Saga Wasn't Darth Maul shown to be cut in half...

for me personally Maul died on Naboo.

This makes Kenobi a greater characer IMO, one of the only Jedi in the history of the order to actually kill a Sith. Maul coming back takes away Kenobi's glory in that respect. At least to me.

 

No, you just did. You said Asajj Ventress certainly doesn't exist in the movie related Star Wars universe (I don't know how logical to classify like this) since you say we didn't see her in the movies, so in basic no one lives in the movie related Star Wars universe other than the Star Wars movie cast.

That's not the point, the point is not everyone speaks %100 true in the movies.

You may think that Maul is dead at the end of Episode I, but obviously some people thought that he could survive, people like Aaron or people like me. This is not a real life story where people should die because of heavy injuries, this is a fantasy movie series where ghosts, cyborgs, zombies exist. Everything is possible in its own dynamics.

What if, indeed, the writer of the comic book thought that what if Maul survived, because that was a possibility, and unlike Aaron you think that's not possible because somehow you believe Mace's words are %100 true, who was not even there and someone who is already proven to be wrong about Sith's survival. Mace was wrong again, Sith survived one more time again.

''What if'' is a possibility, he says it's possible that Maul could survive, and Lucas confirmed that.

 

Let's make this real simple; between 1996 and 2009, Lucas stated Maul was dead. Between 2010 and 2011, Lucas changed his mind. Just like he changed his mind with Han vs Greedo. If Lucas can change his mind about that there then he can change his mind here.

Yeah, but they're about to throw down again on "Rebels".

 

Wrong. Stop throwing strawmen. I said that as far as the movies are concerned, there's no Ventress character. You only learn of her existence in TCW.

The point is that the characters in the movies know better about the universe they're in than the audience. Unless what's shown in the movies prove them wrong, the audience is supposed to take what they say as being true.

You don't know Aaron or what he thought. All we know is that he was allowed to tell a what-if story. Just like someone could write a what-if story of Luke accepting Vader's proposal in TESB (even though the movie shows the opposite, like in Maul's case).

Again with the strawmen. Pay attention to what I'm saying instead of addressing what nobody is arguing.

 

great minds think alike

 

I did see his dead body halves fall down the shaft. His face was lifelessly blank, and his limbs flailed wildly without any conscious control as the corpse of Maul fell down the shaft. Of course it is fiction and the story can be changed, but some changes can be pretty forced and badly contradict earlier installments, and having Maul survive a pretty clear on screen death is very forced IMHO. It also harms the story of TPM. Lucas once said to Filoni that continuity is for wimps, which likely means Lucas did not care about maintaining continuity in his story telling or that all the parts work together, which leads to canon and continuity disputes among fans. As already stated, Maul died in the films, but lived on in TCW, pick which version you prefer. One should expect some posters to have a live action film only viewpoint.

 

Spoiler

Old Ben did it again, you guys, there's nothing to worry about.

 

No one is saying that they cannot have that. That's the point of this thread. But in the end, regardless of your own personal canon, Maul managed to survive and

Spoiler

live another thirty some years before Obi-wan killed him for good.

It becomes part of the official narrative and lore.

 

yup.

 

I like that Maul survived after the events of TPM. To me, he became a great contrast to Obi-Wan.

It's quite poignant actually.

 

I've never seen rebels, but I did see the latest episode. I won't spoil it, but it will be satisfying to those who follow Darth Maul's storyline.

 

The only satisfying thing to me would be to finish off his arc in TCW as expected, instead of shoehorning characters into the new series set decades later. Or at least know what was originally meant to happen, that would suffice.

 

You mean like shoehorning Luke, Han, Leia, Chewie and possibly Lando in the ST?

 

No, they aren't loose ends. Although we also didn't get their intended story (or the ST itself) during that timeframe, so I guess the same applies too.

 

I mean, if you really want to get technically, the stories of Obi-wan, Yoda, Vader and Palpatine were shoe horned into the OT as well. Since they were all finishing up stories from the PT era. Even before there was a PT, half the films were about them as much as it was about Han, Luke and Leia.

