Remember that time astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson had things to say about “Gravity?” They were … not exactly good, mostly because there was quite a bit of science “Gravity” flubbed.

Now the country’s preeminent public intellectual on all things space has offered his thoughts about “Interstellar.”

They were more measured than his snarky, but highly entertaining “Gravity” tweets, but it was clear he was contrasting the more irksome elements of “Gravity” with their “Interstellar” counterparts. Tyson did say he “enjoyed ‘Gravity’ very much” and later followed up his tweets with a Facebook explanation for those who thought he was needlessly attacking the movie.


He also promised to keep talking about science in film — so let’s get to it.

There was Tyson’s obvious irritation with “Gravity” shooting a medical doctor into space:


Verus “Interstellar”:

“Interstallar” got the gravity part right:

Whereas “Gravity” wasn’t really about gravity at all.

The zero-gravity scenes get an A+:

Whereas “Gravity” had some hair issues:

Fun fact: “Interstellar” didn’t employ green screen to convey zero-gravity. In fact, in some scenes, Anne Hathaway in zero-gravity is just Anne Hathaway convincingly floating around on one leg:

This is why Annie has an Oscar and gets paid the big bucks.

There were also comparisons to Tyson’s gold standard of space movies, “2001: A Space Odyssey”:

Tyson previously sniffed at the wonderment of zero-gravity in film. It’s so been-there, done that, got the spacesuit.

Plus he just noticed little coincidences:

And dispensed advice:

Someone should congratulate Warner Bros. It appears with “Interstellar,” the studio has turned “Gravity” into an astrophysics mulligan.