Capeshit /ˈkeɪpʃɪt/
noun; uncountable; slang; vulgar; derogatory
The exhausted cultural residue of superhero-film overproduction; the excessive, derivative, self-perpetuating mass of cape-based franchise entertainment continuing after novelty, urgency, and artistic justification have largely expired.
“By the mid-2020s, audiences had grown tired of capeshit.”
•
There comes a point where continuing to support a thing is no longer neutral. It becomes participation. It becomes enablement. It becomes the polite applause that lets the machine mistake exhaustion for appetite.
I am not using “mental illness” here clinically, or flippantly toward people who suffer. I mean cultural compulsion. I mean the strange industry-wide inability to stop repeating a behaviour long after the pleasure has gone out of it. I mean the studio version of a person who has already had enough, is visibly unwell, and still insists on one more round before recovery. That is where superhero cinema sits for me now. Not dead, exactly. Worse: still moving, still funded, still promoted, still asking to be loved, still pretending the problem is quality control rather than saturation.
There was a time when I loved the edges of this thing. The grimy era. The pre-conquest era. The time before the genre ate the calendar. Blade in 1998 had dirt under its fingernails. It was horror-action first, comic-book adaptation second, and it opened wide in August 1998 before making about $131 million worldwide on a much smaller scale than today’s factory output. X-Men in 2000 felt like something illicitly serious had entered the multiplex. It was moody, awkward, compressed, and still recognisably a film rather than a franchise spreadsheet. It earned about $296 million worldwide against a reported $75 million budget and helped restart the modern superhero boom outside the old Superman/Batman lane. Even the Raimi Spider-Man trilogy, ending in 2007, still had the feel of a director wrestling with melodrama, pulp, sincerity, studio pressure, too many villains, and his own strange operatic instincts.
That was about as far as I needed it to go.
After that, the form began to corporatise itself beyond charm. The comic-book film stopped being one genre among many and became an organising principle. It became a programming assumption. It became homework, lore maintenance, industrial continuity. The pleasure of a film turned into the obligation to keep up. The individual work became secondary to the slate. The slate became secondary to the “universe.” The universe became secondary to quarterly reassurance.
The result is not merely too many bad films. Bad films have always existed. The deeper problem is opportunity cost. Every swollen capesh*t allocation is money, attention, crew time, release space, marketing oxygen and audience training pulled away from original stories, mid-budget adult dramas, weird genre films, intimate thrillers, comedies, literary adaptations, historical films, local films, risky films, films that might fail in interesting ways instead of succeeding as branded wallpaper.
This is why I find it increasingly hard to treat continued support as harmless fandom. At this point, the audience has been told what the machine is doing. It is not subtle. It only understands money. It does not understand principled disinterest, aesthetic fatigue, or cultural nausea unless those things show up as empty seats, cancelled subscriptions and merchandise that does not move. If people keep paying, the machine hears consent.
The defence is always the same: “But occasionally one of them is good.” Fine. Occasionally one is. The Penguin showed how a comic-book-adjacent property can work when it narrows its focus, abandons cosmic sprawl, and behaves more like a crime drama than a content node. It was widely discussed as a grounded, self-contained success rather than another multiverse errand. But an occasional strong limited series is not enough to justify the surrounding landfill. A good exception does not absolve a diseased system. If the ratio is one worthwhile thing to a thousand pieces of dead-eyed brand maintenance, the sensible response is not gratitude. It is withdrawal.
The industry knows the problem, even if it speaks about it in managerial euphemism. Bob Iger publicly said Disney would reduce Marvel output and focus more on quality after a run of underperformance and overextension. The Marvels became the lowest-grossing MCU film, opening to around $46–47 million domestically and ending as a rare public failure for a machine that once looked mathematically unstoppable. In 2026, Supergirl reportedly opened to $38 million domestically and $68 million worldwide against a production cost around $170 million, with trade commentary immediately treating it as another symptom of superhero exhaustion rather than an isolated wobble.
So the facts are not hidden. The executives have noticed. The audience has noticed. Critics have noticed. Even the executives’ preferred word, “quality,” quietly admits the crime. They are not saying, “We made too few.” They are saying, in polished corporate language, that the machine overproduced, overconnected, overexpanded and underdelivered.
