Today, we have got the first images from Dreamworks upcoming fall sci-fi drama, Real Steel for you. From the looks of things, everyone’s favorite X-man, Hugh Jackman is playing Mickey to a giant battling bot’s Rocky. The pics showcase some of the sets and the look of the robots that will appear in the film.

The plot? It really is an underdog story with a basic character arc that we have seen before (and the kind that John G. Avidsen was more than happy to give us back in the 70’s/80’s); the retired athlete who gets his chance to reconnect with his family and his former life when he bets his cards on a darkhorse up-and-comer.

The big switch here is that the ex-boxer’s meal ticket is a giant battling robot, a discarded model that Jackman’s Charlie will rebuild and train with his estranged son (Dakota Goyo) in a future world where mechanical fighters have replaced human one’s in the boxing ring.  

Eerily reminiscent of an old Twilight Zone episode with Lee Marvin (incidentally titled ‘Steel’) and more than a little evocative of the old table-top game, Rock’em, Sock’em, Robots’, Real Steel has ‘Date Night’ director Shawn Levy in the driver’s seat, and joining Jackman is a cast that will include Evangeline Lily, Kevin Durand, Hope Davis, Anthony Mackie and James Rebhorn.

Will it work? Hard to say. The pics give us a little of the flavor of the film, including Jackman giving instructions to his bot, ‘Noisy Boy’, who is apparently about to go up against ‘backroom brawler’ Midas. Not sure where this falls within the film’s structure, but I imagine it’s one of those early fights that establishes the underdog nature of this team-up. The second pic shows Levy and Jackman discussing a scene on the same set, which is ‘Crash Palace’, an underground robot fight club that is probably the equivalent of seedy street fights in more human-themed fighting films.

Jackman has an erratic history when it comes to sci-fi/fantasy films. He’s done some really interesting and odd pictures like The Prestige and The Fountain, and then he’s also cashed paychecks with the likes of Van Helsing and the last two X-Men movies. Which will Real Steel be?

Sci-fans eager to find out will just have to wait until November 18^th, 2010 when Real Steel releases nation wide. Stay tuned to Atomic Popcorn for the first trailer of the film later this year.

DreamWorks Animation has announced that a sequel to the smash hit How to Train Your Dragon has been planned for release in 2013. There is no word yet on whether or not the sequel will be in 3-D, but that will probably be the case.

Jeffrey Katzenberg, CEO of DreamWorks Animation, says How to Train Your Dragon has become the company’s next franchise, bringing in almost $375 million dollars worldwide so far at the box office. It even took the top spot in the box office during its fifth weekend in theaters, which is not something that is seen very often.

DreamWorks is in need of a new franchise, as the final chapter of the Shrek franchise, Shrek: Forever After is released in theaters next month.

How to Train Your Dragon may have brought audiences into theaters by jumping onto the 3-D bandwagon, but it seems to have worked. It also excelled in the box office because the movie is actually good, receiving great reviews including an unheard of score of 98% at Rotten Tomatoes.

Many other projects are in the works, including a live arena show similar to Walking with Dinosaurs, a TV series in development, and an online virtual world based on the location of the movie.

Cressida Cowell, the Scottish author who wrote the book the movie is based on, says that DreamWorks bought the rights to all ten books within the series before the first movie was released in theaters.

Dreamworks’ How To Train Your Dragon is a great example of everything I love about animated movies. It’s a big, bold, colorful movie that isn’t afraid to blend stylized characters with exquisitely real and breathtaking details.

 Unlike the recent slate of warmed-over kid’s film trying to compete furiously to cash-in on the 3D technology, Dragon swoops in, gathers the technique under its wing and folds it confidently into the final product in such a way that what ends up on screen is just as compelling and exciting as the images that James Cameron brought us in Avatar. The big surprise at the heart of Dragon? It wipes the floor with Avatar in the story/narrative department.

Adapted from the novels by Cressida Cowell, Dragon re-imagines the world of the book slightly to create a land of danger and peril, with hearty, rugged Vikings doing battle with the large, scaly pests of their age; dragons. Right from the outset, the audience is introduced to young Hiccup (Jay Baruchel), a dubious Viking lad who doesn’t have any of the fierce swagger, motley spirit or physical imposition that everyone, including the women of his clan, possess. Hiccup serves as narrator and protagonist, and in a stunning and clever opening sequence we are introduced to his village, his blustery father, Stoick the Vast, and the numerous species of dragon that terrorize their land.

