Topic: Will the inevitable movie "save" the franchise by killing it?

[X]

DragonSlayr81 makes a good point about Dracula so I agree with him. Dracula's character was fine until IGA made LoI and messed it up. Then we have LoS which makes Dracula interesting on another level but doesn't live up to what he really should have been. The Real life Vlad Tepes was both a master tactician and a ruthless warrior. He's the ONLY one to rightfully be called Dracula because that's who he is.

[A-Yty]

The main issue I have with LoI is it confuses the connection between Vlad Tepes and Dracula. Dracula can be a title, but they already established he is "Vlad Tepes Dracula" beforehand. But if I disregard the narrative shortcomings of LoI, I like the idea. He had to have a human life before being a vampire, which is something the games before that didn't elaborate on. Back in the day, the player had to assume he was the Wallachian guy who liked impaling. SotN started portraying him as kind of dark messiah or a judge of mankind, not just someone who does things for the evulz. I like that more than him just being a complete sadist asshole just because. Personificating evil in the world to a single entity? Not my cup of tea *cough and subtly points at Satan wearing a black cloud crotch cover*.

Fox Mulder says it best: "The devil is just a man with a plan. True evil is the collaboration of man". Classic Drac is just doing what mankind wants. Humans are the true "villain" of the story. Drac is a sophisticated man who got betrayed by God, so he became a vampire. Then humans took away what he cared about the most, so he became the genie of their vile needs. And I mean genie in the Wishmaster-kind of way, not the Disney way.

My fanon explonation why his tactics are varying and he seems to remember little of his genius strategist ways? Repeated deaths make you kind of silly. But even if the Real Big D is an ineffective murderer of Belmonts, he always had style and class.

[crisis]

Indeed, A-Yty-chan, IGA stated that the man once known as Mathius Cronqvist eventually changed his name & identity to live in quietly in foreign lands, where he would delve deeper into the dark arts & "perform taboo rituals & summon ancient demons in his castle fortress," according to the CVAdventure manual. The SotN manual also stated that he was estimated to be 800 years old, therefore there was no way anybody could speculate that he was OUR historical Vlad from the 15th century. Since early on this "alternate history" of Earth never intended for Vlad to have fought the Turks in Wallachia, have a sibling, etc. That's what I think is great about the series; it borrows several historical events/figures, but puts its own spin on things (The Crusades, the solar eclipses, etc.) A "what-if" version of planet Earth.

And quite honestly, I'm still clamoring for a game that takes place a century after LoI that shows a young Vlad collecting demon/vampire souls. A reverse-AoS if you will, but the big bad could be Galamoth. So many possibilities..

[Shiroi Koumori]

And quite honestly, I'm still clamoring for a game that takes place a century after LoI that shows a young Vlad collecting demon/vampire souls. A reverse-AoS if you will, but the big bad could be Galamoth. So many possibilities..

Ah yes, I would want to play that game.
But, would future developers use IGA's timeline?

[VladCT]

And quite honestly, I'm still clamoring for a game that takes place a century after LoI that shows a young Vlad collecting demon/vampire souls. A reverse-AoS if you will, but the big bad could be Galamoth. So many possibilities..

Or maybe anyone who previously owned what would be Castlevania. If Walter's castle weren't indeed the demon castle, then I want to see how Dracula found the castle and made it his, and how it became a creature of chaos (or if it were indeed a creature of chaos from the beginning).
Also, seeing as Death is pretty much Dracula's familiar, perhaps this could be worked into the gameplay in a manner not unlike Chaos Legion.

[X]

I don't believe Dracula ever found Castlevania in the 'stumbled upon' sense. It is a product of his sorcery therefore he created it out of his own will. It's a reflection of his evil desires and ambitions that always changes every time it is reborn, but ultimately is still the same in it's purpose.

[VladCT]

I see, if he did raise the castle through his own will, then I suppose crisis' proposal would work better, as an act of that caliber would require immense power, even moreso to bind the power of Chaos as the castle's power source.

[Weiss Belmont]

Killing the essence of what it really is I mean. Assuming LoS hasn't already killed off the original series forever...

LoS hasn't killed off the original continuum forever. The same rabid irrational hatred and paranoia that "fans" have toward the LOS entry is no different than when the Kojima Army claimed Rising Revengeance would be the deathnail of the Metal Gear franchise. LOS was not Konami killing off Igarashi's universe, it was Konami taking Castlevania in a different direction albeit briefly whether the entry would be successful or not. It seems apparent that Konami is insistent on continuing the traditional Castlevania series (and with that the canon) on handheld consoles anyway.

But I degress, changes to our beloved franchise would be inevitable in a film for budgetary and storytelling reasons. And probably so Anderson's wife could Mary-Sue if he winds up running the show. You can't build elaborate castle sets or even convincing CGI ones on the cheap, and the lone protagonist defeating monsters set-up would have to be changed for a general audience. There would have to be a love interest, because every American action movie MUST have a romance, and a comedy sidekick. No matter how much they're obviously tacked-on. Dracula and his minions would have to be adjusted to fit into a post-Twilight world.

I agree with everything you have said.

 

If the movie(s) were successful this might make a general audience more aware of the brand name Castlevania, but would it really help game sales, and what would its creative effect be on future games? Of course since it seems Konami is probably not interested in reviving the original canon after MercurySteam lets go of the reins, the entire question may be moot.

On this end I disagree with everything you have said for the following reasons. It doesn't matter how bad or how successful the Castlevania movie will be, it will hardly affect the series. I argue this because of Resident Evil. Because most Americans are retarded the Resident Evil movies have been balls out blockbusters. The same idiots that saw the first one came out to see six or seven or whatever fucking number Anderson is on at this point. Each year there is a new RE movie which is somehow even more abysmal than whatever movie preceded it and people keep drinking the punch. Bear in mind that the idiots going to see these movies are composed mostly of typical movie goers and not the RE fanbase. Movie goers only go to see movies. They aren't about to drop $40 for a movie and an additional $60 for the game on which these movies are based on. With that said whether the Castlevania movie kicks ass or sucks it interest in the game series will be what it is.

Focusing my post directly on the aforementioned movie I want us all to be clear on why it's going to suck as all video game movies do. The issue we've seen in previous video game movies is that directors gear these movies toward "a commercial audience" see "the ignorant masses" and in order to give the illusion that they're staying faithful to the property they pick certain elements on callbacks of those properties. For example, look at Silent Hill 2 or whatever the second movie was called. It was based almost entirely on the third game but it took elements from this game or that game or that in the series, taping them together in a terrible mishmash while the narrative strayed from the original source material and a buttload of CG was inserted to fill in the multitude of holes.

Carlyle is working on the Deus Ex movie and guess what. It's going to be shit. Even though Carlyle has played the games, he knows that in order to grab that "commercial audience" he's going to have to dumb the film way down and just pick certain aspects of the game to throw into the film.

Castlevania is going to be a terrible film because Anderson is going to pick somethings from say two and three, maybe SOTN, some LOI, and maybe some LOS and he's going to tape all that shit together because Anderson, not being a gamer, won't know what takes precedence in the Castlevania-verse nor will he care. So expect Alucard and Leon to run into each other, anticipate Mathias and Gabriel existing in the same universe and be prepared to wipe your ass with the money some of you are going to spend on this piece of shit.

To make this simple as I know I can rant and rant and rant, video game movies suck because directors cut and paste "elements" from games and throw them into the movie. But those elements are never tied together to make them feel like anything but Easter eggs. Anderson is the abortion that Hollywood was glad it botched. This is true. But it wouldn't matter who directs Castlevania because it would be terrible anyway.

Is Castlevania and excellent property? Fuck yeah. Would it make a good movie? On a good day it depends on which game. But typically fuck no.