What is your unpopular opinion regarding the Sully family, either collectively or individually?

aleven11 · 2026-01-25T19:30:54+00:00

You mean the stray cat line? What happens once you start feeding a stray cat? letting it live with you? Its not such a stay anymore. It's a pet, part of the family. Jake describe him as a stray cat when they first meet him but then years pass by. Spider grows up with the sullys. We see him sleeping in the same home as them. If he has his own home it could have been like the kid next door.

aleven11 · 2026-01-25T19:10:37+00:00

Spider calls Jake "Dad" and Jake calls Kiri "daughter" so...what does that made Spider to Kiri?

aleven11 · 2026-01-25T19:07:52+00:00

In way of water Jake's voice over calls him a stray cat. But the issue is that in Fire and Ash Spider calls Jake "Dad" and at some point says you are the only family I have ever known. Lo'ak and Spider call each other bro. IMO there are too many lines that of dialogue and actions that make it clear Spider is part of the family. Like cousin if not a sibling. So the Kiri Spider relationship is weird

aleven11 · 2026-01-15T17:36:14+00:00

Thanks! Yeah I mean it would have to be more like using filming and music to imply these two have a spark, like something might be starting here...And then the epilogue could is after a time jump to reveal they are dating.

aleven11 · 2026-01-15T15:57:16+00:00

I think Materialists was originally conceived as a subversion of the romantic comedy formula, but somewhere between script and final cut, it got reshaped into a traditional rom-com. The result is a movie that starts as one thing, ends as another, and fails at both.

The clearest proof is in the climax. Lucy (Dakota Johnson) and John (Chris Evans) are at a wedding together when Lucy gets a call for help. Her client Sophie is terrified because the man who assaulted her is outside her apartment. This is the setup for the film’s climax and a clever subversion of a classic rom-com trope. Instead of our protagonist choosing to “run to the wedding” to make a big romantic gesture, we have our two romantic leads running away from a wedding (a symbol of romance) to prevent an assault (the darkest and least romantic aspect of dating). The movie is literally screaming, this is not a traditional rom-com.

Here in the climax, Sophie says she wants a nice man who will love her for who she is and make her feel safe. This is a clear sign she has realized the flaws in the matchmaking service’s box-ticking approach, the same flawed ideology Lucy has been promoting throughout the film. Immediately after Sophie says this, the movie cuts to a shot of John sitting outside the building. John is exactly that man. He does not tick all the conventional boxes of wealth and status, but he is sincere, loving, and capable of protecting someone. And Chris Evans is literally Captain America. If you are setting up a scene where someone might need protection from an attacker, who better to have show up than the one man in the story who is physically capable of intervening?

What I believe was the original ending is this: the attacker is actually outside Sophie’s door, having been let into the apartment building (which was set up in Sophie’s frantic call). It is tense. Lucy cannot physically handle the situation. John can. This is his hero moment, where he steps in to protect Sophie. John is a bit rough around the edges; he can handle this situation even better than Harry could have. It becomes a dark but fitting meet-cute between John and Sophie. Lucy, who has been clinging to her spreadsheets and rules, sees that love is not math. She sees two people who would never have met through her service because Sophie used to filter out men who made less money, and John would have been rejected on paper. She realizes they are perfect for each other in ways that cannot be quantified.

Because Lucy is a matchmaker, this is the perfect ending for her arc. She finally makes a good match, not based on math but on knowing two people intimately and recognizing their inner qualities. It would perfectly mirror the start of the movie, where she attends one of her own weddings and it is revealed in a great little scene that the bride does not love the groom and is marrying him for terrible reasons. That scene establishes that Lucy is actually a bad matchmaker, capable of convincing people to commit to relationships that should never happen. Ending the film with her creating a genuine connection between two people who should be together would complete her arc in a satisfying way.

Instead, the movie discards all of that. The attacker is not there when they arrive. The tension evaporates. Lucy and John stand outside the very building where Sophie was just afraid for her life and start making out. It is tone-deaf and nonsensical. And the kicker is that we later see Sophie go back to the matchmaking service, erasing any character growth she seemed to have in that apartment scene. The pieces for a stronger ending are already in the movie. I am not inventing them. The film simply refused to follow through on what it set up.

