Bishop. Good, evil or compliant?

I believe he was good. Bishop warned everyone that a reactor had destabilized and the station was in terrible danger, he volunteered to crawl through the ventilation shafts in order to get the other dropship and help evacuate the marines from the planet, he saved Ripley and Newt at great risk to himself before the nukes went off, and he grabbed Newt before she would have gotten sucked into space when Ripley opened the hatch to jettison the Queen Alien. Burke (who we know was the real badguy) gave him a direct order to not destroy the specimens, so he had no choice but to follow orders (just like anyone else in the military who was of lower rank). As for the egg on the Sulaco, he only knew about it's existence after Ripley asked him to access the ships black box, which she patched him into. He told Ripley everything she wanted to know without hesitation. Her actions and tone of voice in Alien 3 when she reactivated him show she respected him as well, and Ripley was by no means stupid or easily fooled. James Cameron counted on the fact the audience would assume Bishop was evil like Ash so he could pull a "fast one" on us and have him save Newt and Ripley before the planet blew up. Lance Henrickson has also stated that Bishop was his first "Good Guy" role, and that the character thought all life was sacred. Here is an excerpt from a 1992 article: [i]Henriksen remembers feeling the same enthusiasm for the finished film, partly attributed to the fact that it was his first real role as a 'good guy'. "I have an innocent streak in me, and i never get to play that," he said at the time. "This is the first time, and i feel great." Innocence, he says is crucial to the make up of his Aliens character, the 'artificial person' called Bishop. "I found some very specific things that made Bishop Innocent and compelling in his charm," he says. "[He] has no prejudice about living things. To him, anything that is alive - human or Alien - is absolutely miraculous."[/i] Source: [url=http://weyland-yutaniarchives.blogspot.com/2010/08/bishops-gambit-lance-henriksen-article.html]Bishop's Gambit: Lance Henriksen Article 1992[/url]

I agree. When he volunteered to face danger outside, he refused to accept a gun. So, for whatever reason, the humans' lives were more valuable than his, in his estimation.

I watched 'Alien' again last night. When Dallas is going to investigate the 'Drednaught' Ash appears over-come with anticipation. It was like Ash knew why they were there, but not what they would find. Bishop never appears to have an agenda other than the safety of the crew. IMO - Bishop was good.

Is it fair for us to judge an "artificial person" such as Bishop as good or evil? Does he even have free will to make moral decisions? If all of his actions are mandated by his programming, then following robot protocols is a morally neutral position to be in. Perhaps it is more fair to judge Bishop against the other two androids we have seen in the Alien universe, Ash and David. Ash apparently didn't have the same fail safe programming as Bishop, he could allow humans to be harmed without violating his protocols. While that makes him evil from a human standpoint, as a robot he was "just following orders" (worked for the Nazis own consciences). David on the other hand has been programmed to do things that we might find unethical or unpleasant. The fault for his actions has to be placed on his human makers for creating a machine willing to do all of our dirty work with no regret or remorse (I wonder if that's what the xenos are to the Engineers). If we were to ask David why he did what he did, he might well answer, "to make an omelet sometimes you have to break a few eggs." Maybe the best way to judge these androids is by how well they embrace or how we think they would have embraced Bishop's protocols. Bishop seemed to rather enthusiastically embrace his directive to cause no harm or allow no harm to humans. I suspect Ash would rather begrudgingly follow the protocol based upon what we saw of his "personality". I believe David would spend considerable time looking for loopholes. Thus I think Bishop is good, Ash is compliant, and David is a pure evil sociopath.

Do you think that the ethical program that would allow Ash to 'think twice' before commencing with an action that may-well result in a human or humans coming to harm was suppressed in some way, turned off by his programmers specifically for him I mean. Everything else was left in palce bar the slight or major tampering with his ethical routines, and who else could tell that he had been altered in some way? How can you tell on the outside that someone is feeling suicidal or hungry? Its not so fundimentally obvious at first sight. Laterbehavioral analysis may have raised a few red flags which could have altered the outcome of some missions. Although know this is about Bishops 'validity' as an android he is most likely the best example to date of the term: artificial person than either of the other two versions with the exception of Cal.

