he speaks this way cause basically all tng onwards tv and movie people are blacklisted ....from all new trek they wont ever be seen so he dont care ...... cbs / paramount will bleed for it now.
i wish i had money....LOTS of money...enough to buy ALL star trek copyrights....first order of business would be to cancel any movie currently being worked on, and to cancel the piece of shit std. then to make the jar jar aberrations officially non-canon. then to relax the rules on fan movies, and contact the axanar people....hopefully they will still be willing to make their awesome movie. and maybe commission a new series.....maybe about the romulans? i would also try to listen to the fans. have some communication lines open for them(websites, email addresses, etc) where they can voice their opinions and those opinions taken into consideration for new star trek projects(movies, games, books, shows, etc). but i have no money....so star trek will remain fucked for now...
@@jasonpye4649 thanks. i really love star trek....and it infuriates me what they have done to it(starting with jar jar abrams and the std....picard is a mixed bag, it gives me a bit of hope) but we all live in a capitalist regime. and without money we have no power to change anything.....i would love a series in romulus.....and one in q'onos
@@sabin97 I agree with a chunk of what you said. I'm not going to, but I could probably go on for several hours about how 2009 started to eff up ST. Suffice it to say, I didn't sleep that night I saw the first JJprise. It was a midnight showing. I worked at the same theater at the time and I was within a handful of days leaving employment there anyway cuz I was about to move but my manager at the theater piss me off at night royally cuz she enjoyed the movie. I tried to be diplomatic about why didn't like it but it basically came down to it offended me. I was kind of surprised by her reaction to me following, but it was just a reminder about why she was very far from my favorite person. Both Scorpios...we were too alike in the best ways and two different in the worst ways. Anyway.... back to topic...if future films were going to be more of the same, without fixing the timeline or Spock even giving a good hot damn, I had no reason to see any of the other ones after that so I never did in the theater. And to this day I've only seen clips here 'n there occasionally of those films. If they're going to play in the same tiny unnecessary dirty disrespectful mind-boggling sandbox and ignore a perfectly good, strongly-built more than 40 year old sandbox, that ain't my fault. But I'm not going to go get in the mud with people who do. I've never seen a full episode of Discovery past the initial one that was on network TV, because they put the series behind a paywall and we already have cable. Why would I pay extra for one show? I'd like to do is one would assume they want the most people in the entire world seeing their product, so they would put it everywhere....Network TV, CBS all access and all the other places that they could possibly have put it where everyone who wants to can view it. It should be that way for the people that don't want CBS all access, or who don't want to do Hulu or all these extra things. It should be available for every type of viewer. Do they not want their product in front of the most number of people they can possibly have? I have very little interest in ST:Lower Decks because of the stupid art in my opinion and ST: Picard seems interesting except I generally don't like a lot of the ancillary characters acting and attitudes. I've seen clips of it here and there on UA-cam, but never a full episode all the way through. Sorry, LOL that was more than I ever wanted to say here.
I went to a Star Trek convention a number of years ago with Levar Burton as the guest. My oldest daughter was about 6 at the time and she held her hand up and wanted to ask him a question and so he asked her what her question was and called her cutie. She got so shy she hid under her chair so I had to ask for her. Her question was how could he see without his visor? Levar actually explained it to her.
Perhaps his rational thinking in not explaining it, as a parent, it was down to you to explain the difference between tv and life as we know it, like many parents must, just saying, perhaps the emphasize was on you.
Agreed LeVar! Big time! To negate the "real" timeline was the worst possible idea! It was disrespectful of Gene Roddenberry's work and the Star Trek universe, it was inappropriate and uncalled for, and to me, all it proved was that group's vanity.
That's what LeVar, along with many people, doesn't get, JJ's Trek doesn't negate Next Gen at all. The fact that Leonard Nimoy was in it as Spock, and the fact that time travel was used, means everything that came before is still canon, to we the audience at least. Without that appearance by Nimoy as Spock Prime, then yes, the JJ movie would have been a hard reboot, scrapping all 4 shows and starting over, but that's not what happened.
No it doesn't, lmao XD They're not just references, Spock Prime is a bridge from the prime timeline to the kelvin timeline. His presence specifically means that just because things aren't going to happen they way they did before, doesn't mean they never happened. In fact, since Star Trek has pretty consistently followed parallel universe theory when it comes to the effects of time travel, prime canon still exists and is carrying on as before, we're just watching an alternate universe's divergent timeline now. It would be like them making a series about the Dark Mirror universe. Would you say _that_ wasn't canon? I can agree with you about Discovery though, but that was worse than just not being canon, it didn't even feel like Star Trek, period. Bad enough they had tech that was still in the experimental stages on DS9. (The holo-communications system).
I hate the new movies I also don't have much hope for the new series in 2017 I'm not looking forward to the new series not really interested in it. Recently reboots in movies has been shitty look what happened to GhostBusters reboots are just scams money makers
I felt the 2009 Trek movie was alright, despite it's flaws, the acting carried it. It was a fun ride and nice to see Spock Prime. But I was expecting better from the sequels and they just became worse. I'm hopeful for the new series, but very worried that it could be a disaster. As for the new Ghostbusters movie, I know this may not be a popular view, but I felt it was better in terms of story, here is why. In the original, we don't know why they became Ghostbusters, don't know why they created the equipment and traps, no explanation for what made them think they could catch ghosts. None of that is explained in the original, they buy building, and then Ghostbusters. The new movie was a far better and completely explained origin, we find out the whys of all of it. The problems I have with the new movie, are the script and the acting, the script and acting were not nearly as good as the original. But I like it more than the original because of the better told story, and also because it didn't have the Ghost BJ scene that the first one had.
But Jeff, that is one of the biggest problems. It crawls at the beginning then it has to rush to get these "busters" to a level they need to beat the bad guy. WHile you don't know why they decided to go into this business, or how they designed and made the equipment, you know they did, you know in the scene after the library, that the data they collected they could theoretically capture ghosts and they decided to make it a business after they kicked out. They kept most of the testing and working out, making the movie tighter, showing them using the equipment, over and over and much more plausible in the final act when they have to use their smarts and their brawn to overcome their overpowered foe. WHile in the new one, the first 2 acts is them getting fired twice, then finding a place, building equipment over and over, then capturing a ghost. And that is the only ghost they caught but somehow capable of making newer equipment, and the skills to take on not only the bad guy but legions of ghosts. The narrative is screwed. Where did they get the money for this. We know in the original they got a loan from a bank, the new one nothing. And wow didn't have a BJ. But this one had fart jokes a plenty.
jar jar abrams ruined star trek(and star wars). he made a very commercially successful movie. full of explosions, and pretty people who can barely act, and lensflare....the masses love that shit....and sadly they are more numerous than we are.....so everything will keep being dumbed down to cater to them. movies, tv shows, video games, books......you name it...
Why change a timeline that made people fall in love with Star Trek in the first place? The original timeline is so rich in complexity that there was no reason to tamper with it. Besides, NO ONE was asking for a reboot like that. Not to mention the aliens like the Klingons and the Romulans were tampered with to be not only uglier but less interesting. Bad move.
+Marchant2 Because they knew they would screw up the original timeline and end up making fans. So they decided "lets just make our own timeline and do whatever we want with it." and still make fans annoyed but they don't really seem to care too much about the Star Trek fans. They're after attracting new fans with loud noise, explosions and silly story lines. I hope the trailer that came out for Star Trek Beyond is just a really bad trailer but I'm not hopeful. Even "Into Darkness" trailer didn't look too bad although the movie was lousy. "Beyond" just looks awful. Is it too late to still hope that actual interesting content was put into the writing?
There is a whole, long history and I don't think they wanted to take the time to go over it all. And yet, fans all over know and love the history. I guess it's kind of strong language to say "laziness" but that's what it feels like. They didn't want to deal with the details of the history, and the limitations it might put on their creativity. And yet, it's that kind of limitation, done WITH creativity, that could have made something great. It would have honored the long history and someday, have become a part of it. They could have hired a few consultants, archivists (come on . . . get a few SERIOUS Trekker nitpickers and they'd be able to point out timeline errors, etc., right away) to help steer them in the right direction.
I went and watched the new Star Trek movie and came out thinking, "Hey, that was cool." And then I never thought about it again... That is why it is not Star Trek.
***** Most current action movies have no substance. I really loved _Star Wars_ when it first came out (I was nearly eleven), but I think we're nearly at the end of the path _Star Wars_ began in 1977. Somewhere along the way, directors forgot about plot and character development and substituted special effects. The end result? A bunch of completely forgettable movies. I'm hoping there will be some kind of revolution that will do away with this trend. I'm getting sick of crappy movies. The only recent action movie I can think of that struck a good balance was _Dawn of the Planet of the Apes_. Other than that, crappola. So many forgettable movies! An addendum: I am SO SICK of superhero movies. I wish they would just go away. :( _Avengers 2_ might have been the last superhero movie I will ever see. It sucked so bad. Joss Whedon should have stuck to television. Another issue: I'm also sick of reboots. I do like the new _Planet of the Apes_ franchise, but the trend has left me wondering if Hollywood has run out of original ideas.
I don't think that this has anything to do with the "timeline". actors and fans like myself are dissappointed because the new movies are crappy "moneymaker" movies. they have nothing to do with the real trek spirit.
@@AprilGabrielle I agree totally. I think the current movies completely miss the magic of Star Trek. It wasn't about fancy special effects or ridiculous CGI action sequences. It was actually about the human condition, teaching valuable lessons in human morality, a vision that humanity would one day in the future surpass challenges such as racism, economic inequality etc. This was cleverly interwoven with interesting storylines, great character development and interrelationships and the action sequences complemented that, rather than the other way round.
I think that what he was saying. You build into what already exists. Star trek continues series. Adds 2 more years to the voyage of Kirk. The do an excellent job. Looks like they made a half hearted attempt to get bones right. But the series is pretty good. Only Builds on those stories. Not anything else. The Klingons still look like the old Klingon make up. No fancy make overs. A few surprise actors and voice actors. And the very end fits nicely in the first film. The motion picture. But it explains alot for the first film scene. Star Trek continues. I think is very Good. I wonder if every Enterprise has the ability to separate.
Old trek was a charming swashbuckling adventurer. TNG was a sophisticated English gentleman. New trek is a drunk cowboy in a wife-beater starting drunken bar fights.
