Topic: The Mother of All Castlevania Timelines

[zangetsu468]

The director of the Legends actually came out and said Legends existed separately from the official timeline and that there was no connection. Frankly, that explains a lot. I believe there were some shenanigans with Legends being on the timeline regardless of what the director said, but this can be explained by the fact that KCEK threw all the games in the series together on one timeline without any regard for conflicts. It was mentioned on the old official website that some games in the timeline "might be gaiden".

It brings up another interesting set of hypothetical questions.

If this was the case, was Sonia and Alucard's baby supposed to then spawn a different timeline altogether; with the Belmonts being part vampire by blood?

With this in mind, was "Resurrection" going to be created under the same premise, meaning that Victor Belmont may have also been part vampire?

Either way, what I believe is that Legends' canon does exist as the origins story to timeline B, all it would mean is that baby potentially becomes Simon, rather than Trevor.

[theplottwist]

I think game developers words only go so far.  This is actually a great example of a point I've been wanting to make for a little bit of time.  I don't think developer interview should be considered as rock solid to the Canon as what is in game.  For example, if a game came out that contradicted something Iga said in an interview, I wouldn't really lose any sleep over it.  It's great supplemental information, but not even close to the relevance of what appears in game, everything said in an interview is fair game to disregard if/When a new developed takes on the series, and I wouldn't consider them doing so to be retconning.

By the same token I think it's a little disingenuous to make claims like that Legends wasn't meant to be in the same world as other games in the series.  Anyone who plays it and knows the series can see how it obviously calls back to previous games in the series(in a pretty inconsiderate/contradictory manner, but that's immaterial to the point).  Alucard's presence and look confirm this, regardless of what the director said later to try and justify his games continuity errors.

If Iga were to come out and say for example that AoS was not meant to be part of the timeline it would change literally nothing about the fact that it was.  I guess my point is that just saying something doesn't make it true, even for the directors/developers.  Especially given how fickle so many seem to be after the fact.

BloodyAperture look! You got a buddy!

I'll say the exact same thing I said to Sir Aperture: The only difference between a game and an interview (plot-wise) is that the developer speaks through one with storytelling, and through the other with exposition.

Whenever the developer speaks on an interview while still working on the series officially, he's speaking on behalf of the series. He is representing the banner. He's still speaking about the story he's writing, and still expects people to pick on what they revealed. In other words: When the dev is asked to take and official instance under the banner they represent on an interview, then I consider that canon, because it's a public statement that will be paid to be acquired (mainly through a magazine), and will be quoted in the future as evidence, exactly like the game itself will.

Now, of course, I personally take some rules for that. For instance, I only give the developer precedence when what they're saying is not contradicting the game. Fortunatelly IGA is extremelly consistent, so I'm still to find something he said that directly contradicts the games he made. All the information I know he provided has, so far, only filled in the blanks. Hence this information stands.

Now, to quote a popular case: Poison, from Final Fight. Mountains upon mountains of official material states that she's a trans character. Enter Nishitani years later: Tweets that Poison is actually a cis woman and that the trans thing was an excuse. Then Akiman: Says the Poison is a cis girl. Double-backs and says she's trans. Triple-backs and says she is cis again.

Well fam, Poison is trans. That is the canon and these guys do not represent Final Fight anymore. When they did, they made her trans. Inside the world of the game, there is no such thing as "excuses". And I'll listen to the canon first, ESPECIALLY if the creators can't make up their mind on the subject and are known to change it in a heartbeat.

[Nagumo]

Restricting the "canon" to just the games and nothing else is very arbitrary distinction to make and it's not how we fans are encouraged to interact with the Castlevania series. First of all, you have to consider the games themselves don't exists in a vacuum. For example, they come packaged with manuals with provide more background on the story and characters. In the early days of the series this was sometimes the only place where any kind of "canon" was to be found. I doubt anyone contests that the protagonist of Castlevania: The Adventure is Christopher despite the fact that his name is never mentioned anywhere in the game itself. Why are the games themselves privileged over manuals or developer comments? Secondly, the mere fact that people like IGA respond to lore questions in interviews means that they intend their words to have a certain kind of weight. Why would anyone care to listen to these people if they don't?           

[AlexCalvo]

I would consider something in the manual to be as official as anything in the game, nothing I said even hinted otherwise, so focusing on that aspect is border line straw manning.  I was just saying that the games should be the primary source, manuals included.  And not just in what they outright say.  Everything else is secondary.  Especially given the fact that this series has been passed from director to director.

I am actually only saying about the same as plot is, but maybe I am not as stringent about what is set in stone.  I did specifically give examples for a reason.  I said in instances where what a director says contradicts the Canon or seems to at least heavily go against what is implied, that I wouldn't consider it as rock solid truth just because the director said so.  I think it is obvious that makers of Legends intended for it to be a prequel to Cv3, there is ample evidence for this. So for them to say that it actually exists separately with no ties to previous games doesn't fly with me.

I would never say something like "A village didn't form around Simon Belmont because I don't like that idea."  But I might say "Given what is established in the Cv3 epilogue I am inclined to ignore the idea that the villagers still hated the Belmonts in Simon's era."  I think there is a world of difference here.

[theplottwist]

In a side not could you guys drop the condescending tones?  It's uncharacteristic of you both.

I wasn't being condescending. The joke about Aperture is really because he said almost the exact thing over the Discord chat. I wasn't being condescending on the rest of my response at all. I was making a point about the "officiality" of things, and that I find it weird that you guys elect to consider one thing "more canon" than others based on pretty arbitrary reasons.

