Return to Monkey Island

[Jake]

I just don’t think Monkey Island 2’s reputation needs defending, especially not on this board. 

[roots]

2 minutes ago, Jake said:

I just don’t think Monkey Island 2’s reputation needs defending, especially not on this board. 

 

I disagree, there are absolutely people even within the demographic of "fans of the franchise" who hold a more negative view of MI2 for the aforementioned reasons. I know because I used to feel the same way once myself.

 

I certainly remember being glad when Curse was announced and explicitly contradicted it.

[Niemandswasser]

I'd like to go on record as stating that I've never met anyone until now who thought Monkey Island 2 suffered because some people interpreted the ending a certain way

[roots]

7 minutes ago, Niemandswasser said:

I'd like to go on record as stating that I've never met anyone until now who thought Monkey Island 2 suffered because some people interpreted the ending a certain way

 

There are a number of contemporary articles that refer to MI2's ending as being "controversial". For example this article from CBR, another from SVG and this one from Gamerant.

 

To quote CBR:

Quote

The ending sparked controversy and debate upon release, with some fans annoyed with the thought that their swashbuckling adventures had been undermined by the potential idea that LeChuck's Revenge and its predecessor had been the mere childhood fantasies of a kid in a theme park.

 

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that there is a non-trivial demographic of people that strongly disliked the ending due to that interpretation, and therefore will have a more negative view of MI2 as a result. Given that RMI presumably continues on in spirit from that ending, to my mind it makes sense to lay it to rest, at least in terms of making it clear it's in no way definitive, and is arguably contradicted by MI2 itself on deeper reflection.

[Niemandswasser]

I mean, they can strongly dislike that interpretation all they want, but if it causes them to actually dislike the ending itself...maybe they just didn't like the ending to begin with? There's nothing in the game that gives the ending a definitive explanation, so anyone who dislikes a given take on it is free to interpret it another way. Personally that read of the ending never rang true for me, but I also think it's ridiculous to propose adopting a broad policy that we should stop talking about it "for the sake of the franchise" or something. It's not hurting anything or anyone to mull over different interpretations.

[roots]

18 minutes ago, Niemandswasser said:

I mean, they can strongly dislike that interpretation all they want, but if it causes them to actually dislike the ending itself...maybe they just didn't like the ending to begin with? There's nothing in the game that gives the ending a definitive explanation, so anyone who dislikes a given take on it is free to interpret it another way. Personally that read of the ending never rang true for me, but I also think it's ridiculous to propose adopting a broad policy that we should stop talking about it "for the sake of the franchise" or something. It's not hurting anything or anyone to mull over different interpretations.

 

That reasoning is backwards. As the article says, what people disliked was it seemingly undermined their investment in the world by handwaving everything as "just a kid's fantasy". Which is a common reception to the trope in question.

 

And please stop putting words in my mouth. I'm not proposing "broad policies" or anything of the sort, nor am I saying people must interpret the game X way. I'm simply saying that we shouldn't portray the game as if that definitively *is* the ending, and be aware that the game itself strongly indicates otherwise.

Edited May 8, 2022 by roots

[Thrik]

2 hours ago, roots said:

As an addendum, can we please not call it the "child's fantasy ending". 

 

While I appreciate the points you’re making, I think ultimately the answer to this is ‘no’. 
 

Like other controversial endings open to deep interpretation such as that of The Sopranos, there may forever be opposing views and a lack of clarification.

 

Nobody should feel like they can’t interpret it or describe it however they want. Not on this forum of all forums, anyway. 

[Niemandswasser]

49 minutes ago, roots said:

I'm not proposing "broad policies" or anything of the sort, nor am I saying people must interpret the game X way.

You just asked people to stop referring to the ending a certain way and keep insisting that, regardless of how others might read it, the game most objectively supports your personal interpretation of things.

[roots]

26 minutes ago, Niemandswasser said:

You just asked people to stop referring to the ending a certain way and keep insisting that, regardless of how others might read it, the game most objectively supports your personal interpretation of things.

 

No, I asked people to stop referring to the ending in a way that "Child's fantasy" is the definitive explanation, with the ancillary reasons that the source material strongly contradicts this notion, and that the misconception that it is the definitive ending has been harmful to how people perceive the game.

