Talk:Bishop (Aliens)

message: Removed from article; see above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teflon Don (talk • contribs) 19:53, 12 January 2006
===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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.85.90 (talk) 13:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  AVP Section 

message: 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.
</blockquote>
: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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.85.90 (talk) 13:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Alien vs. Predator

message: :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)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Bishoped.jpg 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Punchingit.jpg 

message: His first name is provided on the screen when the characters awaken on the Sulaco along with all the other characters' first names, no "ranks" are given. It's a known fact that aside from where otherwise stated (namely, Hicks, Burke, Ripley, Newt, etc) the first names of all the other characters are the first names of the actors that portrayed them. Go take a look at the Hudson article, which similarly cites his first name as "William". It's not just some coincidence.  Xenomrph (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bishop's first name 

message: This must be the zaniest merge discussion ever. Only one of the paragraphs even relates to the movie the merge request targets. The merge discussion was started in 2008, and went stale, and died without merger, so the merge tag is definitively old and stale, and should be removed.  184.144.160.156 (talk) 05:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: copying your comment to talk:aliens (film). Please discuss there. Cliff (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge to Aliens (film)

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Support - this works for me. Disambiguating Alien franchise pages has always seemed like a bit of a bugbear. "Aliens" seems to be used simply because "Character (Alien)", whilst in line with the franchise, implies classification as an alien of some type. Specifying the character(s) as part of the Alien franchise aids with this. I don't recommend it for other pages - for example, a character originating in one franchise entry but carrying into another should probably be denoted by their first appearance if tags like "character" are already used, but given that Bishop is actually several characters and so exists separately in different entries in the franchise, it seems like a good exception to make. GRAPPLE X 05:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey