Second try finishing STID...better this time around.

[Therin of Andor]

Oooo! Unfortunately (for them), it's an Abramsverse Trek coloring book.

Waiting for someone to suggest it is a join-the-dots colouring book.

 

[Kotowboy]

Twice since i've bought the DVD - i've put it on to watch the Nibiru scene and before I know it - the film is over :P

 

[Therin of Andor]

John A. Alonzo certainly did NOT light Generations the same way they did the TV show, as the Ten Forward scene illustrates.

Agreed. People wondered why Data's makeup looked so different in "Generations" - had it been altered? No, but the way the sets were lit definitely were.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

And lighting also apparently explains why Prime Spock's hair looks so much darker in STID than in ST:XI.

 

[Kotowboy]

INS is just a bloated double episode full of classic Trek tropes. Not good, not bad, not really a movie.

It's really boring too.

 

[austen_pierce]

For example, people praise the Ten Forward lighting. However, the DP really didn't approach it like one would expect in film but the same way the[y] did on the show--he just threw more money at it.

John A. Alonzo certainly did NOT light Generations the same way they did the TV show, as the Ten Forward scene illustrates. I'm sure there were some holdovers from the set lighting for TV since all the catwalks and rigging were already in place, but the movie looks nothing like the TV show in terms of lighting design.

In the Generations commentary, it is stated that the production of All Good Things and Generations took place simultaneously. That explains why Generations plays out like an episode. The lighting in Generations is not TV, IS interesting, but now that I think about it, is probably done that way to distract us from the TV style writing and acting.

 

[Opus]

I actually preferred the lighting and how they made the sets look starkly different from TNG sets in GEN. It certainly wasn't the best TNG movie outing, but IMO it was the best looking of the four movies.

 

[Therin of Andor]

In the Generations commentary, it is stated that the production of All Good Things and Generations took place simultaneously.

More like "Generations" was in pre-production while "All Good Things..." was in production.

That explains why Generations plays out like an episode.

How?

The lighting in Generations is not TV, IS interesting, but now that I think about it, is probably done that way to distract us from the TV style writing and acting.

No, it was because the lighting and cinematography staff knew they were preparing seven-year-old TV sets for the big screen.

Not too sure on the difference between TV acting and motion picture acting. They are different to stage acting in many ways, but do actors really change their performances for the big and small screens?

 

[Leto_II]

I actually preferred the lighting and how they made the sets look starkly different from TNG sets in GEN. It certainly wasn't the best TNG movie outing, but IMO it was the best looking of the four movies.

I tend to agree with this assessment -- the production had the incomparable Oscar-winning cinematographer John Alonzo (who lensed, among many other films, Chinatown and Harold and Maude) at its service, which gave the picture a lush, visually-sumptuous look that none of the other TNG films came close to recreating.

In the Generations commentary, it is stated that the production of All Good Things and Generations took place simultaneously.

More like "Generations" was in pre-production while "All Good Things..." was in production.

Not quite correct -- Generations began principal photography in March, 1994, while the final episodes of TNG were still in production, with the opening sequences set aboard the Enterprise-B, Kirk's deleted spacediving scenes, etc., so there was definitely some actual production-overlap going on.

By the time "All Good Things..." wrapped, the TV cast was given two or three days off, and then shooting resumed on the bulk of the 24th Century scenes of the film.