jessicapaigesblog

[jessicapaigesblog]

Props and Models: Doctor Who Part 2: The TARDIS!+more

After creating the Daleks, I decided to try my hand at building everyone’s favorite Timey-Wimey Police Box, The TARDIS!

The real TARDIS prop (photo from Wikipedia)

The Doctor’s TARDIS (Time And Relative Dimensions In Space) is a teleporting, time-jumping spaceship with a trans-dimensional interior, making it bigger on the inside. It has the ability to disguise itself as any object, but it got stuck as a London Police Box in the 60′s.

To create a scale model of the TARDIS, same as with the Daleks, I needed to start with the blueprints. Thanks to tardisbuilders.com, (http://tardisbuilders.com/index.php) I soon had the plans, which I again scaled down to about 1/5th size. 

I based my model off of the plans for the 2005 redesign, but I was a bit loose with the actual specific dimensions since I mistakenly didn’t account for the thickness of the materiels. Oops!

The basic Box is made of sheets of Plywood, with the corners made of pieces 1x1′s left over from when my parents redid the deck. The window panels are made of flat parts of a plastic milk jug.

Of course, I had to make the doors open! They hinge inwards like they do in the show.

The little front panel also opens, revealing a tiny telephone (which I sadly don’t have any good pictures of) The “decals” are printed on regular printer paper and just decoupaged onto the side. (I also included the “St John Ambulance” logo from the 2011 redesign on my model)

The top light it made of the screw parts of two water bottles and an LED light (Which I accidentally burned out by putting too much electricity through it, lesson learned!)

On to the interior...

Since I sadly don’t have access to dimensionally transcendental technology, the interior of the TARDIS is a separate set. 

The center console is based on an amalgamation of several different consoles throughout the show The basic structure is made of Plywood, with most of the panels made of MDF and Cardboard. 

(image credit: BBC)

The overall shape and design is based mostly on the old series console as it appeared in the 70′s and 80′s.  

(image credit: BBC)

It’s also heavily inspired by the 11th and 12th Doctor’s TARDIS.

Like every TARDIS console, it’s hexagonal, covered in vaguely futuristic controls, and has a nice “Glowy Thing” in the center. 

For the “Glowy Thing” on my TARDIS, I decided to use a sparkly “lava” lamp from Goodwill. It’s also got three acrylic prisms and pieces of a candle holder.

The panel with all the spinning numbers is inspired by a similar one in the 1996 Doctor Who movie:

(image credit: BBC)

The spinning wheels were made from pieces of a dowel. the numbers were printed onto paper and decoupaged onto the dowel.

This panel also features some details that we’ll see on most of the other panels: battery-powered led christmas lights and pieces of a dollar-store calculator. 

Panel 2 has various scanners, buttons, and lights. Most of the buttons are made from old, broken remotes and calculators.

Panel 3 features a pair of binoculars, a kitchen timer, and a bicycle pump as controls. The bicycle pump is a reference to the 9th and 10th Doctors’ TARDIS which is a lot more “junky” in design:

(image credit: BBC)

The “junky-ness” of my TARDIS console is a reference to this and is not at all a symptom of me being lazy...

Anyway, on to the next panel!

More buttons and scanners here, as well as some sort of light-up happy meal toy. The in-set scanners were created by drilling holes into the MDF, and putting print-outs of futuristic dials in the holes.

A cheap plasma ball is in panel number 5, along with yet another calculator.

On a side note, it’s funny that plasma balls are always seena futuristic even though they’ve been around since the 1890′s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_globe#History

Anyway

And the last panel is like a lot of the other ones, but it also has a crank from an old tripod along with a Qwerty keyboard made of beads.

And that’s it for my TARDIS console!

The background of the interior set is made from a piece of cardboard used for science fair displays. I cut holes for the “Round Things”, covered them in paper, and lit them from behind with a fluorescent fish tank light.

The “display screen” behind the console is made from a diffuser from a broken monitor, and the lights beneath it are made from christmas light that light up in random patterns.

And that’s my TARDIS! Hopefully one day, I’ll have the time and space to build everything full-size, but for now it will have to stay small.

Let me know if you have any questions or ideas about this or any future projects!

Thanks for reading!

[jessicapaigesblog]

Props and Models: Doctor Who Part 1: Daleks!

I’ve been a Doctor who fan since about 2007, when I watched my first episode: The series 3 season finale, “Last of the Time Lords”  You know, the one where David Tennant is a very old baby?

