VortexRunner
Well-Known Member
I find it silly that said member was banned. The Information he could have shared with us....
11th Doctor's Sonic: "Fatally Flawed" Design? Discuss...
- Thread starter Jack T Chance
- Start date
In any case, I don't feel this thread can go any further without Nick's contribution. Anything else is argumentive speculation.
But then again, we do have some folks that have stated being around the sonic at Comicon enough to know it is pretty sturdy.
I do know that props, by nature, are usually created with just enough tolerence to do what they need to do on-screen and that's it. Sometimes props are build to withstand a lot of punishment.
In the case of the 11th sonic, we do know this is a compled prop with a ton of parts (I forget what the number of parts is) so it may be more prone to 'break' or fail if handled incorrectly (like dropping it, which could easily happen when Matt Smith goes to flip it in the air) but how many collectors are going to be handling their replica as would an actor on set?
If anyone here is like me, I do like to 'play' with my props from time to time BUT always handle them carefully and gently. An actor on the set of a movie/tv show won't handle a prop as if it were a valuable collectible. It's just a tool for their job.
My point is, regardless of what anyone says about this prop - when we eventually get an affordable replica to buy, I suspect the real collectors will handle it carefully and not care-free like what may happen on set.
The prop breaks. But I don't think it's a "fatally flawed design." Even Lord Voldemort (AKA: He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named) tweeted that his view was that the breakage was due to materials, not design. I trust that assessment, as I know he's had extensive time with the actual props (which is not something we'll be hashing over in this thread, Phez).
It does wear down, though, and if you watch series 5 vs series 6, you can see how much more easily it flicks open in the later series. Really, barely a flick at all.
No one can deny that it breaks sometimes. (No one objective, I should say). But it's put to far worse stresses on set than any of us would ever put it through. And THAT I can prove...
Raise your hands if you have a replica 9 and/or 10 sonic that isn't made of plastic.
Great, now how many of those look like this?:
If yours does, you probably don't want to buy an 11. (Or you're Nick Robatto).
So let's all calm down a bit, eh? It's a nice prop. It could probably be sturdier, but most of us here probably wouldn't need it to be too much so. And even Voldemort agrees.
The only other thing I have to add is this, even though the spelling is different:
It does wear down, though, and if you watch series 5 vs series 6, you can see how much more easily it flicks open in the later series. Really, barely a flick at all.
No one can deny that it breaks sometimes. (No one objective, I should say). But it's put to far worse stresses on set than any of us would ever put it through. And THAT I can prove...
Raise your hands if you have a replica 9 and/or 10 sonic that isn't made of plastic.
Great, now how many of those look like this?:
If yours does, you probably don't want to buy an 11. (Or you're Nick Robatto).
So let's all calm down a bit, eh? It's a nice prop. It could probably be sturdier, but most of us here probably wouldn't need it to be too much so. And even Voldemort agrees.
The only other thing I have to add is this, even though the spelling is different:
Last edited:
The prop breaks. But I don't think it's a "fatally flawed design." Even Lord Voldemort (AKA: He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named) tweeted that his view was that the breakage was due to materials, not design. I trust that assessment, as I know he's had extensive time with the actual props (which is not something we'll be hashing over in this thread, Phez).
It does wear down, though, and if you watch series 5 vs series 6, you can see how much more easily it flicks open in the later series. Really, barely a flick at all.
No one can deny that it breaks sometimes. (No one objective, I should say). But it's put to far worse stresses on set than any of us would ever put it through. And THAT I can prove...
Raise your hands if you have a replica 9 and/or 10 sonic that isn't made of plastic.
Great, now how many of you have one that looks like this?:
If you do, you probably don't want to buy an 11. (Or you're Nick Robatto).
So let's all calm down a bit, eh? It's a nice prop. It could probably be sturdier, but most of here probably wouldn't need it to be too much so. And even Voldemort agrees.
The only other thing I have to add is this, even though the spelling is different:
Excellently put.
I think this post pretty much sums things up nicely. The gif is funny too!!
Please re-read my post. I never said I thought that was plastic. I was asking for people to compare their high-quality sonic replicas to the posted pic, as they would be comparable, whereas a plastic one, such as a CO, would not.
