Uh Oh: After Humiliating Congressional Hearing, U Penn President Magill May Be Asked...
White House Scrubs CAIR From Its Antisemitism Fact Sheet After Leader Praises October...
A Day That Will Live In Infamy: Remember Pearl Harbor 82 Years Later
Receipts: WaPo Lost It When Trump Used the Word 'Vermin,' But Check Out...
Rashida Tlaib's Shameless Objection to Rep. Bowman's House Censure Earns a BRUTAL Communit...
Austin Shooter Shane James Bailed Out By Progressive Group Last Year
Former HRW Director Says There Was Just a 'Modest' Presence of Hamas Under...
Planned Parenthood Getting Flak From the Left for Its Statement Denouncing Hamas
BREAKING: The Fed Plans To Charge 636 Month Old Child Hunter Biden with...
That's Gonna Sting: U Penn Loses $100 Million Donation After President Magill's Congressio...
Elizabeth Warren (Who Is Very Rich) Wants To Ban Crypto
At Harvard, Sizeism and Fatphobia Are Violence, but Not Calling for Genocide
There Are MANY Events: Nate Silver Laments Growing Distrust In Science, Can't Figure...
Sen. John Fetterman Surprises Us Again by Defending 'Reasonable' Border Talks
'We're Number One?': BBC Anchor Finds Creative New Way to Greet Her Viewers

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???


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?


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.


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


Trending on Twitchy Videos