Just described Moffat's Sherlock & Doctor Who era in a oner.

To be honest I thought that Moffat gave the character the perfect ending in ‘The Doctor Falls,’ and is just another reason I love that story so much. Missy was a brilliant new direction for the character and the Master ideally should have been left alone for a while. I do understand what you’re saying about each era having its own Master, and I also really like Dhawan’s tortured portrayal, but I maintain that the character regression was a huge mistake that undermines his predecessor’s very existence. I have the same issue with the re-destruction of Gallifrey undermining the impact of ‘The Day of the Doctor.’ It’s almost like Chibnall didn’t watch the Capaldi era, or didn’t understand it.

@MidnightChimey

Жыл бұрын

I do get the impression that Chibnall just refuses to acknowledge the Moffat era as a whole sometimes to be honest. His run is more an attempt at a continuation of RTD1

You can bring back Old Doctors if it tells a good story too. Especially in an Anniversary Year.

@MidnightChimey

Жыл бұрын

As a one-off special appearance, maybe. But as a full on official numbered incarnation of The Doctor for multiple episodes. I have my concerns. It's all very well telling a good story, but it has to be a new story, you can't just rewind time. Anyway as I said, that's a subject for another day.

@BEE-oz7yd

Жыл бұрын

@@MidnightChimey Nostalgia overload for an anniversary year is inevitable!🤷 However when RTD2 has every episode going: "Hey remember this thing this thing from RTD1?!" Then it's time to get concerned!

I felt the same about the Timeless Children reveal, the Master even said in Spyfall that killing feels right in his hearts like it's what he's meant to do. Seemed there like he was reflecting on his time as Missy but his current murders are making up for lost time. It does feel silly given how fluid the show's continuity is, like the Doctor's stance on killing changing between incarnations. I like Missy's arc fine, even feel like the end of it with both Simm's Master killing her and Dhawan's Master being so psychotic add to it in a tragic way. What took me out of it was that it felt less like a natural arc for the character and more a reaction to how pathetic a villain she was in Series 8 and 9. Sidenote: I bet the people vehemently for Missy's arc are the same kind of people who hated the Doctor leaving Solomon to die in Dinosaurs on a Spaceship after the bloke committed mass murder, implied he'd rape Nefertiti, and the most heinous crime in DW: murdered Tricey.

@MidnightChimey

Жыл бұрын

Note, add murdering Tricey to the list of deeds that are unforgivable and beyond redemption, I forgot that one. But yeah, the series 8 finale where Missy's motivation is "wanting her friend back" feels like it's somewhat laying the groundwork for the redemption arc, but that may just be reading into it with hindsight

@ottomanwilde4836

Жыл бұрын

Missy was always supposed to be a more sympathetic and layered portrayal of the character, so dismissing her as ‘pathetic’ in Series 8 and 9 is to miss the point a bit.

@PatRex11

Жыл бұрын

@@ottomanwilde4836 the spymaster has layers but I always found him intimidating. Missy's only big plan was to give the Doctor an army... As if he'd take it

@MidnightChimey

Жыл бұрын

I wouldn't describe Missy as "pathetic" in any of her series to be honest, though she's probably not the most intimidating either

@ottomanwilde4836

Жыл бұрын

@@PatRex11 Most of Missy's development came in Series 10.

I do agree with the arc being over rated- I always felt that people latched onto it as a means to find meaning in the final Peter Capaldi story (kinda) as well as latching onto anything that had story and lore potential when Series 11 was so dull. (They got what they asked for in Series 12) I don't agree that there are people who are Beyond Redemption. I know there are lots of actions that can be considered unforgivable, but consider this- What they just flat-out had their memory wiped? Imagine if you woke up in someone else's body, with no idea who you are or anything, and suddenly you're told that apparently you just had a bump on the head And now have completely different memories, I thought you were previously committed countless crimes I do now going to be locked away for the rest of your life. That wouldn't really accomplish anything, because it's not even preventing you from causing harm because you wouldn't even cause harm in the first place.

@MidnightChimey

Жыл бұрын

I think a lot of people go through these kind of mental gymnastics to justify this idea that no one is beyond redemption. But the thing is, a predator or serial killer's actions don't exist in a vacuum, separate from them as a person. They are accountable and they made their own bed. Murderers don't just wake up one day as a different person, transplanted into someone else's body. They're still the same person, and if they can do it once, they'll do it again.

