Showing posts with label Harry Potter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Harry Potter. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 09, 2015

Six More Favorite Journalism Stories

This is a continuation of a series talking about some of my favorite journalism and writing experiences that began with this post.

1. Lining Up for the Harry Potter Premiere, Connection Newspapers (2011) (Link)
For the midnight screening of the final installment of the eight-part Harry Potter series, an intern (who took pictures because my camera was broken) and I went to the local multiplex and interviewed a bunch of costumed moviegoers about their fandom. The midnight screenings of a new film are generally when movie going has its most communal aspect and for this much-anticipated screening, Harry Potter fans went positively berserk with costumes and revelry. Movie writing and local journalism don't intersect often but this story was a fun exception to the rule that turned into a great scene piece.

I also have a lot of fondness for this story because I don't believe Box Office Mojo tells the full how and why of why people make their way to the movie theaters and I used this assignment as an opportunity to dig deeper into a cross-section of Harry Potter watchers and discover their entry point into the fandom.

2. Newt Gingrich Rally, AOL Patch News Service (2011) (Link)
This marks the only time I've covered politics outside of a county board meeting. I did a couple articles for Patch at this point after having just left The Connection and I heard about a Newt Gingrich rally taking place at the Key Bridge Marriot (my gym at the time was on the bottom floor) so I pitched that.

This ended up being a last minute assignment. I don't follow politics as much as I should (if memory serves, this was the only presidential rally I've been to period) but I learned as I went along that Newt Gingrich was trying to get himself on the ballot for the Virginia primary in late 2011 and was trying to get legitimacy from the Mitt Romney (the eventual presidential candidate the next year) campaign and get him to agree to a debate.

The event itself was a whirlwind of activity and it helped that some of the other reporters filled me in as I went along. There's a good chance that I will recognize another reporter if he is in Northern Virginia but political reporters are a different species entirely. 

The person who helped the most was a guy dining at the hotel bar with the other political wonks.  I asked him for a quote and when he seemed amenable,  I asked him for further assistance in clarifying what I had just seen. It turned out he was a former campaign manager of Christine O'Donnell (who was parodied on SNL and other comedy shows for claims of practicing witch craft) and it was interesting to hear his take on the reality of the person verse the caricature.

I had little chance at getting close to Newt Gingrich that night as there was a blizzard of people trying to shake his hand and get his autograph. The only time I've ever seen a famous person at an airport, it was Newt Gigrich approximately 10 months later in October of 2012. He watched the Romney-Obama debate analysis on TV in the Delta Lounge (that he could have been in if he played his cards right) then walked down the concourse like any ordinary joe. It was just so sad that everyone wanted to get close to him and no one even cared ten months later that he was walking through the terminal with them.

3. A Day on the Set of Parks and Recreation, Washington City Paper (2012) (Link)
I am on the DC Film Office's e-mail list and got a notice about filming for Parks and Recreation and because I felt like I had a good idea where they'd be, I decided to take my chances, blindly e-mail the editor and commute into the city to see if I could catch the production.

Up until I got to the location, I had no idea if any of this would work or if the editor would write me back saying "thanks but no thanks." What I'm about to write is a pretty cool story but keep in mind if you think my livelihood is as cool that there are a lot of stories that start off this way and end up not materializing. In place of this exciting tale, I could fill pages of extremely boring stories of ideas that did not pan out.

In any case, this was a time where everything did work to plan. They were filming on the far end of the National Mall (a wide open space) so I walked several blocks seeing this camera crew turn from a blip into the thing I was looking for.

All at once, I was part of a lively zoo of activity despite the fact that the only shots being done that afternoon were talking head segments with Chris Pratt (Aubrey Plaza was on hand as well). I was in the mix of several dozen D.C. office drones playing hooky from work so they could catch a glimpse of their favorite show (I suspect the bureaucratic satire angle of Parks and Recreation plays well with D.C. wonks). At one point, I was an unapologetic fan boy myself shouting "hey Chris!" at Pratt. I was even an extra on the set (because they had one of those signs saying "if you cross this line into the shot, you are now an extra, hope you're OK with that").

