Why is it that the controls and inside of the Tardis looks old. I prefer
the Tardis in the old series that looked more like something from the
future. The controls on the Tardis in the new series looks like a
joke...something put together with spare household parts. The Tardis controls looked great and was at its best when Colin Baker
became the 6th Doctor who in 1984. I wished it stayed the same.
Do other Doctor Who fans agree or disagree with me?
> Why is it that the controls and inside of the Tardis looks old. I prefer
> the Tardis in the old series that looked more like something from the
> future. The controls on the Tardis in the new series looks like a
> joke...something put together with spare household parts.
> The Tardis controls looked great and was at its best when Colin Baker
> became the 6th Doctor who in 1984. I wished it stayed the same.
> Do other Doctor Who fans agree or disagree with me?
Designed by students trying to impress old fat men. Have you seen the
incidental props? Nobody has an eye for quality or detail. It's like they're
not even trying. [*]
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 08:07:17 GMT, Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>Why is it that the controls and inside of the Tardis looks old. I prefer
>the Tardis in the old series that looked more like something from the
>future. The controls on the Tardis in the new series looks like a
>joke...something put together with spare household parts.
One explanation I heard was that, being on the run, the Doctor can't
get genuine Eternity Perpetual Company replacement parts, and has had
to patch in available technology for his repairs. I don't know if
this was an official theory, or a fan one, but it would explain things
all the way back to the beginning, like the mercury fluid link, or the
hand-labeled Fast Return Switch. I'm afraid making it canon would
involve a lot more of seeing Doc nicking bits while running down the
corridors, or dumpster diving (see him building an alien detector out
of stone knives and bear skins in "The Lodger").
Of course, how this works with the idea that the current control room
is a regeneration of that just previous, or that the old ones have
been backed up and can be re instanced, I don't know.
>The Tardis controls looked great and was at its best when Colin Baker
>became the 6th Doctor who in 1984. I wished it stayed the same.
One sure thing is that, no matter what, it will never stay the same.
On Sep 20, 4:07 am, Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
> Why is it that the controls and inside of the Tardis looks old. I prefer
> the Tardis in the old series that looked more like something from the
> future. The controls on the Tardis in the new series looks like a
> joke...something put together with spare household parts.
> The Tardis controls looked great and was at its best when Colin Baker
> became the 6th Doctor who in 1984. I wished it stayed the same.
> Do other Doctor Who fans agree or disagree with me?
> --
> Regards Brian
Really? You think the old console room looked futuristic? It looks
like something out of a cheap 1960s.. sci-fi... TV... Oh, right.
> Of course, how this works with the idea that the current control room
> is a regeneration of that just previous, or that the old ones have
> been backed up and can be re instanced, I don't know.
The TARDIS changed when the Doctor regenerated. This time it changed
after the Doctor faked his own death to fool the Silence.
So the Doctor's Wife decided that was enough of a reason to redecorate?
>> Of course, how this works with the idea that the current control room
>> is a regeneration of that just previous, or that the old ones have
>> been backed up and can be re instanced, I don't know.
>The TARDIS changed when the Doctor regenerated. This time it changed
>after the Doctor faked his own death to fool the Silence.
>So the Doctor's Wife decided that was enough of a reason to redecorate?
huh?
-- Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising! http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k USA petition to dissolve the Republic and vote to disoolve it in November 2012
> Why is it that the controls and inside of the Tardis looks old. I prefer
> the Tardis in the old series that looked more like something from the
> future. The controls on the Tardis in the new series looks like a
> joke...something put together with spare household parts. > The Tardis controls looked great and was at its best when Colin Baker
> became the 6th Doctor who in 1984. I wished it stayed the same.
> Do other Doctor Who fans agree or disagree with me?
Nothing has changed. The Daleks have always been just oversized pepper
pots with a food mixer and a plumber's plunger stuck on the front. :-)
Ross <rrasz...@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:
> On Sep 20, 4:07 am, Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>> Why is it that the controls and inside of the Tardis looks old. I prefer
>> the Tardis in the old series that looked more like something from the
>> future. The controls on the Tardis in the new series looks like a
>> joke...something put together with spare household parts.
>> The Tardis controls looked great and was at its best when Colin Baker
>> became the 6th Doctor who in 1984. I wished it stayed the same.
>> Do other Doctor Who fans agree or disagree with me?
>> --
>> Regards Brian
> Really? You think the old console room looked futuristic? It looks
> like something out of a cheap 1960s.. sci-fi... TV... Oh, right.
No I was referring to the 1984 series of Doctor Who.
