One thing I've seen bandied about often when talking about Star Trek in particular, is the assumption that a show like TNG or DS9 would not work today because it would not be interesting or popular to any current generation of viewers. It's treated as a forgone conclusion that 26 episodes of low-budget/mediocre effects TV about ideas that's mostly people standing in a room talking just would not appeal to anyone who isn't old, so there's no sense in even trying to make that anymore. I don't see anyone questioning that premise, only accepting it as true and then arguing that something new has to be attempted. Even if one is on the side that hates things like nuTrek, Disney Star Wars, etc, I only see people starting with 'well we simply can't do what they did 30 years ago. It could not work. We have to make something modern, they just haven't done it the right way yet'.
And I find myself wondering why this is assumed to be true. Are people not people anymore? Did human beings and their brains evolve in some way over the past 30 years that basics of storytelling that have worked across all mediums for thousands of years simply broke, and the only way anyone knows how to even try to understand a story is if it's an 8 hour movie cut into a dozen segments telling exactly one interconnected linear story? If a 13yo boy watched TNG in the 90s and found it entertaining, why is it assumed a 13yo boy in 2026 would just absolutely hate it?
It's treated as a natural inevitable evolution from 24-26 episode serialized TV shows to "prestige TV" seasons of half a dozen episodes telling one big single story because that's just what happened. But I content it was never proven that's what had to happened, or that the old model would fail. I don't believe that only the binge streaming cut-up-movie design can work. That's just all they make now, and so that's all people watch. And then they use the fact that's all people watch as evidence why it's the only thing that works. The whole argument is circular and the underlying premise relies on assumptions being true that have never been proven.
I think this assumption started as something reasonable and morphed into something that really isn't. Episodic TV works just as well now as it always did, but there's much much more competition for a potential viewers' time now than there was in the 90s. Making it more serialized is a viewer retention strategy.
Viewer watches a couple episodes of an episodic show. Comes back if they want more of the same.
Viewer watches a couple of episodes of a serialized show. If you managed to hook them with a mystery box or whatever they keep coming back to see what happens next.
Instead of every episode increasing the chance a viewer burns out, it increases the chance they become too invested to walk away.
Compare TNG vs. DS9. The Dominion war and ongoing politics provided a level of, "what's going to happen next week," that TNG never had with the exception of some specific multi-episode stories. After a focus on serial plot threads, I think really was a natural evolution. It's a tiny step from execs thinking of it as a retention bonus to thinking it's a retention requirement. Then, if the focus of your show becomes the serialized plot thread, the episodic content starts to get viewed as filler. It might be entertaining but it gets in the way of the next anticipated story beat. Take too long and the people who are only there to see what happens next give up. Trim that part down and it's obvious you don't need 24 eps to tell the story anymore.
tl;dr: It's not a question of age of the media. Or even the quality. It's the format. Continuing plot threads is a way to keep people invested in a crowded media landscape.