Besides, it’s that (rather annoying in my eyes) setup of the “outsider” who pretends to know nothing and the expert, where the “outsider” does this sort of interview and injects questions on behalf of the audience. Never liked that format because the questions tend to be super basic and obvious more often than not and feel orchestrated at times, but that’s what the podcast does. Many true crime podcasts do this as well.
Everyone will listen to what they want. In its defense, this format might be pushed by outside forces, I don’t really know. And in my very personal opinion, I think Neil and Chuck banter a lot and have a lot of fun and joke around with each other and laugh together. So for me, personally, I imagine that they respect each other for what and who they are and that they are having a great time doing this thing together. That’s what makes it enjoyable for me. Not because of the science facts, specifically. Though that’s a big bonus.
It lets the host have somebody they are clearly “smarter” than to gain the trust of the audience. It doesn’t even serve the purpose of the audience insert like in a movie, because explaining things doesn’t require that if you aren’t trying to get immersed in the rules of a fictional world.
Carl Sagan didn’t need someone to pretend to be a fool to explain things.
Carl Sagan didn’t need someone to pretend to be a fool to explain things.
That he did not. But I imagine it would take more of a predisposition to the subject to view Carl’s stuff, than Neil. Neil is taking the science to everyone. And in order to do that, you have to have a bit of arrogance (look at why Trump is so popular) and a bit of pizzazz. It’s gotta cater to a lot more people.