And still the slate keeps slithering forward.
The whole thing has become artistically embarrassing. Fantastic families, multiversal courts, cosmic councils, variant cameos, legacy returns, post-credit hints, universe resets, tone-managed quips, prestige directors hired to repaint factory walls, and the endless promise that the next one will correct the last one. It is not myth anymore. It is maintenance.
Even The Boys, a show originally designed to parody superhero corporate grotesquery, has been pulled into the same gravitational field. Its fourth season was reviewed as darker, broader, more politically direct, and weighed down by growing pains and overloaded plotting. The satire now exists inside the same overfed content ecology it was built to mock. That is the perfect image: the parody sweating under the weight of the genre it was meant to puncture.
People keep comparing superhero films to Westerns, but the comparison is too generous. Westerns became a genre language that could shrink, mutate, vanish, return, become elegiac, become revisionist, become ghostly. Superhero cinema, in its corporate phase, behaves differently. It wants to occupy the centre forever. It wants youth, adulthood, irony, sincerity, politics, myth, comedy, trauma, prestige, streaming, theatrical release, animation, television, games, toys, and fan identity all at once. It does not want to be a genre. It wants to be the room.
The room is stale.
What I miss is not “seriousness” in the dull sense. I miss danger. I miss films that seemed to have been made by people solving a film rather than servicing a property. I miss the tactile confidence of something like Blade. I miss when X-Men still felt slightly embarrassed by itself and therefore had to find a tone. I miss when Raimi could push Spider-Man toward broad sincerity, horror flourishes, body comedy, romance and sadness because the thing still had a director’s pulse inside it. I miss when these films could be ugly, uneven, sincere, overcooked, strange and mortal.
Now the whole batch has been spoiled by abundance.
Too little can kill a story, of course. Game of Thrones is the obvious reverse case: a vast work narrowed too abruptly, rushed into compression, and forced toward an ending that needed far more breath. That is another article. But superhero cinema has committed the opposite sin. Too much. Too often. Too interconnected. Too brand-managed. Too expensive to be free. Too algorithmically aware of its own audience. Too desperate to pretend that every marginal character is a generational event.
There is an artistic obscenity in watching hundreds of millions of dollars repeatedly poured into brand extension while original cinema has to beg for survival. It is not that every superhero film is worthless. It is that the conveyor belt has become culturally indecent. It siphons funds, talent and public imagination into a loop that has already said what it had to say, then said it again, then cross-referenced itself saying it, then built a spin-off about the person standing near the person who said it.
The comic form can survive saturation because comics are naturally serial, cheap by comparison, elastic, contradictory, niche and historically built around recurrence. A comic line can collapse under its own continuity and then relaunch, reboot, retcon, fracture and continue in subcultures. Film is different. Film asks for mass capital, mass attention and mass release space. When comics’ endlessness is imported into blockbuster cinema without restraint, the result is not mythology. It is farce.
The defenders will say there is room for everything. There is not, in practice. The calendar is finite. Audience attention is finite. Studio courage is finite. The number of major releases that can be marketed, booked, discussed and remembered is finite. When the largest companies train themselves to spend heavily only on pre-sold mythology, the ecosystem narrows. The next strange film does not get made. The next mid-budget masterpiece becomes a streaming afterthought. The next original director is told to take a franchise meeting.
That is what disgusts me now. Not capes as an idea. Not comics. Not genre. Excess. Dependency. Cowardice disguised as fan service. Corporate repetition dressed up as destiny.
James Gunn, Bob Iger, the new studio heads, the old studio heads, all of them inherit some portion of this. Some may manage it better than others. Some may produce occasional good work. But managing the addiction politely is still managing the addiction. The correct move is not a cleaner needle. It is stopping.
Let the genre go quiet. Let it become rare. Let it miss us and let us miss it. Let ten years pass. Let a young filmmaker make one because they need to, not because a release grid requires it. Let a comic-book film feel illegal again, or at least specific. Let it come from horror, crime, romance, tragedy, satire, something with a pulse. Let it cost less. Let it risk more. Let it fail without threatening a six-year plan.
For now, I am out.
If I see another one, it will be one hundred years too soon.
