CBS ‘News’ Touts Stale Stories in Sad Bid to Appear Relevant in Covering...
‘For Kids Who Can’t Read Good’: Elon Musk Owned a Minnesota ‘Daycare’ …...
Abortion Debate Hits a New Low. Can We Set the Moral Standard Somewhere...
Ryan Shead’s ‘I’m a Heavyweight’ Moment Is Something Else. Confidence is One Thing,...
Leftist Streamer Hasan Piker Melts Down Over Empty Fraud Daycares: 'Think of the...
Victor Davis Hanson: ‘Undertaxed’ Mitt Romney Needs to Stop Preaching and Write a...
Nancy Pelosi Says Democrats Don’t Want to Impeach Trump (Again) but He Keeps...
Axelrod Warns Against Rewarding Aggressors—Forgets His Boss Handed Putin Crimea on a Platt...
Independent Journalist Finds EMPTY Daycares in MN Fraud Bombshell—Texas Dem Calls HIM the...
'You Should Be Thanking Us': Somali Community Demands Praise Amid Massive Minnesota Fraud...
Cynical Publius: How Imported Tribal Norms Fuel Minnesota's Billion-Dollar Fraud
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum Touts: '16 Lease Sales Generating Over $187 Million'
Elizabeth Warren Got Caught in Some Censorship Hypocrisy and Could NOT Get Away...
Wokies, When the People the Fake Holiday Was Created for Call it FAKE...
WOW: Palisades Fire Chief Calls Out Superiors in DAMNING Email for Modifying Report...

Neil DeGrasse Tyson attempts to illuminate facts on another movie and people are less than bowled over by his 'science'

With Walt Disney’s ”Frozen 2” having become more successful a number of questions resulted. Why are people braving the winter weather to go watch a film about the frigid conditions? Why do the two female voice actresses switch characters to sing the songs? Just how many products can Disney brand to the film???

Advertisement

One inevitable question also with a film this popular arrives: How will celebrity astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson attempt to ruin the film with his cinematic hot takes? Tyson, as we have come to understand, enjoys arriving on the scene with a pithy science-based rejoiner for films to overexplain things and annoy fans. This time Neil delivers, but in far less impressive fashion.

This seems underwhelming. For all of the mysticism and questionable physics we witness, Tyson was only able to find an issue with the appearance of a character — in a cartoon?

Advertisement

This is a common issue with Neil’s entertainment quips — they only work if you refuse to understand the films are presenting an exaggerated reality.

This would make more sense than this descriptive correction he offered up. Considering the things that take place in this animated fantasy it seems taking scientific shots at appearances comes off as somewhat shallow.

Advertisement

There may have been a time when these wry observations were somewhat amusing. This is just half-hearted scrounging for something to post.

There is just one response to Mr. Tyson.

 

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement