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

[Christopher]

If you reread the first pages of the thread @Christopher explains the topic well

Thanks, though I just reviewed those pages myself and found that I initially said "Yes, post-season 1 TNG was a family show" and then turned around and said it wasn't. I think both were overstatements, and I settled down to saying it was pretty much in the middle -- not as kid-friendly as what would've been considered family shows of the era (as it had deadly violence and hells and damns and sexual themes), but not as intense, gritty, or trashy as what would've been considered adult shows.

Which is supported by the fact that the TV ratings system that was introduced in the late '90s retroactively gives TNG a TV-PG rating -- more mature than TV-G, less intense than TV-14. The question is what it was considered to be in its own day, and the answer is, essentially, the same as it's considered to be today, somewhere in the middle of the maturity spectrum.

 

[Skipper]

Which is supported by the fact that the TV ratings system that was introduced in the late '90s retroactively gives TNG a TV-PG rating

Just out of curiosity I looked at the list of American TV shows from the 80s and TV-PG certainly covers a wide spectrum.

Advanced search

www.imdb.com

Both Knight Rider and Dallas have this rating, and I'm sure they were intended for very different audiences.

TV-14 (the higher rating) is reserved for some very hard-boiled cop shows, like Miami Vice or Hill Street Blues. Even The Equalizer, which I seemed to remember as a relatively mature show, has a TV-PG rating.

 

[Christopher]

Just out of curiosity I looked at the list of American TV shows from the 80s and TV-PG certainly covers a wide spectrum.

Advanced search

www.imdb.com

Both Knight Rider and Dallas have this rating, and I'm sure they were intended for very different audiences.

TV-14 (the higher rating) is reserved for some very hard-boiled cop shows, like Miami Vice or Hill Street Blues. Even The Equalizer, which I seemed to remember as a relatively mature show, has a TV-PG rating.

Well, standards change over time, and what might be seen as warranting one rating in one decade might be seen as warranting a different rating in another. So ratings don't work as a scientifically precise standard.* I'm merely suggesting it as an analogy, to get across the idea that what we're talking about is not simply a binary of family vs. adult but has a middle ground as well.

As I've mentioned earlier in the thread, the general standard in prime-time commercial TV used to be more or less that "clean," family-friendly shows aired at 8 PM before the kids went to bed and the edgier adult stuff aired at 10 PM after they were asleep, with 9 PM shows being at an intermediate level of maturity. (Although there were exceptions, such as Starman, which was consciously designed to be a wholesome, kid-friendly 8 PM show but ended up at 10 PM for most of its run, which hurt its ratings because it was on too late for many of the kids, unless their parents videotaped it.) If TNG had been on network instead of syndication, I would've probably thought of it at the time as a 9 PM type of show.


*I think a lot of it is because there are so many more hardcore adult shows on pay cable and streaming these days, so that even the most mature commerical broadcast TV shows allowed under FCC regulations seem tame by comparison. So while Dallas would've been considered an adult show in its day, it pales in comparison to something like Spartacus or Game of Thrones, and thus it doesn't seem adult to today's audiences and ratings-setters. In the same way that even the most mature films made under the Hays Code seem tame compared to what came to be allowed under R ratings.

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

Where I live, TNG reruns were M-F, new TNG and new DS9 back-to-back on Saturday nights.
After TNG ended, Voyager on Wednesday nights at 8 or 9pm, DS9 continued on Saturday nights at 8pm.

 

[Frontis]

You mean the show where the ship becomes a giant flying orgy or where they make an infested human graphically explode on screen..?

Never have seen an orgy in TNG, maybe I missed something

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

Never have seen an orgy in TNG, maybe I missed something

He's talking about TNG S1's "The Naked Now," the sequel to TOS's S1 "The Naked Time." Both are great episodes. No orgy, but people were a bit horny from being viral-drunk.

 

[Michael]

#1 How are we defining homophobia? Homo meaning gay, phobia meaning fear. I don't think people in the 90's were "scared" of gay people like he's some kind big thug out to mug people.

Assuming this is an honest, good faith question: No, homophobia does not (only) refer to a literal fear of homosexual people. The way most people use it today it’s referencing discrimination, bigotry, prejudice, mistreatment, bullying, violence or an irrational aversion directed against someone based on their homosexual orientation (or even just perceived homosexual orientation).

