This is true enough. Historical dramas, when done well, are certainly entertaining. But it's going to depend on execution. "Apollo 13" and "Lawrence of Arabia" are compelling dramas because of their execution, not their premises. Despite the fact that you know how things turn out you start to care about the characters, you're drawn into their world, and are moved. Let's grant that ENT qualifies as a historical drama (even if it is a fictitious history). The Birth of the Federation, as a concept, is going to necessarily revolve around the politics of organizing a new political entity, the Federation. Trek's never been great at depicting politics (I was never a big fan of the Bajoran politics episodes of DS9). So, to begin with they're not playing to their strength as a franchise. Star Trek at it's best is about the human condition, exploration of space as metaphor for exploration of society and self. Depicting complex political machinations is not what Sci-Fi in general does best. Yep, instead of really doing a BOTF, they've been doing just-another-trek-series. BOTF, if anything, is a background. History as background is fine if it puts characters in context, if it helps advance the story. But BOTF doesn't inform much of anything that these characters do. Change the names and you could tell this story two or three hundred years later. And so basically BOTF only serves to create problems in that the technology available to the characters really fails to dazzle us in any cool Sci-Fi FX kind of way. And by importing so many continuity issues the writers must worry about not bumping into the walls of the corner they've painted themselves into.