| Author |
Topic:
Should Darth Maul have died?
|
Vexon
Registered:
Jun '08
|
Date Posted:
6/19 2:01am
Subject:
RE: Should Darth Maul have died?
|
SithStarSlayer posted:
Not to mention he knew how to read a trace and operate Sith probe droids...
...Which, along with Bloodfin, he created himself, I might add.
Either way, Lucas has done this before; Boba Fett's death was extremely pathetic. The only redeeming factor was Lucas didn't know Maul would be just as popular as the bounty hunter as he killed him off in his first appearance. However, marketing heavily placed him everywhere as a focal point with his striking appearance. For that, Maul to outclass the entire storyline in marketing, you would think he'd have a bit more to do with things than just to demonstrate Ray Park's choreographic capabilities with TPM. In the end, he was the tool to get butts in seats.
However, if we are to explore the other directions Lucas could have taken with Darth Maul, we find that there are quite a lot of ways he could have been spared without harming continuity and even improve on the sequels. For instance; Sidious sent Maul to protect the Viceroy Nute Gunray, from the invading Queen and Jedi. Now, we've all seen the Queen's successful capture of the Viceroy happened whilst Maul was dogging Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan. He took his time with them as well, as he was outnumbered and had to individually duel them until he knew which was the biggest threat to him (Qui-Gon), and then lead them to a place where he could deal with that one first. This was done, and Qui-Gon was killed. While Obi-Wan went ballistic (much like Anakin in II and III), Maul was still able to use his calmer mind to his advantage. Here, instead of toying with the Jedi and implying he was indeed not very smart, Maul could have just left Obi-Wan to die and hurry to the Viceroy, whom he was supposed to protect. He would arrive late, of course, and leave as well. Obi-Wan would try to chase after him, to no avail.
This would've opened up the following scenario; Qui-Gon died, so Dooku still turns to the Dark Side. Knowing Dooku is more knowledgeable in the Force than Maul, and because of Maul's failure to execute his mission, Maul is cast away as Sidious' Apprentice so Dooku can take his place (we know he would do this, as he stated in Episode III he has no trouble giving up an Apprentice [life or otherwise] in order to attain a more powerful one). This would make Maul a free agent, pursuing his own purposes, despising his former Master and the former Jedi that took his place. Of course, this would also lead to him despising the people who made it happen by arresting the Viceroy, in this case Padmé Amidala. He would assume that by killing her, he would come back into Sidious' graces, and would spend Episode II trying to do so. This would lead to several short confrontations between him and Obi-Wan or Anakin, being one-on-one battles in order to build tension and having him duel with one blade. Then on Geonosis, having tracked the trio, Maul would be replace Mace Windu as the one to confront Dooku and threaten, and eventually kill, Jango (useless character, by the way). During this sandpit battle with Jango as Dooku's bodyguard, there would be sporadic encounters with Jedi, whom he would execute all the same. Windu would instead join Yoda in the arriving ships. Maul would notice Dooku's escape and pursue, thereby avoiding death by the Clones' fire. Have Yoda personally give chase to Dooku, with Anakin and Obi-Wan taking supportive positions along Windu on the battlefield.
Cue hangar. Dooku makes preparations to leave, but is halted by (a very pissed off) Darth Maul. The two duel for a few minutes until Yoda arrives as well. Yoda would see both as dangerous Sith Lords, Dooku would see both as threats and Maul would just see both as people that are in his way. Maul's saberstaff, Yoda's acrobatics and experience and Dooku's abilities in the Force would allow all three of them to duel two people at once, delivering an intense three-way duel. Of course in this case two people would have to die, since Yoda has no motive to let Dooku escape as he had when the lives of his Jedi were threatened. Dooku wouldn't be able to pull a trick on both of them at once and Maul, being as vicious as he is, would leave no opening for either of them to escape. However, Dooku was shown to have a pilot and the boarding ramp was already lowered. So in the impending climax of the duel, the ship could rise and prepare for take-off, with Dooku hopping onto the ramp at the last opportunity. This leaves Maul and Yoda. Maul would either jump onto the ramp after Dooku, continuing the duel on board (the ship would have to be bigger in this case) until he'd eventually be defeated (IE killed), or he would turn towards Yoda, who by this time would sense his motives and convince him he's not the one he's after (''With Dooku, your hate lies,'' or something [because ''there are alternatives to fighting'']), causing Maul to leave and pursue Dooku by other means.
