What were the deleted scenes?

[Nerys Myk]

You might want to work on that.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

You might want to work on that.

 

[Nerys Myk]

You might want to work on that.

Looks better now. Was just a sentence in bold with "Font" in [] and [/]

 

[muzzleflash]

. It's hard for me to fathom that so much effort could have been put into making a thing so ungainly, but as they say, YMMV.

That's because you don't understand the principles of aesthetics.

Oh that's such an "opinion"! HAHAHAHAHA! Actually, I was once an accomplished art student and I hold a degree in engineering. So i believe I have at least somewhat of a rudimentary knowlege of "aesthetics". The Abramsprise, to me, is not aesthetically pleasing. I suppose it could be made better if the proportions were more balanced. But those nacelles, oh goodness, I'm embarrased to even look at them......

Apparently they did not teach you how to look at things objectively in art school. And I wasn't quoting you to begin with?

Whereas the Abramsprise looks like something a 5 year old kid scribbled on a note pad with his oversized crayolas.

Something like this is where you (and Malakai) lose credibility in your opinion, but at least you attempted to objectify the design.

Then I saw this:
Starships — Abrams and production designer Scott Chambliss were careful to pay tribute to the design of the original Enterprise, but they also wanted to make it futuristic and cool for a modern audience. This chapter focuses on the unique stories behind the creation of the film’s starships.

They were way off the mark here because the nu Uglyprise has none of the majesty and grace of the original MJ design. But that's another subject for another thread...

Oh man, I couldn't agree more. I hate to be so completely against something, but I absolutely despise the Uglyprise. To me it looks like a disproportionate kitbash of the TMP saucer with various alien ship-of-the-week bits slapped on it. Sure it has a saucer, two (frakkin gargantuan) nacelles, and a secondary hull...but that don't mean it deserves to wear the name "Enterprise". It's a horrible design. The original Matt Jeffries Enterprise had an elegant simplicity about it that the Abramsprise can't even come close to matching. The original Enterprise was almost perfect in its balance and proportions. Every part of the ship seemed to be in exactly the right place and exactly the right size. The Abramsprise's proportions, however are all out of whack (yes, that's a technical term). The saucer is overly huge compared to the rest of the ship. The nacelles are enormous and ungainly and too close together. The pylons are too far back on the secondary hull and have that wierd curviture. The secondary hull is too small in comparison to the nacelles and saucer and looks like a partially squeezed tube of toothpaste. And the connecting dorsal is upside down and too far back on the secondary hull. Whereas the original MJ design has none of those problems. The original Enterprise actually looked like something that NASA or a future global space agency might actually build if it were in the real world.

The original Enterprise certainly was no more balanced than the new one.

A dainty neck with a giant saucer that looks like it's about to snap off at any time. The new design features a studier neck, with the connections closer to the saucer and stardrive's respective centers.

The saucer and the nacelles disturb each other with their presence.The nacelles look like they don't know where they want to be. Above the saucer is too high. Below it is too low. The new design just puts them smack in line with the saucer.

The old design has no contours. No form. Just shapes which are hard to reconcile. The new design has distinct shapes as well, but at the same time, each part subtly mimics the other. There is consistency to the shape. See how the back's of the saucer, neck, and stardrive taper to a point. See how the stardrive starts as a cylinder, and transforms into a flatter, saucer-like shape at the end. Notice how the general contour of the entire ship is thicker in the middle, and thinner at the ends, making the profile of the ship reminiscent of a certain geometric object I've stated far too many times already.

The lines also help create a sense of movement and of speed. The original design looks static. Boring.

The new design is elegant because it is design with logic (not to be confused with logic of practicality) and reason. The original design is not. It's just a smattering of confused and conflicting shapes.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

You might want to work on that.

Looks better now. Was just a sentence in bold with "Font" in [] and [/]

Sorry. I meant...what do I need to "work on"?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Looks better now. Was just a sentence in bold with "Font" in [] and [/]

Sorry. I meant...what do I need to "work on"?

Getting the image in the post. No big deal. I assumed it was a copy paste error. Do it far too often myself.

 

[Warped9]

That's because you don't understand the principles of aesthetics.

Oh that's such an "opinion"! HAHAHAHAHA! Actually, I was once an accomplished art student and I hold a degree in engineering. So i believe I have at least somewhat of a rudimentary knowlege of "aesthetics". The Abramsprise, to me, is not aesthetically pleasing. I suppose it could be made better if the proportions were more balanced. But those nacelles, oh goodness, I'm embarrased to even look at them......

