Ha! And did I say that you said that the surface of a ship must be rough? Let's go line-by-line... Legion: You can tell by looking at it - it's too simplistic a design. Here we have a claim. The TOS Enterprise design would not work on the big screen, because it is too simple. WWI Ace: You can add a lot of visual interest to it without making huge changes like the TMP redesign or the JJ-Trek ship. Deg and Vektor? have both done it very well on this board. Here we have a rejoinder. WWI argues that the shape can remain substantively the same with some added detail work. Basically, we can have a simple shape with some nice detail added. Legion: I like both of their variations. Neither is adequate for a big screen movie. You can add all the detail you want to the thing and the silhouette, the balance of the parts and the overall plainness of it remain. Here we have the added claim that it is the basic shape that is the problem, not the detail work. If this is the case, then Star Trek and Star Wars should be comparable. SW has highly detailed surface features, but regardless of any such features, a simple overall shape is reason to reject (because detail cannot save you). WWI Ace: Some of the most iconic scifi ships from the movies are plain shapes from afar. The ISD from Star Wars. The Discovery from 2001. The Death Star. How much more plain can you get than a giant ball? If you are paying attention to the conversation, WWI Ace is meeting Legion's objection squarely. Legion has argued that surface detail does not matter if the shape is too simple. Ace brings up a very good point. Iconic Star Wars ships have very simple shapes. It is here that you jumped into the fray. Comet: The surface of each of these ships (ISD, Discovery, Death Star) is anything but smooth. Making the surface of the TOS Enterprise as jagged as these three ships implies a modification to the design of at least some sort. If you're not talking about making the surface of the TOS Enterprise rough, then a comparison to these three ships is pointless. If the surface of the TOS Enterprise is rough, then to a purist that's not a "faithful" version of the ship. What's notable here is that you've missed Legion's concession (and Ace is addressing Legion here) that surface detail doesn't matter, that it is the basic shape that is a deal breaker, regardless of texture. Ace's argument succeeds, because it is aimed at material in Legions commitment store of reasoning and claims. You're also missing Ace's contention that updated TOS E's strike a nice balance - preserving the heart and soul of the design while making a few changes. He is, in essence, denying that there is any either/or dilemma. You, however, insist on an either/or dilemma. You contend that if the TOS shape isn't roughed up, that he cannot compare the two. But yes he can compare the two and he can do so properly. The relevant dimension which is at stake is NOT surface detail, but the simplicity of the shape (Legion has denied the relevance of surface detail in cases where the shape is simple). So let's lay it out again. ACE: SW ships have a very simple shape. Legion: Surface detail is not a relevant consideration in cases Comet's Non-Sequitur: You can't compare the two. Surface detail is a relevant consideration! No, you're argument is apples and oranges. Legion is legislating on (apparently) aesthetic grounds. You, on the other hand, are attempting to legislate on empirical grounds (what a subgroup of fans will accept). Ace responds to Legion's apple and you complain that he is failing to deal with your orange. Moreover, Ace has argued for a middle ground position between literally shooting the Smithsonian model against a green screen and making a Star Wars "Planet of the Titans" version of the Enterprise. His contention is that the shape can be substantively conserved and that surface detail is a relevant feature (you just don't have to go overboard with it). As to whether fans would accept it: *Fans liked seeing the TOS-R Enterprise on the big screen. *Vektor and deg's designs have been well received by Trek faithful. *A non-greebled redesign of the Enterprise has succeeded with the faithful on the big screen (TMP E) - a slightly detailed TOS design would be a less radical departure than even the TMP refit.