Darth Maul: Should he have been in all three Star Wars prequels?

[Reek]

definately yes. i would much rather have Maul in Dookus place...cutting off anakins arm, fighting yoda, and having a showdown with Anakin in Ep. 3.

 

[JackBauer]

as much as I liked Maul, I feel Dooku was much more wasted as a character.

Lucas should've made him a misunderstood good guy who is pretty much on the same side as Qui Gon in TPM (though not as confident of Anakin), but in AOTC turns to the Separatists (which should've been the beggining stages of the Rebel Alliance) when he realiss the Republic is being influenced by the Sith. he'd be a much better character, and his confrontations with Anakin and Obi-Wan would then have had a lot more weight to them.

 

[JackBauer]

looking back at it, I would have prefered if Keira was Amidala.

Portman was too good to look at but one of her best scene(s) is the picnic scene in the meadow - followed by the senate scene in Ep3 when Palpatine declares himself Emperor.

Portman was good - only good in the "Senator" role.

Keira would have had no problem conveying what needed to be conveyed regarding the "love" story aspect with Anakin.

Keira isn't half the actress Portman is. but she seems to handle s#!tty scripts better, I guess.

 

[Mr. Socko]

No. I preferred Count Dooku.

 

[xwolverine2]

no he had nothing to add to the story besides one great fight scene.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Who gives a **** how much he had to do with the story, I came to see Lee. Attack of the Clones only holds up because Christopher Lee was in it. If he had just appeared in Phantom it would have been a much better film.

 

[xwolverine2]

Who gives a **** how much he had to do with the story, I came to see Lee. Attack of the Clones only holds up because Christopher Lee was in it. If he had just appeared in Phantom it would have been a much better film.

nonononononoooo!

i didnt mean to respond to you. just the topic question.

i loved lee... he's probably the only reason i enjoyed epII.
Lee had plenty to add to the story...pghhhst

 

[Mr. Socko]

nonononononoooo!

i didnt mean to respond to you. just the topic question.

i loved lee... he's probably the only reason i enjoyed epII.
Lee had plenty to add to the story...pghhhst

lolololol

I was jokin too

 

[November Rain]

Alright the problem here is that anakin and obi-wan both need a sith lord to do their battles with.

Obi-wan needs one to avenge his master's death however this doesn't necessarily need to take place in the first film.

and anakin needs one to.....no....actually i don't think he does need one.

If maul took on sideous type of role in the films and obi-wan had to do battle with him in the first film, lost, then lost again to him with anakin's help in teh second film, then confronted him in the third, it would have been fine.

anakin wouldn't have had to kill anyone to be honest, his move to the dark side would have been based on a similar event that occured with mace windu, but with them having more of a duel

but then this brings into question the balance of power questions.

alright, when mace comes in with kit fisto and some of the others i think anakin should already be there, he takes out fisto and some of the other knights and comes just in time to save the emperor from mace.

i don't think anaking necessarily needs to kill a sith lord to take his place since ultimately it wasn't the reason he killed him.

even based on this, obi could defeat maul but maul is still a live and when anakin is about to go all dark, the emperor tells him to go and 'retrieve' maul but when anakin goes to get him, he kill him instead and asks to take his place etc...

 

[November Rain]

another point, i think maul should have eventually turned into grievous over the course of the films

and i think grievous should have been as cool as he was in the animated version, he was boring and sucked in the movie version.

 

[A.J.Rimmer(BSC)]

I voted no.

Dooku had a part to play, and whilst he looked less interesting, I found his motives, attitude and sheer pimpiness to more than merit his appearance over Maul.

I also loved his fighting syle. Beautiful to watch. If Maul lived, Obi wan wouldn't be the absolute legend he is in the prequels.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

You're all overlooking the fact that Ray Park can't act.

Christopher Lee can.

 

[November Rain]

but the thing is that maul is covered in makeup, anyone really could have played him but ray park could have just been relegated to mauls stunt man thus keeping the maul role.

i really don't mind which sith lord they used to be honest, i would have just wished that which ever one they did use remained one right up until episode 3...

i'm just backing maul because he was really the first.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

but the thing is that maul is covered in makeup, anyone really could have played him but ray park could have just been relegated to mauls stunt man thus keeping the maul role.

Darth Maul is a stunt man, really. He's there to fight. He exists for the Duel of the Fates.

 

[November Rain]

well he was perceived as such in the first film but ultimately the question permits one to re-write his portrayal...

so he no longer needs to just be a plot device as he was in the first film.

 

[Rez]

I think he should have returned in 3 for the role of Grevious. Half robot, like in some pre-production art and that comic. That way, Obi Wan still gets to kill him, you still have the half man half machine thing, you have him do some more asskicking- and maybe be a half decent light saber dueler as well.

 

[November Rain]

I would have rather had him be a masochist that hated his human form and longed to be fully cybernetic to aid him against his rivarly with obi-wan, slowly being seen transform into grievous with every scene

 

[Erzengel]

Darth Maul was more of a soilder while Dooku came off as a General.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I think General Grievous should have been in all 3...not Maul. Grievous would have been cooler as an established character in the other movies.

 

[Secret_Riddle]

Im actually fine with him just in 1..he was to 2 dimensional..and i know he could have easily been fleshed out but i think most of his coolness comes from the fact that he is a 2 dimensional character, thus we dont know much about him and he becomes an enigma..sort of along the lines of Boba Fett..he's so cool because hes such a mystery, more screen time..or an appearance in another episode would only unfold some of that mystery and inevitably some of his cool factor..so no..he should not have been in episodes 2 or 3, he was awesom in a small dose, to much of a good thing can ruin it.

 

[Jack Rabbit]

The reason there was no real "reacurring" villian was to make Vader seem more important as he was the only one that "lasted"

Classic Lucasism...of rationalization.

I would've liked Maul to be present in all three.

 

[Kanon]

Yeah, Maul is the second coolest looking sith lord in all the SW movies...

 

[Bastila]

Yes he was really cool I liked him.

 

[Spider-Vader]

Geesh, how many Star Wars threads do we require in a week's time?

Which is why we need a SW section.

No he didn't.

 

[The Dark Defender]

Yes, since he's one of the very few good things in them.