What even is this show? (Photo credit-BBC)

OK, so it wasn’t a very good introduction to the series. But, I stuck around and decided to watch a few more episodes until I was finally hooked.

Sure, sometimes the plots are nonsensical, the stories don’t always have satisfying conclusions, and the writing can be downright cringy at times, but this show has such a wacky charm the keeps bringing be bask in even after an episode that didn’t hit.

Some of my favorite episodes are gripping adventures that make you ask yourself, “What cool new sci-fi concept with they throw at us next?”

Having a Time-travelling space box opens up a lot for creative stories, but some of my favorite things were the crazy monstrous villains!

These blokes (Photo credit-BBC)

From the creepy Silents to the terrifying Weeping Angels to the actually kind of funny-looking Sontarians, most of the monsters are memorable and fun.

But none are more synonymous with Doctor Who than the legendary Daleks:

EXTERMINATE!!! (Photo credit-BBC)

Yes, these robotic salt shakers with plungers and whisks have remained the Doctor’s most formidable and memorable enemies since the show premiered in the 60′s. 

So naturally, as a good fan, I had to recreate them in real life!

 In starting my journey to create models of the Daleks, I first needed plans.

So, I went online and found a site called “Project Dalek”, a strangely secretive forum for people who want to make life-sized replicas of the prop Daleks used in the various Doctor Who TV shows. https://www.projectdalek.com/

After becoming a register user, I was able to download the plans to the Dalek Models. I scaled them down, printed them out, and began to build my first Daleks!

These bad boys! (I’ll discuss the tardis later)

Both of these Daleks were based on the 2005 Series redesign, scaled down to about 1/5th size 

I made the lower parts of the “Skirt” out of panels of MDF cut to the proper shape. The middle “shoulders” are plywood with cardboard attached to them. The neck is a piece of 4″ PVC pipe with cardboard rings glued to it and the head was painfully sculpted out of foam and a TON of wood filler.

They are both fully poseable with ball socket “arms” and a head that rotates. The Copper one even had a rotating shoulder section, as seen in the 2005 episode “Dalek”

They both have light-up eyes (though the batteries have since died)

The Black Dalek is (loosely) based on Dalek Sec from the 2007 episode “Daleks Take Manhattan” He has some special features...

Just like in the episode, this Daleks open up to reveal the monster inside!

A comparison to the actual episode (Photo Credit- BBC)

The Dalek Creature itself is created from plasticine, paint, and various broken electronic pieces. 

The front panels of the skirt are attached with magnets and the front of the shoulder section is hinged to allow access to the gooey creature inside.

A few years after creating the first two Daleks, I decided to give it a another go with three more Daleks!

From left to right, Dalek Sec, Imperial Dalek, 1970′s Dalek, 2010 Dalek 

The next Daleks I created were from some of the most famous Dalek episodes of the past.

The White and Gold Dalek is an Imperial Dalek from the 1980′s serial “Remembrance of the Daleks” These gaudy Daleks served the Dalek emperor and fought against the the Renegade Daleks

The Gray and Black Dalek is from the 1975 episodes “Genesis of the Daleks” where the Doctor goes back in time to stop the Daleks from ever being created.

And the White and Gray Dalek is based on the much maligned 2010 redesign from the 2010 episode “Victory of the Daleks”

Even Daleks enjoy a nice Sunset

All of these Daleks were made similarly to the previous ones, with a couple of exceptions. 

Their “ears” light up instead of their eyes, thanks to some flashlight bulbs and a momentary switch. this is to make them look like they’re “talking” like they do in the show.

Their Heads are made of plastic Bowls instead of foam and wood filler.

And their guns have actual little laser pointers in them!

And that’s all for now! I had a lot of fun making these guys! Perhaps I’ll revisit them some other day and create a bigger and/or more detailed version. Maybe using my 3d printer? Who knows...

Thanks for reading and let me know what you think!

[jessicapaigesblog]

Film Theory Tumblelog 4: Film and Video Games

With the advent of the digital age and the accessibility of personal computers, new forms of media have emerged. One of the most popular forms of new media that of video games. Video Games are just that: an interactive game played on a screen. Being a visual medium, it has many connections with Film, but the addition of interactive elements create many differences as well. Analyzing these similarities and differences using film theories and concepts can help us gain a better understanding of this new medium as well as a new appreciation of Film.

 As with other games, most (but not all) video games have a conflict, rules, the use of player ability (such as skill or strategy), and an end goal. For example, in the 1985 Nintendo game Super Mario Bros., the player must reach the end of the level while avoiding obstacles such as enemies and pitfalls. The obstacles conflict with the goal of reaching the end of the level. The game rules dictate what a player is able to do, such as how high they are able to jump, which items are able to be collected, and what objects are harmful.

