The idea that 'it was all in his head' endings are inherently clichéd and poor storytelling is a lazy cliché in itself. I could name plenty of movies and tv shows from recent years that employ the trope to great effect. People who hate the MI2 ending should be forced to watch David Lynch movies until they grasp that ambiguity can be a virtue.
Ughh. I hate David Lynch. He and his movies make no sense whatsoever. If that was the direction Ron Gilbert was going for, I have completely lost all respect for him.
Hey, I'm just afraid, that Lucas Arts had a good laugh, when making the ending of MI2, never really bothering to think about future sequels...and now we are cracking our minds trying to see a "hidden message"...well, there never was one. After all, the company is well known for changing plots in the middle of the story - remember, in StarWars, Darth Vader was not initially intended to become Skywalker's Dad and they had a hell of a trouble, writing the scripts for the following chapters of the movie...
Don't search deeper than you have to - even Tolkien never gave much trouble thinking about stuff like second meaning of his works - he just told his story and did it well. It were the fans, who started writing their college diplomas based on study of his literature.
You're confusing George Lucas, the owner, with Ron Gilbert, The Director.
I don't think Ron meant to turn Monkey Island 1 and 2 into 'it was all a dream.' I think he rather took the Calvin and Hobbes route. Do you feel cheated because the tiger is actually a stuffed toy?
Calvin and Hobbes has absolutely no interconnecting storyline whatsoever, and even if it did, you know from the beginning that the tiger is a toy, it's not like they went on 2 big adventures and then suddenly said "oh by the way one of the main characters is imaginary"
The idea that 'it was all in his head' endings are inherently clichéd and poor storytelling is a lazy cliché in itself. I could name plenty of movies and tv shows from recent years that employ the trope to great effect. People who hate the MI2 ending should be forced to watch David Lynch movies until they grasp that ambiguity can be a virtue.
Yeah, thing is since MI was done when this was heavily used by the entire genre (or was getting popular)- it seems rather likely.
Personally I just don't see the story as such an integral part of my experience so I really don't put much thought or care into it.
Calvin and Hobbes has absolutely no interconnecting storyline whatsoever, and even if it did, you know from the beginning that the tiger is a toy, it's not like they went on 2 big adventures and then suddenly said "oh by the way one of the main characters is imaginary"
Why? And how is "That ending doesn't count because...MAGIC!" *not* a bad story device?
Because it's magic, DUH!
anyway... I have to weigh in here.
I have been a monkey island fan since I played the first part on the Amiga oh, so many years ago.
I played the first part doggedly until I kicked LeChucks ass.
Then Part 2 was released. It was like one of those moments where you walk into the game store, and there is a spotlight shining and a choris of angels singing in my ear that only I was aware of. I took it home and I played it with an even more dogged determination, I was going to take it to LeChuck and I was going to beat this game. I got to the end and LEChuck Told Guybrush about him being his brother. and I thought "AWESOME Empire Reference" then a few minutes later, LeChucks Eyes Stormed up and Elaine was waiting for the love her life.
And that was it, I never looked at is as more than an Empire reference that lead to an awesome "Double twist" moment, and that Empire ended very similarly, with the good guy(s) being on the back foot.
Then Curse came out.. and I had another "Moment" as I walked to the counter and handed over my money and I started playing it, and I smiled and I LOVED the game, agree with me or not it's my favorite game of the series right now. I LOVED the beginning. I actually thought that they DIDN'T explain how The 'Brush escaped was awesome, made me trust more in his Mighty Pirate-y wiles. (I always had issues with adventure heores that only have adventures when we are watching). IT also Started much the way "Jedi" had, with time having elapsed. It fit to me that a "Jedi" opening follwed an "Empire" ending.
I never knew of Gilbert's planned Arc. I never knew he hadn't planned Curse to go down that way. I just took the ending to MI:2 to be what it was and moved on.
