Wow, there’s some very…strong…opinions here. Perhaps we can take it back a notch?
🙂
I think a question I have for both of you,
@burrunjor &
@NileQT87 , is whether taking Who in a new direction is a bad thing…? I am basically completely new to the property, and admittedly my introduction is through the Davies era, but has the show lost what originally made it special or different in the process of shifting to a new mindset/generation? Genuinely asking, since I know there’s a lot of history and lore in the show. 🤔
Additional question, since everyone seems to have really steadfast opinions about the show…but what would you hope to see from this new era and Doctor? I know you mentioned you stopped watching, burrunjor, but what would bring you back?
🙂
It's a bad thing to do whenever you're adapting any character or story to make them so different they are unrecognizable. By that logic, why even bother bringing an old character back? Surely the only reason you want to return to their story, world is if you think you can do something new with it. Hell why even bother making a new character? Buffy could have just been called Batman and the fact that she has nothing at all in common with caped crusader would be irrelevant if we take that approach of a remake or a new version has to completely change everything to win round the new audience. It shows a lack of respect and above all else confidence in the original if you think it can't be updated in merely practical ways.
Sadly this is what the makers of New Who have always been like in regards to DW. Look at this quote from Paul Cornell a writer for the 21st century series.
To be a good writer, you have to smash things up. To make great Doctor Who, especially, you have to destroy something someone values with every step. Those footsteps of destruction will, in a few years, be cast in bronze and put on a plinth for the next great story to destroy.
Because when you say ‘the books just aren’t “canon!”’ or ‘the books “happened” and the TV show can’t ignore them!’ you’re not saying something like ‘for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction’, you’re saying something like ‘the South will never surrender’. You’re yelling a battle cry, not stating the truth. Because there is no truth here to find. There was never and now cannot be any authority to rule on matters of canonicity in a tale that has allowed, or at the very least accepted, the rewriting of its own continuity. And you’re using the fact that discussions of canonicity are all about authority to try to assume an authority that you do not have.
Because in Doctor Who there is no such thing as ‘canon’.
THAT is what led to the Timeless children more than anything else. More than the politics people go on about. The Timeless Children and so much wrong with DW in the last 6 years was following that mantra beat for beat.
Obviously I'm not saying no change is good. There are different degrees at which you can change something. If it's a remake for instance, yes you can mess around with the story a bit more as you are not connected to the original, but if its a sequel, which New Who was, then you have to be more faithful.
Even in a remake, whilst you can obviously change certain things, you still have to make sure that the characters is recognizable. Look at Van Helsing for instance.
Peter Cushing's Van Helsing changed the character from the book, by making him an actual vampire hunter, and making him younger and more dashing. However it kept what the fundamentals of the character were. IE Cushing's Van Helsing is still a professor, he is still mr exposition, he still knows about vampires and Demons from books and is the one who figures out where Dracula is, what he's up to etc, he's an ordinary man who overcomes the supernatural through his wits and knowledge. The differences don't detract from the original as Cushing's was his own continuity, so no rewriting of the past, and people can therefore acknowledge that he was an adaptation and different in some ways and do.
Hugh Jackman's Van Helsing meanwhile was too different. He had NOTHING in common with the original. He wasn't a professor, he wasn't an expert on Demons and Vampires, he wasn't mr exposition (in fact he had another guy to fill that role for him.) He also wasn't even human and overcame Dracula through supernatural means. PS Van Helsing 2004 is still a fun, cheesy film in its own right btw, but it isn't Van Helsing, and nobody really thinks of Hugh Jackman as that character, because he just doesn't link to it.
New Who meanwhile is like Hugh Jackman's Van Helsing. IE both take a recognizable brand name, both reimagine what is supposed to be an older, more professorial hero as a tortured, sexy, younger character. Both also seem to want to make him more of an Angel type than what he was and both also tend to focus on romance. Both also keep the trappings like Dracula/the Daleks and the very, very basic idea of a monster hunter/time travelling hero, but jettison everything else.
However New Who is arguably worse in that, Hugh Jackman's Van Helsing at least was its own thing, IE not linked to the previous and therefore didn't have to rewrite them to fit. We don't get "Oh Van Helsing was always a sex god, Van Helsing was always a tortured Angel who became a Werewolf".
Still despite what my nemesis LOL above said, I never once said I loathe New Who and I never said don't watch it. I said that we need an acknowledgment that it is a widely different version to the original. Much like Hugh Jackman's Van Helsing I enjoy the first 7 seasons of New Who for what they are in their own right and I can even appreciate them as a crazy version of DW.
