Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin
The question of serialization is an interesting one. On the one hand, it allows for depth. Serialization dominates the landscape right now in large part because it allows for such depth . But, that depth can come at a price. It can discourage new viewership from people who haven't been with you since the beginning. It's why I don't watch Fringe, even though it looks like something I would enjoy. I'll have to watch it from the beginning. And while it's on my to do list, I haven't gotten around to it.
I think that is the biggest challenge facing a new Trek series if they were to go the serialized route.
That is one of the key vulnerabilities of a serialised/mythology centered show. At some point the 'casual viewer' can't watch it anymore because normally after the first couple of seasons (which tend to be a mix of standalone and 'arc' relevant stories) there is a shift towards more need to concentrate on the mythos (your 'Fringe' comparison being quite good).
Then there are shows like Moore's BSG which was heavily serialised from the first episode onwards by default due to it's premise. And that affects ability to grow ratings - which like them or not are important in keeping a show on air.
Obviously, the vulnerability of standalone shows like TOS is that - you don't have to watch each week. You could miss several weeks of TOS and not be lost with what's happening in it. But then that can also cause casual viewers to drift if they don't consider it 'appointment TV' but just something to watch whenever.
So, a future show will have to decide which of the options it wants to take. The other problem (again, it's unfair but it's the case) is that if a show doesn't explode immediately it may not be given much time to survive. There are a lot of decisions to be made about where to go once this (presumed) Abrams trilogy ends.