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

[Skipper]

I have to say that late years Gene's Weltanschauung, especially when it came to sex, was a bit... peculiar?

It seems to me directly connected to the (then) recent sexual revolution. I think the intention was to give a less titillating and taboo-ridden image of sex. This is no longer seen as the forbidden fruit, but as a natural expression of human nature. But his personal idiosyncrasies were always involved. So he alternated between "Sex is good and natural and there's nothing to be ashamed of and you can talk about it freely" to "How hot is this stunning woman taking a shower??? And how good is this very revealing dress on her?"

 

[Christopher]

I have to say that late years Gene's Weltanschauung, especially when it came to sex, was a bit... peculiar?

It seems to me directly connected to the (then) recent sexual revolution. I think the intention was to give a less titillating and taboo-ridden image of sex. This is no longer seen as the forbidden fruit, but as a natural expression of human nature. But his personal idiosyncrasies were always involved. So he alternated between "Sex is good and natural and there's nothing to be ashamed of and you can talk about it freely" to "How hot is this stunning woman taking a shower??? And how good is this very revealing dress on her?"

Yeah, his attitude was a mix of wanting to be genuinely enlightened and progressive and relishing the freedom to indulge his own desire to sexualize women. If you look at his Pretty Maids All in a Row, its take on the Sexual Revolution was not so much "This empowers women to take control of their own bodies and choices" but more like "Whee, this means high school girls will make themselves freely sexually available to any man who wants them!"

 

[Skipper]

Yeah, his attitude was a mix of wanting to be genuinely enlightened and progressive and relishing the freedom to indulge his own desire to sexualize women. If you look at his Pretty Maids All in a Row, its take on the Sexual Revolution was not so much "This empowers women to take control of their own bodies and choices" but more like "Whee, this means high school girls will make themselves freely sexually available to any man who wants them!"

Yep! Probably the lesson he got from the Sexual Revolution was "Cool! Now I can ask directly for sex, without using euphemisms, beating around the bush or being forced to take them to dinner!"

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

This is wrong. By the late '80s and the '90s, more and more shows were acknowledging gay/lesbian characters and issues.

WHAT shows?!? I'm not denying the existence of them; I've just never heard of -- much less seen -- any from that era.

To the best of my recollection, up until the 1998 debut of Will & Grace, the only U.S. television series with a gay principal character was Love, Sidney. Certainly, there were Norman Lear sitcoms that occasionally dealt with homosexuality, and there were shows like Bosom Buddies (in which two exclusively straight men dressed in drag, because the only place where they could get an apartment was a "women's hotel"), and Three's Company (which had an exclusively straight man feigning homosexuality in order to be a roommate to two women, whose landlord hated sex even more than I hated seeing an actor of John Ritter's caliber being wasted on a series whose whole premise was "cheap jokes and cutesy sex"), but more often than not, portrayals of LGBTQ+ prior to W&G were either guest roles, or done purely for laughs, or both.

And don't get me started on how President Clinton would have accomplished a lot more if he'd waited to attempt to give gay servicemen the acceptance they deserved until after W&G had been on the air for at least a year.

 

[Skipper]

WHAT shows?!? I'm not denying the existence of them; I've just never heard of -- much less seen -- any from that era.

To the best of my recollection, up until the 1998 debut of Will & Grace, the only U.S. television series with a gay principal character was Love, Sidney. Certainly, there were Norman Lear sitcoms that occasionally dealt with homosexuality, and there were shows like Bosom Buddies (in which two exclusively straight men dressed in drag, because the only place where they could get an apartment was a "women's hotel"), and Three's Company (which had an exclusively straight man feigning homosexuality in order to be a roommate to two women, whose landlord hated sex even more than I hated seeing an actor of John Ritter's caliber being wasted on a series whose whole premise was "cheap jokes and cutesy sex"), but more often than not, portrayals of LGBTQ+ prior to W&G were either guest roles, or done purely for laughs, or both.

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]

WHAT shows?!? I'm not denying the existence of them; I've just never heard of -- much less seen -- any from that era.

We have answered that question repeatedly over the course of this thread, as far back as the very first page two months ago. Can we please stop relitigating it?

