Cast and crew of Alien 3 say Bishop II is human

"Keith Hazelwood" <unknown.TakeThisOut@unknown.net> wrote in message
news:d4vau0hotm10s7odr5vc6d1t3coathfcod@4ax.com...
> From the Alien 3 DVD audio commentary...

Deal with this below.. apart from one bit...

> Tom Woodruff Jr.: "...we had done an appliance that shows his ear had
> become dislodged and the whole point was that Fincher wanted to show
> that, y'know, without a doubt this is the real guy and not a synthetic
> person."

> Lance Henriksen: "In the script, it said Bishop I and Bishop II. And
> to play the creator of Bishop, who would be this guy, I didn't have to
> do anything. I mean I literally didn't, as an actor, didn't have to
> do anything. Because to play the creator of a guy you make Bishop in
> your own image. If you were going to build an andoid, you'd build
> him in your own image."

NB. This bit has nothing to do with the *Bishop is Human debate*

Lance's sentence makes no real sense from a performer's point of view.
Any actor who says they *didn't have to do anything* to play a part is
either extremely vain, or just simply lazy.
And, what does he give as the justification of *why* he "didn't have to do
anything"....?

>to play the creator of a guy you make Bishop in your own image.

What does that mean?
"To play the creator of a guy you make bishop in your own image" ?

Senseless!
(I think I might know what he *should* have said, or what he was *trying to
say* but it's not what he *said* up there.)

>If you were going to build an andoid, you'd build him in your own image.

Only if you're an egotistical S.O.B.
And I haven't seen any human looking faces on the robots being built right
now!

;' ))


> Alec Gillis: "For Lance's human character, when it's revealed that he
> is actually the scientist who the Bishop model was patterned after,

Yeah, well...
He said He was sent to *show a friendly face*. (Why would they assume that
was the case?)
And that he was there to *kill* the alien.

He lied about that. Why not lie about anything else?? ;' )))
After all, Ripley's notes SAY that the driod malfunctioned on the
Nostromo... Why say "Hi Rip.. I'm a droid!" ?

> Fincher wanted a wound so we created a torn ear where the whole ear
> was lifted forward..."


????

All the *tech* stuff makes no sense!

"We wanted to show he was human", so, "we.. showed that his ear had come
*dislodged*?"
and to,
"reveal he was human", he created a wound where, "the whole ear was lifted
forward".

Riiigghhttt...

So... Errmm....
Since when do Human's ears, "come dislodged??"
And since when do ears *move forward* with little-to-no ill effects on the
bearer?

If they were *so* damn determined to let people KNOW he was human why cut
the line that says....

"I'M NOT A DROID!"

Answer?
Cos they knew no-one with even half a clue as to how human beings work would
swallow the attack on him causing so little effect. (IMnotsoHO of course.)

But they NEEDED him to show little effect to be able for him to still be
conscious to be able to do the bog standard, "Noooooo!!!!", as Ripley took
the big dive.

A3 treated us like Arses!


Frankly, however, this isn't really anything new.
It's not as if this isn't something we haven't heard the likes of before.
I mean, hell, we all KNOW that Fincher has been going on and on about him
*being human* for a while now.
*Is* Bishop human?
Unfortunately no matter *what* the people who made the film say... It isn't
SHOWN to be the case on screen.
They can say he was *meant* to be human all they like, *what was shown on
screen* does not help validate that claim.

*I* think it was an afterthought on Fincher's part.


(In the same way that I think it was an afterthought of Ridley's to make
Deckard a replicant.
After all.. Ford never knew that.)

--
Covenant
A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands
 >> Stay informed about: Cast and crew of Alien 3 say Bishop II is human 

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 02:43:33 -0000, "Covenant"
<covenant.TakeThisOut@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>> See episodes of Star Trek featuring Dr. Noonian Soong. See the
>> classic 80s comedy, Making Mr. Right. Making a robot double of
>> yourself is hardly new to sci-fi, especially once you've seen it in
>> Star Trek.
>
>Wasn't Aliens Before TNG?

Yeah. I'm talking about Alien 3 though.

>> Deductive reasoning. Putting aside Bishop's ominous line that the
>> company knew everything that happened on the ship, Andews reported
>> that Bishop was one of the few survivors of that expedition.
>
>But he wasn't.
>He was wrecked and *switched off*

That he was on the ship at all is evidence that he made it off the
colony.

>> Human body parts do all sorts of things they're not supposed to do
>> when injured. See Joe Theismann's leg.
>
>An *injury* as such as would do the damage to the side of a human head as we
>see in the movie would hardly have a man acting the way Bishop does.

Have you ever heard of Phineas Gage?

>> No ill effects? Bishop was in visible agony and clutching on the
>> chainlink fence to stay upright.
>
>Again, it's an old debate, and it's ALL simple POV...
>But, again, to *my* mind, that sort of damage would render you not only
>unable to speak with any sort of clarity, but also unable to even *try* to
>stand... let alone to not even stay conscious.

