Poll: Was Darth Maul a good character in a bad Starwars film? Or a mediocre character in a really bad film

[idarkphoenixi]

Seeing as he doesn't do anything except a couple of fight scenes, doesn't say anything except one line about having revenge (revenge for what? No clue) and has no backstory whatsoever unless you dig up some wiki entry...There is NOTHING to like about Maul, except that he has the only "staff-saber" in the Star Wars films, which is sorta memorable but certainly doesn't warrant him being a considered a "good character". Simply put he has no character, nor does anyone in ep 1.

 

[Havegun]

For my money, Darth Maul has the greatest badass/screentime-ratio of any character in all the Star Wars movies and a great redeeming factor for Episode I. Whether or not he is a good character... well, he's sort of a good anti-character, if that makes sense, which is better than an actually bad character, like Watto or he-who-shall-not-be-named.
Would Episode I be better if (a lot of) time was spent on establishing him as a character? No, I don't think so. He pretty much just embodies danger and fear and evil, a mysterious devil-figure appearing out of nowhere.

 

[thePyro_13]

He never said anything, has no goals of his own, and no opinions on anything that transpired. He's more of an extra arm for palpatine than an extra character. Though his actions did affect the outcome, his own personality had no affect. He could have been anyone. So no, he's not a good character. Jar Jar had more character, even though this makes you hate Jar Jar. You hate him honestly for the way he thinks and the way he connects with the other characters. You can't hate Darth Maul for anything you can just hate the things he did.

 

[Little2Raph]

He makes an awesome antagonist, but a lousy character since there isn't much (if any) characterisation within the movie - he's just a cardboard cutout villain that the good guys can have a cool lightsaber battle with. I don't really count all the expanded universe information about him as "characterisation" because most good movies can work all that into the actual movie itself rather than relying on you reading his bio on Wookieepedia.

Having said all that though, he's no worse a character than most Hollywood bad guys (or even half the good guys for that matter) including, dare I say it, Darth Vader in A New Hope. I think it was probably a good thing they killed him off at the end of Phantom Menace otherwise in another twenty years the Head-in-a-Jar of George Lucas would probably have made another trilogy of crap films about how a young, idealistic Zabrak kid becomes the galaxy's coolest badass. . .

 

[Soxafloppin]

He looks cool, and is intimidating, thats about it and I'm not saying its a bad thing.

 

[The Shadowlord]

He was a fairly good antagonist. His major flaws were the fact that up until he killed Qui-Gon, he never actually did anything. There wasn't much information about who he was, why he was doing stuff or why anyone should fear him. Of course, his epic fight scene, with accompanying epic soundtrack, more than made up for it.

 

[isometry]

Like most of the prequel characters, he has no personality, he's more of a costume than a character. He's a good costume though.

 

[dobahci]

One of Darth Maul's only lines in the film was "At last we will reveal ourselves to the jedi, at last we will have revenge." Upon seeing it, I couldn't help wondering, "Who is 'we' and what is it exactly that they want revenge for?"

The first question gets answered somewhat, but the second one never really is, even after you've watched all the prequels, you never really find out exactly what it is they want revenge for. Maybe it's something that was later clarified in one of the zillions of Star Wars novels, video games, comic books, or other media, but I never cared enough to find out.

And that's basically the extent of his characterization. A single line that seems to reference some kind of past event which is never portrayed or explained by any character, ever.

You know, if it weren't for the fact that he hangs out with Darth Sidious and has a red face and horns (might as well be wearing a t-shirt that says "Proud member of the Stereotypical Bad Guy Club"), you wouldn't even know he was a villain until the lightsaber duelling happened.

 

[Susurrus]

I don't understand this at all.

He said next-to-nothing, so he has no character.

The character design was pretty much a: "How can we make a guy look evil?" It wasn't good character design, it was generic. He looked like a devil. Hooray? If his lightsaber had been a trident it couldn't have been any more hamfisted. I get that most of the characters in Star Wars are stereotypes, but Han Solo didn't wear a pirate hat, and keep a spyglass by his side, and a parrot on his shoulder.

Darth Vader - that was good character design. General Grievous was at least interesting.

 

[thePyro_13]

One of Darth Maul's only lines in the film was "At last we will reveal ourselves to the jedi, at last we will have revenge." Upon seeing it, I couldn't help wondering, "Who is 'we' and what is it exactly that they want revenge for?"

The first question gets answered somewhat, but the second one never really is, even after you've watched all the prequels, you never really find out exactly what it is they want revenge for. Maybe it's something that was later clarified in one of the zillions of Star Wars novels, video games, comic books, or other media, but I never cared enough to find out.

