I dunno, I think designs like this always were generic - the designs that matter most to me personally are ones that suggest purpose - whereas when I look at those, I just see a bored concept artist with no ideas making a generic shape, and then seeing how many ribs they can fit onto it - "take five isosceles triangles, drop them randomly on a table to make your spacecraft, then add a shit-ton of lines, ridges, ribs and surface details to them". The result:
Would anyone recognize that silhouette as Klingon if it turned up randomly?
The original Enterprise, Romulan Bird of Prey and Klingon D7 on the other hand were designed to be instantly recognizable from their silhouette alone. Gene Coon and Gene Roddenbury were WW2 veterans - their directive was to make ships distinguishable from one another at a glance - like a WW2 airplane recognition chart.
A ship like the connie suggests utility - it's pods have some reason behind them even if you don't know the exact reason, you can guess they are engines - the shuttle-bay seems to be in a logical place - the nacelles are offset from the hull for some reason, etc. The enemy ships have similar features to suggest commonality of technology.
The Klingon ship at the top of this post has no discernable bridge, engines, shuttle bay, weapons, or anything - it's silhouette is so generic it could be a Delta Quadrant alien-of-the-week that Janeway runs into.
For this reason, elaborate for it's own sake, has never been a good idea to me.
Only when it's elaborate for a reason for intricacy do I like it - like a Warhammer 40,000 ship is suggestive of a Gothic Cathedral - perfect for a galactic empire that can barely understand it's own technology anymore - and has regressed into a Catholic/Nazi totalitarian theocracy where people believe electricity is the will of god:
The Klingon ship above just looks like something from a modern Hollywood B-movie, like Skyline:
To me (a person who, as you all know, was fed up of the way Klingons were in DS9, and advocated for their change) - the crux is not their visual appearance, but their intangible culture - the thing that most needed re-imagining about the Klingons was not their ships, tricorders, disruptors, or any other material prop - it was their society, their character, and other intangible things like that, which had grown into a boring stereotype through lack of thought - the fact they all talked in a stupid raspy tone of voice, and were apparently universally incapable of going five steps without taking offense, was grating and obnoxious - the obsession with words like 'honor, bloodwine, kahless' in every sentence of dialogue was atrocious.
So, some people might say, "hey, USS Einstein, arn't you the one who has been saying for years on TrekBBS that the Klingons needed a huge reboot"? But I never had a problem with their beautiful starships - their canonical appearance - there was no need for their most common ship to suddenly look nothing like it has for 50 years (yes, the D7 has looked the same in appearances from 1969's "Day of the Dove" to 2009's "Star Trek" !!!) - the problem was purely in their writing.