@carealoo744

Жыл бұрын

@@MidnightChimey But IMAGINE if it DID. Imagine if you were suddenly told you did something horrible and despite having no memory of it (or, if you're even able to think about it in this way- You Do remember it, but have sincere remorse for it), would you honestly be able to sit in prison for the rest of your life and feel like you are getting what you deserve? Human beings are capable of self improvement and thrive at it when they're given love and support. So how can you hold it against them when they don't? I've never seen anyone who's reached the point of believing no human is beyond repair, having to go through mental gymnastics to justify it. I truly believe that that's a state of mind in that once you reach it, you just got it, and nothing can swear you away from it. I've seen people go through a multitude of mental gymnastics to justify why people should be lumped into groups, and dehumanized because they did something that the subject doesn't know how to process. Besides, how would you even draw the line? As disgusting as it is but think about it, every single deed in the world is part of a rainbow of good and bad. How can you decide where the line is, where a deed officially becomes unforgivable? Even if you look at every single possible deed in the entire world and officially decide where the line is, you're always going to look at the deed that has just crossed the line. You're going to look at the deed that is just good enough to be considered forgivable, but if it was even just announced more cruel, you would officially label it as unforgivable. Once you see that, it's going to be very easy for you to book believe that the line should actually be crossed on that indeed. And then the next, and then the next, and before you know it, you've considered every deed that isn't the complete up most righteousness to be a deed that is unforgivable. And at that point, you'll find you have put everyone, including yourself, in prison for life. When someone does something cruel, it's easy to assume that they're just a bad person. That nothing could ever change them, and that they don't deserve to be changed. And it's that exact type of thinking that is going to leave humans divided until they can overcome it.

@carealoo744

Жыл бұрын

@@MidnightChimey And besides, what if you end up just falsely accusing someone? If you truly believe that punching people is the right way to do things, you're going to end up punishing a lot of people who really don't deserve it even by your own standards. If you try to redeem people instead, then that problem goes away. Because if you try to redeem someone who doesn't need Redemption, it will become obvious within moments that you have got the wrong person.

I liked Missy as a character (agreed, her redemption is a bit unlikely, but that pales before the fact that she was entertaining) so I was disappointed by the appearance of Dhawan's Master. He won me over, though. Maybe the strongest Master so far, and one of the best things about the Chibnall era.

@MidnightChimey

4 ай бұрын

Dhawan's master is great! Almost wish he was from a better era, writing the recurring villains does seem to be one of Chibnall's strengths though

THANK YOU ! Finally someone who say this !

@MidnightChimey

Жыл бұрын

I'm surprised it doesn't come up more often to be honest. Like I said, I think people forget just how serious The Master's crimes are

I do get a lot of the criticisms raised with Missy's arc here. But I think how the show handled these problems was the laziest option possible. The Doctor's rehabilitation of the Master is questionable and people like Tegan who have lost people to the Master would understandably question the Dr... So its awfully convenient that the Master is a bad guy again so the Dr doesn't have to face any difficult questions. At the end of the day, it's "a separate era" doesn't fly with me because it's S11-13 of an existing show, not its own rebooted show. And the Chibnall era is not self contained enough to support this argument, if you want me to stop thinking about the Moffat era, you can't bring back Kate Stewart and you can't reference the Morbius Doctors whilst expecting us to ignore the main arc from two series ago.

@MidnightChimey

Жыл бұрын

It admittedly probably doesn't help that it's coming only two series after the last appearance of Missy so it's fresh in memory. It could have been addressed a bit more beyond the vague implication that The Master may have relapsed because of the timeless child, but it's just not a particularly big sticking point for me

@thevacuumofcomments2946

Жыл бұрын

@@MidnightChimey And fair play mate, if it doesn't bother you, it doesn't bother you. I just think this would have been something easier to get away with, had there been a few more years since Dr Falls. Either that or doing an episode where we watch him find out about the Timeless Child. Getting the chance to see that relapse into villainy on screen would lend more weight imho.

You can discuss the Master individually. I mean, I can't, as someone who isn't a Whovian (my mind keeps going to the Fallout villain that kidnaps people and turns them into infertile ogres). That being said, I kinda just wanna disagree with your point about there being some character archetypes that just shouldn't be redeemed. First and foremost, while you're correct in that it almost never happens; it's fiction. Unrealistic kind of comes with the territory. To say that some things are too unrealistic and might give people bad ideas about reality just restricts storytelling. Even setting that aside, I don't really see how you enforce that except through angry comment mobs. That's not to say that a writer shouldn't handle such a character like they're radioactive, they absolutely fucking are, but to say it's off-limits seems...unproductive. Secondly, as with most 'rules' to writing, there will be exceptions and edge cases that make things confusing. Case in point, I had a sci-fi story in the drawing board. One of the main characters was a former human trafficker who- through their wealth- was able to afford significant biological augmentation. With those, he just...lives out the centuries-long sentence he's given. Whether such a person could reform, and what exactly he or society does next is the whole point I want to explore with that arc. Does it still count as off limits if they did do their time as per the qualification you made later in the video?

