charles Bishop Weyland had. But there are many recessive traits that probably wouldn't make it down the line. For instance he has kind of greenish eyes which are a recessive trait. Bishop II probably wouldn't have those. He has thin lips also a recessive trait.
Quote from: Flaming Firefox on Mar 17, 2008, 02:08:47 AM
Here is why I don't think Bishop II was a descendent-
what if Charles Weyland had excessive amounts of sperm put on ice?
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Mar 17, 2008, 02:13:55 AM
Quote from: Flaming Firefox on Mar 17, 2008, 02:08:47 AM
Here is why I don't think Bishop II was a descendent-
what if Charles Weyland had excessive amounts of sperm put on ice?
ok I had to do a double take. Your talking about having his genetic material-DNA frozen. Sure, it is easily possible. Many people today do. Getting a DNA sample is easy. If properly stored it last quite a while. You can get a DNA sample from a mouth swab, skin cells even hair.
Another thing is Weyland never mentions in AvP any children, any heirs at all. Nor is there any reference to significant other or wife. He certainly acts like no one would miss his death.
QuoteIf you were able to clone the person responsible for the works of William Shakespeare, you might get the clone interested in perhaps mythology, writing and acting .and he might well be expected to be very successful with this, if it's in the blood so to speak
An awful lot of trouble to go to for an "if". Besides it's established in the Alien universe that it isn't "in the blood" - Perez "How does it have memories?"
What's to stop someone simply picking up his work where he left off? And why wait 100 years to clone him anyway?
QuoteYou just pointed out a flaw in your own argument. Ripley was a clone and she had genetic memory. Genetic memory has already been established in aliens. So his knowledge would be important to clone.
Eh? Weyland was stabbed to death by a Predator - at what point did his DNA mix with Alien DNA to the point where he could be cloned with genetic memories? Where's my flaw?
QuoteThere are people today that have their bodies cryogenically fozen after death in the hopes that someday medicine can revive them.
Weyland's cancer ridden body was vapourised so that might be difficult.
Quote from: Flaming Firefox on Mar 17, 2008, 02:17:35 AM
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Mar 17, 2008, 02:13:55 AM
Quote from: Flaming Firefox on Mar 17, 2008, 02:08:47 AM
Here is why I don't think Bishop II was a descendent-
what if Charles Weyland had excessive amounts of sperm put on ice?
ok I had to do a double take. Your talking about having his genetic material-DNA frozen. Sure, it is easily possible. Many people today do. Getting a DNA sample is easy. If properly stored it last quite a while. You can get a DNA sample from a mouth swab, skin cells even hair.
yes, so, while not wishing to totally discount the possibility that Bishop 2 is a clone, I ask if you think that there is at least a possibility that they could make the Bishop 2 character an illigitimate son becausef Charles Weyland's sperm was used to seed a woman, and out of that perhaps comes a very similar looking man
Quote from: SM on Mar 17, 2008, 02:20:20 AM
QuoteIf you were able to clone the person responsible for the works of William Shakespeare, you might get the clone interested in perhaps mythology, writing and acting .and he might well be expected to be very successful with this, if it's in the blood so to speak
An awful lot of trouble to go to for an "if". Besides it's established in the Alien universe that it isn't "in the blood" - Perez "How does it have memories?"
What's to stop someone simply picking up his work where he left off? And why wait 100 years to clone him anyway?
QuoteYou just pointed out a flaw in your own argument. Ripley was a clone and she had genetic memory. Genetic memory has already been established in aliens. So his knowledge would be important to clone.
Eh? Weyland was stabbed to death by a Predator - at what point did his DNA mix with Alien DNA to the point where he could be cloned with genetic memories? Where's my flaw?
QuoteThere are people today that have their bodies cryogenically fozen after death in the hopes that someday medicine can revive them.
Weyland's cancer ridden body was vapourised so that might be difficult.
Please read- He could have had DNA preserved before death-
Quote
ok I had to do a double take. Your talking about having his genetic material-DNA frozen. Sure, it is easily possible. Many people today do. Getting a DNA sample is easy. If properly stored it last quite a while. You can get a DNA sample from a mouth swab, skin cells even hair.
Another thing is Weyland never mentions in AvP any children, any heirs at all. Nor is there any reference to significant other or wife. He certainly acts like no one would miss his death.
on the genetic memory thing was it ever established that she got the genetic memory from the Alien?
Quote
yes, so, while not wishing to totally discount the possibility that Bishop 2 is a clone, I ask if you think that there is at least a possibility that they could make the Bishop 2 character an illigitimate son becausef Charles Weyland's sperm was used to seed a woman, and out of that perhaps comes a very similar looking ma
Sure it would. I find that much more plausible than the 8 generation removed lookalike. Um while that would be possible I think it would be pretty damn creepy!
QuotePlease read- He could have had DNA preserved before death-
Yeah and? What are they supposed to do with it apart from make someone who looks like Weyland - but has none of Weyland's knowledge or expriences.
Quoteon the genetic memory thing was it ever established that she got the genetic memory from the Alien?
Please read -
QuotePerez "How does it have memories?"
QuoteAs Wren hypothesizes "I'm guessing they're passed down generationally like it's strength". The Alien DNA mix allows her to retain some memories of her former life.
Quote from: SM on Mar 17, 2008, 02:20:20 AM
QuoteIf you were able to clone the person responsible for the works of William Shakespeare, you might get the clone interested in perhaps mythology, writing and acting .and he might well be expected to be very successful with this, if it's in the blood so to speak
An awful lot of trouble to go to for an "if". Besides it's established in the Alien universe that it isn't "in the blood" - Perez "How does it have memories?"
I'm experiencing the idea that you don't realise that I'm talking about this in way that people inheriting talents from their parents and this doesn't have anything to do with inheriting memories from their parents. I don't believe that people in the universe of Alien are supposed to be different from this universe
Quote from: SM on Mar 17, 2008, 02:20:20 AM
What's to stop someone simply picking up his work where he left off? And why wait 100 years to clone him anyway?
Well, in terms of connecting the whole series with the AVP universe, we have only seen one man who is supposed to be taken as a human being, who looks like Charles Weyland
QuoteI'm experiencing the idea that you don't realise that I'm talking about this in way that people inheriting talents from their parents and this doesn't have anything to do with inheriting memories from their parents.
And yet siblings from the same parents often turn out extremely different.
QuoteWell, in terms of connecting the whole series with the AVP universe, we have only seen one man who is supposed to be taken as a human being, who looks like Charles Weyland
...and? Not sure where you're going with this.
Quote from: SM on Mar 17, 2008, 02:38:10 AM
QuoteI'm experiencing the idea that you don't realise that I'm talking about this in way that people inheriting talents from their parents and this doesn't have anything to do with inheriting memories from their parents.
And yet siblings from the same parents often turn out extremely different.
Yes, that can happen, but obviously this Bishop 2 ended up in robotics , and so if he's a clone maybe another one didn't establish any interest in robotics and I can't imagine what happened to him.
Quote from: SM on Mar 17, 2008, 02:38:10 AM
QuoteWell, in terms of connecting the whole series with the AVP universe, we have only seen one man who is supposed to be taken as a human being, who looks like Charles Weyland
...and? Not sure where you're going with this.
well, if there's one clone, I don't know how many clones they've made. Also I'm not giving up the possibility that he's an android who bleeds blood red fluid to make people think he's human, like some Blade Runner replicant
To what end though?
I mean it's not like he opened a vein to show Ripley he bled red blood.
Quote from: SM on Mar 17, 2008, 02:55:30 AM
To what end though?
I mean it's not like he opened a vein to show Ripley he bled red blood.
well, I'm asking myself now to what end to people need to be shown to be bleeding. Maybe he would be prepared to go that far to persuade her to give up the alien queen if their interaction went that way.
If we take Ridley Scott's Blade Runner movie, there was a background scenario thought about that the Eldon Tyrell that we see in the movie is nothing but a replicant and there are a number of these replicants all over the world in each of the various Tyrell headquarters around the world, while the real Eldon Tyrell was in a cryogenic crypt awaiting a time when he was likely to be cured of an illness that was killing him, but there had been a powercut and Tyrell died, the corporation were embarrassed about this but kept the replicants going so that the Tyrell corporation remained with a figurehead. After Roy Batty killed one of Tyrell's replicants, he found all the others in the building and killed them all until he got to the real Tyrell's crypt
So this is quite a complicated scenario that I have enjoyed thinking about since i read the revelation in an old issue of Starburst. So the world of Blade Runner for Ridley is very close to the world of Alien, even to the degree he recently mentioned in the DVD for Bladerunner that the Bladerunner city was somewhere that the crew of the Nostromo would visit when they arrived on Earth. So if we're allowing the cross seeding of ideas here, Blade Runner made me think about how people of power would have benefited by having replicants who could have their own memories implanted into them and they would be capable of doing the work of the original, or even standing in for them in a dangerous places and allow themselves to take a gun bullet in an assassination attempt, maybe in a similar manner that Queen Amidala in The Phantom Menace would have a lookalike in her place while she pretended to be one of her handmaidens. And so I read about Fincher's interest in having multiple Bishops running around in his take on the story that he sold himself on to the Studio bosses. Whether he was being serious or not, it charged my imagination
And this all formed my back story for what was going on with Bishop 2, once i found out that Blade Runner's cinematographer was working on Alien 3. Richard Edlund who worked on Alien 3 felt there was some comparison between the two films in terms of what they had to say. I thought that I read that a number of people involved in the film thought of it as being a sort of a sequel to Blade Runner and I hated Alien 3 at the time and wondered how the they could compare this movie to Blade Runner,
(but I read some funny reviews about Alien 3 that made me appreciate it more and then it matured with age.) I don't know where I read this and maybe it was a misreading of what Richard Edlund has said about his own personal thoughts.
So maybe this is the extent it goes
Continuation:
On top of that, i thought Bishop 2 character seemed a bit creepy, detached and mechanical for whatever reason, especially when he was doing the hand motions for taking the the chestburster out Ripley. He seemed like an automaton to me at first, while Bishop appeared to be like as much a 14 year old child as Lance said. And that's going by the Theatrical cut
That's all very well, but it's a tad fanciful in regards to the current argument. Overcomplicating things.
Richard Edlund, Ridley Scott and Jorden Cronenweth had no control over Alien3 story elements after all.
Quote from: SM on Mar 17, 2008, 04:23:30 AM
That's all very well, but it's a tad fanciful in regards to the current argument. Overcomplicating things.
Richard Edlund, Ridley Scott and Jorden Cronenweth had no control over Alien3 story elements after all.
I don't perceive this as complicated for me, it's an interesting pattern. But what Edlund, Scott and Cronenweth were having a effect over how I was experiencing the story elements . It's my relationship with the movie we're talking about if we're going to talk about to what extent would i be going with this
I think of existence in complicated ways maybe, but I'm not out to simplify anything really, the world of Alien has some enjoyably complicated things going on, especially with the history of the alien and the nature of the derelict and how it got aboard the Sulaco too. I'm even enjoying holding four different ideas about who Bishop 2 is without feeling the need to choose one of them
Then there's a fact that all we're getting with this Bishop 2 character as a real man, is an actor with prosthetic part on the side of his head with fake blood and there are a bunch of people behind the scenes who want you to believe because this that he is a real man and I find it unnerving that they expect anyone to really buy into this. Maybe this is the perfect response as an audience member to go through all of these different scenarios trying to work out what to think because I'd rather not take what is supposed to be the obvious, because unobvious things can happen, and then we might be talking about the world of the novels of Philip K. Dick, that might be where this all leads, and where this goes might be too troublesome for someone who wants things to fit in to the limitations of James Cameron's Aliens movie
im going to go ahead and say android. if you all remember correctly, bishop gets hit on the left side of his head towards the end of the movie. what you see after he gets hit is, the left part of his head/ear is basically just peeled forward, and bishop seems to go on like nothing happend.
Quote from: The Chibi Kiriyama on Mar 17, 2008, 12:27:25 AM
Well, in real life you're supposing that people would follow the law. It'd be illegal to let that clone grow to term, but we know that in real life and in the Alien franchise itself the legality of an issue can be skimmed around by motivated people.
As much as the Company is known for doing illegal things, those illegal things are known to some of the characters and we movie-goers. Parading around a clone of one of their founding fathers is sure to send up a red flag.
Quote from: Flaming Firefox on Mar 17, 2008, 02:08:47 AM
Your talking about 8 + generations from the Weyland in AvP. Genetic dilution through these generations would make it unlikely that the Bishop II would look so similar to Weyland in AvP. Certainly he could have certain dominant traits the Charles Bishop Weyland had. But there are many recessive traits that probably wouldn't make it down the line. For instance he has kind of greenish eyes which are a recessive trait. Bishop II probably wouldn't have those. He has thin lips also a recessive trait.
The genes I have that came from the paternal side of my family are strong. Looking at paintings and photographs of my ancestors, we all have the same eyes and some other features.
Quote from: Flaming Firefox on Mar 17, 2008, 02:17:35 AM
Another thing is Weyland never mentions in AvP any children, any heirs at all. Nor is there any reference to significant other or wife. He certainly acts like no one would miss his death.
It had been suggested that if Bishop's designer was a descendent that he wouldn't be that direct; he'd be a grand+ nephew rather than a grand+ son of Weyland. Also, there is no reference to a sperm bank or cloning facility, either.
Quote from: Flaming Firefox on Mar 17, 2008, 02:27:15 AM
Sure it would. I find that much more plausible than the 8 generation removed lookalike. Um while that would be possible I think it would be pretty damn creepy!
Nevermind that heredity is alive and well in reality.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Mar 17, 2008, 02:47:18 AM
Yes, that can happen, but obviously this Bishop 2 ended up in robotics , and so if he's a clone maybe another one didn't establish any interest in robotics and I can't imagine what happened to him.
As far as personality and other mental facets, a clone will not turn out like his predecessor. However, history has shown that some people are introduced into their parent's line of work by the parent and will encourage their progeny into doing the same. This is attributed to a familial bond between parent and child. With Weyland ("father") being gone, the clone ("child") would be less likely to take to Weyland's interests.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Mar 17, 2008, 04:27:50 AM
Then there's a fact that all we're getting with this Bishop 2 character as a real man, is an actor with prosthetic part on the side of his head with fake blood and there are a bunch of people behind the scenes who want you to believe because this that he is a real man and I find it unnerving that they expect anyone to really buy into this.
Reality (that place inhabited by humans and not robots) can be cruel.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Mar 17, 2008, 04:27:50 AM
Maybe this is the perfect response as an audience member to go through all of these different scenarios trying to work out what to think because I'd rather not take what is supposed to be the obvious, because unobvious things can happen, and then we might be talking about the world of the novels of Philip K. Dick, that might be where this all leads, and where this goes might be too troublesome for someone who wants things to fit in to the limitations of James Cameron's Aliens movie
I guess a less-complicated way of saying that is that you're happy throwing realism out the window if it gets in the way of your misinterpretation of the film.
Quote from: Tyler on Mar 17, 2008, 09:20:22 AM
im going to go ahead and say android. if you all remember correctly, bishop gets hit on the left side of his head towards the end of the movie. what you see after he gets hit is, the left part of his head/ear is basically just peeled forward, and bishop seems to go on like nothing happend.
I'm going to go ahead and say that you are not that observant or that you lie. His head injury wasn't as severe as you say it was; nor did you notice (or point out) that he did cry out in pain and had continued to display his pain.
I really don't see that he could be an android given the red blood. I think the whole point of showing that he bleeds red blood was to prove that he wasn't another android. His personality was also different than Bishop's as well. Unless he is an android with red fluid.
This leaves us with the conclusion that he is human.
Now he is either one of two possibilities given his name and connection to the Weyland in AvP.
A descendent of Weyland in AvP. Although like I pointed out no mention is ever made of Weyland having any family, kids, wife, girlfriend etc. His very statements seem to indicate that he had no family. In addition certain recessive traits that Weyland possess that I pointed out would almost certainly wouldn't be a part of Bishop II's physical features. But to confound things is the novelization calling him Michael Bishop, so is he related to Weyland or not?
or
A Clone. Although it is also not mentioned that he had his DNA stored anywhere prior to his body being disintegrated. Finding such DNA samples at his residence or even from prior medical blood samples would not be pretty easy. Especially if you had the money like Weyland corporation.
Add to this Henriksen has contradicted himself saying that he was a human and later saying he was an android.
Quote from: Flaming Firefox on Mar 17, 2008, 04:16:05 PM
A descendent of Weyland in AvP. Although like I pointed out no mention is ever made of Weyland having any family, kids, wife, girlfriend etc.
Only because they weren't relevant to the story. There was no mention of Ripley's daughter in
Alien.
Quote from: Flaming Firefox on Mar 17, 2008, 04:16:05 PM
In addition certain recessive traits that Weyland possess that I pointed out would almost certainly wouldn't be a part of Bishop II's physical features.
Unless the dominant traits were mistaken for recessive traits. Without seeing other members of his family, it's almost impossible to see which traits are dominant or recessive.
Quote from: Flaming Firefox on Mar 17, 2008, 04:16:05 PM
But to confound things is the novelization calling him Michael Bishop, so is he related to Weyland or not?
The novelization doesn't mention his name.
Quote from: Flaming Firefox on Mar 17, 2008, 04:16:05 PM
A Clone. Although it is also not mentioned that he had his DNA stored anywhere prior to his body being disintegrated. Finding such DNA samples at his residence or even from prior medical blood samples would not be pretty easy. Especially if you had the money like Weyland corporation.
As a rule, the default setting for most characters is "human". In the
Alien universe, damaged droids bleed white, talk with electronically skewed voices, etc. The only thing that would contradict that is if Company Man (or someone else) would exclaim, "Shit! Our robot was hit! Even with the red additive, anybody can see that it's a robot!"
Quote from: Flaming Firefox on Mar 17, 2008, 04:16:05 PM
Add to this Henriksen has contradicted himself saying that he was a human and later saying he was an android.
Which, given the circumstances, one can tell he was waffling for the studio. It's easier (and kewler) to say that Bishop's designer was a droid than to explain basic biological principles to fans.
QuoteUnless the dominant traits were mistaken for recessive traits. Without seeing other members of his family, it's almost impossible to see which traits are dominant or recessive.
Certain traits in all humans doesn't matter who you are, are recessive and others are dominant. You don't have to know anything about the person except which traits they have. Brown eyes for instance are always a dominant trait where blue eyes are recessive. The number of blue eyed people in the world is always declining due to this fact. In addition all blue eyed people have the same ancestor. Look it up.
On Bishop in not having a name in the novelization I quote this-
QuoteFoster's Alien³ novelisation gives Bishop II the name Michael Bishop and clearly indicates his status as a human.
QuoteAs a rule, the default setting for most characters is "human". In the Alien universe, damaged droids bleed white, talk with electronically skewed voices, etc. The only thing that would contradict that is if Company Man (or someone else) would exclaim, "Shit! Our robot was hit! Even with the red additive, anybody can see that it's a robot!"
When did the androids in the Alien universe ever talk in skewed voices? They sounded completely human. The only momment I can think of is when Ash is really damaged, but he took a crud load of damage. Your statement on what they would say about him being a robot is totally off base. IN Aliens they didn't even mention Bishop was an android untill Ripley freaked out about it. The only reason she figured it out was the white blood. Otherwise from all outer appearances you can't tell they are androids. The fact that Ash was an android and his true idenitity was concealed from the crew of the Nostromo, shows the precedent was set in the movies that for some reason android's identies as androids are sometimes concealed.
Quote from: Flaming Firefox on Mar 17, 2008, 07:03:44 PM
Certain traits in all humans doesn't matter who you are, are recessive and others are dominant. You don't have to know anything about the person except which traits they have. Brown eyes for instance are always a dominant trait where blue eyes are recessive. The number of blue eyed people in the world is always declining due to this fact. In addition all blue eyed people have the same ancestor. Look it up.
I'm aware of all that, but within an isolated population of people, blue eyes could dominate. Look that up.
Quote from: Flaming Firefox on Mar 17, 2008, 07:03:44 PM
On Bishop in not having a name in the novelization I quote this-
QuoteFoster's Alien³ novelisation gives Bishop II the name Michael Bishop and clearly indicates his status as a human.
I've read the novelization to
Alien³ several times, and his character is unnamed. But, it does say that he is human.
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 17, 2008, 06:22:51 PM
In the Alien universe, damaged droids bleed white, talk with electronically skewed voices, etc.
Quote from: Flaming Firefox on Mar 17, 2008, 07:03:44 PM
When did the androids in the Alien universe ever talk in skewed voices? They sounded completely human. The only momment I can think of is when Ash is really damaged, but he took a crud load of damage.
You must have missed the magic word the first time: "damaged". I wasn't talking about the droids
in general; just when they were
damaged.
Quote from: Flaming Firefox on Mar 17, 2008, 07:03:44 PM
Your statement on what they would say about him being a robot is totally off base.
Your statement on what I had said about the robots is totally off base; I said "damaged".
Quote from: Flaming Firefox on Mar 17, 2008, 07:03:44 PM
IN Aliens they didn't even mention Bishop was an android untill Ripley freaked out about it. The only reason she figured it out was the white blood. Otherwise from all outer appearances you can't tell they are androids.
That's why I had made a point to use the word "damaged" in my statement.
Quote from: Flaming Firefox on Mar 17, 2008, 07:03:44 PM
The fact that Ash was an android and his true idenitity was concealed from the crew of the Nostromo, shows the precedent was set in the movies that for some reason android's identies as androids are sometimes concealed.
Until they are
damaged.
QuoteI've read the novelization to Alien³ several times, and his character is unnamed. But, it does say that he is human.
The 'Michael Bishop' is from the Alien3 trading cards. Which from memory also say he's human.
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 17, 2008, 12:46:59 PM
As far as personality and other mental facets, a clone will not turn out like his predecessor. However, history has shown that some people are introduced into their parent's line of work by the parent and will encourage their progeny into doing the same. This is attributed to a familial bond between parent and child. With Weyland ("father") being gone, the clone ("child") would be less likely to take to Weyland's interests.
what would be going on is a number of cloned children would be raised to study robotics, maybe one succeeds and the rest who deviate from the intended goal may well be terminated. I think that a clone of Charles Weyland would have the required inherited intelligence, and there are no genes from a second parent who is likely to introduce anything that's going to be thrown out of balance.
As it goes, a New Scientist article mentions that while experiments have shown that that cloned animals frequently look and behave differently from the animal they are copied from, when it comes to a pet owner who had her pet cat cloned, she told the newspaper ""He is identical. His personality is the same", the Animal Behavior Associates say that a clone will be as similar as an identical twin. Anyway, so for the sake of AvP, I don't think that Bishop 2 had a personality necessarily like Charles Weyland and there's no problem with that anyway
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 17, 2008, 12:46:59 PM
Reality (that place inhabited by humans and not robots) can be cruel.
Can it, oh my gosh, well I had no idea about this! Well maybe Ridley Scott is right and there are robot spies on the loose today
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 17, 2008, 12:46:59 PMI guess a less-complicated way of saying that is that you're happy throwing realism out the window if it gets in the way of your misinterpretation of the film.
Well, your version of realsm certainly. I nor anyone else I know locally would probably have any use for it
Quote from: Tyler on Mar 17, 2008, 09:20:22 AM
im going to go ahead and say android. if you all remember correctly, bishop gets hit on the left side of his head towards the end of the movie. what you see after he gets hit is, the left part of his head/ear is basically just peeled forward, and bishop seems to go on like nothing happend.
well, in the theatrical cut, once he's recovered from the blow, he's off yelling after Ripley again in about fifteen seconds as if nothing happened. And with the sound effect that was added, quite a noise that blow caused.
Looking at the way this has been endlessly talked about in the Alien Newsgroups years ago, this is quite a paradox with no final answer enough to end arguments about it, but it's always interesting for me to see how far people people go pushing to work out all they can about it
Quote from: SM on Mar 17, 2008, 11:10:51 PM
The 'Michael Bishop' is from the Alien3 trading cards. Which from memory also say he's human.
Yep.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Mar 18, 2008, 12:52:53 AM
what would be going on is a number of cloned children would be raised to study robotics, maybe one succeeds and the rest who deviate from the intended goal may well be terminated. I think that a clone of Charles Weyland would have the required inherited intelligence, and there are no genes from a second parent who is likely to introduce anything that's going to be thrown out of balance.
Even the one would be unlikely.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Mar 18, 2008, 12:52:53 AM
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 17, 2008, 12:46:59 PM
Reality (that place inhabited by humans and not robots) can be cruel.
Can it, oh my gosh, well I had no idea about this! Well maybe Ridley Scott is right and there are robot spies on the loose today
Nooo... There are
no robot spies in reality. Humans, yes. Robots that could pass as human, no.
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 17, 2008, 12:46:59 PM
Well, your version of realsm certainly. I nor anyone else I know locally would probably have any use for it
I think you (and those you know locally) would benefit from realism.
One might as well raise an ordinary child and simply give them lots of robotic-specific education. :) If genetic manipulation is involved, then just get any old one and refine the brain, so that it becomes more adept at mathematics and all of that.
Bishop 2 being a robot just happens to fit more with 'Alien Versus Predator', in my view, for a whole myriad of reasons. Including it being a bit weird to put a robotics designer in charge of a biological weapons expedition and inform them of the company's deepest, darkest secret. But I've been through these types of hypotheticals before.
Bishop 2 is whatever you want it to be. Human, clone, relative or artificial construct. If a future story wants to choose one of them and can make it work, then, hey, so be it.
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Mar 18, 2008, 12:56:58 PM
One might as well raise an ordinary child and simply give them lots of robotic-specific education. :) If genetic manipulation is involved, then just get any old one and refine the brain, so that it becomes more adept at mathematics and all of that.
Which is something they could do with any child and not a clone of Weyland. But, again, clone or not, the child would not turn out as Weyland. There are too many factors to consider. If we were to rewind history and to change one little thing in Hitler's life, it's very unlikely that the underachieving corporal would evolve into the powerful man responsible for the deaths of millions.
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Mar 18, 2008, 12:56:58 PM
Bishop 2 being a robot just happens to fit more with 'Alien Versus Predator', in my view, for a whole myriad of reasons. Including it being a bit weird to put a robotics designer in charge of a biological weapons expedition and inform them of the company's deepest, darkest secret. But I've been through these types of hypotheticals before.
Again, it was to make Ripley think that if she trusted the android after many trials that she could trust the person who had designed it because it was patterned after him.
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Mar 18, 2008, 12:56:58 PM
Bishop 2 is whatever you want it to be. Human, clone, relative or artificial construct. If a future story wants to choose one of them and can make it work, then, hey, so be it.
Then that rule should apply to
all characters. The alien on Fiorina decided to lay off organics for a bit and took the android warden, Andrews?
QuoteBishop 2 is whatever you want it to be. Human, clone, relative or artificial construct. If a future story wants to choose one of them and can make it work, then, hey, so be it.
Good answer! ;D
Cop out.
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 18, 2008, 12:26:01 PM
Even the one would be unlikely..
Thank heavens I don't have to rely on you for the last word
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 18, 2008, 12:26:01 PM
Nooo... There are no robot spies in reality. Humans, yes. Robots that could pass as human, no.
well, I'd like Ridley Scott to expand on how sure he is about robot spies being used by various organisations in todays reality. I've not heard anyone mention it as a present possibility beofre
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 17, 2008, 12:46:59 PM
I think you (and those you know locally) would benefit from realism.
well whose version of realism are you talking about?
Quote from: Flaming Firefox on Mar 18, 2008, 03:16:21 PM
QuoteBishop 2 is whatever you want it to be. Human, clone, relative or artificial construct. If a future story wants to choose one of them and can make it work, then, hey, so be it.
Good answer! ;D
I'd like Lance to return as Bishop 2 to highlight and sort out this crisis about his identity
Crisis? What crisis?
Quote from: SM on Mar 19, 2008, 12:54:36 AM
Crisis? What crisis?
well, there have been people over the years on the internet , warring about who or what he is, and there's this director of AvP making claims about what Bishop 2 is just over his name, and Lance doesn't seem to be getting to the core of the matter himself, he's avoided it, Cameron didn't seem to like him being a human and well... a thousand 'I don't knows' seem to be following
Lance hasn't avoided it. He honestly believes that Anderson resolved the issue during AVP.
Quote from: The Chibi Kiriyama on Mar 19, 2008, 01:10:05 AM
Lance hasn't avoided it. He honestly believes that Anderson resolved the issue during AVP.
well, I'm going to have to hire a bunch of android asassins to come after to him and force him to tell everyone that he's a clone cyborg.
Well at least get him to talk in greater depths about how up in the air this Bishop 2 character was when he was filming Alien 3, if that's really so. Well I like the idea that he's a Rorschach character anyway
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Mar 19, 2008, 12:46:53 AM
Thank heavens I don't have to rely on you for the last word
You're doing a dandy job of trying to be it.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Mar 19, 2008, 12:46:53 AM
well, I'd like Ridley Scott to expand on how sure he is about robot spies being used by various organisations in todays reality. I've not heard anyone mention it as a present possibility beofre
I'm sure that there are people locked up somewhere who will tell you who the robots are.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Mar 19, 2008, 12:46:53 AM
well whose version of realism are you talking about?
Don't even start with that Down the Rabbit Hole nonsense.
Quote from: The Chibi Kiriyama on Mar 19, 2008, 01:10:05 AM
Lance hasn't avoided it. He honestly believes that Anderson resolved the issue during AVP.
More like
after the movie when people got confused over the character after finally seeing
Alien³. (Just by listening to the people around me in the audience during
AVP's screening half (if not most) of them had not seen any of the
Alien films. I'm not saying that this is the case with everyone who believes that Bishop's creator was a droid, but it does shed som light on this.)
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Mar 19, 2008, 01:13:40 AM
Well at least get him to talk in greater depths about how up in the air this Bishop 2 character was when he was filming Alien 3
But it wasn't "up in the air". Fincher, et al. all said he was human.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Mar 19, 2008, 01:13:40 AM
Well I like the idea that he's a Rorschach character anyway
That's
your reality...
::)
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 19, 2008, 10:15:30 AM
You're doing a dandy job of trying to be it.
I know at least that I could be my own last word, but what do you want me to know by this statement of yours about being the last word?
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 19, 2008, 10:15:30 AM
I'm sure that there are people locked up somewhere who will tell you who the robots are.
That wouldn't interest me, but Ridley Scott's point of view would since he's the one talking about this, or some other equally quotable source
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 19, 2008, 10:15:30 AM
Don't even start with that Down the Rabbit Hole nonsense.
so what do you want me to know by this statement?
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 19, 2008, 10:15:30 AM
But it wasn't "up in the air". Fincher, et al. all said he was human.
It doesn't change the fact that I'd to know how far Henriksen can go with this statement though and even to get more from Fincher about what was going on with the final scene.
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 19, 2008, 10:15:30 AM
That's your reality...
::)
It's my reality indeed and even perhaps at times the reality for a few others
Hmm, this might be interesting
Quote from: Ian Spelling who wrote in his article that was also a Lance Henriksen interview:
Starlog/July 1992, p46
As for Bishop II, he initially met his maker after proving his disdain for human life by letting Ripley and the other inhabitants of Alien 3 be hunted down by the Alien. Reshoots brought Bishop II - who had created his android in his own image - back to life, but barely
"It's hard to tell. Bishop II gets clobbered in the head with a piece of steel. it almost takes my ear off. It opens the side of my head up. "smiles Henriksen grabbing at his feet, "but I don't die. They think I'm an android. I'm a person, the guy who created Bishop
So, if that's entirely correct about the reshoot, my response to that might be to wonder if any of the part of the scene with Bishop II came from the first version of the shoot up to the shot where he was hit.
I'm wondering what exactly was filmed earlier. In the storyboards for the final theatrical release in the DVD quadrilogy set, they do actually have Bishop 2 being hit with a pipe that has a bend in it and so it smashes into his skull like a hammer, and he's on the floor crying out, and I might wonder if he's dying from that injury, and in the alternate storyboards he receives an axe in the head and falls over the railing, probably dead
He is what he is and who are we to say?
He is human based on the evidence (at least in the SE) and we are the scrutinizing audience.
Quote from: Flaming Firefox on Mar 18, 2008, 03:16:21 PM
QuoteBishop 2 is whatever you want it to be. Human, clone, relative or artificial construct. If a future story wants to choose one of them and can make it work, then, hey, so be it.
Good answer! ;D
Great answer!
Quote from: DarkStar117 on Mar 23, 2008, 05:50:57 PM
Quote from: Flaming Firefox on Mar 18, 2008, 03:16:21 PM
QuoteBishop 2 is whatever you want it to be. Human, clone, relative or artificial construct. If a future story wants to choose one of them and can make it work, then, hey, so be it.
Good answer!
Great answer!
Not really, as there is a definite answer and "whatever you want" isn't it.
Opiniated much? well i simply stated that his response was a good one. No where in my response does it say i agree with it.
Quote from: DarkStar117 on Mar 23, 2008, 06:09:49 PM
Opiniated much?
I've been wrongly accused as such. As
Eidotemit,
SM, myself and many others have pointed out (and others have denied), the film makers have given a definite answer. That is a statement of fact; something that can be verified.
Quote from: DarkStar117 on Mar 23, 2008, 06:09:49 PM
well i simply stated that his response was a good one.
All I did was counter it with not just an opinion, but also with a statement of fact (see above).
Quote from: DarkStar117 on Mar 23, 2008, 06:09:49 PM
No where in my response does it say i agree with it.
Not that you agree or disagree was ever an issue, but I didn't make any comment or reference as to whether or not you had agreed with it.
You being opinionated aka joke
You people take life to seriously.
Quote from: DarkStar117 on Mar 23, 2008, 06:41:40 PM
You being opinionated aka joke
So, everything you say is a joke? Got it.
Quote from: DarkStar117 on Mar 23, 2008, 06:41:40 PM
You people take life to seriously.
"You people"?
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FAnimal%2520Smilies%2F012d4268.jpg&hash=d3c70334ddd6cb7ee7f62fdd8abc24ac58795027)
Yes I am a world class comedian and full time racist now!!! Look Everone I said "you people" that makes me a racist!!
well, if anyone thinks that the know the answer, they really have to be told to forget what they think they know or pay certain penalties that I don't present know about. And whatever evidence there is to point to the final answer, it ought to be put in a lead container and buried a five hundred square foot block of concrete, and as a disclaimer, I admit that don't know that for sure because maybe many thousands of people in this day and age could really benefit from experiencing the confusion even further and finding new and modern ways to get entangled within in it that could benefit humanity as a whole. I'm opting for having the non-linear last word on this matter
I think this subject is dead and done.
Quote from: DarkStar117 on Mar 23, 2008, 07:01:31 PM
Yes I am a world class comedian and full time racist now!!! Look Everone I said "you people" that makes me a racist!!
I never brought up race, now did I? Whoops. That sounded serious. Just for good measure: LOL.
He turns up. States his opinion. Slags everyone off for taking life 'to (sic) seriously'. Then says the thread is 'dead and done'.
Gotta laugh. :D
I think he was a human. Screw AvP continuity.
i really could not decide i think he is human though
how could he be human if this is supposed to take place in the way future? and AVP is supposed to take place in recent years? What is he a super human?
Bishop doth not equal Weyland.
Quote from: rycher on Apr 18, 2008, 03:01:36 AM
how could he be human if this is supposed to take place in the way future? and AVP is supposed to take place in recent years? What is he a super human?
Yes, he's a super-human who comes back to life after being stabbed to death by a Predator, lives for a few more centuries and ends up looking 15 years younger than when he started.
Jeezus. ::)
Quote from: Uncanny Antman on Apr 18, 2008, 05:15:20 AM
Yes, he's a super-human who comes back to life after being stabbed to death by a Predator, lives for a few more centuries and ends up looking 15 years younger than when he started.
Jeezus. ::)
Don't forget that he had also survived getting vaporized.
Maybe that's what made him SuperWeyland?
"My pants...caught on barbed wire." **CHOKE** "An A-bomb! Yeeeaaarggghh!"
Quote from: rycher on Apr 18, 2008, 03:01:36 AM
how could he be human if this is supposed to take place in the way future? and AVP is supposed to take place in recent years? What is he a super human?
Don't think AvP franchise has something to do in Alien franchise, you are totaly off mate.
In the movie, Bishop II appear like a human who say he isn't an android but is it the true?
I need to watch again Alien Quadrilogy with Fincher comment at this sequence, i remember he talk about Bishop II.
Quote from: Le Celticant on Apr 18, 2008, 02:30:36 PM
Quote from: rycher on Apr 18, 2008, 03:01:36 AM
how could he be human if this is supposed to take place in the way future? and AVP is supposed to take place in recent years? What is he a super human?
Don't think AvP franchise has something to do in Alien franchise, you are totaly off mate.
In the movie, Bishop II appear like a human who say he isn't an android but is it the true?
I need to watch again Alien Quadrilogy with Fincher comment at this sequence, i remember he talk about Bishop II.
He was being sarcastic
the truth is he in alien 3 is the creator the human. theres the blood the injury the fact he screams im not a robot and on the commentary the director gave him red blood to show he was the human. the idea is that bishiop 2 or reall bishop is a major asshole. and built the bishop units to make himself seam more human and caring. if the robots are caring then so must the creator its an evil tactic but it works
He's a human it's so obvious, I can't believe this thread is still alive.
Quote from: Harkus on Apr 28, 2008, 07:49:32 PM
He's a human it's so obvious, I can't believe this thread is still alive.
it's probably due to the extremes of people's beliefs and disbeliefs that this thread continues
Quote from: Uncanny Antman on Apr 18, 2008, 12:46:02 PM
Maybe that's what made him SuperWeyland?
"My pants...caught on barbed wire." **CHOKE** "An A-bomb! Yeeeaaarggghh!"
Haha, Radio active man.
It is a surprise that this thread is still going, I just like the descendent of Mr. Weyland idea.
Half and half, in the first scene with him he's an android at the end he was a human when Ripley met him as the real human Bishop, the android was just an android replica of him.
Quote from: Xenomorph on May 07, 2008, 01:10:02 AM
Half and half, in the first scene with him he's an android at the end he was a human when Ripley met him as the real human Bishop, the android was just an android replica of him.
I hope you're not being serious.
since 1992 when Alien 3 was released and when i first saw Alien 3 in theaters and seeing Bishop 2 gets hit in the head with that big wrench at the side of the head of Bishop and seeing him not either knocked out or even killed i assumed he was an advanced android instead of the white blood like Bishop, Ash, and Call had but the Bishop 2 had red blood. In the quadrilogy set Alien 3 the director's cut that all fans been waiting for to see since Alien 3 was so badly edited and seeing again the same scene when Aaron uses that big wrench and slugged it at Bishop's head and seeing all that red blood squirting out and him not falling down on the floor in pain or even like i said before not being knocked out or dead from that blow to the head so I still believe that Bishop 2 in Alien 3 both orginal verison and director's cut is that he's an advanced model android.
Quote from: XENOMORPH ALIENS on May 08, 2008, 02:52:56 AM
since 1992 when Alien 3 was released and when i first saw Alien 3 in theaters and seeing Bishop 2 gets hit in the head with that big wrench at the side of the head of Bishop and seeing him not either knocked out or even killed i assumed he was an advanced android instead of the white blood like Bishop, Ash, and Call had but the Bishop 2 had red blood.
People have shown less reaction to even greater head injuries, nevermind that his injury wasn't that severe. His ear getting dislodged is hardly a life threatening injury.
Quote from: XENOMORPH ALIENS on May 08, 2008, 02:52:56 AM
In the quadrilogy set Alien 3 the director's cut that all fans been waiting for to see since Alien 3 was so badly edited and seeing again the same scene when Aaron uses that big wrench and slugged it at Bishop's head and seeing all that red blood squirting out and him not falling down on the floor in pain or even like i said before not being knocked out or dead from that blow to the head so I still believe that Bishop 2 in Alien 3 both orginal verison and director's cut is that he's an advanced model android.
Not understanding how nature works and just believing in whatever one wants is the crux of silly notions, like Scientology, Creationism, UFOs, etc. Besides, the filmmakers say he's human. Case closed.
Quote from: XENOMORPH ALIENS on May 08, 2008, 02:52:56 AM
since 1992 when Alien 3 was released and when i first saw Alien 3 in theaters and seeing Bishop 2 gets hit in the head with that big wrench at the side of the head of Bishop and seeing him not either knocked out or even killed i assumed he was an advanced android instead of the white blood like Bishop, Ash, and Call had but the Bishop 2 had red blood. In the quadrilogy set Alien 3 the director's cut that all fans been waiting for to see since Alien 3 was so badly edited and seeing again the same scene when Aaron uses that big wrench and slugged it at Bishop's head and seeing all that red blood squirting out and him not falling down on the floor in pain or even like i said before not being knocked out or dead from that blow to the head so I still believe that Bishop 2 in Alien 3 both orginal verison and director's cut is that he's an advanced model android.
So basically despite the fact that the DC of A3 has Bishop2 state that he's not an android... you're going to continue to believe he is an android.
Not to mention he winces in pain in the AC. Robots tend to not do that.
Quote from: XENOMORPH ALIENS on May 08, 2008, 02:52:56 AM
since 1992 when Alien 3 was released and when i first saw Alien 3 in theaters and seeing Bishop 2 gets hit in the head with that big wrench at the side of the head of Bishop and seeing him not either knocked out or even killed i assumed he was an advanced android instead of the white blood like Bishop, Ash, and Call had but the Bishop 2 had red blood. In the quadrilogy set Alien 3 the director's cut that all fans been waiting for to see since Alien 3 was so badly edited and seeing again the same scene when Aaron uses that big wrench and slugged it at Bishop's head and seeing all that red blood squirting out and him not falling down on the floor in pain or even like i said before not being knocked out or dead from that blow to the head so I still believe that Bishop 2 in Alien 3 both orginal verison and director's cut is that he's an advanced model android.
Call is an android that was made around 200 years after Alien 3 was set, If Bishop II was an android (which he definately isn't) why would he have red blood but an android that is much, much more advanced still have white blood?
Quote from: That Yellow Alien on May 09, 2008, 11:21:15 PM
Not to mention he winces in pain in the AC. Robots tend to not do that.
To play devils advocate, he could easily have been programmed to. Bishop obviously appeared to be in distress and "pain" when the Queen impaled and tore him apart. Call was shown to be in "pain" when the Newborn was attacking her.
Call, I agree. But when Bishop was impaled I always thought that was him malfunctioning and spazzing out, not so much pain.
He didn't look like he was having fun:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FAlien%2F743863d5.gif&hash=71b05efb1cec2fcb5502cda87aed6d2c5bb0d3c3)
Of course he is. He's dancing!
I really like how Ripley is trying to drag him off the dance floor with the disco lights, really its perfect!
"Let me go Ripley, I'm having so much fun I can even taste it!"
Quote
Call is an android that was made around 200 years after Alien 3 was set, If Bishop II was an android (which he definately isn't) why would he have red blood but an android that is much, much more advanced still have white blood?
WY could've colored the white" blood" in red, that way if Bishop 2 is injuried she will believe he's human.He's here to trick her.
Why trick her when they could just send the real person? That way there would be no lies, well, except for the whole "We want to take it out of you and destroy it" idea.
QuoteWY could've colored the white" blood" in red, that way if Bishop 2 is injuried she will believe he's human.He's here to trick her.
If the red blood was so important - we didn't he cut himself to prove it?
QuoteIf Bishop II was an android (which he definately isn't) why would he have red blood but an android that is much, much more advanced still have white blood?
The question the android lovers daren't answer.
Quote from: SM on May 12, 2008, 01:13:26 AM
QuoteIf Bishop II was an android (which he definately isn't) why would he have red blood but an android that is much, much more advanced still have white blood?
The question the android lovers daren't answer.
I demand that they answer it now ;D
Well I might go look for it but Im pretty sure its been officially said he is an advanced android. Among other things, one reason Call's blood was white was probably the directors way to reinforce the idea that she is an android.
Quote from: Layorz on May 14, 2008, 10:33:14 AM
Well I might go look for it but Im pretty sure its been officially said he is an advanced android.
Well, it doesn't get more official than what was said by the filmmakers, and the guys who worked on
Alien³ say he's human. As for Anderson, he didn't work on that film and didn't say anything about Bishop's creator in the commentary for
AVP nor had he said anything until he had realized that he had confused people with the forced-sounding named Charles Bishop Weyland.
Quote from: Layorz on May 14, 2008, 10:33:14 AM
Among other things, one reason Call's blood was white was probably the directors way to reinforce the idea that she is an android.
You'd think that they would have done the same thing in
Alien³ to reinforce the idea that Bishop's creator was an android. David Twohy's script had done so about one of his characters.
Quote from: Layorz on May 14, 2008, 10:33:14 AM
one reason Call's blood was white was probably the directors way to reinforce the idea that she is an android.
Bishop II's blood was red as a way to reinforce the idea that he is not an android.
Exactly. If the director wanted to reinforce that he is indeed an android without a doubt, then the logical thing to do would be to have him bleed white blood, not red. There would be no confusion, and be all the more surprising.
I'm sick of this crap. AVP is NOT canon to the Alien timeline!!! Why do people think anything Paul Anderson or any other person writes up and plops onto the theater is a divine truth!?
And I believe Bishop from Alien 3 was indeed a human. All these arguments about advanced androids having red blood are ridiculous and far fetched.
The whole reason why he was actually hit in the ear in the movie was to show he was human. I don't think it's a reverse psychology thing to make people think he was an android posing as a human.
I thought in Alien 3 he said he was the real Weyland?
Its been awhile sense iv seen A3 ::)
Quote from: PREDATOR KING on May 17, 2008, 01:30:48 AM
I thought in Alien 3 he said he was the real Weyland?
Its been awhile sense iv seen A3 ::)
In a nutshell, he was the guy who had designed the Bishop android. His name was never mentioned onscreen or in scripts. As far as
AVP is concerned, he was just a different guy than Chuck Weyland.
Maybe a descendant
Quote from: Zero on Apr 18, 2008, 10:17:45 PM
Quote from: Le Celticant on Apr 18, 2008, 02:30:36 PM
Quote from: rycher on Apr 18, 2008, 03:01:36 AM
how could he be human if this is supposed to take place in the way future? and AVP is supposed to take place in recent years? What is he a super human?
Don't think AvP franchise has something to do in Alien franchise, you are totaly off mate.
In the movie, Bishop II appear like a human who say he isn't an android but is it the true?
I need to watch again Alien Quadrilogy with Fincher comment at this sequence, i remember he talk about Bishop II.
He was being sarcastic
thank you, at least someone gets it. ::)
this whole thing about AVP and A3 totally threw off the "concept" of Bishop. ??? To be honest IMO mind you, I wish they left chuck Bishop out of it. You can argue my point all you want its just an opinion I have.
.....and yes it would have raised questions about "where did Weyland- yutani come from?" but I think they could of explained that in a new alien movie rather than dragging it into an Alien vs Predator movie.
Quote from: rycher on May 25, 2008, 04:52:35 PM
this whole thing about AVP and A3 totally threw off the "concept" of Bishop. ??? To be honest IMO mind you, I wish they left chuck Bishop out of it. You can argue my point all you want its just an opinion I have.
.....and yes it would have raised questions about "where did Weyland- yutani come from?" but I think they could of explained that in a new alien movie rather than dragging it into an Alien vs Predator movie.
Totally agreed. Lance was just there to make a few more ppl watch AVP.
He did say he did it for the money.
I can't believe this thread is still going same old arguments too! :D
he was possibly Bishop the second
if u watch the bonus matierals in avp i dont remember if it was the commentary or just behind the scenes but they say that both bishops in aliens (obvisly) and Alien 3 are droids of Waylend in AVP at a young age. So to make a long story short hes an ANDROID
Quote from: joey44 on Jul 04, 2008, 05:05:44 PM
if u watch the bonus matierals in avp i dont remember if it was the commentary or just behind the scenes but they say that both bishops in aliens (obvisly) and Alien 3 are droids of Waylend in AVP at a young age. So to make a long story short hes an ANDROID
There is no mention of a second droid in the
AVP commentary track. They only mention the one from
Aliens.
Even if that was their reasoning, the fact that Lance didn't look that young (he was in his mid-40s during the filming of
Aliens) makes me question why they didn't make the androids [sic] look even more younger, hence more flattering.
Quote from: maledoro on Jul 05, 2008, 12:48:48 AM
Quote from: joey44 on Jul 04, 2008, 05:05:44 PM
if u watch the bonus matierals in avp i dont remember if it was the commentary or just behind the scenes but they say that both bishops in aliens (obvisly) and Alien 3 are droids of Waylend in AVP at a young age. So to make a long story short hes an ANDROID
There is no mention of a second droid in the AVP commentary track. They only mention the one from Aliens.
Even if that was their reasoning, the fact that Lance didn't look that young (he was in his mid-40s during the filming of Aliens) makes me question why they didn't make the androids [sic] look even more younger, hence more flattering.
oh i thought they were talking about it in plural my bad yeah i wonderd that too its probably cause they didnt plan on him being the founder of the company cause they woulda put him in the Alien
and regards to people wonderin if he was in on it all along i think he was cause as close as he got to ripley he was still an android created by the company and his loyality would be to them first
Quote from: joey44 on Jul 05, 2008, 11:18:58 PM
i think he was cause as close as he got to ripley he was still an android created by the company and his loyality would be to them first
That means nothing, as a human would be just as loyal to the Company.
Quote from: maledoro on Jul 06, 2008, 12:49:51 AM
Quote from: joey44 on Jul 05, 2008, 11:18:58 PM
i think he was cause as close as he got to ripley he was still an android created by the company and his loyality would be to them first
That means nothing, as a human would be just as loyal to the Company.
yeah we saw that in aliens but i mean its hard wired in their system
Quote from: joey44 on Jul 07, 2008, 08:32:08 PM
yeah we saw that in aliens but i mean its hard wired in their system
That a human would be loyal to the Company? It's possible, but not
all humans would be loyal (e.g. Ripley).
Oddly enough Ripley probably started out being the MOST loyal to the Company (apart from Ash who didn't have a choice). Her Nostromo crew mates seemed to have more than a healthy dose of cynicism towards their employer.
Quote from: SM on Jul 08, 2008, 01:14:49 AM
Oddly enough Ripley probably started out being the MOST loyal to the Company (apart from Ash who didn't have a choice). Her Nostromo crew mates seemed to have more than a healthy dose of cynicism towards their employer.
Very true. Needless to say, at the end of that voyage, she had even
more reason to be cynical toward the Company than her shipmates!
;)
bu the point i was trying to make was that Bishops loyality would be to the company and he would betray Ripley
Red blood.
yeah i saw that too and i always thought he was human till avp
Quote from: joey44 on Jul 09, 2008, 03:54:23 AM
bu the point i was trying to make was that Bishops loyality would be to the company and he would betray Ripley
Your point failed in that a human could just as well be loyal to the Company. A "goddamned percentage" would do the trick.
Quote from: joey44 on Jul 09, 2008, 05:16:48 AM
yeah i saw that too [red blood] and i always thought he was human till avp
I saw
AVP and had no problem knowing he was human.
i think he was human but ive been confused since avp came out can someone explain the connection i know that in avp he was suposed to be the founder of the waylend company but in alien 3 they made it seem like he was the founder too. im just confused about all of it
Quote from: SpaceJockey on Jul 13, 2008, 03:57:06 AM
i think he was human but ive been confused since avp came out can someone explain the connection i know that in avp he was suposed to be the founder of the waylend company but in alien 3 they made it seem like he was the founder too. im just confused about all of it
In Alien 3 Bishop claims to be the designer of the Bishop model droid, making him an important engineer for the company. He is not the founder/head of WY, or people would have recognized droid Bishop in Aliens. Alien 3 Bishop is just a loyalist to WY who tries to convince Ripley, by showing her a "friendly face", to go with the company so that they could have the alien for its weapons program. He gets injured and bleeds red blood, proving that he is a human. If he were a top of the line android, then Call would have bled red as well because she is a much more advanced model and probably based off of the same concepts as the droids from A1-3. And also, is it just me, or would making robots in the image of WY's leader (who would have to be the most powerful private industrialists ever) cause utter confusion? That would be like making a Bush-Bot and sending him out to the Middle East to farm for oil. Anyways, AVP took the alien universe and dumped on it, making its own canon. In AVP Charles Bishop Weyland is a robotics genius who founded Weyland (not Weland/Yutani) Industries. He dies, there are no androids, and AVP:R sorta continued AVPs shame by introducing the head of Yutani. Some believe that AVP is part of the original Alien universe which would make A3 Bishop either a robot or a clone, but because he bleeds red and cloning isnt perfected until A:R this would make him an average person. I hope this clears things up for you.
1.He is a human.
2.AVP movies aren't canon.
Quote from: SpaceJockey on Jul 13, 2008, 03:57:06 AM
in alien 3 they made it seem like he was the founder too. im just confused about all of it
They didn't make it seem that way at all. All he said was that he had designed Bishop, which is not the same as him being the founder or current CEO of the Company.
Quote from: Undeadite on Jul 13, 2008, 07:01:34 AM
Some believe that AVP is part of the original Alien universe which would make A3 Bishop either a robot or a clone.
Whether
AVP is part of the
Alien universe or not shouldn't have a bearing on Bishop's creator's existential orientation. They are two different people; not too confusing.
Why is this so damned hard for people to get?!
HUH, WTH! I've never thought of this question before. After he gets clonked on the head, the only thought that went through my head was "yep, another android". So I never really looked closely. Especially after he just gets straight back up. Anyone got a screen shot so we can examine what lies underneath the skin that hangs off? Was there any white liquid dripping off the end?
No.
There was a lot of flesh covered in red liquid though. You know... like human blood.
Quote from: Eidotemit on Jul 13, 2008, 05:24:26 PM
Why is this so damned hard for people to get?!
Because they
want him to be a robot or they just don't understand basic science. It's the same reason people believe in other unfounded notions.
Here's a good example of not understanding head injuries:
Quote from: Blitzx on Jul 13, 2008, 07:43:57 PM
HUH, WTH! I've never thought of this question before. After he gets clonked on the head, the only thought that went through my head was "yep, another android". So I never really looked closely. Especially after he just gets straight back up. Anyone got a screen shot so we can examine what lies underneath the skin that hangs off? Was there any white liquid dripping off the end?
Quote from: maledoro on Jul 13, 2008, 10:16:36 PM
Quote from: Eidotemit on Jul 13, 2008, 05:24:26 PM
Why is this so damned hard for people to get?!
Because they want him to be a robot or they just don't understand basic science. It's the same reason people believe in other unfounded notions.
Here's a good example of not understanding head injuries:
Quote from: Blitzx on Jul 13, 2008, 07:43:57 PM
HUH, WTH! I've never thought of this question before. After he gets clonked on the head, the only thought that went through my head was "yep, another android". So I never really looked closely. Especially after he just gets straight back up. Anyone got a screen shot so we can examine what lies underneath the skin that hangs off? Was there any white liquid dripping off the end?
>_> first post on this thread and here's the response I get. So what you saying,
he isn't a robot but he
reacts like one when someone bashes his head in? Make some sense will you and make your mind up. Don't switch arguments in the middle of a post.
Can someone please just answer the question, is he human or isn't he then? And some proof e.g. screenshot would be nice (which I've already asked for politely in my previous post). You guys said that AVP isn't cannon, so if he was human he would still be alive in that time or he could be a clone like Ripley, correct? That's
if he's human.
P.S. I haven't been able to get round reading over 80-pages of posts. So if I missed something, don't try and crucify me like ^ attempted.
QuoteSo what you saying, he isn't a robot but he reacts like one when someone bashes his head in?
No he's not saying thet.
QuoteMake some sense will you and make your mind up. Don't switch arguments in the middle of a post.
He isn't. Read the post properly.
Quote from: Blitzx on Jul 14, 2008, 12:54:04 AM
So what you saying, he isn't a robot but he reacts like one when someone bashes his head in?
No, it isn't what I am saying. When did I say that he reacted like a robot?
Quote from: Blitzx on Jul 14, 2008, 12:54:04 AM
Make some sense will you and make your mind up.
Sorry if you don't understand, and my mind was made up when I had first seen
Alien³. No confusion there.
Quote from: Blitzx on Jul 14, 2008, 12:54:04 AM
Don't switch arguments in the middle of a post.
Uh, I didn't...
Quote from: Blitzx on Jul 14, 2008, 12:54:04 AM
Can someone please just answer the question, is he human or isn't he then?
He's human.
Quote from: Blitzx on Jul 14, 2008, 12:54:04 AM
And some proof e.g. screenshot would be nice (which I've already asked for politely in my previous post).
A screen shot won't do, as it doesn't reveal anything. However, the scripts, DVD commentary, etc., all point to him being human.
Quote from: Blitzx on Jul 14, 2008, 12:54:04 AM
You guys said that AVP isn't cannon, so if he was human he would still be alive in that time or he could be a clone like Ripley, correct? That's if he's human.
I didn't say that
AVP wasn't canon. But, I did say that they were two different guys living in two different times.
Much clearer. That's all I needed to know. Not some laying into. Thanks for the info.
ill go with human
I just always assumed he was another synthetic - maybe even given the red blood to appear more human. He was maybe always supposed to appear human.
I thought he was synthetic 'cos, to me, he was only being nice to Ripley and all so he could get the alien - the alien was his only concern and I just thought it would be like something the company would do, send a "friendly face" to try to talk her round.
I then remember hearing/reading that he was supposed to be human (did someone maybe mention it on the Alien 3 commentary? I'm not sure) and that kinda surprised me.
(I think I also thought it made more sense to have a synthetic of a dead guy, rather than having the human and at least one exact replica of him running around).
With AvP everyone seemed to change their mind and say that Bishop 2 was a 'droid.
Quotedid someone maybe mention it on the Alien 3 commentary? I'm not sure
Yes, Edlund and the ADI guys confirm he's human.
Quote from: SM on Jul 24, 2008, 12:19:29 AM
Yes, Edlund and the ADI guys confirm he's human.
Not to mention Lance "The Flip-Flopper" Henriksen.
this thread is proof that paul anderson is a retard. human
Quote from: SM on Jul 24, 2008, 12:19:29 AM
Quotedid someone maybe mention it on the Alien 3 commentary? I'm not sure
Yes, Edlund and the ADI guys confirm he's human.
Ah, thought so. Thanks.
Well I know at that time they couldn't have seen the whole Charles-Bishop-Weyland-AvP thing coming (and it's not their fault anyway), but it would have been better if they left Bishop 2 open to speculation.
Shame. I always liked the idea that Bishop 2 was an advanced 'droid anyway (and that maybe only the company knew he was synthetic, to the rest of the world he was supposed to be human). And I actually did like the idea of Mr Weyland in AvP - if only it hadn't been confirmed before that the human Bishop was actually in Alien3......... :(
Quote from: Lilywhite_Lilith on Jul 24, 2008, 12:10:05 PM
Well I know at that time they couldn't have seen the whole Charles-Bishop-Weyland-AvP thing coming (and it's not their fault anyway), but it would have been better if they left Bishop 2 open to speculation.
It wasn't an issue for me. For some bizarre reason, people have a hard time accepting the idea that they're two different people living at two different times. Anderson discovered this (people's misperception) too late and had to come up with a hamfisted solution to cover his f**kup.
Quote from: Lilywhite_Lilith on Jul 24, 2008, 12:10:05 PM
Shame. I always liked the idea that Bishop 2 was an advanced 'droid anyway (and that maybe only the company knew he was synthetic, to the rest of the world he was supposed to be human). And I actually did like the idea of Mr Weyland in AvP - if only it hadn't been confirmed before that the human Bishop was actually in Alien3......... :(
Unfortunately, people let "likable ideas" get in their way of seeing how things are. They have to attach meanings and other rhetorical nonsense which has no business in discovery.
Quote from: Lilywhite_Lilith on Jul 24, 2008, 12:10:05 PM
if only it hadn't been confirmed before that the human Bishop was actually in Alien3......... :(
I've found some old Alien fanzines dating back more than a dozen years ago, before Internet killed them all off and it brought me back to see how back then that despite knowing what was being officially said by people involved in the film, a lot of fans remained unsettled over the issue and no one had a way to really claim what this character was in terms of human or robot in the world of this sci-fi movie.
My theory about the scene is these days are that the editing got out of hand with the reshoots causing some people to be perplexed about the nature of the head beating, since (assuming that the shot where Bishop 2 is hit was from the earlier shoot) in the earlier shoot, it would have led to Bishop II dying and then in the much later reshoot which I assume was stitched on after he was hit, he didn't die and well the final film was out of Fincher's hands and once he left the production he was unable to care less anyway about the final film.
If it was so that Bishop II was supposed to be a different form of android or at least a sort of a fake human, maybe Fincher did things without telling his collaborators what was completely on his mind and he gave them the necessary components of the scenario to carry out their objectives, because if the producers and the studio bosses knew for sure what he was planning, they would have put a stop to it since it's seems that he had quite a battle with the producers and studio bosses
However Anderson's explanation about who or what Bishop 2 was didn't have much thought to it. It didn't address the intricate arguments that people were having about the character, but it's not as if his movies have that extra dimension to make people think that there could be something interesting in all the blindingly big gaps in his ideas
Quotemaybe Fincher did things without telling his collaborators what was completely on his mind
His collaborators - ADI - say on the commentary that Fincher wanted to make sure people could see he was human, hence the red blood.
Quote from: SM on Jul 24, 2008, 11:11:24 PM
Quotemaybe Fincher did things without telling his collaborators what was completely on his mind
His collaborators - ADI - say on the commentary that Fincher wanted to make sure people could see he was human, hence the red blood.
well, if we were to explore my little conspiracy scenario, this would count as a necessary component of the scenario given to them to carry out their objectives,
Why?
Fincher: "I want to make it totally freaking obvious he's human!"
ADI: "Okay!"
Fincher's Thoughts: "...so as to trick people away from the fact he's not human! Haw haw, I'm so clever."
... Makes perfect ... sense ...
Was he twirling his moustache in a sinister fashion at the same time?
He even had a top hat.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2Foo%2FSnidelyWhiplash.png&hash=fc945ec37eafed73e970b1580e7d2f7a62d43872)
That's him, officer!!!
Well, heck with it all, Bishop 2 will always be a synthetic to me anyway :)
Right enough, the whole, is he human?, Is he a 'droid? thing never really bothered me. I mean, if people thought he was human, fair enough.
The backtracking annoys me more though since I'm odd like that and would rather any story didn't have things like that in it :-\
Quote from: Lilywhite_Lilith on Jul 25, 2008, 01:46:51 AM
Well, heck with it all, Bishop 2 will always be a synthetic to me anyway
Denial: the last refuge for those confronted with the truth.
Quote from: Lilywhite_Lilith on Jul 25, 2008, 01:46:51 AM
Right enough, the whole, is he human?, Is he a 'droid? thing never really bothered me. I mean, if people thought he was human, fair enough.
It's only fair, considering that's how it really is.
Quote from: Lilywhite_Lilith on Jul 25, 2008, 01:46:51 AM
The backtracking annoys me more though since I'm odd like that and would rather any story didn't have things like that in it
It's quite simple, actually. In the
Alien universe, unless pains have been taken to reveal one as an android (e.g. white "blood", electronically distorted voice when damaged, and the other "symptoms" given off by Ash and Bishop, or if the character is said to be an android onscreen), the human-like character is human. Nothing to backtrack.
I guess i'm glad to see that this debate ranges on... ::)
Is it really important whether you think he is human or android. I alway used to believe he was an android. The first (+ i like second time through) i just thought he was an android. Plus this was @ the same time AvP was in the production changes + with Lance playing the man who's likeness would later become Bishop the droid... well, it just didn't occur to me that he could be human.
After becoming a more avid fan thought i must admit that a lot of things point to him being human. For instance the fact that he bled red. It has also been confirmed that it was the intent of the film makers for him to be human. Of course, filmmakers can't always be trsuted it seems as the BS would have you believe they greated an awesome AvP film.
All in all though... is it important who believes he is a human or who believe he is an android? It seems to be very opinion based + that no one will ever change the others mind. Perhaps the intent of the filmmakers was to make him human + yes, upon reviewings i have seen the blood he bleeds but the 1st + 2nd times through the film i was very convinced that he was without a doubt an android. No "proof" that he is human will change my original thought + original reaction of the film.
QuoteAll in all though... is it important who believes he is a human or who believe he is an android?
83 pages would suggest "yes".
Quote from: SM on Jul 25, 2008, 02:58:53 AM
QuoteAll in all though... is it important who believes he is a human or who believe he is an android?
83 pages would suggest "yes".
So it would - lol
Quote from: Spidey3121 on Jul 25, 2008, 02:51:46 AM
Is it really important whether you think he is human or android.
You've missed the point. Read on...
Quote from: Spidey3121 on Jul 25, 2008, 02:51:46 AM
I alway used to believe he was an android. The first (+ i like second time through) i just thought he was an android. Plus this was @ the same time AvP was in the production changes + with Lance playing the man who's likeness would later become Bishop the droid... well, it just didn't occur to me that he could be human.
People tend to see what they want to see; not a good way to wade through life.
Quote from: Spidey3121 on Jul 25, 2008, 02:51:46 AM
After becoming a more avid fan thought i must admit that a lot of things point to him being human. For instance the fact that he bled red. It has also been confirmed that it was the intent of the film makers for him to be human. Of course, filmmakers can't always be trsuted it seems as the BS would have you believe they greated an awesome AvP film.
Commenting on a character and promoting a movie are two different things (not to mention done by two different sets of people over two different films.). With a little critical thinking, it's not too hard to read between the lines.
Quote from: Spidey3121 on Jul 25, 2008, 02:51:46 AM
All in all though... is it important who believes he is a human or who believe he is an android?
No, it's the mindset behind believing in something when the evidence is to the contrary.
Quote from: Spidey3121 on Jul 25, 2008, 02:51:46 AM
It seems to be very opinion based + that no one will ever change the others mind.
"Seems" is the operative word. The filmmakers stated something that could be proven; a statement of fact. This is different than an opinion. Considering that said fact was backed up by the testimony of the creators of the character, to offer a counter "view" isn't forming an opinion; it's plain old-fashioned denial.
Quote from: Spidey3121 on Jul 25, 2008, 02:51:46 AM
Perhaps the intent of the filmmakers was to make him human + yes, upon reviewings i have seen the blood he bleeds but the 1st + 2nd times through the film i was very convinced that he was without a doubt an android. No "proof" that he is human will change my original thought + original reaction of the film.
Denial and delusion are
bad traits. Sure, it's fun and cool to believe in something, but if it's something that goes against established fact one must learn to accept the consequences.
Again, it's not about denying his humanity, it's the mindset behind it. Thanks to said mindset, people like Bush get put into power, medical advances grind to a halt, etc.
Quote from: SM on Jul 24, 2008, 11:52:30 PM
Why?
well, my version of that answer, would be because since the movie was becoming more and more screwed up, Fincher found an opportunity to sew a few seeds of confusion for people to endlessly chat about, as the distinction between Bishop 2's reality as a normal human has been blurred a little.
Maybe, other than just because of the Bishop 2's odd behaviour when trying to entice Ripley to give up her alien queen. I wouldn't trust that Bishop 2 is as entirely human as he might claim he is because well for the same reason that if some bullshitting director brothers started making claims that they were making an Alien and Predator movie where everything would be entirely canon in, I would think that something was going to be wrong about this. And of course their claims turned into a bucket of faeces before the eyes of many.
I don't have the answer as to what Bishop 2 is, and I'm not interested in reducing it to the most simplest answer that he must be a human or that he is either just a normal human or just a robot. I respect that some people want to do that, but I'm not going down that route, I'm interested in what there might be for people to fear about the nature of their own society in the universe of Alien and how far that could go.
So I'm interested in the idea that there are things in the Alien 3 movie that are not entirely spelt out and stuck under everyone's nose to look at and maybe people are supposed to dig them up for themselves to explore their own ideas if it is possible for them to have them.
Bishop II was a Human. The creators said he was, that's proof.
/thread.
he was defintly human he had red blood and for those of you who argue that he is an advanced andriod then why didnt Call have red blood she was made 300 years later and still had the same insides as ash and bishop and as for him being a clone thats imposible to for one thing the goverment couldnt do it till 300 years later as u can see ripley is number 8 and if the company could clone then they wouldnt have been bought out by walmart
I don't see why this is a discussion. Plain and simple, he was never intended to be a robot. There were no telltale signs such as the ones I had listed. There was no onscreen revelation of any sort. The only people who think that he was anything other than human are those who want him to be because it's "kewler" or they are easily deceived.
The ones who list Weyland in AvP as "proof" Bishop II was synthetic must have a tough time with biology and genetics too.
How did this thread reach 84 pages AND get stickied?
Only the blind would argue that he was an android.
He was human. End of.
maybe if this thread was removed from the important topics area, it might start to seem a little more irrelevant. Maybe we ought to ask the owner of the site to have this topic demoted and well maybe one of the people who feel that Bishop 2 can only be a human can have the last word if they feel that helps and maybe we can just get on with our lives unless there comes a time when David Fincher makes a straight claim that the Bishop 2 character was anything other than human
I think it is possible for both Bishops to be human. Relatives? Clones? etc. Not impossible at all.
Clones? Pointless.
it wouldnt be clones they didnt master that untill 300 years later with ripley
Quote from: xenomorph426 on Aug 03, 2008, 05:29:31 PM
it wouldnt be clones they didnt master that untill 300 years later with ripley
And, as it's been pointed out several times before in this thread (especially in the post above yours), it would be pointless to clone him.
Quote from: xenomorph426 on Aug 03, 2008, 05:29:31 PM
it wouldnt be clones they didnt master that untill 300 years later with ripley
You do know that we have already cloned a sheep. We have the technology to clone a human right now. It only took them 300 years to clone Ripley because the Alien inside her was making the process harder and their DNA was merging.
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 03, 2008, 08:27:26 PM
it would be pointless to clone him.
maybe people get cloned for pointless reasons
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 04, 2008, 03:02:35 AM
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Aug 04, 2008, 02:29:48 AM
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 03, 2008, 08:27:26 PM
it would be pointless to clone him.
maybe people get cloned for pointless reasons
Gee, maybe not?
Gosh, well in this world of speculative fiction maybe there's some kind of reason to clone a Charles Weyland that we might work out, irrespective of whether Bishop II is his clone or not.
Today people ask themselves questions about what they are likely to get if they clone Bill Gates, he seems to be the person that they want to take as an example in this way. Charles Weyland could be said to be a figure as well known as Bill Gates figure in the AVP movie. So from the perspective of the AVP movie, although it might be a generally pointless thing to do, one could speculate that this sort of thing goes ahead sometime in the future
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Aug 04, 2008, 11:37:42 AM
Gosh, well in this world of speculative fiction maybe there's some kind of reason to clone a Charles Weyland that we might work out, irrespective of whether Bishop II is his clone or not.
Maybe there isn't.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Aug 04, 2008, 11:37:42 AM
Today people ask themselves questions about what they are likely to get if they clone Bill Gates, he seems to be the person that they want to take as an example in this way.
That doesn't mean that they would. And, as it's been explained before, cloning a person isn't going to duplicate their donor's mental makeup, no matter how they are educated and trained.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Aug 04, 2008, 11:37:42 AM
Weyland could be said to be a figure as well known as Bill Gates figure in the AVP movie. So from the perspective of the AVP movie, although it might be a generally pointless thing to do, one could speculate that this sort of thing goes ahead sometime in the future
Only in bad science fiction.
this has gone so far off track and gone on for way to long hes human the end. :P
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Aug 04, 2008, 11:37:42 AM
Today people ask themselves questions about what they are likely to get if they clone Bill Gates, he seems to be the person that they want to take as an example in this way.
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 04, 2008, 01:03:11 PM
That doesn't mean that they would. And, as it's been explained before, cloning a person isn't going to duplicate their donor's mental makeup, no matter how they are educated and trained.
It means there's something about this to speculate about in fiction, especially with the interest people have in the idea of what if clone was created from a famous person and how similar they might be.
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 04, 2008, 01:03:11 PM
Only in bad science fiction.
well, if we're looking at this from an AVP perspective, I'm not claiming that this film was good science fiction.
QuoteIt means there's something about this to speculate about in fiction, especially with the interest people have in the idea of what if clone was created from a famous person and how similar they might be.
Unless the clone was reared in the exact same manner as the template with the same experiences throughout it's development, the only similarity would be how they looked.
The reason why Ripley 8 remembered things was because of the alien's passing of generational survival tactics, not because they regrew her memories. If Weyland was cloned, he would have had to be socialized specifically the same way and considering the gap in time and technology that would be impossible.
Quote from: SM on Aug 04, 2008, 11:52:46 PM
Unless the clone was reared in the exact same manner as the template with the same experiences throughout it's development, the only similarity would be how they looked.
Actually behavioral resemblance between clones and their donors is still being studied , well as far as it goes with pet clones. There seems to be signs of certain traits being handing down, often intelligence and temperament, but as far as I can read, it needs to be studied more
What about memories and personality?
Going back to what SM and I had pointed out before, no matter what you put a clone through, it will not be the same as it's donor except for appearance.
Even if someone were to go back in time and have Hitler relive his life, altering even one tiny thing could put him on a different path. He could easily have remained the underachieving corporal instead of rising to the political heights he had previously. There are too many factors that shape who we are.
As for the research that you mentioned, do you have any sources I can examine?
Quote from: SM on Aug 05, 2008, 11:27:16 PM
What about memories and personality?
in the small amount of information that I'm reading , it's considered not unreasonable to assume that specific behaviors in individual dogs (and cats) may also have genetic basis, and thus may be present in clones of these individuals, but all that comes from is an attempt to explain observations and it would be something to study further. Nothing is mentioned about memories, (not that I expected to read something)..
But there's are ongoing arguments about what is to be said about the possibility of personality being partially hereditary.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Aug 06, 2008, 01:26:41 AM
But there's are ongoing arguments about what is to be said about the possibility of personality being partially hereditary.
I would chalk that up to just being instincts, if anything.
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 06, 2008, 12:58:04 AM
Going back to what SM and I had pointed out before, no matter what you put a clone through, it will not be the same as it's donor except for appearance.
Even if someone were to go back in time and have Hitler relive his life, altering even one tiny thing could put him on a different path. He could easily have remained the underachieving corporal instead of rising to the political heights he had previously. There are too many factors that shape who we are.
Precisely. The appearance would likely not be
exactly the same as environment and life events have contribute to physical appearance too. Not to mention that one might have a psychological disorder the other (original or clone) did not.
The body would be the same, but the person would not.
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 06, 2008, 12:58:04 AM
As for the research that you mentioned, do you have any sources I can examine?
Second.
And I'm still waiting for a source to be named.
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 06, 2008, 12:58:04 AM
Going back to what SM and I had pointed out before, no matter what you put a clone through, it will not be the same as it's donor except for appearance.
well, is there someone here that you're pointing this out to?
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 06, 2008, 12:58:04 AMAs for the research that you mentioned, do you have any sources I can examine?
well, there are a number of pages about dogs and inherited traits recognised by breeders and also some blurb on a site that offers the service of cloning dogs (www.bestfriendsagain.com), but nothing on line that presents itself as detailed research because it doesn't seem to be anyone's objective there to present anything specifically detailed probably because they assume dog owners will know enough about this from books. Then if they refer to inherited intelligence for a dog there could be a question about what exactly does intelligence mean when people talk about dog's intelligence.
but if you want, we can shove all this doodah aside and take a look at a New Scientists article from 2001 on a study suggesting that a study on twins suggests that IQ is inherited.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1520
there was also this study back in 1986
" MAJOR PERSONALITY STUDY FINDS THAT TRAITS ARE MOSTLY INHERITED"
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE1DC1E30F931A35751C1A960948260&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=all
here we have the statement by a Varda Peller Backus, M.D. in an reiview of the book "Molecular Genetics and the Human Personality" in 2002 that "Roughly 50 percent of personality traits are inherited" (http://psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/55/8/951)
So these are some things for me to ponder about in relation to good reasons to clone Charles Weyland and take a look at what such a clone might have to offer people who want to study it
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Aug 06, 2008, 03:29:03 AM
well, is there someone here that you're pointing this out to?
I'm sorry,
wmmvrrvrrmm. You were the only person who was recently posting in this thread who needed that pointed out to,
wmmvrrvrrmm. That is, because
SM,
Eidotemit and I were on the same page,
wmmvrrvrrmm. I hope that clears any confusion,
wmmvrrvrrmm.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Aug 06, 2008, 03:29:03 AM
but if you want, we can shove all this doodah aside and take a look at a New Scientists article from 2001 on a study suggesting that a study on twins suggests that IQ is inherited.
I will, as it's been pointed out that it's little more than instinct at work.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Aug 06, 2008, 03:29:03 AM
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1520
Two major things. First, IQ isn't the same thing as personality, experience, etc. So, a clone may (or may not) have the same IQ as its donor, but even with all the training in the world, it will not turn out with the same mindset as the donor. Secondly (and less important), a twin isn't a clone.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Aug 06, 2008, 03:29:03 AM
there was also this study back in 1986
" MAJOR PERSONALITY STUDY FINDS THAT TRAITS ARE MOSTLY INHERITED"
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE1DC1E30F931A35751C1A960948260&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=all
here we have the statement by a Varda Peller Backus, M.D. in an reiview of the book "Molecular Genetics and the Human Personality" in 2002 that "Roughly 50 percent of personality traits are inherited" (http://psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/55/8/951)
There is also the 2004 book,
The Gene Illusion: Genetic Research in Psychiatry and Psychology Under the Microscope, by Jay Joseph, Psy.D. It reminds us that there are more than genetic factors that shape us:
QuoteJoseph begins Chapter 4 with an examination of stories released by twin researchers, and often reported by journalists, about supposedly separated (reared-apart) twins who, upon being reunited, are said to share an amazing set of common features, traits, preferences, etc. He points out, however, that most pairs come to the attention of researchers and journalists because of their similarities. It's similar to the old "dog bites person versus person bites dog" rule in journalism. A dog biting a person isn't newsworthy because it's a common occurrence, whereas a person biting a dog is news because it is an unusual occurrence. If we read several articles describing a person biting a dog, we would be wrong to conclude that people bite dogs more frequently than dogs bite people. The same is true for twins. Stories of similar reared-apart twin pairs are news because they are interesting and compelling; stories about dissimilar pairs are not.
More importantly, there are many environmental (non-genetic) factors shared by reared-apart identical twins (and by reared-together identical twins) that would lead them to resemble each more than two randomly selected members of the world's population. These factors include:
They are exactly the same age
They are the same sex
They are almost always the same ethnicity
Their appearance is strikingly similar (which will elicit more similar treatment)
They usually are raised in the same socioeconomic class
They usually are raised in the same culture
They shared the same prenatal environment
They typically spent a certain amount of time together in the same family environment, were aware of each other's existence when studied, and often had regular contact over a long period of time
All of these factors work towards increasing the behavioral resemblance of reared-apart identical twins for non-genetic reasons, yet are rarely discussed in popular accounts of individual pairs. What is critically important to understand is that the behavioral resemblance of reared-apart identical twins is a product of the cohort effect, which accounts for similarities in people's behaviors and preferences that arise from the characteristics of the historical periods and cultural milieu in which they experience stages of life at the same time.
A typical example of the failure to recognize cultural and cohort influences on twin resemblance, and to erroneously attribute this resemblance to genetics, is found in journalist Kay Cassill's 1982 description of reared-apart identical twins Keith Heitzman and Jack Hellback, who grew up in Louisiana:
"Although the mighty Mississippi divided these two physically, it could not separate their parallel lives. The welder from one side and the pump mechanic from the other found that they are both allergic to ragweed and dust. Both had done poorly in school. Both disliked sports and had cut their gym classes whenever they could. They are both addicted to candy. Their similarity of dress includes a penchant for wearing cowboy hats, which matches their parallel interest in guns and hunting."
As a critic commented, "Even if 'the mighty Mississippi divided' the twins, the fact that they both wear cowboy hats and like hunting is not that unusual for two (white) working-class men in the same region of Louisiana." The same point can be made about the celebrated reared-apart "Jim Twins," two working-class white men who grew up in the same region of Ohio at the same time.
Joseph concludes that the stories of individual pairs of reared-apart identical twins, while interesting from a journalistic perspective, tell us little to nothing about genetic influences on human psychological trait differences. As behavior geneticist Richard Rose commented, these stories make "good show biz but uncertain science."
Judith Harris, author of The Nurture Assumption, has written that "there are too many of these stories for them all to be coincidences." And she is correct that they are not all coincidences. Rather, these stories are selectively reported "show biz" combined with a stunning failure to recognize the environmental factors influencing these twins' similar behaviors.
Joseph then turns his attention to the handful of systematic "twins reared apart" (TRA) studies published
since the late 1930s, the most well known being the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart (MISTRA) by Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr. and his colleagues. Many people who remained unconvinced about genetics by the results of investigations using the twin method have been convinced by these TRA studies. (TRA studies record twin pair test score correlations for psychological traits such as IQ and personality. There have been no systematic TRA studies of psychiatric disorders, such as schizophrenia.)
However, Joseph documents several important problems with TRA studies. These include (1) the questionable "separation" of twins, who in many cases grew up together and had quite a bit of contact over much of their lives; (2) the similarity bias of the samples; (3) researchers' failure to publish or share raw data and life history information for the twins under study (Bouchard's MISTRA), and (4) the impact that the researchers' bias in favor of genetic explanations may have had on the interpretation of their results.
The main problem with TRA studies such as Bouchard's, however, is that the investigators mistakenly compared reared-apart identical twin pairs ("monozygotic twins reared-apart," or "MZAs") to reared-together identical pairs—thereby failing to control for the fact that both sets share several important environmental similarities. As we have seen, these include common age (birth cohort), common sex, similar appearance, and similar political, socioeconomic, and cultural environments. (Bouchard's group attempted to correct MZA correlations for age and sex effects, but these adjustments were inadequate.) Thus, Joseph argues that all TRA researchers used the wrong control group, leading to their erroneous conclusions in favor of genetics.
A scientifically acceptable TRA study would compare the resemblance of a group consisting of MZAs reared apart from birth and unknown to each other, versus a control group consisting not of reared-together identical twins, but of biologically unrelated pairs of strangers sharing all of the following characteristics also shared by MZAs: they should be the same age, they should be the same sex, they should share the same ethnicity, they should have been raised in comparable cultural and socioeconomic conditions, and they should be similar in appearance. Moreover, they should have no contact with each other until after they are evaluated and tested. After concluding such a study, we might find that the biologically-unrelated pairs correlate similarly to MZAs on psychological tests, which would suggest that MZA correlations are mainly, if not entirely, the result of environmental influences. Because no study of this type has ever been attempted, and because of the major flaws and biases in the studies that have been undertaken, Joseph argues that we can draw no valid conclusions in support of genetic influences on psychological trait variation from the reared-apart twin studies published to date.
http://www.jayjoseph.net/GeneIllusionChapters.html (http://www.jayjoseph.net/GeneIllusionChapters.html)
Even more basic than cloning intelligence, personality, experience, whatever - if, for arguments sake, Bishop 2 is a clone of Weyland - they very likely grew up in completely different enviroments so may not even look the same - let alone think the same.
If I were - heaven forbid - cloned and the clone grew up in the tropics, with it's cloned pale skin, it'd likely look different. Assuming it hadn't succumbed to skin cancer. In which case it'd be a LOT different.
Quote from: SM on Aug 07, 2008, 12:43:12 AM
Even more basic than cloning intelligence, personality, experience, whatever - if, for arguments sake, Bishop 2 is a clone of Weyland - they very likely grew up in completely different enviroments so may not even look the same - let alone think the same.
If I were - heaven forbid - cloned and the clone grew up in the tropics, with it's cloned pale skin, it'd likely look different. Assuming it hadn't succumbed to skin cancer. In which case it'd be a LOT different.
Not very likely grew up in completely different environments, they must have. They were born in completely different eras, and as such could not have ever grown up in similar circumstances.
I was trying to be generous.
We can't say for sure that Bishop 2 grew up with recycled atmosphere or terraformed atmosphere, different gravity, different levels of ambient radiation, etc, etc. But I think it's "very likely". :)
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 06, 2008, 11:31:49 AM
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Aug 06, 2008, 03:29:03 AM
well, is there someone here that you're pointing this out to?
I'm sorry, wmmvrrvrrmm. You were the only person who was recently posting in this thread who needed that pointed out to, wmmvrrvrrmm. That is, because SM, Eidotemit and I were on the same page, wmmvrrvrrmm. I hope that clears any confusion, wmmvrrvrrmm.
Well the thing is I couldn't imagine you were talking to me because you were talking about the donor and the clone not being the same and I've been talking about how similar they might be. "Same" and "Similar" mean different things
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Aug 06, 2008, 03:29:03 AM
but if you want, we can shove all this doodah aside and take a look at a New Scientists article from 2001 on a study suggesting that a study on twins suggests that IQ is inherited.
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 06, 2008, 11:31:49 AM
I will, as it's been pointed out that it's little more than instinct at work.
Well, you're the one settling on that, I'm not.
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 06, 2008, 11:31:49 AM
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Aug 06, 2008, 03:29:03 AM
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1520
Two major things. First, IQ isn't the same thing as personality, experience, etc. So, a clone may (or may not) have the same IQ as its donor, but even with all the training in the world, it will not turn out with the same mindset as the donor. Secondly (and less important), a twin isn't a clone.
It's not clear to me what you're getting at here. Do you want to rephrase what you have said here or should I assume you're leaving me out of the conversation?
Since I was interested in talking about intelligence, it was reasonable for me to give a URL for that New Scientist article. That New Scientist article mentions identical twins in the study. As it goes if the cloning were to be done correctly, then the clone would be a genetic twin to the donor, and apart from being separated by a number of years of development, you have an identical twin and there would be similarities between these people in their intelligence and character. That's where cloning is aiming for, it just hasn't got there yet. It's still in it's infancy.
But we can know that intelligence is a handed down through the genes and personality is handed down through the genes, and I didn't say that outside influences don't affect intelligence and personality. That Varda Peller Backus, M.D person writes of the estimation that 50% of personality traits are inherited, so who am I to argue even if that is vast generalisation, I haven't read an estimation for the inherited intelligence., it's seems to be an issue still being worked out.
If ever they get to clone humans and allow them to grow up, we'll know more about what there is to be known there
Quote from: SM on Aug 07, 2008, 12:43:12 AM
Even more basic than cloning intelligence, personality, experience, whatever - if, for arguments sake, Bishop 2 is a clone of Weyland - they very likely grew up in completely different enviroments so may not even look the same - let alone think the same.
well within the few minutes of what was seen of Bishop 2 , he seemed to me to be a very strange screwed up individual with his strange gestures, not particularly like Charles Weyland character
What strange gestures?
I would use AVP as an argument, it kinda screwed everything up I don't think that when they made Alien 3 they even intended for Bishop to be the owner of the company. Just an executive or something "with a familiar face" and if they were making droids after the owner then who is Ash a droid of? ???
Bilbo Baggins.
Quote from: SM on Aug 07, 2008, 05:30:59 AM
Bilbo Baggins.
Nope. Father Vito Cornelius. ;D
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Aug 07, 2008, 04:52:04 AM
Well the thing is I couldn't imagine you were talking to me because you were talking about the donor and the clone not being the same and I've been talking about how similar they might be. "Same" and "Similar" mean different things
I can see why you were confused: I wasn't using the word "same" in the same context that you had read. I said in the context of "alike"; not as in "one and only".
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Aug 07, 2008, 04:52:04 AM
Well, you're the one settling on that, I'm not.
Despite how it pokes holes in your idea.
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 06, 2008, 11:31:49 AM
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Aug 06, 2008, 03:29:03 AM
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1520
Two major things. First, IQ isn't the same thing as personality, experience, etc. So, a clone may (or may not) have the same IQ as its donor, but even with all the training in the world, it will not turn out with the same mindset as the donor. Secondly (and less important), a twin isn't a clone.
It's not clear to me what you're getting at here. Do you want to rephrase what you have said here or should I assume you're leaving me out of the conversation?[/quote]
I might as well leave you out of the conversation; you seem to be the only one who isn't getting it.
The point to making a android more human (red blood insted of white is so he could blend in more..
don't you remember that ASH has sexual desires for ripley ? but he doe's not have a unit so he shoves a porno mag down rips throat.. maybe they tried to make androids as human as possible at some point to blend in on a physical level as much as possible
you think a human could take a 20 pound lead pipe to the back of the head ripping the humans ear off and not be knocked out cold if not killed ?
i say it's an android for that reason alone.. no human could still be walking and talking right after a hit like that
Quote from: InFaHazel on Aug 08, 2008, 07:43:10 AM
The point to making a android more human (red blood insted of white is so he could blend in more..
don't you remember that ASH has sexual desires for ripley ? but he doe's not have a unit so he shoves a porno mag down rips throat.. maybe they tried to make androids as human as possible at some point to blend in on a physical level as much as possible
you think a human could take a 20 pound lead pipe to the back of the head ripping the humans ear off and not be knocked out cold if not killed ?
i say it's an android for that reason alone.. no human could still be walking and talking right after a hit like that
All of the points you made had been made before and answered to. In short:
1. You made a rhetorical point, which is not evidence.
2. You don't know that the metal was 20 pounds.
3. The ear was dislodged, not completely "ripped off".
4. Severed ears are not fatal.
5. People had suffered worse head injuries with less reaction.
6. Oh, yeah, the people who created the character and who put him on the screen say he's human.
are you one of those types who thinks hitler did not kill alot of jews ? and 911 was a hoax ?
So was he a clone ? that is the only other choice
i don't think weyland had a great great great great great great great great great grandson.
it's either a clone or an advanced android..
even if it was 2 pounds of lead if someone was pissed off and whacked you so hard your ear was hanging off and gushing blood you would forget what you were doing and be like f**k that bitch and her baby im going home
you would not be looking like you were taking a good shit and cup your ear a bit in a mild amount of pain 20 seconds after the fact
you would be stunned .. do you think the human skull is like an inch thick or something ? it's like 1/4 of an inch thick.. the guy would be knocked out
you should watch the commentary with lance who plays bishop and watch the making of dvd.. they strongly suggest it is a advanced hybred android of sorts
ever see the terminator ? why did they become and evolve to be more human and beyond human ?
im right you are wrong
i think that if ANYONE was hit ANYPLACE on his or her body so hard that a part of you was hanging off gushing blood you would either pass out or forget what you were doing for a while
ever had a hang nail ? or been smacked in the ear or flicked in the ear ? multiply that pain by 100 and tell me you would calmly try and talk a lady you could just clone out of suicide
6. Oh, yeah, the people who created the character and who put him on the screen say he's human.
[/quote
what a lie that is .. i own the box set directors cut you are making stuff up to keep some kind of twinkle in your 5 star post count.
you don't see the tie in with ASH getting hit over and over with a fire extinguisher untill his head is hanging off and the upgrade of bishop getting hit once hard enough in the back of his head so that his ear is hanging off gushing blood ? i bet you if the guy had kept hitting bishops head would have been hanging off gushing RED BLOOD while the android was still flailing about.
did you know a box of kleenex can kill you if it hits you in the back of the head if you are driving 30 mph and suddenly stop sending the thin soft card board at the back of you're head ?? that is enough to kill any human being
If something large dense and metal slams the back of a human skull hard and fast enough to almost remove the ear you had better believe that is enough force to kill a human 3 times over
once again the human skull is very very thin and delicate .. it's like a sea shell and can be crushed in human hands.
who ever thought on the crew of ALIENS 3 that a human could take that kind of blunt force trauma to the back of the head at point blank range and not at least pass out instantly is an idiot.. and since alien 3 was ruined by a number of ass holes i would not be surprised if some moron working on the movie thought this was possible with a human.
if they say it's a human than they are not basing the scene in reality or science.. and from what i got form the box set one of the reasons the wooden planet Idea was tossed was because it was not possible in real science ..
in REALITY the scene is highly unlikely.
Quote from: InFaHazel on Aug 08, 2008, 12:06:50 PM
are you one of those types who thinks hitler did not kill alot of jews ? and 911 was a hoax ?
I don't see from where you would conjure such an inflammatory and unfounded claim. Hell, we're the ones looking at evidence to support what is shown. You're more in line with the crack-pot theories.
Quote
So was he a clone ? that is the only other choice
No, its not. It is a choice, but it is just as absurd as him being a robot.
Quotei don't think weyland had a great great great great great great great great great grandson.
It doesn't have to be. It doesn't ahve to be a direct line like that to have those genes carry on. Could have been his great^9 nephew. Its not unheard of either. It is really basic genetics.
Quoteit's either a clone or an advanced android..
... or most likely a human based of all the evidence (thanks for setting me up with that ellipsis)
Quoteeven if it was 2 pounds of lead if someone was pissed off and whacked you so hard your ear was hanging off and gushing blood you would forget what you were doing and be like f**k that bitch and her baby im going home
Mmm, nope. Try again. This isn't a Tom & Jerry cartoon where a blow to the head causes amnesia or server memory loss.
People, can take hard hits and keep going, and he was clearly in a great deal of pain.
Quoteyou would not be looking like you were taking a good shit and cup your ear a bit in a mild amount of pain 20 seconds after the fact
you would be stunned .. do you think the human skull is like an inch thick or something ? it's like 1/4 of an inch thick.. the guy would be knocked out
It depends on how hard he was hit. Also, looking at his injury, it would seem much of the force hit the side of his head, thus why his ear is partially torn off. So the blow wasn't even direct on the skull.
Even if it were square on his head, he could get up and keep going, through the pain.
Speaking of pain, he was actually shown to be in a good deal of pain.
You know, people have this remarkable ability to work through server pain and injury? They can.
Quoteyou should watch the commentary with lance who plays bishop and watch the making of dvd.. they strongly suggect it is a advanced hybred android of sorts
Lance had said plenty of times prior to AvP that BishopII was human.
Quoteever see the terminator ? why did they become and evolve to be more human and beyond human ?
Good thing this is a
completely different franchise.Also, 300 years later in A:R, the most advanced andriod we've seen had....hold....wait for it..... thats right, white blood.
"But BishopII was a special droid to convince Ripley that it was human so she would trust it!"No, shut the f**k up Mr. Italics. The only thing that separated this "advanced hybrid" from the others is red blood. Hardly advanced, hardly a hybrid. Why would they give it red blood? In case Ripley decided to stab it and make sure? Makes no sense.
Quoteim right you are wrong
Wow, what a well thought out, composed and water tight argument you've managed to make there.
Quotei think that if ANYONE was hit ANYPLACE on his or her body so hard that a part of you was hanging off gushing blood you would either pass out or forget what you were doing for a while
It actually depends a great deal on where you are hit, how hard, what shape was the object that hit you and the situation you are in. You made that way to broad to be taken seriously.
Quoteever had a hang nail ? or been smacked in the ear or flicked in the ear ? multiply that pain by 100 and tell me you would calmly try and talk a lady you could just clone out of suicide
Those are the best examples of pain you came up with? Well, yes, yes I could multiply that by 100 and keep talking. That pain is really nothing, hardly worth being called pain.
I also want you to read about endorphins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorphens) and epinephrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrenaline)
Also, they couldn't clone her until 300 years later.
Quotewhat a lie that is .. i own the box set directors cut you are making stuff up to keep some kind of twinkle in your 5 star post count
No, hes not. They did say that. Sorry.
Quoteyou don't see the tie in with ASH getting hit over and over with a fire extinguisher untill his head is hanging off and the upgrade of bishop getting hit once hard enough in the back of his head so that his ear is hanging off gushing blood ? i bet you if the guy had kept hitting bishops head would have been hanging off gushing RED BLOOD while the android was still flailing about.
You don't see the incredible difference in the way Bishop reacted to being hit when compared to Ash? Also, his ear wasn't "gushing" blood. You don't see that in a world where every android has had white blood, one that has red, shows pain, emotion and acts like a human with no signs suggesting otherwise might be intended to be... oh, I don't know, a human?
There is nothing to support claims that Bishop here was a droid.
Quotedid you know a box of kleenex can kill you if it hits you in the back of the head if you are driving 30 mph and suddenly stop sending the thin soft card board at the back of you're head ?? that is enough to kill any human being
Actually, no, the object has to be at least 3 lbs. Sorry, thats just not true....or relevant.
QuoteIf something large dense and metal slams the back of a human skull hard and fast enough to almost remove the ear you had better believe that is enough force to kill a human 3 times over
Erroneous. You would do well from some crash courses in Anatomy&physiology, biology, genetics, and physics.
Quoteonce again the human skull is very very thin and delicate .. it's like a sea shell and can be crushed in human hands.
Actually, the human skull is not thin and delicate. Again, see what I said about the last thing I quoted and consider those courses.
Quotewho ever thought on the crew of ALIENS 3 that a human could take that kind of blunt force trauma to the back of the head at point blank range and not at least pass out instantly is an idiot.. and since alien 3 was ruined by a number of ass holes i would not be surprised if some moron working on the movie thought this was possible with a human.
if they say it's a human than they are not basing the scene in reality or science.. and from what i got form the box set one of the reasons the wooden planet Idea was tossed was because it was not possible in real science ..
in REALITY the scene is highly unlikely.
I'm just gonna get this last bit out in bulk. It is possible, its not implausible. Learn at least the basics of the sciences you try to use to prove your point. Out of all the scientific inaccuracies with the franchise, this really isn't one of them.
Maledoro (and all the others who had said the same or similar over the course of this thread) had it right, and those 6 points he put out were accurate and apt.
So here they are again:
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 08, 2008, 11:41:18 AM
1. You made a rhetorical point, which is not evidence.
2. You don't know that the metal was 20 pounds.
3. The ear was dislodged, not completely "ripped off".
4. Severed ears are not fatal.
5. People had suffered worse head injuries with less reaction.
6. Oh, yeah, the people who created the character and who put him on the screen say he's human.
Ok so what is he ? what is the proof ? i read over what you said and you are just going against what i said with no facts.. show me the director and lance and everyone else making alien 3 say he is human ?
why is it so hard for you believe he is an android with a dick and human blood and pain and all that.. you dont seem to get what a hybred android is.. and how human genetics come into play with making an android :"human" as far as im concernd this conversation went way into pointless the moment you took the time to respond and quote to that detail with out prooving anything
learn something insted of being hard headed
I guess you don't understand what i mean by advanced android
Quote from: InFaHazel on Aug 08, 2008, 05:41:03 PM
Ok so what is he ? what is the proof ? i read over what you said and you are just going against what i said with no facts.. show me the director and lance and everyone else making alien 3 say he is human ?
why is it so hard for you believe he is an android with a dick and human blood and pain and all that.. you dont seem to get what a hybred android is.. and how human genetics come into play with making an android :"human" as far as im concernd this conversation went way into pointless the moment you took the time to respond and quote to that detail with out prooving anything
In a movie, if a character looks, acts, etc., like a human, and there is nothing blatantly telling you that he is otherwise, he is a human.
that is so narrow minded IMO
also IMO if Bishop is human in alien 3 and not from a clone and just by chance looks like charles bishop weyland then Alien 3 is a lamer more baddly edited and scripted rushed unfinished film then i thought
the director cut was better but better then a dissapointing depressing let down of a film is not saying much
Quote from: InFaHazel on Aug 08, 2008, 05:48:48 PM
that is so narrow minded IMO
Well, that's just general storytelling for ya.
Quote from: InFaHazel on Aug 08, 2008, 05:48:48 PM
also IMO if Bishop is human in alien 3 and not from a clone and just by chance looks like charles bishop weyland then Alien 3 is a lamer more baddly edited and scripted rushed unfinished film then i thought
Well, I hate to tell you this, but
Alien³ was released 12 years
before AVP was. So, the fault lies with Paul W.S. Anderson and
AVP.
Quote from: InFaHazel on Aug 08, 2008, 05:48:48 PM
that is so narrow minded IMO
Its narrow minded to look at the evidence and come to a logical conclusion?
Also that video you posted doesn't support your claim regarding what a human could take and what is shown in A3.
Again, please, take some of those courses I suggested. It should clear things up. I'm pre-med (well, psychology major, but I have to take all the required pre-med courses to go to med school), I have a good idea of what I'm talking about.
I hate to tell you this but lance dont care if he's human or a robot.. as long as he gets paid... i woul dget on lances case about the compromise of bishop more then the director.. lance could have said no and they would have had to take another route.. im sure the return of bishop was the selling point for fox when anderson told them his crappy idea.
well the only way i can clear any of this up is to hit one of you in the back of the head with a metal pipe as hard as i can.. and video tape that and then see if you can remember what the f**k you were trying to say and do
Don't double post, edit your old post.
You could also clear it up by doing legitimate research on the subject. Medical journals, classes, etc.
mistake.. i am so over this argument about a human getting his shit rocked with a big lead pipe and being able to function right after the fact .. i say it's an android with human anatomy beyond just the outer look.. im talking nervous system brain stem blood dna organs.. skin.. hair.. with a super computer mind and robot strength..
maybe this fall i will school all of you on what would happen to a human being if he was in the situation of Bishop in Alien 3 getting his head bashed in.. but that's weeks from now..
So you think its a cyborg... okay.
I... I don't even know what to say to that. Its so... asinine.
Quote from: Eidotemit on Aug 08, 2008, 06:19:08 PM
So you think its a cyborg... okay.
I... I don't even know what to say to that. Its so... asinine.
if that is so stupid then why is this even a conversation.. if everyone agreed he was a human teh this would not even be a thread.. and not many more in the poll lean you're way..
if you wanna talk about all the stuff posted on here by most everyone that is asinine you would be here for years.. oh wait.. YOU HAVE BEEN HERE FOR YEARS DOING JUST THIS
Its a conversation because there are a lot of people who erroneously think hes an android.
I was specifically targeting your claim of an advanced cyborg Bishop as being asinine though. Not the conversation as a whole. I mean, hell, there is as much evidence to support Ripley being a cyborg like you describe Bishop2 being as there is for Bishop2.
Also, don't type in caps.
Wasting your time Eidotemit.
The guy is nothing but an angry little twat.
Yeah, I know, I just can't help myself sometimes.
I was waiting for you to step in and take over, actually.
I think he's gone.
...for now.
Quote from: InFaHazel on Aug 09, 2008, 08:19:59 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v338/maledoro/pwed/Crayon.gif
Oh, great. He's back.
not angry
if anything i thought you guys were coming down on the newbie with yer star count and impresive ability to argue any point in to the ground untill no one cares any more.
Wow twat name calling... really ground breaking comment from a brit
Has nothing to do with you being new. We actually welcome new takes; that is, as long as they are based in reason.
Quote from: InFaHazel on Aug 09, 2008, 02:11:36 PM
not angry
if anything i thought you guys were coming down on the newbie with yer star count and impresive ability to argue any point in to the ground untill no one cares any more.
Although I am aware of forums attacking n00bs for the sole purpose of them being new, I have yet to frequent one.
Quote from: InFaHazel on Aug 09, 2008, 02:11:36 PM
Wow twat name calling... really ground breaking comment from a brit
Although
SM's country prints the Queen's likeness on their money, he and his countrypeople are not "Brits". Not to mention that "twat" is used by all English-speaking countries.
Although I've yet to hear any other Australian person say it :P
Quote from: SiL on Aug 09, 2008, 09:42:16 PM
Although I've yet to hear any other Australian person say it
Ask your neighbours if they know
InFaHazel.
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 07, 2008, 11:40:07 AM
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Aug 07, 2008, 04:52:04 AM
Well the thing is I couldn't imagine you were talking to me because you were talking about the donor and the clone not being the same and I've been talking about how similar they might be. "Same" and "Similar" mean different things
I can see why you were confused: I wasn't using the word "same" in the same context that you had read. I said in the context of "alike"; not as in "one and only".
Well, maybe I'm supposed to get a dozen people to take a look at your statement and see what they think about the context of your use of the word "same"
So if we go to the Oxford Dictionary,
"alike" means "similar",
"same" means "exactly alike, not different or changed" and
"similar" means "of the same kind in appearance, character, or quantity, without being identical"
Well, looking to see how alike a donor (especially one of historical importance) and his clone might in intelligence and personality remains a point of interest to me should they be able to clone a human , do it properly and not modify it. What they start off with to get through life and what they do with it might be interesting enough.
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 07, 2008, 11:40:07 AM
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Aug 07, 2008, 04:52:04 AM
Well, you're the one settling on that, I'm not.
Despite how it pokes holes in your idea.
well, it looks as if here you're willing to believe anything that you think is likely to poke a hole whether it really does or doesn't.
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 06, 2008, 11:31:49 AM
I might as well leave you out of the conversation; you seem to be the only one who isn't getting it.
I would like to be involved in the conversation, but if you're giving me something such as "IQ isn't the same thing as personality, experience, etc", what am I supposed to do with that? ....print it out and feed it to the pigeons? ....or reply something like "Talk about the bl**ding obvious!!" ?
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Aug 10, 2008, 05:57:10 AM
Well, maybe I'm supposed to get a dozen people to take a look at your statement and see what they think about the context of your use of the word "same"
It won't matter. All you're interested in is arguing.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Aug 10, 2008, 05:57:10 AM
Well, looking to see how alike a donor (especially one of historical importance) and his clone might in intelligence and personality remains a point of interest to me should they be able to clone a human , do it properly and not modify it. What they start off with to get through life and what they do with it might be interesting enough.
Medieval Middle Eastern folklore is a point of interest to me, but I know that
jinn do not exist.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Aug 10, 2008, 05:57:10 AM
well, it looks as if here you're willing to believe anything that you think is likely to poke a hole whether it really does or doesn't.
Read the article.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Aug 10, 2008, 05:57:10 AM
I would like to be involved in the conversation, but if you're giving me something such as "IQ isn't the same thing as personality, experience, etc", what am I supposed to do with that? ....print it out and feed it to the pigeons? ....or reply something like "Talk about the bl**ding obvious!!" ?
Acceptance of that fact would go a long way. You were going on about intelligence and temperament being passed on like it's significant in making a clone mentally identical to its donor. Until there is proof that a clone has inherited its donor's personality, there is no point in saying that Bishop's creator is a clone.
Quote from: SiL on Aug 09, 2008, 09:42:16 PM
Although I've yet to hear any other Australian person say it :P
You need to get out more. ;D
QuoteUntil there is proof that a clone has inherited its donor's personality, there is no point in saying that Bishop's creator is a clone.
If we take things in context - there is proof. Perez asks Wren how Ripley can have memories, something "unprecendented" according to Gediman. So in the Alien universe, clones do not have memories.
Quote from: SM on Aug 10, 2008, 11:30:25 PM
If we take things in context - there is proof. Perez asks Wren how Ripley can have memories, something "unprecendented" according to Gediman. So in the Alien universe, clones do not have memories.
There is proof, but in the
Alien universe, clones do not have memories.
???
Isn't that a contradiction?
How?
Quote from: SM on Aug 10, 2008, 11:48:16 PM
How?
If you are saying that there is proof that clones have their donors' memories and then saying that they don't.
Oh yeah. I meant there's proof that clones DON'T have their hosts memories.
Quote from: SM on Aug 11, 2008, 02:32:23 AM
Oh yeah. I meant there's proof that clones DON'T have their hosts memories.
Now I'm with ya.
Quote from: SM on Aug 07, 2008, 05:14:36 AM
What strange gestures?
well, he comes into the scene talking to Ripley with his head tilted to one side, then when he says to her "to me" he tilts his head forwards and there's he makes a hand gesture when he says "we're going to take that out of you". I'm not sure what else there is for me to see in his gestures because my screen is so dark. but that's enough to make him look creepy to me.
I think that's generally called 'attempting to act sincere'. Couldn't see anything especially strange about it.
Quote from: SM on Aug 12, 2008, 03:59:20 AM
I think that's generally called 'attempting to act sincere'. Couldn't see anything especially strange about it.
well, that's up to you to decide, but I'm one person who decided different.
although I agree that he was attempting to act sincere but it seemed false to me in that shot and what I'm seeing in it makes it interesting to me
It seems false because it WAS false. He was lying to her about destroying the Alien.
Quote from: SM on Aug 12, 2008, 04:36:24 AM
It seems false because it WAS false. He was lying to her about destroying the Alien.
okay fine, and I want to add that despite the words, it his mannerisms seemed false to me
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 10, 2008, 12:05:59 PM
It won't matter. All you're interested in is arguing.
I like to straighten things out and remain upright standing on my ground and not be pulled off it by anyone else.
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 10, 2008, 12:05:59 PM
Medieval Middle Eastern folklore is a point of interest to me, but I know that jinn do not exist.
well, that's up to you
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Aug 10, 2008, 05:57:10 AM
well, it looks as if here you're willing to believe anything that you think is likely to poke a hole whether it really does or doesn't.
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 10, 2008, 12:05:59 PM
Read the article.
which one? (I apologise but there's so much to search through in an attempt to look for seemingly valid information, I have to ask you to be specific, is it the article you posted or one of the ones things I gave links to?)
RE: "IQ isn't the same thing as personality, experience, etc", what am I supposed to do with that? Quote from: maledoro link=topic=8.msg386480#msg386480Acceptance of that fact would go a long way.
well if we are taking that little quote all alone, I wont accept it, I don't know what all the other things that the word "etc" represents in this case, or why you suddenly want me to acknowledge the statement anyway.
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 10, 2008, 12:05:59 PMYou were going on about intelligence and temperament being passed on like it's significant in making a clone mentally identical to its donor. Until there is proof that a clone has inherited its donor's personality, there is no point in saying that Bishop's creator is a clone.
well that complicated it because when i was talking with SM about this subject, and i responded to his statement on the basis that we were talking about similarity, and you added this other information
Still I think it is safe to speculate on the idea that Bishop 2 is Weyland's clone and there are other different things for me to speculate too
On the idea of cloning a personality I assume that Geneticist Dr Kim Matulef of Stanford University is giving scientifically valid information in her response to a couple of questions, one which was "Is it possible to clone a personality?" Of course there's some more to read in the actual article if you're interested.
extract from: http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=147 (http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=147)
______________________________________________________________________
Ask a Geneticistby Dr. Kim Matulef
"Like clones, identical twins also share the same DNA. So the clone can be thought of as an identical twin to the donor. Except in this case, the clone is also younger than the donor.
What this means is that the two won't share the same environment or the same experiences. It is really like identical twins that have been raised apart from one another.
Clones, like identical twins probably look a lot alike. But if you know any identical twins well, you probably know that they do not always behave the same. Personalities are complicated.
Certainly part of how we act is determined by our DNA. Some of the best evidence for this is when we look at identical twins separated at birth. What we find is that they share some personality traits."
Why would anyone want to clone a personality?
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Aug 12, 2008, 05:06:21 AM
I like to straighten things out and remain upright standing on my ground and not be pulled off it by anyone else.
If that were the case, you'd be content with what the film makers of
Alien³ had said about Bishop's designer's humanity.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Aug 12, 2008, 05:06:21 AM
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 10, 2008, 12:05:59 PM
Medieval Middle Eastern folklore is a point of interest to me, but I know that jinn do not exist.
well, that's up to you
There's no point in believing in things of which there is no proof. If one wants to believe in genies, I'll let them get laughed at.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Aug 12, 2008, 05:06:21 AM
which one? (I apologise but there's so much to search through in an attempt to look for seemingly valid information, I have to ask you to be specific, is it the article you posted or one of the ones things I gave links to?)
That would be the one I had posted.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Aug 12, 2008, 05:06:21 AM
well that complicated it because when i was talking with SM about this subject, and i responded to his statement on the basis that we were talking about similarity, and you added this other information
Still I think it is safe to speculate on the idea that Bishop 2 is Weyland's clone and there are other different things for me to speculate too
Here's to your immaculate navel.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FDrinking%2F50202dac.gif&hash=34c110b3809eb41747c8ceef70775e8b329a6ac7)
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Aug 12, 2008, 05:06:21 AM
On the idea of cloning a personality I assume that Geneticist Dr Kim Matulef of Stanford University is giving scientifically valid information in her response to a couple of questions, one which was "Is it possible to clone a personality?" Of course there's some more to read in the actual article if you're interested.
I read it, but the article I had previously posted explains why a personality cannot be cloned.
Quote from: SM on Aug 12, 2008, 05:27:36 AM
Why would anyone want to clone a personality?
I suppose it might be because they want the clone to be as near to the donor as possible, even if it can be no closer than an identical twin.
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 12, 2008, 11:41:34 AM
If that were the case, you'd be content with what the film makers of Alien³ had said about Bishop's designer's humanity.
No, what we know they've said, they've said and I wont be changing what they've said, but maybe look at the different possible circumstances behind what they've said while knowing that whatever I'm thinking doesn't necessarily explain it but well I'm just continuing to develop my point of view and document my own thought processes on the matter. It's almost like a Koan or like exploring Burrough's cut up writings and gaining a form of mental expansion out of it.
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 10, 2008, 12:05:59 PM
There's no point in believing in things of which there is no proof. If one wants to believe in genies, I'll let them get laughed at.
So, for you, what has this got to do with talking about this sci-fi movie character Bishop 2?
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 10, 2008, 12:05:59 PM
I read it, but the article I had previously posted explains why a personality cannot be cloned.
From that article you wanted me to read, it seems that this Jay Joseph is arguing his point of view, but I don't know how conclusive it's supposed to be. Reviews of the book seem to rate it as being a good one and someone points out in a review (http://www.human-nature.com/nibbs/03/jjoseph.html) it's stated that "Joseph states baldly that, in the end, molecular genetic research in psychiatry, as well as "the search for behavioral and IQ genes", "will prove to be a gigantic waste of time, energy, and money". It is inconsistent that, at the end of a book in which the author has demanded so much analytical and methodological rigour from other workers, he should allow himself the latitude to indulge in this indiscriminate, a priori dismissiveness."
But I'm quite content to go along with the geneticists point of view that identical twins share some personality traits and that a clone and it's donor are likely to share personality traits in a similar way until something more certain comes along. Maybe her research that led her to give her answer was reliable or maybe it wasn't. Maybe none of the geneticists can be trusted, I don't know.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Aug 14, 2008, 05:16:54 AM
No, what we know they've said, they've said and I wont be changing what they've said, but maybe look at the different possible circumstances behind what they've said while knowing that whatever I'm thinking doesn't necessarily explain it but well I'm just continuing to develop my point of view and document my own thought processes on the matter. It's almost like a Koan or like exploring Burrough's cut up writings and gaining a form of mental expansion out of it.
I'm sorry. I used to be under the impression that you are deluded.
in my opinion he was human and in the assembly cut he is clearly human as he bleeds blood and not milk
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freeimagehosting.net%2Fuploads%2Fth.8ed65b7634.jpg&hash=dfae3421f86ccf3698da0d48c59e5abeb919c7b4) (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?8ed65b7634.jpg)
Hopefully this will answer a few questions. It is the reverse side of the Bishop card from the Alien 3 trading cards. They were released in 1992 from 20th C Fox making it OFFICIAL promotional material for the film.
As you can see he is clearly called a synthetic human and even has a freaking model number.
Quote from: Andrew127 on Aug 24, 2008, 02:43:22 AM
As you can see he is clearly called a synthetic human and even has a freaking model number.
is 341-b actually mentioned in connection with the Bishop android in the movies?
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Aug 24, 2008, 02:58:12 AM
Quote from: Andrew127 on Aug 24, 2008, 02:43:22 AM
As you can see he is clearly called a synthetic human and even has a freaking model number.
is 341-b actually mentioned in connection with the Bishop android in the movies?
Nope, but the name Michael Bishop is. Like I said, considering this card is part of the offical Alien 3 merchandise I have no problem assuming he is an android. The still picture on the front is of Michael Bishop and the card has the Alien 3 logo.
okay, I've just put my Alien 3 dvd on, Bishop 341-B is mentioned in the computer screen readout for Bishop at the beginning of Alien 3 super imposed over the images of the inside of the crashed EEV.
Here be the front of the card.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freeimagehosting.net%2Fuploads%2Fth.6ed3281ad2.jpg&hash=5db93968dd9ea2d2610e8d7270bc74bf837c2eff) (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?6ed3281ad2.jpg)
This is the best evidence I could find about him being a synthetic. I don't expect this to change peoples views but it certainly opens up more debates.
Wait, what?
The card doesn't prove Bishop II is an android.
See the back there? Designed the Bishop model?
Quote from: Andrew127 on Aug 24, 2008, 02:43:22 AM
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freeimagehosting.net%2Fuploads%2Fth.8ed65b7634.jpg&hash=dfae3421f86ccf3698da0d48c59e5abeb919c7b4) (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?8ed65b7634.jpg)
Hopefully this will answer a few questions. It is the reverse side of the Bishop card from the Alien 3 trading cards. They were released in 1992 from 20th C Fox making it OFFICIAL promotional material for the film.
As you can see he is clearly called a synthetic human and even has a freaking model number.
And people wonder why they get slighted for shitty grammar and punctuation. The card reads:
QuoteOfficer: Michael Bishop
Occupation: synthetic components engineer
Notes: highly intelligent; designed synthetic human, Bishop model 341-B
If you knew anything at all about punctuation, you'd recognize the fact that a semicolon (;) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semicolon) is to
separate two different things and not to
connect them. Thus, "highly intelligent" is one note and "designed synthetic human, Bishop model 341-B" is another note. Now, if it was punctuated as "highly intelligent
[ly]-designed synthetic human", you would have a case.
Quote from: Andrew127 on Aug 24, 2008, 03:49:42 AM
This is the best evidence I could find about him being a synthetic. I don't expect this to change peoples views but it certainly opens up more debates.
The only debate your "discovery" would open up is over your gross abuse of basic punctuation.
Christ this thread is still up?
AND THERE'S STILL AN ARGUMENT?
He was human! End of!
Quote from: Huol on Aug 24, 2008, 02:58:21 PM
Christ this thread is still up?
it's too important to put down!
QuoteThe only debate your "discovery" would open up is over your gross abuse of basic punctuation.
LMAO "Gross abuse of punctuation"? Wait, for miss reading a semicolon for a colon is your idea of "gross abuse of punctuation"? Wonder what will happen if I forgot a full stop or wrongly placed an apostrophe? :-\
Yeah sorry for misreading that earlier but you couldn't believe my excitement after digging through my old collectables and finding that card. Either way it doesn't matter. In my opinion it now offers some strong evidence for him being human, perhaps some of the best evidence we have found in recent times.
Im going to have a dig around latter and see if I can find the card explaining how the Egg got on board and the one explaining why the producers didn't go with Gibsons script. Oh Alien 3 and its mysteries. ::)
A colon would denote a break in the sentence too, though :P
Quote from: Andrew127 on Aug 24, 2008, 10:29:26 PM
"Gross abuse of punctuation"? Wait, for miss reading a semicolon for a colon is your idea of "gross abuse of punctuation"?
In your case it was. You took advantage of an oversight and ran with it.
Quote from: Andrew127 on Aug 24, 2008, 10:29:26 PM
Wonder what will happen if I forgot a full stop or wrongly placed an apostrophe?
Well, now, that would depend on the sentence, now wouldn't it?
