Why do (some) people dislike Mutt Williams

Raider S

Member
Darth Vile said:
You mean like those sophisticated and emotionally deep sidekicks of Sallah, Shorty and Marcus???

Pointing at characters in other films doesn't make Mutt any better or worse. I thought Marcus sucked in Crusade and it's a reason I dislike the movie maybe more than Skull.

Plus there's a huge difference: those aren't Indy's son! Maybe one could argue Short Round was a surrogate, but none were intended to carry the weight of the Mutt role. Was there a possibility of Sallah becoming the character taking over the franchise in future movies? No, but Mutt the wannabe greaser could.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Raider S said:
Pointing at characters in other films doesn't make Mutt any better or worse. I thought Marcus sucked in Crusade and it's a reason I dislike the movie maybe more than Skull.

Plus there's a huge difference: those aren't Indy's son! Maybe one could argue Short Round was a surrogate, but none were intended to carry the weight of the Mutt role. Was there a possibility of Sallah becoming the character taking over the franchise in future movies? No, but Mutt the wannabe greaser could.

In order to baseline, you can only measure the movie against what went before... otherwise any logical critique/debate would have no benchmark or boundaries to keep it grounded. So whilst Mutt being a better sidekick than Shorty (IMHO), doesn't automatically make Mutt a work of profound cinematic genius… it does mean that within context, the character of Mutt (and Shia's performance), is consistent with how those type of characters were created/realized in the so called “better” Indy movies. Therefore, to critique the character of Mutt, I think it's only fair to assess him with his movie peers e.g. Sallah, Shorty etc.

As far as Mutt’s overall importance is concerned, I’d say that Mutt being Indy’s son is secondary to the actual requirement i.e. his raison d'être is as a narrative/cinematic foil for the main protagonist/hero (same as Indy’s dad). Nothing more nothing less. Indy movies aren’t especially designed to be emotionally dramatic in the sense that some would like them to be. They are lightweight, episodic and frivolous. I’d posit that KOTCS, like it’s predecessors, is exactly that. And as for Mutt taking over the series... not sure if that was ever anything more than a "never rule anything out" rather than a serious idea.

Again, don’t get me wrong… the exploration of Indy’s/Mutt’s relationship is little more than perfunctory in KOTCS (I think we all agree on that)… As it is, the lip service paid to that particular relationship only serves to move the story/action forward, step by step, rather than underpin any real emotional significance. They could have spent more time constructing emotional depth, which could have made the movie better (same goes for the Indy/Mac relationship)… and ultimately it’s these shortfalls that stop KOTCS ever getting near to being a “great” movie. However, the emotional depth (or lack of), is consistent with those earlier movies that are justifiably regarded as classics. And it's from that point I'd look to defend KOTCS.

So ultimately for me, KOTCS was a missed opportunity to do something different/more audacious with Indiana Jones (although “different” doesn’t automatically equate to something empirically better). Saying that, I do fervently believe that Lucas/Spielberg/Ford did make a movie that is pretty much in the same ball park (in terms of look, feel and quality) as the other three (or at least the other two sequels). So I’m a glass half full type of fella. For me, KOTCS serves as an enjoyable farewell to the Indy character (and Harrison Ford as Indy), or possibly a springboard for something new/fresh. ;)
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
Darth, I agree with practically all you said, except I suppose I would like to see Harrison do Indy at least one more time - a chance to do better than KotCS. Though Harrison is 67 this year! Does he plan to retire? Dunno, but I think he's fully capable of being his old Indy self. Indy 5 could be a chance to prove it.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Mickiana said:
Darth, I agree with practically all you said, except I suppose I would like to see Harrison do Indy at least one more time - a chance to do better than KotCS. Though Harrison is 67 this year! Does he plan to retire? Dunno, but I think he's fully capable of being his old Indy self. Indy 5 could be a chance to prove it.

Thanks Mickiana. I'd take another Indy movie with Harrison in as well... it's just that I wouldn't expect it to be significantly better/different from KOTCS. :)
 

Raider S

Member
Darth Vile said:
Thanks Mickiana. I'd take another Indy movie with Harrison in as well... it's just that I wouldn't expect it to be significantly better/different from KOTCS. :)

Why not expect it to be better or different? Have we resigned ourselves to mediocre (yes, mediocre) stories and characters just because we like Indy?

Based on the reaction to Skull I'd hope at least one of the filmmakers realize filmgoers want a little more from a new Indy story.
 

