Missy to return in Doctor Who's Series 9 opener.

[Enigma]

That's right, she's back.

Missy is returning to "Doctor Who."

Michelle Gomez's character, better known as The Master, is set to appear in Season 9 of the BBC show after her fate on the series was left unknown.

"Things have been a little beige since I left Missy behind, so I'm delighted to be putting my lippie back on. I'm positively dying to see The Doctor again," the actress said in a statement via the network.

"Everybody hide - Michelle Gomez as Missy was an instant hit last year, so she's straight back to plague the Doctor and Clara in the series opener," executive producer Steven Moffat added.

"But what brings her back into their lives is the last thing they'd expect."

BBC also revealed the return of guest cast member Jemma Redgrave as Kate Stewart.

"Doctor Who" Season 9 is set to premiere this fall.

[The Romulan Republic]

Interesting. As I recall, she was okay as far as acting went (the writing was a mixed bag).

I suspect that the character is partly a test run to see weather they can pull off a female Doctor and weather fans will accept it. So its interesting to watch because of that too.

[Iroscato]

As much as I liked the new twist on the Master, I think this is a mistake. She was literally just killed off two episodes ago, by the cyber-converted Brigadier, no less. To bring her back so damn quickly not only cheapens the actions of the Brig, but will only help dilute the presence of the villian like what has happened to the cybermen, daleks and sontarans.

[The Romulan Republic]

A bigger wait might have been better. A return at the end of season nine or the start of season ten perhaps.

Edit: But then, I stopped having much respect for Moffat's handling of the series a long time ago, his surprisingly good job with Day of the Doctor not withstanding.

[SpottedKitty]

I think this is a mistake. She was literally just killed off two episodes ago,

Agreed, but...

Wasn't there some uncertainty whether she'd been zapped to little bitty pieces by the Brigadier, or teleported away just in time? I suppose we'll just have to wait (again) and see.

[Iroscato]

Doesn't matter, it's still too soon. Villain decay will set in and she won't have anywhere near the same impact. Maybe I'm wrong and this was the plan all along, but my gut says Moffat has found a new super duper Mary Sue to play with now that River's arc has finally - finally - been resolved.

[Joun_Lord]

Ugh, no. I'm still on the fence on the Missy character but I certainly think over exposing her would bring only negative. As others have said she just freaking died. Atleast wait a half a season or so before bringing her back. I don't think any other killed off villain returned so darn fast.

I could have actually handled this more if I wasn't still fuming something fierce about keeping on Clara. I'm just frankly so goddamn tired of that character. She would be somewhat tolerable if she didn't keep overshadowing the Doc, you know the star of the show, but she does even to the point she tries to be the freaking Doctor herself.

Over-exposure seems to be the name of the game for Dr Who in the modern age. Too much Daleks, too much Cybermen, too much River, too much Clara, too much Danny, way too much Time Lords, and now too much Missy.

I do find it interesting people saying Missy is being used to test the water for a fem-Doc, as hypothesized here way back when Missy first revealed herself, and I think Clara taking over much of the stories from the Doctor is part of it. However considering the general lack of interest many atleast here and other websites have already expressed towards Clara Sue and Missy being over-used so damn soon, I fear that any possibility of a fem-Doc will go down the shitter (and fans might get blamed for it for the wrong reasons if so). Though I supposed with how poorly the men-Doc has been written as of late that is a good thing, I shudder to think of just how misogynistic and insulting to the character and possibly those suffering gender identity disorder that would be.

[The Romulan Republic]

While I don't think its a given that the writing would be misogynistic, it is a concern. And a bigger concern may be that it would just be done badly. Moffat's work is repetitive, melodramatic, and riddled with implausible plots. A female Doctor is something I'd like to see them do as soon as Moffat leaves (presuming they can get someone better to replace him).

Edit: To be blunt, if I was running the BBC, I would have probably seriously considered sacking Moffat or not renewing his contract after Let's Kill Hitler, if not before. Admittedly we wouldn't have gotten Day of the Doctor then, but he's overstayed his welcome.

