MovieChat Forums > War of the Colossal Beast Discussion > Missing References to ORIGINAL

Missing References to ORIGINAL

posted 16 years ago by movieperson113
8 replies | jump to latest

I thought it was odd they made many references to the original, but they left out a few. One is they had an idea in the original how they could shrink him back to normal. But of course they wouldn't have had much of a sequal if they had a cure for him right at the beginning.

Then there were other things, like his fiance from the original was never mentioned once in the sequal. Also the fiance said in the first one that Glen had NO FAMILY and only her. So where did this SISTER come from?
They could have at least said his fiance died or went crazy from the events of the original. It would've made sense since this is supposed to be taking place not too long after the first movie.

Oh well I guess that's what happens in a sci-fi sequal. Of course that happens nowadays too...

[–] escalera-2 16 years ago

Your scenario for the fiance is interesting. This movie and the original are like inside-out versions of "The Incredible Shrinking Man" and the wife's reaction to his situation added to the suspense.

I think if they would have had the fiance in "War of the Colossal Beast" make an appearence, it would have been too much like the story in Bert I. Gordon's (1957) "The Cyclops" where that fiance went looking for her sweetheart.

[–] movieperson113 16 years ago

Yes, I see your references and I agree.

Then of course part of the original has the "FIANCE" searching for Glenn, so basically it's the same as "Colassal Beast". It's more or less the same thing with a "SISTER" replacing a "FIANCE".

At the most they could have put in dialog pertaining to the "FIANCE" maybe going crazy from her ordeal in the original and had sent the "SISTER" to go find him because she believed him to be still alive.

These might have made to be stand alone, indivivual films so that's possibly why they don't mention the FIANCE or they had a way to shrink Glen at the end of the first film. But they add dialog explaining most of the first movie's happenings so it doesn't make much sense.

[–] escalera-2 16 years ago

Both of these movies (and "The Cyclops" for that matter) had downbeat, "King Kong"-like endings. I think that the movies have a greater message because of it. More than that, they are memorable "B" movies on account of the endings.

In "The 50 Foot Bride of Candy Rock", the "happily ever after" ending was right for a light comedy but would have weakened these films.

Thanks for your input.

[–] Jgatewood1440 15 years ago

I realize it's been almost a year since you submitted this message but I just watched the 'Colosso Beast' yesterday (probably for the 100millionth time in my lifetime)and talking about the fiance from the first movie there is one scene that always stand out for me. The scene in which the doctor is showing Manning these pictures to try and stimulate his brain. I always wondered why they never showed a picture of the fiance. I would think that if you're going to try and stimulate Manning's brain the fiance would be my ace in the hole if nothing else worked. But just like some of the people have mention -- no mention of the sister in the first movie and no mention of the fiance in the sequel. Go figure.

[–] CBikle 15 years ago

<<Then there were other things, like his fiance from the original was never mentioned once in the sequal. Also the fiance said in the first one that Glen had NO FAMILY and only her. So where did this SISTER come from?>>

I guess they wanted that love interest plot with Major Mark, which probably would have been awkward if Mark had it with Manning's fiancee, so they gave Glen a sister to make it more palatable for a 1950's audience.

On a side note, you can see this movie for free at AMC.Com.

[–] zopop119 14 years ago

maybe he had sex with the finacee between movies and she died from sheer force of energy... and they couldn't mention that because it was the 50's

George Lucas really needs to get with Quentin Tarrantino and remake this.

[–] Strazdamonas 13 years ago

That was one of many complaints i had about continuity.

----------
"Common sense is not so common."
- Voltaire

[–] lm362 9 years ago

It could have been that Manning and his sister didn't get along, so he never mentioned her to his fiancée. Sometimes when someone has a family member that does not get along with them, even though they have tried to, they feel it is less painful to just not mention that family member.
As to the fiancée not being in the film, it probably was thought that the viewer would not want to see her being further hurt by his reappearance and I think it was a good choice because it gives the viewer a chance to use their imagination and think of what she is going through upon learning of his reappearance. We see how much suffering his sister is going through, so we can imagine the fiancée is going to feel much more pain, even if she has found someone else. Why wasn't she even at the end? Remember the scene in "Gone With The Wind" where Ashley Wilkes is leaving for the war and a servant tells him that Melanie is so upset she can't even come down to say good-bye? Well, that is something we can think might have been the reason his fiancée wasn't even present at the end. We already know she would be upset and we so see his sister being upset so we can imagine how his fiancée might have reacted. We didn't need to see it acted out. Really, I would not have wanted to...too sad.