Out of all of Konami's illustrious back catalogue, Castlevania holds a very special place in the hearts of gamers. From its humble beginnings as an 8-bit take on Bram Stoker's famous Dracula story, it has gone on to create a self-contained world which uses the vampire legend as its foundation but adds layer upon layer of depth and complexity, introducing the famous Belmont clan as well as many peripheral characters in a tale which spans centuries.
It's little wonder then that various individuals have been trying for quite some time to adapt the Castlevania story to other mediums of entertainment; a live-action movie remains in development hell, but thankfully another take on the franchise has finally made it into production. Way back in 2007, esteemed British author and comic book scribe Warren Ellis wrote that he was working on a movie based on Castlevania III, and that it wouldn't feature Grant Danasty. He also posted a sample of the script, which featured a rather worrying passage about people making love to goats. As it turns out, the majority of what Ellis discussed has made it into Netflix's Castlevania animated series (or, in the case of Danasty, hasn't), which premiered on the streaming service last week.
Beware, fellow traveller; what follows contains spoilers, so please don't read if you want to go into the show without having any of the story or surprises ruined.
You have been warned!
Divided into four parts – each roughly 25 minutes in length – Castlevania has it all; buckets of gore, plenty of swearing and some incredibly witty dialogue. While the series uses the third NES outing as its base, Ellis has expanded on the world dramatically, fleshing out characters to make them much more believable – not to mention relatable – than the pixelated individuals we wrestled with during the 8-bit era. However, it's the manner in which Ellis pulls in elements from later games – most notably Symphony of the Night – which really makes the tale interesting. The story begins in the mid-15th century, with a largely reformed Dracula opening his castle door to Lisa, a young woman who wishes to gain the knowledge required to save and nurture life. Drac – whose connection to the real-life dispot Vlad "The Impaler" Tepes is not only mentioned, but illustrated by the rows of impaled skeletons which surround his abode – has seemingly changed his ways, even saying that he gave up putting people on spikes "a long time ago". Instead, he now fills the void of eternal life dabbling in science, stunning Lisa with a laboratory filled with incredible equipment (a location that instantly calls to mind Alchemy Laboratory in the aforementioned Symphony of the Night). Lisa is keen to learn and pleads with Dracula to share his knowledge with the world to make it a better place; his cold heart thaws and the two marry, with the former impaler promising to live his life as a normal man in order to be with his love.
However, several years later Lisa is burnt at the stake by the church after accusations of witchcraft (events which are also detailed in Symphony of the Night), causing Dracula to revert to his old ways and raise an army "from the guts of hell" to enact his revenge against those who took the only woman he ever loved. This setup superbly borrows some of the best dramatic elements from Symphony of the Night, lending Dracula a sympathetic dimension which means we can almost understand his motives. It also perfectly illustrates Ellis' broad knowledge of the series as a whole, and all of it takes place in a rather hurried first episode; we're not introduced to our hero (anti-hero is perhaps more accurate) Trevor Belmont until the end of the episode, which also showcases that infamous goat speech.
As you might imagine, Trevor is the character who has been fleshed out the most by Ellis; in sharp contrast to the pious figure seen praying in front of the cross at the opening of the classic NES game, he's perilously close to be being something of a deadbeat. Bitter about the way his family has been persecuted following accusations of black magic, Trevor seems to do little more than stalk from tavern to tavern consuming ale, getting kicked in the family jewels and repeating the cycle each day. However, once Dracula's army appears and begins to ravage the innocents of Wallachia, he finds himself in the middle of a particularly gory genocide and is forced to act.
In the beleaguered city of Gresit he encounters a sect of "Speakers", who, like the Belmonts, stand accused of consorting with the devil and bringing calamity down on Wallachia. When he is told that one of these Speakers has not returned after venturing into the catacombs of Gresit to find the legendary "Sleeping Warrior" – a hero who will rise from his slumber to save the land – Trevor agrees to do some investigative work if the remaining Speakers promise to save themselves and leave the city. What he eventually finds underground is a cyclops, which has turned the missing Speaker – Sypha Belnades – into stone. Returning with her very much alive after besting the beast, Trevor finds out that the church is planning on wiping out the Speakers. With Sypha's help he is able to convince the townspeople to come to their senses and turn against the church, and thanks to his tactical planning a minor victory against Dracula's hordes is achieved at the same time.
There's not much chance to celebrate as the chaos of the battle causes the ground to gives way, revealing the resting place of the "Sleeping Hero" – Alucard himself, Dracula's son. Alucard tried to prevent his father's vengeance on the world but was defeated and sealed himself away underground in order to heal his wounds. After a thrilling tussle with Trevor – who is convinced that Alucard is the true evil in the land – the three join forces with the common goal of defeating Dracula and restoring peace to Wallachia, bringing the curtain down on the first season of the series.
Some might feel a little bit aggrieved that this season is more about "getting the gang together" rather whipping Dracula's behind, but it sets the tone nicely and we already know that a second, longer season is in development. What these four episodes do very well is establish the character of Trevor, who is superbly voice acted by Richard Armitage, famous for his roles in The Hobbit and the BBC's Robin Hood TV series. Armitage relishes every insult and put-down, and has some of the best lines in the whole production, most of which aren't suitable for reproduction here. On that topic, it should be noted that although Castlevania is animated, it's certainly not for children; there are some seriously disturbing scenes and the language would make a sailor blush. There are times when it feels like dialogue is crude just for the sake of it, but it remains effective in giving characters a certain edge; for example, the noble Speakers refrain from such gutter talk, whereas Trevor's potty mouth reflects his position as a former nobleman who has lost his way.
Produced by Texas-based studio Powerhouse, this isn't anime in the strictest sense and this fact alone may annoy some purists. However, the quality is generally good, with some brilliant character designs which reference the original games very well indeed (Trevor's outfit appears to have been inspired by his look in Mirror of Fate and the costume worn by Leon Belmont in 2003's Lament of Innocence). Fan favourite Alucard also looks sharp, showcasing the design seen in Symphony of the Night as opposed to the short-haired version of the character witnessed in the original Castlevania III. As is often the case in modern series animation there are moments when things get a bit choppy; a few more frames would have smoothed things out but that would also have bumped up production time and therefore overall cost. All in all, when it needs to look impressive Castlevania does so, and while you could argue that these four episodes are a little short on gripping set-pieces, those included more than make up for that.
We've already briefly touched upon the quality of the voice acting with Richard Armitage's excellent portrayal of Trevor, but it's worth highlighting the other cast members. Battlestar Galactica's James Callis doesn't get a lot of screen-time to assert himself as Alucard, but he uses that time to imbue the tragic prince with a sense of grace, hinting at a troubled past and a keen sense of justice inherited from his mother. Graham McTavish's Dracula is limited to a single episode but like Callis, he absolutely nails the role, making Drac's transition from reformed character to genocidal maniac convincing when it would have been all too easy to ham it up and venture into pantomime villain territory. Matt Frewer - of Max Headroom fame - relishes every syllable in his role as the sinister, power-mad Bishop, while Tony Amendola and Alejandra Reynoso round off the main cast neatly as the Elder and Sypha Belnades, members of the shadowy order of Speakers. Elsewhere, there are a few too many stereotypical English "ow's ya farvar" accents for comfort, but on the whole the cast is brilliant and delivers Ellis' cutting script with gusto and panache.
