George Lucas wanted Darth Maul to be part of the SEQUELS.

This is from a new book, Star Wars Archives: Episode 1-3 The Prequels

Sounds like a train wreck. Character killed twice on screen returns...

That said, we got a disaster anyway.

There is enough potential to move forward with solid stories without recycling dead villains.

17 minutes ago, LagJanson said:

Sounds like a train wreck. Character killed twice on screen returns...

He only got killed recently by Disney.

17 minutes ago, LagJanson said:

That said, we got a disaster anyway.

Indeed.

17 minutes ago, LagJanson said:

There is enough potential to move forward with solid stories without recycling dead villains.

Yes.

17 hours ago, Imperial Advisor Arem Heshvaun said:

Wow yeah I take it back TRoS is way better than this.

On 11/10/2020 at 7:51 AM, LagJanson said:

Sounds like a train wreck. Character killed twice on screen returns...

That said, we got a disaster anyway.

There is enough potential to move forward with solid stories without recycling dead villains.

Maul wasn't killed the second time until after this idea for the sequels was not pursued. I'm not sure how the calendar lines up but I suspect that Maul was not introduced to Rebels at all until this idea was scrapped. Maul in Rebels could have easily been a new character performing the same role in tempting Ezra.

13 hours ago, Frimmel said:

Maul wasn't killed the second time until after this idea for the sequels was not pursued. I'm not sure how the calendar lines up but I suspect that Maul was not introduced to Rebels at all until this idea was scrapped. Maul in Rebels could have easily been a new character performing the same role in tempting Ezra.

Thanks. Marginally better. Still bad form to bring back dead characters, even if they had a lot of wasted potential due to poor writing the first time

Oh gosh, I don't know what's worse: Darth Maul fanboyism or Bobba Fet fanboyism... even from Lucas.

10 hours ago, LagJanson said:

Thanks. Marginally better. Still bad form to bring back dead characters, even if they had a lot of wasted potential due to poor writing the first time

Characters thought dead coming back is a bit of a hallmark of the serial style stories that inspired Star Wars. Darth Maul was quite interesting as a crime-boss in Clone Wars and is used in some of the most highly-regarded story-arcs of the series. It is not "bad form" to tell good stories even if you bring back the dead to do it.

4 hours ago, LUZ_TAK said:

Oh gosh, I don't know what's worse: Darth Maul fanboyism or Bobba Fet fanboyism... even from Lucas.

I think a cheap shot that can really only be answered with another cheap shot is worse than either.

On 11/11/2020 at 12:52 AM, KCDodger said:

Wow yeah I take it back TRoS is way better than this.

I don't think it is. Perhaps not these specific Sith but this sort of thing would provide a much better framework for an ongoing conflict and for more of the spinoff sorts of stories they wanted. It would be a far better premise in my opinion for what happens when a large governmental structure is over-thrown while not requiring flushing the win of the OT out of the airlock. A failing of the ST in my opinion is the lazy threadbare underdeveloped premise that was a transparent attempt at a reboot of the OT. This premise at least would have a logic behind it as one just needs to look at what happened upon the dissolution of the Soviet Union as a source for this premise.

3 hours ago, Frimmel said:

Characters thought dead coming back is a bit of a hallmark of the serial style stories that inspired Star Wars. Darth Maul was quite interesting as a crime-boss in Clone Wars and is used in some of the most highly-regarded story-arcs of the series. It is not "bad form" to tell good stories even if you bring back the dead to do it.

No. Characters thought dead coming back later is good. Characters sliced in half and dropped down a pit (bouncing off walls on the way down) coming back is poor. The difference is how much is shown to the audience. Obiwan making a slash, seeing Maul's pained reaction and him fall (to where not shown) would be a better take to create the belief that he’s dead without going too far.

I'll be the first to admit Maul was better written in Clone Wars and Rebels, but suspense of belief that his fate in Phantom Menace was survivable is not possible for me.

Admittedly, this could be more of a "me" problem as I demand a bit more in storytelling. It’s a cheat to do it as Star Wars did, and yes, they’ve cheated worse elsewhere. (Looking at you, Palps.)

