The Power of the Daleks

[Rassilons Rod]

The Power of the Daleks 1966 EE Season 4 Story 30

Telesnaps from Episode 06:

[tony farrell]

A photo of the same scene (without the 'dry ice'):



And a portion of the same picture at full size (open image in a separate tab and use the 'magnifying glass'):



T

[galacticprobe]

I know this is just the closing scene from this story, but I still wonder why they didn't bother to turn the lamp around so that "blast hole" in the 'lens' was on the other side, and not visible on camera. We know the lamp was removable, and we've seen that damage still on the lens in other stories but facing a different side of the TARDIS. So this puzzles me.

Mostly spewing thoughts "out loud", as it were, but if it spawns comments that shed light <bad pun - and didn't see it coming until I re-read this> on why they didn't try to hide that hole, I'm sure those comments could be very enlightening.

And I'll say it again, Tony: I need to travel in your circle of friends so I can meet people with such great reference photos. Thank you so much for sharing them with us, and many thanks to your friends for letting you share them!

Dino.

[tony farrell]

And I'll say it again, Tony: I need to travel in your circle of friends so I can meet people with such great reference photos. Thank you so much for sharing them with us, and many thanks to your friends for letting you share them!
Dino.

Whilst I have no desire to derail this topic which is about posting reference material for the full-sized Tardis exterior as it appeared in the various stories, hopefully Marc will indulge me in a reply about obtaining and sharing various full-sized, high-definition, photographs:

Dino mentions 'travelling in a circle of friends who allow me to share various photographs'; social media can be a double-edged sword:

On the one hand it allows you to become acquainted with people who in "real life" you are never likely to actually meet - I'm thinking here of geographical separation with people such as Karsten, Dino and Rob49152 all being on the on 'the wrong side of the pond' to me. But, with the advent of the  internet we can become (to use an old-fashioned term) 'pen pals'. Similarly, without sites like Tardis Builders, I'd never have got the chance to meet and become friends with people such as Steve White.

On the other hand, if you read some of the comments on Twitter for example, relating to people's dislike of the hexagonal 'roundels' used in the recreated Hartnell Tardis interior in the up-coming Christmas Special then the down-side of social media becomes apparent; just because the set doesn't appeal to these people, it doesn't mean they have the right to 'pour bile' on the Production Team's hard work. If people can't say something nice, perhaps they should consider just saying nothing!

I mentioned 'pen pals' and here I turn to sites like Tardis Builders which - in general - is a very friendly place which brings out the best in people: It's no secret that some of the members here are TV & film industry professionals whilst others have more than a passing interest in a certain little programme that is now into its fifty-fifth year! If these like-minded people see that you are interested in a subject or that you are trying to 'do' genuine research into a subject then - in general - they are willing to help.

Now, this next bit is going to sound like 'name-dropping' (it's not intended that way but, please bear with me):

I'm on Twitter (though I don't do much more than use its messaging service); it came as something of a surprise to be suddenly 'followed' by people like Phil Morris (of missing episodes fame) and Richard Bignell (Dr Who archivist and researcher). Because of Tardis Builders, they'd both come across my name and because of our mutual interest they have both given me help with Richard providing me with some excellent photos and with Phil having a 'rummage' in the Shepperton Studios archives on my behalf.

Similarly, last June I met Tom Spilsbury (former editor of DWM). He's a really nice chap and (again) he'd come across my name. We spent a few hours chatting and - like Phil and Richard - we stay in semi-regular touch. Tom has also provided me with some excellent photos but with the proviso that I can't share them without checking with him first.

And this brings me neatly 'back on topic'. The Copyright Infringement Act allows a researcher to quote some else's work for the purposes of "information, criticism and education" but this doesn't apply to photographs which remain the exclusive property of the owner. The trouble is the 'owner' isn't necessarily the person who took the photograph:

Whereas the composition (framing, lighting, etc) is the exclusive property of the person who took the photograph, the subject matter may not be - the ownership depends on the purpose for which the photograph was taken and the permissions which surround that purpose. If - for example - I were to enter your home and start taking pictures, apart from asking "what the bloody hell do you think you're dong?" you, as the owner of the home, would also own the photos I took. If, however, I were an Estate Agent and you were selling your home, then I as an Estate Agent would own those photographs because you had given me permission to take them in order to market your house.

