Castlevania Nocturne

[Jotari]

I remember  we made a thread about the Castlvania animated series a few years back, so some of you here might have seen it. Want to just toss out my thoughts, with spoilers, incase anyone agrees or disagrees.

First I heard absolutely nothing about this. Just saw it pop up on Netflix. I though the series was done. Richter seems a bit of a strange period to jump to, we're passing over three different Belmonts there, including Simon!? Though what I'd like to see most would be Christopher, because Soleil is unironically my favourite Belmont. I guess they went with Richter because they wanted to keep Alucard as a throughline (even though he only shows up in the last twenty seconds) and there are more characters from his era, Symophony of the Night in particular being a fan favourite game (and one I've yet to play).

First few episodes I was quite unimpressed. Felt like nothing really happened and when stuff did happen I didn't really care. But it slowly improves quite a lot and I was pretty into it by the end. Much like the original series, Belmont himself was the weakest part of it, even though he's not an unlikable character. They tried to give Richter and arc but it kind of felt flat, not sure if I can articulate why. When he gets his magic back it is pretty cool, but feels a touch unearned. I think some disconnected episodic stories just focusing on establishing the character better might have carried it. It starts with just a bunch of characters and takes a while to start caring about them.

Also Juste is here, not quite skipped over. I like two Belmonts actually meeting, but, like, who the hell is Juste? I mean, I know who he is, I've played one of his games, but this is a series unto itself, it needs to give the significance to the character himself and not just coast by expecting fans to have an emotional attachment from the game. It goes back again to how jumping so far forward with Richter kind of buried potential plot points. Like this interaction would be better if we'd actually seen Juste in action with his own series. Also he should have had the morning star. Or Richter should have had the morning star from the start and Juste the Vampire Killer. How was he killing vampires all these years without magic or a whip? Was he just spamming knife throws like Best Belmont Soleil? Or was he using his punch rush from his own game and they just neglected to show him go full brawler. Speaking of powers from their own game, I don't think Richter did a backflip even once!

Last two thoughts, it's genuinely impressive how sympathetic they manage to make the abbot despite him proving himself to be a complete and utter shit bag at every single turn, and Olrox is a guy!? I thought right from the very start that was a chick...a super masculine looking chick but a woman nonetheless. Only in like the second last episode did someone say "he's right" or something and I was like what? I still can't see him as a man. Am I alone in this bizarre perception?

 

[Zanarkin]

Personally I found the dialogue to be painful. And some of the conflicts between the main characters as they meet each other to be extremely frustrating. Not the fact that they had a conflict but the way it was developed and resolved through the series. For example Annette calls the other two children for not acting how she thought they ought to. But then they go in an undercover mission and gets her friend killed because she could not control herself. Then when the party splits off Annette is all angry about Richter because of what he did, until she is not because spirits.

I also found it extremely bizarre for the religious people to have so much conviction for their cause while they are literally working with vampires and resurrecting bodies in a twisted demonic way. I get cognitive dissonance but this is just extreme. Specially when they frequently speak about vampires and night creatures in such disparaging way.

Still Olrox and Mizrak were interesting characters at least. I like the juxtaposition they both were in.

Also, no, I did not think Olrox was a woman. To me there was no question he was a man.

Edited October 23, 2023 by Zanarkin

[vanguard333]

I have yet to watch the show, and I don't really plan on watching it. Season 4 of Castlevania ended things in a way that made it that they couldn't have Dracula be the villain again and they exhausted all the series' other major villains (Death, Carmilla, etc.). When Nocturne was announced, one of my thoughts was, "Who's going to be the villain?"

[indigoasis]

10 hours ago, Jotari said:

Richter seems a bit of a strange period to jump to, we're passing over three different Belmonts there, including Simon!? Though what I'd like to see most would be Christopher, because Soleil is unironically my favourite Belmont. I guess they went with Richter because they wanted to keep Alucard as a throughline (even though he only shows up in the last twenty seconds) and there are more characters from his era, Symophony of the Night in particular being a fan favourite game (and one I've yet to play).

From my understanding, Rondo and Symphony are probably the next easiest time periods behind CV3 to adapt since there's generally more to work with in terms of supporting characters, which Christopher and Simon just don't really have. Leon had Rinaldo and Sara, Trevor had Grant, Sypha, and Alucard, Juste had Maxim and Lydie, Richter had Maria (and later Alucard, to an extent), John had Eric, Jonathan had Charlotte (and Eric, technically), and Julius presumably had at least Yoko and Alucard.