If they have another Star Trek film they should have Q swoop in, and delete that entire fake timeline restoring everything to it's former glory. Then have another Star Trek TV show. Perhaps now in the 25th century 100 years after Next Generation.
theres several new treks in the future and everyone has more time than ever to binge watch them all, but they all suck. Your wish was apparently granted by Calypso from Twisted Metal
+Kyle Juggles I'm not one to follow the herd, as many are - who - as if they were robots, cheered when JJ Abrams was announced to helm Star Trek. I'd really not even seen much of his previous work (seriously). I saw his Star Trek movies, and wasn't thrilled about them (story wise, nor the enterprise. Spock - with a girlfriend? No.) I did like the actors, though. It was only recently I actually saw something Mr. Abrams did, and I was not that thrilled, at all - I think the only reason he got (is currently getting) the adulation he is, is because, - talking honestly - his work got the highest numbers, as it were - first, on TV, brought in good ratings, so, in films, that translates to tickets. HIS actual work, is middling. I saw the trailer for JJ's Star Trek 3 and I REALLY disliked it - it seemed the worst of the lot - seemed it was (sadly) trying to be too much to too many different audiences, all at once - it looks like it's trying to suck in Marvel fans, and Star Trek fans, and other - unrelated genres. There's nothing wrong with wanting to make money - BUT - it's never too late to undo what Mr. . Abrams is doing to Star Trek, and bring in someone - who is KNOWN to have a love of the series, but, who also has new ideas. Many fanboys (and fangirls!) when they're your, daydream - thinking up cool new plot lines, characters, etc., using what they saw in the original series. Then, they grow up, and THEY should be the ones who the studios SHOULD be looking to - if not for (fully) helming Star Trek, for bringing in NEW stuff, FROM THE PEOPLE WHO LOVE Star Trek (or any other franchise which is being slowly warped into something 'else'). If the studios are so brain-dead (Well, they are) to wonder 'where would we find anyone who could fill in JJ's shoes? We'd need people who LOVE Star Trek, who live and breathe it,' they'd say. It used to be they (studios) could say; 'but, those fans don't have the professional backgrounds to do this kind of work, ' but, HEY; Paramount, et al. WAKE THE FRAK UP! Look no further than the AWESOME talent(S) you can find here - on UA-cam - from the plethora of GREAT fan-made StarTrek episodes of Star Trek Phase II, The Continuing Voyages, and all the others!!! These folks live, breathe Trek, and they DO know what people want!!! Even if JJ was the 'perfect' Trek person - someone who was a one-stop-shop, as it were, who could not just write, but, direct terrific Star Trek films, each one takes an enormous amount of time, and resources, and JJ's NOT just working on ONE Star Trek film, but, he's also got Star Wars to deal with, as well as other projects. That's a LOT more than any one person should be responsible for - and to expect 'A+' work from!!! You studios have a tremendous pool - right here - of people who could add a whole new avenue of talent for the film, TV, etc projects, which are now being - stupidly - given to just a VERY, VERY few!!! Sorry for babbling.
+U.N. Owen Duuuude i totally agree! for the most part. I do love JJ Abrams style, like as in Alias, Lost and Fringe, but yeah...his numbers are great and it does count for something, but we truly need someone who's a Star Trek fan, which a few weeks ago Bryan Fuller came on as producer for the new TV series. I'm like...70% confident he'll bring back Star Trek to it's roots, and not this FLASH BANG HA HA EXPLOSION LENS FLARE, but being true explorers, and learning about ourselves and humanity. That's what I truly miss about Star Trek, we're all different, but we're all the same like in "The Chase" or "The Inner Light" on TNG, . I miss that Star Trek! and to rewrite history like that...it makes me soooo mad! Star Trek helped form the person, the man I am today! and I'm damn well sure it did for millions, or possibility billions of others! I'm not old either, 33! I grew up on TNG since the age of 5! and then hit up the Original Series. Please let them continue after Voyager, I'm getting so tired of this "lets go back to the beginning" not that I dislike Enterprise, I loved it! but..sigh I came out of those 2 latest movies really sad, that our "society" needs explosions, comedy relief, lens flare, more explosions to make money. There's more to making money, make history. Get Rick Berman Back! as a consultant at least!
What Jar Jar Abrams is making is not Star Trek. It's cheesy, juvenile, comic-bookish Star Wars, dressed in a Starfleet uniform. He took Roddenberry's fundamental principle, that humanity eventually overcomes its greed and pettiness and becomes more concerned with self-improvement and growth, and replaced it with Kirk copping a feel off Uhura, and being a punk to whom i wouldn't give command of a rowboat. He'll be the perfect director for another Star Wars (I mean who older than ten cares what they do to that kiddie show), but he should never be let near another Trek movie.
Star trek can be many things, before you start a rant remember spock's brain and the way to Eden. Then ask yourself; is this better then worse then those things.
According to the licensed Countdown comic book that served as a prequel to Star Trek, it was LaForge who built the ship that Spock took into the black hole. They absolutely could have included a reference to that in the movie, unless there is truth to the rumor that CBS (who owns Star Trek TV rights) and Paramount didn't want to play ball. Once again, 21st Century money is the problem.
flabbergasted that he didn't mention the lack of any of roddenberry's ideals. any moral gray area. any nuance to progressing as a species to find our spot in the cosmos. all JJ did was "michael bay" it up.
Someone needs to tell Levar that the new films DON't negate tge Prime timeline. That was the whole point of the way they did it. It keeps both timelines intact in true Trek fashion, instead of a cold reboot.
+bufo333 yeah, I enjoyed parts like the driod but, to me it just looked like actors in suits on outdoor Earth locations - like Blakes Seven - and not at all futuristic. Take the "castle" scene for instance. Star Trek and Star Wars are more than just action films, they have timelines and legacy.
The trek method could have taken a different turn. A 'star fleet Academy ' show where the young ones getting it done while taking notes that personal and technical challenges.
While a DS9 movie would be brilliant, there isn't much that can be done in a film, the series finale did a good job at ending the storylines. A Voyager movie could work though
BattlestarZenobia Disagree, the last season of DS9 was probably the weakest of the series and they ended it on a cliff hanger. Does Sisko come back? Does he stay with the prophets? What happens to him when he's there? Why does he need to be with them? What about Jake? Or Cassidy Yates? The finale left a lot of questions.
The trouble with both Voyager and DS9 in terms of making movies out of them was they were both very self contained in terms of the stories plus the TNG movies were doing well at the time! it made more sense to use TNG as a basis for movies! in many ways Voyager and DS9 were both one trick ponies! once the war with the dominion was over what more was to be done! and Voyagers main purpose was to get back to the alpha quadrant so once that was all done that sealed that all up too.
I didn't see the end of DS9, so I can't say too much about it other than, based on what I've seen, it would make a great movie. I don't see too much you could do with Voyager, since the whole point of the series was making it home, and they arrived home. End of story. You might be able to set a movie in the middle of the series somewhere...
Count me among the disappointed and disgusted Star Trek fans who hate the new J. J. Abrams "Star Trek" movies. I watched the first, and was absolutely flabbergasted -- not only at the destruction of the original timeline, the perverse alteration of the original characters and the obliteration of planet Vulcan, but especially at the notion of the promotion to Captain (over scores of senior officers) of a cadet who never even graduated Starfleet Academy! Even the most militarily illiterate person can surmise that commanding a STARSHIP is about more than rank and ballsy attitude. It's about knowledge, experience, discipline and seasoning. As a Navy veteran, if any of my Captains had promoted some midshipman to command of the ship, I and the rest of the crew would certainly have mutinied! I never watched the second of the new "Star Trek" films, and never will. Further, I avoid ANY movie directed by Abrams (including the new "Star Wars" films), and DAMN him for ruining my favorite science fiction franchise of all time!
Abrams is more suited for Star Wars, he said himself he is not a trek fan at all. I knew we were in trouble when i heard Captain Pike say "punch it" for warp speed instead of "engage". "punch it" is a star wars phrase used to han solo for going into hyperspace. Cant stand the warp effects on the new trek or the Enterprise having a picture window on the bridge. Its vulnerable enough without having a window there. The first movie was ok and fun but Into Darkness was horrible i thought as a trek movie. It was a fun sci fi action movie i guess.
Star Trek did a really good job of anticipating what kinds of technology we'd have in the future and I attribute that to their focus on science and information tech. A lot of other sci fi that I've read anticipates crazy weapons and new defense tech, which ST has, but ST is also like "people are definitely going to want tiny computers with access to essentially limitless information. And they're going to want to communicate in many languages. They're going to need machine learning."
Levar Burton is such a fine man. So many actors just don't care about anything beyond memorizing their lines and collecting a paycheck, despite hypocritical whining about the cause du jour. He is obviously informed and engaged. It's nice to see,
It's great to see Mr Burton speaking candidly about his disappointments, and to see that he really cares about TNG :) :) But how come everyone in the background is completely ignoring him? He is obviously out of phase! He should walk through that table behind him to create chronoton emissions that Data can detect.
Thank you LeVar.. granted this is all fiction, we know that.. BUT in that fiction we grow to love certain ideas, characters, concepts, etc... lots of Star Trek episodes had time travel paradoxes, but they always repaired it.. or at least did so little damage that the universe we had grown to know was still intact. These new "Star Trek" movies can either be considered as genuinely a part of the Trek universe or (as I have) disregarded. Star Trek doesn't need what J.J. has done for it, in my opinion.. if you like those movies.. great.. but they could've been any big budget, CGI, Sci-Fi blockbuster.. not Star Trek. It'd be like making a new X-Files where Mulder and Scully never worked together, everything you know and loved about the show never happened.. but the new series still expected to be considered "The X-Files".. it just ain't right.
The new star trek films are fucking shit. Great actors wasted in a fucking shit plot. I don't give a fuck if it's more popular. It's "transformers" in space. Explosions and action with zero plot. Fuck JJ Abrams that piece of crap. Star Wars is perfect for him. Unfortunately the new guy hired to do the next star trek is one of his "team" so it's probably not going to get any better.
No he did not..and to each his own.. but JJ pumped in some new life into the New Trek. Beyond totally disproves your point.. good plot.. good acting, and definately some good action sequences that keeps the audience awake rather than throwing endless philosophy at them. But as I said, to each his own. I am happy to be lucky to enjoy the new stuff, more than the older ones.
"but JJ pumped in some new life into the New Trek" How? By making shitty movies with shitty scripts, shitty actors and shitty direction? Beyond may be redeemable (because Justin Lin >>>> JJ apparently), but neither JJ entry can be saved. " good action sequences that keeps the audience awake rather than throwing endless philosophy at them. " Jesus christ.
Beyond was written by Simon Pegg and Doug Jung and Directed by Justin Lin who I felt did a better job in Directing and writing Star Trek then JJ and Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman ever could.. Let's looks at Trek 09, I saw the film in the Cinema and I was blown away with the presentation of the film, I loved the opening of the movie, By the end I was disappointed and I tell you why, It was a poorly written mess of a movie.. They wanted to see Kirk be the chosen one, So see him picked out by Pike and make Pike the Father Figure Kirk never had, I never had a problem with that, The problem I did have was how he was cadet, then suspended cadet, To a stowaway, then promoted to first officer and finally made Captain by the end of the movie! Ridiculous and lazy Then Spock Kicking Kirk off the ship after Vulcan was destroyed was a mess, Lands walking distance of Spock prime, Then both within walking distance of a federation base, Who happens to be there? Scotty, Then both of them beam back to the Enterprise that's half way back to earth? If they could do that why the need for ships? Anyway it was a polished turd Into Darkness was also trying to cash in on the most popular Trek movie, The wrath of Khan. It was an average movie. Kirk dying and saved by magic blood! and Spock's laughable Khannnn! Oh and Khan was able to beam all the way to Klingon homeworld from Earth, Again what's the point in having ships when you can do that! I thought Beyond was improvement not perfect but a better effort then both of those movies, Pegg and Doug done a better job in writing the film and also keeping within the continuity of the already established franchise namely Enterprise which wasn't affected by the alternate timeline. I liked the idea that Krull was a human Major in the Xindi conflict which would've meant he was a Maco aboard the NX 01 under Archer. I am going to give Discovery a chance when it's released next month so fingers cross that sticks closer to trek original out look instead of being a action film..
I'm disappointed in JJ's lack of human culture. You used to be able to see Picard listening to Berlioz, or Riker playing trombone, or even their having made cultural artifact discoveries. Of course I liked the movies I just wish it held on to the cultural references a little more although not totally devoid of them.
