LeVar Burton "disappointed" in JJ Abrams's movie


Recommended Posts

levarburton.jpg

LeVar Burton has expressed disappointment in director JJ Abrams's Star Trek film series.

Abrams's new Star Trek franchise exists in an alternate reality of the original television series and films, although the appearance by Leonard Nimoy in the 2009 movie ties the universes together.

Burton ? who played Geordi La Forge in Star Trek: The Next Generation ? has now admitted to ET Online that he has problems with Abrams's series.

"JJ [Abrams] [is] a very good director, he really is," Burton stressed. "He directed the hell out of the first movie. I'm really interested to see what he wants to talk about in his upcoming movie."

The actor continued: "I'm disappointed, quite frankly, that his timeline negates the existence of Next Gen. I think that's silly."

Abrams was also recently criticised by original series star William Shatner for agreeing to direct Star Wars Episode 7 in addition to his work with Star Trek.

"He's probably the most talented director of that ilk that we have, but he's gone too far this time," Shatner said earlier this week.

His Star Trek co-star George Takei previously offered a more favorable reaction to Abrams's work, saying: "I showed the path to JJ. [He] came and thought out of the box [with 2009's Star Trek]."

Star Trek into Darkness opens on May 17 in the UK and the US.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news/a460676/star-trek-levar-burton-disappointed-in-jj-abramss-movie.html

I can certainly understand the criticism but for me it was a good idea, as it gave them the freedom to do something new without having to worry about existing canon. It's not as if time-travel hasn't featured significantly in the Star Trek universe. It also presents new possibilities, like visiting the prime universe in a similar way to TOS, DS9, ENT did with the mirror universe. I certainly don't think it negates TNG timeline, as without that the new timeline wouldn't exist. Both timelines can coexist without one threatening the other.

  • Like 2

The new movie doesn't kill anything, it's a alternate timeline or a parallel universe depending on how you think time travel to the past effects things. I personally think that going back in time like Nero did automatically split the original universe into two, parallel, one we already know where he doesn't show up and the new one he did. That means the other is still there as is, it's not wiped out. Of course this is how I view it.

  • Like 4

J.J. Abram's Star Trek movie was a great action flick, but that's all it is and nothing more; it completely missed what Gene Roddenberry was trying to do, and judging by what we already know about the second one, he's definitely continuing down that road.

The mistake LeVar is making is linking anything JJ does with what's already been established.

While a fan of NextGen and Voyager I am certainly no expert... but why does the reboot "kill" them?

I didn't actually mean Kill, I wont edit my post but It opens new opportunities but does alter the timeline possibly killing potential characters considering a certain planet and its people (not all) are gone .

Kills, Next Gen, DS9 and Voyager to be honest. Yeah so pretty much everything, I'd be upset too.

It does nothing of the sort. The prime timeline continues on as before, minus Spock and the planet Romulus. The new timeline is independent of the prime timeline, as explored in Star Trek Online. In fact if anything Abram's film contributes to the prime timeline by destroying Romulus and dramatically shifting the balance of power in the alpha quadrant - that really opens up the possibilities.

As a pretty diehard fan of TNG I have to agree - however isn't that sort of the point of a reboot? To kind of pick and choose whatever you want or reimagine it in whatever way you want.

But I can totally understand where LeVar is coming from.

As a pretty diehard fan of TNG I have to agree - however isn't that sort of the point of a reboot? To kind of pick and choose whatever you want or reimagine it in whatever way you want.

That's what makes what J.J. Abram's did so clever, in that he rebooted the franchise while keeping it canonical. He didn't negate what came before but instead used that to shape the new timeline, combining TOS (Spock) with the TNG / VOY / DS9 timeline. If he had opted for a traditional reboot then fans would have been up in arms. I'm a huge Star Trek fan and I loved the new direction but it really all depends on where he takes things. What I really want to see is a new series in the TOS-alternate timeline.

Who ever said he was tossing out the next gen timeline? All of this is 78 years before Jean Luc Picard and co. If anything, he should be mad at how Paramount ended the NextGen franchise with Nemesis. They deserved a way better send off than that.

It does nothing of the sort. The prime timeline continues on as before, minus Spock and the planet Romulus. The new timeline is independent of the prime timeline, as explored in Star Trek Online. In fact if anything Abram's film contributes to the prime timeline by destroying Romulus and dramatically shifting the balance of power in the alpha quadrant - that really opens up the possibilities.

See my above post.

He's just ****ed off because TNG films were a flop, except for First Contact, and the fact that JJ doesn't give him a cameo in the film.

The one character that can be on one of the JJ new Trek films is T'Pol. Vulcans live over 300 years so she can be brought back for a cameo.

  • Like 1

The one character that can be on one of the JJ new Trek films is T'Pol. Vulcans live over 300 years so she can be brought back for a cameo.