Quote from: Andrew127 on Aug 24, 2008, 10:29:26 PM
Yeah sorry for misreading that earlier but you couldn't believe my excitement after digging through my old collectables and finding that card.
Actually, I
could believe your excitement.
Quote from: Andrew127 on Aug 24, 2008, 10:29:26 PM
Either way it doesn't matter. In my opinion it now offers some strong evidence for him being human, perhaps some of the best evidence we have found in recent times.
So, you're doing a 180°?
Quote from: Andrew127 on Aug 24, 2008, 10:29:26 PM
Im going to have a dig around latter and see if I can find the card explaining how the Egg got on board and the one explaining why the producers didn't go with Gibsons script. Oh Alien 3 and its mysteries.
For the most part, the cards tell the story from Ripley's POV. Since she was unconscious during the trip, she wouldn't know how the egg got there. I did a quick glance through some of the cards (but spent most of the time reminiscing with my
Alien set I bought much earlier), but didn't see any production info.
As for skipping Gibson's script, Brandywine wanted him to do some rewrites but he was busy working on another movie. Add to that that with the fall of the Soviet Union, the producers felt having a Communist group of people in space would seem too outdated.
Maledoro, I'm not doing a 180, I just said it's some good evidence ,which I believe it to be. Yeah it was an over sight on my part and I admit it. I should have took a bit more time reading the thing but what do want from me? Another apology for misreading a piece of punctuation? If you look at the photo again, the dot of the semicolon is so perfectly in line with the cross section of the letter "t" that it is very difficult to see. Not exactly the hardest thing in the world to misread.
As for the cards being from Ripleys point of view, I disagree. In the film she believed him to be another android.
Quote from: Andrew127 on Aug 24, 2008, 11:22:31 PM
Maledoro, I'm not doing a 180, I just said it's some good evidence ,which I believe it to be.
Let's see...
Quote from: Andrew127 on Aug 24, 2008, 03:49:42 AM
This is the best evidence I could find about him being a synthetic. I don't expect this to change peoples views but it certainly opens up more debates.
Quote from: Andrew127 on Aug 24, 2008, 10:29:26 PM
In my opinion it now offers some strong evidence for him being human, perhaps some of the best evidence we have found in recent times.
Quote from: Andrew127 on Aug 24, 2008, 11:22:31 PM
Yeah it was an over sight on my part and I admit it. I should have took a bit more time reading the thing but what do want from me? Another apology for misreading a piece of punctuation?
Not necessary. One crime, one apology.
Quote from: Andrew127 on Aug 24, 2008, 11:22:31 PM
If you look at the photo again, the dot of the semicolon is so perfectly in line with the cross section of the letter "t" that it is very difficult to see. Not exactly the hardest thing in the world to misread.
But you saw the card first hand. It was printed clearly on the actual card.
Quote from: Andrew127 on Aug 24, 2008, 11:22:31 PM
As for the cards being from Ripleys point of view, I disagree. In the film she believed him to be another android.
Her thinking he was a droid has nothing to do with what we've been discussing for the past couple of hours. And, if you disagree with the cards being from her point of view, check out what it says on the first three narrated cards:
QuoteAll seemed well. Hicks' injuries were serious, but not critical. And Bishop was in need of major repair. But we were finally heading home. Our ship, the Sulaco, was fully operational when Hicks, Newt, Bishop and I entered the cryotubes for an unknown length of hypersleep. But it wouldn't stay that way.
QuoteIn hypersleep, light-years are condensed into human seconds. And all is peaceful. None of us were aware of the chaos going on in the ship's bulkhead. The Sulaco's sprinkler system must have been automatically activated to contain an onboard fire; our cryotubes were ejected into the EEV. But a fire may not have been the only danger on board.
QuoteI don't know how long the Emergency Evacuation Vehicle had been hurtling through space before it made a crash landing on an unusual planet. If I had decompressed too quickly coming down through the atmosphere, I would become violently ill--but it could have been worse.
So, whose point of view is this being told from?
Saying that it opens up more debates is not doing a 180, same as saying it is strong evidence.
QuoteBut you saw the card first hand. It was printed clearly on the actual card.
Like I said earlier I should have spent more time looking at the the thing, but it is not a hard mistake to make.
QuoteSo, whose point of view is this being told from
The narrative ones are being told from her point of view but the character and making of cards are obviously not. I really don't think Ripley would have known the full names of all the inmates and details into their crimes as well. (or in fact the making of the movie she has no idea she is in :P)
Quote from: Andrew127 on Aug 25, 2008, 02:03:14 AM
Saying that it opens up more debates is not doing a 180, same as saying it is strong evidence.
Saying that it's strong evidence for one thing and then saying that it's strong evidence for the contrary is doing a 180.
Quote from: Andrew127 on Aug 25, 2008, 02:03:14 AM
The narrative ones are being told from her point of view but the character and making of cards are obviously not. I really don't think Ripley would have known the full names of all the inmates and details into their crimes as well. (or in fact the making of the movie she has no idea she is in)
So, the cards that tell what's going on in the story were narrated by Ripley. That's all I needed to hear.
Human. AvP made a bad choice.
Even when considering AvP, there is no conflict with the him being human.
How? There happens to be another Bishop in the future that ends up looking just like him?
Ye Gods! You mean people can't look the same??
Its actually very plausible.
Quote from: SM on Aug 25, 2008, 02:30:54 AM
Ye Gods! You mean people can't look the same??
Yeah.
Quote from: Eidotemit on Aug 25, 2008, 02:32:18 AM
Its actually very plausible.
Yeah but it seems to cheap for me to buy into.
Quote from: The Wolf on Aug 25, 2008, 02:32:49 AM
Quote from: SM on Aug 25, 2008, 02:30:54 AM
Ye Gods! You mean people can't look the same??
Yeah.
You would do well from a crash course in genetics.
QuoteSo, the cards that tell what's going on in the story were narrated by Ripley. That's all I needed to hear.
Yeah but the character cards (the one in which the Bishop card comes from), comic cards and making of cards are clearly not. :P
Quote from: Andrew127 on Aug 25, 2008, 02:37:13 AM
Yeah but the character cards (the one in which the Bishop card comes from), comic cards and making of cards are clearly not. :P
But I'm not concerned with them; just the ones that tell the story.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2Fpimp%2F4781e593.gif&hash=518ab144b821f9288d7c8df44547b912d1681f0e)
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 25, 2008, 02:39:44 AM
Quote from: Andrew127 on Aug 25, 2008, 02:37:13 AM
Yeah but the character cards (the one in which the Bishop card comes from), comic cards and making of cards are clearly not. :P
But I'm not concerned with them; just the ones that tell the story.
Thats awesome ;D well done.
As for Bishop. It was supposed to be undeterminable. Every slight bit of evidence in the film has a counter arguement. More proof is needed. As for a Bishop that just so happens to look like his great(x10) grandfather? Yeah that is going too far. If Bishop in AVP was the real deal (if you accept the AVP films as cannon) then Alien 3 Bishop was either Android or Clone (and cloning seems pointless when you have identical droids knocking about the place).
Quote from: Andrew127 on Aug 25, 2008, 03:02:31 AM
Thats awesome ;D well done.
Good job catching on. A little late, but you did it.
Quote from: Andrew127 on Aug 25, 2008, 03:02:31 AM
As for Bishop. It was supposed to be undeterminable.
Nevermind the scripts, commentaries, etc...
Quote from: Andrew127 on Aug 25, 2008, 03:02:31 AM
Every slight bit of evidence in the film has a counter arguement.
Every f**king thing in the known universe has a counter argument.
Quote from: Andrew127 on Aug 25, 2008, 03:02:31 AM
More proof is needed.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2Fpwed%2F816f3694.jpg&hash=b5aa99415c89e2c3f9cc126a310cbebeb4015527)
Quote from: Andrew127 on Aug 25, 2008, 03:02:31 AM
As for a Bishop that just so happens to look like his great(x10) grandfather? Yeah that is going too far.
What
Eidotemit said.
Quote from: Andrew127 on Aug 25, 2008, 03:02:31 AM
If Bishop in AVP was the real deal (if you accept the AVP films as cannon) then Alien 3 Bishop was either Android or Clone.
Or just some guy who looks like Chuck Weyland.
wow who gives a shit? :D
QuoteNevermind the scripts, commentaries, etc...
Yup, never mind a whole film with contradicting evidence or the actor himself saying he was playing an advanced android in interviews while disscussing the role "They were leaving that open because they weren't sure what they were going to do with me. But what I saw was that it was a more advanced model certainly. Again, I love the idea of the advanced models" But what does Lance Henriksen know. ::)
And just as I thought we were getting somewhere..... Oh well
Quotewow who gives a shit?
91 pages worth of people, that's who.
QuoteBut what does Lance Henriksen know.
Lance didn't create Bishop or Weyland.
QuoteLance didn't create Bishop or Weyland
Thats true. And he was more than likely saying that to hype up the release of AVP. But still I would rather believe the actual person who portrayed the character. He obviously knows more about the subject than any of us I would think.
He also said Bishop 2 was human.
I'm more inclined to believe the guys who created the source material - ie. Fincher, Giler, Hill, et al.
Quote from: SM on Aug 25, 2008, 03:34:59 AM
He also said Bishop 2 was human.
I'm more inclined to believe the guys who created the source material - ie. Fincher, Giler, Hill, et al.
That is a logical stance to take. I'm not going to disagree. However, what we see on screen is Lance's interpritation of the character, and according to him at least, his interpritation was that the character was an advanced android.
Quote from: Andrew127 on Aug 25, 2008, 11:11:21 AM
Quote from: SM on Aug 25, 2008, 03:34:59 AM
He also said Bishop 2 was human.
I'm more inclined to believe the guys who created the source material - ie. Fincher, Giler, Hill, et al.
what we see on screen is Lance's interpritation of the character, and according to him at least, his interpritation was that the character was an advanced android.
Quote from: SM on Aug 25, 2008, 03:34:59 AM
He also said Bishop 2 was human.
Depends on which interpretation he was going with that day.
QuoteDepends on which interpretation he was going with that day
Lance contradicts himself as much as the evidence itself. Maybe we were not supposed to know and it's some sort of conspiracy ??? :P
Except the evidence suggests he is human, its only conjecture made in spite of that evidence that says otherwise.
Quote from: Eidotemit on Aug 25, 2008, 11:36:04 AM
Except the evidence suggests he is human, its only conjecture made in spite of that evidence that says otherwise.
And both put up a very good arguement. The forum and most Alien fans are still divided, which is exaclty what Fox wanted (once again, according to Lance :-\). I think it is supposed to be that way to be honest. Hence why this topic is 91 pages long and why it still makes for a compelling discussion I guess.
Quote from: The Wolf on Aug 25, 2008, 03:19:01 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v338/maledoro/Forums/2c319a08.gif
Quote from: Andrew127 on Aug 25, 2008, 03:19:13 AM
Yup, never mind a whole film with contradicting evidence or the actor himself saying he was playing an advanced android in interviews while disscussing the role "They were leaving that open because they weren't sure what they were going to do with me. But what I saw was that it was a more advanced model certainly. Again, I love the idea of the advanced models" But what does Lance Henriksen know.
Well, if you put your faith in a waffler and people who didn't work on that film, you might take a good look at your mindset.
Quote from: Andrew127 on Aug 25, 2008, 03:30:53 AM
QuoteLance didn't create Bishop or Weyland
Thats true. And he was more than likely saying that to hype up the release of AVP. But still I would rather believe the actual person who portrayed the character. He obviously knows more about the subject than any of us I would think.
It may seem obvious, but when an actor is handed something about his character, the person who had written the background knows more about the character than the actor does. If the actor is told to do whatever they want, then the actor becomes the authority. Fincher made it clear that Bishop's designer was human.
Quote from: Andrew127 on Aug 25, 2008, 11:11:21 AM
Quote from: SM on Aug 25, 2008, 03:34:59 AM
He also said Bishop 2 was human. I'm more inclined to believe the guys who created the source material - ie. Fincher, Giler, Hill, et al.
That is a logical stance to take. I'm not going to disagree. However, what we see on screen is Lance's interpritation of the character, and according to him at least, his interpritation was that the character was an advanced android.
That wasn't his interpretation. He played him as a human. Since you disagreed, you are being illogical.
Quote from: Andrew127 on Aug 25, 2008, 11:29:54 AM
Lance contradicts himself as much as the evidence itself. Maybe we were not supposed to know and it's some sort of conspiracy ?
The evidence is in what was drafted for the story; he was written as a human. Henriksen was instructed to play the part as human.
Quote from: Andrew127 on Aug 25, 2008, 11:50:15 AM
And both put up a very good arguement.
"Both" what? Everyone involved with
Alien³ said he was human. There was no evidence to the contrary.
QuoteWell, if you put your faith in a waffler and people who didn't work on that film, you might take a good look at your mindset.
I'm not putting any faith in him, I'm just presenting evidence. And adding to the fact that he is a key factor when disscussing this character.
QuoteThat wasn't his interpretation. He played him as a human. Since you disagreed, you are being illogical.
I didn't disagree. I was presenting evidence again. The evidence was contradictory to my stance, but I didn't side with it.
QuoteThe evidence is in what was drafted for the story; he was written as a human. Henriksen was instructed to play the part as human.
The script is just as vague as the film. The description of the character does not say he is human. Apart from the dialogue heard in the film all I could find in the script was "The Captain is a dead ringer for the Android Bishop" and "smashes Bishop II in the head. Bishop II writhes on the floor. The troops fire on Aaron, shoot him down. Bishop II turns. No wires. No milk. Real blood."
All of this could be explained as an advance Bishop model.
Quote"Both" what? Everyone involved with Alien³ said he was human. There was no evidence to the contrary
As I said, the evidence is specualtion and belief in AVP as connon. Together this amounts to enough questionable evidence to counter the argument for him being human.
The character was designed to not be trust worthy, what makes you believe he was saying the truth when he lied about everything else?
Maledoro. Don't you think its about time we call it quits. We are going around in circles and neither of us are budging. I don't know all the answers but don't treat me like an idiot for having a different view than you. :(
Quote from: Andrew127 on Aug 25, 2008, 12:36:35 PM
I'm not putting any faith in him, I'm just presenting evidence. And adding to the fact that he is a key factor when disscussing this character.
It's faith. It's like zealots who push their holy book off as "evidence". Either way, he's a waffler.
Quote from: Andrew127 on Aug 25, 2008, 12:36:35 PM
I didn't disagree. I was presenting evidence again. The evidence was contradictory to my stance, but I didn't side with it.
You might study forensics (no, not the CSI kind) and learn what qualifies as "evidence".
Quote from: Andrew127 on Aug 25, 2008, 12:36:35 PM
The script is just as vague as the film. The description of the character does not say he is human. Apart from the dialogue heard in the film all I could find in the script was "The Captain is a dead ringer for the Android Bishop" and "smashes Bishop II in the head. Bishop II writhes on the floor. The troops fire on Aaron, shoot him down. Bishop II turns. No wires. No milk. Real blood." All of this could be explained as an advance Bishop model.
The fact that you have to twist things around to reach your conclusions shows the weakness of your arguments. Just give it up, 'kay?
Quote from: Andrew127 on Aug 25, 2008, 12:36:35 PM
As I said, the evidence is specualtion and belief in AVP as connon. Together this amounts to enough questionable evidence to counter the argument for him being human.
Confusion and ass-covering are not evidence.
Quote from: Andrew127 on Aug 25, 2008, 12:36:35 PM
The character was designed to not be trust worthy, what makes you believe he was saying the truth when he lied about everything else?
I was wondering when you were going to use the
ad hominem fallacy.
Quote from: Andrew127 on Aug 25, 2008, 12:36:35 PM
Maledoro. Don't you think its about time we call it quits. We are going around in circles and neither of us are budging.
It should have been called quits when all the shit you recycled was first refuted. All that you had said was first stated by someone, then refuted by some and then brought up again by others, including yourself. Instead of repeating the same old arguments, you (and the others) should have responded to our responses.
That is how a debate runs.
Quote from: Andrew127 on Aug 25, 2008, 12:36:35 PM
I don't know all the answers but don't treat me like an idiot for having a different view than you.
1. I don't mind others having a different view than me.
2. I do mind people being dumb enough to claim that I don't respect other views as it is baseless.
3. I look down on people who have to twist things to reach the conclusion that they want.
4. If the person has to repeat the original points over and over instead of addressing the responses to the original claims, that person is an idiot.
There are good arguements both sides and thats fine. Which ever side anyone sides with is their opinion and I respect that.
Maledoro I respect your arguements and facts but your tone is totally inappropriate. I have no idea how you think insults and petty snipes are solidifying your arguement but you just come across as a bully and a fool (and I bet I'm not the only one who has said that).
Quote from: Andrew127 on Aug 25, 2008, 01:10:09 PM
Maledoro I respect your arguements and facts but your tone is totally inappropriate.
If you play by the rules and not distort things my tone would be more gentle.
Quote from: Andrew127 on Aug 25, 2008, 01:10:09 PM
I have no idea how you think insults and petty snipes are solidifying your arguement but you just come across as a bully and a fool
I see. You're afraid to own up to what you've been caught doing and you have to bash the accuser.
Quote from: Andrew127 on Aug 25, 2008, 01:10:09 PM
(and I bet I'm not the only one who has said that).
No, you're not the only person who doesn't know how to debate properly.
Quote from: Andrew127 on Aug 25, 2008, 11:50:15 AM
Hence why this topic is 91 pages long and why it still makes for a compelling discussion I guess.
I'm probably looking forwards to the 200th page
Quote from: Andrew127 on Aug 25, 2008, 01:10:09 PM
There are good arguements both sides and thats fine. Which ever side anyone sides with is their opinion and I respect that.
Actually there aren't good arguments on both sides. All evidence points to Bishop II being human, he had red blood (even call who would have been more advanced if he were an android still had white), he says he's human, he feels pain (unlke Ash in Alien) and most importantly THE FILMAKERS SAID HE WAS HUMAN.
The android side of the argument is basically "OmG Lanceyboy is in AVP as WEYLAND dood now bishop ii is a android"
QuoteThe troops fire on Aaron, shoot him down. Bishop II turns. No wires. No milk. Real blood."
All of this could be explained as an advance Bishop model.
You have got to be kidding.
You see that blood on Aaron? He's an advanced droid too!!
You wanna know what an advanced droid looks like?
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.absoluteavp.com%2Ftime%2Fpics%2Fsmlcall.jpg&hash=473b7f32d68a7818a81c6bfea1c2b6566f4cf499)
And what colour was her blood pray tell?
Quote from: SM on Aug 25, 2008, 11:45:45 PM
QuoteThe troops fire on Aaron, shoot him down. Bishop II turns. No wires. No milk. Real blood."
All of this could be explained as an advance Bishop model.
You have got to be kidding.
You see that blood on Aaron? He's an advanced droid too!!
You wanna know what an advanced droid looks like?
http://www.absoluteavp.com/time/pics/smlcall.jpg
And what colour was her blood pray tell?
Great minds think alike SM ;)
Quote from: Harkus on Aug 25, 2008, 11:38:41 PM
The android side of the argument is basiucally "OmG Lanceyboy is in AVP as WEYLAND dood now bishop ii is a android"
Well it just goes to show that the AVP films exist outside the canon of the Alien movies. And I don't buy that he's a clone, either - since they had quite alot of trouble cloning Ripley 200 years later.
They only had trouble because they wanted the queen not some abomination.
Quote from: Mr.X on Aug 26, 2008, 02:48:06 AM
They only had trouble because they wanted the queen not some abomination.
Well, how - if they could isolate the queen, they wouldn't need to clone Ripley too. The queen embryo could have been implanted in something else.
I really doubt they could - they just did their experiments - got a 1:7 ratio.
It was never explained about how they got the Queen, though... why they could get the queen from a blood sample.
Quote from: gameoverman on Aug 26, 2008, 10:34:00 AM
It was never explained about how they got the Queen, though... why they could get the queen from a blood sample.
Just bad science. Which calls this question to mind: if the recovery team were able to find Ripley's DNA (yes, it was easy to find in the syringes in the infirmary), why couldn't they have found some of the alien's DNA considering that it (and possibly the team) was all over the mining complex?
Plot hole perhaps?
Quote from: Mr.X on Aug 26, 2008, 01:50:13 PM
Plot hole perhaps?
Getting a parasite by cloning the host? Yeah.
Big f**king plot hole. You could fly the
Auriga through a plot hole that size.
well, it might be a question about whether they specifically wanted a queen alien or not and if they did, maybe cloning a normal alien (or the facehugger if they found the remains) didn't lead to a queen. Then another thought might be that they didn't know how to clone the aliens but were more likely to be able to clone Ripley, and whatever else started growing with the clone because of the alien DNA was just about out of their control.
And if the Sulaco was still functioning and relatively unharmed by fire, whatever there might have been some Queen DNA and the spore casing found but it too wasn't useful to the world of Alien Resurrection in their attempts to make aliens queens
I just look at it as a DNA exchange. Queen takes some of Ripley's, Ripley gets some of Queen's in order to give the host some protection. May explain how Ripley healed so quickly on Fiorina. Also may how Purvis was able to stay so long underwater with a large mass restricting the capacity of one lung.
Wouldn't have a clue how the science would work - or not - but as far as an in-universe explanation it works for me.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Aug 26, 2008, 03:38:30 PM
well, it might be a question about whether they specifically wanted a queen alien or not and if they did, maybe cloning a normal alien (or the facehugger if they found the remains) didn't lead to a queen.
The Company wasn't that choosy before.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Aug 26, 2008, 03:38:30 PM
Then another thought might be that they didn't know how to clone the aliens but were more likely to be able to clone Ripley, and whatever else started growing with the clone because of the alien DNA was just about out of their control.
Since there was no scientific precedent for attaining a parasite by cloning its host, I would have attempted to clone the alien instead.
Hahahahaha, glad to see this debate is still going strong after, like, 9 years. I remember discussing this shit back in 1999.
For the record, I voted "human", because that's what he is in the extended cut, movie novelization, and shooting script. That's plenty of evidence for me. :)
QuoteFor the record, I voted "human", because that's what he is in the extended cut, movie novelization, and shooting script. That's plenty of evidence for me...
LOL took the words right out of my mouth ;D
Yet some people still think to the contrary. Doh...
Quote from: That Yellow Alien on Sep 25, 2008, 06:03:53 PM
Yet some people still think to the contrary. Doh...
Logic and Alien/AvP fans don't always go hand in hand. ;)
Of course, some people are very adamant in their opinions and will make up any excuse to discount contrary evidence, too.
He would be human Because in the directors cut He gets klobbered on the back of the nut and he starts bleeding red blood. But seeing as he was killed in the shitty AVP mabye he got cloned? ???
Quote from: Shadow435 on Oct 01, 2008, 11:54:16 PM
He would be human Because in the directors cut He gets klobbered on the back of the nut and he starts bleeding red blood. But seeing as he was killed in the shitty AVP mabye he got cloned? ???
Already been covered and dismissed.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 22, 2008, 09:00:33 AM
Hahahahaha, glad to see this debate is still going strong after, like, 9 years. I remember discussing this shit back in 1999.
For the record, I voted "human", because that's what he is in the extended cut, movie novelization, and shooting script. That's plenty of evidence for me. :)
I've got an Alien fanzine from 1992 where this was being discussed
I vote for android because a. the blow to his head was rather severe and b. its the bloody company, you can never trust them ;)
Quote from: Alpha Xenomorph on Oct 18, 2008, 04:26:23 AM
I vote for android because a. the blow to his head was rather severe and b. its the bloody company, you can never trust them
a. It wasn't severe.
b. That's the Circumstantial Ad Hominem (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html) fallacy.
Quote from: maledoro on Oct 18, 2008, 11:51:14 AM
Quote from: Alpha Xenomorph on Oct 18, 2008, 04:26:23 AM
I vote for android because a. the blow to his head was rather severe and b. its the bloody company, you can never trust them
a. It wasn't severe.
b. That's the Circumstantial Ad Hominem (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html) fallacy.
A. That was severe, the side of his head was falling off. Even if it was not a severe blow, he would not be that composed and focused.
B. We have no evidence of the Company telling the initial truth in regards to the Xenomorph. Until so, that is the pattern we should expect. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
His ear was hanging off. Grotesque as that it is, it's not particularly severe - It's just skin. Thin skin at that.
I'll give you that, but there is a possibility that the injury was worse, and with the amount of pain that would accompany that, he should not have been so focused.
Quote from: Alpha Xenomorph on Oct 19, 2008, 12:33:56 AM
A. That was severe, the side of his head was falling off. Even if it was not a severe blow, he would not be that composed and focused.
B. We have no evidence of the Company telling the initial truth in regards to the Xenomorph. Until so, that is the pattern we should expect. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
A. One more time: The injury wasn't severe. It wasn't even as severe as
SiL had said it was.
B. You're now using the Negative Proof fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html) (e.g., "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does.").
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FHalloween%2Fwink.gif&hash=a38215a522a0c067220a06a50f3c538e0658676d)
Quote from: Alpha Xenomorph on Oct 19, 2008, 12:46:34 AM
I'll give you that, but there is a possibility that the injury was worse, and with the amount of pain that would accompany that, he should not have been so focused.
As been mentioned before, head injuries do not necessarily result in pain or disorientation. There are some articles on hematomas available around the Internet that go into deeper detail.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FHalloween%2Fsmiley.gif&hash=ac44235204c6674363fe20a7e7617dc7c270469f)
Provide evidence that there is no chance for a severe injury resulting from a metal object impacting the side pf the cranium.
Provide evidence that the Company has not worked in its best interest and has promoted the good of others.
Evidence? Il sprinted headfirst into a metal post before, with no major effects apart from a bit of a headache, after the adrenaline had worn off. I was fine, granted his headache would be a bit worse than mine, but at the time he wouldnt notice, as he'd be going on pure adrenaline.
Not another one.
Think logically about storytelling. If you wanted to get the point across that Bishop II was really an android lying to Ripley, then they would have had him bleed white blood.
Tell me, if the creators wanted to get the point across that Bishop II was a droid, why would they make him bleed red? That makes no sense. And don't give me that "his fluids are dyed" bullcrap, because like I said, it would have made more sense to just give him white blood.
Quote from: Alpha Xenomorph on Oct 19, 2008, 01:43:48 AM
Provide evidence that there is no chance for a severe injury resulting from a metal object impacting the side pf the cranium.
Read
Dachande's account; which was more severe than the scenario you provided.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FHalloween%2Fshocked.gif&hash=73bcc9c625b11d308fd78ae14cb70e92042f9e7f)
Quote from: Alpha Xenomorph on Oct 19, 2008, 01:43:48 AM
Provide evidence that the Company has not worked in its best interest and has promoted the good of others.
That's irrelevant. Just because the Company did those things shown in the first three
Alien films doesn't prove that Bishop's designer is anything other than a normal guy. To imply such a thing is what's known as Poisoning the Well (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html).
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FHalloween%2Fwink.gif&hash=a38215a522a0c067220a06a50f3c538e0658676d)
Not to mention that all of the points you've made were discussed and refuted. I wish someone would either address a counterpoint or come up with a new angle.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FHalloween%2Fsad.gif&hash=fa3015e6ce3ae4316b39ffa2cbe1af0519bedab5)
Quote from: That Yellow Alien on Oct 19, 2008, 02:12:15 AM
Not another one.
Think logically about storytelling. If you wanted to get the point across that Bishop II was really an android lying to Ripley, then they would have had him bleed white blood.
Tell me, if the creators wanted to get the point across that Bishop II was a droid, why would they make him bleed red? That makes no sense. And don't give me that "his fluids are dyed" bullcrap, because like I said, it would have made more sense to just give him white blood.
Absolutly correct, the creators of alien 3 wanted Bishop II to be a human however when time passes and new movies are created then the cannon is changed by other movie makers. In that sense then Bishop II was just another android with red dyed blood.
Quote from: Haloxpok3mon on Oct 19, 2008, 02:24:45 AM
Absolutly correct, the creators of alien 3 wanted Bishop II to be a human however when time passes and new movies are created then the cannon is changed by other movie makers. In that sense then Bishop II was just another android with red dyed blood.
Unfortunately, there wasn't anything that had changed the orientation of Bishop's designer's being. This, too, had been discussed at length.
Can i just say, im not stupid enough to headbutt metal poles intentionally, im a goalkeeper in my football team you see....
Quote from: Dachande on Oct 19, 2008, 02:59:43 AM
Can i just say, im not stupid enough to headbutt metal poles intentionally, im a goalkeeper in my football team you see....
Uh,
huh...
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FHalloween%2Fundecided.gif&hash=92d3d2d2242593d1198df3770355dcd2b840c595)
Actually, that does make sense...people are capable of amazing things when there is sufficient adrenaline.
And for the pro-human side, it would be possible for a descendant of Weyland to be alive for the Bishop model. It does make sense, since the Bishop model was around for Aliens and Alien 3 takes place a mere matter of weeks later. The designer could be alive, if he really was the designer ;)
Well, the explanation I've used is that they're simply totally different people, just like Jerry Lambert (Predator2) and William Hudson (Aliens).
That is certainly possible too, there are plenty of people who bear striking resemblances to famous people.
Ah, the Alien equivalent of the "Han or Greedo" conundrum. I'm not going to attempt to answer this question, but, Han shot first.
Han was the only one who shot. Though I suppose one might call that first.
I say first in the context that we're talking about both renditions (or all three) of the scene. Originally, Han was the only one who took a shot. In the remastered version, Greedo did take the first shot. When I say that Han shot first, I mean that he shot first before Greedo shot first. :)
Yeah I know. I just wanted my post count to go to 80. A nice even figure. Now I've ruined it.
Quote from: Carnal Calligraphy on Oct 22, 2008, 09:40:04 AM
Ah, the Alien equivalent of the "Han or Greedo" conundrum. I'm not going to attempt to answer this question, but, Han shot first.
I think you've lost me. I know the Han/Greedo thing, but how does that relate to Bishop?
This is the only dispute of canonical source material that gets its own thread. It just seems as though it's the biggest dispute in the Alien franchise amongst fans and, as we all know, the Greedo or Han dispute was, at the very least, the most famous dispute amongst fans in the Star Wars community. A simple observation.
Ah, fair enough. I guess I didn't look at it like that. :)
Although there have been similar disputes on other AvP boards that I've seen, like "where did the eggs in 'Alien3' come from?".
That's true. Didn't think about that one.
What people seem to miss with the Han/ Greedo thing is that Han was always going to shoot Greedo. He quietly took his gun out and took the safety off. The fact Greedo fired an instant earlier is neither here nor there. Han was always going to shoot him.
Quote from: SM on Oct 22, 2008, 10:24:40 PM
What people seem to miss with the Han/ Greedo thing is that Han was always going to shoot Greedo. He quietly took his gun out and took the safety off. The fact Greedo fired an instant earlier is neither here nor there. Han was always going to shoot him.
Well with Greedo shooting first, I guess you could argue that Han took the safety off because he figured he was going to get in a firefight, and wanted to be ready to defend himself. He was
just that good that he shot Greedo a fraction of a second after Greedo shot first.
That's a retarded way to look at it and you're right that Han meant to kill Greedo either way, but I think that was Lucas' reasoning for even having Greedo shoot first, to make Han look less "bloodthirsty".
Which it didn't.
Greedo was pointing a gun saying he was going to kill Han - Han shot him. Clear cut case of self defence.
But we digress.
Yeah, Lucas did it initially to make him look more compassionate or human etc. The whole Self defense issue is what the gist of the Han Greedo argument became after everything was sorted out. Everyone wanted to know why it was so necessary to change that scene.
Instead of reading all 95 pages of this thread, I'll just throw my 2¢ in and say that Bishop II was human.
Quote from: kelgaard on Oct 24, 2008, 09:08:48 AM
Instead of reading all 95 pages of this thread, I'll just throw my 2¢ in and say that Bishop II was human.
Haha, you pretty much did exactly what I did, and voted the same way I did, too. :)
He's Human... it's a fact!
HUMAN!!!!
This debate wouldn't exist if AVP wasn't made. Everyone would agree that Bishop II was human no doubt about it. He was just called Bishop II so it wouldn't confuse the passive viewers. He was never called that in Alien 3.
Well, to be fair the debate on whether he's human or not has gone on since long before 'AvP' came out. :)
And while the novelization ends up spelling out that he's human, Ripley thinks of him as Bishop II (like, the novelization literally uses the phrase "Bishop II") up until he gets hit with the wrench.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Nov 04, 2008, 09:55:38 PM
Well, to be fair the debate on whether he's human or not has gone on since long before 'AvP' came out. :)
And while the novelization ends up spelling out that he's human, Ripley thinks of him as Bishop II (like, the novelization literally uses the phrase "Bishop II") up until he gets hit with the wrench.
Well still the votes swings towards human. If this debates keeps going it needs an end date and which ever vote has the most is what Bishop II is. THIS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS!! Joking.
I've heard arguments for and against but I believe he's human. His appearance in the film was the clincher that highlighted the lengths of conniving and manipulation that Weyland Yutani would go to to get the Alien. Considering Ripley's experience with WY to that point, I think WY would want to cover all fronts and present the most honest-looking approach to her, right down to smallest details, in order to achieve their goal. They wouldn't just send a robot, because if it was known he was a robot, then it would appear insincere.
But by the end of it, it didn't matter. Destroying the Alien was Ripley's only concern. And Bishop II's bloody head is a symbol of WY's desperation.
I think it really comes down to which you like better Alien 3 or AvP, quite obviously if he was Human in avp and that took place in 2004 he wouldent be a human in alien 3, unless he was cloned.
Alien 3 had alot of screwups and that could be one of them i hated alien 3 the first half was decent then it starded sucking, avps the better movie argo i say he was a android in alien 3
The character in 'AvP' was a different person from the one in 'Alien3', they just happen to be played by the same actor.
hmmm... i dont think so, is he not Charles Bishop Weyland in AvP?
Quote from: elemental of all on Dec 11, 2008, 06:21:22 PM
I think it really comes down to which you like better Alien 3 or AvP, quite obviously if he was Human in avp and that took place in 2004 he wouldent be a human in alien 3, unless he was cloned.
Alien 3 had alot of screwups and that could be one of them i hated alien 3 the first half was decent then it starded sucking, avps the better movie argo i say he was a android in alien 3
Read through the thread a bit, this is addressed.... several times.
P.S.: Its "ergo," not "argo."
Well i did read up to the part where someone said this is "arguement Strater" which is not why im not here...
also typo, thnx for pointing it out.
either way im assuming that there is no official word form fox or anything saying that he is and android or human.
also i dont have time to read through 95 pages...
You don't have to, the 95 pages is pretty much the same two pages over and over, ad nauseum.
What does a magic card havta do with this??
Quote from: elemental of all on Dec 12, 2008, 01:53:02 AM
What does a magic card havta do with this??
You brought it up; you tell us...
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FElves%2Fhuh.gif&hash=c20aec5aa2668fd83791457bc7939ee942ec3605)
Quote from: Eidotemit on Dec 11, 2008, 10:45:54 PM
You don't have to, the 95 pages is pretty much the same two pages over and over, ad nauseum.
lol i dunno Ad Nauseum is a card... never heard it used in a sentence before... also not a noob im 19 and new to these forums, thats all.
i know nobody said anything just putting it out there ahead of time.
The phrase ad nauseum is used to describe an argument that has been continuing "to the point of nausea".
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FElves%2Fwink.gif&hash=d798d6ae4a389eee348751af55cf24a738272582)
Ok then i learned something today. ;)
About language AND this thread.
Quote from: elemental of all on Dec 11, 2008, 07:43:14 PM
hmmm... i dont think so, is he not Charles Bishop Weyland in AvP?
Yes, and Charles Weyland (AvP) is a different person from Michael Bishop (Alien3). Similarly, Jerry Lambert (Predator 2) and William Hudson (Aliens) look very similar, but are different people. They're both played by Bill Paxton.
lol is it coincendence that Bill Paxton is in the secons alien movie, second predator movie.
In AvP-R(the second avp movie), the Predalien known as "Chet" apparetly, is also the name a character bill paxton plays in weird sceince...
Quote from: elemental of all on Dec 13, 2008, 07:40:41 PM
In AvP-R(the second avp movie), the Predalien known as "Chet" apparetly, is also the name a character bill paxton plays in weird sceince...
Actually, in
Weird Science, it's "Chett", but it sounds the same...
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FElves%2Ftongue.gif&hash=67948b7118613467fd6824cee15b5a3ecda68ff5)
Quote from: Darkness on Nov 01, 2006, 08:18:10 AM
So at the end of Alien 3, do you believe Bishop is really human or is just an android?
He was human, he said it himself that he was human.
Quote from: The_Undertaker on Jan 14, 2009, 02:10:20 PM
Quote from: Darkness on Nov 01, 2006, 08:18:10 AM
So at the end of Alien 3, do you believe Bishop is really human or is just an android?
He was human, he said it himself that he was human.
Although a robot can be programmed to say such a thing, he was still human.
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 14, 2009, 05:08:12 PM
Quote from: The_Undertaker on Jan 14, 2009, 02:10:20 PM
Quote from: Darkness on Nov 01, 2006, 08:18:10 AM
So at the end of Alien 3, do you believe Bishop is really human or is just an android?
He was human, he said it himself that he was human.
Although a robot can be programmed to say such a thing, he was still human.
Really? If he was a robot then explain me the red blood coming out from his left ear at the end of Alien 3?
Quote from: The_Undertaker on Jan 14, 2009, 05:10:20 PM
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 14, 2009, 05:08:12 PM
Although a robot can be programmed to say such a thing, he was still human.
Really? If he was a robot then explain me the red blood coming out from his left ear at the end of Alien 3?
Who said he was a robot?
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 14, 2009, 05:53:42 PM
Quote from: The_Undertaker on Jan 14, 2009, 05:10:20 PM
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 14, 2009, 05:08:12 PM
Although a robot can be programmed to say such a thing, he was still human.
Really? If he was a robot then explain me the red blood coming out from his left ear at the end of Alien 3?
Who said he was a robot?
You did.
Quote from: The_Undertaker on Jan 14, 2009, 06:18:38 PM
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 14, 2009, 05:53:42 PM
Who said he was a robot?
You did.
No, I didn't. If I had, link me to it.
EDIT: It's been over a half hour. Are you having that much trouble finding and linking the post where I had said Bishop II was a robot? Let me help you: I never said it. But, if you feel that I had, sally forth...
EDIT: It shouldn't be such an "undertaking" to find where I had said it, should it? It's been almost an hour and a half...
Hey sorry dog'g my internet connection shut down so sorry if you waited so long.
Quote from: The_Undertaker on Jan 14, 2009, 05:10:20 PM
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 14, 2009, 05:08:12 PM
Quote from: The_Undertaker on Jan 14, 2009, 02:10:20 PM
Quote from: Darkness on Nov 01, 2006, 08:18:10 AM
So at the end of Alien 3, do you believe Bishop is really human or is just an android?
He was human, he said it himself that he was human.
Although a robot can be programmed to say such a thing, he was still human.
Here it is.
No it's not.
QuoteAlthough a robot can be programmed to say such a thing, he was still human.
Oh my bad I probably read it wrong. :-[ Man I'm such an idiot ::)
Quote from: The_Undertaker on Jan 14, 2009, 10:49:23 PM
Oh my bad I probably read it wrong. :-[ Man I'm such an idiot ::)
You're not the man now, dog.
Since you had an epiphany (with the aid of another user) while I was typing my response, I might as well show you what I would have posted:
QuoteQuote from: The_Undertaker on Jan 14, 2009, 10:18:51 PM
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 14, 2009, 05:08:12 PM
Although a robot can be programmed to say such a thing, he was still human.
Here it is.
Let's read this together, shall we?
QuoteAlthough a robot can be programmed to say such a thing
The author is posing a hypothetical situation, but is not claiming that such a thing had happened. He was saying that it is possible for a robot to be programmed to say whatever the hell its programmer(s) told it to say.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v338/maledoro/sa/emot-eng101.png
On to the second part of the statement:
Quotehe was human
By this, the author is making the claim that the character in question is not a robot but is by full definition a human being.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v338/maledoro/sa/emot-eng101.png
If you put it all together and roll it around in your head, you get the esoteric gist that declares, "That it is possible for a robot to be programmed to say whatever the hell its programmer(s) told it to say, but that the character in question is not a robot but is by full definition a human being."
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v338/maledoro/sa/eng101_newer.gif
Just so that you don't think that I'm a not-so-nice kind of guy, kindly keep in mind that what I had said within the quote field is now an
indirect quote, posted for information purposes only.
"Dog".
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2Fsa%2F16346659.gif&hash=d963370d0f720875e1a90dbc6d8c8cf01ea60ae7)
Are you trying to be a teacher or something? If you are then you suck at it.
Quote from: The_Undertaker on Jan 14, 2009, 11:02:03 PM
Are you trying to be a teacher or something? If you are then you suck at it.
Based on your reading skills, you've had your share of sucky teachers...
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2Fsa%2Femot-science.gif&hash=2e7e7620625add334d67a446c6a38952eef736f6)
Based on your posts, you have no respect to anyone. Also, I find that avatar of your's awfully distracting. Is that family issues?
Quote from: The_Undertaker on Jan 14, 2009, 11:17:36 PM
Based on your posts, you have no respect to anyone.
You don't even know how to read my posts.
(
SM, I respect you for many reasons, especially for showing
The Undertaker the way.)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2Fsa%2F49afa275.gif&hash=1e30a05c292365751c4db53ccc4d4e21c68db05b)(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2Fhands%2Femot-respek.gif&hash=1a6a65edb4c687353e9cc34a7e60e0904f4e80ee):)
I respect most of the people on this forum and had respected you until you kept pushing with your misrepresentation of what I had said. Had you taken the hint and had reread my post, we wouldn't be having this convo.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2Fsa%2F49afa275.gif&hash=1e30a05c292365751c4db53ccc4d4e21c68db05b)
Quote from: The_Undertaker on Jan 14, 2009, 11:17:36 PM
Also, I find that avatar of your's awfully distracting. Is that family issues?
Mmm...
baby...
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2Fsa%2F67d12264.gif&hash=27695d29031ab8016d5a79630aa687a7a6e564c0)
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 14, 2009, 11:37:53 PM
Quote from: The_Undertaker on Jan 14, 2009, 11:17:36 PM
Based on your posts, you have no respect to anyone.
You don't even know how to read my posts.
(SM, I respect you for many reasons, especially for showing The Undertaker the way.)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v338/maledoro/sa/49afa275.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v338/maledoro/hands/emot-respek.gif:)
I respect most of the people on this forum and had respected you until you kept pushing with your misrepresentation of what I had said. Had you taken the hint and had reread my post, we wouldn't be having this convo.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v338/maledoro/sa/49afa275.gif
Quote from: The_Undertaker on Jan 14, 2009, 11:17:36 PM
Also, I find that avatar of your's awfully distracting. Is that family issues?
Mmm...baby...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v338/maledoro/sa/67d12264.gif
Alright Maledoro you win I don't want to argue with you anymore. Sorry if disrespected you, you won't hear from me anymore. :(
Quote from: The_Undertaker on Jan 14, 2009, 11:44:46 PM
Alright Maledoro you win I don't want to argue with you anymore. Sorry if disrespected you, you won't hear from me anymore.
Aw, Undy. All I wanted to hear was your apology. I forgive you and respect you again and now look forward to reading your posts.
You're a class act, bro.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2Fsa%2Fa8b2b2a1.gif&hash=ab09005a1bae6866c3f8fe6ec49f8cf623b0dda8)
Golf clap smiley?
Is there anything you don't have a smiley for?
Quote from: SM on Jan 14, 2009, 11:57:29 PM
Golf clap smiley?
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2Fsa%2F53bbe03f.gif&hash=8a9a67d35da1b7f07f708105899131a6efa5fb17)
Quote from: SM on Jan 14, 2009, 11:57:29 PM
Is there anything you don't have a smiley for?
I don't think so...
Maybe we'll have a thread on AXP where users see if I could match a smiley to a situation?
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2Fsa%2Fb8adfd52.gif&hash=f63b8c0428766d061d671d78b7b216cad6b1497f)
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 14, 2009, 11:49:41 PM
Quote from: The_Undertaker on Jan 14, 2009, 11:44:46 PM
Alright Maledoro you win I don't want to argue with you anymore. Sorry if disrespected you, you won't hear from me anymore.
Aw, Undy. All I wanted to hear was your apology. I forgive you and respect you again and now look forward to reading your posts.
You're a class act, bro.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v338/maledoro/sa/a8b2b2a1.gif
Thanks Doro. :)
Quote from: The_Undertaker on Jan 15, 2009, 01:49:50 AM
Thanks Doro.
"Mal". Go with the noun, not the adjective...
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2Fsa%2Femot-eng101.png&hash=b669a5ae121fba0a80d6a14a2e78eb18135e8ab4)
Funniest thing i've read today. Man, Undertaker was about ready to flip a gasket.
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 15, 2009, 03:15:28 AM
Quote from: The_Undertaker on Jan 15, 2009, 01:49:50 AM
Thanks Doro.
"Mal". Go with the noun, not the adjective...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v338/maledoro/sa/emot-eng101.png
Fine....Mal
From wikipedia
Henriksen believes Bishop II was an "advanced model" android
Also, Henriksen was credited as Bishop II in the final credits. I always assumed he was an android, and henriksen and creidts seem to confirm this
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 06:22:35 AM
From wikipedia
Henriksen believes Bishop II was an "advanced model" android
You missed the part in this thread where Henriksen had also said that Bishop's designer was human in the commentary track on the
Alien³ DVD. This was based on the scripts of the film. As for his saying that he was a droid, there was some confusion over what he had said in the commentary to the
AVP DVD, where he and Anderson were talking about the discombobulated droid that Ripley had to hotwire. They made no reference to the guy who had showed up toward the end of
Alien³.
However, in a video of Henriksen at a sci-fi convention, he told some kid that he was a droid. Most likely he was just telling the kid what he wanted to hear because droids are more kewl than humans.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 06:22:35 AM
Also, Henriksen was credited as Bishop II in the final credits. I always assumed he was an android, and henriksen and creidts seem to confirm this
"Bishop II" was used as the character's name wasn't spoken onscreen. Had the credits read something like "Michael Bishop" or "Jerry Rosenkowski", people might not pick up on who the name represented. They just took a simplistic approach.
If you (or anybody else) want to argue these points further, save your strength and just read through the thread. What you had said (and other things) had already been answered.
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 26, 2009, 01:32:47 PM
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 06:22:35 AM
From wikipedia
Henriksen believes Bishop II was an "advanced model" android
You missed the part in this thread where Henriksen had also said that Bishop's designer was human in the commentary track on the Alien³ DVD. This was based on the scripts of the film. As for his saying that he was a droid, there was some confusion over what he had said in the commentary to the AVP DVD, where he and Anderson were talking about the discombobulated droid that Ripley had to hotwire. They made no reference to the guy who had showed up toward the end of Alien³.
However, in a video of Henriksen at a sci-fi convention, he told some kid that he was a droid. Most likely he was just telling the kid what he wanted to hear because droids are more kewl than humans.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 06:22:35 AM
Also, Henriksen was credited as Bishop II in the final credits. I always assumed he was an android, and henriksen and creidts seem to confirm this
"Bishop II" was used as the character's name wasn't spoken onscreen. Had the credits read something like "Michael Bishop" or "Jerry Rosenkowski", people might not pick up on who the name represented. They just took a simplistic approach.
If you (or anybody else) want to argue these points further, save your strength and just read through the thread. What you had said (and other things) had already been answered.
Hmm. Interesting. Although, the blood and the obvious proof that he's a human was cut from the theatrical version, leaving the option open. I believe that the writers first wanted him to be human but eventually changed their mind so in the final say he was a droid, hence Bishop II. Gotta update my aliens collection and listen to the alien3 commentary tho (2003 quadrilogy version was it?)
One way or another, there was nothing indictaing that he's human in the theatrical cut, and I think most people got the impression that he wasnt ever since he was hit with a pipe and it didnt knock him out or affect him in any way for that mattter.
And also, one way or another, with AVP out, he was now oficially a droid in A3
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 03:52:28 PM
Hmm. Interesting. Although, the blood and the obvious proof that he's a human was cut from the theatrical version, leaving the option open.
There was blood in the Theatrical Version. (This was mentioned earlier in this thread.)
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 03:52:28 PM
I believe that the writers first wanted him to be human but eventually changed their mind so in the final say he was a droid, hence Bishop II.
I would believe that, except for two things. First, there was no script for Bishop's creator being revealed as a robot (especially in the "
Alien/Aliens Way", which is milk spewing and an electronically distorted voice.) Secondly, there
was a character that was revealed to be a droid (in the "
Alien/Aliens Way") in an early treatment, but that went away with the Alien King, absence of Ripley, and other things. Every script that had Bishop's creator in it emphasized his humanity. (This was mentioned earlier in this thread.)
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 03:52:28 PM
Gotta update my aliens collection and listen to the alien3 commentary tho (2003 quadrilogy version was it?)
It was.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 03:52:28 PM
One way or another, there was nothing indictaing that he's human in the theatrical cut
Blood. (This was mentioned earlier in this thread.)
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 03:52:28 PM
and I think most people got the impression that he wasnt ever since he was hit with a pipe and it didnt knock him out or affect him in any way for that mattter.
Most people get their medical information from movies and TV shows. They don't understand head injuries. (This was mentioned earlier in this thread.)
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 03:52:28 PM
And also, one way or another, with AVP out, he was now oficially a droid in A3
Did a bearded man appear with stone tablets?
About the blood thing: I know there was blood in theatrical cut, but it wasnt as obvious as the assembly cut with an ear and such. One would have to dig to find out if Bishop was a man or not, and A3 certainly seemed to imply, willingly or not, that Bishop II was a robot. So if the general audience took him as such, I dont think having Weyland in AVP creates much of a chaos.
And I don't think A3 alone has a clear answer to that. Once Henriksen says he was a droid, then he says he wasnt. Blood was there but then again we have the 'advanced model' comment. I guess if you dont take AVP as canon, its up to you what you take him as. But with AVP now in place, Bishop in A3 was a droid
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 05:21:49 PM
But with AVP now in place, Bishop in A3 was a droid
No, he was simply a human who looked similar to Charles Weyland, just like how Jerry Lambert (Predator2) looks a lot like William Hudson (Aliens). 'AvP' doesn't "prove" that he's a human in any way.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 26, 2009, 05:24:08 PM
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 05:21:49 PM
But with AVP now in place, Bishop in A3 was a droid
No, he was simply a human who looked similar to Charles Weyland, just like how Jerry Lambert (Predator2) looks a lot like William Hudson (Aliens). 'AvP' doesn't "prove" that he's a human in any way.
Similar? he was identical. That would be a major stretch if there was a guy in the company that looked
exactly like the co-founder of Weyland-Yutani and all the droids modelled after him.
And since Weyland dies in 2004, and yet he's in Alien3 hundreds of years later calling himself Bishop, its obviously implying the guy in A3 was another Weyland-like android lying that he's a real person
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 05:21:49 PM
One would have to dig to find out if Bishop was a man or not, and A3 certainly seemed to imply, willingly or not, that Bishop II was a robot.
Despite what the people involved with making the film said.
Right...Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 05:21:49 PM
So if the general audience took him as such, I dont think having Weyland in AVP creates much of a chaos.
But you're assuming that the general audience took him as such.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 05:21:49 PM
And I don't think A3 alone has a clear answer to that. Once Henriksen says he was a droid, then he says he wasnt.
When he said he was a human, he was with people who had worked on
Alien³. Again, the only time he had said that he was a droid was to some fan. Considering that the people who had worked on
Alien³ might know just a
little bit more about
their character...
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 05:21:49 PM
Blood was there but then again we have the 'advanced model' comment.
And then there are those people called "apologists".
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 05:21:49 PM
I guess if you dont take AVP as canon, its up to you what you take him as. But with AVP now in place, Bishop in A3 was a droid.
Again, there was nothing official about it. And, there is no conflict if one would consider the less than sensational idea that they were two different guys living in two different times.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 05:27:34 PM
Similar? he was identical.
Gray hair and wrinkled; brown hair and smooth complexion. Identical?
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 05:27:34 PM
That would be a major stretch if there was a guy in the company that looked exactly like the co-founder of Weyland-Yutani and all the droids modelled after him.
And since Weyland dies in 2004, and yet he's in Alien3 hundreds of years later calling himself Bishop, its obviously implying the guy in A3 was another Weyland-like android lying that he's a real person
Then Ripley would have known that Bishop was an android at first sight, as he would have resembled the founder of the Company for whom she worked.
I love the "they look the same" argument. By that logic, Hudson must have been a droid since AvP linked the Pred and Alien franchise and Hudson looks exactly like Lambert.
I also get a kick out of the "advanced model" theory. For starters, red dye does not an "advanced model" make. Second, why send this red blood model? Just on the off chance Ripley or on of the convicts decided to bludgeon him? WY saw that coming? Go figure.
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 26, 2009, 05:37:42 PM
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 05:21:49 PM
One would have to dig to find out if Bishop was a man or not, and A3 certainly seemed to imply, willingly or not, that Bishop II was a robot.
Despite what the people involved with making the film said. Right...
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 05:21:49 PM
So if the general audience took him as such, I dont think having Weyland in AVP creates much of a chaos.
But you're assuming that the general audience took him as such.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 05:21:49 PM
And I don't think A3 alone has a clear answer to that. Once Henriksen says he was a droid, then he says he wasnt.
When he said he was a human, he was with people who had worked on Alien³. Again, the only time he had said that he was a droid was to some fan. Considering that the people who had worked on Alien³ might know just a little bit more about their character....
Hmmm...then it seems he really WAS a human after all. That is quite shocking for me. But well, like I said, with the real Bishop placed hundreds of years before, this fact is automatically revised
QuoteAgain, there was nothing official about it. And, there is no conflict if one would consider the less than sensational idea that they were two different guys living in two different times.
well, theyre not two different unrelated guys coincidentally looking similar. Bishop was produced by Weyland -Yutani, compnay whose co-founder was charles bishop weyland. And it happens that the guy representing Weyland-Yutani introduces himself as Bishop and looks like weyland. He is played by the same actor after all. Theyre both from the same company with the same name and face. With AVP in place, one of them is a droid created in the image of company's founder
QuoteGray hair and wrinkled; brown hair and smooth complexion. Identical?
Droids made after somebody will obviously look younger, mid age presumebly, not like the person looked liked in his last year
Quote from: Eidotemit on Jan 26, 2009, 05:47:39 PM
I love the "they look the same" argument. By that logic, Hudson must have been a droid since AvP linked the Pred and Alien franchise and Hudson looks exactly like Lambert.
Thats a very flawed argument. Again, youre talking about completely unrelated people who coincidentally look the same. But in bishop's case, they are heavily related. Charles Bishop Weyland co founded WeylandYutani. Bishop II was from Weyland Yutani, and Bishop, who was modelled after someone (be it Charles or Bishop II, depending on if youre taking AVP canon or not), was also created by Weyland Yutani company.
The fact that two identical guys (one of whcih is a droid for sure) look like the founder of the company they belong to speaks volumes and implies theyre both droids modelled after company's founder
I do believe now after maledro's pist that originally, Bishop II in A3 really was human. But AVP revised that fact
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 05:50:55 PM
Hmmm...then it seems he really WAS a human after all. That is quite shocking for me.
It's called a "reality shift". Few people tend to experience it after they encounter compelling evidence and drop person bias.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 05:50:55 PM
well, theyre not two different unrelated guys coincidentally looking similar.
Well, I got you to upgrade to "similar" from "identical".
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 05:50:55 PM
Bishop was produced by Weyland -Yutani, compnay whose co-founder was charles bishop weyland. And it happens that the guy representing Weyland-Yutani introduces himself as Bishop and looks like weyland.
He makes no such introduction. He said he designed Bishop.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 05:50:55 PM
He is played by the same actor after all. Theyre both from the same company with the same name and face. With AVP in place, one of them is a droid created in the image of company's founder
Again, they look similar enough to be related. In alot of movies and TV shows, the same actors tend to play ancestors and other relatives of main characters..
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 05:50:55 PM
Droids made after somebody will obviously look younger, mid age presumebly, not like the person looked liked in his last year
Since there are so many robots walking around these days, too...
;)
Again, Ripley would have been tipped off to Bishop by his similarities to Chuck Weyland if that were the case.
But Ripley didnt know how Mr Weyland looked like
And again, you guys are talking about them like theyre just some coincidental unrelated look alikes. But we have 3 guys with the same name and face in one franchise. One of them is surely a droid. One claims to be its designer. One founded the company. With the third one added to the franchise, theres no question Bishop II has to be an android now or some artificially created man.
Maeldro's arguments convinced me he was a man in the original alien3 concept. But again, what Im saying is that Anderson thought he's a droid, just like many others did, myself included. And doing AVP, the not-so-obvious fact that Bishop II was telling the truth about himself being a human was revised.
from wikipedia entrance about AVP
According to Anderson, Weyland becomes known for the discovery of the pyramid, and as a result the Weyland-Yutani Corporation models the Bishop android in the Alien films after him; "when the Bishop android is created in 150 years time, it's created with the face of the creator. It's kind of like Microsoft building an android in 100 years time that has the face of Bill Gates."
People dont play different characters in the same series by accident, especially not when they have the same names and come from the same company. Bishop, from WeylandYitani, wasnt just a coincidentally similar looking man to Charles Bishop Weyland. With the now revised franchise, it is that Bishops are Weyland's look alikes in tribute to the company's father, and Bishop II is now, fortunately or unfortunately, another Bishop droid.
Oh, and Im only interested in well argumented discussions. I dont think the attitude, sarcasm or insult towards me are necessary. If you guys wanna go that route then tell me right away, because in that case its surely not a place for me
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 06:18:46 PM
But Ripley didnt know how Mr Weyland looked like
Then what's the point in commemorating Weyland's likeness?
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 06:18:46 PM
And again, you guys are talking about them like theyre just some coincidental unrelated look alikes.
No, we're not.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 06:18:46 PM
But we have 3 guys with the same name and face in one franchise. One of them is surely a droid.
That would be the guy in
Aliens.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 06:18:46 PM
One claims to be its designer.
The next film.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 06:18:46 PM
One founded the company.
AVP.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 06:18:46 PM
With the third one added to the franchise, theres no question Bishop II has to be an android now or some artificially created man.
Why? We explained how he isn't, without resorting to convoluting things.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 06:18:46 PM
Maeldro's arguments convinced me he was a man in the original alien3 concept. But again, what Im saying is that Anderson thought he's a droid, just like many others did, myself included.
Think, man. If Anderson said such a thing, wouldn't it be because he created confusion and had to squarepeg his movie into the timeline somehow?
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 06:18:46 PM
And doing AVP, the not-so-obvious fact that Bishop II was telling the truth about himself being a human was revised.
Where onscreen did this happen?
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 06:18:46 PM
People dont play different characters in the same series by accident, especially not when they have the same names and come from the same company. Bishop, from WeylandYitani, wasnt just a coincidentally similar looking man to Charles Bishop Weyland. With the now revised franchise, it is that Bishops are Weyland's look alikes in tribute to the company's father, and Bishop II is now, fortunately or unfortunately, another Bishop droid.
You're grasping at straws.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 06:18:46 PM
Oh, and Im only interested in well argumented discussions. I dont think the attitude, sarcasm or insult towards me are necessary. If you guys wanna go that route then tell me right away, because in that case its surely not a place for me
Then read through the thread. All you had brought up had been answered.
Here are the exact words from Anderson in IGN interview
the role was written for him. I wanted some casting continuity with the Alien franchise even though it is set 100 years after our movie. The only person that could be was Lance. He, of course, was an android in the other movies. That was the idea behind that. I thought it was kind of a neat idea ... I wanted to use the Weyland-Yutani Corporation in some respect. So the idea is that Charles Bishop Weyland is like Bill Gates, but his area of expertise is robotics. He's made his made his money in high tech and he's like the father of modern robotics. So that when the Bishop android is created in 150 years time, it's created with the face of the creator. It's kind of like Microsoft building an android in 100 years time that has the face of Bill Gates.
source:http://au.movies.ign.com/articles/446/446412p2.html (http://au.movies.ign.com/articles/446/446412p2.html)
Bishop was not a Weyland-Yutani robot. He was likely built by Hyperdyne.
Also, Michael Bishop and Charles Weyland were not identical, they looked similar. Charles Weyland was significantly older, for one.
The fact remains that in the novelization, shooting script, extended edition, trading cards, audio commentary, and making-of materials for Alien3, Michael Bishop is very human. Just because Lance Henriksen played multiple characters doesn't automatically mean only ONE of his characters was human, and all others HAVE to be robots. That's a massive leap of logic.
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 26, 2009, 06:27:19 PM
Then read through the thread. All you had brought up had been answered.
I dont think it was because you guys keep ignoring words from horse's mouth. Anderson clearly says that Henriksen is a droid in other movies and what he did with the franchise is that Bishops are modelled after Charles Weyland.
So there are two truths: sure, Bishop II was a human originally, but Anderson recised that fact and now with AVP and Anderson's revisal/addition, Bishop II in Alien 3 IS a droid
What did the director of Alien 3 think he was.
Quote from: Mr.X on Jan 26, 2009, 06:35:00 PM
What did the director of Alien 3 think he was.
Human
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 06:30:15 PM
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 26, 2009, 06:27:19 PM
Then read through the thread. All you had brought up had been answered.
I dont think it was because you guys keep ignoring words from horse's mouth. Anderson clearly says that Henriksen is a droid in other movies and what he did with the franchise is that Bishops are modelled after Charles Weyland.
So there are two truths: sure, Bishop II was a human originally, but Anderson recised that fact and now with AVP and Anderson's revisal/addition, Bishop II in Alien 3 IS a droid
But there is no conflict with Bishop II being human and existing in the same continuity as Charles Weyland; especially if you assume familial relation between them. It is quite plausible that two people could look so similar.
Quote from: Eidotemit on Jan 26, 2009, 06:37:36 PM
Quote from: Mr.X on Jan 26, 2009, 06:35:00 PM
What did the director of Alien 3 think he was.
Human
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 06:30:15 PM
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 26, 2009, 06:27:19 PM
Then read through the thread. All you had brought up had been answered.
I dont think it was because you guys keep ignoring words from horse's mouth. Anderson clearly says that Henriksen is a droid in other movies and what he did with the franchise is that Bishops are modelled after Charles Weyland.
So there are two truths: sure, Bishop II was a human originally, but Anderson recised that fact and now with AVP and Anderson's revisal/addition, Bishop II in Alien 3 IS a droid
But there is no conflict with Bishop II being human and existing in the same continuity as Charles Weyland; especially if you assume familial relation between them. It is quite plausible that two people could look so similar.
That would be a bit of a stretch but not by much. I think its a good explanation and a repair' or the revision, but still Anderson says otherwise
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 06:44:25 PM
Quote from: Eidotemit on Jan 26, 2009, 06:37:36 PM
Quote from: Mr.X on Jan 26, 2009, 06:35:00 PM
What did the director of Alien 3 think he was.
Human
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 06:30:15 PM
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 26, 2009, 06:27:19 PM
Then read through the thread. All you had brought up had been answered.
I dont think it was because you guys keep ignoring words from horse's mouth. Anderson clearly says that Henriksen is a droid in other movies and what he did with the franchise is that Bishops are modelled after Charles Weyland.
So there are two truths: sure, Bishop II was a human originally, but Anderson recised that fact and now with AVP and Anderson's revisal/addition, Bishop II in Alien 3 IS a droid
But there is no conflict with Bishop II being human and existing in the same continuity as Charles Weyland; especially if you assume familial relation between them. It is quite plausible that two people could look so similar.
That would be a bit of a stretch but not by much. I think its a good explanation and a repair' or the revision, but still Anderson says otherwise
...and Anderson's statement doesn't match up with the Alien3 shooting script, novelization, extended cut, or trading cards. It's much easier to ignore Anderson's statement and go with what happens
in the movie.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 26, 2009, 06:55:57 PM
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 06:44:25 PM
Quote from: Eidotemit on Jan 26, 2009, 06:37:36 PM
Quote from: Mr.X on Jan 26, 2009, 06:35:00 PM
What did the director of Alien 3 think he was.
Human
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 06:30:15 PM
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 26, 2009, 06:27:19 PM
Then read through the thread. All you had brought up had been answered.
I dont think it was because you guys keep ignoring words from horse's mouth. Anderson clearly says that Henriksen is a droid in other movies and what he did with the franchise is that Bishops are modelled after Charles Weyland.
So there are two truths: sure, Bishop II was a human originally, but Anderson recised that fact and now with AVP and Anderson's revisal/addition, Bishop II in Alien 3 IS a droid
But there is no conflict with Bishop II being human and existing in the same continuity as Charles Weyland; especially if you assume familial relation between them. It is quite plausible that two people could look so similar.
That would be a bit of a stretch but not by much. I think its a good explanation and a repair' or the revision, but still Anderson says otherwise
...and Anderson's statement doesn't match up with the Alien3 shooting script, novelization, extended cut, or trading cards. It's much easier to ignore Anderson's statement and go with what happens in the movie.
true. Thats why I said that the answer depends wheter or not you take AVP as canon
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 06:58:34 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 26, 2009, 06:55:57 PM
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 06:44:25 PM
Quote from: Eidotemit on Jan 26, 2009, 06:37:36 PM
Quote from: Mr.X on Jan 26, 2009, 06:35:00 PM
What did the director of Alien 3 think he was.
Human
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 06:30:15 PM
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 26, 2009, 06:27:19 PM
Then read through the thread. All you had brought up had been answered.
I dont think it was because you guys keep ignoring words from horse's mouth. Anderson clearly says that Henriksen is a droid in other movies and what he did with the franchise is that Bishops are modelled after Charles Weyland.
So there are two truths: sure, Bishop II was a human originally, but Anderson recised that fact and now with AVP and Anderson's revisal/addition, Bishop II in Alien 3 IS a droid
But there is no conflict with Bishop II being human and existing in the same continuity as Charles Weyland; especially if you assume familial relation between them. It is quite plausible that two people could look so similar.
That would be a bit of a stretch but not by much. I think its a good explanation and a repair' or the revision, but still Anderson says otherwise
...and Anderson's statement doesn't match up with the Alien3 shooting script, novelization, extended cut, or trading cards. It's much easier to ignore Anderson's statement and go with what happens in the movie.
true. Thats why I said that the answer depends wheter or not you take AVP as canon
No, because even if you take AvP as canon, Michael Bishop can still be human. The AvP movie does not definitively make Michael Bishop an android. :)
no, only Anderson's comments. But in the movie tiself, he refers to himself only as bishop and is credited as Bishop II. we diehards know what was intended for him to be originally (well, i just actually found out today thanks to the info from the posters), but the casual viewer seeing AVP and alien3 alone will take him as an android because of the above mentioned factors
No, the audience is merely making a conclusion based on their own (limited) knowledge. You could tell people "no, he's actually human and his name is Michael Bishop" and they'll say "Oh, okay, I didn't know that. Now I do!" (I know this from personal experience. I've done it on other messageboards and in-person with my friends who were only casual viewers) and that's the end of it. It isn't a "fact" that he's a robot just because some audience members mistakenly believe it. :)
absolutely. And thats what Im saying. If NOT pointed out, based on AVP's fact that Henriksen in future movies is Weylands tribute android and on the fact that the A3 character is just named Bishop and Bishop II in the credits, without knowledge theyll take it as such. But the majority of the viewers are the casual movie watchers who never dig around
Yes, and they're still wrong when they reach the conclusion that Michael Bishop isn't human. :) I see where you're coming from, but it still isn't a "fact" that he's a robot. He's human, and the 'AvP' movie doesn't change it.
To use a complicated analogy, think of it like comparing Newtonian physics to relativity. Most people comprehend how Newtonian physics works. Most people don't comprehend relativity.
This doesn't change the fact that the physical interactions of everything in the universe, from the tiniest quarks to the largest black holes, is governed by relativity. People "not knowing" or "not understanding" relativity does not change this. :)
Quotebased on AVP's fact that Henriksen in future movies is Weylands tribute android
However, the movie doesn't make this distinction at all. Anderson's comments say it, but those comments aren't in the movie and casual observers won't know about them. In order for casual observers to learn about it would require doing their own research.
The same research that would reveal that Michael Bishop is human. :)
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 26, 2009, 07:26:18 PM
Yes, and they're still wrong when they reach the conclusion that Michael Bishop isn't human. :) I see where you're coming from, but it still isn't a "fact" that he's a robot. He's human, and the 'AvP' movie doesn't change it.
To use a complicated analogy, think of it like comparing Newtonian physics to relativity. Most people comprehend how Newtonian physics works. Most people don't comprehend relativity.
This doesn't change the fact that the physical interactions of everything in the universe, from the tiniest quarks to the largest black holes, is governed by relativity. People "not knowing" or "not understanding" relativity does not change this. :)
I absolutely agree. Even with the law, not knowing the law means nothing in the eyes of court. Nothing's preventing a viewer from a qucik jump on google or wikipedia.
Dont get me wrong, Im not saying that because most will think that way, that it IS that way. Im just saying most will be misguided by the lack of any obvious explanation in A3
QuoteHowever, the movie doesn't make this distinction at all. Anderson's comments say it, but those comments aren't in the movie and casual observers won't know about them. In order for casual observers to learn about it would require doing their own research.
The same research that would reveal that Michael Bishop is human. :)
Maybe, but it would be way too corny even for a scifi movie to accidentally have same looking guy as being a grandgrandgrand...son of Weyland. Plus Anderson thought he;s an android too, so in his franchise thats how it is. Like I said, its a revision. Kind of like with the terminator. Cameron named Arnold T-800 but it was never really stated in the movie, and Mostows changed its model name to T-101 due to misunderstanding and lack of knowledge as well
QuotePlus Anderson thought he;s an android too, so in his franchise thats how it is.
But we already covered that the movies don't indicate this. :) Just because Anderson (mistakenly) believes it does not make it so. :)
QuoteKind of like with the terminator. Cameron named Arnold T-800 but it was never really stated in the movie, and Mostows changed its model name to T-101
This is covered in various other sources, but the model # is the exterior appearance -- all Model 101s look like Arnold. In the first two movies, he's an 800-series T-800 Model 101. In T3, he's an 800-series T-850 Model 101.
I should mention I'm a bit of a Terminator nerd and I've got a pretty extensive collection of Terminator crap.
Oh, and I ran the official Terminator3.com messageboards when they were operational. :)
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 26, 2009, 08:01:22 PM
QuotePlus Anderson thought he;s an android too, so in his franchise thats how it is.
But we already covered that the movies don't indicate this. :) Just because Anderson (mistakenly) believes it does not make it so. :)
QuoteKind of like with the terminator. Cameron named Arnold T-800 but it was never really stated in the movie, and Mostows changed its model name to T-101
This is covered in various other sources, but the model # is the exterior appearance -- all Model 101s look like Arnold. In the first two movies, he's an 800-series T-800 Model 101. In T3, he's an 800-series T-850 Model 101.
I should mention I'm a bit of a Terminator nerd and I've got a pretty extensive collection of Terminator crap.
Oh, and I ran the official Terminator3.com messageboards when they were operational. :)
Oh really? well thats cool! Im a terminator fan myself, even bigger than Aliens'. So you were working on the actual official website?
Yeah, I was "Syntax", the moderator on the official Terminator3.com messageboards from a little after when they opened until when they closed. It's not like I got to work on the movie or anything, but I got to organize some messageboard Q&A stuff with Jonathan Mostow, some of the actors, Stan Winston and his studio, stuff like that.
I even got a pair of SUPER GIGANTIC vinyl Terminator3 hanging scroll things for my trouble. Like, these were the sorts of things you'd see hanging from the ceiling inside movie theatres, they were RIDICULOUSLY big. We're talking, like, 10 feet wide and 25 feet long. I've still got them in their boxes because I literally have nowhere to put them, they're taller than my house. :P Someday I'll have to take pictures of them, they're crazy.
very cool. Well, good to see a fellow terminator fan in here. Do you post on any T forum nowadays?
Nah, not so much, sorry. :(
Quote from: Eidotemit on Jan 26, 2009, 05:47:39 PM
I also get a kick out of the "advanced model" theory. For starters, red dye does not an "advanced model" make. Second, why send this red blood model? Just on the off chance Ripley or on of the convicts decided to bludgeon him? WY saw that coming? Go figure.
I've watched Screamers scripted by Dan O'Bannon and the most advanced model of the Screamer robots had red blood just to fool humans.
So I'm thinking how Ash is design to look like a human to fool humans, what if the Company continued to create androids to fool humans even further, even though they were open with the military about their basic model of androids that looked like humans
So why not give Ash red food dye in his blood then? Or Call? She is the REAL advanced model and, Oh! Look! White blood.
QuoteSo that when the Bishop android is created in 150 years time, it's created with the face of the creator.
That doesn't mean that the guy in
Alien³ is a robot. He very well could have had Chuck Weyland's face in mind when he had designed Bishop.
:)
In a deleted scene in alien 3, after the guy hits Bishop you see blood come out of his and he screams "I'm not an android.''
I thought that was in the film itself.
The one I rented, that was a deleted scene
It's in the Workprint and CdL's Assembly Cut. Not the theatrical.
Quote from: SM on Jan 27, 2009, 01:42:41 AM
So why not give Ash red food dye in his blood then? Or Call? She is the REAL advanced model and, Oh! Look! White blood.
Well, if they were confident that they were going to create an android that could pass as a human right down to the colour of the blood, perhaps they would have to make sure that the consistency of the blood's thickness and darkness remained constant instead it becoming noticeably like fake blood for whatever reason.
Why Call should have red blood just because she's really is more advanced than Ash and Bishop instead of her white fluid, I suppose I don't know, it would be unnecessary if she wasn't supposed to be treated as any more a person than Bishop was if it was easier for them to give them white blood without worrying whether it looked like normal red blood or not. Other than that sort of an answer, I don't know
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 06:18:46 PM
Oh, and Im only interested in well argumented discussions. I dont think the attitude, sarcasm or insult towards me are necessary. If you guys wanna go that route then tell me right away, because in that case its surely not a place for me
All I can say is get used to it. There's a lot of
high horse syndrome in this thread.
Also, I agree that Bishop was originally created as human in Alien 3, but it's quite obvious what Anderson was trying to do in AvP. Hell, he even stated it. If one wants to ignore it that's their choice. Anderson had no intention of just hiring the very same actor to play a random relative that is so much intertwined in the same company. Fox put the rights in his Anderson's hands, and he changed Bishop from A3 to an android to make his story work. That's all.
Quote from: Cellien on Jan 30, 2009, 04:20:25 AM
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 26, 2009, 06:18:46 PM
Oh, and Im only interested in well argumented discussions. I dont think the attitude, sarcasm or insult towards me are necessary. If you guys wanna go that route then tell me right away, because in that case its surely not a place for me
All I can say is get used to it. There's a lot of high horse syndrome in this thread.
Also, I agree that Bishop was originally created as human in Alien 3, but it's quite obvious what Anderson was trying to do in AvP. Hell, he even stated it. If one wants to ignore it that's their choice. Anderson had no intention of just hiring the very same actor to play a random relative that is so much intertwined in the same company. Fox put the rights in his Anderson's hands, and he changed Bishop from A3 to an android to make his story work. That's all.
Great post Cellien, thanks
Quote from: Cellien on Jan 30, 2009, 04:20:25 AM
All I can say is get used to it. There's a lot of high horse syndrome in this thread.
Just listen to those of the Android camp.
Quote from: Cellien on Jan 30, 2009, 04:20:25 AM
but it's quite obvious what Anderson was trying to do in AvP.
Ass covering.
Quote from: Cellien on Jan 30, 2009, 04:20:25 AM
Hell, he even stated it.
He never said, "I f**ked up."
Quote from: Cellien on Jan 30, 2009, 04:20:25 AM
If one wants to ignore it that's their choice. Anderson had no intention of just hiring the very same actor to play a random relative that is so much intertwined in the same company.
He never said that.
Quote from: Cellien on Jan 30, 2009, 04:20:25 AM
Fox put the rights in his Anderson's hands, and he changed Bishop from A3 to an android to make his story work. That's all.
A cheap cheat.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 07:07:01 AM
Great post Cellien, thanks
Great chorus, Hype. K thx bye.
I dont know whats the issue is here and whats the outrage. Its is clear that Bishop in A3 was human but Anderson changed that and placed the real Bishop hundreds years earlier. What else is here to discuss when its actually been stated by filmmakers?
And maeldro, learn something from Cellien. He can actually calmly discuss things without insults and jumping. After this thread Im really wondering about the age range of this forum. Claiming originally that Bishop Weyland and Bishop are unrelated and coincidally look alikes? :D LOL
Seriously, is there any thread showing the age range?
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 04:10:20 PM
Its is clear that Bishop in A3 was human but Anderson changed that and placed the real Bishop hundreds years earlier.
No, it isn't "clear". Anderson didn't say anything about it until he realized that he caused confusion. That he would say that Bishop's designer was an android was a quick answer.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 04:10:20 PM
What else is here to discuss when its actually been stated by filmmakers?
You mean David Fincher, David Giler, Walter Hill and the others who had created the character?
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 04:10:20 PM
And maeldro, learn something from Cellien. He can actually calmly discuss things without insults and jumping.
Learn something from actually reading posts, like spelling my screen name. As for your accusations, care to spread the blame around, or do you have a vendetta?
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 04:10:20 PM
After this thread Im really wondering about the age range of this forum. Claiming originally that Bishop Weyland and Bishop are unrelated and coincidally look alikes? :D LOL Seriously, is there any thread showing the age range?
You have nothing to say to me about
me being insulting after your saying that.
If you want to keep that coincidence in a
dramatic context, consider that Bishop's designer was named Michael
Bishop and that the founder of the Company was named Charles
Bishop Weyland; hence Anderson had to forge the connection with that forced-sounding name.
From a
realistic standpoint, you see two people who look somewhat alike and declare one of them is a robot and not a possible relative and yet you make cracks about the age of some of the users on this forum?
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 04:10:20 PM
After this thread Im really wondering about the age range of this forum. Claiming originally that Bishop Weyland and Bishop are unrelated and coincidally look alikes? :D LOL
Seriously, is there any thread showing the age range?
Yeah you're really going to garner a lot of support with wonderful personal attacks like that one.
"Oh hey I can't actually support my argument in a calm or logical fashion, I might as well resort to attacking the
age of the people who disagree with me! LOL!"
I'm 24 by the way.
LOL, are you serious? sorry people , i cant take that seriously
Anderson's interview is from when AVP just hit theaters and it isnt the only one. Even before the shooting began, he stated that he wanted to make a character that was Bishop's blueprint, look around and youll find wonders
As for Giller and others, thats what I said_they did state that Bishop in A3 was human. Ill make it as clear as possible again
by the time A3 came out, Bishop II was human, they intended him to be so althought it wasnt that clear onscreen. over a decade later, Anderson was one of those confused people and thought BII was an android too, so when he was doing a pre the alien series he wanted to show the guy who started to cpmpany and whose image will be honored on androids from his company in the future. As simple as that and thats what im saying
My problem is, I didnt need to read Anderson's interviews or producers'. I knew right away, just like others, and put two and two together. When I saw Bishop in AVP I knew right away he's the guy for future bishop models. BUt judging by your unintelligent and juvenile response about them not being related, I assume only a very young person wouldnt get the obvious and would have to be shown the quote to be proven what seemed to be obvious. And just the idea that you came up with such silly theory really make me think that youre still a teenager and I have no intention talking to kids, sorry. Wheres a forum for adults who have been fans for decades kid?
26 here. And actually I think Maledoro is around 50 or something.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 30, 2009, 04:42:36 PM
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 04:10:20 PM
After this thread Im really wondering about the age range of this forum. Claiming originally that Bishop Weyland and Bishop are unrelated and coincidally look alikes? :D LOL
Seriously, is there any thread showing the age range?
Yeah you're really going to garner a lot of support with wonderful personal attacks like that one.
"Oh hey I can't actually support my argument in a calm or logical fashion, I might as well resort to attacking the age of the people who disagree with me! LOL!"
I'm 24 by the way.
Thats not the point. Young people can be very smart and have strong opinions as well. But there are some young people who are extremely juvenile and not only come up with very silly theories, but also jump like crazy whenever someone says something that doesnt match up with their vision. Examples above.
WHile I tried to figure out how it is, maledro told me about what Giller and others said. Thats a good argument, and here and there like normal person I admitted him right. yes, BII WAS a human in A3 after all. Then we got to AVP, where Anderson though otherwise and made odifferent origins for Bishop. NOw Mr maledro doesnt like it and he tries to jump me and anyone else who say otherwise and even Anderson, and even tries to spin what he said and the facts to fit his vision. He cannot let something else pass through, and THATS very juvenile
Oh and one more thing. If you go back in this thread, youll see I was really trying to have a civil conversation but Mr M kept coming up with insult and attitude for no particular reason, even calling me names when politely I admitted him right
Like I said, it's not uncommon around these parts...
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 04:46:49 PM
LOL, are you serious? sorry people , i cant take that seriously
More points!
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 04:46:49 PM
Anderson's interview is from when AVP just hit theaters and it isnt the only one. Even before the shooting began, he stated that he wanted to make a character that was Bishop's blueprint, look around and youll find wonders
Link us.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 04:46:49 PM
As for Giller and others, thats what I said_they did state that Bishop in A3 was human. Ill make it as clear as possible again
We got it the first time.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 04:46:49 PM
by the time A3 came out, Bishop II was human, they intended him to be so althought it wasnt that clear onscreen. over a decade later, Anderson was one of those confused people and thought BII was an android too, so when he was doing a pre the alien series he wanted to show the guy who started to cpmpany and whose image will be honored on androids from his company in the future. As simple as that and thats what im saying
Ah, the Blind Leading the Blind excuse.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 04:46:49 PM
My problem is, I didnt need to read Anderson's interviews or producers'. I knew right away, just like others, and put two and two together.
"Knew"? Allow me: lol
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 04:46:49 PM
When I saw Bishop in AVP I knew right away he's the guy for future bishop models.
Only one of which was actually confirmed.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 04:46:49 PM
BUt judging by your unintelligent and juvenile response about them not being related, I assume only a very young person wouldnt get the obvious and would have to be shown the quote to be proven what seemed to be obvious. And just the idea that you came up with such silly theory really make me think that youre still a teenager and I have no intention talking to kids, sorry. Wheres a forum for adults who have been fans for decades kid?
For the most part, this one is. Kid.
Quote from: Cellien on Jan 30, 2009, 04:49:56 PM
26 here. And actually I think Maledoro is around 50 or something.
Younger, actually.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 04:50:31 PM
Thats not the point. Young people can be very smart and have strong opinions as well. But there are some young people who are extremely juvenile and not only come up with very silly theories, but also jump like crazy whenever someone says something that doesnt match up with their vision. Examples above.
So, why did you make age an issue?
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 04:50:31 PM
WHile I tried to figure out how it is, maledro told me about what Giller and others said. Thats a good argument, and here and there like normal person I admitted him right. yes, BII WAS a human in A3 after all. Then we got to AVP, where Anderson though otherwise and made odifferent origins for Bishop. NOw Mr maledro doesnt like it and he tries to jump me and anyone else who say otherwise and even Anderson, and even tries to spin what he said and the facts to fit his vision. He cannot let something else pass through, and THATS very juvenile
The problem with what you are doing is that you are being an apologist. You have to make excuses in order to give your point any validity. That, or you lack discretion. If Anderson had shown Bishop's designer onscreen in his own [Anderson's] movie and had shown him with something more definitive, such as him leaking out white fluid after the red fluid drained, his voice getting electronically distorted, etc.; I would have no problem with him changing Bishop's designer into an android.
What he did was more along the lines of "Jesus! I hope nobody notices! If they do, I'll say that other guy is a robot! I gotta make this work somehow!"
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 04:56:24 PM
Oh and one more thing. If you go back in this thread, youll see I was really trying to have a civil conversation but Mr M kept coming up with insult and attitude for no particular reason
Not really.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 04:56:24 PM
even calling me names when politely I admitted him right
Not exactly. You pretty much said that I was right about the humanity of Bishop's designer in accordance to the people involved with the third film, but you were still hanging on to your idea that he was an android.
all right, I see there may be some miscommunication or misuderstanding so once again I wanna make clear what Im saying
I know Bishop II was human in A3. For years I thought otherwise, but since you said that Giller and others confirmed he was human, thats pretty much a fact and the way it is. It was a good argument and proof on your point and I admitted you right. That was a surprise I gotta agree, but Im glad to learn some new things about this great franchise. I even went the next day to buy the quadrilogy version of A3. Still havent listen to the commentary yet tho, the great bonus material takes a whole day to see anyway, great set
So anyway, Bishop II was actually human, we got that one set.
Now, back in the days it was very hard to tell. Most of the people, including myself (I say most according to the people I talked to and seeing reviews online) thought he was lying and that he was an adnroid.
Anderson apparently thought so too. So now, the franchise is in his hands and he's doing a prequel to the series and the first thing he wants is to include Bishop's origins. Mistakenly thinking that Bishop II was an andorid, he proceeds to write a storyline that would take him as such and introduces us to HIS blueprint/maker for bishop.
Doing so, the storyline is noe rewritten in a way. Since now Anderson placed his new origins, that forces his take and vision on the entire series and thus makes Bishop II a droid.
Its called retrowriting, like with Star Wars. C3PO was really a regular android who never had a memory loss and was owned by Captain Antilles. But when the prequels were made they wanted to change that so he was really Anakin;s robot and had his memory wiped out. So they rewrote.revised the franchise, the same way Anderson did.
Thats all Im saying. Hope no fuirther confusion will be made and no insults or fights on any part will be necessary. We're here cause we're fans and we're here to discuss
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 04:56:24 PM
Oh and one more thing. If you go back in this thread, youll see I was really trying to have a civil conversation but Mr M kept coming up with insult and attitude for no particular reason, even calling me names when politely I admitted him right
Then direct your comments at Maledoro, don't involve me in it by questioning my age or my intelligence just because I share Maledoro's viewpoint.
I've tried to keep this civil, but I'm certainly not going to sit back and take abuse from you simply because you disagree with my conclusion.
I gave my reasons for why your conclusion doesn't work and mine does, and the best response you can give is "LOL how can you believe something so juvenile!"?
You see why I might get offended, right?
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 30, 2009, 07:11:52 PM
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 04:56:24 PM
Oh and one more thing. If you go back in this thread, youll see I was really trying to have a civil conversation but Mr M kept coming up with insult and attitude for no particular reason, even calling me names when politely I admitted him right
Then direct your comments at Maledoro, don't involve me in it by questioning my age or my intelligence just because I share Maledoro's viewpoint.
I've tried to keep this civil, but I'm certainly not going to sit back and take abuse from you simply because you disagree with my conclusion.
I gave my reasons for why your conclusion doesn't work and mine does, and the best response you can give is "LOL how can you believe something so juvenile!"?
You see why I might get offended, right?
Well, if you honestly think thats way than I apologize, but I took it as a blind statement and the example of turning your head away and pretend not to see. Even before I posted Anderson's quote, I thought its pretty obvious that Bishop Weyland is a stencil for Weyland-Yutani's Bishop in the future. Some guys said they have absolutelu no relation together and the look is coincidental. Well, I posted one of the quites from Anderson confriming what I said, but then the spinning begun - "oh, he just said that cause he accidentally placed Lance there and people started making connections so he made this up" i I mean Xeno, seriously, wouldnt it be just silly? and I surely am not talking about you, but just tell me how such blind spinning can be taken seriously?
He placed Lance in the movie as a nod to the fans, only later did he make up the "maybe Michael Bishop is a robot" idea. The movie itself does not give any indication that Michael Bishop isn't human. Simply including a character played by Lance Henriksen is not ironclad proof that (somehow) the guy in Alien3 isn't human.
If you've got some sort of evidence outside of Anderson's quote, I'd love to hear it. :)
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 07:07:09 PM
Now, back in the days it was very hard to tell. Most of the people, including myself (I say most according to the people I talked to and seeing reviews online) thought he was lying and that he was an adnroid.
I had no problem telling he was human. I knew how a robot is supposed to act in an
Alien franchise film when exposed to be such in a violent manner: white blood, distorted voice, etc.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 07:07:09 PM
Anderson apparently thought so too.
Just because he said so doesn't mean that he had thought so.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 07:07:09 PM
So now, the franchise is in his hands and he's doing a prequel to the series and the first thing he wants is to include Bishop's origins.
Then he had failed. Aside from a pic of a weird-looking robot on a magazine cover, one has to take a leap of faith in order to connect those circumstances to those of the third film.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 07:07:09 PM
Mistakenly thinking that Bishop II was an andorid, he proceeds to write a storyline that would take him as such and introduces us to HIS blueprint/maker for bishop.
So, why aren't there Bishop androids in the present day?
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 07:07:09 PM
Doing so, the storyline is noe rewritten in a way. Since now Anderson placed his new origins, that forces his take and vision on the entire series and thus makes Bishop II a droid.
Again, nature has shown that people who are related to each other and are living in different centuries look similar if not alike. There is no evidence of early 21 century robots in the
Alien franchise.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 07:07:09 PM
Its called retrowriting, like with Star Wars. C3PO was really a regular android who never had a memory loss and was owned by Captain Antilles. But when the prequels were made they wanted to change that so he was really Anakin;s robot and had his memory wiped out. So they rewrote.revised the franchise, the same way Anderson did.
By not having to convolute the storyline, we can avoid hiccups by accepting that there are two different humans who look related to each other.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 07:20:58 PM
Well, if you honestly think thats way than I apologize, but I took it as a blind statement and the example of turning your head away and pretend not to see.
Like ignoring basic biological concepts?
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 07:20:58 PM
Some guys said they have absolutelu no relation together and the look is coincidental.
"Some guys" who?
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 07:20:58 PM
Well, I posted one of the quites from Anderson confriming what I said, but then the spinning begun - "oh, he just said that cause he accidentally placed Lance there and people started making connections so he made this up" i I mean Xeno, seriously, wouldnt it be just silly? and I surely am not talking about you, but just tell me how such blind spinning can be taken seriously?
This may sound like an insult; I assure you it's not, but you're using the same line of thinking used by conspiracy theorists.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 30, 2009, 07:27:49 PM
If you've got some sort of evidence outside of Anderson's quote, I'd love to hear it. :)
Me, too! And, by "evidence", something aside from
post hoc (after the fact) reasoning.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 30, 2009, 07:27:49 PM
He placed Lance in the movie as a nod to the fans, only later did he make up the "maybe Michael Bishop is a robot" idea. The movie itself does not give any indication that Michael Bishop isn't human.
If you've got some sort of evidence outside of Anderson's quote, I'd love to hear it. :)
Well, the filmmaker said it himself. In his world Bishop Weyland is human and later on androids are made in his image. that alone makes BII a droid, wheter he originally was considered human or not, like I said in the first post on this page. Anderson did retrowriting and that aspect of the franchise was in his hands
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 07:31:41 PM
Well, the filmmaker said it himself.
And yet he had nothing to do with the making of the character.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 07:31:41 PM
In his world Bishop Weyland is human and later on androids are made in his image.
Thank God he lives in a different world.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 07:31:41 PM
that alone makes BII a droid, wheter he originally was considered human or not, like I said in the first post on this page. Anderson did retrowriting and that aspect of the franchise was in his hands
He didn't retrowrite anything. There is no mention of Bishop's designer in the movie. As Xenomrph pointed out, Anderson made the
excuse comment
after the movie was released. That is what's known as shoehorning (http://www.skepdic.com/shoehorning.html).
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 30, 2009, 07:30:46 PM
I had no problem telling he was human. I knew how a robot is supposed to act in an Alien franchise film when exposed to be such in a violent manner: white blood, distorted voice, etc.
But the difference is, he was suppose to fool Ripley. Too much was at stake. Obviosuly they knew Riply would think that he;s an android and would demand proof. red blood and , as Henriksen put it, more advanced model would do it. Plus seeing a guy with an ear hanging and still standing after being hit by a metal pipe that would knock anyone out surely made an impression on the viewers that this guys an android
QuoteJust because he said so doesn't mean that he had thought so.
possibly. But too much says he did. The sotryline maes it pretty clear- again, hes Bishop Weyland who foudned the cpmany of the future that produces everything. Without saing so black on white, its pretty clear that bishops of the future are made after their maker
QuoteThen he had failed. Aside from a pic of a weird-looking robot on a magazine cover, one has to take a leap of faith in order to connect those circumstances to those of the third film.
yes aside. But he mag is there, and the droid is already there. ANother heavy implication
QuoteSo, why are there Bishop androids in the present day?
well, the company already started making them, as simple as that, and will continue to produce them for hundreds of years. So the fact that Bishop androids are already here at the time, also says that he was an original designer and bishop was made centuries before BII appeared and claimed to be his inventor. Thus in the light of AVP, BII is now a droid
QuoteAgain, nature has shown that people who are related to each other and are living in different centuries look similar if not alike. There is no evidence of early 21 century robots in the Alien franchise.
sure, but were talking about one of the main characters of the movie. With same name and look, portrayed by the same author. And i actually forgot about the mag ( I rarely watch AVPs, only the original trilogy), so there you go - even that shows that bishops were already made after weyland years before. same compant, same name, same model
QuoteBy not having to convolute the storyline, we can avoid hiccups by accepting that there are two different humans who look related to each other.
true, Im all for that. But its much easier and much more believable to say that BII was a droid than trying to make him human. For one, in the movie alone it was never stated that he was. Two, it would avoid any siliness of ridiculous resembalnce of BII and the guy that Bishops were made after. three, it woukdnt make sense since bishops are already made centuries before and yet BII says he is his designer.
So by accepting BII as human, that would create 3 hiccups and holes, while accepting him as a droid wouldnt do much. Look at the poll and how close it is, look how many people still think or thought that he was an android
As for the source of the material saying that Anderson thought our Bishop's origins even before the script gimme some time, ill look for it
See, we can have a normal well worded conversation after all
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 30, 2009, 07:43:04 PM
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 07:31:41 PM
Well, the filmmaker said it himself.
And yet he had nothing to do with the making of the character.
yeah I know, but he was given the franchise , he could do anything with it. Just like the SW example I gave, he did some retrowriting
QuoteHe didn't retrowrite anything. There is no mention of Bishop's designer in the movie
No, but Bishop android is already there, so he had to be designed by somebody. And obviously, anyone claiming to be a designer hundreds of years after bishop's inception couldnt be telling the truth. So now if people watch AVP first they take BII's words as a lie, and if he lies about who he is, then he has to lie about being a man. Thats how AVP changed things
ok, here's what i came up with as of now
from wikipedia:
The first actor to be cast for Alien vs. Predator was Lance Henriksen, who played the character Bishop in Aliens and Alien 3. Although the Alien movies are set 150 years in the future, Anderson wanted to keep continuity with the series
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_vs._Predator_(film) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_vs._Predator_(film))
IGN interview from December 2003 - almost a year before the release (August 2004) of the movie and even BEFORE the filming
Anderson:Of the familiar faces appearing in AvP, there is only one: Lance Henriksen. Anderson explains that "the role was written for him. I wanted some casting continuity with the Alien franchise even though it is set 100 years after our movie. The only person that could be was Lance. He, of course, was an android in the other movies. That was the idea behind that. I thought it was kind of a neat idea ... I wanted to use the Weyland-Yutani Corporation in some respect. So the idea is that Charles Bishop Weyland is like Bill Gates, but his area of expertise is robotics. He's made his made his money in high tech and he's like the father of modern robotics. So that when the Bishop android is created in 150 years time, it's created with the face of the creator. It's kind of like Microsoft building an android in 100 years time that has the face of Bill Gates. The idea with Weyland is that his character is a man who is dying and like a lot of rich men who are facing the end, they realize that money and power aren't enough. What they want to do is leave something behind. So it's kind of like his longing for immortality that precipitates a lot of the events in this film, but also explains why his corporation would build something with his face."
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmovies.ign.com%2Farticles%2F446%2F446412p1.html&hash=579c1ab7d7579a0bee62ce24bde93aefe2d85af7)
Ok guys, I gotta split for now. Talk to you later
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 07:45:49 PM
But the difference is, he was suppose to fool Ripley. Too much was at stake. Obviosuly they knew Riply would think that he;s an android and would demand proof.
But she didn't.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 07:45:49 PM
red blood and , as Henriksen put it, more advanced model would do it.
That is
ad hoc ("for this reason") reasoning; also known as shoehorning.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 07:45:49 PM
Plus seeing a guy with an ear hanging and still standing after being hit by a metal pipe that would knock anyone out surely made an impression on the viewers that this guys an android
But he wasn't hit that hard and his ear wasn't "hanging".
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 07:45:49 PM
QuoteJust because he said so doesn't mean that he had thought so.
possibly. But too much says he did. The sotryline maes it pretty clear- again, hes Bishop Weyland who foudned the cpmany of the future that produces everything. Without saing so black on white, its pretty clear that bishops of the future are made after their maker
Since it wasn't said in black and white, it's not clear. You had to take a leap of faith to come to the conclusion that he was an android.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 07:45:49 PM
yes aside. But he mag is there, and the droid is already there. ANother heavy implication
...that all of his robots look like they were made from Erector sets.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 07:45:49 PM
QuoteSo, why aren't there Bishop androids in the present day?
well, the company already started making them, as simple as that, and will continue to produce them for hundreds of years. So the fact that Bishop androids are already here at the time, also says that he was an original designer and bishop was made centuries before BII appeared and claimed to be his inventor. Thus in the light of AVP, BII is now a droid
There is nothing saying that there were Bishop droids in the present day.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 07:45:49 PM
sure, but were talking about one of the main characters of the movie. With same name and look, portrayed by the same author. And i actually forgot about the mag ( I rarely watch AVPs, only the original trilogy), so there you go - even that shows that bishops were already made after weyland years before. same compant, same name, same model
Again, there is nothing concrete. You have to assume that.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 07:45:49 PM
true, Im all for that. But its much easier and much more believable to say that BII was a droid than trying to make him human.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FConfused%2520and%2520Stoopid%2F2cbf5d0b.gif&hash=b9b501f00358e77a7eb18b2787dfa89d4509d9be)
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 07:45:49 PM
For one, in the movie alone it was never stated that he was.
Strike one.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 07:45:49 PM
Two, it would avoid any siliness of ridiculous resembalnce of BII and the guy that Bishops were made after.
Get help here (http://www.amazon.com/Biology-MasteringBiology-8th-Neil-Campbell/dp/0321543254/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233346448&sr=1-1). Strike two.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 07:45:49 PM
three, it woukdnt make sense since bishops are already made centuries before and yet BII says he is his designer.
Again, there is no evidence of said robots. Strike three.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 07:45:49 PM
So by accepting BII as human, that would create 3 hiccups and holes, while accepting him as a droid wouldnt do much. Look at the poll and how close it is, look how many people still think or thought that he was an android
You're benched for the rest of the game (http://huntingthesnark.com/index.php?title=Appeal_to_belief_fallacy_-_informal).
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 07:49:30 PM
yeah I know, but he was given the franchise , he could do anything with it. Just like the SW example I gave, he did some retrowriting
But he didn't write
anything.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 07:49:30 PM
No, but Bishop android is already there, so he had to be designed by somebody. And obviously, anyone claiming to be a designer hundreds of years after bishop's inception couldnt be telling the truth.
Why not?
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 07:49:30 PM
So now if people watch AVP first they take BII's words as a lie, and if he lies about who he is, then he has to lie about being a man. Thats how AVP changed things
For you.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 08:00:08 PM
So that when the Bishop android is created in 150 years time, it's created with the face of the creator. It's kind of like Microsoft building an android in 100 years time that has the face of Bill Gates. The idea with Weyland is that his character is a man who is dying and like a lot of rich men who are facing the end, they realize that money and power aren't enough. What they want to do is leave something behind. So it's kind of like his longing for immortality that precipitates a lot of the events in this film, but also explains why his corporation would build something with his face."[/i]
So, why couldn't have Michael Bishop had made the Bishop android in honor of Chuck Weyland? If you read the article, Anderson says "Bishop android", not "Bishop android
s".
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 08:00:08 PM
Talk to you later
Before you talk to us, feel free to read the thread and see how your arguments were answered earlier. If you feel the need to add to this thread, please post something new rather than assert previously mentioned points.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 07:31:41 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 30, 2009, 07:27:49 PM
He placed Lance in the movie as a nod to the fans, only later did he make up the "maybe Michael Bishop is a robot" idea. The movie itself does not give any indication that Michael Bishop isn't human.
If you've got some sort of evidence outside of Anderson's quote, I'd love to hear it. :)
Well, the filmmaker said it himself. In his world Bishop Weyland is human and later on androids are made in his image. that alone makes BII a droid, wheter he originally was considered human or not, like I said in the first post on this page. Anderson did retrowriting and that aspect of the franchise was in his hands
The filmmaker said it, but his film does not. That's a massive distinction. :)
Like with your Star Wars example, C-3PO's origins were altered
in the films themselves (and expanded upon within in-universe sources like comic books, cartoons, whatever). Michael Bishop's identity has not been changed within any of the films, that's the point. :)
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 30, 2009, 08:40:27 PM
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 07:31:41 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 30, 2009, 07:27:49 PM
He placed Lance in the movie as a nod to the fans, only later did he make up the "maybe Michael Bishop is a robot" idea. The movie itself does not give any indication that Michael Bishop isn't human.
If you've got some sort of evidence outside of Anderson's quote, I'd love to hear it. :)
Well, the filmmaker said it himself. In his world Bishop Weyland is human and later on androids are made in his image. that alone makes BII a droid, wheter he originally was considered human or not, like I said in the first post on this page. Anderson did retrowriting and that aspect of the franchise was in his hands
The filmmaker said it, but his film does not. That's a massive distinction. :)
Like with your Star Wars example, C-3PO's origins were altered in the films themselves (and expanded upon within in-universe sources like comic books, cartoons, whatever). Michael Bishop's identity has not been changed within any of the films, that's the point. :)
so the filmakers word doesnt matter, only whats literary stated in the film? Ok then, in A3 theres no such thing as Michael Bishop, not in the movie, not in the credits. As a matter of fact, he is credited as Bishop II
c;mon, I even provided you with the quote from before the filming when Anderson said it himself. And Maledoro still keeps referring to biology as if two guys in the same franchise has no link to the other despite the name, face and company and the fact that androids with his likeness were made in AVP already. And even despite what the filmaker said himself beforehand.
Now that is a blind denial. For me it doesn matter a bit if hes an android at the end of the day or not, makes no difference to me. But blind denial I just dont like. Its no way to discuss or debate things. And THAT is juvenile
Also, Henriksen himself stated something open for discussion
Q: In the third Alien movie, was your character human?
HENRIKSEN: They were leaving that open because they weren't sure what they were going to do with me. But what I saw was that it was a more advanced model certainly. Again, I love the idea of the advanced models. And this is a prequel, so I feel happy and well rounded.
http://movies.ign.com/articles/513/513443p1.html (http://movies.ign.com/articles/513/513443p1.html)
The novelization says he's human, but we know the rewrties were coming in all the time. And novelizations were never canon and often changed major plot points and characters. Example: Terminator 3. In the movie, TX is sent back from 2032 and T-850 is sent from the same year by Kate Connor after John gets killed. But in the novelization, both are sent from 2029 and Connor never gets killed by 850 and he himself reprograms him and sends him back. And TX doesnt have liquid metal but flesh instead, so those are major key differences.
More on the subject:
While Lance Henriksen had declared that Bishop II was human in the commentary for Alien³, he later went on record, along with AVP director Paul W. S. Anderson, to clear up the matter, stating that Bishop II was an android.
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Bishop-(android) (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Bishop-(android))
And from imdb faq Alien3 page
Yes, he is an android. The simple fact he is credited as "Bishop II," implying a second model, and not as "The Real Bishop," should convince the viewer. Remember that the original Bishop Android is impaled and torn in half by the Alien Queen. He was writhing and screaming in pain throughout the entire sequence. In other words, the androids can feel pain. Bishop II was designed and built specifically for the purpose of trying to trick Ripley in order to get the Queen embryo. It's likely Bishop II was given red blood specifically in case Ripley wanted proof that he was human. Also, Aaron a company man hit Bishop II over the head screaming "You f**king android!" likely because working for the company, he was familiar with that model of android and knew they were designed for deception. (though admittedly Aaron did only have an I.Q. of 85).
more
Some people have witnessed skin hanging down (some say it's his ear). This
would indicate that he's an android. To further the issue, Bishop II takes
a nasty hit in the side of the head, yet remains concious, it is unlikely
that a human being would be able to shake off such an injury. The red blood
was just a way to ensure Ripley he was a human. His blood was just coloured.
It was the only way to ensure for Ripley he was a human.
- The credits indicate that the character is named "Bishop II" as if to say it
is just another copy of the same line of androids.
http://stason.org/TULARC/movies/alien/12-Alien-In-ALIEN-3-Was-the-human-Bishop-that-appeared-a.html (http://stason.org/TULARC/movies/alien/12-Alien-In-ALIEN-3-Was-the-human-Bishop-that-appeared-a.html)
The leader of the rescue team is 'Bishop II' - who claims he is the creater of the android, but is more likely simply another android of the same model - who attempts to persuade Ripley to undergo surgery to remove the queen-embryo. The Bishop doppelganger smoothly tempts Ripley with the promise of a viable life and children; she refuses and steps onto the leadworks platform. Despite being shot in the leg by a Company soldier, Morse manages to steer Ripley over to a fiery pit of molten lead. An infuriated Aaron, convinced that this tempter is in fact an android, smashes Bishop II across the ear with a spanner and is promptly gunned down.
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Alien-3 (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Alien-3)
Bishop II and a crew of toadies, meanwhile, appear and attempt to persuade Ripley to join them so they can destroy the Alien inside of her! With Ripley nearly persuaded, the remaining expendable convict clubs Bishop, revealing him to be just another android with a plan; he tries to lull Ripley by his desire to study the Queen and xenomorphs in general.
http://www.badmovies.org/othermovies/alieniii/index.html?start=24 (http://www.badmovies.org/othermovies/alieniii/index.html?start=24)
And what Ive been saying all along
The android was modelled after his creator, Weyland-Yutani robotics engineer Michael Bishop who is the "Bishop II" seen in Alien 3, as confirmed in both the Alien 3 novelization and 2003 DVD commentary for Alien Quadrilogy by Lance Henriksen. However, the more recent spin-off film, Alien vs. Predator has ignored this and established its own canon, which implies the Bishop androids were modelled after Charles Bishop Weyland, and therefore the "real" Bishop is another android rather than a human.
http://www.fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/Bishop_II (http://www.fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/Bishop_II)
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 08:55:40 PM
so the filmakers word doesnt matter, only whats literary stated in the film? Ok then, in A3 theres no such thing as Michael Bishop, not in the movie, not in the credits. As a matter of fact, he is credited as Bishop II
The point is that when we watch
Alien³, he's still human.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 08:55:40 PM
I even provided you with the quote from before the filming when Anderson said it himself.
And took it out of context.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 08:55:40 PM
And Maledoro still keeps referring to biology as if two guys in the same franchise has no link to the other despite the name, face and company and the fact that androids with his likeness were made in AVP already.
So, relatives can't work for the same company? And, again, there is nothing showing that there were Bishop androids in the time of
AVP.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 08:55:40 PM
Now that is a blind denial. For me it doesn matter a bit if hes an android at the end of the day or not, makes no difference to me. But blind denial I just dont like. Its no way to discuss or debate things. And THAT is juvenile
You're the one ignoring reality and making things up.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 09:10:09 PM
Q: In the third Alien movie, was your character human?
HENRIKSEN: They were leaving that open because they weren't sure what they were going to do with me. But what I saw was that it was a more advanced model certainly. Again, I love the idea of the advanced models. And this is a prequel, so I feel happy and well rounded.
http://movies.ign.com/articles/513/513443p1.html (http://movies.ign.com/articles/513/513443p1.html)
So, you lied about accepting the
Alien³ DVD commentary?
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 09:10:09 PM
The novelization says he's human, but we know the rewrties were coming in all the time.
All of them said he was human.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 09:10:09 PM
And novelizations were never canon
And you're getting this from where?
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 09:10:09 PM
While Lance Henriksen had declared that Bishop II was human in the commentary for Alien³, he later went on record, along with AVP director Paul W. S. Anderson, to clear up the matter, stating that Bishop II was an android.
His humanity was clear before
AVP. And, there is also the concept of backpedalling.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 09:10:09 PM
And from imdb faq Alien3 page
Edited by anybody.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 09:10:09 PM
Some people have witnessed skin hanging down (some say it's his ear). This
would indicate that he's an android. To further the issue, Bishop II takes
a nasty hit in the side of the head, yet remains concious, it is unlikely
that a human being would be able to shake off such an injury. The red blood
was just a way to ensure Ripley he was a human. His blood was just coloured.
It was the only way to ensure for Ripley he was a human.
The injury wasn't that severe.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 09:10:09 PM
- The credits indicate that the character is named "Bishop II" as if to say it
is just another copy of the same line of androids.[/i]
Or to avoid an awkward title such as "Guy Who Looked Like Bishop Android".
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 09:10:09 PM
The android was modelled after his creator, Weyland-Yutani robotics engineer Michael Bishop who is the "Bishop II" seen in Alien 3, as confirmed in both the Alien 3 novelization and 2003 DVD commentary for Alien Quadrilogy by Lance Henriksen. However, the more recent spin-off film, Alien vs. Predator has ignored this and established its own canon, which implies the Bishop androids were modelled after Charles Bishop Weyland, and therefore the "real" Bishop is another android rather than a human.
http://www.fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/Bishop_II (http://www.fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/Bishop_II)
Which tells us:
1. Bishop was modelled after the guy at the end of
Alien³.
2.
AVP ignored (isn't that a form of
denial; something you won't tolerate?) that idea.
3.
AVP established it's own canon, therefore it's reflection on the
Alien franchise is dubious.
4.
AVP implies but doesn't prove.
Now, Im not saying that Bishop II was never human like most of those passages. Im just showing it to prove that both casual viewrs and, as evidenced by the poll, many many fans think he was a droid, so Anderson new origins wouldnt hurt one bit since most already thought of BII as a droid. So I dont get maledoros outrage at my comment that accepting BII as human would create more inconsistency than taking him as a droid
The one I agree with is the one I mentioned above, the one from fact-archive.com. Thats basically how it is , plain and simple, not twisting, no spining
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 30, 2009, 09:36:19 PM
1. Bishop was modelled after the guy at the end of Alien³.
2. AVP ignored (isn't that a form of denial; something you won't tolerate?) that idea.
3. AVP established it's own canon, therefore it's reflection on the Alien franchise is dubious.
yes, those 3 things are what Ive been saying all along. As for n3, it all depends if you take AVP as canon or not, like I mentioned few pages ago. That makes all the difference
And I have no clue why you say that I make things up. I never claimes anything, all im doing is quoting people ivolved with the movies and repeating what theyre saying. And to be as blunt as possible, Im saying exactly what the fact-archive does
QuoteThe point is that when we watch Alien³, he's still human.
No he's not because Anderson ignored that and made his own story of Bishop's origins=retrowriting
For example, in the original SW trilogy, Owen Lars was ObiWans brother. That was confirmed by script, directors, novelizations and many books.
But when the prequels came out , Lucas made him someone completely unrelated. So originally he mightve been Ben's brother, but when EpisodeII came out retrowriting happened- and he's not. What you just said is like saying "when we watch Episode IV he's still Ben's brother". No, after being given different origins, he is NO LONGER that, despite what was originally said and intended
As for how do I know most novelizations cant be taken ascanon, I explained why in the same post so I dont understand the question. You want more examples or what? If so let me know, theres plenty of them where novelizations doesnt match the movie and change things. The reaosn is that novelizations are written based on the original script, when the movie is still filmed. It always happens that the script is being rewritten or ideas are changed during the production, so some key things may change drastically or be no longer relevant. Best example was T3 that I gave earlier
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 09:51:59 PM
QuoteThe point is that when we watch Alien³, he's still human.
No he's not because Anderson ignored that and made his own story of Bishop's origins=retrowriting
And you say you don't make things up...
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 09:51:59 PM
As for how do I know most novelizations cant be taken ascanon, I explained why in the same post so I dont understand the question.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FConfused%2520and%2520Stoopid%2Feb4b945e.gif&hash=c94b4e9254d3c119ce18162d1573f4ad398010eb)
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 09:51:59 PM
You want more examples or what?
I'll take "what".
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 09:51:59 PM
If so let me know, theres plenty of them where novelizations doesnt match the movie and change things. The reaosn is that novelizations are written based on the original script, when the movie is still filmed. It always happens that the script is being rewritten or ideas are changed during the production, so some key things may change drastically or be no longer relevant. Best example was T3 that I gave earlier
Don't bother with other examples, as canonocity varies from franchise to franchise. As far as
Alien goes, I have yet to hear something official from Fox saying that novelizations are not kosher.
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 30, 2009, 10:10:12 PM
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 09:51:59 PM
QuoteThe point is that when we watch Alien³, he's still human.
No he's not because Anderson ignored that and made his own story of Bishop's origins=retrowriting
And you say you don't make things up...
No i dont. I didnt make this up. Anderson said it, as did fact-archive
once again
Anderson 2003
:Of the familiar faces appearing in AvP, there is only one: Lance Henriksen. Anderson explains that "the role was written for him. I wanted some casting continuity with the Alien franchise even though it is set 100 years after our movie. The only person that could be was Lance. He, of course, was an android in the other movies. That was the idea behind that. I thought it was kind of a neat idea ... I wanted to use the Weyland-Yutani Corporation in some respect. So the idea is that Charles Bishop Weyland is like Bill Gates, but his area of expertise is robotics. He's made his made his money in high tech and he's like the father of modern robotics. So that when the Bishop android is created in 150 years time, it's created with the face of the creator. It's kind of like Microsoft building an android in 100 years time that has the face of Bill Gates. The idea with Weyland is that his character is a man who is dying and like a lot of rich men who are facing the end, they realize that money and power aren't enough. What they want to do is leave something behind. So it's kind of like his longing for immortality that precipitates a lot of the events in this film, but also explains why his corporation would build something with his face."fact-archive
The android was modelled after his creator, Weyland-Yutani robotics engineer Michael Bishop who is the "Bishop II" seen in Alien 3, as confirmed in both the Alien 3 novelization and 2003 DVD commentary for Alien Quadrilogy by Lance Henriksen. However, the more recent spin-off film, Alien vs. Predator has ignored this and established its own canon, which implies the Bishop androids were modelled after Charles Bishop Weyland, and therefore the "real" Bishop is another android rather than a human.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 10:15:21 PM
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 30, 2009, 10:10:12 PM
And you say you don't make things up...
No i dont. I didnt make this up. Anderson said it, as did fact-archive
So, you choose to believe someone who is in denial?
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 30, 2009, 10:21:26 PM
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 10:15:21 PM
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 30, 2009, 10:10:12 PM
And you say you don't make things up...
No i dont. I didnt make this up. Anderson said it, as did fact-archive
So, you choose to believe someone who is in denial?
Its not that he's in denial, its that he
THOUGHT BII was an android. Surely he had nothing to do with A3 and therefore has no say on that subject, but again it depends on wheter one views AVP as canon or not. His movie's vision is that the human Bishop was weyland and who knows who was the designer, making out BII to be android in the future. If you take it as a spinoff, then things are as they were
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 10:25:09 PM
Its not that he's in denial, its that he THOUGHT BII was an android.
Earlier, you had said "ignored". That is the deliberate denial of something. Not to mention that since he claimed that he had access to all the studio materials to all of the films, he would have known that Bishop's designer was human. Hence, you choose to believe someone who is in denial.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 10:25:09 PM
Surely he had nothing to do with A3 and therefore has no say on that subject, but again it depends on wheter one views AVP as canon or not.
As been pointed out even before you posted here, one can accept
AVP as canon and still not have Bishop's designer be an android.
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 30, 2009, 10:38:26 PM
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 10:25:09 PM
Its not that he's in denial, its that he THOUGHT BII was an android.
Earlier, you had said "ignored". That is the deliberate denial of something. Not to mention that since he claimed that he had access to all the studio materials to all of the films, he would have known that Bishop's designer was human. Hence, you choose to believe someone who is in denial.
From what he sadi, it doesnt seem like he knew about BII. He either didnt know or decided to make him an android by redoing the origins
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 10:25:09 PM
Surely he had nothing to do with A3 and therefore has no say on that subject, but again it depends on wheter one views AVP as canon or not.
As been pointed out even before you posted here, one can accept
AVP as canon and still not have Bishop's designer be an android.
[/quote]
How so? BII looks like bishop androids. With AVP canon, Bishop androids are Weylands lookalikes. What a corny coincidence would that be to have a guy looking like androids that look like a guy with the same name. Besides, Weyland droids were already being out in 04, so clearly someone else designed them. Thus, that makes BII a liar (IF AVP is taken canon)
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 10:53:38 PM
From what he sadi, it doesnt seem like he knew about BII. He either didnt know or decided to make him an android by redoing the origins
Again, there's the "I" word.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 10:25:09 PM
How so? BII looks like bishop androids.
Or, they look like him. But, since we've only seen one, it would make sense that it would look like his designer as seen in the next film.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 10:25:09 PM
With AVP canon, Bishop androids are Weylands lookalikes. What a corny coincidence would that be to have a guy looking like androids that look like a guy with the same name.
You're making that assertion. We don't know how many Bishop robots there are. For all we know, the one who was stationed onboard the
Sulaco was the only one.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 10:25:09 PM
Besides, Weyland droids were already being out in 04, so clearly someone else designed them. Thus, that makes BII a liar (IF AVP is taken canon)
Or, it makes
you a liar, as there is no evidence of Bishop androids being available in an '04 model. We didn't see them in
AVP (something remarkable as that would surely be there to wow the audience).
but we're discussing things IF AVP is taken canon. So if it is, Andreson clearly states that Bishops were modeled after Weyland, not after Michael Bishop
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 11:06:53 PM
but we're discussing things IF AVP is taken canon. So if it is, Andreson clearly states that Bishops were modeled after Weyland, not after Michael Bishop
Okay, great. Michael Bishop could have designed the robots after Chuck.
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 30, 2009, 11:10:04 PM
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 11:06:53 PM
but we're discussing things IF AVP is taken canon. So if it is, Andreson clearly states that Bishops were modeled after Weyland, not after Michael Bishop
Okay, great. Michael Bishop could have designed the robots after Chuck.
And look exactly like chuck did at his age? And also have Bishop in his name? that would be quite of a stretch
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 11:12:14 PM
And look exactly like chuck did at his age?
What did Chuck look like in his younger years?
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 11:12:14 PM
And also have Bishop in his name?
Sure.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 11:12:14 PM
that would be quite of a stretch
Not necessarily.
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 30, 2009, 11:57:00 PM
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 11:12:14 PM
And look exactly like chuck did at his age?
What did Chuck look like in his younger years?
