Where exactly is the source that action movie fans are most likely, or even more likely, to bootleg it? . . .
The source was originally an online library I no longer have a subscription to, in papers and articles on internet piracy I was reading for school and the statistics were a secondary aspect of that. There is a free article about the problem here that I found with a few minutes of searching that contains some of the same statistics in their infographics about two thirds down the page:
As you can see if you look at it, action format movies tend to be the most pirated and since bootleg is done for profit those are the ones that sell the best (or at least were, action format is starting to slump at theaters a bit so it may be shifting in bootleg channels too) so it follows that action movie fans are the most likely to buy things bootleg since it is (or at least was) the hottest part of the market.
And the average time from airdate/release of the official source to bootleg is about twelve days (it has actually gotten slightly shorter than I remember, where the average was about two weeks).
To be fair, you wouldn't want to associate with the traditional Trek format in the modern day. That format was dying out even by the time DS9 started airing, and DS9 took a far more serialized action format as a response. The old format almost killed ENT in the first two seasons, and ENT is normally regarded to have gotten better in S3 and S4 when it stopped being that. Most people don't want that anymore.
Again, the format is not "dying out" at all, it has just drifted more towards the arc end of the episodic spectrum (though as I pointed out before that does overlap with the serial spectrum a bit).
The difference between serial and episodic formats is not binary and is more complex than simply whether it has threads that connect episodes/segments or not, it is how those threads are handled and I have run out of ways to explain it to you that would fit in a comment like this (and no, I am not saying you are stupid, just that we don't seem to have enough of a common frame of reference and it would take too much text to try and establish one).
How exactly does the new Trek shows not examine or explore them in the way of a hopefully entertaining story like old Trek does?
Again, it is not a case of "does it or doesn't it have...", it is a case of how it is done. In traditional Trek the stories were constructed around those questions, in DSC and PIC most often they are just sidestories at best even when they are not just motivation triggers for the real plot or simply a facet of a particular character's development. The emphasis is not on the philosophical questions at all, it is on pure entertainment and any soft science considerations are way down priority list when they are anything but triggers, that is what makes it space opera instead of soft-sci-fi.
Traditionally yes, but TV isn't "traditional" anymore. Many full shows, marketed as full shows, with a full season, have been getting 13ish episodes. Because what defines a season has changed. And even back then many shows had seasons of varying length. So there was never hard length for a "season".
I take it you have not seen any traditional network TV in the last few years then. Take a look and you'll find that they still use the format I described, and 26 episodes is still the standard for hour-long episodes in a full season for a Fall/Winter season show. The only place (in the US TV industry, other countries may differ) where a half-season worth of shows (thirteen give or take a few) is more common than 22-26 episodes for a what they consider a full season is on cable-centric and streaming outlets.
You can make the claim that traditional TV is dying, many people do, but so far it is like the COBOL programming language (aka "the ever-dying language") that many declared dead way back in the 1970s but like the Energizer Bunny is still going, and going, and going.
Having watched pretty much all of the old Trek shows, and been keeping current on the new Trek shows, I've seen nothing about the new Trek shows that indicates any sort of contempt for the older Trek shows, or even TOS specifically.
The most blatant disrespect for the traditional Treks is in behind-the-scenes stuff such as interviews and whatnot, especially video ones where you can see their body language and hear their vocal inflections. Moonves made no secret of the fact that he didn't like Trek and especially hated TOS, Kurtzman himself called the old Treks "too intellectual" and said that he didn't like them.
In the behind the scenes feature interviews (and other interviews) a lot of them say they never really watched the older Treks, and the ones who did mainly mention the movies, not the various series. In fact, the first season set designer went so far as to say that the ONLY Trek worth anything before DSC was The Undiscovered Country, and she practically dripped scorn for TOS, calling it "the carboard Enterprise" (which it wasn't by the way, it was constructed mainly of wood and drywall, the materials Desilu had on hand). Also, there were things like the big signs in the design room that said "NO ROUND ENGINES!!!" in screamingly big block letters that show distain for the various traditional Treks.
