New topic
Printable| Author | Message |
The first movie sequel, remake and reboot By Briana Jones on March 2, 2016
Everyone has either heard complaints or complained themselves about Hollywood’s seemingly overwhelming wave of sequels, remakes, and reboots. And that complaint is almost always informed by the notion that Hollywood is running out of creative fuel. The truth, however, is altogether simpler and more black-and-white: Hollywood is a business, and sequels, remakes, and reboots are an especially bankable part of that business. In fact, the third and fourth highest grossing films of all-time — Star Wars: The Force Awakens and Jurassic World, which have combined to gross over $3.5 billion — are both reboots/sequels, and both were released as recently as 2015. But what too few realize is that this is nothing new. Because they’re so bankable, Hollywood has always been awash in sequels, remakes, and reboots.
 Still from the 1959 Ben-Hur. Image Source: Wikimedia Commons Ben-Hur, the classic 1959 film that won a record-setting 11 Oscars and had, at the time, the second highest gross ever, is actually a remake of the 1925 film Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ, which itself came after yet another version of the film, the 1907 silent short Ben Hur. And now, another Ben-Huris currently in production, with an expected release in August 2016. Remakes, reboots, and sequels are eternally ingrained in Hollywood, largely because, despite our complaints, we continuously support them. We look forward to seeing classic characters reinvented, familiar tales retold, and beloved stories extended as sequels. Hollywood makes them, and we buy tickets. And so, rather than bemoan Hollywood’s lack of originality, let’s see where this all started and take a look at the very first movie sequel, remake, and reboot of all time. All three go back much further than you think…
First Movie Sequel: The Fall Of A Nation
A 1916 advertisement for The Fall of a Nation, widely considered to be the very first movie sequel. Image Source: Wikimedia Commons Although it wasn’t until the 1970s when sequels really took root in Hollywood, they’ve been around since the early 20th century. The very first movie sequel in Hollywood history is widely considered to be Thomas Dixon Jr.’s The Fall of a Nation, a controversial film that picked up where D.W. Griffith’s even more controversial The Birth of a Nation left off. 
The Birth of a Nation. Image Source: Flickr Adapted from the novel and play The Clansman (written by Dixon), The Birth of a Nation follows two families during the Civil War and Reconstruction era. It was considered highly controversial for its negative portrayal of black men and its glorification of the Ku Klux Klan. The film was protested by African-Americans nationwide, and is said to have influenced the reemergence of the Ku Klux Klan after some years of relative dormancy. Although the film featured an inaccurate and racist portrayal of American history, it is still considered groundbreaking for its innovative technical use of the film medium. And despite its controversy, it was incredibly popular with audiences as well as critics: The Birth of a Nation was the highest-grossing film ever until it was overtaken by the 1939 release of Gone with the Wind (which remains the highest-grossing film ever, when adjusted for inflation, to this day). 
The Fall of a Nation. Image Source: Wikimedia Commons Thomas Dixon’s sequel, The Fall of a Nation, was released in 1916, one year after its predecessor. Like The Birth of a Nation, the film is a sweeping tale of war, this time seeing a pro-war congressman and an American suffragette raise their own army to save their pacifist nation by defeating the “European Confederated Army.” However, unlike its predecessor, it failed to grab the attention of American audiences, and with no known extant copies, the film is now thought to be lost to history.
First Movie Remake: The Great Train Robbery
The Great Train Robbery (1903). Image Source: Wikimedia Commons The Great Train Robbery, written, directed, and produced by Edwin S. Porter, forever changed the world of film by breaking away from the static single-shot stories of the silent era and bringing about the dynamic kind of narrative filmmaking — complete with location shooting, cross-cutting, and a moving camera — we all take for granted today. And lest we think remakes are solely a notion of today’s Hollywood, The Great Train Robbery was indeed remade — the very next year. The plot was simple: a group of outlaws holds up a train and is then pursued relentlessly by the sheriff and his posse. Some say it’s the first Western, some say it’s the first action film, and some just say it’s the first narrative film (as we know it today) overall. 
