Could JW:FK have been made without the Indoraptor? Was it wasted?

To me the main faults with the Indoraptor were these things.

1. It's overall abilities seemed weaker then that of I. rex.

2. He wasn't on screen long enough.

3. No big payoff, even in spite of that. Say what you want about Godzilla not having enough screen time in Godzilla 2014, but at least the final battle with him and the U.S. Army against the MUTO's made up for it.


Did anybody think that is was wasted by not being in the movie long enough and/or not having a proper payoff? And does anybody think that the movie could have been made without it?

I agree with this sentiment, although I think it certainly had enough screen time.

I honestly think you could have made the film without the Indoraptor, and instead replaced it with a Carnotaurus (subbing the Carnotaurus seen earlier in the film with something else) and gotten virtually the same results. Hell, give the Carno the camo ability that it had in TLW novel and I feel the second half of the film could have been a lot more unnerving.

The Indoraptor and the fact it was a hybrid didn't really change anything in the grand scheme of things. The fact that it was a hybrid didn't serve a whole lot of narrative purpose, which you can't say about the Indominus in JW. It was just sort of there.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

To me the main faults with the Indoraptor were these things.

1. It's overall abilities seemed weaker then that of I. rex.

Because the animal was a "prototype", and further development was needed (hence going back to the island to get Indominus DNA). There's no way to say for sure whether or not the finished product would of been far superior to it's predecessor.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

1. It's overall abilities seemed weaker then that of I. rex.

Yes, and that was a good thing. It made it feel like a more grounded threat in a movie whose first half was already chock-full of over-the-top action.

All the I. rex's powers were plot-related. Trevorrow himself has admitted on interviews that he only gave it abilities that the script needed it to have. It was literally the "Plotosaurus rex", as some have dubbed it.

With that said, I do wish they gave it the camouflage ability, because the first Jurassic World wasted it. It could have made for some very cool visuals on the hands of Bayona and Faura.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

2. He wasn't on screen long enough.

The Indoraptor had about 9:46 minutes of screen time. That's more screentime than Indominus rex had, and far more screen time than any other individual dinosaur had in either JW or FK. That's also almost as much screen time as Rexy had in all three movies she has appeared combined. It only gives the impression that it didn't appear much because it shows up only towards the third act.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

3. No big payoff, even in spite of that. Say what you want about Godzilla not having enough screen time in Godzilla 2014, but at least the final battle with him and the U.S. Army against the MUTO's made up for it.

I don't know what big payoff you expected. It killed a few guys, chased the main characters around the mansion and fought Blue, which was really all it could have done.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Did anybody think that is was wasted by not being in the movie long enough and/or not having a proper payoff? And does anybody think that the movie could have been made without it?

I don't think it was wasted (other than the silly smirk scene, the Indoraptor was one of the few things I genuinely enjoyed in Fallen Kingdom), but I do think that it was unnecessary, and it would be very easy to write it out of the movie. The Indoraptor escaping from its cage and being killed ~20 minutes later didn't really change anything about the plot of Fallen Kingdom, the story was technically already over before that. All that was left story-wise was for the dinosaurs in the basement to break free, and that happened regardless of the Indoraptor.

The Indoraptor's only real purpose story-wise was to provide the movie with a tacked on climax where the main characters have to evade and kill an "evil dinosaur". In the grand scheme of things, it didn't really change anything about the story of the movie. The thing that salvaged the Indoraptor was the fact that Bayona was clearly more engaged with its scenes than with any other in the movie, which ended up making it a far more interesting and scarier antagonist than the Indominus rex.

Technically, yes, but technically JP could've been made without the Raptors. It didn't bother me back then, and it doesn't bother me now.

V.a.nublarensis wrote:

Technically, yes, but technically JP could've been made without the Raptors. It didn't bother me back then, and it doesn't bother me now.

The raptors kick-start the plot of both the movie and the novel (they are the reason why the investors are worried about the park's security, and by extent, the reason why Grant & co. are called in), and their role is carefully crafted and built up throughout the entire movie. Hell, the main character of JP is a Velociraptor expert (in the movie, at least). The Indoraptor, by comparison, is literally just there so Fallen Kingdom could say it had a climax.