Here are some of the most commonly used dictionary definitions of homophobia: “discrimination against, aversion to, or fear of homosexuality or gay people” (Merriam-Webster), “harmful or unfair things a person does based on a fear or dislike of gay people or queer people” (Cambridge Dictionary) and “culturally produced fear of or prejudice against homosexuals” (Encyclopedia Britannica). And if you want to talk the word’s etymology, the Greek “phóbos” does not only mean “fear”, but also “aversion”.

It should be noted that the argument that homophobia means “fear of gay people” (and only that) is a common homophobic talking point or tactic, meant to downplay occurrences of homophobia. I’ve found that online it is often presented as faux curiosity or performative ignorance, in order to claim to just be someone “asking questions”, while actually engaging in homophobia or otherwise stirring the pot.

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

Assuming this is an honest, good faith question: No, homophobia does not (only) refer to a literal fear of homosexual people. The way most people use it today it’s referencing discrimination, bigotry, prejudice, mistreatment, bullying, violence or an irrational aversion directed against someone based on their homosexual orientation (or even just perceived homosexual orientation).

Yes, it was an honest, good faith question, thank you for that. As a Christian, I oppose all of the above. One does not have to accept something they struggle to abide by, but Christ does teach tolerance... and to love everyone, not just those we like. Thank you for saying this. Two of my friends are gay, and they know I have their back.

Here are some of the most commonly used dictionary definitions of homophobia: “discrimination against, aversion to, or fear of homosexuality or gay people” (Merriam-Webster), “harmful or unfair things a person does based on a fear or dislike of gay people or queer people” (Cambridge Dictionary) and “culturally produced fear of or prejudice against homosexuals” (Encyclopedia Britannica). And if you want to talk the word’s etymology, the Greek “phóbos” does not only mean “fear”, but also “aversion”.

Affirmative.

It should be noted that the argument that homophobia means “fear of gay people” (and only that) is a common homophobic talking point or tactic, meant to downplay occurrences of homophobia. I’ve found that online it is often presented as faux curiosity or performative ignorance, in order to claim to just be someone “asking questions”, while actually engaging in homophobia or otherwise stirring the pot.

When I say homophobia means "fear of gay people;" it's not a talking point or tactic, but a linguistic truth. That said, I understand where you are coming from when you state it means more than just fear.

What do you make of a gay man saying he didn't choose to be gay and if he could choose, he wouldn't have chosen to be gay due to all of the prejudice and what not that comes with it? I've had this very conversation with at least two gay friends.

 

[Michael]

What do you make of a gay man saying he didn't choose to be gay and if he could choose, he wouldn't have chosen to be gay due to all of the prejudice and what not that comes with it? I've had this very conversation with at least two gay friends.

Not sure what I’d say specifically, but I’d certainly respect them for thinking like that. I'd feel compassion for them, having to exist in a world that rejects their very own personal truth about themselves and makes them even go so far as to wish for not being that way. It’s pretty sad, actually, and I wish for a world that would just accept them and let them love who they love.

EDIT: One more thing, though:

When I say homophobia means "fear of gay people;" it's not a talking point or tactic, but a linguistic truth. That said, I understand where you are coming from when you state it means more than just fear.

If this was just about “linguistics”, as you say, why then entertain the notion of it actually meaning “fear of gay people”, when you now acknowledge that’s only what the word (partially) means etymologically (as opposed to what it actually means in terms of how people use and understand it)?

 

[Oddish]

What do you make of a gay man saying he didn't choose to be gay and if he could choose, he wouldn't have chosen to be gay due to all of the prejudice and what not that comes with it? I've had this very conversation with at least two gay friends.

I say it makes perfect sense. Even if you live in a perfectly tolerant society (which we are not), and practice a faith that affirms LGBTQ orientation, it still comes with some baggage. Your dating pool is reduced; most people you find attractive just aren't going to be into you. If you and your partner are male, having kids is problematic (adoption takes years, and surrogates are expensive). Also, you're more vulnerable to STD's.

 

[Ssosmcin]

TNG was broadcast in a kids show slot by the BBC - six or seven pm on BBC2 I think.

Which meant it was the first thing cancelled for any minor sporting event the BBC has the rights for. Like snooker.

Pre-emptions due to extra innings and overtime are the reason why I hate sports to this day. When Yankee baseball went over, Star Trek was the first thing WPIX dropped, choosing to to run The Odd Couple and The Honeymooners.

The worst for me were the delays that caused the networks to join a show "already in progress" because local sports stepped on national broadcasts.

Or the "Special Bulletins" that interrupted shows, or ticker-tape updates while I was videotaping something. Oh man the struggles of a young TV addict.

On topic: when I think of "family show" I define it as "something that could appeal to the entire family, kids and adults." And I adjust for era. The Six Million Dollar Man, The Dukes of Hazzard, The Incredible Hulk.... all good for the entire family, would be pegged mostly as kids shows today. Galactica 1980 was designed for The Family Hour with some educational lesson every 15 minutes, but it was just too stupid for adults. So that would be kid's show, but original the parent series was a family show. However, some of this is my own interpretation and I'm sure others may feel differently.

In the 90's I thought SeaQuest's first season was a great "family show." The second year went right to "kid's show" but the 3rd year went back to "family."

So TNG: I agree with some of the thoughts here, the first season was the GR Fetish Show. "Justice" was planet of free-sex with lots of lubing up of muscular hardbodies. GR also wanted to push the violence boundaries, so we got exploding heads and Wesley impaled by weird animal things. It got better in the second season, as far as that stuff, and I think it became more family friendly. However, they still did some wild stuff. Riker's death was pretty graphic in "Yesterday's Enterprise" (although I hear his head was supposed to be blown right off in the original concept). Worf impaling Duras in "Reunion" and, of course, Beverly in "Sub Rosa" and Troi in "Man of the People" pushed it out of something I would call kid friendly. But fine for teens.

To be fair, Roddenberry wasn't the only one pushing the syndication limits. War of the Worlds was a weekly bloodbath pushing gore and body horror to the point where even I tuned out. I tried it for the second season and got so depressed at the premiere (two favorite regulars were killed - one by suicide), I left it for good.

So, TNG became a family show for the most part, but once after GR stepped back from his own freaky deaky preferences.

 

[Christopher]

On topic: when I think of "family show" I define it as "something that could appeal to the entire family, kids and adults." And I adjust for era. The Six Million Dollar Man, The Dukes of Hazzard, The Incredible Hulk.... all good for the entire family, would be pegged mostly as kids shows today.

Hmm, somewhat, with provisions. 6M$M started out as a fairly sophisticated science fiction action series in its first season, smart enough to appeal to adults, but it was pressured in subsequent season to dumb itself down to the kid-friendly level that network execs and audiences at the time were prejudiced to expect of science fiction. By contrast, Hulk was a smart, sophisticated drama on the same level as something like The Fugitive, managing to resist network pressure to dumb it down for its entire run, but because the "sci-fi is kid stuff" prejudice was so pervasive, it was often presumed to be a mindless kids' show by people who didn't watch it. (I remember getting very miffed at my local newspaper's media critic when he reported Hulk composer Joe Harnell's Emmy nomination one year by scoffing, "Who listens to the music on The Incredible Hulk?" Harnell's music, of course, was one of my favorite things about the show.)

Basically, there were three categories of SFTV at the time: shows made for kids; shows that tried to be for adults but got dumbed down for kids at network insistence; and shows that succeeded at being for adults but got stereotyped as kids' shows like the rest. I'd say maybe The Twilight Zone, both the '60s and '80s versions, may have managed to avoid the kid-stuff stigma, but the whole reason Rod Serling created TZ was because people dismissed it in advance as inconsequential fantasy, allowing him to sneak controversial themes and social commentary under the censors' radar. (There's a pre-premiere interview you can find online where Serling straight-up lies to Dan Rather and claims he's given up entirely on writing TV with meaningful messages and will only be doing fluffy fantasy going forward.)

As for Dukes, I'd say the only real adult appeal it had was Catherine Bach's really short shorts (a style known as Daisy Dukes to this day in her honor). Other than the pervasive and highly effective fanservice Bach provided (and the moonshine-running themes, and the unfortunate Confederate iconography which was probably meant innocently), the show was a straight-up cartoon that happened to be in live action. Putting it in the same category as Hulk is kind of like putting The Fast and the Furious in the same category as a Christopher Nolan movie.

Galactica 1980 was designed for The Family Hour with some educational lesson every 15 minutes, but it was just too stupid for adults.

It was stupid, yeah, and it was designed to be educational and child-friendly -- but I resist the implication that those two things go together. There have been a lot of really smart, clever educational shows that are entertaining for adults too. G80 was stupid because nobody involved with making it actually wanted it to exist (it was created solely at ABC's demand to amortize the cost of the original show's costumes, props, sets, and VFX, and to add more episodes to the syndication package in hopes of recouping some of their loss), so they didn't put any care or effort into making it good.

I mean, if you think about it, the idea of an educational show that isn't intelligent is a contradiction in terms, isn't it?