Moreso, within approximately five or ten minutes of arriving, I was officially a reporter on the scene as I got an e-mail giving me the green light. From there, it was a pretty easy process of just absorbing everything around me and there was a lot of activity to go off. At one point, I got a couple minutes with director Dean Holland: I just asked him what he was shooting and whether he had figured out that DC has an ample amount of P & R fans. The latter was fairly apparent because their DC shoot had been ambushed by fans all week. I got to yell at Aubrey Plaza, "Could you move a little to the left?" as I was trying to take a picture of her meeting Mayor Vincent Gray (she complied). I also got a minute with Chris to say I loved his character and got to take a picture with him.

4. Maccabeats Come to Town, Richmond Times Dispatch (2012) (Link)
I moved to Richmond in January 2012 and lived there on and off for approximately nine months. It wasn't until I moved back to Northern Virginia that I broke into the Richmond newspaper market. I lived on the fringes of the Jewish Orthodox community of Richmond and thought that was a fascinating subculture but I never succeeded (despite some talks with Richmond Magazine) to publish anything about the Richmond Jewish community during my stay there.

What newspapers generally need is to be able to pin a cultural phenomenon to an event. When I first moved to Richmond all the buzz my first weekend was about an a capella group of Orthodox Jews called the Maccabeats that came from Yeshiva University which is the preeminent Orthodox University in the country. When the Maccabeats came to perform they apologized that one of their members, Ari Lewis, couldn't make it down. Lewis was a local and it was a sign of how tight the community was that nearly everyone in the audience knew him and lamented his absence. They also said that they'd return next year which gave me two crucial things I needed for easy story placement: a local angle, and a date to pin the story to.

For the first time, Richmond Times Dispatch (the largest paper I would write for at the time) greenlit a story. One snag was that Ari's mother had known me as an attendant of the Jewish Community Center where she served as the arts director but hadn't known that I was a reporter so there was an understandable degree of caution that she had about entrusting her story to me. She wanted final approval of my draft which newspapers do not generally provide. She and the JCC called the newspaper to double check about my status. This could have been a red light but arts editor Cindy Creasy said I did work there (despite only being a freelancer who'd never written anything for there) and backed me up completely. This was an extremely kind gesture of hers that got the story moving along and turned it into a success for everyone. On another story, Creasy took time out of her day to meet with me personally to help revise my story.

Although Creasy never let up on rejecting most of my story ideas, she did go out of her way on a couple occasions to help me and I would love to say that I continue to have a relationship with her and the RTD. Unfortunately, Cindy passed away of a heart attack in July of 2014. RIP

5. Richmond Violinist, Richmond Style Weekly (2015) (Link)
After Cindy's passing, there were no other editors at the RTD who knew me made it difficult to continue an association to the newspaper. I essentially had to get in the door again and didn't have luck.

In mid-2013, I went to the Richmond folk life festival: Partially to get out of the house and partially to search for stories. Among them was a fiddle player who had made his own fiddle and had a business making violins from scratch.

It wasn't the fact that he made violins (a profession that most towns have) but that he made his violins from scratch and sourced his own ingredients. It was also the explanation and enthusiasm he had for his craft that made him a good story. If someone can explain something about themselves in a detailed and interesting manner, it's going to help your story because you'll have ready-made quotes and they will be able to fill in the gaps in your research well.

The most interesting thing about this story is that it took nearly two years to see this story in print. At the time, I thought I might have a chance to sell stories to the Richmond Style Weekly or the Richmond Times Dispatch as I had written for both of those publications. Aside from Cindy's passing at RTD, the editor at the Style Weekly had moved to the Washington Post leaving one of my articles stranded in transit along with any other pitches (including this one).

The Style Weekly was kind enough to give me a small kill fee for the article that had been submitted before the editor left, but the newspaper was too busy reshuffling its organization to receive my stories. I randomly called them up a year later and a guy who was the new style editor heard my pitch and basically said "sure."

