Do you think Lucas regrets killing off Darth Maul in TPM ?

I doubt he regrets it. He still got a lot of mileage out of that character, and if he had continued on in the trilogy he might not have been as cool. Maul died leaving us wanting more which is better than outstaying his welcome or becoming boring. For a dead guy he sure got around in the EU, video games and merchandise so it wasn't like George needed him in the later films for the character to remain popular. And being science fiction/Star Wars, you can always come up with some way to resurrect a character if you really want to. For better or worse the prequels are presumably the way George wanted them, and in spite of his early exit (or perhaps because of it) Maul has remained a popular character who has provided the Star Wars universe with various storylines and probably lots of merch money. I don't see why he would have too many regrets. With George being George, I would be more likely to believe he's probably ticked off that Maul is more popular than later villains like Dooku and Grievous who played a larger role in the storyline. Maybe bringing Maul back was just to shut fans up.

 

I do wish Maul had gotten the character arc, within the films, that he later got in The Clone Wars and Rebels. He's interesting, and he could have made the PT a lot more interesting. Dooku always struck me as a throwaway character, even with his cool backstory. Maul could have been the Sith apprentice up until mid-Ep. 3. I think that would have been better.

 

From Lucas's perspective, Maul probably wasn't terribly important. Remember, he's telling the story of the prequels, so he knew he had to show Anakin's fall, Palpatine's manipulations, Yoda's teachings, etc. Ultimately, in his eyes, I'd assume Palpatine was the far more important and interesting Sith in TPM, especially since he was pretty well liked already in ROTJ.

Maul was more or less an afterthought. As @Trevor points out, he's a very visual character, based on a "nightmare". He's meant to induce shock, but I don't think he was initially supposed to be all that important to the story.

That's certainly not to say that he wasn't squandered- just that, back in the nineties, it appears that his popularity and potential was pretty badly underestimated. Luckily, I at least do like how Rebels and TCW handled him.

 

No knock against Ray Park, but I think his casting in that role is pretty telling of what Lucas’s expectation for that character was. He was meant to be a physical threat that could demonstrate the height of Jedi combat. It was for spectacle and served its purpose. No, I doubt he regrets it at all.

 

True. They didn't use Ray Park's voice. And that might have been difficult to maintain for three films.

 

That's true. I mean, Ray killed it, but look at who the next apprentice was- Christopher Lee. Dude had been in over one hundred films, often with very prominent roles. And even then, Lee was only in one film and like ten minutes of the next.

I've heard a theory that each of the prequel villains was meant to foreshadow Vader- Maul was his rage, Dooku was his more diplomatic side, Greivous was his mechanical side. Not sure how valid that is, but I do think that the constant sith apprentice switching worked against the films in the end.

 

Darth Maul didn't appear in TCW until the forth season, and the series were already doing fine without him, so I highly doubt he was brought back in order to raise the ratings.

 

I completely agree with this. They could have even done what they did in The Clone Wars, bringing Maul back ten years later in Ep. 2, but with a mechanical lower half. Thus, you'd get "rage and cyborg" apprentice in Episodes 1 and 2, and they could have saved the last facet for Ep. 3. Then have him truly killed off and replaced by Darth Vader, who would be the "full flowering" of Maul's character.

 

First, a shoutout to everyone who has posted on this thread so far. Excellent points, Cantina patrons!

I think the idea was kinda to split the Sith into two very distinct characters. Sure there's the rule of two, always a master and a servant, similar to how the Jedi Code forbids taking more than one Padawan at a time. But with Palpatine and Maul, one is clearly the brains and the other is the muscle. It's clear that Palpatine isn't teaching Maul so much as he's using Maul to do the dirty work. In Phantom Menace Qui Gonn shared the danger with his apprentice, but Palpatine doesn't operate that way.

That being said, the death of Maul was inevitable. The story wouldn't have moved forward if Palpatine didn't need another apprentice to do the physical stuff.

 

I think he regrets moore that he killed off Boba Fett in that lame way, I know I do

 

The resurrected version of maul ease terrible. In TPM he was soft spoken, vicious, and mysterious. The clone wars version was embarrassing. The way he talked, the whole gone crazy wearing mechanical legs thing, all of it. It eat

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 19, 2017, Original Post Date: Dec 19, 2017 ---

Damn accidental post too early. It all damaged his cool image from the movie. He should've stayed dead

 

Doubtful, I can't imagine what else he would've done with him. Plus, Maul did end up having a more satisfying ending.

 

I think it was not that bad, however they could made more scenes with him BEFORE he died.

 

I don't know, but I'm glad he did. I hated Maul SO MUCH. Everything about him was ridiculous, from his cartoonish looks to the way he kept on grinning (or whatever that was) in an attempt to look scary. Was he supposed to be intimidating or to throw his opponents off balance by infuriating them, therefore making them more vulnerable to attacks? Not to mention the way he danced around. That stuff was embarrassing to watch, it made me want to put him out of his misery once and for all.
But truth be told I did enjoy one of his scenes. He was hilarious when he got on his speeder and went down like Wile E Coyote. And someone took that scene and added the appropriate sound effects:

lol

 

He regretted killing off Boba the way he did. Though, I think Lucas never considered Maul to be a very interesting character. He's a sentinel archetype, nothing more.

 

You mean to say every character didn't need an elaborate epic backstory explained bit by bit in the films?

Oh my!

 

Oh I don't want that. I actually loved Maul. I don't want elaborate back stories and exposes for every character in a movie. Its much better when some of them remain a mystery, like Maul. I'm looking at it from Lucas' perspective, from the perspective of a storyteller. Maul served a specific function in TPM. AOTC required another villain: Dooku. ROTS required again a different villain grievous. Especially when it concerns these underling villains, Lucas can be quite pragmatic. So I think were on the same line of thinking here

 

It's like what Kevin Feige says about Marvel's villains - they are there to highlight the hero.

Maul was unbridled vengeance (for something...but it worked) working in opposition to the overly cautious Jedi.
Dooku highlighted the problems of the political structure that the Republic suffered from, legitimately.
Greivous (sucked) is a reflection on what Anakin was to become, down to the breathing problems lol

Not every movie can be The Dark Knight, and not every villain needs to be Heath Ledger's Joker.

 

You are absolutely right. Unfortunately the opposite is what many fans want. They want a copy Darth Vader or Emperor in every Star Wars movie. Any character that is not a Darth Vader or Emperor is termed a "weak villain".