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

Title says all. I didn't watch Rebels S3 (guess people think he is stronger due to something he did on that show), so why is he considered stronger now all of a sudden?

Killed Rebel Maul in like 3 seconds flat basically.

http://egmnowbeta.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/18212710/star-wars-rebels-3-19-obi-wan-1.gif

Oh ok,but wasn't that fight implied to be more symbolic rather than a display of their "power levels"? I think I read it here somewhere

People don't care. This is a wank forum not a place for reasonable discussion.

because he's explicitly stated to have grown as a duelist and him being very good was part of the intent behind the shorter fights than he was having with Maul in TCW.

It's also noted that he has deepened his connection to the force.

As there is alack of evidence that suggests otherwise, we go with that.

He's not better; he's different.

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
He's not better; he's different.
He's grown as a swordsman and is more powerful, so why isn't he better?

Older and well outside his prime. Ridiculous to claim he's a more capable fighter than Rots Kenobi.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
He's grown as a swordsman and is more powerful, so why isn't he better?
Obi-Wan grew in some aspects, but the notion he grew more powerful across the board is unfounded.

Especially in Canon, where everyone is more specialized in certain areas of the Force than others.

In regards to swordsmanship, he's clearly not as fast or skilled as he was in ROTS, but he is more efficient.

lol hes not, watch young Obi and old Obi move and try to tell me that Ben is a better fighter or a stronger force user. He gets by with subterfuge and guile in ANH because he knows that he can't go head to head with enemies anymore

Originally posted by DarthAnt66 Obi-Wan grew in some aspects, but the notion he grew more powerful across the board is unfounded.

As it is never specified he grew in one way and declined in another, this assumption of yours that Kenobi's improvement is matched by some sort of degradement. Additionally, Kenobi being "very good" is noted as a reason for why his fight with Maul in Rebels is shorter than his fight with Maul in TCW. We have evidence that he's improved and none that he's declined, so we can assume he's a better swordsman.
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
Especially in Canon, where everyone is more specialized in certain areas of the Force than others.

I do not care. Kenobi having a deeper connection to the source of all his power would logically make his powers greater. Additionally, he's a peer of Vader, a force user who's feats several years pre-rebels stomp al over anything ROTS Kenobi has done as of this point
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
In regards to swordsmanship, he's clearly not as fast or skilled as he was in ROTS, but he is more efficient.
Are you actually trying to form a judgement based on choreography and a fight's visual appeal? Nah, as he's stated tohave grown as a swordsman and him being very good was part of the expressed intent of the dhorter fight he had in Rebels in comparison to the "prolonged lightsaber fights" he had in TCW, all evidence in new canon points to Kenobi being better. As there's nothing indicating the opposite, we go with Kenobi having improved.

Originally posted by relentless1
lol hes not, watch young Obi and old Obi move and try to tell me that Ben is a better fighter or a stronger force user. He gets by with subterfuge and guile in ANH because he knows that he can't go head to head with enemies anymore
They also didn't have the same choreography/special effects back then, and Lucas originally did not intend for Vader and Ben to be as great as the new canon does

Originally posted by Total Warrior
Oh ok,but wasn't that fight implied to be more symbolic rather than a display of their "power levels"? I think I read it here somewhere

The fact that it's symbolic or artistic doesn't change the fact that it happened. A high-class swordsman was cut apart faster than you can say it, that's pretty relevant.

Well it lasted longer if we count the "virtual" fight that preceded the actual Saber clash.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Well it lasted longer if we count the "virtual" fight that preceded the actual Saber clash.
The virtual fight symbolizing their growth as swordsmen

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
The virtual fight symbolizing their growth as swordsmen


Their growth in fighting each other, yes.

Not necessarily their growth as overall swordsmen given how they don't fight other combatants like that.

However Obi-Wan ending the fight so quickly was certainly a display of his power.

^ Or old Maul is just shit.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Their growth in fighting each other, yes.

Not necessarily their growth as overall swordsmen given how they don't fight other combatants like that.

