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

[theyarecomingforyou]

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.

Nobody ridiculed you for "having an interest in the rules and technology of the universe" but criticised your interpretation of them. A lot of the other people posting here?including myself?are huge Star Trek fans and care very deeply about the universe and yet thought the film was great. Not only that but it had mainstream appeal in a way the other films never did, which is good for the franchise. All I want is for the films to generate enough interest for a high-budget TV series to be given the go-ahead.

[nekkidtruth]

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.

I'll admit, I was being rather harsh. It was only in response to how ridiculously harsh you were being with your "opinion" and how you were ridiculing those with a differing view :p

[ThisSiteHasLostItsCharm]

imo there wasn't much "treking" going on in the last movie.

I really hate the interior of the new ship, people thought enterprise was crap, but at least it it has good sets. JJ hasn't got a clue.

[sava700]

how does this new timeline really "KILL" the other shows??? They still happened, they were still made and were still there to watch. Unless Levar and the rest of the cast of Next Gen appear way into the future from the new timeline in alternate settings of some future part 5-6 of the new Star Treks which is unlikely then who cares?!

[theyarecomingforyou]

I really hate the interior of the new ship, people thought enterprise was crap, but at least it it has good sets. JJ hasn't got a clue.

I disagree, I thought it was pretty decent. The biggest criticism I have is the excessive use of lens-flare and ridiculous number of small lights everywhere, which was completely unnecessary.

Next Gen:

Star Trek (2009):

[+primortal Subscriber²]

I disagree, I thought it was pretty decent. The biggest criticism I have is the excessive use of lens-flare and ridiculous number of small lights everywhere, which was completely unnecessary.

Oy! what is JJ's deal with lens flares? IMHO they destroyed much of the bridge scenes. I hate to see what lens flare debacle he'll bring to start wars.

[redfish]

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.

They didn't ask him to do a reboot, that idea came from his team, that was his choice. They didn't even ask him to use TOS characters, that was his choice. Paramount approached his team asking how they could revive Star Trek, and they gave them the idea.

I think you're missing my pov. There's so much he could have done that wouldn't have required this decision. I'm not an overobsessed ST fan who thinks everything should be canon and any director who doesn't tie up every loose end and retcon everything is a heretic, I think directors should have some creative freedom and "forget" certain parts of the story established in other series that were underdeveloped or poorly developed or which he thought were unimportant or he could do better. That would have allowed a lot of creative freedom, if he wanted to go down that route.

Instead he comes up with the big idea of a reboot, destroying Vulcan, etc., and so on, and I don't even get why that was even necessary at all. Why even make the story about Vulcans? Aren't there plenty of other aliens in the galaxy?

I just don't get the point.

Oy! what is JJ's deal with lens flares? IMHO they destroyed much of the bridge scenes. I hate to see what lens flare debacle he'll bring to start wars.

http://io9.com/5230278/jj-abrams-admits-star-trek-lens-flares-are-ridiculous

[+primortal Subscriber²]

http://io9.com/5230278/jj-abrams-admits-star-trek-lens-flares-are-ridiculous

Thanks for the link at least he admits there were too many :)

[Shadrack]

I'm more of a JJ Abrams fan than a Star Trek or Star Wars fan.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

They didn't ask him to do a reboot, that idea came from his team, that was his choice. They didn't even ask him to use TOS characters, that was his choice. Paramount approached his team asking how they could revive Star Trek, and they gave them the idea.

I think you're missing my pov. There's so much he could have done that wouldn't have required this decision. I'm not an overobsessed ST fan who thinks everything should be canon and any director who doesn't tie up every loose end and retcon everything is a heretic, I think directors should have some creative freedom and "forget" certain parts of the story established in other series that were underdeveloped or poorly developed or which he thought were unimportant or he could do better. That would have allowed a lot of creative freedom, if he wanted to go down that route.

Instead he comes up with the big idea of a reboot, destroying Vulcan, etc., and so on, and I don't even get why that was even necessary at all. Why even make the story about Vulcans? Aren't there plenty of other aliens in the galaxy?

I just don't get the point.

It makes sense because it hits close to home. Vulcan is in the alpha quadrant and the Vulcans were one of the founding members of the United Federation of Planets. It wouldn't be as interesting if a planet like Bajor or Cardassia Prime was destroyed. Also, the story revolved around Spock and they needed something to make him step down as captain of the Enterprise.

[psionicinversion]

to tyhe coments about the bridge i think it would look more like JJ abramans version cus do ya think at the tech lvl were about we'd have a load of ****ty sheets with physical butons to turn on and off come on, mobile phones aint got that and a starship would be like a trillion dollar ship. Also the ship that got killed at the start by nemo do you really think an american built ship is going to have 1 phase cannon. come on its going have as many weapons as you fit on that thing. having 600 cannons is the american way.

The only thing in the star trek universe that is definately impossible with the way we know the universe to be atm is beaming tech. everything else is feasible. i found the star trek film (2009) really good, all the other films are basically like 2 episodes built into 1 for me, kinda pointless

edited

ok physical butons were original NextGen touch screen... look at android, ipad, windows phone, win 8... a few button wont fly a starship. jj abrahamns version is far more likely so top moaning

[TheLegendOfMart]

I think you miss the point, the ship isn't 'American' the Federation spans thousands of different species/planets, the ship is an EARTH ship and the primary mission of the Federation is to seek out new civilisations not blow them to hell. The ship at the start the USS Kelvin is a Survey vessel, so it wouldn't be equipped with loads of weapons anyway.

[redfish]

It makes sense because it hits close to home. Vulcan is in the alpha quadrant and the Vulcans were one of the founding members of the United Federation of Planets. It wouldn't be as interesting if a planet like Bajor or Cardassia Prime was destroyed. Also, the story revolved around Spock and they needed something to make him step down as captain of the Enterprise.

I see the rationale the authors used, there are just drawbacks and I don't think it was necessary.

And personally, I'd say this goes into a larger issue. The whole Human emotion vs. Vulcan logic dichotomy originates from the era of 60s sci fi, which often goes into championing emotion over reason, or otherwise shows humans as irrational. The theme was revived somewhat in TNG with Data, DS9 gave a refreshing spin on it with Odo, and was handled poorly with Archer -- who was so maudlin and overemotional I couldn't imagine him doing well in a military org. like Starfleet. At any rate, I'd like Star Trek writers to move past this and explore new themes. Its not the 60s anymore, there are more relevant stories we could be seeing. DS9 was the most refreshing of the new series to me because it was willing to branch out and move on from the cliches, at least somewhat.

[Darrian]

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

"proper" Star Trek is full of glaring mistakes, too. A lot of them. There hasn't been a single film yet where you couldn't pick it apart easily. The latest film may have had a little more flair than usual, but ultimately it followed the normal Star Trek formula very well. Which makes sense, because Abrams likes Star Trek, that's why he took the gig. They gave it a much-needed makeover, but the heart of it didn't change.

[George P Global Moderator]

I also agree that the new bridge has a bit too many lights than is needed, hope they tone that down a bit.

[Growled Member]

I was too busy watching the over acting to notice the bridge lights.