ROTJ Luke vs Maul

Originally posted by DolX1
Hard to say. From what I've seen in TPM, Maul had more skill than Luke. Luke may be able to win the fight but it would be close.

This would be far from close. Luke has what? Three years of training?
Edit: He finished his Jedi training, but had little experience in saber duels.

Darth Maul was one of the most highly trained Sith apprentices in history. He beat Qui-Gon Jinn while wounded, and Qui-Gon was one of the most skilled swordsmen in the Order, challenging even Mace Windu.

Maul stomps Luke.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I wouldn't put it that way, but it is a fact from the novelization, yes.

The Episode III novelization is the most contradictory and hyperbole-filled piece of EU literature to be found besides something about Boba Fett. If something in it could be further substantiated with a source that doesn't maim the most-anticipated movie in the series, I'm all ears. But that book plain sucks. And it happens to find its way lovingly into the arguments of people who really, really like to take it more seriously than the movie its based on, which baffles me.

Even the official script and movie don't indicate half of the conclusions Stover drew in that book.

Stover worked with GL on the plot, and GL approved the entire thing. It wasn't delegated to a lackey or underling, he approved everything. If you just don't like Stover, just say so, but I loved the book. The duel with Dooku was among the best written fights I've ever read. (in a SW book)

Actually, I thought Shatterpoint was perhaps one of the best Clone Wars novels besides Dark Rendezvous. I don't hate Stover. I'm just baffled as to why his version of the story is so skewed compared to other literature and bordering on Anakin/Sidious posturing. It also turns Dooku into an idiot, a racist, and other things which aren't attributed to him in any other EU or movie sources. I had some other issues with it previously, but I don't recollect them all.

Also, the official LFL stance on canon policy states that the movie source is higher canon than the novelizations, and only stuff coming directly from GL in these books is canon, whereas anything else is considered C-canon and subject to author interpretation. Obviously, GL didn't choose the wording for the entire book or he would have written it. To date, GL hasn't written a single word in SW lore except for his own personal reference work and the scripts.

If you need the exact quote indicating this canon policy, I'll dig it up and elaborate further. But my problem with the RotS novelization is that while it makes for a great storytelling adventure (Stover is a good writer overall, despite his histrionic side) it makes serious hash of established characters and blatantly doesn't follow things shown in the movies, particularly in fight scenes. This renders it questionable.

The same thing applies for AotC and TPM novelizations, but those don't get quoted as heavily so I don't have problems with those.

Originally posted by Enyalus
Sure. 🙂

In Resurrection (set in the same year or just after A New Hope) Darth Maul is resurrected by the Prophets of the Dark Side and battles Darth Vader. They're on even footing duel-wise for a while, going back and forth. Vader manages to cut his saberstaff in two - but instead of one side going out like in The Phantom Menace, both ends stay active and Maul switches to Jar'Kai, and absolutely dominates Vader.

Vader has to resort to stabbing himself through the chest, damaging his own life support system and almost killing himself, in order to hit and kill Maul.

Originally posted by Tangible God
Vader vs. Luke was like Dooku vs. Anakin. They were playing for keeps and each Sith gave it there all and lost. Luke beat him legitimately. But Luke still would not defeat Maul.

Say hello to my little friends (quotes)

"time seemed to slow. His head throbbed, pounding to the same rhythm as the beating of his heart. His face had gone cold, numb, and Luke realized distantly that Gethzerion's spell had ripped open blood vessels in his brain, and he was about to die, one among hundreds of fatalities on this battlefield.

So this is how it would have been, if Vader had tried to kill me. Who had Luke been kidding?.......

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And there was a further matter. In his battles with Darth Vader and the Emperor, Luke felt he had never truly tested his powers to the limits. Vader had sought only to turn him, had kept Luke alive. Yet Luke had no illusions that Gethzerion would be so lenient."

Chee's stated that what doesn't contradict-narrations, character thoughts and the like- are in. And Lucas himself personally line edited it and approved it.

That's as official as you can really get

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
By the way, Dooku went all out against Skywalker. He decides that Sidious could "more easily come up with a new plan than a new apprentice."

Thank you, sir.

I don't know why this concept is so difficult for some people to understand. Every single source imaginable has confirmed the notion that Dooku's feat was legitimate in every way; multiple databank entires confirm that the Count was "overpowered" or "outmaneuvered," the novelization mentions it, the script doesn't mention restraint on Dooku's part, George Lucas has stated in the commentary that the goal was to test Anakin's power -- "which he proves by killing Dooku" -- it is mentioned in The Making of Revenge of the Sith, it is mentioned in Labyrinth of Evil as a legitimate duel that Dooku would "treat as though it were his crowning achievement" and Dooku himself was aware that he was being 'tested' by Sidious (confirmed by both the RotS novelization and RoDV), though obviously he truly deluded himself into believing that Sidious would save his ass should he lose.