Like Bishop since AVP says theyre made on his image, therefore, like Bishop II
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 31, 2009, 03:43:47 AM
Like Bishop since AVP says theyre made on his image, therefore, like Bishop II
That's
post hoc ergo propter hoc (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/post-hoc.html) reasoning. Sad.
Allow me to explain a concept.
When you're discussing in-universe concepts (i.e., whether or not Michael Bishop is human) it's important to understand what in-universe sources are. In-universe, there are extraterrestrial creatures that bleed acid for blood and gestate inside a living host. In-universe, there's a character named Ripley who died on Fury 161, and was later cloned 200 years later. In-universe, there's faster-than-light travel, very lifelike androids, all kinds of stuff.
Out-of-universe, none of this exists. Out-of-universe, it's a movie. There's actors, writers, directors, special effects, etc. For out-of-universe discussions (i.e., filmmaking things, casting, acting, creature designs, whatever) citing out-of-universe sources such as quotes from actors or directors or whatever makes perfect sense.
If you want to discuss in-universe whether or not Michael Bishop is human, you can't cite out-of-universe sources like writers or directors, because in-universe those sources don't exist and your argument becomes completely nonsensical.
An in-universe source would be something that's arguably set within the fictional universe you're discussing. The movie itself, the novelization, the script (could be argued as an audio transcript for in-universe purposes), in-universe merchandise (i.e., about 2/3 of the Alien3 trading cards), expanded universe materials like novels, comics, video games, all of those are done from an in-universe perspective.
The C-3PO origin retcon works because in-universe his backstory was revised, in movies, novelizations, comic books, whatever.
The Michael Bishop "retcon" doesn't work because the only things indicating the retcon are out-of-universe sources... which have no bearing on in-universe discussions.
But if you've got some in-universe citations that Michael Bishop isn't human, I'd love to see them. :)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FAlien%2FBishopAndroid.gif&hash=17366bfce405a64532396b98c840dcffe743fdd7)
But that goes against it as well. By that theory, theres no such thing as Michael Bishop because its never said in the movie and is nowhere to be found anywhere as a part of the movie, not even credits. And the movie itself never says he's human, he claims to be one but the movie never truly answers it, pointingmore towards the android (as I quoted many sources before)
Novelizations cant be canon for reasons I also explained, look at T3 novel or even T2.. Both contradict and change the events and do not match the movie, T3 especially. All because of the rewrites done during production
And novels and offical sources , so called expanded universe also doesnt really have as much say as the author. Again, the example with Owen Lars
I find it quite surprising that you would take the word of the author as important, since he;s like the narrator of the story and he knows all the answers because theyre in his head. Not everything will be clearly said in the movie because a) its not a movie for 3 year old kids where everything has to be said instead of implied, and b) theres no time for it since its not a documentary, therefore as in every single movie things are implied or signaled instead of clearly explained like in Blue's Clues cartoons
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 31, 2009, 06:48:37 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v338/maledoro/Alien/BishopAndroid.gif
Nice shot. man, no wonder the majority though he's an android, he looks like the temrinator by the end of the movie!
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 31, 2009, 06:52:33 PM
Nice shot. man, no wonder the majority though he's an android, he looks like the temrinator by the end of the movie!
That wasn't a still from the film, so not too many people would have seen it; let alone your "majority".
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 31, 2009, 06:51:05 PM
But that goes against it as well. By that theory, theres no such thing as Michael Bishop because its never said in the movie and is nowhere to be found anywhere as a part of the movie, not even credits. And the movie itself never says he's human, he claims to be one but the movie never truly answers it, pointingmore towards the android (as I quoted many sources before).
No, but the Michael Bishop name is in other in-universe sources, as is his status as a human. :)
QuoteNovelizations cant be canon for reasons I also explained, look at T3 novel or even T2.. Both contradict and change the events and do not match the movie, T3 especially. All because of the rewrites done during production
Sure they can be canon. Just because there's a contradiction doesn't automatically wipe the entire source out as a source of information. :) Hell, there's massive contradictions between
the films themselves. I guess none of them are "canon"?
For something like the novelization, one could argue that it's a different take on the same events - sure there's "contradictions" in some ways, but why accept any one view as "true"? It makes just as much sense to accept them both as "true" and find a way to sort the contradictions out, as opposed to outright throwing out one of the sources arbitrarily.
QuoteAnd novels and offical sources , so called expanded universe also doesnt really have as much say as the author. Again, the example with Owen Lars
Why wouldn't they have as much say? From an in-universe perspective, "the author" doesn't exist. :)
we seem to be already going in cicrcle. Again, Owen Lars was in in-universe sources as ObiWan's brother. new movies, new origins, retorwriting = he is not anymore, despite what novels and official SW dictionaries and bios said.
Same with BII. he mighve been one ion the script, but new movies came along, Anderson brought new origins etc
But like I said, thats already going in circles so i think all of us already said what it was to be said. good discussion tho, little more movement on the forum. what would I here without you? ;)
No, the difference between the Owen Lars thing is, as you said, it was changed in-universe (and even then, I think you might be mistaken (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Owen_Lars#Relationship_to_Luke_Skywalker) - my knowledge of Star Wars expanded universe trivia is a little rusty). This is not the case with Michael Bishop. In-universe he is, and always has been, human. :)
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 31, 2009, 08:03:19 PM
No, the difference between the Owen Lars thing is, as you said, it was changed in-universe (and even then, I think you might be mistaken (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Owen_Lars#Relationship_to_Luke_Skywalker) - my knowledge of Star Wars expanded universe trivia is a little rusty). This is not the case with Michael Bishop. In-universe he is, and always has been, human. :)
not anymore with Weyland being human.
Again, my stance is same as this
The android was modelled after his creator, Weyland-Yutani robotics engineer Michael Bishop who is the "Bishop II" seen in Alien 3, as confirmed in both the Alien 3 novelization and 2003 DVD commentary for Alien Quadrilogy by Lance Henriksen. However, the more recent spin-off film, Alien vs. Predator has ignored this and established its own canon, which implies the Bishop androids were modelled after Charles Bishop Weyland, and therefore the "real" Bishop is another android rather than a human.
Yes, and that entire premise is based off of out-of-universe data. :)
Do you have any in-universe data to support the claim that Michael Bishop isn't human? :)
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 31, 2009, 08:36:35 PM
Yes, and that entire premise is based off of out-of-universe data. :)
Do you have any in-universe data to support the claim that Michael Bishop isn't human? :)
its weird yo discuss it since the one and main and the most canon source for every franchise is the author. But oh well, to play your game: how would I if AVP is set hundreds of years before A3, why would BII be adressed in this movie? in some ways, it is. Simple logic of putting two and two together. But again, its going in circles. Ill just keep saying what I quoted above, i cant be blind and [retend its not this way because it is not stated in the movie, yet its stated by the director and actors and is taken as official canon . Arguing the in-universe sources, which often turn out to not be canon, is nitpicking and going around the issue. Its like saying "i dont believe the sky is blue, god has to tell me" (even thought its implied, seems obvious), And then god tells you and you go, "well, he didnt say THIS sky was blue" and so on. I think its just really twisting
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 30, 2009, 09:10:09 PM
more
Some people have witnessed skin hanging down (some say it's his ear). This
would indicate that he's an android. To further the issue, Bishop II takes
a nasty hit in the side of the head, yet remains concious, it is unlikely
that a human being would be able to shake off such an injury. The red blood
was just a way to ensure Ripley he was a human. His blood was just coloured.
It was the only way to ensure for Ripley he was a human.
- The credits indicate that the character is named "Bishop II" as if to say it
is just another copy of the same line of androids.
well from my confusions about what Bishop II was supposed to be, I've thought about the possibility that he was a mixture of man and machine so he wasn't necessarily an android, and if he was a human, and one can't drop the idea that there was something a bit strange about the way he managed to deal with being hit then one might consider possibly something more than just flesh and blood to him, such as cybernetics and prosthetic body parts.
I remember reading that he was going to be killed earlier and they shot that and then reshot it with an ending where he survives, so if the shot where he is hit was from the original shoot, at least in the original shoot it would have been a death blow and then it becomes a blow to the head that he survives whatever the reason whether it ought to have be perceived as a death blow or not, but still I don't know for sure what was from the original shoot and what was from the reshoot. There are a bunch of wonderful "ifs" to scatter perceptions about it for me in many directions.
So the Bishop II name is just some label to give a person that they didn't have much of a clue about when they wrote the script., other than he looked just like Bishop.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 31, 2009, 07:07:38 PM
No, but the Michael Bishop name is in other in-universe sources, as is his status as a human. :)
I think that adding Alan Dean Foster's inventions into the mix such as Bishop's first name is a bit confusing.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Jan 31, 2009, 10:04:20 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 31, 2009, 08:36:35 PM
Yes, and that entire premise is based off of out-of-universe data. :)
Do you have any in-universe data to support the claim that Michael Bishop isn't human? :)
its weird yo discuss it since the one and main and the most canon source for every franchise is the author. But oh well, to play your game: how would I if AVP is set hundreds of years before A3, why would BII be adressed in this movie? in some ways, it is. Simple logic of putting two and two together. But again, its going in circles. Ill just keep saying what I quoted above, i cant be blind and [retend its not this way because it is not stated in the movie, yet its stated by the director and actors and is taken as official canon . Arguing the in-universe sources, which often turn out to not be canon, is nitpicking and going around the issue. Its like saying "i dont believe the sky is blue, god has to tell me" (even thought its implied, seems obvious), And then god tells you and you go, "well, he didnt say THIS sky was blue" and so on. I think its just really twisting
Funny you mention "god", seeing as how you're the one citing "god" for your argument by citing "the author". :)
'AvP' does not say anything about Michael Bishop, it only talks about Charles Bishop Weyland, who is a different person who lived 200 years prior.
Quoteand is taken as official canon
See that's the part where you're mistaken. :)
Quoteone can't drop the idea that there was something a bit strange about the way he managed to deal with being hit then one might consider possibly something more than just flesh and blood to him, such as cybernetics and prosthetic body parts.
Or straight-up adrenaline.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Feb 01, 2009, 05:39:45 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 31, 2009, 07:07:38 PM
No, but the Michael Bishop name is in other in-universe sources, as is his status as a human. :)
I think that adding Alan Dean Foster's inventions into the mix such as Bishop's first name is a bit confusing.
Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean, but he's called "Bishop II" in the novelization because that whole scene is from Ripley's point of view. She sees Michael Bishop and calls him Bishop II because she thinks he's an android ("You're a robot, same model as Bishop!"), and that's the name she gives him in her head.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 01, 2009, 05:50:39 PM
Quoteone can't drop the idea that there was something a bit strange about the way he managed to deal with being hit then one might consider possibly something more than just flesh and blood to him, such as cybernetics and prosthetic body parts.
Or straight-up adrenaline.
Not even that; the injury wasn't that severe.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 01, 2009, 05:50:39 PM
Or straight-up adrenaline.
Indeed, different possibilities from different points of view.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Feb 01, 2009, 11:05:32 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 01, 2009, 05:50:39 PM
Or straight-up adrenaline.</a>
Indeed, different possibilities from different points of view.
When did Xenomrph say that second part?
Quote from: maledoro on Feb 01, 2009, 11:11:45 PM
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Feb 01, 2009, 11:05:32 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 01, 2009, 05:50:39 PM
Or straight-up adrenaline.</a>
Indeed, different possibilities from different points of view.
When did Xenomrph say that second part?
Thanks, i put the wrong coding in afterwards So now I've changed </a> to [/quote]
QuoteNot even that; the injury wasn't that severe.
He almost got his ear severed and a whole lot of the back of his head was open, and in the theatrical cut he shows no sign of pain.
I say He's a droid.
Quote from: Johnny Handsome on Feb 01, 2009, 11:14:36 PM
He almost got his ear severed and a whole lot of the back of his head was open, and in the theatrical cut he shows no sign of pain.
Here's that scene. The back of his head was never open and his ear wasn't severed.
http://www.dailymotion.com/branman887/video/4982524 (http://www.dailymotion.com/branman887/video/4982524)
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 01, 2009, 05:50:39 PM
Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean, but he's called "Bishop II" in the novelization because that whole scene is from Ripley's point of view. She sees Michael Bishop and calls him Bishop II because she thinks he's an android ("You're a robot, same model as Bishop!"), and that's the name she gives him in her head.
I can't find my copy of the novel so I can't actually look at the ins and outs of what Alan Dean Foster was writing about, which I consider only an interpretation of the film's story but not necessarily part of it.
Quote from: Johnny Handsome on Feb 01, 2009, 11:14:36 PM
QuoteNot even that; the injury wasn't that severe.
He almost got his ear severed and a whole lot of the back of his head was open, and in the theatrical cut he shows no sign of pain.
I say He's a droid.
well I'm looking at the theatrical release on DVD, certainly I can see a flap of skin was opened behind the back of the ear and indeed with that the whole ear was seen to be connected to that open flap of skin when he says "what are you doing" and then yells a long "No!", and also in the theatrical cut I acknowledge that there is a shot where shows signs of pain.
I don't know what to say about how hard he was being hit with the spanner either.
The confusion about this scene that I'm having and some others are having too continues to inspire me.
QuoteHe almost got his ear severed and a whole lot of the back of his head was open, and in the theatrical cut he shows no sign of pain.
I say He's a droid.
Let's pretend this is accurate for a second (but only for a second) - so the Bishop that showed signs of pain when the Queen impaled him was in fact, human.
Quote from: SM on Feb 02, 2009, 12:40:52 AM
Let's pretend this is accurate for a second (but only for a second) - so the Bishop that showed signs of pain when the Queen impaled him was in fact, human.
well that's a lovely little doorway you've opened up there to expand the confusion for me. Thanks!
I've seen a lot of head wounds up close, and just going by those alone, I would say not human.
I guess this guy is a robot too (http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=231)
Quotewell that's a lovely little doorway you've opened up there to expand the confusion for me. Thanks!
Only if one pretend's what Johnny said was accurate.
Quote from: SM on Feb 02, 2009, 12:48:45 AM
I guess this guy is a robot too (http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=231)
Quotewell that's a lovely little doorway you've opened up there to expand the confusion for me. Thanks!
Only if one pretend's what Johnny said was accurate.
well I can ignore what Johnny has said but well if Bishop was experiencing pain when he was impaled by the Queen, and so it goes that "Bishop II" was seen to be experiencing pain after he was hit, the wonder of that for me is that it doesn't matter whether the character is suffering from pain or not because it wont necesarily establish for me whether he is an android or not,
Yes. An expression of pain is not a determining fact if someone is a robot or not. Humans do it. Robots do it.
Quote from: Meathead320 on Feb 02, 2009, 12:46:09 AM
I've seen a lot of head wounds up close, and just going by those alone, I would say not human.
Obviously not close enough, or you just didn't understand what you had seen.
Quote from: maledoro on Feb 02, 2009, 02:15:47 AM
Quote from: Meathead320 on Feb 02, 2009, 12:46:09 AM
I've seen a lot of head wounds up close, and just going by those alone, I would say not human.
Obviously not close enough, or you just didn't understand what you had seen.
you really have to insult everyone who dont agree with you? That is why I gave up this thread, everything bounces off, and a weird and ucalled for stance of arrogance and sarcasm is present, as is the close minded stance immune to open debate or any arguments or facts or sources
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Feb 02, 2009, 02:25:31 AM
you really have to insult everyone who dont agree with you?
I don't insult people who don't agree with me for that reason.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Feb 02, 2009, 02:25:31 AM
That is why I gave up this thread
As demonstrated by your return to it.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Feb 02, 2009, 02:25:31 AM
everything bounces off, and a weird and ucalled for stance of arrogance and sarcasm is present, as is the close minded stance immune to open debate or any arguments or facts or sources
ulinke your manner of typing which resembles a surreal stream of conscioussness and randomness to it that barely makes sense only my imitiation of it is more legible
*ahem*In response to my last response to Meathead, everybody thinks that they're an expert just because they had seen only a glimpse of the bigger picture. Granted, I don't hold a degree in physical medicine, but I did ask a couple of medical doctors about such a head injury and of those more severe. They suggested that I read up on hematomas. Had Meathead done the same, he wouldn't have (honestly) posted his "expert opinion".
If you want to save yourself the trouble of trodding down a very beaten path and want to avoid making any more poor accusations against me, I would advise you to read through this thread (as I had advised you many times before) and see that I had posted facts and sources way beforehand, yea.
I'm not the only one in this thread who has displayed what you call "stance of arrogance" (sounds like it could be a Guns N' Roses album title!) or "sarcasm", and yet you seem to be quick to single Li'l Ol' Me out for it.
Quote from: maledoro on Feb 02, 2009, 03:03:51 AM
ulinke your manner of typing which resembles a surreal stream of conscioussness and randomness to it that barely makes sense only my imitiation of it is more legible
Another example of being close minded and lack of ability to think outside the box. It never dawned on you that english is my second language?
I see a big tolerancy on this board unlike on any other. For your uncalled arrogance and attacks you'd surely be banend or at least get a warning in other places. Oh well, like I said, im done with this thread
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Feb 02, 2009, 03:19:15 AM
Another example of being close minded and lack of ability to think outside the box.
Lack of grammatical errors?
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Feb 02, 2009, 03:19:15 AM
It never dawned on you that english is my second language?
Mine, too.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Feb 02, 2009, 03:19:15 AM
I see a big tolerancy on this board unlike on any other. For your uncalled arrogance and attacks you'd surely be banend or at least get a warning in other places.
Unless they practice intolerance. This forum has more restrictions than others I have frequented (not that I am complaining), and I really haven't broken the rules.
Quote from: Hyperdyne on Feb 02, 2009, 03:19:15 AMOh well, like I said, im done with this thread
And, like the last time you said that, you'll be back to it.
They always come back...
But they mostly come at night. Mostly.
To be fair, he did only post to tell you how he felt about trying to exchange ideas with you, not to respark the debate of if Bishop is android or human.
Quote from: Cellien on Feb 02, 2009, 04:32:44 AM
To be fair, he did only post to tell you how he felt about trying to exchange ideas with you, not the topic of if Bishop is android or human.
To be frank, he really did post about whether the guy in
Alien³ was a human or an android. Really.
I mean his last two posts, after he said he was done with the debate.
Also, unlike some other posters in the past, Hyperdyne provided some great links with useful info and kept it pretty civil.
Honestly, why the quarrel?
QuoteTo be frank, he really did post about whether the guy in Alien³ was a human or an android. Really.
Frank was human too.
ZING!!!!!
Quote from: Cellien on Feb 02, 2009, 04:49:28 AM
Also, unlike some other posters in the past, Hyperdyne provided some great links with useful info and kept it pretty civil.
The info wasn't that useful, as it wasn't complete.
Quote from: Alpha Xenomorph on Feb 02, 2009, 04:51:05 AM
Honestly, why the quarrel?
Stay away, kids. I hurt people...
Quote from: SM on Feb 02, 2009, 04:54:10 AM
Frank was human too.
ZING!!!!!
"ZING!!!!!"? Why, that's a
robot noise!
Quote from: maledoro on Feb 01, 2009, 11:25:15 PM
Quote from: Johnny Handsome on Feb 01, 2009, 11:14:36 PM
He almost got his ear severed and a whole lot of the back of his head was open, and in the theatrical cut he shows no sign of pain.
Here's that scene. The back of his head was never open and his ear wasn't severed.
http://www.dailymotion.com/branman887/video/4982524 (http://www.dailymotion.com/branman887/video/4982524)
I said it was
almost severed, as you can see in this pic.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v338/maledoro/Alien/BishopAndroid.gif
QuoteLet's pretend this is accurate for a second (but only for a second) - so the Bishop that showed signs of pain when the Queen impaled him was in fact, human.
Its funny because you always consider the things you agree with as accurate even if they aren't.
There is a massive wound that is bleeding, his ear is almost severed and in the movie he shows no sign of pain, all hes interested in is the Alien inside Ripley and you think that's like totally normal for a human being?
Aliens doesn't have anything to do with this, different kind of models, ash for example didn't feel any pain either although he got his head punched off. What makes you think hes human? Just because his "Blood" is tinted red? Like it or not AvP is officially canon to the alien series and it shows the original Charles Bishop Weyland so in the end of the day, this whole discussion is there for the sake of arguing.
Quote from: Johnny Handsome on Feb 02, 2009, 01:17:39 PM
I said it was almost severed, as you can see in this pic.
So, is this guy a robot, too?
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FAVP%2FPic1239.gif&hash=839bc006aa5d230d4d6efb3b5d5c4d984f21994c)
Quote from: Johnny Handsome on Feb 02, 2009, 01:17:39 PM
QuoteLet's pretend this is accurate for a second (but only for a second) - so the Bishop that showed signs of pain when the Queen impaled him was in fact, human.
For the record, I didn't say that. But I will respond to you.
Quote from: Johnny Handsome on Feb 02, 2009, 01:17:39 PM
Its funny because you always consider the things you agree with as accurate even if they aren't.
There is a massive wound that is bleeding, his ear is almost severed and in the movie he shows no sign of pain
Funny that you should lecture someone on that after watching the scene that was linked. Or, did you ignore it just to further your argument?
Quote from: Johnny Handsome on Feb 02, 2009, 01:17:39 PM
all hes interested in is the Alien inside Ripley and you think that's like totally normal for a human being?
Are you saying that the people who came up with Special Order 937 were robots? All they were interested in was the alien on the
Nostromo. Carter Burke must have been a robot, too, as he tried to get Ripley and Newt facehugged.
Quote from: Johnny Handsome on Feb 02, 2009, 01:17:39 PM
Aliens doesn't have anything to do with this, different kind of models, ash for example didn't feel any pain either although he got his head punched off.
That is special pleading (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html). Nice try.
Quote from: Johnny Handsome on Feb 02, 2009, 01:17:39 PM
What makes you think hes human? Just because his "Blood" is tinted red?
Now you're switching the argument (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html). In fairness, I already posted why; it's spread out over this thread.
Quote from: Johnny Handsome on Feb 02, 2009, 01:17:39 PM
Like it or not AvP is officially canon to the alien series and it shows the original Charles Bishop Weyland so in the end of the day, this whole discussion is there for the sake of arguing.
Like it or not, I didn't say that
AVP wasn't canon so stop making that accusation. Also, I didn't deny the existence of CBW.
For what it's worth, when I first saw 'Alien3' (theatrical cut) years and years ago it looked like his ear was partially torn off. I mean, the fans (and audiences) didn't come up with "his ear is hanging off his head" as evidence of him being a robot out of thin air or something. :)
Still doesn't change my conclusion that he's human, though - the human body can take a lot of punishment, and people can shrug off plenty of injuries at first due to a healthy dose of natural adrenaline.
QuoteIts funny because you always consider the things you agree with as accurate even if they aren't.
Not sure why that's funny - but then 'small things' and all that.
Bishop plainly displays pain in the film. Therefore, you're talking crap.
An android displaying pain is not unprecedented - Bishop displayed it in Aliens. Therefore you're talking irrelevant crap.
QuoteNot sure why that's funny
Its funny because you're trying to come across as smart when in fact you're just arrogant.
It may be that I'm wrong about certain things, and it may be that you're wrong about certain things but that's not the point, there just cant be a single discussion with you where you cant hold it back to show that you're a jerk.
Quote
Bishop plainly displays pain in the film. Therefore, you're talking crap.
Not in the theatrical cut of the movie, and therefore I'm talking the truth. But what should one say, either way you cut your own version of the movie so you can sit back with a smile and sleep well at night or you disagree for the sake of disagreeing, which you have done multiple times in the past anyway.
QuoteNot in the theatrical cut of the movie, and therefore I'm talking the truth.
No, you're not. You're either ignorant or lying - possibly both.
He grabs his head and collapses against the fence in the theatrical cut. In pain.
But as has been said ad nauseum - someone showing pain proves nothing either way.
QuoteIts funny because you're trying to come across as smart when in fact you're just arrogant.
I'm right, therefore I'm smart. Call that arrogant if you like. You'll still be wrong.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 02, 2009, 07:02:26 PM
For what it's worth, when I first saw 'Alien3' (theatrical cut) years and years ago it looked like his ear was partially torn off. I mean, the fans (and audiences) didn't come up with "his ear is hanging off his head" as evidence of him being a robot out of thin air or something. :)
Did you first see Alien 3 in the cinema or on DVD?
he's got to be human cuz in alien ressurection the androids still hav that white stuff and u see blood on bishops ear ;D
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Feb 03, 2009, 03:30:57 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 02, 2009, 07:02:26 PM
For what it's worth, when I first saw 'Alien3' (theatrical cut) years and years ago it looked like his ear was partially torn off. I mean, the fans (and audiences) didn't come up with "his ear is hanging off his head" as evidence of him being a robot out of thin air or something. :)
Did you first see Alien 3 in the cinema or on DVD?
I saw it televised on Fox, but then I saw it on VHS later. I was born in 1984 and Alien3 came out in theatres in 1992, I was 8 years old, a little too young to go see it. :)
But it doesn't make a difference - the VHS version shows him with his ear sorta hanging off anyway, it's not like it was an addition that was only seen in the most recent extended/assembly cut. :)
Quotehe's got to be human cuz in alien ressurection the androids still hav that white stuff and u see blood on bishops ear
Yes, but in Resurrection they say that call is a old, outdated model.
i suppose so but remember ripley died 200 years before ressurection and i dont think call is that old
Quote from: Johnny Handsome on Feb 03, 2009, 06:42:44 PM
Quotehe's got to be human cuz in alien ressurection the androids still hav that white stuff and u see blood on bishops ear
Yes, but in Resurrection they say that call is a old, outdated model.
The opposite, actually. :) They say Call is a new second-gen "auton", robots designed and built by robots.
oh yeah, lol
forgot bout that ;D
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 03, 2009, 07:21:22 PM
Quote from: Johnny Handsome on Feb 03, 2009, 06:42:44 PM
Quotehe's got to be human cuz in alien ressurection the androids still hav that white stuff and u see blood on bishops ear
Yes, but in Resurrection they say that call is a old, outdated model.
The opposite, actually. :) They say Call is a new second-gen "auton", robots designed and built by robots.
Its been a while since i watched Resurrection, now that you say it i remember the second-gen stuff.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 03, 2009, 06:27:32 PM
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Feb 03, 2009, 03:30:57 PM
Did you first see Alien 3 in the cinema or on DVD?
I saw it televised on Fox, but then I saw it on VHS later. I was born in 1984 and Alien3 came out in theatres in 1992, I was 8 years old, a little too young to go see it. :)
But it doesn't make a difference - the VHS version shows him with his ear sorta hanging off anyway, it's not like it was an addition that was only seen in the most recent extended/assembly cut. :)
well, it intererest me and if I think back then people just didn't take notice of the gash around the back of the ear, they didn't know what they were looking at, although people were discussing whether he was a human or an android, and it probably dawned on them more when they saw photos of Bishop with the side of his head ripped open that it looked like a bit of dodgy special effects makeup to not take seriously since there special effects for the alien were considered a huge disappointment at the time as well by many and maybe they weren't sure if it was in the actual movie or not. So it took a while to start discussing it to the level we are now. But people were asking whether he was a human or an android after the movie and no one could come to a final answer other than to accept both as possibilities.
There also has been discussion in the long distant past about differences there might be between the actual theatre cut and the one that got into videotape and dvd, but that only goes as far as changes made to the original scene with the cryotubes at the beginning of the movie.
I wish that I could still find my old pirate copy of the rough cut before the effects were added
I don't recall any differences between theatrical and VHS. Even if there were I never once thought he was a robot after I walked out of the theatre at the end. The obvious giveaway is the complete lack of white blood which was a focal point of androids in Alien and Aliens.
Quote from: SM on Feb 03, 2009, 11:27:18 PM
I don't recall any differences between theatrical and VHS. Even if there were I never once thought he was a robot after I walked out of the theatre at the end. The obvious giveaway is the complete lack of white blood which was a focal point of androids in Alien and Aliens.
There was some discussion back at the time around the time Alien 3 came out on videotape that originally we see Newt's cryotube being cracked open and we see her face, and then they replaced that shot with the Ripley's face. I believe I remembered the difference but it's so long ago that I don't have a clear memory anymore.
I suppose for some people that sight of red blood on Bishop II meant that he was so obviously human and for others it didn't mean anything so certain at all. For me white blood wasn't a focal point of androids it was just a visual idea, and by A:R, it was just an overused idea. If a person believes that an android has to have white blood in the Alien series, I'm not too interested into buying into it, but that's my different point of view.
It was a focal point in Aliens. As soon as we see white blood on Bishop's finger - Ripley and the audience go "AHA!! Android!" So if they wanted to show that Bishop the Second was a robot - they woulda included white blood. And mechanised his voice after he got damaged like they did with Ash and Bishop.
Quote from: SM on Feb 04, 2009, 03:12:07 AM
It was a focal point in Aliens. As soon as we see white blood on Bishop's finger - Ripley and the audience go "AHA!! Android!"
It certainly was in that way yes, but several years later when Alien 3 came out, it wasn't for me, and Vincent Ward also expressed boredom about the idea of another Bishop bleeding white blood when he was being called to direct Alien 3 (see that fairly recent Empire article), and by then more and more people had seen Blade Runner by Ridley which featured red blooded androids for some the worlds of Blade Runner and Alien had become so close together in thoughts even if they were not one hundred percent alike, people such William Gibson were keen to bring them together. So for people like me, white blood didn't mean too much other than it was something that both Ash and Bishop had. I was quick to be disinterested in the return of white blood in Aliens because probably I was disinterested in Cameron's ideas even before I actually saw the movie. So this is just a point of view and there are different points of view, I don't think I would be inspired to think that there must be one ultimate point of view about this, I don't think even mine is but it works for me because I know that I brought a lot of what I had seen in other movies to this certain one and I think a lot of people managed to accept this for themselves that they could acknowledge the different points of view that other people have that were different from their own
Quote from: SM on Feb 04, 2009, 03:12:07 AM
So if they wanted to show that Bishop the Second was a robot - they woulda included white blood. And mechanised his voice after he got damaged like they did with Ash and Bishop.
Well that's the way you would write it. I wouldn't, I'd be looking for something different to show. Vincent Ward wouldn't have included white blood either for the new Bishop either.
But at the same time there would be other indicators that a particular character was a synthetic.
Quote from: SM on Feb 04, 2009, 04:09:41 AM
But at the same time there would be other indicators that a particular character was a synthetic.
well there are indications that mean something to some and nothing to others who can easily explained away in a way that doesn't always satisfy those who believe that there was something odd about the character
But if you don't illustrate to the audience that a character is a robot, either subtly or by dismemberment - there's really no need to make them a robot in the first place.
Quote from: SM on Feb 04, 2009, 04:45:03 AM
But if you don't illustrate to the audience that a character is a robot, either subtly or by dismemberment - there's really no need to make them a robot in the first place.
certainly not for you
Why for anyone?
well, because they had a different experience of the scene
Are we talking about bashing the Bishop or in general terms?
My point is that if you don't illustrate to the audience that a character is a robot, then there's no point in making them a robot. We see how an Alien film shows an audience a character is an android and what we see at the end of Alien3 isn't it.
Quote from: SM on Feb 04, 2009, 05:22:08 AM
Are we talking about bashing the Bishop or in general terms?
My point is that if you don't illustrate to the audience that a character is a robot, then there's no point in making them a robot. We see how an Alien film shows an audience a character is an android and what we see at the end of Alien3 isn't it.
Well, the events lead to bewildering suspicion that something was very odd about Bishop 2 before he was hit. when he was hit and after he was hit, and that interested me. For me saying he's definitely a human or definitely a robot is too basic for me and it was open ended as to why the Bishop 2 character had to be like this, and it was fine for people to see nothing irregular about it but get their own sense o what that character was for them. That's something that David Lynch might do although this isn't his movie. This sort of open ended point of view might be normal for some and not for others and no one is going get the David Fincher to talk about it in depths because isn't going to fill in the blanks because he doesn't really know any more apart from the skeleton of a story that he was following amidst all the production problems that was more like being caught in a car accident for him.
So the beginning of Alien 3 opened with a dream like sequence that confused a good number of people, and the end scene here was for me almost dream like in the confusion it spelt out for me.
So I am bringing some elements of Philip K Dickian paranoia to the movie with me and Tarkovskian confusion of sorts as well as well, and the idea that we're dealing with a scifi fantasy world where things are not one hundred percent predictable. I'm bringing a perspective that can be called "thinking out of the box" also. And I like the idea that someone who painfully cries that he's not a droid just can't help being one for a portion of the audience no matter how much he claims he isn't. Probably because the movie has wonderful craftsmanship, the fragmented quality of some of the scenes in the movie makes it all the more purposeful. And I think that seeing the movie The Game by Fincher which was made much later and listening to some of his ideas in the commentary makes me appreciate what I projected onto the screen, that this Bishop 2 was someone there to say whatever the company wanted him to say and be whatever they wanted him to be and he's hanging around just for that purposeless purpose and for all I know, and going Dickian he might be even less real than that, he might be the product of one lie upon another upon another, just to appear realistic for that moment he was there in the movie. So I think that keeping the spirit of the associations I was making is important and no one can tell me that my associations are meaningless even if they are meaningless to a lot of other people. That's what made this character extraordinary even he wasn't meant to be and then we find that we never get to meet the character again. Maybe there's something Kubrickian about him for me as well.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Feb 04, 2009, 06:50:51 AM
Well, the events lead to bewildering suspicion that something was very odd about Bishop 2 before he was hit.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2Fcs2%2F327bffbb.gif&hash=82f511add06377f25a52617a8192b49e0367bb94)
QuoteWell, the events lead to bewildering suspicion that something was very odd about Bishop 2 before he was hit.
What's bewildering or odd?
Quote from: SM on Feb 04, 2009, 11:06:08 PM
What's bewildering or odd?
Anything beyond the door at the top of his stairs.
Quote from: SM on Feb 04, 2009, 11:06:08 PM
QuoteWell, the events lead to bewildering suspicion that something was very odd about Bishop 2 before he was hit.
What's bewildering or odd?
Well, I've talked here about it before but for me, it was Bishop 2's expression, body movements (incudiing hand gestures) and detached sense of calmness , and there he's calmly walking into this place where maybe a monster was on the loose, so for me there is something not quite right about him
He was protected by a bunch of dudes with machine guns. What's not to be calm about?
There was potentially an Alien on the loose? :P
In their mind, it couldn't have been too dangerous as they brought a flimsy cage with them.
I think the cage was more meant for Ripley's embryo, to be honest.
Hardly. As per Aaron's deleted "You're going to need a bigger cage than that" it was intended for the Alien. How were they going to contain an embryo in that cage?
Aaron might not have realized the team was there to harvest the Alien out of Ripley, as per all of the dialogue between Ripley and Bishop II. Bishop II never mentions the adult Alien nor does he show any interest or dismay that it's dead, and the oriental scientist specifically asks where RIPLEY is, not where the Alien is. Leads me to believe they were looking for the embryo.
In any event the cage makes no sense. Too small for the adult and too big for the embryo.
Quote from: SiL on Feb 05, 2009, 11:03:42 PM
In any event the cage makes no sense. Too small for the adult and too big for the embryo.
Fair enough, I can agree with that. Just saying, I'd always figured the recovery team was primarily there for Ripley. If they could have grabbed the adult Alien (somehow), so much the better.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 05, 2009, 03:38:55 PM
I think the cage was more meant for Ripley's embryo, to be honest.
It would slip through the bars easily.
Quote from: maledoro on Feb 05, 2009, 11:26:38 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 05, 2009, 03:38:55 PM
I think the cage was more meant for Ripley's embryo, to be honest.
It would slip through the bars easily.
I was mis-remembering the size of the cage, I thought it was smaller. :)
Doesn't change the fact that both Bishop II and the oriental scientist seemingly didn't care about the adult Alien, though. :)
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 05, 2009, 11:35:35 PM
Doesn't change the fact that both Bishop II and the oriental scientist seemingly didn't care about the adult Alien, though.
Keep in mind that when they had arrived, Aaron told them where the alien was and was leading them to it. Along the way, they ran into Ripley. That would make them switch gears.
Yes, I know that the Asian guy asked about Ripley's whereabouts, but they had other fish to fry.
They were there for the adult and Ripley. They obviously underestimated the size of the adult. The embryo was a known quantity cos they had the neuroscan. I remember an earlier draft where Bishop arrived in time to see the Alien destroyed and shouted to try and stop Ripley.
Though maybe it could be argued the cage was for Ripley.
Quote from: maledoro on Feb 05, 2009, 11:40:01 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 05, 2009, 11:35:35 PM
Doesn't change the fact that both Bishop II and the oriental scientist seemingly didn't care about the adult Alien, though.
Keep in mind that when they had arrived, Aaron told them where the alien was and was leading them to it. Along the way, they ran into Ripley. That would make them switch gears.
Yes, I know that the Asian guy asked about Ripley's whereabouts, but they had other fish to fry.
No, the first words out of the oriental guy's mouth are "Where is Lieutenant Ripley?", and Aaron says she's in the leadworks with "the beast", and then Aaron leads them on. They ask about Ripley and THEN he leads them into the prison. No one seemed to care about the adult, at least none of their dialogue indicates it. Likewise, Bishop II never mentions the adult and only shows interest in the Alien inside Ripley (it's arguable whether or not he knew the adult was dead, although I'm sure he found that out. Aaron probably didn't know the circumstances of the adult's death, seeing as how he wasn't present when it happened).
Were they interested in the adult? I don't doubt it. But their dialogue indicates that Ripley was a higher priority at the very least, seeing as how she was a known quantity, as SM said.
They might not have known the status of Ripley until they spoke with Aaron. The embryo might have hatched since the last transmission from the prison. And, I have to agree with SM on "They were there for the adult and Ripley. They obviously underestimated the size of the adult."
Quote from: maledoro on Feb 06, 2009, 12:11:43 AM
They might not have known the status of Ripley until they spoke with Aaron. The embryo might have hatched since the last transmission from the prison.
Of course they didn't know Ripley's status - that's why they asked Aaron about it. That's the point. :) They specifically asked about Ripley immediately when they saw Aaron. No one brought up the adult at all. Hence my conclusion that Ripley was the higher priority.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 06, 2009, 12:19:38 AM
Of course they didn't know Ripley's status - that's why they asked Aaron about it. That's the point. They specifically asked about Ripley immediately when they saw Aaron.
They figured that Aaron would be more likely to know Ripley's status than the status of a creature that might be hiding out in the complex.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 06, 2009, 12:19:38 AM
No one brought up the adult at all.
Aaron had, but who's to say it wasn't on the minds of the team? That doesn't mean that it wasn't the top priority of the team.
They bought the cage because the Company knew there was an Alien on the loose and wouldn't have expected prisoners without weapons to have killed it.
Plus the BW boys didn't come with facemasks because of prisoners. They were prepared for huggers as well. And some had those pole things with wire on the end the get used to controlling animals. Which they expected the Alien to be.
Quote from: SM on Feb 06, 2009, 12:36:26 AM
They bought the cage because the Company knew there was an Alien on the loose and wouldn't have expected prisoners without weapons to have killed it.
Plus the BW boys didn't come with facemasks because of prisoners. They were prepared for huggers as well. And some had those pole things with wire on the end the get used to controlling animals. Which they expected the Alien to be.
Yep. It would have been fun to see them square off against the huggers and the alien!
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2Fcs2%2F327bffbb.gif&hash=82f511add06377f25a52617a8192b49e0367bb94)
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 05, 2009, 11:56:33 PM
Were they interested in the adult? I don't doubt it. But their dialogue indicates that Ripley was a higher priority at the very least, seeing as how she was a known quantity, as SM said.
well, in the theatrical release, they didn't know about the presence of the adult before Aaron said something when they did arrive. What they were aware of is that an alien organism managed to hitch a ride to Fiorina and later the queen chestburster
In the extended version, about 1 hour and 24 minutes into the movie, Ripley declares that they have trapped a xenomorph to the company after Andrews is killed, and that scene is not there in the theatrical version. But I suppose that since it was no longer going to be trapped in the theatre version, the scene couldn't be used anyway
So in the extended version, I didn't notice the rescue party showing any interested in the adult alien.
And they had a scan of the queen in Ripley two hours before they arrived, so maybe they just felt almost certain that the creature could be still inside Ripley.
Quote from: Cellien on Feb 06, 2009, 03:37:45 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v338/maledoro/cs2/327bffbb.gif
Musing and analyzing are two different things. I was musing. You are
amusing.
The opposite of musing.
He is a human.
Almost certainly human
Android. Going with the Earth Hive androids theory. Androids that seem human, act human, even bleed red, and dont even know they are androids.
I say human. If future andriods did bleed red, then why did Call (much further in the future) still bleed white?
Quote from: dachande89 on Feb 10, 2009, 07:06:39 PM
Android. Going with the Earth Hive androids theory. Androids that seem human, act human, even bleed red, and dont even know they are androids.
While that's an interesting idea, I guess my question would be "what's the point?". Why have an android that looks like Bishop claim he's human when he's actually an android (and doesn't know it) and have him claim he built the Bishop android? Why not just use some random corporate head and have him lie about building Bishop? Or some other random android stand in and lie and claim he built Bishop? It just seems really really complicated and excessively convoluted; there'd be much easier ways to accomplish the same goal.
Because it makes people feel comfortable believing its a human rather than a machine. Eating, drinking, peeing, bleeding red. etc. And why all this effort to make it seem human, rather than making a real human? Because they are expendable. Why send the real CEO of a company to pick up a dangerous organism. Theres a risk he could be ripped apart, or melted, or implanted. Send a droid that looks human, and if anything happens to him, well its scrap then.
Well he can look human, but still, what's the point in giving it red blood?
And even if they did give it red blood, why not give Call red blood 200 years later? Her very existence relied on convincing people that she was human, otherwise she'd be hunted down and destroyed. Why would she bleed white?
Not to mention, if the CEO-stand-in was an android and got torn up, the ruse is over instantly. Androids can survive limb loss and decapitation, as seen in the first 3 movies. If the CEO got torn in half and was still talking, odds are he's not human whether he was bleeding red or not, and anyone with half a brain could figure that out. So what was the point in giving him red blood anyway?
Cause that made it her one trait to be identifiable as an android.. She was an auton, a robot built by robots. Majority of bots were on the old lubricating system (white fluid) and the experimental models (red fluid) were still testing. The autons buried the synthetic industry, and there was nothing after it. So who knows. Maybe they didnt want to spend so much money on a robot that seemed so human, that it believed it was human. Maybe the scrapped the designs, went backwards, and still managed to fail.
I dunno, it just seems like an unnecessarily complex way to "justify" Bishop II as being human. To each their own, I guess.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 10, 2009, 08:05:09 PM
Well he can look human, but still, what's the point in giving it red blood?
And even if they did give it red blood, why not give Call red blood 200 years later? Her very existence relied on convincing people that she was human, otherwise she'd be hunted down and destroyed. Why would she bleed white?
well, a question might be whether it's wise to change something that helps to run a very sophisticated machine in possibly a precise way just for cosmetic purposes? Like could there be drawbacks to the running of the machine?
However I don't know if it is a good thing to add the predicament of Call into the topic, I don't know why she had white blood 200 years later, it wasn't an interesting idea to me, they could have done something different. Well people were arguing over whether Bishop 2 was an android or not long before A:R came along or even thought about, and i haven't got a good word to say about the lack of change in technology, and then I suppose I'm one of those not interested in explaining the events of Alien by it's sequel either. But if Call is a perfectly functioning android with white blood before her kind were made illegal, and no change is made to her blood to make it human like, then there may well be a problem with modifying her bodily fluid to become human blood like.
QuoteAnd why all this effort to make it seem human, rather than making a real human? Because they are expendable.
The cost to produce a synthetic would be substantially more than salary and benefits for a human. Humans are expendable. Equipment is to be protected at all costs.
And Bishop the Second was not the CEO of Weyland Yutani.
It's debatable if he was even a W-Y employee. Sure the rescue team was W-Y, and had W-Y logos, but Bishop the android was not W-Y property, and we don't know that he was built by W-Y.
But as he came he said "The company wanted to send a friendly face, so it sent me. I built the bishop android." So he had some position within the company, maybe not too high up there on the executive scale. But would the company really risk a man who had value within their company simply to show Ripley a face she already knew?.... Probably. Worse has been given to the goal of an Alien.
What risk? He was surrounded by heavily armed guards. WY obviously figured that would be sufficient.
And they sent in a team of highly trained marines, who were killed by the same organism. With an Alien, there always is a risk.
Of course. But in Aliens you had cocky marines who had very little idea what they were up against. In Alien3 you had corporate soldiers who had a better idea of what they were up against - one creature.
Exactly. If the Marines in 'Aliens' had to deal with one and only one creature, I imagine they'd have fared substantially better. :P
Quote from: dachande89 on Feb 11, 2009, 01:16:58 AM
But as he came he said "The company wanted to send a friendly face, so it sent me. I built the bishop android." So he had some position within the company
Not necessarily, the Company wanted to send a friendly face, Bishop was a friendly face, so they paid the designer to stand in and be the "friendly face". That doesn't necessarily mean he worked for W-Y.
Could he have? Sure, I'm not saying he didn't. Or even if he didn't work directly for them, the company he worked for could have been a subsidiary of W-Y or whatever.
I'm just saying we shouldn't jump to conclusions. :)
True, but there is still a great risk that something could happen. And putting a valued company man, into any kind of possibly dangerous circumstance, seems unethical (but when was W-Y ever ethical). Seems like they would likely put a synth in their, something far easier to replace.
QuoteTrue, but there is still a great risk that something could happen.
Therefore you send in a bunch of guys with machine guns to lessen that risk.
If they'd sent in a synth, he would've bled white blood when Aaron belted him. Assuming he didn't use his synthetic reflexes to actually try and block the guy coming up behind him yelling "f**kING ANDROID!!!"
For a supposedly crack team, that was heavily armed and ready for an Alien attack, a single guy with a wrench managed to do some damage before they reacted.
Quote from: SM on Feb 11, 2009, 01:24:36 AM
What risk? He was surrounded by heavily armed guards. WY obviously figured that would be sufficient.
I'm looking at the scene now and I suppose at least that Bishop 2 followed by heavily armed guards. They didn't look as if they were going ahead to secure the area in case the alien creature was there before them, Bishop 2 , without any protection before him was open to attack from a possible adult alien creature. If they knew anything about the alien and it's unpredictability since it slaughtered a whole group of marines, they ought to have showed some caution because perhaps "85", Bishop 2 and the surgeon could have been the first to fall victim.
QuoteFor a supposedly crack team, that was heavily armed and ready for an Alien attack, a single guy with a wrench managed to do some damage before they reacted.
So? Aaron was on their side up till that point. Just shows they weren't androids either. Or clairvoyant.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 11, 2009, 02:37:35 AM
Exactly. If the Marines in 'Aliens' had to deal with one and only one creature, I imagine they'd have fared substantially better. :P
Quote from: dachande89 on Feb 11, 2009, 01:16:58 AM
But as he came he said "The company wanted to send a friendly face, so it sent me. I built the bishop android." So he had some position within the company
Not necessarily, the Company wanted to send a friendly face, Bishop was a friendly face, so they paid the designer to stand in and be the "friendly face". That doesn't necessarily mean he worked for W-Y.
Could he have? Sure, I'm not saying he didn't. Or even if he didn't work directly for them, the company he worked for could have been a subsidiary of W-Y or whatever.
I'm just saying we shouldn't jump to conclusions. :)
so Bishop 2 said "The company sent me here to show you a friendly face to demonstrate how important you are to us, to me." and I'd assume that showed he was in some a part of the Company
Not saying they needed to expect it, but if a dude is running at the man you have to protect, with a wrench, and nobody takes the shot, something about it says expendable to me. And after he got hit with the wrench, he did not get medical attention, and none of the team seemed to care. Maybe because, he was a synth, and that it wouldn't kill him.
Quote from: SM on Feb 11, 2009, 02:43:53 AM
If they'd sent in a synth, he would've bled white blood when Aaron belted him. Assuming he didn't use his synthetic reflexes to actually try and block the guy coming up behind him yelling "f**kING ANDROID!!!"
If Bishop2 was a android, he would have been an altogether a different type of android than the Bishop or Ash types. This one would have been created to be mistaken for a human to the degree of bleeding red blood when hit.
Quote from: dachande89 on Feb 11, 2009, 03:00:24 AM
And after he got hit with the wrench, he did not get medical attention, and none of the team seemed to care. Maybe because, he was a synth, and that it wouldn't kill him.
that is something that I would be considering too
QuoteIf Bishop2 was a android, he would have been an altogether a different type of android than the Bishop or Ash types. This one would have been created to be mistaken for a human to the degree of bleeding red blood when hit.
So for all intents and purposes he'd be human. A very expensive human.
Quoteand I'd assume that showed he was in some a part of the Company
I wouldn't. I'd say it was an option, but not the only option.
QuoteNot saying they needed to expect it, but if a dude is running at the man you have to protect, with a wrench, and nobody takes the shot, something about it says expendable to me.
So they're all looking at Ripley, but they're supposed to stop a guy who takes a couple of steps and belts the boss with a wrench. And how are they supposed to stop him? With the Force?
QuoteAnd after he got hit with the wrench, he did not get medical attention, and none of the team seemed to care. Maybe because, he was a synth, and that it wouldn't kill him.
He obviously didn't require it at that point, as evidenced in the film, plus the clock was ticking. If you'd read anything about head injuries as has been mentioned a zillions time already in this thread, you'd know that people can suffer horrific injuries and are still appear to be perfectly healthy. Are they all robots too?
Quoteand I'd assume that showed he was in some a part of the Company
that should have said "and I'd assume that showed he was in some WAY a part of the Company", but well I left that "WAY" word out by mistake
Quote from: SM on Feb 11, 2009, 03:12:30 AM
QuoteIf Bishop2 was a android, he would have been an altogether a different type of android than the Bishop or Ash types. This one would have been created to be mistaken for a human to the degree of bleeding red blood when hit.
So for all intents and purposes he'd be human. A very expensive human.
well, if he was an android, he would pass as a human to a further degree than the android Ash who was supposed to pass as a human amongst humans
Quote from: SM on Feb 11, 2009, 03:12:30 AM
QuoteAnd after he got hit with the wrench, he did not get medical attention, and none of the team seemed to care. Maybe because, he was a synth, and that it wouldn't kill him.
He obviously didn't require it at that point, as evidenced in the film, plus the clock was ticking. If you'd read anything about head injuries as has been mentioned a zillions time already in this thread, you'd know that people can suffer horrific injuries and are still appear to be perfectly healthy. Are they all robots too?
well, they should have at least helped the humanoid to his feet. They didn't seem to care
He was back on his feet by the time they dealt with Aaron.
Quote from: SM on Feb 11, 2009, 03:28:47 AM
He was back on his feet by the time they dealt with Aaron.
yes, but they should have come to his aid to help him back on his feet in my opinion and have someone with him in case he did collapse.
He was hanging on to the fence. And walked out of the prison under his own steam. Despite appearances, the wound wasn't that bad.
going back to the quote
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Feb 11, 2009, 02:57:14 AM
so Bishop 2 said "The company sent me here to show you a friendly face to demonstrate how important you are to us, to me." and I'd assume that showed he was in some way a part of the Company
(N.B. the word Way was added in afterwards when i realised it had been left out after SM's response)
Quote from: SM on Feb 11, 2009, 03:12:30 AM
I wouldn't. I'd say it was an option, but not the only option.
well I'll say it's his statement that he is part of the company whatever the company is, he didn't refer to the company as "them", he said "us" and we know that the company is Weyland-Yutani. He has also represents himself as someone involved in learning about the alien life form as well, and he claims that he was sent to show a friendly face to show how important Ripley is to both the company as a whole and him as an individual.
So that's telling me that he is a part of the company, but anymore I don't know
Quote from: SM on Feb 11, 2009, 03:51:07 AM
He was hanging on to the fence. And walked out of the prison under his own steam. Despite appearances, the wound wasn't that bad.
In the theatrical version, we didn't see him walk out.
And even if he was hanging onto the fence, I think he needed someone with him
Obviously not.
A wrench smashed into the side of his head. His ear was hanging off, and most likely his skull was fractured, and yet there he is, standing and yelling at Ripley to let him have the Alien, and nobody tries to take him to the supposed medical facility on the ship where they wanted to remove the embryo from Ripley. With the force that the wrench slammed into his head he should have been down and out. And as for the guys with guns, yea they should have reacted. Aaron didnt walk up and smash Bishop, he shouted "f**kING ANDROID!" as he ran up and smashed the wrench into his head. They just stood, watched, and then reacted after the damage was done. Nobody gave a shit that Bishop had his skull whacked, but afterwards, we see Morse with a bandaged leg. So they could fix the guy they shot, but not a supposedly important man from the company. Something about it screams expendable, like a droid.
There is so much of that post that screams bullshit, I don't even know where to start.
You don't have to, we have all covered each of those points at one point or another.
What bull shit? The wrench smashed his head, his ear was hanging off, nobody reacted til after it was done, and despite it all, he was still there yelling for Ripley to come back. Morse got bandanged, since he had a leg brace. Not bull shit, its wjat happened in the film, after that, its interpretation of the events.
Okay,
I'll start.
Quote from: dachande89 on Feb 11, 2009, 11:04:27 PM
What bull shit? The wrench smashed his head, his ear was hanging off
You exaggerated the injury; it wasn't
that severe.
Quote from: dachande89 on Feb 11, 2009, 11:04:27 PM
nobody reacted til after it was done
They were focused on other things, like prisoners and aliens. The assistant warder shouldn't pose a threat.
Quote from: dachande89 on Feb 11, 2009, 11:04:27 PM
and despite it all, he was still there yelling for Ripley to come back.
Again, he wasn't injured that badly.
Quote from: dachande89 on Feb 11, 2009, 11:04:27 PM
Morse got bandanged, since he had a leg brace.
I administered first aid to someone the other day. Am I a robot, too?
Quote from: dachande89 on Feb 11, 2009, 11:04:27 PM
Not bull shit, its wjat happened in the film, after that, its interpretation of the events.
More like
misinterpretation of events. I swear, you pro-android fanatics have to distort things to build your case. If you have to fight
that hard to prove your points you should consider abandoning your view. Hell, I used to believe in God until I realized how much out of the way I had to go to convince others (and myself) that He existed. Once I realized that I had to jump through hoops and distort things in order to believe, I didn't just give up; I
woke up. I realized how silly it was to have to fight so hard just to believe in something of which there was no evidence.
And, as
Eidotemit pointed out, everything you said had been addressed and refuted earlier in the thread.
Quote from: SM on Feb 11, 2009, 04:52:52 AM
Obviously not.
well, I think that there's something strange about why they didn't come to his aid.
Quote from: dachande89 on Feb 11, 2009, 05:00:15 AM
Something about it screams expendable, like a droid.
I realise that I'm just quibbling over one word that you used, but are you sure that the androids are so "expendable"? If he was an android and if that's why they didn't bother to come to his aid after he was hit, I suppose they assumed that the android could handle itself as if the damage he incurred was likely to be cosmetic.
No I'm saying they bandaged the man they shot, but not the company man. It made no sense. And in the movie, his ear is clearly partially hanging off. And I'm not twisting events, Im stating them. I dont honestly care if you believe or not. You do not cause a man's ear to hang off his head, without doing some major damage.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Feb 11, 2009, 11:32:54 PM
Quote from: SM on Feb 11, 2009, 04:52:52 AM
Obviously not.
well, I think that there's something strange about why they didn't come to his aid.
The Company, considering someone expendable? Why I never! :P
As an aside, after Ripley jumps in the furnace, do we ever see Bishop II again? Like, can we identify him among the people walking out with Morse or whatever?
Quote from: dachande89 on Feb 11, 2009, 11:45:34 PM
No I'm saying they bandaged the man they shot, but not the company man. It made no sense.
Of course it made no sense: You didn't see Bishop's designer
at all during that sequence. Most likely, he was already onboard the ship getting checked out.
Quote from: dachande89 on Feb 11, 2009, 11:45:34 PM
And in the movie, his ear is clearly partially hanging off.
No, it isn't. At most, it was partially
torn, but it wasn't
hanging off.
Quote from: dachande89 on Feb 11, 2009, 11:45:34 PM
And I'm not twisting events, Im stating them.
You just twisted them by saying his ear was
hanging off.
Quote from: dachande89 on Feb 11, 2009, 11:45:34 PM
I dont honestly care if you believe or not.
It doesn't matter what I believe. It didn't happen.
Quote from: dachande89 on Feb 11, 2009, 11:45:34 PM
You do not cause a man's ear to hang off his head, without doing some major damage.
And, once again, it wasn't that severe.
Watch this (http://www.dailymotion.com/branman887/video/4982524). His ear is pretty well attached to his head.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 11, 2009, 11:46:26 PM
The Company, considering someone expendable? Why I never! :P
Well, I can't totally deny the possibility that the character could have just been a known face trying to make a buck, handed a script , told to act as he were a member of the Company interested in the alien life form, present the Company's case and was expendable. But at the time he was hit, he hadn't quite finished his job as the company's spokesman, and so if he was a human, would have he been expendable then?
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 11, 2009, 11:46:26 PM
As an aside, after Ripley jumps in the furnace, do we ever see Bishop II again? Like, can we identify him among the people walking out with Morse or whatever?
I've thought about Bishop II waiting with the surgeons while they finished gluing the side of his head back into place
Quote from: maledoro on Feb 01, 2009, 11:25:15 PM
Quote from: Johnny Handsome on Feb 01, 2009, 11:14:36 PM
He almost got his ear severed and a whole lot of the back of his head was open, and in the theatrical cut he shows no sign of pain.
Here's that scene. The back of his head was never open and his ear wasn't severed.
http://www.dailymotion.com/branman887/video/4982524 (http://www.dailymotion.com/branman887/video/4982524)
This scene is not the version from the Theatrical cut. I've just looked again at my Alien 3 theatrical cut on DVD. For some reason my DVD player program was having some trouble with the DVD only playing the special edition even if I clicked onto the Theatrical cut, but I've double checked it now.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Feb 12, 2009, 12:58:37 AM
This scene is not the version from the Theatrical cut.
That doesn't matter in that it shows
more footage of his head rather than
less of it. His ear didn't hang in the footage that was excised from that scene so it couldn't have been hanging in the Theatrical cut. It's not like that scene made his hanging ear disappear. Eargo (Ha!), the only way there could be a "hanging ear" in the Theatrical Cut is if you either imagined it to be there or if you lied about it. And neither one of those count.
You saw his ear from
every possible angle, so it wouldn't be a good course of action to use his ear hanging as "evidence".
And in regards to allegedly hanging off ears - Bishop's shoulder actually took the main force of the hit. The end of the wrench glanced off his bonce causing the wound. Aaron really is fairly useless, even in his final attempt at redemption.
Well I imagine he rarely had to do more than desk work before Ripley showed up, and that wrench was probably pretty heavy. :P
No, it isn't. At most, it was partially torn, but it wasn't hanging off.
Fine call it the writer in me to give more emphasis to the injury. But the blow did manage to at least tear cartlidge. (The ear is at least smashed off in the back, blood flowing a bit). Maybe not the worst injury, but still, its a wrench to the head. He just didn't seem too hurt/worried about it, and neither did anybody else for that matter. It just feels off to me, but thats my interpretation.
Quote from: dachande89 on Feb 12, 2009, 02:11:53 AM
No, it isn't. At most, it was partially torn, but it wasn't hanging off.
Fine call it the writer in me to give more emphasis to the injury. But the blow did manage to at least tear cartlidge. (The ear is at least smashed off in the back, blood flowing a bit). Maybe not the worst injury, but still, its a wrench to the head. He just didn't seem too hurt/worried about it, and neither did anybody else for that matter. It just feels off to me, but thats my interpretation.
I just looked at the DVD version of the clip that Maledoro gave us, I think the blood flowing out of the back of the ear was more than a bit, when he was feeling the pain and croaking out the words "I'm not a droid". I'm surprised he's not worried about it.
Priorities.
He don't got time to bleed.
Quote from: SM on Feb 12, 2009, 02:24:21 AM
Priorities.
He don't got time to bleed.
That medical team should certainly have been worried
Quote from: maledoro on Feb 12, 2009, 01:08:15 AM
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Feb 12, 2009, 12:58:37 AM
This scene is not the version from the Theatrical cut.
That doesn't matter in that it shows more footage of his head rather than less of it. His ear didn't hang in the footage that was excised from that scene so it couldn't have been hanging in the Theatrical cut. It's not like that scene made his hanging ear disappear. Eargo (Ha!), the only way there could be a "hanging ear" in the Theatrical Cut is if you either imagined it to be there or if you lied about it. And neither one of those count.
You saw his ear from every possible angle, so it wouldn't be a good course of action to use his ear hanging as "evidence".
Well, we were using that clip of this video clip to look at whether Bishop 2 experienced pain, at the time you gave it and well I'm seeing that he didn't experience pain in the actual movie, although of course an android. in the world of the Alien movies, can be seen to experience pain indeed, but I really want to apologise to Johnny Handsome because he observed that Bishop 2 showed no sign of pain in the theatrical cut and wanted to make that point and from what I was seeing from my DVD, I disagreed with him and obviously because my DVD player was giving me the wrong version of Alien 3, I was wrong.
Yea he should have been attended to, but maybe they were too involved seeing what Ripley was going to do next to pay attention to the bleeding company man...
Quote from: dachande89 on Feb 12, 2009, 02:38:30 AM
Yea he should have been attended to, but maybe they were too involved seeing what Ripley was going to do next to pay attention to the bleeding company man...
well, that's true, but looking at the amount of blood pouring out of the man's head, I'm starting to wonder if that was from the origiinal shoot where Bishop2 died
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Feb 12, 2009, 02:33:45 AM
That medical team should certainly have been worried
What "medical team" where? They weren't anywhere near him. There was one guy telling Ripley how easy the surgery would be. Everyone else had guns.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Feb 12, 2009, 02:33:45 AM
Well, we were using that clip of this video clip to look at whether Bishop 2 experienced pain
No, we were using it to show that his ear wasn't "hanging off". Once again, the pro-droids have to use deception.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Feb 12, 2009, 02:33:45 AM
well I'm seeing that he didn't experience pain in the actual movie, although of course an android.
It wasn't as obvious. And, taking a page from that place called "Reality", people have suffered worse head injuries with less reaction. But, you knew that as we've already covered that before. Not to mention that he had to do whatever he could in his power to make Ripley give up the embryo.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Feb 12, 2009, 02:33:45 AM
in the world of the Alien movies, can be seen to experience pain indeed
That doesn't prove that one is a droid.
QuoteAnd, taking a page from that place called "Reality", people have suffered worse head injuries with less reaction. But, you knew that as we've already covered that before.
Gotta reinforce it once per page in the faint hope it might actually sink in.
Quote from: SM on Feb 12, 2009, 04:06:22 AM
QuoteAnd, taking a page from that place called "Reality", people have suffered worse head injuries with less reaction. But, you knew that as we've already covered that before.
Gotta reinforce it once per page in the faint hope it might actually sink in.
Even if it was that severe.
Quote from: maledoro on Feb 12, 2009, 03:25:07 AM
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Feb 12, 2009, 02:33:45 AM
That medical team should certainly have been worried
What "medical team" where? They weren't anywhere near him.
Well I think that they damn well ought to have taken notice of what was going on after the gunfire leading towards Aaron's death or one of the soldiers should have informed one of the medivac team members.
I'm glad that in the storyboards showing him lying on the ground the ground with side side of his head looking in the storyboards as if it were smashed open, they did all gather around him with concern.
Quote from: maledoro on Feb 12, 2009, 03:25:07 AM
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Feb 12, 2009, 02:33:45 AM
Well, we were using that clip of this video clip to look at whether Bishop 2 experienced pain
No, we were using it to show that his ear wasn't "hanging off". Once again, the pro-droids have to use deception.
Thankyou, well I'm interested more in the idea of mapping out the confusion about whether Bishop is an android or not, there's no point in my deciding that it must be one of the other. Although maybe I'm much more pro-cyborg in view that a significant percentage of the character's body is machine.
I may be wrong about Johnny Handsome and here I am talking about him behind his back almost and making assumptions about what he thought that might indeed be entirely false but it's what I am thinking at least, but I guess that Johnny Handsome and I were using that clip in ways that you didn't expect us to, I think that Johnny Handsome thought that you were presenting to him a scene from the theatrical version too and then well he knew it wasn't the theatrical cut (and may have thought that it was something that you edited adding the scene of pain in it), and unfortunately I didn't because my memory of that scene is shaky and so is my DVD playing program.
Quote from: maledoro on Feb 12, 2009, 03:25:07 AM
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Feb 12, 2009, 02:33:45 AM
well I'm seeing that he didn't experience pain in the actual movie, although of course an android.
It wasn't as obvious. And, taking a page from that place called "Reality", people have suffered worse head injuries with less reaction. But, you knew that as we've already covered that before.
Quote from: maledoro on Feb 12, 2009, 03:25:07 AM
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Feb 12, 2009, 02:33:45 AM
in the world of the Alien movies, can be seen to experience pain indeed
That doesn't prove that one is a droid.
Yes, SM has already mentioned that showing pain doesn't prove that one is an android, having spoken about the scene in Aliens where Bishop is ripped apart and I openly agreed with him when he made the statement the other day. okay, after "android", there should have been a comma but it turned out as a full stop, my fingers feel frozen at the moment so it's difficult to type.
so the full sentence should have read "I'm seeing that he didn't experience pain in the actual movie, although of course an android, in the world of the Alien movies, can be seen to experience pain indeed"
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Feb 12, 2009, 05:30:22 AM
Well I think that they damn well ought to have taken notice of what was going on after the gunfire leading towards Aaron's death or one of the soldiers should have informed one of the medivac team members.
Truthfully, we've only seen one guy who could have performed the surgery. The others could very well have been onboard the ship.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Feb 12, 2009, 05:30:22 AM
Thankyou, well I'm interested more in the idea of mapping out the confusion about whether Bishop is an android or not, there's no point in my deciding that it must be one of the other. Although maybe I'm much more pro-cyborg in view that a significant percentage of the character's body is machine.
So what if he should have a pace maker, hearing aid, and/or dentures?
Quote from: maledoro on Feb 12, 2009, 12:37:09 PM
Truthfully, we've only seen one guy who could have performed the surgery. The others could very well have been onboard the ship.
In the theatrical cut we've seen more than one man dressed up in the gear worn by the man who shows that at least he is knowledgeable about the surgery process in the extended cut although he says nothing in the theatrical cut. I don't know if he could have peformed the surgery and I don't know that he couldn't.
Quote from: maledoro on Feb 12, 2009, 12:37:09 PM
So what if he should have a pace maker, hearing aid, and/or dentures?
In my explorations about whether he is a human, a machine or a cyborg, I'm imagining a possible cyborg here that causes one to ask how much a human he is and how much a machine he is, maybe he is more machine than man or more man than machine, if he is not completely either one, and I don't think there's a final answer for me. Maybe a pace maker, hearing aid, and/or dentures might help to add up to being more machine than man, but if the character is part machine and part man, I really don't know which he is the more of, and I don't know if he has pace maker, hearing aid, and/or dentures or not.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Feb 14, 2009, 06:02:58 PM
In the theatrical cut we've seen more than one man dressed up in the gear worn by the man who shows that at least he is knowledgeable about the surgery process in the extended cut although he says nothing in the theatrical cut. I don't know if he could have peformed the surgery and I don't know that he couldn't.
FWIW, no matter which cut, they weren't too close by when Bishop's designer took the hit. Not to mention that he had to keep pitching the deal to Ripley at all cost.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Feb 14, 2009, 06:02:58 PM
In my explorations about whether he is a human, a machine or a cyborg, I'm imagining a possible cyborg here that causes one to ask how much a human he is and how much a machine he is, maybe he is more machine than man or more man than machine, if he is not completely either one, and I don't think there's a final answer for me. Maybe a pace maker, hearing aid, and/or dentures might help to add up to being more machine than man, but if the character is part machine and part man, I really don't know which he is the more of, and I don't know if he has pace maker, hearing aid, and/or dentures or not.
The point is that he doesn't show any attributes that point to him being anything different than an average Joe, unless one exaggerates or misinterprets something. I'm giving you an easy out by pointing out the fact that those who have the aforementioned implements are cyborgs. Since it's not part of the story, it doesn't matter how much machinery he has within.
Quote from: maledoro on Feb 14, 2009, 08:14:09 PM
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Feb 14, 2009, 06:02:58 PM
In the theatrical cut we've seen more than one man dressed up in the gear worn by the man who shows that at least he is knowledgeable about the surgery process in the extended cut although he says nothing in the theatrical cut. I don't know if he could have peformed the surgery and I don't know that he couldn't.
FWIW, no matter which cut, they weren't too close by when Bishop's designer took the hit. Not to mention that he had to keep pitching the deal to Ripley at all cost.
well if someone in this forum said that the troops should have told the medics, I would agree with that, or even if someone said that the troopers should have helped Bishop 2 back onto his feet, I would agree with that. Anything to make sure this character finished pitching his deal.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Feb 14, 2009, 06:02:58 PM
In my explorations about whether he is a human, a machine or a cyborg, I'm imagining a possible cyborg here that causes one to ask how much a human he is and how much a machine he is, maybe he is more machine than man or more man than machine, if he is not completely either one, and I don't think there's a final answer for me. Maybe a pace maker, hearing aid, and/or dentures might help to add up to being more machine than man, but if the character is part machine and part man, I really don't know which he is the more of, and I don't know if he has pace maker, hearing aid, and/or dentures or not.
The point is that he doesn't show any attributes that point to him being anything different than an average Joe, unless one exaggerates or misinterprets something. I'm giving you an easy out by pointing out the fact that those who have the aforementioned implements are cyborgs. Since it's not part of the story, it doesn't matter how much machinery he has within.
well, I probably wouldn't buy in to your interpretation of what an average joe is. He behaved in a very odd way as far as I could see. Of course it was a human actor doing it, but I don't see his behaviour as normal but then again people can behave odd anyway without the need for an explanation. as to why they are
I suppose you want to imagine the movie's story as being as simple as possible and I don't buy into that sort of simplicity. I think Bishop 2 was brought in to confuse the audience and for people to ask whether he is a man or a machine and indeed I can't ignore the things that I consider odd about Bishop 2. and over the years I've seen people as confused about the character as me, but I don't think that the ultimate answer to what he's supposed to be is to had by anyone who wants one that solid.
He's only odd and confusing if you ignore whats on screen.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Feb 17, 2009, 03:50:07 AM
well, I probably wouldn't buy in to your interpretation of what an average joe is. He behaved in a very odd way as far as I could see. Of course it was a human actor doing it, but I don't see his behaviour as normal but then again people can behave odd anyway without the need for an explanation.
You don't interact with people that much, do you?
;)
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Feb 17, 2009, 03:50:07 AM
I suppose you want to imagine the movie's story as being as simple as possible and I don't buy into that sort of simplicity. I think Bishop 2 was brought in to confuse the audience and for people to ask whether he is a man or a machine and indeed I can't ignore the things that I consider odd about Bishop 2. and over the years I've seen people as confused about the character as me, but I don't think that the ultimate answer to what he's supposed to be is to had by anyone who wants one that solid.
It's not that I want it to be simple; it's just that I don't believe in looking in a dark room for a black cat that doesn't exist.
Human, end of. I'm Alien 3 I know.
Quote from: Alien3 on Feb 18, 2009, 05:43:36 PM
Human, end of. I'm Alien 3 I know.
Nice shtick. ::)
I think human. If he was an android, why didn't Call have red blood in A:R?
HUMAN, end.
Quote from: Alien3 on Feb 23, 2009, 04:03:51 PM
HUMAN, end.
If only it were that simple. No this will go on forever I suppose.
Quote from: dachande89 on Feb 23, 2009, 07:23:00 PM
this will go on forever I suppose.....
Don't be ridiculous!! It's only been 2 years, 4 months and 23 days since this thread was started.
Oh, wait.......... ;D
Quote from: Vulhala on Feb 23, 2009, 07:29:10 PM
Quote from: dachande89 on Feb 23, 2009, 07:23:00 PM
this will go on forever I suppose.....
Don't be ridiculous!! It's only been 2 years, 4 months and 23 days since this thread was started.
Oh, wait.......... ;D
god that's funny.
Quote from: maledoro on Feb 17, 2009, 01:23:20 PM
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Feb 17, 2009, 03:50:07 AM
well, I probably wouldn't buy in to your interpretation of what an average joe is. He behaved in a very odd way as far as I could see. Of course it was a human actor doing it, but I don't see his behaviour as normal but then again people can behave odd anyway without the need for an explanation.
You don't interact with people that much, do you?
;)
Well, in the world of Science fiction, this person who I consider an oddball deserves further exploration. However in day to day reality I find that there are a lot of people I know who seem nice and decent on the surface but another side to them makes them demented extremist oddballs who none can give a valid reason for why they are as odd as they are and some have found how odd they were only when it was too later, and I've found that it serves me well to suss them out as soon as possible so i can avoid them before they might potentially become a nuisance to me.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Feb 17, 2009, 03:50:07 AM
I suppose you want to imagine the movie's story as being as simple as possible and I don't buy into that sort of simplicity. I think Bishop 2 was brought in to confuse the audience and for people to ask whether he is a man or a machine and indeed I can't ignore the things that I consider odd about Bishop 2. and over the years I've seen people as confused about the character as me, but I don't think that the ultimate answer to what he's supposed to be is to had by anyone who wants one that solid.
Quote from: maledoro on Feb 17, 2009, 01:23:20 PMIt's not that I want it to be simple; it's just that I don't believe in looking in a dark room for a black cat that doesn't exist.
well probably it's wonderful that you don't believe in looking in a dark room for a black cat that doesn't exist. And maybe it's wonderful that I've come to accept having armed police looking at my travel pass in the underground train stations to make sure I'm not a terrorist even though to me terrorists are only things that I read and hear about on the news. And if I found myself in the universe of Alien, after seeing the original film, it's probably wonderful for me to think that I'd probably be wandering around wondering whether certain people are human or synthetic, as it seems that Ripley and "85" found themselves doing that near to the end of Alien 3.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Feb 26, 2009, 10:43:41 PM
Well, in the world of Science fiction, this person who I consider an oddball deserves further exploration.
No, he really doesn't.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Feb 26, 2009, 10:43:41 PM
well probably it's wonderful that you don't believe in looking in a dark room for a black cat that doesn't exist.
You should try that approach; it will save you so much.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Feb 26, 2009, 10:43:41 PM
And maybe it's wonderful that I've come to accept having armed police looking at my travel pass in the underground train stations to make sure I'm not a terrorist even though to me terrorists are only things that I read and hear about on the news.
Said armed personnel at least have more than a whim to justify their being posted there.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Feb 26, 2009, 10:43:41 PM
And if I found myself in the universe of Alien, after seeing the original film, it's probably wonderful for me to think that I'd probably be wandering around wondering whether certain people are human or synthetic, as it seems that Ripley and "85" found themselves doing that near to the end of Alien 3.
And both dropped that notion after Bishop's designer was hit with the metal.
FWIW, if you're looking for a better candidate for an android, you might look at Aaron.
;)
Quote from: maledoro on Feb 28, 2009, 06:25:01 PM
FWIW, if you're looking for a better candidate for an android, you might look at Aaron. ;)
How so? Or did I miss the sarcasm in that? ;D
Quote from: Vulhala on Feb 28, 2009, 06:26:35 PM
Quote from: maledoro on Feb 28, 2009, 06:25:01 PM
FWIW, if you're looking for a better candidate for an android, you might look at Aaron. ;)
How so? Or did I miss the sarcasm in that? ;D
Oh, I guess my statement was ambiguous. I might have said that in jest,
or...(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FMusic%2520Smilies%2Fe8fe6c1d.gif&hash=e7a833ecbc8274633d2f112677d61be97cad8904)
Quote from: maledoro on Feb 28, 2009, 09:25:11 PM
Quote from: Vulhala on Feb 28, 2009, 06:26:35 PM
Quote from: maledoro on Feb 28, 2009, 06:25:01 PM
FWIW, if you're looking for a better candidate for an android, you might look at Aaron. ;)
How so? Or did I miss the sarcasm in that? ;D
Oh, I guess my statement was ambiguous. I might have said that in jest, or...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v338/maledoro/Music%20Smilies/e8fe6c1d.gif
*Hangs head*
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 01, 2009, 02:16:27 PM
Quote from: Vulhala on Mar 01, 2009, 01:32:41 PM
*Hangs head*
Yes, I was kidding about Aaron.
;)
It's funny really, because I'm generally that slow on the uptake face-to-face aswell ;D
Quote from: Vulhala on Mar 01, 2009, 02:21:12 PM
It's funny really, because I'm generally that slow on the uptake face-to-face aswell ;D
Allow me to prey upon your weakness...
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FEvil%2520Smilies%2F8b138a1f.gif&hash=580b6b1996391d5c6886578262e654413615cc6f)
Aaron was acting odd throughout the film (unlike another character who was accused of such and wasn't). He took several rounds of ammunition from an automatic rifle (or rifles), fell from an undeterminable height, and was shown still breathing with a "WTF" look on his face.
Yep: Gotta be a robot.
;)
Mitt der red food colouring.
QuoteAfter the scene, we went on a tour of the pyramid. The ground was filled with pieces of Aliens, and the heads were very well made, hard and shiny on the top. At midday, we went to eat in the canteen and a surprise guest came to the table. It was Lance Henriksen in person, I couldn't believe it!!! Sanaa Lathan on the other hand left after she had signed a photo for us.
Lance talked to me especially through my interpreter, Alison. The other winners didn't have too many questions to ask him but I asked if it was Bishop or the Queen from Aliens who had put the egg on the vessel but he didn't answer
He also confirmed that Bishop at the end of Alien 3 is an improved synthetic with red blood. The company was scared that Ripley would hurt herself in order to make sure the human race survived. Paul Anderson consulted with Lance a lot to write particular scenes in the film. He said to me that it will be the best Alien film that's ever been made. I asked him if his character is going to die in this film and he answered "Yes". Before I left, he signed a photograph for me.
From this very site. Just for the sake of arument lol
Quote from: Vulhala on Mar 03, 2009, 04:30:26 PM
From this very site. Just for the sake of arument
It was already argued and dismissed.
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 03, 2009, 09:00:13 PM
Quote from: Vulhala on Mar 03, 2009, 04:30:26 PM
From this very site. Just for the sake of arument
It was already argued and dismissed.
Wait, so the actual thoughts from the man who played the character in question, were dismissed? That makes no sense.
Director, writers and producers all said he was a human.
Hm. One guy, or everyone else who made the film.
lol everytime I come back here after long absences this thread is still going strong with people arguing that Bishop II was a robot. He wasn't there's more than enough proof.
QuoteDirector, writers and producers all said he was a human.
Hm. One guy, or everyone else who made the film.
As well as the One Guy who later changed his mind a decade later and then said he was a robot.
Quote from: SM on Mar 03, 2009, 10:16:30 PM
As well as the One Guy who later changed his mind a decade later and then said he was a robot.
SPECIAL ORDER 938
PRIORITY ONE
ENSURE COVER-UP OF ANY FUTURE FRANCHISE DIRECTOR'S MISTAKE(S).
ENSURE DENIAL OF ANY PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED FACTS IN FAVOUR OF CONFUSING AND MISLEADING DATA IN LATEST INSTALLMENT OR CROSSOVER.
BE AN APOLOGIST.
LOGIC AND COMMON SENSE EXPENDABLE.
according to this he is a android LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUJBGjPeAdA&feature=related
From AP...
Brazil doctors remove spear from man's head
Sun Mar 29, 4:52 pm ET
SAO PAULO – Surgeons successfully removed a 15-centimeter (6-inch) fishing spear from the brain of a man who was struck while diving off the coast of Rio de Janeiro, doctors said Sunday.
Emerson de Oliveira Abreu apparently fired the spear, which ricocheted off rocks and penetrated his own head so deeply that only the tip was showing, family members and authorities said. Local media initially reported that Abreu was accidentally shot by a friend.
Doctor Manoel Moreira told Globo TV that the it took five hours of high-risk surgery to remove the projectile from Abreu, who is doing well and is not likely to suffer major, lasting damage.
The spear entered just above Abreu's left eye and missed the most critical areas of his brain, Moreira said.
"It's a miracle," said Abreu's father, Edilson, according to Globo's G1 Web site.
**********
Miracle? Android with red food colouring more like!!
Quote from: Private W Hudson on Mar 30, 2009, 05:29:14 PM
according to this he is a android LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUJBGjPeAdA&feature=related
HA! lol ;D
Those rolling eyes! I love it! Great video! Yours?
Nah its not mine but cool sig man :P
Thanks to Chris P!
I always believed he was a human.
Kest, introduce yourself in the thread. Somewhere in the GENERAL topcis. You show up allot.
Excuse me ?
There was a topic "New members - introduce yourselves" or something. I'm seeing allot of your posts wherever I go. I just recomend.
BTW: Bishop in A3 was a robot.
Quote from: deadmeat on Apr 09, 2009, 11:10:09 AM
There was a topic "New members - introduce yourselves" or something. I'm seeing allot of your posts wherever I go. I just recomend.
But it's not a requirement.
Quote from: deadmeat on Apr 09, 2009, 11:10:09 AM
BTW: Bishop in A3 was a robot.
Not according to those who worked on that film. You know this. Go back to sleep.
QuoteQuoteThere was a topic "New members - introduce yourselves" or something. I'm seeing allot of your posts wherever I go. I just recomend.
But it's not a requirement.
Just helping new members around.
QuoteQuoteBTW: Bishop in A3 was a robot.
Not according to those who worked on that film. You know this. Go back to sleep.
They don't know what their saying. I knew it but didn't belive it. Bishop died 400 years ago in AvP. Idiot Fox. *snores*
Quote from: deadmeat on Apr 09, 2009, 03:21:20 PM
Just helping new members around.
That sounded a bit authoritive.
Quote from: deadmeat on Apr 09, 2009, 03:21:20 PM
They don't know what their saying. I knew it but didn't belive it. Bishop died 400 years ago in AvP. Idiot Fox. *snores*
Okay, then...
Before AVP f**ked everything up: Human (he bleeds red)
After AVP f**ked everthing up: Android
I've watched Alien3 again since AvP came out, and oddly enough, Bishop still bleeds red.
Quote from: SM on Apr 24, 2009, 04:00:43 AM
I've watched Alien3 again since AvP came out, and oddly enough, Bishop still bleeds red.
I know! I noticed that too.
Human. Thee End.
Quote from: Alien3 on Apr 24, 2009, 04:35:14 PM
Human. Thee End.
Why would you say that? Now that you've said "The end" this thread will be bumped to the top for another week lol ;D
Quote from: Vulhala on Apr 24, 2009, 04:52:05 PM
Why would you say that? Now that you've said "The end" this thread will be bumped to the top for another week lol ;D
The end, he is human in Alien 3. Thats it. End. There will be no "bumping" :P
In Aliens, doesn't Bishop say he's unable to harm a human in any way?
In the film, you can clearly see that he's trying to get the alien from Ripley. Allowing the alien to exist is a direct danger to human life.
And think about it - if Bishop was an android? WHY would he lie about it? And if he was an Android, would he really be allowed to lie to a human? I simply don't think so.
And as far as the Alien timeline is concerned, AVP never happened. Neither did AVP-R.
Quote from: Neon_Knight on Apr 25, 2009, 09:52:42 PM
And think about it - if Bishop was an android? WHY would he lie about it?
Because Ripley was known for having a Prejudice against Synthetics.
Quote from: dachande89 on Apr 25, 2009, 10:42:35 PM
Because Ripley was known for having a Prejudice against Synthetics.
Extremely good point. Forgot about that.
But the Bishop android in Aliens was very much sympathetic to ripley, and agreed that the aliens should all be killed. Why would this bishop "android" be any different? I don't think that they would build androids with a capacity to lie, at least at that time. I mean, after the initial Ash incident, of course, but as Bishop said, new models, new protocols. And why would they put "fake" red blood into a bishop android? I dunno. The director's and the writers' initial intentions I think were that Bishop in A3 is human.
Also - if they were going to send an android, why send one that Ripley would recognise? She has a prejudice against androids, that's been established, why bother sending an android that looks like bishop, and then have to go through the process of having to try to convince ripley that it is indeed human?
Actually Androids were capable of lying. Ash lied to his entire crew in Alien. Said he let Kane in to save his life, where it was really to make sure the Alien survived. Also lied about being human in Alien. And that Android existed 57 years before Aliens, and was capable of lying, so the newer models would be able to lie as well.
Maybe sending a "friendly face" was their idea. A face she remembered. But really, idk y they would send an android of the same model. Maybe hoping she was going mad and believe it was the bishop she knew? Idk. And as for the red blood, the only thing I have for a reference of red blood in an Android is Alien Female War. But as someone stated, Call bled white in Resurrection, so why would androids bleed red in Alien 3, but white again in Resurrection? There are gaps.
I already said about Ash :P The Bishop model androids were completely new. Bishop said himself, he's much more advanced than the Ash model and is incapable of harming a human in any way, unlike the glitchy Ash model. Your logic is somewhat flawed. The old models had the capacity to kill humans too - that was corrected in the later models. It makes sense that they'd correct the lying issue as well.
And If we're taking an Asimov view, I imagine programmers would program an incapacity to lie too. But I suppose you can't just assume these things.
You're right there are gaps.. I like to think he's human. Just.. I mean, it would make a better film if he were human IMO, something different, a twist of some kind. My view is that he's human. It actually puts a real person, a real face to the evil company. You finally get to see the person in charge, so desperate to get the alien that he's risk contamination by going to the prison planet, to capture it. It shows a company in desperation, a person which a real need.
And yes, allowing the alien to live poses a direct thread to human safety, and the androids have no capacity to allow any harm to come to a human.
Quote from: Neon_Knight on Apr 26, 2009, 12:23:09 AM
The Bishop model androids were completely new. Bishop said himself, he's much more advanced than the Ash model and is incapable of harming a human in any way, unlike the glitchy Ash model.
A couple of things. First, he didn't say that he was much more advanced than Ash. He said that Ash was an older model and that the older model was "twitchy". He also said that he had behavioral inhibitors. He may or may not be more advanced; but if we were to to just go by what he said, he doesn't seem to be that much more advanced. Secondly, when he was talking about the older models and himself, he might have been just trying to be conciliatory.
Quote from: Neon_Knight on Apr 26, 2009, 12:23:09 AM
And If we're taking an Asimov view, I imagine programmers would program an incapacity to lie too. But I suppose you can't just assume these things.
A third thing: There wasn't anything about Bishop being programmed by someone at U.S. Robotics and robots can be programmed to do any of the things that the Three Laws stand against.
Quote from: Neon_Knight on Apr 26, 2009, 12:23:09 AM
I like to think he's human.
So does everyone who had worked on
Alien³.
Quote from: Neon_Knight on Apr 26, 2009, 12:23:09 AM
You finally get to see the person in charge, so desperate to get the alien that he's risk contamination by going to the prison planet, to capture it.
We don't know if he's the head honcho or someone roped in by the Bioweapons Division to help with the retrieval.
Quote from: Neon_Knight on Apr 26, 2009, 12:23:09 AM
And yes, allowing the alien to live poses a direct thread to human safety, and the androids have no capacity to allow any harm to come to a human.
See my third point.
All very good points.
Taking a purely cinematic point of view, I think it's intended that Bishop is human. I think it's hard to explain why, but to me it just feels that way. When bishop says "no, I am Bishop's designer", there's no actual reason to think he's lying. I mean if we're talking about camera work, to indicate somebody lying usually features closeups of hands, or a nervous expression, or a general closeup of the face or mouth.
I think if Bishop was lying there, Fincher would have made it obvious, made a big deal of it, wouldn't have left it to the viewer's imagination. Then again perhaps not.
Quote from: Neon_Knight on Apr 26, 2009, 02:34:09 AM
Taking a purely cinematic point of view, I think it's intended that Bishop is human.
It was. The makeup effects people explained how they had gone to lengths to show that he was human.
QuoteAsh lied to his entire crew in Alien. Said he let Kane in to save his life, where it was really to make sure the Alien survived. Also lied about being human in Alien.
At what point what Ash asked a question where he deliberately gave an untrue response.
Why he let the crew back into the ship. He said it was to save Kane's life, where he knew it was not for Kane's benefit. In the original script they had Ash lying a lot.
When did he actually lie though? Obviously he withheld information; he was ordered too. But I don't recall any point where he flat out lied. For all Ash knew, Kane best chance of survival was getting him back on board. Conveniently it also let him fulfulli his special order about obtaining specimens.
QuoteSaid he let Kane in to save his life, where it was really to make sure the Alien survived. Also lied about being human in Alien.
Now you don't know that! He's
never lied to me! He's crazy, he's twitchy, but he's not a liar!
Crap, heres where I'm finding it a little difficult to seperate the novel from the film. In the novel there are a large amount of instances of him lying. He sounded the alarm, but he declared he didn't. Dallas accuses Ash of with holding info about the creatures development in Kane. Scanners had to show that a certain amount of nutrients were being taken from Kane. Some kind of read outs should have shown that. It makes sense though, Ash most definitly with held info, he was scanning over Kane's read outs constantly. Any change in body function, he would have noticed it, and chose not to report it. With holding of info, and lying to his superiors of no change in Kane.
The nutrients could've been feeding the hugger for all anyone knew.
Going back to the question at hand - what esle can be said that havent been said already? Its interesting what a huge debate it sparked when the answer is actually given. As we all (or most of us) know, and whats been said many times before in this thread, the novelization answers the question - Micheal Bichop/Bioshop II was a man
I dont know about A3 novelization, but in vast majority of the cases, and ESPECIALLY back in the days, the writer of the novelization worked closely with the director/writers of the movie. So Im prety confident Foster didnt just came up with it on the spot
Besides, this is a movie we're talking about. If Bishop weas a droid, for the sake of the story and audiences it would be shown/revealed in a fairly obvious matter - like white blood for example. yes, I know this also has been addressed many times in the thread, but some say he didnt have white blood to trick Ripley. While it may be a good explanation within the story, the movie itself needs something to show the audience that hes a robot - like with Ash in Alien. And there was no such thing in A3
ADF did take the 'Bishop = human' from the script, but didn't work closely with the filmmakers on Alien3.
Quote from: SM on May 11, 2009, 11:30:57 PM
ADF did take the 'Bishop = human' from the script, but didn't work closely with the filmmakers on Alien3.
It was even in the script?
Yeah. Scripted and shot.
Hmm. So why is that poll so close in results? I understand Anderson confused people by his version of Bishop's origins, but Anderson had no part in A3 so respectfully , he doesnt have any qualifications or right to make such changes to major characters and plots. In his movie Bishop may have different origins but AVPs are more like spinoffs for me
Plus, the A3 related sources (Novelization, lack of any obvious implication for the audience and possibly script) already answered the question. The good old rule - look and youll find
Definately script. The scripted lines "I am not a droidddd!" are in the assembly cut and workprint.
Yeah, I know the assembly cut. I consider myself to be very knowledgable in Alien and Aliens, but as far as Alien 3 i dont know half as much even tho I love the movie.
He could still lie of course, but again, even if we discard the novelization, having him bleed with the red blood would confuse the audience and wouldnt be much of a 'reveal' that he's a droid, just the opposite
Quite.
Bishop II was human. He isn't an android , maybe he is a part cyborg , with robotic implants , but I believe he is mainly human. It is unlikely a plain android would be sent there without a high ranking man there. I used to like to think he was the head of the Weyland branch of Weyland Yutani , thus a human. Then I thought he was a simple android , it fit better. Then I thought he was " Michael Bishop ". Now I think he is human with some cybernetic parts. Also just curious about a point likely brought up before , How did Giedman and the other USSM buy out WY or whatever. Was it soon after Alien 3 or closer to the final alien movie? also is this the longest topic ever. It has over 118 pages , the only one I'VE seen over 100 pages.
Quote from: The PredBen on May 15, 2009, 11:45:45 PM
maybe he is a part cyborg , with robotic implants , but I believe he is mainly human. Now I think he is human with some cybernetic parts.
Why? There is nothing that suggests even that.
Quote from: The PredBen on May 15, 2009, 11:45:45 PM
Also just curious about a point likely brought up before , How did Giedman and the other USSM buy out WY or whatever.
They didn't; WalMart* bought out WY.
I know that - but don't you think after that Erinns guy hit him with a wrench he'd be out cold. If someone hit me with a wrench I'd be out cold. I am suggesting minor implants. Also good joke , Walmart is evil. I made a band once , we were bought out by Walmarr.
Quote from: The PredBen on May 16, 2009, 12:39:36 AM
I know that - but don't you think after that Erinns guy hit him with a wrench he'd be out cold. If someone hit me with a wrench I'd be out cold. I am suggesting minor implants.
Since the dawn of Man, people had reacted even less to greater head injuries. This was already covered in this thread. Not to mention how unlikely the Company would expect someone like Bishop's designer to take such knocks to the head and have the foresight to put implants there just in case...
Quote from: The PredBen on May 16, 2009, 12:39:36 AM
Also good joke , Walmart is evil. I made a band once , we were bought out by Walmarr.
Take it as a joke if you want, but you might want to read this (http://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=22691.0).
Quote from: maledoro on May 16, 2009, 12:49:05 AM
Since the dawn of Man, people had reacted even less to greater head injuries. This was already covered in this thread.
Yeah. Also, he wasnt directly hit in the back of the head right? His ear was hurt and bleeding, meaning he took the biggest hit on the side of his head
Quote from: JamesCameronOnline on May 16, 2009, 05:42:47 AM
Yeah. Also, he wasnt directly hit in the back of the head right? His ear was hurt and bleeding, meaning he took the biggest hit on the side of his head
Yep.
Even though its played solid , I think that WalMart isn't the WalMart say , I'd go to. Anyway Bishop needs to be brought back somehow in the alien series. I always thought , why not do a movie in between Alien 3 and A:R , that way we can see what happened , and how they lost their aliens. WY doesn't seem they'd just get bought out. They were hungry , almost as much as the whole USSM , Which I hated. So yeah that would be a good film. Ripley could even appear in it for a few short cameos.
Quote from: The PredBen on May 16, 2009, 01:22:51 PM
Even though its played solid , I think that WalMart isn't the WalMart say , I'd go to.
That's the reason why I had groaned when I heard that line uttered in the movie. I really don't like Joss Whedon's writing.
Quote from: The PredBen on May 16, 2009, 01:22:51 PM
Anyway Bishop needs to be brought back somehow in the alien series.
You may want him back, but he doesn't
need to be back. Plus, with WY being the way they are, he was probably left in even worse condition after the third movie's events than when Ripley found him.
Quote from: The PredBen on May 16, 2009, 01:22:51 PM
I always thought , why not do a movie in between Alien 3 and A:R , that way we can see what happened , and how they lost their aliens.
The last one(s) died in the third film.
Quote from: The PredBen on May 16, 2009, 01:22:51 PM
WY doesn't seem they'd just get bought out. They were hungry , almost as much as the whole USSM , Which I hated.
Hungry people do not always get what they want, so it's very likely for WY to get bought out.
Quote from: The PredBen on May 16, 2009, 01:22:51 PM
So yeah that would be a good film. Ripley could even appear in it for a few short cameos.
There wouldn't be too much to see of her, considering that she was vaporized.
true ... she was vaporized , okay. But what I am trying to say is , a film in between the 3rd and the final Alien films. Aliens of course would be there. Perhaps Weyland Yutani go's in search for the space jockey home world. They find Aliens there. they lose a big fight. Much later , say 30 years , "WALMART" Buys out Weyland Yutani. We see them in turn get bought out by the USSM. They then find were the last of Weyland Yutani's alien section goes and finds them all dead. They take a few alien samples , then later clone Ripley.
Quote from: The PredBen on May 16, 2009, 01:52:01 PM
true ... she was vaporized , okay. But what I am trying to say is , a film in between the 3rd and the final Alien films.
But she was vaporized at the end of the third film and was brought back toward the beginning of the fourth. She would be "unavailable" between those films.
Quote from: The PredBen on May 16, 2009, 01:52:01 PM
Aliens of course would be there.
Again, they died with her and were reborn with her. No aliens available between those films.
Quote from: The PredBen on May 16, 2009, 01:52:01 PM
Perhaps Weyland Yutani go's in search for the space jockey home world. They find Aliens there. they lose a big fight. Much later , say 30 years
But we don't know that they would find aliens there. Plus, if they were able to find aliens elsewhere, they wouldn't have to resort to cloning them. Not to mention that they would have been mentioned in the fourth movie.
Quote from: The PredBen on May 16, 2009, 01:52:01 PM
"WALMART" Buys out Weyland Yutani. We see them in turn get bought out by the USSM.
There is no mention of the USM buying WalMart in the fourth movie.
There could be a movie about WY's last struggle for power. Perhaps they DO find aliens somewhere, and the conflict of the movie results in the company losing all specimens or the destruction of the source where said aliens were found. And just because AR didnt mention Walmart bring bought out doesnt mean that it couldnt have happened. There is SO much of a gap between 3 and AR, that any number of possible story lines can be used given the right amount skill, and all of them could theoretically have Bishop back. And if anything, I think that Bishop is the perfect character to bridge the end of WY.
Quote from: Undeadite on May 17, 2009, 01:04:53 AM
There could be a movie about WY's last struggle for power. Perhaps they DO find aliens somewhere, and the conflict of the movie results in the company losing all specimens or the destruction of the source where said aliens were found.
It would still contradict the events in the existing films.
Quote from: Undeadite on May 17, 2009, 01:04:53 AM
And just because AR didnt mention Walmart bring bought out doesnt mean that it couldnt have happened.
Reread that over and over. There's a flaw in the reasoning.
Quote from: Undeadite on May 17, 2009, 01:04:53 AM
There is SO much of a gap between 3 and AR, that any number of possible story lines can be used given the right amount skill, and all of them could theoretically have Bishop back.
I like it when someone says that. Let's hear some of these storylines.
Quote from: Undeadite on May 17, 2009, 01:04:53 AM
And if anything, I think that Bishop is the perfect character to bridge the end of WY.
Discombobulated?
Maybe the Bishop from A3 was a clone? I mean, they just HAVE to have such technology by then! if they ever make Alien 5 (wich I very much doubt), they could bring in Lance again, maybe.
Quote from: deadmeat on May 17, 2009, 12:08:12 PM
Maybe the Bishop from A3 was a clone? I mean, they just HAVE to have such technology by then!
That idea was already refuted in this thread.
Quote from: deadmeat on May 17, 2009, 12:08:12 PM
if they ever make Alien 5 (wich I very much doubt), they could bring in Lance again, maybe.
Since the third film, his face has been associated with that of WY. Since WY was no more by the next film, there would be no narrative point in having Henriksen back.
Quote from: maledoro on May 17, 2009, 12:44:21 PM
That idea was already refuted in this thread.
F**k. :(
Quote from: maledoro on May 17, 2009, 12:44:21 PM
Since the third film, his face has been associated with that of WY. Since WY was no more by the next film, there would be no narrative point in having Henriksen back.
Wasn't the ship in A:R from WY? I haven't seen that movie in a long time, so maybe i'm just imagining. :-\
Quote from: deadmeat on May 17, 2009, 01:48:35 PM
Wasn't the ship in A:R from WY?
It was the United Systems Military. WY was bought out by Mall*Wart long before.
Quote from: maledoro on May 17, 2009, 02:00:14 PM
It was the United Systems Military. WY was bought out by Mall*Wart long before.
Mall*Wart ;D lol.
So what actually happened to WY?
Quote from: deadmeat on May 17, 2009, 02:03:17 PM
So what actually happened to WY?
The parting comment made about it was "Spoils of war", which may or may not be literal as it's used everyday for non-martial events.
One image of WY that I've always hated was that they were some evil, all-powerful organization that owned most of the universe and had their hands in everything. If that were truly the case, they wouldn't have had to worry about getting caught sneaking aliens back to their labs via an unsuspecting tugboat crew or a bunch of marines. They might have predicted financial ruin was ahead for them, took some gambles in getting an alien for study and exploitation and hoped that their new "product" would turn things around. Since the last aliens were destroyed on LV-426 and in Fiorina's complex, the Company might have spiralled even faster toward collapse. (Losing a very expensive colony and selling off another for pennies on the dollar wouldn't have helped matters, either.)
In short, they may have just gone broke.
Quote from: maledoro on May 17, 2009, 02:30:58 PM
The parting comment made about it was "Spoils of war", which may or may not be literal as it's used everyday for non-martial events.
One image of WY that I've always hated was that they were some evil, all-powerful organization that owned most of the universe and had their hands in everything. If that were truly the case, they wouldn't have had to worry about getting caught sneaking aliens back to their labs via an unsuspecting tugboat crew or a bunch of marines. They might have predicted financial ruin was ahead for them, took some gambles in getting an alien for study and exploitation and hoped that their new "product" would turn things around. Since the last aliens were destroyed on LV-426 and in Fiorina's complex, the Company might have spiralled even faster toward collapse. (Losing a very expensive colony and selling off another for pennies on the dollar wouldn't have helped matters, either.)
In short, they may have just gone broke.
Talk about unprofessional managment!
Quote from: deadmeat on May 17, 2009, 04:16:13 PM
Talk about unprofessional managment!
It's the old joke: "What has more than six legs and no brain? A committee."
WY is just like a modern day company. I think the USSM wasn't a company , it was the human military , I mean those men there might have been marines ( the soldiers not the main people. ) Dr.Wren seems like he'd fit into WY well and likely rise up , had he been born in that time. But anyway I think until a new alien movie comes out , Bishop II will never be understood. Also why can't people believe he's human. If he turns out to be purely a random bishop robot , I'll be pissed off for my own reasons.
Quote from: maledoro on May 17, 2009, 04:18:57 PM
It's the old joke: "What has more than six legs and no brain? A committee."
;D
So the Bishop in A3 was an android if not a clone. That's my guess.
Quote from: The PredBen on May 17, 2009, 05:58:14 PM
WY is just like a modern day company.
Or any other company.
Quote from: The PredBen on May 17, 2009, 05:58:14 PM
I think the USSM wasn't a company , it was the human military , I mean those men there might have been marines ( the soldiers not the main people. )
That's a concept.
Quote from: The PredBen on May 17, 2009, 05:58:14 PM
Dr.Wren seems like he'd fit into WY well and likely rise up , had he been born in that time.
In a non-specific sort of way.
Quote from: The PredBen on May 17, 2009, 05:58:14 PM
But anyway I think until a new alien movie comes out , Bishop II will never be understood.
Most of us understood what the writers, director and others had made him out to be: Bishop's human designer. At least we don't have to jump through hoops to support claims that he's anything else but human.
Quote from: The PredBen on May 17, 2009, 05:58:14 PM
Also why can't people believe he's human.
Two main reasons. First, they misunderstood what had happened. Second, some
want him to be something other than human.
Quote from: The PredBen on May 17, 2009, 05:58:14 PM
If he turns out to be purely a random bishop robot , I'll be pissed off for my own reasons.
For letting some writer get away with
uncreative cheating retconning? I can't blame you.
Quote from: deadmeat on May 17, 2009, 05:59:18 PM
So the Bishop in A3 was an android if not a clone. That's my guess.
A pretty bad guess, since that was refuted, too.
I said if NOT aclone.
Quote from: deadmeat on May 17, 2009, 07:07:21 PM
I said if NOT aclone.
I read it correctly; he's neither an android or a clone.
The last time will see Bishop is in ALIENS - chess , guess who's the Bishop? But really , I think he'll not come back. Although if I could write an Alien 5 script ( which I may. ) I'd give him a strong and yet simple cameo. He is after all only human. Or is he? oh yeah thats the debate here. ;D
Quote from: The PredBen on May 17, 2009, 08:31:57 PM
The last time will see Bishop is in ALIENS
We see him in the next film; well, pieces of him.
Quote from: The PredBen on May 17, 2009, 08:31:57 PM
But really , I think he'll not come back.
Lance ain't getting younger.
Quote from: The PredBen on May 17, 2009, 08:31:57 PM
He is after all only human. Or is he? oh yeah thats the debate here.
It shouldn't be, but some people insist otherwise.
Im really not a fan of the 'I know better than the creators" attitude and appriach. I mean, if its made clear (novelization) that Bishop II was human, thats so he is. Yeah, Anderson took an opposite appraich and made a movie implying Bishop II wasnt human but a copy of Mr Weyland. But if you ask me, that isnt valid - it is what it is - a MISTAKE or MISINTEPRETATION, or even better - lack of research. Its just plainly wrong thus its not canon. Saying otherwise (that Bishop II weasnt human cause its not stated in the movie or whatever) is just covering your eyes . The answer WAS given. And given a long time ago
Quote from: VenomX on Dec 11, 2006, 08:59:05 AM
I really think Bishops clearity and cold focus even after the blow, was intentionally directed and acted out that way to show that he was after all an Android, also adding just another situation where it proves you cannot trust these corporations.
I agree. I am not a big 'Alien3' fan, but I always thought that was a great sort of 'bad Bishop' scene.
Its obvious its still an android putting on an unconvincing show as
the Weyland. I too think it was a concious decision to portray Weyland in an Android-esque way.
Eh? What 'clearity (sic) and cold focus'? He's BEGGING Ripley to give him the Alien. Smacks of desperation rather than any sort of focus.
Honestly I don't know if people actually pay attention while watching this scene, or just cherry pick bits to support bizarre opinions.
Quote from: Nachtfalke on May 18, 2009, 06:24:10 AM
I too think it was a concious decision to portray Weyland in an Android-esque way.
More like an unconscious way to perceive what was going on. He's human.
I've been thinking about this lately, and have come to a conclusion. He was human in A3 because by taking the Alien to study it, make weapons from it etc, he would directly put at least SOME human lives at risk. Maybe even our whole civilisation. And that goes against his core programming, which is something he said was "Impossible" in Aliens.
Some good points here, including this post. I haven't seen Alien3 in a while, I will have to view it again as I am speaking from my last viewing about 3 years ago.
I'll be back.
Quote from: Nachtfalke on May 18, 2009, 11:18:29 PM
Some good points here, including this post. I haven't seen Alien3 in a while, I will have to view it again as I am speaking from my last viewing about 3 years ago.
I'll be back.
Clicky (http://www.dailymotion.com/branman887/video/4982524)
QuoteI've been thinking about this lately, and have come to a conclusion. He was human in A3 because by taking the Alien to study it, make weapons from it etc, he would directly put at least SOME human lives at risk. Maybe even our whole civilisation. And that goes against his core programming, which is something he said was "Impossible" in Aliens.
To which the boring and predictable response is "Oh, they reprogrammed him while they were putting red food colouring in his blood".
The fact is , is that he is likely human. I'd be pissed if he was a shitty android , with no purpose at all but to be a friendly face. Did you see how he reacted when Ripley killed herself? he was insane and shouted out " NOOOOO!" but whatever
Quote from: maledoro on May 18, 2009, 11:57:20 PM
Clicky (http://www.dailymotion.com/branman887/video/4982524)
Yep, definitely human. After seeing the scene again, its obvious really.
Only problem is why he looks exactly like the AVP Weyland. Perhaps, as happened to Ripley, Weyland has been cloned a few times, as they did with with Ripley in A:R.
That would make sense to me. :o
PS. wether cloning was already possible at the time of A3 I can't say, does it reference it in A:R at all?
Cloning is possible NOW.
The pointlessness of cloning is that you cannot clone memories now. If you clone someone you get someone who looks the same, but doesn't have the same personality or life experiences.
As Perez asks "Why does it [Ripley8] have memories?" in Resurrection, you can't clone memories in 2381 either. The DNA mixing made the partial memories for Ripley8 possible. So even with Alien DNA you don't get a perfect copy. If you did, get a perfect copy there'd be no Alien DNA, and therefore no memories.
Quote from: Nachtfalke on May 19, 2009, 01:13:39 AM
Only problem is why he looks exactly like the AVP Weyland.
I'm
not going to post clips from
AVP to show you that their appearances are not alike.
Quote from: Nachtfalke on May 19, 2009, 01:13:39 AM
Perhaps, as happened to Ripley, Weyland has been cloned a few times, as they did with with Ripley in A:R. That would make sense to me.
The idea of him being a clone has been shot down, too.
Quote from: maledoro on May 19, 2009, 03:28:53 AM
I'm not going to post clips from AVP to show you that their appearances are not alike.
The idea of him being a clone has been shot down, too.
Well then, I give up. ;D
Quote from: SM on May 18, 2009, 06:54:32 AM
Eh? What 'clearity (sic) and cold focus'? He's BEGGING Ripley to give him the Alien. Smacks of desperation rather than any sort of focus.
Plus this. In Aliens, Bishop was emotionless all the way through the movie. Didn't get excited or scared visibly at any point at all. Even when the Queens tail went through him he just looked slightly suprised.
Bishop in Alien3 however, looked like he was gonna burst into tears at one point. He was begging her to give him the creature, and was trying everything he could including LYING to her. To lie, you need imagination, which is something you can't put into a robot.
The video shown is clearly proof he is human. But what is up with that whole " no pictures?" was that a scene or a directors screw up?
That was something odd. I don't ever recall it being scripted, nor do I recall it being in the novelisation, and it had been cut by the time the Workprint was put together. Not sure what Bishop's motivation is there. Whether he's doing it out of ego, or respect for Ripley.
I thought it was to help persuade Ripley that he cared for her, to not objectify her as some project.
Or he didn't want the Company to know that he dropped the ball. Sure, he could say that she was vaporized, but he could make something up, like she accidentally fell in or an inmate pushed her in. If he shows her taking the swan dive, the Company would ask more questions such as why didn't he stop her.
Possibly, athough he could have order to destroy the pictures afterwards. Just like someone said above, i always assumed he wanted to show the concern for Ripley, but again, why would pictures be the problem then? Perhaps he didnt want to show that she was already being treated like an R&D object with scientists documenting her every move and herself like some animal or a freak
also did anyone notice his high and hard to hear voice when he said " I'm not a droid!" it was either , crappy sound effects for that scene or perhaps Lance was acting insane IDK.
It was restored from very old and (likely) production audio. Not much different to a lot of other restored audio for the Alien3 AC.
So my idea of him being a clone was right.
Quote from: deadmeat on May 21, 2009, 02:46:53 PM
So my idea of him being a clone was right.
Uh...
no. Why did you think that?
F**k, didn't read those replies correctly.
Quote from: Nachtfalke on May 19, 2009, 01:13:39 AM
Yep, definitely human. After seeing the scene again, its obvious really.
Only problem is why he looks exactly like the AVP Weyland. Perhaps, as happened to Ripley, Weyland has been cloned a few times, as they did with with Ripley in A:R. That would make sense to me. :o
PS. wether cloning was already possible at the time of A3 I can't say, does it reference it in A:R at all?
Or you can pretend AvP never happened. Which is a good thought.
Quote from: The Demon on May 21, 2009, 05:34:44 PM
Or you can pretend AvP never happened. Which is a good thought.
It doesn't matter;
AVP never had any bearing on
Alien³.
Avp is a part of the branched off series. The fact is , sadly , shall a new alien movie come out without Rildey or Cameron or Weaver involved AVP material will be treated as cannon , sad but true , anyway yeah... for Bishop II he was meant to be either a robot or a human.
Quote from: The PredBen on May 21, 2009, 10:40:39 PM
for Bishop II he was meant to be either a robot or a human.
It's not an either/or proposition; he was human and meant to be human all along.
Thanks and I now agree , he was meant to be human , although I think Lance said he thought that the bishop II was an advanced robot or android. Although that was wiki and possibly a guess by a fan. ;D
Quote from: The PredBen on May 21, 2009, 11:12:50 PM
Thanks and I now agree , he was meant to be human , although I think Lance said he thought that the bishop II was an advanced robot or android. Although that was wiki and possibly a guess by a fan. ;D
O
keeee... The history of this whole thing, short and sweet:
1) The team who had written, directed, acted in, and everything else involved with
Alien³, stated that the character in question was human.
2) Some people who either didn't understand what was going on or just thought that it would be kewler lied about and/or assumed that the character in question was something other than human.
3)
AVP is released with Ol' Lance cast to increase the Wow Factor and to add some Alien Cred to Anderson's movie. After people started asking questions about Chuck Weyland and Bishop's designer looking alike, Anderson became an apologist (liar) to cover his goof and pointed his finger at the other film, of which he had no hand in creating.
4) Since Ol' Lance is under contract to promote
AVP, he follows the Talk No Smack About Your Most Recent Project clause to the letter and tells starry-eyed fans that the guy who shows up toward the end of
Alien³ is a robot because it's easier than trying to explain reality to them and because it sounds kewler.
So, basically, Anderson farted and pointed at
Alien³ and Ol' Lance sprayed some pine scent.
that makes sense now , thanks :).
I just go with the simplest answer to make Alien 3 work with AVP, He was Bishop Weyland's descendent. His great great great great (insert how many greats you want) grandson.
Quote from: dachande89 on May 22, 2009, 12:39:52 AM
I just go with the simplest answer to make Alien 3 work with AVP, He was Bishop Weyland's descendent. His great great great great (insert how many greats you want) grandson.
Yeh, my thoughts were that initially as well, but the fact he looks so darn similar is bothersome.
I know over generations, as I have seen it myself, features may be replicated, but its very rare.
My Cousin's likeness to a centuries old portrait of one of our ancestors in Germany is uncanny, right down to the style of beard, so I guess its possible. 8)
...time travel..? *shrugs and walks away*. ::)
Holy crap! You're right!!!
Bishop is goddamn TERMINATOR!!!!! :o
Quote from: SM on May 22, 2009, 04:28:34 AM
Holy crap! You're right!!!
Bishop is goddamn TERMINATOR!!!!! :o
Hey, 'Aliens vs Predator vs Terminator' anyone?
Weyland in AVP was the CSM-101 (cancer stricken magnate-101). :D
AvPvT sucked balls.
Quote from: SM on May 22, 2009, 06:44:11 AM
AvPvT sucked balls.
That is true. I found it pretty weak.
Quote from: SM on May 22, 2009, 06:44:11 AM
AvPvT sucked balls.
Or like Eric Cartman would say, it sucked Donkey Balls
Bishop ummmmm human ??? or android..he was suppose to be human
Why did this thread leave the Aliens film section? :-[ :P ::) ??? 8) :o :( :(
You would think the line "I'm very human" would give this one away...
Quote from: The PredBen on May 31, 2009, 02:51:31 PM
Why did this thread leave the Aliens film section? :-[ :P ::) ??? 8) :o :( :(
Uh, it's still here...
::) :P >:( :-X :D
Though hopefull now it will drop off and become a non-issue.
Oh bugger I just bumped it, didn't I?
Oh well, there'll be a clone of Weyland in the new Alien prequel pulling the strings, anyway. Or maybe Ian Holm will pop up as Ash's creator and current head of Weyland Yutani & Ash (Pty Ltd).
I don't think we need another appearance by Lance Henriksen to remind us how good of a film Aliens was.
No ... no ... when I looked for it a few days ago it was removed from the important topics list and wasn't directly below it , I thought this was a good thread or rather one of great importance. LOL.
Quote from: The PredBen on Jun 01, 2009, 09:15:34 PM
I thought this was a good thread or rather one of great importance. LOL.
It's hardly of great importance; it's little more than a group of people who ignore what the makers of
Alien³ said versus those who knew better.
True ... its just that there was so many posts here ... nevermind ... yeah.
He was a droid!! He was human!! He was a droid!! He was human!! He's a droid!! You're wrong!! No - you're wrong!!
Quote from: Spidey3121 on Jun 04, 2009, 03:14:51 AM
He was a droid!! He was human!! He was a droid!! He was human!! He's a droid!! You're wrong!! No - you're wrong!!
Take time to actually read the posts in the thread; it's not as simple as you may think it is.
Those who claim that he was a droid have to exaggerate, lie, ignore facts, and/or not use critical thinking in order to support their claims. Those who know that he's human are smart enough not to pretend that they know know more about the character than the people who had created him.
Quote from: maledoro on Jun 04, 2009, 11:38:43 AM
Quote from: Spidey3121 on Jun 04, 2009, 03:14:51 AM
He was a droid!! He was human!! He was a droid!! He was human!! He's a droid!! You're wrong!! No - you're wrong!!
Take time to actually read the posts in the thread; it's not as simple as you may think it is.
Those who claim that he was a droid have to exaggerate, lie, ignore facts, and/or not use critical thinking in order to support their claims. Those who know that he's human are smart enough not to pretend that they know know more about the character than the people who had created him.
I have read a fair bit of this thread before and somewhere in it there are a bunch of posts by me in favor of his being an android. Much later a post about how i realize most evidence points to him being human but my initial reaction to the film, the 1st & 2nd times i saw it actually, was that he was an android. That then received criticism b/c someone said i was ignoring facts, except i wasn't b/c i had admitted that he was intended to be human. I was mostly just mocking the fact that for some reason people still debate this. Of course, most recent posts seem to involve Terminators so i guess the thread has wandered off topic as is.
I don't know why this is even a discussion. He is hit in the head and bleeds human blood. He states that he is human time after time. And he gave orders to the workers a droid never gives the orders it takes orders and puts its self in harms way so that the human doesn't have to if he was a droid he would have climbed over to Ripley or done something, anything to stop her but he was only human. :o
Now i agree that he is human but using arguments like 'he said he was a human' can easily be refuted by someone who believed otherwise by saying that he was lying in an attempt to trick Ripley. Androids never give orders? No - i suppose we've never seen it happen but i wouldn't say it's not possible, especially if the ploy was to convince Ripley that he was human. Now the very red blood that he bleeds seals the deal that he is in fact human, but other than that pretty much everything that is shown in either cut of the film can be argued.
Maybe he was programmed to sense pain... maybe he was programmed to believe he was human... maybe he was a prototype for new type of "infiltrator" style droids, hence the red (fake) blood.
Why am I bothering posting ideas that have probably been gone over many times before?
Quote from: TJ Doc on Jun 08, 2009, 12:20:28 PM
Maybe he was programmed to sense pain... maybe he was programmed to believe he was human... maybe he was a prototype for new type of "infiltrator" style droids, hence the red (fake) blood.
Why am I bothering posting ideas that have probably been gone over many times before?
These things are all theoretically possible but no evidence supports it. The red blood coupled with the filmmakers intent makes it pretty clear he was human. The fact that he could be an improved model is also often refuted with (a) Call had white 'blood' in Alien Resurrection 200 years afterwards + (b) little time passed between Aliens + Alien 3 so how it's unlikely such an advancement would be made between the two films.
Yes, I have considered Call and her white gunk... but perhaps Bishop II was a "Top Secret" version that the company had been working on; and what with the Ripley's past with the first Bishop, they decided to send out the prototype model which was based on the Bishop design?
As for why we don't see red-"blooded" synthetics by the time of Alien: Resurrection, maybe the "Top Secret" model never saw the light of day. After all, Weyland Yutani supposedly went bust (or something) in between the events of Alien 3 and Resurrection.
What say you?
Like i said before it's theoretically possible but it's a stretch and nothing shown in the movies indicates that to being the case.