Christopher technically has his son Soleil, but he wouldn't really be available until at least the battle with Dracula at the end of Belmont's Revenge... and considering how Dracula's story ended in the original series, Christopher and Simon wouldn't really have any significance outside of killing Dracula, who is pretty much done as an antagonist as far as the show is concerned. To throw Christopher about half a bone, there are characters from the comic adaptation of The Adventure they could use.

~

I thought the show was alright, honestly. I went in with the expectation that it was obviously going to be very different from RoB, so I judged it based on what story it was trying to tell, which by itself was good enough. Dracula obviously wasn't there, so it was actually an interesting choice to pull in Elizabeth Bathory. It lines up timeline-wise, although I guess that means an adaptation of Bloodlines is off the table. Animation was a little off in some places, but excellent where it counted, although I don't think it'll ever quite live up to what they were able to do in the first series.

A couple things that bother me... that deux ex machina Alucard was kinda wack. It's nice to see him again, but his introduction was a little forced, imo. It also kinda peeves me that Richter, who's supposed to be one of the strongest Belmonts up to that point in time, really couldn't do any damage to anyone despite having holy fire magic that he can imbue into the whip, which itself was about as effective as a wet pool noodle half the time. I get that the enemies are all-powerful vampire deities or whatever, but c'monnnnnnnn mannnnnn. It felt like Trevor was able to do so much more with that little bit of string.

Despite that, with Season 2 in the works, I'm really looking forward to Richter getting the Vampire Killer/Morningstar whip as an upgrade. I get that Trevor literally threw it away at the end of the last series, but you can't tell me that it's just gone. There's no way someone doesn't have it somewhere.

[Jotari]

3 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

I have yet to watch the show, and I don't really plan on watching it. Season 4 of Castlevania ended things in a way that made it that they couldn't have Dracula be the villain again and they exhausted all the series' other major villains (Death, Carmilla, etc.). When Nocturne was announced, one of my thoughts was, "Who's going to be the villain?"

The main antagonist is indeed not Dracula, it's Elizabeth Bathory, a boss from Castlevania Bloodlines (the one where you can play as a guy with a spear). It is a bit weird continuity wise though. Because she gets tonnes of hype in universe and they make no attempt to connect her to Dracula at all (even though apparently the two historical characters were cousins in real life). Instead she's an independent Vampire god from ancient Egypt, which just leaves me scratching my head as to where she actually was in the first series.

39 minutes ago, indigoasis said:

From my understanding, Rondo and Symphony are probably the next easiest time periods behind CV3 to adapt since there's generally more to work with in terms of supporting characters, which Christopher and Simon just don't really have. Leon had Rinaldo and Sara, Trevor had Grant, Sypha, and Alucard, Juste had Maxim and Lydie, Richter had Maria (and later Alucard, to an extent), John had Eric, Jonathan had Charlotte (and Eric, technically), and Julius presumably had at least Yoko and Alucard.

Christopher technically has his son Soleil, but he wouldn't really be available until at least the battle with Dracula at the end of Belmont's Revenge... and considering how Dracula's story ended in the original series, Christopher and Simon wouldn't really have any significance outside of killing Dracula, who is pretty much done as an antagonist as far as the show is concerned. To throw Christopher about half a bone, there are characters from the comic adaptation of The Adventure they could use.

~

I thought the show was alright, honestly. I went in with the expectation that it was obviously going to be very different from RoB, so I judged it based on what story it was trying to tell, which by itself was good enough. Dracula obviously wasn't there, so it was actually an interesting choice to pull in Elizabeth Bathory. It lines up timeline-wise, although I guess that means an adaptation of Bloodlines is off the table. Animation was a little off in some places, but excellent where it counted, although I don't think it'll ever quite live up to what they were able to do in the first series.

A couple things that bother me... that deux ex machina Alucard was kinda wack. It's nice to see him again, but his introduction was a little forced, imo. It also kinda peeves me that Richter, who's supposed to be one of the strongest Belmonts up to that point in time, really couldn't do any damage to anyone despite having holy fire magic that he can imbue into the whip, which itself was about as effective as a wet pool noodle half the time. I get that the enemies are all-powerful vampire deities or whatever, but c'monnnnnnnn mannnnnn. It felt like Trevor was able to do so much more with that little bit of string.

Despite that, with Season 2 in the works, I'm really looking forward to Richter getting the Vampire Killer/Morningstar whip as an upgrade. I get that Trevor literally threw it away at the end of the last series, but you can't tell me that it's just gone. There's no way someone doesn't have it somewhere.

Yeah, that's what I figured in the opening. Though it's funny Simon has so few supporting characters when his game has been made a bunch of times and he even gets to explore villages and towns like a strange side scrolling rpg in Castlevania 2. None of those villagers are particularly memorable as it turns out.

