"I can't decide": The Doctor and the Master

[Whofan]

I've been curious about the Doctor's changing attitude towards the Master. The Third Doctor seemed to be close friends with him at times it seemed, but pretty much all everybody from Tom Baker on in the TOS was glad to see him "gone"-Davison in particular let him 'die' in those flames in "Planet of fire", and the Seventh Doctor (In Survival) admitted that one day he or the Master would wipe the other out, and seems ambivalent about the Master's fate.

However starting with the TV movie-where the Doctor offers to save the Master from the Eye of Harmony, and extending into the 2005-on series (Well, at least with Tennant, as the Master didn't appear in Eccleston's era and has yet to show up in Smiths), it seems that the former friendship between the two is hinted at once again, and the Master is less of a villain the Doctor would rather be gone permenantly. He cries when he 'dies' in Last of the Time Lords, He even offers him a sort of limited companionship-twice!

I got the feeling that RTD always liked the original Delgado version of the Master, and might have felt that the 70s-80s version sort of turned him into a cardboard villain. It's worth noting the villains the Master and the Doctor bring up when reminiscing about the past are those both encountered during the Pertwee era-Axons, Sea Devils, Daleks etc.

Or it could be just something to do with the Time War, the Doctor misses the Time Lords so much, that there's only the two of them, with the rest destroyed/in a time lock/used as spare parts for House's servants or whatever.


Makes that Scissor sisters song the Master dances to kind of apt since it really kind of sums up their relationship.

 

[Ninjacore]

I've been curious about the Doctor's changing attitude towards the Master. The Third Doctor seemed to be close friends with him at times it seemed, but pretty much all everybody from Tom Baker on in the TOS was glad to see him "gone"-Davison in particular let him 'die' in those flames in "Planet of fire", and the Seventh Doctor (In Survival) admitted that one day he or the Master would wipe the other out, and seems ambivalent about the Master's fate.

However starting with the TV movie-where the Doctor offers to save the Master from the Eye of Harmony, and extending into the 2005-on series (Well, at least with Tennant, as the Master didn't appear in Eccleston's era and has yet to show up in Smiths), it seems that the former friendship between the two is hinted at once again, and the Master is less of a villain the Doctor would rather be gone permenantly. He cries when he 'dies' in Last of the Time Lords, He even offers him a sort of limited companionship-twice!

I got the feeling that RTD always liked the original Delgado version of the Master, and might have felt that the 70s-80s version sort of turned him into a cardboard villain. It's worth noting the villains the Master and the Doctor bring up when reminiscing about the past are those both encountered during the Pertwee era-Axons, Sea Devils, Daleks etc.

Or it could be just something to do with the Time War, the Doctor misses the Time Lords so much, that there's only the two of them, with the rest destroyed/in a time lock/used as spare parts for House's servants or whatever.


Makes that Scissor sisters song the Master dances to kind of apt since it really kind of sums up their relationship.

I always felt it was bc of the way british people pussyfoot over violence and death, due to their overly pc culture, killing or letting someone die is simply to much for many britains and other euros to mentally handle.

 

[C.E. Evans]

The Doctor and the Master have always had a love-hate relationship. Some stories have hinted that were childhood friends and were once as close as brothers back on Gallifrey.

I liked Anthony Ainley's Master--he was totally ruthless, merciless, and self-serving, with no redeeming values. He was perfect for the '80s.

John Simm's Master was something of a merger between Delgado's and Ainley's, IMO--but he also had a new hyperactive quirkiness at times that matched the Tennant's Doctor.

 

[Anachronus]

I vastly prefer Delgado over all his successors. Derek Jacobi's version I would have loved to see for more than 10 minutes.

 

[captcalhoun]

I always felt it was bc of the way british people pussyfoot over violence and death, due to their overly pc culture, killing or letting someone die is simply to much for many britains and other euros to mentally handle.

 

[Butters]

I always felt it was bc of the way british people pussyfoot over violence and death, due to their overly pc culture, killing or letting someone die is simply to much for many britains and other euros to mentally handle.

This massive misconception is new to me. Where did you get it?

 

[Ninjacore]

I always felt it was bc of the way british people pussyfoot over violence and death, due to their overly pc culture, killing or letting someone die is simply to much for many britains and other euros to mentally handle.

