Talk:Mortal Kombat: Shaolin Monks

Actors?

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

Something to note about the storyline

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)

I don't know how can I source it but I heard Ed Boon say that on one of the videos either at IGN or Gamespot. There's also many reviews saying something like "explore the rumors" or something like that. I do believe that it is one of the videos that was made before MKSM was released.--Dark Rain

I think the article needs to be changed to say that the game may or may not be canon to the storyline. The simple fact is that fans are assuming that the game --Iamstillhiro1112 23:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)is non canon, which may be true, but there was no official statement from midway that said the game is non canon. Certain pieces of video game storyline gets retconned all the time and the storyline just retcons the comic book but still holds up to the rest of the series. I think for the sake of neutrality and to be more accurate we need to say that the game may or may not be canon to the storyline.-- Subzero961

most of the game is not canon. simple as that. anyone who thinks it is, doesn't know anything about the MK story. for one, Scorpion wouldn't attack Kung Lao and Liu Kang because he's not evil, he's neutral. that's just one of many things.

A Minor Issue

"[...] 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)

These two

A Little Respect...Or Is That Too Much To Ask?

"I'm not here to tell people what's popular- I just come out here to tell the truth"- "Rowdy" Roddy Piper

Clearly the poster below has spoken about the actual Shaolin Monks game than the actual mythology of Mortal Kombat. If you are a Mortal Kombat fan, why don't you look into it's mythology also rather than the storyline raised in Shaolin Monks? Quite apparently, your arguments, while good, only support the game, and not the actual mythology of Mortal Kombat. What's even more distressing is your arrogance in the line "I shaprly disagree with the person who has posted below me, who clearly has no idea what he is talking about". When people contribute their thoughts and opinions on the matter, they do not come to be criticised or mocked or being told that they "do not know what they are talking about".

You have raised some good point in concern of the game. The other posters however only discussed how Shaolin Monks didn't have the elements that Mortal Kombat fans were told and "believed" in. The scar issue has been one of those things: In the game, Kung Lao gave him the scar. In the mythology, it was the Lin Kuei. The mythology of Mortal Kombat has been around LONGER before Shaolin Monks. Midway probably wanted to do something different, so therefore Shaolin Monks is released- a new game that looks at the "what if" possibilities. Perhaps that's all what Shaolin Monks is: An exploration on what could have happened but didn't.

Look, in all fairness to you, you've raised some points and I respect the fact that you took the time to contribute whatever you had with the rest of us. Quite apparently, your thoughts and viewpoints may provide a wider look into the game (eg: The Noob Saibot thingy you posted was GOOD) and allow others to accept the fact that this is a different game that just technically carries the Mortal Kombat II sticker. However to say things like "he doesn't know what he's talking about" really isn't appropriate and fair to others.

And while you're at it, you should also take into account the difference in viewpoints: you're talking about the game, they're talking about the mythology of the game. There's a difference between the two.

Storyline Canon Issues

Hi, I'm the New Era Outlaw, just typing up to add my two cents here.

I currently own the Mortal Kombat: Shaolin Monks game, and I could tell you that many of the disreprancies (sp?) fans have with the game are indeed, correct, as outlined in the cutscnes of the game:

- Scorpion actually does want to kill Liu Kang and Kung Lao in the game. In the Netherrealm area, when you descend the third staircase, a cutscene featuring Sub-Zero and Noob Saibot will be triggered. Before he leaves, he warns the shaolin monks about Scorpion, saying "he wants to kill you." Also, at the end of the Netherrealm area, you fight Scorpion not once, but twice, and you will receive a Tournament Victory for defeating him. In this game, Scorpion does try to kill you (and will, if you lose to him), and no reason is given as to why he does.

- In Shaolin Monks, Kitana is under a spell (in the cutscene that follows your first fight with her, Raiden states so himself.) This is further evidenced by the fact that you are given the opportunity to break the spell in the fight against Kitana, Jade and Mileena (the objective being to weaken Kitana and place her between two statues, all the while evading Jade and Mileena and preventing them from freeing her.) If you succeed, the spell over Kitana will be broken, and you will have to fight the remaining assassins.

- In response to the reply below, remember that the events of Mortal Kombat: Shaolin Monks are not canon to the Mortal Kombat II storyline. Characters that make later appearances in games (such as Jade, Reptile and Baraka) all die in Shaolin Monks, which, if held to be true, should result in said characters being absent from future games (or their re-appearance explained.) However, this is not the case, they do appear, and they are clearly not resurrected characters in the MK storyline. Also, Shao Kahn also dies in the ending of Shaolin Monks, which if true, means no Mortal Kombat 3, since there is no Shao Kahn to attempt to merge Earthrealm and Outworld.

