|
|
Post by tonyg on Jan 23, 2020 7:47:17 GMT
It has always been baffling the ammount of misconceptions that exist in fandom, and this particular point of the clone army, the Jedi and the senate is a recurring one. And then they cast judgement on the wrong characters (the Jedi)... - The Jedi serve the senate, they are not part of it. - The senate gave emergency powers to the Chancellor. - The Chancellor created the army. - The army belongs to the senate (represented by the Chancellor). Yes, I think the Jedi are at fault angle is a huge misrepresentation of the Prequels, which gets carried on into TLJ. I have always felt that people tend to have issue with the Jedi because the fans themselves want to be Jedi, but, just as Anakin did, do not want the responsibilities or the sacrifices that come with it. We have Lucas himself saying in one of the Commentaries that the reason Anakin falls is because he isn't listening to the Jedi. So this belief that the Jedi are big meanines, gets carried into areas where the Jedi have no control over. ie the Clone Army, or testifying on behalf of Naboo in TPM when no one called them to testify. The Jedi weren't stupid, they knew there were problems in the Republic, they spoke of it many times. They were hand tied as to what they could do. While I agree that there are misinterpretation of the Jedi in the ST, I also agree that the Jedi made big mistakes before and during the Clone Wars and that brought the falling of the Order, not because Anakin deviated. The latter just accelerated the destruction. In short, the Jedi deviated from their code. They were peacekeepers and become soldiers: something that they should never do. The Jedi let Palpatine play his games accepting to hide the fact that they didn't know about the Army but what is worse, they entered in the political games as for example choosing Anakin to spy for them which was one of their serious mistakes. The political games are of lies and deception, this is the Sith way. So the Jedi fell not because of the essence of their creed as the ST interpret them but all the opposite, they fell because they deviated from it. So what I expected is to see Luke reestablish the Order changing it at one point that should make it even stronger: the love and compassion that saved him and his father at the end of ROTJ should be the center of the Jedi creed not the alienation of emotions. Because the old Jedi appreciated love and compassion, however they lost the connection to it, trying to avoid the anger and so on. The EU books while for me they have another problems are much closer to this understanding. |
|
|
|
Post by Alexrd on Jan 23, 2020 10:11:44 GMT
Yes, I think the Jedi are at fault angle is a huge misrepresentation of the Prequels, which gets carried on into TLJ. I have always felt that people tend to have issue with the Jedi because the fans themselves want to be Jedi, but, just as Anakin did, do not want the responsibilities or the sacrifices that come with it. I completely agree. And that immature view of things leads to questioning their code and philosophy without trying to understand why it exists to begin with. Worse, they pretend that reforming the Jedi is a point Lucas is making with his movies, when that couldn't be further from the truth. |
|
rayo1
Ambassador
Posts: 65
|
Post by rayo1 on Jan 23, 2020 19:39:24 GMT
Yes, I think the Jedi are at fault angle is a huge misrepresentation of the Prequels, which gets carried on into TLJ. I have always felt that people tend to have issue with the Jedi because the fans themselves want to be Jedi, but, just as Anakin did, do not want the responsibilities or the sacrifices that come with it. I completely agree. And that immature view of things leads to questioning their code and philosophy without trying to understand why it exists to begin with. Worse, they pretend that reforming the Jedi is a point Lucas is making with his movies, when that couldn't be further from the truth. W-Well...I mean...I'm not trying to be immature. I'm not denying what makes their philosophy work or why it exists, but that improvements could be made. I wouldn't dare say that it was Lucas's point either, it's just a layer in the saga adding to its complexity. It adds to the story in the same way we'll never know if the lady in the Mona Lisa was smiling or not, or what Lev Kuleshov was actually reacting to. The creator's vision holds true. The story is ours to interpret and make for ourselves. I know that last bit in of itself contradicts a universal truth, but what's the point of philosophy if not for individual pursuits of understanding? Not everyone in the audience exists in the mindset that Lucas's true intentions would be revealed to. So while it is misgiving and misrepresenting of people to say the Jedi were at fault, it's not immature. That school of thought has to be handled properly and with acknowledgement of the more important school of thought, otherwise you get Rian Johnson's mindset that nearly derails the trilogy. |
