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.
Again, raiders did adventure right and nine failed the genre utterly.
The amulet is a great example.
It’s a divine object based on divine mythology, which is all about specific moments and specific ordained destinies , so Indy receives the amulet from the other main character who is as much of a badass as he is and then discovering and entering the map room on the right day at the right time makes sense within the context of the movie.
It fits in with the theme of the movie and is very exciting, as an adventure movie should be.
Rey, having received the dagger from nobody important , standing on a random spot for no reason after nothing interesting has happened in the movie, notices the absurdly shaped dagger matches the island, but only from her perspective from exactly the spot she is randomly standing among the entire surface of the Moon.
Nothing exciting happens, nothing momentous, they all kind of shrug and say “oh that’s it.”
Raiders did it well, India frantic with excitement, and it makes sense within the context of the movie, nine failed utterly, made it boring and nobody cares even inside the movie.
As for your other questions
" Who maintains the traps?"
“'Why are the temples so convoluted?”
“Why design a building to collapse after the treasure is stolen?”
There is one answer to all three of those questions: to protect the sacred from the profane.
Whoever designed the temple was protecting a priceless artifact. The temples are convoluted to protect the priceless artifact. The traps were designed well to be maintenance free so that they would protect the artifact. The building is designed to collapse to protect the artifact from being stolen.
“You’re thinking Raiders is fine (which it is) maybe because you didn’t watch it looking for flaws”
The first thing I mentioned to you when you brought up raiders was that raiders does not make sense and has a bunch of plot holes, but is very exciting and works within its own story.
The problem with nine is that it is very boring and doesn’t work within its own story.
It’s enjoyable for you, enjoy it.
That does not make it a well-crafted or exciting adventure movie.
You keep saying that an audience member just has to ignore all of the elements in nine that are not good and then you’ll enjoy the movie.
You don’t need to ignore anything in raiders, it’s a fun movie despite its flaws that it incorporates into its story seamlessly so that you barely noticed them.
Enjoy your movie, but so far you’ve made zero valid points trying to equivocate the success of raiders and the failure of nine.
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.
Again, raiders did adventure right and nine failed the genre utterly.
The amulet is a great example.
It’s a divine object based on divine mythology, which is all about specific moments and specific ordained destinies , so Indy receives the amulet from the other main character who is as much of a badass as he is and then discovering and entering the map room on the right day at the right time makes sense within the context of the movie.
It fits in with the theme of the movie and is very exciting, as an adventure movie should be.
Rey, having received the dagger from nobody important , standing on a random spot for no reason after nothing interesting has happened in the movie, notices the absurdly shaped dagger matches the island, but only from her perspective from exactly the spot she is randomly standing among the entire surface of the Moon.
Nothing exciting happens, nothing momentous, they all kind of shrug and say “oh that’s it.”
Raiders did it well, India frantic with excitement, and it makes sense within the context of the movie, nine failed utterly, made it boring and nobody cares even inside the movie.
As for your other questions
" Who maintains the traps?"
“'Why are the temples so convoluted?”
“Why design a building to collapse after the treasure is stolen?”
There is one answer to all three of those questions: to protect the sacred from the profane.
Whoever designed the temple was protecting a priceless artifact. The temples are convoluted to protect the priceless artifact. The traps were designed well to be maintenance free so that they would protect the artifact. The building is designed to collapse to protect the artifact from being stolen.
“You’re thinking Raiders is fine (which it is) maybe because you didn’t watch it looking for flaws”
The first thing I mentioned to you when you brought up raiders was that raiders does not make sense and has a bunch of plot holes, but is very exciting and works within its own story.
The problem with nine is that it is very boring and doesn’t work within its own story.
It’s enjoyable for you, enjoy it.
That does not make it a well-crafted or exciting adventure movie.
You keep saying that an audience member just has to ignore all of the elements in nine that are not good and then you’ll enjoy the movie.
You don’t need to ignore anything in raiders, it’s a fun movie despite its flaws that it incorporates into its story seamlessly so that you barely noticed them.
Enjoy your movie, but so far you’ve made zero valid points trying to equivocate the success of raiders and the failure of nine.