What does it mean for something to be structurally well written but bad character-wise, plot-wise, or in execution? In theory, it seems similar to the “there’s no bad ideas, just bad execution” thing, but people seem to use it in a different way. In particular, I’m not sure how the execution can be different from how good the characters or plot is-it sounds like an umbrella term to me, but I think I maybe be missing a little bit of context.
I think it varies so much because they are all different things but can so closely overlap (I remember in one of my narrative theory courses we talked about the difference between events, sequence, and plot like ad nauseam... and all of it has basically left my brain). A lot of it also comes down to what is considered 'good' for each of them, which can vary wildly and be very subjective. So this is, at least, how I think about them!
» Structure: the overall themes and messaging of the story, usage of foils and parallels, for ex. This is like, Concepts rather than execution. The ability to decipher the intention of a thing (i.e. this character arc is about learning to trust) even if it's not well executed, etc.
» Plot: the events of the story. Character A went to Place B, etc. Ideally, the plot will help enhance the structure (a character who learns to trust will have to confront a person who betrayed them at Place B, etc) and stakes/execution etc.
» Characters: the personal manifestations used to tell the story. They can be used as tools (pieces of theme) which can be separate entirely from their characterization (personality, interiority; which can take precedence over their tool-ness). They are typically vessels of likability or intrigue to make us want to care about the other shit (worldbuilding, plot, etc) if the story is character driven > premise or plot driven.
» Execution: how all of these things, arguably, are brought together and/or disparate from one another. For example, while Sleeping Beauty and Snow White have structure and plot similarities — a beautiful sleeping maiden is awoken from her cursed 'death' with a kiss from a prince — but how they get there is wildly different; Snow White's curse is very sudden, Aurora faces a slow build of dread because you always know it's coming, even if she doesn't. Snow White is accordingly simpler as a story, whereas Sleeping Beauty engages (lightly at least) with fate as a theme.
For a story of how all these elements can merge (nor merge) together, I'm going to talk about Frozen because I think it's a specifically really good example to use to break down all of the above:
Frozen is about sisters, and specifically the reconciliation of the sisters. There are themes of family and the importance of being open with others in your life; Hans provides a subtheme of why you shouldn't rush in to just trusting anybody. (We'll get to him later, believe me.) For Anna, she's rewarded for her determination and love, and doesn't really change as a person throughout the movie; Elsa, comparatively, does, learning to let go of her fear surrounding her powers and how to embrace them (scaffolded under learning to let herself be loved). This provides a subtheme of people doing bad/dangerous things out of fear.
Sisters fight. Elsa runs away to avoid (not feel/deal) with her problems and creates winter out of fear. Anna pursues her, is injured, comes back, is betrayed by Hans. Elsa is likewise dragged back to their kingdom. Hans almost kills both of them, Anna saves her sister even if that means sacrificing herself, and that ends up saving her. Elsa gains a better understanding of her powers out of it and ends the winter. Happy ending.
If the plot demands for Anna to go after her sister into the cold, then Anna must be a determined character. If Elsa's plotline requires her to try and hide her powers, then she must be a more secretive character. The add ons to make them endearing, tbh, is that Anna is plucky and out of her element (highlighting her determination and love), and Elsa is anxious (whereas another character could've been secretive and resentful) because she doesn't want to hurt anyone, which keeps her sympathetic even as the harm of her powers escalate.
So now that we have all these factors understood, how does the movie actually apply all of them? Frozen is very much a movie that checks off all its structural boxes — the story is indeed about trust and love and fear (themes), and the sisters do reconcile after a magically created divide — but the execution falters routinely when it comes to Character Agency and Consistency, particularly for Elsa and Hans, respectively. This also hampers its themes and overall story execution.