It's a shame then that two-time Emmy winning composer Trevor Morris' soundtrack is so forgettable and weak. Castlevania as a franchise is famous for its amazing music and iconic themes, so we're not entirely sure why the team behind this series decided to abandon all of that good work and commission an entirely original score which has none of the impact or appeal of the music heard in the video games. A composer of Morris' stature will have understandably wanted to stamp his own authority on the soundtrack, but including some of Castlevania's signature tunes - such as Bloody Tears, Vampire Killer and Simon's Theme - would have struck a chord (no pun intended) with fans and would arguably have had much more of an impact than the rather pedestrian score the series has been lumbered with.
On the whole though, this attempt to transfer the fractured and often confused world of Castlevania to the small screen is much better than we could possibly have hoped. Getting a writer of Ellis' calibur involved has clearly helped, as the series neatly avoids stumbling into cliche and creates a tapestry of interesting characters which will be compelling to see evolve over the course of the second season; it's also tantalizing to consider if Netflix will choose to adapt other games in the Castlevania timeline once Castlevania III's story is exhausted – Symphony of the Night is an obvious choice, given that Dracula, Lisa and Alucard are present in both. But we're getting ahead of ourselves; what's been offered here is a delicious love-letter to long-standing Castlevania fans and one might hope that the groundswell of interest in this animated series will convince Konami that franchise deserves a resurrection in video game form, as well.
Comments 86
Looking good
Nice review. Good tv-show. All is well in this little corner of the world.
It's very solid. The four episodes take less than two hours to finish, but the story holds up on its own all the while retaining the distinct style and atmosphere of the video games. This really is Castlevania, not just some loose derivative with the same name. I'm really looking forward to the second season. I feel the first two seasons would have been better off combined into one. After four episodes I want more. As solid as it is, four episodes are not enough to truly make it shine as bright as it could. Give it a watch, though, as it deserves to do well enough to go beyond a second season. Armitage is a perfect cast as Trevor Belmont, by the way.
I wouldn't have minded waiting a bit longer to have the entire thing released in one go. Sadly I have to wait another ~12 months
I enjoyed it. I don't have any strong connections to Castlevania or Anime so I just enjoyed it for what it was, which was a medieval/horror themed action flick. My only negative is that it was too short, as the review says it was more about getting the gang together and setting up back story, ready for when it really kicks off in series 2.
Watched the 4 episods so far, good show, definitely will follow it!
The vain "Western civilisation is the root of all evil" theme of this adaptation isn't characteristic of the games' storyline. In fact, Trevor Belmont is very "Western" in this show's source material, Castlevania III. Also, the Dracula of the games isn't a cringy anti-hero, like he is in this show. Unlike modern Western media creators, Japanese creators typically admire and try to honour Western culture and history, so, that might be the cause of this difference.
The choppy animation during action scenes is not a good thing, either. The voice acting and sound and art design are excellent, though. 6.5/10
''Castlevania as a franchise is famous for its amazing music and iconic themes, so we're not entirely sure why the team behind this series decided to abandon all of that good work and commission an entirely original score''
For all we know, Konami might have refused to lend their music rights. I wouldn't put it past such a nefarious company.
Anyway, I really enjoyed this little series, and my body is ready for more.
I hear during development, it gets more edgier and dark as the series goes along. I hope they don't mess with character's, too much. I like this laid back protagonist Trevor is amongst this gritty and dark world.
Needs more! Will have to patiently await for season 2 8 episodes then...
''Slpyha Belentes''
''Sylpha''
Sypha Belnades. You guys might want to fix that.
solid review, solid game
had not heard about he music - what silly decision!
The 4th episode had a lot of moments that would work in a new CV game. A 2-player castlevania building on this story with Sypha and Trevor would be fantastic.
Anyway, so glad this new animation worked so well. I'm the kind of fan that beats a couple of old Castlevania games every year, this has been a treat that had me smiling ear to ear. Bring on Season2!
This is like a bad dream, from here on out, I will just pretend that I saw a different show than everyone else. You folks enjoy your mass-delusion that this show is even remotely watchable in this day and age (it would have been barely watchable 20 years ago, but anyways ...), but still ... the fact that Netflix is making more of this, instead of giving other creators a chance at an animated show aimed at adults, that much is an absolute shame.
And yeah, it's a shame about the music in principle, but on the other hand, better NOT to be attached to that show ...
I loved it, so atmospheric and well acted and animated. Have been a Castlevania fan since the beginning and thank god it wasn't a hashed together mess like so many video game adaptations are. The right tone and pretty funny as well. I completely agree about the music however, there are some bonafide classic tracks in the Castlevana back cat and I was waiting for a theme to arrive which never did. Hey, theres always series 2 and the rest of it was amazing. Well done Netflix (again).
@ralek85 yes, it's a "mass-delusion". Or, you have bad taste...
Netflix is making more because this worked really well. End of story.
@Ralek85 No, my dear. YOU enjoy being sour about the whole thing.
Hi all
Talking about castlevania Konami have said they are thinking about bringing castlevania to the switch
So here's hoping
http://uk.ign.com/articles/2017/06/08/konami-is-discussing-bringing-castlevania-to-switch
Very disappointed that Grant isn't in this show, since he was my favorite character in Castlevania 3. Also the lack of any Castlevania music is lame...
Still will give this a shot though.
@HeroponRiki As Warren Ellis said himself, what good is a pirate in a land-locked country?
@Ralek85 Good news, Netflix is giving lots of other people chances to make animated shows for all different ages. My family can't wait for season three of Voltron, coming in August. Netflix original productions coming out this year also include a Death Note movie and a Watership Down miniseries, and they are distributing a whole bumch of other anime.
I am 100% behind the comment on the score. The show is otherwise glorious, except for the boring "mood music."
Satoe Terashima, Kinuyo Yamashita, Yoshinori Sasaki, Yukie Morimoto, and Jun Funahashi are all still alive; I hope they at least were reached out to with an offer to compose for the show.
Well I know what I'm watching when I see my brother
"Bad language"? "Potty mouth"? Are you 5?
My only complaint is that it's way to short! I want more and I want it now!
What kind of season is this.. 100 minutes of full season 1.. wtf?!
Advertisements last longer in one move at some channels
Now let's get a 2d game with animation like this!
I'm sorry but anyone who enjoys the show or thinks it is 'good' has absolutely awful taste. I'm not going to repeat myself from the other post, but this adaptation has terrible animation (try pausing it at any given moment to see for yourself) grating VA and mistimed lip-syncing and badly-written plot that lingers to long on irrelevant scenes.
It's a bad straight-to-VHS show and you should feel bad for liking it.
Media reviews on a gaming site?! Better throw a plus sign in front of Nintendolife so people don't get upset or confused
Alucard is Dracula backwards! How have I never picked up on that before today 🤷♂️
@Jd12345678 seriously, thank god it was made by america
@RedMageLanakyn them Britains gotta get attention somehow naw mean?
Can't wait for the second season! I just finished watching the first season last night. Whether you like action anime or Castlevania, I highly recommend it.
I believe the same director is doing an Assassin's Creed anime as well. Looking forward to that too!
I really enjoyed it. I don't think the series is as foul mouthed or graphic as you say though. There's definitely some of both, but I never thought it was gratuitous, just for the sake of it, or even that strong.
