One of the things I've always appreciated about the starships in Star Trek is that they don't have a lot of greebles. I agree with the common objection that it makes no sense to expose mechanical bits on the outside of your hull, but for me it's more than that. Going light on the greebles distinguishes the aesthetic of Star Trek from that of other sci-fi universes (Star Wars, BSG, Aliens, etc.). I also believe that super advanced tech would likely be more solid state and less mechanical. To me, a smooth, organic hull just looks more futuristic. Heck, when people claim to see UFOs they always describe their hulls as being featureless, which adds to the impression of them being incredibly advanced and unearthly.
As I understand it (please correct me if I'm wrong), one of the rationales for model makers adding greebles to space ships is that a smooth hull would look fake when filmed. The more detail a model has, the more real it looks. Greebles can also provide a sense of scale. Is that correct?
If so, that makes sense to me, and I think Star Trek usually finds a good balance between adding detail to ships' exteriors without making the ships look like they're turned inside out. In fact, the aztecing is perfect for this: it gives a hull detail and texture without resorting to greebles.
As I understand it (please correct me if I'm wrong), one of the rationales for model makers adding greebles to space ships is that a smooth hull would look fake when filmed. The more detail a model has, the more real it looks. Greebles can also provide a sense of scale. Is that correct?
If so, that makes sense to me, and I think Star Trek usually finds a good balance between adding detail to ships' exteriors without making the ships look like they're turned inside out. In fact, the aztecing is perfect for this: it gives a hull detail and texture without resorting to greebles.
