Yutani Corporation Rival Mission

Not to change the topic and I'm sure this has been discussed (I just need to know what the consensus is). In Alien 3, we see Weyland at the end claiming to be him (Bishop looking dude) in the flesh, but he sure didn't mind too much about his left torn ear (thanks to an attack by "85"). Then you take the non-canon 1st AVP and supposedly see the dieing Bishop as Weyland (okay, omit this, but I just mentioned it for note). Is it possible that, like in BladeRunner, the synthetics may not know that they are manufacture (not actually human), and that Weyland has somehow cheated mortality by putting himself in a new synthetic that thinks it's not? So, question: Is the left-torn-ear Weyland at the end of Alien 3 really Weyland? ...And just to clarify, who is Guy Pierce playing during the TEDTalk? Weyland or some predecessor?

Just to clarify - the guy at the end of Alien3 is actually named Michael Bishop II, according to the cast list. The character Guy Pearce is playing is "Peter Weyland," supposedly the true mastermind of Weyland Industries. I don't think Scott/Lindelof's universe takes any account of the "Alien vs. Predator" universe, at least from what I can tell.

that's cause in the theatrical version he is an android and in the extended directors cut, a Masterpiece in my opinion, he is Human.

@Sparty - I saw Alien 3 in the theater and never again since I bought the DVD and then again last night and I kinda thought I did notice some changes. I agree that the AvP stuff is non-canon although the first AvP was quite entertaining (2nd one total excrement despite the fact that I saw it on its Xmas release date while on vacation om KittyHawk, NC; everyone else saw the Chipmunks, lol; I wished I would have, too) @John - Thanks for the clarification. It's getting hard to keep up with all these Weyland/Bishops.....

@abordoli LOL "The Chipmunks". I cannot ell you how much I Loved the directors cut of that film, yes, it is different. And all of the Kill Scenes are enhanced and so much fun to watch and the camera work in the tunnels is astounding, but the best part is how much of the plot and storyline that version fills in properly. They say in the commentary on the Quadrilogy somewhere that it was made unfortunately without any input from David Fincher but also as a tribute to him and as a sort of apology for the way everyone felt he had been treated on set during the making of that film.

Lance Henriksen has played... AVP - Charles Bishop Weyland, CEO and founder of Weyland Industries (Peter Weyland (son?) is the CEO and founder of Weyland Corp), and a human. Aliens - Bishop, Executive Officer on the USCMC USS Sulaco, and a Synthetic. Alien 3 - Bishop II, Weyland-Industries representative used to coerce Warrant Officer Ellen Jane Ripley to submit to surgery to obtain the Queen Xenomorph fetus incubating in her chest, and a synthetic. Nowhere in the film, whatsoever, is the name Michael mentioned. Fincher wrote him, and Henriksen played him, as a synthetic. Ask yourself - how did the company know that Bishop would be a friendly face to Ripley, especially after her experience with Ash.

like I said. syntetic in theatrical version Human in the directors cut. We clearly see him bleeding human blood from the head and ear in the later.

sorry snorky that may sounded like I had an attitude but no, just saying, didn't mean to hijack the thread my apologies, well put, i go now. lol. tail between legs. [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v234/LT.HIGHTIMES/vlcsnap-00004.jpg[/img]

Added to coerce Ripley into accepting his offer, should he be attacked. Credits clearly say - Bishop II. Not a very human sounding name to me.

Snorky, The Credits for the theatrical version yes. We already established I believe that ONLY the theatrical version counts, Pitty.

the credits are same either way the point is he is in fact a HUMAN in the directors cut no matter what his name was listed as originally and he bleeds human blood and No Xeno bursts from Ripley on the way down. That ending is very different and changes the whole meaning of the storyline.

I guess my A3 is theatrical because like the version I saw in the cinema, it had the queen chest burster pop out during her climactic back-fall.

yea that's the ending that counts in the timeline

[b]@ Vril -[/b] A rival mission by 'Yutani' is certainly a possibility. But not one that I believe will happen. [b]@ abordoli -[/b] My own 2 cents on your query is that I reckon the 'Bishop' we see at the end of ALIEN 3 is just another 'android'...whether it's the 'Theatrical' cut or 'Special Edition' cut. Because I've always thought that the extreme damage to the side of his head/ear definately makes him look like one. The fact that it's red 'blood' we see, rather than white 'blood' is just another of those 'continuity issues' that were apparent in Fincher's movie. And no...I can't be arsed listing them all, before anyone asks, lol. However, none of these issues (including the 'Bishop' question) trouble me...as I personally look on ALIEN 3 (in either cut) and ALIEN RESURRECTION as being NON-'canon' anyway... Hah!

