Talk:Bishop (Aliens)

AVP Section

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)

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)

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)

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)

"indicated to be a human"

Can someone please post here and/or add to the citation using the "|quote=" argument the line from the book that indicates Bishop II/Michael Bishop is human? Is this stated flatly in the text, or is this an inference -- i.e. original research -- by a reader? Given this article's history (i.e. gobs of OR and inferences), if there isn't a quote by 3 Aug, I'll remove the vague sentence. (and in the meantime I'll go see if Amazon or Google Books has a previous of the page.) --EEMIV (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No luck with either of those two cites or at the Michael Bishop entry at Xenopedia. --EEMIV (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

He is cited in the last version of the script as being human. The script says something like, "No wires. No milk. Real blood." Now, I argue the movie SERIES, in the end, portrays him as an android... so I'm arguing the opposite side here, because, well, it's true in the case of the script at least, that he is indicated as human. But things change from the script to the final movie. Of course, the references to the online script have been removed as being unreliable internet sources... as if Wikipedia wasn't just one big unreliable internet source to begin with. In fact the source was rather reliable. The people that put those scripts online are a lot more thorough than anyone editing the Alien related Wikipedia pages. Having said that, I have read the novelization and I recall that it also unequivocally refers to him as human, but don't have it handy so I can't help you. Sorry. What I don't get is, why do people have such a hard time believing an android could be disguised as a human, with red blood? Ash was disguised as a human, in an age when androids were not standard gear, and no one suspected him until they knocked his head off. You'd think the company, which makes gigantic machines that can refine the entire atmosphere of planets and moons, could find a way to die their androids blood red, huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.220.174 (talk) 05:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

And EEMIV, at least quit just undoing. Look at everything that was edited. It's not a monkey wrench, as far as I know. Hell, I probably introduced that little error a year ago when I stirred up this controversy the first time; I think I should be entitled to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.220.174 (talk) 05:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The script site cited had, as far as I could tell (and I looked) no distinct standards for editorial control to maintain standards for accuracy -- consequently, it's not a reliable source. Perhaps by now there's some published collection of the script(s) at B&N or Borders or some such like they've done with Star Wars -- that might help substantiate the claim. The bit about people (dis)believing what the movie(s) portray(s) is irrelevant -- what I or you think on the topic is irrelevant insofar as Wikipedia is concerned, since our conclusions constitute original research. Again, please point toward a reliable source. --EEMIV (talk) 05:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As with the space jockey bit, I think the commentary tracks on the DVD might be revealing. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

EEMIV I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what original research. You've got an original opinion whether you like it or not, or else you wouldn't be motivated to edit these pages at all. Everything everywhere is biased--in other words, everyone has a motivation for doing everything they do, it's just a matter of HOW biased and what type.

Illazilla, I also don't know if you are really qualified to patrol these pages as strictly as you do. It seems you didn't know that there was a Jockey skull at all before I edited the Space Jockey page and put the reference up--yes it was me....! (by the way, the commentary isn't needed to confirm stuff like this--you can see it by watching the movie!), and maybe I am mistaken, but I suspect that is the real reason references to AvP:R were removed at first--because you never found them yourself, and were thus at first not convinced they were legit. You had to look at the commentary... this is the same thing has happened with DarkHyena and the Predalien queen bit.

The issue of whether Bishop II is an android or a human is never going to get solved, but it's only fair to let everyone put up all their evidence in support of each claim. Like it was said in Aliens, every ship has an android on board. It shouldn't against you guys' arbitrary laws to ask, where is the Patna's (name given in novelization, I know, but for lack of a better term) droid?! Why are all the commandos wearing biohazard gear and gas masks, but not Bishop II? Sheesh, you guys sound like you work for the Company or something, trying to cover something up! ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.220.174 (talk) 06:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If you can cite that same train of thought to a published reliable source, then by all means cite it. As for what constitutes OR: editors' motivations for looking at an article have nothing to do with whether their contributions are(n't) original research. I certainly have "original opinion"s, but I don't try putting them into the article to advance a theory, for example, about why Henrikson's character doesn't wear protective gear or why the red goo coming out of his head is. (As an aside: if anyone objects to describing the character as "bleeding" and wants to reword it, go ahead.) Also, please sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end. --EEMIV (talk) 06:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

68.18.220.174, the quote from the commentary is in fact necessary according to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, because it is not immediately obvious from watching the film that the skull is a space jockey skull, as it appears in the film for less than a second and (in my opinion) doesn't look a helluva lot like the jockey in Alien. So yes, we need the quote from the commentary track to verify that the directors intended it to be a space jockey skull and to explain why they put it there. If a reader didn't own the DVD, they wouldn't be able to verify this information. I highly doubt that many people who only saw the film in theaters went "Ooh! A space jockey skull!" If it were that blatantly obvious, then the directors wouldn't need to point it out in the background on the commentary track, would they? That's why, when you added the reference, I immediately went to the DVD and added the quote from the commentary. If it wasn't obvious to me, a longtime fan of the series, then I doubt it's obvious to casual viewers. In any case, we should keep discussion of the space jockey issue to that article and stick to discussion of Bishop here. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you two are hopeless. Have fun bossing everyone else around on your playground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.220.174 (talk) 07:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