I'm not going to lie, if it turns out that all this is some childs imagination, I'll feel that is a bit too "Meta" for it's own good. especially after all this discussion. But, I won't feel put off.
But we can agree it was a good ending.. wasn't it?
the theory isn't about "it all being a dream", it's more or less about two brothers playing pirates in an amusement park (with their friend elaine, perhaps). am I not right? it's actually very well orchestrated, all the way from the beginning of mi1, through the second act building up to the imaginary climax in "the secret revealed or your money back". all those little hints giving away that this isn't quite the real pirate world it looks like. there are no pirates anymore (not in that way;)), there were no soda machines back then, just play along! it's a game, in more than one sense..
I totally agree with the David Lynch and Calvin & Hobbes references btw..
Never said it was a dream exactly. But it follows the plot same device of Deus ex machina is what I meant, of it being all in their imagination. It negates everything that happened. It virtually means the story never existed, two brothers just made it up to pass their time. To me that's lousy, and lazy on the story writers part.
As I said before. Theres enough hints for either of the 2 possible conclusions one could come to from this ending. No matter how much one argues, neither side will change their opinion on what they thought the ending means.
Curse Of Monkey Island is basically the equivalent of another filmmaking team making a sequel to Mulholland Dr. that comes up with a way of retconning the final stretch of the first film out of existence and continues the more straightforward story of the first two thirds as if nothing had happened. It's possible that it could be done well and result in an enjoyable film, and could even spawn an ongoing series that pleases all those people who enjoyed the first part of the story but were angered by the radical shifts that occurred in the original. But even if I got some enjoyment out of the new films, part of me would always wish they'd left well alone.
People are citing the "It was all a dream" ending the wrong way.
The cliched use is you say it was all a dream, therefore negating everything that happened before. Literally, nothing happened, it was all one character's imagination.
This isn't what happens in MI 2 with the child theory. It doesn't say that MI 1 and 2 didn't happen (as per above) rather they did happen, just what you were experiencing wasn't straightforward.
Say you tell a story and someone does something unbelievable like killing a dragon.
You say it was all a dream, then it never happened.
Instead if you say he was taking drugs, had an hallucinatory experience, and the next day his iguana is dead.
Both stories are told the exact same way until the end where you say either he was dreaming or he was on drugs (in both the 'story' was literally in his head). The first one has no consequence on his life, the second has the implication that while experiencing the story he actually killed his iguana.
In this way, the ending of MI 2 is not saying Guybrush was sitting on a bench and had the whole adventure in his head, he was actually interacting with people and the real world ("Hey, play along kid", etc.).
The first use is the cliche, not the second use.
Alternatively, you keep it being all a dream, however, all the events of the dream have direct corollaries in Guybrush's real life. In this way, the game is not about Guybrush being a pirate but an analysis of his psyche.
I don't personally believe the ending of MI 2 implies the child's imagination theory, I'm just saying people are immediately dismissing it by saying "it's all in his head" is a bad story telling device. It isn't, it just has the reputation of being used very poorly in media.
Fight Club and Monkey Island are only similar in that respect. I believe that Monkey Island is a great game and all, but imaginary child's tale and mature look at modern consumerist psychosis aren't exactly the same.
Kind of like how the same eggs and flour and milk go into a supermarket cake and a top-tier wedding cake, its the chef that makes the difference.
That is true, that could possibly be one take. Although that said how would a next game have been made out of that if there was one? Running around in real life trying to solve the problems he faced in his hallucination? Plus it was aimed at Children too, not just adults. I think they would have been pretty scared by that as an ending. Also the series wouldn't be where it is at now if it followed that route. Wouldn't have had CoMI, which I really enjoyed. Nor ToMI. Personal Preference though I guess.
Arguing over if the ending of a video game really happened or or not is quite possibly one of the lamest things that ever happened in the history of the world. Don't take it so seriously... it is just a game.
PS. The answer to it all is... no.... it is not real. Its a game!!!!