I'm sure this is unpopular opinion, but the one thing that bothered me about the show is the overtly negative way in which the Church is depicted, which is a far departure from the games, where the Church is mostly either an ally (i.e. friar NPCs who sell you stuff) or just in the background. Hell, even Dracula was made out to be a more sympathetic character...
Other than that, it was enjoyable.
@LinkSword
@BraveFencerZan
Maybe I do have bad taste, but I still think the real issue is lack of perspective here. If you take Castlevania purely on it's own merit, it can be anything, so it can be considered alright.
If you widen your view, and take other adaptions of videogames (animated or live-action) into account, it could still be considered at least tolerable.
What confuses the hell out of me though, is when you just talk about it in terms of TV shows in general or even an animated TV shows in particular. There is no way it could possibly qualify as decent under those circumstances. I honestly believe you'd have to be completely illiterate on the medium, to hold such a view.
Look, if you think Castlevania is "good", what does that mean for Batman TAS? What about Archer? Daria? The Last Airbender? Simspons? Rick and Morty? Netflix's own BoJack Horseman? Futurama? Samurai Jack? Gravity Falls? And a whole bunch of other shows?
Are these shows also "good"? I'd say if you abuse adjectives like that, you paint yourself into a corner, where then only good and perfect exists - because if Castlevania is "good", basically any and all of these shows ought to be considered perfect by comparsion, while about any other piece of trash can still be considered "good".
I'll freely admit being sour about it. For the aforementioned reason, I cannot condone anyone calling it good, or even decent, tolerable or whatever. It simply is not, not as long as you don't pretend it's the only show on earth - in that case good would mean exactly nothing, without any point of reference, and hence it would apply.
PS: Not going to debate this, but "popular" and "good" are not the same thing. I know Twilight is popular, but .... is it really good? I've seen the whole thing, unfortunately, and yes, I managed to be decent to my companions, by neither groan, walking out or anything like it, even though the movie - much like Castlevania - was not at all respectful to me.
@JasmineDragon
Let's not talk about Death Note. There is no need for that adaption - none. I've seen the trailer, and the only thing it did for me, is that it posed an interesting challenge: How to keep an open mind about this after that trailer?
I'm postive though, that there will still be enough people willing to pretend that it was something that was needed or wanted, and it was still somewhat good or decent or tolerable, no matter the train wreck it will turn out to be.
As for your point in general, I don't know if I feel the same way you do. Netflix has been around for quite some time now, throwing around a fair bit of cash, but as far as good original adult animation goes, not much came of it, despite the fact that we are living in what might be considered another golden age of adult animation (at least I for one considered the mid to late 90s a golden age for adult/ more mature animation, incl. shows like Batman TAS).
I think BoJack Horseman is REALLY good, but that's about it as far as the greats and potential classics go. Maybe that is the best Netflix can do (or the most), but frankly, right now that must be considered their failure, not that of the potential of available creative talent! Ressources spend on Castlevania are ressources not available for the next BoJack or the next Gravity Falls or the next Batman TAS or the next Daria.
That's a reason to be at the very least sour and annoyed by all of this, meaning folks pretending that this is a decent show for adults. It simply is not, and totally unsurprising, no one so far even bothered to argue that it is - everyone is simply stating it.
Am I supposed to take that as meaning that shows 'philosophy' is not handled in the most heavy-handed way imagineable? The whole bit about Dracula droning on about how 'all it takes for evil to triumph is good man and woman standing by doing nothing, and how therefore there are no longer any innocents in his eye' was just so in-your-face and poorly delivered and framed, no one would accept that in a prime time HBO show for example.
But hey, it's animated and it's Castlevania, and anyone complaining has bad taste anyway, so ....
How can people not complain about the music? It's about as generic as it can get for this setting, while at the same time basically completely ignoring the rich legacy of the series in that regard.
I could go on and on, but I get it, people want to like it, so they DO like and no one cares whether it has any actual merits. Thinking is hard work, so better to just tune out. It's entertainment after all, better not to overthing it in general. Works for the The Real Housewives of ... so why not for everything else? RIght? ^^
/rant over
I agree with most points in the review, except for the music. Yes, the music is utterly forgettable, which is a disgrace, but using tunes like Vampire Killer and Bloody Tears would have been almost impossible. There are chirpy tunes, good to highlight battles on a video game, but not on an R-rated anime. Simon's theme should have been possible to implement.
@Ralek85 "Look, if you think Castlevania is "good", what does that mean for Batman TAS? What about Archer? Daria? The Last Airbender? Simspons? Rick and Morty? Netflix's own BoJack Horseman? Futurama? Samurai Jack? Gravity Falls? And a whole bunch of other shows?"
Man, you are talking about the best animation shows on the last 2 decades. This is good, but those are superb. They can't (and shouldn't) be uttered in the same sentence with Castlevania.
This is what it is. A truly adult anime (using the term anime loosely). It is not perfect, but is definitely not bad (is rather good, IMHO).
P.S.: You forgot to mention Naruto (story-wise) and Amazing Spider Man (all of it).
@maceng did you seriously just call Castlevania a 'truly adult anime'? What does that even mean? Castlevania is about as juvenile as they get.
@Ralek85 You really seemed to have seen another show...
I really understand that not everyone will like it but it baffles me that you express yourself like if you have seen atrocious animated series with no redeeming values whatsoever. I don't know about you, but being loyal to the character designs, the fluid animation, the solid voice acting (specially in english which I normally dislike and opt for latin spanish wich is recognized for it's quality) and the story with added elements and yet faithful to the games are things that despite your posture about it, have to be recognized.
You are talking about using loosely the word "good", but I really think you are forcing your disliking of the show to somehow qualify it as the most mediocre thing ever. Just by saying that it isn't decent and even tolerable... I really question myself how fair are you being with this series. You don't need to condone anyone liking it, just to understand that you are free to dislike it and that maybe, just maybe, it isn't nowhere close as terrible as you think. Just as there is the possibility that you see something bad that people don't, you could be ignoring good aspects that people aren't.
Batman TAS is magnificient, and tbh, I wouldn´t put it anywhere close Daria or Archer for starters, but thats me. The first seasons of the Simpsons are up there, though. If I was intolerant and entitled to my point of view, I could be saying the same thing about not condoning you for comparing such a masterpiece to shows that where "good" at it's best to me.
I really hope you don't take this the wrong way and that I'm not offending you since english isn't my first language and it's a bit hard to explain what I'm trying to. I'm sure you have your valid points to consider this such a bad product, but maybe those points aren't as significant to others as they are to you, and in such a subjective thing as judging the quality of shows, pople can't be wrong about liking it and considering really good (like me), just like you can't be wrong for disliking it. To me, other than the excesive gore (the swearing wasn't even close to be as exaggerated as some said) and the lack of the classic music themes, this show is spot on.
@Mogster Well, the same could be asked about what you are saying. I really don't think this is "a truly adult anime", but it also isn't anywhere close "as juvenile as you can get". For starters, Trevor may lack faith (for the right reasons) but it isn't anywhere close being the classic edgy character, showing to be likeable and sympathetic despite his experiences. The swearing and gore could be looked at as "trying to hard" ( I really didn't have much problem with the swearing and it made sense with his personality an background but the gore did feel unnecesary). Considering that they have developed every character (Dracula could have been just the evil villain but they chose to explain why he's the tragic character he is), made more emphasis on telling the story than action, and have voided nudes and sex scenes just for the sake of it I'm really sure there's a lot of more juvenile shows that try to hard before Castlevania. Just my opinion.
