ThunderPeel2001

elTee makes better points than me, but quite frankly the logic of the complaints towards the Remasters seems reflective of so many other hyper-emotional fanboi rants that seem to bleed out from Reddit. To me they are the product of groupthink -- ideas supported and bolstered by a group existing in a vacuum. And when they're challenged outside of that vacuum there's an inability to defend them without resulting to circular logic or side-stepping. Or just a plain old hyper-emotional response. In the case of people complaining about missing lines and recasting in the Remasters. Hmm. Lines were changed between versions of MI. Sometimes on purpose, sometimes by mistake. (Some of them have only just been restored in ScummVM.) And the special editions made even more changes, cutting lines. I don't recall anyone getting seriously upset any them. Same goes for recasting. TellTale games would sometimes recast roles between episodes! Sometimes people missed the originals, sometimes they preferred the new takes. Sam & Max themselves have been recast countless times throughout their many iterations! Again, I don't recall anyone getting seriously upset about that. I know elTee suggests this is purely a generation thing, but honestly I can't say I'm convinced, because when someone is recast for reasons which could be described as "woke" (reasons for which I wholeheartedly applaud and support), strangely then it's a huge issue. Changing a line like "take our complimentary goggles designed for special needs children!" is treated as a crime against culture! Sorry, I just don't buy it. I do prefer the performance of the original Bosco actor, but I also understand and agree with why it was changed. Same goes with the line alterations. And believe me, I'm someone who has gotten bent out of shape when other remasters have gotten things wrong. It drives me crazy when something I really care about is changed for bad reasons (like the "Golo Flake" label oversight in Grim Fandango which makes the puzzle harder to solve -- after DoubleFine promised a "Criterion Edition" level remaster). But the changes made to the S&M Remasters weren't done for bad reasons... So if that still bugs you then I think it's less about the changes themselves, and more about the reasons for the changes. Recent example to illustrate my point: Earl Boen isn't going to reprise LeChuck in Return to Monkey Island and so the role is going to be recast. Fans accept this unfortunate turn because of the reason (Boen has decided to retire). So I think it's actually all about the reason for the changes. Either you think the reasons were justified, and so you are disappointed but understand. Or you think they were unjustified, and so you refuse to buy the product and blame the developer for making them. I know this makes me sound old, too, but this sort of reaction (and the blind belief that everyone, everywhere agrees with it) makes me worry about the future. *shakes old man cane*

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. I don't think anyone was hankering to play Willy Beamish Has a Mental Breakdown and Thinks He's a Pirate. Monkey Island was always about actual voodoo pirate tales. Moving away from that would have been brave, certainly, but it's not what I think anyone wanted (to play or to make). I also don't think you can compare it to the Deckard thing. Whether Deckard is a replicant or not doesn't change the elements of the story... whether it's all in his head or not (as you're suggesting for Guybrush), certainly does. It would become the focus. I mentioned previously that the whole "is it fiction or is it reality?" thing has been done before in Buffy and K-Pax, too. For me the idea that it's all a child's fantasy is very unfulfilling. And I'm not sure you can have your cake and eat it: Either I'm going to be invested in the story and the characters, or I'm going to be detached because it's all a fantasy. I can't see how it can be both. In the end, I just want a good pirate story, but let's see what Ron and Dave have cooked up!

Given they cut back to Elaine and even capitalised the word "SPELL", I think that's especially important for understanding what happened.

I don't recall that? Could you refresh my memory?

I do understand the power of mystery and not having everything explained. However just throwing unexplained things into the end of an otherwise straightforward tale -- without explaining it when you're given the opportunity to -- feels very lazy. I also think it's very unfair to Larry Ahern and Jonathan Ackley to say their attempts at explaining it was the "worst writing" of the entire series. Most fans wanted an explanation, and they felt the pressure to provide one. That was definitely the more difficult path for them to take. (Not addressing it at all would have been easy, so I applaud them for trying.) There's a fine art to mystery. Not explaining things can be provocative and interesting... but it can also just be lazy. Throwing random elements into a story without explanation doesn't automatically make you David Lynch. I think one of the primary reasons people are so excited by the announcement of a new Ron Gilbert Monkey Island is because they're expecting to see his explanation.

Hmm. I'd say Deadpool was "meta", I wouldn't describe Monkey Island as being that. There were three other games after the end of MI2 that tied up that ending just fine, too. I think it's timeless for other reasons (although obviously fans have long wondered how Ron was going to resolve MI2's ending).

