Another Spielberg possibility: Robopocalypse

[KK 3,307]

If it means getting a blblical epic/sword and sandal score from Williams for the first time, then most certainly yes.

I'm quite tired of Spielberg and his historical themed films. They're not bringing his career anywhere and they're starting to get redundant. Lincoln looks like War Horse part 2.

He really needs Roboapocalypse to revamp his career. And if its going to be something like Minority Report, then boy am I excited.

A Moses pic can be interesting though. I'm not sure how it would be approached, but it could be interesting.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Lincoln and War Horse resemble each other only in the directed by Steven Spielberg, otherwise your line about War Horse 2 is just stupid.

btw in Robopacalypse there is no MAIN character, there is an ensemble, the story moves from Alaska to New York, Boston, DC, Indianoplis, Oklahoma, London England, There are characters from all those cities, including good and bad robots, There should be some voice work, and there should be lots of American Indian characters. It's not conventional, though I think in reality it's a poorly conceived and told tale.

[Jay 37,355]

There's no guarantee the movie will have the same plot or characters as the book

[KK 3,307]

Lincoln and War Horse resemble each other only in the directed by Steven Spielberg, otherwise your line about War Horse 2 is just stupid.

Perhaps, but visually thats what I'm getting. And from the trailer, it seems that Spielberg's need to glorify the patriotic nature of the concept is there as it was in War Horse. Thats the impression one gets with what little lines we were fed..

I just hate the way the Lincoln trailer ended.

btw in Robopacalypse there is no MAIN character, there is an ensemble, the story moves from Alaska to New York, Boston, DC, Indianoplis, Oklahoma, London England, There are characters from all those cities, including good and bad robots, There should be some voice work, and there should be lots of American Indian characters. It's not conventional, though I think in reality it's a poorly conceived and told tale.

Great films have come from poor literature many times before. It doesn't matter how poorly conceived the book was (which I'm disappointed to hear by the way, I wanted to read it). What matters is how Spielberg will make it his own.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

There's no guarantee the movie will have the same plot or characters as the book

then what's the point.

I understand the way the book is not an easy way to film a movie, but for all the books flaws the ensemble cast is it's strength.

KK, just because I didn't like the book doesn't mean you wont.

Still I argue you the point that War Horse is patriotic.

And the tale of Lincoln is purely American, that doesn't mean it's patriotic. Patriotism is hardly sole to the US, but the civil war wasn't about patriotism.

[Matt C 454]

Anne Hathaway confirms she will be co-starring in Robopocalypse:

http://collider.com/robopocalypse-anne-hathaway/210451/#more-210451

[Jay 37,355]

Cool, I like her. BTW happy birthday to her, she turns 30 today

[Koray Savas 2,251]

She's only 30?!

[Jay 37,355]

Well yea, why would she be older?

[BloodBoal 7,538]

That's not very nice, Mr. Savas.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I always thought she was mid 30s for some reason. I guess cause Brokeback Mountain didn't make her look that favorable. She somehow seems even hotter now.

[Jay 37,355]

Girls are always hotter in their late twenties than their early twenties

[Matt C 454]

Girls are always hotter in their late twenties than their early twenties

Shame Hathaway is taken. I really envy Adam Shulman now, he's lucky to have a lady like her in his life.

[mrbellamy 6,286]

Those celebrity marriages never last, anyway...

I mean, uh, yes, very lucky!

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Tell that to Tim Robbins and Susan Surandon!

Are Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner still married? She's a cougar for sure.

[Matt C 454]

Are Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner still married? She's a cougar for sure.

Well, they just had their third kid this past February... I assume they're still going along fine.

Those celebrity marriages never last, anyway...

You do have a point there. 50% of recent marriages end in divorce, so you never know.

[mrbellamy 6,286]

Tell that to Tim Robbins and Susan Surandon!

They split up years ago.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Whoops.

Will Smith and Jada Pinkett? Yea...

[mrbellamy 6,286]

Really is a drag, though.

[Matt C 454]

They split up years ago.

It was three years ago. And they weren't married, they lived together for over 20 years and had two kids. But their relationship lasted longer than most marriages do nowadays...

[mrbellamy 6,286]

Yeah, that's true. But the point still stands, unfortunately.

[Jay 37,355]

The subject then turned to his next project, Robopocalypse, with Steven Spielberg which Hemsworth is very excited about. "No one does sci-fi better than him. It was a no-brainer. And then I read the script and was even more excited if that's possible."

...

Robopocalypse is planned to shoot next year for an April 25, 2014 release.

http://www.comingsoo...ws.php?id=97269

[BloodBoal 7,538]

The subject then turned to his next project, Robopocalypse, with Steven Spielberg which Hemsworth is very excited about. "No one does sci-fi better than him. It was a no-brainer."

