Cast and crew of Alien 3 say Bishop II is human

"Adam Cameron" <adam_junk DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote

>> Now....
>> You might have me here....
>> *Is* there a scene where Deckard has orange eyes?
>> Cos I have honestly never noticed it.
>
> Yep. I can't remember exactly where in the film it was, though.

Right after Rachel kills Leon. Back at Deckard's place she asks him if he'd
kill her. He says No, I owe you one...but somebody would. And as he exits
right to his bathroom, his eyes glow.
 >> Stay informed about: Cast and crew of Alien 3 say Bishop II is human 

"Keith Hazelwood" <unknown.TakeThisOut@unknown.net> wrote in message
news:vndku054klsqv4m83l4cl8lp92jq6cq3vo@4ax.com...


Hmmm...
I *thought* you said you were through with this???

No matter....

> These are the rules which state that the script for Alien is
> admissible, but the script for Alien 3 is not.
> In other words, the cocoon scene is vague and inconclusive until you
> factor in the script, which interprets the scene through exposition.

Don't you *read* Keith?

Or did you simply not see where I said I was severly PO-d that the cocoon
sequence could NOT be viewed as canon til the Spec Ed hit the movie
screen???


> On the other hand, Alien 3's Bishop II scene is also supposedly
> inconclusive, but using the script is not allowed.

Which in NO way contradicts my standing re Alien and Cocoons.


> This is same rulebook, by the way, which states that a director's
> commentary is definitive, yet is also summarily tossed out as evidence
> when Cov disagrees with it.


> Case in point:
> "If I heard it from Fincher I'd accept it." - Cov, 2002
> "But [Fincher] *has* gone around saying *Bishop is human* 'post hoctor
> proct'." - Cov, 2005
> Yet he continues to deny it.


Deny *what* exactly?

That the *on screen portrayal of Bishop makes him more likely to be droid
than human?

Not at all!

If Fincher SAYS he was supposed to be human, Good for him.
Bishop is *supposed* to be human.

But that isn't what we see portrayed on the screen.

Where's your problem in following that?
Or can't you deal with the process called *Devil's Advocate* ?



--
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 

"John Redman" <johnphilipredman.RemoveThis@hotmailREMOVETHEBLEEDINOBVIOUS.com> wrote in
message news:csdiqi$k2i$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Adam Cameron" <adam_junk.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> >> Now....
> >> You might have me here....
> >> *Is* there a scene where Deckard has orange eyes?
> >> Cos I have honestly never noticed it.
> >
> > Yep. I can't remember exactly where in the film it was, though.
>
> Right after Rachel kills Leon. Back at Deckard's place she asks him if
he'd
> kill her. He says No, I owe you one...but somebody would. And as he exits
> right to his bathroom, his eyes glow.


Oooooo I'll have to check that one out !!


--
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 said:

> Deny *what* exactly?
>
> That the *on screen portrayal of Bishop makes him more likely to be droid
> than human?
>
> Not at all!
>
> If Fincher SAYS he was supposed to be human, Good for him.
> Bishop is *supposed* to be human.
>
> But that isn't what we see portrayed on the screen.

They'll never get it, man, never. Or at least not admit to getting the
point.

This whole arguement reminds me of two other things I've recently
discussed with other people:

1. Did Han shoot first?

He did before Lucas changed his mind. Han is suppose to be a
smuggler, and it fits his character, but Lucas had totally wussified
Han by the time Return of the Jedi finished. Lucas wanted Han to
be a hero, not a "scoundrel". So he changed it.

So what is canon? If we take the re-made Star Wars (which I *do*,
even if I don't like it) as the "official" film, than Han does *not* shoot
first, even though the original version is more "faithful" to his character.
I like the idea of Han Solo taking the initiative, but I must concede
that Han is now a big sissy because George Lucas wants to water
down his creation and make it as "family-friendly" as possible.

It's all about what is *on the screen* . . .

Like it or not, the cocoon scene is now canon, whether or not even
Ridley Scott "wants" it to be. There is nothing *either* way to form
anything "canon" in the case of whether Bishop II is human or not
based what is seen on screen, in either the original or SE of Alien3.

2. What the hell happened in Donnie Darko?

Go ahead, and listen to the commentaries. Does that clear things up
for you? Hell, no. Not even the creators of this brilliant film know
what the hell really happened. I was *more* confused after listening
to them, then before when I simply went with my own theories.

Just because somebody wrote/directed the material doesn't mean
that you can not interprete something "vague" which happens in a
film for yourself. Listening to a make-up artist or what an actor thinks
is even sillier. If there is no definative answer on screen, then by all
means
you are allowed to beleive anything you want. I don't think Richard
Kelly would even argue with that. He can *try* to explain what
Donnie Darko was *meant* to mean when he wrote and directed
the film, but in so many words, he basically tells you, "make up your
own mind".

