• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Was TNG less progressive than TOS?

Status
Not open for further replies.
THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH CASTING A WOMAN AS A DOCTOR!!!
You’re addressing one factor out of 12. That’s not good faith arguing.

No, I'm asking for an explanation.
You’ve received a number of explanations, some very nuanced. If you really care, do some research.

It's Jenette actually, and part of Ms. Goldstein's family ancestery is Brazilian and she is in part Hispanic.
Bet you didn't know that, did you?
Brazilian isn’t Hispanic. It’s Portuguese. That’s why the terms “Latin American” and “LatinX” were coined as something all encompassing of the region. You’d think a good Cuban would know that. Goldstein spent hours putting on brown makeup to play an indigenous Latin American. Macha Hernandez was going to be played by an English/Greek woman and god know’s what they were planning to do to her to make her fit the part. So, I’m marking you down in favor of brown face, then?
 
You’re addressing one factor out of 12. That’s not good faith arguing.


You’ve received a number of explanations, some very nuanced. If you really care, do some research.


Brazilian isn’t Hispanic. It’s Portuguese. That’s why the terms “Latin American” and “LatinX” were coined as something all encompassing of the region. You’d think a good Cuban would know that. Goldstein spent hours putting on brown makeup to play an indigenous Latin American. Macha Hernandez was going to be played by an English/Greek woman and god know’s what they were planning to do to her to make her fit the part. So, I’m marking you down in favor of brown face, then?
Tenacity and Mark 2000, this stops now! Don’t make me close the thread.
 
Why is it called Latin America?
Latin was from the Romans. The Roman Empire didn't have Anything at all to do with Central America. Are Italians considered Latin too?
The Roman Empire was all or Western Europe, pretty much, and part of North Africa. Probably the commoners in many of those place didn't speak Latin, or if they did they also spoke their indigenous languages too. Whole thing, "Latin America", seems a little strange sort of name. It's seems a little misleading.
 
You’ve received a number of explanations, some very nuanced.
And I have gone on to delve into aspects of some of those replies and ask further questions. Also delving into why it even counts as a stereotype in this instance, and under what circumstances the stereotype would be potentially be undone.

If you really care, do some research.
I thought this was a discussion board. If an idea or stance cannot be scrutinized by others, what is the point of sharing it in the first place? I'm not looking to pull apart stereotyping in general, I was addressing it in the context of how it applies to Beverly and Deanna on Star Trek The Next Generation. This seemed like the appropriate venue for that discussion.

I guess I'll just stop discussing "stereotypes" as a subject completely. Easier. Plus, when it's only about two characters it's utterly pointless.
 
Last edited:
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.

All in the Family and M*A*S*H were exploring race, homosexuality, abortion, feminism in the early to mid '70s, does that mean everything later, let alone that didn't focus on them, was blandly safe? And again the standards do seem pretty different between comedy and either drama or action show.

What is exploring with more depth is very subjective, I think for an action or drama show to try to deal with abortion, racism, feminism is still pretty controversial and ambitious.

The show being syndicated means it had to be more conservative than other series because they had to *sell* the show!

Including, in some markets, at 4 or 5 p.m., many at 6 p.m.
 
You seem to be equating "harmful" with being overtly derogatory. Of course there's nothing overtly derogatory about saying "women often care about others." However, when all of the female characters in the main cast are caretaking types, the message being sent is that that's the primary and appropriate role for women.

Well the intention was to also have Yar as chief of security, another woman in a very different kind of role, I don't think it's the writers' fault that Crosby quit or that Dorn as Worf was really popular or that it's a bad thing that with Worf's portrayal and popularity he made a lot of sense to succeed her as chief of security. It is, however, unfortunate and yes not progressive that Gene apparently thought having 3 women, in an 8- or 9-member cast, was too many.

It could have been interesting if Sarah MacDougal as chief of engineering had appeared more often in and after season 1, also interesting to think what Geordi's role could have been with him not becoming chief engineer.
 
Last edited:
I don't think it's the writers' fault that Crosby quit
In a way it is. She didn't like how little she was getting to do and rather than promise to beef up her part or even let her know they were about to fire Sirtis they just let her go.

I thought this was a discussion board. If an idea or stance cannot be scrutinized by others, what is the point of sharing it in the first place?
Because what you’re asking over and over is “what’s wrong with saying women a caregivers?” It’s like asking “why is it wrong to say Asians are all good at math?” Women have to fight the caregiver stereotype constantly. They are thought of as lesser if they aren't mommy-like. And it's impossible to succeed and be mommy-like in cut-throat positions of power, both commercial or political. It hurts people. Isn't that a good enough explanation?

