Vader versus Maul: Who'd win..?

[Frozen]

This is a topic that arose in the comic shop I used to work in, which, whilst most people stated Vader would cream Maul, there were still a few Episode I die-hards who insisted Maul was more than capable of taking Vader apart...

So, what do you guys think..?

[Sveven Dvorking]

Vader would win.

[Frozen]

What makes you say that?

[BourgeoisBuffoon]

Vader would win. You cannot beat the classics, Maul's double light saber really would be worthless since Vader has had plenty of experience winning with just one beam on his saber...and he's proven he cn take punishment. Look at him when he kills the Emperor, he took all that electricity...
...and Vader's cruel enough to play dirty; I bet....he cut of his own son's hand! So I say: GO VADER! :)

....but admitedly while I never saw eppy 1, I've still heard enough from friends to know what these things are...

[Bird Boy]

Vader.

Maul may have the double edged saber..but he only lasted 1 movie...vader lasted 3.. ;)

Plus, Maul was a stooge basically. He did whatever Sidious wanted. While Vader did what the Emperor wanted, Vader had alot of stuff for him to control. Maul had his Sith Infiltrator..whoopie.

-BB

[Trent Lane]

Vader, without a doubt. He's a million times stronger in the force than Maul was, and he was more inteligent also. Maul can have his double bladed lightsaber, but it won't match Vader's skills at all...

[DarkAngel]

Originally posted by Frozen
This is a topic that arose in the comic shop I used to work in, which, whilst most people stated Vader would cream Maul, there were still a few Episode I die-hards who insisted Maul was more than capable of taking Vader apart...

So, what do you guys think..?

I tend to agree with the others that Vader would win. However, there's one big point everyone's failing to consider. Maul was pure evil, something that could be sensed very easily. Vader, on the other hand, was conflicted. He was a Sith Lord, yet deep inside Anakin still lived. In other words, Vader had good within him. In a fight with Maul, Vader might not be able to draw fully from the Dark Side. If that's the case, Maul could destroy him.

If Vader was fully on the side of good or evil, there's no question he'd manhandle Maul. But as we saw him in the trilogy, he was definitely divided, whereas Maul was like the Emperor: clearly enjoying every bit of the evil he was capable of. What do you guys think? Would the good in Vader affect his chances against Maul?

[Govan]

I still think Vader would win. Anyone who could kill Luke's father is one tough hombre ;)

[oranthal]

Vader friggin' hunted down all the jedi's. even with the empire's help behind him, Vader is one bad MFer.

[Jowy Blight]

Vader would win, he's far more experienced with his lightsaber then Maul is with his.

[RockItShipper]

The usual explanation is that Vader killed ObiWan who killed Maul. But factors of age come into it, as well. But I think the only way Maul could win would be by sensing/provoking Vader's internal conflict between good and evil. And that's a long shot.

[Kal-el]

Even though Vader had good in him, I doubt that Maul could exploit that. Vader was just too strong. His history proves that. Maul was a flash in the darth pan, and Vader would have dominated his future, I mean past, darth namesake.

[Nightwing]

Weapons isn't important. I don't care if Maul has 4 sabers sticking out of that little metal stick of his. Vader is more powerfull. He has more of the force in him.

And that's my argument, but what's that someone once said about Maul creating Vader or something? Since I'm not sure, I'll place a hypothetical argument against that. In the Marvel vs. Capcom universe, Akuma, an evil being, learned well from his master, including a devistating move called "The Raging Demon". Eventually, through his own greed he grew stronger and used that very same devistating move to kill his teacher. So, if your heart is black enough, killing he who taught you isn't necessarily out of the question. I don't even know if this Vader/Maul thing I heard is true or not, but I thought I'd add that point anyway.

[NewMaxFranklin]

Originally posted by Nightwing
So, if your heart is black enough, killing he who taught you isn't necessarily out of the question.

Remember; Vader killed Obi-wan and Darth Sidious(the Emperor.) So he wacked two of his teachers right there. He also hacked off his son's hand. I don't think he's bat an eyelash over taking out another Sith Lord. Remember his knack for killing off Admirals in "Empire?"

[James]

I'm not entirely sure.

On one side, thanks to episode 1, Vader has been built up into an almost Christ like figure which makes beating Vader seem very unlikely.

However something me and my friends did comment on was how the Jedi battles in Episode 1 made Luke's skills look really basic - which if you consider his lack of training, they were!

Devils advocate, if we take what we see, Maul was able to actively take on one full Jedi and one apprentice without even sweating. Vader seemed to have problems with just an apprentice Jedi. Perhaps there was more to Maul than meets the eye.... and Vader seems far less agile than Maul. Yet is that just a matter of style rather than a measure of skill? And Vader was holding back with Luke.... I don't think we have seen Vader's full potential yet...

I'd say Vader would be able to take out Maul - quite how good he is a fighter won't really come to light until epsiode 2 and 3 come out.....

[Frozen]

That's pretty much the argument I heard from the Maul camp a lot in the comic shop - Vader struggles to kill an old man (obi-wan), and an apprentice, yet Maul deals with a Jedi Master (Qui-gon) and the young Obi-wan with ease - even killing one...
My argument was "Yeah, maybe Maul's a better fighter, but you can't fight if you can't breathe..." (ie, Vader could just 'choke out' Maul), but maybe these guys have a point with the Maul's a better fighter argument...

[DarkAngel]

Originally posted by SJJ
However something me and my friends did comment on was how the Jedi battles in Episode 1 made Luke's skills look really basic - which if you consider his lack of training, they were!

I would say that any fight scenes in the next two movies involving Anakin will be done in the same style as Episode 1. So I'm certain we'll be seeing Maul-like speed and agility from Anakin.

You're right that Anakin's been depicted as a Jedi "god" in terms of his force potential. And before Episode 1, most seemed to view Vader as possibly the greatest sith/jedi ever. But I still don't feel right about picking him over Maul so quickly. We truly no nothing about Maul, so I don't see how anyone can justify dismissing him so rapidly.

