Abrams vs Fibonacci, or "Why the 09 Enterprise looks 'off' "
- Thread starter Phantom
- Start date
I'm sure some people out there like the looks of an AMC Pacer. It doesn't change the fact that it's one of the ugliest cars ever, because the proportions of the thing are so "off", most notably the oversized windows. The JJ Prise is much the same. Some people like it, but they are in the minority, like people who are tone-deaf or color-blind. It's hard to quantify what those proportions are mathematically, but people know it when they see it. Call it golden mean or whatever else. But it's definitely a "thing". A good artist knows how to get it right. Bad ones, and bad managers like JJ who oversee them, don't. And then they double-down on their bad-taste by not changing it when people criticize.
Proof?
There are so many of us in this minority, that we have become the majority.
Wow. So according to this post and the OP if I like the nuEnterprise I am:
Unable to understand and conform to the golden ratio that determines the aesthetic value of the entire universe
Tone -deaf
Color - blind
Unable to recognize bad artists and bad managers
Have terrible taste
Am part of a minority that is so determined to be right that we will double our bets no matter what the real world tells us.
And here I thought I was A-OK. Thanks folks for correcting my viewpoint. I will now go into therapy.
The Fibonacci thing in all of this is really a big Fib.
I love the new Enterprise. She's definitely the hot rod version of the ol' girl.
Folk can apply all the pseudoscience, pseudo-psychology, and pseudo-aesthetic authority, all they want in terms of disliking the new ship.... it doesn't hold weight.
It's called "trying to find justification" to make something seem like authoritative fact. A shorter word might be: "desperation".
It's called "folk trying to make others feel stupid for liking the new movies/new Enterprise by trying to apply something that only would seem to have relevance to their case." Clearly, other folks, more in the know, have debunked such "relevancy".
"This (pseudo-sciency, pseudo-psychological gobbledygook) is the reason why the new Enterprise does not work. Therefore, this makes it fact that the Enterprise is a poorly designed and unappealing ship. You cannot argue with this."
Folk more in the know, and more sure of their facts, have proven otherwise.
Oh, and what one might call "doubling down on their bet by not changing it after criticism", I call "artistic integrity" and "not pandering or caving in."
And then of course there's the misconception of thinking that the folk who did not like the new Enterprise are somehow in the minority....again. That's just like trying to say that the folks who loved the new movies are somehow in the minority. Misconception. Delusion.
Clearly the movies raked in big box office bucks (for a Star Trek movie) due to...oh, I dunno, let's call them "repeat viewings on the big screen".
I love the new Enterprise. She's definitely the hot rod version of the ol' girl.
Folk can apply all the pseudoscience, pseudo-psychology, and pseudo-aesthetic authority, all they want in terms of disliking the new ship.... it doesn't hold weight.
It's called "trying to find justification" to make something seem like authoritative fact. A shorter word might be: "desperation".
It's called "folk trying to make others feel stupid for liking the new movies/new Enterprise by trying to apply something that only would seem to have relevance to their case." Clearly, other folks, more in the know, have debunked such "relevancy".
"This (pseudo-sciency, pseudo-psychological gobbledygook) is the reason why the new Enterprise does not work. Therefore, this makes it fact that the Enterprise is a poorly designed and unappealing ship. You cannot argue with this."
Folk more in the know, and more sure of their facts, have proven otherwise.
Oh, and what one might call "doubling down on their bet by not changing it after criticism", I call "artistic integrity" and "not pandering or caving in."
And then of course there's the misconception of thinking that the folk who did not like the new Enterprise are somehow in the minority....again. That's just like trying to say that the folks who loved the new movies are somehow in the minority. Misconception. Delusion.
Clearly the movies raked in big box office bucks (for a Star Trek movie) due to...oh, I dunno, let's call them "repeat viewings on the big screen".
Between the incorrect use of the word "fact," some very dubious claims not backed up by any evidence, insulting comparisons regarding fans; which you've been warned not to do countless times, the continuation of the golden ratio bunk that's already been disproved in the thread, and entitled claims that the makers of the films should respond to the whims of a subset of fans, this is all around a pretty questionable post. You should revise your posting style in this thread immediately, especially the insulting rhetoric about other fans.
I can so hear the characters saying that. Well done!Me? I have yet to meet an Enterprise I didn't like. They are a set of beautiful sister ships. They're in the same family, but each has its own unique charms. I wouldn't mind getting my hands on the ample nacelles of any one of them, if you'll pardon the engineering parlance.
I will say that many of us have seen a poll here recently where, yes, the majority of active posters participating in the poll put the new Enterprise in the lower percentage of favorites.
This was basically a "which is your favorite Enterprise?" poll. I think the top three contenders were the original, the refit, and the E-D. So it would likely follow that even though JJ's Enterprise did not get a majority vote, it does not necessarily mean that it was disliked. It was a question of "favorite", not "liked or disliked". Clearly, on this board, JJ's ship is not the favorite. Doesn't mean it's not well-liked.
