Did George Lucas intend for Mutt to replace Indy?

[Mutt’sGirl04]

I feel like you're making an exception here because you're a huge fan of Shia. We could say "Nobody's perfect" about Amber Heard or Jonathan Majors, too, and they have very important roles in their respective franchises, but if an actor is that problematic and unprofessional, it really shouldn't matter. Why would a movie studio give general audiences the impression that they endorse that behavior?

Okay, well the point that I am trying to highlight here, (my fan-status aside,) is that Steven Spielberg definitely ain’t “perfect” either.
I understand where you’re coming from, but I can’t help but feel that you’re kinda taking this out of context with Amber Heard etc.

Also, we're in the vast minority for regarding Kingdom of the Crystal Skull as beloved.

I was referring to much more than just that movie.

I feel like we can be fans of people without making excuses for their bad behavior and idolizing them.

Really? Cuz, I totally agree.
But though Steven hasn’t said anything politically incorrect or displayed any “problematic” behavior - do we, fans, idolize him?
It’s all subjective.
I can’t stop you from calling it an exception or an excuse (or make you get it if you don’t), but I was trying to provide another angle (that is perhaps overlooked by most,) into Shia’s comment - sometimes people aren’t always given the full picture, especially when the narrative serves in someone’s favor, fandom aside.

Now, shall we stop bickering?

 

[The Lone Raider]

Okay, well the point that I am trying to highlight here, (my fan-status aside,) is that Steven Spielberg definitely ain’t “perfect” either.
I understand where you’re coming from, but I can’t help but feel that you’re kinda taking this out of context with Amber Heard etc.

Nah I'm just providing another example. A more extreme example, but a similar example nonetheless.

And Disney fired Johnny Depp from Pirates of the Caribbean until it was revealed that Amber was the perpetrator, not him. Jack Sparrow is way more important to Pirates than Mutt would ever have been to Indy. He's the face of the franchise. It'd be like firing Harrison Ford from Indy instead. But they did it anyways because they believed Depp was abusive and they didn't want to associate themselves with him any longer. Obviously, in the same vein, Spielberg and Lucasfilm would want to distance themselves from Shia LaBeouf if he's going to talk bad about them publicly, even though he was treated well on set. Shia is known (or was known...I don't know if that's changed now) for being very difficult to work with. The problem wasn't them - it was him.

But though Steven hasn’t said anything politically incorrect or displayed any “problematic” behavior - do we, fans, idolize him?

No...not really, at least that I'm aware. Not here at The Raven, anyways.

I was trying to provide another angle (that is perhaps overlooked by most,) into Shia’s comment - sometimes people aren’t always given the full picture, especially when the narrative serves in someone’s favor, fandom aside.

Providing other perspectives is great! I'm all for that. And, at the same time, I can also still disagree with an alternative perspective, too.

In this vein, having a new face portray Mutt in DoD would have been nothing untoward, as they've done it before - one actor portraying a character in his late teens/early twenties, and another portraying the same character in his 30s. (I'll leave it to you to figure out which character I'm talking about.)

Beats me. I couldn't call it.

I always *felt* that it would have been more Spielberg's intention than Lucas' to build a Mutt spinoff. He strongly wanted him and he laid some foundations for that, like a visually recognizable character, with specific abilities (fencing, knife skills) that could have create an independent persona. Plus, a good background story with conflict and a strategically incomplete arc. The ending is playing nicely with the audience, but it also means "not yet", but not "never", plus it could also be read as a "you will have to rely on your identity" statement to him.

Then we all know what happened afterwards, but always felt that Lucas was less engaged with the possibility than Spielberg.

I would probably have to agree with this. Bringing Shia LaBeouf onto the project was pretty much all Spielberg's idea, and I think that's largely what kept him interested - having the opportunity to mentor an up-and-coming Hollywood star. He wasn't super invested in the project beyond that and making his good pal George Lucas happy. Sometimes I am just having an absolute blast watching Kingdom, but other times I can see where others just don't, because it feels like a clash between George's crazy passion and Steven's lackluster enthusiasm. Still a Spielberg film, so still fun to watch (and more so than many movies), but you can tell he wasn't giving it his all this round, whereas George was fully committed to really spicing things up.

 

[Grizzlor]

George was barely involved on KOTCS, beyond tacit script approval.

 

[The Lone Raider]

...

