Bishop in Alien 3 - Human or Android?

[NUB DESTROYER]

^^ 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.

[Self-Destruct]

^^ 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?

[NUB DESTROYER]

I can make my pancakes look bright pink with food coloring yet they still taste as delicious as ever.

[Self-Destruct]

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.

[NUB DESTROYER]

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

[Self-Destruct]

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


Magic.

[Xenomrph]

^^ 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.

[NUB DESTROYER]

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?

[Xenomrph]

Was I wrong in thinking it was an android when I was a kid?

Ultimately? Yes.
I thought a lot of dumb things about the movies when I was a kid, in growing up I realized how wrong they were.

[NUB DESTROYER]

OK... so we're gonna go back to this ping pong affair... square one.

Ultimately... no if films-only.

[SiL]

If we bring in other media then it's still no. Script and novel are much more explicit about what he is.

[NUB DESTROYER]

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.

[wmmvrrvrrmm]

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.

[NUB DESTROYER]

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. 

[wmmvrrvrrmm]

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.