As some one already pointed out everything in the post could be true but it does nothing to change how this is another example how BS perverts stories that pertain to science studies. Just this week a BS writer jumped on a study with a sample size of 9 and treated it as if it was solid evidence that women are held down by the "patriarchy" and this is not the first time time a study of little scientific value has been presented on BS as being solid evidence either. But, any evidence no matter how weak or strong that in any way even hints that women are not exactly the same as men or better than men is dismissed, in this case Slate seems to have made there case by talking to evil male scientists that have pointed out short comings of the female scientists that wrote the books in the first place (I only point out the gender of the scientists to demonstrate that despite the best efforts of the "Patriarchy" some times some of my fellow males don't get the memo to hide the evidence).

As pointed out above Sex in the City was not the highest opening R rated movie. Next, the success of Sex in the City will do little if anything to show that female leads can or cannot open movies as it is Franchise movie. Franchise movies do not need big name actors to open large as seen in Iron Man (Robert Downey was never a name that opened movies before) Spiderman, Superman, xmen and Harry Potter to name but just a few. Even if the studio's credit SiC success on a female cast and Momma Mia is a huge hit it still does nothing to show that older female leads can open movies as 2 data points does not make statistical significance but statistics are something that the radical feminist never seems to understand or report honesty.

The reason movies no longer have legs is because of the way that the theater owner studio split is set up. If two movies make 100 million but one makes 65 of that in its first two weeks and the second makes 35 of it during the first two weeks the first movie made the studios a lot more money. And because the studios pay almost all of the advertisements they are going to make sure it is there pockets lined. This is one of the big reason that tent pole movies today are aimed at teenage boys unlike the tent pole movies of the early 90's and 80's that where aimed also at adults as teenage boys are the demo that has shown over and over again to show up in the first weekend or two. So no, it has nothing at all to do with the audience dumbing down but the studios knowing where there money is coming from.

And juno is a bad example to use for a word of mouth hit as it was marketed and released to be one. It was not until its 5th week before it was on a 1000 theaters, its 8th week before it hit 2000 theaters and its 9th week when it was at the highest number of theaters. Now compare that to just this years tent pole movies where the top 5 opening weekends all opened in around 4000 theaters the number 6 movie Sex in the City was in about 3300 theaters and the least amount of theaters of any of the top was in 3175 theaters.