I read a comic that took place just before episode 1, in which Sidious sends Maul out to cripple Black Sun. Maul was, to put it lightly, simply brilliant. From his portrayal in the book, there was no doubt he could have completely destroyed the organization if Sidious had so desired. And given what we saw of him in Phantom Menace, that doesn't seem so farfetched. As SJJ pointed out, Vader's fighting abilities were shown in a completely different manner in the original trilogy. If we are to look at the two simply from what we've seen in the movies, Vader really wouldn't stand a chance. He didn't have any speed or quickness to speak of. Again, as SJJ pointed out, Vader struggled against Luke. Surely you'd all agree that Maul showed much more impressive battle prowess in Phantom Menace.

Of course, like I said at the beginning of my post, we'll most likely see a Maul-like Anakin in episodes 2 and 3. And given the savior/christ comparisons in ep 1, Anakin Skywalker would undoubtedly beat Maul. But I do think it would be a lot closer than most believe. Maul's brilliance against a Jedi Master and Knight just can't be denied. He would bring a heck of a lot against Vader physically. And I still believe the darkness of his "heart" would have impact when compared to Vader being divided between light and dark. Anakin might be more powerful, but the Dark Side and it's strength is driven by anger and rage, of which Maul seemed to have more.

[James]

Originally posted by DarkAngel


I would say that any fight scenes in the next two movies involving Anakin will be done in the same style as Episode 1. So I'm certain we'll be seeing Maul-like speed and agility from Anakin.

You're right that Anakin's been depicted as a Jedi "god" in terms of his force potential. And before Episode 1, most seemed to view Vader as possibly the greatest sith/jedi ever. But I still don't feel right about picking him over Maul so quickly. We truly no nothing about Maul, so I don't see how anyone can justify dismissing him so rapidly.

I read a comic that took place just before episode 1, in which Sidious sends Maul out to cripple Black Sun. Maul was, to put it lightly, simply brilliant. From his portrayal in the book, there was no doubt he could have completely destroyed the organization if Sidious had so desired. And given what we saw of him in Phantom Menace, that doesn't seem so farfetched. As SJJ pointed out, Vader's fighting abilities were shown in a completely different manner in the original trilogy. If we are to look at the two simply from what we've seen in the movies, Vader really wouldn't stand a chance. He didn't have any speed or quickness to speak of. Again, as SJJ pointed out, Vader struggled against Luke. Surely you'd all agree that Maul showed much more impressive battle prowess in Phantom Menace.

Of course, like I said at the beginning of my post, we'll most likely see a Maul-like Anakin in episodes 2 and 3. And given the savior/christ comparisons in ep 1, Anakin Skywalker would undoubtedly beat Maul. But I do think it would be a lot closer than most believe. Maul's brilliance against a Jedi Master and Knight just can't be denied. He would bring a heck of a lot against Vader physically. And I still believe the darkness of his "heart" would have impact when compared to Vader being divided between light and dark. Anakin might be more powerful, but the Dark Side and it's strength is driven by anger and rage, of which Maul seemed to have more.

I think the power of the Jedi and the Sith in Episode 1 is one of the films most redeeming features. It really shows how comparitively poor Luke was in comparison. Let's remember that Jedi are trained for years from a VERY young age. Luke got a months instruction at most, the rest was his natural affinity to the Force.

As for Vader Vs Maul, I'm glad Dark Angel and Frozen have stuck up for Maul a little in theory. Let's face it, none of like the guy compared to Vader, but he did certainly show a great degree of skill - even compared to Vader. Let's face it, Vader's battle with Luke in ROTJ is no where near as energtic. Fair enough, we can blame direction and new methods in film production, but as far as the story goes, Vader had none of the agility that Maul had and does appear to struggle with Luke in ROTJ. In Empire, where he is toying with Luke, he still makes some pretty amateur looking moves (when he slashes the pipe in the Carbon Chamber at the beginning of the battle, when he attacks Luke out on the bridge near the end of the fight).

While everyone has declared Vader superior for wiping out all the Jedi, we are yet to see HOW he does it. I think this is an area which makes for poor argument since we are yet to see the - ahem - facts :) ...
However something which strikes me as relevant is Vader's physical condition. The reason he maybe struggling with Luke is because he no longer is the warrior he once was. Without delving too far into the hypothetical, I reckon we can assume that Vader USED to fight like Darth Maul, but now, due to injury, is a far weaker fighter.

This brings us back to the question, who would win out of Maul and Vader at their optimal peak? I reckon Vader. However if we put the Vader we all know and love into a room with Maul that we began to hate (especially as he seemed to adorn every lunch box and every shampoo container) I reckon Maul would win.

And in reference to the choke grip, I think you'd find Maul could do that too - Luke had no problem learning it in ROTJ. I imagine that Force users have a resistance to such tricks.....

[RockItShipper]

Any of you guys read Sith Academy?

[Frozen]

Let us not forget that by ROTJ, the Emperor seems to be wanting to replace Vader with Luke - can we assume by then that by then the old man is a spent force, way past his prime, and ready to brushed aside by a younger man? Maul, however, appears to be in his prime, and more than a match for ANY character we have seen in Star Wars...

I now am beginning to beleive that the Vader we see in New Hope etc would be beaten by Maul - we have yet to see how the Vader/Anakin we will see in the near future will compare to Maul, however...

[DarkAngel]

Originally posted by Frozen
Let us not forget that by ROTJ, the Emperor seems to be wanting to replace Vader with Luke - can we assume by then that by then the old man is a spent force, way past his prime, and ready to brushed aside by a younger man?

I like SJJ's thought that the Vader of the trilogy wasn't the fighter he once was due to his physical condition. That's the way we've always seen Vader, so I never considered the fact that he might have once been very different. It makes sense. In ROTJ, Luke takes the full brunt of the Emperor's lightening attack, but comes away just fine. Vader, when lifting up the Emperor, takes indirect strikes from the bolts, but dies soon after. Clearly, his condition wasn't the greatest.

I think we can assume Vader eliminated the other Jedi before the battle that forced him to wear "the suit." Before that loss (to Obi-Wan?), he was, most probably, the greatest force fighter ever. Afterward, he still possessed his great control over the Force, but physically was no longer much of a warrior. So my conclusion:

Maul vs pre-suit Vader: Vader wins (perhaps not easily though)

Maul vs trilogy Vader: Maul wins easy.

