part of what i think makes trek work is that it's very progressive but it's also very utopian. it depicts a world where humans are held to very high ethical standards, which they largely succeed at meeting.
nu trek keeps the progressive politics but depicts a less utopian world. which raises an awkward question - if all this progressive stuff isn't leading to utopia, what is it for exactly? it's like the trek writers lost the confidence that their moral commitments would lead to utopia but never actually re-assessed those commitments.
I've watched all of "Nu-Trek," as it's called today. I'll be blunt, being too "woke" isn't the problem for the Kurtzman era -- that's always been there.
There has been hate for every iteration of Trek for a variety of reasons, including Earth being a socialist utopia. TNG was a carbon copy of TOS in season 1, and season 2 wasn't much better -- DS9 was really dark, and I didn't enjoy it as much in its first run as I do today
The real reason they lost the fan base wasn't a gay Klingon in a skirt; it was lazy writing. One Trek Hill had the same baggage as Disco.
The premise of The Burn was weak and poorly explained. Starfleet protocol was nonexistent, and at times the show felt like Lower Decks meets Police Academy 7—if that's the story you want to tell, bill it that way, and they will come.
As long as the showrunners want blockbuster effects more than they want compelling stories, any new version of Trek is going to fail.
I think we have reached Trek Fatigue again, and it may be time to shelve it until people who understand the universe are put back in charge.