Star Trek's "Cinematic" Problem

For the longest time, Star Trek existed as a low-budget TV show. Next to sci-fi blockbusters like Star Wars, Star Trek always seemed cheaper and dare we say, kinda lame. But all of that changed in 2009. Director JJ Abrams completely overhauled Star Trek’s visual style for his reboot of the mythos. Though Abrams is no longer involved in the Star Trek mythos, modern Star Trek generally took his style to heart. But in being so determined to make Star Trek look “cinematic”, has Star Trek missed the forest for the trees somehow? And what does “cinematic” even mean anyway?
Patreon: / rowanjcoleman
Discord: / discord
Special thanks to all Patrons and Members!
#startrek #startrekdiscovery #rowanjcoleman

[@RowanJColeman]

HELP THE CHANNEL GROW: www.patreon.com/rowanjcoleman P.S:- This video is exclusively about the aesthetic qualities of Star Trek. It has nothing to do with the writing of Star Trek or my general opinions on specific Star Trek shows. I say this because I'm seeing a lot of comments like, "So you think shitty writing is okay as long as it's cinematic?" Can we not acknowledge that just because we like a TV show/movie it doesn't automatically mean it's flawless? I like both TNG and Disco. Me criticising either show's visual style is not me "slamming" the shows themselves. P.P.S:- If you don't care about the aesthetic quality of TV or film then just listen to radio or read a book. These are visual artforms we're talking about here. What is on screen matters; that much should be obvious. It's true that a good script can survive poor direction, but strong direction can also elevate what's on the page. Aesthetics matter!

[@michaeldemarco9950]

Remember when, in the TNG episode “The Defector”, when having three Klingon warships showing up to back up the Enterprise against the Romulus’s was very exciting, without firing a shot?

[@hulkhatepunybanner]

*The long title of this video is **_"Star Trek's Cinematic Problem or How They Made All the Boring Talking Parts Go By Faster."_*

[@ShinobiShaman]

Well, Abrams film adaptations, might look cinematic & all, but, my favorite ST film is The Wrath of Khan. As a matter of fact, it's in 4th place of my favorite sci-fi films of all time. In second place, is Forbidden Planet. & one of the reasons I like the original series, is that it looks similar in style to Forbidden Planet. & to be honest with you, I'd rather watch my favorite original series episode, Balance of Terror, over any of Abrams films. That's just one man's opinion.

[@fuzzywzhe]

Star Trek wasn't low budget as a television show. The contemporaries of the time were Space 1999, Time Tunnel, Lost in Space, Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, and a few others.

[@Number6_]

A second man's opinion, forbidden planet 1956 was the best sf film ever. They had no budget. If they wanted it they got it. Including an expensive robot and ground car, but the script is the thing. Not the money spent. You want cinema watch valerian 1000 planets or 5th element. Not thoughtful.

[@NerdRahtio]

I always loved the conference room scenes as they felt like real, relatable, work place meetings, and yet showed a more perfected and hopeful version of them than we usually encounter in real life.

[@zombieshoot4318]

Plus they were often good for exposition dumps as well as telling the audience the plan of action for the crew.

[@internetsideshow]

Not once in any briefing room scene did anyone say, "this could've been an email"

[@fuzzblightyear145]

Yeah, it's like what any organisatrion, especially a quasi military one. You have a proper briefing. They key in the ToS and TNG was the content, the dialogue and interactions. Now its just elaborate shots and cgi.

[@internetsideshow]

@@fuzzblightyear145 You're absolutely right, Star Trek is an intellectual's TV program (even though it can be silly at times, especially some of the ToS episodes) and the briefing room scenes were smart people having smart conversations. I could watch that all day.

[@aquamarine99911]

@@fuzzblightyear145 I guess that's why I liked the Orville so much. It was a genuine throwback to the TNG approach, even to extent of having Frakes as a director for many episodes.

[@peterpienczuk2664]

Always liked the briefing room scenes as they were nice and calm letting the audience relax, Also loved the STNG lighting. The bright lights always made the future more optimistic and the crew in control. Also made the lights going out or flickering more impactful. LIke when it went dark in Yesterdays enterprise.

[@Dargonhuman]

Yes indeed. The lights going out at any time was always a major hint that something truly catastrophic was happening, as the lighting system was usually the last thing to fail in any situation. If the bridge or engine room or lounge lost lighting, the crew went immediately into high alert because that much darkness was simply unnatural to them.

[@RobertBatina]

So much of what you said makes perfect sense. Most of us are intimately familiar with the entirety of the Enterprise D bridge, and even the other sets, yet - personally - I couldn’t tell you many defining characteristics of any of the Disco ships. I didn’t realize why that probably was until now.

[@Dargonhuman]

The Enterprise-D bridge is so well shot and detailed that I was actually put off the Vegas recreation when there was a big ugly green EXIT sign next to the main viewscreen and a door with a manual door knob under it. My brain was like, "Nooo that doesn't belong there." I mean, I get _why_ they had to put that there for legal and safety reasons, but some part of me feels like they could have integrated it into the aesthetic a little better.

[@commandercaptain4664]

@@Dargonhuman In space, there is no EXIT. The least they could've done was write it in Klingonese, then only the fans could escape a calamity while the tourists would suffer.

[@rosewatersaffron8430]

I loved the more stage feel of old Trek and the slow pace. Now everything is too hectic and I can't breathe. The conference room scenes were done expertly. They gave exposition with good dialogue. It never felt you get everything explained like a child which is done now so often

[@cindyashe4496]

As usual, Rowan hits the nail on the head here for me. Extreme short focus, constant action-blocking and over-reliance on the current "cinematic" ideal is one of the main reasons I've had trouble getting into Post-Kelvin Star Trek TV shows. 😕

[@uzetaab]

That's a very good point about high resolution and out of focus blur.

[@DumblyDorr]

The briefing-room scenes were some of my favorites, because that's where everyone comes together to brainstorm and discuss the problem like mature, professional adults. I miss that a lot.

[@saucyl3477]

I agree! They gave me a sense that the situation (whatever that may be) was being taken seriously, thought through and all options considered. If you have ALL the decisions being made on the bridge or even a walk and talk, it's like they are just making decisions off the cuff and just going with it. Do all decisions/discussions need to be in the briefing room? No. But not all decisions need to be decided after a 15 second discussion on the bridge or in a walk and talk.

[@drumstick74]

I also enjoyed them. It filled the audience in on the current predicament.

[@wesleywyndam-pryce4081]

You felt part of the show a little as well it brought you into the heart of it

[@TheRocco96]

The briefing were great because everybody could give their input, and at the end it was the captain who decided on how to proceed. In current trek, there is no more respect for hierarchy, and no more cooperation, when a crewmember thinks she has the solution, she goes ahead and do it.

[@count69]

When Picard confronts Gworon and Duras with Worf present in Reunion - or when Picard gets Data to leave the brifing room in Clues - these are some of my favourite Trek moments!

[@Vpaid]

Both TNG and TOS used the briefing room scenes as a way to convey that highly trained professionals of the future would overcome challenges and resolve problems with calm and collected discussion where all voices are heard. They are incredibly important to the ethos of the Star Trek that Roddenberry was trying to bring to the screen.

[@NachtmahrNebenan]

Agreed 100%! It was about _what_ and not about _how_ . There was so much to reflect and to discuss with friends. Of course sometimes we made jokes about bad special effects, but we were more into ethics, artificial life and technology.

[@davidguay9969]

I would take any briefing room scene from TOS or TNG over an entire JJ Abrahams “action” movie.

[@unematrix]

I just wish they had a bigger briefing room. Voyager's briefing room was great. DS9 had the round table in the middle of Ops. Enterprise had the table at the back. TNG's briefroom felt more like a small meeting room in an office (but with a much better view)

[@marocat4749]

@@unematrix God, picard could have literally said, lets make gainans or the cafeteria the briefing room. Both localities they have, that are nice. No one would have problems making a cafeteria or gainans with her agreement the briefing room.

