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

[FederationHistorian]

Were going in circles here.. We here "Kind of" have to agree on a definition of "Family Show' were kind of all over the place. Can't answer the question if we don't know what the question is asking.

So What does "Family Show" Mean to Trek BBS?

What age to start with? 7 years old, like say Y7 for fictional violence? Not like Barney, Teletubbies G rated?
What level of Sex, Violence, etc?
Stuff like that?

Generally, it means no gratuitous violent and/or sexuality, and no/extremely limited profanity. Its aimed at provide a safe environment for children, while still allowing for adult themes for adults.

So, for example, the violent death of Remmick in “Conspiracy” goes too far, for example.

But a simple phaser blast is okay, considering that even children cartoons like Spider-Man: TAS used lasers to substitute gunfire from automatics and the like.

By every metric, TNG was family friendly.

In comparison, ENT as not family friendly, due to mild violence, mild sexuality and mild profanity. It wasn’t like anything seen on HBO, but it was more edgy than what TNG was generally doing, and even what DS9 and VOY were doing too.

As for the lack of LGBT characters in TNG, it would have fallen under sexuality, and exploration of such sexuality might have been deemed as gratuitous. Keep in mind its still the late '80/early '90s. There are still laws on the books outlawing LGBT behaviour that aren't going to get repealed until the very early '00s. Not just in America, but even very liberal nations in Canada and all across Europe.

Although there are justifiable reasons to be upset that Berman did nothing about LGBT representation, i feel it is unfair to judge him for inaction during the '90s. As stated above, even The Simpsons didn't address it until 1997.

 

[Christopher]

But a simple phaser blast is okay, considering that even children cartoons like Spider-Man: TAS used lasers to substitute gunfire from automatics and the like.

Well, no, there's a much more fundamental difference there, because in American children's cartoons, you can never show death, regardless of the weapon inflicting it, while in TNG, phasers killed people all the time. Heck, in Spidey: TAS, the censors wouldn't even let Spidey punch anyone. And in cartoons of the day, you couldn't even say "kill" or "dead" or "death." Neither of those things was true of TNG.

While cartoons did tend to avoid using realistic weapons for fear that children would emulate what they saw, the avoidance of onscreen death was a higher priority. The Rambo cartoon used realistic guns and bullets, but they never hit anybody, just inanimate objects. By the same token, The A-Team took a family-friendly approach to gunplay where hardly anybody ever died from it.

By every metric, TNG was family friendly.

That's an oversimplification at best. You yourself acknowledged that "Conspiracy" did happen, and there were other things a lot more violent or sexually themed than you'd see in a kid-friendly show.

Let's at least acknowledge that there's a continuum here, rather than reducing it to a false binary. TNG may not have been as heavy on violence or sex as something like NYPD Blue, but it certainly wasn't as young-skewing as Wonder Woman or Starman, and it's downright ludicrous to compare it to a children's cartoon like Spidey: TAS. I think that, if it had been a network show, it's the sort of thing you would've expected to see at 9 PM rather than (what was usually at the time) the more kid-friendly 8 PM slot or the more adult-oriented 10 PM slot.

In comparison, ENT as not family friendly, due to mild violence, mild sexuality and mild profanity. It wasn’t like anything seen on HBO, but it was more edgy than what TNG was generally doing, and even what DS9 and VOY were doing too.

I really don't think that's true at all. ENT's approach to skin and sexuality was more prurient and sophomoric, certainly, but that didn't make it more edgy, and it was the opposite of being more adult. I certainly don't see any difference in its level of violence compared to the previous Berman-era shows.

As for the lack of LGBT characters in TNG, it would have fallen under sexuality, and exploration of such sexuality might have been deemed as gratuitous. Keep in mind its still the late '80/early '90s.

We've already been over this multiple times. This is a provably false argument because dozens of other shows did include gay and lesbian characters and storylines during the same period, and it's a misguided argument because Star Trek was expected by its fanbase to go beyond the expected norms of its time and be on the vanguard of representation and equality. Even if it had been on a par with the average standard for its time, that would've been a failure for Star Trek, because it's supposed to be ahead of the curve, leading the charge. And it wasn't on a par; it was demonstrably, consistently behind the curve, and it kept falling further behind as society evolved around it.