  

47 minutes ago, Thrik said:

 

While I appreciate the points you’re making, I think ultimately the answer to this is ‘no’. 
 

Like other controversial endings open to deep interpretation such as that of The Sopranos, there may forever be opposing views and a lack of clarification.

 

Nobody should feel like they can’t interpret it or describe it however they want. Not on this forum of all forums, anyway. 

 

Personally, I don't think MI2's ending is open ended to that degree. The way I see it, you can either go with the fantasy explanation, which to be frank - is very much the superficial reading of the events depicted (Which admittedly was how my younger self took it) , or the myriad other non-fantasy explanations such as a portal to hell, multiple dimensions, MI3's voodoo curse, or even a variation on TWP's ending, etc.

 

But that aside, my concern is less with people having their own interpretations as much as people  portraying the "Child's Fantasy" as the definitive reading especially when as I keep stating, is not only strongly contradicted in the very same ending, but actively harmful to many people's enjoyment of the game.

Edited May 8, 2022 by roots

[Niemandswasser]

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that A) Monkey Island 2 has a bruised and battered reputation in need of rehabilitation, B) there's some widespread consensus that the ending confirms the "child's fantasy" take, with most players unaware of any ambiguity on the subject, or C) that the Mojo community needs reminding of the ending's finer details. None of those are true.

 

Every single human being currently posting on this message board is aware of the ambiguities present in the ending, and of what Elaine and LeChuck say and do there. We've been debating it for 30 years. Some people favor one interpretation, others favor another, but NO ONE is operating under the misapprehension that the issue has ever been settled, and I'd need more than an article saying "Here's what people think" without citing sources or saying who "people" are to make me think we're somehow an anomaly over here in that regard.

[Jake]

I apologize for pushing on it because it’s taken up almost a page 😛 

[Rum Rogers]

For what it's worth, I remember as a kid I was slightly disappointed by the fact that Guybrush is telling Elaine 90% of the story and just the last few minutes of the game have you as a player experience TOGETHER with Guybrush.

To me, it was a little disappointing just because in MI1 you're adventuring in the same time as Guybrush, whereas in MI2 you're re-living an adventure he's already went through and has survived to tell (until the explosion on Dinky).
 

Honestly, right now as a grown man I can't understand how I found that bit even remotely disappointing, but I understand that there's a subtle difference between impersonating someone who doesn't know what they're going through or whether they'll survive, and someone who's telling someone else what they went through (thus definitely survived to tell).

Mind you it doesn't matter if as players we know that you can't die in MI (please don't remind me about the MI1 death, I know but it's clearly an easter egg), I just think that story-wise it makes a bit of a difference.

 

This is just to say that fans can feel disappointed by the slightest things but it doesn't change anything about how fucking great MI2 is and will always be.

As I said, as a grown man I don't even agree with what kid me thought, so it doesn't seem like a stretch to me to think that many that hated the MI2 ending have grown to love it.

Edited May 8, 2022 by Rum Rogers

[ThunderPeel2001]

1 hour ago, roots said:

No, I asked people to stop referring to the ending in a way that "Child's fantasy" is the definitive explanation,

I don’t believe anyone IS saying it’s the “definitive explanation”. I was merely referring to one of the popular interpretations (which was possibly exacerbated by what looks like a bug in the Amiga version where Elaine’s SPELL comment didn’t appear). 
 

It’s unquestionable that MI2’s ending was divisive and that a lot of people hated it. (It certainly took me many years to grow to like it, and Ron himself says he STILL gets emails from people saying how much they hated it.)

 

Side note: In a weird way I don’t know why we’re even discussing different interpretations anymore: Ron has apparently wholeheartedly embraced Curse’s detailed explanation. He has said they’ve been “very careful” not to contradict anything, so basically Curse’s “theme park of the dammed” is now Roncanon. 
 

I also think that the heightened emotions about Return are partially fuelled by people desperately wanting  a Roncanon explanation to MI2’s confusing ending. (Which Ron has repeatedly stated he didn’t have a plan for.)
 

“The muse visits when the work begins.”

 

Edited May 8, 2022 by ThunderPeel2001

[Rum Rogers]

9 minutes ago, ThunderPeel2001 said:

Side note: In a weird way I don’t know why we’re even discussing different interpretations anymore: Ron has apparently wholeheartedly embraced Curse’s detailed explanation. He has said they’ve been “very careful” not to contradict anything, so basically Curse’s “theme park of the dammed” is now Roncanon. 

