• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

If they had filmed 'Generations' with the same lighting and tone as...

Re: If they had filmed 'Generations' with the same lighting and tone a

I love the size of the ship in Generations. It's like they have four times the amount of crewmembers.

And it's like the ship had been born to be shot for widescreen.

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/generations/ch4/gen0287.jpg
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/generations/ch7/gen0391.jpg
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/generations/ch5/gen0322.jpg
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/generations/ch10/gen0561.jpg
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/generations/ch12/gen0744.jpg

In the show, everything is framed so tightly, and people have too stand way too close to each other. In the movie, it seems like all of the sets are twice the size and the characters have a lot for space.
 
Re: If they had filmed 'Generations' with the same lighting and tone a

The sun blazing thru the ship, bathing everything in light and dark. Ehh.

I get the effect they were going for. I just don't like it.
Plus, it doesn't make sense.

You gotta believe 24th century windows have some kind of polarizing properties like a pair of 20th century sunglasses.

And we'd never seen the ship interiors subject to such drastic lighting effects no matter what stellar phenomena the Enterprise had encountered (and they've seen plenty).
Now suddenly the ship is subject to such high contrasts?

Dramatic license, I guess. Even if I liked it, it still wouldn't make sense to me.
 
Re: If they had filmed 'Generations' with the same lighting and tone a

The sun blazing thru the ship, bathing everything in light and dark. Ehh.

I get the effect they were going for. I just don't like it.
Plus, it doesn't make sense.

You gotta believe 24th century windows have some kind of polarizing properties like a pair of 20th century sunglasses.

And we'd never seen the ship interiors subject to such drastic lighting effects no matter what stellar phenomena the Enterprise had encountered (and they've seen plenty).
Now suddenly the ship is subject to such high contrasts?

Dramatic license, I guess. Even if I liked it, it still wouldn't make sense to me.

We've never seen it because they couldn't afford it.
 
Re: If they had filmed 'Generations' with the same lighting and tone a

Couldn't afford what? Filming in the dark?
 
Re: If they had filmed 'Generations' with the same lighting and tone a

Couldn't afford what? Filming in the dark?

Couldn't afford the time it takes to set up lighting like that. Tv shows are shot quickly and don't have the time to set up the dramatic lights like that for each scene so you get a real simple basic lighting scheme for almost everything in the show.
 
Re: If they had filmed 'Generations' with the same lighting and tone a

That's all right. Probably better anyway with the real simple basic lighting cuz it's more real.

Aboard the Enterprise, they are enclosed in a controlled environment at all times, all conditions artificially maintained. It should be consistent and unvarying (excusing the seldom-seen "night watch" dimmer effect).

I think of a similar situation in my work office, windowless and fluorescent lighted and all that. I tell ya, it stays the exact same 24/7/365. You'd never know if it was dusk or midnite or midday or evening or December or August. It never varies in the slightest--much as we always saw the corridors and quarters aboard the Enterprise for seven years.

Except in Generations, when all that changed.
 
Re: If they had filmed 'Generations' with the same lighting and tone a

That's all right. Probably better anyway with the real simple basic lighting cuz it's more real.

Aboard the Enterprise, they are enclosed in a controlled environment at all times, all conditions artificially maintained. It should be consistent and unvarying (excusing the seldom-seen "night watch" dimmer effect).

I think of a similar situation in my work office, windowless and fluorescent lighted and all that. I tell ya, it stays the exact same 24/7/365. You'd never know if it was dusk or midnite or midday or evening or December or August. It never varies in the slightest--much as we always saw the corridors and quarters aboard the Enterprise for seven years.

Except in Generations, when all that changed.

If the sun shines through your office window, then the sun shines through your office window. In the show, outside phenomena NEVER had ANY effect on the lighting. That's unrealistic.
 
Re: If they had filmed 'Generations' with the same lighting and tone a

If I recall correctly, a big reason that the lighting was so low during filming is that the old sets may have looked fine for the resolution of a television screen, but things would have looked pretty shoddy when shown on the big screen. I think a different process or different type of film is used for television vs. a theatrical release.

