Continuity and coherent design are very important in any film or TV show, Trek is no different.
In any drama you expect to see people living in homes, wearing clothes, using technology or riding around in vehicles that fit that period. There should be an internal logic to the design of sets and vessels shown on screen. If the story requires it to take 10 minutes to get from, say, the Bridge to Engineering via the Jeffries Tubes then the reported size of the ship and its internal spaces should be consistent with the storyline or vice versa.
This is not always or even usually the case. Most of the time size and internal spaces are only established to be relevant to MAJOR plot points and events most directly relevant to the basic storyline and founding premise. Other elements are sometimes added later that screw things up but are simply ignored because it's too late to redesign the entire ship to be consistent with them or it just isn't worth the effort. Halo's "Pillar of Autumn," for example, has the feature of having been designed and modeled at a little over a kilometer long, and then being designed with level interiors that don't actually fit inside the ship, including a long service corridor more than four times the ship's reported length.
For the more infamous Star Trek examples, all I need to say is "Deck 78."
Oscars are given for production design!
I can count on one hand the number of science fiction movies that have ever won an oscar for production design. No Star Trek movie has ever been
nominated.
If we don't give the same respect to the Tech as we give to the plotlines then we may as well say starships have the same internal spatial attributes as the Tardis and be done with it.
I disagree, if only because anyone with a pencil and a ruler can draw a set of deck plans for a starship. But a compelling story takes a lot more work, and a compelling character takes a degree of subtlety and depth that tech nerds can rarely be bothered with. At the end of the day, the technical aspects are just scenery: lighting, set design, props, etc. Focusing on that is amusing to a point, but it's not at all relevant to the story or the quality of the production.
It's like watching a cowboy movie with a special eye for botany and architecture: is that species of flower likely to appear in 1870s Wyoming? Is the Sheriff's house an accurate example of post-war architecture and furniture? Is his accent period-appropriate? Is he carrying the right model Peacemaker or a similar type of gun that shouldn't exist for another 20 years?
Trek tech is more accessible because it's all MADE UP and you don't actually have to know anything about engineering or science or real physics to try and analyze it. This way, all of us tech nerds get to run around this forum pushing our really important and well-thought out opinions and hope that nobody realizes that we really don't know what the fuck we're talking about and just like to sound important.
You'd think that after years and years online you'd get used to things.
