Jump to content
Jotari

Netflix's Castlevania Season 4

Recommended Posts

Okay, I could have sworn there was a thread for this already on Serenes, as I'm like 90% sure that's where I looked to discover this was the final season of the show. But I've looked on the General, Entertainment and the Gaming forums but can't see the top anywhere. Either I'm blind or crazy, but in either case I feel safe enough making this topic.

Anyway yeah, Season 4 has reinforced a feeling that I had about season 3. That they should have ditched Trevor and Sypha after defeating Dracula. I really feel like their plot line stalled after season 2. Season 3 was like a subplot for them, and much of season 4 was too with the exception of warping Trevor to the final battle. One of the coolest things about Castlevania in my opinion is the generational aspect, so I really feel like they should have done a time skip. The issue there would be how to factor in the Hector and Isaac stuff, but that mostly all fizzled out in Season 4 too, and just plain aging them up and finishing their arc with them old isn't really the worst idea ever imo. It doesn't help that Christopher and Soleil are my favorite Belmonts, so I would have liked to have seen the most dramatic Castelvania plotline depicted in something that isn't a thirty year old 8 bit game with like three lines of dialogue.

Anyway those are my thoughts. All in all I felt Season 4 was the weakest of the show. But I really appreciate what the series has done for adult animation. It's bothered me for a very long time now that all adult animation outside of Japan is comedy based. We might not have gotten the likes of Invincible without Cadtlevania and Samurai Jack Season 4 paving the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I did comment on it elsewhere, but didn't really see any talk beyond it so left it at that. Simon and Sypha being somewhat tangential wasn't as much of an issue in S3 because their plot was centred on them facing a mystery with Saint-Germain, but it was more of a problem here where the plot line they were involved in did next to nothing in the end for the rest of the plot, which was unfortunate because expanding on the lives of the people in Targoviste was something I felt could have been done. With the ending they gave to Hector and Issac I definitely felt disappointed they were completely disocciated from the rest, alongside Carmilla's own plans fizzling in their end. As a whole, part of me has thought more could have been done with what we had. Didn't help that Varny honestly pissed me off and did Sweet F All until the appointed time and that couldn't wash the taste of wasted cockney out of my mouth.

Considering this series was making itself focused on the period where III and Curse of Darkness (The planning going as far back as a film over a decade ago), I'm not too bothered by them not dedicating themselves to another period in the larger Castlevania timeline for this show. I wouldn't complain about future shows focused on other characters at all, as you mentioned going into other periods would be well worth considering (Though isn't Christopher farther than any human character in this series would have plausibly been available for?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Dayni said:

Well, I did comment on it elsewhere, but didn't really see any talk beyond it so left it at that. Simon and Sypha being somewhat tangential wasn't as much of an issue in S3 because their plot was centred on them facing a mystery with Saint-Germain, but it was more of a problem here where the plot line they were involved in did next to nothing in the end for the rest of the plot, which was unfortunate because expanding on the lives of the people in Targoviste was something I felt could have been done. With the ending they gave to Hector and Issac I definitely felt disappointed they were completely disocciated from the rest, alongside Carmilla's own plans fizzling in their end. As a whole, part of me has thought more could have been done with what we had. Didn't help that Varny honestly pissed me off and did Sweet F All until the appointed time and that couldn't wash the taste of wasted cockney out of my mouth.

Considering this series was making itself focused on the period where III and Curse of Darkness (The planning going as far back as a film over a decade ago), I'm not too bothered by them not dedicating themselves to another period in the larger Castlevania timeline for this show. I wouldn't complain about future shows focused on other characters at all, as you mentioned going into other periods would be well worth considering (Though isn't Christopher farther than any human character in this series would have plausibly been available for?).

Officially Castlevania the Adventure is 100 years after Castlevania III, but they can tweak details to set it closer or just outright have a full century time skip and keep around whatever characters need be via time travel and immortality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jotari said:

Officially Castlevania the Adventure is 100 years after Castlevania III, but they can tweak details to set it closer or just outright have a full century time skip and keep around whatever characters need be via time travel and immortality.

I'm fine with a new cast for it, there's very little that overlapped before, why worry about bringing forward the mortal cast (the real worry is how Drac'd be handled considering how the show ended)?

And as a non-player of the Adventure titles, what's got them up on the pedestal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked it. I can easily pick out a lot of flaws but it was fine. My biggest annoyance was the youtube thumbnails in my recommended list gleefully spoiled things for me. Not the big spoiler about the main villain but a certain character turning evil and another character dying were spoiled for me way in advance. 

