Gazer365

Woah what, 300M budget? This isn't The Flash lol I doubt the budget is that high. 200M is the highest I'd estimate but around 150M is my gut feeling.

Wait how are people saying this a flop already? Honest question because I'm not as clued in to the box office numbers as others on here are. I thought we'd have to wait till like Monday to get a bigger picture of what things are like but it seems some people on here are like "omg its a big flop" when its barely been open for a day. But like I said I'm not as clued into what's going on.

Funny thing is that the current 84% verified audience score is the highest out of the three movies thus far, and a big step up from Crimes of Grindelwald's score was in the mid 50s and even a step up from the first Fantastic Beasts score of 74%. I'm thinking this could get an A- Cinemascore considering the increase with audience score this time around. I don't see a 2nd week "car crash" drop nor one as bad as Morbius, I think it will remain relatively stable.

The first Fantastic Beasts movie made more at the box office than all three of the Divergent movies combined, FB2 made more than the first two Divergent movies combined. Plus, not even one of those movies managed to get above a fresh score on Rotten Tomatoes, so its pretty safe to say the FB movies are considerably above the level of the Divergent movies. The critical reception to this third movie is a step up from the previous installment, as is audiences reception from what I've seen. And who knows, if the next one actually turns out "Fantastic" people may flock to it if, especially if the timing is right. Stranger things have happened.

The general vibes I've been getting from the reactions/reviews thus far (at least from critics) is that if you've not cared much for these movies or have outright hated them thus far then this one does little to change your opinion, whereas the people that have been rather ambivalent or decently positive about this series actually found found it to be fairly enjoyable. About 100+ audience ratings of RT thus far and the vast majority have been pretty positive, the actual audience score(s) haven't been released yet but I'm thinking it'll be in the 80s which tend to be the standard scores for a blockbuster. I'm still holding to my prediction that the box-office legs on this will be solid.

I think this and Sonic 2 will get roughly the same score. As of right now this movie has about 50 reviews, and among the top critics thus far its fairly split, with an average rating of 6/10. Although, the vast majority of RT approved critics these days are youtubers, podcasters, and bloggers who tend to be a little more forgiving than those who work for the big trades like Variety, New York Times, etc. The score may fluctuate a bit but I think it'll say in the 60's when it's all said and done. And the audience scores will be fairly high too, if Morbius can have a 70% audience score with such a low critic score than this movie can definitely get into the 80s and even low 90s.

One thing I've noticed in these reactions is that nobody is saying that the movie was confusing and almost nobody has complained about the length, both which could bode well for repeat viewings. Crimes of Grindelwald felt long, muddled, and the plot never really got off the ground. It seems with this movie at least the plot moves along at a decent pace and more stuff to keep your attention.

I do wonder how HBO Max will figure into all this, since I believe this is getting the 45 day release window deal just like The Batman. If there is a noticeable/decent uptick in subscribers when this movie hits HBO Max (early June-ish?) would they factor that into the movies success as well? It does seem like WB is adjusting their expectations more in regards to what they consider a "success".

I'm very curious to see how the box office in April will unfold. The review embargo just lifted for Morbius, a mere day before it releases, and reviews and reactions have been bad across the board. It may open decently but it's legs feel nonexistent now. On the other hand early reactions for FB3 have been more positive than expected so far, things may not be so doom-and-gloom for that franchise after all. The jury still seems to be out on Sonic 2, although we should be seeing some more reactions for it in the next few days.

It's funny looking at the reactions for Morbius then coming over to see the ones for this movie, its like night and day. I think this will get around a 60 something on RT. I do appreciate that most of the reactions are more even-keeled, they get straight to the point regarding "is this better than the 2nd movie?" which is what many people on the fence are curious about. I think this movie will do decently at the box office, between 400-500 WW gross is not too bad all things considered.

I think lower expectations may possibly help this movie a bit, as long as it's an improvement of Crimes of Grindelwald (which I think it is/will be) then I can see critics acknowledging that. I think this will definitely get better reviews than Morbius at least lol.

I think the embargo lifts a day before it opens in theaters. There were already some social media reactions posted in this topic a few pages back that weren't too favorable.

