I would argue that your willing suspension of disbelief and a dash less of tired cynicism is supposed to take care of pretty much every concern presented in that pitch video. (But it would be pedantic of me to possibly want to go through it point by point at this stage.)
One could poke holes in the premise of a lot of Disney animated movies, if one wanted to. For example, a whole host of questions that could potentially wreck ones enjoyment about how the curse in Beauty and the Beast works or what a sensible timeline in that story could possibly be pretty easily come to mind. But I'd have to very intentionally be wanting to play that game while watching it, and as a rule I try not to sabotage my own entertainment.
Well, that's the thing. It's easy not to think about the curse or timeline works in
Beauty and the Beast in the moment of
actual first-time viewing because the basics of it have classic, if sometimes arbitrary fairy tale logic -- the prince was cursed because he was cruel, and breaking it requires him to change as a person to the point he can be loved even in his altered form. The classic question "But why the servants, though?" (which stretches back to the original fairy tale) can be easily brushed off as their just being unlucky to be there at the time, or the overkill one often sees with Fair Folk in old-style fantasy. There are plenty of similar gaps in classic movies' logic that are only picked apart later, sometimes
years later ("Why didn't Glinda think Dorothy would believe the Ruby Slippers would get her home if she told her at the beginning?" "Why design a Death Star with an easily exploitable flaw?" "Does Indiana Jones really accomplish anything in
Raiders of the Lost Ark?") but the overarching story and characters are so compelling that they are easily missed.
With Wish, what strikes me about the questions people have about how the wish system works, why nobody ever did the math regarding how many wishes would ever be granted, etc. is that many viewers had them
immediately, as in
when they saw the first full-length trailer or read the plot setup. When the trailer dropped, a lot of people (including me) were asking "Why is it so bad if not all wishes are granted? What if they're bad wishes? After all, a good king would have to be choosy for his people's sake...." (The movie even uses "Be careful what you wish for" as a tagline!) In the movie itself, since it seems there's a goodly deal of exposition about how the system in Rosas works, how Star works (why does Magnifico think he'll be all powerful if he catches it when it just makes animals and plants talk and throws balls of yarn?), how the black magic book works (why didn't Amaya give Magnifico the oil when she had a chance? Did he even know about it?), how "We are all stars!" works, etc. it's practically
encouraging people to think about questions like that. Some critics even noted that there's a scene where the townsfolk ask their own logical questions about what Magnifico's doing with the wishes that don't get answered! (Why, if he wasn't going to use them for power before he was corrupted, didn't he just banish the wishes he wouldn't grant -- why keep them around?)
Probably the definitive screw up, which I noticed when I read the tie-in books, is Asha getting the wand at the end. The people of Rosas do not
need someone to grant their wishes because they are supposed to be doing that on their own. Instead, Asha will be approached by people who want an easy way out and inevitably have to choose which wishes do or don't get granted. Why is she, a 17-year-old girl with no magical training, seen as a safer choice to wield such power than the well-trained Magnifico was?
Basically, the consensus seems to be that the story has too many logical gaps, and not enough compelling action and characterization, for viewers not to notice them.