6 hours ago, Zanarkin said:

Also, no, I did not think Olrox was a woman. To me there was no question he was a man.

Just me then. Weird.

[vanguard333]

5 minutes ago, Jotari said:

The main antagonist is indeed not Dracula, it's Elizabeth Bathory, a boss from Castlevania Bloodlines (the one where you can play as a guy with a spear). It is a bit weird continuity wise though. Because she gets tonnes of hype in universe and they make no attempt to connect her to Dracula at all (even though apparently the two historical characters were cousins in real life). Instead she's an independent Vampire god from ancient Egypt, which just leaves me scratching my head as to where she actually was in the first series.

I see. I have not played Castlevania Bloodlines (or any Castlevania game really, to be honest), so I know nothing about her.

I just did a quick Wikipedia search of the historical figure; I couldn't find anything about whether or not she was related to Vlad the Impaler, but I did find out that she was Hungarian royalty, which means Vlad the Impaler probably would've seen her as an enemy: Vlad the Impaler was a big believer in Wallachian Independence at a time when both the Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire were each claiming it already belonged to them and fighting over it.

Incidentally, despite a lot of modern media connecting Bram Stoker's character Dracula to the historic Vlad the Impaler, Bram Stoker probably knew nothing about Vlad the Impaler and merely found the name "Dracula" in amongst the things he read when researching Romania for his book. I have read the novel Dracula, and I can confirm that the titular character does not read like a character based on Vlad the Impaler in any way, shape or form.

[Jotari]

15 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

I see. I have not played Castlevania Bloodlines (or any Castlevania game really, to be honest), so I know nothing about her.

There isn't a whole lot to know to be honest. A lot of Castlevania games are very minimal on plot.

15 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

I just did a quick Wikipedia search of the historical figure; I couldn't find anything about whether or not she was related to Vlad the Impaler, but I did find out that she was Hungarian royalty, which means Vlad the Impaler probably would've seen her as an enemy: Vlad the Impaler was a big believer in Wallachian Independence at a time when both the Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire were each claiming it already belonged to them and fighting over it.

Incidentally, despite a lot of modern media connecting Bram Stoker's character Dracula to the historic Vlad the Impaler, Bram Stoker probably knew nothing about Vlad the Impaler and merely found the name "Dracula" in amongst the things he read when researching Romania for his book. I have read the novel Dracula, and I can confirm that the titular character does not read like a character based on Vlad the Impaler in any way, shape or form.

Stoker was pretty familiar with the history of the region, now wether he intended Dracula to specifically be Vlad the Impaler might be in doubt, but he was surely a member of the dynasty. As Dracula in the book directly talks about their history fighting the Turks and Hungarians.

 

 

Also I'm calling it now. Once Nocturne is finished, the next Castlevania show they give us will be about Soma Cruz.

Edited October 23, 2023 by Jotari

[Dr. Tarrasque]

The latter episodes were the best part about it, most of the first season I found rather miserable because early on the show wanted us to focus on Annette to justify having changed her from being Maria's sister and damsel in distress to a girl who's entire character revolves around her having been born a slave who conveniently got magic powers. The change gets even weirder with Tera being repurposed to be Maria's mother.

I went in curious as to what they'd do with the antagonists and what kind of creative liberties they would take given how the previous series ended. The villains are fine/meh with Olrox being the most interesting of the bunch so far. Juste being there makes sense because his game takes place literally before Richter's Rondo of Blood and by the time he showed up it felt as if they finally threw a bone to the fans of the games. The new characters, I either didn't care for or just wish they didn't exist (Annette). I don't normally listen to reviews or comments of shows that plaster the word "woke" in it but I honestly cannot see the show as anything but woke garbage at the moment. I watched it with someone who has 0 knowledge of the Castlevania games and they shared the same sentiment.

Edited October 23, 2023 by Dr. Tarrasque

[Jotari]

36 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

The latter episodes were the best part about it, most of the first season I found rather miserable because early on the show wanted us to focus on Annette to justify having changed her from being Maria's sister and damsel in distress to a girl who's entire character revolves around her having been born a slave who conveniently got magic powers. The change gets even weirder with Tera being repurposed to be Maria's mother.

I went in curious as to what they'd do with the antagonists and what kind of creative liberties they would take given how the previous series ended. The villains are fine/meh with Olrox being the most interesting of the bunch so far. Juste being there makes sense because his game takes place literally before Richter's Rondo of Blood and by the time he showed up it felt as if they finally threw a bone to the fans of the games. The new characters, I either didn't care for or just wish they didn't exist (Annette). I don't normally listen to reviews or comments of shows that plaster the word "woke" in it but I honestly cannot see the show as anything but woke garbage at the moment. I watched it with someone who has 0 knowledge of the Castlevania games and they shared the same sentiment.

