Talk:Mortal Kombat: Shaolin Monks

message: Can a section on the voice-over actors be included? --In Defense of the Artist 22:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Actors?

message: The storyline may not have intended to be canon because they've taken all of the old rumors (like Ermac MK1 appearance, Goro being a secret character in MK2) and put them into the storyline of Shaolin Monks. Ed Boon himself said it in his interview before the game was released. --Dark Rain
If you can source that statement, that a re-worded version should probably mentioned in the article. The Haunted Angel 18:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Something to note about the storyline

message: "[...] or even downright silly and idiotic [...] "Free Princess Melewski" [...]"
That message is not idiotic.  It's a in-game tribute to the lady who did the voices for most of the female characters.  I think it should be changed --DragonMaster 02:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Minor Issue

message: I agree with the fact that the resources and the information should be footnoted and all to classify prufication in the information, yet the arguments presented all make sense.
If you're a Mortal Kombat fan, you'd know a great deal of Mortal Kombat itself, and the issues raised in the video game do not match what MK Fans had known for so long. I mean, Scorpion does NOT seek to kill Liu Kang or Kung Lao AT ANY TIME: He serves as Sub-Zero's protector after abandoning his mission for revenge. Kitana was never under a spell of Shao Khan's and so forth. It doesn't make sense: if she was under Khan's spell, then why would he gain Shang Tsung to create an evil version of Kitana (which is Mileena) when Kitana, under his spell, is already evil?
Yet I do agree with the contention of the neutrality of the reaction page. The sources should be noted, however the information and arguments presented are in general very true.
Fan reaction, as a whole, is hard to cite anyway.  Most reactions come from internet forums and peer reviews.  Still, nothing in the Reaction section is personal opinion.  It's a fact that a lot of the game was changed--particularly the "deaths" of certain characters.  King Zeal 16:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well, It does seem to be true, you know

message: I don't have the game nor the money to puchase it.  I created the article a while back by scrapping together any information I could get off the Internet.  Anyone out there who has the game and time to throw in some new information would be greatly appreciated (Notorious4life 03:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'd love to update, but... 

message: Nuetrality tag posted by (Notorious4life 01:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation please

message: I don't know if people have realised this, but there is one big thing you need to remember.
When MK2 was released originally, Midway couldn't really flesh out the storyline. MK:SM does. Then people complain that X is wrong, and Y never happened.
It's worth noting that many of the details assumed by fans to be canon from this era of the games (I.E. the original trilogy), are generally stuff that fans came up with themselves, and Midway didn't come out & say it wasn't canon, so people believed it was true, such as the Lin Kuei scarring Sub Zero - Midway never staed this as fact, it was assumed by the fans. However, some of these instances (Like Noob Saibot's identity) are adopted by the game.
Many things have logical explanations such as Scorpion wanting to kill Liu Kang & Kung Lao - He saw them fighting alongside Sub Zero, and would have considered them a liability to him gaining revenge on Sub Zero.
The only contendable things about the plot, are factors like Jade, Kano, Baraka, Shao Khan & Shang Tsung dying, then appearing in the later games; but they wouldn't be the first Mortal Kombat characters to return from beyond the grave - Scorpion & Liu Kang, anyone? Besides, at the end of the game, Quan Chi picks up the Dragon King's amulet - It can be assumed, that it posses Onaga's ressurection powers, but in a very limited form.
If you think about things, instead of just saying "Nope, that's wrong" you can generally find an explanation. 
:Okay, let me go through it individual bit:
"When MK2 was released originally, Midway couldn't really flesh out the storyline. MK:SM does. Then people complain that X is wrong, and Y never happened."
*Why couldn't Midway flesh out the story? It's not as if the lack of technology for the game creation would effect the story, anything they say should be considered canon. 
"such as the Lin Kuei scarring Sub Zero - Midway never staed this as fact, it was assumed by the fans. However, some of these instances (Like Noob Saibot's identity) are adopted by the game."
*I'm pretty sure that it states this in the Instruction Booklet for Mortal Kombat Trilogy, or some other such source, I don't think thats a fan theory.
"Many things have logical explanations such as Scorpion wanting to kill Liu Kang & Kung Lao - He saw them fighting alongside Sub Zero, and would have considered them a liability to him gaining revenge on Sub Zero."
*No no no, this Sub-Zero, Scorpion had vowed to protect, it was the original Sub-Zero (Noob Saibot) that Scorpion wished to take revenge on, unless this is before Scorpion made any such pact.
"Jade, Kano, Baraka, Shao Khan & Shang Tsung dying, then appearing in the later games; but they wouldn't be the first Mortal Kombat characters to return from beyond the grave - Scorpion & Liu Kang, anyone?"
*When Scorpion died, he was trapped in the Netherrealm for a while, and Liu Kang came back as a corpse. If they did return for no reason what so ever, then not only would Midway have explained their return in later games, but it would also completly lower the story line. People don't just 'come back', there are reason's for their return, and those reasons are explained in later games.
"Besides, at the end of the game, Quan Chi picks up the Dragon King's amulet - It can be assumed, that it posses Onaga's ressurection powers, but in a very limited form."
*...Onaga had nothing to do with the amulet, it's not called 'The Dragon King's Amulet', and is in no way associated with him in any form until MK Deception, when Onaga pick's it up after Quan Chi's defeat. It has no powers that allow resurection, all it does is weaken the boarder's of the realms, thus making it easier to travel between, or makes it easier to merge. 
"If you think about things, instead of just saying "Nope, that's wrong" you can generally find an explanation."
*Nope, that's wrong.
- The Haunted Angel 19:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just think about things first 

