Castlevania Dungeon Forums
The Castlevania Dungeon Forums => General Castlevania Discussion => Topic started by: Ridureyu on April 07, 2011, 02:31:42 PM
-
It should have been visible in Soma's game. Like, just hanging on the wall somewhere in the background.
PLOT HOLE TIME:
So, Quincy Morris was a Belmont analogue, right? Well, please explain why:
A: Quincy was only involved because he was one of Lucy's suitors
B: Quincy had no clue what was going on, and only believed in vampires after he saw really, really ample evidence (Jonathan Harker and Abraham Van Helsing were the only ones who knew what Dracula was beforehand).
C: Quincy didn't really "fight" so much as "pulled a knife, got killed by Gypsies, but managed to get a relaly good stab in on Drac before he died."
D: Jonathan Harker attacked Dracula with a Kukri with such ferocity that Dracula had to flee.
It's kind of sad, really. The Dracula movie adaptations all wussify Jonathan Harker for some reason (usually so they can play up Van Helsing or Mina). In the original novel:
A: Abraham Van Helsing was not a vampire hunter. he was a medical doctor with an open mind and a lot of knwoledge. When he saw Lucy's symptoms, it reminded him of some old legends he had heard, so he went back to research vampires specifically. A fter testing Lucy, he found he had no choice but to believe them, and then started teaching everybody else.
B: Mina Murray/Harker was never a love interest of Dracula. The only, and I mean only reason he bit her and started to turn her was out of spite. He even TOLD EVERYBODY THIS, stating that he went after Mina to punish Jonathan, Van Helsing, Quincy, and the other two guys who were with them. Dracula's actually not that romantic in the original novel.
C: In the book, Jonathan is the one to arrive at Castle Dracula (brokering a land deal with the Count), is trapped there, attacks Drac with a shovel (and concludes that, since smashing his head open didn't kill him, he was some sort of demonic being), and then manages a daring escape, getting past Drac, his brides, Dracula's gypsy minions, and whatever wolves/bats/creatures of the night he had in his sway. It's kind of sad how that escape isn't shown directly in the novel (mostly because of its epistolary nature), and the account he gives isn't really that detailed. Later in the book, Jonathan is one of Van Helsing's best allies in convincing the others. And when it comes time to start destroying Dracula's coffins and hiding holes, they have a brief fight against him over one of the last coffins. In that fight, Dracula appears, everybody is terrified... except for Jonathan, who leaps at him with a Kukri knife, and attacks so viciously that Dracula is forced to flee.
So again, why do the movies keep turning Jonathan into some sort of wuss? That, and why did they make the Morris family belmont relatives, and not the Harkers? It's nice that they didn't jump on the Van Helsing bandwagon again, but as far as the original novel goes, Jonathan is the one with all the badass points.
-
Thank you for posting this.
-
It should have been visible in Soma's game. Like, just hanging on the wall somewhere in the background.
PLOT HOLE TIME:
So, Quincy Morris was a Belmont analogue, right? Well, please explain why:
A: Quincy was only involved because he was one of Lucy's suitors
B: Quincy had no clue what was going on, and only believed in vampires after he saw really, really ample evidence (Jonathan Harker and Abraham Van Helsing were the only ones who knew what Dracula was beforehand).
C: Quincy didn't really "fight" so much as "pulled a knife, got killed by Gypsies, but managed to get a relaly good stab in on Drac before he died."
D: Jonathan Harker attacked Dracula with a Kukri with such ferocity that Dracula had to flee.
It's kind of sad, really. The Dracula movie adaptations all wussify Jonathan Harker for some reason (usually so they can play up Van Helsing or Mina). In the original novel:
A: Abraham Van Helsing was not a vampire hunter. he was a medical doctor with an open mind and a lot of knwoledge. When he saw Lucy's symptoms, it reminded him of some old legends he had heard, so he went back to research vampires specifically. A fter testing Lucy, he found he had no choice but to believe them, and then started teaching everybody else.
B: Mina Murray/Harker was never a love interest of Dracula. The only, and I mean only reason he bit her and started to turn her was out of spite. He even TOLD EVERYBODY THIS, stating that he went after Mina to punish Jonathan, Van Helsing, Quincy, and the other two guys who were with them. Dracula's actually not that romantic in the original novel.
