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

[Rappy Veteran]

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

[fusi0n]

Yeah, I would be disappointed too..

[theyarecomingforyou]

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.

[The Laughing Man]

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

[jerzdawg]

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

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

[t_r_nelson]

I'm sure Levar wouldn't be as disappointed if he had something to occupy his time...like acting. :devil:

[The_Observer]

it happens, guess you need to move on and stop living in the past. While i enjoyed the new movie, im still a big fan of the TV Shows.

[George P Global Moderator]

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.

[_dandy_]

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.

[The Laughing Man]

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 .

[theyarecomingforyou]

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.

[Chicane-UK Veteran]

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.

[theyarecomingforyou]

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.

[patseguin Global Moderator]

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.

[The Laughing Man]

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.

[Scorbing]

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.

[+primortal Subscriber²]

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.

[+SOOPRcow MVC]

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.

200 years :)

[trip21]

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.

[ncc50446]

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.

[Joshie]

Hey guys, let's take one comment by someone and extrapolate all kinds of crap so we can have opinions to feel good about!

[Scorbing]

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.

[Skin]

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.

[Growled Member]

I have no problem with them rebooting the original crew. I sort of like that idea. However, the killer for me is the alternate timeline. He could have made a great movie without doing that.

[theyarecomingforyou]

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.