I saw online

[burrunjor]

That Jinx Moonson's character is called Maestro. IF this is true, then it's pretty obvious who she is playing. I mean it could be a new villain with that name, but surely even RTD isn't that unoriginal. It's like having a Superman villain called Tex Ruther 

If Jinx is the Master, then I think that's another reason (as if you needed any more) never to let self loathing fanboys decide the fate of your franchise. 

The Master and the Joker, both amazing, iconic villains when I was a child in the late 20th century. I mean obviously the Joker was the better character and had more of an iconic history, but still the Master in his own way was just as frightening and had just as interesting relationship with the hero. 

Flash forward to the 21st century. Batman fans, again like Godzilla fans get a bad wrap as toxic, because they like the franchise they claim to be fans of and make it VERY clear they don't like people f*cking with it, which makes us nerds look unkeeeeewwwwwwlll and causes people to laugh at us as saddos on such stellar shows as The Big Bang Theory and panel shows.  DW fans meanwhile as we've explored thoroughly are desperate for everybody to love them and will happily whore the franchise out to any fa. Unfortunately as the fandom elites in charge are all painfully out of touch middle aged men, not surprisingly their chosen fads don't always reflect what is actually popular. 


Result?

Joker is getting his second movie, where he is played by an Oscar winning actor, and is shagging Lady Gaga LOL, with the movie centering around a character who was introduced as his sidekick in a children's tv show, that's how much interest and respect there is for his history. 




The Master is now a LITERAL panto dame. I mean it. Not an exaggeration. 




DON'T LET SELF LOATHING FANBOYS NEAR YOUR FRANCHISE! 

I will say though even I couldn't have predicted this is how the Master and the Doctor would be portrayed in the 21st century. LMFAO. 
 

[Deleted]

Well shit, I mean it could be a coincidence since Maestro is a musical term, but I somehow doubt it. I can't believe I'm saying this, but Chibnall, please come back.

[rushy]

Not to sound like a miserable sod, but I've never really understood the adoration that goes towards either villain. Neither of them comes off as being particularly complex.

The Master is insecure and envious of the Doctor, and somewhat miserable about their lost friendship. Other than that, he is motivated purely by power. There's many other villains like that, but with more complex motivations on top. With the exception of Geoffrey Beevers, I genuinely don't know what's supposed to be creepy about him. Beevers gave him a kind of monstrous quality (with that inhuman scream and the tempting devil-on-the-shoulder voice). That's why Beevers is my favourite. But deep? I don't know.

Meanwhile, the Joker has his obsession with chaos. I suppose he is the perfect embodiment of that, but how long can chaos sustain a story? Joker's whole multiple backgrounds shtick is not unlike Doctor Who's nowadays lol. I just get bored with the idea of "anything goes".

Both of them are a lot of fun for their camp value, which I do appreciate. And I always enjoy seeing them. But I could never hold them up against the likes of Ben Linus, Tywin Lannister, Scorpius or Darth Vader. Villains where you can genuinely see where they're coming from even as you detest them.

[burrunjor]

Apr 10, 2024 21:14:33 GMT @theyakemperor said:

Well shit, I mean it could be a coincidence since Maestro is a musical term, but I somehow doubt it. I can't believe I'm saying this, but Chibnall, please come back.

My thought, but yeah you wouldn't choose that name in DW of all things unless there was a meaning.

Pretty sure the Master has even used that as an alias before? 

Meanwhile the fact that you want Chibnall back demonstrates perfectly why the Fitzroy Crowd will NEVER relinquish control of the franchise and just keep passing it back around each other. Imagine if Peter Jackson or even Adrian Hodges or JMS took it over and did a semi competent job?? It would show them up for the amateurs they were and make even the self loathing who fandom, realise the mediocrity they had settled for for so long. Their only hope is to make you temporarily wish for one of the old Fitzroy pricks after a few years of their own crap, so that when one of them gets it back you'll be relieved, only to then think "oh god the previous guy wasn't as bad as this." And on and on it goes. 

[Deleted]

Apr 10, 2024 21:16:45 GMT rushy said:

Not to sound like a miserable sod, but I've never really understood the adoration that goes towards either villain. Neither of them comes off as being particularly complex.

The Master is insecure and envious of the Doctor, and somewhat miserable about their lost friendship. Other than that, he is motivated purely by power. There's many other villains like that, but with more complex motivations on top. With the exception of Geoffrey Beevers, I genuinely don't know what's supposed to be creepy about him. Beevers gave him a kind of monstrous quality (with that inhuman scream and the tempting devil-on-the-shoulder voice). That's why Beevers is my favourite. But deep? I don't know.

Meanwhile, the Joker has his obsession with chaos. I suppose he is the perfect embodiment of that, but how long can chaos sustain a story? Joker's whole multiple backgrounds shtick is not unlike Doctor Who's nowadays lol. I just get bored with the idea of "anything goes".

