TheBoost said:

Klingon_Jedi said:

Amusing if so; I remember way back when advocating that as an idea to make Grievious a more interesting character that actually had some sort of meaning to Obi-Wan. Really they should never have killed Maul in the first place and had him in the General's role.

So TPM wouldn't have a pay-off, and a characters whose only appeal is that he's a silent killing machine would be totally transformed.

I don't see it.

Basically the idea would be to have a visible Sith threat to distract Obi-wan, wanting to avenge Qui-gon. Not to mention explain why the Jedi don't seem to notice Sidious; they're all focused on finding Maul. Not to mention it could've given Maul screentime to develop beyond the that.

Really, one of the minor issues I had with the PT was the lack of an overarching villian like Vader (himself only the main badguy in ESB but still a visible threat and figurehead of evil in the others). Sure, Palpatine's there in the shadows, but each film essentially had a "new Vader". Maul could've fulfilled that if done properly.

The Grievous idea is more about making him relevant than resurrecting Maul. As he stands, he comes out of no where, and is merely a plot device solely to separate Obi-wan from Anakin (he's actually my least favorite SW character as he's just plain boring and near pointless). Since that's ALL he does, why not give some greater drive to Obi-wan. It would basically be the fight after Qui-gon's death to another level.

Still