I'd be very careful about taking that for granted 🙂 There's a billion ways you could keep things canon and still not embrace that explanation. Not saying any of the following are true, nor that I'd like any of them, but multiverse, alternate realities, simulation, dream, coma, portals, child fantasies are a ton of ways you could still not contradict every other game by simply saying "this has happened to some degree of reality".

Edited May 8, 2022 by Rum Rogers

[roots]

1 minute ago, ThunderPeel2001 said:

I don’t believe anyone IS saying it’s the “definitive explanation”. I was merely referring to one of the popular interpretations (which was possibly exacerbated by what looks like a bug in the Amiga version where Elaine’s SPELL comment didn’t appear). 
 

It’s absolute true that MI2’s ending was utterly divisive and that a lot of people hated it. (It certainly took me many years to grow to enjoy it, and Ron himself says he STILL gets emails from people saying how much they hated it.)

 

 

That's fair. My issue was really just the terminology being used, namely the "Child's Fantasy ending" vs a neutral "MI2 ending" so as not to reinforce the perception some have that it was definitively the former.

 

Interesting point on the Amiga bug, I wasn't aware of that. It actually makes me wonder if Elaine's comment was something that was added later in development to try and reinforce the scene with LeChuck's eyes explicitly to try and avoid people interpreting the game as such.

 

11 minutes ago, ThunderPeel2001 said:

Side note: In a weird way I don’t know why we’re even discussing different interpretations anymore: Ron has apparently wholeheartedly embraced Curse’s detailed explanation. He has said they’ve been “very careful” not to contradict anything, so basically Curse’s “theme park of the dammed” is now Roncanon.

 

I think there is a lot of potential with the Underground Tunnels and their implications on the game's reality to enable Ron to tell the story he wants to tell in RMI while also staying compatible with the other games in the franchise, without necessarily having to fully endorse Curse's explanation either. Either that, or Ron will just take artistic liberties.

 

Lastly, thank you for engaging me in good faith. It's nice to have a productive discussion rather than being gainsaid on every point.

[ThunderPeel2001]

1 hour ago, Rum Rogers said:

For what it's worth, I remember as a kid I was slightly disappointed by the fact that Guybrush is telling Elaine 90% of the story and just the last few minutes of the game have you as a player experience TOGETHER with Guybrush.

I know you say you don’t feel the same way anymore, but I actually agree with you here. I’d forgotten that feeling, but I think there IS something slightly less satisfying about playing through an extended flashback. (Although I’m not sure I even fully understand why.)

 

Re: The MI2’s ending. Here’s my personal wish for how it could have been interpreted:

 

Firstly, I have to say that I wish the voodoo power of Big Whoop had been a bigger part of the explanation. I love Curse, but making Big Whoop a literal theme park never felt right to me. 
 

My own personal pet explanation was that Guybrush accidentally unleashed the awesome voodoo power of Big Whoop when the chest broke: But it took a few minutes to fully permeate and twist reality. So the longer you’re playing the last section of MI2, the more Big Whoop is taking control. 
 

Accidentally unleashing Big Whoop near LeChuck had an unintended consequence: He was also pulled into this new disturbing voodoo reality. 
 

(This explains why LeChuck’s attempt to transport Guybrush into a dimension of pain doesn’t work — they’re both already in another dimension.)
 

Big Whoop is, as the voodoo lady said, an incredible power. And it can be used to bend reality. But while everyone else treated that power with total respect. Possibly only carefully taking a fraction of it with each use. Guybrush accidentally unleashed the whole damn thing at once by clumsily smashing its container. 
 

All Guybrush wanted was to escape LeChuck. And maybe that subconsciously manifested in a desire to become a kid again: bring his parents back to life and feel safe. 
 

Except Guybrush being Guybrush, he fumbles the whole thing and takes LeChuck with him into this new twisted dimension and casts him as his brother. 
 

So my Monkey 3a would have involved both LeChuck and Guybrush trying to escape from (and undo) Big Whoop. LeChuck hating Guybrush even more for having forced him to endure this Big Whoop created reality. 

