[QFG]

Originally Posted by ATMachine

You presume that the suits currently in charge of LucasArts have brains. From everything I have seen this is a sadly mistaken proposition.

If anything, we'll probably end up with a Star Wars / Monkey Island hybrid

Just imagine: Guybrush Skywalker.

[fajerkaos]

Originally Posted by Jackal

Actually, the first should be fairly imminent. "Imminent" meaning between now and the Apocalypse, of course, but hopefully closer to now.

That mean it might actually come around the time Monkey Island 5 is released!
Even though I bet the fine men at Lucasart will probably wait until a slightly bit after the Apocalypse just to see how it affects the popularity of AG's.

[Sky Warrior Bob]

While certainly unlikely, I could see Lucasarts making another MI. I mean, thanks to the Pirates of the Carribean movies, Pirates have made something of a comeback in terms of popularity.

Monkey Island is something that they could certainly work with, but the question is how.

SWB
- I could imagine the next Monkey Island game being sometihng of a mix of Jak II. They might tag on a few Quest for Glory like adventure game qualities, but that might be hoping for too much.

[Steve Ince]

Originally Posted by QFG

If anything, we'll probably end up with a Star Wars / Monkey Island hybrid

Just imagine: Guybrush Skywalker.

Cool! Made in Lego, of course.

[EvilMulder]

Originally Posted by Steve Ince

Cool! Made in Lego, of course.

[ATMachine]

Speaking of rumors....

World of MI now claims to have gotten a tip from an anonymous source that A) firmly establishes the year the MI movie was in the pitch stage as 2000 and B) tells us about two of the writers on the project.

Not that I'm inclined to trust anonymous sources off the bat, but a fellow who can pin down the MI film's timeframe that exactly (and correctly, given what I know already) is certainly worth hearing out.

The tipster claims Steven Spielberg (who liked the MI movie idea quite a bit) brought in the writing team of Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio to work on the story before the project was put to bed. Thus exposing them to all the characters and history of MI.

No prizes for guessing which pirate movie trilogy the duo went on to pen.

Of course they've always denied knowing about MI before doing POTC, but if they happened to be bound by an NDA...

[Ariel Type]

noknowncure

I'm also playing Devil's advocate here, because I enjoyed MI1, 2 and 3, but the goalposts for your case against CMI are wildly flying from one side of the pitch to the other. Your problems with the third are also often found in the first and second, yet you choose to ignore those factors.

I also enjoyed CMI and I'm not saying that the game was unfunny/unplayable etc. It IS a very nice, professionally done adventure game, like anything from Lucas Arts. And it is better than anything that comes out today, as I wrote before. But the problem with it - as you correctly mentioned - is that it is a part of the series, and the problems are found when comparing it to MI 1-2.
Many of the adventures of 90th are not like anything that comes out today, because they were done by close groups of authors, not just to gain money, but also for their own fun. There were series - created, written and designed by several people (usually with a good imagination, unlike modern authors). They have their own style, there was a lot of effort put into production. So, when a new King's Quest, or Larry, or Monkey Island came out, we can say: aha, Roberta (or Al, or Ron) in their own style! It was THEIR project, not just some big label for money-making. Even licensed games, like Indiana Jones, managed to have their own, independent style and form.
So, when people say "Hell, Ron left Lucas, Tim was working on his project - why should TLE wait for them?", it doesn't really mean anything. Yes, they weren't involved. Is that enough of a reason to create another game in the series under control of completely different authors? The games had very developed and unique universe, memorable stories, characters. It's not like Laura Bow series, where the only link was Laura herself. It's rewriting the whole thing, while making use of old ideas.
Just one example, the character of Guybrush. In MI1 he is a young man that wants to become a pirate. He tries to imitate "real" pirates, learn insult swordfighting, tries to drink grog, becomes a captain of the ship, etc. His character develops.
In MI2 he actually BECOMES a pirate (though a lousy one). He wears a pirate jacket, boots, tries to grow a beard. He begins his journey with pockets full of treasures. He immediately loose it, but is still trying to imitate pirate life.
And what happens in CMI? There is almost no "pirate" theme, Guybrush became some sort of long-necked teenager, and all he wants is to save his beloved Elane. Everything else is just "something on my way".

I don't want to prove anything to you or anyone else, and my comments to your list were just for fun (though that's how I actually feel about them). I just don't like the way Lucas Arts made a use of one of the best adventure licence out there.

Udvarnoky

As far as I know Ron Gilbert is the only person who ever said that the games were intended to be a trilogy.

Did you carefully read books in the library in MI2? There are references to the series being a trilogy, in a manner of "why authors shouldn't write trilogies" or smth like that. The first time a read them I thought "there should be three games in the series". It's not just smth Ron came up with after he left TLE.

one of the project leaders of CMI, Larry Ahern, was on MI2's team.

He was one of the artists. That doesn't really count as co-aurthor.

But it's not like they "stole" the game from the original team. No one forced Ron to leave LucasArts. Tim Schafer put his efforts into Grim Fandango instead. Simply put, LucasArts decided an MI3 should be made, and a team of people were assigned to make it. If you're mad that the original team largely wasn't involved, it's more accurately the original team you have to blame.

