I wasn't reading up on it. Did they change the water sequences at some point? I remember that it was a visually stunning movie the day it came out, but I was content after that. Especially after the children saying "bro" all the time. It reminded me too much of the people in Hawaii.
I don't think the movie changed but there was only so many theaters that could support IMAX 3D Stadium HFR , and if you saw it pretty much in that exact way the water sequences were probably the best looking thing movie wise ever made. But movies don't stay in the same auditorium forever so it would look worse otherwise.
I mean yea the movie's story and writing is whatever, but the first Avatar was too but that got the benefit of being something that was completely new regardless of where the inspirations were from. I will give the second some credit for making the last hour feel like it had stakes, and it really was an impressive action ender for being as long as it was, but yea the story / writing isn't really anything special.
Really though these movies get to do a few things for James Cameron that is probably the only reason he isn't exploring some shipwreck in the Mariana Trench or some shit.
1) Gets to push and innovate filming techniques (Way of Water revolutionized filming underwater apparently and it does show even if it was motion capture)
2) He gets to play around in his favorite environment water
3) Gets to make what he wants, how he wants for however expensive he wants, over whatever period of time he wants. Dude had Fox and now Disney wrapped around his finger, what other filmmaker can make a $1 billion dollar movie and make a return of 1.5. Look at this shit its stupid (btw the Participations is more or less Cameron's salary for directing it, he gets a cut)
4) Yes the dude is an environmentalist, and has been for a long time so he gets to spread the message through his movies even if we think its faggy.