Not because I hate artifice. Not because I hate genre. Not because I think people are wrong to love what they love. But because there is a point where continuing to feed a bloated machine becomes indistinguishable from endorsing its appetite. And the appetite has become the subject. The appetite is the villain. The appetite is the cancer.
Stop buying the ticket.
Stop rewarding the slate.
Stop calling exhaustion “anticipation.”
Let the capes fall where the Western eventually went: into memory, into revision, into occasional resurrection, into the hands of people with an actual reason to bring them back.
Addendum: The Shame Deficit
There is another thing missing now, and it may be the thing I miss most: shame.
Not shame in the puritanical sense. Not shame about fantasy, colour, genre, absurdity or pleasure. I mean the older artistic embarrassment that forced a film to justify itself before asking for your belief. The old adaptations knew they were asking a lot from a general audience. A person in a mask. A man with claws. A billionaire dressed as a bat. A secret school of mutants. They understood that cinema is literal in a way comics are not. A drawing can carry a costume because the page has its own physics. A film has bodies, fabric, lighting, streets, skin, weight, actors standing in rooms.
So the early films made an effort.
The first X-Men films put the characters in black leather because the filmmakers clearly felt the comic suits would break the spell in live action. Whether you liked that choice or hated it, it came from a desire to make the thing pass through the membrane of reality. The leather was a compromise, yes, but compromise used to be part of adaptation. It said: we know this is strange; we are trying to translate it. Even James Marsden has since contrasted those old restrictive black suits with later comic-accurate versions, which shows how deliberate that earlier live-action recalibration was.
Nolan’s Batman films went further. They built a whole argument around plausibility. The suit had a reason. The car had a reason. The symbol had a reason. The theatricality was filtered through fear, crime, training, technology and trauma. The films did not pretend Batman was realistic in any literal documentary sense, but they worked to make his world feel internally earned. Contemporary writing about Batman Begins still points to that careful logic: Nolan explained the parts of Batman’s existence rather than simply presenting them as inherited iconography.
That effort was valuable because it showed respect. Respect for the audience. Respect for cinema. Respect for the difference between a panel and a frame.
Now the swagger is different. The current attitude often feels like: you know what this is, you know the costume, you know the logo, you know the meme, you know the wiki entry, and you will buy it because recognition has replaced persuasion. The adaptation no longer feels compelled to legitimise itself. It does not translate. It imports.
That is the shame deficit.
The modern version often wants the exact mask, the exact colour block, the exact ridiculous helmet, the exact page pose, the exact fan-service silhouette, and it wants applause for fidelity alone. But fidelity without cinematic judgment is cosplay with financing. The mask that works in ink can look dead on a human face. The bright suit that sings in a splash panel can look like a children’s party hire costume under digital lighting. The exaggerated emblem that belongs to graphic design can become visual noise when forced onto an actor trying to carry a dramatic scene.
This is where the cringe enters. Not because comics are cringe. Comics are their own art form. The cringe comes from pretending that direct transfer is automatically honourable. It comes from the arrogance of “close enough.” It comes from the studio saying: here is the thing you recognise, now clap.
That is not adaptation. That is asset delivery.
A good adaptation should have fear in it. Productive fear. The fear of looking stupid. The fear of losing the audience. The fear of betraying the source by copying it too literally. The fear of making something that cannot stand as a film once the fan recognition is stripped away. Earlier films had that anxiety, and sometimes it made them awkward, muted, compromised or visually conservative. But at least they were wrestling with the problem.
The new mode too often refuses the problem exists.
It treats the comic page as sacred until the result becomes absurd. It turns masks into corporate relics. It turns costumes into brand compliance. It turns visual imagination into checklist accuracy. The actor disappears under obligation. The director disappears under continuity. The film disappears under the demand to look exactly enough like something that already existed elsewhere.
There should be shame again. Not contempt for the material. Shame as discipline. Shame as taste. Shame as the little internal alarm that says: this may work in a comic, but will it live on screen? Shame as the force that makes an artist adapt rather than photocopy.
Because once that alarm dies, you get the current farce: too many costumes, too many masks, too much plastic grandeur, too much corporate confidence, too little embarrassment, too little cinema.
The old films tried to earn the leap.
The new ones often act as if the leap has already been prepaid.