Woke pandering...eh..I get why someone would say that but it might just be the end result rather than the intention. After all, they race lifted Isaac in the original animated series too and he ended up being pretty popular. So they were probably just trying to replicate that. Course, Arab Isaac wasn't exactly a woke character, being a villain devoted to murdering all humans and self flagellation. Anette being a slave with magic might just have come naturally from the setting. They knew they wanted to throw the whole French Revolution idealism into it. And Vampires feeding off of slaves is something of a natural fit for the time period. George R.R Martin came up with something similar in the 80s with Fevre Dream.

Though if I'm right and they do go to the future time period with Soma Cruz next, will they make Julius Belmont vaguely black or will Anette be bred out of him by that point? Feels like either would be an unpopular choice.

Edited October 23, 2023 by Jotari

[indigoasis]

1 hour ago, vanguard333 said:

I just did a quick Wikipedia search of the historical figure; I couldn't find anything about whether or not she was related to Vlad the Impaler, but I did find out that she was Hungarian royalty, which means Vlad the Impaler probably would've seen her as an enemy: Vlad the Impaler was a big believer in Wallachian Independence at a time when both the Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire were each claiming it already belonged to them and fighting over it.

I believe they were only rumored to be distantly related to each other, which is where her connection to Dracula comes from in the games; she's (somehow) Dracula's niece (which could be explained as her being on Lisa's side of the family, which still wouldn't quite line up timeline-wise as Elizabeth was born in 1560 unless she's a great niece or something, but I digress).

I'm not entirely sure about her in the show and whether she's supposed to be based on the original character and inherited Sekhmet's powers or, like Jotari mentioned, supposed to be Sekhmet herself. I lean more towards the former since that would be more in-line with the game's canon and real-life canon.

23 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Though if I'm right and they do go to the future time period with Soma Cruz next, will they make Julius Belmont vaguely black or will Anette be bred out of him by that point? Feels like either would be an unpopular choice.

That would be the most logical time period to go for next, especially since it's a popular one, too. Bloodlines/Portrait of Ruin might not be a bad place to go next either since they have Brauner and the Morris/Lecarde clans to explore.

As for Annette and Richter, assuming they can build up their relationship in the next season beyond blushing at each other once, there really shouldn't be any issue with it. 200 years is a long time, so they could go either way, but I can't imagine they would change Julius' design too drastically to compensate. All they did with Juste was give him a beard and some aging, after all.

[Jotari]

53 minutes ago, indigoasis said:

All they did with Juste was give him a beard and some aging, after all.

And took away his red coat 😞

[Dr. Tarrasque]

14 hours ago, Jotari said:

Woke pandering...eh..I get why someone would say that but it might just be the end result rather than the intention. After all, they race lifted Isaac in the original animated series too and he ended up being pretty popular. So they were probably just trying to replicate that. Course, Arab Isaac wasn't exactly a woke character, being a villain devoted to murdering all humans and self flagellation. Anette being a slave with magic might just have come naturally from the setting. They knew they wanted to throw the whole French Revolution idealism into it. And Vampires feeding off of slaves is something of a natural fit for the time period. George R.R Martin came up with something similar in the 80s with Fevre Dream.

Though if I'm right and they do go to the future time period with Soma Cruz next, will they make Julius Belmont vaguely black or will Anette be bred out of him by that point? Feels like either would be an unpopular choice.

It's hard not to think it's woke pandering. The original character of Annette was just a damsel in distress who was Richter's girlfriend and Maria's older sister. The PSP game then gave her a boss fight in which she was turned, that's something they could've reused here and the evidence to that is basically what they did with making Tera be Maria's mother and what happens late in the season. With those elements, it really feels like they just wanted to shoehorn in some new creations (Annette and Edouard) into major roles while repurposing someone to keep a similar structure (Tera as mother instead of sister to Maria and caretaker instead of girlfriend to Richter). A damsel in distress with a boss fight, you really didn't need to do much else with the character but they chose to recreate her and have her take time away from developing Richter and the others. Her short temper and anger issues does not make for a likable character, she made those early episodes miserable. Why change an existing character into this and make it sap so much time from the main duo? Eduoard himself is a new character and he is fine (at least compared to this Annette), why didn't they just make Annette another character without doing all these changes just to make this new character replace Annette? 

Isaac probably works better because like Annette, he was a minor character altered but he was developed from what he is in the source material and introduced slowly AFTER the main characters had their time. Annette was kinda just shoved in our faces early on as this character we're supposed to cheer for who is of African descent and is "more than someone just born into slavery" but EVERY SINGLE THING about her character revolved around her having been a slave.

