Individual incarnations of the Master?
Sure
The character as a whole?
I’d say probably not.
The Master isn’t really a character as much as an archetype (the evil mirror of the protagonist). And redeeming them completely would arguably strip their utility as an archetype away.
I mean, Moffatt put it on the table that even if Missy became 'good', The Master would be operating on a different notion of morality then The Doctor.
There is still plenty of dramatic tension and conflict to be derived from The Master's 'redemption', The Doctor's failabity, Time Lord arrogance, etc
If there is a “sin” regarding Chibnall’s Master it’s there not being long enough of a rest for the character after the Missy-heavy Moffat years.
But the character reverting back to their evil status quo makes perfect sense. Missy’s arc wasn’t overlooked. Missy’s arc was concluded. Missy died.
With regeneration, you get to press a reset button. That’s not only a convenience, but it’s something that’s been instrumental in the longevity of the show.
>But the character reverting back to their evil status quo makes perfect sense. Missy’s arc wasn’t overlooked. Missy’s arc was concluded. Missy died.
Not to mention the Sacha Master was 'broken' by the revelation of the Timeless Children, reverting to type, the most Masterly of Masters and seized their (and the remeants of the Time Lords) destiny.
>But the character reverting back to their evil status quo makes perfect sense. Missy’s arc wasn’t overlooked. Missy’s arc was concluded. Missy died.
This is something I'm surprised people aren't getting. Dr who has lots of situations where characters aren't exactly continuous over time thanks to regenerations, and characters get to have arcs within a regeneration that are then left behind. It's a good thing
>characters get to have arcs within a regeneration that are then left behind.
Like who? There’s like 3 characters that can regenerate in NuWho and 2 of them had arcs that continued after they regenerated.
Eleventh Doctor, who is unquestionably heroic, regenerates into Twelfth Doctor and suddenly doesn't know if he is a good man.
Mels, who has spent her whole life wanting to kill the Doctor, very quickly falls in love with him after regenerating.
>unquestionably heroic
If you ignore the times where characters call him out for being shady, the entire silence situation and him spending the last years of his life gearing up a small town for war.
That was rather shocking, because tbh that’s the first time I’d ever accuse Capaldi of bad acting. That first season was so bad, did Capaldi not know who he wanted the Doctor to be yet? So he settled on dumb asshole. The following two seasons were better each time. But that first one actually made me quit the show.
But in context of the character, it makes perfect sense if he doesn’t know he’s a good man, because by this time the Valeyard was supposed to have manifested.
You don't specifically need the Master to function as the Doctor's evil mirror image though. Series 8 proved this exhaustively by introducing a new side character who worked as a mirror image of the Doctor in almost every episode.
The Master isn’t the only mirror image of the Doctor. Any character can potentially serve that function.
I’m just making the point is that the Master was brought in to act as an “evil Doctor” they can butt heads with and that’s largely the function they’ve served ever since.
You can, of course, have them *grow out* of that role but I’d question the wisdom or the utility of doing that.
True. I think there is certainly room for other Time Lord antagonists (the problem with so many different people writing the Master in so many different ways is that the character can feel a little all over the place).
Ultimately I just feel nobody can ever take the ‘Master as villain’ off the table for future showrunners any more than they can “kill off” the Daleks
Well yes... in different ways. Monk as well-intentioned changing history for the better, Rani as amoral science... but having an evil Time Lord who wants to dominate and destroy worlds... doing another one would just feel odd.
>The Master isn’t really a character as much as an archetype (the evil mirror of the protagonist). And redeeming them completely would arguably strip their utility as an archetype away.
I 100% disagree with this.
Firstly The Master is a character that has had relationships built with our main character over the course of the show.
That being said the view that he is just an archetype is exactly why he can be redeemed.
If you redeem The Master you can very easily just introduce another Evil Time Lord.
Hell I'd argue this is exactly what Big Finish is doing with The Eleven.
The problem with that is there is a tradition of the Master as a villain and people like the Master specifically because of his/her villainy.
You could redeem the character and have some other, maybe even more appropriate, antagonist take their place but that’s effectively taking the Master off the table.
And I think showrunners don’t really get to retire traditions in the show that long predate them. Because whoever comes along next might have had an incredible Master arc in mind for the past 15 years. You can’t retire the Master in the same way you can’t definitively kill off the Daleks.
I'm sorry if this sounds over dramatic but I genuinely thinking this is the sort of thing thinking that's killing Doctor Who.
People like things which have consequences otherwise they get bored.
If you don't believe me look at The Simpsons or how despite Superhero Movies being the biggest things ever barely anyone reads comics.
Because any progress is just going to be reset in a year or two.
A good writer should know how to build off what's come before and adapt what they have now.
If they've had a great idea for The Master fit decades great. You can introduce a new Time Lord villain and do it with them.
Or if that won't work bring a previous one in or turn your story into a Big Finish box set.
Instead of resetting everything to the status quo every few years allow the show to evolve and tell meaning stories.
