The World of Monkey Island

by **Mellonhead** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:32 pm

What's wrong with the MI-2 end. I really liked it. I'm just a big fan of anticlimaxes (is that the right English word). The best anticlimax I've ever seen is in: 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail' (The only good Monty Python film). 'Why does everybody dislikes anticlimaxes, like the one of MI-2, please tell me.

by **Ryback** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 1:33 pm

I like the ending, but if there's something wrong with it it's that it's inconclusive, with the evidence seeming to point to the whole two games just being a kid's overactive imagination, but not so we can say definitely this is the case... and at the same time, making it very difficult for a sequel to pick up the story. I know at the time Ron Gilbert didn't know if he'd be still working at LucasArts, and hedged his bets with an open-ended conclusion... I just wish he'd picked a story and gone with it, firmly.

So, I like about 90% of the ending. Just ditch the lightning-eyed LeChuck and it'd be perfect.

And what's this heresy about Holy Grail being the only good Monty Python film?

by **monkeyislandfanatic** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 8:10 pm

I liked the ending to MI 2, because it really allowed the player to reach a conclusion him/herself, because it was open ended but also can be interpreted in several different ways. But the instant reaction after playing is quite baffling, it leaves you wondering what happened, which isn't always a good thing.

by **Welsh Pirate** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 8:56 pm

I liked the ending. In my point of view, the orginal perpose of the games was to get a laugh. I thoght the ending for MI:2 was very funney. I've noticed that Lucus likes to work in trilogys and have the second installment end in an anticlimax. ESB for instance; Luke's jedi training gets cut short, and so does his hand. He finds out Darth Vader is his father, and right when Han and Leia fall in love, Han gets frozen in carbonite.

I don't think the ending could've been any better. But they could have put more thought into explaning the ending in CMI.

by **Thin_icE** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 11:23 am

I enjoyed the end of MI2, it aroused even more questions, promising another sequel. Which, unfortunately, was not to be made by the original creator. This is the only point that fails to me. Although it seemed a bit difficult to pick up the story and make a sequel at that point, I'm shure that Ron Gilbert had the idea in his mind. Too bad for that will never see his vision of the sequel to MI2. :-?

by **Mellonhead** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 2:35 pm

Ryback wrote:And what's this heresy about Holy Grail being the only good Monty Python film?

Well, it's the only MP-film that was REALLY funny. The other were all a bit lame. In some other MP-films they just put a bunch of so called funny stuff :-?

together and HEY... there's a movie.

by **Junaid** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 3:06 pm

Ryback wrote:
So, I like about 90% of the ending. Just ditch the lightning-eyed LeChuck and it'd be perfect.

No, they did a great job at doing this!

First you really think it was all one big dream, but when LeChuck did his scary-eye-stuff-thing, you don't know what the hell is happening!

by **McPirate** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 7:20 pm

I think that it was a fitting parody of the ending of SW episode 5.

And why should always the good win?

And is Guybrush really the good?

by **Belaus** » Sat Sep 20, 2003 2:58 pm

I think the end is all right, and I agree that it leaves people have their own conclusion. But it can also be the greatest fault, because some people think it's all a children's imagination. FOR GOD SAKE, IT WASN'T!!! Can't you see it was an illusion???? Elaine said it, "Chuckie's" eyes glow red, so it was a spell casted by LeChuck.
McPirate, you are right. Why does the good one always win?

by **Bone-Master** » Sat Sep 20, 2003 3:03 pm

Belaus wrote:some people think it's all a children's imagination.

They think that because that came in an interview.

Belaus wrote:Can't you see it was an illusion????

THAT is the thoeory that was made, my friend.

by **Belaus** » Sat Sep 20, 2003 3:07 pm

They think that because that came in an interview.
In which interview?

THAT is the thoeory that was made, my friend.
Where?

What the heck is an anticlimax???

by **Bone-Master** » Sat Sep 20, 2003 3:30 pm

In this interview (question 5) and the theory is somewhere in The SCUMM Bar

by **Belaus** » Sat Sep 20, 2003 3:41 pm

Look, I'm getting tired. I've never been to the Scumm Bar website, so I didn't take the theory from there. I know it because Elaine said it and it's likely to be the reason, in my opinion.

by **Bone-Master** » Sun Sep 21, 2003 8:43 am

Elaine said it? When?

by **Paco** » Sun Sep 21, 2003 9:03 am

At the end of MI2 you see Elaine standing next to the gap caused by the explosion on Dinky Island. She says something like "I hope LeChuck hasn't put a spell on Guybrush". Something like that. This scene, plus Chuckie's glowing eyes were there just in case there was going to be a third game. Guybrush is a child, lost in a theme park, imagining his adventures as a pirate. When you play MI2 (and MI1) it isn't very hard to see.
The writers of CMI wrote a clever way around this and chose for the 'LeChuck cast a spell on Guybrush' story.

The end.

Read more info at the Brimstone Beach Club:
http://www.tlkwebdesign.com/bsbc/smi.php

The World of Monkey Island

What's wrong with the end?

What do ya think of the end of MI-2?

What's wrong with the end?

Holy Grail rules! Monty Python... well he's okay.

Who is online