[@Gunnar001]

Yup. Star Trek used to have intelligent, thought-provoking writing. The characters really felt like mature, highly trained professionals who all worked together and used their brains to overcome complex problems. The best of humanity. People you aspired to be like. _NuTrek_ characters are like obnoxious teenagers from a CW show. I can’t stand listening to them constantly whine and cry about whatever or make stupid jokes. Such a travesty what Trek has been reduced to.

[@Oonagh72]

I’m going to disagree about the briefing room scenes. They tell their own story. They are about body language and tone of voice. You find out a lot in those innocuous conversations.

[@susanscott8653]

I agree, they were about dialogue - defining the problem, pooling ideas, creating a plan. They often set up the story.

[@Armadous]

I'm biased but TNG has the framing and pacing I want in Star Trek. The briefing room scenes were very effective!

[@wesleywyndam-pryce4081]

TNG briefing room was the goat 🐐

[@calebmarmon1310]

I don’t mind briefing room scenes being shot more dynamically, but I also believe that the acting and story can be engaging enough that it’s okay to have a more matter-of-fact presentation.

[@lanarkorras4411]

I liked the briefing room scenes as well. They denote a sense of collaborative deliberation, an element I hold in high regard, in TNG in particular.

[@jonofpdx]

Like many here, gotta disagree on the tng era briefing room scenes. I agree they lack dynamism in the camera work. But...thats the point. They portray people engaging in thoughtful discussion. And it allowed for the writing to take center stage.

[@Unholy_Holywarrior]

you dont want to notice the writing in NuTrek, its terrible.

[@Number6_]

TNG was a mistake, a vanity project by gene. Where no one else had input.

[@RKingis]

​@@Unholy_HolywarriorPewPew Trek

[@stardusty]

The briefing room scenes are about getting everyone together to focus on smart people solving problems. This basically never happens in modern trek and it’s sorely missed. Everything is done urgently, on the fly, and it’s exhausting and unbelievable.

[@RKingis]

PewPew Trek doesn't even feel like the spirit of scientific discovery in Star Fleet. Even the conflicts in Enterprise felt more in line with that spirit.

[@andromidius]

Paramount complains that Trek doesn't make them enough money - while overspending on budget and limiting who can even view the show. Great business sense there. Cheaper Trek was great. It doesn't need a huge budget. Maybe Paramount should give the rights over to someone who understands this.

[@mrpepperami01]

I think they tired to make Star Trek more mainstream like Star Wars and ended up losing what made Star Trek unique in the first place.

[@murphy7801]

No old trek the budget went too good writers

[@admiralcasperr]

ST doesn't need a huge budget, it just needs good, passionate writers.

[@thundergodcid960]

Picard s3 had the lowest budget out of all of nuTrek and it was the best of all the new shows.

[@Ma55ey]

​@@thundergodcid960let's be honest that's only because it had the tng cast this time, nothing to do with the writing.. if they'd used the scripts for discovery season 5 instead. Nobody would be cheering the beheading scene, the deathstar trench run, the stranger things hallucinations, the swearing, the Dr strange portal weapon, the crew crying in the holodeck as the ship fails around them, or the over use of the borg again. As some sort of return to form for the franchise..

[@treknobabble1701]

Less is definitely more. Not a fan of the constantly moving camera. Even simple dialogue is shot like an action scene, rendering the actual action scenes far less impactful. I tend to zone out somewhat from the lack of focus.

[@mohannair]

I prefer the lighting and camera work from TNG - it felt more authentic for a military/exploration ship. It also allowed us tyo focus on the amazing acting and characters rather than have our eyes constantly darted around by a frenetic camera.

[@DisgruntledDoomer]

Yeah, this whole video is such a weird take... like intentionally contrarian on everything.

[@Pyranders]

Yeah. The bridge felt more like a living room than a film set, and it looked like a place people could actually stand to live in.

[@RKingis]

​@@PyrandersTNG's bridge felt welcoming, and like an actual bridge. Imagine having dramatic lighting, say at a Pizza Hut kitchen.

[@Pyranders]

@@RKingis Also, why is every single surface shiny in newer Star Trek sets. That shit is gonna be covered in fingerprints and smears before they get out of spacedock.

[@jimmyryan5880]

"when everything is intense nothing is intense" "supposed to be about a crew working together" you nailed my problems with discovery. I still don't know their names.

[@benjamindrayton1380]

I believe their names are Hugh, Pugh, Barney Magrugh, Cuthbert, Dibble, and Grub.😋

[@temparalflux914]

I think they are called, The Fat One, The Black One, The Trans One, The Asian One, The One that Cries, The Gay Ones and the straight white male in heavy make-up and prosthetics. (Gay guy here and as you can tell, I hate the shoe horning in of under developed characters that have extremly little charter development to the point we don't even know their names in the final 5th season).

[@Simon-xc5oy]

@@temparalflux914 This is exactly what I used to call them. Then there was robocop lady, and half borg lady with all that stuff in her face. I stopped watching Discovery after season 2. If its still like this for season 5 and no one has a clue who people are, as they are so under written and unmemorable, then its a complete and utter failure. How it got to five seasons is incredible as the audience was so small. Its a case of its so woke and the show runners are so stubborn in view, it continued so they could force it on us, and claim it a success when its anything but...

[@temparalflux914]

@@Simon-xc5oy I wonder how many people actually re-watch it, compared to how many still re-watch TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT?

[@yw1971]

The most mentioned is Oshwanshwansh. He's very important

[@SingularityOrbit]

I don't have the most developed lexicon for talking about filming techniques. The most I could say about _Discovery_ was that it seemed "too busy" with "too many upside-down-to-rightside-up rotating shots," and that the individual characters on the bridge often felt like they were shot on different days and lacked connection. This video has made me finally understand how shot choices resulted in those feelings. So, thank you for that.

[@joshmayne2853]

too busy is exactly right. I can't make it through one episode, I'm visually exhausted in the first couple minutes. Strange News Worlds got it right though. All the pretty sets, none of the A.D.D. camera.

[@monkeytime9851]

@@joshmayne2853 Same here. Myself and my girldfriend tried to watch new trek and just couldn't get over the camera jank and constant action replacing the exploration of interesting ideas. I miss episodes with mostly a still cam, in one room, deciding if an android has human rights, etc.

[@Number6_]

Your right they were shot on different day and actors were disconnected from all the CGI that was going on.

[@Keithustus]

is also why the films starting with 2009 are barely watchable after 1 viewing

[@AttilaTheHun333333]

I always loved the briefing room scenes, where things got more technical and detailed.

[@tigerbread78]

Ditto, meanwhile, Rowan was struggling to stay awake watching those dull looking scenes, I'm amazed he stuck with TNG at all

[@AttilaTheHun333333]

@@tigerbread78 I respect his opinion. TNG has so much to give. Everyone got something else out of it.

[@macrumpton]

The quote "sound and fury signifying nothing" comes to mind. In trying to make everything dramatic this style is doing the equivalent of typing in all caps, making it hard to focus on what is being said.

[@shark3D]

A film professor of mine put it very simply, TV is usually shot so that you can either watch or listen but don't have to do both whereas a movie is usually made so that you have to have your full attention on it to get the full impact

[@alanpennie]

TNG was so drab that it wouldn't have lost much if it had been on radio. I'd admire The Orville for its retro commitment to boring sets.

[@murphy7801]

Sorry have to hard disagree. Been taken out of the drama is what works about tng. It makes you more objectively focus on the opinions.

[@martynstembridge7714]

Exactly ...

