Earlier tonight I found myself wondering what the first-ever movie sequel was. A quick Google later and I discovered that it was The Fall of a Nation - the follow-up to the D.W. Griffith classic "The Birth of a Nation."

That alone is interesting and worth sharing I thought, but also the fact it was made for what is probably the most common reason even today: money.

Thomas F. Dixon Jr. wrote the book and play on which "The Birth of a Nation" was based (titled "The Clansman") but did not receive any royalties from the movie. So he wrote and directed the sequel in an effort to cash in on the original's success.

And finally, as I was searching around for this information I also came across an article/review published in the New York Times on June 7, 1916 - the day after "The Fall of a Nation" premiered. It's an interesting read, if for no other reason to see how film was talked about in 1916.

Here's the article:

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9D06E1D6163BE633A25754C0A9609C946796D6CF&oref=slogin

Sadly the film is lost and only a few frames and production stills remain.

KM

There was a sequel made to 'Gone with the Wind' called "Scarlett" in 1994.

It was awful!

Not sure how you define "major", but there was 'The Thin Man' (1934) followed by 'After the Thin Man' (1936).

'The Thin Man' was nominated for the following Academy Awards:

Best Actor (William Powell)
Best Director (W. S. Van Dyke)
Best Picture (MGM)
Best Adapted Screenplay

I think it would have been considered a "major" movie at the time.

How about Frankenstein in 1931 followed by The Bride of Frankenstein in 1935? They were both Directed by James Whale, and both starred Karloff as the infamous monster, with Bride carrying on (in a fashion) where Frankenstein left off.

Quoting bizarre_eye:

Quote:
How about Frankenstein in 1931 followed by The Bride of Frankenstein in 1935? They were both Directed by James Whale, and both starred Karloff as the infamous monster, with Bride carrying on (in a fashion) where Frankenstein left off.

Yup.  That works.

Though much later than many of the mentioned major sequels, aren't we a bit US-centric?

What about the James Bond series or the Carry Ons?

Then there is Fritz Lang's Dr. Mabuse, der Spieler (1922), English title: Dr. Mabuse, the Gambler, followed by Das Testament des Dr. Mabuse (1933), English title: The Testament of Dr. Mabuse, which spawned a new series in the 1960s.

Probably not really counting as sequels are the films based upon Edgar Wallace's work from 1919 onwards, first in Britain, then in Germany, later - through the 1960s - again in Germany and Britain [Merton Parks]. Personally I'd argue them as sequels on the basis that they tried to cash in on the writer's name, particularly obvious in the case of the 1960s' German movies. It has not always been the lead actor, let alone the director being the big name. BTW, 1933 King Kong was followed the same year by Son of Kong.

If we include remakes, and then include new film versions of books, we are again seeing a trend from very early on. Off the cuff I remember The Maltese Falcon from 1931, followed by Satan Met a Lady in 1936, then The Maltese Falcon again in 1941 [not that it ends there]. Anybody with earlier examples?