Theory to the Ending

[mymipage]

It's not too hard to understand:

 

Monkey Island 1: Guybrush is a kid

Monkey Island 2: Guybrush is still a kid

Monkey Island 3: Guybrush is NOT a kid

Monkey Island 4: Guybrush is NOT a kid

 

Easy, isn't it! So right now in the series, Guybrush is NOT a child but he was for the first two games because Ron made him like that. In CMI they took a different approach as Bill Tiller said

[Joshi]

Yeah, but many people like continuity. It would be like one of George Lucas's Sons writing a star wars book and starting off "Okay, so Luke’s father is Chewbacca...” it's not right, people like and explanation to gaping plot holes like this and the explanation was that it was just a curse. this is a story thing, I’m talking in the fantastical and fictional world of monkey island, not in the very real world of corporate takeovers and writing problems. In the real world, Ron left and got replaced, but that shouldn't effect the Monkey Island world in such a big way.

[mymipage]

but it did - it changed the whole way of Monkey Island - it changed the whole storyline

[EnchiladaMan]

OK, I admit, my "Starwars" analogy was very poor. But think about it, even with the first two games (in defense of those who don't believe GT is a kid), there is so much that points to the direction he can't be, and I still haven't seen explanations that convince me that he would be a kid. I'm talking about continuity in the first two games (if he's a kid), in my defense, as someone bashed me saying I know nothing about it.

 

OK, in the following examples, imagine "Guybrush is 8 years old."

 

1. He goes into a bar where three pirates ("Big Whoop" staff?) encourage him that he must drink grog with them.

 

2. Circus performers shoot him out of a cannon.

 

3. "Big Whoop staff" in the SCUMM Bar tell the stories of LeChuck wanting to marry Elaine and then dying and coming back. If LeChuck is Guybrush's brother, and therefore another visitor at the amusement park, why would all the staff be telling stories of him? (The three pirate captains mention they need help because of LeChuck)

 

4. The staff members say that "only LeChuck knows" the Secret of Monkey Island™. Why would a staff member say (with a look of horror) that only one of his guests knows something like this?

 

5. Elaine, governor of staff member of Mêlée Island, seems to fall for Guybrush. At the dock scene (if you don't do the thievery trial last), Elaine goes to him and they have a very silly romance scene. Also at the end of the game, they have more romance. Would a staff member go so far and do that to an 8-year old visitor?

 

6. If Meathook is a performer at "Big Whoop" Amusement park and retired because of his "accident" why would he join a crew headed by a little boy, even if he did touch his parrot? And why would Carla, another "staff" member?

 

7. Otis is in jail in the middle of the theme park, and not off-limits.

 

8. The cannables? Staff members who lock up Guybrush in their huts and talk about eating him behind his back?

 

9. What about all those cuts to LeChuck's ship in the caves about Elaine as the prisoner and all that?

 

10. In MI2, Largo (maybe a bully?) steals all of Guybrush's money at the beginning. None of the "staff" members seem to do anything about it. They're all scared of him because they know his history at LeChuck's side.

 

11. Notice whenever Guybrush's parents are seen, (both at the end, and when they do the "bone" dance) LeChuck is around, (maybe putting him under his spell).

 

12. Everyone in MI2 talks about how they thought certain other people defeated LeChuck. I think it would be a stretch to say that all of them kicked Chuckie out of the amusement park several times.

 

 

...shall I continue?

 

It just doesn't all fit. Some pieces do, but then if you really think about it, it doesn't hold. Then, sometimes we look too deep in the subtle jokes.Saying that it's all a dream gives Monkey Island a serious tone that the rest of the game simply doesn't have. There are of course questions to be answered.

 

Maybe CMI didn't break continuity, but actually helped in some ways. I'll still always enjoy the first two the best, of course.

 

NOTE: I have other questions about the whole kid thing, but as finals are next week, I can't go into much more detail until perhaps after then. But then, after then I'll be on vacation, so I probably will visit these forums even less. lol oh well. You'll be spared of me.

[SamNMax]

I love you.

