NYT: Automakers Want Trump to Keep Biden EV Mandates in Place
No Experience Necessary: Kamala HQ TikTok Team Was Nothing But Gen Zers
Girl Allegedly Sexually Assaulted by Venezuelan Illegal Living in Family's Basement
Did Pam Bondi Really Steal a St. Bernard? Journalism Has Gone to The...
MSNBC Contributor Asks If We Want Someone Who Made Terror Watch List as...
ABC News Tell You How to Join Bluesky
Will 'Journos' Ever Learn?: X is the Mainstream, Not The Atlantic and Other...
Conservatives Not Pleased With Trump's Labor Secretary Nominee
Mayor of Denver Seems to Walk Back Threat to Use Police to Prevent...
Chief Diversity Officer at the NIH Retiring at the End of the Year...
Mark Cuban Goes Full BlueAnon Accusing Elon Musk of Having Bot Army
Trump's Surgeon General Nominee Praised Facebook for Its Censorship During COVID
Biden Says He Left the Country Better Off Than 4 Years Ago (Which...
WH's 'Building a Better Future' Post With Pic of Kamala Harris Waving Goodbye...
U.N. Secretary-General Seems a Bit Concerned His 'Climate Finance' Is Drying Up

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