Crysis 4 is officially 'on hold' as Crytek lays off 15% of its workforce, saying it 'cannot continue as before and remain financially sustainable'
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission.
Crysis 4 has been put 'on hold' as developer Crytek lays off 15% of its workforce, stating it "cannot continue as before and remain financially sustainable.
In a statement posted on X, Crytek cited "complex, unfavourable market dynamics" as the reason behind the reductions, which will affect roughly 60 of the around 400 employees within the studio's development teams and shared services. "This has not been an easy decision to make, as we deeply appreciate the hard work of our talented teams."
Crytek goes on to say that "after putting the development of the next Crysis game on hold in Q3 2024, we have been trying to shift developers over to Hunt: Showdown 1896". Yet while Crytek's nineteenth-century extraction shooter is "still growing, Crytek cannot continue as before and remain financially sustainable." The studio also stresses there are "ongoing efforts" to reduce running costs, but says that layoffs are nonetheless "inevitable".
The news that Crysis 4 is on hold may come as a shock to fans, especially given the decision was apparently made some time ago. However, Crytek has said little about the project since it was announced way back in January 2022. The reveal was accompanied by a teaser trailer (viewable below) but no footage of the game itself was shown at the time. The fact the game is merely on hold, rather than cancelled outright, means there's some hope we'll see it eventually. But given Crytek is shifting developers over to Hunt: Showdown, it seems unlikely we'll be seeing a new Crysis anytime soon.
Regarding the future of the studio as a whole, Crytek says it is "fully committed" to the operation of Hunt: Showdown 1896, and will "continue to expand" the extraction shooter as it has done since launch. Hunt enjoyed its highest-ever player count following its 1896 update, which Crytek described as a "new era" for the shooter. But recent brand crossovers with the likes of Ghost Face from Scream have raised concerns about the ongoing identity of the game.
Personally, I'm gutted that Crysis 4 is in limbo. I'm a big fan of the series overall, but especially that almighty first game and its ridiculous technical wizardry. Last year I sat down with Crysis' director Cevat Yerli to get the inside story of the game's creation, and he told me all manner of wild development anecdotes, like being invited to an actual nanotech conference because of the game's website, and how the studio created a blushing system specifically for its NPCs.
Moreover, although I cannot claim to be a business mega-brain, I have a sneaking suspicion that a new Crysis would be absolutely huge right about now. The original is one of the most fundamentally PC games ever made, combining dazzling environments with rich, flexible systems and a real desire to put the action in your hands. It's a combination the gaming community has demonstrated a real desire for lately, with both Stalker 2 and Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2 proving big hits, even if they're not always the most streamlined or user-friendly experiences.
2025 games: This year's upcoming releasesBest PC games: Our all-time favoritesFree PC games: Freebie festBest FPS games: Finest gunplayBest RPGs: Grand adventuresBest co-op games: Better together
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
The P&Q Interview: Kingston's Human-Centered, Future-Skills Approach To Business
Sankar Sivarajah, head of Kingston University Business School in London, wants the school to be known as a human-centric institution grounded in future skills. Courtesy photo When Sankar Sivarajah became the new head of in London, he was given an opportunity not afforded to many incoming deans: to redefine what a business education should be. Since September, Sivarajah has been working with senior leadership to create a new identity for Kingston Business that both builds upon its entrepreneurial foundation and prepares its graduates for the future of work. 'We want to create graduates and business leaders who are enterprising, not only in the entrepreneurial startup sense, but in being resourceful, adaptive, and able to think creatively in a world where resources are limited,' says Sivarajah, professor of Technology Management and Circular Economy. 'We want them to be future-focused and open-minded, people who can navigate complexity and misinformation and still move society forward. Simply put, I want Kingston Business School to be known as a human-centric institution grounded in future skills.' Sivarajah came to Kingston from the University of Bradford where he was dean of the School of Management for five years. There, he led the expansion of online programs, championed socially responsible business education, and led the launch of the UK's first MSc in AI in a business school, as opposed to a computer science department. The program also secured £1 million in scholarships for underrepresented students in AI. Kingston University is located about 30 minutes from central London and enrolls about 20,000 students per year (over 2,500 are business students). Its flagship business programs include a residential MBA, and several specialized masters. It is developing a program in AI for Business, focusing on ethical and human-centric applications. Its undergraduate business degree is built around Kingston University's 'Future Skills' framework that includes adaptability, critical thinking, and collaboration. 