message: Ugh, forgive the obnoxious length of this post. However I feel that some much needed changes be made to the “Differences” section of the Shaolin Monks article in the name of factual accuracy, and I want to back up my changes a thougroughly as I can.
Looking over this section again it seems to me that while yes there are certainly items listed here that qualify as legitimate differences, I've also noticed many supposed "differences" that have some severe holes in the logic behind them, not to mention in a few instances factual accuracy. Upon closer scrutiny it seems to me that many of these items listed suggest that whoever cited them did so intending to find differences and plot holes where there are none. I'll list them here along with my own comments.
*Kung Lao's original story was that he did not want to be the Champion of Mortal Kombat and was more of a quiet, brooding, reluctant hero who only fought when he had to. Instead, Kung Lao is depicted as being arrogant and shows resentment towards Liu Kang for winning the Mortal Kombat tournament and desires to be Champion himself. 
This one's fine, if a little nitpicky as Kung Lao's character was up until recently kept somewhat vague. I'll let it slide.
*Liu Kang was not present when the Tarkatas attacked the Shaolin Temple, his Mortal Kombat II bio made this very clear. In the game, he is present and helps fight off the Tarkata. 
Fine. 
*Raiden is said to warn the Earthrealm warriors of what is happening, but also according to his Mortal Kombat II bio, he disappears after doing so, believed to have ventured into Outworld alone. Here, Raiden (although actually a disguised Shang Tsung, but still nonetheless a change) guides Liu Kang and Kung Lao through Outworld, thus the Raiden disappearing is never known until the end of the game when originally, all of the Earthrealm warriors knew that Raiden had disappeared.
No where in Raiden's bio does it specify that the Earthrealm warriors knew of his disappearance, which is what the writer here is basing this “difference” around. His bio in MKII merely states that he disappeared. In Shaolin Monks he still disappears, however Liu Kang and Kung Lao are lured into Outworld by Shang Tsung in the guise of Raiden, which is not contradicted by the MKII game at all (it DOES however contradict the MKII comic). This isn’t a difference, it’s an elaboration.
 
