MovieChat Forums > Star Wars Rebels (2014) Discussion > Maul Back in the Films

Maul Back in the Films

posted 8 years ago by AlexDuran
28 replies | jump to latest

The inclusion of Saw Gerrera in Rogue One is pretty groundbreaking. It would be nice to see Maul in one final film. Of course the argument is he assumedly died in the film so that's that. I think this is flawed thinking from Lucasfilm/Disney in two ways;

1. They're overestimating the general audience remembers or cares. They don't. They just want to see a decent story and lightsaber battles. Maul looks cool, ie they'd appreciate seeing a cool looking character. Remember these people could give a *beep* about Star Wars canon either way and just want to be entertained for two hours.

2. They're underestimating the fans. If you're even the slightest fan of Star Wars, by this time with all media available you probably know Maul is still around. He pops up on facebook trending whenever there's something new about him. Also, there's a bazillion fans. The Clone Wars and Rebels aren't some subculture thing, they're pretty popular with kids and adults.

So basically joe casual movie goer doesn't care and there's plenty of people that know he's alive. Why not then.

[–] Leklor 8 years ago

If the only thing Maul really brings for general audiences is cool lightsaber battles, then there's a simpler solution than dropping him once again in the movie: Create a new character using a saberstaff. One that you don't kill at the end of the movie so he can return provided he clicks with audiences.
Problem solved.
Maul isn't that interesting a character, even with TCW and Rebels. They did an okay job but he has long overstayed his welcome.

[–] Zippy B 8 years ago

The silliness they did to bring him back was ok for the cartoon. It would be ridiculous in the Movies.

[–] ZakkWyldeMyLittlePony 8 years ago

They should've brought back Darth Maul for both the second and third films in the prequel trilogy.

Slipknot watches My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic

[–] roosterq 8 years ago

Maul's return in TCW, has caused almost as much headache, as the SE changes did. He died in the movies, and assuming Star Wars movie fans would't complain or care is just like saying Star Wars fans wont care if Han shot first. Maul returning to the movies, would be a walk out of the theater moment for a lot of people.

Why not have another Zabrak play a roll in the movies. It's not like he was the only one, or that movie fans would even assume he was the only one.

"I find your lack of faith disturbing."

[–] !!!deleted!!! (4524359) 8 years ago

He didn't die in the movies. He was cut in half, it didn't kill him.

[–] skoobaba 8 years ago

Followed by a kilometer straight drop down the shaft. Then he managed to get off Naboo without any medical aid.

In comparison a Zabrak jedi master died from a single stab to the gut in ROTS.

Maul surviving was pretty damn dumb.

[–] timosullivan-09439 8 years ago

if vader can survive being burnt alive and losing his limbs. Maul can survive being cut in half.

[–] Zippy B 8 years ago

One seems more plausible with immediate medical attention, however, we know nothing about his biology so who knows. I still insist that while it fits in perfectly with a cartoon it would be harder to take in a movie.

[–] smithstar 8 years ago

So pretty much no one should die in Star Wars with your logic. If getting cut in half and falling down into the abyss doesn't kill someone, then blaster shots and being stabbed shouldn't either.

The Emperor is probably alive too because he was just thrown down a pit, not wounded beforehand. He probably formed a force bubble around him and escaped.

[–] s-e-jones23 8 years ago

The Emperor was thrown down a 200 mile shaft into the reactor core minutes before it exploded ... Pretty sure we can safely call him dead. I can buy that Maul was able to sustain himself through the Dark Side. Vader did the same thing -- it must have taken Sidious at least a little while to get there.

[–] smithstar 8 years ago

Why? You are using 'magic' to justify one example but dismissing it from another.
Sidious could have sensed the explosion coming and shielded himself in dark side energies.

[–] Leklor 8 years ago

Then he swam in the void until he reached a ship, knocked on the airlock, killed the crew then went on vacation?

Maul was a pretty wide stretch to bring back, I think so too, but Palpatine had even less of a chance to survive.

[–] smithstar 8 years ago

If the writers are liberal enough with their use of the force, they can explain anything.
I'm not saying Palptine would reemerge decades later like Maul, but the initial survival is just as possible.

From a narrative perspective, both characters falling down into their respective abyss symbolizes their demise. Bringing a character back from that who doesn't really contribute anything to the story that someone else could have filled is just fan service or trying to milk the same drama over and over.

[–] Leklor 8 years ago

Oh, I agree on the excuse for bringing back Maul being rather weak.
Were I the shows creator, I probably just would have used a new character (Savage Opress, with a less stupid name) and have made him into a "new" Maul, trying to pick up his brother/idol legacy and going after Obi-Wan because of this.
I know Maul coming back was meant as a crowd pleaser but I never really liked that, I just let it slide. Now, in Rebels, I feel he has completely overstayed his welcome and needs to die once and for all.

[–] smithstar 8 years ago

Not to mention now it appears he is going to try to find Obi-wan again. If he finds him, I'm sure the "Now that's a name I haven't heard in a long time," will lose meaning.

