Bishop in Alien 3 - Human or Android?

[Vulhala]

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 

[Alien³]

Why would you say that? Now that you've said "The end" this thread will be bumped to the top for another week lol 

The end, he is human in Alien 3. Thats it. End. There will be no "bumping" 

[Neon_Knight]

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. 

[dachande89]

 

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.

[Neon_Knight]

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? 

[dachande89]

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.

[Neon_Knight]

I already said about Ash   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. 

[maledoro]

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.

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.

I like to think he's human.

So does everyone who had worked on Alien³.

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.   

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.

[Neon_Knight]

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. 

[maledoro]

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.

[SM]

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.

At what point what Ash asked a question where he deliberately gave an untrue response.

[dachande89]

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.

[SM]

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.

[maledoro]

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.

Now you don't know that! He's never lied to me! He's crazy, he's twitchy, but he's not a liar!

[dachande89]

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.