Compiled by the editorial desk with reference to the original report in The Hollywood Reporter and public remarks made by Neil deGrasse Tyson on 'The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.'

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson has taken issue with the scientific accuracy of 'Dune: Part Two,' particularly the film's portrayal of sand physics and the locomotion of giant sandworms. During an appearance on 'The Late Show with Stephen Colbert' last week, Tyson pointed out that pounding a fist into a sand dune would not produce the thumping sound depicted in the movie. 'Somebody didn’t do the research on that,' he told host Stephen Colbert, adding that 'you can’t thump sand.'

Colbert playfully suggested that the sandworms, which the Fremen summon by thumping the dunes with special devices, might perceive sounds differently than humans. But Tyson was unconvinced. 'If you wanted to insulate yourself acoustically from your surroundings, fill the volume with sand,' he said. 'No one will hear you.' He conceded, however, that the film would not exist without such creative liberties: 'I’ve got to let it go because there’s no movie without it.'

Tyson’s critique aligns with scientific understanding. A 2017 study and various online discussions confirm that sand is an effective sound absorber. But the astrophysicist did not stop at acoustics. He also questioned the movement of the giant sandworms, which are shown barreling forward in straight lines. Tyson noted that legless creatures on Earth, such as snakes and worms, must slither in S-shaped curves to propel themselves. 'Have you ever seen a snake chase you as a straight snake? No!' he exclaimed. 'They’ve got to curl, and they push off the curl.'

The exchange between Tyson and Colbert then turned to speculative theories about how the worms might move, with Colbert proposing a propellant system on their underbellies and Tyson jokingly suggesting they might be 'pooping really fast.' The discussion echoes a separate analysis by Slate, in which a biologist concluded that the creatures are less like worms and more like burrowing snakes.

Tyson’s comments highlight a recurring tension in science fiction: the balance between scientific plausibility and narrative necessity. While such inaccuracies may bother scientists, they often contribute to the imaginative appeal of the genre. As Tyson himself acknowledged, letting go of these details is part of enjoying the story.

The conversation also touched on Tyson’s broader history of critiquing films. He previously sparred with a retired astronaut over the physics in 'Top Gun: Maverick,' a reminder that his scrutiny is not limited to science fiction.