Why is TOS and its respective movies so vibrant and colorful and TNG so bland looking?

Why is TOS and its respective movies so vibrant and colorful and TNG so bland looking?

Reminder that once the general fags find this thread it's over

TOS didn't take itself all that seriously, whereas TNG took itself seriously.

That doesn't excuse TNGs shitty aesthetics. TOS is so comfy.

...

What is it with you autist and "muh colors!"?

Because what year were they made, dumdum?

TOS happened during the 60s and TNG happened during the 80s. Its almost like the time they made them affected the art production.

TNG wood and beige leather bridge is comfier than lab white TOS bridge, you nigga.

>the 80's had no color

made in the 80's by competent filmmakers vs the 90's by tv hacks

The TOS movies were made in the late 70's into the 80's and 90's though.

Fun fact that bird of prey design and bridge in STIII were originally romulan, last minute script rewrites changed the villain to klingon but with the models and sets already built they just costumed their actors to klingon.

This fucks up my brain lore a bit

...

That's not what he's saying. The 60s vision of the future was colourful, the 80s vision of the future wasn't.

The Federation was full socialist by the time of TNG so everything had to be as uniform and lifeless as possible.

What the fuck. Go back to your board.

What are you talking about you stupid faggot?

Why?

The Romulans and Klingons both use birds of prey and cloaking devices. They're both militaristic cultures that have lived closely and fought against or with eachother for a long time.

>why do isis and the peshmerga both use kalashnikovs?

It's just the lighting.

Television lighting is a lot easier to set-up and breakdown as opposed to using an actual cinematographer and achieving a certain look.

They had to do about 26 episodes per season. The one thing they would've wanted was consistency.

You also have to remember during the 80s, it's not like now, where you had film cinematographers/DPs branching into television. Television was looked down upon by them, so not many ventured into television work, especially if it was network television.

People saying the difference in color/lighting is because of a different vision for the future in the opposing decades are dumbasses.

Just compare the lighting in TNG episodes, to their respective films.

Look at pic related. Same setting, completely different lighting setup changes the look and feel of the scene.

All I remember from TNG movies was that they were really dark, it was like all the lights on the Enterprise were dimmed

Tos tv and tng tv are about on par. Tos tv just had that 60s aesthetic.
Tos cinema > tng cinema though for aesthetic design. 1701 refit is probably the most beautiful st ship ever created. The uniforms are top tier as well. The cool blue ship ui is god tier.

Not to mention if you're super autistic it's not a stretch to imagine that Klingons stole a lot of the technology they have because they're not exactly a race of scientists.

A E S T H E T I C

I thought the bird of prey was a romulan ship design that the klingons stole? Or was it the other way around?

I don't think it's ever stated in any of the shows or movies