Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim
I beg to differ. The design of the E has everything to do with the story. Without the ship, there would be no story. And "MINOR" differences?!?! And if you look at the construction scene in the trailer, you won't see any differences? Did you see the same trailer I did? Because I noticed a lot of differences. Pardon me Horatio, you have always been the calm voice of reason and logic on these boards, and I admire you for that, but I have to vehemently disagree with you on this one. The differences between the "Abramsprise" and the real NCC-1701 from TOS are radical, not minor. Anyone who has watched TOS knows this. Most are just too stubborn to admit it. And it would take more than just a line of dialogue in the movie to explain such a radical departure from the traditional Connie design.
I understand your point of view and it is a matter of perspective whether those changes are minor or major ones. As the trailer features a scene with a front shot, I only wanted to point out that she looks more similar to the original than from a sideview.
But if I may suggest, my wild speculation is that we see the Enterprise constructed on Earth, Kirk yearning to get command over that ship (OK not so wild, that is just the trailer scene), we see her first launch and, although in TOS many Constitution class vessels existed, the Enterprise might be the first and single ship of her class in this movie. There COULD be scenes which emphasize the Enterprise, like the slow revelation in TMP. As I said, I understand your point of view, but perhaps good plot concerning the Enterprise can make it up for a bad look (just like a good performance of an actor is more important than his looks) ?