Yea, the quote never specifies or alludes to the context you're asserting that is present here. They didn't fight other comabatnats like that because Feloni, didn't want to have that kind of fight before.
So I'm gonna say, nah, aight?
Originally posted by Darth Thor
However Obi-Wan ending the fight so quickly was certainly a display of his power.
Nope, no, him three-shotting Maul had nothing to with being vastly above him. Unless you want to tell me you think Ben could stomp the likes of Vader.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Yea, the quote never specifies or alludes to the context you're asserting that is present here. They didn't fight other comabatnats like that because Feloni, didn't want to have that kind of fight before.
So I'm gonna say, nah, aight?



Urm yes it does. Filoni clearly gave the reason why he didn't want the same kind of fight again: "I never saw this as being my ANOTHER Prolonged Lightsaber duel because that would suggest no growth" (paraphrasing a little).

Improved "skill" as swordsmen was never suggested or alluded to.


Originally posted by Rockydonovang


Nope, no, him three-shotting Maul had nothing to with being vastly above him. Unless you want to tell me you think Ben could stomp the likes of Vader.



The three-shorting Maul was to make it clear Ben is now the superior of the 2 leaving No Doubt about it. Filoni makes that clear when he states "I felt that every time Maul parries Obi-Wan it suggests they're equals and I don't think they are.." (again slightly paraphrasing, but the important words which support the meaning I'm alluding to are there in the actual quotes).

Originally posted by Darth Thor
"I never saw this as being my ANOTHER Prolonged Lightsaber duel because that would suggest no growth" (paraphrasing a little).

The above says absolutely nothing regarding the following assertion you've made:


And you keep ignoring how, in the sentences right before he mentions growth, he gives them being "very good swordsmen" as an answer to the question of "why was the fight so short?".

Them being very good swordsmen and them growing in general doesn't indicate that they only grew in regards to how they fought each other and that said growth would only apply when facing each other in a fight.

How they fought each other was a result of their growth, not the reverse.


Originally posted by Darth Thor
The three-shorting Maul was to make it clear Ben is now the superior of the 2 leaving No Doubt about it.
Filoni makes that clear when he states "I felt that every time Maul parries Obi-Wan it suggests they're equals and I don't think they are.." (again slightly paraphrasing, but the important words which support the meaning I'm alluding to are there in the actual quotes).
Now explain how Kenobi being better than Maul contradicts the notion that he's vastly superior?

That Maul isn't equal to Kenobi doesn't mean that he's far below Kenobi. Especially not to the extent that he could three-shot him without the aid of the multiple circumstances that only apply to this specific fight:

Filoni never stated Ben grew as a swordsman.

Filoni never stated Ben grew as a swordsman.

Filoni never stated Ben grew as a swordsman.

Lucas puts RotS Obi above Ben.

Lucas puts RotS Obi above Ben.

Lucas puts RotS Obi above Ben.

ffs

The brief Twin Suns skirmish was a nice way to save time and animation budget. So to me, Filoni's explanation looks like a post-modern artist's desperate attempt to convince people his work, which is minimalist in nature, has some great hidden depth or meaning to it. A subterfuge readily employed by new age artisans across the globe, i.e. ; Tracey Emmin's the unmade bed.

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
Filoni never stated Ben grew as a swordsman.

Filoni never stated Ben grew as a swordsman.

Filoni never stated Ben grew as a swordsman.

Lucas puts RotS Obi above Ben.

Lucas puts RotS Obi above Ben.

Lucas puts RotS Obi above Ben.

ffs
I'm not sure what you mean can you say it a few more times?

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
The above says absolutely nothing regarding the following assertion you've made:


Yes it does. Read it. He said he never saw this as being ANOTHER PROLONGED Saber duel. Read the Capital letters again and again until you get it.

Henry Gilroy confirms in the statement that you provided, that it's short because they know each others moves so well, because they've fought each other multiple times before.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
And you keep ignoring how, in the sentences right before he mentions growth, he gives them being "very good swordsmen" as an answer to the question of "why was the fight so short?".

No, the "very good swordsmen" having short fights was a Justification for WHY it's plausible for duels in SW to be very short. It doesn't mean once Swordsmen have reached a certain level then they will always be short fights, as that would Clearly Contradict the Canon. Including other fights involving these same incarnations of Ben and Maul vs other "Very good swordsmen" i.e. Old Ben vs OT Vader, and Rebels Maul vs Rebels Ahsoka.



Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Them being very good swordsmen and them growing in general doesn't indicate that they only grew in regards to how they fought each other and that said growth would only apply when facing each other in a fight.

How they fought each other was a result of their growth, not the reverse.


