Question for week of Feb 6-12: Film/TV & Science

Why is science in tv and film so obviously wrong?

At this point, I'm not sure if the problem starts at the top (the US' poor rank in science ed), the bottom (general audiences are too dumb to notice/care), or the middle (show creators/writers are too dumb to notice/care).

Exhibit "Only" is Deadline's article on NBC's latest pilot order, Revolution, which is co-produced by JJ Abrams. Let's read the blurb:

a high-octane action drama following a group of characters struggling to survive and reunite with loved ones in a world where all forms of energy have mysteriously ceased to exist.

This sounds like we may get a TV version that's like many apocalyptic features - Mad Max, Escape from New York , the TV series Jericho , right? Most are set in the future, but since fx and vehicles are expensive (and entertainment requires conflict), they say society collapsed and technology went backwards.

Sadly, a series with "no energy" could never be a high-octane anything. No solar and heat energy means the world would freeze. But before that happened, most of the life on earth would die. For people, we would first "cease to exist" because we'd lack the electric energy that makes our nerves work; we'd all collapse, totally unaware as our bodies peacefully expired.

That show sounds like it would first be really sad, then quite boring. At least it would have a body count like JJ Abrams requires.

Bonus stupid points to the creators here: I can't actually tell if they mean that the whole electrical grid shuts down (no power plugs), that an EMP destroyed all power circuits (no unprotected electronics work), or that all fuel sources stop working (no old planes or cars, either). I hope it's the former; won't people freeze or starve when they can't start fires? Even Hollywood producers should know that fire=energy.

It's a shock to think that a lot of money is being spent on just an idea, especially when it's such a dumb idea right out of the gate...