I mean:
The ending of the movie, did it not imply that Sally Hawkins' character is possibly part fish-person herself? Think about it. She's an orphan and she was born with those scars on her neck. At the end, those scars open up and essentially act as her new underwater gills.
She wasn't born with them. Those are wounds. Her parents cut her vocal chords as a child. Also, in a very pan's labyrinth sense, I'm not sure how real or literal that ending actually was, with the narration kicking back in and everything.
Probably right, not sure why I remembered it that way. But then again, the creature did have special powers. So even if that's not the literal ending, what if the powers he's imbued with could grant her the ability to breathe underwater?
That's pretty much what's implied at that point.
Just saw this today. I hated it. Surprised the hell out of me since I have liked all of his films especially The Devil's Backbone and Pacific Rim which was my favorite film of 2013, but The Shape of Water was truly terrible. If I wasn't with my family I would have walked out of the theater midway through it. I disliked pretty much all of the characters in this film expect for Michael Stuhlbarg and I would of said the same for Richard Jenkins if it wasn't for the completely asininescene where he had a very Laissez-faire attitude toward the creature eating his cat and attacking him.
One of better films of late. Sally Hawkins is really great. Didn't like the portrayal of Russian spies, mustache-twirling bad guys.