*The final battle in Mortal Kombat goes about differently according to the Mortal Kombat II comic. After Liu Kang defeated Goro, becoming the new champion of Mortal Kombat, Shang Tsung challenged Liu Kang to Mortal Kombat, forcing all the other fighters into an alliance. Kano, Sonya and Johnny Cage fight an enraged Goro at the Pit while Raiden along with Scorpion and Sub-Zero fight Shang Tsung's army on the beach. After Liu Kang defeats Shang Tsung, the island begins to crumble and Liu Kang escapes on his own. Scorpion fights with Sub-Zero, killing him and then turns to ash. At the Pit, the bridge breaks and Goro, Sonya and Kano all fall to their apparent deaths while Johnny Cage manages to grab onto the edge and is saved by Raiden. In Shaolin Monks, the fighters are all at Shang Tsung's palace fighting one another, Scorpion vs. Sub-Zero, Sonya vs. Kano, Johnny Cage vs. Reptile, with no mention of Liu Kang defeating Goro. Kung Lao, who was disguised as a masked guard saves Liu Kang when Shang Tsung tries to devour his soul and then fights with Baraka, who was never confirmed to be at the tournament either. Just as Liu Kang lands his Flying Kick on Shang Tsung, Goro comes out and attacks all the Earthrealm warriors.
This is comparing Shaolin Monks to the MKII comic book. The storylines and character portrayals in the comic books and movies have always been completely different (and thus irrelevant) from the video games' continuity. The only reason an exception is being made here is that the MKII comic in question was written and drawn by John Tobias himself (co-creator of the MK games/franchise). It is argued that at the time of its writing that it was intended to be a part of the video games' story but has since been invalidated by Shaolin Monks thus constituting a "retcon" or story difference. I'm personally up in the air on the subject. However what I don’t understand is why is the difference cited only quibbling with the opening of both the comic and the game when the ENTIRE comic is invalidated by the entire game? Why isn’t the comic itself listed as being contradicted? That's what I propose be changed; rather than quibble over just the introductions (and waste a ton of space summerizing it), it instead simply be said that the story of Shaolin Monks completely contradicts the story of the comic.
*Shang Tsung opens a portal and escapes to Outworld with Goro, Kano, Baraka, Reptile, and most strangely among fans, Scorpion following him through. It begs the question as to how Scorpion could've gotten back to kill Sub-Zero and why you see Reptile on the Pit bridge later on.
This is the final sentence of the above paragraph, however I feel it should count as a separate difference. Apparently the timeline of Scorpion's murder of the elder Sub-Zero has been slightly changed; instead of killing him at the Tournament as has been long established, Shaolin Monks states several times in dialogue that Scorpion kills him just shortly after the tournament (possibly in the direct aftermath, during the other warrior's escape).
 
*In his Mortal Kombat II bio, it is stated that Shao Kahn was the one who gave Shang Tsung his youth back which set Mortal Kombat II's story into motion. In Shaolin Monks, he gets his youth back at the Soul Tombs.
 
This is a case of "just because it isn't shown or mentioned doesn't mean it didn't happen." Once again the reference to Shao Kahn granting Tsung his youth is a vague allusion in the written text that constitutes the MKII story that can be interpreted in a number of ways. The MKII story flatly states that Shao Kahn has Shang Tsung's youth restored. In Shaolin Monks the player perceives the game entirely from the perspective of its heroes (Kang and Lao), whom barge in on a ceremony conducted by several Shadow Priests that restores Tsung's youth. Now the MKII story text never specifies that Shao Kahn personally restored Shang Tsung's youth. It's entirely conceivable that Shao Kahn granted Tsung permission to undergo the youth restoring ceremony that we see taking place in Shaolin Monks. This seems to me to be an alternative interpretation rather than an outright alteration. An alteration would be if the game made clear that Tsung had gone over the head of Kahn and gotten his youth restored without Kahn knowing of it and disapproving of it. If that were the case, then I would leave the difference cited as is. But it isn’t, hence my problem with this part of the article.
*Aside from a brief mention of the character, there is no further information about the impending Sindel resurrection in Mortal Kombat Trilogy. 
Um... why would there be? That's an event that doesn't occur until MK3/Trilogy, so why would there be mention of it in a game that takes place largely in between I and II? Aside from the possibility of foreshadowing, which is purely optional to the writer at this stage in the story. After all, the same event wasn't mentioned in MKII so why would it be in a game that's mainly a lead in to it?
*There is no mention of Sub-Zero's mission to complete his brother's failed assignment to assassinate Shang Tsung.
 