Is there any Alien books or graphic novels that exist that in any way make reference to it? Because if there aren't, then one should probably be conjured up.
Quote from: TJ Doc on Jun 09, 2009, 03:07:05 PM
Is there any Alien books or graphic novels that exist that in any way make reference to it? Because if there aren't, then one should probably be conjured up.
Why? It isn't necessary.
Quote from: maledoro on Jun 09, 2009, 10:42:33 PM
Quote from: TJ Doc on Jun 09, 2009, 03:07:05 PM
Is there any Alien books or graphic novels that exist that in any way make reference to it? Because if there aren't, then one should probably be conjured up.
Why? It isn't necessary.
I agree, besides it would destroy threads like this, where's the fun in that?
Destroy how? Most people just ignore the comics and novels here.
What comics and novels?
Quote from: TJ Doc on Jun 08, 2009, 10:46:32 PM
Yes, I have considered Call and her white gunk... but perhaps Bishop II was a "Top Secret" version that the company had been working on; and what with the Ripley's past with the first Bishop, they decided to send out the prototype model which was based on the Bishop design?
As for why we don't see red-"blooded" synthetics by the time of Alien: Resurrection, maybe the "Top Secret" model never saw the light of day. After all, Weyland Yutani supposedly went bust (or something) in between the events of Alien 3 and Resurrection.
What say you?
I will still stand by that he is human and that AVP movie f**ked it all up therefore, I personally don't consider the AVP movies cannon to the Alien universe only Alien-Alien Res.
Quote from: Mr. Stizout on Jun 10, 2009, 12:02:36 PM
I will still stand by that he is human and that AVP movie f**ked it all up therefore, I personally don't consider the AVP movies cannon to the Alien universe only Alien-Alien Res.
I still don't see what the conflict is; why there couldn't be two different guys living in two different times who may or may not be related.
Quote from: maledoro on Jun 10, 2009, 02:25:33 PM
Quote from: Mr. Stizout on Jun 10, 2009, 12:02:36 PM
I will still stand by that he is human and that AVP movie f**ked it all up therefore, I personally don't consider the AVP movies cannon to the Alien universe only Alien-Alien Res.
I still don't see what the conflict is; why there couldn't be two different guys living in two different times who may or may not be related.
So you're saying there were two Charles Bishop Weylands? I don't think so. And I agree AVP is not cannon with the original Alien timeline, and in Alien 3 Bishop II is human.
Indeed, and until AVP came out it was clear that Bishop II was meant to be human. But I do consider AVP to be canon (after all, it leads in to Requiem, which was canon). And as a result of that, a reason for why Bishop II is an android needs to made. In short: DAMN YOU ANDERSON!!!
But yes, Nachtfalke, you're right. Such evidence would make threads like this completely and utterly pointless. :)
The reason you consider AvP canon is because it leads to Requiem...?
Yes. Because if it weren't for the events of AVP, then the Predator technology would never have fallen into Ms. Yuatani's hands at the end of Requiem.
Now, I realise that there are no obvious connecting threads from these to the Alien films (for instance, we don't know how Weyland and Yutani merged), but we can assume for now that this new-found technology led to the space travel that we first saw in ALIEN.
Well whoopdie-f**king-doo! The s**t is now part of the franchise! < :'( >:( :( ::) :P
My sentiments exactly. :(
Quotebut we can assume for now that this new-found technology led to the space travel that we first saw in ALIEN.
We learnt FTL travel, hypersleep and artificial gravity from a gun?
And then go back to using bullets?
Quote from: Alien³ on Jun 10, 2009, 02:35:52 PM
So you're saying there were two Charles Bishop Weylands? I don't think so. And I agree AVP is not cannon with the original Alien timeline, and in Alien 3 Bishop II is human.
So you're saying that you don't know the meaning of the word "different", as in, "Two different (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/different) guys living in two different (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/different) times"? Since that was what I had said, and unless your (apparent) definition of "different" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/identical) varies from mine (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/different), I had meant that Charles Bishop Weyland from
AVP was a different guy than Bishop's designer in
Alien³. How you managed to think I said they were one and the same, I'll never know.
So, one more time, I said that they were two different (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/different) guys living in two different (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/different) times. Where do you get that I said that they were both (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/both) Chuck Weyland?
Since we learned time travel from a Predator gun.
Quote from: SM on Jun 11, 2009, 02:00:47 AM
Since we learned time travel from a Predator gun.
Oh, of course!
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsmg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2Fsa%2F2f501b5a.gif&hash=41d116d3c426689bf9ba18a6b424d01b4e25879f)
Quote from: SM on Jun 10, 2009, 11:25:23 PM
Quotebut we can assume for now that this new-found technology led to the space travel that we first saw in ALIEN.
We learnt FTL travel, hypersleep and artificial gravity from a gun?
And then go back to using bullets?
Yes, apparently you don't know how reverse engineering works. Putz.
Apparently not. I lose. :-[
Yes, you do. Now think about what you've done and wallow in your shame.
Quote from: SM on Jun 10, 2009, 11:25:23 PM
Quotebut we can assume for now that this new-found technology led to the space travel that we first saw in ALIEN.
We learnt FTL travel, hypersleep and artificial gravity from a gun?
And then go back to using bullets?
Yes yes, but can we at least assume that the blaster was the
basis for the technology that we see in the Alien films. Just small technological realisations here and there.
Of course some things are beyond puny human scientist minds (plasma casting?), so bullets would still be the norm when it comes to weapons.
For them to be able to reverse engineer it would require that they learned how it worked. If they can go and create rocket engines with it, they can create "plasma-casters".
I'll have to remember not to leave my grill outside; someone might probe its inner secrets and create god-knows-what.
::)
Quote from: SiL on Jun 11, 2009, 11:01:08 AM
For them to be able to reverse engineer it would require that they learned how it worked. If they can go and create rocket engines with it, they can create "plasma-casters".
It is possible though, that there is no material on Earth that can hold 'plasma', let alone cast it. Like the only way they could possibly get it to work would be to replicate the material that makes up the Predator caster.
Why are we even discussing this? The AvP universe is in no way related to or a part of the Alien universe, since there have been no hints or nods to Predator or AvP in any of the Alien movies this far. The only way for AvP to be a part of the Alien universe is if the Scott brothers all of a sudden drop dead and the genius Strausse bros are called in to make the Alien Prequel instead, i.e. the Alien Prequel has to "invite" Predator and AvP into the Alien universe by planting hints/nods/easter eggs telling us that all the franchises are a part of the same universe and timeline.
So, if some character in the prequel hints that he/she has heard rumors about that human FTL technology is in fact based on alien technology retrieved in the aftermath of some red-tape incident on Earth in the early 21st century, then we can start discussing this.
PS. The Alien 3 Bishop was the real deal! 8)
QuoteWhy are we even discussing this?
I think it was more childish mocking than discussing. At least for my part.
Quote from: TJ Doc on Jun 11, 2009, 03:07:29 PM
It is possible though, that there is no material on Earth that can hold 'plasma', let alone cast it.
Now available from the Roswell Wal*Mart!:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsmg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2Foo%2Fusb-plasma-ball.jpg&hash=22df7951fa91d09175971bea2fc3ab326c3df027)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsmg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2Foo%2Fphilips-plasma.jpg&hash=00b377cc01b05614abd9d75b21ca38ee18d78923)
^^^BUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Well said Mal!
:D
Yeah, okay... but this is more along the lines of Weyland-Yutani's "Deapon Division", after all.
Not leisure objects.
one thing i cant understand is this..... Aliens 3 is set after AVP rite???? if so then how is he alive in alien 3 if he dies in avp??? is it his son or maybe a clone???
Thanks for getting us back on topic (at least for the time being).
As for the whole "dies in AVP, alive in Alien 3"... well, we can blame that on Anderson's foolishness. It just doesn't add up because of him. Maledoro, however, believes Bishop II to be a distant relative (or something) who bares a striking resemblance to the original Weyland in AVP.
Also, the notion of him being a clone has been shot down before. But him being an android is possible... just very difficult to justify.
I guess thats what happens when they try to revive a franchise but dont make it for the fans of the old films.... just toss aload of random crap together for kids and teens..... shame....
eh - i was still glad Lance was in AvP even if it did go against continuity that was already set. Doesn't bother me @ all actually. AvP would be even worse w/o Lance... i guarantee it
You're absolutely right... but Anderson should have made some kind of explanation about Bishop II. Maybe an "after the credits" easter egg or something.
Quote from: TJ Doc on Jun 12, 2009, 06:40:48 PM
You're absolutely right... but Anderson should have made some kind of explanation about Bishop II. Maybe an "after the credits" easter egg or something.
If you played Predator Concrete jungle, there is a hint at what happens afterward. Since Mr. Weyland is back at the helms of the company after his "disappearance". But other than that, nothing else hinting at an explanation for Bishop II.
Quote from: Spidey3121 on Jun 12, 2009, 05:20:15 PM
eh - i was still glad Lance was in AvP even if it did go against continuity that was already set. Doesn't bother me @ all actually. AvP would be even worse w/o Lance... i guarantee it
I feel the same way, ill advised or not i was glad to see Lance. I voted human.
Quote from: dachande89 on Jun 12, 2009, 10:40:05 PM
Quote from: TJ Doc on Jun 12, 2009, 06:40:48 PM
You're absolutely right... but Anderson should have made some kind of explanation about Bishop II. Maybe an "after the credits" easter egg or something.
If you played Predator Concrete jungle, there is a hint at what happens afterward. Since Mr. Weyland is back at the helms of the company after his "disappearance". But other than that, nothing else hinting at an explanation for Bishop II.
Interesting. I wonder how he (supposedly) survived the exploding pyramid... or the stab from the wrist-blade for that matter.
or the hart condition that was so bad he had to use an breather.....
Quote from: TJ Doc on Jun 12, 2009, 10:56:04 AM
Yeah, okay... but this is more along the lines of Weyland-Yutani's "Deapon Division", after all. Not leisure objects.
Plasma is plasma, so why should it be TVs and weapons get along so awfully?
Quote from: GrimyGhost on Jun 12, 2009, 01:46:50 PM
one thing i cant understand is this..... Aliens 3 is set after AVP rite???? if so then how is he alive in alien 3 if he dies in avp??? is it his son or maybe a clone???
Once again: BECAUSE THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Yes, I'm shouting.)
Quote from: TJ Doc on Jun 12, 2009, 04:11:04 PM
Maledoro, however, believes Bishop II to be a distant relative (or something) who bares a striking resemblance to the original Weyland in AVP.
I haven't drawn a definite answer as to whether they are related or not.
Quote from: TJ Doc on Jun 12, 2009, 04:11:04 PM
Also, the notion of him being a clone has been shot down before. But him being an android is possible... just very difficult to justify.
As long as the people who made
Alien³ had said he was human, he's human. Not that I'm accusing you, but I hate people who think they know more about that film than the people who made it.
(Now, I'm muttering.)
Quote from: TJ Doc on Jun 12, 2009, 06:40:48 PM
You're absolutely right... but Anderson should have made some kind of explanation about Bishop II. Maybe an "after the credits" easter egg or something.
He did, and it was bullshit.
Quote from: dachande89 on Jun 12, 2009, 10:40:05 PM
If you played Predator Concrete jungle, there is a hint at what happens afterward. Since Mr. Weyland is back at the helms of the company after his "disappearance". But other than that, nothing else hinting at an explanation for Bishop II.
Computer games say a lot of things; perhaps too much. Remember: They are like conservative AM talk radio programs - for entertainment and not for information.
Quote from: TJ Doc on Jun 12, 2009, 11:42:16 PM
I wonder how he (supposedly) survived the exploding pyramid... or the stab from the wrist-blade for that matter.
Quote from: GrimyGhost on Jun 13, 2009, 12:15:35 AM
or the hart condition that was so bad he had to use an breather.....
Once again: Video games are for shooting things, not for analyzing cinema...
Quote from: TJ Doc on Jun 12, 2009, 11:42:16 PM
Quote from: dachande89 on Jun 12, 2009, 10:40:05 PM
Quote from: TJ Doc on Jun 12, 2009, 06:40:48 PM
You're absolutely right... but Anderson should have made some kind of explanation about Bishop II. Maybe an "after the credits" easter egg or something.
If you played Predator Concrete jungle, there is a hint at what happens afterward. Since Mr. Weyland is back at the helms of the company after his "disappearance". But other than that, nothing else hinting at an explanation for Bishop II.
Interesting. I wonder how he (supposedly) survived the exploding pyramid... or the stab from the wrist-blade for that matter.
I don't think it was suggesting that he lived through AVP. But the person who returned after the disappearance at least loks like Bishop Weyland. They leave it open to your interpretation, which I like.
Quote from: maledoro on Jun 13, 2009, 01:06:16 AM
Quote from: TJ Doc on Jun 12, 2009, 10:56:04 AM
Yeah, okay... but this is more along the lines of Weyland-Yutani's "Deapon Division", after all. Not leisure objects.
Plasma is plasma, so why should it be TVs and weapons get along so awfully?
Quote from: GrimyGhost on Jun 12, 2009, 01:46:50 PM
one thing i cant understand is this..... Aliens 3 is set after AVP rite???? if so then how is he alive in alien 3 if he dies in avp??? is it his son or maybe a clone???
Once again: BECAUSE THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Yes, I'm shouting.)
Quote from: TJ Doc on Jun 12, 2009, 04:11:04 PM
Maledoro, however, believes Bishop II to be a distant relative (or something) who bares a striking resemblance to the original Weyland in AVP.
I haven't drawn a definite answer as to whether they are related or not.
Quote from: TJ Doc on Jun 12, 2009, 04:11:04 PM
Also, the notion of him being a clone has been shot down before. But him being an android is possible... just very difficult to justify.
As long as the people who made Alien³ had said he was human, he's human. Not that I'm accusing you, but I hate people who think they know more about that film than the people who made it.
(Now, I'm muttering.)
Quote from: TJ Doc on Jun 12, 2009, 06:40:48 PM
You're absolutely right... but Anderson should have made some kind of explanation about Bishop II. Maybe an "after the credits" easter egg or something.
He did, and it was bullshit.
Quote from: dachande89 on Jun 12, 2009, 10:40:05 PM
If you played Predator Concrete jungle, there is a hint at what happens afterward. Since Mr. Weyland is back at the helms of the company after his "disappearance". But other than that, nothing else hinting at an explanation for Bishop II.
Computer games say a lot of things; perhaps too much. Remember: They are like conservative AM talk radio programs - for entertainment and not for information.
Quote from: TJ Doc on Jun 12, 2009, 11:42:16 PM
I wonder how he (supposedly) survived the exploding pyramid... or the stab from the wrist-blade for that matter.
Quote from: GrimyGhost on Jun 13, 2009, 12:15:35 AM
or the hart condition that was so bad he had to use an breather.....
Once again: Video games are for shooting things, not for analyzing cinema...
Jesus.
FEEBLE EXCUSE ALERT: Uhhh... uhhh, maybe it was alien plasma?
Wait, what was Anderson's explanation? I have not heard of this.
Well, i think he said he was human, but I just can't belive that. I like the idea of a super-advanced-android.
Quote from: TJ Doc on Jun 13, 2009, 12:16:21 PM
Jesus.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsmg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2Fxtian%2F0ba8a541-1.gif&hash=0e2b8d3f5c46497c11bef4ec7f9c4bbed20461d6)
Quote from: TJ Doc on Jun 13, 2009, 12:16:21 PM
FEEBLE EXCUSE ALERT: Uhhh... uhhh, maybe it was alien plasma?
No. ♫"Plasma is plasma, so why should it be..."♪
Quote from: TJ Doc on Jun 13, 2009, 12:16:21 PM
Wait, what was Anderson's explanation? I have not heard of this.
That the guy in
Alien³ was a robot.
Quote from: deadmeat on Jun 13, 2009, 12:48:46 PM
Well, i think he said he was human
He didn't say that.
Quote from: deadmeat on Jun 13, 2009, 12:48:46 PM
but I just can't belive that.
You can't believe something based on reality (that some people look alike), but you're willing to believe in robots? So much for making this series realistic and believable...
Quote from: deadmeat on Jun 13, 2009, 12:48:46 PM
I like the idea of a super-advanced-android.
That's nice, but just because one likes an idea doesn't mean that's the way things are.
But how can he be human if he's not a clone or an ancestor?
Quote from: deadmeat on Jun 13, 2009, 01:12:54 PM
But how can he be human if he's not a clone or an ancestor?
I suspect that they may be related. Before
AVP was released, several fans (most notably
SM) had accepted Michael Bishop as the name of Bishop's creator.
With Charles Bishop Weyland being the name of one of the founders of the Company, there could be the possibility of Michael Bishop being either a direct or indirect descendant (such as him being a direct descendant of Mike's brother or sister) of Chuck.
While doing some digging, I came across this interview IGN had with Lance Henriksen back in 2004. It may not amount to much, but it's still interesting to here a view from the man himself. Here's an extract:
Q: In the third Alien movie, was your character human?
HENRIKSEN: They were leaving that open because they weren't sure what they were going to do with me. But what I saw was that it was a more advanced model certainly. Again, I love the idea of the advanced models. And this is a prequel, so I feel happy and well rounded.
Full interview: http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/513/513443p1.html
Quote from: TJ Doc on Jun 13, 2009, 01:36:13 PM
While doing some digging, I came across this interview IGN had with Lance Henriksen back in 2004. It may not amount to much, but it's still interesting to here a view from the man himself. Here's an extract:
Q: In the third Alien movie, was your character human?
HENRIKSEN: They were leaving that open because they weren't sure what they were going to do with me. But what I saw was that it was a more advanced model certainly. Again, I love the idea of the advanced models. And this is a prequel, so I feel happy and well rounded.
Full interview: http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/513/513443p1.html
That's fine and dandy, but the year before, Henriksen had said otherwise. From the
Alien³ DVD commentary track:
QuoteGillis: It's so brief when Lance gets hit with this lead pipe. But we had done this appliance that showed that his ear had been dislodged. The whole point was that Fincher wanted to show that, you know, without a doubt that this is the real guy and not a synthetic person.
Henriksen: In the script it said "Bishop I" and "Bishop II". And to play the creator of Bishop, which would be this guy, I didn't have to do anything. I mean I, literally, as an actor, didn't have to do anything.
Considering that Henriksen could remember something like that from 1992 to 2003 and then conveniently forget it the following year tells me that he was just covering Anderson's ass.
Yeah, I would imagine so. Still, opinions change.
Quote from: TJ Doc on Jun 13, 2009, 01:56:10 PM
Yeah, I would imagine so. Still, opinions change.
But whether or not he's human isn't a matter of
opinion; it's a statement of
fact. The fact is, the creators of that movie said he was human; that is a
fact, not an
opinion. If Henriksen wants to say, "They were leaving that open because they weren't sure what they were going to do with me," that, too, is a statement fact, but it's a false fact. No opinion was expressed either on the commentary track or in that interview.
i was sure he was a real human untill i saw avp . then i saw some where that he was a clone im not sure ?
The only clones in any Alien film are Ripley1-8.
My opinion is avp messed this up, before i watched avp i was certain that the bishop in alien 3 was human but after watching avp i got really confused
Quote from: wolfpredator416 on Jul 02, 2009, 08:36:32 AM
My opinion is avp messed this up, before i watched avp i was certain that the bishop in alien 3 was human but after watching avp i got really confused
As I've said before, I don't see how anyone could be confused by this. Two different guys who look somewhat alike; may be related, may not be related; living in two different times. Things like that happen in reality, too.
With the same last name working for the same company :D
When it comes to this topic i agree with what maledoro says 100%
Quote from: Vulhala on Jul 02, 2009, 02:16:42 PM
With the same last name working for the same company :D
1. Only Chuck Weyland's name is mentioned onscreen.
2. Going by other sources, Bishop's designer's surname is Bishop, not Weyland.
3. I didn't rule out that they might be related somehow. As a current example, there are three people named Ford who are members of the board at the Ford Motor Company, 106 years after the company was founded.
Quote from: maledoro on Jul 02, 2009, 02:13:03 PM
Quote from: wolfpredator416 on Jul 02, 2009, 08:36:32 AM
My opinion is avp messed this up, before i watched avp i was certain that the bishop in alien 3 was human but after watching avp i got really confused
As I've said before, I don't see how anyone could be confused by this. Two different guys who look somewhat alike; may be related, may not be related; living in two different times. Things like that happen in reality, too.
Actually that kinda makes sense, it could be that the bishop seen in Alien 3 is a descendant form the bishop in AvP
Quote from: wolfpredator416 on Jul 03, 2009, 08:45:04 AM
Quote from: maledoro on Jul 02, 2009, 02:13:03 PM
Quote from: wolfpredator416 on Jul 02, 2009, 08:36:32 AM
My opinion is avp messed this up, before i watched avp i was certain that the bishop in alien 3 was human but after watching avp i got really confused
As I've said before, I don't see how anyone could be confused by this. Two different guys who look somewhat alike; may be related, may not be related; living in two different times. Things like that happen in reality, too.
Actually that kinda makes sense, it could be that the bishop seen in Alien 3 is a descendant form the bishop in AvP
WHAT? Yeah and he looks identical to the one in AvP even though many centuries have past. Yeah right, the Bishop in A3 was a f**king robot with human colored blood dammit.
QuoteWHAT? Yeah and he looks identical to the one in AvP even though many centuries have past. Yeah right, the Bishop in A3 was a f**king robot with human colored blood dammit.
So hes a droid wiht red blood and he shouts "I'm not a Droid!!!" in the Assembly Cut, sorry mate thats wrong. Hes Human. And as for AVP, i wouldnt use that for this topic.
Quote from: xeno_alpha_07 on Jul 03, 2009, 05:47:22 PM
QuoteWHAT? Yeah and he looks identical to the one in AvP even though many centuries have past. Yeah right, the Bishop in A3 was a f**king robot with human colored blood dammit.
So hes a droid wiht red blood and he shouts "I'm not a Droid!!!" in the Assembly Cut, sorry mate thats wrong. Hes Human. And as for AVP, i wouldnt use that for this topic.
Oh I'm sorry that the idea of an Android having Red Dye in it's blood and lying to the characters is sooooooooooooo far fetched.
just with bishop apearing in avp messed things up and confused!
QuoteOh I'm sorry that the idea of an Android having Red Dye in it's blood and lying to the characters is sooooooooooooo far fetched.
No need to be sarcastic...
Read what
maledoro has posted these past few pages etc....what he says is correct. Hence why:
QuoteBishop in A3 was a f**king robot with human colored blood dammit
..is wrong.
Quote from: xeno_alpha_07 on Jul 03, 2009, 06:16:15 PM
QuoteOh I'm sorry that the idea of an Android having Red Dye in it's blood and lying to the characters is sooooooooooooo far fetched.
No need to be sarcastic...
Read what maledoro has posted these past few pages etc....what he says is correct. Hence why:
QuoteBishop in A3 was a f**king robot with human colored blood dammit
..is wrong.
http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTk4MjA3MTk0OF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwNTg2MDc2._V1._SX485_SY323_.jpg
Yeah because a human being can be conscious after suffering such an amount of head trauma to the point where their ear has seperated from their face while still being able to walk and talk. Yeah right, he was an android.
QuoteYeah because a human being can be conscious after suffering such an amount of head trauma to the point where their ear has seperated from their face while still being able to walk and talk. Yeah right, he was an android.
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!! Ive physicly seen someone with a massive hole in his face, get up and walk off. Ive seen someone get bashed in with pick-axe handles and still get up...but nooooooooo according to you things like that aint possible...have you watched the Alien 3 assembly cut? Look at the point of impact...and look what he does afterwards...But hey!, what do i know
QuoteReferral Denied
You don't have permission to access "http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTk4MjA3MTk0OF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwNTg2MDc2._V1._SX485_SY323_.jpg" on this server.
Reference #24.ad7e7a5c.1246647697.1104e2d5
^^ thats what i get from your link...
Also try reading alot more...and before you think it i not being funny with you or being nasty.
Alien Resurrection - they cloned her using her/alien DNA.
So, he might have been cloned - I mean he did have a HUGE empire and a lot of money.
Quote from: Haloxpok3mon on Jul 03, 2009, 05:43:43 PM
WHAT?
Do you have a deficit of some sort?
Quote from: Haloxpok3mon on Jul 03, 2009, 05:43:43 PM
Yeah and he looks identical to the one in AvP even though many centuries have past.
You do have one: skewed perception. They don't look identical. There's different hair, complexions, etc.
Quote from: Haloxpok3mon on Jul 03, 2009, 05:43:43 PM
Yeah right, the Bishop in A3 was a f**king robot with human colored blood dammit.
Not to mention you think that you know more about the character than the people who put him on the screen.
Quote from: Haloxpok3mon on Jul 03, 2009, 06:31:58 PM
Yeah because a human being can be conscious after suffering such an amount of head trauma to the point where their ear has seperated from their face while still being able to walk and talk. Yeah right, he was an android.
Everything you've said has already been addressed and refuted; especially how his injury wasn't as severe as you make it out to be.
Also, read this article (http://www.webmd.com/brain/news/20090319/natasha-richardson-dies-of-epidural-hematoma) about a more serious head injury where the victim had a lesser reaction to it. I made reference to the same condition in an earlier article (http://www.alienexperience.com/forum/index.php/topic,51.msg1265.html#msg1265) (25 March 2006).
Quote from: MIDGET on Jul 03, 2009, 09:45:41 PM
Alien Resurrection - they cloned her using her/alien DNA. So, he might have been cloned - I mean he did have a HUGE empire and a lot of money.
That's circumstantial at best. Read my linked article above.
I do'nt care but he was obviously human.Red blood realistic pain reaction so not an android.
he could have been a clone! hes rich and would want to live forever!
Quote from: drake@ on Jul 04, 2009, 09:20:19 PM
he could have been a clone! hes rich and would want to live forever!
You're somebody else who should read that essay...
Quote from: Haloxpok3mon on Jul 03, 2009, 05:49:37 PM
Quote from: xeno_alpha_07 on Jul 03, 2009, 05:47:22 PM
QuoteWHAT? Yeah and he looks identical to the one in AvP even though many centuries have past. Yeah right, the Bishop in A3 was a f**king robot with human colored blood dammit.
So hes a droid wiht red blood and he shouts "I'm not a Droid!!!" in the Assembly Cut, sorry mate thats wrong. Hes Human. And as for AVP, i wouldnt use that for this topic.
Oh I'm sorry that the idea of an Android having Red Dye in it's blood and lying to the characters is sooooooooooooo far fetched.
You're just making shit up.
Interesting. A neverending thread asking the question that was already answered in 1992
Wow this conversation just loops over and over. Hell I started as a person who was yelling droid, but I've changed my beliefs on that since reading this thread. And to make it work with AVP (cause I want to) I say he's a direct descendant. Weyland's (insert how many greats you want) grand kid.
hologram..
When I watched it I thought he was a human. Although the ear hanging off is a bit weird. I'm willing to accept the ear flaw more than Andersons entire movie.
Sorry to flog a dead horse, but Cracked.com just ran the perfect article for this thread.
http://www.cracked.com/article_17573_7-fatal-injuries-that-people-somehow-survived.html
First one on the list?
Dude gets cut in half by a train, and then calls the freakin' paramedics.
That's where the list starts. By #4 we're up to a dude with a 3' 8" inch pole straight through his brain and being back to normal function 5 months later.
I've just read the article... and I'm currently experiencing that squeamish feeling.
Not nice.
Those people are very lucky to live through that.
But I think that Bishop is an droid, prtly because of AVP and the fact he was able to survive getting beaten by a pipe.
Quote from: Cpt.Lewis on Jul 21, 2009, 05:07:47 PM
Those people are very lucky to live through that.
But I think that Bishop is an droid, prtly because of AVP and the fact he was able to survive getting beaten by a pipe.
Being beaten by a pipe is possible to survive...
Anyone else remember the red blood coming out of his head in the assembly cut?
This guy was a human.
He basically spells it out for you ..."I'm very human"
Quote from: TheMonolith on Jul 21, 2009, 06:08:44 PM
Anyone else remember the red blood coming out of his head in the assembly cut?
This guy was a human.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fia.media-imdb.com%2Fimages%2FM%2FMV5BMTk4MjA3MTk0OF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwNTg2MDc2._V1._SX485_SY323_.jpg&hash=679babe679d9dd2dbb5c4862e67a94b5c09327c0)
In the Early drafts (and storyboards) Bishop II ends up with an Axe embedded in his head killing him.
Quote from: xeno_alpha_07 on Jul 21, 2009, 06:23:12 PM
Quote from: TheMonolith on Jul 21, 2009, 06:08:44 PM
Anyone else remember the red blood coming out of his head in the assembly cut?
This guy was a human.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fia.media-imdb.com%2Fimages%2FM%2FMV5BMTk4MjA3MTk0OF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwNTg2MDc2._V1._SX485_SY323_.jpg&hash=679babe679d9dd2dbb5c4862e67a94b5c09327c0)
In the Early drafts (and storyboards) Bishop II ends up with an Axe embedded in his head killing him.
Kudos to 85.
Quote from: Cpt.Lewis on Jul 21, 2009, 05:07:47 PM
Those people are very lucky to live through that.
But I think that Bishop is an droid, prtly because of AVP and the fact he was able to survive getting beaten by a pipe.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.motifake.com%2Fdemotivational-poster%2F0808%2Fjesus-facepalm-facepalm-jesus-epic-demotivational-poster-1218659828.jpg&hash=e8c5e48a0c41c818b09b6fe3a2c121e753e681cd)
QuoteKudos to 85.
Not just 85, in another Hill/Giler draft GOLIC is the one who leads the Companymen to the lead mold and its Golic who kills Bishop II.
Vul, love the jesus Facepalm ;D
Quote from: SiL on Jul 21, 2009, 11:00:21 AM
Sorry to flog a dead horse, but Cracked.com just ran the perfect article for this thread.
http://www.cracked.com/article_17573_7-fatal-injuries-that-people-somehow-survived.html
First one on the list?
Dude gets cut in half by a train, and then calls the freakin' paramedics.
That's where the list starts. By #4 we're up to a dude with a 3' 8" inch pole straight through his brain and being back to normal function 5 months later.
Just dont flog the dolphin.
Listen to the commentary when Bishop 2 gets hit in the ear with the wrench, they say hes human that was the whole point of it so no one would question it. And because he was human Ripley knew he could lie and didn't have to keep his word and took it upon her self to kill it.
Quote from: xenomorph426 on Aug 01, 2009, 11:29:48 PM
Listen to the commentary when Bishop 2 gets hit in the ear with the wrench, they say hes human that was the whole point of it so no one would question it. And because he was human Ripley knew he could lie and didn't have to keep his word and took it upon her self to kill it.
;D ;)
Glad to see this thread is still going strong. :P
...and thanks to Paul Anderson it will continue on :)
I'll laugh, if in 10 years, this debate still rages on everywhere.
Quote from: ShadowPred on Aug 02, 2009, 01:50:08 AM
I'll laugh, if in 10 years, this debate still rages on everywhere.
lol, if t does the above quote will become my new signature mate ;D
But I don't understand why there is a debate. They Fincher said he was human! ???
Quote from: xenomorph426 on Aug 02, 2009, 03:19:18 PM
But I don't understand why there is a debate. They Fincher said he was human! ???
Welcome to the Internet, where people will argue about anything. You must be new here. ;)
ANDROID.
After watching the movie Mimic i would like to change my vote to cockroach... a highly evolved cockroach - lol
Quote from: xenomorph426 on Aug 02, 2009, 03:19:18 PM
But I don't understand why there is a debate. They Fincher said he was human! ???
One of these days, I hope that a direct quote from David Fincher in some interview will put at least some people's minds at rest one way or another
Quote from: Spidey3121 on Aug 03, 2009, 03:33:39 AM
After watching the movie Mimic i would like to change my vote to cockroach... a highly evolved cockroach - lol
I'm not happy these days if I'm not suspected by the police at train stations of being a terrorist , or don't have café staff worried that I'm a shoe bomber if I've left my new box of shoes in a cafe somewhere, just to satisfy the demands of the fears of my local reality. So there are good reasons in my world to have interesting suspicions. So maybe in one hundred years time, there might be someone like me who is not sure whether he himself is a robot or not and could spend many years being suspicious and alerting the suspicions of others.
human...but his body is synthetic. makes sense. corporate CEO guy, has money to spend on his machine body. maybe he can feel pain if he wants...or switch it off if he wants...? Darth Weyland.
Nice username, I just got done re-reading that book a few days ago.
username. (I've actually never even read The Mothman Prophecies. lol. just read about general UFO, alien and MIB mythology and whatnot...)
The book is great, it's creepy stuff.
Quote from: Indrid G. Cold on Aug 14, 2009, 04:46:33 PM
human...but his body is synthetic. makes sense. corporate CEO guy, has money to spend on his machine body. maybe he can feel pain if he wants...or switch it off if he wants...? Darth Weyland.
That's what I've been going with as a strong possibility from my point of view for the last decade, but my version of this entity begs more of a question about how much a human he is in comparison to the android aspects of him, and from my point of view, I'll never know
Is there any evidence of artificial enhancement in the movies?
The only one I can think of is that he takes a massive blunt-force trauma to the head and is still standing and coherent.
That said, I'm pretty sure it's been addressed in this thread anyway. :P
Unfortunately yes, it has.
Quote from: SiL on Jul 21, 2009, 11:00:21 AM
http://www.cracked.com/article_17573_7-fatal-injuries-that-people-somehow-survived.html
Quote from: Xenomrph on Aug 15, 2009, 05:28:54 PM
The only one I can think of is that he takes a massive blunt-force trauma to the head and is still standing and coherent.
And, as it was explained to those others who didn't know, that sort of injury doesn't require any kind of enhancement for the victim to remain standing and coherent.
I guess the argument would be that while it doesn't require enhancement, it would sure help.
I'm just playing devil's advocate here; I still know he's human. :)
Quote from: Xenomrph on Aug 16, 2009, 01:53:12 AM
I'm just playing devil's advocate here; I still know he's human. :)
*suspicous-sounding voice*
I know what you're up to...
;)
*whistles innocently*
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Aug 14, 2009, 03:29:11 PM
Quote from: xenomorph426 on Aug 02, 2009, 03:19:18 PM
But I don't understand why there is a debate. They Fincher said he was human! ???
One of these days, I hope that a direct quote from David Fincher in some interview will put at least some people's minds at rest one way or another
In the commentary as he gets hit in the head with the wrench, Fincher says they did this to show the audience that he is human. He also says that the ear they used was the same ear Arnold wore in The Terminator just thought that was cool fact lol.
Quote from: xenomorph426 on Aug 19, 2009, 01:13:41 AM
In the commentary as he gets hit in the head with the wrench, Fincher says they did this to show the audience that he is human.
Fincher didn't say anything, as he wasn't involved in the commentary AT ALL. He hasn't had a single thing to do with the movie from the moment he walked away from it p**sed off.
Quote from: Vulhala on Aug 19, 2009, 07:36:01 AM
Quote from: xenomorph426 on Aug 19, 2009, 01:13:41 AM
In the commentary as he gets hit in the head with the wrench, Fincher says they did this to show the audience that he is human.
Fincher didn't say anything, as he wasn't involved in the commentary AT ALL. He hasn't had a single thing to do with the movie from the moment he walked away from it p**sed off.
He did, but by way of Gillis. Gillis told us what Fincher had told him.
It's not the same as being straight from the horses mouth though is it?
Quote from: Vulhala on Aug 19, 2009, 11:38:15 AM
It's not the same as being straight from the horses mouth though is it?
Would Gillis have a reason to lie?
It's beside the point. Fincher has never directly gone on record about it. I'm sure Gillis was telling the truth, but it was Gillis telling it, not Fincher.
Quote from: Vulhala on Aug 19, 2009, 11:59:54 AM
It's beside the point. Fincher has never directly gone on record about it. I'm sure Gillis was telling the truth, but it was Gillis telling it, not Fincher.
If this was something Earth-shattering, I would be concerned about Fincher not making a direct statement on the commentary track.
;)
My sources tell me he is android. I mean come on, I saved him.
If he was an android he could've saved himself.
Quote from: xenomorph426 on Aug 19, 2009, 01:13:41 AM
In the commentary as he gets hit in the head with the wrench, Fincher says they did this to show the audience that he is human. He also says that the ear they used was the same ear Arnold wore in The Terminator just thought that was cool fact lol.
well, I would like a quote from Fincher directly rather than what someone said he said as instructions for a job. I thought that the cooler fact about the ear was that it was a copy of Jack Nicholson's ear. Did they mention it was from the Batman movie when he played the Joker?
I'm wondering if Fincher had been inspired in any way by Element of Crime for Alien 3. I'm looking for confusing irony in the Alien 3 movie.
Quote from: maledoro on Dec 13, 2006, 11:41:15 AM
Quote from: Darkness on Dec 13, 2006, 11:16:57 AM
Tell me maledoro, if you're so convinced he was human, how do you explain Weyland in AvP? Do you just consider Bishop II to be an ancestor or what?
I'll let my essay do the talkin':
http://www.alienexperience.com//index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=512&topic=51.0 (http://www.alienexperience.com//index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=512&topic=51.0)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v338/maledoro/Elves/8d294160.gif
I'd like to read this but there's an error.
MALEDOROOOOOOOOO!!! Hear my call!!!
Try this (http://www.alienexperience.com/forum/index.php/topic,51.0.html)
Oh. Thanks.
Should be a good read. *rubs hands together*
And just when we thought this thread was dead.........
I prefer this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8GRQHsAVjI&feature=related
Are all the Bishop's in AVP, Aliens, and Alien3 the same actor?
Quote from: predalien27 on Oct 18, 2009, 01:14:04 AM
Are all the Bishop's in AVP, Aliens, and Alien3 the same actor?
Yep.
Thought so. But I think Bishop II was human, but AVP screwed that up. Also, Why would he be called Bishop II in the credits and not by Micheal Bishop? So confusing.
Quote from: predalien27 on Oct 18, 2009, 01:23:22 AM
Thought so. But I think Bishop II was human, but AVP screwed that up. Also, Why would he be called Bishop II in the credits and not by Micheal Bishop? So confusing.
Again, this has been covered.
1. He's human, per the makers of the third film.
2.
AVP doesn't conflict with this as they are two different people.
3. He's called "Bishop II" just out of convenience, as his name isn't mentioned during the film.
So easy to understand.
I knew someone would do that due to the fact I didn't want to read 130+ pages
Quote from: maledoro on Oct 18, 2009, 01:50:26 AM
Quote from: predalien27 on Oct 18, 2009, 01:23:22 AM
Thought so. But I think Bishop II was human, but AVP screwed that up. Also, Why would he be called Bishop II in the credits and not by Micheal Bishop? So confusing.
Again, this has been covered.
1. He's human, per the makers of the third film.
2. AVP doesn't conflict with this as they are two different people.
3. He's called "Bishop II" just out of convenience, as his name isn't mentioned during the film.
So easy to understand.
2. It actually does sort of conflict. It depends on what you believe. Were the Bishop androids modeled after the long lost founder of W-Y or his decedent whether the decedent be direct or not or whether that decedent (Bishop II) was truly human or not. A:R failed to cover this or anything for that matter so we cannot know. And I do not think we can say the makers intended him to be human must be true because they intended the series to end there and they intended no AvP.
^ Exactly to that last sentance.
You're agreeing with a sentence that doesn't make sense.
Quote from: SM on Oct 19, 2009, 03:16:24 AM
You're agreeing with a sentence that doesn't make sense.
How doesn't it make sense? :P I am just saying that the film makers had no idea A:R would happen or that AvP or AvP:R would happen and J. Cameron did not care about certain things R. Scott intended and A:R never bothered with the Bishop II/Michael Bishop scene so I am just saying we cannot know. This similar to the whole is the Xeno blood literally acid or just similar to acid.
So in spite of all the facts presented about Bishop the Second being human - you maintain "we cannot know".
That makes no sense.
Other films have no bearing on anything.
Quote from: SM on Oct 19, 2009, 03:34:51 AM
So in spite of all the facts presented about Bishop the Second being human - you maintain "we cannot know".
That makes no sense.
Other films have no bearing on anything.
No. I am not denying the possibility of him being human I am saying that another film maker could easily change that as it was not a HUGE part of the film even if the makers intended him to be human we have seen other film makers not give a shit about their predecessors' intentions and it can happen again.
Though that's not the case here.
You can't say "we cannot know" - simply because we DO know. Anything else is either ignorance or blinkered denial.
Oh yea, Bishop II was definitly human and designed the Bishop models, BUT there was a random guy that looked exactly like him who created the company that Bishop II somehow ended up working for.
Ignorance or blinkered denial - I can't tell which.
I beleive that Bishop II is human, but if he is, you have to beleive that AVP created a plot hole that needs further explained.
Not really.
And even if you do need it explained it's simple enough - he's a distant ancestor. It's no unusual for people in the same family line to have striking similarities.
After all - it's only a movie.
Quote from: SM on Oct 19, 2009, 04:10:51 AM
After all - it's only a movie.
Exactly! That pretty much answers every question some people have on these forums about the Alien and Predator franchises.
Quote from: SM on Oct 19, 2009, 04:10:51 AM
And even if you do need it explained it's simple enough - he's a distant ancestor. It's no unusual for people in the same family line to have striking similarities.
I guess that could explain it.
I'm only saying what's already been said 4,757 times on this thread already.
Before i rea dhtis thread, I thought Bishop II was human. Now I am starting to doubt it.
Then you best read it again.
OOH this just came to 1992 replies which is the year A3 came out. Spooky! Although I did just ruin it with this post.
Quote from: predalien27 on Oct 19, 2009, 04:29:11 AM
Before i rea dhtis thread, I thought Bishop II was human. Now I am starting to doubt it.
Yeah. Flimsy evidence and weak arguments can sway some people...
Quote from: predalien27 on Oct 19, 2009, 04:33:32 AM
Although I did just ruin it with this post.
This thread was ruined at Post #1. There should never have been a debate.
No it is a good debate that lasted a while and is still going. What else are supposed to talk about? Just keep saying how the next movie, game , etc. will be? Some people just try to hard. But that's debate, right?
Quote from: predalien27 on Oct 19, 2009, 10:56:09 PM
No it is a good debate that lasted a while and is still going.
Debates based on opinions are great. Debates based on facts versus distortion thereof are stupid.
Quote from: predalien27 on Oct 19, 2009, 10:56:09 PM
What else are supposed to talk about?
Lots of other things.
Quote from: predalien27 on Oct 19, 2009, 10:56:09 PM
Just keep saying how the next movie, game , etc. will be?
That's one of many things.
Quote from: predalien27 on Oct 19, 2009, 10:56:09 PM
Some people just try to hard.
Try to hard what?
Quote from: predalien27 on Oct 19, 2009, 10:56:09 PM
But that's debate, right?
No.
I always thought Bishop was human. The character in AvP, to me, is someone totally different because AvP is in its own universe with its own canon.
I don't like to think AVP is in it's own universe.
Like it or not, that's the way it is.
Who says?
Basic rules of continuity and the fan base at large. The AvP movies have their own characters and their own timelines that don't fall in line with the other Alien and Predator movies.
So no one of any real consequence then.
As much as I generally agree with your opinion - I don't agree with anyone trying to dictate what is and isn't canon. 'Cos invariably they're wrong.
You been around long enough to know how canon works with Alien. Or rather, doesn't work...
I look at it this way: if the AvP films are separate, then Bishop must be human because the android was destroyed in the EEV crash. That said, his creator would appear and be human. In AvP, the Bishop character was nothing more than a homage to the character from Aliens of the same name; with that in mind, it's hard for me to classify them altogether.
Which is perfectly legit. Just as legit as someone who shoehorns all three franchises in one continuity.
Which I do.
I honestly don't know! This is one of those things that makes my brain hurt if I think about it too long.
Flog the dead horse! Flog it hard! :D
Ahhhh... I'm hoping this new AvP game will clear things up (although whether it can be regarded as canon is another matter).
It won't.
Sad face.
Originally human and will always be human I know; I AM ALIEN 3!
Quote from: TJ Doc on Dec 08, 2009, 10:34:49 PM
Flog the dead horse! Flog it hard! :D
Ahhhh... I'm hoping this new AvP game will clear things up (although whether it can be regarded as canon is another matter).
Well based on the new interview with Lance Henriksen, it
might. We'll have to wait and see. :)
I knoooow! I can't wait to see if it really does! :D
Assuming there was anything to clear up, and assuming it DID clear anything up - how many people are seriously going to treat a computer as canon?
My favourite thread ever. still alive and strong. Human.
Quote from: SM on Dec 08, 2009, 11:26:27 PM
Assuming there was anything to clear up, and assuming it DID clear anything up - how many people are seriously going to treat a computer as canon?
Whether people treat it as canon is pretty irrelevant.
If it somehow brings up 'Alien3', fine. If it doesn't, whatever. I guess we'll have to wait and see, but the recent interview with Lance Henriksen hasn't ruled out the possibility.
QuoteWhether people treat it as canon is pretty irrelevant.
See how "irrelevant" it is to the hordes who say "Games ain't canon".
Quote from: SM on Dec 09, 2009, 12:19:47 AM
QuoteWhether people treat it as canon is pretty irrelevant.
See how "irrelevant" it is to the hordes who say "Games ain't canon".
Personal opinions on canon are just that: personal opinions.
If the games address it, hey, neat. For purists, it isn't canon, and that's okay. I don't expect it to be brought up in debates and stuff, just sort of mentioned as a trivia footnote or whatever.
As long as nothing is contradicted (a long shot), I'm happy.
Games have a long tradition of not paying attention to or being ignorant of film continuity. Personally I don't know why they even bother to try. Just make the game fun - who gives a shit about the backstory.
Quote from: SM on Dec 09, 2009, 01:10:15 AM
Games have a long tradition of not paying attention to or being ignorant of film continuity. Personally I don't know why they even bother to try. Just make the game fun - who gives a shit about the backstory.
I DOOOOO!
That's why I love Reistance!
Quote from: TJ Doc on Dec 09, 2009, 12:59:49 AM
As long as nothing is contradicted (a long shot), I'm happy.
I have my theory on what they're going to do, and it'll kinda-sorta contradict ancillary materials, but not necessarily the movies themselves (or at least not in any meaningful way).
Quote from: SM on Dec 09, 2009, 01:10:15 AM
Games have a long tradition of not paying attention to or being ignorant of film continuity. Personally I don't know why they even bother to try. Just make the game fun - who gives a shit about the backstory.
I happen to disagree, and I like it when games have backstory. They can have backstory without being at the expense of fun.
Personal preference, I guess. :)
Backstories are generally little more than an excuse for the impending carnage. I like the settings for games like Doom and Half Life, but couldn't give a f**k about detailed stories. Same with the AvP games - they don't fit in with film continuity, but they're fun so I don't care. Mind you the 'stories' in the AvP games were so unengaging I couldn't tell you what they were anyway - think the second one had something to do with experiments with those lame arsed Xenoborgs? All those note things and signs to read just slow everything down.
The medium is interactive; unlike traditional storytelling in a book or film. A highly detailed backstory isn't going to make a game with shitty gameplay any better.
Quote from: SM on Dec 09, 2009, 01:24:43 AM
Same with the AvP games - they don't fit in with film continuity...
You just haven't seen it happened yet.
Quote from: SM on Dec 09, 2009, 01:24:43 AM
A highly detailed backstory isn't going to make a game with shitty gameplay any better.
But a backstory makes a game with great gameplay better. Then again, personal preference
Quote from: predalien27 on Dec 09, 2009, 01:28:29 AM
Quote from: SM on Dec 09, 2009, 01:24:43 AM
Same with the AvP games - they don't fit in with film continuity...
You just haven't seen it happened yet.
That's
happen. And the reason it hasn't happened yet is because it's impossible. The movies are mediums unto themselves which the developers of the game(s) do not account for when making them. So canon is irrelevant to them, ergo, they don't fit together.
You can't have AvP games with 22nd century Colonial Marines fit in to the film continuity because the only time USCMC encountered Aliens was on Acheron.
Unless the story is totally independent of film events and everyone is dead at the end.
So, in general trying to make them fit in with the films is a waste of time and effort. Just make a good game - if you can throw in nods to the films - all the better,
QuoteYou just haven't seen it happened yet.
I'll assume Doom was correct with his correction. I was talking in the past tense, so whatever happens in future is neither here nor there.
It's perfectly doable and they can perfectly dovetail WITHOUT f**king up convention or continuity. You just have to f**king pay attention; quit trying to BE the movie or pander to people who don't f**king get it. Riddick is the best LG ever because there's no idiotic monologue or preface, there's no attempt to recreate any scene from one of the movies other than architecture and tone, everything else is left to the player who is EXPECTED to know what the f**k is going on. The only learning curve is dedicated to mechanics. The story seamlessly bridges and does consider itself above the source material, and is self contained in its own right. And that is the recipe for doing it right and making a profit while doing it.
QuoteIt's perfectly doable and they can perfectly dovetail WITHOUT f**king up convention or continuity.
How would you do it without killing the player at the end?
I'm just stating it in general for concept itself, but for your amusement:
Referencing Aliens pre Auriga?
1. Player is an android, mindwiped or destroyed.
2. Leave the player marooned.
3. Plant the trail of clues that allows the players to connect Ripley's sample with more Aliens in the future, information to be processed by the Corps instead of WY. --> USM
4. Have a sealed derelict or Alien planet with a sole survivor who knows better than to tell anyone.
5. Hilarious that in thirty years no one's ever tried to have the Aliens be the INVADED, not the invaders. A race as sadistic as the Preds are capable of being would not be above redirecting a military ship to a bad place. Space is huge. People get lost, ships disappear.
6. Morse was considered a raving lunatic looking for attention.
Number 2 is another option I considered or rather, have them go into hypersleep a la Ripley at the end of Alien.
Number 1 and 3 are both nifty options as well.
Quote from: SM on Dec 09, 2009, 01:24:43 AM
Backstories are generally little more than an excuse for the impending carnage.
There's plenty of games with detailed backstories. If you want to go with the last couple of years, there's Mass Effect, Bioshock, Dead Space, the Modern Warfare series, Gears of War, and loads of others I'm not remembering off the top of my head. Those are just the ones I played recently.
Quote from: SM on Dec 09, 2009, 01:24:43 AMI like the settings for games like Doom and Half Life, but couldn't give a f**k about detailed stories.
That's perfectly okay, it's just a personal preference. I love my share of games that have no plot whatsoever and I can just have a good time saving the world or blowing stuff up or doing whatever.
Quote from: SM on Dec 09, 2009, 01:24:43 AMMind you the 'stories' in the AvP games were so unengaging I couldn't tell you what they were anyway - think the second one had something to do with experiments with those lame arsed Xenoborgs? All those note things and signs to read just slow everything down.
Yeah, the first AvP game pretty much had no plot, but AvP2 definitely had one if you looked for it. I'm not saying it was great literature or anything, but it was there and it kept the action flowing so your actions made sense, instead of just "get from the entrance to the exit, kill everything in your path". Even as the Alien, you were sometimes tasked with actual objectives (and killed everything in your path on the way there :p).
It's looking like the new AvP game will actually have a plot and backstory. The game developers have mentioned that they wanted to have a plot, and in the recent interview with Lance Henriksen he talks about how much he liked the plot and how he was surprised by how detailed it was.
For better or for worse, the new AvP game
will have "backstory" and "plot".
Quote from: SM on Dec 09, 2009, 01:24:43 AMThe medium is interactive; unlike traditional storytelling in a book or film. A highly detailed backstory isn't going to make a game with shitty gameplay any better.
But it will, however, make a game with
good gameplay that much better. When you care about what you're fighting for or the characters you're interacting with and whatnot, that makes for a more engaging and interesting gameplay experience.
Edit-- for clarity, I'm talking about Lance's interview with Aliensvspredator.net that was posted this morning, not the AvPGalaxy one that just got posted.
Meh - Lego Star Wars is about Star Wars Lego dudes killing each other and collecting studs, and it's still probably the best computer game I've ever played. The Star Wars setting obviously helps, but it's not like there's any involved backstory driving the game.
Quote from: SM on Dec 09, 2009, 02:04:45 AM
Meh - Lego Star Wars is about Star Wars Lego dudes killing each other and collecting studs, and it's still probably the best computer game I've ever played. The Star Wars setting obviously helps, but it's not like there's any involved backstory driving the game.
Yes there are games like that, in my case Rampage ( wow that game was amazing) where you go around blowing shit up. There are games with backstories that drive the game more too. And there are games in the middle , like Bioshock.
Well sure, I can name plenty of games with no backstory that are fun as hell. Lego Star Wars rules, although I'd say you get more out of the game if you're familiar with the movies because you can see all the clever ways they translated the movies' events without using dialogue and using Legos and stuff.
There's nothing wrong with liking games with no backstory - I loved Crackdown, Full Auto, Rainbow 6 Vegas co-op, Wolfenstein, all sorts of stuff. But there's a pretty big market for games with backstories to them - you commented that the AvP games were entirely forgettable, and Rebellion seeks to fix that this time around. Will they pull it off? We'll have to wait and see.
I am very confident they won't sacrifice gameplay for the sake of plot, though.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 09, 2009, 02:11:43 AM
Well sure, I can name plenty of games with no backstory that are fun as hell. Lego Star Wars rules, although I'd say you get more out of the game if you're familiar with the movies because you can see all the clever ways they translated the movies' events without using dialogue and using Legos and stuff.
There's nothing wrong with liking games with no backstory - I loved Crackdown, Full Auto, Rainbow 6 Vegas co-op, Wolfenstein, all sorts of stuff. But there's a pretty big market for games with backstories to them - you commented that the AvP games were entirely forgettable, and Rebellion seeks to fix that this time around. Will they pull it off? We'll have to wait and see.
I am very confident they won't sacrifice gameplay for the sake of plot, though.
By the way it is coming, it looks to have very good gameplay and plot. 2 more months!
I always thought that bishop in alien 3 is a synthetic.At the end of the film when he gets a smack to the head his ear is hanging off and the blood is whitish in colour go look at alien 3 and pause it at the scene where ripley jumps into the Mould and bishop is holding onto the railings screaming ''noooo''his ear is hanging off!
Quote from: Effectz on Dec 09, 2009, 05:47:29 PM
I always thought that bishop in alien 3 is a synthetic.At the end of the film when he gets a smack to the head his ear is hanging off and the blood is whitish in colour go look at alien 3 and pause it at the scene where ripley jumps into the Mould and bishop is holding onto the railings screaming ''noooo''his ear is hanging off!
:'(
Dude...don't post just a single smiley in your reply. We don't want posting for the sake of your post count around here.
He's got a point though. I read that post and felt like crying too.
"blood is whitish in colour"?
FFS...
Poor guy. And it was only his first post! :(
I'd say he was a human.
Quote from: Skinner on Dec 10, 2009, 12:57:30 AM
I'd say he was a human.
You have chosen.... wisely.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi48.tinypic.com%2F169iyyg.jpg&hash=88466abecd4d5b6885fa8db48754825865731189)
Yeah, I get eternal life! ;D
Only if you don't cross the seal.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fjourneyman47.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F09%2Fharp-seal-baby.jpg&hash=61b5fdff1c278a45db97f6f5bae3becb01a26966)
Especially that one.
Quote from: SM on Dec 10, 2009, 09:58:44 PM
Only if you don't cross the seal.
Oh, crap I forgot about the seal. Oh well, I'm going to cross it anyway.
*Seal jumps on top of me and start biting me*
Warned ya!
Ya see! That's why us Canadians have the seal hunt; to keep them from attacking people who have eternal life.
Someone get it off of me!
*Seal still attacking me in the background*
I'm pretty sure he's human, but I like the way the things are, with mostly pro-human evidence and some scarce pro-android evidence. It's just another great semi-mistery of the Alien series. Really nice.
The way I see it, Mr. Weyland, Bishop, and the Bishop II fella are totally unrelated, at most the physical resemblance between the latter two is simply because (if i remember correctly) Bishop II designed Bishop the android with his traits in mind or something like that.
To me, the android theory is ok-ish compared to the annoying clone and ancestor theories. Definetly NOT a clone. Ancestor - NO WAY. Is it stated they're even related? Let's just assume Jerry Lambert from P2 is an ancestor of Hudson just 'cuz they look the same. Which doesn't even matter. They're played by the same actor. That doesn't mean they look the same story-wise. Some times, actors are just actors.
Anderson was just trying to make a little nod to the previous movies by having a familiar face in AVP. Hmmm....what character should we put in....oh yeah! There's that little mystery from A3, whether Bishop II is human or not. Hmmm....let's just say he ISN'T human! That'll seem cool! Let's even name him Bishop as his middle name! That's so frickin' Alien-ish ja guys? Ja Ja Ja! I'm the great Misterrrrrrrr Anderson! I'm the buffer between Uwe Boll and Spielberg!
QuoteLet's just assume Jerry Lambert from P2 is an ancestor of Hudson just 'cuz they look the same.
No he's related to the Nostromo navigator.
No no both.
He's Lambert's great great great grandaddy and Hudson is Lambert's great great nephew.
Quote from: SM on Dec 11, 2009, 10:53:55 PM
QuoteLet's just assume Jerry Lambert from P2 is an ancestor of Hudson just 'cuz they look the same.
No he's related to the Nostromo navigator.
Even better, he's related to both. Maybe Jerry Lambert has a brother who gives birth to several kids, one of whom is Lambert's ancestor and the other is Hudson's ancestor by way of marriage. :p
EDIT-- GOD DAMNIT, SIL. >:(
I'm in ur brainz, stealing ur ideaz.
I'm going to say... human.
Wow, a 138 pages thread ?
Although I'd like to read through all of them, I'm afraid I wouldn't have enough time.
So, maybe what I'm going to say has already been submitted ... if so, I'm really sorry :
Lance's character in this movie is presented as "Bishop II" during the credits if I remember right.
So I guess that would mean it's a cyborg indeed.
"Bishop II" could mean anything.
It could also mean its the second Bishop we've seen, human or cyborg.
Quote from: The Demon on Dec 12, 2009, 06:38:50 PM
"Bishop II" could mean anything.
It could also mean its the second Bishop we've seen, human or cyborg.
Not so sure I agree with that....since the only Bishop we have seen up to that point was an android using "Bishop II" in the credits kinda does imply that it's another android. It seems a little strange to me that if he was human they didn't create and use a name for him in the credits....even "Company Man" would have worked.
It's always been my opinion that the filmmakers went back and forth as to whether Bishop II should have been human or not. In the end they decided to go with human, but in no way..in my opinion... is what we see on film concrete proof either way. And I also think that's how the filmmakers wanted it.
No, they always wanted him to be human and made sure that was evident in the film with the red blood.
Quote from: SM on Dec 12, 2009, 08:53:37 PM
No, they always wanted him to be human and made sure that was evident in the film with the red blood.
So...because he has red "blood" that makes it evidence that he's a human....yet his name, Bishop II (which implies android) is evidence of nothing...
This debate is split down the middle and always will be...with neither side willing to concede that the other viewpoint indeed has merit.... ;)
Quote from: scorpio95628 on Dec 12, 2009, 10:23:09 PM
So...because he has red "blood" that makes it evidence that he's a human....yet his name, Bishop II (which implies android) is evidence of nothing...
His name is never said in the movie.
Also, that logic is ... ridiculous, to put it kindly. Henry VIII was a robot, everyone! HOLY SHIT!
All roads point to Human
We've had some of the finest minds on the franchise concur that Bishop3 was in fact Human.
Quote from: scorpio95628 on Dec 12, 2009, 10:23:09 PM
Quote from: SM on Dec 12, 2009, 08:53:37 PM
No, they always wanted him to be human and made sure that was evident in the film with the red blood.
So...because he has red "blood" that makes it evidence that he's a human....yet his name, Bishop II (which implies android) is evidence of nothing...
This debate is split down the middle and always will be...with neither side willing to concede that the other viewpoint indeed has merit.... ;)
The novelization clarifies it - Ripley thinks he's an android, therefore she gives him the name Bishop II in her mind.
Ripley was wrong. :P
Quote from: SiL on Dec 13, 2009, 12:08:05 AM
Quote from: scorpio95628 on Dec 12, 2009, 10:23:09 PM
So...because he has red "blood" that makes it evidence that he's a human....yet his name, Bishop II (which implies android) is evidence of nothing...
His name is never said in the movie.
Also, that logic is ... ridiculous, to put it kindly. Henry VIII was a robot, everyone! HOLY SHIT!
Well....since Sil says so I guess that closes the case.
I've never really cared if he was human or not...I just find it amusing the way both sides hammer back and forth their "evidence" for their point...
And I wonder....if his name in the credits had been changed to "Michael Bishop" , would it still matter that his name is never said in the film? Or would it be used as further proof that he was indeed human?
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 13, 2009, 12:58:10 AM
Quote from: scorpio95628 on Dec 12, 2009, 10:23:09 PM
Quote from: SM on Dec 12, 2009, 08:53:37 PM
No, they always wanted him to be human and made sure that was evident in the film with the red blood.
So...because he has red "blood" that makes it evidence that he's a human....yet his name, Bishop II (which implies android) is evidence of nothing...
This debate is split down the middle and always will be...with neither side willing to concede that the other viewpoint indeed has merit.... ;)
The novelization clarifies it - Ripley thinks he's an android, therefore she gives him the name Bishop II in her mind.
Ripley was wrong. :P
Can't blame her, can you? :P
Quote from: scorpio95628 on Dec 13, 2009, 02:23:10 AM
Quote from: SiL on Dec 13, 2009, 12:08:05 AM
Quote from: scorpio95628 on Dec 12, 2009, 10:23:09 PM
So...because he has red "blood" that makes it evidence that he's a human....yet his name, Bishop II (which implies android) is evidence of nothing...
His name is never said in the movie.
Also, that logic is ... ridiculous, to put it kindly. Henry VIII was a robot, everyone! HOLY SHIT!
Well....since Sil says so I guess that closes the case.
I've never really cared if he was human or not...I just find it amusing the way both sides hammer back and forth their "evidence" for their point...
And I wonder....if his name in the credits had been changed to "Michael Bishop" , would it still matter that his name is never said in the film? Or would it be used as further proof that he was indeed human?
It'd eliminate people citing his name in the credits as evidence that he's an android, that's for sure. :P
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 13, 2009, 02:26:53 AM
Quote from: scorpio95628 on Dec 13, 2009, 02:23:10 AM
Quote from: SiL on Dec 13, 2009, 12:08:05 AM
Quote from: scorpio95628 on Dec 12, 2009, 10:23:09 PM
So...because he has red "blood" that makes it evidence that he's a human....yet his name, Bishop II (which implies android) is evidence of nothing...
His name is never said in the movie.
Also, that logic is ... ridiculous, to put it kindly. Henry VIII was a robot, everyone! HOLY SHIT!
Well....since Sil says so I guess that closes the case.
I've never really cared if he was human or not...I just find it amusing the way both sides hammer back and forth their "evidence" for their point...
And I wonder....if his name in the credits had been changed to "Michael Bishop" , would it still matter that his name is never said in the film? Or would it be used as further proof that he was indeed human?
It'd eliminate people citing his name in the credits as evidence that he's an android, that's for sure. :P
true that! :P
QuoteWell....since Sil says so I guess that closes the case.
Could've saved yourself the trouble if you'd realised that from the outset.
QuoteSo...because he has red "blood" that makes it evidence that he's a human....yet his name, Bishop II (which implies android) is evidence of nothing...
So people who use the suffix II instead of Jnr are androids too. The name implies nothing unless you're Paul Anderson.
Quote from: SM on Dec 13, 2009, 04:05:39 AM
QuoteWell....since Sil says so I guess that closes the case.
Could've saved yourself the trouble if you'd realised that from the outset.
QuoteSo...because he has red "blood" that makes it evidence that he's a human....yet his name, Bishop II (which implies android) is evidence of nothing...
So people who use the suffix II instead of Jnr are androids too. The name implies nothing unless you're Paul Anderson.
Sil is God....I now understand this... ;)
And don't you forget it.
Dug out my complete Aliens omnibus collection of the first three film novels today....read the end of the Alien 3 novelization...I must admit, according to the novel, Bishop II is portrayed as most certainly human.
For me, that puts the discussion to rest.
Although, in some ways, I think it would have been much more in line with how Weyland-Yutani liked to do things if he had been an android...sneaky company and all that stuff.... ;)
Hence Ripley and Aaron thinking him to be an android - like Ash who was a bad 'un and Bishop who was a red herring. And the nice twist when he wasn't.
He's also very human in the script. Like, not just the dialogue from him when he says "I'M NOT A DROID!!", but also the description in the script that outright says he's human. :P
Well for every person who has read the material saying he is human, there's someone else who still swears his blood is white. :D
Quote from: Undeadite on Dec 14, 2009, 07:33:19 AM
Well for every person who has read the material saying he is human, there's someone else who still swears his blood is white. :D
Huh? What do you mean? Of course his blood was white... ;)
I think I may Have found a compromise between the two sides of this argument that i don't think anyone has come u with...Bishop II is a clone!!!! :o. this way it would explain the red blood while not contradicting avp.
I also have an explanation for his ear injury (BTW, something like this actually happened to me, so I know what I'm talking about). its possible that Aaron's wrench didn't really hit his head,but Rather the edge of his ear. it would have torn through the cartilage but wouldn't cause any head trauma.
Quote from: brennan4 on Dec 14, 2009, 09:25:41 PM
I think I may Have found a compromise between the two sides of this argument that i don't think anyone has come u with...Bishop II is a clone!!!! :o.
It's been though of. Long, long ago.
Well than why are people still arguing about it? Why can't he just be a clone?
Why does he have to be a clone?
They aren't the same person. End of. No confusion, no mystery, no need for clones.
In that case that debate rages on...
... and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on ad infinitum.
Bishop II was a human.
Originally I think Bishop II was not the head of Weyland - Yutani.
Bishop was simply an android creator. Probably mechanical chief of staff.
Later AVP comes out and he's now a android of Charles Bishop Weyland.
He was meant to be a human.
QuoteIn that case that debate rages on...
No, in that case... "They aren't the same person. End of. No confusion, no mystery, no need for clones."
Bishop in AvP: Co-Founder of company.
Bishop in Aliens: Android, created in the image of either (a) Bishop in AvP, or (b) Bishop in Alien 3.
Bishop in Alien 3: Human.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 14, 2009, 09:37:01 PM
Why does he have to be a clone?
They aren't the same person. End of. No confusion, no mystery, no need for clones.
Interestingly, one of the Lance Henriksen interviews for the AvP3 game
Spoiler
might hint at something like that. Not necessarily that Michael Bishop was a clone, but that Charles Weyland may have had clones.
We don't have enough info at this point, but it's being treated as some sort of massive plot revelation. Why they decided to spoil it in one of the interviews is beyond me. :P
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 15, 2009, 01:06:53 AM
Quote from: SiL on Dec 14, 2009, 09:37:01 PM
Why does he have to be a clone?
They aren't the same person. End of. No confusion, no mystery, no need for clones.
Interestingly, one of the Lance Henriksen interviews for the AvP3 game Spoiler
might hint at something like that. Not necessarily that Michael Bishop was a clone, but that Charles Weyland may have had clones.
We don't have enough info at this point, but it's being treated as some sort of massive plot revelation. Why they decided to spoil it in one of the interviews is beyond me. :P
Because it was an accident. :-X
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 15, 2009, 01:06:53 AM
Quote from: SiL on Dec 14, 2009, 09:37:01 PM
Why does he have to be a clone?
They aren't the same person. End of. No confusion, no mystery, no need for clones.
Interestingly, one of the Lance Henriksen interviews for the AvP3 game Spoiler
might hint at something like that. Not necessarily that Michael Bishop was a clone, but that Charles Weyland may have had clones.
We don't have enough info at this point, but it's being treated as some sort of massive plot revelation. Why they decided to spoil it in one of the interviews is beyond me. :P
Maybe there will be peace between the fans after all. P.S I saw the interview.So strange that they would give that away. I guess we will have to watch every single tiny vid that comes out in case they drop another bombshell.
Quote from: Vulhala on Dec 14, 2009, 11:32:55 PM
Bishop in AvP: Co-Founder of company.
Bishop in Aliens: Android, created in the image of either (a) Bishop in AvP, or (b) Bishop in Alien 3.
Bishop in Alien 3: Human.
I can live with that. Hell, that maybe could coincide with the clone idea. Co-founder, dies, is cloned because (he quite literally) chooses to be, android is created of AvP Bishop, so A3 Bishop is another clone, ergo human.
I think the argument may finally be near an end ;D
^^^
Never.
It better not, I think this is the highest Alien related post count lol.
The argument even outside of this site will never end.
Why clone him when they have android replicas?
Because evil corporations want a little bit of everything? :P
Because there may be certain things a human mind can do that you might not be able to replicate with an android's artificial intelligence.
Hell, the interview with Lance Henriksen implies
Spoiler
somewhere down the line, they literally transfer Charles Weyland's consciousness into another body or some such - in the interview, it appears that Karl Weyland literally remembers things that transpired within Charles Weyland's lifetime as if they happened to him personally, as if they're the same person or something.
This is all conjecture inferred from 1 line of dialogue with no context or explanation whatsoever, so we could be completely off-the-mark on this.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 15, 2009, 05:23:44 AM
Because there may be certain things a human mind can do that you might not be able to replicate with an android's artificial intelligence.
Like?
Ash, Bishop and Call all seemed to think just like a person.
Till Ash went crazy and tried to choke a bitch, but whatevs.
QuoteQuoteSpoiler
somewhere down the line, they literally transfer Charles Weyland's consciousness into another body or some such -
Spoiler
Cos that's entirely possible after a dude's been vaporised by a nuclear blast :P
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 15, 2009, 05:23:44 AM
Because there may be certain things a human mind can do that you might not be able to replicate with an android's artificial intelligence.
Like SiL said, given how advanced Call, Ash, and Bishop all behaved that's unlikely. We're all led to believe they're human until a freak accident; Ash tripping out, Bishop being cut, Call being shot.
Creativity, free will -- there's all kinds of reasons why artificial intelligence isn't perfected, and that's because replicating a human mind, complete with all of its sensory input, memories, instincts, etc, in some sort of "artificial" format is ridiculously difficult. It really isn't that much of a stretch to see why an android replica of a person isn't the same thing as the human person, it's pretty much the core of what makes us
human. Artificial intelligence would need to advance a long way to be able to go beyond the bounds of "programming". Ash was programmed to protect the Alien, he wasn't acting out of some sort of personal, selfish, amoral self-interest. Likewise, Bishop was programmed not to hurt people. It wasn't a moral judgment on his part that he could choose to override based on circumstances, it was literally a hard-wired set of directives that he could not overcome.
Call actually seemed to have "morality" to an extent, but she was also 200 years more advanced, and even the other characters called her on her personality quirks because she didn't "act human" since she was too nice.
Sure the movies "trick" the audience into thinking they're human, but at the end of the day they're
not human. They are imitations, not the real article.
As for your spoiler, it is entirely possible if
Spoiler
Charles Weyland had had his "consciousness" or whatever copied to some sort of neural network prior to the events of 'AvP'. Sure that means the copy wouldn't have any recollection of any events after the "upload", which would include the events of 'AvP', but whatever.
Like I said, it's the implication based on the interview, we'll have to wait and see how it gets handled before we can really do anything with it.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 15, 2009, 05:35:49 AM
Spoiler
Charles Weyland had had his "consciousness" or whatever copied to some sort of neural network prior to the events of 'AvP'. Sure that means the copy wouldn't have any recollection of any events after the "upload", which would include the events of 'AvP', but whatever.
Which, to date, isn't possible.
The Alien movies were meant to be grounded in
some reality. Uploading a person's consciousness in or before 2004 is way, way out there.
Free will and creativity could be programmed. Can we do it now? ... Not easily, at any rate. But we're talking about a speculative future 110-167-odd years from now.
(Besides, Ash got plenty creative making the motion trackers :P)
"Isn't possible" is pretty irrelevant in a science-fiction franchise where you've got FTL travel (which "isn't possible") and hinges entirely on extraterrestrial creatures that can do things that "aren't possible". All the Alien, Predator, and AvP movies are chock-full of things that "aren't possible" and "shouldn't work". Cloning Ripley to get the Queen shouldn't work, the motion trackers (in 'Alien' and 'Aliens') shouldn't work, you shouldn't be able to stack 99 bullets into a pulse rifle magazine, you shouldn't be able to stand up in the APC, LV-426's size as given in 'Alien' shouldn't be possible, the Predator's plasma weaponry shouldn't work, the list goes on and on.
We know that Charles Weyland has done crazy stuff with robotics as per 'AvP', it's entirely possible he's done things like that for the purposes of this
fictional franchise. :P
You're saying "that's impossible" for a fictional franchise, and it's pretty silly. :P It isn't beyond the realm of "suspension of disbelief". Even if you think it's not possible, it might be possible in the AvP franchise just because the creators have decided to make it so.
As for "free will and creativity being programmed", that's entirely questionable. You're speculating with no actual data set, making some sort of abstract declaration that it "could be possible" with... what to back it up? Your own belief? The fact is
we don't know if it could be, nor do we know if it was in the Alien films because the data is entirely inconclusive. There's all sorts of things that make us "human", and I'd say there's a pretty important distinction between "human" and "android", especially in the Alien/AvP franchise.
It's
the entire purpose of this debate as to whether or not Bishop II is human. :P
There's all kinds of reasons why Charles Weyland could see a human as more desirable than an android.
Spoiler
I mean, seriously, if you had the opportunity to pass your consciousness onto a clone and "live forever", or just have a very lifelike robot take your place while "you" die, which would you pick?
At the end of the day, the bottom line is this:
QuoteThis is all conjecture inferred from 1 line of dialogue with no context or explanation whatsoever, so we could be completely off-the-mark on this.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 15, 2009, 06:25:55 AM
We know that Charles Weyland has done crazy stuff with robotics as per 'AvP', it's entirely possible he's done things like that for the purposes of this fictional franchise.
There is no such mention of "crazy stuff" with robots - Merely that he's the father of modern robotics. For all we know he just made a slightly more efficient car assembly line.
It's also creating information that doesn't exist to support an argument that shouldn't for a question that shouldn't need asking.
QuoteYou're speculating with no actual data set, making some sort of abstract declaration that it "could be possible" with... what to back it up? Your own belief?
An observation of the rate at which sciences are developing. We've already got robots that can get pissed off at people and AI that can learn.
QuoteThe fact is we don't know if it could be, nor do we know if it was in the Alien films because the data is entirely inconclusive.
Yet you'll argue for mapping human consciousness?
QuoteSpoiler
I mean, seriously, if you had the opportunity to pass your consciousness onto a clone and "live forever", or just have a very lifelike robot take your place while "you" die, which would you pick?
Spoiler
Neither, because I would be dead and something else would have my conscience. I would not be alive, something with an identical mind would be.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 15, 2009, 06:37:24 AM
Yet you'll argue for mapping human consciousness?
I'm not arguing "for" anything, I'm just throwing around an off-the-top-of-my-head idea to rationalize the 1 incomplete line of dialogue that we've got with no context. Like I said before, we don't actually know what's going to happen because the game isn't out yet. Arguing about it is pretty retarded. :P
Like, seriously, if the game made it so then there really isn't a point in arguing against it because, for the storytelling purposes, it's possible (just like FTL travel and all sorts of other things are "possible" in the AvP franchise).
If the game doesn't make it so... then why are we even discussing it? :P
I only even brought it up for trivia purposes, and at this point it's silly to debate it because we don't have all the facts. :)
Quote from: SiL on Dec 15, 2009, 06:37:24 AMQuoteSpoiler
I mean, seriously, if you had the opportunity to pass your consciousness onto a clone and "live forever", or just have a very lifelike robot take your place while "you" die, which would you pick?
Spoiler
Neither, because I would be dead and something else would have my conscience. I would not be alive, something with an identical mind would be.
That's up for debate - that's a huge philosophical grey area regarding the "self" and "consciousness" and the like. Like, if you did a full-on brain transplant into a new body, are you still you? Or if you were somehow able to clone a human brain and keep all of the memories and experiences in-tact, would the cloned brain essentially be the same person?
It really isn't that cut-and-dry that it would be a totally new person who "isn't you".
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 15, 2009, 06:46:36 AM
That's up for debate - that's a huge philosophical grey area regarding the "self" and "consciousness" and the like. Like, if you did a full-on brain transplant into a new body, are you still you? Or if you were somehow able to clone a human brain and keep all of the memories and experiences in-tact, would the cloned brain essentially be the same person?
It really isn't that cut-and-dry that it would be a totally new person who "isn't you".
If it was still my brain, then yes, it would still be me.
But once my consciousness has been down/uploaded, then the possibility exists for there to be two identical consciouses (That's apparently a word) at the same time, which paradoxically automatically makes them
non-identical. If I, the original, died, then my clone conscious would still exist, and still be "me", but I would not be aware of it; my thread of conscious would have ended.
But I don't think this is the place :P
Well there's all sorts of ways to argue it, yours is not the only one. It's kind of a philosophical topic that mankind has grappled with since, like, the ancient Greeks (if not earlier). :P
Just sayin'. :P But yeah, this isn't the place for it.
Oh God! It's my intro to philosophy class all over again! NOOOOOOOOOO! -plunges out the window-
Hey, philosophy is cool :P I minored in it in college, my professors were awesome. I'd have majored in it alongside my main degree, but having a degree in philosophy is kinda useless on a practical level :P
Which is why I find it just a little bit pointless. (Yes I know that's naive, but whatever. ;))
So, yeah, back on topic. Anyone else want to argue he's an android and get shot down?
Sometimes, I think we should step back, breath...
... and take a horror movie at face value, for once.
People have been over analyzing horror films since the dawn of entertainment. Its kinda funny, you don't see many books dedicated to studying romance or comedy films, but there are volumes dedicated to horror.
Probably because horror is beautifully representative of what we find both frightening and compelling.
But sometimes, you know. Face value.
Quote from: MadassAlex on Dec 15, 2009, 08:31:24 AM
Probably because horror is beautifully representative of what we find both frightening and compelling.
But sometimes, you know. Face value.
So true. :D
This thread got very deep, very quickly.
You call 141 pages quickly? :D
Not the entire thread. Over the last 2 pages this suddenly became a discussion about consciousness and what it means to be alive. Frankly, it was much more interesting than the normal debate.
I'm sure the screenwriters never would have guessed this would happen... :o
Unless the sick bastards wanted this all along! The perfect ploy to turn fans against each other. ;)
Of course!! The entire time, the entire movie was really part of a giant conspiracy!! The dog alien, David Fincher, Killing Ripley, it was all part of a fiendish plan! :o
Yes, a plan... to start a philosophical debate on a Sci-Fi film fansite!
Where's gameoverman when you need him.
They took him for... reeducation
They're making him philosophical.
Quote from: Xhan on Dec 16, 2009, 02:10:03 AM
They took him for... reeducation
through labour, no less.
If I am not wrong He said in aliens 3 that bishop droids are made by his picture, so he is human -.-' .
I dont get that whole AvP movie... That was his relative ? :D Or just another world ? I forgot what Lance said about that, watched one interview but long time ago :D
Quote from: tigerija on Dec 18, 2009, 05:33:44 PM
If I am not wrong He said in aliens 3 that bishop droids are made by his picture, so he is human -.-' .
I dont get that whole AvP movie... That was his relative ? :D Or just another world ? I forgot what Lance said about that, watched one interview but long time ago :D
This debate has had fans puzzled for years. I believe that the guy in alien3 is a clone, not a droid, of the guy from avp. hope that makes some sense to you. It does to me, anyway
He's not a clone.
I'd say they're related, sort of like in Back to the Future where Michael J. Fox played Marty McFly and Seamus McFly, as well as Marty McFly Jr. Just because the same actor plays them, doesn't mean they're the same character.
*bewildered look*
Woah that's heavy, SpaceMarines!
Damn internet! I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or sincere!
No, you goob!
QuoteMarty McFly: Whoa, this is heavy.
Dr. Emmett Brown: There's that word again; "heavy". Why are things so heavy in the future? Is there a problem with the earth's gravitational pull?
::)
*slaps face*
Of course! How did I miss that?
Now, I really don't have the time to read 150 pages of the discussion, although I would like to. ;D
I remember reading somewhere that in the first concept Bishop was a human, later it was changed.
If we look at the facts: Bishop ІІ took a blow of solid metal object on the head, tearing half his scalp of.
And - not a reaction of pain, not even a single drop of blood, when he should be bleeding as a stuck pig! Not very human of him, I think... ::)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJPkBc-BN4w
No wonder that this is my favorite thread ...
;D ;D ;D
No, seriously, I didn't read the whole topic (guess why), if you had argued on that - just ignore. ;D
Quote from: Jorko_Beliata on Dec 26, 2009, 02:46:49 PM
No, seriously, I didn't read the whole topic (guess why), if you had argued on that - just ignore. ;D
Way ahead of you on that one. :P
I personally think he is a droid. Why would the guy who created Bishop even show up there...isn't he a corporate guy (my same reasoning behind AVP...why would a corporate guy go on an expedition?). Send some flunky instead. Also there is something very off about him.
QuoteWhy would the guy who created Bishop even show up there...
"...friendly face". Right there in the dialogue.
QuoteIf we look at the facts: Bishop ІІ took a blow of solid metal object on the head, tearing half his scalp of.
Wasn't his scalp it was his ear.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_IiTtN2Sjij8%2FSpUibin9biI%2FAAAAAAAAAR0%2Fe5-rWxd9leM%2Fs320%2FBishop2.jpg&hash=df927cfe034d52a192dc1528cc186ae2d3260f3f)
QuoteAnd - not a reaction of pain, not even a single drop of blood...
Yes he did, more so in the Assembly Cut, heres 2
quick screenshots:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi34.tinypic.com%2F2ywd8o3.jpg&hash=eb5422249971ee6f2cf3ec3b6e6836ecc03764e0)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi36.tinypic.com%2F258wfi1.jpg&hash=8d8ccd87940c4ccd817071c5804a357ea246d539)
As for blood, watch the scenes more closely their is blood.
Never supposed it's meant to be blood, because of the amount... :-\ There should be blood all over the coat and the scarf if it's open wound, I think... And about the reaction, he yelled, yes, but this Bishop ІІ guy must be real tough b*stard staying awake after the blow, thus I supposed he's synthetic with red body fluid... :-\
Perhaps he's meant to be overexcited to pass out at the moment (that is, if he's supposed to be human), about the amount of blood, it's just not enough to look real.
I'm curious 'bout the Mr. Wayland from AvP, but I'll check if it's mentioned anything in the pages up. ;D ;D ;D
QuoteAnd about the reaction, he yelled, yes
I don't think he yelled yes...
Quotebut this Bishop ІІ guy must be real tough b*stard staying awake after the blow
It is possible for someone to be conscious after blows to the head, I've seen it with my own eyes. Plus theres examples all over the place of people surviving and still conscious during and after major accidents.
Yeah, possible. Especially if it's a person used to endure pain. Which usually excludes Large Company Owners, but, what do we know... ;D ;D ;D
To be honest, after watching AvP just thought Bishop ІІ is another model android, until that moment was never certain only watching Alien 3. It's confusing... And there isn't even a hint about clones, mind-transfer or whatever in the movies, just saw it few pages up.
I'm still upset no one took my suggestion of highly evolved cockroach seriously... :-[ :P
In case anyone is wondering - i once watched mimic + posted that mock theory + someone quoted it before launching into a rant of some sort that i failed to see the point of. It's possible that i was accused to not taking the argument seriously...
I would maintain he's human just for simplicity's sake. Droid based off of him, human comes in and attempts to calm Ripley. Works for me.
Quotethus I supposed he's synthetic with red body fluid...
If he's sythetic - and we've already seen how fast synthetic reflexes are - why didn't he turn around and simply block Aaron's blow (which was flagged by a loud "f**king android!") or reach out and stop Ripley closeing the gate?
The reaction suggestion is a very good one - even if not programmed to combat, he should be slick enough to step away.
Quotereach out and stop Ripley closing the gate
He could have done this as a human also. Or just order his goons to put a few rounds in her legs or something. Always wandered why he chooses to
reason with her. Heck, like she has to agree so they can take her "child" ??? And only a movie prior we see near 160 casualties in the efforts of the same man to get to an alien specimen.
Finally, I checked this:
QuoteBishop II turns.
No wires.
No milk.
Real blood.
Says the script, Walter Hill and David Giler, final draft. (10x, Sil ;D ) Then he is
intended to be human. The instant blood coagulation may be just effect failure, or as often happens the sequence was found too good to shoot over again.
Now we have only to figure out what's the issue with Mr. Wayland "who also was human, existed 200 years ago, but is completely different person" ;D And how didn't we figure it out, he's just a clone, and the mind of the real Mr. Wayland was transferred on it, it's soooooo simple! Plus they do it all the time! Jeeesh! ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Jorko_Beliata on Jan 05, 2010, 07:17:36 AM
Or just order his goons to put a few rounds in her legs or something.
I wondered that too, but I came to the conclusion he was too worried about harming the Queen inside her. I mean, we know how smart the Aliens can be. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to imagine that the second it senses that it's host is in danger it would bust out and leg it, which considering her precarious position over the molten lead could have ended quite badly for it.
Bishop II is a human, grand grand grand etc. etc. son of Charles Bishop Weyland.
But why can he look like his grand grand grand... grandfather then?
Because it was the same actor who played them. That's how.
Suppose the presence of Wayland in AvP is meant to show the future character is a descendant of his, that's the best reasonable explanation . It's possible even unrelated people to look like each other.
Still I think they pretty much messed up things including Henriksen in AvP - it's rather confusing.
Quote from: stroggificated on Jan 05, 2010, 01:10:03 PM
But why can he look like his grand grand grand... grandfather then?
Because it is thesame actor. But to also grand children are more like their grand partens than parents. Similar genes gives similar fenotype.
QuoteI wondered that too, but I came to the conclusion he was too worried about harming the Queen inside her.
Ding!
She'd just felt it move. They knew birth was imminent. They wanted it to happen in a manner where they could control it. Not high above a furnace and 10 tonnes of molten lead.
Another thing I feel invalidates the whole "Android" concept is this: Why would the Company care? Why would they give a shit about sending the "Real Bishop" to negotiate? They wouldn't.
Bear in mind that the "Real Bishop" has been killed twice so far already.
Sometimes I wish they never would've had him get hit by Aaron. I believe him to be human but I could understand why people get confused. I mean his frigg'in ear is hanging off his head and he seems to be acting as if nothing happened.
Well at least in the Theatrical Cut that is. In the Assembly Cut he does react to it being painful with a few grunts here and there.
Collpasing on the ground clutching his head isn't exactly "acting as if nothing happened".
If he really did act like nothing happened - then it'd be pretty obvious he's a robot. However since this isn't the case.
I think that him not reacting with intense screams can be explained by shock. If something that bad happened to you, it would probably take a little bit for it to register with your brain.
Vulhala, I know this may have been shot down by a previous user of this forum...but I believe the Bishop in Alien 3 and the "Charles Weyland" in AVP had to be androids (maybe the one in AVP was the first android..and its disease was some type of early android problem...yeah I know he had human organs and stuff). Why would a corporate man show up in places like that? If I owned a company...there is no way I would show up in the arctic...no way would I show up on a prison planet. Send some flunkies and take credit later.
Quote from: SM on Jan 06, 2010, 05:14:08 AM
Collpasing on the ground clutching his head isn't exactly "acting as if nothing happened".
If he really did act like nothing happened - then it'd be pretty obvious he's a robot. However since this isn't the case.
But then he was like, Ripley you must let me have it! Realistically the man would've been out cold!
In the AC it mixes in a few beats of him showing pain. If they would've kept that stuff in we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Realistically, no, he wouldn't have been out cold.
As has been said more times than anyone can remember, there are plenty of cases of people suffering trauma - including head trauma - and not only not dying, but remaining perfectly lucid.
Also - the fact that there's damage to his EAR shows us that Aaron wasn't a terribly good shot. It was a glancing blow; not a full-on whack.
Odd how people seem to forget that when they proclaim loudly that his ear's hanging off.
Quote from: SM on Jan 06, 2010, 05:24:44 AM
Realistically, no, he wouldn't have been out cold.
As has been said more times than anyone can remember, there are plenty of cases of people suffering trauma - including head trauma - and not only not dying, but remaining perfectly lucid.
Also - the fact that there's damage to his EAR shows us that Aaron wasn't a terribly good shot. It was a glancing blow; not a full-on whack.
Odd how people seem to forget that when they proclaim loudly that his ear's hanging off.
Gotta go back and watch the scene.
Okay, I could see what you're saying. His adrenaline could've been going because of shock and the fact that he wanted that damn alien so badly. The pain in his ear was probably the least of his worries at that moment in time. So yeah, he could still be conscious.
But Aaron hits the shit out of him. On my stereo system it doesn't sound like a love tap.
The fact his ear is partly detached shows he gave him a fair old clout - but it was predominantly to his ear.
If Aaron had better aim he could've killed him.
As I've said before, Bishop II's injury was just to the cartilage attaching his ear to his head. From experience, i can tell you that apart from being painful it shouldn't have much effect on his behavior.
Cartilage wounds wont cripple you, but they will bleed like a stuck hog. Ill just add that one to the poor prosthetic effect idea lol.
I've read some of the posts in this thread but not all of them (too many!). My belief? I think Bishop II at the end of film was an android. Perhaps it had red "blood" because it was a newer model. With Weyland-Yutani being the "evil" company, it is not surprising that they would try to send someone familiar to Ripley to bring her in. It just seems like something they would do. But, I definitely see both sides of the argument here. I wouldn't call you an idiot if you said he was human.
Quote from: Jekku on Jan 07, 2010, 06:34:27 AM
I've read some of the posts in this thread but not all of them (too many!). My belief? I think Bishop II at the end of film was an android. Perhaps it had red "blood" because it was a newer model. With Weyland-Yutani being the "evil" company, it is not surprising that they would try to send someone familiar to Ripley to bring her in. It just seems like something they would do. But, I definitely see both sides of the argument here. I wouldn't call you an idiot if you said he was human.
:o Gah! Sensitive consideration of both sides of the issue!!! Make it stop!!!
;)
People who have access to copious amounts of evidence to the contrary and still think he's a robot. Make it stop!!!
Is it really possible to hit someone like that with a wrench (which, as far as I know, isn't exactly used for cutting things) and cause such a huge breakage enough to make his ear hang like a sleeve? It's a really confusing matter. Maybe the cheesy way it broke was supposed to be an android hint, or maybe it's supposed to render his humanity?
Quote from: RomanianGuy on Jan 09, 2010, 01:14:10 PM
Is it really possible to hit someone like that with a wrench (which, as far as I know, isn't exactly used for cutting things) and cause such a huge breakage enough to make his ear hang like a sleeve? It's a really confusing matter. Maybe the cheesy way it broke was supposed to be an android hint, or maybe it's supposed to render his humanity?
The impact of the wrench probably forced back the cartilage until it tear.
Ok, I read several parts of this thread before I even registered. 145 pages = arguing in circles. I know that I am bring up a point that someone has posited at some point but I just can't help myself.
That point is --
If Bishop was a droid there is absolutely, positively, no need or reason to allow an Android to feel pain. You're talking about a company that would willingly jeopardize the lives of it's employees (peons, whatever) for profit and power.
There was a part in the "Aliens" ADF novelization detailing that the company doesn't pay to allow Bishop to dream. So there is no sane reason why a new model would be allowed to "feel" pain. Yes the central system might register damage and whatnot but it would be irrelevant and cost money and man-hours to program an appropriate response to damage.
Now, perhaps I jumped to conclusions and you've already come to a consensus. But I will reiterate that I believe his basic reactions to the wrench and his second reaction right before he says "No pictures!" in the Assembly Cut make it perfectly clear that he is, in fact, human. And before you bring up the Queen stabbing him it was dramatic but neither him nor Ash could be considered to register actual pain. If that was the case Bishop would be fried after his corpse landed on the deck.
Even as a child, buying Alien 3 trading cards at some swap meet I barely remember, that was my impression. Reading the ADF Alien 3 in 4th grade, it was still my impression that he was human.
Whether or not he was a clone will be left up to others.
Thank you for your patience.
Aliens!
Him being a clone is possible. I wouldnt be suprised if theres loads of clone & android versions of bishop managing the company from within.
Well if the bishop in AVP had cancer that means he was the original Bishop, and by then his company already had a andriod or clone of bishop ready for replacement.
Quote from: QueenofDeath on Jan 30, 2010, 01:39:39 PM
Him being a clone is possible. I wouldnt be suprised if theres loads of clone & android versions of bishop managing the company from within.
Well, I remember a few months ago watching something on a news program where a scientist was developing a robot version of himself so that he could control it from a distance away and use it to interact with another person who would build up a comfortable feeling about the robot being a representation of the person who would be moving it and talking through it, and this makes it an avatar. So if scientists are allowed to be so creative, who knows what could be unleashed in a hundred years.
Quote from: SM on Jan 06, 2010, 05:24:44 AM
Realistically, no, he wouldn't have been out cold.
As has been said more times than anyone can remember, there are plenty of cases of people suffering trauma - including head trauma - and not only not dying, but remaining perfectly lucid.
Also - the fact that there's damage to his EAR shows us that Aaron wasn't a terribly good shot. It was a glancing blow; not a full-on whack.
Odd how people seem to forget that when they proclaim loudly that his ear's hanging off.
I wonder this shot where he was hit was going to be used anyway whether Bishop was finally killed or not, because in an earlier shoot he was going to be killed
Ya, know after watching AVP and Looking on the Wiki as to who Lance was playing; Michael Bishop Weyland according to Wiki for (Alien 3) and Charles Weyland for (AVP). I assumed Michael Bishop Weyland was the grandson of Charles Bishop Weyland (AVP)
But that only makes sense if you consider AVP part of the same Universe as Alien 3
Quote from: First Blood on Jan 30, 2010, 10:35:15 PM
Ya, know after watching AVP and Looking on the Wiki as to who Lance was playing; Michael Bishop Weyland according to Wiki for (Alien 3) and Charles Weyland for (AVP). I assumed Michael Bishop Weyland was the grandson of Charles Bishop Weyland (AVP)
But that only makes sense if you consider AVP part of the same Universe as Alien 3
Michael Bishop is just a name from the Alien 3 card set
Quote from: SM on Jan 04, 2010, 10:30:12 PM
Quotethus I supposed he's synthetic with red body fluid...
If he's sythetic - and we've already seen how fast synthetic reflexes are
I'm trying to think where Bishop's reflexes were particularly fast. The only fast thing I remember at present was the knife trick, but that would perhaps require preparing to plot positions where to put the knife and moving the hand to put the knife there with great speed but only as long as where the knife is being placed there isn't any change.
In that case I say he was human, because when the ship landed him and his crew came shuffling in. He was wearing glasses and a scarf to protect himself from the servere weather outside. If you remember in Aliens when Bishop went outside he wasn't wearing anything to protect himself from that planet's servere weather.
Good point.
Quote from: First Blood on Jan 30, 2010, 11:24:38 PM
In that case I say he was human, because when the ship landed him and his crew came shuffling in. He was wearing glasses and a scarf to protect himself from the servere weather outside. If you remember in Aliens when Bishop went outside he wasn't wearing anything to protect himself from that planet's servere weather.
Maybe they could have dressed him up to make him a more convincing human? I'm not disagreeing with you, I think that he was human as well, I'm simply playing Devil's advocate.
After 146 pages, the last thing this thread needs is a devils advocate. Let it die, people! ::)
We will never let it die! I'll advocate for the Devil all I want!
It's suppose to be human....but I consider it an android.
the fact of the matter is that at the time of the films release bishop II was supposed to be the "real" bishop himself who the android was based on. Just like he said himself. Obviously the events of AVP require a retcon on this part. Neither via film,game,comic or novel have we had a definitive retcon to answer it so until then we wont know. Im still firmly on the side that hes human but wether he is a descendant or clone of Charles Bishop Weyland.
I got the feeling from the new AVP game that the Karl Bishop Weyland
Spoiler
not the android that appears throughout most of the game
who appears in it may turn out to be the same man from the end of Alien 3. The game is set after alien 3 and there are several hints about his past that suggest he is trying to find a way to make humans better. He also talks about a new technology that charles company invented which records memories. He also mentions his predecessors. I think he keeps cloning himself and using this technology to reinsert his memories to essentially live forever because he is obssessed with harnessing the power of the aliens and predators and he wont stop until hes done so.
I hope we do get an answer as to wether hes a clone or a descendant at some point and i hope it will come in a film so nobody can argue its canonicity.
Quote from: Keg on Feb 22, 2010, 11:53:30 PM
He also talks about a new technology that charles company invented which records memories. He also mentions his predecessors. I think he keeps cloning himself and using this technology to reinsert his memories to essentially live forever because he is obssessed with harnessing the power of the aliens and predators and he wont stop until hes done so.
Well, I wonder how much a clone who has the memories of it's cell donor will appreciate it's situation, especially after thinking about the replicants with inserted memories in Blade Runner. Well, I suppose maybe if it is a way to inherit information but how much confusion would it cause a person who was trying to develop a sense of self dealing with another person's memories.
As of the late 24th century cloning cannot reproduce memories.
Quote from: SM on Feb 23, 2010, 11:39:19 PM
As of the late 24th century cloning cannot reproduce memories.
What is this in response to?
I'm just throwing this out there but maybe he was a clone?
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Feb 23, 2010, 11:50:13 PM
Quote from: SM on Feb 23, 2010, 11:39:19 PM
As of the late 24th century cloning cannot reproduce memories.
What is this in response to?
Something i said about cloning and reinserting memories. i was wrong though. The audio diary doesnt meantion putting memories into clones it simply says something about Charles Weyland discovering how to record memories. I thought the audio diaries where hinting that the man in the ending was a clone with charles bishops memories implanted and that he was the same man from alien 3. However as he states cloning cannot reproduce memories (or at least not as full, detailed memories) as we see in alien resurrection.
When KB Weyland mentions its predecessors its because the android has the recorded memories of charles weyland. i still think the one we see at the end has something to with the one from alien 3 though. Just exactly when Charles Bishop recorded these memories Im not sure. I sure as hell didnt see him pull out a device and press rec just before the predator impaled him on the steps.
Whoops i think ive just opened up a whole new argument now.
Personally I don't know what to think. It would make sense if he was an android due to continuity. Becuase in AVP (set in 2004) The real guy dies, and in Alien 3 (hundreds of years later) He returns saying he is the real guy! :S Unless he is actually a zombie!
Quote from: Keg on Feb 24, 2010, 12:19:39 AM
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Feb 23, 2010, 11:50:13 PM
Quote from: SM on Feb 23, 2010, 11:39:19 PM
As of the late 24th century cloning cannot reproduce memories.
What is this in response to?
Something i said about cloning and reinserting memories. i was wrong though. The audio diary doesnt meantion putting memories into clones it simply says something about Charles Weyland discovering how to record memories. I thought the audio diaries where hinting that the man in the ending was a clone with charles bishops memories implanted and that he was the same man from alien 3. However as he states cloning cannot reproduce memories (or at least not as full, detailed memories) as we see in alien resurrection.
When KB Weyland mentions its predecessors its because the android has the recorded memories of charles weyland. i still think the one we see at the end has something to with the one from alien 3 though. Just exactly when Charles Bishop recorded these memories Im not sure. I sure as hell didnt see him pull out a device and press rec just before the predator impaled him on the steps.
Whoops i think ive just opened up a whole new argument now.
Oh well, cloning can not produce genetically inherited memories according to the science understood by the Aurgia crew indeed. Inserted memories would be a different thing if ever the idea could be realised. And well, yes there wouldn't be an opportunity to record the memories of Charles Weyland during AVP by any means known to me. Or maybe David Giler might have a joke to make about how to bring Charles Weyland's memories back just like he did about cloning Ripley and that might be good enough.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Feb 24, 2010, 12:24:15 AM
Quote from: Keg on Feb 24, 2010, 12:19:39 AM
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Feb 23, 2010, 11:50:13 PM
Quote from: SM on Feb 23, 2010, 11:39:19 PM
As of the late 24th century cloning cannot reproduce memories.
What is this in response to?
Something i said about cloning and reinserting memories. i was wrong though. The audio diary doesnt meantion putting memories into clones it simply says something about Charles Weyland discovering how to record memories. I thought the audio diaries where hinting that the man in the ending was a clone with charles bishops memories implanted and that he was the same man from alien 3. However as he states cloning cannot reproduce memories (or at least not as full, detailed memories) as we see in alien resurrection.
When KB Weyland mentions its predecessors its because the android has the recorded memories of charles weyland. i still think the one we see at the end has something to with the one from alien 3 though. Just exactly when Charles Bishop recorded these memories Im not sure. I sure as hell didnt see him pull out a device and press rec just before the predator impaled him on the steps.
Whoops i think ive just opened up a whole new argument now.
Oh well, cloning can not produce genetically inherited memories according to the science understood by the Aurgia crew indeed. Inserted memories would be a different thing if ever the idea could be realised. And well, yes there wouldn't be an opportunity to record the memories of Charles Weyland during AVP by any means known to me. Or maybe David Giler might have a joke to make about how to bring Charles Weyland's memories back just like he did about cloning Ripley and that might be good enough.
ah thats an interesting point about inherited/inserted memories. As for how he recorded the memories i suppose its a retcon anyway (as is the debate over Bishop II) so you can decide any method of how it was done. Perhaps it was a chip that he already had in his brain so it was already recording the events of AVP without us knowing. We'll just never bloody know whats going on unless a sequel set after Alien 3 is ever made and the issue is addressed within it. Wether this be an AVP or Alien sequel I dont care. Hell if its answered in the next AVP game it'd be fine but its always better if its in the movie canon. No arguments then.
Really interesting arguments going on here, guys. Myself, I always thought Bishop to be an android in Alien3.
Could be wrong, but thats how I see it! :)
Quote from: Keg on Feb 24, 2010, 12:46:35 AM
We'll just never bloody know whats going on unless a sequel set after Alien 3 is ever made and the issue is addressed within it. Wether this be an AVP or Alien sequel I dont care. Hell if its answered in the next AVP game it'd be fine but its always better if its in the movie canon. No arguments then.
well, not having a solid clue about Bishop 2 is the major thing that gives me a backbone of interest about Alien 3.
Woulda thunk there were ample "solid clues".
He just a figment of your imagination...thats all...hahaha ;D
Quote from: SM on Feb 24, 2010, 10:19:20 PM
Woulda thunk there were ample "solid clues".
Nothing solid by my definition, but people define what they see in that scene in different ways
A lot of MMA fighters develop what is known as Cauliflower ear. It's when a hard enough force hits the ear. In the case of Alien 3 the wrench to Bishops head.
Google image the term, and look at the images. I think the 3rd image in, is the side of the head of a soccer player and it looks just like Bishop's ear.
i believe him to of been human.....until AVP totally mindf**ked me!
yeah rugby players get cauliflower ear because of they bang heads when they are in the scrum. boxers get it quite often too obviously because of getting jabbed in the lugs. bishop doesnt just have cauliflower ear tho its bloody well hanging off haha.
I may be mistaken but is cauliflower ear because all the small bones in your ear and the blood vessels and gristle just turn into a crumpled mess leaving you with one seriously messed up dumbo wing?
Quote from: MikeM1991 on Feb 24, 2010, 12:20:19 AM
Personally I don't know what to think. It would make sense if he was an android due to continuity. Becuase in AVP (set in 2004) The real guy dies, and in Alien 3 (hundreds of years later) He returns saying he is the real guy! :S Unless he is actually a zombie!
Or it's just the same actor portraying two different characters in two different films.
Quote from: SpaceMarines on Feb 25, 2010, 07:15:38 AM
Quote from: MikeM1991 on Feb 24, 2010, 12:20:19 AM
Personally I don't know what to think. It would make sense if he was an android due to continuity. Becuase in AVP (set in 2004) The real guy dies, and in Alien 3 (hundreds of years later) He returns saying he is the real guy! :S Unless he is actually a zombie!
Or it's just the same actor portraying two different characters in two different films.
They are obviously two seperate characters but they must be linked in some way. Wether hes a clone or a descendant or whatever but they are definately linked unlike say Bill Paxtons characters in Aliens and Predator 2. Now that the series are canon to each other its easy to accept because we know its meant to be a completely different character. Hell sometimes directors do it on purpose as a kind of trademark. Robert Rodriquez uses the same actors in sequels as different characters and it seems to work. Usually involves Cheech and Trejo.
I don't consider them connected, as the connections they attempted to make are very thin and entirely pointless to the individual franchises. However, I believe that the Bishop in AvP was a man, in Aliens was an android, and in Alien3 it was another man, possibly related to the one in AvP, but not necessarily.
The great grandson of Charles Weyland possibly?
Between AVP and Alien 3 there is 175 years. So it would be more likely to be his great-great-great-great grandson. Could be more than that. suppose it depends on how old Charles Weyland's descendants where when they had the kids. I would say Charles Weyland was meant to be somewhere between 50-60 in the movie (in real life Henrikson was 64 when he made AVP) and so he was at an age where he could of already been or would of soon become a grandfather if he hadnt died. Lets just take it as an estimate that each child is born roughly every 30 years. So somewhere around the noughties (2000-2010) Charles had his first grandchild. The Bishop in Alien 3 looks about 40 so if hes human would of been born around 2140. So id say between 6 and 8 generations would have passed. The chances of all those generations resulting in somebody that looks identical,sounds identical and still has the same middle and last name after 140 years seems absurd though. At least it offers a possible explanation though, no matter how daft it seems.
Hey, I'll take that explanation. For me personally, there's just not enough proof that he's an android.
Quote from: Keg on Feb 25, 2010, 08:17:23 PM
The chances of all those generations resulting in somebody that looks identical,sounds identical and still has the same middle and last name after 140 years seems absurd though.
As it's been mentioned before (and gleefully ignored too many times), it happens in nature.
As for the "same middle and last name after 140 years" objection, his name wasn't given in
Alien³ (this was also mentioned and ignored before). For all we know, his name could have been Rosenkowski. If we choose to go with "Michael Bishop", then "Weyland" wouldn't be his surname. A few divorces here and there, somebody else gets mad and distances themself from a branch of the family and names get lopped off along those 140 years.
Reality is a lot stranger than you may think, but it's there.
It's been done before recently too. Take for example Tremors 4, Burt Gummer is playing his ancestral counterpart from the 1800's who looks exactly like the present day Gummer.
Quote from: First Blood on Feb 25, 2010, 09:55:32 PM
It's been done before recently too. Take for example Tremors 4, Burt Gummer is playing his ancestral counterpart from the 1800's who looks exactly like the present day Gummer.
Almost every TV show or movie sequel/prequel has used the same "present day" actor to portray an ancestor or descendent.
Hence why I accept "Michael Bishop" as an ancestral descendant of Charles Bishop Weyland, rather than an android.
Quote from: First Blood on Feb 25, 2010, 10:12:41 PM
Hence why I accept "Michael Bishop" as an ancestral descendant of Charles Bishop Weyland, rather than an android.
I, too, accept him as an ancestor for that reason, and also I like to retain the realism of the
Alien universe by trying to find elements of it that are based in reality.
I was always baffled that this was ever a debate.
The script, the novelization, the comic adaption, they all said he was human.
I'm going for the ancestry thing, clearly.
Quote from: Bishop2 on Feb 25, 2010, 10:23:55 PM
I was always baffled that this was ever a debate.
It's for the reason that people believe in Holocaust denial, pseudoscience, etc.: they don't understand how things are, or they believe what they want to because they like an idea no matter how much it contradicts reality and what has already been proven contrary to their notions.
Was that you mal?
Quote from: First Blood on Feb 25, 2010, 10:12:41 PM
Hence why I accept "Michael Bishop" as an ancestral descendant of Charles Bishop Weyland, rather than an android.
Could have been a clone with memorys intact and everything else this was proven in alien resurrection that clones and memorys go hand in hand in the alien mythology.
They made the ripley clone from some blood so imagine what they could have done with multiple sambles of dna.
Except in Alien Resurrection the memories do not go hand in hand with cloning. Ripley is like a child and has to learn everything all over again. The only reason she does so is because she has part alien dna and learns incredibly fast. She does not have full blown memories at all and she doesnt consider herself as ripley at all. She has faint blurry memories but even the scientists where shocked that she had even those. Also Alien 4 is set hundreds of years in the future. Cloning wasnt even an option in the original films.
I agree that Bishop II is human and that hes a descendant of Charles Weyland. Even though its unlikely in real life it has been pointed out that in television and films that trick of using the same actor has been used many times before. Probably to show us a recognisable face and to reinforce it in your mind. Its the most logical explanation and i'm sticking with it.
Quote from: MikeM1991 on Feb 24, 2010, 12:20:19 AM
Personally I don't know what to think. It would make sense if he was an android due to continuity. Becuase in AVP (set in 2004) The real guy dies, and in Alien 3 (hundreds of years later) He returns saying he is the real guy! :S Unless he is actually a zombie!
Whether or not the Bishop seen in Alien 3 is human or android is up for debate (as proven by the 148 pages we find ourselves in now), but I don't see the confusion involving the AvP Bishop. He's simply an early relative of the latter Bishops, and instead of how many wealthy families now give their sons their first name with a different middle name, the Bishop line passes on the middle name with a new first name.
Having Lance Henriksen play all the various iterations of himself is like Michael J Fox playing himself, his son, and his great grandfather in Back to the Future.
Quote from: Bishop084 on Feb 25, 2010, 11:50:54 PM
Whether or not the Bishop seen in Alien 3 is human or android is up for debate (as proven by the 148 pages we find ourselves in now
Anything can be up for debate; but it doesn't mean that it
should.
Quote from: Keg on Feb 25, 2010, 11:26:49 PM
Except in Alien Resurrection the memories do not go hand in hand with cloning. Ripley is like a child and has to learn everything all over again. The only reason she does so is because she has part alien dna and learns incredibly fast. She does not have full blown memories at all and she doesnt consider herself as ripley at all. She has faint blurry memories but even the scientists where shocked that she had even those. Also Alien 4 is set hundreds of years in the future. Cloning wasnt even an option in the original films.
I would say cloning is an option even today it is possible in 100 or 200 years god only knows what will be possible, it would not be far in the realms of sci-fi to say that sooner or later it will be possible to record peoples thought's and memorys this and combining this with cloning will see the real immortality that man searchs for.
Even today we spend billions on our health care system's trying to cure illnesses and prolong our lives im sure if i had the tools and the money that the bishop character has at his disposal to bring myself back i would even if it took decades of research for it to be possible.
Quote from: Mattyoung1977 on Feb 26, 2010, 12:40:57 AM
I would say cloning is an option even today
Not a
legal option for humans. Nevermind the complications we had in cloning sheep and other animals.
Quote from: Mattyoung1977 on Feb 26, 2010, 12:40:57 AM
it is possible in 100 or 200 years god only knows what will be possible
We could also hit a scientific plateau, too. As it stands, we still do not know everything about consciousness.
Quote from: Mattyoung1977 on Feb 26, 2010, 12:40:57 AM
it would not be far in the realms of sci-fi to say that sooner or later it will be possible to record peoples thought's and memorys this and combining this with cloning will see the real immortality that man searchs for.
Of course, there would have to be a precedent for that, and there isn't one today. As for immortality, a clone wouldn't have the same memories as its donor. Even if we were to upload our memories into another body, there would be some legal ramifications such as the clone, being a human being, having rights of its own; nevermind having its mind wiped clean and invaded by another person's psyche.
Quote from: Mattyoung1977 on Feb 26, 2010, 12:40:57 AM
Even today we spend billions on our health care system's trying to cure illnesses and prolong our lives im sure if i had the tools and the money that the bishop character has at his disposal to bring myself back i would even if it took decades of research for it to be possible.
We don't know what money and resources he actually had in order to do it. There's that legal snare and that bit about not knowing how consciousness works.
And "Michael Bishop" being a descendant would also explain why he designed the Bishop android. To pay respects to his ancestor Charles who created the Weyland-Yutani Corp.
Quote from: First Blood on Feb 26, 2010, 01:01:57 AM
And "Michael Bishop" being a descendant would also explain why he designed the Bishop android. To pay respects to his ancestor Charles who created the Weyland-Yutani Corp.
Thank you! At least there are many cases where people make different forms of monuments to commemorate an ancestor.
Spoiler
The theory I currently have is Karl Bishop Weyland is a human, the bishop in the AVP game is obviously a synthetic and the Bishop at the very end of the Marine campaign after the android died, is the human from Alien 3.
Are there any dates in the new game indicating when it takes place?
I don't consider the game canon. But that's just me.
The game takes place after Alien 3 sometime. In one of Karl Bishop Weyland's auido diaries he talks about Ripley scuppering the companies plans on 3 occassions. Not sure exactly how long after Alien 3 it's set because I dont think it's ever stated.
Isn't the purpose of a game is to be something that people use when they have to shoot at an image that's on their TV or computer screens? Don't they tend to have a .01% accuracy when it comes to lining up its info with that of the franchise it was born from?
Just checking...
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 01, 2010, 12:38:37 PM
Isn't the purpose of a game is to be something that people use when they have to shoot at an image that's on their TV or computer screens? Don't they tend to have a .01% accuracy when it comes to lining up its info with that of the franchise it was born from?
Just checking...
depends on who is making it. Some games are EXTREMELY accurate. This one has been pretty close from what I can tell, when it comes to the adio diaries anyway. Hell, some games are even considered to be the same canon as film, like Star Wars: The Force Unleashed.
Quote from: Xeros Kore on Mar 01, 2010, 12:58:53 PM
depends on who is making it. Some games are EXTREMELY accurate. This one has been pretty close from what I can tell, when it comes to the adio diaries anyway.
From what
I have been hearing, it isn't.
Quote from: Xeros Kore on Mar 01, 2010, 12:58:53 PM
Hell, some games are even considered to be the same canon as film, like Star Wars: The Force Unleashed
Somehow, I don't see people rushing out to buy
Aliens: Gunz n' Sploshunz to catch up on the lastest background info.
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 01, 2010, 01:03:08 PM
Quote from: Xeros Kore on Mar 01, 2010, 12:58:53 PM
depends on who is making it. Some games are EXTREMELY accurate. This one has been pretty close from what I can tell, when it comes to the adio diaries anyway.
From what I have been hearing, it isn't.
Quote from: Xeros Kore on Mar 01, 2010, 12:58:53 PM
Hell, some games are even considered to be the same canon as film, like Star Wars: The Force Unleashed
Somehow, I don't see people rushing out to buy Aliens: Gunz n' Sploshunz to catch up on the lastest background info.
What have you heard that is terribly inaccurate? (Not doubting you, other than a few minor details, I've heard that most things have tended to fall nicely into place)
Quote from: SM on Mar 01, 2010, 02:32:44 AM
Are there any dates in the new game indicating when it takes place?
The new game is set 30 years after A3, so...
Spoiler
It's unlikely that the Bishop shown in the final cutscene is the same one from A3 (certainly didn't look like a man in his 80s). I reckon they're probably all androids sent out by Michael Bishop. Gives Henriksen plenty to do, in any case.
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 01, 2010, 12:38:37 PM
Isn't the purpose of a game is to be something that people use when they have to shoot at an image that's on their TV or computer screens? Don't they tend to have a .01% accuracy when it comes to lining up its info with that of the franchise it was born from?
Just checking...
No not always. sometimes theres alot of effort go into them. For example Chronicles of Riddick: Escape From Butcher Bay was an excellent game and it was arguably better than the films it was based on. It was also a prequel to the movies rather than just a "game of a movie" and the story fitted in brilliantly with the riddick universe.
Other examples include last years Ghostbusters which had all the original cast and was written by the original writing team. It really did fit nicely with the movies.
and as for your comment about "what ive been hearing". Have you actually played the game? Because hearing something and seeing it for yourself is very different indeed. Ive played through this game twice now and nothing in it contradicts anything seen in the movies. The atmosphere and the story line (while basic) all fit nicely within the Aliens and Predator universe.
The best licensed games based on movies, are the ones that DON'T come out with the films release. But rather on their own schedule.
^^^agreed. Although not always the case, games that get released along side the movie are generally crap because theyve been made as a cash in, and they have to be rushed so that they are finished and ready intime for the movies release.
Might make a thread on this. See what people can come up with for the best movie tie-in games
The Bourne Conspiracy ;D
Quote from: TJ Doc on Mar 01, 2010, 01:59:50 PM
Quote from: SM on Mar 01, 2010, 02:32:44 AM
Are there any dates in the new game indicating when it takes place?
The new game is set 30 years after A3, so...
Spoiler
It's unlikely that the Bishop shown in the final cutscene is the same one from A3 (certainly didn't look like a man in his 80s). I reckon they're probably all androids sent out by Michael Bishop. Gives Henriksen plenty to do, in any case.
Hm, that would be pretty old, but I'll still stick with my theory, unless it is proven wrong in the sequel.
Where does it say its set 30 years after Alien 3. Is there anything in the game that indicates this? Its definately set post Alien 3 but I don't recall it being stated how long after, anywhere in the game? Just curious thats all.
I know I've read it or heard it in a preview somewhere. 99.9% sure, I am.
ive heard a few people give that figure too. im not saying your lying i was just wondering where the info came from thats all.
Quote from: Skinner on Mar 01, 2010, 10:56:30 PM
Quote from: TJ Doc on Mar 01, 2010, 01:59:50 PM
Quote from: SM on Mar 01, 2010, 02:32:44 AM
Are there any dates in the new game indicating when it takes place?
The new game is set 30 years after A3, so...
Spoiler
It's unlikely that the Bishop shown in the final cutscene is the same one from A3 (certainly didn't look like a man in his 80s). I reckon they're probably all androids sent out by Michael Bishop. Gives Henriksen plenty to do, in any case.
Hm, that would be pretty old, but I'll still stick with my theory, unless it is proven wrong in the sequel.
Well we dont know how old the Bishop in Alien 3 was. But heres a photo. Id say he could pass for 40.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fresumeplay.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F01%2FLance_Henriksen.jpg&hash=ba5e362a43b767ba55464ac19ccef7c83495b885)
Heres a photo of the bishop from AVP game. If its 30 years later I think this guy could pass for 70ish.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic2.videogamer.com%2Fvideogamer%2Fimages%2Fpub%2Flarge%2Fbishop_avp.jpg&hash=add3974f471fdba06492b0bc95967c5982a3d3c3)
I'm sure it's located deep in the previews thread. Somewhere...
If we go by the actor's age, Lance was 52 when Alien3 came out. He sure didn't look 52! :o plus 30 years after Alien3 would put the character's age at 82.
I don't care, It's my personal cannon! :P
QuoteWell we dont know how old the Bishop in Alien 3 was.
If the Alien Legacy Easter eggs are anything to go by, the actors in the Alien flicks are playing the same age as the characters unless otherwise specified.
Quote from: SM on Mar 02, 2010, 02:10:47 AM
QuoteWell we dont know how old the Bishop in Alien 3 was.
