UK: Feminist MP Who Campaigned Against Men-Only Clubs Joins Gender-Segregated Muslim March
Vanity Fair: New Doc Says Elon Musk Had ‘A Degree of Certainty’ About...
Fetterman Crosses the Aisle: Democratic Senator Praises Trump at RNC, Infuriates His Own...
Gubernatorial Candidate Says Her Pronouns Are Mom, Texan, and Soon-To-Be Governor
Pray the Grounded Girls Get Chosen Before the Bitter Ones Hoard the Good...
'I'm Saving Your Number': CBS' Gayle King Fangirls Over Lindsay Clancy's Attorney
Hunter Biden Launches $LAPTOP Memecoin, Which Crashes 99 Percent Two Hours After Launch
Brian Stelter Has a Pic From the Packed House at Oliver Darcy's 'Information...
Mehdi Hasan Wants Apologies From Those Who Insisted War Would Stop If Hamas...
FAIL: James Talarico Tries to Convince a Reporter He No Longer Believes All...
Joe Scarborough: White House Will Hate the Success of Tennis Star From S**thole...
Those CREEPY HANDS! Gavin Newsom Scolds JD Vance While Bragging About Healthcare for...
‘Let’s Roll’: Flight 93 Hero Todd Beamer’s Father Endorses Mike Rogers — ‘Vote...
Ted Cruz Cites CNN's Reporting on James Talarico (Kaitlan Collins Runs Cover for...
American Heroes of 9/11: Officer John W. Perry

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