Roberto Orci Not Directing Trek XIII

[Tom Servo]

I am speaking on a tangent here.

Hour of Victory was rated on Metacritic a score of 37, which is bad. The consensus was that the game was "broken". Well, I played it and I didn't find it broken. The game mechanics worked fine. I encounted two technical issues: a tank getting caught in an awkward position and NPCs falling through a door. These are common issues with many games.

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim was rated on Metacritic a score of 96, which is near perfection. I played this game. This game had major technical issues.

At the launch of Skyrim, a multitude of technical issues ranging from small to large in scale were being reported. Some examples include a texture down-scaling issue on the Xbox 360 version when the game was run from the hard drive;[71] crashes, slowdown and frame rate issues on the PlayStation 3 version when save files exceeded 6 MB,[72] commonly occurring due to extended game play times;[73] and various crashes and slowdowns on the Windows version. According to Skyrim's director Todd Howard the misconception of 'restrictive RAM'[74] is incorrect, "It's literally the things you've done in what order and what's running."[75]

Since release several patches have been published to address technical issues and improve overall gameplay. Patch 1.2 was released on November 29, 2011, to fix some of the game's issues;[76] however, some players reported new bugs in the game following the patch, including more frequent game crashes.[77] Patch 1.3 was released on December 7, 2011, to improve stability, further address known issues, and fix some of the problems that were introduced in version 1.2.[78] Patch 1.4 was released on February 1, 2012, for the PC. Another list of issues and bugs were addressed in this patch as well as the Skyrim launcher support for Skyrim Workshop (PC).[79] Patch 1.5 was released on March 20, 2012, for the PC. Numerous bugs were fixed, as well as the inclusion of new archery/spellcasting killcams.[80] On April 12, 2012, Bethesda announced that Kinect support would be coming for the Xbox 360 version of Skyrim. It features more than 200 voice commands.[81] Patch 1.6 was released on May 24, 2012, for the PC. This includes a new feature – mounted combat.[82] Patch 1.7 was released on July 30, 2012, for the PC,[83] and 1.8 was released on November 1, 2012, for the PC.[84] These two introduced only minor bugfixes. Patch 1.9 was released on March 18, 2013. In addition to providing various bug fixes, this patch also added new features, most namely the new 'Legendary' difficulty and 'Legendary' skills.[85]

An unofficial community patch tries to fix remaining issues unattended by the official patches.[86] The latest iteration of the so-called Unofficial Skyrim Patch, released in May 2014,[87] lists hundreds[88] of gameplay, quests, and other bugs as fixed in the game and its add-ons.[89][90]

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elder_Scrolls_V:_Skyrim#Technical_issues) The numbers refer to notes.

The issue I encountered was that my game froze when my character crossed a bridge.

My point is this, ratings on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic should not be used for gauging the quality of a product.

 

[Borgminister]

If I'm unsure about a beer, I'll use Beer Advocate as a guide... if the average of 1000 respondents is a 95, chances are I'll like the beer and--the beer is actually good!

That's the way I look at Rotten Tomatoes as well... it is no guarantee, but a decent indicator.

 

[BillJ]

Damned thing is, looking at the story idea, it seems like Orci may have been trying to bring back the Prime universe in some form.

 

[Set Harth]

I thought that rumor was debunked.

 

[BillJ]

I thought that rumor was debunked.

I don't know? Orci said it wasn't the story idea. That doesn't mean what he was working on wasn't similar.

 

[BigJake]

His argument is meaningless. He's trying to assert technical stability as the primary constant of quality.

Whether his particular choice of analogy was good, the point itself is perfectly sound and indeed perfectly obvious. Consensus doesn't make a movie good or bad, because taste does not work that way, and trying to use aggregator scores to prove your opinions correct is stupid.

"Beasts of the Southern Wild" has an 86% Rotten Tomatoes score, for example. But try brandishing that at someone who thinks it's pretentious, overrated poverty porn (which there's a pretty good argument for) and see how far it gets you. You can either argue the merits of a film or you can't, don't waste your time pretending aggregator scores are proof of anything (beyond a transitory snapshot in public or critical taste). It's like watching people do the Biff Tannen "make like a tree and get outta here!" -- it's just cringeworthy.