If the Alien Legacy Easter eggs are anything to go by, the actors in the Alien flicks are playing the same age as the characters unless otherwise specified.
Interesting, makes sense though.
Quote from: Keg on Mar 01, 2010, 11:58:01 PM
Heres a photo of the bishop from AVP game. If its 30 years later I think this guy could pass for 70ish.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic2.videogamer.com%2Fvideogamer%2Fimages%2Fpub%2Flarge%2Fbishop_avp.jpg&hash=add3974f471fdba06492b0bc95967c5982a3d3c3)
That... is a man in his fifties.
Its been a rough 50 years then. Depends on the individual really. Ive worked with guys near retirement age of 65 and theyre fitter and look the same as others who are 15 years younger. Luck of the draw.
Anyhoo Lance Henriksen was 64 when AVP was made. I didnt think of him as that old in the movie. I saw him as a man in his early fifties. Dont know if thats coz Lance looked good for his age or wether that was down to make up etc.
He certainly didnt look like this man minus 5 years (the photo was in 2009 and the movie was made 5 years before)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.contactmusic.com%2Fpics%2Flc%2Fsaturn_awards_3_250609%2Flance_henriksen_5315557.jpg&hash=4785aebf866fd77bc459739b5ab88ad5b084e5e6)
Time has caught up with him... :'(
Yup. either the 5 years after AVP weren't very kind to him or it was AVP that was very kind to him.
BISHOP! You can't get old. :'(
I thought he looked younger than that in the interview about the AVP game.
Clickie (http://www.justformen.com/)
Quote from: Skinner on Mar 03, 2010, 02:20:41 AM
I thought he looked younger than that in the interview about the AVP game.
Yeah i just rewatched it and he does look alot younger in the video. Clearly that photo wasnt one of his better days
His name is Karl Bishop Weyland. The descendant of Charles Bishop Weyland. He is a human. And chances are this is his facility.
This thread is all wrong... Bishop is neither human, nor android.
He's an Arcturian!
Quote from: OpenMaw on Mar 06, 2010, 03:50:13 AM
This thread is all wrong... Bishop is neither human, nor android.
He's an Arcturian!
QuoteFrost: Hey, I sure wouldn't mind getting some more of that Arcturian poontang! Remember that time?
Spunkmeyer: Yeah, Frost, but the one that you had was a male!
Frost: It doesn't matter when it's Arcturian, baby!
You brought this on yourself.
Quote from: Navaha on Mar 06, 2010, 05:10:21 AM
Quote from: OpenMaw on Mar 06, 2010, 03:50:13 AM
This thread is all wrong... Bishop is neither human, nor android.
He's an Arcturian!
QuoteFrost: Hey, I sure wouldn't mind getting some more of that Arcturian poontang! Remember that time?
Spunkmeyer: Yeah, Frost, but the one that you had was a male!
Frost: It doesn't matter when it's Arcturian, baby!
You brought this on yourself.
I believe that is exactly what I was shooting for hombre!
Quote from: #6.0 on Mar 06, 2010, 03:39:13 AM
His name is Karl Bishop Weyland.
Clicky (http://enc.absoluteavp.com/b.html)
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 06, 2010, 12:33:38 PM
Quote from: #6.0 on Mar 06, 2010, 03:39:13 AM
His name is Karl Bishop Weyland.
Clicky (http://enc.absoluteavp.com/b.html)
wait.... what? i swore he was the same one from AVP2010? oh well, my mistake.
Quote from: #6.0 on Mar 06, 2010, 02:54:31 PM
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 06, 2010, 12:33:38 PM
Quote from: #6.0 on Mar 06, 2010, 03:39:13 AM
His name is Karl Bishop Weyland.
Clicky (http://enc.absoluteavp.com/b.html)
wait.... what? i swore he was the same one from AVP2010? oh well, my mistake.
The way I see it is that Michael Bishop (Alien 3) was the real descendant of Charles Weyland and the one in AVP2010 is an advanced Bishop android that took his place, afterall the game states that experimental technology has recorded Charless memories. Stands to reason that these memories as well as Michaels where put into the Karl Bishop android and are done so whenever one is destroyed, thus essentially keeping his ideals alive. In the game Karl does refer to his "predecessors". Still just speculation but thats the way i understood from the audio diaries.
Or theres a simpler explanation. The Michael Bishop from Alien 3 IS the same one you see in AVPs ending but the android who is in most of the game has simply been named Karl to differentiate it from the real thing.
I believe that bishop is cloning himself and making androids, the clone runs his part of Weyland-Yutani and is told about everything that he knew and worked on so its basically him. The androids are told what they need to know and sent on missions like the bishop android in Aliens. I believe that they knew that there was a queen or a lifeform producing the Xenomorphs, and bishop was sent to retrieve it. That's why he left after Ripley went to get newt, he must have hovered nearby and when he saw the queen he came down for it. If you watch that scene again the scene after the place blows up you well see that bishop leaves the ship as Ripley is following and talking to him, he moves to under where he knows the queen could fit. Because he saw it leaving the elevator, and how it could curl its body up. I think he was trying to get it to kill Ripley being an android he only thinks of the mission.
Oh and he put the egg on the ship.
Quote from: Lie1295 on Mar 06, 2010, 10:45:46 PM
I believe that bishop is cloning himself and making androids, the clone runs his part of Weyland-Yutani and is told about everything that he knew and worked on so its basically him. The androids are told what they need to know and sent on missions like the bishop android in Aliens. I believe that they knew that there was a queen or a lifeform producing the Xenomorphs, and bishop was sent to retrieve it. That's why he left after Ripley went to get newt, he must have hovered nearby and when he saw the queen he came down for it. If you watch that scene again the scene after the place blows up you well see that bishop leaves the ship as Ripley is following and talking to him, he moves to under where he knows the queen could fit. Because he saw it leaving the elevator, and how it could curl its body up. I think he was trying to get it to kill Ripley being an android he only thinks of the mission.
Oh and he put the egg on the ship.
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? Absurd. There is nothing in Aliens that even remotely suggests anything like this. Infact its the oppossite. Ripley doesnt trust Bishop because of what happened with Ash and the audience isnt supposed to either but it tuns out he was genuine. The only reason the debates exist are because of retcons in further films. When Cameron made Aliens the whole furore surrounding Bishop and his several incarnations didn't exist, just like Bishop II only became a retcon when Paul Andersson messed up the continuity by putting Weyland in an Alien movie set hundreds of years before Alien 3. How was it explained? It wasnt and thus why we even have this debate in the first place.
Plain and simple: The guy from AVP and the guy from Alien³ are two different guys who live in two different times (and maybe on different planets), who may or may not even be related to each other. The guy from the video game doesn't matter, because video games are for shooting things; not (futuristic) history lessons.
Thank you maledoro!
Quote from: Keg on Mar 06, 2010, 10:55:13 PM
Quote from: Lie1295 on Mar 06, 2010, 10:45:46 PM
I believe that bishop is cloning himself and making androids, the clone runs his part of Weyland-Yutani and is told about everything that he knew and worked on so its basically him. The androids are told what they need to know and sent on missions like the bishop android in Aliens. I believe that they knew that there was a queen or a lifeform producing the Xenomorphs, and bishop was sent to retrieve it. That's why he left after Ripley went to get newt, he must have hovered nearby and when he saw the queen he came down for it. If you watch that scene again the scene after the place blows up you well see that bishop leaves the ship as Ripley is following and talking to him, he moves to under where he knows the queen could fit. Because he saw it leaving the elevator, and how it could curl its body up. I think he was trying to get it to kill Ripley being an android he only thinks of the mission.
Oh and he put the egg on the ship.
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? Absurd. There is nothing in Aliens that even remotely suggests anything like this. Infact its the oppossite. Ripley doesnt trust Bishop because of what happened with Ash and the audience isnt supposed to either but it tuns out he was genuine. The only reason the debates exist are because of retcons in further films. When Cameron made Aliens the whole furore surrounding Bishop and his several incarnations didn't exist, just like Bishop II only became a retcon when Paul Andersson messed up the continuity by putting Weyland in an Alien movie set hundreds of years before Alien 3. How was it explained? It wasnt and thus why we even have this debate in the first place.
I understand that sometimes the truth can be scary, if you watch all the film over again and read what I typed it would make sense to you. The facts are there.
I'll do that next time i watch it. Ill keep it in mind and you never know it may not sound as crazy as it just did.
Quote from: Lie1295 on Mar 07, 2010, 01:37:46 PM
I understand that sometimes the truth can be scary
Except for when you had written that bit.
Quote from: Lie1295 on Mar 07, 2010, 01:37:46 PM
if you watch all the film over again and read what I typed it would make sense to you.
Denial would also aid in this.
Quote from: Lie1295 on Mar 07, 2010, 01:37:46 PM
The facts are there.
And conveniently ignored.
1. In order for the assertion for Weyland to be cloning himself to be true, we would need more than just two guys who look something alike. We would need a connecting factor. There isn't one. There isn't something like, say, him walking into a room and closing a door that says "CLONING LAB" on it, with him rolling up his sleeve and a guy in a white coat scraping Weyland's arm.
There are also some legal, moral, and logistical considerations that are overlooked by the "Pro-Clone" crowd that are covered here (http://www.alienexperience.com/forum/index.php/topic,51.0.html).
2. Just because he's in the robotics business doesn't mean that he has made (or is capable of making) robot duplicates of himself. From the pics of his products on the magazine cover, he's a long ways off from duplicating a likeness of himself.
3. As for the Bishop android putting an egg on the ship, there would have been a shot of him hiding the egg from Ripley, or him confessing to it in the next film. The evidence for him doing this is not only not circumstantial, it's specious at best.
He's human.
It's been said before but Bishop has red blood. Call in Resurrection has white blood. Surely in 200 YEARS androids should have gotten better not worse. That's like microsoft releasing a windows 95 next year.
He's human, case closed.
I used to go on here but it is kinda old since he's obviously human.
He is a human being he bleeds red , he shows massive emotion and he is head of the group that came there not a mere droid. Also why isn't his word enough?
2,226 replies since this topic was started. A hell of alot of people dont agree hes Human. To me theres no doubt he's human. The whole android thing only came up as a poor explanation as to why Charles Bishop Weyland was in AVP. The answer is because Paul Andersson claimed to be an uber fan but obiviously wasnt that familiar enough to not think it was gonna cause a massive plot hole and create an ongoing debate about how the character is going to be retconned. To suggest hes an advanced android is just an easy cop out and doesnt fit with the rest of the series or the evidence we see in plain sight during his appearance in Alien 3. Plain and simple, he's human and whether thats because hes been retconned to a clone or a descendant of Charles Bishop (personally I go with descendant, that hes a completely different person) hes still human and nothing is going to convince me otherwise.
The truth will be revealed.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yorkblog.com%2Featersdigest%2FCookie%2520Stack.jpg&hash=b1ba61a903b5c1e282895e1a669be4acd1a450a3)
Ginger Biscuit?
Quote from: Keg on Mar 07, 2010, 10:58:10 PM
To suggest hes an advanced android is just an easy cop out and doesnt fit with the rest of the series or the evidence we see in plain sight during his appearance in Alien 3. Plain and simple, he's human and whether thats because hes been retconned to a clone or a descendant of Charles Bishop (personally I go with descendant, that hes a completely different person) hes still human and nothing is going to convince me otherwise.
Or just don't count AVP as cannon with the alien series and everything fits.
Quote from: Alien³ on Mar 08, 2010, 12:40:16 AM
Or just don't count AVP as cannon with the alien series and everything fits.
We don't even have to do that; there is no conflict with it and the third film.
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 08, 2010, 12:46:21 AM
Quote from: Alien³ on Mar 08, 2010, 12:40:16 AM
Or just don't count AVP as cannon with the alien series and everything fits.
We don't even have to do that; there is no conflict with it and the third film.
Aside from the fact Lance Hendrickson plays (the supposed) same character in both films.
In AVP he plays Charles Bishop Weyland. In Alien 3 he plays Karl Bishop Weyland.
...and they're both human. There's no proof that "Karl Bishop Weyland" is an android. The man almost gets his ear servered with a wrench.
Quote from: Skinner on Mar 08, 2010, 12:49:34 AM
In AVP he plays Charles Bishop Weyland. In Alien 3 he plays Karl Bishop Weyland.
Man if that is true then I'm not the biggest A3 nerd ever and this thread is pointless. He played Charles Weyland in AVP and Michael Bishop in A3.
Quote from: First Blood on Mar 08, 2010, 12:52:26 AM
...and they're both human. There's no proof that "Karl Bishop Weyland" is an android. The man almost gets his ear servered with a wrench.
When did I say Karl Bishop Weyland was an android?
You didn't. I am injecting *my* belief into the thread.
Quote from: Alien³ on Mar 08, 2010, 12:47:34 AM
Aside from the fact Lance Hendrickson plays (the supposed) same character in both films.
Again, there is no conflict.
Quote from: Skinner on Mar 08, 2010, 12:49:34 AM
In AVP he plays Charles Bishop Weyland. In Alien 3 he plays Karl Bishop Weyland.
In
AVP, he plays Charles Bishop Weyland. In
Alien³, he plays a guy who looks like the Bishop android.
Then where did the name "Karl Bishop Weyland" come from?
Quote from: Skinner on Mar 08, 2010, 12:49:34 AM
In AVP he plays Charles Bishop Weyland. In Alien 3 he plays Karl Bishop Weyland.
Relatives can look almost identical. His appearance is not important to me, he is two different charatcers, simple. Get over the fact it was the same actor it only affects canon if he played the same CHARACTER.
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 08, 2010, 01:09:00 AM
a guy who looks like the Bishop android.
Who was named Michael Bishop.
Quote from: Skinner on Mar 08, 2010, 01:11:58 AM
Then where did the name "Karl Bishop Weyland" come from?
AvP 2010.
Relatives look identical with that kind of generation gap?
They did it with the Tremors canon!
Quote from: Skinner on Mar 08, 2010, 01:11:58 AM
Then where did the name "Karl Bishop Weyland" come from?
One of those digital image thingies that people use to shoot simulated things for entertainment.
Quote from: Alexa Chung on Mar 08, 2010, 01:14:31 AM
Relatives look identical with that kind of generation gap?
They can, but the two guys in question do look different enough from each other to resemble relatives.
seems to be some confusion about the 3 Bishops being mentioned. Michael Bishop is the one who appeared at the end of Alien 3 claiming to be the man who designed the Bishop android from Aliens. Karl Bishop Weyland appears in the AVP game as an android and Charles is the man from AVP who apparently starts Weyland Industries (later to become Weyland-Yutani). Its because of Charles inclusion in AVP that this debate even exists. Forget the game and Karl. I think like alot of others that the only plausible explanation is that Michael Bishop from Alien 3 is a descendant of Charles from AVP.
Quote from: Keg on Mar 08, 2010, 12:49:29 PM
seems to be some confusion about the 3 Bishops being mentioned. Michael Bishop is the one who appeared at the end of Alien 3 claiming to be the man who designed the Bishop android from Aliens. Karl Bishop Weyland appears in the AVP game as an android and Charles is the man from AVP who apparently starts Weyland Industries (later to become Weyland-Yutani). Its because of Charles inclusion in AVP that this debate even exists. Forget the game and Karl. I think like alot of others that the only plausible explanation is that Michael Bishop from Alien 3 is a descendant of Charles from AVP.
If you want to put the AVP films in the same series as Alien & Predator. I don't, so Michael Bishop will always be human and the creator of the bishop droid, and we never meet who created the Weyland-Yutani company.
I do put them in the same series. Theyre are clearly meant to be. although i dont blame you for not awknowleding them in that way because they are an insult to the original series,. Anyway i still think Michale Bishop created the Bishop android like you. just like he states in the movie. But i think Michael Bishop is a descendant of Charles Weyland from AVP. In AVP its stated that Charles and Weyland Industries are leaders in the field of robotics and so it stands to reason that the company continued in this field until many years later Michael Bishop creatd the Bishop android. Thats the simplest and most plausible explanation if you take AVP into account.
If like yourself you dont, then there is nothing to take into account at all like you said.
Quote from: Keg on Mar 08, 2010, 01:02:13 PM
I do put them in the same series. Theyre are clearly meant to be. although i dont blame you for not awknowleding them in that way because they are an insult to the original series,. Anyway i still think Michale Bishop created the Bishop android like you. just like he states in the movie. But i think Michael Bishop is a descendant of Charles Weyland from AVP. In AVP its stated that Charles and Weyland Industries are leaders in the field of robotics and so it stands to reason that the company continued in this field until many years later Michael Bishop creatd the Bishop android. Thats the simplest and most plausible explanation if you take AVP into account.
If like yourself you dont, then there is nothing to take into account at all like you said.
Fox says they're seperate universes. Ergo, they are not related.
And they also said they want to make everything fit into one time line.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 08, 2010, 05:38:40 PM
And they also said they want to make everything fit into one time line.
I'll take the former over the latter. Trying to make it all fit is A. Worthless and B. impossible.
Turns two elegant franchises into absolutely ridiculous messes.
I couldnt give a crap what fox says. Theyve only said that to appease people who where pissed off about the AVP films being turd. Theyve got Predators, Aliens and plot points, characters and little nods that all make them part of the series. So i couldnt give a crap what any says, to me they are part of the same canon or universe or whatever you wanna call it. Yes they exist as 3 seperate film series but theres no way they are not meant to be part of an overall story. The only thing that doesnt fit is the Bishop situation which if you do consider them one series is easily banswered by the descendant thing. The only thing that doesnt fit is that people shouldnt know about the Aliens and they still dont. Only a handful of people but a company like Weyland Yutani could have shut them up. As much as you may not like it they are intended to be part of it and Fox only said otherwise because they turned out crap. If theyd turned out fantastic do you think theyd have said that. No i dont buy that at all.
It would be like George Lucas saying you know what Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull isnt canon anymore to the first 3 and its just a bonus adventure set outside of the original films. Utterly ridiculous and a pathetic cop out on Fox's part to please angry fans of the original franchises. Dont know how stating they arent canon does that mind, because they still exist and theyve already done the damage.
Uhh, all these Lance Henriksens running around is pissing me off.
When he was approached for the game and told he was playing Karl Bishop Weyland did he not think - "Hang on ive already caused hell on by playing the human Bishop twice, playing another unexplained iteration of the character is gonna cause even more ruptions. Maybe you guys should think about it and change him to be the same guy from Alien 3 or something coz im not sure how this'l lwork out"
jesus. The AVP canon is irrelevant. As I've already explained, regardless of the actor portraying him they are different CHARACTERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Also Bishop II has red blood, Call does not = Bishop II is 100% proven human, goodbye thread.
I bet you his in the prequel, if that happens your gonna start ripping your hair out Keg. ^_^
You still cant deny the fact that his a good actor tho.
haha no luckily im already bald so couldnt be reduced to that.
Quote from: Harkus on Mar 08, 2010, 06:47:13 PM
jesus. The AVP canon is irrelevant. As I've already explained, regardless of the actor portraying him they are different CHARACTERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Also Bishop II has red blood, Call does not = Bishop II is 100% proven human, goodbye thread.
No point getting angry about it or trying to thrust your idea onto others as the correct one because if people dont agree hes human by now, then theyre never going to, despite the evidence. While I agree with you i doubt anybody that has got it into their heads hes an android are going to change their minds now.
Quote from: Keg on Mar 08, 2010, 07:36:17 PM
haha no luckily im already bald so couldnt be reduced to that.
Quote from: Harkus on Mar 08, 2010, 06:47:13 PM
or trying to thrust your idea onto others as the correct one
His idea IS the correct one. Bishop II, also known as Michael Bishop, the designer of the Bishop android, is a human.
The AVP film and game canon is completely seperate from that of the original Alien and Predator Canon, and they in turn are seperate from eachother.
Quote from: OpenMaw on Mar 08, 2010, 08:32:54 PM
Quote from: Keg on Mar 08, 2010, 07:36:17 PM
haha no luckily im already bald so couldnt be reduced to that.
Quote from: Harkus on Mar 08, 2010, 06:47:13 PM
or trying to thrust your idea onto others as the correct one
His idea IS the correct one. Bishop II, also known as Michael Bishop, the designer of the Bishop android, is a human.
The AVP film and game canon is completely seperate from that of the original Alien and Predator Canon, and they in turn are seperate from eachother.
I agree with him. But saying something is canon and not i dont believe anyone can tell yo uwhat you choose to believe is canon. Its upto the individual. No way anyone is gonna convince me that AVP isnt canon to Alien and Predator. No way, no matter what they say or argue. In my mind they are canon and i dont care what other people say. Just like in my mind Bishop II is human like you say and i cant see why anybody would even think hes an android. But the fact that they do and still continue to debate about it, proves that just because you, or I, or anybody else gives them hard facts or tells them to ignore other films as part of the canon, its not gonna change their minds is it. While I agree game canon is seperate in this case, i dont agree AVP is seperate. Im not gonna force that opinion on others who think it is seperate because it is exactly that an opinion.
QuoteNo point getting angry about it or trying to thrust your idea onto others as the correct one because if people dont agree hes human by now, then theyre never going to, despite the evidence.
It's not any fans thrusting ideas - it's the film itself. For reasons unknown some people choose to remain ignorant to that.
Thats my point It doesnt matter what you say to the people who think hes an android because theyre not gonna change their minds. Hell if the plain facts you see in the movie, like he BLEEDS, doesnt deter them from the android theory (sorry super advanced red blooded android) nothing will. Its pointless to argue because youd be arguing with somebody that believes something else even when the facts are presented to them on screen infront of their very eyes. If thats not enough a few guys like us discussing it isnt going to change their opinions.
A bit off topic, but it relates to canon...
Do they consider Highlander II canon? I know it's consider shit by many.
Who's "they"? Highlander fans? Depends on the version. I don't think they dig planet Zeist.
Yes, the fans. I've never seen it, but I heard it was hit with heavy controversy. And Highlander III is a direct sequel to Highlander and ignores the events of II?
I dunno. I thought all the Highlander sequels and the TV show were unnecessary crap.
Kill them with fire! There can be only one.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3AKurgan1.jpg&hash=2b97e3b73a1b198998691096958b8212e72f1db1)
In my mind there was only one highlander movie I cant fully remember but i think highlander 3 was alright or I'm thinking of another film.
Quote from: Alexa Chung on Mar 08, 2010, 01:14:31 AM
Relatives look identical with that kind of generation gap?
Hell, completely unrelated people can look almost identical! Two years ago, there were two kids in my class. When I first saw them, I thought they were twins; turns out they weren't even related. For months afterwards, I still had trouble telling them apart.
Quote from: TJ Doc on Mar 08, 2010, 10:47:14 PM
Kill them with fire! There can be only one.
Katana decapitation
EXPLOSION!!!
Ha, new theory and a BUMP. ;D
He was not an android OR the original.
He was a CLONE. :P
He was a SOSIA.
I beat you all.
Man its good to see this thread is still going lol, the clone theory's pretty cool
Quote from: Meathead320 on Nov 07, 2010, 03:28:08 PM
Ha, new theory and a BUMP. ;D
He was not an android OR the original.
He was a CLONE. :P
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.selectspecs.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F08%2Fsam-rockwell-ray-ban-3362.jpg&hash=a1987024889bf8d5c7fad21521dba2164a994f29)
I can't believe this topic is still here.
Quote from: SM on Mar 08, 2010, 10:23:13 PM
QuoteNo point getting angry about it or trying to thrust your idea onto others as the correct one because if people dont agree hes human by now, then theyre never going to, despite the evidence.
It's not any fans thrusting ideas - it's the film itself. For reasons unknown some people choose to remain ignorant to that.
Not for reasons unknown we set down there on companys orders...............
sorry ;D
Quote from: SpaceMarines on Nov 07, 2010, 06:30:52 PM
Quote from: Meathead320 on Nov 07, 2010, 03:28:08 PM
Ha, new theory and a BUMP. ;D
He was not an android OR the original.
He was a CLONE. :P
http://www.selectspecs.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/sam-rockwell-ray-ban-3362.jpg
Only back in this thread to comment on this...
Hilarious!
PS
Why the f**k was this thread bumped? Jesus, motherf**king...sgsagarharhaerjerhar!!!!!!!!!!
He's human. Milk didn't shoot out of his head.
Case closed.
QuoteHilarious!
Yes. Hilarious that the 'clone' argument would be regarded as 'new'.
;D
Lol, that works too.
Quote from: SM on Nov 07, 2010, 10:26:57 PM
QuoteHilarious!
Yes. Hilarious that the 'clone' argument would be regarded as 'new'.
;D
Well if you're "new" to the thread...
See what I did there?
Holy shit! This thread is still going! I saw this topic with my first account as CanadianHero67 and couldn't believe it was still here then!
Let go!
Quote from: Ghost Rider on Nov 07, 2010, 06:34:03 PM
I can't believe this topic is still here.
Took the words right out of my mouth.
What kind of sick f**k would reopen this thread? :D
Omg, 157 pages? I haven't read any of the arguments posted here, maybe I'll do sometime in night to read the whole thing,
oh I almost forgot.. It's an android :D
U mad?
Quote from: Griffith on Nov 08, 2010, 07:34:06 PM
Omg, 157 pages? I haven't read any of the arguments posted here, maybe I'll do sometime in night to read the whole thing,
oh I almost forgot.. It's an android :D
ITS A HUMANZ
*Pulls out guns*
We know he isn't android because he had red blood, and there was already a Weyland alive that looked just like him in 2004. Though, Tremors managed to pull off the same actor as family member thing well, so I'm kinda torn between human and clone.
now, if he was a clone, that would actually be kind of cool, and opens some new possibilities for the prequels and the series in general. Is it as hard to clone a regular human as it was to clone an alien 150 or so years later? If so, imagine the failed abominations. I'm not saying that this stuff needs to be expanded upon in the movies, but it is a cool concept to think about.
The problem with the clone argument, beyond the fact there's no evidence for it, is there's absolutely no f**king sense or point to it.
Agreed that there is no sense, but there was a bit of a point.
Showing Ripley a familiar face, one that may get her to give in.
it's a stupid idea, but it can work with some logic applied.
Just send another droid.
Which they didn't.
No sense, no point.
So spending 50 years growing a clone, just in case some commercial flight officer believed lost in space 10 years earlier, might get a bit toey at some point is logical...?
The guys entire ear looks like it's hanging off, I really doubt he'd give a f**k anymore past that point, lets be honest.. you'd be screaming in pain.
10. Goto page 1
20. Read
True, colning is completely illogical. So that makes him human.
Maybe... he's a vampire?
And he keeps getting resurrected, Hammer style?
No?
Quote from: Griffith on Nov 08, 2010, 07:34:06 PM
Omg, 157 pages? I haven't read any of the arguments posted here, maybe I'll do sometime in night to read the whole thing,
oh I almost forgot.. It's an android :D
U mad?
And still no defenitive answer.
Except on page 1.
Bishop II is Human.
Quote from: Alien³ on Nov 26, 2010, 08:19:57 PM
Bishop II is Human.
Thread Closed. The film itself said so ;D
AVP is an abomination and should in no way be considered canon. :) :P
Hi guys, I just watched Alien 3 today and I had a doubt if Bishop which appeared in the end of the film is an android or a human, I searched on the internet, and I ended up here :).
I haven't watched all Alien movies I just watched Alien 1 - 3 (DVD Special Editions not the Theatrical Editions). I haven't played 2010's Alien vs Predator and I'm a new fan to the Alien vs Predator universe, so I don't want to look like an idiot if I say something stupid.
Spoiler
My theory is that Bishop is an android.
1. First of all, if you take AVP in consideration it took some hundred years before Alien, Alien 2, 3 & 4.
So he either must be an android with AVP's Bishop likeness or a clone of the real Bishop (the one from AVP). With AVP, Bishop was a human, that clearly shows that Bishop II from Alien3 is an android, even if Bishop from AVP survived somehow (not likely possible but let's take it in consideration too) and was put in hypersleep and was woken up at the time of Alien 3, he looked older in AVP than in Alien3 or if they had technology to make people look younger & AVP's Bishop had breathing problems and Bishop II from Alien3 didn't.
2. Secondly, he's credited as Bishop II which means that he's a later android model from that of Aliens, if he was a human, in the credits he would be listed as his full name he called himself in the movie (I also read that the people from Fox didn't know how to develop Bishop's characters in following sequels so they credited him as Bishop II). Having said that one can also say that he's a descendent of AVP's Bishop and he was named Bishop II (like Bishop the Second).
3. Thirdly, bleeding red blood doesn't mean that he's human. I didn't get to know the time gap between Aliens & Alien3 but if there's a long time gap, technology would have evolved and advanced a lot, and changing an android's "blood" color wouldn't be so hard with all that technology even without the long time gap. In my opinion Bishop II implies that that's the next model after Aliens (movie) model with maybe some improvements and updates and changing his blood color to look less androidish. & he wouldn't have stopped screaming after the hit he got from the guard "85".
4. Finally if he said he's a human that doesn't make it a fact. A robot/android theoretically & practically, it does as it is programed to like a computer. If he was implanted with memories (like the androids from Blade Runner) the android could say his memories but he wouldn't still know if they're fake/implanted or truly happened or he's programmed to lie but still knows the truth.
Having said all this, I don't exclude that Bishop from Alien 3 could have been human but I have a strong feeling that he's an android.
I voted Android but if I have the opportunity to vote again I'll vote human too.
The gap between Aliens and Alien³ is a few weeks at most.
The answers to this debate are...
1) If you consider AVP Canon to the Alien series: Android
2) If you don't consider AVP canon to the Alien series: Human.
I agree with number 2.
Quote from: Alien³ on Nov 28, 2010, 01:37:34 AM
The answers to this debate are...
1) If you consider AVP Canon to the Alien series: Android
2) If you don't consider AVP canon to the Alien series: Human.
I agree with number 2.
3) If you don't consider Alien^3 canon to the Alien series:
dream sequence.
ZING!!
But I go with option 2. Easier that way in the long run.
Quote from: Alien³ on Nov 28, 2010, 01:37:34 AM
The answers to this debate are...
1) If you consider AVP Canon to the Alien series: Android
2) If you don't consider AVP canon to the Alien series: Human.
I agree with number 2.
Agreed. And the script says so. And teh blud. [Unless he's a replicant, but that's fanon].
Someone else said his name was Michael Bishop Weyland in Alien3, and that in AvP it was Charles bishop Weyland. Was his name ever mentioned as Michael in Alien3? If so them I could buy the fact that he is a descendant.
Otherwise I think he is human and AvP f***ed up with the canon.
Quote from: bleau on Nov 28, 2010, 10:44:35 AM
Someone else said his name was Michael Bishop Weyland in Alien3, and that in AvP it was Charles bishop Weyland. Was his name ever mentioned as Michael in Alien3? If so them I could buy the fact that he is a descendant.
Otherwise I think he is human and AvP f***ed up with the canon.
Michael Bishop in the novel. No Weyland, though. AVP invention.
I really can't see why Alien3 Bishop can't be a human because we have AvP Bishop.
Guys, ever heard of Sosia descendants? or the old classic "you look so much like your grand-father" and stuff like that?
Reminds me of Tremors 4, too.
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Nov 28, 2010, 02:26:11 PM
I really can't see why Alien3 Bishop can't be a human because we have AvP Bishop.
Guys, ever heard of Sosia descendants? or the old classic "you look so much like your grand-father" and stuff like that?
Reminds me of Tremors 4, too.
There is no doubt in my mind he is human, just trying to figure out if he is a descendant or possibly a clone. I like the idea of descendant better, or just don't include AvP as canon.
Quote from: bleau on Nov 28, 2010, 05:36:24 PM
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Nov 28, 2010, 02:26:11 PM
I really can't see why Alien3 Bishop can't be a human because we have AvP Bishop.
Guys, ever heard of Sosia descendants? or the old classic "you look so much like your grand-father" and stuff like that?
Reminds me of Tremors 4, too.
There is no doubt in my mind he is human, just trying to figure out if he is a descendant or possibly a clone. I like the idea of descendant better, or just don't include AvP as canon.
Bingo! :)
I think he was human due to the fact that when he had his ear ripped pretty much clean off, the blood was red.
As far as movies have shown all androids even the future ones in res had white blood, not red.
There's also the possibility that they aren't related at all. I've met people who almost look like twins; no relation.
Also, keep in mind these are films. Same actor =/= same character.
Quote from: Alien³ on Nov 28, 2010, 01:37:34 AM
The answers to this debate are...
1) If you more than half a brain : Human.
Sorted ;D
According to this site, he is Michael bishop and was born in 2127.
http://time.absoluteavp.com/time2.html (http://time.absoluteavp.com/time2.html)
* AHEM *
He Is A Clone ;D
I Know there wasnt any mention of clones in the series until Alien Ressurection, but i mean why not?
Quote from: zShadow on Dec 05, 2010, 02:34:05 AM
* AHEM *
He Is A Clone ;D
I Know there wasnt any mention of clones in the series until Alien Ressurection, but i mean why not?
Never thought of that. Seems completely possible.
In Res they'd only just worked out the major kinks in cloning, and even then, it was far from perfect.
Quote from: SpaceMarines on Dec 05, 2010, 11:30:14 PM
In Res they'd only just worked out the major kinks in cloning, and even then, it was far from perfect.
That is very true actually.
*Shudders at the thought of a half naked Weyland in a tube*
The novelization says its human so thats the option I take. Allthough I perfectly understand why people mightve think otherwise. I myself was always 100% sure hes a droid from how it was presented in the movie. Most reasons have been mentioned numerous times, like the ear hanging off his face, the strong hit of the pipe having no effect on him etc. But also theres the fact that this supposedly very importnat designer got badly hurt and none of his teammates gave a shit. I would expect him to get immediate medical help or at least the surgeon checking his injury and everyone sucking up to him and running up to check if hes allright.
That and the ending credits say Bishop II, not Bishop's designer or Bishop's creator
If you get hit hard enough to rip your ear off, there would be blood everywhere (can't remember if that happened in the film) and you'd likely be incapacitated or dead. Bishop seemed pretty unfazed by the blow which is more than a little strange.
Quote from: Ghostface on Dec 06, 2010, 01:34:27 AM
If you get hit hard enough to rip your ear off ... you'd likely be incapacitated or dead.
Not really, no. It's just skin and cartilage. All you need is the right force at the right angle.
Quote from: StrangeShape on Dec 06, 2010, 12:18:50 AM
That and the ending credits say Bishop II, not Bishop's designer or Bishop's creator
Believed he was a droid while watching the movie, then saw Bishop II in the credits. Droid!
Bishop II could be not necessarily the proof that Bishop in A3 is an android. In a lot of cases, when you have the same name as one or more of your ancestors, a roman number is added to your name. He's Bishop, grand-grand-grand etc. son of Charles Bishop, so he's Bishop II, Bishop the second.
Practical Example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_II,_Holy_Roman_Emperor).
Wouldn't that make him Charles Bishop Weyland II, instead of just using his middle name?
Quote from: AliceApocalypse on Dec 06, 2010, 05:39:39 PM
Wouldn't that make him Charles Bishop Weyland II, instead of just using his middle name?
Nope because his name is Michael Bishop creator of the Bishop android. Human.
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Dec 06, 2010, 02:02:28 PM
Bishop II could be not necessarily the proof that Bishop in A3 is an android. In a lot of cases, when you have the same name as one or more of your ancestors, a roman number is added to your name. He's Bishop, grand-grand-grand etc. son of Charles Bishop, so he's Bishop II, Bishop the second.
Practical Example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_II,_Holy_Roman_Emperor).
A more recent example - Thomas Kenneth "Ken" Mattingly II, CMP of Apollo 16 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Mattingly)
Quote from: Xeno Killer 2179 on Dec 05, 2010, 08:17:47 PM
Quote from: zShadow on Dec 05, 2010, 02:34:05 AM
* AHEM *
He Is A Clone ;D
I Know there wasnt any mention of clones in the series until Alien Ressurection, but i mean why not?
Never thought of that. Seems completely possible.
As per the fact it's been shown to be false numerous times - no it's not.
Quote from: StrangeShape on Dec 06, 2010, 12:18:50 AM
That and the ending credits say Bishop II, not Bishop's designer or Bishop's creator
is indicative of precisely nothing and not even worth mentioning in the argument at any point.
Quote from: SM on Dec 06, 2010, 10:26:15 PM
Quote from: Xeno Killer 2179 on Dec 05, 2010, 08:17:47 PM
Quote from: zShadow on Dec 05, 2010, 02:34:05 AM
* AHEM *
He Is A Clone ;D
I Know there wasnt any mention of clones in the series until Alien Ressurection, but i mean why not?
Never thought of that. Seems completely possible.
As per the fact it's been shown to be false numerous times - no it's not.
:D
Can people still not get their heads around cloning? Even fictional cloning where a dude in the 24th century says "How can it have memories?"
It's ain't rocket surgery.
Quote from: SM on Dec 06, 2010, 10:37:15 PM
Can people still not get their heads around cloning? Even fictional cloning where a dude in the 24th century says "How can it have memories?"
It's ain't rocket surgery.
Do you mean Brain surgery SM? ???
But yeah I see your point, and this debate is very tiring. I thought you guys explained it already.
It was explained in the first couple of pages.
And I was mixing metaphors.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 06, 2010, 10:31:17 PM
Quote from: StrangeShape on Dec 06, 2010, 12:18:50 AM
That and the ending credits say Bishop II, not Bishop's designer or Bishop's creator
is indicative of precisely nothing and not even worth mentioning in the argument at any point.
Im not using it as argument. As I said, novelizations for me are extensions of the movie and "between-the-lines" bibles. If it says the guy was Michale Bishop, he was. Im just saying that there are however plenty of elements which can easily make people think its a second Bishop droid. Bishop II in the credits is one of them, although that credit may be explained by the fact that they didnt want to give it out wheter hes human or not. That plus, well, it was suppose to be left open for interpretation anyway.
As I said, for me the biggest misleading thing was that the supposedly important WY designer was
completely ignored by his medical team after getting so badly hit in the head and hurt
Who said it was supposed to be open for interpretation?
Quote from: SM on Dec 06, 2010, 11:56:54 PM
Who said it was supposed to be open for interpretation?
I think Lance. Cant remember tho. I remember discussing that in a thread, but cant remember the originator of the quote. Im sure Val will confirm if Im misremembering or if that was really said
Fincher didn't want it open to interpretation - hence him instructing ADI to make sure we could see red blood. And Henriksen doesn't ever mention any 'interpretation' in the Alien3 docos.
But that's been covered several hundred times now - so one more is unlikely to maek any difference.
Found it. It was Lance
Q: In the third Alien movie, was your character human?
HENRIKSEN: They were leaving that open because they weren't sure what they were going to do with me. But what I saw was that it was a more advanced model certainly. Again, I love the idea of the advanced models.
source: http://movies.ign.com/articles/513/513443p1.html (http://movies.ign.com/articles/513/513443p1.html)
As for red blood, its been discussed before. Surely they thought that Ripley would demand proof, and the only thing she knows is the white blood. But again, im giving arguments for the opposite side. Im just saying its no surprise at all the way it was executed that people are still very divided on the subject
The context of that interview is AvP, so it only makes sense that Lance would back his new directors ideas about what Bishop was in Alien3 - as erroneous as they are. If the interview was done in the wake of Alien3, it might hold some weight.
The proof is voluminous about him being human.
People can cling to their fanciful delusions if they wish of course.
Quote from: StrangeShape on Dec 07, 2010, 12:23:04 AM
Q: In the third Alien movie, was your character human?
HENRIKSEN: They were leaving that open because they weren't sure what they were going to do with me. But what I saw was that it was a more advanced model certainly. Again, I love the idea of the advanced models.
you're not getting anymore appearances in the series lance so stop it
Quote from: StrangeShape on Dec 07, 2010, 12:15:08 AM
Quote from: SM on Dec 06, 2010, 11:56:54 PM
Who said it was supposed to be open for interpretation?
I think Lance. Cant remember tho. I remember discussing that in a thread, but cant remember the originator of the quote. Im sure Val will confirm if Im misremembering or if that was really said
It was my post you're remembering. There's no way in hell I'll allow AVP to be canon though. In the AVP-verse, sure whatever, droid or something. But that's a separate series to me.
Quote from: SM on Dec 07, 2010, 12:30:50 AM
The proof is voluminous about him being human.
People can cling to their fanciful delusions if they wish of course.
I agree with this.
Quote from: Alien³ on Dec 07, 2010, 07:41:31 PM
Quote from: SM on Dec 07, 2010, 12:30:50 AM
The proof is voluminous about him being human.
People can cling to their fanciful delusions if they wish of course.
I agree with this.
So do I, that's why I say we just roll the credits. I mean the novelization said he was human, he has claimed to create the android and the thing that did it for me is this. He has red blood.
Also if he created the android why would he be an android of the same model if he created it? did he like build himself? c'mon on people.
So yeah credits.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwXTrodgu-4#noexternalembed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwXTrodgu-4#noexternalembed)
Quote from: The Ghoul on Dec 07, 2010, 10:04:53 PM
Quote from: Alien³ on Dec 07, 2010, 07:41:31 PM
Quote from: SM on Dec 07, 2010, 12:30:50 AM
The proof is voluminous about him being human.
People can cling to their fanciful delusions if they wish of course.
I agree with this.
So do I, that's why I say we just roll the credits. I mean the novelization said he was human, he has claimed to create the android and the thing that did it for me is this. He has red blood.
Also if he created the android why would he be an android of the same model if he created it? did he like build himself? c'mon on people.
So yeah credits.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwXTrodgu-4#noexternalembed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwXTrodgu-4#noexternalembed)
Agreed. Credits please.
Quote from: Valaquen on Dec 07, 2010, 12:06:34 PM
Quote from: StrangeShape on Dec 07, 2010, 12:15:08 AM
Quote from: SM on Dec 06, 2010, 11:56:54 PM
Who said it was supposed to be open for interpretation?
I think Lance. Cant remember tho. I remember discussing that in a thread, but cant remember the originator of the quote. Im sure Val will confirm if Im misremembering or if that was really said
It was my post you're remembering. There's no way in hell I'll allow AVP to be canon though. In the AVP-verse, sure whatever, droid or something. But that's a separate series to me.
Any Alien movie that didnt have an input of Giler and Hill in the story I reject (read: everything from Resurection onwards. First AVP was a mindless but fun view tho)
Its hard to say, but Im gonna go with Android.
I would have leaned more against Human until AvP really, but even without AvP, I would have gone with android.
An android with red blood seems plausable to say the least. So i've always gone with him being an android. Or even a clone.
One thing I noticed when I was rewatching Alien 3 lately is that he does NOT get hit in the head with the pipe. 85 misses, and "brushes" the side of his head, thats why the ear comes off and why hes not bleeding in the back of his head, as he would if he was hit in the head from the back as many assume. Hes basically just hit in the ear with the side of the pipe, it wasnt even a direct hit. So there goes the whole talk about him withstanding such blow in the head
Quote from: StrangeShape on Dec 29, 2010, 01:49:57 AM
One thing I noticed when I was rewatching Alien 3 lately is that he does NOT get hit in the head with the pipe. 85 misses, and "brushes" the side of his head, thats why the ear comes off and why hes not bleeding in the back of his head, as he would if he was hit in the head from the back as many assume. Hes basically just hit in the ear with the side of the pipe, it wasnt even a direct hit. So there goes the whole talk about him withstanding such blow in the head
Makes sense
Human.
Commentary says hes human.
Script says hes human.
Novel says hes human.
Hes human.
The blood shooting out of his head also says he's human.
I havent had chance to read the 160 pages attached to this issue.
but i always believed he was a god damn droid when i first saw A3 back in 92. that knock at the back of the ear looked quite nasty - and i realise people have stated 85 didnt hit him full on - but it looks like half of the back of his head was ripped off.
the whole red blood - i saw that as the driod being a more advanced model. with red shit instead of white shit inside of them.
however - as someone else mentioned above this post - if the creators say he is human and the script say he is human - then i aint going to argue.
I don't see what's wrong in a descendant that looks precisely like his ancestor. Like, no real problem. At all.
i've always assumed in the 3rd one he was the real bishop
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Jan 03, 2011, 12:56:00 PM
I don't see what's wrong in a descendant that looks precisely like his ancestor. Like, no real problem. At all.
That Lambert guy from Predator 2 sure looked a lot like Hudson...I guess Hudson was an android all along?
Separate universes, rules don't apply.
;)
Just filling in for our friend, Monsieur P-X.
What?
It...I'm just being silly, man.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jan 04, 2011, 04:35:57 AM
Separate universes, rules don't apply.
;)
Well,
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.filmdogsonline.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F03%2Fp2-the_alien_skull.png&hash=69162fe12de90c00859d9be18efcd82420ede6fd)
I read a Lance Henriksen interview where he say Bishop II is a advanced model of android.
Quote from: StrangeShape on Jan 04, 2011, 11:31:53 PM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jan 04, 2011, 04:35:57 AM
Separate universes, rules don't apply.
;)
Well,
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.filmdogsonline.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F03%2Fp2-the_alien_skull.png&hash=69162fe12de90c00859d9be18efcd82420ede6fd)
I should've thought the ;) would indicate my sarcasm, but I guess not.
Quote from: Ivymike on Jan 04, 2011, 11:55:59 PM
I read a Lance Henriksen interview where he say Bishop II is a advanced model of android.
He only said that because he saw how it would conflict with AvP. It wasn't the intention when he made Alien 3.
I always assumed when aaron hits Bishop with the wrench shouting "you're just a f**king android!" he was saying it out of anger, until Bishop's ear almost comes off and he's barely in pain at all, which would suggest him as a more advanced android.
That's just the way I've always seen it. But the ambiguity definitely makes it more fun :).
Depends what version of the film, original version he's human, the extended version he's android.
Since the original version is the film considered cannon, i'd have to say he's human.
How does the AC make him look more android?
He even shouts NO CAMERAS!!!... more human if you ask me.
He panics, he seems genuinely upset when Ripley jumps, he responds to physical pain by holding his head.
Now compare that to how Bishop acted in Aliens.
I can't believe this is even still a debate :D
Quote from: Vulhala on Jan 07, 2011, 01:28:30 PM
He panics, he seems genuinely upset when Ripley jumps, he responds to physical pain by holding his head.
Now compare that to how Bishop acted in Aliens.
I can't believe this is even still a debate :D
Tell me about it, that alone explains that his human.
Quote from: Vulhala on Jan 07, 2011, 01:28:30 PM
He panics, he seems genuinely upset when Ripley jumps, he responds to physical pain by holding his head.
Now compare that to how Bishop acted in Aliens.
I can't believe this is even still a debate :D
Maybe he's just more advanced as an android. SEE!!!
He's human.
He's an android sent back from the future to destroy the Earth, Now only Goku can stop- Oh sorry, wrong series.
Had to make this post since its page 161 or an Alien3 subject. :laugh:
I am still voting for android.
That is because if he was a robot he is clearly intended to look male.
Otherwise he she would be a Gynoid. ;)
Quote from: Meathead320 on Feb 05, 2011, 02:36:54 AM
Had to make this post since its page 161 or an Alien3 subject. :laugh:
Sweet.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jan 08, 2011, 04:07:32 AM
Quote from: Vulhala on Jan 07, 2011, 01:28:30 PM
He panics, he seems genuinely upset when Ripley jumps, he responds to physical pain by holding his head.
Now compare that to how Bishop acted in Aliens.
I can't believe this is even still a debate :D
Maybe he's just more advanced as an android. SEE!!!
We had more advanced android in A:R. Still it had white blood. Bishop in A3 had red blood. Red blood = human. That was the whole point.
In the context of the Alien movies, he's human. Involve AVP and good luck to you.
He is long descendant of same family. I`ve been repeating this for years :D
Quote from: Master on Feb 07, 2011, 06:15:22 PM
He is long descendant of same family. I`ve been repeating this for years :D
Me, too.
There's nothing remotely improbable about that.
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Feb 07, 2011, 06:18:47 PM
There's nothing remotely improbable about that.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_wAxDMfEGhoY%2FTLOVnpZzzoI%2FAAAAAAAAAVE%2FJSuh_GX59Ks%2Fs1600%2FNot%2BSure%2Bif%2Bserious.jpg&hash=39aee9ea8fd114bd7fd251cfc72e24277384e8f3)
I think hes Definitely a clone of some type.
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Feb 07, 2011, 06:18:47 PM
Quote from: Master on Feb 07, 2011, 06:15:22 PM
He is long descendant of same family. I`ve been repeating this for years :D
Me, too.
There's nothing remotely improbable about that.
He's a descendant of the same person?
Yes. I look a lot like my anscestor.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg269.imageshack.us%2Fimg269%2F7072%2Femperormike2.jpg&hash=3dacc3d9f127d3b4fa2cc2194a8732ce839c297f)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foi39.tinypic.com%2F24uvswl.jpg&hash=cc53b05cacbb6a429235c831d34e1e9dc42d0dbc)
Quote from: Sharp Sticks on Feb 07, 2011, 11:50:34 PM
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Feb 07, 2011, 06:18:47 PM
There's nothing remotely improbable about that.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wAxDMfEGhoY/TLOVnpZzzoI/AAAAAAAAAVE/JSuh_GX59Ks/s1600/Not+Sure+if+serious.jpg
Serious, serious. I mean, why would I say that a descendant
can't look like his ancestor? It's asinine to say so. It's perfectly plausible.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 08, 2011, 03:30:34 AM
He's a descendant of the same person?
Michael Bishop from Alien3 is the descendant of Charles Bishop from AvP. Nothing wrong with that.
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Feb 08, 2011, 12:07:43 PM
Quote from: Sharp Sticks on Feb 07, 2011, 11:50:34 PM
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Feb 07, 2011, 06:18:47 PM
There's nothing remotely improbable about that.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wAxDMfEGhoY/TLOVnpZzzoI/AAAAAAAAAVE/JSuh_GX59Ks/s1600/Not+Sure+if+serious.jpg
Serious, serious. I mean, why would I say that a descendant can't look like his ancestor? It's asinine to say so. It's perfectly plausible.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 08, 2011, 03:30:34 AM
He's a descendant of the same person?
Michael Bishop from Alien3 is the descendant of Charles Bishop from AvP. Nothing wrong with that.
Because of genetic dilution. Only continuously inbred families [like the Windsors] will keep such genetic traits over time. And to look and sound the same? No. Paul Anderson ::)
A rare case indeed, but not impossible.
And who says the 'Weylands' didn't inbreed a lot?
;D
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Feb 08, 2011, 12:45:51 PM
A rare case indeed, but not impossible.
And who says the 'Weylands' didn't inbreed a lot?
;D
Oh, dear. AVP, continuity, and incest. Damn you, Anderson!
He could be a clone, or a replicant I suppose.
To what purpose?
Also the synthetics are the 'replicants' in the Alien universe.
Considering that I don't take AVP into the equation, he's a bloody man. Human.
Quote from: Valaquen on Feb 08, 2011, 02:28:55 PM
Considering that I don't take AVP into the equation, he's a bloody man. Human.
This and only this people.
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Feb 08, 2011, 02:26:49 PM
To what purpose?
Also the synthetics are the 'replicants' in the Alien universe.
I know, I'm just saying for the sake of red blood. Some people see Alien and Blade Runner as existing in the same universe.
I've always assumed Bishop in Alien3 was a human myself, although one that has a great deal of tolerance for serious head trauma.
Quote from: Gash on Feb 08, 2011, 03:33:36 PM
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Feb 08, 2011, 02:26:49 PM
To what purpose?
Also the synthetics are the 'replicants' in the Alien universe.
I know, I'm just saying for the sake of red blood. Some people see Alien and Blade Runner as existing in the same universe.
I've always assumed Bishop in Alien3 was a human myself, although one that has a great deal of tolerance for serious head trauma.
I close my eyes at the 2019 titlecard and imagine the Nostromo is out there, somewhere... ;D
Quote from: Valaquen on Feb 08, 2011, 02:28:55 PM
Considering that I don't take AVP into the equation, he's a bloody man. Human.
Yup. AvP is separate from the A/P universes because it's just easier that way. I'm certain I'm not the only one who feels that way 'round here.
Quote from: Valaquen on Feb 08, 2011, 03:34:32 PM
I close my eyes at the 2019 titlecard and imagine the Nostromo is out there, somewhere... ;D
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fmk5Y3.gif&hash=7fdfe8aafa12b8d36fa4c09f78cc2b6259b6dfda)
Quote from: Valaquen on Feb 08, 2011, 12:18:33 PM
Because of genetic dilution. Only continuously inbred families [like the Windsors] will keep such genetic traits over time. And to look and sound the same? No. Paul Anderson ::)
I know people who aren't even related that look almost the exact same.
Just sayin'.
Quote from: SpaceMarines on Feb 08, 2011, 11:53:34 PM
Quote from: Valaquen on Feb 08, 2011, 12:18:33 PM
Because of genetic dilution. Only continuously inbred families [like the Windsors] will keep such genetic traits over time. And to look and sound the same? No. Paul Anderson ::)
I know people who aren't even related that look almost the exact same.
Just sayin'.
The
exact same, with the same height, hair, and voice? A perfect doppelganger, in effect.
Just askin'.
It's a movie, afterall.
Don't see people complaining about Michael J. Fox playing Marty McFly, his son, and his great-grandfather.
Quote from: SpaceMarines on Feb 09, 2011, 03:34:42 AM
It's a movie, afterall.
Don't see people complaining about Michael J. Fox playing Marty McFly, his son, and his great-grandfather.
Well, that is a comedy series. Like Eddie Murphy playing everyone in a film.
I wouldn't say it's a comedy series. Comedic elements, sure, but not a comedy.
I'm just saying, of all the problems there are with AvP, Lance Henriksen is the least among them.
Quote from: SpaceMarines on Feb 09, 2011, 03:44:53 AM
I wouldn't say it's a comedy series. Comedic elements, sure, but not a comedy.
I'm just saying, of all the problems there are with AvP, Lance Henriksen is the least among them.
QuoteBack to the Future is a 1985 American science-fiction comedy film.
Regardless, Fox playing several ancestors would be one of those 'comedic elements'.
Actually, come to think of it...
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foi41.tinypic.com%2F2s16eiw.jpg&hash=4c05114e40f833841639b32098b43dc3bb9f9b03)
Yeah, comedy's not too far off the mark.
I concede.
Awesome gif.
I found that about 5 months ago, and I finally got to use it.
Quote from: Gash on Feb 08, 2011, 03:33:36 PM
I've always assumed Bishop in Alien3 was a human myself, although one that has a great deal of tolerance for serious head trauma.
Serious head trauma...from getting clipped in the back of the head by a lead pipe with the force from a male prisoner...not going to buy it. From experience, I've taken a tumble off of a motorcycle wearing a full race helmet designed to take a hard impact and still woke up in the hospital with damage (IDC if you make jokes). I seriously doubt that a human being can take a whack on the head by full grown man with a lead pipe and still bark out orders.
Red dye can easily be injected into a driod's fluids/gels to convince Ripley with a small cut, and if I'm not mistaken Ash was pretty dead set on obtaining the Xenomorph specimen as well. It's all in the programming.
The she-devil's advocate is going to have to go with....droid.
Spoiler
:P
Neeeehhe'saman.
But both interpretations make for a very silly scene.
The amount of inbreeding it would have taken to get such a close match genetically would probably have resulted in Bishop II having an extra arm growing out of his back, maybe the eyes on the side of his head, banjo music in his ipod. A scientist, no.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi54.tinypic.com%2F6dsgua.jpg&hash=f29704073f9e3ec2c51969996f6c87b594d75aa5)
Quote from: AliceApocalypse on Feb 09, 2011, 02:48:58 PM
Quote from: Gash on Feb 08, 2011, 03:33:36 PM
I've always assumed Bishop in Alien3 was a human myself, although one that has a great deal of tolerance for serious head trauma.
Serious head trauma...from getting clipped in the back of the head by a lead pipe with the force from a male prisoner...not going to buy it. From experience, I've taken a tumble off of a motorcycle wearing a full race helmet designed to take a hard impact and still woke up in the hospital with damage (IDC if you make jokes). I seriously doubt that a human being can take a whack on the head by full grown man with a lead pipe and still bark out orders.
Red dye can easily be injected into a driod's fluids/gels to convince Ripley with a small cut, and if I'm not mistaken Ash was pretty dead set on obtaining the Xenomorph specimen as well. It's all in the programming.
The she-devil's advocate is going to have to go with....droid.
Spoiler
:P
On the other hand, Ash blew it cos Ripley shoved him up against a wall. If Bishop was an android wouldn't his head have come off?
Or maybe ADI just went OTT with the head damage for the sake of it. Although whilst bring ADI into it I have to applaud them for the screwed up Bishop droid, that was an amazing piece on animatronic work, far more convincing than the sort of thing that would be done with CGI these days.
Or maybe I'm just a die hard Alien fan that will see Bishop as a droid by default lol. It's an Alien film, by right it should have a droid or it...just...wouldn't be Alien. Right?
No. I wouldn't see the need to have a droid on a prison planet. The only time 'droids were used, in my view it seemed, was whenever a mission of some sort was being done.
He wasn't on the prison planet,though, he arrived later with a crew on a mission to extract the xeno queen.
Eh...weak. That line too about "using it for knowledge" and "you must let me have it" sounds more like something a human would say.
Script says he's human, Fincher says he's human [via Woodruff].
He
bleeds
red
blood.
How much more clear can we get on this?
What? Was he a droid that doubled as the storage unit for the Weyland Yutani fruit punch supply?
SO NERRR!!! YOUR OBVIOUS-NESS MEANS NOTHING TO MY INNER FANBOI!!!!
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 09, 2011, 06:36:19 PM
He
bleeds
red
blood.
How much more clear can we get on this?
What? Was he a droid that doubled as the storage unit for the Weyland Yutani fruit punch supply?
>:( No. Obviously.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg716.imageshack.us%2Fimg716%2F8086%2F13ozbbqsauce.jpg&hash=d6fd35c4d6b9b287593304e4c30d92b7cc811ac7)
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 09, 2011, 06:36:19 PM
He
bleeds
red
blood.
How much more clear can we get on this?
What? Was he a droid that doubled as the storage unit for the Weyland Yutani fruit punch supply?
The voice of reason!
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 09, 2011, 06:36:19 PM
What? Was he a droid that doubled as the storage unit for the Weyland Yutani fruit punch supply?
Sure, and guess what they use for a spout...
QuoteSerious head trauma...from getting clipped in the back of the head by a lead pipe with the force from a male prisoner...not going to buy it.
The blow was to his shoulder and side of the head/ ear - not back of the head.
And Aaron was a warden; not a prisoner.
QuoteOr maybe I'm just a die hard Alien fan that will see Bishop as a droid by default lol. It's an Alien film, by right it should have a droid or it...just...wouldn't be Alien. Right?
Erm - you missed them scenes with the Bishop android? You have seen Alien3...? Right?
Quote from: SM on Feb 09, 2011, 10:16:14 PM
QuoteSerious head trauma...from getting clipped in the back of the head by a lead pipe with the force from a male prisoner...not going to buy it.
The blow was to his shoulder and side of the head/ ear - not back of the head.
Side of the head is very bad place to take injury like that too.
In fact, if I was intending to cause the most harm possible to someone with a head shot, I'm going for the side of the head.
Ear Trauma also is extremely disorientating.
I've had that happen to me in a real fight before, one I lost, badly.
When I got nailed in the side of the head, it was an ear shot, and I was instantly in a world of spins and blurs.
Almost ruptured my eardrum too, and that was only from being punched real good.
Only if you take AVP into the equation.
Personally, I go one stop further and remove Alien³ from the equation. I've got 99 problems, but Bishop ain't one.
QuoteEar Trauma also is extremely disorientating.
Guess that'd explain him clutching the fence after he gets belted.
I believe he's meant to be human.
But the injury... :o
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg69.imageshack.us%2Fimg69%2F2810%2Fbishops.jpg&hash=94bb17f327ae3b9ee3df64122412b4b8d3e15adf) (http://img69.imageshack.us/i/bishops.jpg/)
He was hardly stunned and he didn't bleed like a pig.
He better had broken his shoulder to avoid eternal debates. :P
Quote from: SM on Feb 09, 2011, 11:13:22 PM
QuoteEar Trauma also is extremely disorientating.
Guess that'd explain him clutching the fence after he gets belted.
If he had the ability to even do that, and be able to tell where he was, why he was there, and what was going on, that guy had to be on some serious drugs.
I think if they intended him to be human by showing red blood in an injury (which WAS the intention as far as I can tell) they went a little too far with the injury.
Quote from: AliceApocalypse on Feb 09, 2011, 02:48:58 PM
Quote from: Gash on Feb 08, 2011, 03:33:36 PM
I've always assumed Bishop in Alien3 was a human myself, although one that has a great deal of tolerance for serious head trauma.
Serious head trauma...from getting clipped in the back of the head by a lead pipe with the force from a male prisoner...not going to buy it. From experience, I've taken a tumble off of a motorcycle wearing a full race helmet designed to take a hard impact and still woke up in the hospital with damage (IDC if you make jokes). I seriously doubt that a human being can take a whack on the head by full grown man with a lead pipe and still bark out orders.
Red dye can easily be injected into a driod's fluids/gels to convince Ripley with a small cut, and if I'm not mistaken Ash was pretty dead set on obtaining the Xenomorph specimen as well. It's all in the programming.
The she-devil's advocate is going to have to go with....droid.
Spoiler
:P
I on the other hand fell into woods while skiing and hit the tree. After that I had brain concussion, two broken ribs and bruise covering half of my head, jaw and thorax. Yet just after the accident I was able to collect all of my equipment scatered around, crawl out from wood and ski down the hill-side on my own. Adrenaline rush can do wonders.
Also Bishop and Bishop II were supposed to make an allegory that even a walking toster is much better then greedy and corrupted human from WY.
Ergo Bishop II is human.
Quote from: Master on Feb 09, 2011, 11:37:03 PM
Quote from: AliceApocalypse on Feb 09, 2011, 02:48:58 PM
Quote from: Gash on Feb 08, 2011, 03:33:36 PM
I've always assumed Bishop in Alien3 was a human myself, although one that has a great deal of tolerance for serious head trauma.
Serious head trauma...from getting clipped in the back of the head by a lead pipe with the force from a male prisoner...not going to buy it. From experience, I've taken a tumble off of a motorcycle wearing a full race helmet designed to take a hard impact and still woke up in the hospital with damage (IDC if you make jokes). I seriously doubt that a human being can take a whack on the head by full grown man with a lead pipe and still bark out orders.
Red dye can easily be injected into a driod's fluids/gels to convince Ripley with a small cut, and if I'm not mistaken Ash was pretty dead set on obtaining the Xenomorph specimen as well. It's all in the programming.
The she-devil's advocate is going to have to go with....droid.
Spoiler
:P
I on the other hand fell into woods while skiing and hit the tree. After that I had brain concussion, two broken ribs and bruise covering half of my head, jaw and thorax. Yet just after the accident I was able to collect all of my equipment scatered around, crawl out from wood and ski down the hill-side on my own. Adrenaline rush can do wonders.
Also Bishop and Bishop II were supposed to make an allegory that even a walking toster is much better then greedy and corrupted human from WY.
Ergo Bishop II is human.
Not even a period of laying like a couple minutes there dazed as in WTF am I?!?!?
Looking around and going Ohh, yeah...Check the neck...Check the boys....Ok...Everything's there...Try to get up....Ohhh THat hurts....Gonna be worse tommorrow...ok time to pick up my stuff Just right back up instantly?
This whole 'there was no way he was getting up after that whack to the head' thing has been shown to be bullshit from page 1.
Quote from: Meathead320 on Feb 09, 2011, 11:51:28 PM
Quote from: Master on Feb 09, 2011, 11:37:03 PM
Quote from: AliceApocalypse on Feb 09, 2011, 02:48:58 PM
Quote from: Gash on Feb 08, 2011, 03:33:36 PM
I've always assumed Bishop in Alien3 was a human myself, although one that has a great deal of tolerance for serious head trauma.
Serious head trauma...from getting clipped in the back of the head by a lead pipe with the force from a male prisoner...not going to buy it. From experience, I've taken a tumble off of a motorcycle wearing a full race helmet designed to take a hard impact and still woke up in the hospital with damage (IDC if you make jokes). I seriously doubt that a human being can take a whack on the head by full grown man with a lead pipe and still bark out orders.
Red dye can easily be injected into a driod's fluids/gels to convince Ripley with a small cut, and if I'm not mistaken Ash was pretty dead set on obtaining the Xenomorph specimen as well. It's all in the programming.
The she-devil's advocate is going to have to go with....droid.
Spoiler
:P
I on the other hand fell into woods while skiing and hit the tree. After that I had brain concussion, two broken ribs and bruise covering half of my head, jaw and thorax. Yet just after the accident I was able to collect all of my equipment scatered around, crawl out from wood and ski down the hill-side on my own. Adrenaline rush can do wonders.
Also Bishop and Bishop II were supposed to make an allegory that even a walking toster is much better then greedy and corrupted human from WY.
Ergo Bishop II is human.
Not even a period of laying like a couple minutes there dazed as in WTF am I?!?!?
Looking around and going Ohh, yeah...Check the neck...Check the boys....Ok...Everything's there...Try to get up....Ohhh THat hurts....Gonna be worse tommorrow...ok time to pick up my stuff
Just right back up instantly?
Of course I blacked out for few seconds ;D You and I both know it`s impossible to go other way. Actually I hit the tree, opened my eyes and noticed a hand warped around the tree. When I shaked it off with my left hand I realized that this must my my other hand acuse I started to feel the pain all over my body ;D
Quote from: SM on Feb 09, 2011, 11:53:00 PM
This whole 'there was no way he was getting up after that whack to the head' thing has been shown to be bullshit from page 1.
Not it hasn't.
Sorry - page 3. Not page 1.
For those who came in late (http://www.alienexperience.com/forum/index.php/topic,51.0.html)
Sold me!
Quote from: SM on Feb 10, 2011, 12:46:54 AM
Sorry - page 3. Not page 1.
For those who came in late (http://www.alienexperience.com/forum/index.php/topic,51.0.html)
I've reviewed the evidence. Still not convinced.
Options are 1 of 2, and I'm not invested in either one very much.
AVP is in the same universe, and he was an android with red blood to be more convincing in the event that Ripley would want to see his blood to confirm his story.
AVP is 100% separate, easily explains the differences in the Aliens themselves, and BishopII was as flesh as my **ck.
Spoiler
but if you choke that real good it will in fact spew out white fluid!
QuoteAVP is in the same universe, and he was an android with red blood to be more convincing in the event that Ripley would want to see his blood to confirm his story.
That hoary old chestnut again?
Quote from: SM on Feb 10, 2011, 01:29:36 AM
QuoteAVP is in the same universe, and he was an android with red blood to be more convincing in the event that Ripley would want to see his blood to confirm his story.
That hoary old chestnut again?
Well the two just don't fit without something else absurd going into fantasy land going on.
The other option of AVP and the original Alien Trilogy being 100% different universe is fine with me too.
This is a very good topic for debates. The damage done to the human skull after making impact with a lead pipe is going to be severe. Experience, without going into detail, backs up this conclusion.
For anyone interested, here is an article on head injuries: http://www.emedicinehealth.com/head_injury/article_em.htm (http://www.emedicinehealth.com/head_injury/article_em.htm)
IMO, there is not enough evidence to be convinced that Bishop II was human.
Quote from: SM on Feb 10, 2011, 12:46:54 AM
Sorry - page 3. Not page 1.
For those who came in late (http://www.alienexperience.com/forum/index.php/topic,51.0.html)
That was a very good read. Thanks for the link. :)
Quote from: AliceApocalypse on Feb 10, 2011, 07:49:20 PM
This is a very good topic for debates. The damage done to the human skull after making impact with a lead pipe is going to be severe. Experience, without going into detail, backs up this conclusion.
For anyone interested, here is an article on head injuries: http://www.emedicinehealth.com/head_injury/article_em.htm (http://www.emedicinehealth.com/head_injury/article_em.htm)
IMO, there is not enough evidence to be convinced that Bishop II was human.
Except for everyone involved with Alien 3, as well as the script, saying that he
is?
Because the guys who made the film, what do they know?
No, it's the people who had nothing to do with the film that know what really happened.
Also he is powered by donuts.
BTW Alice, I have heard confirmed reports of people surviving far worse than poor Lance there, and not suffering any permanent medical problems from the injury either.
It's only a difference of opinion no need to be rude, both of you. Valaquen, I did read the blog and it is very well done.
My apologies. Didn't mean to seem rude.
Good natured sarcasm doesn't translate well in text, does it?
And opinions can be wrong.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 10, 2011, 10:25:55 PM
My apologies. Didn't mean to seem rude.
Good natured sarcasm doesn't translate well in text, does it?
Ditto.
Thank you guys. Just remember that I am a woman, and that means that I am prone to make conclusions that have no logic, reason or accountability.
Its not your fault. It's genetic :laugh:
Quote from: AliceApocalypse on Feb 11, 2011, 02:03:45 PM
Thank you guys. Just remember that I am a woman, and that means that I am prone to make conclusions that have no logic, reason or accountability.
Just glad you're not my mum ;D
I voted human like two years ago without explaining why. I figured it had already been said and wasn't about to read through 100+ pages just to verify, but since we're still talking about this, what the hell, I'll weigh in.
Ripley initially thought Bishop II was a droid, but when he claimed to be human, she didn't voice any incredulity. That's because Bishop's true nature wasn't the issue. The entire point of the scene was about the tough choice Ripley had to make. So we can take Bishop's status by the final word on the subject.
"I'm very human."
Alien³ says human.
Then AVP comes along 13 years later and tries to imply that he was an android all along, that Weyland was the original person and every Bishop after him was a copy. ::) I find it kind of amusing that a prequel is trying to retcon a sequel. It's usually the other way around, isn't it?
So now we have two conflicting films that can't be reconciled without hokey theories. The only question we have is which one you give precedence. I consider the level of continuity maintained by each film.
A³ breaks continuity with Aliens in a big way by not adequately explaining the whole egg/1 or 2 facehuggers on board the Sulaco debacle, but that's just one occurrence. AVP, on the other hand, contradicts the entire premise of every previous film by revealing the aliens have been on earth since the beginning of civilization. Whoa! As far as the Alien series is concerned, no one had encountered an alien before the crew of the Nostromo (the possible prequel isn't relevant yet). That's a pretty big frikkin discrepancy. AVP also butts heads with the Predator series by removing the preds from steaming hot environments and placing them in sub-zero Antartica.
Add it all up, and AVP is just one big honking continuity error. I'm going with A³.
Human.
There is a reason AvP is considered its own canon, you know.
Probably for the reasons I just mentioned, and I haven't seen any two people agree on what's canon.
Spoiler
you know :P
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 15, 2011, 03:09:53 AM
There is a reason AvP is considered its own canon, you know.
How? it's a movie, it's got aliens and predators in it so there for it's cannon.
Yeah, its canon ergo in its own universe and not tied to the other films despite the directors' best intentions.
Unless he's one of those Androids with the red dye in their blood, he's human.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi55.tinypic.com%2Ffp9uuu.jpg&hash=d6a91611a72dfd1b0e31ca09f43ee3f7a1a023ef)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi54.tinypic.com%2F1466x1.jpg&hash=bdcc9202a4462e7cfb0f813cac2e1aefde96a190)
I know it's an old topic, but I was watching A3 today and noticed the blood.
Quote from: kelgaard on Feb 14, 2011, 04:01:53 PM
I voted human like two years ago without explaining why. I figured it had already been said and wasn't about to read through 100+ pages just to verify, but since we're still talking about this, what the hell, I'll weigh in.
Ripley initially thought Bishop II was a droid, but when he claimed to be human, she didn't voice any incredulity. That's because Bishop's true nature wasn't the issue. The entire point of the scene was about the tough choice Ripley had to make. So we can take Bishop's status by the final word on the subject.
"I'm very human."
Alien³ says human.
Then AVP comes along 13 years later and tries to imply that he was an android all along, that Weyland was the original person and every Bishop after him was a copy. ::) I find it kind of amusing that a prequel is trying to retcon a sequel. It's usually the other way around, isn't it?
So now we have two conflicting films that can't be reconciled without hokey theories. The only question we have is which one you give precedence. I consider the level of continuity maintained by each film.
A³ breaks continuity with Aliens in a big way by not adequately explaining the whole egg/1 or 2 facehuggers on board the Sulaco debacle, but that's just one occurrence. AVP, on the other hand, contradicts the entire premise of every previous film by revealing the aliens have been on earth since the beginning of civilization. Whoa! As far as the Alien series is concerned, no one had encountered an alien before the crew of the Nostromo (the possible prequel isn't relevant yet). That's a pretty big frikkin discrepancy. AVP also butts heads with the Predator series by removing the preds from steaming hot environments and placing them in sub-zero Antartica.
Add it all up, and AVP is just one big honking continuity error. I'm going with A³.
Human.
Sayin youre human doesnt make you so, especially while in this situation its crucial Ripley believe he is. Alien 3 in my eyes shows the opposite for numerous reasons. One, he gets a direct blow in the head with a metal pipe. Two, he has an ear and part of his face hanging off of him and he carries on fine. Doesnt even pass out. Three, his soldiers and techs dont give a shit about him when he gets hit. Supposedly a big shot in WY and none of the medics even goes near him to check if hes fine or check the wound. Four, credits say Bishop II not Bishop's designer. Blood can be colored since they expected Ripley would be skeptical about Bishop II being human
Having said so, the novelization says hes human so I take it as that
This thread will NEVER DIE.
I've always figured that an android with red blood was more believable than a human who can carry on as normal after being hit on the head so hard that his ear is hanging off.
Regardless of AvP, I believe Bishop II was just another android.
He doesn't carry on like normal...
die thread! DIE!
Quote from: Waldo on Oct 05, 2011, 04:33:42 PM
I've always figured that an android with red blood was more believable than a human who can carry on as normal after being hit on the head so hard that his ear is hanging off.
Regardless of AvP, I believe Bishop II was just another android.
He gets cranked in the head and is in obvious pain in the extended cut.
Also the script and novelization both say he's human.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 05, 2011, 06:17:11 PM
Quote from: Waldo on Oct 05, 2011, 04:33:42 PM
I've always figured that an android with red blood was more believable than a human who can carry on as normal after being hit on the head so hard that his ear is hanging off.
Regardless of AvP, I believe Bishop II was just another android.
He gets cranked in the head and is in obvious pain in the extended cut.
And wasnt Bishop when speared by the Queen?
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dvdvision.fr%2Fjco%2Fbishoppain.png&hash=cd88e79e7601fbc57a1889e300c2cd970f84f794)
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 05, 2011, 06:17:11 PM
He gets cranked in the head and is in obvious pain in the extended cut.
Also the script and novelization both say he's human.
Fincher too:
'When Lance gets hit in the head with this lead pipe, we had an appliance which showed his ear had become dislodged as Fincher wanted to show that this is the real guy, and not a synthetic person.'
Tom Woodruff, Alien 3 commentary, 2003.
Well "carry on as normal" is a bit of an exaggeration but I stand by it. Yes he appears to be in pain at first but then he seems to forget about it pretty quickly and continues trying to convince Ripley. I just don't buy that as a believable response from a human considering the injury. To me, he looks far more like a malfunctioning synthetic.
As far as the script and the novelization is concerned, I don't really care. I'm judging purely by what I saw in the film.
QuoteYes he appears to be in pain at first but then he seems to forget about it pretty quickly and continues trying to convince Ripley.
Adrenaline can do a lot of crazy things (http://www.cracked.com/article_18429_6-soldiers-who-survived-shit-that-would-kill-terminator.html).
QuoteAs far as the script and the novelization is concerned, I don't really care. I'm judging purely by what I saw in the film.
If you want to disregard relevant, topical information regarding the making of the movie that outright settles the debate then of course the debate is going to rage on into infinity. :P
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 05, 2011, 07:48:04 PM
Adrenaline can do a lot of crazy things (http://www.cracked.com/article_18429_6-soldiers-who-survived-shit-that-would-kill-terminator.html).
makes you immune and invulnerable to concussion, skull cracking and makes your security and medtechs ignore you completely?
Immune? No. Able to fight your way past it temporarily? Sure.
The human body is a pretty amazing thing. :)
The human body is an amazing thing. For instance I saw a doco tonight about a soldier who was part of a brick that got ambushed in Afghanistan. He was shot within the first 2-3 minutes and had no idea until they were safe and a medic made him sit down about 2 hours later. Once he saw the wound, he passed out. He said he felt like someone had run into him from behind, fell over, got up and got on with it.
That's what adrenaline is for.
Seeing as Morse was originally supposed to flat-out kill Michael Bishop, I really think the ear-thing was just a last minute ass-pull. Seeing as he was supposed to... well... fall down dead, not do a flip-out (like Ash) or carry on like normal afterwards (like Bishop in ALIENS - not so in ALIEN 3 I know.) that implies he was originally written to be a human. Also the ear-thing was done to show he is a human. He's a damn human!
I'm surprised that on a site of ALIEN fans, the damn poll is so close... I am shaking my head in disbelief at this point. :(
I understand that adrenaline can do impressive things but I just don't see it in this instance. The injury seems like little more than an annoyance to him.
As I said before, when it comes down to believability, I just think the synthetic theory makes more sense. The way I see it, as far as what you actually see in the film, the following arguments for human vs android are:
Human: He says he's human. He has red blood.
Android: He not only survives but remains conscious after a ridiculously bad head wound.
Sure you can try and justify the head injury by citing miraculous cases of adrenaline rushes, but I would say he's a synthetic who either was lying or really did believe he was human and that the red blood is there to further create the illusion of his humanity.
That's what I choose to think anyway...
Androids never bleed red - before or after Alien3.
Quote from: SM on Oct 05, 2011, 10:02:50 PM
Androids never bleed red - before or after Alien3.
True. Out of like the three characters in the series that we know to have been androids, none of them have bled red but I hardly think that it's unimaginable that one could have red blood.
QuoteOut of like the three characters in the series that we know to have been androids, none of them have bled red
Therefore 100% of androids don't have red blood.
Ergo Bishop the Second is human.
I don't think that's much of an argument to be honest.
Well you seem to have ignored more complex arguments, so I thought a simpler approach was in order.
Quote from: SM on Oct 05, 2011, 10:38:08 PM
QuoteOut of like the three characters in the series that we know to have been androids, none of them have bled red
Therefore 100% of androids don't have red blood.
Ergo Bishop the Second is human.
100% of the film Androids don't have red blood. But the Ripley android from the Perry novels does, she also doesn't know she's a droid until she is examined by a medic. But then again this isn't those novels.
Quote from: SM on Oct 05, 2011, 10:38:08 PM
QuoteOut of like the three characters in the series that we know to have been androids, none of them have bled red
Therefore 100% of androids don't have red blood.
Ergo Bishop the Second is human.
it's also possible that Bishop is an android and doesn't know it.
Quote from: Sgt. Apone on Oct 05, 2011, 11:14:03 PM
Quote from: SM on Oct 05, 2011, 10:38:08 PM
QuoteOut of like the three characters in the series that we know to have been androids, none of them have bled red
Therefore 100% of androids don't have red blood.
Ergo Bishop the Second is human.
it's also possible that Bishop is an android and doesn't know it.
Unlikely, if they were to make a character like that there would be...well a point.
Quite. They're droids - not replicants.
And droids don't have red blood.
Quote from: SM on Oct 05, 2011, 11:19:15 PM
Quite. They're droids - not replicants.
And droids don't have red blood.
Except the one special case. ;)
Exactly, in the movies they don't. If for whatever reason they meant him to be an android with red blood, that's an important distinction that I suspect would have been focused on.
The intent for the scene from its inception was that he was human.
Quote from: SM on Oct 05, 2011, 10:38:08 PM
QuoteOut of like the three characters in the series that we know to have been androids, none of them have bled red
Therefore 100% of androids don't have red blood.
Ergo Bishop the Second is human.
To be fair this is really bad logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition).
Then again, calling it out on its bad logic doesn't outright refute your conclusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy). :P
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 05, 2011, 11:23:44 PM
Exactly, in the movies they don't. If for whatever reason they meant him to be an android with red blood, that's an important distinction that I suspect would have been focused on.
The intent for the scene from its inception was that he was human.
That's pretty much what I was saying. If he was a droid there would have been a point and it would have been shown in way where there would be no confusion, like they did with Ash and Bishop I.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS383gEdb_g# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS383gEdb_g#)
I think it was always the intention he was human. Granted, the film leaves it open for debate. Adrenaline wouldn't allow you to carry on as per normal after such a heavy blow.
Vul gave a good example of what adrenaline can do to a man, but in that circumstance the adrenaline would have already been pumping making a hit during it less effective. Bishop was standing there and POW! That's not the sort of wound one easily walks away from.
Be that as it may, it doesn't make him an android. If he was supposed to be synthetic, they would have used that blow as a way of showing it ie milk pouring out everywhere.
I don't think there was any question pre-avp about him being human.
Bishop's amazing recovery to the blow to his head is kind of a moot point anyway considering it's a David Fincher film. A lot of his films tend to show people withstanding unrealistic amounts of damage and has sensational violence like that. Look at Fight Club, for instance.
Well, if they can take the idea for Ash the android from the "Return of the robot maker" episode of the Six Million Dollar Man, I don't have a problem with Bishop II being a cyborg
QuoteI think it was always the intention he was human.
It was. :)
QuoteAdrenaline wouldn't allow you to carry on as per normal after such a heavy blow.
Yes it would, I linked to an article with stories about soldiers who
lost limbs and kept going on sheer adrenaline.
Quote
I don't think there was any question pre-avp about him being human.
You'd be surprised. :P This debate has been going in the AvP community for
years.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 06, 2011, 06:16:49 PM
]
Quote
I don't think there was any question pre-avp about him being human.
You'd be surprised. :P This debate has been going in the AvP community for years.
It was the top topic of conversation at the lunchroom table in the last weeks of school back in 1992.
We all decided he was human. Funny, nobody gave a shit about the egg on the Sulaco.
The debate will rage anew of new generations of Alien fans. Let them have there fun.
Why is this topic STILL alive! He was bleeding red blood not white milk in broad daylight! The answer is staring you people down right in the bloody face!
Quote from: Crazy Rich on Oct 06, 2011, 07:13:17 PM
Why is this topic STILL alive! He was bleeding red blood not white milk in broad daylight! The answer is staring you people down right in the bloody face!
Quoteyou people down right in the bloody face!
Quotein the bloody face!
Quotebloody face
It's funny because that's what we're talking about.
Quote from: Crazy Rich on Oct 06, 2011, 07:13:17 PM
Why is this topic STILL alive! He was bleeding red blood not white milk in broad daylight! The answer is staring you people down right in the bloody face!
While Im a believer than he is human cause the novelization said so, the blood itself is a weak argument. Knowing that Ripley will be skeptical for sure about the guy really being human and probably expecting her to prove it somehow, the easiest way would be to make him bleed. White would be a dead giveaway, so I tihnk logically the first thing they would do is color his blood red
.... wut?
This thread has to die eventually...
What do you mean "what"? They send the guy so Ripley would trust him. They knew right away that shed think hes an android cause of Bishop. They knew shed be skeptical. What if shed ask him to cut his finger? "Oops, white, I guess she wont trust us and no alien after all". Its just natural theyd color his blood if he was send specifically for the mission of earning Ripley's trust. Ever since I first saw Alien 3 in '93 I never had a slightest doubt that he was android untill Ive heard a year or so ago that the novelization says he is human. Everything in the movie screams android (blow to the head, hanging face, complete lack of any interest from medics and security etc), even credits say Bishop II. Even Lance said he was an advanced model. But I take novelizations as movie's guide and bible for what cannot be thoroughly explained onscreen so I take it that the guy was human. But the movie itself always pointed me in an opposite direction
Quote from: StrangeShape on Oct 07, 2011, 01:20:55 AM
Quote from: Crazy Rich on Oct 06, 2011, 07:13:17 PM
Why is this topic STILL alive! He was bleeding red blood not white milk in broad daylight! The answer is staring you people down right in the bloody face!
While Im a believer than he is human cause the novelization said so, the blood itself is a weak argument. Knowing that Ripley will be skeptical for sure about the guy really being human and probably expecting her to prove it somehow, the easiest way would be to make him bleed. White would be a dead giveaway, so I tihnk logically the first thing they would do is color his blood red
Wait, what you're saying that that planned on someone injuring him and that's why an android could have red blood? That's pretty unlikely.
Quote from: Self-Destruct on Oct 07, 2011, 01:37:16 AM
Wait, what you're saying that that planned on someone injuring him and that's why an android could have red blood? That's pretty unlikely.
No. Im saying Ripley would be skeptical and they knew it. he looked like Bishop. She couldve ask him to cut his finger thats all. His mission was to gain her trust and convince her hes human. Having white blood wouldve been a dead and quick giveaway
Quote from: StrangeShape on Oct 07, 2011, 01:39:38 AM
Quote from: Self-Destruct on Oct 07, 2011, 01:37:16 AM
Wait, what you're saying that that planned on someone injuring him and that's why an android could have red blood? That's pretty unlikely.
No. Im saying Ripley would be skeptical and they knew it. he looked like Bishop. She couldve ask him to cut his finger thats all. His mission was to gain her trust and convince her hes human. Having white blood wouldve been a dead and quick giveaway
But you're saying that they went to the trouble to make this custom android with red blood all for the purpose of gaining Ripley's trust. Sure they wanted the specimen pretty bad, but that's a little over the top.
Just a tad...
One question I've brought up a number times on this thread is the complete lack of Bishop's reflexes. If he's an espionage model with red food colouring in his blood - why didn't he reach out before Ripley could react and stop her closing the gate and take her by force? Why didn't he try to evade a guy who telegraphs his attack by yelling 'f**king android!!"?
That and from a storytelling perspective it still doesn't make sense to make him an android. If he was a super-special red-bleeding android, that's a major plot revelation that I suspect they'd have devoted more than 0 seconds to.
Quote from: SM on Oct 07, 2011, 01:49:18 AM
Just a tad...
One question I've brought up a number times on this thread is the complete lack of Bishop's reflexes. If he's an espionage model with red food colouring in his blood - why didn't he reach out before Ripley could react and top her closing the gate and take her by force? Why didn't he try to evade a guy who telegraphs his attack by yelling 'f**king android!!"?
Or even better: If he's a custom droid, programmed for the sole purpose of going to Fury to gain Ripley's trust, there's a possibility that he isn't restricted by the First Law. If he wasn't restricted, he could have just shot Ripley in the leg and dragged her to the ship. After all we see him allow 86 (that was his number right?) to die, Golic (I think) get's shot in the leg, and he does nothing other than stop the soldier from firing in Ripley's direction. On top of that we saw Ash violate the first law when his special order came through, if Bishop II was a droid why would he not take Ripley by force?
tl;dr I agree with you SM
Quote from: Self-Destruct on Oct 07, 2011, 01:42:26 AM
Quote from: StrangeShape on Oct 07, 2011, 01:39:38 AM
Quote from: Self-Destruct on Oct 07, 2011, 01:37:16 AM
Wait, what you're saying that that planned on someone injuring him and that's why an android could have red blood? That's pretty unlikely.
No. Im saying Ripley would be skeptical and they knew it. he looked like Bishop. She couldve ask him to cut his finger thats all. His mission was to gain her trust and convince her hes human. Having white blood wouldve been a dead and quick giveaway
But you're saying that they went to the trouble to make this custom android with red blood all for the purpose of gaining Ripley's trust. Sure they wanted the specimen pretty bad, but that's a little over the top.
Coloring blood is over the top? I dont think so. Especially while this model went a long way for sole purpose of gaining Ripleys trust and convincing her hes really an important designer. The advanced model idea comes from Lance
As for Bishop II (as called in the credits as oppose to Michael Bishop or Bishop's Designer) not ripping off the fence, I dont think androids have superstrenght. hey may be stronger than humans and have better reflexes, bt superstrength? As for not shooting Ripley in the leg, perhaps they were afraid it can harm the mebryo or maybe its simply a script oversight.
If we were talking about superstrength Ash was more than a match for Ripley or Parker.
But I was talking speed as displayed by Bishop with the knife trick. He never displayed this in two key events where it would've helped him immensely.
And as for the II - astronaut Ken Matthingly must be a robot too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Mattingly).
Quote from: StrangeShape on Oct 07, 2011, 02:41:24 AM
Quote from: Self-Destruct on Oct 07, 2011, 01:42:26 AM
Quote from: StrangeShape on Oct 07, 2011, 01:39:38 AM
Quote from: Self-Destruct on Oct 07, 2011, 01:37:16 AM
Wait, what you're saying that that planned on someone injuring him and that's why an android could have red blood? That's pretty unlikely.
No. Im saying Ripley would be skeptical and they knew it. he looked like Bishop. She couldve ask him to cut his finger thats all. His mission was to gain her trust and convince her hes human. Having white blood wouldve been a dead and quick giveaway
But you're saying that they went to the trouble to make this custom android with red blood all for the purpose of gaining Ripley's trust. Sure they wanted the specimen pretty bad, but that's a little over the top.
Coloring blood is over the top? I dont think so. Especially while this model went a long way for sole purpose of gaining Ripleys trust and convincing her hes really an important designer. The advanced model idea comes from Lance
As for Bishop II (as called in the credits as oppose to Michael Bishop or Bishop's Designer) not ripping off the fence, I dont think androids have superstrenght. hey may be stronger than humans and have better reflexes, bt superstrength? As for not shooting Ripley in the leg, perhaps they were afraid it can harm the mebryo or maybe its simply a script oversight.
Creating a custom 'droid with colored blood just to go to one place is a little over the top.
Bishop II two could refer to any number of things, such as the second Bishop to appear in the series.
Quote from: Self-Destruct on Oct 07, 2011, 03:05:17 AM
Bishop II two could refer to any number of things, such as the second Bishop to appear in the series.
Or human Bishop is the offspring of android Bishop.
A3 = Bishop Jr., if you will.
I disagree. After all they send an entire warship to the planet for Ripley, filled with specialized capturing team and surgeons (and an important designer). Adding color to blood in comparison to that is nothing. Its a trivial thing. And I think its actually too little. Here is a guy that looks like a droid, representing a company that screwed Ripley over and lied to numerous times. Would you really expect them to send a white blooded android and Ripley to just believe him on his word that hes not a droid? Coloring blood is the least they could do. Simple cut on the finger would likely give his words some credibility. They knew she would never believe him otherwise
Quote from: NUB DESTROYER on Oct 07, 2011, 03:07:22 AM
Quote from: Self-Destruct on Oct 07, 2011, 03:05:17 AM
Bishop II two could refer to any number of things, such as the second Bishop to appear in the series.
Or human Bishop is the offspring of android Bishop.
A3 = Bishop Jr., if you will.
Or simply Bishop II meant its Bishop II. The credits didnt say Bishop's designer. They said Bishop II
Hmm... I like the idea of an android giving birth to a grown man better.
Quote from: StrangeShape on Oct 07, 2011, 03:09:42 AM
I disagree. After all they send an entire warship to the planet for Ripley, filled with specialized capturing team and surgeons (and an important designer). Adding color to blood in comparison to that is nothing. Its a trivial thing. And I think its actually too little. Here is a guy that looks like a droid, representing a company that screwed Ripley over and lied to numerous times. Would you really expect them to send a white blooded android and Ripley to just believe him on his word that hes not a droid? Coloring blood is the least they could do. Simple cut on the finger would likely give his words some credibility. They knew she would never believe him otherwise
Quote from: NUB DESTROYER on Oct 07, 2011, 03:07:22 AM
Quote from: Self-Destruct on Oct 07, 2011, 03:05:17 AM
Bishop II two could refer to any number of things, such as the second Bishop to appear in the series.
Or human Bishop is the offspring of android Bishop.
A3 = Bishop Jr., if you will.
Or simply Bishop II meant its Bishop II. The credits didnt say Bishop's designer. They said Bishop II
I get what you're saying. But if he was 'droid then why not actually address it? Why would they give him red blood and not mention it?
Add to that, if he was a 'droid then why would the team with him react the way they did when 86 hits him, they killed him obviously to protect him. If he was a 'droid he wouldn't really need protection because either way his cover would be blown after that hit.
QuoteAdding color to blood in comparison to that is nothing. Its a trivial thing.
Apparently it is otherwise autons would do it to themselves in order to evade detection.
Quote from: Self-Destruct on Oct 07, 2011, 03:17:12 AM
If he was a 'droid he wouldn't really need protection because either way his cover would be blown after that hit.
And thats one of my points. The guys with him were there to capture the adult alien, not to protect him, because they really didnt. When he gets hit by a pipe they dont go over to him, and even the surgeons and doctors completely ignore him. If he was really a high profile designer, they would run up to him to check the wound, do something. No one even asked if hes allright, nothing. He was COMPLETELY ignored even when standing with piece of his face hanging off
QuoteThe guys with him were there to capture the adult alien, not to protect him, because they really didnt.
You assume the cage was for the Alien?
Look more like Ripley's size.
Watching A3 the first time, my initial impression was that Bishop II was an android despite what he said. I never had access to anything else apart from the movie until I was in my 20's. But was I wrong when I was a kid watching it?
It's like is Deckard a Replicant?. You can take into account the original vision of the filmmakers or the novelization. But if you go by films-only as many like to do here... you can make a good case for both answers.
Quote from: SM on Oct 07, 2011, 03:24:36 AM
QuoteThe guys with him were there to capture the adult alien, not to protect him, because they really didnt.
You assume the cage was for the Alien?
Look more like Ripley's size.
Well the main reason for that assumption is that their uniforms were very reminiscent of the dog catchers. Plus they knew there was an adult alien trapped (or so they thought), so naturally they had to have a unit to catch it and get it into the cage
Quote from: StrangeShape on Oct 07, 2011, 03:32:22 AM
Quote from: SM on Oct 07, 2011, 03:24:36 AM
QuoteThe guys with him were there to capture the adult alien, not to protect him, because they really didnt.
You assume the cage was for the Alien?
Look more like Ripley's size.
Well the main reason for that assumption is that their uniforms were very reminiscent of the dog catchers. Plus they knew there was an adult alien trapped (or so they thought), so naturally they had to have a unit to catch it and get it into the cage
I don't think they were there to get the alien. In the transmission they made it clear they were coming for Ripley.
^^ Why couldn't they just bring the cage just to be on the safe side...?
I bring a big ass swiss pocket knife with me just to go to the convenience store.
QuoteBut if you go by films-only as many like to do here... you can make a good case for both answers.
Only if one chooses to ignore what's going on on-screen.
So if you go by films-only and I make the exact same arguments as StrangeShape which he has done so in the last few pages, then I'm wrong?
EDIt: if I go by films-only
Quote from: NUB DESTROYER on Oct 07, 2011, 03:47:29 AM
So if you go by films-only and I make the exact same arguments as StrangeShape which he has done so in the last few pages, then I'm wrong?
EDIt: if I go by films-only
If you go by the films, which I do, then you can't really make an argument for him being an android. There is nothing in the film that directly says he's a droid.
^^ Then we're back to square one. I think the case for him being an android is far more convincing if going by films-only.
Quote from: NUB DESTROYER on Oct 07, 2011, 04:07:22 AM
^^ Then we're back to square one. I think the case for him being an android is far more convincing if going by films-only.
How? We've seen both of the confirmed androids bleed white. This guy had red blood that was red, not white.
As far as the head trauma, ever heard of Phineas Gage?
I can make my pancakes look bright pink with food coloring yet they still taste as delicious as ever.
Quote from: NUB DESTROYER on Oct 07, 2011, 04:38:07 AM
I can make my pancakes look bright pink with food coloring yet they still taste as delicious as ever.
But if they colored his blood wouldn't it have been addressed? They wouldn't leave it to speculation.
LOL why does everything have to be addressed. OK chief, how did the egg got on board the Sulaco?
See where I'm going?
films-only, BTW
Quote from: NUB DESTROYER on Oct 07, 2011, 04:42:06 AM
LOL why does everything have to be addressed. OK chief, how did the egg got on board the Sulaco?
See where I'm going?
films-only, BTW
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=du4IoVgOJdU#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=du4IoVgOJdU#ws)
Magic.
Quote from: NUB DESTROYER on Oct 07, 2011, 04:07:22 AM
^^ Then we're back to square one. I think the case for him being an android is far more convincing if going by films-only.
"Far more" in this instance meaning "not at all".
Seriously the logical hoops people have to jump through to go "films only" in order to show that he's an android are silly and nonsensical.
This is compounded by the novelization, script, and the makers of the film saying that he's a human and was always meant to be.
As for the "Bishop II" thing, the novelization addresses that - it's the name Ripley gives for him in her head because she initially thinks he's an android.
Ah ha.
But I was arguing on the behalf of myself when I was a kid. I only saw the trailer and movies. Never read the novelization, had no internet, never read Fangoria or other such magazines.
Was I wrong in thinking it was an android when I was a kid?
Quote from: NUB DESTROYER on Oct 07, 2011, 05:23:32 AM
Was I wrong in thinking it was an android when I was a kid?
Ultimately? Yes. :P
I thought a lot of dumb things about the movies when I was a kid, in growing up I realized how wrong they were.
OK... so we're gonna go back to this ping pong affair... square one.
Ultimately... no if films-only.
If we bring in other media then it's still no. Script and novel are much more explicit about what he is.
Just to clarify again, my position is that it's ambigious if films-only.
So in thinking that he was an android (which was my position as a kid not knowing any other source) made me no more right or wrong than thinking he was human.
Quote from: NUB DESTROYER on Oct 07, 2011, 08:43:39 AM
Just to clarify again, my position is that it's ambigious if films-only.
So in thinking that he was an android (which was my position as a kid not knowing any other source) made me no more right or wrong than thinking he was human.
Well, I love the ambiguousness of it. Maybe I want to know the extremes of that.
After eventually learning all these things from the novelization, the filmmaker's intentions, etc... the ambiguousness gets lost. Now I think he's human.
But for me as a kid or for anyone who's only seen the movies, it isn't wrong to have the opinion that Bishop II is an android. Nonetheless you get called out for such beliefs even if you strictly specify films-only as shown in the above posts.
Quote from: NUB DESTROYER on Oct 07, 2011, 02:18:13 PM
After eventually learning all these things from the novelization, the filmmaker's intentions, etc... the ambiguousness gets lost. Now I think he's human.
But for me as a kid or for anyone who's only seen the movies, it isn't wrong to have the opinion that Bishop II is an android. Nonetheless you get called out for such beliefs even if you strictly specify films-only as shown in the above posts.
Well for me the ambiguity remains in the making of the film, the fact that earlier they had the character killed off after the blow to the head and then they reshoot the end, I assume that the blow to the head was from the earlier shoot along with the head injury makeup and really no one could be bothered to say how it was that he was still on his feet, whether that could be explained in some way or not even with all the blood spurting out from his head. I think it seems normal for people to keep asking the questions out of uncertainty because the film has a certain excellence. I'm going to still ask myself whether he was a robot or not or something in between as part of my experience of watching the film and maybe Fincher couldn't explain what was happening even if he tried, perhaps there is a point where the director couldn't claim to know, much like Ridley Scott would offer suppositions about various things in Alien in hindsight that were open to change..
I hope that Henriksen's talk about his own confusion about his character's predicament when he filmed the final scene is an accurate memory.
Q: In the third Alien movie, was your character human?
HENRIKSEN: They were leaving that open because they weren't sure what they were going to do with me. But what I saw was that it was a more advanced model certainly. Again, I love the idea of the advanced models. (IGN Interview)
He would say that. He did it for AvP :laugh:
It is out of sequence: Ash, Bishop, Bishop & 1/2, Call... OK that's corny but seriously, the idea of an advanced model could be a nice lead in to a plot twist in Prometheus like the red fluid instead white. Still think he is a droid, though. Sorry lol.
Quote from: NUB DESTROYER on Oct 07, 2011, 02:18:13 PM
But for me as a kid or for anyone who's only seen the movies, it isn't wrong to have the opinion that Bishop II is an android. Nonetheless you get called out for such beliefs even if you strictly specify films-only as shown in the above posts.
That's because even if you go films-only the conclusion that he's an android doesn't hold water under close scrutiny. :)
Is it outside the realm of possibility that he's a robot if you only look at the movie and nothing else? Obviously not, or this debate wouldn't exist. :P But when you really look at how it's portrayed it just doesn't add up. The ancillary stuff like the script and novelization only compounds this.
I have a question. If the company wanted to gain Ripley's trust, why did they send a guy who looks like an android? Ripley doesn't trust androids. Why send someone who has to prove he's freakin human? It makes no sense to me, regardless of if he's a droid or not.
Familiarity. And although there's no way they could have really known, she did trust Bishop. Personally, I think sending the real him was a huge mistake on their part. She knew it wasn't the same him, and you could tell from their dialogue that it was awkward.
If they were really smart they'd have sent the cat.
Quote from: Vulhala on Oct 07, 2011, 06:02:17 PM
Familiarity. And although there's no way they could have really known, she did trust Bishop.
Hmm, never thought about that before, even tho its kinda obvious when you think about it. They shouldve thought differently, knowing her bad experiences with Ash
Depends on how much footage they were able to recover from the Sulaco flight log, which Bishop says got uploaded right to the Company when the EEV was ejected. They might have been able to figure out that Ripley and Bishop trusted each other.
Depends how you want the discussion to evolve ;)
Quote from: Vulhala on Oct 07, 2011, 07:06:12 PM
Depends how you want the discussion to evolve ;)
I'm an Aries...must...argue...
Quote from: Vulhala on Oct 07, 2011, 07:06:12 PM
Depends how you want the discussion to evolve ;)
In this case, I just want it to
end. :P
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 07, 2011, 07:04:55 PM
Depends on how much footage they were able to recover from the Sulaco flight log, which Bishop says got uploaded right to the Company when the EEV was ejected. They might have been able to figure out that Ripley and Bishop trusted each other.
I dont think theyre taped by surveilance cameras like in a reality show. Stuff like bioscans and flight logs get sent to network, not video recordings of everything that happens on the ship
Quote from: StrangeShape on Oct 07, 2011, 04:10:58 PM
Q: In the third Alien movie, was your character human?
HENRIKSEN: They were leaving that open because they weren't sure what they were going to do with me. But what I saw was that it was a more advanced model certainly. Again, I love the idea of the advanced models. (IGN Interview)
He also says, on the A3 commentary, [pre-AVP] that Bishop II was human, and that he designed
Aliens' Bishop in his image, just as God made man in His image. The quote above is a retcon courtesy of Paul Anderson and, pardon my French, f**k Paul Anderson.
Exactamundo!
Quote from: AliceApocalypse on Oct 07, 2011, 07:51:27 PM
I'm an Aries...must...argue...
So am I. I was born on April 1st. But even I'm quite happy to leave this one ;)
Quote from: StrangeShape on Oct 07, 2011, 08:27:09 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 07, 2011, 07:04:55 PM
Depends on how much footage they were able to recover from the Sulaco flight log, which Bishop says got uploaded right to the Company when the EEV was ejected. They might have been able to figure out that Ripley and Bishop trusted each other.
I dont think theyre taped by surveilance cameras like in a reality show. Stuff like bioscans and flight logs get sent to network, not video recordings of everything that happens on the ship
Well if the tech manual is any indication, the flight log actually did contain video and audio.
After all, the Company knew about the Alien onboard - how would they know about that?
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 07, 2011, 08:36:12 PM
After all, the Company knew about the Alien onboard - how would they know about that?
Same way Sulaco onboard computer knew. Detected alien life form. Bioscans
The Sulaco is a military vessel. Why would information be sent to the Company instead of the USCM? Also, if the ship's computer could detect aliens onboard, why didn't it alert the crew before they went into cryosleep?
Turned out the strategy wasn't so right. Familiar =/= trustworthy. They should've just tasered her, lol.
On a side note, why did Bishop II tell that camera guy "No pictures"? What did they even bring the camera for?
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 08, 2011, 02:18:04 AM
Because ultimately the Company owns the military.
No, it does not. people give too much power to WY., It was just a mining/terraforming company. They didnt even own the colony, they just co-financed it. The inquiry board had only one representative from WY. The novelization says they only send one squad of soldiers to save money. They had to pay for it. Its just one of many companies, not an OCP type that rules the world
I don't remember there being any indication in the films that there was any other company besides WY that controlled the colonies.
Colonial Administration was a co-owner and co-financer of the colony. If I remember correctly the novelization mentions other companies who co financed the colony
The novels aren't canon.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Oct 08, 2011, 03:32:07 PM
I don't remember there being any indication in the films that there was any other company besides WY that controlled the colonies.
But there was no indication that they were the only company that does.
I agree, people constantly give Wey-Yu way too much credit for how powerful they are. It's one thing that really irritates me about man fan fics and EU materials.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Oct 08, 2011, 03:57:14 PM
The novels aren't canon.
Well, I always took em as canon. Theyre like movie bible for me, they explain what cant be explained in the movie, its lilke narration and explanation and backstories to things from the movie. After all, the Alien 3 novelization is the only thing that speaks to me about Bishop II being human. Plus very often the directors oversee the novelizations
Quote from: DoomRulz on Oct 08, 2011, 03:57:14 PM
The novels aren't canon.
You say this like it's a universal fact. :P
Quote from: StrangeShape on Oct 08, 2011, 03:28:52 PM
The novelization says they only send one squad of soldiers to save money.
Well if we're citing the novelization, the novelization also outright says Bishop II is human, so I guess that settles that debate. :)
Quote from: SpaceMarines on Oct 08, 2011, 04:06:12 PM
I agree, people constantly give Wey-Yu way too much credit for how powerful they are. It's one thing that really irritates me about man fan fics and EU materials.
To be fair the EU really downplays W-Y's power, and establishes that there's a lot of other mega-corporations out there as well.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 08, 2011, 04:33:57 PM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Oct 08, 2011, 03:57:14 PM
The novels aren't canon.
You say this like it's a universal fact. :P
Quote from: StrangeShape on Oct 08, 2011, 03:28:52 PM
The novelization says they only send one squad of soldiers to save money.
Well if we're citing the novelization, the novelization also outright says Bishop II is human, so I guess that settles that debate. :)
It does for me. As I said, because of the novelization, I believe Bishop II is really Bishop's designer, my point was that the movie shows the complete opposite to me
Quote from: Self-Destruct on Oct 08, 2011, 06:24:20 AM
http://i52.tinypic.com/o6zknn.jpg
Given my understanding of the movie and nothing else, looks like he could easily be a droid.
if WY was that powerful, they wouldn't have to use Marines, i'm sure it wasn't a display of transparancy from their part to agree to send Marines instead of their own PMCs.
Quote from: NUB DESTROYER on Oct 08, 2011, 09:50:20 PM
Given my understanding of the movie and nothing else, looks like he could easily be a droid.
Given my understanding of human anatomy, looks like a dude whose ear just got torn off his head.
Quote from: SiL on Oct 08, 2011, 10:59:25 PM
Given my understanding of human anatomy, looks like a dude whose ear just got torn off his head.
Oh absolutely.
Torn off is a good description. You have MMA fighters getting knocked out cold very easily from getting hit in that area just one time.
Is that area more sensitive than a person's jaw? No. But getting a knockout by hitting any part of the back of the head is considered
cheap, which is why it's against unified MMA rules.
Nonetheless we'll probably see it happen again tonight (UFC 136) because those guys are competitive beasts and referees can't see everything at once.
Those people are usually smacked full-on.
The pipe glances the side of Bishop II's head and takes the ear with it.
Quote from: SiL on Oct 08, 2011, 11:29:17 PM
Those people are usually smacked full-on.
Depending on the smack, it can cause testosterone levels to increase. Not adrenaline. Not gonna make you less prone to getting knocked out. You can make the case that it can make you more agile or alert to prevent yourself from getting knocked out.
Quote from: SiL on Oct 08, 2011, 11:29:17 PM
The pipe glances the side of Bishop II's head and takes the ear with it.
Glances enough to take a lot of skin fragments from the back of his head right off
Quote from: chupacabras acheronsis on Oct 08, 2011, 10:51:17 PM
if WY was that powerful, they wouldn't have to use Marines, i'm sure it wasn't a display of transparancy from their part to agree to send Marines instead of their own PMCs.
Well they
did use PMCs in 'Alien3'.
^^Also I thought it had to do with Burke's motive of getting all the loot for himself.
If he brought in W-Y only guys from the beginning, it wouldn't do Burke and good if they had the same objective as he.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 08, 2011, 11:49:41 PM
Quote from: chupacabras acheronsis on Oct 08, 2011, 10:51:17 PM
if WY was that powerful, they wouldn't have to use Marines, i'm sure it wasn't a display of transparancy from their part to agree to send Marines instead of their own PMCs.
Well they did use PMCs in 'Alien3'.
but Fury was WY's own prison. the mining facility was theirs, and Aaron contacted WY and no one else. the colony was a civilian instalation, they couldn't just push people away from the issue and deal with it themselves.
QuoteThe novels aren't canon.
Ripley - What's your interest in all this. Why are you going?
Burke - The corporation co-financed that colony with Colonial Administration. We're getting into a lot of terraforming now, and building better worlds-
Ripley - Yeah, yeah I saw the commercial.
Quote from: chupacabras acheronsis on Oct 09, 2011, 01:26:40 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 08, 2011, 11:49:41 PM
Quote from: chupacabras acheronsis on Oct 08, 2011, 10:51:17 PM
if WY was that powerful, they wouldn't have to use Marines, i'm sure it wasn't a display of transparancy from their part to agree to send Marines instead of their own PMCs.
Well they did use PMCs in 'Alien3'.
but Fury was WY's own prison. the mining facility was theirs, and Aaron contacted WY and no one else. the colony was a civilian instalation, they couldn't just push people away from the issue and deal with it themselves.
Sure they could have, it happens in the real world all the time. Corporation sets up a mining town, literally owns the buildings, roads, all goods that go in and out of the town, staff it with their own PMCs as police, and make it so the only legal tender are monetary scrips the company issues. For all intents and purposes, the company owns the town and everyone in it.
I'm not even describing a fantasy situation. It has happened (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town), many times.
'Cept Wey-Yu didn't own the colony on LV-426. As had been stated numerous times, it was cofinanced with the Colonial Administration.
If the ECA is a governmental body. And if W-Y has a lot of puppets in place in the gov't especially those who govern ECA, then they pretty much own the body.
Of course what I said above contain a lot of IF's, but is what I just said unreasonable?
I think so, yeah, since absolutely nothing in the films hints to anything near that kind of power.
Absolutely. Nothing in the films hints to that.
I was just thinking of the plethora of companies who lobby politicians in Washington to meet their business agenda.
Quote from: SpaceMarines on Oct 09, 2011, 06:04:00 AM
I think so, yeah, since absolutely nothing in the films hints to anything near that kind of power.
Well except for the armed PMC soldiers who are allowed to shoot people and have access to a military-grade starship ('Alien3'), or Special Orders that let them declare their starship crews expendable ('Alien'), or the fact that they conceivably own the air everyone's breathing on LV-426 since they own and manufacture the atmosphere processors.
One of the major themes across the first 3 Alien movies is unchecked corporate power.
Or for mega corporations, public servants are a dime a dozen
Watching the film. It almost looks like he was in shock to see human blood..in the directors cut he screams "I'm not a droid!" as if he didnt know he was or wasn't. It was like he was in disblief he was human. Not to cross reference movies or anything but in the movies he mentioned hyperdyne, well cyberdyne made the terminator. Plus, (and i know this was years later) Terminator Salvation had a terminator who didnt even know he was a terminator.
I'm thinking the guy has been cloned too many times to know who he actually is. I don't agree with Lance being in AvP because he threw everything off. But this is lthe olnly thing I can come with..
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 09, 2011, 11:08:37 AM
Quote from: SpaceMarines on Oct 09, 2011, 06:04:00 AM
I think so, yeah, since absolutely nothing in the films hints to anything near that kind of power.
Well except for the armed PMC soldiers who are allowed to shoot people and have access to a military-grade starship ('Alien3'), or Special Orders that let them declare their starship crews expendable ('Alien'), or the fact that they conceivably own the air everyone's breathing on LV-426 since they own and manufacture the atmosphere processors.
One of the major themes across the first 3 Alien movies is unchecked corporate power.
That shows that they're ruthless, and control a colony that they literally own. Doesn't show that they control a government agency.
To be fair, he was just trying to prove exactly that, which was a refutation of your quote.
I was the one who brought up the idea that W-Y could be controlling the ECA. Never showed this in the movie, but this scenario is very plausible if going by real world examples of such corporations and governmental agencies. There's one I have in mind involving the LCD market. Another in the financial sector involving TARP. And so on...
Quote from: Dean_h85 on Oct 09, 2011, 01:12:35 PM
Watching the film. It almost looks like he was in shock to see human blood..in the directors cut he screams "I'm not a droid!" as if he didnt know he was or wasn't. It was like he was in disblief he was human.
He was in shock that someone had ripped part of his face off, and was exasperated that he was mistaken for a droid. If you have your ear dangling off, you'll be shocked to see your hands covered in blood.
Why didn't Call 200 years later have red blood. I've never bought the whole dyed red blood theory. The evidence is on screen he is human.
Heres some excerpts from a few Hill & Giler drafts:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg651.imageshack.us%2Fimg651%2F4206%2F19910131.jpg&hash=f3547a0c3695455582a73cc1d7c52b50c706b24f)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg534.imageshack.us%2Fimg534%2F5284%2F19901218.jpg&hash=696d38c206d98dfea43b71f2f893093e150bed74)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg3.imageshack.us%2Fimg3%2F7371%2F19901010.jpg&hash=9eb4b6712535d54a96d9538cc2d838f07637c9ee)
...And Rex Picketts rewrite:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg836.imageshack.us%2Fimg836%2F3263%2Frexpickett19910105.jpg&hash=26037067a1f50bbb5efed0c236f56b61a4f03688)
These, and other, early drafts all say he's human. Bleeds real blood.
Even though Karl Bishop Weyland was a synthetic (though I know many people here don't take him as canon), I am inclined to believe that Bishop II is human.
Quote from: predxeno on Oct 09, 2011, 07:46:41 PM
Even though Karl Bishop Weyland was a synthetic (though I know many people here don't take him as canon), I am inclined to believe that Bishop II is human.
Why? Just curious, as you brought up a computer game character.
Well, AVP2010 occurs Alien 3, I believe, so if Bishop II had synthetic red blood, then why didn't Karl have it as well? Also, I think the writers of Alien 3 intended for him to be human as well.
Quote from: predxeno on Oct 09, 2011, 08:27:26 PM
Well, AVP2010 occurs Alien 3, I believe, so if Bishop II had synthetic red blood, then why didn't Karl have it as well? Also, I think the writers of Alien 3 intended for him to be human as well.
The writers did intend for him to be human as you said. I feel if this was an 'Advanced' synthetic (as anderson claims) then why didn't call in alien resurrection have red blood? Would of more helpful for her to keep her secrect safe after being shot by wren a little longer. And she was more of an advanced model then previous alien movies. Anderson only spouted that babble about Bishop II being an advanced synthetic to cover his own mistake.
Why did Anderson claim Bishop II was synthetic?
Quote from: predxeno on Oct 09, 2011, 08:49:06 PM
Why did Anderson claim Bishop II was synthetic?
Because of this man:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages2.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20100714210154%2Favp%2Fimages%2F3%2F3b%2F7836-25882.gif&hash=b39983194565ec68b7bbddcdfdbee1b70a709248)
Anderson wanted a connection to the previous movies (besides the aliens themselves) and Charles Bishop Weyland was what he produced. Not taking Bishop II into account at the time. Lance Henriksen even said Bishop II was human. It wasn't until after AVP that he completely changed his mind.
QuoteWell except for the armed PMC soldiers who are allowed to shoot people and have access to a military-grade starship
That is shown in the approach shot to Fiorina to lack the the large armaments on the Sulaco.
QuoteOne of the major themes across the first 3 Alien movies is unchecked corporate power.
The ICC and ECA show it's not unchecked. If it was unchecked they wouldn't need to issue special orders or try to smuggle dangerous organisms past quarantine.
Quote from: xeno_alpha_07 on Oct 09, 2011, 08:59:17 PM
Quote from: predxeno on Oct 09, 2011, 08:49:06 PM
Why did Anderson claim Bishop II was synthetic?
Because of this man:
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100714210154/avp/images/3/3b/7836-25882.gif
Anderson wanted a connection to the previous movies (besides the aliens themselves) and Charles Bishop Weyland was what he produced. Not taking Bishop II into account at the time. Lance Henriksen even said Bishop II was human. It wasn't until after AVP that he completely changed his mind.
So even Lance says Bishop II wasn't human?
Yes he did. Then changed his mind while working on AvP, because he saw the conflict his inclusion would cause.
Prior to AvP, he said he was playing a human in Alien3.
Quote from: predxeno on Oct 09, 2011, 10:37:37 PM
So even Lance says Bishop II wasn't human?
Also check out the Alien 3 audio commentary:
Quote
Tom Woodruff Jr: We had done an appliance that shows his ear had become dislodged and the whole point was that Fincher wanted to show that, you know, without a doubt this is the real guy and not a synthetic person.
Alec Gillis: For Lance's human character, when it's revealed that he is actually the scientist who the Bishop model was patterned after, Fincher wanted a wound so we created a torn ear where the whole earwas lifted forward.
Don't ever leave me again :-*
Just a thought but considering how troubled the production of Alien 3 was, I would be reluctant to cite either the script(s) or the crew's intentions as evidence.
I fully believe it may have been their initial intention to show he is human but personally I can only judge by the final product which ultimately leaves me less than convinced.
Quote
Alec Gillis: For Lance's human character, when it's revealed that he is actually the scientist who the Bishop model was patterned after, Fincher wanted a wound so we created a torn ear where the whole earwas lifted forward.
Wasn't the ear not torn per se, but simply the direction and impact of the strike caused his ear to lift forward? The only wound or "tear" I see is on the back of his head directly behind the ear, which
also helped the ear to be destabilized.
Now you're just splitting hairs.
Quote from: Waldo on Oct 09, 2011, 11:31:52 PM
Just a thought but considering how troubled the production of Alien 3 was, I would be reluctant to cite either the script(s) or the crew's intentions as evidence.
I fully believe it may have been their initial intention to show he is human but personally I can only judge by the final product which ultimately leaves me less than convinced.
But the final product shows he is human :o
Quote from: Vulhala on Oct 09, 2011, 11:34:11 PM
I mean stick around this time!
I'll think about it.
QuoteWasn't the ear not torn per se, but simply the direction and impact of the strike caused his ear to lift forward? The only wound or "tear" I see is on the back of his head directly behind the ear, which also helped the ear to be destabilized.
Can i cry now? :'(
QuoteBut the final product shows he is human
Don't be trying that kinda logic round here!!
177 pages and people still aren't buying it...
Obviously I'm new to this debate, it was an honest question regarding the impact and the wound.
Quote from: SM on Oct 09, 2011, 11:45:30 PM
QuoteBut the final product shows he is human
Don't be trying that kinda logic round here!!
177 pages and people still aren't buying it...