"Story by George Lucas"

 

[Mutt’sGirl04]

Providing other perspectives is great! I'm all for that. And, at the same time, I can also still disagree with an alternative perspective, too.

I know, and I get it. I felt like you were implying something more coarse than just disagreeing with the perspective I provided onto my comments with how you said you feel like we can be fans, without endorsing bad behavior from and idolizing these people - I felt like that was beside the (my) point.

I feel that I’ve tried to clarify this all along, and I don’t really know how else it can be said, but I would like to make quite clear that I’ve never been oblivious to the fact that ALL these people - just like everybody else - make mistakes, and though sometimes varying wildly in degrees; have also made (sometimes big) errors in judgement, but let’s not get stuck here again…

I know we disagree on this, which is perfectly fine, and I don’t want to dwell on it, but even though the above statement is the truth, I just don’t agree that Shia should necessarily be “screwed” just because he may’ve taken issue with the more comedic scenes I mentioned…
That aside, the truth is: those scenes, while they are really just fine, debatably are not in the same caliber as Spielberg’s potential for masterpiece - there was room for improvement.

 

[Grizzlor]

...

"Story by George Lucas"

"MacGuffin by George Lucas."

 

[The Lone Raider]

"MacGuffin by George Lucas."

Lucas came up with the aliens, the 1950s setting, the set pieces (pretty much everything in Nevada), the ants, the South American civilization, the crystal skull,...as per usual, Lucas was the ideas guy for the film, but he was apparently more involved this time around. He came up with almost all of the fundamental pieces of the film.

 

[FordFan]

George Lucas didn't intend on Leia and Luke being siblings. But by the time they got to "Return of the Jedi", it made the most sense. If Shia made drastically different choices in his career and his life, he'd be in DOD. And depending on the success of that version of the film, a spinoff would not be out of the question. It would make sense by that point.

It was all there in the making. All Shia had to do was not question the quality of the film he made with Spielberg. Then...
https://ew.com/article/2010/05/17/shia-labeouf-disses-indiana-jones/

 

[The Lone Raider]

I know, and I get it. I felt like you were implying something more coarse than just disagreeing with the perspective I provided onto my comments with how you said you feel like we can be fans, without endorsing bad behavior from and idolizing these people - I felt like that was beside the (my) point.

It...kinda did feel to me like you were making an undue exception for him because you're a fan. Maybe I was reading it wrong though.

I feel that I’ve tried to clarify this all along, and I don’t really know how else it can be said, but I would like to make quite clear that I’ve never been oblivious to the fact that ALL these people - just like everybody else - make mistakes, and though sometimes varying wildly in degrees; have also made (sometimes big) errors in judgement, but let’s not get stuck here again…

I should also mention that he has faced abuse allegations of his own that have made him all the more controversial and unhireable.

 

[Mutt’sGirl04]

I should also mention that he has faced abuse allegations of his own that have made him all the more controversial and unhireable.

Play on words here: “Darling, Don’t Worry” - I know.
But I should also mention that, there’s a leaked video of Olivia Wilde that paints a different picture than that paparazzi narrative…. Just sayin’.

 

[The Lone Raider]

I just don't understand why Shia is still being defended here. It's one thing to have compassion for a person, and it's another thing to excuse their behavior. He himself has been very candid about his wealth of issues. He's been a jerk in the public as well as in his private life. This information has been public for a while now.

Shia LaBeouf Addresses Abuse Allegations: ‘I F—ed Up,’ ‘I Hurt That Woman’

Shia LaBeouf opened up on Jon Bernthal's podcast about the abuse allegations brought against him by FKA Twigs, saying he 'f---ed up' and has 'amends to make.'

www.google.com

Don't get me wrong; I am sincerely hoping that he is able to make the necessary changes to become a better person ("Just do it! Make your dreams come true!"). But since around 2010, he has not been deserving of being in Indy 5. He publicly trashed Indy 4, and he's been incredibly problematic in just about every other way, both personally and professionally. It just wasn't going to happen. And the writers had to find a way around it, either writing him out of the story or recasting him.

But my question was not about whether Mutt should have replaced Indy (he shouldn't have), but whether or not that was the original intention that George Lucas had prior to Shia's hard fall from grace. And at this point I think it's safe to conclude that Lucas didn't start entertaining the idea until after the film was out, and he still wasn't committed to the idea. It was just something he was considering. Spielberg, on the other hand, may have been somewhat more keen on the idea from the start by casting someone who seemed to be an up-and-coming Hollywood star (oopsies), giving his character an iconic look, and mentoring him throughout the filming process.

