Topic: Castlevania - The Plot Hole Thread

[Inccubus]

Here are the translating efforts of the guys over at ROMHacking.net:
http://www.romhacking.net/forum/index.php/topic,10329.msg155533.html#msg155533

[darkwzrd4]

Let's forget the 100 year rule.  Remember, the timeline gets changed every so often and no one seems to think about it until a new game is finished instead of the other way around.  That is what causes these plot holes.  Keep in mind that when older games like CV4 were made, there as no real origin to the whip or reason why the Belmonts always fought Dracula other than the fact that he was evil.  Things change and stories evolve.  That being said, we can't assume that everything said in the games themselves is accurate anymore (especially in the older games).

[Nagumo]

Here are the translating efforts of the guys over at ROMHacking.net:
http://www.romhacking.net/forum/index.php/topic,10329.msg155533.html#msg155533

It's funny how the two translations of the intro/manual use the 100 year date in a different context. The second translations makes you believe that the game does take place on the 100 yeark mark while the other doesn't. The translation from the Castlevania lore also translates that part differently.

So, which translation is correct?

Paul Jensen:

As it neared 100 years
since the dark lord was destroyed
in a life-and-death struggle
with the Belmonts
and banished from the human world,
a lasting drought cast a shadow
over Transylvania's former prosperity.

DarknessSavior:

The demonic lord loses a fight to-the-death against a Belmond, and then is banished from the human world for 100 years.
Around that time in Transylvania, the people are visited by thousands of reoccuring injuries, and a black cloud hovers over the once prosperous town.

Help Me:

The Belmonts had always defeated Dracula in death duels, banishing him from the living world for another hundred years, in which prosperity
would once again be covered by shadows and Transylvania suffers a continous disaster...

[X]

Actually there was an origin to the whip. It was stated in the CV3 manual. Trevor had received the whip along with the five sub-weapons from the poltergeist king in order to slay evil. But I guess that wasn't good enough for IGA.

-X   

[Mobius]

Okay. Here is the original text from the SNES game's opening text scroll.

Every one hundred years the forces of good mysteriously start to weaken. Thus, the power of Dracula starts to revive itself. His power grows stronger and stronger every one hundred years.

Dracula has revived many times. However, his sinister actions have been consistently thwarted by the Belmont family. It's been one hundred years since the last confrontation between Dracula and the Belmont family. But now the serenity of Transylvania is being threatened by destructive forces.

On a dark and eerie night Dracula rose from his grave to unleash his destructive power over the countryside. Once again Simon Belmont is called upon to destroy Dracula. With only his whip and courage he sets out to restore peace to Transylvania.

Well... Can't say I recalled the blurb about it having been one hundred years already since the last encounter. But then, the only real thing separating the overall gist of the opening introduction in the English version from the original Japanese version is the line, "Once again Simon Belmont is called upon to destroy Dracula." Other than that, the story does pretty much establish this as a remake and not a sequel.

However, the image of Dracula rising from the same gravestone seen at the conclusion of CV II combined with the fact that Dracula is VERY very under-powered in the game's final match does keep the idea of SCV IV being a new adventure for Simon firmly embedded in my mind.

As for the whole hundred year rule thing. . . Random script writers' ineptitudes aside, Japan is notorious for restarting a series from the point of a brand new title numerous times ignoring many of its previous installments. Godzilla is a solid example of this. 10 years after Toho's last Godzilla film in the late 70's, the monster was treated to a rebirth in 1984 that took place 30 years after his very first movie and retconned all of his previous outings in between (more than a dozen films at least). This was the beginning of a darker, more serious Godzilla series that ended in 1995 with the creature's death. Four years later, the Godzilla Millennium series was launched introducing a newer, more menacing design for the beast and a more slick, stylized format. Once again, it alluded to the idea that the majority of the monster's previous outings had never happened and that Godzilla has simply always been around since awakening in 1954. Curiously, the entire Millennium series is comrpised of movies that restart the series over again. That is, each subsequent film is a direct sequel to the first movie ignoring all movies in between. This changed with Godzilla: Tokyo S.O.S. which is a direct sequel to the previous film Godzilla Against MechaGodzilla. All this came to an explosive halt when Ryuhei Kitamura mounted Toho's 50th anniversary Godzilla film - Thus far, the last in the series. Godzilla: Final Wars pulled a full J.J. Abrahams-worthy 540-degree turn by revealing in a flashy five-minute opening montage that EVERY Godzilla outing had not only happened, many of its key moments were now repeating themselves and all leading up to a final penultimate battle royal. Proof positive that with a little ingenuity (and a bit of fun), any plothole-ridden series can be fine-tooled and reimagined into a working, cohesive whole.

Now as for Castlevania, as far as I've been playing the series the way that I've ALWAYS understood the hundred-year rule is that it does not exclude other attempts to raise Dracula by various other means. Human sacrifice, spirit-transfusion, mind-control, black magic, tampering with the space-time continuum, all are perfectly good methods of raising the lord of all vampires as far as I'm concerned. Never once was there a mandate that explicitly stated Dracula and his castle could ONLY rise once every hundred years. No, once every hundred years the barriers separating our world from the realm of darkness weakens of its own accord and evil is allowed to break through since it naturally grows stronger and stronger over time. Dracula is a manifestation of ultimate evil. The Demon Castle is a manifestation of it as well. He claims the most steady ownership of its power and thus they come back every hundred years whether we mere mortals want them to or not. Aside from that, there is nothing stopping servants of evil from doing their darnest to raise the dark lord prematurely whenever the urge takes them. When you factor in how many other possible threats could be lurking in the void of chaos that even a Belmont would have a tough time putting down, the possibilities of future CV titles really is limitless.

...A shame though how some people just don't choose to see it that way.

[X]

Actually I see that quite clearly and is a perfect example of the hundred year rule as well as premature resurrections.

-X

[thernz]

Actually there was an origin to the whip. It was stated in the CV3 manual. Trevor had received the whip along with the five sub-weapons from the poltergeist king in order to slay evil. But I guess that wasn't good enough for IGA.

-X   

I believe the Poltergeist King was made up by Konami of America, unfortunately. ;_;
Oh Poltergeist King~
Forgotten under the sands of mistranslation.

[Inccubus]

Now as for Castlevania, as far as I've been playing the series the way that I've ALWAYS understood the hundred-year rule is that it does not exclude other attempts to raise Dracula by various other means. Human sacrifice, spirit-transfusion, mind-control, black magic, tampering with the space-time continuum, all are perfectly good methods of raising the lord of all vampires as far as I'm concerned. Never once was there a mandate that explicitly stated Dracula and his castle could ONLY rise once every hundred years. No, once every hundred years the barriers separating our world from the realm of darkness weakens of its own accord and evil is allowed to break through since it naturally grows stronger and stronger over time. Dracula is a manifestation of ultimate evil. The Demon Castle is a manifestation of it as well. He claims the most steady ownership of its power and thus they come back every hundred years whether we mere mortals want them to or not. Aside from that, there is nothing stopping servants of evil from doing their darnest to raise the dark lord prematurely whenever the urge takes them. When you factor in how many other possible threats could be lurking in the void of chaos that even a Belmont would have a tough time putting down, the possibilities of future CV titles really is limitless.

My thoughts exactly.

[Reinhart77]

There seems to be an idea that Dracula can "rise on his own" at the 100 year mark.  While this has been "shown" to be true in the cinematics for Super Castlevania IV and the end of Simon's Quest, every other 100 year mark game "shows" that it was a group of humans or devils that raised him in a ceremony, and the Japanese CV IV story still says that it was men's prayers that caused his return anyways.  The ending of Judgment also basically says that it wasn't necessarily Dracula's choice to return time after time again, he was called by humans ("His spirit is reborn in our world time and time again, not by his own will, but in answer to man's wicked call.", of course, the famous SotN Dracula-Richter speach says essentially the same thing)

[Danial]

I used to think that Dracula just naturally resurrected himself every hundred years, but after reading what Reinhart said, I think he's right.  Dracula does talk a lot about how it's never his choice to be resurrected, but it's humans who call upon him.  I kind of like that better also.  It make Dracula a more tragic character.  By becoming the Dark Lord, he's never allowed to truly die and rest in peace.  He's like a genie.  He has these incredible powers, yet he's still chained to the whims of humans.  He may have originally hated God and humans for killing his wives, but after centuries of being resurrected by the people he hates, maybe his goals have changed.  What if Dracula is no longer just trying to "defy God", what if his goal is to kill all humans so he can finally rest.

Also, if you look at each resurrection as being instigated by a cult, it fits in really well with the timeline.  Back when Dracula first started being resurrected, there weren't that many cults that worshiped him.  But the further along in the timeline you get, the more cults and followers there are.  That's why there are more modern attempts to bring Dracula back than there were when he first became the Dark Lord.

[X]

Dracula has always been a tragic character. He doesn't need a bunch of foolish cultists to make him as such by resurrecting him prematurely. Dracula's tragedy began when his wife threw herself out the window due to false news of Dracula's death by the Turks. Saddened at first about his loss Dracula became mortified when thr head preast told him that her soul could not be saved due to her taking her own life. That pushed him over the edge and started his down-hill tragedy. Then renouncing for whom he dedicated his life to serve, stabbing the cross in his castle chapel, drinking the blood that came from it and essentially going mad with rage and despair. -now that's tragedy.

-X   

[darkwzrd4]

Dracula has always been a tragic character. He doesn't need a bunch of foolish cultists to make him as such by resurrecting him prematurely. Dracula's tragedy began when his wife threw herself out the window due to false news of Dracula's death by the Turks. Saddened at first about his loss Dracula became mortified when thr head preast told him that her soul could not be saved due to her taking her own life. That pushed him over the edge and started his down-hill tragedy. Then renouncing for whom he dedicated his life to serve, stabbing the cross in his castle chapel, drinking the blood that came from it and essentially going mad with rage and despair. -now that's tragedy.

-X   

I think you are confusing CV with the movie "Bram Stoker's Dracula".  Dracula did no such thing in the CV series.

[Inccubus]

Yeah, not until SotN did they start making him a tragic figure. Although, by extension from the novel you could say they started that trend in Bloodlines.

[Jorge D. Fuentes]

Please do not pay any regards to the USA manual for Castlevania III.  It is a silly translation with crazy things like Poltergeist Kings and Belmont Warrior Chromosomes and roads that fork (not spoons).

With CV4, pay more attention to the JPN manual and story than the USA one (though this one is a lot closer to the original).

[X]

Actually darkwzrd4 Dracula did do such a thing in the CV series. But IGA brought out LoI and messed it up. No matter what anyone else tells me, even if IGA were to tell me, I won't accept LoI's Dracula origins as true. Only Brahm Stoker has that right as he invented Dracula; the true Dracula. Besides CV Bloodlines came first so the game has first say in the matter.

-X