His greatest success might be the film he never made. Twenty-nine years ago, Steven Spielberg quietly abandoned a high-profile project; today, that decision looks eerily prescient. What did he know that everyone else missed?
Back in 1990, Steven Spielberg and Amblin flirted with turning Cats into an animated feature set in 1940s London. He assembled a stellar team, from animators Michael Peraza Jr., Shelley Page and Hans Bacher to directors Simon Wells and Phil Nibbelink, and even brought in Tom Stoppard on the script, yet the story kept slipping through their fingers. By 1997 the plan was shelved as Amblination closed, a fortunate retreat that looks prescient next to Tom Hooper’s 2019 take, a critical and financial misfire that cost 95 million dollars and earned 75.5 million worldwide with bruising AlloCiné scores. The road Spielberg skipped may be the one that spared him a fiasco.
The ambitious idea of adapting a beloved musical
In the early 1990s, Steven Spielberg and Amblin Entertainment aimed at something rare: an animated version of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s Cats. The concept pictured anthropomorphic felines prowling a whimsical 1940s London, stitched with big musical set pieces. A seasoned crew gathered under directors Simon Wells and Phil Nibbelink, including Michael Peraza Jr., Shelley Page, and Hans Bacher (veterans of Roger Rabbit). Momentum built quickly.
Animation suited the material. Hand‑drawn character work could soften scale and stretch choreography beyond physics. Early concept art teased smoky alleys, moonlit rooftops, and period jazz flourishes, with songs threaded through cinematic transitions.
Creative hurdles led Spielberg to reconsider
By 1994, Spielberg was so invested he considered directing the film himself. He enlisted playwright Tom Stoppard to deepen character arcs and streamline T.S. Eliot’s poems, aiming for a 1997 release (according to Collider). Despite months of reworking, the script wobbled. Spielberg shelved the project as Amblination closed, a tough call that ended a bold chapter.
The core challenge was story. T.S. Eliot’s verses are vignettes, not a conventional plot, and attempts to bind them around a single protagonist felt strained. Internal debates over tone—playful, wistful, or mythic—kept resetting the board.
Future attempts to revive ‘Cats’ fell flat
The property refused to sleep. In 1998, director David Mallet delivered a direct‑to‑video rendition that drew modest notice. Then came Tom Hooper’s 2019 theatrical version, which became infamous. Despite a $95M budget, it earned only $75.5M worldwide and was panned for uncanny visuals; critics gave it 2.1 and audiences 1.5 on 5 (on AlloCiné).
The 2019 rollout added spectacle and confusion. Universal even shipped a new cut with tweaked VFX days after opening. Star power—Idris Elba, Judi Dench, Ian McKellen—couldn’t steady the tone, and social media picked the seams in real time.
Spielberg’s decision proved fortuitous
Pulling back spared Spielberg a likely misfire that could have dented a pristine run. Indeed, Hooper’s reception exposed how treacherous translating stage magic to screen can be. Was this foresight or luck? Either way, his restraint reads as instinct at work, while the 2019 film sits on VOD as a cautionary reel for anyone tempted by digital fur.
In addition to caution, there was patience. Spielberg later mounted a musical with 2021’s West Side Story and returned to animation with The Adventures of Tintin, reminding us he chooses timing as carefully as themes.