Fincher has all the right in the world to say, "Bishop II was meant to be
human". But until he makes a director's cut which absolutely leaves no
doubt (like Lucas with Han Solo), then we are left with what is *on
screen*.

I'll interprete Donnie Darko my way, just as I will Alien3. I say that
Bishop II is an android.

Why?

Because that is the answer that makes sense based on the information
we have been given about The Company. They *always* lie. They lied
to the crew of the Nostromo, and through Burke, the lied to the crew
of the Sulaco. Why in the world would they all of a sudden start telling
the truth? Anything The Company says, I will believe the opposite. The
Company was going to lie to try to get her to co-operate. That's the way
they operate (given what info we have in the films).

I'm probably the biggest A3/Fincher supporter in here. But it definately
goes *against* what would be logical for The Company to be telling
the truth.

So using both points above, there is neither proof for or against Bishop II
being human. In that case, determine what makes the most sense for the
situation. I say it makes the most sense for Bishop II to be an android,
and I couldn't care less what a make-up artist says. Put it on screen if
you don't want to leave any doubts.

And in the case of Lucas, quit f**king with good things. :-)

But I'm justing wasting my time . . .

(No, really, I am. I should be getting some sleep before work tomorrow.
Holiday weekend my @ss -- ten hour shifts all three days for me! :-( )

Have a great day!

ADWatts

"I remember it well
The first time that I saw
Your head around the door
'Cause mine stopped working"

from "I Remember" by Damien Rice
 >> Stay informed about: Cast and crew of Alien 3 say Bishop II is human 

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 04:20:24 GMT, "ADWatts"
<adwatts DeleteThis @graphic-designer.com> wrote:

>They'll never get it, man, never. Or at least not admit to getting the
>point.

I get the point; I just think it's selectively applied, as I
demonstrated earlier.

>1. Did Han shoot first?

Lucasfilm is clear on this. They have a canon policy. The Alien
films do not, AFAIK.

>Like it or not, the cocoon scene is now canon, whether or not even
>Ridley Scott "wants" it to be. There is nothing *either* way to form
>anything "canon" in the case of whether Bishop II is human or not
>based what is seen on screen, in either the original or SE of Alien3.

Once and for all: I believe the cocoon scene *is* canon! It's in the
movie; it's canon. It happened. I'm not disputing that.

BUT...

The point I'm trying to make is that what's shown *on the screen* is
inconclusive. The script makes it quite clear what the scene is
showing us; but, according to Covenant, the script is inadmissible as
evidence.

Therefore, by Cov's own "rules of canon," we can't know that the
cocoon scene is depicting a further step in the alien's lifecycle. So
in the absence of proof, "Jimmy's queen" is the only way we know for
certain how they're able to create eggs.

Wouldn't you agree?

>Because that is the answer that makes sense based on the information
>we have been given about The Company. They *always* lie. They lied
>to the crew of the Nostromo, and through Burke, the lied to the crew
>of the Sulaco. Why in the world would they all of a sudden start telling
>the truth? Anything The Company says, I will believe the opposite. The
>Company was going to lie to try to get her to co-operate. That's the way
>they operate (given what info we have in the films).

I see.

So you're perfectly willing to cite precedent until it comes to the
*well-established* precedent that androids bleed white...

>I'm probably the biggest A3/Fincher supporter in here. But it definately
>goes *against* what would be logical for The Company to be telling
>the truth.

But they *don't* always lie. When confronted, Burke admitted to
Ripley that he wanted to take back specimens. He didn't even try to
deny it. He only went on the defensive when she confronted him about
sending the colonists to investigate the derelict without warning
them.

Bishop II also finally came clean and admitted that he wanted to take
the queen alive and study it. At that point, he was spilling his guts
and telling Ripley the truth. This is when he said, "I am not a
droid!"

>So using both points above, there is neither proof for or against Bishop II
>being human. In that case, determine what makes the most sense for the
>situation. I say it makes the most sense for Bishop II to be an android,
>and I couldn't care less what a make-up artist says. Put it on screen if
>you don't want to leave any doubts.

They did when they made his blood red. Hell, they even carried the
white android blood staple over to Alien Resurrection and used it in a
more advanced generation (Call) some 200 years later.

Kinda pokes a gaping hole in the "Bishop II was a more advanced
android that bleeds red" theory...