Overall I think season 4 was a lot better then season 3. In the previous season I don't think a lot happened. You can take away the entirety of last season and aside from Saint Germain very little would have changed. Surprisingly Alucard was a weak link in both season 3 and 4.  I think Alucard's subplot in season 3 was a complete waste of time, but I don't think the season 4 approach of ''He has people on spikes for a few seconds but otherwise we'll pretend none of Alucard's season 3 story ever happened!'' was a very good way of moving forward either. 

It was a surprise that the writers didn't seem to know what to do with Isaac. I felt that Isaac had always been their favorite but here he ends his plotline very suddenly and then completely disappears. He's even absent in the epilogue. 

I'm fond of the two new villains for the season. Both the joke villain Varney and the more intimidating main villain of the season. I think they found a very nice way of incorporating that one absentee member of Dracula's court. 

But I think that in the end the show might have tried a bit too hard to give everyone a happy ending.

Spoiler

Trevor survives, Alucard's isolation seems to have permanently ended and his instability has been fixed, and even Dracula and Lissa are alive again despite Dracula not really having wanted to be revived. I especially think Dracula's survival was silly and unnecessary. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that they should've ditched Trevor and Sypha after season 2, but I do think they needed more of a plan for what to do for seasons 3 and 4. The first two seasons were reworked from a film script that Warren Ellis wrote in the early 2000s (as the project was originally intended to be a film), so there was at least something resembling a plan for them, and it is quite easy to tell what parts of season 2 were added later.

Season 3 came across to me as basically a bunch of setups while also stalling until they had a plan, while also needlessly making everything overly bleak. Season 4 came across to me as an attempt to address all the main criticisms of season 3 while also delivering a proper conclusion. Put together, it comes across as both lacking a plan and, I suspect, having a change in writers between seasons 3 and 4.

I've never played the games, but I am aware that Hector was the protagonist of his own game that takes place not that long after Trevor Belmont's game. Looking back on the series, I think Hector should've betrayed Dracula on his own for moral reasons in season 2 rather than be tricked by Carmilla into it, season 3 should've been the setup for adapting Hector's game by introducing Rosaly and such, and then season 4 should've loosely adapted Hector's game. Incidentally, not too much would actually have to change outside of Hector's journey of repeatedly getting used and beaten to a pulp until season 4, but at least that way there would've been more of a plan by having more to draw from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

I think they found a very nice way of incorporating that one absentee member of Dracula's court. 

On that, they did a good job. It was one pivotal moment in what felt like (almost) half-season of book-ending work written into the overarching plot.

The endings of Carmilla's sisters felt a touch melodramatic (not just Lenore). Maybe that was written on purpose to say that "hey, not everyone had a happy ending," I don't know.

Edited by Karimlan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna get spoilery in my post, be warned.

I enjoyed the season (and the series as a whole) quite a bit. I was a Castlevania fan by the time I started watching it, and so I was very excited for season 4. I tend to not think to critically of things that I like and just enjoy it for what it is. This was no exception, but I suppose nostalgia and recognizing things from the games (Morning Star/Vampire Killer, Holy Water, Throwing Cross [which was depicted as a glaive], etc.) plays a large part into why I don't often see the things that are probably a lil' sketchy. I do think that the series is a fairly faithful adaptation to the games, while taking it's own creative liberties to deviate things just enough to set it apart (they straight up cut out Grant though). Like... most of the Belmonts typically fight Death before Dracula, but Death was fought after Dracula had been dead for at least a good while. 

I guess the one thing that I thought was kinda meh were the vampire couple. I felt that it didn't really serve much purpose outside of having them there (on the bright side, there was that kickass day armor Striga wore, so I'd definitely give points toward that). As much as I think Lenore and Hector is kinda forced, I do think it was a justified decision in the end in order to give Hector some spotlight. They bang or whatever, Hector gets tricked into becoming Lenore's lapdog, the relationship develops off-screen, and now Hector is working with the vampire ladies. By the end, he was really just playing nice in order to get himself out of there with the ultimate 4D chess move of reuniting with Isaac, cutting off the finger with the ring on it, and more or less banking on Isaac to beat Carmilla. And now he has his own castle, lmao.

Something I noticed in the series was how certain voice clips (which is apparent with Trevor) are reused. I have no issue with that since I feel like it makes it a bit more video-gamey in a way, especially since reused voice clips are done all the time in video games. The sidequest Trevor went on with getting the pieces of the knife together was also neat.