His wound looked ugly, but appeared to be little more than damaged
flesh and cartilage. Bloody and painful, yes, but not necessarily the
massive life-threatening injury you continually represent it as.

>> The studio cut that scene, not Fincher. The scriptwriters, the
>> director, the FX artists, and the actor himself all say Bishop is
>> human.
>
>But the evidence of the film doesn't.
>;' ))))

It does, you're just misinterpreting it.

>> >*I* think it was an afterthought on Fincher's part.
>
>> Fincher had no involvement at that point.
>
>But he *has* gone around saying *Bishop is human* 'post hoctor proct'.
>(REF??? Diff... 5/5)

Let me get this straight: it was an afterthought on Fincher's part
even though the shooting script also clearly states that Bishop II is
human?

Keith
 >> Stay informed about: Cast and crew of Alien 3 say Bishop II is human 

>>If you were going to build an android,
>> you'd build him in your own image.

> Only if you're an egotistical S.O.B.

Oh I don't know, just think of all the mischief you could get up to if you
could make androids look like yourself or anyone else for that matter.

You could get your android double to listen to your partner nagging and do
the chores, while you chug beers with your mates!

You could get an android to look like someone you dislike and send his
associates a video of it engaging in disgusting acts. Perhaps titled
"Phillip The Dick stars in 'Do Androids Suck Off Electric Sheep?'".
Or "Alien vs. Android: Bashing The Bishop".



Personally I'd make it look like Claudia Schiffer and act like Felicity
Kendal.
 >> Stay informed about: Cast and crew of Alien 3 say Bishop II is human 

"Covenant" <covenant.RemoveThis@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cs4ks1$maj$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Keith Hazelwood" <unknown.RemoveThis@unknown.net> wrote in message
> news:d4vau0hotm10s7odr5vc6d1t3coathfcod@4ax.com...
> "We wanted to show he was human", so, "we.. showed that his ear had come
> *dislodged*?"
> and to,
> "reveal he was human", he created a wound where, "the whole ear was lifted
> forward".


To be honest, I think they are just covering up for the fact it was a *bad
makeup* scene. It didnt look realistic for a human ear to be "dislodged"
(stoopid word!) and it didnt look plastic enough to be a droid ear.

The real sad thing is, if they wanna play the Bishop II is a droid theory,
why oh why havent we had a sequel that matches that scenario. What *was*
the point without a follow-on story?? - No conclusions, just speculation
and a few spluttered words from people trying to cover their ARses!!

Cov, they screwed up! :)
 >> Stay informed about: Cast and crew of Alien 3 say Bishop II is human 

"Keith Hazelwood" <unknown.DeleteThis@unknown.net> wrote in message
news:u7leu0pj61djakkgkdv3fk1j2rhf1tcmn4@4ax.com...


> Have you ever heard of Phineas Gage?

Nope.

> His wound looked ugly, but appeared to be little more than damaged
> flesh and cartilage. Bloody and painful, yes, but not necessarily the
> massive life-threatening injury you continually represent it as.

I did not represent it as *life threatening* in any way.
(And don't think I *ever* have)


> >But the evidence of the film doesn't.
> >;' ))))
>
> It does, you're just misinterpreting it.

Or, contrarily, *you* are.

;' )


> Let me get this straight: it was an afterthought on Fincher's part
> even though the shooting script also clearly states that Bishop II is
> human?

Have you read the *Script* for many movies? Things change between page and
cell.

*Script* is not canon.


--
Covenant
A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands
 >> Stay informed about: Cast and crew of Alien 3 say Bishop II is human 

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:17:51 -0000, "Covenant"
<covenant.TakeThisOut@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>> Have you ever heard of Phineas Gage?
>
>Nope.

Famous guy. Impaled through the head with a 4 foot tamping iron. He
was thrown to the ground and exhibited a few convulsions, but he was
alert and rational within a few minutes after the accident.

>> His wound looked ugly, but appeared to be little more than damaged
>> flesh and cartilage. Bloody and painful, yes, but not necessarily the
>> massive life-threatening injury you continually represent it as.
>
>I did not represent it as *life threatening* in any way.
>(And don't think I *ever* have)

Maybe not, but you continually represent his injury as having been so
terrible and so traumatic that he shouldn't have been able to stand
and plead with Ripley.

You just keep insisting like a broken record that his failure to
collapse in a puddle of his own blood and piss is somehow evidence
that he's an android.

>> Let me get this straight: it was an afterthought on Fincher's part
>> even though the shooting script also clearly states that Bishop II is
>> human?
>
>Have you read the *Script* for many movies? Things change between page and
>cell.
>
>*Script* is not canon.

Fine, then I submit that the cocoon scene in the original movie is
vague and inconclusive and therefore the original lifecycle doesn't
exist, except on paper, which doesn't count.

After all, your case for the "Bishop II is a droid" theory is
predicated on the actor, director, crew, and script all being wrong
because they didn't make it totally 100% clear on-screen that Bishop
II is human even though he:

a) bleeds red blood, not white milk
b) exhibits a pained reaction to the blow (even more so in the SE)
c) actually says "I'm not a droid" even after sustaining the injury

So what do you say? Are you willing to concede that the cocoon scene
may not represent what you've so passionately advocated over the years
too? Let's not be hypocritical now, Cov.

