Should Maul have used a single blade?

In the Phantom Menace, after Darth Maul had killed Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan was behind the laser screen. As it opened, Maul activated both blades of his saber and Obi-Wan began his furious assault, quickly cutting Maul's saber in half. However, when Maul had dueled Qui-Gon on Tatooine, he used only one blade. He appeared to be quite skilled with a single blade, as well as two blades. He fared quite well even after Obi-Wan had halved his saber. Why didn't Maul activate one blade? He was only taking on one Jedi. Two blades seem to hinder things in that situation. It may have gone more efficiently and quicker.

I guess the same question could be raised with Anakin dueling Dooku on Geonosis. The same result, with one lightsaber (like half of maul's) going quickly after teh battle began, and the single vs. single blade battle going well.

 

IMO there are three logical alternatives for explaining Maul's use of the double blade:

a) It was an unusual and by nature more agressive weapon than the single blade and thus gave a mental advantage to Maul as a capable warrior, especially after skewering Qui-Gon.

b) It was an ultra-cool screen experience and made the Sith appear a capable and formidable opponent for even the most accomplished of the Jedi.

c) A combination of the above.

 

Its realy not important if lightsaber was doublebladed or single hit to Darth Maul.I think that he was not thinking about that.I mean, he defeated the Master, and he tought that Obi-Wan will not be formidable opponent, but he was wrong.Anyway, I agree with fact that it would be easier for Darth Maul to fight against Obi-Wan with just single hit

 

Maul's weapon was designed to be used with both blades extended. One blade can be activated by itself, but it's not as effective, as the length of the handle is cumbersome. He does well with it on Tatooine, and is also able to adapt once it's cut in half, but you can tell he definately prefers it's staff form.

 

Logically, the staff form would be horrible to fight with, You have this huge handle that's a giant target that it's hard to block blows to without spearing yourself.

However, fights in Star Wars have very little to do with logic.

 

Maul with a single blade is like Vader without the mask. It's just an essential part of thier character.

 

Maul used one blade on Tatooine because he wished to. Had Obi-wan joined the fight, he would've ignited the other blade. He only ignited both at the end with Obi-wan, because he knew that he needed both against an enraged Padawan. There's no reason to use a single blade. The dual blades made it much easier to do the two-on-one fighting.

 

I think that's more important than any sort of logicial answer. It's a visual that makes people in awe of the Sith, shows how badass they are, a real match for the Jedi. It's a highly recognizable thing, and George knew it would be. If there's one thing people remember from TPM it's Maul igniting his saber.

 

perhaps the first time, facing both jedi. The second time against Kenobi, meh.

 

The real reason is that Darth Maul was intended to use a single blade but Ray Park's martial arts training made the staff easier for him to handle.

Sorry if you were looking for an in-film reason. That isn't much help.

 

So it's testament to Maul's skill that he can wield one with such efficiency. That was kinda the point of giving Maul that weapon; to show he's not your average 'saber wielder, but rather something more dangerous.

 

Its all a matter of training. Dooku was trained in lightsaber combat so he won that duel. Anakin however was not trained in jar'kai and lost. Maul seemed to be more skilled in double bladed combat but not necessarily in blade on blade combat which is why he got his saber halved.

 

Dude! Maul was the first Sith-in-his-prime Star Wars was showing since... forever! How could he have used a single blade?

 

I thought he was pretty darn awesome with a double blade.

 

It was also an effort on GL's part to give the audience something they had never seen before in a Star Wars movie. A clever variation on something familiar.

 

I agree with both of you. The double bladed lightsaber is more of a symbol of Maul's character than anything else. For the first time, we get to see a Sith in his prime (Sidious was very and didn't fight in ROTJ and Vader is a machine) and he is fearsome. From the horns to the tatooed face, everything about Darth Maul is new and frightening. To top it off, he wields a version of a lightsaber that we've never seen before. I think it was a great move.

 

That first shot of maul igniting the double saber is burned in my memory...it's such a great piece of film.

 

An Attempt at an "In Universe" answer...

On Tatooine - Maul jumps off his speeder to engage Qui-Gon. He's jumping off a thing going at a high rate of speed to get the jump on his opponant. It seems that a double blade may have been dangerous to himself in that circumstance. Once he engaged Qui-Gon, there never was really a moment where they backed off to give Maul time to ignite the other end.

