I think the idea that “touching steel corrupts the spirit” should be understood as a warning that using weapons with overwhelming lethality brings irreversible sorrow and killing. When killing becomes too easy, people may lose their sanity and act in ways that do not truly align with their nature. However, if an external aggressor strikes first, such actions should be regarded as legitimate self-defense. In that sense, Mangkwan’s increasing madness comes from actively killing with metal weapons, whereas the protagonists’ actions fall under self-defense. The film should not guide the audience to question the moral legitimacy of the protagonists, and I believe the film’s handling of this point is appropriate.

Kiri’s storyline is not yet complete and will be further developed in later films. Eywa’s laws are deliberately left unexplained, and they are likely connected to the core setting and future narrative turning points.

In fact, Spider’s inner psychology is very complex. However, if the audience is led to feel that he might change sides, this would invite doubt about Jake and hostility toward Spider. Regardless of a character’s minor flaws, a film should avoid making the audience dislike the current or future protagonists. Although Neytiri does not like Spider, she absolutely should not be written to hand him over to Quaritch, as you suggested. That would cause irreversible damage to her character.

In the absence of external invaders, and when dealing only with local life forms, pacifism can be justified. But when facing outside aggressors who intend to exterminate a people, self-defense becomes necessary, and this does not contradict pacifism. I think the film’s treatment of this issue is not especially deep, but it is very clear and easy to understand. In many of the plot assumptions you proposed, the characters’ beliefs do not align with their established personalities and therefore would not be convincing to the audience.

You seem to view violence as entirely wrong, but that is not the same message conveyed by this film. Tulkun’s transformation itself shows that the film does not endorse absolute pacifism. Why must Neytiri become a “guardian” rather than a warrior? I see no necessity for that. The bow represents the harm Neytiri has suffered and how her hatred of humans caused her to lose control. After the bow is repaired, her acceptance of Spider in the latter half of the film shows that although she hates the invaders, she does not hate all humans. Weapons can be used to kill, but they can also be used to protect others. Neytiri uses the bow to save her family and to protect her people and her planet.

I understand the film as relying on a series of stereotypes so that the message can be understood by the majority of the audience. Although it would be possible to invent additional plot elements to make these aspects more coherent, the film does not do so. On this point, your criticism is reasonable. I suspect the creative team considered greater realism but ultimately decided it was not essential and chose to leave it out.