Hello, there. First time poster, long-time lurked. Sometime I'll introduce myself. But I must make a comment and then ask for you TNG viewers to respond. It's been so compelling to me I went through the laborious process of registering/posting from a mobile device! Here it is:
It's clear TNG's SFX are way behind that of VOY (which is the first series that hooked me enough to start obtaining DVDs and taping it off tv until I'd seen most episodes many times). I later discovered TNG to be equally (if not more so) compelling than VOY. This often caused me to regret the state of the art of SFX and overall visual production quality in the TNG era. "If only TNG could look as good as VOY," I would say to myself.
(An aside: I don't wish to embue too much importance to visual quality. ENT clearly had by far the best, but I really don't care for the show much.)
Nevertheless, I found certain visuals of TNG so bad to the point of distraction. For example, too-obvious sets on away missions, the cardboard-looking type 5 (?) shuttle seen closeup in Time Squared, and the recurring 1980s' hair and clothing styles. Worst, the show's visual identity and style dramatically changed as the series progressed, yet another barrier to suspending disbelief and immersing myself in this alternate reality.
Now, however, my opinion of the aforementioned has completely changed. I still don't deny the changing visuals, but now I see it as adding to the realism. After all, styles and technology changes rapidly in our era, so why not expect the same in TNG? For example, seven years ago, the iPod touch that I use to compose this would seem out-of-place. Hair and clothing preferences change.
People age, too. This was most apparent on TNG, probably more so than most shows (except for ones with kids). It's easy to make fun or chastise the characters for such things as weight gain (Riker), but I think it makes it appear more realistic. While the actors were all above-average in looks, none would be mistaken for a model as in so many shows today (even Archer's physique is suspiciously chiseled for an aged starship captain, and Travis on ENT looks more like a NFL safety than a starship pilot. And don't get me started on Seven and T'Pol! They certainly don't add to the immersion quality.). I liked the "homeliness" (by Hollywood standards) of the Enterprise-D crew, though I much preferred Ms. Troi covered-up.
So now I view the visual evolution of TNG as a strength--much in the same way the characters developed/changed (viz., Worf) over the series.
Now what's your opinion? Do you appreciate it for the reasons I listed, or do you wish it could've been done with today's vastly improved visuals?
I'm hoping for some answers, for this took me an hour to do on my little iPod! (And also for that reason, please forgive in advance the undoubtedly present typos, etc. Proof-reading and correct are extraordinarily difficult on this device.)
--Cepstrum
It's clear TNG's SFX are way behind that of VOY (which is the first series that hooked me enough to start obtaining DVDs and taping it off tv until I'd seen most episodes many times). I later discovered TNG to be equally (if not more so) compelling than VOY. This often caused me to regret the state of the art of SFX and overall visual production quality in the TNG era. "If only TNG could look as good as VOY," I would say to myself.
(An aside: I don't wish to embue too much importance to visual quality. ENT clearly had by far the best, but I really don't care for the show much.)
Nevertheless, I found certain visuals of TNG so bad to the point of distraction. For example, too-obvious sets on away missions, the cardboard-looking type 5 (?) shuttle seen closeup in Time Squared, and the recurring 1980s' hair and clothing styles. Worst, the show's visual identity and style dramatically changed as the series progressed, yet another barrier to suspending disbelief and immersing myself in this alternate reality.
Now, however, my opinion of the aforementioned has completely changed. I still don't deny the changing visuals, but now I see it as adding to the realism. After all, styles and technology changes rapidly in our era, so why not expect the same in TNG? For example, seven years ago, the iPod touch that I use to compose this would seem out-of-place. Hair and clothing preferences change.
People age, too. This was most apparent on TNG, probably more so than most shows (except for ones with kids). It's easy to make fun or chastise the characters for such things as weight gain (Riker), but I think it makes it appear more realistic. While the actors were all above-average in looks, none would be mistaken for a model as in so many shows today (even Archer's physique is suspiciously chiseled for an aged starship captain, and Travis on ENT looks more like a NFL safety than a starship pilot. And don't get me started on Seven and T'Pol! They certainly don't add to the immersion quality.). I liked the "homeliness" (by Hollywood standards) of the Enterprise-D crew, though I much preferred Ms. Troi covered-up.
So now I view the visual evolution of TNG as a strength--much in the same way the characters developed/changed (viz., Worf) over the series.
Now what's your opinion? Do you appreciate it for the reasons I listed, or do you wish it could've been done with today's vastly improved visuals?
I'm hoping for some answers, for this took me an hour to do on my little iPod! (And also for that reason, please forgive in advance the undoubtedly present typos, etc. Proof-reading and correct are extraordinarily difficult on this device.)
--Cepstrum
I was about 14 or so.
I personally think when he got older on the set he aged like fine wine.
