In the Moffat era, you have characters like the Paternoster Gang and Rivier Song largely tied to the Eleventh Doctor.
In the Chibnall era, you obviously have the whole "Timeless Child" mythology. All of which, within the show, remains largely tied to a particular era.
I like that, unlike so many major franchises, you can kinda just bite off chunks of "Doctor Who" and treat them as self-contained shows.
So, you don't need to watch (or wiki) forty-odd years of continuity to watch the Davies era, or you can jump on fresh with Moffat or Chibnall.
It does also mean that if there is an era of the show with which a viewer doesn't connect, it's fine. There will be a new era, and a fresh start, along soon enough.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I feel like nobody has really commented on the fact that Warner Bros. marked the streaming release of a fairly major film with an overt hit piece on that film that was very clearly sourced within the studio.
And not the sort of “gossip” pieces you saw with “Fant4stic”, etc.
That’s not conspiracy theory stuff, to be clear. It’s why that story was timed to drop when it did - to coincide with the film’s availability for digital purchase.
It’s a remarkable piece of messaging *from* (not *about*, but *from*) a major studio about one of their own films.
That piece of studio messaging neatly coincides with the upcoming San Diego Comic Con this weekend as well.
It’s fascinating how the story here is just repeating the studio’s talking points, not the studio’s efforts to construct a narrative of failure around its own film.
But given that “Prey” is easily the best franchise film Disney have produced this year, unless you consider “Pixar” to be a franchise, and given that so few theatrical franchise films allow just basic storytelling, it’s maybe not the worst thing.
Like, a theatrical “Predator” movie probably has to look like “The Predator”, in that it has to serve larger long-term franchising goals more than just being a film.
Similarly, “Alien: Covenant” is what a theatrical “Alien” film has to look like, serving those same demands.
(Incidentally, the most interesting thing about “Covenant” is the way that it feels like Ridley Scott basically grousing that his “Prometheus” sequel has been reshaped into a more “brand-friendly” prequel to “Alien” that he has no interest in making.
We have reached the point in the "Top Gun" discourse where the "Top Gun" discourse consists of debates over whether there should be "Top Gun" discourse.
To be fair, "Maverick" gets away with what it does by (a.) being less jingoistic than "Top Gun" and (b.) being more open in its jingoism than most of its competitors.
You go into "Maverick" knowing you're getting a recruitment film. That's not true of "Captain Marvel", say.
I will say the biggest barrier for "Maverick" for me, that wasn't there with the "Mission: Impossible" films, is that it does really try to sell me on Tom Cruise is "a nice guy."
I don't necessarily buy that. I do buy that he is "the living manifestation of destiny", though.
An interesting aspect of the "Mission: Impossible" franchise compared to other big franchises is that it's not really about fighting advancing impersonal technology, which is even there in "Top Gun: Maverick."
It's very literally an old-school action hero fighting postmodernism.
Obviously that theme is the subtext of the modern "James Bond" franchise, but it's couched metaphors about drone warfare that makes Bond outdated - until he's not!
I love that the later "Mission: Impossible" movies are like, "Ethan is fighting the very idea of moral ambiguity."
I kind of admire that the big moral and dramatic stakes of these later "Mission: Impossible" movies are, "Just let Ethan Hunt be the kind of hero who does cool stunts and punches people in the face without burdening him with angst or ambiguity."