Originally posted by Petrus
However, Filoni also proceeds to say that he believes Kenobi is better than Maul, and that there's no way he would need to take longer than that to defeat him, so it's not far-fetched at all to conclude that he wanted to display Kenobi's growth and Maul's lack of it by making it this one sided. This would obviously mean that he's referring to Kenobi when he says 'real good swordsmen have short fights', not Maul because well, he's the one who got beat and who was stuck in the old ways.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
C. The context of the quote is referring to both of them.
It's referring to both of them, but applies if just one has grown substantially and is now in his Prime, whilst the other just a grown a little, but overall is past his prime.
Nowhere does it state BOTH combatants are in their Prime, or that Both are more Powerful than they've ever been.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
A. Kenobi being better than maul doesn't prclude both from growing
B. Yes Kenobi didn't need longer to beat maul, in the context of the samurai esque fighting they were using
C. The context of the quote is referring to both of them.
A. Yeah, except that Filoni explicitly states that Maul at this point is 'lost and broken', which pretty much can be taken as the antonym of growth in this context.
B. Yes, which means Kenobi is so much better than Maul at this point and clearly not the other way around.
C. That's your interpretation; an interpretation which certainly isn't supported neither by what we see on screen nor by what Filoni says about both characters.
Originally posted by Petrus
A. Yeah, except that Filoni explicitly states that Maul at this point is 'lost and broken', which pretty much can be taken as the antonym of growth in this context.B. Yes, which means Kenobi is so much better than Maul at this point and clearly not the other way around.
C. That's your interpretation; an interpretation which certainly isn't supported neither by what we see on screen nor by what Filoni says about both characters.
B. That's not what the quote says. The context of the quote refers to the two as "people who are very good" as "characters", it never specifically refers to maul or kenobi or singles out either. The quote is clearly talking about both. The reason the fight was so short was because in addition to both progressing' they had fought each other multiple times(thus being able to anticipate each other)and feloni was trying to replicate samurai fighting
C. Feloni never says anything contradictory in the context of their abilities as combatants. Maul being broken as a character doesn't at all have to hinder(and could help) his combative abilities. Loss makes dark siders stronger.
The context of the quote never specifies kenobi or maul and uses words that can apply to both(swordsman) rather than words that would refer to one.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
A. Maul was referred to being lost and broken as a character, not a combatant. This quote on the other hand is clearly in the context of them as lightsaber duelists.
Actually he meant it's growth as characters which effects how they sword fight. Doesn't mean they're both in their Prime. That's never stated or even hinted at. (Even though Kenobi probably is). And Maul being "Lost and Broken" as a character will definitely effect his overall combat prowess. So will his body getting physically older and weaker.
So unless you have evidence to suggest Maul grew more powerful in the Force, you have no point here.
And again, Filoni isn't the final canon authority on power levels. It's the actual fight which shows us Rebels Kenobi > Rebels Maul. Not Filoni's commentary Lol
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Actually he meant it's growth as characters which effects how they sword fight. Doesn't mean they're both in their Prime. That's never stated or even hinted at. (Even though Kenobi probably is). And Maul being "Lost and Broken" as a character will definitely effect his overall combat prowess. So will his body getting physically older and weaker.So unless you have evidence to suggest Maul grew more powerful in the Force, you have no point here.
And again, Filoni isn't the final canon authority on power levels. It's the actual fight which shows us Rebels Kenobi > Rebels Maul. Not Filoni's commentary Lol
Feloni doesn't have to imply these incarnations being their prime here because in rebels recon, which is official star wars material, feloni speaking wholly in the context of their abilities as duelists did make it clear that both improved as duelists. Maul being inferior to rebels kenobi and him being superior to tcw maul aren't mutually exclusive.
2. In the absence of any evidence whatsoever indicating otherwise, feloni's authority absolutely takes precedent even if it wasn't on rebels recon. But given that this is given on rebels recon which is offically published on sw,com and released by the official sw youtube channel, its canonical.
Rebels Maul is>tcw maul at a minimum as a duelist.
Maul becoming more powerful over 15 years where he was troubling the empire, looking for holocrons, and collecting artififacts(hence being active), should be obvious but its not necessary because no one has provided any evidence to suggest maul become less powerful.
Originally posted by TenebrousWay
Being mentally "lost and broken" heavily implies he's inferior or even significantly than his previous iterations.
And definitely not when its made clear by authority on a show thats official disney era star wars material that maul improved as a duelist
Originally posted by TenebrousWay
The last time a character was "lost and broken" he was reduced from potential Dooku stomper to Kenobi level. To affirm that he grew in general combative power but was mentally "broken and lost" are two contradictory statements.
The same pain and dsperation that maul, who is fully a darksider(the reason why he's lost/broken as a character) would have available to him.
That isolated example only reinforces that maul grew stronger because maul unlike anakin is not conflicted as a darksider.
If being "lost and broken" isn't relevant to Maul's performance it wouldn't make sense to estabilish such psychological state in the first place. Filoni statements that "he's stuck on old ways (which refer to his previous iterations)", "lost and broken" and that he somehow improved in general combative ability are contradictory. He could've improved in certain aspects such as knowledge but, again, Filoni must be more clear if you want autorial opinions to affect our analyze of Maul.
The example of Anakin was given to show how the wrong psychological state can drastically affect combat prowess.
Originally posted by TenebrousWay
If being "lost and broken" isn't relevant to Maul's performance it wouldn't make sense to estabilish such psychological state in the first place. Filoni statements that "he's stuck on old ways (which refer to his previous iterations)", "lost and broken" and that he somehow improved in general combative ability are contradictory. He could've improved in certain aspects such as knowledge but, again, Filoni must be more clear if you want autorial opinions to affect our analyze of Maul.The example of Anakin was given to show how the wrong psychological state can drastically affect combat prowess.
