The above says absolutely nothing regarding the following assertion you've made:
And you keep ignoring how, in the sentences right before he mentions growth, he gives them being "very good swordsmen" as an answer to the question of "why was the fight so short?".
Them being very good swordsmen and them growing in general doesn't indicate that they only grew in regards to how they fought each other and that said growth would only apply when facing each other in a fight.
How they fought each other was a result of their growth, not the reverse.
Now explain how Kenobi being better than Maul contradicts the notion that he's vastly superior?
That Maul isn't equal to Kenobi doesn't mean that he's far below Kenobi. Especially not to the extent that he could three-shot him without the aid of the multiple circumstances that only apply to this specific fight:
The brief Twin Suns skirmish was a nice way to save time and animation budget. So to me, Filoni's explanation looks like a post-modern artist's desperate attempt to convince people his work, which is minimalist in nature, has some great hidden depth or meaning to it. A subterfuge readily employed by new age artisans across the globe, i.e. ; Tracey Emmin's the unmade bed.
“We defeated the wrong enemy” - General George S. Patton, Berlin 1945
Yes it does. Read it. He said he never saw this as being ANOTHER PROLONGED Saber duel. Read the Capital letters again and again until you get it.
Henry Gilroy confirms in the statement that you provided, that it's short because they know each others moves so well, because they've fought each other multiple times before.
No, the "very good swordsmen" having short fights was a Justification for WHY it's plausible for duels in SW to be very short. It doesn't mean once Swordsmen have reached a certain level then they will always be short fights, as that would Clearly Contradict the Canon. Including other fights involving these same incarnations of Ben and Maul vs other "Very good swordsmen" i.e. Old Ben vs OT Vader, and Rebels Maul vs Rebels Ahsoka.
It was a result of them learning something about each other's moves from previous duels. Like Gilroy confirms.
IOW Growth means they've not just completely forgotten every other fight they've had in the past.
Again your interpretation that it was only a short fight because they are both so good now makes no sense in the canon.
My interpretation aligns Gilroy's and Filoni's comments, doesn't make up BS that Filoni didn't say, and most importantly Aligns with the rest of Canon.
Well I'm pretty sure I already mentioned that the fight wasn't 3 seconds if you count the whole "virtual" fight, on top of the actual clash of Sabers.
Last edited by Darth Thor on Sep 21st, 2017 at 12:52 PM
AKA, that they had a very short fight rather than another prolonged bout to show growth.
Naturally you're disputing my interpretation about what Feloni said, with something that Gilroy said that doesn't remotely contradict my interpretation.
In response to the question, we are given three separate reasons. These reasons are not mutually exclusive:
1. Beck explains that the fight was supposed to be symbolic for the characterization of Maul and Kenobi, expressing part of the authorial intent.
2. Henry Gilroy gives us in universe reasons for the shortness of the fight.
3. Feloni, like Beck also expresses authorial intent, telling us that the unique fight was to show their growth as swordsman.
Wrong, this is the question it was addressing:
The very good swordsman was the reasoning behind why this fight between these two combatants was shorter than your typical SW duel.
You're right, it applies specifically to these swordsmen in this specific fight where there were already multiple unique circumstances, both out of and in-universe that made this fight special. And under these circumstances, the fight was meant to showcase how they grew as swordsmen.
Your interpretation of one reason that was given doesn't say anything about a separate reason that given. And Feloni's statement never implied anything about their growth as swordsmen being exclusive to each other. Them being "very good swordsman" has absolutely nothing to do with facing each other. The "another" prolonged lightsaber fight would refer to Kenobi and Maul's previous fights. In other words, the shorter fight shows they've grown from when they had longer fights. Maul and Kenobi are "very good" compared to where they were when we last saw them fight and hence they having a shorter fight then they would have had in TCW when they weren't as good.
