bridge lighting in Generations

[Atomic_Monkey]

I realize this subject has likely already been debated to death, but I'm new to TNG fandom and this is my first opportunity to express my opinion on a subject I feel strongly about. I apologize in advance and thank everyone for their patience and indulgence.

I hated the dark and gloomy lighting of Enterprise bridge in Generations.

1.) It was unrealistic and would be a depressing place to work. A vessel intended to house crew members for years at a time would be designed with an environment that promotes psychological wellness, not melancholy. Outside of a restaurant where the lighting may be dimmed to create a mood, most people's workspaces are not defined by high contrast shadows on the walls and edges of the room cloaked in darkness.

2.) I appreciate that fiction needn't be 100% realistic and there can be artistic motivations behind lighting schemes. Directors may choose gloomy lighting to create an atmosphere or mood of somberness, despair or dystopia. But that doesn't fit with the tone of Stark Trek in general or this movie in particularly. Artistically, it makes no sense.

3.) I believe many people prefer this lighting style because it's supposedly more cinematic. True, most modern, high-budget sci-fi subscribes to this visual design. But that makes it a cliche. Star Trek is supposed to be unique and stand out from other sci-fi, not conform to it. Star Trek is supposed to give audiences an alternative, not more of the same.

4.) Finally, this didn't have to be a binary choice: "bright as the TV series" versus "dark and gloomy". They could have dimmed the lighting a bit without going to the extreme. For example, in Picard Season 3 the lighting of the Enterprise D was much softer than it had been in TNG, yet brighter than it had been in Generations. That seemed like a reasonable compromise to me.

 

[Set Harth]

I'm old enough to remember when restaurants had dim lighting, before the lawyers took over. It was better.

A case could be made that dim lighting does not automatically create depression or melancholy, and that this sort of thing reflects the psychological landscape of the individual. Not everyone is overjoyed by interiors that are lit up like a doctor's office.

 

[Firebird]

IIRC, the lower lighting (which I actually love) was to help the television-grade sets read better on large cinema screens. The production only had a limited time to try to get the sets refurbished between production on the series ended and the first day of filming on the movie.

I’m pretty sure the lighting levels between Generations and Picard aren’t actually that different, now that I think back on it. At least John Alonzo did something interesting with the refurbished Bridge. Picard’s cinematographer lit the set so plain and boring because they only had a couple days to film the set.

 

[The Wormhole]

It was unrealistic and would be a depressing place to work.

Given it's a place where people need to look at computer monitors all day, dimmer lighting actually makes more sense as you want to eliminate reflective glare and help people see their screens better. This is done in the real world and on Star Trek we see it on some shows in movies when the lights go out for when the ship is at red alert. Indeed, Ron Moore even cited it as the reason for why BSG's CIC had dim lighting.

But as mentioned above, the deciding factor in the dark lighting in Generations was the fact that they were on sets built for TV that were already seven years old and they had to cover up the flaws that a film camera would have picked up that a TV camera didn't. Indeed, you'll note the lighting isn't anywhere near as severely dark in the scenes on the Enterprise B or the Klingon Bird of Prey, as they were filmed on sets which were originally built for movies. Likewise, the lighting isn't as bad on the other TNG movies, with the notable exceptions of scenes where they were reusing sets from DS9 or Voyager.

 

[Captain Marsh]

I'm old enough to remember when restaurants had dim lighting, before the lawyers took over. It was better.

A case could be made that dim lighting does not automatically create depression or melancholy, and that this sort of thing reflects the psychological landscape of the individual. Not everyone is overjoyed by interiors that are lit up like a doctor's office.

Not to mention some people have sensitivity to lights

 

[CoveTom]

I have always maintained, and still maintained, that the lighting looked ridiculous in Generations. It looked as though the technology for the 60 watt lightbulb had been lost to history. I don't think it looked "cinematic" at all -- it just looked dark. The Enterprise-B bridge looked far better than the D.

 

[Firebird]

I really don't see how this looks that dark, honestly. I'd chalk this up more in the "dramatic" lighting category.

 

[Firebird]

And for comparison, here's the way the set was lit for Picard, which strikes me as very flat, a common way a lot of shows and movies are shot these days. It's done for the speed of setups to avoid having to relight the set to film different angles. You just bombard it with diffused light through a reflector box.

 

[Atomic_Monkey]

I really don't see how this looks that dark, honestly. I'd chalk this up more in the "dramatic" lighting category.

​

Look how dark the turbolift and observation lounge alcoves are. And you can barely see the lights along the bulkhead. Compare it to this photo:

 

[Atomic_Monkey]

And for comparison, here's the way the set was lit for Picard, which strikes me as very flat, a common way a lot of shows and movies are shot these days. It's done for the speed of setups to avoid having to relight the set to film different angles. You just bombard it with diffused light through a reflector box.

​

Do you not see a difference between this photo and the ones you posted of Generations? Again, look at the alcoves.

