George Lucas Almost Made General Grievous Darth Maul in Disguise in STAR WARS
Star Wars creator George Lucas almost went in a completely different direction with the villainous character General Grievous in the Star Wars universe. The character was introduced in the 2003 animated series Star Wars: The Clone Wars before appearing in the live-action 2005 movie Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith.
It turns out that Lucas actually considered making Grievous the revived Darth Maul in disguise! This interesting tidbit of trivia was dropped by Star Wars: The Clone Wars writer Henry Gilroy during an interview with /Film. He said:
"George was considering that Grievous was Maul behind the armor plate. It made sense. He's cut in half, and he's in this robot body or whatever. I'm glad that Grievous is his own thing anyway, but I thought it was interesting that the concept guys almost talked George into that."
That would have been pretty wild, and there’s no doubt that going in that direction would have blown the minds of Star Wars fans. However, in the end, Lucas opted to make Grievous a former Separatist General who also suffered some insane injuries. He’s still a great character and I think Lucas made the right call in the end, but it’s a fun little Star Wars “what if…?” thing to think about.
While Lucas opted not to explore the return of Darth Maul at this point, the fan-favorite character did return in Star Wars: The Clone Wars, which is where we learn how he survived being cut in half and falling down a ventilation shaft. His anger and hatred fueled his survival, and he salvaged droid parts for cybernetic legs that replaced the lower half of his body. This allowed him to get back into action and continue his reign of chaos across the galaxy.
Following the events of The Clone Wars, Maul returned in Star Wars Rebels, where he faced off again with Obi-Wan to finish their fight for good. Obi-Wan emerged victorious.
What do you think about the idea of Grievous being Darth Maul in disguise? How would you have reacted to that?