Topic: Netflix Castlevania Animation: Cast Revealed

[Gaawa-chan]

(click to show/hide)

Music aside, I think the primary problem is that the series is trying to rush through the story at break-neck speed.  Case in point, Alucard is not present for Lisa's death, and in canon, Alucard did not immediately fight his father.  This also caused quite a bit of awkward exposition.  If the episodes were longer, I don't think this would be as much of a problem.
.
Other than the OST and the problems caused by cramming the story into such short episodes, I was surprised by how much I liked it.  Sure, Trevor's characterization is cliche, but it works well within the context of the story (and funnily enough, it doesn't really clash with anything that we saw of Trevor in CoD save for the speech patterns), and while they did change Sypha a lot, I found myself just being relieved that they didn't go with the Castlevania: Judgement portrayal.  BLEGH.
.
Also, are people seriously upset about the portrayal of the church in this?  What were you expecting from a series based off of CV3?  You should just be glad they bothered to put in one good priest who could make holy water.  FFS, in canon, Dracula is a maltheist; it's a freaking plot point.
.
Anyway, hoping to see Grant in future episodes in particular, but I'm also curious if they'll throw in anything related to Hector, Isaac, or Lyudmil.  I think it's unlikely, but I already spotted a rather obvious reference to the radio drama which I didn't expect at all, so who knows?

[DraculaCronqvist]

The voice acting was mediocre at best, be it English, Japanese or German. The story was rushed, the music forgettable (the only good piece was the one used in the trailer, and that was not used in the show proper), the changes to the storyline uneccessary or even bad (Speakers especially) while other changes were very welcome (like Dracula's castle being able to move and him using science so explicitly). Still utterly disappointed about the Japanese VA's not representing their roles (Dracula needs Wakamoto).

Still, for all the negative criticism I have about the series, I think it is still good, IF not looked at from the perspective of a real fan. It was made more for people not accustomed to the games and so it was not the love letter people had hoped for. All in all, I like it, if just for the virtue of it hopefully driving Lords of Shadow from people's mind as Castlevania. I'd rather have the masses think that this show is Castlevania, rather than LoS.

[Nagumo]

What were you expecting from a series based off of CV3? 

A church who is tries everything in their power to protect Wallachia from Dracula, and having exhausted all the options, rise above people's fear of what they don't understand and reach out to the Belmont family. Sure, there's the Inquisition but some are fine with employing witches.

So, basically the opposite of what we got in the animated series.

[uzo]

Because it seems like a lot of dialogue was removed, perhaps this is why the dialogue conversations in the series seems strange.

Yeah I thought I noticed that too. Wasn't sure what was up with it. Makes sense if they had to edit, shorted, or change the dialog, especially post recording, that it came out stiff. Good catch.

[TheTextGuy]

A church who is tries everything in their power to protect Wallachia from Dracula, and having exhausted all the options, rise above people's fear of what they don't understand and reach out to the Belmont family. Sure, there's the Inquisition but some are fine with employing witches.

So, basically the opposite of what we got in the animated series.

You know, I would've much rather preferred if the animated series went more towards with two factions of Christianity where one of them is the one who recruits Sypha and Trevor, while the other faction can be the more evil faction and have both of them butt heads.  Instead, we get a Church where everyone but one guy is most obviously evil.

[Aiddon]

A church who is tries everything in their power to protect Wallachia from Dracula, and having exhausted all the options, rise above people's fear of what they don't understand and reach out to the Belmont family. Sure, there's the Inquisition but some are fine with employing witches.

So, basically the opposite of what we got in the animated series.

Not gonna lie: that wouldn't have logically existed back in the 15th century. The Church (whether Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox) was indeed that ridiculously corrupt. In fact, it was SO corrupt that Ellis was probably holding back in his depiction of it. For example: victims of witch burnings were burned at the stake for practicing ANY kind of medicine. It was closely regulated by the Church and women could be sentenced to death just for being a midwife and assisting with childbirth. It would only be a few decades later that the Reformation hit and the corruption started to get weeded out. So, yeah, of anything Ellis addressed a gigantic historical error the original game made. The Church would not have been friendly to the Belmont clan and them putting Sypha (a woman) in their employ wouldn't make any sense. Tons of source material has elements that are outdated and thus adaptations weed those out. Happens all the time and this is no different

[theplottwist]

Not gonna lie: that wouldn't have logically existed back in the 15th century.

[...]gigantic historical error the original game made

Another silly argument used to praise this series that I've sat idly watching for far too long. Someone can't express their dislike for the portrayal of the Church that someone else has to sweep in and give us a lecture on History. This is also not happening just here, but it's a shaming tactic being used all over the internet.