All in the Family and M*A*S*H were exploring race, homosexuality, abortion, feminism in the early to mid '70s, does that mean everything later, let alone that didn't focus on them, was blandly safe?
Yes, that's exactly what that means. Especially if your show is specifically trotted out as a progressive issues-based show. That was what they promised. Instead we got the same morality tales as TOS, a loose ozone layer depletion allegory in "When the Bough Breaks", and a heavy handed "say no to drugs" speech in the middle of the otherwise decent, but in no way issue-based "Symbiosis". Drama shows like Hill Street Blues, St Elsewhere, and LA Law, Miami Vice, 21 Jump Street, and Doogie Howser were also ahead of Trek on this stuff. Doc's brother was gay on the Love Boat, for heaven's sake.

No matter what Ira Behr says about what he was trying to get across in DS9 he physically baulks at Gene's idea to include gay couples in "Captain's Holiday" in 2014's "Chaos on the Bridge".
Here's Gene himself talking in 1991 about what a homophobe and misogynist he realized he was and was trying to change away from. Attitudes he obviously still had when TNG started judging from the language and concepts I've quoted earlier from pre-production material. TNG's blinders didn't come from television production realities. They came from the people working on the show.
Roddenberry:
In the early 1960s, I was much more a macho-type person. I was still accepting things from my childhood as necessary and part of reality — how men related to women, et cetera. My assistant, Susan Sackett, used to say to me, “You really put down women a lot for someone who is supposed to be thoughtful and liberal.” I began listening to her and agreeing that she was right in her perceptions.

My attitude toward homosexuality has changed. I came to the conclusion that I was wrong. I was never someone who hunted down “fags” as we used to call them on the street. I would, sometimes, say something anti-homosexual off the top of my head because it was thought, in those days, to be funny. I never really deeply believed those comments, but I gave the impression of being thoughtless in these areas. I have, over many years, changed my attitude about gay men and women.
 
Why is it called Latin America?
Latin was from the Romans. The Roman Empire didn't have Anything at all to do with Central America. Are Italians considered Latin too?
The Roman Empire was all or Western Europe, pretty much, and part of North Africa. Probably the commoners in many of those place didn't speak Latin, or if they did they also spoke their indigenous languages too. Whole thing, "Latin America", seems a little strange sort of name. It's seems a little misleading.
The dominant languages in Latin America since the European conquest are Spanish and Portuguese, both of which are Romance languages (as are French, Italian, and Romanian among others) derived from Latin, hence "Latin America."
 
I never understood why if 3 woman was to much to be in a cast then why did the show start off with 3 woman in the cast? I think Troi was only at risk of being fired because the character wasn't working in season 1 and we know McFadden was fired because Maurice Hurley didn't like her.

Jason
 
In a way it is. She didn't like how little she was getting to do and rather than promise to beef up her part or even let her know they were about to fire Sirtis they just let her go.

It was a pretty dumb move for Crosby to quit if she felt her character wasn't getting enough action. It was the first season of the show and she didn't even get through that. What did she expect? STAR TREK - The Tasha Yar Show? There were others there too and obviously in the beginning the captain would get the most attention. At least wait another year or so? Well, she got to host "Trekkies"....
 
In a way it is. She didn't like how little she was getting to do and rather than promise to beef up her part or even let her know they were about to fire Sirtis they just let her go.

It was a pretty dumb move for Crosby to quit if she felt her character wasn't getting enough action. It was the first season of the show and she didn't even get through that. What did she expect? STAR TREK - The Tasha Yar Show? There were others there too and obviously in the beginning the captain would get the most attention. At least wait another year or so? Well, she got to host "Trekkies"....
 
It was a pretty dumb move for Crosby to quit if she felt her character wasn't getting enough action. It was the first season of the show and she didn't even get through that. What did she expect? STAR TREK - The Tasha Yar Show? There were others there too and obviously in the beginning the captain would get the most attention. At least wait another year or so? Well, she got to host "Trekkies"....

She felt like she wasn't quite getting as much action or focus as the other characters were at this point she was too much "Hailing frequencies open, Captain."

But, I generally agree that she was maybe a touch full of herself to expect to hit the ground running in the first season of a syndicated TV series but I want to say she kind of had something of a career before going into TNG so she may have seen it as she gave up something promising to become "Hailing frequencies open, captain."

