>>149985753
I don't understand why this seems to be taboo to point out. Even the article here doesn't mention it. Disney HAD franchises that appealed to males. They then made those franchises NOT appeal to males. Do they seriously not get that? And what makes them think the same thing wouldn't happen to any new IPs they create for men, somewhere down the line?

>>24513022
>tfw it's entirely possible I've been shitposting with actual published authors

This is always fascinating to think about. It's like how /sp/ has become convinced Kevin Durant posts there.