| The Double-bladed Lightsaber [message #190638] |
Do, 29 Dezember 2005 03:47 |
|
How come there was only one Double-bladed Lightsaber (Darth Maul's) in the
entire Star Wars movies? Were they not as popular as the one-bladed one.
James
|
|
|
| Re: The Double-bladed Lightsaber [message #190641 ] |
Do, 29 Dezember 2005 04:31 |
|
In article <X6Isf.5488$l87.467356 [at] news20.bellglobal.com>, "James
McDone" <jamesmcdone [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> How come there was only one Double-bladed Lightsaber (Darth Maul's) in the
> entire Star Wars movies? Were they not as popular as the one-bladed one.
Double-bladed lightsabers require more skill and are more dangerous.
The user is more likely to cause themselves damage than their opponent.
(I vaguely recall reading somewhere that the Jedi do sometimes use them
in training.)
|
|
|
| Re: The Double-bladed Lightsaber [message #190644 ] |
Do, 29 Dezember 2005 05:28 |
|
> How come there was only one Double-bladed Lightsaber (Darth Maul's) in the
> entire Star Wars movies? Were they not as popular as the one-bladed one.
Without lightsaber-armed opponents for the Jedi to actually need to fight,
they had little use for a double-bladed lightsaber, for which the only
practical use is fighting multiple opponents armed with lightsabers. A
lightsaber was plenty effective for deflecting blastershots and dealing with
riff-raff- In fact, logistically it would be much, MUCH more difficult to
deflect oncoming blaster shots with a double-blade. You'd wind up cutting
your own leg off trying to deflect an oncoming bolt.
Darth Maul, on the other hand, had use of the double-bladed weapon, since he
would be single handedly fighting two Jedi. Since he was adept enough to use
it, he did. He was likely trained by Sidious right from birth (or
thereabouts) to use it. Dooku, on the other hand, was used to the single
blade from his Jedi days.
|
|
|
| Re: The Double-bladed Lightsaber [message #190645 ] |
Do, 29 Dezember 2005 06:31 |
|
|
I wonder what Maul was like as a baby??
|
|
|
| Re: The Double-bladed Lightsaber [message #190647 ] |
Do, 29 Dezember 2005 07:01 |
|
>I wonder what Maul was like as a baby??
I'd bet he was a biter.
|
|
|
| Re: The Double-bladed Lightsaber [message #190653 ] |
Do, 29 Dezember 2005 17:29 |
|
"James McDone" <jamesmcdone [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:X6Isf.5488$l87.467356 [at] news20.bellglobal.com...
> How come there was only one Double-bladed Lightsaber (Darth Maul's) in the
> entire Star Wars movies? Were they not as popular as the one-bladed one.
>
> James
>
I don't know, but it's a good thing Luke never had to face Maul, or he would
be a quadruple amputee within five minutes.
|
|
|
| Re: The Double-bladed Lightsaber [message #190654 ] |
Do, 29 Dezember 2005 18:05 |
|
I can't imagine preferring to use a double one, seems awfully
impractical, mainly good for looking cool in the movies spinning it
around and so forth. If some dude was coming at you with a machete,
would you want to be equipped with a goofy one with two blades and a
grip in the middle? I sure wouldn't. It would be good for defense I
suppose but they are supposed to be 'fighters'.
|
|
|
| Re: The Double-bladed Lightsaber [message #190657 ] |
Do, 29 Dezember 2005 19:57 |
|
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 11:29:45 -0500, "Franklin Cross"
<CrossBaby111 [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"James McDone" <jamesmcdone [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:X6Isf.5488$l87.467356 [at] news20.bellglobal.com...
>> How come there was only one Double-bladed Lightsaber (Darth Maul's) in the
>> entire Star Wars movies? Were they not as popular as the one-bladed one.
>>
>> James
>>
>
>I don't know, but it's a good thing Luke never had to face Maul, or he would
>be a quadruple amputee within five minutes.
>
It's just a flesh wound...
--
John Duncan Yoyo
------------------------------o)
Brought to you by the Binks for Senate campaign comittee.
Coruscant is far, far away from wesa on Naboo.
|
|
|
| Re: The Double-bladed Lightsaber [message #190662 ] |
Do, 29 Dezember 2005 21:09 |
|
In article <3cc8r1hq60eucb9uaep90dpnloreatn25j [at] 4ax.com>, John Duncan
Yoyo <john-duncan-yoyo [at] cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 11:29:45 -0500, "Franklin Cross"
> <CrossBaby111 [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> >"James McDone" <jamesmcdone [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:X6Isf.5488$l87.467356 [at] news20.bellglobal.com...
> >>
> >> How come there was only one Double-bladed Lightsaber (Darth Maul's) in the
> >> entire Star Wars movies? Were they not as popular as the one-bladed one.
> >
> >I don't know, but it's a good thing Luke never had to face Maul, or he would
> >be a quadruple amputee within five minutes.
>
> It's just a flesh wound...