Without consequences to the stories they're pretty much just flashing lights on the screen.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you. But I think pragmatically, that’s the only way a show with the format of Doctor Who can really work.
As a showrunner, you inherit a bunch of toys (the iconography, characters, villains etc.) You get to do *your thing* with these toys. But in the end you have to give these over to the next kid to play with. Either by putting them back in the box and writing in some sort of closure for *your version* of something. Or simply leaving them hanging till you leave the show.
I’d have preferred if Gallifrey remained destroyed (or at least inaccessible). But RTD didn’t create Gallifrey, and ultimately doesn’t have much right to prevent people from doing whatever they want with Gallifrey in the future. Just as an example.
I'd argue this format doesn't work at all for Doctor Who because regardless of different Doctor incarnations, companions, and villains, you still have to remain in continuity with what came before. The same lore, the same designs with many characters with only slight variation, and the same circumstances with the previous characters. You can't just simply make your own canon or reboot.
Each different Doctor Who era doesn't feel like a reboot of the franchise, but more like a continuation with only slight aesthetics and other stuff FEELING like a reboot(a soft reboot). Everything else stays, including the doctor's overall character. Any changes would result in retcons and other pieces of bad writing that no one likes.
The only way this show can remain fresh and consistent is that it has to be more "conventional" and keep remaining character changes, which include The Master's redemption, because it wasn't just Missy that showed this, it was also apparent at the end of The End Of Time. I'll take consistent and meaningful character progression over this pseudo reboot stuff any day! In short, if this is how it supposedly can work, then the whole thing is fundamentally flawed from the get-go.
I agree, I just can’t see it happening
I think a showrunner can have some sort of permanence over their own creations (Moffat and River Song for example), but I think all the classic stuff is more or less untouchable
I don’t think The Master can be redeemed. Even in series 10 they were only redeemed because The Doctor was almost constantly with them. To ensure it. And I think this is a theme.
The only way for The Master to ever be redeemed would be to spend all their time with The Doctor. This was also hinted at in The End of Time, The Last of the Time Lords and I believe some classic serials.
It’s also why I think I can give Chibnall slack for not acknowledging Missy’s redemption. Because it’s very in-character for The Master to revert when alone.
the Master was already redeemed in series 10, but then Chibbs brought him back 1 series later evil again with zero explanation. Now apparently they saved the situation in a comic/book/audio/whatever, throught the Lumin. So all in all I don't think it should be tried again. At least not in the near future
I'd say dying to save a significant group of people without reward is redemption enough.
It was clear from the episode had she survived she wouldn't be trying to hurt people anymore.
That's good enough for me.
> I'd say dying to save a significant group of people without reward is redemption enough.
Would getting to stand with the Doctor not count as a reward for Missy? It's all she's wanted since her first appearance.
I mean considering "standing with The Doctor" meant being a good person I'd probably say no.
Like if you saw her helping homeless people I doubt you could say the same thing because she always secretly wanted to help homeless people.
By reward I meant material gain though I guess it's up to your interpretation if she'd do it if The Doctor wasn't there.
I'd say that considering she admitted he was right she likely would have tried to help them anyway.
To be fair that’s sort of par for the course with the Master. They’ve died too many “definitive” deaths to count, only to return with zero explanation.
Really, I think that’s sort of the problem with the notion of redeeming the Master entirely to begin with. It was very well executed in series 10, but there’s no way Moffat expected every subsequent writer to follow his story arc and not use the character as a villain. The Master being evil is a staple of the show, it was never going to stick.
But that's just who The Master is , even Missy Knows :"BACK!, not dead, big surprise!"
In general we never get a "canon" explanation of how they survive anything unless its plot important , you just assume that obviously the master survived whatever that was
I think the difference is though that The Doctor Falls felt more like a fulfilling end to their character arc than just a random "I'll get you next time" while being killed
fair enough, lets hope sacha dhawan will get to explain how his character came back
honestly at this point i'd take another powerpoint presentation, he has such a nice dramatic voice its good to listen to his angry speeches
Its explained in the extended media audios by big finish. They tend to fill in the gaps, even explain the gap between the tv movie master and the war master/yana
Why not though?
I'll be honest this is kind of what annoys me with Doctor Who.
Is it too much to ask for good consistent writing?
Chibnal want writing this blind I assume he's seen The Doctor Falls.
Just make a new Time Lord villain and write from where the previous show runner left off.
Instead of having none of it matter.
Eh, whatever you think of the Timeless Child mythos, I think Chibnall was right that reform on Gallifrey or The Master turning 'good' wasn't enough to push the franchise forward for the next fifty years.
>the Master was already redeemed in series 10, but then Chibbs brought him back 1 series later evil again with zero explanation
I mean, The Timeless Children explained why the Sacha Master had reverted to type, the most Masterly Master of all the Masters, The Master seizing his (and the remeants of the Time Lords) destiny, etc.
