Log in to check your private messages
I think I figured out something about Darth Maul...
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The EUCantina Forums Forum Index » Aush's EU Cantina View previous topic :: View next topic  
 PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 5:51 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  DarthMRN
Knight
Knight

Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 253

Reepicheep wrote:
ESB made sense because it fit continuity nicely but didn't change anything plot-wise. It was an improvement all around. In the case of TPM, however, the change causes a fairly major character to live who fans have rightly assumed was dead for twelve years. That's a huge change! Very unprofessional.
Well, I can't really disagree that a character death has a bigger impact on the universe as a whole than a face change and a dialogue mix, but in principle this argument fails. Maul falling down in one or two pieces would not affect TPM in isolation, and certainly not more than the daddy-angle of the altered ESB changed it.

And this puts the cart before the horse still. For by this logic, if TCW went ahead and resurrected Maul with no explanation, enjoyed great success as a result of Maul's inclusion, and GL went back and changed TPM afterwards, all would be forgiven. Yet by the prediction, he is doing one better, namely making the (by your logic acceptable) change before using it as a springboard for later events. Being even more continuity-friendly.

As I said, don't be blinded by the success of a change after the fact. Since we don't know whether Maul in TCW will be awesome or not, any criticism of a potential TPM edit rests solely on the acceptability of changing a released movie. The results thereof are completely besides the point. I for one don't adore TPM nearly enough to care whether it is butchered or not, so my angle obviously doesn't lie there.
_________________
I discuss to learn, not to win. Then again, learning enough tends to translate to victory in the end anyway.


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 8:13 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Queen Padmè Skywalker
Master
Master

Joined: 17 Jul 2009
Posts: 5142
Location: Sitting in front of a fireplace on Naboo exchanging pathetic dialogue with Anakin

Cerrinea wrote:
Queen Padmè Skywalker wrote:
Crash Override wrote:
I know, it would be awful like when he blatantly changed The Empire Strikes Back to insert Ian McDiarmid to serve the needs of Return of the Jedi and the prequels.


You found that awful? I thought it was a perfectly logical thing to change.


It was. Crash was being ironical here. Or what is better known as sarcasm. Wink


Ah, my mistake. I was sleepy and not paying very good attention. Wink
_________________
All things die, Anakin Skywalker, even stars burn out.

So this is how liberty dies....with thunderous applause.



Those without swords can still die upon them

The world is a mess and I just need to rule it.


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:48 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Reepicheep
Master
Master

Joined: 05 Feb 2008
Posts: 6754
Location: Sailing into the unknown

Crash Override wrote:
That ending doesn't change Maul's death or survival. It was originally intended to be inserted if the death used resulted in a PG-13 ending, but it wasn't necessary. It still leaked out in some 35mm prints.

If that was the ending used in 1999 (because the bisection resulted in a PG-13 rating), people would still think Maul died, and he would still be dead for the past twelve years (unless the EU resurrected him).

Good point. I see what you're saying, the movie in isolation wouldn't have been affected. However, when you consider the larger picture I still think it would be a sloppy move. In the theatrical version of TPM there is NO WAY Maul could have survived. Period. Now I haven't seen the unreleased version of his death but I'll assume that it wasn't as final as the theatrical version (akin to Boba Fett's death perhaps?). And there is the difference.

If Boba Fett had been bisected in RotJ and then, years later, GL redid the scene and he merely fell into the Sarlaac so that he could be resurrected for a TV show, I would have the same problem.

From what I can tell GL is replacing a 100% certain death scene with an iffy one. Neutral
_________________

Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 11:36 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  VileZero
Master
Master

Joined: 21 Mar 2010
Posts: 816
Location: Maryland

Reepicheep wrote:
Crash Override wrote:
That ending doesn't change Maul's death or survival. It was originally intended to be inserted if the death used resulted in a PG-13 ending, but it wasn't necessary. It still leaked out in some 35mm prints.

If that was the ending used in 1999 (because the bisection resulted in a PG-13 rating), people would still think Maul died, and he would still be dead for the past twelve years (unless the EU resurrected him).