The Great Train Robbery (1903) Image Source: Wikimedia Commons The Great Train Robbery was also a huge success with audiences, so it didn’t take long before another filmmaker took a shot at his own version of the film (and in a fashion showing even less originality than today’s remakes). In 1904, director Siegmund Lubin released his own version of the film, under the very same name, and made it nearly identical to its predecessor. The remake featured the same plot as the original, while, much like a modern remake, pumping up the violence and the stylized production design. That same year, a new copyright law was put into effect in order to protect physical film reels from being copied and resold for profit. But even with this new copyright law, there was no protection of intellectual property. And so, Lubin tiptoed around the copyright law and made his own version of The Great Train Robbery so that he could reap all the reward. 
The Great Train Robbery (1903) Image Source: Wikimedia Commons Profit was the motive, plain and simple. Lubin did not want to risk failure with an original film when he could easily make money by creating a nearly exact replica of an already successful film. In fact, this kind of remake, common in early Hollywood, was much more blatant and shameless than the kind of remakes we sometimes see today. It wasn’t until much later in the 20th century, and especially in recent years, that respected filmmakers found critical acclaim with successful remakes that shed new light on a great story.
First Movie Reboot: The Return Of Godzilla Godzilla Raids Again (1955). Image Source: Wikimedia Commons Compared to a sequel or a remake, the definition of a reboot is a little more complicated. Reboots take elements from an established series and transform them to reflect a changing time, changing audience, or to simply freshen up the story and attract new fans along the way. A reboot differs from a sequel in that it can disregard the continuity and conditions of earlier entries in the series, and instead return to the beginning and chart its own path outward from the story’s central premise. Additionally, most reboots are made many years (sometimes decades) after the original, and often it is this time gap — and the accompanying recasting and new filmmaking approach — that further qualifies the film as a reboot. 
Original poster for The Return of Godzilla. Image Source: Wikimedia Commons The Godzilla franchise is one of the longest running in film history. This story of a dinosaur-like monster reawakened by the radioactivity of an atomic bomb has been stretched and manipulated over and over again. The various films have seen Godzilla both as the protagonist and the antagonist, with many other monsters brought in along the way. Starting with the release of Godzillaˆin 1954, the series has seen well over twenty productions, including various remakes, reboots, and sequels. There were several remakes and sequels during Godzilla’s first wave of popularity, but it wasn’t until 1984’s The Return of Godzilla that we got what may be the first ever reboot in film history. The crucial distinction between The Return of Godzilla and all the other preceding Godzilla adaptations — and the very thing that defines it as a reboot – was that it consciously and explicitly ignored past adaptations, instead returning to the story’s beginnings.  Teizô Toshimitsu sculpting the final Godzilla design, 1954. Image Source: Wikimedia Commons Unlike sequels and remakes, reboots are a much more recent phenomenon — and an ever-growing one. As you’ve likely noticed, three of the biggest superhero movie properties (Batman, Spider-Man, and the Fantastic Four) have each been rebooted twice since 2000.
| |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
I don't have any problem with the idea of remakes or sequels. Some of the best movies ever made are either sequels or remakes. It's only when a remake like the dire 2016 version of Ghostbusters is made that I have issues with. Certain movies don't need to be remade. They were perfect the first time. A movie should only be remade if its a situation where the original had a great or interesting premise but the execution was flawed. Then maybe a remake is warranted so that the original concept can be given the proper treatment it didn't get the first time around. Sequels CAN be really good. Look at The Godfather 2 or Back to the Future 2 and 3. Those were sequels done right. But it's movies like The Matrix 2 and 3 or any Terminator movie made after Judgement Day that give sequels a bad name. But just because a lot of sequels are trash doesn't mean that no writer, director or studio executive should persue them. They just need to be handled better. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Wasn´t the version of The Wizard of Oz that we are all familiar with a reboot or remake of an earlier version? I think there was a silent , black and white version in the early 20s. . Some sequels are really great and even better than the first part....Mad Max II and The Empire Strikes Back come to mind. - Then there are films where even the director does not really know whether it is supposed to be a sequel, a reboot or remake or even a prequel, like for example Mad Max Fury Road. It was also called a reimagining at some point. I watched Fury Road at a movie theater and really liked it but in hindsight and after watching it again I find it a bit weak and too over the top. I´d say it´s probably the weakest Mad Max film, even worse than Beyond Thunderdome. -
" I´d rather be a stank ass hoe because I´m not stupid. Oh my goodness! I got more drugs! I´m always funny dude...I´m hilarious! Are we gonna smoke?" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Yes, I already knew that. I also know that the title was originally The Emerald City but they changed it to The Wizard of Oz because of a superstition. As far as I know there is a Russian version of the movie which is called The Emerald City. . Did you watch Mad Max-Fury Road? Did you like it? I´m a huge Mad Max fan, especially of part II, but also part I . But now I don´t like Fury Road anymore. " I´d rather be a stank ass hoe because I´m not stupid. Oh my goodness! I got more drugs! I´m always funny dude...I´m hilarious! Are we gonna smoke?" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Whoah! Seriously? You, of all people? The librarian of all action movies? The action movie addict? The action flic afficionado? I´m shocked.
