The problem with "listening to criticism" in a fanbase as splintered and un-unified as Star Trek has is that you're never going to get it right, because there is no right. Everyone has a different perspective on what it should be, who should be in it, what it should look like, etc.
So, the moment you react to something/make a change to appease some blowhard random people on the interwebs, you upset another group of people and now you get the same level of bitching and moaning, just from a different quarter. There's literally almost no way to win, other than to make minor course corrections via a "continuous improvement" mindset, and keep telling your stories in your way as the professional who is in charge.
Honestly, reading around boards like this for years, Star Trek fans mostly have really shitty, amateur ideas about characters, series, movies, etc that they think should be developed. They're generally horrendous and give me gas just to look at them. It's the whole reason that they get paid to write and produce, and we do other shit with our lives.
If DSC was tanking and CBSAA was spinning down a dirty toilet bowl, then you do your "listen to the fans and overhaul" drill because you have nothing to lose. But, we all know that's not the case here.
Kurtzman's focus should be entirely on tightening up the writer's room, bringing consistency, and driving a more clear and focused narrative style/pacing to the individual scripts and overall arcs. That's where he should be 100% focused. If he's focused on whether there's too much blue in the color palate, TEH CANNON, square vs. round nacalles or whether the Klingons should have frigging hair or not (or whatever else the fans generally bitch about), then we're dead. Because ultimately that shit doesn't matter. Continuous improvement in the quality and consistency of the writing is what matters.
If there's "constructive fan criticism" on how to do that, then that's fine. But most of it is bullshit that, frankly, if he is listening to, he's not doing his job.
