It seems like the relationship between The Doctor and The Master became important because they're the last two Time Lords left in the universe. In season 3 The Doctor has a lot of sadness about being the last Time Lord and Gallifrey being gone, The Face of Boe tells him "You are not alone", and that makes the acronym YANA, as in Professor Yana, the human form that The Master took on to hide from the Time Lords. This dynamic is mostly just for them and not Missy or The Master that appears in Jodie's era.
My issue is if Doctor Who is cancelled they won't be saying if or when it's coming back.
Honestly I don't see any other way forward, but if RTD does keep insisting on going on, one bit of advice for him? STOP USING CLASSIC ERA VILLAINS AND CHARACTERS!
My biggest beef with New Who is its relationship to the classic era. I would have had 0 problem with it being a remake. Whilst classic who will always be the greatest work of sci fi to me, I think it's pretty silly to expect its continuity to go on forever. Even if he does change his face, there are still limits and I HATE having it that time can be rewritten when it suits us.
I can agree with this. If it were billed as a reboot and not a continuation, then the differences you mentioned wouldn’t be as bad because it would be a different version or take on the characters and mythology. But when you bill it as a continuation of an ongoing story, and retcon canon over and over again, it completely devalues what was done before.
I think this is the first time I have actually understood your viewpoint on classic vs new who and why you are so frustrated with New Who.
Maybe it’s because I relate to this through Chibnall’s retcon with the Timeless Child and RTD embracing that terrible writing choice this season. That singular plot twist has left a bitter taste in my mouth, and having it reaffirmed this season makes it worse.
Who watches 'The Last Jedi' and goes 'ooh, that was a well-received subversion of expectations, I'll nick that'.
Sorry, but with a lot of this latest series being built on a teasing mystery to get people invested in Ruby...and then the finale being 'lol, she's normal, isn't that a beautiful story?' is so breathtakingly cynical & manipulative I'm starting to retro-actively wonder if RTD was ever a good writer.
Maybe I have to re-watched the Eccleston and Tennant eras with a more critical eye.
Nope, he was definitely a great writer. Far from perfect, sure, and he did have his fair share of camp (remember the Slitheen fart monsters? Shudders) But by and large he was an excellent sci-fi writer, and an excellent showrunner for Doctor Who. So was Steven Moffat. Even Chris Chibnall's episode "42" is one I always liked. Something changed. The times changed. The culture at the BBC (and other major organizations) changed.
Look at how Captain Jack was portrayed as a depiction of a gay character, and Martha as black vs how they would treat people with those defined-at-birth characteristics in today's world.
RTD went from that epic Davros finale honoring one of Doctor Who's oldest and greatest villains, and one of huge significance in the mythology of the program, to relegating him to a 5 minute comedy skit where he's unofficially killed off like the Simpsons' Apu because apparently it sends the message that handicapped people are all villains. That attitude says it all, really.
Part of the reason RTD and Moffat were so much better in the 00s/ early 10s I think is the need to prove one's self in a harsh and competitive environment where your program could very well be on the cutting block. It was not at all a sure thing to revive that old black and white science fiction program for the 21st century. But Dr. Who today is like a tenured professor. No matter how it actually performs, they can't let it go. And the showrunners of today are such established veterans that they don't need the gig to advance their career. They're just back for the nostalgia of it. It's a do-or-die work ethic that drives excellence.
I can agree with this. If it were billed as a reboot and not a continuation, then the differences you mentioned wouldn’t be as bad because it would be a different version or take on the characters and mythology. But when you bill it as a continuation of an ongoing story, and retcon canon over and over again, it completely devalues what was done before.
I think this is the first time I have actually understood your viewpoint on classic vs new who and why you are so frustrated with New Who.
Maybe it’s because I relate to this through Chibnall’s retcon with the Timeless Child and RTD embracing that terrible writing choice this season. That singular plot twist has left a bitter taste in my mouth, and having it reaffirmed this season makes it worse.
proach more evident than how New Who handles the classic villains. Apart from the Daleks, most of the big villains have not been written as the characters they actually were in classic who. Now I'm not saying that you can't change them at all. Obviously the Master alone changed over the course of classic who, but the changes need to be natural. IE the burned Master is recognizably the same character, he's just more desperate after whatever happened to him.
