Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

https://comicvine.gamespot.com/profile/kbroskywalker/blog/rebels-mauls-growth/131038/

And no, poll results haven't been factored in my assessment

if rebels Maul is prime that doesn't really say much for the character does it

So basically all you have is a vague quote from Filoni which could be interpreted differently and which he never reaffirms anywhere

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.

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.

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.
He only "toe to toe" with palpatine when rage amped for about 20 seconds, and even then sids wasn't going all out.

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.

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
Fake news

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 DarthAnt66
Fake news
I thought polls were untrustworthy and unreliable?

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
I thought polls were untrustworthy and unreliable?
Depends.

Mine are trustworthy and reliable.

lmao

Hey ant, you want to make an actual argument for me being wrong here aside from
"maul lost to kanan so maul obviously sucks" or nah

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. .
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.

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"?

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 Rockydonovang
Yes, he was broken...
as a person.

A mass murderer is broken as a person, that doesn'tr mean he can't fight 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.

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.
Read the blog bro. Mal getting "blitzed" is thoroughly expkained and has nothing to do with being massively below kenobi.
It was
A/ for storytelling purposes
B. The fight was styled after a way shorter, realistic kind of fight
C. Thet knew each other moves inside out
D. them progressing as duelists

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Yes, he was broken...
as a person.

A mass murderer is broken as a person, that doesn'tr mean he can't fight


Wow way to completely avoid the question.

Which dark spider was broken but still kept growing?

Was Palpatine broken?

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

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
Well, obviously.

Vader is better though.

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
Well, obviously.

Vader is better though.
Now list what has that makes him remotely comparable to maul feat wise

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.