This massive misconception is new to me. Where did you get it?

To many news articles over the years for me to even try to reference, the British bend over backwards for any and every angry minority, either religious or ethnic, they even have shariah law courts operating in ENGLAND, I personally feel Britain has no backbone at all, can you really expect people like that to be willing to actually kill someone...

 

[iguana_tonante]

Lulz.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

I always felt it was bc of the way british people pussyfoot over violence and death, due to their overly pc culture, killing or letting someone die is simply to much for many britains and other euros to mentally handle.

This massive misconception is new to me. Where did you get it?

To many news articles over the years for me to even try to reference, the British bend over backwards for any and every angry minority, either religious or ethnic, they even have shariah law courts operating in ENGLAND, I personally feel Britain has no backbone at all, can you really expect people like that to be willing to actually kill someone...

Your concept is more U.S. than U.K. I mean, look at all the swearing British programmes leave in.

I heard the word "shit" 20 times in an episode of Kitchen Nightmares on BBC America.

But then, at the same time, they bleep out "cocked up" on Top Gear (also BBCA), so it's a little confusing.

 

[Ninjacore]

This massive misconception is new to me. Where did you get it?

To many news articles over the years for me to even try to reference, the British bend over backwards for any and every angry minority, either religious or ethnic, they even have shariah law courts operating in ENGLAND, I personally feel Britain has no backbone at all, can you really expect people like that to be willing to actually kill someone...

Your concept is more U.S. than U.K. I mean, look at all the swearing British programmes leave in.

I heard the word "shit" 20 times in an episode of Kitchen Nightmares on BBC America.

But then, at the same time, they bleep out "cocked up" on Top Gear (also BBCA), so it's a little confusing.

Swearing isn't a precursor for violence...

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

^ But it does often precede it.

And think of American soaps for people not staying dead, in some cases multiple times.

 

[RoJoHen]

^ But it does often precede it.

And think of American soaps for people not staying dead, in some cases multiple times.

That's just because soap opera writers are incredibly lazy.

 

[danellis]

This massive misconception is new to me. Where did you get it?

To many news articles over the years for me to even try to reference, the British bend over backwards for any and every angry minority, either religious or ethnic, they even have shariah law courts operating in ENGLAND, I personally feel Britain has no backbone at all, can you really expect people like that to be willing to actually kill someone...

Your concept is more U.S. than U.K. I mean, look at all the swearing British programmes leave in.

I heard the word "shit" 20 times in an episode of Kitchen Nightmares on BBC America.

But then, at the same time, they bleep out "cocked up" on Top Gear (also BBCA), so it's a little confusing.

Not entirely sure how that logic works, TBH. I don't see a correlation between swearing and either violence or a "lack of backbone."

These days they wouldn't bleep out either "shit" or "cocked up" for a post-watershed show (I don't know how it works stateside, or elsewhere, but in the UK shows on before 9pm are supposed to be suitable to be watched my minor, after this time such limitations aren't in palce).

As for "lack of backbone," that is something often suggested, especially in right-of-centre media-outlets. Now I'm sure there is some truth to it, but the workings of any press mean that it's the extreme cases which get attention (similarly with stories of "health and safety gone mad") and I don't think the true situation is as bad as is often suggested.

The traditional British self-image is to prize fairness and belief in the law. I would suggest (perhaps hopefully lol) that it's this which does largely lead to our treatment of minorities.

As for Sharia law and Sharia courts in particular some brief research confirms my hazy instinct that these come down in the Arbitrations Act which allows individuals in a dispute to select a body to arbitrate that dispute and for the findings of that arbitration body to be binding in law: Both parties must agree to the authority of the Sharia Court for it to hold any. My brief understanding of the act is that any arbitration body and method may be agreed upon "subject only to such safeguards as are necessary in the pubic interest:" If two members of this forum so chose they could convene a Klingon Court to settle a dispute and have that be legally binding (subject of course to noe of the actions of the court contravening English Law).

dJE

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

^ But it does often precede it.

And think of American soaps for people not staying dead, in some cases multiple times.

That's just because soap opera writers are incredibly lazy.

