The nature of Genesis's "Galatic Controversy"

[Captain_Amasov]

Makes me wonder why the Trilithium Torpedo from "Generations" (which was a more powerful weapon, much more powerful) never brought up any troubles.

The Trilithium Torpedo weapon was devised by rogue fanatics, the Genesis Device on the other hand was a potential weapon of mass destruction built by the apparently peace loving and open Federation and was highly likely, judging by the outcome, developed in almost complete secret.

 

[2takesfrakes]

The ... Genesis Device ... was a potential weapon of mass destruction built by the apparently peace loving and open Federation and was highly likely, judging by the outcome, developed in almost complete secret.

Considering that Carol Marcus' "taped" presentation on GENESIS was "a proposal to the Federation" and not to StarFleet, I wonder just how "secret" it was. The average Martian wasn't going to know about it, of course, but the Federation Council surely knew of its existance and how far along it had gotten. What they saw in it, is unclear, but I believe Carol Marcus' intentions were sincere and that they were shared with the Council.

I know it's easy to be cynical with Section 31, temporal agents and all, but back then, there wasn't any of that. Its existance was never truly a secret, just how it was arrived at. The problem though, is that other scientists can always back-engineer some new technology, just based on its effect. It may have taken them a lot longer to come up with it, but even if the UFP didn't share the technology, it was inevitable that it would be somehow duplicated.

 

[Anwar]

What is so powerful about it? Genesis dispersed an entire nebula, a phenomenon likely to be trillions of times bigger than a mere star. Also, a trilithium torpedo hitting a single planet would probably accomplish nothing but a local case of poisoning - while Genesis hitting a planet is known to be destructive, and Genesis hitting a star might be pretty spectacular as well.

Given how quickly the battle was over in WOK, I'd say that the Mutara Nebula was pretty small for a Nebula. It was pretty near the Regula station but we didn't even see it in any shots until near the end when they fly into it; if it was really a big one we'd have seen it in the background. Doesn't seem all that big compared to a Sun.

The torpedo wipes out entire solar systems in one usage, Genesis is a one-at-a-time matter. And I don't think it would work on a Star, unless the energy of the torpedo is superior to that of a star.

Frankly how a tiny torpedo like Genesis could have the energy to create a self-propagating effect never made much sense to me, but TOS' logic was always "Look, the tech just does what it does. We're never going to give any explanations over any of this, just accept it or go away."

 

[Timo]

..pretty small for a Nebula [..] Doesn't seem all that big compared to a Sun.

I think there's a major misunderstanding here. Stars are tiny things, barely bigger than planets - we're talking about mere thousands of kilometers, tens of thousands at most. In order to even sail in the fog like we saw, the starships would already need a playground of that minimum size. Yet in order to physically exist for any astronomically significant time, a cloud of gases would need to be vast, lest it clump into something very much un-nebula-like or disperse into something way too thin to be visible even up close.

Of course, being so dense and so close to the star, Mutara might be a nebula in the process of dying (being sucked into the sun, the compression explaining the bright colors and the energetic nature) or being born (perhaps Regula burped recently?). It would still be of star system size rather than star size for all practical purposes.

Star Trek also features miniature nebulae mere thousands of kilometers across (or rather VOY does). Science does not recognize such things today, but they might still exist; they'd naturally be pretty damn difficult to detect! Perhaps such clouds are detritus from past space battles? But VOY also gives us what is expicitly called a Mutara type nebula, and that one is vast and takes a starship ages to travel through (VOY "One", IIRC)...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[trevanian]

STAR TREK III could've shown us highlights from some passionate debates within the Federation Council with regard to "Genesis."

Maybe something that could have run behind the credits at the movie's beginning?

When I read that, I flashed on how I always thought they should have worked The Blue Danube into 2010. You could have shown Russian & American ambassadors scuffling on the floor of the UN, jockeying for best pile-on position while the waltz music played.

Actually, what you describe would have played better (maybe VERY well) as imagery the Enterprise picks up while returning to spacedock, a montage of broadcasts that is cut short by the Federation equivalent of ' please stand by while we make sure whoever broadcast this winds up in a section31 dungeon')

 

[Shat Happens]

If George Lucas' STAR WARS prequels could support all of those layers of overburden regarding taxation of trade routes, Senate sessions and treaty signing, then surely, STAR TREK III could've shown us highlights from some passionate debates within the Federation Council with regard to "Genesis." ...

Note that the Star Wars prequels suck.

 

[2takesfrakes]

There are only one and a half decent STAR WARS movies in the entire saga, Shat ... come on! But of the prequels the only one that truly sucks, outright, is ATTACK of the CLONES. From start to finish, it's just badly written, awkwardly acted - and not just by the leads - and CGI Yoda looks ... bad. As does every CGI character. And I love it when Hollywood goes like, "people can't tell when it's CGI." Uh ... hello! Raising my hand, here ... I can tell when it's CGI, sir!

 

[Shat Happens]

> badly written, awkwardly acted

^ isn't that because "overburden regarding taxation of trade routes, Senate sessions and treaty signing"?

>CGI (...) looks bad

I agree. And to think I loved TRON, The Genesis Effect simulation, The Last Starfighter so much in the 80s... CGI started so great, I wonder what went wrong.

>I can tell when it's CGI

Me too: everything, nowadays.

 

[2takesfrakes]

And to think I loved TRON, The Genesis Effect simulation, The Last Starfighter so much in the 80s... CGI started so great, I wonder what went wrong.