I can't help it. It's in my nature to debate(Much nicer word for it ). All of my real life friends used to say I should have been a lawyer because of it. D=
After all these threads and these discussions my official opinion is now I could care less if the secret of monkey island is that Ron Gilbert is really a woman who modeled the game after the twist at the end of Ace Ventura: Pet Detective, explaining the Guybrush dress scene and why he's uncomfortable with the idea Elaine and Guybrush are married - Ron sees himself as Guybrush and he could never marry a woman.
Fight Club and Monkey Island are only similar in that respect. I believe that Monkey Island is a great game and all, but imaginary child's tale and mature look at modern consumerist psychosis aren't exactly the same.
Kind of like how the same eggs and flour and milk go into a supermarket cake and a top-tier wedding cake, its the chef that makes the difference.
Nobody ever claimed that Monkey Island and Fight Club were related in any other respects than the revelation at the end. My point is that if done right, an ending revealing that a lot of what you took for granted in a movie/game was indeed imagination is not by default a bad ending, like some have claimed.
Arguing over if the ending of a video game really happened or or not is quite possibly one of the lamest things that ever happened in the history of the world. Don't take it so seriously... it is just a game.
PS. The answer to it all is... no.... it is not real. Its a game!!!!
You know what's even lamer than discussing the ending of a video game? Registering on a game specific internet forum and telling people to stop discussing certain aspects of the game because it is "lame" and "just a game".
Discussing one of the most ambiguous and controversial endings in video game history is absolutely valid - especially on a forum dedicated to that very games series.
Arguing over if the ending of a video game really happened or or not is quite possibly one of the lamest things that ever happened in the history of the world. Don't take it so seriously... it is just a game.
so far this was more of an discussion than argument. of course you could say that discussing something like a game plot is lame...just like discussing movies or literature. aren't games officially considered art now? so, we're discussing art here...you could also see computer games as lame in general btw. i sure hope you're here because you like games and not because you can hang arount with some lame people being the least lame.;)
Ughh. I hate David Lynch. He and his movies make no sense whatsoever. If that was the direction Ron Gilbert was going for, I have completely lost all respect for him.
i don't think the david lynch comment was to compare his work and ron gilberts. in another thread i also used the lynch example to describe the mi2 ending...ron gilbert is definitely not copying lynch, but lynch movies often contain elements that are supposed to be confusing and make you think. the movies are supposed to look like they were highly intelectual, but in the end it's just a bunch of stuff that is just possible, because it's a movie and won't work in the real work, regardless how much you think about it.
sooo...maybe ron gilbert just wanded to make an ending that made people think...without having a solution for himself.
It negates everything that happened. It virtually means the story never existed, two brothers just made it up to pass their time. To me that's lousy, and lazy on the story writers part.
first, it does not negate anything. just because the game takes place at an amusement park doesn't mean it didn't happen. the twist is just that in the mind of the child, the game seems as real as anything. with a risk of sounding lika a parrot - you just have to play along
second, I don't agree with it being lousy, lazy storytelling, definately not compared to the magic theory. if if you end a story with "it was just a dream", just because you couldn't come up with anything better, I can agree with you, that would be kinda lame. I don't see that being the case here though.. we got plenty of hints and details pointing in that direction.
first, it does not negate anything. just because the game takes place at an amusement park doesn't mean it didn't happen. the twist is just that in the mind of the child, the game seems as real as anything. with a risk of sounding lika a parrot - you just have to play along
second, I don't agree with it being lousy, lazy storytelling, definately not compared to the magic theory. if if you end a story with "it was just a dream", just because you couldn't come up with anything better, I can agree with you, that would be kinda lame. I don't see that being the case here though.. we got plenty of hints and details pointing in that direction.
