Castlevania (Netflix series)

You know given Netflix's arbitrary and cancel happy nature, I'm actually inclined to believe that.

It does seem totally plausible that Shankar just got screwed over in the name of profit. Not sure he'll win his suit (money talks) but I am inclined to believe him at least for now.

Oooof what a dick movie to the guy who helped made all the profit possible.

Edited by slimcoder on Aug 19th 2021 at 2:23:39 AM

And who as far as we know, wasn't a scumbag like Ellis turned out to be.

.....I wonder, were they planning this from the beginning? Even if Warren Ellis hadn't done what he did, would they have screwed him anyway?

Per the article he thinks it's to cut him off from the profits, which seems like a rather plausible reason.

Ughhhh what the fuck, Netflix. This is scummy AND stupid. Dude’s got several other things in the pipeline for your service and you do this?

…I think it’s several things? I know he’s working on a few things and at least one was going to be on Netflix.

Edited by SapphireBlue on Aug 19th 2021 at 1:11:11 AM

Netflix isn’t getting sued here. The suing appears to be more internal, first with the other producer, and the internal production company Netflix was buying from.

Also Shankar’s lawsuit is based on a verbal agreement, and…yeah.

Edited by Beatman1 on Aug 19th 2021 at 4:18:18 AM

It's possible they didn't figure anyone really cared about Shankar. I mean, in terms of publicity and billing, this is the first I've ever heard of the guy.

In both marketing and fandom spaces, the show has been pretty unanimously billed as "Warren Ellis Studios featuring Warren Ellis presents Warren Ellis's Castlevania, Written by Warren Ellis, Directed by Warren Ellis, Produced by Warren Ellis." With Ellis out the door, Netflix probably figured Shankar was superfluous.

Edited by TobiasDrake on Aug 19th 2021 at 2:48:57 AM

Seems plausible enough, but one correction, as noted it doesn't seem to be a problem on Netflix's end. It's a fight within the company Netflix hired.

Which company are we talking about here? I don't think you mean Powerhouse?

The production company wasn’t mentioned in the articles I looked at.

From the Hollywood Reporter article. It's a bit vague as to whether this is Netflix or the studio actually physically producing the show but it's not just one person he's sued.

He's most likely suing Project 51 and/or Frederator.

Edited by ArthurEld on Aug 19th 2021 at 10:00:51 AM

Ohhh, OK.

Even if Shankar has various issues in the same way Ellis does, the contract still has to stand unless it has an actual part in it that can fire a person if they breach a specific part of the contract.

Ellis' various issues is probably what got him canned, or he was only supposed to be there for this particular set of seasons to begin with. It could be both overall, though. If he signed another contract and didn't breach its agreements, he should absolutely sue too.

That said, I'm not saying that firing him for what his problems are is a bad thing in itself either. Though I forget the details too. Not keeping him onboard for a later season that had no contract due to his issues is a logical approach too, since it gives the company a bad name.

Shankar isn't in the same boat necessarily. But yeah, he wasn't exactly top billing either, which means them trying to screw him over would make sense. Companies loooooove to do that. Any way to save money, yep. But yeah, until we know the details further, there's not much to say anymore. Shankar is making the right call by suing them, since they have an obligation to uphold their part of the contract. Only reason he should lose is he actually breached it, which means they didn't instead. Note that I say "should", cause he could still lose anyway even if they are the ones breaking their end. Unfortunately that's how it goes sometimes. Justice doesn't always win, etc.

I think they should get one of the main writers who worked on The Secret World, for the new show. Because that game did some really interesting things with the supernatural, and the worlds history, without getting petty or disrespectful, like Ellis, and it was still mature and compelling.

The whole attempt at Doing In the Wizard with Trevor's new weapon, being due to symmetry, not faith, and Death being a variation of vampire predator, was just ridiculous.

Things need to remember to embrace the fantasy again, and stop trying to seem smarter/credible, by saying "Oh here's how it really works" instead of just playing it straight. Like most attempts to be "grounded" its interesting in moderation, but overused its over stays its welcome quick. At least in my opinion.

Providing explanations does not make it any less fantastical, nor for that matter does replacing it with your preferred explanation make it any more fantastical.

Fantasy is fantasy, it doesn't matter if a magic weapon is fueled by faith or by something else paranormal.

It felt oddly inconsistent.

Because holy water burns vampires good. But with crosses its not the holy iconography or the faith placed in them, its because shapes confuse vampire brains?

Its just odd.

That is inconsistent.

I guess its an explanation for why a cross would be harmful to an Indian vampire.

Yeah. Like, if you were going to do in that wizard why focus on just the crosses?

Like, either go all in and or don't do it at all.

Though I suspect there was probably an explanation for the holy water as well but they never got to it.

I've honestly grown to despise that trope, It rarely makes anything better in my opinion, only to make it more bland to me.

I feel like people are misusing Doing In the Wizard here, as Spartan said. Saying that crosses hurt vampires because of something about how they perceive shapes doesn't undo all the other fantastical elements of the show. Likewise, saying Death is an ancient spirit who impersonated the spirit of death isn't making him less fantastical. If anything, it makes him more supernatural.

Edited by windleopard on Aug 23rd 2021 at 3:23:16 AM

It just seems to be an odd thing to add.

The Witcher did something like that, but it made sense because of its low fantasy setting and because most the monsters were beastial and came from other realities with alien environments, so they seemed more fantastical to the primitive medieval culture who couldn't understand that, save the Witcher's who studied them.

Castlevania has always embraced the Gothic supernatural, but do to its, before mentioned In Name Only adaptation status, specific things like this popping up while much else is never given such detail makes it stick out. Either as another way for the script to thumb its nose at religion, or just explain away why a cross would have a international effect on vampires from other cultures, when other works like Vampire: The Masquerade have provided, equally decent, explanations.

Edited by Avenger09 on Aug 23rd 2021 at 1:12:09 PM

IMO making death not The Grim Reaper makes a lot of sense.

Death personified in general is thought of as a neutral force these days; not a sadistic monster who kills to feed.

The cross confusing the vampires thing wouldn't be so controversial if it weren't for the fact that all the other explicitly holy stuff also affected them.

Maybe but many people still fear death regardless so making the personification of it malevolent does make sense. Hades from Greek mythology may not have been a Satan analogue like some modern media makes him out to be but even when the Greek gods were worshiped but Hades was greatly feared because acknowledging him meant acknowledging their own mortality and the ancients Greeks viewed death as a terrifying oblivion.

Edited by Kaiseror on Aug 23rd 2021 at 10:51:04 AM