|
|
|
Post by mikeximus on Jan 23, 2020 19:53:26 GMT
I completely agree. And that immature view of things leads to questioning their code and philosophy without trying to understand why it exists to begin with. Worse, they pretend that reforming the Jedi is a point Lucas is making with his movies, when that couldn't be further from the truth. W-Well...I mean...I'm not trying to be immature. I'm not denying what makes their philosophy work or why it exists, but that improvements could be made. I wouldn't dare say that it was Lucas's point either, it's just a layer in the saga adding to its complexity. It adds to the story in the same way we'll never know if the lady in the Mona Lisa was smiling or not, or what Lev Kuleshov was actually reacting to. The creator's vision holds true. The story is ours to interpret and make for ourselves. I know that last bit in of itself contradicts a universal truth, but what's the point of philosophy if not for individual pursuits of understanding? Not everyone in the audience exists in the mindset that Lucas's true intentions would be revealed to. So while it is misgiving and misrepresenting of people to say the Jedi were at fault, it's not immature. That school of thought has to be handled properly and with acknowledgement of the more important school of thought, otherwise you get Rian Johnson's mindset that nearly derails the trilogy. I'm not too keen on using the term "immature" as well. Seems a little too much. However, I am long in the belief that interpretation when there is the absence of the creators creative views is one thing. When we do know the artists creative views behind than it should be adhered too. It's the only way to understand the message that is being conveyed. With the Jedi, I feel peoples fantasy for being a Jedi often cause them to deviate from the intentions of the artist. They want a fantasy world where they get everything they want, with no sacrifices, responsibilities or consequences. Which is understandable, that is what fantasy is. However, the result is it causes them to read into the movies what shouldn't be read into, thus missing very important messages. |
|
|
|
Post by Alexrd on Jan 23, 2020 19:57:13 GMT
W-Well...I mean...I'm not trying to be immature. I'm not denying what makes their philosophy work or why it exists, but that improvements could be made. I wouldn't dare say that it was Lucas's point either, it's just a layer in the saga adding to its complexity. It adds to the story in the same way we'll never know if the lady in the Mona Lisa was smiling or not, or what Lev Kuleshov was actually reacting to. The creator's vision holds true. The story is ours to interpret and make for ourselves. I know that last bit in of itself contradicts a universal truth, but what's the point of philosophy if not for individual pursuits of understanding? Not everyone in the audience exists in the mindset that Lucas's true intentions would be revealed to. So while it is misgiving and misrepresenting of people to say the Jedi were at fault, it's not immature. That school of thought has to be handled properly and with acknowledgement of the more important school of thought, otherwise you get Rian Johnson's mindset that nearly derails the trilogy. I'm not talking about you, or any one individual. It was a general statement about a sentiment that I see time and time again in many SW circles. The immature part comes from the self-centered take that the Jedi should change, that the Jedi are wrong, that there's nothing wrong with Anakin, that Anakin only fell because the Jedi were too demanding of him, that there's nothing wrong with being attached to others, that the Jedi should abandon their code and philosophy and be married, and have family, etc, etc... That's the immaturity I was referring to. Of wanting to be a Jedi without the discipline, sacrifices and demands that the Jedi way requires. |
|
rayo1
Ambassador
Posts: 65
|
Post by rayo1 on Jan 23, 2020 20:32:06 GMT