I have to say that Svanya said exactly what I believe. Word for word I could not have said it better and its very nice to have someone post such a well thought out post. Thanks svanya! Bishop only intended to save the facehuggers because Burke gave him a direct order, and you will notice his conflicted reaction when Ripley told him to destroy them. He didn't try to lie to her like Ash would have, he stated right out that Burke had ordered him to preserve the xenomorphs for transfer back to the company labs. As svanya said, Bishop really was the first decent and honest artificial person shown in this series. The second one was Call in Alien 4: Resurrection. Not all synthetics are bad or company machines. Remember even Ash, for all of his buggy behaviors, at the end said 'you have my sympathies', so these synthetics are complex nuanced characters especially David! Only David in the first Jon Spaihts script was 2 dimensional and evil. Damon Lindelof made him the more complex nuanced version that we see in Prometheus.

Thank you kindly Nostromo, I try and back up my answers with as much detail and links/images as I can whenever possible. @HyperNova ; Ash did not have behavior inhibitors installed, neither did David. Bishop had them installed, he says so and why in Aliens and I assume Annalee Call had them installed as well as she was the most human of all the androids to date. When Ripley questioned her as to why she had done so much to help save humanity by killing her off Call responds that it's in her programming to care about people. *(Call was an Auton created by other androids though, and sort of a different case altogether from the other androids). I have found this site to be quite helpful in understanding Android behavior: [url=http://avp.wikia.com/wiki/Synthetic]Androids of the Alien universe[/url]

@Svanya: Your comments provided great insight into Bishop, for which I give applause not only to you but also to pulserifle187 for starting this thread. I thought to comment here something like as an android, Bishop wouldn't be good or evil, etc, but I LEARNED SOMETHING. I really like Mr. Henricksen's performance in the movie as well, so I really appreciated reading this.

@Visionary Alpha; That is very kind of you to say. Indeed, pulserifle187's post has been very rewarding to read and respond to. *(Btw i just realised the blog I linked to was created by our staffmate xeno_alpha_07, so he should get some kudos as well. His archives are very informative. )

Good and bad might be subjective by the end of the story. As androids they are neither good nor bad initially. It`s their orders, programming, base programming (akin to genetics) and how they carry our their orders that defines a robot`s ``personality``. It is only perceived as good or as evil as the creator, programmer, or someone giving it orders intended. And how the programming, as well as orders, allow it to behave. Or some would say force it to behave. It was a model with better inhibitors but became a Weyland android and subject to their orders... What David does may inform us on what some of the other Androids were really up to. Not to say that true evil doesn't exist. I'm taking about knowledge of good and evil in line with some of the religious themes, comparative mythology(weyland's mother), and the fact that there are a wide variety of cultural influences in the movie. Could Bishop have actually known more than he was saying like David? Maybe. But was he purposely trying to harm Ripley by wanting to take the sample? It could just be part of his programming. Basically,even though Bishop was a good robot, protected her, and had inhibitors in place, he had some evil programming in him that accounts for the eggs showing up in some way. Technically even if he did do it was forced to do it and no part of his programming would let him put her directly at risk. However, only he knows about this programming, and has to balance it with his programming to not harm humans. In essence Bishop would become sort of neutral in this scenario, with good leaning tendencies... Now David is the exact opposite of what's going on with Bishop... He was programmed to harm humans... However, he's not all bad. Just like Bishop is not all good. There`s a shred of hope in David for true freewill because of how they made him understand human emotion. Bishop would have been overridden and put into default mode where he could commit unethical acts easier... However, Bishop somewhat gained freewill when the secondary objective kicked in. He stays true to his good programming. It was a series of choices to side with Ripley over the company. David is the opposite. He was programmed bad. Given a different brain, like Frankenstein`s monster, the modern Prometheus. And has to balance his programming with his own desires, which may not always be to serve the company after he starts to choose what he believes. And tricks himself into believing what he is saying is true. The trick is not minding that choice in how he carries out his orders both hurts and helps him.