It's more or less the same type of film (35mm), but the difference is that Star Trek: Generations was exhibited in 35mm, while the television series was exhibited in standard def video, quite a difference in terms of resolution.

And now of course we have that TV show on the way in HD, showing all that resolution. I wonder if they will try to grade it slightly darker for HD

Generations feels like the show shot right. They had more time to do it.
 
Re: If they had filmed 'Generations' with the same lighting and tone a

There are a couple specific moments in GEN where things are perhaps a bit TOO dark - in one scene that I recall, Riker leaves Picard's ready room, and it looks like he is walking out into total darkness as he steps onto the bridge. :lol:
Or is this just a sloppy filmmaking mistake? I've always regarded it as such, highlighting it to friends and family.
 
Re: If they had filmed 'Generations' with the same lighting and tone a

I really liked the changes to the bridge set for that movie... They'd done similar modifications in "Yesterday's Enterprise" and I'd always wished those changes could have been brought over to the show afterward. Having those consoles on the sides of the bridge looked pretty awesome.
 
Re: If they had filmed 'Generations' with the same lighting and tone a

You gotta believe 24th century windows have some kind of polarizing properties like a pair of 20th century sunglasses.
The nature of the orange glow in several rooms during the Amargosa sequences tells us that the windows ARE polarized.

When you look through sunglasses, it's not like everything turns monochrome. The coloration caused by the time of day is still visible, it's just more subtle (and the overall brightness is reduced).

Here on Earth, the light that reaches our eyes from the sun is heavily modified by our atmosphere. A starship doesn't have an atmosphere between it and any nearby stars, so any windows would necessarily be "polarized" (the Trek equivalent is no doubt far more advanced than anything we could do today, so it might not even be called that) to block out all the harmful effects. This is why no one in ten-forward is going blind from the light. In fact, they aren't even squinting. They are perfectly comfortable. (You can see this in Picard's ready room right before the ten-forward scene too: Riker is looking AT the window during most of the scene, and isn't bothered in the slightest). The light coming in isn't even THAT bright, it's just really really orange. If the windows WEREN'T "polarized", it would be FAR brighter, and people standing around in the room would be suffering ill effects. The ship also appears to be much closer to the Amargosa star than Earth is to our sun.
And we'd never seen the ship interiors subject to such drastic lighting effects no matter what stellar phenomena the Enterprise had encountered (and they've seen plenty).
Now suddenly the ship is subject to such high contrasts?
Hardly the only visual effects discrepancy in Trek that simply cannot be explained away by purely in-universe reasoning. The cause of this particular discrepancy (they didn't have the time or money to make things look "right", then later they DO have the time and money) isn't unique, either.
That's all right. Probably better anyway with the real simple basic lighting cuz it's more real.

Aboard the Enterprise, they are enclosed in a controlled environment at all times, all conditions artificially maintained. It should be consistent and unvarying (excusing the seldom-seen "night watch" dimmer effect).

I think of a similar situation in my work office, windowless and fluorescent lighted and all that. I tell ya, it stays the exact same 24/7/365. You'd never know if it was dusk or midnite or midday or evening or December or August. It never varies in the slightest--much as we always saw the corridors and quarters aboard the Enterprise for seven years.

Except in Generations, when all that changed.
That doesn't even make any sense.

You are comparing a windowless office to a starship that has... lots and lots of windows.

The office I work in HAS windows. Big ones that are quite visible from where I sit. It is quite obvious from looking at those windows what time of day it is. Given the windows on the ship, GEN's lighting during the Amargosa scenes is FAR more realistic than similar lighting effects (or the lack thereof) in the TNG TV series.

