I write my observations after seeing the 1996 version, followed by the 2010 SyFy Phantom production. I can say with confidence that the 1943 version was far ahead of its times and pretty authentic, compared to the later versions.
The fact is that in 1943, a nifty Phantom movie serial could be made, using the most primitive tools and technology (as compared to today's standards), but today's producers find it so difficult to stick to the basic canons of the Phantom mythos and make changes in almost everything, (except perhaps the name of the Phantom). Today's producers need to study this vintage production first, before venturing out on their own. Some of my reasons are below:
1. The Tom Tyler series had a tight script, focused plot and minimal deviation from whatever mythos had been built up by Falk by that time. In a 1940s scenario, with the backdrop of WW II, limited budget, no special effects, no color, no CGI and no trained wolves, the series was the most faithful portrayal of the Phantom we can hope for. Swabacker and Cox can be excused for not showing the Bandar, because the mythos was not so well developed or well known in 1942, but can Boam be excused for declaring right at the start of the 1996 film that the Touganda tribesmen rescued the first Phantom (as a child), when it was actually the Bandar, enslaved by the Wasaka, who rescued the first Phantom, when he was already a grownup? 2. Sai Pana was perhaps the precursor of Morristown; The Tonga village was perhaps the precursor of the Deep Woods. The name, Walker, was perhaps first mentioned here, although I am not sure. How much did Falk pick up from this series? We may never know. 3. Tom himself was cool, muscular and impressive, without spandex; his outfit was a faithful representation of the Phantom's costume. His eyes could be seen, but once he took over as the 21st Phantom, he stopped showing his face. And of course, there were none of the silly grins or wisecracks. Nor did a biker's suit and helmet replace the Phantom's costume, like in the latter day SyFy production. 4. Jeannie was a better Diana than Kristy; No scowling or muttering. She was feisty and expressive as Diana has always been shown to be. 5. Ace, the Wonder Dog as the talented Devil was better than the mangy wolf of the 1996 film; the woods in outskirts of Hollywood were impressive; no exotic locations were required. 6. The 20th Phantom was depicted as old but tough and impressive, by Sam Flint. There was no need to depict him as a doddering old fool, as portrayed by McGoohan in 1996. 7. Of course, the plot was racy, believable and fun. The viewer's intelligence was not sorely tried by showing stuff that was, well, plain unbelievable. I think you guys get the point.
I can go on and on.. but my submission is: why it so necessary to make goofy, avoidable changes in established canons, to make a 'modern' film? If "Breezy" Eason could pull off such an achievement 65 years ago, why is it so difficult to accept the Phantom for what he is, by modern film producers? If the Phantom is an 'aged' hero, wearing a ridiculous costume, so are the others in the DC and Marvel universes. And they are world-wide box office successes. So that 'argument just won't jell. Coming back to more modern times, adopting parkour, making the Phantom look like a Ninja Turtle, having a female Guran who is taller than the Phantom etc. might satisfy the producer's hidden talents for weirdness, but such talents will certainly not improve the fan base of the Phantom. I fully agree that the Phantom character needs to be treated with respect, and the 1943 version succeeded in this, while latter versions failed miserably.
