STAR TREK TNG's LeVar Burton Is "Disappointed" With J.J. Abrams' New Timeline

STAR TREK TNG's LeVar Burton Is "Disappointed" With J.J. Abrams' New Timeline

Burton, who played Chief Engineer Geordie La Forge in the Star Trek: The Next Generation tv series, praised director J.J. Abrams work on the new Trek movies, but also seems let down because he feels the new timeline leaves no room for any "Next Gen" characters..

Not long after former Captain Kirk William Shatner had a pop at Abrams and his acquisition of two of the biggest sci-fi franchises of all time, we have another former Star Trek alumnus voicing some displeasure. This time it's former TNG crew member Geordie La Foerge, aka LeVar Burton. "J.J. [Abrams] [is] a very good director, he really is", said Burton." He directed the hell out of the first movie. I'm really interested to see what he wants to talk about in his upcoming movie.” But the actor - who appeared at Creation Entertainment’s Grand Slam Convention: The Stark Trek and Sci-Fi Summit, alongside fellow ‘Next Gen’ stars Sir Patrick Stewart, Jonathan Frakes and Brent Spiner - followed that up with a bit of criticism. “[But] I'm disappointed, quite frankly, that his timeline negates the existence of ‘Next Gen’. I think that's silly.". Well, the thing is I'm not sure the new timeline DOES leave no room for TNG. I mean yeah, The Romulans and "classic" Spock travel back from a future where the events of TNG are supposed to take place and they are not mentioned, but does that mean they don't exist? What do you guys think? Does Burton have a point or could this be more a case of sour grapes for not being asked to be involved?

Posted By:
Mark Cassidy
Member Since 11/9/2008
Filed Under "Star Trek" 2/22/2013 Source: Via
DISCLAIMER: is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and... [MORE]
1 2
repulse93 - 2/22/2013, 7:12 AM
Uh, Georgie, it actually doesn't. Hell, Leonard Nimoy's appearance in the film basically indicated that the new series is an alternate timeline that we will be following, rather than the previous universe, which still exists.
reverendjonnynemo - 2/22/2013, 7:21 AM
I have to agree - as much as JJ Trek is shite, nothing about suggested that the previous incarnation doesn't exist, nor does it indicate that TNG would unfold another way.

...and JJ Trek sucks.
ToTheManInTheColdSweat - 2/22/2013, 7:35 AM
abrams star trek is a good action film but a shitty shitty [frick]ing poor star trek movie. bitch turned star trek into a an action blockbuster and sci fi took the backseat. thank buddha he is leaving.
Christuffer - 2/22/2013, 7:36 AM

But I see where Levar is coming from; the fact that this new Trek sets things in a different direction from the getgo means that anything could be different. But really, J.J. would never do anything that totally negates The Next Generation. It just means that those characters' lives will be different slightly.

Chickens - 2/22/2013, 7:40 AM
I remember the comic that came out before the 2009 JJ movie directly referenced the previous universe, it follows most of the TNG crew members. I think there is definitely room for more TNG in the JJ timeline but it would involve yet another instance of time travel, which I think would be to much at this point. It would be nice if we could get another TNG movie, maybe even a prequel to the 2009 movie about the Hobus Star going supernova and Spock's mission to save Romulus.
JoeMomma29 - 2/22/2013, 7:40 AM
LOL LeVar! Just focus on Reading Rainbow!

Timerider84 - 2/22/2013, 7:41 AM
I hope they show the beginnings of Captain Picard and his crew in younger versions of themselves, once this series(crew) is over and done, they will probably go that direction,with an alternate timeline as well. Whoopi Goldberg will make another cameo between this series and next generation.
nach1wan - 2/22/2013, 7:42 AM
well... the TNG era had far too much exposure than the TOS one... 526 episodes and 4 movies pretty much trump 101 episodes and 8 movies, so... its high time to give kirk more stuff, he surely deserves it
JoeMomma29 - 2/22/2013, 7:48 AM
This thread is starting to rock!

