Broadwayfreak66

"...s stacked. Beasts 2, although the first did well, will likely not be as big as the original Potter films." ...without discussing the other obvious reasons why it would do well, you literally mention one but still decide it won't do well. Determined much? The first one did better than one Harry Potter film with no proof of concept, so no, Crimes of Grindelwald will be their best performer with around 950 million WW and about 265 million, bottom. I think Rampage has a chance at 120-220 mil, that's it.

Oh, stop it with this "charm" bullshit. Since Alfonso Cuaron, the franchise has been known more for its grit and it's gothicisms more than it has been known for its "charm". And Fantastic Beasts had way more "charm" than any of the Potter films, particularly those post Chamber of Secrets. this is a non-fans observation of the first installment of the original series. Harry Potter isn't about "charm". If that's all you ask for, than you're obviously into very light, insubstantial forms of story and entertainment. You sound like one of those people who's only seen the first film, never read the books, thinks Hogwarts is the extent of "The Wizarding World", insists that Hogwart's houses are a crucial, important part of the story, and who ignores the character and plot developments in favor of laughing at some inconsequential detail or acting like Quidditch is included to any notable or integral extent. This contingency of people who absolutely neglect the story and the characters of the Harry Potter series to focus on the "world-building details" present in the first one are so incredibly frustrating. They might as well forget the story exists if they're literally going to get into arguments with me about how Chocolate Frogs are paramount to the success of the story. I was literally told by someone on a forum once "I just ignore the entire plot of Harry Potter, because it's too dark, and it just doesn't work." They later admitted to never having read the series and having only watched the first two films. Imagine if the only thing I really cared about in regards to Star Wars was "how cute and funny all the droids are, how charming the ewoks and the porgs are, and how cool that blue milk stuff is!" It's like, try to pretend like you're a fan of Harry Potter, or like you know what the series is like on the most basic level at all, but I can't imagine ignoring what horcruxes are or the tragic backstory of Severus snape, or the entire concept at the center of the plot, the order of the phoenix vs the death eaters, in favor of selectively attending to stuff like HOGWARTS HOUSES AND WEIRD JELLYBEANS ARE SO COOL- is a particularly fulfilling, knowledgeable fan experience. I mean, is it a surprise to me that this huge portion of people who think Harry Potter is famous for its nanosecond descriptions of magic candy in the first book/film also fight viciously with me when I try to point out that said book series is extremely thematically heavy and dark? No. Because they're too busy acting like the plot summary of the series is "Harry goes to school!: LETS EAT CANDY! (page count, 10!)" rather than "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (page count, 762)". I can't think of any other way to describe a population who literally have no idea about the relatively high reading level and scenes of murder, torture, tragedy, trauma, and horror that ends partially with an 18 year old sacrificing himself for a society embroiled in a war that he's had to watch his friends and family die in, but do seem to think the series is instead more comparable to something like fucking Enid Blyton's Famous Five or even Roald Doahl's most juvenile chapter books. I just can't fucking believe how much people attempt to trivialize and patronize this franchise. It's quite mean-spirited at this point. "He felt the ribs splinter beneath his jaw, felt the warm gush of blood..." a nice, "charming" line from Rowling's quaint "Blyton-Esque, Dahlian" little kids picture book "Harry goes to Honeydukes: the Search for the Chocolate Frog (page count, 6.)" *sometimes titled "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" by people who actually know a modicum of shit about the series.

This is trolling level -6. Get better. Attention whore.

“Fantastic Beasts” delivers the most satisfying period fantasy since Tim Burton’s “Sweeney Todd,” but its layers of sophistication are what yield one of the best Hollywood blockbusters of the year. (“Doctor Strange” reaches greater heights in terms of its effects, but falls short on story.) Coming after a jarringly weak season of summer movies, it’s an especially welcome year-end treat." -Indiewire i mean, those were the types of positive reviews people were leaving for Fantastic Beasts. Doctor Strange was so unanimously praised for its visuals, with minute praise being delivered to Cumberbatch and Swinton. But Disney films get the high RT scores they do because they're pressured. They focus on one element and praise just that one thing in an outsize manner. Even most TLJ reviews said stuff like "it's not a good film, but...". I think theres a huge amount of grading on a curve when it comes to critical reception to Disney blockbusters.

TO YOU. To the majority of people, IT WAS. That's a fact.

Doctor Strange has better visual effects, but in terms of characterization, design, and plotting, the general consensus would be that Fantastic Beasts is the better film by far.

Stop trolling honey, if nobody liked it, the sequel wouldn't be on Fandangos list of the most anticipated films of 2018 this early, it wouldn't have a majority of positive critic reviews, it wouldn't have won favorite year end blockbuster at people's choice, it would've been nominated for 5 Baftas including Best British film, it wouldn't have an A Cinemascore why does the truth upset you?

The 74% certified fresh RT score, A Cinemascore, 66 Metacritics score, and its slew of nominations and wins at the BAFTAS, Oscars, Guild awards, and Critics choice awards disagree with you you are in the critical minority. Deal with it.

The 74% certified fresh RT score, A Cinemascore, 66 Metacritics score, and its slew of nominations and wins at the BAFTAS, Oscars, Guild awards, and Critics choice awards disagree with you

You don't even have the intelligence to look up an actor you obviously don't know. Fantastic Beasts was never going to be about that, and just because your expectations weren't met doesn't mean it "sucks". It was praised by both audiences and critics. So go away.

If he's a renowned actor because of that role, who cares? People are excited about him in Fantastic Beasts, not in Pirates 6. Yours is a non-argument.

Someone is bitter because I rightly knew that Depp is a draw for the GA and not a repellant? Its quite obvious why he'd rank #2 on this list. The Wizarding World haters can sob.

How do I block that one guy