Nope. Wrong type of "act" as well. Filoni is using the "story version" of act. Like first act, second act, third act, etc...
Nope. Wrong type of "act" as well. Filoni is using the "story version" of act. Like first act, second act, third act, etc...
Ares- Proof he's using that definition of act? Just saying he is with no argument doesn't help your viewpoint. He wouldn't need to explain why something was an act that needed to be done right or made exciting if it was anything other than putting on an act. It's really that simple.
Originally posted by NephthysI just find it baffling that people don't realize it's in reference to Maul putting on a show.
Omg, who ****ing caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarses????Does it really matter with regards to either character? Stop derailing the thread.
DP is right, ILS is wrong.
He's asserting that the explanation that it's an act is it being in reference to Maul putting on a show. So the reason Maul put on a show is because Viszla (or whatever that Mandalorian *******'s name is) fans will be upset if he doesn't? The premise and the conclusion are in no way related.
Now that I have given my judgement this silly debate can end. You are all welcome.
Originally posted by NemeBro*sigh*
He's asserting that the explanation that it's an act is it being in reference to Maul putting on a show. So the reason Maul put on a show is because Viszla fans will be upset if he doesn't?
The fact that Maul put on an act is why the fight took place in the first place.
The fight took place so Viszla wouldn't die in a fashion similar to Boba. He put up a fight before going out. He just put up a fight against an opponent who was putting on an act.
Is it still a good result for Viszla? Not exactly, but it's better than being embarrassed.
That's what Filoni is saying. He let Viszla go out with a bang, not a whimper. But the word act is being used in the context of pretence, and it can't be anything else for reasons I've gone over already.
Originally posted by ILS
[B]*sigh*The fact that Maul put on an act is why the fight took place in the first place.
Wrong, at least according to that quote alone.
The fight took place so Viszla wouldn't die in a fashion similar to Boba.
So Maul put on an act so he wouldn't die like someone who hadn't actually died yet? Interesting.
He put up a fight before going out. He just put up a fight against an opponent who was putting on an act.
No, I'm afraid not. Your premise and conclusion make no sense together.
Is it still a good result for Viszla? Not exactly, but it's better than being embarrassed.That's what Filoni is saying. He let Viszla go out with a bang, not a whimper. But the word act is being used in the context of pretence, and it can't be anything else for reasons I've gone over already.
At the very best you can argue that Filoni intentionally made the fight PIS to not piss of Viszla fans.
But absolutely nothing in that quote indicated that Maul was intentionally putting on an act (though I do think Maul was more or less fighting the Mandalorian on his terms, rather than using his overwhelming Force power to kill him).
"This sword fight - that's a whole act, practically. Do it right, to make it exciting - that's a whole act, because the fans of Pre Vizsla, are gonna mob me at Celebration in the future if, if Vizsla goes down too easily. This is not going to be a Boba Fett into the Sarlacc pit."
First sentence is somewhat clumsily-worded and vague, but there is no indication that he is referring to Maul's attitude on the fight. He just said the sword fight was "a whole act".
However, the next sentence elaborates. "Do it right, to make it exciting - that's a whole act, because the fans of Pre Vizsla, are gonna mob me at Celebration in the future if, if Vizsla goes down too easily".
The elaboration states that it needs to be done right and exciting, and states the reason being that Vizsla fans will be upset otherwise.
So you believe that Maul wanted to do it right and make it exciting for the benefit of Pre Vizsla fans? You believe that Maul was trying to avoid a parallel with Boba Fett's death?
No, of course not. The "act" is elaborated on sufficiently-enough that we can say, without any doubt, that Filoni wasn't talking about Maul. Simply because Maul, as far as I know, does not have an awareness of the fourth wall. Which he would need for your interpretation to be correct.
Sorry bud, but you're wrong.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Omg, who ****ingDoes it really matter with regards to either character? Stop derailing the thread.
The issue for me here is not whether Maul was "faking" the fight against Vizsla or not. I really couldn't care less one way or the other.
The issue is the standard of arguments being brought to the boards these days and what classifies as "Evidence", which is an important issue for every thread here.
Did Maul hold back against Vizsla? Maybe.. It would be reasonable to assume he held back on his Tk if nothing else.
But Is there any concrete proof of that? No.