W-Well...I mean...I'm not trying to be immature. I'm not denying what makes their philosophy work or why it exists, but that improvements could be made. I wouldn't dare say that it was Lucas's point either, it's just a layer in the saga adding to its complexity. It adds to the story in the same way we'll never know if the lady in the Mona Lisa was smiling or not, or what Lev Kuleshov was actually reacting to. The creator's vision holds true. The story is ours to interpret and make for ourselves. I know that last bit in of itself contradicts a universal truth, but what's the point of philosophy if not for individual pursuits of understanding? Not everyone in the audience exists in the mindset that Lucas's true intentions would be revealed to. So while it is misgiving and misrepresenting of people to say the Jedi were at fault, it's not immature. That school of thought has to be handled properly and with acknowledgement of the more important school of thought, otherwise you get Rian Johnson's mindset that nearly derails the trilogy. I'm not too keen on using the term "immature" as well. Seems a little too much. However, I am long in the belief that interpretation when there is the absence of the creators creative views is one thing. When we do know the artists creative views behind than it should be adhered too. It's the only way to understand the message that is being conveyed. With the Jedi, I feel peoples fantasy for being a Jedi often cause them to deviate from the intentions of the artist. They want a fantasy world where they get everything they want, with no sacrifices, responsibilities or consequences. Which is understandable, that is what fantasy is. However, the result is it causes them to read into the movies what shouldn't be read into, thus missing very important messages. Right, absolutely. Again, my school of though with the Jedi leads to a different conclusion altogether. But I don't think that knowing what the creator intended means we should forego our interpretations of it. Think of how Stanley Kubrick's The Shining was an alternative interpretation of Stephen King's novel. King said that the theme he was exploring with Jack Torrance's descent into madness was how a sympathetic and kind man could fall and become evil, as well as how families can be torn apart. Kubrick's Shining is the polar opposite of this; the film's Jack Torrance is a creepy, irritable, and more than likely psychotic husband in a family where there was abuse from the start. Kubrick transformed King's vision and one of the major themes from the novel into something not only different, but completely misunderstanding of said source material. And yet, people love BOTH versions. People appreciate King’s original vision for the story while also appreciating the alternative takes that Kubrick introduced. Both works are hailed as literary and cinematic masterpieces of art and media. This is the ultimate example of multiple layers being separated and considered under alternate interpretations. It may be an excuse for a "bad adaptation" on Kubrick's part, but you don't see people arguing that Kubrick's take is bad because the original story still exists. In the context of the prequels, Anakin still holds fault in all schools of thought, with the only difference being that on one side, the Jedi are infallible, but in the other, they do hold SOME responsibility for what happened. The most I would say is "immature" is thinking that they were the sole problem, when a more sophisticated approach would tell you that both sides are credible in their own right, regardless of the author's vision because it still exists and shouldn't have to purge what other people take away from it, even if they know what that vision entailed. I know that this kinda raises the question of “how many versions of a story do we need to appreciate different analyses”, but I’d argue the Clone Wars acts as the different version in this scenario. This would make a pretty cool discussion on the forum: comparing how TCW adds or changes people’s outlook on the PT. Comparing stuff like Ki-Adi “What about the Droid attack on the Wookies” Mundi versus Ki-Adi “Bring out the Flamethrowers” Mundi. |
|
rayo1
Ambassador
Posts: 65
|
Dooku
Jan 23, 2020 20:39:01 GMT
Post by rayo1 on Jan 23, 2020 20:39:01 GMT
