Transformers: Dark of the Moon used the real-life historical moment of the Apollo 11 moon landing to tie it into the events surrounding the Cybertronian aliens making their way to Earth. In next summer’s Transformers 4, Michael Bay intends to continue the story in a world where now the world knows of the Autobots and Decepticons.
Deadline has the scoop which indicates that Grammer, most well-known for his long-time role as Frasier Crane in Cheers and his own self-titled series Frasier, will be playing the human antagonist of Transformers 4. His character’s name is Harold Attinger and he’s described as a “counter-intelligence” agent.
Transformers 4 takes place four years after the events that shocked the world in Dark of the Moon. There’s no hiding the existence of sentient life on other planets or the fact that Transformers are present on Earth. The film is not a reboot as it continues from where the trilogy left off, but it does feature a new cast along with new designs for all of the robots. Bay:
“We’re going to start off smaller. There’s a brand new cast. To freshen the franchise we’ve redesigned everything from top to bottom. The history of the first three movies is still there, we start four years later and there’s a reason why we’re meeting a new cast.”
A leaked synopsis – which Paramount Pictures claimed was unofficial but asked us to take down anyway – indicated that the film’s plot would see businessmen and scientists logically trying to benefit from the alien Cybertronian incursions, attempting to learn from and adapt the technology. It also hints that there may be more events from Earth’s past (beyond Apollo 11) that the Autobots, Decepticons or some other Cybertronian faction may have been involved in, in addition to the Hoover Dam of course.
The secretive Sector 7 organization factored into the plot of the first Transformers and tied other elements of Earth’s path with alien discovers so it’s safe bet similar elements will carry over as the most fascinating parts of the films’ lore are how the writers creatively tie the events of our past to those of the fictional Transformers characters.
Sector 7 was of course shut down, but with the events of Transformer 3 - where Autobots and the military already work together – and the all-out attack on Earth, similar organizations from governments around the world will naturally be created as a response to the alien invasion. We can expect Kelsey Grammer to be involved in one such group as someone trying to benefit from the Cybertronians.
The biggest question is who the alien villains will be and just how drastic the Hasbro-focused redesigns will be. Is it time for the Dinobots?
Rob Keyes blogs at Screen Rant.
Few remember (or, at least, acknowledge) that The Daily Show existed for some years before Jon Stewart took over hosting duties from Craig Kilborn in 1999. Under Stewart’s leadership, the late-night comedy news program grew into a genuine cultural institution.
After nearly a decade-and-a-half of hosting The Daily Show, Stewart will be stepping down – at least, for a little while. It looks as if the comedian will be taking a three-month break from hosting the show in order to pursue a rather different stage in his career.
The Hollywood Reporter has announced that Jon Stewart plans to take a hiatus from hosting The Daily Show over the summer of 2013. He will use this time to direct his first feature film, titled Rosewater.
In Stewart’s place, Daily Show correspondent John Oliver will be sitting in the show’s hosting chair. Both a writer and presenter for The Daily Show since 2006, Oliver has proven himself a wry and clever comedian. Oliver’s promotion could hint at changes to come – after all, big comic names such as Steve Carell (Seeking a Friend for the End of the World), Ed Helms (The Hangover Part III), and Stephen Colbert (Mr. Peabody & Sherman) all found initial fame via The Daily Show.
The film that Stewart will be directing is an entirely different animal than almost anything in his career. Rosewater is based off the best-selling nonfiction book Then They Came for Me: A Family’s Story of Love, Captivity, and Survival. The book tells the story of Maziar Bahari, an Iranian-British journalist who was imprisoned and tortured in Iran’s most infamous prison in 2009. Bound and blindfolded during his interrogation sessions, Bahari could only identify his main tormentor by the scent of the cologne he wore – rosewater.
Does Stewart’s decision to take time off from The Daily Show indicate that he’s gearing up for a new phase in his career? His attachment to such a dramatic debut feature does seem to indicate that he intends to go in a different creative direction. This seems especially strange, given the host’s previous involvement in offbeat and comedic features such as Half-Baked. Will he be able to pull off heavy, painful material – even from behind the camera?
Until his actual departure from (and subsequent return to) The Daily Show, Stewart’s creative future is up in the air. At the very least, audiences can be assured that the show will be in good hands with John Oliver. As for Rosewater, we’ll have to wait and see if this three-month hiatus bears worthwhile fruit.
