Daytime Dysfunction: 'The View' Continues to Give ABC's Lawyers MAJOR Headaches
Literally NO ONE Is Asking for This: CBS News Insists 'Some' Voters Are...
Heaven on Earth: Take a Glimpse Inside the Restored Notre Dame Cathedral
Unpopular Opinion: Rand Paul Warns Trump Against Using Military to Deport Illegals, Gets...
Donald Trump Nominates Former Florida AG Pam Bondi for Attorney General
Bob Casey Jr Finally Concedes to Dave McCormick in Pennsylvania Senate Race
This TOTALLY Did Not Happen! Climate Activist Says Hurricanes Convinced His Barber Climate...
LET THEM FIGHT: Cenk Uygur Calls Out Joy Behar and 'The View' and...
Daily Mail: We're All Gonna Die From Climate Change! (In 75 Years, That...
'You'll See Things Our Way': Jaguar DOUBLES DOWN on Cringe Ad With Vaguely...
Mayor of Dearborn, Michigan Will Have Netanyahu Arrested If He Enters the City
Biden's America: NFL Issues Security Alert for Players Regarding S. American Crime Syndica...
Karine Jean-Pierre Explains How Much Cheaper Your Thanksgiving Meal Is This Year Thanks...
Nancy Mace Goes 'There' Ending Adam Kinzinger for Trying to Pick a Fight...
Good Luck With That! British MPs Plan to Summon Elon Musk to the...

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