C: In the book, Jonathan is the one to arrive at Castle Dracula (brokering a land deal with the Count), is trapped there, attacks Drac with a shovel (and concludes that, since smashing his head open didn't kill him, he was some sort of demonic being), and then manages a daring escape, getting past Drac, his brides, Dracula's gypsy minions, and whatever wolves/bats/creatures of the night he had in his sway. It's kind of sad how that escape isn't shown directly in the novel (mostly because of its epistolary nature), and the account he gives isn't really that detailed. Later in the book, Jonathan is one of Van Helsing's best allies in convincing the others. And when it comes time to start destroying Dracula's coffins and hiding holes, they have a brief fight against him over one of the last coffins. In that fight, Dracula appears, everybody is terrified... except for Jonathan, who leaps at him with a Kukri knife, and attacks so viciously that Dracula is forced to flee.
So again, why do the movies keep turning Jonathan into some sort of wuss? That, and why did they make the Morris family belmont relatives, and not the Harkers? It's nice that they didn't jump on the Van Helsing bandwagon again, but as far as the original novel goes, Jonathan is the one with all the badass points.
Personally I believe this how Dracula should be portrayed. I prefer him as a monster with no particular reason for being evil. Also in the book it also states that Mina also had no interest in Dracula which is why i despise the "sequel" written by Dacre. He shows harker as even more of a pathetic joke and Dracula is some kind of hero with a love interest in Mina which never takes place in the original novel. If you ask me Hellsing has it right, they make references to Brams novel and portray him as the Impaler not some random guy (Mathias). The only thing they deviate from is that Dracula had an "interest" in Mina. In any case I dont see how Quincy could be a Belmont it never states in the novel that he had any children and I dont believe he was even old enough to have a child at the age that could make the journey to finally kill Dracula. He would have been an infant at the most. From what I recall about the novel Quincy did go on adventures with Auther from time to time but I agree I dont believe he had too much combat experience other than hunting game.
-
This raises some interesting points. Maybe the developers at the time knew of only the movie since it was released only two years before bloodlines was made and was very popular with audiences world-over. The movie still couldv'e had a lot of hype two years down the road and this may have been responsible for the creation of the bloodlines story. This would also explain why the Morris' were the chosen Belmont candidates for the story rather then the Harkers. And since the Belmonts carry the magical properties in their bloodline this wouldv'e enabled Quincy to slay Dracula with success. He did knife the count in his heart whereas Harker only slit his throat (which would not kill Dracula as he could heal up from such a wound). In Castlevania only a Belmont can successfully kill the count and I think those working on Bloodlines knew this. And since Quincy knifed Dracula in his heart...well...there we have it.
-X
-
This raises some interesting points. Maybe the developers at the time knew of only the movie since it was released only two years before bloodlines was made and was very popular with audiences world-over. The movie still couldv'e had a lot of hype two years down the road and this may have been responsible for the creation of the bloodlines story. This would also explain why the Morris' were the chosen Belmont candidates for the story rather then the Harkers. And since the Belmonts carry the magical properties in their bloodline this wouldv'e enabled Quincy to slay Dracula with success. He did knife the count in his heart whereas Harker only slit his throat (which would not kill Dracula as he could heal up from such a wound). In Castlevania only a Belmont can successfully kill the count and I think those working on Bloodlines knew this. And since Quincy knifed Dracula in his heart...well...there we have it.
-X
Its my personal belief that the reason they chose this was because maybe Castlevania wasn't pulling in enough funds for konami so they tried to jump on movies story in order to raise sales but thats just me personally. Also the knife to the heart was done after Quncy was mortally wounded I believe and if you stab anything in the heart it usually dies so I believe this was an act of desperation by Quincy since he was about to die not some knowledge on hunting vampires since he was clueless about vampires to begin with. There was a game called Harker planned a few years ago which portrayed him as a total badass as opposed to a quiet law clerk. Course theres again that whole Quincy was not mentioned having a child. Personally it wouldve been smarter to use Harker as the last name since it was stated Mina bares him a child.
EDIT also Hector and also Shanoa slayed the count so I dont believe just Belmont's have the power to kill the count i think anyone with magical powers or are superior to humans have the ability to slay the count mainly because they can match his powers.
-
And if you want to include Circle of the Moon in the timeline, Nathan Graves beat Dracula, too. Speaking of this, which do you think is his most embarrassing defeat?
-Losing to a poser with a fake whip (Nate)
-Losing to a random werewolf (Cornel)
-Having his cover blown by Charlie Freaking Vincent
-Losing to a completely random girl (Shanoa. Look at it from his perspective - he never even picked a monster form)
-Losing to an interior decorator (Juste!)
-Losing to the gang from the Dracula novel?
-
And if you want to include Circle of the Moon in the timeline, Nathan Graves beat Dracula, too. Speaking of this, which do you think is his most embarrassing defeat?
