Topic: Netflix Castlevania Animation: Cast Revealed

[Aiddon]

Well, she was sick anyway and Lisa was prolonging her life. So, without Lisa, I doubt that she would like for 1 whole year. She must have died from natural causes before the ultimatum was up. That's what I think. Better die from natural causes than be demon chow.

I like to think she was the smart one of the town and heeded his advice. By the time Targoviste was turned into slurry she was probably in Hungary.

[Nagumo]

Because he makes comments multiple times that suggest he's been wanting an excuse to have a Purge for quite some time, and Lisa was the only thing stopping it.

 
I think it was only established (very clumsily in his exchange with Lisa) that Dracula was very cynical of humans.  I think it's actually a good thing to establish that because then you could make Lisa's death more like the last straw rarther than the sole cause for Dracula going on a genocidal rampage. However,  your claim about Dracula basically being a ticking time bomb is not something I see reflected in any of the dialogue. Besides, even if that was the case, I would still take issue with Dracula's logic of going after every human. It's still clear that the Church is the one that's responsible. 

The only people who interpret the show's message as anti-religion or anti-church are either religious people looking for something to take as blame or people who are already anti-church looking for a dog in their corner.

 
I think it's pretty clear the author is using this show as his personal vehicle to express his views about religion, consciously or unconsciously. I don't particularly care but I think it's strange to deny it.
 
 

If the common people are supposedly afraid of the church, then why do they all seem to express surprise and volatility when Trevor spills the beans on the actions of the bearded priest who was fucking with the old guy? Why go to the lengths of pointing out the problems with a priest carrying a thief's dagger at all times or bullying an old man who'd done no wrong if not to establish this point?

 
Here's a line from the original summary from a couple of years ago. This scene occurs after Trevor defeated the Cyclops and before he's taken to the Bishop:
 

Trevor confronts the village headman known as the Domn and fails topersuade him to protect the Speakers. The Domn claims he is powerless because the city is under the control of the Church.  

 
I believe this scene was cut but the point is that this proves Ellis clearly views the village people as having no agency of their own. This is further supported by the scene you brought up about the village people being suprised they have been misled by the church. All this does is illustrate that Dracula is being unreasonable as fuck. 
 

In the games he wanted to destroy humanity because they killed Lisa, same happens here. If he wanted to destroy only the culprits, he could've destroyed the village in the game, same here. I understand that if he wanted to take revenge by killing the culprits it wouldn't make sense, but Dracula conversation with Alucard shows that he isn't interested in killing only the culprits.

 
Let me stop you right there. It doesn't matter how it's written in the games because we're discussing the writing of show, not the games. Excusing bad writing by pointing at something else isn't a very strong argument.

[le052383]

One thing I had noticed during my first viewing is the girl with the pink outfit during the Trevor questioning the townspeople montage in episode 2.  Is she a homage of Yoko from the Aria of Sorrows/Dawn of Sorrows?

[Dracula9]

I think it was only established (very clumsily in his exchange with Lisa) that Dracula was very cynical of humans.  I think it's actually a good thing to establish that because then you could make Lisa's death more like the last straw rarther than the sole cause for Dracula going on a genocidal rampage. However,  your claim about Dracula basically being a ticking time bomb is not something I see reflected in any of the dialogue.   

I do agree, though your wording is more in-line with what I actually think and meant at the time. The use of "Purge" was meant as a joke, if only because discussion about the series is and has been getting heated and I'm opting to inject crap jokes to ease some of the tension.

I have no disagreement with you on this. Merely a difference of semantics than actual perspective. That he specifically states he gave [killin' bitches] up a long time ago is enough evidence he's just opting to keep to himself, strengthening the "last straw" idea.

I think it's pretty clear the author is using this show as his personal vehicle to express his views about religion, consciously or unconsciously. I don't particularly care but I think it's strange to deny it.

It's not me denying it. Shankar has gone on record stating that he was out to paint an image of "assholes doing asshole things in the robes and name of the clergy" rather than "church and religion are bad". Doesn't mean this does a particularly good job of it or that he might not have distastes simmering in the back of his mind, though, nor do Shankar's testaments absolve or justify away any follies or political statements made or otherwise intended by Ellis himself. It could be entirely truthful that the intent was a grand social commentary on religion, but I don't currently know that for certain.

