A bunch of HTML text???

Yeah lol heres the proof! a bunch of random HTML!

But jokes aside, sorry about that. I should've previewed before posting. It's fixed now though.

The animatic is unintentionally gruesome and funny in the sheer number of clones that get run over by Grevious.

As Steven Spielberg supervised this sequence, he must know something Lucas won't tell us? ;)

I thought the whole "Maul-is-Grevious" deal was a thing the concept artists were keen on, but that Lucas never really took to heart.

DuracellEnergizer said:

I thought the whole "Maul-is-Grevious" deal was a thing the concept artists were keen on, but that Lucas never really took to heart.

Yeah I read about that too, but I just never thought the idea had gotten this far.

<p>I really think not having Maul be&nbsp;Grievous was a serious missed opportunity. &nbsp;By taking these two mostly uninteresting throw away bad guy and combining &nbsp;them they could have actually given him an interesting arc between the movies that would have provided a nice&nbsp;foreshadowing&nbsp;for what was to become of Anakin.</p>
<p>Sure, Clone Wars has done a decent job (I think) of spicing up Maul and Grievous, but these are suppose to be 2 of the 4 main villains in the films (really 3 since one of the villains want&nbsp;meant&nbsp;to be a "Phantom Menace") and that kind of character development shouldn't have been farmed out to the series, especially if you are going to have a different villain in each movie.</p>

Really?  ',:-\  I mean, was Maul really supposed to become Grievous or was that just a convenient shortcut the pre-vis team took to create the Grievous CG to get their job done faster?

Would they have even been using the same software six years later, that a Darth Maul head would be a handy shortcut?

Is there any Grevious pre-production art with Maul eyes?

Ziz said:

Really?  ',:-\  I mean, was Maul really supposed to become Grievous or was that just a convenient shortcut the pre-vis team took to create the Grievous CG to get their job done faster?

I doubt it since TPM was the only prequel movie that was non-digital. I don't think the animatic creation process was the same for TPM as it was for the other two. 

But I suppose anythings possible... 

LOOK at those images.  It's not a CG model of Maul's face under there.  It's the flat image of his face from the TPM poster.  It's probably just wrapped around a simple tube or ball shape with Grievous's skull over it.

Stop overthinking things and try common sense.  I know it's an old fashioned concept that's not very popular anymore but it can still work to your advantage if you know how to do it properly.

none said:

Ziz wrote: Stop overthinking things and try common sense.

Someone's trying to ignore the evolution of these films.

No, but I do acknowledge the difference between the films as stories and the film making process.

Put it another way - remember the old footage from behind the scenes of Return Of The Jedi where Dennis Muren and someone else (forget who) were using video cameras and Star Wars action figures to plan out the speeder bike chase?  For some of those shots, they used a Boba Fett figure instead of a stormtrooper.  By your logic, that's proof that the speeder bike sequence in the final film was originally going to have Boba Fett chasing Luke and Leia.

See what I mean about common sense?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-hHwQ32UoE

Actually, they used a Boba Fett figure, (large and small) for all of it. Boba was standing in for the Biker Scout, as an action figure of it didn't exist yet, and was the one character similar enough in design to the scouts.

If Grevious wasn't supposed to be Maul, it should have been a simple matter to scan some of the preproduction art and use the eyes. Using Maul's eyes was a deliberate choice. Whether it was it was a subtle ploy to sell George on the idea, or an abandoned concept is up in the air.

none said:

I wasn't commenting on the threads theory, proof or dis-proof.  Your:

Stop overthinking things and try common sense.

Was an attempt to halt the conversation, that's what I was replying against.  (if that wasn't your intentions, then I misinterpreted, been wrong before)  Your first comment about the cgi use is valid and provides an against idea.  Now if someone can check the credits for that scene figure out the animator and send them an e-mail...

I wasn't trying to halt the conversation, I was trying to provide an alternate explanation and steer it in a direction other than everyone mindlessly agreeing with each other.