 

Except ANH, and by extension its sequels, were designed as being in media-res. They are not the beginning of the story. Since 1980 they were chapters IV and V respectively. To shoehorn is to force something that wasn't intended/meant to be there. Maul's story was not intended to be continued and finished in Rebels. It had to be changed, extended and adapted into it. I could even accept it if there was nothing to tell. But there was. They have the stories from the series.

 

I couldn't stand it when they brought Maul back.
First I hated Savage Opress. He did have one interesting moment when he tried to kidnap the Toydarion king alive,
but slammed him so many times against the ground and bulkheads and things that the guy died.
But for the most part I was just tired of the ridiculous, goony, names they were giving villains in Star Wars at the time,
like General Grievous, or Moralo Eval, or Moral Evil, as I like to call him.

But, I did eventually come around, and put my prejudices behind me. By the time Rebels started using Maul, Savage Oppress and
Moralo Eval were just bad memories. On a side note, Obi Wan has cut a cross into Maul over the years. Just please let him truly be dead now.

 

As opposed to Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, etc...? It's ridiculous to complain over something that's been part of Star Wars since its inception.

 

I don't see much comparison between Han Solo, Luke Skywalker, etc. Just because they aren't common names on earth doesn't mean they aren't good names for fiction.
There is such a thing as taking a villainous character's villainous name too far. Savage Opress? Put stress on different letters on that name and you have two words that absolutely tell me he's evil. How does Luke Skywalker compare to that?
It's like calling a character Jar Jar Binks. Well, I know what I'm in for with him before I even see the film.

 

Really...? Solo, Skywalker, Vader? Aren't they just as (if not more) obvious?

You complain about names like Grievous, Oppress, Eval, etc when Star Wars always had such obvious names.

And Maul, Tyranus, Vader, Sidious don't? I'll give you the clues: to maul, tyrant, invader, insidious.

So you think Skywalker is random? Doesn't ring any bells? Nor does Han Solo, a loner? I can go on.

These types of names have always been part of Star Wars. To complain is to show double standards, nothing more.

 

Spoiler

Obi-Wan is no longer necessarily the FIRST Jedi to kill a Sith in over a millennium-that was now actually Anakin. But I still like that idea-it makes his turn to the Darkside all the more ironic. I was also one of those who didn't like that they "resurrected" Maul. But seeing Kenobi finally kill him for real after all this time was very satisfying. And IMO they handled it perfectly...

 

-Vader maybe just as obvious. Of course, at the time he was created, Star Wars didn't have many characters with names that spelled out that they were evil tyrants. Not to mention that I think Darth Vader is a far better name for a fictional character than 99% of the names in Star Wars. In other words, it was pretty creative. Savage Opress, General Grievous, not so much.

-I don't see where you get the idea that Luke Skywalker or Han Solo is as obvious as General Grievous, Moralo Eval, and Savage Opress.

-Not liking the names means I'm complaining about them? How so? I would suggest not taking my opinion so personally.

-Did I ever say I like Sidious, Maul or Tyranus? I never liked those names. I made clear in my first post that I was tired of names like that. None of them are quite as inspired as Darth Vader is. None of them are quite as original either.

-Whatever you think Skywalker is supposed to mean, Darth Vader was a Skywalker, and he turned out to be evil.
Funny, how Han Solo was never a loner in any of the films.

To not like names that I think sound ridiculous does not show double standards. You accept names right off that I don't buy into. That's all.

 

Spoiler

Actually Maul wasn't a Sith Lord when he died.

''Formerly Darth, now it's just Maul.''

 

I guess that's technically true, Erkan12. Still I enjoyed it just as much though.

Spoiler

After all, it is still Obi-Wan finishing him off. That's the main point. IMO if anyone was to kill him, it should be Kenobi. It's just fitting, you know?

 

Like I said, double standards. Denial is not a river in Egypt.