In new who however they almost always toss out the classic villains backstories, character arcs, relationships with the Doctor, powers, motivations etc. It's often just the name, or some vague gimmick such as the following.
The Derek Jacobi portrayal felt to me 100% the same person as the Roger Delgado and Anthony Ainley character, however short it was. I love John Simm. He is supposed to be a regenerated Master, younger, different personality, but still fundamentally the Master. He was brilliant. Remember that the original series Master was technically all the same regeneration. The first one we see was his 12th regeneration. He cheats death by other means. John Simm's is the first proper regeneration that we see. Michelle Gomez was also excellent as Missy. There's a reason why nobody ever complained about gender-swapping the Master--she rocked the part. I will agree though Moffat did screw up the character when he tried to make Missy the Dr.'s BFF. That was totally out of character. I liked Missy in Series 8 and 9, but in 10 she just became poorly written. Master should be a static villain, just as Dr. Who is a static hero. Neither is morally grey or supposed to evolve over time.
What about the Sontarans?
They don't seem terribly different to me in visual design or character to the old school Sontarans. Species bred for combat with the Rutens. Look like potato people, weakness is tube on back. If anything, NuWho did them a favor with that hilarious comic relief Sontaran character in Series 7.
What about the Zygons?
In classic who they were just another hostile alien monster race, with a cool tongue-like costume design. In fact when I think about "Terror of the Zygons," I'm reminded more of how it involved the Lockness Monster, and how it was the last Earth-based, UNIT storyline with the Brigadier for a long time. The Zygons of Capaldi's era were arguably more remarkable, for that famous anti-war speech scene. That story was one of the best of Capaldi's entire tenure.
The Cybermen, I must concede, I prefer the classic Cybermen, whether it's the zombie-like possessed humans of the black and white 60s episodes, or the awesome costumes and voices of the 80s Cybermen. And Revenge of the Cybermen is a classic from Tom Baker's first year. Still, I love the Cybermen 2-parter in NuWho Series 2. It's an excellent re-introduction to the character for new viewers, and it modernizes the costumes to feel higher budget. I do see though how the Cybermen of the newer series tend to lean more into the robot and less into the man. What makes the Cybermen so compelling for me as a sci-fi villain, is how they're not machines but a once-people whose symbiosis with technology eventually went too far, till all soul and emotion were eradicated and only an empty shell remains. They're more like zombies than robots in that regard. They were also excellent for horror, with the creepy insect-like Cyber-Mats.
LOL i like the way you pointed out plot holes in the plot holes I pointed out that's how bad they are, like this isn't even the real Sutekh, or Ruby should have faded.
The TARDIS has been to Pete's world twice, in the first Cyberman one, and in Journey's End when he dropped Rose off with his clone, so yeah she's dead. Romana is also dead, as she was in another universe, E-Space which Sutekh visited so for the same reasons she'll have been left as dust.
Honestly RTD is just out of ideas. Let's leave aside all the tedious culture war nonsense that everybody gets bogged down in. Let's even leave aside my longstanding beef with new who that it just doesn't work as a sequel to the original. It (in its glory years) would have been perfectly fine as a remake or a loose sequel like the Buffy tv series to the Buffy movie, but yeah as a revival like the Star Trek movies it just didn't mesh with the classic (and those two clips above demonstrate that perfectly. PS that doesn't mean classic's is objectively better. You may prefer the bombastic nature of new who, or the quiet atmosphere of old, but they are clearly different.)
Leaving aside ALL of that, RTD is clearly just a spent force. He doesn't seem to have any enthusiasm for the show or character. I'm actually having a rewatch of his first era and Matt's era right now for the first time in a decade and like I said I can enjoy it as a thing in its own right from old who, but still when you compare the energy that went into those stories and even just the effort to now it's quite a contrast.
Even in a story I'm not so fond of like Bad Wolf, Russell at least went to the effort to explain things. Why whatever beamed him in, didn't just kill him, why the Daleks keep Rose alive, why they have been hiding for so long, why it took the Emperor years to build his army etc. Even if the resolution to that was a bit deux machina, at least it held together, where as this?
It does feel like it was dashed off in an afternoon with no thought put into "why did the villain do this, why did the villain do that" plotholes that he would have answered before. It's a shame, but it shows you why you shouldn't always go back and why it's better to move on.
