And do think that veins of valuable ore run perpendicular to a planet's surface? Apologists aside, that seems to defy everything I learned in geology 101. I welcome your new theory of plate tectonics.
Come on. Star Trek
has always been full of science holes and other continuity errors. Consider all the TOS episodes where ships' orbits decayed when they lost power. Or Psi 2000 somehow changing its mass as it disintegrated in "The Naked Time." You want to object to scientific inaccuracies in Star Trek
, you're nearly half a century too late.
As for the "art deco" look of the previous Enterprise, there is nothing art deco about it at all, unless you count the original curves (which vanished from the nacelles). I assume you mean art moderne, and even then I think you mean the "Aztecing" of the hull plates.
An irrelevant nitpick. The point is that they're all stylistic decisions by the art directors of different works of fiction. Objecting to the stylistic choices of the latest version is just an excuse you're making up to justify your hostility toward its novelty. Fans like you have been condemning the newest incarnation of Trek as a corruption and a betrayal for the past three or four decades. Sadly, even though Star Trek
is about approaching the new and different with openness and fascination, there are always fans like you who face it with hatred and condemnation.
Why is it so wrong to ask for the help of real-world science advisers? Who have helped so much before?
See above about TOS's humongous science errors. What you need to understand about science advisors is that they're advisors
. As I already told you, the producers aren't required to listen to their advice. You're deluded if you think that this is anything new for Trek.