bridge lighting in Generations

[Allyn Gibson]

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.

In 1994, I was a little annoyed at the lighting of the Enterprise sets in the film. I remember making a joke to my comic dealer at the time, "Did Picard forget to pay the electric bill or something?" Coming six months after the series ended, the Enterprise had a look, and it looked wrong in Generations to have Picard sitting in the dark. I didn't hate it, but it felt wrong. When I watch the film now, the lighting doesn't bother me, and some of it I chalk up to the D maybe having a different bridge module since "AGT" (ie., the extra stations), hence the different lighting.

Now, the Enterprise-E lighting over the next three films I hate. I just don't like the way the E looks as a living space.

 

[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."

When you stated the reason for the dim lighting, you explicitly prefaced it with the word "except". Which means you believed it contradicted me. It didn't, so it was logical for me to ask "So what?"

Regardless, had you phrased your point as a straightforward fact, instead of using the argumentative term "except", I wouldn't have responded in kind.

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.

You're characterizing this situation as a case of a person "repeatedly" complaining about something that can't be changed. @The Wormhole made a similar accusation, saying I've been going "on and on" about it.

Have I been "going on and on"? Let's look at the numbers:

• Before today, I'd posted a total of 7 times in this thread. That's 7 times over 10 days. Less than once per day. That's 7 out of a total 84 posts in the thread (up until my next contribution). Is that "going on and on"?
• By the time Wormhole accused me of "going on and on" today I'd added 4 more. So 11 posts over 11 days. An average of one per day. Is that "going and on"?
• Granted, I've now posted about 5 more times today after that. Nine posts in one day is admittedly much. But keep in mind half of those posts weren't directly complaining the lighting. Rather, they were explaining why it's reasonable to express disappointment over something that was unavoidable.

Bottom line, I expressed my disappointment in something and asked whether anyone shared my opinion. I weighed in 7 times over 10 days and in the context of 84 other posts, mostly responding to points that were directed at me. Then today I spent a bit of time discussing the lighting itself and lot of time defending myself against bullies. It's unfair for you to equate that with a coworker or family member whinging on incessantly about something for weeks.

 

[The Wormhole]

Your above post suggests I should express my disappoint if, and only if, I can offer a way it could have been avoided.

Not quite. But after you stated your opinion, everyone else came in and explained why the movie had to have dark lighting, you came in and basically said "I don't care, it still violates Gene's Vision and the franchise's artistic integrity." If you're going to acknowledge the necessity for the decision and still go on about the franchise's artistic integrity or the sanctity of Gene's Vision or whatever, it would be nice if you provided your thoughts on what should have been done instead, as otherwise it looks to our perspective like you're ignoring our attempts to explain production realities to you just so you can make sure we all know your opinion. And trust me, at this point, we all know your opinion on this matter.

 

[Atomic_Monkey]

Not quite. But after you stated your opinion, everyone else came in and explained why the movie had to have dark lighting, you came in and basically said "I don't care, it still violates Gene's Vision and the franchise's artistic integrity."

Why would I care? If I'm assessing whether the effect of X is positive or negative, the cause of X makes no difference to that determination.

Action: your car is totalled. Effect: you're going to have to spend down your savings to buy a new car. You judge those effects to be negative. In response I tell you the Cause: "A large truck ran into your parked car." SO WHAT?!?!?! How does knowing the reason your car is smashed affect your assessment of the consequences? What bearing does that play on your savings being depleted?

In this case, the action was the dimming of the lights. I'm disappointed in the effect (a change in tone and style). The cause (the need to mask cheap sets) in no way changes my assessment.

 

[cooleddie74]

I mean, darker and more toned-down set lighting were indeed Gene's Vision.™ Gene himself violated it when he brightened the Bridge lighting for the second TOS Pilot and then the regular series.

 

[Atomic_Monkey]

I mean, darker and more toned-down set lighting were indeed Gene's Vision.™ Gene himself violated it when he brightened the Bridge lighting for the second TOS Pilot and then the regular series.

This was already discussed above. Yes, Gene's vision was different earlier in his career, but by the time he produced TNG he had adopted the utopian vision that was projected on him. The lighting of Generations was inconsistent with that specific approach to TNG.

 

[cooleddie74]

Not....really. And by 1994 that bridge was no longer "his."

 

[CoveTom]

I have no problem with the lighting on the Defiant or DS9 or Voyager or even the Enterprise-E. But the Enterprise-D had a very specific look to it, established through seven years of TNG. To me, in both Generations and Picard season 3, it just doesn't feel like the Enterprise-D because of the differences in the lighting. The lighting just feels wrong and off to me.

Yes, I am well aware of real-world production reasons why they didn't go with the TNG lighting scheme in either of those instances, but I think it still looks wrong and I'm just never going to be a fan of it.

 

[Atomic_Monkey]

Not....really. And by 1994 that bridge was no longer "his."