Once again "just because it isn't shown or mentioned doesn't mean it didn't happen." Though in this case I will concede that it is very bad writing to not acknowledge such an important story event (whereas the quibble regarding Shang Tsung's youth restoration was a minor detail). However even though it’s never mentioned, it’s also never contradicted either. And in anycase it can also be argued why would Sub-Zero, an assassin for a highly secretive clan of ninja-esque warriors, just rattle off the details of his current assignment to two random monks he just met?
Why Goro is killed by Johnny Cage in the game? 
*Goro is not thought to be dead after Mortal Kombat, nor does it seem he goes into exile until he reemerges in Mortal Kombat Gold, since Kitana and Mileena know where he is. 
I agree that there is a change here, though I disagree as to what that change is. Goro is still seemingly killed (which is the point where he goes into exile). What's changed however is WHEN this event occurs. It had originally been established in MK lore that he was thought to have been killed in the first Mortal Kombat tournament. Now it's been moved to a battle in between the first tournament and the Outworld tournament. That I would list as a difference. What's listed here is that the story was changed to where he never went into exile, which is certainly not the case.
*In Noob-Smoke's Mortal Kombat: Deception ending, it is mentioned that Sub-Zero and Noob Saibot have not seen each other since before Noob Saibot became a wraith.
 
Agreed.
*Quan Chi getting the amulet at the end of the game spurred a huge controversy among fans of the series. It is believed that Quan Chi had it since the end of Mortal Kombat Mythologies: Sub-Zero. Here, it is rather strange that Shao Kahn has it and Quan Chi gets it from him. 
Once again agreed.
Other controversial matters:
*The reasons behind Scorpion's boss battle has been highly criticized by fans, who felt it was out of character for Scorpion to just go after Liu Kang and Kung Lao all of a sudden. This made it look like Scorpion had an evil alignment, even though Scorpion is meant to be a neutral character throughout the course of the MK timeline. 
Okay.
*Kitana being under a spell: The official Kitana and Mileena comic book (which is based on the Mortal Kombat series, and was approved and written by John Tobias) does state that Kitana was under a spell, but it was a spell to make her forget whom she truly was (as Shao Khan wanted her as his daughter). In Shaolin Monks however, Kitana is under a spell that makes her evil and under the "faithful command" of Shao Khan. This actually never happened.
 