As for a setup to a Curse of Darkness adaptation, I think that's more or less been thrown out the window. Isaac is at peace with himself, Saint Germain is dead, Death is gone for the time being, Hector is down a finger, and Dracula and Lisa are alive...? It all offers decent closure for everything, but I feel like it seals this series as a one-and-done type of deal. I'm perfectly okay with that, but I would have loved to see adaptations of future games in the series. That's not to say that can't do it, especially if they were to do some kind of Infinite Corridor shenanigans, but the series definitely feels done, y'know?

Spoilers for the series end here.

1 hour ago, Dayni said:

And as a non-player of the Adventure titles, what's got them up on the pedestal?

Christopher is also my favorite Belmont, so I'll happily explain.

  • He's the star of Castlevania: The Adventure, which is pretty eh, but it's sequel actually slaps. The music is also godlike, even for a Gameboy game.
  • He's the first Belmont to defeat Dracula by himself. He's also the first to do it TWICE. (He defeated Dracula the first time, but didn't actually kill him [he got away before he could kick the bucket]. He actually kills him the second time around, while also being 15 years older, so Christopher still kicked Dracula's ass while possibly being past his prime).
    • With that said, he's also the oldest Belmont to get the job done. 
  • He can shoot fireballs from the Vampire Killer (you can sort of see this with the Morning Star in the Netflix Show, but it's more like it sets monsters on fire from the tip of the whip instead of actually casting fire).
  • He is again the star of Castlevania: The Adventure ReBirth, which is the best revamp of any game that is no longer legally playable, but also possibly one of the best classic-style Castlevania experiences to date. Music also slaps here, too. Definitely one of my favorite Castlevania games.
  • We actually get to see a Belmont with their child (Christopher is the father of Soleil Belmont [yes, same name as Laslow's daughter, which is extra points]).
  • This image: 
Spoiler

The virgin "greatest five" VS THE CHAD CHRISTOPHER BELMONT : castlevania

If you need any more reasons why Christopher is an absolute  b e a s t , feel free to ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, indigoasis said:

He's the star of Castlevania: The Adventure, which is pretty eh, but it's sequel actually slaps. The music is also godlike, even for a Gameboy game.

Is there any story reasons to play the original over Wiiware?

15 minutes ago, indigoasis said:
  • He's the first Belmont to defeat Dracula by himself. He's also the first to do it TWICE. (He defeated Dracula the first time, but didn't actually kill him [he got away before he could kick the bucket]. He actually kills him the second time around, while also being 15 years older, so Christopher still kicked Dracula's ass while possibly being past his prime).
    • With that said, he's also the oldest Belmont to get the job done. 

I assume the timeline/Drac being a wraith is why Simon is after/ineligible.

14 minutes ago, indigoasis said:
  • This image: 
  Reveal hidden contents

The virgin "greatest five" VS THE CHAD CHRISTOPHER BELMONT : castlevania

If you need any more reasons why Christopher is an absolute  b e a s t , feel free to ask.

I mean, aside from Juste a little harsh.

Also, Christopher Belmont confirmed first Jojo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, indigoasis said:

This image: 

You defend Leon, your entire chart besides Juste is thrown into doubt. I haven't played Lament of Innocence, but watching an LP of it and Curse of Darkness, both 3D Igavanias have a certain narrative cheesiness, made stronger by the iffy voice acting. LoI was created to be an origin story for the entire Akumajo Dracula/Castlevania franchise, it left me wondering at the end "this is it?". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, indigoasis said:

do think that the series is a fairly faithful adaptation to the games, while taking it's own creative liberties to deviate things just enough to set it apart (they straight up cut out Grant though).

Yeah; apparently, Warren Ellis cut him because he thought it didn't make sense to have a pirate in landlocked Wallachia. Season 3 included a nod to this in the form of the joke about a guy who put wheels on a boat and called himself the Pirate of the Roads.

Funny enough, season 4 (which I suspect was written by someone else) adds back in Grant Danasty... sort-of. The woman that leads that village and befriends Alucard is Greta of Danesti; she's basically, "At this point, we can't really put Grant back into the story, so here's the next best thing".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dayni said:

I'm fine with a new cast for it, there's very little that overlapped before, why worry about bringing forward the mortal cast (the real worry is how Drac'd be handled considering how the show ended)?

And as a non-player of the Adventure titles, what's got them up on the pedestal?