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

In article <c2HGd.10762$OF5.9434@attbi_s52>,
"ADWatts" <adwatts RemoveThis @graphic-designer.com> wrote:

> 1. Did Han shoot first?
>
> He did before Lucas changed his mind. Han is suppose to be a
> smuggler, and it fits his character, but Lucas had totally wussified
> Han by the time Return of the Jedi finished. Lucas wanted Han to
> be a hero, not a "scoundrel". So he changed it.
>
> So what is canon? If we take the re-made Star Wars (which I *do*,
> even if I don't like it) as the "official" film, than Han does *not* shoot
> first, even though the original version is more "faithful" to his character.
> I like the idea of Han Solo taking the initiative, but I must concede
> that Han is now a big sissy because George Lucas wants to water
> down his creation and make it as "family-friendly" as possible.
>
> It's all about what is *on the screen* . . .
>
> Like it or not, the cocoon scene is now canon, whether or not even
> Ridley Scott "wants" it to be.

You're making a false analogy here. Han shooting or not shooting first is what
we see on screen. The "cocoon" scene is also what we see - but it's the
canonity of the *lifecycle* that is in question, which at the very best is
-hinted- at in that scene. Not so with the Han scene.

> Fincher has all the right in the world to say, "Bishop II was meant to be
> human". But until he makes a director's cut which absolutely leaves no
> doubt (like Lucas with Han Solo), then we are left with what is *on
> screen*.

While you may want to trumpet "what is *on screen*" as having more canonity
than what the actual director says - keep in mind that what YOU see in the
scene apparently isn't seen by everyone else. You are free to think whatever
you want, but given the ambiguity of the scene and the directors -word- there
is no chance you can make a case where he is unquestionably a droid. That would
be stupid. You are free to continue interprete him as being a droid in spite of
what the creator says. But if we can't trust what we *see*, which we obviously
can't since there is a disagreement, then all that is left is what the creator
says we see.

You seem to want to paint a scene where George Lucas releases a Special Edition
of A New Hope where Han Solo shoots first, look at then and then have George
Lucas say in the commentary: "And here we see Greedo shoot first", which just
isn't what is happening on screen. Fincher saying that Bishop is human isn't a
contradication of what we see on screen - it might be a contradiction of what
you have initially interpreted it as, but not from what is seen in the scene.

The scenes in A3 isn't that obvious as this analogy would have them seem. It's
not like we see a blue car and the director talks about the car being red.

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

Sandman said:

> The scenes in A3 isn't that obvious as this analogy would have them seem.
It's
> not like we see a blue car and the director talks about the car being red.

You're both still missing the point. I don't know how I can explain
it any clearer.

1. If it's *on screen*/explained indisputely then you go with *that*;
even if it's been changed. Han shoots first. Brett is turning into an
egg.

If not . . .

2. You are free to make up your own mind. If the writer and/or
director absolutely wanted the audience to believe one thing over
another, then they should've been clearer to begin with, otherwise.
don't bitch if a certain segment disagrees with your vision. Is Deckard
a replicant? Is Bishop II a droid? Is Donnie Darko merely delusional?
It's up to you to decide, and there's really no right or wrong answer
because nothing was provided which was completely conclusive one
way or another.

Why do I feel so strongly about this position? Because not everyone
is fanatical about films like we are. If your average movie goer, who's
never going to listen to a commentary or read an interview with the
director, sees something ambiguous this way or that, who are we to
tell them they are wrong? Any creator, whether it's a film or a novel
or a painting or whatever, needs to allow for some freedom of
interpretion on the part of their audience. That's part of the fun and
enjoyment of art.

You have "evidence" which you feel makes Bishop II human. That's
fine with me. I just don't see it that way. Neither one of us can be
wrong because there is nothing in the film to absolutely contridict either
theory.

Have a great day!

ADWatts

"I remember it well
The first time that I saw
Your head around the door
'Cause mine stopped working"

from "I Remember" by Damien Rice
 >> Stay informed about: Cast and crew of Alien 3 say Bishop II is human 

In article <xqPGd.11199$OF5.5133@attbi_s52>, "ADWatts"
<adwatts RemoveThis @graphic-designer.com> wrote:

>> The scenes in A3 isn't that obvious as this analogy would have them
>> seem. It's not like we see a blue car and the director talks about
>> the car being red.
>
> You're both still missing the point. I don't know how I can explain it
> any clearer.
>
> 1. If it's *on screen*/explained indisputely then you go with *that*;
> even if it's been changed. Han shoots first. Brett is turning into an
> egg.
>
> If not . . .
>
> 2. You are free to make up your own mind. If the writer and/or
> director absolutely wanted the audience to believe one thing over
> another, then they should've been clearer to begin with, otherwise.
> don't bitch if a certain segment disagrees with your vision. Is
> Deckard a replicant? Is Bishop II a droid? Is Donnie Darko merely
> delusional? It's up to you to decide, and there's really no right or
> wrong answer because nothing was provided which was completely
> conclusive one way or another.
>
> Why do I feel so strongly about this position? Because not everyone is
> fanatical about films like we are. If your average movie goer, who's
> never going to listen to a commentary or read an interview with the
> director, sees something ambiguous this way or that, who are we to
> tell them they are wrong? Any creator, whether it's a film or a novel
> or a painting or whatever, needs to allow for some freedom of
> interpretion on the part of their audience. That's part of the fun and
> enjoyment of art.
>
> You have "evidence" which you feel makes Bishop II human. That's fine
> with me. I just don't see it that way. Neither one of us can be wrong
> because there is nothing in the film to absolutely contridict either
> theory.

