621

LeVar Burton Calls Out J.J. Abrams About Star Trek Into Darkness Again

fb share tweet share

BurtonThe new Star Trek reboot films from director J.J. Abrams has upset yet another cast member of the older Star Trek TV series. This time, it’s LeVar Burton (again). Of course, LeVar Burton played Lt. Cmdr Geordi La Forge on Star Trek: The Next Generation. He has said some unkind things about J.J. Abrams and his 2009 Star Trek reboot in the past, and now it appears he has some words for Star Trek Into Darkness.

As reported on TMZ, LeVar Burton was asked what he thought of J.J. Abrams Star Trek sequel film. Although he said he has already seen the movie twice, the 56-year-old actor is conflicted yet again with the new movie. Burton went on to say that Star Trek Into Darkness was lacking the vision of Gene Roddenberry. Burton explained:

At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me.

A few months ago, LeVar Burton called out J.J. Abrams for comments he made about wanting to be remembered as the only version of Star Trek. Burton took offense to these comments because he didn’t feel Abrams was respecting or honoring the Star Trek canon.

Is LeVar Burton right about Star Trek Into Darkness? Does the sequel film need more of Gene Roddenberry’s vision of the future? In some ways yes, Star Trek has always been about space exploration and the possibilities of humanity if we were all united as one. J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek films are very action and revenge heavy, which is fine, but some Star Trek fans would like to see the film series go back to that sense of space exploration and wonder.

Comments

  1. hhh says:

    Burton’s right, jj thinks he’s god and he’s more like bod! Now he’s doing star wars, guess there’s no one else for science fiction films nowadays, zzzzeeeech Star Trek sucks now

  2. Qoaa says:

    JJ Abrams ignored the entire Star Trek mythos…

    it’s about “Trek” exploration, seeking out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before…

    yet both JJ Abrams Treks have absolutely ZERO exploration. Remember there was an Enterprise before Kirk’s captained by Archer. The Archer Enterprise makes a cameo in the first movie as a model on screen.

    If JJ will do exploration and create it more as a space opera then it will fit the Gene Roddenberry mold

  3. JMRobin says:

    I AGREE 100%With LAVAR BURTON. Gene Roddenberry is by far the icon fort portraying science fiction

  4. NagatoYuki Huntress says:

    I see LeVar’s concern . Something I think we forget about is that with teh new time line being heavily altered. The Various Chars from TNG DS9 and Voyager would may not have gone the same career paths they have. JJ has forgotten the Butterfly Effect. I have always held out hopes for giving the Cast of DS9 and Voyager to have a Few Big Screen Movie outings, JJ has literally stolen chances for those series cast to have the big buck checks and literally robbed us fans of possible reuniting cast for that Lets get the cast of DS9 back to hunt for Sisko as he leaves a warning to his son something is coming from a Quadrant of the Galaxy no one has been to and its trouble. The Voyager Crew gets back together on a final Mission to go and get Neelix as the UFP is going back to the Gamma Quadrant to explore and they need Neelix for something.

    It’s sad that many of the fans will miss out on big screen adventures. TOS and TNG got them but JJ shame on you for not letting DS9 and Voyager and heck i could see a few Enterprise big screen adventures. JJ You robbed us find a way to fix it.

  5. betweener says:

    Abrams trek makes for good movies, but not good Star Trek movies. /end

  6. disqus_8uTkp82LAz says:

    I think we’ve seen the latest Star Trek movie before. It was Called Wrath of Khan and that version was much better.

  7. Will says:

    I enjoyed the movies but Mr. Burton is kinda totally correct. The old episodes did an impressive job of mingling action with a message and as I think about the reboots I can’t really think of a specific didactic message.

  8. fredinstien says:

    The recent Star Trek movies are OK, but I would like to see the Enterprise crew meet some aliens …. non human aliens the kind of the type people are seeing in the reported UFO sightings and even meet some of the UFO’s from reported sightings

    maybe joining forces in some kind of rescue mission instead of another fight the enemy into submission. this is supposed to seek out other life forms isn’t it ?

  9. CurtTheReasonableTrekkie says:

    I have to get in on this. I’m a huge Trek Fan; Especially TNG, but I’ve seen it all. I love the Gene Roddenberry universe…and you might even go so far as to say the Gene Roddenberry moral philosophy which was really what used Star Trek as a vessel to educate people. These morality plays set in space have made some of the best and most momentous moments in television and cinema history. With all of that, here comes the shocker. I loved “Into Darkness”. The second JJ flick had something that the first did not, and that is a moral arch. The movie taught a moral lesson to both the viewer, and the characters simultaneously. Star Fleet did immoral things in order to gain raw militaristic power. This backfired, and caused violence and death. Kirk and the crew set out, at first on a mission of revenge; To hurt whoever hurt them. As time goes on and Kirk and Spock develop the moral arch by arguing with each other, a realization is made. They realize that in lowering their moral standards, no matter how brutal the enemy, they are losing even more than the lives of their comrades. They’re losing what their comrades stood for and died for. If it doesn’t sound familiar and significant to the world today, you must be living on Risa.

    And for those of you who wish that they would explore… They weren’t ready yet. They lost track of the Prime Directive. The events of the first movie set the federation back. But the movie leaves the Enterprise and crew ready to do what they do best; Spread a little bit of that Gene Roddenberry jam all over the toast that is the Alpha Quadrant. Maybe a little Beta action too. Maybe JJ doesn’t entirely employ the same methods as traditional Star Trek. But he’s studied it and he knows it damn well, and his adaptation is beyond adequate.

  10. nicolas says:

    the second new star trek movie wasn’t as good as the first…. i liked certain aspects of it and it wasn’t bad but i kind of agree with levar s interpretation of it. furthermore, i’ll always be more of a next generation fan

  11. Private_Eyescream says:

    Oh you mean the videogame movie, “SHALLOW TREK: INTO DULLNESS”?

    Where all the characters were unkillable simulated humans, lacking depth, lacking personality, lacking charm, and being dull as wet dishrags.

    The one where Doctor McCoy injects any dead fuzz-rodent with the blood of a vanquished foe for giggles and undoes the shitty “emotional death scene” (which resulted in an uncontrollable belly laugh for myself) of 15 minutes earlier?

    The movie that finally convinced me that nothing good will ever come from the incompetent hands of Jar Jar Abrams?

  12. John Ebejer says:

    Well if he didn’t like it why did he see it twice? I can remember Gene’s wife didn’t like the war with the dominion in DS9 so it’s hard to please everyone.

  13. Mark Workhoven says:

    LeVar is right. J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek movies are basically “Mission Impossible” in space. They hardly even seem like Star Trek at all. Not because they’re action-packed, I have nothing against good action. They’re just so…..brainless. Even action-packed Star Trek shouldn’t be brainless.

  14. Marsha Couturier says:

    by using the ending of star trek 2 in a reverse capasity in the new movie, led to the omisson of the most important theme of what the second movie was supposed to be witch was a sence of loss that one person felt for another, and by reviving Kirk before the end of the movie they robbed the audiance of the point of it all, witch was loss and moving on……

  15. Poker CK says:

    Well he has a point. I see these movies as junk food Star Trek. Its nice to have and keeps me busy.

    I always feel a bit empty after junk food though… Much like watching these.

  16. xzendor7 says:

    I agree with his point of view. The Roddenberry is missing from these movies; the excessive violence, the stupid way in which the characters act at the overall plot is lacking in substance. Like to many action and sci-fi films today, they rely to heavily on the special effects instead of creating a plot with substances and the challenges how we think and look at things.

  17. Phil Merkel says:

    Abrams version of Trek: A Bunch of good looking actors in Star Trek Cosplay hang out in an Apple Store add a star if you like lens flare.

  18. Dudeguy says:

    JJ abrams version is poop… except in 3D 😀

  19. Mum of two says:

    He did ruin Star Trek, got no time for any of his movies. He’ll ruin Star Wars to.

  20. Don't mess with the classics says:

    If the JJ movies were that good how come the third movie has not been given the green light by Paramount? Paramount was not happy with the first two movies. CBS regains the rights to the franchise in less than 30 days so unless, by some miracle, a decent storyline and a budget is agreed upon then NO ST3….

  21. Christopher Luther says:

    I couldn’t make it through Into Darkness. I really tried, but it just felt like another ho-hum action film. I’m not at all looking forward to the next one. Pretty sure Star Trek is dead, and has been since Voyager. Enterprise provided a little of the old spark but the execution wasn’t there. The appearance of the Borg was also frustrating. Really, though, DS9 was the beginning of the end. I know, it was a good show, but it was not keeping with the original philosophy. Some people prefer it. i don’t and never will.

    So… I guess I’m just going to stick to TNG and TOS reruns whenever I feel the itch to witness Gene’s vision (which I share), flawed, in some cases, as it might have been.