I agree with LeVar, the new films are super disappointing. Not on all levels: The action/special effects - awesome! The characters - pretty well done, actually! The dialogue - witty and well delivered! The plot/storyline - yeah... that's where it turns to shit. My main reason for disliking the story is what it does to the Star Trek universe *SPOILERS AHEAD*. Imploding Vulcan?! Whyyy?! I do take some solace in the idea that these newer Trek films are now in an ALTERNATE universe, branching off from a timeline where Vulcan remains intact and all of our beloved NextGen/DS9/Voyager characters get to frolic about doing what they do. Also getting messed with by Q. :-) The other reason for my lack of fondness is that the whole cerebral/philosophical nature of Star Trek is missing. It's all just one big slick SFX loaded space adventure. Even Enterprise at its least 'Trek-y' was more 'Trek-y' than these newer movies. (Full disclosure, I do actually like Enterprise, so scourge me if you must. :-) As PC as it sometimes got, I actually liked how each new Star Trek tried to push the envelope on cultural issues and each captain/crew was often an example of that. With original Trek, even though it seems racist/sexist by today's standards, women were actual crew members, and Russian, Chinese, American, etc. were all getting along fine, long past the Cold War and other crap that was actually going on at that time. With NextGen we got an older, more studious captain, a pretty diverse crew, and with Data an exploration of how, with the future of technology and AI, we may someday need to consider some technology as sentient. With DS9 we finally got a Commander/Captain of color, and with Voyager we had a female Captain, each show dealing with cultural relations and other such in typical awesomesauce Star Trek fashion. I would LOVE to see a new Star Trek series further exploring cultural issues in sci-fi form, preferably further down the NextGen/DS9/Voyager timeline. Maybe have a captain who isn't human or only part-human. Maybe that one young woman in that colony/ex prison camp Worf found who's half Klingon/half Romulan leaves her secluded home and joins the Federation, becomes a captain and tries to carve out a new life for herself and others who can't find justice with their homeworlds. Maybe a new Trek series can deal openly with something it has only dealt with obliquely in the past - gay peeps! An actual regular openly gay Star Trek character is looong overdue. WOW, I've written a lot! Aack! I am cutting myself off! I've been on this for waaay too long. I've never considered myself a Trekkie, but looking up at my comment is making me question myself.@_@
I like your idea of digging thru the canon of characters for a "next show's" Captain. Always wanted to see more of the (ST; First Contact) relationship which (quite quickly) developed between Picard & Lily, the accidental-tourist who finds herself on board the future- Enterprise being both horrified by a plague of Borg, and mystified by space travel (played by Alfre Woodard). Yes, it was part plot-device, but her role was vital to the story, showed so much courage of character & her experience on that ship changed both her and Picard.( I remember thinking, "picard's gotta at least name his cat after her")! Also, she'd be the first black, female Captain.
loveultraviolet Data is Alive, He completely downloaded his mind into B4. Data because the New Captain of the Enterprise E. Also which has never been done, the Enterprise F is commissioned at the same time and is active while the Enterprise E is Active. The Captain of the Enterprise F is Va'Kel Shon, an Andorian. Shon was going to turn it down because he felt Data should be the Captain of the Enterprise F. But Data Encouraged Shon to take the command
I really liked the Data question... the exploration was well ahead of its time. When you think that 'The measure of a man' was produced in 1989 and its only really the last 5 years we've started to think about how we might manage AI because it's becoming more sophisticated. The gay thing I kind of feel we're already beyond that... I mean Data was something new and interesting. Who of us had thought about how making a slave race may change us? Startrek asked the questions we hadn't asked....but is somebody who happens to be gay new and interesting? as a gay man I would hope its one of the least interesting things about me. Don't forget, Next Gen had an episode where Dr Crusher's love interest came back as a women, that was fair cop to question and again not something I had thought about. If the show makes us think about equalities that's fine, but simply waving flags isn't of interest. Also I loved the Jadzia Dax lesbian scene, not because it was a lesbian scene but the way they made the episode all about taboo but the taboo was about falling in love with a person from her past and Trill culture... this was a much better way to address homosexuality, to put it in the show to show what an utter irrelevance it was, not as opportunity to show how great it is to be gay in 300 years.
The original timeline has not been altered. They are two parallel timelines, that coexist. Everything that happened in the Original Trek Universe, happened. The New Trek movies are not a reboot, they don't take place before the original 60s Trek series. The new movies are in a different universe completely.
Correct. And as I pointed out above, the studio kind of had no choice but do what they did so that they would not be locked into a particular story line. Plus, just about every Star Trek movie after ST6:TUC made less money than its ancestor. Nemesis only made 7 million more than its production cost - worldwide! Star Trek fans should be glad that the studio gave it another chance considering how poorly Nemesis did. And the box office returns for all three reboot Star Treks shows they made the right choice. Star Trek:Into Darkness, by itself, made more than ALL 4 NextGen movies combined. JW3HH
Exactly! Multiple universes, alternate timelines. Didn't anybody see "Back to the Future Part 2" when Doc Brown explains it to Marty McFly on the blackboard? Sheesh! :P JW3HH
It's complicated. This is how I view it... When the Narada arrived in 2233, the timeline was altered. Yet, the Kelvin already seemed more advanced than it should be for that era, how could that be? I think it's because, the time before 2233 was altered as well. In the new timeline, other time travelers ventured into the past, changing things, this is why the Kelvin was so advanced and had equipment and technology never seen in Trek before. We've seen this sort of thing in the Prime universe as well, such as the DS9 Tribble episode that had time travelers ensuring their version history unfolds, this kind of thing may have happened in the Kelvin Universe, but the time travelers went back to a point before 2233, resulting in similar but distinctly different Starfleet and technology. Also, I view Starfleet as a scientific organization with a military structure, most people in Starfleet are scientists or engineers, the minority are pure military. It did start out as pure military, but over time it has become clear that it's more scientific now, at least in the Prime Universe.
I had no idea LeVar had such passionate views of the ST reboot. I completely agree with him. It's people like him that we need in the new prime universe reboot. Let's all cross our fingers and hope that Discovery at least tries to do something with Gene's vision. The fact that they will be using scripts that were recovered from floppy disks where Gene kept some of his stuff on is really encouraging. And I know none of the ST:DIS production staff is going to read this, but: All of us Trekkies want our Star Trek back, please please please don't disappoint us Brian and Alex. And I know this is an unpopular opinion, but maybe bring Branon and Rick back into the mix at some point? I know Rick has a very alpha personality, but these guys did an awesome job after Gene passed away.
It doesn't negate Next Gen. Next Gen had to occur in order for the new reality to split, and now it runs parallel to the prime reality in a manner akin to Stargate. In fact, the Narada reality may very well have bled over into the prime reality during "Parallels."
Do not worry Geordi for all Star Trek lovers, next gen was, is and will always be fully part of our heart ! You were a great team of actors, who gave their best to make us dream in the most respectable way. Many thanks, live long and prosper
Levar Burton reading rainbow and star trek + one of my favorite actors in tng. I will miss everyone of the actors from spock Leonard (not the jj spock) to patrick stewart. For me nothing will ever be the same. The movie and show industry is nothing but csi types and mind numbing action. Trek had it all action, romance, morality, politics, light horror, suspense, thriller. todays shows are one track drama or romance, really if i watch the news i get as much death drama and violence as i would if i watched most tv shows.
Thanks to Mr. Burton for Reading Rainbow which I always sat down and watched with my young daughter together. Now we sit down and watch Geordi on TNG "Make things go"! Thanks again!
I like the new Star Trek movies... but they are not Star Trek. I don't think, like Mr. Burton suggests, that the new movies negate TNG, rather I think they completely negate what Star Trek stands for.
These new movies dumbed down Star Trek into cheap action-flicks. I can't imagine that anyone who liked any of the series was overjoyed to see things blow up, without the spirit of exploration, the sense of anticipation what makes good science fiction, and the trademark social commentaries, imaginative and intricate plotlines that build up characters and makes viewers think. The new movies were obviously tageted towards the less cerebral kind of action-movie fans.
Just because you can't imagine it, doesn't mean it's impossible. In fact, my family is full of long time trekkies who have been with the show since the beginning, and we all loved these movies. And no, we didn't watch star trek for its amazing visuals and effects, as you most likely think is the only reason why the fans of the movies would like the shows, in fact, the original series had horrible visuals and effects due to its low budget. We watched the show because of how smart it was and how it showed us how humanity can evolve and advance into a better people. I know the new trek doesn't have as much thought put into it, but that shouldn't matter if you are looking to enjoy a movie. And the shows had some horrible episodes as well.
I agree that something is missing from this new take on the Star Trek universe but it would appear that this is the kind of Star Trek that the masses would like to see! The classic take on star trek failed both on the big and small screen! I would love to have seen it continue but the fan base dried up and the hard core fans alone weren't enough to keep it afloat!
LeVar should remember IDIC - Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. Earth is big enough to have Star Trek: The Original Series; The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager, Enterprise - and an Alternate Universe Star Trek (which the new movies by JJ Abrams are). LL&P, LeVar!
When they went back to Kirk in the reboot it was an admission that there were no new ideas. Start Trek should always be pushing forward timewise. Enterprise TV series suffers from this. How can we go from the advanced tech of the Enterprise D and E to some crappy old basic starship or back to one which we know inside and out which is beloved - now rebooted like nothing happened. To quote D. Trump: SAD
Alright, fifteen seconds in and I have to step in. "Negates" Next Gen? I'm pretty sure he was all over "Parallels", right? Where alternate timelines clearly exist? That's what happened. There's Prime timeline (which is what the novels and Star Trek Online exist in, though in their own continuities for ... reasons) and the Abramsverse, which exists parallel to the Prime timeline (and which is almost entirely off limits to STO for ... reasons; okay, I get this one, it's because Paramount has the movies and CBS has the series, and Perfect World and Cryptic only negotiated with CBS).
the new timeline doesn't exist without next gen. both in universe and outside universe. it was even the next gen that established spock as a covert ambassador to romulus. but this is several years old now, i think the understanding has spread some concerning this issue. but i do feel like pointing this out, the original timeline is untouched and can move on from any point without running into the new (kelvin) timeline. but anything that breaks the next generation/voy/ds9 timeline would break the kelvin timeline.
I don't like the new Star Treks either. Something just isn't right about them. LaVar Burton, I'm a great fan of yours. So intelligent and a great actor. I was very impressed, super impressed.
JJ Abrams succeeded in introducing me to Star Trek. I remember when my Dad took me to see the first movie in theaters. I had no idea what it was but because they rebooted the franchise and made it their own, I was able to follow along without ever seeing the shows. It peaked my younger self's interest (i believe I was 11 or 12) so much that when I discovered there were TV shows (and that they were all on Netflix) i binged watched them all (just need to finish DS9 cuz i went a little out of order) If anything I owe my being a Star Trek fan to JJ Abrams and honestly I still enjoy his take on the franchise just as much as much as each individual series. He succeeded in getting a new generation (the next generation ;) ) interested in the franchise.
It's so cool that he's continued on with Reading Rainbow! I grew up on that show, I watched it every day; they even showed it in school sometimes. Ah... memories... And how does the alternate Abrams Trek negate TNG? To be honest, when I realized what they were doing in the first movie with making an alternate timeline, I half expected to see Spock with a beard in the second movie... Mirror, Mirror... TOS fans know what's up.
