Topic: Do you think originally there was more than one Simon Belmont?

[Nagumo]

It's time for yet another of my outlandish theories.

By "originally" I refer to the pre-IGA/official timeline era of Castlevania history. I have argued before that before IGA created the timeline, the chronology of the series might have been a bit different than we later ended up getting. For example, I think there's strong evidence Christopher originally predated Trevor, the opposite of the current situation. This time I wondered if it wasn't possible if there wasn't more than one Simon Belmont, and by that I mean that the name "Simon" might have been passed down the Belmont family. This may sound a bit random, but the reason I came up with is related to a certain mystery that I think has never been satisfactorily answered. But before I get to that, I would like to bring up something that may indicate that back in the day, Konami went with the above mentioned idea of the name Simon being passed down to later descendants.

Admittely, the evidence is a bit shaky. It's information provided from a Konami game but... it's from the 1988 Famicom game "Wai Wai World", a cross over game featuring several Konami characters teaming up. One of the characters is Simon Belmont. There are two official guides for this game and both mention that this Simon Belmont character is not the original Simon Belmont, but rather his desendant, who is refered to as "Simon Belmont III". Also note that other characters from the game, like Goemon and Getsu Fuuma, are as far as I know supposed to be their regular selfs. Simon III is the only case where the character is a descendant of a previously established Konami character. Now, it might be looking into this far too much, but I'm curious as to why they decided to name him like that. Was it perhaps because it reflected an idea they had planned for the actual Castlevania games? It may be a bit silly to have several protagonists that are named Simon, but given that the tone of the series was more light-hearted back then, it's something I could imagine them doing.

Back to the mystery I mentioned before. I'm refering to the mysterious cliff-hanger ending (which is achieved by beating the game under 7 days) which never seems to be properly followed up upon, where Dracula supposedly isn't quite dead. Rondo takes place 100 years after Simon Belmont's era but the circumstances under which Dracula is revided, as depicted in the intro, are clearly different than the one is the ending from Simon's Quest.

           

This is something that has been pointed out before, but doesn't the gravestone under which Dracula is buried have a very strong resemblance to the one from Super Castlevania IV? I see at least four distinct elements which are the same.
   


The question has been pondered before: could Super Castlevania IV have been a sequel to Simon's Quest? When looking at the game's intro the conclusion can quickly be drawn that this wouldn't quite work, as the setting is 100 years after Dracula has been defeated. However, what if the Simon from that game is a similair kind of character as "Simon Belmont III"? Could he actually originally have been a descendant of the Simon Belmont from the NES games? That would defintely explain the mystery surrounding the ending from Simon's Quest. It's not explicitly stated anywhere in the materials, but I wonder if the game was developed with this idea in mind. Obviously, in the current timeline this is not the case anymore. But assuming that my theory is true, I could imagine IGA simply merging the events of the game with the other Simon Belmont games because of how similar all these stories are. 

If I were to ask someone involved with the game about this, I wonder if they would tell me I was right on the money, or just stare at me baffled and confused.   

[Belmontoya]

I love it!

I think you're really on to something here.

Would this make Simon in CV4 Simon Belmont II? It's very interesting. And it makes sense because the title Super Castlevania 4 is presented as a sequel. Not a reboot, or remake of any previous game. I've always found it odd to consider a game called Castlevania 4 a remake of Castlevania 1. That's just not how it's done. Perhaps if it were simply called Super Castlevania, that would make sense.

I love this theory. Thanks Nagumo!

I own an original copy of Wai Wai World by the way...

:-)

[Dracula9]

Yeah, I've always been in favor of the idea of there being a line of Simons--just like there are a line of Zeldas and a line of Links.

[AlexCalvo]

Short Answer: No.

Longer Answer: I think all of the issues you brought up can much more easily be chalked up to NES/SNES games not really caring much about continuity (and we don't even know which Cv2 ending is canon).  I think this idea just throws needless complexity and coincidence into the story.  The stories work fine as is.  All the Cv1 remakes are clearly the same story because they all have the same name in Japan, where as all the non-Simon games have a variation on the title.  Old school Konami liked to use Belmont names over, they did it with the Cv3 manga/novel/whatever thing that came out in the 90's didn't they?  Wasn't there like a Trevor Belmont III.  I would chalk that up to extremely lazily implementing the whole legacy aspect of the series, which goes back to the first game (more on that in a minute).  I really really don't think a throw away name in a silly mash up game is the smoking gun you somewhat make it out to be.

Now, about this theory that Cv Adventure takes place before CV3...  It was established in Cv1 that Simon was the descendant of Christopher Belmont, who had lived and fought a century before Simon was, which would place it around 1591.  Clearly rooted in the late 16th century.  Cv3 is firmly planted in the 15th century, which is 2 centuries before Simon's games, so even the C. in Trevor C. Belmont doesn't matter.  Cv Adventure's Japanese manual does not give any indication that the Christopher mentioned in the game is any other than the same one mentioned in the Cv1 Japanese manual.  Again I don't see the reason to assume different characters with the same name, without some kind of serious plot hole/inconsistency to fix.  It just seems very arbitrary.  For all these reasons I am sure that Cv Adventure is firmly between Trevor and Simon's adventures.