I fear RTD has torched his legacy now with even his own fans
Nope, he was definitely a great writer. Far from perfect, sure, and he did have his fair share of camp (remember the Slitheen fart monsters? Shudders) But by and large he was an excellent sci-fi writer, and an excellent showrunner for Doctor Who. So was Steven Moffat. Even Chris Chibnall's episode "42" is one I always liked. Something changed. The times changed. The culture at the BBC (and other major organizations) changed.
I agree, RTD was great but the weaknesses shown in this current season were present from the very beginning; he was self-indulgent, needlessly political with some juvenile humour that just didn't work at all. Overall he was a gifted showrunner though.
But the talent, the fresh ideas, the interesting concepts; they're just...gone. This feels like 'parody RTD' what with the pronoun lectures, silly space babies and emotionally wrought/ epic but completely hollow finale.
Look at how Captain Jack was portrayed as a depiction of a gay character, and Martha as black vs how they would treat people with those defined-at-birth characteristics in today's world.
I think the distinction between Jack and Ncuti's Doctor is that Jack was an interesting character who happened to be gay (technically pan but basically gay) whereas Ncuti was 'queer'. And the only distinct characteristics seemed to be silly accents, crying and being useless at saving people. Who thinks that's a cool character?
I agree, RTD was great but the weaknesses shown in this current season were present from the very beginning; he was self-indulgent, needlessly political with some juvenile humour that just didn't work at all. Overall he was a gifted showrunner though.
But the talent, the fresh ideas, the interesting concepts; they're just...gone. This feels like 'parody RTD' what with the pronoun lectures, silly space babies and emotionally wrought/ epic but completely hollow finale.
I think the distinction between Jack and Ncuti's Doctor is that Jack was an interesting character who happened to be gay (technically pan but basically gay) whereas Ncuti was 'queer'. And the only distinct characteristics seemed to be silly accents, crying and being useless at saving people. Who thinks that's a cool character?
I agree, RTD was great but the weaknesses shown in this current season were present from the very beginning; he was self-indulgent, needlessly political with some juvenile humour that just didn't work at all. Overall he was a gifted showrunner though.
But the talent, the fresh ideas, the interesting concepts; they're just...gone. This feels like 'parody RTD' what with the pronoun lectures, silly space babies and emotionally wrought/ epic but completely hollow finale.
I think the distinction between Jack and Ncuti's Doctor is that Jack was an interesting character who happened to be gay (technically pan but basically gay) whereas Ncuti was 'queer'. And the only distinct characteristics seemed to be silly accents, crying and being useless at saving people. Who thinks that's a cool character?
Parody? Parodies are funny. This is just sad. Disgusting even.
Ncuti I will never understand how he was cast, other than that he's quite a handsome man. The dude isn't British. I mean, he may legally be a citizen or whatever, but his accent isn't any kind of British. David Tennant is Scottish and he still used an English accent to be more "Doctor-y," and Scots are totally fine nowadays (Peter Capaldi).
But this guy just doesn't even sound like the Doctor to begin with, doesn't even try a fake accent. That should be disqualification on that alone right there.
Science fiction these days just needs more actual science fiction fans doing the writing. Whether it's Star Wars, Trek, Who, you name it, I don't know where all the talented creative types disappeared to. Every major institution is just an IP to be exploited on popularity of brand name alone, quality be damned. They are the "too big to fail" of the entertainment industry. Because of the success of their progenitors, it doesn't matter how bad the newest releases are, they will never lose sufficient popularity to become financially unviable. (And in the case of the BBC, finances don't matter to begin with. TV License tax and all that)
Science fiction in general is in dire straits, because where's the interest in it anymore?
In the 60s, Star Trek offered a view into a world where everybody--Japanese, blacks, Russians, aliens--get along and work together as equals, without any racial or patriotic tensions whatsoever. It was optimistic and gave hope for a more integrated future. Star Wars came along during the jaded 70s and revived a spirit of adventure and chivalry and hope in the age of impeachment, the draft, inflation, etc. The early 90s saw the end of the cold war and a world teetering on the precipice of the internet age. It was famously "the end of history," and TNG was optimistic about a future world filled with the wonders of computer technology and android a.i. By the end of the decade, the International Space Station was assembled, cementing our future toward the stars.