Your Name <YourN...@YourISP.com> wrote:
> In article <1831480860369820735.477004bclark-es.co...@free.teranews.com>,
> Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>> Why is it that the controls and inside of the Tardis looks old. I prefer
>> the Tardis in the old series that looked more like something from the
>> future. The controls on the Tardis in the new series looks like a
>> joke...something put together with spare household parts. >> The Tardis controls looked great and was at its best when Colin Baker
>> became the 6th Doctor who in 1984. I wished it stayed the same.
>> Do other Doctor Who fans agree or disagree with me?
> Nothing has changed. The Daleks have always been just oversized pepper
> pots with a food mixer and a plumber's plunger stuck on the front. :-)
I often wonder if the Daleks were designed in a hurry on a budget.
<jackb...@bright.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 08:07:17 GMT, Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>> Why is it that the controls and inside of the Tardis looks old. I prefer
>> the Tardis in the old series that looked more like something from the
>> future. The controls on the Tardis in the new series looks like a
>> joke...something put together with spare household parts.
> One explanation I heard was that, being on the run, the Doctor can't
> get genuine Eternity Perpetual Company replacement parts, and has had
> to patch in available technology for his repairs. I don't know if
> this was an official theory, or a fan one, but it would explain things
> all the way back to the beginning, like the mercury fluid link, or the
> hand-labeled Fast Return Switch. I'm afraid making it canon would
> involve a lot more of seeing Doc nicking bits while running down the
> corridors, or dumpster diving (see him building an alien detector out
> of stone knives and bear skins in "The Lodger").
> Of course, how this works with the idea that the current control room
> is a regeneration of that just previous, or that the old ones have
> been backed up and can be re instanced, I don't know.
>> The Tardis controls looked great and was at its best when Colin Baker
>> became the 6th Doctor who in 1984. I wished it stayed the same.
> One sure thing is that, no matter what, it will never stay the same.
The police box looks the same. In theory the Tardis is non destructible so
it should not change or wear out. The mercury fluid leak was a excuse to
take a closer look at the city. However being science fiction anything is
possible and the designers seem to be able to do what they want.
Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
> Your Name <YourN...@YourISP.com> wrote:
> > In article <1831480860369820735.477004bclark-es.co...@free.teranews.com>,
> > Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
> >> Why is it that the controls and inside of the Tardis looks old. I prefer
> >> the Tardis in the old series that looked more like something from the
> >> future. The controls on the Tardis in the new series looks like a
> >> joke...something put together with spare household parts. > >> The Tardis controls looked great and was at its best when Colin Baker
> >> became the 6th Doctor who in 1984. I wished it stayed the same.
> >> Do other Doctor Who fans agree or disagree with me?
> > Nothing has changed. The Daleks have always been just oversized pepper
> > pots with a food mixer and a plumber's plunger stuck on the front. :-)
> I often wonder if the Daleks were designed in a hurry on a budget.
"Budget"?!? What's that?? ;-)
British TV shows usually have very little money (relatively speaking),
which is why the set design and special effects are often awful, but they
often make up for that in story and sheer watchablility. Blake's 7 is
another "good" example of cheap sets and special effects. In fact one of
the best old British shows for special effects is actually the kid's show
Thunderbirds - Gerry Anderson and his team did some amazing work with
relatively little money.
American shows on the other hand usually have a massive amounts of money
for the sets and special effects (and actors' salaries), but often have
little in the way of story or watchability (usually it's just lots of
explosions and car chases, and sex scenes if it's supposedly for "adults",
trying to make up for the lack of actualy story). Then again, the original
Star Trek's polystyrene "boulders" weren't that greta either.
All special effects teams have to use everyday objects - it's not exactly
easy to go to the local shop and buy a Dalek ray gun. ;-) Even the big
names like Star Wars used everyday objects, but they simply had more money
to be able to spend more time disguising most of it (in some cases all
they basically did was turn the object upside-down).
Your Name <YourN...@YourISP.com> wrote:
> In article <567670280369896489.131075bclark-es.co...@free.teranews.com>,
> Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>> Your Name <YourN...@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>> In article <1831480860369820735.477004bclark-es.co...@free.teranews.com>,
>>> Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>>>> Why is it that the controls and inside of the Tardis looks old. I prefer
>>>> the Tardis in the old series that looked more like something from the
>>>> future. The controls on the Tardis in the new series looks like a
>>>> joke...something put together with spare household parts. >>>> The Tardis controls looked great and was at its best when Colin Baker
>>>> became the 6th Doctor who in 1984. I wished it stayed the same.
>>>> Do other Doctor Who fans agree or disagree with me?
