I saw no necessity for change.
Right, and obviously it'd be tough to ask you to show why you don't think it needed change, although perhaps showing some contemporary aircraft or spacecraft designs (real or fictional) to show that the original 1701 is still very much futuristic somehow might do it (I'm just throwing this out there).
On the other hand I think myself and others have made a case as to why the design looks stuck in the 60s and why _some_ update was necessary. Some say only texturing and a few added details is enough, others a more pronounced change, etc. I've posted some pictures of Vektor's version upthread which is a nice example of what I had in mind, though the 1979 Enterprise remains my favourite, and I think is a perfect example of how one can update the original design without compromising its essence.
I guess in the end the question is whether the general public finds it dated. My personal experience is that yes, but without an actual poll or something like that, we'd probably never know. If CBS aired Star Trek Continues, would that sell outside of fandom? I doubt it.
That things were changed for artistic and licensing reasons? I think both can be true.
Sure... but that wasn't what we were saying, was it? We were talking about the necessity of changing the design of the ship, not whether two forces were at work.
What is everyone's opinion on CGI versus a physical filming model?
I'm not a huge fan of CGI but spaceships is probably where the technology shines best. The 1979 Enterprise is probably the best we could do with physical models and cameras (along with First Contact and some shots of Generations), but the 2009 movie shows us what you can do with CGI. The question of the 1701's design aside, the texturing and detailing, as well as the lighting, is something I think you just can't do that well with a physical model simply because A) it's small and B) you have air in the studio, so you can't simulate the hard shadows of space, amongst others.
