TARDIS prop D reference channel

[vtalanov98]

"Eccleston/Tennant - Box A" or "Smith - Box B"

No, no, of course not.

"A", "B" and "C" for the three Eccleston / Tennant boxes, as they were used interchangeably and were meant to represent the same thing on screen.

Same goes to the Smith boxes. "A" for the first Smith box from Season 5, "B" for the second Smith box from Seasons 6 and 7.

Reasons for that I explained earlier above, using Back to the Future, Part I as an example. To me it's rather strange to put all these boxes in one bucket of "A, B, C, ... , H, I, J"..., considering that the Whittaker boxes are of a completely different design!

 

[Audrey]

... To me it's rather strange to put all these boxes in one bucket of "A, B, C, ... , H, I, J"..., considering that the Whittaker boxes are of a completely different design!

I will say that the alphabetical naming scheme hails from Will Brooks' excellent Tardis History blog, which was originally published as the Capaldi era was bowing out. With this in mind, I can see the scheme as originally employed making more sense with how the Series 1-10 boxes, broadly, were variations on the same basic structure. The Whittaker boxes being of such a dramatically different look definitely threw a wrench in things, and I do understand Will not reworking the scheme when this happened given how much he had written not long prior.

What you've raised with the alphabetical scheme being more intended and useful for multiple props 'playing the same character', rather than the broad spectrum of designs we've seen makes complete sense. While I think the alphabetical scheme is here to stay, I'd personally suggest a mix of designer names and/or Doctor names to help with context. For example I've recently been using designations like Arwel Wyn Jones/AWJ-3 to refer to what Will designates box J. Though I do worry that, for example, 'Richmond/Thomas-6' may cause its own confusion given just how many unique designs (and designers, with Michael Pickwoad assuming the role starting with the 2010 Christmas special) this would encompass. I'm unsure what the best solution is.

 

[MSharif3D]

"A", "B" and "C" for the three Eccleston / Tennant boxes, as they were used interchangeably and were meant to represent the same thing on screen.

Same goes to the Smith boxes. "A" for the first Smith box from Season 5, "B" for the second Smith box from Seasons 6 and 7.

Yeah that's what I meant to type...'just didn't do a good job at it

By the way, many thanks for sending those references across they'll really help!

 

[vtalanov98]

I'm unsure what the best solution is

Well, exactly! Sadly there's no perfect solution, that's why I'm sticking to a naming system that has already been established here for decades. And I find it more logical!

 

[vtalanov98]

many thanks for sending those references across they'll really help!

Pleasure! Have another grab, a previously unseen promo picture, scanned from a magazine (pardon for low quality tho, it is what it is)

 

[Beee]

Well, I disagree. I would not put Matt Smith's boxes in the same line with Eccleston's / Tennant's boxes "A", "B" and "C" as boxes "D" and "E".

Labeling these two as "A" and "B" makes more sense to me:

I'm actually more of the camp of adapting the Classic Era's naming conventions, like Richmond/Thomas Mk 1 and 2 for A/B, Mk 3 for C, with Mk 4 and 5 for D and E respectively. That at least gives us the Pickwoad Mk 1 and 2 (F and G), and then currently the AWJ Mk 1 through 3. This also allows for things like the Richard/Thomas Mk 3 Refit (used for the War Doctor in 2013), the Mk 5 Refit (when E prop was repainted and refitted for Series 7B).

The biggest issue with this however is the ease of naming props with their door orientations as well, as basically the Richard/Thomas Mk 1 and 2 switched doors regularly, same deal with the AWJ Mk 2 and 3 (of which, they currently remain in those configurations).

 

[haider]

Wanted to ask, does anyone here have images of the 2010 box dismantled? Or atleast what the inside looks like?

 

[vtalanov98]

Wanted to ask, does anyone here have images of the 2010 box dismantled? Or atleast what the inside looks like?

I have some images from the shooting of The Time of Angels but they were probably already shared here hundreds of times:



I also have some images from the shooting of The Lodger found on Flickr (published by users "alun_vega" and "alibabes"):

 

[haider]

Thank you so much, these will do just fine

 

[haider]

I'm actually more of the camp of adapting the Classic Era's naming conventions, like Richmond/Thomas Mk 1 and 2 for A/B, Mk 3 for C, with Mk 4 and 5 for D and E respectively. That at least gives us the Pickwoad Mk 1 and 2 (F and G), and then currently the AWJ Mk 1 through 3. This also allows for things like the Richard/Thomas Mk 3 Refit (used for the War Doctor in 2013), the Mk 5 Refit (when E prop was repainted and refitted for Series 7B).

The biggest issue with this however is the ease of naming props with their door orientations as well, as basically the Richard/Thomas Mk 1 and 2 switched doors regularly, same deal with the AWJ Mk 2 and 3 (of which, they currently remain in those configurations).

As someone who is primarily more used to simple alphabet lettering for labelling the modern props (A, B, C. D, etc) this feels more logical & I guess more easier for the wider audience of this website, or generally. Each to their own however, I’ve learnt quite alot from you guys & it’s definitely made me understand my knowledge of these Props much better.

As many probably have already, I have a folder with all the available plans I could find for each prop (I have a fondness for variety even though I should simply follow the better plan with the correct measurements), and it’s named by the alphabet lettering. I’m definitely convinced to change it into a format like this: Production Designer // Mk No. // Era (extra but could work) & as for the classic folder I have, I went with the approach to name them by their production designers *only*, then inside each folder I would make folders for “Mk [No.]” much alike to TYJ (still a work in progress for me but I’d love to learn how you guys would name them)

Do you guys prefer this kind of approach?

 

[MSharif3D]

As someone who is primarily more used to simple alphabet lettering for labelling the modern props (A, B, C. D, etc) this feels more logical & I guess more easier for the wider audience of this website, or generally. Each to their own however, I’ve learnt quite alot from you guys & it’s definitely made me understand my knowledge of these Props much better.

As many probably have already, I have a folder with all the available plans I could find for each prop (I have a fondness for variety even though I should simply follow the better plan with the correct measurements), and it’s named by the alphabet lettering. I’m definitely convinced to change it into a format like this: Production Designer // Mk No. // Era (extra but could work) & as for the classic folder I have, I went with the approach to name them by their production designers *only*, then inside each folder I would make folders for “Mk [No.]” much alike to TYJ (still a work in progress for me but I’d love to learn how you guys would name them)

Do you guys prefer this kind of approach?

I prefer the simple alphabet lettering labelling for the modern props tbh, its easier for me to keep track & remember...

 

[vtalanov98]

You know, I just realised that we're talking about ...completely different things!
You label props as A, B, C, ..., and it makes sense - helps to keep them in chronological order!
I label designs as Mark I, Mark II, Mark III, ..., and it also makes sense - props A and B are exactly the same Mark I design!

It's just that if one was to apply one naming system to another, it'd create an overlap, because props A and B share Mark I design, while prop C (the third hero prop to be built) is built in Mark II design (which is the second unique design)!