This is precisely it: Just because elements of the story were imagined does not mean the story "didn't happen". Also, it doesn't matter if it "didn't happen", because it never did ANYWAY, it was all made up by a set of men working at LucasArts. And more than THAT, saying "it was all imaginary" is inherently lazy storytelling while AT THE SAME TIME saying that "It was magic, so what you saw wasn't real!" is GOOD storytelling is a terrible contradiction.
Never said it was Award winning story telling, however. The entire game is about curses and magic. The Big Whoop being a voodoo spell to send you to another dimension works for the story. If there wasn't any magic in the game atall then I would agree with you, but the fact of the matter it is, consequently it makes a hell of alot more sense if it's a curse/magic than it being all in his imagination.
An ending makes or breaks a story, I mean if we put this in another situation; If you read a book, a book which the primary purpose of it is to tell a great story, the story was brilliant, all the characters were amazing, gripping and they all evolved, and the ending was the entire story of the book was all in the narrator/main characters imagination, how would you react? None of the epicness happened, all the characters weren't real etc. Not very good is it? Deus ex machina is never a good story telling technique.
The fact of the matter is, any person can go to a funfair and imagine that they're a mighty pirate and do stuff like that in their imagination. I'm sure you as kids imagined that you were in some fantasy flick. It ain't anything special. I'm not quite sure how you see it as a better direction for the story to go than the way it already took. CoMI was a good game, and if you had your way with the story, then it might not have happened. ToMI wouldn't have happened either.
An ending makes or breaks a story, I mean if we put this in another situation; If you read a book, a book which the primary purpose of it is to tell a great story, the story was brilliant, all the characters were amazing, gripping and they all evolved, and the ending was the entire story of the book was all in the narrator/main characters imagination, how would you react? None of the epicness happened, all the characters weren't real etc. Not very good is it? Deus ex machina is never a good story telling technique.
Depends on how it's pulled off. I've genuinely loved stories that use this execution PURELY for it. Others have been ruined by it, but it can ADD weight to a story rather than remove it.
The fact of the matter is, any person can go to a funfair and imagine that they're a mighty pirate and do stuff like that in their imagination. I'm sure you as kids imagined that you were in some fantasy flick. It ain't anything special. I'm not quite sure how you see it as a better direction for the story to go than the way it already took.
I think it's better because, first, it is a shocking ending. It's dramatic. It turns everything on its head, and I *like* that. And it adds depth to an otherwise one-dimensional story, adds another level. The idea is charming and warm, in that we're sharing this child's adventure.
CoMI was a good game, and if you had your way with the story, then it might not have happened. ToMI wouldn't have happened either.
I don't think that that's relevant, or even exactly true. We don't know how a Ron Gilbert game would have turned out, and I heavily doubt that as some expect it would completely eschew the pirate narrative for a mundane adventure about Chuckie and his brother cleaning their room or something of that nature. And anyway, my only real issue with Curse(other than vomit-inducing character art) is the ending explanation that hard-coded "it was just magic" into the canon. I can't say it's ambiguous anymore. The rest of Curse can exist just fine, they just should have kept ambiguity.
I think a lot more people would accept the imagination ending if it had been given time to develop in a third game. The ambiguity and sort of half-dream state was played around with in the first two games, and I'd love to see it fleshed out. I have every belief that it could be used effectively. A lot of people's issues stem from the fact that it's the "end", and I think it would be more popular if it was an ingrained part in the middle of a large story arc.
I just thought of a new theory. I don't know if this has been mentioned before. Couldn't Guybrush be unconconcious when he falls with Big Whoop? Interestly most things that happen during the segment beneath Dinky Island refer to Guybrush's memory.
Just think about it. Meele Island dark alley. It's a memory from The Secret of Monkey Island. As is the Grog machine. The dog that takes Le Chuck's hand. Is it Walt? Even if not, Guybrush saw two dogs during this adventure. The parent's skeletons. A memory from the dream Guybrush had. And the pipes in the tunnel? Obviously a memory from beneath Ron's house. It would seem odd that this island's subterrean tunnels. would be connected to Dinky and to Monkey Island. Why does Le Chuck says he is Threepwood's brother? Maybe it's some subconcious message from Guybrush's mind, just like the appearance of his parents.