That, plus they kill so many people off, they'd run out of characters if they didn't bring them back from the dead.

Or have such a massive cast turnover that nobody would ever watch.

 

[Ninjacore]

To many news articles over the years for me to even try to reference, the British bend over backwards for any and every angry minority, either religious or ethnic, they even have shariah law courts operating in ENGLAND, I personally feel Britain has no backbone at all, can you really expect people like that to be willing to actually kill someone...

Your concept is more U.S. than U.K. I mean, look at all the swearing British programmes leave in.

I heard the word "shit" 20 times in an episode of Kitchen Nightmares on BBC America.

But then, at the same time, they bleep out "cocked up" on Top Gear (also BBCA), so it's a little confusing.

Not entirely sure how that logic works, TBH. I don't see a correlation between swearing and either violence or a "lack of backbone."

These days they wouldn't bleep out either "shit" or "cocked up" for a post-watershed show (I don't know how it works stateside, or elsewhere, but in the UK shows on before 9pm are supposed to be suitable to be watched my minor, after this time such limitations aren't in palce).

As for "lack of backbone," that is something often suggested, especially in right-of-centre media-outlets. Now I'm sure there is some truth to it, but the workings of any press mean that it's the extreme cases which get attention (similarly with stories of "health and safety gone mad") and I don't think the true situation is as bad as is often suggested.

The traditional British self-image is to prize fairness and belief in the law. I would suggest (perhaps hopefully lol) that it's this which does largely lead to our treatment of minorities.

As for Sharia law and Sharia courts in particular some brief research confirms my hazy instinct that these come down in the Arbitrations Act which allows individuals in a dispute to select a body to arbitrate that dispute and for the findings of that arbitration body to be binding in law: Both parties must agree to the authority of the Sharia Court for it to hold any. My brief understanding of the act is that any arbitration body and method may be agreed upon "subject only to such safeguards as are necessary in the pubic interest:" If two members of this forum so chose they could convene a Klingon Court to settle a dispute and have that be legally binding (subject of course to noe of the actions of the court contravening English Law).

dJE

The problem with the sharia court is that extremely religious muslim parents/family can socially force the woman to agree, even if she does not want to, thereby giving the men a unfair advantage in the proceedings...

 

[Nerys Myk]

Your concept is more U.S. than U.K. I mean, look at all the swearing British programmes leave in.

I heard the word "shit" 20 times in an episode of Kitchen Nightmares on BBC America.

But then, at the same time, they bleep out "cocked up" on Top Gear (also BBCA), so it's a little confusing.

Not entirely sure how that logic works, TBH. I don't see a correlation between swearing and either violence or a "lack of backbone."

These days they wouldn't bleep out either "shit" or "cocked up" for a post-watershed show (I don't know how it works stateside, or elsewhere, but in the UK shows on before 9pm are supposed to be suitable to be watched my minor, after this time such limitations aren't in palce).

As for "lack of backbone," that is something often suggested, especially in right-of-centre media-outlets. Now I'm sure there is some truth to it, but the workings of any press mean that it's the extreme cases which get attention (similarly with stories of "health and safety gone mad") and I don't think the true situation is as bad as is often suggested.

The traditional British self-image is to prize fairness and belief in the law. I would suggest (perhaps hopefully lol) that it's this which does largely lead to our treatment of minorities.

As for Sharia law and Sharia courts in particular some brief research confirms my hazy instinct that these come down in the Arbitrations Act which allows individuals in a dispute to select a body to arbitrate that dispute and for the findings of that arbitration body to be binding in law: Both parties must agree to the authority of the Sharia Court for it to hold any. My brief understanding of the act is that any arbitration body and method may be agreed upon "subject only to such safeguards as are necessary in the pubic interest:" If two members of this forum so chose they could convene a Klingon Court to settle a dispute and have that be legally binding (subject of course to noe of the actions of the court contravening English Law).

dJE

The problem with the sharia court is that extremely religious muslim parents/family can socially force the woman to agree, even if she does not want to, thereby giving the men a unfair advantage in the proceedings...

So can the orthodox jewish families who use the Beth Din to resolve disputes

 

[The Other]

I love how people throw generalisations so easily about one anothers' countries based on so very little fact and more pop culture. The truth of the matter is if you wanted a real basis try history...