I don't think the Adventure games are generally put on a pedestal by the community. In fact I think they're largely disregarded for having slow gameplay on a really small screen. Personally I feel while that's true, they very well designed around being slow moving and on a small screen.

3 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Overall I think season 4 was a lot better then season 3. In the previous season I don't think a lot happened. You can take away the entirety of last season and aside from Saint Germain very little would have changed. Surprisingly Alucard was a weak link in both season 3 and 4.  I think Alucard's subplot in season 3 was a complete waste of time, but I don't think the season 4 approach of ''He has people on spikes for a few seconds but otherwise we'll pretend none of Alucard's season 3 story ever happened!'' was a very good way of moving forward either. 

It was a surprise that the writers didn't seem to know what to do with Isaac. I felt that Isaac had always been their favorite but here he ends his plotline very suddenly and then completely disappears. He's even absent in the epilogue. 

I feel the fillerness of Season 3 is more the fault of Season 4 not giving a proper resolution to the character arcs built up in Season 3 than Season 3 itself being meaningless. Ie Season 4 made Season 3 meaningless. Hector, Isaac and Alucard all undergo pretty interesting journeys in Season 3 that place them out of their comfort zone and force them to evaluate their lives, and Season 4 just kind of ignores it entirely. Hector ended up in the place where I more or less expected him to get to, but his turn around for being pushed around to growing a pair just happens instantly in Season 4 rather than giving any noteworthy moments that promote his character growth. I guess they were going for a twist or something, but it didn't really work all that well. I also feel Lenore was treated with a bit too much kindness from him what with being a literal rapist.

Overall while it's not the worst thing in the world, I keep feeling like Trevor and Sypha were the weak link in Season 3. Instead of a time skip after Season 2, I could also imagine dedicating Season 3 to just the Curse of Darkness characters, since that's what the Curse of Darkness game is. Saint Germain also would have made more sense integrated into one of those plot points given he's, I think, a Curse of Darkness character originally.

1 hour ago, vanguard333 said:

Yeah; apparently, Warren Ellis cut him because he thought it didn't make sense to have a pirate in landlocked Wallachia. Season 3 included a nod to this in the form of the joke about a guy who put wheels on a boat and called himself the Pirate of the Roads.

Funny enough, season 4 (which I suspect was written by someone else) adds back in Grant Danasty... sort-of. The woman that leads that village and befriends Alucard is Greta of Danesti; she's basically, "At this point, we can't really put Grant back into the story, so here's the next best thing".

I think they easily could have put Grant in as that Ship Captain with Isaac in Season 3. Either that use just the gargoyle version of him during the ending of Season 2. I feel "It doesn't make sense because he's a pirate" is lacking in creativity a bit. There's plenty of reasons why a pirate might be inland. And getting kidnapped by a vampire isn't the worst one. Still considering how hard the show had moving it's plotlines, I think it's probably best they didn't try adding another character.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, indigoasis said:
  • He can shoot fireballs from the Vampire Killer (you can sort of see this with the Morning Star in the Netflix Show, but it's more like it sets monsters on fire from the tip of the whip instead of actually casting fire).

I thought VK in the show was more so blessed that demons can't take being hit by it and the area hit bursts into flames on contact with the head.

5 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I don't think the Adventure games are generally put on a pedestal by the community. In fact I think they're largely disregarded for having slow gameplay on a really small screen. Personally I feel while that's true, they very well designed around being slow moving and on a small screen.

I meant why you do so, I realise they're kinda on the low ground for most people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dayni said:

I mean, aside from Juste a little harsh.

1 hour ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

You defend Leon, your entire chart besides Juste is thrown into doubt. I haven't played Lament of Innocence, but watching an LP of it and Curse of Darkness, both 3D Igavanias have a certain narrative cheesiness, made stronger by the iffy voice acting. LoI was created to be an origin story for the entire Akumajo Dracula/Castlevania franchise, it left me wondering at the end "this is it?". 

To be clear, I didn't make the chart; it's just a meme, so it's not gospel, lol. It's meant to be harsh to place a particular character on a pedestal. 

Also, I have played LoI, and it's moreso gameplay before story. That's not to say that the story is bad in any way, though. I think it was made with the intent that the player has played other games in the series, or will continue the series in chronological order from there. There's more to it than what it has to offer, and that's in the rest of the series. I don't think it's really meant to be it's own standalone thing.

