POLL - Darth Maul: TPM vs Rebels

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



DarthAnt66
Vote in the poll and comment who wins.

Rockydonovang
Rebels Maul is in the range of a force user who several years pre-rebels was pulling ships out of the sky that were significantly larger than the ship TCW Maul dragged a few feet. The less powerful TPM Maul gets clowned with the force.

Sabers wise, the evidence for maul having degraded as of TCW, where's he's authoritatively more impressive than TPM Maul both physically and in terms of skill, would be:

DarthAnt66
Not that this is necessarily indication of degradation, but TPM Maul's said to be a more skilled duelist than Dooku.

slayne
Quote?

DarthAnt66
The list from AEYNTK.

|King Joker|
Why is canon making itself out to be even dumber than Legends lol

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by slayne
Quote?
He's referring to this gem:

I'm genuinely curious what AZ would make of it given he has Kenobi as capable of legitimately three-shotting Maul post-prime.

Darth Thor

Rockydonovang
Potential is relevant how?

And that Maul was in his physical prime is an assumption yea, force augmentation is a thing, and the more powerful a force user, the more powerful is his augmentation.

Rebels Maul colelcted artifacts, looked for holocrons, and was troubling the empire during his decade. And yea, he was a broken character stuck in his TPM past, which again regards Emotional growth, not combative growth.

So again, in terms of evidence regarding Maul's combative abilities degrading, we have...

Darth Thor

Rockydonovang
The word you're looking for here is power, not potential. Again, Maul has had time to grow with power and atm has relativity with Rebels Vader. I'll repeat, Vader several years pre-rebels has done a better version of TCW Maul's best feat. Remember, TCW Maul is more powerful than TPM Maul. Applying logic, the more powerful combatant here is Rebels Maul.

I'll get to mindset later...

There's a key part you're missing here: Maul is still Maul.

Hence, unless you can prove Maul has degraded, Maul would get any feats earlier versions of Maul have.

And unsuprisngly, you completely ignored the argument I made earlier for Rebels Maul being more powerful. And yes, generally, gaining knowledge and mastery correlates with more powerful. Not to mention that aside from what someone reading what you've said what you think, Maul only spent a fraction of his time stranded on Malachor. He spent his time before that travelling the galaxy and looking for sh!t, troubling the empire to the point that he was considered a "shadow" and struck fear into all the inqusitors, and then after Malachor, was engaged in multiple fights, and was searching the galaxy.

So this notion that Maul was inactive is simply false.

So I'm at a loss for what you reasoning for Maul having degraded here is.

Nice false equivalency bro thumb up
The problem with Anakin was he wasn't committed to the darkside. He was conflicted, "vulnerable between two worlds".

The opposite is true for Maul who's commitment to the darkside strengthened as both his hate and anger grew.

That this would make a darksider weaker is up to you to prove.

Again, Maul is still the same character, so you need to prove there's a degradement for Maul to suddenly not to be capable of what versions of him who have had less time to grow are capable of.

I presented a power based argument with my first quote.

There's also the matter of the Feloni quote. I'm sure you will adamantly repeat ad nausea how you've debunked it. Though, I'd advise you to set a higher bar for yourself. Trying to apply the context of a separate quote from a different person to Feloni's statement is a pretty weak rebuttal. sad

darthbane77
TPM Maul blitzes. Rebels Maul is a *****.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by darthbane77
TPM Maul blitzes. Rebels Maul is a *****.
This is the right answer.

DarthAnt66
Damn, TPM Maul dominating the poll. You know the Rocky Brigade taking mad Ls if they can't even split vs TPM.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
Damn, TPM Maul dominating the poll. You know the Rocky Brigade taking mad Ls if they can't even split vs TPM.
You're unhealthily obsessed with brigades and consensus.

Rebel95
Originally posted by Rockydonovang

Again, Maul is still the same character, so you need to prove there's a degradement for Maul to suddenly not to be capable of what versions of him who have had less time to grow are capable of.

Lol, that's not how it works buddy. It's uncertain whether or not Maul grew in power so he doesn't get his old feats unless it's proven that he hasn't declined. Or does ESB Yoda still get his feats from ROTS? laughing out loud

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Rebel95
Lol, that's not how it works buddy. It's uncertain whether or not Maul grew in power so he doesn't get his old feats unless it's proven that he hasn't declined.

Setting aside the argument I've made for Maul being more powerful...
Maul growing is just as possible as maul declining in terms of power(again, assuming there haven't been arguments already made).

Hence thor's original post which asserts Maul's pre-rebels feat mark him as more impressive is wholly dependent on the unproven assumption that Maul has declined.

I've already made a case for why I think maul is more powerful, however my response was to an assertion Thor made and hasn't bothered trying to fufill the burden of proof for
Originally posted by Rebel95
Or does ESB Yoda still get his feats from ROTS? laughing out loud
ESB Yoda was using the force to keep himself alive. Not a great example.

MythLord
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
Not that this is necessarily indication of degradation, but TPM Maul's said to be a more skilled duelist than Dooku.

That has Asajj being > Savage and Vader being > Sidious, neither of which is true. It's more likely to be popularity based than anything else.

DarthAnt66
The author confirmed it's saber skill.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by MythLord
That has Asajj being > Savage
Sure she isn't, I guess that's why she was stalemating him pre-prime erm

MythLord
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
The author confirmed it's saber skill.

did he now?

godemperortrump
Why isn't Ventress > Savage in skill? Honestly, Vader being superior to Sheev in saber skill isn't at all surprising...

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by MythLord
did he now?
Yup...

https://static4.comicvine.com/uploa...re+powerful.png

Bless Erkan's soul. angel

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by godemperortrump
Why isn't Ventress > Savage in skill? Honestly, Vader being superior to Sheev in saber skill isn't at all surprising...
because she stalemated him...
pre-prime

Darth Thor
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
The word you're looking for here is power, not potential. Again, Maul has had time to grow with power and atm has relativity with Rebels Vader. I'll repeat, Vader several years pre-rebels has done a better version of TCW Maul's best feat. Remember, TCW Maul is more powerful than TPM Maul. Applying logic, the more powerful combatant here is Rebels Maul.


Raw Power comes from level of training + Potential.

You've provided nothing from Rebels Maul to show/prove he's =/> TPM Maul in skill/mastery.


Originally posted by Rockydonovang
I'll get to mindset later...

There's a key part you're missing here: Maul is still Maul.

Hence, unless you can prove Maul has degraded, Maul would get any feats earlier versions of Maul have.


facepalm

He got chopped in half, is mentally broken, never progressed in his own training and aged 30 years.

I mean Common sense is still a thing right?



Originally posted by Rockydonovang
And unsuprisngly, you completely ignored the argument I made earlier for Rebels Maul being more powerful. And yes, generally, gaining knowledge and mastery correlates with more powerful.


Except you've not proven he gained any force knowledge or mastery.

Given how he fights (losing to Kanan on what you repeatedly call a DS Nexus, getting 3 shotted by Old Ben), it's pretty clear his augmentation hasn't improved. It's for you to Prove it's even on par with his physical prime where he was grappling with Rathtars.


Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Not to mention that aside from what someone reading what you've said what you think, Maul only spent a fraction of his time stranded on Malachor. He spent his time before that travelling the galaxy and looking for sh!t, troubling the empire to the point that he was considered a "shadow" and struck fear into all the inqusitors, and then after Malachor, was engaged in multiple fights, and was searching the galaxy. So this notion that Maul was inactive is simply false.

So I'm at a loss for what you reasoning for Maul having degraded here is.



You see, you're just writing and not actually backing anything up with feats or evidence.

The Inquisitors feared Maul. Yeah no shit. He's not degraded THAT Much.

Wither confirmed that no matter how much he degrades his classical training (at the kind of level he had) will always keep him above the likes of Inquisitors and Kanan. The fact that he actually lost to Kanan (even if it was once and circumstantial) though just goes to show what a "shadow" of his former self he now is.

So yeah the Inquisitors were right to call him "shadow".




Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Nice false equivalency bro thumb up
The problem with Anakin was he wasn't committed to the darkside. He was conflicted, "vulnerable between two worlds".