If you ignore any part of star trek, it isn't start trek. JJ Abrams new movies have an alternative time line, which still has to have TNG in it. If not, then it's not star trek.
Tree Rock Creations One thing that doesn't fit JJ';s profile is the overuse of sex symbols, obvious racist stereotypes, way to many phalic symbols where there shouldn't be any and an overall insulting of the audience's mind.
The only thing that Abrams has made that impressed me greatly was the TV show, Fringe. Everything else is average. His Trek films are decent sci-fi action films, but not Trek films in my opinion. Plus he just rips stuff from other films like Star Wars etc.
He is right about some inventors getting the idea for technology from sci-fi tv shows and movies. I can't help to wonder if someone who works/worked for tech firms got the idea for a tablet from watching the 1968 movie 2001 A Space Odyssey or from The Next Generation in 1987, or the mini-disc recorder/players from watching Star Trek The Original Series. I do have a question about one of the most important topics that have been discussed for at least 50 years. Why do black people, and Asians for that matter rarely show their age? LeVar looks the same here as he did 19 years ago on the series finale of TNG. It's not fair, It's not fair. I'm going to cry now. Does anyone have a tissue?
its too bad that the original characters used in the 'reboot' films were altered (behavior wise) simply because of a lack of imagination and a desire to play it safe on the part of abrams - but that seems to be a symptom of Hollywood nowadays; no originality, little to no creativity, and of course being ruled by and worshiping the almighty bottom line... ...bad shot / boring shot? don't worry, just add lens flare...
I so grew up watching reading rainbow. That show is part of the reason I love reading so much. It's sad that there aren't really shows like this on TV now-a-days for kids to discover reading. I like that he's getting the series restarted.
If anyone has seen the Weakest Link with the Trek actors, Burton's actually a very smart guy, so I'm not surprised he keeps up to date on the latest in technology, like he successfully tried to with the mice. Side note, if you're not happy with Jar Jar Abrams' work, don't pay to see it. Let your wallet do the talking.
LeVar really does makes it seem too harsh. It's an "alternate timeline". JJ wasn't trying to act like TNG never existed, he was simply taking an approach to a Star Trek remake that hadn't been explored yet. Seeing how time travel is possible in Star Trek makes it seem even more plausible.
The reboots don't resemble star trek in any important way. Just more generic action movies that pretty much could have use the same script in any number of settings with whoever, and it'd be the same flotsam.
EVERY single Trek interview poses these questions. I can find all of these answers on different interviews, so why didn't the interviewer do her homework. In fact, I could do that, if I don't have to research my topics beforehand. ET, message me, I want a job.
I watched Reading Rainbow religiously when I was a kid. And then saw LeVar later on TNG when I was a tiny bit older kid. The work he's done over his career, in addition to those two highlights, is incredible and he's an amazing actor, advocate, and person. But you don't have to take my word for it. :)
Damn LeVar's been always about kids, but he is a really great actor. I would love to see him in another Star Trek or his own movie. He can pull it off, and he's got the fans. PLUS children have known his name. LeVar Burton always relevant.
The JJ world is basically mission impossible in space. Lot's of flash and fake lens flare jiggle cam bang with just enough of a crust of the actual Star Trek bible to satisfy a non hard core Trekkie. When the shows or Trek movies left the timeline, they would always snap back to the Roddenberry timeline at the end. Very well crafted saturday matinee fodder.
Smart dude, I need to learn more about being a man from this man. He seems to ask himself "how can I spend my life helping kids imagine a better world?"
LeVar is a cool guy, I might not agree was all his political views but regardless he always seems like a genuine guy. I grew up watching reading rainbow and star trek and both of those things inspired me to read and study science. Some day I would like to tell him he inspired me to be an engineer but I'm sure he hears that all the time.
How do you know Braxton's timeline wasn't negated. The only people who would remain uneffected by the changes and would have the power to change it again would be the Q continuum.
No, not "new" per se, but it's kind of irrelevant. Science fiction (emphasis on the science) is about building on the shoulders of others. The writers and developers of the show worked to find things that seemed plausible and useful, so ideas and concepts were definitely borrowed from other sci-fi as well as the latest science theory at the time. At the same time, a lot of stuff they made were pulled completely out of their ass. It's kind of like saying Apple didn't create the first smartphone or tablet. Although true, they made the landmark devices that have propelled the rest of the industry. Now everyone has developed better, faster, and smarter devices. Star Trek did the same thing. They showed devices being used in the future that did "amazing" things or made things better and because it was popular - often more refined -people will cite it as where they got the idea.
He talks about the new Star Trek movie for about seventeen seconds of a three minute, twenty-five second interview, and that's the ONLY THING your headline talks about? Technology: communicators become cell phones, PADDs become iPads, mice with VISORs...he spent a full minute talking about Reading Rainbow! All you got is he is disappointed with the movie? He's actually disappointed with the storyline, and how it cancels everything after Nero's incursion!
without Star Trek we wouldn't have a lot of things because it fuelled many future aspiring inventors imagination! the padd obviously! but probably other stuff!
The Sci-fi and technology feedback loop which often guides in which areas folks research, also motivates fans to join the ranks of those in technology and science. The developments in these various fields then motivates sci-fi writers, and if course the loop repeats.
Why does color have to be a bearing on anything? Why does someone have to develop their identity based on color and instead on who they are as a human being? While this new movie may not have anything to do with the Next Gen timeline, It still shows a universe that lives and acts on the bases of character and not color, race, or species. Constantly pointing out the differences of everyone for the sake of diversity, only serves to divide and not unite. It's the commonality of the characters of Star Trek that draws them together.
um sorry Levar but these movies do not negate the "Next Gen" it is a parallel universe, if anything it opens it up for more stories, I'm sorry that most people think that JJ's movies suck but get used to it they are a part of Star Trek Lore now.
In theory the prime universe does still exist out there! we've seen enough alternate timelines in star trek to know that but for all practical purposes the TNG era has been negated now because its highly unlikely it will ever have any bearing on any future star trek movies/series
Yeh same here, I hated that about JJ him doing that whole alt-universe, it just seemed too cynical. And if he says he did it to attract newer "non-trek fans" to the franchise, thats a really bad excuse because Star Trek never needed new fans, if non-trek fans want to get into Star Trek then open your mind and accept the Star Trek series for what it is! will all it's techno-babble etc.
The Federation Starship Relativity should have eliminated JJ Abrams universe as it restores original timelines. I'm just saying bring back the orriginal timeline.
we dont want new timelines. we dont want prequels.we want to see the next next gen of star trek. we want the future. e.g. we want to see the future after voyager, after star trek nemesis. its been 15 or so years, and what we get is an 8 episode picard. that is not enough.
Levar is dead on. Being a life long Trek fan I do not like that the time line has been altered. The last two Star Trek movies have hung on special effects and have not remained true to the history of the franchise. Even though the acting is rough the new fan based productions are more true to Trek than the last two movies.
LeVar is wrong-the movies are set BEFORE TNG/DS9/Voyager (but AFTER Enterprise), and they DON'T negate it at all. I loved TNG/DS9/Voyager, and I love the new movies-why must one be worse than the other?
They kinda do actually, via time paradox. Course time travel's funny. Sometimes it can negate the old/prime reality, sometimes the new reality/timeline can co-exist with the old/prime reality/timeline. It's pretty inconsistent across media.
please explain to me how it negates the existence of TNG, the adventures of a ships and crew 80 years into the future of this alternative universe story. Unless...lemme check...nope all my TNG dvds are still there. Unless, damn maybe they're blank now..I'll get back to you.
I'm really wondering if the 4th installment of the new movies was going to create a loop around to the original timeline - why else would they book the actor who played Kirk's dad? Guess we'll never know. I'd reserve judgment until I see where they are going - which will be never.
A star who is honest and not afraid to speak his mind on camera. LeVar Burton is one cool guy.
he speaks this way cause basically all tng onwards tv and movie people are blacklisted ....from all new trek they wont ever be seen so he dont care ......
cbs / paramount will bleed for it now.
i wish i had money....LOTS of money...enough to buy ALL star trek copyrights....first order of business would be to cancel any movie currently being worked on, and to cancel the piece of shit std.
then to make the jar jar aberrations officially non-canon.
then to relax the rules on fan movies, and contact the axanar people....hopefully they will still be willing to make their awesome movie. and maybe commission a new series.....maybe about the romulans? i would also try to listen to the fans. have some communication lines open for them(websites, email addresses, etc) where they can voice their opinions and those opinions taken into consideration for new star trek projects(movies, games, books, shows, etc).
but i have no money....so star trek will remain fucked for now...
@@sabin97 very decent rundown 👍
@@jasonpye4649
thanks. i really love star trek....and it infuriates me what they have done to it(starting with jar jar abrams and the std....picard is a mixed bag, it gives me a bit of hope)
but we all live in a capitalist regime. and without money we have no power to change anything.....i would love a series in romulus.....and one in q'onos
@@sabin97 I agree with a chunk of what you said. I'm not going to, but I could probably go on for several hours about how 2009 started to eff up ST. Suffice it to say, I didn't sleep that night I saw the first JJprise. It was a midnight showing. I worked at the same theater at the time and I was within a handful of days leaving employment there anyway cuz I was about to move but my manager at the theater piss me off at night royally cuz she enjoyed the movie. I tried to be diplomatic about why didn't like it but it basically came down to it offended me. I was kind of surprised by her reaction to me following, but it was just a reminder about why she was very far from my favorite person. Both Scorpios...we were too alike in the best ways and two different in the worst ways.
Anyway.... back to topic...if future films were going to be more of the same, without fixing the timeline or Spock even giving a good hot damn, I had no reason to see any of the other ones after that so I never did in the theater. And to this day I've only seen clips here 'n there occasionally of those films. If they're going to play in the same tiny unnecessary dirty disrespectful mind-boggling sandbox and ignore a perfectly good, strongly-built more than 40 year old sandbox, that ain't my fault. But I'm not going to go get in the mud with people who do. I've never seen a full episode of Discovery past the initial one that was on network TV, because they put the series behind a paywall and we already have cable. Why would I pay extra for one show? I'd like to do is one would assume they want the most people in the entire world seeing their product, so they would put it everywhere....Network TV, CBS all access and all the other places that they could possibly have put it where everyone who wants to can view it. It should be that way for the people that don't want CBS all access, or who don't want to do Hulu or all these extra things. It should be available for every type of viewer. Do they not want their product in front of the most number of people they can possibly have? I have very little interest in ST:Lower Decks because of the stupid art in my opinion and ST: Picard seems interesting except I generally don't like a lot of the ancillary characters acting and attitudes. I've seen clips of it here and there on UA-cam, but never a full episode all the way through. Sorry, LOL that was more than I ever wanted to say here.
I went to a Star Trek convention a number of years ago with Levar Burton as the guest. My oldest daughter was about 6 at the time and she held her hand up and wanted to ask him a question and so he asked her what her question was and called her cutie. She got so shy she hid under her chair so I had to ask for her. Her question was how could he see without his visor? Levar actually explained it to her.
Perhaps his rational thinking in not explaining it, as a parent, it was down to you to explain the difference between tv and life as we know it, like many parents must, just saying, perhaps the emphasize was on you.
@@Rekreated1 he did explain it.
Agreed LeVar! Big time! To negate the "real" timeline was the worst possible idea! It was disrespectful of Gene Roddenberry's work and the Star Trek universe, it was inappropriate and uncalled for, and to me, all it proved was that group's vanity.
