Neil deGrasse Tyson on ‘Frozen 2’ Criticism: Why Scientific Accuracy Matters and Why He Deserves Respect
Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson is renowned globally for his ability to make complex scientific concepts accessible and engaging to the general public. As the host of the acclaimed series Cosmos: Possible Worlds and a prolific presence on social media, Tyson has cultivated a unique platform that blends scientific education with pop culture commentary. However, his candid observations on the scientific inaccuracies found in popular films occasionally land him in the spotlight for reasons beyond pure scientific discourse. Recently, Tyson faced a wave of criticism, often referred to as “flaming,” after he publicly critiqued Disney’s animated blockbuster, Frozen 2, for its scientific inconsistencies. In an exclusive interview with HollywoodLife, Tyson eloquently articulated his perspective, emphasizing that his critiques are born from a genuine desire to share knowledge and that he deserves “respect” for contributing to a more informed public.
Those familiar with Neil deGrasse Tyson’s active Twitter feed know him as more than just a celebrated astrophysicist; he often acts as an amateur film critic, frequently injecting what he himself admits are “snarky” takes on cinematic portrayals of science. His posts consistently highlight moments where films deviate from established scientific principles, offering a unique blend of entertainment and education. This tendency led to a recent controversy when his comments regarding Princess Elsa’s “horse-sized eyeballs” in Frozen 2 stirred up a considerable debate among fans and critics alike. Ahead of the March 9 premiere of his latest series, Cosmos: Possible Worlds, a good-natured Tyson explained his rationale to HollywoodLife, stating, “I am just being honest.”
Tyson elaborated on the nature of his cinematic observations, distinguishing them from mere opinion. “My movie tweets — if you look at them, they are not even opinion,” he asserted. “I mean, occasionally, there is a leaky opinion that shows up, but mostly, I am offering observations that you might have missed, things I noticed, and I noticed that other people didn’t notice.” This distinction is crucial to understanding Tyson’s approach. He views his role not as an arbiter of artistic merit but as a keen-eyed observer highlighting details that, from a scientific standpoint, might be overlooked by the average viewer. His intent, he maintains, is to enrich the audience’s viewing experience by adding an extra layer of scientific awareness.
The astrophysicist expressed his frustration with the backlash, arguing for a consistent standard of intellectual curiosity and appreciation. “I just share them, and I don’t want special treatment for that, but I don’t want to be ridiculed for having done it any more than would you ridicule someone [else],” he told HollywoodLife. To illustrate his point, Tyson drew a vivid analogy: “Say there is a period piece that, let’s say, takes place in 1958 but there is a 1960 Chevy Bel Air parked on it. ‘What those fins were not inside? What, how?’ And you would say, ‘Hey, I got a friend that knows that!’ You’d be proud of that friend! I am no different.” This comparison underscores his belief that recognizing anachronisms or factual errors in other fields is often celebrated, yet similar observations in science are sometimes met with derision.
Tyson extended his analogy to further drive home his point about the perceived disparity in respect for different types of knowledge. “I am just doing that in the field of science,” he added. “Yet people somehow want to reject it. I just want the same respect.” He continued with another relatable scenario: “Maybe you have a friend who is a costume designer and you are watching a Jane Austen period piece where there are people coming off the carriage and someone is wearing a derby instead of a top hat. [Your friend is] like, ‘No, that wasn’t in style that year!’ I would be like, ‘Hey, how did you know that?’ You’d be tickled by this knowledge, so I just don’t get respect! [laughs].” Neil insists that his comments are intended in good fun and that his tweets are “mostly just information to add to your movie-going experience!” His laughter during the interview suggests a lighthearted acceptance of the ongoing debate, yet his underlying message about valuing scientific literacy remains earnest.
The particular instance that garnered recent widespread attention involved his tweet about Elsa’s animated proportions in Frozen 2. On February 23rd, Tyson playfully poked fun at the character’s design, tweeting, “Not that anybody asked, but if Elsa from ‘Frozen’ has a Human-sized Head then she has Horse-sized Eyeballs — occupying 4x the normal volume within her cranium. I’m just sayin’.” This observation, rooted in comparative anatomy and simple volumetric calculations, highlighted the often-exaggerated features in animation that, when held to a realistic standard, present humorous biological impossibilities. This wasn’t the first time he had critiqued the Frozen sequel. Even before the movie’s release, he pointed out a significant scientific blunder on its promotional material. He drew attention to the film’s poster featuring a geometrically incorrect snowflake. In a tweet, he admonished Disney, stating: “Dear @Disney, You got it right the first time. Water crystals have hexagonal ‘six-fold’ symmetry. You still have a few months to fix your #Frozen2 Movie Poster, unless the sequel takes place in another universe, where water crystalizes to different laws of physics.”