In his world, Hiccup has been taught that killing dragons is one of the greatest feats a Viking can achieve. They are monstrous pests that steal livestock and burn homes, and the whole village has based its social system around their ability to slay them. There are even dragon slaying schools, one of which Hiccup attends when Gobber, the class instructor, coerces Stoick to let him join. His classmates are all true blue Viking whelps who take the slaying seriously, but Hiccup can barely lift a shield.

Among these warrior adolescents is Astrid (America Ferrera) who is far more gifted and fetching in Hiccup’s eyes than her posse, comprised of Snotlout, Fish Legs and the bickering twins, Tuffnut and Ruffnut. When he does manage to capture a dragon, using his own ingenuity, it turns out to be a Night Fury, the most fearsome and secretive of all the species. When it comes to time to kill the beast, Hiccup can’t do it and so he frees the creature, it doesn’t immediately eat him, and a friendship is born.  

The dragon, nicknamed Toothless, is a beguiling and endearing creation. Hiccup mostly observes him at first, from a distance, and eventually realizes the animal has a broken tail wing, which prevents him from leaving the valley. Toothless isn’t a giant, leather-winged monstrosity but rather he’s lithe and catlike, part salamander and part panther, with big yellow eyes and a wide mouth that curiously turns upwards in a snickering smile.

In a wonderful melding of the computer animation and classic cartoon styling, Toothless is both an exaggerated character and a visually realistic one. When he’s running around the valley and standing on his hind legs staring at Hiccup he resembles Stitch, the alien visitor from Sanders and Dublois last film. But when Hiccup is riding on his back, or running his hands across Toothless’ scales, we could be looking at a photographic image, so great is the clarity and detail.

The film works as well as it does, though, not just because of the visual elements but because of the story, which brings the Hiccup and Toothless relationship to the forefront, and forces Hiccup to follow his own instincts regarding right and wrong as opposed to the perceptions of his village. Sanders and Dublois have a strong and sincere handle on odd partnerships in fantasy films. They ran a wickedly comic spin on E.T. in Lilo and Stitch, with a young girl befriending a horribly destructive menace from space and here they evoke the wild wonder of connecting with a force of nature.

I was reminded of the touching relationship between the boy and his horse in The Black Stallion. When Hiccup rides Toothless for the first time, it’s a moment of staggering beauty and visceral excitement, but also one of emotional connection. This aspect energizes and amplifies everything else that happens.

Without giving away the rest of the story, I will say that How To Train Your Dragon hasn’t been conceived as a  tepid kid’s flick or as a joke factory disguised as a fantasy movie. It takes the story it is telling seriously, and the world it presents is a dangerous and formidable one, with all of the teeth left in but never too scary or threatening that little ones can’t participate.

There is a confidence in the work here that is reminiscent of films like The Never Ending Story or, as I said before, Star Wars. The final battle that closes the movie, with dragons soaring frantically through the air, combating a larger more fearsome menace is easily comparable to the assault on the Death Star at the end of A New Hope. There is a unfettered sense of imagination employed here, and although it never hesitates to have fun with the concept, Dragon never disrespects its characters or its audience.

In regards to the characters, Toothless was easily my favorite, but I was also won over by Butler as Stoick the Vast. It is unusual in films of this type for the animation and the voice work to mesh so completely that we buy the character as something more than a ‘cartoon’. Butler imbues Stoick’s Asterisk build and big bushy beard with enough soul and Viking spirit, that even as his bulk is overpowering the film’s frame, his interior is revealing softer, nobler compartments that his son has barely guessed at. It’s amazing and often subtle work, and it echoes the approach taken with the 3D.

Aside from Avatar, this is one of the first times I can wholeheartedly recommend the 3D experience over a 2D one. Although never flashy, Dragon really mines the technology for big thrills, daredevil action sequences and yet reserves the most startling effects for very small, throwaway moments. There is a scene where ash is falling like snow from the sky, and it could very well be blanketing the seats in the theater. It is impressive and never draws attention away from the story.

How To Train Your Dragon is one of those welcome and joyful discoveries that we don’t get often enough; a satisfying and endearing adventure that brings its audience, both young and old, together. It imagines a world that will be worth returning to, over and over, for years to come.

Rating: ★★★★½ 

Arriving at the height of the 3-D craze, Dreamworks’ How To Train Your Dragon is set to surprise a lot of people. Dragon is a dizzy and thrilling adventure and I’m well prepared to suggest that much of it will have the same impact upon young audiences that movies like Star Wars had on me in the 80′s. Everything about it has been very meticulously designed and planned and when you look at the screen you are seeing a fully realized world.