Not needed. The director has told us. End of story.

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

"ADWatts" <adwatts RemoveThis @graphic-designer.com> wrote in message
news:ryGGd.10649$OF5.2047@attbi_s52...
> Covenant posted:

> > NB:... If anyone on here is good at spanish, a translation would be
cool!
>
> Here you good, my friend:


CHEERS !!!!


--
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 RemoveThis @unknown.net> wrote in message
news:eb8nu0p99f76lvkf88eighjp134tb1ovc7@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 04:20:24 GMT, "ADWatts"
> <adwatts RemoveThis @graphic-designer.com> wrote:
>
> >They'll never get it, man, never. Or at least not admit to getting the
> >point.
>
> I get the point; I just think it's selectively applied, as I
> demonstrated earlier.
>
> >1. Did Han shoot first?
>
> Lucasfilm is clear on this. They have a canon policy. The Alien
> films do not, AFAIK.
>
> >Like it or not, the cocoon scene is now canon, whether or not even
> >Ridley Scott "wants" it to be. There is nothing *either* way to form
> >anything "canon" in the case of whether Bishop II is human or not
> >based what is seen on screen, in either the original or SE of Alien3.
>
> Once and for all: I believe the cocoon scene *is* canon! It's in the
> movie; it's canon. It happened. I'm not disputing that.
>
> BUT...
>
> The point I'm trying to make is that what's shown *on the screen* is
> inconclusive. The script makes it quite clear what the scene is
> showing us; but, according to Covenant, the script is inadmissible as
> evidence.

Sod, the script, YOU brought it up not me.

> Therefore, by Cov's own "rules of canon," we can't know that the
> cocoon scene is depicting a further step in the alien's lifecycle.

Yes we CAN cos it's ON the movie SCREEN !!!

Brett is CLEARLY becoming an egg!


--
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 

I said:

> > You have "evidence" which you feel makes Bishop II human. That's fine
> > with me. I just don't see it that way. Neither one of us can be wrong
> > because there is nothing in the film to absolutely contridict either
> > theory.

Sandman replied:

> Not needed. The director has told us. End of story.

Not. Fincher didn't even write the script. Nor did he even want his name
on the film. Furthermore, he refused to participate in the Quadrilogy. So
how does he have final say? He doesn't.

ADWatts

"I remember it well
The first time that I saw
Your head around the door
'Cause mine stopped working"

from "I Remember" by Damien Rice
 >> Stay informed about: Cast and crew of Alien 3 say Bishop II is human 

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 03:09:09 GMT, "ADWatts"
<adwatts DeleteThis @graphic-designer.com> wrote:

>> Not needed. The director has told us. End of story.
>
>Not. Fincher didn't even write the script. Nor did he even want his name
>on the film. Furthermore, he refused to participate in the Quadrilogy. So
>how does he have final say? He doesn't.

So what? He was the director. Does this mean the director doesn't
have the final say any more?

Shall we transfer "final say" to the producers instead? That would be
David Giler and Walter Hill, who *wrote the script*.

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

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 03:19:21 GMT, "ADWatts"
<adwatts.DeleteThis@graphic-designer.com> wrote:

>"After Ripley discovers the remains of Parker and Lambert, she makes another
>discovery. Ripley enters the landing leg room of the Nostromo where Brett
>got killed, and discovers a cocooned Dallas and Brett. Dallas and Brett are
>mutating into Eggs. Ripley tries to think of a way to help Dallas but she
>can't and he tells her to kill him. Finally, Ripley burns the whole place
>with her incinerator unit."
>
>So I'm not the only one.

Mass opinion isn't canon. In fact, I'll quote Cov here...

"...they hold no morer [sic] weight that [sic] anyone else with more
than a passing interest in the movies, arguments."

>Believe whatever you want. I couldn't care less.

I'll let you in on a little secret: I *do* believe that Brett is
turning into an egg because a) I'm not blind to the obvious, b) I *do*
accept what the script says and c) I don't have an agenda compelling
me to oppose it.

The Anchorpoint Essays discovered a beautiful way of weaving the
original lifecycle into the whole biology of the aliens that finally
sold me on it. It's logical and scientific and I'm just wired that
way.

The only reason I'm playing Devil's Advocate here is to demonstrate
how frustrating it is for other people to use the same tactics I've
been using when it comes to the Bishop II issue.

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