Why can't it work the way it's shown? There is nothing like the Eva or the entry plug system in the real world, so on what do you base your assumptions about how they should work? I mean, what if it actually could work that way? What if someone were to come in here right now and post some lengthy explanation of how a wireless neural interface system like that could actually work that way in real life, and then it means that the work was unfairly maligned for being "inaccurate" and "stupid shit" when in fact it was a very realistic portrait of how such a system might work?
Just to illustrate, consider depictions of the coldness of space in fiction. "Space is cold", they say. Some works of fiction, in the name of being "realistic", or rather what people think is "realistic", therefore depict people and things that get jettisoned out into space as flash-freezing, such as what happens to water in one scene in Macross... when in fact, that is completely inaccurate, because in space, the only way to get rid of heat is through radiation because of the vacuum, and so in fact heat buildup is actually a big problem for spacecraft.
Can't you imagine someone going on a tirade on some forum about how stupid some scene or moment was in some movie or series because "That guy who got pushed out the airlock should have frozen immediately, because space is cold, idiots!"? And isn't that just so terribly unfair to the work? What's an author supposed to do?
And this thing we're talking about now is not even a real system! There are no Evas, there are no entry plugs, there is no LCL, so where do we get off saying that this fictitious system operating wirelessly through a fictitious substance to communicate with a fictitious alien god-being is doing it wrong?
Should not our reaction be instead to take what we see and draw our conclusions from it, rather than applying our preconceived conclusions to it and calling it "stupid shit" for not conforming?