Follow TV Tropes


Headscratchers / Castlevania (2017)

Go To

Warning: Spoilers Off applies to this page. Proceed at your own risk.

    open/close all folders 

  • People act like Dracula has been around for a long time but isn't this set in the same time the real life one was in power? What happened to him?
    • The Castlevania series isn't quite the real world. Dracula's surname is taken from Tepes (the part of Vlad the Impaler's name which means "the Impaler", which wouldn't strictly be a surname), but he isn't the historical Tepes. Probably.
    • Fridge Brilliance, it IS set during the time of Vlad the Impaler, and what was Dracula doing during this time? living life like a man, they are the same person, we just got it backwards, Vlad didn't become Dracula, Dracula disguised himself as a human named Vlad
  • So the show is inconsistent on the scale of Dracula's genocide campaign. Half the time they specifically note that he's killing all the humans in Wallachia specifically, the other half they treat it like all humans will be dead. The heroic trio can be forgiven for assuming he just plans to kill everyone everywhere, but the other Vampires are openly concerned about sources of food once the humans are dead, despite presumably not being from Wallachia themselves and thus not directly effected by the genocide. On the other hand, if the plan is to just start in Wallachia and spread elsewhere afterwards, then an exodus from Wallachia wouldn't save anyone, and Dracula's "last act of kindness" is rather moot. So, which is it?
    • Dracula's vague and ill-defined goals and methods are a major plot point throughout Season 2.
    • Its also possible he originally planned for revenge on just Wallachia but in his grief of deciding to turn it into the worlds biggest murder suicide said fuck it kill them all, hes clearly not in his right mind so his "last act of kindness" likely wasn't thought threw, that or he just assumed the old lady would be dead of natural causes by the time his army spread out to the rest of the world
  • So where are the other nations? its kind of implied the army is mostly contained to Wallachia for now so its not like there fending off there own demonic hoards and there are verified demons running around, how has a crusade not been called to storm in and attempt to fight them off?
    • It's easy to forget (and no, not being sarcastic here - it really is) but the series IS set in 15th century. It can take weeks if not months for news to travel, and there is a decent chance that the world at large hasn't got the first clue just what the hell is going on in Wallachia.
      • Going by that then, where's Wallachia's army? Where are the personal forces of the nobles, where is the King? Unless in the time skip between the beginning of his campaign and Episode 2 Dracula's armies wiped out all official human resistance, why is no one fighting back?
  • How does Forging work, exactly? More specifically, why is it that the process seems to be able to create/conjure demons from corpses sometimes, but other times it just brings the corpse back to life, as was the case for Hector's dog and the Bishop? If the basic concept for forging is sticking a departed soul into a dead body, what soul was implanted in the likes of those two for them to be, well, the same as they were when they were alive?
    • It does different things at different times because the forgemasters want it to do different things with different bodies. It's like how sometimes a blacksmith puts iron into the forge and makes a knife, but other times he'll put it into the forge and makes a piece of armor.

    Season 1 
  • How exactly did Lisa expect not to be burned at the stake eventually? In her introduction, she outright says to Dracula that other people already consider her to be a witch.
    • Lisa bore no ill will to the people, thinking they were just ignorant and miserable. She was clearly very optimistic and believed they would come around to her way of thinking once she started actually making a difference. In the end, she was just a bit too optimistic.
    • If the Bishop specifically hadn't decided to use her as a scapegoat in his rise to power, she probably would have been fine (the towns folk would probably have appreciated having a decent doctor).
  • How could the priests be so stupid? Dracula isn't exactly subtle in his communication: he tells them they have a year's head start before he wipes out the city, and they celebrate the anniversary of her death? And afterward, why don't the surviving priest do what Trevor suggests, that is creating defenses with salt and holy water? There is being sanctimonious and there is being Too Dumb to Live. You can't rule over the people if you're dead.
    • It's implied that while the Belmonts have extensive knowledge on the supernatural ("Stone Eye Cyclops, right out of the family bestiary"), the average citizen does not. Not only that, but Dracula gave no sign after the burning on what he was doing, luring the town into complacency. The only ones who realized what danger the people of Wallachia were in were Lisa and Adrien, both of whom attempted to appeal to him before he went too far.
