Tom Yardley-Jones prop History (By Tony Farrell) - DISCUSSION THREAD

Started by tony farrell, Sep 10, 2016, 04:28 pm

Previous topic - Next topic

Angelus Lupus

Excellent article! Looks like some spin-offs from that research will mean updates to the Tardis plans (for differing panel sizes) and the various (is it three?) PTO signs with different wording and/or frame thickness.
A mixed-up non-conformist, trying to fit in.

tony farrell

Thanks Angelus. I had hoped Marc would post the topic as an article rather than a topic. That way people could discuss it afterwards. The reason it's 'locked' is so that it doesn't become 'messy'. I'm therefore not sure that this thread is the best place to comment on it.

As regards the dimensions, I hope that these will be of use to future builders (real and virtual). As regards the phone panel - I think the chronology is:

1. Original (shallow frame) "Urgent Calls"
2. "All Calls" thicker-framed (Seasons 19 to 21 and fitted to both sides of the prop as per Resurrection of the Daleks). One of these becomes a 'functioning' phone panel for Delta and the Bannermen, the other is then fitted to the revamped 1983 prop for the later McCoy stories.
3. Thicker-framed "Urgent Calls" - Planet of Fire onwards.

So, possibly, four phone panels in total.

T

(Edit, Marc has now kindly posted the TY-J topic as an article!)

darren79

That was a great read, Tony, very enjoyable.

Just want to add:

For the new Planet of Fire (I'm convinced) right hand door you pointed out the notch in the window frame - it's barely obvious afterwards but looking at the second shot from Remembrance of the Daleks that you include - the camera tracking back as McCoy passes the TARDIS, you can see that the notch is indeed present on the window (and quite possibly on some of the shots of the rear door in Ghost Light).
rem of daleks1 copy.jpg

19054.jpg

Another detail - in Attack of the Cybermen - the shot of the TARDIS in Cyber control. The right side corner post next to the door there is an indentation about level with the top of the third panel. This indentation can be seen in the McCoy photocall.

attack6 (1) copy.jpg
2-17433156-2.jpg

galacticprobe

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 11, 2016, 01:41 am
I had hoped Marc would post the topic as an article rather than a topic. That way people could discuss it afterwards.

I'm sure Marc can change that into an Article if you asked him nicely. ;) :D

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 11, 2016, 01:41 am
The reason it's 'locked' is so that it doesn't become 'messy'. I'm therefore not sure that this thread is the best place to comment on it.

You do have a point, Tony, as this thread is already getting rather long. Maybe Marc can split this thread starting with Angelus' post above, and title that new thread as "Tony's Article: 'The Thomas Yardley-Jones Tardis': Discuss it here". You can even add a link to that new "Discussion" thread to your post above that has the link to what will be the Article so people will know where to go to discuss it - and then maybe have this thread locked so people don't try to discuss it in both threads. (Just a thought.)

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 11, 2016, 01:41 am
As regards the dimensions, I hope that these will be of use to future builders (real and virtual). As regards the phone panel - I think the chronology is:

1. Original (shallow frame) "Urgent Calls"
2. "All Calls" thicker-framed (Seasons 19 to 21 and fitted to both sides of the prop as per Resurrection of the Daleks). One of these becomes a 'functioning' phone panel for Delta and the Bannermen, the other is then fitted to the revamped 1983 prop for the later McCoy stories.
3. Thicker-framed "Urgent Calls" - Planet of Fire onwards.

So, four phone panels in total.

And I believe there is no hope necessary, Tony; your dimensions and Phone Panel details will most certainly be invaluable to all builders (real, virtual, and model). Your work and research is impeccable. I would say with confidence it's not "I hope...", but rather "I'm sure...".

Dino.
"What's wrong with being childish?! I like being childish." -3rd Doctor, "Terror of the Autons"

tony farrell

Quote from: darren79 on Sep 11, 2016, 03:02 am
That was a great read, Tony, very enjoyable.


Thank you!

