No, trust me, if someone comes along and provides a radically more simple proof of the kind that Fermat himself alluded to in his scribblings, then he will be much more memoralized than Wiles. This is due not simply to the value placed on elegance and simplicity but also due to some historical accidents. Fermat wrote his theorem in a note book and said somewhat wryly perhaps that the MARGIN of that page was too small to contain the proof that he had in mind. Wiles proof uses mathematics that wasn't even around at the time of Fermat and it is certainly not of the length that Fermat had in mind when he spoke of how the MARGIN was too small. In fact there is a whole section of the wikipedia article on FLT that is devoted to this kind of issue:
The quotation was in Latin:
Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratorum in duos quadratoquadratos,
et generaliter nullam in infinitum ultra quadratum patestatem in duos euisdem
nominis fas est dividere cuius rei demonstrationem mirabilem sane detexi.
Hanc marginis exigitas non caperet.
(It is impossible to separate a cube into two cubes, or a fourth power into two
fourth powers, or in general, any power higher than the second into two like
powers. I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of this, which this margin
is too narrow to contain.)
There is considerable doubt over whether Fermat's claim to have "a truly marvelous proof" was correct. The length of Wiles's proof is about 200 pages and is beyond the understanding of most mathematicians today. It is quite possible that there is a proof that is both essentially shorter, and more elementary in its methods; initial proofs of major results are typically not the most direct.
The methods used by Wiles were unknown when Fermat was writing, and most believe it is unlikely that Fermat managed to derive all the necessary mathematics to demonstrate a solution. In the words of Andrew Wiles, "it's impossible; this is a 20th century proof". Alternatives are that there is a simpler proof that all other mathematicians up until this point have missed, or that Fermat was mistaken.
A plausible faulty proof that might have been accessible to Fermat has been suggested. It is based on the mistaken assumption that unique factorization works in all rings of integral elements of algebraic number fields. This is an acceptable explanation to many experts in number theory, on the grounds that subsequent mathematicians of stature working in the field followed the same path.
The fact that Fermat never published an attempted proof, or even publicly announced that he had one, does suggest that he may have had later thoughts, and simply neglected to cross out his private marginal note. In addition, later in his life, Fermat published a proof for the case
a4 + b4 = c4.
If he really had come up with a proof for the general theorem, it is perhaps less likely that he would have published a proof for a special case, unless this special case could be used to prove the general theorem. The academic conventions of his time were not, however, those that applied from the middle of the eighteenth century, and this argument cannot be taken as definitive.
So if someone were to come up with a proof that would mirror the kind of simple proof Fermat would have come up with, it would not only be "truly marvelous" but also an earth shattering astonishing result since it would be one that all other mathematicians up till the present time have missed and not even come close to (including Wiles). It's not a difference of 200 pages versus 100 pages. It's rather a difference of 200 pages versus just a few pages.
If we ever come up with a "Theory of Everything" that explains all observations ever made, it will surely NOT be as simple or small as the handful of equations with which Newton explained the orbits of the planets. But it will be far MORE elegant, because with a finite explanation it will be able to predict essentially an infinity of observations 