'Our edge comes from how we embed human-centric, life-ready skills in a structured way,' Sivarajah says. 'It's not just for a select few students who are highly engaged or have the time for extracurriculars. Every single student who comes into our programs, regardless of background, has an opportunity to hone those essential skills.' Poets&Quants recently connected with Sivarajah to talk about how Kingston is rethinking what business education means. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity. My academic journey began at Brunel University London, where I also did all my undergraduate studies. I actually describe myself as an accidental academic. I come from a family business background in Sri Lanka, and I originally came to the UK to pursue higher education with the goal of returning home to help grow the family business. I went on to do a master's in management, specializing in entrepreneurship, at Bayes Business School, City University London. At that point, I had shipped all my things home and was set to go back to Sri Lanka, but then, I was to apply for fully funded PhD scholarship by the Dean of the Business School at Brunel. That PhD was a turning point. My supervisors were heavily involved in European Commission-funded research projects, and that opened up a whole new world to me. My research was focused on technology evaluation and smart cities. I had always assumed I'd either go into business or maybe do consulting, but these R&D projects offered a unique opportunity: you weren't handed a fixed brief; You could create and pitch your own ideas. That freedom was new to me, and I really valued it. Around 2017, I joined the University of Bradford and asked to set up a new, forward-looking department focused on business analytics. At the time, the UK was still playing catch-up in this area, but it gave me my first experience running a department. I developed new programs, built a team, and helped shape the culture. By 2019, I was asked to step up as dean. I spent five years there, commuting from London, and was really proud of the transformation we led. We focused on rebuilding the school's identity and launched the UK's first MSc in AI in a business school setting. Most AI programs were housed in computer science departments, but we believed that AI and analytics were just as critical for future managers and business leaders. By 2025, I was still tenured at Bradford and they wanted me to extend my stay. But I knew I wanted to take on a new challenge. That's when Kingston came knocking. I didn't know much about it initially, but it had a similar story: strong in the '80s, but momentum had faded. I did some research and saw real potential. Their distinctive institutional strategy, entrepreneurship focus and values resonated with me. I felt like I could genuinely add value and help shape an identity that was authentic to Kingston but also forward-thinking. Some parts of the curriculum needed modernization, but the foundation was there. I officially started in September 2024, so it's been about eight months. Now, I'm working closely with the senior leadership on defining a new identity for the business school. They've given me the freedom to redefine and restructure, which is exciting. Of course, in the UK, you have to align with the parent university. We don't have the same autonomy as independent business schools, but I see that as part of the challenge. The big thing is something they call the . For context, Kingston is located in southwest London. It was previously a polytechnic, so very skills based. Like many post-1992 universities, it retained that emphasis on practical, career-focused learning. That's been its DNA for over 150 years. The Town House Strategy, launched by the current Vice Chancellor, is built on several key pillars. One of the boldest and most unique is what they call the 'Future Skills' approach. Everyone talks about future skills, but Kingston actually developed a methodology behind it. In 2021, the university launched its own large-scale research project in partnership with YouGov. They surveyed 2,000 businesses, 2,000 members of the public, and 1,000 current students – 5,000 stakeholders in total – to identify which skills are most valued by society and industry. The outcome was a framework of nine core life skills, ranging from curiosity to critical thinking and adaptability. What's impressive is how they've embedded these skills across every single undergraduate program as part of the curriculum. Kingston Business School is located about 30 minutes from central London and enrolls about 2,500 business students a year. Courtesy photo Some of the skills that I think really resonate right now are things like creative problem-solving, digital competencies, a questioning mindset, and things like resilience and self-awareness. Those are all part of the nine core skills we identified through our research. Kingston's approach is a structured, three phase model for each year of the undergrad experience. In the first year, called the Navigate phase, students reflect on those nine skills and where their strengths and gaps are. It might turn out a student is already strong in critical thinking, but needs to build more confidence in collaboration. That becomes a foundation for their development throughout the rest of the program. The second year is Explore, where they work on projects beyond their own discipline. For example, this year, over 800 students from business, arts, engineering all worked together on interdisciplinary teams to respond to a real business brief. It's a bit like a hackathon, but assessed as part of the curriculum. It's not