In both Start Trek TOS and Master and Commander the heart of the stories are about the same thing. Both are about the relationships between the captain who is charismatic, crafty, duty filled and gregarious, the ship's surgeon who's dedicated to saving lives and who doesn't understand navel service and the ship's science officer who is the captains best friend and generally smarter than everyone else. In Master and Commander the doctor and the science officer are rolled into one character but the similarities remain. Other similarities are there too, both are about exploration of new worlds, sacrifice to service and the demands of command.

I've always considered Star Trek TOS to be far superior to any of the follow on series but could never put my finger on the reason why. All the series examined interesting cultural issues, offered philosophical and speculative stories and showed cool science fiction technology, so that wasn't it. I now believe I know the answer. Subsequent series lacked a hero as a focal point. By using an ensemble cast the stories have failed to elevate any character to a heroic level and so have failed to tap into mythic qualities of the hero.

There's no doubt in my mind that both Kirk and Aubry qualify as mythic style heroes. Both exemplify the same prototypical western male attributes of leadership, self sacrifice, resourcefulness and courage. Both triumph where other would have failed.