Bishop in Alien 3 - Human or Android?

[blood.]

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".

[DoomRulz]

Except all we have to go on is what we see in the movies.

[blood.]

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?

[DoomRulz]

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.

[blood.]

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.

[SiL]

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.

[blood.]

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:



(lol... even the photo link has "I am not a droid" in it  )

[SiL]

And the red blood and distinctly normal sounding voice don't scream "android" to me.

[Valaquen]

"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...

[blood.]

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.

"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.

[Valaquen]

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.

[blood.]

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.

Lance said what he did after the fact to make AVP fit with Alien 3, as per Paul Anderson's wishes.

Also **** Paul Anderson. 

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  )

[bishoop]

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?
   

[SiL]

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://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.

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.

[blood.]

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://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?