optional; it's built in. The third year is Apply, where students complete real-world experiences like micro-placements, live projects, or case challenges. We also work with a group called Gradcore to run simulated assessment centers, just like what students would go through in real job application processes here in the UK. It's structured to get them ready for employability, but also ties back to the future skills framework they've been building on since year one. This model has gained traction at the policy level: Our local MP recently brought a motion to Parliament advocating for the Future Skills model to be adopted more broadly across the UK higher education sector. So yes, many universities talk about skills and employability, but I haven't seen this level of strategic implementation before. Structuring the student experience around Navigate, Explore, Apply, that's something tangible. It gives students a clear developmental journey and gives us a language to talk about how our programs are different. In terms of purpose, we want to be a human-centered business school that delivers future skills and truly walks the talk for a progressive society. We aim to shape businesses through people and knowledge. This human-centered approach runs through everything. Our curriculum already integrates future skills, and now we want to align our research around that same ethos. For example, in our future-of-work research cluster, we're looking at behavioral insights and how employers and employees interact. Even in traditionally technical areas like economics, we're asking: can we explore the behavioral side? In marketing, how do consumer behaviors reflect deeper societal trends? The question we keep asking is: where does the human add value? That's the identity I'd like us to build: A business school that doesn't just equip students with technical knowledge but also prepares them to think critically and act responsibly. One that I think has huge potential is our , Behavioural Research Analytics in Neurotechnological Systems. While many universities have similar labs, they're often used primarily from a psychology perspective. What's great here is that we're integrating it into business-focused research and teaching. The lab is equipped with tools like eye-tracking and monitoring equipment to study human decision-making. For instance, you can run simulations like a financial market crash scenario and study how people make decisions under stress. You can analyze sentiment, track attention, and evaluate reactions in real time. There's also a team collaboration room that allows you to observe and study how people interact and work together in group settings. So whether it's for marketing research, financial behavior, or workplace team dynamics, it offers a wide range of business-relevant use cases. I really see this as one of Kingston's best-kept secrets, a resource we need to spotlight and scale up. Our current MBA program is undergoing a complete overhaul, and that's one of the key places where the human-centric philosophy is really taking shape. The MBA is an important offering for us both for talent development and for those already in business who want to upskill. Kingston had strong recognition for its MBA in the past, but it's a very crowded market now. So we asked ourselves: how can Kingston's MBA stand out? Sankar Sivarajah: 'We want graduates to be future-focused and open-minded, people who can navigate complexity and misinformation and still move society forward' We've centered the redesign around three key themes: digital intelligence, human value, and sustainability. One of the new features we're excited about is a leadership component called the 'MBA X.' It's designed to help students build confidence and presence. We leverage Kingston's strength in the arts and use creative spaces like a media studio where students can record podcasts, deliver presentations, and really learn to project themselves with authenticity. It's about helping them bring their unique 'X factor' into leadership. We're also embedding leadership development and coaching throughout the program in our 'The Kingston Impact: Leadership and Personal Growth' module. Currently, the MBA is offered full-time on campus, but we've just had the business case approved for launching an online version potentially in September 2026. Through my experience running an FT-ranked online MBA at Bradford, I know how saturated that space is. But I think there's a real opportunity for Kingston to stand out by leaning into our human-centric approach. Our MSc in International Business remains a flagship, as it does in many institutions. But we're also launching new programs in areas like Digital Marketing and Business Analytics. We are working on developing a new program in AI for Business with a clear emphasis on the human good and responsible application, which will set it apart. One final standout is our MSc in Occupational and Business Psychology. It's accredited by the British Psychological Society (BPS), and it bridges social science and business in a meaningful way. That's quite rare in UK business schools, and it naturally supports the human-centered identity we're building. Our current mix is about 70% regional, 30% international. In the current climate where UK higher education is facing challenges with international student numbers, we're in a stronger position than many other institutions. That said, our postgraduate programs are where we see most of our international enrollment. We have a strong contingent from South Asia, and we also receive European students through our partnership with BI Norwegian