The opposite is true for Maul who's commitment to the darkside strengthened as both his hate and anger grew.

That this would make a darksider weaker is up to you to prove.

Again, Maul is still the same character, so you need to prove there's a degradement for Maul to suddenly not to be capable of what versions of him who have had less time to grow are capable of.



Filoni (and canon) have made it pretty damn clear that state of mind and emotional state do effect combat performance.

There's a reason why Filoni keeps equating Maul's loos to Kenobi with Maul being Mentally broken.

*Context is for Kings*



Originally posted by Rockydonovang
I presented a power based argument with my first quote.


So you speaking is supposed to be an argument now? You need to repeat your arguments once or twice, especially when you're so severely lacking in them.



Originally posted by Rockydonovang
There's also the matter of the Feloni quote. I'm sure you will adamantly repeat ad nausea how you've debunked it. Though, I'd advise you to set a higher bar for yourself. Trying to apply the context of a separate quote from a different person to Feloni's statement is a pretty weak rebuttal. sad



Yes it's been debunked. But you just like putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "i'm not listening"


Filoni was clearly talking about "growth" in the context of the number of times Maul and Kenobi have already fought each other. This is the Only Interpretation which is supported by Gilroy's comments, and doesn't contradict already Established Canon.

|King Joker|
So where's the actual concrete evidence Maul declined? Are everyone's arguments really just "he got older"?

Greysentinel365
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Yup...

https://static4.comicvine.com/uploa...re+powerful.png

Bless Erkan's soul. angel

404 error

ILS
If TPM Maul wins, that means Rebels Maul atrophied so badly that he lost all of his power gains between S4-5 of TCW/SoD, and then declined further as to become weaker than his 22 year old self. And in addition, it means his improved experience and wisdom matters so little that it wouldn't swing the fight in his favour, despite the fact he is fighting a less experienced version of himself, who he knows inside and out.

Somehow, I find all of that unlikely, but if anyone has any evidence I'd be interested in seeing it.

|King Joker|
I think people are just annoyed at Maul's perceived low showings in Rebels so they're trying to compensate by lowballing him so as not to hurt the standing of previous incarnations of Maul. That, and maybe another reason. whistle

ChocolateMuesli
Originally posted by |King Joker|
I think people are just annoyed at Maul's perceived low showings in Rebels so they're trying to compensate by lowballing him so as not to hurt the standing of previous incarnations of Maul. That, and maybe another reason. whistle
bro why are you mocking the maul fanboys lol you literally get mad every time someone doesn't wank to ahsokas nice ass

|King Joker|
i dont know what you're talking about

Darth Thor

ILS

Darth Thor

FreshestSlice
A lack of feats? Lel. Low showings is also hilarious. The only time he's even remotely outclassed is against Obi-Wan and Bullshit-Kanan, which is not exactly a low showing.

No one ever hints at Maul being weak either. That's something people have just assumed because they're trying to make sense of Rebels shit writing that tries too hard to "poetic."

|King Joker|

DarthDuelist9
Originally posted by |King Joker|
Rebels isn't really a medium where Maul can actually get a lot of feats, though. He was a side character in Rebels and was basically used as a plot device, and unlike where he got a large chunk of his feats beforehand, there aren't many fully-trained Jedi roaming about for Maul to fight against. So using his lack of feats as an argument doesn't really make sense. As for his low showings, they're all pretty much incredibly circumstantial.

I'll need quotes with context so I know what you're referring to.

It's more about the fact that he's a broken man by the time of Rebels, he has lost all his purpose (which was what initially strengthened him during the Clone Wars) and power (his underworld syndicate). When we see him on Malachor he has been trapped there for years, without any training and has visibly degraded in the physical department. He seems to have advanced in terms of TP (Illusions, mind probing) but that could just be part of his original Sith training at the hands of Sidious.

ILS
Maul's arrogance is written as a serious problem in Canon, it shows up in most of his fights. That appears to be why he was thrown by Kanan, alongside Kanan's oneness-esque boost. And he was essentially tricked by Kenobi into attacking Qui-Gon's fighting style, whereas Kenobi fully anticipated Maul's approach and responded accordingly. Which, needless to say, is a level of personal knowledge one can only have after fighting Maul 2 or 3 times and observing his fights against other characters - something every other character in SW lacks for the most part.

Aside from those, Maul performed as a rough equal for Ahsoka, and is implied by sw.com to be her superior. And as we saw, Ahsoka gave Vader a good challenge. In addition, as of TCW, Filoni has outrighted stated Maul's training/skill level is "kind of in Vader's realm", opposed to the Ventress/Savage realm.

So, it appears Rebels Maul isn't exactly shit, he just suffers from characteristic arrogance. It's entirely possible he declined physically or in the Force, but there's nothing to suggest as much. It's also not apparent he got much better, aside from learning some Dathomiri spells and possibly finding new Sith lore.

I'd say Rebels Maul > TPM is a safer bet than the reverse.

Darth Thor
Originally posted by FreshestSlice
A lack of feats? Lel. Low showings is also hilarious. The only time he's even remotely outclassed is against Obi-Wan and Bullshit-Kanan, which is not exactly a low showing.


Those aren't low showings?

He displayed good feats? where?

Originally posted by FreshestSlice
No one ever hints at Maul being weak either. That's something people have just assumed because they're trying to make sense of Rebels shit writing that tries too hard to "poetic."


He comes across as old and weak when we first see him on his walking stick.

Witwer and the episode gallery say he starts to grow stronger after siphoning off Ezra's youth.

Witwer also says the dark side ages people more.

Maul and Witwer also talk about Maul's prime in his past.

Darth Thor
Originally posted by |King Joker|
Rebels isn't really a medium where Maul can actually get a lot of feats, though. He was a side character in Rebels and was basically used as a plot device, and unlike where he got a large chunk of his feats beforehand, there aren't many fully-trained Jedi roaming about for Maul to fight against. So using his lack of feats as an argument doesn't really make sense. As for his low showings, they're all pretty much incredibly circumstantial.

I'll need quotes with context so I know what you're referring to.



Fair enough for the most part.


But in this particular case, where we're arguing TPM Maul, I'm also pointing out him not having lost so much potential/raw power yet, and not being mentally broken/stuck in the past.

Even as of TCW S4 and Early S5 Filoni talks about Maul still being in recovery.


So yes, even though a lack of feats is understandable, that also doesn't mean we should just assume he's as good as peak points in his past when he actually did have really good feats.

Darth Thor
Originally posted by ILS
Which, needless to say, is a level of personal knowledge one can only have after fighting Maul 2 or 3 times and observing his fights against other characters - something every other character in SW lacks for the most part.



Yeah I've been saying for a while that Kenobi simply has Maul's number, and that's just the wrong fight for Maul. Kind of like Dooku always seemed to have Kenobi's number in their fights.

Still I guess I just have a pretty high opinion of TPM Maul. I know Rebels Maul sort of stalemated Ahsoka for a while, but then there are implications it was dark side amped. And I really don't see TPM Maul losing to Kanan, even in a Oneness state, and especially not on a dark side temple.

So I'd personally put my "safe bet" on TPM Maul over Rebels Maul.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by ILS
and is implied by sw.com to be her superior.
laughing
This again?

Unfortunately, that's at best an inference you can draw since sw.com never specifies why Maul's better suited to protect Ezra. And even if we were to take your inference to be true, we sill have the matter of the nexus and Ahsoka being authoritatively above Maul on even ground.

ILS
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Yeah I've been saying for a while that Kenobi simply has Maul's number, and that's just the wrong fight for Maul. Kind of like Dooku always seemed to have Kenobi's number in their fights.

Still I guess I just have a pretty high opinion of TPM Maul. I know Rebels Maul sort of stalemated Ahsoka for a while, but then there are implications it was dark side amped. And I really don't see TPM Maul losing to Kanan, even in a Oneness state, and especially not on a dark side temple.

