Yea sure, say no to a guy who is known for Sci Fi movies and give it to some random in Paramount so they can ruin the movie with the help from Activision.
Good Job Activision, really good job

Sounds like they fucked up.

I would have never imagined a situation where Activision rejects anything CoD related, specially when it would be relatively easy for a director like Spielberg to make a passable movie and selling on his name alone. I wonder what happened behind the scenes. Maybe too expensive?

Then again, if Ubisoft has never ever thought of allowing a Far Cry 3 series when they are desperately in need of cash, nothing surprise me (I cannot be the only one who things it would work well as a TV series).

I think the Activision developers made the right call. It seems like Spielberg wanted full control of the project and the undefined "economics", which would probably mean a percentage of whatever the game sells going forward. I can see why it would be rejected on that basis.

I guess Activision doesn't want another Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers. Less realism and more fantasy.

I mean, it's not like the guy who made Raiders of the Lost Ark or The BFG or Ready Player One can't do fantasy.

I know. But it haven't been his style in war films. He did want the creative control, so you don't what's coming. 

I mean we don't know that he wanted to pursue realism either. Personally, when it comes to producing a great product, I'd put Spielberg's judgement ahead of Activision's.

Given he has extensive involvement with WWII movies/shows (haven't seen anyone mentioning HBO's Pacific), it would be logical step that he got the job. But maybe it's not WWII piece and maybe control is just too big of an issue.

Well, I would do so too, but essentially this is promoting the game franchise, so I'd expect Activision wanting the film being more closely to what the videogames are instead of being a standalone film. I mean Spielberg would need to make 20 years of COD films to match the revenue one game in the series makes.