The official, purely speculative, non social, beard and food theory thread.

I guess we could quantify the evilness, towards the good side of evil or the really dark side of evil, or just selfish to save his own skin type evil.

 

Well, he does....

But all right, I didn't see those storyboards, so that's off for me. But I believe you.

Still... no one (not even GL I suspect) will know how their characters will develop. Perhaps Dooku is evil now, but he can still turn out right sometime in Ep3. And don't go telling me that's nonsense. Even the arch villain of all time turned good in the end: Darth Vader...

queeq out

 

Anything's possible...but as of now, he is A Bad Man.

 

Well, in that case he IS the exception to the rule. It had to happen sometime...

queeq out

 

'Sometime'?!? It happened a week or two ago, when I made my big post...

Actually, it happened in 1976, when ANH was filmed, as my post indicated.

And Dooku is *far* from the only exception to the rule...

 

Well, I don't agree. Being an Imperial doesn't necessarily make you a bad man. I have defended this before. But for instance people like Ozzel and Needa failed the Empire, thus aiding the Rebels. That made them good. Piett on the other hand survived most of Vader's ordeal because he was indeed evil. He just died with the rest of the beards at the end of ROTJ.

And for others, well, once again being in the service of he Empire does not necessarily make you bad.

queeq out

 

queeq is right. just because they work for the empire doesnt mean they are neccessarily evil. were all the german soldiers in WW2 evil? dont think so.
i dont think you can say anyone is definitely good or bad from what we know so far. i think we'll have to wait for the film to make decisions like that.

 

"Being an Imperial doesn't necessarily make you a bad man."

Being an Imperial doesn't mean that you're not a bad man, either.
And, in fact, it's much more likely that you're bad. Palpatine, Vader, Tarkin, Motti...these aren't guys you take home to Mom.


"for instance people like Ozzel and Needa failed the Empire, thus aiding the Rebels. That made them good."

The fact that Ozzel attempted to fly to the Rebel base and murder them all, but was incompetent with his hyperspace calculations, does not make him good. If he had said, "No, Ani, that's not too kosher with me. I'm quitting", *that* would have made him good.


"i dont think you can say anyone is definitely good or bad from what we know so far."

Do you need more on Dooku than a 9-point checklist (including the actor himself saying, "I'M BAD.") ? Honestly?...Dude, do you think Christopher Lee's even in the film? (and if so, why?)...Hell, do you believe in *gravity*?...

 

Well, his incompetence didn't really make him an effective bad guy, now. Did it? That makes him all right in my book.

It really works quite well that way. Even Biggs had a moustache when he was still enlisted at the Academy, being an Imperial. He ended up being a rebel. So, there you go.

queeq out

 

"Well, his incompetence didn't really make him an effective bad guy, now. Did it?"

Spilling blood all over Los Angeles didn't make O.J. Simpson an effective bad guy, either. Doesn't mean he's not a bad guy.


"Even Biggs had a moustache when he was still enlisted at the Academy, being an Imperial."

The very first time Biggs shows up, he talks about jumping ship because he believes in the Rebellion. Ozzel obviously does *not* feel this way. They are *not* the same.

 

answer my point pedro. were all germans in WW2 evil? no. well there you go.

and just to make you happy: what's gravity?

 

We're talking about Ozzel - a man known to be bad - not the 3rd guy on the left. Although if that guy serves a system known to be corrupt and racist and sexist and species-t and totalitarian, with utter murderous intent, which enslaves people, and explodes planets on whims, and is run by a frigging Sith Lord, and isn't A Bad Guy (if that's even possible - how do you devote yourself to that and be good?), then he's just a dumbass. Which is the same thing.

And answer my point: do you believe that Lee is in the film?

 

Yes, Lee is in the film.

And I don't think dumbasses are necessarily evil. And if they are, they are not consciously evil. So that does not count.

Besides, Ozzel probably never knew what a Sith was or that the Emperor was avery evil guy. If you work for your government and there's a group destabilising the order and you're sent out to do something about it, you may do it with fervour. Does that make you bad? Not necessarily. Your view on people seems very black-and-white, Peds.

queeq out

 

"Ozzel probably never knew...that the Emperor was avery evil guy"

He murders people because it's Tuesday!