My nemesis LOL is wrong that you can't enjoy classic who without thinking of it as being exactly the same as the revival. FFS by that logic no one could enjoy all the different versions of Holmes and Van Helsing? I recommend however that you watch Classic Who (True Who) in a different way. I made a list of top ten stories to watch if you're a newcomer on the other board. I'll do so again if you wish?
We acknowledge differences with every other character. People DO point out the ways in which even Peter Cushing's Van Helsing is different to the original from the book. Nobody tries to rewrite Stokers novel and say "no, no Van Helsing was always an English guy who hunted vampires." They let both exist which means that whilst Cushing's may be the dominant image, we can always go back to the original if we want too.
The reason DW doesn't get this treatment, is because the makers of the revival IMO were a bit of a bullying clique who wanted to dominate the entire franchise for themselves, and therefore don't ever want the show to leave their vision. Hence why they keep passing it around their friends, RTD, to Moff, to Chibnall to RTD. I think they are a bit scared that if there was a really faithful version of DW that was successful people might look differently at their version. Here is a quote from a former member of their clique.
“But if all this monkey-posturing sounds absurd, then let’s put in the context of the late ’90s / early 2000s. You may remember a time, in the days before “Doctor Who fans” meant thirteen-year-olds, when the Virgin / BBC novels actually seemed important. The authors certainly thought they were important, and pride was their most valued possession. After all, the reason I gained a reputation as an unhealthy influence was that I broke what Keith Topping called “the unspoken code”, the Omerta-like law which held that New Adventures writers should all stick together in the face of fandom and not publicly criticise each others’ work. I say “Omerta”, but in practice, they behaved more like Medieval overlords than mafiosa: the elite have to form a united front, because otherwise, they’ll be revealed as weak, flabby individuals and the peasants will get ideas above their station. Oh, and you’re the peasants, by the way. When the new series began, those authors who were promoted to scriptwriter-level went from “overlords” to “royalty”, which is why my heartless attack on Mark Gatiss was received with the same shock as if a small-time landowner in the Middle Ages had just referred to the Prince of the Realm as an idiot.
You think I’m exaggerating…? Then consider this. When Paul Cornell took me to task for the social faux-pas of having opinions, he seemed appalled that I was incapable of respecting the natural hierarchy, and asked whether there was anybody I ‘bent the knee’ to. Bent the knee…? What is this, geek feudalism? When I told him that I had no interest in serving or reigning, he asked me: ‘Do your followers know that?’ I found it horrifying that anyone could even think that way, and I still do.”
See what I mean? This isn't even about there being a different version of DW. It's about this one group wanting to take over everything to do with this series and impose their own take on it.
I literally watched the Classic show myself in order to deal with demeaning, off-putting purists on Gallifrey Base who loved attacking those new fangirl and 'shipper intruders on their old boys' club and ended up loving it, but it didn't remotely challenge my love of NuWho either. RTD and Moffat's eras were loaded with this crap aimed at NuWho viewers, which made them feel extremely unwelcome.
Oh god more of this? I remember last time you accused me of being an incel for not wanting the Doctor to be sexy. Not once did I say it was fangirls, or anything like that that made DW into this. Verity Lambert, a woman produced the original series, and cast William Hartnell because she wanted a mad old professor type for the role. It was RTD a MAN who made him, in his own words "a sex god."
Imagine if this was the other way around and I was demanding that Maggie Q be cast as Miss Marple for "crush material." And that anyone who didn't want to see one of the few leading roles older, more unconventional actresses like Miriam Margolyes could play being taken away from them, was a man hating TERF?
Also if we're talking about Gallifrey Base, Jesus Christ! They all buy into the "DW is all about change" narrative and are insanely abusive to anyone who disagrees. I could post a list of all the insanely abusive things they sent to me if you want? Believe me they are not only the ones with the power, but have made the fandom an unwelcoming place.
Missy worked (burrunjor disagrees, of course) because the Master is absolutely batcrap insane, actually made a bunch of sexist comments (he's a villain!) as both Sir Derek Jacobi and John Simm (totally dispels the notion that Time Lords are so beyond prejudice or identity!), and Missy came across as yet another example of the Master having absolutely no control over his body to the point where he's happy just to have a Gallifreyan body after tons of non-passing/non-humanoid (Crispy Skeletor #1-2 and Snakalicious), stolen non-Gallifreyan bodies (Nyssa's father Tremas of Traken and human Bruce) and damaged incarnations (cheetah virus and hungry Skeletor). Michelle Gomez actually managed to give the Master actual character growth, which was quickly dashed by Sacha Dhawan. And no, it has nothing to bloody do with people 'shipping Roger Delgado with Jon Pertwee. There were real reasons that performance was one of the better ones for a character who notably never gets what they want out of constant botched regenerations.
No she didn't work and absolutely nobody who knows the Master could think she did. Classic Who fans despise Missy for the most part for good reason.