To the best of my recollection, up until the 1998 debut of Will & Grace, the only U.S. television series with a gay principal character was Love, Sidney.

But we're not talking about principal characters -- that's moving the goalposts. We're talking about simply acknowledging that non-heterosexuality even exists among humans at all, which is something that Berman-era Trek fanatically avoided to a degree that was uncommon in the 1980s and frankly ludicrous by the 2000s.

 

[Orphalesion]

WHAT shows?!? I'm not denying the existence of them; I've just never heard of -- much less seen -- any from that era.

To the best of my recollection, up until the 1998 debut of Will & Grace, the only U.S. television series with a gay principal character was Love, Sidney. Certainly, there were Norman Lear sitcoms that occasionally dealt with homosexuality, and there were shows like Bosom Buddies (in which two exclusively straight men dressed in drag, because the only place where they could get an apartment was a "women's hotel"), and Three's Company (which had an exclusively straight man feigning homosexuality in order to be a roommate to two women, whose landlord hated sex even more than I hated seeing an actor of John Ritter's caliber being wasted on a series whose whole premise was "cheap jokes and cutesy sex"), but more often than not, portrayals of LGBTQ+ prior to W&G were either guest roles, or done purely for laughs, or both.

And don't get me started on how President Clinton would have accomplished a lot more if he'd waited to attempt to give gay servicemen the acceptance they deserved until after W&G had been on the air for at least a year.

Ever heard of a little show called "Golden Girls"? That show frequently had homosexual guest characters and storylines about LGBTQ+ themes. While yes, it was always guest characters, their storylines (such as Blanche's initial homophobia when her brother Clayton came out, who was featured in at least two episodes) were handled with seriousness and sympathy and the message was always that LGBTQ+ persons were "normal" humans and members of society.And yes, there were jokes there were always jokes, especially from Sophia, as there were in every episode, but the episode about Clayton also ended with a serious scene where Sophia finally made Blanche realize that Clayton had a right not to hide his homosexuality and look for love, because just like them he wanted somebody to spend his life with "shouldn't everyone have that chance?"

And some homosexual/trans guest characters and storylines would already have been something, far, far more than TNG (or any of Berman Trek really) ever did.

 

[fireproof78]

Even a little comedy like Night Court took it on with trans issues. It handled it very well.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

I would disagree with the notion that "LGBTQ+ regular cast" or even "LGBTQ+ principal cast" is "moving the goal posts." Isolated episodes are progress; recurring characters whose sexual orientation is treated matter-of-factly (like "Marty" on Barney Miller) are even more progress. But full acceptance calls for regular cast, who aren't there purely for the sake of a running joke, whose sexual orientation is neither made fun of, nor (as Tony Randall's character for most of the run of Love, Sidney) studiously ignored, but simply part of their identity (as in Will & Grace). And even after W&G and Modern Family, I am the first to admit that I was more than a bit surprised by the Stamets/Culber relationship on DSC. Far more surprised than I should have been, which was a hard, but welcome, reminder that I have a long way to go, if I ever hope to catch up with even my own aspirations.

That said, I will say that I define "family TV show" (or "family film," for that matter) as meaning one that is, in its own era, intended to be generally accepted by most people as being suitable for families to watch together. (And speaking of "moving the goal posts," that definition acknowledges that the "goal posts" defining what's suitable for family viewing are goal posts that never stand still, even for a moment.)

TOS was family fare, for its era. TNG (yes, even before Roddenberry had to pass the torch to others) was family fare for its era. In fact, I would say that every Star Trek series that had a broadcast run was family fare for its era.. As to the online/DVD only series, maybe not so much. PIC is too violent. Maybe DSC as well, especially the second season. And LD tends to get a little too raunchy at times. On the other hand, PRO, being explicitly targeted at younger audiences, might be off-putting to the sort of adult who wouldn't admit to liking Mister Rogers' Neighborhood (as far as I'm concerned, MRN is better TV than most of what's currently targeted at adult audiences!) But I would say, without hesitation, that SNW is very much a "family TV show."

 

[Christopher]

I would disagree with the notion that "LGBTQ+ regular cast" or even "LGBTQ+ principal cast" is "moving the goal posts."