It was a result of them learning something about each other's moves from previous duels. Like Gilroy confirms.

IOW Growth means they've not just completely forgotten every other fight they've had in the past.

Again your interpretation that it was only a short fight because they are both so good now makes no sense in the canon.

My interpretation aligns Gilroy's and Filoni's comments, doesn't make up BS that Filoni didn't say, and most importantly Aligns with the rest of Canon.



Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Now explain how Kenobi being better than Maul contradicts the notion that he's vastly superior?

That Maul isn't equal to Kenobi doesn't mean that he's far below Kenobi. Especially not to the extent that he could three-shot him without the aid of the multiple circumstances that only apply to this specific fight:


Well I'm pretty sure I already mentioned that the fight wasn't 3 seconds if you count the whole "virtual" fight, on top of the actual clash of Sabers.

Originally posted by Darth Thor ]Yes it does. Read it. He said he never saw this as being ANOTHER PROLONGED Saber duel. Read the Capital letters again and again until you get it.

AKA, that they had a very short fight rather than another prolonged bout to show growth.

Originally posted by Darth Thor ]
Henry Gilroy confirms in the statement that you provided, that it's short because they know each others moves so well, because they've fought each other multiple times before.

Naturally you're disputing my interpretation about what Feloni said, with something that Gilroy said that doesn't remotely contradict my interpretation.

In response to the question, we are given three separate reasons. These reasons are not mutually exclusive:

1. Beck explains that the fight was supposed to be symbolic for the characterization of Maul and Kenobi, expressing part of the authorial intent.

2. Henry Gilroy gives us in universe reasons for the shortness of the fight.

3. Feloni, like Beck also expresses authorial intent, telling us that the unique fight was to show their growth as swordsman.

Originally posted by Darth Thor ]
No, the "very good swordsmen" having short fights was a Justification for WHY it's plausible for duels in SW to be very short.

Wrong, this is the question it was addressing:

The very good swordsman was the reasoning behind why this fight between these two combatants was shorter than your typical SW duel.
Originally posted by Darth Thor ]
It doesn't mean once Swordsmen have reached a certain level then they will always be short fights, as that would Clearly Contradict the Canon. Including other fights involving these same incarnations of Ben and Maul vs other "Very good swordsmen" i.e. Old Ben vs OT Vader, and Rebels Maul vs Rebels Ahsoka.

You're right, it applies specifically to these swordsmen in this specific fight where there were already multiple unique circumstances, both out of and in-universe that made this fight special. And under these circumstances, the fight was meant to showcase how they grew as swordsmen.



Originally posted by Darth Thor
My interpretation aligns Gilroy's and Filoni's comments, doesn't make up BS that Filoni didn't say, and most importantly Aligns with the rest of Canon.

Your interpretation of one reason that was given doesn't say anything about a separate reason that given. And Feloni's statement never implied anything about their growth as swordsmen being exclusive to each other. Them being "very good swordsman" has absolutely nothing to do with facing each other. The "another" prolonged lightsaber fight would refer to Kenobi and Maul's previous fights. In other words, the shorter fight shows they've grown from when they had longer fights. Maul and Kenobi are "very good" compared to where they were when we last saw them fight and hence they having a shorter fight then they would have had in TCW when they weren't as good.




Originally posted by Darth Thor
Well I'm pretty sure I already mentioned that the fight wasn't 3 seconds if you count the whole "virtual" fight, on top of the actual clash of Sabers.

I don't care. The shortness of the fight was a result of multiple circumstances. Without said circumstances, we wouldn't have had as short of a fight. Your assertion that this means Kenobi>>>Maul is baseless.

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
Filoni never stated Ben grew as a swordsman.

Oh?

Direct me where in that he says Obi-Wan improved.

Why does Lucas's thoughts on power levels matter anymore? It's not like new canon abides by his opinions.

@Ant

He says that people who are really good don't have long fights and that having a long fight would mean the characters haven't experienced growth. You can put those two together.

edit : ninja'd

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
Direct me where in that he says Obi-Wan improved.


Originally posted by twotter
He says that people who are really good don't have long fights and that having a long fight would mean the characters haven't experienced growth. You can put those two together.

Originally posted by twotter


edit : ninja'd
Isn't ninja'd when the dude posts before you?