And when they appear as kids it's possibly a memory of his childhood. Maybe even LeChuck entered Guybrush mind. Big Whoop may be a portal to people's mind. Yeah, something like Psychonauts which Tim Schaffer worked later. Wasn't he involved in this game? And the surreal stuff seems more work from Schaffer than Ron Gilbert.
What's confusing is how much of these scenes are real, how much is hallucination. The tone here is much more surreal than the rest of the game and you can realise that something really strange is going on. And please, don't tell that previous anachronisms and breaking the fourth wall both in TSOMI and MI2 like T-Shirts and "play along Guybrush" show that he is really a kid from present time. They are just the humour of the game.
If Guybrush was a kid he would be really scared of Hook's "monster", he wouldn't be in love, or have difficulty to talk to Elaine. He probably wouldn't have the guts to go to the Cemetery at night and dig to get some bones. He really never acts like a small boy. Just like a silly young guy that wants to be a pirate.
And if he was a real kid... Wouldn't he remember it? Why does he feel confused at first when he sees little Chuckie and his parents?
Why didn't LeChuck told before that Guybrush was his brother? Why didn't he use that knowledge to his benefit before? LeChuck maybe has some characteristics of a bully kid, but again a bully kid doesn't usually dream about marrying a beautiful woman until they are teenager. Even so he would be an extremelly evil bully. He doesn't really act like a kid neither.
And if we are to believe that nonsense that Guybrush is a kid, then why does Elaine appear later? Where is her? She is definitely not an ilusion from Guybrush mind as Threepwood is at that moment in the amusement park confused and starting to believe he is a small boy, so he couldn't be imagining her. She seems real to me. And if she is real, then why would she mention a spell?? Could that have something to do with Big Whoop, the voodo priest, the E-Ticket or the voodoo doll?
Why does LeChuck's eyer sparkle at the end? Is that normal behaviour in contemporary bullies?
There are a lot of stuff that are just for the fun and for being references. Guybrush and LeChuck being brothers is obviously a reference to Empire Strikes Back, but in this case LeChuck is lying, unlike Darth Vader. Chuckie sparkling eyes is possibly a reference to Thriller, which leaves it ambiguous, but I guess it really shows that this is some dream, hallucination and shows that LeChuck is really an evil undead pirate. Let's not be so over analytical about details that are not so relevant.
And if Ron was consulted for the creation of TOMI, why would he keep with the lie? Are these series a farse? After all he knows that Guybrush is a kid, so he never became a pirate. Why does he insist in having piratey adventures instead of going to school?
I don't intend to bash people that think that both first games are just a dream, it's a theory that I considered my self, but after many years I realised that it is not true.
Really most things that lead to believing that it's all a dream, that Guybrush is a writer kid in coma or some strange conclusion like that is wrong in my opinion and I think that if Lucasarts does a new game they have the obligation with its fans to hire Ron Gilbert and that he makes an adventure after Le Chuck's Revenge and explain what happens here in case people still have doubt. I mean, even Lost will have answers to all or most of its secrets. Isn't about time we get some real answers?
Monkey Island has one of the most brilliant endings ever in any medium, because it still has us here debating about what it is all about. But it is about time that we leave this with a conclusion and can have new mysteries in the adventures of Mighty Pirate Guybrush Threepwood. Don't we deserve it after being a fan after so many years and loving so much this amazing creation?
Comments
Ughh. I hate David Lynch. He and his movies make no sense whatsoever. If that was the direction Ron Gilbert was going for, I have completely lost all respect for him.
You're confusing George Lucas, the owner, with Ron Gilbert, The Director.