Actually, some would argue that Scott does sci-fi better than Spielberg, but that's open to discussion... Or is it?

[Brónach 1,302]

Kubrick did sci-fi better than either of them in a single film.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Kubrick did sci-fi better than either of them in a single film.

um no

[Brónach 1,302]

I don't associate Spielberg with serious sci-fi. Close Encounters is about UFOs, E.T. is a fantasy, Jurassic Park is, well, Jurassic Park. A.I. is more of a sci-fi than the others. Minority Report uses futurism more as a means and not so much as substance. War of the Worlds is more apocalyptic than sci-fi (although deep down the concept is quite sci-fi, just in an old fashioned way.) The whole alien thing in that one is pretty much fantastical. I think maybe, as science-fiction, his best shots are A.I. and Close Encounters. We'll never know about Interstellar because now it's gone.

When I say "serious science-fiction" I don't mean that the tone of the film has to be serious, however.

And Scott? One of his sci-fis is really awful. Another is a monster film (see Minority Report) (but I love it) That one is basically like horror in a space-opera/Metal Hurlant setting. Then there's Blade Runner, and it's got a stronger science-fiction angle. It adopts the forms of a noir which is cool. A great entry.

BUT. 2001 is pure, distilled science-fiction. The science-fiction is the whole point of it. Not only that, it's one of the very, very few films that delves into the area of science-fiction literature that takes seriously space ships, exploration, contact with superadvanced civilizations, evolution of species , the vastness of time and space. Top it with some of artificial intelligence and the best cinematic representation of cosmic horror so far. The combination of all that is probably my favourite kind of science-fiction. And this one has it all. With insane direction and special effects. As far as I'm concerned, what's not to love?

I would like cinema to let aside their Philip K. Dick for a while already and try some of that stuff instead.

[Jonesy 55]

I've never saw Jurassic Park as a science-fiction film.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I don't associate Spielberg with serious sci-fi. Close Encounters is about UFOs, E.T. is a fantasy, Jurassic Park is, well, Jurassic Park. A.I. is more of a sci-fi than the others. Minority Report uses futurism more as a means and not so much as substance. War of the Worlds is more apocalyptic than sci-fi (although deep down the concept is quite sci-fi, just in an old fashioned way.) The whole alien thing in that one is pretty much fantastical. I think maybe, as science-fiction, his best shots are A.I. and Close Encounters. We'll never know about Interstellar because now it's gone.

When I say "serious science-fiction" I don't mean that the tone of the film has to be serious, however.

And Scott? One of his sci-fis is really awful. Another is a monster film (see Minority Report) (but I love it) That one is basically like horror in a space-opera/Metal Hurlant setting. Then there's Blade Runner, and it's got a stronger science-fiction angle. It adopts the forms of a noir which is cool. A great entry.

BUT. 2001 is pure, distilled science-fiction. The science-fiction is the whole point of it. Not only that, it's one of the very, very few films that delves into the area of science-fiction literature that takes seriously space ships, exploration, contact with superadvanced civilizations, evolution of species , the vastness of time and space. Top it with some of artificial intelligence and the best cinematic representation of cosmic horror so far. The combination of all that is probably my favourite kind of science-fiction. And this one has it all. With insane direction and special effects. As far as I'm concerned, what's not to love?

I would like cinema to let aside their Philip K. Dick for a while already and try some of that stuff instead.

2001 is a soulless film, cold and devoid of warmth and of human experience. It was a visual feast back in it's day but it is too static and lifeless to be of any interest.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Spielberg's sci-fi films are human stories with sci-fi elements. I prefer them that way.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

BUT. 2001 is pure, distilled science-fiction. The science-fiction is the whole point of it. Not only that, it's one of the very, very few films that delves into the area of science-fiction literature that takes seriously space ships, exploration, contact with superadvanced civilizations, evolution of species , the vastness of time and space. Top it with some of artificial intelligence and the best cinematic representation of cosmic horror so far. The combination of all that is probably my favourite kind of science-fiction. And this one has it all. With insane direction and special effects. As far as I'm concerned, what's not to love?

It's the only film Dr. Michio Kaku said realistically portrays where our species could possibility end up.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

BUT. 2001 is pure, distilled science-fiction. The science-fiction is the whole point of it. Not only that, it's one of the very, very few films that delves into the area of science-fiction literature that takes seriously space ships, exploration, contact with superadvanced civilizations, evolution of species , the vastness of time and space. Top it with some of artificial intelligence and the best cinematic representation of cosmic horror so far. The combination of all that is probably my favourite kind of science-fiction. And this one has it all. With insane direction and special effects. As far as I'm concerned, what's not to love?

It's the only film Dr. Michio Kaku said realistically portrays where our species could possibility end up.

as if he has any idea himself.

[Brónach 1,302]

2001 is a soulless film, cold and devoid of warmth and of human experience.