1 hour ago, vanguard333 said:

Yeah; apparently, Warren Ellis cut him because he thought it didn't make sense to have a pirate in landlocked Wallachia. Season 3 included a nod to this in the form of the joke about a guy who put wheels on a boat and called himself the Pirate of the Roads.

Funny enough, season 4 (which I suspect was written by someone else) adds back in Grant Danasty... sort-of. The woman that leads that village and befriends Alucard is Greta of Danesti; she's basically, "At this point, we can't really put Grant back into the story, so here's the next best thing".

I've seen people mention that, and I though it was something unique to sort of add Grant back in. It also offers a pairing for Alucard to mirror that of Sypha and Trevor, I suppose. Not including a character because that would make them a landlocked pirate is a really dumb reason, though. Pirates aren't strictly locked to being out on the open seas.

2 minutes ago, Dayni said:

I thought VK in the show was more so blessed that demons can't take being hit by it and the area hit bursts into flames on contact with the head.

Well, yeah, that's what I meant. Same concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Dayni said:

I thought VK in the show was more so blessed that demons can't take being hit by it and the area hit bursts into flames on contact with the head.

I meant why you do so, I realise they're kinda on the low ground for most people.

Oh, well I hope I still answered that with my previous comment. I just think they're both really well designed games, especially the second one. I also just find the whole idea of Soleil great. It's really a bit staggering to believe they've never really had Belmonts interacting with each other outside of that one really minamilistic example. Well up until Lords of Shadows at least when they gave a generational aspect to it and then killed the series.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dayni said:

Is there any story reasons to play the original over Wiiware?

No. The original is a bad game, while the sequel, "Castlevania II: Belmont's Revenge" is much better.

The Curse of Darkness story can't exactly happen as a result of how things went down in this series. If the rumored side-story or other Castlevania happens, it is likely with a different generation. Who knows, maybe they'll do Lament of Innocence's story or the 1999 story that hasn't been directly portrayed in a game yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jotari said:

I think they easily could have put Grant in as that Ship Captain with Isaac in Season 3. Either that use just the gargoyle version of him during the ending of Season 2. I feel "It doesn't make sense because he's a pirate" is lacking in creativity a bit. There's plenty of reasons why a pirate might be inland. And getting kidnapped by a vampire isn't the worst one. Still considering how hard the show had moving it's plotlines, I think it's probably best they didn't try adding another character.

1 hour ago, indigoasis said:

I've seen people mention that, and I though it was something unique to sort of add Grant back in. It also offers a pairing for Alucard to mirror that of Sypha and Trevor, I suppose. Not including a character because that would make them a landlocked pirate is a really dumb reason, though. Pirates aren't strictly locked to being out on the open seas.

I didn't say that I agreed with it; I just said that that was apparently the explanation. I don't agree with it either. It is a rather silly reason.

 

14 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

The Curse of Darkness story can't exactly happen as a result of how things went down in this series. If the rumored side-story or other Castlevania happens, it is likely with a different generation. Who knows, maybe they'll do Lament of Innocence's story or the 1999 story that hasn't been directly portrayed in a game yet.

Yeah; Curse of Darkness )that is the name of Hector's game, right?) really can't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

No. The original is a bad game, while the sequel, "Castlevania II: Belmont's Revenge" is much better.

The Curse of Darkness story can't exactly happen as a result of how things went down in this series. If the rumored side-story or other Castlevania happens, it is likely with a different generation. Who knows, maybe they'll do Lament of Innocence's story or the 1999 story that hasn't been directly portrayed in a game yet.

The actual Julius Belmont story would be cool, though I'd rather they just did the obvious thing and made it into a game 😕

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Jotari said:

The actual Julius Belmont story would be cool, though I'd rather they just did the obvious thing and made it into a game 😕

Iga teased it so often, yet never brought it to fruition.

At this point, I'd actually rather not have 1999 made into a game (setting aside Konami having no will to do so). Maybe it's just me, but I think it would be impossible to make the game amazing enough for what the event has been hyped up to be. It is better off staying as lore, it can't become a disappointment this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Iga teased it so often, yet never brought it to fruition.

At this point, I'd actually rather not have 1999 made into a game (setting aside Konami having no will to do so). Maybe it's just me, but I think it would be impossible to make the game amazing enough for what the event has been hyped up to be. It is better off staying as lore, it can't become a disappointment this way.

I'd be fine with it not being amazing just to have another Castlevania game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overall, I liked Castlevania season 4, but I did have some issues. That's kinda how I feel about the whole series. I don't think I'd say any of the seasons were bad but I definitely have some issues.