Calvin and Hobbes has absolutely no interconnecting storyline whatsoever, and even if it did, you know from the beginning that the tiger is a toy, it's not like they went on 2 big adventures and then suddenly said "oh by the way one of the main characters is imaginary"
Yeah, thing is since MI was done when this was heavily used by the entire genre (or was getting popular)- it seems rather likely.
Personally I just don't see the story as such an integral part of my experience so I really don't put much thought or care into it.
No, but that's basically what Fight Club did.
Because it's magic, DUH!
anyway... I have to weigh in here.
I have been a monkey island fan since I played the first part on the Amiga oh, so many years ago.
I played the first part doggedly until I kicked LeChucks ass.
Then Part 2 was released. It was like one of those moments where you walk into the game store, and there is a spotlight shining and a choris of angels singing in my ear that only I was aware of. I took it home and I played it with an even more dogged determination, I was going to take it to LeChuck and I was going to beat this game. I got to the end and LEChuck Told Guybrush about him being his brother. and I thought "AWESOME Empire Reference" then a few minutes later, LeChucks Eyes Stormed up and Elaine was waiting for the love her life.
And that was it, I never looked at is as more than an Empire reference that lead to an awesome "Double twist" moment, and that Empire ended very similarly, with the good guy(s) being on the back foot.
Then Curse came out.. and I had another "Moment" as I walked to the counter and handed over my money and I started playing it, and I smiled and I LOVED the game, agree with me or not it's my favorite game of the series right now. I LOVED the beginning. I actually thought that they DIDN'T explain how The 'Brush escaped was awesome, made me trust more in his Mighty Pirate-y wiles. (I always had issues with adventure heores that only have adventures when we are watching). IT also Started much the way "Jedi" had, with time having elapsed. It fit to me that a "Jedi" opening follwed an "Empire" ending.
I never knew of Gilbert's planned Arc. I never knew he hadn't planned Curse to go down that way. I just took the ending to MI:2 to be what it was and moved on.
I'm not going to lie, if it turns out that all this is some childs imagination, I'll feel that is a bit too "Meta" for it's own good. especially after all this discussion. But, I won't feel put off.
But we can agree it was a good ending.. wasn't it?
As I said before. Theres enough hints for either of the 2 possible conclusions one could come to from this ending. No matter how much one argues, neither side will change their opinion on what they thought the ending means.
The cliched use is you say it was all a dream, therefore negating everything that happened before. Literally, nothing happened, it was all one character's imagination.
This isn't what happens in MI 2 with the child theory. It doesn't say that MI 1 and 2 didn't happen (as per above) rather they did happen, just what you were experiencing wasn't straightforward.
Say you tell a story and someone does something unbelievable like killing a dragon.
You say it was all a dream, then it never happened.
Instead if you say he was taking drugs, had an hallucinatory experience, and the next day his iguana is dead.
Both stories are told the exact same way until the end where you say either he was dreaming or he was on drugs (in both the 'story' was literally in his head). The first one has no consequence on his life, the second has the implication that while experiencing the story he actually killed his iguana.
In this way, the ending of MI 2 is not saying Guybrush was sitting on a bench and had the whole adventure in his head, he was actually interacting with people and the real world ("Hey, play along kid", etc.).
The first use is the cliche, not the second use.
Alternatively, you keep it being all a dream, however, all the events of the dream have direct corollaries in Guybrush's real life. In this way, the game is not about Guybrush being a pirate but an analysis of his psyche.
I don't personally believe the ending of MI 2 implies the child's imagination theory, I'm just saying people are immediately dismissing it by saying "it's all in his head" is a bad story telling device. It isn't, it just has the reputation of being used very poorly in media.
Fight Club and Monkey Island are only similar in that respect. I believe that Monkey Island is a great game and all, but imaginary child's tale and mature look at modern consumerist psychosis aren't exactly the same.
Kind of like how the same eggs and flour and milk go into a supermarket cake and a top-tier wedding cake, its the chef that makes the difference.