Apparently they did not teach you how to look at things objectively in art school. And I wasn't quoting you to begin with?

Something like this is where you (and Malakai) lose credibility in your opinion, but at least you attempted to objectify the design.

Then I saw this:
Starships — Abrams and production designer Scott Chambliss were careful to pay tribute to the design of the original Enterprise, but they also wanted to make it futuristic and cool for a modern audience. This chapter focuses on the unique stories behind the creation of the film’s starships.

They were way off the mark here because the nu Uglyprise has none of the majesty and grace of the original MJ design. But that's another subject for another thread...

Oh man, I couldn't agree more. I hate to be so completely against something, but I absolutely despise the Uglyprise. To me it looks like a disproportionate kitbash of the TMP saucer with various alien ship-of-the-week bits slapped on it. Sure it has a saucer, two (frakkin gargantuan) nacelles, and a secondary hull...but that don't mean it deserves to wear the name "Enterprise". It's a horrible design. The original Matt Jeffries Enterprise had an elegant simplicity about it that the Abramsprise can't even come close to matching. The original Enterprise was almost perfect in its balance and proportions. Every part of the ship seemed to be in exactly the right place and exactly the right size. The Abramsprise's proportions, however are all out of whack (yes, that's a technical term). The saucer is overly huge compared to the rest of the ship. The nacelles are enormous and ungainly and too close together. The pylons are too far back on the secondary hull and have that wierd curviture. The secondary hull is too small in comparison to the nacelles and saucer and looks like a partially squeezed tube of toothpaste. And the connecting dorsal is upside down and too far back on the secondary hull. Whereas the original MJ design has none of those problems. The original Enterprise actually looked like something that NASA or a future global space agency might actually build if it were in the real world.

The original Enterprise certainly was no more balanced than the new one.

A dainty neck with a giant saucer that looks like it's about to snap off at any time. The new design features a studier neck, with the connections closer to the saucer and stardrive's respective centers.

The saucer and the nacelles disturb each other with their presence.The nacelles look like they don't know where they want to be. Above the saucer is too high. Below it is too low. The new design just puts them smack in line with the saucer.

The old design has no contours. No form. Just shapes which are hard to reconcile. The new design has distinct shapes as well, but at the same time, each part subtly mimics the other. There is consistency to the shape. See how the back's of the saucer, neck, and stardrive taper to a point. See how the stardrive starts as a cylinder, and transforms into a flatter, saucer-like shape at the end. Notice how the general contour of the entire ship is thicker in the middle, and thinner at the ends, making the profile of the ship reminiscent of a certain geometric object I've stated far too many times already.

The lines also help create a sense of movement and of speed. The original design looks static. Boring.

The new design is elegant because it is design with logic (not to be confused with logic of practicality) and reason. The original design is not. It's just a smattering of confused and conflicting shapes.

I'm sorry, but the only true response to this is

 

[I-Am-Zim]

That's because you don't understand the principles of aesthetics.

Oh that's such an "opinion"! HAHAHAHAHA! Actually, I was once an accomplished art student and I hold a degree in engineering. So i believe I have at least somewhat of a rudimentary knowlege of "aesthetics". The Abramsprise, to me, is not aesthetically pleasing. I suppose it could be made better if the proportions were more balanced. But those nacelles, oh goodness, I'm embarrased to even look at them......

Apparently they did not teach you how to look at things objectively in art school. And I wasn't quoting you to begin with?

I'll admit it's been a while. But in the day, I was pretty good. And it doesn't matter if you were quoting me or not. I was quoting you.

Something like this is where you (and Malakai) lose credibility in your opinion, but at least you attempted to objectify the design.

I hate that ship. Not just because it doesn't look like the Enterprise, but also because it is simply strangely proportioned and rather displeasing to the eye.

Then I saw this:
Starships — Abrams and production designer Scott Chambliss were careful to pay tribute to the design of the original Enterprise, but they also wanted to make it futuristic and cool for a modern audience. This chapter focuses on the unique stories behind the creation of the film’s starships.

They were way off the mark here because the nu Uglyprise has none of the majesty and grace of the original MJ design. But that's another subject for another thread...

