And Roseanne's comments would have had zilch effect on earnings from those other sources.
Seriously? You think people won't go see Marvel franchise movies because Roseanne made a offensive joke about Valerie Jarrett?
This is not even slightly about money or "brand" value.
I think that given the current lunatic hypersensitivity to just about anything controversial - and the ‘activists’ who are just drooling to get hold of something like this - they could well want to distance themselves from a ‘property’ which might offend segments of a public that has brought in a billion dollars.
Yeah, and besides, you’re forgetting that this is Disney under Bob Iger, who is notorious for putting politics over turning a profit for even his company. Do I have to remind you that this was the same company that managed to bury a DVD release for Path to 9/11, despite clear demands for a DVD release, not even selling the rights to another company, and despite all the profit that it could go to, all because Iger was trying to support Hillary Clinton’s 2008 election campaign? Or how about how Iger continues to let political hacks use ESPN as a sounding board for their leftist views over, you know, actually covering sports plays, or ABC News spewing left-wing agitprop, despite at least one of his shareholders objecting, and a Disney Imagineer also objecting, citing that the audience Iger’s trying to cater to won’t even fill a theater.
Michael Eisner may not have been one of Disney’s better CEOs, but at least he cared about turning a profit, not to mention actually TRYING to keep Disney as the company Walt Disney himself had made (as evidenced by his approving of the Jim Cox version of Beauty and the Beast until Jeffrey Katzenberg nixed it in favor of the feminist screed version we got, not to mention him continuing The Wonderful World of Disney until Bob Iger canned that series).