Was TNG considered a "family tv show" at the time? And anyway, what does "family tv show" mean?

[Skipper]

This is a question that arose from the thread Pre-2009 Star Trek and LGBTQI+ representation: simple disinterest or active hostility?. One reason given for the lack of LBGTQI+ representation in TNG was that it was considered a "family show". This made me think. First of all I tried to understand what the concept of a family TV show was for an American audience. But reading some articles it seems that there is no single definition. It seems simpler to define what a family TV show is not.

But if we look at the first few episodes of TNG, well, it seems like the target was definitely not the whole family. In the second episode the Enterprise becomes a huge flying orgy. In the last of the first season giant worms are graphically exploded with phaser shots. Obviously these aspects were greatly toned down in subsequent seasons, but it never seemed to me that the intent was "let's write something suitable for both little Tim, 4 years old, and for grandfather Ezbel, 98". I mean, in one episode we talk about the pros and cons of terrorism. Doesn't exactly strike me as a theme for someone who then watches "He-Man".

I tried to find out and it seems that in reality, being a syndicated show, the writers of TNG had no control over what time the individual station broadcast the series. I have to find the article, but it seems to me that one of the reasons Berman gave for not mentioning homosexuality in TNG was that "in some parts of the country it is on at 4pm!".

So TNG strikes me as more of a show that someone can comfortably watch with the rest of the family, but not a "family show."

What do you think?

 

[Christopher]

So TNG strikes me as more of a show that someone can comfortably watch with the rest of the family, but not a "family show."

What do you think?

I think you're asserting a nonexistent distinction. That's exactly what a family show is -- not a children's show, just a show that lacks strong sexual content, violence, or profanity so that it's suitable for children to watch alongside their parents. It's what the British would call a "pre-watershed" show.

Certainly when TNG started out, Gene Roddenberry wanted it to push the envelope of sexuality farther than he was allowed to do in TOS. The whole reason he created Star Trek in the first place was to make a science fiction drama aimed at adults, something that was unprecedented at the time outside of anthology shows like The Twilight Zone. And with TNG he wanted to take advantage of the 1980s' reduced censorship on adult subject matter. So he certainly didn't see TNG as a family show.

However, Roddenberry was not in control of TNG for long. By season 2, as his health was failing, he was eased back to a figurehead role and others took charge of the show. And they drew back from the envelope-pushing and raciness that Roddenberry wanted, turning TNG into a more sedate show. TOS was an underdog that strove to be daring and break new ground, but as TNG became a runaway hit, it came to be seen as the Establishment of SFTV, and it became more staid and respectable as a result. So no, Roddenberry's TNG was not a family show, but Rick Berman's TNG was. It did deal with adult ideas and relationships, but it wasn't as racy about it as season 1 tried to be, or as TOS was by 1960s standards.

 

[at Quark's]

TNG's later seasons might have looked a bit bizarre if Gene's health hadn't failed, perhaps.

Picard <applauding>: That was a singularly marvelous rendition of Saint-Saëns's Carnaval des Animaux, mr. Data. Especially your choice to fuse a number of interpretations of some of the foremost 20th century Earth musicians and 22nd century Vulcan mucisians proves to me you're progressing quite nicely on your exploration of humanity. Now, if you'll excuse me, Beverley and I are already running late for our weekly love instructor appointment.

 

[Oddish]

Was it a family show? Depends on how you define it. But I think it was trying to get the TOS demographic, so it might not have wanted to go too far.

Regardless, I think that the producers knew that there were a fair number of conservative Trek fans, and they didn't want to alienate them with excessive sexuality or gore. And as for LGBTQ visibility, this was 1987. Thanks to AIDS, homophobia was still pretty normalized at the time.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

It was a show with a very broad appeal. Kids watched it and so did teenagers. People in their 20s and 30s watched it. Parents and grandparents watched it.

So yes, TNG was a show which could be targeted at a wide range of demographics. A family show.

 

[Christopher]

Was it a family show? Depends on how you define it.

Well, that's kind of the point, isn't it? You have to get the definition right before you can meaningfully discuss it. The term has had an accepted definition in TV parlance for generations -- it means a show suitable for family viewing, a show that lacks levels of violence, sex, profanity, or other elements that would classify it as for adults only.

But I think it was trying to get the TOS demographic, so it might not have wanted to go too far.

No remake, sequel, or other revival is ever aimed exclusively at the old fanbase, since that's too small a group to make it successful. The goal is to attract new audiences as well as the old. Indeed, bringing in new viewers is the greater challenge, so it's probably a more important consideration in choosing the approach of a show.