James

Well-known member
Mutt's an easy scapegoat for anyone that didn't enjoy KOTCS, but he will likely increase in popularity as the years rack up. As I noted in a separate thread, we see this trend in the way characters like Short Round, Willie Scott, Old Indy, and Sophia Hapgood are now regarded. What a difference growing up with a character can make.

Shia's starred in a huge blockbuster for the last three summers. This will certainly have an affect on young kids that are watching him. 2009 was supposed to be the year that Christian Bale became Harrison Ford, but Shia seems more likely to be the one who could juggle major franchises.

I realize Shia owes a huge debt to Spielberg, but so did Ford back in the early 80's. And while Spielberg may help him get the roles, he can't force people to go see the movie. Films like Disturbia and Eagle Eye were both far bigger hits than anything a cowl-less Bale has been able to generate on his own.

None of which is to say I'm a huge fan of the guy. (To date, I've only seen one of his films.) But it's fairly obvious that neither the character or actor are going to be regarded as the Jar Jar of the Indy franchise- no matter how much angry fanboys would love for him to be.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Raider S said:
Why not expect it to be better or different? Have we resigned ourselves to mediocre (yes, mediocre) stories and characters just because we like Indy?

Based on the reaction to Skull I'd hope at least one of the filmmakers realize filmgoers want a little more from a new Indy story.

Firstly, as over 12 months of discussion on these boards have demonstrated, views on KOTCS are both diverse and largely subjective. One mans "mediocre" may be another mans "great" (or indeed visa versa)... and as someone who expects the sun to fall each night, why wouldn't I expect the sun to rise the next day? I wouldn't classify this as an acceptance of the mediocre or mundane, but rather an assessment of both the reality and it's significance in the scheme of things i.e. the general quality of any given Indy movie doesn't keep me awake at night.

Secondly, the human condition (of the movie makers concerned). There seems to be little motivation for Lucas/Spielberg/Ford to facilitate a significantly "better" movie. Of course they will aspire to make something better (or at least something as good)... but as KOTCS got reasonable reviews (certainly no worse than TOD and TLC got at the time) and because KOTCS did so well at the box office, why would they look to do anything that could risk a 5th movies success? Fulfilling artistic expression perhaps?

Artistic expression is certainly an excuse for taking a risk and doing something new... but what if that artistic expression conflicted with your aesthetic experience? What if Lucas' artistic ambition with Indy was to see him hopping back and fourth in time & space a la Doctor Who? If that made Indy V a more fulfilling artistic experience for Lucas, would that make it a "better" movie in your eyes? Are you ready for 'Indy and the Revenge of Frankenstein" just for the sake of Lucas/Spielberg doing something different/unexpected with their vision?

"Be careful what you wish for"... ;)
 

Vendetta08

New member
Webley said:
Harrison is onley 1 out of 5 men/boys to play Indy so I could see some other guy play the part and be cool with it.

No, Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones, and the only Indy. The other 4 people are just stand ins.

As for the above post, if Spielberg and Lucas made Indy and the Revenge of Frankenstein, I wouldn't be surprised. Except that's too cool of a title, Lucas would insist calling it "Indiana Jones meets the Monster of Frankenstein who takes Revenge."
 

Doc Savage

New member
The only thing I disliked about Mutt was the finality his presence indicated. Like watching Leonard Nimoy in the new Trek movie...a forced recognition that time marches on.
 

Raider S

Member
Darth Vile, you're not getting it. I'm not expecting grand artistic statements or the next Taxi Driver; I'm simply hoping for an Indy movie with about 25% less schlock than Skull and a plot without holes big enough to drive the CGI UFO through.

I don't expect another Raider's but hopefully we can have some of the elements that made Raider's a classic: great stunt work, good locations, a somewhat plausible story with plausible action (yes, other movies had unbelievable situations, Skull simply had too many), and supporting characters with more depth than a piece of paper.

Skull was lazy filmmaking for an Indy movie, it looked like a combination of backlots and unconvincing CGI. In terms of story, even Spielberg wasn't keen on the ET ending. What the critics said has no bearing on my feelings. Indy fans are divided on the movie, too, no matter what the box office numbers were.
 

Robyn

New member
Vendetta08 said:
No, Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones, and the only Indy. The other 4 people are just stand ins.

Absolutely! Harrison is Indiana Jones, nobody else can play him.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Raider S said:
Darth Vile, you're not getting it. I'm not expecting grand artistic statements or the next Taxi Driver; I'm simply hoping for an Indy movie with about 25% less schlock than Skull and a plot without holes big enough to drive the CGI UFO through.