But Shia messed it up. There was already so much working against an Indy 5 film in general, and Shia just went and threw another wrench into the problem by making the reappearance of Mutt even more problematic than it already was.

 

[Mutt’sGirl04]

I just don't understand why Shia is still being defended here. It's one thing to have compassion for a person, and it's another thing to excuse their behavior. He himself has been very candid about his wealth of issues. He's been a jerk in the public as well as in his private life. This information has been public for a while now.

Shia LaBeouf Addresses Abuse Allegations: ‘I F—ed Up,’ ‘I Hurt That Woman’

Shia LaBeouf opened up on Jon Bernthal's podcast about the abuse allegations brought against him by FKA Twigs, saying he 'f---ed up' and has 'amends to make.'

www.google.com

Don't get me wrong; I am sincerely hoping that he is able to make the necessary changes to become a better person ("Just do it! Make your dreams come true!"). But since around 2010, he has not been deserving of being in Indy 5. He publicly trashed Indy 4, and he's been incredibly problematic in just about every other way, both personally and professionally. It just wasn't going to happen. And the writers had to find a way around it, either writing him out of the story or recasting him.

But my question was not about whether Mutt should have replaced Indy (he shouldn't have), but whether or not that was the original intention that George Lucas had prior to Shia's hard fall from grace. And at this point I think it's safe to conclude that Lucas didn't start entertaining the idea until after the film was out, and he still wasn't committed to the idea. It was just something he was considering. Spielberg, on the other hand, may have been somewhat more keen on the idea from the start by casting someone who seemed to be an up-and-coming Hollywood star (oopsies), giving his character an iconic look, and mentoring him throughout the filming process.

But Shia messed it up. There was already so much working against an Indy 5 film in general, and Shia just went and threw another wrench into the problem by making the reappearance of Mutt even more problematic than it already was.

I just don’t think the world is only black and white, that there’s a lot of gray area that comes with all kinds of colors in between.

Does it mean that I would’ve done and said those things myself? No, it does not. Do I personally think that it’s great and endorse those things - heck no!
He acknowledges his issues - which is great! I never said that he’s without them;
Because of them (at least in part), I’m totally disappointed that he isn’t in #5, for every single one of the reasons why (whoever’s fault [numerous], though Mangold said the political intrigue has nothing to do with it,): including how he (apparently) doesn’t see what Mutt would have “anywhere to go or have much to do” or something like that, and that he (possibly) turned down the opportunity to reprise his role in 2016. For those of which, no matter the reasons, I wish that he felt differently, things might be different. (But in addition to him, even though he did throw a wrench in the way [I was really trying to offer insight as to why possibly], the truth is there’s a lot of other people who also had [more] control.) Because IMO, this outcome sucks.

But I also know that sometimes big corporations are not as cracked up as they’re made out to be - similar to being royalty. It was a lot different (and arguably more artistic,) back in 1981 when the masterpiece was made.

 

[The Lone Raider]

I have definitely been disappointed in Mutt's inevitable absence from a fifth film for many years, so I understand that. I am also very well aware that the world is not divided between "good people" and "bad people" in some black-and-white way. I do not believe Shia is a "bad person"; however, he has made a lot of bad choices that have hurt others. And yes, haven't we all? I'm not trying to cast a stone at him. But I'm also not trying to make excuses for his mistakes and insist that he should have been on the Indy 5 project, regardless of his behavior, just because I'm a fan of his character. He shouldn't have been on the project. He lost his chance. And he also never apologized or corrected his behavior, which means that any grace or mercy that audiences or Lucasfilm may have had available for him could not be accepted because he didn't do his part. So justice wins out instead.
And that sucks for me, for you, and for a lot of us who are fans of Mutt. I don't think his mistakes should define him by any means, at least so long as he has the intention to improve himself - and he does, thankfully, but that has come too late for us Mutt fans. Those mistakes still have consequences. There are many reasons why we didn't get to see Mutt in another film, and quite unfortunately, Shia LaBeouf's behavior is one of those reasons.

This is also just how Hollywood works. If you offend, hurt, or disturb someone you work with, you get cut from a project. We can debate all we want about whether getting cut said project was "fair" (it was), but it doesn't matter because the facts are the facts, and Shia LaBeouf dug his own grave.

