Why did people dislike the "TNG aesthetic"?

[2takesfrakes]

In STAR TREK, civilian clothes are a joke. They're distracting with how stupid-looking they are, for the most part. They don't even appear comfortable, most of the time. Often, women's outfits look like they're on the verge of a wardrobe malfunction. And was it in VOY, I'm believing it was in an episode I saw, there was an actual robot featured. And it looked so incredibly stupid, so laughable ... C-3PO, this thing was not. It looked like a cheap Halloween costume. I'm not a fan of Robert Blackman's work and I hate a lot of the clothes in TNG, especially the uniforms. BUT ... the ENTERPRISE-D is very elegant and stately, the interiors are luxurious and lavishly appointed. Then they started blanket-lighting everything around Season 3. The sets need more attention to the ligthing than that, doing it House Style is bad for the eyes ...

 

[Lance]

... the ENTERPRISE-D is very elegant and stately, the interiors are luxurious and lavishly appointed. Then they started blanket-lighting everything around Season 3. The sets need more attention to the ligthing than that, doing it House Style is bad for the eyes ...

I think this is part of the problem. Ironically, at exactly the point where many people say the show got better in its writing etc, they changed lighting directors and the sets started being flood lit by the new guy. That didn't help. In seasons one and two, and again in Generations, the lighting directors paid due care and attention to the best way of showing these sets. Heck, many times in S1 and S2, the bridge was lit like a film noir. Between S3 and S7 it was just like, "switch all the lights on and start shooting the scene".

Wasn't the 1987 Galaxy-class bridge set the same size as the old 1966 Constitution-class bridge set? They just have less stuff around the edges and only the woodwork rail rather than railing all the way around the command pit.

I believe it was slightly deeper due to the design featuring ramps, but the width was exactly the same.

It apparently wasn't quite as big in reality as it looked on screen, either (due to the lenses used to film it). I remember the people behind the Star Trek Experience in Vegas making the point that their replica Enterprise bridge was built to the exact same specifications as the one on TV, but it felt smaller due to people being used to it looking bigger on the TV screen.

 

[2takesfrakes]

The only reason to "turn all the lights on and start shooting" as you say, is because it ends up $aving "them" time and time, of course, is money. It's always kind of frustrating when you're an Artist working in the commercial arena. On one hand, you've got a lot of great talent around you and better resources. On the other hand, Artistry often takes a back seat to doing everything easier, faster and cheaper. That's why it always surprises me, when I see Hollywood suddenly being concerned with Artistry, especially the studio heads.

As you say, the first couple of seasons in TNG were a little more concerned with presentation than maybe Rick wanted to be later on. From a production standpoint, it makes alot of sense doing that, especially when its FREE TV. But I would argue that the subtlety of lighting, the pleasing imagery that helps create, actually sustains higher ratings, because it's - quite literally - a joy to behold! At the very least, great lighting wouldn't cause lower ratings. It just would've been nice to see TNG getting everything it deserved ...

 

[Nightdiamond]

The funny thing is when their first movie Generations came out, they lowered the lighting to give it the 'movie effect'.

Some fans complained about that.

The civilian clothes -- it was pretty bad at times. The jumpsuits, the drab colors, the looking like you stepped out of victorian times designs.

It even went on into the early DS9 episodes. Look at Jake's jumpsuit.

The funny thing is TOS had some losers too, but it had some cool designs, especially considering the time it aired and it was on TV.

The outfit that female Romulan commander wore, and the outfits (near the end of the episodes) from The Cloud Miners were pretty cool, and hot.

 

[Cyke101]

The funny thing is when their first movie Generations came out, they lowered the lighting to give it the 'movie effect'.

Some fans complained about that.

The civilian clothes -- it was pretty bad at times. The jumpsuits, the drab colors, the looking like you stepped out of victorian times designs.

It even went on into the early DS9 episodes. Look at Jake's jumpsuit.

The funny thing is TOS had some losers too, but it had some cool designs, especially considering the time it aired and it was on TV.