Agreed
+Raul Rosiles Agreed!
The Prime timeline still exists. The Kelvin timeline is an alternate universe.
That's what LeVar, along with many people, doesn't get, JJ's Trek doesn't negate Next Gen at all. The fact that Leonard Nimoy was in it as Spock, and the fact that time travel was used, means everything that came before is still canon, to we the audience at least. Without that appearance by Nimoy as Spock Prime, then yes, the JJ movie would have been a hard reboot, scrapping all 4 shows and starting over, but that's not what happened.
No it doesn't, lmao XD
They're not just references, Spock Prime is a bridge from the prime timeline to the kelvin timeline. His presence specifically means that just because things aren't going to happen they way they did before, doesn't mean they never happened. In fact, since Star Trek has pretty consistently followed parallel universe theory when it comes to the effects of time travel, prime canon still exists and is carrying on as before, we're just watching an alternate universe's divergent timeline now.
It would be like them making a series about the Dark Mirror universe. Would you say _that_ wasn't canon?
I can agree with you about Discovery though, but that was worse than just not being canon, it didn't even feel like Star Trek, period. Bad enough they had tech that was still in the experimental stages on DS9. (The holo-communications system).
Geordi doesn't need his visor to know crap when he sees it!
Bring on the prime universe 2017 series!!
I hate the new movies I also don't have much hope for the new series in 2017 I'm not looking forward to the new series not really interested in it.
Recently reboots in movies has been shitty look what happened to GhostBusters reboots are just scams money makers
I felt the 2009 Trek movie was alright, despite it's flaws, the acting carried it. It was a fun ride and nice to see Spock Prime. But I was expecting better from the sequels and they just became worse. I'm hopeful for the new series, but very worried that it could be a disaster.
As for the new Ghostbusters movie, I know this may not be a popular view, but I felt it was better in terms of story, here is why. In the original, we don't know why they became Ghostbusters, don't know why they created the equipment and traps, no explanation for what made them think they could catch ghosts. None of that is explained in the original, they buy building, and then Ghostbusters. The new movie was a far better and completely explained origin, we find out the whys of all of it. The problems I have with the new movie, are the script and the acting, the script and acting were not nearly as good as the original. But I like it more than the original because of the better told story, and also because it didn't have the Ghost BJ scene that the first one had.
Can tell this post is old.
But Jeff, that is one of the biggest problems. It crawls at the beginning then it has to rush to get these "busters" to a level they need to beat the bad guy. WHile you don't know why they decided to go into this business, or how they designed and made the equipment, you know they did, you know in the scene after the library, that the data they collected they could theoretically capture ghosts and they decided to make it a business after they kicked out. They kept most of the testing and working out, making the movie tighter, showing them using the equipment, over and over and much more plausible in the final act when they have to use their smarts and their brawn to overcome their overpowered foe. WHile in the new one, the first 2 acts is them getting fired twice, then finding a place, building equipment over and over, then capturing a ghost. And that is the only ghost they caught but somehow capable of making newer equipment, and the skills to take on not only the bad guy but legions of ghosts. The narrative is screwed. Where did they get the money for this. We know in the original they got a loan from a bank, the new one nothing. And wow didn't have a BJ. But this one had fart jokes a plenty.
jar jar abrams ruined star trek(and star wars). he made a very commercially successful movie. full of explosions, and pretty people who can barely act, and lensflare....the masses love that shit....and sadly they are more numerous than we are.....so everything will keep being dumbed down to cater to them. movies, tv shows, video games, books......you name it...
Why change a timeline that made people fall in love with Star Trek in the first place? The original timeline is so rich in complexity that there was no reason to tamper with it. Besides, NO ONE was asking for a reboot like that. Not to mention the aliens like the Klingons and the Romulans were tampered with to be not only uglier but less interesting.
Bad move.
+Marchant2 Because they knew they would screw up the original timeline and end up making fans. So they decided "lets just make our own timeline and do whatever we want with it." and still make fans annoyed but they don't really seem to care too much about the Star Trek fans. They're after attracting new fans with loud noise, explosions and silly story lines. I hope the trailer that came out for Star Trek Beyond is just a really bad trailer but I'm not hopeful. Even "Into Darkness" trailer didn't look too bad although the movie was lousy. "Beyond" just looks awful. Is it too late to still hope that actual interesting content was put into the writing?
+Marchant2 it's just a way to disguise the fact that it's a remake, and not a contribution to the canon of star trek. feel free to ignore it
this is another timeline, co exist with prime timeline
i know. we dont want a fucking reboot or new time lines. we want the continuation of star trek after nemesis and voyager.
There is a whole, long history and I don't think they wanted to take the time to go over it all. And yet, fans all over know and love the history. I guess it's kind of strong language to say "laziness" but that's what it feels like. They didn't want to deal with the details of the history, and the limitations it might put on their creativity. And yet, it's that kind of limitation, done WITH creativity, that could have made something great. It would have honored the long history and someday, have become a part of it. They could have hired a few consultants, archivists (come on . . . get a few SERIOUS Trekker nitpickers and they'd be able to point out timeline errors, etc., right away) to help steer them in the right direction.
I went and watched the new Star Trek movie and came out thinking, "Hey, that was cool."
And then I never thought about it again... That is why it is not Star Trek.
Agreed.
***** Most current action movies have no substance. I really loved _Star Wars_ when it first came out (I was nearly eleven), but I think we're nearly at the end of the path _Star Wars_ began in 1977. Somewhere along the way, directors forgot about plot and character development and substituted special effects. The end result? A bunch of completely forgettable movies. I'm hoping there will be some kind of revolution that will do away with this trend. I'm getting sick of crappy movies.
The only recent action movie I can think of that struck a good balance was _Dawn of the Planet of the Apes_. Other than that, crappola. So many forgettable movies!
An addendum: I am SO SICK of superhero movies. I wish they would just go away. :( _Avengers 2_ might have been the last superhero movie I will ever see. It sucked so bad. Joss Whedon should have stuck to television. Another issue: I'm also sick of reboots. I do like the new _Planet of the Apes_ franchise, but the trend has left me wondering if Hollywood has run out of original ideas.
wkvalader agreed
wkvalader Man just perfectly said!! That is not Star Trek.
+Noah White Into Darkness was so poor especially after the promise of the first film. I'm just not excited about the next film.
I don't think that this has anything to do with the "timeline". actors and fans like myself are dissappointed because the new movies are crappy "moneymaker" movies. they have nothing to do with the real trek spirit.
Exactly.
@@AprilGabrielle I agree totally. I think the current movies completely miss the magic of Star Trek. It wasn't about fancy special effects or ridiculous CGI action sequences. It was actually about the human condition, teaching valuable lessons in human morality, a vision that humanity would one day in the future surpass challenges such as racism, economic inequality etc. This was cleverly interwoven with interesting storylines, great character development and interrelationships and the action sequences complemented that, rather than the other way round.
I think that what he was saying.
You build into what already exists.
Star trek continues series. Adds 2 more years to the voyage of Kirk. The do an excellent job. Looks like they made a half hearted attempt to get bones right. But the series is pretty good. Only Builds on those stories. Not anything else. The Klingons still look like the old Klingon make up.
No fancy make overs. A few surprise actors and voice actors. And the very end fits nicely in the first film. The motion picture. But it explains alot for the first film scene.
Star Trek continues. I think is very Good.
I wonder if every Enterprise has the ability to separate.
@@viciousvicious1340 oh yes, Continues is a work of art. I really loved it
Old trek was a charming swashbuckling adventurer. TNG was a sophisticated English gentleman. New trek is a drunk cowboy in a wife-beater starting drunken bar fights.
He got his eyes fixed. The technology in the future is truly amazing.
Oh, he aalready had his eyes fixed in the SNG series finale.
*TNG
If they have another Star Trek film they should have Q swoop in, and delete that entire fake timeline restoring everything to it's former glory. Then have another Star Trek TV show. Perhaps now in the 25th century 100 years after Next Generation.
MysticInvestigations Yes! YES!!!! Sir, you are a genius!!!!!
Time police from Enterprise should have showed up.
Lone Wolf Cello YES
Done and done. ua-cam.com/video/axTdv68wIvk/v-deo.html
theres several new treks in the future and everyone has more time than ever to binge watch them all, but they all suck. Your wish was apparently granted by Calypso from Twisted Metal
Jar Jar's destruction of both Star Trek and Star Wars separates the fans from the fanbois. The reboots are horrible.
J J Abrams is the Sith Lord we've been looking for!
Right on LeVar! well said, well said.
The movies are certainly not..Star Trek. *sigh*
+Kyle Juggles I'm not one to follow the herd, as many are - who - as if they were robots, cheered when JJ Abrams was announced to helm Star Trek. I'd really not even seen much of his previous work (seriously).
I saw his Star Trek movies, and wasn't thrilled about them (story wise, nor the enterprise. Spock - with a girlfriend? No.) I did like the actors, though.
It was only recently I actually saw something Mr. Abrams did, and I was not that thrilled, at all - I think the only reason he got (is currently getting) the adulation he is, is because, - talking honestly - his work got the highest numbers, as it were - first, on TV, brought in good ratings, so, in films, that translates to tickets.
HIS actual work, is middling. I saw the trailer for JJ's Star Trek 3 and I REALLY disliked it - it seemed the worst of the lot - seemed it was (sadly) trying to be too much to too many different audiences, all at once - it looks like it's trying to suck in Marvel fans, and Star Trek fans, and other - unrelated genres.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to make money - BUT - it's never too late to undo what Mr. . Abrams is doing to Star Trek, and bring in someone - who is KNOWN to have a love of the series, but, who also has new ideas.
Many fanboys (and fangirls!) when they're your, daydream - thinking up cool new plot lines, characters, etc., using what they saw in the original series. Then, they grow up, and THEY should be the ones who the studios SHOULD be looking to - if not for (fully) helming Star Trek, for bringing in NEW stuff, FROM THE PEOPLE WHO LOVE Star Trek (or any other franchise which is being slowly warped into something 'else').
If the studios are so brain-dead (Well, they are) to wonder 'where would we find anyone who could fill in JJ's shoes? We'd need people who LOVE Star Trek, who live and breathe it,' they'd say.
It used to be they (studios) could say; 'but, those fans don't have the professional backgrounds to do this kind of work, ' but, HEY; Paramount, et al. WAKE THE FRAK UP!
Look no further than the AWESOME talent(S) you can find here - on UA-cam - from the plethora of GREAT fan-made StarTrek episodes of Star Trek Phase II, The Continuing Voyages, and all the others!!!
These folks live, breathe Trek, and they DO know what people want!!!
Even if JJ was the 'perfect' Trek person - someone who was a one-stop-shop, as it were, who could not just write, but, direct terrific Star Trek films, each one takes an enormous amount of time, and resources, and JJ's NOT just working on ONE Star Trek film, but, he's also got Star Wars to deal with, as well as other projects.
That's a LOT more than any one person should be responsible for - and to expect 'A+' work from!!!
You studios have a tremendous pool - right here - of people who could add a whole new avenue of talent for the film, TV, etc projects, which are now being - stupidly - given to just a VERY, VERY few!!!
Sorry for babbling.