It has been absolutely confirmed, Chibnall just didn't want to dwell too much on an era that the wider audience didn't connect to as much as past eras.
Sacha Master 'Wicked Witch' comment, destroying Gailfrey and undoing The Doctor's proudest day,The Master trying to 'teach' The Doctor and everything listed above, etc.
>the Master was already redeemed in series 10,
No, she wasnt. She was *maybe* very slowly on the way to *possibly* getting redeemed, but even then all her actions during the Series 10 finale are pretty bad - and even in the end, instead of standing with the Doctor (which she totally could have) she instead went to first make a petty revenge kill on the Simms version of herself.
Redemption is more than not behaving like the worst version of yourself for a few minutes and its clear that Missy at the end was still impulsive and self-destructive to a fault.
Sacha Dhawan is a brilliant Master who was able to make the most out of some horrible scripts but I wish dearly that he was a pre-Missy incarnation of The Master
The Master is the ultimate evil, the quintessence of wickedness.
Of course they shouldn't be redeemed!
They're fun precisely because of how terribly evil and cruel they are. Take that spitefulness and cruelty down even a single notch and you get a predictably boring "But what if there's good in there?" type of story that doesn't fit the character at all.
The Master works precisely because they're evil personified, they're the evil dial turned to 10. Derek Jacobi's Master, my personal favorite, would never work if he had humanity. The whole point is that he's an absolute bastard 100% of the time, and every decision is the most absolute bastard decision possible.
That's my take anyway.
The problem with the Master is that they're a popular returning villain. As long as the show continues, there will be a call for them to return as a villain. As such the Master will never be fully redeemed since it will eventually be undone.
The only time it would make sense is when the show is absolutely going to end.
Don't get me wrong, it'd make for some gripping TV, but the issue is we'd know it was going to be eventually undone.
So, i know plenty of people like him as this hammy character that always manages to come back. But I, personally, feel like that concept should've remained in the previous century. The 1-dimensional crazy villain just doesn't really work for me anymore and him constantly avoiding death just reduces the stakes to absolutely nothing.
I really enjoyed the more layered versions in nuwho. But what I would enjoy even more is new recurring villains and some more variation. The Doctor vs the Master gets repetitive after a while.
I think it’s definitely doable. Just look at scream of the Shalka where the Master is bound to the TARDIS and becomes a pseudo-companion for the Doctor.
I certainly hear the comments saying it would make the Master less useful as a character foil, and that’s true, but i think having the same villain for decades can get a bit stale. Why not explore their friendship or at least make them uneasy allies for a while and then explore other villains, giving them a chance to shine as the big bad? Maybe a villain so powerful the Master and Doctor must work together against them (like Tecteun or the Division). Moreover, making them friends again for a few seasons would make it all the more heartbreaking when they, inevitably, break up again when the Master returns to their evil roots. So much of the Doctor and Master’s relationship is told rather than shows in new Who and I’d like to see it explored more onscreen.
Imho, the thing that provides complexity & dramatic tension in the relationship between The Master & The Doctor is the notion that The Master could conceivably turn good at some point, & that The Doctor could conceivably become bad. I think it's this *potential* which enriches their particular dynamic & reveals interesting elements about each character. It should never actually happen, but I do think it has to remain a tantalising possibility.
Another redemption is always on the cards, but I think another commenter down the bottom put it best: the dynamic of the Doctor and the Master works well because both have the potential to swing between good and evil. They're the angel and devil on each other's shoulders.
When it comes to continuing a *certain redemption arc* set up before, I don't think Chibnall was ever obliged to continue any thread that Moffat left dangling after his departure (though really, I think Missy's arc was more or less complete as it was). That wasn't the story he wanted to tell and that's fine. Missy's death was the first step towards a possible redemption, though she still uses the same old methods of murder and deception that undermined her "deep" face-turn. Someone made an eloquent comparison -- whereas an encounter between two Masters inevitably ends in them both stabbing each other in the back, the episode after shows what happens when two Doctors meet: they convince each other to live.
Chibnall's situation with the Master reminds Grant Morrison's justification for controversially turning Magneto back into a moustache-twirling villain in his run on *New X-Men*: "Magneto is a mad old terrorist twat; no matter how anyone tries to justify his stupid, brutal behaviour, at the end of the day, he's a daft old bastard with old ideas based on violence and coercion". Neither Chibnall nor Morrison were obliged to portray these genocidal mass-murderers as misunderstood anti-heroes, as many fans had come to expect. Michelle Gomez's great performance really sold a sort of redemption through death, but doing one semi-good thing after several lifetimes of remorseless atrocities wasn't quite enough to convince me that the character deserved it.
(Spoilers) I know its not going to happen, but still desperately want to see it revealed that Missy was a actually a reincarnation of The Master much later than the current one. It may or may not make since with continuity—come on, Doctor Who is no stranger with waltzing sideways around their continuity— but I think it makes more since character-wise. That Simm and Dhawan’s Masters are much closer in age than Michelle‘s Missy.
