Discussion in 'Prequel Trilogy' started by Kyris Cavisek, Nov 13, 2012.
Yes. Not particularly deep or meaningful, though.
Maul represents the philosophy of the Sith.
I disagree. Their business-like attitude is appropriate. Trash-talking would diminish Maul's menace. And really, it's the only impersonal duel in the entire saga, while each subsequent duel becomes more and more personal. Don't forget they have to progress chronologically 1-6.
Maul had a philosophy? He says two words in the whole movie. Can "REVENGE!!!!!!!!" really be considered a philosophy?[/quote]
Like said, it's all their in their fighting style and body language. If you're willing to pay attention, instead of complaining.
As for revenge against the Jedi, it's one of their motivations, as well as absolute power. They used to rule the galaxy and the Jedi destroyed them and forced them into hiding. I'd be pissed, too.
Obi-Wan and Anakin had no history with Dooku either, making that fight even more boring. At least the TPM battle looked pretty.[/quote]
Dooku was a renegade Jedi and a Qui-Gon's master. And yoda's padawan. It's definitely more personal than the Sith that the Jedi haven't encountered in a thousand years.
As Biggs points out "Luke is the best bush pilot in the Outer Rim territories."
Maul doesn't have to be a Chatty Cathy street punk to be interesting. We know literally nothing about him; neither do the Jedi. They might as well have been fighting yet another boring interchangeable battle droid. Maybe that would have worked if Maul was a recurring character and TPM was just his first encounter with Obi-Wan, but he was a disposable nobody with no history or personality, so there's nothing climactic or emotionally involving about the movie's final showdown. Maul isn't even like a secondary James Bond villain where we've watched him being a dick for the whole movie and then he finally gets his comeuppance; he has ten minutes of screen-time and does nothing.
It seems unlikely to me that this is the one area where Lucas was concerned with making the movies flow better in chronological order.
Unless you're one of Fox News's body language analysts, I don't know how the fact that Maul paces behind a wall instead of sitting on the floor is supposed to tell you who he is and what he believes in.
How do you know that? At the end of TPM all we know about the Sith is that they've been extinct for a millennium and that they want revenge on the Jedi for something. Lucas thinks that the Sith turned on each other and destroyed themselves, based on the backstory he gave Terry Brooks for the novelization. Even if we connect the vaguely drawn dots and assume that the Jedi wiped out the Sith a thousand years ago, that tells us nothing about Maul's character or personal ambitions and gives us no reason to be invested in his showdown with the Jedi. Maul, Qui-Gon, and Obi-Wan weren't involved in whatever happened a millennium earlier; they have no history together and, unless you already know Obi-Wan from the OT, virtually no history independently.
More personal than not personal at all isn't saying much. Obi-Wan knew Dooku for like a minute before the fight, Anakin didn't know him at all. I guess Dooku's fight with Yoda was supposed to be more personal but it doesn't come through at all on-screen. Yoda just kind of casually mentions that Dooku was his Padawan; it doesn't affect anything and it never comes up again. Still I will concede that that fight was more emotionally resonant than Obi-Wan vs. Grievous, which is probably the least interesting lightsaber duel of the series.
I should point out that I do like this scene and how it visually distinguishes the mindsets of the combatants, but it doesn't make up for neglecting to give Maul any depth or character for the whole rest of the movie.
I've always liked that they kept Maul's dialogue to a minimum. There's something unerringly predatory about him -- the way he stalks our heroes and his obvious zeal for conflict. I always got the impression that he was like some kind of wild animal that Sidious had confined and chained, ready to unleash on the unsuspecting Jedi. Everything from his appearance to his very name (Maul) speaks to his very animalistic nature. So, for me, Maul wouldn't have been improved by dialogue -- he's meant to be the basest, least complex of the Sith, but I think he does his job well. Even the pacing back and forth reminds me of a jungle cat ready to pounce -- it shows how eager he is for the fight.
Even if he had more screentime, they still don't have past history with Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan. Again, what would they talk about, really? He's a killing machine, fast and efficient. I like it.
Dooku is the who could have benefited from more development since his role in the galaxy is much larger. As well as Grievous.
I guess it all comes to a personal taste. Duel of the Fates is the only impersonal duel in the Saga and that's what makes it unique. If it's boring to someone, well, it's their loss, but I can let the visuals tell the story (Star Wars are mostly about visuals and music anyway).
I like all 7 originally posted. I would add a #8: maybe the scene where Palpatine actually dissolves the Senate, or goes through the Jedi Temple w/ Vader.
Here's another example of the difference:
SW/ANH/Battle of Yavin:
Ben's disembodied voice: "Use the Force, Luke!!!"
TPM/Battle of Naboo:
As Anakin points out "all my life".
Yes...I'm sure he was piloting when he was in diapers.
Again: The one instance - Luke's - is plausible. The other one is not.
The two instances are completely different. One is a T-16, the other is a podracer.
Thank you, Dan Quayle.
Just like Luke was.
But doesn't that fit with the theme of the Force?
"Let go your conscious self and act on instinct." Before Luke heard Obi-Wan's voice, he was relying on his targeting computer and had to be reminded to let go of his thoughts and just go with what feels right -- to trust in his instincts.
Anakin is a child and so he naturally doesn't put as much thought into it -- but he is guided by instinct just as much (if not more so). Qui-Gon himself said "feel, don't think" to Anakin.
It can be made to fit, sure. But it's probably more of an 'unintended consequences' type of thing, in terms of Lucas deciding to make Anakin's character such a young age in TPM.
That's not the only difference. One is consciously using the Force; the other is 'unconsciously' 'using' (or being 'USED BY') The Force because the plot-demands-it (after-the-fact).
Luke was 19/20 when we first see him in SW. So maybe he's been a 'pilot' since he was in his early teens. TPM's Anakin was nine years old....."ALL MY LIFE".
i never got the "all my life" part either
I pretty much ignore it when it comes on and think "kids lol"
amused older cousin: you're a superhero?
kid: yup, all my life *pumped up full of cocksure*
Nope, diapers - just like Anakin. Check out this official LFL image:
Ahhh, I see. "OT quoque" fallacy, once again.
Does not fit the definition = fail
If by that you mean, "it's actually WORSE than the Tu (OT) quoque fallacy - IT'S A BARE, UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSERTION"........then I agree.
You don't need to admit your lies, but thanks anyway.
Eh, I guess I just get a kick out of Anakin accidentally destroying the galaxy-shaped space station while trying to save Padmé and her people. It's a nice bit of ironic foreshadowing of his eventual actions in ROTS that I appreciate.
Care to make that accusation again? And while you're at it, post proof, Mr. Theocratic, Ministry-of-Rationalization.