 

Edited October 24, 2023 by Dr. Tarrasque

[Jotari]

43 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

It's hard not to think it's woke pandering. The original character of Annette was just a damsel in distress who was Richter's girlfriend and Maria's older sister. The PSP game then gave her a boss fight in which she was turned, that's something they could've reused here and the evidence to that is basically what they did with making Tera be Maria's mother and what happens late in the season. With those elements, it really feels like they just wanted to shoehorn in some new creations (Annette and Edouard) into major roles while repurposing someone to keep a similar structure (Tera as mother instead of sister to Maria and caretaker instead of girlfriend to Richter). A damsel in distress with a boss fight, you really didn't need to do much else with the character but they chose to recreate her and have her take time away from developing Richter and the others. Her short temper and anger issues does not make for a likable character, she made those early episodes miserable. Why change an existing character into this and make it sap so much time from the main duo? Eduoard himself is a new character and he is fine (at least compared to this Annette), why didn't they just make Annette another character without doing all these changes just to make this new character replace Annette? 

Isaac probably works better because like Annette, he was a minor character altered but he was developed from what he is in the source material and introduced slowly AFTER the main characters had their time. Annette was kinda just shoved in our faces early on as this character we're supposed to cheer for who is of African descent and is "more than someone just born into slavery" but EVERY SINGLE THING about her character revolved around her having been a slave.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. She is a somewhat unlikable character who didn't need to exist and in a show with such few episodes no doubt did take away from Richter. I'm just not necessarily sure woke pandering was the main intention and that her story might have developed naturally from what they wanted to do with the setting rather than deliberately targeting an audience. It is not off brand for the series to change stuff to try and make things work. Like, correct me if I'm wrong, but there is absolutely no indication that Elizabeth Barthory is some kind of vampire messiah from ancient Egypt in the games, she was just another generic revive Dracula villain. But they needed a villain and Elizabeth was there as an existing character so that's why she got that role.

Now when they change stuff as much as they did with Anette should they bother keeping the name at all? No, they probably shouldn't. It's not really going to please fans of the original. Tera's character was probably better off with the name Anette (and Tera could have been an actual nun) and the Caribbean pair could have been original characters (or not in it at all), like Alucard's Japanese friends. They weren't from the games, where they?

And while I'm at it, they should have just given the Abbot the name Shaft, the actual evil Priest from Richter's game.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

20 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I don't necessarily disagree with you. She is a somewhat unlikable character who didn't need to exist and in a show with such few episodes no doubt did take away from Richter. I'm just not necessarily sure woke pandering was the main intention and that her story might have developed naturally from what they wanted to do with the setting rather than deliberately targeting an audience. It is not off brand for the series to change stuff to try and make things work. Like, correct me if I'm wrong, but there is absolutely no indication that Elizabeth Barthory is some kind of vampire messiah from ancient Egypt in the games, she was just another generic revive Dracula villain. But they needed a villain and Elizabeth was there as an existing character so that's why she got that role.

Now when they change stuff as much as they did with Anette should they bother keeping the name at all? No, they probably shouldn't. It's not really going to please fans of the original. Tera's character was probably better off with the name Anette (and Tera could have been an actual nun) and the Caribbean pair could have been original characters (or not in it at all), like Alucard's Japanese friends. They weren't from the games, where they?

And while I'm at it, they should have just given the Abbot the name Shaft, the actual evil Priest from Richter's game.

Correct, Erzsebet Bathory seems to be an original. The closest thing to her in the games is Elizabeth Barthley from Bloodlines who is a niece of Dracula and shares the same historical figure referenced for the name, Elizabeth Báthory and her design seems pretty similar to Carmilla from Vampire Hunter D Bloodlust.

Because of the ending of the original series, creative liberties in what they could use as villains was expected and I have no issue with the villains. The same does not hold true for good guys though lol.

Alucard's Japanese friends were not in the games. 

I was fine with Shaft's absence but yeah, he could've been the abbot used here.

Edited October 24, 2023 by Dr. Tarrasque

[Jotari]

15 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Correct, Erzsebet Bathory seems to be an original. The closest thing to her in the games is Elizabeth Barthley from Bloodlines who is a niece of Dracula and shares the same historical figure referenced for the name, Elizabeth Báthory and her design seems pretty similar to Carmilla from Vampire Hunter D Bloodlust.

Because of the ending of the original series, creative liberties in what they could use as villains was expected and I have no issue with the villains. The same does not hold true for good guys though lol.

Alucard's Japanese friends were not in the games. 