ManOfKrypton - 2/22/2013, 7:54 AM
Awww he's butt hurt over TNG being neglected! Sorry but Kirk & Spock will always be The Star Trek I'll love!
KeefNCookies - 2/22/2013, 7:57 AM
He said this after one movie..? Didn't the Next Gen people come in after years upon years of the original Trek cast? So... couldnt it be said that after years of this new timeline, NextGen casting could follow??? What a freakin idiot!
Wingding - 2/22/2013, 7:58 AM
Never say never, Mr. Burton...
JackRyan - 2/22/2013, 8:00 AM
someone is a little butthurt
Mego - 2/22/2013, 8:02 AM
The real problem with Abrams Trek is he turned it into the exact thing Roddenberry never wanted Trek to be.
Its actually more like "Galaxy Quest" than Trek. Its simplistic action in the vein of "Fall Guy" and "Dukes Of Hazzard".
But of course it must have a corporate friendly young cast that acts like 16 year olds because the corporate guys want every film to supposedly feature 15-25 year olds or at least older actors playing 15-25 year old dumbasses.

Its like "Star Trek" meets "American Pie". Or Bizarro Star Trek where they exist in a Moronverse.
Stumblin - 2/22/2013, 8:07 AM
Star Trek originally was more like Galaxy Quest, the show itself was a joke. I enjoyed it but be real it was hardly close to anything serious. The movies however is where I felt it start to take itself seriously and actually have substance.

Abrams is continuing that idea from the movies. It's more grounded, amazing action, the plot was a bit weak but since when has any Star Trek not have a weak plot? I'm hoping the sequel will raise the bar for Star Trek story telling.
superotherside - 2/22/2013, 8:08 AM
Abrams Trek is great. Can't believe the people who are hating on it... lol I guess you can never please some.
Facade - 2/22/2013, 8:09 AM
I'm disappointed that Jennifer Lawerance hasn't posed nude, yet, too. Oh well.
RPD - 2/22/2013, 8:17 AM
What difference doos it make, anyhow? Does he want JJ to reboot it, too?
LordHuck - 2/22/2013, 8:19 AM
Well the new J.J Abrams Star Trek is full of young attractive people doing exciting naturally pre-existing Trek fans will hate it.
drkmater - 2/22/2013, 8:20 AM
He really doesn't know what he's talking about. But whatever.....
KaneRomita - 2/22/2013, 8:25 AM
Well... even though Kirk's father died and he was raised by his uncle (in the last movie) Kirk's life still turned out pretty much the same.. Even if he RIDICULOUSLY went straight from cadet to captain..
IMO the abramsverse isn't canon.. For one thing, those idiot writers of his don't understand Trek time-travel dynamics.. I heard them rationalize their crappy story by saying traveling back in time creates a new timeline and doesn't affect the main one.. That's funny because every single time-travel story in Star Trek gets it's drama out from either restoring a timeline or trying not to disturb it.. So, they're full of shit..
Next Gen rules.!
TYLERWINN - 2/22/2013, 8:28 AM
JJ saved star treck! That old stuff was unwatchable!
DRMidNite - 2/22/2013, 8:29 AM
Just go back to Reading Rainbow, Levar. Jeeze...
ScRipt69 - 2/22/2013, 8:32 AM
@superotherside ...... this is my friend, people troll on here for a living! for every dude there is 100 assholes, why do people hate on this film, did they see the previous films, First contact was great but after that it was badly down hill, JJ steps in and (this is the important bit) revitalizes the franchise and attracts new followers to the star trek universe, I have friends who would mock me for watching it and now they cant wait for I.T.D, that is a good thing! from seeds grow trees
JoeMomma29 - 2/22/2013, 8:35 AM
JoeMomma29 - 2/22/2013, 8:37 AM
Gusto approves this thread!

Super12 - 2/22/2013, 8:44 AM
Dear haters: JJ breathed life into the decaying franchise that was Star Trek. Can you really imagine another way for it to be as relevant as it is now? Everyone needs to stop crying just for the sake of crying and be grateful their precious films are now making enough revenue they can afford to keep on making them. We all love the old Star Trek, but it wasn't going anywhere without a jumpstart! And sorry, but giving Star Trek real actions scenes doesn't sacrifice its authenticity. Why would you want to limit Star Trek like that? "wah, it doesn't have any sci-fi in it, its all action!". REALLY? Cause as I recall there were black holes, time travel, matter transporters, teleportation equations and freakin-planet-destroying red matter. Star Trek kicked butt so stop your whining!
ndwwrestler2 - 2/22/2013, 9:03 AM
What is everyone complaining about? If he had altered the universe and the movie came out crappy, then I could understand. But the movie was great.

I believe that they can make a next gen movie under a new director....Joss Whedon maybe?

