My point is that Star Trek at least used to try to ground itself in science a bit. Hence Science Fiction (Fiction based on Science). The last movie forgot it's roots in that respect.
Previous designs of the Enterprise have some design basis. This is why in the first 6 Star Trek movies (not counting 4, they had the bird of prey in that one) you see the matter intermix chamber, which has a vertical component as well as the horizontal component (vertical terminates in the dome above the impulse engine, horizontal travels backwards to the engine struts, where it then splits upwards to the warp engine nacelles). This convention continued even through the Enterprise series (note that the NX 01 didn't have the neck, but note the section in the back which is removed from the main saucer).
And Jeffries tubes were named after the guy who designed the original Enterprise model, back in the '60s.
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/jefferies.htm.
Incidentally, full deck plans and other literature are available for various Enterprise designs, again adding to the mystique of the setting. Franz Joseph's Star Fleet Technical Manual was one of the first in this veign.
This is part of the mystique that science types loved to see in the show. Sure, we have no way of knowing what a warp driven starship should look like, but nonetheless tech minded modeling types tried to portray that as best they could. On a related note, this is one reason Star Trek: The Next Generation is credited often for inspiring the IPad, but I digress.
This is also one reason why Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan is so compelling to watch; that is because they utilized the lore/ship designs to reinforce plot points. Star Trek II and Star Wars both made space battles hella cool things to watch. But with Star Trek, you could 'peek under the hood' and be fascinated by what you saw.
I'll say again, Abrams chose to turn his back on this tradition, in favor of just making plot points, and liberally borrowing from the genre as it suited him. This is lazy directing, and probably one reason I never got into Lost either.
So again, have fun at the next Star Trek movie guys. I get that many of you liked the last one, just understand that not all of us enjoyed what Abrams did to the franchise.
And yes, I hated Episode III of Star Wars as well. Mostly for bad/lazy writing (see Abrams, above). After the first few dozen or so sci fi movies, your expectations tend to be higher, but then this is true of any genre. How many people have you heard lamenting about how they don't make good movies anymore? Sure, there are some gems out there, but remakes and recycling of old stories gets old after a while...