So I'd personally put my "safe bet" on TPM Maul over Rebels Maul. There's no implication that there's a big gap between the three iterations of Maul. In canon, at least. So it doesn't matter too much.

|King Joker|
Originally posted by DarthDuelist9
It's more about the fact that he's a broken man by the time of Rebels, he has lost all his purpose (which was what initially strengthened him during the Clone Wars) and power (his underworld syndicate). When we see him on Malachor he has been trapped there for years, without any training and has visibly degraded in the physical department. He seems to have advanced in terms of TP (Illusions, mind probing) but that could just be part of his original Sith training at the hands of Sidious. Ezra gave Maul a new purpose, though. That was the point of Maul's machinations during the show. I also need to see proof that Maul's supposedly deteriorated mental state as a result of his political failings genuinely worsened his combative skills. And I don't know what you mean when you say he "visibly degraded in the physical department." He still looks very physically fit.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Fair enough for the most part.


But in this particular case, where we're arguing TPM Maul, I'm also pointing out him not having lost so much potential/raw power yet, and not being mentally broken/stuck in the past.

Even as of TCW S4 and Early S5 Filoni talks about Maul still being in recovery.


So yes, even though a lack of feats is understandable, that also doesn't mean we should just assume he's as good as peak points in his past when he actually did have really good feats. I think a lot of your argument could be applied to TPM Maul vs. SoD Maul as well. SoD Maul was stuck in the past with his vendetta against Kenobi. SoD Maul lost his potential. So why not argue that TPM Maul is superior to that incarnation as well? The only legitimate distinctions between SoD Maul and Rebels Maul are age and political standing, the former of which isn't as relevant as people think it is, and the latter's importance in determining Rebels Maul's combative effectiveness is suspect, to say the least.

twotter
Originally posted by ILS
If TPM Maul wins, that means Rebels Maul atrophied so badly that he lost all of his power gains between S4-5 of TCW/SoD, and then declined further as to become weaker than his 22 year old self. And in addition, it means his improved experience and wisdom matters so little that it wouldn't swing the fight in his favour

3 reasons :

He isn't as well trained as he was

His actual physical state appears to have atrophied

And the most important one, he clearly lacks the hatred that he once had - which is the fundamental tenant of Sith power, according to Nick Gillard, the difference between entire tiers of skill. TPM Maul doesn't reconcile with his enemy when he knows all is lost. He tries to bite of their hand and spit in their face. He also doesn't die from getting cut in half.

ChocolateMuesli
i can buy the hatred point ziggy brings up actually, not bad at all

ILS
Originally posted by twotter
3 reasons :

He isn't as well trained as he was

His actual physical state appears to have atrophied

And the most important one, he clearly lacks the hatred that he once had - which is the fundamental tenant of Sith power, according to Nick Gillard, the difference between entire tiers of skill. TPM Maul doesn't reconcile with his enemy when he knows all is lost. He tries to bite of their hand and spit in their face. He also doesn't die from getting cut in half. What do you mean? Rebels Maul has all the training of TPM and then any experience/training received afterwards.

How so?

I don't think his last, dying breath accurately reflects his motivations leading up to that point. He deliberately blinded Kanan, threw him into the vacuum of space, manipulated Ezra into helping him unlock a Sith battlestation which he would have caused who knows how much damage with, trekked across an entire desert to kill Obi-Wan and steal Luke, etc. From all appearances he's still as ambitious as before.

Rockydonovang
Evidence for Maul increasing:
-> Feloni indicating he grew
-> Maul having more than a decade to grow in power
-> Being in the range of a force user who's feats several years beforehand was performing a better version of Maul's best feats

Evidence for Maul declining:

Darth Thor
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Evidence for Maul increasing:
-> Feloni indicating he grew
-> Maul having more than a decade to grow in power
-> Being in the range of a force user who's feats several years beforehand was performing a better version of Maul's best feats




None of that is "Evidence".

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Darth Thor
None of that is "Evidence".
Enlighten me on what you consider evidence thor.

|King Joker|
http://image.techtimes.com/data/images/full/222703/maulrebelsheader.jpg
https://dorksideoftheforce.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/319/files/2017/02/star-wars-rebels-darth-maul.jpg

Can someone point out to me where the signs of atrophy are?

ChocolateMuesli
its pretty typical for force adepts to lose skill and power if they've been out of action for a long time. afaik thats the case for maul, so why wouldnt he be worse

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by ChocolateMuesli
its pretty typical for force adepts to lose skill and power if they've been out of action for a long time. afaik thats the case for maul, so why wouldnt he be worse
Except that Maul wasn't out of action for the vast majority of the time span between TCW and his fight vs Kenobi erm

ChocolateMuesli
i said afaik kbro, clever as i am i took precaution that i might not be right

ChocolateMuesli
Originally posted by |King Joker|


Can someone point out to me where the signs of atrophy are?
to ziggys point:

https://i.imgur.com/goUfgqJ.png
https://i.imgur.com/d3dVnbF.png

big difference tbh, rebels maul is scared and without confidence whereas tcw maul channels his anger far more

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by ChocolateMuesli
i said afaik kbro, clever as i am i took precaution that i might not be right
Well now you know more.

Maul was stranded on Malachor for three years. Before that he spent a decade or so where he collected artifacts, caused problems for the empire, and then searched for a holocron. After escaping Malahcor he spent about a year actively searching for Ezra, trying to mold him into his apprentice and then started hunting Kenobi.

Edit: I should add that Maul spent almost a year post sod fighting off a rebellion Ahsoka started

|King Joker|
Originally posted by ChocolateMuesli
to ziggys point:

https://i.imgur.com/goUfgqJ.png
https://i.imgur.com/d3dVnbF.png

big difference tbh, rebels maul is scared and without confidence whereas tcw maul channels his anger far more deleted b/c i think you're trolling

Rockydonovang
tbh, Maul's facial expression in the first picture is mad stupid, so obviously sod maul is a stupid b!tch compared to his rebels counterpart.

ChocolateMuesli
posted like 2 posts and i won already lol i'll let ziggy take it from here gonna go work night shift soon ttyl

Rockydonovang
C ya choco.

In all seriousness though:

Maul's hatred has increased, not decreased. The case for Maul declining remains non-existent

Darth Thor

twotter
Originally posted by ILS
What do you mean? Rebels Maul has all the training of TPM

Right.

When you train your biceps with the same weight repeatedly over time, not only do the muscle fibres get bigger, but you also activate individual pathways that connect your brain to the muscle. Over time, the action of lifting that weight becomes easier and more ingrained in both mind an body. However, the opposite is also true. If you train less frequently or to a lower standard (i.e. a use lighter weight) those nerve pathways get weaker, and your muscles will atrophy. The same is true of martial arts. Just because someone remembers how to perform a series of kicks, despite being out of practice, does not mean they can execute those kicks with the same level of efficiency or lack of defensive exposure as they once did when training intensively everyday. For Maul, the best case scenario is that he kept up with some regular training regimen over time. But will his personal training be as rigorous or as ]extensive as it was under Palpatine? Doubtful. And metaphorically speaking, he doesn't have access to such a good gymnasium, nor a qualified personal trainer. Him having experienced those goodies decades ago isn't of consequence now, or at best, they remain with him but to a much lesser extent.



Regarding his appearing weaker. Well for starters, he's using a cane, which implies he's drawing on the force to walk normally without it. He's thinner than he was, and as he's now middle aged, meaning his joints won't be quite as fresh as they once were. Now he can circumvent this with the dark side, but given that he's not as psychologically driven or as hateful as he once was (the kind of hatred that allows him to remain alive while cut in half), he's actually relying more on his (weakened) physicality than before. That would certainly explain his personal losses in the series. Rather than "overconfidence" on his part.




So in other words, he's still willing to do mean things and kill people to make his ends meet? Cool. Does that necessarily mean he retains the same level of anger and hatred that he once did from previous incarnations? Nope. All you've done here is prove that Maul is still a villain. Just not one that's particularly scary or successful anymore.