+U.N. Owen Duuuude i totally agree! for the most part. I do love JJ Abrams style, like as in Alias, Lost and Fringe, but yeah...his numbers are great and it does count for something, but we truly need someone who's a Star Trek fan, which a few weeks ago Bryan Fuller came on as producer for the new TV series. I'm like...70% confident he'll bring back Star Trek to it's roots, and not this FLASH BANG HA HA EXPLOSION LENS FLARE, but being true explorers, and learning about ourselves and humanity. That's what I truly miss about Star Trek, we're all different, but we're all the same like in "The Chase" or "The Inner Light" on TNG, . I miss that Star Trek! and to rewrite history like that...it makes me soooo mad!
Star Trek helped form the person, the man I am today! and I'm damn well sure it did for millions, or possibility billions of others! I'm not old either, 33! I grew up on TNG since the age of 5! and then hit up the Original Series. Please let them continue after Voyager, I'm getting so tired of this "lets go back to the beginning" not that I dislike Enterprise, I loved it! but..sigh I came out of those 2 latest movies really sad, that our "society" needs explosions, comedy relief, lens flare, more explosions to make money. There's more to making money, make history.
Get Rick Berman Back! as a consultant at least!
What Jar Jar Abrams is making is not Star Trek. It's cheesy, juvenile, comic-bookish Star Wars, dressed in a Starfleet uniform. He took Roddenberry's fundamental principle, that humanity eventually overcomes its greed and pettiness and becomes more concerned with self-improvement and growth, and replaced it with Kirk copping a feel off Uhura, and being a punk to whom i wouldn't give command of a rowboat. He'll be the perfect director for another Star Wars (I mean who older than ten cares what they do to that kiddie show), but he should never be let near another Trek movie.
Star trek can be many things, before you start a rant remember spock's brain and the way to Eden. Then ask yourself; is this better then worse then those things.
killerbee256 Much, much worse.
Cowcharge
It worth nothing that since I made the first comment I saw in to darkness, and changed me my mind.
killerbee256 It was a much better movie than the first one, but it still has the basic non-Trek flaws.
at least he made it an alternate timeline
According to the licensed Countdown comic book that served as a prequel to Star Trek, it was LaForge who built the ship that Spock took into the black hole. They absolutely could have included a reference to that in the movie, unless there is truth to the rumor that CBS (who owns Star Trek TV rights) and Paramount didn't want to play ball.
Once again, 21st Century money is the problem.
Nice to hear LeVar speaking his mind. A true fan.
flabbergasted that he didn't mention the lack of any of roddenberry's ideals. any moral gray area. any nuance to progressing as a species to find our spot in the cosmos. all JJ did was "michael bay" it up.
Someone needs to tell Levar that the new films DON't negate tge Prime timeline. That was the whole point of the way they did it. It keeps both timelines intact in true Trek fashion, instead of a cold reboot.
I completely agree. After I saw Star Trek 2009, I was sad because it did away with everything we grew to love as kids.
LeVar Burton is so awesome, I hope he shows up in another Trek TV show someday!!! It's so amazing to see his eyes!
Wish granted!😄
"That we imagine we intend to create", I like that. So let's imagine a better future. That's our aim in SFC :)
JJ did the same thing to the new Star Wars movie as well.
yep
+bufo333 yeah, I enjoyed parts like the driod but, to me it just looked like actors in suits on outdoor Earth locations - like Blakes Seven - and not at all futuristic. Take the "castle" scene for instance. Star Trek and Star Wars are more than just action films, they have timelines and legacy.
bufo333 Jar Jar
Disney had bit to do with that.
The trek method could have taken a different turn. A 'star fleet Academy ' show where the young ones getting it done while taking notes that personal and technical challenges.
LeVar sums it up impressively.
Does anyone know why they didn't make Voyager and DS9 movies?
While a DS9 movie would be brilliant, there isn't much that can be done in a film, the series finale did a good job at ending the storylines. A Voyager movie could work though
BattlestarZenobia Disagree, the last season of DS9 was probably the weakest of the series and they ended it on a cliff hanger. Does Sisko come back? Does he stay with the prophets? What happens to him when he's there? Why does he need to be with them? What about Jake? Or Cassidy Yates? The finale left a lot of questions.
The trouble with both Voyager and DS9 in terms of making movies out of them was they were both very self contained in terms of the stories plus the TNG movies were doing well at the time! it made more sense to use TNG as a basis for movies! in many ways Voyager and DS9 were both one trick ponies! once the war with the dominion was over what more was to be done! and Voyagers main purpose was to get back to the alpha quadrant so once that was all done that sealed that all up too.
It's probably just that there wasn't as much demand for it, they where making TNG movies when those two series were running
I didn't see the end of DS9, so I can't say too much about it other than, based on what I've seen, it would make a great movie. I don't see too much you could do with Voyager, since the whole point of the series was making it home, and they arrived home. End of story. You might be able to set a movie in the middle of the series somewhere...
Count me among the disappointed and disgusted Star Trek fans who hate the new J. J. Abrams "Star Trek" movies. I watched the first, and was absolutely flabbergasted -- not only at the destruction of the original timeline, the perverse alteration of the original characters and the obliteration of planet Vulcan, but especially at the notion of the promotion to Captain (over scores of senior officers) of a cadet who never even graduated Starfleet Academy!
Even the most militarily illiterate person can surmise that commanding a STARSHIP is about more than rank and ballsy attitude. It's about knowledge, experience, discipline and seasoning. As a Navy veteran, if any of my Captains had promoted some midshipman to command of the ship, I and the rest of the crew would certainly have mutinied!
I never watched the second of the new "Star Trek" films, and never will. Further, I avoid ANY movie directed by Abrams (including the new "Star Wars" films), and DAMN him for ruining my favorite science fiction franchise of all time!
Don't forget the dude they picked up on Hoth just being made chief engineer over everyone else.
Abrams is more suited for Star Wars, he said himself he is not a trek fan at all. I knew we were in trouble when i heard Captain Pike say "punch it" for warp speed instead of "engage". "punch it" is a star wars phrase used to han solo for going into hyperspace. Cant stand the warp effects on the new trek or the Enterprise having a picture window on the bridge. Its vulnerable enough without having a window there. The first movie was ok and fun but Into Darkness was horrible i thought as a trek movie. It was a fun sci fi action movie i guess.
Star Trek did a really good job of anticipating what kinds of technology we'd have in the future and I attribute that to their focus on science and information tech. A lot of other sci fi that I've read anticipates crazy weapons and new defense tech, which ST has, but ST is also like "people are definitely going to want tiny computers with access to essentially limitless information. And they're going to want to communicate in many languages. They're going to need machine learning."
Levar Burton is such a fine man. So many actors just don't care about anything beyond memorizing their lines and collecting a paycheck, despite hypocritical whining about the cause du jour. He is obviously informed and engaged. It's nice to see,
No, that isn't just him. That's everyone who ever cared about Star Trek greatly and understands its meaning and purpose.
It's great to see Mr Burton speaking candidly about his disappointments, and to see that he really cares about TNG :) :) But how come everyone in the background is completely ignoring him? He is obviously out of phase! He should walk through that table behind him to create chronoton emissions that Data can detect.
Thank you LeVar.. granted this is all fiction, we know that.. BUT in that fiction we grow to love certain ideas, characters, concepts, etc... lots of Star Trek episodes had time travel paradoxes, but they always repaired it.. or at least did so little damage that the universe we had grown to know was still intact. These new "Star Trek" movies can either be considered as genuinely a part of the Trek universe or (as I have) disregarded. Star Trek doesn't need what J.J. has done for it, in my opinion.. if you like those movies.. great.. but they could've been any big budget, CGI, Sci-Fi blockbuster.. not Star Trek. It'd be like making a new X-Files where Mulder and Scully never worked together, everything you know and loved about the show never happened.. but the new series still expected to be considered "The X-Files".. it just ain't right.
The new star trek films are fucking shit. Great actors wasted in a fucking shit plot. I don't give a fuck if it's more popular. It's "transformers" in space. Explosions and action with zero plot. Fuck JJ Abrams that piece of crap. Star Wars is perfect for him. Unfortunately the new guy hired to do the next star trek is one of his "team" so it's probably not going to get any better.
Hi, I'm from the future. I'm saddened to say he screwed up Star Wars too.
No he did not..and to each his own.. but JJ pumped in some new life into the New Trek. Beyond totally disproves your point.. good plot.. good acting, and definately some good action sequences that keeps the audience awake rather than throwing endless philosophy at them. But as I said, to each his own. I am happy to be lucky to enjoy the new stuff, more than the older ones.
"but JJ pumped in some new life into the New Trek"
How? By making shitty movies with shitty scripts, shitty actors and shitty direction? Beyond may be redeemable (because Justin Lin >>>> JJ apparently), but neither JJ entry can be saved.
" good action sequences that keeps the audience awake rather than throwing endless philosophy at them. "
Jesus christ.
Beyond was written by Simon Pegg and Doug Jung and Directed by Justin Lin who I felt did a better job in Directing and writing Star Trek then JJ and Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman ever could..
Let's looks at Trek 09, I saw the film in the Cinema and I was blown away with the presentation of the film, I loved the opening of the movie, By the end I was disappointed and I tell you why, It was a poorly written mess of a movie..
They wanted to see Kirk be the chosen one, So see him picked out by Pike and make Pike the Father Figure Kirk never had, I never had a problem with that, The problem I did have was how he was cadet, then suspended cadet, To a stowaway, then promoted to first officer and finally made Captain by the end of the movie! Ridiculous and lazy
Then Spock Kicking Kirk off the ship after Vulcan was destroyed was a mess, Lands walking distance of Spock prime, Then both within walking distance of a federation base, Who happens to be there? Scotty, Then both of them beam back to the Enterprise that's half way back to earth? If they could do that why the need for ships?
Anyway it was a polished turd
Into Darkness was also trying to cash in on the most popular Trek movie, The wrath of Khan. It was an average movie. Kirk dying and saved by magic blood! and Spock's laughable Khannnn! Oh and Khan was able to beam all the way to Klingon homeworld from Earth, Again what's the point in having ships when you can do that!
I thought Beyond was improvement not perfect but a better effort then both of those movies, Pegg and Doug done a better job in writing the film and also keeping within the continuity of the already established franchise namely Enterprise which wasn't affected by the alternate timeline. I liked the idea that Krull was a human Major in the Xindi conflict which would've meant he was a Maco aboard the NX 01 under Archer.
I am going to give Discovery a chance when it's released next month so fingers cross that sticks closer to trek original out look instead of being a action film..
If we're grading on a curve, Beyond was good (better than certain of the TOS/TNG movies, for sure.) It's hard to believe it's part of JJ Trek.
I'm disappointed in JJ's lack of human culture. You used to be able to see Picard listening to Berlioz, or Riker playing trombone, or even their having made cultural artifact discoveries. Of course I liked the movies I just wish it held on to the cultural references a little more although not totally devoid of them.
I agree with LeVar, the new films are super disappointing. Not on all levels:
The action/special effects - awesome!
The characters - pretty well done, actually!
The dialogue - witty and well delivered!
The plot/storyline - yeah... that's where it turns to shit.
My main reason for disliking the story is what it does to the Star Trek universe *SPOILERS AHEAD*. Imploding Vulcan?! Whyyy?! I do take some solace in the idea that these newer Trek films are now in an ALTERNATE universe, branching off from a timeline where Vulcan remains intact and all of our beloved NextGen/DS9/Voyager characters get to frolic about doing what they do. Also getting messed with by Q. :-)
The other reason for my lack of fondness is that the whole cerebral/philosophical nature of Star Trek is missing. It's all just one big slick SFX loaded space adventure. Even Enterprise at its least 'Trek-y' was more 'Trek-y' than these newer movies. (Full disclosure, I do actually like Enterprise, so scourge me if you must. :-)
As PC as it sometimes got, I actually liked how each new Star Trek tried to push the envelope on cultural issues and each captain/crew was often an example of that. With original Trek, even though it seems racist/sexist by today's standards, women were actual crew members, and Russian, Chinese, American, etc. were all getting along fine, long past the Cold War and other crap that was actually going on at that time. With NextGen we got an older, more studious captain, a pretty diverse crew, and with Data an exploration of how, with the future of technology and AI, we may someday need to consider some technology as sentient. With DS9 we finally got a Commander/Captain of color, and with Voyager we had a female Captain, each show dealing with cultural relations and other such in typical awesomesauce Star Trek fashion.
I would LOVE to see a new Star Trek series further exploring cultural issues in sci-fi form, preferably further down the NextGen/DS9/Voyager timeline. Maybe have a captain who isn't human or only part-human. Maybe that one young woman in that colony/ex prison camp Worf found who's half Klingon/half Romulan leaves her secluded home and joins the Federation, becomes a captain and tries to carve out a new life for herself and others who can't find justice with their homeworlds. Maybe a new Trek series can deal openly with something it has only dealt with obliquely in the past - gay peeps! An actual regular openly gay Star Trek character is looong overdue.
WOW, I've written a lot! Aack! I am cutting myself off! I've been on this for waaay too long. I've never considered myself a Trekkie, but looking up at my comment is making me question myself.@_@
I like your idea of digging thru the canon of characters for a "next show's" Captain. Always wanted to see more of the (ST; First Contact) relationship which (quite quickly) developed between Picard & Lily, the accidental-tourist who finds herself on board the future- Enterprise being both horrified by a plague of Borg, and mystified by space travel (played by Alfre Woodard).
Yes, it was part plot-device, but her role was vital to the story, showed so much courage of character & her experience on that ship changed both her and Picard.( I remember thinking, "picard's gotta at least name his cat after her")! Also, she'd be the first black, female Captain.
and u dont consider urself a trekkie ??
trust me dude, YOU ARE A TREKKIE =)
loveultraviolet Data is Alive, He completely downloaded his mind into B4. Data because the New Captain of the Enterprise E.
Also which has never been done, the Enterprise F is commissioned at the same time and is active while the Enterprise E is Active.
The Captain of the Enterprise F is Va'Kel Shon, an Andorian. Shon was going to turn it down because he felt Data should be the Captain of the Enterprise F. But Data Encouraged Shon to take the command
Cpt. Data leading an all-android crew with emotion chips installed! Fully-functioning & programmed in a variety of techniques...bowchickawowwow
I really liked the Data question... the exploration was well ahead of its time. When you think that 'The measure of a man' was produced in 1989 and its only really the last 5 years we've started to think about how we might manage AI because it's becoming more sophisticated. The gay thing I kind of feel we're already beyond that... I mean Data was something new and interesting. Who of us had thought about how making a slave race may change us? Startrek asked the questions we hadn't asked....but is somebody who happens to be gay new and interesting? as a gay man I would hope its one of the least interesting things about me. Don't forget, Next Gen had an episode where Dr Crusher's love interest came back as a women, that was fair cop to question and again not something I had thought about. If the show makes us think about equalities that's fine, but simply waving flags isn't of interest. Also I loved the Jadzia Dax lesbian scene, not because it was a lesbian scene but the way they made the episode all about taboo but the taboo was about falling in love with a person from her past and Trill culture... this was a much better way to address homosexuality, to put it in the show to show what an utter irrelevance it was, not as opportunity to show how great it is to be gay in 300 years.
come on Geordi take credit for the infrared mice.
Next Trek movie should be called Star Trek: Lens Flare
Star Trek: Into Lens Flare
The original timeline has not been altered. They are two parallel timelines, that coexist. Everything that happened in the Original Trek Universe, happened. The New Trek movies are not a reboot, they don't take place before the original 60s Trek series. The new movies are in a different universe completely.
Correct. And as I pointed out above, the studio kind of had no choice but do what they did so that they would not be locked into a particular story line. Plus, just about every Star Trek movie after ST6:TUC made less money than its ancestor. Nemesis only made 7 million more than its production cost - worldwide!
Star Trek fans should be glad that the studio gave it another chance considering how poorly Nemesis did. And the box office returns for all three reboot Star Treks shows they made the right choice. Star Trek:Into Darkness, by itself, made more than ALL 4 NextGen movies combined.
JW3HH
Daniel Appleton Picard became and Ambassador, not sure if he was an Admiral.
I don't see why people can't understand that. And Burton saying that the new Trek negates The Next Generation is absolutely wrong. They both exist.
Exactly! Multiple universes, alternate timelines. Didn't anybody see "Back to the Future Part 2" when Doc Brown explains it to Marty McFly on the blackboard?
Sheesh! :P
JW3HH
It's complicated. This is how I view it... When the Narada arrived in 2233, the timeline was altered. Yet, the Kelvin already seemed more advanced than it should be for that era, how could that be? I think it's because, the time before 2233 was altered as well. In the new timeline, other time travelers ventured into the past, changing things, this is why the Kelvin was so advanced and had equipment and technology never seen in Trek before. We've seen this sort of thing in the Prime universe as well, such as the DS9 Tribble episode that had time travelers ensuring their version history unfolds, this kind of thing may have happened in the Kelvin Universe, but the time travelers went back to a point before 2233, resulting in similar but distinctly different Starfleet and technology.
Also, I view Starfleet as a scientific organization with a military structure, most people in Starfleet are scientists or engineers, the minority are pure military. It did start out as pure military, but over time it has become clear that it's more scientific now, at least in the Prime Universe.
After successfully trashing Star Trek JJ went on to destroy Star Wars. That man is on a roll!
I had no idea LeVar had such passionate views of the ST reboot. I completely agree with him.
It's people like him that we need in the new prime universe reboot.
Let's all cross our fingers and hope that Discovery at least tries to do something with Gene's vision.
The fact that they will be using scripts that were recovered from floppy disks where Gene kept some of his stuff on is really encouraging.
And I know none of the ST:DIS production staff is going to read this, but:
All of us Trekkies want our Star Trek back, please please please don't disappoint us Brian and Alex.
And I know this is an unpopular opinion, but maybe bring Branon and Rick back into the mix at some point? I know Rick has a very alpha personality, but these guys did an awesome job after Gene passed away.
It doesn't negate Next Gen. Next Gen had to occur in order for the new reality to split, and now it runs parallel to the prime reality in a manner akin to Stargate.
In fact, the Narada reality may very well have bled over into the prime reality during "Parallels."
This is an emergency broadcast to 2013, the technology we need you guys to build is ventilators, lots of them. No time to explain!
Do not worry Geordi for all Star Trek lovers, next gen was, is and will always be fully part of our heart ! You were a great team of actors, who gave their best to make us dream in the most respectable way. Many thanks, live long and prosper
Levar Burton reading rainbow and star trek + one of my favorite actors in tng. I will miss everyone of the actors from spock Leonard (not the jj spock) to patrick stewart. For me nothing will ever be the same. The movie and show industry is nothing but csi types and mind numbing action. Trek had it all action, romance, morality, politics, light horror, suspense, thriller. todays shows are one track drama or romance, really if i watch the news i get as much death drama and violence as i would if i watched most tv shows.
Thanks to Mr. Burton for Reading Rainbow which I always sat down and watched with my young daughter together. Now we sit down and watch Geordi on TNG "Make things go"! Thanks again!
I like the new Star Trek movies... but they are not Star Trek.
I don't think, like Mr. Burton suggests, that the new movies negate TNG, rather I think they completely negate what Star Trek stands for.
These new movies dumbed down Star Trek into cheap action-flicks. I can't imagine that anyone who liked any of the series was overjoyed to see things blow up, without the spirit of exploration, the sense of anticipation what makes good science fiction, and the trademark social commentaries, imaginative and intricate plotlines that build up characters and makes viewers think. The new movies were obviously tageted towards the less cerebral kind of action-movie fans.
Just because you can't imagine it, doesn't mean it's impossible. In fact, my family is full of long time trekkies who have been with the show since the beginning, and we all loved these movies. And no, we didn't watch star trek for its amazing visuals and effects, as you most likely think is the only reason why the fans of the movies would like the shows, in fact, the original series had horrible visuals and effects due to its low budget. We watched the show because of how smart it was and how it showed us how humanity can evolve and advance into a better people. I know the new trek doesn't have as much thought put into it, but that shouldn't matter if you are looking to enjoy a movie. And the shows had some horrible episodes as well.
I agree that something is missing from this new take on the Star Trek universe but it would appear that this is the kind of Star Trek that the masses would like to see! The classic take on star trek failed both on the big and small screen! I would love to have seen it continue but the fan base dried up and the hard core fans alone weren't enough to keep it afloat!
LeVar should remember IDIC - Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. Earth is big enough to have Star Trek: The Original Series; The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager, Enterprise - and an Alternate Universe Star Trek (which the new movies by JJ Abrams are). LL&P, LeVar!
When they went back to Kirk in the reboot it was an admission that there were no new ideas. Start Trek should always be pushing forward timewise. Enterprise TV series suffers from this. How can we go from the advanced tech of the Enterprise D and E to some crappy old basic starship or back to one which we know inside and out which is beloved - now rebooted like nothing happened. To quote D. Trump: SAD
He did not have time to mention voice activated computer interaction.
Alright, fifteen seconds in and I have to step in. "Negates" Next Gen? I'm pretty sure he was all over "Parallels", right? Where alternate timelines clearly exist? That's what happened. There's Prime timeline (which is what the novels and Star Trek Online exist in, though in their own continuities for ... reasons) and the Abramsverse, which exists parallel to the Prime timeline (and which is almost entirely off limits to STO for ... reasons; okay, I get this one, it's because Paramount has the movies and CBS has the series, and Perfect World and Cryptic only negotiated with CBS).
"New" time line is ridiculous. Its a bad idea, and I'm grateful for the novels, at least, continuing the original time line.
the new timeline doesn't exist without next gen. both in universe and outside universe. it was even the next gen that established spock as a covert ambassador to romulus. but this is several years old now, i think the understanding has spread some concerning this issue. but i do feel like pointing this out, the original timeline is untouched and can move on from any point without running into the new (kelvin) timeline. but anything that breaks the next generation/voy/ds9 timeline would break the kelvin timeline.
Reading rainbow is an app? Noted for future reference lol
I agree...I was upset about the same things he is.
The Kelvin/JJ movies are ok, but the newer tv shows have left a-lot to be desired, where TNG is in the timeline, but it is disappointing for post TNG.
I don't like the new Star Treks either. Something just isn't right about them. LaVar Burton, I'm a great fan of yours. So intelligent and a great actor. I was very impressed, super impressed.
i like the new ones as adventure sci fi films, but not as star trek or its cannon.
JJ Abrams succeeded in introducing me to Star Trek. I remember when my Dad took me to see the first movie in theaters. I had no idea what it was but because they rebooted the franchise and made it their own, I was able to follow along without ever seeing the shows. It peaked my younger self's interest (i believe I was 11 or 12) so much that when I discovered there were TV shows (and that they were all on Netflix) i binged watched them all (just need to finish DS9 cuz i went a little out of order) If anything I owe my being a Star Trek fan to JJ Abrams and honestly I still enjoy his take on the franchise just as much as much as each individual series. He succeeded in getting a new generation (the next generation ;) ) interested in the franchise.