I was fine with Shaft's absence but yeah, he could've been the abbot used here.

While I wouldn't categorize it as woke pandering, one thing where I'd definitely accuse the series of having an agenda would be in it's anti church rethoric. Course the church, especially the medieval church, is an institution deserving criticism, Castlevania just isn't the most suitable series for such a soapbox, as the games put the church very much in the "Good holy powers" category vs the "Bad hell powers" antagonists with killing Dracula's wife being the only really questionable thing they do. And if they just explored that then fine, but they go so far as to retcon characters that were church affiliated in the original games to be victims of the church just so there's no confusion between good and bad characters.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

4 hours ago, Jotari said:

While I wouldn't categorize it as woke pandering, one thing where I'd definitely accuse the series of having an agenda would be in it's anti church rethoric. Course the church, especially the medieval church, is an institution deserving criticism, Castlevania just isn't the most suitable series for such a soapbox, as the games put the church very much in the "Good holy powers" category vs the "Bad hell powers" antagonists with killing Dracula's wife being the only really questionable thing they do. And if they just explored that then fine, but they go so far as to retcon characters that were church affiliated in the original games to be victims of the church just so there's no confusion between good and bad characters.

Without a doubt, the original series does have an anti-church rhetoric emphasizing altruism and sciences over blind belief in the church. At least the source material had details in it to make it all plausible..

Lament of Innocence (1094): Leon Belmont's game, Monsters started attacking nearby and his betrothed was captured by a Vampire. The Church forbade him from doing anything about that as they were more focused on fighting heretics. Leon relinquished his title of Baron and went off to find Sara on his own. 

Dracula's Curse (1476): While it wasn't directly state it was the church, the bit about the Belmonts being exiled and nearly extinct because they were feared by the people is a detail in the bare bones story of the NES game.

but they go so far as to retcon characters that were church affiliated in the original games to be victims of the church just so there's no confusion between good and bad characters.

Who?

[Jotari]

10 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Without a doubt, the original series does have an anti-church rhetoric emphasizing altruism and sciences over blind belief in the church. At least the source material had details in it to make it all plausible..

Lament of Innocence (1094): Leon Belmont's game, Monsters started attacking nearby and his betrothed was captured by a Vampire. The Church forbade him from doing anything about that as they were more focused on fighting heretics. Leon relinquished his title of Baron and went off to find Sara on his own. 

I haven't played that one.

10 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Dracula's Curse (1476): While it wasn't directly state it was the church, the bit about the Belmonts being exiled and nearly extinct because they were feared by the people is a detail in the bare bones story of the NES game.

I took that to just be society in general, but I guess the church is a glove hand fit for such a plot point.

10 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Who?

Sypha and Tera

[Dr. Tarrasque]

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

I took that to just be society in general, but I guess the church is a glove hand fit for such a plot point.

Sypha and Tera

Yeah the way it's worded implies the populace itself but like you said, the glove fits lol

That's interesting about Sypha. All I remember about the character from the source material was the manual and game referring to them as a "he" which they reference in the show.

Edited October 25, 2023 by Dr. Tarrasque

[Etrurian emperor]

15 hours ago, Jotari said:

While I wouldn't categorize it as woke pandering, one thing where I'd definitely accuse the series of having an agenda would be in it's anti church rethoric. Course the church, especially the medieval church, is an institution deserving criticism, Castlevania just isn't the most suitable series for such a soapbox, as the games put the church very much in the "Good holy powers" category vs the "Bad hell powers" antagonists with killing Dracula's wife being the only really questionable thing they do. And if they just explored that then fine, but they go so far as to retcon characters that were church affiliated in the original games to be victims of the church just so there's no confusion between good and bad characters.

I think Sypha being change from a priest to a gypsy definitely speaks to some anti church bias. They probably changed her because they think current audiences wouldn't resonate with a church lady.

But in terms of the Abbot I think the writing meant to convey he at least has something resembling of a point. Him saying the revolution will never ever deem anyone loyal or pure enough rings kinda true when you consider the heroes share their universe with Maximilian ''lets kill em all!'' Robespierre. While the ancient regime sucked having one of the main characters be a revolution fan was definitely an odd choice given all the head chopping. Maybe that's something she'll have to wrestle with next season. 

Speaking of the church I find it pretty funny the original series focused heavily on the catholic church despite Romania being orthodox. Or flat out conquered by Muslims. 

On 10/24/2023 at 12:49 AM, Dr. Tarrasque said:

The new characters, I either didn't care for or just wish they didn't exist (Annette). I don't normally listen to reviews or comments of shows that plaster the word "woke" in it but I honestly cannot see the show as anything but woke garbage at the moment. I watched it with someone who has 0 knowledge of the Castlevania games and they shared the same sentiment.

