Star Wars: 5 Reasons Darth Maul's Death Was A Good Idea (And 1 Way It Could Have Been Made Better)
WARNING! THIS ARTICLE CONTAINS SPOILERS. Whenever a discussion about the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy comes up, its only a matter of time before somebody insists that the biggest flaw was killing off Darth Maul after a very brief appearance in Episode I: The Phantom Menace. It is argued that Maul should have become the central antagonist of the new films, and given Obi-wan Kenobi more depth. In fact, many fellow writers on this very site have made this point in recent weeks: http://whatculture.com/film/10-small-changes-that-would-have-improved-the-star-wars-prequels.php/8http://whatculture.com/film/star-wars-22-products-that-prove-george-lucas-is-a-complete-sell-out.php/17 The consensus is so strong, that even George Lucas agrees, having resurrected Maul for the animated series, The Clone Wars. But 5000 words history essays have a habit of distracting ones attention, and over the last few days Ive been thinking. Now we can all agree that the Prequels have their flaws, but I dont believe this is one of them. Furthermore, I intend to demonstrate that chucking Maul down a shaft in two halves was actually the best thing to do with the character. Even if I fail to convince you in five points, have a little look at the end, where Ive posted a little concession on how the blow of Mauls loss could have been softened. Ill be really interested to hear feedback on this one