This thread is here SOLELY for the purpose of discussing the perceived flaw in the design of the hero props used in the filming of the TV series, and the difficulties of making an accurate replica, which can be "played with" in the way that fans will want to, that arise from that perceived flaw. And I would thank everyone that participates in this topic for staying on topic.
So... that's it, really. 11's Sonic: Fatally flawed design? Discuss.
I personally believe here's the focus that we've gotten away from. None of us will ever own one of the 5 that are used in filming. That is what I thought we were supposed to be discussing. THE FILMING PROP.
Anything used in "filming" is more than likely NOT going to be on the screen as it is in real life.
All ego stroking posts in this thread aside, I believe that most will agree that Smith does not use the sonic in a way that it was intended. It's like driving a car into a wall & complaining that the bumper had a design flaw because it keeps falling off.
I think we have a strong case for a "re-design" of the REPLICA that we will have at home because absolutely none of us will get one & NOT flick it out like the Doctor.
His screen-used PROP breaks.
I want my REPLICA to stand up to flicking.
That, imo, is where the discussion needs to be seperated.
The PROP is a good design that isn't used as it was intended. The REPLICA needs to stand up to what it does on-screen.
Is there any way to find out from the DESIGNER?
Not just the guy who was told what to build?
I think that would clear up a lot.
Not just the guy who was told what to build?
I think that would clear up a lot.
I've just been going over the original design pictures and notes, as well as amended footnotes on the original design papers from the BBC prop dept and it mentions nothing at all about flicking it to extend. In fact the whole way it is meant to be held is very different. This information is written on pictures of the completed and already made sonic, so it shows that no tweaks were made to the main design (save for the switch). One printed portion next to a picture of the sonic reads...
edit: COPYRIGHT MATERIAL REMOVED DUE TO REQUEST OF THE OWNER... sorry folks.
....the sonic was designed with a completely different way of use in mind. It wasn't designed to be flicked open, so certain tolerences certainly weren't designed with that in mind. Smith uses it very differently from how the prop makers/production wanted him to originally. It was why they added another switch on the handle. As the sonics were already built and my production notes show the prop with instructions of use next to images of the finished prop, it is not much of a leap in logic to see that it is not a flawed design as such, but is certainly was not designed to be used in such a forceful way in extending it like an ASP baton. If you notice how Smith flicks it out in recent eps compared to his early series. You can see, he no longer applies so much force as he once did. Ergo, using it as he did, breaks it.
This is not a pop at Nick Robattos work as he never knew Smith would be using the sonic in this way. In fact it is a testament to Nicks work that his props are still working after the amount of times they have been broken. Smith is on record that he keeps on breaking them. Tennant is on record that he kept on breaking his. Ecclestone even said his original kept on breaking.
edit: COPYRIGHT MATERIAL REMOVED DUE TO REQUEST OF THE OWNER... sorry folks.
....the sonic was designed with a completely different way of use in mind. It wasn't designed to be flicked open, so certain tolerences certainly weren't designed with that in mind. Smith uses it very differently from how the prop makers/production wanted him to originally. It was why they added another switch on the handle. As the sonics were already built and my production notes show the prop with instructions of use next to images of the finished prop, it is not much of a leap in logic to see that it is not a flawed design as such, but is certainly was not designed to be used in such a forceful way in extending it like an ASP baton. If you notice how Smith flicks it out in recent eps compared to his early series. You can see, he no longer applies so much force as he once did. Ergo, using it as he did, breaks it.
This is not a pop at Nick Robattos work as he never knew Smith would be using the sonic in this way. In fact it is a testament to Nicks work that his props are still working after the amount of times they have been broken. Smith is on record that he keeps on breaking them. Tennant is on record that he kept on breaking his. Ecclestone even said his original kept on breaking.
Last edited:
What is going on here?
Let's stop dancing around it and cut right to the chase. It would appear several of you have your own "bromance" for CT and are very systematically going from thread to thread and undermining anything related to Dr Who that isn't coming from CT's lips and hands. Worse than that, you are showing a severe lack of respect for a number of long time, positively contributing members here because they dare to disagree with your cabal.
