Like the minor irritation thread, I thought I'd create a thread for questions about the show that people may have, but are so insignificant or undebatable that they don't deserve a thread of their own.

My one is this:
We all know that classic who had a low budget, but was it considered low back in the 60s, 70s, 80s, or was it average for the time?

Can the tardis does actually be pulled open?

The budget was always low. The BBC is not commercial television (or wasn't until relatively recently) and was not particularly loved by the BBC. Often they would be working on a similar budget to a sitcom or soap opera.

That said, the idea that Classic Who had low production values could go into the 'myths' thread because it absolutely didn't, for most of its run. For sure it was heavily restrained by a poor budget, inadequate production time, inadequate studio space and technological restraints but that was the only sense in which it had low values. It's creative values and the work put into it was top notch. Given the restrictions they had I find it often unbelievable what they managed to produce. The standards on the show were high.

I would argue the only time this lapsed was in the 80s under the stewardship of John Nathan Turner, when unfortunately the show would often look worse than it did ten years previously in the seventies. Sadly, they weren't able to instill the same kind of work ethic and desire to take the show seriously as they had in previous eras with producers like Verity Lambert, Barry Letts and Phillip Hinchcliffe, all of whom I believe would have been ashamed to have worked on the show at times in the eighties.

I'm thinking of things like the studio floor being very visible in forest scenes in Kinda. That's not a budget or time issue; it's laziness, and is a bit of a disgrace to the set designer, and the director for not demanding better. If you listen to the commentaries on the DVDS you can often get a sense of the kind of 'it's only Doctor Who' attitude that had developed by that time with a lot of the directors, actors etc that came in to work on the show. Chris Clough is one that comes to mind, and Paul Darrow is remarkably contemptuous of the role he payed in Timelash (Colin Baker actually takes him to task on it; it's a good listen).

And no, the TARDIS doors cannot be pulled open without first being unlocked, or nowadays, someone clicking their fingers (file that one in the irritants thread for me).

Here's a question though: when 3 or even 4 actors were stood in the TARDIS awaiting their cue to exit, just how awkward was it being in that close proximity?

Can't speak for the TV prop or cast, but you can get 4 adults in my Tardis without too much trouble

Though I would agree on most of your post, this point I've highlighted I would disagree with!

You look back at the Sixties and Seventies stories there are still production mistakes to be found. The Chase is littered with then, especially the Dalek in Frankenstein's Cellar being there before the Daleks actually arrived!

Then there is the hand that holds down Sutekh's chair as he stands up in Pyramid Of Mars, not to mentioned the very brief shot of a microphone boom(or whatever they're called) above Captain Tancredi in Part 3 of City Of Death.

So therefore, I disagree the Eighties is the only decade where these types of things happened.

If you could rip off all four outer sides of the Tardis, what would you then be seeing?.

I know there's no logic to this, but I've always thought that the other three sides of the TARDIS were like emergency exits that are poitioned in some of the TARDIS' other rooms and can be opened from the inside but not from the outside

There's no evidence for this, but I wouldn't say it's illogical, In fact I quite like the idea of having a door on each side open and seeing a different room. . I've thought in the past you'd probably have to run for miles inside to reach whatever room is at the very back or side with a window in it.

Thing is though Im more wondering what if the shell was taken away completely, as in all doors, all bit's on the edge not part of doors, the roof and all? would it look compressed in the same way with seeing a different room in every angle you looked at it, looking as if there were an invisible shell there or would taking away the shell suddenly cause the inside to expand to it's realistic size (although that would probably cover a whole planet!).

I remember the Doctor said in one episode that the TARDIS is infinite so we better hope that doesn't happen! Baring in mind that the TARDIS has extrapolater sheiding so I'd imagine that should contain it from "unfolding". Also remember that in The Name of the Doctor the Doctor said that eventually the bigger on the inside goes on the outside, so I'd imagine the opposite could happen and the TARDIS would get very small.

However, somehow, the TARDIS has been moved, quite easily, on the back of a lorry, by Zarbi, by Marshmen, by French Revolutionaries and many others - so clearly the weight of the exterior has no link with the seemingly limitless interior.

