I'd place my bet that Tri-X will be around for a long time. Why would Kodak, or whatever it becomes, kill off the business that's actually profitable? That's right, Kodak makes money with film, and they've lost their shirt on digital and printers.
They've only been profitable as long as they've been cutting everything to do with film production. Kodak's analog problem is revenues cratering for film 2x faster than anticipated with no bottom in sight. Kodak has a severe revenue problem. Companies in decline can still be profitable even as their customers leave. Then the lights go out.
It's a myth that their film biz is profitable. If you read Kodak's AR's they shift costs away from the film production/distribution division (now split amongst 2 groups for less clarity) which they do not do for other groups. Their amortization of their capital and facility costs, for example, are not counted against the the film group, but are aggregated. It all meets GAAP, but most analysts see right through that stuff and the stock value reflected it. This is to make the film division more amenable to a spin-off or outright sale as part of the bankruptcy process.
Kodak's inkjet foray has been unprofitable but at least has seen revenue growth whereas film has gone down over 90% in 5 years. Their CREO-based commercial print systems have been in and out of profitability, but have a pretty good long-term outlook. With the pending elimination of MP projection stock, the economy-of-scale for film runs is precarious. You will not see revenue growth, just more decline until some natural bottom is met. Where that is is not known, but Kodak (and Fuji) have some idea, but they are not sharing for obvious reasons.
With Kodak we can see the demand curve ugliness; with Fuji, not so easily. There's a rumour elsewhere started in Japan that Fuji is cutting all their non-Instax instant film, for example (FP300B and others). It requires a dedicated production facility, was dependent on studio orders, and the supply demand mismatch has made it a no-go economically.
Whether the market for black and white films that are no longer lab-processed by and large can remain competitive is a big question mark. That's a lot of home developing demand to make up. IMO the OP's question and premise has some legitimacy.
