Reference Pictures: The Brachacki TARDIS (Original) (1963)

[ironwolf]

Yes true, but that shot, above, is after the handles were removed, and if my thinking is correct, when it came to Lime grove from Ealing Film.

It is in shots from Ealing Film, with the handles, that it appears there to be no lock. Or if there is a lock it has been painted over.

I took a shot from Ealing Film that is a bit blurry and over sharpened it. You can just make out the two door handles but no brass lock.

[ironwolf]

Just as a follow up, I re-watched "Unearthly Child" and took some screen caps of my own. I ran them through some filters and It appears the Ealing Film version ( I am assuming as it was when it first left the prop builders shop) is in only 3 shots. In them I am hard pressed to see a lock on the TARDIS.



This is a close up of the scene, at the end, where the cave people throw their spears before the TARDIS de-materializes.
You can make out the three handles, and where the lock appears after the repainting and removal of the handles later, but the lock does not seem to be there at this stage of the props evolution.



Ok, no more beating a dead horse.

[galacticprobe]

Well, once again it's safe to say that the only thing really consistent with the TARDIS' exterior is its inconsistency!

Dino.

[lawrence]

I'm looking at all the reference photo of the brachacki original tardis and was wondering ,the corner posts would they have three pieces of quarter round on each post ,as the original didn't have them on ,would the step for them to fit into be there,you can see where the front one would fit but on the reveal its hard to tell,sorry if this is confusing,I just don't want to construct the post and get this wrong

[kiwidoc]

Hi, the original TARDIS prop did have 1/4 round molding on each visible corner of the posts, yes.  At least until the refits in 66 when it started getting chopped up here and there...

[Volpone]

Speaking of which, I'm on "The Web Planet" right now, and it really points out the discrepancy between the model and the full-sized prop.  As the Ship is being dragged across the surface of Vortis, its blue window trim is painfully apparent.  Then Vickie gets out of it with white window trim.  The model shots are my excuse for why I have a TARDIS shaped like the pre-1966 prop but painted like the later ones. 

[lawrence]

Correct me if I'm wrong ,but in the first reference photo of the brachacki tardis,its unearthed and seems to have no quarter rounds on it was this the case with the pilot tardis,as in the uneathly child it clearly has quarter round corners any help

[tony farrell]

Both of these are from the Pilot Episode and show that the quadrants were present from the very beginning!
Tony

[lawrence]

Thank you Tony,some of the picture I've seen arnt so clear

[tony farrell]

Glad to have been of help.

T

[warmcanofcoke]

I often think of

[Rassilons Rod]

These should probably have a thread of their own, as it's a different build?

[Volpone]

Anyone got a preferred thread title?  nuWho (even with the First Doctor) is not my forte.  My first impulse is "Brachacki Refit (1966) Replica: 'Twice Upon a Time'." 

[tony farrell]

Haha!

The trouble with suddenly re-branding something is that you can very easily confuse people.

We know the result of the 1966 "War Machines" refit/rebuild/refurbishment as "The Altered Brachacki Box" (or slight variations thereof); to suddenly now change this to "Brachacki Refit" (or slight variations thereof) risks:
a) confusion - why are we now calling the same box different names in different topics about the same box?
b) lot of work - surely you can't simply amend the titles of a couple of topics without amending the topics' hierarchy as well?

The other 'problem' with the designation "Brachacki Refit" is which refit do you actually mean? In addition, is it therefore still correct to call the box "Brachacki" at all?

In the first three years of its life it was repaired twice, had three completely different lamps and was repainted numerous times. But, fundamentally, it was still the Brachacki Box.

After the 1966 refit, there were only the two side panels, base, lamp and (possibly) the roof's top tier and one set of window panes (i.e., the actual mix of plain and pebbled Perspex) which remained from the original box.

In 1968/69 this refitted box loses its front left-hand quadrant and phone panel whilst in September 1970 both the base and roof are replaced. In 1972 further strengthening work is carried out and the box loses its rear left-hand quadrant whilst in 1973 the rear doors are either repaired or replaced. By 1974, the original box's second lamp housing (the square one in use from "The Web Planet" onwards) has been lost as has the last remaining set of original window panes.

By this stage, it's becoming increasingly difficult to argue that there is physically very much left of the original Brachacki box - by this stage most of it been replaced!

In other topics throughout the forum we currently credit the designer who was responsible for how a given story appeared on the screen or - if we know the name of the person who actually built a specific prop - we credit them:  

The "Altered Brachacki Box" first appears in "The Smugglers" and not in "The War Machines". (All we see in The War Machines is the final appearance of the original box filmed on location and a close-up shot of the repainted 'cupboard' doors from "The Celestial Toy Maker" shot in the studio. There's no evidence of a box behind those 'cupboard' doors and it's a trick the production team had used several times before -  when the original 1963 set of Tardis 'porch doors' were used as a substitute for the full Tardis prop.)

In the past - here and on other forums - people have asserted that the 1966 refit was necessitated by the Tardis prop sustaining considerable damage immediately after the location filming for "The War Machines". But it is very strange "damage" which results in the complete destruction of the front and rear doors & their adjoining corner-posts only but which leaves in the base, side panels, lamp housing and (possibly) the roof's top tier completely unscathed.

That kind of very selective damage/destruction simply doesn't happen in real life. The original Tardis wasn't severely damaged in 1966; the alterations were as the result of a deliberate decision:

And what happened after the location filming of "The War Machines" wrapped was that pre-production began on "The Smugglers" which would entail the Tardis prop being transported to Cornwall. A box which was fifty inches square by 100 tall takes up a lot of room in a goods van especially when all the other props, scenery, equipment, etc., is taken into account. The solution is therefore to cut the Tardis down to make it modular for transportation purposes - in the process of cutting-down the prop, the front and rear elevations were discarded and the 'cupboard' doors from "The Celestial Toy Maker" were substituted.

If we're going to be consistent in giving due credit to those who designed and built a prop, what do we call the "Altered Brachacki" prop after 1966? The designer on "The Celestial Toy Maker" was John Wood. The designer on "The Smugglers" was Richard Hunt. (I've not come across anyone saying that the actual building work for these stories was contracted-out so, presume that the actual construction was carried out by the BBC's scenery department. If this is the case, it would appear doubtful that we'll be able to find out who actually undertook the construction work.)

So, crediting the designers, "The Brachacki/Wood/Hunt Box" it is then!

And, crediting both designers and builders, "The Brachacki/Shawcraft/Wood/BBC/Hunt/BBC Box" it is. Well, at least from 1966 to 1968 it is!

After that, is anyone's guess. Confused, you soon will be!!  

T

[Volpone]

Yeah, I saw we use "altered," not "refit."  Procrastinating on doing anything.  Busy day for me.