Another interesting thing about this article was that it was done remotely. Being on site is crucial to articles some times. In this case, I had a hard time grasping some of the terms he was using in violin making and his process in general. To better understand this, I visited a violin shop in Baltimore when I was passing through that area and asked that store's proprietor for a little tour of sorts. He wasn't enthusiastic that I was writing about a violinist other than him, but he eventually obliged.

6. 12 Classic Movie Moments Made Possibly by Abuse and Murder, Cracked (2011) (Link)

Cracked is an internet offshoot of the old humor magazine that specializes in listicles packed with heavy doses of sophomoric humor and the kind of interesting tidbits of trivia that ordinarily require deep research. I fell in love with Cracked in 2007 and decided to try to write for in 2008. They have a policy that anyone can pitch for them on their forums but it wasn't until the 2010's that Cracked had an orderly process for going about it with intermediaries between the editors and writers called moderators.

Before that, it was the wild wild west and civility wasn't particularly strong either. I was laughed off the boards when I first tried pitching ideas and otherwise ignored by editors unless I could get hold of them through a personal message. One editor named Kristi Harrison gave me a whiff of encouragement after I left a complimentary comment on her block but that was about it.

A couple years later, I had an article idea about great directors that were hell to work with citing John Ford, Michael Curtiz, Gene Kelly and one-time director Marlon Brando. Generally with Cracked, you make the connection that two or three pieces of trivia in your head are grounds for an interrelated topic and then research from there. I was so unsure of myself, that my introductory message read:

"I have an article that could be very funny because there are some pretty far-out stories here and they aren't particularly well-known either. People know the names of many of these famous directors and it's a valid assumption that directors can sometimes be temperamental geniuses on set, but the extent of some of these directors will surprise.

I got all the research, I've got the article, I've even got the outline of something funny. So much of being funny, however, comes down to wording...choosing the right words for hyperbole and the like-and I haven't proven that I can do that yet to the satisfaction of the cracked team and have had no articles published to date."


What I didn't know was that in 2011 when I pitched this, Cracked had become a much more civil environment so they just responded with a blunt response here:

"It doesn't work that way... Pitch it. Get feedback. If it works, and the worst comes to the worst, the editors are dick joke ninjas." [ed. note: I'm just quoting the responder, I have no idea what the last three words mean]

From there, people surprised me by giving me helpful feedback on formatting and notes and eventually I got the attention of editors who pared me up with other writers which eventually lead to my first completed article. Because it was my idea, I was considered the lead writer, but many of the entries were written by other people and even the content on my article was spruced up by the editors (especially in the humor department). The article ended up getting 6 million views and there have even been a couple people in real life who knew of my article before knowing I wrote it. Despite all that, I'm generally prouder of the artices the consist more of my own words or original intent. Yes, 6 million page views for something with my name in the byline but the byline doesn't tell the whole story.













Sunday, January 27, 2008

The most star-packed rosters of 2004-2007

As determined by combined number of Oscar nominations when the films were released. The lists are highly skewed by Meryl Streep, but it's an interesting list. Also do you notice that there's virtually no correlation between number of stars you have in an animated film and the amount it grosses? I also notice that the numbers will inevitably get smaller the further back you go, and that's because oscars are handed out at a faster rate than Oscar-winning actors are dying (or in rare cases, retiring from acting, but noone ever truly retires, just ask Hugh Grant, Julia Roberts, Dan Akroyd, Jamie Lee Curtis, etc.):