[James]

Originally posted by DarkAngel


I think we can assume Vader eliminated the other Jedi before the battle that forced him to wear "the suit." Before that loss (to Obi-Wan?), he was, most probably, the greatest force fighter ever. Afterward, he still possessed his great control over the Force, but physically was no longer much of a warrior. So my conclusion:

Maul vs pre-suit Vader: Vader wins (perhaps not easily though)

Maul vs trilogy Vader: Maul wins easy.

Point well made. And I think that before anyone suggests that Vader could take out Maul with a choke grip or use of other Force powers, should just be reminded that in the films, aside from the Emperor's final attack on Luke, no special fighting moves that directly effect the opponent's physical condition have been used.

I assume, people with Force affinity have a defence against such attacks and their effects. Otherwise, Vader could have just lifted Skywalker back up the shaft on Bespin rather than helplessly watching him fall!

[DR. BELCH]

RockItShipper :
Any of you guys read Sith Academy?
Last I checked, that site was mothballed. Did they resurrect it?

Mind you, I haven't seen the prequel and it's been a while since I've seen the original trilogy, but I'm thinking comparing the two Darths is like comparing two tyrannical leaders with different styles like, say, Stalin and Trotsky. Not sure what Maul's style was, but Vader seemed to favor brutality over strategy--blow up a planet, saber-fight an old man to the death, or chop off a young warrior's hand. He was an aging lion, rude and blunt and direct in his dealings, and though effective, he probably lacked (or lost) the grand sharpness and style of his predecessors...so his bosses were looking to supplant him and bring in new blood.
Still, he's my favorite Darth because of his weaknesses/shortcomings, not in spite of them.

[RockItShipper]

Originally posted by DR. BELCH

Last I checked, that site was mothballed. Did they resurrect it?
It's not adding stories anymore, if that's what you mean....
http://www.siubhan.com/sithacademy/


Mind you, I haven't seen the prequel and it's been a while since I've seen the original trilogy, but I'm thinking comparing the two Darths is like comparing two tyrannical leaders with different styles like, say, Stalin and Trotsky. Not sure what Maul's style was, but Vader seemed to favor brutality over strategy--blow up a planet, saber-fight an old man to the death, or chop off a young warrior's hand. He was an aging lion, rude and blunt and direct in his dealings, and though effective, he probably lacked (or lost) the grand sharpness and style of his predecessors...so his bosses were looking to supplant him and bring in new blood.
Still, he's my favorite Darth because of his weaknesses/shortcomings, not in spite of them.

Replacement is part of the Sith gig, if you will. Only 2 exist at a time, the teacher and student. It usually goes one of the following ways:
1. The Master controls the student to do his/her bidding by encouraging feelings of anger. But this usually leads to the apprentice growing angry, ambitious and proud enough to seek their own student and slay their Master.
2. The apprentice is getting soft or too ambitious, and the Master (who would have risen through example #1) puts a stop to it by killing the apprentice him/herself or pitting the apprentice against a possible successor (like Luke in 'Jedi')

But there is little indication Maul was anything but an unwavering servant of the Dark Side, specifically towards his Master. I would certainly have to say that Boba Fett is still more intriguing. Despite being a hired gun with no Force powers, he still commands Vader's respect. Vader may well think of Maul as having been Sidious/Palpatine's pet monkey.

[oranthal]

i think some of you are being to technical about it. when lucas made episode 1, he wanted a more exciting and involved lightsaber battle, so he made darth maul with the speed and agility he needed to take on a jedi master and the apprentice. i don't think you can compare darth vader with darth maul in what you have seen in the movies; as someone mentioned it, it was the difference in style. if there were to re-make episode 4-6 from scratch, you can count on lucas making a more involved lightsaber battle between luke and darth vader very much in vain like episode 1.

[NewMaxFranklin]

Originally posted by oranthal
i think some of you are being to technical about it. when lucas made episode 1, he wanted a more exciting and involved lightsaber battle, so he made darth maul with the speed and agility he needed to take on a jedi master and the apprentice. i don't think you can compare darth vader with darth maul in what you have seen in the movies; as someone mentioned it, it was the difference in style. if there were to re-make episode 4-6 from scratch, you can count on lucas making a more involved lightsaber battle between luke and darth vader very much in vain like episode 1.

I think you nailed it.

Compairing Vader and Maul is like compairing Quai-Chang Kane from Kung-Fu and Wong Fe Hung from Drunken Master II. The Kung-Fu series was made in the 60's with rather limited resources. Carradine wo played Kane was not a master of martial arts. He was an actor with a background in dance. Compairing his fight-scenes to Jackie Chan's is unfair. The fight's on Kung-Fu were the best they could make at the time.

There a plans for a new "Kung-Fu" film. I don't know if Carradine is involved with the project. But, I'm sure that the fights will not be super-slow, as in the Series. They will be Woo Ping-esque. Because the times have changed, the bar has been raised.

The fights in the original trilogy were probably the best Lucas could do at the time. I agree he probably wasn't thinking "Lets not make Vader and Luke too skilled, because Vader's old and weaked by past battles and Luke hasn't had much training." He did his best then and again with Episode One.

[James]

Originally posted by oranthal
i think some of you are being to technical about it. when lucas made episode 1, he wanted a more exciting and involved lightsaber battle, so he made darth maul with the speed and agility he needed to take on a jedi master and the apprentice. i don't think you can compare darth vader with darth maul in what you have seen in the movies; as someone mentioned it, it was the difference in style. if there were to re-make episode 4-6 from scratch, you can count on lucas making a more involved lightsaber battle between luke and darth vader very much in vain like episode 1.

I disagree. While I don't believe he was trying to make Vader's and Skywalker's battle intentionally laboured, I do think a lot of thought went into the fight elements of the Phantom Menace.

Like the film or not, Lucas has always had very set ideas about what he wants in Star Wars which are occasionally hindered by his genius for making money through merchandise. The Phantom Menace was painstaking in it's creation - they were very weary on how they depicted the pre-Empire. From the starships to the Jedi - it wasn't just done for the sake of flashy effects - although that is not to say Lucas wasn't aware of their benefits!!