W-Well...I mean...I'm not trying to be immature. I'm not denying what makes their philosophy work or why it exists, but that improvements could be made. I wouldn't dare say that it was Lucas's point either, it's just a layer in the saga adding to its complexity. It adds to the story in the same way we'll never know if the lady in the Mona Lisa was smiling or not, or what Lev Kuleshov was actually reacting to. The creator's vision holds true. The story is ours to interpret and make for ourselves. I know that last bit in of itself contradicts a universal truth, but what's the point of philosophy if not for individual pursuits of understanding? Not everyone in the audience exists in the mindset that Lucas's true intentions would be revealed to. So while it is misgiving and misrepresenting of people to say the Jedi were at fault, it's not immature. That school of thought has to be handled properly and with acknowledgement of the more important school of thought, otherwise you get Rian Johnson's mindset that nearly derails the trilogy. I'm not talking about you, or any one individual. It was a general statement about a sentiment that I see time and time again in many SW circles. The immature part comes from the self-centered take that the Jedi should change, that the Jedi are wrong, that there's nothing wrong with Anakin, that Anakin only fell because the Jedi were too demanding of him, that there's nothing wrong with being attached to others, that the Jedi should abandon their code and philosophy and be married, and have family, etc, etc... That's the immaturity I was referring to. Of wanting to be a Jedi without the discipline, sacrifices and demands that the Jedi way requires. I know. I'm just showing that not everyone in this school of thought ignores the original vision. There are one or two things that you list as "immature" that I would agree with, but I would still acknowledge all the perspectives at hand. I know that most of these philosophies are rooted in Buddhism, but coming from a Hindu background, I acknowledge all the things from your school of thought without denying the things I draw from the Saga relative to my own upbringing. |
|
|
|
Post by emperorferus on Feb 6, 2020 1:04:40 GMT
I see this isn’t about Dooku, but Anakin definitely did wrong on his own. His redemption would be much less meaningful if he hadn’t. If we blame the Jedi Council, then Luke really had no work to do in ROTJ. Vader was a closeted good guy all along  Not supposed to be the case in my opinion. Anakin can’t be the only knight denied the rank of Master, especially at 22. Mace was kind of rude, but that doesn’t warrant abuse. Doesn’t warrant murder. Anakin did wrong, ROTS does not absolve him of it. We know why he did what he did, we know more or less what he was thinking as he did it, but there were alternatives and he did not take them by choice. I can think of another movie where we were meant to think it was the teacher’s fault the villain became bad. Not to mention the villain’s parents for having jobs. |
|
|
|
Dooku
Feb 6, 2020 10:19:35 GMT
Post by Alexrd on Feb 6, 2020 10:19:35 GMT
Mace was kind of rude, but that doesn’t warrant abuse. Anakin was rude. Mace was stern, which I think it's a completely appropriate way to deal with rudeness. |
|
|
|
Post by ArchdukeOfNaboo on Mar 4, 2020 12:12:15 GMT
I don't see Anakin's action against Dooku as any different from say what the US special forces did to bin Laden. Palpatine is the head of the Republic's Military, and Anakin is simply carrying out an order of execution against a war criminal. It's perfectly legal. But is it the morally right thing to do? Now that is a different question, and I think most of us would agree that killing unarmed prisoners - no matter how vile and murderous they've been - is not a wise idea.
Do you guys honestly think such a killing wasn't already committed by a Jedi General in the scope of the Clone War? Let's be real here, the Republic have probably committed numerous atrocities, and that is where the CIS gained a lot of their support from. - similar to the Vietnamese communist regime taking enormous native support back in the day. After killing Dooku, Anakin had plenty of company, like Krell for example.
There was almost certainly no law of the Republic, even in the years of Palpatine taking Emergency Powers, sanctioning the killing of a Jedi, let alone anything more horrific. Therefore, what Anakin and Sidious carry out in the second half of the movie is illegal, in contrast to that against Dooku. But of course shortly afterwards the law doesn't even matter because Palpatine has himself proclaimed Emperor by a vast number of Senators, who are willing sign off on the end of democracy.
I think we should try to keep this thread on topic. It's become much more about Anakin than Dooku.
There is a dedicated place to discuss the nature and responsibility of Anakin's fall: |
|
|
|
Dooku
Mar 20, 2020 19:28:37 GMT
Post by Subtext Mining on Mar 20, 2020 19:28:37 GMT
Anyone know for sure the development behind Dooku and his role in the trilogy?
I see a lot of people say he was a last minute idea because Lucas killed of Darth Maul, etc. etc.
