Quick point, I guess.
You're right, but I think it's poor wording on Filoni's part. The way he says "whole" in the video is with emphasis, which in my mind is him emphasising that it's an act being put on, and he refers to it as just an act the next time he uses the word. On-paper you're correct, but IMO he wasn't referring to the screenplay in this context and just chose his words poorly.
That's frankly most of the reason I interpret Maul has holding back to some extent.
Badass normals like the ones portrayed in Star Wars (as in, fairly normal dudes physically, not people who through training can pulverize mountains like Karate Kid) shouldn't be a serious threat to a powerful Force wielder like Maul.
Originally posted by DARTH POWERNow let's for a second take your silly interpretation. Filoni doesn't even say Maul's the one whose acting. He just says this fight is a whole Act. So where does he say exactly who is acting and for what purpose? Oh that's right, he doesn't.
He goes on to say, TO DO IT RIGHT, TO MAKE IT EXCITING, THAT'S A WHOLE ACT.
So what you honestly think that Maul is Acting, to make the fight exciting? Even though nobody's even mentioned Maul's name when it comes to this apparent ACTING thing?
Vizsla vs. Maul sword fight is an act for Maul's part, because if you know Filoni's opinion about non-force sensitive beings using lightsaber then you would understand what he really meant.
The same Filoni said that Grievous shouldn't be competing with force sensitives in terms of lightsaber duel, that is why he meant Vizsla vs. Maul sword fight was an ''act'' for Maul's part, according to his previous statement.
If not, then you right he didn't mention Maul's name there.
Originally posted by Marco1907
Vizsla vs. Maul sword fight is an act for Maul's part, because if you know Filoni's opinion about non-force sensitive beings using lightsaber then you would understand what he really meant.The same Filoni said that Grievous shouldn't be competing with force sensitives in terms of lightsaber duel, that is why he meant Vizsla vs. Maul sword fight was an ''act'' for Maul's part, according to his previous statement.
If not, then you right he didn't mention Maul's name there.
Grievous is different. Because with him it's just a Lightsaber fight. Mandalorians have all these weapons to shoot at Jedi. (And yes Jedi can be shot by Non-Force users.. See Order 66).
Heck Jango Fett (without a Lightsaber) stalemated AOTC Kenobi, and shot down Coleman Trebor.
In any case, Maul beat Pre-Vizsla. And let's face it, there was never any doubt of that outcome, that's why Maul was smiling and laughing.
But none of that changes that Vizsla did very well lasting as long as he did. And he should get full credit for that.
Yes Filoni never said anything even resembling "This was an Act for Maul's part," or "Maul was acting here."
The Act he was referring to was Acts 1, 2 and 3 of a Play. This episode was a play, and that fight was a Whole Act of that play.
@DP
You are forgetting that he actually used the term of ''sword fight''
''We had a pretty big strategy meeting about how can we force to Vizla into the fight so that battle that really show the mandalorian armor have work against some one has the force. 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.''
The question here is, why did he used that term if he really meant the ''whole act'' according to Filoni, both Grievous and Vizsla can't compete with force sensitive beings in terms of sword fight, that is what I understand here.
But I agree, Vizsla should put up a fight with his weaponry against any force sensitive (especially while if that force user is not using offensive-TK )