Oh yes that's right, instead of literally willing himself to live from wounds that would kill a normal person with his anger - like he has done in the past, he'd prefer to take solace with the idea of a prophecy doing thigh bidding. One that might eventually bring about his personal desire of revenge. Of course, not only is he prevented from carrying out those acts himself, he also won't even be around to see it happen. Do you really think he'd prefer that over 1) killing Kenobi 2) personally taking revenge on the empire 3) perhaps rulling the empire himself? I doubt it. He collapses from a wound that would have probably fuelled his resolve in the past. And he dies because he's not as powerful as he once was.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
C ya choco.

In all seriousness though:

Maul's hatred has increased, not decreased. The case for Maul declining remains one based on imagination.

twotter
@Kbro,

I've already explained that author intentions aren't as important as the finished product of their work. You agreed on this. If Filoni thinks that maul is angrier and more hateful than he once was, he should have done a better job of portraying it in the series. Not making Maul look like a bloated cuddly toy would have been the first step in this.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by twotter
@Kbro,

I've already explained that author intentions aren't as important as the finished product of their work.

There's a difference between what a finished product says, and what you think a finished product says.
Originally posted by twotter
You agreed on this. If Filoni thinks that maul is angrier and more hateful than he once was, he should have done a better job of portraying it in the series.

Seems pretty hateful to me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCSj_3r30PI
Originally posted by twotter
Not making Maul look like a

bloated cuddly toy would have been the first step in this.
Cuddly toy yeah:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Lo3dpmRgsk

Are we watching the same sh!t?

Rockydonovang
Anyway, contrary to what Ziggy is arguing here, Maul isn't potrayed as someone who doesn't have the same hatred he had back then. Rather, he's potrayed as someone who has nothing left but his hatred and anger. Hence why he searches the galaxy for this one dude who cut him in half decades ago.

The whole point of Maul's arc in Rebels is that he's personally empty because all he has inside of him is hatred and vengeance. Which is why Feloni notes that personally, Maul's hatred and anger have grown. So yes he's, emotionally regressed as a character. As a darksider though, this doesn't equate to a combative regression. In fact Maul being more hateful and having more anger would logically strengthen him.

And Maul's last act, hoping for vengeance against those who have wronged him is hardly one of a pacifist, but rather of one who only knows hatred.

Maul as of Rebels is in the perfect emotional state for a darksider. His inferiority to Kenobi doesn't mean is commitment to darkness has weakened, rather, it's symbolic of the message Rebels was looking to convey: That in the end the lightsid is a better and more complete path to personal happiness. Hapiness of course being symbolized in Kenobi's victory and Maul's defeat.

twotter
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
There's a difference between what a finished product says, and what you think a finished product says.

Oh yeah, I'm sure that's why the majority of people who watched series thought that Maul got weaker. Cleary Filioni did a goooood job of portraying Maul's "growth" in the source material :

https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11131/111314436/5862687-8512589340-tumbl.gif

https://i.giphy.com/media/YMCkFp7BZHfUs/source.gif

Nah. Filoni is still a hack and you're still an idiot.



Oh yes, don't worry... TPM Maul just survived being cut in half and sustained himself from the anger and hatred he had for Kenobi for years on end. Clearly that's the same a screaming while lost in the desert, possibly be riddled by intense heat exposure and dehydration. Yeah, sure.. maul is still hateful, is it the kind of fresh hatred that allows him to survive being cut in half - clearly not.



yeah, Maul looks like pussy compared to previous incarnations. Acts like one too.

Rockydonovang
Ziggy, in what universe is having a character's sole purpose be to hunt and kill down someone they hate not a portrayal of intense hatred?

Where the hell are you getting, "Maul has lost his hate!" from.

Explain to me how Feloni fails to potray Maul as a being of intense hatred when all Maul is shown as having is his anger and hatred?

twotter
You're such a ****ing idiot Kbro. Re-read my post and pose a question without strawmannirg.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by twotter
You're such a ****ing idiot Kbro. Re-read my post and pose a question without strawmannirg.
I'm not going to be addressing your qualms with how Kenobi vs Maul was portrayed because that's unrelated to what I was responding to, your assertion that Maul is portrayed as someone who doesn't hate as much as he did in TCW:

I hope you have better reasoning for this than:

Maul was brought back to life in TCW for the sake of adding a popular character back to the show.

He was killed in Rebels because the crew felt it was time to end his story.

Maul didn't come back to life in Rebels because there's no way Disney would get away with milking Maul even more. It had squat to do with Maul not being hateful.

If that was the intent then they wouldn't have Maul hope for vengance with his last breath.

twotter
I already told you Kbro, author intentions do not matter. The out of universe reasons for in universe feats do not matter. The only thing that matters is the source material itself. The reasoning behind Maul's revival - being that he's a popular character, does not negate the feat in question. The in universe explanation for the feat is the only premise that's relevant in a VS thread - a powerful expression of dark side power stemming from hatred allowing him to survive and sustain himself from being cut in half. And yes, if he can't do the same thing in rebels, it means he's less powerful. you'll just have to deal with it.

So again, it doesn't matter what the production company thinks while making the content, nor does their reasons for doing things. Do all of Vaders feats in rebels become irrelevant seen as his appearances are there to rake in cash? And like i said, if the production company wanted to make Maul look stronger than ever, then they should have at least given him more than 4 seconds against Kenobi and 5 seconds against Kanan.

twotter
Anyway Kbro, this is my last response to you. If I'm going to reply to anyone in this thread, it will be ILS. He's at least worthy of my time.

Anyway, mandatory reading for the next time you decide that filoni's personal opinion is more conclusive than the source material itself : https://writing.upenn.edu/~taransky/Barthes.pdf

Rockydonovang
I'll leave you to swords then.

Darth Thor

Darth Thor
Originally posted by ILS
There's no implication that there's a big gap between the three iterations of Maul. In canon, at least. So it doesn't matter too much.


That's true, but like I said above Rebels Maul just seems the most desperate and frustrated of all his incarnations. He's also the incarnation least likely to be at his physical peak.



Originally posted by |King Joker|


I think a lot of your argument could be applied to TPM Maul vs. SoD Maul as well. SoD Maul was stuck in the past with his vendetta against Kenobi. SoD Maul lost his potential. So why not argue that TPM Maul is superior to that incarnation as well? The only legitimate distinctions between SoD Maul and Rebels Maul are age and political standing, the former of which isn't as relevant as people think it is, and the latter's importance in determining Rebels Maul's combative effectiveness is suspect, to say the least.


Addressed above.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Darth Thor
That's true, but like I said above Rebels Maul just seems the most desperate and frustrated.

Neither of which should make a darksider combatively weaker.

godemperortrump
This Rocky/Thor fiasco will never end...

Darth Thor
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Neither of which should make a darksider combatively weaker.


Being desperate and frustrated makes any combatant more clumsy lol. Heck we've seen him act clumsily due to those very reasons and lose as a result of that.


Originally posted by godemperortrump
This Rocky/Thor fiasco will never end...


Doesn't seem like it lol

ChocolateMuesli
at least he isnt as bad as KT was, right thor? that guy was a thorn in ur ass

Darth Thor
Hmm not heard from KT since Rebels Kenobi blitzed Maul. He must still be having the longest orgasm in human history.

ChocolateMuesli
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Hmm not heard from KT since Rebels Kenobi blitzed Maul. He must still be having the longest orgasm in human history.
we need arhael back to restore balance to the force

Zenwolf
Ya know, not that I have a stake in this fight or anything. But why is it all of a sudden we are ignoring physical decline for Maul, yet this is brought up against for guys like Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan and Dooku? Unless I'm not reading right, but from the posts, sounds like "oh force augmentation, force augmentation!" just to try and ignore any physical decline....

ILS
Will respond relatively soon Zig. I'm being lazy.
Originally posted by Zenwolf
Ya know, not that I have a stake in this fight or anything. But why is it all of a sudden we are ignoring physical decline for Maul, yet this is brought up against for guys like Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan and Dooku? Unless I'm not reading right, but from the posts, sounds like "oh force augmentation, force augmentation!" just to try and ignore any physical decline.... It needs to be assessed on a case-by-case bass. The three you mentioned, at least in Legends, all have quotes clearly stating they declined physically. Whereas you have characters in their 50s or 60s like Mace Windu, Darth Sidious, 900 year old Yoda, 60 year old Darth Malgus, 40-50 year old Bane, 150+ Darth Krayt, 150+ Plagueis, who, by all appearances, haven't declined physically in a meaningful way.