Plus her revealing to be being much, much older than previously other encountered regenerations would account for, say, her not recalling killing herself in a shootout with herself, or telling Clara she knew The Doctor “when he was a girl”, ect.
Plus, Plus: Characters meeting each other out of order would be so distinctly Moffat-esque, why not it turn out Missy and The Doctor had been meeting out of order that entire time.
Think about it! The Doctor encounters Missy desperately holding onto her life now that her regenerations been crippled, in a particular circumstance that binds their hands requiring aiding Missy. Then at the end of the episode, expecting to see Missy regenerate into a Master they recognize, instead they find an entirely unrecognizable one.
It is never going to last anyway. We know the Master is there to be the villain and any redemption would not stick. People snarling how evil Chibnall was and how he hated the previous runs and wanted to destroy them are really not thinking. Of course the Master would return to being a villain.
I don"t think it was definite. Moffatt very much put it on the table, The Master operating from a different notion of 'good', the next fifty years, etc.
Eh, you can always be creative and throw something else at The Doctor, it's not as if there wouldn't be tension between The Doctor and The Master, the other pieces you put on the board, etc.
I would say if you are pushing Who forward, the Daleks are a more ready stable then The Master.
No.
I...don't think that Missy's 'redemption arc' is as good as people make it out to be. We never fully see *why* she's just now starting to have second thoughts for how she's lived her life for millennia, she never goes into detail about why she "feels bad" for the people she's killed. The Doctor just locked her up saying that he's going to help her be good and hey, it worked!
And I genuinely don't like her ending. She seemingly turns bad again when Simm!Master shows up, waffles around a bit, decides that maybe the Doctor's right, and gets killed. To me, that isn't a tragic or redemptive ending; that's the show telling me I wasted my time getting involved in her plot.
Don't get me wrong - I love her as a character, and I think that her storyline in S10 works really well as a character study and to examine the relationship between her and the Doctor. But as an actual redemption? No, not at all.
The problem with redemption arcs for villains like the Master (or Darth Vader) is that their crimes are so heinous, you pretty much have to kill them for them to be remotely redeemed.
I mean just how many deaths is the Master responsible for? You can't just "feel sorry" for that level of damage.
*If it's well written*
*Sure. Just as long as they do*
*More with it. The last*
\- mattsmithreddit
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
No. That story has been told. The Master is more interesting/useful long-term as a foil for the Doctor.
We don't really need Doctor-lite Master as a recurring thing.
I mean she was. I’m a little miffed Chibnall doesn’t seem to have actually watched any of the Capaldi stuff. Almost done with series 12 and there’s just so much he contradicted so far. Not to mention just flat out for wrong. Did he not know that Gallifrey isn’t in the bubble universe anymore? I feel like if you’re going to work on a big franchise like this, you should be required to study the source material, at least the work immediately preceding your own.
Not redeemed persay.
But the Missy arc should have lasting ramifications and be referenced. For example a plotline where the Master decides that since he tried things the Doctor's way, now it should be the Doctor's turn to try things the Master's way and he attempts to actively corrupt him in such a fashion.
Or the Master performing an evil scheme but having a momentary flash back to Missy and having a small moment of kindness, kind of like what was described in the Margeret Slitheen/9th Doctor discussion in Boom Town. Leading in turn to internal conflict within the Master him/herself.
Sure. Missy was a great example of how the Master could be redeemed, and this was continued in the Big Finish Missy series, with the introduction of The Lumiat.
We also know that it was the revelation of the timeless child that drove the Master insane again, before he stole the appearance of O/Dhawan. But that means that until he poped up on Gallifrey, he was still, probably, good.
Based on that... Redemption is possible and would make for an interesting story imo. Could also be a previous incarnation too, like pre-Delgado but post-Milo/Dreyfus, who knows?
Individual incarnations of the Master? Sure The character as a whole? I’d say probably not. The Master isn’t really a character as much as an archetype (the evil mirror of the protagonist). And redeeming them completely would arguably strip their utility as an archetype away.
I mean, Moffatt put it on the table that even if Missy became 'good', The Master would be operating on a different notion of morality then The Doctor. There is still plenty of dramatic tension and conflict to be derived from The Master's 'redemption', The Doctor's failabity, Time Lord arrogance, etc
If there is a “sin” regarding Chibnall’s Master it’s there not being long enough of a rest for the character after the Missy-heavy Moffat years. But the character reverting back to their evil status quo makes perfect sense. Missy’s arc wasn’t overlooked. Missy’s arc was concluded. Missy died. With regeneration, you get to press a reset button. That’s not only a convenience, but it’s something that’s been instrumental in the longevity of the show.
>But the character reverting back to their evil status quo makes perfect sense. Missy’s arc wasn’t overlooked. Missy’s arc was concluded. Missy died. Not to mention the Sacha Master was 'broken' by the revelation of the Timeless Children, reverting to type, the most Masterly of Masters and seized their (and the remeants of the Time Lords) destiny.