She did say that if more of her parts had been as strong as the one in "Skin of Evil" she never would have left but, again, she wasn't exactly the star/focus of the show, she shouldn't have been expecting it to be all her, and no one else.

And it in TV-land it's pretty common to kill of or otherwise ruin the character of an actor who breaks their contract to leave the show, it kind of makes it impossible or at least very hard for them to come back but I think TNG played that turn around nicely. Tasha showing up in "YE" was a great use of her and I really liked the introduction of Sela and kind of wish we got more from her.
 
I never understood why if 3 woman was to much to be in a cast then why did the show start off with 3 woman in the cast? I think Troi was only at risk of being fired because the character wasn't working in season 1 and we know McFadden was fired because Maurice Hurley didn't like her.

Jason

The very idea that 3 women in a cast of 9 is, somehow "too many" is a ridiculous one.

But if you look at the early Series Bible for TNG that floats around there's this weird dichotomy on how the characters were conceived vs. how they were actually written and used on the show. So it kind of gives you this feeling they created a whole bunch of characters in high hopes and then when it came around to write the episodes they didn't know what to do with half of them. The way Season 1 was created didn't exactly help that, I guess.
Also consider that Worf was a last minute addition, pushing the 8 character assemble cast to 9, which is quite a large number of main characters. And if you look at season 1 he and Yar kind of make each other redundant in a lot of scenes and Worf farily quickly won out due to being a member of the fan-favourite Klingon species (and while it's difficult to measure by Season1 and I haven't seen Crosby in much other stuff, but I'd say Dorn was also the better actor).
So maybe those were the factors that made them fairly early on consider to drop one of the female leads.

It would be interesting to see what would have happened with Worf and Macha Hernandez if Sirtis and Crosby hadn't been switched in their roles and Crosby's Troi would have left the show (also opens up the question on who would have filled Deanna's seat...)
 
Tasha showing up in "YE" was a great use of her and I really liked the introduction of Sela and kind of wish we got more from her.

Her appearance first in 'Yesterday's Enterprise' and then in 'All Good Things...' were great additions and it's kind of better she left the show early. In 'AGT' Picard saying "Tasha.. I was just in a shuttle with Tasha" is much more powerful when the viewer actually knows who he is talking about, not just some "random redshirt" who was lost at some time during the series. It's a great connection between 'YE' and 'AGT'. We also saw her sister and what she thought of her and what Picard told her about Tasha. Thank you Denise for quitting, that led to some great stories. :)
 
Yes, that's exactly what that means. Especially if your show is specifically trotted out as a progressive issues-based show. That was what they promised. Instead we got the same morality tales as TOS, a loose ozone layer depletion allegory in "When the Bough Breaks", and a heavy handed "say no to drugs" speech in the middle of the otherwise decent, but in no way issue-based "Symbiosis". Drama shows like Hill Street Blues, St Elsewhere, and LA Law, Miami Vice, 21 Jump Street, and Doogie Howser were also ahead of Trek on this stuff.

From watching the first year of Doogie Howser I don't think it was at all ahead of Star Trek, one episode about how crime is due to poverty (with the protagonist's conclusion being I've got more to learn), one or or maybe two episodes about that some people can't afford good health care.
 
Her appearance first in 'Yesterday's Enterprise' and then in 'All Good Things...' were great additions and it's kind of better she left the show early. In 'AGT' Picard saying "Tasha.. I was just in a shuttle with Tasha" is much more powerful when the viewer actually knows who he is talking about, not just some "random redshirt" who was lost at some time during the series. It's a great connection between 'YE' and 'AGT'. We also saw her sister and what she thought of her and what Picard told her about Tasha. Thank you Denise for quitting, that led to some great stories. :)
Watched that one with my mum, who had no idea of the backplot, and she said from Stewart's performance "How did Tasha die?"
 
The very idea that 3 women in a cast of 9 is, somehow "too many" is a ridiculous one.

But if you look at the early Series Bible for TNG that floats around there's this weird dichotomy on how the characters were conceived vs. how they were actually written and used on the show. So it kind of gives you this feeling they created a whole bunch of characters in high hopes and then when it came around to write the episodes they didn't know what to do with half of them. The way Season 1 was created didn't exactly help that, I guess.
Also consider that Worf was a last minute addition, pushing the 8 character assemble cast to 9, which is quite a large number of main characters. And if you look at season 1 he and Yar kind of make each other redundant in a lot of scenes and Worf farily quickly won out due to being a member of the fan-favourite Klingon species (and while it's difficult to measure by Season1 and I haven't seen Crosby in much other stuff, but I'd say Dorn was also the better actor).
So maybe those were the factors that made them fairly early on consider to drop one of the female leads.