[EnchiladaMan]

I love me too. j/k

 

Oh, and on MI2, on Phatt Island, Guybrush gets a library card. So he can get grog, he says he is 21. But on some the choices (I can't remember all word for word exactly) he stumbles about saying his age. "err....21," "ummm, 21." One choice is "ninetee-er-21."

 

Why would he stumble almost saying 19 if he is really 7 or 8? Wouldn't the joke be "sev-er-21"? That would lead controversy whether or not he's saying seventeen or seven. But the truth is, in the game, he says "ninetee-er-21," removing doubt what he was stumbling about saying.

[mymipage]

It was ALL a kids imagination!! He thought the whole thing up!!!

[EnchiladaMan]

It was ALL a kids imagination!! He thought the whole thing up!!!

 

[sarcasm]Whoa, talk about a pressing argument with great detailed examples and newly revealed material never before used in any of these forums! (You're argument may be slightly more effective with all caps.)[/sarcasm]

 

But seriously. I've noticed in cases like this when nobody can think of a defense for their stance, THEY TEND TO GO CRAZY USING "ARGUMENT TECHNIQUES" THAT GETS THEM NOWHERE AND JUST RELAYS THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE: "I don't know what I'm talking about, but maybe they'll believe me if I use caps and three exclamation points, even if I don't have much evidence!!!"

 

I put forth some valid arguments. I have not seen a response. All I see is people ignoring what they cannot answer. Look at what you're typing. Read over what you type before you click "submit reply." It will save us all a headache. Oh, and since you seem to know it all, please explain to me the points I made earlier.

 

...You can further explain to all of us:

 

Why would Guybrush brag about an imaginary beard?

 

Why are there no supervisers in the park?

 

Why does no one try to help him find his parents?

 

Why is Guybrush able to get grog?

 

What about the cook who suggested to a "little kid" to go hire a ship and rescue Elaine?

 

Why does Stan try to sell a ship to a "little kid"?

 

Why does Stan expect he has so much money?

 

How does the "little kid" Guybrush know all he knows about working a ship (when his "crew" doesn't help)?

 

Why does Elaine say that she thinks Guybrush is messing with her "Grandfather's Treasure"?

 

Why does Elaine suggest that Guybrush has been put under a curse?

 

Why does he not know what's going on when he sees his "parents"(and he asks "What's going on? Who are you people?")?

 

Why does Chuckie have lightning come from his eyes at the end?

 

 

Why does Ron Gilbert say that this theory is "cold"?

[Benny]

No, hes absolutely right, you dont need to do a ridiculous 12 page analysis of the previous post. Mymipage is right, its mentioned many many times in this thread and elsewhere. Deal with it.

[Remi]

We've reached a sad point when the designers' words aren't a good enough argument to back up some fairly obvious facts. Guybrush was a kid in the two first games and the original story was built around that. As benny said - deal with it.

[Jake]

Originally posted by RemiO

We've reached a sad point when the designers' words aren't a good enough argument to back up some fairly obvious facts.

 

Agreed 100%. Yes its ok and fun to theorize, but I think at this point we definitely know completely without a doubt what was supposed to be going on in the Monkey Island games.

[EnchiladaMan]

We've reached a sad point when the designers' words aren't a good enough argument to back up some fairly obvious facts.

Um, exactly. So have you not read the chat with Ron Gilbert, who made the story? He was presented with several theories of the "Secret" of MI, "several" meaning "more than one." One of these theries presented was the "kid" theory being the secret. He says that one theory (he does not say which one, though some people are assuming it's obvious he was talking about the "kid" theory) "is closer than the others, but not much" and is still "cold."

 

I think at this point we definitely know completely without a doubt what was supposed to be going on in the Monkey Island games.

Really now? Yeah, that helps. ...except for those many people who differ with your opinion. Um, yes, there are people who do differ. How is it so "definitely completely without a doubt" when many people go "Whoa! I never thought about it like that until you mentioned it." Then they stop right there and don't think about it anymore other than the fact it ruined their life. "Fairly obvious facts"? Not obvious enough for many gamers. Maybe the whole "He's been put under a curse" thing Elaine said shifted the "obvious" facts to the other side of your argument.

