Weyland-Yutani: Complicit Corporation or Opportunistic Organization?

@SM 

In my interpretation of events Michael Bishop is key he bore a striking resemblance to Charles Bishop Weyland and worked for W-Y and produced the Bishops series. This is the "man" that tried and failed to lure Ripley from her death this is the man that produced the Bishop series.

You have mentioned a couple of times Weyland Yutani and whether they were nefarious or not. I am not trying to apply that kind of rigid absolutism I am suggesting that "elements" within the organisations involved in LV426 "might" be operating outside of their published agenda across and outside organisational structures. I also think to say he is not working for W-Y is an over simplification he like Ash is an "assigned" science officer and in dramatic movie terms, not to make the link between the two, indeed it is offered in the form of reassurances. That ambiguity and lack of trust by Ripley is shared by the audience through out the movie. Given we find out retro-actively he was designed by Michael Bishop and his candid friend portrayal in A 3 adds weight to the  ambiguity. This notion is rooted in the original theme set up by Ash I am merely extrapolating it. His precise employee status is much less important than the overall story told about him. 

The android Bishop was following precisely what was happening in the final hours on LV426 and is present in the conversation over the notion of a a Queen. His decision to rescue them only came once he could see the atmospheric processor was going to disappear as a potential area of acquisition and Ripley had insisted the live Face Huggers are destroyed.Up until then he was all over the face hugger specimen just like Ash.

Indeed once it becomes clear the lines of supply of Xeno technology are to be compromised Bishop comes into his own and twice he is in a position to go off the page during the sequence when he calls down the drop ship and later after he sedates Hicks and circles. Its notable the Queen disables and silences Bishop first possibly aware that he has taken one of her Eggs.  

You may have noticed I look hard at the thematic nature of these stories and the symbolism. The very apex of the denouement of the first three films before Ripley's sacrificial death involves the unmasking of an agenda within an element of  W-Y in the form of "Ripley! Think of all we could learn from it! It's the chance of a lifetime! You must let me have it. It's a magnificent specimen!" by ... Michael Bishop the symbolism of that is clear for me and I connect the dots up using those kind of over arching themes rather than be waylaid by what James Cameron had in his mind, subsequent movies show us all to well that vision can be adjusted and making  prequel movies to A L I E N is doing much the same thing. You are correctly one of those who say Space Jockey = Engineer that is reverse engineering even if issues of size indicate it is artistic licence and its the latter I am engaged in. 

I think the route of the problems but which also calls for such great debates is always from each movie each Director and Writer does their own thing and evolves the story in their own way which sometimes can contradict other previous movies or add additional clues that change the potential outlook on how you view the previous movies.

We have to remember we are not seeing a Lord of the Rings, or a The Hobit where the movies are based off allready done stories from a long time ago... where A-Z is set in stone and a movie is a re-telling of those books.   Or even like Harry Potter where the Story is worked on by the same Author and so each book she evolved the Tale, but it was all still  her ideas and so a more coherent plot would flow from the 1st to the last.

The Alien Franchise is not like this, there was no A-Z from when Alien was made to how any prequels or sequels would go, maybe loosely there was ideas... but these had been changed from movie to movie.

And so what i mean by this is.....

Yes Aliens may have portrayed Bishop in a totally different light, and prior to Alien 3 we get a certain picture about Bishop.... But once Alien 3 came out and the way it went about carrying on the Story and  bringing in Micheal Bishop it could lead to people having theories and wondering how much secret subterfuge the company had.

so when we look back at Aliens as Michelle mentioned for a mission that was to to locate and rescue the Colonists if they had been in trouble and eliminate the threat of Xenomorphs..

Bishop did seem to spend a hell of a lot of time studying the Face Huggers.....   but the purpose for this movie was maybe as they found the Colony had been overrun and Newt the only survivor he was merely curious as to what caused their downfall.

But when we bring Alien 3 into context, even though maybe the motive and agenda was different in Aliens... Alien 3 brings us the possibility that Bishop was more invested in the study of the Biological Weapon.

I have no doubt that Bishop was fascinated by the Aliens and would have loved to study them further.  However, he's not Weyland-Yutani; he's ECA.

There is no evidence in either Aliens or Alien3 that Bishop was trying to obtain a specimen.  Quite the opposite.

When Ripley tells him to destroy the specimens, he could've easily agreed to do so (while having no intent to do so).  Instead he told Ripley that Burke wanted them to Company labs in full knowledge that Ripley wanted them destroyed.  He has no time to obtain more specimens while he's flying the dropship down from the Sulaco.  If he miraculously obtained a specimen in the AP station while Ripley was hunting for Newt - why risk that specimen by waiting around for Ripley and Newt?

In Alien3, he tells Ripley everything when she hooks him up.  If he was working at cross purposes, he would've just refused to speak to her.

Everything he says and does would undermine efforts to obtain specimens.  He's the anti-Ash.

---

"Why doesn't he reveal more? Why doesn't he give more info? Such an exciting aspect you highlighted!"

What more is there to be revealed?  Ripley asked him two questions - "Was there an Alien on board?" To which he replies "Yes". Then she asks if was still on the Sulaco or came with them on the EEV, and he says "It was with us all the way."  He then reveals that the Company knows everything because it gets sent back to Network.  Ripley could've asked him how it got there - but no one involved in the production knew that.

"As for the Alien3 end scene, if I know correctly, the two versions of the movie (the TC and DC) introduce different Bishop characters. One of them reveals Bishop as an android, the other introduces the Engineer. :) I hope I'm not mistaken."

Michael Bishop (aka Bishop II) is a human in all versions of Alien3.

