STD and Picard tried to follow that formula as perfectly as they could. I don't recall it working out that well, maybe leaving that box is the best movie, at least until we have some showrunners that understand that "mature" is not the same as "using all the swear words because you're not on cable and you can get away with it".
I know this is old, but let me give you my two cents on why STD and LDS will not be as successful as previous versions of the show. To understand this, I think we need to look at history itself. TOS came about when the Cold War was primarily on the American mind. At this time, the US existed in a bipolar world; that is two major powers that struggled to overcome the other. And very much the form of thought that pervaded in the world was that of grand strategy and realism. Realism, as a side note, is an international relations theory that stipulates that states (countries) have differing goals and interests and therefore, conflict is inevitable.
TOS went against the grain of that thought by focusing on the counterpart of realist thinking, which was liberalism. In liberal thought, countries could and should work together through compromise and trust. TOS was in a sense, liberal ideology challenging the taken-for-granted beliefs of realism. When you look at episodes like say, Arena; where two conflicting powers (the Gorn and the UFP) are fighting, a higher power (godlike, you might say--a judge over all) captures the two captains of the opposing ships and forces them to resolve their differences in personal combat. In the end, it is Kirk's compassion and morality that overcomes the realist mindset. And he is judged as being good by the higher power. The same situation plays out in many episodes, such as Errand of Mercy, where the UFP-Klingon Cold War goes hot, with even our heroes fully intent on killing their enemies, until a higher power (the Organians) force both sides to stop with their god-like powers, insisting that there is a better way.
TNG took the events and ideology of TOS and played it out a hundred years down the line. The question being; what if liberalism won? What would a unipolarity world look like? We see that play out in TNG to some extent. You really see it in the first and second seasons. Wesley mentions that the Klingons had joined the UFP, UFP culture had "advanced" to the point of them not being interested in material wealth, thanks not just to technological advancement, but ideological advancement as well. It was a liberal utopia; where anything you needed could be created with the push of a button, there was no hunger, and no internal conflict. And fucking dolphins were a part of ship navigation.
That was quickly changed because everyone quickly realized how preachy and boring it actually was. Early TNG thus consisted of the crew flying around in space and jerking off to how fucking amazing their liberal utopia was and how terrible the space trash worlds or ideologically corrupt worlds were. Or how backwards and barbaric the profit driven Ferengi were, compared to the non-materialistic UFP.
TNG became remarkably better AFTER they pulled back from that a bit. They retained the basic ideology of advanced liberalism, but they toned it down to a more realistic level. The Ferengi were shifted from over-the-top capitalists to greasy salesmen. The crew had more internal conflicts, even if they were rather vanilla. The focus shifted from wrong-thing worlds who the crew looked down upon to fleshed out rivals who had their own beliefs and views. The Klingons, the Romulans, and the Cardassians were all fleshed out more.
Then came DS9. And DS9 had a crazy idea. It was the first in the franchise not to look at the world and declare it wrong (though keep in mind DS9 mostly came about in a unipolarity world, with the USA as the victor of the Cold War) and instead looked at its own franchise and ask "could I be wrong?". DS9 wasn't a rejection of the liberal approach, but rather it was a challenge to it.
DS9 asked itself could the UFP survive as a liberal utopia in a realist environment? The answer injected a lot more realism into the series when the UFP was shown to be poor in managing their realist neighbor, the Cardassians or had difficulty in persuading the Bajorans to adopt a more trusting position. The series took it a step further when it peeled back the face of the UFP to show that it had a realist side; a sort of (more) evil CIA that had no qualms about destroying rival states or committing genocide. Or that Sisko himself would sacrifice his own conscious to win the war against the Dominion.
Voyager came along and although it had a concept of challenging the setting's own premise of liberal thought, it ultimately bowed to internal corporate pressure and made a "return to normal" show, set across the galaxy. It was completely dogmatic to the ideology of liberalism, with very little thought of ever challenging it and thus, dragged its ass around, completely unable to do anything besides congratulate themselves.
ENT was a completely different animal, in that it seemed completely lost as to what it wanted to do. On the one hand it wanted to tell the story of Earth growing out into space, but on the other hand, it seemed intent on doing so by copying Voyager's complete adherence to "evolved morality" and generally failing at both. The series though, found its footing in the 3rd season, when it embraced the mentality of Earth responding to terrorist attacks and matured both its crew and tone. The fourth season would go on to shift its footing again by embracing the more multi-polarity world (in that there are various powers working against each other) and the great threat concept utilized for DS9 in the Romulan Star Empire. It was sadly though, killed at the end of the season.
Star Trek Discovery is a failure in that it lacks the ability to challenge itself or society in any form. TOS challenged the concept of realism, while also admitting the danger and difficulty in doing so. Kirk, while liberal at heart, struggled not to give into realist thought, as did his friends and his opponents. TNG's success came from a liberal utopia where individuals struggled against holding themselves up to those standards (as opposed to the early seasons, where everyone else failed to live up to theirs). DS9 challenged the very concept of the liberal utopia itself.
From what I saw of Star Trek Discovery, it fails to challenge anything. It takes a set of progressive beliefs and sets them into the franchise with stone. Michael Burnham is right because she is Michael Burnham. It's the world that is wrong. Gay and fat people must be represented, because they are gay and fat. Racial and ethnic nationalism is wrong, because it is wrong. White straight men ruin everything because they're white, straight, and male. STD is a failure not because it completely and utterly ignores continuity (although it does), but because it does not challenge morality or ideas, but rather dictates them to others.
LDS will fail for the same reason that Thunder Cats Roar is a failure; because it is apathy itself. People didn't like the new Thunder Cats because it is completely apathetic to the franchise, to the characters, and to the ideals that were put forward by the show to begin with. Take for example; friendship, teamwork, courage, and physical prowess. Thunder Cats Roar, I can assure you, without having seen more than the promo, will take a shit on all of those things. You can see it just from the promo; the leader is a dimwit whose muscles could be mistaken for fat or so over the top that they are to be entirely unrealistic. Teamwork and friendship will be undercut for the sake of cheap humor and apathy towards society. Courage will be played out as stupidity. And I expect the same is going to happen with LDS.
Liberal beliefs won't be challenged or even promoted. They'll just take a shit on them. The idea of a better tomorrow or peace with your enemy will be treated with apathetic disdain. Certainly things like gender norms will be challenged, but only so they can take a shit on the people or ideas they don't like. Not because they want to challenge the ideas themselves.
That is not what the Orville does. The Orville take the general bland TNG style of a liberal utopia, then contrasts it with the fact that the ship's pilot is an alcoholic, the first officer is the captain's ex-wife, and he divorced her because he cheated on him. Sure, you have the promotion of liberal ideas and morality, with the challenges the characters face for that as you saw in TNG, but it's broken up somewhat and made more bearable with the occasional "realistic" slap to the face.
