Hunch

This was the best scene in the film. For a lot of it I was "yawn, this is a Pocahontas redux", but this scene hit hard. Cameron always pulls through. We love a real director.

They're doing it because Disney was planning to spend like $70 billion to buy Fox and needed to make a shitload of money in 2019. Why do you think we're getting THREE live action remakes, a Star Wars movie, Avengers, and Toy Story in the same year?

That would've demanded creativity and risk-taking from Disney.

Personally I don't think people, especially children, should be looking to the entertainment products of multi-billion dollar corporations to feel "empowered". My critique of her looks is an artistic one; art is supposed to be beautiful. Plus, her character is supposed to be stunningly beautiful. It's in disservice to the story to cast someone just above-average looking.

Disney is not invulnerable. Like Superman in BvS, they do bleed. They should have known better than hiring Guy Ritchie (who hasn't had any talent since the start of the decade), trusting in Will Smith in 2019 (who is totally washed up), and hiring an ugly guy as Aladdin and a below average looking girl as Jasmine (I'm sorry but Disney Princesses are supposed to be GORGEOUS not a solid 7). This looks a complete mess and Will Smith's genie alone is going to bring down a potential franchise and $300m investment.

'Conception' is coming

Shyamalan needs to find another hook for a movie and make an original self-contained film. That's where he succeeds. His films live and die by how good that initial set up is. Kid who sees dead people or creepy grandparents who aren't what they seem? Great! Plants that make you commit suicide or woman from a future novel that climbs out of pool? Flop.

Glass: $30m 3-day/$37m 4-day

This is looking like a major underperformance. A lot going against it: 1) Marketing seems to be relying on the memory of Unbreakable...the problem is no1curr about that film anymore. It has its niche fans but they wouldn't move the B.O. needle. It's forgotten. They should've focused on McAvoy since people like + remember Split (but that film got overshadowed by Get Out and didn't make as big of an impact as initially thought. It's not iconic like Sixth Sense or Signs). 2) The trailer views are low, and they're also bad trailers. They make the movie look like a mess. 3) Bad reviews will hurt it. Shyamalan's image isn't completely rehabilitated. And this is an ambitious sequel 20 years late, critical support would've helped sway those on the fence (like myself, I will probably stream it for free later instead of going to the theatre because I'm not spending $13 on a mediocre film). Wouldn't be shocked at sub $30m.

Jason Momoa is super hot but I wouldn't watch a movie just for him. If I'm not going to be jerking off in the theatre, what's the point? Besides you can find a guy that looks just like him in 3 minutes on PornHub (e.g. Jaxton Wheeler), and you'll actually get to see him fucking. Lol.

"There is only 75 mil budget left to cover" This cost $135 million and definitely over $100 million in marketing. Theatres keep about 50% of the box office take (for a slow burner like this film it's actually more than that). It needs to make about $500 million worldwide to break even.

This is kind of flopping. Probably won't get a sequel.

Thank God he passed on that! Joker will be far more interesting than Men in Black Fantasy Remix.

Good for Aquaman. After the disaster of Justice League this could have gone a lot lower. $70m is $10m higher than Green Lantern's adjusted OW, and it's opening at a time where grosses are very spread out. Mary Poppins is doing ok when compared to films like Christopher Robins and Into the Woods, but from that budget Disney was aiming higher so this is definitely an underperformance. Bumblebee is also not doing well. I don't understand how this is being spun into a solid OW. It should have cleared $30m, The Last Knight still made like $60m over five days. This could miss $100m total. Yes WOM is good but it's not THAT good. A- cinemascore is good but not spectacular. And it's still a fanboy movie so it will be a bit frontloaded.

She is really is perfect casting for this role and the only modern actress who could convincingly play Sharon Tate.

This is definitely getting an 'event' push. It's a $100m film in July starring Leonardo DiCaprio. His OW pull is about $40m (Revenant, Gatsby and Shutter Island all did that much) so they probably hope inflation + the Charles Manson interest + Brad Pitt and Margot Robbie push it over $50m or even $60m.

If Mary Poppins and ASIB had switched release dates I would have said Gaga was a lock for a win.

They can't really cancel and reboot with Fantastic Beasts since it's an original property made for film. Rowling still owns the rights to the HP universe, they can't just make another film set in the world without her consent. And she would probably be royally pissed if they cancelled these movies. We're definitely getting another one. Beyond that, who knows. I suspect WB will force Rowling to tie up the narrative in the third chapter and leave the door open for more films depending on how that one does. No way they'll take a risk by assuming the audience will be there for all five. We all saw what happened with Divergent...

No, it's between A Wrinkle in Time ($130m WW vs a $120m budget) and Solo ($390m worldwide vs a $300m-$350m budget).

I think a lot of things went wrong here. 1. the appeal of the HP films was the trio along with the fantastical setting. That's why the other YA properties that tried to imititate it (Hunger Games, Twilight, Divergent, etc) all had a similar central young trio of characters. Fantastic Beasts' protagonists were a bunch of odd looking, unappealing middle aged people. 2. No one knows who Grindelwald is outside of HP fans. The title limited appeal and relevance to the general public. 3. The first Fantastic Beasts was ok. Not a classic. With no books to base interest off of, the second one was bound to fall.

I'm not surprised there's behind the scenes drama. The genie always seemed impossible to translate well to live action and there's a minefield of potential controversy with the 'appropriative'/'exploitative' parts of the story/setting in today's world. There are already grumblings that the actress isn't middle eastern but Indian.

I wouldn't call Gaga a lock for a Oscar Actress nomination at all. It's way too early. A lock for a Comedy/Musical Globe Actress nomination, sure.

They need to stream it live over the internet. Air ads in between the commercial breaks like usual. The VMAs did it this year. No one under 30 has cable anymore, they're going to die long term if they don't move to online streaming.

Only 10m views for the trailer. Hmm. I'm seeing mid 30s OW at this point.

This is going to bomb so hard lol. What was even the point.