I think there are two things to remember.
First, a boring photo will not be saved by shooting RAW. It just is a boring photo. RAW only allows tweaks to an image that otherwise is good, but the photographer wants to enhance in some way.
Second, much of the point of processing is to flatten an image so that jpeg is able to handle it. I don't know what other term to use for it. So, you adjust levels up on your shadows bring down the highlights, and add a digital neutral density filter and voila, you have an image that the jpeg container can handle, whereas the original one had too much data at the extremes for it to fit in. The camera jpeg engine allows for some of this sort of thing too, so you can select higher levels of sharpening, shadow adjustment, highlight protection, etc. The issue is simply that I have found the camera's jpeg engine to be quite heavy handed and can produce artifacts and odd results if pushed too much.
I uploaded one more image for comparison purposes.
Sunset (Pre-processing) -- this is the image exported from Lightroom with all of the sliders set to zero. I had deliberately underexposed by a fair amount to try to keep from blowing out the sun. Even so, the sun is blown out a little bit.
Sunset (Post-processing) Here, I bumped the shadows and did some selective sharpening. I could have done a small amount of this if I had shot jpeg, but not nearly this much. When you bump shadows on a jpeg image, you find there actually is very little detail in them -- most of that detail has been thrown away by the jpeg image to save space.
As I said earlier, shooting RAW doesn't change your light or your subject. If it is boring, it is boring (I don't use the word bad, but there are plenty of images that I take that no one except people in my family would be particularly interested in).