Acoustic Panels as Wall Coverings in Star Trek: the Next Generation
Key topics
The debate rages on about the acoustic panels adorning the walls of Star Trek: The Next Generation's sets - are they a practical solution for sound management or just a stylish flourish? While some commenters, like paulmooreparks, argue that acoustic treatment would be a necessity in a futuristic spaceship, others, like huflungdung, bluntly state that it's all about aesthetics, saying "it looks cool and futuristic. Nothing else." The discussion meanders into a broader conversation about sci-fi set design, with some, like 9dev, lamenting the tendency towards overly "spacey" decor, while others, like macguillicuddy, argue that TNG's more subdued approach is a deliberate design choice. Amidst the banter, a consensus emerges that the show's attention to detail is impressive, with sleepytimetea marveling at the meticulous documentation of the wall coverings.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
3d
Peak period
27
72-84h
Avg / period
9.6
Based on 48 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Aug 26, 2025 at 8:34 PM EDT
4 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Aug 30, 2025 at 1:57 AM EDT
3d after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
27 comments in 72-84h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Sep 2, 2025 at 3:44 AM EDT
4 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
There's probably a practical set-design aspect to this. The acoustic tile as backdrop also makes a better sound stage, I would think.
I mean, I get it, I watch a space opera, it’s set in space. But why do the designers have to shove it in your face that much? My guess would be that the future rather features sublime technology that disappears into the background when not needed, environments designed for efficiency, not wasted space—especially on vessels.
Yet, I still find the textured blinky walls very immersion-breaking, for their artificial appearance. It’s nit-picking for sure; TNG did an amazing job at creating an interesting universe.
I’d just wish for some actually bold yet believable vision of the future.
Textbook modernism.
The alternative is the industrial-warehouse-in-space Alien aesthetic - all unlit metal gantries and dripping chains - which is a different kind of efficiency. But still utilitarian.
When you get an organic incursion of veins, branches, or tendrils, it's either a self-contained Memory of Home arboretum, or a signifier of danger and a Very Bad Thing.
Have you really looked at the insides of actual craft from NASA, military aircraft, military and commercial ships, or submarines? Purposeful, large facilities like hangars, factories, oil drilling platforms, or refineries? Smaller technical spaces like equipment rooms, scientific research labs, and medical imaging labs?
I think the designers are often imagining future tech spaces derived from these examples rather than luxury ocean liners, hotels, resorts, and executive meeting rooms. It isn't irrational to use those purposefully technical environments as setting for technologically-driven drama.
Star Trek NG was more of the cruise ship or hotel vibe as they tried to efficiently convey their utopian vision. They went with the militaristic or industrial vibe for contrasting environments they encountered in many episodes.
It's very jarring, in a fascinating way.
If you consider a TNG tricorder, it is a magical device with 600 different functions, but to use it looks more awkward than even a 1st gen iphone. Definitely designed for the camera's eye first.
TOS era tricorders had a small TV in them and big chunky buttons you could see poor Ensign Ricky fiddling with before falling into the lava pit. LCARS just didn't work well with the tiny little displays of TNG tricorders.
When I watched the LOTRs movies, I recalled several saying that it diverged from the books. And sure, it did. It had to. You cannot convert mediums and not have change. Yet the easy way to conceptualize it, is that you're listening to two different people's telling of the same tale.
Both people will perceive the world as a different place, will even be standing in different places during events, may not have been at all events, and so on. Once that's in the pocket, a movie such as LOTR does quite well I think. It captures what it should.
But move to Foundation, and I really have no idea what book anyone read. I feel that someone read the books, and wrote a 1000 word summary of it... then someone used that to write the scripts, which was heavily edited. Massive, vastly important concepts are completely dropped from Foundation. It's not even remotely the same story.
Again, it's not bad. I just hate they stole the name, and character names.
The reason I'm on about this, is that the people designing sets are typically "touchy feely" types, which is of course fine. However often these types have a really hard time with static, unchanging facts or things, very specific details, and caring about function over form. This of course can extend to world building by an artist, as opposed to a sci-fi author.
Here's one example... in the books the Empire had 25 million planets. In the series it's under 10k galaxy wide. There's no real reason for the change, other than "don't care" or "Oooh, that's a confusing number". Even the size of the galaxy was off in series 1.
So when it comes to sets? Bear in mind these people think "Ooooh, space!" and go into a flutter of excited re-design. They're not approaching it from an intellectual perspective, but instead from emotion. And space is strange, and cold, and blah blah.
Perhaps I'm unkind, I've met artist types which were more cognitive of their art. Sometimes. When they were drunk.
LOTR film trilogy was amazing - it was made in times when CGI was still more a complementary tool rather than foundation (sic) of the production that we're seeing today. The balance back then was just about right. Hobbit on the other hand felt cheaply done in many spots - CGI was way too obvious. IIRC McKellen really despised that he had to act alone on greenscreen in these films.
I can forgive a "hexagon everything", but The Expanse has these transparent displays and low contrast holograms, which really get me upset. I mean it's just obviously idiotic and absolutely wouldn't be a thing.
Then again, my iPhone looks and feels almost exactly the same front and back, save for the LED, which results in me tapping the back's decorative glass panel several times a day, before I realize it's not the display. A real-world, omnipresent design choice nearly as idiotic.
Other hard scifi masterpieces such as Children of Men are also guilty (seemingly just for the aesthetic). I think it gets me, because it invokes privacy/confidentiality irritation in me. More so, since a police detective is an important character, who is constantly sharing investigative information with everyone this way. I simply wish they did AR instead. It's all forgotten once they do their awesome gravity stuff, or casually show New York below sea level, which gets me giggly in excitement.
> But the blinky lights, the illuminated doors, the angled irregular shapes everywhere?
This reminds me of another common scifi thing in The Expanse... face illuminated helmets. Realistically, with the darkness of space all around, people would only see their own face reflection :D Maybe that's not just because the audience can see who's talking, but also because external visor reflections would complicate filming and CGI. I allow it, although I would have celebrated identifying marks, such as pictograms and colors, for going the extra mile. Would have enabled one more layer of faction idiosyncrasies, too.
One could attempt to be charitable and say that in-universe, the display's output is aimed at the eyes of the user, not where the audience is. You might be seeing a privacy shield, like we've had on computer monitors!
TNG is one of the most tastefully done, IMO. The Expanse is only good because it's set in the immediate future with technology only slightly more advanced than today. But also the technology, materials, and SciFi corpus is so advanced now that it's just as easy to create an extremely convincing 2050's set as it is a 3050's set. Today's space opera is so incredibly egregious. What is the ratio of lens flares in a single modern trek movie compared to all 20th century trek? The Expanse definitely suffers from this kind of overproduction when you look closer, but because it's so close into the future we tend to overlook a lot.
ST: Enterprise did this extremely well, IMO, and for the same reason as The Expanse. It's in the immediate future and built around contemporary technology. Personally I adore the horrendous passive matrix LCDs everywhere in that show. It just adds to the scrappiness of Earth's first exploration ship.
That big waist-high horizontal touchpanel is going to very hard to use when you have nowhere to anchor yourself. And accidentally bumping into it while floating through has got to be annoying.
The boots make some sense outside the ship, when you could drift off. Inside the ship, they're mostly about the TV show budget.
[1] - https://old.reddit.com/r/Thatsabooklight/comments/twunb5
Even set that screams it repurposes some real life elements sometimes gives better overall impression than CGI surroundings. I miss that craftsman work from years ago.
Doctor Who after return in 2005 up until 2010 didn't had a big budget and thus sets, props were cheaply done but that exactly worked IMO for overall charm of that show.
On topic: I have watched every episode on TNG more than once and never noticed this. How embarrassing!
https://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/database/chairs-trek.htm
Worf’s chair always stood out to me as a life goal when the series aired. I settled for a Stokke high chair for my kid.