>>> Nothing has changed. The Daleks have always been just oversized pepper
>>> pots with a food mixer and a plumber's plunger stuck on the front. :-)
>> I often wonder if the Daleks were designed in a hurry on a budget.
> "Budget"?!? What's that?? ;-)
> British TV shows usually have very little money (relatively speaking),
> which is why the set design and special effects are often awful, but they
> often make up for that in story and sheer watchablility. Blake's 7 is
> another "good" example of cheap sets and special effects. In fact one of
> the best old British shows for special effects is actually the kid's show
> Thunderbirds - Gerry Anderson and his team did some amazing work with
> relatively little money.
> American shows on the other hand usually have a massive amounts of money
> for the sets and special effects (and actors' salaries), but often have
> little in the way of story or watchability (usually it's just lots of
> explosions and car chases, and sex scenes if it's supposedly for "adults",
> trying to make up for the lack of actualy story). Then again, the original
> Star Trek's polystyrene "boulders" weren't that greta either.
> All special effects teams have to use everyday objects - it's not exactly
> easy to go to the local shop and buy a Dalek ray gun. ;-) Even the big
> names like Star Wars used everyday objects, but they simply had more money
> to be able to spend more time disguising most of it (in some cases all
> they basically did was turn the object upside-down).
OK now that Doctor Who is popular and most have a bigger budget then why
are we seeing a cheap setup for controls on the Tardis? Unless its done for
humour.
> OK now that Doctor Who is popular and most have a bigger budget then why
> are we seeing a cheap setup for controls on the Tardis? Unless its done > for humour.
> Why is it that the controls and inside of the Tardis looks old. I prefer
> the Tardis in the old series that looked more like something from the
> future. The controls on the Tardis in the new series looks like a
> joke...something put together with spare household parts.
> The Tardis controls looked great and was at its best when Colin Baker
> became the 6th Doctor who in 1984. I wished it stayed the same.
> Do other Doctor Who fans agree or disagree with me?
It's the zeitgeist, I'm afraid. Back in the '60s science was trendy and positive. We were all going to get jet packs and science was going to solve all humanity's problems. Hi-tech and futuristic were all the rage. In my 27 years of teaching science I have noted a growing disenchantment with science and, while people have a love of gadgets and technology there is not the interest in how they work that there used to be.
> Ross <rrasz...@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 20, 4:07 am, Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
> >> Why is it that the controls and inside of the Tardis looks old. I prefer
> >> the Tardis in the old series that looked more like something from the
> >> future. The controls on the Tardis in the new series looks like a
> >> joke...something put together with spare household parts.
> >> The Tardis controls looked great and was at its best when Colin Baker
> >> became the 6th Doctor who in 1984. I wished it stayed the same.
> >> Do other Doctor Who fans agree or disagree with me?
> >> --
> >> Regards Brian
> > Really? You think the old console room looked futuristic? It looks
> > like something out of a cheap 1960s.. sci-fi... TV... Oh, right.
> No I was referring to the 1984 series of Doctor Who.
> --
> Regards Brian- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
So was I. It doens't look futuristic. It looks like someone from the
60s' idea of what "futuristic" looks like. Like one of those old
"House of Tomorrow" things where in the future everything will be
white and sterile and full of buttons and pneumatic tubes.
Anything you make based on one period's idea of "High tech" is going
ot look silly and dated in a few years. So the modern TARDIS instead
goes for an anachronistic look that marks it as something "out of
time" entirely.
Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
> Your Name <YourN...@YourISP.com> wrote:
> > In article <567670280369896489.131075bclark-es.co...@free.teranews.com>,
> > Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
> >> Your Name <YourN...@YourISP.com> wrote:
> >>> In article <1831480860369820735.477004bclark-es.co...@free.teranews.com>,
> >>> Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
> >>>> Why is it that the controls and inside of the Tardis looks old. I prefer
> >>>> the Tardis in the old series that looked more like something from the
> >>>> future. The controls on the Tardis in the new series looks like a
> >>>> joke...something put together with spare household parts. > >>>> The Tardis controls looked great and was at its best when Colin Baker
> >>>> became the 6th Doctor who in 1984. I wished it stayed the same.
> >>>> Do other Doctor Who fans agree or disagree with me?
> >>> Nothing has changed. The Daleks have always been just oversized pepper
> >>> pots with a food mixer and a plumber's plunger stuck on the front. :-)
> >> I often wonder if the Daleks were designed in a hurry on a budget.
> > "Budget"?!? What's that?? ;-)
> > British TV shows usually have very little money (relatively speaking),
> > which is why the set design and special effects are often awful, but they
> > often make up for that in story and sheer watchablility. Blake's 7 is
> > another "good" example of cheap sets and special effects. In fact one of
> > the best old British shows for special effects is actually the kid's show
> > Thunderbirds - Gerry Anderson and his team did some amazing work with
> > relatively little money.