    • Additionally, the Archbishop's speech states that Lisa's execution and Dracula's threat occurred "slightly over" a year ago, indicating that the celebration is not occurring on the exact day of Lisa's death but sometime shortly following. Because nothing happened on the anniversary date itself, they assumed (foolishly) that the threat was an empty one; their celebration was less to commemorate Lisa's death and more of a "the threat has passed and we're all alive" kind of thing.
  • Where was Alucard when his mother was burned? Why wasn't there a security system at their house? Basically, how could ordinary priests burst into one of Dracula's houses and steal his wife, not knowing she's married to Dracula, and succeed in killing her?
    • Drac followed Lisa's wish and lived like a mortal, so they were living in a normal house, not inside Castlevania, so no security systems there.
    • Besides which, Lisa "forgive them for they know not what they do" Tepes doubtless would not have allowed any form of security that would harm people, so anything that was in place to protect her in the absence of her husband and son would have been something that could be overwhelmed by a sufficiently determined mob of would-be witch-burners.
    • Besides, she knew Dracula was traveling without powers, so the only reason she would plead aloud to spare the people would be if someone else could hear her. Someone who later plans to honor her wishes. Say... her teenage son, perhaps?
    • She is clearly talking to Dracula in the scene. She is screaming up at the sky, not addressing someone in the crowd, and the words she says allude to Dracula's character development, not to her son's. The point remains that if Alucard was there, he would not just sit there and watch his mother die a horrible, painful death. It does not matter one wit what happened in Symphony of the Night because this is an adaptation in a different medium that follows different plot threads. And this whole interpretation depends on thinking the woman being burned alive at the stake is only going to take actions that, from a cold and logical viewpoint, will have a tangible result. Humans do not work that way.
      • Following on this thread, even if Alucard saved Lisa, her life was still over at that point; she would be hunted by the Church, likely forced to abandon her work as a doctor, and have to live in hiding for the rest of her life. Saving Lisa also would have meant potentially having to kill her captors. Not much of an issue for Alucard, but would his mother have approved of him doing such a thing?
      • It's a little absurd to think that Alucard would let his mother die a painful, horrible death of burning at the stake on the off chance that she might be upset that he killed the people that were going to horribly murder her.
  • Why does everyone in the show insist that Dracula's a myth? I mean, some sources claim that he did not torment humanity (i.e. hiding) prior to Lisa's arrival, but that field of very real skeletons on stakes before his very real castle contradicts that. If Lisa found him, how come no one else? Moreover, Trevor mentions that his bloodline fought and died protecting Wallachia too, and he knows Dracula's a thing; most likely the Belmonts were fighting Drac's minions. So in the end, he *must* have been hunting down humans in one way or another, no? If the Belmonts really fought and died then the series must follow the standard Castlevania timeline i.e. Drac is Mathias, not Vlad III. There was no time when he was still a living count.
    • The field of skeletons is really old, according to Drac himself (he says he doesn't impale people anymore when he meets Lisa). It's likely that Vlad created that field while he was still a living count, and that's all the public opinion knows for a fact about him, that he was a terrible human being who maybe dabbled in the occult. It's likely that no one gets close to the castle because of it, or because they believe the "myth" (and those who did go to the castle probably never came back). The Belmonts, being a family of monster hunters, know better than to dismiss any such myth without confirmation.
      • In addition, the whole field is skeletons. It does take time for all of the flesh to rot off someone to leave just a skeleton. And in time, 'evil' people do sometimes fade from memory and become legends or myths.
  • So Vlad performs his last act of kindness by telling the old lady to flee Wallachia, right? But then he goes and tells everyone in the square burning his wife that they've got 1 year before he kills everyone in Wallachia... doesn't that mean they all get the same "kindness" the old lady got? I mean, even more, because if some rando said "leave Wallachia" I might not, but when the 20-foot-tall flaming skull-head says "I'ma kill everyone in this here country in 1 year," I'm moving to Sweden.
    • Difference is pretty simple, it's kindness in the case of the old lady because she showed fondness for Lisa so Drac just told her to leave before he started preparing. The villagers, on the other hand, were participants to Lisa's burning or were indifferent to it, so Drac threatened them.
  • Alright, but if Drac really dabbles in the occult and dark magic, why doesn't the holier-than-thou Church step in? I mean, if according to the Bishop Drac "doesn't even exist", there shouldn't be any problem taking him out and preserving the "simplicity" of the commoners' lives?
