^Maybe they want the history, not the story style.
So--to be blunt, and a bit of an asshole--creative laziness? Someone else has done all the heavy lifting (world building, franchise market, etc), so just rubber stamp any sci-fi idea with Trek and sell it to the masses?
Creative laziness could just as easily be applied to a new series based on taking all the old stories we know and love and... telling them again. And again. And again. In almost exactly the same style.
Why is it automatically the story style and nothing else that should define what Star Trek is?
Isn't the world that's been created a part of it, or the show's way of looking at the universe? Doesn't the core of Star Trek have at least something to do with the UFP and the utopian ideals it represents, or with the willingness to confront actually challenging questions of morality without automatically dumbing everything down to instant right and wrong?
Isn't it possible there are ways of telling stories about all that sort of thing without necessarily requiring that the main characters must without exception be the crew of a starship on a mission of exploration?