I really would love to see Spielberg make an all-out horror film, something intentionally designed to get under our collective skin. I know he doesn't want to make anything "exploitative" in that way but I wish he would reconsider, particularly for a genuinely excellent horror screenplay should one come across his desk.

Waiting for Steve to scare us again like he did with
Jaws
. He does suspense so well, I need more like that. I know he would enjoy it too because it's been awhile.
That's right! You're about to be killed by a zamboni!

Bridge of Spies
Lincoln
War Horse
Catch Me If You Can
These are great films and some of the best of their years, and were released out recently

You're in luck:
Bridge of Spies
is "a really good film."

He didn't make Jaws the way he wanted to though. He was lucky that he couldn't show the shark earlier.

If any other folk make War Horse or Lincoln he would be revered, the thing is, this is a guy witch second movie was Jaws, so the problem is that he really too good even for himself, haha.

Ready Player One is sci Fi isn't it?
Promo for my film about self-injury:
https://vimeo.com/140529647

I thought Lincoln was good, and I liked War Horse too. Bridge Of Spies looks really interesting too. Both Lincoln and War Horse were worthy of the nominations it got. I thought Lincoln would win at least one more, for Supporting Actor
You can't really expect that Spielberg will be making any more adventure or science-fiction movies. He's moved on from that sort of thing and isn't interested in it any-more. He might produce them or supervise them but he won't direct them.
Spielberg does what he does and what interests him. I don't think he cares what some posters on a forum thinks. Every director does movies they want to see themselves, that's how it always has been
There will be an audience for his upcoming films and fans will probably see them either way.

He is in his late 60s now, tastes and interests change as you get older. I think War Horse is brilliant.
"I neither read nor write long-winded essays on the IMDB"

This message has been deleted.

Lincoln was a boring POS. Just like nearly all his movies post Saving Private Ryan. Guy has lost it.
Hopefully Ready Player One will be the long awaited return to his glory days.

Best actor and production design. Not for best picture or best director or screenplay(only nominated).
That said, winning an oscar doesn't automatically signify excellence. Chicago, at best an OK musical, and the incredibly boring English Patient won best picture all based on a fleeting love affair with the movies actors/actresses or its pseudo hipness.

To win or to be nominated for Oscars dont have any meaning. "Lincoln" is one of many exemples.

Lincoln was great
Won 2 oscars

Disagree with you,completely Jerry. Lincoln, in my opinion, have the worst script in the Spielberg carrer until now.For me, is the unique bad movie until now. Only the actors are great, the rest is BAD. A movie is a movie isnt a documentary.For me, Lincoln is strongly academic and completely restrictive. In one word, awful. I hope that Kushner and Spielberg will make a memorable movie again in "The Kidnapping of Edgardo Montara. I hope so.

"Lincoln" was an excellent if ponderous film. The real problem is that Spielberg and screenwriter Tony Kushner, after saying how faithful and accurate the movie was, got the entire last part of it wrong on purpose.
As a Connecticut Yankee, I was offended that Spielberg and Kushner intentionally misrepresented the vote of the delegation from my home state. In the film, two of the three representatives voted against the 13th Amendment. In reality, there were four delegates and they all voted for it. Why make that egregious mistake? For dramatic purposes? What really happened was far more dramatic: The first two votes cast were nays by delegates from Illinois, Lincoln's own state! There was the drama right there. Even I know that. Using another state that voted against the amendment would have been better than misrepresenting a state that voted for it.
Spielberg and Kushner wanted to create tension from the beginning, so they threw Connecticut to the wolves in filming the voting sequence alphabetically by state. This raises another question: Why didn't California go first? In reality, the voting went alphabetically by representative. Historian Harold Holzer told Spielberg and Kushner that they were doing it wrong. The drama was built in. But the two of them thought the audience would be too stupid to follow the actual voting sequence. If that were the case, those people wouldn't have been watching the movie.
Then there was the matter of showing that every seat in the House of Representatives was filled. That wasn't the case. Many seats were empty because the representatives from the seceded states weren't in them. Showing that stark reality either never occurred to Spielberg and Kushner or, again, they just didn't care.
Both men are huge talents. But a high school filmmaking class wouldn't have made the mistakes they did, especially the one involving the Connecticut delegation.
Speaking of schools, Spielberg has sent copies of the movie to middle and high schools across the country without correcting the Connecticut mistake. Now any student who sees it will think that my home state voted to uphold slavery. Yes, filmmakers do take artistic liberties for dramatic purposes, but this one was totally unnecessary.
No, this isn't a documentary, but if you are going to make a historical movie, you have an obligation to get the big and important things right. Steven Spielberg and Tony Kushner didn't. And as a result of the Connecticut controversy, neither they nor the film itself won Oscars. I bet if they had to do it all over again, they would have listened to Harold Holzer.