    • Simple reasons: he's powerful, wealthy, and isolated, and very openly all of those things. It's not really about rooting out dark forces, it's about blaming someone who can't or won't fight back. As he is, he's just something mysterious for people to fear.
    • Quite possibly they did form a mob against him at some point and said mob was never seen again. The church promptly covered it up, and convinced even themselves that it never happened and Dracula doesn't exist.
    • The second season heavily implies exactly that, as Drac once murdered 40 merchants and strung their corpses and entrails up on the outskirts of the town simply because one of them offended him. Given how old Adrian is, it's likely that after Drac settled down with Lisa he simply disappeared and the church was all too happy to simply pretend he didn't exist after the decades have passed. As for why the one asshole priest didn't believe in him? That one priest didn't seem like he had all his marbles to begin with and likely bought into the church's teaching way too hard.
    • Why would they go after someone they thought didn't exist? Also, the skeletons outside imply it didn't go well for the last people that tried.
  • It's probably some concealing magic, but I'm still gonna ask. How come no one paid attention to the travelling-like-man Dracula? He has pointed ears and ungodly height, for God's sake.
    • Because he was those things. It's the dark ages, where people are superstitious, and while female "witches" are easily overpowered, an obviously demonic man that left well enough alone was something they decided wasn't worth messing with.
  • The Bishop claims that, with all other major cities being destroyed, he will be the only church authority left. Even ignoring the inexplicable existence of the Catholic Church in Romania... has this guy seriously forgotten the existence of the pope?
    • By that, the Bishop clearly means "in Wallachia", given that the other major cities in question were also of Wallachian origin. Plus, at the time, Romania wasn't its own thing; around this time in history, Wallachia was its own separate principality.
  • Alucard claims that every trap he set to defend himself was mechanical. What about the flesh and blood monster, the Cyclops?
    • Perhaps it moved in during his year asleep, though that does raise the question of why Alucard's traps didn't kill or repel it if it wasn't intended to be there.
    • Maybe the Cyclops didn't move in deep enough, or not in the right direction?
    • Maybe it's a mix between this and Chaos Architecture like in subsequent games?
  • Why didn't the demons just fly up to avoid being trapped and enclosed by Sypha's ice walls? With the exception of Blue Fangs....THEY HAVE FUCKING WINGS! If Sypha made a roof of ice to go with the walls than that would've made sense but there was literally nothing stopping those demons from flying straight up.
    • Also those demons can shoot fireballs of death from their mouths so why didn't they try doing that to break/melt the ice walls? Yeah ice better then fire my ass Trevor!
  • In the Netflix series, Trevor Belmont mistakes Alucard for Dracula because "no-one knows what Dracula looks like", despite the fact that hundreds of people have seen giant burning image of Dracula's face, twice.
    • Given the circumstances where he appeared, most people wouldn't be able to accurately reconstruct his face. The giant burning face would get more comments along the lines of, "Kept on turning into a giant skull" or "Was the devil himself," instead of, "Had a goatee" or "Pointy chin." Not to mention that it would be hard to make out the details when the details are just shadows on fire. Adding the trauma of the experience wiping out the memory, and the lack of photography or professional sketch artists, it would be safe to say that no one has much of an idea of what he looks like.
    • Also, by the look of it no-one left Targoviste alive. There were Speakers in Targoviste during the burning of Lisa, but we're never given any indication they were there when Dracula descended upon the city and, if they were, they probably died with the rest. Even the Bishop was not there for the sack itself, lending credence to the idea that everyone who was on Targoviste on the day of the festival is probably dead or undead by now.
  • Trevor convinces the people to rise up against the corrupt priests, who are promptly murdered. Why wasn't that one ordained priest killed with the rest of them? He was probably one of the nicer ones, but mobs aren't known for being picky.
    • Since the corrupt priests were employed by the Bishop, its possible the ordained priest was Gresit's local priest before they arrived and he was known well by the people.
    • If I recall, he only specifically called out one guy whom the mob turned on. He didn't say "death to priests" he said "death to this priest." Even if he had, Trevor wasn't telling the mob anything new, he was motivating them to turn on the people abusing them. The people likely knew which priests were abusing their power and focused on them. He directed their rage.