Originally posted by twotter
The brief Twin Suns skirmish was a nice way to save time and animation budget. So to me, Filoni's explanation looks like a post-modern artist's desperate attempt to convince people his work, which is minimalist in nature, has some great hidden depth or meaning to it. A subterfuge readily employed by new age artisans across the globe, i.e. ; Tracey Emmin's the unmade bed.
I'd argue the shorter fight made the story better. Given the scope of what they were doing in the next two episodes, I doubt there were serious budget issues.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
I'd argue the shorter fight made the story better.

I'd argue that it made Maul look like a pansy, and weaker than he was in TCW. Which is ironically the opposite of Filoni's (stated) intentions, as all of the fights between people who are really good in Star Wars tend to be rather prolonged.



Never said there were issues, Rocky. The kind of practice I'm referring to is employed by the most capital-wealthy entertainment cooperations in the world. That is to market a product guaranteed to sell based on label, and not put in the effort required to make it amazeballs great. The phenomena I'm talking about is especially prevalent in the gaming industry today. Which funnily enough, mostly pertains to blockbuster sequels that can ride the coattails of their predecessor's glory - CoD, BF, Halo etc. You think that Star Wars can't do the same? As for what that money and time could've been spent on... well, you kind of answered your own question by mentioning the next two episodes. Or it could have just been pocketed by the executives pulling the strings, as is the nature of any human ran businesses.

He's more experienced/wiser, but that's a given.

I just think they wanted the show as little of Ben Kenobi as possible due to the Kenobi spin-off film they're planning in the same period (between ROTS and ANH).

Originally posted by twotter
I'd argue that it made Maul look like a pansy, and weaker than he was in TCW. Which is ironically the opposite of Filoni's (stated) intentions, as all of the fights between people who are really good in Star Wars tend to be rather prolonged.

I was referring to what the fight represented thematically and it's role in the story. I liked what the fight expressed thematically as opposed to it's aesthetic appeal. The problem regarding Maul is that they didn't handle him very well prior to this episode. On it's own, I think thie way they handled the fight worked well.
Originally posted by twotter
Never said there were issues, Rocky. The kind of practice I'm referring to is employed by the most capital-wealthy entertainment cooperations in the world. That is to market a product guaranteed to sell based on label, and not put in the effort required to make it amazeballs great. The phenomena I'm talking about is especially prevalent in the gaming industry today. Which funnily enough, mostly pertains to blockbuster sequels that can ride the coattails of their predecessor's glory - CoD, BF, Halo etc. You think that Star Wars can't do the same? As for what that money and time could've been spent on... well, you kind of answered your own question by mentioning the next two episodes. Or it could have just been pocketed by the executives pulling the strings, as is the nature of any human ran businesses.
Doubt it. If they wanted to make more money, the flashy epic duel would have been exactly what fans would have wanted. Evidently they've taken a lot of flak for their treatment of Maul.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
I just think they wanted the show as little of Ben Kenobi as possible due to the Kenobi spin-off film they're planning in the same period (between ROTS and ANH).

Eh they've showed some Ben too in the comic series.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
AKA, that they had a very short fight rather than another prolonged bout to show growth.


Yes, growth. I.e. having learned something from their previous duels. Clearly shown by Kenobi suckering Maul in with Qui-Gon's stance.


Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Naturally you're disputing my interpretation about what Feloni said, with something that Gilroy said that doesn't remotely contradict my interpretation.


No, I'm giving you the correct interpretation instead of twisting a single word of his to mean whatever you like it to.

There's many ways to "Grow", even in regards to a sword fight. None of that necessarily means they're now in their Prime as sword fighters, or that they're both stronger, and more potent sword fighters than ever before.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
In response to the question, we are given three separate reasons. These reasons are not mutually exclusive:

1. Beck explains that the fight was supposed to be symbolic for the characterization of Maul and Kenobi, expressing part of the authorial intent.

2. Henry Gilroy gives us in universe reasons for the shortness of the fight.

3. Feloni, like Beck also expresses authorial intent, telling us that the unique fight was to show their growth as swordsman.

1. None of that means this Kenobi and Maul need to be better or worse than their ROTS counterparts. Just that this Kenobi needs to be closer to Vader than Maul, and this Maul is broken, as confirmed multiple times.

That's what's meant by their characterization arcs which Beck refers to.