-Losing to a poser with a fake whip (Nate)
-Losing to a random werewolf (Cornel)
-Having his cover blown by Charlie Freaking Vincent
-Losing to a completely random girl (Shanoa. Look at it from his perspective - he never even picked a monster form)
-Losing to an interior decorator (Juste!)
-Losing to the gang from the Dracula novel?
Ya know i think thats the reason why everyone can beat Dracula, he just doesnt care hes given up on it which is way hasnt changed his move set. He has had his ass handed to him by a girl with about emotion as a wall, a werewolf, some guy he was never mentioned before in game that took place before hand, some random guy with a fake whip, at least Reinhardt had the vampire killer, and a little girl who was a witch (carrie). If ihad that happen to me I wouldnt even care I would however get more and more pissed everytime some morons decided to use black magic to bring me back to life knowing the second I woke up some body is gonna break into my castle and own me. I would be very very depressed.
-
EDIT also Hector and also Shanoa slayed the count so I dont believe just Belmont's have the power to kill the count i think anyone with magical powers or are superior to humans have the ability to slay the count mainly because they can match his powers.
That's because of IGA. He ruined CV in this manor. It's like no-longer making Link the one to kill Gannon or Samus not being the one to save the day in Metroid. The Belmonts were the heroes of CV. But even if there names, cloths, lifestyles and locations are changed, they are still Belmonts by blood and that blood held the magical, spiritual properties that made them the heroes of this series. Then Iga brings in his own creations that in my mind, don't live up to the Belmont's legacy and soon everyone can kill the count. It no-longer matters who it is. Now its a free for all. It could even be some kid who's starving on the streets who's not a Belmont, stabs Drac and saves the day. It just doesn't work for me and it ruins CV as we fans have grown to love.
And if you want to include Circle of the Moon in the timeline, Nathan Graves beat Dracula, too.
That's because he's also a Belmont by blood even though he didn't have the vampirekiller or the name. Once again it's not just the whip that gives them this edge, it's also in their blood. LoI story helps solidify this:
Leon: But the whip has become more powerful then before.
Renaldo: That...is because of you.
-X
-
Ya know i think thats the reason why everyone can beat Dracula, he just doesnt care hes given up on it which is way hasnt changed his move set. He has had his ass handed to him by a girl with about emotion as a wall, a werewolf, some guy he was never mentioned before in game that took place before hand, some random guy with a fake whip, at least Reinhardt had the vampire killer, and a little girl who was a witch (carrie). If ihad that happen to me I wouldnt even care I would however get more and more pissed everytime some morons decided to use black magic to bring me back to life knowing the second I woke up some body is gonna break into my castle and own me. I would be very very depressed.
If I had a huge following of cultists that would just resurrect me every couple of weeks, I wouldn't be terribly careful about self-defense either. Maybe he's just gotten complacent.
Though I gotta say, waking up every few years to get whipped in the face to death can't be pleasant.
To stay on topic though, I don't think the developers cared too much with the ties to the novel. A Castlevania retelling of it would make an interesting game, though the end result would probably look nothing like the novel. But then again Stoker's story has been remade and tweaked to hell and back by everyone in Hollywood, so it's not like infidelity to the book would be anything new.
-
The Dracula novel is not part of the timeline guys. Please stop trying to make it fit. :-X
-
The Dracula novel is not part of the timeline guys. Please stop trying to make it fit. :-X
Uh, the PoR timeline has it in, as does the fact that John Morris is a, uh, Morris. Not to mention, I doubt there are many people who play Castlevania for a rip-roaring, well constructed story; at the end of the day, it's a vehicle for good ole time monster whippin'.
-
A vague story description is no actual evidence. Dracula and its characters are public domain and Konami is allowed to use the story and alter it as they see fit. Hence, just because there was an event in the Castlevania timeline that involved a certain Quincy Morris does not mean the actual book is part of the chronology. The only way your claim can be proven is if a timeline states we are dealing with the actual novel written by Bram Stoker. But that itsn't the case.
-
EXACTLY. CV's version of the events are NOT the same as the events in the novel. Similar, perhaps, but considering what Bloodlines says about Jonathan and Eric being present at Dracula's death, that should already give you a clue that CV's take on the novel is considerably different. Different enough that IGA was thinking about making a game about the events(CV's version of the events).
