That said, I find it hilarious that people were praising the writing of Picard right up until the RedLetterMedia reviews. The scripts have always been like that. Jay and Mike just pointed it out in youtube format.
RLM have been mocking Picard right since S1E1, but reception to season 1 was much more positive here (and I think generally). This time, even r/startrek, which has banned any posting of RLM, and bans moaning about nutrek, is showing pretty open dismay.
So I don't think RLM's criticism is some turning point, probably the writing got worse or people finally started seeing through the constant vague melodramatic dialogue and loose plot threads.
I personally have been influenced by their reviews, but it was after I saw all of STD S1 for myself, hated it, and then relied on RLM to tell me if any of the others were worth it.
Even so, it wouldn't have made sense to tell a story about the future from a 1960s or 1990s POV. I don't know why they expected any different. The optimism of the post-WW2 and Post-Berlin Wall eras that led to TOS and TNG were an illusion. We're a messy species and a messy civilisation. If new Trek ignored that reality with the current series, it wouldn't really be sci fi any more.
I don't think TOS was written in an optimistic moment for the US at all, pretty far-removed from WW2 for sure.
It was 3 years after the Cuban missile crisis, the closest it's ever been to the end of the world, which also means 2 years after Kennedy's assassination, during the height of the (then very unpopular) civil rights movement and the escalating Vietnam war.* The Soviets had the first satellite and first man in space, steady economic growth, and growing influence because of third world de-colonization. It was probably the smallest global advantage the US had since 1945.
TOS also introduced the Eugenics wars and nuclear WW3, so it's not like it suggests there's a straight road from the present to this great future. This "optimism" basically suggested that humanity would destroy nature and each other many times over before finally making some progress as a species (Picard in S1 TNG refers to "growing out of infancy") - I'd hardly call it naive, and it's probably not even optimism. Just that it's set so far away in the future that dire circumstances have forced a positive change.
Finally, in the Trek tradition, there is a simple way to talk about a self-destructive species - you get the crew to visit and deal with one.
If it's got the 'Star Trek' name, it has to be fan service-y.
All of TNG combined (about 180 eps?) had about 5 cameos from TOS. It broke the formula of TOS: a central trio with strong contrasts and banter, and never really replaced it. It totally changed the character of the captain. Wouldn't call it fan-service at all.
DS9 imported 2 cast members from TNG, but refreshed/added to their characters, and had only 2 cameos in its ~180 eps. No exploration, war, non-Starfleet regulars, a lot of political stuff, a dissatisfied captain, acceptance of religion, Section 31, series-long arcs - can't think of something more different to TNG. They had one adorable fan-service episode for the 40th anniversary of TOS, and nothing else.
In terms of cameos, Voyager had 3 in a similarly long run. The premise was new and great but didn't really get used properly. Probably the laziest of these 3, but not because it was fan service-y.
All 3 are pretty well-loved by fans.
you'd might as well start a new franchise and go with something new.
Genuinely wish Kurtzman/Goldsman would do that, but i doubt they can get anyone to watch without a known brand. So they write their rubbish and slap the trek logo on it. Seems to be working well enough for them.
I've read positive things about Lower Decks and the SNW opener, might watch those, but the fact that they have the same writers as the rest of this makes me want to run away.
*which reminds me that Patrick Stewart said his driving force for Picard S1 was Brexit, and, sorry, that doesn't come close to any of the negative events that were happening when TOS was being aired.