Recently, I got a chance to sit down and have a phone conversation with the two men responsible for heading up this vision as it came to the screen, Chris Sanders and Dean DeBlois (Lilo and Stitch). Both very spirited and satisfied with the film they have made, the boys talked about what it was like to work with Gerard Butler, the tricks of catching those flying sequences and what they both have coming down the pipeline, film wise.

How To Train Your Dragon opens in theaters everywhere today.

[The interview began with Chris, and then I was transferred over to Dean. ]

Both of you went from 2-D hand drawn animation with Lilo and Stitch, your last animated feature, to Dragon, which isn’t just CG animation but there’s the 3-D presentation as well. What was the transition like for you and Dean? Was there a learning curve there?

Chris Sanders: Yeah, we had a crash course in CG and also a crash course in 3-D. To us it was exciting because the whole thing gave us access to some just incredible new tools, and it opened up so many new avenues for storytelling.  You know, with  Lilo and Stitch we worked around the shortcomings of not only 2-D–or I should just say the natural, native attributes of 2-D–but also we did have a very small budget on the film.

So, coming to this film and having a lot more capabilities as far as shadows and effects and textures and things like that… we were absolutely thrilled. The 3-D thing ended up being really just not very difficult to deal with at all.  It was actually the opposite.  It was just exciting.

One thing about the 3D process as it is done at Dreamworks; they really build it into the pipeline–you know the process by which these things are made, they call it the pipeline—and it is integrated so you never have to add it on later. Everything you’re doing is authored in 3-D. The other thing about it that was really very easy and fun was that every single person working on the movie, from the animators, to the lab department, to us, were all aware that the whole thing was going to be in 3-D so everybody’s looking for opportunities to push things that are inherent in the story, but also to watch out for possible trouble anywhere and try to avoid it as things are finished.

You have mentioned that one of the big draws of the movie for you was the opportunity to do the flying scenes. As a viewer, that first scene where Hiccup rides Toothless was just breathtaking from a visual perspective. It didn’t feel like I was just looking at animation, but rather, I was seeing some really interesting cinematography–there was some pretty intense editing going on there– and the dynamic felt real.  How did you approach capturing those scenes so they felt organic and cinematic?

Chris: Yeah, you know , I’d say a huge amount of thought and work went into all of those moments but it was a very welcome extra task because everybody was extremely excited about the flying possibilities and nobody wanted to see this film come out and find themselves wishing that we had worked harder on it.  So, we wanted to make sure that we got everything out of those sequences that was possible.   

One of the things that we found that we needed to have in the room from the very beginning was a little model airplane. Because you couldn’t talk to the animators or even the camera people without having that thing in your hand. it made things so much easier… and the funny thing about that was it really took you back to when you were 10 years old and you’ve just finished gluing together your spitfire model and you’d be spending the next few months flying it around your house.

This movie feels like a real departure from the previous Dreamworks animated films and even Lilo and Stitch.  The feeling I got from it is very similar to fantasy films from the 80’s, stuff like The Neverending Story or Dragon Slayer. There’s more danger there then the standard children’s animated film.  What prompted you to take the film in this direction?

Chris: Yeah, you know there were two things going on there.  First, the actual original book sets for a very bold world. It’s certainly very dangerous and full of giant Vikings and dragons, and huge mountains made of old volcanic rocks.  So the world itself is very bold, but when we came onto the project, they wanted us to take this story and give it a little more weight and scope and fulfill the adventure that was promised. So we took that to heart and they pushed us to keep going and really deliver something that felt like a large-scale adventure.

Story wise, there really are some big differences between the film and Cressida Cowell’s book. There are two big general changes, one being that here, in your film, the dragons don’t speak, and in the books they were not only capable of speech but they were already sort of pets. The movie has the dragons and Vikings in full out war with one another and you really have the emphasis on the Hiccup-Toothless relationship.  There’s an almost ET or a Black Stallion vibe there and because they can’t talk, it’s like they have to find a new way for you guys to handle that relationship.  What brought about that decision?

Chris: Yeah- well it was a big decision, but it was one that was supported by the studio.  We noticed that very same thing; inside the book there are elements of the Viking-Dragon relationships that are symbiotic but there are also elements of Vikings and Dragons being at war.  So we knew that those two things really couldn’t exist in the movie at the same time because the whole thing would short out, so we knew we had to make a decision right away. Are these guys at war or do they live together in some sort of relationship?

And we opted to put them into a relationship where they are at war because it meant that Hiccup would have to take the greatest risk possible in befriending one of these dragons, so everything followed that decision.

By the way, good for you for picking up on the Black Stallion relationship.  It’s one of Dean and mine’s favorite, favorite movies and it’s one of the things that we referenced when we were creating that sequence where Hiccup and Toothless have that first approach.

