Illegal Who Entered 7 Times and Sexually Assaulted Woman Praised by Judge for...
ABC News: Sen. Mark Warner Says Type of Ammo Used in Drug Boat...
All Black Coaches Will Pay: Jemele Hill Predictably Drops a Race Card on...
MS NOW's Senior Legal Reporter Goes All-In With Narrative of Trump With Minors...
White Guilt Over Accountability: Minneapolis Shrugs at $250M Stolen from Hungry Kids
Questions Surround Mass Shooting at Brown University; Several Reported Injured
Jasmine Crockett Claims She Gets the Struggles of Farmers and Ranchers, Knows the...
Rep. Bennie Thompson Asks Where in the US Is Antifa
Scott Jennings: Suing Dems Will Need SWAT Teams and Kentucky Colonels to Stop...
USA! Trump Takes the Field at Army-Navy Game As the Crowd Goes Wild...
Sen. Amy Klobuchar Honors 1980 Olympic Men's Hockey Team With Photo of Stanley...
Dems Will Award Reuters Major Loyalty Points for Pushing Their Redacted Trump Pic...
Freed Illegal Alien Kilmar Abrego Garcia Sounds Like He’s Giving Democrat Party Campaign...
Childless Strategist Bitecofer Declares Kids Ruin Lives – X Users Clap Back Hard
'WIPEOUT!' Video of ICE Vehicle Knocking Over Protester Amid Laughter Isn't Generating Sym...

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