Thus, designers' photographs may not actually belong to the designer who took them - in large part it depends on the permission given. If the designer is taking a photo of a studio set for internal use (i.e., continuity, etc) and has taken the photo on someone else's property and 'in work's time' (i.e., as part of the designer's paid duties), then it could be reasonably argued the ownership of the photo rests with the employer.

Wikipedia take the opposite view - in their disclaimers, they state that the use of photographs for educational purposes should be treated in the same way as written work i.e., that the photographs are being used for the purposes of "information, criticism and education".

The other problem with photographs (and their ownership) brings me back to 'social media'. Once something has been posted on the internet, effectively it exists forever - it has escaped 'into the wild', the genie is out of its lamp:

I was once privately criticised for sharing a picture from "The Firemaker" - I had been sent the picture some two years before I eventually posted it and the only reason I posted it was because I was subsequently sent it by someone completely unconnected to the person who originally 'gave' it to me.  On checking, I found that the picture was already available on a couple of websites (albeit it at a reduced size). In those circumstances I felt that the initial request for confidentiality no longer applied - as I say, the genie had already escaped from his lamp.

So, Dino, yes - I have made some good friends from "the interweb" - these like-minded individuals are prepared to help and I try wherever possible to acknowledge that help (though sometimes my helpers prefer to remain anonymous). Let's not forget that many of those people are already here on Tardis Builders - Crispin, Marc, Matt, Will, Steve, Mark, Rob etc, etc, etc.

How does the old phrase go? "Ask and thou shalt receive"!  

T

[Angelus Lupus]

Didn't someone here posit (rather convincingly I thought) that this hole isn't actually in the lamp on the prop, but rather a cut-out in a photograph of the prop so a light could be shone through?

[darren79]

There was very recently a discussion on twitter about this being a hole in the photo rather than the prop. Implying a light was shone through the hole to simulate flashing.

Apparently the photo doesn't line up with the telesnap properly (the Dalek is too far forward for one) but the box itself might have been isolated and inlaid over a studio shot of an empty set.

[Rassilons Rod]

Surely that hole was visible later on too?

[tony farrell]

If you look at the high-definition photo I posted, you'll see that the entire lamp's cylinder is actually split with the right-hand portion actually hanging off. This is damage and not something done to either the photo or the actual lamp housing to make the light more prominent! 

T

[galacticprobe]

I believe Tony's comment above is corroborated in his research into http://tardisbuilders.com/index.php?topic=4489.12. In the photo of Jon Pertwee falling out of the TARDIS, the lamp lens has the damage facing the rear of the TARDIS rather than the front. (I'm not sure if this is part of the same damage, or new damage; I'd have to re-read that part again, but in the photo with Pertwee you can see the lens damage is clearly a hole in the real prop, and not one punched into a photo.)

And, Tony: excellent explanation you gave above! Very well-worded. (As for my comment about "travelling in your circles" that spawned it... that was my way of saying I'm a little jealous of the connections you've managed to forge that affords you access to those people willing to help, even the ones that wish to remain anonymous to all but you. Somehow it just sounded a little nicer the other way. At any road, I am thankful to both you and those you've connected with and given you permission to post the photos. Those references are priceless and we wouldn't have them without you.)

Dino.

[Osiran]

Didn't someone here posit (rather convincingly I thought) that this hole isn't actually in the lamp on the prop, but rather a cut-out in a photograph of the prop so a light could be shone through?

I've never been convinced that this is a hole in the actual lamp either. In some ways it does look like a hole in the photo, and in others ways it looks more like black tape stuck on the lamp rather than an actual hole. If we look at the post in front of the hole it looks a bit strange. Some people have mentioned the damage to the lamp shown in the photo of Pertwee falling out of the TARDIS, but to me it doesn't 'match up' as that hole was at the top of the lamp.