2. So you agree the In-Universe reason for the short fight is their previous fights with each other and not the fact that they're both so much better now

3. Yes but you're still missing the context of that "growth."

Your meaning of the word "growth" in Filoni's comments invalidates Gilroy's comments. My interpretation fits both their statements together. And fits with actual Star Wars Canon. Your interpretation doesn't. So clearly either you're wrong, or Filoni is wrong. Take your pick.




Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Wrong, this is the question it was addressing:

The very good swordsman was the reasoning behind why this fight between these two combatants was shorter than your typical SW duel.


Nope, Gilory already explained the reason the fight was short is because they've fought each other so many times. Witwer adds that it's because this Obi-Wan isn't looking to battle, but is looking for ways to end the conflict as quick as possible, and Maul is going straight for the killing move, because of how frustrated he's become over the decades.

Filoni is only adding that just because the fight was short, doesn't mean one of them is bad. Because very good swordsmen can have very short fights.

Otherwise what, you think they weren't very good swordsmen in TCW? Lol



Originally posted by Rockydonovang
You're right, it applies specifically to these swordsmen in this specific fight where there were already multiple unique circumstances, both out of and in-universe that made this fight special. And under these circumstances, the fight was meant to showcase how they grew as swordsmen.


Yeah, you're not paying attention.



Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Your interpretation of one reason that was given doesn't say anything about a separate reason that given. And Feloni's statement never implied anything about their growth as swordsmen being exclusive to each other. Them being "very good swordsman" has absolutely nothing to do with facing each other. The "another" prolonged lightsaber fight would refer to Kenobi and Maul's previous fights. In other words, the shorter fight shows they've grown from when they had longer fights. Maul and Kenobi are "very good" compared to where they were when we last saw them fight and hence they having a shorter fight then they would have had in TCW when they weren't as good.

Your interpretation makes no sense. Because Kenobi and Maul were ALREADY very good swordsmen in TCW. And they're both having prolonged fights with OTHER Very Good Swordsmen in the same period.

So the short fight had nothing to do with them being in the prime of their swordsmenship. It was to showcase their character growths and what they've learned from their previous fights with each other, and how that all leads to a very short finale.



Originally posted by Rockydonovang
I don't care. The shortness of the fight was a result of multiple circumstances. Without said circumstances, we wouldn't have had as short of a fight. Your assertion that this means Kenobi>>>Maul is baseless.


I'm not arguing that. Try to pay attention. I'm arguing this ludicrous idea that both Kenobi and Maul are superior swordsmen to their TCW selves based on Filoni's comments.

He only saw their fight as being short because of their previous fights with each other.

And we know this given how Kenobi suckered Maul in with Qui-Gon's stance, and how Maul went straight for the killing blow. That is "Growth" for both, but not even close to evidence that they're both stronger than their younger selves in a saber only fight.

Originally posted by Zenwolf
Eh they've showed some Ben too in the comic series.


Not much.

Maul>Vader, because Vader hasn't yet grown enough as a swordsman to get slaughtred in three moves. Duh.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
I was referring to what the fight represented thematically and it's role in the story. I liked what the fight expressed thematically as opposed to it's aesthetic appeal. The problem regarding Maul is that they didn't handle him very well prior to this episode. On it's own, I think thie way they handled the fight worked well.

What it thematically represented to me is a large gap between the present Kenobi and Maul. One that can be satiated with Kenobi getting stronger or Maul getting weaker. And based off prior Maul antics within the show, I'm saying it's the latter. Filoni's explanation doesn't satisfy me because

- I'm not an authorial intent proponent : the interpretation of the reader is more important than the intentions of the author

- His explanation doesn't make sense from an in-universe perspective : where all the really good people don't have anti-climactic fights that fit into a single .gif

- I don't trust his sincerity : trying to give meaning to something that's lazy in execution, taking a note from the book of all post-modern artists in the new age



https://i.imgur.com/QONVIyz.gif

So what your saying is, that their intention was to not make money and to not give what the fans what they wanted. You're truly the gift that keeps on giving. No. They already have the marketing clout of brand name to sell whatever they please. If they can cut corners while doing so, even better. Maul's death being one of those corners.



Hey guys, I know the direction of Maul in Rebels isn't what many of you expected, but don't you worry, we've reconciled the situation by giving him a chance to show just how much he's grown as a fighter and a character!!!

