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

Read all about the brushes with the R rating here: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?p=13740101 Higher ratings aside, why would a PG-13 franchise of dark fantasy films, which has films that play 65% to over 25 year olds, and markets primarily to young adult women be considered a "family" film, alongside something like The Incredibles 2 or The Nutcracker? They aren't alike. At all. Star Wars has been primarily G (U) rated in the UK and the world over and it's a Disney franchise, but you hardly ever see it included in family film lists. And it markets to little boys. It's ridiculous.

Oh, Ike YOU would know of all people?! if you were involved with the franchise as far back as 2005, you would know that the graveyard scene and the Hermione torture scene/Wormtail's self-strangulation death, amongst other scenes, were edited out or heavily cut to avoid the R rating, which Goblet of Fire, Deathly Hallows Part 1, and Deathly Hallows Part 2 nearly received. It's on their IMDb trivia pages. That was a whole discussion at the 2005 Tokyo press conference for GOF. Go away. You saying they didn't doesn't change the fact that, um, they did. I know you're eager to patronize, honey. Sorry. and, uh, that's not the point in any case.

Fantastic Beasts is marketed to a significantly older audience than all the ones you name. It's not aimed at the "family audience", and it doesn't even look like it is. The first film performed to 65% over 25 year olds. The Harry Potter series isn't a family film series like live action fairy tales and animated kids movies. That should be known at this point. Im consistently confounded by the fact that a primarily PG-13 franchise, which had 3 brushes with the R rating, who's primary marketing audience is young adult women, not little kids, like the rest of the films you name, is still being called a "family" film. It's totally incongruent to any other film in that category. It's sort of condescending to repeatedly group it in to that category when it doesn't fit it. Maybe if people stopped doing this to the Harry Potter franchise, we wouldn't have so many critics whining every time they reviewed a new installment in the franchise about how "it's too dark" or "it takes itself too seriously"! I remember some patronizing prick of a reviewer saying something like "it's darker than a kids film has any right to be" in regards to Deathly Hallows Part 1, and I couldn't believe how frustratingly condescending he was...uh, maybe that's because this franchise is not marketed to kids or families, or at least doesn't pander to that audience? So frustrating, how this franchise is characterized by people.

Counting only domestic numbers is so ridiculously stupid. America doesn't decide what's popular and what isn't. The film grossed more than Prisoner of Azkaban, 814 million vs 796 million. It is 100% at Harry Potter heights. Stop trying to make weak excuses. What the films made in America only doesn't mean anything, lmao.

As I've explained multiple times, you don't judge every single film in a franchise, especially a pretty far removed spinoff franchise, by what records it broke. That is ridiculous. Harry Potter grossed so much because it was an adaptation of an immensely popular book series. In Fantastic Beast's purely original context, it is 100% at Harry Potter heights. Not every Harry Potter film broke a record. This is ridiculous.

Yes, it is. Again, Harry Potter rode off of the fame of an extremely successful book series. Fantastic Beasts is something audiences weren't at all familiar with, and it made more than one of the original Harry Potter installments, after 5 years. Judging it on what records it breaks is a bit technical and ridiculous, not to mention, unfair.

Fantastic Beasts 1 was a film with absolutely zero familiarity in it for blockbuster audiences to attach to, and it still made 814 mil, more than the lowest grossing HP film, 5 years after DHP2's bow. It's already at "Harry Potter Heights".

Kill this shit with fire

No, you cannot tell me what to think and how to feel about literature because "one of your fields of study" was literature. Lmao, that's the typical arrogant, non-response. To me, Lord of the Rings is "fast food" (whatever that's supposed to mean) for all the reasons I listed, some of which are inarguable. The morality is simplistic, the story quite straightforward and unremarkable, the characters trope-y, and the subject matter and thematics unchallenging or nonexistent. That is MY opinion. Enough. If you're so determined to hate a series that you fully admit to not reading it and then back it up with "one of my fields of study was literature", that is the exact definition of bias. Lord of the Rings is loved for its arcane world building and medieval action scenes. Harry Potter is loved because it, as Rowling has noted multiple times, has helped people deal with death, among other things. Your cartoonized, lighthearted view of a thematically heavy series that came from Rowling's experiences with death and poverty and depression and single-motherhood don't make your statements any more credible, and I've backed up my love for a certain series with reasoning and quotes and subjective, personal statements. You've done nothing but arrogantly insult Harry Potter, and you've done nothing to defend Lord of the Rings. And I've, again, left clear reasons and subjective, personal statements as to why I don't care for it and think it falls short of the former series in many ways. There's a reason the Harry Potter series is the most read book series after the Bible and there are college courses dedicated to studying it. I'm not saying it's Shakespeare. It's mainstream fantasy entertainment, and it has flaws. But so is Lord of the strings. Which, to me, is a much shallower, less substantive story. In fact, Harry Potter wasn't even a part of the conversation until someone nastily insulted my liking it after I quite pleasantly left my opinion on Lord of the Rings. It just sort of goes to show how crazy this forum gets if you don't agree with what the general, simple-blockbuster-fare-loving BOT clientele think. You can't just act like a story a generation grew up on, that's informed a lot of their thoughts on life, (if we're to believe the "Harry Potter and empathy" articles that come out every year,) is "trash" or "fast food". That's incredibly condescending, ignorant, arrogant, and nasty of you. Irrespective of you "studying literature" at one point, as so many have. I've had many a college professor in the subject who are absolute Harry Potter fanatics, and whom love the books. Talking to my Film as Literature professor about the series actually got me into it again in a much deeper, more affecting way than before. Fantastic Beasts was a blockbuster film that literally included thematics pertaining to child abuse, religious fanaticism, grooming and manipulation, righteous anger, discrimination and bigotry, repression, capital punishment, even fascism and terrorism, with Rowling saying "it was partly informed by what I saw as a rise in populism"...so yea, I'm pretty sure Rowling wouldn't agree with you calling her work "fast food".

Only the highest grossing entertainment brand of all time this side of Star Wars that has 4 more films being released, adapted from the highest selling book series of all time. Yea, it's just a little indie thing, wtf is it doing here?