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

[valkyrie013]

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.

BUT... If you look at the writing of Trek, after say Season 3 of TNG, it was "Mainstream" in that it was a successful series with another coming out soon, It was big money maker for paramount. so the number of "Edgey" episodes compared to regular "Monster of the week" type of show was greatly reduced, DS9 was more edgy due to there show runner pushing boundrys more, however even then, it was reduced to sterotypes. There were Gay characters in DS9.. but they were from the Mirror Universe.. or just "Presenting Gay" as in Garek.

@Skipper I don't like labels just thrown around. Its to easy to just slap a label there X or Y Here if your Right of center your called a racist bigot homophobe.. just as a sterotype. Was Berman a homophobe? Maybe? Your looking with Today's Eyes at something 20-30 years ago.
Imagine if Outcast casted a male in the role of J'naii, and they still did the kiss? Yes, LGBT people would have appluded, but in 1990? would have been alot of people turning TNG Off... and that would have hit there money. So yes. Money was an issue back then.

 

[Christopher]

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.

Oh, yes, absolutely he was actively doing it -- I'm not suggesting otherwise. My point is just that you could easily do that without calling attention to it, without having to come out and publicly make a stand on the issue, because all you had to do was perpetuate the existing norms. So the fact that his homophobia wasn't obvious doesn't mean it didn't exist, it means it blended into the larger system he was complicit in.

"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.

To be fair, progress begins with small steps. Often the first step is to encourage people in the majority to see themselves in the minority's shoes by allegorically flipping the script: "Imagine how it would feel if it happened to you." E.g. Planet of the Apes showing a world where apes performed cruel experiments on caged humans, or "Angel One" or Roddenberry's Planet Earth pilot showing a society where women oppressed men, or the DS9 Mirror Universe stories where humans are enslaved by aliens and fighting for freedom. The intent is to get the dominant group to empathize with the oppressed by walking a mile in their shoes. But of course that's only the first step, since it's still directed at changing the minds of the dominant group rather than telling the stories of other groups. It's not wrong, it's just the beginning of the journey, ideally giving way to more actual inclusion later on. "The Outcast" was a decent first step; the problem is that ST never went beyond that first step.

By the standards of the time, I felt "The Outcast" made a worthwhile moral statement; my problem was that it didn't have anything else going for it. The whole episode was such a relentless polemic that it offered nothing of interest for those of us who had already learned the lesson it was teaching. Roddenberry was known to say that telling an entertaining story is more important than having a message, since the message doesn't get across if the audience isn't engaged enough to stick around to hear it. "The Outcast" was all message and nothing else.

 

[Oddish]

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?

Yes. Because there was a time in my life when I actually was homophobic. And so yes, I could have seen myself walking away from a show if it began featuring overt homosexuality.

I'm sorry I'm not a paragon of tolerance and virtue like you undoubtedly always were. Some of us have to learn the hard way.

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.

Maybe TNG envisioned itself as a little more mainstream. The 60's were a time when radicalism and pushing the envelope were the norm. By the 80's and 90's, less so. Maybe TNG felt that it needed to hold on for the original fans of TOS, whose sensibilities would have been liberal in 1967 but far more conservative 20 years later.

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.

That doesn't mean there weren't nasty letters, decreases in viewership, or other things that the powers that be didn't want to happen.

"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 still maintain that both "The Outcast" and "Rejoined" were attempts to "test the waters", and that audience response was carefully monitored. That may be why they never went further... it's possible that Star Trek had a lot of conservative types in its fanbase, and the demographics experts told the powers that be that gay characters would be a tough sell.

Imagine if Outcast casted a male in the role of J'naii, and they still did the kiss? Yes, LGBT people would have appluded, but in 1990? would have been alot of people turning TNG Off... and that would have hit there money. So yes. Money was an issue back then.

Precisely. We're on the far end of a long and very well executed media campaign to gain acceptance for the LGBTQ community. They changed the world faster than I would have thought it possible... but it wasn't instantaneous.

By the standards of the time, I felt "The Outcast" made a worthwhile moral statement; my problem was that it didn't have anything else going for it.

Sometimes an imperfect statement is still a worthwhile one. In the early part of "It" by Stephen King, there is a scene where a gay man is brutally murdered by a group of homophobic punks... yes, he and his lover are very stereotypically effeminate, wearing makeup, nail polish, bizarre clothes. By modern standards it would probably be considered insulting. But, it still made me seriously rethink my position on the subject.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

I think the meaning of the phrase "family television" has changed drastically in the past several decades...and a big reason for this is that most families have multiple TVs in their home. I watched a documentary once, about the history of television as a medium, and one of the speakers made an excellent point. He said, "When TV first started, the people in charge of making the programs thought of themselves as guests in your home. As such, they were very careful to avoid putting things on the air, that would bother or make you feel bad. But now, so many people (especially kids) have their own TV, and the content creators now see themselves as fellow dwellers in your home. So they think they can now do whatever they want, and bothering you doesn't matter to them."