2007:
1. Evening 26: Meryl Streep 14, Toni Collete 1, Vanessa Redgrave 6, Glenn Close 5
2. Stardust 19- Robert De Niro 6, Peter O’Toole 8, Michelle Pfieffer 3, Ian McKellan 2
Rendition 19: Meryl Streep 14, Alan Arkin 3, Jake Gyllenhall 1, Reeee Whitherspoon 1
4. Lions for Lambs 18: Meryl Streep 14, Tom Cruise 3, Robert Redford 1
5. Bucket List- 16: Jack Nicholson 12, Morgan Freeman 4
5. Harry Potter & the Order of Pheonix 16-Emma Thompson 4, Ralph Feinnes 2, Imadela Staunton 1 Maggie Smith 6, Helena Bohman Carter 1, Julie Walters 2
5. Ocean’s 13-16: Al Pacino 8, Matt Damon 1, Brad Pitt 1 George Clooney 1, Don Cheadle 1, Elliot Gould 1, David Paymer 1, Andy Garcia 1, Oprah Winfrey 1
8. National Treasure 2 14: Ed Harris 4, Jon Voight 4, Helen Mirren 3, Nicholas Cage 2, Harvey Keitel 1
9. Charlie Wilson’s War 10: Tom Hanks 5, Amy Adams 1, Julia Roberts 3, Philip Seymour Hoffman 1
9. Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead 10-Albert Finney 5, Ethan Hawke 1, Marissa Thomei 2, Philip Seymour Hoffman 1, Rosemary Harris 1
9. Bourne Ultimatum 10-Matt Damon 1, Joan Allen 3, Albert Finney 5, David Strathain 1
Elizabeth and the Golden Age 9: Cate Blanchett 3, Samantha Morton 2, Geoffery Rush 3, Clive


2006:
Prairie Home Companion 20: Meryl Streep 13, Kevin Kline 1, Woody Harrelson 1, Virginia Madsen 1, Lily Tomlin 1, John C Riley 1, Tommy Lee Jones 2
Ant Bully 20: Meryl Streep 13, Julia Roberts 3, Nicholas Cage 2, Paul Giamatti 1, Lilly Tomlin 1
Departed 16: Leo DiCaprio 2, Jack Nicholson 12, Matt Damon 1, Alec Baldwin 1
Good Shephard 16: Robert De Niro 6, William Hurt 4, Joe Pesci 2, Alec Baldwin 1, Matt Damon 1, Angelina Jolie 1, Timothy Hutton 1
All the King’s Men 15: Anthony Hopkins 4, Kate Winslet 4, Jude Law 2, Sean Penn 4, Patricia Clarkson 1
Devil Wears Prada 13: Meryl Streep 13
Venus 13: Peter O’Toole 7, Vanessa Redgrave 6
Inside Man 12: Jodie Foster 4, Denzel Washington 5, Clive Owen 1, Willem Dafoe 2
Stranger than Fiction 13: Dustin Hoffman 7, Queen Latifah 1, Emma Thompson 4, Tom Hulce 1
Children of Men 11: Clive Owen 1, Michael Caine 6, Julianne Moore 4

2005 is the weakest year on record:
1. Prime 14-Streep 13, Uma Thurman 1
Baman Begins 13-Wattanabe 1, Freeman 4, Caine 6, Wilkinson 1, Niesson 1
Bewitched 13-Kidman 2, Caine 6, MacLaine 5
4. Robots 11-J Broadbent 1, H Berry 1, J Earl Jones 1, G Kinnear 1, D Weist 3, R Williams 6
5 Corpse Bride 10-Emily Watson 2, Helena Bohman Carter 1, Jonny Depp 2, Albert Finney 5
5 Racing Sripes 10-Dustin Hoffman 7, Michael Clarke Duncan 1, Whoopi Goldberg 2
5. Harry Potter 10-Miranda Richardson 2, Maggie Smith 6, Ralph Feinnes 2
8 Two for the Money 8-A Pacino 8
8 Weatherman 8-Cage 2, Caine 6
8 Hide and Seek 8-Robert De Niro 6, Elizabeth Shue 1, Amy Irving 1

