Topic: Why the Morris Family? A Look at the Original Dracula Novel

[Ridureyu]

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.

[Lumas]

Thank you for posting this.

[Lumas]

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.

[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

[Lumas]

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.

[Ridureyu]

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?

[Lumas]

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.

[X]

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

[Munchy]

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.

[Nagumo]

The Dracula novel is not part of the timeline guys. Please stop trying to make it fit.    

[Munchy]

The Dracula novel is not part of the timeline guys. Please stop trying to make it fit.    

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'.

[Nagumo]

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.

[DragonSlayr81]

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.

[VeteranVk]

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.

[Nagumo]

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.