1. You want the effects to look like something out of the 60s? I don't think so. A phase pistol is fine. It shoots a red beam out. Phasers in TOS shot some sort of beam, but much cheaper looking. You want the Phase pistols to shoot a fuzzy, foot wide, red beam across the screen? I don't think so.
2. The Interior of the Ent looks remarkably like the interiors of todays naval vessels(except for the wider corridors). So are you now going to argue that the aircraft carrier Enterprise doesn't belong here because it looks too 'futuristic' and the TOS Enterprise didn't?
3. I own a Toyota Corolla. It's nice, silver, has curves and all. Looks good. I never owned a Delorean, which was very metallic, sharp angles, and looked more futuristic than my Corolla. Maybe it really was a car from the future brought back to the 80s. It's the same thing with Ent and 1701. Sharp and Metallic does not equal more technologically advanced and futuristic. Also, the ship has a primary hull and two nacelles. It's essentially an engine strapped to a saucer. The 1701 had the saucer, secondary hull and then the two nacelles. Seems to me that that would require more training and future designs because adding a secondary hull would be more futuristic.
4. When cars first started becoming prevalent in the worl about 100 years ago, they still had an engine and a steering wheel, probably some brakes and a place for people to ride in. Are you trying to say that they are too advanced because that sounds a lot like todays cars? Same thing on Ent, it still is a ship, still has engines, weapons, etc, just a lot less advanced. Enterprise would be like the old model T and 1701 would be like my Corolla.
5. And back in the Revolutionary War, they fired muskets. Essentially detonated some gun powder and a projectile shot out. Todays guns work on the same principle, just a bit more streamlined. We call them both guns. At least in Enterprise they tried to distinguish the name of the phaser/phase pistol.
2. The Interior of the Ent looks remarkably like the interiors of todays naval vessels(except for the wider corridors). So are you now going to argue that the aircraft carrier Enterprise doesn't belong here because it looks too 'futuristic' and the TOS Enterprise didn't?
3. I own a Toyota Corolla. It's nice, silver, has curves and all. Looks good. I never owned a Delorean, which was very metallic, sharp angles, and looked more futuristic than my Corolla. Maybe it really was a car from the future brought back to the 80s. It's the same thing with Ent and 1701. Sharp and Metallic does not equal more technologically advanced and futuristic. Also, the ship has a primary hull and two nacelles. It's essentially an engine strapped to a saucer. The 1701 had the saucer, secondary hull and then the two nacelles. Seems to me that that would require more training and future designs because adding a secondary hull would be more futuristic.
4. When cars first started becoming prevalent in the worl about 100 years ago, they still had an engine and a steering wheel, probably some brakes and a place for people to ride in. Are you trying to say that they are too advanced because that sounds a lot like todays cars? Same thing on Ent, it still is a ship, still has engines, weapons, etc, just a lot less advanced. Enterprise would be like the old model T and 1701 would be like my Corolla.
5. And back in the Revolutionary War, they fired muskets. Essentially detonated some gun powder and a projectile shot out. Todays guns work on the same principle, just a bit more streamlined. We call them both guns. At least in Enterprise they tried to distinguish the name of the phaser/phase pistol.
