Fantastic Beasts - $25.7M
Instant Family - $4.5M
Widows - $4.2M

Grinch - $8.91M
Bohemian - $4.25M

Meh for Potter. What big movie goes down from early estimates? And it doesn’t seem to have much family presence to soften the Saturday drop.

Not sure what happened with Instant Family but I’m sure it will have nice legs over the holidays.

Widows isn’t going anywhere though. Over 50% of the audience was white so at least we know where they went wrong in the marketing. Sounds like a quality film, but the cinemascore is a very weak B.

Yeah outside of The Grinch those numbers are trash man. Really disappointing for Widows and Instant Family and FB2 pretty much free falled from those early estimates. It's not getting anywhere near $70M at this point and it's very likely that it won't even come close to the The Grinch's OW.

I expected much more for GREEN BOOK - $93,000 in 25 theaters is pretty bad...

I expected much more for GREEN BOOK - $93,000 in 25 theaters is pretty bad...

Wait over 50% of the audience was white? So it really didn't have any urban appeal at all. Not that it probably would have made a huge difference anyways, but this is the kind of flick I expected to get stronger support from urban audiences.

Overlord and The Girl in the Spider's Web both had savage Friday-to-Friday drops.

Fantastic Beasts 2 is going to die incredibly fast. It is the least accessible Potter-franchise film by far. Honestly, I believe it would be easier for a Potter novice to watch and enjoy part two of Deathly Hallows than it will be for non-obsessives to vibe to this slow-moving medley of arcane references and B-plot concerns ("who is Credence's mother?!").

It has the feel of a flagging franchise, especially since Warner Bros. wants audiences to stay invested until Dumbledore and Grindewald duel in November 2024.

Wait a minute, was the Snowstorm on the east coast still a factor on Friday?

The first Fantastic Beasts had a healthy 3+ multiplier... Crimes of Grindlewald will be lucky to get a 2.5 multiplier unless it plays above average until the big holiday releases. Don't think any of us saw this grossing less than A Star is Born or Crazy Rich Asians for WB.

Yes indeed. I thought it was going to do much better.

Everything this weekend did poorly though except Grinch. Even A Star Is Born is dropping 48% with less competition than usual.

Bring on the Thanksgiving rebound.

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/

Gosh even A Star Is Born and Venom fell hard. Fantastic Beasts somehow underwhelmed and killed the market at the same time.

Weather could have been a factor? Some of these films dropped very badly.

Saw Fantastic Beasts last night and don't see it holding that well. I think Creed massively overperforms next weekend and Ralph does solidly.

This does open a window for The Grinch in the marketplace though. Beasts is a one week pony so it looks like its Ralph/Grinch combo only for the rest of the holidays for families until Spiderman.

Girl in the Spider's Web won't hit $20m. Fucking embarassing.

I even have Grinch beating Fantastic Beasts next weekend.

Disappointing Friday. Instant Family and Widows are both underwhelming. The Grinch did OK but really it should have increased 300%+ given historical data. Maybe it's just the calm before the storm effect.

Widows' soft performance surprises me. It seemed so strong on paper. Just the concept alone--action star Liam Neeson dies, and Viola Davis as his wife tries to finish his next job. Seemed a great way to bridge the art-house and the multiplex, white and black communities, men and women.

How is that going wrong in the marketing? Trying to appeal to the dominant moviegoing audience of America. Yeah. Sounds like a flawed plan!

This makes the Hobbit films look more impressive. Despite mixed reception, they held very consistently, all of them did $950m-$1b worldwide. HP and LOTR were comparable grossers in the early 2000s, yet Hobbit is going to end up way outperforming the Fantastic Beasts films.

Well, The Hobbit was directly linked to the Rings films. Beasts might not even have been known by the general audience to be a Harry Potter film unless they do research. And they only started adding familiar characters when it was too late.

lol, nah. It being linked to the HP universe was widely known. If you remember, that was one of the only hands WB had to play to get people to the cinema, and they played it.

The difference is The Hobbit is one of the most popular books of all time in itself whereas Fantastic Beasts has to introduce a whole new story to people. If Jackson made a trilogy out of The Silmarillion I bet it doesn't come close to the Hobbit

Having not seen either film, the title of this series and either beasts or Newt's role in it just seems confusing. It seems like the draw is Dumbledore in his prime and the wizarding world in the 20s-40s, and the rise of wizard fascism mirroring the real world's. So why is the series named like it's about a guy running around in the wild throwing nets over beasts? It's like if the Star Wars prequels were named "How to build humanoids" and they built all three films around this protagonist who built C-3PO instead of the Anakin and Obi Wan story. A HP prequel series built around "Dumbledore and the _________" that fills in the gaps of his battles, sexuality, etc. could have been a monster