3 hours ago, LagJanson said:

No. Characters thought dead coming back later is good. Characters sliced in half and dropped down a pit (bouncing off walls on the way down) coming back is poor. The difference is how much is shown to the audience. Obiwan making a slash, seeing Maul's pained reaction and him fall (to where not shown) would be a better take to create the belief that he’s dead without going too far.

I'll be the first to admit Maul was better written in Clone Wars and Rebels, but suspense of belief that his fate in Phantom Menace was survivable is not possible for me.

Admittedly, this could be more of a "me" problem as I demand a bit more in storytelling. It’s a cheat to do it as Star Wars did, and yes, they’ve cheated worse elsewhere. (Looking at you, Palps.)

Is the idea of Maul surviving any more incedulous than hyperspace travel? Heck, do a google search and you will see stories of people being cut in half and surviving - at least for a short time.

Do we even know about the under ground of Naboo? I mean there is a possibility that there is a whole underground culture on the planet. The lightsaber cauterizes the wound, bacta heals incredible injuries, cybernetics are quite advanced and the force CAN heal wounds.. Hate has even kept dark siders alive. Nothing is out of place in my opinion.

Maul isn't even the first character in star wars to be cut in half and survive. From Jedi Knight - Dark Forces 2 I present to you Maw - a dark jedi.

https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Maw_(Dark_Jedi)

6 minutes ago, That Blasted Samophlange said:

Is the idea of Maul surviving any more incedulous than hyperspace travel?

Strangely enough, yes. Again, it could be that I personally was pushed beyond my personal range of belief.

I think if Star Wars in general doesn't regularly push you beyond your own personal suspension of disbelief, then a very different set of questions needs to be asked....

I mean, yes, Rebels was made after the sale.

However, if they went with what Lucas wanted, we would have not gotten his perfect end in Rebels. And Kylo Ren, for 2 movies, is a much more interesting villain.

On 11/11/2020 at 9:37 AM, Frimmel said:

Maul wasn't killed the second time until after this idea for the sequels was not pursued. I'm not sure how the calendar lines up but I suspect that Maul was not introduced to Rebels at all until this idea was scrapped. Maul in Rebels could have easily been a new character performing the same role in tempting Ezra.

This.

Maul's.wound would have been instantly cauterized. His species looks tough...

Him coming back (top.half at least) as the antagonist in the sequels would have been a.more logical follow up than "the Emp's spirit now clone body hops and iwas also schitzophrenically (spellcheck?) transplanted into a cheap ripoff mutant body", or whatever Snoke was...

This idea sounds much more interesting that what we got in the ST. The groundwork was clearly set in both Clone Wars and Solo. Even without Maul, it sounds much more interesting and would have made for a better stories. It essentially sets up a variation of the PT (a government trying to fight corruption and a lurking threat) that isn't doomed from the beginning, and opens the door for something approaching a new Jedi that doesn't have the same flaws or downfall as the previous one.

1 hour ago, GeneralVryth said:

This idea sounds much more interesting that what we got in the ST.

So does watching paint dry.

On 11/11/2020 at 10:35 PM, LagJanson said:

Thanks. Marginally better. Still bad form to bring back dead characters, even if they had a lot of wasted potential due to poor writing the first time

I think it's safe to say by now that no one in the Star Wars universe is ever really dead.

On 11/12/2020 at 2:50 PM, LagJanson said:

No. Characters thought dead coming back later is good. Characters sliced in half and dropped down a pit (bouncing off walls on the way down) coming back is poor. The difference is how much is shown to the audience. Obiwan making a slash, seeing Maul's pained reaction and him fall (to where not shown) would be a better take to create the belief that he’s dead without going too far.

I'll be the first to admit Maul was better written in Clone Wars and Rebels, but suspense of belief that his fate in Phantom Menace was survivable is not possible for me.

Admittedly, this could be more of a "me" problem as I demand a bit more in storytelling. It’s a cheat to do it as Star Wars did, and yes, they’ve cheated worse elsewhere. (Looking at you, Palps.)

As a child I saw Luke get his hand chopped off and go falling to his doom.

I was saddened by his death, but then gladdened by his sudden, if improbable, return.

Maul just upped the stakes and took longer to come back. I was gladdened again!

You don't want to imagine how much I was shouting "BOBA" last week...