How much was that role in general part of the plan before the making of AotC?
|
|
|
|
Dooku
Mar 20, 2020 20:36:07 GMT
via mobile
jppiper likes this
Post by emperorferus on Mar 20, 2020 20:36:07 GMT
Anyone know for sure the development behind Dooku and his role in the trilogy? I see a lot of people say he was a last minute idea because Lucas killed of Darth Maul, etc. etc. How much was his role part of the plan before the making of AotC? From what I know offhand, Ventress or a Ventress-like character was conceived as a villain for AOTC before Dooku was decided on. May have had to do with Christopher Lee, but from that I think that Lucas intended early to get rid of Maul in TPM and to have another immediate antagonist take his place before Palpatine’s reveal. |
|
|
|
Post by jppiper on Mar 21, 2020 0:58:30 GMT
emperorferus Too Bad the Fans Bitch and moaned about it until Lucas caved in and bought back Maul (i know he said it was his idea but i think the fans twisted his arm) Maul was Never Meant to be a Major Character in the PT
|
|
|
|
Post by mikeximus on May 8, 2020 4:58:47 GMT
From what I know offhand, Ventress or a Ventress-like character was conceived as a villain for AOTC before Dooku was decided on. May have had to do with Christopher Lee, but from that I think that Lucas intended early to get rid of Maul in TPM and to have another immediate antagonist take his place before Palpatine’s reveal. Anyone know for sure the development behind Dooku and his role in the trilogy? I see a lot of people say he was a last minute idea because Lucas killed of Darth Maul, etc. etc. How much was that role in general part of the plan before the making of AotC? About a month ago I did a trifecta of sorts with some of the behind the scenes materials for Attack Of The Clones. I re-read The Making of AOTC, The Art Of AOTC, and listened to the DVD commentary. It’s somewhat surprising as to how little there is when it came to Dooku. It seems to me that Dooku is very much in the same lane as Maul and Grievous in that he is just another throw away bad guy. What I do remember from those materials was a quote from Lucas that he wanted the new Sith to be an ex-Jedi as it shows the Jedi are able to leave the Order. To me this backs up my (as well as many others) feelings that Lucas wanted to show that Anakin always had a choice, but, his choices were based on greed so they were the wrong choices. Another interesting bit of information was between the Art Of and Making Of. In the Making Of, it is stated that early on Lucas was leaning towards a female Sith, before ultimately going with a male Sith. The book also states that landing Lee was an extremely quick process. Pretty much Lee said yes the moment he was asked (if I recall correctly). What’s interesting is that in the Art Of book, Ian Mcaig (spelling?) says he was tasked with coming up with concepts for the new Sith, and he was hell bent on making sure the new Sith was a female. So he really pushed concepts of a female Sith, and that reflects in the sheer amount of concept art of female Sith. In the book there’s about 10 different pieces showing female Sith (one of which was the eventual Ventress). It seems from Ian Mcaig that Lucas was open to the idea of a female Sith, even directing him to direct his focus to a more robotic looking humanoid. However one day, Mcaig says that he was caught off guard when Lucas says that his final decision was between an older woman Sith (which a Mcaig had a drawing off) or a male Sith along the lines of Christopher Lee. Up too that point Mcaig had no drawings for male Sith, as he was pushing the female Sith angle and Lucas was open to it. Which is why there is only 3 concept pieces of a male Sith, and they all look very similar to Lee. So that’s why I think the development of Dooku is simply he was a throw away bad guy that Lucas really only put as much thought into as he had too. It seems Dooku’s background was not fleshed out. His role, while vital, is very streamlined and functional. It seems the deciding factor for Lucas, as to male or female, was whether he could land Christopher Lee. Which again suggests that the new Sith being male or female was not important too, nor had any influence on, the story itself. |
|
|
|
Post by Alexrd on May 8, 2020 8:46:45 GMT
I don't think Lucas saw the new Sith as a throw away character. At the end of the day, he told a lot of important ideas through Dooku, made him intrinsically connected to the main plot, and had a backstory developed for him. So either he developed that very late and in a rush (which seems unlikely), or he had those ideas already developed, possibily for some other character(s), and ended up merging it with the new Sith villain. Those ideas obviously required an older character, but not necessarily a male one.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikeximus on May 9, 2020 5:19:25 GMT