That said, there is plenty of evidence in the show itself if you know the old shows well enough to spot it. It is in how things like the Federation and Klingon empire are treated, the use of a lot of out-of-context things (like how is putting early-design Ferengi goblin ears on Klingons supposed to honor the traditional Klingon concepts and designs?) and other things that try to push the old material aside.
For instance, were you aware that DSC originally intended the Sech (listen to the dialog in Choose Your Pain) to be their version of the D7? Bringing in a more traditional D7 design later was part of the damage control they had to do on the show in the add-on episodes they did for the first season.
The first one even happens right near the start of the pilot episode where they make the statement about the Klingons being quiet with nothing but brush wars since the early contact with them. That is incompatible with the fact that in TOS there was a major war in the early to mid 2240s and that the Klingons were obviously involved in some way because it was the root of the cold war between the Federation and Klingon empire that existed in TOS.
It was too convenient and an unnecessarily long a time to enable the DSC plot to work for it to have been anything but a deliberate dig at the first season TOS bible and the dialog generated by the events described in it.
Since that first writer's guide was a cold-start it went into the most background detail, in this case the important point is that the general shape of events in the decades leading up to TOS were analogs of real-world history for the same span of time leading up to the mid 1960s with the exception of the Vietnam war which NBC specifically told them to ignore (because of the very strong anti-war sentiment of the time).
If DSC was not spitting on TOS it would have worked as that earlier conflict being the WWII analog and the war in DSC being more or less the Korean conflict analog in that timeline (except for being direct instead of a proxy war).
Also, if you think I am making up the issue of TOS contempt, there are papers elsewhere about that odd phenomenon specifically (in a nutshell, fans of spinoffs having contempt for the original works that spun off the sequels in the first place, which is much more pronounced in Trek than any other fictional works) though they are probably harder to find (most of them that I read were in that library I mentioned earlier in the psychological and social science sections) so the phenomena exists and is widespread enough in Hollywood circles to make the task of assembling a team of mainly people with that contempt a trivial matter when it came to staffing the DSC team leaders.
Anyway, there are whole threads in this forum packed with examples of that contempt for the earlier Treks and arguments over them already, if you are interested in those other examples it is easy enough to look them up instead of my writing a novel-length comment that includes even a significant fraction of them.
Where exactly is the source that action movie fans are most likely, or even more likely, to bootleg it? . . .
The source was originally an online library I no longer have a subscription to, in papers and articles on internet piracy I was reading for school and the statistics were a secondary aspect of that. There is a free article about the problem here that I found with a few minutes of searching that contains some of the same statistics in their infographics about two thirds down the page:
As you can see if you look at it, action format movies tend to be the most pirated and since bootleg is done for profit those are the ones that sell the best (or at least were, action format is starting to slump at theaters a bit so it may be shifting in bootleg channels too) so it follows that action movie fans are the most likely to buy things bootleg since it is (or at least was) the hottest part of the market.
And the average time from airdate/release of the official source to bootleg is about twelve days (it has actually gotten slightly shorter than I remember, where the average was about two weeks).
To be fair, you wouldn't want to associate with the traditional Trek format in the modern day. That format was dying out even by the time DS9 started airing, and DS9 took a far more serialized action format as a response. The old format almost killed ENT in the first two seasons, and ENT is normally regarded to have gotten better in S3 and S4 when it stopped being that. Most people don't want that anymore.
Again, the format is not "dying out" at all, it has just drifted more towards the arc end of the episodic spectrum (though as I pointed out before that does overlap with the serial spectrum a bit).
The difference between serial and episodic formats is not binary and is more complex than simply whether it has threads that connect episodes/segments or not, it is how those threads are handled and I have run out of ways to explain it to you that would fit in a comment like this (and no, I am not saying you are stupid, just that we don't seem to have enough of a common frame of reference and it would take too much text to try and establish one).
How exactly does the new Trek shows not examine or explore them in the way of a hopefully entertaining story like old Trek does?
Again, it is not a case of "does it or doesn't it have...", it is a case of how it is done. In traditional Trek the stories were constructed around those questions, in DSC and PIC most often they are just sidestories at best even when they are not just motivation triggers for the real plot or simply a facet of a particular character's development. The emphasis is not on the philosophical questions at all, it is on pure entertainment and any soft science considerations are way down priority list when they are anything but triggers, that is what makes it space opera instead of soft-sci-fi.