And yes, it's a closed, controlled, and artificially maintained environment. It's a space ship. It HAS to all those things, by definition. But if they didn't want to still maintain at least some small degree of "natural" interaction with the outside environment (as long as it can be done safely), the ship wouldn't have windows. They serve no practical purpose. They are only there cause people want to look outside.
And now of course we have that TV show on the way in HD, showing all that resolution. I wonder if they will try to grade it slightly darker for HD
If we're lucky, we'll see TNG in HD. There is still serious doubt about the chances of this actually happening, due to how much more work would be required to do so (vs. how much work was required to convert TOS to HD).
Generations feels like the show shot right. They had more time to do it.
Agreed.
There are a couple specific moments in GEN where things are perhaps a bit TOO dark - in one scene that I recall, Riker leaves Picard's ready room, and it looks like he is walking out into total darkness as he steps onto the bridge. :lol:
Or is this just a sloppy filmmaking mistake? I've always regarded it as such, highlighting it to friends and family.
Hm, could be, actually. Either way, whether it's bad judgement and they meant to light it like that, or it's simply an error, it's just too damn dark.
I really liked the changes to the bridge set for that movie... They'd done similar modifications in "Yesterday's Enterprise" and I'd always wished those changes could have been brought over to the show afterward. Having those consoles on the sides of the bridge looked pretty awesome.
Yeah, there are definite callbacks to the YE bridge in the GEN bridge, though personally, I find the latter to be far superior. The GEN bridge is one of my favorites in all of Trek, actually.
 
Re: If they had filmed 'Generations' with the same lighting and tone a

Didn't like the GEN lighting at all. And I don't buy for a minute the TNG show was lit that way because of a "budget" consideration. The bridge was lit bright because it's a key area of the ship and the command center (how is mood lighting functional there?). Also corridors and sick bay were bright and evenly lit, which makes perfect sense. However, other areas such as 10 forward and crew quarters had more complex, subdued lighting. Also engineering had complex lighting...bright in the work/conference areas, and more dark around the reactor which for many reasons made sense to me.

Compare:

EntD bridge vs the Klingon bridge: in the TV show the Ent bridge was bright while Klingon ships were dark, alien, and almost menacing. In GEN they were lit almost the same...Klingon ships got brighter while the Ent got darker.

Data's quarters: I loved how Data's quarters, unlike everyone else's, was lit up bright like the bridge. It was a nice touch, that he lived on a mini-bridge, complete with utilitarian lighting and a huge work console. Just seemed to fit his character. In GEN, he suddenly has mood lighting for his quarters.

The bright sunlight streaming in was realistic but it could have been toned down. In an office you would pull the shade to be able to see your screen and get any work done. ;)
 
Re: If they had filmed 'Generations' with the same lighting and tone a

The sun blazing thru the ship, bathing everything in light and dark. Ehh.

This part got to me as well. Picard being bathed in the sun's orange light while he was grieving about his family took me out of the moment. Interesting, and pretty telling, that they didn't repeat that kind of lighting for the other films.


I appreciate the difference between TV and film lighting, but sometimes they just went overboard (I'm talking about the interiors of the E-D, not about anywhere else in the film). People walk out into the darkness a couple times: for example, when Riker leaves Picard's Ready Room, he just walks into just sheer black. No busy bridge at all. Where's the ship?! Some of their choices of when to use dark and light seemed to be fairly arbitrary.
 
Re: If they had filmed 'Generations' with the same lighting and tone a

Didn't like the GEN lighting at all. And I don't buy for a minute the TNG show was lit that way because of a "budget" consideration. The bridge was lit bright because it's a key area of the ship and the command center (how is mood lighting functional there?). Also corridors and sick bay were bright and evenly lit, which makes perfect sense. However, other areas such as 10 forward and crew quarters had more complex, subdued lighting. Also engineering had complex lighting...bright in the work/conference areas, and more dark around the reactor which for many reasons made sense to me.
The time it takes to light a large set is time that you aren't rolling the cameras, ergo the TNG standing sets were mostly pre-rigged for lighting that worked in most circumstances. The bright lighting means most of the set is lit well enough to get everything with only a few tweaks or a small light or two adjusted. To custom light for the drama of the moment does in fact take time, and time is money. I speak from experience on this: if you want to maximize the number of takes and setups per day you do, you minimize the lighting changes.

The set of the week generally has to be lit from scratch, so you can custom light it for a given look, hence Klingon ships can be much moodier.

TNG's look was not entirely based on these considerations, but it factors into it.
 
Re: If they had filmed 'Generations' with the same lighting and tone a

I LOVE the Generations cinematography. All other movies, including Trek 2009, look pale in comparison.

