RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,945
Posts: 5,479,336
Members: 25,056
Currently online: 575
Newest member: JeremiahJT

TrekToday headlines

USS Enterprise Press-Out And Build Manual
By: T'Bonz on Nov 28

New QMx USS Reliant Model
By: T'Bonz on Nov 28

Star Trek Thirty-Five Years On 35MM: A Retrospective
By: T'Bonz on Nov 28

Trek Shirt And Hoodie
By: T'Bonz on Nov 27

A Klingon Christmas Carol’s Last Season
By: T'Bonz on Nov 27

Attack Wing Wave 10 Expansion Pack
By: T'Bonz on Nov 27

New Star Trek Funko Pop! Vinyl Figures
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

QMx Mini Phaser Ornament
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

Stewart as Neo-Nazi Skinhead
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

Klingon Bloodwine To Debut
By: T'Bonz on Nov 25


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Fandom > Fan Art

Fan Art Post your Trek fan art here, including hobby models and collectibles.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 15 2010, 03:24 AM   #1
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
1701 starship design...

Here's a curiousity: http://caoimghgin.blogspot.com/2008/...den-ratio.html
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 15 2010, 06:13 AM   #2
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: 1701 starship design...

Have you tried applying that formula to the Fuglyprise yet?
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 15 2010, 09:50 AM   #3
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: 1701 starship design...

Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
Have you tried applying that formula to the Fuglyprise yet?
Not myself. A friend just pointed this out to me.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 15 2010, 11:26 AM   #4
The Axeman
Commodore
 
The Axeman's Avatar
 
Location: Central Scotland
Re: 1701 starship design...

Numerology applied to aesthetics, eh? Sounds perfectly reasonable to me!
__________________
Come to www.kennyscrap.com for all your crummy 3D model needs.
The Axeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 15 2010, 06:29 PM   #5
sojourner
Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: 1701 starship design...

^you've never heard of the golden ratio before?
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 15 2010, 07:25 PM   #6
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: 1701 starship design...

Well, let's apply this newfound knowledge to JJ's little travesty.

Here're those proper proportions...



Here's how the original Enterprise measures up...



...and how the Fuglyprise fails to measure up...



And for the width issue, the original ship...



...and the wannabe....



Questions?
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 15 2010, 08:07 PM   #7
DFScott
Captain
 
DFScott's Avatar
 
Location: Indianapolis, IN
View DFScott's Twitter Profile
Re: 1701 starship design...

No questions at all, Captain A, just pure and unabashed acknowledgment of the significance of this newly rediscovered evidence.

Every time I look at the 1701-XI, I feel like Detective Monk with a box whose lid is slightly ajar -- I have this unquenchable desire to bend it back into shape. (You'll thank me later.) Matt Jefferies had an implicit understanding of aesthetics and the mental geometry that tells us that things are balanced. Most efforts at taking the elements of the original 1701 and reconstituting them into a sister ship, look unbalanced because they fail to re-scale those proportions when they just shuffle the pieces around like Legos. The 1701-XI to me looks like it's been in a fender bender -- not a catastrophic collision, but nonetheless bent slightly out of shape. And this geometric test proves why.

DF "Knows Perhaps Too Much About 'Bent'" Scott
__________________
a.k.a. Scott M. Fulton, III
Editor, FierceEnterpriseCommunications (sorry, not really a Trek magazine)
DFScott is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 16 2010, 02:48 AM   #8
StarCruiser
Commander
 
Location: Houston, we have a problem...
Re: 1701 starship design...

I've known about the 'golden ratio' for a long time but never thought to apply it to something like this...

It's normally used in connection with architecture and sometimes used to guide sculptors and artists.

Proves that Matt was indeed - an artist at heart!
__________________
"I've always said you can get more with a kind word and a two-by-four than you can with just a kind word." - Marcus Cole, Babylon 5
StarCruiser is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 16 2010, 12:44 PM   #9
The Axeman
Commodore
 
The Axeman's Avatar
 
Location: Central Scotland
Re: 1701 starship design...

It proves nothing, it's just another example of people looking for pattern and hidden secrets to aesthetics. As a photographer I had the rule of thirds drummed into me, yet many of the best photos taken have nothing to do with those proportions. If everything had to fit a specific curving line the world would be a lesser place.

The bashing of the "JJ-Prise" is also getting very wearing, it's more akin to religious outrage than artistic criticism. Some very talented people put a ton of work into the ship, and I for one have no issues with it. Compared to the thousands of amateurish cut & paste schematics littering Trek forums like these it's a near masterpiece. Granted, the brewery 'main engineering' set was terrible, but the exterior designs of the ships was fantastic. The original Jeffries design was very innovative, but 50 years on people should be allowed to bring things up to date without being treated as heretics.
__________________
Come to www.kennyscrap.com for all your crummy 3D model needs.
The Axeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 16 2010, 01:30 PM   #10
USS Mariner
Rear Admiral
 
USS Mariner's Avatar
 
Location: Homestate of Matt Jefferies
View USS Mariner's Twitter Profile Send a message via AIM to USS Mariner Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to USS Mariner
Re: 1701 starship design...

The Axeman wrote: View Post
It proves nothing, it's just another example of people looking for pattern and hidden secrets to aesthetics. As a photographer I had the rule of thirds drummed into me, yet many of the best photos taken have nothing to do with those proportions. If everything had to fit a specific curving line the world would be a lesser place.

The bashing of the "JJ-Prise" is also getting very wearing, it's more akin to religious outrage than artistic criticism. Some very talented people put a ton of work into the ship, and I for one have no issues with it. Compared to the thousands of amateurish cut & paste schematics littering Trek forums like these it's a near masterpiece. Granted, the brewery 'main engineering' set was terrible, but the exterior designs of the ships was fantastic. The original Jeffries design was very innovative, but 50 years on people should be allowed to bring things up to date without being treated as heretics.
Your forgetting that the "showcase" featuring those vehicles is possibly the biggest pile of vacuous, self-absorbed, mentally-deficient trash in the past decade.

Church's ship isn't exactly Vance-level uninspired, proportion-less dreck, but in light of that film, I can't say I don't see where that might come from.

Having played around with "alternate" takes on redesigning the Neuprise myself, Church's take isn't really all that bad, which surprises even me. The problems with this design are with the laughably incongruous styles of detailing on the various parts and the lack of refinement in component connections. All of those problems weren't Church's fault, as various concept paintings he's made show the ship without these problems. Obviously, someone else asked him to make those changes.

I ask everyone, don't shit on Church. Shit on the people who have no business in the arts and entertainment, or any field that requires the use of pen and paper.

You should be able to figure out who I'm talking about.
__________________
Ignorance is forgivable,
Arrogance is reprehensible,
Narcissism is intolerable.

Subspace Commns Network ~ Visit Marinina!

Last edited by USS Mariner; July 16 2010 at 01:44 PM.
USS Mariner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 16 2010, 04:46 PM   #11
largo
Fleet Captain
 
largo's Avatar
 
Re: 1701 starship design...

applying the golden ratio to the TOS phaser indicates that its a travesty of design, to the tricorder, that its an abomination, and to spock's ears, that he's probably some sort of satanic beast. nor does it apply to the shuttle, spacedock, miranda, excelsior, thus enterprise B, nor the C, D, or E, and certainly not to the defiant. applying it to DS9 shows how preposterously stupid the designers of that were, but whereas they were a bunch of spoon-headed cardies, i suppose it can be forgiven.

it seems that, with the singular and shining example of one ship, the entirety of star trek is utter rubbish, and i therefore dismiss it all entirely.

BSG, on the other hand, is frakking brilliant.
__________________
SIG 1701-A
largo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 16 2010, 07:41 PM   #12
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: 1701 starship design...

The Axeman wrote: View Post
It proves nothing, it's just another example of people looking for pattern and hidden secrets to aesthetics. As a photographer I had the rule of thirds drummed into me, yet many of the best photos taken have nothing to do with those proportions. If everything had to fit a specific curving line the world would be a lesser place.
Exactly so.

Rules and principles really shout be "drummed into" students, so that they become something one knows and doesn't have to think about - and can then use or disregard as suitable to a specific work. That art is, however, governed or defined by obeisiance to so-called rules of aesthetics is the sort of thinking that misleads someone into thinking that they can become a four star chef if they buy the right cook book.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 16 2010, 08:35 PM   #13
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: 1701 starship design...

Granted it may prove little to nothing...

but Church's Abramsprise is still ugly as shit.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 16 2010, 08:52 PM   #14
BolianAuthor
Writer, Battlestar Urantia
 
Location: Torrance, California
Send a message via AIM to BolianAuthor Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to BolianAuthor
Re: 1701 starship design...

The Axeman wrote: View Post
It proves nothing, it's just another example of people looking for pattern and hidden secrets to aesthetics. As a photographer I had the rule of thirds drummed into me, yet many of the best photos taken have nothing to do with those proportions. If everything had to fit a specific curving line the world would be a lesser place.

The bashing of the "JJ-Prise" is also getting very wearing, it's more akin to religious outrage than artistic criticism. Some very talented people put a ton of work into the ship, and I for one have no issues with it. Compared to the thousands of amateurish cut & paste schematics littering Trek forums like these it's a near masterpiece. Granted, the brewery 'main engineering' set was terrible, but the exterior designs of the ships was fantastic. The original Jeffries design was very innovative, but 50 years on people should be allowed to bring things up to date without being treated as heretics.

^

This.

In regards to the JJ-Prise... I still dislike the direction they went with it. Originally I absolutely hated it with a venom. But after seeing in on the big screen (IMAX) and also seeing and reading about the design process in the art book for the film, I can tolerate it now. But I still see no reason for them to have changed it, other than to follow the stupid Hollywood mentality of late that dictates that in order to please or win over an audience, you have to shock them.

IMO, with today's level of CGI, they could have taken the TOS Constitution-Class, right out of the box, and made it look absolutely fantastic on the big screen, just as they made the Defiant look amazing in "In A Mirror Darkly". Bottom line... they just didn't want to. And that's why it sucks... because it represents laziness.
BolianAuthor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 16 2010, 08:53 PM   #15
largo
Fleet Captain
 
largo's Avatar
 
Re: 1701 starship design...

yes, its the smiley which truly bestows such respect upon your opinion.
__________________
SIG 1701-A
largo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:07 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.