[@markc5111]

I agree with you completely. You get a chance to take on how the characters feel and interact. ❤

[@sixstanger00]

Regarding "briefing room" scenes: Roddenberry tried to capture how operations work on a submarine or naval vessel, not a blockbuster action movie. "Briefings" occurring on the bridge with lens flares, dizzying camera movements, and over-emotional outbursts from the characters may work from an "action" standpoint, but it's not practical from a SHIP OPERATIONS standpoint. There's literally a reason the briefing room exists on starships (even naval vessels have something similar called a "situation room.") The room is intended to give the command staff privacy so they can discuss a given situation without the rank & file crew hearing it (crewmen have a tendency to gossip). The "bridge" version, while actiony, isn't realistic; command officers should NEVER be seen bickering in front of their subordinates. In a crisis, it would only heighten tensions and cause panic/chaos among the crew members. Furthermore, a sense of confidence in the command staff's leadership must be maintained, so you don't want your subordinates hearing you in a briefing saying, "I have no fucking idea what we can do." But from a storytelling standpoint, the briefing room scenes were an easy way to contextualize exposition. That is, it makes sense contextually for Geordi to tell us about this anomaly thingy through his "PowerPoint presentation" because if this were a real ship, that's what the chief engineer would be doing; he wouldn't be scrambling about on the bridge trying to figure shit out on the fly, because the subordinate crew would think the ship is a madhouse. The captain (in this case, Picard) bases his command decisions in part on the information, perspectives, expertise, opinions, etc of his command staff, but he needs to hear their views in an orderly fashion. A bunch of nitwits arguing on the bridge is what troubled married couples do, not senior officers on a ship.

[@TheRogueX]

YES. Briefings were a way to give exposition that felt realistic. People often complain about there being "too much exposition," and usually it's because the exposition is just randomly and awkwardly shoved into what should be a normal conversation between people. Briefings allowed for that exposition to feel natural and realistic.

[@762rk95tp]

Well said. Maybe aside from Geordi running frantically around bridge, him trying to do something on the fly, under immense pressure and all that might have made a good character driven moment or even episode in ensemble cast drama show like TNG. Episodes where Spock acts emotionally and irrationally are fan favorites, why because the must be a reason why Spock is emotional and acting out of character. To get that impact, you need establish the rational and logical character of Spock with a lot of episodes where isn't emotional.

[@OvisMilitaris]

Bit of irony. You mentioned how TV Star Trek looks more like a stage set than a real ship. Then you mention how leadership arguments are in the briefing room and better done on the bridge. Leaders arguing in front of junior personnel on the bridge (which is bad for moral, shows inept command, and destabilizes authority) is more unrealistic than having the argument in a boring briefing room.

[@claudiadarling9441]

TNG has a very mature adults are in control feeling, making high level moves. So when things do devolve to fist fights, action, it has more dramatic impact. When someone as cool and levelheaded as Picard breaks down, or yells at someone, it has meaning. Which isn't to say every show should be like this. I love Lower Decks and it's very much the opposite. It's just I don't think TNG's approach is a flaw, it's part of it's unique flavor or Trek.

[@RKingis]

💯 Correct!!!!!!! The concept of Star Fleet was professionalism in a mainly scientific organization, still trying to find new life & civilizations.

[@enemixius]

I find the aspect ratio thing pretty annoying. I understand using the wider ratio for movies made to be screened in cinemas, but for TV shows it just makes no sense. Pretty much every TV is 16:9, why waste large chunks of everyone's screens for no good reason?

[@MoonjumperReviews]

I would be more than happy to return to “stilted” standard coverage than continuing to endure nausea-inducing dizzy cam. At least Hollywood has backed off a bit from the even more annoying shaky cam from the 2010s. Either way, can two people have a simple conversation in a room, when they’re in no danger, without feeling like the ship is turning barrel rolls for no particular reason? When I’ve shot films, it was convenient to have use of a steady cam to allow for smooth (non-shaky) movement when appropriate and compelling. But a tripod worked very nicely when you just wanted two people to talk to each other without unnecessary distraction. And that’s what all this annoying dizzy cam is: it’s a distraction which takes you out of the information being relayed. And it’s frankly exhausting to watch.

[@jarlwhiterun7478]

The shaky cam needs to go the way of CG. Used to enhance scenes where it makes sense, and nothing more.

[@MoonjumperReviews]

@@jarlwhiterun7478 - Oh yeah, CG of EVERYTHING when it’s not even necessary has gotten ridiculous. I guess they have fired all of the animal wranglers. You can’t even have a real dog on screen anymore. They’ll CG the damned dog-which is hell of a lot more expensive than just showing, you know-a dog! It’s gotten insane.

[@nitehawk86]

Seriously, it sthe single worst thing about Battlestar Galactica (2004). I get that they were going for a "documentary style", but Star Trek is not a documentary.

[@HandofOmega]

This, a thousand times! It's beyond ironic that filmmakers and camera designers spent decades perfecting cameras to eliminate all of these issues...and suddenly Hollywood decided to deliberately bring back all the "flaws" (shaky view, lens flare, even water on the lens) in order to make stories more "realistic"! The irony is, these effects that are meant to draw you into the story like you're there, only take you out of it by reminding you there's a camera there (which, for most stories, there certainly shouldn't be one present, esp not held by an operator who apparently can't stand still)! I don't know for sure, but I suspect there's probably even a program that allows you to ADD a randomized "shaky effect" with the press of a button...

[@HandofOmega]

@@nitehawk86 I always got a laugh out of the random zoom ins and outs of Vipers flying through space! Like, who did they think they were fooling?😏

[@jamesheartney9546]

One of the strengths of traditional TV storytelling comes directly from the lack of time and budget, combined with (pre HD) the small, fuzzy picture. As a result, there's a huge focus on writing, basic acting, and clarity of presentation, rather than splashy effects and showy camera work. Rediscovering a balance between storytelling and presentation is something for new TV shows to aim for. It's been a while since I watched the Orville, but my recollection is that it was a lot easier to watch due to its less hyperactive cinematography.

[@alanpennie]

It's deliberately retro in its camera work and even more so in its amazingly drab set design. A treat for us oldsters.

[@claudiadarling9441]

@@alanpennie Is the Enterprise D super stylish? No. But I can actually imagine it being a comfortable place to live. Most other sci-fi ships are pretty to look at but too cold. The only other ship I can think of, at least in visual media, that feels homier is Serenity from Firefly. But that has more to do with characters deliberately making it home, with decorations and comfy furniture and such.

[@ryansellers2581]

Who asked for Star Trek TV or streaming TV in general be cinematic? I’d take TV quality if it meant 20 episodes a season and maybe 6 months between seasons. No one wants 8-10 episode seasons with 1-2 years between seasons. How is it that TNG could do it affordably, timely, with relatively good quality and they can’t do modern trek in a similar way with state of the art technology and huge budgets. Incompetent producers and mindless corporate management?

[@methos-ey9nf]

I'm always asking myself that.

[@kevinkorenke3569]

The entirety of Babylon 5 budget was roughly equivalent to two episodes of the next generation. They still tell a story that is easy to follow, rewarding to pay attention to, and provides emotional payoff for practically every character. The bloated budgets in the streaming television series we see these days and in many movies is more of a hindrance than a benefit to the audience. Having to work with in constraints forces the creative team to actually be creative.

[@naughtscribe]

To be totally fair, the 26 episode a season schedules were pretty brutal on the actors and crew.

[@lawrencemanning]

Inept writing.

[@naughtscribe]

Also, the B5 actors didn't have to put up with being *utterly word perfect*, and they got to go home at night. TNG apparently went over almost every shoot to the tune of many hours.

[@dtt719]

I love the briefing room scenes. They make sense within the world. A captain meeting with his top officers and other relevant personnel to come to a decision works for me. I like how everyone’s opinion is valued and they come to a decision often in a level headed fashion. Abram’s turned Trek into a generic action franchise. These more subdued moments brought on often by budget constraints forced the writers to come up with interesting situations that focused on things like diplomacy rather than just explosions. They forced them to write better stories which could stand on their own without the spectacle and action. I miss the briefing room scenes from modern Trek.