I'd ask that question to Frazer Hines, who was hopelessly infatuated with Deborah Watling!

Who said anything about compression? My view is that the inside of the TARDIS is another universe and the Police Box is merely the gateway to that universe.

You'd see this: http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/ZKpFFD7aX3c/maxresdefault.jpg

I hate to say this but there is an episode (I don't remember which one) where the fourth Doctor tries to explain the TARDIS to SArah Jane, and although he over complicates it, he does basically say it's compressed

Those doors of the TARDIS used to annoy me. From the inside they were huge - and you could see the outside from them in early episodes. Later in the series - they opened and there was just blackness! I'm quite happy with the way they do the doors now - simply police-box doors, makes it much easier! (I think Peter Cushing was to thank for that!)
Back to topic -
I think the 60's and 70's Doctor Who stories were done well on their budget of the time. OK - a bit wonky at times (but so were other dramas too!! It wasn't on it's own).
I think the 'cheapness' turned up in in late 8o's when they stopped filming outdoor scenes and switched to OB Video - very cheap-looking IMO!!
Some of those Classic DW stories would look brilliant if they were given the 'filmic-look' as they do now!

If you are talking about Robots of Death with Leela it has nothing to do with compression. He was talking about a way of making an entire universe fit into a police box (nothing to do with compression since no forces are involved)

Well, watching the beginning of episode 1 of 'Web of Fear' there was a lot of groping going on... I guess Patrick and Frazer's hands just happened to land where they did...



What he was talking about in fact was something more like a perspective illusion... which isn't really helpful either, but then he was talking to Leela I always thought that was a lousy 'explanation'.

The interior of the TARDIS inhabits (or is) a separate dimension to our 4-Dimensional universe and it's exterior is a solid 3-dimensional projection. It's not really that difficult And, in fact, the interior TARDIS doors don't have to match the exterior, as the exterior doors exist in 3-dimensional space-time, whereas the interior doors don't, and so their apparent size and appearance need correlate no more closely to the exterior of the TARDIS than any of the rest of the interior does. Don't forget also that the exterior of the TARDIS can be changed with a functioning chameleon circuit, and it would seem logical to assume that the interior of the TARDIS doesn't necessarily change at the same time, so why would the interior doors look like police box doors? In fact it's silly to assume they would.

The great thing with all of this is it is dealing with science at its most speculative and theoretical level, so can't be wrong. In fact, the TARDIS at least is proper, hard Sci-Fi. Not bad for a mainstream sicence-fantasy show!

Actually I rather liked the Doctor's explanation of the different dimensions to Leela. It's a simple enough concept for most kids to grasp, and nearly everyone would agree with Leela's response - "That's silly". It kind of is. But the Doctor replies, rather huffily, "That's trans-dimensional engineering, a key Time Lord discovery!" which neatly avoids any further complex explanation in a line of Roberts Holmes' best pseudo science. And, hey presto, we have ourselves an explanation of the TARDIS' dimensions that's understandable even if it's not actually proper science. I like it!

but surely that means the universe of the inside is indeed inside the phone box somehow, and the phone box isn't a gateway.

I know some people think this gateway theory, and fair enough if that's what they believe, but I've always thought it was an entire universe somehow fit inside the phone box, and the inside and outside are one and the same item. if this wasn't the case then it wouldn't make sense how they feel the effect's of what is happening to the outer part of the tardis when they are inside, or how the inner and outer tardis could cross to paralell worlds, or bubble universes etc together.

This being my opinion, I just assumed it was compression as it is the only way I could think it could happen.

That doesn't explain anything at all. If it was 4D the inside can't be bigger than the outside.

In the episode 'A Christmas Carol', Abigail doesn't age because she's frozen in the ice.

But can anyone explain how in the time it takes for Adult Kazran to grow into Gambon Kazran, Abigail's nephew hasn't aged at all?! In the 'past' they have Christmas dinner together with Adult Kazran, then in the 'present' scenes, he's exactly the same age?

Could be another nephew, I suppose, but they're both played by the same actor...

