That's when I saw it.
"Right turn, Chewie."
Singles were mixed for AM radio and kids turntable sound quality, which is why remasters sound so much better on something not an AM radio or turntable.
CIC aboard Navy ships is even darker, with most of the lighting coming from the large number of glowing screens and buttons. It's not hard to see anything, but is calm and quiet.
When I posted this thread I expected some people to disagree because they like the look of "cinematic" lighting. I also realized not everyone would be invested in Roddenberry's artistic vision and the tone he established for the series. And I expected some people not to value the uniqueness of TNG's visual style and want it to conform to trends.
However, I wasn't expecting anyone to suggest that in a real world setting it's normal and/or desirable to live in dim lighting 24/7. I wasn't expecting anyone to mistake theatrical lighting for realistic lighting.
I've researched the lighting on submarines. Not surprisingly, they turn the lights down at night to simulate circadian rhythms, and they turn the lights down during high alerts. Otherwise:
However, I wasn't expecting anyone to suggest that in a real world setting it's normal and/or desirable to live in dim lighting 24/7. I wasn't expecting anyone to mistake theatrical lighting for realistic lighting.
I've researched the lighting on submarines. Not surprisingly, they turn the lights down at night to simulate circadian rhythms, and they turn the lights down during high alerts. Otherwise:
During routine operations, [a submarine] is fully illuminated with white LED or fluorescent lighting. The goal is to provide bright, homogeneous, and glare-free conditions.
Keeping the lights up during normal operating hours is considered a vital component of maintaining the psychological and physiological well-being of a submarine crew. Because the human brain relies heavily on environmental cues to regulate internal biological processes, a "normal" lighting environment acts as an essential anchor in the otherwise alien, windowless world of a submarine.
Mitigating Submarine Depression: The feeling of being cut off from the sun is a well-documented psychological challenge. Consistent white light helps alleviate the sense of confinement. By providing a bright, stimulating environment while the crew is awake, the ship creates a sense of "day," which provides a much-needed mental boundary between work and rest.
Stimulating Alertness: High-intensity white or "cool" blue-spectrum lighting suppresses melatonin production, which keeps the crew alert and focused during their watch. Psychologically, being in a well-lit environment feels more professional and active.
Cabin Fever and Isolation: If submarine lighting were kept in a perpetually subdued state, the lack of bright, ambient light would exacerbate the sense of total isolation, potentially leading to increased rates of anxiety and seasonal affective disorder (SAD)-like symptoms.
Last edited:
Only when the people in charge get scared.
I haven't been aboard a modern submarine, but I've been in CDC on the carrier Enterprise. It was darker than the bridge in "Yesterday's Enterprise," yet one of my primary memories of it is what a calming environment the space was (which helps).
It's not unusual on a carrier for some sailors in the ship's complement to barely see the sun while at sea if the air wing is aboard.
My understanding is that some of the brighter spaces are more well-lit than those on submarines, e.g. the galley.
I don't disagree with you that the lighting mostly looks better on the show, but that also isn't helped by the greenish-yellow tinge of much of the movie.
I don’t think anyone in this thread has made that assumption. Movies aren’t documentaries nor real life, the lighting shouldn’t be realistic; it should follow whatever the dramatic and artistic intent of the scene is.
These are fictional spacecraft hundreds of years in the future and being filmed to tell dramatic, often action-packed and tense stories. "Realistic" command center or internal lighting is a pretty relative metric, and one even the critics of streaming Trek cinematography and set lighting won't agree on.
There is unrealistic, then there is dramatic/cinematic, and then there is downright stupid. Picard season 3's lighting falls into the latter category, IMHO.
Most of DSC's and PIC's is groaningly too dim, but that's Kurtzman and his team trying too hard to look more expensive and cinematic. Even in seasons of both shows that I liked the lighting isn't great.
Oddly, I found the interior lighting of Discovery's first season was a lot more even. It was the exterior space shots that were too goddamn dark. The absolute nadir was Picard's third season. If they were gonna shoot shit that dark, they should've taken a note from Stanley Kubrick's Barry Lyndon and gotten ultra-fast lenses from NASA that could work at extremely low light levels.
And now the Enterprise-G's bridge is that damn dark in canon. Not a fan of the ship's design to begin with, and the bridge makes it an even worse ship.
Unlike many here, I absolutely love Picard season 3. However, I think that bridge is just downright ugly all the way around.
Season 3 is a fun, dumb ride. But the lighting is almost embarrassing.
And it wasn't just the Titan's interiors, everything was dark that season. The Shrike, the alien marketplace Worf and Raffi visit, the Section 31 outpost, the Borg cube even the one scene set at Picard's vineyard. Though it was darker than it was in TNG, the Enterprise D's bridge is the only set in that season with any kind of bright lighting.
I almost wonder if - like with Generations before it - the excess of darkness was used to obfuscate deficiencies in the sets, as a bunch of the budget was blown on the legacy cast's salaries and the Enterprise-D Bridge set?
Thing is, with the exception of the Enterprise D's bridge, all the sets we see in S3 were from previous seasons. IE, the Titan's interiors were the Stargazer, the Shrike's interiors were a redress of La Sirena and so on. And in all cases, we saw them well lit in previous seasons. And given Matalas seems genuinely perplexed over why the season looked so dark, my guess is someone just dropped the ball somewhere when it came to the lighting that season.
I stand corrected! Totally forgot the degree to which they were redressing existing assets in season 3.
Doesn't really speak well of Matalas and others on the crew, though, that nobody attempted to fix the cinematography after the first few days of shooting. That would've been very noticeable from the jump, even in dailies.
Yeah, Matalas's comments about "it didn't look that dark to us" never made sense to me. Even entertaining the possibility that Paramount+ could have messed with the picture settings for whatever reason, that wouldn't explain why CTV Sci-Fi's broadcast and the physical media release were just as dark.
While I'm usually not one to throw around accusations of laziness when it comes to these matters, it does seem very little real effort was put into Picard S3. They literally rode on the coattails of that season's hype being the TNG reunion and the hope that that would be enough. And to a vocal element of fandom, it was.
While I'm usually not one to throw around accusations of laziness when it comes to these matters, it does seem very little real effort was put into Picard S3. They literally rode on the coattails of that season's hype being the TNG reunion and the hope that that would be enough. And to a vocal element of fandom, it was.
There are people who think that Picard 3 is the only good thing to come from Paramount+ Star Trek! (And MAYBE Lower Decks.)
I'm not one of those people.
Similar threads
