Originally posted by Rebel95Being a "very good swordsmen" isn't specific to a specific opponent. You're adding a specification that isn't implied anywhere in the context of the quote.
And when he says that would mean the characters have no growth, I always interpreted that to mean that they don't have growth in their relationship as characters. They've fought so many times that it wouldn't make sense to have another prolonged duel between them
Originally posted by |King Joker|
If 'prime' is referring to combative skill, that still wouldn't put TPM Maul over Rebels Maul -- only SoD.
Witwer: He has this ambition that still exists inside him and that ambition is eating him up –especially now that he’s past his prime and his glory years. Yeah, he’s a sadder character than we perhaps remember in Clone Wars.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Being a "very good swordsmen" isn't specific to a specific opponent. You're adding a specification that isn't implied anywhere in the context of the quote.
Being very good swordsmen doesn’t prove anything about growth. Just means they’re still skilled combatants.
Originally posted by Rebel95
And honestly I don't think there's a significant difference between any version of Maul.
👆
Thor, the "very good swordsman" was the reason given for the short fight and almost immediately after Feloni says another prolonged bout would not show growth. You can't cherrypick and isolate the growth part while ignoring the context of the statement. And it's even worse when you then try to make up context which is alluded to anywhere in Feloni's statement. That this growth would disappear if Kenobi or Maul were facing someone else is something which is implied or stated nowhere. You can't add context which isn't present in the text.
On the topic of context, here's the definition of prime Thor:
1.
of first importance; main.
"her prime concern is the well-being of the patient"
synonyms:
main, chief, key, primary, central, principal, foremost, first, most important, paramount, major; More
informalnumber-one
"his prime reason for leaving"
fundamental, basic, essential, primary, central
"the prime cause of flooding"
antonyms:
secondary, subordinate
from which another thing may derive or proceed.
"Diogenes' conclusion that air is the prime matter"
2.
of the best possible quality; excellent.
"a prime site in the center of Indianapolis"
synonyms:
top-quality, top, best, first-class, first-rate, grade A, superior, supreme, choice, select, finest, top-end, top-tier; More
excellent, superb, fine;
informaltip-top, A1, top-notch, blue-ribbon
"prime agricultural land"
antonyms:
inferior
having all the expected or typical characteristics of something.
"the novel is a prime example of the genre"
synonyms:
archetypal, prototypical, typical, classic, excellent, characteristic, quintessential
"a prime example"
most suitable or likely.
"it's the prime contender for best comedy of the year"
3.
Mathematics
(of a number) evenly divisible only by itself and one (e.g., 2, 3, 5, 7, 11).
(of two or more numbers in relation to each other) having no common factor but one.
noun
noun: prime; plural noun: primes
1.
a state or time of greatest strength, vigor, or success in a person's life.
"you're in the prime of life"
synonyms:
heyday, best days, best years, prime of one's life; More
youth, salad days;
peak, pinnacle, zenith
"he is in his prime"
archaic
the beginning or first period of something.
"the prime of the world"
2.
Christian Church
a service forming part of the Divine Office, traditionally said (or chanted) at the first hour of the day (i.e., 6 a.m.), but now little used.
You might notice something about all these definitions, save for the last, prime is a vague word. What prime refers to depends on the context it's used in. In order for Maul being past his prime to mean he's past his prime combatively, Maul's combative abilities need to be mentioned somewhere within the context of the quote.
Now I think I understand the source of confusion here. On forums, battle forums, prime is almost always referring to combat because, it's a battle forum. This doesn't hold true outside of the forums though. Witwer mentions Maul's sadness as a character, ambition, and glory days. He does not mention Maul's combative abilities. Hence to try and say that Witwer called Maul combatively post his prime is baseless as combative ability was never mentioned in the context of what Feloni said.
And just so we're clear, as you've stated there's no significant gap between the versions of Maul, I'm going to call you out if you try to argue something which depends on how big the gap between Rebels and SOD Maul is.
If you respond, then this time, respond to the full post, that way you want miss anything I'm saying.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Thor, the "very good swordsman" was the reason given for the short fight
No, it's not. It's only given as a Justification for why the fight CAN be short.
Otherwise if you think them being "very good swordsmen" is THE ONLY reason for the fight being short then you'll have to argue that Maul and Kenobi were NOT good swordsmen during the Prequels. And that Anakin/Vader, Ahsoka, Palpatine and Yoda are not good swordsmen.
You can't have it both ways.
AGAIN stop ignoring the point that your interpretation of Filoni's statement not only contradicts Gilroy's interpretation but also contradicts SW Canon.
So then it's a matter of which has the greater authority to you, the films, or Filoni?
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
and almost immediately after Feloni says another prolonged bout would not show growth.
