"In fact, “Harry Potter” has never pulled a bigger rabbit out of a hat than the almost $975 million the first 2001 film has made. The "Saw" flicks, which are up to "VI" with this year’s release, are cutting less box office cloth with each sequel. Despite his sterling reputation, “James Bond” doesn’t always shoot to kill at the box office and, as the shriveled sales of 2002’s “Episode II: Attack of the Clones” showed, the Force hasn’t always been strong with “Star Wars.”
Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones made $640 million worldwide on a $115 million budget. And Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith bounced right back, grossing $860 million, second in the franchise only to The Phantom Menace (not adjusted for inflation). And while no Harry Potter film has surpassed The Sorcerer's Stone ($974 million worldwide), each sequel has made $795-$938 million worldwide (with films 4-6 each increasing their gross over the previous entry). And despite mixed reviews, Quantum Of Solace just missed surpassing the worldwide record for a James Bond film. Besides, seven of the top eight biggest-grossing 007 films were the seven most recent ones.
And the article concludes by randomly bashing Michael Sheen, claiming that the third Underwold film's failure to surpass $100 million worldwide means that Sheen isn't useful as a tent-pole supporting player. Umm... two out of three Underworld pictures did not cross $100 million worldwide. Underworld made $95 million, Underworld: Evolution made $113 million, and Underworld: Rise of the Lycans made $91 million (without star Kate Beckinsale no less). Dominic Patten may be right about the Twilight series quick collapse (especially because even the many die-hards hate the fourth book), but the examples of sequel math don't equate. Again, ten minutes on Box Office Mojo would have yielded any number of better examples. Or he could have checked out my handiwork.