But was the system correct? Can you truly have something that's Great without it being important? Case in point, I've just been to the newest Star Trek movie and, while it's certainly no Wrath of Kahn or Undiscovered Country, it had a lot of merit to it, finally presented an original idea, and didn't royally pander to, or screw up, any existing canon. In fact, were it an episode on a Star Trek TV-show, it'd be a very solid concept and a well plotted episode. Don't get me wrong, I was impressed with the movie: the trailers looked terrible.
But, while it would have made an amazing episode, it wasn't a terribly important movie. The villain was a) not threatening a huge group...at least in the context of the galaxy b) not someone we as the viewers had any emotional appeal to beforehand and c) doesn't seem to make any major, seminal statements in the Star Trek universe. It's a fun moment...but it's not Best of Both Worlds, or Dominion War, or First Contact, or battle with the Klingons.
So the question is...can this movie ever be considered "great" if it's not important? (And I say "great" in relation to other Star Trek movies). The movie was entertaining, exceeded expectations, and left you with an "ah-hah!" moment...but is it a landmark without importance of content? I'm not sure of the answer...I suppose I'll have to see how well time treats it.