Traditionally yes, but TV isn't "traditional" anymore. Many full shows, marketed as full shows, with a full season, have been getting 13ish episodes. Because what defines a season has changed. And even back then many shows had seasons of varying length. So there was never hard length for a "season".
I take it you have not seen any traditional network TV in the last few years then. Take a look and you'll find that they still use the format I described, and 26 episodes is still the standard for hour-long episodes in a full season for a Fall/Winter season show. The only place (in the US TV industry, other countries may differ) where a half-season worth of shows (thirteen give or take a few) is more common than 22-26 episodes for a what they consider a full season is on cable-centric and streaming outlets.
You can make the claim that traditional TV is dying, many people do, but so far it is like the COBOL programming language (aka "the ever-dying language") that many declared dead way back in the 1970s but like the Energizer Bunny is still going, and going, and going.
Having watched pretty much all of the old Trek shows, and been keeping current on the new Trek shows, I've seen nothing about the new Trek shows that indicates any sort of contempt for the older Trek shows, or even TOS specifically.
The most blatant disrespect for the traditional Treks is in behind-the-scenes stuff such as interviews and whatnot, especially video ones where you can see their body language and hear their vocal inflections. Moonves made no secret of the fact that he didn't like Trek and especially hated TOS, Kurtzman himself called the old Treks "too intellectual" and said that he didn't like them.
In the behind the scenes feature interviews (and other interviews) a lot of them say they never really watched the older Treks, and the ones who did mainly mention the movies, not the various series. In fact, the first season set designer went so far as to say that the ONLY Trek worth anything before DSC was The Undiscovered Country, and she practically dripped scorn for TOS, calling it "the carboard Enterprise" (which it wasn't by the way, it was constructed mainly of wood and drywall, the materials Desilu had on hand). Also, there were things like the big signs in the design room that said "NO ROUND ENGINES!!!" in screamingly big block letters that show distain for the various traditional Treks.
That said, there is plenty of evidence in the show itself if you know the old shows well enough to spot it. It is in how things like the Federation and Klingon empire are treated, the use of a lot of out-of-context things (like how is putting early-design Ferengi goblin ears on Klingons supposed to honor the traditional Klingon concepts and designs?) and other things that try to push the old material aside.
For instance, were you aware that DSC originally intended the Sech (listen to the dialog in Choose Your Pain) to be their version of the D7? Bringing in a more traditional D7 design later was part of the damage control they had to do on the show in the add-on episodes they did for the first season.
The first one even happens right near the start of the pilot episode where they make the statement about the Klingons being quiet with nothing but brush wars since the early contact with them. That is incompatible with the fact that in TOS there was a major war in the early to mid 2240s and that the Klingons were obviously involved in some way because it was the root of the cold war between the Federation and Klingon empire that existed in TOS.
It was too convenient and an unnecessarily long a time to enable the DSC plot to work for it to have been anything but a deliberate dig at the first season TOS bible and the dialog generated by the events described in it.
Since that first writer's guide was a cold-start it went into the most background detail, in this case the important point is that the general shape of events in the decades leading up to TOS were analogs of real-world history for the same span of time leading up to the mid 1960s with the exception of the Vietnam war which NBC specifically told them to ignore (because of the very strong anti-war sentiment of the time).
If DSC was not spitting on TOS it would have worked as that earlier conflict being the WWII analog and the war in DSC being more or less the Korean conflict analog in that timeline (except for being direct instead of a proxy war).
Also, if you think I am making up the issue of TOS contempt, there are papers elsewhere about that odd phenomenon specifically (in a nutshell, fans of spinoffs having contempt for the original works that spun off the sequels in the first place, which is much more pronounced in Trek than any other fictional works) though they are probably harder to find (most of them that I read were in that library I mentioned earlier in the psychological and social science sections) so the phenomena exists and is widespread enough in Hollywood circles to make the task of assembling a team of mainly people with that contempt a trivial matter when it came to staffing the DSC team leaders.
