Do you recall where this quote came from? I often like to go look at the actual wording and context.
Thanks for that.
Though unfortch...
Even then, from context it's hard to know if there was perhaps a temporary problem where the streaming version was even darker still than intended. Or if it was another snow job to try and cover decision making that turned out to be unpopular with some of the viewing audience.
This is jogging a memory I have of a lot of people noticing one of the early episodes looked markedly darker than the prior ones when it premiered on P+.
Yes, lighting can set the tone not just for an individual scene, but for the movie/TV series as a whole. That's exactly why the lighting was so bright on the TNG television series. It was an artistic choice. Bright light indicated positivity, optimism and a utopian future aboard a Federation vessel. Roddenberry and Berman were opposed to dim lighting because it's associated with dystopia. The didn't want that tone for TNG.
Consequently, when the style of lighting was changed from bright and realistic (in the TV series) to dim and theatrical (in Generations) it changed the tone and the artistic vision of TNG.
Last edited:
As an analogy:
Incidental music (i.e. background music) also helps set the tone, right? The televised TNG series used orchestral music because that set the tone they believed was consistent with their idea of Star Trek. It expressed their artistic vision.
What if Generations changed up and used electronic dance music for its incidental score? Maybe you'd like that (perhaps you enjoy EDM or just appreciate taking a different approach). Fair enough. Nevertheless, you'd recognize it was a dramatic departure from the tone and artistic vision of the series, right?
If yes, then surely you recognize a shift from bright, realistically lit sets to theatrically lit sets is a departure from the tone and artistic style of the series?
Last edited:
Except that, as has already been stated, one of the primary reasons why the lighting was altered for GEN was to hide the deficiences of the bridge set for the purposes of being shown on the big screen.
While it may or may not have changed how the audience felt about the mood of the bridge, it appears there was no way around it given the constraints that the production faced.
I understand that, but it doesn't refute anything I've written. Explaining why the lighting was changed (due to necessity) doesn't rebut the idea that the tone and artistic style were altered. Nor does it preclude me from being unhappy with that change in tone.
It's as though I wrote "The Titanic sunk", and you replied "Except that, as has already been stated, it hit an iceberg."
Last edited:
I don't buy that. The lighting on TNG was consistent with other drama series being produced for television at the time.
You do keep going on and on about that, but you've yet to explain what alternative there was for the movie to pursue, given the tight timeframe they had to film and that they weren't going to get the time or money to build new sets.
So let's hear it. If you were Rick Berman or David Carson in 1994 what would you have done about the fact these sets weren't suitable to seen on a theatre screen while maintaining the franchise's so called "artistic integrity"? You've obviously put a lot of thought into the movie's lighting, you must have thought up a solution or two by now.
You don't have to take my word for it. Watch the documentary "In Conversation: Lensing Star Trek the Next Generation" (blu-ray season 7, disc 2). It was a roundtable with three directors, Jonathan West, David Livingston and James Conway, and one director of photography, Kris Krosskove. About 80% of the way through the issue of lighting comes up. All of them said they would have preferred to turn the lights down to create mood, but the boss wouldn't let them. They didn't specify who, but presumably it was Rick Berman who felt he was the keeper of Roddenberry's vision (though by his own admission he bent that more and more over time).
Also, Roddenberry had a utopian vision for TNG, right? (I understand that his utopianism is a bit revisionist and wasn't entirely true of TOS, but by the time he was producing TNG he was reading his own press. For TNG at least, he did try to be utopian.) Well, if you look into cinematic lighting philosophies you'll learn that bright lighting is associated with a utopian tone, while dim lighting is associated with dystopian tone. With that in mind, why would you be skeptical that there's a link between Roddenberry aiming for a utopian presentation and Roddenberry insisting on keeping the lights up? It could be a coincidence, but odds suggest one likely lead to the other.
Last edited:
Rick Berman tended to be small-c conservative about creative decisions overall. He doubtless wanted the sets lit nice and flat for the same reason he wanted to eliminate melody from the musical score. Maybe because it made it easier to make episodes, maybe just to be as broadly, blandly appealing to the largest audience.
I think it's worth mentioning that the rule about keeping the sets lit brightly was (iirc) only for the Enterprise, and when they went to other places they were lit as moody and dramatic as they needed to be.
I understand a reason existed to turn down the lighting. Does that preclude me from discussing my disappointment with the results? I'm not allowed to lament something if it was unavoidable?
