Talk:Cranky Kong

Neutrality Issues

It's never been truly proven that Cranky Kong is Donkey Kong Sr. While Rare has stated this, it has never been substantiated by Miyamoto or anyone else at Nintendo. -- A Link to the Past 22:12, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

And that line is retconned, if it was ever Nintendo's word in the first place. Donkey Kong is, at this very moment, referred to as Mario's oldest villain, and so any comment from Rare OR Nintendo is either unofficial or retconned. -- A Link to the Past 21:06, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I have found evidence to the contrary. This video is from some sort of promo for the game back during the production of Donkey Kong Country. I believe that this, coupled with the other facts, is enough to warrant that Cranky Kong is, indeed, the original antagonist. The statement is at approximately 3:20: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7511271855512729880 Flame0001 01:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course, Nintendo's word is always above Rare. By far. They own the characters, whereas Rare does not, so they have the final say.

Be that as it may, the current state of the article is too biased, mentioning the possibility of him being the original DOnkey Kong in only one sentence. I move we rectify this. 66.167.140.112 02:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Proven, verified. The manual shipped with the Nintendo seal of approval on it: I'd show it to you but my copy of the manual is in a box somewhere.

On the other hand, here's a transcribe of the original manual.

Cranky Kong, aging video game pioneer and primate patriarch, swayed back and forth in his rocking as he harrassed his grandape, Donkey Kong, and his little buddy, Diddy Kong.

"Well, I've got to admit, your last adventure was a bit more successful than I ever thought it would be..." he jibed. "Course, put a few fancy graphics and some modern music in a game, and kids'll buy anything nowadays..."

Donkey and Diddy tried to discreetly cover their as they stared out into the jungle surrounding Cranky's cabin. The old ape continued his taunting.

"Back in our days, understand, we had an extremely limited color palette to work with, and we still made great games...No way you could duplicate that feat today, Donkey my boy! No siree!" Existentializer 21:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

So, if it turns out that they have to look at every line of code and every line of text in the game and manual for them to give it a seal of approval, how does that make him Donkey Kong when they call the current DK the original? -- A Link to the Past 21:44, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

WTF? There is nothing wrong with pointing out that Nintendo have made two contradictory statements on the matter. And before you ask, remember that ANY game which gets the Nintendo Seal of Approval has ALL aspects of it reviewed by Nintendo's censors.

I really don't understand what your problem is, but you obviously have one, so try explaining it in talk please. I've put MY evidence front and center.Existentializer 21:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Understand this: I'm STILL waiting for you to explain how your so-called evidence proves that Nintendo read it. All legal games have the Seal of Approval on them, and they do not read the content of every single game on every single console they make! Rare made the statement on a game that Nintendo approved, but that does NOT mean that Nintendo agreed with them. -- A Link to the Past 21:56, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

NOTHING gets printed with the Nintendo Seal unless they have approved it.

Haven't you seen all the shit Square went through with the Final Fantasy series?

Get a clue and quit being a little fanboy. Nintendo approved contradictory statements, it's accurate information and deserves to be there. Existentializer 22:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

So, it's a fight of a fanboy asking for facts and an unbiased (unbiased my ass) gamer who *drum roll* is speculating on what Nintendo's opinion is.

1. You STILL haven't proven that Nintendo (Nintendo Corporate Ltd., not the American division, which has NOTHING to do with the original DK games outside of translation) agrees with this statement.
2. Rare made the statement. You can't even prove that NoA agrees with it!
3. Don't even bother replying unless it includes a statement from Nintendo on how games get their seal of approvals. -- A Link to the Past 22:16, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Yawn. Comments from 5-year-old kiddie fanboy wannabes shall henceforth be ignored.Existentializer 22:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

So, you're not even attempting to prove your argument? Stop being a troll. This isn't the idiotic forum that you spawned from - add it because you can PROVE it. Tell me why NoA somehow represents Donkey Kong on officiality. TELL me where it says that they take care in giving Seals of Approval to games. -- A Link to the Past 22:21, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I already proved my argument. The fact that you're a 5-year-old kiddie wannabe who won't admit that his favorite company made two contradictory statements is immaterial.Existentializer 22:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

You said you were ignoring me. Ha, you fail. Anyway, make an attempt at upholding the Guidelines. You SAY that the Seal of Approval is proof that they approve of that single statement. The Seal of Approval, at least then, was put on because they are LICENSED, not because they approve of their content, manual or otherwise. -- A Link to the Past 22:27, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with A Link to the Past here. Rare made a dumb statement that was overlooked by Nintendo. Since Nintendo is the trademark owner, I would consider them the final source for any matters of continuity. The Nintendo Seal of Quality isn't exactly a big deal; all it means is that the game, accessory, or whatnot meets Nintendo's standards for "quality." It was concocted to help fight the proliferation of unlicensed NES games. --Slowking Man 22:31, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed with Slowking. Existentializer, please, discuss rather than mindlessly revert.

James F. (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of this.

On the one hand, Nintendo apparently made an official statement after the fact (can you give the specific reference/link to this statement, btw?). On the other hand, we have the Nintendo Seal of Quality, which according to their text is only placed after a review process of the game; there HAVE been games which were disallowed or their content altered before Nintendo would allow it to be published. Nintendo also, at the time of production of these games, had licensed them to RARE but were working in heavy collaboration since Nintendo had a 49% ownership stake in RARE itself.