  • Is it just me, or Blue Fangs' voice changes between scenes?
    • In one scene, he's speaking softly, in the other he's shouting.
    • Possibly because he's a demon of chaos, so his voice is continually shifting and morphing.
  • Why exactly would the people believe Trevor enough to rebel against the church? In his speech he condemns them for killing an innocent woman and incurring Dracula's wrath, but why would they even believe that - Lisa really was involved with Dracula and for all they know she really was a witch. Yet they change sides almost instantly, why?
    • Trevor isn't so much "revealing" this as putting it out in the open. Even as it's happening, we see that some people are uneasy about the execution. Most likely? The vast majority of people already knew and understood what was happening and why, but the church was too powerful and could have them killed. Then here comes this guy Trevor who says all that out loud, and also points out that the priest is hideously outnumbered by people, and the dam breaks.
  • How does Trevor know the true circumstances of Lisa's demise? Given the place where it happened was razed and people in general don't seem to know much about it (or the ones that do died), did he happen to just find a select few people who 1) are not dead, 2) knew Lisa, and 3) believed she was innocent?
    • There's a year between Lisa's execution and Dracula going after people. It's unlikely that everybody in that city stayed there the whole year. There are probably people who left — probably people who did know Lisa and liked her — who were able to put two-and-two together after the city that killed her was burned down by demons exactly like Dracula said it would be.

    Season 2 
  • How is an undead abomination made from the corpse of a man whose actions in life were so evil that he inadvertently deconsecrated a cathedral capable of making holy water at all, much less a good sized river full of it?
    • It's possible that despite his actions, he's still ordained himself and blessing holy water just works based on a ritual. It's also possible that being under the control of the (innocent if a bit out there) Hector meant that his sins didn't apply. Whatever the specifics, it's probably a hint as to how holy blessings work in the setting.
    • He always had Holy powers, he just used them for his own selfish needs.
    • Also, there's no indication that the church was ever actually a safe haven. Blue Tusks was taunting and tormenting the man, and the Bishop clearly had no idea how magic actually worked. That said, he was still a properly ordained holy man.
    • I thought that although the Bishop was corrupt in life and a damned and undead slave to Carmilla afterward, God himself (who is likely to exist in the Netflixvania universe due to the fact that holy water has demonstrably harmful effects on vampires and demons) consecrated the river and let Carmilla think that the undead Bishop did it so that her forces could be mostly wiped out by the shockwave that occurred when Sypha teleported Dracula's castle away.
  • If the Belmonts had been virtually extinct for over a decade (Trevor can't even remember how old he was when the rest of the family died), why would a random, nothing village goatherder be able to remember their names, recognize their crest at a casual glance, and think that they're relevant enough to be to blame for a crisis that happened years after they were allegedly wiped out, as shown in the first and second episodes of season 1?
    • Probably because the Church specifically blamed them, and they were a prominent family (remember that the point of a crest is that people recognise it) for centuries before then. It's not too hard to imagine that someone over the age of majority recognises it, and remembers them as the scapegoat.
    • Also, if any game canon still applies, Leon came out of France after relinquishing his knighthood, so he would've been just some random guy when he arrived in Wallachia. 400 years later, his descendants were landed gentry with a basement full of dead monsters, magical artifacts, and ancient lore. The Belmonts have probably been kicking ass and slaying demons in Wallachia for most of the last four centuries, so the name would still be well-known even without the vilification from the church.
  • Where's Death in all of this? You'd think that Dracula's closest confidant and friend would be at his side at all times, but he's nowhere to be seen. Are they saving him for later?
    • Maybe Isaac's going to run into Zead at some point?
      • Either that, or Isaac is a Composite Character with Zead - note the loyalty to Dracula and the tall, bald appearances that they share.
    • The writers decided to not place the same Death from the original timeline in this version of Castlevania. The closest to Dracula's "confidant" is Isaac.
    • It is unknown if Dracula wields the actual Crimson Stone in this story.
  • So Carmilla's new plan is enslaving Hector to build up her undead army... sorry, but how does she think this is a good idea? I thought the Forgemaster's armies were necessarily loyal to the Forgemaster's will, not Carmilla's; moreover, if Carmilla understands how Hector's abilities work, she should be aware of that. At this point she's treated Hector so deplorably that his will is probably saying "drag this hag to hell". How does she expect to make his will match hers?