I don't expect another Raider's but hopefully we can have some of the elements that made Raider's a classic: great stunt work, good locations, a somewhat plausible story with plausible action (yes, other movies had unbelievable situations, Skull simply had too many), and supporting characters with more depth than a piece of paper.

Skull was lazy filmmaking for an Indy movie, it looked like a combination of backlots and unconvincing CGI. In terms of story, even Spielberg wasn't keen on the ET ending. What the critics said has no bearing on my feelings. Indy fans are divided on the movie, too, no matter what the box office numbers were.

Raider S - I am “getting it”... Who said anything about "Grand artistic statements"? I'm simply trying to raise the debate above the usual asinine, stale, jaundiced and contrary "you liked the movie and I didn’t” routine.

It may have passed you by… but many, many people enjoyed KOTCS. You shouldn’t dismiss those opinions so readily. It is of course your right to have wanted something better from KOTCS. It’s also my right to compare and contrast the Indy movies, and articulate (where I can), what I believe to be common weaknesses/strengths (which I think I do with some modicum of objectivity). Believe me… “I get it”. It’s just really a matter of what you’re willing to discuss, and what you are willing to concede.
 

Raider S

Member
Darth Vile said:
...but many, many people enjoyed KOTCS.

Exactly. They ENJOYED it. I enjoyed it. That doesn't mean it was a GOOD Indy movie.

Take a few scenes out and rework the movie a little and I would have LOVED it along with a lot more people.

Can you concede there are directions Skull took that should not be duplicated if there's a fifth movie?
 

Darth Vile

New member
Raider S said:
Exactly. They ENJOYED it. I enjoyed it. That doesn't mean it was a GOOD Indy movie.

Take a few scenes out and rework the movie a little and I would have LOVED it along with a lot more people.

Well you are just arguing semantics now. I've never suggested that KOTCS is a movie one should "love". If the majority of people liked/enjoyed the movie, it obviously doesn't mean it was automatically and imperially “good”... but it evidently doesn't imply that it was “bad”, which you are seeming to suggest. If you want agreement that KOTCS wasn't as good as Raiders, then (as I've stated numerous times) I'd agree 100%. On the otherhand (IMHO), KOTCS is better than TOD... so I was relieved that, for me, a new movie managed to surpass one of the originals.

Raider S said:
Can you concede there are directions Skull took that should not be duplicated if there's a fifth movie?

What is there to concede? If you are familiar with my posts, you'll see that I've articulated several examples of where the movie fell short for me. Evidence that I do look to take a holistic view on such matters.
 

Raider S

Member
If more Tarzan yells, rubber trees (was there a Wile E. Coyote rubberband sound effect in that scene?), CGI termites, and pissed off ET's are what's to be expected in a new movie, count out those viewers smart enough to realize The A-Team wasn't a documentary about a vigilante group.

The last half of Skull blew monkey chunks. If people enjoyed it, I'm happy for them. Uncle George's track record in the last decade speaks for itself. Nobody's making the case moviegoers are getting any smarter, so why not aim way, way low?

Over and out.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Raider S said:
If more Tarzan yells, rubber trees (was there a Wile E. Coyote rubberband sound effect in that scene?), CGI termites, and pissed off ET's are what's to be expected in a new movie, count out those viewers smart enough to realize The A-Team wasn't a documentary about a vigilante group.

The last half of Skull blew monkey chunks. If people enjoyed it, I'm happy for them. Uncle George's track record in the last decade speaks for itself. Nobody's making the case moviegoers are getting any smarter, so why not aim way, way low?

Over and out.
LOL - I think you need to turn the mirror upon yourself. What's the weather like atop that mount of judicious perfection? There is a certain irony in believing oneself to be above it all, whilst consuming the same type of entertainment. Dare I say it... admiration for Indiana Jones is, in itself, evidence enough that one isn't that discerning a movie critic. Believe it or not, there are many people in the world who'd argue that all Indiana Jones movies are nothing more than commercial low brow culture.

Have a nice day ;)
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Darth Vile said:
Believe it or not, there are many people in the world who'd argue that all Indiana Jones movies are nothing more than commercial low brow culture.

The phrase I often hear is "Reaganite entertainment."
 

Darth Vile

New member
Attila the Professor said:
The phrase I often hear is "Reaganite entertainment."