Business School. Our MBA in particular has seen a big uptick in international interest. In the current MBA cohort, out of 35 students, 70% were from South Asia. But here's the surprising part: the second-largest group was from the United States. When I asked them why they chose Kingston, many mentioned wanting the UK and London experience. But they also did their research. A lot of the decision came down to word-of-mouth recommendations, which was encouraging to hear. So while we continue to serve a strong regional student base, especially at the undergraduate level, we're definitely building momentum internationally, particularly in our postgraduate and MBA offerings. At the institutional level, Kingston has a broader strategy for embedding AI across teaching and assessment. But within the business school specifically, we've developed a structured approach to how AI is integrated both in terms of policy and practice. We're using a three-level framework to guide how AI can be used in assessments: Level 1, AI not allowed. For example, live presentations where students must demonstrate their own thinking. Level 2, AI-assisted work is allowed. Students might use ChatGPT or Grammarly but must disclose it. Level 3, AI use is required. Students may have to build models or chatbots as part of the brief. This tiered model helps us stay consistent and intentional. It gives faculty the tools to design assignments that either exclude, allow, or mandate AI use, depending on the learning objectives. And because it's embedded into modules across subjects, we're able to build students' digital fluency in a clear and structured way. So it's not just about offering one AI course or launching a degree; We're taking a much broader, integrated approach that aligns with our human-centered philosophy. We're asking: how can AI augment learning while still developing the critical thinking, creativity, and ethical awareness that make human contributions valuable? On top of that, we're also developing a new program specifically designed to build AI skills for non-technical learners, particularly for future business leaders. It's still in the design phase, but the idea is to help students and professionals who don't have a technical background understand how to engage with AI in a responsible, ethical, and strategic way. I think one of the biggest is staying relevant in such an uncertain and fast-changing environment. The more I reflect on it, and the more I attend conferences and conversations across the business school space, the more it becomes clear that we need to constantly redefine what our value add is. Today's learners, especially Gen Z and the upcoming Gen Alpha, are different. They've been exposed to vast amounts of information, screen time, and digital tools from an early age. So, when they come into the classroom, it's not enough to just deliver knowledge. They've already encountered much of it, or at least the surface of it, online. So we have to ask ourselves: What is the real value of coming to a business school? For me, it's about depth. It's about knowledge creation, critical thinking, intellectual debate, and the human touch – the philosophical and behavioral side of business. That's where our strength lies: in helping students question, evaluate, and apply knowledge with purpose. Especially with the rise of AI, we need to ensure that students still understand the fundamentals. You need the depth to be able to assess whether AI is giving you the right answer. You can't do that without understanding the foundation behind it. But we also have to keep pace with how businesses are operating right now. That's the real tension: staying academically rigorous while also remaining industry-relevant. Businesses are using tools and technologies at a pace that's hard to match in education, and we have to make sure our teaching and our programs reflect that. For example, in one of our Future Skills surveys, we asked businesses whether they thought graduates were fit for roles involving AI. Fewer than 30% said yes. That's a clear signal. One thing that stands out to me is the increasing role of geopolitics and how that intersects with business education. More and more, we're having to think about how political and cultural shifts affect not only what we teach but how we build partnerships and engage with students. Things like equity, diversity, inclusion, all of those are critically important. But they can also become very personal, very emotive topics. So I think a key challenge for business education, and for Kingston specifically, is how we help students navigate that complexity. How do we equip them to operate in global business environments where diplomacy, relationship-building, and cross-cultural understanding are essential? How do you hold onto your values while still learning how to engage constructively in partnerships, even with people or entities you might disagree with? That's something we need to continue reflecting on as educators: how to keep students ready for the world as it is, not just the world as we wish it would be. One more thing I think is really important is the role of place. Business schools shouldn't operate in a bubble, and one thing I learned from my previous role was how deeply a school can engage with its local community. At Bradford, for example, it's a city with high levels of deprivation, very different from London. We did programs to support social mobility, rehabilitation projects for prisoners, support for Ukrainian refugees, and training initiatives for people who had never had access to higher education. We worked with local government and