... if there's even the remotest coincidental link. Case in point: Eerie links between Harry Potter, bin Laden.
I mean, come on... really? People are going to race out to see HP7.2 because OBL died? For little other reason than because the first film came out for the Christmas 2001 season and someone else pointed out, likely in /b/, that Voldemort died on May 1 (actually the 2nd apparently...)?
Shit, Ben Stiller better get going with rewrites so he can shoot Zoolander 2 then. Subtitle it: The Decade of Fashionable Terror and get it out quick for maximum profit.
The flawed basis for the entire article is the reality that people on the Internet will stretch to link events to anything as long as it provides LOL's or can be fit into their own brand of nerditry. Trying to project this into box office success - particularly that of a film that's entirely critic proof and likely to make hundreds of millions even if OBL pops up on Al Jazeera tomorrow going: "Ha, Ha! You got Sammy, my genetically cloned body double!!!! <evil cackle>" - is preposterously dumb for a very simple reason: no tween will give a shit about OBL once they run out of playground jokes in a week or two and the older fans were going to the show anyways. They just want to see the story of their favourite Movie/Book come to a close and that "event", in and of itself, will be its own incentive for other people who may have just watched on TV/DVD to show up too.
But, that there would just be too honest and non-current events related an assessment of the situation for the media to report.