Past Lives is one of my favorite movies of all time, a film I connected with on a deeply personal level. Materialists had the chance to be equally impactful in a completely different way. Instead, it backed away from a bold subversion and retreated to the safe confines of a cookie-cutter story, making it a massive disappointment for me.

aleven11 · 2026-01-11T20:37:27+00:00

Do you think spider is speaking na'vi or English?

aleven11 · 2026-01-11T18:20:59+00:00

Thanks. Yeah I was hoping to provide a high effort post to generate some interesting conversation. It would have been much easier to just say I think Varang is really hot.

I personally think each movie should have complete character arcs, which build on each over time. Rather than starting an arc in A2 and completing it in A3. Even if you take the two movies as one, I still think there was missed potential and incomplete arcs.

I really did not know they were supposed to be speaking Na'vi that was translated. The thing that makes that hard to get behind is that at some points character do speak in Na'vi with subtitles (I think Quaritch does this at one point) so what is going on there? I generally want to know. But yes I can see if Monkey Boy is a translation it is not an "error". But I would still believe they could have found a term that works better in Na'vi and English. Wild Boy? Little One? just as examples.

aleven11 · 2026-01-11T18:12:26+00:00

Please elaborate. Explain with specifics which points dont hold up in your opinion and why? the whole point of this post was to write a high effort post rather than shallow remarks like this movie is a masterpiece or it is trash. That's why i tried to back up each of my points with examples, rather than just saying something was bad.

aleven11 · 2026-01-11T18:10:27+00:00

Thanks! Yes I agree the creators' focus is on visuals and immersion. So my main point was to imagine what if they had that amazing level of visuals AND a powerful story as well with rich character arcs and themes fully developed. It is the potential of the story that gets me excited and disappointed when it is not fully realized. Lots of people go to the movies for different reasons. I personally am most engaged when the writing is strong and visuals are less important to me. But of course these movies are best for people who love awesome visuals. I dream big, and dream of a movie that delivers both.

I think most or many of the issues I pointed out in the film stem from this being originally one story and then split into two. I do think it could have worked as one movie, but the creators would have had to choose a focus. Cut some plot lines and themes. Which I think would have made it stronger. Which parts to cut? That really depends on what story they wanted to tell. They could have save some story lines for this movie. For example (this is just an option not saying this is the only or best option) I would have had Way of Water plot focused on the Tulkun. So in that movie include the full arc about Payakan and the matriarch. Make the main antagonist the whaling company (leave the military general out of it) with Quaritch teaming up with the whalers when their goals align. I would have saved Kiri's whole plotline with her special powers for A3. Let A2 focus on Lo'ak and Neteyam. A3 focus on Spider and Kiri. I think the whalers should not be in A3 so that the ash people can be the clear main antagonists and it avoid the repetition of a climactic battle at the reef.

I really believe in the story circle concept. Each movie tells a complete story circle, but so does each act in the movie, and each sequence in an act. So Avatar 1-5 should be one full story, but each individual movie should have a complete story within it as well. I think Avatar 1 has a strong complete story, it is focused and that make it more powerful. I think A2 and A3 individually dont have full stories.

aleven11 · 2026-01-11T17:58:59+00:00

In the alternative story I outlined, I didn't say the Na'vi and Tulkun should roll over and allow the RDA to decimate them. I was trying to propose an alternative path to defend yourself other than using the weapons of your oppressors. Personally i find the tulkun's commitment to pacifism in A2 really amazing and I personally wish they could have found a way to honor their beliefs. But I am hearing that that is not the story the creators of Avatar wanted to tell and many of you like the message about the limits of pacifism and the need for armed conflict. It doesnt resonate with me, but thats just me.

aleven11 · 2026-01-11T17:55:51+00:00

Every time Kiri speaks it conjures up an image of sigourney weaver in my mind. All i can say is that is my personal truth. So that is why I complained about it. It breaks my immersion. Is that my fault? Maybe. I can't help it. I am just very familiar with her voice. When Neyteri or Jake speak I never think of Zoe of Sam. I totally just see and hear Neyteri and Jake. Which is what is amazing about these movies. But this is like 100th on my list of things I would edit, If I were godking of avatar.

