We all know the debate - Is the Bishop that pleads with Ripley at the end of Alien 3 a human descendant of Peter Weyland and the creator/designer of the Bishop synthetic, or was he just another Bishop synthetic made to appear human. [center][img]http://i.imgur.com/DwHU5jo.png[/img] [i]I'm a nice guy, honestly I am.[/i][/center] The arguments for each side are many, and valid, as we will no doubt be reminded of in the replies to this OP. But, sensationally enough I believe I may have the answer, prepare yourselves... [center][b]The Bishop pictured above from Alien 3 is... a Synthetic[/b][/center] But before you argue otherwise please read why I ascertain this. This is why I believe the debate has been solved... - In Prometheus in the holographic recording of Weyland and his dog, Weyland states "David is the closest thing I have to a son". - Thus from this we can assume he has no son. - Later in Prometheus it is revealed that Meredith Vickers is in fact Peter Weyland's daughter. She does not survive the events of the film. Ergo, because there is no mention, and very little chance that Vickers had any children, Peter Weyland's heritage ended when Vickers got squashed by the Juggernaut. Thus there can be no Michael Bishop Weyland.
He mite of had a brother that tock over after he died but who knows
good point. But alien 3 maybe canon, that could be it. in the theatrical version bishop does appear to be an andriod. But in the extended version bishop appears to be human.
Yep, when he gets hit aswell, it looks like his ear is hanging off, and it seems he's not going through much pain. Very android-esque. Do all Davids look exactly the same?
Hey Snorky, brave thing to bring this up again. But it's always good to have a go at it again. Generally I'd say I'm with you on this for many reasons. Clearly the character's name [b]"Bishop II"[/b] and casting [b]Lance Henriksen[/b] for it implies that he really should be a synthetic. Since I do not see AVP as canon, that would also work just fine for me. I believe you were referring to 'Charles Bishop Weyland' instead of 'Michael Bishop Weyland'? But maybe I missed out on something there. For me personally it doesn't make such a big difference whether "Bishop II" is human or synthetic. For the sake of the storyline in "Alien 3" I'd say it works either way. He could just be a human, not related with Weyland, a big shot in charge of the synthetics department at Weyland Industries. And if he was a synthetic made look more human to trick Ripley, fine too. However, after reading an [url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103644/faq?ref_=tt_faq_sm#.2.1.3]article[/url] in the FAQ section on IMDb (I know, I know...) it appears to be that "Bishop II" was indeed intended to be human. But then again, it's always a mess whenever FOX is involved, and as we all know in "Alien 3" more so than in any other of the films in our beloved ALIEN franchise. To be honest, I don't think we'll ever really know for sure and it's up to anyone's best guess (FOX style). Anyway, read the following quote from IMDb for yourself: [quote][b][i]The "Bishop II" character (Lance Henriksen) is human. He states that he is the human designer of the original Bishop android, and he bleeds red blood (androids have white blood) when hit over the head. Some viewers argue that he could be an advanced model with realistic blood just in case it needed to pretend to be human in order to trick Ripley into going with them or possibly that the red blood made the androids too human so they were reverted back to white blood as to identify them as androids. However, Bishop II is human in the script (and subsequently the novelization), and the filmmakers state in the DVD commentary that Bishop II is indeed human. The only things to suggest he is an android are the fact that Aaron believes he is, and so cracks him over a head with a wrench. There is also the fact that Bishop II's wound seems to be that of a synthetic, his ear and flesh are all hanging off in once piece as if it was a mask. Bishop II is seen reacting to the pain of his injury but Bishop I was shown to do the same in Aliens. Lastly, the fact that he is credited as "Bishop II" suggests a second model as opposed to "The Real Bishop" or something similar. Many of these discrepancies could be chalked up to the constant production issues and re-writes that took place during the filming. So some shots could have happened where he was intended to be an android, others where he was clearly supposed to be human. As it stands, Bishop II is intended to be human.[/i][/b][/quote]
@ Hal9000, no mix up with the names, many refer to the character as Michael Bishop, Michael Weyland, or Michael Bishop Weyland, and very rarely by the name he is given in the credits - Bishop II. The problem with IMDB's quotes as mentioned in the OP is that there are as many reasons to claim him human as there are to claim him a synthetic. The point of the OP is to add another, more intriguing reason to the mix to show he was in fact a synthetic - which is simply that cannot be a Weyland, because the family tree died on LV-223 in 2093. @ Kalhava, LOL, unfortunately there is no mention of any siblings on the corporate timeline on Weylandindustries.com (which mentions his parents). @ DenzelTH - according ton the David8 viral videos all Davids do apparently all look the same, or at least that is the the inferrence.
If we go on the time that this film came out, why do some call him Michael Weyland? Is there anything to suggest that he is of the Weyland family? Is it because of AVP? I always thought that Bishop was a synthetic based on his creator, someone who worked for the company and was able to name his design after himself. The question at hand, I would say it’s up the viewer and the version they are watching.
Viddy well, little brother. Viddy well.