Also, the raptors were something new and unheard of in the first movie. Dromaeosaurs were fairly obscure before JP, and they only became popular and 'stock dinosaurs' because of it. The Indoraptor, on the other hand, is literally a recycled concept from the previous movie.

There's really no comparison.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

I agree with this sentiment, although I think it certainly had enough screen time.

I honestly think you could have made the film without the Indoraptor, and instead replaced it with a Carnotaurus (subbing the Carnotaurus seen earlier in the film with something else) and gotten virtually the same results. Hell, give the Carno the camo ability that it had in TLW novel and I feel the second half of the film could have been a lot more unnerving.

The Indoraptor and the fact it was a hybrid didn't really change anything in the grand scheme of things. The fact that it was a hybrid didn't serve a whole lot of narrative purpose, which you can't say about the Indominus in JW. It was just sort of there.

It really did feel like it was there simply because of how JW foreshadowed it and nothing else. It's as if it was put in because of that and nobody had a clue of what else to do with the thing. Perhaps Colin and Derek spent all their creative energy towards I. rex and that they never thought baout what to do with Indoraptor? Because if that's the case, then they should have thought ahead.

Mr. Robustus wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

2. He wasn't on screen long enough.

The Indoraptor had about 9:46 minutes of screen time. That's more screentime than Indominus rex had, and far more screen time than any other individual dinosaur had in either JW or FK. That's also almost as much screen time as Rexy had in all three movies she has appeared combined. It only gives the impression that it didn't appear much because it shows up only towards the third act.

Really? Because it didn't seem like that to me.

Mr. Robustus wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Did anybody think that is was wasted by not being in the movie long enough and/or not having a proper payoff? And does anybody think that the movie could have been made without it?

The thing that salvaged the Indoraptor was the fact that Bayona was clearly more engaged with its scenes than with any other in the movie, which ended up making it a far more interesting and scarier antagonist than the Indominus rex.

I disagree. Indoraptor's lack of powers/abilities made it seem much weaker. I. rex was basically a stealth weapon via it's camouflage powers. For something so big to be that stealthy? That's horrifying. And at least it had some sort of storyline. The Indoraptor had none.

Mr. Robustus wrote:

The raptors kick-start the plot of both the movie and the novel (they are the reason why the investors are worried about the park's security, and by extent, the reason why Grant & co. are called in), and their role is carefully crafted and built up throughout the entire movie.

The lack of progress in the Indoraptor project is the reason Mills wanted to bring the dinosaurs to the mainland, sell them, and get Blue involved. This is why the plot of the movie started. Once the third act begins, the Indoraptor and the Velociraptors added nothing to the plot of their respective movies except delay the eventual rescue of the characters. The difference in presentation between the two is another matter, but at the core, the Indoraptor's contribution to the plot of FK is similar to the Velociraptors in JP.

Of course, the issue now is that both of those can easily be changed. For FK, they can have Mills want to resuce the dinosaurs so he can have a monopoly on all potential business involving them. For JP, maybe the investors are beginning to get suspicious about the lack of information Hammond shares with them. Seriously, he builds a park on an island hundreds of miles away from the mainland, yet Gennaro, and by extension the investors, doesn't seem to have any clue that InGen has resurrected dinosaurs from extinction. Perhaps I missed something, but that seems like a huge blunder on their part.

Mr. Robustus wrote:

Hell, the main character of JP is a Velociraptor expert (in the movie, at least).

Also, the raptors were something new and unheard of in the first movie. Dromaeosaurs were fairly obscure before JP, and they only became popular and 'stock dinosaurs' because of it. The Indoraptor, on the other hand, is literally a recycled concept from the previous movie.

All of this is true. All of this also has no bearing on the narrative importance of the two animals in their movies.

Again, the Indoraptor was a prototype and thus is not the final form of the creature they were looking to develop.

Dead2009 wrote:

Again, the Indoraptor was a prototype and thus is not the final form of the creature they were looking to develop.

But wasn't I. rex one too?

