>>720162803
>No, you absolutely could incorporate the game storyline into a TV series
I'm saying it would be worth establishing a separate continuity regardless just to give things more breathing room, assuming a show with a similar amount of dialogue and that also ran for 6 seasons. To the extent the Castlevania timeline "works" it works because it's a series of games with very little story and video games are iterative by nature. For fuck's sake, there are several completely different games that use the exact same Simon Belmont-fights-Dracula premise, and the entire Belmont clan is just an extension of that kind of reuse with very few exceptions. So why keep it? Just so Igarashi can feel better about that time he subjected everybody to Meg Ryan running down endless corridors?

I remember when the show was running that people were irritated by Trevor playing second-fiddle to Alucard in the Dracula battle, but why would it be otherwise? The narrative elephant in the room is that Dracula is Alucard's father. It would be genuinely retarded storytelling to make Trevor Belmont the center of that conflict. The games got away with this because it doesn't fucking matter. Castlevania III barely has a plot; Alucard is just a vampire that WOKE UP TO JUSTICE to give Trevor a firm handshake and secure himself a job and then fucked off without mention for several games before reappearing as a drag queen cosplaying as Captain Kronos. If you're serious about expanding on and adapting Castlevania III you have to acknowledge that any Symphony of the Night adaptation can no longer carry the weight that it does. You will, somehow, end up robbing Peter to pay Paul.

You could probably still do everything and keep it in line enough with the games, but it would require a completely different kind of adaptation that shrugs at the story as much as the games themselves do as an action anthology like the Clone Wars microseries or something. I'd have much rather had that, myself.