Re: The ANTI-ALIEN 3 thread for all ALIEN franchise fans who hated Fil
Bishop had some back-up agenda programming and betrayed everyone.
There is some evidence of this in Aliens. The biggest thing is that Bishop said flight time for the second drop ship would be forty minutes. We saw the first drop ship deploy and it took four minutes with a human pilot and a load of squishy Marines on board. But Bishop the android takes ten times as long to pilot an empty one?
[...]
And hey, what happened to Hicks? An acid burn to the shoulder puts him in the care of Dr. Bishop and he never wakes up!
I always assumed that the first trip for the drop ship from the ship to the planet also took about 40 minutes. We just didn't see all of it.
As for Hicks, I think they just got him onto a LOT of morphine. It's also possible that he did wake up at some point during the interim between when the shuttle landed and when Ripley put Newt into cryosleep. Again, a lot more time passed than just what we saw on screen.
I remember reading/hearing somewhere that Cameron originally intended for Bishop to "Ash" the marines and Ripley.
I was glad this wasn't done in the film because it would have been TOO MUCH like "Alien". Part of making a good sequel is knowing what to copy, what to copy and make bigger and more spectacular and, perhaps most importantly, what to INVERT.
Thus I always saw Bishop's "loyal" and "good" nature as the necessary story inversion of Ash from the first film. It is not predictable and expected(based on what we know from film one)and it allows Ripley to confront a prejudice(albeit justified)and grow from that.
Agreed. Plus, it never seems like it was Lance Henriksen's intention for Bishop to have a hidden agenda. He played up the ambiguity of certain scenes so that the inversion would have more strength but I've never heard anything from him or James Cameron to indicate that Bishop actually did have a hidden agenda.
Oh and I understand your anger on the "racism against British" thing. Here in Australia, you cannot say ANYTHING even considered SLIGHTLY derogatory against ANY group of people(under fear of being sued), except, strangely enough for one group. Yep, that's right; the British.
It's almost a national pasttime here to make light of how British people have bad teeth, don't bathe and love the queen.
Having several family members of UK origin, I find this blatantly hippocritical and, within itself, highly offensive.
Not really, its just a criticism I always here of this film- "ooh they have non-American accents so I can't understand them and don't like it"
I simply find that sort of thinking offensive. That is all
If it's any consolation to you guys, in American pop culture, the British get off easy compared to the French.
Also in the SE DVD version it has the Bishop guy shouting to Ripley "I'm not a droid!" and showing her the blood/cut from the bash he got earlier. So that version makes out he is human. I guess that wouldn't fit with AVP, unless he was an descendent of Weylend
Actually no. Its a little hard to see but he clearly has his skin, including his entire ear, hanging off his head there. Hes definitely a robot sent by the Company to gain Ripley's trust.
But his blood is red, like a human, not milky white like Ash & the 1st Bishop. I think it's clear that the guy at the end of
Alien 3 is a distant descendant of Charles Bishop Weyland.
Since people are also bringing up
Alien Resurrection, I'll just say that it's kind of a pointless movie since I agree that the Ripley story came to a natural end with
Alien 3. It's format is basically just trying to rip off the 1st 2 films. Sadly, other than Sigourney Weaver's performance, it's even less innovative than the
AVP movies.
Personally, I just want to see them do one more
AVP movie, this time set in the future, perhaps during the gap between
Alien 3 &
Alien Resurrection, showing the fall of Weyland-Yutani.