@maceng Arranged versions of those tracks would have worked.
I heard really bad things about the animation and dialogue, but have yet to check them out. Hopefully they improve.
Anime garbage. No thanks.
Can we get a mature adaptation of Suikoden II next please?
Still waiting for a Live action Zelda... Though this was great I still feel a live action Zelda would take it away.
P.S I don't want any Super Mario Bros Movie garbage, Zelda can't and shouldn't be spoilt
This serie is excellent for a videogame adaption. I want to see more of this. I like mythical stories such as these. The scenery was great and it had memorabel scenes. My ears were not very impressed however... The voice acting and music could've been a bit better.
This serie ain't bad. It's unnecessary to imply that those who like it don't have an eye for good tv shows, but not suprising because those people usely think their eye for quality is impeccable.
Why is this even on here? Is this Nintendo related in anyway?
@Zingo Castlevania III was a NES game. This is an adaptation of that game. It's not essential material to review, but it's Nintendo-related.
@Zingo There are lots of Castlevania games for Nintendo consoles.
This show is an adaptation of one of them.
So far I'm loving it. But I REALLY hope that out of this comes a new Casltevani game...
Impressive and enjoyable night I had with it yesterday, just wish it wasn't just 4 ep's, but glad to hear there will be a 2nd season. Just need to know when...
I don't get it, since when is a "season" a handful of episodes? Isn't a season from Fall launch through May sweeps, generally 20 episodes or so? Isn't a handful of episodes called a miniseries?
You know it's Nintendo Life when the first thing they mention about something is the explicit content.
@maceng First off, the list is not and was not meant to be exhaustive. There are many more "superb" shows out there, also many more very good and good ones 'below' those.
I don't think Castlevania is a great example of an "truly adult anime". What about it is "adult"? I'd say it boils down to the use of violence gore and language/cursing. It's a very ... narrow understanding of what adult means in my view. It's also very videogame'y if I many it put this way. This is a site that primarly covers Nintendo, and who is more intimiately familiar with this issue than a Nintendo fan? I mean, how often have you heard people make fun of Nintendo as a 'kiddie console' or whatever, because it has 'no mature games' - read: nothing that features strong language, extensive violence or sexual themes.
"This is good, but those are superb. They can't (and shouldn't) be uttered in the same sentence with Castlevania.
This is what it is. A truly adult anime (using the term anime loosely). It is not perfect, but is definitely not bad (is rather good, IMHO)."
That makes zero sense to me. If superb shows "can't (and shouldn't) be uttered in the same sentence with Castlevania", then Castlevania by the very meaning of those words and how they relate to each other, cannot be "good". Something is not good, if it i soooooo far removed from superb, that you not only can't mention both in the same sentence, but ought to think of them as inhabitants of entirely different spheres of existence.
That was exactly my point. If you abuse language that way, it stops being useful. Castlevania either in some way or fashion tangible relates with the really great shows of the last two decades, or it's probably not good at all but rather ... mostly bad.
And yeah, I think it was really bad
@Zingo Because it is an adaptation of a historic franchise started on the NES namely the third title that tends to be debated as the best entry in the Classicvania part of the franchise that was on the NES? Because most of the main parts of the franchise in some from has been on a Nintendo system?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Castlevania_media
@NEStalgia Due to the rising costs with animation seasons in this context tend to be about 11-13 episodes means a season. If it is 22-25 episodes it is referred to as a two core season. Anime is expensive yo. This reminds me more of an OVA which tends to be about 2-4 episodes.
@roy130390 English isn't my first language either so no worries. Also I'm no snowflake, and I'm willing to tolerate anyone's view, but - again - that does not mean I accept or even condone it.
I think all of those shows I mentioned (and the list is by no means exhaustive) are worlds and worlds better in almost any conceiveable way as far as the actual content is concerend (the animation and voice acting in Castlevania was for the most part alright - not necessarily great, but ok I'll get to that later).
I did not mean to imply that those shows rank equal to one another, i certainly don't think so, but I wanted to illustrate that there is a real of shows beyond good that is already richly populated. I think anything else most be defined by comparion to that realm. If you want to call something good, then you are settling that show right next door to those (and others) I named.
I don't think Castlevania should be put anywhere near those shows, so I cannot call it superb, very good, great, good or anything like that at all.
I mean, if I were to do that, I would just degrade the notion of being able to relate shows to another and to rank them against each other using words.
For example you said: "Batman TAS is magnificient"
Well, at this point, I feel eligible to say this ... so what? Even a show like Castlevania is considerend good these days, so how good can Batman TAS even be then?
Anyways, as for the music, I have nothing postive to say about it. It was generic, and I barely noticed it, which considering we are talking Castlevania here, is probably - but that might just be me - not a good thing. The animation was alright, although some of it like the, well, fidgeting I guess you could say, when the characters talk, to name one aspect, gave the show a bit of a cheap look. The voice acting was also alright, although once more I felt there were issues, like some instances of serious overacting, as well as what sounded like fake accents to me dialed up to over 9000.
I can live with all of that though, what killed that show for me entirely is the horrendous dialogue and the even poorer exploration of themes. You can do alot with issues like loss of a loved one, the burden of immortality (just look at Lost Odyssey, if we're talking videogames), science vs religion, collective punishment, tale of revenge and redemption and a whole bunch of religious themes:
Just for example, when Lisa is burned at the stakes, and she implores Dracula to not visit vengenance on the people for they did not know what they were doing, it's (imho) a pretty clear reference to Lukas 23:34/35.
By the same token, Dracula's rant about how there are no more innocent, because they all stood by and let evil happen, is obviously a reference to Edmund Burke (though he is hardly the originator as similar sentiments can be found dating back as least as far as Dante imho) and the philosophy of enlightenment.
Heavy themes for sure, but what does the show do with it? Well, afaik nothing really, it's just there for it sound deep or whatever. The themes are not really explored. It's basically just referencing stuff for the sake of ... I dunno? Philosphical cameos maybe? Who knows, and it doesn't really matter.
It's an adult show as a kid would probably imagine it, like painting by the numbers:
Gore? Check!
Cursing? Check!
Philosophy? Check!
Sex? ...
It's completely silly, and I feel silly for having to point it out.
English isn't that bad a language, though.
@Wexter If live film runs 20 episodes a season, weekly from October to May, how does anime cost more?
@NEStalgia It actually does not. I have crunched the numbers and the costs do not line up especially with how much each blu-ray costs in Japan (no really pull up Amazon.co.jp sometime). I think it is because of the vast quantity they make that has inflated the cost. I mean why spend the time and money to make one long and really good series when a bunch of mediocre ones cost as much, but will probably allow for more sales.
@Ralek85 To be fair, it's hard to have a vampire show without sex considering Bram Stoker basically created Dracula as a soft-core porn novel aimed at women for the Victorian sensibilities of the 1800's The whole vampire thing was more or less cover.... It got it past censors...
@NEStalgia There is nothing inherently adult or infantile about sex though. The question is how you handle it. I mean, look at the origins of the Beauty and the Beast, and then watch the Disney movie.
I mean ... there is a bit of range in how you go about these things.
@Ralek85 I think that is not that difficult to understand, regarding the difference of superb and good.
Most of the titles you posted have gain accolades left and right, specially Batman: TAS (my favorite animated take on the Batman), as well as the Simpsons, Archer (which I really don't fancy much), Gravity Falls and Futurama. They are definitely a 10 in my book.
Castlevania in the other hand, for me, it is a solid 7. It is good as it is, and as a take in Castlevania lore, it is very good.
I re-watched it this morning and appreciated an uneven voice acting in the guy playing Belmont, comparing the first 3 chapters to the last one.
Finally, when I said adult anime, I mean that treats a mature subject in an adult manner: lost of gore, cursing, wanton violence.
@Ralek85
Seriously mate. If you don't like the show, then stop going into every comment section involving this show just to bash on it for not being able to show your 10 year old niece. Go back to the bit era where you can enjoy sprites with 2 frames of attack animation and violence, and only less swearing and gore.
@maceng I understand what you meant by adult, that's why I elaborated on how this is a poor and narrow view of what adult ought to mean in my view.
Also, I don't see how their actual treament of e.g. wanton violence was in any way "adult". The violence was there, I don't think it was treated in any particular manner or commented on.
In that sense it was as adult as any odd slasher b-movie.
Anyways, while I don't like numerical ratings much (for reasons I don't want to write an essay about right now ^^), I see your point. The thing is replacing "good" with a '7' doesn't really change anything in this instance. It still - to me - leaves the problem, that 7 would be something like ... I dunno Aqua Teen Hunger Force or Bobs Burger. Bobs Burger is nowhere near as good as e.g. Sealab 2021, which I still feel falls short of Harvey Birdman, but Castlevania can't compare to those, it can't even compare favourably in terms of quality to Bobs Burger, so ....
Yeah, anyways, not really much point in this. Let's just agree to disagree.
@KO-Cub You've never heard of a hypothetical, have you? =(
Anyways, I have no idea what you're going on about with "Go back to the bit era where you can enjoy sprites with 2 frames of attack animation and violence, and only less swearing and gore." Literally, no clue where that came from or why.
As for me commenting ... deal with it or feel free to ignore me. If I want to voice my reasoned opinion, I'll do so, even if it may offend your sensibilites. I'm not trolling anyone nor am I being offensive, I'm just arguing in place meant for arguing so ... whatever your deal is, I don't really care Oo
@Ralek85 Fair enough, I haven't seen Castlevania or Death Note yet so I truly don't know if they are good enough for me to try to stick up for them. And to be honest, I'm not even sure I want to watch the Watership Down series, as that book is among the finest works in the English language and the old film adaptation of it doesn't come anywhere near its brilliance.
Watched three of the four episodes thus far and very very pleased it got renewed. Hopefully, this will get noticed and we will get a new Castlevania game
Castlevania was the biggest disappointment when it comes to "adult animation".
Dracula as a weak anti-hero? Poor voice acting? Overacting? Swearing to make the characters edgy?
Oh dear oh dear.
While this might turn out to be popular, it's certainly not good. Please Netflix, don't throw any more money at this.
@Ralek85 Finally, someone on here who sees Castlevania for what it is.
Thank you for your fair and balanced assessment.
@JasmineDragon Yeah I get that. I watched the Harry Potter movies back in the day and since then I've come to the conclusion that this was probably a mistake.
Like with many well written novels, I had a very distinct mental image of the people and places described in the book in my mind, but after seeing those movies, those images seem to have gotten... well, overwritten I guess. I just can't seem to summon them back anymore.
I don't think the movies were bad (a bit long and tedious at times), but still, thinking about it now, I'd rather have my own "version" created by MY imagination available to me ... The movies ruined that for me unfortunately =(
that's not my Belmont.
http://pre13.deviantart.net/5be8/th/pre/i/2005/170/1/4/simon_belmont_by_bestnameever.jpg
@Ralek85 As far as I know, Lisa's dialogue refers to what Aucard says at Symphony of the Night's true ending, I don't think it's intended as a religious reference, at least not more than the original intended to in that case anyway and I really don't see any problem with it or maybe I'm not understanding why you are pointing it out.
" If you want to call something good, then you are settling that show right next door to those (and others) I named."
Depending on the person's definition of "good". Maybe the person has a wide range that falls in this category, being flexible about it. Then the person has the "great category", in which fall a little nuber of shows he's been enjoying a lot so far end even after that, he has the "best shows" category in which he just considers a few shows that have, in his opinion, being excellent in almost every way constantly from start to finish.
"What confuses the hell out of me though, is when you just talk about it in terms of TV shows in general or even an animated TV shows in particular. There is no way it could possibly qualify as decent under those circumstances. I honestly believe you'd have to be completely illiterate on the medium, to hold such a view."
There would be a serious lack of logic from your part if you really believe this. There's people here that liked both the programs you like and this one so unless you find something to justify your opinion as more capable or theirs as inconsistent, assuring something like that won't be correct.There's no possible way you can set a standard and judge for everyone on this, simply because it doens't exist in the first place and even if there was one, you are just one person completely ignorant about the mayority's opinion and standards as rude as it could sound. As long as you combine your own standards and opinion with the general one, there will be confusion. Maybe you didnt intend what you wrote that way, but I don't see any other way to understand it.
It's also a bit hard to understand your standards, like for example, you say it's alright in every aspect (except the music) an somehow it isn't even tolerable. To be honest, it sounds like you are trying to be polite and respect other perspectives and at the same time really angry or disappointed about the show which makes you assure things I really doubt you really believe and damages the consistency of what you are saying.
I agree that there's a lot to be done, but I really didn't see any "horrendous" dialogue. Comparing it to other shows you mentioned, I fail to see how for example... Samurai Jack leaves this on the dust in that regard (Samurai's Jack music is another thing, that was really good!). Also, I consider that there's a lot to be done, because the show had only four episodes in which I really don't see much time for the burden of immortality, for example. They pretty much did what they needed: start the story, make clear why the Castlevania stories began, and explore the characters in a normal rythm according to the story progression. If this was the end of the series, I'd agree with you but at this point, it's accesible, enjoyabe pacing.
"By the same token, Dracula's rant about how there are no more innocent, because they all stood by and let evil happen, is obviously a reference to Edmund Burke (though he is hardly the originator as similar sentiments can be found dating back as least as far as Dante imho) and the philosophy of enlightenment."
To be honest even if it's the case, I believe it's more intended as a reference to Richter's dialogue against Dracula, which is probably inspired on this. Either way, I honestly have no idea what else you wanted them to do. For me, it wasn't just a mention since Trevor repeated similar words when debating with the Oracle and noticed the irony of his ways, which made him return to the action.I never seen Castlevania profound enough to explore philosofical aspects that much in the first place and yeah, a series about it definitley demands to be more deep, which I think they accomplished easily since the games didn't set the bar very high.
I did see an excess of gore which I did point out as a negative aspect along with the lack of classic Castlevania tracks, but I didn't see a problem with the swearing (maybe I talk like a sailor or something, but it made sense to me that considering Trevor's personality and background he'd talk like that). I've noticed many shows trying to hard to appear as mature, but I really didn't see it more than with others here and even so, considering the background, there has to be juvenile aspects about it. Personally, I see most shows as inmmature in at least one aspect anyway, live action, cartoons or whatever they are, and I'm fine with it.