Like, I believe that for something to be canon, it only has to come from an official source. A creator giving exposition under the work's banner is an official source, so the information given is canon. Same as the game -- it's nothing more than the creator giving exposition under the work's banner. I've not yet seen a compelling point against this, though I do understand more or less where it comes from.

I think it is obvious that makers of Legends intended for it to be a prequel to Cv3, there is ample evidence for this

Could you list them, please?

[Lumi Kløvstad]

Honestly, I really like what Star Wars had done as the Expanded Universe began to balloon. They had to establish a system to keep everything straight, and they ended up with a common sense approach.

In decreasing scale of "canon priority"

1) Anything said in the films is absolutely inviolable unless knocked down by a later film.

2) Below this, Television programming (with the written exclusion of the Holiday Special because everyone regretted making that) could only be superceded by a film.

3) Here you have the "Recent Works" canon, which is probably the shiftiest layer. Consisting of all recent works (and many older works) released under the name of Star Wars: books, comics, games, cartoons, non-theatrical films, and more. Games were a special case, as generally only the stories were canon, while things like stats and gameplay may not have been; they also offered non-canonical options to the player, such as choosing female gender for a canonically male character. Some of these elements have appeared in the movies, making them Tier 1 canon; examples include the name "Coruscant," swoop bikes, Quinlan Vos, Aayla Secura, YT-2400 freighters and Action VI transports. In this layer, only the most recent work to address a subject would be considered canon: a 1994 novel and a 2001 novel which conflicted would have canon precedence given to the 2001 novel.

4) Secondary Canon; these materials were available to be used or ignored as needed by authors. This included mostly older works, such as much of the original Marvel Star Wars comics, that predated a consistent effort to maintain continuity; it also contained certain elements of a few otherwise non-canon stories, and other things that "may not fit just right." Many formerly Secondary canon elements were elevated to Recent Works canon through their inclusion in more recent works by continuity-minded authors, while many other older works (such as The Han Solo Adventures) were accounted for in continuity from the start despite their age, and thus were always recent works canon.

5) Detours Canon, used for material hailing from Star Wars Detours.

6) Directly non-canon. What-if stories (such as stories published under the Infinities label) and anything else directly and irreconcilably contradicted by higher canon ended up here. This was the only level that was not considered canon by Lucasfilm. Information cut from canon, deleted scenes, or canceled Star Wars works fell into this category as well, unless another canonical work referenced it and it was moved to a higher level of canonicity.

Now, Castlevania is FAR from that mangled, but if you like, you can use this as a baseline for your own interpretations. For me, I'd probably put (with heavy thought given in each case) clarifying interviews and such probably about where Leland Chee put TV shows in terms of canon: as it comes from a primary developer, it's probably fairly solid, but cannot in any instance take precedence over what is said or shown in a game.

So basically, a Castlevania scale could look like this:


1) Games that fit in the officially endorsed Konami timeline take precedence over everything else, full stop.

2) Manuals, Developer notes, interview comments and clarifications

3) Novels, comics, or other spin-off media, giving priority to more recent works

4) Elements of non-canon games that do not conflict with any of the above in any manner

5) Pre-canon materials (anything Konami might have missed while Iga was building an official timeline for them)

6) Noncanon materials which DO conflict

6.5) Pachislot shitstains

It's not perfect, and as loathe as I am to accept anything outside the games as canon in any way, just going by that basic structure is probably gonna help iron out a LOT of arguments before they start. Feel free to agree/disagree in your own time with this. I certainly do. But for civility's sake, I think we need to have some basic rules of priority as far as canonicity goes for debate and discussion and this seems to me about as agreeable as anything else that might be put forward. Some rules to play, by just to stop auto-gainsaying in discussions.

[Nagumo]

I wasn't being condensing, either. Anyway, I personally haven't noticed anything in Legends that is direct evidence it was ever meant to be a prequel to CV3. So I don't see this situation as a conflict between the intent of the director and the game's story itself. Alucard looking sort of the same as SotN (although I think there are some notable differences) doesn't indicate much in my opinion.

[Dracula9]

(with the written exclusion of the Holiday Special because everyone regretted making that)

[zangetsu468]

I wasn't being condensing, either. Anyway, I personally haven't noticed anything in Legends that is direct evidence it was ever meant to be a prequel to CV3. So I don't see this situation as a conflict between the intent of the director and the game's story itself. Alucard looking sort of the same as SotN (although I think there are some notable differences) doesn't indicate much in my opinion.

Not that I believe that Legends>CVIII is a valid thing, however the only thing binding the 2 in terms of plot would be their context; 1450>1476.

However, this interferes with the CVIII>SOTN connection of Dracula waging war against humanity after Lisa's death. It also means he needs to be resurrected again prior to CVIII and accrue all of this monstrous power with two and a bit decades, which was clearly not the intention, as we know Mathias doesn't resurface until CVIII and has never been killed.

In terms of context as well as creator/developer's commentary, the commentary still matters. Zelda (prior to Hyrule Historia's release) is one of the best examples. Although not as straight forward as Castlevania, the developers did make several comments during interviews regarding the individual games' order.

[Lumi Kløvstad]

I wasn't being condensing, either.

[Shiroi Koumori]

@The Bloody Aperture: LOL


I think she meant to write: I wasn't being condescending.

[Nagumo]

Admittedly, it wasn't until I was doing something else when I realized why you posted that image.

[zangetsu468]

I lel'd 

[X]

I lel'd 

lol'd 

[KaZudra]

Gotta remember one thing about Castlevania Canon; It started with a spin-off game, a damn good spin-off game, but a spin-off game nonetheless.