Church of England Warns Clergy About Christmas Carols With 'Problematic Words'
Matt Yglesias: Why Aren't Conservatives Bothered by Crime in Conservative States?
Taylor Lorenz Extremely Stressed About Getting a Rush Visa ASAP
People Have Fun With Idea That 'Hunnikah' Celebrates a Jewish Gorilla War
Christmas Is a Miracle and You Don't Need to Look Further Than North...
Happy Holidays Tweet from the ATF Doesn't Warm The Heart
If What the Teamsters Prez Told Tucker Carlson Is True It's No Wonder...
Merry Christmas: A Special Bonus Gift of Christmas Funnies Just for You
Simply ‘Wonderful’: Classic Holiday Film Reminds Generations It’s Okay to Cry at Christmas
A Lump of Coal in Her Stocking! Crypto Influencer Gets BURIED for Not...
Political Pivot? Many Question ‘Young Turk’ Cenk Uygur’s Sudden Willingness to Talk with...
'The View' Panelist Says Problem for Dems Is That Gov't Won't Regulate Social...
Man Vs. History: Bear Grylls Gets DROPPED by Community Notes for Awful Take...
Scott Jennings: Dem Party Must Flush the Fringe and Embrace Common Sense to...
HO HO OH LOL-NO! Leftist Mocked for Whining About the Midwest DAD We...

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