No, because there weren't any more plans to design another Indominus. It was stated more than once that Blue's DNA was needed to develop another variation of the Indoraptor, an update if you will.

V.a.nublarensis wrote:

Mr. Robustus wrote:

The raptors kick-start the plot of both the movie and the novel (they are the reason why the investors are worried about the park's security, and by extent, the reason why Grant & co. are called in), and their role is carefully crafted and built up throughout the entire movie.

The lack of progress in the Indoraptor project is the reason Mills wanted to bring the dinosaurs to the mainland, sell them, and get Blue involved. This is why the plot of the movie started. Once the third act begins, the Indoraptor and the Velociraptors added nothing to the plot of their respective movies except delay the eventual rescue of the characters. The difference in presentation between the two is another matter, but at the core, the Indoraptor's contribution to the plot of FK is similar to the Velociraptors in JP.

Of course, the issue now is that both of those can easily be changed. For FK, they can have Mills want to resuce the dinosaurs so he can have a monopoly on all potential business involving them. For JP, maybe the investors are beginning to get suspicious about the lack of information Hammond shares with them. Seriously, he builds a park on an island hundreds of miles away from the mainland, yet Gennaro, and by extension the investors, doesn't seem to have any clue that InGen has resurrected dinosaurs from extinction. Perhaps I missed something, but that seems like a huge blunder on their part.

Well, that was the whole point of the thread: if the Indoraptor felt necessary to the overall plot or not. The only thing the Indoraptor itself gave to the movie was an "evil dinosaur" the protagonists could face in a tacked on climax. The endgame of the movie would remain the same with or without the Indoraptor: setting up dinosaurs running amok in the mainland and their genetic code going open-source so the next movie can explore that.

Comparatively, the raptors have a much larger impact on the plot of the first movie. They were the personification of the danger of cloning dinosaurs, more so than any other dinosaur on the island (again, they kick-start the plot). At no point do they feel tacked on or distracting like the Indoraptor did. You could easily replace the "weaponized dinosaurs" plot point in Fallen Kingdom with Mills wanting to sell dinosaurs for money (which is what ultimately motivated him anyways).

Saying "technically JP could've been made without the Raptors" isn't factually wrong, but also doesn't mean anything. You could replace "raptors" in that sentence with literally any other dinosaur or character from the movie, and it would technically be true. The Raptors are the single most important dinosaur in the first movie (again, the main character is a Velociraptor expert), and the movie presents the audience to what a Velociraptor is before it even mentions any of the other dinosaurs. They aren't merely obstacles in the third act, the movie builds up their image like Jaws built up the image of the shark. The Indoraptor's relevance for Fallen Kingdom can't be compared to that.

V.a.nublarensis wrote:

Seriously, he builds a park on an island hundreds of miles away from the mainland, yet Gennaro, and by extension the investors, doesn't seem to have any clue that InGen has resurrected dinosaurs from extinction. Perhaps I missed something, but that seems like a huge blunder on their part.

Err.. what? You missed something indeed, because there's nothing in Jurassic Park implying that Gennaro and the investors didn't know what Hammond was doing on Nublar. Gennaro wasn't there to investigate what Hammond was doing in a broad sense, he was on the island because the investors were worried about the safety of the park (because a raptor killed a worker and his family was suing them). He's even asking about perimeter fences, moats and tracking systems when they landed. He knew what to expect there, he just haven't seen it before with his own eyes.

V.a.nublarensis wrote:

Mr. Robustus wrote:

Hell, the main character of JP is a Velociraptor expert (in the movie, at least).

Also, the raptors were something new and unheard of in the first movie. Dromaeosaurs were fairly obscure before JP, and they only became popular and 'stock dinosaurs' because of it. The Indoraptor, on the other hand, is literally a recycled concept from the previous movie.

All of this is true. All of this also has no bearing on the narrative importance of the two animals in their movies.