 

[Skipper]

Although there are justifiable reasons to be upset that Berman did nothing about LGBT representation, i feel it is unfair to judge him for inaction during the '90s. As stated above, even The Simpsons didn't address it until 1997.

1. I put a more than exhaustive list, and it seems to me that many shows had featured LGBT characters before 1994
   
2. I don't understand why the Simpsons should be the touchstone of what can be shown on television. It's pretty bizarre.

But anyway, 18 October 1990

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

So by your reasoning we should have seen two men kissing in TNG back in 1990, right?

 

[Skipper]

Again, hearsay..
But, I will agree with you that he is "probably" the person who killed any idea of a LGBT+ character on screen, but as said, what was the actual reason? Personal? Business? Not wanting any ripples? Etc. We don't know, were far removed from knowing him, not really able to attach any label.

now was he an Asshole? Oh yes, Typical Women in tight clothing neandrathal? Yep.

You know, it's fun how high is the bar to define someone "homophobic".

Imagine there were no black people in TNG and he explained their lack by saying, "It's not high on our list of priorities. Yes, we've had a lot of pitches for stories with black people, but I think it takes the right kind of idea to justify their presence in the plot. That's why we don't even show black people as extras or in the background. Out of respect for them. I think it's better to treat the subject with metaphors, it's more suitable for Star Trek. Remember the episode with the pumpkin? The pumpkin represented black people." I don't think anyone would deny that it's racist reasoning.

But he said the exact same things about LBGT people. However, many justify it by saying "You can't say that he is homophobic just from this!!!" If we applied the same parameters that are used here to define someone as homophobic for racism, only the most hardcore KKK members who spend Saturday nights burning crosses would be bona fide racists. All the others? "At most neutral on the topic of race."

 

[Alexander Corrino]

The mind still boggles at Berman's "we never see heterosexual characters holding hands so that's why we don't have any gay characters holding hands" remark. It's such utter nonsense to say this about a show where heterosexual couples are seen in pretty much every episode. I mean... what???

When you look at "excuses" like the one above, it's pretty difficult to NOT see him as homophobic. Maybe not in a way that has him screaming anti-gay slurs, but that's not the only way in which someone can be homophobic.

And as others have said, there were shows that had gay characters before and during TNG's airtime. Some of them were considered family shows. And Berman himself has said the network never applied any kind of pressure on him. DS9 had a f/f kiss - the one show where Berman didn't pay as much attention to what was happening. Coincidence? I sure think not. I mean it's all right there. All you gotta do is put the pieces together. Just because Berman has never shouted "I CAN'T STAND THE GAYS!" from a rooftop doesn't mean he can't be homophobic.

 

[Oddish]

As for the lack of LGBT characters in TNG, it would have fallen under sexuality, and exploration of such sexuality might have been deemed as gratuitous. Keep in mind its still the late '80/early '90s. There are still laws on the books outlawing LGBT behaviour that aren't going to get repealed until the very early '00s.

More than a quarter of our states had anti-sodomy laws on the books. And the fact that they were repealed (in the US anyway) by Supreme Court mandate rather than the people voting for them to end indicates that a sizable portion of the citizenry still had serious issues with same-sex romance.

From the idealist's perspective, having LGB representation might have been "the right thing to do". But if there were that many Americans who still wanted gay sex banned, featuring same in the show might have cost their business. A lot fewer people would stop watching a show because it didn't have gay characters than if it did. Berman might not have been thinking with his prejudices, but rather with his wallet.

 

[Skipper]

When you look at "excuses" like the one above, it's pretty difficult to NOT see him as homophobic. Maybe not in a way that has him screaming anti-gay slurs, but that's not the only way in which someone can be homophobic.

I've never heard of a major person in Hollywood being openly homophobic. I did a bit of research on the topic and obviously homophobia exists in the film industry. But no one who wants to continue working would say during an interview "You know what's missing in this country? Nice bonfires where gays are burned. It would be a nice social occasion. Or hang them from street lamps when it rains. Let's not limit ourselves." even if they think so

 

[Skipper]

Berman might not have been thinking with his prejudices, but rather with his wallet.

I've heard the money justification plenty of times but no one has ever explained to me EXACTLY how it would be lost on if a gay character appeared in an episode.