However, it is important to note that Tyson’s critiques are not solely negative. He is equally quick to commend films when they accurately portray scientific phenomena. In the case of Frozen, he explicitly defended the original film for getting some crucial elements right, such as the depiction of the Aurora Borealis. This balanced approach—highlighting both scientific triumphs and missteps—underscores his commitment to fostering scientific literacy rather than simply lambasting creative works. He seeks to open conversations, to encourage audiences to think critically about the world, even within the escapist realm of cinema.
Not that anybody asked, but if Elsa from “Frozen” has a Human-sized Head then she has Horse-sized Eyeballs — occupying 4x the normal volume within her cranium. I’m just sayin’. pic.twitter.com/UujtGa3z5h
— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) February 24, 2020
Even though @DisneyStudios’s “Frozen” features talking snowmen and enchanted rolly-polly rocks, the Aurorae were authentically represented in the Nordic nighttime skies. pic.twitter.com/E79UmAcyUV
— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) February 24, 2020
Neil deGrasse Tyson’s scientific scrutiny extends far beyond the magical world of Arendelle. His sharp observations have targeted a wide array of cinematic productions, from classic dramas to epic fantasy and science fiction. As reported by Newsweek, he has famously criticized the historical drama Titanic, humorously noting the implausibility of Jack freezing to death while Rose could have easily made space on the floating door. “You try once. ‘Oh, this is not gonna work. I will just freeze to death in the water.’ No, excuse me. No!” he quipped, challenging the film’s dramatic license with a dose of engineering reality. His critiques often highlight how a minor adjustment, perhaps as simple as making room on a floating debris, could alter the narrative and perhaps even offer a more scientifically plausible outcome, albeit one less dramatically convenient.
Other notable targets of his scientific lens include the sprawling fantasy series Game of Thrones, where he’s delved into the physics of dragons in flight and the astronomical accuracy of its celestial bodies. He’s also taken on the bombastic action flick Armageddon, dissecting its wildly improbable asteroid-splitting mission with a scientist’s precision, pointing out the numerous physical impossibilities that underpin its plot. Even critically acclaimed science fiction films like The Martian, despite its strong commitment to scientific accuracy, haven’t escaped his detailed analysis, though his comments here are often more nuanced, praising its efforts while still pointing out minor deviations. The fantastical world of Superman has also been subject to his scientific deconstruction, questioning the physics behind flight and superpowers. His consistent engagement with these diverse genres demonstrates his overarching philosophy: science is everywhere, and understanding it can enhance, rather than diminish, our appreciation of storytelling.
Tyson’s ongoing mission, through his television series, books, and social media, is to ignite curiosity and promote scientific thinking among the masses. His film critiques are a natural extension of this goal. By pointing out scientific inaccuracies, he encourages viewers to think critically about the world presented on screen and to question how it aligns with the reality governed by the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology. This isn’t about ruining the magic of cinema; it’s about adding another layer of depth, fostering a more informed and scientifically literate audience. The balance between artistic freedom and scientific fidelity is a perennial debate in filmmaking, and Tyson’s voice serves as a prominent advocate for the latter.
The public reaction to Tyson’s film commentary is often a mixed bag. While many appreciate his insightful and often humorous observations, finding them educational and thought-provoking, others feel that he “ruins” the escapism of movies by applying too rigid a scientific standard. Yet, Tyson stands firm in his belief that these are not mutually exclusive. He argues that understanding the science behind a phenomenon can actually deepen one’s appreciation, much like understanding the historical context of a period piece enhances its enjoyment. His contributions spark discussions that bridge the gap between scientific communities and mainstream entertainment, making science a topic of casual conversation rather than an intimidating academic pursuit.
Ultimately, Neil deGrasse Tyson’s role as a public intellectual is deeply intertwined with his identity as a science communicator. Whether hosting Cosmos: Possible Worlds, writing best-selling books, or engaging with millions on social media, his core objective remains the same: to share knowledge and foster a greater understanding of the universe. His film critiques, including those targeting Frozen 2, are merely another facet of this broader educational endeavor. He invites audiences to see the world, both real and imagined, through a scientific lens, believing that such a perspective ultimately enriches our lives and encourages a more profound appreciation for both art and empirical truth.
When asked his take on why the silky-voiced astrophysicist wouldn’t land a role in Frozen 3, Dr. Tyson laughed and delivered a characteristically frank response, saying, “There aren’t many people of color in the Nordic lands where Frozen is held, so I don’t expect an offering.” This comment, delivered with his usual blend of humor and directness, underscores his awareness of the broader context surrounding popular culture, even as he focuses on its scientific elements. It’s a reminder that his observations, whether scientific or sociological, are always aimed at promoting a more truthful and inclusive understanding of our world.