Kyle Hembree blogs at Screen Rant.
William Shakespeare’s bloody tragedy Macbeth has been adapted countless times for both the stage and the screen – the most recent cinematic example being Rupert Goold’s filmed version of his stage production, which starred Patrick Stewart in the title role. Another notable recent example is Geoffrey Wright’s modern-day Australian gangster reinterpretation of the story, in which Sam Worthington played an underboss who usurps the “throne” of a Melbourne crime boss.
A new contender for the crown of Scotland is about to arrive, however, as Michael Fassbender is reportedly attached to play the lead in a new adaptation of Macbeth, which will be directed by Justin Kurzel (Snowtown) from a script by Toss Louiso and Jacob Koskoff.
Though there aren’t any concrete details at the moment as to who will be playing Fassbender’s counterpart, Lady Macbeth, the ScreenDaily article reports that “at least one Hollywood leading actress” is in talks for the role.
The film is being produced by See Saw Films, the production company behind Steve McQueen’s sex addiction drama Shame, which also starred Fassbender in the lead role; they also did Tom Hooper’s King George VI biopic The King’s Speech, which won four Oscars and was nominated for eight more.
Fassbender is currently filming X-Men: Days of Future Past and is also attached to play Thomas Wolfe in Max Perkins’ biopic, Genius. Rumors surrounding a possible reprisal of his role in Prometheus for Ridley Scott’s sequel are also developing as the director casts his net out for a new writer.
The actor has also started up his own production company, DMC Films, through which he will be producing and starring in an adaptation of popular video game franchise Assassin’s Creed. News has gone a little quiet on this front since writer Michael Lesslie was brought on to write the screenplay a few months ago, and a lot is riding on Assassin’s Creed getting off the ground and into production. The film will mark the feature debut of both DMC films and Ubisoft Motion Pictures – and at a press junket last year, Fassbender said that managing to successfully produce something through his new company was part of the reason for taking time off acting:
“I really wanted to make DMC, my production company, really work as opposed to just an idea and you’ve got to put a lot of time into that. So I really did focus energies in that, working with writers, finding the writers, and so now I go back to acting again.”
Macbeth is expected to begin filming towards the end of this year, and the script is described as taking a “visceral” approach, particularly to the battle scenes, making it potentially comparable to Ralph Fiennes’ recent modern adaptation of Coriolanus. Fassbender’s involvement alone is enough to make this new version of a very old story worth watching, and apparently the script was sought after eagerly by several different sales outfits at Cannes before finally being picked up by See Saw and Film4.
H. Shaw-Williams blogs at Screen Rant.
For a show like The Following, where a streamlined story replaces television’s all-too-familiar episodic narrative, it’s all about the journey and the end result. No matter how thrilling the ride or how high the body count, the success of the series rests on creator Kevin Williamson (Scream, The Vampire Diaries) providing a satisfying conclusion to this chapter of Carroll’s twisted tale. Thankfully, Williamson does just that, and then some.
Much like the series premiere, The Following season 1 finale thrusts audiences into a non-stop, action-packed, suspenseful thrill-ride where Ryan Hardy (Kevin Bacon), through his unwavering determination, leads viewers into the heart of darkness - only now it’s to provided answers, or in this case, a potential conclusion. And though it is often the promise of impending answers which fuels excitement for any type of finale, The Following is merely turning another page to the last chapter, as was the plan from the start.
The Following has, through its impeccably planned series progression, helped fuel and rejuvenate the much-ignored idea of an enclosed tale on broadcast television. Still, what makes this series work better than others is its perceptible intent at actually telling a story with purpose, not simply because having a TV show sounds fun.
Carroll, now injured from Claire’s attack, is forced to play out his final act as physically exhausted as Hardy is through his selfless dedication; both out for vengeance, yet up against an opponent more powerful than either initially planned. But The Following has always been about carefully planned attacks on the psyche more so than brute force – so even when Carroll and Hardy come face-to-face, the suspense not only remains, it builds exponentially, as this is where the series shines.