 

[Skipper]

If this was just about “linguistics”, as you say, why then entertain the notion of it actually meaning “fear of gay people”, when you now acknowledge that’s only what the word (partially) means etymologically (as opposed to what it actually means in terms of how people use and understand it)?

In common parlance, homophobia clearly indicates aversion to homosexuals (just as misogyny indicates aversion to women). Many words have changed meaning since their etymological origin, but bizarrely there are people who engage in semantic battles only over terms that would put them in a bad light ("I can't be homophobic, because I'm not afraid of homosexuals!" "I can't be racist, because science says that human races don't exist, CHECKMATE!!!"). But if someone tried to say that, say, "nice" is not a compliment because it comes from the Latin "nescius" which means foolish, or calling someone brave is equivalent to calling them a barbarian (because it comes from the Latin "barbarus"), I think people would look at them perplexed and ask if everything is okay.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Hmm, somewhat, with provisions. 6M$M started out as a fairly sophisticated science fiction action series in its first season, smart enough to appeal to adults, but it was pressured in subsequent season to dumb itself down to the kid-friendly level that network execs and audiences at the time were prejudiced to expect of science fiction. By contrast, Hulk was a smart, sophisticated drama on the same level as something like The Fugitive, managing to resist network pressure to dumb it down for its entire run, but because the "sci-fi is kid stuff" prejudice was so pervasive, it was often presumed to be a mindless kids' show by people who didn't watch it. (I remember getting very miffed at my local newspaper's media critic when he reported Hulk composer Joe Harnell's Emmy nomination one year by scoffing, "Who listens to the music on The Incredible Hulk?" Harnell's music, of course, was one of my favorite things about the show.)

Agreed. I ran a couple of early SMDM episodes for a friend of mine who hadn't seen it since original broadcast and was genuinely surprised at how mature the themes were. Much like Airwolf, which also started as a pretty downbeat show, the network did their thing. But there was still enough silliness in SMDM, even in the first season, to probably be looked at as more kid oriented: the whole sequence of Steve tossing burly henchmen around in Dr. Wells is Missing comes to mind. Even Day of the Robot, an episode I rate really highly, is know mostly for the prolonged fight and "Maskatron." However, Pilot Error, Rescue of Athena One, Doomsday and Counting and Eyewitness to Murder stand up as good, mature dramas.

As for Dukes, I'd say the only real adult appeal it had was Catherine Bach's really short shorts (a style known as Daisy Dukes to this day in her honor). Other than the pervasive and highly effective fanservice Bach provided (and the moonshine-running themes, and the unfortunate Confederate iconography which was probably meant innocently), the show was a straight-up cartoon that happened to be in live action. Putting it in the same category as Hulk is kind of like putting The Fast and the Furious in the same category as a Christopher Nolan movie.

Fair enough, and I agree here also, The Incredible Hulk was an outstanding show. But I still vividly remember my parents watching it with me and one of them saying "this show is pretty good until he gets mad." The Hulk himself is what turned them off, they were into it for the drama, which they felt the Hulk interrupted. However, my dad was a bodybuilding buff, so he watched it anyway. My mom went back to reading a book or watching something else on the bedroom TV.

The music was excellent, wasn't it? When the CDs came out, I was ecstatic.

Ken Johnson was great at taking shaky fantasy concepts and make them work for older audiences. Even Bigfoot came off well in his intro on SMDM, but Johnson was slumming for the sequel.

It was stupid, yeah, and it was designed to be educational and child-friendly -- but I resist the implication that those two things go together.

I didn't realize I made that implication. I was referring specifically to Galactica 1980.

I mean, if you think about it, the idea of an educational show that isn't intelligent is a contradiction in terms, isn't it?

Yet, somehow Glen Larson managed it. Galactica 1980 was not a smart show. It was, as you say, a series created under duress.

 

[Christopher]

Agreed. I ran a couple of early SMDM episodes for a friend of mine who hadn't seen it since original broadcast and was genuinely surprised at how mature the themes were. Much like Airwolf, which also started as a pretty downbeat show, the network did their thing. But there was still enough silliness in SMDM, even in the first season, to probably be looked at as more kid oriented: the whole sequence of Steve tossing burly henchmen around in Dr. Wells is Missing comes to mind. Even Day of the Robot, an episode I rate really highly, is know mostly for the prolonged fight and "Maskatron." However, Pilot Error, Rescue of Athena One, Doomsday and Counting and Eyewitness to Murder stand up as good, mature dramas.