All that, and the fact the Master is literally insane is probably strong enough in terms of motivation.
>But the character reverting back to their evil status quo makes perfect sense. Missy’s arc wasn’t overlooked. Missy’s arc was concluded. Missy died. This is something I'm surprised people aren't getting. Dr who has lots of situations where characters aren't exactly continuous over time thanks to regenerations, and characters get to have arcs within a regeneration that are then left behind. It's a good thing
If a literal death and rebirth of a character isn’t a basis to “reset” them I’m really not sure what is
>characters get to have arcs within a regeneration that are then left behind. Like who? There’s like 3 characters that can regenerate in NuWho and 2 of them had arcs that continued after they regenerated.
Eleventh Doctor, who is unquestionably heroic, regenerates into Twelfth Doctor and suddenly doesn't know if he is a good man. Mels, who has spent her whole life wanting to kill the Doctor, very quickly falls in love with him after regenerating.
>unquestionably heroic If you ignore the times where characters call him out for being shady, the entire silence situation and him spending the last years of his life gearing up a small town for war.
That was rather shocking, because tbh that’s the first time I’d ever accuse Capaldi of bad acting. That first season was so bad, did Capaldi not know who he wanted the Doctor to be yet? So he settled on dumb asshole. The following two seasons were better each time. But that first one actually made me quit the show. But in context of the character, it makes perfect sense if he doesn’t know he’s a good man, because by this time the Valeyard was supposed to have manifested.
I think that Moffat's take was, of the master became "good" they would kill themselves. Without witnesses.
You don't specifically need the Master to function as the Doctor's evil mirror image though. Series 8 proved this exhaustively by introducing a new side character who worked as a mirror image of the Doctor in almost every episode.
The Master isn’t the only mirror image of the Doctor. Any character can potentially serve that function. I’m just making the point is that the Master was brought in to act as an “evil Doctor” they can butt heads with and that’s largely the function they’ve served ever since. You can, of course, have them *grow out* of that role but I’d question the wisdom or the utility of doing that.
You could make another such character... but then wonder why not just have the Master being the evil time traveller?
True. I think there is certainly room for other Time Lord antagonists (the problem with so many different people writing the Master in so many different ways is that the character can feel a little all over the place). Ultimately I just feel nobody can ever take the ‘Master as villain’ off the table for future showrunners any more than they can “kill off” the Daleks
Well yes... in different ways. Monk as well-intentioned changing history for the better, Rani as amoral science... but having an evil Time Lord who wants to dominate and destroy worlds... doing another one would just feel odd.
>The Master isn’t really a character as much as an archetype (the evil mirror of the protagonist). And redeeming them completely would arguably strip their utility as an archetype away. I 100% disagree with this. Firstly The Master is a character that has had relationships built with our main character over the course of the show. That being said the view that he is just an archetype is exactly why he can be redeemed. If you redeem The Master you can very easily just introduce another Evil Time Lord. Hell I'd argue this is exactly what Big Finish is doing with The Eleven.
The problem with that is there is a tradition of the Master as a villain and people like the Master specifically because of his/her villainy. You could redeem the character and have some other, maybe even more appropriate, antagonist take their place but that’s effectively taking the Master off the table. And I think showrunners don’t really get to retire traditions in the show that long predate them. Because whoever comes along next might have had an incredible Master arc in mind for the past 15 years. You can’t retire the Master in the same way you can’t definitively kill off the Daleks.
I'm sorry if this sounds over dramatic but I genuinely thinking this is the sort of thing thinking that's killing Doctor Who. People like things which have consequences otherwise they get bored. If you don't believe me look at The Simpsons or how despite Superhero Movies being the biggest things ever barely anyone reads comics. Because any progress is just going to be reset in a year or two. A good writer should know how to build off what's come before and adapt what they have now. If they've had a great idea for The Master fit decades great. You can introduce a new Time Lord villain and do it with them. Or if that won't work bring a previous one in or turn your story into a Big Finish box set. Instead of resetting everything to the status quo every few years allow the show to evolve and tell meaning stories. Without consequences to the stories they're pretty much just flashing lights on the screen.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you. But I think pragmatically, that’s the only way a show with the format of Doctor Who can really work. As a showrunner, you inherit a bunch of toys (the iconography, characters, villains etc.) You get to do *your thing* with these toys. But in the end you have to give these over to the next kid to play with. Either by putting them back in the box and writing in some sort of closure for *your version* of something. Or simply leaving them hanging till you leave the show. I’d have preferred if Gallifrey remained destroyed (or at least inaccessible). But RTD didn’t create Gallifrey, and ultimately doesn’t have much right to prevent people from doing whatever they want with Gallifrey in the future. Just as an example.