The outfit that female Romulan commander wore, and the outfits (near the end of the episodes) from The Cloud Miners were pretty cool, and hot.

It makes me think of the fashion trends of the times. The 60s were vibrant and sharp and eyepopping. The early 90s gave us... oversized business suits, shoulder pads, pastel colors, strange fabric designs. TOS and TNG would reflect those trends.

 

[Nightdiamond]

The funny thing is when their first movie Generations came out, they lowered the lighting to give it the 'movie effect'.

Some fans complained about that.

The civilian clothes -- it was pretty bad at times. The jumpsuits, the drab colors, the looking like you stepped out of victorian times designs.

It even went on into the early DS9 episodes. Look at Jake's jumpsuit.

The funny thing is TOS had some losers too, but it had some cool designs, especially considering the time it aired and it was on TV.

The outfit that female Romulan commander wore, and the outfits (near the end of the episodes) from The Cloud Miners were pretty cool, and hot.

It makes me think of the fashion trends of the times. The 60s were vibrant and sharp and eyepopping. The early 90s gave us... oversized business suits, shoulder pads, pastel colors, strange fabric designs. TOS and TNG would reflect those trends.

True, there are some outfits from TOS episodes that just stay in your memory. The outfits of the female Romulan commander is one of them.

She just looks so cool for some reason.

Ignore the guards behind her though........

 

[Ithekro]

There are guards behind her?

 

[Push The Button]

I didn't dislike it. As a longtime Trek fan, I love all the versions of the Enterprise, but if I had to pick the one that I'd want to live and work on for any length of time, it would be the D.

 

[eyeresist]

I've always been fascinated as to why so many Trek fans seemed to dislike the visual aesthetic that was developed for early TNG. ...

I think the rest of your post basically answered your own question. A comfy Beverly Hills hotel (or retirement home) is not a good location for high stakes sci-fi drama. Also, BEIGE.

In a way, the counsellor having a seat next to the captain is emblematic of the "TNG aesthetic". And the way the captain etc sat in cushy chairs with all that space in front of them looked a bit odd.
The fact that there was actual timber on the bridge was odd, and as far as I know was not explained in-show. If they'd made it more of a feature, e.g. putting it more in contrast with the rest of the set, and maybe having a plaque: "This was the bow timber of the HMS Enterprise 1780-1801", that would have made it less incongruous.
Another idea would be to have the off-duty areas in a cosy beige style, but have the work areas more utilitarian.

But a lot of people did like it. There are a lot of TNG fans, after all. Also, I think the ship interior looked different depending on who was directing. Nothing looks great when flatly overlit, but in some of the moodier episodes the ship looked very effective.
I think the movies improved the look while maintaining the connection to the TV series.

A stark, utilitarian starship design, while it arguably looks "cooler" on a movie screen, would actually accentuate the crew's inner anxieties. I think the 1701-D aesthetic is soothing and would generally be a very pleasant place to both live & work.

The opposite could also be argued, that in a fragile bubble in deep space a cushy, beige interior would feel unreal and lacking strength, whereas a sturdy industrial design would give one more confidence in avoiding imminent asphyxiation.

 

[Trek Survivor]

Never had a problem with these aspects.

 

[DavidGutierrez]

My problem is the TNG aesthetic set up an expectation which was never again adhered to, specifically with the bridge.

The idea behind the design of the bridge was that Starfleet in the 24th century was so advanced that many of the ship functions were automated. Leaving aside the fact that such a level of automation clashes with the 1000+ crew (if automated, why do you need so many people?), later shows and ships attempted to portray themselves as more advanced by having more bridge consoles. However, more consoles should equal less automation which should equal less advanced by the TNG formula.

Consider Voyager or the Enterprise-E. They both feature far more control consoles than the D did, with the E's bridge being almost wall-to-wall with consoles (how many tactical stations does the bridge of an explorer ship need anyway?). Sure, it looked cool, but if considered against the TNG aesthetic, it set up the idea that maybe Starfleet was less advanced after ten years instead of more, or that Starfleet had decided automation was a bad thing.