I never seen the problem with CV's version being different. Some people are sticklers for putting in Stoker's novel into the CV timeline flawlessly(or just remove it if it can't fit flawlessly). If there's any contradictions, just remove it altogether. They won't stand for a "re-imagined" take on the events(which, really, is what CV does). The reason I believe Konami decided to include Stoker's novel was, well, it's probably the most famous piece of vampire literature EVER. It inspired, not only the look and essence of modern vampires in literature, but how vampires would eventually be portrayed in movies, as well as CV itself. Considering the story revolved around CV's main antagonist(Dracula, of course), why not include it? But the thing is, Konami more than likely knew that they had to change the story a bit to develope a game attached to it. Quincy was the one to slay Dracula, hence Konami chose him to be the "heir of Belmont", but Quincy didn't survive, so they had to find a way around the book's "dead end". What Konami did was create an alternate history to the events of Stoker's novel. Now Quincy had a child who witnessed Dracula's(and Quincy's) death, and eventually would take up the VK whip to slay evil afterwards.
-
From what I remember... That nifty 20year anniversary pack that came with PoR included a timeline inlay stated the events of the book are in deed part of the CV canon. I'm too lazy to go look for it tho as I'm in the middle of moving. I'm pretty sure it did include the novel.
-
Once again, that timeline only mentioned a vague story description involving Quincy Morris. The timeline doesn't say this event corresponds with Bram Stoker's novel though.
-
Fair enough. :)
-
Unfortunately, since the timeline references the novel (and Bloodlines does so even more explicitly), we're forced to believe that they shoehorned the novel in. The burden of proof rests on the "It's not the novel at all, but a totally different Quincy" camp. But then, knowing IGA, he'll probably release a press statement or something about it, most likely the next time he flip-flops on Circle of the Moon.
-
Let's not forget that video games in general are not 100% accurate to there real life counterparts. Who cares if it doesn't correctly correspond with the book. The can create their own take on the events from Dracula. Its happened other times in Castlevania and other games and its going to continue to happen. Let's just enjoy it for what it is
-
Unfortunately, since the timeline references the novel (and Bloodlines does so even more explicitly), we're forced to believe that they shoehorned the novel in. The burden of proof rests on the "It's not the novel at all, but a totally different Quincy" camp. But then, knowing IGA, he'll probably release a press statement or something about it, most likely the next time he flip-flops on Circle of the Moon.
Agreed the novel mentions Quincy Morris, a character from Bram's novel. But it could also be considered an "ode" to the novel either way until it states the reason behind Quincy's heritage one would have to assume that the novel is cannon perhaps in that little side note in the timeline. EDIT meaning maybe the will go into detail to why Quincy was a Belmont because it states in that timeline that ideas were being planned to explain Elizabeth.
That's because of IGA. He ruined CV in this manor. It's like no-longer making Link the one to kill Gannon or Samus not being the one to save the day in Metroid. The Belmonts were the heroes of CV. But even if there names, cloths, lifestyles and locations are changed, they are still Belmonts by blood and that blood held the magical, spiritual properties that made them the heroes of this series. Then Iga brings in his own creations that in my mind, don't live up to the Belmont's legacy and soon everyone can kill the count. It no-longer matters who it is. Now its a free for all. It could even be some kid who's starving on the streets who's not a Belmont, stabs Drac and saves the day. It just doesn't work for me and it ruins CV as we fans have grown to love.
And if you want to include Circle of the Moon in the timeline, Nathan Graves beat Dracula, too.
That's because he's also a Belmont by blood even though he didn't have the vampirekiller or the name. Once again it's not just the whip that gives them this edge, it's also in their blood. LoI story helps solidify this:
I dont believe Nathan was ever stated actually being blood related but I havent played the game in some time so I cant remember though everything ive looked up online doesnt state he was blood related but it also doesnt state he wasn't. And that statement contradict yours former one. How can IGA's ideas ruin it with anyone just beating Dracula when he also states in LoI that the Belmonts have special properties to beat the count so that wouldnt make sense since Hector Shanoa Cornell (not an IGA character btw) and others beat the count. If IGAs story dictates that anyone can beat dracula then why put that in LoI?
-
Let's keep in mind that Dracula isn't always at full power when someone fights him. In CotM, he lacked his full power (he even says that in the game). In CoD, he was using Issac's body as a vessel and at the end of the battle he mentions that the transformation may not be complete. Meaning that he may not be at full power. And with OoE, he was just toying with Shanoa until she use Donimus which was strong enough because it was Dracula's own power.
Based on this, assuming what I've said is accurate, the Belmonts may be the only ones who can beat Dracula when he is at full power.
-
The non-Belmonts who beat Dracula didn't do so because "Anybody can do it," but instead it was a huge, surprising upset. You're not supposed to say "Dracula is a wuss," but "Wow! Cornell/Shanoa/Nathan really pulled through in the end! Amazing!" Both Circle of the Moon and Order of Ecclesia make it pretty clear, actually. As stated, Dracula was just toying with Shanoa ast first, although he began to get serious when he realized she could hurt him. Then she busted out DOminus, which he had not expected, and it took him down. CotM makes it plainly clear that Nathan Graves is in way over his head, and redefines "underdog." He's not in Dracula's castle, Drac isn't at full power, but he's still looked at as a long shot to win anything. The fact that he does is pretty impressive, and the game does a good job of giving it the proper atmosphere - the kid feels overwhelmed at everything that's going on, andyet he finds the strength and courage to conquer the whole castle, and even a newly-resurrected Dracula.