Zenwolf
Originally posted by ILS
Will respond relatively soon Zig. I'm being lazy.
It needs to be assessed on a case-by-case bass. The three you mentioned, at least in Legends, all have quotes clearly stating they declined physically. Whereas you have characters in their 50s or 60s like Mace Windu, Darth Sidious, 900 year old Yoda, 60 year old Darth Malgus, 40-50 year old Bane, 150+ Darth Krayt, 150+ Plagueis, who, by all appearances, haven't declined physically in a meaningful way.

Hm? I mean without Force augmentation, like straight physicals, we do know that Yoda isn't as physically able since the cane thing without the Force aiding him. Also doesn't Krayt have that whole resurrection shenanigans thing going for him? Also wasn't in the last book, it was noted Bane got weaker...or was that something else?

Fair enough on Malgus I guess, didn't know he was at 60 years.

ILS
They all got weaker physically, but, their Force power compensated for it, and their overall power increased.

We just don't know if Maul's Force power compensated or not.

Zenwolf
Originally posted by ILS
They all got weaker physically, but, their Force power compensated for it, and their overall power increased.

We just don't know if Maul's Force power compensated or not.

Fair enough.

Darth Thor
Originally posted by ChocolateMuesli
we need arhael back to restore balance to the force


Wow. You are taking me back a few years.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by ILS
They all got weaker physically, but, their Force power compensated for it, and their overall power increased.


thumb up

The more powerful the force user, the more powerful the augmentation.

Or as Yoda would put it:
https://youtu.be/XMdR9iAflKo?t=11s

ChocolateMuesli
not always, jinn was slower than tpm obi wan and malgus was slower than leneer

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by ChocolateMuesli
not always, jinn was slower than tpm obi wan and malgus was slower than leneer
Well that would be because the physical degradement exceeded the improved augmentation.

Ursumeles
Originally posted by ChocolateMuesli
not always, jinn was slower than tpm obi wan and malgus was slower than leneer Well, that's legends tho.Though I dunno how canon augmentation works.

ILS
When people's augmentation is close enough, that's when physical advantages begin playing a part: Aryn's lithe frame allowing her to outmaneuver Malgus, who is much physically stronger than her. Whereas Yoda is so ridiculously powerful it doesn't matter how frail he is, the Force makes up for it.

ChocolateMuesli
Originally posted by Ursumeles
Well, that's legends tho.Though I dunno how canon augmentation works.
rest assured that its probably even dumber than legends

i suggest we stop speculating and start providing some real evidence. could anyone post the filoni & witver sources in full about rebels maul? because tcw maul appears far more badass than rebels maul from feats

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by ChocolateMuesli
rest assured that its probably even dumber than legends

i suggest we stop speculating and start providing some real evidence. could anyone post the filoni & witver sources in full about rebels maul? because tcw maul appears far more badass than rebels maul from feats
Feloni:

Witwer:


I italicized some parts to highlight a key difference between the quotes...

Their contexts

Darth Thor

Rebel95
Lol Witwer literally says he's past his prime

Rebel95
And when he says that would mean the characters have no growth, I always interpreted that to mean that they don't have growth in their relationship as characters. They've fought so many times that it wouldn't make sense to have another prolonged duel between them

Darth Thor
Originally posted by Rebel95
Lol Witwer literally says he's past his prime


laughing out loud yeah

ChocolateMuesli
Rebels and thor are right on this one boys. although filoni's a retard for saying that because maul clearly showed no growth when he used the same move he used in TPM. anyway case closed

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Rebel95
Lol Witwer literally says he's past his prime 'You realize that prime can refer to a variety of different things?

As combative ability is mentioned nowhere in the context of the quote, prime isn't referring to Maul combatively.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Rebel95
And when he says that would mean the characters have no growth, I always interpreted that to mean that they don't have growth in their relationship as characters. They've fought so many times that it wouldn't make sense to have another prolonged duel between them Being a "very good swordsmen" isn't specific to a specific opponent. You're adding a specification that isn't implied anywhere in the context of the quote.

|King Joker|
If 'prime' is referring to combative skill, that still wouldn't put TPM Maul over Rebels Maul -- only SoD.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by |King Joker|
If 'prime' is referring to combative skill, that still wouldn't put TPM Maul over Rebels Maul -- only SoD.
It's not:

Rebel95
You're welcome to believe whatever you want.

Originally posted by |King Joker|
If 'prime' is referring to combative skill, that still wouldn't put TPM Maul over Rebels Maul -- only SoD.
Yeah you're right. And honestly I don't think there's a significant difference between any version of Maul.

Rebel95
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Being a "very good swordsmen" isn't specific to a specific opponent. You're adding a specification that isn't implied anywhere in the context of the quote.
And I'm not sure what you're saying here

Darth Thor

Darth Thor

Darth Thor

Rockydonovang
Thor, the "very good swordsman" was the reason given for the short fight and almost immediately after Feloni says another prolonged bout would not show growth. You can't cherrypick and isolate the growth part while ignoring the context of the statement. And it's even worse when you then try to make up context which is alluded to anywhere in Feloni's statement. That this growth would disappear if Kenobi or Maul were facing someone else is something which is implied or stated nowhere. You can't add context which isn't present in the text.

On the topic of context, here's the definition of prime Thor:


You might notice something about all these definitions, save for the last, prime is a vague word. What prime refers to depends on the context it's used in. In order for Maul being past his prime to mean he's past his prime combatively, Maul's combative abilities need to be mentioned somewhere within the context of the quote.

Now I think I understand the source of confusion here. On forums, battle forums, prime is almost always referring to combat because, it's a battle forum. This doesn't hold true outside of the forums though. Witwer mentions Maul's sadness as a character, ambition, and glory days. He does not mention Maul's combative abilities. Hence to try and say that Witwer called Maul combatively post his prime is baseless as combative ability was never mentioned in the context of what Feloni said.

And just so we're clear, as you've stated there's no significant gap between the versions of Maul, I'm going to call you out if you try to argue something which depends on how big the gap between Rebels and SOD Maul is.

If you respond, then this time, respond to the full post, that way you want miss anything I'm saying.

Darth Thor
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Thor, the "very good swordsman" was the reason given for the short fight

No, it's not. It's only given as a Justification for why the fight CAN be short.

Otherwise if you think them being "very good swordsmen" is THE ONLY reason for the fight being short then you'll have to argue that Maul and Kenobi were NOT good swordsmen during the Prequels. And that Anakin/Vader, Ahsoka, Palpatine and Yoda are not good swordsmen.

You can't have it both ways.

AGAIN stop ignoring the point that your interpretation of Filoni's statement not only contradicts Gilroy's interpretation but also contradicts SW Canon.

So then it's a matter of which has the greater authority to you, the films, or Filoni?


Originally posted by Rockydonovang
and almost immediately after Feloni says another prolonged bout would not show growth.

Yes, because they've fought each other so many times, as Gilroy clearly explained in the same feature. My interpretation of Filoni's comments is compatible with Gilroy's comments and with the rest of SW Canon. Yours is not.


Originally posted by Rockydonovang
You can't cherrypick and isolate the growth part while ignoring the context of the statement. And it's even worse when you then try to make up context which is alluded to anywhere in Feloni's statement.


No, you're the one whose cherry picking his statement, but singling it out from the rest of canon, and all the other comments on the subject.

Not to mention making up your own meaning of what he meant by "growth" and trying to pass off your own interpretation as canon.


Originally posted by Rockydonovang
That this growth would disappear if Kenobi or Maul were facing someone else is something which is implied or stated nowhere. You can't add context which isn't present in the text.

Actually it's something that's clearly shown in Canon. Hence Maul vs Ahsoka not being a 2 second fight, and Ben vs Vader not being a 2 second fight either.

Again your interpretation of "growth" fails, whilst mine stands up.



Originally posted by Rockydonovang
On the topic of context, here's the definition of prime Thor:


Choosing the correct context would help.