> > American shows on the other hand usually have a massive amounts of money
> > for the sets and special effects (and actors' salaries), but often have
> > little in the way of story or watchability (usually it's just lots of
> > explosions and car chases, and sex scenes if it's supposedly for "adults",
> > trying to make up for the lack of actualy story). Then again, the original
> > Star Trek's polystyrene "boulders" weren't that greta either.
> > All special effects teams have to use everyday objects - it's not exactly
> > easy to go to the local shop and buy a Dalek ray gun. ;-) Even the big
> > names like Star Wars used everyday objects, but they simply had more money
> > to be able to spend more time disguising most of it (in some cases all
> > they basically did was turn the object upside-down).
> OK now that Doctor Who is popular and most have a bigger budget then why
> are we seeing a cheap setup for controls on the Tardis? Unless its done for
> humour.
Doctor WHo as (almost) always been popular. Even today it's still a
British show and still has a massively smaller budget than most American
TV shows.
They also have to, and SHOULD, keep some connection with the past.
Although it would be quite easy to completely redesign of the Daleks, it
would be ridiculously stupid to do so (not that it has stopped others!)
... despite the current idiotic fad of rebooting everything beyond
recognition. They wouldn't really be Daleks any longer. It's the same with
the TARDIS - they could make it all sparly clean and brand new like Star
Trek: The Next Generation, but then it's no longer the TARDIS. Such
idiotic changes for the sake of it would eventually mean it's also not
Doctor Who any longer either, simply another barely recognisable "reboot"
hiding behind the good name of an old show.
>> Why is it that the controls and inside of the Tardis looks old. I prefer
>> the Tardis in the old series that looked more like something from the
>> future. The controls on the Tardis in the new series looks like a
>> joke...something put together with spare household parts.
>> The Tardis controls looked great and was at its best when Colin Baker
>> became the 6th Doctor who in 1984. I wished it stayed the same.
>> Do other Doctor Who fans agree or disagree with me?
> It's the zeitgeist, I'm afraid. Back in the '60s science was trendy and > positive. We were all going to get jet packs and science was going to
That was back in the 1920s actually. Well they were actually anti-grav packs that essentially did the same thing. Maybe now that Professor Heuer has discovered the Higgs boson we might now get them? Or not.
> solve all humanity's problems. Hi-tech and futuristic were all the rage. > In my 27 years of teaching science I have noted a growing disenchantment > with science and, while people have a love of gadgets and technology there > is not the interest in how they work that there used to be.
That's because of the dumbing down of science in the GCSE. Maybe there will be a change now they've decided to get rid of them.
> That's because of the dumbing down of science in the GCSE. Maybe there
> will be a change now they've decided to get rid of them.
Management set poor parameters and the young designers twerped around (which
anyone with experience who watched the relevant DW:C would know). The later
set replacement for high definition shooting just followed this pattern.
American designers (and writers) make mistakes which is why they hire
science advisers to sanity check. DW has a science adviser doesn't it?
Don't blame the kids. They're fine (and some of the graduates I interact
with are stupidly sharp and well informed). The problem is bad habits and
laziness creeping down from above, and this doesn't just happen within
production environments like the BBC but games development and other
more serious domains.
>> Of course, how this works with the idea that the current control room
>> is a regeneration of that just previous, or that the old ones have
>> been backed up and can be re instanced, I don't know.
>The TARDIS changed when the Doctor regenerated. This time it changed
>after the Doctor faked his own death to fool the Silence.
>So the Doctor's Wife decided that was enough of a reason to redecorate?
The control console looks different to last year's? I suppose I have
to bow out of this conversation.
>> That's because of the dumbing down of science in the GCSE. Maybe there
>> will be a change now they've decided to get rid of them.
> Management set poor parameters and the young designers twerped around (which
> anyone with experience who watched the relevant DW:C would know). The later
> set replacement for high definition shooting just followed this pattern.
> American designers (and writers) make mistakes which is why they hire
> science advisers to sanity check. DW has a science adviser doesn't it?
> Don't blame the kids. They're fine (and some of the graduates I interact
> with are stupidly sharp and well informed). The problem is bad habits and
> laziness creeping down from above, and this doesn't just happen within
> production environments like the BBC but games development and other
> more serious domains.
I enjoy science fiction programs where there is some sort of explanation
for something that has happened. I like the Doctor Who companions asking
questions and the answers the Doctor gives.
