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

I'm coming late to this discussion.... But, as has already been mentioned, the TV ratings system with "TV-PG," "TV-14," and so on, wasn't implemented until 1997. So for any content originally released before then, the rating is retroactive.

It should also be pointed out that there is no overarching TV ratings board that rates all content, the way that feature films are submitted to the MPA (formerly MPAA) board for a rating. It is up to each broadcaster themself to determine the age rating for the content that they air. And so this may result in the exact same program being given a different rating on different platforms, as in your examples above.

Also, to address the idea of TNG in its entirety being listed at TV-14, episodes are actually age-rated individually. Typically when you see the whole series listed, it will give a single rating based on general overview. Sometimes the most restrictive rating that any episode has received will skew the listing for the whole series. Currently, Paramount Plus still lists the series overall at TV-PG. They give TV-PG for the gruesome "Conspiracy," as well as "Chain of Command" with the rear nudity.

As far as the FCC (mentioned in another comment) goes, they don't have someone hawkishly watching every single minute of over-the-air TV content to catch violations of broadcast standards on indecency. It depends on complaints from viewers. That doesn't mean that content producers can just disregard the broadcast standards willy-nilly. There are plenty of really big moaners and complainers out there, and fines and proceedings can be a headache.

Kor

 

Ahem...

This basically gets my point across.

 

The whole deal with the TV ratings system, reminds me of similar issues involving the MPAA. For example, the original RoboCop was submitted a whopping 11 times, before finally being rated R. In my opinion, that's just way too many chances. The whole point of ratings groups is to make sure a film or TV show is safer for mass audiences; if the filmmakers don't like it, they can always take their chance without a rating. I think that's why some are releasing their stuff strictly online now - they either don't trust the system, or they fear losing money because so few theaters are cooperating at the moment.

 

I'm assuming it was edited each time, removing just enough of the worst material from it until it finally came in below the R threshold.

 

That wasn't really my point. 11 submissions for any reason is borderline insane, regardless of the reason. If you create a TV show or movie, and you have to keep re-submitting it over and over again...you might want to ask yourself what your initial motives were in the first place.

 

For the makers of Robocop, it was to create an ultra-violent, satirical police revenge fantasy.

 

Satire is something which usually goes over my head, particularly when it comes to sex and violence. Think about it - how much sense does it really make, to use that kind of content while supposedly targeting others for doing the exact same thing? The idea alone seems self-defeating to me.

 

Question: have you seen Starship Troopers?

 

Does for fascism what Robocop does for capitalist excess.

 

I don't really care what the guidance ratings are, it was aimed at the family, and it was Berman doing the targeting.

 

There should be no ratings. Roll the dice and live a little. If it is objectionable, don't come back.

 

The motives of any film studio is to make money. Full stop. Whether police revenge fantasy or a Christian fantasy about true love. Since I doubt it is free to have the MPAA vet these films, it is up to the studio whether it is financially feasible to send a film (after edits) through multiple times.

It isn't your money, so don't knock others for how they spend theirs.

 

This has never been about TV ratings, which didn't exist at the time. And Berman had no trouble doing an episode like "Chain of Command" with harrowing scenes of torture. He was making an adult show in most respects, but he was a homophobe. Stop making excuses for him.

I repeat, even The Love Boat and Murder, She Wrote were doing episodes with gay characters three years before TNG premiered, and both of those were lightweight, cozy, uncontroversial family shows. So "family show = erasure of non-heterosexuals" is a completely false premise, one that's been repeatedly debunked in this thread, so people need to stop pretending it's a meaningful argument.

 

Maybe we shouldn't be calling people names when we don't know them...

 

Do you have any other credible hypothesis which matches with what we known?

 

Doesn't matter. People shouldn't be called names. Especially when you don't have actual proof, just guesses.

 

Acknowledging that someone's actions perpetuate a social injustice is not "calling names," it's pointing out the impact of their choices on other people. Pretending the person in power perpetuating an imbalance is the victim who needs to be defended is a common tactic used to deny and evade the issue. Berman and/or other people in charge of the Trek franchise maintained an 18-year policy of denying the existence of non-heterosexual people to a degree that was already out of step with the TV landscape in 1987 and was pathologically behind the times by 2004. Such extreme, committed evasion cannot be called anything other than homophobia. The word can apply to fear of acknowledging the existence of gay people, or fear of the consequences of doing so, just as much as to fear of the people themselves.

And the impact that denial had on LGBTQ viewers' lives was hurtful and must not be denied. For generations, Star Trek reached out to minorities and women and said "Yes, you exist, you matter, and you will be accepted and included in the future," and that inspired so many people who might have despaired otherwise. And yet at the same time it was welcoming to women and ethnic minorities and people with disabilities and so forth, it turned away from LGBTQ people and said "La la la I don't see you, you don't matter." They were singled out for exclusion, which is extraordinarily cruel. Especially since Gene Roddenberry had made a point of assuring them before the show premiered that they would be included. Roddenberry gave them hope, and his successors including Berman yanked it away. That is not something that should be excused or defended, and to claim that the people responsible for it are the "real" victims because someone said something unflattering about them is simply disgusting.