For you to judge a plot as objectively bad you need to first establish that there is a universal definition of a "bad" plot. You judging a plot "bad" is simply you applying your personal subjective standard of what a good plot is, not making some universal factual statement that can be proved.
You started with a reasonable example (stating a fact about a film) and then falsely applied that to making a judgement of quality, which is no longer factual but based on your personal experience of those elements. There are techniques and conventions that can be used but those elements existing do not speak to any quality judgement. Those are all subjective judgements that are up to the viewer to interpret.
There is no such thing as "objectively bad" (or good) writing or direction or story or cinematography.
like if you’re already looking at this via what you’d expect the audience’s reaction to be why not just go full subjective and talk about your own? just because the target audience of a movie doesn’t like it doesn’t mean it’s not good, The Thing and Starship Troopers were both seen as bad and are classics now. i bring this up because it’s the way people usually think objectively judging media tends to work, but the way Mauler does it is looking at an imaginary target audience (“this scene removes immersion”, “this scene confuses the audience”) and while that’s a valid way to judge art there is nothing about it that would make it the “objective” way, or even the best way. if you try to look at it through the lense of what something means to the author it generally turns unproductive quick, like, is The Room no longer a bad movie because Tommy Wiseau said later on he always intended it to be bad on purpose? does that mean we can’t analyze Charlie Kaufman or David Lynch since they refuse to give away their own interpretations of their work? suffice it to say finding the art’s intent is a lot more difficult than just looking at whatever the author thinks. There’s no such thing as an objective way to judge art.