This is your interpretation, that’s what you don’t seem to get. It’s not a fact, but I don’t know if you’re just phrasing it poorly, but you sound you like you believe what you’re saying is fact, not opinion, and particularly not fairly extreme opinion, which is what it actually is.
There’s no absolute evidence whatsoever that Holdo is generally “terrible at inspiring faith in her crew”. We don’t see her making any serious mistakes in that department that I’m aware of, and I’ve been over this bit of the film. Also I’d have to re-watch the movie again, but I’m not entirely sure that Poe and the gang ARE her crew, rather possibly have quite recently arrived there.
On the contrary, Holdo acts like a typical reasonable military commander typically male, and EXPECTS people to be disciplined, and follow orders because they’re soldiers. Indeed if she were a male commander, I think feel like criticism like yours, feelings like yours would be much more in line with what I think you agree is the director’s narrative - that Poe is a fuck-up, not Holdo. I’m not saying YOU are a sexist, I’m saying our society and common ways of thinking are, and that this movie challenges that with Holdo. Replace her with, say, Admiral Ackbar, and have her do exactly the same things, and I think your criticisms would be very different. She shouldn’t have to explain that she has a plan to some dumb fighter jock. He should be assuming that - she’s in charge for a reason. Even if she did say to him “I have a Top Sekrit Plan OK?!?!?”, would he have behaved differently? I’m skeptical.
Poe behaved not like a soldier, not a disciplined warrior, but like a smug, very male idiot, who thought he knew better than this dizzy purple-haired rules-following woman. That he was able to convince some people to help him doesn’t really speak badly of Holdo, it speaks badly of them. Countless mutinies in history have been by idiots for idiotic reasons, and this was one of them.
As for “unforseeable future events”, you seem to think this INHERENTLY makes it “bad writing”. It absolutely does not. You don’t have to like it, but countless writers, many of them very good, are absolutely reliant on “unforeseeable future events”, and some really great bits of writing involve them. You can say it’s bad writing, go for. Don’t claim it’s bad because of that though. For example, by your logic here (that such events are inherently bad writing), the end of LotR is absolutely SHITE writing, because no-one could have predicted what Gollum did, and how it saved the world, how Frodo not killing him earlier saved the world.
You don’t have to like the movie, but I don’t think your criticisms are terribly convincing.