In general, manufacturers would prefer steady predictable demand, not spikes due to hoarding. In theory a spike right now would signal continuing interest but I doubt a sophisticated company or buyer would make a long term investment decision based on that.
Film is in the "long tail" phase of it's lifespan, where demand slowly declines over a long period of time, demand concentrates over a smaller base, and it's offered at fewer and fewer locations (i.e. you can still buy buggy whips, but not at your local hardware store). It's not stocked everywhere because it wasn't selling. Not the other way around.
Much depends on Kodak's cost structure. I think it's pretty much a given that film sales can't support Kodak as we know it today, but that doesn't mean it can't be a profitable business in and by itself. Perhaps with less spent on R&D; I don't know. Even though film production may be more capital intensive than labor intensive, it's certainly possible that a profitable business could be based in China or (as we see with Efke and others) eastern Europe.
An interesting alternative would be contract manufacturing. I.E. Kodak or "son of Kodak" would use it's considerable capacity and expertise to manufacture film designed and marketed by others. Similar to contract manufacturing in foods; where you take my recipe and produce a product for me to market. I don't know if this is technically feasible, but this could be the best scenario - combining economies of production scale and high quality with a variety of end products. Whether this would be economical as a US based facility I don't know.
None of what I've said is rocket science. If these scenarios are feasible, they are certainly being considered. But they may require time and capital - 2 scarce resources.