Was TNG less progressive than TOS?

Excellent points. Including "avoiding stereotypes" as I took pause for thought. WIth so many different types and stereotypes and opposite of stereotypes where does one begin to put in as much as possible, all while feeling authentic and not phony or cheap in feel (e.g. the writing)? There are plenty of lamely scripted shows that are all white and hetero and so on as well. I'm a bi guy. I don't care to see a cheap stereotype (especially when written by non-hetero people as being said stereotype) because plenty of us find that demeaning and unrealistic. Ironically. That's also why just keeping "bedroom behind closed doors personal lives" out of the show regardless of who is attracted to whom. All these petty arguments are bypassed and viewers can think for themselves which character is gay, straight, bi, does it with sheep, hot dog toasters, or whatever else. In sci-fi, a creative genre, why does it need to have to rely on something so common as sexuality?

Also, why play into them for cheap ratings when one can sell the fact that people are more than just stereotypes, never mind "representation" being another biggie? There are a few examples, but some have already been posted by others. If bisexual men are stereotyped for "getting busy" with everything that moves or can't/won't do monogamy, or "it's a choice", or any form of fidelitous marriage - and many of us can and even want to despite that other stereotype of "waaah, marriage is outdated and antiquated" - why not show more than something so boringly predictable?

Could the excesses of the 1960s and the resultant issues led to the 80s? For example, "free love" - of which I'm not sure was ever and really free since people will turn down others they're not interested in for whatever reason(s) - led to a rise in (among other things) STDs, which now have drug-resistant strains, meaning treating them is harder to do - on top of everything else, like people who knowing they have it will spread it stealthily anyway... and in the 80s the abstinence groups were getting louder as a result. Never mind HIV, heartache, and other issues.

But that's not a good example. Since the 1960s, we saw more and more of people of all persuasions get into careers and being treated as first class citizens like everyone else. This is not a bad thing. By the 1980s, was it needed? (A previous response did bring up stereotypes still being around, so - yeah - it was still needed. )

Despite the biggest one in trying to redo Star Trek (albeit as a distant sequel).

^^true

10,000% agreed. Not being sexually attracted to someone of the same sex isn't homophobia (but a few genuinely believe that and the whole world isn't going to become a gestalt of Kinsey 3.5 types. Most are between 0 and 1.)

Forget about the perception of homophobia for a moment -- the episode does beg the question of how love is more intertwined with sex and vice versa. Bev was hugely reluctant to bang Riker once sluggo was plopped inside of him. (Of course, platonic love and familial love and how people who live together as families don't have to be banging each other... The Golden Girls also had Blanche and her pals telling the one guy they were a family even though they were not married (and weren't doing each other). I believe it involved the episode where she put the house in all their names.)

Not until Marcy D'Arcy did we see more mainstream characters come out, though the first was in that late-70s adult sitcom "SOAP". FWIW.

Oi, I resemble that remark!

Then again, I prefer shows with a wide array of personality archetypes... given the jokes lobbed at TNG at the time, where Data was the only one who had emotions, it's amazing they were characters at all...

...and LeVar was quite correct. Gay or straight, it still fits. And it's refreshing to see more than everyone getting it on with ease. Good grief, even that 1979 movie "Meatballs" has Spazz hooking up with a girlfriend much like how everyone on The Big Bang Theory eventually had as well. Which now brings up a great point involving revolving around circular logic... is it always really stereotypes or just how charatcers are used to create a feel that complements or detracts from a show? Many people prefer groups like "Friends". Some prefer completely oddball groupings of personality types and even conflict (a la Ensign Ro and Barclay).

Yeah, it is how characters ultimately work in complementing the show... There's a bi character who's a walking stereotype but he's certainly well-acted and fun to watch regardless of the cringey moments...

Which, if one wanted to think into it, could think up lots of things. All I know is, going back to that marriage argument and how it's "outdated", that falls in line and plays right into what you just said. But even I have seen people of all persuasions commit in relationships. This goes back to the previous point of representing all viewpoints - those who hate relationships and wanting only one-night stands versus committing (either to monogamy or a mutually shared situation of several). And there are always people who say any of those paradigms is outdated. In reality, none is outdated or antiquated. Just different - and up to those in those situations to deal with in their own ways as it is about personal lives.

Because the show is an allegory by, or, and for humans. Right now, every sentient alien species theoretically known to exist is precisely 0.00000000000000000000000000000000% of the population on planet Earth. There's nobody to cater to in that regard. From the start, Trek was always an allegory to the human condition. Imperfect as it is.

Can't really blame them to a certain extent.

Early TOS has Kirk spouting "bleeding heart" as a pejorative too. To Professor Carter if I recall correctly. Kirk was pretty harsh (and exactly as expected for a military-based job) a number of times in season one as well... Spock wasn't the only character to have changed in that first year.

 

As has been acknowledged elsewhere, TNG wasn't that progressive in terms of how it was cast but in-universe at least it had a bald French guy as captain, a bearded Alaskan first officer, a Klingon on the bridge, a half Betazoid counsellor, a female security chief (until she died), a blind helmsman/engineer, a widowed single mother as CMO and men walking around in mini skirts in one of the early episodes. So at the very least wanted to convey a progressive and diverse image.

 

Well...let's say mildly reluctant. It didn't take too much effort from Odan to convince her to find out what Riker was packing.

 

What shows do you think were for their different times?

I do think the original show maybe gets a little too much credit for including Chekov. Yes, it was during the Cold War but also after some 10 years of at least trying to improve relationships, Batman '66 had Batman falling for Catwoman as Comrade Kitanya, so inclusive and even a bit risky but not groundbreaking.