Anyway, there are whole threads in this forum packed with examples of that contempt for the earlier Treks and arguments over them already, if you are interested in those other examples it is easy enough to look them up instead of my writing a novel-length comment that includes even a significant fraction of them.
i like DSC however if the them saying the old star treks are too intellectual that is really sad. someone needs to sit them down and watch The Measure of a Man from tng
The best bet for the CBS shows would probably be to use Q in PIC to reveal that they are on a different quantum branch of the timeline from the others, that way they would have a much easier time writing the new shows without having to do a very deep dive into the traditional shows to keep continuity errors down to a reasonable level.
That kind of deep dive takes a lot of time and is not easy, for example running Star Trek as a tabletop RPG was the hardest set of campaigns I ever did because of that, and with being a mid-level Trekkie from way back I had a head start compared to Kurtzman's bunch who mostly (with a few exceptions) only saw the movies if they watched Star Trek at all (according to the interviews in the behind the scenes special and whatnot).
In the case of the RPG campaigns (several FASA and one Last Unicorn), I had several really hardcore Trekkies in the group which meant game sessions tended to break down into lore arguments if I did not do enough research to make sure things were right, so I did that research (which was fun in itself), but I doubt a business like Secret Hideout would pay their writing staff to go that deep into learning the ins and outs of traditional Trek.
I cannot completely blame them for the errors, it has been a long time since ENT ended and most of the traditional Trek writers have moved on to other projects (including moving to producing or directing) or retired so they are probably either unavailable or relatively expensive to hire (or perhaps just leery of involving themselves with NuTrek, especially under Moonves and his hirelings). It would have been great if they had gone that extra mile though.
Predictably (and unfortunately), it leads to a lot of immersion-breaking continuity gaffs and disappointment over the lost opportunities Kurtzman's team apparently does not even realize were there from TOS and the various other traditional Trek series.
When they were in the early run-up for DSC clothing fashion trends, production technology breakthroughs, hints from TOS, current events like the slowly reawakening cold war, and nostalgia from the 50th anniversary of TOS all lined up in a perfect-storm way that would have made DSC a fantastic return to Trek that would have brought all the fanbase together. Tragically, Moonves and Kurtzman ignored all of it and went for coat-tailing the movies (especially the Kelvin ones) and filling the rest of the show out with overused generic ideas instead.
In fact, they do. Phoenix has this obsession, derived from watching too much YouTube, that everyone involved in the current shows are all devoted to ignoring everything that's ever been done, despite the number of old-school fans (like Anthony Rapp, who plays Paul Stamets, or Mary Wiseman/Ensign Tilly, or her husband Noah, who played Ryn and livestreams his STO playthroughs every so often) who are involved in the production.
Not everything can be TOS fanservice. That gets boring, as ST:TMP amply demonstrated.
I cannot completely blame them for the errors, it has been a long time since ENT ended and most of the traditional Trek writers have moved on to other projects (including moving to producing or directing) or retired so they are probably either unavailable or relatively expensive to hire (or perhaps just leery of involving themselves with NuTrek, especially under Moonves and his hirelings). It would have been great if they had gone that extra mile though.
Harve Bennett watched all of the original episodes of TOS when he was hired to produce the second Trek film. He did his homework. What is preventing writers and producers of today - many of whom claim to be fans - from doing that?
My guess would be the general Hollywood environment of rampant ego and distain for anything "old", along with a jaded underestimation of the intelligence of the average viewers making for an "As long as I make it the rubes will watch anything and like it!" attitude.
For example, the reason why the Jupiter 2 in the 1998 Lost in Space movie was made as a conventional thruster-style ship instead of a magnetogravitic field-effect "flying saucer" like the original was because the producers felt that the movie audiences just would not understand the helicopter-like tilting motions of the ship in flight and thought falling back on the Star Wars fixed-wing aircraft in space movement-model was needed.
It also gave them an opportunity to make a bait-and-switch joke to lampoon the original with, and few producers at the time could resist doing that in remakes (though the 2011 Green Hornet movie is probably the poster child of that nonsense).
In the case of Star Trek, so much of what was going on in the scripts was not able to be shown very well with the crude TV production values of the 1960s, so to do a proper job you have to go even deeper than just watching the episodes to understand what they were trying to show. Things like the original scripts (not transcripts made from people watching the episodes) that contain the writer's description of the scenes, and memos and whatnot.