Well, where are we now? Nobody's gonna make another Knight Rider, because self-driving cars and a.i. voice assistants with personality are already stuff of reality (only I wouldn't take my chances sitting in one of those). Sorry Data, I've seen the world of ChatGPT/machine learning, and I'm not too pleased with the rush to stick it in everything. Racial tensions and divisions are at an all time high. Nationalism is at a high, and Russia and China are once again the enemies in a new cold war, so much for the end of history. NASA is taking a step back, and the ISS is to be dismantled by 2030, while the corporate overlords who run everything vie to fill the void.
In short, if sci-fi is to be optimistic about a better tomorrow, well, tomorrow's already here, and it's not what we were promised. The past looks a lot better in hindsight. If sci-fi is to be dystopian to warn against dangerous evils, well, dystopias don't look all that different from the news. I don't want to beat the Idiocracy cliche to death, but the Supreme Court did just rule today that Presidents get complete immunity from criminal prosecution for all "official" acts done while in office, i.e. they're above the law.
Buffy SummersIf you read the Supreme Court opinion, that’s not actually what it says.
Science fiction hasn't really be 'fun' for awhile. The modern writers did not grow up with, or watch much, science fiction, so when they are asked to write it they struggle. Take I, Robot as an example.
Ncuti I will never understand how he was cast, other than that he's quite a handsome man. The dude isn't British. I mean, he may legally be a citizen or whatever, but his accent isn't any kind of British. David Tennant is Scottish and he still used an English accent to be more "Doctor-y," and Scots are totally fine nowadays (Peter Capaldi).
Ncuti is Scottish but he was born in Rwanda to Rwandan parents, they came to Scotland when Ncuti was 2 to escape from the Rwandan Genocide. So Ncuti was raised around both Rwandan and Scottish accents, hence his accent is Rwandan-Scottish rather than just Scottish like Peter Capaldi's accent for The Doctor. I think that's fine because it's still clearly a partly Scottish accent, The Doctor can either be British, Irish, Scottish or Welsh nowadays.
Nope, he was definitely a great writer. Far from perfect, sure, and he did have his fair share of camp (remember the Slitheen fart monsters? Shudders) But by and large he was an excellent sci-fi writer, and an excellent showrunner for Doctor Who. So was Steven Moffat. Even Chris Chibnall's episode "42" is one I always liked. Something changed. The times changed. The culture at the BBC (and other major organizations) changed.
Look at how Captain Jack was portrayed as a depiction of a gay character, and Martha as black vs how they would treat people with those defined-at-birth characteristics in today's world.
RTD went from that epic Davros finale honoring one of Doctor Who's oldest and greatest villains, and one of huge significance in the mythology of the program, to relegating him to a 5 minute comedy skit where he's unofficially killed off like the Simpsons' Apu because apparently it sends the message that handicapped people are all villains. That attitude says it all, really.
Part of the reason RTD and Moffat were so much better in the 00s/ early 10s I think is the need to prove one's self in a harsh and competitive environment where your program could very well be on the cutting block. It was not at all a sure thing to revive that old black and white science fiction program for the 21st century. But Dr. Who today is like a tenured professor. No matter how it actually performs, they can't let it go. And the showrunners of today are such established veterans that they don't need the gig to advance their career. They're just back for the nostalgia of it. It's a do-or-die work ethic that drives excellence.
Post automatically merged:
I have always considered the 2005 series to be a reboot. It is technically a continuation, but it is also clearly a reboot in many ways.
Post automatically merged:
I disagree with that characterization.
The Derek Jacobi portrayal felt to me 100% the same person as the Roger Delgado and Anthony Ainley character, however short it was. I love John Simm. He is supposed to be a regenerated Master, younger, different personality, but still fundamentally the Master. He was brilliant. Remember that the original series Master was technically all the same regeneration. The first one we see was his 12th regeneration. He cheats death by other means. John Simm's is the first proper regeneration that we see. Michelle Gomez was also excellent as Missy. There's a reason why nobody ever complained about gender-swapping the Master--she rocked the part. I will agree though Moffat did screw up the character when he tried to make Missy the Dr.'s BFF. That was totally out of character. I liked Missy in Series 8 and 9, but in 10 she just became poorly written. Master should be a static villain, just as Dr. Who is a static hero. Neither is morally grey or supposed to evolve over time.
What about the Sontarans?
