The following is quoted from an e-mail sent to me by Mat Irvine:

"I also can't be any help about your Tardis piece as you are dealing with the 1:1 prop, (actually if you want to be really precise - scenery), whereas FX only dealt with the miniatures - and OK they differed too! The differences you note of Tardis changes between stories - even scenes within the same story - can be easily explained - many people involved in storing it, transporting it, setting up, mending it, moving it again, (probably mending it again...)  and no one person involved in the entirety of its journey - so no continuity. As I said when it comes down to it "Does it look like a Police Box?" - "Yes"....

Anyway keep up the good work, though I suspect it's only us that are interesting in these minutia... "

According to Mat Irvine, the Tardis - in terms of roles and responsibilities - was classed as a piece of scenery. And that, as they say, was from 'the horse's mouth'!  

T

(Please note, whilst I have met Mr Irvine, I don't know him. The quoted e-mail communication I have had with him on the subject of the full-sized Tardis was via the e-mail address on his website. I did ask whether he would object to me posting his e-mail remarks verbatim and this permission has been given.)

Again, I don't have a dog in this fight, but firstly, I'll say that regardless of dictionary definitions, if the BBC calls the TARDIS "scenery," then the BBC considers it scenery and not a prop.  (For that matter, if we want to call it a prop, we can call it a prop and agree to disagree with the Beeb.) 

Secondly, speaking of union silliness, I recall reading somewhere that the pro-er, scenery had to be big enough not just for the actors, but for a union electrician (if they were doing a continuous shot of a dematerialization/materialization).  You see, by union rules, an actor can't flip the switch for the signal lamp on and off (or even on, if it is hooked to a flasher); that requires an electrician by union rules. 

Third, regarding fiberglass -vs- wood, I would suggest considering the personality of the producer, John Nathan-Turner.  Now JNT had been around in some capacity since near the beginning of the show, IIRC.  And whatever his faults as a producer (and IMO, there were many), he did a great deal towards improving the quality of the special FX on the show.  And I suspect he was a bit of a technical guy.  So the idea of a fiberglass prop would appeal to him.  The old wood prop was continually getting damaged and repaired.  I can see where he would latch onto the idea that fiberglass would be less prone to damage (like I said, he had his faults).  And it would be lighter and (again, in theory) more consistent in appearance.  I think the idea that it had to be assembled the same way each week would appeal to old JNT. 

Of course that is just my suppositions. 

Quote from: volpone on Sep 21, 2016, 04:53 am
Again, I don't have a dog in this fight, but firstly, I'll say that regardless of dictionary definitions, if the BBC calls the TARDIS "scenery," then the BBC considers it scenery and not a prop.  (For that matter, if we want to call it a prop, we can call it a prop and agree to disagree with the Beeb.)

Agreed - I only mentioned that it had been pointed out to me that the Tardis was considered as a piece of scenery in the context of who was responsible for 'setting' and 'striking' it (assembling and dis-assembling it). I cited Mat's e-mail so that people would know where this information had come from.

Quote from: volpone on Sep 21, 2016, 04:53 am
Secondly, speaking of union silliness, I recall reading somewhere that the pro-er, scenery had to be big enough not just for the actors, but for a union electrician (if they were doing a continuous shot of a dematerialization/materialization).  You see, by union rules, an actor can't flip the switch for the signal lamp on and off (or even on, if it is hooked to a flasher); that requires an electrician by union rules.

I think that's a little unfair on the Unions - don't forget the UK's 'post war consensus'. Put simply, in response to the economic privations of the 1930s and of WWII for the twenty years after 1945, virtually everyone accepted that there should be full-employment and industrial relations were conducted with this 'consensus' as their basis. This worked as long as there wasn't inflation - again put simply - full-employment could be afforded provided wage-inflation was low. However, from the mid-sixties inflation began to rise and had reached dangerously high levels by the mid-1970s and into the 1980s.

Thus, employers - backed by the then Conservative government - needed to cut costs whilst the unions were equally determined to protect the interests of their members. As a result of the break-down of the 'post-war consensus', throughout the 1970s and 1980s the BBC (like many of the UK's industries) was plagued by increasingly bitter strikes - many of which were the result of demarcation disputes. Indeed within the BBC, the scenery-shifters' disputes were among the most bitter - in 1984, one dispute resulted in all of them being sacked (though they were re-instated).

Woe-betide anyone who moved or operated something that it wasn't within their job description so to do! As a production, Dr Who didn't (couldn't) operate in isolation from the world around it. So, as you say, only an electrician would have been allowed to operate the Tardis' lamp and only scenery-shifters would have been allowed to assemble/dis-assemble or move the Tardis.