I see nothing wrong with pointing out that the two are contradictory, and where. It's also safe to call Nintendo's later statement a ret-con, isn't it?Ni-ju-Ichi 02:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The idea that they contradicted themselves is baseless. The one argument that they approved of what Rare said in the manual, the Seal of Quality (which he claims was used to point out that they approved of it at all points), was actually shown to represent any licensed game. There is no argument that they contradicted themselves, because not only did they not write it, they didn't even agree with it (and if they did, they never, ever said so). -- A Link to the Past 02:52, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

What about this: "Although Cranky is a member of the Kong family, his exact relation to Donkey Kong is unclear. It has often been suggested that Cranky Kong is DK's grandfather, and although ABC would suggest this is the case, XYZ says otherwise." Seems like that would be fairer and easier - I only know what I got from playing Donkey Kong Country, but I personally assumed he was DK's grandpa. Except it doesn't matter if that's true or not because, like stardates (which Star Trek fans spent hours trying to rationalize and pinpoint to a real calendar system despite numerous inconsistencies), I don't think they intended to spell it out - otherwise he'd be Grandpa Kong or Annoying Old Man Kong or Great Uncle Kong. -Schrei 11:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

That's okay, except it should be worded that he is his father or grandfather, and specify that he is not Donkey Kong based on Nintendo's word. Rare has infinitely less say on the issue than Nintendo, and thusly, Nintendo's word should be used. -- A Link to the Past 23:36, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

You missed my point. Wikipedia's looking for a NPOV so we don't need to expressly state that he is or isn't something - just lay out the facts and maybe include that some fans feel this or that way and let people decide for themselves. -Schrei 09:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

They don't have a problem with the POV of the owner of the character. -- A Link to the Past 09:59, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Rare created Cranky Kong. It is clearly stated in the Donkey Kong Country manual that he is the original Donkey Kong, and nothing in any of the games contradicts this. He constantly references the old arcade games as being "back in my day," and the whole point of his character is that he's a grumpy old man who longs for the days of old video games. To be fair, there are some things, such as Smash Bros. bios that say otherwise but those aren't entirely accurate either (for example, Daisy's bio cites an appearance in Mario Golf when her first appearance since Super Mario Land was Mario Tennis). Think of it this way: if you were settling a dispute about a motion picture, would you believe the director or the studio? -Chiphead 15:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

How 'bout the screenwriter?

Protected

Since you two can't seem to come to an agreement, I've protected the page. Revert wars are harmful. When an agreement is reached, request unprotection. I did note above that I lean towards A Link to the Past's position, but this is just an opinion gleaned from a cursory examination. In other words, I'm not attempting to impose his viewpoint on the article (if you check the history, you'll see that I actually protected on the Existentializer-reverted version). --Slowking Man 23:36, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Upon the request of A Link to the Past, I have added the accuracy dispute template to the article. --Slowking Man 00:20, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I can understand a dispute over, say, Palestine or George W. Bush... but a Nintendo character? What's the Wikiworld coming to? -Schrei 07:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't believe that we don't just focus on making sure articles on real-world things are of quality. -- A Link to the Past 08:39, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how one gets into an edit war over Cranky Kong but... when this is unprotected some of the quotes should be moved to wikiquote. Thanks. gren 08:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why there's a disagreement here, the only disagreement should be weither or not the current Donkey Kong is Donkey Kong Jr. or not. The only people who have ever had an arguement about Cranky Kong not being the original Donkey Kong are the people who worship Miyamoto and the arcade Donkey Kong games. Cranky Kong is stated to be the Original Donkey Kong, and if you will recall, Donkey Kong Jr., who is the current Donkey Kong (Confirmed by Leigh Loveday who wrote the story for Donkey Kong Country) had a feud with Mario as well. It was a little game called Donkey Kong Jr., where Mario kidnapped Donkey Kong Sr. Perhaps you played it? -- Nintenfreak.

The only people who have ever had an arguement about Cranky Kong not being the original Donkey Kong are the people who worship Miyamoto and the arcade Donkey Kong games. - Hence my comparison to the more "extreme" Star Trek fans. Anyway, I found a page that shows the pros and cons of Cranky Kong being Donkey Kong's father. Scroll down a bit and it has a table where they basically prove my early point: Nintendo didn't care enough to keep a family tree. Based on the links in the article (all of which are from either Nintendo, Rareware or the actual game) I think we can safely say there's no way to tell. -Schrei 01:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Nintendo said that DK is DK, so CK =/= DK. This is not a case of someone losing authority on the series; Gene Roddenberry lost it and never got it back. Miyamoto willingly gave it to Rare for four games and then took it back. -- A Link to the Past 02:18, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

When did Nintendo say that? I demand evidence for this most unfounded claim. Miyamoto can't turn games into gold by whizzing on them, he's not God. Rare created Donkey Kong the way it is today, and if it were not for their creations, Donkey Kong would be a bit player in cameo games. I don't care what Nintendo says, fact of the matter is they gave Donkey Kong up for dead and Rare took it in, and treated it like a child. Nintendo can say whatever the hell it wants now that the custody battle is over, Rare's Donkey Kong's real father, and they are the bottom line. -- Nintenfreak

Congratulations, for a DK fan, you certainly have NO ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF DONKEY KONG!

1. I guess them giving Rare millions of dollars and having Miyamoto supervise each of the Donkey Kong Country games isn't good enough for you, right?

2. Rare did NOT pick it up, Rare was given the privilege to make it.

3. Unfounded? You assume that because you haven't read a statement from Nintendo, that it's not true?

4. Since he was created, Nintendo owned 100% of it. Rare only made four games and the DESIGNS of the Donkey Kong characters. Miyamoto and other members of Nintendo had MUCH to do with the creation of Donkey Kong's personality, the storyline he's involved in and his history. Rare is only credited for the design of Donkey Kong.

5. At what point was it ever stated they had no interest in making DK an established character? Never? There we go then.

6. Where do you get off calling him a bit player? I didn't realize the villain of games = bit player. It's obvious that Donkey Kong was not being retired; He appeared in several games before Country.

7. You know what's hilarious? Nintendo asked Rare to make DKC, so, THEY wanted to make a sequel. Rare didn't save DK from being destroyed.

8. They own the copyright on DK, not Rare.

9. Where do you get off calling Rare the biological father of DK? Miyamoto was the one who spent his time and energy (along with Gunpei Yokoi) to make Donkey Kong. They named him, they designed him, and they made the plot.

