Did MASH have an episode like the Neutral Zone? If liberal = left in this case i am not sure if you can take it evem ore far even in an unpublished fan fic.
What was Roddenberry's state of mind in TNG S3?
- Thread starter ConRefit79
- Start date
Not quite. It is true that 'The High Ground' was never shown by the BBC on terrestrial television in the UK more due to the reference to terrorism bringing about a reunified Ireland. Sadly at the time of the first airing of the episode, the IRA were still a terrorist organisation very much present in the UK and the atrocities were still fresh in the minds of everyone at the time. However since then, Sky, SyFy, CBS, and all other networks that have aired Trek since have had no issues with showing that episode.
I'm pretty sure that if the BBC were to re-run TNG now then it would be aired in full with no cuts. (Nope, not even to Remmick's head exploding in 'Conspiracy' which, for some reason, they left uncut in 'Shades of Grey'.)
Here in Australia they showed "Conspiracy" uncut, but gave it an 'M' rating unlike the rest of the series which was 'PG'.
I do wonder if part of the reason the BBC insisted on cuts was the timeslot they were showing it? Weren't they broadcasting it before the 'watershed'?
I know they did the same with Buffy. Broadcast it at inappropriate hours of the day, and then insist on making cuts to the episodes.
I wonder if such nonsense is behind them now.
There SHOULD have been more sex in ALL of Trek. Why wouldn't there be plenty of it on a futuristic pleasure planet? Look at how much less prudish television is today about sex. For as thoughtful Trek is about a whole host of topics, it's woefully unsophisticated in the discussion of "vices." For me, the part of the "evolved" nature of the characters is in their mastery of their desires, not their ignorance of them.
I don't see how that contradicts what I said at all...
Also, I read somewhere that it took them years before they unbanned the episode. The specific references to terrorism in the episode were generally presented as the terrorists having a "point"..it wasn't just "terrorists are bad". I think this is what was objected to.
RAMA
Also, I read somewhere that it took them years before they unbanned the episode. The specific references to terrorism in the episode were generally presented as the terrorists having a "point"..it wasn't just "terrorists are bad". I think this is what was objected to.
RAMA
It was specifically the reference to a unified Ireland and the IRA that the BBC objected to, not "dealing with terrorism in general". In fact, when Sky first broadcast "The High Ground", they cut those couple of lines out too!
The BBC finally broadcast the episode in September 2007 (2.40am!).
The original broadcast slot for TNG in the UK was 18.00. There was a big furore in the letters page of Marvel's TNG comic over the unsuitability of this timeslot, but I did - and still do - disagree on this. Out of the entire series, only three episodes were edited - "Hide And Q" (Wesley's stab through the chest), "Conspiracy" (Remmick's demise; it cut at the shot of Picard and Riker firing phasers) and "The Icarus Factor" (Worf's walking through the pain sticks). And, of course, "The High Ground" was banned.
When later broadcast in repeats several years later, most of the cuts were waived ("Conspiracy" was the last holdout).
The fact so few episodes were cut suggests that the vast majority (which were all rated "U" or "PG" on VHS, incidentally) were suitable. One of TNG's (if not all of Trek) strengths was, for me, being a 'family show' for the most part.
Um, slightly off-topic, sorry!
The BBC finally broadcast the episode in September 2007 (2.40am!).
The original broadcast slot for TNG in the UK was 18.00. There was a big furore in the letters page of Marvel's TNG comic over the unsuitability of this timeslot, but I did - and still do - disagree on this. Out of the entire series, only three episodes were edited - "Hide And Q" (Wesley's stab through the chest), "Conspiracy" (Remmick's demise; it cut at the shot of Picard and Riker firing phasers) and "The Icarus Factor" (Worf's walking through the pain sticks). And, of course, "The High Ground" was banned.
When later broadcast in repeats several years later, most of the cuts were waived ("Conspiracy" was the last holdout).
The fact so few episodes were cut suggests that the vast majority (which were all rated "U" or "PG" on VHS, incidentally) were suitable. One of TNG's (if not all of Trek) strengths was, for me, being a 'family show' for the most part.
Um, slightly off-topic, sorry!
Aside from the episodes and general tone that I pointed out. There were other episodes that had controversial elements.
Some people are pointing out the sexual nature of early STNG. This is true, whatever you think of Gene Roddenberry, he did inject that into the episodes for a reason. Some people think it's enlightened, some just think it's perverted. I'm sure he wanted to put in more than he actually got away with. On facebook, I see a lot of people calling all of Star trek a "family" show when mentioning the lack of censorship upcoming in Discovery, and they are worried about it..but Gene didn't see it as just a family show.
Related to this, there were 3-4 episodes involving analogies to reproductive rights, whether it be clones or immaculate conceptions. Despite being a less than stellar outing, I always agreed with the viewpoint of Outrageous Okana..shedding some light on the old fashioned gender bias and possessive nature of men in women's reproduction. Again, these were less controversial because of the sci-fi element but they were there.
The Ferengi were possibly a failed foil for the crew in STNG, but I think Gene really wanted them to be an example of capitalism gone wild..as many saw and see America. The Last Outpost turns into a almost a treatise on how humanity overcame such thinking and the Ferengi hardly get a word in edgewise..but the Ferengi are so alien, has nothing to do with us right?
I always found The Chase interesting because everyone balks at the idea that enemies could be related to each other genetically when "clearly" we look so "different". This is exactly what happens if you tell people humanity evolved in Africa. I'd venture to say a huge percentage of the USA does not agree with this (I believe something like 40% don't even believe in evolution).
There are also quite a few episodes where direct combat is avoided, almost with Picard seemingly bending over backwards to avoid conflict. I think this was a central message in STNG, one which was slowly lost over the rest of the other Berman era sequels. Sure we all like action-adventure and TOS is very much that, and most of us like a good space battle or two, but this is really one of the things that makes STNG unique in all of ST and TV. It's an ideal that many of our primitive 20th century brains have trouble holding on to (apologies if you are a millennial). I think this frustrated many early viewers of STNG because Kirk would have probably shot first and asked questions later.
Maybe the "Outcast" was a little late in the TV landscape, but even now huge numbers of fans do not want homosexuality discussed at all in Star Trek. it's a family show and you can't expose kids to deviant thoughts don't you know. The way it was presented made it more digestible to viewers so perhaps it's not as controversial as it should be.
I felt some of the latter seasons of STNG were commenting on the anti-science of the world and especially as the political climate in the US took it's first turn to the dark side with Newt Gingrich in 93-94. The Gingrich Republicans were not as bad as the do-nothing idiots of Congress today, but they were the start. Eventually in 1995 Newt abolished the science advisory group OTA which has made it far easier to ignore facts and has fostered anti-technology and science in the US. https://io9.gizmodo.com/a-key-reason-why-u-s-politicians-dont-understand-scien-1575132934
RAMA
Some people are pointing out the sexual nature of early STNG. This is true, whatever you think of Gene Roddenberry, he did inject that into the episodes for a reason. Some people think it's enlightened, some just think it's perverted. I'm sure he wanted to put in more than he actually got away with. On facebook, I see a lot of people calling all of Star trek a "family" show when mentioning the lack of censorship upcoming in Discovery, and they are worried about it..but Gene didn't see it as just a family show.
Related to this, there were 3-4 episodes involving analogies to reproductive rights, whether it be clones or immaculate conceptions. Despite being a less than stellar outing, I always agreed with the viewpoint of Outrageous Okana..shedding some light on the old fashioned gender bias and possessive nature of men in women's reproduction. Again, these were less controversial because of the sci-fi element but they were there.
The Ferengi were possibly a failed foil for the crew in STNG, but I think Gene really wanted them to be an example of capitalism gone wild..as many saw and see America. The Last Outpost turns into a almost a treatise on how humanity overcame such thinking and the Ferengi hardly get a word in edgewise..but the Ferengi are so alien, has nothing to do with us right?
I always found The Chase interesting because everyone balks at the idea that enemies could be related to each other genetically when "clearly" we look so "different". This is exactly what happens if you tell people humanity evolved in Africa. I'd venture to say a huge percentage of the USA does not agree with this (I believe something like 40% don't even believe in evolution).