 

[Pale Horse]

I just don’t think the world is only black and white....

Analytically speaking, the world is very black and white. You're a one or a zero. You're pregnant or you're not. You're alive or you're dead. You are a male, or a female. From a logical standpoint the world is very very black and white. The rest are just disagreements between comfortable and uncomfortable.

 

[The Lone Raider]

Analytically speaking, the world is very black and white. You're a one or a zero. You're pregnant or you're not. You're alive or you're dead. You are a male, or a female. From a logical standpoint the world is very very black and white. The rest are just disagreements between comfortable and uncomfortable.

Oh for sure. You're either a pale horse or a dark horse. Definitely no in-between. No room for standard-shaded stallions.

 

[Mutt’sGirl04]

I have definitely been disappointed in Mutt's inevitable absence from a fifth film for many years, so I understand that. I am also very well aware that the world is not divided between "good people" and "bad people" in some black-and-white way. I do not believe Shia is a "bad person"; however, he has made a lot of bad choices that have hurt others. And yes, haven't we all? I'm not trying to cast a stone at him. But I'm also not trying to make excuses for his mistakes and insist that he should have been on the Indy 5 project, regardless of his behavior, just because I'm a fan of his character. He shouldn't have been on the project. He lost his chance. And he also never apologized or corrected his behavior, which means that any grace or mercy that audiences or Lucasfilm may have had available for him could not be accepted because he didn't do his part. So justice wins out instead.
And that sucks for me, for you, and for a lot of us who are fans of Mutt. I don't think his mistakes should define him by any means, at least so long as he has the intention to improve himself - and he does, thankfully, but that has come too late for us Mutt fans. Those mistakes still have consequences. There are many reasons why we didn't get to see Mutt in another film, and quite unfortunately, Shia LaBeouf's behavior is one of those reasons.

This is also just how Hollywood works. If you offend, hurt, or disturb someone you work with, you get cut from a project. We can debate all we want about whether getting cut said project was "fair" (it was), but it doesn't matter because the facts are the facts, and Shia LaBeouf dug his own grave.

While there are several points I agree with in there, I feel at variance with how that last sentence is phrased: they gave him the shovel then - that’s my whole point.

I get it, really, and I’m done arguing.
Perhaps the gray area wasn’t the right metaphor - apologies if it came across as condescending. I was never trying to alter or berate your opinion either.
I also should’ve said that I wasn’t under the impression he’d be in it - I had low expectations going in. But I wasn’t expecting them to do what they did. And I do actually understand how Hollywood works…
That was never my problem with it. You know what is. That’s why I’m here - late or not.
I’m done squabbling - I never meant for it to escalate like this, for that, I’m sincerely sorry.
But now, back to the point of this thread: I don’t think George meant for Mutt to replace Indy, just to be his own individual, though connected in name and fame. It’s kinda like the 2 of them: Steven always wanted to be Indy, while George’s alter ego’s Mutt.

Analytically speaking, the world is very black and white. You're a one or a zero. You're pregnant or you're not. You're alive or you're dead. You are a male, or a female. From a logical standpoint the world is very very black and white. The rest are just disagreements between comfortable and uncomfortable.

Yeah, also like with love - one either does or does not.
The scale of comfort is kinda gray. That’s where it gets muddled: through the plethora of viewpoints (mountains, beaches, islands).

Oh for sure. You're either a pale horse or a dark horse. Definitely no in-between. No room for standard-shaded stallions.

Yeah. There sure are some beauties in that misfits herd though.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/93731235967626353/

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/162974080257558282/

 

[Randy_Flagg]

I'm somebody who thought Mutt was a perfectly okay character. Not great, not bad... just perfectly okay. But even if the actor hadn't gone off the rails, I still wouldn't have wanted Mutt to have any significant role in Indy 5. I was tired of the whole "Indy Family Adventure" thing. It was fun in LC to see Indy with his dad, but when they did the family thing again in KOTCS, it kind of took the series and the character of Indy away from where it started, and not in a good way. Indy never struck me as a "family man."

Also, KOTCS hadn't established that Mutt had any interest in archaeology, so putting him in another adventure with Indy would have felt a bit shoehorned to me. I know people used to say "It wouldn't make sense for him not to be there, he's Indy's son!" Yeah, but he's also a grown man, so it's not like Indy has to babysit him. Presumably, if Mutt hadn't died, he would have had a life of his own.