    • By beating and torturing him until his own will is broken.
      • Makes sense enough, coming from a Smug Snake like Carmilla. Still, breaking Hector's will wouldn't necessarily make him agree with Carmilla's goals; it just means he'd not risk defying her, and- at least in this troper's experience- that's not exactly the same thing. If Hector's will is broken, wouldn't his army become directionless? On a different note: doesn't Carmilla know what Hector did to the last two people who abused him? And, moreover, that Castlevania's vampires don't seem to be fireproof?
    • Carmilla seems to think she is a Chess Master when, in actual fact she is more impulsive that her apparently cool exterior shows, as shown by her blessing an entire river and not thinking of things like splash zones, or that now she has given a city an almost infinite supply of something that hands down, will kill a most of the unholy creatures that it comes into contact with, her tasking a Forgemster who probably hates her with creating an army explicitly loyal to him, reeks of Did Not Think This Through, so far all of her half baked plans have bit her in the ass, and she still has the gall to think she is a front runner for Big Bad status, probably usurped by Hector or Issac in the next season.
    • Season 3 indeed shows that Carmilla beating the shit out of Hector means he's not inclined to do her any favors, and giving him access to Devil Forging tools means the first thing he'd do with a night creature army is turn it on her. The bulk of Hector's story in Season 3 revolves around Carmilla and her council's attempts to secure Hector's loyalty despite Carmilla's actions. Her treatment of Hector was part Didn't Think This Through, part "I need him cowed and at my side right now, making him do what I want is tomorrow's problem." Carmilla's sisters routinely call her out for making dealing with Hector more difficult, but Carmilla has a point that, at the end of Season 2, Hector made it very clear he wasn't interested in Carmilla's schemes and manipulations any more. Beating him into submission was about the only option she had if she wanted any possibility of access to his skills.

    Season 3 
  • Why was Lisa in Hell? While Dracula had committed hundreds of actions that were despicable, no matter how much his love for Lisa had made him think of redemption, Lisa showed to be nothing but a king hearted soul. Speaking of which, why was Dracula willing to leave Hell, when he was spending time with his beloved?
    • There are a lot of things that can get you sent to Hell, depending on the dogma you're talking about, even if you're a good person otherwise. Also, who says Dracula was willing to leave? Or leave alone, for that matter? We get one wordless, 15-second scene of him just looking at the portal, so we know nothing of whether he would have left, or tried to bring Lisa with him.
    • Here is a very simple way of looking at it: Dracula was NOT getting into Heaven no matter what, right? And Lisa loves Dracula despite everything he had done. So, if Lisa's idea of Heaven is to be with her husband, then Hell is the only place she can go. Lisa cannot really be happy in Heaven because it means she will never be with her husband again and Dracula has to live in Hell while Lisa is somewhere that is forever out of his reach. The fact that both of them are together again is arguably a kindness really.
    • That still raises the issue that Lisa could feel enough loneliness in "Heaven" that You Are Worth Hell would be seen as a better alternative. Even if we accept that she willingly forewent heaven to be with her beloved, then there are probably millions upon millions of people who either did not make that choice and wound up separated from their loved ones forever...or who did make that choice and are in Hell no matter how good they were in life.
      • Then maybe that's the real point of Hell? Perhaps it's more along the lines of third-class accommodations for the souls of the dead than actual punishment. Some may go there not necessarily because of how evil they were, but because there was nowhere else for them to go. You can't put Lisa anywhere Dracula isn't and you can't put Dracula anywhere but Hell. If evil people are allowed loved ones in Hell, then maybe ain't all that bad. Also, you're assuming actual choice is involved here. No one said that. And you're assuming millions of people are separated from loved ones in this scenario, but you have to acknowledge Lisa as an extreme example seeing as how she her loved one is literally Dracula.
      • You can't have it both ways. Either there's an Easy Road to Hell or there isn't. Either your personal feelings influence where you end up (that's what I mean when I refer to a "choice") or they don't. If either of those two things are used to explain why Lisa is in Hell, then yes—there are probably millions of people in Heaven separated from loved ones (because there's an Easy Road to Hell) or there are millions in Hell because they didn't want to give up loved ones. Lisa's particular loved one may have been Dracula, but it's not like you have to be as evil as him to get into Hell. Also, while we're not told how bad Hell is, we know based on the creatures that come from there that it isn't a particularly pleasant place, either.
