Chatting with an astrophysicist is a bit intimidating. For one, I did not go to Harvard. I do not work for NASA. I do not pretend to comprehend quantum mechanics, the multiverse or gravitational waves. Astrophysics and those that study the intersection of astronomy, physics and chemistry are, to me, operating on a whole other level — and I'm mostly OK with that.

But interviewing Neil deGrasse Tyson, a famous astrophysicist, is another ballgame entirely.

Here's a small sample of Tyson's resume: He's the director of New York City's Hayden Planetarium and founded the Department of Astrophysics at the American Museum of Natural History. He lectures at Princeton and is a graduate of Harvard and Columbia universities. He was appointed by then-President George W. Bush to both a commission for aerospace and a commission for space exploration, and, two years later, in 2006, he was appointed to NASA's prestigious advisory council and awarded its highest civilian honor.

He's guided viewers through the universe in "Origins" on PBS Nova and its five season spinoff series, Nova ScienceNOW. He was a regular on "The Universe," explained the cosmos in "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey," launched his own podcast and radio show called "StarTalk" and stars in a televised National Geographic Channel spinoff of the same name.

He's the author of 14 books — one of which was just released this month — and he travels the country inspiring audiences by bringing together pop culture and science.

On June 13, Tyson will be stopping in Asheville at the Thomas Wolfe Auditorium to give a talk called "An Astrophysicist Goes to the Movies," during which he'll dissect the science (and lack thereof) behind scenes in popular films.

Somehow, Tyson found time in his busy schedule to take my phone call — and spent a good 45 minutes chatting about movies, his interest in science and the vertex at which science and pop culture intersect.

"Of course," Tyson said, giving talks about movies requires "that I have some awareness of pop culture, and that’s, to me, the hardest thing, as a scientist. We don’t spend our time watching TV and Netflix and keeping up on the latest things."

To be fair, though, for someone who doesn't watch much television, he's on it an awful lot — whether it's to host a documentary or to appear as a guest on a news show or late night.

The following interview has been (slightly) condensed.

Hey, Dr. Tyson. How are you this morning?

I'm great. Thanks for asking.

You’re doing a talk in Asheville called “An Astrophysicist Goes to the Movies,” and, as my understanding goes, the premise is that you’ll be discussing the science behind some popular movie plots. What’s on your list of movies? Are you sticking to science fiction or going beyond that genre?

What’s going to happen is: I have about 30 clips, very short 10-30 second clips, of bits and pieces of films. I'll play the clips, and you’re going to hear what I was thinking at the time I first saw those bits of those movies.

Every time I watch a movie, I'm thinking about the science behind it. ... This is going on in my head when I see a movie of any kind — animation, comedy, drama. The movies have quite a range of subject matter in which some kind of science gets touched.

I talk about "The Lion King," for example. I talk about "The Matrix." I talk about "Armageddon." I talk about the original "Close Encounters of the Third Kind."

I even talk about "Frozen." You might say, "Well, where's the science in that?" It's there! (Laughter.) There's science in there.

My goal here is to share with you bits of science that a movie got wrong, in a movie where they tried to get all the science right. To me, that’s interesting, to see where they might have messed up.

Well what are some of the movies that use a lot of "science," but that didn't try — at all — to get it right?

Well, Star Wars. (Laughter.) There's no part of Star Wars that makes any attempt to get any part of science correct. But I’m not going to see Star Wars to get facts. It would be like saying that "Lord of the Rings" isn't based in fact. It’s not the point of the film. It's fantasy. And, if it wants to be fantasy, let the movie be whatever it wants to be.

So is there a movie that's the most scientifically accurate — and a non-fantasy movie that gets its science all wrong?

A more honest criticism that's relative to the intents of the movie-makers would be "Armageddon," where they could have put in more thought to get the science right.

The movie is ostensibly a contemporary account, but it got more of the physics wrong per minute than practically any other movie made — in the history of the universe. (Laughter.)

That’s the difference. For movies that are factually based in reality: First, get the facts straight, and then you can extend it to wherever your creativity takes you. If you don’t anchor it, then you have no place to stand. And if the point is just that everything is fantasy, then OK. But I kind of want to know that up front — jump in with both feet and not stand in judgement of it.

Take a look at "Mad Max: Fury Road." That’s not real, but it’s its own internal story. The least you want out of a story is that it’s internally consistent with itself. Then you’ve created a world that lives on it’s own.

So then what movies are the most factual?

I'd have to say "Interstellar" and "The Martian." I actually received one of the highest compliments I can imagine getting from the author of "The Martian."

He told me that, while he was writing it, he was imagining that I was looking over his shoulder — and if he messed up at all, I would end up tweeting about it. (Laughter.) And he said that ended up upping his game while writing. I’m honored that I was so annoying to him that he created such an accurate product.