 

[Ovation]

I am speaking on a tangent here.

Hour of Victory was rated on Metacritic a score of 37, which is bad. The consensus was that the game was "broken". Well, I played it and I didn't find it broken. The game mechanics worked fine. I encounted two technical issues: a tank getting caught in an awkward position and NPCs falling through a door. These are common issues with many games.

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim was rated on Metacritic a score of 96, which is near perfection. I played this game. This game had major technical issues.

At the launch of Skyrim, a multitude of technical issues ranging from small to large in scale were being reported. Some examples include a texture down-scaling issue on the Xbox 360 version when the game was run from the hard drive;[71] crashes, slowdown and frame rate issues on the PlayStation 3 version when save files exceeded 6 MB,[72] commonly occurring due to extended game play times;[73] and various crashes and slowdowns on the Windows version. According to Skyrim's director Todd Howard the misconception of 'restrictive RAM'[74] is incorrect, "It's literally the things you've done in what order and what's running."[75]

Since release several patches have been published to address technical issues and improve overall gameplay. Patch 1.2 was released on November 29, 2011, to fix some of the game's issues;[76] however, some players reported new bugs in the game following the patch, including more frequent game crashes.[77] Patch 1.3 was released on December 7, 2011, to improve stability, further address known issues, and fix some of the problems that were introduced in version 1.2.[78] Patch 1.4 was released on February 1, 2012, for the PC. Another list of issues and bugs were addressed in this patch as well as the Skyrim launcher support for Skyrim Workshop (PC).[79] Patch 1.5 was released on March 20, 2012, for the PC. Numerous bugs were fixed, as well as the inclusion of new archery/spellcasting killcams.[80] On April 12, 2012, Bethesda announced that Kinect support would be coming for the Xbox 360 version of Skyrim. It features more than 200 voice commands.[81] Patch 1.6 was released on May 24, 2012, for the PC. This includes a new feature – mounted combat.[82] Patch 1.7 was released on July 30, 2012, for the PC,[83] and 1.8 was released on November 1, 2012, for the PC.[84] These two introduced only minor bugfixes. Patch 1.9 was released on March 18, 2013. In addition to providing various bug fixes, this patch also added new features, most namely the new 'Legendary' difficulty and 'Legendary' skills.[85]

An unofficial community patch tries to fix remaining issues unattended by the official patches.[86] The latest iteration of the so-called Unofficial Skyrim Patch, released in May 2014,[87] lists hundreds[88] of gameplay, quests, and other bugs as fixed in the game and its add-ons.[89][90]

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elder_Scrolls_V:_Skyrim#Technical_issues) The numbers refer to notes.

The issue I encountered was that my game froze when my character crossed a bridge.

My point is this, ratings on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic should not be used for gauging the quality of a product.

No one is using them to gauge quality. Popularity, on the other hand, is clearly indicated by each measure. As such, claims of "widespread grumbling/disappointment" with Abramsverse films are poorly supported.

 

[mos6507]

I think this is a sign that JJ Trek is done. If not now, then after the third film. I think with JJ gone and the crew aging out of their "fresh out of the academy" image, it's just a franchise iteration with no clear future, and the general trend in Hollywood is to have long-range multi-film arcs planned. To do that you really should reboot Trek all over again with people behind it who will stay the course.

 

[BillJ]

His argument is meaningless. He's trying to assert technical stability as the primary constant of quality.

Whether his particular choice of analogy was good, the point itself is perfectly sound and indeed perfectly obvious. Consensus doesn't make a movie good or bad, because taste does not work that way, and trying to use aggregator scores to prove your opinions correct is stupid.

"Beasts of the Southern Wild" has an 86% Rotten Tomatoes score, for example. But try brandishing that at someone who thinks it's pretentious, overrated poverty porn (which there's a pretty good argument for) and see how far it gets you. You can either argue the merits of a film or you can't, don't waste your time pretending aggregator scores are proof of anything (beyond a transitory snapshot in public or critical taste). It's like watching people do the Biff Tannen "make like a tree and get outta here!" -- it's just cringeworthy.

