Starship design history in light of Discovery
- Thread starter INACTIVEUSS Einstein
- Start date
I enjoy both types of scenes. I'm one who can follow action regardless of the camera or lighting. Comes from having crappy TVs as a kid.
In every shot of the 1701-D there was a shuttle flying *behind* the camera whose job it was to shine a giant floodlight at the ship. Their mission was worlds away from “seek out new life, etc.” since such things were not the concern of the Ship Glorification Team.
All kidding aside, I wholeheartedly second this:
Talking about starship design in “light” (see what I did there) of DSC would be much easier if we had beautifully lit ships that were filmed without shaky cam.
Much as I love BSG I did wish they’d have kept the camera still at times so we could see the Pegasus ram a basestar (spoilers?).
I know DSC is trying to compete with other modern sci-fi shows but I’d prefer it if they’d take a leaf out of the Book of Old Trek when lighting their ships. One or two of them looked ok - it’d be nice to be able to see them properly.
NCC-1701-DIVA amirite?
and special added lens flare...
Well she was equal parts state of the art warship and fabulous ballroom...!
So is the inside of a closet, but there's usually a convenient level of lighting inside one in a series or a movie to see what's going on. "Space is dark" is only a satisfying answer if we're talking about real life and even then you can SEE most space objects and asteroids in photographs and pretty easily.
This is science fiction and popular entertainment. Leave most dark space shots in documentaries and science programs, thank you very much. Star Trek isn't going to lose the scientifically-literate audience if starships are well-illuminated. "But space isn't that brightly lit! I'M BOYCOTTING!" Well. More Trek for us, then, huh?
The ship's running lights?
Fun Fact: transporters aren't scientifically realistic, either. Let's get rid of them and make Star Trek more believable.
#ThinkOfTheChildren
#ThinkOfTheChildren
Did you know phasers wouldn't actually go ppphhhhheeeewwwww in space?
Convenient, yes, but still able to convey a suitable impression of low lighting. They don't shoot night scenes in broad daylight (or if they do, with day-for-night shooting, it looks blatantly fake). And most of us know what something like a jet plane or a truck on a lonely highway looks like at night. We're familiar with the look of self-illuminated vehicles in non-illuminated surroundings. If someone created a shot of such a vehicle where there were bright key and fill light shining on it even though its surroundings were dark, that would stand out to our eyes as incongruous and wrong. Seeing it lit correctly is perfectly comprehensible to the eye and feels right because it matches our real-life experience. I'm just saying, treat vehicles in space the same way.
Besides, TMP solved the problem of lighting a spaceship (more or less) realistically nearly 40 years ago. It's not that hard to make it work. It's just that most productions don't bother.
You are actually serious?
This isn't tongue in cheek, you actually wake up in the morning and think about this stuff as if it matters?
Or we could just enjoy Star Trek lighting levels the way they were always done until 2017 and realize the universe won't come to a screeching halt if Neil DeGrasse Tyson doesn't bestow the producers of DSC with a scientific accuracy award.
Most people don't and won't watch Trek for bulletproof, peer-reviewed scientific accuracy. That's why we call it popular entertainment and it's lasted more than half a century.
Most people don't and won't watch Trek for bulletproof, peer-reviewed scientific accuracy. That's why we call it popular entertainment and it's lasted more than half a century.
This is a Star Trek discussion board, thinking about this stuff as if it matters is the reason most of us are here.
Sure.
That's what makes Star Trek so successful and iconic, the anal attention to believability and real world science
Sells books too.
"Always?" No. See Star Trek: The Motion Picture.
What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with science. It has to do with what looks right on a visceral and aesthetic level. We all know from firsthand experience what planes and buildings and so forth look like at night, lit from within. And it can be downright gorgeous. It's a striking and worthwhile aesthetic in its own right. Darkness has always, always been a valid and worthwhile part of the filmmaker's or artist's palette. There's a whole genre of film literally named for it, film noir. Indeed, Star Trek's director of photography Jerry Finnerman was trained in film noir techniques and loved painting with light and shadow. Using shading and darkness was very much a part of TOS's aesthetic. The only reason it wasn't part of the starship shots was because the technology wasn't there in the '60s. But it was part of TMP's aesthetic, and TMP proved that it can look utterly beautiful. I don't understand your hostility to it.
No. DSC doesn't look right.
For Star Trek it fails to look like Star Trek. The interiors may be brilliantly executed but the producers' ideas of what space should look like in this franchise with nebulae and gas clouds everywhere(yet still the galaxy looks like a black light poster in a stoner's dorm)yet the illumination levels of a man carrying a candle are pretty irritating and don't feel nor look right.
Only these producers could put a self-illuminated starship near a nebula and still have the show look like it's suffering from glaucoma. Turn up the lights a little. Even TMP was a lot brighter and cheerier than this.
For Star Trek it fails to look like Star Trek. The interiors may be brilliantly executed but the producers' ideas of what space should look like in this franchise with nebulae and gas clouds everywhere(yet still the galaxy looks like a black light poster in a stoner's dorm)yet the illumination levels of a man carrying a candle are pretty irritating and don't feel nor look right.
Only these producers could put a self-illuminated starship near a nebula and still have the show look like it's suffering from glaucoma. Turn up the lights a little. Even TMP was a lot brighter and cheerier than this.
I never said it did. I've already said I think DSC looks terrible. But I'm not talking about DSC, I'm talking about TMP, about The Expanse, about Interstellar, about the fact that more realistic space lighting than Trek's has been done successfully before on multiple occasions. That has nothing to do with Discovery. It's just about not reducing everything to a simplistic binary.
Yeah, um, you'd be surprised.
Regardless, dark or bright, I like space. Always have and always will. I will continue to be the outlier who has no problem with Discovery's lighting.
So just to be clear, has Star Trek thus far failed to be a monumental success as a consequence of the ships looking unrealistically bright as they make whooshing noises in a vacuum and bank turn like real world aircraft in an atmosphere?
Is it not one of the largest, most long lived and recognisable media franchises of all time?
We'd best all get to work work writing some very scientifically accurate fan fiction which will be incredibly popular and save Star Trek.
Is it not one of the largest, most long lived and recognisable media franchises of all time?
We'd best all get to work work writing some very scientifically accurate fan fiction which will be incredibly popular and save Star Trek.