I'm sorry, but this argument basically boils down to "DIS should be dark and edgy because it's fashionable." It's not really moving "forward" except in the most broad sense, because it's almost certain that given another few decades taste in media will move away from this paradigm.
Honestly, was the somewhat upbeat tone of Trek in the past really "of its time?" I wasn't around for the first run of TOS, but I thought it stood apart from the pack back in the 60s? Certainly the TNG was like nothing else on TV at the time - hence the frustration of the writers that they weren't allowed to script conflict between the characters (which was the norm on other drama - even if they weren't as "dark 'n edgy" as today.
TOS feels like a '60s show. I've seen enough shows made in the '60s to be able to tell. For every
Lost In Space there was a
Twilight Zone. For every
Gilligan's Island there was a
Dick Van Dyke. For every
Batman there was a
Green Hornet. You get the idea. It was a diverse time and
Star Trek had the diversity in its writing style to accommodate it. But it feels like a show of its time.
TNG feels very much like a late-'80s/early-'90s show. It was a happy living room show with some seriousness to it.
DS9, in the '90s, was promoted as being "darker and grittier". Was it trying to be fashionable? I don't know, but you seem to like it. Though, if anything, with the war setting, it seems like later-DS9 would've fit the '00s better.
VOY also feels like a '90s show. The techy plots reflect the tech boom. Sci-Fi shows were a dime-a-dozen at this point. It felt like it fit.
At the time I thought ENT needed to change.
Farscape and
Battlestar Galactica were leading the pack and
Enterprise looked stale. But, even with that, I could tell ENT was made in the '00s and especially with Season 3 and the finale of Season 2. With the Xindi Arc, ENT was the most '00s it would ever get.
When I watch DSC, it feels like a show made in the '10s. You can question the quality of it. But from the serialized nature, the "every season is a chapter" narrative, and the compromised lead characters -- Lorca, obviously, and Burnham being a mutineer -- it feels like a show made today.
And, how do I put this? Whether or not the times we're living in are great depend on which side of the political spectrum you're on. I don't think things are particularly great. And trying to see eye-to-eye with people you disagree with seems to be impossible most of the time, no matter what your intentions. Sounds a lot like Burnham vs. Georgiou in the pilot and then the Shenzou vs. the Klingons. Conflict was unavoidable no matter anyone's best intentions because no side could get on the same page. Even within the same side. Or seeing eye-to-eye conflicts with your agenda, so you can't no matter what. It would destroy the narrative you're trying to create. Such as in T'Kuvma's case. And a lot of cases in Real Life.
One last thing. I think it's funny that some people complain about there being no levity in DSC whatsoever, yet once there is levity, in The Mirror Universe, suddenly these same people are like, "The Mirror Universe! We can't have that! It's too ridiculous!" It's levity, it's a break from the Klingon War... but it seems like some people are determined to automatically assume the opposite position of whatever the series is doing at the moment, no matter what. "Will You Take My Hand?" and "Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad" also have levity and humor, as do Tilly and high on spores Stamets. But all of that depends on the sense of humor you have.
