Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Damo R.

star trek LeVar Burton "disappointed" in JJ Abrams's movie

66 posts in this topic

Abram's Star Trek didn't negate TNG, though. It will certainly have an impact on those character's lives because the galaxy they grow up in will be different from the original timeline, and potentially some of them may never even be born, but there's nothing to say that Picard and his crew won't still go out exploring in the future. They will just have different experiences than their counterparts in the original universe. And, as has already been stated, the original universe is still there going on just as before, minus Spock of course.

Personally, I liked the first movie quite a bit, though I didn't understand why they had to drill to a planet's core in order to devastate it with red matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leonard Nimoy approves JJ Abrahams vision of Star Trek. Enough said.

"I visited the set one day and that started some speculation about whether I was doing the film. It?s all speculation. I talk to these people regularly. Zachary Quinto

and I have dinner whenever we can. We just had dinner three or four weeks ago. I talk to J.J. about family. His parents and I go back a number of years as friends. I knew them long before I ever met J.J. So we talk regularly. I visited the set one day because I had never seen the bridge. When I was in the last film, none of my work was on the bridge of the Enterprise. So I wanted to see the bridge, and the bridge was extraordinary. It?s beautifully designed and put together. We talk. It?s great. I expect that it?s going to be a gigantic film. Look, I think he?s put together a wonderful cast of people. His writers are imaginative and energetic. I think we?re going to see another great Star Trek movie."

Source: http://www.slashfilm.com/star-trek-bits-leonard-nimoys-set-visit-alice-eves-costume-roberto-orcis-comment-peter-wellers-ship/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As what I would consider a huge Star Trek fan (especially TNG and after), I didn't feel there was anything wrong with JJ's movie. All this ****ing and moaning about timelines is insignificant. For one thing, the original timeline hasn't changed, it's still there. There's a reason it's called a "reboot". It's not suppose to be identical to it's former version. The point was to reboot it so that today's audiences could enjoy it. That being said, I definitely enjoyed it as did many others apparently.

One other thing to note, who's to say there isn't something that might take place to realign this universe back into the original one? So many opportunities in the Star Trek universe, even more so due to the added factor of time and time traveling. I always seriously enjoyed storylines that were related to time travel in all of the series. Made it much more interesting (albeit confusing at times). :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point was to reboot it so that today's audiences could enjoy it. That being said, I definitely enjoyed it as did many others apparently.

There's no reason why JJ Abrams couldn't have chose different characters than those from TOS or created his own universe, though. That makes the whole thing just seem like a narcissistic exercise to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like his vision of Star Trek simply because it has no gravitas. I never felt like "OMG Vulcan was destroyed." Instead I was left feeling, "Really now? That's how you wanted to make your impression?"

He could have done the exact same movie without the trademarks and no one would have been the wiser that it was supposed to be Star Trek.

If JJ Abrams wants to touch Star Trek, have him redo Voyager. It's already ripe with vague storylines, a plot that was solved because it had to be, and no character development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what are you trying to say? He has good taste, or terrible? Just curious.

Just throwing it out there :)

By the way, if you read LeVar Burton's comments closely he agrees with Nimoy that JJ Abrams is a good director, and the two don't differ on that. Burton's complaint is with Abram's whole approach to the project as a "reboot" which negates the whole original timeline, which Nimoy doesn't seem interested in addressing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just throwing it out there :)

By the way, if you read LeVar Burton's comments closely he agrees with Nimoy that JJ Abrams is a good director, and the two don't differ on that. Burton's complaint is with Abram's whole approach to the project as a "reboot" which negates the whole original timeline, which Nimoy doesn't seem interested in addressing.

Agreed, I like the idea of hey let's do a parallel universe, but it does suck as well. It's cool they can do anything with it, bad, because they can do ANYTHING with it and negate the other universe that has been built up so much. I do however think it should be a conflict of interest with him directing Star Wars too. With the initial reports that he turned it down, then to suddenly say yeah I'm on board, I'm guessing they dropped a ton of cash to get him to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no reason why JJ Abrams couldn't have chose different characters than those from TOS or created his own universe, though. That makes the whole thing just seem like a narcissistic exercise to me.

