>>95899379Either way it's going to be some random decision from the top. If you think it's going to be a big heated discussion at Disney HQ, it isn't. It's going to depend on something like whether or not some Disney exec only had a teaspoon left of his favorite breakfast cereal that morning, or if s/he spilled a drop of coffee on the car seat on the drive in, or if the coffee was too hot. They're going to be in a certain state of mind when they hear
>"Hey actually Marvel comics, like, the actual comics? They're actually in the red now, a-and there's this huge kerfuffle on the internet about editors and--"At that point some random exec is just going to say "Shut it down" and that'll be that, or else they'll say "You mean comics like where the movies came from? I don't care. Subsidize it."
>>95899392Disney shut down a video game division because even though it was profitable, it wasn't profitable "enough". And video games have a much higher profit ceiling than a line of print comics.
>>95899395>go full digitalI can see them doing this, but only with like a dozen titles, which will barely sell to anyone.
Everyone will perceive the end of Marvel print comics as the end of Marvel Comics. Marvel PR will be like "Hey! No! We got Kelly Sue DeConnick to come back and do a bi-weekly Captain Marvel comic! 10 pages for only $1.99 a pop! Get excited, guys!" and no one will care. They will spin it really hard as "our entertainment has naturally evolved into a different media form."
>>95899496>testing possible movie scripts for decades. ... So expect a Ms Marvel Kamala movieUm no, I've thought this before too but the logic falls apart once you realize that actually Marvel Comics has actually FAILED in this testing ground. There are no new marketable characters post-Deadpool (est. 1991). X-23 on her own isn't marketable. Kamala Khan does not have mass appeal. Do you really expect Disney to look at Moon Girl and think "7000 sales per month. WOW MOON GIRL FILM IN PHASE 5"?