Eh. I'd say its about as gentle inclusion of ''woke'' they could have gone for. If you have a setting in revolutionary France then escaped slaves from a French colony seems an intensely logical thing to include. Now its true the original Annette wasn't a black former slave, but the original Annette wasn't a character either. And as for more original content you can certainly do worse then an Aztec vampire demigod. 

Edited October 25, 2023 by Etrurian emperor

[Jotari]

22 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

I think Sypha being change from a priest to a gypsy definitely speaks to some anti church bias. They probably changed her because they think current audiences wouldn't resonate with a church lady.

But in terms of the Abbot I think the writing meant to convey he at least has something resembling of a point. Him saying the revolution will never ever deem anyone loyal or pure enough rings kinda true when you consider the heroes share their universe with Maximilian ''lets kill em all!'' Robespierre. While the ancient regime sucked having one of the main characters be a revolution fan was definitely an odd choice given all the head chopping. Maybe that's something she'll have to wrestle with next season. 

As I said earlier, I actually do like the Abbot as a character. And he does have some basis in the Richter games via Shaft, even if they didn't give him that name. The issue, as Zanarkin said earlier, lies a bit more in the fact that, with the eventual exception of one character, everyone in the church is just fine with SUMMONING DEMONS FROM HELL IN GOD'S NAME XD. Still I think it could still work if they both sides it a bit and showed the revolution in a more radical light. Maria certainly sounds like a zealot with all the stuff she says, but the show itself never really proves her wrong and all the alleged church burning of the revolution is off screen. If we saw them killing some priests to highlight that they're doing this out of genuine desperation and not just alleged desperation then it'd resonate more that they might be on board with SUMMONING DEMONS FROM HELL IN GODS NAME XD

22 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

 

 

[Dr. Tarrasque]

12 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Eh. I'd say its about as gentle inclusion of ''woke'' they could have gone for. If you have a setting in revolutionary France then escaped slaves from a French colony seems an intensely logical thing to include. Now its true the original Annette wasn't a black former slave, but the original Annette wasn't a character either. And as for more original content you can certainly do worse then an Aztec vampire demigod. 

I'd have to disagree. A better way to have handled it is to have kept Annette and Tera as they were previously and introduce the 2 new characters much in the same as fashion as Sumi and Taka from the original series instead of trying to shoehorn one of them into a lead role when the source material has them as a "non-character" as you suggest.

Doesn't mean that have to work the same way as Sumi and Taka did, it just means that have a lesser role that takes less time away from the show with a character who is so far unlikeable and rather one-note despite the narrative trying to suggest otherwise.

[Etrurian emperor]

Having watched the entire season I can safely say that Nocturne isn't great, but its decent enough. More the promise of a start of something then a season that really stands on its own. Its fine. I enjoyed it well enough. 

I'd say I like the main case. Richter sets himself apart from Trevor and his relation with his adopted mom and sister seems wholesome enough. The idea of an Aztec vampire demigod is also pretty cool.

The clear weak link is the main villain. I don't think she works even without comparing her to Dracula. Erzsebet's design is just too goofy to be taken seriously, and her lack of screentime combined with her pretty generic personality leaves little impression. She's also just a mess in general. Like Dracula before her Erzebet is based on an actual historical woman. Erzsebet Bathory was an Hungarian countess and alleged serial killer. But rather then do anything with that they just turn her into an Egyptian cat lady. It seems as if the writing team couldn't decide on having Erzebet Bathory as the new Dracula, or go for a more African inspired villain, and took the pretty dumb compromise of giving her the name of Erzebeth Bathory, but having everything else about her reflect more on Sekmeth. Given the inclusion of more African characters in the cast its not a bad decision per so to take a villain from Africa, but then commit to that rather then try to do that and Erzebet at the same time as the same character.

Phasing is among the bigger problems with the show. It seems the writers were unsure if they were getting a new season because the Annette slavery subplot was pretty unceremoniously resolved without any fanfare. It was teased as a big deal and then at the start of an episode its suddenly over. There's also a pretty jarring development when two character hop into bed together after having only talked to each other once. 

For the second season Maria has the most room to grow. In part because she may realize the revolutionaries she idolizes are a bunch of guillotine happy lunatics. Given its the France revolution the reign of terror is undoubtedly going to be a theme next season. There's also...

Spoiler

the fact Alucard joins the gang. I can imagine Maria in particular forming a bond with him due to both their dads being insane nutjobs who tried to kill their kids and cause lots of death. Since he went through all that before Alucard can advise and guide Maria. 

