bridge lighting in Generations

[Atomic_Monkey]

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."

You got this flipped, reversing cause and effect. I'm saying I don't like the lighting and multiple people have responded, "There was no choice but to darken 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."

Exactly. And there's nothing wrong with that.

You say it doesn't move the conversation along. I agree the conversation is stuck, but it's not me sticking it. Think about it. Every time I've written "So what?" I was responding to other people who kept beating me over the head with the same point. I wasn't raising the issue myself. I was reacting to it. On every page at least one person has told me the same thing (that they turned down the lighting to hide the cheap sets). How does that move the conversation along? Are you critical of them for belaboring a point that's been made ad nauseum? If not, why not? Why is it acceptable for other people to belabor a point, but it's wrong for me to respond?

In other words, multiple people are piling on me with "Titanic sank because it struck an iceberg", and you don't blink an eye. Yet when I respond to those people with "Yeah, but it still sucks that it sank" you fault me. That's not fair, is it?

Also, most people aren't simply offering up the explanation for the dim lighting to give me helpful background information. Some are, but most aren't. Rather, most people are framing that fact as though it rebuts my position and should change my assessment. You were guilty of this yourself, but using the word "except".

 

[DonIago]

Yes, I am saying, "That's nice to know but I still don't like it." However, I'm not concluding with "so there". I think you've read something into my posts that wasn't there... at least not initially. Admittedly, I've become more snarky after being attacked, so I could understand you sensing that in my more recent posts. But in the earlier posts I was simply explaining that knowing the reason for the lighting change didn't change my opinion or it, not did it rebut the contention that the movie lighting was inconsistent with the TV series lighting.



Exactly. And there's nothing wrong with that.

You say it doesn't move the conversation along. I agree the conversation is stuck, but it's not me sticking it. Think about it. Every time I've written "So what?" I was responding to other people who kept beating me over the head with the same point. I wasn't raising the issue myself. I was reacting to it. On every page at least one person has told me the same thing (that they turned down the lighting to hide the cheap sets). How does that move the conversation along? Are you critical of them for belaboring a point that's been made ad nauseum? If not, why not? Why is it acceptable for other people to belabor a point, but it's wrong for me to respond?

In other words, multiple people are piling on me with "Titanic sank because it struck an iceberg", and you don't blink an eye. Yet when I respond to those people with "Yeah, but it still sucks that it sank" you fault me. That's not fair, is it?

Also, most people aren't simply offering up the explanation for the dim lighting to give me helpful background information. Some are, but most aren't. Rather, most people are framing that fact as though it rebuts my position and should change my assessment. You were guilty of this yourself, but using the word "except".

As you've recognized that an impasse has been reached, and this is a topic you started, I think you should consider where, if anywhere, you'd really like the conversation to go.

You expressed dissatisfaction with the lighting. People explained that it wasn't voluntary on the part of the people who made the film. You continued to express dissatisfaction with it. When asked what you might have done instead, you punted the question.

We get that you don't like the lighting, and you get that TPTB had no choice in the matter.

Not sure what else you're really hoping for here.

 

[fireproof78]

Now that I'm thinking about it, Voyager's corridors were even more dark and dour than the NX-01's, and both were heavily steeped in the gunmetal gray look.

Yeah, and so was TWOK and such so I have a tough time with lighting critiques being any indication of artistic expression when Star Trek has been all over the map.

 

[Atomic_Monkey]

You expressed dissatisfaction with the lighting. People explained that it wasn't voluntary on the part of the people who made the film. You continued to express dissatisfaction with it. When asked what you might have done instead, you punted the question.

I just edited my earlier response to point out that you're reversing cause and effect: I said I don't like the lighting. Multiple people responded to say, "There was no choice but to darken it, so there."

You seem like a reasonable person. Can you not see the double standard you've offered? You're not telling the people who keep piling to explain the reasoning for the darkening that they've made their point. You've not asked them where they expect the conversation to go. Why is it okay for them to belabor a point, but not for me to respond? Why are you faulting the protagonist and not the antagonists?

I'm disappointed you still seem to be under the misapprehension that I've posted about this an excessive number of times. Prior to today, I barely posted in this thread. I only said, "So what?" a few times. Nearly all of my posts came after Wormhole falsely accused me of whinging on about it. You don't have to take my word for it: you can re-read the thread. And even though I posted quite a bit today, nearly all of my posts were explaining what should be common sense: that knowing the cause of something is irrelevant to whether I like it. Based on those objective facts, does it make sense for you to believe I've belabored the point?

 

[DonIago]

If you feel people are just reiterating the same thing to you, then why bother responding to them?

I'm not obligated to respond to everyone and I have no interest in responding to everyone. Frankly I would have dropped out of this thread entirely if you hadn't directly replied to me, because I was here to talk about the lighting on the bridge in GEN, but the topic seems to have run its course. I'm not interested in a discussion of whether it's "right" or not for people to keep reiterating themselves, because I don't see how that's productive or interesting. We're all (theoretically) grown-ups here...if you don't like what someone is saying, then don't engage with them, or put them on Ignore if you feel you need to do so. But don't blame people for engaging with you if you're going to keep engaging with them as well.

It doesn't matter who started it. I'm asking you where you expect the conversation to go because you're the person who started this topic apparently looking for answers, but when you received those answers you kept the conversation going.