I think the more relevant question it answers is: did the people that watch 'X' enjoy 'X'? In relation to Star Trek Into Darkness, it did well at the box office, it did well on home video and people generally seemed to enjoy the experience.

What more is needed to qualify it as a success?

 

[Garak]

The guy wrote Transformers 2 and Amazing Spider-Man 2. I don't know if I'd want a strange man like that directing a Trek movie so this is probably a good move.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Whether his particular choice of analogy was good, the point itself is perfectly sound and indeed perfectly obvious.

His point was meta scores were no barometer of quality. That's not sound at all.

If you separated all of film into two piles--split right down the middle based on meta scores--you'd be much better off randomly picking from the first bin.

And it does prove something. If a film has a 92% positive viewer rationing, then it proves 92% of the people who voted liked the film.

 

[Saul]

People who express strong opinions are more likely to complain than to praise. That's just a fact.

Trekkies are welcome to keep complaining, and the studio will keep doing what they've learned works best. They've no reason now to humor the fan base beyond some occasional lip service.

Yeah, yeah. We get it. You've been saying the same thing for over 10 years.

The world won't crumble if you're not here to tell us that.

Shatner: "Get a Life!"

 

[johnjm22]

If I could pick a director it would be Jonathan Glazer.

He's dabbled in Sci-Fi, and I loved both Sexy Beast and Under The Skin. His movies have a more mature realistic feel, while at the same time containing fantastical elements.

The Abramsverse films have gone for that upbeat, action oriented, light weight fun sort of vibe. I'm okay with having those sorts of elements in the film, but I'd like to see them toned down in favor of a more focused science fiction based story.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

The guy wrote Transformers 2

No he wrote version of Transformers 2 that might have been good. The version we got was largely connecting the action sequences Bay came up with during the Writer's Strike.

Plus its transformers not exactly Citizen Kane here.

and Amazing Spider-Man 2.

I don't know being able to write Spider-Man worth a crap seems to be a rare ability these days.

 

[Lakenheath 72]

Wrong. People are using Metacritic, and Rotten Tomatoes, for gauging the quality of a product.

From an article titled "Metacritic's Power Grows as Amazon Adds Metascore to Game Listings" by Paul Tasso at Forbes, he writes,

Still, on the whole, I find aggregation sites like Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes to be accurate a large majority of the time. While an 85 game might feel like a 90 or 80 to some, very rarely will a high rated game be terrible and a low rated game be a gem. If you relied simply on one critic, this would almost certainly happen sometimes, but through aggregation, a line of quality begins to emerge. There will obviously be exceptions, but Metacritic rose to importance because it is accurate enough where people trust it. While nuances of games are certainly missed through a simple number alone, it’s a tool for the public to gauge whether or not they’re going to get what they paid for/anticipated. If say, after years of build-up, Watch Dogs was released and it got a 40, Metacritic would be providing a service to consumers that they were mislead about the quality of the game through advertising. Obviously they are still free to play for themselves, but Metacritic is often a good gauge of quality, particularly if the reviews aggregated are actually read after the initial Metascore is seen.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertc...ws-as-amazon-adds-metascore-to-game-listings/

In a contract between Bethesda and Obsidian, if the game Fallout: New Vegas had received a score of 85 at Metacritic, the developer would receive royalties. However, if the score was lower, which it was - at 84 - the developer got no royalties.

http://www.joystiq.com/2012/03/15/obsidian-missed-fallout-new-vegas-metacritic-bonus-by-one-point/

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2012/03/why-are-game-developer-bonuses-based-on-review-scores/

This has become a contentious issue with video games. Many of the higher scoring games this year had serious technical issues.

One of the senses of quality is,

degree or standard of excellence, esp a high standard

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/quality

By comparing Hour of Victory to Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, I was making a comparison in technical issues. The chief complaint of the former was that it was buggy, so one of the reasons for its low score. Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim had even more technical issues; however, it was rated much higher. A casual reader would come to the conclusion that Skyrim was a good value for their money, not realizing that the game was essentially a Beta release rushed into the marketplace. I can play HoV from beginning to end; there are quests in Skyrim which can't be completed even now. It is a question of software quality.

