I also know what you mean about the difference between the old era and the new era of digital film making. It is rather like the difference between the special affects in "The Lord of the Rings" vs. the special affects in "The Hobbit". Everything seemed so much more detail oriented in the old era. Props and costumes were so much more realistic. The "special affects" that film makers use now seem to me to make the movies more fake looking rather than more realistic. Peter Jackson and Steven Spielberg actually had to create some of their monsters and bizarre creatures to put in front of the camera rather than adding them in post production. And even the special affects from the old era seem more detail oriented and believable rather than those of today. The Orcs in "The Lord of the Rings" look real; The Spiders in "Raiders of the Lost Arc" looked real (were they real?); Thanos's alien hordes in "Infinity War" did NOT look real; The Wargs in "The Hobbit" did NOT look real.
The realer the better right? I'm a big fan of CGI when done right, but oftentimes it's at it's best when it's used simply to enhance something that's already there. You can't beat real stunts though, and the original Indiana Jones movies have some of the best (oftentimes to the peril of Mr. Ford and/or his stuntman).
I really enjoyed this article. I will admit that I have only seen "Raiders of the Lost Arc", and even then I could barely get past the Tarantulas in the beginning, let alone the snakes later on. :) However, from what I've heard, the character development throughout the series keeps the audience invested and engaged, which is what good story telling should do. I might have to brave the eyeballs in "Temple of Doom" and whatever other disgusting predicaments Indy gets into and just enjoy the character. I also love Shawn Connery, so "The Holy Grail" is definitely on my list to watch.
I also know what you mean about the difference between the old era and the new era of digital film making. It is rather like the difference between the special affects in "The Lord of the Rings" vs. the special affects in "The Hobbit". Everything seemed so much more detail oriented in the old era. Props and costumes were so much more realistic. The "special affects" that film makers use now seem to me to make the movies more fake looking rather than more realistic. Peter Jackson and Steven Spielberg actually had to create some of their monsters and bizarre creatures to put in front of the camera rather than adding them in post production. And even the special affects from the old era seem more detail oriented and believable rather than those of today. The Orcs in "The Lord of the Rings" look real; The Spiders in "Raiders of the Lost Arc" looked real (were they real?); Thanos's alien hordes in "Infinity War" did NOT look real; The Wargs in "The Hobbit" did NOT look real.
The realer the better right? I'm a big fan of CGI when done right, but oftentimes it's at it's best when it's used simply to enhance something that's already there. You can't beat real stunts though, and the original Indiana Jones movies have some of the best (oftentimes to the peril of Mr. Ford and/or his stuntman).
I really enjoyed this article. I will admit that I have only seen "Raiders of the Lost Arc", and even then I could barely get past the Tarantulas in the beginning, let alone the snakes later on. :) However, from what I've heard, the character development throughout the series keeps the audience invested and engaged, which is what good story telling should do. I might have to brave the eyeballs in "Temple of Doom" and whatever other disgusting predicaments Indy gets into and just enjoy the character. I also love Shawn Connery, so "The Holy Grail" is definitely on my list to watch.