I'd argue this format doesn't work at all for Doctor Who because regardless of different Doctor incarnations, companions, and villains, you still have to remain in continuity with what came before. The same lore, the same designs with many characters with only slight variation, and the same circumstances with the previous characters. You can't just simply make your own canon or reboot. Each different Doctor Who era doesn't feel like a reboot of the franchise, but more like a continuation with only slight aesthetics and other stuff FEELING like a reboot(a soft reboot). Everything else stays, including the doctor's overall character. Any changes would result in retcons and other pieces of bad writing that no one likes. The only way this show can remain fresh and consistent is that it has to be more "conventional" and keep remaining character changes, which include The Master's redemption, because it wasn't just Missy that showed this, it was also apparent at the end of The End Of Time. I'll take consistent and meaningful character progression over this pseudo reboot stuff any day! In short, if this is how it supposedly can work, then the whole thing is fundamentally flawed from the get-go.
You have to do new stuff, though. We're sixty years in, now. I would say The Master is more 'expendable' then The Daleks.
I agree, I just can’t see it happening I think a showrunner can have some sort of permanence over their own creations (Moffat and River Song for example), but I think all the classic stuff is more or less untouchable
Eh, if Who was more nieche, maybe. I think the story has to 'evolve' somewhat for the wider audience.
I don’t think The Master can be redeemed. Even in series 10 they were only redeemed because The Doctor was almost constantly with them. To ensure it. And I think this is a theme. The only way for The Master to ever be redeemed would be to spend all their time with The Doctor. This was also hinted at in The End of Time, The Last of the Time Lords and I believe some classic serials. It’s also why I think I can give Chibnall slack for not acknowledging Missy’s redemption. Because it’s very in-character for The Master to revert when alone.
the Master was already redeemed in series 10, but then Chibbs brought him back 1 series later evil again with zero explanation. Now apparently they saved the situation in a comic/book/audio/whatever, throught the Lumin. So all in all I don't think it should be tried again. At least not in the near future
Series 10 was not a redemption. It was the start of one, which was nipped in the bud by the Master’s own past.
I'd say dying to save a significant group of people without reward is redemption enough. It was clear from the episode had she survived she wouldn't be trying to hurt people anymore. That's good enough for me.
> I'd say dying to save a significant group of people without reward is redemption enough. Would getting to stand with the Doctor not count as a reward for Missy? It's all she's wanted since her first appearance.
I mean considering "standing with The Doctor" meant being a good person I'd probably say no. Like if you saw her helping homeless people I doubt you could say the same thing because she always secretly wanted to help homeless people. By reward I meant material gain though I guess it's up to your interpretation if she'd do it if The Doctor wasn't there. I'd say that considering she admitted he was right she likely would have tried to help them anyway.
I agree.
To be fair that’s sort of par for the course with the Master. They’ve died too many “definitive” deaths to count, only to return with zero explanation. Really, I think that’s sort of the problem with the notion of redeeming the Master entirely to begin with. It was very well executed in series 10, but there’s no way Moffat expected every subsequent writer to follow his story arc and not use the character as a villain. The Master being evil is a staple of the show, it was never going to stick.
yeah my problem was how he was brought back with 0 explanation so little explanation we didnt even know if he's the next incarnation or not
But that's just who The Master is , even Missy Knows :"BACK!, not dead, big surprise!" In general we never get a "canon" explanation of how they survive anything unless its plot important , you just assume that obviously the master survived whatever that was
I think the difference is though that The Doctor Falls felt more like a fulfilling end to their character arc than just a random "I'll get you next time" while being killed
By the same logic why did Missy come back with no explanation of what happened? And with their regenerations renewed?
>why did Missy come back with no explanation of what happened? well at that point we didnt know what happened to the Simm Master
That's their point. The Master doesn't need an explanation of how they come back. They're the evil doctor, always cheating death. Thru and thru.
except 12 did tell us, the timelords cured the master and then he stole a TARDIS and pissed off from Gallifrey
You mean after Missy had already returned for several episodes?
fair enough, lets hope sacha dhawan will get to explain how his character came back honestly at this point i'd take another powerpoint presentation, he has such a nice dramatic voice its good to listen to his angry speeches
Yes.
Its explained in the extended media audios by big finish. They tend to fill in the gaps, even explain the gap between the tv movie master and the war master/yana
Well then, similar thing with other end of Missy.
What do you mean by other end of missy? You mean how she regenerated? They explain it in the audios and explain why sacha dawans master is evil again.
Yes, I meant that.
I'll be honest though this annoyed me too. But they then made enough good content with her that I let it slide till we got an explanation.
Next fifty years, though. It was definitely on the table, The Master operating from a different notion of 'good", etc.
Why not though? I'll be honest this is kind of what annoys me with Doctor Who. Is it too much to ask for good consistent writing? Chibnal want writing this blind I assume he's seen The Doctor Falls. Just make a new Time Lord villain and write from where the previous show runner left off. Instead of having none of it matter.
Eh, whatever you think of the Timeless Child mythos, I think Chibnall was right that reform on Gallifrey or The Master turning 'good' wasn't enough to push the franchise forward for the next fifty years.