Good point. I see what you're saying, the movie in isolation wouldn't have been affected. However, when you consider the larger picture I still think it would be a sloppy move. In the theatrical version of TPM there is NO WAY Maul could have survived. Period. Now I haven't seen the unreleased version of his death but I'll assume that it wasn't as final as the theatrical version (akin to Boba Fett's death perhaps?). And there is the difference.

If Boba Fett had been bisected in RotJ and then, years later, GL redid the scene and he merely fell into the Sarlaac so that he could be resurrected for a TV show, I would have the same problem.

From what I can tell GL is replacing a 100% certain death scene with an iffy one. Neutral


He isn't changing Maul's death scene. This whole thread is speculation (though admittedly VERY intriguing). He was cut in half in the movies, cut in half in the video games, cut in half in the comic adaptation, cut in half in the novel, and the Darth Maul action figure came with "cut in half!" features.

The dude was cut in half. And it was pretty badass. There is a 0% chance of it ever being changed.


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 11:57 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Reepicheep
Master
Master

Joined: 05 Feb 2008
Posts: 6754
Location: Sailing into the unknown

I know. Just speculating on how awful it would be. Wink
_________________

Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:40 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Darth Cynos
Padawan
Padawan

Joined: 17 Jul 2011
Posts: 15
Location: Korriban

Crash Override wrote:
I had heard that Lucas purposely had Maul cut in two because he didn't want him to be another Boba Fett. Thus, the idea of changing his death to allow his survival makes sense to me, because he essentially put a placeholder death into the film to prevent the EU from doing anything with Maul, and now that he's revisiting it he'll make it a "survivable death," so to speak, so that he can use the character himself.

I don't think Lucas intended to use Maul again after killing him off because I don't think he had any idea he was going to get into Star Wars on TV when he wrote and directed TPM, but it seems to have worked out well for him now if that's what he's going to do.


We do have the Visionaries story though, Cyborg Maul. They even produced a comic pack figure set, and a sweet statue, I think that was Sideshow?
_________________


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 12:20 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  DarthMRN
Knight
Knight

Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 253

VileZero wrote:
He was cut in half in the movies, cut in half in the video games, cut in half in the comic adaptation, cut in half in the novel, and the Darth Maul action figure came with "cut in half!" features.

The dude was cut in half. And it was pretty badass. There is a 0% chance of it ever being changed.
Since when did GL start caring about his tie-in material? Most of the stuff you bring up was contradicted by the very film they were adaptations of, due to script changes late in the game.

How do you see that translating to a 0% chance of this being changed? The timing of Maul's return coincides frighteningly well with the TPM re-release.
_________________
I discuss to learn, not to win. Then again, learning enough tends to translate to victory in the end anyway.


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 1:33 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  VileZero
Master
Master

Joined: 21 Mar 2010
Posts: 816
Location: Maryland

Quote:
Since when did GL start caring about his tie-in material? Most of the stuff you bring up was contradicted by the very film they were adaptations of, due to script changes late in the game.


Well, since Lucas met with Terry Brooks and helped him along with writing the novel. And the fact that Brooks used Lucas's explicit screenplay to write the book. So it's clear that, from the start, Maul was getting cut in half.

Quote:
How do you see that translating to a 0% chance of this being changed? The timing of Maul's return coincides frighteningly well with the TPM re-release.


Darth Maul doesn't need to have "not been cut in half" to return in TCW. But of course his return would coincide with the TPM re-release. He's easily the most popular character from that film, especially among the young kid audience that Star Wars really caters to, so why wouldn't you have some sort of glorious return to sell more action figures and get kids more interested in the Expanded Universe, where they can then dump all their money?


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 3:00 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Reepicheep
Master
Master

Joined: 05 Feb 2008
Posts: 6754
Location: Sailing into the unknown

VileZero wrote:

But of course his return would coincide with the TPM re-release. He's easily the most popular character from that film, especially among the young kid audience that Star Wars really caters to, so why wouldn't you have some sort of glorious return to sell more action figures and get kids more interested in the Expanded Universe, where they can then dump all their money?