2004:
1. Lemony Snicket 22-Hoffman 7, Streep 13, Jude Law 2
1. Manchurian Candidate 22-John Voight 4, Denzel Washington 5, Meryl Streep 13
3. Meet the Fockers 15-Dustin Hoffman 7, Robert De Niro 6, Barbara Streissand 2
3. Finding Neverland 15-Jonny Depp 1, Kate Winslet 3, Julie Christie 3, Dustin Hoffman 7
3. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azhkaban 15-Maggie Smith 6, Julie Christie 3, Emma Thompson 4, Julie Walters 2
6. I Heart Huckabees 13-Lily Tomlin 1, Dustin Hoffman 7, Jude Law 2, Someone whose name I can't remember 2, Naiomi Watts 1
6. Ocean's 12 13-Catherine Zeta Jones 1, Albert Finney 5, Julia Roberts 3, Andy Garcia 1, Matt Damon 1, Brad Pitt 1, Elliot Gould 1
6. Shark Tale 13-Will Smith 1, Rene Zellweger 3, Robert De Niro 6, Angelina Jolie 1, Peter Falk 2
8. Troy 11-Peter O'Toole 7, Brad Pitt 1, Julie Christie 2
8. Stepford Wives 11-Glenn Close 5, Christopher Walken 2, Nicole Kidman 2,
10. Merchant of Venice 9-Jeremy Irons 1, Al Pacino 8
10. Aflie 9-Jude Law 2, Susan Sorandon 5, Marissa Thomei 2
10. Aviator 9-Leo DiCaprio 1, Cate Blanchett 1, Alec Baldwin 1, John C Riley 1, Ian Holm 1, Jude Law 2, Wilhem Defoe 2

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Reading through oversimplified blurbs

Yesterday in USA Today, there was a blurb that read as follows:


"Matt Damon is filmdom's sexiest moneymaker. His The Bourne Ultimatum outgunned The Simpsons at the box office ($131.6 million for Bourne in its second week vs. $128.1 million for The Simpsons). The under-the-radar leading man was named most bankable actor by Forbes. Maybe Ocean's Thirteen co-star George Clooney had the inside track last year when he said Damon should be People's next Sexiest Man Alive?"

The main takeaway from this is that Forbes Magazine really needs to stick to non-movie analysis.

It's true that the "Bourne Ultimatum" is successful but to be considered a bankable actor over the course of your career, you should have to show two hits in a row on your resume. The last movie that starred Matt Damon (an ensemble piece like "Ocean's 13" doesn't really count) was "The Good Shepherd" which netted only $59 million domestically. Not too long before that, "Syriana" netted in just $50 million despite high critical praise and Terry Gilliam's "The Brothers Grimm" earned $37 million.

Box Office Mojo calculates the average gross of a Matt Damon film to be $80.4 million dollars. If we remove the four films (not including cameos) he appeared in prior to his breakout role in Good Will Hunting ("School Ties", "Geronimo", "Courage Under Fire", and "The Rainmaker") that's adjusted to $90.2 million which is still not as good as the unadjusted figures for Jim Carrey ($102 million), Steve Carell ($108.6 million), Tom Cruise ($99.9 million, although he's averaged $120 million since his breakout role in Top Gun), Harrison Ford ($106 million), or Orlando Bloom ($207 million).

One wouldn't expect a Matt Damon movie to necessarily do well because he usually chooses roles like "Bourne Ultimatum", "Syrianna", and "Good Shepherd" with political subtexts that could tend to polarize audiences like Sean Penn. This is not to say Matt Damon is not a truly gifted and admirably intelligent actor because he is. Damon is not a bankable actor but that is because he chooses not to be: He chooses roles carefully and diversifies his challenges.

The problem is to prematurely label him as the new "It boy" in Hollywood and pin lofty commercial expectations on him and his future projects.

Lastly, who's to say "The Bourne Ultimatum" is successful? It's only been out 2 weekends, and it had a 52 percent falloff rate on the second weekend whereas 40-45 percent is considered the average drop off. The article also says it beat the Simpsons movie's 10-day total, but who cares? "The Simpsons" movie was only the sixth highest ten-day total of the summer. "Bourne Ultimatum" didn't beat "Transformers" or "Harry Potter" which didn't have the advantage of being the back-ends of trilogies.