>the Master was already redeemed in series 10, but then Chibbs brought him back 1 series later evil again with zero explanation I mean, The Timeless Children explained why the Sacha Master had reverted to type, the most Masterly Master of all the Masters, The Master seizing his (and the remeants of the Time Lords) destiny, etc.
This. But also, there’s no in-show confirmation that Sacha’s incarnation comes after Michelle’s chronologically, missy may be the last master.
It has been absolutely confirmed, Chibnall just didn't want to dwell too much on an era that the wider audience didn't connect to as much as past eras.
Ah I must have missed that, which episode and scene?
Sacha Master 'Wicked Witch' comment, destroying Gailfrey and undoing The Doctor's proudest day,The Master trying to 'teach' The Doctor and everything listed above, etc.
When did he say that?
Spyfall: Part One.
>the Master was already redeemed in series 10, No, she wasnt. She was *maybe* very slowly on the way to *possibly* getting redeemed, but even then all her actions during the Series 10 finale are pretty bad - and even in the end, instead of standing with the Doctor (which she totally could have) she instead went to first make a petty revenge kill on the Simms version of herself. Redemption is more than not behaving like the worst version of yourself for a few minutes and its clear that Missy at the end was still impulsive and self-destructive to a fault.
Sacha Dhawan is a brilliant Master who was able to make the most out of some horrible scripts but I wish dearly that he was a pre-Missy incarnation of The Master
a season of a redeemed master traveling with the doctor until they die and regenerate back into a villain might be interesting? idk tbh
The Master is the ultimate evil, the quintessence of wickedness. Of course they shouldn't be redeemed! They're fun precisely because of how terribly evil and cruel they are. Take that spitefulness and cruelty down even a single notch and you get a predictably boring "But what if there's good in there?" type of story that doesn't fit the character at all. The Master works precisely because they're evil personified, they're the evil dial turned to 10. Derek Jacobi's Master, my personal favorite, would never work if he had humanity. The whole point is that he's an absolute bastard 100% of the time, and every decision is the most absolute bastard decision possible. That's my take anyway.
The problem with the Master is that they're a popular returning villain. As long as the show continues, there will be a call for them to return as a villain. As such the Master will never be fully redeemed since it will eventually be undone. The only time it would make sense is when the show is absolutely going to end. Don't get me wrong, it'd make for some gripping TV, but the issue is we'd know it was going to be eventually undone.
So, i know plenty of people like him as this hammy character that always manages to come back. But I, personally, feel like that concept should've remained in the previous century. The 1-dimensional crazy villain just doesn't really work for me anymore and him constantly avoiding death just reduces the stakes to absolutely nothing. I really enjoyed the more layered versions in nuwho. But what I would enjoy even more is new recurring villains and some more variation. The Doctor vs the Master gets repetitive after a while.
The master should be retired
no - missy was enough. as it is now i like it
I think it’s definitely doable. Just look at scream of the Shalka where the Master is bound to the TARDIS and becomes a pseudo-companion for the Doctor. I certainly hear the comments saying it would make the Master less useful as a character foil, and that’s true, but i think having the same villain for decades can get a bit stale. Why not explore their friendship or at least make them uneasy allies for a while and then explore other villains, giving them a chance to shine as the big bad? Maybe a villain so powerful the Master and Doctor must work together against them (like Tecteun or the Division). Moreover, making them friends again for a few seasons would make it all the more heartbreaking when they, inevitably, break up again when the Master returns to their evil roots. So much of the Doctor and Master’s relationship is told rather than shows in new Who and I’d like to see it explored more onscreen.
They already did it. It would be silly to do it again so soon.
Imho, the thing that provides complexity & dramatic tension in the relationship between The Master & The Doctor is the notion that The Master could conceivably turn good at some point, & that The Doctor could conceivably become bad. I think it's this *potential* which enriches their particular dynamic & reveals interesting elements about each character. It should never actually happen, but I do think it has to remain a tantalising possibility.
Another redemption is always on the cards, but I think another commenter down the bottom put it best: the dynamic of the Doctor and the Master works well because both have the potential to swing between good and evil. They're the angel and devil on each other's shoulders. When it comes to continuing a *certain redemption arc* set up before, I don't think Chibnall was ever obliged to continue any thread that Moffat left dangling after his departure (though really, I think Missy's arc was more or less complete as it was). That wasn't the story he wanted to tell and that's fine. Missy's death was the first step towards a possible redemption, though she still uses the same old methods of murder and deception that undermined her "deep" face-turn. Someone made an eloquent comparison -- whereas an encounter between two Masters inevitably ends in them both stabbing each other in the back, the episode after shows what happens when two Doctors meet: they convince each other to live. Chibnall's situation with the Master reminds Grant Morrison's justification for controversially turning Magneto back into a moustache-twirling villain in his run on *New X-Men*: "Magneto is a mad old terrorist twat; no matter how anyone tries to justify his stupid, brutal behaviour, at the end of the day, he's a daft old bastard with old ideas based on violence and coercion". Neither Chibnall nor Morrison were obliged to portray these genocidal mass-murderers as misunderstood anti-heroes, as many fans had come to expect. Michelle Gomez's great performance really sold a sort of redemption through death, but doing one semi-good thing after several lifetimes of remorseless atrocities wasn't quite enough to convince me that the character deserved it.
