The Supreme Court Rules on Deportations to Third-Party Countries (LAWSPLAINING)
UK Home Secretary Reopening Resettlement Schemes for Palestinians Who Have Fled the Horror...
Sen. Mark Warner Says 100,000 Virginians Have Been Kicked Off of SNAP Because...
Sunny Hostin Defended the Cornell 7 — and, Painfully, She’s Right
Rev. Suggests Lazarus Was Gay Because Jesus Called for Him to ‘Come Out’
Rep. LaMonica McIver Is Facing Prison for Touching ICE Officers — She Just...
Mamdani the Pied-À-Terrible: NYC Mayor Loses in Court on Tax-The-Rich Rollout
The Bulwark’s Focus Group Says Abdul El-Sayed Is Over-Performing With Trump Voters
Kyle Kulinski Has No Doubt Mossad Has Videos of Trump 'Doing Ungodly Things...
Cory Booker Thinks a Criminal Who Undermined One Election Is Very Likely to...
Tight Race, Tight Pants: James Talarico Victory Could Obliterate State Religion of Texas...
Venezuelan Shot by ICE Charged by DOJ With Assaulting a Federal Officer
El-Sayed Wants Money Out of Politics — Except the Soros Family That Hand-Selected...
Jack Smith Subpoenaed Checks From Thousands of Americans Who Donated As Little As...
The Cornell 7: Viral Outrage, Changing Statements, and Why Prosecutors May Have Walked...

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