A new Trek series will not pander to hard-core fans. The priorities for TPTB are:- Does it hit the demographic? Will it bring in the advertising dollars? Will it be cost-effective? Despite people's thoughts on execs, they know space opera isn't cheap, but will the income outweigh the outlay? It it's successful, can they sell it easily to other markets for syndication? Will they be able to salvage costs via dvd/bluray release if the series tanks? Will there be a viable merchandising opportunity? Those are what the TV execs care about. They won't be thrilled if the slave-planet episode got a Hugo, or the effects got an Emmy. Getting top marks and glowing praise in TV Guide reviews will mean nothing to them, they want an audience. Both Firefly and Crusade, despite being great shows, got dumped as they didn't pull in the numbers. Enterprise despite a faltering start, improved as time went on, but the falling numbers led to it's death, ironically just as it upped it's game to it's height. Much as I personally love Andromeda (well, until the last season anyways!), it wasn't in the same league as those shows, yet got multiple seasons. The execs won't give a flying fig about changing it to the United Planetary Federation, with the Starnavy, deciding Vulcanians will be the comedic geniuses of the universe, in contrast to the highly logical Andoruns! Their bottom line is $$$$ and they won't care who they trash to do it. If they want Trek:90210, cos that's what the bean-counters say will sell, that's what we'd get. That being said, if they go to series, they will also look at what was most successful. And that would be TOS, TNG, the '09 Trek. The latter would be seen as more in the public consciousness, so they would combine nostalgia (TOS) and hip and trendy ('09), to get the best of both worlds. Over-saturation would also mean that they would probably not try any series spin-offs at the same time - not a problem restricted just to Trek, many Law & Order shows died off, CSI: Miami is gone and apparently CSI: New York is hanging on by it's fingernails, and these are all well-written, well received shows. You would not therefore see a great overlap like TNG/DS9.
They have to appeal to the target demographic of today and this might result in something different to the formula we got 50 years ago and 25 years ago. It can't be the same forever or else you end up with something that appeals to us old-timers but is a total turnoff to the teens & twentysomethings. We have to accept that it will change because if it doesn't it dies. Adapt to survive etc. We can't just rely on the 1966 formula forever or else you eventually end up far too dated. What is needed is a producer able to find the sweet spot between old-Trek and nu-Trek that appeals to everyone, a producer that will take risks. JJ Abrams has done this but I don't think his concept would hold up as a TV show. It is essentially the 1966 Trek with the cracks papered over with flashy visual FX and action set pieces. Future Trek needs to reboot again to take into account decades of technological progress in computing, robotics, electronics, internet/networking, medicine etc