Getting into some SPOILERS, be warned.


Seasons 1 and 2 were the best, in my opinion. My biggest complaints were the removal of Grant, season 1 being an episode or two too short, a little too much time being spent in the library in season 2, and Hector being tricked by Carmilla instead of doing things of his own accord in season 2. Otherwise, I loved them, very solid adaption of Castlevania III. It worked very well in more areas than it didn't.

Season 3 is where I started to have bigger issues. I really liked it overall, but it felt like filler. Part of this is because season 4 decided to ignore a lot of what happened, so, I can't blame season 3 entirely. One thing I do blame entirely on season 3, though, is Alucard. In my own personal opinion, Alucard is the one who should have exited the series after season 2. His story was finished, done until Richter, if I remember correctly. Every single thing, and I mean every single thing with him in seasons 3 and 4 was nothing but filler. Alucard should have been cut out and saved for future adaptions of Rondo of Blood and Symphony of the Night.

Alucard aside, season 3 set up some interesting things. Trevor and Sypha's part seemed a little side quest-ish, but it was necessary for Saint Germain. Isaac seemed like he was building towards something. Carmilla seemed like she was building towards something. Hector's stuff with Lenore was a little forced, but it was developed enough that they could work with it in both the direction of a Curse of Darkness adaption or their own little story (which they obviously opted to do).

Season 4 was a lot like 3 for me. I liked it, it has a lot of really strong elements, but I have some big issues. It basically sidelined Isaac and Carmilla, and more or less scrapped whatever potential either of them had. I felt like Hector could have still worked, though, after Lenore died. He could have gone off on his own now that he was free and possibly met Rosaly. Alas, they didn't make that happen. Alucard was still nothing but filler, despite Saint Germain's presence. Unlike season 3 where Germain felt connected to Trevor and Sypha with that whole little plotline, here in season 4 he felt...random, and poorly paired with Alucard. He played off Trevor and Sypha much better than he did Alucard. They also played it way too safe with the ending. Trevor surviving was fine, no issue there, but every other character just had too neat of a bow. Especially Dracula. Dracula's epilogue kinda defeats the whole point of Castlevania. Oh, and Striga and Morana just kind of...existed? Honestly, take those two characters out, and nothing really changes anywhere in any way. Filler, like Alucard.

This is why I wish they had just opted to do a full Curse of Darkness adaption with seasons 3 and 4. Because 4 decided to ignore and/or sideline a lot of what 3 did, it inadvertently made both seasons feel more like filler than they should have. Not only that, but now they've backed themselves into a corner and really can't do Curse of Darkness anymore, not with how 4 ended. Not unless they get super, super creative, which will be very hard to do with that ending. Same for any Dracula story set after Castlevania III. It ended with such a neat bow for Dracula that any explanation they give for a story set in a future date would be a very large stretch. Striga and Morana are still around, but honestly, I don't care in the slightest about a story with them as the primary antagonists. And they seem done with war, anyway (another bowtie ending).

Season 4 are good, I like it, but it isn't as great as it should have been. Same with season 3.

I hope that if they do indeed do another series and/or a spin-off, they adapt Lament of Innocence. I loved that tease in season 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Between the cartoon, Simon getting into Smash and the anniversary collection introducing the series to a new audience, it really is quite strange Konami has absolutely zero intentions of releasing any kind of proper Castlevania could content. It seems now is the perfect time to release a game to revitalise the series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I loved this series. It was a very enjoyable watch, but I do have some gripes about it.

First of all, loved the first 2 seasons. They were paced well enough imo, had shocking moments, great battles, and was very entertaining. 

Spoiler

Season 3 was a set up season, so it had less action in favor of more dialogue. This season seemed to spend a little more attention on developing 2 new characters, Lenore and St. Germain. Season 3 ended on a note that we may not see St. Germain again and Lenore is going to be the big bad. Alucard also had this instability subplot going on.

However, Season 4 undid a lot of the ground work they made last season. Alucard gets over his instability and trusts humans again rather easily. St. Germain gets a character assassination. And Lenore goes from this mysterious, sadistic trickster to Hector's sorta girlfriend? Actually let's talk about how those two ended on a bad note in Season 3 then all of a sudden they're buddy buddy. Wth happened between seasons? Because I feel like we missed an important moment between the two.

This just made Season 3 completely filler, which is a shame. It also seems like Season 4 was meant to be 2 seasons, but had to rush because Netflix gave them a cut and they wanted to squeeze in all of their ideas.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...