(1) "Buying" a Rolex (or knockoff) vs NFTs - buying a physical (or digital) good gives you privileged access to it. The same is not true of an NFT, which just adds your name next to a pointer in a (decentralized) database. Nothing changes in regard to access to the underlying good unless people decide to build mechanisms on top of the chosen blockchain to artificially enforce access privileges, but you don't need a blockchain for that (cf. skins in CS-GO or stock images one pays for to purchase and download).
(2) "Indistinguishable" - with physical goods, that's a perceptual property and when you're talking about knockoffs of luxury goods, it really just means "hard to tell the difference (unless you examine it closely)". With digital media, the way it's been set up with NFTs, indistinguishable means completely identical. There are ways to actually sell protected digital media - e.g. you show a low-res version on a website and only send a full-res version once a purchase is made. But that's also been happening since the internet became a thing and doesn't need blockchains or NFTs either.
The issue isn't a lack of imagination on the part of skeptics who actually understand the underlying technical mechanisms behind blockchains. It's a lack of understanding by proponents about how the physical world works and how it can and can't be made to relate to digital comstructs.
Imagine that Country A decides to use Blockchain A (which has been around for decades and has proven itself secure) to store its property titles and allow the purchase of property digitally, with full transferal of title and ownership. The government writes a smart contract on that blockchain that facilitates payment, title searches, hooks into other government databases or blockchains for easement information, liens etc. They then, obviously, migrate their existing title information onto the blockchain and distribute the NFT's to the current owners. How do you "register" your fake one?
If you can't see how this could change an old and plodding industry like real estate which is surrounded by mountains of paper-shuffling, then yes, you're being unimaginative.
A worthy replica Rolex that feels similar in quality to a real one will still cost hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars. The $20 dollar replicas feel noticeably cheaper and will not provide the same satisfaction.
If people feel like they can get more personal enjoyment from spending money on a digital asset that everyone else can enjoy for free, great. That's a signalling game. But I don't think its hard to understand why a lot of people are skeptical on the real utility behind NFTs in regards to art and creative works.
The existence of the fashion cycle feels like an argument against NFTs. Yes, people like to signal with exclusive things, so influencers seek out new, exclusive fashions. Most of the time these styles are fairly easy to copy, though, and so the followers start wearing them and the influencers need to move on to the next thing. Eventually, anyone left wearing the old fashion looks kind of laughable.
Yes, the actual NFT token always remains exclusive, but is that really something you can signal with on a human level? Or do too many right clickers eventually cause bored apes to go out of style and become laughable?
If what I get by right-clicking is the same as what you get by purchasing an NFT, then there's no difference that matters. Well, there's one difference: I got this image for free and you paid for it.
To the people who value Rolex, a fake is not valuable.
To some (vain but poor) a fake is valuable but barely more valuable than a standard watch.
NFTs are not comparable because they are useless instruments of gambling and speculation.
Some of you are really stretching to find reasons to not understand NFTs and why people like them. Yes you can “right click save as”. I can also buy a replica Rolex, but I would much rather own the real thing. What’s the “real” that I’m buying with a gen Rolex as opposed to a rep?