Topic: What if Castlevania did a Halloween?

[The Puritan]

Last year's movie was a direct sequel to the very first Halloween. It ignored all that came before, including a previous revival that itself ignored everything after Halloween II. Doing so allowed John Carpenter to take the franchise in a new direction and establish a new continuity for the franchise. So what if Castlevania did the same?

I can see Konami retconning the IGA games, personally. So no more Belmont/Dracula origin as established by LOI, no more Devil Forgemasters, no more Juste, no more SOTN, no more Shanoa, no more VK draining the life of non-Belmonts, no more Belmont absence till 1999, no more Demon Castle War, and no more Sorrows. They'd return the series to its pre-SOTN roots and open the door to a new timeline using the foundations of the old one.

Would you be down with a similar approach? More importantly, would it work?

[Reinhart77]

wasn’t Dracula X supposed to just be a spin off of the main series in the first place?  it would be interesting to pick up things from before this game and all that came after it. 

one thing i’d like to see is for them to get rid of the idea that Trevor was the first man to defeat Dracula.  the crawl screen for super castlevania iv says that dracula had been revived many times, but what, just once before Simon?  add a ton of belmonts, each who defeated dracula 100 years apart before trevor.

also someone on facebook posted that Trevor and Christopher were originally the same person, its just that their games were developed by different teams.  so bring back the “Christopher” in “Trevor C Belmont” and set it 100 years before Simon as originally intended, and acknowledge the games are just telling the same story from a different perspective.

Castlevania Anniversary Collection would be a great place to launch the new canon ha.

[Lumi Kløvstad]

wasn’t Dracula X supposed to just be a spin off of the main series in the first place?  it would be interesting to pick up things from before this game and all that came after it. 

Bloodlines was also supposed to be this as well, which is why it leaned so heavily on Stoker for inspiration.

the crawl screen for super castlevania iv says that dracula had been revived many times

To be fair, Super Castlevania IV isn't canon, and if I recall correctly, that line only appeared in the English translation. Can we get a lore hound on this trail?

As for stiff reboots, I'm not opposed to one -- I generally think that despite the strengths of the story, both Lament and Aria boxed the timeline in and left it nowhere to go but inwards, which would have eventually led to Dracula resurrected every five minutes if they wanted to keep making games. So, a reboot having been mathematically inevitable anyway, I'm not opposed to a series relaunch from just the NES Trilogy, or even just the first game.

[Nagumo]

one thing i’d like to see is for them to get rid of the idea that Trevor was the first man to defeat Dracula.  the crawl screen for super castlevania iv says that dracula had been revived many times, but what, just once before Simon?  add a ton of belmonts, each who defeated dracula 100 years apart before trevor.

To be fair, Super Castlevania IV isn't canon, and if I recall correctly, that line only appeared in the English translation. Can we get a lore hound on this trail?

From what I understand, neither Dracula's Curse nor The Adventure were originally meant to be the origin story for the series. The Japanese manual story for the original Castlevania already implied Dracula had been around for quite a while. First of all, it says Dracula already revived as a result of a black mass ritual a 100 years before, during Christopher's era. Secondly, the manual story mentions the people in Transylvania hold the belief that Dracula revives once every 100 years, which implies this event must have occured several times already.

However, Dracula's Curse and The Adventure are still origin stories in the sense that they explain how Dracula became the Demon King/Dark Lord. Both stories establish that a 100 years before Simon's time, Dracula was merely an evil human sorcerer but managed to "upgrade" to the rank of Demon King/Dark Lord by making a deal with "an evil deity" (Evil God in the Japanese version). This ties into a line from the manual of the first game which states that Dracula's powers grow stronger each time he is revived.

This means Super Castlevania IV's claim about Dracula having revived "many times" isn't wrong, he just didn't revive in the form that you might expect when reading the legend. Super Castlevania IV's manual story also alludes to this by stating: "In the past, he has taken several forms in this world with each resurrection."
             
So, to tie this to the main topic, I think it would be interesting if they would bring back the above idea if they were to attempt a soft reboot: have Dracula attain a new "rank" each time he is revived and change the boss fight with him accordingly. The Ghost and Goblins series dealt with a similar concept: the first game had you fight the Demon King (Maou in the Japanese version), with the sequels introducing increasingly more powerful enemies such as "Great Demon King" (Daimaou), "Ultimate Demon King" (Chou Maou) and "Demon Emperor" (Matei).     

[X]

The IGA continuity does leave the series in a box/bind sadly. I've always felt that rebooting the series but keeping the pre-IGA games is a possible way to go. However I wouldn't be against the idea of a hard reboot and have the series start at square one. Only so long as what made Castlevania 'Castlevania' in the first place was left intact.

[GuyStarwind]

I personally like the Iga timeline. However, I wouldn't be opposed to the idea of a continuation of pre Iga. The only thing I ask is the series is still about the Belmont family and their struggles against Dracula and vampires/creatures of the night in general. I feel that's what the games are about. I have no problem with the Alucards and Somas but to me they're supporting characters to the Belmont struggle.

[The Puritan]

also someone on facebook posted that Trevor and Christopher were originally the same person, its just that their games were developed by different teams.  so bring back the “Christopher” in “Trevor C Belmont” and set it 100 years before Simon as originally intended, and acknowledge the games are just telling the same story from a different perspective.

It's a good idea. Having Belmont's Revenge follow CV3/The Adventure (with Soleil as Trevor and Sypha's kid) would put more space on a new timeline as well as build up Trevor's in-universe legend.

Speaking of, I'd like more games to end with Dracula living to fight another day instead of constantly being resurrected. That would encourage immediate sequels and even allow more development for characters on that part of the new timeline.

As for stiff reboots, I'm not opposed to one -- I generally think that despite the strengths of the story, both Lament and Aria boxed the timeline in and left it nowhere to go but inwards, which would have eventually led to Dracula resurrected every five minutes if they wanted to keep making games. So, a reboot having been mathematically inevitable anyway, I'm not opposed to a series relaunch from just the NES Trilogy, or even just the first game.

I'd keep the NES trilogy myself since I see Simon and Trevor's outings as integral to CV's foundations. Retaining them would remind old fans and newcomers alike of what the franchise is all about. Then from there, we could have a new Belmont origin, some kind of alternate take on Symphony of the Night (maybe bring back the original idea that Alucard's a vampire because Drac sold his soul to the evil deity), and full-blooded Belmonts lashing around at more points in history, including the 19th century and even modern times (which were impossible on the IGA timeline).

[AlexCalvo]

This is is exactly what I thought Lords of Shadow was going to be, until Cox definitively debunked it in an interview.  I would honestly be ok with this.  But I would want it done right, if you are going to go back and do an alternate Castlevania 2, really lean into the aspects that fell away later, or ever immediately afterwards.  I want it to be an epic monster mash with the Frazetta style fantasy look of the classic covers.

I would honestly prefer a minimalist reboot, somewhat in the style of something like Journey.  Telling the story of Castlevania 1, no dialogue, no story to speak of beyond "You are Simon Belmont, heir of Belmont clan of vampire hunter.  Dracula has returned, wield your ancestral whip, and kill him."  Start us off in some woods, go through some mountains, maybe some caverns and graveyards, into the castle, kill Dracula.  The end.

Some other ideas in here are pretty cool.  Specifically like the idea of a fleeing Dracula ala Adventure.  More immediate sequels means more games, and possibly more character development, depending on how they did it.

[Lumi Kløvstad]

full-blooded Belmonts lashing around at more points in history, including the 19th century and even modern times (which were impossible on the IGA timeline).

Belmonts hunting down Dracula in the 80's. Pass the dream on.