Romulus 4K

[Mike’s Monsters]

Having seen the Rook puppet in the rough cut before any augmentation, it definitely needed the CGI upgrade. It was much worse than the final product. It moved like a muppet.

[Alien³]

Yeah it's very disappointing.

[Corporal Hicks]

But that was also filmed with the intent it was going to be augmented in post so it didn't get the exact love Bishop did. I do wish they'd have gone the Bishop route though. But thankfully the home release has had those fixes.

[Enjoy]

I just want colonial marines on a bug hunt and a predator tribe thrown in twords the middle of the film

[atnightmostly]

I'd read that they fixed the Ian Holm CGI for the Blu Ray.  I finally got around to my first rewatch and he still looks absolutely rubbish.

[SiL]

They improved the shit to a different kind of shit

[Agoddamnpercentage]

But that was also filmed with the intent it was going to be augmented in post so it didn't get the exact love Bishop did. I do wish they'd have gone the Bishop route though. But thankfully the home release has had those fixes.

As much as I've got a soft spot for it, I do think we tend to look at the Bishop animatronic through rose-tinted glasses. The effect is creepy, but very of its time. It's a bit of a latex pancake, really, and I'm not sure audiences now would be so accepting.

[SiL]

Bishop looks like what it is -- a crushed, decommissioned robot. It's rubbery and fake looking because it's been through a catastrophic landing and then dumped in a garbage heap exposed to the elements.

They tried too hard to make Rook look like Ian Holm, and not enough like a badly damaged android.

[Slutty Badger]

It's a bit of a latex pancake, really, and I'm not sure audiences now would be so accepting.

Considering that "a latex pancake" is basically what Bishop had been reduced to at that point, I think the effect still holds up.

[Agoddamnpercentage]

That Bishop has been destroyed only gets you so far, I think. It's obviously made out of latex, and it's obvious that Lance Henriksen... isn't. The eye just doesn't quite accept it, I think, as the same object that we saw walking and talking a movie before, even in much worse shape.

[SM]

I wondered how they did Bishop in Alien 3 for a long time.  Initially thought it was elaborate make up back in 1992 - that's how real the mouth and eyes are.

[Slutty Badger]

That Bishop has been destroyed only gets you so far, I think. It's obviously made out of latex, and it's obvious that Lance Henriksen... isn't. The eye just doesn't quite accept it, I think, as the same object that we saw walking and talking a movie before, even in much worse shape.

The fact that it's an animatronic works in its favour, since Bishop is technically an animatronic himself, albeit a highly advanced one. An artificial person, one might think.

And the effect was pulled off without giving him a weird floaty CGI face.

[426Buddy]

Bishop is an example of a great effect that accomplishes exactly what its trying to achieve.

[slipknotpredator]