- Just because we as gamers do not know of Noob's identity does not mean that Sub-Zero may not have already known this. Noob-Smoke's ending in Mortal Kombat: Deception may be the result of Sub-Zero's curiousity in finding out his brother's schemes. Also, there has been little interaction between the two in the series until Deception, but that, by no means, means that there is no connection.

I am sorry, but I shaprly disagree with the person who has posted below me, who clearly has no idea what he is talking about. I do agree with the points raised with regards to Shaolin Monks' questionable canon, and I am a longtime fan of the series, who has done his research on the matter. and, in terms of resources, I will be most happy to contribute them (when I have the time), but, until then, the talk page should suffice.

Well, It does seem to be true, you know

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)

And Sub-Zero wouldn't know that his brother was Noob Saibot- how does that work out when he doesn't know of his brother's whereabouts until they supposedly encounter in MK: Deception?, this game states that Sub-Zero knew that Noob Saibot was his older brother. This was never mentioned throughout the games series- we don't even learn of Noob's identity until Deception.

The reaction page shares the general viewpoint that Hardocre MK fans would agree to. No longtime fan would agree with the points raised in Shaolin Monks, so I think the reaction page should be kept- even if the resources aren't stated- by general opinion, the issues raised in the section are true and correct- they're just lacking the resources.

i agree

this page should be updated

I'd love to update, but...

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)) RENT IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Ilikevideogames 15:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation please

Nuetrality tag posted by (Notorious4life 01:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC))

Anyone who's going to type stuff in the Reaction section, please include a cite for a notable source, so that what you have type does not appear or come off as a biased opinion. The Reaction section should not sound like an unprofessional compilation of opinions from those who may or may not have liked the game. The average person's opinion does not provide much credibility or information as far as an encyclopedic entry is concerned. Please cite and use professional opinions so that this section can be credible and factual.

• See this section of Wikipedia's encyclopedic standard guidelines for further information.

Just think about things first

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)

Your explanations are flawed

First of all, you say that Scorpion trying to kill Liu Kang and Kung Lao was explained by seeing them with Sub-Zero, no that was never said in the game, Sub-Zero just says that Scorpion wants to kill them. First of all, Scorpion is generally a neutral character who wants to just take revenge on the ones who killed his family and clan. No one else.

MK2 is about an Outworld tournament which is to distract the Earth Warriors while Sindel is resurrected. Shaolin Monks is about Shang Tsung trying to use Liu Kang and Kung Lao to overthrow Shao Kahn. Also the deaths have been confirmed by the MK Team to be non-canon and "just done for show", so thus the entire story of Mortal Kombat: Shaolin Monks is undone as Shang Tsung used those dead souls to give him more power in this game. Also Kitana's bio mentions her secretly meeting with an Earthrealm Warrior causing suspicion from Mileena, but instead we just get her under a spell. Also we don't get any allusions to Sindel's impending resurrection, it's all just tossed aside and ignored. Also tell me why does Quan Chi at the end, show up with tatoos that he got in Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance (it specifically said so in MK:DA's Konquest mode) and about Sub-Zero and Noob Saibot. It specifically says in Noob-Smoke's MK:Deception ending that Sub-Zero and Noob did not see each other since before Noob became a wraith.

Points of contention on the "Differences between Shaolin Monks and Mortal Kombat II storyline" section.

Just wanted to notify that I planned on making two corrections to this section:

1) Edit out "There is no actual tournament in Shaolin Monks." because there actually is. It's referenced to on numerous occasions throughout the game that Liu Kang and Kung Lao are taking part in the Outworld tournament, and you obtain several "Tournament Victories" for defeating certain bosses. It's a requirement for progressing in the game.

2) Edit out "Instead it is implied that his Mortal Kombat Trilogy story is taking place at the time." (referring to the younger Sub-Zero brother). This is an utter fabrication. No mention is ever made of Sub-Zero betraying the Lin Kuei clan and being hunted by the Cyber Ninjas in any manner whatsoever. True his actual MKII storyline is never referenced, but neither is his MK 3/Trilogy storyline. Implied or otherwise.

I agree with Point 1. Liu Kang says "We'll(he and Kung Lao) be competing with each other, then." - The 4th Snake

Points of contention on the "Differences between Shaolin Monks and Mortal Kombat II storyline" section. Part II.

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)

'How can I change the language in this game ? (PS2)

It says in the booklet that there are English, French, Spanish and German spoken languages, but I don't see how to choose one in the optîon menu.

I thought maybe changing the language in the configuration menu of my PS2 would work, but it does'nt seem to work either...

Could someone help me? Thanks

---

'''New Mode Discovered'''

I checked out mortalkombatonline.com it says there's a survival mode can someone test this thank you

• Yes, it's true. The MKO user sektor_rulz and I discovered it together a few days back. Goroliath

Image Gallery

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)

Is there only Adventure Mode?

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)

There are 8. Liu Kang, Kung Lao, Scorpion, Sub-Zero (2nd costume is Noob), Johnny Cage, Reptile, Kitana and Baraka. - The 4th Snake

Each character also has one or more Fatality.Ilikevideogames 15:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

What people say annoys me

The four main things are:

1. That Shaolin Monks is non-canon. In most cases this is stated without providing proof.

2. That all deaths are non-canon. People die all the time in MK. Scorpion's story revovles around him being dead and out for revenge.

3. Goro not being killed by Liu Kang. I don't think this has been said here. You don't have to kill your opponent to become the champion. In Conquest and the game continuity the Great Kung Lao didn't kill Shang Tsung.

4. That the game takes place between MK and MKII. It is MKII. Kahn's tournament. Kintaro. Kahn turning to stone after being defeated. All this is in MKII. There are three points to this: 1. As someone said "tournament victories" is the term for defeating an opponent in MKSM. 2. If Kintaro dies before MKII, Kahn wouldn't resurrect him. He didn't with Motaro. Why would he with Kintaro? 3. Kahn's defeat is different in MK3 (the whole green energy thing). Why would one thing happen twice then another happen for the third defeat?

1) It is non canon, the reason I say so, is that when I say it is, I provide plenty of proof, how there is proof.

2) Yes, Scorpion's does, but it is made known he is dead. I mentioned to someone earlier above that if someone else were to die, how is it that they are suddenly alive again? Scorpion's was fully explained, as was Johnny Cage's, and any others. Anyone who dies, dies, you can't say that people die all the time in MK, because if they die, then it is mentioned. If they are in a later game, it will mention how they came back to life, they don't just randomly bring back people who apparently died without an explination, and if they do, then you have to analize their death. How did they die? Was it in someone's ending? Then most likly, it was non canon.

3) Aparently Liu Kang did kill Goro, (this being what they said when MK II was released) but I am no expert on the matter. I think the canon plot is that Liu Kang defeated him, and he was lost and 'presumed dead', only to return in Gold, Deception and Armageddon. And true, The Great Kung Lao did not kill Tsung, but again, Conquest is not canon.

4) I changed a load of stuff that said this game is set between I and II, to emphasize that this game is two, so yes you are correct. However, we do not know that Kintaro or Motaro are infact dead, they are most probably still alive. Also, even though I remember at the end of 3 and Trilogy, when you beat Kahn he flashes green and explodes, I don't think that it is meant to be literally taken in this sense, it probably just represents that he was beaten, and the world reverted to normal. After all, why would someone explode after being defeated, only to be alive two games later? The Haunted Angel 22:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

3) The storyline in the arcade version was that Liu Kang defeated Goro, and that Goro apparently died after Shang Tsung lost control of the tournament. There's nothing stating the circumstances of Goro's alleged death, merely that he was presumed dead. It's kind of like how Sub-Zero's death was later revealed to have happened after the tournament.

4) MKII only covers the actual tournament, MKSM covers some events that happen prior to the tournament (such as the attack on the Shaolin temple). Virogtheconq 04:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion for explaining the resurrections of the characters would be an action/adventure remake of MK3. Kang and Lao could be the main characters again and it could explain Cage's death. Probably killed by Motaro. - The 4th Snake

But the point is that there is no remake of it, and therefore, MK:SM is not canon. Even if they did remake it, I doubt I would be convinced SM is canon. I mean, Cage died during MK3, that is why he got a chance to come back straight away, the others would have died during MK II, which was earlier. Oh, and Cage was killed by extermination squads, not Motaro. The Haunted Angel 18:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I know he was killed by extermination squads but, to me, it would seem better if he would help you in the game against one and Motaro would appear, fight and kill Johnny and escape. And, Angel, are you by any chance on the Midway boards? - The 4th Snake 19:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm possibly, but it's irrelivant. Anyway, erm, I think I made an account on the Midway boards, but have used it only once... or was that Mortal Kombat online? Beh, if the name is 'The Haunted Angel' then you can bet it's me =D The Haunted Angel 19:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I haven't been there for a while. It was Infernal_Angel. Oh well. - The 4th Snake 19:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I see that you like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings and Metal Gear Solid. You're cool. - The 4th Snake 19:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ^_^ Star Wars and Metal Gear Solid probably come at the top of the list, even above MK, but I havn't the effort to edit MGS and SW articles like I do MK. Personally I think the Metal Gear story/plot is the greatest ever. Hideo Kojima is a God. Star Wars is a film series I've loved since I was a kid, and still do. When I first saw your name I assumed it was a reference to MGS, as there are only three Genetic Snakes, so you're cool yourself! The Haunted Angel 20:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I came up with the name when I joined MGS:TUS. I thought someone else would have it. Glad not. - The 4th Snake 19:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Canon

Okay, since the anon editor absolutely insists on removing the "non-canon" bit, I have to ask the question: what is the exact evidence that Shaolin Monks is not canon? EVula 20:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok Im going to use this talk page, Im the guy that keeps removing it because I think its inaccurate to say that its non canon without any official word that determines whether or not its canon to the storyline. Trust me I can see why people believe its not canon, but video games retcons their existing storylines sometimes (even within MK) and I think unless someone can find evidence of a midway official saying its not canon that we should include that it may or may not be canon.-- Subzero961

Interesting, and valid, yet here are my points:

1) There are waaay too many things that don't make sense. As it has been said a thousand times, loads of people die, only to return a game later. Baraka, Shang Tsung, even Shao Kahn, how the hell does he die? Get turned to stone 'n stuff? Nah, doesn't make sense to me. Sure, they all came back in Armageddon without an explination, but here we actually see them die, rather then just assuming they are dead in previous games.

2)Quan Chi's tattooes. He didn't get those for a few years, the enscriptions in Onaga's pyramid.

3) Shao Kahn having Shinnok's Amulet. Never explained.

4) Kung Lao wanting to be MK champion. Completly goes against his bio.

5) How did Sub find out Noob was his brother?

I could go on, but those are really the main points to me. There are looooads others in the article, so yeah, explain all those. Also, I don't think that just because it is the latest installment, it automaticly makes it canon, there's just way to many points that don't add up, and if we said it was canon, there would be so much unexplained stuff. So that's it for now. The Haunted Angel ^{(The Forest Whispers My Name)} 21:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Ill give my take on it, Im in a little rush to make it to the polls so Ill be glad to further my point a little more when I get back if necessary, but here goes.

1.) Yeah Im aware that the characters who are alive died in this game and the one character that was supposed to die (Mileena) ended up living. However even though its lame this can be explained that Shao Kahn resurrected them all. We know he has the power to since he resurrects Mileena for MK3. Is it lame, yes, is it also an explanation, I would think so.

2.) Costumes havent always made sense in MK. In MK Armageddon Reptile should be in his lizard form from MKDA rather than his MKSM look. Yeah I realize his lizard form is his alt, but then that would mean his MKSM costume isnt canon. Either way one costume doesnt make sense, its just there for fun and doesnt necessarily mean anything. Or what about Noob Saibot, he has a costume that shows him with black skin and one that shows him with white skin. The actual look shouldnt be read to much within the actual storyline, its just to make characters more fun looking in the game in my opinion.

3.) I think this is one piece of storyline we have to ignore. There is no way for this to make sense that I can currently think of. Its really the only thing I personally think they messed up on.

4.) This is what I got for Kung Lao's MK2 bio, I dont really see a contridiction of the bio and him wanting to be MK Champion.

"A former Shaolin Monk and member of the White Lotus Society he is the last descendent of the great Kung Lao who was defeated by Goro 500 years ago. Realizing the danger of the Outworld menace he joins Liu Kang in entering Shao Kahn's contest."

5.) Its one of many unanswered questions in MKSM. Its something that is implied that it happened, just like you dont see Scorpion kill Sub-Zero but you know its implied that it happens. Not every little detail gets explained in Mortal Kombat.

I think your main problem in the game is that there are lots of contridictions (which I agree with). However I still havent found how this messes with the whole mythology of the games. Like I said the amulet doesnt make sense and I personally think should be ignored. However it really just replaces the comic book and alters a few biographies in MK2, it really doesnt affect the storyline much (if any) beyond MK2.--Forrest

Alright, I'll give my arguing statments for each bit.

1) I'm not a huge fan of Meleena's story, but I can't ever recall Kahn resurrecting her (and I can't be arsed to check her Wiki article. However, if she apparently died, when did this happen, because it didn't happen in MKSM, as you pointed out....). And who then, resurrected Kahn? No, Kahn's death was never mentioned, the MKII tournemant was planned by Kahn, so that he could begin the merging of Earthrealm and Outworld.

2) Reptile is in lizard form in MKA. He wears a turbon, and his lizard like features can be seen underneath (althouth the part of his mouth that sticks out, like in MKDA, is oddly missing). Noob Saibot is a wraith, and as such most probably is able to change different parts of his features. Not all costumes are canon however (they just put in certain alt. costumes because they can), but I'm guessing that his true form is the black one, as that is how he is seen in other games. Chi's only appearance in this game was under this form, not an alt costume, and how he had those tattooes is beyond me.

3) Unfortunatly, we cannot pick and choose what is canon. This one piece throws the whole credibility of MKSM into question, along with point 1. We must either accept it all, or non, however I would be willing to accept that any non-contradictary info is canon, but that'd be little more then my opinion.

4) Apparently, elsewhere (perhaps in his ending, I'm not sure) it stated that Lao was never after the glory of Mortal Kombat, he simply wished to avenge the deaths of the monks after Baraka's assault.

5) Noob's ending in MKD combined with the Konquest mode of MKA leads me to believe that Sub-Zero only ever found out that they were brothers during MK:D. The question I asked here earlier probably wasn't the best I could have asked (there are literally dozens of unexplained things in the article itself), but it was something that bugs me, especially after MK:A was released. The Haunted Angel ^{(The Forest Whispers My Name)} 00:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll just start by saying that I don't own this game yet (I'm working on it!), so I can't give an informed opinion. For my part in reverting the canon/non-canon comment, I was reacting not out of knowledge, but to what looked to be a controversial edit by an unregistered user, who didn't originally argue their case.

Anyway, the best I can find of an official view is mentioned (but not linked) in the article - the Fight Night chat event with the MK:SM team, held last year [1]. It doesn't help much - the only directly answered story question was about Sub-Zero's scar. Shaun Himmerick (not Ed Boon, as written in the article) said the "marked for death" line from MK3 is a figure of speech, and he received the scar in MK:SM.

Deaths in the storyline were not explained, but the point was made that performing Fatalities on characters was better than having them run away. Apart from that, Ed Boon said that unexplained plot points (namely Quan Chi's amulet) may be explained in future MK games, and that's it. It wasn't an outright confirmation, but I get the impression that they intended MK:SM to be canon. RobWill80 01:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The only real thing I have to say to that is, Boon and everyone said that fatalaties were better then the people 'just running away', but did you ever notice, in the Konquest of MK:A, whenever you beat someone, they do just that: run away. Which leads me to believe that the deaths in MKSM, should be taken even less seriously. The Haunted Angel ^{(The Forest Whispers My Name)} 01:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I get that idea too. I think that it may be like playing the standard MK games. I wouldn't say the Fatalities that I (the player) do in the game are a part of the canon story..., except that I don't know if they affect the story of this game (like if someone said "Oh my God, they killed Kano!" "You bastards!"). RobWill80 01:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Quan Chi also inexplicably has the amulet yet again in Armageddon, despite it last being in Onaga's possession when we last saw it. Then again, also according to Armageddon, Quan Chi is the amulet. If Armageddon was meant to explain why Shao Kahn had the amulet in the events of MKII, then perhaps it was just Quan Chi's future self travelling back in time to his past to collect his amulet form self in order for his future past self to be able to keep the amulet when his past self loses it to Onaga but still so that his future past present self has the amulet when he is turned into one and sent back to become his past past self. Clearly this must mean that Shaolin Monks is canon (But most likely not). MarphyBlack 03:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You'd think it would have been easier if Quan Chi stole the amulet back from a weakened Onaga (or maybe he was back as Reptile by then) between Deception and Armageddon, wouldn't you? :D RobWill80 05:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Instead of arguing about whether it should read canon or non-canon, why not write what the MK team stated - that the storyline was designed to be accepted as canon within the rest of the MK universe. I can't remember which interview that was from, but I know it was from one of the pre release ones. You can also add on the end 'However, the game itself contains many elements which are consider non-canon'.Angel Emfrbl 18:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is to find out what the MK team has said on the matter (The first comment was a request for evidence). That way, we would find out "whether it should read canon or non-canon". Because the MK team has the final word on it, your suggestion of saying "this is designed to be accepted as canon" would be no different than saying "this is canon".

Anyway, it would be good if there is a source for your comment about the MK team's statement, so we can put this to rest. All that I've had time to do is have a look through some developer interviews on GameSpot's website [2], and an interview done by TRMK [3]. I found exactly what I expected - Messrs. Boon and Himmerick being salesmen. They (mostly Himmerick) basically said that MK:SM is intended to retell or expand on the MKII storyline. Also, they tried to remain true to the original story (Himmerick's words, not mine).

So far, I'm still assuming that MK:SM is intended to be canon (and I still think Fatalities may be non-canon). I've read many arguments that highlight differences between this and MKII (as I'll see for myself, very soon). However, I'm wondering why differences would automatically mean that MK:SM isn't canon? RobWill80 05:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe this game to be fully canon. There is no evidence in the story that's it not canon and it may just be a remake of Mortal Kombat II. A few added things here and there to spice up the story was just a little something. Besides you still encounter Shang Tsung, Reptile, Scorpion, Sub-Zero, Kintaro, Shao Kahn, Jade, Kitana, Raiden, Cage, Baraka, Noob, and Smoke just like in MK II. Not only that but right on the Box reverse it says "Classic MK II attacks." Plus being able to unlock Mortal Kombat II mostly seals this as an adventure-style version of MK II. The only part left unexplained is Goro's return. Omega Meroid2486 13:07 , 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I really hated the "this game is not canon" bit myself. I think unless Midway themselfs said so then that line can be left out. It's kinda a bias anyway. i think wikipedia is about stating facts and letting people come to conclusions about things themselves.--Iamstillhiro1112 22:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

IMO some nerds care more bout the details of the storyline and wha not than the designers do ;) Also, as for turning to the stone, that's what happening to Shao Khan EVERY time you beat the original MK2 (the stone then explodes). Of course, you could also perform fatality on every character except him and Kintaro (including your own, I believe) - is the original game "non-canon" too? As for Mileena, it was never said she died during the tournament (and same for Goro, who later returned anyway - after all, no one ever really dies in the "Mortal" combat). --HanzoHattori 18:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Mileena did die. Read her 'UMK3 bio, her MKT ending, and Kitana's UMK3 bio. And yes, Goro was indeed thought dead after the tournament. Check the MKII intro screens. MarphyBlack 23:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Protip: "during the tournament" (geez, guys, why can't you read with understanding?). "Thought dead" means nothing (actually, even if he died, it would still mean nothing - this is Mortal Kombat). Edit: Or maybe there was actually something along these lines, I don't remember clearly. But it doesn't matter anyway - Mileena wasn't killed by the Shaolin monks, right? --HanzoHattori 10:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, alot of the endings aren't canonical in the first place. If they all were, then that means everyone killed Shao Kahn at the end of MK Trilogy. Some parts do become canonical, but not all. I'm not sure if that part of MKT was confirmed in later games.--Iamstillhiro1112 04:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake....

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Radical edits..

I think the article needed a major revision. For one, the development section wasn't really about development, but a grocery list of storyline inconsistancies. I merged all that stuff into the reception line. And I made a few more edits. Trying to make the writing look a little smoother, removing unessesary lines/words. I think the line about buddhist monks being offended that Raiden looks like a buhdist god should be clarified, like naming something specific they are angered at. Maybe the fact that he's a violent god. Whoever added that line should revise it. Also, I tried to group all the complaints about characthers together, rather than being scattered in many places.

I have issues with many of the parts of the reception section. Wikipedia, not being a place for a collection of fan made beliefs but rather facts. It consists largely of fan held beliefs. Other issues I have is :

• "The location of the "Warrior Shrine" arena was assumed to be on Shang Tsung's island, but now it's located near the Shaolin Temples." Sounds too speculative.

• "In her Mortal Kombat II ending, it tells that Kitana had learned ..." Not all endings are even canon anyway. Has that part been totally canonized in other games?

• "In Mortal Kombat II it was stated that Goro was defeated by Liu Kang" defeating don't mean always mean death.

I have issues with other parts of that article section, but these ones are the only ones I feel like addressing now.--Iamstillhiro1112 02:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look at your edit, and I'm not comfortable with what I've seen. A large concern about Shaolin Monks has been its status in the MK canon, and this section was organised so that actual canon changes were separate from assumed canon changes. Making the distinction between the two would've gone some way for users to "draw their own conclusions" on the matter. Right now, I don't understand how you've organised this information.

I'm also concerned about the wording of some of the edit. Where applicable, canon differences written here addressed events "before and after" MK:SM was released. Now that the section has been rearranged, some of the points don't make sense. I'll pick one:

• Liu Kang as being portrayed as naive (horrifying fans that he was almost like Shujinko). Liu Kang was present when the Tarkata attacked the Shaolin Temple, and helped to fight them off. His Mortal Kombat II bio made clear he was not present at the battle.

Here, you've added a comment on "naivety" at the beginning. This, as well as your rearranging of similar points, has thrown off that "before and after" approach. Also, your organising has made the second sentence in the middle of this point unintelligible, because it appears to contradict the third sentence.

Moving on, the original title of the section, "Development", was fine. Storyline is counted as a development issue, particularly where there are changes to the canon. Changes to assumed canon would be a case of reaction rather than development, but that part already had a separate title here. There are a few other minor things, such as the mentioning of the "girlfriend" line twice (the earlier instance also containing a spelling error), but these could be rectified easily.

I can address two of the points that you've made above. First, the part of Kitana's MKII ending that you are referring to gave the impression that she learned about her past "Through her years of working as a assassin..." This would be part of her back-story rather than events at the end of MKII, so it is canon. Second, Goro's condition at the time of MKII is important, since no one originally knew where he was - He was seen falling, and assumed dead. In MK:SM, he is seen returning to Outworld with Shang Tsung, and is found later in the game. So those same assumptions are not evident here.

Going back to your edit, I'm going to revert your changes, until this can be discussed properly. RobWill80 18:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you should of reverted see Help:Reverting. You are probably right, it could of been edited a bit better. I've made another edit which may be more satisfactory, it's setup as it was before I found a bit confusing.

The reception section is gonna need more work tho. It states alot of stuff about people not liking storyline changes, it's redundant, and any differences in the storyline or character portrayal should be worked into the "Differences between Shaolin Monks and the Mortal Kombat storyline" section. You can mention that fans didn't like some storyline differences but you don't need to name which ones specifically, especially since it recaps the previous section. Plus the theme of the section goes from positive reception, to negative, to positive, to negative. Might wanna keep those together to make the article flow better.--Iamstillhiro1112 23:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The edit looks fine, and I agree with your last comment (except your direction to read Help:Reverting - I was not about to leave this article messed up). RobWill80 01:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved that storyline differences stuff from the reception section. I think the article is looking better now. If only we could weed down that storyline differences section to the most important facts the article would look even better. --Iamstillhiro1112 23:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible Death Explanations

Jade: Come on, do you believe that a warrior with invincibility powers (which she uses in both MKSM and MKT) can die so easily by being stabbed with sais in the eyes after being impaled by huge spikes a few times (a trap which you use to defeat her)? I really really don't think so. Besides, if you go back to that arena where Jade died, there is no corpse, only a pool of blood.

Reptile: Come on, his race is evolved from water creatures (Seen in MKDA Krypt koffin QV) and his race is a reptilian race. Reptiles have the ability to regenerate their tails and lost limbs right? So, if Zaterrans (a.k.a. Raptors and Saurians) are evolved swimming reptiles, they can regenarate broken bones as well. And floating on the water won't make Reptile drowned, as his race are evolved from swimming reptilians.

Goro: Come on, do you think Johnny Cage's shadow kick can kill Goro that easy? In the intro, the kick did nothing so I don't believe Goro died in Wastelands. Well, he bled a lot but that doesn't mean he died. Kombatants bleed a LOT.

Kano: Because it was a secret fight, I don't believe that fatality is canon.

Baraka: Well, that was the Soul Tombs and he got impaled by Soul Swords and nearly fell into the Soul Well, so I believe that there is something about Baraka's essence be kept at the swords. He may get a new body forged in the Flesh Pits.

Shang Tsung: His MKA bio says that people who pledged their soul (including him) will return from beyond death as long as Shao Kahn lives. His bio is kinda like Tsung never got resurrected before so I'll believe that Shao Kahn kept the soul-pledgeing as a secret.

Kintaro: Soul-Pledging. Flesh Pits.

Shao Kahn: Kai's MKA ending says that Shao Kahn died in MK2 so I'll believe Shadow Priests kept him alive. Dmr2hn1 20:39 01.05.2007

Some of those seem like good explanations worth noting. And alot of it is verifiable. --Iamstillhiro1112 19:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As uplifting as it may be to try and find explinations for the deaths, a lot of those were so speculative that they'd never make an addition to the article =/ ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I do believe you are only speaking humorously. If not, then I would have to refute most of your points. For example, Liu Kang, the Ultimate Grand Champion Defender of Earthrealm Winner of Four Mortal Kombat Tournaments, died by having his neck snapped. I kind of thought that this was a joke the first time I witnessed that cut scene. Anyway, if Kang died due to a wimpy neck issue, I doubt Jade could survive being stabbed in the face. With sai. In her eye sockets. Twice. Also, I'm pretty sure Kitana says something along the lines of "You killed Jade!" or some such. The rest of your explanations are mostly synthesis of known information, which constitutes original research. Please note that no one besides Shang Tsung is said to have pledged their souls to Shao Kahn. Any claims that other of Kahn's minions must have pledged their souls as well is pure speculation, and I'm afraid you can't refute that. (Remember, Mileena didn't suddenly return from death to serve Kahn again. In fact, she had to get revived by Shinnok.)

Also, Kai's ending does not say that Kahn died in MKII. I think you're forgetting about Liu Kang defeating Kahn in MK3/UMK3 (Which is specifically mentioned in Shao Kahn's Deception bio). Also note that "demise" is most likely referring to Shao Kahn's rise in power rather than his life ("[Kai] witnessed the rise of Shao Kahn and his eventual demise at the hand of Liu Kang"). Also also note that no Armageddon endings have been determined to be canon. Any information that you derive from them is questionable at best at this point time. MarphyBlack 21:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"Shang Tsung: His MKA bio says that people who pledged their soul (including him) will return from beyond death as long as Shao Kahn lives." I think would fit in the article, with a screenshot of the bio as evidence. If there is a explenation for some of the character deaths/ressurections it can't be overlooked due to some peoples prejedice that this game should be classified non-canonical.--Iamstillhiro1112 22:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Including a mention of Shang Tsung's MK:A bio as an explanation for why so many characters can die inexplicably is most certainly original research. There's exactly zero indication that this "soul pledging" thing is supposed to suddenly explain why everyone died in Shaolin Monks. Also note that Shang Tsung's bio only mentions Shang Tsung, not anyone else, as having pledged his soul to Kahn. You're very welcome to search the bio itself for any (And I do mean any) mention of Jade, Reptile, Baraka, Kano, or Kintaro. You won't find any. MarphyBlack 21:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Liu Kang is a human, Jade is an Edenian. She has a special move which she goes invincible. She got impaled by sharp sharp spikes a few times. I bet she survived being stabbed in the eyes.

The word demise means death and Shao Kahn clearly said that his defeat in MKT left him weakened. (In his MKD bio) Kitana did say "You killed her!" but don't you think that she just thought that Jade was killed? Armageddon endings are non-canon the way they show future, canon the way they show the past. Shang Tsung did mention there are other people who pledged his soul to Shao Kahn. I don't think Mileena has a soul. Kitana said something like that in MKSM. (Although it was Shinnok who resurrected her.) Dmr2hn1 16:17 02.05.2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.214.35.210 (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

"Long ago I had pledged my soul to the emperor. That pledge was binding even beyond death. But if he were to die, so too would those who served him. At the time I believed it to be merely another empty vow, yet here I am. My soul has returned from beyond to rejoin Shao Kahn." It sounds like it is inclusive of more than one person. Especially "if he were to die, so too would those who served him".--Iamstillhiro1112 22:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Dmr2hn1 15:49 03.05.2007

Are you so bold as to name these other soul pledgers? I suppose you could be so brazen as to lie directly to my face, but I can save you the trouble and simply point out (once again) that no other names are mentioned in Shang Tsung's bio. It is not Wikipedia's position to guess or speculate (The precise opposite of adhering to NPOV and verifiable information). Besides, if you're going to use Shang Tsung's bio as catch-all explanation as to why so many characters can inexplicably die and suddenly return without reason, then why would Shang Tsung be so shocked and unfamiliar with his experiences of death after getting killed by Raiden during Deadly Alliance if he was already killed once before by having his neck snapped in MKII? MarphyBlack 02:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to name names, but the generalization can be noted. And it can be up to the reader to make their own conclusions. And if you feel the need to fill the article with more arguments then you can include Shang Tsungs apparent shock at being defeated yet again. But I reccomend against it, this article is one sided enough already. If you ask me, the whole storyline differences should either be scrapped, or it should be cut down to notable differences with references provided for the ones remaining.--Iamstillhiro1112 18:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the bio doesn't give any names. I know that since it is released. But, it mentions that there are other servants who had pledged their souls to Shao Kahn.

Oh, and by the way, the fatalities are mentioned non-canon and to be in the game just for fun. I have written the explanations because some of those characters may survive their appearant deaths. Dmr2hn1 16:46 08.05.2007

Do you have the source for that Dmr2hn1? That definately should go in the article.--Iamstillhiro1112 19:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It is said in that Fight Night chat, and the link is up in the "For Heaven's sake..." section of this page. Dmr2hn1 10.05.2007 16:25

Already found it and posted it on the page.--Iamstillhiro1112 16:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The Amulet

Ed Boon said in that Fight Night chat that the amulet in MKSM doesn't have to be the same amulet which Quan Chi got in MKM so I'll believe that the amulet in MKSM is the fake one which Shinnok used in MK4 but failed because it was a fake. Dmr2hn1 20:41 01.05.2007

Kitana's Spell

Mileena says: "We were given a spell to control her." so this spell is new, used for controlling the renegade princess who has been seen talking to an Earth warrior. Mileena also said: " Jade was my... Kitana's best friend. Until Jade was forced by Shao Kahn to hunt her down and bring her back." This means that Kitana has indeed learned of the truth about her real parents and allied with Earth warriors, this resulted her being captured by Jade and Mileena and be put under a controlling spell. Dmr2hn1 20:44 01.05.2007

First tournament

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)

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)

Well, Goro supposed to of won the tournament from the Great Kung Lao. so that means there was tournaments before the first MK game. I guess that must mean that there was a tournament or two before the tournament Goro defeated KL in for him to of been a champion then. Which means there has been more than 9 tournaments. So it might not be possible to number the tournaments. I think mentioning MK1 by game name is the way to go.--Iamstillhiro1112 15:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

About Scorpion...

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)

About Jax...

Remember the Eye of Chitian from Mortal Kombat Special Forces, the stone that could open portals? Jax brought the stone to Earthrealm with Kano when he teleported to Earth from Outworld. He could easily have kept the stone in the Special Forces HQ, and later taken it with him to Outworld to easily get back. That easily explains the portal he opened in Shao Kahn's prison where Sonya was kept. And the Eye of Chitian could also be their starting point for the portal technology in MK3. Dmr2hn1

Mortal Kombat 2

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)