And Big Whoop’s reality would have kept getting weirder and nightmarish. (Think David Lynch.) It wouldn’t have just stayed in a theme park. It would have glitched and twisted. Maybe Guybrush’s parents would have become evil, trying to stop Guybrush and LeChuck escaping. And previously visited locations would appear randomly. 
 

And maybe Big Whoop world have kept slowly growing, sucking in everyone on Dinky, so that Elaine and then Herman would appear in that new world, too. 

Anyway, that’s my own personal interpretation/wish list: As soon as that chest broke, reality became perverted. 

Edited May 8, 2022 by ThunderPeel2001

[Alexrd]

41 minutes ago, Rum Rogers said:

I'd be very careful about taking that for granted 🙂 There's a billion ways you could keep things canon and still not embrace that explanation.

 

That's right. In fact, from what Ron has said on the issue, what we'll be getting from the other games is just certain ideas and aspects acknowledged and adopted. Ideas that Ron likes. Everything else will be ignored if it gets in the way of the story he wants to tell.

[ThunderPeel2001]

15 minutes ago, roots said:

It actually makes me wonder if Elaine's comment was something that was added later in development to try and reinforce the scene with LeChuck's eyes explicitly to try and avoid people interpreting the game as such.

Check out the Amiga thread. It doesn’t appear to be the case that it was an especially late addition. If anything it looks like they were trying to figure out how to do scene fades with the Amiga hardware. 

[Marius]

19 minutes ago, ThunderPeel2001 said:

Big Whoop is, as the voodoo lady said, an incredible power. And it can be used to bend reality. But while everyone else treated that power with total respect. Possibly only carefully taking a fraction of it with each use. Guybrush accidentally unleashed the whole damn thing at once by clumsily smashing its container. 

Hey, I love your theory. It's an exciting read, and it gave me one thought.

 

Going full interpretation mode, ignoring dev intentions for a second:

So, Big Whoop has been found and "experienced" before, causing Captain Marley and crew to hide it. Now, what if them meddling with Big Whoop once caused it to "leak" a bit of reality bending power out into the world, causing the anachronisms in Monkey 1?

[roots]

I would heartily recommend anyone who enjoys speculation surrounding Big Whoop to take a look at the cut LeChuck/Largo dialogue that while cut, is still present in the game files. If you have a copy of MI2 in ScummVM to hand, open the console via Ctrl+Alt+D and run "script 102 start" to see it for yourself.

[Zaxx]

3 hours ago, Rum Rogers said:

Honestly, right now as a grown man I can't understand how I found that bit even remotely disappointing, but I understand that there's a subtle difference between impersonating someone who doesn't know what they're going through or whether they'll survive, and someone who's telling someone else what they went through (thus definitely survived to tell).

 

Which is why the fact that you can die in LeChuck's fortress only for the death scene to be followed by Elaine voicing her disbelief is genius.

[ThunderPeel2001]

1 hour ago, roots said:

I would heartily recommend anyone who enjoys speculation surrounding Big Whoop to take a look at the cut LeChuck/Largo dialogue that while cut, is still present in the game files. If you have a copy of MI2 in ScummVM to hand, open the console via Ctrl+Alt+D and run "script 102 start" to see it for yourself.

 

That was very interesting, although it was, of course cut. 

[KestrelPi]

Again, with a 30 year interval I'd take anyone's statements on what was and wasn't planned for the story with a grain of salt. I'm sure Ron isn't lying, of course, but it's at least interesting that on the one hand he remembers MI2's ending being a last minute kind of thing and on the other he talks about the anachronisms all being a part of some deeper significance explored in the sequel - before that sequel had even been announced.

Now I know these two things aren't necessarily mutually exclusive (and let's not forget the development time and marketing cycle for these games is much shorter than a modern game) but to me at least they're suggestive of a reality that is somewhere between 'MI2's ending was just decided right at the end out of nowhere' and 'We knew where we were going with this all along', and that the complications and nuances of how that ending came together are likely lost to time.

One thing, though, this unused picture was only dated around the same time or at least not very long after most of the other ones we had, so this would have been about 2/3 of the way through production:

Only a few months later the game would be released, after only a year of full production - and we're expecting people to recall with clarity exactly how it came together?

[Zaxx]

 

Well Stan should be in the coffin, right?

[Trapezzoid]

Has Guybrush been confirmed?