That's if T'Pol wasn't on Vulcan when it imploded ;)

Yes Star Trek needed a reboot. But there's gotta be enough wiggle room in Kirk's early life to create stories where you don't have to destroy the cannon.

J.J. Abram's Star Trek movie was a great action flick, but that's all it is and nothing more; it completely missed what Gene Roddenberry was trying to do, and judging by what we already know about the second one, he's definitely continuing down that road.

100% correct. Star Trek should never by Die Hard in space. If they wanted to "reboot" Star Trek they chould have gone with a different time period; Robert April's command of the Enterprise, Pike's 10 years, even the period between TOS/TAS and the original movie but to re-write Kirk was BS of the highest order.

Abrams Trek is certainly the "alternate" timeline given Riker and Troi were viewing Archer's mission in the last episode of Enterprise (who would have thunk it the biggest hack piece of wiriting from Berman and Braga is usefull for something).

The one character that can be on one of the JJ new Trek films is T'Pol. Vulcans live over 300 years so she can be brought back for a cameo.

Why? Are you saying the movie's are so poor they need to fall back on "established Trek" for validation. The little in jokes about the "admirals beagle" for example.

Star Trek has turned into Star Wars...All about special effects...What would be funny is if Star Wars turned into Star Trek, and actually followed Gene Roddenberry's dream lol But, of course with JJ at the helm of both, that has no chance of happening (And Shatner is right, it's total BS. Focus on one).

We just need Star Trek back on the small screen where it belongs. The movies were ok, but I much prefer the series to the movies. Only good movies are 2,4,6,8,9.

100% correct. Star Trek should never by Die Hard in space. If they wanted to "reboot" Star Trek they chould have gone with a different time period; Robert April's command of the Enterprise, Pike's 10 years, even the period between TOS/TAS and the original movie but to re-write Kirk was BS of the highest order.

Abrams Trek is certainly the "alternate" timeline given Riker and Troi were viewing Archer's mission in the last episode of Enterprise (who would have thunk it the biggest hack piece of wiriting from Berman and Braga is usefull for something).

Why? Are you saying the movie's are so poor they need to fall back on "established Trek" for validation. The little in jokes about the "admirals beagle" for example.

I did not say that. You are saying that. I believe JJ Abrahams has done a superb, fantastic job resurrecting Star Trek.

Star Trek has turned into Star Wars...All about special effects...What would be funny is if Star Wars turned into Star Trek, and actually followed Gene Roddenberry's dream lol But, of course with JJ at the helm of both, that has no chance of happening (And Shatner is right, it's total BS. Focus on one).

We just need Star Trek back on the small screen where it belongs. The movies were ok, but I much prefer the series to the movies. Only good movies are 2,4,6,8,9.

Sorry but Star Trek needed and deserves Star Wars-Quality visual effects. Why not? I was very tired of seeing computer-generated cheap effects. Hell, Star Trek Enterprise had better effects than all Star Trek movies before JJs and all Star Trek series before it combined. The effects on Enterprise were awesome.

This is the modern age, a younger generation that was born with internet and computers and video games and they like visual effects. We old timers like the old classic Trek, with hardly any visual effects, but this generation does not. They want to see quality effects, action, adventure and young people playing the characters. It's all about making money and if giving the new Star Trek high quality sets and effects is going to bring cash to the studios, then that is what they will do no matter what you or anyone says.

yeah, i have to say that the blending of the reboot of star trek has moved into star wars battles and appeals to the quick pace and action loving generations that are out now.

graphics are one thing... but the new star trek while funny, fails to really capture the humanity that gene rod wanted... it really does.

I like the new movie, but it is a far far far thing from what I watched as a kid many years ago.

yeah, i have to say that the blending of the reboot of star trek has moved into star wars battles and appeals to the quick pace and action loving generations that are out now.

Hardly. DS9 had more large-scale space battles and action, especially in the later series. The problem was that?as with any reinvention? it had to spend a lot of time establishing the characters, which didn't give them a huge amount of time to expand on the narrative in the way that the series or TNG films could. That said it did a very good job and I'm really interested to see where they take things. Films have to be different to a TV series, that's just the nature of the format. It shouldn't be forgotten that most of the TNG films didn't live up to the quality of the series, with the obvious exception of First Contact - heck, many of the TOS films weren't much good either.

Star Trek (2009) was the most successful film in the history of the franchise. Sure there were elements I didn't like, that I thought could be better or that were underdeveloped but overall I thought it was a very strong film and certainly deserving of the Star Trek name. I just hope it's enough to get a new series commissioned, which is what I really care about.

PS - Don't forget that Star Trek (2009) was an odd-numbered film; the great films are usually reserved for the even-numbers.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!