And again, I'd ask... what, specifically, about the TOS design "screams 1960s? Oh, and you're a poster on the TrekBBS... so by any rational argument, you, too, are a "fanboy." Your use of the term is not, therefore, really an ACCURATE term, is it? Instead, you seem to be using the term to attack those who don't agree with you. IE, "fanboy" is your way of belittling those who don't agree with you. I AM looking at it objectively, and further, I'm trying to engage in an OBJECTIVE DISCUSSION, using logic, rationally stated points, and actual ARGUMENTS to support my position. I keep hoping that the other side of the argument will engage in the same sort of an approach. Rather than engaging in personal sniping, I mean. You're talking style. Can you give a reason that would be the case that has some logical support behind it? For the record, "lots of curves" and "lots of detail" is nothing new. Fins and greeblies and so forth don't make for "more advanced." You had that stuff on the 1930s Flash Gordon serials, for cryin' out loud! ST-One has raised the TMP Enterprise as an example of "good change" and (except for the idea that it's the same ship... an idea which is specifically addressed in the script when it's demonstrated that Kirk can't even find his way around inside her, and as Decker says, it's an "almost totally new Enterprise.") I can agree with that in large extent. However, the TMP Enterprise didn't have a "more curved" shape, overall, nor did it have lots of extra detail added to it (in the sense it seems to be addressed here, I mean). The ship was actually quite smooth and enclosed. Again, that's because Probert was actually thinking through WHY things ought to be, not just what they out to look like. Look at real technology. Do you see a car with a perfectly smooth, graceful exterior, compare it to a car covered with all sorts of exposed nuts and so forth, and see the one with "more detail visible" as being more advanced? Further... look at airplanes. Modern aircraft are no more "curvy" than they were in the 1940, 1950s, 1960s...in fact, they're quite a bit LESS so. The same goes for naval vessels. Here's concept art of a new US Navy vessel currently being created. Far from having "more exposed detail," it has a lot less. And that makes it seem MORE advanced, doesn't it? If the audience really felt that way... about style, more than story... "The Phantom Menace" would have been one of the most reknowned films of all time, wouldn't it? I do not accept your proposition that "the audience would laugh." Why not? Because there is NO evidence to that effect. I believe the exact opposite... that if the original design were shown, in high-definition, high-quality images on the big screen, just as we remember it but in such clarity that we can finally see all the fine detail that was never visible on the 320 x 200 TV broadcast... I believe that the audience would GASP. That's my opinion. Your opinion is that they'd laugh. Neither has anything remotely like "proof" behind them. That's why it's OPINION. And that's why I don't argue from that basis... and instead try to argue points that CAN be argued logically and can be taken to some sort of conclusion. I doubt that very much. Does your control room have cables and wiring snaking around, behind every console? The TOS bridge is much CLEANER, isn't it? And isn't it true that "cleaner" typically is associated with "more advanced?" Does everything fit together, as a unified whole... or is your "advanced" control room actually a hodge-podge of slightly similar, but very much distinct, pieces of hardware? Does your control room have rack-mounted equipment, stacked up in columns on frames made from mass-produced aluminum and steel extrusions, rolling around on casters? I'm not saying you don't work in a state-of-the-art facility... only that it's doubtful that your workcenter is REALLY "more advanced looking." A control center, ideally, should be clean, streamlined, and have exactly the controls and displays and so forth required to do the job it's required to do... no more, no less. Now, for the record, I'm not saying that the original set, without alteration, must be used. For example, I've always envisioned the big framed areas above each workstation on the outer ring to be a massive flat display. We just normally see one or two "windows" open on it at any time... but you could have more than that, you could have different background colors, you could have the whole thing displaying data... it would be very flexible. Yet it would still be the same in every meaningful way. Same with the "pegboard" display in Engineering... that might just be one display, representing a wiring schematic, that can be put up on a large wall-sized display panel. You don't have to throw the old away, you can "update" it without contradicting it. There's nothing dated about the designs... the limitations that can, and SHOULD, be addressed are rather those of budget and available technology. But even with that... unless you're one of those "arteeest" types I mentioned earlier (which is, for the record, not the same as an actual ARTIST)... you ought to recognize that the set isn't the core of what matters. If's a place to set action. So if the audience is looking at the set more closely than the actors... you've got a "Star Wars Prequel" situation and you've failed as a storyteller! Do you HONESTLY think that the "wider audience" is going to go to this movie because they want to see what the "newer, cooler Enterprise" is going to look like? That's the sort of thinking that the FANBOYS of which, let's be blunt, YOU ARE ONE, are accused of... isn't it? General audiences will go to this movie to see a good story... or they won't go at all. Most are JUST familiar enough with the designs to know generally what it's supposed to look like, but few know or care about whether the bridge is straight or skewed. They have a mental image and as long as the show doesn't contradict that mental image they already have, they'll be able to stay absorbed in the story. IF IT'S A GOOD STORY. It's ONLY THE "FANBOYS" who are interested in seeing the fine details of the design. And it's only a subset of those who are interested in seeing it change... the subset who think as you seem to, that it's "dated" (without having a clear reason that they can give for WHY it's "dated"). Face facts... you, I, EVERY LAST ONE OF US qualifies as a "fanboy" by virtue of the fact that we joined, and post on, a BBS called the "TrekBBS." If you throw around that sort of thing as an insult... you're really trying to say something else, aren't you? And if the movie is going to rely on a "redesigned Enterprise" to capture an audience... rather than relying on great storytelling... it's already DEAD. A truly well-told story will be successful with what might be considered "sub-standard" effects, and even production design. While a badly told story cannot be saved by "new cool ships with huge 'splosions."