Indiana Jones films aren't exactly a breeding ground for Oscar-worthy performances. It was an action flick, and Kate was sensational. She did the best she could with what she was given. That was the character, that was the script.
You might be the most brilliant surgeon in history, but if you work with butterknives your work isn't gonna be stellar, now would it be?

She was known as Spielberg's squeeze.. Unless he picked up the phone to get her a job or put her in his own movies she was not going to work..

So many idiots, so little time.
Newhenpal, your comments are spot on. The character was supposed to be annoying, self-centred, and whiny.
She did fine with the part. Let's face it, the movie was a popcorn movie, not Shakespeare, right?

The point of acting is to bring a character found in a script to life. Anyone criticizing Kate's performance should take a look at the script, Willie Scot238t is supposed to be a whiny, annoying brat.
Have a fist fight with Lucas or Speiberg if you felt that Scott was underdeveloped, Kate did a fine job of bringing her character to life.

I agree totally with Dr. Hieronymus. She is a terrible actress who only got the part because she spread her legs for the director.

You're all being too tough on her. I thought she was wonderful in the film. It was never meant to be a subtle part. She looked beautiful, had chemistry with Harrison Ford, and was so funny and even a relatable character. It was over-the-top but in a fun way that she pulled off. Sure, she wasn't Glenn Close and wasn't going to have that kind of career afterwards. The 1980s weren't that kind to lead actresses, and we already had Kathleen Turner and Nastassja Kinski, both of whom started to see their careers drop by the mid-to-late-'80s.
If Capshaw didn't have a career, other than essentially dropping out once she got married, it wasn't because she wasn't talented so much as she was a leading-lady type and yet, for all her spark in IJ, wasn't unique enough to be one of the select few leading ladies of the '80s.

Correct.
While age can make a difference when it comes to women with no acting talents (and thus are just there for the looks), a woman with acting talents wouldn't be stopped by being around 30. She wasn't anywhere near old enough to fail to have a career based on age if she delivered a good performance.

W
stands for WAR

Age had nothing to do with it, not having the acting skills was what did it. Lots of actresses start in their 30's as a matter of fact, they seem to be more popular in their 30's. Although Capshaw looked like she was in her 40's, she still sucked unbelievable in movie. I liked the character and thought if it were played by someone who w238asn't overacting it would have been one of my favorites.

I believe her age was a reason why she never made it big after Temple of Doom Remember she was already 30 when she was filming Indy (a late start), and Capshaw mentions she already had careers in Education, a Model and then an actress when she got the job in 'The Edge of Night'. She did so-so films and TV in the '80s. A couple are still regularly watch these days (Black Rain and SpaceCamp) but like Amy Irving, her career was much effected after marrying Steven Spielberg and is known as Mrs. Spielberg, not an actress in her own right. Irving however continues to work

Bad luck (not counting marrying Spielberg years later) or did the film simply give people a negative perception of her, thus handicapping her career?
No - I believe Temple of Doom simply brought her acting abilities (or lack thereof) to broad public attention.
Yes, her career was ruined by IJ:ToD, but don't blame the movie itself. Blame her performace.

W
stands for WAR