Yeah, I completely agree. Sometimes, I feel like I’ve been conditioned to look for holes in movies by the current nature of the way movies are sold to us. There was a moment in the film where someone was marking a calendar, and I thought “wait a minute, if this is 467 days into the crisis, then who printed a calendar for this year?”
I think there are a couple of concerns in this regard.
First, if you look for holes in movies then it could simply be that the movie is not reaching you, so you can use “unbelievable” as the justification for why you think it is a bad movie. You don’t like the movie - ergo, the movie must be bad - but it must be bad for an objectively verifiable reason. Like I said, every plot has to eschew plausibility to tell any sort of story, so that will always offer good reasons for us to use to prove that it is a bad movie. I’m actually an expert at this pointless activity.
Second, the movie is too effective, so looking for implausibility is an emotional defense. It’s a way of telling yourself that “it isn’t real!” I’ve come to the opinion that we should appreciate the implausible elements of movies in this regard. Like earlier, the movie isn’t about the premise of the movie, but how it connects to the emotional needs and realities of the audience, so having the conventional plot elements there are welcome to both allow the drama of the story to be revealed and to reassure us that this is “just” a story as much as we need it to be.
Finally, this is why I’ve kinda come to hate world building in fiction. At heart, I think the obsession with making a fiction as “real” as possible - other than commercial considerations - actually results in killing the intimate impact the story has for the audience. By remaining consistent to the fictional reality of Star Wars, Star Trek or Lord of the Rings (or the Marvel universe, Harry Potter and so on), it places this cushion between the story and the less rational and very inconsistent nature of the emotional world where stories come to life.
I think I’d call it the “midichlorian effect.” If I had to explain a joke to you, you obviously would realize that it’s not really funny. If a magician showed you how the trick was done, then it wouldn’t be magic effectively, would it? By explaining the Force with pseudo-science fiction (midichlorians = mitochondria?), Lucas denied the emotional connection many Star Wars fans felt for the Force when it was left a mystery.
Lately, I’ve come to appreciate the implausible and inconsistent or unrealistic elements in movies as crucial parts to making stories really work.