10. The reason they shoved Country over to Rare was because they had many projects. Fire Emblem: Seisen no Keifu, Super Metroid, Super Punch-Out!!, Wario's Woods, Fire Emblem: Monshou no Nazo, Super Mario Land 3: Wario Land, Tetris 2, StarTropics 2: Zoda's Revenge, Tetris & Dr. Mario, Kirby's Block Ball, Virtual Boy Wario Land, Red Alarm, Galactic Pinball, Mario's Tennis, Teleroboxer, Mario's Picross, BS Fire Emblem Akaneia Senki 4: Hajimari no Toki, EarthBound, Kirby's Avalanche, Vegas Stakes, BS Fire Emblem Akaneia Senki 2: Akai Ryuuki Shi, BS Fire Emblem Akaneia Senki 3: Seigi no Tozokudan, BS Fire Emblem Akaneia Senki 1: Palace Kanraku, Donkey Kong (GB), Tin Star, Wario Blast: Featuring Bomberman!, Kirby's Dream Course, Bomberman GB, Stunt Racer FX, Uniracers, Adventures of Lolo (GB), Yoshi's Safari, Kirby's Adventure, Mario and Wario, Super Mario All-Stars, Yoshi's Cookie, Star Fox, and more. Why are you such an insult to Donkey Kong? Rare doesn't have the authority to say something like that. If Miyamoto doesn't agree with it, it's just not true. -- A Link to the Past 04:52, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to point out that Gene Roddenberry didnt lose control of anything - he died, which caused some controversy later on about what Mr. Roddenberry would or would not have approved of in the Trek universe. Back to the subject at hand... A Link to the Past, it's clear that you care about this subject a great deal. Rather than debate logic and semantics, could you provide a web address or scan of a physical document? I think that's all anyone is asking for. In any case, please refer to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which reads as follows:

The policy is easily misunderstood: It doesn't assume that writing an article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view is possible. Instead it says to fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct (stress mine). Crucially, a great merit of Wikipedia is that Wikipedians work together to make articles unbiased.

Thus, I stand by my original suggestion of stating that some feel one way while others feel another way, giving whatever evidence (if any) is available, and leaving it at that before this page starts to look like Talk:Islam. :). -Schrei 08:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Ask yourself this - does Rare have the authority over DK? No. Nintendo never commented on Cranky Kong being DK back when Rare owned it, but after DK64, Nintendo began to say that Donkey Kong was Mario's oldest rival. I've never seen it documented on the internet; but it is said in the Mario Parties. Rare's word is nothing anymore, and thusly, should not be treated as official. -- A Link to the Past 09:42, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

"A Link to the Past", will you please get off your fanboy soapbox for five minutes and admit that, even if your statements are correct (which you have yet to provide proof of), all it proves is that Nintendo retconned the statements put forth by Rare? Existentializer 14:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

You're calling me a fanboy? You give one single piece of evidence that Nintendo agreed. It was proven wrong. You continue on refusing to accept that Nintendo has never shown support of this idea, yet you continue to worship Rare on the matter of Cranky Kong. Their statement is no longer official, if you'll note. If Nintendo and Rare disagree, Nintendo's word is correct because it's their property and their say, and if they feel that they're right, then they're right. Rare is a lackey, not a leader. Put in a note saying that Rare says it, but it will always be shown that Nintendo, the copyright holder, does not share this belief. Do not put in that they contradict themselves, because they neither made the statement or agreed with it; Hell, it can't even be shown that Nintendo knew the statement existed. -- A Link to the Past 14:29, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Their statement is no longer official,, meaning it once was. Nintendo retconned it. No big deal, happens all the time. But there is no harm in stating this fact.

It is up to YOU to present your case. This means giving us a damned link to the supposed press release, given that it is NOT referenced in Wikipedia's own Donkey Kong page.

Now like I said, get off your damn fanboy soapbox and justify yourself with some evidence. Existentializer 14:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

No, it does not mean it once was. I mispoke (and I predict that you'll focus your entire argument on this, since you got nothing else). It was never official, it was just that Nintendo had never denied it (or agreed with it). Why are you insisting that I have to accept it as retconned when you STILL haven't actually proven that they even knew it existed? And fun fact: I JUST SAID THAT IT WAS STATED IN MARIO PARTY. Games are not freaking press releases, and I was hoping that no one would think it would. Then, I met you. Aren't you the one who said Nintendo agreed with their statement? It's not my responsibility to disprove you anymore; Your only piece of evidence shown was the Seal of Quality, but I had shown that the Seal of Quality means licensed, not that they approved of the content of the manual or game. Now, you must supply additional proof as to why Rare's statement is at all official. -- A Link to the Past 14:47, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

You finally show a source, and your source is "Mario Party"? Rare stated in MULTIPLE games at the time that Cranky was the original. Why is "retcon" such a hard idea for five year old kiddie fanboy wannabe minds to understand? You alternately claim that Miyamoto was intimately involved in the DK Country titles (1. I guess them giving Rare millions of dollars and having Miyamoto supervise each of the Donkey Kong Country games isn't good enough for you, right?) and then scream bloody murder about how Nintendo didn't know the statement existed?

Be calm. Be peaceful. Go back to school please and stop trolling here, fanboy. Our alternative is to call the nice men in the white coats to take you away.Existentializer 15:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I have a feeling you have a reason for not addressing the fact that your evidence that Rare's word is official ceased to exist.

Anyhow, for one, if finally means freaking long ago, then yes, I "finally" said that an official Mario series says in game that DK is Mario's oldest rival. Let's just assume (for a second) that Nintendo has a reason for why they NEVER said that Cranky Kong is Donkey Kong - example, they could just not agree with it? Maybe!

And I didn't realize that Miyamoto was involved with placing the manual text in the game. Assuming the text is even in the game. Is it now?

