Originally Posted by Roysten
I may be opening a can of worms here but why don'y you like Battlestar Galactica?
I very much enjoyed Conspiracy at the end of TNG season 1, I really wish they'd followed that up. I can't put my finger on why exactly but what they did there felt much more of a threat than other coups and potential takeovers that were offered in later seasons and shows. It could have been really effective to have had Admiral Sati in The Drumhead referring to that as part of the threat to give her accusations a bit more backing
Because it is authoritarian. Of course there were some episodes which pretended to be about humankind in exile sticking to the values of liberal democracy ... but in the end the only democrat on the show, Zarek, was portrayed as terrorist while the leaders did not care one iota about what the population wanted, they just did whatever they considered to be right. Not incidentally they were a man and a woman in love, a kind of substitute parents. I don't have to point out that pre-democratic forms of government often tried to use and channel the psychological fact of natural parental authority into political power, great chain of being and so on, everybody has his fixed place ... and the fixed place of Adama and Roslin is to be daddy and mummy for humankind in exile.
Apart from this issue BSG is a decent show ... well, except for the theobabble (I am very interested in religion but the way Moore dealt with a great source material, monotheistic religion, was a joke. All the religious stuff in BSG was literally void of any actual ideas.) and the literal deus ex machina and so on.
Contrast this with what you suggested, delving deeper into the dark side of the Federation in TNG. The key difference is subtext, i.e. BSG basically said that Adama and Roslin are right whereas TNG says that Picard is right.
I totally do not mind dark Trek as long as the perspective is right, i.e. there is some ugly sh*t out there but our heroes fight against it. But whenever people talk about BSGifying Trek they are basically saying that they would not mind authoritarian leaders in Trek. This is literally unenlightened, we are supposed to have left this crap behind us centuries ago.
Call me boring but I associate Trek with a bunch of Starfleet officers who try to make good, rational decisions in dire straits, people who work in a strict hierarchy, as a team, bound by rules. And if a captain breaks the rules like in TOS he is basically doing what Jesus did, showing that some rules might be too inflexible and that less rigidity might be beneficial. Kirk is certainly not throwing the rulebook out of the window or even playing the boss of everybody like Adama.