2-1B would soon have him patched up as good as new. ;-)
|
|
|
| Re: The Double-bladed Lightsaber [message #190665 ] |
Fr, 30 Dezember 2005 00:35 |
|
No1ButU wrote:
>> How come there was only one Double-bladed Lightsaber (Darth Maul's)
>> in the entire Star Wars movies? Were they not as popular as the
>> one-bladed one.
>
> Without lightsaber-armed opponents for the Jedi to actually need to
> fight, they had little use for a double-bladed lightsaber, for which
> the only practical use is fighting multiple opponents armed with
> lightsabers. A lightsaber was plenty effective for deflecting
> blastershots and dealing with riff-raff- In fact, logistically it
> would be much, MUCH more difficult to deflect oncoming blaster shots
> with a double-blade. You'd wind up cutting your own leg off trying to
> deflect an oncoming bolt.
> Darth Maul, on the other hand, had use of the double-bladed weapon,
> since he would be single handedly fighting two Jedi. Since he was
> adept enough to use it, he did. He was likely trained by Sidious
> right from birth (or thereabouts) to use it. Dooku, on the other
> hand, was used to the single blade from his Jedi days.
I would say someone with a double-bladed LS has huge advantages over his
opponent/enemy if he's well enough trained to use it. He always has the
choice to turn on one or two blades depending on the situation. If the
opponent(s) has/have no lightsabers but blasters and laser pistols, to use a
single blade can be enough. If the opponent(s) do have LS otoh, two blades
can be very welcome. See Darth Maul against Qui-Gon Jinn: it was a very
intense fighting sequense, and I loved it.
I agree when you say Maul has had extensive double-LS training. But from
birth is a little over the top. The younglings trained by Yoda are 8 or 9
years old or so?
Ruud
|
|
|
| Re: The Double-bladed Lightsaber [message #190670 ] |
Fr, 30 Dezember 2005 01:48 |
|
"James McDone" <jamesmcdone [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:X6Isf.5488$l87.467356 [at] news20.bellglobal.com...
> How come there was only one Double-bladed Lightsaber (Darth Maul's) in the
> entire Star Wars movies? Were they not as popular as the one-bladed one.
>
> James
>
i can only imagine that they would be good to some one with one arm.
|
|
|
| Re: The Double-bladed Lightsaber [message #190696 ] |
Fr, 30 Dezember 2005 15:33 |
|
> I wonder what Maul was like as a baby??
Birth Crawl?
|
|
|
| Re: The Double-bladed Lightsaber [message #190704 ] |
Fr, 30 Dezember 2005 22:52 |
|
"James McDone" <jamesmcdone [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:X6Isf.5488$l87.467356 [at] news20.bellglobal.com...
> How come there was only one Double-bladed Lightsaber (Darth Maul's) in the
> entire Star Wars movies? Were they not as popular as the one-bladed one.
>
> James
>
>
from Chronicles - The Prequels....
"An incredible duellist second only, perhaps to Darth Sideous, Darth Maul
honed his lightsaber skills through a lifetime of training against advanced
sparring droids.
The double-bladed lightsaber is incredibly difficult to wield.
Essentially two lightsabers connected end-to-end, the weapon turns into a
whirling vortex of lacerating energy in Maul's hands."
"Unlike the jedi, who harvest naturally occurring crystals to produce their
lightsaber blades, the Sith forge their crystals from artificial elements.
As part of a Sith exercise, an adept applies his dark will to create the
deadly weapon, focusing his anger and hatred to alter the crystal's
formation and perfecting it for use.
Sith lightsabers crafted in this method always produces a red blade."
doesn't really answer your question but thats the info in the book on Darth
Mauls lightsaber.
:)
|
|
|
| Re: The Double-bladed Lightsaber [message #190705 ] |
Fr, 30 Dezember 2005 23:43 |
|
In article <11rah9am9c98qac [at] corp.supernews.com>, "The Man From Mars"
<deaded77 [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I wonder what Maul was like as a baby??
>
> Birth Crawl?
More like Darth Bawl. ;-)
|
|
|
| Re: The Double-bladed Lightsaber [message #190707 ] |
Sa, 31 Dezember 2005 01:22 |
|
The only things I can see a double blade being good for is defending
against saber strikes and shooting weapons. You can't really swing it
like a baseball bat, the only real speed you can put into moving it is
with your wrist, and only vertically, not horizontally. I just cannot
see it as being a better offensive weapon than a single... you are
limited in how close it can be to your body without skewering yourself
with the other end, or it hitting your upper arm someplace while trying
to swing. Again it just seems like a cool thing in the movies with
their choreographed fight sequences against 1-blades and all, but in
real life it looks like a big handicap to me, doesn't matter how well
you are trained with something if it's got enough disadvantages to
something else. Don't you think they would have invented double-bladed
steel swords if they had any use at all? (ok there would be an
additional centrifigal force handicap with an extra real blade instead
of just 'light', but on the other hand if you just bumped one of the
blades against yourself while using it, it wouldn't slice your own
belly open either.) I'm taking about real world stuff here, not a
"Superman would be able to beat Batman" kind of thing.
|
|
|
| Re: The Double-bladed Lightsaber [message #190711 ] |
Sa, 31 Dezember 2005 04:09 |
|
In article <D_htf.41049$D47.6864 [at] fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, "watty"
<watson.d [at] blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "James McDone" <jamesmcdone [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:X6Isf.5488$l87.467356 [at] news20.bellglobal.com...