    • It's my personal headcanon that the Lisa we saw is an illusion meant to keep Dracula in hell. If and when he discovers the truth, the cycle of him constantly being resurrected will begin.
    • Considering how much of a woman of science Lisa was and how quickly she denounces superstitions, she might have been atheist. Refusing to believe in God or accept Him as your Lord would do the trick in a setting where He is all too real.
    • We haven't seem much in the way of proof that this Hell is the literal Christian Hell (thus having a Heaven counterpart), and the series kinda seems to lean on the original's All Myths Are True mentality. It may be that that place is just the Afterlife, and whether it gets interpreted as Hell or Heaven or something entirely different is up to each person's beliefs.
  • Maybe this borderlines on being a rhetorical question, but what exactly is wrong with Isaac? He despises the human race and believes they should all die, though not without just cause, but he seems to operate with a bizarre, almost hilarious lack of self-awareness when it comes to dealing with other people. He killed the bandits who attacked him in the desert. Fair enough. Yet when he enters the city with his army of demons, the guards all rally to fight them. Isaac then later condemns the humans who attacked him, saying they were full of hatred and fear. That’s technically true, but that’s a very reasonable response given the context and it's kind of Isaacs own fault in the first place. They are afraid because the Night Creatures are literally demons and they clearly don’t respond to things like love, so why is Isaac expecting any other kind of reaction? Even when he arrives in Genoa, the soldiers point out the demon attacks that are happening in Wallachia, attacks which Isaac himself help to perpetrate, but all Isaac does is complain that they are being rude to him. That’s supposed to be human cruelty?
    • I think it stems from Isaac's fallacious belief that all others are working from the same pool of knowledge as him and will act logically according to this. He knows his creatures are only dangerous if he orders them to attack, and he only wishes to leave the city and thus poses no threat. The guards of course know neither of these things, but he fails to see their perspective and thus thinks the only reason for them to demand he turn around on pain of death is simply because of spite. His past has led him to draw back from others and ignore their viewpoint, leading to a self-fulfilling cycle that allows him to justify his misanthropic beliefs. It is a definite flaw, stemming from great arrogance and little empathy, and hopefully one that is explored in more depth.
    • I think he may be dumb. He did think sailing a ship is easy despite probably not knowing how to get to Genoa.
  • Why the everloving hell didn't Trevor & Sypha destroy the alchemy marks they found around town!? They didn't know the *exact* purpose of the marks, but they did know that it was something bad, & they had a couple hours between when they formed their plan of attack with the Judge and when they actually attacked.
    • They probably thought it was just graffiti, not thinking a group of priests would have the knowledge to cast magic of that caliber. The symbols themselves don't seem to have had any magic to them, being only target for the ritual, and thus easily overlooked. They were fairly overconfident after all, and hadn't faced magic uses outside of Dracula's in your face stuff.
  • Would Hector be able to escape the ring's curse by cutting off his finger?
    • Probably, but since that would be disloyalty, he'd have to deal with it dancing all over his pain receptors first, likely to the point of making him pass out to prevent him without some sort of countermeasure first.
  • What convinced Sumi & Taka that the best way to lure Alucard into a trap was to have sex with him? Sure it worked, but given Alucard didn't show any interest in either of them or really in sex in general, why would that of all things be their plan for rendering him vulnerable? All it would have taken for the ploy to fall apart was for Alucard to go "wait, no, stop I don't like either of you like that", and that would have been it. Heck, if all they needed was to slip those magic binds onto him, why not just do it when they're sparring so they have a good preexisting reason to get close? There's even a scene prior to the sex scene where they're both holding onto Alucard by one arm each, that would've been a near-perfect opportunity.
    • We're not privy to their inner thoughts, so we can't know why they did that. Perhaps they thought that was when he'd be the most vulnerable.
  • What was the point of the Judge being a serial child murderer? It's barely alluded to, no characters react to it before it's revealed at the end of the season (wouldn't the townsfolk be vocally concerned about children disappearing periodically?), and it doesn't have anything to do with the plot.
