LucasForums (
-   General MI Discussion (
-   -   No Guybrush in Monkey Island 3 (

JackSparrow 05-17-2007 10:04 AM

No Guybrush in Monkey Island 3

Just compare his face on these images and ignore the different graphicstyles

Is that the same guy?

That would be a better direction to "cartoonize" the old Guybrush.

I don't have anything against the CMI graphicstyle in general,but unlike LeChuck,Wally,Elaine etc,Guybrush has gotten out of Proportion.
He's simply too.....long.

The feeling,when playing CMI is like if a new actor plays the role of the hero in your favourite Movie series.....

Still can't cope with that.

Gabez 05-17-2007 01:43 PM

He *does* look rather different, but I don't think it matters; he is still the same character, through and through.

I like to see it like James Bond - it doesn't matter that each actor (and each film) is different; it's still Bond.

urluckyday 05-17-2007 03:32 PM


Originally Posted by Gabez
I like to see it like James Bond - it doesn't matter that each actor (and each film) is different; it's still Bond.

Uhh...Daniel Craig was not James Bond...that should not have been a Bond movie...It was that bad...

Thrik 05-17-2007 05:34 PM

You kidding? You're probably one of the first people I've come across who didn't think that Casino Royale was a great film and that Daniel Craig was a great bond.

You're entitled to your opinion though. :)

urluckyday 05-17-2007 09:56 PM

Oh, believe me, I get a ton of that...I dunno, to me it seems like that movie coulda been pretty good if it didn't have the Bond trademark with it, but it just made mad that they went out of order like that. I also really like Daniel Craig as an actor, but I really wish they had picked someone else (maybe other than blonde) for that movie. Seriously, the best part of the movie was the opening movie (which was actually amazing), but it was all downhill from there.

Thrik 05-18-2007 04:19 AM

Eh, I thought it was great.

I think a similarly high-quality sequel will help it tremendously though as this movie is meant to essentially be Bond Begins, with him still getting to grips with the job and his own personality being affected by loved ones being killed, etc. Just like Bruce doesn't start off as the Batman we know in Batman Begins and only gets there towards the end, Bond is the same in Casino Royale. You see him progressing from being an effective but brutish agent towards the more classy Bond we know -- especially right at the end.

Joshi 05-19-2007 03:24 AM

Just my two cents, but Casino Royal, going back to the first novel and movie, getting in a new actor, was all a way of breaking free from a formula that had, in this day and age, gone a bit stale. Die Another Day was bad, an invisible car in a palace of ice was going too far into the Sci-fi era when it shouldn't have.

Daniel Craig was meant to shake things up. Before the movie came out people hated the fact that he was blonde (a problem that doesn't seem to have escaped you it seems), but after the movie came out people forgave that because he simply did a brilliant job. Was it the Bond you remember? No, of course not, what would be the point in that. It was a more human bond, someone we could all relate to in a way. That's why people loved him.

Even still, there were those that didn't like it and frankly, we're all entitled to our opinion, everyone has different tastes, we can't expect people to like everything.

JackSparrow 05-22-2007 02:02 PM

Serious Discussion Please!

SeaTurtle 05-23-2007 12:31 PM

Does this forum do on-topic discussion?

Joshi 05-23-2007 01:46 PM

Not regularly no.

But if we must have serious discussion, whilst MI3 Guybrush may not have looked like MI1/2, he still had the essence of the old Guybrush we all loved. The humour of the character just worked and the actual character design fitted in so well with the artistic style the game was going for, which whilst different from the other two games styles, was very effective and beautiful.

JackSparrow 05-23-2007 04:03 PM

Sorry for shouting around yesterday.
I had a little too much Grog.....I mean Rum
Wasn't meant that serious anyway


Etibow 05-24-2007 01:55 PM

Just for the record, I agree that Guybrush was changed just a little too much! Not only in his looks and proportions, but also in his personality. I think the only attribute they really kept about Guybrush is the fact that he's quite a bit na´ve. Other than that, I feel that we were playing with a completely different character. Maybe it was the fact that there were no voices, I don't know, but to me it seemed that Guybrush was an average-built guy WITHOUT a long skinny head, and he was pretty mellow and monotone (sort of... that's the only way I know to describe it). He also seemed very serious about everything, which is what aided in making him so na´ve, which was great about him! It seemed that from CMI on, Guybrush became a HUGE jokester for the mostpart of his personality. So I agree with Jack Sparrow... Guybrush is not the same anymore.

Thrik 05-24-2007 03:38 PM

Make no mistake, he was extremely different in CMI. It's an established fact that the tone of CMI in general is a lot more comical and slapstick than the previous games, which doesn't detract from it being a superb game but it's definitely great in different ways from MI1 and MI2.

I think it's best not to get too fixated on the differences in tone between the games because it's not just Guybrush who underwent such a big change; indeed, LeChuck and the rest of the cast were a lot more amusing than before (LeChuck was considerably more evil in tone in MI1 and MI2, not to mention revolting in the case of MI2).

Etibow 06-01-2007 05:21 PM

Yes, yes. I will agree that they are all great in their own way. Lets just establish this:
The first two are great in their own way SEPARATE from the second two, and we'll leave it at that. If someone asks me if they felt like the same game... errr... not so much. I also would be sad if the world no longer had CMI and EMI in it, but would I LOVE to see another Monkey with better graphics and the same feel and tone as the first two? -- Um... yeah. Pretty much. But like I said, lets not throw CMI and EMI in the wind just because they were so different. They were just different... that's all.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:27 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2015 - All rights reserved.