Not a fan of his work tbh, I didn't like the look of Superman Returns or Indiana Jones.

What does everyone else think?

What is he doing?

To be fair, the look of Superman Returns was the least of the film's problems. The look of the latest Indiana Jones film was pretty much the same as the past films so I didn't really have a problem with it.

He has done some great work though, and proven to be very versatile. He's worked on X2, The Brothers Grimm, The Cell and Elizabeth: The Golden Age. I expect he'll do some good work on Inception since he's shown a lot of versatility.

He's the production designer. I think the "look" of Nolan's films is more associated with Wally Pfister's cinematography.

Oh, he has some fine credits.

Well he did a good job on X2 to be fair, the cave lair was very realistic and the White house looked like the real thing from inside. But his recent film sets have been poor if you ask me and look wy too bright.

rbevanx wrote:Well he did a good job on X2 to be fair, the cave lair was very realistic and the White house looked like the real thing from inside. But his recent film sets have been poor if you ask me and look wy too bright.

Would that not be the fault of the cinematographer and/or the lighting directors then?

No tbh because the three films Superman, Elizabeth and Indiana Jones had the same texture to them, so I honestly think it's him.
They all cost quite a bit of money and I wasn't impressed with what i saw in those films. They didn't look real and I also felt they looked a bit like the old 1960's sets, which were clearlt fake.
Like The original Time Machine for example.

rbevanx wrote:They all cost quite a bit of money and I wasn't impressed with what i saw in those films. They didn't look real and I also felt they looked a bit like the old 1960's sets, which were clearlt fake.

I believe that may have been intentional for the latest Indiana Jones film.

I meant in how false they looked like in the old films, when you could clearly see its been made in a studio.