Yes, because they've fought each other so many times, as Gilroy clearly explained in the same feature. My interpretation of Filoni's comments is compatible with Gilroy's comments and with the rest of SW Canon. Yours is not.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
You can't cherrypick and isolate the growth part while ignoring the context of the statement. And it's even worse when you then try to make up context which is alluded to anywhere in Feloni's statement.
No, you're the one whose cherry picking his statement, but singling it out from the rest of canon, and all the other comments on the subject.
Not to mention making up your own meaning of what he meant by "growth" and trying to pass off your own interpretation as canon.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
That this growth would disappear if Kenobi or Maul were facing someone else is something which is implied or stated nowhere. You can't add context which isn't present in the text.
Actually it's something that's clearly shown in Canon. Hence Maul vs Ahsoka not being a 2 second fight, and Ben vs Vader not being a 2 second fight either.
Again your interpretation of "growth" fails, whilst mine stands up.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
On the topic of context, here's the definition of prime Thor:
Choosing the correct context would help.
LOL @ "Prime concern"
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
You might notice something about all these definitions, save for the last, prime is a vague word.
Irony 101 coming from someone taking a vague comment, interpreting it in his own way and then and making up his own canon.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
What prime refers to depends on the context it's used in. In order for Maul being past his prime to mean he's past his prime combatively, Maul's combative abilities need to be mentioned somewhere within the context of the quote.
No they don't. Because he's talking about the Prime of a Force user, so it's self explanatory.
If someone mentioned the Prime and Glory years of Mike Tyson, would they have to be specific that they're talking about he was at the best in his Boxing career?
Common sense is still a thing you know.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Now I think I understand the source of confusion here. On forums, battle forums, prime is almost always referring to combat because, it's a battle forum. This doesn't hold true outside of the forums though.
Addressed above.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Witwer mentions Maul's sadness as a character, ambition, and glory days. He does not mention Maul's combative abilities. Hence to try and say that Witwer called Maul combatively post his prime is baseless as combative ability was never mentioned in the context of what Feloni said.
Mentioned above. Think. Think Hard about the Mike Tyson example.
Mike Tyson has also experienced "sadness" being past his prime and his hey day. That's natural, especially for a Sith who needs to achieve things in life. A Jedi on the other hand can let go of his hey day past.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
And just so we're clear, as you've stated there's no significant gap between the versions of Maul, I'm going to call you out if you try to argue something which depends on how big the gap between Rebels and SOD Maul is.
I have no idea what you're planning to call me out on. Old Maul did fight off Ahsoka so how much could he have degraded? Not by much when fighting at his best.
However I've also clearly mentioned his desperation and frustration and being mentally broken and stuck in the past makes him more careless than ever, hence his low performances like loss to Kanan, which I highly doubt would happen to Prime Maul.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
If you respond, then this time, respond to the full post, that way you want miss anything I'm saying.
Excuse me, but I've thoroughly refuted your "Maul grew" idea plenty of times. And there's been a few occasions when you haven't replied to me.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
No, it's not. It's only given as a Justification for why the fight CAN be short.
Originally posted by Darth Thorif you think them being "very good swordsmen" is THE ONLY reason for the fight being short then you'll have to argue that Maul and Kenobi were NOT good swordsmen during the Prequels.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
And that Anakin/Vader, Ahsoka, Palpatine and Yoda are not good swordsmen.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
AGAIN
Originally posted by Darth Thor
stop ignoring the point that your interpretation of Filoni's statement not only contradicts Gilroy's interpretation but also contradicts SW Canon.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Yes, because they've fought each other so many times, as Gilroy clearly explained in the same feature.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
No, you're the one whose cherry picking his statement,
Not to mention making up your own meaning of what he meant by "growth" and trying to pass off your own interpretation as canon.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Choosing the correct context would help.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Irony 101 coming from someone taking a vague comment, interpreting it in his own way and then and making up his own canon.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
No they don't. Because he's talking about the Prime of a Force user, so it's self explanatory.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
If someone mentioned the Prime and Glory years of Mike Tyson, would they have to be specific that they're talking about he was at the best in his Boxing career?
You're also acting as if Witwer's comment is vague with it's context, it's not. Witwer specifically gives us the context of "prime". The problem is the specific context Witwer gives says nothing about combat. Almost as if Witwer wasn't talking about combat...
I have no idea what you're planning to call me out on. Old Maul did fight off Ahsoka so how much could he have degraded? Not by much when fighting at his best.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
However I've also clearly mentioned his desperation and frustration
Originally posted by Darth Thor
and being mentally broken and stuck in the past
The despair, the suffering, none of it has been healed, in any way. Mother Talzin doing all that she did and Maul putting together a shadow collective and conquering Mandalore... All the things he did, he never really left that cave where Savage found him.”