If I regard you as an antagonist, then it's because you were asked a direct and reasonable question about what you think TPTB should have done instead of darkening the bridge given the constraints under which they were operating, and you have entirely ignored the question (even "I honestly don't know, I just wish they'd come up with something else" would at least be minimal engagement), which makes it seem like you're not interested in discussing the topic that you yourself started because it went in a direction that you don't care for.

Belaboring a point to a bunch of people who already understand the point one is trying to make never makes sense to me. It's just a waste of time.

And on that note, don't expect me to respond to further posts in this vein, especially not if you're going to accuse me of "unfairness" for not further engaging with a sidebar that I barely care about to begin with.

 

[Mudd]

All these paragraphs of side discussion between two posters litigating how the other should respond to them is really dull, boring stuff to watch, if you came in here looking to participate in a conversation.

So, I'll just say that I didn't like the lighting in the movie, and leave.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

I liked it, so there!

 

[Mudd]

I liked it, so there!

"You are not of the Body!"

 

[DonIago]

Don't be a Herbert.

 

[CoveTom]

Voyager was also darker. Is that lighting problematic?

If I had been designing Voyager, I would have made the lighting brighter. But, no,I don't find it problematic because that is what Voyager has looked like and been designed for from the get-go. The biggest problem to me is that the Enterprise-D in Generations looks like a completely different ship from the one we'd come to know and love over seven years of TNG. It is very jarring how different it looks.

 

[CoveTom]

We get that you don't like the lighting, and you get that TPTB had no choice in the matter.

I mean, that's technically not true. TPTB could have chosen to spend the money to improve the quality of the sets so that they would hold up under TNG-style lighting. They chose not to. But amongst TPTB, Paramount could have chosen to give the production a larger budget and/or Berman could have chosen to allocate the budget differently.

 

[Dukhat]

I mean, that's technically not true. TPTB could have chosen to spend the money to improve the quality of the sets so that they would hold up under TNG-style lighting. They chose not to. But amongst TPTB, Paramount could have chosen to give the production a larger budget and/or Berman could have chosen to allocate the budget differently.

I don't think they had time to improve the sets. Weren't they already actively filming scenes for GEN while filming AGT?

They could have waited two years after AGT before producing GEN, and they could have built new sets and a new movie-quality filming model of the D. But Berman & Braga simply wanted a new ship for the films. So they weren't going to waste money building a new bridge set or refurbishing the old one for the D.

 

[Dukhat]

...and/or Berman could have chosen to allocate the budget differently.

Also on this note...A large portion of the budget was spent on two things: The sailing ship Enterprise on the holodeck, and the Stellar Cartography set. Neither one, in my opinion, was necessary. Everyone watching that movie already knew what a holodeck was, so the needless reiteration that 'hey, it looks like they're all at sea but really they're inside a space ship' shock value was overrated. Not to mention that the point of the program was Worf's promotion, which had nothing whatsoever to do with the story and was forgotten right afterwards. (It's true that the scene also sets up Data's want to install the emotion chip, but honestly they could have come up with a far less expensive way to segue into that.) As far as the Stellar Cartography set was concerned, they also could have just made it a small dark room with Picard brooding over Data's shoulder as he pinpoints the route of the Nexus. There was no need for that overblown vertigo-inducing CGI mess of a set.

So with more foresight, the budget could absolutely have been allocated to other things, like refurbishing sets, creating new filming models, etc.. but again, since their goal was to destroy the Enterprise-D, it would have been a waste to spend more money for that.

 

[Firebird]

I don't think they had time to improve the sets. Weren't they already actively filming scenes for GEN while filming AGT?

Yup, the Enterprise-B scenes in the prologue overlapped by a couple weeks with production on AGT. The studio fucked them on scheduling, and I’m not holding that against the Trek production team. They did the best they could with the time and money they had.

 

[The Wormhole]

Berman & Braga simply wanted a new ship for the films. So they weren't going to waste money building a new bridge set or refurbishing the old one for the D.

Well, Berman did anyway. Braga wasn't in a position of authority at that point, and wouldn't for another four years when he took over as showrunner on Voyager. In Generations he was just the junior most writer. And given all the demands from Berman and the studio on what had to be in that movie, junior writer on that movie is basically just glorified typist.

 

[The Wormhole]

A large portion of the budget was spent on two things: The sailing ship Enterprise on the holodeck, and the Stellar Cartography set.

Not to mention the new uniforms which were abandoned weren't exactly cheap either.

 

[Mudd]

Well, Berman did anyway. Braga wasn't in a position of authority at that point, and wouldn't for another four years when he took over as showrunner on Voyager. In Generations he was just the junior most writer. And given all the demands from Berman and the studio on what had to be in that movie, junior writer on that movie is basically just glorified typist.

Moore and Braga were a team. They'd worked together on TNG. However the suits may have figured things, I don't believe they approached collaboration as a junior/senior thing.

 

[The Wormhole]

Regardless, the decision to destroy the Enterprise D still wouldn't have been Braga's to make.

 

[Ragitsu]

I partly blame Deep Dish Nine for the lighting. This decision even carried over to Voyager.

 

[cooleddie74]

Not to mention the new uniforms which were abandoned weren't exactly cheap either.

And boy, were those glorified hotel bellboy uniforms correct to dump.