However, some game don't have a clearly established end goal, focusing more on the experience of existing within a created world rather than accomplishing any particular task. These games are often referred to as “sandbox games” as the focus is more centered around creating and experimenting within the world of the game. Minecraft is an example of a sandbox game. The world of Minecraft is consists of blocks that can be collected by the player and used to build structures, machines, or items. The game has no concrete goal that must be completed. There is no way to “win”. Instead, the players create their own goals or simply explore the world.

Video game analysis has become quite popular, especially on youtube. There have been countless videos created analyzing some of the elements within popular games. One such internet show, Game Theory, analyzes (or by the creator's own admission over-analyzes) many elements from video-games from a scientific or cultural point of view.

One way video games can be analyzed from the point of view of realism vs. formalism. Within this, video game realism can be analyzed from many viewpoints as well. The realism of a game can be looked at in terms of graphics: how realistic does the game world appear? Does this game attempt to emulate any particular art movement or style? Video games can attempt to create a world that is as photo-realistic as possible such as in EA's Battlefield 4,

or they can attempt for more formalist, stylistic graphics like in Nintendo's cartoony The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker.

Realism can also analyzed in terms of more technical aspects, such as in how accurately the game physics mirror those in the real world.

Video games are a popular medium and are even becoming respected as an art form. Recently, the Museum of Modern Art acquired fourteen video games as part of a new installation. These games include Pac-Man(1980), Tetris(1984), Myst(1993), and Portal(2007).

Some however, disagree with the museum's assessment and argue that video games are, in fact, not art. “Video games aren’t art because they are, quite thoroughly, something else: code.” argues Liel Leibovitz. Liel explains that video games can't be considered art because the code they are made of is a tool that is used to make a game work. The code that makes the game run can be duplicated or replicated in order to create another game that runs similar fashion. Therefore, video games are not art because they are only instructions for a computer. “While art is bound only by its creator’s imagination, code is bound by the limitations, more numerous than you’d imagine, of computer comprehension.” (Leibovitz) 

Others disagree with Leibovitz's argument. In Andy Clarke and Grethe Mitchell's book, Videogames And Art, they compare this debate with the similar one surrounding early photography and Film. Photography and film were both considered gimmicky experiments that most certainly weren’t art. Video games also consist of other forms of art such as painting (textures), sculpting and architecture (3d models), music, and film (cutscenes).

“Film in the later twentieth century had to establish itself apart from the books it obtained material from by offering acting and imagery that books could never offer.... Videogames take the technological advancements to the extreme and share the element of an ethereal experience with theatre. However, movies today have more to offer aesthetically than games, and until games establish themselves apart from movies they will not be considered art” (Clarke and Mitchell, 204)

Much like film before it, video games are a combination of all previous forms of art. Yet, they still need to find their own way and create their own identity. “Videogames and movies utilize art to entertain audiences. Games frequently emulate movies for this reason. Videogames may only be regarded as an art form if movies are considered art” (Clarke and Mitchell, 205)

[jessicapaigesblog]

Film Theory Tumblelog 3: Analyzing Documentries

I just finished writing a paper for another class on documentaries. Obviously, it wasn't as theoretical as it would have had been if it wrote it for for Film Theory, but I did come across some interesting things that I think I can use for this Tumblelog.

Documentaries have different "modes" or variations on the form. All documentaries claim to represent the real world, but they differ on how they go about telling the story. There are considered to be six types of documentaries, but I will focus on the three most popular in this log.

1) Observational 

The idea of an Observational Documentary is that the filmmakers are observing a situation without manipulating it. Most nature documentaries tend to follow this format. One example of this method is BBC's Planet Earth. The filmmakers capture images of plants and animals in their natural habitat with as little interference as possible. This method of film making is also referred to as the “fly on the wall technique” Of course, no film can be made with absolutely no interference or interpretation, but these documentaries do attempt it.

2) Expository

  Expository documentaries are often biographical or historical tell usually tell their stories through narration and interviews. These documentaries often serve to tell definite stories or inform the audience of a subject. Expository documentaries may attempt to describe or reenact places and events that were not or can not be directly observed. Expository documentaries and Observational documentaries can overlap somewhat as there may be some observational films that have narrators to explain some of the action without directly interacting with it.

