The Netflix Castlevania TV Series was released over the weekend. I only found out by chance when, on that lazy Saturday morning, I turned on Netflix to look for something to watch and came across it. And I was pretty excited at the time. I had heard that it was being made, but had no idea it was releasing that day. I’m a Castlevania fan – I’ve played a lot of them (never had a GBA so I missed the anime-styled ones), and I’ve always really enjoyed them. It’s not just the gameplay, but the colourful gothic visual style and music that I really dig. I was also intrigued to learn that it was written by comic-book writer Warren Ellis, who wrote Transmetropolitan, a comic series I thoroughly enjoyed. That had my interest.
My first reactions weren’t great. In fact, very quickly I was of the opinion that it sucked. I watched all four ‘episodes’ in the same sitting (because it’s really just a movie cut into pieces) and was sort of baffled and confounded by it. By the end I’d decided that it was, overall, a mess. It reminded me a lot of C-tier anime/animated movies, the sort with sub-par stories or animation that feel cobbled together. I was probably very harsh with it, which is something that tends to happen – I usually need a few days after watching/playing something to codify my ‘true’ thoughts. But my immediate opinion, on having just watched it, was that it sucked.
It turns out I was something of an outlier, because the general buzz around it since then has been almost exclusively positive. Game sites and even movie/TV sites seem to be either raving about it or at the very least quite enthusiastic, and I’ve yet to hear anybody else truly rag on it. Even the negative reactions have been mild at worst. Some have even said it’s the best videogame adaptation ever made. A lot of common praise has been given to specific things I thought were pretty bad.
It got me thinking: Am I crazy? (maybe) Was I the only person to have a negative reaction to it? (doubtful) Was I being unduly harsh on it? (probably) Does it, in fact, not suck? (possibly) Am i out of touch? (Yes) And, most pressing of all, am I completely wrong?
Since then I’ve been thinking quite a bit about the movie, and in retrospect I’ve softened on it a lot. I can forgive a lot of its faults knowing that, presumably, it will improve from this point onwards. While I maintain that most of it doesn’t really look or feel much like Castlevania to me (where are the intricately colourful gothic designs and glorious music?), the thing is decent for what it is and better than what was expected from a four-episode Netflix cartoon. But I’ve noticed that all the points and criticisms for and against it haven’t quite addressed my main issue, what specifically bothered me about it. So I figured I’d outline specifically what bothered me about it. And this is where we get into weird and specific criteria, or “Why I thought Castlevania sucked (and why it probably won’t bother you at all)”. There’re going to be some spoilers here, mostly just for the first half of the first episode, so you’ve been forewarned.
It’s pretty clear from the get-go that this was written and animated as a movie and then cut up to become a TV series. There’s no real structure to individual episodes, they just stop awkwardly after about twenty five minutes, and then the next episode continues directly from where the last one stopped, usually mid-transition. It doesn’t flow in the way a TV series does, and works more like a Movie that’s meant to lead in to a sequel, or perhaps a TV series. It feels like a backdoor pilot, which isn’t just the perfect title for an aeroplane-set porno.
For those who haven’t heard the term, a backdoor pilot is a telemovie or TV special that exists as a proof-of-concept to gauge interest for a proposed television series. Basically the film/episode is made and based on that the series is commissioned or canned. Castlevania feels like a proof of concept that Netflix liked, and then just cut up and acted like it was a series. Even the plot functioned more like a pilot than a proper series, as it mostly just introduced the characters and main conflict. I don’t have a problem with that at all. I also have no real problem with the actual story of Castlevania. I’m not really going to discuss that much. The basic plot is perfectly fine for the introductory movie they were creating, and works well as the pilot episode to a series. Because, when we get down to it, that’s what it was: it quickly introduced the world and characters, gave them a goal and then ended with the promise of future adventures. That’s fine. I'm also not concerned about the animation, or the voice acting (though it's very inconsistent) or the casting, or the faithfulness to the source material. None of those are my main issue.
The thing that I had a problem with was the writing. That’s one thing I’ve seen get almost universally praised that I’m a bit baffled by since Castlevania’s writing is so inconsistent, and can often be embarrassingly bad or painful. You can tell that there were conflicting ideas as to where to take it, when the writing went from weirdly cheesy, like the opening meet-cute between Dracula and his future-wife Lisa (which included a joke about having garlic breath), the various exposition dumps (more on those later), the weirdly creative swearing at times, the humorous banter of varying success and that one part that was written like a particularly grimy Game of Thrones knock-off scene. If you’ve seen the Castlevania TV series, you know the one I mean – the bar scene where the two guys are having a conversation about a man having sex with a goat (a real conversation that actually happened in something with Castlevania in the title). That’s the lowest point for me. It’s all over the place like that.
I also had an issue with how comfortably the show embraced clichés. Trevor Belmont is portrayed as a reluctant hero, which is the least interesting way to have portrayed him. He starts off as somewhat happy-go-lucky, being drunk with a devil-may-care attitude (he starts and loses a bar fight, but doesn’t seem to mind at all). But then he reluctantly helps a man in danger, then reluctantly helps him find his daughter, then reluctantly saves them all from being killed before reluctantly leading the terrified townsfolk against the invading demons. Couldn’t he have just been a hero to begin with?
