Re: The Colin Richmond/Ed Thomas TARDIS Refurb (2009)

Started by Kingpin, Apr 09, 2013, 01:07 pm

Previous topic - Next topic

aaron63

Quote from: galacticprobe on Aug 04, 2014, 04:53 am
I wonder what other sort of negotiations they had to go through to have John Leeson (K-9's original voice actor) to voice K-9 in that Aussie 'K9' series. And let's not forget that K-9's first appearance in that series was in his "Mark I" design, and every so often throughout the series there were pictures (and some "flashback" K-9 memories) that showed the Mark I design. So maybe more agreements were made behind-the-scenes that we are unaware of.


At the time Bob Baker was developing the 'K-9' series, he did not want the BBC to feature K9 in "The Sarah Jane Adventures", hence the limited cameos in "Invasion of the Bane" and "The Lost Boy" - which makes sense if you'd want to do your own show with the same hero.

However, and if I remember correctly, a deal was stuck between the BBC and Bob Baker's production company which allowed them to feature, among other things, the original K9 design in their first episode, in exchange for Cardiff to use K9's character in '5' SJA two-part stories, which were...

"The Mad Woman in the Attic - Part Two" (0.5 Story)
"The Wedding of Sarah Jane Smith - Part One & Two" (1 Story)
"Mona Lisa's Revenge - Part Two" (0.5 Story)
"The Gift - Part One & Two" (1 Story)
"The Nightmare Man - Part One & Two" (1 Story)
"Goodbye, Sarah Jane Smith - Part Two" (0.5 Story)

And since that's only 4.5 stories, I'd assume K9 would have been brought back at some point in the postponed 5th Series of SJA.

Also, since the BBC technically don't own John Leeson or his performance (or maybe they do :P ) I don't see why there would have been any legal problems getting him to voice the character again. He's an actor. It's a job, right?

Aaron


galacticprobe

Aug 06, 2014, 04:18 am #76 Last Edit: Aug 06, 2014, 04:35 am by galacticprobe
Quote from: aaron63 on Aug 05, 2014, 10:03 am
Also, since the BBC technically don't own John Leeson or his performance (or maybe they do :P ) I don't see why there would have been any legal problems getting him to voice the character again. He's an actor. It's a job, right?


It may have to do with the iconography of the character. John Leeson is the voice of K-9, no matter how you look at it, and having him voice a character who is a robot dog called "K-9" in another series is pushing the envelope. Some negotiations had to have taken place.

I don't know what things like that are in the UK and Down Under, but here in the US things like this could get a bit hairy. Back in the early '90s (I think it was) Hasbro ran an advert for their highly popular "Trivial Pursuit" game. The advert started with white lettering on a black screen with the words and a narrator's voice: "How many bones are there in the human wrist?"

The words vanished, and then out of the blackness DeForest Kelley (Dr. McCoy of 'Star Trek' fame) steps into the light and says in his famous tone "Well how the devil should I know?! I'm an actor, not a doctor!" <cue the "Trivial Pursuit" game image and "By Hasbro" in the corner of the screen> Well, Paramount didn't take kindly to that one and had that advert pulled. One could argue that Kelley wasn't reprising his "Bones" McCoy role for the advert, but his mannerisms and tone of voice, and that catch phrase shouted "Dr. Leonard 'Bones' McCoy" loud enough that Paramount was legally able to issue a D&C order to Hasbro for that advert. (Apparently Hasbro hadn't asked Paramount if it was okay for them to do it.)

So while Leeson may be an actor, he's got to be careful of what he does with his "K-9" voice. Case in point, the actress who voices Bart Simpson on 'The Simpsons' (yes, he's voice by a woman). She's a very talented voice actress who's voiced many other characters, but she's legally bound not to do Bart's voice - even in an interview (which she once said in an interview when prodded to say something like Bart would). She can only use that voice for Bart Simpson, and if it's in an advert, that advert has to be sanctioned by Fox, who holds the rights to 'The Simpsons' (even though they started out as a cartoon short on 'The Tracey Ullman Show' when that aired on the Fox Network - and if I can remember correctly, there was a huge legal battle between Ullman and Fox over the rights to the Simpsons, and I think Fox won on the grounds that Ullman's show aired on their network, and anything aired on the network was Fox's property).

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

davidnagel

Kind Regards,

David

www.spiffinglyniceguy.co.uk

teejayy94

Is this the current one? It has more of a wood grain soo It could be 2010 exterior :/...

DoctorWho8

Looks like the Series 5 or 6/7A box.  Look at the routing of the top of the corner post.  That's the giveaway that it's not the Series 8 box.
Bill "the Doctor" Rudloff

galacticprobe

Aug 30, 2014, 05:38 am #80 Last Edit: Aug 30, 2014, 05:41 am by galacticprobe
It's the Series 6-7a box. The definite confirmation is the St. John logo and the PTO sign. The PTO sign has the solid black lettering that first appeared in "A Christmas Carol". The St, John logo has that wide white area for the lettering with no black border around the outermost edge, and it has that really thick cross at the bottom. The animals between the arrowheads also lack the definition of the Series 5 or 7b logo. That version of the logo also debuted in "A Christmas Carol". So the St. John logo, combined with the lettering on the PTO sign, confirm this is the 6-7a box.

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

davidnagel

Oct 10, 2014, 12:19 am #81 Last Edit: Oct 10, 2014, 12:21 am by davidnagel
Interesting - it looks like the under sign box is missing?

tumblr_mkdseby12M1qmvzdjo1_1280.jpg

Plus the door windows don't seem to be blacked out in places:

IMG_0097.jpg
Kind Regards,

David

www.spiffinglyniceguy.co.uk

kiwidoc

I don't think the section under the sign box is missing, it's (over)reflecting the light spilling out from the doors.   A bit of over-zealous Photoshop work I think but it is a bit of an optical illusion.  :)

davidnagel

I thought it might be but wasn't sure, just looks particularly odd!
Kind Regards,

David

www.spiffinglyniceguy.co.uk

DoctorWho8

Thanks to Nick Robotto for posting pictures of the shrunken TARDIS from Flatline over the blueprints for said model!  He has written down the base color of the Series 8 TARDIS prop as Pantone 654C!
PANTONE 654.jpg
Bill "the Doctor" Rudloff

superrichi1a

That's a damn useful piece of information - someone write that down! As for the model, I love if, it's fantastic! You just can't beat a real model, even with that wonky lamp, mis aligned textured window panels and series 7B dimensions!
Isn't it how ironic that we have to think of solutions out of the box, in order to build our boxes a lot of the time?

Kingpin

It should also be noted that those appear to be the same plans (just with shrunken measurements) for the half-or-so scale TARDIS exterior, judging by the rear set of doors marked on the plan.

TheWitch

Found this nifty little reference on Twitter! HURRAY FOR TWITTER!

B1DWrWCIYAAd8Br.png

galacticprobe

Oct 29, 2014, 03:47 am #88 Last Edit: Oct 29, 2014, 03:48 am by galacticprobe
That Twitter photo looks like it's of a Series 5-6 box. You can tell by the lamp on top (not to mention the windows), and a close look at the St. John logo. So now we have even more info on the color. Nice find, Tom!

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

kiwidoc

Indeed, I think it's from the first filmed scenes - for the crash of the (whatever it's called) at the beach for the Series 5 Angels story.  This was the first sighting of the new box, surrounded by faux wreckage and small fires.