The Following thrives on moments where dialogue and intent are used to progress the core plot, and James Purefoy and Kevin Bacon, whether together or separate, are masters at it. Whatever happens onscreen, The Following is a show where its most poignant moments can be enjoyed simply by listening to the dialogue – well, most of it. Even after a rewarding and thoroughly surprisingly conclusion to this chapter of the story, the FBI aspect of the series still fails to come close to the powerful prose that its two leads receive - with the exception of Annie Parisse and her amazingly impactful final scenes as Special Agent Debra Parker, of course. Though this element of (sometimes) weak dialogue doesn’t stand out in the finale as much as it has in earlier episodes, it does raise some questions about the show’s potential, next season.
In many ways, no one could have expected to witness the death of the show’s villain, Carroll, or the surprise stabbing of Hardy and his love, Claire, in the show’s final moments. The Following has always presented itself as a streamlined story with a purpose – but now, without Purefoy, the show must evolve in season 2.
The ending of The Following season 1 finale feels like a mixture of “Plan A” and “Plan B,” depending on whether or not it was renewed for next season. And, for all intents and purposes, it delivered an exciting conclusion to what could have been seen as a successful mini-series. But now, with cliffhangers and a dead nemesis, the show’s producers, as well as its audience, are venturing into unknown territory about what The Following can be in season 2, versus what it was in season 1.
While it’s true that Carroll can (and probably will) “live on” through his followers, Williamson and his team have more than enough time to craft another complete tale for viewers to enjoy. And if the quality of season 2 is anything like it was in season 1, you won’t have to think twice about whether or not you’ll be tuning in.
Anthony Ocasio blogs at Screen Rant.
The three went on a reunion tour last year after Jones’ death and the response, Dolenz told Rolling Stone, convinced them that they should keep going.
RECOMMENDED: The 25 best musicians of the Rock era
“The reaction to the last tour was euphoric," Dolenz said. "It was pretty apparent there was a demand for another one.”
Tour dates run from the Port Chester performance to Aug. 18, when the trio will perform in Portland, Ore. But Dolenz said the tour may continue after their US journey.
“I can be frank and tell you we are thinking about taking it everywhere," he said. "There's always been interest in Japan, Eurasia and Australia and New Zealand. There's a huge fan base in South America and Brazil in specific, which we've never really tapped into. There's also talk about Europe and the U.K."
The tour will be titled “A Midsummer’s Night with the Monkees” and the three will play their band’s songs in the order in which they were released. Photos and video footage will also be used to look back on their history.
General tickets will go on sale May 3.
The band came together when producers Bob Rafelson and Bert Schneider came up with the idea for a TV show that followed a band after the success of the Beatles’ 1964 movie “A Hard Day’s Night.” The four Monkees members were cast for the show.
Today, the group is remembered for hits such as “Daydream Believer,” “I’m a Believer,” and “Last Train to Clarksville.”
RECOMMENDED: The 25 best musicians of the Rock era
Lately, it seems like everyone is loving actress Connie Britton.
In a February article in New York Times magazine, the headline called Britton a “late bloomer.” “‘Friday Night Lights’ turned Britton into something of an icon, a 40-something sex symbol and role model at the center of a critically acclaimed show (albeit one that was never a ratings smash)," Susan Dominus wrote. "These days, the Internet is crowded with blog posts celebrating her exemplary television marriage, her maternal wisdom, the sheer amazingness of her hair. Britton [now] seemed to have emerged in her prime, in the process redefining what an actress’s prime exactly is.”
While the 46-year-old may not necessarily be a household name, she’s entered the hearts of many with her role as Tami Taylor, Coach’s wife and fierce school principal, in “Friday Night Lights,” and now as Rayna Jaymes, country star, in ABC’s “Nashville.”
Here are some of the reasons why people love her:
– Britton tries to stay true to herself.
Despite making her big break later in her career, Britton says she doesn't alter her personality or looks to conform to Hollywood’s idea of beauty. She told Amanda de Cadenet in a Youtube interview in 2012 that she didn’t want to be an actress who was seen as a person who is only "'a great actress because she's so beautiful.' ... I wanted to be seen as a great actress because I had a great craft and I was able to play roles that could impact people.”
Meanwhile, “Friday Night Lights” director Jeff Reiner told the Times that “Connie leads with her brains, not her beauty... I think that’s one reason women find her so appealing.”
