Hammond On Cannes: Robert Redford’s Brave New Role … 
Hot Trailer: Jennifer Aniston And Jason Sudeikis’ … 
Warner Bros Tells Space Story, From The Bra Designers Who … 
Brad Pitt’s Plan B Banner Promotes Jeremy Kleiner To … 
Hot Trailer: ‘Don Jon’ 
Billy Crystal-Starring Comedy From Matt Nix & Larry … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Dancing With The Stars’ … 
Hammond On Cannes: A New Day Comes To The Fest As HBO and … 
Cannes: Fleming Reflects And Finds Talented Trio A Breath … 
Hot Trailer: ‘Man Of Steel’ 
Former Digital Domain CEO & Auditors Sued For Fraud By … 
ABC’s ‘Nashville’ Undergoes Production … 
CBS Wins Season & Ties Sweep In Demo; ABC Tops Adults … 
Alki David Agrees To End Name Games With Aereo And Barry … 
Next-Gen Xbox One Unveiled With Content Including … 
Cannes: Weinstein Co Acquires Keanu-Reese Sci-Fi Pic … 
Hot Trailer: ‘The Wolverine’ 
Ang Lee Departs FX Pilot ‘Tyrant’ 
How Many Times Does Seth MacFarlane Have To Say No To The … 
Cannes: Stanley Weiser To Script ‘Three Graves … 
Cannes: Deadline Crashes Palais Forum With Costa Gavras, … 
EXCLUSIVE: Steven Spielberg’s next film is so big, it needs two studios. DreamWorks and Fox are near a deal to co-finance Robopocalypse, a Drew Goddard-scripted adaptation of the Daniel H. Wilson epic novel about the human race’s attempt to survive an apocalyptic robot uprising. I’m told that Disney will release domestically and Fox will distribute the film overseas. It will open in the U.S. on Wednesday, July 3, 2013.
Deadline broke the story that Spielberg was eyeing the novel as a directing vehicle, before he instead chose War Horse as the first film he directed for DreamWorks since Spielberg and Stacey Snider left Paramount and made a deal with Reliance and a distribution deal at Disney. We also revealed last October that he had committed to direct it. Doubleday published the book in June.
Fox and DreamWorks previously tried to get together back in 2009 on Harvey, where Spielberg was going to direct an adaptation of Mary Chase’s Pulitzer Prize-winning play about a man who befriends a six-and-a-half-foot-tall invisible rabbit. Spielberg finally withdrew from that film partly because it was so difficult to find the right actor to play Elwood P. Dowd, the character originated by James Stewart in the 1950 film. Now, the studios have a Spielberg project they can team on.
Loading ...
Well, good luck on that. Daniel H.Wilson is basically a knock-off of max brook’s World War Z, but with robots. It closely imitates its episodic nature and, while it has many great robot ideas (also stolen from many other sources, to be honest) it doesn’t seem to translate well into a movie story arch. I suppose Spielberg felt many of the isolated set-pieces have great potential, and some do, but that will push towards a very spielberg-like problem, movies built around set pieces he dreams up on a storyboard and then have to be tied together by a writer. When he follows this model, the films are spectacular in parts and weak in the overall narrative elements. I hope Drew Goddard’s script manages to create an actual story where there is none and find a coherent, engaging and driving narrative pulse to build a movie around. Otherwise, this will sound way cooler on paper than in reality.
Actually agree with what you said. The book was a fast read, but not as gripping as World War Z- which was a great, great read. But like WWZ, I think Robo should be done as a mini-series/TV show. I supposed with the costs involved it doesn’t make sense, and with the success of Walking Dead, there really isn’t enough space for another TV series about zombies, but with Robo, the lack of a single narrative will make this a tough project to adapt, particularly as it spans several years and battles all over the globe. What separates it from Terminator, I think, is the robots have integrated into our lives, and when they turn on humans, it isn’t from a military-based approach/attack, but from all those robots that are wired into (or will be wired into) our daily lives.