As I said, Roddenberry clearly wanted TNG to go further than TOS was allowed to do. He always wanted Trek to be for adults, to break SFTV out of the "kid stuff" stigma it was saddled with and elevate it to the same maturity as prose science fiction. But the censorship in the 1960s was much stricter even for adult-oriented TV, so he had much more freedom in TNG, and it's clear in season 1 that he was taking full advantage of it. It was only later, once TNG was already a smash hit, that it started to dial itself back, because it was an institution now and its creators were more reluctant to make waves.

And as for LGBTQ visibility, this was 1987. Thanks to AIDS, homophobia was still pretty normalized at the time.

This is wrong. By the late '80s and the '90s, more and more shows were acknowledging gay/lesbian characters and issues. Berman-era Star Trek was well behind the state of the art of its contemporaries on that point, even though it was socially progressive in other respects. "It was the '80s/'90s" doesn't work as a defense, because for those of us who were watching it in the '80s-'90s, it felt like a throwback to the '70s in its complete refusal to acknowledge that non-heterosexuality even existed.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

This is wrong. By the late '80s and the '90s, more and more shows were acknowledging gay/lesbian characters and issues. Berman-era Star Trek was well behind the state of the art of its contemporaries on that point, even though it was socially progressive in other respects. "It was the '80s/'90s" doesn't work as a defense, because for those of us who were watching it in the '80s-'90s, it felt like a throwback to the '70s in its complete refusal to acknowledge that non-heterosexuality even existed.

How many family shows were depicting LGBT characters though?

 

[Skipper]

How many family shows were depicting LGBT characters though?

The point is, how do you define "Family Show"?
List of 1970s American television episodes with LGBT themes
List of 1980s American television episodes with LGBT themes
List of 1990s American television episodes with LGBT themes

 

[Christopher]

How many family shows were depicting LGBT characters though?

I do not stipulate that TNG was a family show. Roddenberry was making a show for adults, and while Berman and Piller pulled back somewhat on the sex and skin from what Roddenberry wanted, they were still making a sophisticated, adult-oriented drama. It dealt with plenty of mature themes like war and terrorism and genocide and civil rights, and while it didn't go for titillation as much as season 1, it didn't avoid sexual subject matter either. It certainly would have included gay/lesbian characters if Berman hadn't been so adamantly opposed to their inclusion.

 

[evilchumlee]

I would call it, and all the 90's shows, a family show. That's a loose definition, but generally i'd say it's a show with broad appeal to multiple ages. That's not to say a family show can't deal with mature themes, they often DO, but it does so in a way that is "kid friendly", not so much in the vein of explaining the situation so a kid can understand, but not presenting it in a vulgar or overtly sexualized fashion. There's ONE episode of TNG that skirted the line, and even then i'm sure it would go over most kids heads.

 

[Skipper]

I do not stipulate that TNG was a family show. Roddenberry was making a show for adults, and while Berman and Piller pulled back somewhat on the sex and skin from what Roddenberry wanted, they were still making a sophisticated, adult-oriented drama. It dealt with plenty of mature themes like war and terrorism and genocide and civil rights, and while it didn't go for titillation as much as season 1, it didn't avoid sexual subject matter either. It certainly would have included gay/lesbian characters if Berman hadn't been so adamantly opposed to their inclusion.

And I mean, they could make a character's heterosexuality clear without going overboard with sex and skin. So the could do it with non-straight characters too.

 

[Skipper]

By the way, for the thread on Star Trek and LBGTQI+, I did a lot of research and read (too many) interviews on the topic.

As to why no LBGTQI+ characters have ever appeared in TNG, these are the points everyone involved agrees on:

1) It was Berman's decision exclusively. He confirmed this and also he said that he never received pressure from the studios for this.
2) As to why he never did it, he has always been incredibly evasive when asked directly in interviews without answering clearly.

If you get into the realm of speculation, pretty much everyone who worked with him said it was due to his personal beliefs on the subject. More than one person called him a homophobe (Gerrold said "a raging homophobe"). But again, this is speculation.

 

[evilchumlee]

If you get into the realm of speculation, pretty much everyone who worked with him said it was due to his personal beliefs on the subject. More than one person called him a homophobe (Gerrold said "a raging homophobe"). But again, this is speculation.

It's all in the eyes of the individual to interpret. I've seen many of these same things, and it reads to me less "Berman is a homophobe" and more "Berman didn't really care about gay people either way and those weren't the stories he wanted to tell, and nobody was pressuring him to do it, so they didn't do it."

From the business side, the shows being about making money, Berman probably felt like it was a much safer bet to not do it. It might be totally fine. It might have caused controversy. The risk to benefit ratio was stacked in favor of not having gay people.

