'Star Trek' is the McDonald's of science fiction; it's fast food

Host: The quiet in the room is deeper now, the weight of David Gerrold’s words hanging in the air: "'Star Trek' is the McDonald's of science fiction; it's fast food storytelling. Every problem is like every other problem. They all get solved in an hour. Nobody ever gets hurt, and nobody needs to care. You give up an hour of your time, and you don't really have to get involved. It's all plastic." Jack looks at Jeeny, his expression thoughtful as he considers the harshness of Gerrold's critique, while Jeeny watches, sensing the complexity in the statement.

Jack: (his voice reflective) "You know, Gerrold’s quote really challenges the way we view something like 'Star Trek.' He’s saying that the show is formulaic, that it doesn’t ask the audience to invest emotionally or think deeply. It’s like fast food—quick, easy, but ultimately shallow. The problems in each episode are simple, they’re solved quickly, and there's no real risk involved. It makes you question whether that kind of storytelling has value, or if it’s just entertainment with no real substance."

Jeeny: (nodding, her voice calm) "Exactly. Gerrold’s critique seems to point out how 'Star Trek,' while iconic, tends to offer predictable solutions, where everything ties up neatly in an hour, with no lasting consequences. There's no weight to the issues, no lasting impact on the characters or the audience. It's easy to watch and enjoy, but it doesn’t challenge you to think beyond the surface. It’s comfortable, but it lacks depth."

Jack: (pausing, his voice curious) "So, do you think Gerrold is dismissing the whole genre of science fiction, or just the way 'Star Trek' presents it? Because there’s something to be said for escapism in entertainment. Sometimes we need stories that let us check out, without forcing us to get too involved. But does that make the story less valuable?"

Jeeny: (smiling gently, her tone insightful) "I think it’s not necessarily about dismissing the genre, but rather pointing out how ‘easy’ stories like ‘Star Trek’ can feel superficial. There’s a place for escapism, but Gerrold is suggesting that sometimes, the ease of the storytelling comes at the expense of emotional depth or real stakes. Stories that make us uncomfortable, that challenge us, tend to be the ones that stay with us longer. But it doesn’t mean ‘Star Trek’ doesn’t have value—just that it serves a different kind of purpose."

Host: The silence in the room deepens as Jack and Jeeny reflect on the tension between entertainment and deeper, more impactful storytelling. The room feels warmer now, as they consider that sometimes entertainment can be a comforting escape, but it can also be easy to overlook the deeper emotional engagement that a more complex story might offer.

Jack: (his voice softer, almost revelatory) "I think Gerrold is challenging us to think about what we get out of the stories we consume. It’s not just about having fun or getting entertained—it’s about how deep we’re willing to go. Do we want to engage with stories that leave us thinking, or do we want quick, easy resolution that doesn’t really make us feel anything?"

Jeeny: (nodding, her voice gentle) "Yes, exactly. It’s about how invested we are in the storytelling. And maybe, sometimes, the simpler stories that don’t ask too much of us can be just as valid, as long as we recognize the difference between entertainment and meaningful exploration of ideas. There’s space for both."

Host: The conversation feels fuller now, the weight of Gerrold’s critique settling into a deeper understanding. Both Jack and Jeeny have come to appreciate the balance between entertainment and depth—the need for stories that both provide escapism and challenge us to think more critically. The evening light outside has dimmed, but the clarity of their thoughts on storytelling and engagement continues to linger.