It absolutely is when, I repeat, what we're talking about here is TNG/DS9/VGR/ENT's refusal to acknowlege that gay humans even existed at all. In eighteen years, Trek did maybe three episodes with alien allegories for gay people, but never depicted a gay human or acknowledged that humans even had the concept of non-heterosexual attraction or relationships. Yes, other shows were variable in the way they portrayed LGBT people, some positive, some negative, some token, but at least they acknowledged the simple fact of their existence, which Trek did not. So no matter how well or poorly other shows addressed the issue, Trek was still hugely behind the curve.

That said, I will say that I define "family TV show" (or "family film," for that matter) as meaning one that is, in its own era, intended to be generally accepted by most people as being suitable for families to watch together.

You're merely restating what's already explicitly asked in the title of this thread.

TOS was family fare, for its era.

No. Lost in Space was family fare. TOS aimed to be an adult drama on a par with Naked City or Gunsmoke. That was explicitly stated in its writers' bible. A family show would not have been at constant war with the censors to put as much female skin and sexuality onscreen as it could get away with. It just seems like a family show in retrospect because standards became so much looser in the '70s, and because it was rerun in daytime syndication so often that kids grew up watching it. I was one of those kids -- I first saw the show at age 5 -- but I know that the show was not intended for audiences of that age.

TNG (yes, even before Roddenberry had to pass the torch to others) was family fare for its era. In fact, I would say that every Star Trek series that had a broadcast run was family fare for its era.

I really don't understand why so many people here have the desire to claim that was the case. As someone who grew up in that era, I emphatically disagree. Family shows of that era, the kind made for 8 PM viewing like Starman or The Greatest American Hero, did not have the level of violence, sexual content, or profanity that TNG or DS9 had. Their characters generally said "heck" and "darn" rather than "hell" and "damn," they rarely showed characters kissing or talking about sex, and there was little to no onscreen violence or death. On Hero, William Katt and Connie Sellecca played an engaged couple for the whole first two seasons, but hardly ever showed any physical affection to each other, at least until season 3 when the show was briefly moved to a later time slot where it could get away with more mature content.

I think maybe the reason it's seen differently now is because people have gotten so used to the more graphic adult content on pay cable and streaming services, things like Spartacus and Game of Thrones with graphic gore and nudity and all that stuff. Compared to that, even the most adult primetime dramas of 1980s-90s commercial television seem "family-friendly."

 

[Frontis]

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

 

[Alexander Corrino]

It absolutely is when, I repeat, what we're talking about here is TNG/DS9/VGR/ENT's refusal to acknowlege that gay humans even existed at all. In eighteen years, Trek did maybe three episodes with alien allegories for gay people, but never depicted a gay human or acknowledged that humans even had the concept of non-heterosexual attraction or relationships. Yes, other shows were variable in the way they portrayed LGBT people, some positive, some negative, some token, but at least they acknowledged the simple fact of their existence, which Trek did not. So no matter how well or poorly other shows addressed the issue, Trek was still hugely behind the curve.

Yes, this. So much. To me it almost seemed like as if TNG (as the Trek show I'm most familiar with) deliberately went out of its way to not even mention gay people. It almost made it a point to show that gay people didn't exist anymore in its oh-so-enlightened future, hence why, until this day, we STILL have Trek fans (and yes, these people ARE fans, it won't help to yell "you can't be a Trek fan if you're not open-minded" because these people ARE people who enjoy Star Trek, which means they're fans) who claim that "the gays were eradicated at some point". This is the message Berman Trek left behind when it comes to this subject. And it's not a pretty one if you ask me.

 

[Skipper]

This was happening in Galactica, which began airing during "Enterprise". Just saying.

 

[Skipper]

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

There has always been a certain, shall we say, prejudice? in the past towards cinema/television science fiction. It was thought to be a genre aimed at, well, kids. It's true that statistically a good part of sci-fi production tried to be as open to the widest possible audience, simply because on average these works were more expensive than the others. But unfortunately many had (and still have) the equation science fiction = stuff for kids.

 

[Skipper]

Yes, this. So much. To me it almost seemed like as if TNG (as the Trek show I'm most familiar with) deliberately went out of its way to not even mention gay people.

Oh, I assure you it happened in every other Berman-era ST series (with a couple of exceptions in DS9).