Watch part 1 and then part 2 right after. You´ll love them. Part 2 has, in my opinion, the best chase of all movie history (yes, even better than that Steve McQueen movie and even better than the over the top chase in Fury Road). Fury Road was ok but you´ll understand my frustrations with it once you´ve watched part 1 and 2. Too bad that the American version is slightly censored (and dubbed). But they are a must-see for any action movie fan. Really, really great , dark and passionate movies. And no CGI, no tricks, just very good stuntman work.
" I´d rather be a stank ass hoe because I´m not stupid. Oh my goodness! I got more drugs! I´m always funny dude...I´m hilarious! Are we gonna smoke?" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
KoolEaze said:
Whoah! Seriously? You, of all people? The librarian of all action movies? The action movie addict? The action flic afficionado? I´m shocked.
Watch part 1 and then part 2 right after. You´ll love them. Part 2 has, in my opinion, the best chase of all movie history (yes, even better than that Steve McQueen movie and even better than the over the top chase in Fury Road). Fury Road was ok but you´ll understand my frustrations with it once you´ve watched part 1 and 2. Too bad that the American version is slightly censored (and dubbed). But they are a must-see for any action movie fan. Really, really great , dark and passionate movies. And no CGI, no tricks, just very good stuntman work.
On my VHS copy of the first Mad Max it's dubbed with American accents but my DVD has the original Australian accents. I always found it strange that they would need to dub a movie that was already in English. I agree that part 2 is the best in the series but I really like all of them. The only bad thing about Fury Road to me was that Mel Gibson wasn't in it. Aside from that it was still a great action movie in my opinion. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
As much as I like Tom Hardy, I agree with you and think that Mel Gibson should´ve starred in Fury Road but George Miller hinted at Mel´s alcohol problems being one of several reasons why he didn´t play Max Rockatansky again. Mel Gibson is a troubled individual and very controversial, probably racist and whatnot but he IS Mad Max, no one else will ever come close. People said he was too old to play the part but I watched his 2016 movie Blood Father the other day and there´s lots of action in it and a chase and I truly believe Mel Gibson is still physically capable of playing Mad Max. By the way.....I know every single word in Mad Max 2 and can speak along with the actors. Nothing to be proud of but I really, really like that movie. I think I have the Australian version on VHS tape somewhere, and part 1 in Australian English. Some of the Aussie slang words are probably difficult for Americans but I agree, they should have kept the original voices. These days it´s not that easy to tell that Mel Gibson was raised in Australia....he´s been back in the USA, his native country, for so many decades now. At least I can´t tell the difference, but then again I am not a native English speaker. " I´d rather be a stank ass hoe because I´m not stupid. Oh my goodness! I got more drugs! I´m always funny dude...I´m hilarious! Are we gonna smoke?" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
You will love it ! I guarantee you that ....especially part 2, but also part 1. Both parts were pretty much MADE for YOU. Watch them both and you´ll know exactly why I´m saying that. Horsepowers, chases, some of the best action scenes ever, justice, archetypical heroes and bad guys, weird names, even weirder dialog.....extremely quotable quotes.... As I said above, I know pretty much every single line of part 2. Mad Max 1 and 2 were really made specifically for you. Still can´t believe that you haven´t watched them yet. " I´d rather be a stank ass hoe because I´m not stupid. Oh my goodness! I got more drugs! I´m always funny dude...I´m hilarious! Are we gonna smoke?" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/mad_max_2_the_road_warrior/ " I´d rather be a stank ass hoe because I´m not stupid. Oh my goodness! I got more drugs! I´m always funny dude...I´m hilarious! Are we gonna smoke?" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |