It's seems rather a moot point to me to compare traditional sequels, which are usually more of the same, to a continuing story like Harry Potter. It's like LOTR, and people see movie five because it picks up with and deals with the same story and characters as movie four.
I don't think Nemesis bombed just because it was up against LOTR. It was also really, really, really bad, even for a Star Trek movie. In my opinion, anyway.
Well, even if CL does make $35 million this weekend, it will likely top out at $150-$175. According to estimates I've read, this movie needs to be a $300 million hit for Disney to be able to tell Pixar to piss off.
I wouldn't be surprised if Emily Rose tops out at around $65 million; WOM will be pretty bad, I judge, based on the misleading marketing. Most of the audience I saw it with was made up of group of teens with no parents in tow, and most left saying it sucked. Though I did hear one boy, maybe 12...
Having seen Red Eye, I'm not surprised that it held up so well. It got great reviews and should have good WOM - it was a very fun, taut 85-minute thriller.
What I think is funny about Titanic as Paramount's biggest hit is the fact that they got a piece of it ONLY because Fox got cold feet. For a fairly minimal investment, they got back huge returns in domestic BO and video sales.
My point was, the "good" superhero movies make $150 million up. Daredevil made $40 million in one weekend and then took months to creep over $100 million. And unlike X-Men and Spider-Man, it got bad reviews from critics and very mixed WOM from fans.