|
|
Post by theotherjosh on Apr 4, 2017 13:20:06 GMT
It's fairly well-known that the Talons of Weng-Chiang was originally supposed to feature the Master as the villain. I only recently learned that, but I feel foolish for not figuring it out on my own as it should have been obvious between the time cabinet, the hypnotism and the effort to rejuvenate his body. My understanding is that the production team didn't want to overuse the Master. If only they had shown that kind of restraint during the Davison era...
Do you think the story would have been improved if they had gone with the Master as the baddie, or is the story richer for having the need to work around that?
I think I prefer the latter. I like Magnus Greel and the larger world hinted at in the throwaway lines about the 51st Century, the Filipino Army and the Battle of Reykjavik. Also, it gave us the Butcher of Brisbane, which is a very enjoyable audio.
|
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Apr 4, 2017 13:38:23 GMT
As I understand it, Robert Holmes wrote 'Talons' very quickly indeed when 'The Foe From The Future' fell through, so such decisions must have been made equally quickly.
I agree, I think the story is stronger for having an original villain with his own mini-me in Mr. Sin, his (duped) Chinese henchmen and the background of his future world, where we don't know who he is, where he came from or what is going on until the very last episode.
If the Master had been involved, the mystery would have been over much more quickly; we knew him and his past and we'd have guessed he wanted to rebuild his body.
And he dominated stories to such an extent as the Star Baddie that he would have diminished the other excellent guest characters by his presence. As it is, Greel, Li H'sen Chang and the peerless Jago and Litefoot stayed long in the memory as very different characters but of equal status in this fabulous story - which I still think is the best 'Doctor Who' of all Time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2017 15:30:52 GMT
Hmmm..tough one - it would have given the batting average for Master stories post-Delgado a big boost but then I wonder, with quite an OTT, iconic and popular villain would there have been more lines, more focus on him than in the support cast? If so, perhaps Jago and Litefoot wouldn't have been as popular. I think the story is grand as is, honestly, really top drawer stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by jason on Apr 4, 2017 15:40:21 GMT
It's fairly well-known that the Talons of Weng-Chiang was originally supposed to feature the Master as the villain. I only recently learned that, but I feel foolish for not figuring it out on my own as it should have been obvious between the time cabinet, the hypnotism and the effort to rejuvenate his body. My understanding is that the production team didn't want to overuse the Master. If only they had shown that kind of restraint during the Davison era... Do you think the story would have been improved if they had gone with the Master as the baddie, or is the story richer for having the need to work around that? I think I prefer the latter. I like Magnus Greel and the larger world hinted at in the throwaway lines about the 51st Century, the Filipino Army and the Battle of Reykjavik. Also, it gave us the Butcher of Brisbane, which is a very enjoyable audio. Heh. Well, I just learned that now. It does make sense, though; however I agree with you that the story is better as it stands. It's a Top 3 Doctor Who story for me, with 'The War Games' and 'The Ambassadors of Death', so I wouldn't tinker. I wouldn't even CGI the rat! |
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Apr 4, 2017 21:53:20 GMT
Speaking of the Butcher of Brisbane, Findeker sounded very much to me like Li H'sen Chang, though I admit I've never watched/heard these stories anywhere close to back-to-back in time.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Apr 4, 2017 21:55:25 GMT
It's fairly well-known that the Talons of Weng-Chiang was originally supposed to feature the Master as the villain. I only recently learned that, but I feel foolish for not figuring it out on my own as it should have been obvious between the time cabinet, the hypnotism and the effort to rejuvenate his body. My understanding is that the production team didn't want to overuse the Master. If only they had shown that kind of restraint during the Davison era... Do you think the story would have been improved if they had gone with the Master as the baddie, or is the story richer for having the need to work around that? I think I prefer the latter. I like Magnus Greel and the larger world hinted at in the throwaway lines about the 51st Century, the Filipino Army and the Battle of Reykjavik. Also, it gave us the Butcher of Brisbane, which is a very enjoyable audio. I quite liked it as it is. The classic series did tend to overuse The Master from time to time. I don't want him to feel like your average superhero baddie who shows up, runs his mouth about conquering everything, then gets defeated. Yet that is too often what he does in the TV series. (Unlike many of BF's uses). |
|
|
|
Post by theotherjosh on Apr 4, 2017 22:26:28 GMT
It's fairly well-known that the Talons of Weng-Chiang was originally supposed to feature the Master as the villain. I only recently learned that, but I feel foolish for not figuring it out on my own as it should have been obvious between the time cabinet, the hypnotism and the effort to rejuvenate his body. Heh. Well, I just learned that now.  Don't feel bad. In more than 30 years of Doctor Who, it had never once occurred to me, and as soon as I heard it, I thought, "Yes, that's obviously the case." |
|
|
|
Post by aemiliapaula on Apr 5, 2017 1:43:04 GMT
I didn't know that about the history of the story, but the first time I saw it I really thought it was going to turn out to be the master until towards the end. I do think it is great that they came up with a new unique character with a creepy sidekick.
|
|
Don't feel bad. In more than 30 years of Doctor Who, it had never once occurred to me, and as soon as I heard it, I thought, "Yes, that's obviously the case." 
