PT Does the lack of Dooku's story bother you?

I ask this because sometimes for me, it does

He had an absolutely legendarry actor to portray him in the movies, he was also the most unique Sith Lord we had in that wasn't a black clad yellow eyed "monster"

His role was clear enough, and his death made sense in Palpatine's grand scheme

But, what was his story? As a kid I always sort of applied the story of Lee's Saruman of someone who was once highly respected by his magical peers but had a jealous thirst for power that made him seek out their universe's equivalent of the Devil

I dunno I never felt I had to know Darth Maul's story as he never made it past his first movie and was never talked about afterwards in either AOTC and ROTS

I also didn't need to know Grievous' anymore than I needed Tarkin's, or Admiral Piett or the guy meeting Vader on DS 2

but Dooku's sort of entered the game as this mysterious is he/isn't he? bad guy, the big twist being that he wasn't just a idealistic rogue Jedi, but a fully fledged Sith Lord and Sidious' right hand man

and then he leaves without ever learning anything more about him.
We know just enough about him to say he was a good once but not anymore. But not why or how, or even specifically when

 

Not really. He has more of a story than any other secondary villain in the series.

 

I at least wish this scene had not been cut.

 

Nope. Not interested in his back story at all.

 

I thought Dooku was the most slighted prequel character. Given that the Sepratist movement comes out of nowhere, that we don't know if he became a Sith before or after the Sepratist movement got underway, and that we're left to assume his motives. So yes, I wanted more from him, and had to read lots of Wookieepedia articles to fill in those blanks.

 

Yes. He was the link between jedi, separatists, and sith, and his motivations should have been explored more as they carry sigfiance not just for his character but also those institutions he was a part of (think how anakins struggle relates to dookus, for example).

Grevious should have been severely cut to make way for more dooku. Grefious was basically just there for the action set pieces.

 

Depends. If Dooku is portrayed as the actual idealist that one can infer from the movies, and is in league with Sidious to destroy the Republic from the inside out with the CIS replacing it, then sure.

However, if he's just the xenophobic, Empire-loving schemer that the ROTS novel and TCW portray him as, then no. Not interested.

 

I know what you're saying friend. Though I do enjoy both interpretations of dooku to be honest.

 

Yes, it bothers me. Just a little more of his back story would have gone a long way. I also would have liked some clarification about the Sifo Dyas thing (did Dooku impersonate him? If so, he was Dark Side for about 10 years before AotC).

 

Yeah, that latter stuff just does not register to me from the movie version. There we can at least infer that he was like his former student who stood apart from the Council in their ideas and wanted to change things for the better even if that meant selling his soul to the Sith. But the whole alien Xenophobe thing and all the rest just makes him feel like a more straightforward mustache twirling bad guy instead and doesn't seem evidenced in the movies themselves, which I do think need to stand on their own. I mean he spends most of his time working with aliens, trained one to be a Jedi Killer, and was mentored by Yoda himself. Like, if they made the Star Wars Story movie about Qui-Gon and Dooku I've always wanted but know will never get made that wouldn't be the characterization I'd prefer to se is all I'm saying! Lol

 

The EU goes into a lot of detail on Dooku's backstory. So it never bothered me too much.

 

I liked Dooku just as he was. If I had any complaint, it was that I wish they didn't save him until the end of AotC. I would have liked to see his machinations throughout the film. I also regret that he wasn't referred to as Darth Tyrannous enough.

 

Definitely. Dooku feels like the ideal Separatist in the films, though highly misguided. I didn't like finding out in the ROTS novel that he didn't care about the movement and was anticipating the rise of the Empire from the Republic. It could be interesting if Palpatine told him that the Empire would come from the CIS, but the book alludes clearly that Dooku was on Palpatine's scheme the entire time. Makes him just so much less interesting.

Pretty much. Dooku's backstory isn't particularly relevant in the films. Hell, Anakin's in the OT was far more relevant to the plot, and even that was pretty vague.

If I'm interested in that, I'll just check out some of the Dark Horse comics.

 

It does not bother me whatsoever.

 

Yes because there's a potentially fascinating character buried in there that also works kind of as a "Proto Vader" as well, but the film's just don't go into it because of their "revolving door of villains."

I've said it before, but Dooku being in TPM as a Jedi would have helped. He doesn't need to be there long, maybe just a scene or two and have him talk to Qui Gon (Obi Wan and/or Anakin can be there as well) because again that's a potentially interest dynamic and parallel that isn't really explored, and maybe he also appears at Qui Gon's funeral looking all sad. Basically set up his connections and then build on it.

Essentially Dooku feels like wasted potential imo.

 

AOTC had many problems. Dooku wasn't one of them.

 

Dooku's lack of screentime and not getting much to do was the problem.

 

There was no lack of screentime for Dooku in AOTC. He was on one level with Yoda, behind the lead trio of Anakin, Obi Wan and Padme, with more than double the minutes Palpatine had. That's also more screentime than Vader and ~66% more than Tarkin in ANH, as well as 50% more screentime than either Palpatine or Jabba in RotJ and about equal to Krennic in Rogue One.

I don't see how he "didn't do anything either". The movie shows him doing quite a lot.

 

He took down Obi-Wan and Anakin, and held his own with Yoda, and defeated Obi-Wan again in ROTS. That's more active accomplishment than a lot of villains from the OT and ST.

 

I guess the film lacked relevancy on Dooku and EU stories had to be added to better understand his intentions/character. I with Ep2. had gone a little deeper regarding the Obi wan-Qui gon-Dooku link as Dooku showed clear affection for Obi-wan in the films. The film was also poor in explaining Dooku's motives on leaving the 'corrupt' Republic.

 

I, for one, would have loved to see more of a backstory for Dooku. The way he just appears in the film as the new apprentice after Maul does annoy me, but we didn't know much about Maul either when he showed up. I think the books did more to explain Dooku's character, but I still would have liked to see more done for this character's storyline.

 

No more than the lack of Tarkin's story bothers me in IV.

 

Ki-Adi-Mundi tells us all we need to know: "He's a political idealist..."

I enjoy the deleted scene scene where he discusses his motives a bit more with Padme on Geonosis, but all he really adds there is that he thinks the Republic is so corrupt that it can't be saved, and of course he feels that way. It's something I would have liked to have seen retained in the movie in some form, but it's not strictly necessary.

 

Not at all.

Everything important for the story is in the movie. Some other material shot and cut would have been nice but wasn't really neccessary.

He's there for the Sith, Separatist and Anakin story and is used to near perfection in large part to Lucas' brilliant casting.

Having Christopher Lee is not unlike his friend Peter Cushing. From a visual and performance perspective they bring the character completely alive.

It's great to have this two friends a part of Star Wars villainy where with a few lines and scenes they bring so much.

 

Nope. After all, his primary purpose was just to be a character that Anakin would kill on his path to the dark side