I always assumed Mutt was In his 20's I could be wrong but I don't think there is much of an age gap between Pratt and Shia? but I could see Pratt being an Indy sidekick or protégé ...
Mutt's supposed to be 19 in 1957, apparently; I guess he's behind in school from changing schools so frequently.
LaBeouf is currently 29. Pratt is currently 36. He's in great shape, but he doesn't look like he's in his 20s.
I don't suspect they'd try to recast the character of Mutt Williams, but I do think Pratt remains a possibility for a new face for the franchise. Would they introduce him as someone other than Indy, especially considering that means a successor character with more star wattage than whoever they might get to play Indy back in the 20s or 30s. I'm skeptical.
Why not have both Harrison Ford and Chris Pratt as Indy in the movie?
I don't think that it would be good to "pass the fedora and whip" to a son, because then the stories might continue in 70's and 80's.
The 30's and 40's are the time frame that is ideal in my respect.
So why not have "Indy 5" as quest for his lifetime. A story starting and ending in the 50's with Harrison playing Indy and then a flashback in the middle section to the 30's where Pratt would take over.
And in the 30's Indy (Pratt) might be close to solution but fails. And it is the wiser Indy (Harrison) who succeeds.
Then everything is set for the stories to continue with Indy 6 a.s.o. In the appropriate time frame and Pratt as the younger Henry Jones Junior.
Nah, it was the script and story. The direction was as good as any of the previous sequels.
I don't think we can point the finger at any one thing for Kingdom's problems. Yes, the story was partly to blame, the script, maybe, but it wasn't just them. It was lots of little things that made a big impact.