When fighting Both Jedi, and even when Fighting Obi-Wan alone - I would imagine it gave a huge psychological advantage. It appears that a double bladed saber was NOT popular amongst the Jedi and Maul probably expected Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan to be a little bit off balance dealing with it. One on one it may seem that the long handle was a huge target, but it is the same long handle that Maul used to clock Qui-Gon in the face..stunning him long enough to skewer him.

Carnage

 

Maul only needed to face off against one opponent on Tatooine, thus he didn't have to rely on his second blade. When he fought two Jedi on Naboo, he used two blades, one for each oppenent. After killing one opponent, why should he just turn off the other blade when he's now using two against one.

Think of it in two lights:

1) The second blade was reserved for fighting multiple opponents because Maul needed it for more than one combatant. Against one combatant, he just used one blade because he A) Didn't need a second blade, and maybe B) The second blade was an element of surprise and/or intimidation. By the time that Maul'd killed Qui-gon, the secret was out an there was no sense in concealing the second blade from Obi-wan.

Or, as I like to think it

2) Consider each lightsaber blade an individual fighter. Team A (Jedi) and Team B (Sith). Both teams have two fighters. Well, one fighter in A is cornered by a B fighter, who pulls his own without the help of the second fighter. In the next case two A fighters square off against two B fighters. Just because one A fighter is killed doesn't mean one B fighter says to the other "Okay you can go home now" he says "Well we're both here, let's finish this together."

 

Agreed. The first time I Maul ignite both ends of his light saber, I thought to myself "...this guy must be a bad mofo."

 

I know about the significance of the doublesaber the first time, but many of you miss the point. It's ONLY Maul v. Obi-Wan.

Maul actually gained the advantage over Obi-Wan with his single blade.

And the Team A, Team B analogy doesn't work the same way. You can easily overwhelm one opponent with two fighters, but fighting one blade with a staff is kind of illogical. If it were two sabers, it might be a bit more feasible.

 

One blade is a lot more accurate, and as already said, He gained the upper hand when using one. Sure, it was really cool when he started using the first double bladed lightsaber (had it not been ruined on tons of ads), but it always seemed like he was at a handicap while using it, as the only time he can use both sides at the same time was when both Jedi were completely opposite each other, attacking at the one perfect spot. If he had had two lightsabers, or one, and lots of agility, he may have won the whole thing. That can be done, as shown to us by Darths tyranus, Sidious, and Vader after Mauls death.

 

Yes, but don't you think that when someone uses two singlehit lightsabers might have a little problem to use Force powers.

 

Maul using the double blade gives him an element of surprise. Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan had probably faced very few melee weapon opponents outside of training, let alone a Sith Lord who was master of swordfighting. Even though they had probably sparred with single blades for thousands of hours, they would not be prepared to face a master of the double bladed style.
Maul effectively fights both of them, but his overconfidence doesn't compensate for the aggression of Obi-Wan's attack once Qui-Gon is killed. Maul gets the fight back under control, but then he makes the mistake of not kicking Qui-Gon's lightsaber into the pit as well. His overconfidence is his undoing, same as Palpatine.

As for the Tatooine fight with Qui-Gon, I think Maul realizes that he has arrived on the scene too late to get to his primary target, Queen Amidala, and rather than expose his true fighting style, he's just toying with Qui-Gon to see what he's up against. He found them before, and knows he'll track them down and face them again. By not using both blades against Qui-Gon, he still has that element of surprise for the later fight.

 

Well for marketing reasons: No, Lucas needed something to start the PT off with a bang. He continues with the 'ultra cool saber moments' throughout the trilogy because he knows lightsabers are something that seems to catch fans eyes, I admit to being one of them. With two blades in TPM,To Anakin using two sabers {only for about 12 seconds} in AOTC, To Blue Vs. Blue in ROTS.

For battle reasons: Maybe. Having two blades is an advantage over an oppenant but requires the most skilled to use, not to say Maul wasnt extremely skilled. But imagine having one blade to fight one enemy it would be more convienent for swift quick hard attacks, but having two blades would be more awkward for your hand. However, for Maul there seems to be an exception for because he's a wonderful swordsman and seems to do the impossible with his saber and could fight two skilled jedi with a double blade.I couldn't do that, I'd need a single.