[Joun_Lord]

The writing for a fem-Doc is not a given for being misogynistic but it is still highly likely just judging by the caliber (or I guess calibre considering its a Brit show) of the writing. I could only too easily see writers, especially hack-ass writers out of ideas or having no idea how to work with a Doctor possessing a gully hole, falling into the tired old really fucking insulting fallbacks for writing women. Perhaps not Moffat as he seems to have a good track record for writing strong women (though one can argue at the expense of the writing of men, mrogynia I guess, by making them act like morons or worse) but others would write fem-Doc as weak willed (more weak willed then his/her usual self as of late that is) with no agency, possibly subservient to a big strong man, sluttish or who knows what else.

Missy wasn't written so bad, atleast in regards to her gender. Other then like two lines none of the shit in her story was really about her gender. Change the name back to Master and hire John Simm to replace Michelle Gomez and you would literally have to change very little in dialogue and story structure

A fem-Doctor like that, just THE Doctor with lady bits, would work but again with as terrible as some of the writing has been it probably wouldn't work.

[DaveJB]

Ugh, no. I'm still on the fence on the Missy character but I certainly think over exposing her would bring only negative. As others have said she just freaking died. Atleast wait a half a season or so before bringing her back. I don't think any other killed off villain returned so darn fast.

Believe it or not, a killed-off villain has returned this quickly before... the Master himself! He was seemingly killed off decisively in Peter Davison's penultimate story, then came back just a couple of episodes into Colin Baker's run (still as the Anthony Ainley version) where he just shrugged off his "death" by just bragging about how he was indestructible.

[Enigma]

Ugh, no. I'm still on the fence on the Missy character but I certainly think over exposing her would bring only negative. As others have said she just freaking died. Atleast wait a half a season or so before bringing her back. I don't think any other killed off villain returned so darn fast.

Believe it or not, a killed-off villain has returned this quickly before... the Master himself! He was seemingly killed off decisively in Peter Davison's penultimate story, then came back just a couple of episodes into Colin Baker's run (still as the Anthony Ainley version) where he just shrugged off his "death" by just bragging about how he was indestructible.

Even Simm's Master was killed off, burnt to a crisp and still came back. Got sent to a time-locked Gallifrey then shunted into another universe and still came back. Vaporization? Pfaw! Child's play for The Master\Mistress.

[Tribble]

I'm probably in the minority here, but I rather liked the Master's "death" in Last of the Time Lords. Yes the episode wasn't that great, but IMO the Master's death scene could have been a pretty good ending for the character. He ends up "winning" his war against the Doctor not by doing something grandiose like conquering the universe, but by the simple act of suicide, the one thing the Doctor would have never expected. And he did it purely out of spite in order to crush the Doctor's hopes and force him into living the rest of his life as the last Time Lord. You have to admit the Master know how to hit the Doctor where it hurts the most.

Of course, they undid any impact that may have had just minutes later by making it obvious he would be coming back within a season or two... ugh.

[Simon_Jester]

There are two ways to make a character's death-and-resurrection good.

One is to have it take a long time, so the audience has time to get used to the character being gone, and so that subplots specifically resulting from their death can happen. In this case, the "how did you cheat death" question takes back stage to "I'm baack!"

The other is to have it take a short time, so that the "how did you cheat death" question becomes a major plot point... while the setting itself has not been significantly changed by the character's absence.

It's like, you can have a character missing presumed dead in a car accident where the car goes off a cliff, and you have two choices. One is to bring them back three seasons later after having wandered around with amnesia for a few years. The other is to bring them back three episodes later after a couple of episodes of people dramatically debating whether or not he's really dead.

You get different effects from either... but doing it over a season break is the worst of both worlds. It's long enough in real life that people get used to the character being dead and find bringing her back "cheap," but not long enough in story for there to be major consequences of her death.