> > How come there was only one Double-bladed Lightsaber (Darth Maul's) in the
> > entire Star Wars movies? Were they not as popular as the one-bladed one.
> >
> > James
>
> from Chronicles - The Prequels....
>
> "An incredible duellist second only, perhaps to Darth Sideous, Darth Maul
> honed his lightsaber skills through a lifetime of training against advanced
> sparring droids.
> The double-bladed lightsaber is incredibly difficult to wield.
> Essentially two lightsabers connected end-to-end, the weapon turns into a
> whirling vortex of lacerating energy in Maul's hands."
>
>
> "Unlike the jedi, who harvest naturally occurring crystals to produce their
> lightsaber blades, the Sith forge their crystals from artificial elements.
> As part of a Sith exercise, an adept applies his dark will to create the
> deadly weapon, focusing his anger and hatred to alter the crystal's
> formation and perfecting it for use.
> Sith lightsabers crafted in this method always produces a red blade."
>
> doesn't really answer your question but thats the info in the book on Darth
> Mauls lightsaber.
>
> :)
Try this ...
Maul's Lightsabre
Pushing his physical and Force-assisted abilities to
the utmost, Darth Maul built and uses a double-bladed
lightsabre as his primary weapon. Traditionally used
only as a training device, the double-ended sabre can
be much more dangerous to its weilder than an enemy.
In the hands of Darth Maul, however, it becomes a
whirling vortex of lethal energy.
Maul's lightsabre contains two sets of internal
components; one can act as backup to the other.
With his double-bladed lightsabre, Maul is equal to
two Jedi who are unprepared for his powers. Sith the
Sith disappeared almost 2,000 years ago, Jedi are not
used to facing opponents with lightsabres.
- Star Wars Episode I The Visual Dictionary
(Dorling Kindersley, 1999)
|
|
|
| Re: The Double-bladed Lightsaber [message #190742 ] |
So, 01 Januar 2006 21:52 |
|
frenchy , your post to alt.fan.starwars is almost better than a suggestion
to SIGN CARL ENGLISH!
> The only things I can see a double blade being good for is defending
> against saber strikes and shooting weapons. You can't really swing it
> like a baseball bat, the only real speed you can put into moving it is
> with your wrist, and only vertically, not horizontally. I just cannot
> see it as being a better offensive weapon than a single... you are
> limited in how close it can be to your body without skewering yourself
> with the other end, or it hitting your upper arm someplace while trying
> to swing. Again it just seems like a cool thing in the movies with
> their choreographed fight sequences against 1-blades and all, but in
> real life it looks like a big handicap to me, doesn't matter how well
> you are trained with something if it's got enough disadvantages to
> something else. Don't you think they would have invented double-bladed
> steel swords if they had any use at all? (ok there would be an
> additional centrifigal force handicap with an extra real blade instead
> of just 'light', but on the other hand if you just bumped one of the
> blades against yourself while using it, it wouldn't slice your own
> belly open either.) I'm taking about real world stuff here, not a
> "Superman would be able to beat Batman" kind of thing.
>
Everyone is conveniently forgetting that quarterstaffs were a very lethal
weapon around the time that swords were prevalent, both for their range and
their ability to fend off multiple attackers. Granted a two-bladed sword
gives less flexibility because you can only hold the middle, but there is
no such thing as a perfect weapon anyway...
|
|
|
| Re: The Double-bladed Lightsaber [message #190750 ] |
Mo, 02 Januar 2006 04:14 |
|
|
What is a quarterstaff?
|
|
|
| Re: The Double-bladed Lightsaber [message #190751 ] |
Mo, 02 Januar 2006 04:43 |
|
In article <1136171654.059510.271350 [at] g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"frenchy" <mf101723 [at] msn.com> wrote:
> What is a quarterstaff?
Basically a long, thin (but strong) stick of wood, usually a cleaned up
tree branch, used in the days of Robin Hood.
http://www.swordsandfists.com/quarterstaff.html
|
|
|
| Re: The Double-bladed Lightsaber [message #190755 ] |
Mo, 02 Januar 2006 05:52 |
|
_frenchy_ spoke thusly on 01/01/2006 10:14 PM:
> What is a quarterstaff?
Please learn to quote.
http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/
--
usenetsolon [at] gmail.com
Firefox 1.5 is out! <http://www.mozilla.com>
|
|
|
| Re: The Double-bladed Lightsaber [message #190759 ] |
Mo, 02 Januar 2006 23:12 |
|
<<< Granted a two-bladed sword
gives less flexibility because you can only hold the middle>>>
In this case that is quite an understatement, this quarterstaff thing
seems useful since can be held at any points, can be held with both
hands, can be swung from one end like a bat or sword, etc. If you
could only hold it in the middle, you could try doing a great
impersonation of a batton twirler and hope that disuades your attacker
from dispatching you in a matter of seconds.
|
|
|