More clichés abound in the evil, corrupt Church, the evil, corrupt Bishop and his evil, corrupt men, all of whom are cartoonishly evil and stupid (which is fair for a cartoon I suppose). This is another cliché that I just rolled my eyes at since it’s all surface level nonsense. This, again, is shown with the bluntness of a sledgehammer, especially the eye-roll inducing line where the evil Bishop proclaims that he is the Church and the people will have to follow what he says because his word is the word of God.
But none of those are my main issue with the writing. Nope. My main issue with Castlevania’s writing hasn’t been addressed by anybody else as far as I know (granted it’s a pretty specific one that most people probably won’t be bothered by). It’s not just the film’s inconsistent writing and dialogue, but the overall way the film was written that gets me. Castlevania delivers its plot points and dialogue in a manner that can only be described as blunt. Blunt as a sledgehammer. This four-episode movie handles exposition by smashing it into your face piece by piece, really ramming it in there until it’s sure you’ve got it. And there’s a lot of exposition to get through. It's very exposition-heavy.
There’s no subtlety or elegance to it. Characters will constantly blurt out exposition with little prompting, basic plot points are explained multiple times over and characters often just describe what they’re doing, what their goals are and how they feel. Instead of ‘show, don’t tell’, Castlevania mostly goes for ‘tell and sometimes show, but then tell again a few times’. I understand the reason why it’s like this. As a pilot, they wanted to get the audience into the world and characters as quickly as possible, thus they frontloaded exposition whenever possible and pushed it hard. But they really didn’t need to do it in this way. They didn’t need to make everything so obvious, especially given how basic and clichéd everything really is.
Castlevania feels the need to make everything as obvious as possible. It’s not interested in being subtle or vague or having any mysteries at all. It’s also not content in trusting the audience to simply infer or understand on their own. It wants to make it abundantly clear, and wants the audience to know what everything is at all times. It often felt to me that they didn’t think the audience would understand what was happening or why, that they didn’t have faith in the basic intelligence of the people watching. As a result, the bluntness of the dialogue ranges from overt to blatant as characters explain everything and spout out exposition at length. Trevor Belmont is introduced in a scene where another character’s dialogue, when the swearing and ridiculous voice acting are taken out, is basically something like this: “Trevor Belmont? You’re part of the cursed Belmont family! Your family have been vampire hunters for generations, but now you’re outcasts because the Church thinks your supernatural fighting skills are blasphemous! And now you’ve turned away from humanity!”. That’s not even too much of an exaggeration, and a lot of the dialogue tends to be like that.
I tend to like subtlety. I like it when things are left unsaid or alluded to, when there’s an element of ambiguity or vagueness. That’s one extreme, but I’m perfectly happy with visual storytelling (especially in an animated medium). You don’t need to have everything said out loud and explained when it can be shown or hinted to. And the sheer blatant bluntness of Castlevania is what turned me off. Whenever characters stood there and spouted off expository dialogue at length, such as “You’re Seekers! Seekers use prayers and magic and secret knowledge passed down through generations to help mankind and fight monsters! But the Church thinks that your powers are blasphemous! And now they’re hunting down and killing you! And you refuse to use violence to protect yourselves because of a code of honour!”, I cringed. While I’ve slightly exaggerated that example for effect, and most people will say it's fine and i'm being ridiculous, that's the way the dialogue came off to me.
And a lot of the dialogue felt like info dumps, which is egregious because the series does great when it isn’t doing that. It didn’t need to constantly explain, in depth, every single person, thing or event at every turn. A line that got a chuckle from me, as I’m sure it was intended to, involved Trevor’s mystical vampire-killing whip. He uses it a few times through the series, mostly fighting the Church goons, and it functions like a regular whip, but once the monsters shows up it glows and it’s very clear it has mystical powers. After using it to burst a monster apart, he casually and matter-of-factly says something along the lines as ‘Yeah, my whip’s got monster-slaying powers” . It’s probably the most simple and straightforward thing anybody ever said in regards to almost anything else.
The bluntness and lack of subtlety/grace isn’t just in the dialogue, but in the way most of the series has been made. As an example, I’m going to describe how the series starts, so spoilers for half of the first episode (which functions as a retelling of some of the backstory from Symphony of the Night).
The series begins with a meet-cute between Dracula and Lisa, the woman who would become his bride. She heads into his castle to seek knowledge, he appears before her and they share some cute, light-hearted banter which is also full of exposition (Her: ‘I’m a beautiful, kind-hearted and innocent woman who sincerely wants to help people with science and technology, but have been accused of being a witch by the mean nasty Church because they think science and technology are blasphemous’). They also share some lame jokes (she makes a‘garlic breath’ quip).
Cut forward an unknown time period later, Lisa is tied to a stake in a town square and is being burnt alive. The mean evil Bishop, talking to a subordinate, explains that it’s because she was using science and technology, which the Church thinks are blasphemous, and she’s therefore a witch and in league with Satan. Lisa yells out something to the effect of“Forgive them Dracula, for they know not what they do”.