Star Trek: Into Darkness is either a 87% on Rotten Tomatoes or a 72 on Metacritic. Using Academic Grading, Star Trek: Into Darkness was a Good Movie or an Average Movie. I think it was an average movie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_grading_in_the_United_States

 

[Mudd]

You've been saying the same thing for over 10 years.

And you've been not getting it for even longer.

It's a service I do you. You're welcome.

 

[BillJ]

Star Trek: Into Darkness is either a 87% on Rotten Tomatoes or a 72 on Metacritic.

But when you look at the viewer grades, Into Darkness rates at 90% with the average being 4.2/5.

Surely that should mean something when discussing quality?

 

[Gsam]

I agree with the idea that the trend in Hollywood seems to be long range multi filmed arcs planned. Had they planned a little better with this reboot. They probably could have squeezed another movie out. They took so long in between that the cast has aged about 7/8 years.

Marvel pops those babies out. In the beginning when this crew signed on they probably could have gotten them to sign on for at least another movie if they had cut down the commitment time. 7 years is a life time in movie years.

Now begins the wait for the truth to come out about what is happening with Orci. I can say that when I saw Karl Urban at a convention he was sure Feb was the magic filming month and that a script had been written. IDK take that for what it is worth

 

[CorporalClegg]

Wrong. People are using Metacritic, and Rotten Tomatoes, for gauging the quality of a product.

And this is a perfectly acceptable practice.

From an article titled "Metacritic's Power Grows as Amazon Adds Metascore to Game Listings" by Paul Tasso at Forbes, he writes,

Still, on the whole, I find aggregation sites like Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes to be accurate a large majority of the time. While an 85 game might feel like a 90 or 80 to some, very rarely will a high rated game be terrible and a low rated game be a gem. If you relied simply on one critic, this would almost certainly happen sometimes, but through aggregation, a line of quality begins to emerge. There will obviously be exceptions, but Metacritic rose to importance because it is accurate enough where people trust it. While nuances of games are certainly missed through a simple number alone, it’s a tool for the public to gauge whether or not they’re going to get what they paid for/anticipated. If say, after years of build-up, Watch Dogs was released and it got a 40, Metacritic would be providing a service to consumers that they were mislead about the quality of the game through advertising. Obviously they are still free to play for themselves, but Metacritic is often a good gauge of quality, particularly if the reviews aggregated are actually read after the initial Metascore is seen.

Any would-be shenanigans aside, this proves my point. Not yours.

By comparing Hour of Victory to Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, I was making a comparison in technical issues.

This is a criterion unique to the medium and therefore the reason for the false equivalency.

Non the less, using "technical issues" in video games as your leading argument is pretty weak in and of itself. All videogames have bugs. It's the nature and impact of the bug that's important in regards to grading a game. But I already addressed that point.

Star Trek: Into Darkness is either a 87% on Rotten Tomatoes or a 72 on Metacritic. Using Academic Grading, Star Trek: Into Darkness was a Good Movie or an Average Movie. I think it was an average movie.

And I think it's a good movie.

See? The meta scores did their job.

 

[Lakenheath 72]

On the success of Star Trek: Into Darkness, one measure is how well it did overseas. The ratio of a successful summer blockbuster is approximately 30-40% domestic and 60-70% international. As an example, Iron Man 3 had 33.7% domestic and 66.3% international. ST:ID had 48.9% domestic and 51.1% international. This is considered moderately successful, as the film made a little more money overseas and changed the ratio (strong domestic - weak overseas). (The Amazing Spider-Man 2 had a ratio of 28.6% domestic and 71.4% international.)

I don't think the next film will cost $200 million. It will be probably become a second-tier blockbuster, costing in the mid-$100 millions. Paramount wants this franchise to succeed overseas and wants a script that will appeal to that marketplace. Star Trek has changed forever. The question is, will the next film continue the trend and follow in the footsteps of Iron Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man 2?

I think this question was in play when Paramount stepped in. Whatever the script was, it wasn't meeting the needs of Paramount. And, whatever Bob Orci did or didn't do, displeased Paramount.