[@Keithustus]

DS9 showed several deliberately boring scenes of Kira and Odo discussing routine station business. Once I got into the military, whether home or abroad those meetings were A LOT of my time!

[@user-be2dt8eg2x]

They had a "briefing room" scene in Star Wars with Grand Moff and Vader, plus others, and that worked out well.

[@philippepayant6627]

Though they added some dramatic tension by having Vader choke a man.

[@wesleywyndam-pryce4081]

Actually liked the briefing room lol made you feel like part of the crew like what's going to happen it's hard to explain but it was a comforting part of the episode.

[@HighHeelKnight]

I hate it when the camera perpetually wobbles and sways as if the camera person recently drank a case of beer. This is extra annoying for scenes that are quiet and personal. I can't enjoy the scenes because I'm constantly thinking, "Why didn't they just buy a damn tripod!?"

[@RabbitShirak]

Exactly. It feels like camerawork has lost all sense of professionalism.

[@realGBx64]

When they first started to do it in Battlestar Galactica in the early 00’s, it had a character of its own, there was thought behind the handheld shaky cameras, etc. The new trek took all the looks and none of the substance of that style.

[@RabbitShirak]

@@realGBx64 And even with Galactica's shaky cam, you could still 95% of the time still see what was happening.

[@c1ph3rpunk]

“It often looks like it’s taking place on a set, and not in a starship” This is the essence, many of us grew up knowing the show wasn’t actually on a ship, come on, watch TOS. But we did grow up with one thing that people are crucially missing now: an imagination. The obsessive push for more realism has removed the uniqueness, the quaint innocence that pushed us to imagine and, a’hem, focus on story. And yea, modern camerawork and lightning sucks. Picard season 3 is so dark I can barely see anyone on screen. Could they not afford a light for that one?

[@sebastianwittmeier1274]

Nu Trek lost their realism with illogical characters and stories. I am not talking about aliens or technology, but whether we can imagine people acting and interacting that way. There goes all the visual realism. Also the flashy scenes are not realistic at all ...

[@Vincornelis]

It's in modern trek where things look like they take place on a set and not a spaceship. Consoles miles away from eachother, barely any light, sharp directional lights. How is the crew supposed to see anything or quickly take over at another console. No architect would design a ship like that.

[@deandeck]

I notice this with my kids. So used to cgi "realism." When we watch old movies (er force them to watch old movies) I say, You don't have to point out what doesn't look real. Just use your imagination like people used to.

[@Lia-zw1ls7tz7o]

That's an interesting view. I'm 31 and basically grew up with the modern Trek films in addition to watching Star Trek First Contact (the first Star Trek anything I saw on TV) before delving into all of the classic Trek stuff. To me, TOS especially and TNG more and more look like sets with outdated tech and thus not believable as the future whereas modern Trek does. Like, PADDs are just an e-reader with space for a single book and touch screens are bascially just touch keyboards without the possibilities of a modern touch screen. I wonder whether I'm alone in this but to me, if something is meant to be futuristic, it should be reflected in the technological possibilities that should be better than today's ones unless it's deliberately low tech but in that case that has to be mentioned and a reason given. Like the Doctor's TARDIS in Doctor Who, which is said to be an outdated model so to visually convey that, it looks mostly analogue.

[@jpofgwynedd3878]

@@Lia-zw1ls7tz7o PADDS weren't even that: they were just clipboards with pictures stuck on them. It wasn't until we got to Stargate: Atlantis did we see the first tablet type things with some rather clunky IBM laptops which folded back on themselves.

[@prince-solomon]

Have to disagree on this one. - The TNG Enterprise feels more believable, like an actual working place. You don't have perfect cinematic lighting in your work environment, that's what makes it feel grounded. - The briefing room scenes are believable and the focus is on what is being said, like in an actual briefing. The Abrams version feels like a kid with ADHS which constantly has to be bombarded with new visual impressions to keep an interest into what's going on = unrealistic, bad.

[@Nehpets1701G]

The Expanse nailed it time after time - that show was a masterpiece.

[@claytonberg721]

I'm shocked they used anamorphic lenses. Anamorphic lenses cost more, they're slower meaning you need better sensors or faster film stock, they distort driving the special effects budget through the roof, they make lighting more of a challenge, they're heavier but most importantly if the cinematographer knows how to use them they look awesome, and so much better than super 35. For all those reasons they didn't use anamorphic on Lord of the Rings even, jackson early on opted for super-35.

[@kobybarnes3035]

Zero g sex scene....nuff said

[@alaricgoldkuhl155]

Best sci fi series by a large margin. Their strict adherence to the laws of physics alone was exemplary. They never talked down to their audience, yet delivered stories so compelling and well produced that it still appealed to a wide base. I still pick up new things every time I watch it and I've lost count how many times that is. Even calling it a masterpiece is barely scratching the surface.

[@alanpennie]

​@@alaricgoldkuhl155 It definitely shows that you don't need a huge budget to make a great - looking show.

[@kobybarnes3035]

Tbh I personally wouldn't waste time on a show that has an explicit zero gravity s*x scene as the FIRST SCENE.

[@robjohnson3095]

I have to disagree on the lighting. Dramatic lighting is not comfortable lighting, and the people of the future would definitely use comfortable lighting, useful visuals, etc. Also, to quote yourself a bit later, "when everything is intense nothing is intense" so making the sets more comfortable to look at, both with lighting, the over use of shallow focus, and the absurd amount of lens flares (which are an unnatural artifact from an older age of cameras that)... all of things are garbage in, garbage out!

[@doltBmB]

what do you mean older age of cameras? all lenses produce lens flare. and it's necessary for there to be lens flares so you know which things on screen are "brighter than white", an image with no lens flare looks dull and flat, as if there's no highlights.

[@TheBigExclusive]

I disagree with you assessment of Star Trek Generations. The lighting in 10 Forward and the Ready Room look ridiculous. Blinding light is shooting through the windows, and everything else falls into darkness. How can anyone get any work done or enjoy themselves? 😂

[@kombiniranifrizider]

Can we stop perpetuating that Star Trek was a cheap show? It has always been one of the most expensive TV productions

[@1simo93521]

The briefing room scenes make the TNG crew look professional and competent. Having an argument or debate with the captain on the bridge with lower ranking officers watching on, undermines the captains authority and makes him look incompetent. If anyone at anytime can just fight with the captain over his instructions then it's just unmanageable chaos which on a military ship will lead to disaster. This has been one of the biggest failures of modern trek.

[@Aragorn7884]

The camera now moves like the operator had too much coffee...

[@JWB671]

Some films make me motion sick.

[@pigeonpoo1823]

Go Team Shaky Cam!

[@davidt-rex2062]

Nowhere near as bad as shaking the camera like you had never trained to be a camera operator and it's your profession that was the 2000s or so.

[@yw1971]

Too much NYPD

[@jdsiv3]

or meth

[@ShumaniTatankaOwachi]

I prefer the old way of filming and I love briefing room scenes in Star Trek. The way the film it now it’s too cinematic and looks fake, even when they film on location. I guess I’m just too used to the planet hell sets.

[@trojoe]

One of the things I miss most about Star Trek are the static camera setups and the abundant lighting. It was comforting. And thematically relevant. The JJ films (and by extension the shows Kurtzman is hands on with) are all fast endless spectacle void of substance. It's insecurity. There's not enough confidence in the material and/or the audience to be intentional. So, instead, everything is fast and flashy in the hopes no one notices much of what's happened doesn't make sense.

[@brovold72]

Yep. Plus lens glare.

[@commandercaptain4664]

Lens flare is the new dilithium.