Again, it seems like a non sequitur to me to equate silliness with "for children." There's plenty of silly stuff in shows for adults, and plenty of serious stuff in good children's shows. The only thing that meaningfully separates the two categories as they're applied in American media is that adult shows have more violence, profanity, sexuality, and/or tragic outcomes.

Fair enough, and I agree here also, The Incredible Hulk was an outstanding show. But I still vividly remember my parents watching it with me and one of them saying "this show is pretty good until he gets mad." The Hulk himself is what turned them off, they were into it for the drama, which they felt the Hulk interrupted. However, my dad was a bodybuilding buff, so he watched it anyway. My mom went back to reading a book or watching something else on the bedroom TV.

True, the show did have to make concessions to the standard action formulas of the day, but you could find such formulas in "adult" shows that demanded a car chase or a shootout or a fistfight every week. Look at Star Trek and how many gratuitous brawls Captain Kirk got dragged into. Look at how routinely Jim Rockford or Starsky & Hutch got into car chases.

 

[fireproof78]

In common parlance, homophobia clearly indicates aversion to homosexuals (just as misogyny indicates aversion to women). Many words have changed meaning since their etymological origin, but bizarrely there are people who engage in semantic battles only over terms that would put them in a bad light ("I can't be homophobic, because I'm not afraid of homosexuals!" "I can't be racist, because science says that human races don't exist, CHECKMATE!!!"). But if someone tried to say that, say, "nice" is not a compliment because it comes from the Latin "nescius" which means foolish, or calling someone brave is equivalent to calling them a barbarian (because it comes from the Latin "barbarus"), I think people would look at them perplexed and ask if everything is okay.

Etymology is fun. I like confusing people with words and their original meaning.

It's not like English makes it easy. It borrows and shifts definitions often enough to confuse generations at times. We use phobia so casually that a term having "phobia" is often not even clinical in the definition.

And I at least would follow people who might use nice in a foolish sense. Could be fun.

 

[suarezguy]

I think the show was yes intended to be and works as a family show and there is also a pretty clear, reasonable idea of what a family show is, that it has aspects that appeals to most age groups while also having content and overall tone that most parents wouldn't object to, dislike their children seeing, even if they disagree with or dislike something particular that, maybe 2 or 3 times over 3 or 4 years aside, doesn't feel gratuitous or sleazy so at worst not too offensive or real inappropriate.

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.

Uh, no, I don't think so, as I recall it had, with characters obviously being out of character, 3 times of people trying to seduce others, only one of which did go through and which was regretted at end and Picard regretting any of the effects on everyone at end.

In the last of the first season giant worms are graphically exploded with phaser shots.

That was rare exception that I think most people see as very unusual, unrepresentative for either season/period of or the show overall.

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 think even with term family show it is implied that it's still (generally) PG-ish, meant to be OK for kids probably starting at/around 6, 7 rather than completely everyone (and family show implies OK for most children but also or more for, to adults). And yeah I don't find either the discussions in or the kind of brief violence in "The High Ground" that far off from what you would have in many PG movies, let alone real offputting to most parent viewers.

 

[suarezguy]

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.

Most liberals don't want to have excessive gore, at least not 20, 26 weeks a year, either .

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.

They did still deal with LGBT themes in "The Host" and "The Outcast" (lesbian character guest star, sort of, with "The Host"), have a bisexual character (although same sex relationship rare exception) in 1995 with Deep Space Nine's "Rejoined".

 

[suarezguy]

I think it's more just that Berman let Ira Steven Behr do what he wanted with DS9 because Berman was busy with VGR and the movies. DS9 was the overlooked show, which gave it more leeway to take chances. I also heard it alleged once that Berman found Behr physically intimidating (he's a big guy) and was afraid to say no to him, but that's anecdotal.

So, is it really far-fetched that Berman was, well, LBGTQI+ intolerant?

If Berman had either been personally intolerant against gay people or thought having them would be commercially disastrous for the franchise he would have prevented "Rejoined" long before it got to filming even with him being more involved elsewhere (well he could think with women it wouldn't be commercially disastrous but with men it would be).

 

[Oddish]

They did still deal with LGBT themes in "The Host" and "The Outcast" (lesbian character guest star, sort of, with "The Host"), have a bisexual character (although same sex relationship rare exception) in 1995 with Deep Space Nine's "Rejoined".

I figure they were dipping their toes in the water. If reaction had seemed sufficiently positive, they would have waded by allowing gay background characters on DS9 or VOY... and maybe gone swimming with Reed on Enterprise.

Presumably, though, there were enough complaints that they decided to go no further.