Shall I continue for Sith, for when he'd survive? I will, later. This post is tl;dr as it is.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
vadersmyfather
Registered:
Dec '05
|
Date Posted:
6/19 2:19am
Subject:
RE: Should Darth Maul have died?
|
we find that there are quite a lot of ways he could have been spared without harming continuity and even improve on the sequels....
This would've opened up the following scenario; Qui-Gon died, so Dooku still turns to the Dark Side. Knowing Dooku is more knowledgeable in the Force than Maul, and because of Maul's failure to execute his mission, Maul is cast away as Sidious' Apprentice so Dooku can take his place (we know he would do this, as he stated in Episode III he has no trouble giving up an Apprentice [life or otherwise] in order to attain a more powerful one). This would make Maul a free agent, pursuing his own purposes, despising his former Master and the former Jedi that took his place. Of course, this would also lead to him despising the people who made it happen by arresting the Viceroy, in this case Padmé Amidala. He would assume that by killing her, he would come back into Sidious' graces, and would spend Episode II trying to do so. This would lead to several short confrontations between him and Obi-Wan or Anakin, being one-on-one battles in order to build tension and having him duel with one blade. Then on Geonosis, having tracked the trio, Maul would be replace Mace Windu as the one to confront Dooku and threaten, and eventually kill, Jango (useless character, by the way). During this sandpit battle with Jango as Dooku's bodyguard, there would be sporadic encounters with Jedi, whom he would execute all the same. Windu would instead join Yoda in the arriving ships. Maul would notice Dooku's escape and pursue, thereby avoiding death by the Clones' fire. Have Yoda personally give chase to Dooku, with Anakin and Obi-Wan taking supportive positions along Windu on the battlefield.
Surely that would change continuity and also throw most of it off on a tangent...
To me, the point of Maul, and indeed much of his popularity, can be traced back to his relatively small screentime. One must remember that for the sequels Lucas wanted an 'evil' charater that could build on his charisma, could lead a war, and garner support without giving away his true motivations and allegiances. That man was not Maul, clearly. It was Dooku, an ex-Jedi with considerable pursuasive skills. To spare Maul would require, as you prove, the creation of a completely new story for him. One that bears no refelction of the one Lucas intended. We all want to see more of Maul but the story isn't about him.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Vexon
Registered:
Jun '08
|
Date Posted:
6/19 2:31am
Subject:
RE: Should Darth Maul have died?
|
How does this change continuity? In such a case, II and III would've been different and the original perception of how they are would not be what we know them as now. Nothing in IV-VI would've been different because of it, merely II and a little bit of III. I am 100% certain it would've made AotC a better movie.
Also, nowhere did I say he would require a lot of screentime. He would still remain the beast in the shadows, replacing Zam, who was useless anyway. Kamino could've been found all the same, with Jango merely being the person who provided Maul with information. There would be no overly long chase scene with Zam, instead a short duel between Anakin or Obi-Wan and Maul. There is no need to bring him into position as a major character; the knowledge of him being there somewhere ready to lunge at absolutely everyone would be enough.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
vadersmyfather
Registered:
Dec '05
|
Date Posted:
6/19 3:50am
Subject:
RE: Should Darth Maul have died?
- Date Edited:
6/19 3:58am (2 edits total)
Edited By:
vadersmyfather
|
In such a case, II and III would've been different and the original perception of how they are would not be what we know them as now.
If we are speaking from the perspective of what hadn't been created at that point (which I had assumed we weren't) then continuity is completely irrelevant we may as well not bring it up. There wouldn't be a continuity to change.
Of course, if one is to re-write the films then anyone can be added in. The story however would not be the same....
Instead, I thought we were speaking from the perspective of Lucas's vision. In which case keeping Maul alive would undoubtedly change the plans he had in mind for the storyline and characters. One cannot keep Maul alive and keep to his vision for the story - hence why he is killed off. He is of no furter use the the story told, to keep him in would change that continuity.
