Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 19, 2016, 10:58 am
If Ian is correct and that roof on the Newbery prop was the wooden 'master' for the TY-J prop, this would support the idea that a new set of master moulds were needed when the BBC commissioned a new prop for "Planet of Fire".

Don't quite follow the logic here Tony, sorry.

The wooden roof would be the former for a mold.  It doesn't automatically follow that the mold was buggered.

Unless I've misunderstood you

-Marc

Ah, I see where you're coming from - you're saying the roof mould wasn't buggered so it could still be re-used. Yes, I agree my logic is flawed on that point.

But how then do we explain the different dimensions in the Cardiff prop - they've got to have come from separate moulds surely?

So, at what point were the original moulds disposed of. I can see that the door panel mould could have been retained for the start-of-season 20 refit (just with a bit added to increase the height of the doors so you don't then need the fourth step above them) but at some point, different panel recess dimensions have been created. And, was the replacement 1983 prop actually made by the same contractors who built the original version?

Does that clarify my reasoning?

T

The Grp would be strong enough to take Mathew's weight remember they make cars, baths, boats and dodgems out of the stuff in fact it would be much stronger than wood.  

If not most people would have put their bum through the bottom of the bath when getting in

The problem with it is the edges are brittle but looking at the damage over the years gawd knows what the people handling them were doing to get them so beat up.

Thanks for the clarification Dom. I hadn't thought about "bums in baths" - good point! 

So, weight-bearing capacity of fibreglass = okay.
But brittle nature = constant assembly/dis-assembly would cause the props to fail especially when screwing into them to mount things like hinges/doors or where the joins have to be screwed together/unscrewed.

I think that makes sense and would account for the remedial work/replacement work carried out approximately every two years throughout the two props' histories.
 
T

Yeah.  Not saying they didn't get rid of knackered molds. Just that the wooden roof can't be the reason or proof of it.....

I wonder.... I should ask how long vis fx had been established at the time we all got made redundant at Kendal Avenue..... I'll go away and ask some questions

This prop raises more awkward questions than any other in the show's history! For instance, why did the '83 POF plans have the old style sign boxes on them rather than the style that had been in use since 1980? Was it a mistake or an intent to change them back to something more fitting the original prop? I would love to ask Tom Yardley-Jones why, when JN-T seemingly wanted the TARDIS to return to a design closer to the original, did they end up with a box that was far from it in many respects? Miscommunication between departments perhaps? Logistical reasons? Maybe it's an endemic BBC thing. I mean, the 2005 team had the plans and pictures of the TY-J and look what they ended up with!

  Thank you Tony for transcribing my 2am email onto the board for me, that was very kind of you.

  Interesting to see the comment regarding the strength of fibreglass. Sadly it would suggest that the prop people at the BBC took better care of the previous incarnations of the old girl in the 60's and 70's than they did in the 80's!   

It's also perhaps worth noting that fibreglass as a finished product isn't a standard thickness.

It's possible that the TARDIS was made of thinner stuff and more prone to damage than your average bathtub....

Sir Alec Issigonis - designer of the Morris Mini motorcar - said "a camel is a horse designed by a committee"!

Just because something is drawn in a particular way, it doesn't follow this is how it finally ends up being constructed. The Dalek casings went through various metamorphoses before the distinctive 'pepper pot' shape was settled on.

Similarly, Brachacki's Tardis interior as 'planned' wasn't what was 'built'. The problem is - as Mat Irvine put it - there is "no one person involved in the entirety of its journey - so no continuity. When it comes down to it, 'Does it look like a Police Box?' - 'Yes'.... ".

Interesting I've also been told that I'm incorrect to refer to the Tardis as a 'prop' - apparently 'technically' it should be classed as a piece of 'scenery' (a prop is something such as a model spaceship or a futuristic hand-held gun, etc). Given the BBC's relationship with the unions - and with its scenery shifters in particular - in the 1980s, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised by the apparent lack of care shown to this particular piece of 'scenery'!  The photograph posted by Jonathan a couple of posts ago would certainly support this view!

T

(P.S., You're welcome Ian - I'm glad your access issues with the forum appear to be resolved.)

Quote from: rassilonsrod on Sep 19, 2016, 11:25 pm
It's also perhaps worth noting that fibreglass as a finished product isn't a standard thickness.

It's possible that the TARDIS was made of thinner stuff and more prone to damage than your average bathtub....

And - unlike the TY-J Tardis - you don't assemble and dis-assemble the bathtub every time you want to use it! 

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 19, 2016, 11:27 pmI've also been told that I'm incorrect to refer to the Tardis as a 'prop' - apparently 'technically' it should be classed as a piece of 'scenery'

That sounds a bit pedantic lol

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 19, 2016, 11:33 pm

Quote from: rassilonsrod on Sep 19, 2016, 11:25 pm
It's also perhaps worth noting that fibreglass as a finished product isn't a standard thickness.

It's possible that the TARDIS was made of thinner stuff and more prone to damage than your average bathtub....

And - unlike the TY-J Tardis - you don't assemble and dis-assemble the bathtub every time you want to use it! 

Also a damn fine point! ....and one that doesn't stand in the poor things favour

Quote from: rassilonsrod on Sep 19, 2016, 11:38 pm

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 19, 2016, 11:27 pmI've also been told that I'm incorrect to refer to the Tardis as a 'prop' - apparently 'technically' it should be classed as a piece of 'scenery'

That sounds a bit pedantic lol

Well, yes and no! It all comes down to responsibilities - i.e., which of the various - at the time, heavily unionised - BBC's departments was responsible for what.

T

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 19, 2016, 11:46 pm

Quote from: rassilonsrod on Sep 19, 2016, 11:38 pm

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 19, 2016, 11:27 pmI've also been told that I'm incorrect to refer to the Tardis as a 'prop' - apparently 'technically' it should be classed as a piece of 'scenery'

That sounds a bit pedantic lol

Well, yes and no! It all comes down to responsibilities - i.e., which of the various - at the time, heavily unionised - BBC's departments was responsible for what.

T

Well, indeed.

But I was never one to follow established procedure just because it was established.

Even when I worked at the BBC.....

A Prop is an object that is used by an actor as part of their performance. Set dressing is also provided by the Properties department and refererred to as 'Prop's', being anything within a set(ting) or scenery construction which is moveable and not attached to any part of the surrounding structure.... So the Police Box, as an object that was brought onto the set and removed during recordings (dematerialise), and a freestanding object that the actors personally interacted with (to move open, unlock, close etc) would be classed as a Prop' and would fall under the prop's departments budget to produce and retain.

That's what I understood the situation to have been. The TARDIS was considered a prop and the lamp was the responsibility of Visual Effects, which is why it often went missing or didn't make it to the photocall or shoot.