This is also not a clear indicator of worldwide favoriting or disposition for or against the new Enterprise. This is a microscopic sampling compared to an official, worldwide poll (if one were ever to be conducted).
Personally, I love the new ship. And I voted for it in the poll.
And, I have a feeling that if another poll were conducted that basically asked: "Do you like the new Enterprise?", it will come across (no matter how well intentioned) as another antagonistic poll meant to stir discord among the participating membership here.
There have been so many polls, often conducted by repeat offenders that have somehow tried to pit the PU versus the JJ Abrams era, whether in part or as a whole. Such polls sparked a little friendly debate that naturally ended up going over into animosity and sniping.... and then, when some of those threads were losing interest, the original poster would put in some insignificant statement to bump the thread to make it seem like it still had relevance.
TL;DR? Bottom line is, this is another thread about "how bullheaded can everyone be?". No one is going to convince me to dislike the Abrams' era Enterprise, no matter how much pseudo-science, pseudo-psychology, or pseudo-aesthetic authority they try to slam into it. And I am not going to convince haters that their dislike of the new ship is somehow unsound and unfounded. (And I would never try such a feat unless they were actively trying to convince me that I was stupid for liking the new ship). It's not a question of whether the ship looks "off". It is a more pointed question of why the ship looks "piss poor" in the eyes of the haters.
This was basically a "which is your favorite Enterprise?" poll. I think the top three contenders were the original, the refit, and the E-D. So it would likely follow that even though JJ's Enterprise did not get a majority vote, it does not necessarily mean that it was disliked. It was a question of "favorite", not "liked or disliked". Clearly, on this board, JJ's ship is not the favorite. Doesn't mean it's not well-liked.
This is also not a clear indicator of worldwide favoriting or disposition for or against the new Enterprise. This is a microscopic sampling compared to an official, worldwide poll (if one were ever to be conducted).
Personally, I love the new ship. And I voted for it in the poll.
And, I have a feeling that if another poll were conducted that basically asked: "Do you like the new Enterprise?", it will come across (no matter how well intentioned) as another antagonistic poll meant to stir discord among the participating membership here.
There have been so many polls, often conducted by repeat offenders that have somehow tried to pit the PU versus the JJ Abrams era, whether in part or as a whole. Such polls sparked a little friendly debate that naturally ended up going over into animosity and sniping.... and then, when some of those threads were losing interest, the original poster would put in some insignificant statement to bump the thread to make it seem like it still had relevance.
TL;DR? Bottom line is, this is another thread about "how bullheaded can everyone be?". No one is going to convince me to dislike the Abrams' era Enterprise, no matter how much pseudo-science, pseudo-psychology, or pseudo-aesthetic authority they try to slam into it. And I am not going to convince haters that their dislike of the new ship is somehow unsound and unfounded. (And I would never try such a feat unless they were actively trying to convince me that I was stupid for liking the new ship). It's not a question of whether the ship looks "off". It is a more pointed question of why the ship looks "piss poor" in the eyes of the haters.
Last edited:
*sigh*
"most people" ≠ hardcore fans
The AMC Pacer's aesthetic merits or lack thereof are nearly impossible to view objectively because most people who've seen one have seen hundreds of other car models, the vast majority of which do not conform to its shape and proportions, thus the Pacer is likely "odd" to their eyes.
"most people" ≠ hardcore fans
The AMC Pacer's aesthetic merits or lack thereof are nearly impossible to view objectively because most people who've seen one have seen hundreds of other car models, the vast majority of which do not conform to its shape and proportions, thus the Pacer is likely "odd" to their eyes.
Damn, it was you. And I worked so hard for that scholarship.
I wonder what percentage of casual viewers would know that the ship in the current movies is not the same design as the one from the tv show. Although that may be a bad question to pose amongst readers of Nacelles Monthly.
Long term McDonaldologists know that JJ Abrams is secretly an owner of twelve McDonald's franchises in the San Fernando Valley in Southern California. I intend to demonstrate objectively, using established scientific principles, how the nuEnterprise adheres to both the Golden Arches Ratio and the McRibonacci Proportions at several points of measurement in order to be the best subliminal food marketing tool known to man.
Also note the repeated use of the McDonald's trademarked gold and crimson color scheme repeatedly throughout the films:
Here, the Enterprise even travels to a planet of Ronald McDonald worshipers in their gold and crimson outfits and white clown makeup:
And just when you're being bombarded by all that subminal messaging, they hit you with an overt Filet o' Fish product placement:
It's insidious, but ingenious and effective. And objectively, it's the most perfect product placement/starship ever devised. That's just science.
Also note the repeated use of the McDonald's trademarked gold and crimson color scheme repeatedly throughout the films:
Here, the Enterprise even travels to a planet of Ronald McDonald worshipers in their gold and crimson outfits and white clown makeup:
And just when you're being bombarded by all that subminal messaging, they hit you with an overt Filet o' Fish product placement:
It's insidious, but ingenious and effective. And objectively, it's the most perfect product placement/starship ever devised. That's just science.