    • To add to the bleakness of the ending of the storyline. That portion of the storyline exists in large part to "break" Sypha. Also, as for the townsfolk noticing, remember this is a world where there are literal monsters lurking in the woods that pop out and eat people. It would take nothing for the Judge to blame any disappearances on that.
    • In my opinion, that only exists to be a plot twist for the sake of a plot twist.
      • And? How does that matter? This page is for Fridge Logic questions and answers. Not going, "Well, I don't like it."
      • Because some reasons aren't deeper than that.
    • What does that even mean? Now this sounds like just griping about a plot point which is, again, not what this page is for.
  • Was the priory being controlled by the Visitor? Given that Sala doesn't seem to understand what's going on when the portal to Hell opens - even though accessing hell was exactly what he wanted - it would make more sense that he was under some sort of influence. But on the other hand, he kills the Judge without even stopping to think about it, implying that he does actually oppose those who were trying to stop him and therefore what he was doing was something he actually believed in.
    • They were not being directly controlled, but influenced. He killed the judge because the judge was an enemy. He didn't stop to think about all the factional aspects during his freak out because humans generally don't.
  • Why is Dracula still a vampire in Hell? Assuming his origin story is similar to how it is in the games, he was originally human, so why wouldn't he revert to that upon going to Hell?
    • Why would he? None of the games have shown him "reverting" to human when he died, and in fact he keeps coming back as a vampire.
    • Because it's a transformation of his original human self. If Dracula stays a vampire in Hell, why doesn't Lisa stay a barely-living burnt up husk in Hell?
    • Yes, it's a magical transformation that changed the very core of what he is. It's a very different thing than simply burning to death.
  • Was Dracula trying to go through the portal and come back to life? If so, why? He spent most of the show wanting to be dead, and by the time he did die he was more or less convinced it was what he deserved. And just as well, he gets to be with Lisa in hell, so why would he even want to come back?
    • We don't know if he was trying to go through the portal. And perhaps if he was, he would've brought Lisa with him.
  • If it's really possible to open portals to the afterlife and resurrect people with them, why didn't Dracula take advantage of this to get Lisa back? With his seemingly endless pool of knowledge on magic and science, it'd make sense that he would know how to do it - and even if he didn't, a creature like the Visitor could have just as easily told him how.
    • Presumably either he didn't know about it, or he wasn't able to make it happen. The Visitor didn't create the portal; he just found it.
      • But the Visitor knew where the portal was and what to do with it - given that Isaac can get info from the demons he commands, why not tell Dracula?
    • Who says Dracula ever knew this Visitor? He was very hands-off with his conquest, and he was single-minded. If it wasn't about wiping out humanity, he didn't want to hear about it.
  • It's honestly kinda of funny regardless but why is their house in Hell too?

    Crossover with Devil May Cry? 
So Adi Shankar reveals that he's going to make a Devil May Cry animated series along with a 3rd season of Castlevania and not only that, both series are part of a Shared Universe. How is that gonna work? First, Castlevania and Devil May Cry are owned by different game companies (Konami and Capcom respectively) and they don't take place on the same Earth (While Castlevania has the same Real Life history as our world albeit one where Vampires, magic and supernatural creatures exist, the world of Dmc has a different history where the world was almost invaded by demons, their version of the Church worships a demon who fought and defended humanity and Dmc 5 even takes place in an alternative version of London with a different name). Secondary, did Shankar even get permission from both Capcom and Konami to have a crossover with their franchises? Capcom and Konami have so far from I seen haven't said anything about this crossover since it's only Shankar himself who said its happening. Plus bothcompanies might not like it if Shankar does something to anger them with their franchises like say make one character look better than the other. Furthermore, both series have different tones with Castlevania being a gothic horror adventure while Dmc is a cool, action game with a sense of humor with snarky heroes.This sounds less like a official crossover and more like a fanfic.
  • For the how, season 3 introduced the Infinite Corridor, a magic portal that can connect to any point in time and space. Sounds like a handy way to visit other worlds, or in this case other franchises. As for the legal issue, that relies entirely on whether or not Konami and Capcom are willing to play ball. So we're halfway there.
  • Honestly, it sounds like a new rule must be made these days: All forms of media can and must have, in some form, a crossover with similar media.

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:


Media sources: