LeVar Burton "disappointed" in JJ Abrams's movie


Recommended Posts

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.

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/

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). :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 ;)

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.

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".

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'.

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.

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.

  • Like 1

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.

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.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • 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.
    • Cheers everyone for the replies. It's been very useful. 👍
    • Compared to the 7735HS it is around 25-30% slower in multi-threaded tasks (according to Google search) I did a review of the 7735HS Beelink SER6 Max in 2023, but thinking about it, it's not comparable to the 7730U. For the example you gave about how it will be used, the 7730U is actually an excellent choice for its power and battery efficiency.
  • Recent Achievements

    • 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
    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      503
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      194
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      67
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!