'Any Updates?' Chuck Schumer's Post Last Year Accusing Trump of Being Weak on...
'Obama Crew Weeps for the Mullahs': Ben Rhodes Says Trump's Second Term Is...
Did Trump Say Our Goal in Iran Was Regime Change? Not so Fast...
Biden's Border Security Lie Was Such a Whopper That Not Even a Crowd...
President Trump's Tremendous State of the Union
The Left Says It 'Never Happens' – But Illegal Immigrant with Decades of...
US-Israel Launches Major Airstrikes on Iran; Operation Epic Fury
Trio of Democrat Senators Double Down on Making Illegal Aliens 'Numero Uno' Over...
New Kansas Anti-Transgender Driver’s License Law Has Some Saying ‘Go West, Young Them!’
Heated Rivalry Stans Discover Real Hockey Players Aren't Their Fanfic Boyfriends — Cry...
Ilhan Omar Claims US 'Loves' Striking Muslims During Ramadan—Gets Fact-Checked Into Oblivi...
Nice Business You've Got There... Be a Shame If Democrats 'Broke It Up'...
From NPR's Own Mouths (and Blood Tests): Extremely Low Testosterone – No Wonder...
'Queen' of Bobsled Kaillie Humphries Crowns Trump Support: Defends Women's Sports and Shut...
We Owe Charlie Kirk Better: Honoring His Legacy Instead of Betraying It

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