Bishop was a red herring riffing off Ripley and the audiences bad experience with Ash.

When subroutines kick in and robots are given orders that change their base programming they get a certain degree of choice, which can lead to some freewill. They get to chose which to carry out first. Prevent harm from coming to Ripley, or help the company. Bishop was never intended to gain freewill but he accidentally did and chose to be good. Weyland opened David up to a whole new world of possibilities when he said ``try harder``. it may have been a poor choice of words and David uses plays on words against people like Shaw. David was allowed to try harder in any way he saw fit... after he chose what he wanted to take away from what Weyland told him. But he still has some inhibitors in place, even when in default mode, and has to trick Holloway to gain his permission. Not being specific about what all the terms of that agreement would entail...

When does Bishop gain free will?

When the company is secretly trying to get him to procure that specimen, but ultimately his good programming to prevent harm from coming to humans would win out. Essentially he`d be a neutral android character like David because we`d start to find out more about how David didn`t actually want to be performing unethical deeds, but was forced to by his human masters. So he would sort of wish he hadn`t been made so close to us because he knew the whole time what Weyland was planning. And David was actually against it. But could do nothing. All he could do was hint that he wanted to see his creator dead. Shaw asks what he`ll do when Weyland dies. David says he imagines he`ll be free`. I`m positing that because David will become free we will find out more that suggests Bishop was never really responsible for any evil acts, should he have done them. And his programming to be good allowed him some small choice to somewhat ignore the company`s orders to retrieve the species. So he kind of gives up on arguing about taking the facehuggers back, unlike Ash who forces Ripley to break contamination protocols. David chose to contaminate certain people. He could have chosen anyone, but he chose Holloway because of some issues with him. He`s no ordinary robot, he`s emotional and will use this to help gain more freewill. Bishop would only have a false sense of freewill and a dilemma in how he go about serving the company, at the same time as not harming Ripley. Thus he remains quiet when the eggs get there, because he doesn`t want to alarm ripley. Hopes he can somehow complete both objectives like David might... And thought ``what you don`t know can`t hurt you``. Until the fire happens out of nowhere and activates the eggs. So he didn`t even want to acknowledge to himself the eggs were there. But the eggs were always there and the company knew (or finds out shortly after she lands on Fury).

Ash was programmed to get a specimen at all cost. Priority One. All other priorities rescinded. Speaking of David, In this interview, [url=http://www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00054577.html]Ridley Scott Hints at 'Prometheus' Sequel Plot[/url] Ridley says Shaw will be in danger once she gets David's head re-attached. Quote-[i]"You've got a person [Noomi's Elizabeth] with a head in a bag [Michael's David] that functions and has an IQ of 350," he elaborated further. "It can explain to her how to put the head back on the body and she's gonna think about that long and hard because, once the head is back on his body, he's dangerous." -Ridley Scott. [/i]

[quote]When the company is secretly trying to get him to procure that specimen, but ultimately his good programming to prevent harm from coming to humans would win out. [/quote] There's no evidence to suggest any such thing. Bishop was ICC, not Company. [quote]Ash was programmed to get a specimen at all cost. Priority One. All other priorities rescinded. [/quote] Ordered rather than programmed.

I definitely think David`s dangerous. He developed his own goals and wanted to kill and replace his father in a freudian sort of way. But he may not be allowed to actually harm a human unless directly ordered too... Or if he tricks them like Holloway, he should have been allowed to perform the unethical deed but `try harder`` didn`t give him enough authority to infect Holloway... He chose to do that and to gain permission... Meaning he`s still gonna be playing a psychological game of chess against Shaw, like the physical one against Watts in the end of the Spaights script, when Watts decides they aren`t leaving the planet together because he`s too dangerous. In that version of the script he chased and attacked Shaw before this point, actually calling all of the crew stupid and talking about how Holloway`s character is too headstrong and shaw is smarter... In that version he`s read their psychological profiles. Lindelof may have moved more than the aliens to the subtext. So his problem isn`t only with Weyland. And while they play chess at the end it`s after David is decapitated. He`s so dangerous in that script that he`s telling her which pieces to move for him as they pass time playing chess. I even think he wants to take power over Weyland corp like Vickers did. Kill and replace his father, and steal power, become the true ``king`` of humanity and of Weyland corp. Who`s been giving all these androids their orders... However, I think what we have here is a parallel story. That will start to cross and meet in the middle, connecting to the originals in interesting way and even slightly changing our perspectives on the androids and certain lines they said. In Paradise David would be completely evil, under his own will. But in the third movie he would slowly start to recognize the massive mistakes he`s made, and start to correct them. Extinguishing one form of the fire, and sacrificing himself and all of the Davids, to stop that form of the fire from spreading further. Sometime in between Alien and Aliens is when the last David finally dies...

ThatSM the possible evidence is right in the film and the OP. He made comments relating to how the company wanted a sample. Yeah I know all about who his creators were and have factored that in too. But he became a Weyland employee on that mission. Even though they weren`t his original creators (this also means his creator is not the head of Weyland-Yutani in Alien 3). They could have given Weyland corp some ability to slightly influence his programming by assigning the additional orders.

[quote] He made comments relating to how the company wanted a sample. [/quote] So? He's simply relating what Burke said. [quote]But he became a Weyland employee on that mission. [/quote] No he didn't. He was ICC property (not an employee). Ripley and Burke were Company employees - no one else.

What I mean is that Weyland treats their employees badly so there`s no telling what they have in store for their partners. Anyone allying with Weyland is immediately suspect. And the supposed creator of Bishop himself shows up in Alien 3 to try to obviously retrieve a sample. Ripley knows better than to trust that Bishop, but she knows not to blame the bishop head. However he might not even be attached to Weyland Yutani, or head of the company, or a real person in the special edition.... So in my mind when you look at it in context. Bishop`s creator was in league with Weyland in their evil goals in some way. He may have simply allowed them to try to use one of their models being used by the military, or maybe he actually allowed them to have some control over it. Either way this Bishop was more good than bad and the one at the very end of Alien 3 is ``evil`` IMO. Because he was the creator of Bishop, if we believe him. So if Bishop did do something wrong it was because of him and the initial programming or trade off of power & working with W-Y But just to give an example of the way the future could go. Who really runs things today, corporations or the military and politicians. Corporations are King, that`s what Ridley is getting at. Anyone who made deals with Weyland is immediately suspect. Although the soldiers might not know how much influence Weyland-Yutani holds over the military and other aspects of culture.

[quote]What I mean is that Weyland treats their employees badly so there`s no telling what they have in store for their partners. [/quote] So essentially this gives you license to really make up anything you want about characters and their motivation, even in the absence of anything in the film that supports it?

i thought just occurred to me. was bishop a company android or military, or was he appointed by a different ruling body. this could have a big bering on his objectives. i cant really recall anything at the moment. someone mentioned ICC, as he appointed by ICC ,does weyland have any influence on ICC

irt. [b]pulserifle187[/b]: While it is likely that Weyland-Yutani's influence extends far, in Aliens there is talk that it would be very difficult for Burke to smuggle a specimen through ICC quarantine. Which suggests that, at least officially, ICC is sufficiently independent of Weyland-Yutani to be able to cause inconveniences to the corporation, should it want to. As to the original theme- yes, very interesting indeed. "Good" vs. "compliant" is one thing I've chosen to explore in a (not so) little piece of fanfic I'm writing now. But if ya don't want some anonymous' dude's random verbiage online, there's also Burgess' "A Clockwork Orange" (later made into a film by Kubrick), which has a similar theme. As far as Aliens:Bishop, I'm with [b]Svanya[/b]. Yeah, he's compliant. But remove the inhibitors, and you wouldn't tell the difference. He's the good guy on board.