LeVar Burton "disappointed" in JJ Abrams's movie

By Rappy
in The Media Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

Rappy Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

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

Grand Master

theyarecomingforyou

Posted
Posted

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.

  • ClassicTrekker and thomastmc
  • Like 2
Grand Master

George P Global Moderator

Posted
  • Global Moderator
Posted

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.

  • theyarecomingforyou, Yusuf M., ahhell and 1 other
  • Like 4
Mentor

_dandy_

Posted
Posted

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.

Grand Master

The Laughing Man

Posted
Posted

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 .
Grand Master

theyarecomingforyou

Posted
Posted

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.

Grand Master

Chicane-UK Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

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.

Grand Master

theyarecomingforyou

Posted
Posted
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.

Grand Master

patseguin Global Moderator

Posted
  • Global Moderator
Posted

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.

Grand Master

The Laughing Man

Posted
Posted

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.
Grand Master

Scorbing

Posted
Posted

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.

  • Matthew_Thepc
  • Like 1
Grand Master

+primortal Subscriber²

Posted
  • Subscriber²
Posted

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.

Community Regular

trip21

Posted
Posted

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.

Mentor

ncc50446

Posted
Posted

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.

Grand Master

Scorbing

Posted
Posted

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.

Mentor

Skin

Posted
Posted

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.

Grand Master

theyarecomingforyou

Posted
Posted
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.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Posts

    • Google's new hand-wave reCAPTCHA can be bypassed with a stock photo

      By excalpius · Posted

      I'm not unblocking my camera for this crapola. Sorry, Google.
    • Microsoft Edge gets tons of security features, including AI model that can see your screen

      By ShahinD · Posted

      It seems these features are for Business Profiles
    • Microsoft Edge gets tons of security features, including AI model that can see your screen

      By Snake Doc · Posted

      Ummmm that is what is it supposed to do. Just turn if off in settings if you do not want it analyzing your open tabs. Chrome does the same thing with Gemini. Sarfari will do the samething after Apple's AI and even more so with the release of their 27 versions that is now powered by Googles LLM/ML models. Understanding why it is doing it and how it can help you vs jumping to some conspiracy theroy is a much better approach. As long as it can be turned off, all is good. Yes the default should be off but the a lot of people would never discover these features.
    • Microsoft Edge gets tons of security features, including AI model that can see your screen

      By WaltC · Posted

      Just another reason (aside from many others) not to use Edge. Firefox 153.0b5 DEx64 has a similar feature added recently in prior builds that I will turn off at some point when I get around to it. It's the new "Something looks suspicious" page that pops up here and there. It cleverly hides itself between web pages that I've actually visited; as a result, you know, of selecting a web page and telling the browser where to go. The interesting thing is that it does not produce these warnings from pages that I, as the only intelligent user of the browser in my system, have ever directed the browser to open! What seems to be happening is that the browser looks at all the goofy ad links on a web page I do actually open and selects one that "looks suspicious" and then creates the "something looks suspicious" web page, which is neatly inserted, as mentioned, between web pages my RB ("real brain") has directed the browser to load in a session. The thing is, I usually look at links I am considering to follow before I ask the browser to load them, and in cases I have noticed where the link does indeed look suspicious, most of the time I will choose to not follow the link at all. Doesn't everyone do this or something similar? I am picky about what I voluntarily load... (I don't like links that start off fine, with a site designaiton that seems normal enough but then is followed by indecipherable alphanumeric strings many, many lines long, etc. I tend to reject those because they look suspicious. They may not be, but I don't care... I'll stay with Firefox, of course, if for no other reason than they usually let you turn off the junk you don't like. And because it isn't Edge... But at some point Microsoft will come to realize that putting your bookmarks on the left side is a Good Thing for a lot of people, just as Microsoft discovered when it had the bright idea of nailing the Windows taskbar to the bottom of the screen, when for decades Microsoft browsers had left that placement up to the user. They have finally reversed the obscenity of that decision. Finally.
    • Google's new hand-wave reCAPTCHA can be bypassed with a stock photo

      By Ccl Ncc · Posted

      Google was using the old CATPCHAs data to train their LLMs. What is the say they won't use this camera data of users to train their LLM? these companies need some strict regulations!

  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      BA the Curmudgeon earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Conversation Starter
      rosiecharles earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      KMilenkoski1202 earned a badge
      First Post
    • First Post
      carols23 earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      Tom Willson earned a badge
      One Month Later

  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      513
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      259
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      94
    5. 5
      macoman
      66
    Show More

  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!