Talk:Adventures of Captain Africa Mighty Jungle Avenger!

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

The intro to this article claims that filming began with this as a sequel to the same studio's earlier serial, The Phantom. I know that a "Trivia" note attched to the IMDb's entry on this production says so, but a great deal of misinformation has been posted there, so that's not good enough. The Great Movie Serials (by Jim Harmon & Donald F. Glut, Doubleday, 1973), says that Captain Africa was simply designed to resemble The Phantom so they could reuse a great deal of footage from that production. Remember, in 1954, Columbia had already dropped "Jungle Jim" per se from that series of programmer features and had Johnny Weissmuller nominally play himself (that is, as much as Roy Rogers or Gene Autry ever did), reportedly to save the licensing fee. Hence, I am adding a citation request to that passage and to one to the same effect in the other's article. Ted Watson (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are sorely wrong on this. Stills of John Hart wearing the costume of the Phantom have surfaced (with John Hart's signature on them, where he signs as "John Hart, The Phantom", some of which can be seen following this link: http://www.bossescomics.com/fantomen.htm), and the fact IS that this was filmed as a sequel to the 1943 Phantom serial, using a lot of stock-footage from that film. Believe me, if you had checked out a few Phantom comics, this movie has been mentioned there several times as originally being a Phantom film, but re-shot because that was cheaper than pay the licence for the King Features character. Incidentally, there is also a few seconds of the serial in which one can actually see Hart appearing in a Phantom costume, clearly a blooper on the filmmakers' behalf but it's there nevertheless. --Kit Walker (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is good and convincing, although it is difficult to understand how Harmon and Glut missed all this. I must mention, however, there are no pictures whatsoever on the specific page that link takes me to, and as I don't read Swedish, I have no idea what to clck on to bring them up [never mind, I found them; conclusive evidence, too]. I have put a "References" section on the "Phantom" serial's article, and I'll do it here. I started to put a message on your Talk page about this yesterday (March 31), but then we had a power blackout for four hours, and by that time my access to this computer was over for the day. BTW, are you the IP that first posted this info? I've had the site fail to "remember me" and had several edits posted under an IP before I noticed and logged in manually—once I got logged off while I was in the site, working off my own "My Contributions" page!—and am merely curious to know if it has happened to somebody else. Ted Watson (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]