Here's what would have happened if Mad Max: Fury Road had been filmed in the Namibian desert in 2003, and why it's good that it wasn't. It is a question rooted in the fact that this was what very nearly happened. Legendary director George Miller was within only a few weeks of shooting in 2003 when the funding for the movie was withdrawn by the studio. There can be little doubt that, if the fates had aligned, there would have been a large number of significant differences in comparison to the movie that audiences saw and experienced in 2015.
With six weeks left before filming, and with the star of the Mad Max movies, Mel Gibson attached to play the title character, 20th Century Fox pulled the plug on production. Financial concerns with the movie, combined with the fall in the value of the American dollar compared to the Australian dollar, made studio executives question the economic viability of such a large overseas production. This left Mad Max: Fury Road in the wilderness and it would take a further 12 years to reach the big screen. When it eventually arrived, though, the response was rapturous. This culminated in unexpected success at the 88th Academy Awards, where the care, love, and attention to detail, which had been fostered over nearly 20 years, were rewarded with Oscars in six categories.
But it's fair to wonder just how different Mad Max: Fury Road would have been if production had gone ahead as planned in 2003. It would have been far different had Mel Gibson been the one to take Max Rockatansky behind the wheel of the ‘Black on Black’ Interceptor again. It's interesting to ponder what could have been gained but, equally importantly, what would have been lost from a movie that is widely seen as a masterpiece of action cinema.
How Mel Gibson’s Max Would’ve Been Different from Tom Hardy’s
Wisely, Tom Hardy brought his own unique quality to Mad Max: Fury Road, so there was never any chance that he would simply be doing a Mel Gibson impression. He was his own Max, though perhaps even more feral than before until he rediscovered his humanity by the end of the story. Fundamentally, that broad character arc would not have changed with Gibson playing Mad Max. Instead, any changes would have been more likely caused by the weight of history and significance attached to Mel Gibson returning to play Max for the fourth time.
The character would inevitably have been older and would definitively have been the same Max that appeared in Mad Max, Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior, and Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome. As Kyle Buchanan’s book, Blood, Sweat, and Chrome: The Wild and True Story of Mad Max: Fury Road makes clear, the ending would probably have been different and would have been used to end Max’s story in the wasteland. With Immortan Joe dead, Max would have returned to the Citadel before ascending on the platform with Furiosa to, figuratively, take his place back in society. This certainly feels like it would have been a decent way to end the story for Mel Gibson, although it remains difficult to argue that it is stronger than the more ambiguous ending for Hardy’s incarnation of the character.
What Mel Gibson would also have brought to the role of Mad Max in 2003 was his undoubted star power. At that stage of his career, he was a huge star commanding upwards of $20 million per movie. His attachment to Mad Max: Fury Road would have been useful in of marketing the movie and, potentially, its box office success. However, this star power might have caused problems, if not with the production, then with the story. After all, Mad Max: Fury Road was Imperator Furiosa's story rather than Max's. The presence of Gibson would have inevitably changed the dynamic of that story. He was the star, and he was returning to the role that first made his name. Logic would suggest that a need to honor the character of Max and bring an end to his story would have ended up intruding on Furiosa’s role in some way.
Added to this, was the fact that in 2003 Furiosa was not a fully fleshed-out character. According to Mark Sexton, the lead storyboard artist for the movie, "Only once Charlize Theron was cast and shaved her hair, then that’s when the character finally started to come together as her own thing, as opposed to a female reflection of Max." This certainly suggests that, without the formidable Charlize Theron, there was a strong likelihood that if Mad Max: Fury Road had been made in 2003 it would have been much more Max’s story.
In 2003 Technology Would Have Limited George Miller’s Vision
Perhaps inevitably, an earlier shoot for Mad Max: Fury Road would also have changed the aesthetic from what was seen in 2015. When shooting in 2012 and 2013, the production was able to utilize digital cameras that were more practical for the arduous desert shoot. Another key piece of technology that would not have been available to production in 2003 was the Edge Arm Car Camera Crane. The major benefit of this, according to Mad Max director George Miller, was that it “allowed [them] to put the camera rather dynamically wherever [they] really want to,” effectively helping to define the look of the movie in a way that would not have been possible previously.
Given the emphasis placed on practical effects and stunts in Mad Max: Fury Road, it was not surprising that the use of CG was relatively limited. In general, it was used to remove guide ropes and safety equipment from the screen. However, the sequence involving Max strapped to the front of a car and being driven into a sandstorm was largely a CG creation, which not only gave weight to a The Matrix: Reloaded and The Matrix: Revolutions. Yet there are not many things that date the effects-driven blockbusters of that era more than the CG and special effects. It, therefore, stands to reason that if the sandstorm sequence was in danger of undermining the grit and realism of the dystopian wasteland then Miller would have done everything he could to change it, or perhaps even remove it completely.
Fury Road’s Themes Wouldn’t Have Resonated So Well With Audiences
One of the most remarkable things has been the power the movie has gained in the years since its release. It is hard to see how this would have been possible without the depth of meaning in Mad Max: Fury Road that lay beneath its brilliant surface. The treatment of women, the commodification of people, the use of necessities like water to leverage power, and the accompanying image of an environmental dystopia resonated strongly in 2015, and even more so in the years since.
In comparison, it is hard to imagine that the 2003 production would have connected with audiences in quite the same way. People were aware of all these issues in the mid-2000s, but the intervening years had crystallized them further. The Al Gore-linked documentary on the effects of climate change, An Inconvenient Truth, came out in 2006 and helped bring environmental activism into clearer focus. Similarly, the financial hardships caused by the financial crisis of 2008 made people more aware of the exploitation of both people and the basic things needed to live.
However, it is in highlighting the treatment of women, like the Wives and Furiosa, in Mad Max: Fury Road that would have been most likely negatively affected by an earlier release. This is especially true given that the movie has been linked to the #MeToo movement of recent years, though more as a part of the conversation than the cause of change itself. The ironic twist was that #MeToo was a reaction to the kind of behavior that derailed Mel Gibson’s career in 2006 and 2010. In that sense, his attachment to the movie could have affected how it was subsequently viewed, with the potential for the themes and narrative to have been seen as hypocritical.
Mad Max: Fury Road spent years in development hell but that time can be seen in every frame of the finished movie. This was not the first time George Miller had trouble completing a project, but this was a labor of love. He and his team of creatives used that time to add detail that would otherwise have been missing. That was why the exploration of the themes of the movie was not merely surface level and is linked to the characters, who also had the kind of depth that makes their motivations believable from moment to moment. As a result, there should be no doubt that the added time, allowed audiences in 2015 to enjoy a far superior movie than what might have been made in 2003.