 

[Skipper]

I think the meaning of the phrase "family television" has changed drastically in the past several decades...and a big reason for this is that most families have multiple TVs in their home. I watched a documentary once, about the history of television as a medium, and one of the speakers made an excellent point. He said, "When TV first started, the people in charge of making the programs thought of themselves as guests in your home. As such, they were very careful to avoid putting things on the air, that would bother or make you feel bad. But now, so many people (especially kids) have their own TV, and the content creators now see themselves as fellow dwellers in your home. So they think they can now do whatever they want, and bothering you doesn't matter to them."

Yep. The point however is "Was TNG considered a family show in the 80s/90s?" And like you said, the meaning of what it is acceptable for all family is changed through the decades. Probably every parent has a different metric of what their children could or couldn't watch.

And on average, parents in the United States seem more inclined to let their children watch violent things rather than things about sexual topics.

True story: I was in a hotel (in Italy) with my parents, I think late 80s early 90s. There was a common room with a TV, and me with other children were watching the 80s Spider-man cartoon (I think one of the most inoffensive iteration of the character). At a certain point the father of one of the kids came to pick him up because he shouldn't watch these violent and non-educational things.

There is simply no way to create a one-size-fits-all product.

 

[Oddish]

There is simply no way to create a one-size-fits-all product.

But I think TNG tried to come close.

 

[Christopher]

Yep. The point however is "Was TNG considered a family show in the 80s/90s?" And like you said, the meaning of what it is acceptable for all family is changed through the decades. Probably every parent has a different metric of what their children could or couldn't watch.

Well, speaking as someone who was watching it as an adult in the '80s and '90s, I would say no, I would not have considered it a family show per se. It had more violence, sexual content, and challenging themes than I would've expected to see in a show made for "family hour" viewing, and the entire goal of Star Trek was to be more mature and adult-oriented than the "family-friendly" SF shows that were the default in the '60s-'80s. However, I'm aware that many people assumed ST was a family show because that was the default for SFTV, and that TOS became popular with children when it was rerun in daytime syndication in the '70s-'80s. So that may in itself have been a factor in broadening the definition of what was acceptable as family viewing.

 

[Skipper]

Well, speaking as someone who was watching it as an adult in the '80s and '90s, I would say no, I would not have considered it a family show per se. It had more violence, sexual content, and challenging themes than I would've expected to see in a show made for "family hour" viewing, and the entire goal of Star Trek was to be more mature and adult-oriented than the "family-friendly" SF shows that were the default in the '60s-'80s. However, I'm aware that many people assumed ST was a family show because that was the default for SFTV, and that TOS became popular with children when it was rerun in daytime syndication in the '70s-'80s. So that may in itself have been a factor in broadening the definition of what was acceptable as family viewing.

I have to find the exact quote, but basically one of the issues they faced was that they had absolutely no control over the times that individual syndicated stations showed TNG, with some even doing so at 4pm! In an era when VCRs were still becoming widespread, broadcast time was one of the factors influencing the perception of whether a certain show was family-friendly or not.

 

[Christopher]

broadcast time was one of the factors influencing the perception of whether a certain show was family-friendly or not.

That's what bugs me about the question, though. What matters more, the perception or the reality? Public perception is often wrong. TOS was perceived as a silly children's show when it was anything but, because people's perceptions are distorted by their preconceptions and expectations. RoboCop 2 was explicitly rated R, yet when I saw it in the theater, there were at least two parents who'd brought preschool-age children that had to be taken out crying, because the parents assumed a movie about a robot superhero had to be for small children and they trusted their subjective perception and assumptions more than the objective information about the film's rating. Perception is a bad standard to use, because it's frequently wrong.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

That's what bugs me about the question, though. What matters more, the perception or the reality? Public perception is often wrong. TOS was perceived as a silly children's show when it was anything but, because people's perceptions are distorted by their preconceptions and expectations. RoboCop 2 was explicitly rated R, yet when I saw it in the theater, there were at least two parents who'd brought preschool-age children that had to be taken out crying, because the parents assumed a movie about a robot superhero had to be for small children and they trusted their subjective perception and assumptions more than the objective information about the film's rating. Perception is a bad standard to use, because it's frequently wrong.

That's what bugs me about the question, though. What matters more, the perception or the reality? Public perception is often wrong. TOS was perceived as a silly children's show when it was anything but, because people's perceptions are distorted by their preconceptions and expectations. RoboCop 2 was explicitly rated R, yet when I saw it in the theater, there were at least two parents who'd brought preschool-age children that had to be taken out crying, because the parents assumed a movie about a robot superhero had to be for small children and they trusted their subjective perception and assumptions more than the objective information about the film's rating. Perception is a bad standard to use, because it's frequently wrong.

This last line really stood out for me. I'm reminded of many years ago, when I took my mother to see the first "Scary Movie". I think I'd only seen the TV spots, so I assumed it would just be a goofy comedy. But within minutes, I was literally telling my Mom, "I'm sorry - I had no idea this would be in here." We both walked out of that one, maybe 10 or 15 minutes in.

 

[Skipper]

That's what bugs me about the question, though. What matters more, the perception or the reality? Public perception is often wrong. TOS was perceived as a silly children's show when it was anything but, because people's perceptions are distorted by their preconceptions and expectations. RoboCop 2 was explicitly rated R, yet when I saw it in the theater, there were at least two parents who'd brought preschool-age children that had to be taken out crying, because the parents assumed a movie about a robot superhero had to be for small children and they trusted their subjective perception and assumptions more than the objective information about the film's rating. Perception is a bad standard to use, because it's frequently wrong.

Same thing happened to me with The Punisher movie. But the parents didn't even read the synopsis or watch the trailer?!?

 

[Oddish]

That's why they created the MPAA rating system. And why they refined it with the PG-13 rating... I remember going to a few PG movies as a kid that had content I wasn't ready for.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

That's why they created the MPAA rating system. And why they refined it with the PG-13 rating... I remember going to a few PG movies as a kid that had content I wasn't ready for.

Yeah, but these days the MPAA has become rather arbitrary. The identities of the rating members are kept secret from the public, and the processes they use for determining what a film gets isn't very well-known, either. Also, directors are pretty much allowed to re-submit their film for decision, an unlimited number of times, which I think is completely insane. For example, the original "RoboCop" was sent in a whopping eleven times, before the group finally gave it an R designation. That's just too much leniency; I think there should be a restriction on how many times a film is re-submitted, and then after that you either accept their opinion, or take the risk and release the movie unrated.

 

[Oddish]

Yes, and I think franchise films get a break. "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" probably should have been PG-13, given it's fairly violent denoument.

 

[at Quark's]

I think there should be a restriction on how many times a film is re-submitted, and then after that you either accept their opinion, or take the risk and release the movie unrated.

Or perhaps, to account for the possibility of shifting opinions over time in society, not a restriction on the number of times a film is re-submitted, but on the frequency of re-submission (e.g. once every 10 years).

 

[Christopher]

Yeah, but these days the MPAA has become rather arbitrary.

Even so, "R" doesn't mean "fine for two-year-olds to watch" any more today than it did in the 1980s.

 

[James Cole]

I got into TNG when I had to have been in... 2nd grade (~7-8 years old)? It aired weeknights at 6pm in syndication. There was a ton of toy merchandise on sale at the time as well. So yeah, TNG was pretty family friendly. Media was far less consolidated back then, so local preemptions would have been in the back of mind of TV producers. Just look at how many ABC affiliates refused to run NYPD BLUE. Many people here are comparing TNG to 10pm network shows from the early 90's. Just a different audience. And the Christian Right was really big in the 1990's.

 

[Oddish]

Or perhaps, to account for the possibility of shifting opinions over time in society, not a restriction on the number of times a film is re-submitted, but on the frequency of re-submission (e.g. once every 10 years).

That's a good idea. And they should review films from time to time. "Oliver!" has a G rating from 1968. But it has some pretty brutal scenes: a woman getting slapped and later beaten to death (off screen), a man getting shot dead, and a kid suffering a fair amount of abuse. It would certainly be at least PG by today's standards.

 

[Christopher]

I got into TNG when I had to have been in... 2nd grade (~7-8 years old)? It aired weeknights at 6pm in syndication. There was a ton of toy merchandise on sale at the time as well. So yeah, TNG was pretty family friendly.

That doesn't follow. Plenty of R-rated movies in the '80s and '90s had toy tie-ins, like RoboCop, Predator, and the like.

Many people here are comparing TNG to 10pm network shows from the early 90's. Just a different audience. And the Christian Right was really big in the 1990's.

I specifically said it wasn't as adult as a 10 PM show, but it wasn't as family-friendly as the stuff they'd usually put in the 8 PM hour.

Also, despite the Christian Right's influence, the censorship on commercial television was far milder in the 1980s-90s than it was in the 1960s, and that didn't preclude TOS from being an adult-oriented show that pushed the limits of skin and sexual content for the era.

 

[Oddish]

Remember that TV was far more mainstream: fewer channels, more people watching, and fewer ways to block content. Material that we consider mild was pretty racy then. I remember how certain videos could only be played on MTV after 9 PM, such as "Baby Got Back" and Cher's "If I Could Turn Back Time". I doubt either would draw much notice today.