 

I would like to know why none of my questions (including that one) are answered other than with just "You're wrong...Deal with it," or "We don't need to answer you." That doesn't convince me. I know you already think you're right.

 

I'm not trying to say either way is right or wrong (believe it or not), I'm just presenting evidence that people are avoiding, possibly because of how this theory warped my view (and many others' views) about Monkey Island as a whole. Also, I see how you've depressed many Monkey Island fans with this theory who are too stunned to provide evidence for themselves. When I first played the games, I assumed he was put under a curse as Elaine says at the end of LCR and didn't give it a second thought. It was obvious to me. There was no need to give it a second thought but to wait to play the sequel. Then I saw a post from some guy I've never heard of before that said Guybrush really was imagining all of MI1 and 2 and is just a kid, and I thought "OK, ...bummer," and I accepted that...for a while.

 

Then I looked into it and played MI1 and 2 all over again and realized that many things do not fit at all. I'm still slightly under the impression that the original two could have been made as a kid's imagination, but I am wondering about the plot holes (See my previous posts, and/or play the games again. You'll find more).

 

I would like to see more support for the "kid" ending than I have seen. So far, I have seen little (yes, I've read many other threads on the topics). Most I have read is: "He is a kid." "No he's not!" "Dude, he has to be," "No he doesn't, man," etc.

 

For the sake of discussion, don't you even want to address any of these issues? I'm not yelling at you/criticizing your view; but I am criticizing how you're presenting it. Maybe give me a good piece of evidence to your theory and your theory will seem more reasonable if I can't come up with a good explanation. Good arguments require good evidence, and I am definitely not seeing any good arguments for your theory.

 

You are not convincing anyone of anything other than the fact you disagree, and I knew that before.

[Joshi]

Can I bring it to peoples attention that this topic was over about a month or so ago. Most of us agree two things, one, was that Ron Gilbert had intended for Guybrush to be a kid with his imagination and nothing more. When new developers came along, they didn't like that so they disregarded it, end of story.

 

The other thing we agreed on was the fact that this argument was starting to get annoying to everyone concerned and so we agreed to disagree and ended it but for some reason it came back and we still can't seem to shake it.

 

Face it, Ron Gilbert had some ideas, and other people had other ideas, that's the full brunt of it, so as bgbennyboy said, deal with it.

 

But if it makes you feel any better, there was the theory that the ending to MI2 was meant to be open to whatever you wanted it to be, take that one and let the baby have his bottle.

[Benny]

I've had just about enough of this thread.

It perpetrates all the most annoying forum crimes. Circular debates, huge posts with big quotes and deconstruction of the previous post line by line. This thread was put to bed months ago and yet annoying anally-retentive idiots still come back and make the same damm points, getting annoyed when people tell them to go read the rest of the thread.

 

In short, I and everyone else with half an ounce of sanity are tired of this argument. What started off as an interesting thread has degenerated into a golden example of all thats bad about these forums.

 

Thread closed.

[Remi]

I'm just gonna end this once and for all as EnciladaMan seems to ignore the other four pages. The following quote is Bill Tiller (lead CMI artist) explaining what he's been told by Larry Ahern (CMI lead and MI2 artist) and Dave Grossman (MI1 & 2 designer). It has also been confirmed by Tim Schafer (as stated in this thread - he was MI1 & 2 designer in case you didn't know) and others:

 

The explanation I heard is that Guybrush was lost in the Pirates Ride at Big Whoop Amusement Park the whole time, imagining the whole adventure. Then Chucky, his mean older brother goes and pulls him back to reality. The end. And that magical lightning coming out of Chucky's eyes and Elaine waiting by the hole on Dinky Island (which sounds a lot like Disney Land) was put there just in case there was to be a Monkey Island 3. The secret is that the MI world is not real. Now I have no clue how Ron would have written his way out of the MI2 ending. He either knows and isn't telling. Or He doesn't know and he isn't telling you he doesn't know. Or he has a bunch of ides of what he would do and isn't telling you that either. That is a bigger secret then what the secret of Monkey Island is.

 

And to answer So have you not read the chat with Ron Gilbert, who made the story? - I might have. What site did you read that on? Oh yeah...