I'm a little concerned about things becoming meta, too. Time will tell. I hope we get some more news tomorrow... screenshots... more interviews... something! Anyone know how long it was from Thimbleweed Park's voice sessions to release?

Wow. Both would be amazing if Ron could get them.

Am I being blind? I can't see him quoting @rexbox anywhere in his feed?

Sorry, that's not what I meant. Actors can be funny about being hired to do impressions of another actor's performance. Nothing about having a blessing or not, just about them not being allowed to interpret the character in their own way. They're artists, you know!

Schafer also hasn't Tweeted about it to my knowledge, either. It's possible that Emily was asked not to bring it up, even if not to skew the focus of the interview.

There's definitely got to be voice actors who can do a good LeChuck... the question is a) can the game afford them? and b) would the actor feel comfortable being hired to essentially just do an impression of someone else? Also, am I the only one who felt Escape "fixed" Elaine. I was never a fan of the British accent.

I find it interesting that no interview has asked about Schafer yet

So just to go back to my earlier point: This isn't the game Ron has been planning to make since 1992. I hope some of the things we see in it come from whatever earlier plans Ron had floating around in his brain, but it sounds like the overall ideas won't. And this bit makes me happy: Although I feel for the stress Ron put himself under for this project! Re: The artwork. I don't mind the people, I do mind the backgrounds. I could harp on why I don't understand why Melee has been changed, for example. (I know it's close, but the buildings have been moved around so they're not lined up like they used to be). That's a small thing really. By far the worst thing for me (especially the Melee Island one) is that the artist doesn't seem to understand how light works... Purcell and Chan would take a crazy bit of architecture and then ground it in reality by making sure light behaved naturally. All of their drawings do this (even Purcell's most zany Sam & Max sketches). Looking at that Melee scene I just don't know what's going on. Where are all those shadows coming from? Why is the light from the window behaving like that? You may say I'm being unnecessarily anal, but for me if affects the whole mood of the scene. Look how lovely and warm this scene looks, even in 256 colours. Compare with this cold and uninviting version of the same scene. The colour palette and lighting is all over the place... Anyway, I hope time proves me to be an oversensitive fanboy and that I grow to love Rex Crowle's work. Seeing it in action might be a completely different ball game.

This is taken from scans of the Monkey Island Chronicles from the LRG boxset (which I don't own, someone just posted a couple of screenshots and I turned it into this PDF). Very interesting to note how close it was to the final game in many ways (ie. the description of Scab(b) being made up of shipwrecked boats instead of buildings), but also the differences, too. And also the date on the document: Only weeks after Monkey 1 was released! https://www.dropbox.com/s/qyslilkh569dgae/Monkey-II-Story-Doc-Nov-1990.pdf?dl=0

Interesting! What was the name of your teacher and what did they do?

Well bear in mind that Ron wasn't involved in the Special Editions, so the first two games don't have any voices.

No, you can play with the safe to your heart’s content. He’s only triggered to return when you ring the bell (or leave and come back, I believe). I know you can use the sound effects to crack the safe (if you're paying close attention), but I can’t get sound in EGA in ScummVM. I think it’s a long-standing ScummVM bug that they’re looking at at the moment... but I wasn't sure if I was just wasting my time even attempting it.

That is good to know and makes me feel more confident in Ron and Return to MI! Also just to be clear: I do not "hate" TWP’s ending. Hate is far too strong a word. I felt completely “meh” about it. Like I never cared to experience it again. I wasn’t the slightest bit angry or agitated or anything like that. Just left cold by it.

Just watch it If you’re not hooked by Episode 2 then it’s probably not for you, though! Also bear in mind that it was the first TV show that looked like a movie — revolutionary for the time. It really stood out. These days even TV comedies look like movies. It’s still wonderful though!

Also I have to add: I cannot see any meaningful similarities between Mulholland Dr and MI2! Convince me @Remi!

