Ok, just to be clear, was it implied that literal orgies were happening in "Naked Now" or am I being malicious?!?

[CoveTom]

Still, people exaggerate when they say Roddenberry insisted on no conflict in TNG. The rule as I understand it was actually "no petty conflict" -- nothing arising simply from people being emotionally dysfunctional or immature or mean-spirited or assuming the worst of each other, the usual sitcom or soap opera formulas. I've seen TNG writers say this was a good thing in a way, because it forced them to avoid the lazy shortcuts for generating conflict that writers too often fall back on, and challenged them to come up with conflicts that were actually meaningful, that could arise between well-adjusted people who respected each other but who had fundamentally different priorities or came down on different sides of a complex issue with no easy answers.

My understanding is that Roddenberry wanted no conflict among the main characters, because he felt humanity in general and Starfleet officers in particular would be above that. But that often gets twisted -- oftentimes by the writers themselves -- as if Roddenberry wanted no conflict at all. Which is just blatantly ridiculous, since there was plenty of conflict right there in the parts of "Encounter at Farpoint" that he wrote.

Brannon Braga gets a lof of hate at times, but I really respect the fact that he doesn't trash Roddenberry but instead says Roddenberry's directives challenged him to approach stories in new and different ways and that he enjoyed the challenge.

 

[Skipper]

I wonder what Gene would have thought of the XXX Trek parodies that were made.

Incidentally, I wanted to watch the TNG XXX parody for the sex, and I stayed for the story! In fact, after a while, I skipped the sex scenes because I was so invested in the story that I wanted to know what was going to happen!

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

 

[Christopher]

My understanding is that Roddenberry wanted no conflict among the main characters, because he felt humanity in general and Starfleet officers in particular would be above that. But that often gets twisted -- oftentimes by the writers themselves -- as if Roddenberry wanted no conflict at all. Which is just blatantly ridiculous, since there was plenty of conflict right there in the parts of "Encounter at Farpoint" that he wrote.

As I said, I think it's an exaggeration to say that he meant "no conflict" among the lead characters rather than no petty conflict. After all, he was the one who recycled his planned Phase II Decker-Ilia relationship almost unaltered for Riker and Troi, with their romantic history being a source of tension. And the original series bible had the potential for conflict built into several key relationships -- the romantic tension between Picard and Crusher, Picard having to deal with Wesley despite his discomfort with children, Riker being prejudiced against androids, Geordi dealing with the constant pain of his VISOR and his bitterness at not being able to see the world as others do. (Conflict can be internal as well as external.) Granted, some of these don't seem to fit the "no petty or immature conflicts" rule, and pretty much all of it got glossed over soon enough. But while the bible was largely David Gerrold's work, it has Roddenberry's name on it and he would've had final approval of its contents. If he'd really been opposed to any main-character conflict from the start, he wouldn't have let those character dynamics get codified in the series bible.

I've seen it suggested that a lot of what's perceived as "Gene's rules" were actually the result of the people around Roddenberry applying their interpretation of his guidelines more rigidly than he may have intended.

 

[FredH]

One of the most basic rules of defensive newsreading is always to be aware of the difference between an interviewee's directly quoted words and the interviewer's (or a third party's) summary or interpretation of them. The latter is often inaccurate or biased.

This is why I often hate “interviews” where the article mentions a few things the interviewee said, but largely consists of the interviewer’s own writing after the fact. (In general; I’m not talking about this Shatner/Behr piece.). You may not actually be getting the interviewee’s perspective. Even in say, a seemingly damning article that’s probably true, it can feel like the reporter deciding for you, rather than letting you draw your own conclusions.

At the risk of drawing fire, one example of this would be the famous interview with Joss Whedon that ended up being pretty much the final nail in the coffin. Its picture of Whedon was almost certainly true — but iirc there were maybe something like three of four quotes from Whedon, the rest just summarized. I’d have preferred a more direct transcription of Whedon’s side of the conversation; if he was going to be sunk (and he probably was), it should have been by his own words, not a few snippets in somebody else’s narrative.

 

[FredH]

As I said, I think it's an exaggeration to say that he meant "no conflict" among the lead characters rather than no petty conflict.

Was just re-watching the opening to “Where None Have Gone Before”, and there’s a definite subtle microaggressive edge between Picard and Riker, just as there is early in “Encounter at Farpoint”.

 

[Oddish]

Realistically speaking, would there have been orgies if something like TNN happened on a ship like ENT-D? Yeah, probably. Not universally. But among a few characters, especially teens and cadets and young crew.

Considering it's been over 30 years, I think he simply means, "Someone who ultimately decides whether this thing can be filmed or not." It could have been Berman, it could have been some producer.

For example regarding the episode The Offspring I found this on Memory Alpha

------------------------------------------
In one of the scenes with Guinan tutoring Lal about Human sexuality, a script line was changed in order to turn a strictly heterosexual explanation into a gender-neutral version. Research assistant Richard Arnold recalled, "According to the script, Guinan was supposed to start telling Lal, 'When a man and a woman are in love…' and in the background, there would be men and women sitting at tables, holding hands. But Whoopi refused to say that. She said, 'This show is beyond that. It should be 'When two people are in love.'" It was also decided on set that the background of the scene show a same-sex couple holding hands, but "someone ran to a phone and made a call to the production office and that was nixed," continued Arnold. "[Producer] David Livingston came down and made sure that didn't happen."
----------------------------------------

No great surprise. But at least they let Whoopi keep the first change.

 

[Blip]

Realistically speaking, would there have been orgies if something like TNN happened on a ship like ENT-D? Yeah, probably. Not universally. But among a few characters, especially teens and cadets and young crew.


No great surprise. But at least they let Whoopi keep the first change.

