It was a nice angle that worked for the show. But I did hear that a lot, mostly from people who would then claim they WANTED to like the show but somehow couldn't get past the fact that the central conflict (gasp) had been used elsewhere before. Idk if it's a media literacy issue or just a need to feel superior by way of "I've seen this before". Either way, counterproductive.
(I never really cared, but from the outset, my problem was I had very minimal attachment to these characters as introduced and had no real investment in them clearing their name.)
I think the villainy would have to be less... white-collar, although boy I'd love to see Roadblock bust up some union-busting morons.
I like the idea of different groups whose backgrounds lend themselves well to lighter, fun stuff. Maybe this skews younger, but I want to get as far away from "this platoon shoots that platoon" as possible. No soldiers, no terrorists, none of that.
(This is lightly informed by my minimal awareness of Rescue Bots.) Focus on rescues and adventure/exploration. Make GI Joe or whatever the group's name is (because branding aside that's baggage now too) a laboratory-supported team that tests equipment. Fire suppressant gels, stuff for digging through rubble and finding survivors, flood control, etc.
A later season can have some members get funded or hired by an eccentric who wants to find hidden ancient artifacts. They can run into rival treasure hunters, an Indy expy, corrupt capitalists, etc as they go through the usual jungle/desert/ocean/space whatever locations.
And then it turns out the rescue/testing lab and whatever thing was just a front for an international organization that was working on bringing (back?) an elite team of heroes to stop an upcoming zombie (or whatever) outbreak...