Yes! I am a huge Lynch fan, and a huge Twin Peaks fan. (Unrelated to my level of fandom, but I was once married to someone who worked on the show. I know a LOT about Lynch and TP in general.) The Return was a difficult first watch, because I wanted the original show back sooo much. (I took the day off work to watch it — it actually started on my birthday, nice coincidence.) There were staggering highlights (eg.Part 8 and the amazing ending), but it took some adjusting. But FWWM was the same, and now it might be my favourite slice of Peaks. When I watched The Return the second time I enjoyed it a lot more though. It really is a GREAT series that ties together nicely, and you can appreciate that a lot more on the second run. But the ending was always amazing. Gave me goosebumps. (I hate it that the clip of the scream is used everywhere — that should be banned so it shocks first time viewers.) Anyway, as much as I love that ending, all I want from Return to MI is a GOOD ending. Season 3’s ending was a GOOD ending. It wasn’t particularly divisive, (it was generally well received in the TP community) but it was still challenging and provocative. I just don’t want Ron to try and create an ending that he hopes half the people who see it will HATE. Because that’s not being true to the story, it’s being disingenuous and contrived. Lynch and Frost didn’t sit down and say, “what could really fuck off half the audience?” They wrote the appropriate ending to the story they were telling. And it worked wonderfully. I think we’re all ultimately saying the same thing. Sorry, that was a long answer to a short question. On some topics I just get carried away

I wonder if anyone knows this, but does the storekeeper's safe have a combination you could hack in Part 1? Or does the game code just lock the safe no matter what Guybrush does? Would be interesting to know what the game does (if anything) if you opened the safe while the storekeeper was with Carla.

Hmm, he's literally said he didn't have a story in place (watch below -- I've set the video to start where he's talking MI3): Of course, Ron likes to keep his cards close to his chest.. and this was October 2020, so in theory he was already working on Return to Monkey Island?!? So maybe we can't trust what he says here...

I know I'm repeating myself, but I wouldn't get your hopes up. I have a strong feeling Ron didn't have a clue about that ending and didn't have any way to resolve it. I think he just did it and was going to worry about it later. And here is why I think that: Ron discussed difficult endings at PAX Australia in 2013 and he talked about them as if they were a thing unto themselves. Not an unfortunate side effect of not finishing a planned trilogy, but something you should aim for. See what you think of what he said here (emphasis added by me): I understand what Ron is saying, and I even agree with it. But I especially agree with: "You shouldn’t enrage your audience all the time just to enrage them." And I feel that's what he tried to do with Thimbleweed Park. It was like, "I know, the game just never resolves anything and just ends! That will be interesting!". I think the truth is more complicated than Ron believes: You can't just choose to polarise an audience, because you actually need to make them care first. (This is why Thimbleweed Park's ending didn't work for me, even as a shock. I didn't care. I didn't care about the world. I didn't care about the story. I didn't care about the characters. The only thing that could have made me care was a clever ending that tied everything together. I doubt I'll ever play it again -- I've tried and quit.) I understand the desire to provoke an audience, but it's not something that's easy to do well. And if you fail, you fail harder than if you tried to satisfy them. (And I don't mean "fail" in the cool, edgy way Ron is trying to romanticise -- I mean fail in the "leaves audience feeling meh" kind of way.) The worst way Ron could end Return to Monkey Island would be to try and "top" his ending for MI2. At this point it's become expected. "Oh gee, Guybrush is just series of computer signals in the computer I'm playing -- how meta!" or "Oh gee, Guybrush is a construct of the author and the audience -- how meta!" or "Oh gee, Guybrush is really the player wanting to be somewhere else, but why do I want to be somewhere else? What does that say about modern living? How meta!" I can also see the game attempting to walk a tightrope between "is this reality, or is it just a child's dream?" the entire time. Like that episode of Buffy from 20 years ago which did exactly that ("Normal Again") or that movie K-Pax. Right now I'd challenge Ron to give Return to Monkey Island a good story and satisfying ending. If Ron resisted the urge to try and provoke the audience and focussed instead on crafting a good story. That would surprise me. I think if you're deliberately trying to provoke ranty emails in 20 year's time, there's something disingenuous about that. With MI2 the ending truly came out of nowhere because that's how it was discovered: It just appeared one day and felt right to Ron. I think provocative endings have their place, but the truth is that once you've made the audience care what happens, it's easy to be provocative: Just don't give what they hope to see. Voila! A provocative ending. Unfortunately when such an ending is expected it's no longer provocative. This is just a long way of me saying: I love Monkey Island for the world, the characters and the story. I didn't love it just for the few minutes at the end of Monkey 2. So, you know, don't fuck this up, Ron! Watch Ron's whole keynote here: UPDATE: July 2022. I actually replayed THIMBLEWEED Park and completely revised my opinion of it, and its ending. In short: I found it completely different the second time around and LOVED it. I was as surprised as anyone. So my reservations about Gilbert and endings has totally changed. I think (well, hope) that he’ll give the Return a proper ending, rather than just one that will calculatedly divide fans. I’m far less worried, anyway!