Once again this is a difference from the MKII comic rather than the actual games, which I’m still iffy on. However in this case there are some major factual errors here. I have the MKII comic and no where in it does it specify that Kitana is under a spell of any kind. This is a complete fabrication. And further more in Shaloin Monks, where Kitana IS under a spell, no where does it say that the nature of the spell is to make her purely evil. It does point out continuously however that the spell has affected her memories. So it would seem that whoever contributed the above to the article had reversed the facts around to create a difference where there is none. 
It has never been said one way or the other whether or not Kitana had been placed under a spell in MKII in either the Tobias comic or the game (all the game says on the matter is that she was deceived by Kahn, which like many of the problems I have with the differences cited, is a vague allusion that can be interpreted in a number of different ways. Shaolin Monk’s claim that she’d been placed under a spell isn’t a difference, it’s an addition made to the story. Whether or not it’s a NECISARY addition to the story that strengthens or weakens it is completely beside the point; that’s a matter of individual opinion, not a story difference that can be factually disputed.
*Jade, Ermac, Reptile, Scorpion, Baraka and Kano's deaths. 
All fine here except for one significant detail: Scorpion's name should not be on that list. It's absolutely inane to count a character's death as a "controversial plot point" when its been more than firmly established that said character is undead and able to just come back from each successive "death" time and again. 
*Kung Lao scarring Sub-Zero with his hat: This is non canon to what really occured. The real mythology of Sub-Zero states that Sub-Zero was scarred during his escape from the Lin Kuei. It is not clear whether or not Sub-Zero met Kung Lao during the second Mortal Kombat (which is unlikely, since he was focused on completing his brother's failed mission) and on the begining of Mortal Kombat 3, Sub-Zero makes his unmasked debut with the scar. Plus, there was no official backstory on what happened (though it is through popular belief that Sub-Zero's scar came from the Lin Kuei). 
I don't know why this is listed as a "controversial matter". Contrary to popular opinion, it’s never been officially stated in MK lore how Sub-Zero acquired his scar. Apparently this is thought by many to have been officially explained by a line in Sub-Zero's MK3 bio that states he had been "marked for death by his own clan". Many fans interpret this has meaning that the Lin Kuei had literally "marked" him with his signature scar. However its been officially stated by Ed Boon (co-creator of MK) that the line "marked for death" in Sub-Zero's MK3 bio was meant to have been read figuratively; marked for death is a common figure of speech meaning "to place a bounty on one's head". Hence this should not be listed as a difference, as this is an issue that has yet to be explained at all until now. This cited difference even admits that it has yet to be officially explained;
Plus, there was no official backstory on what happened (though it is through popular belief that Sub-Zero's scar came from the Lin Kuei). 
Popular belief is irrelevant. The whole assumption over the origin of Sub-Zero’s scar is purely “fanon”. This is similar to the argument over Kitana’s spell; it’s a matter o fan opinion not fact that can be backed up with information derived from the games (or even the Tobias comic if we are to count that). This is a section that should detail factual differences, changes, and discrepancies between the stories of both games. This isn’t a story change, its fan disappointment that something they had long assumed turned out to be just that; an assumption. I also have a problem with this part:
It is not clear whether or not Sub-Zero met Kung Lao during the second Mortal Kombat (which is unlikely, since he was focused on completing his brother's failed mission) 
Ah but they DID meet; in both Shaolin Monks AND the MKII comic, which is a source cited for many of these “differences”. Why is it that that comic gets brought in to back up a claim to a difference but quietly forgotten when it suits the complaint?
*Quan Chi already bearing his tattoos. 
Definitely agreed.
For the time being I'll make the corrections as I've listed above. If anyone disagrees with my logic and/or the validity of my information, feel free to post your thoughts and corrections. I very much love and appreciate this site as a database for accurate and factual information and feel that as registered users we have an obligation to keep the information as accurate as possible for every article, no matter how obscure or trivial.
You, my friend, are a genius. I completely agree with this. - The 4th Snake
 I agree and you wern't kidding that WAS long Ilikevideogames 15:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Points of contention on the "Differences between Shaolin Monks and Mortal Kombat II storyline" section. Part II. 

message: I noticed someone removed the image gallery and integrated them into the game - was there a particular reason for that? The gallery was a better option than having atopical images scattered around the article.Virogtheconq 14:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image Gallery

message: Is Shaolin Monks only An Adventure game or there is the option to fight 1 vs 1? And if this is possible can you do it in single player or on multiplayer only? And how many characters are in the versus game?
There is a versus mode which you can access from the main screen, and theres about 7 or so characters, not sure the total amount. - The Haunted Angel 16:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there only Adventure Mode? 