I just don't like it when expectations aren't fulfilled.

 

[xvicente]

(wow five pages of comments already)

Both the TMP and TNG Enterprises were negatively compared to hotels.

I believe Matt Jefferies was the first to say the E-D looked like a hotel, so that may give some weight to the notion (at least magazines and such would quote a lot). I never heard that about the movie Enterprise though.

IMHO the problem is workplaces and rest places should be and look different. It's not even confortable operating a computer sitting in a chair so reclined as the Enterprise-D's helm stations. My neck at least would hurt.

 

[C.E. Evans]

It's not even confortable operating a computer sitting in a chair so reclined as the Enterprise-D's helm stations. My neck at least would hurt.

That was only in the first season of TNG. Afterward, the conn and ops stations weren't reclined anymore.

 

[Lance]

My problem is the TNG aesthetic set up an expectation which was never again adhered to, specifically with the bridge.

The idea behind the design of the bridge was that Starfleet in the 24th century was so advanced that many of the ship functions were automated. Leaving aside the fact that such a level of automation clashes with the 1000+ crew (if automated, why do you need so many people?), later shows and ships attempted to portray themselves as more advanced by having more bridge consoles. However, more consoles should equal less automation which should equal less advanced by the TNG formula.

Consider Voyager or the Enterprise-E. They both feature far more control consoles than the D did, with the E's bridge being almost wall-to-wall with consoles (how many tactical stations does the bridge of an explorer ship need anyway?

I don't like riding in and defending the 1701-E (because it's far from being my favorite ship ), but the obvious answer to this is "The E isn't an explorer ship, it's a battleship; and Starfleet is at war".

Of course, that doesn't answer your broader point that, yes, it seems silly that they seemed to go backwards on the automation front. Let's not forget that it was the 1701-E which gave us the 'manual steering column', the ultimate in hands-on control.

 

[DavidGutierrez]

My problem is the TNG aesthetic set up an expectation which was never again adhered to, specifically with the bridge.

The idea behind the design of the bridge was that Starfleet in the 24th century was so advanced that many of the ship functions were automated. Leaving aside the fact that such a level of automation clashes with the 1000+ crew (if automated, why do you need so many people?), later shows and ships attempted to portray themselves as more advanced by having more bridge consoles. However, more consoles should equal less automation which should equal less advanced by the TNG formula.

Consider Voyager or the Enterprise-E. They both feature far more control consoles than the D did, with the E's bridge being almost wall-to-wall with consoles (how many tactical stations does the bridge of an explorer ship need anyway?

I don't like riding in and defending the 1701-E (because it's far from being my favorite ship ), but the obvious answer to this is "The E isn't an explorer ship, it's a battleship; and Starfleet is at war".

Of course, that doesn't answer your broader point that, yes, it seems silly that they seemed to go backwards on the automation front. Let's not forget that it was the 1701-E which gave us the 'manual steering column', the ultimate in hands-on control.

Another quibble of mine: where has this notion come from that the E was a battleship?

I'm going to ignore Nemesis and the absurd modifications to both the CG model and the in-universe ship for a second and break down the era in which the E was launched.

Dialogue in First Contact indicates that the E was launched in 2372, or during DS9's fourth season (shortly after Worf joined the show; he's always so impatient! He missed the new Enterprise by that much!)/VOY's second season. We don't really have reliable canon information which suggests how long it takes to build a starship, but let's assume that the keel for the E was laid down a year previously, or in 2371. The Federation was not at war in 2371, so why assume the E was built as a battleship?

Yes, the Federation had made contact with the Dominion. However, unless construction on the E began after the events of "The Die is Cast" (indicating that construction began pretty late in the year), the Dominion was so far only a hostile neighboring power on par with the Romulans. "Die" was the point at which it was cemented that the Dominion was a substantial threat with whom negotiation might fail.

Even after "Die," why modify the design of the E? There was still no indication that the Dominion might invade; merely that they should be left alone in the GQ.

I don't buy that the E was designed as a battleship. La Forge's line about being the most advanced ship in the fleet wouldn't necessarily only refer to the ship's offensive capabilities.

Moreover, I don't buy that the E was designed as a battleship because the Defiant and the rest of her class were treated like this novel, crazy approach to shipbuilding (Kira's incredulous line about Starfleet building a warship being a prime example) which was not duplicated until the Prometheus.

No, the E was the most advanced starship in the fleet like the D before her. But, the Galaxy class wasn't a battleship either. They were designed to explore, and I think it's much more likely that the E and the rest of the Sovereigns were as well.

 

[Cyke101]

My problem is the TNG aesthetic set up an expectation which was never again adhered to, specifically with the bridge.

The idea behind the design of the bridge was that Starfleet in the 24th century was so advanced that many of the ship functions were automated. Leaving aside the fact that such a level of automation clashes with the 1000+ crew (if automated, why do you need so many people?), later shows and ships attempted to portray themselves as more advanced by having more bridge consoles. However, more consoles should equal less automation which should equal less advanced by the TNG formula.

We don't how much automation is going on, however. The TOS was the size of a modern day aircraft carrier, and those ships usually carry thousands of crew, compared to the ~430 of the TOS-Enterprise. The D is several times larger, with much more volume, but still far fewer crew than today's carriers.

As well, TNG never really went in depth about crew functions, but we do know that there was plenty of work allocated to non-ship operations, such as research, diplomacy, and medicine. The D being a hybrid ship and mission of science and exploration could mean more crew devoted to those duties than ship operations.

 

[Vger23]

I always liked the look of the TNG Enterprise interiors. I believe that, with the intended mission of the Enterprise to be 10-12 years in deep space (which is really NOT what the show portrayed, given that they nearly always seemed to be comfortably within explored space), the idea of families aboard and a more earth-like and comforting environment made perfect sense. Even though I like other star fleet ships better, the ship I'd most want to personally serve on would be the -D.

 

[Sector 7]

"visual aesthetic" or "visual anesthetic"? This, IMHO, is why TNG has such an issue. Things were rather bland... TNG was more about administration of the Federation than exploration of the galactic frontier.

 

[Ithekro]

I don't think I cared one way other the other about the interior of the Enterprise when I first saw it. What I didn't care for was the exterior. The short nacelled under the huge saucer. That bugged me.

 

[drt]

My problem is the TNG aesthetic set up an expectation which was never again adhered to, specifically with the bridge.

The idea behind the design of the bridge was that Starfleet in the 24th century was so advanced that many of the ship functions were automated. Leaving aside the fact that such a level of automation clashes with the 1000+ crew (if automated, why do you need so many people?), later shows and ships attempted to portray themselves as more advanced by having more bridge consoles. However, more consoles should equal less automation which should equal less advanced by the TNG formula.

We don't how much automation is going on, however. The TOS was the size of a modern day aircraft carrier, and those ships usually carry thousands of crew, compared to the ~430 of the TOS-Enterprise. The D is several times larger, with much more volume, but still far fewer crew than today's carriers.

As well, TNG never really went in depth about crew functions, but we do know that there was plenty of work allocated to non-ship operations, such as research, diplomacy, and medicine. The D being a hybrid ship and mission of science and exploration could mean more crew devoted to those duties than ship operations.

Carriers have such huge crews because it takes a lot of folks to run a floating airport. Modern cruisers and destroyers have crews of 300-400, which is probably a better comparison.

For Kirk's five-year mission Enterprise that might mean 230 (using Pike's crew size) needed to run the ship and 200 mission specialists/scientists (maybe some of that number is additional security support).

We can postulate using a similar amount to run the much larger Ent-D with greater automation, leaving around 500 mission specialists/scientists/diplomatic corps with 250 family members to get to the 1000 number.