You know what else wouldn't have logically existed back in the 15th century? Vampire-demon warlock hiding on a living castle made of human emotions, opening gates to Hell and making pacts with evil gods, causing him to become feared by the entire country as an immortal demon king that is hunted by men with a magical whip, and that did basically nothing his historical counterpart did. Instead of, y'know, a voivode fighting the turks and becoming a national hero loved by his people to this day, becoming a crucial icon on the history of his country, basically the opposite in all senses of his fictional counterpart.

So, I ask: Why is Dracula, the historical centerpiece of this franchise, getting a pass, but the Church isn't? Do you guys realize that CV Dracula is 100% not the same as Vlad III and the greatest historical inaccuracy here? If someone appeared and started demeaning the series because Dracula is not "historically accurate", would you think he's a tool, or that his complaints are valid?

Because, from where I'm standing, every single time one of you uses the selective historical accuracy regarding the Church to correct someone wanting the Church to be good, you look like the guy demanding Dracula to be historically accurate and making a fool of himself, missing the point of the word "fiction". Ellis didn't give you "historically accurate Church" because he wanted realism. He did it because he needed a Monster of the Week.

So, can this "MUH HISTORICAL ACCURACY" meme die, please? Vlad III is just as important to European history as the Church. We know the Church was evil yadda yadda. We're talking of a fictional universe with fictional history. You don't get to lecture someone wanting the fictional portrayal of the Church because "realism", but be just a-OK with Vlad III made into evil god of darkness in a secret war with magical Indiana Jones.

You (not you Aiddon SPECIFICALLY, but anyone) liked this "historical accuracy"? Great! Keep it up! But some people don't like it, some people think this was a bad choice. They're not "History illiterates", they only wanted this theme from the original story to be kept intact. It wasn't, and now they're upset. Let them be upset without trying to "debunk" their logic, it makes no sense on this context.

[EstebanT]

The church sucks in real life and in the series. Makes sense to me.

[The Puritan]

I wonder if Season 2 will have the

(click to show/hide)

Succubus nightmare from SOTN. Sounds like something they wouldn't wait till a SOTN adaptation to pull off.

[JohannGralog]

You (not you Aiddon SPECIFICALLY, but anyone) liked this "historical accuracy"? Great! Keep it up! But some people don't like it, some people think this was a bad choice. They're not "History illiterates", they only wanted this theme from the original story to be kept intact. It wasn't, and now they're upset. Let them be upset without trying to "debunk" their logic, it makes no sense on this context.

For what it's worth, I'm an Art History major and studied history pretty in-depth, with a specialization in church architecture. The "historical accuracy" thing just doesn't fly, but I'm not gonna bother with that discussion since it obviously won't go anywhere.

I could tell people how everything "should" have looked, architecturally (poor man’s Byzantine for Wallachia) and dress-wise, but I doubt anyone would be interested in such pedantry. 

I wonder if Season 2 will have the

(click to show/hide)

Succubus nightmare from SOTN. Sounds like something they wouldn't wait till a SOTN adaptation to pull off.

But wouldn't that retread what they've already shown?

[Shiroi Koumori]

I wonder if Season 2 will have the

(click to show/hide)

Succubus nightmare from SOTN. Sounds like something they wouldn't wait till a SOTN adaptation to pull off.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think somewhere in the opening sequence, they showed Alucard kneeling in front of the stake with Lisa on it before it transitioned into Dracula. I think it might play a part in season 2.

But wouldn't that retread what they've already shown?

Not necessary, succubus said different lines than Lisa. Plus, it makes some of the animation parts cheaper in a sense that they do not need to redraw some parts of the scene. Kinda like filler/flashback episodes in anime.

[Dracula9]

For what it's worth, I'm an Art History major and studied history pretty in-depth, with a specialization in church architecture. The "historical accuracy" thing just doesn't fly, but I'm not gonna bother with that discussion since it obviously won't go anywhere.

It's not gonna go anywhere because they're no point or value in it beyond the shallow. Historical accuracy is nice in fantasy but it's not a rule nor does it automatically fly in a series about fictional vampire demigods with magic castles and demon armies and severed heads that drop noodle soup and the most OP sword in existence.

It's just not. There's no intellectual or moral high ground to be had by citing history.

I could tell people how everything "should" have looked, architecturally (poor man’s Byzantine for Wallachia) and dress-wise, but I doubt anyone would be interested in such pedantry. 

So can I, but I'm not, for the above reason(s).

I like that there are reasonably historical accounts of the church being asshats, but nothing more.

If we really got down into the nitty-gritty, Târgoviște didn't have a cathedral that grand in the 15th century, it wouldn't be of Notre Dame or Il Duomo-esque design if it did exist at that time, and any members of the clergy there would not be dressed in nor in practice of Vatican-esque Roman Catholic orthodox. The Night-Raid which seems to be referenced in lieu of Dracula sacking the city was a maneuver carried out by Vlad in *defense* of the city and was fought *outside* its borders.