And we're not just talking about any government - you're not gonna get off that easy. We're talking about the aforementioned one. This is *not* the will of the people being expressed here. Come on, you're just being stubborn now. Admiral Ozzel is bad. Period.

 

"then he's just a dumbass. Which is the same thing"

yeah, right.

and i knoe lee is in the film. but, where i'm from we believe people are innocent unitl proven guilty. so i will decide if he is evil when i have SEEN the film.

 

Ozzel isn't bad. He was a bad strategist, in the big picture that can only be explained as a good guy.
And when did Ozzel ever see any of the murdering going on. When did we see any murdering in SW unless Imperial Laws were violated.
See, it's very easy to condemn people, but you have to consider the surroundings they're in. I'm sure many Germans did bad thigs during WWII, but if they were not so indoctrinated by one Goebbles they could have made better moral choices. It's the same with the Empire.

queeq out

 

"He was a bad strategist, in the big picture that can only be explained as a good guy."

So if I make a plan to kill my wife, and I mess it up, then that's good? I'm a good guy?


"And when did Ozzel ever see any of the murdering going on."

Well, I figure he's probably been with the Empire for about 20 years. He didn't get to be an admiral overnight. So, um, for the last 20 years leading up to ESB.


"When did we see any murdering in SW unless Imperial Laws were violated."

Yeah, good rationale.
Imperial Law: don't believe in democracy. Oops, there goes Alderaan. Oh well. That was justified, I'm sure - after all, what they did was *illegal*, right?


"I'm sure many Germans did bad thigs during WWII, but if they were not so indoctrinated by one Goebbles they could have made better moral choices."

I don't really think that being caught up in a good speech makes cooking Jews okay. But maybe that's just me.


"and i knoe lee is in the film."

But how do you know this? Surely it couldn't be because...someone told you? And you took their word for it???

Do you believe he uses a lightsaber?

 

Again, it's easy to condemn people in a situation you're not in.

queeq out

 

i know he's in it 'cos it says here

http://www.starwars.com/episode-ii/cast/

to be honest i dont know if he uses a lightsabre. i dont really read the rumours and spoilers

 

"i know he's in it 'cos it says here"

Now you know he's bad and uses a saber, 'cause it says here: "I've just got my copy of Star Wars Magazine U.K and in an interveiw with Rick McCallum he confirms that Christopher Lee's character will be using a lightsaber. He also says that he never thought of Lee for the role because he was looking for someone "tradditionaly more evil".


"Again, it's easy to condemn people in a situation you're not in."

Okay, well, if I ever cook a Jew, I give you permission right now to shoot me in the head.

 

i think you really are deluding yourself if you think that every german in WW2 was evil. obviously there were bad people in the far right, but the army was forced to carry out the governments orders. but anyway this is a star wars debate, so we must get back to that.

 

"the army was forced to carry out the governments orders"

One always has a choice.
And anyway, all I said is that Jew-cooking is morally reprehensible. But if you don't think so...if that's somehow dismissible...

 

pedro, i'm not going to drop to that level.

anyway, if you havent got anything sensible to say then dont. this is a peaceful thread to discuss beard and food theory.

 

I am saying something sensible. I'm saying that one is never "forced" to do anything. One *always* has a choice.

Though if you want to talk about being sensible...what's more sensible, that an actor tells you something about his character, and you believe what he says; or that you believe that he's good solely because you want him to be, though there is *no* evidence whatsoever to support it?

The whole beard theory displays just this kind of nonsense...it is literally people ignoring everything that they don't like, and concocting the lamest, most twisted scenarios imaginable, with absolutely no justification whatsoever, simply because they want someone to be good, or want someone to be bad, due to hair follicles. This is preposterous. And it is clearly not "sensible."

 

i dont agree that one *always* has a choice. i mean why didnt anakin & all the others slaves just say "no, i'm not being a slave anymore"? they didnt have a choice. i think you'll find if you look around the world today there are millions of people doing things because they are forced to.

i'm not going to keep going over the same point about christopher lee all night. as i have said before, i will decide on someones character when i have seen the film.

EDIT: if beard theory is so proposterous there is obviously no reason for you to post here. i think you'll find that people come here to enjoy a lighthearted discussion, not argue over every detail.