Both of them are a lot of fun for their camp value, which I do appreciate. And I always enjoy seeing them. But I could never hold them up against the likes of Ben Linus, Tywin Lannister, Scorpius or Darth Vader. Villains where you can genuinely see where they're coming from even as you detest them.

I'm not crazy about the whole "understandable viewpoint" aspect, or excessive explanation of a villain's background, which is part of what I disliked about the new Joker movie actually. I don't think someone like the Master has to be anything deeper than a devious jackanapes who acts as a foil for our intrepid hero. I like how their early dynamic plays out as it would in a modern-day morality play; pure goodheartedness versus pure evil. From this relationship one can extrapolate an endless number of interpretations as to the characters' past exploits; meanwhile, the heavy-handed writers filling in the blanks with their twobit crap just makes for a less imaginative experience. It's why I absolutely adore that the cause of Darth Vader's disfigurement was never even alluded to in the original movies. It really worked so well because of what they didn't show; heck, they didn't even really show us the Empire, all we saw were space stations and ordnance outposts on these boondocks planets. The reason Vader and the Emperor were who they were didn't matter at all really, plus it was drenched in this quiet mystique which you just don't get in movies anymore; nowadays we'd get a flashback to the fight on Mustafar and all sorts of nonsense scenes on Coruscant and whatnot. 

[burrunjor]

Honestly hasn't the Master suffered enough? I know he destroyed a quarter of the universe and he should have been made to pay for that, but come on. Enough is enough already. 









From this!



I mean what can I say but?



Sorry I know live and let live, but I don't believe ANY fan of the classic era who says that Missy is anything other than shit, nor any fan who says Moonson's panto dame is anything other than shit too. They both are not just to the Master, but to adapting characters what modern art is to art.

[iank]

Apr 10, 2024 21:21:11 GMT burrunjor said:

Apr 10, 2024 21:14:33 GMT @theyakemperor said:

Well shit, I mean it could be a coincidence since Maestro is a musical term, but I somehow doubt it. I can't believe I'm saying this, but Chibnall, please come back.

My thought, but yeah you wouldn't choose that name in DW of all things unless there was a meaning.

Pretty sure the Master has even used that as an alias before? 

Meanwhile the fact that you want Chibnall back demonstrates perfectly why the Fitzroy Crowd will NEVER relinquish control of the franchise and just keep passing it back around each other. Imagine if Peter Jackson or even Adrian Hodges or JMS took it over and did a semi competent job?? It would show them up for the amateurs they were and make even the self loathing who fandom, realise the mediocrity they had settled for for so long. Their only hope is to make you temporarily wish for one of the old Fitzroy pricks after a few years of their own crap, so that when one of them gets it back you'll be relieved, only to then think "oh god the previous guy wasn't as bad as this." And on and on it goes. 

Bingo. I think they are TERRIFIED of that happening. A large portion of fandom has already turned on them but imagine if some new guy came along and actually made real Doctor Who properly, and showed up all their garbage changes from 2005 on to have been pointless and unnecessary all along. 
They'll never let it happen. 

[burrunjor]

Apr 10, 2024 21:16:45 GMT rushy said:

Not to sound like a miserable sod, but I've never really understood the adoration that goes towards either villain. Neither of them comes off as being particularly complex.

The Master is insecure and envious of the Doctor, and somewhat miserable about their lost friendship. Other than that, he is motivated purely by power. There's many other villains like that, but with more complex motivations on top. With the exception of Geoffrey Beevers, I genuinely don't know what's supposed to be creepy about him. Beevers gave him a kind of monstrous quality (with that inhuman scream and the tempting devil-on-the-shoulder voice). That's why Beevers is my favourite. But deep? I don't know.

Meanwhile, the Joker has his obsession with chaos. I suppose he is the perfect embodiment of that, but how long can chaos sustain a story? Joker's whole multiple backgrounds shtick is not unlike Doctor Who's nowadays lol. I just get bored with the idea of "anything goes".

Both of them are a lot of fun for their camp value, which I do appreciate. And I always enjoy seeing them. But I could never hold them up against the likes of Ben Linus, Tywin Lannister, Scorpius or Darth Vader. Villains where you can genuinely see where they're coming from even as you detest them.

To start with complex does not = good villain all the time. Some villains can work despite not having the most complex motivation, for other reasons like charisma, powers, dynamic with the hero etc. 

The Master and the Joker are fascinating characters in many ways, which I don't have time to go into now and no offense but those are very shallow readings of their characters, and completely wrong too. The Jokers multiple choice past is NOTHING like DW. Yeah, remember what I said about a multiverse and different versions being their own continuity? That's what allows the different versions of the Joker to co-exist and it not be a jumbled mess. Thankfully Batman fans didn't adopt one canon as a religion and let the character breath in different adaptations. 