From the paperback version of the Aliens Omnibus (collected edition of the Alien movie novelizations by Alan Dean Foster), page 648: "The pipe landed hard on Bishop II's head. The impact was spongy. The man staggered, twitching, and 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." He's clearly human. He's also indicated as human in the film's shooting script, as mentioned earlier. The script EXPLICITLY points out that he has "real blood" and is "very human" after he takes the blow to the head. I'd cite it precisely, but I'm not exactly sure how to do that per Wikipedia's standards, or I'd go re-edit the article to quote it. Xenomrph (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Great to see a source. Please actually cite the reference in the article. --EEMIV (talk) 13:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean for the movie's shooting script? What format should I use? The citation article you linked lists off various citation styles (Chicago manual of style, MLA, APA, etc) but does not say precisely which one Wikipedia uses. Xenomrph (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Where has the script been published? Is it in a reputable text with editorial oversight, sitting at Barnes & Noble or on Amazon? Or is it on some fan site with none whatsoever? If the latter, as I believe is the case (i.e. was the case in an earlier version of this article), the online script doesn't meet the WP:RS policy. Frankly, I think enough reliable sources are cited that the addition of, "Oh, and the script says so, too" isn't necessary. --EEMIV (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If I did some digging, I could probably find a script book that contains it, otherwise there are copies of the script everywhere on the Internet and they're all the same. Hell, I've had a copy on my PC for over a decade now. I'll see if I can find a print copy mentioned online or something -- I have [http://www.amazon.com/Alien-Resurrection-Scriptbook-Motion-Picture/dp/006105383X/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219805517&sr=1-12 a licensed print copy] of the 'Alien Resurrection' shooting script, for example, so an 'Alien3' script probably exists. Xenomrph (talk) 02:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Bishop's first name

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)

Merge to Aliens (film)

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)

copying your comment to talk:aliens (film). Please discuss there. Cliff (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: merge the content per discussion below. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Bishop (Aliens) → Bishop in the Alien franchise — This should be renamed because it is not about Bishop in the film Aliens, only two paragraphs are about that character, most of the rest of the page is something else, several different characters that look like Lance Henriksen. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 05:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Survey

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)
• Suggest Bishop (Alien franchise character) as a better alternative (WP:DAB). --IllaZilla (talk) 08:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  What about Bishop (character)? The link redirects to Juice (film) uselessly. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  Bishop (character) is most appropriate. Original and other suggestions are wordy, awkward, don't follow naming conventions. --EEMIV (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  Too much potential for confusion with other characters. See Bishop (disambiguation)#Characters. There are already several other articles about characters named Bishop. Bishop (comics) is the most obvious confusion (I hate that "comics" is the blanket dab for all comic-related articles, be they about comic books, franchises, series, whatever...if it's about a character, the dab should be "character", & if more specificity is needed, then add the company or franchise name. But I digress...) --IllaZilla (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  I've disambiguated Bishop (character) by redirecting it to the disambiguation page. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 11:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Hang on This move may not be necessary. See section talk:Bishop (Aliens)#Merger proposal. If the article is merged to different character lists, this move discussion is pointless.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The characters described on this page are part of articles List of Alien vs. Predator characters and List of Alien characters . 184.144.160.156 (talk) 05:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merger proposal

I have closed the old merge request and started this one. The old discussion can be found here. I agree with Illzilla that the Bishop (Aliens) article has questionable notability. It is also clear that the article is almost entirely an in-universe plot recital. Further, the article discusses three separate characters who have the same name and were played by the same actor. These are the reasons I think the article should be split to the different lists of characters. We would have to change the Bishop (disambiguation) to reflect the fact that there are 3 bishop characters. Cliff (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I am in favor of this. There was an effort by some editors a couple years ago as a result of an AfD to establish notability of the character, but it consists of only a few sentences that refer specifically to the character of Aliens and to androids in the series as a whole. The information would be better split into character list articles and the franchise article. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems good, we have AvP and Aliens character lists (it's not a Pedator character, so List of Predator characters is wrong). This is a list of characters, and we already have two other lists of characters which would be a good fit for this information.

The academic commentary at the bottom should go to the Aliens list or the Aliens franchise article, since it also discusses Ash, from the original Alien film. Charles and Karl go to the AvP list, the first three go to the Aliens list.

65.93.12.101 (talk) 09:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That seems like consensus to me. I'll get started soon unless someone else wants to tackle it. Cliff (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge complete. Should Bishop (Aliens) be a disambiguation to the different bishop characters or should we just delete the page? Cliff (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

After a merge the page should not be deleted, but redirected if the content all went into one place. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Understood, however, the content did not go to one place as indicated by the discussion above. Cliff (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)