 

[Firebird]

Look how dark the turbolift and observation lounge alcoves are. And you can barely see the lights along the bulkhead. Compare it to this photo:

Why does it matter how light or dark the alcoves are? They're not the focal point of any part of the action in the scene.

 

[Atomic_Monkey]

Why does it matter how light or dark the alcoves are? They're not the focal point of any part of the action in the scene.

You said you didn't believe the Generations bridge was dark. I pointed to the alcoves as evidence that it was indeed dark. I made no comment on the importance of lighting the alcoves. I was just trying to help you understand what I'm seeing.

Were I to judge the alcove lighting, then I would say it's too dark. Why? See points 1 through 4 in my original post.

Lighting sets based strictly on the action in the scene is known as "theatrical" lighting. I don't like it. But more importantly, it's inconsistent with the established visual style and tone of classic Star Trek.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Seen on a good TV, Generations looks fantastic. Star Trek: Discovery would shamelessly rip off the lighting style decades later, including the evening sunlight through windows lighting otherwise dark rooms

 

[Firebird]

Lighting sets based strictly on the action in the scene (i.e. being cinematic) is not persuasive to me. It's cliched, sacrifices worldbuilding, and in this case undermines the tone.

That doesn't align with the last 100 years of international filmmaking. Action and intent are all part of the tone of the piece, and the lighting is part and parcel with it.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

I'm definitely in the group that prefers the TV series lighting. It looks more like a comfortable place that people work, it's less dingy and unwelcoming.

Both are much better than Picard's lighting though. They did such an amazing job recreating the set, then made it look so dull.

 

[NCC-73515]

Perhaps GEN happened during the night shifts

 

[Sketcher]

Overhead lighting is the worst kind of lighting.

 

[Atomic_Monkey]

This is done in the real world and on Star Trek we see it on some shows in movies when the lights go out for when the ship is at red alert.

In the real world, most workspaces, even those with computers, are not reduced to the equivalent of candle light with high contrast shadows on the wall and edges of the room cloaked in darkness. Perhaps restaurants and clubs with mood lighting, but that's about it.

But as mentioned above, the deciding factor in the dark lighting in Generations was the fact that they were on sets built for TV that were already seven years old and they had to cover up the flaws that a film camera would have picked up that a TV camera didn't.

I understand that and concede it's a valid practical reason to go with less light. But that doesn't refute any of my points.

For example, it can be simultaneously true that the cheap set necessitated dim light, and at the same time it can be true that dim lighting is artistically at odds with the aesthetic of Star Trek. Those ideas are not mutually exclusive. Dim lighting is typically associated with dystopian sci-fi. It makes sense in Aliens, Blade Runner and the like, but not in Star Trek.

 

[Atomic_Monkey]

Indeed, you'll note the lighting isn't anywhere near as severely dark in the scenes on the Enterprise B or the Klingon Bird of Prey, as they were filmed on sets which were originally built for movies. Likewise, the lighting isn't as bad on the other TNG movies, with the notable exceptions of scenes where they were reusing sets from DS9 or Voyager.

Yes, I did notice that. It absolutely supports your contention the lights were turned down on the D to mask its cheap sets.

But at the same time, it also supports my contention that the lighting on the D was less than ideal. The fact that the directors better illuminated every other set and ever other movie suggest that brighter lighting is preferred. The D's dim lightly was a necessary evil would have been avoided had the sets been nicer.

In other words, the better illumination on every other set simultaneous supports the idea that the sets were dimmed to mask imperfections and that dim lighting is not good. Those ideas are not mutually exclusive.

 

[The Wormhole]

I understand that and concede it's a valid practical reason to go with less light. But that doesn't refute any of my points.

For example, it can be simultaneously true that the cheap set necessitated dim light, and at the same time it can be true that dim lighting is artistically at odds with the aesthetic of Star Trek. Those ideas are not mutually exclusive. Dim lighting is typically associated with dystopian sci-fi. It makes sense in Aliens, Blade Runner and the like, but not in Star Trek.

Yes, I did notice that. It absolutely supports your contention the lights were turned down on the D to mask its cheap sets.

But at the same time, it also supports my contention that the lighting on the D was less than ideal. After all, the fact that the directors better illuminated every other set and ever other movie suggest that brighter lighting is prefered. Which means the D's bridge would have more brightly lit had the sets been nicer.

In other words, the better illumination on every other set simultaneous supports the idea that the sets were dimmed to mask imperfections and that dim lighting is not good. Those ideas are not mutually exclusive.

Then what was the alternative? Given the tight timeframe they had to film the movie practically immediately after TNG finished filming in order to make a November release, they did not have time or money to build completely new sets, especially since the plan was scrap them all when the movie was finished filming. I guarantee, anyone who works in the Biz will tell you if it comes down to a choice between exposing how cheap looking the set actually are or compromising the "aesthetic integrity" of the fictional world the movie is set in, well, that's a pretty easy choice to make.