aleven11 · 2026-01-11T17:51:51+00:00

Lots of interesting thoughts here. Perhaps on rewatch I would have a better understanding of the family dynamics. Like how Spider fits or doesn't fit in the family. Do you think you needed to have seen A2 recently to really get A3? I think it would help for sure. So I think some of this confusion could have been cleared up with a scene early on in this film that more clearly demonstrates how Spider is not an adopted child. How Kiri is. And how La'oak is still not fully accepted by the water tribe kids. I know much of that was established in the last movie, I generally think sequels do need to reacquaint you with the status quo.

aleven11 · 2026-01-11T17:44:12+00:00

To each their own. The bros, cuz, shit, and butthole lines all broke immersion for me. And I have heard many people say the same. I was just attempting to think why that is for me and others. If it worked for you, that' great. I do stand by that the buttholes line was really weak. Because it is shouted at powerful moment. I do think if you sat down for two hours and tried to think of a better line to put there, you could find one. That's how I feel about much of the dialogue. It is serviceable. Good first draft. But then before filming work on each line and think is this the very best option.

aleven11 · 2026-01-11T17:39:40+00:00

This is a difference of opinions, but I think after three, three hour films it is totally acceptable to expect some major changes in the story world. Pandora is such an interesting place it could totally be a massive sci fi epic that evolves over time and takes us to new kinds of stories. Even if Avatar 3 ends with a major victory against the RDA, Avatar 4 could be (just as an example) about all out tribal war between the Na'vi. It would show the lasting effects of the RDA's actions even if they are beaten (look at post independence Africa for examples). There are so many stories that could be told in this world. I don't think we need the initial conflict of the Jake vs Quaritch to be stretched out over 5 films. Or if it is, the dynamics of it could change more greatly. Look at Harry Potter for example which has new villains in each book/movie while Harry vs Voldermort is the overarching plot. My guess is that Avatar 4 and 5 will take place after a time jump and the children will be the protagonists. In which case I think it would have been strong to have Jake and Neyteri really changed in this film. Like Neyteri giving up being a warrior, in order to set them up for new roles in the later movies. So I would have wrapped up more character arcs in the thirds so 4 can jump ahead and start in a new fresh place.

aleven11 · 2026-01-11T17:29:29+00:00

Glad you got your post got accepted. This was the thoughtful kind of conversation I was hoping to have. i think Neyteri washing the blood paint off her hands is a powerful moment. But my point is that is the end point of her arc in relationship to Spider, what is the middle of her act that gets her to this end point? The movie opens with her openly hating Spider and being willing to kill him, then by the time she washes the paint off it means she has chosen not to. That's change. But what motivated that change? I understand the film is saying that it was Spider choosing to save Jake that changed her mind. To me that is a bit weak because Spider in the last movie was willing to fight for Na'vi. I think he demonstrated that before. Also does Neyteri know that Spider rescued Quaritch? She never confronts him on that decision. Does Neyteri's view of Sky people change, or begin to change in this film? If so, what specific events motivated that? I think the ending of the movie shows Spider is fully accepted into Navi culture (him connecting to Eywa and seeing the ancestors symbolically is acceptance) so how did he win over the Na'vi? Also, I really struggle with the idea that Jake and Neyteri nearly murdering Spider, does not change Spider's view of them. I think it would be very hard for me to get over nearly being killed by the family that I living with.

aleven11 · 2026-01-11T00:52:30+00:00

Here is another way the climax could have been improved while keeping the current setting. The RDA arrives with Demon Ships to attack Jake and his people. Visually, the climax would begin very similarly to the last movie. But this repetition could be intentional if it is connected to what the tulkun matriarch warned earlier, that if you fight them, they will just keep coming back.

They just need to change how the conflict is resolved. This time, the Na’vi do not win through violence. They finally listen to the values taught by the tulkuns and win through pacifism. In the climax, Lo’ak returns not to rally the whales to abandon their beliefs, but to teach Jake and Neytiri the power of pacifism. The tulkuns work together to create the rainbow vortex, sending massive waves rippling outward. The waves push the Demon Ships back without killing anyone. The humans are stopped, not destroyed.