For instance, a common misconception from watching TOS is that all ships have their own insignia (even STO does that in the tailor for AoY, and the costuming department even made the mistake once in TOS), but they don't, a point that is clarified by a memo Bob Justman sent out after the mistake with Captain Tracy's insignia in The Omega Glory. The different insignia shown are actually the six divisions of Starfleet (they just don't show them often enough to make that connection):
Fleet division (the delta)
Auxilary Fleet/Merchant Marine (the lillypad)
Outpost and Colony division (the sideways acorn-looking thing)
Academy (the small starflower)
Headquarters/Starbase division (the full starflower)
Fleet Field Command (the pretzel-looking one)
If you look carefully all of the Exeter's crew uniforms scattered around (except for Capt. Tracy) used the delta. Likewise Commodore Bob Wesley in The Ultimate Computerwore the starflower insignia because he was assigned to headquarters division and was commanding the squadron not the Lexington directly, his crew wore the delta in the background (commodore Decker's crew would have worn the delta as well if there were any of them left on Constellation in The Doomsday Machine.
Another example is the Fesarius from The Corbomite Maneuver . In the script it is definitively described as a clustership, "like an invisible fishbowl full of glowing marbles", and the scene where the pilot ship emerges is described as the spheres shuffling around a bit and a few emerging from deeper in and forming up as the pilot ship.
That kind of thing was impossible to do with the budget of a TV show (even one as large as Star Trek had, which was still far short of the kind of budget a movie had), so the props department came up with a rig consisting of a black hemispherical light shield with cut-in-half pingpong balls representing the spheres and colored lights illuminating them from the back.
When TOS-Remastered was made, instead of reading the original script they apparently just looked at what was onscreen and probably heard the tale of how the prop was made and concluded that it was a big solid sphere with domes instead of the clustership it was originally written as. If they had gone with what was written instead of the budget-forced kludge it would have been a fantastic visual.
Roddenberry had a strict "show don't tell" minimalist policy on tech dialog so you cannot get everything from just the shows as aired unless you know what they were trying to show, unlike TNG and later where Berman insisted on the long technobabble fests that Roddenberry disliked so much (but Paramount backed Berman on). Watching the episodes is a good start though, one that Kurtzman's team apparently never bothered with according to the behind-the-scenes interview clips.
In fact, they do. Phoenix has this obsession, derived from watching too much YouTube, that everyone involved in the current shows are all devoted to ignoring everything that's ever been done, despite the number of old-school fans (like Anthony Rapp, who plays Paul Stamets, or Mary Wiseman/Ensign Tilly, or her husband Noah, who played Ryn and livestreams his STO playthroughs every so often) who are involved in the production.
Not everything can be TOS fanservice. That gets boring, as ST:TMP amply demonstrated.
No, you just assume that I have "an obsession" because of the "obsessive hardcore Trekkie" stereotype that is slapped onto anyone who dares criticize DSC. I am not just getting the information from YouTube amateur critics (in fact almost none of it comes from those kinds of videos, and definitely not the kind done by some blowhard clown in a mask) the way you apparently assume that I do, I get it from interview videos and magazine articles on DSC mostly.
Also, notice how the ones who do say they are Trek fans are not the ones in charge for the most part. One exception is the costume designer, who has identified herself as a TNG fan, but most of the others say they either never watched Trek, or didn't like any of it besides the movies (in fact, the set designer said the only Trek worth anything at all was a single movie, The Undiscovered Country).
The situation as it was in DSC first season was like remaking Happy Days but using Prius cars, Tim Burton's Gotham City, '80s hair bands, and '90s emo goths instead of '57 Chevies, greasers, and poodle skirts, and yet saying it is set in the 1950s. It is a matter of fictional-history cohesiveness, not some imagined luddite cultish nonsense or whatever you think my reasons are.
Also, I never said that it should be "TOS fanservice", only that if they set a show in a particular era then it should be reasonably recognizable as being set in that era, not something so wildly different (and generic in the case of DSC) that the few things like the phaser, communicator, and tricorder that actually do use the original aesthetics look so out of place that they feel like a Trek easter egg in some different show.