He has always made it clear that the Jedi/Sith of old were experienced warriors of both physical and mental states. It is of no surprise that Phantom Menace would refect this. I don't think it comes down to him being able to make a better battle - the story has always demanded that the Jedi from pre clone war period were as experienced in their trade as car mechanics are in theirs (ahem - bad analogy :D ).

Considering Luke in a novice and Darth an old man, this fits quite neatly.

Don't underestimate the power of Lucas. He is a powerful man and the Phantom Menace is pretty much exactly what he envisioned - and that is why it failed....

[James]

...... and besides, it is always far more fun to analyse what we are given in it's fictional content than WHY we were given.... Assume what we have is gospel and then debate what that signifies. Surely that's what fandom is all about? :D

[BourgeoisBuffoon]

I have to say I'm amazed that this topic has gone into these discussions!:eek:

But I commend Lucas for keeping to his vision; and to tell the truth, I thought that The Phantom Menace did rather well...but the fact that Lucas apparently tried to make sure everything was perfect would be a nice touch if I went to see the movie. There's nothing worse than a screwed-up vision, imagine TPM with OTHER people 'helping' Lucas...
...and yes, money problems were what made the fights like they were, but....I'd like to see Lucas try to give us a battle between the Darths as we have seen and discussed them...I'd see it! :D

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by SJJ
...... and besides, it is always far more fun to analyse what we are given in it's fictional content than WHY we were given.... Assume what we have is gospel and then debate what that signifies. Surely that's what fandom is all about? :D

At the risk of moving this into the meta-level (an argument about how to ask the question, not about what the answer is):

oranthal and NMaxFranklin introduce something that ought to be considered: Do we allow there to be a difference between the represenation and the reality when judging films and cartoons? And when do we allow that a difference is a change in one and not the other.

Here's a parallel question, familiar to us: Why does the Joker look different in BTAS than in TNBA? Is it because the Joker underwent plastic surgery between the two series? Or does he "really" look the same, it only being a difference in how he is represented on screen?

In that case, I think the answer is clearly the latter; simply because there is an obvious difference in style does not mean that there is a difference "in fact."

Other cases are less clear cut: The Penguin also changes, even more radically, between BTAS and TNBA. Some think this reflects an actual change in the character, others a change only in drawing. Since the series never explains which it is, how should we regard it?

Both of these cases are, probably, mostly trivial. What oranthal points out is that there is a similar split between Episodes 4-6, and Episode 1. Plausibly, the difference only reflects that Lucas didn't know or think to represent the fights in ANH, ESB and ROJ the way he chose to represent them in TPM, but that they are intended to reflect the same degree of skill and power. The SFX in ANH are technically inferior to those in TPM, but that shouldn't be taken as meaning that the technology those SFX represent was inferior. Similarly, perhaps, for the fight scenes.

Against this, SJJ (if I read him right) prefers to treat the representation as the reality itself; if it looks different, that means it is. I can't go along with this across the board (else, how could one reconcile different comic artists' representations of Batman, Joker, etc.?) but there's something to be said for treating it as the fall-back position. The representation is not MEANT by the artist to be different from reality, so treat it as the thing itself; if Lucas portrays the fights in TPM Hong Kong-style (especially after portraying them in ANH-ROJ as Japanese samurai style) then treat them as that kind of fight, and reflecting a difference in the fighters' skills, not in Lucas'.

But given the obvious history behind the films (Lucas' own intial influences during the ANH-ROJ era, and the latter-day need to kick the fights up a notch) I'm not sure that the extra-diegetic analysis is the wrong one. So I'm not inclined to take a position here. Truth be told, I think the only way to get an answer would be to wait until Eps 2 and 3, and see if Anakin/Vader starts off like Maul, and gradually CHANGES to the ANH style of fighting, or if, even in the suit he still has the TPM moves.

[DarkAngel]

Originally posted by RockItShipper


But there is little indication Maul was anything but an unwavering servant of the Dark Side, specifically towards his Master. I would certainly have to say that Boba Fett is still more intriguing. Despite being a hired gun with no Force powers, he still commands Vader's respect. Vader may well think of Maul as having been Sidious/Palpatine's pet monkey.

Vader was very much Palpatine's "pet monkey" as well. He was submissive to the Emperor always, especially in ROTJ. During the end battle, Sidious repeatedly urges Luke to kill Vader and "take your father's place by my side." And what did Vader due after losing to Luke? He crawled to his master's side, despite the clear fact that Sidious wanted Luke as his apprentice instead. Only after seeing/hearing his son crying for help did he turn on Sidious.
Ultimately, that's the role of a Sith apprentice: to serve the Master. After all, they are both servants of the Dark Side, both seeking the same end result: the destruction of the Jedi. Maul and Vader both wanted this. It was there place to defer to Sidious.

[DarkAngel]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus

Against this, SJJ (if I read him right) prefers to treat the representation as the reality itself; if it looks different, that means it is. I can't go along with this across the board (else, how could one reconcile different comic artists' representations of Batman, Joker, etc.?) but there's something to be said for treating it as the fall-back position.

I don't believe SJJ means that to be taken "across the board." In this case, there's a very definite reason, within the story, for why the original trilogy fights differed from the Phantom Menace battle. Maul, Obi-Wan, and Qui-Gon were fully trained and close to their prime, whereas in the original trilogy, Luke had had little training and Vader had age and a poor physical condition to deal with. Plus, there is the times in which they lived. During Phantom Menace, the Jedi were in full force with the numbers probably in the thousands. In the trilogy, Sidious, Vader, Yoda, and Obi-Wan were the only force users in existence with Luke just joining them. And so there was hardly a "forum" for them to use the Force. The duels in the trilogy reflected this well.

Maxie, you mention the design differences between BTAS and TNBA. That would be more comparable to discussing the differences in special effects between the original movies and Phantom Menace, which is not really what we've been doing here.