So, yeah, in response to whether or not he should have been in DOD, I'm glad he wasn't. I would have been fine with a quick cameo, but I wouldn't have liked it if he had gone along for the adventure. I didn't think they needed to kill him, since he could have just been living his own life somewhere else, but by killing him, they actually made him more important to the story than he would have been otherwise.

As for original topic of the thread, it never felt like Mutt was set up to take over the franchise Again, KOTCS never established that he had any interest in archaeology, so if they were hoping to do more Indy-style adventures with Mutt, they did a poor job of laying the groundwork. There were tons of opportunities throughout KOTCS to show Mutt becoming fascinated and inspired by what Indy did, but they clearly chose not to go in that direction. And then showing Indy taking the hat back from Mutt at the end was a blatant way of saying, "Nope, he's not the new Indy."

Of course, I guess they could have done Mutt movies that weren't about archaeology, but I'm not sure what they would have been about. His main interets were motorcycles, combs and knives, so I guess he could have been a barber who rides a motorcycle and stabs people, but I'm not sure that would have been a great premise.

 

[Pale Horse]

Yeah. There sure are some beauties in that misfits herd though.

To stay with the season, I'll quote Rudolph and the island of misfit toys..."she thinks I'm cute!"

I'm proud to be a misfit! (either you are a misfit, or you're not. )

 

[FordFan]

There was no real meaty scene between Mutt and Indy at all in KOTCS. As much joking and verbal sparring there was between Indy and Henry Sr. in LC, there were still some dramatic scenes that carried weight. The slap on the motorbike and the scene where Henry realizes Indy didn't fall off the cliff, as well as Henry getting shot. It made Henry an indelible character. There was none of this in KOTCS, so like @Randy_Flagg said, Mutt was just fine.

I think it was particularly easy for the filmmakers to kill him off in DOD because his impact was so light. Whereas if he was given more to do in KOTCS, he could've just been estranged from Indy in DOD and they could reunite at the end.

 

[The Lone Raider]

There was no real meaty scene between Mutt and Indy at all in KOTCS. As much joking and verbal sparring there was between Indy and Henry Sr. in LC, there were still some dramatic scenes that carried weight. The slap on the motorbike and the scene where Henry realizes Indy didn't fall off the cliff, as well as Henry getting shot. It made Henry an indelible character. There was none of this in KOTCS, so like @Randy_Flagg said, Mutt was just fine.

I think it was particularly easy for the filmmakers to kill him off in DOD because his impact was so light. Whereas if he was given more to do in KOTCS, he could've just been estranged from Indy in DOD and they could reunite at the end.

I agree to an extent, but I'm also tempted to push back a little. I wouldn't say that there wasn't anything weighty or emotional between Indy and Mutt - it just didn't manifest in the same way, largely because Indy and Henry had 39 years of prior history together, whereas Indy and Mutt were only beginning to develop their relationship over a few weeks to a couple months (depending on how much time passed between their meeting at the train station and the wedding). There was definitely some tension between, and some respect for, one another because of their similarities in some ways and differences in others, but they were only beginning to know each other. The tension between them comes to a head (in Kingdom, anyways) with the reveal of their father-son relationship, but you can see that even over the course of the jungle chase, they go from getting on each others' nerves to respecting each other for their respective abilities and even bonding over their teamwork amidst all the chaos with that little "Whoa," exchange.

In Kingdom, Indy and Mutt spend the entire time trying to figure each other out, whereas in Crusade, Indy and Henry are spending the entire time trying to reconcile after decades of emotional pain. In both instances, there are moments where father and son learn something about the other they didn't know before, but the emotional context is different.

I won't deny that I much prefer the dynamic between Indy and Henry, simply because I enjoy movies with deeper emotional drama and feel that the series peaked in Crusade as a result, but I don't know that I can fully agree that there was no meat to Indy and Mutt's relationship either. I think there maybe could have been a bit more - it might have been interesting to see Mutt explode at Indy at some point for not being around for 19 years, but instead it was the much more subtle "I don't know, why did you [stick around], Dad?" And that definitely carried some resentment, but also some affectionate teasing as well. It just seemed like they liked each other too much to really give into full-fledged rage (on screen in Kingdom, that is), and maybe that's because they're more similar to each other than in the case of Indy and Henry, I suppose.