Why isn’t Josh Radnor the narrator? Once you’re an dult, your voice doesn’t change that much, if at all.
Family Guy covers this in the episode “420” (can’t find a clip). No obvious conclusion is reached.
Because Josh Radnor is not the real Ted. Josh Radnor is the 50+ year old Ted’s perception of himself when telling these stories to his kids.
Just an answer I made up on the spot, but I kind of like it.
Someone wanted to give some money to Bob Saget.
For the viewers, as the framing narrative is very important, you can then realize easily when its Old Ted speaking, when it is present Ted speaking.
It also distances the narrator from the events, which is useful for dramatic and comedic purposes. We tend to think of Old Ted as a different person than Young Ted, which allows the former to mock and criticize the former more easily.
I like this answer best. Saget-Ted represents the person that Radnor-Ted has grown into after the events of the show. Even adults continue to change and grow. That it’s* literally *a different person works as a thematic device.
The man needs money for his vodka and dungeon porn.
I think I saw this show once (JKX) and nearly wet myself at this part. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmQDy7Khd0c
-Joe
Yeah, regardless of any “in-universe” explanation, from a TV perspective it makes it really easy to be like “ok, Narrator Ted is saying something.” There are a few times in the show where Young Ted has voice-overs, and when you hear those, you know that he’s not talking to his kids, he’s telling someone else a story, or something. Not super-important, but it’s a nice way to frame the story.
Let me know where I can subscribe to your newsletter.
The best example of this: the “On the Hook” episode.
I think it is a great answer, especially if you just made it up on the spot.
Voice transplants become a common elective surgery between now and the future where he’s telling the story. He’s chosen the Bob Saget model because the James Earl Jones model was too expensive.