-
Unfortunately, since the timeline references the novel (and Bloodlines does so even more explicitly), we're forced to believe that they shoehorned the novel in. The burden of proof rests on the "It's not the novel at all, but a totally different Quincy" camp. But then, knowing IGA, he'll probably release a press statement or something about it, most likely the next time he flip-flops on Circle of the Moon.
The timeline always mentions the game/comic/etc in which a certain event is told (in this case only games). For example Trevor's battle against Dracula is depicted in Castlevania III for NES according to the timeline. The bit about Quincy Morris does not have a corresponding medium. That is prove enough that the novel is not part of the canon since the book itself is never mentioned.
-
The NOVEL is not part of the CV canon, but the events are. Or, more correctly stated, the events that are INSPIRED by the novel. Like I said, CV's take on those events, while sharing similar ideas(no doubt) ARE different. There's no plot hole because they are two separate entities. Bram Stoker never intended, nearly a hundred years later, that some Japanese company would loosely work his character into their own franchise's canon. I don't see how people can't get over this. The events referenced as LOOSELY based on Stoker's novel just like Stoker's Dracula is LOOSELY based on Vlad the Impaler. That's not a pill that's hard to swallow.
-
Has anything specifically said "The novel is not in any way part of the timeline, nor are the events?" Again, since all those sources mention a character and the broad structure of what happened in the novel, that's the assumed position and will stay so until somebody specirfically says "No, the novel is not part of the timeline in any way," or "Well, the general broad strokes are, but here are the changes."
It's kind of like saying "Well, Portrait of Ruin is in the timeline, but obviously none of that stuff about Brauner ever actually happened, right?"
(although I argue that none of the games ever "actually happened," hehehe)
-
Has anything specifically said "The novel is not in any way part of the timeline, nor are the events?" Again, since all those sources mention a character and the broad structure of what happened in the novel, that's the assumed position and will stay so until somebody specirfically says "No, the novel is not part of the timeline in any way," or "Well, the general broad strokes are, but here are the changes."
Demanding prove of the contrary is kind off a cop-out argument.
-
No, it's not really, no more than demanding proof that it is part of the timeline. I assert that Bloodlines mentioned it, and the character of Quincy Morris is referenced (including the circumstances of his death). Thus, I want to know if there is any evidence that the novel is not canon, as so far canon works supports it.
I just think that they didn't really read the novel well enough before making it part of the Castlevania mythos. But hey, at least we don't have D running around!
-
I agree with Rid on this one its not a cop out on the argument if one debater ask for proof of the other's argument to prove his side. From my understanding of the story the events that took place in the book were described as it states John was present for when this happened.
-
Which is also pretty dang goofy, let's be honest.
"And uh, baby John was dangling from the carriage. Right. Then a gypsy threw him into the castle, so he saw his dad die! And, uh, then... aw screw it, they're all Belmonts."
-
Which is also pretty dang goofy, let's be honest.
"And uh, baby John was dangling from the carriage. Right. Then a gypsy threw him into the castle, so he saw his dad die! And, uh, then... aw screw it, they're all Belmonts."
LOL yeah also Quincy wasnt that old and was alone adventuring with Aurther and it doesnt state him having no other love interests other than Lucy. Also in the note left on the timeline they stated that there were plans being made to explain Elizabeth so that story may explain Quincy.
-
Well, Quincy was from Texas. And you know what they say about those Texans.
-
Hostesses, barmaids and Can-Can dancers :o Wild WILD West.
-X
-
I always thought that linking of Bram Stoker's novel with CV (or part of the novel or whatever) was tenuous. Why bother? I mean sure, it's a definitive piece of vampire literature, but is that the only reason? I just don't see the point of including it when it didn't really fit with CV in the first place (aside from having Dracula and then having him killed by a human), and its inclusion doesn't significantly enhance the franchise lore. It's not some horrible mistake that they made or anything, but it just always seemed kind of nonsensical and dumb to me.
-
Personally I have to thank Konami for making Bloodlines. I probably would've been oblivious to Bram Stoker's Dracula if the game had never been made. For all it's flaws it holds a special place in my heart and I'm glad they made it.
-X
-
Don't get me wrong...I love Bloodlines (probably one of my favorites of the series, actually), it's just that I could take or leave the whole Bram Stoker connection. I dunno.
