Yup, I can't stand Gravity or the space battles in Star Wars.

I think part of intelligence is understanding what is actually important to the overall story and being able to look past minor flaws that don't ruin things. Being able to notice little things doesn't mean you're intelligent, -blam!-ing Rain Man can do that better than you ever will. Intelligence is interpreting and understanding what you see.

Incorrect use of terms is probably the most obvious and difficult to ignore. Cortana has some stuff about "critical" reactors in Halo 1 that still makes me cringe (though they did get the fusion temperature right...). In general, I'd say your theory is certainly true for Sci-fi games. Most games require you to do ridiculous mental gymnastics to make scenes in the vacuum of space make sense, and the depiction of planet-moon systems usually puts physics over a barrel for the pleasure of the artists. Even games that are considered relatively realistic have major problems. For instance, there's nothing in the mass effect lore (not even mass effect fields) that justifies the characters walking around in vacuums without pressure suits. This didn't happen in the first one, but then an artist's in[b]derp[/b]retation ruined everything. I used to avoid this by making sure the characters I brought on those missions were the ones with pressure suits, but then they made it unavoidable by putting Liara on Mars in ME3... you probably see what I mean by now. At the same time, I also find it kind of fun to try and come up with explanations for these things. In the last example, I actually came up with my own explanation for it, and tried to get them to add it to the codex with one of the DLCs (ended up not working, but it was still fun). Likewise it's kind of fun for me to wonder about the characteristics of the "Element X" of a given game. The way T-ENG is depicted in Lost Planet for instance hints at some very interesting (and probably impossible) thermodynamic properties. So I guess all in all I'd say it's a good and bad thing. On one hand, I'm more likely to see the errors. On the other, I'm able to appreciate it much more thoroughly when it's actually done right, and even the apparent errors stimulate some interesting thought.

I haven't noticed anything like that because I don't look for it. Unless it's flat out presented to you, but still I haven't seen anything like in the OP. So I have no answer to the OP, it really depends on what it is and other factors.

It's so true for me. I'm extremely observant and the moment I notice something wrong or even figure out the plot before it unfolds, I get bored.

This is especially notable in shows I watched when I was little. I watched them now and I easily noticed that they break so many rules of story writing that I couldn't even watch them for that sole reason.

I can agree with this. Though, objectively speaking, if you're going into a movie and you're picking it apart scene by scene you're either a critic or an asshole.. Wait... Critics are assholes.. [i]Well, then[/i], carry on.

I don't think it necessarily makes it less enjoyable, but it can make it harder to take it seriously. Whether or not that affects your enjoyment can vary.

That must explain why democrats rely on celebrities/entertainers to push their agenda.

Whenever I notice something like that, after the scene I always think: "Pfft, yeah, like that's how it would happen." So the less believable the less serious. Like if they are trying to incorporate real life physics into the movie and then a car blows up barely getting hit or something all of their work goes down the drain.