Originally posted by Darth Thor
makes him more careless than ever, hence his low performances like loss to Kanan, which I highly doubt would happen to Prime Maul.
Don't worry thor, if careless is your criteria, I have loads more to share.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Excuse me, but I've thoroughly refuted your "Maul grew" idea plenty of times.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
And there's been a few occasions when you haven't replied to me.
Hence, when I know I'm not going to respond to everything you say, I don't give a half-complete reply.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
See, if this specification was present in the text, it would still not explain why the fight here is different between the fight between other "very good fighters". I'll explain now though why this gripe of yours isn't a valid one.They weren't very good compared to where they are as of Rebels. What is "very good" to one fighter will be different from what is "very good" to another fighter. You might remember that the line "you have become powerful" is said a lot throughout the lore. Applying your logic, if someone is stated to become powerful, then they weren't powerful before. Is that really a position you're willing to argue?
So they weren't "very good" as of TCW? 😂
Filoni already stated TCW Kenobi was a "very skilled" swordsmen.
In any case however "good" Maul and Kenobi are now, Palpatine and Yoda were better. To this you still have no rebuttal.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
A writer has the creative license to potray sh!t how they want to. Feloni has free reign to choose how to potray an idea. The only limits the lore places on Feloni is what he potrays. If Feloni chooses to show growth with a short fight, that's his business. The only potential contradiction here would be on what he's using the short fight to potray, the idea that Kenobi and Maul have grown. Unfortunately Thor, no other writer has ever said anything regarding Rebels Maul and Rebels Kenobi declining so there's no contradiction here.
You can't have it both ways.
Nope, Filoni has to fall in line with the rest of Canon.
His own personal "authorial intent" doesn't take precedence over the rest of canon. And your own interpretation of his "authorial intent" really does mean squat.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Using all caps doesn't make you seem smart, it makes you seem like a toddler.
Maybe try actually listening for once then.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Except that my interpretation of Feloni's statement and what Gilroy said are not contradictory. The notion of Kenobi and Maul improving combatively and their fight being symbolic of character development are not mutually exclusive. And as noted earlier, as long as what a writer potrays doesn't contradict the lore, they can choose to potray that "what" however they want. There is no contradiction.
So then it's a matter of which has the greater authority to you, the films, or Filoni?
Yes they are contradictory. Gilroy specifically goes on about the fight being longer in their heads, because they've fought each other so many times, ergo the short fight when they actually engage each other. This is in the same damn feature where Filoni vaguely mentions "growth". Putting them together, it's clear growth refers to how they fight EACH OTHER.
Yes but what you're claiming the writer portrays IS Contradicting the lore. How can you not see that? AGAIN however good Maul and Kenobi are now, they're still under Yoda and Palpatine. Yoda and Palpatine did not have a 2 second fight. So IF that's what Filoni was trying to portray with a 2 second fight, then his portrayal was a fail, and we have to go back to the lore to figure what that means.
Neither you or Filoni get to change the laws of canon.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Why are you trying to mix two separate statements with two separate contexts from two separate people? You realize my interpretation can be correct without Gilroy's statement being wrong? Are you aware of what a contradiction is? 🙁
LOL Because they're from the same damn feature. The same feature you go on about must be taken as a canon source.
Filoni is not the new Lucas. It's not down to one guy now, and what he says is the law. There's an entire story group in charge on canon and power levels.
If 2 of the creators can't get on the same page, on the same thing they helped create, and on the same damn feature, then yeah that's an issue.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
"Nu-uh, you are!" is a real impressive rebuttal bro :up
Dude my rebuttal is right under there.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Yes, the context conveyed in the text, not the context you've created for the text.
LOL The irony.
For the record, I've said from day 1 "Vague and Unclarified" comments can not be taken as canon. But if you want to take them in, then at least interpret them as best we can within the context of established canon.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Nice deflection, do you have a rebuttal?
Urmm.. yeah, I've thoroughly rebutted your whole argument. You can stop making up your own canon anytime now.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
😆 You are aware that characters aren't created with the consideration of what a battle forum would make of it? Fictional characters, force users included will generally have their character be the focus of conversation, not their combative ability.I can guarantee you the context of such a conversation would mention or allude to boxing. Though this comparison fails as Tyson is primarily known as a fighter. On the other hand, force users are primarily known as characters with emotions and character development. A writer is usually going to be talking about a major sw character in terms of overall plot and their character arc, not their combative ability.
What the heck?
Tyson is known as a boxer. Sith Lords are known as Dark Side Force users. It's a very relevant example, but as usual you just want to put your fingers in your ears and ignore everything that's being rebutted. Because for some reason, this idea of Rebels Maul being Prime Maul is super important to you.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
You're also acting as if Witwer's comment is vague with it's context, it's not. Witwer specifically gives us the context of "prime". The problem is the specific context Witwer gives says nothing about combat. Almost as if Witwer wasn't talking about combat...
