But he still didn’t turn the actual sin against the sinner. He turned himself against the sinner. Anyone, not just a glutton, would have died in the scenario he came up with for Gluttony - it wasn’t sinner-specific. That’s what was great about the Pride one: only someone who did in fact commit that sin would have died.
Why does that matter? He said himself that he was making an example of them.
Sorry I’m late to the party, but I joined this forum because I noticed this same plot hole after watching the movie for the first time today. But after some thought, I’ve realized it was after Mills first phonecall with Jon doe when he is in Jon’s apartment that the plan had changed. On the call, Jon says, “I have to change some things after this set back” (or something along those lines), and I think this is when he decided to leave his old plan of probably just killing two more “innocent” people, and instead switches to manipulating Mills into becoming his Wrath victim.
I read a comment above that said in the original plot Somerset kills Jon, and I feel like that would’ve been such a more fitting ending bc not only does Jon’s plan not get totally completed, but Mills life isn’t totally destroyed. And it would be fitting for Somerset to sacrifice whatever he has left of this life for a rookie he has come to care for. And the last quote, “‘…this world is worth fighting for’ and I believe that second part” would hold so much more power. Just a thought.
**
God no**. That would have turned what is a brilliant, disturbing ending into a typical Hollywood by-the-numbers shit ending. It’s no wonder that test audiences were completely turned off by that ending (IIRC, Walker’s original script is how the film eventually ended but the studio said “No No the bad guy can’t win! Change it!” and so the bullshit ending of Somerset shooting Doe was filmed.)
No way would the film have become such a classic if the ending has been a copout like that.