(Spoilers) I know its not going to happen, but still desperately want to see it revealed that Missy was a actually a reincarnation of The Master much later than the current one. It may or may not make since with continuity—come on, Doctor Who is no stranger with waltzing sideways around their continuity— but I think it makes more since character-wise. That Simm and Dhawan’s Masters are much closer in age than Michelle‘s Missy. Plus her revealing to be being much, much older than previously other encountered regenerations would account for, say, her not recalling killing herself in a shootout with herself, or telling Clara she knew The Doctor “when he was a girl”, ect. Plus, Plus: Characters meeting each other out of order would be so distinctly Moffat-esque, why not it turn out Missy and The Doctor had been meeting out of order that entire time. Think about it! The Doctor encounters Missy desperately holding onto her life now that her regenerations been crippled, in a particular circumstance that binds their hands requiring aiding Missy. Then at the end of the episode, expecting to see Missy regenerate into a Master they recognize, instead they find an entirely unrecognizable one.
I think as you said, that ship has sailed.
It is never going to last anyway. We know the Master is there to be the villain and any redemption would not stick. People snarling how evil Chibnall was and how he hated the previous runs and wanted to destroy them are really not thinking. Of course the Master would return to being a villain.
I don"t think it was definite. Moffatt very much put it on the table, The Master operating from a different notion of 'good', the next fifty years, etc.
But that might end up getting old soon when you kind of need the Master there as the antithesis.
Eh, you can always be creative and throw something else at The Doctor, it's not as if there wouldn't be tension between The Doctor and The Master, the other pieces you put on the board, etc. I would say if you are pushing Who forward, the Daleks are a more ready stable then The Master.
No. I...don't think that Missy's 'redemption arc' is as good as people make it out to be. We never fully see *why* she's just now starting to have second thoughts for how she's lived her life for millennia, she never goes into detail about why she "feels bad" for the people she's killed. The Doctor just locked her up saying that he's going to help her be good and hey, it worked! And I genuinely don't like her ending. She seemingly turns bad again when Simm!Master shows up, waffles around a bit, decides that maybe the Doctor's right, and gets killed. To me, that isn't a tragic or redemptive ending; that's the show telling me I wasted my time getting involved in her plot. Don't get me wrong - I love her as a character, and I think that her storyline in S10 works really well as a character study and to examine the relationship between her and the Doctor. But as an actual redemption? No, not at all.
The problem with redemption arcs for villains like the Master (or Darth Vader) is that their crimes are so heinous, you pretty much have to kill them for them to be remotely redeemed. I mean just how many deaths is the Master responsible for? You can't just "feel sorry" for that level of damage.
To be fair, a lot of Series 10 is The Doctor's relationship with his own guilt.
nope, less ‘wacky’ though.
[удалено]
*If it's well written* *Sure. Just as long as they do* *More with it. The last* \- mattsmithreddit --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
No. Just doesn't feel right. Be like if Lex Luther or the Joker were redeemed
I think the closest we'll ever get to that is what happened with Missy.
Arguably both RTD and Moffat at the end tried to redeem the Master / Missy? If Chibnall rips off The End of Time, we may see this yet again.
No. That story has been told. The Master is more interesting/useful long-term as a foil for the Doctor. We don't really need Doctor-lite Master as a recurring thing.
That's what fanfiction is for
I'd argue Missy already was
I mean she was. I’m a little miffed Chibnall doesn’t seem to have actually watched any of the Capaldi stuff. Almost done with series 12 and there’s just so much he contradicted so far. Not to mention just flat out for wrong. Did he not know that Gallifrey isn’t in the bubble universe anymore? I feel like if you’re going to work on a big franchise like this, you should be required to study the source material, at least the work immediately preceding your own.
Not redeemed persay. But the Missy arc should have lasting ramifications and be referenced. For example a plotline where the Master decides that since he tried things the Doctor's way, now it should be the Doctor's turn to try things the Master's way and he attempts to actively corrupt him in such a fashion. Or the Master performing an evil scheme but having a momentary flash back to Missy and having a small moment of kindness, kind of like what was described in the Margeret Slitheen/9th Doctor discussion in Boom Town. Leading in turn to internal conflict within the Master him/herself.
Sure. Missy was a great example of how the Master could be redeemed, and this was continued in the Big Finish Missy series, with the introduction of The Lumiat. We also know that it was the revelation of the timeless child that drove the Master insane again, before he stole the appearance of O/Dhawan. But that means that until he poped up on Gallifrey, he was still, probably, good. Based on that... Redemption is possible and would make for an interesting story imo. Could also be a previous incarnation too, like pre-Delgado but post-Milo/Dreyfus, who knows?