I'd sure love to be able to travel back in time to find the prejudiced little **** who snitched to the production office; I'd b¡tchslap them right into their very own temporal loop...

 

[flandry84]

Kind of surprised we've never had a throuple in modern Trek, but I guess post-Discovery in the Trump mandate era, chances are close to zero. I think they did it in a novel once, but my memory is hazy.

Demora Sulu was part of a thruple…though part seems the wrong word,member seems equally bad..

 

[Christopher]

Demora Sulu was part of a thruple…though part seems the wrong word,member seems equally bad..

How about "a partner in a throuple?"

 

[Ssosmcin]

Realistically speaking, would there have been orgies if something like TNN happened on a ship like ENT-D? Yeah, probably. Not universally. But among a few characters, especially teens and cadets and young crew.

I wonder how much virginity was lost in that adventure? Maybe now we know why they stopped having families on board

 

[Oddish]

I wonder how much virginity was lost in that adventure? Maybe now we know why they stopped having families on board

It was a questionable policy anyway.

 

[CoveTom]

It was a questionable policy anyway.

I'm not so sure Yes, you're putting the families in danger. But if a starship is supposed to be out far away from home for years at a time, how many people are going to sign up for that if they can't have their families with them? Even with today's military, people go to dangerous parts of the world all the time because their loved ones are stationed there.

 

[Oddish]

I'm not so sure Yes, you're putting the families in danger. But if a starship is supposed to be out far away from home for years at a time, how many people are going to sign up for that if they can't have their families with them? Even with today's military, people go to dangerous parts of the world all the time because their loved ones are stationed there.

I know. I said it was a questionable policy, not a stupid one. A questionable policy can be defended, a stupid one can't. Kind of like the difference between TNG's decision to keep Riker on the show after "Best of Both Worlds" (which was questionable), and VOY's decision to keep Harry Kim at ensign for 7 years (which was stupid).

 

[Christopher]

I'm not so sure Yes, you're putting the families in danger. But if a starship is supposed to be out far away from home for years at a time, how many people are going to sign up for that if they can't have their families with them? Even with today's military, people go to dangerous parts of the world all the time because their loved ones are stationed there.

Also, of course, it's an adventure TV series, so there's going to be danger wherever it's set. If there were a Trek show set on a planet surface, that planet would come under frequent attack. When this argument comes up, I always think of Syfy's Eureka, where the secret cutting-edge scientific research center hidden within the titular small town had near-catastrophic mishaps every week, yet the residents of the town still let their families and children live there. Or Buffy the Vampire Slayer, where Sunnydale High had an insanely high mortality rate, yet the parents didn't pull out their children. It's just a standard conceit of adventure fiction.

At least families on a starship are protected by top-of-the-line shields and defensive weapons. On a planet surface, you could get hit by a car or caught in an earthquake or fall off a roof or any number of things.

 

[CoveTom]

Also, of course, it's an adventure TV series, so there's going to be danger wherever it's set. If there were a Trek show set on a planet surface, that planet would come under frequent attack. When this argument comes up, I always think of Syfy's Eureka, where the secret cutting-edge scientific research center hidden within the titular small town had near-catastrophic mishaps every week, yet the residents of the town still let their families and children live there. Or Buffy the Vampire Slayer, where Sunnydale High had an insanely high mortality rate, yet the parents didn't pull out their children. It's just a standard conceit of adventure fiction.

At least families on a starship are protected by top-of-the-line shields and defensive weapons. On a planet surface, you could get hit by a car or caught in an earthquake or fall off a roof or any number of things.

Let's not forget the folks living in Cabot Cove on Murder, She Wrote...

 

[Christopher]

Let's not forget the folks living in Cabot Cove on Murder, She Wrote...

And not just there. Whether it's Jessica Fletcher, her direct inspiration Miss Marple, Hercule Poirot, Charlie Cale, the Scooby Gang, or whoever, any mystery-solving protagonist is going to continuously stumble across mysteries within their area of expertise no matter where they travel.

(I've been watching the Marple series on Britbox, and I'm surprised how few of Miss Marple's mysteries actually took place in her hometown of St Mary Mead.)

 

[Oddish]

Let's not forget the folks living in Cabot Cove on Murder, She Wrote...

Amazing that there's anyone left alive there...

 

[CoveTom]

(I've been watching the Marple series on Britbox, and I'm surprised how few of Miss Marple's mysteries actually took place in her hometown of St Mary Mead.)

That was also somewhat the same on Murder, She Wrote. I grew up on that show and the Cabot Cove episodes are my favorites, and often seem to be the favorites or many fans, but there actually aren't that many of them. Out of a season of 22 episodes, only around 5 of them would typically take place in Cabot Cove.

 

[Christopher]

That was also somewhat the same on Murder, She Wrote. I grew up on that show and the Cabot Cove episodes are my favorites, and often seem to be the favorites or many fans, but there actually aren't that many of them. Out of a season of 22 episodes, only around 5 of them would typically take place in Cabot Cove.

But that's more than a fifth, which is rather a lot. Heck, the whole ITV Marple series is just 23 episodes (five 4-episode seasons and a 3-episode one), and I think only three of them are set in St Mary Mead.

 

[Skipper]

Even with today's military, people go to dangerous parts of the world all the time because their loved ones are stationed there.

Yes, but their families don't physically go on missions with them, they don't ride in tanks and planes with them.

It's one thing to go and live in a house near a military base, but it's another to go and face an enemy who's shooting at you.

Honestly, who made the decision for children? I'm a little perplexed by the ethics of this. Of course, parents make decisions, but in this case, they're deciding about the fate of other human beings.

What would you think of a mercenary who, say, takes his 8-year-old son into the jungle to fight rebels because otherwise he'd "feel alone"?