What I do know is that we have a couple of notably evil individuals using the name of their faith to justify their misdeeds, without blaring that Christianity is bad IMO (that you have all these other people speaking and preaching ideas of goodwill and love for one's neighbor and turning the cheek, etc., all of which are also major doctrines of the faith in question, I think says something on this front--doesn't make its entire case by any means, but at the very least I think the notion of "people unaffiliated with the church are acting more proper for the faith than the actual clergy" being shown is worth considering, at any rate.). If I look at this as a wholesale barb against the church and religion, then (to draw comparison from something with similar themes of "assholes in religion being religious assholes" specifically, this comparison is not to move goalposts or make a wholly irrelevant statement) I would feel that I'd have to look at Disney's Hunchback in the same light--and we all know that film wasn't a knock on religion itself, but against the sinful using the holy names and influence as self-serving hypocrites.

This exists purely as a thematic comparison, I reiterate. It's not meant to defend the actual argument or anything like that, just to lend a frame of reference on how I'm looking at things thematically. You've specified that pointing to another source doesn't justify poor writing, and I agree on that front entirely, so I want to be perfectly transparent and clear on this comparison and my intentions behind it not being an attempt to justify what's here by pointing at a Disney film. Only to stipulate the similarities in thematic elements that I'm perceiving between the two and how that affects how I'm looking at the show itself.

So again, I'm not denying it. But the things I've seen and interpreted myself do not signify to me that this was all an anti-religion opus. If you don't agree with me on that front, that's okay. We'll agree to disagree since it seems to be a matter of simply seeing things in different lights.

Here's a line from the original summary from a couple of years ago. This scene occurs after Trevor defeated the Cyclops and before he's taken to the Bishop:
 

Trevor confronts the village headman known as the Domn and fails topersuade him to protect the Speakers. The Domn claims he is powerless because the city is under the control of the Church. 

 
I believe this scene was cut but the point is that this proves Ellis clearly views the village people as having no agency of their own. This is further supported by the scene you brought up about the village people being suprised they have been misled by the church. All this does is illustrate that Dracula is being unreasonable as fuck. 

This may very well be--we have evidence to support scenes whose being cut butchered the narrative flow, and this is no different. However, the old script's contents which don't make an appearance I don't personally feel are entirely validated as factors of consideration, if only because we (currently, I'll gladly change my stance if it's confirmed) don't have any confirmation proof that this particular exchange was cut and its concurrent scene butchered because of it.

Beyond the current lack of a definitive answer, though, I otherwise agree with your stance on the matter.

One thing I had noticed during my first viewing is the girl with the pink outfit during the Trevor questioning the townspeople montage in episode 2.  Is she a homage of Yoko from the Aria of Sorrows/Dawn of Sorrows?

WOO SOMEBODY ELSE THOUGHT THE SAME THING

Fuck if I know for sure that was an intended reference, though.

[Nagumo]

This may very well be--we have evidence to support scenes whose being cut butchered the narrative flow, and this is no different. However, the old script's contents which don't make an appearance I don't personally feel are entirely validated as factors of consideration, if only because we (currently, I'll gladly change my stance if it's confirmed) don't have any confirmation proof that this particular exchange was cut and its concurrent scene butchered because of it.

Beyond the current lack of a definitive answer, though, I otherwise agree with your stance on the matter.

I would like to say one more thing about this subject and then I'll shut up about it. I think another factor that supports my claim that the village people have no agency is the fact that Ellis shows us the church employs a bunch of thugs to intimidate the local populance. I suppose they could have gone with the "the village people are fools who having been misled by the church, therefore they too must die"  angle but then why show the thugs? Wouldn't it made more sense in that case to write the Bishop like a charismatic figure who manipulates others into doing his bidding? Basically like Graham Jones.

Anyway, on another note, here's an interview with Ellis:

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/07/warren-ellis-on-castlevania-the-legacy-of-hammer-h.html

Actually, I’m not a gamer! And the awful truth is that I’ve never played or even seen the game. Terrible, isn’t it?

