Ben Shapiro Schools Piers Morgan: Free Speech Means I Don't Have to Feed...
Real Christian Care Is Personal—Not Political Force
Obama Fanboy Axelrod Deletes Outrage Post After Falling for Fake Trump Gold Coin...
Cecilia Vega Mad She Got Fired for Defying CBS Bosses and Whined About...
From Cocky Troll to Sudden Sage: Katz Rewrites Himself From Platner’s Hype Man...
Whitmer Endorses Haley Stevens in MI Senate Primary ... Hamas Caucus Hardest Hit
Hamas Caucus of the Dem Party Melts Down as DNC Crowns South Carolina...
USA Today: Caitlin Clark Skipped Orange Carpet for a Blowout ... It Was...
Randy Fine Putting the Senate on FAFO Notice for Not Even TRYING to...
CNN’s Abby Phillip Gets Schooled by Halperin for Excusing Illegal Voters
Mike Lee's Thread Puts HEAP BIG Hurtin' on Liz Warren for Pushing Another...
Trump DOJ Confirms Investigation Into New Jersey Voter Rolls
Rand Paul Drops Damning, DEET-FILLED Thread About the Actual Origins of COVID and...
'Cite a Case of Sanctuary Cities Not Turning in Criminal Illegals,' Said Rep...
Jessica Tarlov's Desperation to Downplay Dems/DSA Civil War Tells Us It's SO MUCH...

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