Your Truly

Dave

https://www.sideshowtoy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/davefiloni.png

^ Lmao

Originally posted by twotter
@Ant

He says that people who are really good don't have long fights

That's not a prerequisite though. Take Sidious vs Mace, Sidious vs Yoda, etc.

Further, Witwer explicitly noted Ben's style in Rebels / ANH cut off the finesse and flash and became straight-forward, designed for the sole purpose to end conflict.



I don't take this as combat development, but rather character development of Obi-Wan's part.

After all, recall Witwer's interview where he went in-detail explaining how Obi-Wan's change in perspective after ROTS altered his fighting style.

Ben is more experienced and wiser, that's it, which shows when he ended Maul. I mean he's still powerful, but old men can still be powerful yet not as a great as they were physically when they were younger.

Exceptions of course are in SW cause The Force, but Ben clearly isn't one given the SW comics he's noted himself even after he started training, that he wasn't what he once was and this was long before Rebels.

Originally posted by Zenwolf

but Ben clearly isn't one given the SW comics he's noted himself even after he started training, that he wasn't what he once was and this was long before Rebels.


Which comic was that?

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
That's not a prerequisite though. Take Sidious vs Mace, Sidious vs Yoda, etc.

http://mjr.jour.umt.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/PreachingToTheChoir.jpg

I've mentioned that his explanation doesn't make sense from an in-universe perspective twice here. He can equivocate real life sword-fighting to lightsabers all he wants, but the notion is oblivious to elements which make up saber duelling : precognition and danger-sense. Two little constituents that explain why the duelling is much longer than it should be.



Makes perfect sense. Then we can infer that Maul, who not only degraded in skill, was suckered by expecting the defensive-Kenobi we're use to seeing. Old Ben Kenobi being better or worse has yet to be seen in the context of Canon.



You can interpret the fight however you want. However, what he said in that interview specifically seems to allude to their growth as duelists. That is the most logical explanation based on the transcript - Really good guys don't have long fights - a long fight would mean the characters don't have growth. Now as I've mentioned, I actively ignore his elucidation because :

- I don't care about Author Intent

- It doesn't make sense (as we've both established)

- I think he's bullshitting

Perhaps if your ideas were more flexible on the subject of authorial intent, this wouldn't really be an issue.



FFS, you're making me argue in favour of stance I'm not even taking up with this point :

1) This doesn't preclude the notion of Kenobi simply being better at fighting, in fact, it might support it.

2) Works that have multiple creators, actors and producers often have people giving conflicting statements regarding the story. It happens very often. It's also commonplace to see one creator make a statement that pertains to something, only to make another statement to the contrary on a later date. I can give you countless examples of this.

3) It's entirely possible that this is Witwer's personal opinion, in spite of his closeness to the Story Group. In which case, I'm not even sure if it counts as author intent.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Which comic was that?

The ongoing Star Wars series, specifically issue 20 when he has a fight against Krrsantan. Also in issue 15 he hurt his back after fighting a group of Sand People and saying he needed an easier way to deal with them.

Originally posted by twotter
What it thematically represented to me is a large gap between the present Kenobi and Maul. One that can be satiated with Kenobi getting stronger or Maul getting weaker. And based off prior Maul antics within the show, I'm saying it's the latter. Filoni's explanation doesn't satisfy me because

Yea, I was just talking about what it meant for the story with my last two replies. When I watched the episode, I liked the different approach they took and the subtle symbolism they utilized. Be it Kenobi shifting from soresu to ataru, Maul attempting the same move he attempted vs Qui-Gon, Kenobi adapting to show he's moved on while Maul hasn't. I think the fight worked well for the thematic direction they took.

Though, on the topic of combat, Maul's contention with Ahsoka still put's him in Vader's range. Vader off course being a force user who several years pre-rebels has the feats to ragdoll the crap out of SOD Maul.
Originally posted by twotter
- I'm not an authorial intent proponent : the interpretation of the reader is more important than the intentions of the author

That's fine. If you don't consider holistic intent, then fair enough.
Originally posted by twotter
- His explanation doesn't make sense from an in-universe perspective : where all the really good people don't have anti-climactic fights that fit into a single .gif

The authorial intent here only applies to this fight. And there were multiple additional reasons for the short fight which were unique to this specific duel. Like Maul and Kenobi knowing each other's moves, for example
Originally posted by twotter
.- I don't trust his sincerity : trying to give meaning to something that's lazy in execution, taking a note from the book of all post-modern artists in the new age

Well, that's too bad
Originally posted by twotter
https://i.imgur.com/QONVIyz.gif

So what your saying is, that their intention was to not make money and to not give what the fans what they wanted. You're truly the gift that keeps on giving.