[joker]

wow, i just picked up on this thread and there is a lot to take in before making my desiosn. i do think that the reason that the fight scenes in the first trilogy are slow is because every one is old or under trained. so i do think that it was the way it was meant to be. in phantom menace, we didnt really get to see maul do much with the force, we just saw a display of his fighting skills, so, we dont know how powerful he really is. where as vader seemed very strong in the froce in the first triolgy. vader isnt limber thats for sure, but hes still physicly strong, rember when he picked a rebel soldier about 2 feet off the ground with one hand, and im sure that suit thats keeping him alive, anhances his strength very much so. i think vader in the suit vs. maul would be a very close match, and i mean very close with maul coming out on top, but with vader at his prime, hed wipe maul out with no sweat, i mean come on, he killed all of the jedi im sure one more would be no problem.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by DarkAngel


I don't believe SJJ means that to be taken "across the board." In this case, there's a very definite reason, within the story, for why the original trilogy fights differed from the Phantom Menace battle. Maul, Obi-Wan, and Qui-Gon were fully trained and close to their prime, whereas in the original trilogy, Luke had had little training and Vader had age and a poor physical condition to deal with. Plus, there is the times in which they lived. During Phantom Menace, the Jedi were in full force with the numbers probably in the thousands. In the trilogy, Sidious, Vader, Yoda, and Obi-Wan were the only force users in existence with Luke just joining them. And so there was hardly a "forum" for them to use the Force. The duels in the trilogy reflected this well.

I didn't think SJJ meant to extend it "across the board," and certainly didn't mean to imply that he did. I was only stating reasons that anyone (including SJJ himself, I'm sure, cheerfully) could see for not so extending it.

I also believe there are good reasons for taking the films as reflecting a deep difference in the relative abilities of the Jedi in TPM vs. those remnants in ANH-ROJ; those you mention are just such excellent reasons. But they are not definitive, precisely because (for instance) in adverting to Vader's age and encumbrances you are rationalizing the representations. That is, is it in fact necessary that aged Jedis in poor physical condition cannot fight well? Palpatine certainly seems to fight well at the climax of ROJ, and he is even older than Vader. And if a well-trained Jedi can use the Force to move other bodies and machines around with ease, why not move his own?

I think the best argument for taking there to be a real difference between TPM and ROJ (and not just a represented one) is Luke's inexperience. Hamill's moves are simply inferior to McGregor's (no discredit to Hamill, of course!); as we would expect such a difference between an untrained Jedi like Luke and an experienced one like the young Obi-Wan it is entirely reasonable to take the represented difference as a real one. What may have originally been a reflection of improved "fight" techniques in the film world may then legitimately be rationalized as reflecting a decline in fighting ability between TPM and ANH.


Maxie, you mention the design differences between BTAS and TNBA. That would be more comparable to discussing the differences in special effects between the original movies and Phantom Menace, which is not really what we've been doing here. [/B]

Exactly. I only meant it as an opening analogy to explain the kind of difference between "representation" and "reality" that I was pointing to. But I do think fight scenes can be taken as special effects in just the same sense. So, who would win in a duel between Errol Flynn's Robin Hood and Justin Chamber's Musketeer? Going just on how they are represented, certainly D'Artagnan would. But surely this is less a reflection on Robin and D'Artagnan than on Xin-Xin Xiong, whose work means that state-of-the-art duel scenes of 2001 are far more impressive than those of 1937. You can't take the historical accident that one film was made earlier than another as showing anything about the relative talents and abilities of the characters they contain.

[NewMaxFranklin]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus

So, who would win in a duel between Errol Flynn's Robin Hood and Justin Chamber's Musketeer? Going just on how they are represented, certainly D'Artagnan would. But surely this is less a reflection on Robin and D'Artagnan than on Xin-Xin Xiong, whose work means that state-of-the-art duel scenes of 2001 are far more impressive than those of 1937. You can't take the historical accident that one film was made earlier than another as showing anything about the relative talents and abilities of the characters they contain.

That's the kind of idea I was trying to convey with my Ouai Chang Cain/Wong Fe Hung comparison. Your example is much better though (good job.) Lucas' inspiration for Star Wars was Kurosowa's film "The Hidden Fortress." And many of the eliments in Star Wars, like the "force," the "Jedi" and "Sith," can be traced to Japanese culture; "Chi"/"Ki" power, Bushido, Samurai and Ninja. So the fight scenes (as Maxie said) are in the samurai style. But today Hong Kong cinema is all the rage. So Woo-Ping style "wushu" style fights were a logical decision. I think the if Lucas was making RotJ today, he would have done Hong Kong sytle fights also.

I believe the differences in tone and style between the Star Wars films has much more to do with where Lucas was creatively/emotionally (on a level of inspiratin) at the time, and variables in the production stage than with the subject matter itself. The sluggishness of Vader's movements could be traced to somthing as simple as how restictive the costume was. Lucas may have intended to do the fights in TPM in the ROTJ style , but decided to cater the audience's expectations.

Remember, Oui-Gon was originally intended to be a much older man of 60-some years. When Neason was cast they did not rewrite the character for a younger man. Neason's aesthetic differences (he's also very tall) were a matter of packaging, that need not effect the overall story. Many examples of this can be found in the Star Wars universe. The creatures ridden by the rebels on Hoth in "Empire" were originally intended to be reptiles. Something like a less-threatening raptor. But in the film they are clearly mammals of some sort. The exact fighting style used by the Jedi/Sith is rather trivial in the sense that it doesn't have much relevence to the story. Rocky would be the same story if Rocky was a Kickboxer.

[James]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus


Against this, SJJ (if I read him right) prefers to treat the representation as the reality itself; if it looks different, that means it is. I can't go along with this across the board (else, how could one reconcile different comic artists' representations of Batman, Joker, etc.?) but there's something to be said for treating it as the fall-back position. The representation is not MEANT by the artist to be different from reality, so treat it as the thing itself; if Lucas portrays the fights in TPM Hong Kong-style (especially after portraying them in ANH-ROJ as Japanese samurai style) then treat them as that kind of fight, and reflecting a difference in the fighters' skills, not in Lucas'.


Well, I do sit inbetween, enjoying speculation on both fictional and production backgrounds to most of my - ahem - vices..

However, on this point, I feel that you either look at the situation from within the fiction or from a production viewpoint. To me, there is no point discussing the merits of the Jedi battles within the context of the story and then to say, 'ah, but all that is irrelevant - look at why the film makers did this from a crowd pulling POV..', I'm not trying to downplay the relevance of the points made on this subject, but I do think you sit on one side of the fence here. You either debate fiction, or production - but you can't argue the two standpoints together.

