I wonder what went wrong: a review ("This is not the 1984 you are looking for") Part 2

Reminder: NOTHING about Kristen Wiig's character changed on the outside, yet all the coworkers are enamoured with her like cats on catnip. Its always jarring when current-day filmmakers making period movies insert current jargon (see below), behavioral actions, or inappropriate-for-the-time social messages. Its as if they are actively trying to sabotage your suspension of disbelief...which isnt what movie-going is all about?
Ready for more stereotypes that the 3 screenwriters thought ruled the 80's? Okay! We have another drunkard/homeless white guy who apparently knows that late at night at the park is prime time where you can harass and molest women freely, and sure enough a Smithsonian scientist chose that as her preferred route home! Except, this drunkard is dressed like he just got out of a Gordon Gekko's (look him up kids) 1987 party, with a better tailored coat and shirt! Sure he is meant to look disheveled, but in the film, the casting and makeup "geniuses" gave him a nicely trimmed beard! You know, a bit of Cinéma vérité for you cinephiles out there. Because of course that is how, you know, drunk and disorderly vagrants look (or perhaps only in the imaginations of our screenwriters).
Except with another break from reality, Kirsten Wiig is not actually going home, but to the office....very late at night. Why you ask? Well, its all very simple really. The reason is that so she can rub a magical stone, make a wish and have her dreams come true in her Smithsonian office. Of course that is how Ph.D. scientists think and it is totally normal and expected behavior. Remember: this is a fantasy movie, but it pretends to take place in the real world (D.C. circa 1984 to be precise) with presumably real people inhabiting it, doing realistic human activities in an expected manner of behavior for their character's level of intelligence, education and profession (Smithsonian scientist). But not our Kirsten Wiig's character! Was this vital part of the plot contributed by a child's imagination and written into the script with a crayon (perhaps by the depressed and dejected kid that appears throughout the movie)? This is how children think, but hopefully not adults who write 200 million-dollar screenplays.
But how can you make a movie called WW 1984, and make sure that, you know, people actually believe it is really 1984? Hmm.....Oh...how about putting break dancers in a corporate plaza setting who are just having a good time and not being disruptive at all, outfitting all women characters in spandex whenever possible, and squeezing in more stereotypes from the decade?! Fast red cars wrecklessly driving on a city street? Check! Hideous fashions showcased by Chris Pine in a montage? OMG! Hilarious! Put that in the script. Screenwriter: Oh don't forget the fanny pack, because that's what the 80's were all about! Check!
Dissecting the filmmakers' disdain for the mental capacity of its audience and the fans of the superhero genre, several scenes spring to mind. Inexplicably Kristen Wiig's character is dressed unattractively, speaks cringingly awkwardly and is ignored on purpose(!) by the staff at the Smithsonian when she meets WW for the first time. I know that the screenwriters thought this would be a clever contrast between who Wiig's character was at the beginning of the movie and who she becomes later on, but this crucial introductory meeting between the two female leads is unrealistic and overbearingly uncomfortable to watch. Wiig is uncharacteristically friendless, disliked, solitary, clumsy, poor dresser, (c'mon, help me here... I am struggling to come up with stereotypes of the Nutty Professor/aloof academic type). Screenwriter: "If our audience clearly doesn't see that she is a stereotypical academic type, the audience won't believe Wiig is that character." Or.....we can give the audience of this movie some credit and stay away from the stereotypes and just portray her as a regular academic woman and not a caricature of an academic. Just a thought (sadly my inner voice was not heard at the writers' meeting).
Wiig's character also seems to not care about valuable artifacts that the police just delivered and entrusted to her and the Smithonian from the thwarted heist that just occurred. She seems oblivious to their importance, value, security, and fails to follow any kind of scientific or security protocol as to their handling. The filmmakers don't believe in inventory checklists, security locks or holding areas, none of which are present. Apparently valuable antiques can just be layed out for anyone who passes by to look at and take if they wish. Also, upon introducing herself to WW she mentions at least 4 different areas of Ph.D-level expertise that she is proficient in. I am not sure how a 30-ish (played by a 40-ish Wiig) had the time to complete 4 Ph.D-level university programs and attain her degrees, but the age-math does not pencil out (unless the fillmakers think their audience is mentally deficient).