It would be interesting to see what would have happened with Worf and Macha Hernandez if Sirtis and Crosby hadn't been switched in their roles and Crosby's Troi would have left the show (also opens up the question on who would have filled Deanna's seat...)
A general principles is that the more thought-out the characters are in the Bible, the less room the actors have, and the less successful the characters end up.
Of course, this only works if the actor is good.
 
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?

Something which we see again later with Ben Sisko.

I think... sometimes the current form of issue thinking doesn’t work when projected back in time, and works even less well when you have take a fictional universe into account (if we don’t count Worf as diversity because he’s an alien, then Data counts as neither white nor Male particularly...Tasha wasn’t born on earth, what do we do with her? And Marina is Greek descent Brit, which when we apply the great American Dulux Chart almost certainly counts as ‘other’ and...she’s an alien.) almost every show is going to land in the ‘could do better’ category. ‘Friends’ takes a looong time before it represents anything approaching the diversity of New York, but then there is this weird kind of almost-segregation in American TV. The Cosby Show has other issues in retrospect, but that wasn’t exactly diverse either.

Personally, I find you have to look a little deeper, and most of the time...by the standards of the day...Trek is progressive always. Except maybe enterprise. DS9 and Voyager are far and away in the lead in that regard, especially when you start doing the ‘this one doesn’t count because....’ thing, Voyager in particular has....only one ‘white male’ lead in Tom Paris. Then you can also have the Doctor in the ‘does he count?’ Territory. Ironically, it’s also the first Trek series to purely cast Americans I think.

You really need to look at it as almost seperate things...casting, characters, guest slots and story. Then you need to have a ‘by the standards of the time’ and look carefully at like for like (no point comparing American Sit-com’s and soaps of any era with British of the same era, it’s a losing cycle) and then again through the modern lens.

I would say TNG is more progressive than TOS, and I would say this is something got better at till it stalled, and I would also say nineties Trek is in many ways more diverse even than Modern Trek. Everyone got their story of the week at the very least.
 
I remember having many of these thoughts on first watch of TNG, so, for me (and many others) it is neither a "current" thing, nor is it a way of "issue taking". These questions and irritations like, why are there SO few women especially when this is supposed to be a more liberated, inclusive, less prejudiced society, why are they portrayed so-and-so vs. the men, why are there no gay people and so on, arose quite organically for me. That's not to say I didn't enjoy the show; I did. And I liked Beverly and loved Deanna despite the writing, but that didn't prevent me fom noticing. I also thought she was sexy, but was still annoyed that she was the only one in a catsuit. And so on. Of course by that time, I had noticed similar things in 90% of my children's or YA books (Pippi Longstockings et al notwithstanding), sans the sex stuff, but still. It did not feel normal, or just, or the way it was supposed to be.

In hindsight, I do try to judge all these things in the context of the times. Which makes it harder for me to judge TOS, and almost impossible to compare the two. As for TNG, I was there in the Nineties. (Yes, I'm old.)
 
I wonder if it's harder to be progressive on a show where it states almost all social problems have been pretty much solved.

And not only that, the main characters are presented as almost always doing or thinking the right thing to the point almost being morally perfect, except for Worf a few times.


The weird thing for a progressive show, is that even though the characters have shown disdain for past eras like the 20th century, they seem to enjoy holodeck playing set right in the middle of the worse aspects in human history like the early 20th century. Racism, genocide, war, sexism, bigotry poverty--Picard, Data, Riker, all of them.

But its all ignored and misses any chance for a progressive moment. They could have chose any other time period, or planet, but its mostly that time period. It kind looks bi-polar if you ask me.

DS9 did attempt that by having Sisko reluctant to participate in a holdeck program that was set in an era of intolerance and poor civil rights, just to show people it wasn't too rosy back then.

It also made the characters look more real and re-latable.
 
I wonder if it's harder to be progressive on a show where it states almost all social problems have been pretty much solved.
No, because they can always go to a colony where there is trouble of some kind, or problems that need to be solved. Tasha came from such a place, in fact (not that it was an example that resonated broadly with issues that were important to the audience).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top