LOL @ "Prime concern"


Originally posted by Rockydonovang
You might notice something about all these definitions, save for the last, prime is a vague word.

Irony 101 coming from someone taking a vague comment, interpreting it in his own way and then and making up his own canon.



Originally posted by Rockydonovang
What prime refers to depends on the context it's used in. In order for Maul being past his prime to mean he's past his prime combatively, Maul's combative abilities need to be mentioned somewhere within the context of the quote.


No they don't. Because he's talking about the Prime of a Force user, so it's self explanatory.

If someone mentioned the Prime and Glory years of Mike Tyson, would they have to be specific that they're talking about he was at the best in his Boxing career?

Common sense is still a thing you know.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Now I think I understand the source of confusion here. On forums, battle forums, prime is almost always referring to combat because, it's a battle forum. This doesn't hold true outside of the forums though.


Addressed above.




Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Witwer mentions Maul's sadness as a character, ambition, and glory days. He does not mention Maul's combative abilities. Hence to try and say that Witwer called Maul combatively post his prime is baseless as combative ability was never mentioned in the context of what Feloni said.


Mentioned above. Think. Think Hard about the Mike Tyson example.

Mike Tyson has also experienced "sadness" being past his prime and his hey day. That's natural, especially for a Sith who needs to achieve things in life. A Jedi on the other hand can let go of his hey day past.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
And just so we're clear, as you've stated there's no significant gap between the versions of Maul, I'm going to call you out if you try to argue something which depends on how big the gap between Rebels and SOD Maul is.


I have no idea what you're planning to call me out on. Old Maul did fight off Ahsoka so how much could he have degraded? Not by much when fighting at his best.

However I've also clearly mentioned his desperation and frustration and being mentally broken and stuck in the past makes him more careless than ever, hence his low performances like loss to Kanan, which I highly doubt would happen to Prime Maul.


Originally posted by Rockydonovang
If you respond, then this time, respond to the full post, that way you want miss anything I'm saying.


Excuse me, but I've thoroughly refuted your "Maul grew" idea plenty of times. And there's been a few occasions when you haven't replied to me.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Darth Thor
No, it's not. It's only given as a Justification for why the fight CAN be short.

See, if this specification was present in the text, it would still not explain why the fight here is different between the fight between other "very good fighters". I'll explain now though why this gripe of yours isn't a valid one.

Originally posted by Darth Thor

if you think them being "very good swordsmen" is THE ONLY reason for the fight being short then you'll have to argue that Maul and Kenobi were NOT good swordsmen during the Prequels.

They weren't very good compared to where they are as of Rebels. What is "very good" to one fighter will be different from what is "very good" to another fighter. You might remember that the line "you have become powerful" is said a lot throughout the lore. Applying your logic, if someone is stated to become powerful, then they weren't powerful before. Is that really a position you're willing to argue?
Originally posted by Darth Thor
And that Anakin/Vader, Ahsoka, Palpatine and Yoda are not good swordsmen.

A writer has the creative license to potray sh!t how they want to. Feloni has free reign to choose how to potray an idea. The only limits the lore places on Feloni is what he potrays. If Feloni chooses to show growth with a short fight, that's his business. The only potential contradiction here would be on what he's using the short fight to potray, the idea that Kenobi and Maul have grown. Unfortunately Thor, no other writer has ever said anything regarding Rebels Maul and Rebels Kenobi declining so there's no contradiction here.
You can't have it both ways.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
AGAIN
Using all caps doesn't make you seem smart, it makes you seem like a toddler.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
stop ignoring the point that your interpretation of Filoni's statement not only contradicts Gilroy's interpretation but also contradicts SW Canon.

Except that my interpretation of Feloni's statement and what Gilroy said are not contradictory. The notion of Kenobi and Maul improving combatively and their fight being symbolic of character development are not mutually exclusive. And as noted earlier, as long as what a writer potrays doesn't contradict the lore, they can choose to potray that "what" however they want. There is no contradiction.
So then it's a matter of which has the greater authority to you, the films, or Filoni?



Originally posted by Darth Thor
Yes, because they've fought each other so many times, as Gilroy clearly explained in the same feature.
Why are you trying to mix two separate statements with two separate contexts from two separate people? You realize my interpretation can be correct without Gilroy's statement being wrong? Are you aware of what a contradiction is? sad



Originally posted by Darth Thor
No, you're the one whose cherry picking his statement,
Not to mention making up your own meaning of what he meant by "growth" and trying to pass off your own interpretation as canon.

"Nu-uh, you are!" is a real impressive rebuttal bro :up

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Choosing the correct context would help.

Yes, the context conveyed in the text, not the context you've created for the text.










Originally posted by Darth Thor
Irony 101 coming from someone taking a vague comment, interpreting it in his own way and then and making up his own canon.

Nice deflection, do you have a rebuttal?
Originally posted by Darth Thor
No they don't. Because he's talking about the Prime of a Force user, so it's self explanatory.

laughing You are aware that characters aren't created with the consideration of what a battle forum would make of it? Fictional characters, force users included will generally have their character be the focus of conversation, not their combative ability.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
If someone mentioned the Prime and Glory years of Mike Tyson, would they have to be specific that they're talking about he was at the best in his Boxing career?

I can guarantee you the context of such a conversation would mention or allude to boxing. Though this comparison fails as Tyson is primarily known as a fighter. On the other hand, force users are primarily known as characters with emotions and character development. A writer is usually going to be talking about a major sw character in terms of overall plot and their character arc, not their combative ability.

You're also acting as if Witwer's comment is vague with it's context, it's not. Witwer specifically gives us the context of "prime". The problem is the specific context Witwer gives says nothing about combat. Almost as if Witwer wasn't talking about combat...

















I have no idea what you're planning to call me out on. Old Maul did fight off Ahsoka so how much could he have degraded? Not by much when fighting at his best.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
However I've also clearly mentioned his desperation and frustration
Which doesn't make darksiders weaker.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
and being mentally broken and stuck in the past

So was TCW Maul:

If you haven't figured out by now, having mad OCD doesn't weaken your connection to the darkside.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
makes him more careless than ever, hence his low performances like loss to Kanan, which I highly doubt would happen to Prime Maul.

TCW Maul was never careless...ever:
https://youtu.be/YewksVD176E?t=1m40s

Don't worry thor, if careless is your criteria, I have loads more to share.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Excuse me, but I've thoroughly refuted your "Maul grew" idea plenty of times.

Keep beating your chest bro thumb up
Originally posted by Darth Thor
And there's been a few occasions when you haven't replied to me.
True, because the posts usually become extremely large and I'm a busy boy who doesn't want to spend hours on fictional debating.

Hence, when I know I'm not going to respond to everything you say, I don't give a half-complete reply.

Darth Thor
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
See, if this specification was present in the text, it would still not explain why the fight here is different between the fight between other "very good fighters". I'll explain now though why this gripe of yours isn't a valid one.


They weren't very good compared to where they are as of Rebels. What is "very good" to one fighter will be different from what is "very good" to another fighter. You might remember that the line "you have become powerful" is said a lot throughout the lore. Applying your logic, if someone is stated to become powerful, then they weren't powerful before. Is that really a position you're willing to argue?


So they weren't "very good" as of TCW? laughing out loud

Filoni already stated TCW Kenobi was a "very skilled" swordsmen.

In any case however "good" Maul and Kenobi are now, Palpatine and Yoda were better. To this you still have no rebuttal.


Originally posted by Rockydonovang
A writer has the creative license to potray sh!t how they want to. Feloni has free reign to choose how to potray an idea. The only limits the lore places on Feloni is what he potrays. If Feloni chooses to show growth with a short fight, that's his business. The only potential contradiction here would be on what he's using the short fight to potray, the idea that Kenobi and Maul have grown. Unfortunately Thor, no other writer has ever said anything regarding Rebels Maul and Rebels Kenobi declining so there's no contradiction here.
You can't have it both ways.


Nope, Filoni has to fall in line with the rest of Canon.

His own personal "authorial intent" doesn't take precedence over the rest of canon. And your own interpretation of his "authorial intent" really does mean squat.


Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Using all caps doesn't make you seem smart, it makes you seem like a toddler.


Maybe try actually listening for once then.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Except that my interpretation of Feloni's statement and what Gilroy said are not contradictory. The notion of Kenobi and Maul improving combatively and their fight being symbolic of character development are not mutually exclusive. And as noted earlier, as long as what a writer potrays doesn't contradict the lore, they can choose to potray that "what" however they want. There is no contradiction.
So then it's a matter of which has the greater authority to you, the films, or Filoni?

Yes they are contradictory. Gilroy specifically goes on about the fight being longer in their heads, because they've fought each other so many times, ergo the short fight when they actually engage each other. This is in the same damn feature where Filoni vaguely mentions "growth". Putting them together, it's clear growth refers to how they fight EACH OTHER.

Yes but what you're claiming the writer portrays IS Contradicting the lore. How can you not see that? AGAIN however good Maul and Kenobi are now, they're still under Yoda and Palpatine. Yoda and Palpatine did not have a 2 second fight. So IF that's what Filoni was trying to portray with a 2 second fight, then his portrayal was a fail, and we have to go back to the lore to figure what that means.

Neither you or Filoni get to change the laws of canon.




Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Why are you trying to mix two separate statements with two separate contexts from two separate people? You realize my interpretation can be correct without Gilroy's statement being wrong? Are you aware of what a contradiction is? sad


LOL Because they're from the same damn feature. The same feature you go on about must be taken as a canon source.

Filoni is not the new Lucas. It's not down to one guy now, and what he says is the law. There's an entire story group in charge on canon and power levels.

If 2 of the creators can't get on the same page, on the same thing they helped create, and on the same damn feature, then yeah that's an issue.




Originally posted by Rockydonovang
"Nu-uh, you are!" is a real impressive rebuttal bro :up


Dude my rebuttal is right under there.


Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Yes, the context conveyed in the text, not the context you've created for the text.


LOL The irony.

For the record, I've said from day 1 "Vague and Unclarified" comments can not be taken as canon. But if you want to take them in, then at least interpret them as best we can within the context of established canon.



Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Nice deflection, do you have a rebuttal?



Urmm.. yeah, I've thoroughly rebutted your whole argument. You can stop making up your own canon anytime now.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
laughing You are aware that characters aren't created with the consideration of what a battle forum would make of it? Fictional characters, force users included will generally have their character be the focus of conversation, not their combative ability.

I can guarantee you the context of such a conversation would mention or allude to boxing. Though this comparison fails as Tyson is primarily known as a fighter. On the other hand, force users are primarily known as characters with emotions and character development. A writer is usually going to be talking about a major sw character in terms of overall plot and their character arc, not their combative ability.


What the heck?

Tyson is known as a boxer. Sith Lords are known as Dark Side Force users. It's a very relevant example, but as usual you just want to put your fingers in your ears and ignore everything that's being rebutted. Because for some reason, this idea of Rebels Maul being Prime Maul is super important to you.




Originally posted by Rockydonovang
You're also acting as if Witwer's comment is vague with it's context, it's not. Witwer specifically gives us the context of "prime". The problem is the specific context Witwer gives says nothing about combat. Almost as if Witwer wasn't talking about combat...


We've already been through this. Were you not paying attention at all to the Mike Tyson example.

If someone talks about Mike Tyson in his Prime and Glory years, what period is that referring to? Think and think hard before responding this time.



Originally posted by Rockydonovang


Which doesn't make darksiders weaker.


LMAO

Being desperate and frustrated makes every combatant weaker. Palpatine wasn't desperate to turn his life around or frustrated with his life. He sat around patiently planning, knowing he was going to win.


Originally posted by Rockydonovang
So was TCW Maul:

If you haven't figured out by now, having mad OCD doesn't weaken your connection to the darkside.


facepalm

Having OCD is the end of any combatant.



Originally posted by Rockydonovang
TCW Maul was never careless...ever:
https://youtu.be/YewksVD176E?t=1m40s

Don't worry thor, if careless is your criteria, I have loads more to share.


Yeah great example. Getting taken out by surprise from an opponent who was apparently disarmed and already beaten is almost exactly the same as straight up losing to a blind massively weaker and less skilled opponent by tripping over a stone statue.

Please do provide more.





Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Keep beating your chest bro thumb up

True, because the posts usually become extremely large and I'm a busy boy who doesn't want to spend hours on fictional debating.

Hence, when I know I'm not going to respond to everything you say, I don't give a half-complete reply.



Ah I see, so when I don't give a lengthy reply to absolutely every point you've made after I've already thoroughly broken down your arguments time and time again, then you're gonna call me out on that.

But when you don't reply at all, then it's cause you're a busy guy.

Yeah don't worry, we all get what you're all about Kbro thumb up

godemperortrump
Thor embarrassing Kbro tbh.

Rockydonovang

ziggtard
Kbro's coherence in a nutshell.

Rebel95
"A writer is usually going to be talking about a major sw character in terms of overall plot and their character arc, not their combative ability."
(Quoting isn't working for me right now, this is in reply to @rockydonovang)

Except when they're talking about Maul's "growth", right? Lol
Not sure why you care so much about proving that Maul's prime is Rebels but you're bias is really starting to show

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Rebel95
"A writer is usually going to be talking about a major sw character in terms of overall plot and their character arc, not their combative ability."
(Quoting isn't working for me right now, this is in reply to @rockydonovang)

Except when they're talking about Maul's "growth", right? Lol




I'm going to make a leap and assert that thequote that repeatedly mentions lightsaber combat is referring to...lightsaber combat.


The ability to comprehend context doesn't really make me biased.

Rebel95
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
I'm going to make a leap and assert that thequote that repeatedly mentions lightsaber combat is referring to...lightsaber combat.


The ability to comprehend context doesn't really make me biased.
So to show that Maul has growth, Filoni had him get three shotted by Obi Wan?

Your hypocrisy and ability to ignore common sense does

carthage
Stalemate both suck

ziggtard
Filoni's comment regarding growth portrayed in short fights is pretty vague. Kbro is legitimately stupid for using it to argue that Maul has grown since TCW. Anyway, it's plainly obvious that Maul is weaker in rebels. I'd say about a tier weaker.

Rockydonovang
Maul's in the range of a force user in Vader who's LOTS version was doing a better version of TCW Maul's best feat.

The evidence for Maul declining is non-existent.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Rebel95
So to show that Maul has growth, Filoni had him get three shotted by Obi Wan?

Basic critical thinking would get you to realize that the three-shotting wasn't a result of a massive gap between the combatants. Hence why Ahsoka can't just stomp maul despite being able to contend with Vader.Originally posted by Rebel95
Your hypocrisy and ability to ignore common sense does
I'm sure it does, now do you have an actual argument?

DarthAnt66
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
better version of TCW Maul's best feat.
Link / quote to Vader dueling head-to-head with Sidious and even landing a kick?

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
Link / quote to Vader dueling head-to-head with Sidious and even landing a kick?
Maul never dueled head to head with Sidious. Sidious wasn't even fighting Maul at full speed.

DarthAnt66
Prove it.

Rockydonovang
Sidious wasn't fighting Maul at full speed, hence why he was able to romp up his attack.

Starwars.com also states Sidious "toyed with Maul, ultimately deciding not ot kill his former apprentince" and per Feloni he's "enjoying himself as he does it".

Maul never went "toe to toe" with Sidious, he got clowned. Maul doesn't get any favorable comparison to Sidious.

Darth Thor

Darth Thor

Rockydonovang
Nope.

quanchi112
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Maul never dueled head to head with Sidious. Sidious wasn't even fighting Maul at full speed. Lies. Sidious apologists. I bet Windu didn't beat his ass either, right ?

Rebel95
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Basic critical thinking would get you to realize that the three-shotting wasn't a result of a massive gap between the combatants. Hence why Ahsoka can't just stomp maul despite being able to contend with Vader.
I'm sure it does, now do you have an actual argument?
Nor is it a result of them growing as swordsmen. Otherwise, wouldn't Filoni have made Ahsoka's and Vader's fight short? Because they both grew as swordsmen too!