Totally disagree. I thought Robopocalypse was a far superior novel in terms of character development and cohesiveness. WWZ was okay, but Robopocalypse was the kind of book you read in one sitting. I think it will make a better movie than WWZ because of the continuity of characters (many are revisited more than once, which is not the case with WWZ) and a more unifying story arc. I’ll see both of them in the theater, but I’m far more excited about Robopocalypse.
Plus, the book is only half-written. He sets up an unnerving scenario, then moves on to set up another scary scenario… Then follows up on none of it.
It’s as if Steven King wrote only half of “The Stand.”
Another annoying aspect, early in the novel, he establishes walking military robots that can tolerate any climate. He also establishes military robots, guns mounted atop all-terrain treads…
Then he has an Indian Reservation that’s untouchable because the robots can’t cross the desert-like terrain. That’s just lazy.
What happened to LINCOLN with Daniel Day Lewis????
That’s Spielberg’s next project. They’re going to shoot it in a few more weeks in Virginia. After Spielberg wraps that up, that’s when he’ll do ‘Robopocalypse.’
Anyone know the release date for this?
Should be a flop.
I totally agree. Spielberg almost always fails when it comes to the big sci-fi blockbusters. For decades now, he’s left nothing but a trail of tears and shame.
I will presume your tongue is firmly planted in cheek.
What about LINCOLN?
Now, that’s a movie I look forward to seeing. And, I really recommend people read the book Team of Rivals.
Yeah, for all you mavericks who think harp on fast-reads, nothing like a hunk of a book like Team Of Rivals to slow you down.
I think the real question is, what happened to Interstellar?
I not sure what I think about this just yet. If it turns out to be I ROBOT -meets- MAD MAX it might be pretty cool. If they’re just remaking TERMINATOR then not so much. Has anyone read the book?
I have. Creepy as hell, especially in the beginning. What sets it apart from ‘Terminator’ is that it spends more time in our ‘real’ world, especially in the beginning. The technology goes “feral”, as one character describes it, with little things happening here and there but not so anyone puts together the dots. Then comes Zero Hour. And the SUV in your garage tries to kill you.
Totally. Case in point, the few moments of greatness in A.I., linked by an unengaging and disjointed narrative. It felt like 3 unrelated parts…
But yes, I’ll still go see it!
The “elephant in the room” here is Sarah Connor and the friendly robot once played by a philandering ex-governor.
Based on some of Steven’s films, I fear no matter how the story should end…Steven will find some bizarre forced ‘happy’ ending as in War of the Worlds and A.I.
I do have high hopes for War Horse, however, as it looks good and is a great story.
Of course, AI isn’t a happy ending and was Kubrick’s idea.
The protagonist (David) being given the gift of death is a happy ending to you? It’s certainly an emotionally satisfying one, as it completes his quest, but if that’s your idea of a happy ending I’d hate to see what you call a sad ending.
Steve Carell could play Elwood P. Dowd in a remake of “Harvey.” He can pull off both comedy and drama. He’d be great.
Why is Fox co-financing it? Does Disney not have faith in the project?
Disney isn’t a film studio anymore. They don’t have “faith” in any projects that aren’t Disney branded. That’s why they only distribute Dreamworks, not invest in it.
Good point, Mousey. I’m still baffled, though, as to why Disney would spend $200+ million on “John Carter” but not finance a Johnny Depp or Steven Spielberg film.
Because of the risk involved with multi-million dollar film budgets, it is becoming the norm for two studios to co-finance big budget pictures. One studio normally takes domestic distribution rights and the other, all international, or some combination thereof.
Mike Fleming already said this in the article, along with the intended release date of this film for the person who asked.
The ending of AI isn’t really that happy.
And was also Kubrick’s original ending as well.
Hey Dan,
‘Happy’ was in quotes. Regarding A.I. the whole mother thing was not needed at the end…the film should have ended without that aspect included…it was pure Steven.
Spielberg’s A.I. did have a “happy ending” and it was changed from Kubrikck’s.
In Kubrick’s original treatment the robot boy’s mother was an distant, depressed, alcoholic. And the only comfort or relationship the boy had with his mother, was mixing her a bloody mary each morning, so she could get through her day. That was the only affection he would ever receive from her.
At the end of the film, the aliens resurrect the robot-boy, then place him in his “matrix reality”. The film closes with the boy making his mother her favorite bloody mary, but this time, she hugs and kisses him.