What went wrong is that back then, CGI had passionate people employing and pushing it, they wanted to change the industry, which of course they did and then it plateaued, basically. The problem is it's always remained expensive. "Close enough is good enough," is the order of the day, now ...

But you're right - the Genesis Effect simulation still looks cool. Which brings us back to the topic at hand:

The Galactic Controversy caused by Genesis being set off the way it was, and everything, was hardly that, at all. In fact, the only one who ever really bitched about it was the Klingon Embassador in TVH. One eloquent Klingon making a speech before an audience of a couple dozen latex-headed aliens qualifies as a "Galactic Controversy?"

 

[Shat Happens]

Really, the only one who called Genesis "a galactic controversy" was that drunk Admiral Morrow who somehow was designed commander in chief -- and then had a starship STOLEN on his watch. The same who said the Enterprise was only 20 years old in STIII and by STIV had been replaced by other guy.

The only other who gave two shits about Genesis was madman Kruge. Probably no one else cares. And it doesn't work anyway because it's made of protomatter. Such "controversy"...

 

[sonak]

There are only one and a half decent STAR WARS movies in the entire saga, Shat ... come on! But of the prequels the only one that truly sucks, outright, is ATTACK of the CLONES. From start to finish, it's just badly written, awkwardly acted - and not just by the leads - and CGI Yoda looks ... bad. As does every CGI character. And I love it when Hollywood goes like, "people can't tell when it's CGI." Uh ... hello! Raising my hand, here ... I can tell when it's CGI, sir!

AOTC is five times better than Phantom Menace. The plot actually makes sense, less Jar Jar, no kid Anakin, Dooku is a much better villain than the cipher Darth Maul, bigger role for Obi-Wan and Yoda, etc. Just far superior movie, overall.

 

[DonIago]

...especially if you fast forward through every scene focusing on Anakin and Padme.

 

[trevanian]

There are only one and a half decent STAR WARS movies in the entire saga, Shat ... come on! But of the prequels the only one that truly sucks, outright, is ATTACK of the CLONES. From start to finish, it's just badly written, awkwardly acted - and not just by the leads - and CGI Yoda looks ... bad. As does every CGI character. And I love it when Hollywood goes like, "people can't tell when it's CGI." Uh ... hello! Raising my hand, here ... I can tell when it's CGI, sir!

AOTC is five times better than Phantom Menace. The plot actually makes sense, less Jar Jar, no kid Anakin, Dooku is a much better villain than the cipher Darth Maul, bigger role for Obi-Wan and Yoda, etc. Just far superior movie, overall.

For all its myriad faults, TPM at least LOOKS like a movie most of the time. AOTC's early all-digital look makes it seem like BARNEY MILLER IN SPACE at times, plus it is just endless.

 

[Shat Happens]

>AOTC is just endless.

Yeah, and the next movie managed to be still more endless.

>Less Jar-Jar

THAT actually embarassed me when I first watched it at the theater. The Internet was somewhat different, we had spent three years there bashing JJ, the character was rightly hated but seemed it was there to stay and then come the next movie bang zoom he went straight off-character and shut up. It was, "What have we done?"

It was a reality shock, seeing corporations and studios and execs and billionaire Lucas actually manipulating scripts plots and characters just to sell more. I mean, everyone always knew that, but INSIDE the theater was sacred place. [That's (partly) why I don't watch movies anymore. Also, I'm getting old.]

That's Jar-Jar Legacy.

(Also I like to call JJ Abrams Jar-Jar Adams for reasons amply known, or easily deduced)

 

[Shat Happens]

>AOTC is just endless.

Yeah, and the next movie managed to be still more endless.

>Less Jar-Jar

THAT actually embarassed me when I first watched it at the theater. The Internet was somewhat different, we had spent three years there bashing JJ, the character was rightly hated but seemed it was there to stay and then come the next movie bang zoom he went straight off-character and shut up. It was, "What have we done?"

It was a reality shock, seeing corporations and studios and execs and billionaire Lucas actually manipulating scripts plots and characters just to sell more. I mean, everyone always knew that, but INSIDE the theater was sacred place. [That's (partly) why I don't watch movies anymore. Also, I'm getting old.]

That's Jar-Jar Legacy.

(Also I like to call JJ Abrams Jar-Jar Adams for reasons amply known, or easily deduced)

 

[sonak]

>AOTC is just endless.

Yeah, and the next movie managed to be still more endless.

>Less Jar-Jar

THAT actually embarassed me when I first watched it at the theater. The Internet was somewhat different, we had spent three years there bashing JJ, the character was rightly hated but seemed it was there to stay and then come the next movie bang zoom he went straight off-character and shut up. It was, "What have we done?"

It was a reality shock, seeing corporations and studios and execs and billionaire Lucas actually manipulating scripts plots and characters just to sell more. I mean, everyone always knew that, but INSIDE the theater was sacred place. [That's (partly) why I don't watch movies anymore. Also, I'm getting old.]

That's Jar-Jar Legacy.

(Also I like to call JJ Abrams Jar-Jar Adams for reasons amply known, or easily deduced)

I hardly think that the inclusion of Jar Jar was an artistic choice of integrity. Lucas did it to make the movie appeal to kids so that he could sell more toys. Also, you could look at it as a positive thing that Lucas was receptive to fan criticism rather than just stubbornly pushing on regardless of their reactions and feedback.