Now let's see the brits have a long history of colonizations, infighting between royalties, marches to war in countries faroff, and fending off evil enemies who have tried to conquer them. The americans have....err...well for half a century of actually having foreigners occupying the land...well it seems there is some conflict almost every 10 years or so whether it had been amongst one another or to our south or across the ocean a million times over....

What does any of this have to do with who is the more violent country? Nothing...each country has it's own instances of violence and though the brits have a longer history which may encapsulate more violence, I am sure if the US had the same length of history theirs would be equally as filled with the same color...red. For the record...basing the more violent/spineless country on a few arbitrary facts proves very little if anything at all except that the topic has not been researched whatsoever.

 

[Ninjacore]

Not entirely sure how that logic works, TBH. I don't see a correlation between swearing and either violence or a "lack of backbone."

These days they wouldn't bleep out either "shit" or "cocked up" for a post-watershed show (I don't know how it works stateside, or elsewhere, but in the UK shows on before 9pm are supposed to be suitable to be watched my minor, after this time such limitations aren't in palce).

As for "lack of backbone," that is something often suggested, especially in right-of-centre media-outlets. Now I'm sure there is some truth to it, but the workings of any press mean that it's the extreme cases which get attention (similarly with stories of "health and safety gone mad") and I don't think the true situation is as bad as is often suggested.

The traditional British self-image is to prize fairness and belief in the law. I would suggest (perhaps hopefully lol) that it's this which does largely lead to our treatment of minorities.

As for Sharia law and Sharia courts in particular some brief research confirms my hazy instinct that these come down in the Arbitrations Act which allows individuals in a dispute to select a body to arbitrate that dispute and for the findings of that arbitration body to be binding in law: Both parties must agree to the authority of the Sharia Court for it to hold any. My brief understanding of the act is that any arbitration body and method may be agreed upon "subject only to such safeguards as are necessary in the pubic interest:" If two members of this forum so chose they could convene a Klingon Court to settle a dispute and have that be legally binding (subject of course to noe of the actions of the court contravening English Law).

dJE

The problem with the sharia court is that extremely religious muslim parents/family can socially force the woman to agree, even if she does not want to, thereby giving the men a unfair advantage in the proceedings...

So can the orthodox jewish families who use the Beth Din to resolve disputes

Their more obscure so forgive my lack of knowledge, but it just further enforces my opinion of England...

 

[Ninjacore]

I love how people throw generalisations so easily about one anothers' countries based on so very little fact and more pop culture. The truth of the matter is if you wanted a real basis try history...

Now let's see the brits have a long history of colonizations, infighting between royalties, marches to war in countries faroff, and fending off evil enemies who have tried to conquer them. The americans have....err...well for half a century of actually having foreigners occupying the land...well it seems there is some conflict almost every 10 years or so whether it had been amongst one another or to our south or across the ocean a million times over....

What does any of this have to do with who is the more violent country? Nothing...each country has it's own instances of violence and though the brits have a longer history which may encapsulate more violence, I am sure if the US had the same length of history theirs would be equally as filled with the same color...red. For the record...basing the more violent/spineless country on a few arbitrary facts proves very little if anything at all except that the topic has not been researched whatsoever.

Killjoy...

 

[The Other]

I love how people throw generalisations so easily about one anothers' countries based on so very little fact and more pop culture. The truth of the matter is if you wanted a real basis try history...

Now let's see the brits have a long history of colonizations, infighting between royalties, marches to war in countries faroff, and fending off evil enemies who have tried to conquer them. The americans have....err...well for half a century of actually having foreigners occupying the land...well it seems there is some conflict almost every 10 years or so whether it had been amongst one another or to our south or across the ocean a million times over....

What does any of this have to do with who is the more violent country? Nothing...each country has it's own instances of violence and though the brits have a longer history which may encapsulate more violence, I am sure if the US had the same length of history theirs would be equally as filled with the same color...red. For the record...basing the more violent/spineless country on a few arbitrary facts proves very little if anything at all except that the topic has not been researched whatsoever.

Killjoy...

first time i have ever actually used logic to say something.

"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men"
~Wonka