Sfdebris.net

http://sfdebris.com/videos/startrek/s054.php

I have to admit there is some amusement reading about this episode's production history in the These are the Voyages book. Practically every other episode has fascinating notes about the initial drafts, producer/writer memos, and subsequent rewrites from various staff. More often than not its an interesting creative journey of seeing how the various production staff noting what can and can't work for Trek in regards to character, drama, and budget.

Omega Glory on the other hand is a recurring story of a proud Gene Roddenberry constantly trying to get the episode made, even though no one else on the show expresses any real enthusiasm for it. Gene Coon, DC Fontana, Robert Justman; all three seem to both know its a clunker from the beginning, and are reluctant to tell that to him directly. Roddenberry's insistence on getting it into production and his belief that it might get Trek an Emmy nod seems eerily prescient of the kind of stubborn meddling he'd try with the films and actually pull off with early TNG.

The episode is so jarring in a number ways from how it just doesn't mesh with Trek's reputation to how it hints at how different 60s Roddenberry was from 80s Roddenberry. Then there's the bizarre irony of the episode essentially being about Americans continuing to fight the Vietnam war through the apocalypse and being reduced to cave men when the episode was aired at the same time the Tet offensive was underway.

Yeah, it's an odd story to keep trying to sell, especially a guy who has (or used to have) a reputation for progressive science fiction. It's just not a good story in any way.

With that said, it isn't an episode that I feel like badmouthing. Some of the bad episodes in the modern era of Trek or infuriating or simply boring, but I think The Omega Glory and a lot of the other bad TOS episodes (including Spock's Brain) are pretty entertaining for the most part. Which is a big reason why And the Children Shall Lead and The Alternative Factor are worse to sit down and watch.

Recently rewatched this. I wonder if Chuck was aware that Gene stole the twist ending, that the document behind all this conflict was the Constitution, from his so-called "friend" Asimov in his book "The Stars, Like Dust?" Given what he said about how Gene felt this would win him an Emmy, it really paints him in a new, sinister light, ripping off other people so he doesn't have to put any effort into something, and expecting the praise and attention that goes with that nevertheless. WHAT AN ASSHOLE.

MerelyAFan wrote: ↑Tue May 30, 2017 4:38 am Omega Glory on the other hand is a recurring story of a proud Gene Roddenberry constantly trying to get the episode made, even though no one else on the show expresses any real enthusiasm for it. Gene Coon, DC Fontana, Robert Justman; all three seem to both know its a clunker from the beginning, and are reluctant to tell that to him directly. Roddenberry's insistence on getting it into production and his belief that it might get Trek an Emmy nod seems eerily prescient of the kind of stubborn meddling he'd try with the films and actually pull off with early TNG.

I think it shows how much something like Star Trek is a team effort. Whatever Roddenberry's part was, and a good part, he by himself couldn't make Star Trek.

Sadly, George Lucas failed to realize the same point, only his failures came after his successes and weren't the mixed bag that kept Roddenberry and Trek going into the 90s.

As for his later work in the 70s and 80s: I recently read the Hemingway poem Hills like White Elephants, which has much to do Hemingway reflecting on his womanizing and the nastiness that came from it. I think in his own way Roddenberry was reflecting on himself when he created things like the Ferengi, yet failed to really own up to himself in them and simply projected a lot of what he hated onto America itself, hence his other hand wringing that worked into places like the Neutral Zone.

Honestly, The Omega Glory is just plain weird as a piece of science fiction and all over the place. It's not remotely the best Star Trek but the thing is that it's biggest problem is that we have a bunch of different twists and plots:

* The immortality thing
* The renegade Captain
* The Yankees versus Communists

Beastro wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 4:56 am

MerelyAFan wrote: ↑Tue May 30, 2017 4:38 am Omega Glory on the other hand is a recurring story of a proud Gene Roddenberry constantly trying to get the episode made, even though no one else on the show expresses any real enthusiasm for it. Gene Coon, DC Fontana, Robert Justman; all three seem to both know its a clunker from the beginning, and are reluctant to tell that to him directly. Roddenberry's insistence on getting it into production and his belief that it might get Trek an Emmy nod seems eerily prescient of the kind of stubborn meddling he'd try with the films and actually pull off with early TNG.

As for his later work in the 70s and 80s: I recently read the Hemingway poem Hills like White Elephants, which has much to do Hemingway reflecting on his womanizing and the nastiness that came from it. I think in his own way Roddenberry was reflecting on himself when he created things like the Ferengi, yet failed to really own up to himself in them and simply projected a lot of what he hated onto America itself, hence his other hand wringing that worked into places like the Neutral Zone.

That was a definitely a factor. I suspect also that TNG Roddenberry was a product of the intimate fan appreciation of the 70s and the studios distancing of him with the films.

It may have been that a decade of various convention appearances and speaking engagements, many of them based around what a perceptive creator he was and how forward thinking TOS had been, possibly gave him a the sense that specifically his ideas were visionary. Of course with non-Trek projects failing to take off, financially he was basically left with just Trek and Lincoln Enterprises. And with Bennett and Paramount basically humoring him when it came to movie ideas/suggestions, a television continuation was his best/last avenue for getting his ideal version of Trek to audiences.

Thus you had a Roddenberry wholly invested in reclaiming Trek in popular consciousnesses away from the Paramount movies, projecting his own beliefs about contemporary flaws vs idealized utopia, and even less inclined to take constructive criticism than he was during TOS. Not to mention that only old colleagues like Fontana and Gerrold could/would look past the "Great Bird of the Galaxy" status he had gotten by that point.

Omega Glory is all Roddenberry, but within the first two season of the original series, that was more the exception than the rule (even with Gene's propensity for rewriting everybody). First season TNG wasn't so lucky.

Because he was ripping off Asimov. That's why no one was that enthusiastic.

Yukaphile wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:08 pm Recently rewatched this. I wonder if Chuck was aware that Gene stole the twist ending, that the document behind all this conflict was the Constitution, from his so-called "friend" Asimov in his book "The Stars, Like Dust?"

To be fair, there is a bit of nuance here. One, the Constitution subplot from Stars was actually foisted on to the novel by Horace Gold, who was serializing it in Galaxy at the time. Two, Asimov loathed this utterly, so I seriously doubt he would care if anyone lifted this and put it in another work. Three, Roddenberry only really "copied" the fact that the key document was the Constitution, not the fact that it was thought to be the plans to a superweapon or the long struggle to get the document.

The Great Bird of the Galaxy makes me wish we'd gotten a Star Trek: Frontier series.