In a multi-part series, Comic Book Film Editor William Gatevackes will be tracing the history of comic book movies from the earliest days of the film serials to today’s big blockbusters and beyond. Along with the history lesson, Bill will be covering some of the most prominent comic book films over the years and why they were so special. This time, the comic book muck monsters, Swamp Thing and Man-Thing, hit the big screen two decades apart.

While Man-Thing, who made his debut in Marvel Comics’ Savage Tales #1, cover dated May 1971, came before Swamp Thing, who debuted in DC Comics’ House of Secrets #92 cover dated July 1971, in the comics, the latter would beat the former to movie screens by more than twenty years, and even then Man-Thing would only be released internationally.

The comic book origins of the two are remarkably similar. Both were working on secret formulas in laboratories located in swamps.  Both are attacked by foes looking to gain the formula for themselves. Both are exposed to the chemicals, become grievously injured, and end up coming to rest in the swamp where the formula and mystical forces work to combine the men’s bodies with plant matter, creating a new lifeform.

Due to the close proximity of release dates of their first appearances, it would be easy to write of the similarities as coincidence. However, Swamp Thing’s co-creator, Len Wein, was roommates with Man-Thing’s co-creator, Gerry Conway. Wein even wrote the second Man-Thing story that would have been in Savage Tales #2 if the series wasn’t cancelled.

Whether it was subliminal influence or direct copying, it didn’t matter. Both characters bore more than a passing similarity to a Golden Age character called The Heap (which debuted in 1942) and each character went off into quite different directions after they first appeared—Swamp Thing becoming a sentient being searching for revenge and a cure for his condition, Man-Thing becoming an essentially mindless force of nature wreaking havoc on all evil men who crossed its path.

Swamp Thing had more success in the comic book world, starring in a number of well-received series over the years. The first, written by Wein and drawn by co-creator Bernie Wrightson for the first ten issues, established the revenge/looking for a cure with a horror tinge to it. That series ended in 1976, but it certainly was fresh in the minds of Hollywood filmmakers, who decided to make a film of it in the early 1980s. 

The film, Swamp Thing, was written and directed by horror master Wes Craven, who was then known for The Hills Have Eyes and The Last House on the Left and was two years away from creating another of his seminal works, Nightmare on Elm Street.

The film was a campy action film, lacking much of the horror elements that Craven and the comic book were known for. However, the film was responsible for DC starting up a new Swamp Thing series to capitalize on the film (the series’ first annual adapted the film).This series would be one that would change the landscape of American comics forever.

With the twentieth issue of this second series, a new writer was brought in to take over for series originator Martin Pasko. This writer was British, known primarily for his work on Marvel UK’s Captain Britain series but almost completely otherwise unknown here in the States. The writer’s name was Alan Moore, and he would revolutionize comics in many ways.

Moore is credited with introducing the “grim and gritty” trend in comics, which isn’t truly fair because Pasko’s work on the title was just as grim and just as gritty as Moore’s. But what Moore did was change the way writers (and, by extension, readers) looked at comic book stories. He deconstructed the character of Swamp Thing, revitalized him, and set the bar for every other creator working in comics. He made Swamp Thing a buzz book and made himself into a superstar.

If Moore wasn’t placed on Swamp Thing and given the freedom to do what he saw fit, we probably wouldn’t have had great stories such as Superman: Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?, Batman: The Killing Joke, and Watchmen. If his writing wasn’t a success, the door wouldn’t have been opened for U.K. writers such as Neil Gaiman and Grant Morrison to gain a foothold in the States. And  Vertigo, DC’s imprint for experimentation and literate comic book writing, would never have come into being.

With all the excitement that Moore was bringing to Swamp Thing, it was only natural that talk would turn to a sequel to Craven’s film. And, in true Hollywood fashion, the producers took a look at what was happening in the comics, ignored all of it, and amped the campy nature of the first film into a full blown comedy with 1989’s Return of the Swamp Thing.

