Talk:Bishop (Aliens)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Films     (Rated Stub-Class)   (Rated Low importance) Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the priority scale. Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film. Article upgrading needed: You can help! WP:IA   Stub to Start-Class Upgrading Instructions for Films Note that instructions for articles on other types of film topics within the scope of WikiProject Films are currently under development. To contribute in upgrading this stub article to Start class, the following requirements must be met: Significant intro (list the title, alternate titles, year released, director, actors starring in the film, summary of headings, etc.) Film infobox ({{infobox film}}) Picture: Consult WikiProject Free Images for freely released images from a film shoot, opening, or other relevant free image. Non-free and unlicensed images are to be avoided if at all possible, but if used should include a detailed fair use rationale. (An image is not required for start class if unavailable.) Plot summary Include cast and crew information. At least two other developed sections of information (production, reception (including box office figures), awards and honors, themes, differences from novel or TV show, soundtrack, sequels, DVD release, etc.) Categories (by year, country, language, and genre(s))  Helpful links: WP:BETTER, WP:LEAD, WP:REF, WP:WAF Once this article has fulfilled these requirements, the film can be reassessed to Start class and this template will be removed automatically. Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article may need an appropriate infobox template. WikiProject Science Fiction This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article. Feel free to add your name to the participants list and/or contribute to the discussion. ??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale. WikiProject Alien     (Rated Start-Class) Alien Portal This article is part of WikiProject Alien, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to the Alien science fiction franchise on Wikipedia. To participate, you can improve this article or visit the project page for more information. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. A possibility for American films from before 1964 would be a screenshot from the trailer, as these are now in the public domain. Please make sure fair use is properly observed, or the image will be removed. See WP:Films MOS for image guidelines and assistance in uploading.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-01-11. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents 1 Bishop v Bishop origin 2 unencyclopedic 3 AVP Section 4 Alien vs. Predator 5 Fair use rationale for Image:Bishoped.jpg 6 Fair use rationale for Image:Punchingit.jpg

[edit] Bishop v Bishop origin

I don't see how Weyland, who looks like Bishop interferes with Michael Bishop being the creator. There's several hundred years inbetween, and someone who looks like another (doppelganger) could appear. Furthermore, in this kind of entertainment, someone who looks like another, is usually a descendant... so

Michael Bishop, creator of the Bishop series, is a distant relative of the founder of the corporation.

132.205.15.4 00:24, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

- Pahaha. Three words; Paul W Anderson. There is no acceptable explanation.

I have a potential theory to offer...this is, however, assuming that AvP could be meshed with the Alien universe (and I will admit that I don't consider AvP canon...hence this is just a side speculation).

If there is indeed a continuity conflict, here's an idea...Ripley could have been correct in her accusation; the man from Alien 3 could have indeed just been another android of the same type. Did you notice how he took that blow to the back of the head? Surprisingly well...he did appear to be in some pain, but by the look of it I'd say he took it better than most people would. This might be streching it a bit, but it's possible that he was indeed just another android. If not for this reason, one could simply act on the point that we are trusting him on his word alone, which makes him equally likely to be either human or android.

So for those of you who want to link AvP and Alien, here's the alternative: The "real" Bishop from Alien 3 may have been bluffing about being human, and the guy from AvP could be the real deal.

I suppose you could also, if you REALLY wanted a crazy, out of nowhere explanation, suggest that Bishop from AvP's body was rescued, cyrogenically frozen and rescued in the future. It's ridiculous, but it's also a pretty easy A to B scenario. I'm obviously not going to put it in the article because there is no reason to believe this from the films whatsoever, but it would be an all encompassing explanation -- he has red blood, but he can take pain, and Weyland-Yutani is one demented corporation...I wouldn't put it past them, I suppose. I just thought of it and felt it should be suggested. Droidguy1119 04:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

--Telemehtar 16:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)Prior to striking Bishop II with the large wrench, Aaron shouts "Fucking android!". Bishop II DOES take this blow to his skull rather well because you'll notice his left ear and the skin behind it are hanging from his head. Either this Bishop can handle pain VERY well or he's an android.

The Alien 3 special edition has more of Bishop II in pain, yelling "I'm not a droid." I think that this guy must have been human, probably a descendent of Weyland with some genetic resemblance to him. Must have got rid of the Weyland part of his name sometime in the interevening century. That's if you accept AVP as being true to source, since there's a ton of continuity problems with that film. Predator 16:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I tried to bludgeon the Alien 3 section with my NPOV hammer. In the process, I may have said more about the controversy than was needed. Anyway, someone might want to do the same to the AVP section. In fact, tomorrow I may go back and make AVP NPOV, then make my new Bishop II subsection a full section. Yeah? No? Teflon Don 08:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• The AVP section needs some serious de-POV-ving. If I knew anything at all about the Alien franchise, If do it myself, but I've never seen the movies. Regardless, the section at the moment sounds like "The director's a fuckwit for breaking my view of continuity", and needs an immediate overhaul by someone in the know. Saberwyn 06:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I just wnet through and did an unbiased revamp of the Bishop II section, I tried to cover all arguments without saying one person was right, another person was wrong. I basically chalked it up to continuity errors and the use of Film as cononical medium versus books as expanded universe (much similar to how Star Wars and Satr Trek Books are considered). I think it illuminates the arguments more clearly and no longer just bad mouths Director Paul Anderson. We may not like him folks, but this is an encyclopedic source, not a message board. JYHASH 02:58, 12 Januray 2006 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, the section on AVP is unnecessary. This article is about the Bishop android; there are no androids in AVP. The only relevant information is about Lance Henriksen's being cast as Charles Weyland, and that was included in the Bishop II section below Alien 3. With that in mind, I'm going to remove the AVP section from the article and put it below, in case anyone wants to re-insert it. Teflon Don 19:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed that Charles Bishop Weyland is a redirect to Bishop (android)? Since they are completely seperate characters, I think it would make more sense for them to have seperate articles. CardinalFangZERO 13:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unencyclopedic

umm it states in this that "your going to have to trust me in that"

that is not encyclopedic at all...please change the word usage..

and it is highly biased towards someone who strongly views "bishop" as a human, when in fact this is supposed to be UNBIASED and state both sides of the "story

--I went through and cleaned it up. Sometimes I wish we had mods to keep posts like that out. Hope it reads better and more unbiased than the guy who wrote it. JYHASH

[edit] AVP Section

Removed from article; see above.

[edit] Alien vs. Predator

According to non-canonical sources, The Bishop Android Series was modeled after a Michael Bishop, an engineer working at Weyland-Yutani.This creates a problem with the most recent Aliens Movie, Aliens Vs. Predator with the appearance of Charles Bishop Weyland, the founder and CEO of Weyland Industries. The most likely reason for the apperance of Weyland in the AVP film, is to give the audience some link to the past movies, and Lance Henriksen was most likely asked by Fox to "reprise" his role.

Though the truth as to the appearance of the "Creator of Bishop" in Alien 3 is quite confusing. Some sources show that "Bishop II" is a human, and supposedly including the writer of the script. David Fincher, the director of the third Alien movie, stated that he wanted to show that the appearance of "Bishop II" was not a Company Trick, and he truly was human. While it is strange that "Bishop II" was alive when he took the blow to the head from Aaron, many contend that "There is more than skin and bone on the side of ones head" so thus it may have fractured the skull but not caused unconciousness or instantaneous death. There is the arguement that The Company was making advanced models with red blood, but this argument looses some credibility when, in Alien: Ressurection, the android Call bleeds white blood. This may be either due to continuity errors, or possibly to use the definite representation of androids in the "ALIEN Universe" as having white blood.

Though the argument swings both ways. The character was listed as "Bishop II" in the credits, thus denoting possible android status. Although there is no name given to him in the dialog of the film, the name is in the Script for the movie. In Alien 3, the character is attacked by Aaron with a wrench, which knocks "Bishop II" down. The scene is dark, but there can be some liquid pooling on the back of his head and a flap of skin peeled away from the skull, yet he is still conscious. Some say that only an androud would've been able to take that type of punishment, and the flap of skin with the ear attached is very similar to the way the Ash series android was constructed from the first Aliens Film.

In Either case, there are conflicting arguments as well as conflicting portions of continuity. But, if we take all films to be canon, and the books to be an "expanded universe" (if you will), then we must assume that "Bishop II" was merely an android from the Bishop Series created especially to give Ripley some sort of link and to get her to trust the company.From what we've seen in previous films, It seems like the exact type of trick The Company would use to engender trust. Though, the truth may never be truly realized.

The search goes on to find a non-biased way of saying that Paul Anderson is an incompetant hack who likes to deface established series with his own attempts at writing (ref: resident evil movies & AvP)

Where exactly does Paul W.S. Anderson say that Bishop II is an android? I was listening to the commentary track of AVP and neither he nor Henriksen say that there was more than one Bishop android. The only reference that they had made was to the one in Aliens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maledoro (talk • contribs) 15:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Bishoped.jpg

Image:Bishoped.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 14:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Punchingit.jpg

Image:Punchingit.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)