The Least Scientifically-Accurate Sci-Fi Movie Ever Made, According To Neil deGrasse Tyson

Know that when celebrated astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson nitpicks the bad science commonly encountered in mainstream Hollywood blockbusters, he's not trying to spoil anyone's fun. He's just being a nerd, 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 errors in a movie can only, one might hope, encourage filmmakers to be more accurate next time. Case in point: 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 trickery, rework the skies to match. Cameron, also being a nerd, obliged. 

When it comes to most space-bound movies, though, Tyson has a lot to complain about. Audiences have accepted that most sci-fi spacecraft, for instance, are equipped with "artificial gravity," even though there's no such thing. A physicist would point out that a ship would need to be laterally spinning to keep its denizens stuck to the floor. And, of course, any science student would be able to tell you that there's no sound in space, and that growling starship engines, zappy blasters, and spectacular explosions would actually be silent. 

There are a few movies, however, that would strain the credulity of anyone. Michael Bay's 1998 thriller "Armageddon," for instance, 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 lethal comet is a bad idea. In fact, he once felt that "Armageddon" was the most brazenly unscientific sci-fi film ever made. 

But "Armageddon" was recently supplanted by an even stupider 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 alien spacecraft. No one believed him, and he lost his career. A decade hence, Berry and Wilson are contacted by a wild conspiracy theorist (John Bradley) who posits that the moon itself is a massive, artificially created superstructure, and that there is an entire alien civilization inside of it. He has also noticed that the moon is falling out of its orbit, and will begin passing closer and closer to Earth. 

As the moon does that very thing, the Earth's weather systems are fouled up. Eventually it passes so close that the moon's gravity begins lifting people off of the Earth's surface. The three protagonists fly to the moon ... and find aliens lurking inside. The film is enjoyably dumb and overblown, as are many of Roland Emmerich's movies. 

On social media, Tyson declared that "Armageddon" "violated 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." Quite unfortunately, "Moonfall" came along and blew both out of the water. "That's what I thought until I saw 'Moonfall,' he said on "Jess Cagle," before just breaking down in snickers. He described the film, indignant, thusly: 

"It was a pandemic film [...] — you know, Halle Berry — and the moon is approaching Earth, and they learned that it's hollow. And there's a moon being made out of rocks living inside of it. And the Apollo missions were to visit and feed the moon being.* And I ... And I just couldn't ... I thought 'Armageddon' had a secure hold on this crown. But apparently not."

Tyson doesn't even bother delving into details as to the myriad reasons why the physics in "Moonfall" are wrong. Many of them may seem clear to viewers. The moon falling to Earth, for instance, wouldn't allow you to do sick car jumps. 

*Editor note: This plot summary is not entirely accurate.

In his appearance on "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert," Tyson pointed out that occasionally Hollywood does it right. He might have hated that the sky in "Titanic" was incorrect, but he felt that if a resourceful scientist and engineer was involved, then fewer people would have drowned. He wished that Leonardo DiCaprio's Jack was more like Matt Damon's Dr. Watney from Ridley Scott's 2015 film "The Martian." Tyson loves "The Martian," as it actually explores real physics and practical space travel concerns. Tyson even explained the scientific accuracies of "The Martian" in a video essay for Slate. 

Indeed, Tyson has posted a video on his own channel, StarTalk, wherein he ranked sci-fi movies 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 has seen, merely because it was so bad. He saw the movie in college, and he was outraged 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, after all, would an alien be a human-like 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, one can nitpick the science of time travel, and how causality doesn't work the way it does in Zemeckis' film, but Tyson can have fun at the movies. He's not a mere stick in the mud. He's merely trying to get readers to read more physics books.