Nope. Marvel proves that it can be done. The movies just have to be good. Marvel also has messages most can agree with. I think they also keep a tighter control on those making the film. Basically, don't insult the fans of your series. At the very least, don't point to our films as agreeing with or pushing your political leanings. 

Doubt she goes anywhere. TFA + Rogue One + TLJ (whether people like it or not) all made Disney a shit ton of money and are 3/4 highest grossing Star Wars films outside of the OT which was ages ago. She's not gonna get canned because 1 spin-off movie that had a trouble production and was forced on Disney by Lawrence Kasdan/George Lucas is not doing that well. 

If that's how Hollywood actually worked, everyone would be out of a job the moment they had their first failure. James Cameron never would've worked after The Abyss was a dud, M. Night Shyamalan's career would've ended like 10 times, there wouldn't have been a Captain America Winter Soldier because the first one didn't make a lot of money, etc. etc. etc.

Fixed it for ya.

How does one make snarky correction and only carry it halfway through?

It was a rhetorical question: subscribing to truths and falsehoods with leave one confused and witless.

The irony of the "correction" only reinforces the original statement, but please do tell me more about why you think SJWs are bad lol.

Solo movie was apparently George Lucas' idea. He was working on it before the sale to Disney with Lawrence Kasdan, seems like Kasdan forced Disney into making this film in exchange for co-writing The Force Awakens. 

http://www.slashfilm.com/george-lucas-han-solo-movie/

If I have to explain how SJWs are garbage and ruin everything they touch to you, then you're honestly too far gone. But to sum it up:

No one likes being told how to do something so as not to offend a small minority who may or may not be offended.

No one likes being told to check their privilege.

No one likes safe spaces or thinks they should be in use on college grounds.

No one wants to learn a bunch of made up pronouns just so someone else can feel validated in their life choices.

No one wants ideology creamed corn their throats when they try to watch a movie or TV show.

And finally, no one likes the pretentious snowflakes who fell the need to validate themselves by virtue signaling at every opportunity presented to them.

You want assholes? Go to the far sides of the political spectrum: left or right. On the right, you have bigoted rednecks who are members of the KKK. And on the left, you have bigoted hipster SJWs who are members of Antifa (which ironically and hilariously employs fascist techniques).

If I have to explain how SJWs are garbage and ruin everything they touch to you, then you're honestly too far gone. But to sum it up:

No one likes being told how to do something so as not to offend a small minority who may or may not be offended.

No one likes being told to check their privilege.

No one likes safe spaces or thinks they should be in use on college grounds.

No one wants to learn a bunch of made up pronouns just so someone else can feel validated in their life choices.

No one wants ideology creamed corn their throats when they try to watch a movie or TV show.

And finally, no one likes the pretentious snowflakes who fell the need to validate themselves by virtue signaling at every opportunity presented to them.

You want assholes? Go to the far sides of the political spectrum: left or right. On the right, you have bigoted rednecks who are members of the KKK. And on the left, you have bigoted hipster SJWs who are members of Antifa (which ironically and hilariously employs fascist techniques).

How does one make snarky correction and only carry it halfway through?

It was a rhetorical question: subscribing to truths and falsehoods with leave one confused and witless.

The irony of the "correction" only reinforces the original statement, but please do tell me more about why you think SJWs are bad l

Using the term SJW as a way to represent doing good things does give a bad image cause its not a term you guys came up with yourself, it started as an insult to paint those that used extreme measures and weaponnized social justice and thats why the warrior part is included.

So ofcourse when the sole existence of that term was dependent on extremism it gets very understandable why people see it in a bad light.

People have been calling out inequality and social injustice, which naturally ruffled the feathers of those with opposing points of view.

Labeling them anything doe not demonize them: it's just a label designed to demonize. It's also a very idiotic label, because it casts the labeler in a most insidious light.

In essence, those who use the label to vilify have to own a discontent with social justice and those who fight for it, whether those fighters are well-reasoned or irrational.