Long term McDonaldologists know that JJ Abrams is secretly an owner of twelve McDonald's franchises in the San Fernando Valley in Southern California. I intend to demonstrate objectively, using established scientific principles, how the nuEnterprise adheres to both the Golden Arches Ratio and the McRibonacci Proportions at several points of measurement in order to be the best subliminal food marketing tool known to man.
Also note the repeated use of the McDonald's trademarked gold and crimson color scheme repeatedly throughout the films:
Here, the Enterprise even travels to a planet of Ronald McDonald worshipers in their gold and crimson outfits and white clown makeup:
And just when you're being bombarded by all that subminal messaging, they hit you with an overt Filet o' Fish product placement:
It's insidious, but ingenious and effective. And objectively, it's the most perfect product placement/starship ever devised. That's just science.
Good to have you back, Locutus!
I used to be a Treknologist like you.
Then I took an arrow to the knee.
Well, they were SUGGESTED later. It's a bit of a stretch to say that they were "described," mainly because 99% of the things in nature that humans find aesthetically pleasing don't actually conform to any recognizable golden ratio.
It's a cute idea, but it's also bullshit.
It's not.
You mean the link to the blog post that referenced a scientific paper that doesn't actually mention the golden ratio in any way shape or form? Yes, I deleted that.
Actually that's pseudoscience without an ounce of actual evidence behind it. And the really interesting thing is, it's not actually that hard to disprove if you spent any amount of time putting the theory to the test; find yourself a nautilus shell, or two, or ten, and try to draw a golden spiral that confirms to its shape. Or measure the spiral pattern in a pine cone (wet or dry, doesn't matter) or measure the height and width ratio of the face most attractive person you know (I did this for my wife about six years ago as a thought experiment).
Did you actually MEASURE any of the "phi matrix" diagrams on the link you posted? None of them conform to golden rectangles either, nor do their relative proportions conform to anything resembling a phi ratio. Most of them are in the neighborhood of 1.42 or 1.48. The larger rectangle on the bow diagram measures at 1.72.
Again, it's a cute idea. Doesn't change the fact tat it's bullshit. In terms of its application of "beauty" in plastic surgery (which is the gist of the site you linked to) it's little better than phrenology.
I've seen the hypothesis before about the proportions of the OS Enterprise conforming to the Golden Ratio (one instance here - there have been others just on TrekBBS) though I've never been quite sold on it. I've not seen this particular article, but I think it runs into the same sort of problems presenting a convincing argument.
Something stuck out here:
article said:
I suspect the article's author is reading into the designs something which may not, in fact, be there. He's interpreting "dimensions given to five decimal places" as evidence of geometric formulas and an impractical level of precision, when anyone with an engineering background and experience reading and drafting blueprints and engineering drawings will recognize those as decimal representations of common fractions. Look at Shaw's file (PDF doc,) for example, from the last of the links listed at the bottom of the article. That dimension of 5.46875 inches is the same as if it had been written 5-15/32" (five and fifteen thirty-seconds inches); 3.6875 is the same as three and eleven sixteenths; 3.9375 is the same as three and fifteen sixteenths, and so forth.
The article's author clearly hadn't realized this, and leapt ahead without checking to infer an elegance conveyed upon the design by virtue of incorporation of the magic ratio.
article said:
All of that said, I must chuckle at Locutus' McDonaldology and McRibonacci Proportions. Well done, as always!
For what it's worth, in the 1968 book, The Making of Star Trek, on the part about designing the starship for TOS, Jefferies says he and his group came up with over twenty preliminary designs for a starship for Roddenberry to inspect. Turns out Roddenberry didn't like any one of them, but only bits and pieces of some of them (Jefferies said Roddenberry could be difficult to work with). They tried to incorporate what he liked about certain designs into another round of ships to present to him. By the third time around, they had "eight or ten" designs for Roddenberry, including more detailed renderings of a few, including the one that did eventually become the Enterprise.
In other words, to read how Jefferies put in in 1968, the design of the Enterprise was a mish-mash of the better parts of many designs (according to Roddenberry), finally tweaked down to one that Roddenberry would accept. Real scale drawings didn't occur until they had a finalized preliminary design. (And apparently the story that the first working model of what became that final design was accidentally hung up upside down for presentation is true, at least as Jefferies reports it in the book.)
In other words, to read how Jefferies put in in 1968, the design of the Enterprise was a mish-mash of the better parts of many designs (according to Roddenberry), finally tweaked down to one that Roddenberry would accept. Real scale drawings didn't occur until they had a finalized preliminary design. (And apparently the story that the first working model of what became that final design was accidentally hung up upside down for presentation is true, at least as Jefferies reports it in the book.)