His last 'really good film' was Lincoln. 0 bad films in a row is really a sharp and sudden drop off, isn't it?
Never defend crap with 'It's just a movie'
http://www.youtube.com/user/BigGreenProds

Hopefully, Bridge of Spies is a return to form.

No, Lincoln was nothing great, it is incomparable to Schindler's list.
I am Batman.

They did it in that scene because many of the families who were descendants of delegates who voted on the bill didn't want their families to be connected to the movie. Some of them didn't want it becoming public knowledge their ancestor voted no on the end of slavery and some just didn't want their ancestor's name or likeness in the film. SO they had to change the names and votes of many of the delegates.
~NW~

The only way you can say "Selma" turned LBJ into a villain is if you went in expecting him to be the primary hero.
I find Oscar Bait infinitely more interesting than ticket bait

This same type of historical revisionism was evident in the film Selma, where they apparently felt it more appropriate to make a villain out of LBJ.
They too sent copies of their film to schools across the country.
And this is what bothers me: They actually want students to regard their productions as proper historical accounts, which they are not.

"Lincoln" was an excellent if ponderous film. The real problem is that Spielberg and screenwriter Tony Kushner, after saying how faithful and accurate the movie was, got the entire last part of it wrong on purpose.
As a Connecticut Yankee, I was offended that Spielberg and Kushner intentionally misrepresented the vote of the delegation from my home state. In the film, two of the three representatives voted against the 13th Amendment. In reality, there were four delegates and they all voted for it. Why make that egregious mistake? For dramatic purposes? What really happened was far more dramatic: The first two votes cast were nays by delegates from Illinois, Lincoln's own state! There was the drama right there. Even I know that. Using another state that voted against the amendment would have been better than misrepresenting a state that voted for it.
Spielberg and Kushner wanted to create tension from the beginning, so they threw Connecticut to the wolves in filming the voting sequence alphabetically by state. This raises another question: Why didn't California go first? In reality, the voting went alphabetically by representative. Historian Harold Holzer told Spielberg and Kushner that they were doing it wrong. The drama was built in. But the two of them thought the audience would be too stupid to follow the actual voting sequence. If that were the case, those people wouldn't have been watching the movie.
Then there was the matter of showing that every seat in the House of Representatives was filled. That wasn't the case. Many seats wer16d0e empty because the representatives from the seceded states weren't in them. Showing that stark reality either never occurred to Spielberg and Kushner or, again, they just didn't care.
Both men are huge talents. But a high school filmmaking class wouldn't have made the mistakes they did, especially the one involving the Connecticut delegation.
Speaking of schools, Spielberg has sent copies of the movie to middle and high schools across the country without correcting the Connecticut mistake. Now any student who sees it will think that my home state voted to uphold slavery. Yes, filmmakers do take artistic liberties for dramatic purposes, but this one was totally unnecessary.
No, this isn't a documentary, but if you are going to make a historical movie, you have an obligation to get the big and important things right. Steven Spielberg and Tony Kushner didn't. And as a result of the Connecticut controversy, neither they nor the film itself won Oscars. I bet if they had to do it all over again, they would have listened to Harold Holzer.

You didn't like Lincoln? Or do you want something more exciting?
"Did you make coffee? Make it!"Cheyenne.