velvetlaptop

Kids movies are movies marketed exclusively to an audience of children. Marvel and Star Wars don't even fit that bill, though they come closer to it than Wizarding World content - which is objectively darker and more adult in tone, and, guess what, actually plays to a primary audience of adults at the box office, unlike the former two. They're all four quadrant franchises, or family franchises - kids content is a label designed for that which is exclusively meant for children rather than young adults or adults.

@Eric Sparrow Except they're not "kids movies" and haven't remotely been marketed like they are, and haven't been written or made for an audience exclusive to kids at all. Black Widow is much closer to being in a "kids movie" brand than Crimes of Grindelwald is, yet for some reason, I bet you're pretending Black Widow is somehow for a more adult audience as you excitedly fan out about it on it's own respective thread. Trollishly and insultingly repeating it over and over again to legitimize your dismissive feelings toward the franchise doesn't make it any more legitimate. No one else sees a PG-13 fantasy film in which infants are murdered and WW2 is a theme as a kids movie, and I'd be interested to know how you're ignoring those facts to be so determined to label them as such? What convoluted, inaccurate perspective on the franchise do you hold that allows you to see the franchise in such a way that is utterly incongruent with the reality of it's content and marketing and intended audience? It's nonsense, determined condescension. Sorry, maybe I shouldn't rise to this trolling attempt, but it represents a real problem that I think the series is facing. There is nothing about the content, tone, marketing style, etc, of the franchise that remotely resembles kids media - but you have a cohort of people who seem to have a vested interest in dismissing the content as such to excuse their lack of investment and knowledge. This, unfortunately, colors how they view each new installment, which is why you get people who 1) can't follow the story properly and 2) gasp about "how dark!" each new installment is. This is, I should emphasize again, ridiculous in a landscape where much more lighthearted and childish content like Star Wars and Marvel is taken deadly serious by adult audiences. Face up to the facts instead of baselessly accusing people of malfeasance. Who is dcasey?

The second one played to an audience of 70% over 25. Just going off the content and marketing alone, anyone pretending Crimes of Grindelwald was marketed towards an audience of children in any significant way is being deliberately condescending and diminutive. That's hardly been the case for the entire franchise since around Azkaban/Goblet.

@Eric Sparrow They wouldn't have PG-13 ratings, and their box office break downs wouldn't reveal a 70% make up of 25+ year olds if that were the case. David Heyman specifically rejected the "kids movie title" in 2011, and I'd love to see another example of a "kids movie" franchise with a naked make out, a girl getting a slur carved into her arm, WW2 images, implied rape, and 2 infant murders... No, Eric. Frozen is a kids movie. Maybe a couple of Marvel films fit the bill at the oldest range. Acting like these films have been marketed exclusively for kids is evidence of the kind of determined patronization that I'm talking about. Your ego refuses to credit them with the maturity they deserve, for some reason.

I don't think it really matters how well received or not it is. FB2 represents a bottoming out for the franchise. That's how much it grosses with the most negative coverage possible - it will always have enough of an international audience to keep it from bombing to Solo levels, and they can easily adjust the budgets waaay down if they need to. It should be fine. I'd expect 550 - 800 million grosses until the 5th film, which could net 900 - 1 B+ if they market it and the preceding films well enough. Philosopher's Stone grossed a ton in China recently and just reached 1 B. FB3 just going into filming right about now puts this franchise in a good position to take advantage of it's convenient late 2021 release date and the Coronavirus situation...Crimes of Grindelwald, also, performed decently in the ancillary market.

The third film is, according to multiple sources, including Dan Fogler, not "simpler and lighter", and it shouldn't be. A WW2 adjacent franchise film can't regress in tone...I don't know why anyone would want a "lighter" film here...we had it as light as we should go with FB1.

I'm responding to this way late, but I found this and had to chime in- To address the box office thing, the biggest issue was the disappointment in the domestic market - America is not big on the Wizarding World like Europe and parts of East Asia are. I don't think this franchise is in any danger, and looking at some of these ridiculously melodramatic claims is just eye-roll worthy. Seriously, erroneously ending the film franchise with the third one because one film in a franchise with zero title/brand recognition grossed 653 million globally...this film in question being a sequel to a film with even less proof of concept that grossed 800 million worldwide, netted positive reviews, and the Wizarding World's first Oscar win, and a Bafta win to boot? Come on you guys, use your brains. Warner Bros would not terminate their most consistently acclaimed and lucrative creative universe/franchise because one of the 10 films released so far took a stumble. Be realistic here - the fact that you even entertained the idea that they would terminate the franchise at film 3 just shows that your criticisms are overwrought, baseless, arbitrary, lacking in intelligence, wildly melodramatic, and pre-determined. That's what you, for some mean-spirited reason, want to happen, not something that would remotely happen. They made quality films - that's my problem with a lot of these pre-determined criticisms. I think you were aware there was a huge element of pre-determined hatred even before Fantastic Beasts 1 came out? I don't buy the Crimes of Grindelwald negativity at all - a number of the Potter films were poorly constructed, poorly edited, horribly paced, shoddily designed, badly acted, and poorly directed in ways Crimes of Grindelwald was definitely not. Crimes of Grindelwald represented a high water mark for creativity in this franchise. I loved the film because it seemed much more creative and much more candid and fluid in the way it represented it's magic than any of the Potter films did. The world-building was spectacular beyond anything in Potter, the themes were specific and strong, and the design was objectively amazing. Crimes of Grindelwald (and the inexplicably better reviewed Fantastic Beast and Where to Find Them) both falter from trying to fit too much into some of the shortest films in the entire franchise. There is no reason why a story that takes place across continents, about a global war, with an ensemble cast of characters, should have only 5 films, 2 of which are limited to 2 hrs and 13 min - versus the POV story about one kid set in one setting for the vast majority of an 8 film story, a number of those films totaling just over 2 hrs 30 min long. The Fantastic Beast films are otherwise excellently made, and much more cinematic and inspiring and interesting than the Potter films, imo - but they're too short for the story they're trying to tell. The negative reviews are really just pure psychological shaping. You had hatred of Rowling and Depp going into the film that engendered harsh, pre-determined negativity, and the usual cohort of Potter contrarians who's modus operandi is condescension and patronization towards the brand - the "Harry Potter is for kids" crowd, who always pearl clutch in their reviews about "how dark!" each new installment is. These people are often determined to view the franchise through a diminutive, rose-tinted lens in an effort to prevent the series from receiving any ounce of credit for it's maturity. This is a problem, because what you end up having is a demographic of people who simply refuse to take the story as seriously as it requires you to take it, and who are approaching the film with a lack of investment and a childish regard that is insufficient to enable anyone to properly follow and understand the story at hand. These same grown adults take Star Wars and Marvel films deadly serious, but refuse to do the same for Potter, which has always been much more adult in theme. The-"The film sucks! The title says Fantastic Beasts and it's not about Fantastic Beasts"-crowd are sort of what I'm talking about. To be so obtuse that you 1) can't understand metaphor and 2) take everything literally enough that you develop expectations that the film will be something that it clearly isn't, and isn't trying to market itself as, is honestly staggering. This isn't Pokemon, Bob. Come on. It was agenda-driven criticism that's to blame for the negative reviews. I haven't heard a single emphatically negative review outside of the internet. Everyone I dragged along to the film liked it, my dad and friend giving emphatically positive reviews, and my brother saying it wasn't the greatest, but was definitely a decent, intriguing and well-designed film otherwise.