Meanwhile it's true that he uses the multiple past in one continuity (New Earth from 1985-2011) but even then that is not the same. The whole point is we don't know his past, other than that he fell into the vat of chemicals. Unlike New Who they actually did leave it open ended, with the only hints of his past being in the Jokers fragmented memories. 

Here look at Alan Moore's attitude to writing the Killing Joke. THIS is how you do a retcon. Okay Alan Moore is not perfect (and I actually find his worst work to be even more offensive bastardisations of the classic work like turning Peter Pan into a rent boy for pedos.) Still in this case he was right. 

They’d said that he’d been the leader of a criminal gang called the Red Hood Mob and that while trying to escape from Batman he’d swum across this river of chemicals...That was about it and this was from a story from, like, the late ’50s or something and so I thought “Okay, I won’t contradict that,” because I kind of believe in working by the rules of the material as it already exists but I can put a lot of spin on that."

Meanwhile the Master was NEVER upset about his lost friendship with the Doctor. Their former friendship is mentioned once in The Sea Devils and it is the Doctor who simply says he is sad the Master ended up that way. It's only mentioned in ONE more story that he knew the Doctor prior to their feud, the Five Doctors and that story makes out that they only knew each other fleetingly! 

To be honest though this is irrelevant. Whether the Master is better than some overrated Game of Thrones baddie LOL, doesn't matter as fact is lots of people liked him and everything about him has been destroyed and replaced to the point where he is now a f*cking panto dame. Meanwhile the Joker whose fans were protective of the character and didn't just accept any old bollocks and had genuine fans like Paul Dini writing for him, than poseur faux fanboys has been updated in proper ways. 

[Ludders II]

I wouldn’t be the slightest bit surprised. It would fit perfectly with RTD2, and would doubtless be an excuse for a full musical episode.
Meanwhile, Russel is probably biding his time to recast and bring back Captain Jack as well. 😛

[Cherry Pepsi Maxil]

And yet fans still consider Ainley's performance unacceptable.  It ain't fair 


I like The Master the most in The Deadly Assassin and Survival. Ainley knocked it out of the park with his possessed performance. That scene where he's talking to the Doctor at the shrine is still my favourite moment of his. 

[Ludders II]

Whatever I think of Ainley’s Master, at least he was the real thing. NuWho is not the real thing. Never has been, never will be.

[burrunjor]

Apr 10, 2024 22:16:44 GMT Ludders II said:

Whatever I think of Ainley’s Master, at least he was the real thing. NuWho is not the real thing. Never has been, never will be.

I liked his Master for the most part, but I know what you mean. At this stage I'd honestly settle for a Master on the level of Jared Leto's Joker. His Joker was fairly bland, didn't have much screentime, was a fairly nondescript performance and he didn't leave much impact. 

Still at least he was the f*cking Joker! At least he fulfilled the basics, and followed some of the Jokers classic defining traits. Green hair, white skin, origin in an acid bath, evil clown, crazy, Batman's archenemy etc. 

Literally NONE of those things are present in New Who. 

Again though Batman fans came down hard on Leto's performance simply for being fairly nondescript. That to them was a considerable step down from Nicholson, Ledger, Romero, Monaghan and Hamill. DW fans praised the ultimate, most offensive bastardisation of the Master with Missy, is it any wonder the two villains are where they are now?

PS Maxil I bet you anything after Moonson's Master airs you'll STILL get people like Neil Perryman and official reviews and biographies saying that Ainley made it too panto, whilst praising Moonson an actual panto dame as channelling Delgado. 

[rushy]

Ainley only gets trashed because they tried to make him a second Delgado. People just automatically see him as "we have Delgado at home" and don't think twice about it.

I am absolutely convinced that if he didn't have the goatee and the wizard costume, he'd be extremely popular.

[rushy]

Apr 10, 2024 21:51:25 GMT burrunjor said:

To start with complex does not = good villain all the time. Some villains can work despite not having the most complex motivation, for other reasons like charisma, powers, dynamic with the hero etc.

That is true. I do adore Palpatine even though he's literally just an incarnation of pure evil. I suppose it's a matter of preference. I just like villains where there's more to chew on, and I don't really get that with the Master or the Joker. They're Old Reliable. You know what you get with them and it's always decent (when they're done right), but I'm hardly ever going to get goosebumps from them.

Tywin Lannister is not overrated. Charles Dance put in a magnificent performance. He's one of the best TV baddies the world has ever seen. Electrifying in every single scene.

[Deleted]

Apr 10, 2024 22:34:44 GMT rushy said:

Ainley only gets trashed because they tried to make him a second Delgado. People just automatically see him as "we have Delgado at home" and don't think twice about it.

I am absolutely convinced that if he didn't have the goatee and the wizard costume, he'd be extremely popular.

I have thought more than twice about it, and that is still how I see him.