Well, yes, the fans wanted another prolonged fight, and giving what the fans wanted tends to correlate with higher ratings and more money.
Originally posted by twotter
No. They already have the marketing clout of brand name to sell whatever they please. If they can cut corners while doing so, even better. Maul's death being one of those corners.

Well regardless of what you suppose the motivation, the simplicity of the fight and the episode as a whole worked well with the story being told.
Originally posted by twotter
Hey guys, I know the direction of Maul in Rebels isn't what many of you expected, but don't you worry, we've reconciled the situation by giving him a chance to show just how much he's grown as a fighter and a character!!!

Your Truly

Dave

https://www.sideshowtoy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/davefiloni.png

Well, yes, as a whole, they could have handled Maul better.

Originally posted by twotter
What it thematically represented to me is a large gap between the present Kenobi and Maul. One that can be satiated with Kenobi getting stronger or Maul getting weaker. And based off prior Maul antics within the show, I'm saying it's the latter. Filoni's explanation doesn't satisfy me because

Yea, I was just talking about what it meant for the story with my last two replies. When I watched the episode, I liked the different approach they took and the subtle symbolism they utilized. Be it Kenobi shifting from soresu to ataru, Maul attempting the same move he attempted vs Qui-Gon, Kenobi adapting to show he's moved on while Maul hasn't. I think the fight worked well for the thematic direction they took.

Though, on the topic of combat, Maul's contention with Ahsoka still put's him in Vader's range. Vader off course being a force user who several years pre-rebels has the feats to ragdoll the crap out of SOD Maul.
Originally posted by twotter
- I'm not an authorial intent proponent : the interpretation of the reader is more important than the intentions of the author

That's fine. If you don't consider holistic intent, then fair enough.
Originally posted by twotter
- His explanation doesn't make sense from an in-universe perspective : where all the really good people don't have anti-climactic fights that fit into a single .gif

The authorial intent here only applies to this fight. And there were multiple additional reasons for the short fight which were unique to this specific duel. Like Maul and Kenobi knowing each other's moves, for example
Originally posted by twotter
.- I don't trust his sincerity : trying to give meaning to something that's lazy in execution, taking a note from the book of all post-modern artists in the new age

Well, that's too bad
Originally posted by twotter
https://i.imgur.com/QONVIyz.gif

So what your saying is, that their intention was to not make money and to not give what the fans what they wanted. You're truly the gift that keeps on giving.

Well, yes, the fans wanted another prolonged fight, and giving what the fans wanted tends to correlate with higher ratings and more money.
Originally posted by twotter
No. They already have the marketing clout of brand name to sell whatever they please. If they can cut corners while doing so, even better. Maul's death being one of those corners.

Well regardless of what you suppose the motivation, the simplicity of the fight and the episode as a whole worked well with the story being told.
Originally posted by twotter
Hey guys, I know the direction of Maul in Rebels isn't what many of you expected, but don't you worry, we've reconciled the situation by giving him a chance to show just how much he's grown as a fighter and a character!!!

Your Truly

Dave

https://www.sideshowtoy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/davefiloni.png

Well, yes, as a whole, they could have handled Maul better.

Originally posted by twotter
What it thematically represented to me is a large gap between the present Kenobi and Maul. One that can be satiated with Kenobi getting stronger or Maul getting weaker. And based off prior Maul antics within the show, I'm saying it's the latter. Filoni's explanation doesn't satisfy me because

Yea, I was just talking about what it meant for the story with my last two replies. When I watched the episode, I liked the different approach they took and the subtle symbolism they utilized. Be it Kenobi shifting from soresu to ataru, Maul attempting the same move he attempted vs Qui-Gon, Kenobi adapting to show he's moved on while Maul hasn't. I think the fight worked well for the thematic direction they took.

