The lens flares have been cut thankfully but yeah the shaky cam style if filming is annoying. I prefer a steady camera approach. We can all thank movies like The Bourne Identity for making shaky cam so popular. I even see it on cooking shows. So distracting. A steady hand at the camera is the way to go.
I wish they hadn't gone that route, also. Ironically, it makes the ship look more fragile in my mind - maybe because it looks like a real-world material that I understand the strength of and not some super-strong future material. On the positive side: I thought it was a nice touch of consistency when April first shows up in the shuttle and it's made to look like it's of the same material. Again: these are stylistic choices and not technical issues.
pretty much my issue with many discovery shots: lighting is awful, as is animation and models that would otherwise be very good end up looking like a cheap videogame.
the effects were not great or bad, I am not expecting it to be movie quality but there is something about the effects and the ship itself that feels very plastic and empty. I think I have had this issues with all of streaming nu trek shows. they don't have movie budget so I wonder why they like big spaces when all that does is just make the effects and set design feel empty. every nu trek shows, feels like the ship takes place in a fancy warehouse unlike say TNG where the ship did not looks so big and had a warmeth, that discovery and now strange new world seem to lack.
I dont think so. in spite of my dislike for discovery I must admit the first episodes looked far amazing, but the show did start off as a very high value with even A list or at least well established actors like Michelle Yeoh and and Jason Isaacs in major roles. Paramount + could not really have been able to sustain the overall budget of making trek shows. Though I really wish they will stop making their nu trek show look so darm big, the bigger their ships looks, the more empty it looks.
I don't know weather it's the quality or the art direction - but streaming Trek has shockingly bad vfx, especially compared to it's peers. To contrast, something like "Lost in Space" has really, really good space vfx: Now granted, vfx are only a small part of the whole experience, and in a good story bad vfx are easy to overlook. But still... it's noticeable.
To me, CGI will never be as “weighty” as model shots or practical effects. But, despite that, I thought the effects look great as CGI goes. The show looked quite beautiful to me.
If anything, it costs more. Different guest cast, different costumes and props for EVERY episode. Different CG alien planets, cityscapes etc. The season-long arc shows require less.
VFX look fine to me. If there are errors I don't notice them. Any comparison to other shows is a hollow venture at best. I'm not watching them side by side.
The actual effects look on par with SNW. Don't confuse 'visual style' choices with overall technical 'quality'. (And if you see my posts in the other CGI thread, I don't care for a number of style choices they've made but that doesn't make the execution of the CGI itself 'bad'.)
I loved the effects for Lost in Space - truly great! I don't see how they're any better than those for SNW, though. They're stylistically different, and I think that's what you're calling "shockingly bad".
i mean this is my view in most cases where people criticise cgi... Maybe I have just watched too many B/C type scifi movies but this looked great to me.
Lens Flare needs to go away in general or be used sparingly, and only as needed. Shakey Cam needs to be thrown in the dumpster, whomever thought it was a good idea needs to fired from Hollywood. Super Steadi-Cam needs to be pushed to the fore and made the standard for everything, including any & all action scenes. I shouldn't feel nautious because the Camera Operator wanted to shake the camera just for cheap action effects.
So are the books some TV makers put out about how great they are. It's all individual preference, and at least YouTube is free.
The books you refer to have no economic impact on me. I'd rather spend my time and money on something that interests me. And keep right on thinking YouTube is free the next time a video gets interrupted for an ad or two.