Rather, it is a result of their character's growth. How can you not understand that?

DarthAnt66
Kbro: that quote from the website doesn't preclude the idea Sidious was toying with Maul when he literally began throwing him around and shocking him with lightning while laughing. Prove its referring to the lightsaber portion as well. Also your quote from Shadow Collective is non-Canon. You'll need a better source proving the final portion of the fight isn't an all out expression of both their lightsaber capabilities.

DarthAnt66
Not to mention starwars.com is a far inferior Canon source than, say, AEYNTK.

Darth Thor

Darth Thor

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Rebel95
Nor is it a result of them growing as swordsmen. Otherwise, wouldn't Filoni have made Ahsoka's and Vader's fight short?
Because they both grew as swordsmen too!

You realize that Feloni is allowed to and did utilize his creative license to have Kenobi vs Maul be a different sort of fight?
Originally posted by Rebel95
Rather, it is a result of their character's growth. How can you not understand that?
It can be beth, Beck already touched on character growth as an earlier reason. Feloni's response however was in the context of their ability as duelists, so such a conclusion regarding this statement from Feloni can only be arrived by completely ignoring the context of the statement.

Rockydonovang
@thor, do you realize Sidious can both toy with Maul in a duel and enjoy torturing him with lighting?

Stop forcing contradictions that don't exist. Combining quotes doesn't mean changing what an induvidual quote means to form the combined meaning we want.

Rockydonovang
-

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
Kbro: that quote from the website doesn't preclude the idea Sidious was toying with Maul when he literally began throwing him around and shocking him with lightning while laughing. Prove its referring to the lightsaber portion as well. Also your quote from Shadow Collective is non-Canon. You'll need a better source proving the final portion of the fight isn't an all out expression of both their lightsaber capabilities.
Uh, yea, the quote refers to the duel in general, so it's up to you to prove it was specifically referring to the force bout of the duel that made up an incredibly small portion of the fight.

Also, why shouldn't I just apply your logic and take the holistic intent of a non canonical source?

DarthAnt66
Lmfao, what? We visually see where Sidious toys with Maul - when he literally toys him around. The people writing that aren't inventing new Canon, they're watching what we're watching and summarizing it. There's no indication within the actual fight itself that Sidious was toying with Maul - we even see him snarling at certain points. Thus, the claim that Sidious was toying with Maul during the fight doesn't follow logically, so you'd need confirmation on your behalf that it's referring to the entire fight. It seems you can't even do that now, though. The biography seems to have been removed from Darth Maul's page (http://www.starwars.com/databank/darth-maul), so it seems it's Canon relevance is... zero. Oops.

I have no clue what you're referring to with the second point.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
Lmfao, what? We visually see where Sidious toys with Maul - when he literally toys him around. The people writing that aren't inventing new Canon, they're watching what we're watching and summarizing it.

There's no indication within the actual fight itself that Sidious was toying with Maul - we even see him snarling at certain points. Thus, the claim that Sidious was toying with Maul during the fight doesn't follow logically

laughing , of course there isn't any indication in a medium where the thinking of combatants isn't elaborated on. An absence of evidence isn't an evidence of absence.
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
so you'd need confirmation on your behalf that it's referring to the entire fight.

The statement references the duel before Pallp's ultimate decision not to kill Maul and hence is referencing the duel in it's entirety prior to Sidious deciding to spare Maul. It is not just when he was using lightning which was after he'd decided to not kill Maul
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
It seems you can't even do that now, though. The biography seems to have been removed from Darth Maul's page (http://www.starwars.com/databank/darth-maul), so it seems it's Canon relevance is... zero. Oops.

Oh? Then explain why it's still here? confused
http://www.starwars.com/databank/darth-maul-biography-gallery (#33 out of 33)
... Oops
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
I have no clue what you're referring to with the second point.
Your use of the ROTS video game?

DarthAnt66
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
laughing , of course there isn't any indication in a medium where the thinking of combatants isn't elaborated on. An absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

What? There are ways to convey a character is toying with someone without it requiring a novel.

Further, the fact you admit here that the TV show doesn't indicate Sidious is toying with Maul only further hurts your point. The writers of this biography aren't going to be creating new content - they don't have the authority to do that. They are explaining the existing content based on the material we also have. Thus, it's clear that they are referring to the parts where Sidious is actually toying with Maul, not the parts where he isn't.



What? No. It doesn't state it's referring to the duel in it's entirety. It doesn't give a specific point at which Sidious is toying with Maul.

It could be referring to the entire fight, but that's an assumption - and a poor one at that for reasons listed above.



What? As far as I can see, the biography was removed from Maul's actual page. It's only accessible if you have the specific link to the biography, meaning it's removed from all intents and purposes.

Thus, this argument is pointless. It's removed. It's gone.



What? Terrible example, then. The video-game can be considered canonical even within Lucas' universe, hence why I use it.

It's not remotely comparable to a non-canonical novel that has literal no authority whatsoever.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
What? There are ways to convey a character is toying with someone without it requiring a novel.

Further, the fact you admit here that the TV show doesn't indicate Sidious is toying with Maul only further hurts your point.
Uh, yea, they don't indicate he's not toying either. It's open for interpretation and is a grey area which means there's no contradiction with material that clarifies what's going on here. You can't force contradictions based on an absence of evidence or based on your personal interpretation of a scene. Hence why nobody argues Yoda>Sidious, even though that's certainly something you could interpret based on what we actually see in the movie.

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
What? That's the last entry in Maul's biography. It encompasses the entire episode from the time Sidious arrived until the end of the episode.

It's unknown what is specified with the toying - when he fought Maul, toyed Maul around with the Force, .
Again, you're baselessly assuming there was a specific time he was toying with Maul when the quote refers to the fight in it's entirety. I'm also at a loss how you think the duel the quote was mentioned was excluding the actual "lightsaber-dueling" portion of the fight. You're forcing a specification which is alluded to nowhere in the text.

Also, it's fairly logical that if Maul was toying with him when he used the force, he also toyed with him in their actual duel which is exactly what the supplementary material suggests, your personal interpretation of the episode notwithstanding.

no , as the quote is specifically talking about when Sidious had yet to decide he was going to spare Maul which happens before Sid's blasts him with lightning. If you're going try to make up sh!t that isn't present in the text, please make up sh!t which doesn't blatantly contradict the text you're trying to add it to.


Originally posted by DarthAnt66
What? As far as I can see, the biography was removed from Maul's actual page. It's only accessible if you have the specific link to the biography, meaning it's removed from all intents and purposes.

Click the "see more" button bro(you'll need to do so twice), it's the last entry(33out of 33) and I just accessed it by looking up Maul's biography page. It was never removed.

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
What? Terrible example, then. The video-game can be considered canonical even within Lucas' universe, hence why I use it.

Shadow Conspiracy can't be considered canon in the universe of TCW because...
And since when was the video game canonical?
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
It's not remotely comparable to a non-canonical novel that has literal no authority whatsoever.
You want to source me on the video game being more canonical than Shadow Conspiracy?

DarthAnt66
One thing at a time.

Start me here: http://www.starwars.com/.

Take me through the clicks needed to access the biography without using the search function.

Rockydonovang
1. Click Databanks

2. Look for Maul, to hasten the process, you can just type Maul in the search bar

3. Click Maul's data bank

4. Click his bigraphy gallerly

5. Scroll down, click "see more"

6. Scroll down again, click "see more" again

7. Third scroll is the charm, the entry you're looking for will be the last one.

If you're still having difficulties using the site, I'll get back to you later, I have a soccer game to dress up for.

DarthAnt66
1. Got it.

2. Got it.

3. Got it.

4. Lost me.

http://www.starwars.com/databank/darth-maul

There's no biography gallery on this page (using Chrome).

Rockydonovang
Scroll down, it's below "gallery and soundboard"

DarthAnt66
It's not there. Picture me.

Rockydonovang
How do I take screenshots on a computer?

MythLord
Just Google Darth Maul Biography Gallery on StarWars.com. Not too hard.

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>