The lesson: Do not read too much into oversimplified blurbs that are written by people with short-term memory. They're created out of little more than a need to throw a couple of facts together into a paragraph to make copy look interesting

Another case in point: USA Today's movie round-up on the front page of the Life section in this very same issue:

"Transformers at No. 11 this weekend, becomes the fourth movie to cross the $300 million mark this year, a record number. This summer is on par to become the largest of all time, with ticket sales up 6% over 2004, the current record holder."

On the contrary, this summer is highly disappointing if ticket sales are up only 6% over 2004. Transformers is the fourth movie to cross the $300 million mark but considering that past installments of the "Shrek", "Spiderman" and the "Pirates of the Caribbean" series have each grossed over $400 million* the third installments were in a position to easily sleepwalk their way into $300 million grosses, which is precisely what they did. The critical consensus is that "Shrek the Third" was an entirely unnecessary tack-on, "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End" was incomprehensible, and "Spiderman III" was arguably decent with some definite cringeworthy moments. The fact that the back-ends of the three most successful summer movie trilogies of the decade were all premiering this summer and none of them grossed more than $340 million is an indication of how they disappointed audiences. "Transformers" is an unabashed success but it's still too early to tell if "Bourne Ultimatum" or "Harry Potter" will join them.

*Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl, Shrek II, and Spiderman are among just seven movies to gross over $400 million. Spiderman II grossed $373 million which places it among the top 10 all-time




Saturday, May 26, 2007

Predicting Pirates will sweep the box office

I don't yet have a review of Pirates of Caribbean as I will see the movie tomorrow. Nevertheless, I am going to predict that Pirates of the Caribbean comes out on top this summer at the box office race and I just wanted to post it here before the box office report comes out.

My reasons:
1. It has more family appeal than Spiderman in my opinion, because Jack Sparrow might be more popular with kids. This is just my guess but Captain Jack Sparrow might be a little bit more appealing to kids at a slightly younger age, while Spiderman/Peter Parker is more of an adolescent hero. At the same time, Pirates might appeal to adults more because because many people in their 50s or 60s might have grown up on Pirate Movies as a kid and this is an effective homage to the genre. This is interesting because it's the first time the Pirates and Spiderman, the two biggest summer giants of the decade have squared off in the same season.

2. The release schedules. Spiderman 1's release at the beginning of the summer several weeks before any other movies came out was a strategy that paid off and shot the film northward of $300 million dollars. However, with two juggernauts being released within 2 and 3 weeks of Spiderman's opening in Shrek the Third and Pirates III, that is going to cut into its intake. Expect Spiderman to drop significantly this weekend. Pirates III has a wide open field that I doubt Ocean's 13 will do much to affect in a couple of weeks. The truth is that all three films will hurt their chances to realize their maximum profit by releasing their films so close to each other. And it's such a shame because it's all on memorial day, but Pirates will hurt itself the least. Pirates might not equal Spiderman's opening 3 day record, but it might gross higher in the long run. At least, I hope so because I am a pirate lover

3. Pirates has good reviews, whatever that's worth. It's even enough to get viewers on board who aren't familiar with the series, period.


So my predictions:
Spiderman III: $360 million
Shrek the third: $319 million (on the plus, there's no other kids' movies for competition, but May is a crowded month)
Pirates II:
Opening weekend: $124 million, total $387 million



Other summer films:
-Ocean's 13 will be an interesting choice. It's director Stephen Sodebergh won an oscar for his innovative film making in traffic and has since been nothing if not innovative and constantly experimenting with the medium (i.e. Full Frontal, Bubble, Good German). At the same time, a lot of these films are just plain awful. Unfortunately, Ocean's 12 fell under the same trap of a filmmaker so caught up in experimentation that he forgot to hold his story together with a coherent plot. Still, the greatness and potential of the director is evident and that might be enough for many to fill the seats. The film's gross is also hard to predict because the previous films were released during December and this one will be released in the Summer. Considering the first one made $183 million domestically, I'm gonna guess that this one can hit the $200 million mark if it gets decent to good reviews
Prediction: $49 mil opening $220 million