– Britton's international awareness
– Britton's fight for layered roles and control over how she portrays characters
Rather than be inspired by more sexualized Hollywood starlets, Britton told NPR in an interview that her favorite movie is Foul Play because she admires actress Goldie Hawn. “I’ve always said that I want to play a full-fledged character that has drama and a sense of humor," the actress said. "And I think that was because I was so heavily influenced by funny ladies such as Goldie Hawn.”
Similarly, she’s been outspoken about what she will and won’t do when portraying her characters onscreen. According to Indiewire.com, in the pilot of “Nashville,” Britton refused to do a scene where she had to look in the mirror and mime a face-lift. She told IndieWire she wants to “get a strong female voice out there, no matter what the context is,” and that she doesn't like the idea of portraying Reyna Jaymes as an “aging country star.” Both she and co-star Hayden Panettiere told PopSugar that the show is not just about women “cat-fighting.”
From her on-camera sass to her down-to-earth personality, Britton seems both fun and hilarious. In August of 2012, Britton narrated a segment on website “Funny or Die” called “Wing It Parenthood," and according to a Rachel Ray segment from 2008, during her days on “Friday Night Lights,” she and co-star Kyle Chandler played jokes on each other.
Saba Hamedy is a Monitor contributor.
We’ve said it before, but it bears repeating: you don’t have to like Channing Tatum as an actor, but through his charismatic performances in The Vow, 21 Jump Street and Magic Mike – not to mention, Tatum’s solid supporting role in Haywire – he’s already proven to be more than just a disposable pretty boy.
Tatum’s lined up an eclectic collection of roles for the foreseeable future, such as a reunion with Haywire and Magic Mike director Steven Soderbergh on The Bitter Pill, the part of Olympian Mark Schultz in Moneyball director Bennett Miller’s Foxcatcher, and the lead in Roland Emmerich’s thriller White House Down. He’s also been discussing the possibility of a Magic Mike 2 with writer/co-producer Reid Carolin – and could even end up directing the sequel, should it happen.
Soderbergh is planning to take a (permanent?) break from filmmaking beginning next year, so he won’t be available to sit in the director’s chair for Magic Mike 2. Tatum tells German site Filmstarts that Soderbergh’s trusted assistant director and producer Gregory Jacobs – who’s already helmed the films Criminal and Wind Chill – could take his place. The actor also says he’s interested (and willing) to try his hand at directing the sequel.
A sequel is tricky, as Magic Mike satisfies as a standalone film; moreover, Soderbergh’s deft photography, editing, and directing were essential in elevating the movie above its occasionally-cliched story. A sequel makes financial sense, as the film has grossed $155 million worldwide on a $7 million budget – but it’s also for that reason that, at first, Magic Mike 2 sounds like the latest Hollywood cash-grab (especially without Soderbergh involved).
Such issues have almost certainly occurred to Carolin and Tatum, which accounts for why the two are not rushing headfirst into a Magic Mike sequel – regardless of who is brought onboard to direct, be it Jacobs or Tatum. The latter emphasizes that his priority concerning the continuation of the Magic Mike “brand name” right now is a Broadway stage show spinoff, not a film sequel (much less, one he makes his feature-length directorial debut on).
Nonetheless, even though Magic Mike 2 is not a priority, Tatum and Carolin are indicating the project is one they are giving serious consideration to. Here is what the latter says, with regards to the situation (and the duo’s tentative outline for what form the sequel would take):
“You know, we are talking a lot about it. We have a story, and it is really ridiculous and fun. It’s a road movie sort of thing, where a bunch of strippers get back together. It’s more of a broad comedy. I don’t know whether it will happen or not.”
Magic Mike, as mentioned before, just doesn’t organically lend itself to a followup – be it a road trip comedy like Carolin suggests, or something else entirely. Still, it is encouraging to learn that Tatum wants to continue growing as a professional artist, both onscreen and behind the camera. As we said at the beginning of this article: he continues to prove that he’s more than just a beefcake for moviegoers to ogle.
Sandy Schaefer blogs at Screen Rant.
Filmmaker Christopher Nolan worked alongside several of the same actors on his last two movies (Inception and The Dark Knight Rises), which includes his “good luck” charm Michael Caine – who’s appeared in every Nolan picture beginning with, uh… Batman Begins – and people such as Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Tom Hardy and Marion Cotillard.
It’s not surprising to learn that this practice of relying upon a trusted actor troop will continue (to some degree) with Nolan’s latest project Interstellar, but the news that Anne Hathaway is the first returning player to be announced does come as something of an unexpected, but very much welcome, revelation.