Also, nowhere did I say he would require a lot of screentime.
By simple implication it would require more screentime. For instance, in your re-write Maul and Yoda suddenly just side together. In truth, is that likely to happen is a single scene bearing in mind what Yoda knows of Maul? No. there are a thousand and one questions to that. One cannot suddenly replace people in the script ad-hoc. The backstory, the reasoning, must be explained for the audience to fit, beacsue Maul's motivations would not be Mace's, Anakin's, Kenobi's, Yoda's or whoever you choose.
You say, as a further example “This would lead to several short confrontations between him and Obi-Wan or Anakin, being one-on-one battles in order to build tension and having him duel with one blade,” which as a notion, as a sentence sounds nice. It conjures visions of duels; very exciting, I agree. But realistically, and rather obviously, one cannot just insert a few duels in for good measure. It works as a sentence, on paper...but in practice…?
As Lucas has often said, for the fight scenes he merely writes "...and they fight." But in practice some such fights last 10 minutes on screen, compared to his 3 words.
He would still remain the beast in the shadows, replacing Zam, who was useless anyway.
Then one would wonder how Jango and Maul were linked, no? Why would Maul want bto kill Padme? Zam is useless, but then she serves her purpose; it is clear Zam is a mere tool for Jango's orders. But Maul is far more, so would require more. He cannot be Zam in that scene.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
syphadias2542
Registered:
Jun '08
|
Date Posted:
6/21 11:09am
Subject:
RE: Should Darth Maul have died?
|
|
maul was truly used as a symbol. in my opinion his death represented the war breaking out. he was killed on purpose too sidious was using him as a placeholder and to carry out missions in preparation for the last part of the (plan) even if he had lived sidious would have found a way to inadvertently killed him but back to the question you have to remember there is no possible way to do justice to a young sith lord a great jedi master and a brilliant student of the force i a 7 minute battle scene. also pitted agenced two trained jedi knights he stood little chance to add to it all he was not used to battling a few skilled advisories with light-sabers but many untrained enemies.
-----signature-----
syphadias was a jedi who Duku was friends with
Duku tried to lure him to the dark side
syphadias seeing into the"plan" created a grand clone
army to fight for the jedi and the republic Duku killed
brave jedi master syphadias and integrated order 66
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
EECHUUTA
Registered:
Mar '07
|
Date Posted:
6/21 6:27pm
Subject:
RE: Should Darth Maul have died?
|
Lucas says that Palpatine did not anticipate Maul dying, and that Sidious meant Maul to be the next in line in Sith-hood.
Dooku was the real place-holder, as by the time Palpatine found Dooku, he was already making plans to convert Anakin.
The only real reason that Palpatine chose Dooku was because Maul was dead, and Sidious couldn't do much with a corpse.
I have a good feeling that Sidious didn't know the secret to keeping someone alive, or he would have used it on his first Apprentice. If Maul had lived, I think Sidious would have kept him and trained him extra hard to make him develop the skills and power needed to help defeat the Chosen One. Sidious and Maul would go against Anakin together once Sidious was sure the chance was good that they could beat him.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
maderic
Registered:
Oct '04
|
Date Posted:
6/26 12:09pm
Subject:
RE: Should Darth Maul have died?
|
Basically, the summary of support for why Darth Maul shouldn't have died seems to be
A) he had a COOL double-bladed lightsaber (which, by this point, has been done to death)
B) he has AWESOME red and black tattoos
C) not much is known about his back story (even though keeping him in the series would require fully-expanding the back story of this irrelevant character)
*shrug*
-----signature-----
"The Star Wars story is really the tragedy of Darth Vader. That is the story. Once Vader dies, he doesn't come back to life, The Emperor doesn't get cloned and Luke doesn't get married," George Lucas.
I'm a proud hater of 98% of the Expanded Universe.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
SithStarSlayer
Registered:
Oct '03
|
Date Posted:
6/26 1:21pm
Subject:
RE: Should Darth Maul have died?
- Date Edited:
6/26 1:21pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
SithStarSlayer
|
You forgot to mention that Maul is the only Sith Apprentice; that we've seen on film, who wasn't a fallen Jedi. Next to Palpatine, he's the purest Sith we've got. 
