Originally posted by EnyalusThe burden of proof is on you to quantify the gap (or lack of) between Maul and whatever was featured in Resurrection. It's really that simple. Find me a line that says the being Vader fought was in fact the original man, and we can go from there. Otherwise, it's a completely different scenario.
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.
Originally posted by Faunus
The burden of proof is on you to quantify the gap (or lack of) between Maul and whatever was featured in Resurrection. It's really that simple. Find me a line that says the being Vader fought was in fact the original man, and we can go from there. Otherwise, it's a completely different scenario.
Unless someone is going to say, "Resurrected Maul was better than Original Maul" then there isn't any point. Either he's like the original, which means his saber skills > Vader. Or he's inferior by X degree, which means that original Maul's saber skills >>> Vader.
Originally posted by EnyalusYou're not getting it.
Unless someone is going to say, "Resurrected Maul was better than Original Maul" then there isn't any point. Either he's like the original, which means his saber skills > Vader. Or he's inferior by X degree, which means that original Maul's saber skills >>> Vader.
We don't know what that thing was. It could've been better trained than the original - thirty-two years had passed since Maul's death - or simply retrained and improved, if it in fact was the original who was actually "resurrected." We know absolutely nothing about the origins of the creature, so we cannot definitively state that it was better, equal to, or worse than Vader. That's all there is to it.
But if you press the issue? Fine. I say that the thing might be better than the original, and then we're back to square one. They're separate entities.
Originally posted by Faunus
We don't know what that thing was. It could've been better trained than the original - thirty-two years had passed since Maul's death - or simply retrained and improved, if it in fact was the original who was actually "resurrected." We know absolutely nothing about the origins of the creature, so we cannot definitively state that it was better, equal to, or worse than Vader. That's all there is to it.
Okay, I let this slide too easily the other night, because I wasn't feeling well. Let's start the debunking.
First Premise: The Darth Maul shown in Resurrection is actually Darth Maul, resurrected, and not a clone or somekind of other creature.
Evidence from the comic to support this:
Vader comments early in the story, "I sense something...familiar... Darth Maul?"
One of the Prophets confronts Vader, telling him: "We took it upon ourselves to resurrect a proper apprentice for the Master...it was a tragedy when Maul died at the hands of a Jedi. Now he lives again...Maul will prove himself by slaying you. The Emperor will be pleased."
Continuing, he goads Vader further: "Of course you could refuse the duel and attempt to destroy all of us here and now. You might even succeed. But such a deed would diminish you in the Emperor's eyes, would it not? And you would always wonder. Doubt would always nag at you. You could never be certain whether Darth Maul was your better...unless you take up the challenge. So...will you face him?"
When they first engage in the duel:
'Vader: Maul is dead! You are a sham!
Maul: No..'
Maul even quotes Sidious' teachings twice, saying, "Never break a fall. If you are prepared to break your fall, you are prepared for the fall itself. Sith do not fall....There is no pain where strength lies."
Speaking just amongst themselves while they are watching the duel, one of the Prophets states: "They are more evenly matched than we suspected. But Maul will be victorious. He is an engine of pure hate. This other...there's too much light in him."
Maul himself confirms it while fighting Vader. He taunts him with, "How will you defeat me? I slew Obi-Wan's master. And Obi-Wan...slew you!"
And at the end of the comic, when Vader is giving his report to Palpatine, Vader seems convinced, albeit pretty confused: "They had recreated Darth Maul. I don't know how."
And from Leland Chee's blog, which also confirms it's canonicity: "A version of Darth Maul is back long enough to have a Maul vs. Vader showdown."
Thus, that's nine pieces of evidence supporting my view that it was actually Darth Maul fighting Vader, and not some clone or other creature.
Second Premise: Maul's saber skills are superior to Vader's (who is basically at his OT peak, as this takes place just after A New Hope.)
Evidence from the comic to support this:
Well, let's look at how the fight played out. Maul first gets in a kick to the face, backhanded punch to the face, a lightsaber slash across the ribcage, another kick to the face, and then finally Vader is able to land something remotely effective - cutting Maul's saberstaff in half. But geez, that was a bad move in actuality, because what next we see, immediately afterwards is Maul then goes Jar'Kai, disarms Vader and then slashes him across the head. He's got him, essentially, dead in the water...but decides to taunt and gloat over him before finishing him off. Vader uses this time to summon his lightsaber to him just as Maul is coming in for the coup de grace and ignites it through himself, thus impaling Maul as well. This was the only strike Darth Vader landed against Darth Maul.
Furthermore, for those who wanted to say that Vader wasn't using the Force in their duel, and thus wasn't going "all out," that would be incorrect. Early on in the duel, he uses the Force to pick up two dead stormtrooper blasters and fire repeatedly at Maul. Maul blocks the shots with ease and then Force-pushes them into the lava below. Later on, Maul decides to cut the cables to the bridge they are dueling on, both falling to the lava below. Luckily, though, both land on small stone slabs. Vader attempts to either Force Grip or Force Crush the stone slab Maul is standing on, thus ending the duel. Maul, however, doesn't let him get off so easily - he jumps off the doomed rock and does a Matrix-style running on the walls of the lava/cave, taunting Vader to come after him if he can.
And thus, from the comic - it is clear that Maul's saber skills were superior to Darth Vader's.
Premises 1 & 2 are true, unless you find me some evidence stating otherwise. I've given you primary source evidence showing differently.
Originally posted by Faunus
But if you press the issue? Fine. I say that the thing might be better than the original, and then we're back to square one.
Better than the original. Okay. That would be an assertion of yours which is not evident, and thus your burden to prove. So, tell me how. I need valid reasons, backed up with source material stating such. How would a recently resurrected Darth Maul be better than the original? What knowledge and training has he gained that makes him superior to the one killed in 32 BBY?
I understand that the evidence I used making my first point you probably didn't have when you said the above...so it's okay to concede. The major point is that all sources point to Maul being resurrected, and it not being a clone or some 'separate entity.' If someone wants to make the claim that it was...good luck.
EDIT: Hey, man...I miss the godly power. Can I go back to being your avatar?
Originally posted by EnyalusI just wanted to know if it was the same person; you've proven that irrefutably. It was never my contention that Vader was better than the "new" Maul, but I wasn't aware of there actually being any proof that he was indeed the original.
Premises 1 & 2 are true, unless you find me some evidence stating otherwise. I've given you primary source evidence showing differently.
EDIT: Hey, man...I miss the godly power. Can I go back to being your avatar?After that? Yes sir.
*brands Enyalus's forehead; you bristle with power*