I know. Can't help but keep trying ;)
Quote from: NUB DESTROYER on Oct 09, 2011, 11:46:23 PM
Obviously I'm new to this debate, it was an honest question regarding the impact and the wound.
I wasn't being funny with you. I was just messin ;)
Quote from: xeno_alpha_07 on Oct 09, 2011, 11:55:42 PMI know. Can't help but keep trying ;)
My position is that it's ambiguous if
films-only. But I will argue for android because that's how I felt as a kid and most here are for human anyway.
I'm just one man against a very established idea. What do y'all have to lose?
Quote from: NUB DESTROYER on Oct 10, 2011, 12:02:23 AM
I'm just one man against a very established idea. What do y'all have to lose?
There is people on here that share the same established idea as you. The problem is most folks can't agree to disagree on this debate. It's been going on for years all over the net.
The saddest thing is the fact there even is a debate.
Quote from: SM on Oct 10, 2011, 12:28:05 AM
The saddest thing is the fact there even is a debate.
^ and then theres that to.
But what do you have?
Red blood?
Ash - Bishop I - Call all having white blood but not Bishop II?
Bishop exclaiming I'M NOT A DROID
Bishop visibly hurt after getting hit
Humans can go on even after suffering a more severe blow
These are things that I gathered in the first 80 pages or so. All pretty easy to refute using real world examples while remaining true to the characters.
EDIT: films-only.
Quote from: NUB DESTROYER on Oct 10, 2011, 12:30:19 AM
But what do you have?
Red blood?
Ash - Bishop I - Call all having white blood but not Bishop II?
Bishop exclaiming I'M NOT A DROID
Bishop visibly hurt after getting hit
Humans can go on even after suffering a more severe blow
These are things that I gathered in the first 80 pages or so. All pretty easy to refute using real world examples while remaining true to the characters.
EDIT: films-only.
Saying films only the only way to get your point accross. And no, that isn't a nasty responce so please don't interpret it as.
Let me ask you this. If you were to look 'outside' of whats in the film what would you use for your debate? AVP? I'm asking because i'm curious :) again, not being nasty here.
Quote from: NUB DESTROYER on Oct 10, 2011, 12:02:23 AM
I'm just one man against a very established idea. What do y'all have to lose?
Time, sanity, etc.
The problem with "films only" is it's got people willfully ignoring relevant, important information that settles the debate outright.
And it isn't even the same as the Blade Runner "is Deckard a replicant?" argument because unlike with Blade Runner, the movie isn't terribly ambiguous about it. What's on-screen happens to support what was in the script, novelization, and the intent behind the film when it was being made
which was shared by literally everyone involved in making it, including the writers, the actors, the director, and the people who did the injury special effects.
Literally the only thing the "android" people have going for them are "Oh man that's a bad head wound, no
human could have survived that!" when the fact of the matter is that real life honest-to-goodness humans have shrugged off much, much worse.
I see what you mean.
I'm just arguing on the behalf of myself when I was a kid. Back then, I never read the novelization, had no internet, wasn't privy to the filmmaker's intentions, didn't read any sci-fi or horror magazines.
Yet it was my opinion he was a droid. Does that make me wrong as a kid?
My position now is that it's ambigious if films-only as I illustrated above. Doesn't make me more right or wrong choosing either theory as a kid.
Yes, but you didn't know it back then.
People argue all kinds of wrong stuff, only to realize later (be it after acquiring more information, or giving it more critical thought, or whatever) that they were wrong.
What about people who honest-to-goodness believed the world was flat, or that the earth was the center of the universe? They were wrong, but it wasn't really through any fault of their own. They either didn't have the tools to realize they were wrong, or weren't approaching the question in a way that let them realize it was wrong.
There isn't anything wrong with you as a kid thinking he was an android, and I'm not sure why you need validation for it. Thinking he was an android back then is okay, it's just not actually correct. :P
But I set the parameters of the discussion I want to pursue, which is films-only.
I watched the scene again just recently. Hasn't changed.
I don't think there's anything wrong with the "films only" argument. Aren't the final films the only things actually considered canon?
I would say this quote is somewhat relevant:
QuoteI find it somewhat irrelevant since as an audience member and as a filmmaker creating a sequel, I can really only be responsible to those elements which actually appeared in the first film and not to its "intentions." ALIEN screenwriter Dan O'Bannon's proposed life cycle, as completed in the unseen scene, would have been too restricting for me as a storyteller
- Cameron on the original life cycle.
Yes.
There's nothing wrong with the "film only" argument, as long as people don't ignore what's in the film when trying to make an argument.
QuoteLiterally the only thing the "android" people have going for them are "Oh man that's a bad head wound, no human could have survived that!" when the fact of the matter is that real life honest-to-goodness humans have shrugged off much, much worse.
Not even this. My main argument is that his ear was obviously
lifted forward as also described by Alec Gillis. With a huge gash by a wrench coming from upward angle at the mastoid region, if he was indeed human then his ear would hang or dangle downwards.
Quote from: Waldo on Oct 10, 2011, 12:56:01 AM
Aren't the final films the only things actually considered canon?
It's not quite as black-and-white as that.
Alien 3 is a film infamous for its bad visual effects. In so many instances, the alien looks like it is floating above the scene instead of actually being there. If we are to throw that sort of caution to the wind and convince ourselves that it's actually there, why can't we convince ourselves that an over-the-top gore effect on Bishop's creator still passes him off as human???
Come on, people. Is this still really a debate at all??? The studio never cared for Alien3 to the extend that we are consumed with this question. He's human.
The End.
QuoteFilm-only. Also where do you draw the line between good and bad FX? Chest burster scene was good, as was the whole opening scene.
An opening scene that conflicts badly with continuity yes. The bad effects are in the film itself...in film.
QuoteBut can you argue or prove that ALL of the effects were bad?
The Alien rod puppets effects. Plus, no one said ALL the effects in Alien 3 were bad. And as ASH937 said Alien 3 is nortorious for it's bad visual effects which you see in film.
So the point of the effects argument is - the Alien is also a robot?
QuoteAn opening scene that conflicts badly with continuity yes.
Only if you taken the opening as happening in chronological order.
Unless you mean the cryotubes, in which case yeah that was a big mistake. :P
QuoteOnly if you taken the opening as happening in chronological order.
I don't see how viewing the opening in a different order will help anything - particularly after the fire starts - but even if it did, nothing will fix the egg problem, short of viewing the whole thing as Ripley interpreting real events as a nightmare.
Well there's that too, haha. If you just sort of accept the presence of the egg(s) and the wacky changed cryotubes, there really aren't any problems with the opening to the movie. It's just not in chronological order, nor was it meant to be. It's meant to be disorienting, to make the audience as confused as Ripley is when she wakes up.
Which bit isn't in chronological order?
Accepting the presense of the tubes and egg, it's pretty straightforward. Hugger tries to get into Newt's tube, fails, acid starts a fire, hugger hugs Hicks, tubes evacuated during which Ripley's is smashed.
When does the hugger hug Hicks? And why would it?
That and the groaning metal/blood stain that's almost certainly Hicks getting impaled by the support girder, which is when it crashes.
Interesting way of looking at it, though I wouldn't, considering the crash isn't part of that sequence.
The hugger gets him by process of elimination. The EEV is launched within 20 seconds of the fire starting, and we see both Ripley and Newt being loaded sans huggers.
I honestly never got the impression that the facehugger went anywhere near Hicks. I assumed that it tried to get Newt, cut itself somehow, caused the fire, cryotubes got dumped, Ripley's tube was broken open, and then it hugged her.
If it got Hicks, when did it get Ripley? On the way down to the planet? After the crash? How would it know Hicks would be killed and it needed to impregnate another host?
I guess part of that would also depend on the response-time for the prisoners and whatnot. Were they able to get to her in minutes? Did it take a few hours?
Although the whole thing being a nightmare on Ripley's part is another viable way to look at it. It'd explain the placement of the facehugger (because it's just what she's imagining it to be, and it doesn't actually have to make sense), and the disorienting jump-cuts would fit with the idea of it being an incomplete dream that Ripley (and the audience) only partly understand.
so maybe the egg wasn't actually there and it was in the Dropship's landing gear's compartment she just put it there in the beams, which was the last thing she saw before falling asleep.
and the cryo tube was different because that's how Ripley remembered cryotubes looked like from the Nostromo, it was more familiar to her.
...i'm okay with this.
When you start looking at it as fragments of reality creating a dream for Ripley - which I believe was Finchers intention - it makes much more sense. Hadn't thought about the tubes, which makes sense - only until she does the bio-scan. I've always gone with the egg being on the dropship - only place for it really; and it was interesting to note the Alien3 blu-ray menus do the same.
QuoteRipley's tube was broken open, and then it hugged her.
Someone's being hugged before the tubes are ejected though, and it's not Ripley or Newt.
My reasoning was the fire f**ked up the cryo process which caused Hicks wounds to reopen (blood on white clothe). thsi could discounted if we knew more about the biological aspects of hypersleep, but we don't. Besides there's a fire so who knows what's going on.
Because of this, the hugger abandons Hicks after the EEV launch and goes after Ripley. Even though the pan and cuts make the crash look instantaneous, I'd put a couple of hours between launch and crash (ADF suggests longer). It's still a fair way from Fiorina after the pan.
As for the recovery, I'd put it at no more than an hour, but there's very little to support that. The least amount of time involved would be for Newt's tube to fill with water, through the crack .
Despite many other timings mentioned in the flick - that one's hazy, as they don't have 24 hours days, but still seem to operate on a 24 hour clock.
QuoteSomeone's being hugged before the tubes are ejected though, and it's not Ripley or Newt.
I always assumed it was either Ripley or Newt. Why couldn't it be them?
QuoteI always assumed it was either Ripley or Newt. Why couldn't it be them?
We see them both being loaded onto the EEV and neither have a hugger on them. In spite of script drafts and comics saying Newt got hugged then the embryo abandoned her.
That's not me! Besides, neck tattoos are for pansy tough guys :laugh:
Quote from: Vulhala on Oct 09, 2011, 10:39:41 PM
Yes he did. Then changed his mind while working on AvP, because he saw the conflict his inclusion would cause.
Well, if Paul Anderson had come up with a better reason for Bishop II being an android other than because of the name given to the character in the credits, there would be a better discussion about it, but he did not.
It's so ridiculous, he didn't even know exactly how Weylan-Yutani got its name
I totally forgot about AVP. Yeah, so with AVP in place and in the continuity, whatever the original intentions were, Bishop II is now a droid since Weylands shown to be the guy
Even with AvP, that's not conclusive. Could be the same actor playing a different character. Or they could just be related. Or look really similar.
Exactly.
Just because it was Anderson's opinion that Bishop II is an android, doesn't really make it... canon truth.
I still don't see what's wrong with a descendant looking a lot like his ancestor.
The Case of Charles Dexter Ward, anyone? ;D
Quote from: StrangeShape on Oct 10, 2011, 04:33:25 PM
I totally forgot about AVP. Yeah, so with AVP in place and in the continuity, whatever the original intentions were, Bishop II is now a droid since Weylands shown to be the guy
Charles Weyland and Michael Bishop are not the same person, they're not even necessarily related.
Similarly, Det. Jerry Lambert ('Predator 2') and PFC William Hudson ('Aliens') look an awful lot alike, but it doesn't mean they're related or that one of them is an android.
Bishop androids are based on Weyland. The magazine even hints the development in cibernetics. They even have Weylands mannerisms. Bishop II claims he is Bishop's designer, therefore looks like him since he based his appearance on his. That doesnt add up
Why would somebody design an android to look exactly like him?
Quote from: predxeno on Oct 10, 2011, 07:53:06 PM
Why would somebody design an android to look exactly like him?
As Lance said, its like when god created man in his image. Anderson said its like paying tribute to the founder of the company
No, I meant why would Bishop II construct an android to look like himself?
Quote from: predxeno on Oct 10, 2011, 09:26:26 PM
No, I meant why would Bishop II construct an android to look like himself?
Why not? Creators and designers have big egos. If someone was to develop a human duplicate, why not duplicate yourself?
Quote from: StrangeShape on Oct 10, 2011, 07:50:30 PM
Bishop androids are based on Weyland. The magazine even hints the development in cibernetics. They even have Weylands mannerisms. Bishop II claims he is Bishop's designer, therefore looks like him since he based his appearance on his. That doesnt add up
No, Bishop androids just happen to look like Weyland, nowhere do the movies or anything else say they're outright based on him.
Quote from: StrangeShape on Oct 10, 2011, 09:36:17 PM
Quote from: predxeno on Oct 10, 2011, 09:26:26 PM
No, I meant why would Bishop II construct an android to look like himself?
Why not? Creators and designers have big egos. If someone was to develop a human duplicate, why not duplicate yourself?
Well, for me it'd be weird. :-\
ZOMG Nic Cage iz robot!!
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-snc7%2F319261_126019207499920_100002755257866_103463_1756562205_n.jpg&hash=1d214932055cd6dbc7fdc27328a65440e34b8d57)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEubt6HpGhs# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEubt6HpGhs#)
Nah - it's time travel!
Weyland invented a time machine, travelled to the 2170s, invented the Bishop android, got clunked on the head, figured it was too dangerous in the future so travelled back. However the shock of time travel gave him cancer.
Sorted.
Quote from: SM on Oct 10, 2011, 10:34:49 PM
Nah - it's time travel!
Weyland invented a time machine, travelled to the 2170s, invented the Bishop android, got clunked on the head, figured it was too dangerous in the future so travelled back. However the shock of time travel gave him cancer.
Sorted.
Unless it's in a comic I ain't buyin' it.
-_-
U won't see it in a comic Big Deletionz wipd it frm histry.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 10, 2011, 10:09:33 PM
Quote from: StrangeShape on Oct 10, 2011, 07:50:30 PM
Bishop androids are based on Weyland. The magazine even hints the development in cibernetics. They even have Weylands mannerisms. Bishop II claims he is Bishop's designer, therefore looks like him since he based his appearance on his. That doesnt add up
No, Bishop androids just happen to look like Weyland, nowhere do the movies or anything else say they're outright based on him.
Anderson did in both media and audio commentary. Plus the movie hints it with 3 things - one is the magazine showing Weyland with the whole headline about future of cybernetics. Two is the knife trick mannerism which mirrors Weyland's. Shown in the movie and outright explained in the commentary. Three, this is the cofounder of WY, its not like hes some unrelated guy
I do understand in real life people sometimes look the same. But those are movies and they belong to the same series and most importantly the characters are connected. Theyre not like random unrelated people. Weyland is a cofounder of WY
And yet good little corporate officer Ripley never recognised the high profile founder of her company, who disappeared in mysterious circumstances, in the visage of the Bishop android.
Anderson is a hack who knows very little of what he speaks.
Quote from: SM on Oct 10, 2011, 10:47:59 PM
And yet good little corporate officer Ripley never recognised the high profile founder of her company, who disappeared in mysterious circumstances, in the visage of the Bishop android.
I know, I dont disagree it doesnt match, but it wont fit anyway we look at it. Whether Bishop II is a droid or not, funny how no one recognized Bishop as the face of the cofounder of WY who disappeared
Quotefunny how no one recognized Bishop as the face of the cofounder of WY who disappeared
Everyone else knew Bishop. Ripley was new.
Quote from: StrangeShape on Oct 10, 2011, 10:54:08 PM
Quote from: SM on Oct 10, 2011, 10:47:59 PM
And yet good little corporate officer Ripley never recognised the high profile founder of her company, who disappeared in mysterious circumstances, in the visage of the Bishop android.
I know, I dont disagree it doesnt match, but it wont fit anyway we look at it. Whether Bishop II is a droid or not, funny how no one recognized Bishop as the face of the cofounder of WY who disappeared
Because 'Anderson is a hack.' No-one should try to retro-actively fit ALIENS to match AVP.
^^ Too late for that. But that's not the point StrangeShape is trying to make
Quote from: StrangeShape on Oct 10, 2011, 10:41:50 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 10, 2011, 10:09:33 PM
Quote from: StrangeShape on Oct 10, 2011, 07:50:30 PM
Bishop androids are based on Weyland. The magazine even hints the development in cibernetics. They even have Weylands mannerisms. Bishop II claims he is Bishop's designer, therefore looks like him since he based his appearance on his. That doesnt add up
No, Bishop androids just happen to look like Weyland, nowhere do the movies or anything else say they're outright based on him.
Anderson did in both media and audio commentary. Plus the movie hints it with 3 things - one is the magazine showing Weyland with the whole headline about future of cybernetics. Two is the knife trick mannerism which mirrors Weyland's. Shown in the movie and outright explained in the commentary. Three, this is the cofounder of WY, its not like hes some unrelated guy
I do understand in real life people sometimes look the same. But those are movies and they belong to the same series and most importantly the characters are connected. Theyre not like random unrelated people. Weyland is a cofounder of WY
The knife-trick is fan-service, i'm confident they point that out in the commentary. They're not trying to say they're the same person or that Bishop II is an android by including the knife-trick.
In fact that's the entire reason Lance Henriksen was in AvP, fan-service. It wasn't meant to change or undermine Alien3.
Also ultimately the two characters look similar, but they're not actually the same. Charles Weyland is obviously visually 25 years older than Bishop (or Bishop II for that matter). Hell, even Bishop II looks somewhat different from the android Bishop.
AvP really doesn't change anything with regard to Alien3. The two characters look similar and it's a coincidence, nothing more.
so the only solid fact is that there are an infinite number of Lance Henriksens in the alien universe.
where is that image meme...
Quote from: chupacabras acheronsis on Oct 10, 2011, 11:33:09 PM
so the only solid fact is that there are an infinite number of Lance Henriksens in the alien universe.
I fail to see the problem with this scenario.
Yeah. If that's the case, the Alien universe is nowhere near as bad as it superficially seems.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 10, 2011, 11:25:50 PM
Quote from: StrangeShape on Oct 10, 2011, 10:41:50 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 10, 2011, 10:09:33 PM
Quote from: StrangeShape on Oct 10, 2011, 07:50:30 PM
Bishop androids are based on Weyland. The magazine even hints the development in cibernetics. They even have Weylands mannerisms. Bishop II claims he is Bishop's designer, therefore looks like him since he based his appearance on his. That doesnt add up
No, Bishop androids just happen to look like Weyland, nowhere do the movies or anything else say they're outright based on him.
Anderson did in both media and audio commentary. Plus the movie hints it with 3 things - one is the magazine showing Weyland with the whole headline about future of cybernetics. Two is the knife trick mannerism which mirrors Weyland's. Shown in the movie and outright explained in the commentary. Three, this is the cofounder of WY, its not like hes some unrelated guy
I do understand in real life people sometimes look the same. But those are movies and they belong to the same series and most importantly the characters are connected. Theyre not like random unrelated people. Weyland is a cofounder of WY
The knife-trick is fan-service, i'm confident they point that out in the commentary. They're not trying to say they're the same person or that Bishop II is an android by including the knife-trick.
In fact that's the entire reason Lance Henriksen was in AvP, fan-service. It wasn't meant to change or undermine Alien3.
Also ultimately the two characters look similar, but they're not actually the same. Charles Weyland is obviously visually 25 years older than Bishop (or Bishop II for that matter). Hell, even Bishop II looks somewhat different from the android Bishop.
AvP really doesn't change anything with regard to Alien3. The two characters look similar and it's a coincidence, nothing more.
What a coincidence, a guy who founded WY looks exactly the same as the droids that were made in the future huh?
Anyway
Anderson IGN interview from December 2003:
Of the familiar faces appearing in AvP, there is only one: Lance Henriksen. Anderson explains that "the role was written for him. I wanted some casting continuity with the Alien franchise even though it is set 100 years after our movie. The only person that could be was Lance. He, of course, was an android in the other movies. That was the idea behind that. I thought it was kind of a neat idea ... I wanted to use the Weyland-Yutani Corporation in some respect. So the idea is that Charles Bishop Weyland is like Bill Gates, but his area of expertise is robotics. He's made his made his money in high tech and he's like the father of modern robotics. So that when the Bishop android is created in 150 years time, it's created with the face of the creator. It's kind of like Microsoft building an android in 100 years time that has the face of Bill Gates. The idea with Weyland is that his character is a man who is dying and like a lot of rich men who are facing the end, they realize that money and power aren't enough. What they want to do is leave something behind. So it's kind of like his longing for immortality that precipitates a lot of the events in this film, but also explains why his corporation would build something with his face."And again, he says so at least twice on the commentary
From the fingertrick scene, Anderson: "
Bishop in Aliens and Alien 3 was an android, and I thought if Weyland invented all of this technology...its kind of like Microsoft building an android with the face of Bill Gates in 150 years time, but then Lance came up with an idea that if theyre gonna use his face for the Bishop android they would also use his mannerisms, so he was kind of doing some of the ticks and mannerisms of Bishop, and kind of retrofitting it to Weyland"
I don't get that, though. The androids were manufactured by Hyperdyne, not Wey-Yu.
Ash was manufactured by Hyperdyne. Dunno about Bishop.
Still doesn't explain why Ripley doesn't recognise the face of her "Bill Gates" like employer.
QuoteWhat a coincidence, a guy who founded WY looks exactly the same as the droids that were made in the future huh?
Pretty much. :)
QuoteStill doesn't explain why Ripley doesn't recognise the face of her "Bill Gates" like employer.
I guess you could write it off similarly to if Henry Ford suddenly walked into the Ford Motor Company headquarters today, I doubt very many people would recognize him as being the founder of their company.
Then again Henry Ford didn't live in a mass-media world where anyone can take a picture with their cellphone and post it on the internet for everyone and their mother to see.
Edit-- as for Bishop and Hyperdyne, the old Kenner action figures actually confirmed that he was built by Hyperdyne. Just a bit of trivia, haha.
^^ But just Google Image Henry Ford and there are hundreds of unique photos of his ugly mug.
Also saying it doesn't mean Ripley would care to know how Weyland looks like and so there's no point of her trying to find out.
Based on her goody two shoes toe the corporate line personality in Alien - it'd be silly to conclude she wouldn't know what Weyland looks like. From some of others who couldn't give a shit, you could understand it; but not Ripley.
Could have been a Reality TV show (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undercover_Boss)
Quote from: SM on Oct 11, 2011, 03:19:37 AM
Based on her goody two shoes toe the corporate line personality in Alien - it'd be silly to conclude she wouldn't know what Weyland looks like.
Umm yeah you can probably make a list of all the things she did that will fit this character trait.
But the only it will lead is that Ripley knowing what Weyland looks like can go either way.
Because I can just as easily say that correlation does not imply causation.
Quote from: NUB DESTROYER on Oct 11, 2011, 02:55:57 AM
^^ But just Google Image Henry Ford and there are hundreds of unique photos of his ugly mug.
Also saying it doesn't mean Ripley would care to know how Weyland looks like and so there's no point of her trying to find out.
That's my point, that even though anyone with an internet connection could look up Henry Ford
right this second, how many people working at Ford HQ today would think to do it if the honest to god Henry Ford walked into their office right now? It would require them to already know what he looks like ahead of time, and I doubt anyone would unless he happened to walk past a framed photo of the original Henry Ford hanging on the wall or something.
^^ I'm sure you meant it. But I didn't notice it from your writing :/
But as it stands, attacking this whole Weyland AvP argument from the Ripley not recognizing angle is wrong.
Frankly I don't even think it's worth attacking. "HMM IT SURE IS A COINCIDENCE THAT THE TWO CHARACTERS LOOK THE SAME". Yep, sure is, and that's all it is. :)
Not if I take the opposite side :p
Addressing this from the "films only" take....I kinda have to agree with NUB..when I saw Alien 3 in the theatres in '92...I thought Bishop II was an android.....mostly because Bishop I from Aliens was....and then the credits rolled and lo, and behold, it said Bishop II....which, taken in the "films only" context does scream android....
Years later after discovering other information(like the novel, screenplay, etc) I can understand and believe the film makers intended him to be human...
Using his name in the credits as proof of is just as bad as saying "And yet Ripley didn't recognise him" as proof against.
She recognizes him as "bishop", and still firmly believes he's a android dispite what he tells her. As far as her not knowing what her "boss" looks like..that's Anderson crap...
And really, if the credits said "Michael Bishop"....the "he's human" believers would be citing it as further proof that he was human....
I DO believe he was human, but it's surely not as cut and dry as implied..which I think was NUB's point....
Quote from: alienfan95610 on Oct 11, 2011, 11:29:00 AM
Addressing this from the "films only" take....I kinda have to agree with NUB..when I saw Alien 3 in the theatres in '92...I thought Bishop II was an android.....mostly because Bishop I from Aliens was....and then the credits rolled and lo, and behold, it said Bishop II....which, taken in the "films only" context does scream android....
Years later after discovering other information(like the novel, screenplay, etc) I can understand and believe the film makers intended him to be human...
That's a damn plenty ellipses.
If the film wanted us to know that he was an android why would the not directly address it? You would think something like that wouldn't be left to speculation.
Quoteand then the credits rolled and lo, and behold, it said Bishop II....which, taken in the "films only" context does scream android....
That could easily be any number of things, such as: It could be that he was the
second Bishop seen in the movie. It could be that he was the second Bishop to appear in the series.
Quote from: Self-Destruct on Oct 11, 2011, 12:52:52 PM
Quote from: alienfan95610 on Oct 11, 2011, 11:29:00 AM
Addressing this from the "films only" take....I kinda have to agree with NUB..when I saw Alien 3 in the theatres in '92...I thought Bishop II was an android.....mostly because Bishop I from Aliens was....and then the credits rolled and lo, and behold, it said Bishop II....which, taken in the "films only" context does scream android....
Years later after discovering other information(like the novel, screenplay, etc) I can understand and believe the film makers intended him to be human...
That's a damn plenty ellipses.
If the film wanted us to know that he was an android why would the not directly address it? You would think something like that wouldn't be left to speculation.
For me it made it pretty clear that he was and it
was addressed. Blow in the head with a metal pipe by surprise, part of a face hanging loose and none of the tehcs, surgeons or security team giving shit about him when he got hit all screamed android for me and I never even had a slightest doubt he isnt one until maybe 2 years ago or so. So its well over a decade for me. And if someone wants to bring the red blood argument I always thought the least WY could do is color blood when n sole purpose of the droid was deception and convincing Ripley that hes human
QuoteQuoteand then the credits rolled and lo, and behold, it said Bishop II....which, taken in the "films only" context does scream android....
That could easily be any number of things, such as: It could be that he was the second Bishop seen in the movie. It could be that he was the second Bishop to appear in the series.
Exactly. So Bishop II, second droid. The credits did not say Bishop's Designer or Bishop's Developer. They flat out said Bishop II
Quote from: StrangeShape on Oct 11, 2011, 01:05:07 PM
Quote from: Self-Destruct on Oct 11, 2011, 12:52:52 PM
Quote from: alienfan95610 on Oct 11, 2011, 11:29:00 AM
Addressing this from the "films only" take....I kinda have to agree with NUB..when I saw Alien 3 in the theatres in '92...I thought Bishop II was an android.....mostly because Bishop I from Aliens was....and then the credits rolled and lo, and behold, it said Bishop II....which, taken in the "films only" context does scream android....
Years later after discovering other information(like the novel, screenplay, etc) I can understand and believe the film makers intended him to be human...
That's a damn plenty ellipses.
If the film wanted us to know that he was an android why would the not directly address it? You would think something like that wouldn't be left to speculation.
For me it made it pretty clear that he was and it was addressed. Blow in the head with a metal pipe by surprise, part of a face hanging loose and none of the tehcs, surgeons or security team giving shit about him when he got hit all screamed android for me and I never even had a slightest doubt he isnt one until maybe 2 years ago or so. So its well over a decade for me. And if someone wants to bring the red blood argument I always thought the least WY could do is color blood when n sole purpose of the droid was deception and convincing Ripley that hes human
QuoteQuoteand then the credits rolled and lo, and behold, it said Bishop II....which, taken in the "films only" context does scream android....
That could easily be any number of things, such as: It could be that he was the second Bishop seen in the movie. It could be that he was the second Bishop to appear in the series.
Exactly. So Bishop II, second droid. The credits did not say Bishop's Designer or Bishop's Developer. They flat out said Bishop II
You make a good argument. My whole stance on it is: If he
was an android it would have been stated outright, no speculation.
I feel like an awful person for keeping this thread going. :-\
You guys even the pro-droidp guys are infuriating me. Ive had a few drinks in and i can be far more sinister when this happens
Quote from: NUB DESTROYER on Oct 10, 2011, 12:02:23 AMI'm just one man against a very established idea. What do y'all have to lose?
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FMLVCi.gif&hash=4d90c1c1a67ba6a220eff845bae3bbd50a7977f7)
Quote from: NUB DESTROYER on Oct 11, 2011, 10:05:09 AM
Not if I take the opposite side :p
Nah it still wouldn't change my position, sorry. :)
QuoteThe credits did not say Bishop's Designer or Bishop's Developer. They flat out said Bishop II
They probably credit the audience with enough intelligence to work it out.
Also, again, Ken Mattingly must be a robot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Mattingly). No wonder he never got measles...
QuoteAnd if someone wants to bring the red blood argument I always thought the least WY could do is color blood when n sole purpose of the droid was deception and convincing Ripley that hes human
And yet again, again why didn't Autons do it, when their very existance hinged on deception.
Quote from: StrangeShape on Oct 11, 2011, 01:05:07 PM
The credits did not say Bishop's Designer or Bishop's Developer. They flat out said Bishop II
And?
There's a credit for "Unlucky Bastard" in
The Lost World: Jurassic Park and anyone who only had one line of dialogue in a
Naked Gun movie was credit with their line.
Bishop II comes from the script, which was written to make it clear he wasn't an android. They didn't bother coming up with a new name or throwing on another word to the end because he has all of five minutes of screentime.
And the novelization points out that the name "Bishop II" is just the name Ripley assigns him in her mind, because she initially thinks he's a robot.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 11, 2011, 10:24:52 PM
And the novelization points out that the name "Bishop II" is just the name Ripley assigns him in her mind, because she initially thinks he's a robot.
I need to finally get that novelization
Quote from: SiL on Oct 11, 2011, 09:55:12 PM
Quote from: StrangeShape on Oct 11, 2011, 01:05:07 PM
The credits did not say Bishop's Designer or Bishop's Developer. They flat out said Bishop II
And?
There's a credit for "Unlucky Bastard" in The Lost World: Jurassic Park and anyone who only had one line of dialogue in a Naked Gun movie was credit with their line.
Bishop II comes from the script, which was written to make it clear he wasn't an android. They didn't bother coming up with a new name or throwing on another word to the end because he has all of five minutes of screentime.
Also, look at the actor Hi Ching:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wearysloth.com%2FGallery%2FActorsC%2F3112-413.jpg&hash=17789f5f0a114844196114ea9079ee13590120f9)
He's credited as just 'Company Man'. And his screen time was slighty longer than Bisop II.
Check his birth certificate - it says 'Man Company'. What with him being Chinese and all.
My argument remains the same: For such a pivotal character, they would have come outright and said he was an android and it wouldn't be left to speculation.
Quote from: Self-Destruct on Oct 12, 2011, 02:48:50 AM
My argument remains the same: For such a pivotal character, they would have come outright and said he was an android and it wouldn't be left to speculation.
Yeah, because no science fiction movie would ever do that.
They would've at least given strong hints that he might be an android, a la Blade Runner. In this, they went out of their way so that you knew he was human.
Quote from: SpaceMarines on Oct 12, 2011, 02:10:06 PM
They would've at least given strong hints that he might be an android, a la Blade Runner. In this, they went out of their way so that you knew he was human.
The irony of this is that Ridley has gone on record to say Deckard is a replicant.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/825641.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/825641.stm)
:/
EDIT: Curiously many still think he's human http://www.bladezone.com/community/viewforum.php?f=9 (http://www.bladezone.com/community/viewforum.php?f=9)
Quote from: NUB DESTROYER on Oct 12, 2011, 02:13:57 PM
Quote from: SpaceMarines on Oct 12, 2011, 02:10:06 PM
They would've at least given strong hints that he might be an android, a la Blade Runner. In this, they went out of their way so that you knew he was human.
The irony of this is that Ridley has gone on record to say Deckard is a replicant.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/825641.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/825641.stm)
:/
EDIT: Curiously many still think he's human http://www.bladezone.com/community/viewforum.php?f=9 (http://www.bladezone.com/community/viewforum.php?f=9)
And Ford says that he's human, and really, it could go either way. There was deliberate ambiguity left in that film.
If you don't think Deckard is a Replicant, Sir Ridley Scott thinks you're a moron.
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20166134,00.html (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20166134,00.html)
Quote from: NUB DESTROYER on Oct 12, 2011, 02:40:54 PM
If you don't think Deckard is a Replicant, Sir Ridley Scott thinks you're a moron.
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20166134,00.html (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20166134,00.html)
That.
Quote from: SpaceMarines on Oct 12, 2011, 02:10:06 PM
They would've at least given strong hints that he might be an android, a la Blade Runner. In this, they went out of their way so that you knew he was human.
And I think they did give a strong hint by him by surprise in the head with a metal pipe and having piece of his face hangihng off of him like from a droid or terminator. That and none of his surgeons and techs giving a sligh crap about someone who suppose to be an important designer/big shot
Whoever said he was a bigshot?
Quote from: StrangeShape on Oct 12, 2011, 03:04:52 PM(Bishop II) having piece of his face hangihng off of him like from a droid or terminator.
It wasn't hanging and that was exactly my point.
Quote from: Vulhala on Oct 12, 2011, 03:09:01 PM
Whoever said he was a bigshot?
The movie itself does, being as he's the one, and only one, that speaks to Ripley....
f**k
Quotenone of his surgeons and techs giving a sligh crap
There were surgeons and techs present? I saw a company man and a guy with a camera. Everyone else had guns, I thought.
Quote from: alienfan95610 on Oct 12, 2011, 03:12:55 PM
Quote from: Vulhala on Oct 12, 2011, 03:09:01 PM
Whoever said he was a bigshot?
The movie itself does, being as he's the one, and only one, that speaks to Ripley....
Not really. He was there to show her a friendly face. Someone she would recognise. It doesn't make him any more than a chimp in a labcoat to them does it? They may not have given half a f**k about him.
Quote from: Vulhala on Oct 12, 2011, 03:09:01 PM
Whoever said he was a bigshot?
He designed Bishop androids, he lead the team. He was put in charge of getting the precious alien. A real man would be valuable. Id call someone like that a big shot
Quote from: NUB DESTROYER on Oct 12, 2011, 03:10:15 PM
It wasn't hanging
Yes it was
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lancehenriksen.info%2Fforums%2Fuploads%2F1276186787%2Fgallery_1_3_16646.jpg&hash=caa0a9043bd061cb8f143f268d7db881975c5e28)
Quote from: StrangeShape on Oct 12, 2011, 03:18:48 PM
Quote from: Vulhala on Oct 12, 2011, 03:09:01 PM
Whoever said he was a bigshot?
He designed Bishop androids, he lead the team. He was put in charge of getting the precious alien. A real man would be valuable. Id call someone like that a big shot.
They had Androids at least as convincing and intelligent as Bishop 57 years before, a la Ash. And he was pleading for the Alien, true, but for all you know he was under pain of death to get it.
As someone who argues for Bishop II being a droid just to make my point of film-only = ambigious... the crew around him not caring is a weak argument.
Correlation does not equal causation.
//
I like this one a tad better.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FTNLt7.png&hash=ceabdc216d5a1a770cf9a63f0477648f26c2745c)
They cared enough to put about 50 bullets into 85 afterwards.
Quote from: Vulhala on Oct 12, 2011, 03:24:25 PM
They cared enough to put about 50 bullets into 85 afterwards.
I wouldnt call that care. They just eliminated the threat. No one, NO ONE even came close or looked at Bishop II after he got hit in the head with a pipe. No medical care, no concern, nothing
Quote from: Vulhala on Oct 12, 2011, 03:16:12 PM
Quote from: alienfan95610 on Oct 12, 2011, 03:12:55 PM
Quote from: Vulhala on Oct 12, 2011, 03:09:01 PM
Whoever said he was a bigshot?
The movie itself does, being as he's the one, and only one, that speaks to Ripley....
Not really. He was there to show her a friendly face. Someone she would recognise. It doesn't make him any more than a chimp in a labcoat to them does it? They may not have given half a f**k about him.
If your goal, as the Company is to recover Ripley and the alien, then yeah..he's way more than a "chimp in a lab coat"...
Quote from: alienfan95610 on Oct 12, 2011, 03:28:02 PM
Quote from: Vulhala on Oct 12, 2011, 03:16:12 PM
Quote from: alienfan95610 on Oct 12, 2011, 03:12:55 PM
Quote from: Vulhala on Oct 12, 2011, 03:09:01 PM
Whoever said he was a bigshot?
The movie itself does, being as he's the one, and only one, that speaks to Ripley....
Not really. He was there to show her a friendly face. Someone she would recognise. It doesn't make him any more than a chimp in a labcoat to them does it? They may not have given half a f**k about him.
If your goal, as the Company is to recover Ripley and the alien, then yeah..he's way more than a "chimp in a lab coat"...
Not necessarily. Merely 'Plan A' perhaps.
Quote from: Vulhala on Oct 12, 2011, 03:31:39 PM
Quote from: alienfan95610 on Oct 12, 2011, 03:28:02 PM
Quote from: Vulhala on Oct 12, 2011, 03:16:12 PM
Quote from: alienfan95610 on Oct 12, 2011, 03:12:55 PM
Quote from: Vulhala on Oct 12, 2011, 03:09:01 PM
Whoever said he was a bigshot?
The movie itself does, being as he's the one, and only one, that speaks to Ripley....
Not really. He was there to show her a friendly face. Someone she would recognise. It doesn't make him any more than a chimp in a labcoat to them does it? They may not have given half a f**k about him.
If your goal, as the Company is to recover Ripley and the alien, then yeah..he's way more than a "chimp in a lab coat"...
Not necessarily. Merely 'Plan A' perhaps.
Well then, seems to be quite a few eggs in that "plan A" basket then...
Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps at the point she jumped the soldiers had already decided they were gonna give Bishop II ten more seconds and then drop her with a shot to the head and take their chances?
Let's say he's a droid.
Now what?
please keep it in one post. still, i've seen patches of skin hanging out but not quite like that. i gotta check some gore site for reference.
if we disregard AvP(we should), the Bishop that showed up could be just a lower level PR agent that they modeled all the Bishops after(and he lied about designing it, which is much more plausible than just pulling a valuable synthetic scientist for a mission like that), which if you think about it makes more sense than having look-alikes of a prestigious company man doing butler jobs for colonial marines.
if he was human, then he wouldn't be the president of the f**king universe to just drop everything and go there to a dangerous mission.
Quote from: NUB DESTROYER on Oct 12, 2011, 03:23:30 PM
I like this one a tad better.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FTNLt7.png&hash=ceabdc216d5a1a770cf9a63f0477648f26c2745c)
See, when I look at that, it just makes me think he must be a robot. If the film crew really did go out of their way to show he's human, I'd say they f**ked up.
On the subject of Blade Runner, Frank Darabont is one of the fans who completely reject the idea of Deckard being a replicant. I guess even when Ridley confirms it, people are still going to choose what they want to believe.
Personally, I am of the opinion that:
Original theatrical cuts and Workprint = Human
Director's and Final cuts = Replicant
Quote from: NUB DESTROYER on Oct 12, 2011, 03:34:36 PM
Quote from: chupacabras acheronsis on Oct 12, 2011, 03:29:57 PM
why do you say it's not hanging realistically? it's flopping around, that's how ears do. they are cartilage not just a strip of skin. you should focus your nerdrage into the jaw.
It wasn't flopping around anytime in the film. The gash had nothing to do with the cartilage.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FRvymR.png&hash=362f5d3962b1547128e585e8ab32c9af9c4eb8f5)
Sup
Wasn't just his ear. Part of his scalp 'around' his ear is seperated to. And as said before, the make-up effect was a bad one.
Quote from: NUB DESTROYER on Oct 12, 2011, 03:42:06 PM
All you droid people too... shut it.
No offence mate but, to be honest i'm through with this now. Especially with replies like that. Pointless. You've said your point we've said ours. And no, this isn't a malicious reply mate.
Quote from: chupacabras acheronsis on Oct 12, 2011, 03:40:14 PM
please keep it in one post. still, i've seen patches of skin hanging out but not quite like that. i gotta check some gore site for reference.
if we disregard AvP(we should), the Bishop that showed up could be just a lower level PR agent that they modeled all the Bishops after(and he lied about designing it, which is much more plausible than just pulling a valuable synthetic scientist for a mission like that), which if you think about it makes more sense than having look-alikes of a prestigious company man doing butler jobs for colonial marines.
if he was human, then he wouldn't be the president of the f**king universe to just drop everything and go there to a dangerous mission.
As a human I think he has plenty of motive to go there himself. He has probaby known about the xenomorph species from the very beginning, an entirely new and bizarre yet magnificent species with so much promise for scientific and military research in the eyes of mankind. To capture even one drone alive and make it the property of the Bio-Weapons Division would probably have Bishop set for life and not to mention have his own famous page in history, who could resist not going themselves? There may be much danger but that won't stop pride or greed. If somehow he knew Ripley didn't just have a normal drone but an infant Queen, I see him not giving a second thought at all and just going right in for the jack pot 2 times faster than he would for a drone.
I don't know, i didn't get the feel he was there for himself. he would have had to be conveniently close for the Patna to pick him up.
i believe he's important, but not *the* company's CEO or owner.
I can dig it. If he was that big a deal, he wouldn't need to take the risk of going himself. Why put himself in mortal danger (and remember, that's the whole reason they want the Alien in the first place; because it's so ridiculously f**king dangerous), when he could pay to send a small army to do it for him and watch it on TV somewhere.
Concerning the Bishop II-survived-the-wrench-to-the-head-therefore-he-must-be-an-android argument, what about that guy who Dillion bludgeoned with a pipe? He was swinging away on him. There was gore hanging on the pipe and everything. That guy survived. He was seen later with merely a bandage wrapped on his head. Was he an android too?
Quotewhat about that guy who Dillion bludgeoned with a crowbar?
It was a pipe.
Okay,
pipe then.
QuoteThis also a weak for the pro-droid folks.
Comparing two (very) similar events within the same movie is weak?
Quote from: Vulhala on Oct 12, 2011, 04:30:24 PM
I can dig it. If he was that big a deal, he wouldn't need to take the risk of going himself. Why put himself in mortal danger (and remember, that's the whole reason they want the Alien in the first place; because it's so ridiculously f**king dangerous), when he could pay to send a small army to do it for him and watch it on TV somewhere.
Or a droid with red blood
Quote from: kelgaard on Oct 12, 2011, 05:00:13 PM
Concerning the Bishop II-survived-the-wrench-to-the-head-therefore-he-must-be-an-android argument, what about that guy who Dillion bludgeoned with a pipe? He was swinging away on him. There was gore hanging on the pipe and everything. That guy survived. He was seen later with merely a bandage wrapped on his head. Was he an android too?
Back, not head and not by surprise and not as strong to rip a piece of his face
* double
Quote from: kelgaard on Oct 12, 2011, 05:24:01 PM
Okay, pipe then.
QuoteThis also a weak for the pro-droid folks.
Comparing two (very) similar events within the same movie is weak?
In short: just because it's true or false for this particular event doesn't mean that it's always true or false all the time.
EXAMPLE Being loyal to your company causes you to look up photos of the company founders.
Variable A: People who are loyal to their company, who are hard workers, and are righteous in many ways (like Ripley in
Alien)
Variable B: To look up photos of their company's founders
A always --> B... yeah? Or Correlation = Causation... right?
Spoiler
WRONG
QuoteOr a droid with red blood
Why didn't Ash have red blood? He was supposed to pass for human.
QuoteBack, not head
Oh? Well maybe. We couldn't really see, but I assumed it was his head since it was bandaged up later.
Quotenot by surprise
*shrug*
Quoteand not as strong to rip a piece of his face
What was the bloody thing on the end of the pipe? I thought it was a piece of the guy's scalp.
QuoteIn short: just because it's true or false for this particular event doesn't mean that it's always true or false all the time.
Not
always. But sometimes it does.
QuoteOr Correlation = Causation... right?
You keep brandishing that phrase as if it's an absolute refutation of all opposing logic. It isn't.
QuoteWhat was the bloody thing on the end of the pipe? I thought it was a piece of the guy's scalp.
Are you referirng to the scene in which Dillon beats the hell out of Junior with the pipe? If so, that wasn't blood. It was copper wiring.
Quote from: kelgaard on Oct 12, 2011, 06:32:28 PM
QuoteOr a droid with red blood
Why didn't Ash have red blood? He was supposed to pass for human.
As oppose to Bishop, the crew didnt expect him to be a droid from the start
Quote from: NUB DESTROYER on Oct 12, 2011, 02:40:54 PM
If you don't think Deckard is a Replicant, Sir Ridley Scott thinks you're a moron.
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20166134,00.html (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20166134,00.html)
I guess I'm a moron then, because I feel the movie makes it clear he's human. Apparently Harrison ford, the scriptwriters, and Philip K Dick are morons, too, as they all thought Deckard was human as well. In fact for a very long time, Ridley Scott thought Deckard was a human - he certainly did while making the movie, at least. Only years later did he come out and say that Deckard was a replicant, which confused the shit out of Harrison Ford.
Quote from: StrangeShape on Oct 12, 2011, 07:01:17 PM
Quote from: kelgaard on Oct 12, 2011, 06:32:28 PM
QuoteOr a droid with red blood
Why didn't Ash have red blood? He was supposed to pass for human.
As oppose to Bishop, the crew didnt expect him to be a droid from the start
What difference does that make? Ash was supposed to be undercover. You would think they would anticipate little things like cuts or scrapes etc. Same with Call.
What you have there are 2 examples pre- and post- Alien3 of Droids designed to infiltrate, mimic and to all intents and purposes replicate humans in every way, in order to appear one of us.
And that's without mentioning the fact that Bishop, as seen in Aliens, had White 'blood.' Alien3 is set
mere days after the events in Aliens. Last time I checked, 'Super-Advanced' took slighty more time to happen.
"Shit, we need to fool her somehow, what do you suggest?"
"Um...I know! Red food dye in the blood!"
"You Sir, are a f**king genius."
Nah.
And since they somehow know that Ripley has learned to trust an android, why trick her into thinking this guy is human if he's not?
Perhaps Bishop II really is a bigshot in the company and they've gone to greater lengths to hide the fact that he's a droid. Maybe he's been around for ages and everyone thinks he's the real deal.
They did that in AvP2010, actually. :P
QuoteWhat difference does that make? Ash was supposed to be undercover. You would think they would anticipate little things like cuts or scrapes etc. Same with Call.
A question endlessly asked but never answered.
Quote from: Vulhala on Oct 12, 2011, 08:14:42 PM
"Shit, we need to fool her somehow, what do you suggest?"
"Um...I know! Red food dye in the blood!"
"You Sir, are a f**king genius."
:laugh:
Quote from: xeno_alpha_07 on Oct 12, 2011, 06:40:53 PM
QuoteWhat was the bloody thing on the end of the pipe? I thought it was a piece of the guy's scalp.
Are you referirng to the scene in which Dillon beats the hell out of Junior with the pipe? If so, that wasn't blood. It was copper wiring.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi918.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fad28%2Fkelgaard%2Fmeatchunk.png&hash=9a33d1a971c23e2cd178b8c10d5fbc8722becd63)
Looks like a chunk of meat to me, but if not, I stand corrected.
It always looked like that to me too - though realistically I doubt it is.
Quote from: SM on Oct 12, 2011, 11:15:52 PM
QuoteWhat difference does that make? Ash was supposed to be undercover. You would think they would anticipate little things like cuts or scrapes etc. Same with Call.
A question endlessly asked but never answered.
Much like how if you'd put Cherry Kool-aid in your car's radiator instead of water or anti-freeze:
In the short-term, it will work.
In the long-term, you will have residues because the minerals in the Kool-aid cannot precipitate out of the hot solution. This will lead to the radiator being damaged and thus your automobile will eventually cease to function.
Now
if I apply Correlation ≠ Causation... this makes it so that it can only go either way.
Quote from: kelgaard on Oct 12, 2011, 11:21:47 PM
http://i918.photobucket.com/albums/ad28/kelgaard/meatchunk.png
Looks like a chunk of meat to me, but if not, I stand corrected.
Quote from: SM on Oct 12, 2011, 11:22:55 PM
It always looked like that to me too - though realistically I doubt it is.
It does indeed look like chunks of flesh and i myself many years ago always thought it was.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.windsun.com%2Fpictures%2Fcopper_wire.jpg&hash=aba1d374b5f9e50c3c568d2f853de262c6be1505)
It was a pipe with a copper filling. Simular to the above example pic.
If I cared enough, I can show that if films-only, Bishop II = android all the while this being completely factual. It will no longer be ambigious as my position earlier.
Also to someone who deleted his post: Water = Coolant. Fact.
Quote from: NUB DESTROYER on Oct 13, 2011, 12:25:42 AM
If I cared enough, I can show that if films-only, Bishop II = android all the while this being completely factual. It will no longer be ambigious as my position earlier.
Good luck, people have been trying for years.
^^ But that's the beauty of it :p
I see a clear path, just a matter of writing the details. It'll probably be like the size of an MS word file that's 3 - 5 pages long using size 10 font, excluding screencaps.
Android with red blood=))
Welp
He was human.
Ever seen a greedy robot?
This is still being discussed?
This discussion transcends time and space - it always has been, and always will be, discussed.
So not all things besides the logos are impermanent.
Damn you, Heraclitus!! You lied to me!
nothing but an horrible warning sign to newcomers.
"abandon hope all ye who enter here, thy soul hath been claimed by fandom, thine time is his forever"
:laugh: Golden.
Also Hell has a circle alll dedicated to people who used to over-discuss this in their lives.
Guilty as charged :(
Anyone want me to save them a seat? :P
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Oct 28, 2011, 05:26:49 PM
This is still being discussed?
Apparently yes lol, without any offical confirmation i guess it will be discussed untill the day the world ends ;D
Here's my take on it:
Bishop in Alien3 was a CLONE. He was a clone of the original Weyland. Perhaps one of Weyland's wishes was to be cloned if cloning ever becomes possible, and to always have a clone (maybe many) of him living.
Of course, if you ignore the AVP movies, then it's possible he was the REAL human creator of the Bishop android.
But well, in the explanation I have here, it was a clone of Weyland, and the Bishop androids were designed after him. It is very possible Ripley wouldn't recognize the Bishop android as the real "Bishop Weyland". Bishop Weyland died in 2004.... and 2004 is ancient history come Ripley's time. So Weyland's picture and face was likely only seen in history books. Thus, Ripley wouldn't make the connection.
How'd you like them apples?
Quote from: Guts on Oct 29, 2011, 08:02:15 AM
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Oct 28, 2011, 05:26:49 PM
This is still being discussed?
Apparently yes lol, without any offical confirmation i guess it will be discussed untill the day the world ends ;D
But we've gotten "official" confirmation on several levels, it's just not good enough for some people. :P
^Exactly, Bishop in A3 was always supposed to be human; him bleeding was there to prove that to the audience.
I suggest to read Valaquen's article (http://alienseries.blogspot.com/2011/01/bishop-ii.html) on the matter.
AvP doesn't contradict that on the paper; it's just Anderson that thought Bishop II was an android (if I recall correctly).
Exactly. Or, he was trying to retcon it in light of what he was presenting in his movie, when he didn't actually have to. :P
Lance Henriksen did something similar - when he was making 'Alien3' he said Bishop II was human, but years later when making 'AvP' he flip-flopped, likely because of what Anderson told him.
QuoteSo Weyland's picture and face was likely only seen in history books. Thus, Ripley wouldn't make the connection.
Erm... If Weyland's face is in the history books then Ripley WOULD make the connection.
Quote from: SM on Oct 31, 2011, 07:57:38 AM
QuoteSo Weyland's picture and face was likely only seen in history books. Thus, Ripley wouldn't make the connection.
Erm... If Weyland's face is in the history books then Ripley WOULD make the connection.
That assumes what exactly Ripleys majors were, and what exactly she studied. And how long ago did she study those things?
Do you remember every face you see in your history books? Can you honestly claim that you'd remember every person from a history book, if that person was standing right there next to you?
Also, there's no telling how many important discoveries and creations had been made since Bishop Weyland died. There may have been way more important things and historical people to study... the creation of Weyland Yutani may just be an after thought.
I don't really like the questions AVP raises, either. But it's going a little far to say this one thing is a plot hole that cannot be explained.
No ones saying it couldn't be explained. At least by more sensible options than cloning.
QuoteDo you remember every face you see in your history books? Can you honestly claim that you'd remember every person from a history book, if that person was standing right there next to you?
If I were a young eager space officer, I think I'd be able to recall the face of my high profile company founder who died in mysterious circumstances, especially in an age of easily accessable information.
eager, optimistic people don't exist in the bleak super grimdark future of alien.
Sure they do. At least until they find out they're expendable. They get a bit cynical after that.
I dunno, the only "eager, optimistic" person I can think of in 'Alien' was Kane, and look what his optimism got him. Everyone else seemed plenty cynical even before learning their lives didn't matter. :P
Here is a link to an informative site about clearing up the issue regarding Bishop II, AND it has quotes from Lance Henrikson!.
http://alienseries.blogspot.com/2011/01/bishop-ii.html (http://alienseries.blogspot.com/2011/01/bishop-ii.html)
See this will help.
Despite a couple of errors in that piece - it arrives at the correct conclusion.
Sadly I doubt it'll change a thing.
Quote from: SM on Nov 25, 2011, 12:52:58 AM
Despite a couple of errors in that piece - it arrives at the correct conclusion.
Sadly I doubt it'll change a thing.
What do you mean ??? ??? ???.
Valaquen's blog presents basic facts surrounding the production (which to be honest should be sufficient to settle it). It doesn't go into details about either side of the argument (eg. like how people can do and survive and remain lucid after head wounds, etc.)
These arguments have been detailed for 163 pages - and still people go 'hes a robot'.
The blogpost won't change a thing, because it doesn't present anything new. It just sums stuff up.
Quote from: SM on Nov 25, 2011, 01:05:03 AM
Valaquen's blog presents basic facts surrounding the production (which to be honest should be sufficient to settle it). It doesn't go into details about either side of the argument (eg. like how people can do and survive and remain lucid after head wounds, etc.)
These arguments have been detailed for 163 pages - and still people go 'hes a robot'.
The blogpost won't change a thing, because it doesn't present anything new. It just sums stuff up.
Well the finale script for Alien 3 also confirms Bishop II is human.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_oLPxM7_4Cf0%2FTUB-2f-hUtI%2FAAAAAAAABjo%2FMTNp5Ox8s-0%2Fs1600%2Fpicture005.jpg&hash=492553f40299d51f94cd45cc4aba01e72802263b)
It's gonna stay that way.
I know.
But once again it's not going to stop wilful ignorance.
I'd really enjoyed the last 3 weeks.
That crap about Bishop II being an advanced android was never the truth, Paul Anderson just said that just to fix a damn plothole.
The truth is Bishop II always has been human even the makers of Alien 3 made him human from the start.
Quote from: Vulhala on Nov 25, 2011, 01:28:54 AM
I'd really enjoyed the last 3 weeks.
Tell me about it. Who stickied this thing anyway?
The Boss.
Anyone else and it would have been on page 35 by now :laugh:
Call is actually a second generation android an android designed and built by other older androids.
Guess what Bishop II is not a second generation android not even Alien 3 confirmed that.
I'd say that Bishop II is human but I've already said it hundreds of times in my life and they still go "ROBOT!".
I can't tell if it's wilful ignorance like SM puts it or if it's just a case of full retard, or something.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xerMz8aqTn4# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xerMz8aqTn4#)
Quote from: mastermoon on Nov 25, 2011, 01:29:28 AM
That crap about Bishop II being an advanced android was never the truth, Paul Anderson just said that just to fix a damn plothole.
A plot-hole that didn't even need fixing because it wasn't a plot-hole, too. :P
Quote from: Xenomrph on Nov 25, 2011, 01:46:14 AM
Quote from: mastermoon on Nov 25, 2011, 01:29:28 AM
That crap about Bishop II being an advanced android was never the truth, Paul Anderson just said that just to fix a damn plothole.
A plot-hole that didn't even need fixing because it wasn't a plot-hole, too. :P
How is that not a plothole?.
Charles Weyland and Michael Bishop are just two different people who happen to look similar.
Similarly, Det. Jerry Lambert ('Predator 2') and PFC William Hudson ('Aliens') look an awful lot alike, but they're not the same person. :)
Problem solved. :)
Quote from: Xenomrph on Nov 25, 2011, 01:59:00 AM
Charles Weyland and Michael Bishop are just two different people who happen to look similar.
Similarly, Det. Jerry Lambert ('Predator 2') and PFC William Hudson ('Aliens') look an awful lot alike, but they're not the same person. :)
Problem solved. :)
You'er right after all ;).
Just people that look similer :).
Micheal Bishops not bad for a human. He can take a whack to the side of the head with a blunt instrument and get right back up and scream the always dramatic NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
:)
Well Bishop II has always been human, Paul Anderson tries to say he is an advanced android with red blood but that was a half ass idea from him to fix a plothole.
Bishop II is not an advanced android, In "Alien Resurrection" thats when second generation androids were made like the character Call, She is a real second generation android and built by other older amdroids.
Call is the real advanced android not Bishop II because he is human.
Someone should make a video where Bishop does the Darth Vader "NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!" At the end.
I'm open to discussion of Bishop being human, but to me, the most powerful man of the most powerful organization in the universe, traveling to the ass end of space to a prison colony of murderers and rapists, with at the time of arrival, a possible alien running loose, it's just seems to dangerous to me, this is why you have a droid created in your likeness, send him/it in, let it get shredded to pieces.
He wasn't the most powerful man in Weyland Yutani. Alien3 never even implies that.
Also he was surrounded by commandos with guns. It's not like he was showing up by himself.
Also was it ever implied that Weyland-Yutani was the most powerful company in the universe?
Quote from: The Xenoborg on Dec 05, 2011, 03:52:55 PM
Also was it ever implied that Weyland-Yutani was the most powerful company in the universe?
Nope, just one hefty conglomerate among many.
But if we consider Aliens vs Predator 2004 and Alien³, he should be a very-very important person in the organization.
Quote from: The Xenoborg on Dec 05, 2011, 04:46:33 PM
But if we consider Aliens vs Predator 2004 and Alien³, he should be a very-very important person in the organization.
I can consider Alien 3, but not AVP. Never. Anderson used Henriksen to (attempt to) cater to doubtful Alien fans. Not gonna let his retconning change a thing.
Bishop II is always human Paul Anderson tries so hard to fix a plothole by saying he is an avanced android with red blood.
The makers of Alien 3 never said Bishop II is an Advanced Android.
It all really depends if you take the AVP franchise as canon or not. Obviously Henriksen would say his character was an android otherwise he wouldn't have done AVP, so we could take his word for it. I think he has the right to give his character dimension. But at the same time, there is no wrong answer.
Just prior to filming AVP, Henriksen said on the Alien 3 commentary that Bishop II was Bishop's human designer. He reasoned that since God made man in His image, then man would make his machines in his image, so Bishop II used his own likeness. Fincher also wanted to portray Bishop II as human. As far as the Alien series is concerned, Bishop II is a human. Anderson can go suck a chode with his revisionism, especially considering that he 'retconned' Bishop II just so he could use Henriksen as leverage to lure Bishop-loving Alien fans over to his side.
Quote from: Valaquen on Dec 06, 2011, 03:38:09 PM
As far as the Alien series is concerned, Bishop II is a human. Anderson can go suck a chode with his revisionism, especially considering that he 'retconned' Bishop II just so he could use Henriksen as leverage to lure Bishop-loving Alien fans over to his side.
I suppose that'll go for James Cameron and his idea about what he was going to do with the Bishop 2 character if he was to have made Alien 4.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Dec 06, 2011, 04:30:17 PM
Quote from: Valaquen on Dec 06, 2011, 03:38:09 PM
As far as the Alien series is concerned, Bishop II is a human. Anderson can go suck a chode with his revisionism, especially considering that he 'retconned' Bishop II just so he could use Henriksen as leverage to lure Bishop-loving Alien fans over to his side.
I suppose that'll go for James Cameron and his idea about what he was going to do with the Bishop 2 character if he was to have made Alien 4.
I'm not entirely sure what Cameron had planned for Bishop II, but I know he had planned on having the android Bishop paranoid that somebody had messed with his head/programming. A sort of android existential crisis, or something. This was before Alien 3 killed off these characters, of course.
Quote from: Valaquen on Dec 06, 2011, 05:05:41 PM
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Dec 06, 2011, 04:30:17 PM
Quote from: Valaquen on Dec 06, 2011, 03:38:09 PM
As far as the Alien series is concerned, Bishop II is a human. Anderson can go suck a chode with his revisionism, especially considering that he 'retconned' Bishop II just so he could use Henriksen as leverage to lure Bishop-loving Alien fans over to his side.
I suppose that'll go for James Cameron and his idea about what he was going to do with the Bishop 2 character if he was to have made Alien 4.
I'm not entirely sure what Cameron had planned for Bishop II, but I know he had planned on having the android Bishop paranoid that somebody had messed with his head/programming. A sort of android existential crisis, or something. This was before Alien 3 killed off these characters, of course.
I suppose that must have been what I read
I think his human. After all the synthetic Call in Alien Ressurection still had white blood while Bishop 2 didn't.
Quote from: Terx2 on Dec 09, 2011, 05:54:27 AM
I think his human. After all the synthetic Call in Alien Ressurection still had white blood while Bishop 2 didn't.
See Bishop II is human, Call is an advanced android with no red blood.
Quote from: Terx2 on Dec 09, 2011, 05:54:27 AM
I think his human. After all the synthetic Call in Alien Ressurection still had white blood while Bishop 2 didn't.
... Why didn't I think of that!?!?
Quote from: Crazy Rich on Dec 14, 2011, 07:42:45 PM
Quote from: Terx2 on Dec 09, 2011, 05:54:27 AM
I think his human. After all the synthetic Call in Alien Ressurection still had white blood while Bishop 2 didn't.
... Why didn't I think of that!?!?
I know I just remembered it from alien 3 when he gets hit.
And possibly the 188 times it's been mentioned.
And yet the thread still lives.
Kill it with fire.
We shall send in The Dirty Dozen, roll in Kelly's Heroes, mount up with the Mallory Team, get cracking with the A Team, fly in with the Justice League, fight it out with the Fantastic Four, let the lead fly with the Marines, leave scorched earth with Dutch's rescue squad, and if that fails, we will take off and nuke the site from orbit.
It's the only way to be sure.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Dec 22, 2011, 02:53:57 PM
We shall send in The Dirty Dozen, roll in Kelly's Heroes, mount up with the Mallory Team, get cracking with the A Team, fly in with the Justice League, fight it out with the Fantastic Four, let the lead fly with the Marines, leave scorched earth with Dutch's rescue squad, and if that fails, we will take off and nuke the site from orbit.
It's the only way to be sure.
You're one Wild Bunch away from sheer God-like w-i-n.
Damn. I also forgot The Magnificent Seven, The Seven Samurai and the Wolverines!
But the Wolverines would have gotten killed in the first five minutes, so just those first fourteen guys.
How sure can we be?
It's the only way.
Mabye it will survive like the derlict ;D Then what? Nuke it again ;D
Quote from: Terx2 on Dec 23, 2011, 03:46:22 AM
Mabye it will survive like the derlict ;D Then what? Nuke it again ;D
The Company cannot spend their resources on military operations.
Let's study it further. We need to go deeper.
Spoiler
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_llopjru5zX1qht0sw.png&hash=3050a6d33a67fd184b541df962cc209b44d433c3)
Quote from: The Xenoborg on Dec 23, 2011, 06:11:44 AM
Let's study it further. We need to go deeper.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yfr_Zj1iU4# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yfr_Zj1iU4#)
There is no way he could've gotten up from a blow TO THE HEAD as if nothing happened. He would've been knocked unconcious.
Quote from: Sgt. Apone on Dec 25, 2011, 06:56:17 PM
There is no way he could've gotten up from a blow TO THE HEAD as if nothing happened. He would've been knocked unconcious.
May be the blow wasn't that strong.
Yet it took off his ear? Besides, his fluid mught be red because they wanted to send someone to persuade her.
You know what? I never noticed the torn off ear until now. And you do put a good point forward. Let's see what others have to say though. I'm kinda confused.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lancehenriksen.info%2Fforums%2Fuploads%2F1276186787%2Fgallery_1_3_16646.jpg&hash=caa0a9043bd061cb8f143f268d7db881975c5e28)
I don't care what people say, there is no way he could of gotten up that easy from a blow like that with the size of the wrench he was hit with.
Quote from: Sgt. Apone on Dec 26, 2011, 04:12:05 PM
http://www.lancehenriksen.info/forums/uploads/1276186787/gallery_1_3_16646.jpg
I don't care what people say, there is no way he could of gotten up that easy from a blow like that with the size of the wrench he was hit with.
And yet in real life i've seen someone get a hole punched into his head and he still got up walked about etc while losing a lot of blood.
Quote from: Sgt. Apone on Dec 25, 2011, 07:48:39 PM
Yet it took off his ear? Besides, his fluid mught be red because they wanted to send someone to persuade her.
Such arguments have been made and refuted hundreds of times before.
Not that it ever makes any difference.
I always assumed he was an android. I have the Alien 3 comic books and the comics describe him as an Android. The comics came out long before AVP movie.
How about either or. He could either be an android or a human depending on how you look at it.
Quote from: Sgt. Apone on Dec 28, 2011, 08:07:50 PM
How about either or. He could either be an android or a human depending on how you look at it.
But he can't be both ;)
Quote from: Sgt. Apone on Dec 28, 2011, 08:07:50 PM
How about either or. He could either be an android or a human depending on how you look at it.
If you look at correctly though, he's human.
Or I could say he's android. There is no "correct way" to look at it.
The film really, really wants to tell you that he's human, as does all of the source material and the film-makers, including Fincher. You can, of course, side with Anderson for the sake of AVP's integrity...
.
Quote from: Sgt. Apone on Dec 29, 2011, 03:52:33 AM
Or I could say he's android. There is no "correct way" to look at it.
Of course there is.
But after 190 pages, sense, logic and fact is hardly likely to prevail now
Quote from: Valaquen on Dec 29, 2011, 03:54:13 AM
The film really, really wants to tell you that he's human, as does all of the source material and the film-makers, including Fincher. You can, of course, side with Anderson for the sake of AVP's integrity...
Sorry but thats a bad Idea to side with Paul Anderson.
Quote from: mastermoon on Dec 29, 2011, 03:57:59 AM
Quote from: Valaquen on Dec 29, 2011, 03:54:13 AM
The film really, really wants to tell you that he's human, as does all of the source material and the film-makers, including Fincher. You can, of course, side with Anderson for the sake of AVP's integrity...
Sorry but thats a bad Idea to side with Paul Anderson.
Exactly :laugh:
Quote from: SM on Dec 29, 2011, 03:56:35 AM
But after 190 pages, sense, logic and fact is hardly likely to prevail now
I motion that the thread be locked if it reaches 200 pages.
I don't think this was ever meant to be a topic for debate. Bishop II represents the company threat, whatever he is. Whether he's an android or not is practically irrelevant, imo.
Besides, an android wouldn't have been THAT persistent with Ripley.
An android would've physically stopped Ripley closing the gate and evaded a telegraphed blow to the head.
What do you mean?
Androids and stronger and faster than a normal human. Where was Bishop 2's super reflexes when Ripley closed the gate in his face? Or when a guy shouted "f**king android" just before he clocked him with a wrench?
Yeah tell that to Bishop in Aliens before being ripped apart by the Queen.
Or Call who didn't know she was going to be shot at.
Or Ash... never mind.
"Never mind" is right since those scenarios have no bearing on anything.
Bishop's 2 was programmed to be entirely human. Thus no super strength nor speed. That blow to the head would have knocked him out. It's highly unlikely a normal man would have gotten up much less shrug it off. Then again the guy swinging it was a wuss.
190 pages of evidence to the contrary disagree.
Cliffnotes pls?
whiterabbit, I'll summarize the entire thread for you.
Pro-android: No way he would've survived that blow to the head.
Pro-human: People have survived head trauma, and his blood was red. Androids have white blood.
Pro-android: Red dye!
Pro-human: But Ash and Call... Oh f**k it.
Repeat.
So pro android won cause pro human went "f**k it".
O-K I can roll with that. :)
Yep. Perseverance.
I've been wanting to say "f**k it" a lot lately, but let me give this one more try.
If you want to believe Bishop II is an android, then you must believe the Company went by this line of reasoning:
"We know that Ripley doesn't trust androids, but somehow we also know that she does trust Bishop, so let's send in a guy that looks like Bishop. But wait, she still doesn't trust androids, so he should pretend to be a human that just looks like an android (but he's really an android all along, heh heh). That way she will have no choice but to trust him, right? She's only suicidal, she won't be confused. Let's review. She won't trust a human, she won't trust an android, but she'll trust a human that looks like an android. Got it? Okay, pump some Red 40 into Michael just in case someone smacks him with a conveniently placed wrench and let's do this!"
How would the Company know that Ripley trusts Bishop? They weren't on LV426. They may barely realise her robotic 'racism'.
Just a thought :)
The company knows EVERYTHING!!
btw I never paid attention, but how long was ripley in deep sleep this time?
Quote from: kelgaard"We know that Ripley doesn't trust androids, but somehow we also know that she does trust Bishop, so let's send in a guy that looks like Bishop. But wait, she still doesn't trust androids, so he should pretend to be a human that just looks like an android (but he's really an android all along, heh heh). That way she will have no choice but to trust him, right? She's only suicidal, she won't be confused. Let's review. She won't trust a human, she won't trust an android, but she'll trust a human that looks like an android. Got it? Okay, pump some Red 40 into Michael just in case someone smacks him with a conveniently placed wrench and let's do this!"
Sounds like something an evil corporation would concoct. We could throw this at the mythbusters... heh busters. I mean they did a Jaws special why not an Alien one too.
No definite answer, but usually an estimate that Ripley slept for several weeks after ALIENS.
The Human Bishop II never was an android dumbass Paul Anderson said he is an android with red blood just to fix a very stupid plothole.
The most advanced android is call, older models of androids created her to be the second generation android, guess what she still has white oil blood.
Yeah,but the company sent him there to retrieve the alien. He was already trying to convince Ripley he was human, why not ust add red coloring to it to add to the effect. I always thought he was an android even before AVP.
The reason I ask for the time they were in hyper sleep is that it does take time to get to Fiorina 161. So it is possible that a very "alive" bishop was already on his way to collect his specimens from the suluco itself... oh damn. :) How else could the real Bishop get to Fiorina so fast.
However if he wasn't all ready on the way the chances that bishop is not an android are slim. Even with faster than light travel it took 2 weeks to get to LV 426. If we are to believe that the real bishop got to Fiorina 161 in a less than a day from the original transmission(probably less), that's not too believable.
Also this is where the 17 days overdue comes into play. Perhaps the lost of communication would be enough to assume that something did in fact happen and the company was on their way.
You know what, I think I can start buying the fact that having a real bishop is possible...
Quote from: kelgaard on Dec 30, 2011, 12:45:00 AM
I've been wanting to say "f**k it" a lot lately, but let me give this one more try.
If you want to believe Bishop II is an android, then you must believe the Company went by this line of reasoning:
"We know that Ripley doesn't trust androids, but somehow we also know that she does trust Bishop, so let's send in a guy that looks like Bishop. But wait, she still doesn't trust androids, so he should pretend to be a human that just looks like an android (but he's really an android all along, heh heh). That way she will have no choice but to trust him, right? She's only suicidal, she won't be confused. Let's review. She won't trust a human, she won't trust an android, but she'll trust a human that looks like an android. Got it? Okay, pump some Red 40 into Michael just in case someone smacks him with a conveniently placed wrench and let's do this!"
I think the company could keep a track of what an android does using The Network.
In the end Bishop II is not an advanced android, Call is the real advanced android.
In the entire Alien series androids always have white oil blood and no fake red blood.
Quote from: mastermoon on Jan 02, 2012, 05:47:12 PM
In the end Bishop II is not an advanced android, Call is the real advanced android.
In the entire Alien series androids always have white oil blood and no fake red blood.
Yeah, but he was supposed to convince Ripley he was human. It could have been dyed red for that very reason. It's not much of atretch. No ones saying he's advanced, just that he's an android.
Quote from: Sgt. Apone on Jan 02, 2012, 10:21:46 PM
Quote from: mastermoon on Jan 02, 2012, 05:47:12 PM
In the end Bishop II is not an advanced android, Call is the real advanced android.
In the entire Alien series androids always have white oil blood and no fake red blood.
Yeah, but he was supposed to convince Ripley he was human. It could have been dyed red for that very reason. It's not much of atretch. No ones saying he's advanced, just that he's an android.
The Makers of Alien 3 confirmed Bishop II is indeed human, Paul Anderson was only saying Bishop II is an advanced android with red blood just to fix a damn plothole, even the final script for Alien 3 confirmed Bishop II is human. In the whole Alien series every android character has always had white oil blood.
Do not listen to Paul Anderson.
QuotePaul Anderson was only saying Bishop II is an advanced android with red blood just to fix a damn plothole...
...Do not listen to Paul Anderson.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg4.imageshack.us%2Fimg4%2F3237%2F1933530j8pewlal5lvjaz0e.jpg&hash=78643b8b90537c511fc48a6bb362f0f9dc252fad)
Quote from: mastermoon on Jan 02, 2012, 10:35:08 PM
Quote from: Sgt. Apone on Jan 02, 2012, 10:21:46 PM
Quote from: mastermoon on Jan 02, 2012, 05:47:12 PM
In the end Bishop II is not an advanced android, Call is the real advanced android.
In the entire Alien series androids always have white oil blood and no fake red blood.
Yeah, but he was supposed to convince Ripley he was human. It could have been dyed red for that very reason. It's not much of atretch. No ones saying he's advanced, just that he's an android.
The Makers of Alien 3 confirmed Bishop II is indeed human, Paul Anderson was only saying Bishop II is an advanced android with red blood just to fix a damn plothole, even the final script for Alien 3 confirmed Bishop II is human. In the whole Alien series every android character has always had white oil blood.
Do not listen to Paul Anderson.
I always believed he was an android before Paul Anderson.
Quote from: Sgt. Apone on Jan 02, 2012, 10:21:46 PM
Quote from: mastermoon on Jan 02, 2012, 05:47:12 PM
In the end Bishop II is not an advanced android, Call is the real advanced android.
In the entire Alien series androids always have white oil blood and no fake red blood.
Yeah, but he was supposed to convince Ripley he was human. It could have been dyed red for that very reason. It's not much of atretch. No ones saying he's advanced, just that he's an android.
Since the 200 year advanced Call, who was much more human, had white blood - yeah I guess it is a stretch.
If he's just an android he does a really good job of not acting like one in the slightest.
QuoteHow would the Company know that Ripley trusts Bishop? They weren't on LV426. They may barely realise her robotic 'racism'.
Just a thought
As per Bishop, the Company knows everything that happened on the ship.
Quote
btw I never paid attention, but how long was ripley in deep sleep this time?
About a week - give or take.
Quote from: Sgt. Apone on Jan 02, 2012, 11:58:08 PM
Quote from: mastermoon on Jan 02, 2012, 10:35:08 PM
Quote from: Sgt. Apone on Jan 02, 2012, 10:21:46 PM
Quote from: mastermoon on Jan 02, 2012, 05:47:12 PM
In the end Bishop II is not an advanced android, Call is the real advanced android.
In the entire Alien series androids always have white oil blood and no fake red blood.
Yeah, but he was supposed to convince Ripley he was human. It could have been dyed red for that very reason. It's not much of atretch. No ones saying he's advanced, just that he's an android.
The Makers of Alien 3 confirmed Bishop II is indeed human, Paul Anderson was only saying Bishop II is an advanced android with red blood just to fix a damn plothole, even the final script for Alien 3 confirmed Bishop II is human. In the whole Alien series every android character has always had white oil blood.
Do not listen to Paul Anderson.
I always believed he was an android before Paul Anderson.
Paul Anderson also said Pussyface and Anytime were kids. Like mastermoon said, don't listen to him.
Ghost and Anytime were kids? >:(
Then how did the 'adult' Predators die within 15 minutes of their introduction?
Who's Ghost Predator?
Pussyface's name for pussies.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jan 03, 2012, 06:11:36 AM
Quote from: Sgt. Apone on Jan 02, 2012, 11:58:08 PM
Quote from: mastermoon on Jan 02, 2012, 10:35:08 PM
Quote from: Sgt. Apone on Jan 02, 2012, 10:21:46 PM
Quote from: mastermoon on Jan 02, 2012, 05:47:12 PM
In the end Bishop II is not an advanced android, Call is the real advanced android.
In the entire Alien series androids always have white oil blood and no fake red blood.
Yeah, but he was supposed to convince Ripley he was human. It could have been dyed red for that very reason. It's not much of atretch. No ones saying he's advanced, just that he's an android.
The Makers of Alien 3 confirmed Bishop II is indeed human, Paul Anderson was only saying Bishop II is an advanced android with red blood just to fix a damn plothole, even the final script for Alien 3 confirmed Bishop II is human. In the whole Alien series every android character has always had white oil blood.
Do not listen to Paul Anderson.
I always believed he was an android before Paul Anderson.
Paul Anderson also said Pussyface and Anytime were kids. Like mastermoon said, don't listen to him.
I always believed he was an android even before AVP came out. I could care less what Paul Anderson says.
Quote from: chupacabras acheronsis on Jan 03, 2012, 11:55:47 PM
Pussyface's name for pussies.
Or for people who don't want to say that name to someone who hasn't seen the movie because it may lead them to believe your saying something totally different such as 'having a women's pussy on your face'.
but that's ruining the fun!
If it's not for the reason I stated then yes they are pussies. :)
Quote from: Crazy Rich on Jan 04, 2012, 03:36:03 AM
If it's not for the reason I stated then yes they are pussies. :)
Meow?
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ft1.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcTfTs-Ax4ScGvY334s9o2diZutKZAeUgKfRWySju32y0ozKrFXtzD8PWvlR&hash=725dc9fdb86c20658157c6c15a23d2ecba34b56c)
So Paul Anderson claims the hunters from Predator 1 & 2 are mere children?.
Thats very stupid retcon of his just to say the AVP teenage Predators are older.
He is definitely android if you look at the left side of his face after the prison guard hits him his ear and cheek are peeling back and no blood is seen
Quote from: Queen7 on Jan 17, 2012, 09:16:12 PM
He is definitely android if you look at the left side of his face after the prison guard hits him his ear and cheek are peeling back and no blood is seen
Bishop II is not an android with red blood, in the final script of Alien 3 that confirms he is 100% human.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_oLPxM7_4Cf0%2FTUB-2f-hUtI%2FAAAAAAAABjo%2FMTNp5Ox8s-0%2Fs1600%2Fpicture005.jpg&hash=492553f40299d51f94cd45cc4aba01e72802263b)
He was never an android.
Quote from: mastermoon on Jan 18, 2012, 10:44:47 PM
Quote from: Queen7 on Jan 17, 2012, 09:16:12 PM
He is definitely android if you look at the left side of his face after the prison guard hits him his ear and cheek are peeling back and no blood is seen
Bishop II is not an android with red blood, in the final script of Alien 3 that confirms he is 100% human.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_oLPxM7_4Cf0%2FTUB-2f-hUtI%2FAAAAAAAABjo%2FMTNp5Ox8s-0%2Fs1600%2Fpicture005.jpg&hash=492553f40299d51f94cd45cc4aba01e72802263b)
He was never an android.
The script said that but the movie shows his face peeling off noones face just peels off and they don't worry about it I thought he was human every time I watched it until I seen that
The makers of Alien 3 said he is human, Bishop II is not an android with red blood, the most advanced android is call but she still has white blood.
The trademark thing for androids is white oil blood.
Quote from: mastermoon on Jan 19, 2012, 12:00:28 AM
The makers of Alien 3 said he is human, Bishop II is not an android with red blood, the most advanced android is call but she still has white blood.
The trademark thing for androids is white oil blood.
I'm not saying he is a android I'm just saying in the movie it looks like an android when I watched it I saw no blood or white oil just his face peeling off
Quote from: mastermoon on Jan 19, 2012, 12:00:28 AM
The makers of Alien 3 said he is human, Bishop II is not an android with red blood, the most advanced android is call but she still has white blood.
The trademark thing for androids is white oil blood.
The filmmakers know nothing!
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jan 19, 2012, 12:05:37 AM
Quote from: mastermoon on Jan 19, 2012, 12:00:28 AM
The makers of Alien 3 said he is human, Bishop II is not an android with red blood, the most advanced android is call but she still has white blood.
The trademark thing for androids is white oil blood.
The filmmakers know nothing!
In all Alien movies the androids always had white oil blood, Paul Anderson only said that Bishop II is an android with red blood crap just to fix a damn plothole ::).
It was a joke. People here sometimes ignore that fact you mentioned.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jan 19, 2012, 12:19:07 AM
It was a joke. People here sometimes ignore that fact you mentioned.
I'll admit that I hate the stupid plotholes Paul Anderson made in AVP it annoys me.
Quote from: mastermoon on Jan 19, 2012, 12:24:44 AM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jan 19, 2012, 12:19:07 AM
It was a joke. People here sometimes ignore that fact you mentioned.
I'll admit that I hate the stupid plotholes Paul Anderson made in AVP it annoys me.
Plot holes suck when a director makes a movie they should have it make sense they just make the movie for money so they don't care if it's good or not
Quote from: Queen7 on Jan 19, 2012, 12:26:45 AM
Quote from: mastermoon on Jan 19, 2012, 12:24:44 AM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jan 19, 2012, 12:19:07 AM
It was a joke. People here sometimes ignore that fact you mentioned.
I'll admit that I hate the stupid plotholes Paul Anderson made in AVP it annoys me.
Plot holes suck when a director makes a movie they should have it make sense they just make the movie for money so they don't care if it's good or not
Take a look at The Thing prequels plotholes the director was not smart claiming there would be no plotholes.
Quote from: mastermoon on Jan 19, 2012, 12:46:27 AM
Quote from: Queen7 on Jan 19, 2012, 12:26:45 AM
Quote from: mastermoon on Jan 19, 2012, 12:24:44 AM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jan 19, 2012, 12:19:07 AM
It was a joke. People here sometimes ignore that fact you mentioned.
I'll admit that I hate the stupid plotholes Paul Anderson made in AVP it annoys me.
Plot holes suck when a director makes a movie they should have it make sense they just make the movie for money so they don't care if it's good or not
Take a look at The Thing prequels plotholes the director was not smart claiming there would be no plotholes.
I haven't seen it yet but I'm going to once its on DVD. Only some directors actually care for a franchise I thought James Cameron did great and he truly stood to the whole idea alien 3 wasn't awful but it wasn't well portrayed directors would make more money they cared for what they did
I know the games aren't technically in the same canon as the movies, but the recent AVP game featured the Bishop from Alien 3. The way he talked about himself and his "predecessors" suggested (to me, at least) that he was human and following in the footsteps of the original Weyland (the one from the AVP movie). Just a thought.
EDIT: I can't believe I forgot that he's a boss at the end of the game. And that he IS an android. :-\
Quote from: CompanyMan on Jan 19, 2012, 06:55:48 PM
I know the games aren't technically in the same canon as the movies, but the recent AVP game featured the Bishop from Alien 3. The way he talked about himself and his "predecessors" suggested (to me, at least) that he was human and following in the footsteps of the original Weyland (the one from the AVP movie). Just a thought.
The games can't work with the movies it wouldent make any sense they just add him in there sins he is a big part of weyland yutani
Yeah, I personally consider the games to be outside of movie canon anyway. But I like it when they tie together, nonetheless. Anyway, I edited my post above because I completely forgot that Bishop II was the freakin' boss of the game... and that he WAS an android. Can't believe I forgot something like that. I really need to replay AVP...
Anyway, I'm pretty sure the Bishop in the AVP game is the one from Alien 3 because he talks a lot about Ripley and the technology shown in the game matches the time period of Alien 3, not the present-era AVP movies. But who knows, I guess.
Quote from: CompanyMan on Jan 20, 2012, 01:12:55 AM
Yeah, I personally consider the games to be outside of movie canon anyway. But I like it when they tie together, nonetheless. Anyway, I edited my post above because I completely forgot that Bishop II was the freakin' boss of the game... and that he WAS an android. Can't believe I forgot something like that. I really need to replay AVP...
Anyway, I'm pretty sure the Bishop in the AVP game is the one from Alien 3 because he talks a lot about Ripley and the technology shown in the game matches the time period of Alien 3, not the present-era AVP movies. But who knows, I guess.
In alien 3 he is a android I think so he would tue into the game nicely it's sort of a what if scenario and I think that's cool
Quote from: Queen7 on Jan 20, 2012, 01:15:18 AM
In alien 3 he is a android
and you know this... how?
He 'thinks' - he doesn't know.
From the start the makers of Alien 3 confirmed Bishop II is human they planned to have the human bishop appear in Alien 3.
Quote from: mastermoon on Feb 06, 2012, 03:31:51 AM
From the start the makers of Alien 3 confirmed Bishop II is human they planned to have the human bishop appear in Alien 3.
Then why the hell did half his face peel off geese I seen that and thought he must not be human since he would be on the ground dying not telling ripley to not kill herself
Quote from: Queen7 on Feb 07, 2012, 11:03:15 PM
Quote from: mastermoon on Feb 06, 2012, 03:31:51 AM
From the start the makers of Alien 3 confirmed Bishop II is human they planned to have the human bishop appear in Alien 3.
Then why the hell did half his face peel off geese I seen that and thought he must not be human since he would be on the ground dying not telling ripley to not kill herself
Perhaps he's a drug addict and was high at the time and therefore his pain threshold was a lot higher then normal.
Quote from: Queen7 on Feb 07, 2012, 11:03:15 PM
Quote from: mastermoon on Feb 06, 2012, 03:31:51 AM
From the start the makers of Alien 3 confirmed Bishop II is human they planned to have the human bishop appear in Alien 3.
Then why the hell did half his face peel off geese I seen that and thought he must not be human since he would be on the ground dying not telling ripley to not kill herself
Bishop II was never and android he is indeed a human, if you wanna know who is the most advanced android thats very human, now that is Call from "Alien Resurrection".
He's neither
If he was human then why would they call him bishop II they would have called the android bishop II since it is a replica of bishop so it goes to prove bishop II is a android he's just a replica of the bishop in aliens
Why won't this thread die...
:'(
Quote from: Queen7 on Feb 08, 2012, 07:30:43 PM
If he was human then why would they call him bishop II they would have called the android bishop II since it is a replica of bishop so it goes to prove bishop II is a android he's just a replica of the bishop in aliens
The makers of Alien 3 made Bishop II a human, the movie itself never confirmed Bishop II is an android. it is clear to see that Bishop's wound is bleeding, confirming he is human.
From the script and the movie.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_oLPxM7_4Cf0%2FTUB-2f-hUtI%2FAAAAAAAABjo%2FMTNp5Ox8s-0%2Fs1600%2Fpicture005.jpg&hash=492553f40299d51f94cd45cc4aba01e72802263b)
See for the last time Bishop II is not an android.
Ok I must have been mistaken but whatever I think he is still a android it would make more sense if he was
Quote from: Queen7 on Feb 08, 2012, 09:52:00 PM
Ok I must have been mistaken but whatever I think he is still a android it would make more sense if he was
How?
Quote from: Basher917 on Feb 09, 2012, 12:13:42 AM
Quote from: Queen7 on Feb 08, 2012, 09:52:00 PM
Ok I must have been mistaken but whatever I think he is still a android it would make more sense if he was
How?
getting you're ear cut is a bit more painful than the expressions of bishop II shows.
Quote from: Kol on Feb 09, 2012, 12:17:50 AM
Quote from: Basher917 on Feb 09, 2012, 12:13:42 AM
Quote from: Queen7 on Feb 08, 2012, 09:52:00 PM
Ok I must have been mistaken but whatever I think he is still a android it would make more sense if he was
How?
getting you're ear cut is a bit more painful than the expressions of bishop II shows.
That's it?
Quote from: Basher917 on Feb 09, 2012, 12:18:33 AM
Quote from: Kol on Feb 09, 2012, 12:17:50 AM
Quote from: Basher917 on Feb 09, 2012, 12:13:42 AM
Quote from: Queen7 on Feb 08, 2012, 09:52:00 PM
Ok I must have been mistaken but whatever I think he is still a android it would make more sense if he was
How?
getting you're ear cut is a bit more painful than the expressions of bishop II shows.
That's it?
yeah, that's it. sometimes the obvious sign is the better to go.
how would you react, when somebody hits your head with a large pipe and cuts simultaneously your ear? i doubt, that you were even conscious at this very moment...
yeah, i get it that he's in mania about ripleys attempt to kill her w/ the chestburster queen and is somehow distracted from his pain, but that is just ludicrous.
just my personal opinion.
Quote from: Kol on Feb 09, 2012, 12:24:38 AM
Quote from: Basher917 on Feb 09, 2012, 12:18:33 AM
Quote from: Kol on Feb 09, 2012, 12:17:50 AM
Quote from: Basher917 on Feb 09, 2012, 12:13:42 AM
Quote from: Queen7 on Feb 08, 2012, 09:52:00 PM
Ok I must have been mistaken but whatever I think he is still a android it would make more sense if he was
How?
getting you're ear cut is a bit more painful than the expressions of bishop II shows.
That's it?
yeah, that's it. sometimes the obvious sign is the better to go.
how would you react, when somebody hits your head with a large pipe and cuts simultaneously your ear? i doubt, that you were even conscious at this very moment...
yeah, i get it that he's in mania about ripleys attempt to kill her w/ the chestburster queen and is somehow distracted from his pain, but that is just ludicrous.
just my personal opinion.
Ever thought that his body was in shock? You know, after being hit in the back of the head by a guy he thought was on his side?
Quote from: Basher917 on Feb 09, 2012, 12:34:17 AM
Quote from: Kol on Feb 09, 2012, 12:24:38 AM
Quote from: Basher917 on Feb 09, 2012, 12:18:33 AM
Quote from: Kol on Feb 09, 2012, 12:17:50 AM
Quote from: Basher917 on Feb 09, 2012, 12:13:42 AM
Quote from: Queen7 on Feb 08, 2012, 09:52:00 PM
Ok I must have been mistaken but whatever I think he is still a android it would make more sense if he was
How?
getting you're ear cut is a bit more painful than the expressions of bishop II shows.
That's it?
yeah, that's it. sometimes the obvious sign is the better to go.
how would you react, when somebody hits your head with a large pipe and cuts simultaneously your ear? i doubt, that you were even conscious at this very moment...
yeah, i get it that he's in mania about ripleys attempt to kill her w/ the chestburster queen and is somehow distracted from his pain, but that is just ludicrous.
just my personal opinion.
Ever thought that his body was in shock? You know, after being hit in the back of the head by a guy he thought was on his side?
ever thought about 85's shock after getting shot by a guy he thought was on his side? ;)
excuse me, but you don't give me that much motivation, or even a reason to discuss further.
you still think he's a human & i still think he's just a robot. nevertheless 20th century fox or the invisible writer of the script don't care & so di in the end. :laugh:
edit: if he was indeed human than the reason why he doesn't felt any pain was the fact that he got distracted (from the pain) from ripleys attempt to kill herself and taking the queen with her. just another maniac. ::)
THAT is the only psychological justification i have in mind that fincher may gave henriksen for his motivation of the scene.
A guys face does not practically fall of and you just go Ito shock he would of passed out
Quote from: Queen7 on Feb 09, 2012, 12:50:45 AM
A guys face does not practically fall of and you just go Ito shock he would of passed out
I'm sorry but your post is unreadable, please make it so I can read it.
Quote from: Basher917 on Feb 09, 2012, 01:06:28 AM
Quote from: Queen7 on Feb 09, 2012, 12:50:45 AM
A guys face does not practically fall of and you just go Ito shock he would of passed out
I'm sorry but your post is unreadable, please make it so I can read it.
and you're protesting with each post, so don't stir it up!
Sorry I typed that on my phone I was trying to say if someone's face got peeled off like that I think they would just pass out since it is a bad injury
I said before that he could be a drug addict and high as a kite.
He bleeds blood...
He says he's not a droid...
The script says he's human not a droid...
In an interview hasn't Lance Henrikson said Bishop 2 wasn't a droid?
To summarise.... not a droid!!!!!
Quote from: stephen on Feb 09, 2012, 02:40:26 AM
I said before that he could be a drug addict and high as a kite.
oh, so we're walking on that terrain... than it's time for me to leave this thread. ;D
excuse me for not having the time to listen to arguments taken from the blue of skies.
Quote from: Queen7 on Feb 09, 2012, 02:32:19 AM
Sorry I typed that on my phone I was trying to say if someone's face got peeled off like that I think they would just pass out since it is a bad injury
His face didn't get peeled off.
Don't Replicant's bleed red? .... and there's talk of Alien/Blade Runner being in the same universe.
Hmmmmm...
Quote from: Basher917 on Feb 09, 2012, 03:10:32 AM
Quote from: Queen7 on Feb 09, 2012, 02:32:19 AM
Sorry I typed that on my phone I was trying to say if someone's face got peeled off like that I think they would just pass out since it is a bad injury
His face didn't get peeled off.
After he gets bashed in the face he he falls down and the left side of his face is peeling from behind the ear
Quote from: Kol on Feb 09, 2012, 02:50:10 AM
Quote from: stephen on Feb 09, 2012, 02:40:26 AM
I said before that he could be a drug addict and high as a kite.
oh, so we're walking on that terrain... than it's time for me to leave this thread. ;D
excuse me for not having the time to listen to arguments taken from the blue of skies.
What terrain - personally I don't give two hoots whether he was an android or not.
This thread is a discussion on whether or not he is human or an android - i simply proposed an idea as to why he seemingly didn't show much pain considering the injury he had if he was human.
Is the idea out of nowhere - of course it is.
Is the idea supported by any evidence - of course it isn't.
No need to get all snippity about it.
Quote from: Queen7 on Feb 09, 2012, 12:07:46 PM
Quote from: Basher917 on Feb 09, 2012, 03:10:32 AM
Quote from: Queen7 on Feb 09, 2012, 02:32:19 AM
Sorry I typed that on my phone I was trying to say if someone's face got peeled off like that I think they would just pass out since it is a bad injury
His face didn't get peeled off.
After he gets bashed in the face he he falls down and the left side of his face is peeling from behind the ear
Then you say part of his face gets peeled off, not just 'his face got peeled off', this makes me infer that his entire face was torn off.
I didn't say his whole face I just said the side of his face maybe I wasent too specific but if you watch the movie again look at his ear there's no white blood but I dont see how a human could live through that or at least not pass out
So you're saying that if part of his skin and ear get torn off it means he's going to pass out. Yet I know someone who had one of his limbs blown off from fighting in Afghanistan and not pass out.
But bishop 2 got whacked in the head with a metal pipe and his skin started to peel off. The blow to the head is what does not make sense you would pass out from that or Be extremely delirious not get tight back up and talk like nothing happened he didn't show he was in pain.
He screamed pretty loudly and he was holding his ear up, presumably numbing the pain. I'd say he was hurting.
Quote from: Queen7 on Feb 10, 2012, 11:58:25 AM
But bishop 2 got whacked in the head with a metal pipe and his skin started to peel off. The blow to the head is what does not make sense you would pass out from that or Be extremely delirious not get tight back up and talk like nothing happened he didn't show he was in pain.
He screamed and a decent amount of blood came pouring out of his head. I don't know how this thread even reached 196 pages. The evidence has been presented that he's human at ad nauseum.
In the audio commentary the effects crew and Henriksen make it very clear - the filmmakers intended him to be human.
I know around the time that Lance Henriksen was working on 'AvP' he said that Bishop II was an android, but weren't there quotes from Henriksen that predate 'AvP' where he says Bishop II was human?
Pretty sure it's all in the commentary.
Commentary and interviews.
Or space jockey :laugh:
This has got to be the silliest debate in all of ALIEN fandom. Of course he's human.
Guys, guys! I've got it! He was a handroid! Half human half android. :o
He was a c**t, because i'm sick of this bastard thread.
He's a F****NG Replicant
I thought him being human was kind of obvious.
Of course, that doesn't account for everyone else. Namely, the people who've made this thread go on for nearly 200 pages. Wow. :o
Quote from: Novak 1334 on Feb 27, 2012, 01:47:22 AM
He's a F****NG Replicant
stop f**king saying f**k in this F**king thread
stop censoring yourself, you spineless f**ks.
Quote from: QuantumSheep on Feb 27, 2012, 02:58:27 AM
I thought him being human was kind of obvious.
Of course, that doesn't account for everyone else. Namely, the people who've made this thread go on for nearly 200 pages. Wow. :o
Yeah, it's like trying to explain to someone why the Earth isn't flat and they still don't believe you despite the truck load of evidence being presented. This thread should have been over in the first page.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_oLPxM7_4Cf0%2FTUB1xk5LP4I%2FAAAAAAAABjY%2F8aEWMEBuzaI%2Fs1600%2F19200.jpg&hash=f83c1a636fb66c270158feaafff2e234b1c383dc)
are thoese guards w/ the guns androids?
the avp 2010 androids look like it. ok, at least the helmet:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmeta.filesmelt.com%2Fdownloader.php%3Ffile%3Dandroid1.jpg&hash=cf6b6e83a5144f882b5a3366f5e3655b9b0295f8)
With them, it's up to you. None of them died, or even bled.
Quote from: DJ Pu$$yface on Feb 27, 2012, 10:05:15 PM
With them, it's up to you. None of them died, or even bled.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_lojtp6WJCI1qe4pyf.gif&hash=841765bc9d6687f019b5c7478ed1195917b02c59)
you've just reminded me of this particular reason/fact we all are nitpicking about :laugh:
Quote from: Kol on Feb 27, 2012, 05:30:52 PM
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_oLPxM7_4Cf0%2FTUB1xk5LP4I%2FAAAAAAAABjY%2F8aEWMEBuzaI%2Fs1600%2F19200.jpg&hash=f83c1a636fb66c270158feaafff2e234b1c383dc)
are thoese guards w/ the guns androids?
the avp 2010 androids look like it. ok, at least the helmet:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmeta.filesmelt.com%2Fdownloader.php%3Ffile%3Dandroid1.jpg&hash=cf6b6e83a5144f882b5a3366f5e3655b9b0295f8)
It says here that those commandoes are most likely human in Alien 3: http://avp.wikia.com/wiki/Weyland-Yutani_commando (http://avp.wikia.com/wiki/Weyland-Yutani_commando).
One of them did act on his own accord in gunning down 85, so that lends credence to the fact that they could have some free will, although most androids seem to share that trait unless ordered otherwise. AVP 2010 obviously just threw the similar appearance in as a reference to the film (and how we don't actually see them in action, something AVP 2010 alleviates). Of course, there is no real answer as to whether the commandoes are human or not.
Ultimately it's probably not relevant.
If they're robots they obviously don't have the Asimov protocols that Bishop does.
Yes, it probably isn't relevant. Then again, this thread seems to have gone off the rails completely so no harm done. (Bishop high as a kite? Really? Or a Space Jockey? Dear God).
Quote from: QuantumSheep on Feb 28, 2012, 10:02:07 AM
Bishop high as a kite?
Actually I was stating that in response to someone who was arguing that he couldn't be human because if he was he would have been in too much pain from the hit he received.
I don't think it's a big deal either way but I was just making a suggestion.
Android, it makes the company that much more evil.
Because obviously "crew expendable" isn't enough.
Paul Anderson has forgot the most important rule in the Alien series, all androids have white oil blood.
Quote from: TheDude on Apr 24, 2012, 01:14:06 AM
Android, it makes the company that much more evil.
But it doesn't fit with established facts.
And why is that a good thing? Making them "more evil" doesn't make them a better villain, does it?
Quote from: mastermoon on Apr 24, 2012, 01:28:46 AM
Paul Anderson has forgot the most important rule in the Alien series, all androids have white oil blood.
Paul Anderson? There were no androids in AVP...
I assume you mean David Fincher :) Bishop II in A3 had red blood, but some people suspect that he's a special infiltrator android or something which explains the red blood. Personally, I don't buy the theory. I think he's human.
This thread. Just when you think it goes away -- it creeps up again. ::)
There's no evidence to support he's an android. He bleeds red blood in both versions of the film.
Quote from: Nightmare Asylum on Apr 24, 2012, 01:32:23 AM
Quote from: mastermoon on Apr 24, 2012, 01:28:46 AM
Paul Anderson has forgot the most important rule in the Alien series, all androids have white oil blood.
Paul Anderson? There were no androids in AVP...
I assume you mean David Fincher :) Bishop II in A3 had red blood, but some people suspect that he's a special infiltrator android or something which explains the red blood. Personally, I don't buy the theory. I think he's human.
I'm talking about Paul Andersons stupid claim that Bishop II is an advanced android with red blood.
But the most advanced android in the Alien series is Annalee Call from Alien Resurrection.
Call is a second generation android built by older model androids and guess what she still bleeds white oil blood.
If the AVP series is at all 'correctly' linked to the Alien series. Then 'Bishop' as a human died in AvP 1. So Theoretically all of them are Androids. This does give the company a sort of, unstoppable nature to their 'evil' ambitious desires.
Oh God, don't bring AvP continuity into the equation :P
That's a universe unto itself.
Quote from: DoomRulz on May 13, 2012, 04:04:34 PM
Oh God, don't bring AvP continuity into the equation :P
That's a universe unto itself.
AvP continuity is now outdated and is very old news now a days.
I know I like how they just decided F*** the alien timeline :laugh:
Quote from: Tex on May 13, 2012, 09:31:10 AM
If the AVP series is at all 'correctly' linked to the Alien series. Then 'Bishop' as a human died in AvP 1. So Theoretically all of them are Androids. This does give the company a sort of, unstoppable nature to their 'evil' ambitious desires.
Please no. I can't bear the thought. As for this thread...
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1175.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fr623%2FPunisher616%2Fnothingtoseehere.jpg&hash=428f39bfb4e72c261d031b831ea66b9063f14638)
There's nothing to see here.
Just to throw some salt into this fairly old wound: Guess what? He's a REPLICANT :o ::)
HOLOGRAM!!!
No T-800 :P
Quote from: Terx2 on May 14, 2012, 01:03:31 PM
No T-800 :P
HAHAHAHA but the question remains.....will he be back? (in a movie)
Looks like this debate will not end any time soon.
Quote from: mastermoon on May 14, 2012, 03:07:16 PM
Looks like this debate will not end any time soon.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi3.kym-cdn.com%2Fphotos%2Fimages%2Foriginal%2F000%2F264%2F615%2F242.png&hash=e8a36dd48a043ba4684266f21336c55df4a3d43c)
Quote from: OmegaZilla on May 14, 2012, 03:14:11 PM
Quote from: mastermoon on May 14, 2012, 03:07:16 PM
Looks like this debate will not end any time soon.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi3.kym-cdn.com%2Fphotos%2Fimages%2Foriginal%2F000%2F264%2F615%2F242.png&hash=e8a36dd48a043ba4684266f21336c55df4a3d43c)
You Sir.......
*Hi-Five*
Quote from: Tex on May 14, 2012, 03:16:40 PM
You Sir.......
*Hi-Five*
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-lhXuymN6k1Q%2FT3g9krHohXI%2FAAAAAAAAA4o%2FR0rD0HLUeM4%2Fs1600%2FHigh-Five.jpg&hash=1384650cdc884f1c7b975afe963c832c25e5a05d)
indeed. ;)
This topic start back in 2006 and it's not over yet?.
Well there should be a time this debate ends.
If I got a penny everytime you stated something obvious, I'd be richer than Uncle Scrooge right now.
Quote from: OmegaZilla on May 14, 2012, 03:21:18 PM
If I got a penny everytime you stated something obvious, I'd be richer than Uncle Scrooge right now.
it's funny cause you're a duck? Donald duck to be exact?!
:laugh: I didn't think of that while writing the post!
Ackshully is dolan.
Quote from: OmegaZilla on May 14, 2012, 03:37:41 PM
:laugh: I didn't think of that while writing the post!
Ackshully is dolan.
0.o da faq what's a dolan?
Quote from: Tex on May 14, 2012, 03:54:55 PM
Quote from: OmegaZilla on May 14, 2012, 03:37:41 PM
:laugh: I didn't think of that while writing the post!
Ackshully is dolan.
0.o da faq what's a dolan?
Eeesh speekeen lyhke DONUHLD DUK oosh shee?
The guy at the end of Alien 3? He was actually a toon in disguise. You see? It all makes sense now.
Quote from: OpenMaw on May 14, 2012, 06:23:58 PM
The guy at the end of Alien 3? He was actually a toon in disguise.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbulk.destructoid.com%2Ful%2F198930-deep-analysis-who-framed-roger-rabbit-%2FJudge-Doom1-620x.jpg&hash=24c9b211ad060deee6b0e5997cc2a7bbe28ccb95)
REMEMBER ME OPENMAW?
hahahaha nice one
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 17, 2012, 06:29:06 PM
I know around the time that Lance Henriksen was working on 'AvP' he said that Bishop II was an android, but weren't there quotes from Henriksen that predate 'AvP' where he says Bishop II was human?
So he was intended to be a human, then Fox allowed the decision to be made to suggest he was an android. I would say the latest
official word is that he is an android, but he wasn't originally intended/written to be. Doesn't really matter, fans will choose what they want as canon as they see fit.
In alien 3 I feel he is not human at all, he is another android. Why ? because when he gets hit with the pipe his ear comes off alittle in a weird way. I feel he is a more up dated andriod and in avp they use the name for that person. Avp was made up movie by the creators of alien so they can do what ever they want.
No one who had anything to do with the creation of Alien was involved in AvP.
Quote from: austinsteadman on May 18, 2012, 05:30:54 AM
In alien 3 I feel he is not human at all, he is another android. Why ? because when he gets hit with the pipe his ear comes off alittle in a weird way. I feel he is a more up dated andriod and in avp they use the name for that person. Avp was made up movie by the creators of alien so they can do what ever they want.
Bishop II was always human, As said before Paul Anderson only claimed he is an android with red blood to fix a stupid plothole.
The makers intended him to be human and he always will be human.
Bishop II is human, period.
The script, the novelisation and the commentary confirms he's human.
If that's not enough, he bleeds red blood and yells that he's human, even after being whacked with a hammer.
Even if he is an updated droid then why isn't Call from Rez that variety, after all, she has white blood.
Quote from: austinsteadman on May 18, 2012, 05:30:54 AM
In alien 3 I feel he is not human at all, he is another android. Why ? because when he gets hit with the pipe his ear comes off alittle in a weird way. I feel he is a more up dated andriod and in avp they use the name for that person. Avp was made up movie by the creators of alien so they can do what ever they want.
Those kind of injuries happen quite a bit in martial art sports, actually. The ear isn't exactly the most well attached part of your body after all. :)
Paul Andersons claim of Bishop II being an advanced android with red blood has to be the worst Idea of a retcon ever.
Quote from: SM on May 18, 2012, 05:36:48 AM
No one who had anything to do with the creation of Alien was involved in AvP.
Well...if we're being totally cynical, the guys who created the creatures initially were :P
Quote from: mastermoon on May 19, 2012, 07:39:18 PM
Paul Andersons claim of Bishop II being an advanced android with red blood has to be the worst Idea of a retcon ever.
He also claims the Predators in P1 and P2 were teens. I don't know where he got that idea from either.
What the hell!, Paul Anderson claimed the Predators from parts 1 & 2 were teenagers :laugh:.
Quote from: mastermoon on May 19, 2012, 07:50:54 PM
What the hell!, Paul Anderson claimed the Predators from parts 1 & 2 were teenagers :laugh:.
True story, worst f**king thing I ever heard at the time.
Quote from: mastermoon on May 19, 2012, 07:50:54 PM
What the hell!, Paul Anderson claimed the Predators from parts 1 & 2 were teenagers :laugh:.
wow adolecents really hits them hard aye xD
If anything, Ghost was possibly a young adult. Still learning his jurisdiction of what and who to hunt.
The Jungle Hunter and City Hunter were never teenagers, the solo Predator movies never used that rite of passage Idea to hunt xenomorphs.
Quote from: mastermoon on May 19, 2012, 07:39:18 PM
Paul Andersons claim of Bishop II being an advanced android with red blood has to be the worst Idea of a retcon ever.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki0KCQAC5Wg# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki0KCQAC5Wg#)
Quote from: mastermoon on May 20, 2012, 02:06:00 PM
The Jungle Hunter and City Hunter were never teenagers
Anytime may not be a young Predator, but there's some proof that can indicate that Ghost is a young adult.
Ghost showed skeptical aggression; he discovered that the kid was just holding a toy gun and Leona was indeed pregnant.
This is predator vs ducth I wanted to reply one more time from this topic. The reson I think bishop is an andriod in the 3rd alien movie is this, why would the real bishop show himself finale before ripley dies that to me does not add up. So all the andriods in the films are copies of real people that are too stuck up to show themslves, I was thinking about that today and really guys avp does not have anything in common with any of the movies except that fox wanted to make s spinoff from the movies. The alien movies are set in future and I don't think the alien race was alive in 2004. Like I said before the writers of the alien were the creators of the avp movie they did the screen story for the movie read the credits.
You were wrong before. And still are.
O'Bannon and Shusett got credited on AvP because the Guild ruled that Paul Anderson had used elements of the original Starbeast script (the pyramid). They didn't actually work on the AvP film.
Quote from: austinsteadman on May 21, 2012, 11:20:53 PM
This is predator vs ducth I wanted to reply one more time from this topic. The reson I think bishop is an andriod in the 3rd alien movie is this, why would the real bishop show himself finale before ripley dies that to me does not add up.
For the
exact reason he stated "To show you a friendly face." He thought that he could appeal to Ripley based on what they had gathered of the mission from the Sulaco.
He also, y'know, really wants the alien.
droid ...i cant imagine any of us standing after that kind of shot to the head and even when we barely got our ear
I guess the cries of agony and blood pouring out of his head were for shock value then...
Quote from: szkoki on May 22, 2012, 11:54:10 PM
droid ...i cant imagine any of us standing after that kind of shot to the head and even when we barely got our ear
I daresay that has more to do with your imagination.
Quote from: First Blood on May 22, 2012, 11:56:15 PM
I guess the cries of agony and blood pouring out of his head were for shock value then...
He could of been acting just to make it seem like he was human.
His blood oughta get an Oscar for "acting" red.
Quote from: Sgt. Apone on May 23, 2012, 12:08:05 AM
He could of been acting just to make it seem like he was human.
Why would he have to 'act' in the first place? No one could have forseen Andrews hitting him in the head. If he was a droid his cover would have been blown and the song & dance would have been over. But instead he cries out in pain as the blood is pouring down his head. And let's not forget Purvis' death here from A:R who gets shot multiple times and still charges forward at Wren.
Nevermind that, if he was an android he simply would've used his superior android reflexes and strength to stop Ripley closing the gate in his face AND stopped the telegraphed whack to the head.
But this isn't anything that hasn't been said 7,345 times before...
Quote from: SM on May 23, 2012, 12:21:43 AM
But this isn't anything that hasn't been said 7,345 times before...
Oh god, isn't that the truth. It's almost not worth presenting the evidence most of the time.
Quote from: szkoki on May 22, 2012, 11:54:10 PM
droid ...i cant imagine any of us standing after that kind of shot to the head and even when we barely got our ear
Happens all the time.
A reference to one of the Navy teams in Afghanistan, one of the guys had the front of his head shot off.
He was
still fighting.
You can take licking and keep on ticking. Besides, if the hit to the head was more to the ear, which it seems to have been, it's unlikely that their would be any heavy concussion or anything.
People are still talking about this?! It's a funny world we live in...
Quote from: DoomRulz on May 23, 2012, 08:23:23 PM
People are still talking about this?! It's a funny world we live in...
This debate has really gotten old now, people will continue this in the next 10 years.
It's been going on for 20 years. No matter how often you explain, theorize or give 'facts' there is always someone who won't or doesn't accept one explanation or the other. As Doom said, "It's a funny world we live in..."
No matter what Bishop II in Alien 3 will be human and nothing can change it.
AVP is non-canon these days.
AvP does not say anything onscreen. Fact Anderson once said that Bishop II is an android is completely f**king irrelevant.
Quote from: OmegaZilla on May 24, 2012, 02:40:31 PM
AvP does not say anything onscreen. Fact Anderson once said that Bishop II is an android is completely f**king irrelevant.
You forgot him claiming the Predators from parts 1 & 2 are teenagers :laugh:.
Here is another idea I was thinking about, if avp is a prequel to the alien movies and since peter bishop wayland dies in it , then bishop in aliens and alien 3 are andriods, that are a copy of the person, but then if avp is just a spinoff story then bishop in aliens is the real andriod to bishop then we do see the real man in alien 3. Makes you wounder who the real ash is and david.
Quote from: mastermoon on May 24, 2012, 09:55:53 PM
Quote from: OmegaZilla on May 24, 2012, 02:40:31 PM
AvP does not say anything onscreen. Fact Anderson once said that Bishop II is an android is completely f**king irrelevant.
You forgot him claiming the Predators from parts 1 & 2 are teenagers :laugh:.
His remarks in the BTS stuff actually said those were "teeny tiny predators" and that the ones in AvP were "teenagers ready to become men."
MmmHmm. He thought the predators in the predator movies were basically akin to kids!
Kids?, no just no.
They were not kids, Paul Anderson only said that to make the teen Predators in AVP to appear older.
I think he's an Engineer come to claim his bio weapon back and he's hiding inside of a synthetic Bishop suit which he created with the black goo. ::)
Quote from: Keg on Jun 17, 2012, 09:44:51 PM
I think he's an Engineer come to claim his bio weapon back and he's hiding inside of a synthetic Bishop suit which he created with the black goo. ::)
Why in the hell didn't I think of that?!
Quote from: Keg on Jun 17, 2012, 09:44:51 PM
I think he's an Engineer come to claim his bio weapon back and he's hiding inside of a synthetic Bishop suit which he created with the black goo. ::)
Lol, now let's see how many people take that seriously :D
Quote from: Keg on Jun 17, 2012, 09:44:51 PM
I think he's an Engineer come to claim his bio weapon back and he's hiding inside of a synthetic Bishop suit which he created with the black goo. ::)
This option please!
If Michael Bishop was an android a good whack to the head would knock it clean off. :P
I always thought he was an android. But having seen it again recently I think he was human (or some kind of replicant (?)
He was human
Clone?
...ffs
This is the song that never ends
Yes it goes on and on my frieeends
Some people started signing it not knowing what it was
And they'll continue singing it forever just because
This is the song that never ends
Yes it goes on and on my frieeends
Some people started signing it not knowing what it was
And they'll continue singing it forever just because
This is the song that never ends
Yes it goes on and on my frieeends
Some people started signing it not knowing what it was
And they'll continue singing it forever just because
This is the song that never ends
Yes it goes on and on my frieeends
Some people started signing it not knowing what it was
And they'll continue singing it forever just because
I quite like the black goo theory ;)
Keep going strong! (this thread)
Quote from: SiL on Aug 18, 2012, 06:43:27 AM
This is the song that never ends
Yes it goes on and on my frieeends
Some people started signing it not knowing what it was
And they'll continue singing it forever just because
This is the song that never ends
Yes it goes on and on my frieeends
Some people started signing it not knowing what it was
And they'll continue singing it forever just because
This is the song that never ends
Yes it goes on and on my frieeends
Some people started signing it not knowing what it was
And they'll continue singing it forever just because
This is the song that never ends
Yes it goes on and on my frieeends
Some people started signing it not knowing what it was
And they'll continue singing it forever just because
ARG!!! What was the name of the kids show where that song originated?! I used to watch it all the time.
Lamb Chop?
That show was so damn awesome.
I think Bishop is an Human in Alien 3.
I vote human. Just because its more interesting and the fact that all Bishop droids were made to look like the long dead founder of Weyland corp just doesn't make much sense. Especially now with Prometheus.
Human. Listen to the audio commentary on the DVD. Gillis, Woodruff and Henriksen all say he's human.
Quote from: RaisingCane on Sep 11, 2012, 02:44:37 AM
Human. Listen to the audio commentary on the DVD. Gillis, Woodruff and Henriksen all say he's human.
Thats may be the case, but personally I prefer the idea that he is an andriod. We know he was lying to Ripley about helping Ripley kill the Alien, so I'm not inclined to believe that his claims of being human are ture. (even thogh in the assembly cut they are). Plus it adds another sinester element to the company. That they have been trying to gain immortality in some way ot another.
His claims are irrelevant if he's shown and was written to be human.
Quote from: cloverfan98 on Oct 04, 2012, 02:56:09 AM
That they have been trying to gain immortality in some way ot another.
I don't think that immortality was a goal of the company as a whole. that was more just part of Peter's personal expedition. In the
Alien films, they are more interested in using it as a bioweapon.
And I personally think that Weyland Yutani can come off as plenty sinister with
Alien 3's Bishop being a human. In fact, that may be even more sinister, having another human being lying right to your face after all you've been through, hoping to control a force that he could never even begin to understand.
Quote from: Nightmare Asylum on Oct 04, 2012, 03:11:41 AM
Quote from: cloverfan98 on Oct 04, 2012, 02:56:09 AM
That they have been trying to gain immortality in some way ot another.
I don't think that immortality was a goal of the company as a whole. that was more just part of Peter's personal expedition. In the Alien films, they are more interested in using it as a bioweapon.
And I personally think that Weyland Yutani can come off as plenty sinister with Alien 3's Bishop being a human. In fact, that may be even more sinister, having another human being lying right to your face after all you've been through, hoping to control a force that he could never even begin to understand.
Not THE main goal. But a potentially profitable one. We know they wanted the Alien for their weapons development and that wouldn't help at all with gaining imortality. These are just some thoughts I had. (before Prometheus came out)/
Quote from: cloverfan98 on Oct 04, 2012, 02:56:09 AM
Quote from: RaisingCane on Sep 11, 2012, 02:44:37 AM
Human. Listen to the audio commentary on the DVD. Gillis, Woodruff and Henriksen all say he's human.
Thats may be the case, but personally I prefer the idea that he is an andriod. We know he was lying to Ripley about helping Ripley kill the Alien, so I'm not inclined to believe that his claims of being human are ture. (even thogh in the assembly cut they are). Plus it adds another sinester element to the company. That they have been trying to gain immortality in some way ot another.
Are you honestly saying the
film's crew are wrong in this case?
Quote from: DoomRulz on Oct 04, 2012, 12:35:03 PM
Quote from: cloverfan98 on Oct 04, 2012, 02:56:09 AM
Quote from: RaisingCane on Sep 11, 2012, 02:44:37 AM
Human. Listen to the audio commentary on the DVD. Gillis, Woodruff and Henriksen all say he's human.
