So if a person on the street wouldn't notice why change it?
Why not change it? Why does the decision to change it have to be justified, especially since, as I noted above, it's completely arbitrary either way and neither option is objectively superior?
Why can't you just have creativity for creativity's sake instead of justifying it like it's a goddamn senior thesis?
Uhmm... canon?
1) You're using the wrong term. "Canon" refers to the original body of work upon which derivative works such as fan fiction or media tie-in novels are based. The term you're looking for is "continuity." Shakespeare has a canon, but only a few of those works share a continuity.
2) Shared continuity is not and has never been a valid reason not to exercise creativity. That's why Gene Roddenberry didn't have a problem with completely redesigning the Klingons for TMP from what they had been in TOS, and why later creators then redesigned their bumpy foreheads from a vertical line of bumps down the center of the forehead to many different ridges across the entire forehead, all without any explanation until ENT came along decades later. That's why the Klingons went from being Federation Members in early TNG to an independent society in later TNG. That's why Vorta went from having telekinetic powers in "The Jem'Hadar" to not even having decent eyesight in DS9 Season Six. That's why the Trill went from their TNG depiction to their DS9 depiction. That's why the Borg were radically changed from early TNG to their state in
Star Trek: First Contact. That's why the
Enterprise went from being "the United Earth Ship
Enterprise" answering to the "United Earth Space Probe Agency (UESPA)" in early TOS to being the Federation Starship
Enterprise working for the Starfleet of the United Federation of Planets in later TOS. That's why first contact between the Klingons and Humans went from happening in the early 23rd Century as per TOS and TNG to happening in 2151 in ENT. That's why Lt. Leslie
died in one TOS episode and was alive in later ones. That's why VOY's "Threshold" was removed from
Trek continuity by its writer. That's why anti-matter went from being a substance that would destroy the universe if it came into contact with normal matter in "The Alternate Factor" (TOS) to being the thing that powers starships' warp engines. That's why Spock's race went from being the Vulcanians who had been conquered by Humans ("The Conscience of the King") to being the Vulcans who were resented for dominating late 21st and early-to-mid 22nd Century Earth politics and later co-founded the Federation as equal partners (ENT). That's why early TOS couldn't even decide when it was set (everything from 200 years into the future to 800 years into the future) before TNG's "The Neutral Zone" finally set our current chronology in stone.
Retcons have a long history in Trek and always will. The canon has NEVER had a completely cohesive shared continuity; there have always been discontinuities, and Trekkies have always either justified them or disregarded them. Telling a good story is more important than avoiding contradicting minor details that only anal-retentive geeks like us care about.
And I can tell you right now why the new ship design doesn't violate continuity:
One word:
"Refit."
Creativity is more important than canon.
I know not everyone looks at things this way. But a lot of people do. And these people tend to be among the smarter people in society. Which, it's known, correlates to the "best off" among society reasonably well... which in turn relates to "the ones that the studios want to make into fans of their product so they'll keep watching, keep buying, etc, etc."
People like you are the reason Trek is completely disrespected as a work of art. You're so obsessed with minutiae and minor details like whether or not the design of the ship APPEARS to fit into the aesthetic established in previous entries in the canon that you'll start ranting and raving and try to imply that people who disagree with you -- people who value creativity over technicality -- are somehow less intelligent than you are. You're so threatened by change -- and relatively unimportant change at that -- that you'll insult other people over it. Which is particularly ironic, because one of the primary themes of
Star Trek is the inevitability and positive nature of change.
Guess what? PLENTY of intelligent people believe in being creative and re-interpreting things for the sake of trying to inject new life and energy into them, or trying to see them through new lenses. Why do you think Brecht took the
Threepenny Opera and completely re-adapted it for a 20th Century audience? Why else do you think Larson took
La Boheme and re-adapted it into a rock opera in the mid-90s? Why else do you think Moore took the Charlton Comics characters and completely re-adapted them to create
Watchmen? Why else do you think Nolan took the Batman mythos and completely re-interpreted it for a post-9/11, post-Iraq, post-Katrina America in
The Dark Knight? Why else do you think Lennon took compositions like "Moonlight Sonata" by Beethoven and re-adapted it into the song "Because?" Why else do you think Taymor took the entire Beatles library and adapted them into an epic film musical about the entire 1960s?
As Shatner once said -- and, by the way, William Shatner, Captain Kirk himself,
has no problem with the new Enterprise -- "Get a life."
