Sure there are lots of terrible Star Trek episodes. But being episodic, that's fine. These new treks are all just aping off the old shows. One which is basically just the Voyager premise done again. And one(or two? I've lost count at this point) that tries to cash in on TNG nostalgia.

I'm sure Strange New Worlds is the most competent rehashing of old ideas so far, but meh! Make something original. Go to the 25th century, make all new characters, a new ship, new technologies, new aliens, new concepts. That's what I want Star Trek to be. If I want nostalgia I'll throw on an episode from TNG season 3.

It just has this stench to me of retreading old stuff.

And no, TOS still holds up. It has some terrible episodes, some weird 60s moments that feel cringey, but it also has episodes that are fantastic sci-fi. And yeah, it looks like crap. I don't care. Sci-fi is not about special effects.

If you look at Star Wars over the past decade(?) there's generally an inverse relationship between how good the series/movie is and how close it is to the original story arc.

TOS can live apart from modern standards; you have to give it the benefit of historical perspective. And there was real chemistry between the case. And, because it was episodic, you can pick out 15-20 episodes and enjoy them as historical SF.

> Strange New Worlds has had an amazing first season

I don't get why people keep saying this. Don't get me wrong, it was pretty decent. Mount was the highlight of the otherwise mediocre-at-best Discovery S2 and he's still killing it in SNW, Peck is actually a great Spock, and the acting in general is high quality. But the writing was really kind of all over the place and their best episode cribbed Ursula Le Guin even harder than Voyager cribbed Robert L. Forward[0].

My personal opinion is that it has potential to be really good, but it hasn't been demonstrated that the writing competence is there yet.

[0] Credit where it is due: if you're going to be unoriginal, you may as well crib from some of the best.