Do you have an example, just one, of a TV show that lost money and had to be cancelled because a gay man appeared?

 

[Alexander Corrino]

I've never heard of a major person in Hollywood being openly homophobic. I did a bit of research on the topic and obviously homophobia exists in the film industry. But no one who wants to continue working would say during an interview "You know what's missing in this country? Nice bonfires where gays are burned. It would be a nice social occasion. Or hang them from street lamps when it rains. Let's not limit ourselves." even if they think so

Indeed.

I mean, try to put yourself into the shoes of a guy who just doesn't want gay characters on his show because he doesn't like gay people. What to do? You can't be THAT openly homophobic because obviously you have gay people working for you both behind and in front of the camera, you clearly also have an lgbt+ audience that brings in views and therefore money. So, what's the next best option? Exactly: Use your influence as the one in charge to make sure nothing gay ever appears on your show(s). No main character, no side character, not even background characters. And whenever someone tries to "sneak in something gay", like they tried with the two men holding hands in the background of Ten Forward, you send someone down to tell them to "gently" stop this from happening. That's how you make sure to push your homophobic agenda through without ever having to open your mouth and say "I can't stand the gays".

And when someone asks about it in an interview? You remain as vague and evasive as possible. And when in doubt, blame the audience that "wasn't ready". Or say nonsense like "we never had heterosexual characters holding hands, so we never had any gay ones doing it either". Anything to avoid having to say "I simply don't want gay characters on my show because I want to show a future where there ARE no gay characters because I don't like gay people and I don't want to send a message that says 'they're still here in the future'". Because saying something like that would put you in the spotlight on the issue, and that's the last thing you want because you want to push your anti-gay attitude through in a QUIET way. Far more effective. You want to remain in charge, after all. You don't want to get caught up in a "controversy" of any kind.

 

[Skipper]

I've heard the money justification plenty of times but no one has ever explained to me EXACTLY how it would be lost on if a gay character appeared in an episode.

Do you have an example, just one, of a TV show that lost money and had to be cancelled because a gay man appeared?

Incidentally, Enterprise aired on UPN, which was also the network where Buffy aired, arguably a cornerstone for LBGT representation. So it wasn't a network ideologically against this type of content.

But let's assume that in the last season of Enterprise a gay character appeared. Exactly how would Berman's wallet have been affected? UPN bosses go to his house and say, "You had a gay appear in an episode, now you have to give us money. You know, because it's the gay protection money."

 

[Christopher]

I mean, try to put yourself into the shoes of a guy who just doesn't want gay characters on his show because he doesn't like gay people. What to do? You can't be THAT openly homophobic because obviously you have gay people working for you both behind and in front of the camera, you clearly also have an lgbt+ audience that brings in views and therefore money. So, what's the next best option? Exactly: Use your influence as the one in charge to make sure nothing gay ever appears on your show(s). No main character, no side character, not even background characters. And whenever someone tries to "sneak in something gay", like they tried with the two men holding hands in the background of Ten Forward, you send someone down to tell them to "gently" stop this from happening. That's how you make sure to push your homophobic agenda through without ever having to open your mouth and say "I can't stand the gays".

The thing is, a homophobic person at the time (or indeed today, at least in feature films) didn't have to push an agenda, because the homophobia was already built into the system. It had been the default for generations to deny the existence of gay people or to depict them only as jokes and aberrations. So all you had to do was not make an effort to change things for the better, to carry on with business as usual and not rock the boat. Nothing could be easier, which is why systemic discrimination is so hard to overcome.

The problem is that Star Trek was supposed to be the franchise that did make an effort to change things for the better. There were other '60s shows that did better with advancing inclusion and equal presentation of women and people of color, but TOS was at least above average there, one of the more inclusive shows if not the unprecedented pioneer that Roddenberry's later mythmaking painted it as. But a core part of its appeal and its legend was that it was a progressive, inclusive vision of a future where the prejudices of today were gone. In the '80s and '90s, when the fight for gay rights was as much a part of the social climate as the fight for civil rights and women's rights had been in the '60s, it was a sin of omission for Star Trek to avoid the issue as completely as it did.

And as I've already said, the "afraid of losing money" excuse is obviously rubbish, because many other shows did address gay issues and include gay characters, and their executives were just as money-conscious as Berman was. Not to mention that the whole "including underrepresented groups will lose money" argument was debunked as far back as the '60s, when demographic studies proved the buying power of women and minorities -- which was the entire reason that networks in the '60s were encouraging shows like Star Trek and Mission: Impossible to be more inclusive in their casting. As the smash success of movies like Wonder Woman, Black Panther, and Crazy Rich Asians proved, appealing to an underrepresented audience can make you more money, because that audience will be excited to see something made for them at last. It's tiresome that we keep having to repeat the same debate over and over, generations after the facts should have settled the issue for good.

 

[Oddish]

Do you have an example, just one, of a TV show that lost money and had to be cancelled because a gay man appeared?

Honestly, I'm not an expert on TV. Aside from one five-day free subscription, I haven't lived in a house that had cable TV since I still lived with my parents, and that was 27 years ago.

HOWEVER, I know from personal experience that under some circumstances, discrimination is good for business. Some people do the right thing no matter the cost. Others think with their pocketbook. While Berman might not have been running DS9 into the ground the way he did VOY, I'd bet he was paying attention to the fallout from it. And I think that his decision to exclude gay characters was based on that.

I get that you think that a person who doesn't welcome gay equality fully is BAD, and that their opinions shouldn't be taken into account when a decision is made. But the simple fact is, those people are consumers too. And, there were a lot more of them at the dawn of the century. Maybe Berman was one of them, maybe he just wanted their business. There's no way to tell.

 

[FederationHistorian]

That's an oversimplification at best.

Is It?

Just because some creatives wanted to push the envelope and have an edgier show, means the show is not generally family friendly?

“Conspiracy” was outside the norm of an episode of Star Trek.

it's downright ludicrous to compare it to a children's cartoon like Spidey: TAS.

Is it ludicrous?

You say yourself, establish a continuum. Weapons like phasers and laser are probably treated different from real weapons, and seen as cartoonish. We are talking ‘90s tv here.

I really don't think that's true at all. ENT's approach to skin and sexuality was more prurient and sophomoric, certainly, but that didn't make it more edgy, and it was the opposite of being more adult. I certainly don't see any difference in its level of violence compared to the previous Berman-era shows.

Show me an episode of TNG, DS9 or VOY that had a scene like in ENT’s “Harbinger”, where T’Pol undresses in front of Trip. Or several episodes in a single season of TNG, DS9 or VOY where the crew are in their underwear, or wearing nothing at all.

Show me an episode of TNG, DS9 or VOY that had a scene like in ENT’s “Zero Hour”, when Commander Dolim is blown to bits in gory detail. Not vaporized. Not lost a limb. Just Blown. To. Bits. And you have blood smeared on bulkheads afterwards.

We've already been over this multiple times. This is a provably false argument because dozens of other shows did include gay and lesbian characters and storylines during the same period, and it's a misguided argument because Star Trek was expected by its fanbase to go beyond the expected norms of its time and be on the vanguard of representation and equality. Even if it had been on a par with the average standard for its time, that would've been a failure for Star Trek, because it's supposed to be ahead of the curve, leading the charge. And it wasn't on a par; it was demonstrably, consistently behind the curve, and it kept falling further behind as society evolved around it.

• I put a more than exhaustive list, and it seems to me that many shows had featured LGBT characters before 1994

• I don't understand why the Simpsons should be the touchstone of what can be shown on television. It's pretty bizarre.

Because there is something called “being mainstream”. Being mainstream implies widespread acceptance. LGBT rights weren’t mainstream. It was still very much underground. Homophobia was what was mainstream at the time, despite efforts to change that.

At most, you can only criticize Trek for not going against the grain and what was considered mainstream at the time. And still, its not fair. Maybe there were fears of getting cancelled, like what happened to Ellen with her show when she came out. Irrational to think now, but maybe not then.

And maybe it was decided it was more important to keep Trek on the air to keep on promoting progressive values, such as feminism and civil rights. Since they also aired in more conservative countries that, while might be fine with consuming American media, are otherwise very proud of the culture they have. Cultures that are far more harsh towards the LGBT community. So, some ideas have to be softly introduced, or the plug is pulled. Basically, soft power in action.

Are you saying it would have been better if Trek got cancelled again in the early ‘90s, rather than continue on for another decade spreading its messages regarding progressivism?

