There is always the objective. Star Trek was a phenomenon like never seen before, that resonated on so many levels that it kinda glorified itself very much like a Beethoven symphony in that regard. Yea, not everybody likes Beethoven but that doesn't change anything about how he regarded amongst experts. Not that today's composers should go right out and try to write a Beethoven symphony in that style. He was a reflection of the time he was in.
The big issue with a comparison to a composer or other artist is that their work reflects a single person's vision and talent. Not only are TV and movies a more collaborative process, but Trek has been through many, many hands. The people making it now aren't the same people who were making it 15, 30, or 50 years ago.
I think Gene Roddenberry is sadly underrated. I do believe he WAS Star Trek. His spirit encompassed it all. He was the prism through which others were magnified and shined to create this singularity that is Star Trek, TOS, a miracle of rare design, a gestalt, not an anacronism. It was his vision, dream and details that made it to film and captured God on celluloid. IMO.
You know, I'm not sure why I lumped Data's Day in with those other clunkers. I kinda like Data's Day. I must have been thinking of another episode.
Exactly, and that's what drives me bonkers about people who seem to want to come up with explanations why all the contradictory bits that have happened in the last 50 years of Trek need to be somehow frankensteined together into some form of continuity. That way lies madness.