[@Keithustus]

At least we have Lower Decks and Prodigy!

[@NCC1371]

I got into star trek in 09 with the JJ movie when i was in middle school. I always thought the warm, muted colors of TNG is one of the things that gave me a feeling of comfort growing up. In a way, it is realistic. The lighting is always the same on the ship more or less, no matter whats happening. Lighting in real life doesn't change depending on the mood. The office lighting doesn't suddenly become harsh and dramatic or gloomy because someone gets canned. I liked the consistency compared to modern movies and shows. TNG always had a consistent flavor that stayed the same. Even the first 2 seasons feel the same as the later ones (writing not included although I still enjoy 1 and 2). I completely understand the importance of lighting in storytelling. I'd love to see what a modern TNG could be like with a massive budget. Those are just my superficial thoughts in the lighting.

[@taragnor]

Yeah I thought the TNG lighting scheme was perfect. It was comfortable and well-lit, like I'd picture a futuristic space ship to be. I hate the new style of lighting where it's either too dark or there's these giant blinding lights flashing around. Why would anyone design a starship to blind its own crew or so dark it's hard to see anything? Makes no sense. .

[@NCC1371]

@taragnor The Galaxy Class was built for long-term space exploration with comfort in mind, so it makes sense.

[@Eric________]

Abrams was only interested in "auditioning" for the director of the new Star Wars movies, via the Trek reboot. He even admitted that he knew little about Star Trek.

[@g-unit7625]

and it painfully shows.

[@purefoldnz3070]

nope, Lucasfilm was sold in 2012 and his Star Trek film came out in 2009

[@OneofInfinity.]

@@purefoldnz3070 Good point 🤔

[@zacharyducharme9264]

This literally has nothing to do with the video

[@SirEpifire]

Proof that as long as you can make it flashy, you can get away with wrecking two franchises back to back.

[@simonpeteradkins]

Low budget? TOS was the most expensive TV show at the time. When they were in production, every special effects shop in LA was on it.

[@Dargonhuman]

And they wrung every ounce of production value they could out of that budget to the point that a lot of people who did watch it said it was like watching a theater quality movie at home every week.

[@commandercaptain4664]

@@Dargonhuman I'd never heard of anyone describing Classic like that, but I always wondered.... I'm still wondering.

[@mcameron1981]

Conference scenes can absolutely work. Just look at the ISB scenes in Andor. They are probably the most interesting scenes, with the best acting, in the whole first season (Hell, I'd say of any season, or TV show, in the last 20 years). They are absolutely riveting. There's a fine line between progressing a story through a conference scene or just info-dumping a load of stuff that should have naturally been part of other conversations. I think TNG got that right, more than it got it wrong.

[@mardus_ee]

Oh, the cinematography in Andor is lovely: every shot is like a work of art.

[@Keithustus]

Trying to compare any recent Trek season to Andor season 1 is just [cry].

[@metalinsights9664]

TNG is awesome. I love how it feels like a Shakespearean stage play. It is carried by great dialogue and acting, not by dizzying camera work and fast editing.

[@jbthepaysonite]

This makes me want a retrospective on The Expanse even more

[@lilkris3008]

Can’t do one till they finish it at least that’s what I’m telling myself

[@tonyclemens4213]

The Expanse is the best science fiction so far of the 21th century, followed closely by For All Mankind.

[@lilkris3008]

@@tonyclemens4213 yes FAM is amazing as well also check out 3 body problem less rocket physics and more quantum but definitely fills the void until S5 and a hopefully S7 for the Roci crew

[@Justin_Beaver564]

Gene Roddenberry wasn't a science fiction writer. He wrote police and military dramas with Enlightenment messaging. It was really more of a detective show with Kirk and Spock trying to solve a mystery in space. Data's facination with Sherlock Holmes in TNG isn't an accident.

[@NTNG13]

Roddenberry said he was inspired by the Horace Hornblower naval stories as well as westerns, calling Trek "Wagon Train to the Stars". So I think that it goes even further back in time instead of detectives and more like a Sheriff/Almirant getting stuff sorted out.

[@alaricgoldkuhl155]

@NTNG13 I didn't know that. I loved Horatio Hornblower too! Makes sense now you say it. Both are naval based morality tales with the only difference being the time setting.

[@Dargonhuman]

@@NTNG13 That's why the correct classification of Trek is actually "space opera" and not "science fiction", as the focus is on the messaging, moral dilemmas and the melodrama of exploring the human condition.

[@stackflow343]

@@Dargonhuman Exploring the galaxy, physics and tech inspired from real-world theoretical science, astronomical phenomena, aliens, space battles, teleportation, wormholes... yea I see what you mean, clearly no focus on scifi. lol

[@Dargonhuman]

@@stackflow343 all of which are mere background and framing elements for the human drama that was the focus of the Roddenberry era.

[@darthelmet1]

I can't speak to modern Trek since I've only watched a little bit of it, but in general I kind of hate modern TV drama film making. There are so many scenes where you can barely tell what's happening either because it's too dark, too cluttered with special effects, or the camera movement is nonsense. Then there is the audio mixing and dialogue delivery. Absurdly loud action sounds and very quiet dialogue makes it basically impossible to pick an appropriate volume. Between that and the way some actors deliver dialogue, there are plenty of shows I put subtitles on for just because it can be hard to tell what people are saying in a lot of scenes. The older, flatter, TV stage look might look low budget and maybe a bit boring at times, but it got the job done. It put the actors, story, and action front and center.

[@Dargonhuman]

That's the problem, the older shows only _look_ low budget by modern standards, but for their time, they were the pinnacle of high budget production value. TOS was one of the most expensive shows to make in 1966, and it's quality was often compared to that of cinema movies of the time. I hate when people say older Trek looks "cheap" or "low budget" because it was anything but - the cheapness we see today is the result of severe technological limitations of the time, not budget or production value.

[@deleted_redacted]

Give me "stilted" any day of the week. I'm so tired of modern cinematography. TNG did it best.

[@user-zp4ge3yp2o]

The writers need to go and see more plays so they can realise the most important thing is story, script and performance. No one shouts "fake!" at a play because it's obviously not real but you can still be completely drawn in. TV shows are also obviously not real, so...

[@CielBlanche]

Battlestar had an amazing filmmaking sense. They knew exactly when to hasten the shot pacing and dramatize the camera movement in its most intense moments. Bringing out those tools with calculated intent and purpose caused those moments to be all the more jaw dropping

[@kevinkorenke3569]

All Abrams did was create a dumbed down plot with characters that still have yet to demonstrate their competence and professionalism. Kirk comes across like a spoiled legacy that failed up just because the plot says so. Toss in enough chasing something that you can't remember what the heck you were chasing since the last chase and you see why it's the ToS movies that are most fondly remembered. Abrams and STD weren't more cinematic, they were too much Ritalin.

[@vzerby]

I would agree with you with the first two movies but not with Star Trek Beyond.

[@kevinkorenke3569]

@@vzerby I would still say that even Star Trek beyond suffered from these deficiencies, specifically lack of professionalism. I can't think of another service, military or quasi-military where the bridge crew would berate and mock the technical crew that is coming in to install and upgrade to their systems yet we saw that in one of the episodes of the show. Star Trek beyond isn't as bad at it but it is still happening.

[@sargon6000]

>Abrams and STD weren't more cinematic, they were too much Ritalin. You nailed it. There was an interview with Chris Pine about his work with JJ, and Pine told about one time when he didn't understand what his lines meant to convey during an intense action scene, and asked JJ about it, but JJ instead told him it doesn't matter, since all the audience will notice is "Something is happening".

[@indiajohnson]

👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾

[@commandercaptain4664]

Don't forget the screaming. The only way he can convey "intensity" was to have everyone yell at each other.