The logic is simple. Dooku felt that he had things under control, goaded Skywalker to murder, and was simply unable to do anything about it. Why people contest this issue so much, I have no idea. Especially when those very same people will fight to the death that Mace's victory over Sidious was legitimate and a sign of superiority, even though there is as much (if not moreso) implication that Sidious restrained himself as well.

In fact, the only evidence that Dooku was holding back was that the end product was to be a capture by Skywalker.

"It will be an embarrassment to be captured by him."

Dooku decided that the comedy had ended.

These clowns might-just possibly-actually be able to beat him.
No sense taking chances; even his Master would agree with that. Lord Sidious could come up with a new plan more easily than a new apprentice.

Later it talks about how his mastery of swordplay, decades of combat experience, vast wealth, political influence, 'impeccable' breeding, immaculate manners, exquisite taste are all irrelevant. This was all that Dooku was. The totality of his life was unable to overcome Anakin's power.

Originally posted by Faunus
Prove that the "resurrected" Maul had skills equal to those of the original, please. Are we told specifically that he is the original brought back to life, or just a clone?

I don't want to. In fact, I'd love to argue the resurrected Maul was less than the original. If it was a clone, it wouldn't have had the combat experience the original did. If it was a resurrected Maul, it would've been really, really rusty.

Janus, that sig is hilarious.

Originally posted by Enyalus
I don't want to. In fact, I'd love to argue the resurrected Maul was less than the original. If it was a clone, it wouldn't have had the combat experience the original did. If it was a resurrected Maul, it would've been really, really rusty.

Careful, Nemesis. You thought I was a prick; you keep it up and you'll deal with the collective wrath of the pro-Dooku aggregation, and they're vicious.

Meanwhile, I don't understand why anyone complains about the duel and its outcome or Revenge of the Sith's novelization. The only things I can fault Stover for are his abuse of italics (constantly putting emphasis on every third word) and his habitual dive into philosophy at the expense of the action. There were no real details in Yoda's fight with Sidious, for example, which was (on the grand scale), the most important clash in the trilogy. Instead it was "blah blah blah, Yoda can't win this fight because we need His Majesty for the next three movies." It was completely boring.

But the rest? Oh, it was the second greatest book bar Dark Rendezvous. Stover managed to:

- write General Grievous an utter badass, unlike the movie, making him the Third Most Badass Character in the Saga.
- write Anakin's fall as believable and much more tragic.
- write superior dialogue than the film.
- improve upon most of the fight scenes. Sidious's defeat of the three Jedi who attempted to arrest him with Mace was due to a legitimate distraction and manipulation, not him just steamrolling through them.
- give us a deeper understanding of the characters.

So it made Dooku a racist? Hell, it doesn't surprise me. Contrary to the whole idea that Dooku is an "anti-hero" or "honorable", he's not. He's a mass murdering elitist prick. Is he conflicted? Sure. Is he as evil as Palpatine, Tarkin, or Grievous (SW's Triumvirate of Assholes)? No. But he is evil. Did it make him an idiot? No. Jesus Christ, I don't see where anyone would get that. It just made him a pawn. Which is what he was. From day ****ing one. You get that from the movie, comic, databank, any source you care to mention.

Anakin/Sidious posturing? Theirs is the relationship that drives the movie and the saga. Anakin's a prodigy and is ridiculously talented. Established from day one in all media. Sidious is a genius and uses everyone. Also established from day one in all media. I don't get it. Is it because they get a lot of screentime? They're the main characters. Dooku? Not so much.

Originally posted by Faunus
Then it can't be used as an accurate gauge of Maul's skill relative to Vader's.

Unless you're going to make the case that the resurrected Maul was better than the original - yes - it can.

Originally posted by Enyalus
Unless you're going to make the case that the resurrected Maul was better than the original - yes - it can.

He doesn't have to.

Originally posted by Gideon
He doesn't have to.

I must still be hungover - can you elaborate?

Originally posted by Enyalus
I must still be hungover - can you elaborate?

He doesn't have to make the case that the "clone" was better than the original. If your contention that we can gauge Vader's skills relative to Maul's based off of his duel with the "clone," then it is your burden to prove.

I personally don't think that a case can be made for any idea. Everything about it is totally ambiguous.

Gideon:
I personally don't think that a case can be made for any idea.

Nihilism much? Existential angst? Whatever it is, fix it.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Nihilism much? Existential angst? Whatever it is, fix it.

Funny, that's my answer when my friends find Nietzsche. I find Jebus. Then they have to hit me, because I'm so blatantly anti-Semitic as a Christian. I've never lasted longer than 5 minutes with him inside of my heart. People tend to throw things at me/us.

Originally posted by Gideon
He doesn't have to make the case that the "clone" was better than the original. If your contention that we can gauge Vader's skills relative to Maul's based off of his duel with the "clone," then it is your burden to prove.

Except it's not clear that's it was a clone. The title of the arc, afterall, is called 'Resurrection.' And its referenced several times during the story. So for all intensive purposes, yeah - Maul was outdueling Vader.