Bishop in Alien 3 - Human or Android?

[ALIEN 101]

he's got to be human cuz in alien ressurection the androids still hav that white stuff and u see blood on bishops ear   

[Xenomrph]

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.

[Johnny Handsome]

he'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Yes, but in Resurrection they say that call is a old, outdated model.

[ALIEN 101]

i suppose so but remember ripley died 200 years before ressurection and i dont think call is that old

[Xenomrph]

he'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Yes, but in Resurrection they say that call is a old, outdated model.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.

[ALIEN 101]

oh yeah, lol
forgot bout that 

[Johnny Handsome]

he'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Yes, but in Resurrection they say that call is a old, outdated model.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.

[wmmvrrvrrmm]

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

[SM]

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.

[wmmvrrvrrmm]

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.

[SM]

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.

[wmmvrrvrrmm]

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

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.

[SM]

But at the same time there would be other indicators that a particular character was a synthetic.

[wmmvrrvrrmm]

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

[SM]

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.