Mulgrew said this 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.

Worst of all, Berman wasn't even honest enough to say "there will never be gays as long as I'm in charge," but actively lied to anyone who asked him questions about the matter.

As for the exceptions of DS9, while they are absolutely meritorious in comparison to what Star Trek had done up until then, they are a bit criticizable when it comes to LGBT representation. Rejoined is a great episode, but then we have the Mirror Universe depraved bisexual trope. Therefore orientation other than straight= evil.

 

[Skipper]

Ah, in 2001 the first regular lesbian couple appeared on TV in Buffy. Which was broadcast on UPN. The same network that Enterprise was broadcast on.


So, we can stop saying "that it was too early", "Audience was not ready", "TPTB didn't want it!" and at least assume that it was a specific choice by Berman who was actively committed to preventing any LBGT representation in Star Trek? Can we at least agree on this, regardless of why he did it?

 

[Therin of Andor]

... if he took credit for its G-rated tone in his letters, that was probably just his usual spin for the public.

Sure, although GR's letters to the club were written to us during the production, and the film didn't get its final rating until just before the premiere.

 

[Alexander Corrino]

Oh, I assure you it happened in every other Berman-era ST series (with a couple of exceptions in DS9).

Mulgrew said this 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.

Worst of all, Berman wasn't even honest enough to say "there will never be gays as long as I'm in charge," but actively lied to anyone who asked him questions about the matter.

Sir Patrick pretty much ran into the same wall when he talked about a gay character finally appearing in First Contact... because Berman apparently then went out of his way to state that Lt. Hawk was totally not gay.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Interesting, can you give a couple of examples of episodes each with one of the two ratings, please?

I just found an online reprint of a 1967 fanzine news article by a SF friend, Kerrie.

She mentions the rating of Trek episodes Down Under and how "The Man Trap" * was actually banned here. (That episode didn't premiere in NSW until September, 1981, hence it was used as a fundraiser for the first Star Trek convention in Sydney in March 1979.)
http://galacticjourney.org/august-2...under-star-trek-spies-and-space-in-australia/

All the other eps ran on TV in adult viewing timeslots in the 60s (8.30pm and 9.30pm, IIRC), so it didn't matter that some were rated "G". It was when the series was rerun here in 1981, but then ended up being moved to daytime on weekends that the rating of each episode suddenly mattered. And only 40 were deemed suitable. (Not recommended for children were episodes like "The Empath".)

An interesting one was "Space Seed", where Khan slapping Uhura was originally clipped out for Australian TV, even in 1981. His hand jerks near her face as the scene is snipped. When I finally saw this on uncut home video, I realised that Khan's hand never strikes Uhura's cheek, so the censorship actually makes the scene worse.

We were also not allowed to see the two shots of the reflection of an aged Uhura in "And the Children Shall Lead", when the kids try to distract her. Hilariously, the shot of aged Uhura appears in the closing credits of several Season Three episodes!

* Similarly, the UK had four episodes banned for first-run ("Miri", "Plato's Stepchildren", "The Empath" and "Whom Gods Destroy").

 

[Christopher]

Sure, although GR's letters to the club were written to us during the production, and the film didn't get its final rating until just before the premiere.

That doesn't matter, because obviously the film would not have been able to get a G rating if it hadn't already been made in a way that allowed a G rating. I mean, if the movie had been as blatant about Ilia as Roddenberry's novelization, it probably would've been R-rated. So the decision to minimize the sexual content and keep it family-friendly must have been made before filming.

After all, every movie is a collaborative effort. Nothing is just a single person's decision; auteur theory is complete rubbish. So the novel represents Roddenberry's unfiltered approach to the story while the movie represents the consensus decision of Roddenberry, Wise, Livingston, and the rest of the creative and executive team. The fact that Roddenberry went along with that team consensus doesn't mean he wouldn't have chosen to take a more adult approach if he'd had free rein. He always wanted Trek to be an adult drama, a deliberate contrast to children's shows like Lost in Space. And his desire to push the envelope on sexual content is obvious throughout his filmography. He may have accepted aiming the film for a G rating, but the novel's more overt treatment of sexuality makes it clear that he was holding himself back in the film, or letting others hold him back.