Thats may be the case, but personally I prefer the idea that he is an andriod. We know he was lying to Ripley about helping Ripley kill the Alien, so I'm not inclined to believe that his claims of being human are ture. (even thogh in the assembly cut they are). Plus it adds another sinester element to the company. That they have been trying to gain immortality in some way ot another.
No I'm saying what I like to think. What I prefer. I know thats not the case, that the film makers have said he is human. I've seen the Assembly cut. I KNOW he's human. I just liked to think he wasn't. What I think or want dosen't change the film makers intentions at all.
Are you honestly saying the film's crew are wrong in this case?
No I'm saying what I like to think. What I prefer. I know thats not the case, that the film makers have said he is human. I've seen the Assembly cut. I KNOW he's human. I just liked to think he wasn't. What I think or want dosen't change the film makers intentions at all.
Pretty obvious human.As far as him not reacting the pain,he was obsessed with getting the embryo and put everything else on 2nd place.
i have to say android. i was re-watching my alien 3 bluray(the vastly superior assembly cut) the other day and noticed a sizable chunk his head was hanging off(granted my tv is only 37" and it looked very much that the skin from where 85 struck him to his ear was drooping, think there's a pic of a makeup test somewhere in this thread) and if he was a normal human he'd most likely be in shock from pain or loss of blood.
He's definitely meant to be a human... as portrayed by the movie's intents and purposes, but his showing up so far off into the future completely throws out the door any other piece of literature or chronology after the movie's release (or even before, I gotta check). The question comes down to which "chronology" you want to respect? If you choose to accept AvP and AvP:R as part of the rest of the story you'd have to exclude Alien3's "Weyland". If you choose to accept Alien3's Weyland as human then AvP & R go out the window...
I personally would like to advance that somehow he's a clone of Weyland or maybe a really good lookalike great great great grandson... or something...
I really would've liked if directors spent some time to try and respect a chronology and read all on the subject like comics, novels, etc.
Not just have random locations or times... like AvP's pyramid is in the Antarctic and Predators like the heat... what are they doing there... like directors or writers have no respect for the vast literature and movies before their own creations...
Basically he's human and Paul Anderson is douchy douche for placing Predators in the Antarctic, leading us to believe Alien3 Weyland is an android and just plain butchering a possibility to make a better AvP movie... He could've picked any of the comics to adapt to the screen but noooo, he had to make his own crappy tale. On the "Making of..." documentary he said that's what he dreamt of making since seeing the original Alien movie when he was a kid. That was so insulting. :(
He's not supposed to be Weyland in Alien 3. Problem solved.
Quote from: cloverfan98 on Oct 04, 2012, 02:56:09 AM
Quote from: RaisingCane on Sep 11, 2012, 02:44:37 AM
Human. Listen to the audio commentary on the DVD. Gillis, Woodruff and Henriksen all say he's human.
Thats may be the case, but personally I prefer the idea that he is an andriod. We know he was lying to Ripley about helping Ripley kill the Alien, so I'm not inclined to believe that his claims of being human are ture. (even thogh in the assembly cut they are). Plus it adds another sinester element to the company. That they have been trying to gain immortality in some way ot another.
Im with you on this one. Either way, the movie did a very poor job inclining that hes human, I needed the filmmaker and the noveization to tell me he was. In the credits hes called Bishop II, as oppose to Bishop's Designer. having piece of his face hanging off and almost completely brushing off a hit to the head with a pipe aside, it seems weird to me that the med team didnt even give such supposed hot shot designer ANY sort of concern or medical attention. And yes, a person hit with a metal pipe in the head so hard that side of his face looks like terminator's should be knocked out cold.
Red blood means nothing at all. It was obvious that Ripley wuld first think hes another android since he looks like Bishop, they would then surely anticipate Ripley asking for some proof and the easiest way to recognize a synthetic is by white blood. I aso dont see how saying that hes human proves anything, or that him feeling occasional pain says anything. Bishop felt it too
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fjamescamerononline.com%2Fbishoppain.png&hash=ae555cd0f5eb83ee78d3ac18c4785425a06aed2b)
QuoteRed blood means nothing at all.
Except that it clearly does.
Quote from: StrangeShape on Jan 25, 2013, 07:35:07 PM
Im with you on this one. Either way, the movie did a very poor job inclining that hes human, I needed the filmmaker and the noveization to tell me he was. In the credits hes called Bishop II, as oppose to Bishop's Designer. having piece of his face hanging off and almost completely brushing off a hit to the head with a pipe aside, it seems weird to me that the med team didnt even give such supposed hot shot designer ANY sort of concern or medical attention. And yes, a person hit with a metal pipe in the head so hard that side of his face looks like terminator's should be knocked out cold.
He didn't get half of his face knocked off. His ear was torn loose by the swing. It's a common injury, it hurts like a bitch, but it will NOT knock you out.
Bishop at the end of Alien 3 was not intended to be a droid. Ever. He's a human being. He's the ultimate "face" for the company.
Quote from: StrangeShape on Jan 25, 2013, 07:35:07 PM
Red blood means nothing at all.
Not even the "more human" model had red blood. No android has ever been given red blood in the movies. Ever.
Not to mention his agonized plea in the assembly cut "I'M NOT A DROID!"
Quote from: StrangeShape on Jan 25, 2013, 07:35:07 PM
pain
http://jamescamerononline.com/bishoppain.png
Did he? I always took his reaction to having an alien tearing him in half to be more about surprise/shock than pain. After all, he's fine enough to crack freaking jokes after the queen is gone.
We're still discussing this? Wow.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jan 28, 2013, 03:33:08 AM
We're still discussing this? Wow.
I know. But hey at least I can make a game out of it ;D Bishop in Alien 3 is H _ _ _ _
Quote from: Terx2 on Jan 28, 2013, 04:47:55 AM
I know. But hey at least I can make a game out of it ;D Bishop in Alien 3 is H _ _ _ _
HITLER. >:(
Oooh! One letter too long! What rotten luck!
Happy?
But I want to see him with a tiny little moustache and swastika inflatable armband... :(
Hairy?
I knew his extensive filmography wouldn't let us down...
Spoiler
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.liveforfilms.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F08%2Fnazi_dawn_2d_med.jpg&hash=634fb4f7aa8c4589284614885e8e8568b0a9fb29)
'Gary Stretch'?
Handy? Harsh?
Hippo?
Hydra?
Spoiler
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wallz.eu%2Fphoto%2F530782.jpg&hash=25d6bc695aeb19b47edc242ed16ecaca63682053)
Quote from: Crazy Rich on Jan 29, 2013, 06:36:55 AM
Handy? Harsh?
Hippo?
Hydra?
Spoiler
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wallz.eu%2Fphoto%2F530782.jpg&hash=25d6bc695aeb19b47edc242ed16ecaca63682053)
Hail Hydra! But no that answer was H u m a n. Human! His human! His not a droid.
I'll watch anything with Henriksen in it.
Quote from: OpenMaw on Jan 28, 2013, 01:17:47 AM
He didn't get half of his face knocked off.
I never said it did. I said "person hit with a metal pipe in the head so hard that side of his face looks like terminator's". And its not just the ear. The ear hangs off but its also a piece of his face hanging off as well.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa277%2Flovegunner%2FAVP%2Fear_zps1fd04807.jpg&hash=a7d778c0ca52cb25590bf3a08e6409d2755eef7f)
QuoteHis ear was torn loose by the swing. It's a common injury, it hurts like a bitch, but it will NOT knock you out.
With the exception that he gets hit in the side of his head
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-x6Ux0oqeBrk%2FT4BcKxAfeQI%2FAAAAAAAABB4%2FGS0d-fFkBBM%2Fs1600%2Falien%2B3%2BLance_Henriksen.jpg&hash=8912760340652df2ee902c8ec38c14dc10723348)
And again, its amazing nobody gave a shit about him being hurt
QuoteBishop at the end of Alien 3 was not intended to be a droid. Ever. He's a human being.
As I said, "the movie did a very poor job inclining that hes human, I needed the filmmaker and the noveization to tell me he was". Im not saying he isnt
QuoteNot even the "more human" model had red blood. No android has ever been given red blood in the movies. Ever.
Because no other android had a task of convincing someone that hes not one. And again, as I said, "It was obvious that Ripley wuld first think hes another android since he looks like Bishop, they would then surely anticipate Ripley asking for some proof and the easiest way to recognize a synthetic is by white blood."
QuoteNot to mention his agonized plea in the assembly cut "I'M NOT A DROID!"
Just because he says so it proves anything? Lol
QuoteI always took his reaction to having an alien tearing him in half to be more about surprise/shock than pain.
Definitely not. THIS is shock
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa277%2Flovegunner%2FAVP%2Fbishshock_zps0a24c042.jpg&hash=73e31588fd14bb07e33255e7001e544452d06494)
THIS is pain and agony
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa277%2Flovegunner%2FAVP%2Fbish1_zps56e7ff31.jpg&hash=2698a7c702b8181a215942faade2552e33299697)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa277%2Flovegunner%2FAVP%2Fbish2_zpsc51d7f68.jpg&hash=e852d019001d10cb334b4309dbab3a29745f7faa)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa277%2Flovegunner%2FAVP%2Fbish3_zps973ac0fa.jpg&hash=02611eda949e7010a7aa08224f1e2a7ed17a3bcb)
QuoteWith the exception that he gets hit in the side of his head
This is churching it up a bit.
As shown in the attack and injury, his shoulder takes most of the force of the blow, and the head injury is a glancing blow (for lack of a better word).
If he's a robot where the robot strength and reflexes to stop Ripley closing the gate in his face or dodge the guy with the wrench telegraphing his attack?
I've had my head cracked open when I was about 12 by a rock and got needles and stiches in my head, blood all over my face. I reacted more similarly to Alien 3 Bishop than to Aliens Bishop.
Quote from: SM on Jan 30, 2013, 10:34:14 PM
QuoteWith the exception that he gets hit in the side of his head
This is churching it up a bit.
As shown in the attack and injury, his shoulder takes most of the force of the blow, and the head injury is a glancing blow (for lack of a better word).
We dont see it well, but the tool stops on his head from what I see, plus as the injury shows, the pipe mustve hit him in the back of his head to tear out a considerable amount of skin
QuoteIf he's a robot where the robot strength and reflexes to stop Ripley closing the gate in his face or dodge the guy with the wrench telegraphing his attack?
Ash havent dodged Parker's hits either
Ash was actively malfunctioning at the time. Not the best example.
Plus Parker wasn't shouting "f**kING ANDROID!!" while Ash was just standing there doing not very much.
Quotethe pipe mustve hit him in the back of his head to tear out a considerable amount of skin
If it hit the back of his head, the wound would be on the back of his head. It obviously isn't.
Quote from: SM on Jan 31, 2013, 12:56:14 AM
Plus Parker wasn't shouting "f**kING ANDROID!!" while Ash was just standing there doing not very much.
Quotethe pipe mustve hit him in the back of his head to tear out a considerable amount of skin
If it hit the back of his head, the wound would be on the back of his head. It obviously isn't.
Not the center back, but left back side. If he was hit in the ear or only brushed on the side, ear would be torn off and bleeding or the side of his face, skin wouldnt be hanging off from so far back
The wound is consistent with the attack. Don't see an issue.
Point is, he got his in the head and it barely affected him and it ripped part of his flesh off
And has been shown in real life examples strewn across the last 205 pages - this isn't anything uncommon.
Perhaps. But sends mixed signals and confusion about true identity of "Bishop II"
Also as the last 205 pages has shown...
But when one is confused, then one should look for answers. The answers are easy to find and quite explicit.
He was human in every single script and draft. He even died in a few. Bloody ear was sloppy FX...and AVP was retconned...yadayadayada etc. and such. No argument really.
What was sloppy about the effects?
Quote from: SM on Jan 31, 2013, 01:31:35 AM
Also as the last 205 pages has shown...
But when one is confused, then one should look for answers. The answers are easy to find and quite explicit.
But the TC made me think he was a droid for years. Yes, there are answers there, like script or novelization, but the movie itself at first convinced me hes a droid. From Lance's sinister performance through the point I pointed out like nobody from med team caring for him being hit to him withstanding a blow to the head, it all seemed rather clear in favor of him being a droid. The credits showing "Bishop II" underlined that thesis
I don't ever recall thinking he was a robot. Probably because I read the novelisation around the same time as the film came out. But even then, with all the changes from novel to film, it still never crossed my mind.
Quote from: SM on Jan 31, 2013, 02:45:26 AM
I don't ever recall thinking he was a robot. Probably because I read the novelisation around the same time as the film came out. But even then, with all the changes from novel to film, it still never crossed my mind.
But as you said, you were in a very different position cause you read the novel. I only had the movie to go by for quite some time, and didnt really started digging into outside material untill Alien DC came out
The movie showed me a dude with red blood screaming "I'm not a droid!"
Nine year old me was thoroughly convinced that the man was telling the truth, what with every droid up until that point bleeding white blood and being made out of pasta.
Even being told by the novel that he was human, it never occurred to me that 'A man shouldn't be able withstand such an attack'.
It does make me wonder, those who have a hard time understanding the type of wound Bishop had there, that they must not have dealt with much in the way of physical injury. People can take quite a bit of abuse without "passing out."
There was a guy who cut his own arm off to escape a bolder. Didn't faint. There was a story of a man in the middle east, at the epicenter of a malfunctioned IED (Premature explosion) he took a really bad hit, but he was able to get up and walk away from the situation.
Or, if you want to get really nasty and graphic. Go look up victims who have been hit with a shotgun blast to the face. They're very much awake and aware, with most of their face gone.
Having a wrench bash your shoulder and then cut your ear into a dangling bit of flesh is not that crazy or out there. Painful? Oh, no doubt... BUt you could survive it, be conscious.
Quote from: SiL on Jan 31, 2013, 03:04:48 AM
The movie showed me a dude with red blood screaming "I'm not a droid!"
Anyone can tell a lie. Just because Burke said that hes just going to wipe aliens out didnt mean he was telling the truth. As far as blood, as I said, I think that would be the first thing that WY would think of when sending someone who would built suspicion in Ripley right away
To this day, I honestly still think it's best that everyone just agree to disagree over this issue.
Intended to be interpreted as a human? Yeah. Likely human? Yeah. Enough wriggle room for a future writer to retroactively play the character off as some different type of droid? Also, yeah (and, ultimately, was). Especially if white fluids had been declared purely a legal necessity to prevent emergency services wasting resources on 'injured humans' in things like traffic incidents.
Bishop 2 was probably a human, but if someone prefers to think otherwise, there's never going to be 100% over-riding proof in the opposite direction. Ever.
Now, let's spend our time on a far more cerebral and worthy mystery, like whether facehuggers dream...
QuoteJust because Burke said that hes just going to wipe aliens out didnt mean he was telling the truth.
I think he was telling the truth at the time.
Quote from: OpenMaw on Jan 31, 2013, 03:37:17 AM
It does make me wonder, those who have a hard time understanding the type of wound Bishop had there, that they must not have dealt with much in the way of physical injury. People can take quite a bit of abuse without "passing out."
There was a guy who cut his own arm off to escape a bolder. Didn't faint. There was a story of a man in the middle east, at the epicenter of a malfunctioned IED (Premature explosion) he took a really bad hit, but he was able to get up and walk away from the situation.
Or, if you want to get really nasty and graphic. Go look up victims who have been hit with a shotgun blast to the face. They're very much awake and aware, with most of their face gone.
Having a wrench bash your shoulder and then cut your ear into a dangling bit of flesh is not that crazy or out there. Painful? Oh, no doubt... BUt you could survive it, be conscious.
Again , its possible,. But in a movie which isnt that clear on wheter the person is real or not, such exceptional or amazing invulnerability wont work in favor of convincing the audience that the guy is human
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Jan 31, 2013, 03:46:52 AM
To this day, I honestly still think it's best that everyone just agree to disagree over this issue.
I crave consensus.
Quote from: SM on Jan 31, 2013, 03:50:33 AM
QuoteJust because Burke said that hes just going to wipe aliens out didnt mean he was telling the truth.
I think he was telling the truth at the time.
I dont. By then he had already sent the colonist to check out the vehicle. He saw the profit once he heard Ripleys story and decided to act on it
I don't believe he was seeing dollar signs just yet. It wasn't till they got their and he saw the true potential.
Quote from: StrangeShape on Jan 31, 2013, 03:50:53 AM
Again , its possible,. But in a movie which isnt that clear on wheter the person is real or not, such exceptional or amazing invulnerability wont work in favor of convincing the audience that the guy is human
That's my point to you, it isn't exception or amazing. It happens all the time! Your outer ear isn't a vital organ.
Quote from: StrangeShape on Jan 31, 2013, 03:44:47 AM
Anyone can tell a lie.
Cool.
Movie gives me no reason to believe he's lying, but. Conspiracies over him being a modified android only arise when one chooses to believe he
is an android in the first place.
Occam's razor; fewest assumptions are best. To say he's an android assumes a great deal, to say he's human assumes nothing.
The blood issue always raises 'Oh well they just changed the colour (just in case he gets whacked in the head and bleeds)'. Apropos of nothing, and flying in the face of the fact that the white blood is the big giveaway that someone's a robot, and the tables are turned here, when one character thinks this is a robot - and isn't. Wonder why that would be....
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic2.fjcdn.com%2Fcomments%2Fififeellikeit%2Brolls%2B8%2Bi%2Bwill%2Bflip%2Ba%2Bcoin%2B_2da06636ffe1f7f65fb3d6e015ff8b00.jpg&hash=c8e45a10827a66472df69a1893cebcd95941e6bd)
How about we flip a coin.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com.au%2Furl%3Fsource%3Dimglanding%26amp%3Bct%3Dimg%26amp%3Bq%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fimages.wikia.com%2Fvampirediaries%2Fimages%2Fe%2Fe2%2FHow-about-no-bear.jpg%26amp%3Bsa%3DX%26amp%3Bei%3Dhu0JUYr_KInkkQXf74GIDQ%26amp%3Bved%3D0CAkQ8wc%26amp%3Busg%3DAFQjCNEyaHr2HdASG3K4CWKh_RuTsxtEkw&hash=5ceecf34885e5227296a2731a41da41994a4c226)
Quote from: OpenMaw on Jan 31, 2013, 03:57:09 AM
Quote from: StrangeShape on Jan 31, 2013, 03:50:53 AM
Again , its possible,. But in a movie which isnt that clear on wheter the person is real or not, such exceptional or amazing invulnerability wont work in favor of convincing the audience that the guy is human
That's my point to you, it isn't exception or amazing. It happens all the time! Your outer ear isn't a vital organ.
But he wasnt hit in the ear. He was hit in the head behind it. He took a damage that tor off flesh off his head
with the ear
Quote from: SiL on Jan 31, 2013, 04:00:36 AM
Quote from: StrangeShape on Jan 31, 2013, 03:44:47 AM
Anyone can tell a lie.
Cool.
Movie gives me no reason to believe he's lying, but. Conspiracies over him being a modified android only arise when one chooses to believe he is an android in the first place.
Occam's razor; fewest assumptions are best. To say he's an android assumes a great deal, to say he's human assumes nothing.
But right away I thought the blood wont be determining factor. What if shed ask him to cut his finger? It was a very important mission and trust was crucial. Coloring blood in such case is no hassle at all, especially since its the most obvious giveaway
Quote from: StrangeShape on Jan 31, 2013, 04:06:47 AM
But right away I thought the blood wont be determining factor. What if shed ask him to cut his finger? It was a very important mission and trust was crucial. Coloring blood in such case is no hassle at all, especially since its the most obvious giveaway
Like I said, assumptions ago-go.
Thing is - Ripley trusted the Bishop android. Last human representing WY she had much to do with tried to kill her.
Also Bishop was third lawed and all that. Humans aren't.
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Jan 31, 2013, 03:46:52 AM
To this day, I honestly still think it's best that everyone just agree to disagree over this issue.
Intended to be interpreted as a human? Yeah. Likely human? Yeah. Enough wriggle room for a future writer to retroactively play the character off as some different type of droid? Also, yeah (and, ultimately, was). Especially if white fluids had been declared purely a legal necessity to prevent emergency services wasting resources on 'injured humans' in things like traffic incidents.
Bishop 2 was probably a human, but if someone prefers to think otherwise, there's never going to be 100% over-riding proof in the opposite direction. Ever.
Now, let's spend our time on a far more cerebral and worthy mystery, like whether facehuggers dream...
Why would the android have red blood? Just to fool Ridley?
For the last time,
the freaking filmmakers have said that he was human. Why are we still discussing this?
Quote from: SM on Jan 31, 2013, 05:11:08 AM
Thing is - Ripley trusted the Bishop android. Last human representing WY she had much to do with tried to kill her.
The whole thing is tricky. For example, how did WY know that Ripley can friendly with Bishop
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jan 31, 2013, 05:29:50 AM
Why would the android have red blood? Just to fool Ridley?
Yes. EVERYTHING depended on Ripley believing him or not. If shed ask him to cut his finger, everything is lost. If he had red blood, she mightve consider it, and she did. Although at the end decided not to give in
Except you didn't read the last part of my post that you quoted.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jan 31, 2013, 05:51:34 AM
Except you didn't read the last part of my post that you quoted.
Because as I said 3 times, I know hes human. Im just saying that point isnt conveyed clearly in the movie and there are things that led many to believe the opposite
But, if the official word...
Ah nevermind.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jan 31, 2013, 06:04:17 AM
But, if the official word...
Ah nevermind.
I know, but what if back in the days someone didnt have access to outside material, and only had end credits and whats on screen to go by with
We're talking about the present day now though.
Bishop to Michael Bishop...
"Not bad, for a human."
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jan 31, 2013, 05:29:50 AM
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Jan 31, 2013, 03:46:52 AM
To this day, I honestly still think it's best that everyone just agree to disagree over this issue.
Intended to be interpreted as a human? Yeah. Likely human? Yeah. Enough wriggle room for a future writer to retroactively play the character off as some different type of droid? Also, yeah (and, ultimately, was). Especially if white fluids had been declared purely a legal necessity to prevent emergency services wasting resources on 'injured humans' in things like traffic incidents.
Bishop 2 was probably a human, but if someone prefers to think otherwise, there's never going to be 100% over-riding proof in the opposite direction. Ever.
Now, let's spend our time on a far more cerebral and worthy mystery, like whether facehuggers dream...
Why would the android have red blood? Just to fool Ridley?
Ripley, but... I can see Ridley being confused, as well. ;)
As per what I wrote in this very thread, I think, months, if not years ago, I speculated the following:
1: Whether or not white fluid was originally necessary for synthetics, it's easily conceivable that it's either illegal (or just plain common sense) not to colour it red, in case of things like traffic accidents. If one's been incapacitated and can't speak, emergency services are going to waste precious time and resources on them, when they could be helping legitimate human victims.
2: Bishop 2,
if a synthetic (which is what this theory relies on, after all), would be made the way it is, specifically for infiltration purposes. After all, can you seriously imagine a technology like that
not being modified for that purpose?
Especially with companies like Weyland-Yutani, who must, at the very least, be indulging in industrial espionage - just as their competitors are. Obviously, synthetics like that must
exist. We're simply debating whether or not Bishop 2 happened to be numbered amongst them. And, needless to say, special infiltration/advanced models are what Weyland-Yutani would favour for its more notorious activities, by default.
3: It actually makes more sense for them to send along a synthetic to be in charge of the mission (for all we know,
all the personnel sent over could have been synthetics). Firstly, because there'd be total loyalty to the mission above all else. Secondly, because there'd be no possibility of the details leaking out, since memory would simply be an erasable resource. Thirdly, because... Why would someone whose speciality is in that of synthetics and robotics, be even employed in their biological weapons division - much less in charge of some part of it? It's not unreasonable that he
might have
also been a biological weapons specialist, but... He's turning into a bit too much of a walking plot device if he's responsible for the Bishop model of synthetics
and happens to be a leading expert in a completely different field, too, in my personal opinion - this is actually the reason I first became sceptical of his being a human, when first watching the film.
Ergo, if Bishop 2 was a synthetic, it wouldn't be custom-made for Ripley. It'd simply be a logical choice to send along for the mission, with the added
bonus of being able to play on her sympathies.
Again, though. I'm not saying Bishop 2
was a synthetic. In the same way as I'm not saying Bishop 2 was a human, either, mind you. Just that it's possible and there's a plausible logic behind it. The production team behind the movie clearly favoured that the character was a human, but I don't see why that should paint a future creative effort into that corner.
Was Bishop 2 human? Probably. If I had to bet money, I'd lay it down on that option. But
could they have been synthetic? Possibly.
QuoteFor the last time, the freaking filmmakers have said that he was human. Why are we still discussing this?
Because that's not canon. The only reason there's ever
been a debate is because what's on screen can be interpreted as ambiguous, when - it must be stressed - given the company's history. And, of course, as has
also, been said, the 'Bishop 2' credit.
After all, if we're accepting 'outside sources', we also have to accept those involved with Anderson's effort, which attempted to canonise Bishop 2 as a synthetic. Both have just as much legitimacy as one another, in terms of future stories.
Within the context of Alien 3 (and everything we know about artificial people from Alien, and Aliens) it's safe to assume Bishop II (Not a canon name because credits aren't canon?) is human.
Red blood. Reacting to pain. Very emotional.
Sure you can invent all sorts of excuses as to why the blood is red, or to what lengths the company went through to specifically 'trick Ripley.' If the film makers went through the trouble to inflict a red blooded injury to a character who 'could have been a robot' and didn't bother trying to rationalize it ... you must take it for what it is. He is human.
There is no ambiguity. The series by this point has established its shorthand; androids bleed white, humans bleed red. Every single android has been revealed by a shot of white blood with the exception of David in Prometheus, and every one except Call has had their voice distorted by suffering an injury.
Within the series' conventions, red blood means human. There is nothing in the film to suggest this isn't the case here. If they'd wanted to shoe he was lying, they would've given him white blood. Or had his voice sound electronic. Or any of the other established conventions for showing a character is actually an android that every other film adheres to.
To say there is ambiguity in Bishop 2's portrayal is to say there's ambiguity as to the true nature of every character in the series; if we're allowed to support our arguments with baseless supposition, opinions, and increasingly vague and tenuous probabilities, then these same arguments can be applied to literally any other character we see.
There's only still an argument because some people can't wrap their heads around two people looking similar and blows to the head not always being the one-hit KO they're presented as in most movies.
And like I've said, yes, the film-makers' intention was that the character was meant to be human, but declaring it's impossible that a model of synthetic can have the simple addition of red fluids, runs against common sense. :)
They would exist. Especially by that time. It's just a matter of whether the individual viewer wants to believe it's still a synthetic, that's all. If a future film declares that (just as Anderson's film did), I've honestly got no problem with it.
And like I've also said, if we play Devil's Advocate and say, for the sake of argument, that the character was a synthetic, I don't believe it would have been sent for Ripley's sake. More like a simple common sense decision of what would make the best team leader. Her previous experience with them would have just been coincidence (and a highly likely one, judging by how widespread synthetics are suggested as being in 'Aliens').
Bishop 2: Human? Very probably. Synthetic? Not impossible - and that's all a future story requires.
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Feb 03, 2013, 01:16:38 AM
but declaring it's impossible that a model of synthetic can have the simple addition of red fluids, runs against common sense. :)
The entire "He might be an android" argument goes against common sense, why draw the line there? :)
Sure, it's not
impossible. But if we put any sort of serious consideration into it, we must put equal consideration into Hudson being a special synth, because there's just as much evidence. :)
Quote from: SiL on Feb 03, 2013, 04:39:14 AM
We must put equal consideration into Hudson being a special synth, because there's just as much evidence. :)
Well, Hudson didn't seem to suffer any lasting pain from the acid burn...
Spoiler
...And so it begins! :D
And there was someone who looked exactly like him alive in 1997. And we never saw him die -- it's entirely possible that if any Alien tore at him we would've seen the pasta and glass balls.
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Feb 02, 2013, 04:28:56 AM
After all, if we're accepting 'outside sources', we also have to accept those involved with Anderson's effort, which attempted to canonise Bishop 2 as a synthetic. Both have just as much legitimacy as one another, in terms of future stories.
Could you elaborate on this? I don't quite understand what you mean.
Anderson believes Bishop 2 is an android and cast Lance Henrikson as Weyland to show this.
I wouldn't go for that as I personally see the AvP films as canon unto themselves.
The damaged Bishop in Alien 3 bleeds white, Bishop 2 bleeds red blood, in the Assembly Cut he sreams he is not a droid and reacts to pain
He is not an android!!!
Wasn't Bishop supposed to be made in Weyland's image?? In Prometheus, Weyland was near death. Alien 3 Bishop has to be synthetic...
QuoteWasn't Bishop supposed to be made in Weyland's image??
No.
Quote from: The Hive Mind on Mar 05, 2013, 08:15:35 PM
Wasn't Bishop supposed to be made in Weyland's image?? In Prometheus, Weyland was near death. Alien 3 Bishop has to be synthetic...
What gave you that impression? There were multiple Weylands, not just the one in Prometheus.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 06, 2013, 03:55:27 AM
Quote from: The Hive Mind on Mar 05, 2013, 08:15:35 PM
Wasn't Bishop supposed to be made in Weyland's image?? In Prometheus, Weyland was near death. Alien 3 Bishop has to be synthetic...
What gave you that impression? There were multiple Weylands, not just the one in Prometheus.
Sorry, shoulda done my research. But i still think the Bishop in A3 in a synthetic.
Quote from: The Hive Mind on Mar 06, 2013, 03:16:53 PM
Sorry, shoulda done my research. But i still think the Bishop in A3 in a synthetic.
Well. It goes against every intention of everyone involved with Alien 3. Script, art, actor, director, and writers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYeoyC0QV1w#noexternalembed-ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYeoyC0QV1w#noexternalembed-ws)
As someone who was on the other side for many years, the main sticking point was always the injury and the make-up. It always looked far too severe for any human to cope with and be able to carry on a conversation. It's a bleeding head wound caused by a swung pipe which would concievably kill or at least knock out most people. And since he was still standing and talking, ergo, he wasn't human.
Personally, if my intention was to show the character was human, I would have toned down the make-up and not had his head bleeding with his ear practically hanging off ;D
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com.au%2Furl%3Fsource%3Dimglanding%26amp%3Bct%3Dimg%26amp%3Bq%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fi.huffpost.com%2Fgen%2F289988%2FGABRIELLE-GIFFORDS-PHOTO.jpg%26amp%3Bsa%3DX%26amp%3Bei%3D2Mo3UZTaGYPKkgXCoIGACA%26amp%3Bved%3D0CAoQ8wc%26amp%3Busg%3DAFQjCNEVik6KmWCFohABq2gDifqm42zcUA&hash=9388739f6a5b3ffd786891d59e3ce5793e857d85)
o hai
i iz robot lol
Quote from: redxavier on Mar 06, 2013, 08:45:09 PM
As someone who was on the other side for many years, the main sticking point was always the injury and the make-up. It always looked far too severe for any human to cope with and be able to carry on a conversation. It's a bleeding head wound caused by a swung pipe which would concievably kill or at least knock out most people. And since he was still standing and talking, ergo, he wasn't human.
Personally, if my intention was to show the character was human, I would have toned down the make-up and not had his head bleeding with his ear practically hanging off ;D
The hanging ear prosthetic was something they almost literally pulled out of their arse at the last moment (it's a Jack Nicholson prop from Batman.) In their rush I guess they overdid it, but the gore in the third film really was... bigger and blacker and squelchier than what we've seen before.
Quote from: OpenMaw on Mar 06, 2013, 04:26:58 PM
Quote from: The Hive Mind on Mar 06, 2013, 03:16:53 PM
Sorry, shoulda done my research. But i still think the Bishop in A3 in a synthetic.
Well. It goes against every intention of everyone involved with Alien 3. Script, art, actor, director, and writers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYeoyC0QV1w#noexternalembed-ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYeoyC0QV1w#noexternalembed-ws)
Plug plug plug plug
http://alienseries.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/debate-bishop-ii-man-or-machine/ (http://alienseries.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/debate-bishop-ii-man-or-machine/)
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 07, 2013, 12:46:41 AM
Plug plug plug plug
http://alienseries.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/debate-bishop-ii-man-or-machine/ (http://alienseries.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/debate-bishop-ii-man-or-machine/)
The comment by mal seems so random, lol.
Quote"When Lance gets hit in the head with this lead pipe, we had an appliance which showed his ear had become dislodged, as Fincher wanted to show that this is the real guy, and not a synthetic person."
~ Tom Woodruff, Alien 3 commentary, 2003.
And there still fans who deliberately ignore this...
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 07, 2013, 12:46:41 AM
http://alienseries.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/debate-bishop-ii-man-or-machine/ (http://alienseries.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/debate-bishop-ii-man-or-machine/)
A very good read. :)
The filmmakers officially intended for him to be human in Alien 3.
The filmmakers officially 'retconned' this for AvP to make him out to be an android in Alien 3.
/thread
That wasn't in AvP.
AvP retconned Hudson into an android, too.
Them saying he was an android in Alien3.
They suggested he was and confirmed that in interviews. If Fox had a problem with it, they wouldn't have allowed it. It doesn't change him from originally intending to be a human in Alien 3.
The film says nowt though.
And history shows Fox cares little for what they allow.
Film says some guy looks like some other guy hundreds of years later. That must mean one of them's an android!
Quote from: SM on Mar 07, 2013, 11:03:47 PM
The film says nowt though.
And history shows Fox cares little for what they allow.
I don't disagree Fox has little care about how the franchise is handled, but hey....
Quote from: Cellien on Mar 07, 2013, 10:57:37 PM
They suggested he was and confirmed that in interviews. If Fox had a problem with it, they wouldn't have allowed it. It doesn't change him from originally intending to be a human in Alien 3.
And this is why I, and other fans, keep the AvP films in a separate continuity. It was once explained to me that Fox wants to make all A/P-related media fit into one general timeline which is bollocks. That means there are what, three versions of Aliens, two versions of Alien 3, Aliens came to Earth prior to Alien: Resurrection...yeesh.
As a fan, I completely agree with those sentiments.
It would be weird that hundred years later the company built the "perfect robot" aka Call which would be inferior to a prior model to mimic Humans.
But that's only if A:R is to be considered to the timeline.
Your choice.
Doesn't A:CM confirm that the Michael Bishop in Alien 3 was human?
The guy in A:CM is called Michael Weyland. Go figure.
Don't remember any reference to the guy in Alien3.
I thought the guy in Alien 3 was Michael Weyland as well, just the human version.
Alien 3 - Michael Bishop (human)
AVP - Charles Bishop Weyland (cyborg prostitute)
A:CM - Michael Weyland (mind f**ker)
Quote from: Alien³ on Mar 14, 2013, 11:59:52 AM
Alien 3 - Michael Bishop (human)
AVP - Charles Bishop Weyland (cyborg prostitute)
A:CM - Michael Weyland (mind f**ker)
:D :D :D
This was on TV just on the weekend, and having seen this thread I paid careful attention to the scene. It was fairly obvious to me that he was an android. Who can possibly take a direct hit to the head like that and be fully recovered a few seconds later? Not to mention his ear was all kinds of ****ed up. There's no way someone could take that kind of damage and be fine.
Also I thought Charles in avp basically confirmed that this bishop 2 was an android... unless everyone below him in the family tree are identical to him. (besides Peter Weyland)
Didn't the bullet just graze his ear rather than penetrate his head?
QuoteThere's no way someone could take that kind of damage and be fine.
lolnope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage)
Quote from: SM on Mar 25, 2013, 03:28:15 AM
QuoteThere's no way someone could take that kind of damage and be fine.
lolnope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage)
I seriously doubt that guy took that and immediately strutted around going on about how desperate he was to get his train tracks finished.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 25, 2013, 03:24:25 AM
Didn't the bullet just graze his ear rather than penetrate his head?
He got clubbed by 86 or whatever his name was.
He could walk and talk after copping a bar through his brain.
Bishop cops a whack with a wrench which ends up being a glancing blow after his shoulder took the brunt. The fact his ear is half hanging off is proof that his injury isn't even the same ballpark as Gage's.
Quote from: SM on Mar 25, 2013, 04:00:12 AM
He could walk and talk after copping a bar through his brain.
Bishop cops a whack with a wrench which ends up being a glancing blow after his shoulder took the brunt. The fact his ear is half hanging off is proof that his injury isn't even the same ballpark as Gage's.
That's a completely freak accident, and not even the same type of injury at all. A tapered rod moving so fast it was sent 25 meters away, compared to a slow moving blunt force impact capable of nearly ripping someone's ear off... and the link you posted clearly states he was "talking within minutes". Bishop 2 was talking within seconds after getting clocked in the side of the head with a lead pipe or whatever.
Have you ever seen someone hit in the head with anything? They don't just shake it off man. But that story is completely crazy. The pipe must have destroyed the part of the brain that senses pain or something. My god.
QuoteBishop 2 was talking within seconds after getting clocked in the side of the head with a lead pipe or whatever.
You've just successfully undone your own argument.
If he'd been properly hit on the head, rather than glancing off the side - then you'd have a point.
And - for the 20,723rd time in this thread - where's his white android blood and fast android reflexes?
Quote from: SM on Mar 25, 2013, 04:16:01 AM
for the 20,723rd time in this thread
You just made my night :D
Quote from: SM on Mar 25, 2013, 04:16:01 AM
QuoteBishop 2 was talking within seconds after getting clocked in the side of the head with a lead pipe or whatever.
You've just successfully undone your own argument.
What? That isn't undoing my point.. that is my point. He's talking within seconds... after getting hit in the side of the head with a pipe that caused obvious and severe damage...
Quote from: SM on Mar 25, 2013, 04:16:01 AMAnd - for the 20,723rd time in this thread - where's his white android blood and fast android reflexes?
He wasn't looking when he was hit? He might have been a special infiltration model to be as lifelike as possible...
I mean it really comes down to:
Can a human take massive damage to the head and completely ignore it immediately?
Can a corporation capable of making a synthetic person change the color of it's blood?
Both are possible but which one is more likely?
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 25, 2013, 04:25:42 AM
Quote from: SM on Mar 25, 2013, 04:16:01 AM
for the 20,723rd time in this thread
You just made my night :D
lol I'm not the one who brought that up! Fact is it's up to personal preference what people will believe, and in my opinion, he's an android. It seems the more likely choice. If people are still gonna argue the same points after 20,723 times it's fairly obvious they aren't going to change their mind. But they aren't changing mine either with a freak accident that happened in the 1800s.
QuoteCan a human take massive damage to the head and completely ignore it immediately?
Bishop didn't "completely ignore it immediately".
QuoteCan a corporation capable of making a synthetic person change the color of it's blood?
"No", said every android ever.
QuoteFact is it's up to personal preference what people will believe, and in my opinion, he's an android.
"Fact" is - he's human.
Quote from: SM on Mar 25, 2013, 04:40:47 AM
QuoteCan a human take massive damage to the head and completely ignore it immediately?
Bishop didn't "completely ignore it immediately".
Lol, you got me on a technicality. OK sorry,
Can a human take massive damage to the head and completely ignore it a few seconds later?
Quote from: SM on Mar 25, 2013, 04:40:47 AMQuoteCan a corporation capable of making a synthetic person change the color of it's blood?
"No", said every android ever.
Oh so you know about every single android ever made in the aliens universe?
Quote from: SM on Mar 25, 2013, 04:40:47 AMQuoteFact is it's up to personal preference what people will believe, and in my opinion, he's an android.
"Fact" is - he's human.
This is pointless.
QuoteOh so you know about every single android ever made in the aliens universe?
Ash, Bishop, Call, David. Did I miss any? Basic models through to second gen. All white blood. Ipso facto ad nauseum.
Quote from: SM on Mar 25, 2013, 04:51:06 AM
QuoteOh so you know about every single android ever made in the aliens universe?
Ash, Bishop, Call, David. Did I miss any?
I said Aliens universe, not aliens movies.
Save that for another forum.
This be movie talk.
Quote from: bloodinthemud on Mar 25, 2013, 04:51:48 AM
Quote from: SM on Mar 25, 2013, 04:51:06 AM
QuoteOh so you know about every single android ever made in the aliens universe?
Ash, Bishop, Call, David. Did I miss any?
I said Aliens universe, not aliens movies.
When did Aliens become separated from the rest of the Alien films?
Quote from: SM on Mar 25, 2013, 04:52:47 AM
Save that for another forum.
This be movie talk.
Ok then, so in the movie aliens, Burke explains to Ripley that it's common practice to have a synthetic on board. In Alien resurrection Distephano comments that Call is categorized with "robots designed by robots" This indicates that there are obviously more Androids in existence that are never shown. So how do we know what different models are available? We don't.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 25, 2013, 04:57:25 AM
When did Aliens become separated from the rest of the Alien films?
What i meant by that is the entire universe that all the movies are set in, Aliens is merely the name I used to reference that seeing as the species are referred to as aliens.
You lost me.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 25, 2013, 05:42:51 AM
You lost me.
OK I'll explain it in an obviously crazy analogy. Imagine if what happened in the alien films were real events that actually happened. The thing is that it all happened in a parallel universe that we can never gain access to and the only way we can tell what happened in that universe is what the movies show us. That doesn't mean there's nothing else in that universe except for what the movies show us, it just means we don't know what else is in there.
Does that help? Probably doesn't lol. Just replace the word "parallel" with "fictional".
Except all we have to go on is what we see in the movies.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 25, 2013, 06:14:40 AM
Except all we have to go on is what we see in the movies.
Exactly. So they never say in the future everyone has shock absorbing skulls. So that makes me think that Bishop 2 was some special make of Android with red blood. What if WY creates specific androids with the sole purpose of being indistinguishable from humans for missions such as this? It's not like Bishop 2 would lie about anything is it? :laugh:
There's nothing in the movies that would suggest that. By the Alien movie universe logic, all androids have both white blood and super fast reflexes as SM already pointed out. Unless you also want to believe that WY sent a faulty unit that had slower reflexes.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 25, 2013, 06:55:09 AM
There's nothing in the movies that would suggest that. By the Alien movie universe logic, all androids have both white blood and super fast reflexes as SM already pointed out. Unless you also want to believe that WY sent a faulty unit that had slower reflexes.
I guess it comes down to:
real blood vs modified android blood,
glancing blow that rips half his ear off + high pain tolerance vs android skull
slow reactions vs not looking
whichever stands out to the viewer more will determine what they believe.
When it should come down to whether people noticed that the series has an established convention for showing a person's an android, and that they deliberately avoided those conventions in A3 to show he was human.
Quote from: SiL on Mar 25, 2013, 10:35:29 AM
When it should come down to whether people noticed that the series has an established convention for showing a person's an android, and that they deliberately avoided those conventions in A3 to show he was human.
I guess you can call me a skeptic, but the reaction doesn't match the injury for me:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.wikia.com%2Favp%2Fimages%2Fb%2Fb2%2FI_am_not_a_droid.jpg&hash=798fc623ec2cc32192a7d39766299545fc5afd53)
(lol... even the photo link has "I am not a droid" in it :laugh:)
And the red blood and distinctly normal sounding voice don't scream "android" to me.
Quote"When Lance gets hit in the head with this lead pipe, we had an appliance which showed his ear had become dislodged, as Fincher wanted to show that this is the real guy, and not a synthetic person."
~ Tom Woodruff, Alien 3 commentary, 2003.
Debate... please die...
Quote from: SiL on Mar 25, 2013, 11:22:29 AM
And the red blood and distinctly normal sounding voice don't scream "android" to me.
It's harder to explain how he takes a hit to the head like that so easily if he's a human then it is to explain why he has red blood if he's an android. But that's just me.
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 25, 2013, 11:27:16 AM
Quote"When Lance gets hit in the head with this lead pipe, we had an appliance which showed his ear had become dislodged, as Fincher wanted to show that this is the real guy, and not a synthetic person."
~ Tom Woodruff, Alien 3 commentary, 2003.
Debate... please die...
lol... why the hell did they rip half his head off then lmao, a simple cut with red blood coming out would do. And didn't someone else, Lance Henricksen I think it was say he believes the Bishop 2 was an advanced model?
I don't care any more.
Quote from: bloodinthemud on Mar 25, 2013, 11:31:06 AM
lol... why the hell did they rip half his head off then lmao, a simple cut with red blood coming out would do. And didn't someone else, Lance Henricksen I think it was say he believes the Bishop 2 was an advanced model?
I don't care any more.
The gore in Alien 3 is ridiculously OTT throughout. Lance said what he did after the fact to make AVP fit with Alien 3, as per Paul Anderson's wishes.
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 25, 2013, 11:38:48 AM
The gore in Alien 3 is ridiculously OTT throughout.
That makes sense, that outrageous ear was basically the only thing I just couldn't get past. If that's just the director's style or whatever then I can see Bishop 2 being a human.
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 25, 2013, 11:38:48 AMLance said what he did after the fact to make AVP fit with Alien 3, as per Paul Anderson's wishes.
Also **** Paul Anderson. ;D
The only thing of his I ever liked was Resident Evil 2 only because of Sienna Guillory in a mini skirt and the Nemesis. (Sorry fi this opened up another can of worms :P)
do you think the whole 'is he isnt he' was done on purpose as a kind of homage to Deckard? by the time of A3 in 1992 Blade Runner was at its peak of being rediscovered as a cult classic with the Directors Cut release not too far away (9/11/92)
so could Bishop II have been Finchers deliberate nod to Scott? or was he fully intended to be human (or droid) and it just got mixed up in all the editing/goings on leading to all the Deckard like ambiguity?
Quote from: bloodinthemud on Mar 25, 2013, 11:31:06 AM
It's harder to explain how he takes a hit to the head like that so easily if he's a human then it is to explain why he has red blood if he's an android.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-19307388 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-19307388)
No, it isn't. People take crazy crap in their stride all the time. It's harder to explain why the filmmakers would try to say he's an android by purposefully
not doing
anything the franchise had as a means to establish a character
as an android.
Quote from: bishoop on Mar 25, 2013, 12:36:45 PM
or was he fully intended to be human (or droid) and it just got mixed up in all the editing/goings on leading to all the Deckard like ambiguity?
He was always meant to be human.
Quote from: SiL on Mar 25, 2013, 01:03:04 PM
Quote from: bloodinthemud on Mar 25, 2013, 11:31:06 AM
It's harder to explain how he takes a hit to the head like that so easily if he's a human then it is to explain why he has red blood if he's an android.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-19307388 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-19307388)
No, it isn't. People take crazy crap in their stride all the time. It's harder to explain why the filmmakers would try to say he's an android by purposefully not doing anything the franchise had as a means to establish a character as an android.
Surviving a severe trauma to the head is not the same as acting like it never happened mere moments later. So yes, it is.
(Not to mention as previously stated that the types of injury are not the same... high velocity puncturing vs slow blunt impact)
Wait, why are we still going on about this?!? I thought it was established that the movie has over the top gore?
Quote from: bloodinthemud on Mar 25, 2013, 01:24:16 PM
Quote from: SiL on Mar 25, 2013, 01:03:04 PM
Quote from: bloodinthemud on Mar 25, 2013, 11:31:06 AM
It's harder to explain how he takes a hit to the head like that so easily if he's a human then it is to explain why he has red blood if he's an android.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-19307388 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-19307388)
No, it isn't. People take crazy crap in their stride all the time. It's harder to explain why the filmmakers would try to say he's an android by purposefully not doing anything the franchise had as a means to establish a character as an android.
Surviving a severe trauma to the head is not the same as acting like it never happened mere moments later. So yes, it is.
(Not to mention as previously stated that the types of injury are not the same... high velocity puncturing vs slow blunt impact)
Read the Phineas Gage article already. There's a real-life example of someone taking a devastating blow to the head and surviving, along with brushing it off for various reasons. Point is,
he survived. What else is there to say?
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 26, 2013, 03:03:51 AM
Read the Phineas Gage article already. There's a real-life example of someone taking a devastating blow to the head and surviving, along with brushing it off for various reasons. Point is, he survived. What else is there to say?
Wha... Valaquen already convinced me that Bishop 2 is human when he pointed out the effects in the movie were over the top. There's no need to convince me about that. But if you're trying to convince me that it's fine to see a man just take a hit to the head like that (which is obviously a massive hit due to his ear) like it's no big deal because of some freak accident happened somewhere then I'm sorry but you're not going to change my mind.
The Gage injury is a completely different type of injury, just because it happened to the head doesn't mean they're the same injury. A large spike cleanly piercing the brain at a fast rate removing an isolated portion of brain is nothing like being clubbed in the head, which even if it doesn't break the skull causes the brain to bounce back and forth in the skull causing bruising of the brain, often resulting in unconsciousness, if not brain damage. Now, I did read the article and it says Gage was talking within minutes. Bishop 2 was talking within seconds after an obviously severe blow which tbh is probably worse because unlike Gage which removes a small part of brain, being clubbed effects the whole brain.
(EDIT: I mean in the short term, obviously dealing with a hole in your head which exposes your brain is going to be harder to heal then a bruised brain... depending on the severity of both)
I guess it's from a lifetime of watching guys kick each other in the head in combat sports... you kind of get a feel for what kind of hits to the head someone can take, and being clubbed to the point that half your head is busted open is slightly more traumatic in my opinion then getting kicked in the head really hard which usually leaves no visual effects other then maybe a cut and some swelling, but the person getting kicked is knocked out or badly disoriented at least.
Anyway, we're kind of getting off topic. I think with the factors pointed out in this thread such as going so far out of their way to give him red blood etc, and the movie having over the top gore... (which is the key factor for me) indicate that Bishop 2 is human.
Remember in Alien when Parker hit Ash on the head with a bottle or something and he started wigging out? Androids are no more resilient to head trauma than humans are. So the whole wrench to the head argument is irrelevant.
Yep.
He's human.
I cant vote because of avp(both first movie and avp2010) say theres a human but killed by a pred.
in alien3 he is supposedly human but colonial marines show that he is an android.
in avp2010 the one talking through the game is an android. but when you beat him in the marine campaign he is alive causing the question is he alive or not. but prometheus comes out saying micheal weyland is the company leader.(unless prometheus is after all of these events) so i cant decide really
Quote from: underbound on Mar 27, 2013, 02:43:49 AM
I cant vote because of avp(both first movie and avp2010) say theres a human but killed by a pred.
in alien3 he is supposedly human but colonial marines show that he is an android.
in avp2010 the one talking through the game is an android. but when you beat him in the marine campaign he is alive causing the question is he alive or not. but prometheus comes out saying micheal weyland is the company leader.(unless prometheus is after all of these events) so i cant decide really
Michael Bishop = Alien 3, Debatable Android,
Human, T-800, Time Lord, Clone :laugh: ;D
Michael Weyland = ACM, Android
Charles Bishop Weyland = AVP, Human
Karl Bishop Weyland = AVP2010, Android
Peter Weyland = Prometheus, Human
in AVP2010 it mentions Charles transferred his memories (Before his trip to Antartica) and stored them into multiple android copies of him. Prometheus is set 30 years before the events of Alien (If memory serves me well) AVP2010 is 30 years after Alien 3 and ACM is seventeen weeks after Aliens.
Quote from: Kelgaard on Mar 26, 2013, 03:23:51 PM
Remember in Alien when Parker hit Ash on the head with a bottle or something and he started wigging out? Androids are no more resilient to head trauma than humans are. So the whole wrench to the head argument is irrelevant.
When I was thinking he was an android I figured that it was to do with him being an advanced model that's more resilient to go along with having red blood in anticipation for taking damage... and wasn't Ash "a bit twitchy" lol, he's pretty much the easiest Android to kill in the alien series.
You could add into that the fact that his soldiers were all heavily armored and he was in regular clothing. As though unconcerned about his well being, or taking damage for that matter...
Quote from: underbound on Mar 27, 2013, 02:43:49 AM
I cant vote because of avp(both first movie and avp2010) say theres a human but killed by a pred.
in alien3 he is supposedly human but colonial marines show that he is an android.
I think that's a different Michael Weyland; the one in A:CM had white blood, not red.
Quotelol... why the hell did they rip half his head off then
Which is precisely what happened...
ffs...
Android.
Everyone knew Ripley didn't trust the white blooded androids (not her install pull away reaction in Aliens at the breakfast table). So, the company made the "red" blooded Bishop2 to fake her out and get her to trust him.
QuoteEveryone knew Ripley didn't trust the white blooded androids
She trusted Bishop.
And your explanation flies in the face of "The Company sent me to show you a friendly face."
Quote from: SM on Mar 28, 2013, 12:33:35 AM
Quotelol... why the hell did they rip half his head off then
Which is precisely what happened...
ffs...
clearly you missed my point. (which is moot now that I changed my mind)
Hold on...
Total Members Voted: 559
Human: 340
Android: 240
= 580
Quote from: Crazy Rich on Mar 28, 2013, 02:13:49 AM
Hold on...
Total Members Voted: 559
Human: 340
Android: 240
= 580
lol, clearly rigged poll.
We did have a Guest user option one time, though.
All the evidence points to bishop II being a human.
That being said yes the can dye android blood red if they wanted too,but you can tell bishop II has human blood and felt pain.
I would also like to note that androids are not as durable as a humans are in some cases(as stated in the Colonial marine tech manual section on androids)Since their bones are made of carbonfiber and their muscles are made from Silicon.Yes they have enhanced sight,hearing,speed and strength but they cannot function if a certain amount of damage is given to them or if they are exposed to space for too long.
Only the later military androids have armor plateing attached to their bone structure.
Android. Familiar face = another Bishop unit. Pain/laggy reflexes is programmable.
I can't believe you think "bishop 2" was human.
20 years after the fact.
Wow
:laugh:
Obvious troll is obvious.
Yep, sure is.
Lol troll.
Get off my bridge.
Sad. When you lose you cry troll.
Always.
Deal with failure. You are not the Aliens god you think you are.
Quote from: Vermillion on Mar 31, 2013, 09:40:16 PM
Get off my bridge.
He went there.Spoiler
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toplessrobot.com%2Ffff%2520joy%2520picard%25201.jpg&hash=f6780df1459c39de3de9cdd24afe2efe8ed83cc0)
As you wish.
[/spoiler]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Olo49ATSMg#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Olo49ATSMg#ws)
He's an Android, I read the script he is portrayed as machine....also 85 yells "f**king Android" when he hits him???
Quote from: AVPfan7662 on May 06, 2013, 01:04:47 PM
He's an Android, I read the script he is portrayed as machine...
Hahahahahahahahahhaa---
Yeah, man. What script? :o
Quote from: AVPfan7662 on May 06, 2013, 01:04:47 PM
He's an Android, I read the script he is portrayed as machine....also 85 yells "f**king Android" when he hits him???
Really?
Because the script I've read says:
QuoteBishop II writhes on the floor. The troops fire on Aaron, shoot him down.
Bishop II turns.
No wires.
No milk.
Real blood.
I posted like once in this topic 2 or 3 years ago, and yet I still haven't figured out how to disable notifications of new posts in it.
I DON'T CARE IF HE WAS A RUBBER MAN ANYMORE. JUST MAKE IT STOP!!
Quote from: DoomRulz on May 07, 2013, 02:51:01 AM
You can't. There's no way of unsubscribing from threads.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.armchairempire.com%2Fimages%2Fmiscellaneous%2Flance-henriksen.jpg&hash=8cd30142b2ab3bb2f42e1315e2f7fb2aae475048)
I'll just leave that here.
You can't. There's no way of unsubscribing from threads.
QuoteI read the script he is portrayed as machine....
No you didn't.
Quote from: Xeno Killer 2179 on May 07, 2013, 02:45:00 AM
I posted like once in this topic 2 or 3 years ago, and yet I still haven't figured out how to disable notifications of new posts in it.
I DON'T CARE IF HE WAS A RUBBER MAN ANYMORE. JUST MAKE IT STOP!!
Quote from: DoomRulz on May 07, 2013, 02:51:01 AM
You can't. There's no way of unsubscribing from threads.
Note to self: Make sure to submit multiple posts in this thread everyday...
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdoubtfulnews.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F07%2FEvil_cat.jpg&hash=1bd28bb360a28329652f43806427fdb9872c4550)
Spoiler
Just tag the notification email as spam. Unfortunately it will probably also affect any other threads you have subscribed to on this forum
Quote from: Xeno Killer 2179 on May 07, 2013, 02:45:00 AMI posted like once in this topic 2 or 3 years ago, and yet I still haven't figured out how to disable notifications of new posts in it.
I DON'T CARE IF HE WAS A RUBBER MAN ANYMORE. JUST MAKE IT STOP!!
I don't usually get a laugh from the misfortune of others but damn.... LOL!
Seriously, set up a mail filter against email that contains "Bishop in Alien 3" and have it delete it from the server. You'll never see it again.
What about the unnotify button at the bottom of this page?
Quote from: Kelgaard on May 08, 2013, 09:36:01 AMWhat about the unnotify button at the bottom of this page?
Shush. ;D
Hahaha :D
Quote from: Kelgaard on May 08, 2013, 09:36:01 AM
What about the unnotify button at the bottom of this page?
What about it? I still receive notifications from this thread even though that button isn't clicked.
As a physician I can say that such injury as we've seen here with one's ear and part of the skin from the back of the head to be completely torned away would result in a massive bleeding and pain shock, that normally would keep away an individual from continuing his actions. Will you be able to talk much about business after having you leg broken just a minute ago?
However, and it is not rare, that immediately after suffering a serious injury patient is able to continue acting like nothing happened and even claiming of feeling no pain at all. This is due to the traumatic shock affecting each of us differrently and heavily depending on a seriousness of injury (for instance if he had his limb torn off or smashed, he would have felt unconscious for sure because of excesively strong pain impulse, which can not be processed by brain. As a result the brain simply "turns off"). If this is the case then Bishop could withstand this trauma just with a slight grunt and then continue chatting with Ripley at least for a couple of minutes before he would actually feel the pain.
As a science fiction fan I have another possible explanation for this: in a distant future when medicine and technology are far more advanced, people could make some biomechanical advancements to themselves, such as artifcial organs or enhanced vision, etc. thus improving personal abilities. Considering his age maybe Bishop have had half of his body being replaced with artificial parts including skin and ears :) This would explain some odds with his exterior look after being hit.
There are two types of people in the world.
Those, that despite the abundance of human blood and pain reactions from the head wound, believe that Bishop II was an android.
And those who trust that the film makers wouldn't arbitrarily change everything the series had set up in regards to androids.
It would be like there being a debate over the ending of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Donald Sutherland's character at the end was human. He was only pretending to be a snatcher to save his own ass from Veronica Cartwrights emotional display on a public street.
Spoiler
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEStsLJZhzo
Arguments? Only Body Snatchers make that sound. How do we know? Only the body snatchers make that sound in the film. :P
Androids have white blood and humans have red blood. How do we know? Because that is very clearly illustrated through out not one, but five movies set in the alien universe.
I get that actors just want to work, but Lance needs to learn how to say no once in a while.
I vote human. I agree they seem to have tried to make it ambiguous in the theatrical version, but the Assembly Cut makes it pretty clear he's human. As does the novelization.
Aliens: Colonial Marines establishes he was human too. But it's probably best to ignore that.
They never tried to make it ambiguous.
It certainly seemed that way to me. In that, judging by the Assembly Cut, they specifically took out several things that made it fairly clear Bishop was human.
The red blood didn't make it clear to begin with?
You don't really see him bleed much in the theatrical cut. Half his head's hanging off, and there really isn't that much blood. However you look at it, that's suspicious. In the Assembly Cut we see the blood pouring out of him, and that he's clearly in a lot of pain. By taking all of that out, your either actively trying to make things more ambiguous, or you've just coincidentally removed everything that makes it obvious he's a person.
Even if his head was hanging off - whcih it clearly isn't - ANY red blood is a giveaway.
Androids have white blood.
(It has to be said at least once a page, because people seem to inexplicably forget).
I hadn't forgot, actually. But I can see how some people might speculate Weyland-Yutani had put red circulation fluid in some top-secret android that's posing as a human, to help sell the deception. It's not like they aren't known for being devious. It would certainly explain (in the theatrical cut at least) why Bishop doesn't seem that bothered that half his head's been caved in.
For the record, I do think Bishop's human, categorically so. But I can see why some people might suggest otherwise. The theatrical version makes him seem very suspicious.
Half his head isn't caved in. In any cut.
I don't think those shots are cut in the theatrical version to make things ambiguous. I think they were probably cut because they realized the audience didn't give a crap if some douche bag was injured and in pain, especially if they didn't care about the characters from the previous two hours of the movie.
Quote from: SM on Jun 08, 2013, 03:35:59 AMHalf his head isn't caved in. In any cut.
The left side of his skull's hanging off!
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jun 08, 2013, 08:00:50 AM
Quote from: SM on Jun 08, 2013, 03:35:59 AMHalf his head isn't caved in. In any cut.
The left side of his skull's hanging off!
Exactly.
Any human would be a crying baby if that happened to them.
Android. Well Ash took an extinguisher to the head, and kept on 'Truckin'
Wow it is like we landed on the moon in the 1960s. People believe what they think they see.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jun 08, 2013, 08:00:50 AM
The left side of his skull's hanging off!
That's skin. There's not much keeping it in place over much of your head in the first place. Very little muscle overall.
This is really. Really. Really damn simple, people.
The Alien Franchise Method of Establishing Someone as an Android- White blood
- Rubber and noodle insides
- Electronically distorted voice
Let's see which of these traits "Bishop 2" has!
White blood? No, it's red.
Rubber and noodle insides? No, it's all flesh and skin.
Electronically distorted voice? Nope, plain old Lance Henrikson.
The film uses literally
none of the established conventions to show he's an android, ergo,
he's not an android.
Quote from: SiL on Jun 09, 2013, 01:43:53 PMThat's skin. There's not much keeping it in place over much of your head in the first place. Very little muscle overall.
If it was just skin it would be flapping down the side of his head. As you said yourself, its got virtually no muscle to give it rigidity. But it isn't. It's sticking out to the side. Because it's got something solid under it. Maybe bone, maybe something synthetic.
Quote from: SiL on Jun 09, 2013, 01:43:53 PM
The Alien Franchise Method of Establishing Someone as an Android
- White blood
- Rubber and noodle insides
- Electronically distorted voice
Where is it ever said W-Y couldn't make a droid with coloured blood to fool try and deceive people? Just because we haven't seen it before doesn't mean it's impossible. They're certainly devious enough.
We never see Bishop II's insides, save a brief shot of his profusely bleeding head wound in the Assembly Cut. But that's not in the theatrical version.
As for your last point, that's just plain wrong. Ash's and Bishop's voices weren't distorted until AFTER they were damaged, and they were far more badly messed up than Bishop II. Ash was beheaded, Bishop was ripped in half. Bishop II only had a small part of his head busted open. That's not exactly comparable.
Again, I happen to agree with you that Bishop II is human. But your insisting that anyone who thinks otherwise is obviously wrong sounds... well, a little ignorant. The truth is it's pretty debatable, especially in the theatrical cut of the movie.
I'm starting to wish they didn't have Bishop II in the movie.
Quote from: echobbase79 on Jun 09, 2013, 02:58:36 PMI'm starting to wish they didn't have Bishop II in the movie.
I'm happy with him being there. I'm also satisfied with the explanations given by the effects people, Henriksen (who reversed himself later in order to promote
AVP), and the writers.
Some people aren't satisfied with what is real and have to rely on uncertainty, confirmation bias and an appealing idea and call it reality.
QuoteBut your insisting that anyone who thinks otherwise is obviously wrong sounds... well, a little ignorant.
No. They
are obviously wrong. As has been shown on every page of this thread since it started.
All the evidence shows he's human and any arguments regarding him being a robot are built in ignorance, bullshit and stupidity.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jun 09, 2013, 02:51:19 PM
If it was just skin it would be flapping down the side of his head.
No, it wouldn't. There's still cartilage and rudimentary muscles in the ear, and you can see from the way it's torn it's not long enough to start flapping.
QuoteAs for your last point, that's just plain wrong. Ash's and Bishop's voices weren't distorted until AFTER they were damaged,
... Yes, which would go with being able to see their insides. How am I wrong?
Heck, if you want to streamline the process, Ash and Bishop are both shown as androids first simply with a
single drop of white blood. Bishop 2 never shows a single one. By franchise convention, he's not an android.
QuoteBut your insisting that anyone who thinks otherwise is obviously wrong sounds... well, a little ignorant.
It isn't.
It really isn't.
There is, as I've said before in this
same thread, literally just as much saying
Hudson is an android if we take AvP movies into account -- which we
must, considering how it's so often used in the argument to make Bishop 2 an android.
Sure, he shows
none of the actual
signs of being an android -- the blood, the insides, the electronic distortion -- but hey,
neither does Bishop 2.
And Hudson happens to look like a cop who died back in '97, so the only
possible explanation
must be that he's an android. There is
nothing in
Aliens saying he categorically
isn't, so it's a perfectly valid, logical conclusion for me to pull out my arse and there's nothing anyone can say or do to prove me wrong.
Ugh.
From the novelization by Alan Dean Foster:
Aaron picked up a chunk of broken pipe, muttering, "You f**king droid!" The pipe landed hard on Bishop II's head.
The impact was spongy. Then man staggered, twitching, as his troops shot the acting superintendent down. Real blood poured from Bishop II's cracked skull.
"I am...not a...droid," the bleeding figure mumbled in surprise as it crumpled to the floor.
Proof enough?
Clearly not enough for some...
As I'va said several times already, I DO think he's human. I just don't get the vitriolic hate for any who'd suggest they believe otherwise. Seems like there are good reasons for them to think that to me.
Quote from: FiorinaFury161 on Jun 10, 2013, 06:31:20 AM
From the novelization by Alan Dean Foster:
Aaron picked up a chunk of broken pipe, muttering, "You f**king droid!" The pipe landed hard on Bishop II's head.
The impact was spongy. Then man staggered, twitching, as his troops shot the acting superintendent down. Real blood poured from Bishop II's cracked skull.
"I am...not a...droid," the bleeding figure mumbled in surprise as it crumpled to the floor.
Proof enough?
Not to mention screaming at the top of his lungs in pain.
Androids don't feel pain.
All Androids in the Alien films have white blood. Call is the most advanced one and she had white blood.
Androids voices distort when damaged.
I can't remember why this is a topic if we keep talking about the same thing over and over. The wheel of madness people ;D
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jun 10, 2013, 07:46:09 AM
As I'va said several times already, I DO think he's human. I just don't get the vitriolic hate for any who'd suggest they believe otherwise. Seems like there are good reasons for them to think that to me.
So people mistake Vasquez for a man and Michael Bishop for an android. Whats next asking for a birth certificate? ::)
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jun 10, 2013, 07:46:09 AMSeems like there are good reasons for them to think that to me.
There aren't. It all boils down to "He looks like some other guy" and "I don't think he reacts how he should, therefor he's a robot".
No, it all boils down to how he shrugs off such a grievous injury. I mean in the theatrical version it barely slows him down.
In the end it doesn't matter. Red blood = robot.
If it was oh so simple to just change the colour, then why didn't Ash or Call - who were actually trying to masquerade as being human - do it?
Ash was made some 57 years previously, who knows how technology's advanced since then. And Call was never designed to be an undercover unit, she only started pretending to be human after the Auton revolution forced her into hiding.
You see, if someone really wanted to think Bishop was an android, there are ways to justify it. After all, it's only a movie, not a documentary. A lot of it's open to interpretation.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jun 10, 2013, 11:25:52 AM
Ash was made some 57 years previously, who knows how technology's advanced since then.
Everyone assumes they just threw red dye into the blood for Bishop 2, not that it used some advanced technology.
Quote from: SM on Jun 10, 2013, 11:16:59 AM
If it was oh so simple to just change the colour, then why didn't Ash or Call - who were actually trying to masquerade as being human - do it?
This right here should STOP any further argument.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jun 10, 2013, 08:35:52 AMNo, it all boils down to h.ow he shrugs off such a grievous injury. I mean in the theatrical version it barely slows him down.
Go back a couple of hundred pages and you'll find I already explained how it's not so "grievous".
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jun 10, 2013, 11:25:52 AMYou see, if someone really wanted to think Bishop was an android, there are ways to justify it. After all, it's only a movie, not a documentary. A lot of it's open to interpretation.
So, thanks to the Open to Interpretation card, we can say Apone was an android.
Plain and simple, the default setting for a humanoid character is Human. Unless there is something bluntly telling us that a character is an alien, robot, or whatever else, they are a human. As everyone else in this thread have told you, Bishop II wasn't playing by the Android in the Alien Universe rules and nobody connected to the films told any of us that new rules were established. All you're doing is ignoring opposing evidence (e.g. subdural hematoma, etc.) and speculating on unseen events ("Well,
maybe they added coloring...").
To be honest, the argument is academic. Clearly it's ambiguous enough that 41% of people think he was an android. That';s not exactly a tiny percentage. Plus, you know, Lance Henriksen himself has claimed he was an advanced droid, so there's that.
Quote from: Vermillion on Jun 08, 2013, 07:35:43 PM
Android. Well Ash took an extinguisher to the head, and kept on 'Truckin'
You mean the part where he went completely haywire, spitting out white blood?
Quote from: Kelgaard on Jun 10, 2013, 03:56:25 PM
Quote from: Vermillion on Jun 08, 2013, 07:35:43 PM
Android. Well Ash took an extinguisher to the head, and kept on 'Truckin'
You mean the part where he went completely haywire, spitting out white blood?
Yup. Ash still tried to off Ripley.
Quote from: Omegazilla on Jun 10, 2013, 12:38:42 PM
Quote from: SM on Jun 10, 2013, 11:16:59 AM
If it was oh so simple to just change the colour, then why didn't Ash or Call - who were actually trying to masquerade as being human - do it?
This right here should STOP any further argument.
But sadly it won't.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jun 10, 2013, 01:44:57 PM
To be honest, the argument is academic. Clearly it's ambiguous enough that 41% of people think he was an android. That';s not exactly a tiny percentage. Plus, you know, Lance Henriksen himself has claimed he was an advanced droid [citation needed], so there's that.
On the DVD commentary, Henriksen and the ADI guys all say he's human.
QuoteAsh was made some 57 years previously, who knows how technology's advanced since then. And Call was never designed to be an undercover unit, she only started pretending to be human after the Auton revolution forced her into hiding.
But why didn't they dye the blood red in order to fit in better?
QuoteClearly it's ambiguous enough that 41% of people think he was an android.
All that tells us is 41% of those who voted are ignorant of the facts.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jun 10, 2013, 01:44:57 PMTo be honest, the argument is academic.
No, but I did write a faux academic article (http://www.alienexperience.com/forum/index.php?topic=51.0;wap2) about this. (Apologies for the shameless self-promotion.)
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jun 10, 2013, 01:44:57 PMClearly it's ambiguous enough that 41% of people think he was an android. That';s not exactly a tiny percentage.
And in some polls a majority of participants believe in supernatural things. This does not make these things so.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jun 10, 2013, 01:44:57 PMPlus, you know, Lance Henriksen himself has claimed he was an advanced droid, so there's that.
As mentioned before (and you ignored it, thus proving my point that you ignore opposing evidence), he reversed himself to promote
AVP.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jun 10, 2013, 07:11:26 PMOn the DVD commentary, Henriksen and the ADI guys all say he's human.
Yep:
QuoteGillis: It's so brief when Lance gets hit with this lead pipe. But we had done this appliance that showed that his ear had been dislodged. The whole point was that Fincher wanted to show that, you know, without a doubt that this is the real guy and not a synthetic person.
Henriksen: In the script it said "Bishop I" and "Bishop II". And to play the creator of Bishop, which would be this guy, I didn't have to do anything. I mean I, literally, as an actor, didn't have to do anything.
Quote from: Vermillion on Jun 10, 2013, 04:12:42 PM
Quote from: Kelgaard on Jun 10, 2013, 03:56:25 PM
Quote from: Vermillion on Jun 08, 2013, 07:35:43 PM
Android. Well Ash took an extinguisher to the head, and kept on 'Truckin'
You mean the part where he went completely haywire, spitting out white blood?
Yup. Ash still tried to off Ripley.
No, he just spun around in circles until Parker whacked him again. That scene (and other scenes throughout the series) actually demonstrates the fatal flaw in the wrench argument. Androids can survive physical trauma and continue to function, but not without
very noticeable side effects. They don't just "shrug off" injuries, so the fact that Bishop II didn't collapse proves nothing. In fact, the red blood reveals that the entire point of the scene was to show he is human, as indicated in script and commentary.
Quote from: maledoro on Jun 11, 2013, 12:30:16 AMNo, but I did write a faux academic article (http://www.alienexperience.com/forum/index.php?topic=51.0;wap2) about this. (Apologies for the shameless self-promotion.)
Nice work. Where were you in the mid-90s when I was outnumbered 5 to 1?
This thread gives the same headache as arguing with Creationists
Quote from: Novak 1334 on Jun 11, 2013, 01:36:27 PM
This thread gives the same headache as arguing with Creationists
:D Very true.
Quote from: Novak 1334 on Jun 11, 2013, 01:36:27 PM
This thread gives the same headache as arguing with Creationists
Well, the Bishop II Is an Android Believers (B2IAABs) use the same techniques to support their beliefs that the Creationists, Bigfoot Seekers, Ghost Hunters, et al. use, so why not the same headache?
;)
Because bigfoot seeker/ghost hunter is my second job :laugh:
Just as stupid as people thinking Vickers in Prometheus was an android.
It`s not make sense. Whole point of the scene was to show he is actually human. That corporation made by living thinking people are naive and stupid enough to bring back such evil with them.
I always thought he was a droid. Bit like ripely in the female war, thinks its human etc
Quote from: Vickers on Jun 11, 2013, 09:42:17 PM
Just as stupid as people thinking Vickers in Prometheus was an android.
Guessing that you survived that huge ship falling on you as you post on this forum, you must be a droid then....
this guy knows what I'm talking about
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgeneratormeme.com%2Fmedia%2Fcreated%2Fbzyw2i.jpg&hash=a506a1d20e0fd14e1a8dbfa066f16a2cacb6cb59)
Quote from: maledoro on Jun 11, 2013, 08:39:14 PM
Quote from: Novak 1334 on Jun 11, 2013, 01:36:27 PM
This thread gives the same headache as arguing with Creationists
Well, the Bishop II Is an Android Believers (B2IAABs) use the same techniques to support their beliefs that the Creationists, Bigfoot Seekers, Ghost Hunters, et al. use, so why not the same headache?
;)
creationism = retarded
getting half your head busted open but it's no big deal = retarded
but we attribute it to over the top gore so it's all good ;)
If only his head was actually busted open.
Making shit up to try and desperately support an erroneous stance = retarded.
The gore wasn't over the top.
Obviously if this thread is over 3100 posts then the writers and director did a very bad job showing/telling what "BIshop" was.
Quote from: Vermillion on Jun 23, 2013, 02:32:15 PMObviously if this thread is over 3100 posts then the writers and director did a very bad job showing/telling what "BIshop" was.
Just because something seems obvious doesn't mean it's the way it's perceived.
Quote from: maledoro on Jun 23, 2013, 02:49:41 PM
Quote from: Vermillion on Jun 23, 2013, 02:32:15 PMObviously if this thread is over 3100 posts then the writers and director did a very bad job showing/telling what "BIshop" was.
Just because something seems obvious doesn't mean it's the way it's perceived.
Like if you reread my response,your answer is exactly mine with new words.
Quote from: Vermillion on Jun 23, 2013, 09:34:18 PM
Quote from: maledoro on Jun 23, 2013, 02:49:41 PM
Quote from: Vermillion on Jun 23, 2013, 02:32:15 PMObviously if this thread is over 3100 posts then the writers and director did a very bad job showing/telling what "BIshop" was.
Just because something seems obvious doesn't mean it's the way it's perceived.
Like if you reread my response,your answer is exactly mine with new words.
Not to mention changing the context of what I had written.
Quote from: Vermillion on Jun 23, 2013, 02:32:15 PM
Obviously if this thread is over 3100 posts then the writers and director did a very bad job showing/telling what "BIshop" was.
Well, the director wasn't involved in the final cut for this film, so what became of Bishop II after the reshoots etc in which he died and then didn't die and continued to stand on his feet , Fincher didn't quite have a final hand in.
Quote from: maledoro on Jun 23, 2013, 12:15:39 PM
The gore wasn't over the top.
lol yep ok
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmoviesmedia.ign.com%2Fmovies%2Fimage%2Farticle%2F825%2F825531%2Fthe-100-greatest-gore-moments-in-movie-history-day-two-20071019015914505-000.jpg&hash=c63426c0ae4fefd4b8e603951a9c718fda4bf334)
No. Really guys... I'm fine. I just sneezed a bit too hard.
Spoiler
and before anyone starts yes I am aware this is not bishop 2 it's just a joke
I think someone's ear flapping off the side of their head can be seen as a little gruesome.
If we did indeed see it 'flapping'. We don't see much spurting blood and the lighting lessens the redness. And there's less in the TC.
I found the shot of Aaron hitting the ground, his face and chest all bloodied more violent than what happened to Bishop.
Sometimes implied violence can be far more horrifying that observed violence.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jun 25, 2013, 10:14:41 AMSometimes implied violence can be far more horrifying that observed violence.
Really? I might try implying it from now on.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jun 25, 2013, 10:14:41 AM
Sometimes implied violence can be far more horrifying that observed violence.
Excample. The alien attacking Lambert
100% human, AVP just really messed everything up...not pointing fingers...Paul W.S. Anderson...
in my opinion he and android.
Quote from: Hunk on Jul 21, 2013, 09:19:50 PMin my opinion he and android.
Opinions are wonderful things. Thanks to opinions, facts don't matter to the opinion holder. Due to the power of opinion, 2+2 could equal things other than 4.
::)
Quote from: DerelictShip on Jun 28, 2013, 02:20:04 AM
100% human, AVP just really messed everything up...not pointing fingers...Paul W.S. Anderson...
agreed. Bishop II was once human but is now deffo android. As if charles' looks could stay undiluted through so many generations.
:D
Quote from: maledoro on Jul 21, 2013, 09:34:10 PM
Due to the power of opinion, 2+2 could equal things other than 4.
::)
Due to the power of
mathematics, 2+2 could equal things other than 4.
Quote from: bloodinthemud on Jul 22, 2013, 11:34:44 AM
Quote from: DerelictShip on Jun 28, 2013, 02:20:04 AM
100% human, AVP just really messed everything up...not pointing fingers...Paul W.S. Anderson...
agreed. Bishop II was once human but is now deffo android. As if charles' looks could stay undiluted through so many generations.
:D
You say you agree with him, then everything you say afterwards is the exact opposite of what he said.
Quote from: SiL on Jul 22, 2013, 11:39:54 AM
Quote from: maledoro on Jul 21, 2013, 09:34:10 PM
Due to the power of opinion, 2+2 could equal things other than 4.
::)
Due to the power of mathematics, 2+2 could equal things other than 4.
Quote from: bloodinthemud on Jul 22, 2013, 11:34:44 AM
Quote from: DerelictShip on Jun 28, 2013, 02:20:04 AM
100% human, AVP just really messed everything up...not pointing fingers...Paul W.S. Anderson...
agreed. Bishop II was once human but is now deffo android. As if charles' looks could stay undiluted through so many generations.
:D
You say you agree with him, then everything you say afterwards is the exact opposite of what he said.
I agreed with everything he said besides the "human" part
;D
Quote from: SiL on Jul 22, 2013, 11:39:54 AMDue to the power of mathematics, 2+2 could equal things other than 4.
Only when mixed with convolution.
QuoteBishop II was once human but is now deffo android. As if charles' looks could stay undiluted through so many generations.
The guy in
Alien³ who created the Bishop android wasn't Chuck Weyland; he was another guy. This was covered before, not to mention that his resemblance was also addressed.
Quote from: maledoro on Jul 22, 2013, 01:07:51 PM
The guy in Alien³ who created the Bishop android wasn't Chuck Weyland; he was another guy. This was covered before,
obviously.
Quote from: maledoro on Jul 22, 2013, 01:07:51 PMnot to mention that his resemblance was also addressed.
So identical relatives generations apart has been addressed already? Do tell :) It's not another one in a billion freak event explanation like the guy who lived with a metal spike blown out through his forehead again is it?
Quote from: maledoro on Jul 22, 2013, 01:07:51 PM
Only when mixed with convolution.
Hardly. Use a different base counting system. Nothing convoluted about it.
Quote from: bloodinthemud on Jul 23, 2013, 08:09:04 AMSo identical relatives generations apart has been addressed already? Do tell :) It's not another one in a billion freak event explanation like the guy who lived with a metal spike blown out through his forehead again is it?
In fairness, I look almost identical to my great-grandfather, to the point where people often think a photograph of him in my house is actually a picture of me.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 23, 2013, 08:55:53 AM
Quote from: bloodinthemud on Jul 23, 2013, 08:09:04 AMSo identical relatives generations apart has been addressed already? Do tell :) It's not another one in a billion freak event explanation like the guy who lived with a metal spike blown out through his forehead again is it?
In fairness, I look almost identical to my great-grandfather, to the point where people often think a photograph of him in my house is actually a picture of me.
To the point that if you were given the same hair style and clothes and stood next to each other at the same age nobody could tell you apart? And aren't avp and alien 3 2oo years apart or something
Quote from: bloodinthemud on Jul 23, 2013, 08:09:04 AMSo identical relatives generations apart has been addressed already?
If you think that these guys are.
Quote from: bloodinthemud on Jul 23, 2013, 08:09:04 AMDo tell
Told. Go back and read.
Quote from: bloodinthemud on Jul 23, 2013, 08:09:04 AMIt's not another one in a billion freak event explanation like the guy who lived with a metal spike blown out through his forehead again is it?
Probably not.
Quote from: SiL on Jul 23, 2013, 08:13:20 AMQuote from: maledoro on Jul 22, 2013, 01:07:51 PMOnly when mixed with convolution.
Hardly. Use a different base counting system. Nothing convoluted about it.
...and there you have it.
Quote from: bloodinthemud on Jul 23, 2013, 09:19:12 AMTo the point that if you were given the same hair style and clothes and stood next to each other at the same age nobody could tell you apart? And aren't avp and alien 3 2oo years apart or something
Take a closer look at their hair (color is a hint); not to mention their clothes (which has no bearing here).
Quote from: Vermillion on Jun 23, 2013, 02:32:15 PM
Obviously if this thread is over 3100 posts then the writers and director did a very bad job showing/telling what "BIshop" was.
The writers and director did a bad job of just about everything. Not entirely their fault. It's not their fault the fandom is stubborn and largely uninformed of their film's intentions.
Quote from: maledoro on Jul 23, 2013, 11:30:59 AM
Quote from: bloodinthemud on Jul 23, 2013, 09:19:12 AMTo the point that if you were given the same hair style and clothes and stood next to each other at the same age nobody could tell you apart? And aren't avp and alien 3 2oo years apart or something
Take a closer look at their hair (color is a hint); not to mention their clothes (which has no bearing here).
lol
Quote from: Valaquen on Jul 23, 2013, 11:43:38 AM
Quote from: Vermillion on Jun 23, 2013, 02:32:15 PM
Obviously if this thread is over 3100 posts then the writers and director did a very bad job showing/telling what "BIshop" was.
The writers and director did a bad job of just about everything. Not entirely their fault. It's not their fault the fandom is stubborn and largely uninformed of their film's intentions.
... ... or it might be, I'm never quite sure... ...
Quote from: Valaquen on Jul 23, 2013, 11:43:38 AM
Quote from: Vermillion on Jun 23, 2013, 02:32:15 PM
Obviously if this thread is over 3100 posts then the writers and director did a very bad job showing/telling what "BIshop" was.
The writers and director did a bad job of just about everything. Not entirely their fault. It's not their fault the fandom is stubborn and largely uninformed of their film's intentions.
The fandom is dumb, sorry to say. It's been explained and definitively said he's human
countless times but people choose to plug their ears and scream, "NA NA NA, CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!".
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jul 24, 2013, 01:08:44 PMThe fandom is dumb, sorry to say. It's been explained and definitively said he's human countless times but people choose to plug their ears and scream, "NA NA NA, CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!".
When has it ever been DEFINITIVELY said?
It certainly isn't in the film, and if casually viewing the film is the only interaction a person has had with the character, how can they be called dumb for not knowing any batter?
I can't find the quote as this present time, but the writers have said he is human. And in reference to a casual viewer, they would see red blood and instinctively say he's human. If they aren't overly familiar with the series, they won't be scrambling to fanboy arguments like "Well, they just filled an android up with red paint to fool Ripley".
Which brings me to point three: yes, it is in the film. Bishop says as much ("familiar face") and he bleeds red blood.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 24, 2013, 01:22:00 PM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jul 24, 2013, 01:08:44 PMThe fandom is dumb, sorry to say. It's been explained and definitively said he's human countless times but people choose to plug their ears and scream, "NA NA NA, CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!".
When has it ever been DEFINITIVELY said?
"I'M NOT A DROOIIIID."
If you assume he's lying, then that's your assumption.
You can switch the audio and listen to the commentary with the push of a button and hear Tom Woodruff and Lance Henriksen (pre-AVP shenanigns) tell you the same thing, as well as about Fincher's desire to have him be human.
Ah, it's like a religious debate :laugh:
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jul 24, 2013, 01:25:25 PM
I can't find the quote as this present time, but the writers have said he is human. And in reference to a casual viewer, they would see red blood and instinctively say he's human. If they aren't overly familiar with the series, they won't be scrambling to fanboy arguments like "Well, they just filled an android up with red paint to fool Ripley".
Which brings me to point three: yes, it is in the film. Bishop says as much ("familiar face") and he bleeds red blood.
http://alienseries.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/debate-bishop-ii-man-or-machine/ (http://alienseries.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/debate-bishop-ii-man-or-machine/)
^ why isn't this your one-stop shop for info, Doom? :laugh:
:laugh: Why is this even a question? The director intended that to be the real guy, a real - human - guy. We saw the blood, he confessed about it, end of story. The only thing that screws this up is that in AVP they have the same character, but did you ever think that was the guys great great great great grandfather? Bottom line HUMAN, no other answer should apply.
Quote from: Valaquen on Jul 24, 2013, 01:28:26 PM"I'M NOT A DROOIIIID."
That's only in the extended version. He does say he's "very human" in the theatrical version, but he says it right before he claims he only wants to destroy the alien inside Ripley, and that's clearly bullshit.
Quote from: DerelictShip on Jul 24, 2013, 01:38:35 PM:laugh: Why is this even a question? The director intended that to be the real guy, a real - human - guy. We saw the blood, he confessed about it, end of story. The only thing that screws this up is that in AVP they have the same character, but did you ever think that was the guys great great great great grandfather? Bottom line HUMAN, no other answer should apply.
And Lance Henriksen has gone on record in interviews claiming the character was a droid.
Quote from: Valaquen on Jul 24, 2013, 01:28:26 PM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jul 24, 2013, 01:25:25 PM
I can't find the quote as this present time, but the writers have said he is human. And in reference to a casual viewer, they would see red blood and instinctively say he's human. If they aren't overly familiar with the series, they won't be scrambling to fanboy arguments like "Well, they just filled an android up with red paint to fool Ripley".
Which brings me to point three: yes, it is in the film. Bishop says as much ("familiar face") and he bleeds red blood.
http://alienseries.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/debate-bishop-ii-man-or-machine/ (http://alienseries.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/debate-bishop-ii-man-or-machine/)
^ why isn't this your one-stop shop for info, Doom? :laugh:
That's not a site I frequent, lol. But thanks for that!
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 24, 2013, 02:12:42 PM
And Lance Henriksen has gone on record in interviews claiming the character was a droid.
And he's gone on record saying the opposite. He changed his mind after AVP, since that's what that particular story needed to justify his presence.
Quote from: Valaquen on Jul 24, 2013, 02:26:41 PMQuote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 24, 2013, 02:12:42 PMAnd Lance Henriksen has gone on record in interviews claiming the character was a droid.
And he's gone on record saying the opposite. He changed his mind after AVP, since that's what that particular story needed to justify his presence.
A little off topic, but I don't see how having a human Bishop in AVP means the character in Alien 3 has to be human as well...
I do happen to believe Bishop in Alien 3 is human. I just don't follow the logic that Charles Bishop Weyland being human means Michael Bishop has to be human as well. Surely it has no bearing.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 24, 2013, 01:22:00 PM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jul 24, 2013, 01:08:44 PMThe fandom is dumb, sorry to say. It's been explained and definitively said he's human countless times but people choose to plug their ears and scream, "NA NA NA, CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!".
When has it ever been DEFINITIVELY said?
It certainly isn't in the film, and if casually viewing the film is the only interaction a person has had with the character, how can they be called dumb for not knowing any batter?
Quote from: Terx2 on Jun 10, 2013, 07:51:31 AM
Quote from: FiorinaFury161 on Jun 10, 2013, 06:31:20 AM
From the novelization by Alan Dean Foster:
Aaron picked up a chunk of broken pipe, muttering, "You f**king droid!" The pipe landed hard on Bishop II's head.
The impact was spongy. Then man staggered, twitching, as his troops shot the acting superintendent down. Real blood poured from Bishop II's cracked skull.
"I am...not a...droid," the bleeding figure mumbled in surprise as it crumpled to the floor.
Proof enough?
Not to mention screaming at the top of his lungs in pain.
Androids don't feel pain.
All Androids in the Alien films have white blood. Call is the most advanced one and she had white blood.
Androids voices distort when damaged.
I can't remember why this is a topic if we keep talking about the same thing over and over. The wheel of madness people ;D
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jun 10, 2013, 07:46:09 AM
As I'va said several times already, I DO think he's human. I just don't get the vitriolic hate for any who'd suggest they believe otherwise. Seems like there are good reasons for them to think that to me.
So people mistake Vasquez for a man and Michael Bishop for an android. Whats next asking for a birth certificate? ::)
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 24, 2013, 02:32:23 PM
Quote from: Valaquen on Jul 24, 2013, 02:26:41 PMQuote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 24, 2013, 02:12:42 PMAnd Lance Henriksen has gone on record in interviews claiming the character was a droid.
And he's gone on record saying the opposite. He changed his mind after AVP, since that's what that particular story needed to justify his presence.
A little off topic, but I don't see how having a human Bishop in AVP means the character in Alien 3 has to be human as well...
I do happen to believe Bishop in Alien 3 is human. I just don't follow the logic that Charles Bishop Weyland being human means Michael Bishop has to be human as well. Surely it has no bearing.
If you consider the AvP films canon, it does.
Quote from: Terx2 on Jun 10, 2013, 07:51:31 AMQuote from: FiorinaFury161 on Jun 10, 2013, 06:31:20 AMFrom the novelization by Alan Dean Foster:
Aaron picked up a chunk of broken pipe, muttering, "You f**king droid!" The pipe landed hard on Bishop II's head.
The impact was spongy. Then man staggered, twitching, as his troops shot the acting superintendent down. Real blood poured from Bishop II's cracked skull.
"I am...not a...droid," the bleeding figure mumbled in surprise as it crumpled to the floor.
Proof enough?
Not to mention screaming at the top of his lungs in pain.
Androids don't feel pain.
What about the (likely numerous) people who've never read the novel?
Plus, Bishop made some pretty painful-sounding noises when he was ripped in half in Aliens.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jul 24, 2013, 02:40:20 PM
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 24, 2013, 02:32:23 PM
A little off topic, but I don't see how having a human Bishop in AVP means the character in Alien 3 has to be human as well...
I do happen to believe Bishop in Alien 3 is human. I just don't follow the logic that Charles Bishop Weyland being human means Michael Bishop has to be human as well. Surely it has no bearing.
If you consider the AvP films canon, it does.
But how does it? I'm a human. Someone could easily make an android version of me in 200 years time.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 24, 2013, 02:44:06 PM
Quote from: Terx2 on Jun 10, 2013, 07:51:31 AMQuote from: FiorinaFury161 on Jun 10, 2013, 06:31:20 AMFrom the novelization by Alan Dean Foster:
Aaron picked up a chunk of broken pipe, muttering, "You f**king droid!" The pipe landed hard on Bishop II's head.
The impact was spongy. Then man staggered, twitching, as his troops shot the acting superintendent down. Real blood poured from Bishop II's cracked skull.
"I am...not a...droid," the bleeding figure mumbled in surprise as it crumpled to the floor.
Proof enough?
Not to mention screaming at the top of his lungs in pain.
Androids don't feel pain.
What about the (likely numerous) people who've never read the novel?
Plus, Bishop made some pretty painful-sounding noises when he was ripped in half in Aliens.
Sounding like you're a little constipated isn't the same thing as having your ear ripped off, hence why human Bishop was screaming at the top of his lungs. Android Bishop sounded like he was more uncomfortable than anything else.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 24, 2013, 02:44:06 PM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jul 24, 2013, 02:40:20 PM
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 24, 2013, 02:32:23 PM
A little off topic, but I don't see how having a human Bishop in AVP means the character in Alien 3 has to be human as well...
I do happen to believe Bishop in Alien 3 is human. I just don't follow the logic that Charles Bishop Weyland being human means Michael Bishop has to be human as well. Surely it has no bearing.
If you consider the AvP films canon, it does.
But how does it? I'm a human. Someone could easily make an android version of me in 200 years time.
If you somehow tie the AvP films into canon, then and only then, can you somehow make a twisted argument for Bishop II being an android but even then, it still wouldn't make sense because again, he bleeds red blood and says he is human.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jul 24, 2013, 04:05:03 PMSounding like you're a little constipated isn't the same thing as having your ear ripped off, hence why human Bishop was screaming at the top of his lungs. Android Bishop sounded like he was more uncomfortable than anything else.
But he never once screams in pain in Alien 3. The only time he screams is when he yelling at Ripley.
This thread... lol.
Bishop is an android!!1!!!!1!
Vickers is an android!!1!1!
::)
QuoteIf you consider the AvP films canon, it does.
No it doesn't.
QuoteSounding like you're a little constipated isn't the same thing as having your ear ripped off, hence why human Bishop was screaming at the top of his lungs. Android Bishop sounded like he was more uncomfortable than anything else.
Displaying a response as a human would to pain is neither here nor there. Bishop displays more pain than Bishop the Second - but they still both display pain.
This thread should be taken to the back of the barn, shot in the head, left in a ditch and set on fire....
Funnily enough just like Anne Coulter
Quote from: Novak 1334 on Jul 25, 2013, 10:18:48 PM
This thread should be taken to the back of the barn, shot in the head, left in a ditch and set on fire....
Funnily enough just like Anne Coulter
Hopefully someone insane will see red blood coming out and claim it's an android so you will have to revive it ;)
I'm going with human purely based on his costume
Epic goggles Check
Snuggly Scarf Check
Oversized Coat Check
Not sure an android would bother with the protective gear if he was a robot but I know people will mention David out of Prometheus wore a space suit to appear more human and less creepy.
Also the main argument that creeps up is:
Badly applied prosthetic ear check
syrup like blood spurting from wound check
Plus Call was designed in the future and good o'l white milky blood is still used in the future. So unless he was a deluxe model with "real" blood effects gonna have to side with the human crowd.
The following applies to the last DLC of A:CM, so prepare for spoilers. :-X
Spoiler
Apparently, after Hicks and Stone escape from the Legato and make their way to Fiorina 161, they arrive just in time to witness Ripley's sacrifice and Bishop II screaming upstairs. They then get captured by WY mercs. In chronological order, the cutscene swaps to "a" Bishop interrogating Hicks above LV-426. The question is, is this Bishop THE Bishop II? Or is he a Bishop III?
The ending cutscene of CM shows who we presume to be the "interrogator" Bishop (III) as an android (he should be, because Hicks remembers his inhumane unconcern). This is proven by his milky blood. Taking into account how Bishop II bled red blood, and how Bishop III looks exactly like Bishop II, it would be unlikely that an android Bishop "II" with red blood exists, as the model most resembling Bishop II's personality and intent has white blood. I just don't see the Company going to that extent.
Spoiler
I thought much the same thing. The guys who created A:CM couldn't even work out what they were doing - don't be bring that shit in here! :o
Quote from: jedi9061 on Jul 30, 2013, 02:46:50 AM
The following applies to the last DLC of A:CM, so prepare for spoilers. :-X
Spoiler
Apparently, after Hicks and Stone escape from the Legato and make their way to Fiorina 161, they arrive just in time to witness Ripley's sacrifice and Bishop II screaming upstairs. They then get captured by WY mercs. In chronological order, the cutscene swaps to "a" Bishop interrogating Hicks above LV-426. The question is, is this Bishop THE Bishop II? Or is he a Bishop III?
The ending cutscene of CM shows who we presume to be the "interrogator" Bishop (III) as an android (he should be, because Hicks remembers his inhumane unconcern). This is proven by his milky blood. Taking into account how Bishop II bled red blood, and how Bishop III looks exactly like Bishop II, it would be unlikely that an android Bishop "II" with red blood exists, as the model most resembling Bishop II's personality and intent has white blood. I just don't see the Company going to that extent.
Spoiler
This is just confusing because theres Micheal Bishop in Alien 3, A replica android of him named Micheal Weyland, the one on the sephora and the one broken on Fury 161. With this many Bishop it gets confusing and why would the company make a replica of him? This leads to too much confusion. Was it a name error gearbox made?
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 24, 2013, 05:19:14 PM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jul 24, 2013, 04:05:03 PMSounding like you're a little constipated isn't the same thing as having your ear ripped off, hence why human Bishop was screaming at the top of his lungs. Android Bishop sounded like he was more uncomfortable than anything else.
But he never once screams in pain in Alien 3. The only time he screams is when he yelling at Ripley.
Actually he does. Every moment his talking to Ripley his shouting and he shouts No when the dog handlers shoot Arron. (In the AC version his shouts at the camera man to not take pictures as well)
Quote from: Terx2 on Jul 31, 2013, 06:39:18 AMActually he does. Every moment his talking to Ripley his shouting and he shouts No when the dog handlers shoot Arron. (In the AC version his shouts at the camera man to not take pictures as well)
Please read what I said. I said he never screams
in pain. Shouting isn't screaming in pain.
As for ACM:
Spoiler
I assumed the Weyland we see is the same one from Alien 3. In the film his name is never even mentioned, so if they wanna change his surname from Bishop to Weyland and overrule a script 99% of people won't even have read, I don't really have a problem with that. In fact they probably changed the name to Weyland to stop people confusing him with the Bishop androids.
Guess the one in the game ran out of red food colouring, eh?
As for the pain thing - if it mattered, which it doesn't, Bishop the Second grunts when hit, and grunts a couple more times in pain in the AC.
Actually - once again - I do think Bishop II is a human guy. I just think there are reasons why people might believe - rightly or wrongly - otherwise.
It's wrongly.
Yup, it's stated in canon that his name is Michael Weyland, and that he designed the Bishop-series Android, and was not one himself. He was also a descendant of Peter Weyland.
http://alienanthology.wikia.com/wiki/Michael_Weyland (http://alienanthology.wikia.com/wiki/Michael_Weyland)
THIS THREAD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTYm-8Wf6GQ# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTYm-8Wf6GQ#)
Quote from: Novak 1334 on Aug 07, 2013, 01:54:10 PM
THIS THREAD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTYm-8Wf6GQ# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTYm-8Wf6GQ#)
But what about them rabbits!!!
They're Androids, they'll be fine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWaLxFIVX1s# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWaLxFIVX1s#)
QuoteYup, it's stated in canon
Stated "in canon?" What?
It's totally on that Wiki there.
I'd suggest a new definition be introduced called 'Wikicanon'.
But it simpler just to use 'bullshit'.
QuoteI'd suggest a new definition be introduced called 'Wikicanon'.
But it simpler just to use 'bullshit'.
Uh...I was agreeing with you. It kinda pisses me off a little that you would come out and call my post bullshit when I was trying to help support your argument about it being wrongly believed he was not human. He bleeds red blood, he shows emotion when Ripley kills herself, he's a synthetic components designer, his name is Michael Weyland, he's a descendant of Peter Weyland, as per
Colonial Marines.Besides, why would he lie to Ripley if he was trying to gain her trust?
Taking this and the other points into account, him being an android makes
no sense anyway.
You shouldn't need a friggen wiki, let alone something more, to tell you that.
I didn't call your post bullshit.
And he's Michael Bishop. No relation to Peter Weyland.
Quote from: SM on Aug 13, 2013, 07:00:52 AM
I didn't call your post bullshit.
Liar.
QuoteBut it simpler just to use 'bullshit'.
Quote
And he's Michael Bishop. No relation to Peter Weyland.
Said where?
Read the whole post.
The 'bullshit' was in relation to info from Wikis.
Lol yeah, citing a fan-made wiki as evidence doesn't really score you any points.
LET ME GET A FEW THINGS STRAIGHT HERE:
- I'm not here to please anyone.
- I don't have to, no matter how much you so conceitedly try to convince me otherwise.
- I don't need your approval . . . on anything, no matter how much you so conceitedly try to convince me otherwise.
- I'm here to make friends not enemies, so if you're looking for a fight, you're going to be disappointed.
- If I feel like it, I can and will say, "f**k your post, f**k you, f**k your opinion, and/or f**k replying to it and the time it takes to do so, you are wrong and I AM right", and no amount of words, letters, or text in a post, anywhere, at any corner of the internet, can convince me otherwise and make it less true. (Refer to #'s 1-4.)
- You're going to have to deal with 1-6, and take them into account when replying.
Well done for spewing a rant that bears absolutely zero relation to the subject at hand.
Back on topic, a thought's just occurred to me - everyone says the name Michael Bishop comes from the Alien 3 novelization. Well, I just read the novelization recently, and the guy was never named in it. I've got the more recent omnibus edition, with all three Foster novelizations lumped into one book, and the name Michael Bishop was never used (he was just called Bishop).
I'm not calling anyone a liar, far from it, I'm just saying - why the hell would they delete the first name from the book in a later edition?
They didn't; he was never called Michael Bishop in the novel, he was called Michael Bishop in the trading cards.
Ah OK. I'd always heard it was the novel. Thanks.
Yeah, people get confused.
Quote from: DC on Aug 13, 2013, 08:20:13 AM
- If I feel like it, I can and will say, "f**k your post, f**k you, f**k your opinion, and/or f**k replying to it and the time it takes to do so, you are wrong and I AM right", and no amount of words, letters, or text in a post, anywhere, at any corner of the internet, can convince me otherwise and make it less true. (Refer to #'s 1-4.)
- You're going to have to deal with 1-6, and take them into account when replying.
Wait...you're
not looking for a fight? ???
Quote from: Hudson on Aug 13, 2013, 05:05:26 PM
Wait...you're not looking for a fight? ???
That post was directed at people who
are.
Quote from: DC on Aug 13, 2013, 08:20:13 AM
LET ME GET A FEW THINGS STRAIGHT HERE:
- I'm not here to please anyone.
- I don't have to, no matter how much you so conceitedly try to convince me otherwise.
- I don't need your approval . . . on anything, no matter how much you so conceitedly try to convince me otherwise.
- I'm here to make friends not enemies, so if you're looking for a fight, you're going to be disappointed.
- If I feel like it, I can and will say, "f**k your post, f**k you, f**k your opinion, and/or f**k replying to it and the time it takes to do so, you are wrong and I AM right", and no amount of words, letters, or text in a post, anywhere, at any corner of the internet, can convince me otherwise and make it less true. (Refer to #'s 1-4.)
- You're going to have to deal with 1-6, and take them into account when replying.
Now let ME get a few things straight here:
1st RULE: You do not talk about FIGHT CLUB.
2nd RULE: You DO NOT talk about FIGHT CLUB.
3rd RULE: If someone says "stop" or goes limp, taps out the fight is over.
4th RULE: Only two guys to a fight.
5th RULE: One fight at a time.
6th RULE: No shirts, no shoes.
7th RULE: Fights will go on as long as they have to.
8th RULE: If this is your first night at FIGHT CLUB, you HAVE to fight.
All you said was that if you feel like it, you're going to tell everyone to f**k off after using the word "conceitedly" twice.
Quote from: Hudson on Aug 13, 2013, 05:37:39 PM
All you said was that if you feel like it, you're going to tell everyone to f**k off after using the word "conceitedly" twice.
What?
Don't worry, I'll quote you
for you.
QuoteIf I feel like it, I can and will say, "f**k your post, f**k you, f**k your opinion, and/or f**k replying to it and the time it takes to do so, you are wrong and I AM right"
Quote from: DC on Aug 13, 2013, 08:20:13 AM
- If I feel like it, I can and will say, "f**k your post, f**k you, f**k your opinion, and/or f**k replying to it and the time it takes to do so, you are wrong and I AM right", and no amount of words, letters, or text in a post, anywhere, at any corner of the internet, can convince me otherwise and make it less true. (Refer to #'s 1-4.)
- You're going to have to deal with 1-6, and take them into account when replying.
Pull an obnoxious stunt like that and you're going to have to deal with me or another mod so take
that into account when replying.
QuoteDon't worry, I'll quote you for you.
Where in that post did I tell everyone to f**k off?! You need to go back and read my whole post again, and while you're at it, re-read the two posts after yours and before said post, the one by SM in particular. If you think I'm just going to roll over and take people calling me things like f**kwit and idiot, and deliberately mocking me for not going through the unnecessary drudgery of pulling a link out of the ass-end of the internet to please someone or a few people on an internet forum, who spend an unhealthy amount of time there judging by their ridiculously high post counts, to "back up" something that is so painfully obvious, I shouldn't even have to quote a wiki, you are insane.
QuotePull an obnoxious stunt like that and you're going to have to deal with me or another mod so take that into account when replying.
Like I said in a previous comment, it only applies to those who are deliberately trying to egg me on. Before that happens though, I will report it to a mod, and if the mods are doing their jobs, I won't have to.
It's funny because you're having some kind of melt down and no one has disagreed with you at all, they just made fun of you citing a Wiki site as an end all of reliable information relating to what's canon or not.
Quotea few people on an internet forum, who spend an unhealthy amount of time there judging by their ridiculously high post counts
Yeah, great idea. Come to the internet to make fun of people using the internet. Well, with your ridiculously low post count, maybe you should try and join in for a while and get to know people before judging the long time members.
Quote from: Hudson on Aug 13, 2013, 06:12:21 PM
It's funny because you're having some kind of melt down and no one has disagreed with you at all, they just made fun of you citing a Wiki site as an end all of reliable information relating to what's canon or not.
Yeah, great idea. Come to the internet to make fun of people using the internet. Well, with your ridiculously low post count, maybe you should try and join in for a while and get to know people before judging the long time members.
QuoteIf you think I'm just going to roll over and take people calling me things like f**kwit and idiot, and deliberately mocking me for not going through the unnecessary drudgery of pulling a link out of the ass-end of the internet to please someone or a few people on an internet forum, who spend an unhealthy amount of time there judging by their ridiculously high post counts, to "back up" something that is so painfully obvious, I shouldn't even have to quote a wiki, you are insane.
Quote from: DC on Aug 13, 2013, 06:08:09 PM
QuotePull an obnoxious stunt like that and you're going to have to deal with me or another mod so take that into account when replying.
Like I said in a previous comment, it only applies to those who are deliberately trying to egg me on. Before that happens though, I will report it to a mod, and if the mods are doing their jobs, I won't have to.
I really don't care who it's "supposed to apply to". Don't do it. See a problem? Report it and we'll deal with it accordingly.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Aug 13, 2013, 06:19:21 PM
See a problem? Report it and we'll deal with it accordingly.
K, problem solved. Reported (those this applies to).
He is still an android.
Quote from: Vermillion on Aug 13, 2013, 06:27:58 PM
He is still an android.
Now THAT is a funny f**king post.
Quote from: Vermillion on Aug 13, 2013, 06:27:58 PM
He is still an android.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F31.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_matsl4wKgA1rnvmbyo1_500.gif&hash=b78b001c9b0e39d2e85b83772c90dc87bbe10dd9)
Lol... This thread is great. People are even arguing about agreeing with each other.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F24.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_lq11gbS64l1r0mlb9o1_500.jpg&hash=c94b0d01258528b13059df674f0cf3a1edd2830a)
Quote from: Vermillion on Aug 13, 2013, 06:27:58 PM
He is still an android.
I thought he was a f**kwit. ???
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dndservices.co.uk%2Fsmiley%2Fcoke%2520and%2520popcorn.gif&hash=89915d286cbf2122020a0963503b2cbf7e311696)
the naff debate continues
Perhaps he's part android, hence why he created the bishop droids in his own image. Horrific accident, builds a new body (arms, legs, organs) Then applies it to android technology.
Android technology existed a long time before though.
Quote from: SM on Aug 14, 2013, 03:14:31 AM
Android technology existed a long time before though.
I know it was
just a flippant post to illustrate its never going to be agreed upon, one way or the other.
This thread is seriously like Democrats arguing with Republicans. The Republicans are never going to accept that the Democrats are right...
What does making him a cyborg achieve?
Id makez id eeziah for him to ahzk for your clothez, your bootz and your modorzicle.
Which brings me to my next point: Lance Henriksen's nondescript appearance would have made a lot more sense for a cyborg created to infiltrate the starving resistance cells of a post-apocalyptic wasteland than Mr. Olympia's did.
Well, that was the original idea. But presumably Arnie just wandered up to Cameron, naked, and presumably drunk, and said "I am da Terminaeda!"
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Aug 14, 2013, 07:25:55 AM
Well, that was the original idea. But presumably Arnie just wandered up to Cameron, naked, and presumably drunk, and said "I am da Terminaeda!"
<3
Quote from: Local Trouble on Aug 14, 2013, 06:35:32 AM
What does making him a cyborg achieve?
Sense as to why taking a crippling blow to the side of the head is no big deal. Over the top gore also explains it.
Do remember that the setting is scifi, the imagination is the only limit to explanations as long as they don't contradict the cannon which can be found on wiki.
Quoteas they don't contradict the cannon which can be found on wiki.
You're gonna catch shit dude.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Aug 14, 2013, 06:35:32 AM
What does making him a cyborg achieve?
Terminator vs. Aliens
The line 'I'm not a droid!' I always heard that as 'I'm a droid!' like someone who'd thought they were human but had just had their ear knocked sideways and were still standing, and realised that they were an artificial person.
Anyway I thought George Lucas copyrighted the word DROID so I'm always surprised to see it used anywhere.
Curious, was his Bishop's head bandaged when walking back to the ship?
Quote from: Vermillion on Aug 14, 2013, 10:40:15 AM
Curious, was his Bishop's head bandaged when walking back to the ship?
That's an interesting question. By the way your sig quote is pretty rad. First time I've seen it used on this site. :)
Quote from: markweatherill on Aug 14, 2013, 10:38:08 AM
The line 'I'm not a droid!' I always heard that as 'I'm a droid!' like someone who'd thought they were human but had just had their ear knocked sideways and were still standing, and realised that they were an artificial person.
Then that would have been the focus of the scene, and not Ripley offing herself.
In my experience in this debate, the people who think Bishop II is an android are always over thinking the scene. They analyze everything that is NOT there and make up a bunch of stories to satisfy their personal yearnings.
Quote from: Hudson on Aug 14, 2013, 02:44:53 PM
In my experience in this debate, the people who think Bishop II is an android are always over thinking the scene. They analyze everything that is NOT there and make up a bunch of stories to satisfy their personal yearnings.
"Human" Bishop factions are no different.
Saying he has red blood and that makes him human isn't overthinking it. It's keeping it simple.
Quote from: Vermillion on Aug 14, 2013, 03:54:50 PM
Quote from: Hudson on Aug 14, 2013, 02:44:53 PM
In my experience in this debate, the people who think Bishop II is an android are always over thinking the scene. They analyze everything that is NOT there and make up a bunch of stories to satisfy their personal yearnings.
"Human" Bishop factions are no different.
It's plenty different. We look at what the scene gives us and move on.
QuoteSaying he has red blood and that makes him human isn't overthinking it. It's keeping it simple.
;)
Oh fork here we go.
So, No misdirection at all in the alien series with regard to artificial persons?
Ash. Who knew he was an android? Dallas. Mother. Maybe. But not Ripley.
Very important subliminal plot device used throughout the four films. Trust.
QuoteAsh. Who knew he was an android? Dallas.
What...?
Quote from: Hudson on Aug 14, 2013, 08:47:08 PM
QuoteAsh. Who knew he was an android? Dallas.
What...?
Cosigned.
Quote from: Hudson on Aug 14, 2013, 08:47:08 PM
QuoteAsh. Who knew he was an android? Dallas.
What...?
Misdirection fool.
Again was Bishop II head bandaged as he walked back to the ship after Ripley offed herself?
I'll let you watch the scene again.
Quote from: Vermillion on Aug 14, 2013, 08:40:07 PM
So, No misdirection at all in the alien series with regard to artificial persons?
Not after they've been smacked over the head or torn open or shot, no. That's why Aaron hits him. You think he's an android because that's what this series does -- except he's bleeding human blood and screaming in pain, not spewing milk out of his mouth and wigging the f**k out like Ash.
Why are you not watching the scene?
Pretty sure a human would have a bandage around the hanging ear and not just walk normal.
His acting was over as soon as Ripley burned up.
Quote from: Hudson on Aug 14, 2013, 02:44:53 PMIn my experience in this debate, the people who think Bishop II is an android are always over thinking the scene. They analyze everything that is NOT there and make up a bunch of stories to satisfy their personal yearnings.
Yep.
Quote from: Vermillion on Aug 14, 2013, 03:54:50 PM"Human" Bishop factions are no different.
The "Human Bishop factions"? LOL No, "they" (LOL) tend to research things more than just going with what's on the surface. Sorry, but you can't take the shoe off and put it on the other foot and expect it to fit.
Quote from: Vermillion on Aug 14, 2013, 08:58:36 PMAgain was Bishop II head bandaged as he walked back to the ship after Ripley offed herself?
I'll let you watch the scene again.
Is this scene in the theatrical cut? It's not in the director's cut, I just checked.
It only shows Morse walking out with the company goons. Bishop II is nowhere to be seen.
Pretty sure the scenes in the AC are the same as the TC. You don't see Bishop 2 after he says "NOOOO!"
Then what is Vermillion talking about? ???
No idea. We see Morse, but we don't get a clear view of anyone else.
And I still want to know what he meant about Dallas knowing that Ash was an android. I'm getting really confused here. ???
Look to who is posting such things, eager young stripling, and the answer will become clear.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Aug 15, 2013, 04:11:12 AM
And I still want to know what he meant about Dallas knowing that Ash was an android. I'm getting really confused here. ???
Misdirection fool.
Then it worked. I feel extremely misdirected right now. ???
Quote from: Hudson on Aug 14, 2013, 02:44:53 PM
In my experience in this debate, the people who think Bishop II is an android are always over thinking the scene. They analyze everything that is NOT there and make up a bunch of stories to satisfy their personal yearnings.
lol... For me personally, all I've said is that his reaction to the blow to the side of his head is completely wrong imo which makes me lean towards him being a robot, and it's the other guys who post links to crazy one in a billion freak accident stories. The ONLY thing anybody has said in this thread that makes me think otherwise is the simple fact that the movie has over the top gore.
Otherwise what it really came down to is what the individual viewer finds more unrealistic:
an android that has red liquid that's never explained why when the other androids in the entire saga have white blood,
or a human that can take a debilitating strike to the head and be unphased seconds later.
given that the context of the argument is a work of science fiction I really thought it'd be easier to believe a simple blood color switch is easier to explain then a brutal strike that has no effect. But it's just over the top gore so w/e
If individual viewers take everything into account and still think he's a robot, then they're idiots.
That's an insult to actual idiots.
Quotea human that can take a debilitating strike to the head and be unphased seconds later.
I guarantee you that right after Ripley died (when he was apparently strolling out without a bandage on his head) he was probably like "Get the f**k over here and fix this!" to whoever was close enough. Probably to camera guy who he told to stop shooting video with his 1990s VHS camera.
Quote from: SM on Aug 14, 2013, 11:42:27 PM
Pretty sure the scenes in the AC are the same as the TC. You don't see Bishop 2 after he says "NOOOO!"
Only thing added was the "No pictures" part and a little bleeding out and grunts of pain.
Quote from: SM on Aug 15, 2013, 06:34:36 AM
If individual viewers take everything into account and still think he's a robot, then they're idiots.
"nope... red blood. nope. anything else is idiotic. nope. what's that? a possible alternative? nope. red blood."
:laugh: that's what some people here sound like to me. Reason being not because of the whole red blood argument itself, which is perfectly justified and probably the strongest case on either side, but because anything else is deemed idiotic, even a sign of doubt is deemed idiotic. That's why I love this thread ;D
He's human.
Quote from: bloodinthemud on Aug 15, 2013, 07:54:56 AM
Quote from: SM on Aug 15, 2013, 06:34:36 AM
If individual viewers take everything into account and still think he's a robot, then they're idiots.
"nope... red blood. nope. anything else is idiotic. nope. what's that? a possible alternative? nope. red blood."
:laugh: that's what some people here sound like to me. Reason being not because of the whole red blood argument itself, which is perfectly justified and probably the strongest case on either side, but because anything else is deemed idiotic, even a sign of doubt is deemed idiotic. That's why I love this thread ;D
I rest my case, your honour.
Quote from: bloodinthemud on Aug 15, 2013, 07:54:56 AM
Quote from: SM on Aug 15, 2013, 06:34:36 AM
If individual viewers take everything into account and still think he's a robot, then they're idiots.
"nope... red blood. nope. anything else is idiotic. nope. what's that? a possible alternative? nope. red blood."
:laugh: that's what some people here sound like to me. Reason being not because of the whole red blood argument itself, which is perfectly justified and probably the strongest case on either side, but because anything else is deemed idiotic, even a sign of doubt is deemed idiotic. That's why I love this thread ;D
There's also the fact that it contravenes established canon by arguing he's an android despite the red blood when you consider that android's blood is white.
Quote from: bloodinthemud on Aug 15, 2013, 06:32:38 AM
Quote from: Hudson on Aug 14, 2013, 02:44:53 PM
In my experience in this debate, the people who think Bishop II is an android are always over thinking the scene. They analyze everything that is NOT there and make up a bunch of stories to satisfy their personal yearnings.
lol... For me personally, all I've said is that his reaction to the blow to the side of his head is completely wrong imo which makes me lean towards him being a robot, and it's the other guys who post links to crazy one in a billion freak accident stories. The ONLY thing anybody has said in this thread that makes me think otherwise is the simple fact that the movie has over the top gore.
Otherwise what it really came down to is what the individual viewer finds more unrealistic:
an android that has red liquid that's never explained why when the other androids in the entire saga have white blood,
or a human that can take a debilitating strike to the head and be unphased seconds later.
given that the context of the argument is a work of science fiction I really thought it'd be easier to believe a simple blood color switch is easier to explain then a brutal strike that has no effect. But it's just over the top gore so w/e
More like some people do not understand trauma or the severity of his injury. In short, that type of injury (and effect) is more commonplace than you think.
Option A. The company built this super advanced android with red blood on the off chance someone might injure it and show its red blood in spite of the fact this accomplishes nothing, wasting thousands, perhaps millions of dollars on this one of a kind design.