I never really knew about the connection with the novel until many years later, though. I had first heard of the novel from the 1992 movie (well, actually some time after the movie). I remember a lot of people talking about that one when it came out.
-
No, it's not really, no more than demanding proof that it is part of the timeline.
You're only making an unlogical assumtion which may sound logical to you but there is no proof while there is proof that you're most likely wrong i.e the logic that when something is not listed on a timeline it is not part of that timeline. Bram Stoker's Dracula is not noted on the timeline, hence it is not part of it.
On top of that you're also saying that you're right because there is no confirmation that proves the contrary.
-
Connecting Quincey to the Belmonts was just convenient for Konami. Very little is said about him in Bram Stoker's novel other than the fact he's originally from Texas and was Lucy's lover. So that makes him quite a mysterious character, compared to Jonathan, Seward, and Van Helsing who have greater roles in the book.
I actually wrote a fanfiction about this once, long ago, connecting the novel to Castlevania. It's quite unfinished, and more related to the novel than to CV, but if anyone wants a link be my guest. :P
-
The first time I tried reading Dracula I got set on fire. The second time was about eleven years later, but nothing bad happened.
-
Very little is said about him in Bram Stoker's novel other than the fact he's originally from Texas and was Lucy's lover.
And that he's laconic. I think he's described as such about 1500 times throughout the book. ;D
-
Demanding prove of the contrary is kind off a cop-out argument.
That's what it takes for something to become a natural law in science you know? Not being able to prove the contrary
-
Too bad the Castlevania timeline isn't science.
-
Too bad the Castlevania timeline isn't science.
Only if it's not you who inferes about it my dear ;)
-
If you claim something the burden of proof is on you. Saying you are right because it can't be proven is never proof. I don't know why that is so difficult to grasp at. I'm not going into a discussion about science. We're talking about a book here.
-
Personally I have to thank Konami for making Bloodlines. I probably would've been oblivious to Bram Stoker's Dracula if the game had never been made. For all it's flaws it holds a special place in my heart and I'm glad they made it.
-X
Agreed it was an excellent game, good music both characters were solid, and everything else about it was great. I like to think of the inclusion of Quincy as just an ode to a great book and if it was included would it delude the time any worse than it already is? I mean honestly Dracula isn't clearly bound to reappearing every one hundred years anymore so throwing him in wouldnt really do any damage.
-
Maybe we should try to throw the Bram Stoker's Dracula video game (based on the film) into the timeline instead of the book. Then again, Quincey isn't even in the game. The game is so obviously inspired from Castlevania though. Konami should just go and make a game based on the book and actually make it fit into the Castlevania timeline.
-
Maybe we should try to throw the Bram Stoker's Dracula video game (based on the film) into the timeline instead of the book. Then again, Quincey isn't even in the game. The game is so obviously inspired from Castlevania though. Konami should just go and make a game based on the book and actually make it fit into the Castlevania timeline.
Castlevania: The Bram Stoker Chronicles
-X
-
Let's debunk the whole "This game series ties in with the novel, so continuity is a must" line of thinking. I have one word for you all:
Franken a.k.a. The Creature
He appeared in Dracula's Curse and Vampire Killer and (Super Castlevania 4). Both games took place prior to the 18th century. Frankenstein did not create Adam (the creature's real name) until the end of the 18th century. Did Dracula travel to the future to bring Frankenstein's creation back into the past to guard his castle?
Although if they wanted to really stick to the novels, they should move Castlevania to Austria, which was where "Carmilla" took place.
-
Doesn't quite work, since the Creature is no different than having Dracula dipping around Romania centuries earlier, as well. Mentioning Quincy and the events of the novel is pretty specific, like if a Castlevania game mentioned the murder of Victor Frnakenstein's wife. Do the games bring up minor characters from the Frankenstein novel and tie them into the games, like with Dracula?
Look, if one of the games had, as its plot, "Dracula worked as a CLown in Munich," then that would be canon to the game, no matter how silly it sounded. Just because they halfassed the novel connection doesn't mean it's not there.
-
Maybe we should try to throw the Bram Stoker's Dracula video game (based on the film) into the timeline instead of the book. Then again, Quincey isn't even in the game. The game is so obviously inspired from Castlevania though. Konami should just go and make a game based on the book and actually make it fit into the Castlevania timeline.
Castlevania: The Bram Stoker Chronicles
-X
Anniversary game anyone?
-
Putting the book in the timeline also doesn't work because it takes place in the wrong year. The dating is actually seven years off.
-
Eh, that's nothing. Leon was a Crusades veteran before the first Crusade!