DenzelTH , wait a minute, in the extended version of Alien 3, when he got clipped in the ear, not only was he in extreme pain, but their was blood, not the white synthetic fluid pouring out of his ear. Not at all androidesque! Watch it again. So he was human. It also seems like by Alien 3 they were barely in cannon and I suspect that to Ridley Scott and James Cameron, it is not cannon. James Cameron set things up so Ripley, Hicks and Newt would likely be a family. The direction that Fincher went is so disappointing but we have to accept it since Sigourny Weaver signed off on it. Too bad though.
PS sorry to Hal9000, I didn't get a chance to read your post before I wrote mine so I see you covered the blood issue. But watching it you can clearly see that this Charles Bishop Weyland is part of the Weyland family tree. When he gets hit he states directly that he is in pain because he is human not android so I am surprised that this issue is still coming up. Also its not so fair bringing up Prometheus regarding cannon of Alien 3 as the writers of that movie had no idea where RS would choose to go with his script over two decades later. The 4 alien movies and Prometeus do not flawlessly fit together in a seamless cannon. Its unrealistic in terms of script and film production to expect it to do so imo.
Snorkelbottom I completely agree with you that if vickers Was the last of the Weyland family then the bishop in a3 was definitely not related to Weyland if he was human. We do not find any proof from aliens that bishop was a look alike from any member from the weyland Yutani at that time or previously . As such I believe that the bishop in alien 3 was a synthetic with red blood created and Mado so to fool Ripley into trusting him as they may have been aware of her history with ash and then bishop knowing she trusted him in the end. So as you said : he is as sythetic made to look human . I agree with that .
bishop must be a brother or, to me, more likely a cosuin. maybe he married into the family somehow. im not sure, but i do believe he is human. or somewhat human at least
Not a map, an invitation
Snorks, i forgot to ask earlier, How come you're asking if Bishop is a descendant of Peter and not Charles?
Viddy well, little brother. Viddy well.
OK the main argument is whether Bishop is a synthetic or not. So what is a clone? I think it would be useful to determine if a clone is synthetic or not. Alien Resurrection is based on cloning Ripley. Wrong or Right? So, how did they they know this could be done in the first place, and also have the insight to take samples. Just to add some confusion into the mix, although we think we know who has been in charge of Weyland Yutani, why not have a clone operating under different names? Just think Highlander for that concept.
There really is no reason to suggest he was an android at all because of the red blood and pain he felt case closed don't read soo much into things. Also, Weyland could have had descendants but we just dont know even Vickers had any children back on Earth. It seems to me that when Ridley Scott does put messages or hints at something but he's totally NOT out to trick you with red blood. He really is human but since he does look like the original aka a Clone or sometimes genetics skip generations.
The Anunnaki were on the earth in those days--and also afterward--when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, mighty men of high reno
That is assuming Vickers was his only child. He could have had one or more that were legally locked out of control of the company, hence why she worried about a battle, or worse, that the kids would all fight it out so she thought, I will get away, let the dust settle and come back to stake my claim.
Peter Weyland would have more children than just one yes he does say David is more of a son he ever have but that can be just misleading or a horrible statement to his kids peter is a terrible father who finds all his children as a disappointment like how Vickers is sitting in the room listening to her own father talking about David as 'more' of a son he ever had could mean he more intelligent or wise than his other real sons. Including how he is looking for eternal life to live forever to own his company forever but sequel is coming so maybe they could have a twist perhaps.
You're correct Legendary Xenomorph.
"Sir Peter Weyland's only legitimate child."
Weyland-Yutani Report, page 46.
The report has some holes in it regarding reconciling to film canon events but the background details on the characters are very interesting.
although I do agree that the bishop in alien3 was a synthetic, it doesn't need a direct sibling to inherit PW's stake in the company. a cousin or aunt/uncle could have taken over. we would need more details on the Weyland family tree to be sure
The Prometheus Sequel i was working on, had that Peter Weyland had a Aging/Dying Brother and a Nephew and that Peter was concerned for how they would run/ruin all of his work...
So it revealed that Vickers was alive and she interrupted a Board Meeting where the Weyland Board were about to establish/transfer the CEO positions after a Period of No Reply from Weyland and the Prometheus Mission...
Vickers Turns up with Weyland Will/Testament leaving Weylands Stake to her and as Majority Share Holder, she could Compulsory Purchase her Uncles Small Share.. Weylands Nephew was not pleased with this... as he would have inherited the company in a few years.... So he sets up a deal with Yutani to Assassinate Vickers with some Geisha Android Assassins.. As part of the deal some of the assets at Weyland would be given/sold to Yutani.
Vickers Fights off the Synthetic Assassins but gets Cut and she bleeds White Milk... she is revealed to be a Synthetic and THUS can-not inherit the Company.
But She manages to activate Weylands Project Rook... which is a AI program that uploads Weylands Soul into the Companies Computer Systems.
So indeed there is NO reason why relatives could inherit the stakes of the Company.
R.I.P Sox 01/01/2006 - 11/10/2017
Sign in to add a reply to this topic!