Deadline, which is the first to break this story, is reporting that Hathaway is “near a deal” to headline Interstellar alongside Matthew McConaughey, who confirmed his involvement a week ago. There’s no word yet on any other name actors or A-listers who are coming back to play in Nolan’s sandbox again; though, it’s probably a given that Caine will appear in some capacity (not at all a bad thing, mind you).
Interestingly, Hathaway was originally going to follow up her roles as Selina Kyle in Dark Knight Rises and Oscar-winning performance in the Les Misérables cinematic musical with the Robopocalypse adaptation from director Steven Spielberg – who had been lined up to direct from Jonathan Nolan’s Interstellar script back in 2006 – before that project was delayed at Spielberg’s request (for creative purposes), thus freeing up the actress to reunite with Nolan instead. No harm, no foul.
More importantly, the Interstellar leads are a good mixture of experience and fresh perspective, with regard to how they will collaborate with the same filmmaker who pioneered the modern approach to infusing blockbuster proceedings with a more personal and artistic flavor - which, previously, was reserved for smaller-scale and low-budget auteur undertakings, before Nolan changed the game with his Dark Knight trilogy and Inception success.
Chris Nolan has been revising his brother’s screenplay, so to make it better fit his traditional storytelling method and thematic emphasis. The under-wraps story involves wormholes and pushing the boundaries of scientific knowledge, so you can already see the surface connection to the director’s previous work – be it his love for playing around with the concepts of time and space (often through editing), or interest in examining how ambition, drive and obsession can be very dangerous.
Those ideas are directly touched upon and closely examined in the Nolan brothers’ adaptation of The Prestige – and seeing how I’d be willing to argue that is one of the filmmakers’ best works (maybe even my personal favorite), that makes me all the more excited to see them plunge deeper into both shared dramatic elements and sci-fi philosophical implications previously left untouched, with Interstellar.
Sandy Schaefer blogs at Screen Rant.
With After Earth, filmmaker M. Night Shyamalan tries to continue his bounce back from the disappoint of his last few films, such as Lady in the Water, The Happening and The Last Airbender. Shyamalan made a positive step forward with Devil, which saw him break from his pattern of total creative control by handing a story from his “Night Chronicles” to a different writer and director, resulting in a fairly well-received film.
However, After Earth sees Shyamalan back at the helm and taking on the sort of high-profile blockbuster material he tackled with Airbender (to disastrous results). Of course, Earth is already getting a boost from the family-brand star power of Will and Jaden Smith – not to mention, the intrigue of seeing the Smiths (and Shyamalan) working in the sci-fi genre.
Right off the bat, this After Earth teaser presents a picture of the future that is somewhat similar to the trailer for Oblivion, the new sci-fi film from Tom Cruise and TRON Legacy director Joseph Kosinski. The mix of natural and technological elements and color palettes is immediately noticeable in both films, yet equally enticing to the eye in either case. Shyamalan’s film will also likely draw comparisons to the distant future segment of Cloud Atlas, what with the similarities in costume and tech design and the sort of dialect spoken by the characters (Will Smith’s futuristic southern drawl compared to Halle Berry’s future-street-slang delivery in Cloud Atlas).
After Earth manages stand out from other recent future-Earth sci-fi films in the sense of wonder that is being offered. This trailer almost paints the film as a sci-fi version of the The Road, with a father teaching his son core values about what kind of man to become, against the backdrop of a harsh, threatening environment. There is a question (judging from the footage) of how much screen time Will actually has in the film; it seems like this will be Jaden’s show to carry, and that the rest of the cast will appear either in flashback or through other extraneous methods (video chats, etc.).
The young Smith proved in The Karate Kid (love or hate that remake and its upcoming sequel) that he definitely has his dad’s star potential. This film, however, will test that potential on a much more mature and challenging level than physicality and/or minor dramatic emoting. Can we watch this kid onscreen for hours and still be intrigued and/or moved by him? Perhaps.
For Shyamalan’s part: so far it seems that he has a mind and eye for sci-fi, and has constructed some pretty great sequences in this film. The opening shot of Will’s character, “Cypher Raige,” getting sucked away as the hull blew definitely got a jolt out of me, and the vision of Earth – and all those aforementioned threats waiting there – definitely have me intrigued to see more.
