Yet More Bitching About Discovery's NCC-1701.

Just because I'm bored and I like to complain:

I really do have a problem with "modernizing" the design of the TOS Enterprise. Here are a few reasons why:

1. You can't "modernize" something that doesn't exist. Star Trek was showing a very fictional future timeline that has nothing to do with our own real world. It exists within its own world where your conceit about "what looks modern" or "what looks futuristic" simply does not apply.

1A. Nobody knows what technology in the 2260s is going to look like. Which means that nobody knows that it won't look like its design compass comes from the 1960s. Physical buttons seem "un-futuristic" to you? Make you a deal -- type your reply to this comment on your phone without looking at the screen. Getting an idea of how important physical, tactile controls are now?

2. Because Star Trek depicts a fictional timeline, people like to lean on the word "fictional" to defend messing with it, but totally discard the word, timeline. Time progresses. That means that technologies and design ideas are supposed to change. You wouldn't buy a 2020 Corvette that looked and performed like a Ford Model T, would you? No, the very idea of a modern car looking like a car from a hundred years ago is just stupid, right? And conversely, if somebody offered you a ride in a Model T, for the nostalgia, and then walked you over to a Honda Civic, you'd call bullshit, wouldn't you?

So why the hell do people think it's a good idea that you can retroactively make the 1701 look like a mashup of 1701-A and 1701-E and that's somehow not stupid? How is the Motion Picture refit even a refit if the "original" ship, courtesy of Discovery, is now almost identical to the refit? What changed, then? What advanced, from "The Cage" to "The Motion Picture"? What are we supposed to think got upgraded, now? What did they do, upgrade the computers from macOS 10.13 to macOS 10.14?

3. "We're just modernizing it." No, actually, you're not even modernizing it. You're applying design cues to it from 1987. Blue neon smeared all over everything, who thinks that's new? That started with Andrew Probert's Enterprise-D from over 30 years ago. So no, you're not even modernizing it, you're just changing it for the sake of your own shallow pride. You're just doodling on a Rembrandt. You're telling your grandmother how to suck eggs, and how dare you.

Summation: The synthesis of the previous points is this: The '60s Enterprise is supposed to look like the '60s Enterprise. The *2260s* Enterprise. We know what it looks like, and it doesn't look like the 2280s Enterprise or the 2360s Enterprise-D, and certainly not like a mewling freak fusion of the two. Bring the rendering in line with modern technology -- but leave the design alone. The design is established. We've already seen it. Bring out the details. Bring out the polish they couldn't. But respect that these are somebody else's creations. Or create something of your own, you lazy, cowardly, greedy fucks.
Failing that last point, though, at least have the decency to leave it alone. Don't touch it. At least let us have the faint glimmer of hope, however, farcical, that somewhere in that universe is a slice of time and space you hipster cocksuckers didn't shit up just because you hate the very people that turned the damn thing into the cash cow you're butchering.
Thought I'd revisit this because I've seen some people claiming, recently (but not here), that Disco ships having windows at the front of the bridge "is just like in The Cage.

Those who claim this will point out that the Cage-era 1701 had "a window" at the front of the exterior of the bridge. Like so:

Now, while that's a nice try, it's wrong. How do we know it's wrong? Because of this:

Now I'm not crazy good with aspect ratios, so call me Angus McPuddingfecker, the Dustbin King of Dunfermline, but the "window" dimensions don't match the viewscreen's.

Not a window.