played a role in the city's cultural and economic development. Now at Kingston, the context is different, but the responsibility is the same. Kingston is known as a safe and prosperous borough in London. We have Richmond Park and Wimbledon Common right next to us. But even here, we have students who come from less privileged backgrounds. Just because it's a wealthy area doesn't mean every student has had the same opportunities. We're already working with large organizations – Unilever's headquarters is here, for example – but the question is, how do we make sure all of our students, regardless of background, have access to those opportunities? We're partnering with the local council, the Kingston Chamber of Commerce, running Future of Work summits, mock assessments, and leadership events—not as optional extras, but as built-in parts of the student experience. We want our students to be the first choice, not the insurance choice. That means developing their skills, yes, but also giving them high-value experiences and networks. And by doing that, we also give back to our community. That's how I think business schools should operate: Not just as institutions of learning, but as civic partners helping shape the places they're in. DON'T MISS: LONDON BUSINESS SCHOOL DEAN SERGEI GURIEV AND IVEY DEAN JULIAN BIRKINSHAW HAS GLOBAL AMBITIONS FOR ELITE CANADIAN B-SCHOOL The post The P&Q Interview: Kingston's Human-Centered, Future-Skills Approach To Business appeared first on Poets&Quants. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
I've Been A Big Hater Of Disney's Live Action Remakes, But After Snow White, I Feel Like There's An Easy Way To Fix It
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. So Disney is taking a break from live-action remakes, and I have to say I'm not too surprised. I'm the kind of girl who grew up watching Disney as if it were the air I needed to breathe. Switching on Disney Channel was like switching on my own personal oxygen tank. I'm pretty sure my parents, at some point, knew all the theme songs by heart of every single show, or all the Disney soundtracks as well, and not willingly. But when these Disney live-action remakes started to happen, I had a feeling that they were either going to go terribly wrong or they would do really well. And…so far it's been a pretty big mixed bag where I'd say about 60% of the time you get something that's not too great. And I've regularly talked about this pretty consistently on this website. However, I actually have something I need to say about this change Disney is making—one that I think a lot of people will agree with. If they were to continue, there's an easy way to fix these Disney live-action movies, so let's get into it. So, before I give you my reasoning, my truth must speak first – I've been a hater of these live-action movies in the past. In fact, I literally just wrote an article about how I'm sick of them, and while I think Lilo and Stitch might be the outlier, most don't entertain me anymore. When the first movies began to release years ago, there was a lot to love, mainly because they were new and exciting. Oh, Disney is releasing its best animated movies, but they're going to be live-action now with pretty stars and beautiful visuals and everything? That sounds exciting! But at the end of the day, most ended up becoming half-baked remakes that tried to be something new when the blueprint is right there. I used to love them. Truly, I did. But over time, they just diminished in quality to the point where we ended up getting Snow White…and while I do believe Rachel Zegler is still the perfect Snow White because she has the voice of an angel, the rest of the movie was just…not that great. However, I've been thinking a lot about this, and I know what to do with these live-action films if Disney were to keep making them. The solution is simple, really. Literally. It's. That. Easy. Just go to the source material. Do you want to know why so many of the original live-action films did so well? They didn't try to reinvent the wheel. They stuck to the material that most everyone and their mother knew because it's Disney. These are the stories that we have grown up with, the tales that our parents told us to fall asleep to, and then took us to the theatre to see. Why would we want to see them changed? Honestly, I'm not even talking entirely about the Disney versions. I'm talking about the actual story that the movies are based on. I feel that with so many of these adaptations, they've been trying to work in different aspects of pop culture and modern-day political stances, and so much more, that it's lost the magic that these tales once had. Are there certain things that need to be changed? Of course. These are older stories, and some things haven't aged well. But most are still fine. The source material is fantastic and well-loved for a reason. Why change it? This is the biggest thing, though—if you're going to recreate the movie, recreate what you know the fans already love. Recreate the scenery, the dresses, and the themes that we all understand because the last thing we want is some new message shoved down our throats that wasn't already there in the first place. Sure, this begs the question of why these live-action films even need to be made, but honestly, I don't find it terribly unethical to remake the movie. I actually think it's pretty par for the course because animation is such a fantastic medium of film that it makes sense people would want to create a live-action version of certain films to test the powers of technology and all that. And if Disney is going to move in that