...I kind of love how Castlevania rapes history.
-
Eh, that's nothing. Leon was a Crusades veteran before the first Crusade!
Seriously?!? Jesus IGA you really suck at this whole continuity thing! I would never have guessed! Good call there Ridureyu :D
-X
-
Eh, that's nothing. Leon was a Crusades veteran before the first Crusade!
Yes, so what?
-
Yes, so what?
So what what? It's utterly funny ;D
-
Leon had his little adventure in Walter's bungalow in 1094. The first Crusade was declared in... 1095.
But it's STILL not as bad as the Dante's Inferno game! How do you blame somebody for the third Crusade when he was born seventy years after it ended?
-
Since when does condradicting with history excuse having no internal consistency in a fictional chronology? What has that to do with anything?
-
I was just pointing out how tenuous Castlevania's grasp of continuity even is, really. They want to add the novel? Sure, even if it doesn't fit. Having the Creature hundreds of years early is just par for the course in this series. It's honestly kind of awesome in that way.
-
Since when does condradicting with history excuse having no internal consistency in a fictional chronology? What has that to do with anything?
Drama queen anyone? ( :P jk)
There's nothing wrong or fine with it, if you don't want to do it, don't do it, we do and and are having a laugh around here :)
-
I was just pointing out how tenuous Castlevania's grasp of continuity even is, really. They want to add the novel? Sure, even if it doesn't fit. Having the Creature hundreds of years early is just par for the course in this series. It's honestly kind of awesome in that way.
Castlevania has a perfectly fine grasp at continuity. And just because the series is based on real life history doesn't mean it has to follow it in perfect detail nor does it mean continuity should be thrown out of the window because of a minor discrepancy. Then what would even be the point of having a canon?
-
Castlevania even fails on internal consistency. Probably the big reason for all that flip-flopping over Circle of the Moon is because the 19th century already has Dracula coming back something like every year.
-
Castlevania has a perfectly fine grasp at continuity. And just because the series is based on real life history doesn't mean it has to follow it in perfect detail nor does it mean continuity should be thrown out of the window because of a minor discrepancy. Then what would even be the point of having a canon?
Then why would putting the book in the timeline not work simply because it's 7 years off? Is it only history that CV can be loose with and not fiction as well???
-
Although really, it's not like the old timeline even matters that much anymore now that they've trashed it and rebooted it completely with Lords of Shadow.
-
But LoS exists outside of the timeline and doesn't replace it entirely, right?
-
I'm not really sure why that would be unlogical . It was also just an alternate way to make my point clear because all my other arguments were ignored.
Once again, Castlevania's internal consistency is perfectly fine. What are you talking about?
-
I'm just trying to understand what your logic is on the series taking liberties with things and events outside of the timeline, because it looked like you flip-flopped your argument from one post to the next.
-
Well, if we are nitpicking, might as well toss in Carmilla and Laura's ultra-novel-contradicting appearances in both the classic and LoS timelines. Oh me-oh-my, how DARE they!!!
CV's version of history has NEVER bothered me. It's a fictional world, so I'm open to any tweaking, even if they say THAT world's version of Vlad Tepes was actually a vampire who lived during the Crusades, as well as the events of WWI being ignited by Elizabeth Bartley. If people can swallow this type of thing with other stories(I mean, let's face it, almost every fantasy story/movie that takes place in OUR world does it, be it from Watchmen, Marvel Comics/DC Comics universes, and hell, even Stoker's novel itself), sure as hell CV has the right to do so too. Are people going to complain about Alan Moore's choice to include Mina in his League comics? I think people let too many little things annoy them, especially in fictional fantasy worlds. What gets me the most is, people want more realistic takes on fantasy, which always makes me laugh. A good example is how people are saying the inclusion of Ant-Man and Wasp would be bad for the Avengers movie because they are too unrealistic. I mean, in a world where a man can transform from normal size to a giant(Hulk), a god-like man could wield god-like powers(Thor) and humans are capable of technology that makes OUR own reality look like crap(Iron Man), saying Ant-man and Wasp are unrealistic in a world where all those obvious fantasy aspects exist is just being finicky.
-
I don't know about more realism, but better consistency wouldn't be something I'd oppose.
I have no problem with CV intertwining with history and other works of fiction, but when those things have to be changed in the CV universe, I'd like to see a good reason, I guess. I mean, if the Crusades happened 30 or so years afterward, and they had to move it up to make it fit, so be it. But being off by a year just makes it seem kind of amateurish...like an outright mistake as opposed to intentionally taking liberties with history. Doesn't really affect my enjoyment of the games, but it still could've been done more competently.
-
I'm just trying to understand what your logic is on the series taking liberties with things and events outside of the timeline, because it looked like you flip-flopped your argument from one post to the next.
I'm changing my arguments because the only replies I get are "you can't prove me wrong" or just the same argument that I already proved to be invalid.
Anyway, this is most likely the most easy way I can explain: History is not part of the Castlevania canon and the games don't have to be 100% consistent with it. If you are going to put a work of fiction in another fictional world the two should match if you are intending them to put them in the same canon. Otherwise what would be the point? History and fiction are absolutely not comparable in this case. Just because there are dating disperancies in both instances doesn't mean you can link the two.
Saying that you can put the book into the timeine because the Castlevania is not consistent with itself is not an excuse but that isn't true. Which by the way, is a point where actual arguments in favor of it have yet to be provided in this discussion.
Bram Stoker's Dracula can't be canon because it condradicts with the timeline.
-
Anyway, this is most likely the most easy way I can explain: History is not part of the Castlevania canon and the games don't have to be 100% consistent with it. If you are going to put a work of fiction in another fictional world the two should match if you are intending them to put them in the same canon. Otherwise what would be the point? History and fiction are absolutely not comparable in this case.
Says who? That sounds like a pretty arbitrary statement to make. It sounds more like a matter of personal preference than anything. If you can argue that it's pointless to change fictional events to fit with another work of fiction, the same argument can be made for history.
Wow, this thread has taken a weird turn that I'd never expect. o_O
-
By including Bram Stoker's Dracula into the timeline everyting mentioned in the the book should be regarded as true. That's the point of having canon. The events and information provided are what really happend in that fictional universe. When you mention the Crusades it doesn't mean all real life history that deals with that event is incorporated into the Castlevania universe.
The difference is that the Crusades mentioned are just based on the real-life counterpart while everything mentioned in the Stoker novel should be taken as it is written. You can only have that kind off leaway when the event in the Castlevania timeline is based on that book which is obviously the case here. Just like the Crusades in Lament of Innocence are based on the real thing. That's why a dating disperancy already makes it impossible to fit the novel in.
I could also argue Bram Stoker's Dracula can fit because in the Castlevania universe Elizabeth Bartley caused World War I which doesn't line up with real life history.
-
Alright, I know what role canon serves, and I'm aware that you can base something off of a historical event without using that event in its entirety. I hope you're not being condescending.
I wasn't even referring specifically to the book anymore. I assumed we were talking about fictional works and history in general, only using CV as an example. My bad, I see what you're saying now.
-
But considering the book being canon in the saga is illogical, Dracula is not the way portrayed in it, the Castle isn't even important in it, there are no Belmont reference, no reasons for him to be the prince of Darkness, he's just a vampire.
The noves itself shouldn't be considered canon but the events are, the thing is, we NEED to know the CV-version of that story, tht¡s the only problem there, until then, we can only especulate of which parts of the novel are or not in the canon :(
-
A CV game with Quincy Morris is then needed! :)
-
But considering the book being canon in the saga is illogical, Dracula is not the way portrayed in it, the Castle isn't even important in it, there are no Belmont reference, no reasons for him to be the prince of Darkness, he's just a vampire.
Since the novel takes place during the Belmont's absence, I feel that Drac was being less aggressive since he knew his death wasn't waiting for him shortly after his resurrection. At least, that's the only sense I ever made out of it. :rollseyes: I'm not very good at this....
The noves itself shouldn't be considered canon but the events are, the thing is, we NEED to know the CV-version of that story, tht¡s the only problem there, until then, we can only especulate of which parts of the novel are or not in the canon :(
A CV game with Quincy Morris is then needed! :)
This is really the only solution. ;D
-
So basically, a dating sim game with Lucy Westrena, followed by a lot of cinematics of Jonathan Harker being awesome, and ending with a single action sequence where you get to stab Dracula once.
Awesome game!
-
I remember reading somewhere that Japan loves dating sims. It'd be a great way to get sales.
Or maybe not...... :P
Personally, I loved the opening chapters of the book with Jonathan in the Castle. It'd be such a great atmosphere for a game. That part of the novel would translate nicely into a creepy exploration segment. Not too sure on how the rest of the game would be handled though. Konami would have to take some liberties with the original story.
-
A CV game with Quincy Morris is then needed!
Definitely. Just don't let IGA do the story, he'd mess it up. And Quincy's got to be the one to take down Dracula as that's how it turned out in the Bloodlines back story.
-X
-
Sure, why not. As long as it fits into the canon and explains a few things.
-
CV Bram Stoker's Dracula -> Bloodlines -> Portrait of Ruin
That'd be very cool.