I don't think Lucas saw the new Sith as a throw away character. At the end of the day, he told a lot of important ideas through Dooku, made him intrinsically connected to the main plot, and had a backstory developed for him. So either he developed that very late and in a rush (which seems unlikely), or he had those ideas already developed, possibily for some other character(s), and ended up merging it with the new Sith villain. Those ideas obviously required an older character, but not necessarily a male one. Lucas uses throw away characters, especially bad guys, all the time. There is a long list of them! Tarkin, Boba Fett, Jabba, Maul, Grievous, Dooku etc etc etc. all these characters are great, fan favorites, but also throw aways. Once they have served their purpose to the story, no matter how important that purpose was for that one movie, they are thrown away for the next bad guy in the next movie to move into the spot. Dooku is no different. Just like all the characters I mentioned, Dooku has no development, no arc. He is the same slimy character from the moment we meet him, to the moment we see him lose his head. Referring to him as a Jedi that left the order is not much of a developed back story. Using him as a tool to move the clone army plot along does not disqualify him from being a throw away character anymore than Mauls importance of moving the Sith plot along in tpm somehow disqualifies him as a throw away character. IMHO, I think Lucas does this with the bad guys because he gets a little disgusted with how people seem to gravitate towards the bad guys. I just recently read an interview where he talked about the cult following to Vader, and it’s clear he has a little disdain for it. Unless I’m missing some large amount of information about Dooku’s development, it seems Lucas really didn’t give him much thought behind how he would use him to move the plot along. |
|
|
|
Post by emperorferus on May 9, 2020 5:40:17 GMT
Mikeximus, good point about throwaway bad guys, and Vader. I remember an argument once about Vader's scene in a non-Lucas movie defeating the purpose of his character. It made interesting points.
I agree that most of the depth to Dooku is explored not in the movies but in the EU. Dooku is particularly mustache-twirling in TCW series, also Lucas-made. I'd argue that the one scene in the movies showing more than pure evil to Dooku is where he speaks to Obi-Wan, but every scene after that negates the effect of their conversation. The hangar duel makes it apparent that Dooku enjoys being evil.
I think Lucas may have said that you weren't supposed to be sure he was a villain until he meets Sidious at the end, but I'm not sure when he said that or 100 percent sure that he did.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alexrd on May 9, 2020 12:21:13 GMT
Lucas uses throw away characters, especially bad guys, all the time. There is a long list of them! Tarkin, Boba Fett, Jabba, Maul, Grievous, Dooku etc etc etc. all these characters are great, fan favorites, but also throw aways. Once they have served their purpose to the story, no matter how important that purpose was for that one movie, they are thrown away for the next bad guy in the next movie to move into the spot. Sorry, I got carried away with the loaded meaning of the word. I was arguing more against the notion that the character wasn't important or given much thought. One only needs to listen to Christopher Lee talking about him to know that Lucas gave him quite a bit of backstory (even his homeworld of Serenno, something I thought came from the EU, was apparently part of that backstory). From the movies alone we learn quite a lot about him. He was a Jedi once, saw the corruption of the Republic and got disillusioned with it and with the Jedi that serve it. He leaves them and believes it's time to start over with a new form of government. In doing so, along the way he got corrupted and fell to the dark side, becoming another pawn to Sidious. Doesn't sound like a character that wasn't given much thought. He wasn't explored much nor given the focus because the movie wasn't about him. But that's true for a lot of characters, villains and heroes. |
|
|
|
Post by Moonshield on May 11, 2020 19:06:40 GMT
Dooku is a very well developed villain. He is an archetypal "evil vizier". One of the most popular villains of this type is Jafar from Aladdin or Prince of Persia. Dooku has the same motivation: he wants more Force skills and power. Talking to Obi-Wan and Yoda, he sais that he is stronger than they. He uses the same methods: intrigues and deceit. Also, he is disappointed with the Republic. It can be understood from his words to Obi-Wan.
Actually, he is a good villain due to his strength. Even if he didn't have any motivation at all.