I have to absolutely agree here. Generations has a certain gravitas around its presentation (with a very few notable exceptions). It is the only film to truly take advantage, IMO, of the scope that is intrinsic to a larger presentation.

Star Trek I, II, and III are basically soundstage and SFX productions. The cinematography limitations are a part and parcel of the limits of technology at that time, and the size of the soundstages. Very few broad shots, focusing on close in when it comes to how things frame out.

Star Trek IV shows a few hints in the old San Fran scenes of overcoming the tin can mentality - in particular the scenes with the crew roaming around the streets for various and sundry reasons just after arriving in town. Wide views of people dodging traffic begin to hint at those possibilities, but we never really see them realized.

Star Trek V tried to expand a bit further, and I would generally state that the film was able to make better use of blending real world shots with soundstage shots to make the scenes feel broader. Even the way the bridge was filmed in TFF felt broader, less cramped. Someone finally began to realize that movie environment meant something different.

Star Trek VI reverted... the only moderately successful scenes were the closing scenes on Khitomer. The rest felt like big-budget television.

First Contact felt like a TV episode. Too much soundstage, and when real world shooting was used, it was being done on a TV scale.

Insurrection reclaimed some of the breadth of Generations, though I think Frakes' background as a TV director instead of feature film helmer still showed a bit. The Baku planet scenes, while far broader than what we saw in First Contact, were still a tighter at times than I would have wanted in a feature.

Nemesis was terrible. The only scenes that worked for me from a scope and lighting standpoing were the Romulan Senate scenes. The rest was horribly drab.

Just my POV.

Rob+
 
Re: If they had filmed 'Generations' with the same lighting and tone a

Also affecting the look - besides the 35mm to video master vs. 35mm to 35mm presentation - is the fact that the actual filming process was anamorphic widescreen. That requires totally different sets of lenses affecting focus, depth of field and other things that a good cinematographer has to account for. Lighting is affected too as anamorphic lenses generally start off with a higher f-stop (less light gets through) than the standard spherical flat process used for the TV production.

I mostly liked the look myself. I never did care for the relatively flat lighting in TNG. Even TOS got better depth with its generally bright lighting. I guess it's the use of color that did it. Such colorful lighting probably wouldn't have served TNG too well, I suppose.
 
Re: If they had filmed 'Generations' with the same lighting and tone a

I'm sorry, but I maintain that TNG had much better lighting than Generations. I hear the same things said about GEN over and over again -- the lighting is more cinematic, it's moodier, it's more dramatic. No, what it is, is dark. Really dark. Like, hard to see what's going on sometimes dark. Like, inappropriately dark. Pull you out of the scene dark.

I can understand wanting to go for a more cinematic or dramatic lighting than on a TV series. But they did it badly.
 
Re: If they had filmed 'Generations' with the same lighting and tone a

Depends for me. I actually love how Generations looked. Season 3 had great cinematography too. It had been building nicely in the earlier seasons. Although often without the kind of stories to go with it. Later it lost something and took on a look that I can only describe as beige with more than a little afternoon TV soap opera about it. Rather than filmic on a smaller budget. Maybe it was the video transfer, reducing the contrast. Maybe it was different, softer lighting.
 
Re: If they had filmed 'Generations' with the same lighting and tone a

I would have been much happier if they had used the same quality of writing as in the show.
 
Re: If they had filmed 'Generations' with the same lighting and tone a

To answer the first post of the topic starter.

Recently when i finished the TNG series and watched generations, it didn't feel "right".

It felt like you said darker, actually more adult like. It was like, "hey we make a tng show for 5pm and we make one for 9pm". Generations made the ship look much more like a heavy battlecruiser instead of a 'joy-joy ship going from planet to planet".

I never liked the new bridge though. I would preferred the old style that they used, oke i know, it wouldn't fit with the stuff i wrote about battlecruiser but they could at least used the same beige color. It felt too dark the bridge. The galaxy was also ment to be a generation ship, a family ship and the beige/yellow bridge in the show was perfect. The gray bridges are more combat like like defiant and intrepid or even sovereign and there are no families on board, so it makes sence. But to have such a dark bridge in generations, naaaah...

Still good movie!
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top