Rebels Maul is Prime Maul
https://comicvine.gamespot.com/profile/kbroskywalker/blog/rebels-mauls-growth/131038/
And no, poll results haven't been factored in my assessment
Rebels Maul is Prime Maul
https://comicvine.gamespot.com/profile/kbroskywalker/blog/rebels-mauls-growth/131038/
And no, poll results haven't been factored in my assessment
Witwer on Maul (after reconfirming he's broken):
http://www.blastr.com/2017-4-24/star-wars-rebels-sam-witwer-interview
"Wow I think he's living the worst case scenario. The worst case scenario is never being able to achieve his potential in any way."
Now if you still think he grew in the Force (and as a duellist) the way Kenobi did, then you're just kidding yourself.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't think there much difference between Prime Maul and Rebels Maul. But to say he's reached some peak state by Rebels is dreaming.
Context
"Wow. I think he's living in the worst case scenario. The worst case scenario is never being able to achieve his potential in any way. The problem is he's thinking about it in all the wrong ways. One can achieve one's potential simply by helping other people, by being selfless, by looking after others before you think to look after yourself in some cases. That's not how he was trained to think by Palpatine. So his potential just requires the accumulation of things, wealth, control over people, control of large amounts of people."
Potential here isn't talking about his combative ability. What Maul falied to acheive was his potential as a person.
And off course even if you somehow interpreted this to mean, maul didn't achieve his combaitve potential! Even though Witwer makes clear that snot what he's talking about, Maul not ahcieving his potential doesn't mean maul didn't grow or combatively improve.
For example, Anakain never achieved his potential. Does that mean rots anakin hasn't grown from his tcw self?
This quote is completely irrelevant to your argument, as is just about every single quote that has been used to argue that maul declined.
Originally posted by Darth Abonis
Not his prime. He went from being able to go toe to toe with Palpatine to being beat by a BLIND ex-Padawan average Jedi.
And using a circumstantial low showing doesn't discount canonical powersclaing.
As TCW maul is tied to being an inferior duelist to rebels maul, any showing that negatively affects where you place rebels maul would also lower tcw maul.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Context
"Wow. I think he's living in the worst case scenario. The worst case scenario is never being able to achieve his potential in any way. The problem is he's thinking about it in all the wrong ways. One can achieve one's potential simply by helping other people, by being selfless, by looking after others before you think to look after yourself in some cases. That's not how he was trained to think by Palpatine. So his potential just requires the accumulation of things, wealth, control over people, control of large amounts of people."Potential here isn't talking about his combative ability. What Maul falied to acheive was his potential as a person.
And off course even if you somehow interpreted this to mean, maul didn't achieve his combaitve potential! Even though Witwer makes clear that snot what he's talking about, Maul not ahcieving his potential doesn't mean maul didn't grow or combatively improve.
For example, Anakain never achieved his potential. Does that mean rots anakin hasn't grown from his tcw self?
This quote is completely irrelevant to your argument, as is just about every single quote that has been used to argue that maul declined.
LOL did you miss the part where he says "In ANY WAY". Did I not underline that part enough for you.
And I like how you apply "context" where it suits you. Carry on ignoring Canon feats and character statements.
Re: Rebels Maul is Prime Maul
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
https://comicvine.gamespot.com/profile/kbroskywalker/blog/rebels-mauls-growth/131038/And no, poll results haven't been factored in my assessment
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
He only "toe to toe" with palpatine when rage amped for about 20 seconds, and even then sids wasn't going all out.
Who cares, TCW/SOD Maul had his best showings, whereas Rebels Maul had his lowest. But hey, screw actual canon. Let's just make up our own context to everything instead.
Originally posted by Darth Thor.
LOL did you miss the part where he says "In ANY WAY". Did I not underline that part enough for you.And I like how you apply "context" where it suits you. Carry on ignoring Canon feats and character statements.
And anyway, as I've pointed out, not acheiving your potential =/ not growing.
Anakain didn't acheive his potential. He still grew.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
.
Yes he wasn't able to achieve his potential as a person in any way 👆And anyway, as I've pointed out, not acheiving your potential =/ not growing.
Anakain didn't acheive his potential. He still grew.
Yes but Maul wouldn't feel that he's not reached his potential "in any way" if he continued growing more powerful in the Force.
Also the "broken" part is mentioned again. You keep claiming he's more powerful due that more Rage, and that's how dark siders work, but kindly tell me where Palpatine or Dooku (dark siders who did grow), were ever named as "broken"?
Originally posted by RockydonovangExcept Maul, as of Rebels, CAN'T fight, not against other well trained and powerful Force users. As evident by the fact he was blitzed by Kenobi. As opposed to during the Clone War where Maul was at least able to contend with Kenobi before getting beaten.
Yes, he was broken...
as a person.A mass murderer is broken as a person, that doesn'tr mean he can't fight
Originally posted by darthbane77
Except Maul, as of Rebels, CAN'T fight, not against other well trained and powerful Force users. As evident by the fact he was blitzed by Kenobi. As opposed to during the Clone War where Maul was at least able to contend with Kenobi before getting beaten.