That's what I was talking about before. Aurthor's project became just "some license which Lucas Arts assigned to some people". I mean, why when we think about Larry games, Al Lowe immediately comes to mind? Because it was HIS project, created and directed by him and his team. MI became a project be different LA designers - not nessesary untalented (all of them were talanted) - but it just lost its "wholeness", its universe.
And I guess Ron had his reasons to leave Lucas Arts. It's not a matter for discussion, I think.

[ATMachine]

Originally Posted by Ariel Type

Did you carefully read books in the library in MI2? There are references to the series being a trilogy, in a manner of "why authors shouldn't write trilogies" or smth like that. The first time a read them I thought "there should be three games in the series". It's not just smth Ron came up with after he left TLE.

Wishful thinking on your part. The whole point of that MI2 joke is that it's a trilogy of books about why trilogies are bad. Irony and all that.

This thread is the living embodiment of "hope springs eternal." Monkey Island is DEAD. Accept it.

[noknowncure]

Originally Posted by Ariel Type

I also enjoyed CMI and I'm not saying that the game was unfunny/unplayable etc. It IS a very nice, professionally done adventure game, like anything from Lucas Arts. And it is better than anything that comes out today, as I wrote before. But the problem with it - as you correctly mentioned - is that it is a part of the series, and the problems are found when comparing it to MI 1-2.
Many of the adventures of 90th are not like anything that comes out today, because they were done by close groups of authors, not just to gain money, but also for their own fun. There were series - created, written and designed by several people (usually with a good imagination, unlike modern authors). They have their own style, there was a lot of effort put into production. So, when a new King's Quest, or Larry, or Monkey Island came out, we can say: aha, Roberta (or Al, or Ron) in their own style! It was THEIR project, not just some big label for money-making. Even licensed games, like Indiana Jones, managed to have their own, independent style and form.
So, when people say "Hell, Ron left Lucas, Tim was working on his project - why should TLE wait for them?", it doesn't really mean anything. Yes, they weren't involved. Is that enough of a reason to create another game in the series under control of completely different authors? The games had very developed and unique universe, memorable stories, characters. It's not like Laura Bow series, where the only link was Laura herself. It's rewriting the whole thing, while making use of old ideas.
Just one example, the character of Guybrush. In MI1 he is a young man that wants to become a pirate. He tries to imitate "real" pirates, learn insult swordfighting, tries to drink grog, becomes a captain of the ship, etc. His character develops.
In MI2 he actually BECOMES a pirate (though a lousy one). He wears a pirate jacket, boots, tries to grow a beard. He begins his journey with pockets full of treasures. He immediately loose it, but is still trying to imitate pirate life.
And what happens in CMI? There is almost no "pirate" theme, Guybrush became some sort of long-necked teenager, and all he wants is to save his beloved Elane. Everything else is just "something on my way".

I don't want to prove anything to you or anyone else, and my comments to your list were just for fun (though that's how I actually feel about them). I just don't like the way Lucas Arts made a use of one of the best adventure licence out there.

Thank you! You'll be pleased to know - in my smug arrogance - that I consider this acceptable criticism.

Sorry, I've been hounding you a bit, but this actual in depth examination is far more interesting and insightful than smaller throwaway remarks. It examines your concerns with the game holistically and is probably something more developers should consider. Licenses and franchises aren't something that should be taken lightly - Game, Movie, TV, Literature or whatever - and there's a tendency on the developers part to think people are just buying a product because of the name attached.

I really enjoyed CMI, but I know where you're coming from - it does have a very different tone to that of 1&2 - but it feels to be a game made with great affection and respect for it's predecessors, whereas EMI felt more like a money spinner. Sometimes, a different perspective can freshen up a tired formula, but there, you begin veering into personal preference.

[NemelChelovek]

Speaking of rumors....

World of MI now claims to have gotten a tip from an anonymous source that A) firmly establishes the year the MI movie was in the pitch stage as 2000 and B) tells us about two of the writers on the project.

Not that I'm inclined to trust anonymous sources off the bat, but a fellow who can pin down the MI film's timeframe that exactly (and correctly, given what I know already) is certainly worth hearing out.

The tipster claims Steven Spielberg (who liked the MI movie idea quite a bit) brought in the writing team of Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio to work on the story before the project was put to bed. Thus exposing them to all the characters and history of MI.

No prizes for guessing which pirate movie trilogy the duo went on to pen.

Of course they've always denied knowing about MI before doing POTC, but if they happened to be bound by an NDA...

Whoever it is got their facts wrong. Rossio and Elliott wrote the script for Pirates of the Caribbean in the early '90s, and Spielberg later got a hold of it and wanted to direct it. Disney didn't allow the film to be made, so it didn't happen. Found that on IMDb a while back.

[Wormsie]

Probably the same fellow who made up that Grim Fandango movie rumor.

[ATMachine]

Yeah, I'll admit that rumor definitely needs a pinch of salt. World of MI's standards for news have always been rather lax.