-Evan Almighty: the first film was a $200 mil+ hit. Evan Almighty has practically nothing to do with Bruce Allmighty in the sense that while Morgan Freeman still plays God, Jennifer Anniston and Jim Carrey are gone. This is just a cheap attempt to capitalize on Steve Carrell's rising stock and framing it as a sequel. So the question is how appealing is Steve Carrell? Well, the 40-Year Old Virgin did well but that was through good word-of-mouth, Steve Carrell as a break-out star, a catchy gimmick, and the revered reputation of writer/director Judd Apatow. I hear that if a guy is on a TV show, it's difficult to get anyone pay to see him in a movie when the TV show is free. I bet this one will be a little subpar on expectations
Prediction: $32 mil opening $121 mil

-Fantastic Four: The first one had bad reviews, a great opening weekend at $55.7 million, and a slightly above average total at $154 million total. In other words, this difference between great opening weekend and decent total means great hype but not-so-great word of mouth. I think the studio that funded this project underestimated the need for the sequel. Jessica Alba's growth as a star attraction will have to help move this film along. The film also needs to hope that comic book geeks will flock to the film for the added attraction of the Silver Surfer and unlike the first film, moviegoers might be more deterred by bad reviews if they occur a second time. This is what sunk Tomb Raider II and Charlie's Angels II.
Prediction: $44 mil opening, $152 mil

-Transformers: The transformers are a nostalgic trip for those raised in the 80s, but that's a small, small demographic, and I don't think live action will appeal as well. It's produced by Spielberg, which might sound like a sure thing, but remember: it's not directed or written by him. I predict this to be a bust, unfortunately. I am predicting this to be a humongous, humongous flop, by the way. This is the equivalent of predicting a 13 seed over a 4 seed in the NCAA tournament
Prediction: $19 mil opening, $100 mil

-Harry Potter V: The last Harry Potter movie to open in the summer was Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azhkaban which had a respectable opening en route to $249 million dollars. I see no reason why this film will do better or worse than that one. If people are falling out of interest in the series, (which I don't think they are), I think the quality of the films is increasing anyway. It's getting a great release date, about 6 weeks after people will get tired of Pirates, so I predict slightly higher
Prediction: $66 mil opening, $258 mil

-Simpsons: Let's face it, the Simpsons are on the demise. They haven't had a remotely original episode in 5 years, at least, and while some people could successfully argue that Family Guy won't ever be as good as Simpsons was 10 years ago, in 2007, I can't see the Simpsons generating enough buzz for a decent season premiere this September, let alone show up in mass droves for a movie premiere. The Simpsons' success has always been that of casual viewership, in my opinion. It's just something decent to watch at 6 or 7 pm while preparing dinner and nothing more. It's just a generic answer you might have if someone asked you your favorite TV show and you didn't want to answer with something too wierd. Just like George Clooney when he was on E.R. and trying to become a bankable TV star, people often won't want to pay for something that's on TV.
Furthermore, I predict it will be the failure of this movie that will get people asking the long overdue question, "Is the Simpsons really that culturally relevant anymore?"
Prediction: $13 mil opening, $79 mil total

-Knocked Up: This is going to be the sleeper hit of the summer and raise Judd Apatow's profile even more. He's rumored to be launching Tom Cruise's comeback next. I've heard from everywhere it's very good, but I don't believe that'll translate into a strong weekend opening. Not with Pirates still around.
Prediction: $25 mil opening, $132 mil total

-Nancy Drew: Is the next tentpole for a series like Harry Potter? It might have that crossover appeal that parents might want to watch with their kids but it's just not being marketed heavily enough.
Prediction: $21 mil opening, $112 mil total

-Liscence to Wed: It looks like summer filler similar to RV. I'm not saying Robin Williams is by any means going downhill, but with RV, Man of the Year, and Liscence to Wed he's starting to get into too much of a comfortable zone
Predictions: $10 mil opening, $68 mil total