[Lord Revan]

The writing for a fem-Doc is not a given for being misogynistic but it is still highly likely just judging by the caliber (or I guess calibre considering its a Brit show) of the writing. I could only too easily see writers, especially hack-ass writers out of ideas or having no idea how to work with a Doctor possessing a gully hole, falling into the tired old really fucking insulting fallbacks for writing women. Perhaps not Moffat as he seems to have a good track record for writing strong women (though one can argue at the expense of the writing of men, mrogynia I guess, by making them act like morons or worse) but others would write fem-Doc as weak willed (more weak willed then his/her usual self as of late that is) with no agency, possibly subservient to a big strong man, sluttish or who knows what else.

Missy wasn't written so bad, atleast in regards to her gender. Other then like two lines none of the shit in her story was really about her gender. Change the name back to Master and hire John Simm to replace Michelle Gomez and you would literally have to change very little in dialogue and story structure

A fem-Doctor like that, just THE Doctor with lady bits, would work but again with as terrible as some of the writing has been it probably wouldn't work.

As you said it depends on the writers but it shouldn't be block for the show runners try something, after all there's writers who can't write men, though out right misadria is rare.

and yes the masuculine equilevant for misogynia is misandria as the word breaks to mis(I can't remember the exact meaning atm)+andros(=man) and By same token misogynia breaks to mis+gynos(=woman), they both come from greek language

[Starglider]

Edit: To be blunt, if I was running the BBC, I would have probably seriously considered sacking Moffat or not renewing his contract after Let's Kill Hitler, if not before. Admittedly we wouldn't have gotten Day of the Doctor then, but he's overstayed his welcome.

Moffat is pretty good as a producer and occassional guest writer. The problem is that he has written too many episodes recently.

[The Romulan Republic]

To be honest, there are only two or three Moffat episodes I have much appreciation for (though I haven't seen all of his work on Doctor Who). I think he sometimes does good work, but he's repetitive, self-indulgent, melodramatic, apparently unable to write a solid plot since Blink, and someone who sometimes handles romance/relationships terribly. Head writer material he is not. I might not begrudge him one or two stand alone episodes a season for old time's sake if he wanted to do that, but I want him out of the top position. The problem is, I can't think of another Doctor Who writer who I'm confident would be better.

[Joun_Lord]

The writing for a fem-Doc is not a given for being misogynistic but it is still highly likely just judging by the caliber (or I guess calibre considering its a Brit show) of the writing. I could only too easily see writers, especially hack-ass writers out of ideas or having no idea how to work with a Doctor possessing a gully hole, falling into the tired old really fucking insulting fallbacks for writing women. Perhaps not Moffat as he seems to have a good track record for writing strong women (though one can argue at the expense of the writing of men, mrogynia I guess, by making them act like morons or worse) but others would write fem-Doc as weak willed (more weak willed then his/her usual self as of late that is) with no agency, possibly subservient to a big strong man, sluttish or who knows what else.

Missy wasn't written so bad, atleast in regards to her gender. Other then like two lines none of the shit in her story was really about her gender. Change the name back to Master and hire John Simm to replace Michelle Gomez and you would literally have to change very little in dialogue and story structure

A fem-Doctor like that, just THE Doctor with lady bits, would work but again with as terrible as some of the writing has been it probably wouldn't work.

As you said it depends on the writers but it shouldn't be block for the show runners try something, after all there's writers who can't write men, though out right misadria is rare.

and yes the masuculine equilevant for misogynia is misandria as the word breaks to mis(I can't remember the exact meaning atm)+andros(=man) and By same token misogynia breaks to mis+gynos(=woman), they both come from greek language

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they shouldn't try it just because the writers have a history of suckitude but that history just makes me leery. It would be like George Lucas directing a romance movie, his track record with romance isn't that great (though one could argue that his on screen romance in the prequels wasn't supposed to be that great). The history of the current crop writers are poor and as such we get alot of sub-par stories and weak characterizations. I mean just the fact several stories from the most recent series would have solved themselves without Clara and her companion showing up or the fact one story you know the only male in it other then the Doc was going to die pretty much right off the bat are marks of bad writing.