Lot and broken, as a darksider, is relevant to him being inferior to Kenobi who wasn't stuck in his old ways because as a jedi he let go and moved on. Maul never moved on or let go of what kenobi did to him, hence he's inferior. You can't use that as a basis to claim he's combatively weaker than his prior incarnations because those incarnations as darksiders have the exact same problems rebels maul have.
Feloni's authority of star wars material(canon) is different from this because it is specifically talking about maul(and kenobi) in reference to their previous versions. Furthermore they are referred to as swordsman, its never specifically qualified that he's talkng about a specific part of maul ability's improving so the quote refers to maul overall as a combatant.
The problem with the anakin example is that anakin actually improved when he started embracing the emotions maul being lost and broken as a character would present him: desperation/pain. Anakin was only hindered because of his past as a jedi/lightsider
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
"he's stuck on old ways" APPLIES to his previous incarnations because those incarnai=tions would ALSO be sTuck in their old ways.
I brought it up to show how questionable it is to affirm that someone improved and then, that he was stuck in "old ways". The context was particularly in reference to Filoni's assesment of Rebels' Maul. If and the degree the "stuck in old ways" of TCW's Maul potentially affected him wasn't clear by Filoni's reference.
Lot and broken, as a darksider, is relevant to him being inferior to Kenobi who wasn't stuck in his old ways because as a jedi he let go and moved on. Maul never moved on or let go of what kenobi did to him, hence he's inferior. You can't use that as a basis to claim he's combatively weaker than his prior incarnations because those incarnations as darksiders have the exact same problems rebels maul have.
Obi Wan did let go of what? Maul constantly remembering what Obi Wan did to him could fuel his rage and enhance his powers. If his inner rage didn't make him more powerful is because he didn't feel a primal rage towards Obi Wan anymore. Maul, by Rebels, is indeed broken and lost.
Feloni's authority of star wars material(canon) is different from this because it is specifically talking about maul(and kenobi) in reference to their previous versions. Furthermore they are referred to as swordsman, its never specifically qualified that he's talkng about a specific part of maul ability's improving so the quote refers to maul overall as a combatant.
I'm not rationalizing what Filoni tried to explain, I'm giving my own explanation to how he could've done that without incurring in contradiction.
The problem with the anakin example is that anakin actually improved when he started embracing the emotions maul being lost and broken as a character would present him: desperation/pain. Anakin was only hindered because of his past as a jedi/lightsider
This is in contradiction to Filoni's assesment of Maul. Look at your second paragraph. By your logic being "lost and broken" would've increased Maul's performance but, according to Filoni, Maul was defeated because of that.
1. It isn't questionable. the context of the quote wasn't ever talking about maul in comparison to his previous incarnations, it was comparing maul to KENOBI, who as a lightsider wasn't "stuck in the old ways". The quote is answering why KENOBI surpassed and beat maul. There's nothing questionable here.
2. A. Let go of what maul's done to him(qui gon/satine), let go of what happened with anakin, let go of his entire surrogate family being destroyed?
B. Your claim that maul didn't grow more powerful is baseless and as I've shown, him being "lost and broken" as a character isn't a solid basis for that claim. Your, "he doesn't have that primal rage anymore" in addition to being making no sense because it would suggest rebels maul let go or at least partally moved on from what kenobi did to him which he clearly can't move past by virtue of the quote you're trying to use to create a non existent contradiction.
None of this speculation is neccesary, we have confirmation that maul progressed as a duelikst
3. There is no contradiction.
4. No its not, Feloni's logic isn't my logic for one thing. For another thing, maul losing to kenobi doesn't stop maul from being able to supersede his previous incarnations. SOD Maul is a darksider, Kenobi is not
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
1. Which is meant to indicate why kenobi surpassed maul. It says nothing on maul becoming worse as a combatant(a clai,m he clearly doesn;t believe).Feloni doesn't have to imply these incarnations being their prime here because in rebels recon, which is official star wars material, feloni speaking wholly in the context of their abilities as duelists did make it clear that both improved as duelists. Maul being inferior to rebels kenobi and him being superior to tcw maul aren't mutually exclusive.
Wrong. By saying Maul was lost and broken, and by Maul himself reminiscing about his Past when his power was greater, it's clearly implied by both creator and character that Maul was past his prime.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
2. In the absence of any evidence whatsoever indicating otherwise, feloni's authority absolutely takes precedent even if it wasn't on rebels recon. But given that this is given on rebels recon which is offically published on sw,com and released by the official sw youtube channel, its canonical.
Rebels Recon is commentary by the creators just on their take on a specific episode. We watch it for insight, but don't cling onto every word as canon. Filoni isn't Lucas.
And even if he was, that doesn't give you the right to misinterpret one of his statements, whilst completely ignoring his other statements.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Rebels Maul is>tcw maul at a minimum as a duelist.
Canon says otherwise. Your desires and opinions are not canon.
SOD Maul being capable of engaging Mace Windu, but Rebels Maul being incapable of engaging Rebels Kenobi, is all Canon.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Maul becoming more powerful over 15 years where he was troubling the empire, looking for holocrons, and collecting artififacts(hence being active), should be obvious but its not necessary because no one has provided any evidence to suggest maul become less powerful.
These are all things made up by you. We've not once seen or heard of him learning more about the Force. Just chasing relics he already knew about.
He's Lost and Broken. He's desperate. In fact he's no longer a Darth.
So there's no reason whatsoever to believe Rebels Maul isn't past his Prime, but plenty of reasons to believe he is. You clinging to your own desires and interpretations doesn't make your wishes become Canon.