I'm not sure why the argument about the Bishop character at the end of Alien3 continues to persist. He was [b]not[/b] intended to be an android in either filmed version. To start with, let's dispense with the AvP movies, since the Charles Bishop Weyland character was a later invention, and we're not retconning here. For reference, here's the actual shooting script for Alien 3. Final draft, April 10, 1991 (you can find online at a number of places, this is just one link of many): http://www.alienexperience.com/index.php?Itemid=18&option=com_docman The relevant scene in the script is as follows: [i] "Ripley nods at Morse, who hits the control panel The giant crane starts to move, heading out over the furnace. Bishop II lunges, reaches out, grabbing Ripley. Ripley breaks free, starts moving out over the furnace. The Company Troops raise their pulse rifles ­ BLAM! Shoot at Morse who takes a bullet in shoulder. Disappears behind control panel ­ Aaron starts. Picks up a pipe from the debris -- AARON You fucking Droid --!! And smashes Bishop II in the head. Bishop II writhes on the floor. The troops fire on Aaron, shoot him down. Bishop II turns. No wires. No milk. Real blood. BISHOP II I am not a DROIDDDDDDD!!!!. "[/i] Next, let's look at the text in the novelization of Alien3: Alien 3, novelization by Alan Dean Foster, first printing, June 1992. We'll cut straight to the same scene, page 217, near bottom of page: [i] "Aaron picked up a chunk of broken pipe, muttering, "You fucking droid!" The pipe landed hard on Bishop II's head. The impact was spongy. The man staggered, twitching, as his troops shot the acting superintendent down. Real blood poured from Bishop II's cracked skull. "I am...not a...droid," the bleeding figure mumbled in surprise as it crumpled to the floor. [/i] (never mind, of course, that Bishop actually TELLS Ripley, on-screen, in both versions, that he's human.) Also, as Spartacus pointed out, if you watch the film (it's easier to see in the longer cut), you can see he's bleeding real blood. Thus, he is NOT an android in the novelization either; if anyone wants, I"ll be happy to scan in the pages from the book and post them here if you want to see them. The name "Michael Bishop" first appeared in the series of collector's cards that were released around the same time as the movie hit the theaters. (There are a number of websites which claim that it originated in Foster's novelization, but I've gone through the book again and there's no mention of the name Michael in it. It may have been changed in later editions.) Now on to the DVD commentary. These are statements by the effects guys who worked on the film (personally I thought the effects in Alien3 were inferior, but that has no bearing on the discussion at hand, so...) Tom Woodruff: [i]"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."[/i] Alec Gillis: [i]"For Lance's human character, when it's revealed that he is actually the scientist who the Bishop model was patterned after, Fincher wanted a wound so we created a torn ear where the whole ear was lifted forward..."[/i] (These quotes are from the quadrilogy edition of the DVD). To put it bluntly, it seems to me that the only reason people seem to want to continue to believe the Bishop at the end of Alien3 was an android is so that the whole AvP storyline will fit in nice and neat with the Bishop character as portrayed in the original plot of films 2 through 3. Paul Anderson bears the majority of responsibility for trying to retconn Alien3 to fit his movie's storyline. The AvP spinoff intended to change the story by introducing the Charles B. Weyland guy (Anderson has stated in interviews that he wanted to get at least one person on-board who participated in the original series of films, so that his movie would have some kind of 'connection' to the others). It seems clear at this point that Scott & Lindelof are going to ignore that particular piece of hamfisted continuity-jiggering, and as far as I'm concerned, that's the best choice they could have made. Good riddance to it.

But he clearly is an android in the theatrical version of the film and clearly isn't in the extended directors cut...seriously speaking and with all due respect. There is just no changing any of that now.

@ [b]John D. -[/b] Thanks for putting all that info. up! I never cared enough about ALIEN 3 to read it's script or novelization, or listen to it's commentary...so that all came as news to me. Very interesting, and I'd have preferred if Fincher had stuck closer to those 'Bishop' lines in the script at that point. Pity, as it would have clarified things better perhaps. I always thought this 'Bishop' was LYING about being 'human'...but it certainly seems that the intention was that he was telling the truth after all... However, the force of the strike to his head, and the subsequent overdone 'major trauma wound' that he was given by those 'effects' guys always gave me the impression that no human would realistically still be standing at that point, lol. Luckily, it won't matter either way in the fanedit I have in mind for the movie.

Ok ... what about if Yutani Corp turns out to be a rescue company (mission) ... they set out to go pick up Prometheus's sorry ass crew off LV-223? ... therefore thanks for that, let's merge? ... Yutani's interest would then be the Weapons side of outcome? ...

interesting yea I guess....I think universally speaking it's what "The Company" always wanted just like Ripley states a few times throughout the Quadrilogy.

@Gemm - it's funny you mention that, because I've been thinking that something similar might be in the offing - although part of me wonders if the rescue mission (if there is one) might not be there for completely altruistic reasons. @Spartacus and Cervantes - I blame it on lousy editing choices for the theatrical cut. It's my understanding that Fincher didn't have a lot of say in final edit of the version that was finally released; then again, he was brought on board for a project that was already a mess to begin with. I can't fault the guy, though. I think he did a bang-up job with what he was given to work with. And I also think the longer Director's Cut version is a much better film than the theatrical release; I can only wonder what Fincher could have accomplished with a really top-notch, first class story and script.