What happened to him ?

Sounds to me like you haven't actually seen many of the films he's made in the last 16 years. Most of them are great.

I agree with the origianl poster he has not made a great film since Ryan.

Munich, The Termianl, War Horse, Tin-Tin, and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull were all bad.

A.I., Minority Report, War of the Worlds, Munich, War Horse, Lincoln and Bridge of Spies were all masterpieces.

Catch Me if You Can, The Terminal and The Adventures of Tintin were all fun and well-made.

Crystal Skull was problematic, but it had its moments.

Again, I'd say he's doing just fine.

For me,A.I,Minority Report,War Horse,Bridge of Spies,The Terminal,The Adventures of Tintin and Crystal Skul are all masterpieces.

Munich is a very good movie.

Catch-Me If You Can is a good movie.

War of Worlds is,a more or less movie.

Lincoln,is in my profund opinion,a BAD MOVIE.The unique bad movie in 45 years as director.Was very,very negativally surprising.I didn´t expected it but the practics results are bad,in my opinion,of course.
But i agree that in the future he have awesomes projects to do.
His carrer in this moment,is in a very good stage.He have so many projects that i´m very happy.He´s doing much more than fine.His creativity is in a moment fantastic for me.I hope so much for Robopocalypse, the Pirates movie,Montezuma and Indy 5.To me, He have 31 movies because "Twilight Zone-The movie" and Duel are movies too.He is so fast making movies that can be possible to arrive almost to Hitchcock.I hope it.

Lincoln,is in my profund opinion,a BAD MOVIE.The unique bad movie in 45 years as director.Was very,very negativally surprising.I didn´t expected it but the practics results are bad,in my opinion,of course.
But i agree that in the future he have awesomes projects to do.

What did you dislike about Lincoln? Are you aware it was written by Tony Kushner, who also wrote Munich?

Iceboxmovies,for me,in "Lincoln" only the actors are good the story and the rest of the movie is bad.
In my opinion, Abraham Lincoln is a personality so,so rich that deserved other cinematographic treatment.2 hours and almost 30 minutes to explain the slavery abolition???.That,for me,was COMPLETELY WRONG CHOICE.I wanted a movie more COMPLET,a narrative with audacity.I think that in the project beguining with Liam Neeson and John Logan on board,Spielberg wanted a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MOVIE.With issues about the budget,he decided only to talk about the slavery abolition.For me,that decision was COMPLETELY WRONG.Abraham Lincoln deserved a movie VERY AMBITIOUS AND a STRONG NARRATIVE."Lincoln",have a script so,so, poor,restrictive,only with the focus in slavery that,for me,was a SHAME.Spielberg have the Money to make a Lincoln movie with strong magnitude.Tony Kushner made a very good work in "Munich"i agree but in the "Lincoln" case was Spielberg, not Kushner guilty.The Spielberg approach was,to me,WRONG and Kushner isn´t guilty."Lincoln" is the Steven Spielberg first movie that is COMPLETELY ACADEMIC and that is a pitty.The movie won the ÓSCAR for Best Actor to Daniel Day Lewis, is COMPLETELY DESERVED, but i think the movie would be a masterpiece with others decisions.

I think that in the project beguining with Liam Neeson and John Logan on board,Spielberg wanted a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MOVIE.With issues about the budget,he decided only to talk about the slavery abolition.

The project actually first began in the late 90's, when Spielberg bought the rights to Doris Kearns Goodwin's book Team of Rivals and approached Daniel Day-Lewis (who was always his first choice). Daniel Day-Lewis initially turned him down because he thought the idea of trying to tell Lincoln's entire life story in 3 hours was "preposterous".

Yes, after that, the project remained in development for awhile with Neeson attached, when it was going to be a full-scale biopic. I don't know much about John Logan's involvement, but when Kushner came aboard, his first draft was over 400 pages long and, again, tried to tell Lincoln's whole life story.

I understand how you feel about wishing that the film had been about more than just the passing of the 13th amendment. But the question is: Can you tell Lincoln's whole story in one feature film?

It's not just a question of budget. It's a question of whether or not such a movie would even work in the first place. Biopics which try to tell the entire life stories of people are usually always failures; Oliver Stone's Alexander and Clint Eastwood's J. Edgar are perfect examples. Such biopics always feel shabby and unfocused because the filmmakers are literally trying to cram all the important events in 3 hours, and thus, not having enough depth to devote to any of the key events themselves.

I agree that it would have been nice to see Spielberg and Daniel Day-Lewis doing the Lincoln story for an even longer period of time. I can easily imagine them making two or three Lincoln films. But Hollywood certainly would not have been able to afford or invest money into that because they doubted a Lincoln film would even be commercial in the first place.

The only other option would have been to do a miniseries. But Spielberg is a filmmaker. He makes movies.

And ultimately, what we do really have to wonder is: What else in Lincoln's life would be cinematic besides the 13th amendment? Sure, it might have been nice to see him in his younger years as a lawyer and war hero... but most of us really only care about Lincoln the president. And what was Lincoln's most noteworthy accomplishment as president? Freeing the slaves.

I think what makes the film work is that it sticks to the one thing which Lincoln is most known for, and this is what keeps the film focused. That makes it incredibly fast-paced for a 2 & 1/2-hour movie, and it has also allowed it to hold up with repeated viewings.

Iceboxmovies:Thank you very much for your post.Serenity and your very good tone is very,very good think and, in this fórum,isn´t a regular think.

Daniel Day-Lewis initially turned him down because he thought the idea of trying to tell Lincoln's entire life story in 3 hours was "preposterous".

I think that Day Lewis wasn´t right.Spielberg is A STORY LOVER and he made many historics movies.It´s a truly a specialist.

Yes, after that, the project remained in development for awhile with Neeson attached, when it was going to be a full-scale biopic. I don't know much about John Logan's involvement, but when Kushner came aboard, his first draft was over 400 pages long and, again, tried to tell Lincoln's whole life story.
I understand how you feel about wishing that the film had been about more than just the passing of the 13th amendment. But the question is: Can you tell Lincoln's whole story in one feature film?

I read that Paul Webb wrote a draft and then Logan made a more deep script.
But i´m not sure of it.
I think that is possible to tell Lincoln´s story in a feature film.Isn ´t easy, of course,but is possible.Spielberg said that "Lincoln" almost opened in a HBO television series because of the budget.It´s incredible but is true.
But i strongly disagree with Spielberg choice.In Hollywood he HAVE A STRONG POWER and he can to do practically all the projecs in the way that he wants.In this case he wasn´t ambitious he was conventional and limited and in my opinion, was WRONG.

And ultimately, what we do really have to wonder is: What else in Lincoln's life would be cinematic besides the 13th amendment? Sure, it might have been nice to see him in his younger years as a lawyer and war hero... but most of us really only care about Lincoln the president. And what was Lincoln's most noteworthy accomplishment as president? Freeing the slaves.

I disagree:Spielberg have many experience to do historic dramas and epics and Lincoln life is more importante than the slave abolition.For me,Spielberg atitude/choice was LAZY and RESTRICTIVE.For me,Lincoln could be the DEFINITIVE MOVIE about Lincoln life and work. Wasn´t the Spielberg intention,was a pity.The Napoleon Project is the same:Why Spielberg and Paul Thomas Anderson don´t do in cinema that movie???.