This had potential to be a really good movie.

You make some notable points.

Very well stated. Here is my take:

1. I thought that the whole point was for Mutt to be a punk, not some young stud rebel. Otherwise, he would living in the shadow of father, Indy, which he could never outdo except become a man in his own light.

2. He was kind of a third wheel, only there to make the other characters look better in comparison. I can only assume he is in the film to act as fold for the others to bounce their personalities off of. Did not know about the Sean Connery fact. Wow, missed opportunity but you just know he would have been asking for a major salary for a major role, always career-minded.

3. It's possible that the filmmakers had her deliberately as a more restrained villainess to demonstrate how Indy has been there, done that, acknowledging his famous reputation and bold charisma to not give a crap. It didn't help that Indy 4 was aware of needing to tone down the Soviet antagonists, eager to not further upset discontent already present within the Russian market after the nation's active Communist Party boycotted the film in protest. If this film was made today, given growing animosity between the United States and Russia, it would either be better received to pull punches or worse for inciting hostilities.

a) Agreed. Funny though takes viewers out of immersion.
b) Same reasons above. Meant to show Mutt's maturity but no pay off.
c) Done for the sake of creating continuity with the original trilogy with throw-backs to nostalgia.
d) Done to blend the distinction between Dr. Jones, college professor, and Indy Jones, adventure seeker.
e) Probably for young newbies not familiar with Jones should they watch this film first for some reason.
f) Nothing to add. Spot-on. Though great intro for those not familiar with any of this. They exist. They really do.
g) Thank you! Mutt did not do enough to earn my respect for such a pivotal scene, even though he didn't wear the hat.
h) Unbelievable the first time I saw it! I expect such antics from Star Wars. It's cool now.

~~/o/

There was something about the whole film that was off. They wanted to recapture the magic of the first 3 so bad, but ultimately crashed and burned by trying to be too ambitious. That is what felt off about it to me. It's almost like getting together with some old friends, and going out to do all the things you loved doing together so much, but years have passed, everyone's lives have changed, and the whole thing feels focred and unnatural.

It was an ok film, and I wasn't bored watching it, some very good action scenes, and Harrrison Ford delivered. There was a tad of magic in the scenes with him and Karen Allen. I pretty much agree with everything on your list here that held this back from greatness, but ultimately it just couldn't recapture the magic of the original 3. That was it's biggest problem.

I definitely agree not bringing Sean Connery was a terrible idea. I never knew he was down to return. Not bringing him back was a bad move to say the least. I say they were being cheap. Paramount is willing to spend over $100 million to make a movie, but didn't wanna pay Connery what he wanted was probably the case here. Having Connery in this would have brought back more of that magic to.

You made a very good point about the main characters, especially the antagonists. This movie suffered from weak antagonists. In previous Indy films you have the main villian who is driven, calculated, and challenges Indy on an intellectual level, and you have right hand man who is a scary, intimidating, monster. In the case of Temple of doom Mola Rom was just a scary and intimidating as his monstrous right hand man. In Raider's Beloq was every bit Indy's inellectual equal, and the right hand man Todt was creepy as hell. In Crusade Donavan played the role of the intellectual, and the nazi commander Vogel played the role of the intimidating right hand man. In Krystal you get silly and foolish Col Spalko, and a Russian commander by her side who came off as just a generic big and mean brute

This movie was SHIT. accept that fact and everything will be fine.

Regarding Connery.. he would only have been about 76/77 when filming - younger than Ford will be when he does Indy 5!

It was kind of wrong to kill him off screen anyway when Connery was still alive and kicking.. at least have them thinking he's dead or missing presumed dead then he turns up near the end.. or a fun cameo right at the end with the wedding like the last scene of the Costner Robin Hood (thats probably why they wanted him to do)

Maybe they plan to use him in Indy 5 for a CG deaged flashback scene

The problems all stem from the script. Frank Darabont wrote a good script which did not feature ‘Mutt’ and had that element that secretly makes Indy movies great - horror. But Lucas vetoed it in favour of the terrible David Koepp script we ended up with.

Crystal Skull has no horror or menace, other than possibly the red ants. The humour falls flat, especially the ‘gag’ with Marcus’ statue head, and there’s no class or elegance to the script. Compare it to the perfectly structured Last Crusade script with its endlessly inventive ideas, brilliant dialogue, great characters and fluid pacing.

Then there’s the weird direction where everything looks fake, like it’s all CGI or something, and the stunts seldom feel real. Right from the weird prairie dog opening the film feels ‘off’ and never brings the audience with it. Again, compare to the perfect young-Indy opening of Last Crusade. It’s just amazing that the same creative team can make such a balls-up. I get the impression that Lucas either knowingly or unknowingly sabotaged this project and Spielberg held his nose and just got it finished so he could move on.

[deleted]

Ox was OK, if you want to see a buffoon just watch Connery and Marcus in Last Crusade.