But it's not 'silly'. If you think the idea is 'silly' then you think all theoretical physics is 'silly'. And people who think that are the 'silly' ones

If what was 4D?

People are hung up on this 'bigger on the inside' thing. That is a shorthand expression. I never assumed it was meant to be the literal explanation for the TARDIS.

Saying something is 'bigger' than something else is a purely relative, grammatical term. Something could have a larger surface area, but a lesser mass than another object. Which of these is 'bigger'? I would imagine the TARDIS will have a greater mass than most suns.

To get into theoretical physics you have to have imagination. Because the typical member of the population doesn't possess much (having been taught from a young age not to use it) it is typically not something employed as a plot device in mainstream media - even in supposed 'Science Fiction'.

"But that bit looks bigger than that bit but it's inside! That's silly!" Well actually, no. What things 'look like' is purely down to our perceptions, which are predicated upon our senses, which in fact can only tell us the barest amount of information about our surroundings. You know, that computer you are looking at now is actually a mass of tiny little atoms etc. All we 'see' of the world is just a by-product of our nervous system.

You could theoretically fit the entirety of a 2-dimensional universe on the surface of a piece of paper; you could probably fit the entirety of our universe inside a TARDIS. Who knows? What things 'look like' and what they are do not necessarily have any correlation, especially when you are talking about dimensional properties beyond the comprehension of our senses.




You're right; some things won't correlate properly, in the sense of being consistent with each other. That is because with the TARDIS, as with every other part of Doctor Who lore there has been no real consensus between different writers. For instance, some have implied that the TARDIS is exceptionally heavy (and could stay in place when the tide comes in and completely submerges it, for example), others have implied it's light enough to be carried around on the back of an old lady (near enough ). At the same time, it is supposedly near impregnable, and yet a little arrow can embed itself into its surface. Imagine what a huge arrow could do

So, at the end of the day if you want a consistent theory the onus is on the viewer to select the elements that seem most likely to them and ignore the others. In my opinion, the inhabitants of the TARDIS shouldn't feel any effect from what is happening to the exterior of the TARDIS.

Compression: okay, but I haven't seen anything that implies it, only circumstantial evidence such as the Master's shrinking gun, which does imply some level of compression technology; then again, who knows where in the Universe he got that. It's not necessarily Time Lord technology.

I would say: if the interior of the TARDIS is a compressed universe, where did all that matter come from in the first place?

I think the easier clue is in the title: Time and Relative Dimension in Space. Apart from the awkward wording to make the acronym cool, it seems pretty straight-forward to me.

Well you were talking about the interior of the TARDIS having a separate dimension. Therefore I assumed 4 spatial dimensions. And when I meant bigger I meant under the theory the Interior would have a 4th ordinate not being equal to 0. Therefore it cannot fit in the police box. Try fitting a cube in a square. Simply not possible.

And I don't want lectures about abilities needed to do Theoretical physics, I know some Physicists so I know what their work and subject involves. And I would like to point out imagining a 4 spatial dimensional universe is extremely difficult (perhaps impossible). There are physicists who cannot imagine such a universe. (Yes I am well aware that string theory and M theory allows more dimensions, I think 10 dimensions (26 for Bosons) but the dimensions are unable to be seen and we perceive it has 3 spatial dimensions and one time dimension and other theories to explain the existence of 3 spatial dimension and a time dimension.)

Not having electron microscopes as eyes does not mean we can measure the size of objects objectively. Use a measuring device outside the police box and inside the TARDIS and of course the inside will be bigger.

Actually, I think this is precisely the concept at work here. If a creature that could only perceive two dimensions were to take a walk from one side of a square to the other that would be the extent of the area. But, imagine, that the two-dimensional square is actually like the top page of a stack of printer paper. A two dimensionally aware person would just see the top page but if technology could make accessible the entire depth of these multiple layers of paper, then there could be an infinite amount of extra space available, all fitting within the same two-dimensional profile.

All the TARDIS is doing is extending multiple three dimensional spaces into a fourth physical dimension. Allowing all of this extra space to be accessible from a much smaller 3-dimensional access point.