Talk:The Omega Glory

The analysis section is silly
The racial and sociological analysis section of this episode is silly. This isn't Shakespeare or Homer, but a very poorly written episode of Star Trek. The story doesn't even give any explanation as to how this planet could have had a country with the same flag and constitution as the U.S.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.104.71.166 (talk) 05:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, but Wikipedia is so devoted to PC garbage while paying lip-service to NPOV that we get padded-out garbage like this page. I guess it's important ot quote Michael Chabon because some wiki editor has a wide-on for him and his scribbles. 2604:6000:6D42:4800:0:0:0:2 (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Also agreed. The "analysis" is one-sided and inaccurate and overstretched (e.g. the Yangs most certainly not "noble savages" or noble anything). It should be called out for POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6000:AA4D:C5B8:0:3361:EAF8:97B7 (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The situation of Asian domination of a conquered America with an outsider helping the "Yangs" parallels the original Buck Rogers plot. Is this worth mentioning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:6A00:32DA:7984:6073:5B6A:4E5D (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Making of Star Trek
Can't find either this in Making of Star Trek, where the line is that they sent 3 stories (or scripts) and NBC selected "Where No Man", and Inside, which goes into a little more detail, noting that the "Mudd's Women" script was late. Morwen - Talk 17:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Some information regarding ST is common knowledge. MOST if not all ST knowledge comes from "soft" copy sources, fanzines, television interviews, things said at conventions, things Roddenberry made up as he went along, etc. Unfortunately most ST info is LOST, but KNOWN. No one expected it to be taken seriously or to last this long. No one then ( excepr Bjo Trimble ) made any attempt to capture the moment. Only when TNG came along was there any serious attempt to record everything for posterity. My point is: just because you cant find it, doesn't mean it does not exist. Someone out there has the proof and doesn't know it needs to be cited here. Leave information up a while until someone can confirm it, please.


 * Not sure what line or bit of information you guys are talking about, but Asherman's "The Star Trek Concordance" makes mention of the three scripts which were contenders for the second pilot -- "Where No Man...," "Mudd's Women," and "Omega Glory." Sir Rhosis 00:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I also corrected the doctor's name per Asherman's book. Whoever posted that it was Johnson was wrong.  It was Milton Perry.  Now, the doctor was named Johnson in Sam Peeples' first draft of "Where No Man Has Gone Before."  PErhaps the original poster just misremembered. Sir Rhosis 00:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

2008 broadcast
This episode was broadcast on July 7, 2008 in Washington, DC on WDCA. I don't know if it was broadcast elsewhere and, if so, on exactly what date. In general the published dates for the remastered series have been a few days before the WDCA broadcast date. Manassehkatz 18:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible Case of Plagiarism?
No one seems to note the parallels with the original Buck Rogers story. I used to mention it to my SF classes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:50C6:4600:7141:7F67:9F1B:2FCC (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I just finished reading Isaac Asimov's novel titled "The Stars, Like Dust" which was first published in 1951. The book occasionally mentions a missing document stolen from Earth which will be used to power a future war. The last paragraph of the book reveals the document to be The Constitution of the United States of America ("We the people..."). It appears that Asimov was not given any honourable mention in the writing credits of this Star Trek episode. --Neilrieck (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Got cite? Alastairward (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess I am citing my own research. I just read the 1951 Asimov novel which I have described above. After that, I checked out the official information at http://www.startrek.com for the episode in question which can be found here: http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/TOS/episode/68768.html I'm not saying that the writer of this episode (Gene Roddenberry) did this on purpose. It might be an accident caused by living in a tightly coupled society (maybe like the George Harrision thing). It would have been nice if Asimov would have gotten some kind of honourable mention. --Neilrieck (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not improbable though. I don't have a copy to hand but I remember "Inside Star Trek The Real Story", has an account of how the episode Arena was written with the author apparently unaware of the short story by the same name and with the same plot. Reminds me that I must cite that when I have that copy to hand. Alastairward (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I looked up the article on "Omega Glory" to see if anyone had recorded the point of resemblance between Asimov's novel and the Star Trek episode. The article doesn't mention the similarity, but looking into the discussion area, I see that I'm not the first to raise the issue.  The Wikipedia entry on The Stars Like Dust points out that Asimov was talked into introducing the US Constitution matter into his novel by an editor; later he regretted having done so.  Regarding the use of the Fredric Brown story "Arena" as the basis of a ST:TOS episode -- the writer of the episode "Arena" might well have pointed to the independent arrival at the exact wording of the US Constitution by the inhabitants of a distant planet as an example of the extraordinary coincidences that are bound to occur from time to time.  But the reader of the short story is likely to come to a different conclusion.  JEM 14:34, 5 July 2009 (EST)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.28.120 (talk)

