[quote name='Retom7']DS9 was the bomb shizzle! I loved that show and was sorry to see it end... and that there was never a movie that used the characters. The last season was complete sci-fi badassery[/QUOTE]
Except for the last episode. What a letdown.
Hopefully, there will only be a new Star Trek series when the powers that be figure out what exactly they want to do. Because they really don't have an easy job.
Science fiction on TV has changed. I think it's one of the things that killed Enterprise. TV in general has changed. Since TV Treks' demise, the dominant model has been arc shows and continuing plotlines, which is something even DS9 had difficulty with. Voyager ignored it (and was terrible). Enterprise tried to do everything for everyone and did nothing particularly well.
A new series would have to hit all of the things that people expect from Star Trek. However, so many of those things have gotten so tired that people won't watch it long term without some sort of innovation or compelling reason. An alien planet/anomaly of the week story model is so played out that it would die an early death.
But, so are Klingons, Borg, and many other Trek tropes. The Catch-22 is that people want Klingons and Borg but don't want yet another diatribe on honor or the latest emasculation of the Borg. It's been done so many times that it's boring.
That's part of the allure of the JJVerse in that you can change things around and make them darker or surprising or fresh. But you need a clear vision for that. Where is Star Trek Remix going? It worked for a two hour movie. How will that translate to a series? And how will they fight the urge to muck it all up with time travel?
Voyager and Enterprise make the case that unless there are some serious in-house changes, even a remix project would be ridiculous. Neither of them could resist shoehorning in Ferengi and Borg even though it was completely nonsensical. TV Star Trek has had very little discipline which led to wildly inconsistent stories and quality.
TNG worked because it kept that Star Trek essence but went off and did its own thing. We didn't see the Gorn or the Andorians or the Tholians. We didn't even see Vulcans for the most part (and given how badly they were treated in DS9 and Enterprise, that's probably a good thing). TNG created a lot of stupid forehead aliens of the week, but they also created the Borg, the Cardassians and others while reinvigorating the Klingons and Romulans.
DS9 worked because it took Star Trek to the next logical step: politics, world-building, and a galaxy populated by all different kinds of beings, each with their own interests. Despite the grander vision, characters and relationships were the most important elements. It wasn't as optimistic as Trek usually is, but it was realistic without being angsty or depressing. It was a modern Trek for modern times and it worked pretty well.
Voyager failed by being DS9's inverse. Continuing stories, character development, and relationships all were chucked for anomaly of the week stories. Worse, Voyager frequently betrayed the very ideas and ideals of Star Trek. DS9, for all its vaunted "darkness", never did that. Voyager simply didn't care -- about anything, really, and it showed. Voyager is one of the laziest shows I've ever seen.
Enterprise failed by being an extension of Voyager. The whole model of the bridge crew facing aliens of the week was beyond threadbare and Enterprise took the worst of all the Trek hallmarks with it. Reset button stories, characters that never grew, and boring recycled plots. Attempts were made to introduce arc stories or long-term development, but they were never serious. You can't half-commit to something like that or you get an unsatisfying mess, which is what both Voyager and Enterprise turned out to be.
TNG probably wouldn't survive today. Most of us remember it fondly even though there were horribly boring episodes, stupid aliens of the week, and Wesley Crusher. It also isn't the only science fiction on the air anymore (although now would be a good time, given the comparatively slim pickings).
But more than that, expectations have changed. For me, Battlestar Galactica completely buried the old Star Trek model. They turned almost every Star Trek trope on its ear and showed how compelling it would be. For the record, I don't want Star Trek to be Battlestar Galactica, but to learn from it. DS9 learned from Babylon 5 and was all the stronger for it (and by "learn" I do mean "shamelessly borrow" and by "borrow" I mean "steal"). Not everything that worked for BSG or Babylon 5 is appropriate for Trek. But boldly going around in circles isn't appropriate either.
Star Trek needs to commit to something. It cannot be an arc show and a reset button show. It cannot have interesting characters that change and grow and characters who are virtually identical seven years later. It cannot please the diehards who can sketch out all the different timelines and the casual viewers who can't tell a Ferengi from a Pakled.
It also can't stand still for seven years (like Voyager) or wander around aimlessly (like most Trek) while the writers and producers ping-pong between galaxy building and bottle shows, making stuff up on the fly and hoping it counts as continuity. Imagine how much better TNG and DS9 would have been if they had thought more than a few episodes in advance.
It needs a vision. It needs a reason for coming back. It needs a compelling mission, a good set of antagonists, and a healthy dose of innovation. It needs to feel comfortable (like TNG) but not complacent (like Voyager). It needs to rethink everything, but, at the end of the day, still needs to be Star Trek.