By the way, sorry for the extended reply but some of it is because of the quotes. Also, sorry for the replies not being really organied but I tend to read a comment and then reply to points while in the order I remember them.
@ralek85 wow, that was a whole lot of blathering. Entertainment holds up on its own. Otherwise, a picaso would never be considered art because Michelangelo existed. Pure nonsense.
And just to be clear, the opinion were discussing isn't "I don't like this show" it's the audacious "everyone is suffering from a mass-delusion if they like this show".
@roy130390 Well, we are in the same boat as far as intent goes, but to me those were very obvious references to those philosophical themes and questions, text and writers. I don't mind that in itself of course, but in the end it just felt incredible pretentious because the potential to deal with those questions in any interesting or meaningful way was completely squandered going forward.
It amounted to what I think is basically cameo'ing so to speak. Have you seen Pixels by any chance? It name dropped, visually referend or cameo'ed endless iconic pop-culture creations, but that was just it, it never did anything meaningful with all those references and cameos.
It was just there for us geeks to point and go "I know that! haha!" ... it's cheap gimmick to say the least.
There would be a lack of logic if anyone challenged my view that those shows are anything but top-tier. It doesn't matter what kind of semantic acrobatis you do with it, these shows are considered to be the best there are, and I think I will continue to presume that to be a truth as long as it is not challenged as such - which again, no one bothered to do, so what are we talking about?
I gave reasons why I think overall Castlevania fell flat in comparison? Did I not? I posted so many comments, I did not repeat everything everytime, but it's up there somewhere
I'm not trying to be polite, I'm trying to be incredibly rude, but I don't see the problem here either. A show can have alright animation, entirely forgetable music (which is both imho true for Castlevania) and still be really bad. I think I made it very clear, that which killed Castlevania for me, was it's dialogue and how it dealt with the themes it itself raised.
"They pretty much did what they needed: start the story, make clear why the Castlevania stories began, and explore the characters in a normal rythm according to the story progression. If this was the end of the series, I'd agree with you but at this point, it's accesible, enjoyabe pacing."
Yeah see I don't see that at all. Dracula went from hermit to ... I don't even know, loving husband, traveler, curious about the world and so on and so forth, almost in an instant ... only to go to a place of genocidal maniac almost in another instant. Nothing about this is a "normal rythm" or an "enjoyabe pacing".
None of these changes were sufficiently explored or explained, not even by implication. It's hard to make a character pull like 2 1080°s in the course of what, like half an hour or so? I don't think it was all that succesful in trying to do just that.
Where was the grieving? Did he not prepare himself for her death? Did he not know this was a dangerous word and his wife was meddling with dangerous practices? Did he not understand she was not immortal? How did she break his ancient shell of isolation in the first place?
Just like the underlying philosophy most of this struck me as at best touched upon, never fully explored or in any satisfying way explain, or again, even implicated or hinted at.
But yeah, if it wasn't for that constant cringeworthy dialogue, that too would be tolerable, but in combination, together with utter lack of anything special or particularly good in terms of animation or sound/music ... what can I say? It was simpyl bad. I cannot put it any other way.
Maybe, MAYBE it was a good piece of fanservice. Yes, maybe it was that. But at least let's be honest than and say it was a poor sshow, but it worked as piece of fanservice. In that case, let me put it that way: I want Netflix (or anyone really) to make quality shows, appealing to a wide range of people, not fanservice stuff for a select few.
A really good show would please fans as well, wouldn't it? Wouldn't that be the better outcome? Shouldn't we hope for that? Shouldn't we expect or even demand that the show try to rise about it's source material?
I don't care about the gore or the bits of strong language. There is nothing inherently good or bad about either, and it worked for the most part in the context it was used.
@BraveFencerZan Blathering huh? That is a strong statement from someone who has never heard of hyperbole and thinks art exists without a point of reference.
What's here to talk about? Nothing, just a whole lot of utterly unqualified nonsense, and oh yeah, really rude to boot
@Ralek85 The thing is, I can't be "honest" if I say this is "a poor show" or a "nice piece of fanservice" since I don't believe that, which is what you fail to see. Not only me, it seems many also think reslly good things about this series. If I had to bet, considering the general reception an not only mine, I would bet for it being a very good show for the mayority, and you having personal problems about it that are way too little/ insignificant to most people to actually diminish the show's quality as much as you claim. That being said, even if I were sure of that (which I don't) it doesn't mean in any way that you are wrong for not liking it, or that the show's quality is objectively good just because I and most people like it.
You said that the dialogue was cringeworthy, yet saying that doesn't explain why, or how other shows you mentioned compared and excel in that regard to this one. I'm aware that you said you have explained your problems with the series several times but that doesn't make them good points to the people reading your posts. I'm sure you know this, but even with what you consider "good examples of it", my perception of the dialogue's quality won't be changed simply because I already experienced it and saw little to no problem with it. It won't also "prove" that it's true. It's as simple as different opinions on the matter.
Personally, I didn't need the transition from Dracula the hermit" to "Dracula the husband". I perfectly understood how and why it happened without the need how it happened step by step. It could be because I'm familiar with the games, but then again my brother (who doesn't play these games) understood that the woman was different from others and that Dracula wasn't the villain who's bad just for the sake of being bad. Honestly, specially considering the limited time, focusing on any of the things you mentioned would have hurt the series by making it lose time on things that really didn't matter for the sake of feeling profound and yet, just looking pretentious in my pespective.
I wouldn't compare this to Pixels in any way, not even in the aspect of recognizing references because the Castlevania series did do something with them, which was give structure to a bare bones story (Castlevania 3 has barely any dialogues) by combining what could fit from other entries to form a story that actually made sense. Characters didn't appear for the sake of appearing, they had a function and reason to be there which is a thousand times more meaningful than anything on that movie in my perspective.
It wasn't just the animation that you called alright but the voice acting too, and while you may think a couple aspects don't matter, they do specially when they are quite meaningful to a series and when labeling something as "not tolerable". You were expecting philosophical deepness on a Castlevania adaptation so, personally I believe that if you got disappointed with the product it was your fault for expecting something that isn't precisely representative of the franchise. By no means I'm trying to say that your complaints aren't valid, but to be honest most of the times I see people claim and complain about things (like the fake accents) with little to no knowledge to what they are talking about and with little to no experience on the matter, and when demanding an aspect of a product that isn't known for it, I can't consider it something mandatory that will affect the product's quality and even in some cases, valid.
If you try to be rude, fortunately I haven't perceived you that way, but I really ask you not to. You are free to take whatever attitude on a discussion but we've been discussing properly because despite some harsh expressions in your opinions about the people that like this series, you' been educated with me and I certainly try to do the same. There's no point in trying to take a rude attitude or offend the other for a different opinion.
I'm sure you won't change your perspective about the series and I'm not trying to do it, I'm just trying to explain you why it's actually harsh to consider the people that liked it iliterate, specially when it doesn't make sense to think that for the opinion of a series when they can agree with you about the quality of several others. Being entitled to an opinion is ok as long as it's still considered an opinion and not a fact. Considering that most seem to feel positive about it and that most don't attack or label you despite your negative feelings for it, I think it's clear there's room for different opinions without the need to make less of anyone for having a disagreement.
Watched the first two episodes tonight - I really like it and has an old school 90s feel to it - good work!