They don't seem terribly different to me in visual design or character to the old school Sontarans. Species bred for combat with the Rutens. Look like potato people, weakness is tube on back. If anything, NuWho did them a favor with that hilarious comic relief Sontaran character in Series 7.
What about the Zygons?
In classic who they were just another hostile alien monster race, with a cool tongue-like costume design. In fact when I think about "Terror of the Zygons," I'm reminded more of how it involved the Lockness Monster, and how it was the last Earth-based, UNIT storyline with the Brigadier for a long time. The Zygons of Capaldi's era were arguably more remarkable, for that famous anti-war speech scene. That story was one of the best of Capaldi's entire tenure.
The Cybermen, I must concede, I prefer the classic Cybermen, whether it's the zombie-like possessed humans of the black and white 60s episodes, or the awesome costumes and voices of the 80s Cybermen. And Revenge of the Cybermen is a classic from Tom Baker's first year. Still, I love the Cybermen 2-parter in NuWho Series 2. It's an excellent re-introduction to the character for new viewers, and it modernizes the costumes to feel higher budget. I do see though how the Cybermen of the newer series tend to lean more into the robot and less into the man. What makes the Cybermen so compelling for me as a sci-fi villain, is how they're not machines but a once-people whose symbiosis with technology eventually went too far, till all soul and emotion were eradicated and only an empty shell remains. They're more like zombies than robots in that regard. They were also excellent for horror, with the creepy insect-like Cyber-Mats.
Absolute rubbish that Michelle Gomez rocked the part. Sorry but I bitterly resent the "nobody complained about the Master changing gender." Lot's of people did, it shed millions of viewers after her first appearance. Don't assume just because your social circle liked her she was universally popular.
I HATE Missy more than any other character in anything for so many reasons. First of all she really makes me bitter because I think of all these other versions of characters that geek websites like The AV Club and so on trash like Jared Leto's Joker and yet they praise her? Now don't get me wrong, Leto's Joker was pretty bad, but he was still recognizable as the Joker.
The worst thing about him was that there wasn't really anything else to him. All that hype and he was just a stop gap Joker. Missy actively destroyed the Masters character. She took every single thing about him and threw it in the trash, and worse thanks to her influence we now have books, Big Finish audios that try and rewrite the Masters character to be like her.
Yet she gets PRAISED by these same people just because there was a stupid political agenda behind her?
Furthermore I also cannot STAND her fanbase, who trash anyone that doesn't like her as sexist. LMFAO she is a laughable, dated depiction of a female villain. She is what they used to take the piss out of in the Adam West Batman, as being outdated back then. The female villain whose entire motivation is wanting to shag the male hero and whose not really bad and let off with it because she's a woman, and is more sensitive than the male villains around her.
We'd gotten past that thanks to female villains like Glory, Alti from Xena, Jadis from Narnia who were just as evil, megalomaniacal, and power hungry as the male villains, and then we get Missy who not only throws us back to that but who is a female version of a male villain who wanted to take over the galaxy LMAO.
You'd think feminism had never happened.
Meanwhile the Zygons were minor foes who should never have been brought back anyway. Personally I prefer the original Zygon story. To me the speech is overrated. It's pretty badly acted by Capaldi and it is overdone and looks like it was written by Rik from the Young Ones.
Sontarans I'll give you, but that's not a great hit rate in 20 years.
GreyWalker1958Fecking A re: Missy. As for the Sontarans, the BF audios do more with them then the recent 16 yrs
Absolute rubbish that Michelle Gomez rocked the part. Sorry but I bitterly resent the "nobody complained about the Master changing gender." Lot's of people did, it shed millions of viewers after her first appearance. Don't assume just because your social circle liked her she was universally popular.
I HATE Missy more than any other character in anything for so many reasons. First of all she really makes me bitter because I think of all these other versions of characters that geek websites like The AV Club and so on trash like Jared Leto's Joker and yet they praise her? Now don't get me wrong, Leto's Joker was pretty bad, but he was still recognizable as the Joker.
The worst thing about him was that there wasn't really anything else to him. All that hype and he was just a stop gap Joker. Missy actively destroyed the Masters character. She took every single thing about him and threw it in the trash, and worse thanks to her influence we now have books, Big Finish audios that try and rewrite the Masters character to be like her.
Yet she gets PRAISED by these same people just because there was a stupid political agenda behind her?