Agreed. The boy under the sea image was great, then all of a sudden Ben Kingsley’s back on saying “anyhoozies, a few years went by, then…”
I’ll get flak for saying this but Spielbergs worst films are still more entertaining, imaginative and better looking than most everything else out there. He has the clout, access to talent and budgets few directors get, at the very least the film will look AMAZING and sadly that can be quite enough to fill seats with happy movie goers. AI and War of Worlds were rough around the edges and had less than satisfying endings (depending on who you ask) but those movies were amazing to look at and at times down right thrilling.
I’m there!
I’m with you. One of the top American directors of his generation. I’ll follow him anywhere.
I concur… but he did shit the bed on Indy 4. Nothing worked there… including the director, cast, writer and production design team.
I would agree…except for INDY 4. That was complete hogwash. It was dreadful. I wish we could erase INDY 4 from the history of film.
I love most of Spielberg’s movies – particularly the ones based on true stories like Catch Me if you Can, Amistad or Schindler’s List.
I think Dreamworks is having money problems.
who doesn’t?
..and Betty White for his sister?..
by the way, Depp would be brilliant too, not to mention a couple of english thesps..
Humans trying to survive an apocalyptic robot uprising? So essentially, this will be The Terminator but rated PG or PG-13?
Totally different from Terminator. Those movies were not actually about the robot uprising, but about a very specific method the robots used to try and crush the opposition. Robopocalypse is a chilling book about the origins of a robot uprising, the manner in which the robots establish dominance, and the strength of the grassroots human resistance that eventually defeats them. Way more developed than Terminator.
His last good movie was Saving Private Ryan. That was a long time ago. Since then we’ve been fed shit like Catch me if you can, Terminal, War of the worlds and so on.
But hey, at least its not a remake of a classic which is all Hollywood does these days.
I think Munich was a great movie, although suppose not many people agreed with me since it flopped at the box office.
Some movies as just not meant to be remade, Harvey fall into the category. Why do you need to make over what is perfect in the first place!!! Many fin artists came together gave wonderful performances and that should be good enough. But I guess if your going to remake this fine movie I think Daniel Day Lewis is the man to play Elwood P. Dowd.
You didn’t like Terminal??
There is no doubt Spielberg is a gifted Director. I remember watching a rerun of Matlock and as the episode ended, commenting to myself on how good of an episode that was, how it was one of my favorites. Who directed it? Sure enough, Steven Spielberg. The man has stirred my imagination for decades. Therefore, I’ll be there on Day One.
Yes, Robopocalypse resembles World War Z (I found out about WWZ after reading a reviewer comment about Robo) in style but boy, is it a good book. Lots of potential there with Spielberg at the helm.
Correction: Columbo, NOT Matlock.
This is interesting to see a Democrat studio and a conservative studio working together , how will it pan out?……I know FOX is faithful to GOD and loves him, so how will this work out? The irony of the film should be about true humanity which is the ” human heart “…..if the human heart is so evil, calloused, and have so much jealousy and contempt for others and only wish to harm…..then wouldn’t they be as ” heartless ” as the robots themselves? If the robots are heartless monsters….how does it reflect in the human hearts of the world we live in today? The contrast in this film should be believable…..hope they can work together and put their political views aside…..if they can trust each other…..GOD bless!
Spielberg is in a league of his own. I’m going to check out the book to see what the fuss is all about.
Maybe this will be good, maybe it won’t. Who knows?
The best news in this article is that it sounds like the efforts to re-make and destroy ‘Harvey’ are finally over. A rare win for classic movies that shouldn’t be re-made.
The main character has Jeremy Renner written all over it.
Sigh… No… it does not.
What happens to Dreamworks after Real Steel flops?
Robots don’t scare me-at least the metal ones. The economy does.
We’ll never see an “Robopocalypse”…but we’ll all get tickets to the “Econopocalypse”.
Steven should make his next BLOCKBUSTER about the real “Apocalypse”- the heartless, rapacious, destructive robots in Wall Street, Fortune 500, Congress, and yes, Hollywood. Talk about your scary robots!