StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Why was TNG so inept with it's lighting? In the earlier seasons there are several episodes where you get massive glare of the lights shining on the Alert lights, and in exterior shots they throw way too much light on the models.

TNG had a lot of problems in its first seasons. I think it comes down to they were trying to get a handle on doing weekly, high budget, televised sci-fi, which nobody had any experience with at the time. Still, studio lights glaring off alert panels is unforgivable on a professional production. The exterior shots are more understandable.

I don't think that explains it; the alleged problems of doing a weekly, high-budget SF series on television. There is no special experience required to properly photograph and light scenes for a SF series than for any other series. What it comes down to, I believe, is rather an unwillingness on Paramount's part to find a prime crew of cinematographers and lighting directors to work on the show. It shouldn't have been a problem, theoretically. Paramount certainly had the cash for the production and even by today's palsied standards, there's plenty of cinematographic talent in Hollywood which shows like NYPD Blue manage to tap into on a regular basis.

I think what it simply came down to is that they just didn't bother to understand how things like lighting and background music are devices to enhance visual drama. The music for season one, for example, was very annoyingly discordant, bombastic, and wholly unsuited for the episodes to which it was mated. Then in the later seasons, they went to Dennis McCarthy's sonic wallpaper scores which could be used in place of gas to put dental patients under.

In part, I think, there was a conscious direction to create a "look" of a perfect, safe, orderly future world, particularly in lighting the Enterprise. Shadows and dim lighting were reserved for those few "imperfect" places visited by our Space Heroes™, and even then, it seemed that every effort was made to keep the main cast members in the brightest light possible to make them stand out. There were exceptions in the odd episode or two, such as "Yesterday's Enterprise" or "Chain Of Command (2)", but by and large, the last thing it seemed the production people were willing to do was anything which might have obscured the main cast members in any way. After a point, it came down to sheer laziness.

The result was a visual environment which seems so static and artificial that TNG's overall look is one reason why that series is not ageing as well as TOS. It looks and feels...plastic. You can tell that they're people on stage sets and not once do you have an impression that anything you see in TNG has any sense of being real, even for a second.

Then in the later seasons, they went to Dennis McCarthy's sonic wallpaper scores which could be used in place of gas to put dental patients under.

McCarthy was there for all seven seasons (there were other composers for some seasons as well), and he composed in that "sonic wallpaper" style because that's what the producers demanded of him; whenever he tried to experiment and inject any action into his music, the producers were quick to voice their disapproval.

Supposedly, the same problems existed on Voyager, Insurrection, Nemesis, and currently exist on Enterprise. Every time anyone tries to get creative with cinematography or sound, some suit tells them to tone it down. You're right, Patrick, about TNG. I'd noticed that a lot of it looks bland and bad, but I couldn't figure out why. Especially bad are the "planetary surface" sets. They look as fake as they did in TOS. Whenever they did a location shoot for an away team mission, you could instantly tell it was real-world, not a set.

TV never was the forum for experimental cinematography or audio for the most part. The idea is to show the program in as clear a manner as possible. So you don't get as much interesting editing, cuts, etc. like you do in cinema.

The most orginial sci-fi production thing I can think of is the lack of sound in space in Firefly.

There's a difference between "unoriginal" and "inept".

neoolong wrote:TV never was the forum for experimental cinematography or audio for the most part. The idea is to show the program in as clear a manner as possible. So you don't get as much interesting editing, cuts, etc. like you do in cinema.

I don't know about that one. Take a look at the wonderful work of George Clemens on The Twilight Zone, for example. Particularly in the episode "Eye Of The Beholder".

The only reason why most TV looks bland is because they simply don't bother to even try to do anything but the most basic and cheapest job possible. With most TV shows, they don't need anything more than that —like on sitcoms.

Hate to think that TNG's lighting directors worked Mork And Mindy and Alf before being recruited for NextGen.

neoolong wrote:TV never was the forum for experimental cinematography or audio for the most part. The idea is to show the program in as clear a manner as possible. So you don't get as much interesting editing, cuts, etc. like you do in cinema.

The most orginial sci-fi production thing I can think of is the lack of sound in space in Firefly.

Agreed on FIREFLY, but there are still plenty of ways to stage scenes in a dynamic fashion on TV.