For example, the true monarch fleeing the kingdom out of fear, leaving it in disarray, initially ignoring the person who came to bring them back and fix the problem, only to eventually make things right and reclaim the throne is also the Plot Structure of The Lion King. However, whereas Simba makes the choice go home and face Scar — even when he still believes himself responsible for his father's death, even when he doesn't know if things are going to work out — Elsa is dragged back against her will. She then escapes and attempts to leave, placing even Anna's care in Hans' hands. Elsa has effectively no agency post-Let It Go, and the story never seems super bothered by this, or the way she only unlearns her primary character flaw (avoidance and running away) after everything else has already been comparatively fixed (Anna has saved her and has thawed). And because her agency is nuked, her character arc also feels really underdeveloped. She has basically 3 stages (childhood powers are good, childhood powers are bad for 90% of the movie (minus let it go), childhood powers are good again) with very little in between the last two stages, which is what should arguably get the most focus.
Hans is also a character who gets a major short end of the stick (and takes both the girls down with him) because of his lack of character consistency. It's more than "oh he's a twist villain, so you can't see it coming"—it's that his actions at the Ice Palace make zero sense if he wants the throne.
The Duke has one of his guys lined up to take the shot and kill Elsa, which Hans already defaults to being necessary to end the winter like 10 minutes later; he's already in charge of Arendelle with Anna MIA and he was planning on staging an accident for Elsa after the wedding to Anna, anyway; and here, he can have someone else kill the queen with witnesses and zero involvement for him. He has multiple reasons to want her dead, and none to actually want her alive, but he... spares her anyway, for some reason? Because the plot needs her alive, so they have him shot the arrow upwards toward the chandelier to Maybe take her out (and him checking it out is animated) which is also dumb, because if it was on purpose that'd make him more responsible for her death (which he seemingly wanted anyway in that scene!!) than just letting the guy take the shot.
So Hans doesn't really make sense as a twist villain, and I'd also argue him being one completely negates a lot of Anna's agency as well. Rather than realizing for herself which man suits her better or who she trusts more, she's hung utterly out to dry and then has Olaf point it out to her. Even though your partner doesn't actually have to be Evil to be Not Right for you, and that's a message I wish we saw a lot more in kids media.
However, Frozen is also an exceedingly easy move to fix in a variety of ways.
When writing a story, we all have various options to get us to the same outcome — say, a character needs to realize they have courage, and we know we want a haunted castle involved — so these are the Frozen Fix-It situations, I think.
Elsa escapes the prison, but decides to stay in Arendelle to try and find Anna in the storm and solve their problems together, rather than attempting to actively flee again. This is the simplest fix and gives her more agency (though it doesn't really fix Hans and Anna's situation: maybe Elsa redirects the arrow herself at the Ice Palace, and he doesn't really do anything).
My personal favourite: Hans is the antagonist, but he's not a Villain. He genuinely cares about Anna and thinks he's in love with her; he kisses her and it doesn't work. He thinks that in order to save Anna and the kingdom, he has to kill Elsa, and goes to do so with immense regret/remorse. Anna is pissed at him post her de-thawing, but Elsa steps in, and reminds her that people do terrible things when they're scared (stronger theming). Elsa forgives/pardons Hans, but it's clear she's forgiving herself too (agency). Hans and Anna realize that while they care about each other, they're not that well suited, and she picks (rather than being handed) Kristoff.
Option 2 the one that keeps the most of the movie's plot structure while also changing the most, comparatively, and while I'd still have gripes with it (looking at the trolls; looking at Elsa's agency, etc) it's kind of the movie I'll always wish Frozen would've been if they'd just let it be a bit more complex and consistent.
So Frozen, as is, is a movie with a decent plot and good characters, but weaker theming and poorer execution: it's a fun movie, but a structurally broken one, to me. Conversely, there can be stories like The Lion King that have a much stronger structure, but maybe the characters aren't as compelling or some feel underdeveloped, etc. The overall shape of the story is strong, but the ins and outs and scene by scene execution is iffier.
Hope this helps and if you have any more questions or specific examples you'd like to send in, absolutely feel free!