Has Filoni confirmed that? Hell no.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Omg, who ****ing caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarses????Does it really matter with regards to either character? Stop derailing the thread.
Originally posted by NewGuy01I didn't intentionally leave anything out, bro. The word "whole" has no bearing on the use of the word act. You could say "This sword fight, that's an act, practically" and it would mean the exact same thing.
This should he obvious, ILS."This sword fight, that's a whole act practically."
If he were really referring to Maul putting on a show for Death Watch, that wording would make little sense. Which, of course, is why you cut that word out in your post. 😉
"😉"
Wrong, at least according to that quote alone."Wrong". Good argument.
So Maul put on an act so he wouldn't die like someone who hadn't actually died yet? Interesting.Well actually, Maul put on an act so he could win over the Mandalorians, by fighting on their terms, as you say later on. There are in-universe reasons for the fight being an act, as well as the out of universe reason that Viszla fans would be upset if Maul just straight up steamrolled him.
The in-universe reason, as stated, is that Maul wants to win over the Mandalorians. So he makes a fight of it. The out-of-universe reason for Maul doing this is because if they didn't have Maul putting on an act, the fight would be much shorter and therefore leave Viszla with a far less dignifying death. You're connecting parts of my argument that aren't meant to be connected. There's a reason Maul put on an act, and there's a reason for having Maul doing this. Maul wasn't putting on the act for the Viszla fans in the sense he was doing it because he is aware of them, he's doing it because he wants to win over the Mandalorians. From a story-telling perspective, the writers have written Maul in this way to appease fans of Viszla. There are Maul's intentions, and then there are what the writers intentions are for Maul himself.
Originally posted by ILS
"Wrong". Good argument.
No, everything that followed was a good argument. "Wrong" was my conclusion, which I then supported with many highly logical premises. I'm kind of a big deal.
Well actually, Maul put on an act so he could win over the Mandalorians, by fighting on their terms, as you say later on. There are in-universe reasons for the fight being an act, as well as the out of universe reason that Viszla fans would be upset if Maul just straight up steamrolled him.
Irrelevant to the quote itself. The quote does not imply what you are claiming it does.
Has it been directly stated that Maul put on an act against Vriszla, or is that just interpretation?
The in-universe reason, as stated, is that Maul wants to win over the Mandalorians. So he makes a fight of it.
As stated by who? Surely not by Filoni in the quote you posted. Is there some evidence you are withholding?
The out-of-universe reason for Maul doing this is because if they didn't have Maul putting on an act, the fight would be much shorter and therefore leave Viszla with a far less dignifying death.
Like I said. Based on that quote alone, the best you can argue is that it was intentional PIS.
Based on factors other than that quote? You might have an argument then.
You're connecting parts of my argument that aren't meant to be connected. There's a reason Maul put on an act, and there's a reason for having Maul doing this.
Any in-universe reason you are arguing for isn't supported by the quote itself.
"I just find it baffling that people don't realize it's in reference to Maul putting on a show."
This is what you said. Why should they realize that though? The quote itself surely doesn't support the notion that Maul was putting on an act. The act in question had nothing to do with Maul (though Filoni's wording does frankly make him seem like an idiot).
Maul wasn't putting on the act for the Viszla fans in the sense he was doing it because he is aware of them, he's doing it because he wants to win over the Mandalorians.
No but like, where is this actually stated?
I mean, I know Maul wants to win over the Mandalorians, but is it explicitly stated that he is putting on an act/holding back because of that? Sorry if you posted proof somewhere else in this thread, but if you did I missed it.
Although I support the theory, right now that notion falls under "speculation", and as such doesn't qualify as hard evidence. So it doesn't really support your point.
From a story-telling perspective, the writers have written Maul in this way to appease fans of Viszla. There are Maul's intentions, and then there are what the writers intentions are for Maul himself.
So do you have solid evidence of Maul's intentions?
Originally posted by NewGuy01Not for the sake of benefiting my argument. I've been shortening the quote and paraphrasing fairly heavily for the sake of getting my point across quickly. I literally don't see the difference in the word "whole" being there. If there is one that I'm missing, my bad, I guess. I assure you I am up to no nefarious deeds.
Except you did. 😐
It's approaching 1am, my head hurts, this thread is bookmarked, and I'll return to the debate tomorrow.