If they had actually started with the established look for the era they were setting the show in and modernized that similar to what the second season eventually did with just the Enterprise bridge, then that would have qualified as reasonably recognizable.
And if they had gone just one step further than that and done the same for the established technological base and fictional history along with it instead of seeming to go out of their way to trample it, then there would not be the big nasty split in the fanbase and CBSAA (now Paramount+) would have had a lot more people subscribed instead of a lot of Trek fans being uninterested in it, or even actively boycotting it.
Comments
The source was originally an online library I no longer have a subscription to, in papers and articles on internet piracy I was reading for school and the statistics were a secondary aspect of that. There is a free article about the problem here that I found with a few minutes of searching that contains some of the same statistics in their infographics about two thirds down the page:
https://brandongaille.com/34-startling-internet-piracy-statistics/
As you can see if you look at it, action format movies tend to be the most pirated and since bootleg is done for profit those are the ones that sell the best (or at least were, action format is starting to slump at theaters a bit so it may be shifting in bootleg channels too) so it follows that action movie fans are the most likely to buy things bootleg since it is (or at least was) the hottest part of the market.
And the average time from airdate/release of the official source to bootleg is about twelve days (it has actually gotten slightly shorter than I remember, where the average was about two weeks).
Again, the format is not "dying out" at all, it has just drifted more towards the arc end of the episodic spectrum (though as I pointed out before that does overlap with the serial spectrum a bit).
The difference between serial and episodic formats is not binary and is more complex than simply whether it has threads that connect episodes/segments or not, it is how those threads are handled and I have run out of ways to explain it to you that would fit in a comment like this (and no, I am not saying you are stupid, just that we don't seem to have enough of a common frame of reference and it would take too much text to try and establish one).
Again, it is not a case of "does it or doesn't it have...", it is a case of how it is done. In traditional Trek the stories were constructed around those questions, in DSC and PIC most often they are just sidestories at best even when they are not just motivation triggers for the real plot or simply a facet of a particular character's development. The emphasis is not on the philosophical questions at all, it is on pure entertainment and any soft science considerations are way down priority list when they are anything but triggers, that is what makes it space opera instead of soft-sci-fi.
I take it you have not seen any traditional network TV in the last few years then. Take a look and you'll find that they still use the format I described, and 26 episodes is still the standard for hour-long episodes in a full season for a Fall/Winter season show. The only place (in the US TV industry, other countries may differ) where a half-season worth of shows (thirteen give or take a few) is more common than 22-26 episodes for a what they consider a full season is on cable-centric and streaming outlets.
You can make the claim that traditional TV is dying, many people do, but so far it is like the COBOL programming language (aka "the ever-dying language") that many declared dead way back in the 1970s but like the Energizer Bunny is still going, and going, and going.
The most blatant disrespect for the traditional Treks is in behind-the-scenes stuff such as interviews and whatnot, especially video ones where you can see their body language and hear their vocal inflections. Moonves made no secret of the fact that he didn't like Trek and especially hated TOS, Kurtzman himself called the old Treks "too intellectual" and said that he didn't like them.
In the behind the scenes feature interviews (and other interviews) a lot of them say they never really watched the older Treks, and the ones who did mainly mention the movies, not the various series. In fact, the first season set designer went so far as to say that the ONLY Trek worth anything before DSC was The Undiscovered Country, and she practically dripped scorn for TOS, calling it "the carboard Enterprise" (which it wasn't by the way, it was constructed mainly of wood and drywall, the materials Desilu had on hand). Also, there were things like the big signs in the design room that said "NO ROUND ENGINES!!!" in screamingly big block letters that show distain for the various traditional Treks.
That said, there is plenty of evidence in the show itself if you know the old shows well enough to spot it. It is in how things like the Federation and Klingon empire are treated, the use of a lot of out-of-context things (like how is putting early-design Ferengi goblin ears on Klingons supposed to honor the traditional Klingon concepts and designs?) and other things that try to push the old material aside.
For instance, were you aware that DSC originally intended the Sech (listen to the dialog in Choose Your Pain) to be their version of the D7? Bringing in a more traditional D7 design later was part of the damage control they had to do on the show in the add-on episodes they did for the first season.