[zangetsu468]

The theory in it's own context is possible.

The CVII ending, however, is being misinterpreted imo.
Bad Ending - Simon and Dracula both die
Mediocre ending - Simon and Dracula both die
Best Ending - Simon lives, Dracula's hand pops out of his grave

In context one could argue the best ending reflected the campy Halloween and Horror movie feel of the early 90's. Dracula's hand isn't literal, it's symbolic that he will rise from the grave again. (If we're getting literal, Haunted Castle was released after CVII and perhaps it was taking off from it's best ending, seeing as HC featured Simon there's no reason this also can't make sense in context.)

The point about 100 years passing prior to SCIV could be argued it's Sinon II or could be argued that the previous 100 years was in reference to Christopher defeating Dracula, which is also mentioned in the original CV's Japanese booklet.

Additionally from what I've read it's always seemed to be SCIV was intended as a re telling of CV in Japan, but the US version read more as a sequel to CVII. That was always my take, but if it was a sequel there was nothing specifically pointing to is that there were 2-3 generations of Simon. Perhaps it was planned at some stage though and then forgotten.

 

[The Puritan]

I never believed that, but I like the idea very much and would love for it to be explored in some future game. It's entirely possible a Belmont descendant was named after their most famous heir, and that could be an interesting piece of characterization for a new whipslinginger.

I still think that if Wayforward got the CV license, they could take a cue from that Battle of the Old Castle gamebook. Have a Simon Belmont namesake actor find out he's the real thing and step up to destiny. That sorta thing.

[Lumi Kløvstad]

And violate the One Steve Limit? NEVER.

Actually, it's pretty plausible given that people in real life tend to be named after father, grandfathers, noteworthy ancestors, etc.

I certainly don't see any overly compelling reason it shouldn't be true.

[Inccubus]

About the ending of CV2 that says that there IS a young man that is the only hope or whatever.
That is a localization change of the original ENGRISH text in the Japanese release.

The original 2nd ending says that Simon dies and that the people of Transylvania will be praying until another young man like him appears again.

From here: http://bisqwit.iki.fi/cv2fin/diff


As for the possibility that they might have intended for there to be another Simon in one of the games. I really don't think so. All of the evidence is from localization. There is no supporting evidence from the original releases. Unlike the CV3 / CVA theory there isn't even any circumstantial evidence from production times etc.

[Nagumo]

Thanks for all the replies, everyone. Because the following post is already very long I didn't end up replying to most of the points people brought up. However, I'll make sure to do so later.

Additionally from what I've read it's always seemed to be SCIV was intended as a re telling of CV in Japan, but the US version read more as a sequel to CVII.

I think this is has been the consensus for quite a while, isn't? The Japanese version was always a "remake" and the overseas version took creative liberaties and made it a sequel. However, in cases like this it's important to reexamine what we already know. For example, it's important to consider this theory has never been officially confirmed by anyone involved with the series. I suppose there's Cox who considered the game a remake, but I wouldn't consider his view to have any more weight than the average fan.

The fact that the game is called "Akumajou Dracula" might indicate it has some relation the the original Famicom game, but this fact by itself doesn't really say much. First of all, it happens to be both the name of the first game and the overall name for the series after all.

Furthermore, one of the people involved with Haunted Castle denied it's any kind of remake of the original Famicom game, yet in Japan, the title of the game is still Akumajou Dracula. Meaning there is no "rule" that when a game is called Akumajou Dracula this makes it a remake of the first game. There could be all kinds of reasons why the title was chosen. The title may not necessarily imply a relation with another game, but could simply be a busines decesion, like brand recognition. Or perhaps it might indicidate the game is a fresh start. You can't just assume the title implies something specific if this isn't confirmed by the developers themselves.

And last but not least, there's no contemporary official material that outright refers to Super Castlevania IV as a remake. For example, that booklet that came with that Castlevania Best Music Collections Box says the game uses the story from the Famicom game, but "the game's contents are a completely new work". The game is only refered to as a remake by the fanbase. Also, the producer of the game's director himselves denies the game was developed as a full fledged remake. It's hardly a clear-cut case.

About the assumption about the localizers going rogue and making SCIV a sequel, do we really know this for sure? After all, we don't know anything about Konami America and Konami Japan communicated with each other. We don't have any evidence about how things went down.

This is just me playing Devil's advocate, so you could say: "Well, where's the evidence for your theory then?" And the truth would be that I can't provide much of it. However, I found a really interesting preview from the game back from a 1991 issue of Electronic Gaming Monthly. I found this after I had already developed my theory, and I was suprised and how much it lined up with what I had came up with it.

         
         
Note how it establishes the following things:

• Simon defeated Dracula 100 years prior to the beginning of the game.
• Now the people of Transylvania are looking for a "new and more powerful Belmont".
• The protagonist of the game is refered to as Simon Belmont.

So, assuming the writer isn't simply condradicting himself, this strongly backs up my theory. Of course, I know it isn't that simple. We would also have to consider that this is just one specific preview and perhaps the writer was just making it up. However, when looking at other previews from that period, I couldn't find another one saying the same thing, but what all these articles share in common is that they use the same rhetoric of Super Castlevania IV being a sequel.

They do go about this in different ways. Aside from the preview I posted, there are two other types. The first kind of article describes the game as a sequel but does so in a very generic and un-specific fashion. "Simon Belmont is back!", etc. The second type seems to describe the game as a direct sequel featuring the same Simon Belmont as before.

What I personally think may have happend is that the journalists who wrote these articles may have gotten the information from Konami that the game was a sequel to Simon's Quest and that the protagonist was a "new" Simon Belmont, but then this information may have gotten muddled along the way. Perhaps the English intro of the game adding the bit about Simon "once again" going up against Dracula may have been some misguided way of further making clear the game was a sequel?

But that's just speculation, so let stick to the facts. One could say: "So what? The information is from an English video game magazine, which weren't always reliable back then". So I also decided to look into what Japanese had to say about the game. I did find a magazine which contained a preview of the game (Weekly Famicom News) which I already posted on the Castlevania wiki. This isn't in any of the scans but in the table of contents it says:  "シモン伝説再び!" (The Legend of Simon returns!). As for the conents of the article, it doesn't really say anything about how exactly it relates to previous entries, just that it's the newest game in the series. It also doesn't say anything about it it being a remake or something. Anyway, there's at least one more magazine I want to check out, so I'll let you guys know if it says anything interesting.   
   

[zangetsu468]

This is exactly why with Chronicles now being the re telling of Simon's initial fight against Dracula, SCIV doesn't belong in the main timeline anymore.

In context of Super's release it could be another Simon, however, I don't exactly rate an EGM article as solid proof. Because storylines and timelines were less emphasised back in this era it's strange that they'd pick another protagonist and call him Simon. But given the game's obscurity with it's placement it could be they just went this route to open up potential possibility for the series. One may have been a lineage of Simon Belmonts, another may have been one Belmont battling Dracula several times etc. 

[chainsawmidget]

Just to throw a crazy idea out there...

What if the Simons's Quest and the Super guy were actually the SAME Simon Belmont?  Simon Belmont does live in a world packed with supernatural and mystic stuff out the whazoo.  What if, either by his own methods or by some sort of curse, he found a way to prolong his life? 

[zangetsu468]

Just to throw a crazy idea out there...

What if the Simons's Quest and the Super guy were actually the SAME Simon Belmont?  Simon Belmont does live in a world packed with supernatural and mystic stuff out the whazoo.  What if, either by his own methods or by some sort of curse, he found a way to prolong his life?

It could've been possible.

Though my line of crazy theories would go more like this:

LOI>>>CV1>CVII(good ending)>>HoD
                       l
                    CVII(mediocre/worst ending)>SCIV

In this instance, either bad ending of CVII involves Simon's Death.
SCIV would mean that both Simon and Dracula were resurrected for a final battle. 

Edit: What if Simon in SCIV is dead and he's fighting his way through the underworld to salvation?  Now we're into some Egyptology-tier-ish... It's all clear to me.. The grave from CVII, Simon materialising at the gates out of nowhere coincidentally when Dracula's gravestone is struck by Lightning; the metaphor for Simon falling from grace due to the curse placed by Dracula causing his injuries, the 8 directions he can whip on being symbolic of infinity as well as the number of God, the infinite number of items and power ups falling from an invisible celestial staircase before the final throne room, the very throne room where Dracula's Demonic form is his normal form because they're already in the underworld!
The possibilities are endless

[chainsawmidget]

You gotta wonder, with all these guys taking whips, axes, and knifes to Death's face... what's going to happen when they die?

[zangetsu468]

You gotta wonder, with all these guys taking whips, axes, and knifes to Death's face... what's going to happen when they die?

They become Belmont 007 #dieanotherday

[Nagumo]

Just to throw a crazy idea out there...

What if the Simons's Quest and the Super guy were actually the SAME Simon Belmont?  Simon Belmont does live in a world packed with supernatural and mystic stuff out the whazoo.  What if, either by his own methods or by some sort of curse, he found a way to prolong his life?

At first glance, this would seem like a crazy fan theory. What I'm about to say is disconnected from the theory I proposed in this thread. I actually remembered something from the official guidebook for SCIV, the All About Akumajou Dracula Guide. Let's just say in this guidebook Simon is attributed a certain.... quality that would make that theory go from completely crazy to being actually plausible. I'm going to have to translate a couple pages of lore that the author established in that book to explain this, though. I'll probably end up making a separate thread for it as well, because this information is already interesting by itself.