And on and on and so forth and so forth.

But it's completely irrelevant to the core discussion of the show itself, because digging any deeper than surface-level technicalities shifts the focus away from the show and into the historical aspects entirely.

I'm just as big on historical accuracy in high fantasy and medieval fiction as the next guy or you or maybe even more so, but the fact remains they're just that. Fiction. Fantasy. They can be as unrealistic as they want so long as they don't pretend to be accurate, and Castlevania has never pretended to be accurate in its period depictions of, well, anything. That there are the historical accuracies and references within the series that are in the ballpark is satisfying enough, because they're not inherently required.

It ain't like this shit is any more beyond the pale than anything else CV has done, and I haven't heard anyone genuinely complaining about any of that all the many years I've been in the fanbase.

[Sumez]

So, I ask: Why is Dracula, the historical centerpiece of this franchise, getting a pass, but the Church isn't?

Because the depiction of the church as a misguided, self-justified savior while at the same time being responsible for instigating Dracula's wrath in the first place is an interesting plot point.
I actually love the way they managed to make Dracula represent science and atheism while at the same time making use of dark magic, demons, and pretty much being the christian Satan.
He's a bad guy for sure, but he also has some interesting (even if they are sorta cheap) points about humanity's hubris and reliance on a fictional God to justify immoral actions. Honestly, that meshes extremely well with his classic "What is a man" speech from SotN.
In general, I have a soft spot for a fictional universe where the "dark side" of religious beliefs is true, but the "good side" is pretty much make-belief - this series seems quite influenced by Berserk, another series where "God" and "Satan" are basically just human interpretions of the same demons that actually exist in on another plane of existance.

[TatteredSeraph]

Pretty much what D9's said.  This isn't The Tudors (or a historical costume drama based on actual history).  there's no point in trying to look too deep into the historical accuracy.  Castlevania has always been anachronistic and fantastical.  As he's already said, we already have a case of here, there's a super powerful vampire called Vlad Dracula Tepes, who's a bit of a scientist and occultist, and has a history of impaling people, but he's not Vlad III Dracula, Voivode of Wallachia.  Yeah, the church was made possily a smidge too antagonistic, from a storytelling perspective and a limited run time, I can tell why they chose to make them the focused bad guys for the season, especialy after spending time showing that Dracula had valid motivations for getting so upset over Lisa's death.  Plus, it's Warren Ellis writing, and he has cerain very strng views on things, and it shows in his work.  I get why some people are upset over how the church is being portrayed in this - from both the canon to the games perspective, and from the perspective of hey, the church is getting shown in a really bad light here (which is potentially harder to not get upset about).  Maybe taking a short step away from the keyboard might be an idea before it descends too far into an arguement.  We need to remember that this series is historicalesque fantasy, it's not shackled to historical accuracy, just as it's not shackled to telling exactly the same story as in the games - heck, even the games' makers at times brought their own takes, and there was a serious lack of continuity until Iga came along and tried to put one together.  From a writer's perspective, I can see why they chose some of the directions they took - I have a few friends who are authors, and have chatted with them about it.

  I made my peace ages ago, both when Warren Ellis was posting about the project originally, and when Adi Shankar announced he was getting a series made, that it wouldn't be coompletely faithful to the games, that it would have its own continuity, and do its own thing.  To be honest, I don't mind this.  I feel like a fresh breath of life has been given to the series, especially now, when there's been so little come out aside for gambling games.  It goes back to the original timeline of the games.  It's got its own character, and that can give it space to grow and develop, and it can bring something a bit new to the table. 



On a side note to Shiroi: I noticed that as well!  I'm getting a feeling that quite a fair bit was held back, not everything was told about Lisa and Vlad's history, so as to keep Alucard a secret for the big reveal.  Also storytelling-wise, it's better to not tell everything at once.  Hopefully we will see more in season 2.

[Aiddon]

For what it's worth, I'm an Art History major and studied history pretty in-depth, with a specialization in church architecture. The "historical accuracy" thing just doesn't fly, but I'm not gonna bother with that discussion since it obviously won't go anywhere.

I could tell people how everything "should" have looked, architecturally (poor man’s Byzantine for Wallachia) and dress-wise, but I doubt anyone would be interested in such pedantry. 
But wouldn't that retread what they've already shown?

The only thing I find to be pedantic about is that they show the church as being Catholic instead of Orthodox (Wallachia historically being so, as well as most of modern Romania). At this point the Orthodox was also pretty corrupt at this point in time (with the title of Patriarch being sold to the highest bidder frequently) so they still could have played corrupt church angle. It's just an odd oversight, but not a deal breaker