@MidnightChimey

Жыл бұрын

Well there are nuances to everything, hence why I talk about "general" rules. I'd say a mass murderer is still potentially very dangerous even if they have lived out a prison sentence lasting for centuries and that's something that definitely ought to be addressed in that scenario, but there is an interesting sci-fi conundrum to be explored there

Very interesting argument. I mostly disagree, but that’s part of what makes it interesting. I think if you try to relate the stories to real life you are opening a can of worms. Among other things, companions would typically leave with life changing injuries simply because the TARDIS interior was not designed to allow for the fact that it can suddenly tilt. More seriously, the morality is all over the place, and people are often judged harshly for their actions when they had NO OTHER CHOICE. The Handy Doctor has to “atone” for stopping the Dalek threat. Should Allied soldiers atone for stopping the Nazi threat? But the biggest problem, to my mind, is having an endlessly recurring villain in a long running series. One is bad enough. Doctor Who has two, in The Master and Davros. No matter how the episode ends, with the villain defeated, trapped, facing imminent death, or even explicitly killed onscreen, you just know they’ll keep coming back. It turns a drama into a Tom and Jerry cartoon. It’s childish and it’s tedious and there’s no reason for it - the universe is big, there’s room for more villains and it would be really nice to get closure once in a while. I was disappointed when Moffat brought back The Master, having gone a whole incarnation with, iirc, only a single mention of him. But the Missy redemption arc was at least something different. In fact it was the only interesting thing that they did with the character since Delgado. What I particularly liked was that they inverted the “only pretending” thing - that moment when Missy knows the Doctor is not looking at her, but she’s STILL crying. Ultimately, though, I agree. He/she is a mass murderer. Behead the creep, chop the creep up and dump the remains in a supernova. And let’s make it legally binding that anyone who writes any Master or Davros stories be heavily fined or imprisoned.

@MidnightChimey

Жыл бұрын

The thing is, The Master is a fun character and there's a reason why most of us always like to see them make a return, similar with Davros. To a degree in fiction there are certain things where you have to suspend your disbelief and the fact The Doctor keeps meeting the same antagonists when there is an entire universe is one of those. But when it comes to theme, you can't really separate that from reality, and yes I do think the moral implications of the show have been very shaky at times, and I don't agree with every moral stance The Doctor has taken.

@paulbeardsley4095

Жыл бұрын

@@MidnightChimey I disagree that the Master is a character, let alone a fun one. Suspension of disbelief is not the issue. The issue is that the Master has no motivation beyond “I’m evil” and he’s nothing more than a bunch of phrases and a villainous laugh that rarely makes sense. At least in the Delgado days he actually reacted to things like a person, and showed some degree of complexity, and some of his plans made some sense. In a long running series I like to see progression. We do get some in Doctor Who but the endless rematches are not that. As I think it was you said, Chibnall just dismissed the Moffat era, which was a real shame because imho the Moffat era is the best thing that ever happened to Doctor Who - and I’m speaking as someone who began watching properly when Pertwee was the Doctor.

@MidnightChimey

Жыл бұрын

@@paulbeardsley4095 Firstly that's pretty cool if you started watching with Pertwee, it's always great to meet fans who've been around that long. But there's definitely more to The Master as an antagonist beyond "I'm evil." There's the fact they are a reflection of The Doctor in many ways and an intellectual equal. Then there's the personal element with them both being Time Lords, and former friends. For The Master, I get the sense it's not enough for them simply to defeat/kill The Doctor, they also at the same time want to impress The Doctor and have their approval in some way. I could go on, but for me there's a lot of things that make the character and their dynamic as a villain unique and memorable.

@paulbeardsley4095

Жыл бұрын

@@MidnightChimey I should add that I saw a few pre-Pertwees too, but I was too young to understand what I was seeing. I do remember my brother and me watching that scene in The Krotons where that giant metal snake thing came out of a machine, and we were both terrified. Mum had to tell us it was only made of cardboard (!) to calm us down. Re the Master's depth, I get it with Delgado, and also with Michelle Gomez, but not the others. Ainley occasionally provided camp entertainment but that got old. Prior to The Power of the Doctor, the Master's low point (for me) was Last of the Time Lords, where he'd effectively achieved what he'd set out to do, and it was obvious there was nothing more to say. Add to the fact that it could not have ended any other way (i.e. status quo restored) and the fact that we knew the Master wouldn't stay dead made it an epic fail. Just IMHO of course! ;)

I don't apply real life rules to fictional characters. The Doctor should be locked up if that was the case.

@MidnightChimey

Жыл бұрын

The Doctor never went out of their way to murder someone just for the hell and the fun of it. There is a difference

@hahahahanope7659

Жыл бұрын

@@MidnightChimey its still murder lol

@MidnightChimey

Жыл бұрын

@@hahahahanope7659 I can't honestly think of one occasion where I would describe The Doctor as actually "murdering" someone. Anything he has done is not remotely equivalent

@krchecotah

Жыл бұрын

@@MidnightChimey He killed The General in Hell Bent. Sure The General regenerated but as much as The Doctor always cries about regeneration being effectively death, I don't think he gets a pass for this one.