   

[Holy Diver]

So I’ve written what I think of as Season Two already, which is where I move away from the source material somewhat, stretch my legs, and probably get a little eccentric in places.

Well crap.

[Dracula9]

I would like to say one more thing about this subject and then I'll shut up about it. I think another factor that supports my claim that the village people have no agency is the fact that Ellis shows us the church employs a bunch of thugs to intimidate the local populance. I suppose they could have gone with the "the village people are fools who having been misled by the church, therefore they too must die"  angle but then why show the thugs? Wouldn't it made more sense in that case to write the Bishop like a charismatic figure who manipulates others into doing his bidding? Basically like Graham Jones.

Fully agreed. A Graham-like angle would have been a refreshing change of pace with the trope.

I think it's supposed or intended to be that the villagers blindly believe in the cause of the Bishop for one reason or another (based on how he talks about things and his convo with that mayor guy, my surmising is that he used "WITCH, HERETICS, BAAAAAAAAAAD" fear tactics to get the people to follow him), and that his thugs act the part in dark corners and alleyways behind-the-scenes (as we already saw with Grandpa Speaker) to get their way, and rally the people publicly against the "WITCHES, HERETICS, BAAAAAAAAAAD" people/groups that can't be handled in alleyways and behind closed doors.

At least, this is the impression Trevor's laying the facts out for the townspeople and the subsequent violent outcry that follows. The townspeople progressively growing more interested in Trevor's words and more pissed at the priest suggest a strong sense of betrayal--which is something we'd see in a people realizing they've been fed a lie, but not something we'd see in an oppressed people strongarmed into obedience gaining the ground to revolt.

Of course, I stress the keywords that this might be what I think was supposed/intended.

Clearly, the execution didn't do a very good job of belying the intent.

On the secondary note:

>Ellis doesn't know shit about the games and outright admits to never having even seen them played let alone played them himself
>Shankar says he grew up playing it and I don't think he has any reason to lie about that

Oh, the irony and shame this setup beholds.

[ intensifies ]

[theplottwist]

Actually, I’m not a gamer! And the awful truth is that I’ve never played or even seen the game. Terrible, isn’t it? When I was first contacted about Castlevania, some 10 years ago, I went to the internet to look it up.

--Warren Ellis

I rest my FUCKING case, your honor.

[EstebanT]

That was 10 years ago.
Also other people other than him are working on it.
Also familiarity with the series doesn't mean the final product will be good. See David Cox

[AlexCalvo]

Yes. And Adi Shankar is such a fan that when the script for the long in development Castlevania Hollywood movie landed on his desk, with little to no true connection to the series (think resident evil) he buried it and found this project instead.  Not everyone involved in the project needs to be a fanboy.  Ellis brought his writing skills To the table, and it paid off.  We've known he wasn't a fan since the beginning. I remember reading about it on the blog the day it was posted over ten years ago.

[Gaawa-chan]

People need to stop taking this so personally.

[Nagumo]

Just imagine how awful the script for the live action movie must have been if even Adi Shankar thought it sucked.

[Aiddon]

idea for Season 2: instead of the bosses from the game (like Medusa, the mummies, the water dragons, the Creature, etc) being random obstacles to get to the next stage, Dracula sends them out like assassins in the vein of Ninja Scroll and the Vampire Hunter D novels. Have them be personal captains of his forces while Death is his right hand man in the castle. Also, they're gonna have to pick one hell of a voice actor for Death.

[theplottwist]

idea for Season 2: instead of the bosses from the game (like Medusa, the mummies, the water dragons, the Creature, etc) being random obstacles to get to the next stage, Dracula sends them out like assassins in the vein of Ninja Scroll and the Vampire Hunter D novels. Have them be personal captains of his forces while Death is his right hand man in the castle. Also, they're gonna have to pick one hell of a voice actor for Death.

I like this idea.

[AlexCalvo]

Just imagine how awful the script for the live action movie must have been if even Adi Shankar thought it sucked.

Yes, Adi Shankar has no idea what he's doing