Quote from: volpone on Sep 21, 2016, 04:53 am
Third, regarding fiberglass -vs- wood, I would suggest considering the personality of the producer, John Nathan-Turner.  Now JNT had been around in some capacity since near the beginning of the show, IIRC.  And whatever his faults as a producer (and IMO, there were many), he did a great deal towards improving the quality of the special FX on the show.  And I suspect he was a bit of a technical guy.  So the idea of a fiberglass prop would appeal to him.  

I would suggest - on this aspect of our discussion - that (whatever the reason for the choice of a fibreglass Tardis), it didn't have the desired effect; compared to the wooden versions, the fibrelass versions didn't prove to be anywhere near as durable. By the way Steve (other Steve), what does "IIRC" mean? (Sorry if I'm being a bit dim!)  

T

If I Recall Correctly

Cheers Marc - obviously I was being a 'bit dim'! 

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 21, 2016, 01:05 pm
Cheers Marc - obviously I was being a 'bit dim'! 

Not at all mate. You've either heard of it or you haven't.....  not knowing a bit of info doesn't make you dim! lol

Mat Irvine has very kindly sent me the following additional information (again quoted verbatim):

"However one other fact that seems to have been omitted (i.e., from my 'article' on the history of the Tardis), is that for Classic Who, yes, the main Police Box structure came under scenic design - so prop guys (and girls) would shift it around, set it up, and the chippy would mend it! BUT the light on top came under FX! Precisely why is slightly unclear - this was already established before I came on the scene -  but I suspect it was because it ran on 12 volts, and - then - FX dealt with 12 volts - so on location FX would be the only ones there to have a convenient 12 volt supply to hand... "

I've thanked Mat for taking the time out of his busy schedule to comment and have promised to buy him a pint (or two)! 

T

Looks like you've done what I'd talked about doing

Well, what is it they say? "Ask and thou shalt receive...." 

T

Tony -

Just coming to this truly fantastic effort of yours, and in reviewing your plans, the only dim I seem to be unable to locate is the angle/depth of the bevels on the panel insets.  The cross-section of the windows/phone panel might have them, I think, - is it 290mm x 365 x 25? Given how specific everything else is, I wanted to be sure.
Thanks!

_Mike

Hi Mike,

Yes, the rear dimensions of each panel should be 15 millimeters smaller than the 'outer' dimensions and each panel should be 25 millimeters deep.

The exception is for the windows where the 'mullions' and cross rails were - in effect - mounted on the rear surface of the panel recess before the holes for the 'glass' were cut out of the panels' rear surface; this reduces the depth of the front faces of the mullions and cross rails to 20 millimeters.

Does that help?

T

Yes that's perfect, thanks.  I'm a VFX artist working in LA just doing a photoreal TARDIS as a personal project.  Lining up with several camera references, it certainly appears your dims are as accurate as one can hope for given all the tolerances in a build!

The only thing I can't quite get a clear reference picture of is the Police Box sign assembly, which must be stepped - it sits both in front of the support posts and "through" them to cover the roof gap, but in reality must have had a notch there.  I'm sure there's a reference picture of it that's abundantly clear; I just haven't found it on the site yet - tons of material here!

Come on Mike,

I've been waiting for this for years.



Bx

Quote from: mverta on Apr 10, 2018, 07:41 pm
Yes that's perfect, thanks. 

You're welcome.

Quote from: mverta on Apr 10, 2018, 07:41 pm
The only thing I can't quite get a clear reference picture of is the Police Box sign assembly, which must be stepped - it sits both in front of the support posts and "through" them to cover the roof gap, but in reality must have had a notch there.  I'm sure there's a reference picture of it that's abundantly clear; I just haven't found it on the site yet - tons of material here!

Does this help?



I'm looking forward to seeing your CGI version of the TY-J Box(es).

T

Barry!!  Yes, I started this one years ago and got busy/couldn't find the files so I just started over.  Much easier this time thanks to Tony

Thanks for the reference pic, Tony... not quite the angle (I'm looking for a top-view of the sign/post connection) but cool and useful nonetheless.

BTW here is a model using your dims overlaid on a couple reference photos.  A couple of times it's come up just a touch shy in height at the roof, but that's probably my misalignment of the camera or something else random.  My model is not yet wonky-like-the-world-is, it's mathematically precise and even.  That alone guarantees it couldn't precisely line up with anything real, anyway.