Devoid of warmth? It's about confronting the unknown. Next you'll be complaining that Lovecraft lacks warmth... The unkown doesn't have to be warm. The unkown is scary. That aside, I find some parts of it more involving than many films about conventional humans and their conventional warm human lives put together.

Devoid of human experience? What is the point of fantasy and science-fiction, if not being able to introduce things that are outside of our real and current world?

As for soulless, I find this is the adjective people use when they don't like a film but don't want to bother to explain why. I don't think it means anything.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

there is no warmth in 2001, if there is you should point it out.

Can't discuss Lovecraft because I've read very little.

[Quintus 5,399]

Joey is quite right: there's zero warmth in Kubrick's masterpiece. Not sure what his point is, but he's quite right nonetheless.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Joey is quite right: there's zero warmth in Kubrick's masterpiece. Not sure what his point is, but he's quite right nonetheless.

my point is it's a kubrick film but it's not a masterpiece. It's an overrated visual film that becomes less relevant as it ages. That is my opinion. I've watched the movie many times. Trying to find what others see in it. My opinion hasn't changed in 30 years. My initial response to the film was different because I was 9 and it probably had the best effects of any films up to that point (I was wrong about that, King Kong and the Invisible Man have better, as does War of the Worlds).

I still think the shuttle is nice.

[publicist 4,643]

I've watched the movie many times. Trying to find what others see in it.

Drugged or sober?

[JoeinAR 1,949]

for a semester in college I guess you could say forced....took what I thought was a religious survey of 20th century literature which instead was a semester long class on the religious significance of 2001 A Space Odyssey. I almost dropped it but I stayed. We watched the entire film about 3 times and had to read the novel, which I had already read. got an A but I always got A's in lit clases.

[publicist 4,643]

Academia fell in love with THE MATRIX after 1999, so 2001 fell a bit by the wayside. I only saw it once in a heavily medicated state when i was 18 and found it a slow bore...it has the same effect like those meditative Malick films, it's just not my kind of tempo.

[Brónach 1,302]

My enjoyement of that kind of tempo depends heavily of the film in question. If I like the style or the themes or the story I don't care.

(I usually perceive time in films as it actually is (ten minutes are still ten minutes) so that helps.)

[publicist 4,643]

No, for me TREE OF LIFE got to agonizing lengths at the 50-minute mark. I felt like days without food or sleep.

[Brónach 1,302]

I don't like The Tree of Life. I like several scenes in it though, but as as whole It doesn't do it for me. And when it gets to the end with the obvious death and afterlife allegories tacked there I felt so detached, like, "whatever, man". A guy I know told me it was cinematic equivalent of a powerpoint about cats. He might be onto something.

But I really love the look of the film to bits, though.

(Also it didn't help that when I saw it my neck started to hurt for some reason and I was sitting a bit too close. But I had paid and I was going to stay until the end.)

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Tree of life is an unbearable mess. It's bad when the star doesn't even have a clue.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

BUT. 2001 is pure, distilled science-fiction. The science-fiction is the whole point of it. Not only that, it's one of the very, very few films that delves into the area of science-fiction literature that takes seriously space ships, exploration, contact with superadvanced civilizations, evolution of species , the vastness of time and space. Top it with some of artificial intelligence and the best cinematic representation of cosmic horror so far. The combination of all that is probably my favourite kind of science-fiction. And this one has it all. With insane direction and special effects. As far as I'm concerned, what's not to love?

It's the only film Dr. Michio Kaku said realistically portrays where our species could possibility end up.

So? If Dr. Hiroshi Takata said that Prometheus is the only film that realistically portrays where our species possibly come from, would that make the film better? And does that mean that he's right?

You shouldn't trust a guy just because he's a doctor and he has a cool name (except perhaps Dr. Mario).

I was responding to Chaac's claim it delves into serious science fiction. Kaku is an awesome physicist and string theorist, not to mention an excellent speaker. Could listen to his seminars for hours.

Also, The Tree Of Life is easily one of the best films ever made.

[Brónach 1,302]

I usually have nothing about Michio Kaku, except when he starts talking about stuff outside his area of expertise making it up as he goes which is hilarious.

Also, The Tree Of Life is easily one of the best films ever made.

?

[Koray Savas 2,251]

We've discussed it, Mr. Sagan.

[Muad'Dib 1,802]

I wouldn't go as far as saying that it's one of the best films ever, not even Malick's best, but it still a damn good film.

Maybe one of the best films of 2011, yes.

[Brónach 1,302]

We've discussed it, Mr. Sagan.

Maybe, but I don't remember any of it, Mr Savas!

[Not Mr. Big 4,639]

Spielberg has said that there will be some kind of a message. I can't think of being anything else other than the dangers of the technology and it's expansion.

[Brónach 1,302]

What a boring message, then.