The reason why people don’t remember Swamp Thing being as campy as it was is because it seems as somber as Citizen Kane next to Return of the Swamp Thing. The only major element carried over from the comics was the romance between Swampy and Abigail Arcane, who was played by Heather Locklear. However, Abigail was written in the comics as a well-rounded female character while in the film she is written as having all the emotional weight of a helium balloon. And the romance, which was portrayed in comics with the sensitivity and tact of two soul mates finding each other against all odds, was portrayed in the film as more of a kinky exercise where a plant lover would really get off on having sex with a plant.

As bad as Return of the Swamp Thing was, it in itself is like Citizen Kane to 2005’s Man-Thing film.

This film acts as a blip in the otherwise successful run Marvel has been having since 2000. The fact that the film aired on the SyFy Network (then called SciFi) as a SciFi original gives us some indication as to the quality of the film. While the storyline remains somewhat true to the comic book (the origin is changed as is Man-Thing’s alter ego Ted Sallis, who goes from a scientist to a Native American Shaman), the production values are severely lacking. Marvel chose not to give the film a release in the U.S. because they thought the poor quality of the film would derail the momentum the studio was building with its other properties.  It was released internationally, surely giving foreign countries another reason to view America in a negative light.

While the movie might have killed any possibility of any other Man-Thing films ever being made, there is a Swamp Thing remake in development. Screenwriter Akiva Goldsman (a name that strikes fear and terror in the hearts of comic fans everywhere) is writing the film and director Vincenzo Natali (Splice) has been tapped to direct.

Next up, we go to the jungle and examine the popularity of the “jungle girl” through the trend’s most famous example, Sheena.

Michael Uslan has been a producer for almost thirty years, and nearly all of his projects have been comic book related. He has been producer or executive producer on comic book properties such as Swamp Thing and its sequel, Return of the Swamp Thing, the Fish Police television series, Constantine, The Spirit, and, most notably, just about everything Batman related from Tim Burton’s 1989 offering on.

Uslan is making the rounds promoting his forthcoming autobiography, The Boy Who Loved Batman, set to arrive in bookstores from Chronicle Books on August 10, 2011. One of the interviews he gave recently was with Knowledge@Wharton through The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

The interview was wide-ranging, dealing with Uslan’s childhood to his work for comic creator rights to his comic writing experiences. But what he has to say about the way Hollywood views the comic book film is what caught my eye and deserves a little bit of analysis.

The tone of the interview is set with a question about Uslan acquiring the rights to Batman in the 1970s:

Knowledge@Wharton: In 1979, you acquired an option on the movie rights to Batman. You’ve never disclosed the price you paid.

Uslan: It’s irrelevant. In 1979 dollars, it was huge.

Actually, it was relevant because, as the interviewer reminds Uslan, his autobiography goes into how he had to sell his comic book collection to afford law school.

Later the interviewer asks about the first Batman franchise:

Knowledge@Wharton: Some of the middle Batman films were less successful, both critically and commercially. Was there a point when you became aware that the series was getting off track?

Uslan: Let’s talk generally in the movie industry rather than specifically. Generally, years ago you were dealing with simply movie studios. Today, the bulk of those studios are worldwide conglomerates that have their hands in many different businesses. Sometimes, unfortunately, people lose track of what is important. As a result, at some points in time, the tail begins to wag the dog. [These conglomerates] become way too focused on merchandizing, toys and Happy Meals, and begin to impose directives that movies should have three heroes, three villains, and each one should have two vehicles and two costume changes. Then the danger you run into — which I have seen over and over again — [is that the movies become] products that closely resemble a two-hour infomercial for toys, rather than a great piece of film that’s character-driven and plot-intensive. That’s sad.

There is another trap in the movie and TV industry, whereby people who do not understand the comics and who don’t have the same respect for the integrity of the character or its creators, are willing to ignore 20, 40, 60 years of history and mythology of a character, and make changes for nothing more than the sake of change or, on some occasions, for [the sake of] someone putting their own ego stamp on it so they can claim it as theirs. I have found that never works.

If, however, a company such as the current management at Warner Brothers, for one example, finds a great filmmaker with a passion for a character and a vision for a character, and gives that filmmaker everything he or she needs to execute that vision, that’s when you get great pieces of cinema like Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises. For example, when audiences walk out of The Dark Knight, they no longer are limited to merely saying, “That was a great comic book film.” They can now say, “That was a great film.”