The first one even happens right near the start of the pilot episode where they make the statement about the Klingons being quiet with nothing but brush wars since the early contact with them. That is incompatible with the fact that in TOS there was a major war in the early to mid 2240s and that the Klingons were obviously involved in some way because it was the root of the cold war between the Federation and Klingon empire that existed in TOS.
It was too convenient and an unnecessarily long a time to enable the DSC plot to work for it to have been anything but a deliberate dig at the first season TOS bible and the dialog generated by the events described in it.
Since that first writer's guide was a cold-start it went into the most background detail, in this case the important point is that the general shape of events in the decades leading up to TOS were analogs of real-world history for the same span of time leading up to the mid 1960s with the exception of the Vietnam war which NBC specifically told them to ignore (because of the very strong anti-war sentiment of the time).
If DSC was not spitting on TOS it would have worked as that earlier conflict being the WWII analog and the war in DSC being more or less the Korean conflict analog in that timeline (except for being direct instead of a proxy war).
Also, if you think I am making up the issue of TOS contempt, there are papers elsewhere about that odd phenomenon specifically (in a nutshell, fans of spinoffs having contempt for the original works that spun off the sequels in the first place, which is much more pronounced in Trek than any other fictional works) though they are probably harder to find (most of them that I read were in that library I mentioned earlier in the psychological and social science sections) so the phenomena exists and is widespread enough in Hollywood circles to make the task of assembling a team of mainly people with that contempt a trivial matter when it came to staffing the DSC team leaders.
Anyway, there are whole threads in this forum packed with examples of that contempt for the earlier Treks and arguments over them already, if you are interested in those other examples it is easy enough to look them up instead of my writing a novel-length comment that includes even a significant fraction of them.
That kind of deep dive takes a lot of time and is not easy, for example running Star Trek as a tabletop RPG was the hardest set of campaigns I ever did because of that, and with being a mid-level Trekkie from way back I had a head start compared to Kurtzman's bunch who mostly (with a few exceptions) only saw the movies if they watched Star Trek at all (according to the interviews in the behind the scenes special and whatnot).
In the case of the RPG campaigns (several FASA and one Last Unicorn), I had several really hardcore Trekkies in the group which meant game sessions tended to break down into lore arguments if I did not do enough research to make sure things were right, so I did that research (which was fun in itself), but I doubt a business like Secret Hideout would pay their writing staff to go that deep into learning the ins and outs of traditional Trek.
I cannot completely blame them for the errors, it has been a long time since ENT ended and most of the traditional Trek writers have moved on to other projects (including moving to producing or directing) or retired so they are probably either unavailable or relatively expensive to hire (or perhaps just leery of involving themselves with NuTrek, especially under Moonves and his hirelings). It would have been great if they had gone that extra mile though.
Predictably (and unfortunately), it leads to a lot of immersion-breaking continuity gaffs and disappointment over the lost opportunities Kurtzman's team apparently does not even realize were there from TOS and the various other traditional Trek series.
When they were in the early run-up for DSC clothing fashion trends, production technology breakthroughs, hints from TOS, current events like the slowly reawakening cold war, and nostalgia from the 50th anniversary of TOS all lined up in a perfect-storm way that would have made DSC a fantastic return to Trek that would have brought all the fanbase together. Tragically, Moonves and Kurtzman ignored all of it and went for coat-tailing the movies (especially the Kelvin ones) and filling the rest of the show out with overused generic ideas instead.
Not everything can be TOS fanservice. That gets boring, as ST:TMP amply demonstrated.
My guess would be the general Hollywood environment of rampant ego and distain for anything "old", along with a jaded underestimation of the intelligence of the average viewers making for an "As long as I make it the rubes will watch anything and like it!" attitude.
For example, the reason why the Jupiter 2 in the 1998 Lost in Space movie was made as a conventional thruster-style ship instead of a magnetogravitic field-effect "flying saucer" like the original was because the producers felt that the movie audiences just would not understand the helicopter-like tilting motions of the ship in flight and thought falling back on the Star Wars fixed-wing aircraft in space movement-model was needed.
It also gave them an opportunity to make a bait-and-switch joke to lampoon the original with, and few producers at the time could resist doing that in remakes (though the 2011 Green Hornet movie is probably the poster child of that nonsense).