Also, I've read on this boards alone people wanting Maul to run into Vader and taunt him. I don't think Maul ever even saw Anakin's face.

[–] s-e-jones23 8 years ago

That's a good point about Obi-wan's line, hadn't thought of that. Hopefully the writers keep that in mind...

[–] Leklor 8 years ago

Easy way to avoid that: Maul calls him "You", or "Kenobi".

[–] smithstar 8 years ago

You are just using semantics then. He would still be referring to him as the Obi-wan Kenobi identity. The entire significance to that scene wasn't the name itself, but the entire past persona that Obi-wan hadn't been since his exile.

[–] Leklor 8 years ago

I said "Easy", not "Good".
I'm aware the scene would still be damaged by Maul finding Obi-Wan and calling him by that name, so close to ANH.

[–] roosterq 8 years ago

Until he was found by Savage Opress in TCW, no one would have believed you if you said he was coming back. Besides it makes no sense for him to have survived in the movies. If he had survived he would have shown up in ROTS, but since he didn't, as far as the movies go he is dead. The only chance of ever seeing Maul in a movie would be in a spinoff like Rogue One, and then it would have to be one set prior to his appearance in TPM I will guarantee. They aren't going to contradict the movies and in the movies, he died.

"I find your lack of faith disturbing."

[–] MontyD 8 years ago

Will never, ever happen. They would never put something in the movies that has to be explained by watching cartoons. I liked Clone Wars but I'm still divided about them bringing Maul back, and I hope he doesn't show up endlessly in Rebels either.

[–] moondawg_32304 8 years ago

People keep saying he died in the movies. He didn't. The movies are canon. CW and R are canon. He's appeared in both. Canon dictates he's alive. Whether to put him in another film is a good idea, that's another argument. However, saying he died in the movies is incorrect. He was presumed dead.

[–] roosterq 8 years ago

The fact of the matter is you have 2 basic sets of fans. You have movie fans who still believe Maul died when Anakin was just a boy. The fact he never returned to the movies, and the current time line exceeds the expected life expectancy of a Zabrak means his story is over to movie fans. The other set of fans are aware of all the extended material associated with Star Wars to include the cartoons showing Maul's return to the story. The problem is Movie only fans make up a super majority, and no one with an IQ over 2 is going to contradict the known history of those fans. For Maul to appear in anything other than Rebels would be an epic failure, and cause significant issue for credibility for the movie fans.

For what it's worth there are basically 2 sets of canon. there is movie canon, and there is what Disney has reported will be considered as canon. Neither will contradict the other, and for them to not contradict movie canon, they will not re-introduce Maul back into the movies. If they want to reintroduce a Maul like character, they need to bring in another Zabrak, to avoid conflicting what is believed by movie fans. Besides Maul would be about a decade beyond the life expectancy of a Zabrak, at the point TFA released, and his source of rage (which is what supposedly what allowed him to survive the impossible to survive injury, and subsequent fall thousands of feet) died more than 30 years earlier. Maul himself simply doesn't fit in the story any longer.

"I find your lack of faith disturbing."

[–] action_on_deck 8 years ago

Going to have some spoilers for the Marvel Cinematic Universe, specifically Avengers and Agents of SHIELD.

The Star Wars peeps are now in the same situation that Marvel is with the MCU. They killed Coulson in the Avengers, then brought him back for Agents of SHIELD. If they want to put him back in a film, they have a problem. He can't just show up. They have to explain how the heck he's around. You have to devote a good bit of screen time to this. You can't assume everyone watches the show. If they were going to do a movie with Coulson as a major character, they probably could justify that. But if it's a small role, they can't do it.

So that's where Star Wars is with Maul and any films. It has to be a major role to justify the screen time to explain how Maul survived.

[–] hawkeaglewolf-1 8 years ago

While I haven't seen TCW, so when Maul showed up I was quite surprised. But it is, in theory, possible for him to survive. We know nothing of his biology. We also know that Palpatine is powerful, he also arrives on Naboo the same day Maul is cut in half. It's also not impossible to think as a Senator of Naboo, he had really easy access to wherever Maul's body ended up. For all we know, Palpatine's force power, droids and timing could, in theory, saved Maul without violating anything we know about the SW Universe.

[–] roosterq 8 years ago

If Sideous saved him, why did he never appear in future movies? Also why did Sideous take Dooku as his new apprentice if he already had Maul? Remember the Rule of 2 is in full effect in the PT. You say you didn't see TCW, so I'll let you know Sideous was unaware of Maul's survival when he first reappears in the cartoon.

"I find your lack of faith disturbing."

[–] butterfly_in_the_mist 8 years ago

They dont really have to explain how he came back if they bring him back in a movie. There is no dead in the movies alive in the cartoons. They are all part of the same universe and canon. So Maul is alive, they can just bring him back when he already has his metal legs and not that spider body. If people are curious.. how did he come back?? they can go watch Clone Wars or pick up a book. Other wise they dont really need to explain it in a film its already been explained.

[–] rateater (10157) 4 years ago

maul will return in a film about han solo. also there is a virus that requires us all to wear masks when we go out.