It's so cool that he's continued on with Reading Rainbow! I grew up on that show, I watched it every day; they even showed it in school sometimes. Ah... memories...
And how does the alternate Abrams Trek negate TNG? To be honest, when I realized what they were doing in the first movie with making an alternate timeline, I half expected to see Spock with a beard in the second movie... Mirror, Mirror... TOS fans know what's up.
DS9 fans also know what's up. :D
If you ignore any part of star trek, it isn't start trek. JJ Abrams new movies have an alternative time line, which still has to have TNG in it. If not, then it's not star trek.
How i see the Star Trek Moivie JJ made he made his own version with out having the main elements of True Star Trek. Which i find offensive.
J.J. Abrams has become the poorman's Michael Bay. And Michael Bay produces trash.
OK, I can get behind hating the new Star Trek, but worse than Michael Bay? There's a first.
Arthus850 Len flares, shaky cam, quick cuts, poor dialogue and plot...I think JJ fits the profile.
Tree Rock Creations One thing that doesn't fit JJ';s profile is the overuse of sex symbols, obvious racist stereotypes, way to many phalic symbols where there shouldn't be any and an overall insulting of the audience's mind.
The only thing that Abrams has made that impressed me greatly was the TV show, Fringe. Everything else is average. His Trek films are decent sci-fi action films, but not Trek films in my opinion. Plus he just rips stuff from other films like Star Wars etc.
JJ is a good every man's director, but Star trek is not for every person.
He is right about some inventors getting the idea for technology from sci-fi tv shows and movies. I can't help to wonder if someone who works/worked for tech firms got the idea for a tablet from watching the 1968 movie 2001 A Space Odyssey or from The Next Generation in 1987, or the mini-disc recorder/players from watching Star Trek The Original Series. I do have a question about one of the most important topics that have been discussed for at least 50 years. Why do black people, and Asians for that matter rarely show their age? LeVar looks the same here as he did 19 years ago on the series finale of TNG. It's not fair, It's not fair. I'm going to cry now. Does anyone have a tissue?
nythawk night must be something in their genes that we haven’t figured out yet
Either that or it has to with the pigmentation of their skin protecting them from sunlight and free radicals more effectively
its too bad that the original characters used in the 'reboot' films were altered (behavior wise) simply because of a lack of imagination and a desire to play it safe on the part of abrams - but that seems to be a symptom of Hollywood nowadays; no originality, little to no creativity, and of course being ruled by and worshiping the almighty bottom line...
...bad shot / boring shot? don't worry, just add lens flare...
I so grew up watching reading rainbow. That show is part of the reason I love reading so much. It's sad that there aren't really shows like this on TV now-a-days for kids to discover reading. I like that he's getting the series restarted.
If anyone has seen the Weakest Link with the Trek actors, Burton's actually a very smart guy, so I'm not surprised he keeps up to date on the latest in technology, like he successfully tried to with the mice.
Side note, if you're not happy with Jar Jar Abrams' work, don't pay to see it. Let your wallet do the talking.
LeVar really does makes it seem too harsh. It's an "alternate timeline". JJ wasn't trying to act like TNG never existed, he was simply taking an approach to a Star Trek remake that hadn't been explored yet. Seeing how time travel is possible in Star Trek makes it seem even more plausible.
The reboots don't resemble star trek in any important way. Just more generic action movies that pretty much could have use the same script in any number of settings with whoever, and it'd be the same flotsam.
To me its just like the mirror universe. Just an alternate time line. One of the many in the multiverse
EVERY single Trek interview poses these questions. I can find all of these answers on different interviews, so why didn't the interviewer do her homework. In fact, I could do that, if I don't have to research my topics beforehand. ET, message me, I want a job.
He doesn't look like Geordi without the visor. Still a big fan Star Trek TNG.
I watched Reading Rainbow religiously when I was a kid. And then saw LeVar later on TNG when I was a tiny bit older kid. The work he's done over his career, in addition to those two highlights, is incredible and he's an amazing actor, advocate, and person. But you don't have to take my word for it. :)
It's called AU. Any fanfiction writer knows that. So I wasn't all that upset anyway lol
because technology at star trek very advance at this movie.why must put tecnology must advance before original series?
That guy right there is what - and who- encouraged me to become an engineer. Been at it for 10 years now. I chose not to fail.
Fantastic interview. The articulate Mr. Burton never disappoints.
Damn LeVar's been always about kids, but he is a really great actor. I would love to see him in another Star Trek or his own movie. He can pull it off, and he's got the fans. PLUS children have known his name. LeVar Burton always relevant.
Transparent aluminum is a thing now too. It's a ceramic, but still.
its an idiotic assumption that changing something from the past, no matter how distantly related it is, would completely change the future
He shouldn't be disappointed actually since his timeline has to be intact for the alternate timeline to happen.
The JJ world is basically mission impossible in space. Lot's of flash and fake lens flare jiggle cam bang with just enough of a crust of the actual Star Trek bible to satisfy a non hard core Trekkie. When the shows or Trek movies left the timeline, they would always snap back to the Roddenberry timeline at the end. Very well crafted saturday matinee fodder.
Smart dude, I need to learn more about being a man from this man.
He seems to ask himself "how can I spend my life helping kids imagine a better world?"
The reboots are not bad; but they are just NOT STAR TREK. Burton is correct.
Yeah, as standalone movies, they're not that bad. The first two, that is. The third one was a lot better.
I have always been LeVar fan since i was itty bitty. Thanks for being a great actor and thank you for Reading Rainbow ❤
LeVar is a cool guy, I might not agree was all his political views but regardless he always seems like a genuine guy. I grew up watching reading rainbow and star trek and both of those things inspired me to read and study science. Some day I would like to tell him he inspired me to be an engineer but I'm sure he hears that all the time.
vampov I’m sure he’d appreciate it just the same to think how many people he inspired
Have Captain Braxton come fix this temporal distortion...
How do you know Braxton's timeline wasn't negated. The only people who would remain uneffected by the changes and would have the power to change it again would be the Q continuum.
Arthus850 No, we know that changes in history take time to ripple through, ie. Daniels didn't know about the Xindi attack
BattlestarZenobia
"changes in history take time to ripple through" makes absolutely no sense.
The Prime universe still exists (sans Ambassador Spock ... or Romulus). Therefore, Braxton still exists.
The tablet computer was in the movie "Forbidden Planet" from the 1950s (56?) Much of stuff from Star Trek (although cool) was not new.
forbidden planet is considered the pre runner of star trek
No, not "new" per se, but it's kind of irrelevant. Science fiction (emphasis on the science) is about building on the shoulders of others. The writers and developers of the show worked to find things that seemed plausible and useful, so ideas and concepts were definitely borrowed from other sci-fi as well as the latest science theory at the time. At the same time, a lot of stuff they made were pulled completely out of their ass.
It's kind of like saying Apple didn't create the first smartphone or tablet. Although true, they made the landmark devices that have propelled the rest of the industry. Now everyone has developed better, faster, and smarter devices. Star Trek did the same thing. They showed devices being used in the future that did "amazing" things or made things better and because it was popular - often more refined -people will cite it as where they got the idea.
Drew Swift felt that way too. It seemed like Forbidden Planet was like a precursor for the original Star Trek.
I wanna know if I can get the OG Reading Rainbow on DVD anywhere.
He talks about the new Star Trek movie for about seventeen seconds of a three minute, twenty-five second interview, and that's the ONLY THING your headline talks about? Technology: communicators become cell phones, PADDs become iPads, mice with VISORs...he spent a full minute talking about Reading Rainbow! All you got is he is disappointed with the movie? He's actually disappointed with the storyline, and how it cancels everything after Nero's incursion!
without Star Trek we wouldn't have a lot of things because it fuelled many future aspiring inventors imagination! the padd obviously! but probably other stuff!
The Sci-fi and technology feedback loop which often guides in which areas folks research, also motivates fans to join the ranks of those in technology and science. The developments in these various fields then motivates sci-fi writers, and if course the loop repeats.
I havent seen new ST movies, nor do I want to.
I just hope new ST Discovery series are gonna be good mix between modern show and ST feel.
Four episodes in, it's kinda ... meh, in my opinion.
Why does color have to be a bearing on anything? Why does someone have to develop their identity based on color and instead on who they are as a human being? While this new movie may not have anything to do with the Next Gen timeline, It still shows a universe that lives and acts on the bases of character and not color, race, or species. Constantly pointing out the differences of everyone for the sake of diversity, only serves to divide and not unite. It's the commonality of the characters of Star Trek that draws them together.
um sorry Levar but these movies do not negate the "Next Gen" it is a parallel universe, if anything it opens it up for more stories, I'm sorry that most people think that JJ's movies suck but get used to it they are a part of Star Trek Lore now.
In theory the prime universe does still exist out there! we've seen enough alternate timelines in star trek to know that but for all practical purposes the TNG era has been negated now because its highly unlikely it will ever have any bearing on any future star trek movies/series
There's always the Litverse--which, in its modern incarnation, has far more sophisticated storytelling than what Abrams brought to the table.
I want to see jordi on the Orville...but you dont have to take my word for it..🌈
Yeh same here, I hated that about JJ him doing that whole alt-universe, it just seemed too cynical. And if he says he did it to attract newer "non-trek fans" to the franchise, thats a really bad excuse because Star Trek never needed new fans, if non-trek fans want to get into Star Trek then open your mind and accept the Star Trek series for what it is! will all it's techno-babble etc.
Raiken Xion whereas the whole intention of Star Trek was the hope for a better future something to strive for
The Federation Starship Relativity should have eliminated JJ Abrams universe as it restores original timelines. I'm just saying bring back the orriginal timeline.
LeVar is a very smart person, very wise.
we dont want new timelines. we dont want prequels.we want to see the next next gen of star trek. we want the future. e.g. we want to see the future after voyager, after star trek nemesis. its been 15 or so years, and what we get is an 8 episode picard. that is not enough.
Levar is dead on. Being a life long Trek fan I do not like that the time line has been altered. The last two Star Trek movies have hung on special effects and have not remained true to the history of the franchise. Even though the acting is rough the new fan based productions are more true to Trek than the last two movies.
I couldn't agree more!!
LeVar is wrong-the movies are set BEFORE TNG/DS9/Voyager (but AFTER Enterprise), and they DON'T negate it at all. I loved TNG/DS9/Voyager, and I love the new movies-why must one be worse than the other?
They kinda do actually, via time paradox.
Course time travel's funny. Sometimes it can negate the old/prime reality, sometimes the new reality/timeline can co-exist with the old/prime reality/timeline. It's pretty inconsistent across media.
0:20 umm... was that Art Bell? In the black shirt, I mean...
please explain to me how it negates the existence of TNG, the adventures of a ships and crew 80 years into the future of this alternative universe story. Unless...lemme check...nope all my TNG dvds are still there. Unless, damn maybe they're blank now..I'll get back to you.
+William King I think he is referring to the events of TNG, many of which are impossible in the new timeline.
I'm really wondering if the 4th installment of the new movies was going to create a loop around to the original timeline - why else would they book the actor who played Kirk's dad?
Guess we'll never know. I'd reserve judgment until I see where they are going - which will be never.