 

Edited November 4, 2023 by Etrurian emperor

[Jotari]

30 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Having watched the entire season I can safely say that Nocturne isn't great, but its decent enough. More the promise of a start of something then a season that really stands on its own. Its fine. I enjoyed it well enough. 

I'd say I like the main case. Richter sets himself apart from Trevor and his relation with his adopted mom and sister seems wholesome enough. The idea of an Aztec vampire demigod is also pretty cool.

The clear weak link is the main villain. I don't think she works even without comparing her to Dracula. Erzsebet's design is just too goofy to be taken seriously, and her lack of screentime combined with her pretty generic personality leaves little impression. She's also just a mess in general. Like Dracula before her Erzebet is based on an actual historical woman. Erzsebet Bathory was an Hungarian countess and alleged serial killer. But rather then do anything with that they just turn her into an Egyptian cat lady. It seems as if the writing team couldn't decide on having Erzebet Bathory as the new Dracula, or go for a more African inspired villain, and took the pretty dumb compromise of giving her the name of Erzebeth Bathory, but having everything else about her reflect more on Sekmeth. Given the inclusion of more African characters in the cast its not a bad decision per so to take a villain from Africa, but then commit to that rather then try to do that and Erzebet at the same time as the same character.

Phasing is among the bigger problems with the show. It seems the writers were unsure if they were getting a new season because the Annette slavery subplot was pretty unceremoniously resolved without any fanfare. It was teased as a big deal and then at the start of an episode its suddenly over. There's also a pretty jarring development when two character hop into bed together after having only talked to each other once. 

For the second season Maria has the most room to grow. In part because she may realize the revolutionaries she idolizes are a bunch of guillotine happy lunatics. Given its the France revolution the reign of terror is undoubtedly going to be a theme next season. There's also...

  Hide contents

the fact Alucard joins the gang. I can imagine Maria in particular forming a bond with him due to both their dads being insane nutjobs who tried to kill their kids and cause lots of death. Since he went through all that before Alucard can advise and guide Maria. 

 

I think the issue there is that they felt obligated to use a villain for the games....but then didn't feel obligated to actually use anything about her because her character in the game is the paper thin "I wanna revive Dracula for reasons" character shared by like thirty other Castlevania antagonists.

[vanguard333]

I still haven't watched the show, but I just learned recently that a vampire named Lord Ruthven is mentioned in the show as an enemy but does not appear. I happen to know that Lord Ruthven is the name of quite possibly the oldest vampire character in English literature; predating Dracula, Carmilla and Varney the Vampire. He is the villain of the 1819 short work, "The Vampyre" and he is a properly scary and manipulative villain, and one of his main abilities in that story is that he can force people to swear an oath to him and, if the person breaks that oath, the person dies.

The creators of this show needed a villain after exhausting Dracula, Carmilla and Varney/Death, they were aware of Lord Ruthven, and they didn't make Lord Ruthven the villain?! That just seems like a really weird decision to me.

 

Incidentally, there is an animated series I have watched where Lord Ruthven (or at least a character named after him) is a major character: it's an anime called The Case Study of Vanitas.

[Jotari]

7 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

I still haven't watched the show, but I just learned recently that a vampire named Lord Ruthven is mentioned in the show as an enemy but does not appear. I happen to know that Lord Ruthven is the name of quite possibly the oldest vampire character in English literature; predating Dracula, Carmilla and Varney the Vampire. He is the villain of the 1819 short work, "The Vampyre" and he is a properly scary and manipulative villain, and one of his main abilities in that story is that he can force people to swear an oath to him and, if the person breaks that oath, the person dies.

The creators of this show needed a villain after exhausting Dracula, Carmilla and Varney/Death, they were aware of Lord Ruthven, and they didn't make Lord Ruthven the villain?! That just seems like a really weird decision to me.

 

Incidentally, there is an animated series I have watched where Lord Ruthven (or at least a character named after him) is a major character: it's an anime called The Case Study of Vanitas.

Is that the book that was written by the doctor during the drug filled night that Mary Shelley came up with Frankenstein? Timeline seems like it would match (yeah, yeah I could just google it, I know, but I prefer to engage with real people). As for why they didn't use him, well, is there anything resembling Lord Ruthven in Castlevania itself? Because as weird as Erzabeth is as a character concept for the setting, there is still some basis for her from the games. Making the main villain a character with no connection at all, coupled with putting the setting in Revolutionary France (I don't think the series ever went there, unless Bloodlines happened to pass by there at the right time period as there was a globe trekking aspect to that game) and the other aforementioned character changes might run the risk of this not feeling like a Castlevania adaptation at all and just general vampire fiction with some Castlevania names.