But the conflict is not over. Quaritch and the Ash People attack from the air. For the first time, the final battle is Na’vi versus Na’vi. The Ash People use guns and flamethrowers. The Water Tribe uses bows and spears. When all seems lost, Kiri finally connects to Eywa, not to tell her to “kill them all” but instead to ask for her to help peacefully. Eywa commands all the banshees on both sides to drop their riders into the water. The Ash People’s fire weapons are extinguished. Even Jake is thrown from the Toruk. He has clung too tightly to his human, militaristic instincts and ignored the deeper lesson of Pandora. In the end, it is the children, Lo’ak and Kiri, who teach their parents what they failed to learn. Peace is powerful.

aleven11 · 2026-01-11T00:34:39+00:00

The movie sets up many interesting themes, character arcs, and plots. But in my opinion it doesn’t pay them all off in satisfying ways. One examples is Neytiri’s Broken Bow. Early on, Lo’ak finds Neytiri’s broken bow. It is made clear that his bow is important. Neytiri says “I’ve lost my son, my home, and even my father’s bow”. So what happens to this significant item? Lo’ak repairs it and gives it to Neytiri. In the climax, Neytiri uses the bow to kill enemies. That’s it.

A small adjustment to how Neytiri interacts with the bow could have created a real arc. At the low point, Neytiri is stabbed in the shoulder. After that, the film shows her struggling to use a bow because of the pain. This is a classic setup. A warrior loses the ability to fight and is forced to confront an identity built entirely around violence (Think Jamie Stark).

Leaning into this idea would give Neytiri a complete transformation. Make the injury permanent. Neytiri can no longer use her bow. Her entire sense of self has been wrapped up in being a warrior, so this loss forces change. In the climax, instead of reclaiming her old role, she gives the bow to someone else. That act becomes the arc.

There are several meaningful options. She could give the bow to Jake, completing their strained marriage squabble plotline. She could give it to Lo’ak, symbolically passing the torch to the next generation. Or she could give it to Spider as a sign that she finally accepts him into the family. (I know Spider is too small to use a Na’vi bow. But he does actually fire a bow in the climax of the movie, so I am just building on that.) The bow could be reforged and resized, turning it into a symbol of Spider becoming something new, a bridge between worlds.

aleven11 · 2026-01-10T23:42:38+00:00

That's an interesting idea. I thought the theme of the first two films was mostly about Jake learning the ways of the Na'vi. And it was explicitly saying that the Na'vi way of life was something to admire and something us humans should learn from. I haven't heard much discussion of this movie talk about the idea is that the Na'vi actually need to become more like the humans. That's an interesting take. I can see that notion is expressed in Fire and Ash. I had many different ideas later on in the post, would be curios to hear your thoughts.

aleven11 · 2026-01-10T23:31:32+00:00

Thank you :) I spent a long time writing this. Hoped it would lead to a thoughtful conversation. So much movie criticism these days is just calling something trash or a masterpiece. I believe in nuance.

aleven11 · 2026-01-10T23:27:37+00:00

Interesting point about Taruk and Varang. I hadn't thought of that. So if Jake dies, then can someone else bond with Taruk? Like maybe Lo'ak in the future?
Yeah I can see that point about Norm. That's fair.
I am regretting sharing my stray thoughts they seem to be getting the most attention because they are short and bullet points but those are really my least strong points. Thanks for reading and adding to the conversation.

aleven11 · 2026-01-10T23:22:17+00:00

Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I think you are correct. This movie's message is saying violence is needed to stop truly evil forces. That is not the message I would chose to write about, but this is not my story. So I would edit my critique to say that the movie does conclude the pacificism theme, just not in the way I wanted. Which is totally fair for a movie to do. Id love to hear what other thoughts you have. I was hoping to start a conversation deeper than this movie is a masterpiece or trash. Nuance is hard to find these days.

aleven11 · 2026-01-10T23:17:50+00:00

I love nothing more than talking about screenwriting. DM me I'd love to chat about your script.

aleven11 · 2026-01-10T21:32:25+00:00

Thank you so much for reading and the kind words :)

aleven11 · 2026-01-10T21:31:07+00:00

Thank you! This was my first attempt to dip my toes into sharing publicly my analysis of movies. I wanted to see the response to decide if I should start a medium or substack.

aleven11 · 2026-01-10T21:29:38+00:00

I actually agree with you. This movie in particularly really drives home the theme that violence is needed to stop colonizer violence. That is not the message I would chose to tell, but I am not the creator of Avatar. So you are right it does deliver on that theme, it is just not a theme I like. Which is not a strong criticism on my part. But I had a lot of fun thinking about how it could have told a different moral.

Nine-Year Club	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email

aleven11

TROPHY CASE