History Teacher to Minnesota Republicans: Good Luck Winning... A State You Haven't Won...
Ding Dong! The Witch Is Gone: Teacher's Union Leader Randi Weingarten Flees X...
CBS Ditches Trans Journalists Association Guide, Mandates 'Biological Sex at Birth' — No...
Dem Ilhan Omar Demands Evidence of Criminal Illegal Alien Arrests in MN Days...
Tragic Spell: Chicago Teachers Union Deletes Post Asking ‘Governer’ JB Pritzker to Tax...
'Abolish ICE' on Ice? Political Group Advises Dem Party to Pretend NOT to...
Liberal Influencer Says She’s at the Firing Range Training to Kill ‘MAGA F**ks’
ICE Allegedly Shut Down the Oldest Mexican Restaurant in Aaron Rupar’s Hometown
Bernie Sanders Introduces Bill Banning Presidents From Naming Buildings After Themselves
Media Spins Mass Exodus Over ICE Shooting—Shipwreckedcrew Drops the Truth: It's All About...
NYT: MN Prosecutors Resign After Push to Investigate Renee Good’s Wife
From 'Elephants Are Not Birds' to 'Principles Are Not Permanent': Ashley St. Clair's...
From 'I'm Not a Biologist' to 'CisGINGER' Queen: KBJ Just Gave Redheads the...
Vigil Held for Father of Two Killed by Off-Duty ICE Agent
Don Lemon Asks If This Is What You Voted For, MAGA, You 'F**king...

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