Rebels Maul is Prime Maul

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.

Heck he didn't even get blitz by Mace Windu and Secura combined.

He still had a good feat in matching Ahsoka, and still proved he's formidable by stomping Inquisitors. But his low feats show he's not as consistent a combatant as he once was, hence not at his peak.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang

D. them progressing as duelists

Vader also "grew" as a duellist. Does that mean OT Vader > ROTS Anakin in Sabers?

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Wow way to completely avoid the question.

Which dark spider was broken but still kept growing?

Was Palpatine broken?

As a character? Absolutely.

Originally posted by Darth Thor

Vader also "grew" as a duellist. Does that mean OT Vader > ROTS Anakin in Sabers?

I missed the part where, after TCW, maul fell in lava and lost all his limbs and thus all his potential. Was that an unfinished script or something?

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
As a character? Absolutely.

Lol

Show me a statement anywhere in Canon or by anyone at Lucasfilm stating as such. Because with Maul it's repeated over and over.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
I missed the part where, after TCW, maul fell in lava and lost all his limbs and thus all his potential. Was that an unfinished script or something?

You must have forgotten that Maul was cut in half. At least Vader still had a Sith Master to mentor him in the dark side, and a dark side function to carry out. Maul lost half his body and limbs, and post TCW was no longer even a Sith.

I'll accept you not answering directly as your concession that, like Vader, Maul can "grow" as a duellist but still not be as powerful a duellist as he was in his prime.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Lol

Show me a statement anywhere in Canon or by anyone at Lucasfilm stating as such. Because with Maul it's repeated over and over.

You must have forgotten that Maul was cut in half. At least Vader still had a Sith Master to mentor him in the dark side, and a dark side function to carry out. Maul lost half his body and limbs, and post TCW was no longer even a Sith.

I'll accept you not answering directly as your concession that, like Vader, Maul can "grow" as a duellist but still not be as powerful a duellist as he was in his prime.

2. Also you do realize that TCW Maul is MORE POWERFUL than the tpm version of him that got cut in half?

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
1. So you think people who are mentally stable kill their own family out of jealously as a teenager?

What?

That's Legends. You're talking about being morally corrupt. Thats just part of being a darksider. Palpatine was Psychotic, but nowhere was he ever named as a broken individual the way Maul was. Never. Neither was Dooku. Corrupted and twisted by the dark side, but never mentally and physically broken.

Vader might have been. But then he didn't really become more powerful than his ROTS Prime incarnation. If he does d it wasn't by much, and that was with the advantage of a Sith Master, and an Empire to enforce and inherit. Advantages Maul never had, yet you're claiming he was getting more powerful Lol

Originally posted by Rockydonovang

2. Also you do realize that TCW Maul is MORE POWERFUL than the tpm version of him that got cut in half?

According to Shadow Conspiracy, which may or may not be canon now.

Even if we go by that though, his "anger and rage" which grew between TPM and "Revenge" did not make him more powerful. He grew more powerful by "Revival", and the explanation given for that was he had a proper focus and function again.

He was then described as growing stronger through training Savage. I.e. Having a Sith Apprentice. Another thing he no longer has by Rebels.

In any case most people agree there's not much difference between the different incarnations of Maul, which seems consistent with Witwer's comments.

bump

Bump

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

Richard96 makes the most sense out of Filoni's quote which he explained to you in the comments section here:

https://comicvine.gamespot.com/forums/battles-7/ahsoka-tano-vs-darth-maul-1457257/?page=6

That Ben and Maul have grown because they know each other better, so can by now have a virtual confrontation before the actual fight where they predict each other's moves, then like a Samurai fight, the actual combat doesn't need to be be long.

So they've grown in the sense that they've not just forgotten all their previous fights with each other, so won't just play out the same moves again. But Nowhere is it stated or implied that they are both in their Prime as Sword fighters.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Richard96 makes the most sense out of Filoni's quote which he explained to you in the comments section here:

https://comicvine.gamespot.com/forums/battles-7/ahsoka-tano-vs-darth-maul-1457257/?page=6

That Ben and Maul have grown because they know each other better, so can by now have a virtual confrontation before the actual fight where they predict each other's moves, then like a Samurai fight, the actual combat doesn't need to be be long.

So they've grown in the sense that they've not just forgotten all their previous fights with each other, so won't just play out the same moves again. But Nowhere is it stated or implied that they are both in their Prime as Sword fighters.

👆

as usual, missing the point. Read a couple paragraphs into my blog and you'd realize that the growth point is a strawman and not what the argument regarding the quote is reliant on, As I later had to repeatedly explain to richard on my ben kenobi respect thread.
Another claim he made:

-rebels vader doesn't have superior feats to Maul(good luck defending that one thor)

anyway, if you want to continue debating me on this, bump the blog and I might find myself inclined to respond, I'm not responding to any bumps here though

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
-rebels vader doesn't have superior feats to Maul

Vader is better though.

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
👆 Well, obviously.

Vader is better though.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
as usual, missing the point. Read a couple paragraphs into my blog and you'd realize that the growth point is a strawman and not what the argument regarding the quote is reliant on, As I later had to repeatedly explain to richard on my ben kenobi respect thread.
Another claim he made:

-rebels vader doesn't have superior feats to Maul(good luck defending that one thor)

I didn't say Maul = Vader. I didn't say I agree with everything said.

But he did correctly explain Filoni's quote to you.

I've read your entire blog, and you're grasping at the word "growth" trying to make it mean something entirely different than the one time context it was used in.

Sithmaster also correctly pointed out to you that the fight being short is not supposed to be mean they're both great fighters now, as that would mean they're better than Yoda and Sidious.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
anyway, if you want to continue debating me on this, bump the blog and I might find myself inclined to respond, I'm not responding to any bumps here though

I'm Not on comicvine.