Furthermore I also cannot STAND her fanbase, who trash anyone that doesn't like her as sexist. LMFAO she is a laughable, dated depiction of a female villain. She is what they used to take the piss out of in the Adam West Batman, as being outdated back then. The female villain whose entire motivation is wanting to shag the male hero and whose not really bad and let off with it because she's a woman, and is more sensitive than the male villains around her.
We'd gotten past that thanks to female villains like Glory, Alti from Xena, Jadis from Narnia who were just as evil, megalomaniacal, and power hungry as the male villains, and then we get Missy who not only throws us back to that but who is a female version of a male villain who wanted to take over the galaxy LMAO.
You'd think feminism had never happened.
Meanwhile the Zygons were minor foes who should never have been brought back anyway. Personally I prefer the original Zygon story. To me the speech is overrated. It's pretty badly acted by Capaldi and it is overdone and looks like it was written by Rik from the Young Ones.
Sontarans I'll give you, but that's not a great hit rate in 20 years.
Both Missy* especially and "Cyber!Brig" were the next to last nails in the coffin far as my love and appreciation of Who. The final straw for me being the New Who license being granted to Big Finish which led to River Song spamming tf out of the 8th Doctor's timeline and later the others (which in turn led to the neglect of their Firsr Lady in Bernice Summerfield being relgated to playing 2nd fiddle to 7 again and the late David Warner's Alt. 3rd Doctor) and the War Doctor range.
*It was her that led to Gareth Roberts being deep sixed by damn near everyone on SM from her rabid stans to friggin Paul Cornell (who should've been Me Too'd at this point given how he railroaded Linda Thorson over how she got on The Avengers in the pages of The Avengers Dossier 31 yrs ago)
Absolute rubbish that Michelle Gomez rocked the part. Sorry but I bitterly resent the "nobody complained about the Master changing gender." Lot's of people did, it shed millions of viewers after her first appearance. Don't assume just because your social circle liked her she was universally popular.
I HATE Missy more than any other character in anything for so many reasons. First of all she really makes me bitter because I think of all these other versions of characters that geek websites like The AV Club and so on trash like Jared Leto's Joker and yet they praise her? Now don't get me wrong, Leto's Joker was pretty bad, but he was still recognizable as the Joker.
The worst thing about him was that there wasn't really anything else to him. All that hype and he was just a stop gap Joker. Missy actively destroyed the Masters character. She took every single thing about him and threw it in the trash, and worse thanks to her influence we now have books, Big Finish audios that try and rewrite the Masters character to be like her.
Yet she gets PRAISED by these same people just because there was a stupid political agenda behind her?
Furthermore I also cannot STAND her fanbase, who trash anyone that doesn't like her as sexist. LMFAO she is a laughable, dated depiction of a female villain. She is what they used to take the piss out of in the Adam West Batman, as being outdated back then. The female villain whose entire motivation is wanting to shag the male hero and whose not really bad and let off with it because she's a woman, and is more sensitive than the male villains around her.
We'd gotten past that thanks to female villains like Glory, Alti from Xena, Jadis from Narnia who were just as evil, megalomaniacal, and power hungry as the male villains, and then we get Missy who not only throws us back to that but who is a female version of a male villain who wanted to take over the galaxy LMAO.
You'd think feminism had never happened.
Meanwhile the Zygons were minor foes who should never have been brought back anyway. Personally I prefer the original Zygon story. To me the speech is overrated. It's pretty badly acted by Capaldi and it is overdone and looks like it was written by Rik from the Young Ones.
Sontarans I'll give you, but that's not a great hit rate in 20 years.
When I think of Missy, I think of the complex relationship, or game, she plays with the Doctor. If anything, she is like the Doctor's Joker.
As much as the Joker and the Master want to destroy the universe or rule it or some such mega-villainous plot, they enjoy, no, relish the song-and-dance routine with the Doctor/Batman as he tries to stop their plans. Missy is such an old Master who has clashed or sparred with the Doctor so many times in so many different lifetimes, that she almost views their deadly duels as a higher plane of friendship than what the Doctor has with the companions.
I distinctly remember the season premiere of Season 9, when she basically told Clara she was the house pet. Oh sure, the Doctor occasionally lets in strays from time to time, cares deeply for these pets. But at the end of the day, that's all they are, with an equally short lifespan, and quickly forgotten about as soon as the next pet comes in. Meanwhile, the Doctor and Master have known each other since childhood, (according to the Season 3 finale 3-parter.) They're both infinitely more intelligent and powerful, and in her view, important. At one point they were both the only Timelords left in existence. Even amongst the Timelords, their level of genius was quite rare (The Deadly Assassin).