In reference to Maxie and this topic, I see the Jedi battles and there relevance as a philosphical rather than visual problem. I understand your point about continuity and the lack there of in stories - and I agree that this can be extremely irritating. Being an avid fan of such programmes as Blake's 7, Jeeves and Wooster and Doctor Who (where upon Actors change parts without so much as a question), I can appreciate how irritating it is to fit such visual alterations into the fiction surroundings. Visual is a hard medium to overcome as it makes such an impression upon us. The new Star Trek, Enterprise, is going to be tough for fans as we see a pre ST:TOS enviroment which, from the shots I've seen, looks more like STTNG than ST:OS....

I personally don't find too much a problem with the Star Wars Trilogy. Even with the visual problem of Guinness and McGregor. Being an alien universe (mixed somewhat between another universe and a fairy tale!), I can make personal acceptance for the physical change of Kenobi. We don't have ages in Star Wars (not in the films anyway) and physiology could be entirely different... there are always ways round these things! :D

So I do agree, that new approaches from film makers enabled to make the Jedi battle more exciting in SW TPM compared to what they could do in ST ESB, I think Lucas wanted the story/direction to show such a radical difference in skill between the original Jedi and that of Luke. This may have been an idea he set after creating ESB, but that seems a moot point as I believe that the intention to create a chasm of power between the time periods is one that not only makes sense, but was intended by Lucas while making TPM.

[James]

Originally posted by NMaxFranklin

The exact fighting style used by the Jedi/Sith is rather trivial in the sense that it doesn't have much relevence to the story. Rocky would be the same story if Rocky was a Kickboxer.

I disagree. I think the fighting style has an immense impact to the story. The difference between the Jedi within these two periods of the Star Wars universe is vital to the story and will change how future generations as well as our selves reflect upon it.

We now see how different the Jedi were, and more importantly how important and powerful a force they were. The respect and reverence they encounter through the first film is justified and the way they battle. Why they are feared. For the audience to see how the Jedi fell, you need to be introduced to an equally, if not more, powerful Sith.

By the time we get to the latter films, we will see how little hope Kenobi has. After seeing the might in the first two episodes, Luke's slow training through episodes 4 and 5 will seem rudimentary. His desire to fight Vader will seem ridiculous. You will appreciate why Yoda and Obi-Wan wanted him to wait. Simply, because compared to a true Jedi, the people we see in the first two films (and this is where the visual impact of the battles comes into play) how mighty the Jedi should be and how crap Luke is in comparison.

Yes, many things change from conception. Lucas' original script was beyond awful. But the species of the Tauntan is about as relevant as what species Maul is. I don't think that compares to the importance of the Jedi Battles.

[NewMaxFranklin]

Originally posted by SJJ

We now see how different the Jedi were, and more importantly how important and powerful a force they were. The respect and reverence they encounter through the first film is justified and the way they battle. Why they are feared. For the audience to see how the Jedi fell, you need to be introduced to an equally, if not more, powerful Sith.

By the time we get to the latter films, we will see how little hope Kenobi has. After seeing the might in the first two episodes, Luke's slow training through episodes 4 and 5 will seem rudimentary. His desire to fight Vader will seem ridiculous. You will appreciate why Yoda and Obi-Wan wanted him to wait. Simply, because compared to a true Jedi, the people we see in the first two films (and this is where the visual impact of the battles comes into play) how mighty the Jedi should be and how crap Luke is in comparison.


Fine. I'll argue from a story POV rather than from a production standpoint.

Yoda is quoted as saying "A Jedi's strength flows from the force." These types of statements coupled with the fuss made over how strong Anakin is with the force (in Episode one) is proof that a Jedi's strength and potential strength are dependant upon how strong their connection is with the Force. Hence, Vader and others saying things like "The Force is strong with this one." And "Use the Force."

Your argument states that Luke was intended to be less powerful than the Jedi in the golden age of Episode One's timeframe. However, Vader, who is stronger with the force than even Yoda, As stated by Obi-Wan in TPM, found Luke "Impressive, most impressive", in "Empire." And in Jedi he said Luke's powers were "complete." Which cam be taken as evidence that Luke was supposed to be quite formidable.

Luke seemed to be as good at deflecting lazer blasts as either Oui-Gon or Obi Wan "Jedi." And he was referred to as a Jedi Knight, not a an apprentice, in "Jedi," as well. Yoda had no more to teach him. He was at his peak. Weather or not Obi-Wan seemed more skillful in TPM than Luke did in ROTJ is superfucial, because Luke was a Jedi and Obi Wan was not given that title until the end of TPM, following Oui-Gon's death.

If Vader is the strongest with the force, then Luke, who defeats Vader, is even stronger.

Sidious/ The Emperor is not acounted for because he is and was always a Sith; Of a seperate school. Since Vader was the most powerful Jedi ever, Vader's acknowledgement of Luke's skill alone, is proof that he was intended to be very strong. Not inadequate or undertrained in any respect.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by SJJ


Well, I do sit inbetween, enjoying speculation on both fictional and production backgrounds to most of my - ahem - vices..

Yes, clearly there are cases where it is clear how to answer the question (with a fictional or production explanation), and just as clearly there are places where it isn't. So, the difference between space battles in ANH and TPM is clearly just a production thing; the difference between Obi-Wan's age in ANH and TPM is clearly a fictional thing (which production changes are designed to abet). As for Vader's abilities and Luke's, that seems more problematic.

One reason for thinking it is mostly production problem is that we know that fight choreography has advanced a great deal in 20 years. If ESB were remade there would be a great temptation to upgrade the Jedi fight scenes as much as the space fight scenes.

But the more I think about it, the more I am drawn to your position. Plainly Luke should not be thought of as having the same degree of skill as the young Obi-Wan; if Vader were really still as skilled as the young Obi-Wan he should have been able to take Luke out far more easily than he did; hence, Vader's own skill are much diminished.