And, considering the fact that everyone is telling you to stop flaming and putting that paragraph up without proof substantiating it, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that what you're doing is trolling? And perhaps, my supporting the Guidelines of Wikipedia is not? Wikipedia says to show sources that actually have the authority to say what you said they did. You haven't. Again, the statement that Cranky Kong is Donkey Kong only appeared in the MANUALS of Rare developed games. Not even in the manuals of Nintendo developed DKs. There must be a good reason why the only statement regarding DK's history lately doesn't even imply Cranky to be the original DK. We go with what's fact NOW, and not what is believed to be fact by certain fans (thusly, POV, so you are going against Wikipedia guidelines by using this statement from Rare over current fact).

To put it bluntly, stop. For one, Miyamoto never approved of the statement, because he never was involved with the writing of the manual. Why would he? He didn't even know they changed Peach's name to Toadstool for years. For another, if it was ever fact, it is no longer fact. If you're claiming that it was fact at one point, then you've basically killed your argument. Your paragraph has no place in the article. -- A Link to the Past 15:29, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

"Everyone"? Hardly. Two users sort-of agreed with you above. More users disagree with you. Nincompoop fanboys notwithstanding, there are two conflicting sources on this that both have equal weight in the matter, and calling it a retcon by Nintendo (given how long it took between various sources) is no big deal. I don't get what has you so worked up or makes you want to hide the facts in the case, or what makes you keep changing your story. I do get that you're nuts.Existentializer 16:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Wanna know why Nintendo Manuals haven't said anything about Cranky Kong? Well here's a little secret, Nintendo hasn't made a game with Cranky Kong in it. Nintendo doesn't care about the series, they just want money. Miyamoto can whine all he wants, he didn't do anything with Donkey Kong for nearly a decade, ergo he must not have cared too damn much. Hell, even Return of Donkey Kong got cancelled. You say that since Rare is not longer with Nintendo, they aren't canon. What kinda logic is that? I guess that Diddy Kong never raced on Timber Island with Banjo Bear against Wizpig either. Oh an also, let me get this strait in order to disprove what Rare - a second-party to Nintendo at the time - said, you're using something a 3rd-party game said? -- Nintenfreak

Read below. Anyway, the only one supporting you doesn't even focus on accuracy (claiming that Nintendo dropped DK and Rare picked it up). Accuracy is important on Wikipedia, so focus on it. And how the Hell do you claim he hasn't done anything with Donkey Kong for a decade? Donkey Kong, Donkey Kong Jr., Donkey Kong 3, Donkey Kong '94, development was started on Mario vs. DK in 2000, three Donkey Kongas, Donkey Kong Jungle Beat, Donkey Kong Revolution, etc. That's more than they did with Pilotwings. And let me note that this statement in Mario Party is in the actual game, while the statement from Rare was made outside of the games. DK: King of Swing has Cranky Kong in it. Idiotic, baseless argument completely destroyed? I'd say so. Will you grow up and stop accusing Nintendo of trying to dump the series, when they've put their time, money and energy into making several sequels, including developing a drum accessory (taking time and money)? And, to note to Existent: It's not my version, it's Nintendo's version. Who both created much of the Donkey Kong series (much more than Rare has) and are doing what they did with DK since the beginning - tried to make money. DKC got every cent from Nintendo, not Rare. If Nintendo didn't care, they wouldn't pay to make this game. First you say that Rare saved the series, then you say that Nintendo did it all for the money. Can't you keep your story straight? Either they didn't care enough to keep the series alive, they did it for the money or they DO care about the series. Oh, and *drumroll*

• Metroid 64
• Fire Emblem 64
• Kirby's Dream Land 2 DX
• Metroid II DX
• Kirby Air Ride (N64)
• Super Mario 64 2
• Return of Mario Bros.
• Star Fox 2
• F-Zero 2
• EarthBound 64
• Pilotwings 64 II
• The Legend of Zelda DX
• The Legend of Zelda: Mystical Seed of Courage
• Yoshi's Story: Super Mario Advance 5

So, like, do they hate F-Zero, Star Fox, EarthBound, Pilotwings, Mario, Kirby, Metroid, Zelda and Fire Emblem? -- A Link to the Past 16:49, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, I must have missed the games between Donkey Kong 3 and Donkey Kong 94. -- Nintenfreak.

Let me pick apart that numbered list from a few posts back:

1. No. Rare actually creating the characters would make their backstories valid.

2. Rare showed Nintendo a cool-looking boxing demo they made with their fancy Silicon Graphics computers. Then, they made an identical demo, only running off a Super Nintendo. Nintendo was impressed by this and asked Rare to make a full game using the technology. Tim Stamper suggested a Donkey Kong game, and Nintendo let them do their thing. I read about it in a book called The Ultimate History of Video games. I can give you a whole MLA citation if you want.

3. If a tree falls in the forest, and you can't provide any documentation to prove that it fell, how do we know it actually happened? Your word has no more authority than ours.

4. Quite the opposite, actually. Miyamoto was credited for "Original Donkey Kong Design." Other than a bit of supervising and funding, it was all Rare.

5. Maybe they were too disinterested to say so. They never said that they were never interested in reviving the Virtual Boy? Does that mean they plan on doing so?

6. I believe Bowser took over the role of Mario villian in 1985. Between that and DKC, there were no Donkey Kong games, only a few Mario games with Donkey Kong Jr. in them, excepting Donkey Kong for Game Boy, which could have been in development because of DKC.

7. See #2.

8. The whole copyright thing is true. So you're 1 for 8 now.

9. Not the best metaphor, but what he meant was that Rare created the Donkey Kong we know today. They created Diddy Kong, Cranky Kong (the whole focus of this argument), Donkey Kong Island, K. Rool, Kremlings, the Banana Horde, everything but the presence of a big dumb ape named Donkey Kong.

10. Congratulations. You managed to copy and paste a list of every Nintendo game from 1993-1995, many of which they didn't start working on until DKC was well in development, and most of which were spread out among many different developers.

