My...let's call it "concern"...about "Twilight"'s box office potential stems from the narrow demographic the fanbase seems to inhabit.  Tween girls and their mothers cannot power a film to $600 million at the box office like they did in '97 and '98 with "Titanic". Granted, "The Dark Knight" also has a fairly narrow fanbase, 18-35 year-old men, but it's also Batman and everyone knows and loves Batman.  And the film has stars including the final performance of a talented actor who died at a tragically young age.  And he was playing an iconic villain.  Meanwhile, "Twilight" may be a New York Times Bestseller, but while the legions of tween girls would writhe in pain if you asked them "Who the hell is Robert Pattinson?", the mainstream still has to ask "Who the hell is Robert Pattinson?"  "The Dreamiest," is apparently not a suitable answer so I have to go into a whole thing:

Them: Who the hell is Robert Pattinson?

Me: Okay, did you see "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire"?

Them:  Yeah.

Me: Okay, you know the kid who played Cedric Diggory?

Them:  Uh...I think so...uh, yeah.

Me:  Okay, that's Robert Pattinson.

Them:  Ohhhh, okay.

Me: I would like this minute of my life back.

While I agree that one could have made the same argument about Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint when they were cast in "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone", it's not really the same because A) "Harry Potter" has a far more diverse fanbase; B) No one was identifying those kids as sexually attractive (or at least no one I knew and no one I hope ever to know); and C) They were supported by distinguished British actors like Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, and the late Richard Harris.

"Twilight" is also taking a major gamble by trying to be the "Thanksgiving Day" film and hoping that families will flock to it before they sit down for a big meal and try to eat away their loathing for one another.  But it has to compete with repeat business for "Quantum of Solace" as well as "Bolt", which, after seeing it today, I think is the film the whole family can enjoy.  Then again, I see "Twilight" tomorrow night and maybe it will be magical.  Nothing I've seen would lead me to that conclusion, but it's my job not to judge a film until I see it.

But this all brings me back to the question I posed in the headline:

What qualifies as a "win" for "Twilight", box office-wise?  How much does it have to make in its opening weekend and how much staying power does it need?  I don't know.  I'm not our box office guru and if I tried to do the numbers every Sunday like Nicole, not only would you see a sharp decline in the quality of writing, you'd also see me be astoundingly wrong with just about every prediction I have.

Having said that, allow me to make a prediction: I think "Twilight" fans need to brace for themselves for the possibility that their beloved film may not come in #1 at the box office come Sunday night.  Even taking the midnight screenings into account, it's playing in 300 fewer theatres than "Bolt" and that film has broader appeal.  There's also still "Quantum of Solace" to contend with. I'm not trying to be openly antagonistic to this fanbase and I'm sure that they'll love the film to pieces no matter what because they've built it up in their heads to the point where it could simply be Pattinson standing in front of a blank screen reciting Edward's lines from the book and they'd declare it the greatest film of all time (imdb, brace yourself).

I encourage fans of "Twilight" to use our rarely-used comments section below and tell us what you think qualifies as a great opening weekend for your film.  Please keep in mind that "50 gajillion bazillion dollars!!1!!!1!" is not a real number no matter how many times you hear it on CNBC regarding the government bailout ("Twilight" fans also love CNBC; they can't get enough of Jim Cramer).