‘Robopocalypse’ Is Too Expensive to Shoot; Steven Spielberg Puts the Movie on Indefinite Hold

The screenplay by Drew Goddard is still not ready, with this sci-fi epic too elaborate to produce at this time.

Steven Spielberg's Robopocalypse put on an indefinite hold
Steven Spielberg's Robopocalypse put on an indefinite hold
Fans of director Steven Spielberg who were looking forward to the director's return to the sci-fi genre with Robopocalypse will have to wait even longer. The 20th Century Fox and DreamWorks co-production has been indefinitely delayed. The project was initially set for an April 25, 2014 release date. Here's what the director's spokesperson, Marvin Levy, had to say in a statement.

"(It is) too important and the script is not ready, and it's too expensive to produce. It's back to the drawing board to see what is possible."

The screenplay adaptation of Daniel H. Wilson's sci-fi novel was written by Drew Goddard (The Cabin in the Woods). It isn't known if the studios are seeking new writers. Chris Hemsworth was in talks for the male lead, while Anne Hathaway and Ben Whishaw were circling the project as well. The story is set in the aftermath of a robotic uprising, focusing on how humanity has adapted after the machines took over.

The project was slated to be Steven Spielberg's next movie after Lincoln. It isn't known which of the director's many projects he will tackle next, now that this has faltered.

Robopocalypse is in development and stars Chris Hemsworth, Anne Hathaway, Ben Whishaw. The film is directed by Steven Spielberg.

Share this story yet?

6 12 1 0 1


Comments (30)

  1. WongFu

    1.5 million for CGI or more
    And the rest for crew and cast

    This sounds like a sequel to I-Robot

    2 years agoby @instead8909Flag

  2. Bawnian©-Dexeus

    @jasonkat Let's not forget Avengers wasn't even shot in 3D, and all to just secure higher numbers in the first weekend

    2 years agoby @bawnian-dexeusFlag

  3. Superman81

    I saw this movie already, its called I-Robot

    2 years agoby @superman81Flag

  4. Zak Lee Ferguson

    shows what a prancing idiot Spielberg is.......i couldn't care less

    2 years agoby @Zak-Lee-FergusonFlag

  5. Roberto Mata

    Forget this for now, check this awesome, Great, Fantastic news!!! Christopher Nolan may direct Interstellar!!! http://collider.com/christopher-nolan-interstellar/222939/

    2 years agoby @Roberto-MataFlag

  6. Dark_888

    is this is a joke

    2 years agoby @dark-888Flag

  7. JasonKat

    About the 3d thing. Yes people go to them, (i know) but not every movie being made really needs it, While some look awesome, theres the other half of them that fail at all cost. think.. shark knight 3d, piranha 3dd, ghost rider 2 3d, silent hill 2 3d, ect, just to name a few.
    Seems like every movie being made today in 3d delivers more on eye candy than a good movie.
    If only movies were more like avengers, avatar, spiderman, (story wise) then it would be worth the price we pay..

    2 years agoby @jasonkatFlag

  8. JasonKat

    Well you do have a point there. and i would have done the same thing, to build as much set as i could and use watever else i could to fill in the extras. Do we really know the real truth behind this movie tho?..is it money? is it a crappy script that needs a re-write?
    Does Steven not have time on his plate? It could be alot of things, I know money might not be it but its part of it im sure.

    2 years agoby @jasonkatFlag

  9. Fry_3000

    @felipe-11 exactly that's what I was thinking.

    2 years agoby @Fry-3000Flag

  10. KeesjeCola

    @jasonkat Really? People don't go to 3D movies? Avengers, Avatar, Alice in Wonderland... All high grossing films. The general public is not so picky about 3D. And 50 out of a 100 go to 3D? Did not know that. We need to start a public awareness campaign.
    @felipe-11 Your point is valid. Though I reckon cgi will be cheaper each sequel, because the data and digital models are already there.
    Too bad about the movie though, maybe now he will redeem himself with an excellent Indy 5. (One can dream, right?)

    2 years agoby @keesjecolaFlag

  11. Replicant

    @jasonkat That's a popular misconception. CGI is incredibly expensive, that's why Ridley Scott chose to build as much of the sets and use as many practical effects as possible on Prometheus, for example.

    It's also why movies that use too much CGI and have low budgets usually look so bad (Lockout, just to name the first that came to mind).

    2 years agoby @felipe-11Flag

  12. the Narrator

    Because other generic action films weren't too expensive? Like Avatar? Pftt.

    2 years agoby @narratorFlag

  13. JasonKat

    If its CGI isnt that cheaper to make than gather top actors in which paying them would cost more to do. think.. transformers, jurassic park, i robot, ect. Just hand pack less than 4 main people and let CGI do the rest. & if u wanna save a few bucks, DONT make it in 3d, people dont go to 3d movies. yea 50 people out of 100? that doesnt count. :P

    2 years agoby @jasonkatFlag

  14. Replicant

    @Fry-3000 Avatar cost $200 mil and it is (whether you like the movie or not) the most visually stunning movie VFX-wise ever made so you can't really need much more than that.

    So Steven, don't tell us that you can't get a $200 mil budget for a sci-fi movie.

    2 years agoby @felipe-11Flag

  15. Bawnian©-Dexeus

    Complete BS.

    2 years agoby @bawnian-dexeusFlag

  16. The Cryptkeeper: Resurrected

    Had not even heard of this movie previously... But with the title it sounds kinda like a direct to DVD sci fi/horror flick. Haha But I guess not.

    2 years agoby @cryptFlag

  17. Fry_3000

    Would be interesting on how much it was going to cost, $200 mil? Or more?

    2 years agoby @Fry-3000Flag

  18. Sean

    Well this news sucks. I was looking forward to see Robopocalypse.

    2 years agoby @themoviefanaticFlag

  19. moviegeek

    I read the book and wasn't that impressed. But it definitely was cinematic material. Not sure it's all that different from other sci-fi films we've seen though, unless Spielberg really changes it up some. I'm glad they aren't rushing this thing out though... I mean, he bought the project before the book was even released so it seemed rushed from the get go.

    2 years agoby @moviegeekFlag

  20. Ghostman


    2 years agoby @ghostmanFlag

  21. Roberto Mata

    Too expensive? You are giving the money to Spielberg!!, is sure to say that is going to be a hit!! Why not? Give him the money!!!

    2 years agoby @Roberto-MataFlag

  22. ChiRep_1

    ........ STAR WARS VII

    2 years agoby @ChiRep-1Flag

  23. thedude-abides

    With the number of quality releases set to come out in the next couple years, it's hard for me to care one way or another about this. Spielberg will quickly move on to something else, regardless.

    2 years agoby @thedude-abidesFlag

  24. Mr.K

    Cause it's too expensive? This has to be a complete joke.

    2 years agoby @mr-kFlag

  25. ROFLitschristian

    But it's Spielberg. You know the money will go to great use!

    2 years agoby @ROFLitschristianFlag

  26. Replicant

    OHH PLEASE... Too expensive for the highest grossing director of all time? If you want to do something else first or your not ready jump in the sci-fi ring again just say so, but too expensive? Please...

    2 years agoby @felipe-11Flag

  27. fanboy

    Well thats a shame. I was looking forward to this, But im glad that Spielberg is taking his time with it to make sure it perfect. Just hope we dont have to wait to long

    2 years agoby @fanboyFlag

  28. Daniel Cantu

    That's a bummer.

    2 years agoby @Deadpoolx11Flag

  29. ejk1

    Oh no...now where will get that Terminator rip off from?

    2 years agoby @ejk1Flag

From The Web