Never saw "Noah" -- but I hear the comparison loud and clear. Our story will be 'relatable' the same way all the great stories are: because of the universalities of grief, friendship, anger, loss, and triumph: not because the characters are "hip" or "relevant" to a modern person.
The humor ought to reflect this: so I'd recommend more focus on consistent human foibles (getting lost/being clumsy, sarcasm, family drama/misunderstandings, being a little person in a big, big world) than on humor that depends on particular social contexts (class, race, gender norms). It will allow the show to be more inclusive, yes, but that's almost besides the point.... at least to me.
Take our dear Samwise, for example. He's often funny, and always charming, but rarely bumbling. He's not the modern "buffoon/clown" type; rather, his humorous touches come in his concern for the little things (wishing he had rope, fretting over his master getting enough sleep) that seem so small when compared to the big picture. But the secret is he's right: the little things do matter, and it's his focus on them that helps Frodo succeed. That's why characters like Alfrid fail: they don't add anything to the story or plot, but rather serve to break the flow; the narrative stops and points at him, laughing maniacally. There's no acknowledgement of and pity for human weakness, just scorn. No reflection of little things making such a difference in the large scheme of things, just "fish out of water" jokes. He's a modern stock character, which means he's funny for all the wrong reasons in a Tolkien-based world, and invites our irritation rather than our laughter.