Again, because you ignored it: the main character of Jurassic Park, Dr. Alan Grant, played by Sam Neill, is a dinosaur paleontologist that specializes in Velociraptors. Most of what he says in his introduction scene is about Velociraptors and their hunting behavior, and we see him playing all the time with a Raptor claw. All of that has the purpose of building their image to the us, the audience, until we finally see one in the flesh. None of the other dinosaurs has that kind of buildup in the first movie.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Mr. Robustus wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Did anybody think that is was wasted by not being in the movie long enough and/or not having a proper payoff? And does anybody think that the movie could have been made without it?

The thing that salvaged the Indoraptor was the fact that Bayona was clearly more engaged with its scenes than with any other in the movie, which ended up making it a far more interesting and scarier antagonist than the Indominus rex.

I disagree. Indoraptor's lack of powers/abilities made it seem much weaker. I. rex was basically a stealth weapon via it's camouflage powers. For something so big to be that stealthy? That's horrifying. And at least it had some sort of storyline. The Indoraptor had none.

I never said the Indoraptor had a better "storyline" than the I. rex. I said that Bayona, Faura and the VFX team made it a more compelling monster than the I. rex, even though it was indeed ultimately unnecessary for the plot. The only thing that made the I. rex interesting was its plot powers, and they were exactly that: plot powers. It did something because the script needed it to do, and never did it again. The scenes with it had zero tension (a reflection of Trevorrow's inexperience as a director), and it had an uninspired and bland design. It was interesting in concept, not in execution. The Indoraptor ended up being the opposite.

No, yes, and a little.

I think Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom's primary plotline could have been reworked without the Indoraptor. There's no need to re-extract the Indominus genome, which was never really necessary. The lessons learned from it by Wu could easily have jumped from the events of the previous (the Indominus had the same antisocial behavior) and trigger the same plotline, and you remove the auction interruption to preview the beast, and then after Stiggy breaks up the auction and Owen confronts Mills, use Blue or another carnivore for that bit, and you could basically skip to the cyanide gas issue and the dinosaur escape and save twenty or thirty minutes built solely around the creature. Could've used Utahraptor or something, even.

On the opposite hand though, I feel the film's viability drops significantly without the Indoraptor. Since the third film it's been very obvious there's an unofficial studio mandate for a new flagship villain dinosaur worse than the last. Bigger, meaner, more teeth. Highly marketable in toys and trailers, and especially potent with the casual moviegoing public who might otherwise be less interested in another Jurassic sequel. The hybrids were particularly good for these purposes, because Universal owns them, so there's no market competition like there is for real dinosaur species. The Indoraptor was without question central to the marketing campaign, and there were a lot of people pulled into the new film by the Indoraptor.... and for many of those people, it was the best part of the movie, even if I personally disagree. There's other ways it fits into the film narratively, I think, but ultimately none of them are an actual necessity.

Was it wasted? The film certainly used it to as much potential as they could within the plotline, but maybe this story wasn't the time... of course, bringing back militarized hybrids later would be worse than doing it sooner, so I don't know. I'm a big believer that all creative components have potential, even when poorly utilized, and I think there's more that could've been done with the Indoraptor, but I'm not sure it would have been worthwhile on film.

Quote :

The scenes with it had zero tension (a reflection of Trevorrow's inexperience as a director), and it had an uninspired and bland design.

I would definitely agree with some of your other criticisms, particularly the misuse of its abilities according to the plot, but this bit doesn't gel with me. I felt a lot more tension with the Indominus because it felt more likely to succeed -- the park had many more characters who were potentially expendable, and I was genuinely surprised when Masrani was killed in particular, and there was no guarantee the park itself would survive the film, so that itself created a lot of tension for me.

In contrast, the Indoraptor kills a bunch of bad guys in its first two appearances, but after that is then mostly up against Owen, Claire, Blue, and Maise, who all had stronger plot armor than last time. The scenes are staged with a much higher 'creepy' factor, and that is a huge reason why the Indoraptor is popular, but if you know that everyone involved is safe, then the tension of those scenes is significantly lessened.

I also thought the Indominus' design was fine; I appreciated the abelisaur traits which hadn't previously appeared in the franchise, the strong arms atypical of cinematic theropods, and felt the white coloration made it stand out more from other large carnivores we've seen in the series. I can agree maybe that it wasn't innovative or groundbreaking, but it's