1996 movie console plans

[galacticprobe]

According to "THE TARDIS HANDBOOK" by Steve Tribe, on the bottom left corner of page 56 there is a sketch of that console's column. The notes on the sketch pointing to the rods say 'FIBER 1" dia', so they are one inch in diameter. Another note points to the column and says 1'-0", the line pointing to the column indicating that to be the column's diameter.

It's also got large arrows with writing in them noting that "LOWER RODS RAISE TO <line drawn>" and "UPPER RODS LOWER TO <line drawn>", with the lines denoting the limit to the "outward" range of movement of the rods within the column.

Important stuff in bold to show the known answers to Teletran's questions. Now for a little bit extra... When I put a ruler to the sketch and compared the distance between those "raise/lower to" lines to the diameter of the column, it appears that the rods' overlap is only about six inches when at the outward limit of their travel.

Also, looking at the distance between the disc around the rods and the base of the column, and comparing that to the column's diameter, it looks like their range of motion is about nine inches (from max up to max down). Mind you, this is a small sketch and I'm extrapolating this info based on what is actually written on that sketch and how those known measurements compare to distances without given measurements. So unless someone wants to sit down and do some serious measuring and calculations, or someone just happens to have other diagrams or notes on their movement, this is all I can come up with for now (which I think is far more than Teletran was looking for!).

Dino.

[greatwazoo42]

Good research there, Dino.  Well done.

[galacticprobe]

Thanks, Waz! (I never thought that little "HANDBOOK" would come in so <pardon the pun> handy, and it's not the first time that little thing has served me in such a way. Needless to say, I would recommend it to anyone who is even remotely interested in TARDIS details. It's still available through Amazon, and at a reduced price from what those of us who pre-ordered it paid:
http://www.amazon.com/Doctor-Who-Handbook-Steve-Tribe/dp/1846079861/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1292566459&sr=8-1).

Dino.

[too_many_cars]

According to "THE TARDIS HANDBOOK" by Steve Tribe, on the bottom left corner of page 56 there is a sketch of that console's column. The notes on the sketch pointing to the rods say 'FIBER 1" dia', so they are one inch in diameter. Another note points to the column and says 1'-0", the line pointing to the column indicating that to be the column's diameter.

It's also got large arrows with writing in them noting that "LOWER RODS RAISE TO <line drawn>" and "UPPER RODS LOWER TO <line drawn>", with the lines denoting the limit to the "outward" range of movement of the rods within the column.

Important stuff in bold to show the known answers to Teletran's questions. Now for a little bit extra... When I put a ruler to the sketch and compared the distance between those "raise/lower to" lines to the diameter of the column, it appears that the rods' overlap is only about six inches when at the outward limit of their travel.

Dino.

Hello everyone.

I'm a bit new to the Doctor Who prop world but I've spent the last ten years restoring some screen used cars used in various films and working on several replicas of movie cars better than the originals.

I'm helping out Paul with restoring his screen used 1996 console which is one of the few films which I wore out the VHS tape back in the 90s.  (The others were The Love Bug, Back to the Future, and Knight Rider, which I've done some modern engineering on a screen used or replica car from all three!)

One of the planned projects is a crankshaft mechanism to give the replica rotor the range of motion in the film.  I was planning on second-guessing the motion from some quality time with the DVD, but if anyone can throw that "TARDIS Handbook" sketch in a scanner and upload it here I'd be much obliged.

This prop is full of incredible secrets and surprises which I wouldn't dream of spoiling yet, I'll let Paul and Bob take care of that.  What I can say is that the prop is in very, very good hands and loved for immensely - and when we're done with it, it will give my fully radio-controlled animatronic Herbie the Love Bug a run for the money in terms of putting on a show.

I did notice something fun in this publicity shot:



One of the seven black "guitar switch" covers which I've been pulling my hair out trying to find/replicate was already broken off by the time filming was finished and still photographer had a chance to take a few beauty shots in the set!

--Brian

[galacticprobe]

If no one beats me to it, I'll try to get a clean scan of that diagram up later today. The diagram itself is quite small so I hope it scans well.

Dino.

[Kingpin]

Brian, are there plans to also animate the lighting rig in a similar fashion to how it appeared in the movie? (I say similar because the flash patterns seemed quite random at times, makes me think individual elements may've had their own dedicated flash circuits that they were plugged into).

Superb to hear the rotor is going to be given movement again.

[galacticprobe]

As promised, here is a scan of the diagram from the "Handbook":



For being such a small image in the book the scan came out much larger and better than I'd hoped for. It doesn't show the very top of the column, but you can just see the line of where the "glass" part would stop in the top left of the drawing.

I may be wrong - and someone please correct me if I am; I have to watch the movie again - but I think the discs that the rods pass through, which appear to be just about in the center of the rods in the drawing, raise/lower to the point where the glass meets with the wood part as the rods move away from each other, so that should give a good indication of the range of motion since the drawing shows where the upper and lower rods stop when they move towards each other.

I hope this is helpful.

Dino.

[too_many_cars]

Thanks for the scan Dean!

The original lighting system was a stagehand and a massive theatrical lighting console with the ability to play the lights like a MIDI keyboard.  Since we don't have either of those things (and don't want to sit around manually flashing lights all day at a display), a replacement control system is being designed.

You'll like it.  When we're done with it this console will be as much fun as the 2011 version with a pinball machine in it.

Anyone else who finds offbeat references to this console that can't be found in the usual places (the BBC site or the Regenerations book), please post them here or contact me... the more information is available, the more screen accuracy I can add to the restoration!

--Brian

[Kingpin]

I look forward to seeing your lighting efforts, considering that what was achieved in 1996 can be reproduced in a fraction of the size but with most (if not all) the functionality is a huge plus. 

[greatwazoo42]

Hi Brian!  I'll go through the crates I have in the basement to see if there is any further reference material I can provide you.  I have a decent sized pile of Doctor Who Magazines including the 8th Doctor special.  I'll see if anything useful to you is in there.

[Vale]

One of the seven black "guitar switch" covers which I've been pulling my hair out trying to find/replicate was already broken off by the time filming was finished and still photographer had a chance to take a few beauty shots in the set!

I remember seeing an interview once with Sylvester McCoy (possibly on the "Bidding Adieu" video?) where he stated that this very switch flew off and got lost when he was filming the "console explodes/TARDIS crash-lands" scene. Apparently he chose to think of this as a subtle homage to the wobbly sets and cheap production values of the classic series!

[galacticprobe]

I remember seeing an interview once with Sylvester McCoy ... he stated that this very switch flew off and got lost when he was filming the "console explodes/TARDIS crash-lands" scene. Apparently he chose to think of this as a subtle homage to the wobbly sets and cheap production values of the classic series!

I think this should be amended to "~the later years of the Classic series" - possibly restricted to most of the McCoy era (when the show was axed) and the console and room had very little presence. As Tony's research has shown, in the beginning, the original TARDIS interior set alone cost as much as a house at £4,000. So it was probably not until the end was near (and possibly known to be near) that cheap production values kicked in - resulting in those wobbly sets. (Heck, even some of the 'Trek' sets wobble if you look close enough.) That happens in many series productions, not just in 'Doctor Who'.

Now, if you really want to look at bad production values, think back to the 1966-1971 US daytime supernatural soap opera series 'Dark Shadows'! Even the cast members at Dark Shadows conventions joke about how flimsy the sets were, and even though the show was recorded using video they never had enough in the budget for retakes; so that's why there are no "blooper reels" for the show; all of the bloopers ended up in the broadcasts!

So even at its worst, 'Doctor Who' was still far above some productions in quality.

Dino.

[Vale]

I know, I'm just echoing what Sylvester McCoy said.