Oh man, I couldn't agree more. I hate to be so completely against something, but I absolutely despise the Uglyprise. To me it looks like a disproportionate kitbash of the TMP saucer with various alien ship-of-the-week bits slapped on it. Sure it has a saucer, two (frakkin gargantuan) nacelles, and a secondary hull...but that don't mean it deserves to wear the name "Enterprise". It's a horrible design. The original Matt Jeffries Enterprise had an elegant simplicity about it that the Abramsprise can't even come close to matching. The original Enterprise was almost perfect in its balance and proportions. Every part of the ship seemed to be in exactly the right place and exactly the right size. The Abramsprise's proportions, however are all out of whack (yes, that's a technical term). The saucer is overly huge compared to the rest of the ship. The nacelles are enormous and ungainly and too close together. The pylons are too far back on the secondary hull and have that wierd curviture. The secondary hull is too small in comparison to the nacelles and saucer and looks like a partially squeezed tube of toothpaste. And the connecting dorsal is upside down and too far back on the secondary hull. Whereas the original MJ design has none of those problems. The original Enterprise actually looked like something that NASA or a future global space agency might actually build if it were in the real world.

The original Enterprise certainly was no more balanced than the new one.

I have to disagree with that. And once again, that is a matter of opinion. The Enterprise is much more well proportioned and balanced overall than the Abramsprise. And I'm not the only one who sees it. Even some of the proponents have grudgingly admitted to that.

A dainty neck with a giant saucer that looks like it's about to snap off at any time. The new design features a studier neck, with the connections closer to the saucer and stardrive's respective centers.

I will admit that the Enterprise's neck is a bit thin. I've always felt it needed some thickness. But not Galaxy-Class thick. Gabe Koerner's update did a very good job with the neck. It still looked like the original, but with much more thickness. The execution was much better than the Church design. As far as connecting the neck to the center of the stardrive, it wouldn't work. It would make the ship look too, for lack of a better word, "stubby". This is not a compact ship. It's rather large. The proportions of the original design conveyed that size quite nicely. Placing the neck closer to the center of the saucer and stardrive would pull all the elements too close to the center and throw off the balance and proportions. Which is almost exactly what the Abramsprise has done.

The saucer and the nacelles disturb each other with their presence.The nacelles look like they don't know where they want to be. Above the saucer is too high. Below it is too low. The new design just puts them smack in line with the saucer.

This makes no sense to me. The saucer and the nacelles look like they are placed exactly where they need to be. The nacelles know exactly where they need to be: behind and above the saucer. They look perfectly at home in those positions.

The Abramsprise's nacelles are actually positioned above the saucer, not in line with it. That was a concious decision made by Mr. Church to keep at least some resemblance to the original. I must commend him at least on that.

The old design has no contours. No form. Just shapes which are hard to reconcile.

Actually, the original design has three shapes: Disc (saucer), trapezoid (neck), and cylinder (nacelles and stardrive). The nacelles have a slight taper from bussard to end cap. And the stardrive has a more pronounced taper from deflector to shuttlebay. In fact, the stardrive could almost be called a cone. The shapes are not difficult for me to reconcile. They all fit together perfectly and appear to be very well designed and proportioned against each other.

The new design has distinct shapes as well, but at the same time, each part subtly mimics the other. There is consistency to the shape. See how the back's of the saucer, neck, and stardrive taper to a point. See how the stardrive starts as a cylinder, and transforms into a flatter, saucer-like shape at the end. Notice how the general contour of the entire ship is thicker in the middle, and thinner at the ends, making the profile of the ship reminiscent of a certain geometric object I've stated far too many times already.

I noticed all that. To me, the shapes are difficult to reconcile. The design and surface texture of the saucer does not match up with the design of the rest of the ship. The saucer is obviously a modification of the TMP refit complete with "aztec" panelling, while the rest of the ship is smooth with almost no noticeable hull plating details. The various parts of the Abramsprise look as if they were taken from various different starship models and arbitrarily slapped together to form something that vaguely resembles a Starfleet vessel. And yes, I noticed the oddly shaped stardrive. Cylindrical at the front, flat at the rear. Hence my toothpaste tube reference. The fact that the design is thick in the middle and thin at the ends is exactly what throws the proportions off balance as compared to the original. It looks...wierd. The Enterprise was a well designed, well proportioned, very aesthetically pleasing design that holds up just as well today as it did 40 years ago. The Abramsprise is a design that was done to appeal to the zoom zoom crowd and will probably be obsolete in a couple of years.