Also, an excellent actor, of course.
|
|
|
|
Dooku
May 11, 2020 22:21:41 GMT
Post by mikeximus on May 11, 2020 22:21:41 GMT
Mikeximus, good point about throwaway bad guys, and Vader. I remember an argument once about Vader's scene in a non-Lucas movie defeating the purpose of his character. It made interesting points. I agree that most of the depth to Dooku is explored not in the movies but in the EU. Dooku is particularly mustache-twirling in TCW series, also Lucas-made. I'd argue that the one scene in the movies showing more than pure evil to Dooku is where he speaks to Obi-Wan, but every scene after that negates the effect of their conversation. The hangar duel makes it apparent that Dooku enjoys being evil. I think Lucas may have said that you weren't supposed to be sure he was a villain until he meets Sidious at the end, but I'm not sure when he said that or 100 percent sure that he did. I do remember that conversation about the Vader scene. Very interesting conversation to be sure. I am still of the belief that Lucas would not have had much of a problem with the scene itself. However, his disdain is rather with the reaction by the fans that love seeing Vader do it, rather than the "appropriate" reaction that what he is doing is horrible and wrong. But I digress lest a derailing of the thread happen. TCW was very surprising to me in that they never really did much with Dooku as far as explore any "good" but misguided intentions, that were more hinted at in the EU. Sorry, I got carried away with the loaded meaning of the word. I was arguing more against the notion that the character wasn't important or given much thought. One only needs to listen to Christopher Lee talking about him to know that Lucas gave him quite a bit of backstory (even his homeworld of Serenno, something I thought came from the EU, was apparently part of that backstory). From the movies alone we learn quite a lot about him. He was a Jedi once, saw the corruption of the Republic and got disillusioned with it and with the Jedi that serve it. He leaves them and believes it's time to start over with a new form of government. In doing so, along the way he got corrupted and fell to the dark side, becoming another pawn to Sidious. Doesn't sound like a character that wasn't given much thought. He wasn't explored much nor given the focus because the movie wasn't about him. But that's true for a lot of characters, villains and heroes. Yeah, for some reason people attach a negative emotion to the wording of "throw away character". I think it is possibly an emotional reaction in that they don't like the idea that their favorite character was just merely a tool used to achieve a specific purpose in a story, and would rather believe that the character was always meant for bigger and better things. Too me, Qui Gon falls into the category of throw away character. As far as Dooku's development. Again. He is a very straight forward character. He has no range, he has no arc. He does not change. There is no moment where we have him reflecting on his role or if he is doing something wrong, no range of emotion other than deception and evil. He is, from start to finish, a classic henchmen that is to be tossed away when his purpose is over. Lucas developing a little synopsis for Lee that seriously would have taken 10 minutes is not really developing some grandiose back story. As far as you synopsis of Dooku... I think it is wrong. From the movie, we are never told that he left because of the corruption. We are told because, just like Qui Gon, he knew of the corruption of the Senate, but, he had learned the "truth" that the Sith had now taken over the Senate. He comes out and says that Qui GOn knew of the corruption, but, would never had gone with it had he learned the truth like he (Dooku) had. So the suggestion here from Dooku is not the corruption that forced him out of the Jedi Order. It was him learning from the Trade Federation Viceroy that he was in league with the Sith and the Sith had influence over hundreds of Senators. However, we know this is a lie from Dooku because he is a Sith, and it is clear he had already fallen to the Dark Side before even leaving the Jedi Order. Erasing Kamino from the Jedi Archives, recruiting Jango are things that would have had to happen before he left the order. Even if we go by the re-contextualized story of Sifo-Dyas from The Clone Wars story, it is clear that Dooku was performing this things while Maul was still alive and Dooku would have been still in the Jedi Order. So Dooku's leaving because of corruption is his false face he puts on to hide the fact he has joined Sidious. A false face he needs to start the war that he and Sidious were planning. Again, his part is very straight forward. His character is more of a tool to be used for a singular purpose. He never shows us regret in what he is doing, or a range of emotion in recognition that what he is doing might be wrong. As I have said a few times now, he is the same character from the time we meet him, til the time he is separated from his head. His is given very little screen time, as a lot of his story is through exposition, which we only connect at the very end when Sidious calls him Darth Tyranus. |
|