One of the neat things about the film is the variety of dragons we get to see.  They all have their own personality and species and you get the idea that peeking into the dragon world, you’d just find more and more of these things.  Can you talk about what it was like bringing them to life in the film?

Chris: You know that came from a couple different places.  One of the things that we were very excited about was the different species of dragons that were presented in the book. We felt that dragons by themselves weren’t really a big draw these days. You’ve seen a lot of them… and the fact that they were different species, we thought really reinvigorated the whole idea of dragons and then we were able to give them different personalities that would match their exteriors–so that was one of the cool things.

In the case of Toothless, we had tasked them with building a dragon that in a Viking world, would be a bit of a ghost; a dragon that even Vikings were frightened of. And Vikings really don’t fear much in the story and they certainly don’t fear dragons–they take them on head-to-head– but this dragon is different. They’ve actually never seen one in person, so he’s terrifying to them because he comes and goes at night at incredible speed and his attack is devastating

So he starts terrifying but ends as this very warm, friendly creature that Hiccup befriends and learns a lot about. So he[Toothless]  has to do a great deal of acting and that’s one of the guiding principles behind his design,  that he be frightening and a bit of a Stealth Fighter in their world, but also have the design elements that would make him friendly and cute and really adorable when it comes time to really get to know him.

At this point Chris transferred me over to Dean and we discussed some of the themes and ideas in the film, as well as working with the voice cast.

A question regarding the film’s themes. By changing the story from the book, you’ve made it so that Hiccup doesn’t really have a mom anymore and he’s got a dad who doesn’t really understand him at all. Toothless is sort of an orphan as well.  There was a lot of that going on in Lilo and Stitch too, with families working to come together as a whole.  Why is it that you think those elements resurfaced here in this story?

Dean: I think–Chris and I both–well , we started on Mulan which was a  complete family and you can absolutely make a film work with those ingredients. But we do find that de-stabilizing our main character is great for the start of a film, and particularly giving main characters a hurdle to overcome and parent-child relationships are definitely pretty universal.

So, the idea was to have Hiccup not only feel out of place in his own world, but even out of place in his own home. He’s living effectively in this Viking bachelor pad where everything is toothy and larger than he is, and that relationship is reflected with he and his dad who is charged with such heavy responsibility with having to look after an entire Viking tribe and deal with this menace that they can’t seem to ever get control of, and then a kid who is constantly getting in the way.  I mean we just wanted to stack the odds against him.  

We thought if his mother was there, ever-present, she’d be the voice of reason. She’d probably diffuse a lot of the tension that we were looking to create so we deliberately just avoided her as a subject and only touched upon her once or twice.  There is a sentimental moment where the father exchanges an heirloom with Hiccup, and we saw that as a nod to the mother.  For the most part it is a coming of age story and a kid learning to stand on his own with a domineering parent and that to us reflects better the ultimate representation of a Viking and Hiccup who is anything but.

Much of the voice work in the film is really fascinating because of how well it meshes with the character animation. For example, [Gerard] Butler has taken that guy who could become the classic misunderstanding, sort of anti-nurturing father figure and given him a certain amount of depth.

I kept thinking; “Oh, wait, yeah this guy is a Viking, this is how he shows love.”  It’s impressive that the character shading would come across that well in this medium; the animation and the voice acting really felt seamless in the way they were presented.  What was it like directing those performances from those two fronts like that?

Dean: Wow, thank you for noticing, and it’s certainly something that we pushed for, Gerry [Butler] in particular.

When we had a conversation with him it was a good lengthy conversation when he came onto the project. We talked about where we wanted to take the story and specifically his character, and shading him with a lot more dimension, for which he was super thankful because he felt before his role was always just giving speeches. He really did feel like King Leonidis in 300, without the dimension in a way.

So the moment that we really started building upon the father-son relationship–making it a little more dynamic and textured– Gerry jumped into that with both feet, and he loved exploring the dimensions of his character and giving him something that’s universal and empathetic and even at times sympathetic, but also, keeping at the forefront the image of a guy who has to maintain his cool at all times and be a leader. That dichotomy of being a parent to a trouble-maker of a kid and maintaining responsibility on a large scale like he has to was great texture for Gerry.

He’s the kind of actor who really, really gets into it and really works hard. He probably worked harder than anyone on the movie and that’s a lot to say because everyone busted their butts.  He wanted to come back after he had seen the film nearly complete and redo all of his lines because he felt like he could do them even better and I love that about him.