 

[Christopher]

From the business side, the shows being about making money, Berman probably felt like it was a much safer bet to not do it. It might be totally fine. It might have caused controversy. The risk to benefit ratio was stacked in favor of not having gay people.

I don't think that holds water, since all TV execs are businesspeople, but many contemporary shows were acknowledging or including gay/lesbian characters throughout the entire time that Berman was avoiding them like the plague. Maybe an argument that it was "too controversial" would have had some merit in 1987, but ENT was still ignoring the existence of non-heterosexuality in the 2000s, at which point such things were mainstream in the media and a "too controversial" argument would've been risible.

 

[Oddish]

Even if TNG wasn't a family show, it was presumably a show intended to appeal to a wide demographic spectrum: liberal and conservative, old and young, men and women, religious and non. The powers that be most likely decided that they would lose more viewers by including LGB characters than by excluding them. Maybe they put profit before principles... but in the end, television is a business like any other.

 

[Christopher]

Even if TNG wasn't a family show, it was presumably a show intended to appeal to a wide demographic spectrum: liberal and conservative, old and young, men and women, religious and non. The powers that be most likely decided that they would lose more viewers by including LGB characters than by excluding them. Maybe they put profit before principles... but in the end, television is a business like any other.

See comment #14 for why that argument doesn't work. People today keep trotting out the assumption that Berman-era Trek was typical for its time, but that is absolutely wrong. Those of us who were watching at the time were consistently frustrated by how backward it was on LGBT inclusion compared to other contemporary shows, when Trek was supposed to be the show that pushed the envelope on social progress.

 

[Commander Troi]

It sounds like it was a particularly Berman thing.

 

[Skipper]

Even if TNG wasn't a family show, it was presumably a show intended to appeal to a wide demographic spectrum: liberal and conservative, old and young, men and women, religious and non. The powers that be most likely decided that they would lose more viewers by including LGB characters than by excluding them. Maybe they put profit before principles... but in the end, television is a business like any other.

I have to say that it doesn't make much sense as an explanation, considering that homosexual characters also appeared in Walker Texas Rangers which was probably one of the most conservative series of the time.

However, this issue of money was also mentioned in the other thread, but no one explained to me exactly how they would have lost it if a gay character had appeared. TNG was a first-run syndication series, so the worst case scenario was that a local broadcaster didn't renew the contract for the following year. Would they really have done this for ONE episode out of 24 that viewers had probably already forgotten about? And let's remember that if the series had not been renewed, the local broadcaster would have lost the money from the advertising space. If it's just business, it should apply to everyone, right? But let's really say that whoever ran the station was so profoundly homophobic: at that point it was enough for them not to broadcast the episode so they would keep their money and their principles.

But let's say Berman knew something we don't know. That he had UNDENIABLE proof that the mere appearance of an LBGTQI+ character would mean the total DESTRUCTION of the Star Trek franchise and any possible future of it.

Let's read this excerpt from an interview with Mulgrew in 2002

Well, one would think that Hollywood would be more open-minded at this point, since essentially the whole town is run by the gay community. It makes very little sense if you think about it. No, Star Trek is very strangely by the book in this regard. Rick Berman, who is a very sagacious man, has been very firm about certain things. I've approached him many, many times over the years about getting a gay character on the show--one whom we could really love, not just a guest star. Y'know, we had blacks, Asians, we even had a handicapped character--and so I thought, this is now beginning to look a bit absurd. And he said, "In due time." And so, I'm suspecting that on Enterprise they will do something to this effect. I couldn't get it done on mine. And I am sorry for that.

So if he was so MATHEMATICALLY sure that showing a gay character would spell financial disaster, why didn't he just show the spreadsheets or what he had to Mulgrew and say "See? If we do that, you'll be out of a job" instead of lying to her? (and not just her, this was the standard answer he gave to everyone when asked when a non-straight character would appear)

 

[Herbert]

Regardless, I think that the producers knew that there were a fair number of conservative Trek fans, and they didn't want to alienate them with excessive sexuality or gore. And as for LGBTQ visibility, this was 1987. Thanks to AIDS, homophobia was still pretty normalized at the time.

Yes, you have to consider this within the times it took place. 1987 was not a time for an explosion of LGBTQ visibility. It had zero, zip, nada to do with whether TNG was or was not a "family show". It was all about the time period in which it was broadcast, just like TOS is very much a product of its period.

That being said, there is nothing about TNG that precludes it from being family appropriate.

 

[Skipper]

Yes, you have to consider this within the times it took place. 1987 was not a time for an explosion of LGBTQ visibility. It had zero, zip, nada to do with whether TNG was or was not a "family show". It was all about the time period in which it was broadcast, just like TOS is very much a product of its period.

Perhaps 1987 was "too soon", but what about the 2005?