Now you say, "And how the Hell do you claim he hasn't done anything with Donkey Kong for a decade? Donkey Kong, Donkey Kong Jr., Donkey Kong 3, Donkey Kong '94..." He meant when Donkey Kong Country started development. Donkey Kong 94 was released a few months before DKC and probably didn't take nearly as long to make, with the considerably simpler hardware and art style. So before that was Donkey Kong 3 back in 1984. 1994-1984 = a decade. Also, PAON made DK: King of Swing, not Nintendo.

Back to the original point of the argument, Rare created Cranky Kong. In his first-ever appearance, it is clearly stated (at least in the manual) that he is the original Donkey Kong, and that the Donkey Kong in DKC is not. The whole point of his character is that he was in this old game and he can't stand the technology of new games. Nintendo may refer to Donkey Kong and Mario as "old rivals" or something like that, but they could just as well be referring to Donkey Kong Jr.Chiphead 19:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

All of those points are good and contradict much of what I say (although, one cannot argue that the fact that they were working on dozens of games at the time isn't a reason they didn't develop DKC). However, it's all a moot point; what Rare wants is in the past. Cranky Kong has always been the property of Nintendo; when a game with Nintendo working largely with the team says in game that he's Mario's oldest rival (and, by the way, since DK came before DK Jr., that would make him his oldest rival), then what Rare printed in the manuals cannot be considered more official than that. -- A Link to the Past 21:58, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Link, you're a big whiny Nintendo Fanboy, and you definately count Donkey Kong 94 as canon. If that's true, then that means Donkey Kong Sr. is not Mario's Rival. There's a distinct difference between Nemesis and a Rival.

The Rival is the guy who gets in your way occasionally but isn't the focus of your mission. Nemesis is the big bad who you're truly after.

Well let's see, in Donkey Kong '94, who was that little bastard who keeps getting in my way and tossing Poison Mushrooms at me? Right Donkey Kong Jr. So when they said that Mario was facing off against his original Rival, they were right, Mario's facing off against Donkey Kong Jr. again. If they had have said that Mario was facing off against his original Nemesis, then you'd have an arguement, which you don't and never did.

Therefore, we can conclude that the Current Donkey Kong really is Mario's original Rival, Donkey Kong Jr. -- Nintenfreak

You ever considered common courtesy as opposed to starting flame wars? If you want to participate in them, then go to GameFAQs.

You ever considered backing your satements up with real proof as opposed to starting edit wars on Wikipedia? -- Nintenfreak

Anyway, Donkey Kong '94 is a remake. Donkey Kong is NOT a nemesis to Mario. Mario's only fight with DK Jr. and DK as well was in DK and DK Jr. And that, my friends, doesn't give DK Jr. more potential to be his rival. Donkey Kong liked Pauline, so he kidnapped her. Rival for her affection. -- A Link to the Past 22:08, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Since when did Donkey Kong ever like Pauline? When does it say that? What are you basing your statement on? Rivalry for affection my ass. Donkey Kong Sr. is the Nemesis in Donkey Kong, he's the big boss, the main bad guy, he's the nemesis, the original, the first. YOu can't argue with that, or else Bowser is as much Mario's Rival as Donkey Kong Sr. is. Donkey Kong Sr. also has a wife and one to two kids, even if you go the "SDK is DK Sr." route WHICH IS WRONG, he has Candy. Pauline never enters the equation. -- Nintenfreak

For one, the earliest events of DK were in a cage. How do you know that Candy was his girlfriend then? And let's compare...

• Bowser's first act - Turns all of the Toads into brick blocks and kidnaps Peach and 7 Mushroom Retainers

• Donkey Kong's first act - Kidnaps Pauline

These are very different acts. Donkey Kong never did anything violent to Pauline, it's obvious that he had interest in her. -- A Link to the Past 23:50, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I just want to say one thing that was supposed to be an earlier point - The Legend of Zelda DX, Kirby's Dream Land 2 DX, Metroid II DX, and Yoshi's Story: Super Mario Advance 5 were supposed to be remakes, or at least ports. The former was cancelled before development really started, as well as the remake of Zelda II: Adventure of Link (which was also cancelled as a graphically updated Broadcast Satellaview title), and the latter was really just a tech demo and not intended to be part of the Super Mario Advance port series, it was really a rumored title for a potential addition to the series. Also, Kirby Air Ride got retooled into a GameCube release, just like many other unreleased Nintendo 64 titles (like Dinosaur Planet). This is similar to games intended for GameCube that only had a release on the Wii (Twilight Princess is an exception that got released on both systems, some other games that were converted to the Wii early on Super Paper Mario and the new Kirby Adventure). According to Miyamoto himself, concepts for Super Mario 64 2 were realized in Pikmin, and Super Mario Galaxy will also be taking some ideas from it. Star Fox 2, which was probably the shortest Star Fox game had it been released, had several unique elements incorporated into Star Fox 64 and Star Fox Command. The Legend of Zelda: Mystical Seed of Courage was really a title that was announced before Capcom settled on only making two Game Boy Color Zelda games. Return of Mario Bros. was, in fact, released (as Kaettekita Mario Bros. for the Famicom Disk System), F-Zero 2 was released as BS F-Zero Grand Prix 2 for the Super Famicom's Broadcast Satellaview (although Zero Racers was unreleased), and even EarthBound 64 (Mother 3 in Japan) was released as Mother 3 for Game Boy Advance (and it is proven that they have the same story, Starment.Net even has comparison screenshots with the 3D and 2D versions). That's stretching everything a bit to try to make a point. All you really got is Pilotwings 64 II. You may as well include Donkey Kong Country 2 for Virtual Boy as an example.

Compromise?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the sentence that is causing the dispute, right?

It should be noted that contradicting Nintendo's claims, the manual for the Game Boy title Donkey Kong Land (which was approved by Nintedo for distribution)

Why not just change it to...