 

They had to sell the show. TOS was a network show guaranteed to be aired and had already made concessions and changes so the network would air it.

TNG was syndicated so they made the show and had to sell it to stations around the country and its easier to sell when you don't have "risky" stuff in it like gay characters so they played it safe and as the show went on they kind tried getting safer and safer.

But for a show of the time to not have a gay character isn't exactly outlandish particularly since the 80s were less open to things outside the norm than the 60s were. The 80s were clammed up.

But its funny how apparently its a demerit for the show to have women as doctors and psychologists which are both pretty prominent occupations requiring, in our time, lots of heavy schooling.

"Caregivers" most of the time on TV, even today, when you have a doctor on TV its a man. All of the other doctors in Trek are men. But Beverly shows up as one and they're playing into a stereotype and portraying a woman in a "caregiver" role.

Huh?!

 

In the era of TOS, any series that didn't have series regulars that were all white men would qualify as more progressive by that metric. Examples are many, you can find them. Mission: Impossible and The Mod Squad are two. Neither Nichelle Nichols nor George Takei were TOS regulars.

In the era of TNG, any series that dealt realistically and fairly with social issues on a regular basis such as (but not limited to) drugs, racism, poverty, crime, homosexuality, sexual affairs, unwanted pregnancy, prejudice, multiculturalism, etc. was more progressive than TNG by that metric. By that standard, Highway to Heaven, despite its limitations and theological leanings, managed to be more progressive than TNG. Its treatment of issues was often complex and involved the intersection of multiple issues such as race, poverty, anger, guilt, imperfect choices by well-meaning people, and so forth. TNG had one-off episodes dealing with some of these topics, but by comparison they were handled unrealistically and shallowly. Hill Street Blues is another example of a more progressive series, for similar reasons.

 

So, the stereotypical caretaking doctor is a male, and therefor female Crusher being a caretaking doctor is a stereotype?

It's all so clear now.

 

Both had straight white male oppressive captains so how could either be considered progressive?

 

We will now have a countdown to someone employing the term "patriarchy.'

 

In what way we're they oppressive?
Can you explain that?
Do you feel that a race other than "white" are unable to be oppressive?
Do you feel that a non "straight " person cannot be oppressive?

 

Yeah....I wouldn't call Picard or Kirk "oppressive".
Also not sure how to define "oppressive" here. Neither of them (to my knowledge) ever stopped a member of their crew from expressing themselves or living in the way they chose (other than what's normal in the context of a "totallynotmilitary" starship chain of command). Particularly Picard was very lenient in giving his subordinates leeway to express themselves; he allowed Troi and Worf (and eventually Ro) to deviate from uniform regulation, he supported Data's quest of personal improvement etc. etc. etc.
They also weren't exactly prone to make big decisions without consulting or considering the well being/wishes of their crew and when they did it was usually such grave situations that they had little other choices.

I wouldn't call any of the Star Trek captains "oppressive". But if I'd have to single out any of the captains for putting her own believes/principles over her crew I'd say it was Janeway with her frequent refusal to exploit ways to get home if they clashed with Federation rules (particularly awkward in Prime Factors) and her murder of Tuvix.
(Though we gotta give her some leeway for being in an extraordinarily though situation)

 

Popped back in just to see how well this is going.......................

 

I think Trek is genereally less progressive thn they think, and want us to think, they are.

 

Maybe it's not so much rely as wanting it to be a one part of a developed character. While some would perfer sexualities complete absence, other do consider the inclusion to be a natural aspect of any complex character.

But we're not talking about people, they're characters in a production. Artificial entities created by a small number of writers. Simply having the captain be an authority figure is a stereotype.

You may have misunderstood what free love refers to. It's sex without prior relationship or subsequent commitment.

The purpose of free love (as I understand it) isn't to make every woman essentually a public utility.

 

I think people have lost sight of just how regressed those times were. The year TNG premiered, a movie was released called "Working Girl" The premise? A woman fakes her way into having a job, & that movie was considered a hallmark of feminism at the time. Just being accepted in the work force was a milestone then.

 

More of a romantic comedy. Where the secretary pretends to be her boss and presents a business idea.
Not a documentary about women in the workforce.

 

FWIW, TNG felt a bit 70s to me at the time. Didn't think of its gender attitudes then, though that's a good point, just that no-one making it seemed to have noticed that Hill Street Blues had happened years ago.

 

TNG does fail the progressive test. There’s basically one person of color on the regular cast, if you don’t count Worf since he’s an alien. I love Patrick Stewart, but Yephet Kotto should have been captain. Or Riker shouldn’t have been a bland Steven Collins clone. Or even cast an actual Hispanic as “Macha Hernandez”.
Gay issues were avoided. Gene kept promising but never delivered. Berman was downright homophobic. Someone mentioned the skants were supposed to show gay crewmen which is as nutty as saying a woman in pants is a lesbian. It was just a sign of changed gender norms.
And outside of Yar, whose actress quit because she felt like wall decoration, the women were all caregivers. Sure men have always played doctors in the show, but Bev was specifically a mom.
People say the 80s were conservative, but Gene was no Reganite and he was syndicated, meaning he had a lot of freedom. Meanwhile, network shows like Golden Girls, Designing Women, and Murphy Brown were exploring issues like race, abortion, homosexuality, family dynamics, and feminism with way more depth than TNG. Plus, a third of TNG is Clinton era and it actually got more bland and conservative, not less.

 

So she was a high-ranking woman with an extremely important job, who was also raising her son alone...how is this not a positive?