You obviously weren't following the news at the time. When she died it was all over the news how the creative team were all brought together in a huddle sort of like deciding who the new Pope is and waiting for the smoke to go up the chimney. It was in April they made this announcement: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/04/star-wars-episode-9-carrie-fisher-no-cgi/ Since then we've now been told that she's not going to appear at all, so between April and now it seems like they revised the script yet again.
Production was not impacted. Scriptwriting was impacted, because that's as far as the movie had gotten at the time. Also note, Fisher's death did not cause Episode IX's release date to be changed. Trevorrow's dismissal did.
At some point, there will be a Star Wars film that receives a critical drubbing and doesn't perform to financial expectations. The same thing will happen with Marvel Studios at some point; they're going to have a film that the critics savage and that doesn't click with the audience. It happens, and the studio will have to manage expectations and deal with the fallout.
I don't know, although that's a song I've been singing for years in regards to the MCU, they've lasted a lot longer without failure than I expected. I more or less expected the first Guardians of the Galaxy to fold. I was genuinely interested in the movie, I just worried it would be "too weird for mainstream" and would fail to connect with the audience. Indeed, there must have been doubts from Disney Suits as well, given it's the only MCU movie to be released in August, a month typically considered a dumping ground for undesirables. I know nothing lasts forever and we all know what they say about all good things... but I think it could be years yet before an MCU movie flops. Star Wars, on the other hand, well, I have a bad feeling about Solo...
FWIW, Wormhole, I also thought that Guardians of the Galaxy was going to be a bridge too far. I thought Ant Man, because of its baggage, could have been a flop, too. I was pleasantly surprised that both did well.
Well, if you get up every morning and declare to the world "this is the day I will drop dead", eventually you're going to be correct. Doesn't mean it's a particularly productive or wise activity to engage in. Best to just enjoy the days as they come and what will happen will happen. I mean they're only movies, no?
Well, if you look at Disney's last three big, critically drubbed failures - John Carter, Mars Needs Moms, and The Lone Ranger - the tally at review aggregation sites suggests that audiences liked them barely any better than critics did. So one might as well say that Disney is not "audience proof" - or, more simply, that Disney is still capable of producing movies that no one much likes.
Disney has made more than a few movies I don't like and clearly they missed the target with some of their high-profile films over the years. Though to be frank has Disney ever been audience OR critic proof? There were animated and live-action movies made before I was even born that were mediocre at best and haven't gotten any better over the decades.
Christian Bale was almost in Solo, and he has said he's a huge fan of the franchise and would still like to do a Star Wars movie.
The image isn't made by LucasFilm, but the elements it is made from are are probably official. The costumes and designs match on set leaks and official BTS images. It was probably made by a licencee who had access to promo materials. All LucasFilm/Disney said was they didn't make the image. Ron Howard posted another picture from the set https://twitter.com/realronhoward/status/947859525360635904
Well....can director Opie "Steve" Taylor deliver a good Star Wars movie staring an alternate Bob "shots first" Falfa?
Am I the only one who thinks Quentin Tarantino would actually be a better fit for the Han Solo prequel than a Star Trek movie? It wouldn't be a Han Solo movie Disney would ever allow, but still...