Andy McCabe Says It’s Unlikely the J6 Pipe Bomber Case Was Ignored, It...
Nature Magazine Retracts Highly Flawed Climate Catastrophe Study
Dem Jim Himes Says Venezuelan Drug Runners Could Be Average Josés Lacking Economic...
The Reich Stuff: Joy Reid Says She Got a Nazi-Like Vibe From Senior...
Dem Mark Warner Blames Trump’s FBI for Not Arresting J6 Pipe Bomber Suspect...
Stardate 90210: Yet Another Awful Star Trek Series Announced
MAZE Posts Epic Mehdi Hasan Self-Own Over Search for the Far-Right, White Pipe...
Bulwark’s Tim Miller Applauds Jamie Raskin’s Investigation Into Trump's 60 Minutes Intervi...
'Major Milestone’: Home in Pacific Palisades Receives Final Approval From the City
When Jake Tapper Said the J6 Pipe Bomber Was a ‘White Man’ and...
Rep. Jerry Nadler Explains Why States Are Refusing to Hand Over SNAP Data:...
Pramila Jayapal: ‘Being Undocumented Isn’t a Crime’ – Federal Law and Half of...
Jim Acosta Says Trump Should Be Impeached Over Hateful Comments About the Somali...
Another ‘Police Brutality’ Story Collapses: Woman Refuses ID to Protect Illegal Boyfriend
JD Vance Is Hearing Rumors That the EU Commission Will Fine X Hundreds...

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