I hear that too. Cinema designed to reassure and comfort us. Black and white depictions of good and evil, and women portrayed within typical gender roles e.g. wife/mother and basic damsel in distress. Indiana Jones does sort of fit in with that...
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
I figured I'd repost this from another thread, as I am sure I am not the only one who hates Henry "Mutt" Jones/Williams III. I think his character, being as important as it is in KOTCS, deserves his own thread. I'll respond to it, don't worry. But here's my OP, taken from the "How Old is Mutt" thread. I figured I was in inadvertently veering off that topic's original idea. So yeah....

Does anyone else HATE Mutt? I kinda do, and I'll tell you why:

Did no one in the cast, crew, or screenwriters facepalm when the name Mutt Williams was touted? His name is so disgustingly cheesy that my cholesterol levels get even higher just hearing it. I mean really...Henry "Mutt" Williams? Come on. What next, are we going to hear that Henry Sr's nickname was "Mad Dog Jones"? I mean cripes, the "Indiana" gag worked in LC because it was grounded in both a real life in-joke and because it explained the professor being named "Indiana." It also has a legitimate in universe explanation: Indy loved that dog. He had a lot of adventures and hijinks with that dog and honored him by taking his name; He also did this to separate himself from his father who he was named after, someone he never wanted to be like. All sound, good reasons. It's also a cool name: Indiana Jones. Mutt Williams is just...just killing an already told joke.. There's no point in having Indy's son have a dog related name. There's no sound reason for it, in or out of universe. It's just a cheesy, half thought out, crappy wink at the fans. Just another example of poor and contrived fan service.

I mean Short Round's name was cheesy but at least Short Round's character surpassed his name. He wasn't some effete Disney channel tool who combed and played with his hair like a Parisian Dandy. He was a fearless little kid in many respects.

I mean "Mutt" gets kidnapped by Soviet soldiers and all he cares about is his bike missing? He has a sword at the base of his throat and all he can do is exclaim "Stop-stop-stop-stop", pull out his comb and make sure his Duck's Ass haircut is in good order? Ugh. If I was Spalko, I would've just stabbed him on general principle right then and there. This is a character who has no depth, no real redeeming qualities; A character who is a wannabe toughguy, a wannabe clone of Marlon Brando, a character that spouts off the most cliched nifty '50s phrases as if he's a walking book of 1950s Greaser Lexicon.

People complain about Short Round, but at least the relationship there between he and Indy had some heart. Shorty at first seemed like an annoying '80s card board cut out kid character, but the kid showed real grit. HE SAVED INDY'S LIFE! He took being whipped! He fought huge Thugee guards! He kicked the Maharajah's ass! He helped Indy save an entire village worth of enslaved children! Mutt got his ass kicked by a woman.

Some complain about SPF as Young Indy, but he had quite a few dark moments. He kicked ass when he had to, killed when he had to, and was both a SOLDIER AND SPY in World War I! He wasn't combing his hair every five minutes or whining. His grievances with his father had depth and reality to them. He was learned. He was tough when he needed to be.

Even compared to the younger, more naive, less hardened version of his father at the same age, Mutt sucks. Mutt is supposed to be 20 or 21 in KOTCS. Well, when Indy was 20/21, he was just finishing up/finished two and a half years of war and death. He had had a woman he loved, his fiancee, die in his arms, a murder which was indirectly his fault; He watched friends and lovers die and saw the insanity, barbarism and betrayals of World War I; He fought vampires; He escaped from one of the most well crafted prisons ever. What did Mutt do? Dropped out of school and learned how to comb his hair and took fencing lessons.

"Mutt" is just a petulant man child, a boy in a man's body, played by a Disney Channel tool of an actor. The high point of his character is being hit in the nuts repeatedly in a horrid gag aimed at little kids while having a swordfight with Spalko. Shia, despite Spielberg's creepy pederast-esque infatuation with him, was a flash in the pan actor who doesn't even have real chops or real talent; Little more than a pretty face that delights 11 year old girls; He's no River Phoenix, for an apt comparison. River was more than just a pretty face and teen idol of his time; He had real depth and talent as an actor, and a raw edge to his skills which made him a very credible Young Indy. Both Shia the actor and Mutt the character have no EDGE, which is something you'd think the son of Indiana Jones and Marion Ravenwood would have.

He's quite possibly the worst character in the entire franchise's history, perhaps next to Mac. Even Remy was less annoying.

And they (or at least Lucas) actually considered the idea of this Disney Channel tool taking the mantle over from Indy in a future film, relegating Indy to the role of a Henry Sr, in his own series? What the hell was Lucas smoking?!? What has he been smoking since 1997? It must be some really good stuff to put his head where it's been all these years.

"Smog in the Noggin"
"Don't give these pigs a thing."
"Daddy-O"
 
Top