...

I had always assumed it was because the Jedi wiped out the Sith. In the same movie yoda and mace windu(or however it's spelt) talk of the Sith "returning" so they must have had more presence in the past. Since the Sith and Jedi hate one another(another assumption on my end), I always assumed it would have been the jedi who got rid of them all.

One the same train of thought as your post, they even name one of the later movies "revenge of the sith" farther referencing the unexplained and apparently unimportant event(since most of what happens seems to be about palpatine taking over the galaxy for his own ends).

The "only two sith" thing bothers me as well, as most of the spin off shows(clone wars) and games throw extra sith in all over the place. At least they manage to keep it to two at a time in the films.

 

[Galasinthion]

I'm guessing that whoever wrote Darth Maul thought he was really clever for the clear attempt at implicit characteristion. Unbeknown to him that whatever mystery encapsulates Darth Maul is incredibly lacklustre, painfully stereotypical and just downright rubbish. I mean, poor Maul couldn't even get work after the Phantom Menace... Well, except for 'Insidious'.

Then again, there is potential there for a very dangerous threat - but the problem is exposure. Too much would be just as bad as the too little we have, and I honestly think that it's beyond the capability of whoever wrote Maul to balance it correctly. It's just a shame that it wasn't realised.

The real problem with the prequels though, is that they're entirely unnecessary - we don't need to know that Anakin Skywalker built C-3PO, or that Yoda and Chewbacca were friends or how Anakin was discovered. All we need to know to understand and get the most out of the original trilogy... Is in the original trilogy. That stuff aside, and taking the prequels on their own merit... The Phantom Menace is probably the best because there are elements in there that could have made it a better experience, had they just been handled by a skilled team of writers. Mysterious and ancient threat? Check. Shadow games and manipulation? Check. Political upheaval? General intrigue? Check. A decent cast? Check.

Anyway, I voted 'Meh'.

Edit: The implicit characterisation thing, I don't think it succeeded - but it's the only way I can justify the abortion that is Maul as he appears in the film. He is supposed to be menacing, and on that he fails. So, really, he is a bad 'character'.

 

[Smertnik]

Considering that there was no characterisation involved at all and that his entire purpose in the movie seemed to be to provide some lightsabre action, I wouldn't exactly call Darth Maul a "good" character.

Also what's up with that poll? It's an 'either or' question and yet the provided answers are yes and no? How does that work?

 

[Vivi22]

He was NOT a character at all. In an atrocious excuse for a movie.

Now that said, the visual design was very pretty, and with:
- Writing
- Character development
- Stylistic choice that would make choreographed fights not seem ridiculous
...he could have been a good character. As it is, he was not a character at all.

Couldn't agree more, though I think calling him a non-character gives him too much credit. He was little more than a second rate lacky for the main villain who's only claim to fame was being involved in the best lightsaber duels in all 6 movies, and having a double bladed lightsaber. Those things do not a character make. He had no build up, no backstory beyond being a thug for the big bad, no character arc to speak of. He was simply there to give the movie an excuse to have the Jedi fight someone with a lightsaber.

 

[rapidoud]

Better choreographed fights than nerds slapping each other with glow sticks a la the original trilogy (especially in 4).

Which matches the EU and games much better where lightsabre combat is visceral, and laser blasts can actually be deflected instead of just blocking it with your hand.

OT: I liked Darth Maul, as a character he wasn't fleshed out enough and seemed to be designed under the assumption he would be, as he wasn't menacing or thoughtful enough for minimal screentime (unlike, say, Boba Fett who received less screentime in any single movie yet was loved more).

 

[Pandabearparade]

He wasn't a character at all, he was a cool costume.

 

[DoPo]

Darth Maul was a prop - like a lightsaber or a space ship. I was really excited about him when I first saw the trailers for the movie, because h was prominently featured there. And then it turns out that Jar JarBinks has more screen presence and personality than the red demonic guy with the double lightsaber. Because that's what he was - a red demonic guy with a double lightsaber. His entire function in the movie was to look scary and badass. The same function the boulder trap has in Indiana Jones.

 

[Galasinthion]

Better choreographed fights than nerds slapping each other with glow sticks a la the original trilogy (especially in 4).

Which matches the EU and games much better where lightsabre combat is visceral, and laser blasts can actually be deflected instead of just blocking it with your hand.

Well, that style of lightsabre combat pretty much originated in 'The Phantom Menace'... Didn't it? Before then, battles between force users were never extremely acrobatic and/or flashy.