Then maybe you need a brush up on what "reboot" means. If he used different characters or created his own in the universe, that does not reboot TOS. I could definitely see the concern if the movie was a complete flop and totally destroyed everything Star Trek is, but that didn't happen. He did exactly what he was suppose to do, reboot TOS. And to boot, he did it in such a way that he doesn't need to worry about the original timeline which opens up so much MORE opportunity than it did before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

J.J. Abram's Star Trek takes place in an alternate reality. It coexists as a parallel universe just like the mirror universe or any of the alternate realities visited in TNG, DS9, and Voyager. The moment it became an alternate reality is when Nero's ship came through the black hole. Up until that point, it wasn't an alternate reality.

I don't know why LeVar Burton is disappointed. We don't know how the TNG-era characters will be affected. It's possible that Picard would still become a captain of the Enterprise. It's also possible that he won't. However, we can't say for sure what will happen because that's up to the writers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right.... The precident was set in the first movie. spock quote 'An alternate universe'

Seriously, is the fact that a newer generation is making Star Trek movies really that hurting an actor no longer required for the franchise?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with him, I enjoyed the film for what it was, a moronic, mindless, action film, it probably would have done just as well without the Star Trek name with generic space ships in place of Starfleet ships.

The whole premise of the reboot is idiotic, creating a black hole in current Trek timeline magically and conveniently transported them back to the early Federation.

That's not even touching on the whole rebel kid somehow manages to save earth and despite being a cadet gets command of a freaking Federation flagship?

There are so many gaps in logic its not even funny, instead of putting Kirk in the brig Spock ejects him onto Delta Vega and he just stumbles his way into old Spock who just happens to be on the same planet as Scotty who is conveniently working on beaming technology so they can beam onto a ship that left at high warp ages ago???????????????????????????????????????????????

He is going to put the nail in the coffin of Star Trek with the second film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is going to put the nail in the coffin of Star Trek with the second film.

LOL....I doubt that very much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't, after the trilogy option is up I don't see them making any more. This is the Michael Bay edition of Star Trek, no logic to anything only setpieces that look "cool"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't, after the trilogy option is up I don't see them making any more. This is the Michael Bay edition of Star Trek, no logic to anything only setpieces that look "cool"

Of course you're welcome to your opinion, but that's all it really is. I thoroughly enjoyed the first movie and didn't find anything "illogical" about it. It was what it was. Maybe you shouldn't over-think it ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you should watch some 'proper' Star Trek and see the reboot as the crap it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen lots of "proper" trek and I didn't think the new movie was crap at all, and neither did the box office. For all the people moaning about this not being trek, I'm surprised something like star trek V gets almost as much hate when it's in line with what Gene's original did.

Let's face facts, the TNG movies where bad, first contact was the exception and, oh look it had time travel and loads of action, go figure.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you should watch some 'proper' Star Trek and see the reboot as the crap it is.

Interestingly enough, I have watched some "proper" Star Trek. Funny, still doesn't make this movie "crap".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly enough, I have watched some "proper" Star Trek. Funny, still doesn't make this movie "crap".

Then you conveniently glossed over all the ridiculous nonsense that happened in the film?

It threw away everything that was Trek and made all the characters behave in ridiculous ways.

Engineering is now a factory?

The warp core is now a load of little "things" that they can eject and still have enough power to survive core breach at such close range?

In a universe where they have matter replicators they have a load of tubes filled with water that are routed all through the ship?

Kirk despite being a cadet who was on the verge of being kicked out of Starfleet Academy for cheating gets a promotion ALL the way to captain and command of the biggest and baddest ship in Starfleet?

Spock instead of throwing Kirk in the brig ejects him onto a planet where he stumbles into old spock where they find Scotty conveniently working on beaming tech so they can get back onto the ship?

Most of these things have rules set by the universe, the premise of the tech in Trek are they they are based on real life technology which could exist in the future. JJ threw all that away and changed it look 'cool'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you conveniently glossed over all the ridiculous nonsense that happened in the film?

It threw away everything that was Trek and made all the characters behave in ridiculous ways.

Engineering is now a beer factory?

The warp core is now a load of little "things" that they can eject and still have enough power to survive core breach at such close range?

In a world where they have matter replicators they have a load of tubes filled with water that are routed all through the ship?

Kirk despite being a cadet who was on the verge of being kicked out of Starfleet Academy for cheating gets a promotion ALL the way to captain and command of the biggest and baddest ship in Starfleet?

Spock instead of throwing Kirk in the brig ejects him onto a planet where he stumbles into old spock where they find Scotty conveniently working on beaming tech so they can get back onto the ship?

Most of these things have rules set by the universe, the premise of the tech in Trek are they they are based on real life technology which could exist in the future. JJ threw all that away and changed it look 'cool'.

You may not like it and that's fine but you shouldn't make your opinion seem like fact. I'm a huge fan of Star Trek and I thoroughly enjoyed J.J. Abrams' movie. Also, it's just a movie. The look of the engineering section was due to budget constraints. It was supposed to look a little more futuristic so maybe they'll get it right in the sequel. As for everything else you mentioned, I'd consider that nitpicking. I can bring up similar examples in previous Star Trek movies. Examples of things or characters appearing a little too convenient can be found in most forms of entertainment (e.g. movies, shows, games).

Actually, now that I thought of it... some episodes of The Original Series truly defied logic. But I'm not complaining about it because it's entertainment and it's fictional.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought he was blind. How could he have actually seen the movie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you conveniently glossed over all the ridiculous nonsense that happened in the film?

It threw away everything that was Trek and made all the characters behave in ridiculous ways.

Engineering is now a beer factory?

The warp core is now a load of little "things" that they can eject and still have enough power to survive core breach at such close range?

In a universe where they have matter replicators they have a load of tubes filled with water that are routed all through the ship?

Kirk despite being a cadet who was on the verge of being kicked out of Starfleet Academy for cheating gets a promotion ALL the way to captain and command of the biggest and baddest ship in Starfleet?

Spock instead of throwing Kirk in the brig ejects him onto a planet where he stumbles into old spock where they find Scotty conveniently working on beaming tech so they can get back onto the ship?

Oh well I'm sorry Mr. Vulcan who's clearly been put in charge of the Star Trek universe, I didn't realize so many rules had been broken. Once again, this was a reboot bring TOS to today's audiences. That includes a whole hell of a lot of students (Interesting you said beer factory) and young folk who hadn't bothered with "Star Trek" in the beginning.

I suppose going forward, all things Star Trek related should go through you first, yeah? I didn't gloss over anything. I'm a huge Star Trek fan. I love everything about pretty much everything within it's universe. However, I also understand that everyone interprets these things differently and I also understand what the point of this reboot was. It didn't disappoint and it certainly didn't fail. Perhaps they should ignore the money that was made from this movie, actually...maybe they should toss it into a black hole. You know, since their movie was crap according to you...the only person in the universe who's opinion matters when it comes to anything Star Trek. :rolleyes: Give me a break.

Most of these things have rules set by the universe, the premise of the tech in Trek are they they are based on real life technology which could exist in the future. JJ threw all that away and changed it look 'cool'.

Aha! The real reason this bugs you so much. You actually believe that Star Trek is "our future". :rolleyes: Reality check, not everything in Star Trek is possible. Some of it doesn't even have the possibility of it being possible...ever (At least not in the way Star Trek portrays it). Maybe it's time to take your nose out of the Klingon Dictionary, Warp Engine Handbook and Star Trek Universe Bible and enjoy entertainment when it's literally thrown into your face. It's a freakin' movie about a fictional universe.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully expect to see a real proper engineering set in the new movie since they have a new and probably bigger budget than the first. They also don't have to remake things they already made in the first like the bridge and so on. That means they have the money to add more and grow it.

They had some crazy concepts for engineering drawn but no time and money to do. They're on the extras for the blue-ray and online so you can see them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aha! The real reason this bugs you so much. You actually believe that Star Trek is "our future". :rolleyes: Reality check, not everything in Star Trek is possible. Some of it doesn't even have the possibility of it being possible...ever (At least not in the way Star Trek portrays it). Maybe it's time to take your nose out of the Klingon Dictionary, Warp Engine Handbook and Star Trek Universe Bible and enjoy entertainment when it's literally thrown into your face. It's a freakin' movie about a fictional universe.

No I don't believe its our future, but the point to the tech by THE CREATORS OF THE SHOW is that it could exist in the future. It's funny that you try and ridicule me for having an interest in the rules and technology of the universe just because I don't like the brainless OMG EXPLOSIONS reboot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.