And "Interstellar" is in the top 10 — of movies with high science ambition that put in a lot of homework.

By the way, the movie "Gravity," which I put out about a dozen tweets of things they got wrong — people assumed that I didn't like the movie just because it got some things wrong. But it got so much right about living and existing in zero gravity that it should be praised for that. And I regret that people misunderstood my intent.

I don’t generally post about movies that get everything wrong. Like the movie "Core," where they go to the center of the Earth. I just leave that alone. I let it be. "Gravity" was an important enough movie and the director put so much effort into getting it right that I think it earned a place in the Hall of Critique.

How do you get people interested in science beyond science fiction?

It’s not "how do I get people interested." I’m happy just staying home. It’s not like I wake up in the morning and think, "How am I going to bring science to the world today?"

I get a call and it’s a news outlet or a documentarian or a feature film director and they say: We’re interested in this bit of science. Can you tell us about it?

And so, if i get invited to talk about it, then I think, "How can I best present this information?"

What I found is: Whether you're aware or not, you're already carrying with you a framework of pop culture.

We all have a shared point of reference. You’ve heard of Beyonce, and you might even know she’s pregnant with twins. You know who Donald Trump is. You know who the New York Yankees are. You know what Netflix is. These are pop culture references.

I have found that, if I can find a way to clad your scaffold with science, to funnel science into that structure of pop culture, then that makes it easier for you to receive. It’s not dumbing it down; it’s just attaching science to something you already care about.

Lots of people seem to be interested in science as for means of entertainment — whether it's a science fiction movie or enjoying the pretty photos taken in space or using fun applications of science, like technology.

But how do you get people to appreciate all aspects of science — the things that might not be so fun — so that people can then use that information as a guide and apply it to the world?

That’s a great question, and I should probably be offering a reality check — that to become a scientist, it’s arduous and it’s done at the expense of your personal life.

To be a good scientist, generally, it will interfere with other things in your life, so you make trade-offs. I don’t want people to think that scientists just go out and discover new things and have fun.

People bust their a-- for years and years on a single experiment that may or may not work. Dealing with those kinds of let-downs needs to be built into your temperament. You pursue a problem for a long time, and nothing ever becomes of it.

But, on the other hand, most people will not become scientists. And for those people, to be an informed member of society, they need to carry a kind of science literacy so they can make informed decisions on things that will affect our lives.

And I think I've succeeded at some level, because my current book, "Astrophysics for People in a Hurry," this past Sunday debuted at No. 1 on the New York Times Bestseller List.

I would've been happy to be anywhere on the list. Why would I think a science book would do better than a celebrity tell-all? So for this to rise up to No. 1, I’m thinking to myself: Wow. There is an appetite for this content.

My goal with this is to spark an interest. It’s not a large book. It’s a curated selection of some of the most mind-blowing things in the universe, and I’d like to think people will think it’s so mind-blowing that they seek to learn more about it — and then look into whatever else might serve that curiosity.

So what’s something that you're excited about that more people should be paying attention to? Is there anything that you've been excited about lately that no one else seems to be into yet?

If that were actually the case, then I don’t think I could claim myself as an educator.

If I'm amazed by something and nobody else is — and I don’t understand why nobody else is — then how good of a communicator am I?

Part of being a communicator is knowing what other people will find amazing — what other people will be so enchanted by that they will then search for more on that subject. If I can’t communicate how amazing a topic is, then who am I?

Here’s something that I think is amazing: In one centimeter of your lower colon lives more bacteria than the total number of humans that have ever been born. We think we’re in charge because we’re humans, but if you upset that bacteria, they take charge of you and send you running to the bathroom every ten minutes.

Well, that is amazing.

It’s a little weird, but I think it’s amazing, and it’s my duty to then convince you that it’s also amazing. Not by telling you that it is, but by sharing with you this information, such that, as it descends upon you, your jaw has to drop open.

Is there anything else amazing that we should talk about?

Well, just that my book just came out, and I'm looking forward to returning to North Carolina and sharing with everyone the things that I think are interesting.

Interested in Tyson's latest book? "Astrophysics for People in a Hurry" was released on May 2 and is available at bookstores, on Amazon and Kindle. Read more about the book here: haydenplanetarium.org.

IF YOU GO:

What: Neil deGrasse Tyson presents: "An Astrophysicist Goes to the Movies"

Where: Thomas Wolfe Auditorium at the U.S. Cellular Center, 87 Haywood St., downtown Asheville

When: 7:30 p.m. June 13

Tickets: Remaining tickets are $87-$105 at Ticketmaster.com