message: Hit up the MK Online "Fight Night" chat/interview interview with the MK design team here: 
http://www.mortalkombatonline.com/content/kom/transcripts/MKSMTEAM_10-03-2005.txt
They state pretty clearly that Shaolin Monks is meant to be taken as canon, minus most of the boss deaths which were thrown in purely for fun.
Right away there that nixes most of the "main" plotholes that supposedly exist in this game. Granted there are still a few more legit ones, but they are largely of the nitpicky variety (like Quan Chi's tattoos). Add to that that this game is told ENTIRELY from the POV of Liu Kang and Kung Lao, allowing for NUMEROUS previously established plot points that were not acknowledged in the game to still occur. 
Also a word on Reptile: This gets glossed over a lot (and I mean a LOT), but it bears repeating: Reptile at his highest evolved state (that we've seen him in) has the OPTION of donning a human DISGUISE. He can (and has) dropped the disguise numerous times throughout MKII and MK3 (look to any of his fatalities, and his acid spit special), before he began his "de-evolution". His de-evolution meant that not only would his reptilian form change, but that he could no longer don his human form, and also would lose his intellect and memories.
In other words: there's nothing "non-canon" about Reptile appearing minus his human disguise in Shaolin Monks, especially when his reptilian form in this game (minus the new costume) is nearly identical to what it looked like when he unmasked in MKII (where this game falls before/into chronologically).
Hope any of this helps out some. Fuad Ramses 22:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering I am a bit of a purist when it comes to MK, and my constant denial that this game is canon, it helps out a lot. I was about to make a post saying "Let's stop discussing it and just leave the canon as Disputed", but now I'm willing to say that it is a canon source, so long as there is nothing that contradicts other sources. It is canon, but there are numerous elements in it that make it non-canon. And as for pointing out the Reptile bit.. ~slaps head~ I can't believe I didn't realise that before. In MK II he rips off his own face, where you can see his lizard-like appearance, so forget calling that bit non-canon (although it's true we never once see him in his 'Ninja' outfit, guess that's kinda irrelevant though). It's obvious Quan Chi's tattoo's are wrong - but as for the Amulet bit... I dunno. I mean, it is clearly possible that Kahn somehow came into possession of the amulet some time after MKM, and Quan Chi got it back. That part is left up to speculation, but as we cannot speculate here, we should point out that until it is retconned, it is a plot hole (or rather, mention that it is implying the speculation that I made, although that is a bit of a weasel-worded statement). And of course, the boss fights should be taken as non-canon, as you stated. But until we make any real choices, I would ask anyone interested in sorting out this article discuss here what to do about that amulet bit, going on what I stated a few lines up. Any thoughts? ≈ The Haunted Angel (The Forest Whispers My Name) 23:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe it is up to us to decide which parts of the game are canon or not. Unless Midway has stated specifically for the players to ignore certain aspects in the story, there's no real reason why we should discount all the deaths and innaccuracies in the game. Doing so would be original research. Anyway, I'll try to compile a list of arguments for and against the game's canonicity just to see what I can come up with. MarphyBlack 23:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But did the above link not say that the boss fights are not to be taken as canon, as Fuad Ramses said? (I'm too lazy to check. Someone do it for me.) ≈ The Haunted Angel (The Forest Whispers My Name) 23:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the interview, the guy who answers the question about the deaths (John Edwards, one of the lead designers for Monks) states that they wanted to "suspend belief a little bit" in order to allow players to perform fatalities on bosses. Taking this one statement as proof to declare "Yeah, the game is definitely canon except for the parts where people die" seems reading a bit too much into it as I don't quite see that meaning being expressed. He then says that the other option in the game was to simply have the bosses run away when defeated, which they didn't believe would be very entertaining. However, I would point out that this is exactly what happens in Armageddon's Konquest mode after Taven defeats many of his foes, a game released 'after' Shaolin Monks. Considering that this is the one of the few, if not only, counter-arguments against the non-canon status of the game made using an official statement by Midway, I don't think it can be taken as a conclusive answer to the situation. MarphyBlack 07:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then how about this: We, as stated above, are in no posistion to decide the canon status of SM. We cannot say that it is, and we cannot say it isn't - even if we were on a gaming forum of some sort. The fact that we are on Wikipedia means that it's probably wrong to even discuss this as much as we have, let alone decide the canon status for or above Midway. So I suggest we forget calling it 'Canon' or 'Non-canon' and just leave it as 'Disputed'. Anyone is interested in the canon-status of the game, we tell them that fans and all alike are in disagreement of the canon of the game, and it remains as "Disputed". A similar thing has happened over at the Cradle of Filth article, only with their genre instead. No one can decide what they are (if anything), so it's just left as "Disputed". ≈ THA //See Evil//Speak Evil//Hear Evil// 10:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What "disputed"? The opinion of makers on their own game, by some nerds from the Internet? The perceived "inaccuracies" (I don't think developers care so much, after all this series was never meant to be serious since the MK2 at least - the plot is fun and silly, and the game self-parodies itself constantly) should be in trivia or something. --HanzoHattori 18:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether you like it or not, a dispute of the game's canon status does exist. While I won't go as far to declare which side is a majority or minority, this is a very prominent issue that is worthy of mention here. I suppose the article should remain neutral and non-commital as to which side is correct, of course. MarphyBlack 23:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who the heck cares about the majority of nerds? They don't have the IP/copy rights to decide themselves. You can write about what YOU think about the game on your livejournal or whatever, this is ENCYCLOPEDIA. Protip: "the side" correct here is the developers, "the side" wrong is a bunch of nerds. These things would go the trivia section, at best (or goofs at IMDb, maybe). The issue is clear, that's why I remove it right now. --HanzoHattori 10:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what Hanzo is saying is that characters that are killed have always returned in some form thus far, so they are not truely dead. Even Liu Kang is still there somehow.--Iamstillhiro1112 01:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You're precisely correct; this is an encyclopedia. Therefore, we should report the facts, and the fact is that there is a notably large group of players who dispute the game's canon status in the storyline (The plot conflicting with numerous previously established facts and events from just about every single prior MK game accounts for much of this attitude). But again, I would like for the article to remain neutral and non-committal as to the issue. Simply reporting this situation should not violate that. As for Liu Kang, after he died, he returned as a combination zombie and spirit thing. No explanations have ever been given as to why the bosses killed in this game didn't likewise return as decaying corpses and ghosts. MarphyBlack 00:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oh for heaven's sake.... 