The way to reconcile the truth about production and the truth about the fictional world, though, I think shouldn't be quite as neat as some here seem to be making out. Lucas may be intelligent, but I'm durned if I'm going to think of him as being so far-sighted that he consciously strove to emphasize the clunkiness of ESB so as to lend greater contrast to sequels to be made 25 years later. I'm more inclined to think that he looked at the new fighting choreography, realized he needed that in the films, and realized that he could retrospectively justify the improved techniques by pointing to Luke's (real) lack of skill in ESB and ROJ, of which he was not terribly cognizant at the time he made them. That is, I suspect he grappled for a rationalization the same way that we have, and came up with it in much the same way you and Dark Angel did.

What does this say about Darth Maul vs. Darth Vader? I'm loathe to say it, since I like Vader so much more, but if the above reasoning holds then really it seems like the Maul of TPM could take down the Vader of ESB as easily as Obi-Wan took down those fighting droids at the beginning of TPM. :(

[RockItShipper]

Originally posted by DarkAngel
Ultimately, that's the role of a Sith apprentice: to serve the Master. After all, they are both servants of the Dark Side, both seeking the same end result: the destruction of the Jedi. Maul and Vader both wanted this. It was their place to defer to Sidious.
Until their anger consumed them enough to strike back. Vader specifically suggests that Luke become his apprentice and help him overthrow Sidious as both Sith Lord and Galactic Emperor. This is normal Sith behavior, and why only two exist at a time. So it is well within the duty of a Sith apprentice to serve his/her master, but he/she should ultimately give in the Dark fully and overthrow the master. Masters have stopped this in the past and made arrangements for new apprentices, no doubt, having full knowledge that this is the Sithly way as well as some desire for self-preservation.

RE: story vs. production... I recall an episode of the original Star Trek in which a full Western set was too expensive to produce. So a saloon would just be the furniture. The script explains it as the featured crewmembers didn't have memories of studying Old West facades. I didn't quite buy it myself, especially with the gloating testimony from the cast/staff alongside this episode... but it's an interesting idea, at any rate.

[James]

Originally posted by NMaxFranklin

Your argument states that Luke was intended to be less powerful than the Jedi in the golden age of Episode One's timeframe. However, Vader, who is stronger with the force than even Yoda, As stated by Obi-Wan in TPM, found Luke "Impressive, most impressive", in "Empire." And in Jedi he said Luke's powers were "complete." Which cam be taken as evidence that Luke was supposed to be quite formidable.


Point taken, but I'd say that Yoda recognizes that Luke has an extremely strong natural affinity with the force - just like his father. A bond that a normal Jedi wouldn't aquire for years. Remember, Jedi training begins at infancy, we can assume that Luke reached a base Jedi level - and by ROTJ, I assume Yoda is referring to Luke being Jedi in temperment rather than skill - in a matter of a few years rather than a lifetime.
This does not mean, or imply, that he would have the same trained fighting techniques as the Jedi of old. He has had such a brief training in the Force - mainly in sensing and control and very little - if not none at all - in the art of the Jedi. It is the fighting technique, mixed with Force control, which we see in TPM.
So yes, Luke's control of the Force was complete by ROTJ. That need no more coaxing from a trainer, but the actual arts of Jedi fighting were never bestowed upon him. An area I don't think the Emperor was that fussed about.

I think the scene at the start of TPM, is actually more relevant than the final battle with Maul. Like with most movies, the first few encounters with the main characters are to show what the characters are about and what the do prior to their interaction with the specific story or plot. Here we see the strong fighting skills mixed with an almost casual mix of Force control. This is an undeniably intentional attempt to prove how mighty the Jedi were. I don't think you can say this motivation was added after the orginal films for just visual interest, this point has been made throughout the story of the first three movies - the Jedi were a mighty and skilled people!! :)

[DarkAngel]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus
I also believe there are good reasons for taking the films as reflecting a deep difference in the relative abilities of the Jedi in TPM vs. those remnants in ANH-ROJ; those you mention are just such excellent reasons. But they are not definitive, precisely because (for instance) in adverting to Vader's age and encumbrances you are rationalizing the representations. That is, is it in fact necessary that aged Jedis in poor physical condition cannot fight well? Palpatine certainly seems to fight well at the climax of ROJ, and he is even older than Vader. And if a well-trained Jedi can use the Force to move other bodies and machines around with ease, why not move his own?

The Emperor didn't fight in the ROTJ climax but, rather, used a force attack. I don't question Sidious' or Vader's ability to use the force with age. Vader, for instance, used the force to good effect in ESB when throwing objects at Luke. He clearly demonstrated his mastery of the force. But fighting with lightsabers requires physical prowess.
Can Jedi use the force to move their bodies? If I understand what you mean, I would say yes, but only to a certain extent. I'm sure Jedi/Sith use the Force to enhance their speed, strength, etc. But that's only an advantage against non-force users. When fighting fellow force-users, that advantage is offset. And, from what we've seen, Jedi and Sith do age, do experience injury, so there's a limit to what they can do to enhance themselves. Vader obviously can't heal his injuries, otherwise he wouldn't be wearing the suit.
Ultimately, these guys are all "human." So as they get older, they don't appear as capable of performing some of the physical feats that they could in their youth.

[RockItShipper]

Originally posted by DarkAngel
Ultimately, these guys are all "human." So as they get older, they don't appear as capable of performing some of the physical feats that they could in their youth.

And apparently the Dark Side feeds on one's body as well. That's part of what happened to Sidious, and perhaps what interfered with any attempts on Vader's part to heal his wounds.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by RockItShipper
I recall an episode of the original Star Trek in which a full Western set was too expensive to produce. So a saloon would just be the furniture. The script explains it as the featured crewmembers didn't have memories of studying Old West facades.

"Spectre of the Gun." I do remember hearing that the incomplete sets were intentional, but didn't hear about the expense excuse.

[HellCat]

Sorry if someone already mentioned this, but there is a comic book coming soon, as part of Star Wars: Infinities, which sees Vader and Maul battling each other

[James]

Originally posted by Blight Man
Sorry if someone already mentioned this, but there is a comic book coming soon, as part of Star Wars: Infinities, which sees Vader and Maul battling each other

I must confess to personally not viewing the comics or books (with the possible exception of Shadows Of The Empire which Lucas has muttered something about being possibly canon) as being official continuity.

