According to Neil deGrasse Tyson, the least scientifically accurate science fiction film

Know that acclaimed astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson isn’t trying to spoil anyone’s fun when he pokes fun at the bad science often found in mainstream Hollywood blockbusters. He’s just a nerd, and I think we can all respect that. There’s no shame in having a lot of scientific knowledge, and pointing out the physics and astronomy flaws in a film can hopefully only encourage filmmakers to be more precise next time. Case in point: Tyson complained to director James Cameron that in “Titanic” he misunderstood the night sky. Knowing what the North Atlantic constellations looked like on that fateful April night in 1912, Tyson suggested that Cameron use digital tricks to reshape the sky accordingly. Cameron, who is also a nerd, was grateful.

However, with most space films, Tyson has a lot to complain about. For example, audiences have accepted that most science fiction spaceships feature “artificial gravity,” even though there is no such thing. A physicist would point out that a ship would have to turn sideways to keep its occupants on the ground. And of course, any science student can tell you that there is no sound in space and that growling spaceship engines, splashing blasters, and spectacular explosions would actually be silent.

However, there are a few films that would stretch anyone’s credulity. For example, Michael Bay’s 1998 thriller Armageddon is about a team of oil drillers and astronauts who fly to an oncoming comet in order to blow it up. To a 2024 episode of “The Jess Cagle Show,” Tyson pointed out several reasons why blowing up a potentially deadly comet is a bad idea. In fact, he once felt that Armageddon was the most brazenly unscientific science fiction film ever made.

But “Armageddon” was recently replaced by an even dumber film. Tyson has some harsh words for it Roland Emmerich’s mega classic “Moonfall” from 2022.

“Moonfall” is about a couple of astronauts (Halle Berry and Patrick Wilson), who were on an occasional space mission in 2011 when Wilson’s character witnessed a swarm of alien spacecraft. Nobody believed him and he lost his career. A decade later, Berry and Wilson are contacted by a wild conspiracy theorist (John Bradley) who posits that the moon itself is a vast, man-made superstructure and that an entire alien civilization resides within it. He also noticed that the moon was falling out of its orbit and passing closer and closer to the Earth.

Because the moon does just that, Earth’s weather systems are thrown into disarray. Eventually, it passes so close that the moon’s gravity begins to lift people off the Earth’s surface. The three protagonists fly to the moon… and find aliens lurking inside. The film is pleasantly stupid and exaggerated, like many of Roland Emmerich’s films.

On social media, Tyson stated that “Armageddon” “breaks more laws of physics (per minute) than any other film in the universe.” That honor, he said, once belonged to Disney’s 1979 dud “The Black Hole.” Unfortunately, along came “Moonfall” and blew them both out of the water. “I thought so until “I saw ‘Moonfall,’” he said on “Jess Cagle,” before bursting into laughter. Indignantly, he described the film like this:

“It was a pandemic movie (…) – you know, Halle Berry – and the moon is approaching the Earth and they learned that it was hollow. And there is a moon made up of rocks living in it. And the Apollo missions.” were supposed to visit and feed the lunar creature.* And I… And I just couldn’t… I thought “Armageddon” had a firm grip on that crown, but apparently not.

Tyson doesn’t even bother to elaborate on the myriad reasons why the physics in “Moonfall” are wrong. Many of these may seem obvious to the viewer. For example, if the moon falls to Earth, it wouldn’t be possible to do crazy car jumps.

*Editor’s Note: This plot summary is not entirely accurate.

In his appearance on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” Tyson pointed out that sometimes Hollywood gets it right. He might have hated that the sky in Titanic was fake, but he felt that fewer people would have drowned if a resourceful scientist and engineer had been involved. He wished Leonardo DiCaprio’s Jack was more like Matt Damon’s Dr. Watney from Ridley Scott’s 2015 film The Martian would be. Tyson loves The Martian because it actually deals with real physics and the practical concerns of space travel. Tyson even explained the scientific accuracy of The Martian. a video essay for Slate.

In fact, Tyson posted a video on his own channel, StarTalkin which he ranked science fiction films based on their accuracy (or lack thereof), their general concepts, and even their philosophy. He ranked The Black Hole as one of the greatest films he had ever seen simply because of how bad it was. He saw the film in college and was outraged that no research had been done at the time of writing. But he also loved The Matrix, even though it was impractical to use human brains as a power source. Tyson also positively cited films like “Contact,” “Interstellar.” “Gravity,” “Arrival,” “The Quiet Earth” and even “The Blob,” which he said was the most accurate portrayal of an alien ever. After all, why would an alien be a human-like biped?

But know that Tyson is also listed Robert Zemeckis’ time travel thriller “Back to the Future” as one of the best science fiction films of all time… simply because it is entertaining and well written. Yes, you can ignore the science of time travel and the fact that causality doesn’t work the way it does in Zemeckis’ film, but Tyson can have fun at the movies. He is not just a stick in the dirt. He’s just trying to get readers to read more physics books.