Again let's run through what is actually in the original shall we and see how Missy compares?
Masters aim: To take control of the galaxy and establish his new order on everything. Delgado, the burned Master, Ainley all tried that many times. Missy, gives up ultimate power in her first story to be with the Doctor, stating she doesn't need it, and in her next she does nothing to gain power over anywhere. She is just an annoying (REALLY annoying) stalker of the Doctor, and in her next she gives up being evil to be with him. That's it! Right away not having his motivation is a pretty big thing. Clues in his name. THE MASTER!
Masters relationship with the Doctor: He is his archenemy. Contrary to what is always said by new who fans. NO they were not still meant to be friends. Their former friendship is mentioned in a grand total of ONE, yes ONE story. The Sea Devils where the Doctor says that it is a shame he ended up like this, but that's it! The two try and kill each other regularly, the Doctor states that the Master is the one person he'd wish death on, the Master tries to carry out a double genocide to spite him and says that only his hatred of the Doctor keeps him going when he is near death. Missy meanwhile is in love with the Doctor and just wants to be with him, and he is willing to forgive her and compares her victims to Bacon! Considering what the Master did in Old Who, you know killing the Doctors friends loved ones, like Nyssa, Tegan and so on.
Nyssa's entire species was wiped out by the Master, yet this is what the Doctor has to say about them in New Who.
DOCTOR: She got us home from Mars.
BILL: She's a murderer.
DOCTOR: Enjoying your bacon sandwich?
BILL: Why?
DOCTOR: Because it had a mummy and a daddy. Go tell a pig about your moral high ground.
Hmm he sounds like a villain from classic who. Here from a story called The Visitation.
LEADER: It's survival, Doctor. Just as these primitives kill lesser species to protect themselves, so I kill them.
DOCTOR:
That's hardly an argument.
LEADER: It's not supposed to be an argument. It's a statement!
In no way is that a valid continuation of their relationship in the original. PS it is true that Roger Delgado did intend for there to be something more to the Doctor Master relationship, but he intended to reveal that they were brothers. A few subsequent stories would hint at this, but never reveal it. Personally I don't think they need to be brothers, but still it was always open ended, until, Missy who made sure ironically that Delgado's idea could never be hinted at, by having the Master french kiss her "brother".
The Masters powers in the original: Hypnosis and mind control and his signature weapon was the TCE that shrunk people. Missy has neither of those things.
The Master was also a suave, charming, manipulative villain. Even in his burned form he can twist people's minds get them to trust him, seduce them. Missy meanwhile is just a psycho who shouts BANANA and shoots people and bullies Clara, rather than seduce her or anything like that.
The Master isn't the Joker either. He isn't just a "I'MMMM CRAAAAAZZZZZZY" He is a controlling sociopath, more of a Blofeld and a Lex Luthor, which again is refleced in the original versions.
And actually no Michelle Gomez wasn't the first to bring development to the Master. The Master as a whole goes through a big development in Classic Who. He starts out as more of a megalomanica, but is driven over the edge by the accident that happens (off screen) that burns him and we see him gradually descend even deeper into madness as a result, though again it's not Joker style madness, it's more of a bitter, hateful, controlling kind.
Also his relationship with the Doctor changes too. At first whilst always willing to kill him, Delgado does have a respect for the Doctor and is even willing to work with him, but as time goes on he grows to despise the Doctor for foiling his schemes and keeping him distracted with a petty feud when he could be doing other things, yet because he is so petty and vindictive he can't let it go.
Then there is also the Master losing his regenerations story arc and having to steal bodies and linger on that way. None of these things are carried on in Missy meanwhile.
All of this is before I get to the gender change.
it’s so interesting the dynamic between Michelle and Sacha. Michelle seemed like a natural regeneration from Simms, and expanded on the Master’s qualities. While Sacha plays the Master how he THINKS someone who plays the Master might play the Master. I loved the Master reveal with Michelle but have utterly hated Sacha’s version. Maybe it’s because there was a dichotomy between faking “O” and being “The Master” where it feels almost out of character?
Sorry to say, but it honestly makes me sad to see anyone praise Missy, only because I think, why bother ever trying to adapt a classic character? If she can be considered a good adaptation, what's the point? She is like if I did a version of Buffy where Spike is a leprachuan and Buffy a biker mouse from Mars. Missy literally has as much in common with the Master as those hypothetical versions do with Spike and Buffy.
You think I'm joking?
If I didn't tell you, would anyone think the two above were the same characters as those below?
Sacha was pretty bad, as he just played it as a pound shop Joker, and the stories he was in where awful. Still at least he fulfilled the basic role of the Master as a villain and Moriarty to the Doctor.