But anyway, 18 October 1990


So by your reasoning we should have seen two men kissing in TNG back in 1990, right?

Logically.

Though that falls more on Roddenberry than Berman. Had Roddenberry led the way with LGBT representation and gone against the conservative politics at the time, Berman would have followed.

But Trek has never gone against the grain when it comes to LGBT rights. Even with the Kelvin films, they waited until gay marriage was legal across America to present Sulu as gay and with a husband. Despite gay marriage being legal in other countries and certain US states before that.

If you want to go after Berman for the lack of LGBT representation in Star trek during his tenure, go after him for the lack of it in ENT and NEM, and even the final season of VOY.

 

[Skipper]

Though that falls more on Roddenberry than Berman. Had Roddenberry led the way with LGBT representation and gone against the conservative politics at the time, Berman would have followed.

For the sake of completeness, in a couple of interviews and also in the documentary "Chaos on the bridge" it was said that Roddenmberry wanted to introduce a gay character in TNG, but was stopped first by Leonard Maizlish (another person defined as "homophobic" and given the other things we know about him I'm not surprised) and then by Berman.

Edit: Gerrold said that Maizlish called him a "an AIDS-infected cocksucker. A fucking faggot." Is it enough to meet the very stringent requirements to be defined as "homophobic"?

 

[Skipper]

Honestly, I'm not an expert on TV. Aside from one five-day free subscription, I haven't lived in a house that had cable TV since I still lived with my parents, and that was 27 years ago.

Just to be clear, there are many examples of TV series where gay characters appeared and nothing catastrophic happened, you don't even have one where the opposite happened but do you think this is the motivation that drove Berman?

 

[Christopher]

Is It?

Just because some creatives wanted to push the envelope and have an edgier show, means the show is not generally family friendly?

You're fixating on a label and trying to cherrypick the evidence to "prove" it. Labels are not the end goal of understanding, just the first rough approximation. We dwell far too much on them.

As I've said, I reject reducing this to a binary question, either it's a family show or it's not. Life is an essay question, not a true-false test. There's a whole continuum of maturity levels in commercial TV, and TNG was somewhere in the middle, albeit toward the more mature end.

I also reject the "some creatives" characterization. As I've said, Star Trek was all about pushing the envelope. That's what defined it originally. Gene Roddenberry's entire goal in creating TOS was to make the first non-anthology science fiction series that was an adult drama instead of a kid-friendly family show. He strove to make it as mature and sophisticated as the most acclaimed adult dramas of the '60s, and he pushed the envelope of TV sexuality and skin to a degree that put him at constant odds with the censors.

By the time TNG came along, SFTV had hardly matured at all since the '60s, and '80s SFTV was dominated by lightweight schlock such as Knight Rider and Automan. So TNG coming along as a smart, sophisticated adult drama was as exceptional in its day as TOS had been, and as I've already mentioned repeatedly, Roddenberry strove in TNG's first season to take advantage of lessened censorship and be even more overt about sexuality than he'd been allowed to get in TOS, as seen in episodes like "The Naked Now" and "Justice." So it wasn't just "some creatives" who wanted to push the envelope, it was the guy who created the entire franchise. Pushing the envelope was Star Trek's whole job.

“Conspiracy” was outside the norm of an episode of Star Trek.

In your opinion. But it was still made, and "Chain of Command" was still made, along with other intense episodes that wouldn't have gotten made if TNG had really fit into the rigid "family show" mold you're falsely trying to force it into.

You say yourself, establish a continuum. Weapons like phasers and laser are probably treated different from real weapons, and seen as cartoonish. We are talking ‘90s tv here.

It's not about the nature of the weapon, it's about its effect. The Rambo cartoon in the '80s featured realistic guns and bullets, but the bullets never hit a living thing, only inanimate objects, and no character in the show was allowed to say the word "kill" or "dead." By the same token, The A-Team had climaxes driven by huge amounts of gunplay, but since it was a family show, the bullets almost never hit anybody and people rarely died. By contrast, TNG used energy weapons, but those weapons killed people all the time, even blew up entire ships and killed thousands.

Because there is something called “being mainstream”. Being mainstream implies widespread acceptance. LGBT rights weren’t mainstream. It was still very much underground. Homophobia was what was mainstream at the time, despite efforts to change that.