@roy130390 I'm not saying it is a fact, but what I did was bother to given reasons why I dislike it. I value a reasoned opinion above an unreasoned one. Everyone can have one of the latter- sorry to say.
I also noticed that you said, that you don't believe it is a piece of fanservice, but you still went on to frame a significant amount of your answer just like it was a piece of fan service - by referencing the source material several times.
" You were expecting philosophical deepness on a Castlevania adaptation so ..."
I mean look, what are you even talking about here? I was not expecting anything of the kind, when I started Netflix and selected Castlevania. I started expecting it once the show told me it was dealing with such questions - by actually bringing them up. How is this on me then? This is insane.
Just say, that THIS is Castlevania, a piece of fanservice, HENCE you ought not to expect what SHOULD obviously not be there, BECAUSE it is Castlevania. You presupposing the very thing you say you don't believe it is Oo
I'm not sure how to properly explain what makes the dialogue "crigneworthy". That strikes me as a hard thing to do (esp. in another tongue other than my native one), but I'll promise to think on it for the future. I'm not sure I saw you disagreeing about that with me though - the cringeworthy nature of the dialogue. I think at the most basic level, it's about the fact that characters at times not only talk 'out of their time', meaning in a way I would suspect unbefitting of the setting, but also - more ofthen than that - unbeffiting of the situation. I try to imagine a person being in a certain situation, like running from a mob out to murder to them, acting and talking the way Belmont does in the show. It just doesn't gel with my expectations. Maybe your expectations in that regard are fundamentally different, but from my perspective, it's absolutely something worth pointing out.
I'm no linguistic expert or professional voice actor, and maybe that invalidates my opinion on the accents (if that is what you were getting at for whatever reason), but then I should probably not comment on the show at all, since I have no 'professional legitimacy' so to speak of any kind on any of it.
Anyways, it's not about "proving" anything, it's about making obsevations and about comparisons. What else are we going to do with a TV show (or any piece of art)?
Look, you say you don't care about the way the characters motivations or inner processes are explored, or if they are explored at all really. What am I supposed to say to that? There are long standing and established notions on how to approach texts (or narratives in general if spoken/ played out). Obviously, you are well within your rights to argue, that you don't care about any traditional framework of analysis ... but then I have to sign out, because I'm not really willing or able to get started on a fundamental debate for breaking new ground in literary criticism (yes, the script is a piece of literature, that for once is just a fact and not an opinion).
You might as well say that you don't care about logic or internal consistency. Again that would be well within your rights, of course, but then there is really nothing to talk about. We need some kind of common ground, some kind of common frame of reference, not just about what words mean, but also on a higer level on what the function and goal of a narrative is, and what tools means we might be looking for in order to achieve those goals and perform those functions.
If something is entertaining, that is highly subjective for sure, but if something is e.g. a decent piece of writing, that is only subjective to a very small degree, because we have some basic tools of unearthing the core of any written or spoken word. I don't think any of that is as controversial as you make it out to be.
Last but not least, I don't think quality is a democratic issue. It's nice if you analyse a piece of writing and find great merit in it, as well as personal enjoyment and a broad positive public reception, but these two things are at best correlations. There is no causal link here. The shows I named (as far as I can tell) have received - for good reason in my very personal, subjective and humble and not all rude non-factual opinion - widespread critical acclaim, as well as a high degree of popularity.
I'm not sure e.g. how popular or well known shows like Daria are, so I might be off in that regrad, but for the most part, that more or less random list of shows I quoted fits taht bill.
That does not mean that there are no great shows that aren't particular popular (and never weren't) or that there are shows which are really popular, but I don''t think anyone would really call good, after all, we have terms like "guilty pleasure" for a reason.
I don't mind neither fanservice or 'guilty pleasures', I don't (not that anyone would care anyways^^), but what bugs me if when people go either full hypocrit on that, or if they hunker down and go the full rationalizion route.
I've recently had a conversation about "Shannara Chronicles", and whether it was any good, and if I can recommend it, and I had no problem admitting, that I watched it pretty much for one reason and one reason only and that was so-called "eye candy". I've tried to check out the books to confirm my suspicion that most of the issues (not going into any detail here, but let's just say it's a very basic, clichéd piece of 'sword&sorcery' by today's standards with stereotypical and for the most part two-dimenionsal characters, with a at this point well-known post-apo-meets-high-fantasy setting) are actually with the source material, and yeah ... it's a guilty pleasure watch for me, no doubt about it, and if you read the books back in the day, and are a fan, it's certainly a nice piece of fanservice for you as well, I guess.
Still, if you're not a fan, and the whole "eye-candy" thing doesn't work for you (the costumes and make-up jobs are really something though), then I can't find much merit in it myself. I don't have to defend it or rationalize my way through it any way.
I think there are severe issues with Castlevania, and I tried to point some of those out as good as I could without having to write a several page essay on it, and waste like an entire day on this (I already feel like I used up more time on this than I should but that is no fault of yours, I just did not expect this kind of, well, passionate reaction from people). If people don't see (hear^^) those issues, well, I guess that's good for them.
I still rather have Netflix work on and use ressouces on the next BoJack horseman than on more Castlevania. I don't think Castlevania will ever amount to a good show, the beginning is too flawed, to rushed, the groundwork is therefore too lacking ... maybe my initial reaction was to harsh, I dunno, and I'm kinda at a point where I no longer care, as it's just not THAT important to me.
None of the comments here have convinced me, that my issues with the sow are entirely invalid, and by the same token, I'm still convinced that is NOT a good show for those reasons.
I mean, most of the things I read where about how about it was not that bad, few actually had anything to say about what makes it supposedly "good". I found that rather striking, but whatever.
@Ralek85 "I also noticed that you said, that you don't believe it is a piece of fanservice, but you still went on to frame a significant amount of your answer just like it was a piece of fan service - by referencing the source material several times."
Well, that's because it has fan service of course, yet that doesn't mean it's just a good piece of fan sevice. It doesn't limit itself to just references, it actually expands and complements the story given in the games by adding well developed aspects of it' own and delivers more things that make me consider it more than just a poor show with good fan service.
"I mean look, what are you even talking about here? I was not expecting anything of the kind, when I started Netflix and selected Castlevania. I started expecting it once the show told me it was dealing with such questions - by actually bringing them up. How is this on me then? This is insane."
Sorry if I didn't make myself clear on this aspect. What I meant was at the moment you heard they brought up philosofical themes, it seemed to me that you developed expectatives of exploring such themes in a deeper way, when they actually worked just as references or brief mentions to understand the character perspectives or story a bit more.To me it just seemed unnecesary to make more than that and any expectation we have as viewers is up to us.
"I'm no linguistic expert or professional voice actor, and maybe that invalidates my opinion on the accents (if that is what you were getting at for whatever reason), but then I should probably not comment on the show at all, since I have no 'professional legitimacy' so to speak of any kind on any of it."
I don't mean this at all although I can see why it can be understood that way. All I'm saying is that people tend to do strong judgements and assure things when they have little to no knowledge on the matters they are talking about. It was an observation that wasn't directed to you in particular, just mentioned. You certainly don't have to be an expert on the matter to have an opinion about the quality in this or any other regard, I just wish more people expressed them as opinions instead of facts.
"Look, you say you don't care about the way the characters motivations or inner processes are explored, or if they are explored at all really. What am I supposed to say to that?"