The lines also help create a sense of movement and of speed. The original design looks static. Boring.

All I see when I look at the Abramsprise is a strange looking ship that eschews all established design style from Star Trek in favor of attempting to look more modern, and failing miserably. The original Enterprise boring? Nah. It just needs a little sprucing up is all. The Constitution class sure didn't look boring in "In A Mirror, Darkly". It also looked pretty good in "Trials and Tribble-Ations".

The new design is elegant because it is design with logic (not to be confused with logic of practicality) and reason. The original design is not. It's just a smattering of confused and conflicting shapes.

The new design is far from elegant. In my opinion of course. And it was not designed with any logic in mind at all. It was designed to "look good". To some it succeeds. To others it fails horribly. The orignial design was indeed designed for proacticality and simplicity. That was Matt Jeffries' motivation for making the hull smooth. He wanted as little clutter as possible. He thought that everything that the crew needed should be inside the ship with minimal ornamentation on the outside. This makes for a much more practical, efficient, and elegantly simple design. Exactly what the Enterprise exemplifies and the Abramsprise fails at.

Either way, whether you like the design of the Abramsprise or not, it all boils down to opinion. What one thinks looks good, another may not. That's the problem with art and design, it's completely subjective. I love the design of the new Mustang. I know people who hate it. It will always be that way with art. Love it or hate it.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

Looks better now. Was just a sentence in bold with "Font" in [] and [/]

Sorry. I meant...what do I need to "work on"?

Getting the image in the post. No big deal. I assumed it was a copy paste error. Do it far too often myself.

Ah. I think it's there now. I can see it.

 

[muzzleflash]

I have to disagree with that. And once again, that is a matter of opinion. The Enterprise is much more well proportioned and balanced overall than the Abramsprise. And I'm not the only one who sees it. Even some of the proponents have grudgingly admitted to that.

Well of course, I'm not denying you or anyone else that opinion of it.

I will admit that the Enterprise's neck is a bit thin. I've always felt it needed some thickness. But not Galaxy-Class thick. Gabe Koerner's update did a very good job with the neck. It still looked like the original, but with much more thickness.

Do you have a link to that design?

The execution was much better than the Church design. As far as connecting the neck to the center of the stardrive, it wouldn't work. It would make the ship look too, for lack of a better word, "stubby". This is not a compact ship. It's rather large. The proportions of the original design conveyed that size quite nicely.

I don't think moving elements closer to the centre (damn American spelling filter) makes it stubby. The different parts of the ship still have a wide reach outward from the centre, and the tapering of the edges helps to de-emphasize any chunkiness that might result.

Placing the neck closer to the center of the saucer and stardrive would pull all the elements too close to the center and throw off the balance and proportions. Which is almost exactly what the Abramsprise has done.

This just doesn't make sense. How does moving things to the centre make it less balanced? The centre is by definition, balanced.

This makes no sense to me. The saucer and the nacelles look like they are placed exactly where they need to be. The nacelles know exactly where they need to be: behind and above the saucer. They look perfectly at home in those positions.

What I mean it seems the neck is so tall, the nacelles seem to have to reach uncomfortably high to sit over it. Indeed, the pylons seem disproportionately long.

The Abramsprise's nacelles are actually positioned above the saucer, not in line with it.

Maybe a bit, but from the front there is still an overlap. It's more so in line with the saucer than in the original.

That was a concious decision made by Mr. Church to keep at least some resemblance to the original. I must commend him at least on that.

I wish people would stop exaggerating on this point. "Some resemblance"? It has a HUGE resemblance. How can some people say the new Enterprise looks "nothing like" the original? How many designs in the history of sci-fi consist of a saucer, and two nacelles connected by thin supports to a cylindrical body? Anything that keeps these elements along with the basic proportions looks enough like the original. It's ridiculous to suggest it doesn't.

Actually, the original design has three shapes: Disc (saucer), trapezoid (neck), and cylinder (nacelles and stardrive).

I didn't say there weren't shapes. I stated how they were arranged in such a way that they do not complement each other well. Like the saucer and the stardrive. Two cylinders oriented 90 degrees from each other. The nacelles and stardrive suggest an orientation for the ship (with the axis pointing in the direction of travel), yet the saucer intuitively points in the direction. Of course, I understand that the saucer is alluding to the design of a flying saucer, which generally moves in the direction perpendicular to its axis. But it's the inclusion of these two elements that conflict. Which brings me to the next point.

