I mean, yes, Berman/Braga era Trek has a fairly consistent style both visually and thematically because that's how they wanted it, but to privilege that style as "real" (or "proper", as you have it) requires considerable justification as yet not provided. Even from that era, First Contact not only used a largely horror/action-movie style then unprecedented in Trek, but went far out of its way to cast doubt on the Federation's - and the TNG era's - doctrinaire self-congratulation about its "more evolved" ethical ideal, in the shape not only of Picard's desire to exact vengeance upon the Borg, but also of the lack of self-awareness that blinded him to it very nearly unto catastrophe. Was First Contact therefore less "real"?

And if we're going to talk about ethics, we could do a lot worse than to talk about the Picard series's accidental but very real point that Picard's own moral absolutism and blind righteousness is as much of its time, as contingent, as any other ethic, and when taken out of a context where it's able to be effective, it does as much harm as any other, too. The point isn't explicitly made, because Kurtzman and Chabon are a couple of hacks just like Berman and Braga were, but it's easy to draw from the text on the basis of an almost trivial engagement - Picard's quixotism managing to ruin just about everyone it touches, and the writers having to fall back on a Bond-villain plot to try to make him come out looking good, is enough all by itself for that.

That's the kind of thing I mean when I talk about TNG showing its age. The remasters look pretty good, sure. But the Trek fandom has ever qualified their shows as especially worthy not for the quality of their visuals, but for that of their ideas. From that perspective, a lot of TNG, and of its era more generally, struggles today.

> but to privilege that style as "real" (or "proper", as you have it) requires considerable justification as yet not provided

It's arguably the largest consistent body of work in the entire Star Trek franchise, the one that was the peak of its popularity, the one that fleshed out the universe and is most recognizable. Also somewhat unique compared to other science fiction, which I can't say about post-ENT installations.

> Was First Contact therefore less "real"?

Nah, I consider it real because - besides mostly staying thematically and stylistically consistent - in terms of storyline, it critiqued the "ethically more evolved" humanity; it shown shades of gray of an otherwise mostly white object, instead of making it black with occasional lighter tones, like post-ENT installments do. It's the same defense I'd give DS9. It's still the same utopian world, the same beacon of hope - just not a perfect utopia.

(Also: throughout TNG/DS9 and the movies, the Federation did feel like an actual character in the movies. ENT was leading up to it, and it portrayed humanity growing up towards the TNG-era utopia. This aspect seems completely missing from Discovery/Picard; both the Federation and Starfleet seem to exist there just to have a flag and an icon to slap on things.)

Unlike JJ movies, I'm not considering DIS and Picard as completely bad. I've noticed and appreciated the point about Picard brought up in his eponymous series, as much as I appreciated the concerns of Klingons in DIS - their point about Federation being a cultural threat to them would fit perfectly fit TNG-era Trek, and add further depth to their race. And I tried to be fair to both DIS and Picard, to watch them without biasing myself against them - but they really don't fit the whole in my eyes. They stand out as something totally different in almost every way.

> But the Trek fandom has ever qualified their shows as especially worthy not for the quality of their visuals, but for that of their ideas. From that perspective, a lot of TNG, and of its era more generally, struggles today.

I've been rewatching TNG (and DS9) quite recently, and the way I feel, it's the concerns that aged, not the ideas. I.e. TNG (and DS9) cover themes that were the concern of society of the 80s and 90s, which seem less relevant today, but I don't feel like the way of thinking of the characters has aged badly.

I'd argue that First Contact's critique of Federation ideals is uniquely pointed because it aims that critique specifically at Picard, who is constantly shown to be the conscience of the Federation, the one who insists on those ideals even when others argue that the exigencies of the situation demand compromise. His character mirrors Worf's in that way - just as Worf values Klingon ideals far more highly than the other Klingons we see, Picard does the same with the ideals of the Federation. It might be part of why they get along so well, but it's also worth considering that Worf's idealism is founded on detachment - he's able to indulge in it because he's in a position where he almost never has to deal with the messy realities that make idealism so difficult to sustain.

One wonders whether the same might be true of Picard. Unfortunately, we don't get a chance in B&B-era Trek to see how he reacts to the test of the Dominion war, but his behavior in First Contact is nonetheless telling. If even "the conscience of the Federation" so signally fails to live up to the ideal - if it's only the desperate intervention of someone from a time universally regarded in Picard's own as a cesspool of cruelty and horror that saves him from his own mad, vengeful hatred - does that tell us something about the merit of the ideal? If even the person who most exceeds all others in following its guidance can so signally fail, are we wrong to question its value as a guide for those less uniquely exceptional?

I can't disagree that Discovery and Picard are very different from what's gone before. But, then, the TNG-era works were very different from TOS, too. Where we differ, I think, is that I don't see anything wrong with that - indeed, I don't see how it could be any other way. The works are made in the context of, and in dialogue with, their times - as you yourself note with regard to TNG and DS9. These are very different times from those in which the earlier shows were made, and it would be much more of a surprise to see new Trek shows try to ignore that difference than to see them embrace it.

"Infinite diversity in infinite combinations." It's a worthy ideal, and an apropos one to see expressed in the same series of TV shows and movies whose own originator codified it.