At most, you can only criticize Trek for not going against the grain and what was considered mainstream at the time.

Hell, yes, I can! That's exactly the point! Star Trek was never supposed to be "mainstream." The entire reason it was created was to go against mainstream norms and break new ground. Limiting Star Trek to conventional expectations, especially where social justice and inclusion are concerned, is a failure to live up to what Star Trek was created to be.

And maybe it was decided it was more important to keep Trek on the air to keep on promoting progressive values, such as feminism and civil rights.

Bullshit. Feminism and civil rights were much further along in the '80s-'90s than gay rights. As I said, gay rights were the hot issue at the time as much as civil rights were in the '60s. Star Trek, if done right, would've been on the vanguard. Roddenberry promised in 1987 that it would be, that he would give the fans the gay inclusion they were clamoring for, but the people who took charge of the show as his health failed consistently betrayed that promise. It is bullshit revisionist history to claim it was too soon to deal with that issue. The issue was on the table before TNG even premiered.

Since they also aired in more conservative countries that, while might be fine with consuming American media, are otherwise very proud of the culture they have. Cultures that are far more harsh towards the LGBT community. So, some ideas have to be softly introduced, or the plug is pulled. Basically, soft power in action.

Are you saying it would have been better if Trek got cancelled again in the early ‘90s, rather than continue on for another decade spreading its messages regarding progressivism?

Oh, that's specious. How many times do we have to restate the fact that dozens of other shows in the same era did feature gay characters and issues and did not get cancelled for it? STOP DENYING THE OBJECTIVE FACTS!

 

[Skipper]

Oh, that's specious. How many times do we have to restate the fact that dozens of other shows in the same era did feature gay characters and issues and did not get cancelled for it? STOP DENYING THE OBJECTIVE FACTS!

Yeah, people keep saying "But don't you know in the 90s having a gay character appearing in a single episode meant CATASTROPHE for the TV series and its immediate cancellation?!?!" but they cannot point to a single instance in which this has happened.

 

[Alexander Corrino]

The thing is, a homophobic person at the time (or indeed today, at least in feature films) didn't have to push an agenda, because the homophobia was already built into the system. It had been the default for generations to deny the existence of gay people or to depict them only as jokes and aberrations. So all you had to do was not make an effort to change things for the better, to carry on with business as usual and not rock the boat. Nothing could be easier, which is why systemic discrimination is so hard to overcome.

That's just what I mean tho. Berman didn't do anything to rock the boat, that's true, but he also actively prevented it from rocking in the first place. On TNG at least there were reports about "someone from higher up" sending down people whenever someone tried to include even the tiniest shred of gay representation. Like it happened with a scene where they wanted to include two men in Ten Forward holding hands in the background and someone was sent down to tell them not to do this. It's not only that Berman simply went with the way things were (which is true, it was built into the system, I agree) - he also actively did things to make sure gay representation didn't happen. He indeed did nothing to change the way things were but he also made an effort to KEEP them this way.

I do agree with the rest of what you said tho. The fact that the fight for gay rights was very visible and ongoing in the late 80s/early 90s is precisely why I always say TNG should have been the show that paved the way for gay characters on Trek. The fact that they did make a rather awful attempt at tackling the issue with "The Outcast" shows that they WERE aware of their responsibilty in this regard.

 

[Skipper]

The fact that they did make a rather awful attempt at tackling the issue with "The Outcast" shows that they WERE aware of their responsibilty in this regard.

"The Outcast": an episode where the character played by a cis-gender female actress identifies herself as female and kisses a character played by a cis-gender male actor and then everyone pats each other for THE INCREDIBLE COURAGE they demonstrate.

 

[Alexander Corrino]

"The Outcast": an episode where the character played by a cis-gender female actress identifies herself as female and kisses a character played by a cis-gender male actor and then everyone pats each other for THE INCREDIBLE COURAGE they demonstrate.

I always say "this episode is what happens when you try to tell a story about gay rights but use only straight people to do so".

I don't remember where I read it but apparently Berman did an interview about it once where he was asked about the criticism the episode received even back then and the essence of what he said was "you wanted an episode about gay rights and we gave you one, what MORE DO YOU WANT". Yikes. Just... yikes.