Though, on the topic of combat, Maul's contention with Ahsoka still put's him in Vader's range. Vader off course being a force user who several years pre-rebels has the feats to ragdoll the crap out of SOD Maul.
Originally posted by twotter
- I'm not an authorial intent proponent : the interpretation of the reader is more important than the intentions of the author

That's fine. If you don't consider holistic intent, then fair enough.
Originally posted by twotter
- His explanation doesn't make sense from an in-universe perspective : where all the really good people don't have anti-climactic fights that fit into a single .gif

The authorial intent here only applies to this fight. And there were multiple additional reasons for the short fight which were unique to this specific duel. Like Maul and Kenobi having already fought multiple times, for example.
Originally posted by twotter
.- I don't trust his sincerity : trying to give meaning to something that's lazy in execution, taking a note from the book of all post-modern artists in the new age

Well, that's too bad
Originally posted by twotter
https://i.imgur.com/QONVIyz.gif

So what your saying is, that their intention was to not make money and to not give what the fans what they wanted. You're truly the gift that keeps on giving.

Well, yes, the fans wanted another prolonged fight, and giving what the fans wanted tends to correlate with higher ratings and more money.
Originally posted by twotter
No. They already have the marketing clout of brand name to sell whatever they please. If they can cut corners while doing so, even better. Maul's death being one of those corners.

Well regardless of what you suppose the motivation, the simplicity of the fight and the episode as a whole worked well with the story being told.
Originally posted by twotter
Hey guys, I know the direction of Maul in Rebels isn't what many of you expected, but don't you worry, we've reconciled the situation by giving him a chance to show just how much he's grown as a fighter and a character!!!

Your Truly

Dave

https://www.sideshowtoy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/davefiloni.png

Well, yes, as a whole, they could have handled Maul better.

Triple post there Rock. O.o

The gift that keeps on giving.

Originally posted by Zenwolf
Triple post there Rock. O.o
Oh fck

Originally posted by twotter

You can interpret the fight however you want. However, what he said in that interview specifically seems to allude to their growth as duelists. That is the most logical explanation based on the transcript - Really good guys don't have long fights - a long fight would mean the characters don't have growth. Now as I've mentioned, I actively ignore his elucidation because :


Well if you put his statement together with Gilroy's the "growth" he alludes to seems to be both combatants having simply learned from their previous battles, and Filoni's comments about "very good swordsmen" having short fights is simply an added justification for the lazily put together ending for Maul.

But if you want to insist he means what Rocky's arguing he means then Filoni is simply contradicting established Canon, so should simply be ignored.

However even if we accept the notion of taking on board authorial intent and statements, (which I know you're against), personally I think his comments are too vague to take as any kind of Canon fact. If he said "these combatants are both more powerful than they've ever been now", then that would be a lot less vague and a lot more specific, and would therefore have more standing for those who want to take Filoni's words as Canon. As it stands however, taking these specific comments as Canon (which would require many assumptions on his meaning and intent) is a foolish and rather desperate stand to take IMO.

Originally posted by Zenwolf
The ongoing Star Wars series, specifically issue 20 when he has a fight against Krrsantan. Also in issue 15 he hurt his back after fighting a group of Sand People and saying he needed an easier way to deal with them.


Sure, but that was only like a few years post ROTS, so he may have improved again since then.

But you're right it certainly alludes to him already being past his prime. And let's not just completely forget Vader's line in ANH "your powers are weak old man". Sure that may have been Dun Moch, but it seems a bit random for Dun Moch as well.

You don't take Feloni's words seriously, but you're willing to Take Witwer's?
Aight then.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
You don't take Feloni's words seriously, but you're willing to Take Witwer's?
Aight then.



That's like, not what I said, at all.

But at least Witwer doesn't play favourites or shit on characters for no particular reason.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Sure, but that was only like a few years post ROTS, so he may have improved again since then.

But you're right it certainly alludes to him already being past his prime. And let's not just completely forget Vader's line in ANH "your powers are weak old man". Sure that may have been Dun Moch, but it seems a bit random for Dun Moch as well.

I mean maybe rework his fighting style sure to compensate for his physicals would make sense and add up, just like Vader had to. Since he started training again before the Sand People and the BH.

Originally posted by Zenwolf
I mean maybe rework his fighting style sure to compensate for his physicals would make sense and add up, just like Vader had to. Since he started training again before the Sand People and the BH.


IOW they can grow in certain aspects, but still be past their prime