I'm going to dispense with the spoiler thing because we're not just talking about unsubstantiated rumors, but connecting various rumors together and then adding made up stuff! There's no evidence that Lanzarote will be Sarn. There's no evidence that the Master's survival after PoF will be addressed. I don't think PoF warrants a followup to be honest. For better or worse, the Master's fate was "explained" in Survival. While not really explained, it's not a burning question (pardon the pun) that the general public wants to revisit after 30 years! A new actor won't bring back the Ainley Master anyway. That doesn't make sense. A regenerated Master can, however, change the character to be more like the Classic Master, but that doesn't need to involve a convoluted return to a very old story. Personally, I wouldn't mind if any of these rumors occur: The Master returns The Master is played by an American Tegan returns There is a followup to Planet of Fire The Master's survival is explained They all sound fun to me, but I'm a Classic Who fan. But, I think the Planet of Fire angle is very low probability, and an effort to explain the Master's survival after that story is an even lower probability. Mr Awe
Yeah, to me the idea of bringing in a new actor to play the Ainsley version of the Master, who can regenerate and has since regenerated, sounds unlikely the extreme. What would the point be? Just bring in Simm, or more likely, a new actor to play a new incarnation. What possible reason would there be for revisiting a story from over 30 years ago?
Especially PoF. It's not like it's really high up on the list of classic Doctor Who stories. Save for Peri's bikini....
No Master for me. Although if he's brought back, I'll be very happy to be proven wrong, I'd rather the Master just stayed out of Who for a couple of incarnations more. It didn't hurt Smith's run that it had no Master, did it?
^Didn't hurt it but it would've been interesting to see Smith play off someone like Benedict Cumberbatch in the role.
Cumberbatch as the Master would've been indeed awesome. But unlikely, since he would likely be told not to play it in the Sherlock manner, which is what fans would REALLY want to see - his Sherlock squaring off against the Doctor.
The Master's been resurrected from incineration a number of times, or escaped near death due to body posessions/regeneration etc. Heck in the TV movie he dies twice!
Cumberbatch, as much as I love him as Sherlock, is an easy choice. I can easily imagine how he would do it. I'd like to be surprised.
Yes, it did, it really did. Smith's era is one of the worst out of the entire history of the show, I feel an appearance from the Master could have salvaged some more good episodes from the era in turn making his era better.
Smith's time is HARDLY one of the worst. Almost the entire 80's were immensly bad, and Smith's time, if anything, was inconsistent, but occassionally brilliant. His first season in particular is, for the most part, excellent. And regardless, I doubt the Master would've made a difference to you either way. The way I see it, the more times a villain re-appears the more boring it becomes. Which is why the Daleks' returns in Smith's time were largely pointless and unwarranted for most of the time. Since the Stolen Earth storyline, I don't think they've been as effective at all.
Surely it's pretty obvious? In End of Time, the Master vanished with Gallifrey. So when the Doctor finds Gallifrey, the Master is there. And has maybe taken over.
The Stolen Earth is the most over rate POS. So, no I wouldn't even say that one was effective. I like this! It makes complete sense too! Mr Awe
Since Day of the Doctor, I thought it cool that when the Doctor returns to Gallifrey, he goes to the Lord President's chamber where he meets the Master. I've always imagined John Simm in Rassilon's robe from TEoT.
So, an appearance from the Master would suddenly turn around "one of the worst out of the entire history of the show"? If you believe it is the worst, wouldn't that be because of the producers, because of the writing? Then, wouldn't it follow that, for you, the Master would be poorly written? What if the story the Master came back in was a piece of shit?
Well I have to disagree. If I had to sum up Smith's entire era in one word, it would be disappointment. The 80s is also highly underrated, there are some good times. Earthshock for example is one of the best stories ever. Granted the Daleks have disappointing since Stolen Earth, but it's all to do with producers, not how often they have appeared. Moffat doesn't like Daleks much, I think he may have admitted that before and his awful vision for them in "Victory of the Daleks" really shows that. Asylum of the Daleks is also bad, but I blame that on how short it was. I think there Moffat was trying to turn things around but if he didn't have this stupid idea of "blockbuster" episodes and shorten them then it would have been a good episode. The concept of the asylum for daleks (granted the lack of explanation of its existence) is brilliant, it really could have been a game changer and I think it should have been used as a series finale with two or even three episodes, it would have been a classic. But 45 minutes really didn't do it justice thus the reason it was a disappointment. Another example of a classic villain with a disappointing time in the Smith era is the Cybermen, in their series 6 episode (Closing Time I think) they were just used because the writers felt a classic villain was needed for the series (which they were right) and the episode actually wasn't that bad, one of the best of the series (although that doesn't mean much). The Nightmare in Silver was there first main episode which tried to make them big and oh boy did that fail, yet again because of the short episode. So in conclusion, it is not because of their frequent usage on the show that their recent stuff has been a disappointment, it is because of Moffat and some of the other producers delusions that their recent appearances ended in failure. So if done properly, the Master could have made the era more bearable. The Master usually turns out good, and he is a popular villain. I'm not (trying) to say that he would have completely saved the series, I'm saying it would be more likely that there would have been more good episodes in the run. Think about it, there's only a tiny selection of episodes that are that good in Smith's pathetic excuse for a run. Day of the Doctor for example is the only Smith episode that is anywhere near as good as some of the best Tennant or Eccleston episodes with The Angels Take Manhattan and The Impossible Astronaut/Day of the Moon being some of the few above average storylines. Some good Master shows would have meant more above average or even excellent storylines in the episode which would help redeem the era. The three stories I mentioned are the only reasons Smith is only my second least favourite Doctor. However it is possible that Moffat would have fucked up the Master too and in that event, it would have proven to more people Moffat should be fired ASAP.
You say it like it's a fact and not an opinion. I'm sorry, personally, Angels Take Manhattan is a piece of shit. Shouldn't it be "Some good shows would have meant more above average or even excellent story lines." You keep saying a good Master show... wouldn't a good SHOW... The Master appearing does not automatically mean quality. Moffat has over seen a huge international explosion of attention for Doctor Who. Regardless of your personal opinion, a lot MORE people have quite the opposite. He's not going anywhere until he decides to leave. He's the Producer, whether you like it or not.