;')))))))))

P.S. I also find it interesting that you've conceded in the past that
Deckard was a replicant in Bladerunner simply because Ridley Scott
said so, but you apply a double standard when it comes to Alien 3 and
David Fincher.

Keith
 >> Stay informed about: Cast and crew of Alien 3 say Bishop II is human 

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:17:51 -0000, "Covenant"
<covenant.TakeThisOut@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>> His wound looked ugly, but appeared to be little more than damaged
>> flesh and cartilage. Bloody and painful, yes, but not necessarily the
>> massive life-threatening injury you continually represent it as.
>
>I did not represent it as *life threatening* in any way.
>(And don't think I *ever* have)

Google is my friend...

May 1, 2002...

Me: "What reaction would satisfy you?"
You: "With the injury he recieved? Pretty much sudden death. Or
unconciousness."

Keith
 >> Stay informed about: Cast and crew of Alien 3 say Bishop II is human 

"Kryten" <kryten_droid_obfusticator RemoveThis @ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:0OQFd.123$7C4.90@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> >>If you were going to build an android,
> >> you'd build him in your own image.
>
> > Only if you're an egotistical S.O.B.
>
> Oh I don't know, just think of all the mischief you could get up to if you
> could make androids look like yourself or anyone else for that matter.


> Personally I'd make it look like Claudia Schiffer and act like Felicity
> Kendal.


And *that* is why robots won't be made in the likeness of their maker !!

;' )


--
Covenant
A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands
 >> Stay informed about: Cast and crew of Alien 3 say Bishop II is human 

"Tracy" <sistermoonconstant RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41e80803$0$255$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
>
> "Covenant" <covenant RemoveThis @joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:cs4ks1$maj$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > "Keith Hazelwood" <unknown RemoveThis @unknown.net> wrote in message
> > news:d4vau0hotm10s7odr5vc6d1t3coathfcod@4ax.com...
> > "We wanted to show he was human", so, "we.. showed that his ear had
come
> > *dislodged*?"
> > and to,
> > "reveal he was human", he created a wound where, "the whole ear was
lifted
> > forward".
>
>
> To be honest, I think they are just covering up for the fact it was a *bad
> makeup* scene. It didnt look realistic for a human ear to be "dislodged"
> (stoopid word!) and it didnt look plastic enough to be a droid ear.
>
> The real sad thing is, if they wanna play the Bishop II is a droid theory,
> why oh why havent we had a sequel that matches that scenario. What *was*
> the point without a follow-on story?? - No conclusions, just speculation
> and a few spluttered words from people trying to cover their ARses!!
>
> Cov, they screwed up! :)

Oh, I'm well aware of that!

But all we can draw from IS what we see on screen.

And their screw ups make-up (and, indeed, direction-wise)... (and
creditation)... make it appear as if Bishop IS a robot.

QED.

;' ))


--
Covenant
A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands
 >> Stay informed about: Cast and crew of Alien 3 say Bishop II is human 

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 19:17:06 -0000, "Tracy"
<sistermoonconstant RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:

>I think he is a narcisstic, unfeeling git who built droids in his image.
>Mind you, he does say he is the "prototype", doesnt he? Strange words for a
>human. um......... could imply he is the preliminary version of improved
>forms of the droid!!

Let's not get too literal about an obviously facetious figure of
speech. Besides, even if he was a droid, and was doing his best to
conceal that fact, why would he tip his hand like that?

Keith
 >> Stay informed about: Cast and crew of Alien 3 say Bishop II is human 

"Tracy" <sistermoonconstant.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41e80987$0$247$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...


> Huge, ominous, aloof and powerful - SUPERB!


Awwwhhhh...

She wan't a robot that looks like me !!!

<'hem>

;' )

--
Covenant
A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands
 >> Stay informed about: Cast and crew of Alien 3 say Bishop II is human 

"Covenant" <covenant.RemoveThis@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cs92i4$je6$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Tracy" <sistermoonconstant.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:41e80987$0$247$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
>
>
>> Huge, ominous, aloof and powerful - SUPERB!
>
>
> Awwwhhhh...
>
> She wan't a robot that looks like me !!!
>
> <'hem>
>
> ;' )
>
> --
> Covenant
> A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands
>
>

Now... did I mention narcissism and egotism earlier? mmmm......
 >> Stay informed about: Cast and crew of Alien 3 say Bishop II is human 

In article <mr-3D427C.00135213012005 RemoveThis @individual.net>, Sandman <mr RemoveThis @sandman.net>
wrote:

<< In article <d4vau0hotm10s7odr5vc6d1t3coathfcod RemoveThis @4ax.com>,
Keith Hazelwood <unknown RemoveThis @unknown.net> wrote:

> From the Alien 3 DVD audio commentary... >>

is this on the British Alien 3 DVD as well?
 >> Stay informed about: Cast and crew of Alien 3 say Bishop II is human