I don't care. The shortness of the fight was a result of multiple circumstances. Without said circumstances, we wouldn't have had as short of a fight. Your assertion that this means Kenobi>>>Maul is baseless.
I'd argue that it made Maul look like a pansy, and weaker than he was in TCW. Which is ironically the opposite of Filoni's (stated) intentions, as all of the fights between people who are really good in Star Wars tend to be rather prolonged.
Never said there were issues, Rocky. The kind of practice I'm referring to is employed by the most capital-wealthy entertainment cooperations in the world. That is to market a product guaranteed to sell based on label, and not put in the effort required to make it amazeballs great. The phenomena I'm talking about is especially prevalent in the gaming industry today. Which funnily enough, mostly pertains to blockbuster sequels that can ride the coattails of their predecessor's glory - CoD, BF, Halo etc. You think that Star Wars can't do the same? As for what that money and time could've been spent on... well, you kind of answered your own question by mentioning the next two episodes. Or it could have just been pocketed by the executives pulling the strings, as is the nature of any human ran businesses.
“We defeated the wrong enemy” - General George S. Patton, Berlin 1945
I was referring to what the fight represented thematically and it's role in the story. I liked what the fight expressed thematically as opposed to it's aesthetic appeal. The problem regarding Maul is that they didn't handle him very well prior to this episode. On it's own, I think thie way they handled the fight worked well.
Doubt it. If they wanted to make more money, the flashy epic duel would have been exactly what fans would have wanted. Evidently they've taken a lot of flak for their treatment of Maul.
Yes, growth. I.e. having learned something from their previous duels. Clearly shown by Kenobi suckering Maul in with Qui-Gon's stance.
No, I'm giving you the correct interpretation instead of twisting a single word of his to mean whatever you like it to.
There's many ways to "Grow", even in regards to a sword fight. None of that necessarily means they're now in their Prime as sword fighters, or that they're both stronger, and more potent sword fighters than ever before.
1. None of that means this Kenobi and Maul need to be better or worse than their ROTS counterparts. Just that this Kenobi needs to be closer to Vader than Maul, and this Maul is broken, as confirmed multiple times.
That's what's meant by their characterization arcs which Beck refers to.
2. So you agree the In-Universe reason for the short fight is their previous fights with each other and not the fact that they're both so much better now
3. Yes but you're still missing the context of that "growth."
Your meaning of the word "growth" in Filoni's comments invalidates Gilroy's comments. My interpretation fits both their statements together. And fits with actual Star Wars Canon. Your interpretation doesn't. So clearly either you're wrong, or Filoni is wrong. Take your pick.
Nope, Gilory already explained the reason the fight was short is because they've fought each other so many times. Witwer adds that it's because this Obi-Wan isn't looking to battle, but is looking for ways to end the conflict as quick as possible, and Maul is going straight for the killing move, because of how frustrated he's become over the decades.
Filoni is only adding that just because the fight was short, doesn't mean one of them is bad. Because very good swordsmen can have very short fights.
Otherwise what, you think they weren't very good swordsmen in TCW? Lol
Yeah, you're not paying attention.
Your interpretation makes no sense. Because Kenobi and Maul were ALREADY very good swordsmen in TCW. And they're both having prolonged fights with OTHER Very Good Swordsmen in the same period.
So the short fight had nothing to do with them being in the prime of their swordsmenship. It was to showcase their character growths and what they've learned from their previous fights with each other, and how that all leads to a very short finale.
I'm not arguing that. Try to pay attention. I'm arguing this ludicrous idea that both Kenobi and Maul are superior swordsmen to their TCW selves based on Filoni's comments.
He only saw their fight as being short because of their previous fights with each other.
And we know this given how Kenobi suckered Maul in with Qui-Gon's stance, and how Maul went straight for the killing blow. That is "Growth" for both, but not even close to evidence that they're both stronger than their younger selves in a saber only fight.
Last edited by Darth Thor on Sep 21st, 2017 at 05:18 PM