I guess we're on opposite sides of this then. For me, Star Trek was always about the ethos, the outlook, and the style of storytelling rather than the lore. I mean, when TOS was put together they were literally just making shit up as they went along with no real plan - something very clear if you watch Season 1 in production order. Basically it started as the Twilight Zone with a set group of main characters - though with a generally much less dark and cynical, and more optimistic humanist overall arc. I simply don't know what sort of "generic sci-fi shows" have had the sort of top-quality thematic episodes that Trek has put in over its various incarnations over the years. That said, Discovery did push away from many of these elements at times, although Season 2 was closer to classic Trek both in tone and story structure than the Season 1. I've said at times that I felt like Discovery was only recognizable as a Trek series because of canon connections, while The Orville was in some ways its mirror opposite, in that it tried to be as much like Trek shorn of canon as was feasibly possible. I do think it's the case that unless they start moving more towards the classic Trek format, Discovery will pretty quickly stop feeling like a Trek show as a result. I think the failure of Voyager had very little to do with not using the Alpha Quadrant honestly. They found excuses to have individual episodes which featured the Klingons, Romulans, Ferengi, Cardassians, etc over the course of the show, and I don't think they were particularly more successful than whatever random-ass boring aliens the Voyager writers concocted on their own. I think the failure of the show had much more to do with the showrunners not being brave enough to hold true to its premise and ultimately just telling dull, beige TNG stories.