[@ReclusiveAsta]

I like the "objective lens" filming style though, I want to feel like I'm directly peering into another world rather than though some guy shaking a camera around, I find that's more immersion breaking.

[@tompinkerton8099]

You lost me with the briefing room scenes being your least favorite. TNG's briefing room scenes were iconic and some of the best of the series. Why do you think Picard season 3 made a point of having a scene where the cast all gathers around a conference table and even mentions it in the dialogue? And perhaps I am in the minority, but I think the Enterprise-D bridge looks *much* better in TNG than it does in Generations or Picard. I much prefer TNG's lighting scheme to the more "cinematic" lighting that came later.

[@AngryDuck79]

The irony of asking if modern trek has "missed the forest for the trees." Yes, dude, yes. The fantastic quality of the visuals is only over shadowed by the utter lack of quality in the writing and storytelling. They took all their money and spent it on graphics artists instead of talented script writers.

[@loupasternak]

Modern trek misses the DeForest

[@Novarcharesk]

Depends on which New Trek being spoken about. Some of them are excellent, like SNW and the animated shows. I personally gave up on Discovery long ago. Even Picard is shot with a much more steady movement, which is nice.

[@commandercaptain4664]

@@loupasternak That hit me in the funny Bones.

[@CadaverJunky8]

I can't stand watching these new Star Trek shows. It's so painfully obvious that it's made by people who are desperate to make Star Trek ANYTHING but Star Trek. Every camera shot is an epileptic shakey cam action scene ride, the characters do nonsensical idiotic things for the sake of action (why is CAPTAIN Burnham going down on every away mission to personally fight people?), every conversation has to be peppered with cringey Marvel quips. It's great when you make a show thinking your audience is brain dead pigs.

[@tonycosta3302]

JJ Abrams’ wife even complained about the ridiculous use of lens flares. It was a fun movie, but it was just an action adventure without and larger themes.

[@SimpMcSimpy]

I love every aspect of TNG style. It's so colorful and calm, makes me focus on characters and dialogs. It's perfect in every way !!! Never liked that dreamy "blurred" style they introduced in DS9, with every light source having weird halo effect. New Star Trek is something I ignore completely, not even worth mentioning.

[@mem1701movies]

I don’t get the love for DS9. I find about 1/3 of it just ok.

[@SimpMcSimpy]

@@mem1701movies For me, first several seasons are mostly unwatchable. Later on they turned DS9 into a long action movie which made it more appealing to most ST fans. TNG is still my favorite.

[@spiffyspaceman]

@@SimpMcSimpy I guess that's why, after numerous attempts, I've never made it past the first season of DS9. The entire tone of the show was a bit off-putting. I like episodic Trek with more exploration and a general sense of optimism.

[@magnusprime962]

@@spiffyspacemanSeason 1 of DS9 is like Season 2 of TNG: pretty rough, but there’s nuggets of potential in there. Season 3 is where DS9 truly becomes consistently good, and much like TNG it happened when a new head writer took the reins. That said, DS9 is darker in tone than TNG but always with a purpose. The writers on DS9 believed in most of Roddenberry’s vision, but they knew that the best way to create drama and to show that vision’s strengths was to challenge it. To force our heroes into difficult situations and make them question their ideals. That makes it all the more meaningful when they stick to them and things work out.

[@f0rth3l0v30fchr15t]

@@magnusprime962 TNG improved when Riker grew the beard, DS9 improved when Sisko shaved his dome.

[@AdrianBalogh]

8:03 "The relationship between people and the places they inhabit is an important one." Yes, that is why we had the briefing room and the "dry" scenes within it in TNG. It gave the series an authenticity. It made it feel like this was an actual place that could exist where people would live and work. (Though, I will admit, those uniforms kind of say otherwise. 😅)

[@CantankerousDave]

Soooo much of "modern" flashy sci-fi film practices is still summed up by Ian Malcolm - "Your [filmmakers] were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should." There's a generation of network execs who think that Michael Bay and J.J. Abrams' visual styles are worthy of being emulated (shudder), and they hand down edicts to do so.

[@commanderkruge]

Geee, the spinning cameras on Discovery - they gave me actual motion sickness two or three times - good thing they toned THAT down! :D

[@MidnightAge]

You and I are one the same page about this, but for one small detail. While I also thing the visual language of modern Trek vis a vis the cinematography is too busy and I have made exactly the same point about so much being in shallow focus, I disagree almost entirely about your criticism of the lighting used during the TNG/DS9/VOY era of Trek. I loved how bright, well-light, and crystal clear the lighting in TNG-era Trek was and I associated it with the visual storytelling; Starfleet and Federation ships and facilities are bright, crisply lit, and clean because Starfleet and the Federation were welcoming, utopian organizations meant to convey that they had nothing to hide. That bright light evokes a sense of safety and reassurance, that these are the good guys and these places we're seeing are ones we're supposed to feel connected to and welcome to feel at home in. It also left it the drama to the actors which I often appreciate. Which isn't to say lighting can't emphasize emotion as it a tool; it clearly can and done skillfully you don't even notice it. TNG and DS9 both used alternative lighting for alien ships, sometimes different places, and often in dangerous situations to speak to the alien and potentially dangerous natures of what was happening. It also made circumstances where the various ships or settings lost power feel more unsettling because that sense of safety was shaken. But the I always found the bright, fulsome lighting on the Enterprise-D comforting and narratively satisfying. It spoke to me about what Starfleet and the Federation valued. So much so and to the point that I actually found the most disconcerting and painful scenes in Generations to be those on the Enterprise-D. Scenes that I should have otherwise enjoyed conversely robbed me of some of that enjoyment simply because the lighting was so counter to my the narrative expectation and visual sensibility I come to know for so many years sacrificed to instead be played for unnecessary moodiness and cheap drama. It really ruined my immersion. I remember distinctly being in the theater watching it for the first time with my aunt and thinking "That's not the Enterprise." The scene that comes to mind most easily, though not the only one I struggle with, is Troi and Picard after he finds out his brother died. Yes, the darkness of the room plays to the grief he is feeling, but that moodiness isn't needed and its so counter to the expectations I have come to expect from that series. The actors did perfectly well carrying the weight. I was genuinely so happy that the Orville went back to TNG-era sensibility of things being well lit inside the ship itself. All that said, beyond my complaints about the lighting on whole, I'm one of those rare people that seems to actually really enjoy Generations otherwise. It's one of the few TNG films that felt like it was written with a TNG sensibility for the characters behind it. I like it considerably better than First Contact, actually, which I consider one of the worst Trek movies altogether, an opinion I know that is exactly opposite held by many if not most others. So perhaps my viewpoints are somewhat skewed from the general fandom. Grains of salt all the way around I suppose.

[@evenmoor]

At least there was an actual reason in _Generations_ (albeit behind the scenes) for the lighting to be so low on the Enterprise set - they did it because the set was designed for much lower-resolution TV screens, not massive theater screens, and wouldn't hold up at all. Rather than constructing a whole new set (which they didn't have the money to do anyway), they just turned down the lights and hoped for the best. I agree completely that it is totally jarring, especially if one's just come from watching TNG!

[@tyler5545]

Interesting. There are still things I enjoy about First Contact, but I too have always found it massively overrated and Generations underrated - an opinion I didn’t think anyone else shared! The plots of neither one really make sense and both do some egregious things with previously established canon (giving the Borg a “Queen”-let alone sexualizing her!?-completely ruined the allure they had in the series). But at least in Generations the characters and universe we see felt closer to the TV show. Whereas First Contact onward I barely recognized the characters anymore. The scene of Picard trashing the conference room and screaming “nOoOoO!” will forever baffle me.

[@Ma55ey]

One of the many problems I have with new trek is that it also seems to take the marvel movie formula of having an action beat every Couple of scenes.. every time i see an action scene from any of the new shows it looks too much like the dude bro ads for star trek online... which probably explains why i cant stand them..

