Bishop in Alien 3 - Human or Android?

Started by Darkness, Nov 01, 2006, 08:18:10 AM

Bishop in Alien 3 - Human or Android?

Human
393 (59.6%)
Android
266 (40.4%)

Total Members Voted: 609

Author
Bishop in Alien 3 - Human or Android? (Read 361,321 times)

xenomorph426

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

maledoro

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.

Eidotemit

The ones who list Weyland in AvP as "proof" Bishop II was synthetic must have a tough time with biology and genetics too.

Huol

Huol

#1248
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.

wmmvrrvrrmm

wmmvrrvrrmm

#1249
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

Andrew127

I think it is possible for both Bishops to be human. Relatives? Clones? etc. Not impossible at all.

SM

SM

#1251
Clones?  Pointless.

xenomorph426

it wouldnt be clones they didnt master that untill 300 years later with ripley

maledoro

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.

Andrew127

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.

wmmvrrvrrmm

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

maledoro

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?

wmmvrrvrrmm

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

maledoro

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.

xenomorph426

this has gone so far off track and gone on for way to long hes human the end. :P

AvPGalaxy: About | Contact | Cookie Policy | Manage Cookie Settings | Privacy Policy | Legal Info
Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube Patreon RSS Feed
Contact: General Queries | Submit News