Both had a magical artifact that told the hero where to go. The functionality and even the reason for the existence of the artifacts in both don’t make a lot of sense. But for some you’re fixated on this minor flaw in RoS while imagining it’s not a flaw at all in Raiders. It’s the same minor flaw, and in neither they aren’t worth worrying about.
It’s mostly that movies like Raiders doesn’t get the same level of scrutiny because nostalgia protects it from the negative internet culture of nitpicking new movies to prove they’re bad. When you play that game the prize you win is that you can’t enjoy new movies.
I’m not fixated on one artifact. I mentioned one artifact and it’s all you’ve talked about.
So I’m responding to what you keep talking about, the knife.
Which is a major unnecessary fiasco of the film, no matter how many times you say minor.
Since you brought it up again:
Raiders uses an artifact to great effect, are the amulet is necessary irreplaceable and uniquely expressed through the power of the sun on a particular day turning into a laser beam. Very fun, very exciting.
Nine uses a knife whose purpose is completely useless since the island can be found in any number of ways, and when the dull knife is utilized nothing happens except they literally match a shape to another shape that doesn’t need to be matched.
It makes me embarrassed for Daisy Ridley just to think that she was put in that position as a decent actor.
Like I said, a glass of wine to moldy Kool-Aid.
The best implementation of something like an artifact versus the worst implementation.
You can ask questions about something other than the knife If you like.
I enjoy tons of new movies. And I can tell you why I enjoy them with the same level of precision and accuracy that I can tell you why mine was so terrible.
Your argument reminds me of a guy I knew who was insisting that NSync will be remembered as culturally as important as the Beatles.
This desperate equivocation of two completely different groups.
You’re trying to ignore all of the context and details of the movie and insist they’re both just “magic” “adventure” movies.
Those are barely accurate descriptors of the theme of the movie and have no bearing on the quality of the movie itself.
Raiders uses an artifact to great effect, are the amulet is necessary irreplaceable and uniquely expressed through the power of the sun on a particular day turning into a laser beam.
And Indy happened to be there on that day? Odds are he’d have to wait months before things were in alignment. Also why did someone ever come up with this convoluted mechanism to show which building the Ark was in? Like were they planning on their civilization someday ending and there would someday be a scenario where it needed to be kept a secret… but not that secret, so that a hero could find it while bad people wouldn’t.
Also who is even maintaining the various booby traps in the places Indy goes? Why design a building to collapse if someone takes an artifiact?
There are so many things in an action adventure movie that exist simply for there to be fun action scenes. You’re thinking Raiders is fine (which it is) maybe because you didn’t watch it looking for flaws. Maybe because you were a kid when watching it, or maybe because the internet wasn’t telling you that you were supposed to hate the movie.
RoS is simply consistent with movies from a different era. An era when people just enjoyed movies for what they were instead of going to movies pretending to be a bitter internet critic. All of the Star Wars Episodes are like movies from another era, it’s kinda it’s thing, the whole Episode thing is from 1930s Flash Gordon movies after all.
A real criticism of the knife thing could be that’s it’s unoriginal, since it is the same thing as the amulet from Raiders of the Lost Ark. In fact the early part of the movie is basically an Indiana Jones movie but in Star Wars. But since I like both Indiana Jones and Star Wars, and I don’t think action adventure movies need to be 100% original, it was enjoyable for me.
Both had a magical artifact that told the hero where to go. The functionality and even the reason for the existence of the artifacts in both don’t make a lot of sense. But for some you’re fixated on this minor flaw in RoS while imagining it’s not a flaw at all in Raiders. It’s the same minor flaw, and in neither they aren’t worth worrying about.
It’s mostly that movies like Raiders doesn’t get the same level of scrutiny because nostalgia protects it from the negative internet culture of nitpicking new movies to prove they’re bad. When you play that game the prize you win is that you can’t enjoy new movies.
I’m not fixated on one artifact. I mentioned one artifact and it’s all you’ve talked about.
So I’m responding to what you keep talking about, the knife.
Which is a major unnecessary fiasco of the film, no matter how many times you say minor.
Since you brought it up again:
Raiders uses an artifact to great effect, are the amulet is necessary irreplaceable and uniquely expressed through the power of the sun on a particular day turning into a laser beam. Very fun, very exciting.
Nine uses a knife whose purpose is completely useless since the island can be found in any number of ways, and when the dull knife is utilized nothing happens except they literally match a shape to another shape that doesn’t need to be matched.
It makes me embarrassed for Daisy Ridley just to think that she was put in that position as a decent actor.
Like I said, a glass of wine to moldy Kool-Aid.
The best implementation of something like an artifact versus the worst implementation.
You can ask questions about something other than the knife If you like.
I enjoy tons of new movies. And I can tell you why I enjoy them with the same level of precision and accuracy that I can tell you why mine was so terrible.
Your argument reminds me of a guy I knew who was insisting that NSync will be remembered as culturally as important as the Beatles.
This desperate equivocation of two completely different groups.
You’re trying to ignore all of the context and details of the movie and insist they’re both just “magic” “adventure” movies.
Those are barely accurate descriptors of the theme of the movie and have no bearing on the quality of the movie itself.
And Indy happened to be there on that day? Odds are he’d have to wait months before things were in alignment. Also why did someone ever come up with this convoluted mechanism to show which building the Ark was in? Like were they planning on their civilization someday ending and there would someday be a scenario where it needed to be kept a secret… but not that secret, so that a hero could find it while bad people wouldn’t.
Also who is even maintaining the various booby traps in the places Indy goes? Why design a building to collapse if someone takes an artifiact?
There are so many things in an action adventure movie that exist simply for there to be fun action scenes. You’re thinking Raiders is fine (which it is) maybe because you didn’t watch it looking for flaws. Maybe because you were a kid when watching it, or maybe because the internet wasn’t telling you that you were supposed to hate the movie.
RoS is simply consistent with movies from a different era. An era when people just enjoyed movies for what they were instead of going to movies pretending to be a bitter internet critic. All of the Star Wars Episodes are like movies from another era, it’s kinda it’s thing, the whole Episode thing is from 1930s Flash Gordon movies after all.
A real criticism of the knife thing could be that’s it’s unoriginal, since it is the same thing as the amulet from Raiders of the Lost Ark. In fact the early part of the movie is basically an Indiana Jones movie but in Star Wars. But since I like both Indiana Jones and Star Wars, and I don’t think action adventure movies need to be 100% original, it was enjoyable for me.