It’s interesting the way Uslan answers the question by appearing to side step the question. But savvy Bat-fans know that it was when Joel Schumacher took over the Bat-franchise with Batman Forever and Batman and Robin that the quality went down hill. Those films also corresponded with the addition of Robin and Batgirl to help Batman out, the group facing no less than four villains in each of the films (if you count Debi Mazar’s Spice and Drew Barrymore’s Sugar, henchwomen to Tommy Lee Jones’ Two-Face as full-fledged villains), and two blatantly obvious “Let’s-provide-the-film’s-tie-in-action-figures-with-another-Batman-and-Robin-to-buy” “Arctic costumes in Batman and Robin. It’s not hard to connect the dots to see that it appears that Uslan is laying the failure of the first franchise at the hands of the Warner Brothers marketing department.

However, it is a bit ironic to read Uslan’s statements in that second paragraph, considering that Uslan produced The Spirit, a film where Frank Miller seemed all too willing to ignore 60 years of history and mythology of Will Eisner’s character, and make changes for what appears to be nothing more than the sake of change or for the sake of Miller putting his own ego stamp on it so they can claim it as his. Same can be said for another film Uslan executive produced, Catwoman, and that films director, Pitof. And these are two of the worst comic book films ever made for that very reason.

Uslan then spoke on the mindset of Hollywood executives concerning comic book films:

Knowledge@Wharton: What’s your view on how Hollywood interprets comic book superheroes?

Uslan: I’m chagrined that in a lot of places, they still don’t get it. They’re still making changes just for the sake of change in comic book superheroes that are being brought to TV and movies.

I sat through a meeting in Hollywood where a production executive, who was approximately 26 or 27 years old, said to me and a very famous director, “The lesson of The Dark Knight is that all comic book movies must be contemporary, dark, gritty and violent.” I looked at the director and he looked at me, and we said, “Excuse me, what?” “Yeah, period pieces don’t sell,” [the executive replied.] I said, “Is that something that you have facts and figures to back up? Or is that just something you heard in the hallways that you’re regurgitating?” He said, “Well, everyone knows it.” I said, “Like Titanic?” And he said, “Well, that’s different. That’s history.” I said, “Like Indiana Jones?” He replied, “Well, that’s different.”

I said, “No, the lesson of The Dark Knight is if you respect the integrity of the character and have a filmmaker who’s passionate about it, with a vision for it, who can execute it, then that’s what you do. Otherwise, you guys will be on a kick to do The Dark Ant-Man, The Dark Flash and Casper The Unfriendly Ghost. And all you will do is continue to violate the characters.”

I have no idea who this unnamed production executive is, but odds are that he works or worked at Warner Brothers, because that essentially echoes the sentiment/philosophy that Warner Brothers Pictures Group President Jeff Robinov put forth in a August 22, 2008 interview with the Wall Street Journal  and that we mocked here not long after. The WSJ interview took place after the very dark and very gritty The Dark Knight made oodles of cash for the studio.

On something quasi-unrelated, Uslan did have interesting things to say about the 3-D movie craze and if The Dark Knight Rises will play into it:

Knowledge@Wharton: Will The Dark Knight Rises be in 3-D or is Nolan doing it in 2-D?

Uslan: He and [cinematographer] Wally Pfister have said they would not shoot in 3-D. I totally believe he’s right. He’s going for something that feels very real…. I think 3-D doesn’t behoove that effort.

Knowledge@Wharton: Some industry observers have wondered whether 3-D is overhyped.

Uslan: One of the great experiences I had as a member of an audience was going on opening night to see the restored print of Lawrenceof Arabia at the Cinerama Dome [movie theater in Hollywood]. I couldn’t add to that. It’s a learning curve. And it’s not just about the technology developing; it’s about the techniques developing.

My biggest objection at the moment is to what Hollywood is always really, really good at — which is killing the golden goose by taking movies not shot in 3-D and playing with them in post production [to generate a 3-D image] to try to salvage bad pictures, or to come up with a flimsy excuse to charge $12, $15, or $18. When you inundate the public with a lot of bad movies in 3-D, just as fast as you turned them onto it, you will turn them off of it.

Personally, I can’t argue with that.