message: There seems to be a inconsistancy with the game. I see that the Reptile bio in MK2 says that Reptile was Shang tsungs servant during the first tournament. It seems to imply that MK1 was the 1st tournament. It could also mean that he was his bodyguard for a long while up until MK2 or whatever. MK1 was said to be the ninth tournament. So I just replaced all mentions of "first tournament" to first Mortal Kombat game.--Iamstillhiro1112 22:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That depends on where you're getting your information from. Both MKII and Shaolin Monks refer to the first MK game as the first tournament. MK Trilogy refers to MKII as a second tournament. However, MK Trilogy also says that Goro ruled the tournament for nine generations, which would conceivably make the first MK game the tenth tournament. There seems to be a different context placed on the actual Mortal Kombat tournament and the battles involving this "generation" of characters, so make of that what you will. RobWill80 13:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First tournament 

message: Remember, when he first saw Liu Kang and Kung Lao in Outworld, he escaped to the Netherrealm, and he already knew them from the tournament. So we can see that he didn't actually want to kill them. But later, when Shang Tsung lured the monks into the Netherrealm, of course Scorpion would want to kill them, as they were there to kill him. And since he could teleport like in the game, he could easily have watched the conversation between "Raiden" and the monks. Dmr2hn1
Hmmm this does seem to make sense, so he was only doing it for his own protection. That clears up alot of things. Issac  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.253.162 (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: About Scorpion...

message: I modified the part describing the emulated MK2, because it gave the impression that it's not present in the PAL version of the game for any platform. On the contrary, I know for a fact that MK2 is present in the PAL Xbox version. I unlocked it on my original PAL Xbox version just minutes before modifying the article. Devil Master (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mortal Kombat 2

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Mortal Kombat: Shaolin Monks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110211055735/http://interviews.teamxbox.com/xbox/1010/Mortal-Kombat-Shaolin-Monks-Interview/p3/ to http://interviews.teamxbox.com/xbox/1010/Mortal-Kombat-Shaolin-Monks-Interview/p3/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111122133203/http://reviews.teamxbox.com/xbox/989/Mortal-Kombat-Shaolin-Monks/p1/ to http://reviews.teamxbox.com/xbox/989/Mortal-Kombat-Shaolin-Monks/p1/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080326232845/http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/non_broadcast/Adjudication%2BDetails.htm?Adjudication_id=40698 to http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/non_broadcast/Adjudication+Details.htm?Adjudication_id=40698
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mortal Kombat: Shaolin Monks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071208215432/http://kotaku.com/gaming/mortal-kombat/midway-delivers-a-million-armageddons-226895.php to http://kotaku.com/gaming/mortal-kombat/midway-delivers-a-million-armageddons-226895.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)