Option B. He is a human.
Also, mal is correct in his assertion about this type of injury.
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 15, 2013, 12:08:13 PM
Quote from: bloodinthemud on Aug 15, 2013, 06:32:38 AM
Quote from: Hudson on Aug 14, 2013, 02:44:53 PM
In my experience in this debate, the people who think Bishop II is an android are always over thinking the scene. They analyze everything that is NOT there and make up a bunch of stories to satisfy their personal yearnings.
lol... For me personally, all I've said is that his reaction to the blow to the side of his head is completely wrong imo which makes me lean towards him being a robot, and it's the other guys who post links to crazy one in a billion freak accident stories. The ONLY thing anybody has said in this thread that makes me think otherwise is the simple fact that the movie has over the top gore.
Otherwise what it really came down to is what the individual viewer finds more unrealistic:
an android that has red liquid that's never explained why when the other androids in the entire saga have white blood,
or a human that can take a debilitating strike to the head and be unphased seconds later.
given that the context of the argument is a work of science fiction I really thought it'd be easier to believe a simple blood color switch is easier to explain then a brutal strike that has no effect. But it's just over the top gore so w/e
More like some people do not understand trauma or the severity of his injury. In short, that type of injury (and effect) is more commonplace than you think.
The other thing to take into consideration is the amped up gore in the movie. I mean, one of the prisoners is grabbed by the Alien during the tunnel chase and he damn near explodes.
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 15, 2013, 12:08:13 PM
Quote from: bloodinthemud on Aug 15, 2013, 06:32:38 AM
Quote from: Hudson on Aug 14, 2013, 02:44:53 PM
In my experience in this debate, the people who think Bishop II is an android are always over thinking the scene. They analyze everything that is NOT there and make up a bunch of stories to satisfy their personal yearnings.
lol... For me personally, all I've said is that his reaction to the blow to the side of his head is completely wrong imo which makes me lean towards him being a robot, and it's the other guys who post links to crazy one in a billion freak accident stories. The ONLY thing anybody has said in this thread that makes me think otherwise is the simple fact that the movie has over the top gore.
Otherwise what it really came down to is what the individual viewer finds more unrealistic:
an android that has red liquid that's never explained why when the other androids in the entire saga have white blood,
or a human that can take a debilitating strike to the head and be unphased seconds later.
given that the context of the argument is a work of science fiction I really thought it'd be easier to believe a simple blood color switch is easier to explain then a brutal strike that has no effect. But it's just over the top gore so w/e
More like some people do not understand trauma or the severity of his injury. In short, that type of injury (and effect) is more commonplace than you think.
Oh yeah, I know lots of people who had their ear ripped off....
You have stats to back that up. Lol
I know about people being shot in the head and getting axes embedded in their head and surviving unharmed, but the side shot in the Assembly Cut clearly shows Bishop has a gaping hole in the side of his head...
Quote from: Vermillion on Aug 15, 2013, 02:11:54 PM
Oh yeah, I know lots of people who had their ear ripped off....
You have stats to back that up. Lol
Well that settles it. The cop in
Reservoir Dogs must be an android.
Show em the stats, mal.
Make it rain.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Aug 15, 2013, 03:25:55 PM
Quote from: Vermillion on Aug 15, 2013, 02:11:54 PM
Oh yeah, I know lots of people who had their ear ripped off....
You have stats to back that up. Lol
Well that settles it. The cop in Reservoir Dogs must be an android.
Show em the stats, mal. Make it rain.
Yep. Never put a bandage on his head. Marvin Nash is definitely not human.
Quote from: Hudson on Aug 15, 2013, 04:18:33 PM
Quote from: TheMonolith on Aug 15, 2013, 03:25:55 PM
Quote from: Vermillion on Aug 15, 2013, 02:11:54 PM
Oh yeah, I know lots of people who had their ear ripped off....
You have stats to back that up. Lol
Well that settles it. The cop in Reservoir Dogs must be an android.
Show em the stats, mal. Make it rain.
Yep. Never put a bandage on his head. Marvin Nash is definitely not human.
Must've been an auton.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Ff%2Ff0%2FVanGogh-self-portrait-with_bandaged_ear.jpg&hash=a1a3e676ac5c8ac8ed3d0b551d3f14161e8998cf)
HUMAN. NOT ANDROID.
Quote from: FiorinaFury161 on Aug 15, 2013, 05:19:54 PM
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Ff%2Ff0%2FVanGogh-self-portrait-with_bandaged_ear.jpg&hash=a1a3e676ac5c8ac8ed3d0b551d3f14161e8998cf)
HUMAN. NOT ANDROID.
:laugh:
Okay, please, one of you talented artists make this a painted Bishop II.
Please!
In response to people talking about his reaction to being hit so hard, I was attacked and whacked in the mouth with an aluminum baseball bat and then hit 3 more times and still fought this person off and then drove to the hospital. My teeth and mouth were devastated but I still managed to function so to me just because he doesn't fall over unconscious doesn't make me think he is an android.
I'm not trying to prove one thing or another just trying to give a personal example of what a human can endure. Reading all of these theories has made me not to take a side and wait for an explanation later. In fact most debates of these things I just put it in the "unexplained" section of the alien universe that I hold so dear.
Quote from: FiorinaFury161 on Aug 15, 2013, 05:19:54 PM
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Ff%2Ff0%2FVanGogh-self-portrait-with_bandaged_ear.jpg&hash=a1a3e676ac5c8ac8ed3d0b551d3f14161e8998cf)
HUMAN. NOT ANDROID.
STANTON PARISH.
QuoteReading all of these theories has made me not to take a side and wait for an explanation later.
Unfortunately, no one involved in this movie is ever going to answer this question officially. The shitty thing is I met Lance Henriksen last year and I wanted to ask him in person what he though. I'm assuming he would have said "I played a human," but that's just my guess. I kicked myself during the car ride home for forgetting to ask, but whatever.
Even if this question was asked, these are the responses I'd imagine you'd get if you asked "Is Bishop II a human or android?"
David Giler: I don't care.
Walter Hill: Go away.
Vincent Ward: What's Alien 3?
David Fincher: Leave me alone.
Sigourney Weaver: I don't know what you're talking about.
Quote from: Hudson on Aug 15, 2013, 05:56:34 PM
QuoteReading all of these theories has made me not to take a side and wait for an explanation later.
Unfortunately, no one involved in this movie is ever going to answer this question officially. The shitty thing is I met Lance Henriksen last year and I wanted to ask him in person what he though. I'm assuming he would have said "I played a human," but that's just my guess. I kicked myself during the car ride home for forgetting to ask, but whatever.
Even if this question was asked, these are the responses I'd imagine you'd get if you asked "Is Bishop II a human or android?"
David Giler: I don't care.
Walter Hill: Go away.
Vincent Ward: What's Alien 3?
David Fincher: Leave me alone.
Sigourney Weaver: I don't know what you're talking about.
They already did answer. They discuss it on the Alien 3 commentary. Henriksen says he's a human who designed Bishop in his image, ala God and man (Henriksen changed his mind after AVP, for obvious retcon reasons). Woodruff and Gillis say that Fincher absolutely intended for him to be a man. I tried to jot them down here: http://alienseries.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/debate-bishop-ii-man-or-machine/ (http://alienseries.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/debate-bishop-ii-man-or-machine/)
Quote from: Hudson on Aug 15, 2013, 05:56:34 PM
QuoteReading all of these theories has made me not to take a side and wait for an explanation later.
Unfortunately, no one involved in this movie is ever going to answer this question officially. The shitty thing is I met Lance Henriksen last year and I wanted to ask him in person what he though. I'm assuming he would have said "I played a human," but that's just my guess. I kicked myself during the car ride home for forgetting to ask, but whatever.
Even if this question was asked, these are the responses I'd imagine you'd get if you asked "Is Bishop II a human or android?"
David Giler: I don't care.
Walter Hill: Go away.
Vincent Ward: What's Alien 3?
David Fincher: Leave me alone.
Sigourney Weaver: I don't know what you're talking about.
That's cool you met him. It's funny thinking of all the different responses from people involved in the films.
I haven't listened to the commentary on the movies forever if at all for some of them. Thanks Valaquen, I haven't read that stuff before.
Bishop II's subdued reaction to being struck only proves he's human. An android would've gotten all twitchy.
Quote from: saintssinphony on Aug 15, 2013, 06:20:09 PMI haven't listened to the commentary on the movies forever if at all for some of them. Thanks Valaquen, I haven't read that stuff before.
In short, for the others as well:
Gillis: It's so brief when Lance gets hit with this lead pipe. But we had done this appliance that showed that his ear had been dislodged. The whole point was that Fincher wanted to show that, you know, without a doubt that this is the real guy and not a synthetic person.
Henriksen: In the script it said "Bishop I" and "Bishop II". And to play the creator of Bishop, which would be this guy, I didn't have to do anything. I mean I, literally, as an actor, didn't have to do anything.
Quote from: Valaquen on Aug 15, 2013, 06:06:19 PM
Quote from: Hudson on Aug 15, 2013, 05:56:34 PM
QuoteReading all of these theories has made me not to take a side and wait for an explanation later.
Unfortunately, no one involved in this movie is ever going to answer this question officially. The shitty thing is I met Lance Henriksen last year and I wanted to ask him in person what he though. I'm assuming he would have said "I played a human," but that's just my guess. I kicked myself during the car ride home for forgetting to ask, but whatever.
Even if this question was asked, these are the responses I'd imagine you'd get if you asked "Is Bishop II a human or android?"
David Giler: I don't care.
Walter Hill: Go away.
Vincent Ward: What's Alien 3?
David Fincher: Leave me alone.
Sigourney Weaver: I don't know what you're talking about.
They already did answer. They discuss it on the Alien 3 commentary. Henriksen says he's a human who designed Bishop in his image, ala God and man (Henriksen changed his mind after AVP, for obvious retcon reasons). Woodruff and Gillis say that Fincher absolutely intended for him to be a man. I tried to jot them down here: http://alienseries.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/debate-bishop-ii-man-or-machine/ (http://alienseries.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/debate-bishop-ii-man-or-machine/)
Ah, good stuff. I think I've actually read that in the past. Good to have those bits collected in one spot. It's been a while on the Alien 3 commentary for me as well.
Quote from: Valaquen on Aug 15, 2013, 06:06:19 PM
Quote from: Hudson on Aug 15, 2013, 05:56:34 PM
QuoteReading all of these theories has made me not to take a side and wait for an explanation later.
Unfortunately, no one involved in this movie is ever going to answer this question officially. The shitty thing is I met Lance Henriksen last year and I wanted to ask him in person what he though. I'm assuming he would have said "I played a human," but that's just my guess. I kicked myself during the car ride home for forgetting to ask, but whatever.
Even if this question was asked, these are the responses I'd imagine you'd get if you asked "Is Bishop II a human or android?"
David Giler: I don't care.
Walter Hill: Go away.
Vincent Ward: What's Alien 3?
David Fincher: Leave me alone.
Sigourney Weaver: I don't know what you're talking about.
They already did answer. They discuss it on the Alien 3 commentary. Henriksen says he's a human who designed Bishop in his image, ala God and man (Henriksen changed his mind after AVP, for obvious retcon reasons). Woodruff and Gillis say that Fincher absolutely intended for him to be a man. I tried to jot them down here: http://alienseries.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/debate-bishop-ii-man-or-machine/ (http://alienseries.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/debate-bishop-ii-man-or-machine/)
As if fans listen to the official word.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Aug 16, 2013, 01:00:40 PMAs if fans listen to the official word.
I am a fan and I have listened to the official word.
Lol, that was a jab at the folks who insist he's an android despite official word ;)
Quote from: DoomRulz on Aug 16, 2013, 01:09:22 PM
Lol, that was a jab at the folks who insist he's an android despite official word ;)
They're not fans.
;D
Does fox consider AVP movies canon? Granted, the movies we get is the Directors vision, but it's still Fox's IP. Thus if AVP is canon by fox, then it over rides the fact that in Alien 3 The bishop we see isn't human.
Quote from: Guts on Aug 20, 2013, 01:25:01 AMDoes fox consider AVP movies canon?
Studios really don't care about "canon"; all they care about is if something is authorized by them; i.e.: will it make the studio money.
Quote from: Guts on Aug 20, 2013, 01:25:01 AM
Does fox consider AVP movies canon? Granted, the movies we get is the Directors vision, but it's still Fox's IP. Thus if AVP is canon by fox, then it over rides the fact that in Alien 3 The bishop we see isn't human.
Fox generally keeps schtum about such things. And even if they said they were canon, some people will always ignore such things.
They've apparently said A:CM and the upcoming Out Of The Shadows book are canonical, but a lot of people already discount A:CM, and nothing short of minor miracle will save Out Of The Shadows from a similar fate.
Quote from: Guts on Aug 20, 2013, 01:25:01 AMThus if AVP is canon by fox, then it over rides the fact that in Alien 3 The bishop we see isn't human.
Not really, as the events in
AvP do not affect those in
Alien³. As been mentioned too many times before, the character in question could still be human for many reasons also given before. As I see it, Anderson didn't have a hand in the making of
Alien³, so he shouldn't be saying such a thing. Plus, it took a while before it was addressed, so his answer sounded pretty slipshod as if he wasn't prepared for it and pulled the first thing from his mind to cover his gaff.
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 20, 2013, 01:36:44 AM
Quote from: Guts on Aug 20, 2013, 01:25:01 AMThus if AVP is canon by fox, then it over rides the fact that in Alien 3 The bishop we see isn't human.
Not really, as the events in AvP do not affect those in Alien³. As been mentioned too many times before, the character in question could still be human for many reasons also given before. As I see it, Anderson didn't have a hand in the making of Alien³, so he shouldn't be saying such a thing. Plus, it took a while before it was addressed, so his answer sounded pretty slipshod as if he wasn't prepared for it and pulled the first thing from his mind to cover his gaff.
Well, i consider the Bishop in Alien 3 to be Android. Granted you could say him being an Android is impossible. But we're talking about a Sci-fi movie here with an Alien called A Xenomorph and Robots made out of milk lol.
Except the ones made out of Bloody Marys
...lol
Quote from: Guts on Aug 20, 2013, 02:18:10 AMGranted you could say him being an Android is impossible. But we're talking about a Sci-fi movie here with an Alien called A Xenomorph and Robots made out of milk lol.
So were the people who made
Alien³.
Quote from: Guts on Aug 20, 2013, 01:25:01 AM
Does fox consider AVP movies canon? Granted, the movies we get is the Directors vision, but it's still Fox's IP. Thus if AVP is canon by fox, then it over rides the fact that in Alien 3 The bishop we see isn't human.
Are you saying that AVP determines he's human?
Quote from: Kelgaard on Aug 20, 2013, 03:19:57 AM
Quote from: Guts on Aug 20, 2013, 01:25:01 AM
Does fox consider AVP movies canon? Granted, the movies we get is the Directors vision, but it's still Fox's IP. Thus if AVP is canon by fox, then it over rides the fact that in Alien 3 The bishop we see isn't human.
Are you saying that AVP determines he's human?
Yes, unless he was a clone. Do we know if cloning exist in the Aliens/Alien3 timeline? we know it existed in Alien 4.
So robot or clone are the only two choices...?
:laugh:
I thought AVP tried to suggest Bishop II was an android.
Tried, perhaps...
QuoteThus if AVP is canon by fox, then it over rides the fact that in Alien 3 The bishop we see isn't human.
"The fact" that he isn't human? :laugh:
Quote from: Kelgaard on Aug 20, 2013, 04:47:17 AMI thought AVP tried to suggest Bishop II was an android.
Did it? (Genuine question, I only saw it once when it came out and never again.)
If it did, I completely missed it.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Aug 20, 2013, 11:19:31 AM
If it did, I completely missed it.
If it did, the only indication was in interviews with PWS Anderson and in the commentary that I actually listened to 9 years ago.
I think it's supposed to be implied that Charles Bishop Weyland was the actual guy that the Bishop android was designed to look like.
Which would make Bishop II a liar and an android.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Aug 21, 2013, 12:28:51 AM
I think it's supposed to be implied that Charles Bishop Weyland was the actual guy that the Bishop android was designed to look like. Which would make Bishop II a liar and an android.
Again, not necessarily so.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Aug 21, 2013, 12:28:51 AM
I think it's supposed to be implied that Charles Bishop Weyland was the actual guy that the Bishop android was designed to look like.
Which would make Bishop II a liar and an android.
Correct. Isn't explicit in the film, but this is what Paulie was going for.
Family resemblances obviously don't exist in the Alien universe. Such a thing would be unthinkable and silly.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.themoviescene.co.uk%2Freviews%2F_img%2F1263-3.jpg&hash=658891d7cf898f0addc7d350a1fbd2b0562ce654)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages2.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20120120090234%2Falienanthology%2Fimages%2Ff%2Ffe%2F337px-J.M._Lambertalien.jpg&hash=036b93620c4aa238e6a94e4522d24e1f335583d5)
I'm not seeing it.
Detective Lambert's sister married a guy named Hudson...
Quote from: SM on Aug 21, 2013, 12:48:17 AM
http://www.themoviescene.co.uk/reviews/_img/1263-3.jpg
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120120090234/alienanthology/images/f/fe/337px-J.M._Lambertalien.jpg
I'm not seeing it.
I'm assuming that's Lambert and Lambert? (top picture isn't working)
Yup.
Bishop II: Human / Android
By 105 votes.
Quote from: DC on Aug 21, 2013, 07:06:23 AM
Bishop II: Human / Android
By 105 votes.
Thank Bog reality can be determined by opinion.
::)
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 21, 2013, 12:09:57 PM
Quote from: DC on Aug 21, 2013, 07:06:23 AM
Bishop II: Human / Android
By 105 votes.
Thank Bog reality can be determined by opinion.
::)
Science says hello. :P
Quote from: DC on Aug 22, 2013, 04:09:23 AM
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 21, 2013, 12:09:57 PM
Quote from: DC on Aug 21, 2013, 07:06:23 AM
Bishop II: Human / Android
By 105 votes.
Thank Bog reality can be determined by opinion.
::)
Science says hello. :P
I was using sarcasm. Don't try to gaslight me.
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 22, 2013, 12:43:54 PM
Quote from: DC on Aug 22, 2013, 04:09:23 AM
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 21, 2013, 12:09:57 PM
Quote from: DC on Aug 21, 2013, 07:06:23 AM
Bishop II: Human / Android
By 105 votes.
Thank Bog reality can be determined by opinion.
::)
Science says hello. :P
I was using sarcasm. Don't try to gaslight me.
Gaslight? Gas is one of the three forms of matter, according to science.
Quote from: Hudson on Aug 22, 2013, 03:27:55 PM
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 22, 2013, 12:43:54 PM
Quote from: DC on Aug 22, 2013, 04:09:23 AM
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 21, 2013, 12:09:57 PM
Quote from: DC on Aug 21, 2013, 07:06:23 AM
Bishop II: Human / Android
By 105 votes.
Thank Bog reality can be determined by opinion.
::)
Science says hello. :P
I was using sarcasm. Don't try to gaslight me.
Gaslight? Gas is one of the three forms of matter, according to science.
Lulzy lulzy lulz.
We should get back on topic...
If anyone can bare it any longer.
Quote from: Valaquen on Aug 22, 2013, 08:41:57 PM
We should get back on topic...
If anyone can bare it any longer.
Bear.
*runs*
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-3waCOrwK1Sc%2FTnGM9_TtgzI%2FAAAAAAAABsA%2FGDUiS3sKOKE%2Fs600%2Fangry-grizzly-bear.jpg&hash=f1d7c94b38f60de93010557e35d62cfbb98fc77a)
Quote from: Omegazilla on Aug 22, 2013, 09:05:20 PM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3waCOrwK1Sc/TnGM9_TtgzI/AAAAAAAABsA/GDUiS3sKOKE/s600/angry-grizzly-bear.jpg
RUN!!!
I prefer that we bare it. Way more interesting.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.ibtimes.com%2Fwww%2Fdata%2Fimages%2Ffull%2F2013%2F04%2F08%2F359983-10-hot-bikini-pictures-of-bar-refaeli.jpg&hash=76396ee4a66faf48d731e9e1c59f625c546aa1d8)
Quote from: Bat Chain Puller on Aug 22, 2013, 09:08:11 PM
I prefer that we bare it. Way more interesting.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.ibtimes.com%2Fwww%2Fdata%2Fimages%2Ffull%2F2013%2F04%2F08%2F359983-10-hot-bikini-pictures-of-bar-refaeli.jpg&hash=76396ee4a66faf48d731e9e1c59f625c546aa1d8)
Agreed ;)
Charles Weyland and Bishop II are human. What`s the problem? Is it so impossible for two man be similar in 200 years period of history? They can even be related as far as I`m concerned. It changes nothing.
Bishop II act`s like human, bleeds like human and gets pissed off like human? What else is needed?
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 22, 2013, 09:03:11 PM
Quote from: Valaquen on Aug 22, 2013, 08:41:57 PM
We should get back on topic...
If anyone can bare it any longer.
Bear.
*runs*
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi104.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fm191%2FIzzys88%2FBear-Vs-Bare_zps75453201.jpg&hash=5971fc3ff1cb54a0d1c66aad17eb15db8d60a9eb)
Funny. This thread has existed since 2006 and is only half the length of the Pacific Rim thread. ::)
Cos Pacific Rim rocks and this debate sucks. Ya know.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frobot6.comicbookresources.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F07%2Fbane-dkr.jpg&hash=547f0215fc31d40924e38b6752ce6fb90e981157)
BY THE TIME THIS THREAD IS.... ASHES. IT WILL HAVE MY PERMISSION TO DIE
Question 1:
If Bishop II was an android, why did he allow Aaron to sneak up behind him and strike a wrench against his head? (I've got an anticipated answer for this one. We'll see if it pops up.)
Question 2:
If Bishop II was an android, why did the other personnel care so much to murder one of their fellow employees after he hit it in the head?
Question 3:
If Bishop II was an android, why didn't he use his superhuman strength and speed to stop Ripley from closing the safety gate between them or rip through the gate to get to her, preventing the destruction of the embryo?
The answer! It's in the blood!
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffc09.deviantart.net%2Ffs71%2Ff%2F2011%2F143%2F2%2Ff%2Fblood_splatter_transparency_by_sagacious-d3h1yw6.png&hash=d5dcfdf326eee661b2a9349436cf48d5d18be806)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthefilmist.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F12%2Ftwbb1.jpg&hash=5c245958fef4f0ed4e6a4cd8a85aef612c4398e1)
The second image isn't showing Bat Chain.
I've heard people say that the original Bishop's obvious duplicity in smuggling the egg on board the Sulaco proves that Bishop II was an android.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Aug 24, 2013, 08:36:34 PMI've heard people say that the original Bishop's obvious duplicity in smuggling the egg on board the Sulaco proves that Bishop II was an android.
I hope they could explain why?
That comment belongs in the "dumb things people say about the franchise" thread.
I tried to make sense of it... then I just decided to stop.
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 24, 2013, 12:12:02 PM
Question 3:
If Bishop II was an android, why didn't he use his superhuman strength and speed to stop Ripley from closing the safety gate between them or rip through the gate to get to her, preventing the destruction of the embryo?
Mal, you're thinking too much like a rational person. Try to think more like a rabid fanboy.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Aug 25, 2013, 03:52:47 PM
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 24, 2013, 12:12:02 PM
Question 3:
If Bishop II was an android, why didn't he use his superhuman strength and speed to stop Ripley from closing the safety gate between them or rip through the gate to get to her, preventing the destruction of the embryo?
Mal, you're thinking too much like a rational person. Try to think more like a rabid fanboy.
I can't. I've actually seen the movies and I spend most of my waking time amongst my fellow human beings in venues beyond my homestead.
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 24, 2013, 10:12:59 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Aug 24, 2013, 08:36:34 PMI've heard people say that the original Bishop's obvious duplicity in smuggling the egg on board the Sulaco proves that Bishop II was an android.
I hope they could explain why?
And how for that matter.
Because evil Bishop 1 proves that all Bishops are lying evil liars, especially the ones who claim to be human.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Aug 26, 2013, 02:52:36 AMBecause evil Bishop 1 proves that all Bishops are lying evil liars, especially the ones who claim to be human.
I'd buy that for a dollar. No...no I wouldn't.
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 26, 2013, 12:20:19 PM
I'd buy that for a dollar. No...no I wouldn't.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwearemoviegeeks.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Frobocop1987.jpg&hash=0ecee5fa2e92dc5bf82ee9a77e166ac665cc1225)
Thank you for your cooperation. Goodnight!
I can't believe people still think Bishop from Aliens had ulterior motives. That was Burke. I don't buy that egg smuggling crap people think happened in Alien 3 for a second.
Quote from: Gilfryd on Aug 26, 2013, 10:15:50 PM
I can't believe people still think Bishop from Aliens had ulterior motives. That was Burke. I don't buy that egg smuggling crap people think happened in Alien 3 for a second.
I entirely agree. That's just some poorly constructed reason to justify the egg being there.
It follows the illogic in "We didn't see it happen, so it must have happened."
"You can't prove it didn't happen! Why do you have to be close-minded?!"
It was the easter bunny with the lazy eye!
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imfdb.org%2Fimages%2Fthumb%2F9%2F99%2FPredator_2_revolvers_2.jpg%2F600px-Predator_2_revolvers_2.jpg&hash=51f2b3f5cb43d7a54537a5c91caa57f323559a76)
f**k`in Voodoo Magic Man!
You people have no idea what this topic was like back in the mid-90s on alt.cult-movies.alien. I still have PTSD from it.
Question: If Bishop in Aliens has ulterior motives, why did he try to save the lives of six expendable humans (assuming he was in on it with Burke)? All he had to do was go to the hive, grab an egg, and leave.
Because reasons. Why can't you have an open mind?
Quote from: Hudson on Aug 27, 2013, 07:00:35 AM
Question: If Bishop in Aliens has ulterior motives, why did he try to save the lives of six expendable humans (assuming he was in on it with Burke)? All he had to do was go to the hive, grab an egg, and leave.
In theory perhaps. But the dropship arrived just as Ripley and Hicks did.
Woulda got away with it too...
More pertinent is jeopardising his 'secret mission' by hanging around to wait for Ripley and Newt with the AP crumbling around him.
Quote from: SM on Aug 27, 2013, 07:04:17 AM
In theory perhaps. But the dropship arrived just as Ripley and Hicks did.
Funny you mention that. One of my more cunning opponents once theorized that the dropship landed earlier than that, Bishop did the dirty deed and then he made it lift off again so Ripley would believe that it had only just arrived. I'm not kidding.
Quote from: Hudson on Aug 27, 2013, 07:00:35 AM
Question: If Bishop in Aliens has ulterior motives, why did he try to save the lives of six expendable humans (assuming he was in on it with Burke)? All he had to do was go to the hive, grab an egg, and leave.
Answer: Because deep down he hated Ripley (For preventing his further analysis on the facehuggers) and Newt. Hicks was knocked out from the medicine (poison!) Bishop gave him. So he could quickly.... Oh god I sound like one of them :o ;D Please let it stop.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Aug 27, 2013, 07:08:07 AM
Quote from: SM on Aug 27, 2013, 07:04:17 AM
In theory perhaps. But the dropship arrived just as Ripley and Hicks did.
Funny you mention that. One of my more cunning opponents once theorized that the dropship landed earlier than that, Bishop did the dirty deed and then he made it lift off again so Ripley would believe that it had only just arrived. I'm not kidding.
But the time it would take... What?
QuoteFor preventing his further analysis on the facehuggers
She didn't though.
Quoteny you mention that. One of my more cunning opponents once theorized that the dropship landed earlier than that, Bishop did the dirty deed and then he made it lift off again so Ripley would believe that it had only just arrived. I'm not kidding.
So it arrives, Bishop flies over to the AP, gets an egg, flies back, gets out, remotely lifts the ship off again, then waits for Ripley and Hicks to show up and flies it back.
And somehow finds time to radio Hicks and tell him the ship is 16 minutes away - while he's at the landing field.
'cunning' Sure you didn't misspell that? Shouldn't there be a 't' in there somewhere?
QuoteMore pertinent is jeopardising his 'secret mission' by hanging around to wait for Ripley and Newt with the AP crumbling around him.
Plus, picking up Ripley and Hicks from the complex with a jetplane full of machineguns and flamethrowers, and not killing them.
And then saving Newt from falling out of the airlock, or once again not killing Ripley or Hicks on the Sulaco.
But he need them 2 b hostz 4 teh egzz lol
Quote from: SM on Aug 27, 2013, 07:21:39 AM
But he need them 2 b hostz 4 teh egzz lol
Well, in that case he did a real good job of putting an egg on the ceiling and leaving it to chance that it would hatch and impregnate someone before he was able to return to WY with a mission accomplished.
Quote from: SM on Aug 27, 2013, 07:20:31 AMSo it arrives, Bishop flies over to the AP, gets an egg, flies back, gets out, remotely lifts the ship off again, then waits for Ripley and Hicks to show up and flies it back.
And somehow finds time to radio Hicks and tell him the ship is 16 minutes away - while he's at the landing field.
'cunning' Sure you didn't misspell that? Shouldn't there be a 't' in there somewhere?
You tell it so well, I'm now suspicious that you may have been this theory's originator.
Quote from: SM on Aug 27, 2013, 07:20:31 AM
QuoteFor preventing his further analysis on the facehuggers
She didn't though.
Quoteny you mention that. One of my more cunning opponents once theorized that the dropship landed earlier than that, Bishop did the dirty deed and then he made it lift off again so Ripley would believe that it had only just arrived. I'm not kidding.
So it arrives, Bishop flies over to the AP, gets an egg, flies back, gets out, remotely lifts the ship off again, then waits for Ripley and Hicks to show up and flies it back.
And somehow finds time to radio Hicks and tell him the ship is 16 minutes away - while he's at the landing field.
'cunning' Sure you didn't misspell that? Shouldn't there be a 't' in there somewhere?
She wanted them all destroyed. Even the live ones. Reasonable enough.
Quote from: Hudson on Aug 27, 2013, 07:25:24 AM
Quote from: SM on Aug 27, 2013, 07:21:39 AM
But he need them 2 b hostz 4 teh egzz lol
Well, in that case he did a real good job of putting an egg on the ceiling and leaving it to chance that it would hatch and impregnate someone before he was able to return to WY with a mission accomplished.
He must of did a great job. Because you know... He had no legs!
Has this debate about android vs. human become so contrived that now it's about how Bishop supposedly brought an egg onboard the Sulaco? Sheesh.
It was emergency egg ::)
Poor Bishop in Aliens, he tries to be nice to do his best to help Ripley and company survive and gets ripped in half yet he's scapegoated by some for the mysterious egg :'(. In Alien 3 he should have said, "Disconnect me, I don't want to hear how people blame me for the magic egg, I could be rebuilt but never will I live this egg thing down"
I'd say blaming Bishop from Aliens is grasping at straws.
I'd really hate to see some gear box expansion pack showing this, but then again it wouldn't surprise me with all the BS that gets pulled.
It's ridiculous. And even in Alien 3, like you brought up. If everything was his fault, what, he feels remorse and that's why he helps Ripley...AGAIN?
You simply don't understand the complexity of what happened in these films. I will refrain from explaining the complexity, because it is so complex and technical that you do not need to understand it to enjoy the films. It is like a very deep game of chess where both players don't know how to play chess.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Aug 27, 2013, 05:17:10 PM
You simply don't understand the complexity of what happened in these films. I will refrain from explaining the complexity, because it is so complex and technical that you do not need to understand it to enjoy the films. It is like a very deep game of chess where both players don't know how to play chess.
So you don't know.
QuoteShe wanted them all destroyed. Even the live ones. Reasonable enough.
"Bishop, I want these specimens destroyed
as soon as you're finished with them. Is that clear?"
Quote from: Local Trouble on Aug 27, 2013, 05:17:10 PM
You simply don't understand the complexity of what happened in these films. I will refrain from explaining the complexity, because it is so complex and technical that you do not need to understand it to enjoy the films. It is like a very deep game of chess where both players don't know how to play chess.
Alonzo Harris: "To protect the sheep you gotta catch the wolf, and it takes a wolf to catch a wolf."
Alonzo Harris: "
This shit's chess, it ain't checkers"
Denzel Washington-Training Day
Quote from: SM on Aug 27, 2013, 11:45:16 PM
QuoteShe wanted them all destroyed. Even the live ones. Reasonable enough.
"Bishop, I want these specimens destroyed as soon as you're finished with them. Is that clear?"
Why are you arguing with me? Bishop was a good artificial person ;D I'm trying to understand the mind of those who believe this crap ???
You're better off understanding how chaos theory works.
Quote from: Terx2 on Aug 28, 2013, 04:30:10 AMWhy are you arguing with me? Bishop was a good artificial person ;D I'm trying to understand the mind of those who believe this crap ???
Understanding how religion and politics work helps.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Aug 27, 2013, 05:17:10 PM
You simply don't understand the complexity of what happened in these films. I will refrain from explaining the complexity, because it is so complex and technical that you do not need to understand it to enjoy the films. It is like a very deep game of chess where both players don't know how to play chess.
lolwut
Quote from: Local Trouble on Aug 27, 2013, 05:17:10 PMYou simply don't understand the complexity of what happened in these films. I will refrain from explaining the complexity, because it is so complex and technical that you do not need to understand it to enjoy the films.
If you want any credibility you best be 'splainin' things to us lowly users. Write it up or be written off.
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 28, 2013, 04:12:38 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Aug 27, 2013, 05:17:10 PMYou simply don't understand the complexity of what happened in these films. I will refrain from explaining the complexity, because it is so complex and technical that you do not need to understand it to enjoy the films.
If you want any credibility you best be 'splainin' things to us lowly users. Write it up or be written off.
I think Local was being sarcastic.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Aug 28, 2013, 05:10:52 PM
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 28, 2013, 04:12:38 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Aug 27, 2013, 05:17:10 PMYou simply don't understand the complexity of what happened in these films. I will refrain from explaining the complexity, because it is so complex and technical that you do not need to understand it to enjoy the films.
If you want any credibility you best be 'splainin' things to us lowly users. Write it up or be written off.
I think Local was being sarcastic.
It's *%&$ing hard to tell in plain ol' text. AFAIK, anybody here could switch gears. And, on a technicality, I would be in the right for answering the title of this thread with "android".
FF to 1:25...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTpWzg4aiEU#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTpWzg4aiEU#ws)
What the hell's going on!? :o
He had to go back in time to a galaxy far, far away to video a guy saying outloud what LT had already written in this thread.
Quote from: maledoro
Understanding how religion and politics work helps.
Quote from: DoomRulzYou're better off understanding how chaos theory works.
Quote from: DC on Aug 30, 2013, 12:26:21 AM
Quote from: maledoroUnderstanding how religion and politics work helps.
Quote from: DoomRulzYou're better off understanding how chaos theory works.
I know how they work. Chaos theory does not resemble political or religious thought.
It is organized chaos.
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 30, 2013, 12:58:56 AM
Quote from: DC on Aug 30, 2013, 12:26:21 AM
Quote from: maledoroUnderstanding how religion and politics work helps.
Quote from: DoomRulzYou're better off understanding how chaos theory works.
I know how they work. Chaos theory does not resemble political or religious thought.
It's harder to understand, but easier to grasp than the mentality of those who believe Bishop II is an android.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Aug 30, 2013, 11:13:42 AMIt's harder to understand, but easier to grasp than the mentality of those who believe Bishop II is an android.
Religion, politics, and B2A (Bishop II Is an Android) are easy to explain. They're based on a combination of
believing something to be a certain way and
wanting something to be a certain way.
I was referring to chaos theory.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Aug 30, 2013, 12:15:35 PMI was referring to chaos theory.
Was my summary of the thought processes of religion, politics and B2A easier to grasp than chaos theory?
Yes, yes it was.
Ladies and gentlemen, my work is done here.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Aug 30, 2013, 11:13:42 AM
It's harder to understand, but easier to grasp than the mentality of those who believe Bishop II is an android.
Which is why he is not one. :P
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 30, 2013, 01:12:11 PM
Ladies and gentlemen, my work is done here.
Never. 20 years from now, there will still be people who thinks he was an android. I think you and I are destined to do this for eternity.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Aug 30, 2013, 07:05:33 PM
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 30, 2013, 01:12:11 PM
Ladies and gentlemen, my work is done here.
Never. 20 years from now, there will still be people who thinks he was an android. I think you and I are destined to do this for eternity.
Indeed. :)
How does this thread still live?
Quote from: Local Trouble on Aug 30, 2013, 07:05:33 PM
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 30, 2013, 01:12:11 PM
Ladies and gentlemen, my work is done here.
Never. 20 years from now, there will still be people who thinks he was an android. I think you and I are destined to do this for eternity.
My work explaining to Doom how religion, politics and B2A is easier to understand than chaos theory is done. My debating the B2A crowd will not die before I do.
Quote from: maledoro
Understanding how religion and politics work helps.
Quote from: DoomRulzYou're better off understanding how chaos theory works.
What about string theory? Understanding what someone is trying to accomplish by proving Bishop 2 is an android is a better idea.
There is definitely arguments on both sides of the story.
What I would say is that there is sufficient interest in Weyland-Yutani of sending a synthetic rather than a human.
A few points for him being human;
1. He does show emotion and pain. Again this could be a facade or an actual programmed response at making androids more than just robots.
2. He is wearing sunglasses and not a visor. An android obviously does not need to protect against sunlight and sunglasses aren't great at keeping out sand. Of course this aspect could also be a facade.
3. He bleeds red.
Counter points for him being synthetic.
1(b). Bishop I gets speared by the Queen in Aliens and shows both surprise and pain. This suggests that this model of Android is capable of those emotions. I don't think we can use these factors as evidence of him being human.
2(b). Synthetics are probably effected by dust just as much as if not more than humans. As they are unlikely to have natural systems (such as mucus) which is used to clear dust from inside. This point is therefore too inconclusive
3(b). While both androids before and after Bishop bleed white blood. I would believe there is strong motive towards making such liquid red in the military. In a civilian environment, you want people to be able to tell synthetic from human for safety reasons, but in the military you want to keep this fact covered up so as not to show your hand to the enemy. Without doubt a human can only bleed red, but an android can be easily made to bleed red also to aid in deception. Inconclusive
However, one point I believe can't be disputed is;
In Aliens, in the canteen scene about 30 mins in. Burke says;
"Its just common practice. We always have a synthetic on board."
This is borne out in every single mission we have seen undertaken in the Aliens films.
Now this could have been anyone in the crew. Perhaps even still on board the ship. However Bishop II makes the best candidate for being the synthetic as we know his model.
Quote from: Belmakor on Sep 11, 2013, 12:34:31 PM
There is definitely arguments on both sides of the story.
What I would say is that there is sufficient interest in Weyland-Yutani of sending a synthetic rather than a human.
A few points for him being human;
1. He does show emotion and pain. Again this could be a facade or an actual programmed response at making androids more than just robots.
2. He is wearing sunglasses and not a visor. An android obviously does not need to protect against sunlight and sunglasses aren't great at keeping out sand. Of course this aspect could also be a facade.
3. He bleeds red.
Counter points for him being synthetic.
1(b). Bishop I gets speared by the Queen in Aliens and shows both surprise and pain. This suggests that this model of Android is capable of those emotions. I don't think we can use these factors as evidence of him being human.
2(b). Synthetics are probably effected by dust just as much as if not more than humans. As they are unlikely to have natural systems (such as mucus) which is used to clear dust from inside. This point is therefore too inconclusive
3(b). While both androids before and after Bishop bleed white blood. I would believe there is strong motive towards making such liquid red in the military. In a civilian environment, you want people to be able to tell synthetic from human for safety reasons, but in the military you want to keep this fact covered up so as not to show your hand to the enemy. Without doubt a human can only bleed red, but an android can be easily made to bleed red also to aid in deception. Inconclusive
However, one point I believe can't be disputed is;
In Aliens, in the canteen scene about 30 mins in. Burke says;
"Its just common practice. We always have a synthetic on board."
This is borne out in every single mission we have seen undertaken in the Aliens films.
Now this could have been anyone in the crew. Perhaps even still on board the ship. However Bishop II makes the best candidate for being the synthetic as we know his model.
I just want to point out that there are more definite points in your B2H arguments and more speculative points in the B2A arguments.
Can't we just... pour molten lead in this thread?
Hohohohoh what a rhyme. But seriously.
Molten lead won't kill it. We need sprinklers too.
Nuke it from orbit?
It's the only way to be sure.
I'm still waiting for the B2A supporters to explain the logic behind the deception. They think Ripley will trust a guy if he looks like an android but not if he's an actual android? Wtf?
Quote from: Kelgaard on Sep 11, 2013, 07:37:34 PMI'm still waiting for the B2A supporters to explain the logic behind the deception. They think Ripley will trust a guy if he looks like an android but not if he's an actual android? Wtf?
Yeah, I never could figure that one out, either. Not to mention the time it would take to get one out there to meet her, especially since she began to trust Bishop near the end of the mission.
Quoten Aliens, in the canteen scene about 30 mins in. Burke says;
"Its just common practice. We always have a synthetic on board."
This is borne out in every single mission we have seen undertaken in the Aliens films.
No, it isn't.
They were surprised Ash was a robot so it wasn't common practice at that time. There's nothing to show that the Patna crew had a synthetic on board.
And why didn't this supposed synthetic use his superior strength and speed to simply take Ripley by force or evade the guy about the whack him? Did the red food colouring in his blood slow him down? Nevermind the whole 'his blood could easily be made red' argument is proven rubbish anyway.
Quote from: SM on Sep 11, 2013, 08:31:06 PM
Quoten Aliens, in the canteen scene about 30 mins in. Burke says;
"Its just common practice. We always have a synthetic on board."
This is borne out in every single mission we have seen undertaken in the Aliens films.
No, it isn't.
They were surprised Ash was a robot so it wasn't common practive at that time. There's nothing to show that the Patna crew had a synthetic on board.
And why didn't this supposed synthetic use his superior strength and speed to simply take Ripley by force or evade the guy about the whack him? Did the red food colouring in his blood slow him down? Nevermind the whole 'his blood could easily be made red' argument is proven rubbish anyway.
Why the hell is this even an argument? Should be fact.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Sep 11, 2013, 05:09:27 PM
It's the only way to be sure.
It's because THEY won't kill it, they might kill us for just having seen it
Quote from: Novak 1334 on Sep 11, 2013, 10:04:01 PM
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Sep 11, 2013, 05:09:27 PM
It's the only way to be sure.
It's because THEY won't kill it, they might kill us for just having seen it
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-wTrkA-fBKDA%2FT7EntLHKUMI%2FAAAAAAAACZE%2FJzJ4jKMGnL8%2Fs400%2Fgfs_30557_2_48.jpg&hash=7034266f1e75f89bea818b37a098b1c4096f1d90)
For great justice.
Bishop was an android thats for sure. Alien 3 takes place way too late into the time line after the time when WY was founded which means that Mr. Weyland is long time dead.
^
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_lyium2H06w1rn95k2o1_400.gif&hash=4d946fc368eb988c98d86b8ea0bfb8d9ec873f32)
Has maledoro conceded that Bishop II is an android yet?
Quote from: Local Trouble on Sep 15, 2013, 09:22:20 PMHas maledoro conceded that Bishop II is an android yet?
Are you trying to make your way to International Trouble?
Alien3s Bishop,when injured bled red just like a human,unless he was a highly advanced synthetic capable of mimicking physical and mental trauma.A human being would never have recovered so soon after receiving the head wound Bishop 2 received.
Are we doing this again?
Quote from: Elmazalman on Sep 20, 2013, 09:58:50 AM
Alien3s Bishop,when injured bled red just like a human,unless he was a highly advanced synthetic capable of mimicking physical and mental trauma.A human being would never have recovered so soon after receiving the head wound Bishop 2 received.
Wow. There's some original thinking. It's been brought up and debunked a long time ago. Sorry you weren't here to see it.
The debate is still going on then.
hmmm what point to bring up this time.
Bishop android wears like work clothes where was bishop in alien 3 has a kind of fashionable scarf thing going on. There go he is human.
ah more wood to an ever burning fire.
Quote from: SIMULANT on Sep 20, 2013, 09:47:49 PM
The debate is still going on then.
hmmm what point to bring up this time.
Bishop android wears like work clothes where was bishop in alien 3 has a kind of fashionable scarf thing going on. There go he is human.
ah more wood to an ever burning fire.
Lol. The scarf reference !!!!! Hahaha. Brilliant!
Quote from: Elmazalman on Sep 20, 2013, 09:58:50 AM
Alien3s Bishop,when injured bled red just like a human,unless he was a highly advanced synthetic capable of mimicking physical and mental trauma.A human being would never have recovered so soon after receiving the head wound Bishop 2 received.
So...what are you saying?
Quote from: Vermillion on Sep 22, 2013, 04:51:33 PM
Quote from: SIMULANT on Sep 20, 2013, 09:47:49 PM
The debate is still going on then.
hmmm what point to bring up this time.
Bishop android wears like work clothes where was bishop in alien 3 has a kind of fashionable scarf thing going on. There go he is human.
ah more wood to an ever burning fire.
Lol. The scarf reference !!!!! Hahaha. Brilliant!
Don't forget about those kickin glasses to go with that scarf. ;D
He just does that for the same reason David wore a helmet.
Quote from: SIMULANT on Sep 20, 2013, 09:47:49 PM
The debate is still going on then.
hmmm what point to bring up this time.
Bishop android wears like work clothes where was bishop in alien 3 has a kind of fashionable scarf thing going on. There go he is human.
ah more wood to an ever burning fire.
:D points to you for bringing in something new.
Quote from: FiorinaFury161 on Sep 22, 2013, 10:32:08 PM
Quote from: Vermillion on Sep 22, 2013, 04:51:33 PM
Quote from: SIMULANT on Sep 20, 2013, 09:47:49 PM
The debate is still going on then.
hmmm what point to bring up this time.
Bishop android wears like work clothes where was bishop in alien 3 has a kind of fashionable scarf thing going on. There go he is human.
ah more wood to an ever burning fire.
Lol. The scarf reference !!!!! Hahaha. Brilliant!
Don't forget about those kickin glasses to go with that scarf. ;D
Boom conclusion. Bishop 2 has to be a human because only humans care about fashion :D
Quote from: Terx2 on Sep 23, 2013, 02:33:16 PM
Boom conclusion. Bishop 2 has to be a human because only humans & cats care about fashion :D
*Fixed.
+1 to you sir.
Can't wait for another noob to come in here and set maledoro straight on why Bishop II is a droid. It's like an infinite loop of entertainment.
Did you ever watch all of the original Planet of the Apes movies (1968 - 1973)?
It's like that. You'll see what I mean in particular when you watch "Escape from the Planet of the Apes".
Is it possible that Bishop 2 was played by Lance Henrikson, and like the Android Bishop also played by Lance Henrikson and Lance has an A in his name, and Android is spelled with an A
It's conclusive, he is therefore an Android
Quote from: Novak 1334 on Sep 24, 2013, 10:52:36 AM
Is it possible that Bishop 2 was played by Lance Henrikson, and like the Android Bishop also played by Lance Henrikson and Lance has an A in his name, and Android is spelled with an A
It's conclusive, he is therefore an Android
He also has a H in his last name so Bishop 2 must be a human. The wheel of madness people :D
He was also originally cast to be the Terminator,
Android
Quote from: Novak 1334 on Sep 24, 2013, 10:52:36 AM
Is it possible that Bishop 2 was played by Lance Henrikson, and like the Android Bishop also played by Lance Henrikson and Lance has an A in his name, and Android is spelled with an A
It's conclusive, he is therefore an Android
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flunatikathletiks.com%2Fimg%2Flunatic-definition.png&hash=6df8553a052b95fd8dc12b460d5ad33fbc83aee2)
He was a cyborg alien pirate ninja jesus robot man.
Quote from: Mr. Wednesday on Sep 24, 2013, 05:49:18 PM
He was a cyborg alien pirate ninja jesus robot man.
Oh, please. We're already talking about an ALIEN character so controversial it's dumbfounding.
But one can dream. :laugh:
Quote from: Novak 1334 on Sep 24, 2013, 12:35:12 PM
He was also originally cast to be the Terminator,
Android
But in the end he played a cop.
HUMAN!
Quote from: Arterial Spray on Sep 26, 2013, 08:34:09 PM
Quote from: Novak 1334 on Sep 24, 2013, 12:35:12 PM
He was also originally cast to be the Terminator,
Android
But in the end he played a cop.
HUMAN!
What he said.
He was a vampire in Near Dark.
UNDEAD!!
Nah, he's a human farmer who summons a Monster of Vengeance.
SUPERNATURAL!!
Quote from: Omegazilla on Sep 27, 2013, 05:50:13 AM
Nah, he's a human farmer who summons a Monster of Vengeance.
SUPERNATURAL!!
Takes a shotgun to the face, Van Damme's mullet and a grenade to kill him
SUPERNATURAL ANDROID NINJA DEMON FARMER
Quote from: Kelgaard on Sep 11, 2013, 07:37:34 PM
I'm still waiting for the B2A supporters to explain the logic behind the deception. They think Ripley will trust a guy if he looks like an android but not if he's an actual android? Wtf?
Because the Bishop model is a familiar face to Ripley, and given her past experience with Androids, they used one that is designed to appear human down to the finest details. Also the Bishop models are based on Charles Bishop Weyland who is dead 180 odd years beforehand, it's highly unlikely any descendants could retain identical appearances through so many generations.
But he is human. I just love this thread too much to stay away ;D
Bishop II is the Deacon when it grows up.
Such a suggestion would be a cardinal sin.
I hate you so much right now.
Quote from: SM on Sep 28, 2013, 12:54:52 AM
Such a suggestion would be a cardinal sin.
ba dum tish.
Human ! He clearly bleeds red.... It was suposed to be the finale :-\
Quote from: Aliens_Diner86 on Oct 17, 2013, 08:40:48 PM
Human ! He clearly bleeds red.... It was supposed to be the finale :-\
It is for me!
Quote from: FiorinaFury161 on Oct 18, 2013, 02:11:49 AM
Quote from: Aliens_Diner86 on Oct 17, 2013, 08:40:48 PM
Human ! He clearly bleeds red.... It was supposed to be the finale :-\
It is for me!
It totaly shits on aliens :-\ Its a very well made film exept for some realy bad sfx here and there though.
3rd alien Movie should have been "planet of the aliens" or something in those lines IMO. And how did that egg get into the fkin ship ?
Still cant belive they killed of the main characters like that !!!
The true sequal to aliens and alien has not been made yet ;D
Yes, it has.
They're dead.
Get over it.
Quote from: SiL on Oct 19, 2013, 10:39:58 PM
Yes, it has.
They're dead.
Get over it.
Oh I am over it ;) But still.....
Quote from: SiL on Oct 19, 2013, 10:39:58 PM
Yes, it has.
They're dead.
Get over it.
They are dead only for budgetary reasons.
$hi77y studio decision.
So have we all agreed that he's an android now?
Quote from: Vermillion on Oct 20, 2013, 03:33:30 PM
They are dead only for budgetary reasons.
They paid Michael Beihn more for his photo in
Alien 3 than they did for a leading role in
Aliens.
So, not so much.
Quote from: SiL on Oct 20, 2013, 10:19:21 PM
Quote from: Vermillion on Oct 20, 2013, 03:33:30 PM
They are dead only for budgetary reasons.
They paid Michael Beihn more for his photo in Alien 3 than they did for a leading role in Aliens.
So, not so much.
If he physically appeared he would have been paid much much more than the photo.
Much more.
I doubt it, since he only demanded such a ridiculously large sum of money because he was upset about Hicks getting killed off between films.
Basically. "If you wanna kill him like that and really wanna use my likeness, you're payin' out the arse for it."
The actor seemed happy enough not to be associated with #3.
He would've liked to have come back for another film. And joked that if he knew David Fincher was going to turn into the filmmaker he did, he probably wouldn't have asked for the increased payment for his likeness.
I guess he must've had a change of heart.
Quote from: Elmazalman on Oct 21, 2013, 03:30:49 AMThe actor seemed happy enough not to be associated with #3.
At least until
Colonial Marines...
Quote from: SiL on Oct 21, 2013, 04:24:57 AM
He would've liked to have come back for another film. And joked that if he knew David Fincher was going to turn into the filmmaker he did, he probably wouldn't have asked for the increased payment for his likeness.
What the heck happened to Biehn, anyway? Whenever I see pictures of him now, he looks strung out and tired. It doesn't look as though he's been taking care of himself.
Yeah, he did The Terminator, Aliens and The Abyss (and I guess Terminator 2: Judgement Day, although he was cut from the theatrical version) and then he kinda disappeared. He had that small role in The Rock, but he dies like five minutes after he's introduced. Oh, and Command & Conquer: Tiberium Sun. He was awesome in that :) But otherwise he never really made any other big films that I'm aware of.
That's "Tiberian Sun" ;) I never knew he was in T2. I assume it was a flashback?
Close enough, it's been years since I played it! :)
As for T2, yes, he was in a dream sequence while Sarah's at the mental institute that was added back into the extended cut. It was a nice little scene (and it explained the whole "no fate" speech, which Sarah claims he gave to her even though he never actually said it in the first movie) but it didn't really add much, plus it relied on you knowing who Biehn was from the first film, so I can see why it got cut.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Oct 21, 2013, 01:55:04 PM
Yeah, he did The Terminator, Aliens and The Abyss (and I guess Terminator 2: Judgement Day, although he was cut from the theatrical version) and then he kinda disappeared. He had that small role in The Rock, but he dies like five minutes after he's introduced. Oh, and Command & Conquer: Tiberium Sun. He was awesome in that :) But otherwise he never really made any other big films that I'm aware of.
Navy SEALS, K2, Tombstone, plus a bunch of stuff that barely rates a mention but shows he was still working fairly regularly despite his alcoholism.
How dare you not mention Megiddo: The Omega Code 2?
I did.
Quotestuff that barely rates a mention
Quote from: DoomRulz on Oct 21, 2013, 01:41:51 PM
Quote from: SiL on Oct 21, 2013, 04:24:57 AM
He would've liked to have come back for another film. And joked that if he knew David Fincher was going to turn into the filmmaker he did, he probably wouldn't have asked for the increased payment for his likeness.
What the heck happened to Biehn, anyway? Whenever I see pictures of him now, he looks strung out and tired. It doesn't look as though he's been taking care of himself.
As SM mentioned, his career havent stalled after T2 yet. Tombstone was the most known I would say of all the other ones SM mentioned. He may have a haggard look because he was battling alcoholism for years. Hes sober now but he had it bad at some point
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthejcoboard.46.forumer.com%2Fdownload%2Ffile.php%3Fid%3D26490&hash=4c414847bf2044c0025effdc73c8a721842e7aa9)
Quote from: SM on Oct 21, 2013, 11:24:40 PM
I did.
Quotestuff that barely rates a mention
Sinner.
And recently he was in Blood Dragon.. ahem.. sorry.. BLOOD DRAGON!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGL1qpUR9Jo#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGL1qpUR9Jo#ws)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWRAECi9i7Q#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWRAECi9i7Q#ws)
Voice acting doesn't count.
Quote from: SM on Oct 21, 2013, 10:27:14 PMNavy SEALS, K2, Tombstone, plus a bunch of stuff that barely rates a mention but shows he was still working fairly regularly despite his alcoholism.
I'll give you
Tombstone, that was a pretty major film. Great cast in that, a whole bunch of my favourite actors.
You know what I mean though? He never really did any more blockbusters like the movies he made in the 80s.
He is being sarcastic. Some time ago there was a discussion about Mark Hamill's voice acting career where that was brought up.
Quote from: Omegazilla on Oct 23, 2013, 12:36:19 PM
He is being sarcastic. Some time ago there was a discussion about Mark Hamill's voice acting career where that was brought up.
And look where Hamill is today. Seriously, look. I gave up looking for him a long time ago.
;)
I wonder how many successful film actors wish they could be voice actors instead. :laugh:
I wonder how many actors wish they had work.
Touche
Quote from: SM on Oct 23, 2013, 10:17:03 PM
I wonder how many actors wish they had work.
You're telling me. Forget voice work as that's a whole beast unto itself. On-camera work is hard to find.
I'll say android.
If I were a wealthy genius master of industry,
I wouldn't build likenesses of myself to run around doing things that I'd be blamed for.
What if it killed somebody?
Honestly if I had android technology,
I'd build a bunch of Scarlett Johannsonns.
Quote from: RobThom on Oct 30, 2013, 08:26:54 PM
I'll say android.
If I were a wealthy genius master of industry,
I wouldn't build likenesses of myself to run around doing things that I'd be blamed for.
What if it killed somebody?
Honestly if I had android technology,
I'd build a bunch of Scarlett Johannsonns.
So what about the red blood and the moment when he clearly reacts as if he's in pain.
Quote from: Sgt. Apone on Oct 30, 2013, 10:36:17 PM
Quote from: RobThom on Oct 30, 2013, 08:26:54 PM
I'll say android.
If I were a wealthy genius master of industry,
I wouldn't build likenesses of myself to run around doing things that I'd be blamed for.
What if it killed somebody?
Honestly if I had android technology,
I'd build a bunch of Scarlett Johannsonns.
So what about the red blood and the moment when he clearly reacts as if he's in pain.
And he walked back to the ship.
Trauma of that magnitude to the head would require a stretcher.
Quote from: Sgt. Apone on Oct 30, 2013, 10:36:17 PM
Quote from: RobThom on Oct 30, 2013, 08:26:54 PM
I'll say android.
If I were a wealthy genius master of industry,
I wouldn't build likenesses of myself to run around doing things that I'd be blamed for.
What if it killed somebody?
Honestly if I had android technology,
I'd build a bunch of Scarlett Johannsonns.
So what about the red blood and the moment when he clearly reacts as if he's in pain.
red blood could be a decoy, as obviously the first thing Ripley would ask (assumingly) would be to cut the finger or something. As far as pain, Bishop seemed to winch in pain too
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jamescamerononline.com%2Fbishoppain.png&hash=d4a721f2732d0f9a339871ef4f92fc32b9123a93)
Either way, my stance is this: Bishop II is human because this is what the novelization says, but that idea was poorly executed to the poit we have so many debates about it and to the point its so unclear for many
I was sure hes a decoy droid up until I read the novelization, and I honestly like and prefer the idea of Bishop II (also a great clue *sarcasm* as to whether hes a droid or not) being an droid since it fits more with the sllimy and twisted lies and ways of the company. Lance also played it in a very sinister "somethings not right" sort of a way
Quotered blood could be a decoy, as obviously the first thing Ripley would ask (assumingly) would be to cut the finger or something.
That must be why she did it in the film.
QuoteAnd he walked back to the ship.
We never see Bishop again after Ripley dives into the furnace.
Quote from: SM on Oct 31, 2013, 10:29:54 PM
Quotered blood could be a decoy, as obviously the first thing Ripley would ask (assumingly) would be to cut the finger or something.
That must be why she did it in the film.
She didnt, but they could easily think that that would be the first proof shed ask for. Such an easy way to check whether someone is a droid or not. Just a finger cut. For someone who wouldve been an android whose mission depended on whether he could prove that hes a droid or not, it wouldve been insane not to at least tint the blood
There was this film, two in fact, where there were secret androids. Neither put food colouring in their blood.
They never faced a situation where they knew they would be put in question right upfront
:laugh:
And of course they knew right from the outset, that they'd never, ever have to try and pass for human.
Its different with Bishop II (as credited in the script), because he would be accused of being a droid trying to pass for human first before anything else. Other droids didnt have to face up that challenge right away
So because they didn't have to right away - they never would need to.
Not even Call, who would be destroyed on site simply for being a robot.
Flawless logic...
A true infiltration unit should be more like a T-800. Sweat, bad breath and red blood.
Quote from: SM on Nov 02, 2013, 12:59:07 AM
So because they didn't have to right away - they never would need to.
Not even Call, who would be destroyed on site simply for being a robot.
Flawless logic...
Call couldn't choose how was she designed. Also, again, Bishop II had a very important mission which greatly depended whether hell get trusted. If hes a droid, tinting the blood shouldn't be really that much of a deal or work
Ash was on an important mission which also could've done with not being caught out being an android.
Quote from: SiL on Nov 02, 2013, 01:22:23 AM
Ash was on an important mission which also could've done with not being caught out being an android.
I know, which in universe it doesnt make much sense. The white blood was a creative choice to most likely help the reveal/realization that Ash is not human the moment the head came off but in universe it doesnt make much sense for something that could be called an infiltrator to have such an easy giveaway as white blood
The fact Call still has white blood, would indicate you can't simply make it red.
Unless it has to be done at construction?
Maybe. Maybe the fluid is just a delicate balance of chemicals and anything you add disrupts it.
I see this thread is trending android now.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.stack.imgur.com%2F5SBHQ.jpg&hash=8f285f71e7e48a20a573a9c33f4dc6cc73ff8574)
I'm pretty sure that has been shown before in the past.
Yet here we are anyway.
Quote from: Crazy Rich on Nov 03, 2013, 04:22:19 AM
I'm pretty sure that has been shown before in the past.
Yet here we are anyway.
I know, just had to throw off the android talk ;)
What if Bishop II is a cyborg?
What if he's the tooth fairy?
I question the logic in thinking that Ripley would respond better to Bishop's creator than another Bishop android anyway. I guess they didn't anticipate how low an opinion she had of her fellow man at that point.
I've questioned that logic myself a few times. No one has ever given me an answer.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Nov 04, 2013, 04:53:25 PM
I question the logic in thinking that Ripley would respond better to Bishop's creator than another Bishop android anyway. I guess they didn't anticipate how low an opinion she had of her fellow man at that point.
How would the company know that Ripley had developed a rapport/friendship with Bishop?
Could be they just made an assumption that the few survivors of the mission would have ended up a tight-knit bunch, including Bishop.
Or maybe Bishop's memories are wirelessly accessible via the network.
That's all I got.
Quote from: Elmazalman on Nov 05, 2013, 12:06:41 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Nov 04, 2013, 04:53:25 PM
I question the logic in thinking that Ripley would respond better to Bishop's creator than another Bishop android anyway. I guess they didn't anticipate how low an opinion she had of her fellow man at that point.
How would the company know that Ripley had developed a rapport/friendship with Bishop?
"The Company knows everything." - Bishop (Alien3)
Quote from: Local Trouble on Nov 05, 2013, 02:00:06 AM
Could be they just made an assumption that the few survivors of the mission would have ended up a tight-knit bunch, including Bishop.
Or maybe Bishop's memories are wirelessly accessible via the network.
That's all I got.
Plausible theory but we'll never no for sure.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Nov 05, 2013, 02:00:06 AMOr maybe Bishop's memories are wirelessly accessible via the network.
I'm not suggesting it's concrete, but the Colonial Marines Technical Manual mentions all the things Bishop sees and hears are automatically recorded and transmitted back to Weyland-Yutani.
What FiorinaFury161 said.
It's right there in the film.
Doesn't really explain how they know though.
Besides, at the time they're talking about the fact the Alien's on Fury 161. Doesn't really relate to how the company might know Ripley and Bishop are best buddies.
QuoteDoesn't really explain how they know though.
"The Company knows everything that happened on the ship. It all goes into the computer and sent back to network."
Quote from: Naissus on Nov 03, 2013, 04:54:23 AM
What if Bishop II is a cyborg?
That's what I usually think, either that or appreciate the idea that it's a character with no final answer whether he's a human or a machine. I like the ambiguousness of the entity rather than having to have a solid viewpoint that he must be one thing or another.
Could the same thing have happened 57 years earlier on board Nostromo with an older model synthetic relaying information back directly to Weylan(d)-Yutani?
Presumably, the ship's computer would have recorded everything that happened after Bishop landed the dropship in the docking bay. So Ripley's "ya done good, Bish" and Bishop's "not bad for a human" may have been enough for the company to draw a conclusion about them.
Quote from: Elmazalman on Nov 05, 2013, 07:50:17 PM
Could the same thing have happened 57 years earlier on board Nostromo with an older model synthetic relaying information back directly to Weylan(d)-Yutani?
You know the old saying: "Anything's possible." But, since there was no mention of this, it's unlikely. If we go by what is in the novelizations, in
Alien, the crew of the
Nostromo ruled out sending an SOS because it would arrive about the same time they would. In
Aliens, it still took two weeks to send a message and in the novelization of
Alien³ there is mention that the communication equipment in the prison complex is
much faster (and more expensive) to use. My guess is that immediate equipment would be available to the military and other high-risk settings.
Quote from: Elmazalman on Nov 05, 2013, 07:50:17 PM
Could the same thing have happened 57 years earlier on board Nostromo with an older model synthetic relaying information back directly to Weylan(d)-Yutani?
Not in any useful sense.
If Ash was in fact relaying info back to network, no one either received or acted on it for the next 6 decades.
Quote from: SM on Nov 06, 2013, 12:29:03 AM
Quote from: Elmazalman on Nov 05, 2013, 07:50:17 PM
Could the same thing have happened 57 years earlier on board Nostromo with an older model synthetic relaying information back directly to Weylan(d)-Yutani?
Not in any useful sense.
If Ash was in fact relaying info back to network, no one either received or acted on it for the next 6 decades.
Or so we thought. There are after all a trillogy of books and a game coming out, all set in the interveening years.
Joy for the continuity nightmare to be created!
They can nibble around the edges, but nothing's going to change the fact they had Alien specimens on their doorstep for over 20 years and did sweet FA with them.
Quote from: SM on Nov 06, 2013, 01:41:03 AM
They can nibble around the edges, but nothing's going to change the fact they had Alien specimens on their doorstep for over 20 years and did sweet FA with them.
Kinda like how nothing could change the fact that when Ripley topped herself on Fury, she effectively wiped out the Xenomorphs... until
ACM came along and took a big diarrhetic shite all over that.
Just like every other video game that most people don't pay attention to.
Except ACM had very vocal backing from Fox. I don't remember them ever stating a game was an official part of the film series before.
Don't get me wrong, I'm arguing with you. I just won't be holding my breath that these new Fox-backed novels won't shit all over what was established in the films in exactly the same way as the most recent game.
I still like that fox has remained completely silent with regards to A:CM's cannon status. All mentions of cannon came from within Gearbox and a Sega press release.
Looking back IIRC a number of EU projects made a big deal about being cannon but fell by the wayside when they failed to live up to expectations.
The author of the first of the new novels has been touting them as cannon.
Did Fox ever make an official statement or was it all Gearbox and Sega claiming that Fox said that?
QuoteExcept ACM had very vocal backing from Fox. I don't remember them ever stating a game was an official part of the film series before.
I don't remember Fox ever saying anything. Some clowns at Gearbox did though.
QuoteDon't get me wrong, I'm arguing with you. I just won't be holding my breath that these new Fox-backed novels won't shit all over what was established in the films in exactly the same way as the most recent game.
I'm sure they will in varying degrees.
Quote from: SM on Nov 06, 2013, 10:22:59 PMI don't remember Fox ever saying anything. Some clowns at Gearbox did though.
No you're right, Fox never said anything themselves. But with Gearbox throwing Fox's name around so openly, I can't imagine they wouldn't have said something if they disagreed with what they were doing.
Quote from: SM on Nov 06, 2013, 10:22:59 PMQuoteDon't get me wrong, I'm arguing with you. I just won't be holding my breath that these new Fox-backed novels won't shit all over what was established in the films in exactly the same way as the most recent game.
I'm sure they will in varying degrees.
Also just realised I meant to say "Don't get me wrong, I'm
not arguing with you." Missing out the one word kinda made my statement the complete opposite of what I meant to say, sorry!
I know what you meant.
Human, the Assembly cut makes that obvious and Alien-3 isn't as good without the Assembly Version.
Quote from: The1PerfectOrganism on Nov 17, 2013, 04:16:47 AM
Human, the Assembly cut makes that obvious and Alien-3 isn't as good without the Assembly Version.
Like saying Star Wars is inaccurate based on the first draft written as Starkiller.
Quote from: Vermillion on Nov 17, 2013, 06:43:07 PMLike saying Star Wars is inaccurate based on the first draft written as Starkiller.
How is that even slightly similar?
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Nov 17, 2013, 07:02:13 PM
Quote from: Vermillion on Nov 17, 2013, 06:43:07 PMLike saying Star Wars is inaccurate based on the first draft written as Starkiller.
How is that even slightly similar?
Assembly cut. Is a draft version or a hypothetical director's vision.
Quote from: Vermillion on Nov 17, 2013, 10:34:25 PMAssembly cut. Is a draft version or a hypothetical director's vision.
That has been officially released. The early
Star Wars scripts were never even filmed.
He was an android. I can't recall where but I saw what was probably a deleted scene with the last crew member striking him with a crowbar or something. He was exposed as an android in that scene.
Quote from: Liberator on Dec 14, 2013, 04:26:56 AM
He was an android. I can't recall where but I saw what was probably a deleted scene with the last crew member striking him with a crowbar or something. He was exposed as an android in that scene.
He was exposed of having red,
human blood when he was hit in the head.
Quote from: Liberator on Dec 14, 2013, 04:26:56 AM
He was an android. I can't recall where but I saw what was probably a deleted scene with the last crew member striking him with a crowbar or something. He was exposed as an android in that scene.
The directors disagree with you. And there is is no deleted scene.
I seem to remember an android.
Quote from: Liberator on Dec 14, 2013, 04:49:52 AM
I seem to remember an android.
The proper response is: "there's no way a human being could sustain that kind of injury and remain conscious" or some variation thereof.
I'd argue with a xenomorph.
That's cool, but at no point does the movie show he's an android. He bleeds red blood and screams "I'm not a droid". No white blood, no spaghetti insides, no distorted voice.
Ad didn't the directors mention it?
Quote from: SiL on Dec 14, 2013, 05:43:02 AMHe... screams "I'm not a droid".
Only in the Assembly Cut.
The main defence I'll give the droiders is that comparing the Assembly Cut and the theatrical version, it's clear they were trying to make the character more ambiguous in the latter, based on the footage they removed.
Hasn't anyone ever proposed that they may have simply dyed his blood red on the off chance he got cut?
Quote from: Local Trouble on Dec 14, 2013, 07:24:24 PM
Hasn't anyone ever proposed that they may have simply dyed his blood red on the off chance he got cut?
A while back I posted a similar theory,that maybe he was an advanced synthetic that could mimic pain/trauma and bleeding if the need should ever arise,another poster shot me down and told me it had already been considered and myth busted.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Dec 14, 2013, 05:32:53 PM
Quote from: SiL on Dec 14, 2013, 05:43:02 AMHe... screams "I'm not a droid".
Only in the Assembly Cut.
The main defence I'll give the droiders is that comparing the Assembly Cut and the theatrical version, it's clear they were trying to make the character more ambiguous in the latter, based on the footage they removed.
No, they weren't trying to make it ambiguous.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Dec 14, 2013, 07:24:24 PM
Hasn't anyone ever proposed that they may have simply dyed his blood red on the off chance he got cut?
Everyone says that.
Quote from: SM on Dec 14, 2013, 09:13:23 PMNo, they weren't trying to make it ambiguous.
What makes you think that? The fact they cut out the shots that make it most clear he is human seems to imply they were going for ambiguity. Otherwise why cut it out? it was like 5 seconds of footage, it wasn't exactly a lengthy scene dropped to speed things up. It could quite easily have stayed. But they removed it.
Gore, possibly. The shots that make it clearest he's human are also the most explicit of his head wound. It may only be a few seconds, but seconds of gore trimmed here and there add up to ratings boards. The rest of the movie was also toned down to secure an R rating.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 15, 2013, 11:53:36 AMGore, possibly.
I don't remember the "I'm not a droid!" bit being particularly bloody.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 15, 2013, 11:53:36 AM
Gore, possibly. The shots that make it clearest he's human are also the most explicit of his head wound. It may only be a few seconds, but seconds of gore trimmed here and there add up to ratings boards. The rest of the movie was also toned down to secure an R rating.
So the Assembly Cut would be a, um,
Super R rating? ;D
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Dec 15, 2013, 11:06:30 AM
Quote from: SM on Dec 14, 2013, 09:13:23 PMNo, they weren't trying to make it ambiguous.
What makes you think that? The fact they cut out the shots that make it most clear he is human seems to imply they were going for ambiguity. Otherwise why cut it out? it was like 5 seconds of footage, it wasn't exactly a lengthy scene dropped to speed things up. It could quite easily have stayed. But they removed it.
I don't think Fox gave a f**k, they just wanted to trim (read: "hack") the movie into bits without regard for the filmmakers' intentions.
Quote from: Valaquen on Dec 15, 2013, 03:41:49 PMI don't think Fox gave a f**k, they just wanted to trim (read: "hack") the movie into bits without regard for the filmmakers' intentions.
Maybe. It just seems like very specific removals. Him screaming that he isn't a droid and the one shot that clearly shows gushing red blood from his head wound.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Dec 15, 2013, 01:19:21 PM
I don't remember the "I'm not a droid!" bit being particularly bloody.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Dec 15, 2013, 05:28:52 PM
Maybe. It just seems like very specific removals. Him screaming that he isn't a droid and the one shot that clearly shows gushing red blood from his head wound.
Um.
Yeah. Couple of tasty blood spurts in that shot.
I dunno if that's the reason, but it's entirely possible.
I wouldn't be surprised. Ratings boards are usually pretty picky about graphic head wounds.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 15, 2013, 10:16:43 PM
I wouldn't be surprised. Ratings boards are usually pretty picky about graphic head wounds.
The ratings boards are hit and miss when it comes to carnage.The chestburster through the head in AR was also over the top.
That was five years down the track, the actual burst shot was about a second, and the sebsequent shots were CU's on the burster rather than the head it was sticking out of.
Still nasty stuff.
Indubitably.
Quote from: SM on Dec 15, 2013, 10:12:29 PMYeah. Couple of tasty blood spurts in that shot.
Oh, was that in the same shot? Sorry, I haven't seen the film for a while, I remembered the head wound and the shouting to be different shots.
Gushing blood or not, we still see him bleed in the theatrical cut. So, human, end of.
Do you see him walk back to the ship?
Odd that you don't. Hmmmmm
Do we see everyone else walk back to the ship...?
ZOMG DEY WUZ ALL ROBTZ!!11!!
Maybe he was off looking for blood samples on ice.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Dec 17, 2013, 03:17:20 AMMaybe he was off looking for blood samples on ice.
Touché...
Maybe they left the android on fury ... Maybe because he was broken.
"Well played, Ripley.. well played..."
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgifrific.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F09%2FTerminator-Thumbs-Up-as-he-Melts.gif&hash=7c0851e9d9a8bbb7166bcc9a4526f3c2958f5ff8)
Quote from: Darkness on Nov 01, 2006, 08:18:10 AM
So at the end of Alien 3, do you believe Bishop is really human or is just an android?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v94/avpgalaxy/avpg/forum/fc98e06d.jpg
For quite some time, I always believed it was an advanced android but it wasn't until AvP, somebody convinced me that he was really human.
365 people saying he is human? what are you on? after a shot like that to the head with that tool would you walk around talking and doing stuffs? plus with your ears blowed off??
Quote from: szkoki on Jan 18, 2014, 03:34:16 AM
Quote from: Darkness on Nov 01, 2006, 08:18:10 AM
So at the end of Alien 3, do you believe Bishop is really human or is just an android?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v94/avpgalaxy/avpg/forum/fc98e06d.jpg
For quite some time, I always believed it was an advanced android but it wasn't until AvP, somebody convinced me that he was really human.
365 people saying he is human? what are you on? after a shot like that to the head with that tool would you walk around talking and doing stuffs? plus with your ears blowed off??
People have walked off from other head injuries. Plus, we see him react in pain.
Obvious troll isn't very subtle.
Quote from: szkoki on Jan 18, 2014, 03:34:16 AM
Quote from: Darkness on Nov 01, 2006, 08:18:10 AM
So at the end of Alien 3, do you believe Bishop is really human or is just an android?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v94/avpgalaxy/avpg/forum/fc98e06d.jpg
For quite some time, I always believed it was an advanced android but it wasn't until AvP, somebody convinced me that he was really human.
365 people saying he is human? what are you on? after a shot like that to the head with that tool would you walk around talking and doing stuffs? plus with your ears blowed off??
I`m medical doctor, the answer is yes.
Quote"I get to play what's left of Bishop, and I play Bishop II, his human creator."
"They think I'm an android and they realise after they clobber me that I'm not an android. I'm a person, the guy who created Bishop."
Lance Henriksen in 1992, talking to Starlog magazine.
Kind of weird that Lance actually calls him "Bishop II" as if it's his name. I know that's what it's listed as on the credits, but still. What's the origin of the Michael name?
Trading cards released when the film came out.
Quote from: MrSpaceJockey on Jan 18, 2014, 09:43:15 PM
Kind of weird that Lance actually calls him "Bishop II" as if it's his name.
The character was called that in the script. Lance read the script.
I'm aware, but I was just saying it's a weird thing to say. "I'm playing "Civilian 4." "I play "Army Soldier 12".
Quote from: MrSpaceJockey on Jan 19, 2014, 12:47:49 AM
I'm aware, but I was just saying it's a weird thing to say. "I'm playing "Civilian 4." "I play "Army Soldier 12".
It is weird situation being brought up. The character seems to come up as an indistinct vision of someone in the script suddenly revealing himself to be not a robot, whatever that revelation is worth
Quote from: MrSpaceJockey on Jan 19, 2014, 12:47:49 AM
I'm aware, but I was just saying it's a weird thing to say. "I'm playing "Civilian 4." "I play "Army Soldier 12".
He didn't seem to make much of the role. It was only a thing. He seemed more keen about resuming his role as Bishop, though.
"Civlian" and "Army Soldier" aren't character names like "Bishop" however.
That's makes it even weirder, adding a number to a specific character's name. But seriously, whatever. It was just a small opinion I had, hardly important, with little point in discussing.
Quote from: Valaquen on Jan 20, 2014, 12:53:20 AM
Quote from: MrSpaceJockey on Jan 19, 2014, 12:47:49 AM
I'm aware, but I was just saying it's a weird thing to say. "I'm playing "Civilian 4." "I play "Army Soldier 12".
He didn't seem to make much of the role. It was only a thing. He seemed more keen about resuming his role as Bishop, though.
Justifiably so!
I like to call him Bishop the Second rather than Bishop II.
Which is just as silly 'cos he was the first. ;D
Quote from: Master on Jan 18, 2014, 02:15:09 PM
Quote from: szkoki on Jan 18, 2014, 03:34:16 AM
365 people saying he is human? what are you on? after a shot like that to the head with that tool would you walk around talking and doing stuffs? plus with your ears blowed off??
I`m medical doctor, the answer is yes.
/thread
Quote from: Valaquen on Jan 18, 2014, 07:00:51 PMQuote"I get to play what's left of Bishop, and I play Bishop II, his human creator."
"They think I'm an android and they realise after they clobber me that I'm not an android. I'm a person, the guy who created Bishop."
Lance Henriksen in 1992, talking to Starlog magazine.
In fairness, he's also gone on record claiming the character was an android.
bishop 2 anticipated the attack and dyed his milk red.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jan 20, 2014, 08:49:55 AM
Quote from: Valaquen on Jan 18, 2014, 07:00:51 PMQuote"I get to play what's left of Bishop, and I play Bishop II, his human creator."
"They think I'm an android and they realise after they clobber me that I'm not an android. I'm a person, the guy who created Bishop."
Lance Henriksen in 1992, talking to Starlog magazine.
In fairness, he's also gone on record claiming the character was an android.
Aye, in relation to AvP's retcon (it's up to you if you take those movies seriously or not when it comes to canon and life-cycles and whatnot). Everyone and everything else besides Paul W Anderson says Bishop II is human, including Lance himself, numerous times, until the spin offs made him change his tune. Anderson's movie can take a running jump.
Quote from: Valaquen on Jan 20, 2014, 11:09:35 AMAnderson's movie can take a running jump.
Well obviously.
AvP doesn't say anything about Bishop II (directly), so it's easy to say it doesn't actually retcon anything.
Quote from: SiL on Jan 20, 2014, 11:28:19 AM
AvP doesn't say anything about Bishop II (directly), so it's easy to say it doesn't actually retcon anything.
Good point.
Bringing AvP into the discussion opens up another can of worms entirely. It's easier to forget about it and consider Alien 3 on its own merits.
In which case I honestly cannot fathom why anyone would think Bishop 'II' is a robot. I hope all the people voting that he is are doing so because of AvP, otherwise I am bewildered.
I once asked someone in this thread why he insisted that Bishop II is an android, despite just reading a quote from the filmmakers that he is human. The poster's reasoning was, "Because I want to and I don't care what they say."
Quote from: MrSpaceJockey on Jan 20, 2014, 01:17:56 PM
In which case I honestly cannot fathom why anyone would think Bishop 'II' is a robot. I hope all the people voting that he is are doing so because of AvP, otherwise I am bewildered.
Well, the whole argument really has been going on since Alien 3 , fans were divided back then between the two but couldn't seem to bothered to ask if he was something in between.
The way the ear hangs off as an open flap with a straight line at the top makes it seem like a prosthetic to me and then I might ask how much more of this person is a synthetic construct. I have no ultimate answer and no one does, although Henriksen played the character as a living human being.
Was it an "Is he or isn't he" situation as much as Henriksen is likely to say these days?
I wish that Terry Rawlings had been asked about it.
Quote from: bloodinthemud on Jan 20, 2014, 10:52:40 AM
bishop 2 anticipated the attack and dyed his milk red.
If he anticipated it, why didn't he defend himself?
The guy telegraphed it by yelling at him and everything.
Quote from: SM on Jan 20, 2014, 09:31:41 PMIf he anticipated it, why didn't he defend himself?
The guy telegraphed it by yelling at him and everything.
Aaron yelled, "F**king android!"
Bishop II, as a super-secret undercover android, is programmed to ignore people calling him an android.
Curses...
He would have answered to "artificial person" :laugh:
Quote from: MrSpaceJockey on Jan 20, 2014, 01:17:56 PM
In which case I honestly cannot fathom why anyone would think Bishop 'II' is a robot. I hope all the people voting that he is are doing so because of AvP, otherwise I am bewildered.
Well, I can tell you why I always thought he was a droid up untill around 2005 when I read the Alien 3 novelization.
The movie did a very poor job inclining that hes human, I needed the filmmaker and the noveization to tell me he was. In the credits hes called Bishop II, as oppose to Bishop's Designer. having piece of his face hanging off and almost completely brushing off a hit to the head with a pipe aside, it seems weird to me that the med team didnt even give such supposed hot shot designer ANY sort of concern or medical attention. And yes, a person hit with a metal pipe in the head so hard that side of his face looks like terminator's should be knocked out cold.
Red blood means nothing at all. It was obvious that Ripley wuld first think hes another android since he looks like Bishop, they would then surely anticipate Ripley asking for some proof and the easiest way to recognize a synthetic is by white blood, Id be shocked or chalk nit up to bad writing if he had an actual white blood which would be a dead giveaway. I aso dont see how saying that hes human proves anything, or that him feeling occasional pain says anything. Bishop felt it too
From Lance's sinister performance through the point I pointed out like nobody from med team caring for him being hit to him withstanding a blow to the head, it all seemed rather clear in favor of him being a droid. The credits showing "Bishop II" underlined that thesis
But I really dont want to get into that circular debate again, just explaining why someone would think hes a droid
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-x6Ux0oqeBrk%2FT4BcKxAfeQI%2FAAAAAAAABB4%2FGS0d-fFkBBM%2Fs1600%2Falien%2B3%2BLance_Henriksen.jpg&hash=8912760340652df2ee902c8ec38c14dc10723348)
While I've always thought he's human, like you I can see why some people might think otherwise, and that post pretty much sums it up.
ok gimme a wrench and line up guys!!! ;)
Quote from: SM on Jan 18, 2014, 04:55:44 AM
Quote from: Sgt. Apone on Jan 18, 2014, 04:24:29 AM
Quote from: szkoki on Jan 18, 2014, 03:34:16 AM
Quote from: Darkness on Nov 01, 2006, 08:18:10 AM
Quote from: Master on Jan 18, 2014, 02:15:09 PM
Quote from: szkoki on Jan 18, 2014, 03:34:16 AM
Quote from: Darkness on Nov 01, 2006, 08:18:10 AM
So at the end of Alien 3, do you believe Bishop is really human or is just an android?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v94/avpgalaxy/avpg/forum/fc98e06d.jpg
For quite some time, I always believed it was an advanced android but it wasn't until AvP, somebody convinced me that he was really human.
365 people saying he is human? what are you on? after a shot like that to the head with that tool would you walk around talking and doing stuffs? plus with your ears blowed off??
I`m medical doctor, the answer is yes.
Obvious troll isn't very subtle.
The movie did everything it could to show he was human. Both androids up to that point had two distinct features: White blood, electronically altered voice when injured. Bishop II got smacked, bled red, spoke normally. They went out of their way to have a situation which would normally reveal him to be an android, and then failed to show any sign of being an android. The film could only have made it more obvious by pausing the shot and flashing a giant sign in the audience's face, "SEE? HE'S A HUMAN!"
Just a thought,if Bishop 2 wasn't human,then he could be a Blade Runner style replicant,not a synthetic.
Why?
He appeared to be tougher than the average human,bled the red stuff and showed pain,and still managed to be lucid enough to carry on a conversation after the blow he received.
So nothing a human couldn't do.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 20, 2014, 03:55:07 AM
Quote from: Master on Jan 18, 2014, 02:15:09 PM
Quote from: szkoki on Jan 18, 2014, 03:34:16 AM
365 people saying he is human? what are you on? after a shot like that to the head with that tool would you walk around talking and doing stuffs? plus with your ears blowed off??
I`m medical doctor, the answer is yes.
/thread
Let's try this again.
/thread
Quote from: SM on Jan 22, 2014, 12:44:42 AM
So nothing a human couldn't do.
Maybe.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 22, 2014, 01:42:02 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 20, 2014, 03:55:07 AM
Quote from: Master on Jan 18, 2014, 02:15:09 PM
Quote from: szkoki on Jan 18, 2014, 03:34:16 AM
365 people saying he is human? what are you on? after a shot like that to the head with that tool would you walk around talking and doing stuffs? plus with your ears blowed off??
I`m medical doctor, the answer is yes.
/thread
Let's try this again.
/thread
I doubt that many people have that sort of pain threshold.
Is that your professional opinion?
It would depend on a persons level of pain tolerance.
The trick is not minding that it hurts.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn01.cdn.justjared.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fheadlines%2F2011%2F09%2Fmichael-fassbender-thumbs-up.jpg&hash=7501abf39a8940ecd0b97b129c37da425af50714)
Quote from: szkoki on Jan 21, 2014, 09:29:00 PM
ok gimme a wrench and line up guys!!! ;)
Quote from: SM on Jan 18, 2014, 04:55:44 AM
Quote from: Sgt. Apone on Jan 18, 2014, 04:24:29 AM
Quote from: szkoki on Jan 18, 2014, 03:34:16 AM
Quote from: Darkness on Nov 01, 2006, 08:18:10 AM
Quote from: Master on Jan 18, 2014, 02:15:09 PM
Quote from: szkoki on Jan 18, 2014, 03:34:16 AM
Quote from: Darkness on Nov 01, 2006, 08:18:10 AM
So at the end of Alien 3, do you believe Bishop is really human or is just an android?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v94/avpgalaxy/avpg/forum/fc98e06d.jpg
For quite some time, I always believed it was an advanced android but it wasn't until AvP, somebody convinced me that he was really human.
365 people saying he is human? what are you on? after a shot like that to the head with that tool would you walk around talking and doing stuffs? plus with your ears blowed off??
I`m medical doctor, the answer is yes.
Obvious troll isn't very subtle.
If your definition of troll is "a preson who actually knows what he is talking about", then yeah I`m definitelly one.
QuoteI doubt that many people have that sort of pain threshold.
It doesn't really matter how many - Bishop II did.
It's also complete nonsense. :laugh:
Really, some of you should go watch some of the violence and civil unrest on websites like live-leak (Warning: Don't actually do it, because it'll probably mess you up.) You can have your legs blown off, and still be conscious for it. You can be shot, repeatedly, and still be conscious and lucid.
An example (which was recently made into a movie): Marcus Lutrell was shot repeatedly, had several shrapnel wounds, several broken bones, and he managed to continue to fight and crawl around during a heated battle in Afghanistan. A battle that lasted hours upon hours. He was still fully conscious.
Humans can survive a lot of brutal damage to the body, and even end up being "perfectly fine" afterward.
It was a hard hit that swung past his head and tore his ear loose. Happens to boxers. How is this debate *still* raging on? :laugh:
Quote from: OpenMaw on Jan 24, 2014, 07:31:45 PMHow is this debate *still* raging on? :laugh:
Because the argument from incredulity is a popular logical fallacy.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity)
He's human because logic and f**king over AVP is just icing on the cake.
He's human! "I'm not a droid!"
Quote from: Henriksen on Jan 27, 2014, 10:21:54 PM
He's human! "I'm not a droid!"
Just like Rob Ford. Believable.
Quote from: Vermillion on Feb 06, 2014, 06:05:15 PM
Quote from: Henriksen on Jan 27, 2014, 10:21:54 PM
He's human! "I'm not a droid!"
Just like Rob Ford. Believable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJXR280wbEg# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJXR280wbEg#)
Quote from: OpenMaw on Jan 24, 2014, 07:31:45 PM
It was a hard hit that swung past his head and tore his ear loose. Happens to boxers.
I would love to see a single picture anywhere of that happening in a boxing match. Tyson vs Holyfield is not even comparable and that aint no cauliflower ear!
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmimg.ugo.com%2F201105%2F4%2F8%2F9%2F194984%2Fbishop-ii-121-image.jpg&hash=679713712c49284bb44c766b838fcc43c24f854d)
The movie has over the top gore. That's the strongest argument to debunk anyone unconvinced that a human can take that damage unfazed for the most part. Discrediting the severity of the injury reinforces the point anyone not convinced are making. However it is true what many have said already about what a human has the potential to take. Truth is sometimes stranger then fiction.
Bishop 2 is a human.
Quote from: bloodinthemud on Feb 07, 2014, 12:28:03 PM
The movie has over the top gore.
I've tried pointing this out before - I'm fairly certain (havent' seen the movie in a while) that a prisoner virtually
explodes after the Alien grabs him and his body smacks off a door lintel.
Quote from: Valaquen on Feb 07, 2014, 01:12:57 PMI've tried pointing this out before - I'm fairly certain (havent' seen the movie in a while) that a prisoner virtually explodes after the Alien grabs him and his body smacks off a door lintel.
Lol Jude. He gets
all f*cked up.
'Explode' is probably churching it up a bit - but only a bit.
Quote from: NUB DESTROYER on Oct 12, 2011, 03:23:30 PM
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FTNLt7.png&hash=ceabdc216d5a1a770cf9a63f0477648f26c2745c)
The blood is red, so human... unless going the Terminator route. :-\
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdeadlymovies.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F08%2Fbishop-alien-3-deadly-movies1.jpg&hash=9a787f1ace43a9f3726316170c35cd250ec624f8)
Well, Lance Henriksen was the original choice for the Terminator role...
(And in case someone starts, no that wasn't intended as evidence for his being a cyborg in Alien 3.)
Quote from: HuDaFuK on May 15, 2014, 07:56:36 AM
(And in case someone starts, no that wasn't intended as evidence for his being a cyborg in Alien 3.)
A compelling point nonetheless.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on May 15, 2014, 07:56:36 AM
Well, Lance Henriksen was the original choice for the Terminator role...
O.J.Simpson?
Both.
I would say human as in the assembly cut you see him bleeding red and white like an artificial person would
Quote from: dazknight88 on May 16, 2014, 06:24:32 AM
I would say human as in the assembly cut you see him bleeding red and white like an artificial person would
Are you missing a "not" before the "white"?
Ugh, can't believe this is an actual question. If the effects were better, this question wouldn't even exist. He is a damn human. The filmmakers didn't intend for it to be ambiguous.
What's wrong with the effects?
I personally don't find anything wrong with it, but many people believe it looks like there's too much damage for a normal human to survive. Thus, the android accusations.
Maybe the problem was the location of the blow itself, because that area could be a fatal one. They should've had him go for the back.
His shoulder took the main brunt of the hit.
Ear hang.
Normal people fall and cry.
Probably on PCP. Broke every bone in his hand and didn't feel it for hours. There was this guy once, see this scar...?
Quote from: Uncanny Antman on Jun 05, 2014, 03:43:40 AMProbably on PCP. Broke every bone in his hand and didn't feel it for hours. There was this guy once, see this scar...?
See, android. He got the idea from
The Terminator.
Hmm... He must be an android but he has red blood... HE'S A REPLICANT! CRISIS SOLVED!
Well most of the time we see bishop he's usually a android("Aliens", "Aliens:colonial marines", Aliens Vs Predator"(2010),Alien 3) but in Prometheus and Aliens vs. Predator he's human. But when you take some of the reasons that bishop sent a android to do his job was when it was dangerous. When he was dying he would be there to see it. So I would have to go with human on this one, because he has about six soldiers with him and its not very dangerous to go after a woman who has a chestburster inside her and the prison has no weapons at all.
Bishop was in Prometheus? Beware that you do not succumb to the Weyland Effect as I have!
Human.
Was human, will always be human.
Human.
A Bishop Cyborg. Living tissue over metal endoskeleton. Easy as A-B-C.
Terminator. Always was.
Quote from: whiterabbit on Aug 14, 2014, 12:11:02 AM
A Bishop Cyborg. Living tissue over metal endoskeleton. Easy as A-B-C.
Not as easy as A-B-C. A was always a bit twitchy after all and C was an auton.
There's no way anyone could survive a shot like that to the head and just shrug it off and continue to talk to people. The guy would be on the floor with the medical team taking him back to the ship. Hicks got a bit of acid on his armor and he was unable to fight or do anything for the latter parts of the end of Aliens. But human Bishop can take a fatal blow to the head and be fine and dandy..//.
We're still discussing this?
He was an artificial person.
he was a real person in an artificial situation
Lol, this thread.
Quote from: Vermillion on Oct 27, 2014, 12:50:22 PM
He was an artificial person.
Negative, he was a meat popsicle.
Quote from: Guts on Oct 27, 2014, 12:05:14 PM
There's no way anyone could survive a shot like that to the head and just shrug it off and continue to talk to people. The guy would be on the floor with the medical team taking him back to the ship. Hicks got a bit of acid on his armor and he was unable to fight or do anything for the latter parts of the end of Aliens. But human Bishop can take a fatal blow to the head and be fine and dandy..//.
252 pages in and people still post this sort of thing...
He was an engineer deacon?
Quote from: SM on Oct 27, 2014, 09:04:42 PM
Quote from: Guts on Oct 27, 2014, 12:05:14 PM
There's no way anyone could survive a shot like that to the head and just shrug it off and continue to talk to people. The guy would be on the floor with the medical team taking him back to the ship. Hicks got a bit of acid on his armor and he was unable to fight or do anything for the latter parts of the end of Aliens. But human Bishop can take a fatal blow to the head and be fine and dandy..//.
252 pages in and people still post this sort of thing...
And they'll probably be 252 more pages...
*shudders*
Quote from: SM on Oct 27, 2014, 09:04:42 PM
Quote from: Guts on Oct 27, 2014, 12:05:14 PM
There's no way anyone could survive a shot like that to the head and just shrug it off and continue to talk to people. The guy would be on the floor with the medical team taking him back to the ship. Hicks got a bit of acid on his armor and he was unable to fight or do anything for the latter parts of the end of Aliens. But human Bishop can take a fatal blow to the head and be fine and dandy..//.
252 pages in and people still post this sort of thing...
See you again on page 500...
Quote from: SM on Oct 27, 2014, 09:04:42 PM
Quote from: Guts on Oct 27, 2014, 12:05:14 PM
There's no way anyone could survive a shot like that to the head and just shrug it off and continue to talk to people. The guy would be on the floor with the medical team taking him back to the ship. Hicks got a bit of acid on his armor and he was unable to fight or do anything for the latter parts of the end of Aliens. But human Bishop can take a fatal blow to the head and be fine and dandy..//.
252 pages in and people still post this sort of thing...
What is the customary decades-old SM counterargument that usually gets copy/pasted into the reply?
People who read the details about him being human and still maintain he's a robot are dumb.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Oct 28, 2014, 12:48:12 AM
Quote from: SM on Oct 27, 2014, 09:04:42 PM
Quote from: Guts on Oct 27, 2014, 12:05:14 PM
There's no way anyone could survive a shot like that to the head and just shrug it off and continue to talk to people. The guy would be on the floor with the medical team taking him back to the ship. Hicks got a bit of acid on his armor and he was unable to fight or do anything for the latter parts of the end of Aliens. But human Bishop can take a fatal blow to the head and be fine and dandy..//.
252 pages in and people still post this sort of thing...
What is the customary decades-old SM counterargument that usually gets copy/pasted into the reply?
I think he quotes the novel.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Oct 28, 2014, 12:48:12 AM
What is the customary decades-old SM counterargument that usually gets copy/pasted into the reply?
Anyone who so much as mentions the word "Android" in this thread will have their head broken with a baseball bat.
Quote from: Vermillion on Oct 28, 2014, 01:40:15 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Oct 28, 2014, 12:48:12 AM
Quote from: SM on Oct 27, 2014, 09:04:42 PM
Quote from: Guts on Oct 27, 2014, 12:05:14 PM
There's no way anyone could survive a shot like that to the head and just shrug it off and continue to talk to people. The guy would be on the floor with the medical team taking him back to the ship. Hicks got a bit of acid on his armor and he was unable to fight or do anything for the latter parts of the end of Aliens. But human Bishop can take a fatal blow to the head and be fine and dandy..//.
252 pages in and people still post this sort of thing...
What is the customary decades-old SM counterargument that usually gets copy/pasted into the reply?
I think he quotes the novel.
And the script. And filmmakers.
Quote from: Valaquen on Oct 29, 2014, 04:28:58 PM
Quote from: Vermillion on Oct 28, 2014, 01:40:15 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Oct 28, 2014, 12:48:12 AM
Quote from: SM on Oct 27, 2014, 09:04:42 PM
Quote from: Guts on Oct 27, 2014, 12:05:14 PM
There's no way anyone could survive a shot like that to the head and just shrug it off and continue to talk to people. The guy would be on the floor with the medical team taking him back to the ship. Hicks got a bit of acid on his armor and he was unable to fight or do anything for the latter parts of the end of Aliens. But human Bishop can take a fatal blow to the head and be fine and dandy..//.
252 pages in and people still post this sort of thing...
What is the customary decades-old SM counterargument that usually gets copy/pasted into the reply?
I think he quotes the novel.
And the script. And filmmakers.
And Lance Henriksen himself.
Seems to be in error though.
Quote from: Vermillion on Oct 29, 2014, 04:40:37 PM
Seems to be in error though.
Changed his mind when the role of Charles Weyland was offered, it seems. He spent a whole interview talking about how Bishop II was human back when Alien 3 was released,
But how can a man possibly sustain a head injury like that and remain conscious??? And isn't it possible that they simply DYED his milky white android blood red???
Quote from: Local Trouble on Oct 29, 2014, 06:14:18 PM
But how can a man possibly sustain a head injury like that and remain conscious???
He wasn't meant to stay conscious, they changed it during the shoot using a second hand prothesis. The violence was just overdone. One prisoner practically explodes when the Alien snatches him during the chase sequence.
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Oct 29, 2014, 03:20:27 PMAnyone who so much as mentions the word "Android" in this thread will have their head broken with a baseball bat.
Not a giant wrench?
:laugh: Haha no, that line is actually a quote from Ridley Scott. Minus the "in this thread" bit of course.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Oct 29, 2014, 06:14:18 PM
But how can a man possibly sustain a head injury like that and remain conscious??? And isn't it possible that they simply DYED his milky white android blood red???
It's a movie. And no.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Oct 29, 2014, 06:14:18 PM
But how can a man possibly sustain a head injury like that and remain conscious??? And isn't it possible that they simply DYED his milky white android blood red???
Two words: Phineas Gage.
Quote from: Bat Chain Puller on Oct 30, 2014, 01:40:03 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Oct 29, 2014, 06:14:18 PM
But how can a man possibly sustain a head injury like that and remain conscious??? And isn't it possible that they simply DYED his milky white android blood red???
Two words: Phineas Gage.
I plead ignorance of that name and repeat my argument from incredulity.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Nov 01, 2014, 12:28:48 AM
Quote from: Bat Chain Puller on Oct 30, 2014, 01:40:03 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Oct 29, 2014, 06:14:18 PM
But how can a man possibly sustain a head injury like that and remain conscious??? And isn't it possible that they simply DYED his milky white android blood red???
Two words: Phineas Gage.
I plead ignorance of that name and repeat my argument from incredulity.
It's a failure of the filmmakers to keep the audience's supsension of belief, well, suspended. Bishop II was always meant to be human and Fincher actually thought that showing the wound would make it more believable, according to Woodruff. He was obviously wrong.
Well in the WWE they get nailed by metal chairs and they get back up....
But a DDT knocks them out.
Steel bar to a non-athlete's head...
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 22, 2014, 01:42:02 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 20, 2014, 03:55:07 AM
Quote from: Master on Jan 18, 2014, 02:15:09 PM
Quote from: szkoki on Jan 18, 2014, 03:34:16 AM
365 people saying he is human? what are you on? after a shot like that to the head with that tool would you walk around talking and doing stuffs? plus with your ears blowed off??
I`m medical doctor, the answer is yes.
/thread
Let's try this again.
/thread
Once again for Vermillion (sic) (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vermilion).
I voted human but here I'm gonna vote differently. OPTION 3. ALIEN 3's "Bishop II" is in fact the first human/android hybrid. A replication of the original basis for Bishop using genetics rather than robotics sort of like Blade Runner but not quite as limited.
...
Why?
Honestly no clue. I just spat that out.
Or you mean why I bumped the stickied thread?
The former.
Alien
Bishop is a android the real one made clones of himself so he get away with his plan to capture the aliens to use them as a weapon againest the world.
"Get over here, we got a live one!"
Bishop II is actually a Mi-Go in disguise, but don't tell anyone.
You see, he's actually a guy in a Bishop suit... (https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jusonline.nl%2Fsmokers%2Fridley_scott.jpg&hash=6ebc4c0c8a83f7623f34e3c8d7d1e01efb08ee8e)
His brain was sitting in a jar on the Patna.
...for the things on Fiorina, perfect to the last, subtle detail of microscopic resemblance — or identity — were the face and hands of Michael Bishop II.
Quote from: Nightmare Asylum on Nov 25, 2014, 01:25:06 AMYou see, he's actually a guy in a Bishop suit... http://www.jusonline.nl/smokers/ridley_scott.jpg
:laugh:
Quote from: darkcai1 on Nov 25, 2014, 12:40:59 AM
Bishop is a android the real one made clones of himself so he get away with his plan to capture the aliens to use them as a weapon againest the world.
I vote this for the best theory put forth in this thread
ever.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Nov 25, 2014, 01:20:15 PM
Quote from: darkcai1 on Nov 25, 2014, 12:40:59 AM
Bishop is a android the real one made clones of himself so he get away with his plan to capture the aliens to use them as a weapon againest the world.
I vote this for the best theory put forth in this thread ever.
Concur
Quote from: Chris!(($$))! on Jan 03, 2015, 05:57:25 AM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Nov 25, 2014, 01:20:15 PM
Quote from: darkcai1 on Nov 25, 2014, 12:40:59 AM
Bishop is a android the real one made clones of himself so he get away with his plan to capture the aliens to use them as a weapon againest the world.
I vote this for the best theory put forth in this thread ever.
Concur
The plot of AVP 2010 and ACM then? Right, no thanks.
Quote from: Son Of Kane on Jan 03, 2015, 05:04:30 PMThe plot of AVP 2010 and ACM then? Right, no thanks.
Sarcasm fail.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jan 03, 2015, 05:34:41 PM
Quote from: Son Of Kane on Jan 03, 2015, 05:04:30 PMThe plot of AVP 2010 and ACM then? Right, no thanks.
Sarcasm fail.
*Shrugs*
Not easy to see when some people here genuinely like AVPR.
Quote from: Son Of Kane on Jan 03, 2015, 06:40:34 PM
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jan 03, 2015, 05:34:41 PM
Quote from: Son Of Kane on Jan 03, 2015, 05:04:30 PMThe plot of AVP 2010 and ACM then? Right, no thanks.
Sarcasm fail.
*Shrugs*
Not easy to see when some people here genuinely like AVPR.
Spoiler
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reactiongifs.com%2Flol%2FW7Tcv.gif&hash=01ebe2ecd329db2a704817b803d6ac656d606690)
Y'all ain't shit!
Quote from: Son Of Kane on Jan 03, 2015, 06:40:34 PM
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jan 03, 2015, 05:34:41 PM
Quote from: Son Of Kane on Jan 03, 2015, 05:04:30 PMThe plot of AVP 2010 and ACM then? Right, no thanks.
Sarcasm fail.
*Shrugs*
Not easy to see when some people here genuinely like AVPR.
This should be the site's new name. This quote.
When I noticed the blood and how bad they wanted the specimen, why wouldnt they send their best as a means to get the alien?
Saw it again today.
Artificial Person. 100%
Here we go...
No we don't he's human, end of story.
No one can explain the argument to any conclusion.
Bishop II in credits
Lance saying he's human
AVP he's Weyland
Ahh fok it
The character is credited as "Bishop II" just like any other unnamed character could be credited as "Man II."
He said he was human and bled red blood.
AVP didn't exist at the time of release and had no bearing on the filmmakers' intentions. And even if we were to take AVP as 'canon,' who's to say that Bishop II isn't a descendant of Lance's character in AVP? It'd hardly be the first time an actor played his own ancestor in film.
There's that one part when he outright yells out "I'M NOT AN ANDROID!"
Something along those lines in the special edition.
Also in the novel "as real blood poured from his head" follows that line. ;D
Quote from: Local Trouble on Nov 02, 2014, 07:36:47 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 22, 2014, 01:42:02 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 20, 2014, 03:55:07 AM
Quote from: Master on Jan 18, 2014, 02:15:09 PM
Quote from: szkoki on Jan 18, 2014, 03:34:16 AM
365 people saying he is human? what are you on? after a shot like that to the head with that tool would you walk around talking and doing stuffs? plus with your ears blowed off??
I`m medical doctor, the answer is yes.
/thread
Let's try this again.
/thread
Once again for Vermillion (sic) (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vermilion).
Once again...
Human, for three reasons:
1. We're never given an indication that he's an android. This being a movie, if he were an android, we would've found out eventually. Some people claim that him mostly remaining able to function after sustaining a severe injury in the Assembly Cut suggests he's an android; I think it's merely an unrealistic injury.
2. His blood's red. People have claimed that he could be a "stealth model" with colored blood, but why would the Company make a "stealth model" that looks exactly like their regular androids? And beside which, colored blood would be just one more assumption without evidence, and I've dealt with that in (1).
3. For me, this is the most important. Once Bishop II realizes he's losing Ripley, he gets desperate. He gets emotional. He says things out of desire, even though it's obvious that what he's saying is going to drive her away further. Even if he was a a super-stealth android with dyed blood and fake emotions, it's likely that these emotions would merely be simulated in real time, and the logical core of his programming would always be in control so that he doesn't make stupid, counterproductive mistakes like telling a suicidal woman in a parasite in her that she must let him have it because it's a magnificent specimen.
Bishop the android called it magnificent too. ;D
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 14, 2015, 01:36:52 AM
Bishop the android called it magnificent too. ;D
Yeah, but that time he wasn't trying to coax anyone away from the edge of a furnace.
Point 2.
The company wanted to send a familiar face.
They should've just sent Jonesy.
Quote from: Vermillion on Jan 14, 2015, 07:19:59 AM
Point 2.
The company wanted to send a familiar face.
So they sent the human who Bishop was created in the image of.
Exactly so.
Quote from: Vermillion on Jan 14, 2015, 07:19:59 AM
Point 2.
The company wanted to send a familiar face.
They probably don't keep stealth Bishops in stock though, because this circumstance is one of the few times that a stealth android that looks exactly like a normal android would come in handy. That means that they would've had to fabricate one fairly quickly. And they certainly wouldn't have expected their Bishop II to get injured just picking Ripley up, surrounded as he was by commandos with rifles, so if they had to fabricate one specifically for this mission, why would they bother giving him red blood?
Wow man, is this debate still going. I think I have my 2 cents on here from like 7 years ago. I gave up debating in the end, I came to the conclusion that he's either a descendant of C.B. Weyland (with his facial features skipping a number generations) or a freaky Life model decoy. Prototype droid to trick Ripley, who knows. ;)
This thread has been revived time and time again over the ages, it is always the same.
Quote from: Crazy Rich on Jan 21, 2015, 02:12:28 AM
This thread has been revived time and time again over the ages, it is always the same.
I think to be honest is, the people to blame for this, and any other movie type continuity is the filmmakers themselves. They know about these problems and when it comes to the next movie, or a new film in the series, which gives a chance to fix the question, end the debate, they don't. They all always to want to create new cannon, new things, instead of answering the old questions, then moving on.
Its not just this series of movies, it goes to all, and I think it is selfish (as somebody who has done, and still is, involved in some filmmaking) each director/writer who comes along wants to be remembered for his art, whether it makes sense within the context, rather its "I want this sequel to have this and that, even if it means f**king up the canon, I want them to remember me for what I added" and this was Paul Anderson "I will cast Lance as Charles Weyland, he can be the guy who designed the robot in the 2nd movie, but I never cared for the 3rd, so I don't count that one, never mind the errors it will cause, but hey, what a twist".
So basically, its down to what the filmmakers likes and dislikes rather than what the fans like.
Quote from: Mr. Weyland on Jan 21, 2015, 02:26:41 AMThey know about these problems and when it comes to the next movie, or a new film in the series, which gives a chance to fix the question, end the debate, they don't.
Except there really isn't anything to fix. He's human.
More to the point,
ACM confirmed that he's human, for whatever that's worth.
Remind me? I seem to remember a Weyland android being shot.
Yeah, they catch up with Weyland on the FTL ship, Hicks executes him, everyone else complains, Hicks says something about there being more than one of them, and he knew this one wasn't real because he wasn't breathing. Something like that.
Doesn't seem very solid.
AvP also shows there being multiple Weyland droids. I can't recall exactly but don't the audio recording allude to it being something to do with Charles' memories.
It was a long time ago that I played, but I remember the implication being the Alien 3 Weyland had been a real guy.
The Weylands in AVP2010 didn't really look like Henriksen to me... There was a subtle resemblance, but I don't think they were meant to look exactly like him. But maybe that was just graphical limitations.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jan 21, 2015, 10:44:44 AM
But maybe that was just graphical limitations.
Maybe, but at the very end, you see a much more realistic, older looking Lance than the one you fight, so, I don't know. I would like a new AVP game though.
I think it's open to interpretation for the viewer. Whether the audience believes it to be a droid or a human is simply open to interpretation. I recall Henrikson saying that he believed that the character he played in Alien 3 was an advanced type model or something along those lines when he was out promoting Alien vs Predator. But some other sources out there say otherwise such as the shooting script and others from what I happen to know.
In regards to AvP2010, Karl Bishop Weyland is definitely a synthetic or... so we are lead to believe. The one which players happen to fight in the Marine campaign is definitely a synthetic, but the Karl Bishop Weyland who appears at the end of the Marine campaign.. for me anyway is ambiguous. I mean the endings show now indication to me that he is a synthetic unless I had happened to miss something in the audio logs. Speaking of audio logs..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE7NTcLS3SQ#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE7NTcLS3SQ#ws)
Quote from: Mr. Weyland on Jan 21, 2015, 02:36:44 PM
I would like a new AVP game though.
I would love to see a continuation of Rebellion's AvP2010 video game. I absolutely would love to see that particular continuity which hails from the AvP films to be continued and ended properly with a sequel to AvP2010. But something tells me we won't get a continuation but a reboot game or a stand alone game which coincides more with the post PREDATORS and Prometheus material Fox is pumping out.
The Karl at the end of the Marine campaign refers to the one you shoot as his predecessor, suggesting that he's another in a long line of droids.
In regard to A:CM, my interpretation was that Hicks noticed that the Weyland torturing him wasn't breathing, and that Weyland is the one he eventually shoots.
I don't consider either of them canon to the films.
I consider AvP2010 to be canon with the AvP continuity, but I don't consider Aliens: Colonial Marines to be canon with the Prometheus-Alien continuity. :laugh:
Has this thread ever changed anyone's mind?
Android.
Pretty obvious.
An RKO knocks people out, but oh no...not a lead pipe...it just takes your ear off and you keep speaking sanely.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 22, 2015, 06:07:04 PM
Has this thread ever changed anyone's mind?
No, but it's fun to talk about.
Quote from: Doktor_Wunderbar on Jan 22, 2015, 11:11:30 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 22, 2015, 06:07:04 PM
Has this thread ever changed anyone's mind?
No, but it's fun to talk about.
No, just agitating people think he's an android. Especially when the script writters have multiple sources citing he is human.
Just to add a little more fuel to the fire :P ; in the alternate script, Bishop II points to Aaron and the commandos rifle him down upon arrival to the facility after 85 admits to seeing the beast? If Bishop (I) is incapable of ever harming a human being, why would permit a perventable fatality?
Alternate script...for one.
Not acceptable evidence.
Interesting.
http://www.prometheus2-movie.com/community/forums/topic/24784
:laugh: That's the most bullshit theory yet.
"Peter Weyland had a robot son so Michael Weyland is a robot too." What the hell does David have to do with a man who lived hundreds of years later?
It's so hilariously apparent that the film-makers made Michael Bishop, "Bishop II", a human character.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.stack.imgur.com%2F5SBHQ.jpg&hash=8f285f71e7e48a20a573a9c33f4dc6cc73ff8574)
I've said it before, but he even outright says "I"M NOT A DROID!" after being whacked in the head in the 2003 assembly cut.
Lol. A REAL person says OWWWWW!!!
Bishop also said "No cameras!" in the AC. A droid would not care if he was being filmed ;D
Look, even soccer players drop like they've been shot!
Schwarzenegger maybe might be able to shrug the blow to the head.
But a scrawny scientist????
Quote from: Vermillion on Jan 24, 2015, 12:19:24 AM
Look, even soccer players drip like they've been shot!
2:24
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAqQKFlZv9Q# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAqQKFlZv9Q#)
Quote from: Vermillion on Jan 24, 2015, 12:19:24 AM
Look, even soccer players drop like they've been shot!
Schwarzenegger maybe might be able to shrug the blow to the head.
But a scrawny scientist????
Every point you've made can be explained by bad filmmaking, which is probably why the scene was cut from the theatrical version in the first place.
Quote from: Vermillion on Jan 23, 2015, 11:46:18 PM
Lol. A REAL person says OWWWWW!!!
Did you see what he does before he yells "I'm not a droid" ::)
hows is this really up for debate, when hes whacked you can see something dark trickle from him. not some milky white substance
So a scrawny scientist is superhuman and can sustain a massive cranial ear removing blow to the head without any mental/cognitive/psychological or deliberating side effects?
Is that what you are implying?
Henriksen is a native New Yorker. He can take that kind of punishment no problem.
Quote from: Vermillion on Jan 24, 2015, 12:59:48 PM
So a scrawny scientist is superhuman and can sustain a massive cranial ear removing blow to the head without any mental/cognitive/psychological or deliberating side effects?
Is that what you are implying?
Ear's not held on by anything more than skin and vestigial muscles, the blow glances, and people have suffered through worse and kept right on going. People have been stabbed in the head
without realising it.
"The blow looks like it should hurt him more" is the limpest argument around.
Not to mention he does touch his ear in pain and look at the blood before screaming "I'm not a droid!"
Vermillion, why do you guys think androids are invulnerable supermen when the films have shown us they are anything but? The fact that Bishop II didn't lose control of his bodily movements and regurgitate a fountain of blood only proves he's human. That scene with the wrench is evidence against your position.
he's an android because he dies in avp
he actually is an android that pretends to be a direct descendent to Charles bishop. the real Charles bishop died in 2004.
AVP is not part of Alien 3 continuity.
Dedication to the next person who says Bishop II is a droid...
Spoiler
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fm.memegen.com%2F3tzspr.jpg&hash=42f77d615a2ea451445874cb69c90fa4c4413052)
Quote from: SiL on Jan 24, 2015, 01:13:10 PM
Quote from: Vermillion on Jan 24, 2015, 12:59:48 PM
So a scrawny scientist is superhuman and can sustain a massive cranial ear removing blow to the head without any mental/cognitive/psychological or deliberating side effects?
Is that what you are implying?
Ear's not held on by anything more than skin and vestigial muscles, the blow glances, and people have suffered through worse and kept right on going. People have been stabbed in the head without realising it.
"The blow looks like it should hurt him more" is the limpest argument around.
Limpest
Stick to the head of a Professional NHL player wearing a Helmet = knocked out and concussion.
Limpest. It's the strongest.
Dweeb.
I see you declined to answer my question.
Troll.
His ear was torn and there was blood human blood
Quote from: Kelgaard on Jan 25, 2015, 02:01:25 AM
I see you declined to answer my question.
Troll.
I stated Bishop II, as in the human, must be superhuman to sustain that injury and function quite normally.
Troll. Hardly.
Quote from: Vermillion on Jan 25, 2015, 01:54:33 AM
Stick to the head of a Professional NHL player wearing a Helmet = knocked out and concussion.
Knife in the brain = don't even notice until you go to the hospital and a doctor x-rays your skull to see the blade still stuck in there.
Or a nail, that you didn't realise you'd shot in there with a nail gun.
It always depends on the type of blow, how it's delivered, and the individual. Bishop II wasn't struck fully on the head. The blow glances down the side and mostly hits his shoulder. It takes his ear off on the way.
There's nothing odd about it.
QuoteDweeb.
What are you, six?
People have suffered worse injures to the head and continued to function. he probably had a hell of a migraine after that. but it glanced off the side of the head taking part of the ear and flesh with it and bled, not white frothy android fluid
As others have said, people have suffered really awful head injuries and gone on about their business.
What we see in the film can just be put down to over-the-top gore. No one's arguing Jude was really a bag of gore disguising itself as a human, even though he literally explodes for no reason when the Alien grabs him.
Now that guy is most definitely a droid. Shows absolutely no emotion, gets shot with an armor piercing round and a few minutes later runs around as if nothing happened.
Case closed.
Is this thread still alive? Didn't Aliens: Colonial Marines reveal that the Bishop in Alien 3 was, in fact, human? There are synthetic versions of him but they have white blood, not red like in the movie.
Haven't bothered with A:CM, but it was established in '92 that he was human and there were synthetic versions of him with white blood.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fth00.deviantart.net%2Ffs71%2FPRE%2Ff%2F2013%2F097%2Fa%2F0%2Fuac_station_locked_screensaver_by_yuukiminoru-d60quej.jpg&hash=ea5cbe765dc8c20310f9be026f4343fdfb1bbbdc)