Complaining that Hollywood is far too driven by franchise blockbusters, and that nearly every major studio film these days is either a reboot or a sequel or part of some cinematic universe, is like complaining that bad weather is inconvenient.
Sure, you’re correct, but it’s also kind of a pointless thing to be mad at.
Hollywood is driven by franchises because, in short, they are reliable. The studios know that audiences will come out to see them, and there’s nothing any business loves more than a safe bet.
You can also make a strong (and, yes, somewhat depressing) argument that in the age of streaming, franchises are the only thing people want to see anymore. Just ask AMC (AMCX).
So when Hollywood finds a franchise that works, it's very reluctant to let it go. And based on the beloved books by J.K. Rowling, the Harry Potter film series were a beloved cultural touchstone, and one of the most popular film franchises Hollywood has ever seen.
When the series concluded in 2011 with “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2,” it became one of the most popular films of all time, with a $1.342 billion dollar box office. Warner Bros heard the message loud and clear.
The book and film both had a pretty definitive end, but Warner Bros (T) was of the opinion that it couldn’t just let a story end, or a valuable piece of intellectual property lie fallow.
The Fantastic Beasts Franchise Has Always Seemed Like A Stretch
To revive the franchise, Warner Bros and Rowling turned to “Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them,” which was a wizarding textbook mentioned several times in the Harry Potter books.
In 2001, Rowling published a copy of the textbook to raise money for charity.
The textbook was a directory of magical creatures and didn’t really have much in the way of a plot or a main character, but that was deemed to be enough for a five-film extension of what’s been called the Wizarding World franchise.
A new character, the magical creature zoologist Newt Scamander, was created, Jude Law was recruited to play a younger version of Potter character Albus Dumbledore, director David Yates was brought over from the Potter films, and Warner hoped the magic would be forthcoming.
The first film, 2016’s “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them 2016,” got off to a decent enough-start with a not-terrible 66% Metacritic rating and a domestic haul of $234,037,575.
But critics immediately started to sour on the series with the 2018 film “Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald.”
It didn’t help that plenty of critics and fans began to feel uncomfortable supporting the series amid Rowling’s well-publicized anti-trans viewpoints and accusations of domestic abuse against star Johnny Depp.
The latest film, “Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore,” presented Warner Bros a chance to start over, at least in terms of its public image.
Depp has been recast with “Hannibal” actor, Mads Mikkelsen, and the series producers and creatives have tried to put as much distance between the films and Rowling’s viewpoints as possible, even as she remains a co-screenwriter of the latest film.
But as soon as Depp was out of the picture, Warner Bros had to deal with star Ezra Miller's many recent arrests.
So Warner really needs a strong film to change the conversation about this series. But the reviews for the new film are now in, and critics think this is the worst film in the franchise yet.
Warner Bros.
What Are Critics Saying About 'Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore'?
While reviewers generally believe that Mikkelsen is a significant improvement over Depp (he’s been largely seen as on autopilot in these films), the story is still viewed as thin.
The use of Dumbledore still largely comes across like cheap fan service, and the series as a whole can’t escape the feeling that it’s a cash grab that doesn’t say anything new about the Harry Potter world.
Of course, fans have their own opinions, and we’ll follow-up with their reactions when the film is widely released on Friday. But for now, here’s the biggest film critic takes.
Hey, at least someone likes it.
