What even is your argument here? That they're not 100% in line with reality and therefore it's RUINED?
No; that they are very much over the top and are therefore doing a disservice. Similar to claims of cruise control causing cars to fly out of control through the air under hydroplaning conditions (yes, that's and actual claim). The problem exists, accidents can (and do) happen, but you have to be careful or you will scare the uninformed into thinking the tech is too dangerous for human use. It's not; people are just dumb sometimes, and THAT should be the argument: for transparency and accountability, with checks and balances to prevent a handful of people following the mistake of one or two and causing mass harm.
Let's see if we got this right:
Chernobyl: unsafe (relatively) design coupled with bureaucratic mistakes which pushed said design past its limits, further complicated by said design failing b/c shutdown was impossible without a temporary spike of reaction acceleration which froze the entire shutdown mechanism)
3 Mile Island: lack of training complicated by bad equipment design (indicator light wired to switch position instead of valve position)
Fukishima: Poor design for backup systems, IIRC also ignored when safety of such design was pointed out (backup generators located where water could stall the engines in an area prone to earthquake and therefore tsunamis, with a reactor design that required active cooling after shutdown).
All of the above accidents, especially Chernobyl, are bad enough without adding anything
to the facts of the stories for dramatic effect.