You also need rules such as why the Doctor can't go back in time and
correct his mistakes.
Ross <rrasz...@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:
> On Sep 21, 1:06 am, Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>> Ross <rrasz...@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:
>>> On Sep 20, 4:07 am, Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>>>> Why is it that the controls and inside of the Tardis looks old. I prefer
>>>> the Tardis in the old series that looked more like something from the
>>>> future. The controls on the Tardis in the new series looks like a
>>>> joke...something put together with spare household parts.
>>>> The Tardis controls looked great and was at its best when Colin Baker
>>>> became the 6th Doctor who in 1984. I wished it stayed the same.
>>>> Do other Doctor Who fans agree or disagree with me?
>>>> --
>>>> Regards Brian
>>> Really? You think the old console room looked futuristic? It looks
>>> like something out of a cheap 1960s.. sci-fi... TV... Oh, right.
>> No I was referring to the 1984 series of Doctor Who.
>> --
>> Regards Brian- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
> So was I. It doens't look futuristic. It looks like someone from the
> 60s' idea of what "futuristic" looks like. Like one of those old
> "House of Tomorrow" things where in the future everything will be
> white and sterile and full of buttons and pneumatic tubes.
> Anything you make based on one period's idea of "High tech" is going
> ot look silly and dated in a few years. So the modern TARDIS instead
> goes for an anachronistic look that marks it as something "out of
> time" entirely.
Maybe I'm one of the few that like the older style of the Tardis controls.
Andrew M <andrew_a_mor...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 2012-09-20 08:07:17 +0000, Brian said:
>> Why is it that the controls and inside of the Tardis looks old. I prefer
>> the Tardis in the old series that looked more like something from the
>> future. The controls on the Tardis in the new series looks like a
>> joke...something put together with spare household parts.
>> The Tardis controls looked great and was at its best when Colin Baker
>> became the 6th Doctor who in 1984. I wished it stayed the same.
>>> Do other Doctor Who fans agree or disagree with me?
> It's the zeitgeist, I'm afraid. Back in the '60s science was trendy and
> positive. We were all going to get jet packs and science was going to
> solve all humanity's problems. Hi-tech and futuristic were all the rage.
> In my 27 years of teaching science I have noted a growing disenchantment
> with science and, while people have a love of gadgets and technology
> there is not the interest in how they work that there used to be.
I was told that many people who saw the remake of the movie 'the time
machine' were disappointed that there was no explanation on how the time
machine worked. The book gave a few clues on the workings of the machine.
> Ross <rrasz...@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:
>> So was I. It doens't look futuristic. It looks like someone from the
>> 60s' idea of what "futuristic" looks like. Like one of those old
>> "House of Tomorrow" things where in the future everything will be
>> white and sterile and full of buttons and pneumatic tubes.
>> Anything you make based on one period's idea of "High tech" is going
>> ot look silly and dated in a few years. So the modern TARDIS instead
>> goes for an anachronistic look that marks it as something "out of
>> time" entirely.
> Maybe I'm one of the few that like the older style of the Tardis controls.
The modern movement started in the late 19th Century. Modernism was
essentially over by the late 1940's, which would have been formative years
for Doctor Who designers, when American abstract expressionalism took off as
the 1960's moved forward.
Today's design looks like it's been influenced by steam punk which was big
in the 1990's. Now we're in the 2010's the design is an American style
mashup of steampunk which I suppose makes it retro expressionalism. So in
spite of a generational gap nothing has changed much.
Personally, I like the earlier Tardis design and given the design parameters
at the time find it works very well. The current design feels awkward and
busy which restricts the placement of actors and cameras, and has the
aesthetics of a shanty town. Neo-trustafarian.
One of the things most people commenting online don't get is designers
spend most of their time creating a future that's at least five years away
but popular media tends only to be rooted in the present. Maybe we'll all
look back in another 20 years and laugh.
Another thing that's bugged me is the classic show did at least show some
locations within the Tardis and made a passable job of them. All we've been
shown recently are cheap and nasty hexagonal corridors. Okay, DW is not Star
Trek: TNG but still...
> I enjoy science fiction programs where there is some sort of explanation
> for something that has happened. I like the Doctor Who companions asking
> questions and the answers the Doctor gives.
> You also need rules such as why the Doctor can't go back in time and
> correct his mistakes.
I think you raise an important point. The show isn't just about gadgets but
questioning and social interaction.
I'm not sure how gobbledeegook science and fashionable egocentricism helps
drive things forward. Taking more care here should help create better
stories and likeable characters. The last episode (Dinosaurs on a Spaceship)
took a quarter step in this direction and was much more well received than
other shows produced under Moffat.
