3 ms·

The new live-action Star Trek shows have taken to this madness as well. Star Trek: The Next Generation and Voyager were both bright, open shows. But you'd think

The new live-action Star Trek shows have taken to this madness as well. Star Trek: The Next Generation and Voyager were both bright, open shows. But you'd think with Discovery, Strange New Worlds, and Picard that we hadn't invented indoor lighting. Babylon 5 in its heyday was visually brighter than any of these three and no one can say that B5 was going for an "optimistic" plot worthy of such luminosity. It's frustrating to watch and I empathize with people who feel like their cherished shows of before are being "ruined" by spin-offs or reboots.

havblue 4y ago
When the Next Generation switched to movies, Generations did have that odd yellow filter though, which apparently made it more cinematic. While realism clearly doesn't have anything to do with this decision, the science fiction set of the bridge might just look fake when it's well lit. I miss the 90s look too. As far as people who say their shows are being ruined, the studios are still chasing younger audiences and mainstream popularity. A starfleet academy show was announced the other day for example, so teenage drama here we come.
- simion314 4y ago
  >While realism clearly doesn't have anything to do with this decision, the science fiction set of the bridge might just look fake when it's well lit. How so, we are already used with Federation ships having a lot of lighting, so now with the new cool style they also need to somehow explain why they decided that Star Fleet prefers to walk in semi-darkness on the bridge, corridors and working spaces. I can maybe understand the Game of Thrones or Mandalorian caves need to be dark for realism excuse but for Star Trek is obvious a stylistic choice to use the cool new styles and shit on the bright optimisitc one from the past.
  - jon-wood 4y ago
    I think the thing you're missing here is that Picard isn't about the optimistic Starfleet of the past, it's a lot darker and insular than the old one. A key plot line throughout the first season was Picard's failure to avoid that happening. Strange New World's Enterprise is brightly lit, with a clear nod to the original series' design.
    - simion314 4y ago
      Season 3 is still dark on the bridge, it is a Star Fleet bridge not alternative timelines and they are bringing all the old crew back, I think is OK so far but I wish I could see the bridge.
  - havblue 4y ago
    This is based on no evidence whatsoever, but I think they just focus grouped the decision of how much lighting to use. The neon displays do pop a lot more in dim lighting so making things look futuristic and glowy is an important part of the shows.
    - simion314 4y ago
      Not sure, in Discover for example when you go to the far future the Star Fleet command is very well light, dark lighting was used before in Trek in Klingon ships or other shady aliens. IMO is the people in charge that impose their aesthetic, and maybe it looks good on their giant home cinema. Anyway the issue is you can't see things, if they want to emphasize something they need to do it without hurting accessibility. We also have Strange New Worlds and Lower Descks where they can appear futuristic and be bright.

havblue 4y ago

When the Next Generation switched to movies, Generations did have that odd yellow filter though, which apparently made it more cinematic. While realism clearly doesn't have anything to do with this decision, the science fiction set of the bridge might just look fake when it's well lit. I miss the 90s look too. As far as people who say their shows are being ruined, the studios are still chasing younger audiences and mainstream popularity. A starfleet academy show was announced the other day for example, so teenage drama here we come.

simion314 4y ago
>While realism clearly doesn't have anything to do with this decision, the science fiction set of the bridge might just look fake when it's well lit. How so, we are already used with Federation ships having a lot of lighting, so now with the new cool style they also need to somehow explain why they decided that Star Fleet prefers to walk in semi-darkness on the bridge, corridors and working spaces. I can maybe understand the Game of Thrones or Mandalorian caves need to be dark for realism excuse but for Star Trek is obvious a stylistic choice to use the cool new styles and shit on the bright optimisitc one from the past.
- jon-wood 4y ago
  I think the thing you're missing here is that Picard isn't about the optimistic Starfleet of the past, it's a lot darker and insular than the old one. A key plot line throughout the first season was Picard's failure to avoid that happening. Strange New World's Enterprise is brightly lit, with a clear nod to the original series' design.
  - simion314 4y ago
    Season 3 is still dark on the bridge, it is a Star Fleet bridge not alternative timelines and they are bringing all the old crew back, I think is OK so far but I wish I could see the bridge.
- havblue 4y ago
  This is based on no evidence whatsoever, but I think they just focus grouped the decision of how much lighting to use. The neon displays do pop a lot more in dim lighting so making things look futuristic and glowy is an important part of the shows.
  - simion314 4y ago
    Not sure, in Discover for example when you go to the far future the Star Fleet command is very well light, dark lighting was used before in Trek in Klingon ships or other shady aliens. IMO is the people in charge that impose their aesthetic, and maybe it looks good on their giant home cinema. Anyway the issue is you can't see things, if they want to emphasize something they need to do it without hurting accessibility. We also have Strange New Worlds and Lower Descks where they can appear futuristic and be bright.