If I hadn ' t liked Jake Gylenhaal so much in this I doubt I would ' ve ever seen Nightcrawler . Both great movies <| sep |> Ori is fantastic . One of the best platformers of all time , in my opinion . The art is beautiful , and the story will kick you in the feels . <| sep |> I think his understanding of astrophysics is a bit dated . Our current theories of planet formation have gotten much better since the mid 90 ' s and the discoveries of exoplanets have given scientists a lot of data to construct better models . Mercury for instance , is now well accounted for in many computer simulations , which now can also produce results like the hot jupiters we see orbiting other stars , something otherwise forbidden by an assumption that hot gas can ' t coalesce near a star . The rotations of Venus and Uranus are also pretty well explained by similar models of dust cloud collapse . Within any could there are different angular momentums and you ' d expect some areas to have different totals , even if the whole of the cloud is biased one way or another . His criticism of giant impact theories is for the most part valid , but other evidence like the composition of moon rocks and mars rocks , gives other support to the theory from other areas . There isn ' t any definitive theory in this area , but the general consensus is that , at the very least , the earth and the moon were made out of very similar material . As for the moon slowdown argument , we can actually do the math here and calculate the energy loss . It matches current measurements . The mistake here is plain old simplicity . There are more forces at play in the earthmoon system than just tides . This is because we have continents that act like breaks on the tidal forces . In the more distant past we had supercontients like pangea which would essentially cutoff tidal displacement because they were solid ground , not water . More complete models of tidal dispersion can actually account for arbitary contient arrangements and can confirm that they slow down the moon enough that it would put it around 38 earth radii away at a minimum . At this point ~ 5000 in , I ' m kinda getting distracted and I ' m not paying as much attention as I should . I might come back later , but in general this matches what I ' ve seen elsewhere which is the failure to consider diverse arrangements of evidence , and instead focusing on calculation and features that , in a vacuum , seem to support a younger earth .