Quote from: darren79 on Sep 11, 2016, 03:02 am
Just want to add:
For the new Planet of Fire (I'm convinced) right hand door you pointed out the notch in the window frame - it's barely obvious afterwards but looking at the second shot from Remembrance of the Daleks that you include - the camera tracking back as McCoy passes the TARDIS, you can see that the notch is indeed present on the window (and quite possibly on some of the shots of the rear door in Ghost Light).
rem of daleks1 copy.jpg
19054.jpg


I hadn't noticed that in "Remembrance"- you've got better eyes than me! (Though I am struggling to see it in the "Ghostlight" publicity stills.....)


Quote from: darren79 on Sep 11, 2016, 03:02 am
Another detail - in Attack of the Cybermen - the shot of the TARDIS in Cyber control. The right side corner post next to the door there is an indentation about level with the top of the third panel. This indentation can be seen in the McCoy photocall.
attack6 (1) copy.jpg
2-17433156-2.jpg


Again, well spotted. Thank you.

This just goes to further prove what I wrote about the "Theseus Paradox" or "Trigger's Broom" - as soon as two near-identically built props exist simultaneously, there is nothing to stop the parts from each getting swapped over between the two. So, as well as the doors from the 1983 build apparently getting fitted to the older prop, perhaps one of the side panels (with integral corner-posts) was as well - or least for the McCoy photo-call, it was!

It wouldn't be the first time - as I pointed out the (new) taller base (created for "Planet of Fire") was actually fitted to the old (battered) prop for Colin Baker's first photo-call and this new (taller) base didn't get fitted to the new (1983) prop until "Trial of a Time Lord"!

Quote from: galacticprobe on Sep 11, 2016, 04:49 am
Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 11, 2016, 01:41 am
The reason it's 'locked' is so that it doesn't become 'messy'. I'm therefore not sure that this thread is the best place to comment on it.

You do have a point, Tony, as this thread is already getting rather long. Maybe Marc can split this thread starting with Angelus' post above, and title that new thread as "Tony's Article: 'The Thomas Yardley-Jones Tardis': Discuss it here". You can even add a link to that new "Discussion" thread to your post above that has the link to the Article so people will know where to go to discuss it.
Dino.


I think that's a good idea Dino - it would certainly keep this topic tidy - over to the mods on that one!  ;)

T

ionsith

After a frustrating evening of not being able to connect to the site, glad to say I've finally been able to read the article and it's everything I hoped it would be and more! Superb job, well done Tony.

   I had sent you a PM about the TYJ panels but I'm not sure if it sent as I can't see it in my outbox :(

tony farrell


domvar


tony farrell


exleo

Wow Tony's article is a fascinating read, and certainly every point made seems to have positive back up giving us a very coherent looking history that is both thought provoking and engaging in it's content.

With regard to the 'Planet of Fire' Location filming, as we know a scale box was taken and used for those publicity pictures, so the DVD commentary is correct in stating that a scale box was taken... but certainly the screened episodes also appear to have parts of the 'Proposed New 83 prop' used within. The weight for cargo manifest certainly seems to back this up. I myself did at one point question if the close up shots had been added in post production as part of a split screen effect, due the simplicity of a straight line cutting the screen in half making this very easy to achieve, BUT, while this is plausible as an idea, the light bouncing off the paintwork, does appear to match the sunlight levels of the location shots, also adding a degree of proof that the partial full size prop WAS at the location.

One final detail I noticed to back up Tony's evidence that the Location parts were sections of the new 1983 build is to be found on the slightly open door. And that is the Lock. it hasn't yet been fitted and no hole drilled for it, the edge of this door is brand new and at this point unblemished and unfinished with no lock and no handle, and yet if you compare the images with later shots then the part of the door where the lock and handle should be can clearly be seen. This would back up that the sections of the new 1983 build that were used for location filming in Lanzarote, were so knew as to have been unfinished at this point..... :)

tony farrell

Thanks for taking the time to read the 'article' Exleo - I'm glad you enjoyed it!