I just re-saw THIS SIDE OF PARADISE (the spock gets spored episode) a couple nights ago, and the way they staged a scene with Kirk and spock on the bridge was terrific. They always kept them in frame, but the camera swung through a pretty big arc around while Kirk moved ahead and then to the side. It was a pretty small camera move, but it worked well enought that I stopped the tape and rewound it to see it again. And it must have been tough to do, given the various platforms involved.

These little moves don't happen on ModernTrek; I think maybe Berman is afraid of moving camera, like he is of music with a presence. NextGen didn't even have steadicam until Rob Bowman got an okay to use it.

The camera moves and the editing on original Trek are pretty snappy, but only when compared to ModernTrek, which always seems kind of arthritic to me. There are only rare times in the last 15 years that I got a real sense of dynamics, and that was usually on DS9, when they had klingons fighting with everybody inside the station's ops hand-to-hand while a million ships were blowing up outside.

As for NextGen's lighting, I actually prefer the look of the first two years, despite some glare issues. The look is CRISP and SHARP, whereas once they got their regular DP they liked to shoot the shows, theykept getting softer looking. Take a look at Picard in an early show and you can actually SEE his fine hair, instead of a soft blur. The mushy look of ModernTrek (which extends to the current Little Enterprise) is one of the most annoying things about it to me, but then again, it seems that is what TPTB want ... some sort of future w/o hard edges, I guess.

kmart wrote: I just re-saw THIS SIDE OF PARADISE (the spock gets spored episode) a couple nights ago, and the way they staged a scene with Kirk and spock on the bridge was terrific.

Quick question: isn't this the episode in which Spock mentions he's X times stronger than Kirk?

What was the ratio?

Sorry to burst in with that, but it's been ages since I've seen that episode and I can't find that information on Google. I've wanted to know that for months now...

These little moves don't happen on ModernTrek; I think maybe Berman is afraid of moving camera, like he is of music with a presence. NextGen didn't even have steadicam until Rob Bowman got an okay to use it.

The camera moves and the editing on original Trek are pretty snappy, but only when compared to ModernTrek, which always seems kind of arthritic to me. There are only rare times in the last 15 years that I got a real sense of dynamics, and that was usually on DS9, when they had klingons fighting with everybody inside the station's ops hand-to-hand while a million ships were blowing up outside.

That's a very, very good point. (Where have YOU been all these years, man? It's good to have you aboard here!)

As I recall, the only time TNG's interior camerawork really struck me was in, of all episodes, "Heart of Glory": when Korris dies and Worf does the death howl, the camera pulls back quickly three times, from a shot with only Worf kneeling on the floor in the lense to a shot from the deck above. It gave an impressive sense of just how damn LOUD Worf was and what the scene meant to his character.

Actually, that episode had another good shot: when Worf shoots Korris, Korris falls from the second "floor" in the engineering room. We see him fall partly from the perspective of the floor, through a clear panel! Pretty neat stuff.

DS9 also had a little creativity where this is concerned, here and there, but I honestly can't recall a specific instance in which I was really impressed by the camerawork.

As for NextGen's lighting, I actually prefer the look of the first two years, despite some glare issues. The look is CRISP and SHARP, whereas once they got their regular DP they liked to shoot the shows, theykept getting softer looking. Take a look at Picard in an early show and you can actually SEE his fine hair, instead of a soft blur. The mushy look of ModernTrek (which extends to the current Little Enterprise) is one of the most annoying things about it to me, but then again, it seems that is what TPTB want ... some sort of future w/o hard edges, I guess.

Exactly. This seems to be the case even in starship designs: bad guys often operate ships with a lot of very sharp angles and hard edges (Borg cubes, which are just a mesh-work of corners and hard lines, Scimitar, some aspects of the new Romulan "Warbird," Jem'Hadar cruisers, details on Son'a craft), while good guys have their nice, flowing, smooth-edged Galaxies and Intrepids.

seanrobertson wrote:

kmart wrote: I just re-saw THIS SIDE OF PARADISE (the spock gets spored episode) a couple nights ago, and the way they staged a scene with Kirk and spock on the bridge was terrific.

Quick question: isn't this the episode in which Spock mentions he's X times stronger than Kirk?

What was the ratio?


SNIP


As I recall, the only time TNG's interior camerawork really struck me was in, of all episodes, "Heart of Glory": when Korris dies and Worf does the death howl, the camera pulls back quickly three times, from a shot with only Worf kneeling on the floor in the lense to a shot from the deck above. It gave an impressive sense of just how damn LOUD Worf was and what the scene meant to his character.

Actually, that episode had another good shot: when Worf shoots Korris, Korris falls from the second "floor" in the engineering room. We see him fall partly from the perspective of the floor, through a clear panel! Pretty neat stuff.

I remember Khan telling Kirk "I have five times your physical strength" but I don't recall Spock saying anything to this effect in THIS SIDE OF PARADISE. Kirk does say in the log entry something to the effect that Vulcan strength is something he can't really stand up against, but there wasn't any x3 mention or anything like that I heard.

That HEART OF GLORY show is again Rob Bowman ... I think if you look at the shows he directed, you'll see most of the innovative camerawork, be it steadicam or neat camera placement (I think they spent half a day rigging for that engineering shot you talk about!)

Thank you for a very interesting thread so far...

One Finnish tv channel started airing TOS reruns in January and my opinion of the series is very positive so far. With the exception of few minor things like the comical tension music that is always played when something bad happens, it doesn't feel as outdated as I feared. When it comes to planetary scenes filmed in a studio, they even occasionally look better than in most TNG episodes, just as Patrick said.

Camerawork in Trek has never sturck me as excellent, but there were some nice camera pans in the beginning of Equinox (Voy), when the aliens attacked the starship's bridge.

However, if you compare any of Trek series to the camerawork used in other series like The Sopranos, Oz, or Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, it's pretty bleak and boring.

In part, I think, there was a conscious direction to create a "look" of a perfect, safe, orderly future world, particularly in lighting the Enterprise. Shadows and dim lighting were reserved for those few "imperfect" places visited by our Space Heroes™, and even then, it seemed that every effort was made to keep the main cast members in the brightest light possible to make them stand out. There were exceptions in the odd episode or two, such as "Yesterday's Enterprise" or "Chain Of Command (2)", but by and large, the last thing it seemed the production people were willing to do was anything which might have obscured the main cast members in any way. After a point, it came down to sheer laziness.

One of the things I really enjoyed about "Yesterday's Enterprise" was the change in lighting. It gave the "feeling" of a ship at war and not a brightly light manufacturing floor.

As I recall, the only time TNG's interior camerawork really struck me was in, of all episodes, "Heart of Glory": when Korris dies and Worf does the death howl, the camera pulls back quickly three times, from a shot with only Worf kneeling on the floor in the lense to a shot from the deck above. It gave an impressive sense of just how damn LOUD Worf was and what the scene meant to his character.

Actually, that episode had another good shot: when Worf shoots Korris, Korris falls from the second "floor" in the engineering room. We see him fall partly from the perspective of the floor, through a clear panel! Pretty neat stuff.

[hijack] I just saw that episode last week and it was a nice shot, but how the hell do you rationalize a guy falling through the damn floor? It makes no sense, he falls over and the floor shatters, who the hell designs something that would kill somebody that trips and falls? [/hijack]

Uraniun235 wrote:Why was TNG so inept with it's lighting? In the earlier seasons there are several episodes where you get massive glare of the lights shining on the Alert lights, and in exterior shots they throw way too much light on the models.

Give them credit, it's hard to compensate for the perfect mirror that is Picard's head.

Luke Starkiller wrote:

As I recall, the only time TNG's interior camerawork really struck me was in, of all episodes, "Heart of Glory": when Korris dies and Worf does the death howl, the camera pulls back quickly three times, from a shot with only Worf kneeling on the floor in the lense to a shot from the deck above. It gave an impressive sense of just how damn LOUD Worf was and what the scene meant to his character.

Actually, that episode had another good shot: when Worf shoots Korris, Korris falls from the second "floor" in the engineering room. We see him fall partly from the perspective of the floor, through a clear panel! Pretty neat stuff.

[hijack] I just saw that episode last week and it was a nice shot, but how the hell do you rationalize a guy falling through the damn floor? It makes no sense, he falls over and the floor shatters, who the hell designs something that would kill somebody that trips and falls? [/hijack]

Well, he's got that armor stuff, and I want to say klingons tend to be heavier than humans... maybe the shock of a big, really muscley (muscle IS denser than fat) guy wearing heavy clothes with metal stuff on was just too much?

Plus, didn't he land on his elbow when he shattered the glass? The weight slamming down on his elbow might have been too much for the glass at that point.

So install thicker fucking glass, idiotic SF goons! Or shit, you could just use a metal grate...