In 1987, when the bridge was Gene's, he determined it would have bright lighting. That was his vision. When he stepped down Rick Berman took over. Berman maintained Gene's vision throughout the rest of the televised run of TNG

In 1994, the bridge was no longer Gene's. At that point, the lighting changed for the movie (as everyone will be quick to tell you, it was out of necessity). That change in lighting was for the movie inconsistent with lighting style of the TNG series as established by Gene and maintained by Berman.

 

[cooleddie74]

And yet Berman changed it for the movie. As was his right. Gene was no longer alive, and Rick had been running the franchise pretty much 24/7 since about 1989, making his own creative choices. What Gene wanted in 1987 held no concrete sway with, well, really anybody by the time he had passed away.

 

[Firebird]

And yet Berman changed it for the movie. As was his right. Gene was no longer alive, and Rick had been running the franchise pretty much 24/7 since about 1989, making his own creative choices. What Gene wanted in 1987 held no concrete sway with, well, really anybody by the time he had passed away.

And let’s be honest - Gene has already been kicked upstairs (again) after the first thirteen episodes of TNG due to the encroaching health problems brought on by years of substance abuse. At this point, everything was being run by Berman and Maurice Hurley. Gene only came into the office occasionally, and wasn’t really actively producing the show any longer.

 

[Atomic_Monkey]

Yes, I am well aware of real-world production reasons why they didn't go with the TNG lighting scheme in either of those instances, but I think it still looks wrong and I'm just never going to be a fan of it.

So you know the real-world reasons for the change in lighting, but that doesn't affect how you feel about it? Uh-oh. You better be careful. As crazy as it sounds, I've made that same statement and have been criticized by several people in this thread. See above.

 

[CoveTom]

And let’s be honest - Gene has already been kicked upstairs (again) after the first thirteen episodes of TNG due to the encroaching health problems brought on by years of substance abuse. At this point, everything was being run by Berman and Maurice Hurley. Gene only came into the office occasionally, and wasn’t really actively producing the show any longer.

Gene was pretty heavily involved throughout the entirety of the first season and still maintained quite a bit of involvement during the second. Maurice Hurley's battles with him during the second season have become somewhat famous. It was really during the third season that he began to withdraw and let Rick Berman run the show.

 

[Atomic_Monkey]

And yet Berman changed it for the movie. As was his right. Gene was no longer alive, and Rick had been running the franchise pretty much 24/7 since about 1989, making his own creative choices. What Gene wanted in 1987 held no concrete sway with, well, really anybody by the time he had passed away.

You're misunderstanding my point. I'm not debating whether Berman had a right to do it. Of course he did. As you say, it was his show by that point. I'm simply stating that the lighting style of the movie was not consistent with the TV series. We can debate whether that was good or bad, but there's no debate on whether it's true.

In words, Gene had a vision for TNG. When Berman took over he stuck with that vision throughout the rest of the series. When the movie came around, Berman wasn't as strict. We can argue whether that was for the better or worse, but we should agree to those basic facts.

 

[cooleddie74]

And the basic fact is a lot of fans aren't that bothered by the lighting. If you are, that's your right as a fan and more power to you, but a lot of Trekkies didn't mind or loved the cinematography choices made for the film. Hey, even I'm not 100% on board EVERY lighting change made in the movie. Data's quarters were too much of a radical downgrade in lighting for me, but for the most part I think it worked.

To each their own, but for me I was 90% satisfied or very impressed.

 

[Atomic_Monkey]

it looks to our perspective like you're ignoring our attempts to explain production realities to you just so you can make sure we all know your opinion.

Ignoring??? Every time someone has explained the production realities I've address them. Specifically, I point out their lack of relevance. You may not like my responses, but it's inaccurate to characterize them as "ignoring".

And trust me, at this point, we all know your opinion on this matter.

Again, you're suggesting that my making 11 posts over 11 days (averaging one per day) was excessive. That's unfair. (Yes, I've made plenty of additional posts after that, but at the time you first suggested I was "going on and on" that was the total.)

 

[The Salt Umpire]

And the basic fact is a lot of fans aren't that bothered by the lighting. If you are, that's your right as a fan and more power to you, but a lot of Trekkies didn't mind or loved the cinematography choices made for the film. Hey, even I'm not 100% on board EVERY lighting change made in the movie. Data's quarters were too much of a radical downgrade in lighting for me, but for the most part I think it worked.

To each their own, but for me I was 90% satisfied or very impressed.

The only lighting choice that offends me is too many lensflares. Bright lighting like inside Discovery or dark inside Serenity when she's out of gas, it's all good.

 

[fireproof78]

Voyager was also darker. Is that lighting problematic?

 

[cooleddie74]

VOY had the dimmest bridge lighting of any hero ship in Legacy Trek. Even ENT had a brighter, cheerier bridge and it was set over 200 years prior and in an era of far more primitive starships.

 

[Firebird]

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.