Regarding your point about the door lock and handle, the reason we can't see the lock in the Lanzarote-filmed sequence is because the Tardis door is ajar. Don't forget that from the start-of-season 20, the doors opened the opposite way round than they did in seasons 18 and 19. The right-hand door was fitted with the lock and handle from this point in time onwards and this right-hand opening door was 'carried over' to the 1983 prop as well:

fire9.jpg  

In many ways, it's a pity that Purple/Anthony Sibley is no longer an active member on this site. It would be really interesting to hear why he thinks that a second prop was built in 1986 (rather than - as I think - in 1983) i.e., has he any evidence - apart from the near-pristine appearance of the Trial of a Time Lord prop - to back his opinion up.

I hope that in contradicting Purple, i.e., in pointing out that the introduction of the taller base occurred two years before he said it did, or that the phone panel wasn't held on with double-sided tape or that he's got the way the doors opened incorrect, etc., that I haven't in anyway come across as being disrespectful to him. That wasn't the intention - rather I just wanted to correct some mis-conceptions and to try to present a more accurate history.

So, as I say, it would be really interesting to know where he gets the idea of a new prop being made in 1986 from. The 'problem' with Purple's theory is that the evidence all points to 1983 - we have the flaws in the window frame and side-panel, we have the paintwork, we have the new "URGENT CALLS" phone panel, we have a new-looking near-pristine prop, we have the new three-hinged doors, we have a taller base AND we have the BBC's plans which - cumulatively - all say that a new prop was built in 1983.

The other point (which i mention above) is earlier the start-of-season 20 rebuild/refit. Apart from the base, detachable roof and signage, with so much work being carried out on the prop, it becomes really hard to say that there was much of the original prop left after this date i.e., at what point does the "Trigger's Broom/Theseus Paradox" analogy 'kick in'?

Now, Purple and Scarfwearer created the 'bones' of this forum (and full credit to them for doing so - none of us would be here without that achievement) BUT, as I've pointed out to Marc, the whole Tardis Reference Section is predicated on their assumption that the second TY-J prop was built in 1986. But, this assumption doesn't hold up to scrutiny - all that seems to have happened in 1986 is that the 1983-built prop got new (two-hinged) doors and that the 1983-built doors got fitted to the older (season 18/20) prop.

The historian in me says that you can't have a reference section which is self-contradictory: The 'division' in the reference section between a 1980 TY-J Tardis prop and a 1986 TY-J Tardis prop is - at best - misleading; at worst, it's actually untrue. In my view, the Tardis reference section should be amended.

Understanding and knowledge aren't 'fixed' or 'set in stone'; they are dynamic, living things - they change and they 'grow'.  :)

T

ionsith

I don't know for sure, but I imagine that the assumption of a new prop being built in '86 was due to the number of props known to be in existence. Why '86 I don't know. I originally thought it would be because of details like the door sign and the thicker edges on the Police box signs, but they were in place a good few years beforehand... Maybe we will never know, but I think you've come closer than anyone to uncovering the truth.

Angelus Lupus

As with any new info on 'established' Who lore it will take a while for this info to trickle out to the other sections (the History, the signs, the answers people give to "What's the difference between Mk1 & Mk2?") And I doubt it will be an easy process: just look how long the 'borrowed from Dixon of Dock Green' or 'cut down to fit the props lift' myths held out!
But if, as Tony suggests, the reference section here is updated with the latest knowledge and research, hopefully this place can be the start of correcting the misconceptions. Hopefully the BBC's 30 year cycle of unlocking the archives can provide more invaluable nuggets of evidence like the cargo manifest.
And yes, it would be fascinating to get Purple's take on this (I used to enjoy reading his site before it went private) and I hope this new info is taken in the spirit of increased historical accuracy.
A mixed-up non-conformist, trying to fit in.

domvar

One thing to keep in mind with these surface defects that are being mentioned is that the prop is made from grp, any of these details if present in the mould used would be on both, equally if the later boxes were cast from moulds taken from the original box you would have he same issue.