It just seems like there is a very high chance of failure. The writers of Dr Who seem to have a problem of a good ideas but can rarely make a story that fully explores that good idea. They just drop the ball alot (pun not intended).

Having a Fem-Doctor sounds like a good idea, if just from an out of universe perspective that it allows a larger pool of actors to be considered for the part, but the writers would probably cock in up (pun probably intended).

[Eternal_Freedom]

Out of curiosity, why does the showrunner need to be fromt he current crop of writers? Isn't that the problem Moffat had, he wrote some good scripts but that doesn't automatically mean he's qualified to start running the thing. Perhaps a new person from another show, with a proven track record, would be preferable to elevating another writer.

On another note, I have a suspicion that the main problem for current Who is the perceived need for season-long arcs. It means you automatically have to dedicate two or three episodes out of twelve/thirteen to one story and have to shoehorn elements or references into the rest. What would be wrong with a season of just ordinary standalone stories, but with some continuity and character growth in there? Why does everything have to lead up to a series finale that must try and out-do the previous one?

Additionally, another major issue is with the companions in general. In modern Who they all seem to have to have something uncommon or unique about their past/future, they're no longer just ordinary people along for the ride to give the audience someone to connect with. Consider: Rose was ordinary but became the Bad Wolf and annihilated the Daleks, and then returned two season later to help annihialte them...again. Martha had that whole "spent a year wandering the Earth preaching the Doctor-gospel" thing, Donna was the Doctor-Donna thing, Any grows up with a crack in space-time in her wall, and gods-damned Clara is "the Impossible Girl, born to save the Doctor." As if no other companion saves the Doctor, ever. And then River.

Can't we just have an ordinary human (or alien, for varieties sake)? Someone like, I dunno, Ian, Barbera, Jamie, Sarah Jane, Harry and so on? Would that really be so bad?

[DaveJB]

Out of curiosity, why does the showrunner need to be fromt he current crop of writers? Isn't that the problem Moffat had, he wrote some good scripts but that doesn't automatically mean he's qualified to start running the thing. Perhaps a new person from another show, with a proven track record, would be preferable to elevating another writer.

It's just far, far more likely that the BBC are going to trust someone who knows the show and its requirements. The only situation where you're gonna get an entirely new showrunner is if either none of the existing writers want the job, or the show's gotten into such a creative shithole that a "clean sweep" of the writing staff is necessary, as was the case at the start of Sylvester McCoy's run.

On another note, I have a suspicion that the main problem for current Who is the perceived need for season-long arcs. It means you automatically have to dedicate two or three episodes out of twelve/thirteen to one story and have to shoehorn elements or references into the rest. What would be wrong with a season of just ordinary standalone stories, but with some continuity and character growth in there? Why does everything have to lead up to a series finale that must try and out-do the previous one?

I think that was actually more a problem for RTD than it was Moffat. Until the last season, Moffat was easing up on the season-long story arcs and big finales.

Additionally, another major issue is with the companions in general. In modern Who they all seem to have to have something uncommon or unique about their past/future, they're no longer just ordinary people along for the ride to give the audience someone to connect with. Consider: Rose was ordinary but became the Bad Wolf and annihilated the Daleks, and then returned two season later to help annihialte them...again. Martha had that whole "spent a year wandering the Earth preaching the Doctor-gospel" thing, Donna was the Doctor-Donna thing, Any grows up with a crack in space-time in her wall, and gods-damned Clara is "the Impossible Girl, born to save the Doctor." As if no other companion saves the Doctor, ever. And then River.

Can't we just have an ordinary human (or alien, for varieties sake)? Someone like, I dunno, Ian, Barbera, Jamie, Sarah Jane, Harry and so on? Would that really be so bad?