-----signature-----
Lucas didn't ruin my childhood, but he sure wrecked Vader's
Foolish men mistake transitory semblance for eternal fact
Practice makes perfect, so be careful what you practice
Tolerance is for people who lack moral conviction
o[[]|[ooooooooooo]|[0]|[|]|[
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
sith_rising
Registered:
Jan '04
|
Date Posted:
6/26 4:00pm
Subject:
RE: Should Darth Maul have died?
|
|
Not to mention that he blew away anyone else in the Saga in terms of combat ability, CG or not, so many people wanted to see more of him.
-----signature-----
"My mentor taught me everything about the Force, even the nature of the Dark Side"
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
SithStarSlayer
Registered:
Oct '03
|
Date Posted:
6/26 4:40pm
Subject:
RE: Should Darth Maul have died?
|
|
The best example of Maul's combat skill, and command of the Force is when he chucked that hunk of whatever and smashed the control panel to open the doors. Most impressive.
-----signature-----
Lucas didn't ruin my childhood, but he sure wrecked Vader's
Foolish men mistake transitory semblance for eternal fact
Practice makes perfect, so be careful what you practice
Tolerance is for people who lack moral conviction
o[[]|[ooooooooooo]|[0]|[|]|[
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
maderic
Registered:
Oct '04
|
Date Posted:
6/27 11:40pm
Subject:
RE: Should Darth Maul have died?
|
And all of his supposedly impressive combat skill landed him in two pieces at the bottom of the Theed reactor. Way to go, 'awesome' Sith apprentice.
-----signature-----
"The Star Wars story is really the tragedy of Darth Vader. That is the story. Once Vader dies, he doesn't come back to life, The Emperor doesn't get cloned and Luke doesn't get married," George Lucas.
I'm a proud hater of 98% of the Expanded Universe.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
BigBoy29
Registered:
Dec '04
|
Date Posted:
6/28 2:12am
Subject:
RE: Should Darth Maul have died?
|
As opposed to Anakin Skywalker who got became roadkill by making a chump move. Now that was impressive .... 
-----signature-----
Lando: "She saved me at the Battle of Tannabe".
Han: "Hey remember, I won her fair and square."
Lando: "She was mine before she was yours, she was mine before she was yours ..."
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Dark_Jedi_Kenobi
Title: PT Manager
Registered:
Oct '04
|
Date Posted:
6/28 6:53am
Subject:
RE: Should Darth Maul have died?
|
maderic posted:
And all of his supposedly impressive combat skill landed him in two pieces at the bottom of the Theed reactor. Way to go, 'awesome' Sith apprentice.
More so his arrogance led to his demise, just as Anakin's led to his.
-----signature-----
***Host of the PT Trivia Challenge Game 12: Question 10 Posted!*** http://boards.theforce.net/prequel_trilogy/b10669/23314477/p4/?184
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
maderic
Registered:
Oct '04
|
Date Posted:
6/28 11:44am
Subject:
RE: Should Darth Maul have died?
|
BigBoy29 posted:
As opposed to Anakin Skywalker who got became roadkill by making a chump move. Now that was impressive ....
This was after he killed Darth Tyranus, caught the all-powerful Mace Windu off-guard, single-handedly led Operation Knightfall, and held his own in a fight with Obi-Wan Kenobi, the man who embarrassed Darth Maul thirteen years prior. Let's not begin to mention what he accomplished between Episodes III and VI. Yeah, that's not impressive at all.
-----signature-----
"The Star Wars story is really the tragedy of Darth Vader. That is the story. Once Vader dies, he doesn't come back to life, The Emperor doesn't get cloned and Luke doesn't get married," George Lucas.
I'm a proud hater of 98% of the Expanded Universe.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Arawn_Fenn
Registered:
Jul '04
|
Date Posted:
6/28 11:52am
Subject:
RE: Should Darth Maul have died?
|
Anakin went out like a punk in Episode III. Big deal.
He went out like a punk in Episode VI as well.
It is an unwritten rule of Star Wars trilogies that they always end with Anakin going out like a punk.
It's tradition!
-----signature-----
The world will look up and shout, "Save us." And I'll whisper: "No". - Rorschach
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
