Ideological Problem 1: Anticlimactic Ending (Lack of Action/Movement)

One inaccurate ideology in the film is that it might communicate the wrong idea that the main issue on animal abuse in our current/real world is already settled just because the problems of the main characters at the end of the film are “resolved.”

How is this seen in the movie?

The movie ends with Okja and Mija finding a “new equilibrium” after Okja was saved from being slaughtered. Okja and Mija’s narrative in the film ended with them going back to the mountains as if nothing happened. They were able to peacefully live again along with Mija’s granddad and the superpig they rescued from the corporation.

However, despite the happy ending for Mija and Okja, there are still thousands more of superpigs still at the hands of the greedy and merciless Mirando corporation.

What does it mean and why is this problematic?

This “happy ending” can be problematic because the issue on animal cruelty is not fully addressed. There was an attempt to resolve this issue in the post-credit scene wherein the Animal Liberation Front reunited but,

(1) it is in the post-credits scene where people might not have continued watching the film,

(2) its duration is not enough for all the viewers to see this and

(3) its discourse seemed like a comedic trope.

https://video.wixstatic.com/video/f5defb_9cc0d35cb7a14ae2998166869abb720f/1080p/mp4/file.mp4

We can then see from these that the narrative ending with Okja and Mija living peacefully again is not enough and should be corrected because the reality of animal cruelty still exists and it will never be resolved if only a select few are saved from it.