To be fair, though, up until DSC the various production teams saw, if not exactly eye to eye, at least through the same set of lenses.
Each show had its own priorities and its own sensibility, of course, but they all treated the aesthetic of TOS (and each subsequent show) as representing how things actually were at that point in-universe, and generally did their best to respect that. The occasional "retcon" updatings (mostly encountered in ENT, both narrative and visual — e.g., its CGI version of the Gorn) were sometimes well-intentioned and sometimes simply careless, and either way those caused controversy among fans at the time. The notion of a production team intentionally doubling down on those kinds of retcons/inconsistencies, as in DSC, is a new thing as far as Trek history is concerned.
The more I read about GR and his work on TMP, the more I disagree. I think that the fandom, and production teams afterward, were far more strict in their adherence than even GR was.
In my (albeit limited, and humble) view, Star Trek was not just created as an imaginary world like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. It was created as an extrapolation of (then current) technological understanding. Now, some will regard that as being "That's the jumping off point" and treat it like, say, Fallout, where there is a point of divergence in history and respect that line.
But, Star Trek has gone in different directions, and DSC is going like Voyager, when the 1990s are not showcasing war torn USA but the USA of the 90s:
SPOCK: No such vessel listed. Records of that period are fragmentary, however. The mid=1990s was the era of your last so-called World War. (Space Seed).
JANEWAY: As I recall, Tom, you're something of an aficionado on twentieth century America.
PARIS: That's right.
JANEWAY: What will we need to pass as locals in this era?
PARIS: Simple. Nice clothes, fast car and lots of money. (VOY: Future Imperfect).
The basic conceit of Star Trek is a part of humanity's future, not just an imaginary world. As much as I enjoy the TOS aesthetic, I have no issue recognizing that it isn't for everyone. And, CBS recognizes that as well.
If you want him to answer honestly then yes. If not, then no.
No, there isn't, but when you by design have to have the same faces literally sitting in the "front row" of the action week after week, it's probably a good idea for us to actually know who those people are.
Just because it is a good idea does not mean the lack of it means a "waste of resources." It just means a different way of telling a story.
Otherwise, I am perfectly comfortable with looking at Disco like this. And I don't have any problem with it. Yes the staging, costuming and makeup is different, even the interpretation of the characters might go a slightly different way from the 60s but then so is every adaptation of Hamlet I've seen and those changes don't make them any less Shakespeare.
Precisely this.