u/Honest_Cheesecake698

In the final act, watching the movie for the first time, I was really sure that Jake Sully was going to die. Seeing him give himself up to be captured, the fact that I went in hearing that this would feel like a "fauxnale" or the conclusion to the story threads Way of Water set up, even the slight full circle feeling I was getting, all of it made me think "Okay, Jake is probably going to die"

Personally speaking, I feel that this one single change would have had a lot of consequences.

1. It would have been intriguing to have Quarich go more and more "native" and experience some of what Jake experienced that led to him choosing to live on Pandora full time, in the same film where Jake ends up having to die for the sake of Pandora. That one choice from Jake to sacrifice himself would have been the perfect way to take away Quarich's disdain and desire for revenge. He'd see Jake die a true solider, for the place he loves. Also, since he no longer has that personal desire for revenge, and given how he's being pulled away from the Military group that resurrected and hired him, this could have cemented his transition into a total Wild Card. Is he a villain still? We don't know at this point and that mystery creates more suspense for the next film.

I'd add to this by having him destroy Bridgehead in response to what Jake did, but if you don't want to go that far, just have a shot of him looking at Bridgehead, and then turning away to walk with the Fire Clan.

2. It would have been the perfect chance to reverse the eye opening from the first two films. Avatar 1 ends with Jake finally in his new Avatar body. Way of Water repeats this, but Jake just closes his eyes and then opens them, like he's going "I can't relax, there's a conflict ahead of us". Fire and Ash could have ended with an intercut sequence where Jake's body finally closes it's eyes. Think about it, he chose Pandora in the first film, he maintained his family in the second, and he died for his family/new home in the third.

3. It would have tied the first three films together as "The Jake Sully trilogy" and made it clear that these next two films would focus more on the younger generation growing up. One of the common coming of age story beats is the death/removal of the parent and I think it's a shock that Jake and Neytiri are still alive.

4. It would leave Neytiri in an interesting place. Jake was the ultimate proof that humans aren't all bad, but he's dead after spending all this time as the same species as her. And he died not just for the Navi, but for Spider who is a human. Jake also was a grounding figure, so what the hell happens when she doesn't have that in her life?

5. Worthington's acting is the best in trilogy in Fire and Ash, and it could have given him a powerful scene to go out on.

6. It would have fixed a lot of complaints regarding repetition. Not only would a lot of call-backs felt more warranted given how this was Jake's last hurrah, but it also would have ended by doing something that we've not seen yet in the sequels, the death of an important protagonist character. Way of Water and Fire and Ash end by killing off a side character, but not a lead. And killing off the perfect brother, followed by the gruff father, that would have been a nice throughline.

7. Fire and Ash wouldn't have still felt like it was stalling by the end if it did something as simple as take Jake off the board. Once you do that, you have progression even if the RDA are still standing.

8. The scene with Spider and Jake is pretty strong on it's own, but I think it would have been even stronger if Jake had died at the end. Jake is put in a position where he feels like he has to kill this extra son that he cares for, but he simply can't go through with it, and he ultimately proves just how much he cares by dying for his children, including Spider himself. Imagine that "With all of my heart!" exchange being repeated, but reversed. It would feel like validation, like Jake had provided that he cared for Spider more than Quarich, his own biological father.

I know that Ari isn't too far into his feature film career, so it's obviously not going to be a one to one as he's not done as many films as Kubrick. But, from what I've seen of Ari's work, he does feel akin to Kubrick in a lot of ways. And before you say "A lot of directors do these things", not all of them do and I personally see the comparison between these two specific guys.

1. Their ability to be dramatic, horrifying and even funny all in the same film. Sometimes even in the same scene.

2. How focused and deliberate their style is, in a way that can feel almost alienating and distancing.

3. A slow pace and often long runtimes define both of their styles.

4. Kubrick was known for his darkness and nihilism, plus letting his movies go pretty wild. Ari at this point in his career is maximising those elements.

5. Ari has shown to be able to do something that Kubrick was great at, keeping the same exact style across very different genres. Eddington and Beau is Afraid are incredibly different, but they feel like they come from the same voice.

6. The heavy conspiracy theory vibes and subliminal undertones to their films. All of Ari's films feel like conspiracy thrillers in disguise, and I think Kubrick was good at having this feeling via his films focusing on the dismantling of individuals by a higher power. And the subliminal stuff comes in the hidden details in all of their films, whether intentional or not.

Those are the main points of comparison imo, but I'm sure there's even more to be drawn.

