PT Was Darth Maul really Necessary?

In your opinion.

 

First three movies: Anakin
Last Three: Rebel Alliance, particularly the Big Three

Those would be the central characters for me if I was forced to choose. So Anakin is the central character for three films IMO.

 

No, it is a weak reasoning all together. Like I said, Jason Voorhees is barely in the first film in a series to be about him. Much like with Anakin. That doesn't make either of them not the main character.

And when you connect all six films together, the main character who is in every film and whose life story is being told is Anakin.

"It's a downer, the saving grace is that if you watch the other three movies, then you know everything ends happily ever after. Nevertheless, I now have to make a movie that works by itself but which also works with this six-hour movie and this overall twelve-hour movie. I'll have two six-hour trilogies, and the two will beat against each other: One's the fall, one's the redemption. They have different tonalities but it's meant to be one experience of twelve hours."

--George Lucas, The Making Of Revenge Of The Sith, page 62

The two Star Wars trilogies share many characters but have different structures. Instead of telling another heroic coming-of-age story, Lucas has crafted the prequels a historical drama, at whose center is Anakin Skywalker. His story is tragic; that of the Republic-turned-Empire, uncomfortably familiar. Anakin begins as a nine-year-old boy who is physically enslaved. He ends the prequel saga a spiritual and mental slave to the Emperor, who is his metaphorical if not biological father....

But the end of Revenge of the Sith is not the end of Anakin, whose story really closes when it merges with those of his children, Luke and Leia, in Return of the Jedi.

--George Lucas, The Making Of Revenge Of The Sith; page 221​

 

Can we just agree that I don't think Anakin is the main character of the saga. What are you trying to gain by constantly arguing with me?

 

Yes, in fact Lucas said somewhere that if Star Wars was a book series, the PT would be Book One: Anakin, and the OT would be Book Two: Luke. But Anakin is the focus of all six movies when viewed together. The PT forces you to look at the OT from a different perspective, and was in fact designed that way.

The Rebel Alliance isn't a character. Han and Leia are secondary characters. Luke and Vader drive the action of the OT, Luke as protagonist and Vader as antagonist (until the end when Vader becomes a protagonist again and the Emperor is revealed as having been the ultimate antagonist). Throughout the OT,we follow Luke's quest to defeat Vader. The arcs of Han and Leia aren't nearly as developed. Their final confrontation is against a bunch of stormtroopers. Luke's final confrontation is against Vader and the Emperor. Do you not see the difference?

e:

Fair enough, it isn't the topic of the thread after all. And there would be little point in creating a new thread, because I doubt there are many other people who dispute these points. Especially not the point about Luke being the main character of the OT.

 

Title movie?

Anakin/Vader is a key focus in all six movies so I don't know what you are trying to say here.

 

Episode IV was the title movie. It was the original "Star Wars."

 

But Vader was the main villain of the movie...

 

No Tarkin was!


(Or so some people would tell us)

 

Vader may have been, Tarkin may have been, etc.

It all comes down to perspective, or... a certain point of view.

 

I guess I can see both arguments.

 

In all seriousness I would call them co-villians of the movie.

 

Co-antagonists to be sure. Pretty much everyone in SW antagonises each other. Yet, you may want to take the Vader-Tarkin element to a relevant thread this is supposed to be about Maul.

 

You suggest another topic, a military topic? Then name the villain!

In my opinion, Maul was unnecessary because he was never developed, did very little, and had absolutely zero effect of the later PT movies.

 

Yes he did he killed Qui Gon Jinn who was Obi-Wan's master and because of that he was the one who trains anakin, because did not want train Anakin or believe his master should not since the council did not want him to, but since Qui Gon died Obi promised him he would train Anakin, which change alot of things.

 

Ah, yes. Good point.

 

You can have your opinion, I'm pointing out facts that are undeniable and well documented.

 

Umm...

We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

Well, George should've thought of that before he created Darth Maul in the first place. By doing that, he's already creating a new iconic symbol of evil and we've seen how a lot of people here were upset when Maul got killed off at the end of TPM. I'm not saying that I want Maul to overshadow PalpSidious because he'll still be a pawn in PalpSidious's grand schemes and plus, PalpSidious won't have much difficulty turning Anakin to the dark side by using Maul which will contrast with how he tried to use Anakin to turn Luke. Killing off Qui-Gon was just the beginning of Maul being the cause of Anakin's suffering because he'd used the force to influence the tuskens to kidnap and torture Shmi to death and he'd order the assassination attempts against Padme. Maul's actions with provide PalpSidious with all the ammunition he needs to turn Anakin to the dark side.

 

He might be unnecessary, but honestly, he's Darth freaking Maul, so I don't care.

 

Is anything really necessary?

 

Water, Oxygen, Food, etc.

 

Only if you want to live

 

I do think Maul would have worked better as an Inquisitor than as a Sith. Dooku should have been the Sith apprentice throughout all three movies.

 

Well, he was just a plot device, so yeah. I'd rather have a sith kill Qui Gon than some accident. It sets the tone.