Then we cut to Dracula arriving at Lisa’s burnt down house. An elderly woman that is mourning there tells him that the beautiful, kind-hearted and innocent Lisa was accused of being a witch because she used science and technology which the Church says are blasphemous and is being burnt alive in town as a result.
Back in town, Lisa’s been burnt to ash and Dracula appears in a pillar of flames and asks why they burnt Lisa. The Bishop tells him it’s because they thought she was a witch because she used science and technology, which are blasphemous according to the Church (see what my issue is here?).
Dracula then gives a warning, and his dialogue is something like this: “One year. You have one year before I will have my revenge. I will return in one year. If you are still here, in one year, I will kill all of you……..One year”. He says ‘one year’ at least four times, just in case you weren’t sure how long he was going to be gone for. Dracula returns to his castle to summon an army from hell.
One year later, the idiot townspeople are celebrating how“It’s been about one year since Dracula swore revenge and he hasn’t attacked so we’re probably fine?”. And then it starts raining blood and Dracula appears in flame again. His dialogue this time is: “One year. I gave you one year to leave. And you didn’t leave during that one year. I spent that year, that one year, building an army from hell! And now I have returned, after one year, to kill you all!”.
And then there’s an explosion and giant bat monsters start slaughtering everybody. And let me tell you, this is gory stuff. Jaws are ripped off, eyes are poked out, children are cut in half. Super gory stuff. I don’t know if this is a good thing (when I think of Castlevania I don’t really think of gore) but it works for what it does and is certainly eye-catching (or maybe ‘eye-gouging’ is more appropriate?).
That’s how the series/movie starts. And almost none of that was necessary. The exposition, the constant repetition and explaining of exactly what was happening and why at any given moment didn’t need to be done so bluntly, or even at all. It was weird and distracting and felt off-putting to me, especially since it almost all could have been done away with. By being far less blunt they could have easily opened things in a much more exciting, mysterious and, dare I say it, cinematic manner.
They should have just started it with Lisa being burnt at the stake. Cut out the meet-cute, any mention of science/technology, the part where Dracula finds the burnt-down shack, cut out most of the exposition and just start with Lisa being burnt alive, Dracula showing up to declare war on humanity (but cut out the explanations and half of his ‘one year’ speech) and get things moving. It would have been a far more striking opening and would have opened the door for a little mystery – Who was she? Was she really a witch? Why is she being burnt alive? Why is Dracula so upset about it? Keep it vague that they were married and that Dracula loved her, and that she was using science and technology to help people. That way, in the future, they could come around and have it as a sort of reveal – that Lisa was Dracula’s wife, and the reason why he’s waged war on humanity. It would have let them humanise him in the future. Instead, as it stands, Castlevania ends with everything as straightforward as possible. It’s so damn clear cut that there’s very little they can do to add any depth or surprise from this point on.
Dracula also didn’t need to show up the second time to remind everybody a year has passed. That was obvious. It’d be much creepier and more effective if the slaughtering just started with no warning or appearance from Dracula – it starts raining blood and freaking demons descend upon the town like it’s the apocalypse. But it’s that damn bluntness and over-exposition yet again.
And that’s what I really didn’t like about the Castlevania TV movie/series: it’s blunt, exposition-heavy writing. That’s what really killed it for me. It was written in a way suggesting they thought the audience wouldn’t understand what was happening if they didn’t constantly outline and explain what everything was, who everybody was, what they were doing and the reasons why. Everything was obvious and blatant, and a lot of it felt so stiff as a result. And I’m fully aware that, for most people, this isn’t an issue at all. I know a lot of people like having everything explained to them right away – it’s why origin films are a thing. But Castlevania seemed to push too hard in that direction. And I know, full well, that this probably wasn’t a problem for anybody else to the point that anybody who read this far (and thanks if you have!) will say that I’m over exaggerating or taking issue or complaining for no reason. But it’s what ultimately bothered me.
Now what did I like? A fair amount. The animation is pretty decent, and while it was missing the broader range of colours (where are all the vibrant reds and blues?) and intricate gothic design I associate with Castlevania, what was there did look pretty good. Shame the music was forgettably weak. The demons themselves also had really boring designs, but there was some nice, fluid animation during the action (particularly the finale), and it didn’t look like cheap garbage like some animated movies (it’s actually commendable how good it looks). While I thought the entire plot was fine enough set-up, it did have a very good pace as it continued and I was never outright bored when watching it (though the overall brevity might have contributed to that). I also liked Sypha when she showed up and I liked her banter with Trevor. It was a lot better than the banter he had with himself. And speaking of Trevor, while he was a massive cliché (and probably because he’s a cliché), I still ended up liking him.
There’s a second season in development now, one that’ll run for eight episodes (and hopefully not just be two movies cut into pieces). I’m more excited for the potential that’s there. The set-up, no matter how blunt, is hopefully over now and with an extended order for a TV series hopefully they can make a much more entertaining, exciting and better written second season.