Planet of the apes, anyone? The 1968 movie and the Star Trek episode both came out in spring of 1968, but Pierre Boulle's 1963 novel 'La Planète des singes' is older. --2003:C6:3711:CFCE:7468:1A13:CE45:75EE (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The book version by Boule had parallelism with Earth, except for the role reversal with species; but not US landmarks suddenly cropping up at the end, nor was it set in the year 3978, or any future time. The 1968 film essentially gutted Boule's book, keeping little more than the species-reversal element and some names. Most of its story elements apparently drew heavily on the Meg Series by Nelson Bond, which was set in future-Earth in 3478, had the Forbidden Cities (in place of the Forbidden Zone), the surprise appearance of US landmarks (Mount Rushmore at the very end of Place of the Gods, and Statue of Liberty near the end of Magic City); differing from Planet of the Apes only in making gender the central theme, rather than species. That came out of the 1940's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6000:AA4D:C5B8:0:3361:EAF8:97B7 (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The Actual Script
Posted by Greg S. over at trekbbs.com on 10Feb2011:


 * The actual scripted printed dialog from the December 15, 1967 Revised Final Draft script for "The Omega Glory" Scene 149, verbatim is:
 * "Ee'd pebnista nordor formor pur fektunun...."
 * This would appear to mean:
 * Ee'd = We the
 * Pebnista = People of the United States
 * Nordor = In order
 * Formor = Form a more
 * Pur fektunun = Perfect union

Excellent info. Thanks to him.--Tdadamemd (talk) 06:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sasha? rofl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0A:A540:290:0:69:AAFD:CFD8:E58C (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Really an alien race?
Is the premise really that the Yangs and Kohms were not humans but an alien race? When I first saw the episode I just assumed that they were human colonists that had waged a war in their past. It may have been "centuries" before but remember that in the Star Trek universe, space travel has been occurring since at least the 1990s (Khan and his crew were set adrift in the Botany Bay in 1996) and this takes place in the late 2200s. I find it hard to believe that the Federation would allow a group of human colonists to virtually annihilate each other in a nuclear war without interfering but then again, the planet that TNG character Natasha (Tasha) Yar grew up on was supposedly anarchic and had continued as such even into TNG.

The problem that I have with the Omegans being aliens is that it requires an absurd amount of parallel evolution. Here are the things that would have to have happened in order for the Omegans to be aliens:
 * The planet's evolutionary history would have had to have the exact conditions necessary for the evolution of primates and then hominids.
 * They would have to have developed Latin script independently and just think about how many scripts there are just on Earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.202.208 (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * They would have to have evolved English as a language otherwise the word "Kohms" at least makes no sense.
 * They would have to have come up with the slang term "Yankee", or some derivation thereof, which is a Native American or Dutch word (origin uncertain).
 * There would have to have been a revolution which would have necessitated the need for a document like the Declaration of Independence.
 * The wording of the Omegan Declaration would have to match EXACTLY the wording of the American Declaration (in order for Kirk to be able to recite it).
 * The Yang flag was designed EXACTLY like the American flag. Of the infinite number of designs possible, if they were truly aliens, they somehow managed to choose the same one as the Yankees of Earth.
 * I believe the Yangs had a Bible with a depiction of Satan. This means that their religious history probably mirrored Earth's exactly (think about those implications).

As I said above, this many coincidences is almost too ridiculous to believe. The one sticking point would be the supposed ages of the Kohms. However, I think that could be explained several ways:
 * The Kohms lied to Capt. Tracey.
 * Capt. Tracey misunderstood the reckoning of Kohm time. The Kohms may have used a different sense of the word "year" such that it was, for example, a tenth of our understanding of a "year".  That would make the Kohm villager about 46 and his dad about 100 (quite old but not impossible).  This difference has occurred previously in Earth reckoning systems.  Although not anymore, the word "billion" had different meanings in American and British English; the British called 1x10^9 a "milliard" and a billion was 1x10^12 (an American trillion).  As such, a difference of a decimal point between our year and a Kohm year would not be without precedent.
 * Capt. Tracey lied to Capt. Kirk.

I think that the Omegans were human colonists that ended up fighting a nuclear war that the rest of us avoided. I don't think the Omegans were aliens at all. 121.220.202.208 (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a deeply silly story, and there's no point in trying to rationalize it. Parallel evolution was a common plot device in TOS despite the obvious implausibilities involved. --Ef80 (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Quite correct. A few episodes before this one, there were Nazis. Wastrel Way (talk) Eric
 * Yup. Aliens. Parallel evolution and all the unlikely coincidences you listed. StarHOG (Talk) 16:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And let's not forget Miri with an added coincidence of a duplicate Earth thrown into the "completely unnecessary" mix. StarHOG (Talk) 16:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Citations for Intro Section
The intro section talks about "Retrospective reviews." I get that the episode is compositionally unbalanced, has quite a few continuity holes (even for TOS), and makes unveiled patriotic allusions which are unusual for Star Trek. However, is there actually a citation anywhere for this? Is there a poll somewhere to support it? If there isn't, we should remove the sentence as a biased and highly subjective remark. PaganinianaX (talk) 04:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Whoops. Just finished reading the Analysis section and citations. There are so many polls … difficult to summarize. 😅 PaganinianaX (talk) 04:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)