Indominus and other fictional species

[Kovu]

Ok, so with the new bits of information on Jurassic World II, I started to think about the role of hybrids and fictional species/representations in general. I was wondering how ya'll felt about the inclusion of creatures like the Indominus rex, Vastatosaurus and crew or even literary and cinematic representations of "mythical" creatures played by prehistoric creatures - i.e. Mokele-mbembe as a sauropod, Nessie as a plesiosaur, Bigfoot as Gigantopithecus, etc.

Personally, and I've stated as such before, I'm okay with their existence as long as they serve a narrative purpose. Example, the Indominus as a metaphor for the consequences of greed and excess, as well as an excellent answer to the question of scientific progress in the frame of "we can, but should we?". Jurassic World (the park) was a resounding success, but the Indominus' creators wanted more and created a monster they couldn't control. They messed with nature and it had catastrophic consequences. Can they create it? Yes. Should they create it? No. And they reaped what they sowed. If Indominus had been a "naturally" occurring dinosaur, such as Rugops or Giganotosaurus, I don't think the story would've been able to be told with the above lessons, otherwise it would've been an exact retread of Jurassic Park I through III. And obviously I'm using the term "naturally" to denote a known existing species. Nothing in Jurassic World is natural. 

If the Indominus had just been an random background character and not been a vehicle for the narrative to propel forward, then I would've felt her a pointless distraction. If she hadn't been the central narrative, and perhaps tragic, "villain", then I would've seen her as purposeless and unnecessary.

Beyond Jurassic World though, which I feel is going to be the most contentious case study, how do ya'll feel about other fictional species? The King Kong menagerie for example? I recall reading somewhere that JRR Tolkien had based his fell beasts on pterosaurs in his novels, how about the idea of mythical creatures being cast as surviving dinosaurs? I'm particularly interested in that question, personally. I'd be curious to hear everybody's opinions and the variety of reasons behind them.

[Silvanusaurus]

Within science fiction / fantasy, I think anything goes as long it's treated with intelligence and serves to tell an effective story. However, I very much dislike the particular idea of mythical dragons actually being surviving dinosaurs, as traditional dragons bear no resemblance to dinosaurs, esepcially given what we now know about the latter. On the other hand, I do like the cryptids that are supposedly isolated surviving prehistoric dinosaurs/animals.
And of-course we all know which dinosaur species evolved humanoid features and started running sinister secret societies which now puppeteer much of our own modern civilisation, don't we? That's always good for a laugh.

[Halichoeres]

Although I hadn't really thought about it in quite that way, I agree with your assessment that Indominus made sense for the story that JW was trying to tell, namely, the same story as JP but with the ante upped in a big way. In stories where you find a lost world of dinosaur type things, it makes sense that they wouldn't be species known from fossils, but something plausibly derived from them. So overall, I guess I'm fine with inventing dinosaurs and the like.

[Derek.McManus]

I think the inclusion of dinosaurs and other fantastic creatures is always going to be part of storytelling because of the enormous fascination that people have for them and the fact that they have great potential for stories whether as a metaphor or just an engine for the story.

Regarding Fell beasts Jrr Tolkien probably just did like many other story tellers and reached out for inspiration to what he knew or was familiar with and I suspect most people's images for his mythology will be drawn from the recent Peter Jackson movie series.

King Kong...originally a story from the 1930's when our ideas and knowledge where limited so the story works from the legacy standpoint.

I like the idea of cryptozoological creatures being used in stories but suspect that a writer would find it difficult to write a popular story that did not descend into cliché.

And regarding dragons...Apparently the stories in the East anyway where based on people's need to explain the large bones that where so prevalent in some places...not so sure about western dragons...tales of creatures from faraway lands perhaps?

[Gwangi]

One of my favorite dinosaur movies of all time revolves around a fictitious species.



I have no problem with it as long as it serves the story, and I feel like the Indominus did that. It's not like they made it too unbelievable anyway. Initially I feared it was going to have a chameleon tongue, and venomous bite, and look absolutely ridiculous (Stegoceratops anyone?) like something a kid would make up, but it didn't, it was just another theropod.

[Lanthanotus]

I voted answer two, but I am with Silvanusaurus in this...

Within science fiction / fantasy, I think anything goes as long it's treated with intelligence and serves to tell an effective story.

... with the emphasis on "intelligence", as especially in more recent films such fictional "monsters" are overly exaggerated to a degree that ruins the whole film or story for me. While features as sheer size (Godzilla) are simply impossible I can deal with those as that is a basic part of this specific fictional story, but when movies want to make up a "real" creature or an eco system for the audience, those creatures have to follow the principles of nature . I was especially disturbed about the rope dancing and dangling Tyrannosaurs in King Kong and their overly aggressive behaviour or the whole Avatar ecosystem which did not work at all for me and my scientific background (the movie showed you so many aspects of the eco system that I think I can justify this opinion). "Alien" on the other hand is a completly different story, as they managed to create an entity that is so disturbingly different from anything known, that its characteristics had to be taken as given with no knowledge about its ecology at all.

So the combination of intelligence, background knowledge and creativity is key to make a believable fictional creature.

[Papi-Anon]

Voted #2.

I like shows/movies that explain cryptids as relict populations of ancient creatures, and in some cases I can dig offshoots of human evolution. The Real Adventures of Johnny Quest explained yetis were highly derived descendants of Neanderthals that isolated themselves from the ways of anatomically modern humans.

I'm not fond of the idea of humanoids of anything other than a hominid group evolving on its own (Dinosauroid, for example) simply because in hindsight it's too anthropomorphic for my nit-picking mind. Unless it's something campy or there's a REALLY good explanation for how a different group of animals ended up bipedal and anthropoid like.

But made-up beasts I like so long as there's realism in their biology and physiology. Obviously something like a croc-o-duck is too ridiculous in design (superimposing animal parts together all willy-nilly), but if the design is certainly plausible in the context of our current knowledge then I'm all for it.

Hell, I'm essentially do that myself with my Sci-fi story in explaining the Andrewsarchus holotype specimen as actually the remains of a shape-shifting being that got decapitated in one of its 'power forms'.