The nacelles have a slight taper from bussard to end cap. And the stardrive has a more pronounced taper from deflector to shuttlebay. In fact, the stardrive could almost be called a cone. The shapes are not difficult for me to reconcile. They all fit together perfectly and appear to be very well designed and proportioned against each other.

Yes there is a slight taper. But that's really the only one aside from the saucer. It doesn't help to form an overall, basic contour for the ship. The omnipresent tapering in the new design does. The more acute tapering also helps reconcile my previous point about the intuitive direction of motion of the various shapes. That is, the edges are flat, like a flying disk. The middles are cylindrical, like a rocket. There is a smooth transition from the first to the second back to the first.

I noticed all that. To me, the shapes are difficult to reconcile. The design and surface texture of the saucer does not match up with the design of the rest of the ship. The saucer is obviously a modification of the TMP refit complete with "aztec" panelling, while the rest of the ship is smooth with almost no noticeable hull plating details.

How is the TMP saucer not smooth? Everything about it is smooth. It's nothing but curved lines. In the original design, the straight lines of the stardrive are in disagreement with the curve of the saucer.

The various parts of the Abramsprise look as if they were taken from various different starship models and arbitrarily slapped together to form something that vaguely resembles a Starfleet vessel.

Can't really argue with how you see it, but the fact that all the shapes and lines in each part are consistent with each other is a good basis for disagreement.

The fact that the design is thick in the middle and thin at the ends is exactly what throws the proportions off balance as compared to the original. It looks...wierd. The Enterprise was a well designed, well proportioned, very aesthetically pleasing design that holds up just as well today as it did 40 years ago. The Abramsprise is a design that was done to appeal to the zoom zoom crowd and will probably be obsolete in a couple of years.

Again, how is thick in the middle and thin at the ends unbalanced? It's as balanced as the saucer (thin at the edges, thick at the middle), and arguably it's one of the most balanced shapes in nature. Look at the shape of a galaxy. It's like a saucer. Look at your body. Your extremities are thin, but your midsection is large. Etc.

All I see when I look at the Abramsprise is a strange looking ship that eschews all established design style from Star Trek in favor of attempting to look more modern, and failing miserably. The original Enterprise boring? Nah. It just needs a little sprucing up is all. The Constitution class sure didn't look boring in "In A Mirror, Darkly". It also looked pretty good in "Trials and Tribble-Ations".

I don't think the Enterprise looks bad, despite the obvious flaws in the design.

The new design is far from elegant. In my opinion of course. And it was not designed with any logic in mind at all.

How can you deny the logic? I just explained it to you.

It was designed to "look good". To some it succeeds. To others it fails horribly. The orignial design was indeed designed for proacticality and simplicity. That was Matt Jeffries' motivation for making the hull smooth. He wanted as little clutter as possible. He thought that everything that the crew needed should be inside the ship with minimal ornamentation on the outside. This makes for a much more practical, efficient, and elegantly simple design. Exactly what the Enterprise exemplifies and the Abramsprise fails at.

I'll admit the Abramsprise fails at simplicity. But that's not necessarily bad. In fact, the subtle complexities (of which I've already described) is what makes it a good design.

Either way, whether you like the design of the Abramsprise or not, it all boils down to opinion. What one thinks looks good, another may not. That's the problem with art and design, it's completely subjective. I love the design of the new Mustang. I know people who hate it. It will always be that way with art. Love it or hate it.

Of course. You can say anything you want about art and be correct with the proper choice of words.

 

[M'Sharak]

http://brstarship.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/vektor.jpg?w=655&h=491

Okay. This is Vektor's Enterprise. This is absolutely awesome!!

Vektor's rendition is very nice and it gets a lot of admiration here, but this image appears to have been hotlinked, so I've converted it to a link. Please be sure that images posted inline are hosted on web space or an image-hosting account belonging to you.

 

[Warped9]

^^ Even in a reboot that would have been cool!

 

[Green Shirt]

The NuEnterprise has no butt!

Yeah, an ample butt is needed to go along with those ample nacelles. Otherwise it looks like another skinny model with an out of proportion boob job.