The "Movie" aesthetic.

[flottanna]

Does anyone else here feel that Discovery is over doing it with the supposed film like atheistic of the show? I look at a lot of shots and they seem extra fake to me, worse than a lot of previous trek shows. I kind of think it's because they are over doing it on the CG and computer effects. Sometimes a little more simple is better, for me.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I think the show looks really good. The CG isn't up to the standard of the recent movies, but that's to be expected for a series.

 

[flottanna]

I think the show looks really good. The CG isn't up to the standard of the recent movies, but that's to be expected for a series.

Maybe I explained it wrong. It's not the CG exactly, I think the ship stuff looks great. I was more saying that it seems like every shot even them just walking on the ship has some kind of computer generated aspect. Just two people talking in the shuttle bay looks fake.

 

[Rahul]

DIS has one very clear aesthetic problem: A thick unsharpness filter. I don't know why, probably because it makes the CGI-effects being easier to incorporate. Maybe they don't stand out as much from the image, or they can add CGI better in a moving image, or some other technical reason. But whatever it is, it indeed diminishes the picture quality.

If you put a screenshot of ENT (or, hell, TNG remastered) next to a screenshot of DIS, you will notice that the former look a lot sharper and crisper than the latter. It looks like an aesthetical choice (like the lens flares and dutch angles in the pilots), but it's one I'm not too happy with.

 

[XCV330]

Does anyone else here feel that Discovery is over doing it with the supposed film like atheistic of the show? I look at a lot of shots and they seem extra fake to me, worse than a lot of previous trek shows. I kind of think it's because they are over doing it on the CG and computer effects. Sometimes a little more simple is better, for me.

A lot of the space scenes have a stylized painted look, and I like it.

 

[Captain pl1ngpl0ng]

I think the show looks great too and im not bothered by lens-flare etc,
but after going through tons of screencaps i do find it to be a bit dark, literally.

 

[Qonundrum]

The aesthetic looks great! A lot of plot content, certainly from youtube clips, is compelling and has the right tone and detail that blew my expectations away, it's very easy to see why - as an overall show - it got renewed so quickly.

I just wish they wouldn't use modern day hipster slang lingo, it's a step down compared to all the previous Trek shows, wannabe-words like "tech" have no place. Amazed that nobody says how they're going to the local store to buy "merch" (a word that was coined in 1982 and was quickly buried because the valley speak was too insipid for valley speakers to even want to say back then, what the heck happened.... end of whinyrant.)

 

[Jayson1]

The visual look I think is very good but to me the sets don't seem all that more advanced than what you saw on DS9,Voyager and Enterprise but the dark lighting and computer graphics for consoles and viewscreens kind of make them look more advanced. Actually DS9 did this in it's first 2 seasons as well and visually DS9 never looked better than it did in season 2 when I believe Marvin Rush was still in charge of that. Things still looked good in the later seasons but the look is just one of the many reasons why season 2 is the best season of the show and the second best in all of Trek history.

Jason

 

[gblews]

I just wish they wouldn't use modern day hipster slang lingo, it's a step down compared to all the previous Trek shows, wannabe-words like "tech" have no place.

Why shouldn't DSC use words like "tech"?

I might agree about the use of slang, depending on the word or expression. This is a problem that plagues The Orville and to me, it's very distracting.

 

[The Wormhole]

Maybe I explained it wrong. It's not the CG exactly, I think the ship stuff looks great. I was more saying that it seems like every shot even them just walking on the ship has some kind of computer generated aspect. Just two people talking in the shuttle bay looks fake.

The shuttlebay, I'm pretty sure is a digital set.

I might agree about the use of slang, depending on the word or expression. This is a problem that plagues The Orville and to me, it's very distracting.

What's annoying is that Star Trek traditionally goes out of its way to avoid using simple everyday terms. Rather than calling a spade a spade, Trek in the past would come up with something long-winded and overly descriptive to call it, probably because spade is "lazy writing" and not how writers "earn their paycheck" according to the Roddenberry Box.

If Discovery and Orville want to call a spade a spade, than that's not a problem at all.

 

[ralfy]

I think they are treating it like a Hollywood tent-pole targeted to a global audience. From what I read, each episode costs around $8 million, which means the production cost of each season is equivalent to that of a movie. They needed international sales from Netflix to cover the cost.

 

[SPCTRE]

The show looks fantastic, really happy with the aesthetics.

 

[DavidHill]

I think its very wonderfool

 

[SPCTRE]

What's annoying is that Star Trek traditionally goes out of its way to avoid using simple everyday terms. Rather than calling a spade a spade, Trek in the past would come up with something long-winded and overly descriptive to call it, probably because spade is "lazy writing" and not how writers "earn their paycheck" according to the Roddenberry Box.

If Discovery and Orville want to call a spade a spade, than that's not a problem at all.

that's all well and good, now would you please hand me the Portable Excavation Appliance

 

[cultcross]

wannabe-words like "tech" have no place.

It's lasted over 100 years so far, it's useful and widely understood. Can't see 'tech' going anywhere anytime soon.

 

[Gul Sengosts]

I definitely think so. It's generally an over-the-top stylised show, with the extreme lighting, the JJ Abrams style camera jobs, the dialogue that seems to focus on pointed one- and two-liners instead of people talking with each other in a more or less natural way. Everything's just so artificial. Add to that the fast, nervous, disconnected jumping back and forth between themes, and for much of the time it feels to me like watching movie trailers.

 

[eschaton]

I dunno. With the exception of the opening episodes, and the mid-season finale, DSC doesn't feel very cinematic to me.

For example, most of the episodes take place almost entirely on Discovery sets. Discounting the pilot episodes, there has only been two episodes with location shooting (Vulcan, and Pahvo). Much of the off-Discovery action has taken place is cramped quarters like shuttlecrafts and corridors of Klingon ships. There's very little sense of awe and majesty as to set design. It feels rather claustrophobic.

Another example is how friggin empty this series is. Aside from the Vulcan scenes, I can't think of a shot which involved enough extras to look crowded. Part of this is of course by design, because the sort of missions that Discovery has been on haven't interfaced with densely populated planets. But it still feels much more "theater-like" than "movie like" in its cast presentation.

I do think the writing is done in a cinematic style however, which is a detriment to the show. Clearly it's not using the "Save the Cat" formula, but it seems to hew to modern scriptwriting, where the cast doesn't have conversations unless they directly relate to the plot or the protagonist. They need to take some time and realize they're working on a longer-form series and can have more loose character interactions.

 

[flottanna]

Seems like a lot of people like the look. I don't think the look is bad at all. I just think it;s a little over done.

 

[zar]

DIS has one very clear aesthetic problem: A thick unsharpness filter. I don't know why, probably because it makes the CGI-effects being easier to incorporate. Maybe they don't stand out as much from the image, or they can add CGI better in a moving image, or some other technical reason. But whatever it is, it indeed diminishes the picture quality.

If you put a screenshot of ENT (or, hell, TNG remastered) next to a screenshot of DIS, you will notice that the former look a lot sharper and crisper than the latter. It looks like an aesthetical choice (like the lens flares and dutch angles in the pilots), but it's one I'm not too happy with.

Yes, this is strange and doesn't really look good.

And the shuttlebay is fake for sure:

But overall I'm not seeing CGI overused, and where it is used, it works pretty great.

I just wish they wouldn't use modern day hipster slang lingo, it's a step down compared to all the previous Trek shows, wannabe-words like "tech" have no place. Amazed that nobody says how they're going to the local store to buy "merch" (a word that was coined in 1982 and was quickly buried because the valley speak was too insipid for valley speakers to even want to say back then, what the heck happened.... end of whinyrant.)

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but "tech" has been a valid word since before Star Trek, and has even been spoken in Trek since TOS. Shortening words is incredibly common in professional jargon. Also heard in Star Trek are "hypo", "holo", and "comm". If you ask me, it could use even more of this.

 

[mos6507]

I think they're seriously overusing dollies.

They've wired up the bridge sort of like an Evening News studio where the camera sort of orbits around and they have it moving...constantly...relentlessly. It just makes you seasick after a while.

Here is an example of what I'm talking about. It's movement for the sake of movement. There is NO RESTRAINT on this show. It's seriously over-indulgent to the point of grotesque.

Here's another example where they always have to move the camera to create a shifting background. It's seriously ADD. Just lock the camera down for one shot, dammit!