Kofi Outlaw blogs at Screen Rant.
Gwyneth Paltrow's Pepper Potts will have huge part to play in 'Iron Man 3,' says Marvel Studios head
To say that Iron Man 3 will have plenty of cooks in the kitchen is an understatement. We get a darker, more serious Tony Stark recovering from a near-death experience; a mysterious villain bent on destroying the billionaire hero; and a bigger role for the Iron Patriot (Don Cheadle). Oh, and a few dozen suits of armor.
That many side characters might usually relegate the relatively well-established relationship between Tony Stark and Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) to comedic relief or classic ‘damsel in distress’ plot devices. But according to Marvel Studios head Kevin Feige, Pepper won’t be getting less screen time at all; in many ways, Pepper Potts is who Iron Man 3 is all about.
A more important role for the scarlet-haired character is nothing new to fans of the comic books, as Pepper eventually received her own RESCUE armor with which to protect the innocent. Even if the movies have largely strayed from the source material in regards to Pepper and, say, Tony’s bodyguard Happy Hogan (Jon Favreau), the die-hard fans know that the potential for more development has always been present.
When speaking with About.com, Feige opened up about what Iron Man 3 will bring for Potts and how the oft-used convention of a ‘love triangle,’ despite the added actresses to the cast, will have more to do with Tony’s armor than his heart:
“The love triangle in this movie is really between Tony, Pepper and the suits. Tony, Pepper and his obsession with those suits, and the obsession with technology. And, it’s sort of unique for a big superhero summer blockbuster franchise to have that kind of layers.
“Yes, there’s a bad guy. Yes, the stakes are very, very high–the President of the United States is in danger. Air Force One is attacked. There are big stakes to this movie. But the real stakes are, is Tony going to be able to set aside the obsession to spend all day, every day in that workshop, tinkering with the suits in order to focus on, as he says in the trailer, the one thing that matters most – Pepper. And that actually is what the entire movie’s about.”
Feige’s comments mirror those of Paltrow and director Shane Black, who previously explained that Tony’s reliance on his armor would be a major point of contention in his and Pepper’s relationship. It may not be the only one, either. The impact that Maya Hansen (Rebecca Hall) will have – beyond her knowledge of the Extremis virus – isn’t clear just yet, but Feige has hinted that Tony may feel a kinship with her that he doesn’t with Pepper.
All of that comes in addition to a telling shot from the very first Iron Man 3 footage, showing Stephanie Szostak’s character seeming to force herself onto a surprised Stark. Now that Szostak’s character has apparently been revealed, we only have more questions about what that scene might entail. We knew Tony would be dealing with a much larger number of armors this time around, and it’s seeming more and more like the number of women in his life may increase to match.
New love interests may be coming into Tony’s life, but the past films (and The Avengers) have shown that Pepper isn’t the kind of girl to back down from a fight. That resolve and determination make her a poor fit for a ‘damsel in distress,’ even if the trailers have shown she may undergo one heck of a transformation. Feige explains what a female character that strong brings to the story:
“I will tell you this. In this movie we play with the convention of the damsel in distress. We are bored by the damsel in distress. But, sometimes we need our hero to be desperate enough in fighting for something other than just his own life. So, there is fun to be had with “Is Pepper in danger or is Pepper the savior?” over the course of this movie.
“In terms of where we go with future movies, we’ll see. In the comic books she does get a taste for the suit and becomes her own hero named Rescue, who doesn’t necessarily battle other people, but is on missions to help people and to save people. Will we do that down the line with Gwyneth Paltrow? Who knows. But her being in the suit is something we have been playing with since Iron Man 2, where we did some designs and it didn’t end up fitting in that movie. But [the idea] is something that we’re certainly interested in.”We don’t yet know how Pepper’s relationship with Tony’s armor will impact the series as a whole, but Marvel and Black have teased that a new story could begin with the third Iron Man movie. Nothing will be set in stone until fans see the movie for themselves, but it’s obvious that plenty more stories could be written about Stark and his surrounding associates – both planetside and in space.
What do you think of the story arc being set up for Pepper Potts? Is this a twist you’ve been waiting to see since the beginning, or would Pepper suiting up feel more like a gimmick than a true evolution? Leave your thoughts in the comments.
Andrew Dyce blogs at Screen Rant.