PS. The answer to it all is... no.... it is not real. Its a game!!!!
Nobody ever claimed that Monkey Island and Fight Club were related in any other respects than the revelation at the end. My point is that if done right, an ending revealing that a lot of what you took for granted in a movie/game was indeed imagination is not by default a bad ending, like some have claimed.
You know what's even lamer than discussing the ending of a video game? Registering on a game specific internet forum and telling people to stop discussing certain aspects of the game because it is "lame" and "just a game".
Discussing one of the most ambiguous and controversial endings in video game history is absolutely valid - especially on a forum dedicated to that very games series.
i don't think the david lynch comment was to compare his work and ron gilberts. in another thread i also used the lynch example to describe the mi2 ending...ron gilbert is definitely not copying lynch, but lynch movies often contain elements that are supposed to be confusing and make you think. the movies are supposed to look like they were highly intelectual, but in the end it's just a bunch of stuff that is just possible, because it's a movie and won't work in the real work, regardless how much you think about it.
sooo...maybe ron gilbert just wanded to make an ending that made people think...without having a solution for himself.
...and make us think he did.
first, it does not negate anything. just because the game takes place at an amusement park doesn't mean it didn't happen. the twist is just that in the mind of the child, the game seems as real as anything. with a risk of sounding lika a parrot - you just have to play along
second, I don't agree with it being lousy, lazy storytelling, definately not compared to the magic theory. if if you end a story with "it was just a dream", just because you couldn't come up with anything better, I can agree with you, that would be kinda lame. I don't see that being the case here though.. we got plenty of hints and details pointing in that direction.
This is precisely it: Just because elements of the story were imagined does not mean the story "didn't happen". Also, it doesn't matter if it "didn't happen", because it never did ANYWAY, it was all made up by a set of men working at LucasArts. And more than THAT, saying "it was all imaginary" is inherently lazy storytelling while AT THE SAME TIME saying that "It was magic, so what you saw wasn't real!" is GOOD storytelling is a terrible contradiction.
An ending makes or breaks a story, I mean if we put this in another situation; If you read a book, a book which the primary purpose of it is to tell a great story, the story was brilliant, all the characters were amazing, gripping and they all evolved, and the ending was the entire story of the book was all in the narrator/main characters imagination, how would you react? None of the epicness happened, all the characters weren't real etc. Not very good is it? Deus ex machina is never a good story telling technique.
The fact of the matter is, any person can go to a funfair and imagine that they're a mighty pirate and do stuff like that in their imagination. I'm sure you as kids imagined that you were in some fantasy flick. It ain't anything special. I'm not quite sure how you see it as a better direction for the story to go than the way it already took. CoMI was a good game, and if you had your way with the story, then it might not have happened. ToMI wouldn't have happened either.
I think it's better because, first, it is a shocking ending. It's dramatic. It turns everything on its head, and I *like* that. And it adds depth to an otherwise one-dimensional story, adds another level. The idea is charming and warm, in that we're sharing this child's adventure.
I don't think that that's relevant, or even exactly true. We don't know how a Ron Gilbert game would have turned out, and I heavily doubt that as some expect it would completely eschew the pirate narrative for a mundane adventure about Chuckie and his brother cleaning their room or something of that nature. And anyway, my only real issue with Curse(other than vomit-inducing character art) is the ending explanation that hard-coded "it was just magic" into the canon. I can't say it's ambiguous anymore. The rest of Curse can exist just fine, they just should have kept ambiguity.
I think a lot more people would accept the imagination ending if it had been given time to develop in a third game. The ambiguity and sort of half-dream state was played around with in the first two games, and I'd love to see it fleshed out. I have every belief that it could be used effectively. A lot of people's issues stem from the fact that it's the "end", and I think it would be more popular if it was an ingrained part in the middle of a large story arc.