There are also quite a few episodes where direct combat is avoided, almost with Picard seemingly bending over backwards to avoid conflict. I think this was a central message in STNG, one which was slowly lost over the rest of the other Berman era sequels. Sure we all like action-adventure and TOS is very much that, and most of us like a good space battle or two, but this is really one of the things that makes STNG unique in all of ST and TV. It's an ideal that many of our primitive 20th century brains have trouble holding on to (apologies if you are a millennial). I think this frustrated many early viewers of STNG because Kirk would have probably shot first and asked questions later.
Maybe the "Outcast" was a little late in the TV landscape, but even now huge numbers of fans do not want homosexuality discussed at all in Star Trek. it's a family show and you can't expose kids to deviant thoughts don't you know. The way it was presented made it more digestible to viewers so perhaps it's not as controversial as it should be.
I felt some of the latter seasons of STNG were commenting on the anti-science of the world and especially as the political climate in the US took it's first turn to the dark side with Newt Gingrich in 93-94. The Gingrich Republicans were not as bad as the do-nothing idiots of Congress today, but they were the start. Eventually in 1995 Newt abolished the science advisory group OTA which has made it far easier to ignore facts and has fostered anti-technology and science in the US. https://io9.gizmodo.com/a-key-reason-why-u-s-politicians-dont-understand-scien-1575132934
RAMA
But unified Ireland was a direct result of terrorism and the episode argued terrorism didn't operate in a vacuum, so you see, it's all related.
RAMA
RAMA
nuTrek doesn't seem particularly prudish.
I don't know whether it's not prudish or not, but it's almost totally sexless..there are several suggestive remarks, and suggested sex that lasts maybe 2 minutes total over 2 movies. There's just not much to go on.
No offense, because I know how much you love TNG, but it wasn't doing anything that hadn't already been done better, and more openly on other shows. Which is the point. By the time TNG got to it, it was doing things already done, but trying to hide them so as to not upset what was becoming a very conservative audience.
It was a franchise cash cow, and Paramount wasn't going to do anything to rock the boat.
I've seen racier K-Mart ads.
How many European movies do you watch, each year?
Look it's another one of those "Everything that isn't TOS is shit" threads.
Not exactly. TOS reputation is totally overblown. It wasn't as conservative as TNG, but neither was it this "progressive oasis in a sea of crap", that has been repeated over and over through the years.
Well, I don't think Star Trek - TOS or TNG anyway, is coming from a political space, it's coming from a philosophical , humanist space, and as such is not beholden to political ideologies, particularly those of the current USA frequencies. It will explore these issues, but is not, IMO, preaching a politics so much as following a philosophy that may well manifest elements that could be associated with opposite political spectrums, depending on the time and place.
Reading this thread, I was going to comment something similar. More strongly than any occasional political/social/religious commentary, what really struck me in those first years of TNG was its insistence on giving validity to all viewpoints. It made me examine my own views, which I thought were very open and liberal, having grown up in the 70s, where my teachers challenged all accepted American norms.
But watching TNG made me realize that other cultures and views have validity for those populations. Even if I disagree with them and find them repressive or primitive, I can't dismiss them out of hand without trying to put myself in those people's shoes.
One particular memory is watching Redemption Part II with a friend who wasn't very familiar with TNG. When the two Klingon factions began firing on each other's ships, Picard ordered the Enterprise to clear the area. My friend was agog. "He's not going to help?" he sputtered. I think he expected the normal dramatic trope, where the hero defends his friends. I replied: "It's a civil war. He can't get involved." To me, this was an obviously wise decision, knowing well the Federation's position on interference. Of course, the writers didn't always take this high road.
Well, it stopped being a civil war, IE a purely internal matter when the Romulan became part of it.
Agreed. That developed later in the story, and Picard was able to use that evidence to get permission from Starfleet Command to intervene.
My point was that, at the time of the skirmish that my friend and I saw, I had enough experience w/ Picard's character to not be surprised with his wise decision to withdraw. If he had intervened at that time, it would have embroiled Starfleet in a messy situation they couldn't yet justify. My friend expected the normal "heroic" plot development.
Well, you also have to be familiar with Picard's idiosyncrasies. For instance, he was peeved that Data had revived the 20th century people. That's not how a normal person, let alone a humanist is supposed to react.
Similar threads
