Does anyone else feel Shia might've been miscast? I kind of feel he comes off as a bit of a goofball, and isn't nearly tough enough for the role (50's greaser) or as Indy's son. You could say, well, he was raised by Marion. Yeah, but Marion was a tough mother herself. And for the role of '50s greaser, he doesn't have any of the pathos or smarmy-ness which Marlon Brando conveyed in the Wild One--the most obvious influence on Mutt's character. He's not a juvenile deliquent, which is what many Greasers were portrayed as. He wields a switchblade, sure, but with "Even Stevens" Shia in the role, does anyone really think he'd use it? Perhaps I'm biased as my first exposure to him was on the aforementioned Disney show--so he always comes off a little too "family friendly" to me, especially for the role and who he's the son of.
I just think he was cast, not because he deserved the role or fit it, but because to Spielberg's affection for him, and also because at the time he was the flavor of the month--an obvious draw for younger, particularly female, viewers--Which are the wrong reasons to cast anyone in a role. A person should be cast in a role due to his/her ability to fit the part, not out of nepotism or because they're hot at the moment.
Also, a little off topic, but while the Greaser idea is pretty ool, it kind limits the Mutt character to a very brief period of history--the late 50s-mid 60s. Yes, there were Greasers after 1963 or 1964, but I'm talking about popular memory of them--They start to look out of place in popular history by around 1964 or so.
Indy, for example, doesn't really look anachronistic in the late '50s as men post WWII were wearing leather bomber jackets given most men alive had experienced WWII in some way, and many men were still wearing fedoras then. Now, if the film was set in 1967, he'd probably look out of place, but as such, his kind of look had a great deal of longevity. A long shelf life, if you will.
Greasers on the other hand became sort of out of place by the late '60s, many of them evolving into the '60s gruff and tough longhaired and bearded biker gangs. Sure, there was a small subculture which still dressed like they did in the '50s--And there was a nostalgia for that period in the mid-late '70s, but even so, the Greaser in pop culture is mostly a 50s-mid 60s thing. It kind of limits the potential for a spin off series, if that idea is ever resurrected. to span many years like Indy has.
I just think he was cast, not because he deserved the role or fit it, but because to Spielberg's affection for him, and also because at the time he was the flavor of the month--an obvious draw for younger, particularly female, viewers--Which are the wrong reasons to cast anyone in a role. A person should be cast in a role due to his/her ability to fit the part, not out of nepotism or because they're hot at the moment.
Also, a little off topic, but while the Greaser idea is pretty ool, it kind limits the Mutt character to a very brief period of history--the late 50s-mid 60s. Yes, there were Greasers after 1963 or 1964, but I'm talking about popular memory of them--They start to look out of place in popular history by around 1964 or so.
Indy, for example, doesn't really look anachronistic in the late '50s as men post WWII were wearing leather bomber jackets given most men alive had experienced WWII in some way, and many men were still wearing fedoras then. Now, if the film was set in 1967, he'd probably look out of place, but as such, his kind of look had a great deal of longevity. A long shelf life, if you will.
Greasers on the other hand became sort of out of place by the late '60s, many of them evolving into the '60s gruff and tough longhaired and bearded biker gangs. Sure, there was a small subculture which still dressed like they did in the '50s--And there was a nostalgia for that period in the mid-late '70s, but even so, the Greaser in pop culture is mostly a 50s-mid 60s thing. It kind of limits the potential for a spin off series, if that idea is ever resurrected. to span many years like Indy has.