[@retropcgamer]

I agree. I personally hate how modern show nowadays are always making themselves look like you're watching a movie every episode, with tons of lighting & an aspect ratio (Sometimes, shows would have ratio changes in the episode & some shows would cover a lot more of the image than other shows, which kind of puts me off). This is why I liked watching a show like the Orville S01&02. They didn't have an amazing budget, so they essentially made it look a similar way of TNG. (Though they went to putting an aspect ratio in S03, which I wasn't a fan of). I'd much prefer a TV show that has full screen coverage, but still have some good lighting (similar to what Star Trek Generations looked like). I'm honestly getting sick of this in TV. Hell, it's even in some cartoon shows I've seen (Specifically Marvels What If & X-Men 97). This constant use of making TV look "Cinematic" gets very tiring after a while, & I really hope this at least gets dumbed down a bit in the near future. I also find it interesting how TNG, Stargate SG1, Babylon 5 & other shows back then had to be at a specific ratio out of necessity for the way TVs were built, & nowadays where we can have TVs to show us more of the image, yet shows choose to block off a good portion of the screen, to virtually serve no necessary purpose.

[@johnbd9765]

Doesn't the non-emotionally-driven cinematography jibe better with the Trek ethos? Trek should be driven by the writing, not the spectacle.

[@commandercaptain4664]

Modern Start Trek wants to impart the enormity of space travel at the expense of the logic of it.

[@MereanaM-]

It doesn't matter what the wrapper is, it's what's inside that matters

[@humblemumble80]

Gonna have to chime in with others and disagree about the briefing room scenes. Those scenes were about sharing thoughts and ideas about a given situation; they're not meant to be particularly dynamic. Plus, when the ship is at warp, you get the added bonus of being in the room with the stars zipping past as our heroes talk out a situation. The briefing room scenes gave a few moments of calm in often tense situations. I miss that

[@cryalot378]

J J Abrams also changed "Star Trek" into Star Wars

[@commandercaptain4664]

No, he changed it into Bad Boys in Space, Mikey Bay style.

[@altonbunnjr]

You’re comparing the styles from two different decades and with differing budgets. That’s like comparing a movie from today to one made in the 1950s. What was done in the 90s worked for them especially considering they didn’t have the budget to waste on hundreds of different shots for the same scene.

[@drgutman]

Discovery is not canon - it's fanfiction, and you can't change my mind :)))

[@commandercaptain4664]

To be fan fiction means to be written by fans at all. There. Mind changed.

[@chesslover8491]

Officers on a ship don’t talk about big things in front of the plebs. They of course leave the watch in charge and meet elsewhere. I always felt the briefing room scenes made good sense

[@binar7298]

I absolutely despise the spinning camera shots. This has permeated in so many films and shows. It's annoying.

[@Cptn.Viridian]

Despite my never having watched the show, the few snippets of it I have seen over the shoulder of my roommate justify my hate. I distinctly remember a scene where the Captain Hero Protagonist Girlboss phases through the wall of the bridge, followed immediately by the most unengaging childish Marvel writing back and forth with the bridge crew and another captain.

[@1monki]

The dramatic lighting of TOS was missing in TNG. The '60s show was shot for black and white, then for color. The images had to work on B&W sets. But they wanted impactful color for those who could see it. So the show had dramatic values and colorful highlights. Foreground characters are rendered in dark shadows while their background is a wash of vivid purples and greens. Much of modern Trek looks cold white with hard metal highlights. While the look might be futuristic, even "badass," it's not quite expressive of the culture meant to have created it. Or maybe it was...

[@mardus_ee]

I guess it was expressive of the culture that created it. • The cinematography of TOS stands out for having a very gentle contrast between colours, as opposed to the brightness of TNG, the bare metal of _Voyager_ and _Enterprise,_ and the blinding lights on _Discovery_ and _Picard._ _Deep Space Nine_ got the colour and contrast just right by the way, contrasting any dark surroundings with strips of light that didn't blind anyone. TOS had plenty of colour, with primary colours assigned for actors; while backgrounds were given soft pastels, greens, cyans, pinks, oranges, and magentas - while the colour gamut was used really sparingly, giving priority to only a handful of colours.

[@762rk95tp]

TOS had very high emphasis on color television. The channel wanted to showcase then new technology and that came from the top. That is why uniforms became more colorful after the Cage.

[@Aragorn7884]

GD lens flares! 😠😠

[@ApocryphalDude]

No wonder terrans have trouble nowadays. Lens flares! I would have migraines too

[@commandercaptain4664]

They're the new Borg!

[@TheGunnarRoxen]

The briefing room scenes were some of my favourite. Totally disagree with you there. Also the Picaed "dramatic lighting" made everything gloomy. I prefer the TNG lighting. It allows you to concentrate on story.

[@SuperGorak]

To me, the stagey camera work in TNG was a huge factor in the series' "mature" tone. The camera's steadiness felt like it was a neutral observer whose calmness mirrored the heroes' professionalism. The times when the camera would use a fisheye lens or whatever was basically when a character would face psychological turmoil. But a mysterious alien entity probing the ship? Better stay calm and rational everybody, that includes the camera man! New Trek just has camera work that feels like the narration doesn't seem to really understand any given situation.

[@MarvelX42]

I couldn't agree more! Sometimes the camera moves around so much for no damn reason that I literally get motion sickness.

[@wesleywyndam-pryce4081]

Briefing room was actually goat 🐐 in TNG lol that's all I disagree on, It has there own story or sets up the action plus it adds to the characters the connections so much Discovery has zero of that

[@Streetsvillainy]

7:58 - that shot right there exemplifies the thing you're talking about; I know they gave that pilot and the cyborg in the back of the bridge names and ranks and backstory and lines eventually, but for the first stretch of Discovery's first season it was using these super tight shots on characters who looked interesting and seemed to be doing interesting thing, but the show wasn't introducing us to them or giving us a reason to give a shit about these faces we see in close up. It was doing Too Much on one hand, and Too Little on the other.

[@beepboop204]

do you have thoughts about the "fantasy vs Sci-fi tropes" debate, regarding whether or not fantasy tropes are not sci-fi tropes, and vice versa, and whether or not sci-fi content increasingly relies on fantasy tropes? i think its particularly interesting to compare Warhammer and Warhammer 40K. also, it does seem like every show from Star Wars to Witcher feature similar themes like undead/zombies, time travel, mysterious ancient artifacts, etc., etc. thanks!

[@TAnders877]

When you have a briefing room set you have to ensure they are saying something that makes sense and is semi-interesting. Nowadays the focus is on the visuals at the expense of the story. In 2024 cinematic also seems to assume the audience has the attention span of a chipmunk.

[@_Patobot]

Hi. Yeah. I agree with you. I really hate that annoying black bars in the modern ST series. Enterprise was the only show that nailed it with its 16:9 ratio.

[@MiningForPies]

Another vote for the briefing room scenes here, they were fantastic.

[@Ephisus]

The TNG briefing room scenes are a highlight for me. The instances where STD tries to do anything like this really shows how terrible its writing is. Where briefing rooms in TNG are about different experts having different opinions about what to do, and the dramatic dilemma of command decision making, STD is just the writers arbitrarily breaking up a bunch of exposition so that everyone in the room has some lines, total garbage.

[@ChrisS-no3ft]

TNG “bland”??? What a joke. What we get now is camera work that will cause seizures. Soulless, juvenile garbage.

[@Dystopianutopiabuilds]

I grew up with tng. Now there's maybe a dozen episodes I could rewatch without getting bored or embarrassed. Things change as time moves forward.

[@commandercaptain4664]

@@Dystopianutopiabuilds Seizure inducing camera swoops are "moving forward"? TNG seems to be the forward production with actual cogent storytelling.

