'Public Assembly': Watch Police Harass Billboard Chris, Anna McGovern for Wearing a Sign...
AP Review of Star Wars Actor's Meeting With Biden Doesn't Match the Readout...
MOSTLY PEACEFUL UPenn Protesters Harass Students With Strobe Lights, Threats
America LAST: Biden Opens Obamacare to DACA Recipients While 25 MILLION Americans Go...
To Get YOUR White House Invite, A) Be From a Famous Movie, and...
Taylor Lorenz's UNHINGED Comments About LGBTQ Rights in Florida, Texas Make Don Lemon...
Actor Jeff Daniels Hopes Flyover State Voters Realize Trump 'Talks Down to Us'...
OOF: Chrystia Freeland Gets Buried Under a Ratio for 'World Press Freedom Day'...
Google Removes Trump PAC Ad Targeting Black Men and it is Very Suspicious
The NH Libertarian Party Goes on a Weird Twitter Spiral about Feeding Orphans
Joe Biden and Karine Jean Pierre Drag the 'Star Wars' Guy to a...
Mike Johnson vs MTG, Frat Bro Revolution, Time Magazine Meltdown!
KJP Assigns Blame for What Will Happen to the Middle Class If Biden...
Vile Georgetown Professor Calls Byron Donalds an 'Uncle Tom' in a Repugnant Scene
This Video of Biden's Chief Economic Adviser Is Making the Rounds (Yeah, 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