The thing is, the weird blurry filters in DSC seem much more obvious in the external shots (like ship combat), where there is nothing real to even blend in at all.
Clearly Spock using the phrase "tech" was just an obvious way by the writers to pander to modern audiences with inappropriate slang. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Everyone seems to be a DoP it seems...............People will complain about absolutely ANYTHING to show you how right they are about disliking something. Hell, the last 2 pages have been filled with complaints about the camerawork and cinematography. Wow, dudes....ummmm....didn't even notice and couldn't care less.
Which is likely done so they can easily be consistent with the in-ship footage, thus making it as much an aesthetic choice as a practical one. Think of how FIREFLY and BATTLESTAR GALACTICA had their space footage match the camerawork style in-ship. That's what DISCO is doing with the space footage matching the style of the i-ship footage.
We need more technobabble slang.
Discovery as written by Tom HaverfordWe need more technobabble slang.
Tricorder = trike
Cochrane = coch
Synthetic mind-meld neural enhancer = SarekVision
Tardigrade DNA horizontal gene transfer = GeneVision
Leonard Nimoy was such a millennial hipster, it's embarrassing.Clearly Spock using the phrase "tech" was just an obvious way by the writers to pander to modern audiences with inappropriate slang. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Leonard Nimoy was such a millennial hipster, it's embarrassing.
Does anyone else here feel that Discovery is over doing it with the supposed film like atheistic of the show? I look at a lot of shots and they seem extra fake to me, worse than a lot of previous trek shows.
It has it's fakey moments, but overall I'd say it's superior to the previous TV shows.
TNG and DS9 don't come off too badly in comparison when it was mostly model work (probably helped by real lighting), but the CGI in Voyager and Enterprise hasn't dated at all well (no ones fault, simply time and tech). The big weak point for TNG and DS9 was when they did explosions.
Also the space scenes were almost always way too brightly lit in all the previous TV shows (especially when it was CGI, possibly to speed up rendering), from all angles. Not only did it decrease the amount of "presence", it highlighted the lack of detail on even the Galaxy-D.
Look at this model shot for example:-
Outside the spacedock the lighting (and admittedly distance) makes the model look movie worthy. Once in the space dock it's up close and brightly lit and it frankly actually looks like a bad(good for the time I know) 80's CGI model due to the lack of textures/greebling/detail.
It has it's fakey moments, but overall I'd say it's superior to the previous TV shows.
TNG and DS9 don't come off too badly in comparison when it was mostly model work (probably helped by real lighting), but the CGI in Voyager and Enterprise hasn't dated at all well (no ones fault, simply time and tech). The big weak point for TNG and DS9 was when they did explosions.
Also the space scenes were almost always way too brightly lit in all the previous TV shows (especially when it was CGI, possibly to speed up rendering), from all angles. Not only did it decrease the amount of "presence", it highlighted the lack of detail on even the Galaxy-D.
Look at this model shot for example:-
Outside the spacedock the lighting (and admittedly distance) makes the model look movie worthy. Once in the space dock it's up close and brightly lit and it frankly actually looks like a bad(good for the time I know) 80's CGI model due to the lack of textures/greebling/detail.
I'm not a friend of the camera moving around all the time during a conversation, but actually I was glad when the cameraman could even hold it straight for a while. Especially in the pilots, you're exposed to a remorseless assault of Dutch Angles. Truly awful. Apparently they really liked Battlefield Earth.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.