MovieChat Forums > Star Trek: Of Gods and Men (2007) Discussion > Some things that ocurred to me

Some things that ocurred to me

posted 16 years ago by NoGuff
18 replies | jump to latest

***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS***

First, good job. Sets and lighting are really good, VFX are really good, the acting is good. I like how you made use of some resort or something to double for Vulcan. And good use of Chase Masterson! And I really like the blonde navigator.

Second, it's got some holes, or questions.

1. When Charlie (what's with the head bob?) goes through the Guardian, aren't those standing there supposed to be insulated from the time change? At least, that's how it happened in COTEOF.

2. When Charlie appears again after Chekov, Harriman, and Uhura return to the forbidden city, he appears the same age. Shouldn't he be twice the age?

3. What's with Uhura "remembering" the alternate timeline? She shouldn't remember a damned thing. Granted, Guinan was able to sense it ("Yesterday's Enterprise"), but her species is supposed to have mysterious abilities (which Dr. Soran never displayed, by the way). Uhura is just another Human. So all that makes no sense.

4. Why didn't J.G. Hertzler play "Martok?" Why didn't Garret Wang play "Kim?" Why did Chekov adopt another name? I mean they all are alive at that time period. Besides, it would have worked anyway given the story.

5. There's no way Starfleet would build a Constitution class ship, complete with period specific consoles, etc., at that time, especially to function soley as a flying museum. In the episode "Relics," Picard says there is a complete bridge of one on display at Starfleet, as a museum piece. So that doesn't wash. But I can see how you'd need it given the existence of the sets for Cawley's productions.

Anyway, that's all I have for now.

"Careful, man, there's a beverage here!" - The Dude

[–] action_on_deck 16 years ago

<< 4. Why didn't J.G. Hertzler play "Martok?" Why didn't Garret Wang play "Kim?" Why did Chekov adopt another name? I mean they all are alive at that time period. Besides, it would have worked anyway given the story.

Well, Martog could have been around, I don't think we get an exact age for him on DS9, but seeing how old Klingons live I think it would have been possible. Harry Kim, however, was Definatly NOT alive at that point. This all hapens a good 50 to 60 years before Harry was born. That's an aproximation, i don't have exact dates in front of me, He's in his 20's on Voyager, Voyager being set 70 or 80 years after Generations (the Original series side of the story, not the TNG side), and this is 12 years after Generations.

Chekov seemed to pick up a new name after going rebel. Probably to protect himself so they didn't know who he really was.

[–] NoGuff 16 years ago

Harry Kim, however, was Definatly NOT alive at that point. This all hapens a good 50 to 60 years before Harry was born. That's an aproximation, i don't have exact dates in front of me, He's in his 20's on Voyager, Voyager being set 70 or 80 years after Generations (the Original series side of the story, not the TNG side), and this is 12 years after Generations

That being the case, Harry Kim would be alive. This takes place several years, possibly a decade, after the death of James Kirk. So did "Voyager." But people like Chekhov, Uhura, and Harriman wouldn't be alive.

Confusion.

"Careful, man, there's a beverage here!" - The Dude

[–] action_on_deck 16 years ago

<< That being the case, Harry Kim would be alive. This takes place several years, possibly a decade, after the death of James Kirk. So did "Voyager." But people like Chekhov, Uhura, and Harriman wouldn't be alive.

I think you've got the time between The Original Series and Voyager a bit confused. After Kirk's death in Star Trek: Generations it fades to a scene of The Next generation crew. It says in big friendly letters "78 Years Later". Voyager starts up just a few months after Generations, so it's 78 years from Kirk's death to the start of Generations.

We'll estimate Harry's age at 25 at the start of Voyager (he's probably a bit younger than that, but this estimate favor's your argument more than mine). That means 53 years from Kirks death to Harry's birth. Of Gods and Men is 12 years after Kirk's death, so Harry is born approximately 41 years after this movie is set. There is no way he can be in it.

So my initial estimate of 50 - 60 years before Harry was born is wrong, but 41 years is still a long time before Harry was around. Heck his PARENTS may have not even been born yet!

Voyager is most defiantly set much later than "several years, possibly a decade, after the death of James Kirk"

[–] NoGuff 16 years ago

The Original Series and Voyager a bit confused. After Kirk's death in Star Trek: Generations it fades to a scene of The Next generation crew. It says in big friendly letters "78 Years Later". Voyager starts up just a few months after Generations, so it's 78 years from Kirk's death to the start of Generations.

Kirk doesn't die until he helps Captain Picard battle Dr. Soren where the Enterprise-D crash lands. Worf goes on to DS9, where just a few years before, Quark tried to sell some worthless trinkets to Ensign Harry Kim of USS Voyager.

"Careful, man, there's a beverage here!" - The Dude

[–] action_on_deck 16 years ago

<< Kirk doesn't die until he helps Captain Picard battle Dr. Soren where the Enterprise-D crash lands. Worf goes on to DS9, where just a few years before, Quark tried to sell some worthless trinkets to Ensign Harry Kim of USS Voyager.

I think it's pretty obvious that Of Gods and Men is set 12 years after the presumed death of Kirk on the Enterprise-B, not with Picard and Soran.

I made a mistake in posting Kirk's death, it should be Kirk's presumed death. Chekov, Uhura, Harriman et al would say it's been twelve years since Kirk died because they think he did die in the explosion on the Ent-B.

Frankly insisting that Of Gods and Men must be set after Kirks actual death (basically 12 years after Generations, about the same time as Nemesis) is just being stupid. It's obviously set 12 years after the TOS side of Generations, not 12 years after the TNG side.

[–] wight1984 14 years ago

Kirk doesn't die until he helps Captain Picard battle Dr. Soren where the Enterprise-D crash lands. Worf goes on to DS9, where just a few years before, Quark tried to sell some worthless trinkets to Ensign Harry Kim of USS Voyager.

I think there's a common sense failure here!

It is revealed in the TNG era that Kirk didn't actually die but was instead trapped in the Nexus. However, one only has to take a look at the ages of the characters in this film to see that it's set way before anyone discovers that.

[–] NoGuff 14 years ago

It is revealed in the TNG era that Kirk didn't actually die but was instead trapped in the Nexus

Actually, he was presumed dead because his section of the ship was blown away, and at the time they weren't aware of the fact people could be "trapped in the Nexus."

I think there's a common sense failure here!

Insults aren't necessary.

"Careful, man, there's a beverage here!" - The Dude

[–] wight1984 14 years ago

Are you sure you read what I wrote?

You appear to be trying to correct me but what you've written doesn't contradict what I wrote.

We learn from the film Generations that Kirk was presumed dead 78 years before the main content of the film. It is then discovered, in the TNG era of Federation history, that Kirk didn't actually die but was trapped in the Nexus.

Kirks actual death (after leaving the Nexus) doesn't happen until a rather long time after the time period in which 'Of Gods and Men' is set.

[–] doubting_thomas 13 years ago

wow.

obviously this isn't set at the time of voyager, the enterprise B is still in service under harriman.

[–] nebka23 15 years ago

That is not how it is
J.G. Hertzler ... Koval
Garrett Wang ... Commander Garan
They did not play their charters from Voyager or DS9

The only ones that were alive at are
Walter Koenig ... Captain Pavel Chekov
Nichelle Nichols ... Captain Nyota Uhura
Alan Ruck ... Captain John Harriman
Lawrence Montaigne ... Stonn
Daamen J. Krall ... Gary Mitchell (as Daamen Krall)
Grace Lee Whitney ... Janice Rand

[–] jdi-6 16 years ago

First, good job. Sets and lighting are really good,

some sets were cool, but the lighting sucked, it was much too bright. no feeling of any atmosphere.

[–] david-1111 16 years ago

I can agree a little bit with the lighting criticisms but... the Original Series bridge set was notoriously difficult to light well. Take close note of the different lighting schemes of The Original Series. I suppose that some of these lighting differences could be explained within the TOS stories as the difference between "day shift" and "night shift" even though different light levels between day and night were first seen in ST:TNG. I personally do tend to prefer the darker lighting schemes on the TOS bridge set, but when the center seat is the one being lit it's easy to overdo it; especially if you're trying to make the set look evenly lit all the way across. For an example, look at Starship Farragut's episode, "The Captaincy". In that episode, the bridge is lit way too brightly. In all fairness, they do a much better job lighting the bridge in their second outing, "For Want of a Nail".

My one complaint regarding set pieces was that STOGAM's "Auxiliary Control" looked more like a redress of the Transporter Room rather than a Constitution class Auxiliary Control room as seen in the TOS episodes "The Doomsday Machine" and "The Way To Eden"

Yes, Uhura, Harriman, and Chekov should have been immune to the changes in the timeline, but... when we see the Guardian the first time, it isn't under Charlie's control as it is in this miniseries. The first time, the Guardian is activated by "A question. Long before your sun burned hot in space I have awaited... a question." The second time, Charlie just jumps right into time where he wishes even though the first time, we are told that the Guardian cannot change the rate at which the past is shown. The Guardian may not be able to change how it displays time, but Charlie seems able to change it.

Overall, I like the series though and hope to get the DVD when it comes out.

[–] qrz94 16 years ago

1. Charlie was able to take control of the Guardian which must have effected they way people in close range of the Guardian were effected by it.

2. Good point, I guess he jumped back through the guardian to the current time line.

3. See answer number one

4. They are just playing other characters in the Trek universe the same way Ethan Philips, Rene Aberjouis etc. have done. They should have explained better why Chekov took a new name, he says when talking about the death of his family that "Pavel died that day," but were the heck did he come up with Kitridge?

5. It is a bit of a stretch but necessary given the budget available. They could have explained it better maybe by saying they retrofitted the Enterprise-A to be an exact replica of the original since it is highly unlikely Starfleet would waste the resources on a museum peace.

While it certainly had some flaws I thought this thing was overall very entertaining and enjoyable.

[–] Brent54 15 years ago

1. When Charlie (what's with the head bob?)

Watch "Charlie X" It's like Samantha's nose twitch.

[–] NoGuff 15 years ago

1. When Charlie (what's with the head bob?)

Watch "Charlie X" It's like Samantha's nose twitch.

I get that, but here it's like waaaaayyyyyy exaggerated. Quite unnecessary. I believe, as Star Trek fans, we've shown that we're beyond the need to be idiotically spoon-fed such things.

"Careful, man, there's a beverage here!" - The Dude

[–] ds9writer 15 years ago

William Wellman (Charlie in OGaM) was just mimicing the move Robert Walker (the original Charlie) did. He was pretty good at it too - many people did not realize Wellman was not the original actor...

[–] slinter 12 years ago

Anyone know why Robert Walker didn't reprise his role of Charlie, or Gary Lockwood his of Mitchell?

[–] domester82 10 years ago

I assumed it was the original actor, until I looked up Charlie X on Wikipedia, and found out that it wasn't the same actor. He fooled me.

Another character that certainly WAS around in this time period was Tuvok (Voyager's 30th anniversary episode 'Flashback' showed him serving under Captain Sulu on the Excelsior during the events of Star Trek 6), so it made sense he made an appearance in this film.