The least scientifically accurate Sci-Fi movie according to Neil deGrasse Tyson

Know that when famed astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson riffs on the bad science usually found in mainstream Hollywood blockbusters, he’s not trying to spoil anyone’s fun. He’s just a geek and I think we can all respect that. There’s nothing shameful about possessing a lot of scientific knowledge, and pointing out the physics and astronomical flaws in a movie can only, one hopes, encourage filmmakers to be more precise next time. An example: Tyson infamously complained to director James Cameron that in “Titanic” he got the night sky wrong. Tyson knew what the constellations looked like in the North Atlantic on that fateful April night in 1912, and suggested that Cameron, using digital tricks, rework the sky to match. Cameron, also a nerd, obliged.

When it comes to most space-bound movies, however, Tyson has a lot to complain about. Audiences have accepted that most sci-fi spaceships, for example, are equipped with “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 firmly on the floor. And of course, any science student would be able to tell you that there is no sound in space, and that growling spaceship engines, sprightly blasters and spectacular explosions would indeed be silent.

However, there are a few films that would strain anyone’s credulity. Michael Bay’s 1998 thriller “Armageddon,” for example, is about a team of oil drillers and astronauts who fly to an oncoming comet to blow it up. On 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 shameless sci-fi movie ever made.

But “Armageddon” was recently supplanted by an even dumber movie. Tyson has some harsh words for Roland Emmerich’s 2022 mega-dud “Moonfall.”

“Moonfall” is about a pair of astronauts (Halle Berry and Patrick Wilson) who back in 2011 were on a casual space mission when Wilson’s character witnessed a swarm of aliens. No one believed him and he lost his career. A decade later, Berry and Wilson are contacted by a wild conspiracy theorist (John Bradley) who claims that the moon itself is a massive, artificially created superstructure and that there is an entire alien civilization inside it. He has also noticed that the moon is falling out of its orbit, and will begin to pass closer and closer to Earth.

As the moon does just that, Earth’s weather systems are tainted. Eventually, it passes so close that the moon’s gravity begins to lift people off the surface of the earth. The three main characters fly to the moon … and find aliens lurking inside. The film is enjoyably dumb and over-the-top, like many of Roland Emmerich’s films.

On social media, Tyson declared that “Armageddon” “violated more laws of physics (per minute) than any other movie in the universe.” That honor, he said, once belonged to Disney’s 1979 dud “The Black Hole.” Quite unfortunately, along came “Moonfall” and blew both of them out of the water. “That’s what I thought until I saw ‘Moonfall,’ he said on “Jess Cagle,” before I just burst out laughing. He described the film, indignantly, thus:

“It was a pandemic movie (…) — you know, Halle Berry — and the moon is approaching Earth, and they learned it’s hollow. And there’s a moon that’s made of rock that lives inside it. And the Apollo missions were going to visit and feed the moon creature.* And I … And I just couldn’t … I thought ‘Armageddon’ had a secure grip on this crown. But apparently not.

Tyson doesn’t even bother to go into detail about the myriad reasons why the physics in “Moonfall” are wrong. Many of them may seem obvious to viewers. The moon falling to Earth wouldn’t allow you to do sick car jumps, for example.

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

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

Tyson actually posted a video on his own channel, StarTalkin which he ranked sci-fi films based on their accuracy (or lack thereof), broad concepts, and even philosophy. He ranked “The Black Hole” as one of the more significant films he’s seen, simply because it was so bad. He saw the movie in college and was furious that no research was done when it was written. But he also loved “The Matrix,” despite the impracticality of using 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 depiction of an alien ever. Why would an alien be a humanoid biped?

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