[@Dystopianutopiabuilds]

@@commandercaptain4664 how bizzare that you like a TV show about the future yet chose to live firmly in he past.

[@Ragitsu]

@@Dystopianutopiabuilds There is an irony in defending newer Star Trek series, because _they_ have oftentimes regressed.

[@Dystopianutopiabuilds]

@@Ragitsu that's down to personal interpretation really. Star trek is what it is. Anyone expecting it to be made in a way that they agree with is deluded unless they own the rights to the franchise. As a fan you have no input or bearing on what it does and if they do something you don't like then that's just the way it is.

[@antonnym214]

In 2009, I wrote a book about the original series. I took four years and tracked down people who worked on the show. They were old, but sharp, and remembered everything. I got stuff nobody knew! I say that to say this: I'm a Trek purist. No matter what you can say about any original episode, it still had the Roddenberry ethos. Even TNG, and, to a large extent, the other pre-abrams spin-offs, AND the first six movies, because Roddenberry wasn't far-removed. There were others like Berman and Pilar to carry the legacy. In my opinion, Abrams is a fine action movie director, but it could have been ANY space shoot'em up and not necessarily Trek. Don't even get me started about ST:D and the rest after that. (ʘ_ʘ) The best thing about them is MAYBE a few fans will seek the original to find the big bang of the Trek universe. All good wishes.

[@BintyMcFrazzles]

I agree with you. Modern Trek can be amazing, but sometimes it's just too much. When it's MAX DRAMA all the time, it can lose subtlety. I like style, but I don't want *style over substance*. I love to watch Doug Jones as Saru, he's my favourite character, but I don't need the camera panning around his head 10 times. When New Trek is good, it's superb and I love it. But when it's bad, it's almost painful. Great vid, thank you!

[@Sovereign-kh4ng]

Saru deserved to be in a better show...

[@BintyMcFrazzles]

@@Sovereign-kh4ng I love DISCO, but it has it's terrible moments. Thankfully, the majority of the show fairs better.

[@MrGittz]

Not even a minute in and the guy has already made a massive mistake. The first Star Trek movie, released in 1979, had a bigger budget than any Star Wars movie up until Phantom Menace. The first Star Trek was one of the most expensive movies ever made at that time. It cost between 40-50 million dollars. Star Wars? Cost 11 million. Empire? Went way over budget but it cost 30.

[@TheMariostarr]

This genuinely might be one of my favorite critiques of not just Modern Trek, but Trek overall, as well as modern filmmaking in general A damn fine video overall!

[@johnmanno2052]

I'm adding my voice to the chorus about the briefing room scenes! They were some of my favorite scenes. I also prefer the calmer, cooler, more objective and more static Star Trek. It's more about The Triumph of Reason, which is why I watched Star Trek as a kid, and why I kept watching it.

[@Holammer]

I only watched a few episodes of Discovery before I bailed. They sure had amazing sets, lightning and camera work didn't they? But I craved the smart dialogue of classic Trek.

[@pigeonpoo1823]

Me too. Full of immature, unprofessional, idiotic, moronic, overly emotional, unhealthy idiots. They'd all be on final written warnings before they left spacedock.

[@zombieshoot4318]

Give me TNG’s TV set style or the TOS movie set style and concentrate on the story. Don’t need 26 episodes if that’s too much. Give 20. There is a way to upgrade TNG set style to make it more interesting but not go crazy like they do now on Discovery and SNW.

[@ajayrious]

I take issue with the notion that the sets and lighting of Generations were an improvement. They look dark and uninviting. Picards quarters look like he's sitting in the dark brooding like a teenager. TNG's sets look like a professional enviroment that actually exists, the lighting is appropriate for the function. And whilst we're talking about function that brings us to the Conference room, a location which has a defined professional function rather than the utter chaos of the JJ Abrams bridge set and the unprofessionalism of having a meeting there in front of the entire bridge crew.

[@Planetdune]

I agree with some points but disagree with so many more. That said, I always loved the conference scenes in TNG. Makes it feel real as it would happen on a well led starship. And TNG does NOT look flat and boring.

[@jasonblalock4429]

5:00 I know it's popular to dunk on JJA - and he's definitely not as great as he thinks he is - but in all fairness the man *knows* cinematography. He can do fast action and quick cuts, and actually keep it all readable. Unlike a lot of other modern action directors. And you can see this in Discovery's flawed attempts at imitating his style. (Also, I 100% agree about shallow focus. It should be a stylistic tool sparingly deployed, not a constant. I also feel the same way about most DOF in video games, for that matter. Let ME decide what elements in the screen I want to focus on. Don't blur everything out unless there's a good reason.)

[@commandercaptain4664]

He's basically Michael Bay with slightly more competent editors and a laser pointer.

[@Surllio]

The shallow focus lets them hide better that most of the scenes are not on sets but loads green screens as they don't have to give as much detail to the bits in the background. Its not just a trek problem, its a modern tv problem. So many shows are shot on soft focus long lenses that it creates a somewhat fish eye effect at the bottom of the screen when its not covered up by the aspect ratio black bars.

[@urbanstarship]

If you go back to TNG in the first season, it looks like they tried to go for something cinematic with the lighting, but it didn't work out. Many shots have huge keylight hotspots on them that I think look terrible. I much prefer the flat lighting to that, and it somehow communicates 'futuristic luxury ocean liner' of the Enterprise D better.

[@BigHeadClan]

I think a good part of this is many (not all) modern studios and directors simply don’t know how to frame shots with practical effects, or correctly light their sets anymore, CGI has become so prevalent and does so much heavy lifting and correction in modern productions that it’s now a crutch instead of a tool to augment or sell a scene. I’m personally of the belief that film visuals peaked in the early 2000s.

[@Dargonhuman]

Mmmhmm, spot on. The sets of TNG were full sets and specifically designed to accommodate camera placement with removable wall panels on every side. DS9 and Voyager followed that trend and designed their sets to be even friendlier to dynamic shots with DS9 opting for more open, multi-tiered sets like the Promenade and Ops and Voyager having even more little cubbyholes and niches to put a camera lens. These days, they just design the entire set on a computer, build the absolute minimum amount of props they need the actors to interact with and surround it with green screens and it looks absolutely awful for it. They turn the lights way down to save on rendering time, but also to mask the fact that 90% of the shots are CGI, because everything would look too perfect, too clean and too fake without it. The real sets had slight imperfections that caught the light in real ways, had scuff marks from actors missing their cues and kicking the set pieces, or would wobble and sit slightly askew after an actor was thrown across it a few episodes prior. The chairs looked like someone had sat in them for hours at a time every day for years, and so on.

[@GothicLightingQueen]

@@Dargonhuman I watched a behind the scenes documentry about the movie Underworld. The director said he pushed to use alot of practicle effects, costumes and sets. Because it looked better, it made the actors interact with it in a good way, and more things like that. I feel that modern productions compared to 20 years ago is the same as music, puting autotune and using a computer to play midi instrumets might be cheaper and faster to produce, but it isin't even close in quality or beeing as good compared to listening to a talanted singer with skilled musicians

[@Dargonhuman]

@@GothicLightingQueen Underworld is a great looking movie because of the effort. Another great example is Lord of the Rings, especially compared to The Hobbit. LOTR has as much practical as possible and the effort pays off in spades. The Hobbit had so much green screen than Ian McKellan broke diwn crying because he had nothing to act against.

[@Uncle_Fred]

I'd argue that there are still some holdouts. Denis Villeneuve of Arrival and Dune flair knows how to make visuals enhance a story. CGI is only used where it can effectively enhance physical props. The camera is dynamic or steady without being shakey, and he's the only one who knows how to do bright and dark scenes right. For example, scenes don't always have to have perfect lighting, adding to the realism, but they always have to have a rich audio landscape that tells the story. It's very effective.