direction, then why not stick with the same story that we all know? If you want to change a few aspects, that's fine, which is precisely what Cinderella did. The 2015 film from Disney isn't an exact adaptation of the original film – it's actually considered another adaptation of the original story. Still, it hits the same story beats as the animated film. There are a few changes that really make the movie stand out, from how Cinderella and the prince first meet to what happens after the ball. These changes add depth and emotion to the story without taking away its key themes, which is how I feel many other Disney live-action remakes have done. Personally, I think Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid are the only other two live-action remakes that have relatively kept the same theme and plot, and maybe that's because they're so beloved. But it feels like the other ones have tried to change too much – or, in The Lion King's case, not that much at all, and instead feed us the most lifeless 'live-action' CGI animals in history. Yeah, that film should have just stayed animated. I think my last major point would be that while it's okay to make slight changes to the story in order to fit more into it, you don't need to try so hard to make additions at all. They should really only be there if the story makes sense to have them there. For example, I actually like 'Evermore' from Beauty and the Beast. I think it adds a lot more depth to Beast's character and adds more humanity to the story overall. But notice how the movie itself is the same kind of story as the film. They didn't try to push new themes down your throat or anything else. It was just Beauty and the Beast with the addition of a new song. That is how it's supposed to be, and what other live-action Disney remakes need to take from this. I don't know, maybe I'm sticking up for Disney a little hard, but I feel like there is a secret pathway to success with these films. I think it really is just as easy as listening to the fans and creating movies that have the stories we all know and love. Every person nowadays is trying to sell something to you, whether it's physical, emotional, or whatever. Too many people have too much access to preaching their ideas over and over, and the last thing we want is to see that in a movie that we all know, something the original never had. If we're going to be watching a film that we all know and love, make the movie that we know and love. If you want to make changes, fine, make a few subtle changes. But if you're going to change the entire storyline, don't call it an adaptation of the movie, because that is where you will lose fans, time and time again. Okay, rant over. I think I need to rewatch some old Disney movies to calm down. It's time for a marathon.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Lilo & Stitch Quietly Passed A Box Office Milestone That Previously Went To Sinners
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. We're slightly less than halfway through the 2025 movie schedule, and some wild times have already been had at the box office. A pair of Marvel movies failed to make their usual explosive debut, and instead, one of the biggest movies of the year has been Sinners, an original film not connected to any franchise. The film had previously been the second highest-grossing movie at the domestic box office, but Disney's Lilo & Stitch remake has now taken that honor. At over $267 million at the domestic box office, Sinners had been the number two movie of 2025. Lilo & Stitch now sits at nearly $285 million. It's going to take some doing for Disney's little blue troublemaker to become the highest-grossing movie of the year, however. A Minecraft Movie currently sits atop the box office at $423 million. With numerous major blockbusters set to come out over the next couple of months, it's quite likely that Sinners will continue to slide down the box office chart. Still, wherever it happens to end up, its achievement cannot be overstated. Franchise filmmaking had already been the focus of studios back when more people still went to theaters, and in an era where getting people to do that is becoming increasingly difficult, audiences aren't leaving the house to see anything other than familiar franchises. To be fair, the fact that it took Lilo & Stitch as long as it did to overtake Sinners at the box office is a testament to the film's popularity and staying power. Stitch had an opening weekend that was three times that of Sinners. Sinners, however, had virtually no drop in its box office take between its first two weekends, a nearly unheard of statistic. Lilo & Stitch saw a nearly 60% drop between its first two weekends, which is fairly standard for major tentpole releases. If Lilo & Stitch means anything in the broader box office landscape, it's that despite the overall failure of Snow White, live-action remakes of popular animated films are still popular with fans. Lilo & Stitch is in the upper tier of the box office results for those films, only behind movies that grossed a billion dollars worldwide, like Aladdin, Alice in Wonderland, and The Lion King. Lilo & Stitch seems unlikely to reach quite those heights; it's broken $600 million and the global box office, but with the movie having been released in all countries, save Japan, where it will open this weekend, it has certainly made most of the money it's going to make. The major thing that may stop the momentum of Lilo & Stitch may, ironically, be another family-friendly live-action remake of a popular animated film. How to Train Your Dragon is set to hit theaters next weekend.