The problem there seems to be that Rose is seen as such a huge part of the show's early success, while Martha (the only totally "normal" companion so far, unless you want to count Mickey), rightly or wrongly, tends to be regarded as being bland, boring and ineffectual. As a result, all of the following companions have followed in the Rose mould of being a normal person who turns out to be somehow extraordinary at second glance. Although I'm personally sticking with my theory that since the Doctor never died at Trenzalore, the Great Intelligence was never able to screw up his history, Clara never needed to rescue him, and now she's just another normal person.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I think that was actually more a problem for RTD than it was Moffat. Until the last season, Moffat was easing up on the season-long story arcs and big finales.

I don't think "The Big Bang" and "The Wedding of River Song" count as "easing up on the big finales" to be honest. Resetting the entire damn universe is a pretty big thing.

The problem there seems to be that Rose is seen as such a huge part of the show's early success, while Martha (the only totally "normal" companion so far, unless you want to count Mickey), rightly or wrongly, tends to be regarded as being bland, boring and ineffectual. As a result, all of the following companions have followed in the Rose mould of being a normal person who turns out to be somehow extraordinary at second glance. Although I'm personally sticking with my theory that since the Doctor never died at Trenzalore, the Great Intelligence was never able to screw up his history, Clara never needed to rescue him, and now she's just another normal person.

I like that theory, I like it a lot More seriously though, yeah I suppose you are right on that one, but it's still irritating as each new companion has to be more extraordinary.

My beef with Martha wasn't that she was bland or boring, it's that she was written to be smitten with the Doctor and it felt like a repeat. Oddly enough, despite my dislike of "Stolen Earth/Journey's End" my favourite new companion is probably Donna.

[Enigma]

Speaking of Donna, she was the only companion I really liked. She wasn't used as a love sick puppy and she could easily match wits with the Doctor or just about any opponent. I'd love it if they'd bring her back for just an episode or two. Have the Doctor finally find a way to cure Donna and then watch as she immediately bickers with him with Clara in the background trying to suppress the urge to laugh.

[The Romulan Republic]

For me, top companion goes to Martha and Rory, but Donna was nice too. I don't know that I'd want here cured though, because if every bad thing that happens gets undone, its hard to take anything that happens on the show as seriously.

[Iroscato]

Donna seems to have been somewhat reexamined in recent years. I recall almost nobody liking her when she was around, though I always enjoyed her time on the show.

[The Romulan Republic]

I think that was actually more a problem for RTD than it was Moffat. Until the last season, Moffat was easing up on the season-long story arcs and big finales.

I don't think "The Big Bang" and "The Wedding of River Song" count as "easing up on the big finales" to be honest. Resetting the entire damn universe is a pretty big thing.

The problem there seems to be that Rose is seen as such a huge part of the show's early success, while Martha (the only totally "normal" companion so far, unless you want to count Mickey), rightly or wrongly, tends to be regarded as being bland, boring and ineffectual. As a result, all of the following companions have followed in the Rose mould of being a normal person who turns out to be somehow extraordinary at second glance. Although I'm personally sticking with my theory that since the Doctor never died at Trenzalore, the Great Intelligence was never able to screw up his history, Clara never needed to rescue him, and now she's just another normal person.

I like that theory, I like it a lot More seriously though, yeah I suppose you are right on that one, but it's still irritating as each new companion has to be more extraordinary.

My beef with Martha wasn't that she was bland or boring, it's that she was written to be smitten with the Doctor and it felt like a repeat. Oddly enough, despite my dislike of "Stolen Earth/Journey's End" my favourite new companion is probably Donna.

I actually kind of like the way romance was handled with Martha at least some of the time. She was infatuated with the Doctor (and why wouldn't she be- he's a handsome, brilliant man from another world who saved her life and a bunch of other peoples' lives), but he has pretty much no romantic interest in her and it never goes anywhere, which is an interesting variation on the Doctor/companion romance idea and strikes me as a lot more realistic than the Doctor falling for another human woman every couple of seasons or so.

Edit: And better yet, Martha was strong enough to move on after a while.