YIKES: Did Jasmine Crockett Just Tell Democrats to POUND SAND? Because It Sounds...
Marc Elias Tries (and Fails) to Rewrite Mail-In Ballot Voting History
How Keith Ellison Reacts to Journo Asking Him About Minnesota Fraud PROVES He...
DAAAMN, Son: UK Survivor Helps SHRED Mehdi Hasan in BRUTAL Back and Forth...
Humza Yousaf Wastes NO Time Turning Edinburgh 'Attack' Into 'Muslims Are the Real...
Jessica Tarlov's 'He COULD Be a Weird, Gay Vegan BUT' Save for James...
Police Release Photo of Karmelo Anthony’s Multi-Tool ‘Like With the Little Scissors’
Panefully Stupid: KTVU Reports Car Break-Ins Decline, Glass Repair Shops Hardest Hit
TRAs in Scotland Upset That Men Who Think They're Women Will Be Incarcerated...
Tulsi Gabbard Adds ANOTHER Element to Her Fauci Document Drop (Media Shaming INCOMING)
First Transgender State Legislator Sentenced to 33 Years for Child Porn, Claimed Retardati...
Sen. Chris Murphy Notes That No President Except Trump Has Ever Stolen Air...
After Beheading, Elmo Makes It Clear That He's Rooting for Team USA in...
The Atlantic's Matt Viser Went to Journalism School to Learn New Things, Like...
The Atlantic Looks at Pete Hegseth's Efforts to Diminish the Role of Blacks...

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