Sorry, but telling compelling stories that inevitably have to end up where we know they will end up in a style that hasn't been relevant in a very long time is by definition NOT creative freedom.
Huh? Your definition, maybe.
ANY choice of manner or style has limitations, but that choice also has implied directions of creativity too. In addition to standards (Sinatra-esque songs), I write ragtime, which sends me in a specific direction, structure-wise. It's an old idiom, but still enjoyed by many. Is what I've written not creative? I have incorporated mixed meter and some modern harmonies occasionally. But even if not, they would be new melodies and new pieces. I and some other people would still enjoy them. Would they be less creative than minimalism or autotuned pop, because they are newer idioms? I think by your argument Justin Bieber is more creative than my jazz trio playing a new old-style song. I am starting to agree with post-ers above that you are pissing on our parade!
Telling compelling stories like the Apollo one I just watched -- where I really, truly didn't know how it was going to end up -- is certainly creative.
If I needed the characters growing in new ways over many episodes, well, doesn't that invalidate good ol' TOS? It was episodic Sixties TV, and I daresay two more seasons on NBC would have produced . . . two more years of episodic TV and zilch character growth. Character development wasn't the mode. And that is FINE by me. I don't care if they keep Kirk's character "arc" the same or have him give birth to twins named Luke and Leia; just keep telling as humane, fun, and compelling Trek stories as the one I saw last night, and I'll keep enjoying them.