I'd argue just to expand things in general regardless of time period, when a story takes place doesn't really matter to me as long as we're seeing new locations and people with stories that don't directly tie back into the OG series.

The fact that it has no breathing room at all with Sonic 2 and Fantastic Beasts 3 coming in the following weeks pretty much ensured the legs wouldn't be great, especially with people being more aware of those two other movies/franchises than who the Morbius character is.

I thought he was good in Theory of Everything, Trial of the Chicago 7, and a few other things I've seen him in. And honestly what does having "range" even mean anymore and does it really matter these days? It just feels like an arbitrary term people on the internet use that doesn't really mean anything. I don't think actors/actresses themselves really care about having range; some just choose to say in a particular lane where others like to mix things up, there's merit to both approaches. I personally try to judge performances on a case by case basis and try not to think in terms of "oh wow they've taken on a different kind role this time " or "ugh they're just doing the same thing again". I mean we got people like Keanu Reeves, Ryan Reynolds, and The Rock who've pretty much always take the same type of roles and act mostly the same in everything I've seen them in and yet people still love them for the most part. As always it ultimately boils down to subjective tastes more than any type objective measurement.

I'll give credit where its due; he came on to direct the last four movies and managed to finish off the OG series in a satisfying manner, not an easy thing to do. The issue with him now is that he hasn't really evolved since he got involved with Potter, he doesn't really seem interested in taking risks or changing things up. At this point I just want a director who's never been involved with HP to come in and give their own perspective and make a cool fantasy movie/tv show. The brand desperately needs new writers/creatives in the mix.

At this point we can assume that she's only in a few scenes sprinkled throughout, like less than 5 max. I think they gave her role in the story to another character so at best she'll just pop in and say a line or two then disappear from the story until that final scene at the end of the movie.

This Instagram account has photos of Katherine Waterston as Tina from a TV Spot. https://www.instagram.com/p/CbLtmH_Oywo/ Edit: This is the tv spot she's in.

The trailer definitely looks more exciting than the last one, at the very least this movie seems like it will move at a better pace than the Crimes of Grindelwald did. I am curious what the budget for this one is, cause I do hope for their sake they kept it under 200 mil. Even if they brought this down to the first movies 180 mil budget that gives it a better chance of success.

The first movie actually did pretty well box office wise and I've seen more who've said they liked it than those that didn't. The 2nd movie was a disappoint I agree but I don't think this film will do as bad as some people have been saying. At the very least I think this will be have a slow and steady box office run to about 400 mil worldwide. Nothing disastrous but nothing to really write home about.

They definitely have been rather quiet with the promotion on this. I mean look at all the stuff they've been putting out for The Batman, WB is definitely confident in that movie whereas with this movie I think we all now by know there is trepidation surrounding it, they're not gonna over hype this one too much. We likely will be getting another trailer within the next week or two though.

Colin Farrell doesn't do sequels. If you ever looked up his filmography you'd see that he just goes from one film to the next, he stays working and getting paid and doesn't seem too picky on what projects he partakes in. One of the few mainstream-ish actors working today that isn't locked into a specific franchise long term, more power to him.

Alright y'all better tone down this little pro Rowling vs anti Rowling debate going on here before one of the mods decides to lock the thread, its getting a wee bit too political/argumentative here. People can have their opinions but at a certain point everybody needs to move on to something else before it becomes just a bunch of people talking in circles.

I liked Zoe Kravitz in the last movie too and I definitely agree about the wasted potential. I liked that she and Newt had a history and I felt they could have tapped into that more to provide some better character development/backstory for him and her but alas they didn't really do that. Something I remember from the first movie is that Newt was apparently expelled from Hogwarts and a bit later Rowling teased that Leta Lestrange might have had something to do with that. But of course that whole bit of potential backstory/plotline was tossed aside and died with Leta's character, disapointing.

It's been an issue since the 2nd movie, WB wants to keep the brand name but only as a name and not a reflection of what the actual movies are about. I don't know why they didn't just drop the "Fantastic Beasts" part from the title if this series was going to end up being about Dumbledore and Grindelwald anyway. Warner Brothers is just do damn inconsistent with the quality and handling of their franchises lately, its such a case by case basis with them at this point.