Just think about it. Meele Island dark alley. It's a memory from The Secret of Monkey Island. As is the Grog machine. The dog that takes Le Chuck's hand. Is it Walt? Even if not, Guybrush saw two dogs during this adventure. The parent's skeletons. A memory from the dream Guybrush had. And the pipes in the tunnel? Obviously a memory from beneath Ron's house. It would seem odd that this island's subterrean tunnels. would be connected to Dinky and to Monkey Island. Why does Le Chuck says he is Threepwood's brother? Maybe it's some subconcious message from Guybrush's mind, just like the appearance of his parents.
And when they appear as kids it's possibly a memory of his childhood. Maybe even LeChuck entered Guybrush mind. Big Whoop may be a portal to people's mind. Yeah, something like Psychonauts which Tim Schaffer worked later. Wasn't he involved in this game? And the surreal stuff seems more work from Schaffer than Ron Gilbert.
What's confusing is how much of these scenes are real, how much is hallucination. The tone here is much more surreal than the rest of the game and you can realise that something really strange is going on. And please, don't tell that previous anachronisms and breaking the fourth wall both in TSOMI and MI2 like T-Shirts and "play along Guybrush" show that he is really a kid from present time. They are just the humour of the game.
If Guybrush was a kid he would be really scared of Hook's "monster", he wouldn't be in love, or have difficulty to talk to Elaine. He probably wouldn't have the guts to go to the Cemetery at night and dig to get some bones. He really never acts like a small boy. Just like a silly young guy that wants to be a pirate.
And if he was a real kid... Wouldn't he remember it? Why does he feel confused at first when he sees little Chuckie and his parents?
Why didn't LeChuck told before that Guybrush was his brother? Why didn't he use that knowledge to his benefit before? LeChuck maybe has some characteristics of a bully kid, but again a bully kid doesn't usually dream about marrying a beautiful woman until they are teenager. Even so he would be an extremelly evil bully. He doesn't really act like a kid neither.
And if we are to believe that nonsense that Guybrush is a kid, then why does Elaine appear later? Where is her? She is definitely not an ilusion from Guybrush mind as Threepwood is at that moment in the amusement park confused and starting to believe he is a small boy, so he couldn't be imagining her. She seems real to me. And if she is real, then why would she mention a spell?? Could that have something to do with Big Whoop, the voodo priest, the E-Ticket or the voodoo doll?
Why does LeChuck's eyer sparkle at the end? Is that normal behaviour in contemporary bullies?
There are a lot of stuff that are just for the fun and for being references. Guybrush and LeChuck being brothers is obviously a reference to Empire Strikes Back, but in this case LeChuck is lying, unlike Darth Vader. Chuckie sparkling eyes is possibly a reference to Thriller, which leaves it ambiguous, but I guess it really shows that this is some dream, hallucination and shows that LeChuck is really an evil undead pirate. Let's not be so over analytical about details that are not so relevant.
And if Ron was consulted for the creation of TOMI, why would he keep with the lie? Are these series a farse? After all he knows that Guybrush is a kid, so he never became a pirate. Why does he insist in having piratey adventures instead of going to school?
I don't intend to bash people that think that both first games are just a dream, it's a theory that I considered my self, but after many years I realised that it is not true.
Really most things that lead to believing that it's all a dream, that Guybrush is a writer kid in coma or some strange conclusion like that is wrong in my opinion and I think that if Lucasarts does a new game they have the obligation with its fans to hire Ron Gilbert and that he makes an adventure after Le Chuck's Revenge and explain what happens here in case people still have doubt. I mean, even Lost will have answers to all or most of its secrets. Isn't about time we get some real answers?
Monkey Island has one of the most brilliant endings ever in any medium, because it still has us here debating about what it is all about. But it is about time that we leave this with a conclusion and can have new mysteries in the adventures of Mighty Pirate Guybrush Threepwood. Don't we deserve it after being a fan after so many years and loving so much this amazing creation?