How does everyone else feel on this score? I've never felt they really have managed to capture the spirit and have serious doubts that Lucas will acknowledge their content while producing the next two films...! :)

[NewMaxFranklin]

It is my interpertaition, based on my previous quotes from the film, "A Jedi's strength flows from the force," etc, that a Jedi's skill in any degree, fighting included, is dependant on his/her ability to use the force. The Dark Side is the Force as well. It repredents the Yang to the Jedi's Yin (maybe I have it backwards) anger aggression, fear, etc.

So, the force may be infinite, but, it's only as strong, good or evil as the person using it. I believe the strength of a person is so minute when compaired to the majesty of the force that it seems foolish that a Jedi or Sith Lord would not be using the force through an entire battle, in every swing, every jump, every movement. Some believe Vader was using the force to hurl objects at Luke. I believe they were struggling through the force there entire battle.

In that sense Luke and Vader's battles should be more labored than the one between Obi-wan and Maul. Since Vader and Luke have very intense connections to the force, their stuggle is occuring on a whole other level. The lisghtsaber battle was merely an outward manifistation. While Maul and Obi-wan fought with greater skill, Luke and Vader fought with much more strength. So, ultimately, Obi-wan or any other Jedi's past could have been defeated by Luke. For Luke's connection to the force was far to great. The physical skill, or ability, of the old Jedi, to use their powers more effectively still pails before the sheer scope of Lukes strength.

[HellCat]

Originally posted by SJJ


I must confess to personally not viewing the comics or books (with the possible exception of Shadows Of The Empire which Lucas has muttered something about being possibly canon) as being official continuity.

How does everyone else feel on this score? I've never felt they really have managed to capture the spirit and have serious doubts that Lucas will acknowledge their content while producing the next two films...! :)

Well, like I said, Vader Vs Maul will be part of Star Wars: Infinities, which is a Star Wars "What if...?" series

And I agree. Most of the books spend too much time on the sci-fi part of the story

[James]

Originally posted by NMaxFranklin

In that sense Luke and Vader's battles should be more labored than the one between Obi-wan and Maul. Since Vader and Luke have very intense connections to the force, their stuggle is occuring on a whole other level. The lisghtsaber battle was merely an outward manifistation. While Maul and Obi-wan fought with greater skill, Luke and Vader fought with much more strength. So, ultimately, Obi-wan or any other Jedi's past could have been defeated by Luke. For Luke's connection to the force was far to great. The physical skill, or ability, of the old Jedi, to use their powers more effectively still pails before the sheer scope of Lukes strength.

But great strength with no control, will be useless. Plus, I don't see any evidence that Luke was fighting with great strength. Both had a great affinity to the force, and considering the time period from which Luke learns his skills, that is certainly true. Vader seems very impressed how much Luke has learned from Obi Wan. This skills, no matter how strong, require training. Hence Luke had to visit Yoda. Strength or affinity to the Force seems to be irrelevant.
That said, if Luke had full training and mastering of his power, than I don't think there would be any question of his power compared to the Phantom Menace posse.

Just on the subject of Jedi power....

A jedi's strength does flow from the Force, but like with any power or skill, there is much training. In fact, and this clearly arguable, the stronger you power is, the more training you require. As with Sidious and maybe Vader (we will soon see), maybe tha adage 'power currupts' is appropriate. Those with a strong affinity may need more training to make sure such power and responsibility does not engulf them - which is where the path to the Dark side lies.

From my interpretation, the Force is like any Force of nature - overpowering. The dark side is less evil, but the person failing to keep ethical control of his 'talents'. When you have such power and fail to keep perspective - just like any form of power - such as it is with human nature that you use it merely for personal nature. The Dark side is more the Dark Side of the individual rather than of the Force. Since both 'sides' seem to operate the same skills and characteristics, it seems that only the character of the user differs.

And before anyone quotes me something from the books as proof otherwise, I am only refering to what can be gleened from the films. I don't personally consider the books canon and find the word 'pants' a better description ;) (No offence! :D )

Just a little more fuel to add to highly fascinating fire....

[James]

Just out of interest, who does everyone think is meant to be more powerful? Luke or Vader? Originally, we assumed Luke, but with the implication in the new film that Vader may have been the ahem - messiah to the Force, does that mean that Vader would have been the stronger Jedi? Did Luke only beat him because of his crippled condition at the end of ROTJ?

[Frozen]

My interpretation is they were 'out'by a generation, and that Luke is actually the one 'who brings balance to the force'. I beleive Qui-gon et al are mistaken in thinking it's Anakin, but NEARLY right!

[James]

Originally posted by Frozen
My interpretation is they were 'out'by a generation, and that Luke is actually the one 'who brings balance to the force'. I beleive Qui-gon et al are mistaken in thinking it's Anakin, but NEARLY right!

At the time I thought they were referring to a balance in the Force in favour of the dark side and they didn't realise it in their arrogance. Afterall, in TPM, the side of the Jedi has a far stronger degree of power in the universe. I thought Qui-Gon was referring to Vader's final acts in ROTJ as the balancing of the Force.

But your point actually makes more sense and seems far more likely! :)

I think I'll go with you on that one!

[DarkAngel]

Originally posted by SJJ


I must confess to personally not viewing the comics or books (with the possible exception of Shadows Of The Empire which Lucas has muttered something about being possibly canon) as being official continuity.

How does everyone else feel on this score? I've never felt they really have managed to capture the spirit and have serious doubts that Lucas will acknowledge their content while producing the next two films...! :)

The books are canon and, when looking at the great ones, with good reason. I've seen on the books themselves that they've been fully authorized (at least in the case of the Zahn books).

You're right that many of the books have not done a good job of capturing the SW spirit, which is due to the many authors that have been involved and the many stories that have been told. It's been too sprawled out. But now, with the New Jedi Order books, the series has been reined in, all now dealing with one overall story. The characterization is better, the spirit is there, and the individual books are strengthened by the overall plotline. There is great work being done now, and if you have the time, you should check them out.

I tend to ignore the bad titles, focussing only on "Shadows of the Empire," the Zahn books, the New Jedi Order, and other large-scale stories. In general, the "big" or epic stories are the great ones, while the books trying to tell isolated, smaller stories fail to capture the SW spirit. In my opinion, Star Trek is more suited to telling individual stories, whereas Star Wars is more about the "big-picture" or multi-part epics.