 I think he’s got such great energy and drive, and in particular his dynamic with Jay Baruchel in the room is something that really shows on screen because we were able to mic them in the same room and get them doing some of their scenes together. We got both the uncomfortable, awkward dad visiting son moments, but also the fight moments, and a lot of that meant spontaneity.  We don’t have a lot of that in animation and everything’s kind of worked on in pieces, but we were able to have them double up over their dialogue and step on each other and it felt organic and real.

Next thing you’ve got coming up is The Banshee and Fin Magee, which is going to be a live action film, right? For Disney? 

Dean: Yes that’s a script that’s complete and working hard at getting it made… so that’s definitely one that’s in the works and Chris is back on the project that he had been working on before the Dragon situation came up…

Which is The Croods, right?

Dean: The Croods.  That’s under way, and that’s about to be completed… and beyond that Chris and I have a slate of projects that we’re always working on and we’re planning on doing together.

Do you think you’ll approach a Dragon sequel if it comes up?

Dean: Well, we’re already actively involved in that now.  I’ve been doing some development on it, so sure, absolutely.  I’ve had such a great time working with Dreamworks and it’s such a–not to sound like it’s a company line– a really healthy studio because we don’t have a set house voice, if you know what I mean. There’s no style that’s absolutely consistent in Dreamworks and that allows for all sorts of projects to come up of different types… so absolutely. I want to stick around and get projects off the ground there and take it in all sorts of directions.

Now will the next movie be the next book, or is it going to be something different… an amalgamation?  Can you tell me anything about that?

Dean: Well, we’ve departed rather heavily from the source material in that our dragons don’t speak and the world is a little bit different than the one as indicated in the book and Toothless is certainly a different character.

Nathan: Right, yeah completely.

Dean: I think there may be ideas that we borrow from the other books, but for the most part this will probably remain true to itself… continue down the path that we’ve now set and be its own thing.

Great.  Well thank you very much.  I think you’ve got a hit on your hands. The audience we saw it with seemed to really dig it. There was a 4 year old behind us and it was the first movie he’d ever seen and he was squealing with delight the whole time.

Dean: That’s great! Thank you so much.  We’re about to go talk to a bunch of kids right now at the library so it should be fun.

Thank you very much Chris and Dean.  Good luck with the movie!

Thanks! Talk to you soon.

After working for over six months on his remake of 1950′s Harvey, Steven Spielberg announced this week that he was backing out of the project. And this after 20th Century Fox had already scheduled soundstages to be ready to go for the film to begin production at the beginning of 2010.

Despite the idea phase of Harvey starting out strong last summer, the film has seen some trouble getting started, with Spielberg and the studio courting both Tom Hanks and Robert Downey Jr. to play the role made famous by James Stewart, but both turned the part down–Downey after creative differences regarding the script occurred with Spielberg. Now, Spielberg has officially walked, with no specific reason being given for doing so.

Spielberg does have several potential projects at his disposal, so it’s likely a matter of deciding to seek greener pastures. Thus the question is what he’ll decide to do instead of Harvey, and who DreamWorks will choose to helm the film in Spielberg’s place.

If you’re a fan of the Shrek movies, then you already know that a fourth film, Shrek Forever After, is set to hit theaters in May of next year. What you may not know is that the Shrek franchise has its first spin-off film in the works.

The new film, Puss in Boots, wil focus on–you guessed it–Puss in Boots, the would-be assassin turned sidekick introduced in Shrek II. The movie about the little orange cat will follow Puss’s adventures prior to his meeting Shrek and Donkey.

Antonio Banderas will reprise his role as Puss in Boots, with Salma Hayek starring alongside him as the voice of “Kitty.” As the film moves forward, negotiations are taking place for the casting of other characters in the film.

Currently, Zach Galifianakis, who played the lovable but slightly-off Alan in this summer’s The Hangover, is in talks to voice the role of Humpty Dumpty.

Puss in Boots is being written by Tom Wheeler, with Shrek the Third co-writer/co-director Chris Miller at the helm.

Watch out, Twilight, you may have some competition coming your way.

Nancy Holder and Debbie Viguie’s young adult series Wicked, which centers around a young girl who finds out she is a descended from a coven of witches, will be going from the page to the big screen.

Aaron and Matthew Benay have written a screen adaptation based on the series, and DreamWorks quickly bought up the rights to put the story on film.

Being a fairly new deal, production details are as of yet undetermined, aside from the fact that the Gotham Group’s Ellen Goldsmith-Vein, Lindsay Williams and Michael Prevett are producing.

If the popularity of such otherworldly book series as Twilight and Harry Potter and the success of their screen adaptations is any indicator, the Wicked series will likely also do very well.

If Wicked does end up drawing as much interest as Twilight has, might we see witches replacing vampires as the next big trend? Hm…