---

He was written as human and portrayed as human in both cuts (he bleeds red blood in both cuts for example).

---

Henriksen changing his stance on the character because Paul Anderson misread the earlier film - doesn't change the earlier film.

(Assuming one takes AvP as part of the continuity, of course).

---

I give up.

@BD

I think you identify the root of this kind of debate perfectly. We all know enough about each directors vision to know what was in their mind at the time they made the film but it can then be recast and without to much difficulty particularly if you opt for a symbolic view of the material as i do.

This BD is something you and I have discussed as regards the up and coming Covenant. There are actually two substantial ret cons coming our way :-

1) A backing into pre equal rather than a tangental saga.

2) A fork in the road.

You cannot reorganise the overarching narrative more than that other than starting again!

I know what you mean about the Hobbit but thats a case in point to. The original two film structure had an entirely different story line for Dol Gulder. Gandalf visits the High fells before the Goblin King and discusses Azogs backs story in full in Beorns house, goes to DG meets and rescues Beorn who was captured after the companies departure, meets Thrain who is killed by Azog after he has seen visions in a Palantir and is then captured.

In the denouement there was a fantastic scene where Galadriel confronts Sauron directly and rescues Mithrandir and in the intervening period Gandalf has been frisked for the morgul blade in his possession which is why it ends up back  with the Witch King for the LOTR. In the three film version "to tell more story" all this is removed and you end up with a lot of video game hokiness in the denouement and a turn by the legendary Sir Antony Sher as Thrain which is cut out of the theatrical cut. What was Peter Jackson smoking ?         

@ATI

For the "real" Bishop to turn up with his motives unmasked even before I studied the movies hard left me with the impression that "Bishop" period is being revealed. All the stuff about Robot protocols and they were twitchy referring to Ash always came across as merely being plausible. The over arching point in the A L I E N franchise as regards A I is "what is in there mind" its the same theme as Bladerunner it is highly enigmatic. Thats why the Ripley/Cal thing and her being "vulnerable" missed the point. I know why they did it to be fresh.

The exciting thing about Covenant is we are most definitely pre protocol and we are in Robot + Black Goo land and there are at least two of the blighters.      

To the OP, this is an interesting question.  You are led to believe (or at least I was) that these mega corporations have achieved some kind of parity, if not superiority, over nation-states and/or any planetary governmental organization.  But for appearances, they must still act like they are subservient to a governmental body.  So although in affect, they can do damn near anything they want, they cannot be too overt about it.  Lest the masses of asses get wise.  Perhaps this might explain why all the subterfuge instead of just going in there heavy and taking what they want (well, uh, good luck with that one).  But yeah, point being, something keeps them from just overtly prosecuting their agenda. 

Another aspect is the "shares" angle.  Even if the mega-corps are free to openly pursue their agenda (said with a Vicker's snark), they may not being doing so because certain sects within the company are trying to keep it covert.  They either want to keep the technology within the company as a whole, and/or the small sect wants to keep all the profits from it's discovery, as Burke would suggest.

And, perhaps there are protocols, procedures, etc. that prevent the company from bringing something like this back, at least not without governmental agencies getting involved.  The quarantine procedures mentioned in ALIENs for instance.  Again, witness Burke trying to circumvent this by impregnating Ripley and Newt.

Depending on your POV, this might describe our present situation.  You could see this developing in the next couple of centuries.  Corporations becoming so rich and powerful that they challenge traditional nation-states.  But since they have no "legitimacy" of elected governments, they must still appear to be playing by the rules. 

"In Alien3, he tells Ripley everything when she hooks him up.  If he was working at cross purposes, he would've just refused to speak to her."

I agree to a point, and the intentions for the Franchise did paint Bishop as a Benevolent Android....  and you made a point about Ripley asking for the Specimens to be destroyed but Burke did not want them too.... it seemed he more followed Burke than Ripley, as he would have known at that point these Organisms killed all the colonists off and this cant be allowed back.... but he is a Robot... and so he may not see things as Shaw did with the Juggernaught and its Cargo when she spoke to Janek.

In Alien 3 Bishop continued to be more open.... but in a way once Ash had his head knocked off and was also incapacitated he was very open to Ripley...

The movie Franchise does however set Bishop up as the Good guy.... only a Alien 5 could be used to give him a sinister company Agenda...

But Weaver teased about a Happy Ending and re-united cast, which implies Bishop too and this must be in Good Terms and not bad....

So i think unless Alien 5 does anything different... Bishop would be shown as being Benevolent and no secret company Agenda.

BD said "The movie Franchise does however set Bishop up as the Good guy.... only a Alien 5 could be used to give him a sinister company Agenda..."

I think you mean the opposite. Bishop Android is enigmatic in A L I E N S and appears at the end to show that the amended protocols work in favour of rather than undermine those whom they "serve". He is the good guy. 

The Alien franchise however uncovers another layer where "Bishop" has to finally reveal himself within W-Y as intent on the Xeno technology which we have of course learnt subsequently derives from a mutagen created out of the hierarchy gift to the Engineers which is a catalyser to genetic development....until more is revealed. If like me you stop with A 3 then there is the tantalising though that LH offered that Michael is just another more advanced model. 

Whether he ends up serving cocktails to Dwayne Hicks and Ellen Ripley at their wedding who knows. This is science fiction where we should dare to dream and tear up the basis book.

What is benevolent Samaritan, in Person of Interest is benevolent and wants to order chaos. The problem is chaos is built into mankind's experience out of which we learn and grow, just like the way a B Movie story was given an A movie gloss and grew into a franchise.......unintentionally.