In the case of Star Trek, so much of what was going on in the scripts was not able to be shown very well with the crude TV production values of the 1960s, so to do a proper job you have to go even deeper than just watching the episodes to understand what they were trying to show. Things like the original scripts (not transcripts made from people watching the episodes) that contain the writer's description of the scenes, and memos and whatnot.
For instance, a common misconception from watching TOS is that all ships have their own insignia (even STO does that in the tailor for AoY, and the costuming department even made the mistake once in TOS), but they don't, a point that is clarified by a memo Bob Justman sent out after the mistake with Captain Tracy's insignia in The Omega Glory. The different insignia shown are actually the six divisions of Starfleet (they just don't show them often enough to make that connection):
If you look carefully all of the Exeter's crew uniforms scattered around (except for Capt. Tracy) used the delta. Likewise Commodore Bob Wesley in The Ultimate Computerwore the starflower insignia because he was assigned to headquarters division and was commanding the squadron not the Lexington directly, his crew wore the delta in the background (commodore Decker's crew would have worn the delta as well if there were any of them left on Constellation in The Doomsday Machine.
Another example is the Fesarius from The Corbomite Maneuver . In the script it is definitively described as a clustership, "like an invisible fishbowl full of glowing marbles", and the scene where the pilot ship emerges is described as the spheres shuffling around a bit and a few emerging from deeper in and forming up as the pilot ship.
That kind of thing was impossible to do with the budget of a TV show (even one as large as Star Trek had, which was still far short of the kind of budget a movie had), so the props department came up with a rig consisting of a black hemispherical light shield with cut-in-half pingpong balls representing the spheres and colored lights illuminating them from the back.
When TOS-Remastered was made, instead of reading the original script they apparently just looked at what was onscreen and probably heard the tale of how the prop was made and concluded that it was a big solid sphere with domes instead of the clustership it was originally written as. If they had gone with what was written instead of the budget-forced kludge it would have been a fantastic visual.
Roddenberry had a strict "show don't tell" minimalist policy on tech dialog so you cannot get everything from just the shows as aired unless you know what they were trying to show, unlike TNG and later where Berman insisted on the long technobabble fests that Roddenberry disliked so much (but Paramount backed Berman on). Watching the episodes is a good start though, one that Kurtzman's team apparently never bothered with according to the behind-the-scenes interview clips.
No, you just assume that I have "an obsession" because of the "obsessive hardcore Trekkie" stereotype that is slapped onto anyone who dares criticize DSC. I am not just getting the information from YouTube amateur critics (in fact almost none of it comes from those kinds of videos, and definitely not the kind done by some blowhard clown in a mask) the way you apparently assume that I do, I get it from interview videos and magazine articles on DSC mostly.
Also, notice how the ones who do say they are Trek fans are not the ones in charge for the most part. One exception is the costume designer, who has identified herself as a TNG fan, but most of the others say they either never watched Trek, or didn't like any of it besides the movies (in fact, the set designer said the only Trek worth anything at all was a single movie, The Undiscovered Country).
The situation as it was in DSC first season was like remaking Happy Days but using Prius cars, Tim Burton's Gotham City, '80s hair bands, and '90s emo goths instead of '57 Chevies, greasers, and poodle skirts, and yet saying it is set in the 1950s. It is a matter of fictional-history cohesiveness, not some imagined luddite cultish nonsense or whatever you think my reasons are.
Also, I never said that it should be "TOS fanservice", only that if they set a show in a particular era then it should be reasonably recognizable as being set in that era, not something so wildly different (and generic in the case of DSC) that the few things like the phaser, communicator, and tricorder that actually do use the original aesthetics look so out of place that they feel like a Trek easter egg in some different show.
If they had actually started with the established look for the era they were setting the show in and modernized that similar to what the second season eventually did with just the Enterprise bridge, then that would have qualified as reasonably recognizable.
And if they had gone just one step further than that and done the same for the established technological base and fictional history along with it instead of seeming to go out of their way to trample it, then there would not be the big nasty split in the fanbase and CBSAA (now Paramount+) would have had a lot more people subscribed instead of a lot of Trek fans being uninterested in it, or even actively boycotting it.