Your above post suggests I should express my disappoint if, and only if, I can offer a way it could have been avoided. That's bananas. I seriously doubt you apply that rule in your everyday life, telling your friends and family they're not allowed to express disappointment, or seek out other people who share their disappointment, unless they can offer an alternatives. I suspect you invented this imaginary rule because you want to argue with me.
Discussion forums exist for this very type of thing: "I understand this design choice was unavoidable, but I dislike the results. Anyone else feel that way?"
Absolutely. The director's roundtable made this point. If the scene was in a non-Federation facility, they could turn the lights down. So every time they got off the Enterprise they dimmed the lights.
This adds to the evidence that the lighting was an intentional artistic choice. The Federation was utopian and was lit accordingly. Non-federation planets and ships were not utopian, so they could be dimly lit.
Last edited:
Okay, so what you’re doing is making an assumption about why or why not the higher-up’s countered the decision of the cinematographer. That doesn’t follow any factual basis of the look of the camera work being part of an “artistic vision of a utopian future.” You’re reaching for an explanation.
Going back to my analogy with incidental music...
What if they were obligated to change from an orchestral score to electronica. Say Paramount had a marketing deal with Trent Reznor and contractually forced him on the director. (That happened in real life when Warner Bros. forced Prince on Tim Burton when he made Batman.)
In my hypothetical, the change it was unavoidable. So what? Does that mean I have to like it? Does that mean I can't express disappointment? Does that mean I can't post here asking if other fans also lamented the change? Or, as @The Wormhole suggested, does it mean I'd be free to criticize it if, and only if, I could offer a plausible way to void the Trent Reznor contract?
What if they were obligated to change from an orchestral score to electronica. Say Paramount had a marketing deal with Trent Reznor and contractually forced him on the director. (That happened in real life when Warner Bros. forced Prince on Tim Burton when he made Batman.)
In my hypothetical, the change it was unavoidable. So what? Does that mean I have to like it? Does that mean I can't express disappointment? Does that mean I can't post here asking if other fans also lamented the change? Or, as @The Wormhole suggested, does it mean I'd be free to criticize it if, and only if, I could offer a plausible way to void the Trent Reznor contract?
Last edited:
I pointed to 1.) Roddenberry's well-documented push to make TNG utopian, 2.) Berman's well-documented intention to uphold that vision, 3.) Berman telling the directors to keep the lights turned up on the Enterprise specifically, while allowing non-Federation sets to be dimmed, and 4.) the widely-recognized understanding among filmmakers that dim lighting is evocative of dystopia. Is that proof positive? Of course not. But it's logical supposition based on a fact pattern. It's an education guess. It's not a reach.
Meanwhile, you're insistent that Berman wanted the lights turned up high on the Enterprise set for some other, unstated reason. What's your position based on? Earlier you suggested that was standard for TV drama at the time, but that's not true (in fact, it's why the directors argued with Berman about turning down the lights).
Last edited:
It's always a fascinating idea to see what elements of the soup create different reactions in people. Lighting is not a thing I pay attention to as in my earlier years I'd watch on lower resolution and darker screens for whatever reason my parents chose.
So, lighting is not something that stands out as much to me as being a sign of utopia. Generations being darker definitely a choice but one that I found more evocative of submarine or naval warfare films do I didn't find it noteworthy. But, the uniforms annoyed me.
So, lighting is not something that stands out as much to me as being a sign of utopia. Generations being darker definitely a choice but one that I found more evocative of submarine or naval warfare films do I didn't find it noteworthy. But, the uniforms annoyed me.
What it seems more like, to me, is that I'm saying why there was no choice but to darken the lighting and you saying, "That's nice to know but I still don't like it, so there."
Or, if you prefer, "Titanic sank because it struck an iceberg," and you saying, "Yeah, but it still sucks that it sank."
You say you want to have a discussion, but I don't see how your simply refuting my points with, "So? I still don't like it," really moves the conversation along, especially when you were asked by another poster what you might have done differently in the same circumstances and declined to entertain the question. I'd think someone who really wanted to have a discussion about it would be willing to do more than repeatedly express their dissatisfaction for the decision that was forced to be made.
...and yes, personally I do find it tedious when people complain about a decision repeatedly but seem to be at a loss to suggest other options.
Similar threads