3) Participatory

The Participatory documentary is a documentary in which the filmmakers become involved in the story of the documentary. The documentary may be about the filmmakers or how they otherwise interact with the world around them.  Perhaps one of the best examples of a participatory documentary is Morgan Spurlock's film: The Greatest Movie Ever Sold. This film centers around Spurlock raising money through product placement to pay for the film by placing product placement in the film itself.

Once again, it's hard to say for sure exactly which films fit into each category as one film could be considered to be one type just as easily as another. But this is an interesting point of view to analyze documentaries. 

[jessicapaigesblog]

Film Theory Tumblelog2: Thoughts about Auteur Theory

In the 1950's and 60's, the Auteur Theory movement dominated in film theory and criticism. (Stam, 83) This movement placed emphasis on the director as the "Author" of a film. Stam writes of the filmmaker and novelist Alexander Astruc and the "Camera-Stylo" or "Camera-Pen". Austruc argued that a filmmaker's directing is akin to writer's pen.

"The 'camera-pen' formula valorized the act of filmmaking; the director was no longer merely the servant of a preexisting text...but a creative artist in his/her own right." (Stam, 83)

Director = Author?

"I won these Ocsars all by myself"

This theory places the Director as the head creator of the film. The film displays the Directors vision.

Some of the ideas behind Auteur Theory still exist today. When a new film comes out, the first thing people look for is: who directed it?

  However, there are a few problems with this theory.

For one, what if a director is attempting to emulate another style or genera? If the director departs from his usual style and attempts to copy the style of someone else, is he still the writer of his own work? Certainly the director has his own twist, but he still follows in the footsteps of someone else.

What if a director is remaking or adapting another work?

  Once again, they may have their own take on how the elements of the story come together, but for the most part, these elements have been created by someone else.

Multiple takes on a similar story

  What if the producer had more of a say in the creation of the film than the director? 

"Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas" - Written and Produced -but not Directed- by Tim Burton.

  What if the Studio Executives meddled with the production of the film and changed the director's original vision?

Schumacher apperently was told by Studio Executives to make his second Batman movie "more Toyetic".

I guess I'm rambling a bit. 

The point is, that although directors do indeed play a big part in the creation of a film, they are far from the only influence at play. Obviously, we should analyze each film at case-by-case basis, but the point is that we can't give every director all the praise (or blame) for every film that they create.

[jessicapaigesblog]

Film Theory Tumblelog1

Film Theory Tumblelog1

What is Film Theory?

To me, Film Theory is about the analysis of a film from different viewpoints concentrating on different ideas. A film can be analyzed from an artistic point of view, a story point of view, a cultural point of view, an editing point of view, excreta, excreta. There are so many theories and ways to look at a film that one could watch the same film time and time again and, through the lens of different film theories, take away some thing new each time. The old adage “a picture is worth a thousand words” could be applied to every frame of a film.

In his book, Robert Stam gives us many examples of film theories that have been used to analyze film throughout the years.

“...[F]ilm theory is an evolving body of concepts designed to account for the cinema in all its dimensions (aesthetic, social, psycological) for an interpretative community of scholars, critics, and intersted spectators.” (Stam, 6)

Elsaesser and Hagner also acknowledge the multitude of theories and explain the reason for learning about them:

“By proposing an explicit framework, we not only engage in and challenge the existing theoretical positions, but also expect to take a stand ourselves within the field of scholarly debate, while acknowledging the historical situatedness of our own central question.”

Learning about and discussing film theories leads to a better understanding of the differing interpretations of elements in film and can help us formulate our own ideas for our own films.

Last week, I saw Fritz Lang’s 1927 film Metropolis accompanied with live music by the Alloy Orchestra. It was really an amazing experience. This was the first time I’d ever seen a film with live music. I found that the music really added to the experience by drawing us into the film and the performance of the musicians.

Using Stam's and Elsaesser and Hagner's advice, let us consider some of the many viewpoints that we can analyze this film.

First off, we can view this film in terms of being a social commentary. This film brings to light the stark divide between the rich and poor that exists even to this day. It shows the tensions that arise when people refuse to attempt to see eye-to-eye. And it offers that a "Mediator" must be found to bridge this gap.

From a Feminist point of view, we see how women are portrayed as both a corrupting influence and also a purifying one as well.  

From an artistic point of view, the striking sets, miniatures, and matte paintings draw from German Expressionism. 

We can discuss its special effects...

...its portrayal of the role of technology...

...or even its historical significance.

This film, like so many others, should be considered and analyzed from as many viewpoints as possible in order for us to fully appreciate it.