I agree she should have chosen her words better, it's right to reflect on what happened to you and right to point out the issues, but saying that the box office results were probably lied about isn't the right thing to do and it makes me uncomfortable that she'd say publicly that she agrees that those who did return were behaving like Scabs or that "they all are, and they have to live with that". I thought she was more generally forgiving and although I get having a problem with it, that kind of statement will make people demonise you for being "overly bitter and unable to let professional reasons get in the way of personal hangups" or "burning bridges of former/current allies"

However it's more annoying because many deemed her to be a positive figure that was unfairly pushed out, and I have a feeling that this might just turn that around and make people go "they were right to let her go" and be more negative about her movies and the character she played. You see people saying on the thread "Well 5/6 were nostalgia bait too" and most notably going "Well, she didn't leave when Neve left due to low payments". I don't like the idea that a single interview can undo a lot of the sympathy and good she represented, all because of comments that she should have maybe pushed through a PR team or something.

I definitely hope she succeeds in her ventures, but this situation has kind of left a mark on the fandom and notably affected 7, so the idea of people then having more of a reason to blame her isn't very nice. I did read the whole interview and she did have plenty of good and positive words in them, but I think everyone will focus on this.

I think what's more divisive than Corey himself is the way the film concludes, as for people who aren't fans of the film, and maybe even people who are, it's either:

1. The best part by far, a shame it's attached to everything before it.
2. The worst part that if anything completely kneecaps the main storyline with Corey and makes you wonder why they did it at all. It's bad for those who liked his material, and in some ways worse for those who didn't like it.

But in regard to said reverse engineering, if you just built a film that naturally led to Michael coming to Laurie's house, and then the two of them having one last fight, followed by the death and him being thrown in the disposal in the procession, then that whole epilogue, I sincerely doubt the critical response would have been as low or worse than Halloween Kills at least. And the fans probably would have been very satisfied, though who the hell knows.

The thing about Halloween Ends is that there's a split in the conclusion, where Corey's journey reaches it's end and then it's time to conclude Michael's. If you watched the end of Halloween Ends out of context, you wouldn't guess that anything like what happened before it did happen. And if you watched Halloween Ends up to a certain point, you wouldn't think it would end the way it does.

Had Halloween Ends ended with Corey's journey being done, in a way that didn't make you think "Michael's still in the sewer?", it wouldn't have completely won over the people who didn't like his material, but it could have made them think "Well, it lead to this" or "Well, a more standard ending wouldn't have been as unique". That's kind of the thing, the ending of Halloween Ends almost seems like a piece of correction, but in the process it made it so that many who didn't like the Corey stuff had more of a reason not to.

You could get sarcastic and go 1979-2017, but it's interesting how many down periods there were for the franchise, for many different reasons. Maybe because the films weren't great, because nothing was being done with the series, because there was a disappointing or divisive sequel, or even because you didn't think the franchise was capable of living up to it's initial legacy.

So it's all subjective and will depend on your lifetime experience also. For me, I think it was the period of 2022, where Halloween Kills personally disappointed me and Ends didn't totally satisfy me either, when it became clear that I was right in not being hyped up about the sequels to H2018 because neither managed to perfectly justify continuing the seemingly neat ending of that film. I have grown to like certain aspects of the two sequels, even down to not having Laurie succeed in killing Michael, but H2018 could have been left on it's own and it would have been a nice untouched full circle conclusion to the original film.

What made it much worse was the online response. I had experienced the backlash towards Rob Zombie's Halloween films, but this was both far more unfortunate in it's own disappointment and much more vicious of a cycle. It made me finally understand how annoying the Halloween fandom could be, yet also how much these creatives hadn't pleased them and perhaps had no way of pleasing all of them. Halloween 2018 did get backlash but that was smaller, the sequels however felt like they received a Star Wars Sequel trilogy level of consistent hatred.

You might not have felt the same way, but that's how I took it. I suppose A response is better than no response, yet it made me outright happy the movies were over.

This could be entirely subjective, but I feel like whenever his films have to age someone up in a very direct way, it looks convincing.

Ken Watanabe as an old man in Inception is impressive work, same goes for the ending of Oppenheimer with that flashforward. Some of his films do the aging in smaller ways, like just changing the hairstyle like with Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins or early on in Oppenheimer when he's at university.

What helps is that he doesn't have the makeup onscreen too long, the longer you see it the more you can tell it's makeup, but from what I can remember about his films, if there's anything done to make the characters look older or younger, it's only for a certain portion of the movie and not for the whole thing.

He does it better than the digital de-aging trend, that's for sure.

-came from Old Murph?

I think the subtitles on most copies call her Old Murph, but let's just say that wasn't there. Did you put it together just based on the dialogue? Or do you think it wasn't clear enough to infer?

There's also the cutaways to various elderly people talking about the Dust, taken from the Ken Burns Dust Bowl documentary. And I'm curious to know if that gave away for anyone that the earth would be saved or not?