Slightly geeky this, I know, but I was a-pondering because I was just marvelling to myself at how much I liked the last three episodes of the last series of Doctor Who.
As we all know, Time Lords can regenerate. The Doctor, who is a Time Lord, has regenerated many times. Each time he regenerates, his personality changes, yet there is some intrinsic “Doctor-ness” that remains the same from incarnation to incarnation. And as viewers, we accept each different incarnation, even if we prefer some (David Tennant) to others (Sylvester McCoy).
The Master is/was a Time Lord, too. He, too, regenerates and has changed personality with each regeneration.
But, he recently regenerated into John Simm, as you all know. But many people thought he did not have enough “Master-ness”. Problems ranged from the trivial (he didn't have a beard) to the not so trivial (he lip-synced to Scissor Sisters).
So, the question is either (depending on your point of view):
- Why is it that viewers are more able to accept the changing character of the Doctor with each regeneration than they are with the Master? Is it because we have more time to get to know him?
- Or, how much does a Time Lord have to have in common with his previous incarnations for us to recognise him as being the same person? Why do some regard Simm's Master as being sufficiently different from Delgado, Ainley, Roberts and co that they can't accept him as the Master?
Alternatively, what is “Doctor-ness” and what is “Master-ness” - that is, what characteristics does someone have to have to be recognisably the Doctor or The Master (assuming they have the same memories as well)?
And just for luck, I throw in the Valeyard to really complicate things. Answers on a postcard or below.
September 3, 2007 | Reply
It's likely a precedential matter. There have only been two regular Masters prior to Simm, the second of which was designed to superficially similar to the original. But people expect a radical shift in Doctors, even if they don't necessarily warm to the new chap. I mean, I was indoctrinated at a very young age to accept that regeneration was supposed to do that to the Doctor (due to starting with Pertwee's last season and, of course, being given a copy of Uncle Tel's DW Monster Book).
September 3, 2007 | Reply
"It depends". The Fourth Doctor (T Baker) and the Fifth (Davison) were very different, yet somehow I could accept that. On the other hand, the Sixth (C Baker) was just ... wrong. (We'll just have to agree to differ on McCoy.) Perhaps he lacked that essential Doctorness? I suppose I would define that as a fundamental goodness, a faith in and affection for humanity.
John Simm could have been great, but he was let down by the writing: too panto. A manic villain can be effective - cf. The Joker - but Saxon really isn't given enough to do in LOTT - spinning someone around in a wheelchair and having an impromptu karaoke is not my idea of evil. The essential Masterness of the character is that you have to believe he is capable of anything. I think the only convincing moment of evil he gets is in Sound of Drums when he kills off his Cabinet at their first meeting.
I can't help feeling that Sir Derek Jacobi was wasted. What we saw of his Master was jaw-dropping in Utopia and could have been fantastic over a full episode or two.
September 4, 2007 | Reply
I'd say killing off most of the world's population, putting them into slave pits, creating a war fleet, killing Jack and beating up his wife were all pretty evil!
I actually thought Jacobi was a bit pants as the Master, hamming it up something rotten. Plus he was wounded enough to need to regenerate but it didn't look like anything worse than indigestion, the way he played it.
How are we feeling about Eric Roberts as the Master then?
September 5, 2007 | Reply
I believe this is called 'Yartek of the Alien Voord' syndrome.
A certain section of the Doctor Who fanbase prefers all understanding of the series to be based around a number of undisputed 'facts'. For example, the Pertwee era is 'gritty and realistic', Hinchcliffe' stuff is 'dark and gothic' and so on.
It's like appreciation via rhetoric. These people risk coronory thrombosis if they encounter any opinion which contrasts with their view point. Remember Paul Cornell giving a negative review of 'Terror of the Autons' ohhhh years ago now and starting the 'Pertwee backlash'.It was as if you'd taken a flat earther into orbit and pointed at the earth saying 'round' over and over again. Some people had simply never considered that there could be an alternative opinion.
And this extends to the fiction of Doctor Who. Some, usually those who smell of cabbage and collect action figures, like everything in the Doctor Who universe to be unambiguous and clearly defined. Preferably by Terrance Dicks.
For these folks, the Master wears black, has a beard, and the most insane thing he does is seduce Ingrid Pitt. They simply cannot process the way John Simm portrayed him.
And much as I liked John Simm as the Master, he didn't top Eric Roberts.
September 5, 2007 | Reply
Roberts? He did what he could with a sparsely drawn character from a routine script, built around a thin plot. When it comes to the TVM, I prefer not to blame the cast for turning up to do what they were paid for (in this case, to be the token black hat).
The shades worked, mind; they should bring them back, with someone who can really work a pair.
(Yes, folks, the campaign for "David Caruso: Master 2010" starts here...)
September 11, 2007 | Reply
(Yes, folks, the campaign for "David Caruso: Master 2010" starts here...)
Oh god....