Cast and crew of Alien 3 say Bishop II is human

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:39:25 -0000, "John Redman"
<johnphilipredman.RemoveThis@hotmailREMOVETHEBLEEDINOBVIOUS.com> wrote:

>
>"Keith Hazelwood" <unknown.RemoveThis@unknown.net> wrote in message
>
>> 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.
>
>Until it was restored to canon, in the SE you would be quite right.

No, I'm still right because the scene doesn't establish anything
conclusively, by Cov's own standards. That's my whole point.

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

"Kryten" <kryten_droid_obfusticator DeleteThis @ntlworld.com> wrote

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

By the time this was possible, porn would have improved to the point where
it wasn't necessary....
 >> Stay informed about: Cast and crew of Alien 3 say Bishop II is human 

"Tracy" <sistermoonconstant DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote

> 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.

Good point. The wound was inconsistent with the injury you'd expect from the
blow. A glancing blow would produce that wound, but Bishop got a full-on
roundhouse whack.
 >> Stay informed about: Cast and crew of Alien 3 say Bishop II is human 

"Keith Hazelwood" <unknown.DeleteThis@unknown.net> wrote

> No, I'm still right because the scene doesn't establish anything
> conclusively, by Cov's own standards. That's my whole point.

Oh, I see. Yes, I guess we do rely on extra-movie stuff to explain all that
was going on, although it seems pretty clear that Brett is turning into an
egg.
 >> Stay informed about: Cast and crew of Alien 3 say Bishop II is human 

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:42:35 -0000, "John Redman"
<johnphilipredman DeleteThis @hotmailREMOVETHEBLEEDINOBVIOUS.com> wrote:

>> No, I'm still right because the scene doesn't establish anything
>> conclusively, by Cov's own standards. That's my whole point.
>
>Oh, I see. Yes, I guess we do rely on extra-movie stuff to explain all that
>was going on, although it seems pretty clear that Brett is turning into an
>egg.

I feel the same way about Bishop II clearly being human.

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

"Keith Hazelwood" <unknown RemoveThis @unknown.net> wrote in message
news:76bgu0lnfjmjc80i7oj5kf1qi5o733fq5n@4ax.com...
> 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.


Why not?
(Could it be because it actually negates all of the *off scren* evidence
you've ben trying to get me to accept??)

;' )))))

> Besides, even if he was a droid, and was doing his best to
> conceal that fact, why would he tip his hand like that?


Cos he's a prototype?


--
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 Sat, 15 Jan 2005 09:15:12 -0000, "Covenant"
<covenant.RemoveThis@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>> Let's not get too literal about an obviously facetious figure of
>> speech.
>
>Why not?
>(Could it be because it actually negates all of the *off scren* evidence
>you've ben trying to get me to accept??)

Believe what you want. I'm through with you.

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

"Tracy" <sistermoonconstant RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41e820a7$0$271$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
>
> "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......



Ahhh but I'm unique...

I'm ALLOWED to be egomaniacal !!!


--
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 

"Keith Hazelwood" <unknown.DeleteThis@unknown.net> wrote in message

> 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.

Keith...
The *broken record* comment is >< close to an insult.
I'm *sure* you didn;t mean it that way.
But just in case.. I'll leave my response to that til you verify.


> >*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.


And you know what...
I would have had to agree with you.

It always bugged the HELL out of me that I could never call the cocoon
sequence canon.
Even though it HAD been filmed, written about, on special features on
laserdiscs etc etc etc...

But NOW it HAS been released in the body of the movie.

Ergo.. It is NOW canon.

;' )

(Smug?... Maybe.. But I waited 20 years for that scene to be *real*!
;' ) )


> 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

New model.

> b) exhibits a pained reaction to the blow (even more so in the SE)

Bishop 1 exhibited a paiined reaction when he was speared by the Queen.
SE was never released at cinemas. Ergo, to common thinking, not canon.

> c) actually says "I'm not a droid" even after sustaining the injury

"I am not a droid" is only in the workprint.
(Was it added to the sspec ed. in the Quad.? Haven;t watched it yet.)


> So what do you say?

I say that on-screen evidence falls more to the fact that Bishop is a droid
than otherwise.



> 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.

See above.
(I hate hypocrisy! ;' ) )



> 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.

I have conceded that Ridley says he was.

Doesn't mean I had to be happy about it.
You see... As with Bishop being a droid, the whole thing is open to
conjecture.

There is, to my mind, nothing in Bladerunner that proves Deckard is a
replicant.
The only glimpse of *evidence* is the fact that a small origmai unicorn is
left outside his door.


Bishop being a droid is evidenced by quite a few things that I have
mentioned before.

Oh.. By the way...

As I am also certain I have said before...

Simply because I think the evidence points more to him being a droid...
It does not mean I also think that this is what was INTENDED to be shown...


--
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 

"Keith Hazelwood" <unknown DeleteThis @unknown.net> wrote in message
news:37egu0dsjgloprvi4e75qicn5epttjn3qf@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:17:51 -0000, "Covenant"
> <covenant DeleteThis @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."

You will notice my addendum....
I don;t *think* I have...
So... One mention of sudden death, 2 and a half years ago, in HOW many posts
Keith?

You're floundering now.

(Oh.. and yeah.. I still stand by the unconsciousness bit.)


--
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 DeleteThis @joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote


> There is, to my mind, nothing in Bladerunner that proves Deckard is a
> replicant.
> The only glimpse of *evidence* is the fact that a small origmai unicorn is
> left outside his door.

Um, dud, that scene is pretty telling...saying, after that, there's no
evidence is like saying there's no evidence Deckard has a spinner.
 >> Stay informed about: Cast and crew of Alien 3 say Bishop II is human 

In article <cs92gk$mfq$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>,
"Covenant" <covenant.DeleteThis@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

> "Tracy" <sistermoonconstant.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:41e80803$0$255$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
> >
> > "Covenant" <covenant.DeleteThis@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:cs4ks1$maj$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > >
> > > "Keith Hazelwood" <unknown.DeleteThis@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.

What it 'appear' to you isn't really very interesting though, when we have
commentary from the people that actually made the movie.

--
Sandman[.net]
 >> Stay informed about: Cast and crew of Alien 3 say Bishop II is human 

In article <cs92cj$vh5$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
"Covenant" <covenant.DeleteThis@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

> > 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.

Haha! Cov sure is on Desperate Bezerk Mode. :)

--
Sandman[.net]
 >> Stay informed about: Cast and crew of Alien 3 say Bishop II is human