Because it's psychotic. Confused
_________________

Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 3:54 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Crash Override
Master
Master

Joined: 22 Dec 2010
Posts: 1962

Isn't 2012 the year of Maul?



Last edited by Crash Override on Sun Aug 14, 2011 4:00 pm; edited 1 time in total


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 3:57 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  DarthMRN
Knight
Knight

Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 253

I think you forgot to answer my question, VZ.

Yes, Maul being cut in half in the script must have been why the tie-ins reflected the same. And no, Maul's return need not be through this avenue. But when you say these things lead to your thinking there is 0% chance of a TPM change, I think you must have skipped a step.

The point I was trying to convey was that since 1) GL has changed his movies before, and 2) the tie-in adaptations had always been contradicted, making this new step a breeze, there would be more than a 0% chance. A lot more.

I understand scepticism towards a rather extreme scenario, so what I reacted to was the 0% estimate, not mere doubt. What about a tie-in contradiction translates to this not happening in a million years?
_________________
I discuss to learn, not to win. Then again, learning enough tends to translate to victory in the end anyway.


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 4:09 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Crash Override
Master
Master

Joined: 22 Dec 2010
Posts: 1962

I don't doubt that it could happen; that's why I made the thread. It would be like the comic adaptation depicting the character that became known as Heater as "Jabba the Hut," only for that to change to Heater after the fact. Not sure how I would reconcile Maul being cut in half in the adaptations with a film change though, except maybe some Nightsister illusion or something.

I think either way it's easy to get past, because if he did survive getting cut in half, there's already precedent for that with the character Maw (pictured above), and if he didn't, I don't find that alteration to be particularly egregious anymore so than other alterations to films to suit later stories, such as Jason Wingreen being dubbed over by Temuera Morrison (which bothers me more than any other change TBH) or McDiarmid being inserted into Empire.

If Maul isn't cut in half in the blu-ray of The Phantom Menace (and at this point, I don't think this will be changed), it doesn't alter the movie at all for me. Heck, the midnight showing I saw of the film was one of those 35mm prints in which he wasn't cut in half. No big deal.


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 2:45 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Life Is The Path
Master
Master

Joined: 10 Sep 2010
Posts: 3858
Location: In a galaxy far, far - No, I'm behind you! Got you! Boo!

There's also precedent with Maul, already. He's already been brought back to life, in his half-version, in the comic that saw him fight Vader.
_________________
I am a Star Wars fan. That doesn't mean that I hate or love Jar Jar. That doesn't mean I hate or love Lucas, or agree or disagree 100% with him. That doesn't mean I prefer the PT over the OT, or vice versa. That doesn't mean I hate the EU, or even love all of it. These are not prerequisites. Being a man is not a prerequisite. Being a geek is not a prerequisite. The only prerequisite is that I love something about Star Wars. I am a Star Wars fan.


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 5:37 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Arawn_Fenn
Knight
Knight

Joined: 07 Apr 2011
Posts: 217
Location: Ekkaia

Crash Override wrote:
If Lucas made that change on the 2004 DVD release, people would still think Maul died, and that Lucas was just toning down the violence.


The TPM DVD was released in 2001. It may be the OT DVDs you're thinking of.


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:52 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Crash Override
Master
Master

Joined: 22 Dec 2010
Posts: 1962

Alright, new Darth Maul thing. I was looking for any potential rumors or information about The Force Unleashed 3. I found a few recent interviews with Witwer where he said he's got another role on TCW coming up that he can't discuss further, but he said that Star Wars fans would flip out if they knew what it was. The other actor he was with for the interview, Sam Huntington from Fanboys, said that Witwer texted him on his birthday and told him about it and that he hijacked his birthday, so it sounds like a huge thing.

Putting two and two together, I figure Sam Witwer must be voicing Darth Maul on TCW.


View user's profile Send private message

Post new topic   Reply to topic    The EUCantina Forums Forum Index » Aush's EU Cantina

Page 3 of 4
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Display posts from previous:

  

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Jedi Knights 2 by Scott Stubblefield