A fascinating choice of words, "puerile". Not much different from "foolish," above. And just as logically absurd. This is like saying a thief that is accused of stealing didn't steal, he just appropriated for his own use. A distinction without a difference. "Fit his vision?" He has a choice in picking a vision. He chose the vision he did... because he could. His team "wants to make Trek in their own image", to quote the other guy, perhaps because he thinks it enhances the likelihood of success, or because he wants to stamp this cultural icon with his own brand. In the one case, it's because he can, and in the other it's because he feels he must. Let's look at that last possibility. To be fair, I think it is a combination of the two, and feel his artistic vision is being driven by a misguided belief that designs that have been around for so long are "dated" -- a belief well represented in this thread by people who when pushed to provide a basis for their belief, rest on the argument that the opposing belief is "puerile" or "foolish". Of course, since Matt Jefferies was projecting what a starship might look like, and since a starship has never been contemplated beyond the barest speculations, there is no basis upon which to criticize the Jefferies design. None at all. To say it doesn't look like the ISS or other modern aerospace designs is nonsensical. It didn't look like anything from its own time, either. It's just as relevant to say it doesn't look like a meatloaf. No... the only reason to believe this design is commercially untenable -- this iconic design, recognized worldwide and enshrined with other objects of cultural significance in the Smithsonian, is because he wants to change it. Underneath it all, that's got to be driving it. It's just that "he wants to put his stamp on it," because he can do it, and I guess that's okay. But let's call it what it is, and debate the motive, and not the design.