We've already been through this. Were you not paying attention at all to the Mike Tyson example.
If someone talks about Mike Tyson in his Prime and Glory years, what period is that referring to? Think and think hard before responding this time.
Originally posted by RockydonovangWhich doesn't make darksiders weaker.
LMAO
Being desperate and frustrated makes every combatant weaker. Palpatine wasn't desperate to turn his life around or frustrated with his life. He sat around patiently planning, knowing he was going to win.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
So was TCW Maul:If you haven't figured out by now, having mad OCD doesn't weaken your connection to the darkside.
facepalm
Having OCD is the end of any combatant.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
TCW Maul was never careless...ever:
https://youtu.be/YewksVD176E?t=1m40sDon't worry thor, if careless is your criteria, I have loads more to share.
Yeah great example. Getting taken out by surprise from an opponent who was apparently disarmed and already beaten is almost exactly the same as straight up losing to a blind massively weaker and less skilled opponent by tripping over a stone statue.
Please do provide more.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Keep beating your chest bro 👆True, because the posts usually become extremely large and I'm a busy boy who doesn't want to spend hours on fictional debating.
Hence, when I know I'm not going to respond to everything you say, I don't give a half-complete reply.
Ah I see, so when I don't give a lengthy reply to absolutely every point you've made after I've already thoroughly broken down your arguments time and time again, then you're gonna call me out on that.
But when you don't reply at all, then it's cause you're a busy guy.
Yeah don't worry, we all get what you're all about Kbro 👆
A list of sh!t I've said you didn't address or ignored:
Applying your logic, if someone is stated to become powerful, then they weren't powerful before. Is that really a position you're willing to argue?
A writer has the creative license to potray sh!t how they want to. Feloni has free reign to choose how to potray an idea. The only limits the lore places on Feloni is what he potrays.
See, if this specification was present in the text, it would still not explain why the fight here is different between the fight between other "very good fighters". I'll explain now though why this gripe of yours isn't a valid one.
You are aware that characters aren't created with the consideration of what a battle forum would make of it? Fictional characters, force users included will generally have their character be the focus of conversation, not their combative ability.
[/quote]
Witwer specifically gives us the context of "prime". The problem is the specific context Witwer gives says nothing about combat. Almost as if Witwer wasn't talking about combat...
There's more but I don't feel like dealing with your ad hominems, feigned indignation, and chest-beating.
Also...
We've already been through this. Were you not paying attention at all to the Mike Tyson example.
A writer is usually going to be talking about a major sw character in terms of overall plot and their character arc, not their combative ability.
Anyway, this is my last attempt at explaining basic sh!t to you. If you're desperate enough, go ahead and take this as some sort of concession.
And as your argument has no boiled down to, Rebels Maul is more reckless than earlier versions of Maul, enjoy:
https://youtu.be/yHqdESArkqU?t=4m14s
https://youtu.be/x2qpn4ulIBE?t=2m46s
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=634290&pagenumber=1
A last word of advice, when "recklessness" is your basis for arguing someone's combatively better, it's prolly time to take the l.
But don't let me get in the way of victory party.
Yeah don't worry, we all get what you're all about Kbro
"A writer is usually going to be talking about a major sw character in terms of overall plot and their character arc, not their combative ability."
(Quoting isn't working for me right now, this is in reply to @rockydonovang)
Except when they're talking about Maul's "growth", right? Lol
Not sure why you care so much about proving that Maul's prime is Rebels but you're bias is really starting to show
Originally posted by Rebel95
"A writer is usually going to be talking about a major sw character in terms of overall plot and their character arc, not their combative ability."
(Quoting isn't working for me right now, this is in reply to @rockydonovang)Except when they're talking about Maul's "growth", right? Lol
The actual duel is very short, how did you come to the conclusion it had to come this way?...(feloni) If you talk to a lot of people who sword fight, they'll tell you people who are very good don't have long fights. So that scene, its a homage to the 7th samurai. I think on one level people would be excited to see another prolonged lightsaber fight. But I just never really saw the confrontation that way because to do that is to say the characters don't have growth "
Witwer: He has this ambition that still exists inside him and that ambition is eating him up –especially now that he’s past his prime and his glory years. Yeah, he’s a sadder character than we perhaps remember in Clone Wars.
I'm going to make a leap and assert that thequote that repeatedly mentions lightsaber combat is referring to...lightsaber combat.
Not sure why you care so much about proving that Maul's prime is Rebels but you're bias is really starting to show
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
I'm going to make a leap and assert that thequote that repeatedly mentions lightsaber combat is referring to...lightsaber combat.The ability to comprehend context doesn't really make me biased.
Your hypocrisy and ability to ignore common sense does