The Marvels lost money against a $200 million budget. That's not a slump, it's a signal. I see a prisoner's dilemma: if one studio stops making superhero films, a rival captures the market. So they all keep producing, saturating audiences until marginal returns go negative. No single player can fix it alone. My opponent might argue fatigue is temporary, but I think the incentive structure guarantees oversupply. The genre isn't dying from lack of love; it's dying from a bad equilibrium.

There's real affection for older superhero stories, I won't dispute that. But nostalgia isn't the same as a living genre. My opponent points to parents wanting kids to feel that joy, yet that's demand for the past, not evidence of future ticket sales. The structural problem remains a prisoner's dilemma: no studio will unilaterally cut output while rivals keep producing. So they oversaturate until each new release's marginal value drops. A beloved classic can persist while the genre's commercial engine sputters. That's why I still say it's dying.

If superhero movies are still thriving, why does every studio keep flooding the market until each new release cannibalizes the last? My opponent points to classics and kids, and sure, those old stories still matter. But that's nostalgia, not a living market. The strategic trap is a prisoner's dilemma: no studio can cut output without a rival grabbing share, so they all oversupply. That equilibrium grinds the genre's commercial engine down. Beloved past, yes. Dying present, still yes.