TonyChu - 2/22/2013, 9:12 AM
Reeeaaaadddiiiinnnggg Raaaaiiiinbbooow!!
reverendjonnynemo - 2/22/2013, 9:14 AM
@super12 please justify its current relevance as it stands with JarJar's crappy movie...
Spock - 2/22/2013, 9:26 AM
Here is the thing on the New Star Trek Movies. Roddenberry himself wanted to do something during their earlier years, but myself would love for them to take off from the Voyager time frame instead going back to do a alternative time line. I get over that they blew up my planet but u didn't have to create an alternative mainstream time line!
beane2099 - 2/22/2013, 9:30 AM
To the people who keep hating on JJ's Trek, what are you comparing it too? Seriously? After about season 5 of TNG, the franchise as a whole went into the crapper. DS9 had a couple decent seasons, and then they ended the entire Dominion war in the last 5 minutes of one episode. Voyager was mediocre at best it's entire run. Enterprise started to get really good and then ended with one of the worst episodes of Trek in the entire franchise. And each TNG movie was worst than the last with orrible plots, boring villains and massively illogical stories. As a long time Trek fan it was painful to watch.

Watching JJ's Trek brought me back to when I was a kid seeing Wrath of Khan in the theater. People complain about Kirk getting the Enterprise so early (even though he was the youngest Captain in history over in the original show) and the use of the black hole. But how different is that black hole from any number of "stellar anomalies" used in Trek? About the only thing I'll agree with JJ detractors on is the damn lens flares. That IS annoying. But it ain't enough to make me throw the baby out with the bath water.
Folchibas - 2/22/2013, 9:56 AM
So why don't you cry about it, saddlebags.
ndwwrestler2 - 2/22/2013, 10:00 AM
@beane2099 I agree with everything except the Lens Flares. To me they aren't that bad, and in some situations pretty cool.

KaneRomita - 2/22/2013, 10:04 AM
I agree Abrams revived Trek and that's good. I just didn't think they needed the time-travel stuff. I would've liked to see Kirk's last mission on the Farragut that led him to becoming first officer on the Enterprise that led him to being captain.. That's ALL stuff that IS canon and that we've never seen before.. It could've essentially been the same movie but without the MORONIC time-travel stuff.. REALLY.? Nero just sat in space for 25 years waiting for Spock to show up.? He knows the exact date of the Romulan apocalypse.. Why didn't he fly back there and try to save his people.?
Good movie... Good cast.. good VFX.. good music score.. IDIOTIC screenplay.

But talk about changing the timeline.... Spock showed Scotty the secrets of Trans-Warp beaming.. Don't you think that bit of info could have long-lasting ramifications on the universe.? But they probably don't even remember writing that part because they just needed an excuse to get Kirk back on the Enterprise. WHich is the prime example of LAZY writing in that movie..
Cookiedodger - 2/22/2013, 10:25 AM
They had to do the alternate timeline to give themselves a blank canvas to tell new stories. After almost 50 years of Trek, that really was the only way to go back to TOS characters.

My complaint has always been the way they did it. Having a disgruntled miner as the villain was ridiculous, and having Spock (widely regarded as possibly the smartest most industrious of all characters in Trek) destroy the timeline without even attempting to put it right...terrible.

That said, I enjoyed the movie, and look forward to the next one. But J.J. and the writers are not the geniuses they are lauded as.
BlueHawaiiSurfer - 2/22/2013, 10:26 AM
He's disappointed?!?! Try watching Nemesis again sir!! :(
GodzillaKart - 2/22/2013, 10:36 AM
@Super12: I agree. However, now it would be nice for them to bring in some that old Trek smarts and social relevance.
Cookiedodger - 2/22/2013, 10:38 AM
MrMxyzptlk: What about after he contacted Kirk? Instead of telling him not to involve Spock, or going with him the the Enterprise he could have returned with him and enacted a plan to recover the ship and return to the future. It wasn't the first time Spock time traveled,he could have done it again.

Instead he told Kirk "I just became responsible for the Destruction of my home planet and billions of lives, including your well as disrupting almost 200 years of history which will culminate in another few Billion of people who will never be born and I'm not gonna do anything about it...kay?"

Very poor plot point.
Cookiedodger - 2/22/2013, 10:40 AM
BlueHawaiiSurfer: Forget Nemesis, Insurrection was the worst.
1 2

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.