MovieChat Forums > Swamp Thing (1982) Discussion > May have been first film to put the vill...

May have been first film to put the villain in the hero's origin


I think this may have been the first film to put the hero's main villain in his origin. In the original comics, Arcane was not responsible for Holland becoming the Swamp Thing (or rather his memories being imprinted on vegetable matter.....). However, this film makes him responsible.

As such, this set a precedent for the 1989 Batman film and the recent Daredevil movie, where the Joker and Kingpin get inserted into the origin.

reply

There was an old Len Wein story where the villains where responsible; you can read it flashbacked in the first Alan Moore Saga of the Swamp Thing collection.

I hated the way the Joker was involved in 1989 Batman; it's not in the original script, either. Was it Tim Burton or was it the studio?

reply

It was Tim Burton.

some people are poison

reply

Thanks. I will never forgive Tim Burton for this.

reply

Get over it. He still gave Batman some legitimacy after the 60's camp. And it's not like he was Joel Schumacher! Personally, I thought changing Catwoman's origin was much worse.

"This year I'm voting Republican. The Democrats left a bad taste in my mouth."
-Monica Lewinsky

reply

Bob Kane, Neal Adams, Frank Miller, David Mazzuchelli, others, gave "dark Batman" credibility.
Adam West and the 60s production team gave "camp Batman" credibility.
I like both versions and I attribute neither to Burton or Schumacher.

I might forgive Tim Burton if he makes a good movie again. I like Vincent a little.

reply

Oh no, I was talking about the television and film mediums. Jesus, of course I know about the comic book writers and artists! And you forgot one of the most prolific Batman writers of all time in Denny O'Neil.

The 60's series was fun, but after that, the casual fan who didn't read comic books just didn't take the character as seriously.

And Tim Burton not making good films? Are you kidding me? What about the Nightmare Before Christmas or Big Fish? He did a great job with Batman. Don't be a continuity freak and get obsessed over one little origin. In case you hadn't noticed, just about every character's origin was different in the films. Tying in a hero's origin to a villain's has been done in comic books many times before. Plus, the Joker is Batman's greatest villain, so why not let it pass?

"This year I'm voting Republican. The Democrats left a bad taste in my mouth."
-Monica Lewinsky

reply

I like Nightmare Before Christmas (Big Fish not so much) but Batman created the Joker, not the other way around. Batman's parents were killed by crime, not by the Joker; Batman is waging a war on crime, not a war on the Joker specifically. Having the Joker be the killer makes it small and personal; Batman's losses should be grand and dramatic.

I can even (albeit very reluctantly) accept the pre-retcon Joe Chill version because Joe Chill is a nobody, a representative of the "cowardly lot", not a colorful character like the Joker that you can wage a personal vendetta against.

Batman' grandieuse theatralics are reduced to two dudes in costumes fighting if the Joker was the killer. Even Sam Hamm, a somewhat unever writer, understood this.

Another thing that irks me with Burton's original Batman (Batman Begins has the same problem) is the unbelievable love-interest character.

reply

Keep in mind that even "Joe Chill" was a retcon. The original Golden Age origin didn't even name the killer. Batman's origin has been constantly changed and updated over the years. I think what Tim Burton was trying to achieve in his tak on the character is that these two archetypes are such complete opposites and yet share such a mutual hate because they created each other. Again, you may not like it, but it was just a reinterpretation (which has been done many times in the comics), and it shouldn't detract from the film. It's just like a retcon. If you don't like it, fine; but hold that against Burton too much. Look on the bright side: they changed it back to being a non super villain who did it last year!

I loved Tim Burton's Batman in spite of the changes. And btw, we don't even know if it was Burton who changed the origin or someone else.

As for the love interest, keep in mind that Vicki Vale was in the comics at the time (they broke up just before the second film came out). She obviously didn't know Wayne's identity, but when you're asking for believeability in the film, how believeable is it that Superman and Batman are bosom buddies who know each other's identity?

"This year I'm voting Republican. The Democrats left a bad taste in my mouth."
-Monica Lewinsky

reply

I think what Tim Burton was trying to achieve in his tak on the character is that these two archetypes are such complete opposites and yet share such a mutual hate because they created each other.

But if that where true, they could just defeat each other and be done with it. Batman is fighting more than just the Joker. It's even arguable if Batman really hates the Joker; in DKR he seems to, but The Killing Joke has another take; that the Joker is just one in a long line of pitiful, batman-created villains.

Look on the bright side: they changed it back to being a non super villain who did it last year!

Yes, a little better. My favorite version is where Batman never finds out who the killer was.

I loved Tim Burton's Batman in spite of the changes.

If an adaptation makes changes, the changes should be of such nature that we love the adaptation because of the changes, not in spite of the changes. (Or at least feel that the changes are "also good" even if they're not our favorite version.)
If I where to reexamine Burton's Batman and come to like it, it would be in spite of this change, and thus I think it's a bad change.

Other possibly acceptable changes are for brevity or clarity, if they don't detract so much.

And btw, we don't even know if it was Burton who changed the origin or someone else.

Sign. alleywaykrew in this thread posited that it was. I know the change isn't in the script, but I thought it might've been a studio decision.

As for the love interest, keep in mind that Vicki Vale was in the comics at the time (they broke up just before the second film came out). She obviously didn't know Wayne's identity,

That wasn't the problem as much as she was a somewhat one-dimensional character. Actually, I think Rachel Dawes in Batman begins is much less believable, especially how (*very minor spoiler warning*) she seems to flip-flop on the Batman issue.

but when you're asking for believeability in the film, how believeable is it that Superman and Batman are bosom buddies who know each other's identity?


It's totally believable. They're the world's finest. I think they should become "best friends with benefits", too, since they can probably understand and satisfy each other more than anyone else since they're both costumed heroes, outcast and misunderstood from the rest of the society. In fact, that's why I like the Batman/Catwoman relationship more than all the Vickies and Rachels in the world.

It's similar to how Night Owl II and Silk Spectre II can understand each other in Watchmen.

Lois is OK, since she's such a headstrong and deeply defined character that the readers are kind of meant to both like and dislike.

reply

Catwoman's origin is one of the most mutable in the entire Arkham Asylum lineup. Burton was practically following a well-established tradition by not using someone else's pre-existing origin story.

reply