I didn't say that at all, specially the latter. I said that things were clear without the need of going too deep in the character for now. The story, at least to this point, hasn't demanded anything that requires this from my perspective and the little exploration they have made has been enough to understand their actions and decisions.
As I said to you before and just to be clear, I'm really sure that you are faithful to your standards and that in no way I'm trying to convince you to change your mind about the series. My only problem ( and sorry if I didn't make myself clear) was that at first, you really expressed yourself quite harshly about the people enjoying this show and almost seemed to suggest that no one with a little bit of good taste and knowledge on programs could enjoy this show. That's just what I understood, so I wanted to understand better your pespective on the series and see if you were really saying what I was understanding, since I have seen you comment in other occasions and you have always seemed reasonable to me. I may disagree about your reasons but I certainly understand them better now. I apologize if you felt like I was invalidating them in general since I was just trying to explain why they weren't that significant to me but that doesn't mean in any way that they aren't good enough for other people to feel disappointment about the series.
@roy130390 Thanks for clearing some of this for me, esp. the part about the accents. I appreciate you talking the time to respond and elaborate on your thoughts about this, as most folks don't bother to go beyond Twitter'esque responses these days, which only leave so much room for a real debate.
I don't want to dragg this out beyond measure, but I gotta ask, as I'm genuinely curious about that: Don't you think that a deep (up to a point certainly, but still) exploriation of the themes and underlying questions, posed by the show/ the characters themselves, plus an exploration of their motviation and really, their psychological make-up at large, and obviously, how these aspects change and interact with other characters and events, is kinda ... well, the meant and potatoes so to speak of any good narrative?
I mean, there are other aspects to it as well, but I find that most good writing, certainly anything that was ever considered or hailed a 'classic' or a 'masterpiece', bothered to do just that, deal with interesting and important questions or themes, something most of us can relate to, in some fashion or another, and at the same time, it did so by using fictional characters, that were believable, by given them a personality, that is once again relateable, that is not just acting this way or that way without some kind of reasonable exploration of how and why.
I mean, there are scenarios, where inconsistency and arbitrary actions make a whole not of sense, even as a trademark of a character. The thing that comes to mind right away are characters like the Joker for example. He is by his very nature opposed to order, structure, hierarchy and thus certainly consistency. I really love Nolan's 'The Dark Knight', and one little detail about the film, I really liked (among many others), is that the Joker gives us a glimpse at his origin story several times throughout the movie. More precisely how he got his scares, but each time he actually ends up telling us a different story.
He is very convincing each time though, and it never seems that he is lying (other than maybe to himself on some level), at least I couldn't find a clear indication that this would be the case, which leads me to conclusion, that he anarchic to the point where he refuses to be defined by the events of his own origin.
He also changes his mind a bunch of times during the movie, betrays former allies, and makes a point about not having 'a plan', which in itself is kinda a lie at the time obviously. Anyways, TDK is no literal masterpiece, but I think any weird turns and incosistency the character exhibits are actually there to emphasis his personality and worldview, which is anarchy imho.
Anyways, like I said before, maybe my initial reaction was to harsh, but I had really hoped for a lot more here, because so far, Netflix actually has a good trackrecord and a part of me wanted to final see a good videogame adaption happening, even if it's only a short, animated Netflix shows - considering pretty much all attempts at adapting videogames so far have been unmitigated desasters.
Maybe Castlevania is not that, given the origins of the show, and how much of a niche product it really is ... if one is willing to take that into account, it might not be THAT bad. I have to say though, I have still not gotten much feedback on what is actually 'good' about it, and without elaborating on that again, judging a show not against it's competition but purely against it's own merits, is already a strong mark against it.
It's not one of those adult animation shows, I'll still be thinking on 10 or even 5 years from now, and it also didn't change anything about how poorly videogames are represented in movies or on TV. It didn't have to achieve any of that, but it sure would have been nice. As it stands, it a short-lived diversion, and in my humble opinion, not a very good one.
I found it to be very strong. They should also give Zelda this treatment, minus the violence and language of course!
Hopefully this also leads to a new Castlevania game.
@Ralek85 Sorry to reply so late mate, I was absent for some days.
The show definitely needs to develop the characters more in the next seasons since one thing is to focus on different aspects and another one is to forget entirely about them. Right now I don't have a problem with how much they jumped into the action because of the chapter limitation and because I feel that the pacing of the series could benefit if they decide to deepen in the characters during the story, searching for a balance between action, character development and story progress. For example, I really want the series to explain why is Alcard so different from Dracula and for that, Lisa's influnce on him needs to be explained. Even if these characters have never been profound in games, it's definitely a good chance to expand on that aspect.
It may sound like I'm giving it a pass just because there were 4 chapters, but it's because that really limits them to choose on what to focus. If on looks at it as a season instead of just a few chapters it definitely sounds wrong that there's still so much we don't know about the characters. Fotunately (at least for me), as long as they do it right, I can wait for the character development as long as they choose right moment to do it.
The positive aspects that gave me a lot of hope and made me enjoy the series were the character designs, voice acting (I really enjoyed the english voice acting) and action sequences that shows how belmont is such a prodigy and yet still human. The Alucard vs Belmont fight was a great example of how a vampire hunter overcomes it's limitations with experience in order to triumph against stronger beings. I didn't have problems with the dialogue, it wasn't great but it was good enough to do the job. I also enjoyed the animation, since it was fluid and yet detailed enough to understand perfectly what was happening at the moment.
Other than doing justice to the characters, these are things I expect in order to actually live to the hype and represent Castlevania correctly:
The music: That alone can make me lose faith in the series if they don't take a more faithful approach to the games. It's such an important aspect on the Castlevania series and hey really need to choose iconic music to represent that. It's really weird to say that the music was forgettable in a Castlevania series but right now that's the case. Maybe they don't have permission to use tracks or the series or something but still, they need to compose something that sounds like it could fit in the Castlevania universe.
Enemy designs: I want to see iconic creatures from the series. Castlevania has so many interesting monsters and right now we haven't seen much variety.
The Castle: There are many iconic places in the castle and they really need to represent them correctly. I like the design of the exterior of the castle, but there's still a lot to see before applauding this.
Right now the character I can't wait to see is Death. To me, it's really important that they portray him well, since he's relaly important to castlevania's lore. Design, voice acting and writing will be really important to me in order to feel satisfied with him.
By the way I really liked your explanation on TDK and I feel the same about it. You are one of the few persons that noticed that the Joker isn't just chaos as he claims, but a really good planner. I'm really surprised that many claim that he was just a crazy guy and not an actual version of the joker. I've been a fan of Batman all my life and I see Nolan's version as a different aproach, yet at the same time, faithful Joker. It has the aspects that define him as what he is, something that (despite claims of being based on Azzarelo's comics) Leto's version failed miserably in my opinion. Even from the character appearance it had aspects that contradict the joker entirely, and when I heard about it's "preparation" sending condoms and other crap to fellow actors I knew he had no idea of what defined the joker. Anyway, I'm getting off topic haha, bu I needed to say that.
@Naim_NL it's objectively pretty bad, and other comments from your profile reveal bad taste.
@Nnnn Most reviews online are meant to be objective. The vast majority of ratings for this show are above good. I'm sorry you feel that way.
Tap here to load 86 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...