So I laughed at this intriguing, mature, complex, yet sinister and ill-spirited perspective the Master/Missy has developed. I quite enjoyed it, and found it an enticing take on the character. It may not be a perfect recreation of the classic Masters, but neither was John Simm, and that's the point. A regeneration should be something of a reinvention while still being the same person fundamentally, and Missy was that.
BTW I don't have any "social circles" that was my personal view based on what I watched and remember. And generally I don't remember there being much hate or criticism for the show during the Capaldi era, other than some of the scripts for episodes being not the best at times, which is true. Even the most right-wing critics were focusing more on Clara's jokes/zingers, over-analyzing them to be some sort of misandrist messaging (which is a total reach and ridiculous imo).
What I grant you, and 100% agree with though is that Moffat took the character of Missy down a wrong path by trying to change her and genuinely make her a friend of the Doctor, rather than keeping her as the villain. The Master is supposed to be an archnemesis, and he's a static character just as much as the Doctor would never be a villain (unless blackmailed or mind-controlled or an evil doppelganger/clone or something).
But if we ignore the poor writing in Capaldi's third and final season, I don't think there was anything wrong with Michelle's performance or her take on the Master in the years before that, certainly far superior than what Jodie Whittaker brought to the table as the Doctor, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many Whovians who would disagree with my characterization.
At the end of the day, good is good, and despite my personal objections to the regeneration gender-swap phenomenon, if the writers and actors are accomplished and make a good production, then ultimately that is what is going to be remembered and appreciated. Nobody's going to discount that because canonically it's in a grey area. But by 2017 it was clearly not something done with the intent to really win over existing fans but rather to be intentionally as provocative as possible, hoping that controversy would act as a hook to save flailing ratings. That may work as an initial draw, but it's not sustainable and the ratings proved that.
Ncuti is Scottish but he was born in Rwanda to Rwandan parents, they came to Scotland when Ncuti was 2 to escape from the Rwandan Genocide. So Ncuti was raised around both Rwandan and Scottish accents, hence his accent is Rwandan-Scottish rather than just Scottish like Peter Capaldi's accent for The Doctor. I think that's fine because it's still clearly a partly Scottish accent, The Doctor can either be British, Irish, Scottish or Welsh nowadays.
Well as an American all I can say is it sounds wrong. I'm not as sensitive to the differences between specific British accents, but his voice just does not strike me as the Doctor. He should have used a fake accent rather than his real voice to sound more British. That's not too much to ask of an actor. It's his job to be something he's not. He also has lots of mannerisms, phrases, and figures of speech that are just not how the Doctor would or should talk.
Well each actor has always brought something of themselves to the role and they kind of have to because The Doctor is an alien from Gallifrey but that's hard to put across on screen as far as speech and mannerisms because that's not a real thing so often things are bled into The Doctor through the actor. I mean does it make sense that The Doctor seems like a posh British man (The First Doctor) or a working class man from Manchester (The Ninth Doctor), no but that's just something we're asked to accept and they still keep the tradition of the actor playing The Doctor being from a BBC territory which is the UK not just England and Ncuti fits the criteria because he's Scottish.
@thetopher He would also have been a physically imposing Doctor, in the same way that Three and Four were. Goes to check IMDb... 6'4"! Taller than either of them!
He would also have been a physically imposing Doctor, in the same way that Three and Four were. Goes to check IMDb... 6'4"! Taller than either of them!
And his voice! Man, he's got some deep timbre. Plus a nice line in dry humour. I remember him from 'Hex' way-back-when and he can deliver some nice comic one-liners.
The Doctor should be able to believably play both the somewhat-eccentric British iconoclast and the thousand year-old alien whose seen the death of stars. Instead we get Ncuti in a skirt who can't stop weeping and saying how sorry he is. How sad.
And yes, that is a pretty superficial complaint but boy, this latest series (not to mention the Jodie ones) had many, many fundamental writing issues at their core. Just like most other genre IP's at this point actually.
Hmnn, I wonder if there's any pattern in the writing that explains this awfulness?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
