Talk:Bishop (Aliens)/Archive 1

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 in between, 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.134.145.72 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 31 October 2004 (UTC)

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)

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. --Telemehtar 16:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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)

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". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.177.86 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.188.142 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)