It should be noted that contradicting Nintendo's claims, the manual for the Game Boy title Donkey Kong Land (which carries the Nintendo Seal of Approval)

This states the fact that the seal is on there, without assuming that Nintendo approved it. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 16:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Link, for reasons unknown to saner folk, is terrified of the facts getting in the way of his version of the article.Existentializer 16:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The one argument provided was that the Seal of Quality made the statement fact. Proven false. Will you actually provide anymore arguments now? -- A Link to the Past 16:50, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

We were waiting on you to provide a real game as proof. -- Nintenfreak

This is a good suggestion but it doesn't address the real dispute, which is the sentence prior to that: "Hence, Cranky Kong is NOT the original Donkey Kong." On that point, I think we're at the point of no return and in need of a vote. (See below.) - Schrei 18:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

MY primary dispute was that the original writer of the paragraph said that Nintendo contradicted themselves, and when it was shown that it can't even be proven that Nintendo read that statement, he ignored that and continued to picket for that statement to stay in. And, for one, I cited Mario Party as the source. For another, Smash Bros. Melee, IIRC, states this as well (note that just because there are mistakes in the Trophies, there are some mistakes made in HAL trophies, such as Meta-Knight). For another even, proper debating states that if someone presents something as fact, then the burden to prove it is on the presenter, not the presentee. I don't have to find a statement where Nintendo disapproves of their statement, it's your burden to show that Nintendo approved of it. Can't you stop insulting Miyamoto and Yokoi by saying they abandoned the franchise? There were only three Zelda games when DKC came out, did they abandon that franchise? No, because they never stated that they abandoned it. It should not be said that they abandoned it JUST because they didn't make a couple hundred sequels before Rare made DKC. DK was one of Miyamoto's favorite characters, along with Mario. Don't make assumptions that just because they didn't make sequel after sequel after sequel to Donkey Kong (which, if they did, would have been them whoring out the franchise as opposed to them treating it with respect). You claim that they whored DK out because they had Rare develop it. And then we look at Mario.

• Mario Party series (N64, GCN, e-R, GBA) (Hudson)
• Mario Tennis series (VB, GBC, N64, GBA, GCN) (Camelot)
• Mario Golf series (GBC, N64, GBA, GCN) (Camelot)
• RPG series (SNES, N64, GBA, GCN, DS) (Square Enix/Intelligent Systems/AlphaDream)
• Other Mario sports (GCN) (Namco, some other guy)

Did they abandon them? Miyamoto worked on Mario Kart, Super Mario Sunshine and is working on Mario 128. Does that mean that he abandoned Mario now? Or...

• The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages
• The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons
• The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords
• The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventures
• The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords DS
• The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap

Or...

• Metroid Prime
• Metroid Prime 2: Echoes
• Metroid Prime: Hunters
• Metroid Prime 3

In the Zelda section, you'll notice that there are three titles that fit in the main timeline (ie, not spinoffs), and 12 games exist in the main timeline right now. So Nintendo didn't develop 1/4 of the main timeline. Happy now? They didn't whore it out, they didn't say Cranky was DK, and HAL and Hudson (who Miyamoto and other members of Nintendo EAD worked with) back them up that DK is DK. -- A Link to the Past 05:03, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I'm kind of confused what the argument is about. It seems that you guys are arguing about the argument itself, and "who said what".

Perhaps all the assumed facts should be removed from the article, and only the concrete, written facts should be included. For example, take the following demonstration sentence:

"Nintendo said this, so Cranky Kong is not Donkey Kong. However, Nintendo also said that, so they contradicted themselves."

To avoid possible dispute over the POV of the sentence, it could be rephrased as,

"Nintendo said this. However, Nintendo also later said that."

It may be a bit dry, but it is also completely factual and undisputable (as long as sources are provided for the statements). However, I'm not sure if this applies to the argument, since I'm not really sure what the exact argument is.

Also, I'm not taking sides here, but Existentializer, repeatedly calling A Link to the Past a "five-year-old fanboy" is a personal attack, and makes it hard to take your side of the discussion seriously. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 08:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Poiuytman, replace the "Nintendo said this" with "Rare said this". Because, again, it can't be shown that Nintendo ever even knew their statement existed. So "Rare said this, but Nintendo said that" would be acceptable. -- A Link to the Past 08:14, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, ok. What specific sentences are being disputed? --Poiuyt Man ^talk 10:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

That Nintendo made a contradictory statement. -- A Link to the Past 13:25, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Temporary page

I have created a temporary argument page at Cranky Kong/temp. Feel free to post valid, documented arguments. I did not put anything about the Seal of Approval and such, because I personally don't know anything about Nintendo policy. I hope this will help sort things out... Hopefully. Schrei 04:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Is Cranky Kong the Original Donkey Kong?

As with most long-running franchises, the Donkey Kong canon contains inconsistencies. One such inconsistency is the question of whether Cranky is the "original" Donkey Kong. There are arguments on both sides of the issue, which is still disputed to this day.

Arguments in favor

• Rareware has released official statements saying that Cranky Kong is indeed the original Donkey Kong.

• The manual for the Game Boy title Donkey Kong Land includes Cranky referring to himself as the original Donkey Kong, and challenging the pair of Donkey Kong and Diddy Kong to have as good an adventure as Donkey Kong Country on less powerful hardware.

• Cranky's first appearance was in Donkey Kong Country. In the DKC manual, it clearly states that "In his heyday, Cranky was the original Donkey Kong who battled Mario in several of his own games."

• Also in the DKC manual, when describing Donkey Kong: "But this is not your father's Donkey Kong! Although he is a relative of the classic arcade character, Country's Donkey Kong is a totally new character, with a new look, new moves, and a new attitude."

• Numerous references (in both the games themselves and the manuals) to the DK arcade games being "back in his day."

• Nintendo of Europe has stated in a press release that the Donkey Kong in Donkey Kong Country is Donkey Kong Junior. Source: Nintendo of Europe.

Rareware has also said something similar on their website, after Donkey Kong 64 was released and confirming that Cranky Kong is DK's father, and that DK is really Donkey Kong Jr.

• On the Donkey Kong Country EXPOSED promotional video, Dan Owsen and Tony Harman, both Nintendo of America employees, called Cranky the "star of the original Donkey Kong game" seconds after first saying his name. Source: Donkey Kong Universe: Encyklopedia

• Here's the video, it's about 3:20 into it. : http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7511271855512729880 Flame0001 03:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• If you switch Super Smash Bros. Melee to Japanese, Donkey Kong's trophy bio lists him as having appeared in Donkey Kong Country and Donkey Kong 64, but not the Donkey Kong arcade or NES games.

This is significant because while the DK trophy does not list the arcade game in the "highlight" section, the Mario trophy does, although it is listed as a FC (Famicom) title instead of an AC (Arcade) title. The game is most certainly the original Donkey Kong game, however: the kanji for Donkey Kong's trophy and the first game in Mario's trophy highlight is identical. It may therefore be concluded that that model of Donkey Kong - the DKC model - was not intended by the Japanese programmers to represent the Arcade Donkey Kong.

HOWEVER... Laku.com belanja online grosir eceran murah dan amancan also be taken with a grain of salt. We mustn't forget that Young Link was listed as from Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask in Japanese settings, even though he was clearly a child in most other games. The most likely explanation is that the Japanese listing doesn't necessarily list debut games.

No, because they're clearly talking about the Young Link of that time. Link has many reincarnations (usually 100 years apart), and the Link in Super Smash Bros. and Super Smash Bros. Melee is supposed to be the Link from Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask (including Princess Zelda, Ganondorf, and his younger self). This will change in Super Smash Bros. Brawl to the versions of Link and Zelda in Twilight Princess (judging from their designs).

The trophies in Melee don't list all of the games a character has appeared in, so I don't think the absence of the arcade game doesn't provide complete proof. However, Melee gives further evidence that DK is the grandfather of the original Donkey Kong. Check out what is said about DK in his hidden codec taunt: "The Donkey Kong who fought that epic battle with Mario was this guy's grand-father." Ost (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't you mean Brawl? And the article says the codec states that Cranky is DK's father, whereas it actually says he's his grandfather. Someone should fix that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.26.133.248 (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Arguments against

• Nintendo has stated that the Donkey Kong from Donkey Kong Country and all games following it is the same Donkey Kong who kidnapped Mario's girlfriend Pauline.

Actually, Nintendo has yet to say that Donkey Kong has always been the same character, and until they release a document explicitly saying so, they have never directly retconned it. This is only inferred from lines like in his bio in Super Smash Bros., which says that he used to kidnaps maidens. While this could refer to Pauline (whom he did kidnap in Mario vs. Donkey Kong 2: March of the Minis), remember that Donkey Kong has also kidnapped Princess Peach (in the Game & Watch Gallery series' Modern counterparts), though this may be Cranky because his design is shared from Game Boy Donkey Kong. But despite that, since this apparently comes from Super Smash Bros., Link as a single character who went through many adventures, when really it is Link in name that has done that. His name is forgotten, and given the title "Hero of [Space]" in legend until a destined reincarnation rises again. Because of this in the Super Smash Bros. series, they could also be referring to Donkey Kong in name only.

• Nintendo has referred to the current Donkey Kong as "Mario's oldest rival" on several occasions.

• His trophy in Super Smash Bros. Melee - "While he now prefers the laid-back jungle lifestyle to construction site mischief, DK is often forced back into action by the Kremling Krew. The great ape is quite fast despite his burly physique, and he keeps his strength up with a steady diet of his favorite food: bananas. His one extravagance (and only piece of clothing) is a monogrammed necktie."

"Construction site mischief"? That doesn't help much because Donkey Kong Junior appeared in Game Boy Donkey Kong. On the very cover of it, Donkey Kong has Pauline in his arm while being chased by Mario, while Donkey Kong Junior is hanging off his other arm. The scene takes place in a construction site, and he is incdeed being mischievous.

• If the original DK was cranky kong, than many years would have had to have passed since than to make him the old ape he is now. If this happened than mario would be an old man too.P.h 02:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)p.hP.h 02:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Apes age faster than humans.

But not that much faster —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.113.143 (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

They do age pretty quickly, actually. They typically live to about 30-35 years; if Cranky were, say, 20 when Donkey Kong took place and around 30 now, it's possible for him to be that old but for everyone else to not look that different.--Roc Thul (talk) 06:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Here's a big one... Try playing the Game Boy Advance version of Donkey Kong Country 2. Select "Diddy's Dash". Now read the first thing Cranky has to say... "Here we go again. You'd think by now I'd have my own game, but instead I have to tell you what to do." Now, if Cranky Kong were the Arcade Donkey Kong, how could he not have the games of his glory days? Conclusion: Donkey Kong is our Donkey Kong's own game. Quittaboi 18:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well he is old, he forgets stuff. So might have the creators when making the game. :D Besides more evidence FOR it than AGAINST it

Besides, it's a port. They didn't bother taking out all of the other references.

• What about what was said in Mario Superstar Baseball? Donkey Kong's ancestor (Cranky) apparently didn't wear a tie. But in Game Boy Donkey Kong, Donkey Kong is wearing a tie. This would be Cranky Kong, as Donkey Kong Junior is in the game as his son. If Cranky Kong didn't wear a tie, why did he wear one here?

A possible explanation for that would be if Game Boy Donkey Kong took place afterwards rather than being a complete remake that takes its place in the timeline (which wouldn't be too far-off due to the references to the Mushroom Kingdom and Luigi's cameo in the audience demonstration). This would mean that the original Donkey Kong (henceforth referred to as Papa Donkey Kong for simplicity) is slightly older in this appearance (hence Mario's overalls which he was said to has swapped colors with sometime after his familiar redesign), and perhaps to reflect this, Papa Donkey Kong was given a tie. Donkey Kong Junior may have inherited the same tie. On another subject that has to do with appearances, this is also how Papa Donkey Kong appears in the Game & Watch Gallery series (which is Cranky due to the presence of Junior and the fact that the story is based on the classic versions). In Game & Watch Gallery 4, Papa Donkey Kong's appearance was updated in the artwork and title screen, but it is still Cranky for the same reasons. While these are spinoff titles (with the exception of GBDK), Donkey Kong Island's appearance is that of the modern DK, so Papa Donkey Kong's appearance in Game & Watch Gallery as an ALMOST identical version (but not a direct copy, due to the fact that for some reason his bare rear is visible, and his sprite shows other minor differences from the artwork) of the modern DK could explain why Donkey Kong Island is shaped the way it is (Papa Donkey Kong rather than Donkey Kong Junior since the original Donkey Kong looks almost the same as the modern DK here). This could also explain Baby Donkey Kong in Yoshi's Island DS - he looks more like the modern Donkey Kong than the Arcade one, but because Papa Donkey Kong looks so similar to the modern DK in the Game & Watch Gallery 4, Baby Donkey Kong's appearance doesn't really matter. This would make three games in which Papa Donkey Kong didn't wear a tie (not including cameos and Donkey Kong Jr. Math), plus one where he did (with Mario's design updated, something that didn't happen even in the Super Mario All-Stars remake of Super Mario Bros., indicating it occurs sometime later), and a spinoff game showing that Papa Donkey Kong looked incredibly similar to the modern DK (adult Junior) at one point. Spinoff games don't follow the mainstream games exactly, which is why characters like Baby Mario and Baby Luigi can appear alongside Mario and Luigi, Bowser Jr. appear with Shadow Mario, or Mario with Dr. Mario. It is slightly convoluted, but it all seems to work out.

• Neither Pauline nor Mario appear any older in Mario vs Donkey Kong 2, yet Cranky in the games he appears in has an enormous beard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.75.221 (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This could be explained by how gorillas age faster than people do, and it's not unlikely that Nintendo has this factoid in mind.--Roc Thul (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Revisions

I modified the section slightly to sound a bit more NPOV, you can see it here. I changed Pros and Cons to different subsection names, and moved the "Nintendo didn't comment" bit, since it's just a factual statement that doesn't really belong as an argument. --Poiuyt Man ^talk

I changed it to something along the lines of what your version said, but I'm not sure how it makes anything more NPOV since this would be a section called "Is Cranky the original Donkey Kong?" and therefore pro vs. con would be accurate enough. --Schrei 00:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm on the "Cranky is the original DK" side, but I'm going to delete the "Rival/Nemesis" section because it would only be fair to let those on the "Cranky is not DK" side do their own sections, eventually resulting in an incoherent flamewar that loses the focus of the original argument, as seen in Talk:Cranky Kong, which this page was created to avoid. --Chiphead

Added his trophy. Anyway, the original point of the debate was actually that the Seal of Quality did not mean that Nintendo endorsed their statements. I don't care if Cranky Kong is DK or vice versa, but saying that Nintendo contradicted themselves is just bull. -- A Link to the Past 03:48, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

If you don't care, why have you been arguing with us for the past week?--Chiphead

Because I care that people are demanding that it be stated that Cranky is DK, when my original statement was that the guy doing so is IGNORING any evidence put forth. -- A Link to the Past 05:43, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected

This article has been protected for an insanely long period. I've unprotected it. Be nice. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

spacepope4u's GameFAQs Mario Series Character Guide

spacepope4u's GameFAQs Mario Series Character Guide has the following on Cranky Kong concerning his link to Donkey Kong:

CRANKY KONG

Occupation: Embittered video game icon

First appearance: Donkey Kong Country (1994)

"Back in my day, games were only black and white, and we were lucky just to get one shade of gray!"

Depending on how you look at this bearded Kong, he's either Donkey Kong's grandfather, Donkey Kong's elderly father or a grizzled senior member of the Kong clan who's not officially related to Donkey but maintains a grandfatherly relationship nonetheless. Yikes.

Hunched over and gray-haired, Cranky Kong doesn't look like an ape that could cause too much trouble. Nonetheless, he claims he was the original barrel-tosser — the first Donkey Kong. If what he says is true, then the family moniker eventually got passed onto the hero of the Donkey Kong Country games sometime around 1994. The senior Donkey Kong got stuck with the nickname Cranky, which seems all-too-appropriate, given his nasty disposition.

As my good friend Tinus points out, there's actually legitimate reason to doubt Cranky's claims about his former stardom. Other than the fact that he seems senile sometimes, Cranky is a bit of a joke character in that he's the only guy in the entire Marioverse I can think of who repeatedly breaks the fourth wall — that is, Cranky seems to know he's in a video game. (Tinus also reminds me that Cranky is a spot-on parody of retrogamers — people like me who love to claim that video games were so much better back in the old days.)

--submitted by: User:DaDoc540

Nintendo's involvement

Donkey Konga and DK King of Swing were developed by Namco and Paon respectively, not Nintendo. Therefore, stating Nintendo has opted not to stress who Cranky is supposed to be seems a bit untrue, since it was Namco and Paon who worked on the games directly, so I've taken the part crediting Nintendo out.

I've also added a section detailing what DK's MVP profile from Mario Superstar Baseball implies. Do with it what you want.

"His ancestor, the original Donkey Kong, wore no necktie."

I noticed what was mentioned in Mario Superstar Baseball was brought back up again, but has a next to it. In the game, the information in question can be found in Donkey Kong's MVP profile. Could someone take care of it? I'm not sure how to cite it correctly myself- SS Yoshi

It has been disputed whether or not Cranky Kong is truly the original Donkey Kong, from the Donkey Kong game, and if he is DK's father or grandfather. While Rareware has confirmed that Cranky was the gorilla in Donkey Kong and is the "current" Donkey Kong's father, it was not made clear for some time, and now more confusion has arisen due to Retro Studios referring to him as Donkey Kong's grandfather. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightend (talk • contribs) 05:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)