While I have no doubt, that some of you are indeed passionate about the Dr Who props, what you are doing (and veiling very poorly) is shilling on CT's behalf and pushing his profit-motivated agenda. As CT has shown himself to be not only a completely unstable and unhinged individual, but one who has no issue with fabricating and publicly spreading completely false statements against his perceived enemies (ie anyone who might encroach on his profiteering from Dr Who), promoting his wares directly or indirectly is not welcome here. If some of you who are posting in this thread and the other Dr Who threads continue to do what you are doing (and again, let's not be coy... you know who you are and you know what you are doing), you will not be welcome here either.
If you are looking to stick to the facts regarding the manufacture of the original prop, that is fine.
If you want to critique the build of the licensed replicas, that is also fine, as long as you remain respectful.
If you are looking to individually or collectively undermine every non-CT replica in an effort to eventually sway others to your belief that his is the only product that people should be buying, you need to find another platform from which to do it.
You have been warned. If your loyalty to CT means more to you than your membership at the RPF, please continue in the manner you have been going.
Let's stop dancing around it and cut right to the chase. It would appear several of you have your own "bromance" for CT and are very systematically going from thread to thread and undermining anything related to Dr Who that isn't coming from CT's lips and hands. Worse than that, you are showing a severe lack of respect for a number of long time, positively contributing members here because they dare to disagree with your cabal.
While I have no doubt, that some of you are indeed passionate about the Dr Who props, what you are doing (and veiling very poorly) is shilling on CT's behalf and pushing his profit-motivated agenda. As CT has shown himself to be not only a completely unstable and unhinged individual, but one who has no issue with fabricating and publicly spreading completely false statements against his perceived enemies (ie anyone who might encroach on his profiteering from Dr Who), promoting his wares directly or indirectly is not welcome here. If some of you who are posting in this thread and the other Dr Who threads continue to do what you are doing (and again, let's not be coy... you know who you are and you know what you are doing), you will not be welcome here either.
If you are looking to stick to the facts regarding the manufacture of the original prop, that is fine.
If you want to critique the build of the licensed replicas, that is also fine, as long as you remain respectful.
If you are looking to individually or collectively undermine every non-CT replica in an effort to eventually sway others to your belief that his is the only product that people should be buying, you need to find another platform from which to do it.
You have been warned. If your loyalty to CT means more to you than your membership at the RPF, please continue in the manner you have been going.
greatwazoo42
Master Member
Thank you, Art. Excellent post and maybe soon talking about the Sonic and Dr Who in general can be fun here again instead of winding up a battle every time.
Organic Mechanic
Sr Member
I am compelled to comment on jedibugs' post here. Now that it appears safe to discuss this.
Dude, your point is, I think, the most relevant one to the OP in this entire thread. I don't know about you all, but I surely wouldn't be treating a high end replica in such a way that it was in any where NEAR the condition the filming props end up. If Matt can beat on his props like he does and the prop wrangler can just patch 'em up for the next shoot, then I have to assume that the same item would survive virtually indefinitely resting on my display and enduring the occasional twiddle-n-flick at the cat.
Fatally flawed? Imma vote 'no'. Seems more like 'built like your average Sci-Fi prop' to me.
Dude, your point is, I think, the most relevant one to the OP in this entire thread. I don't know about you all, but I surely wouldn't be treating a high end replica in such a way that it was in any where NEAR the condition the filming props end up. If Matt can beat on his props like he does and the prop wrangler can just patch 'em up for the next shoot, then I have to assume that the same item would survive virtually indefinitely resting on my display and enduring the occasional twiddle-n-flick at the cat.
Fatally flawed? Imma vote 'no'. Seems more like 'built like your average Sci-Fi prop' to me.
Further to my previous post which now seems lost amidst the 'saga'... it is obvious that the Robatto made sonic is not in anyway flawed for use as it was originally intended, but it is flawed for the way it has ended up being used. Blame Matt Smith, it's not the designers or Nick Robatto's fault. The thing is used in every scene now.
[edited]. They certainly show that the 'flicking open' method was not part of the operating procedure before, during or after the props were made. Therefore, it is not a flaw on the part of the designer or maker that the prop breaks when being used like that constantly.
Last edited:
Organic Mechanic
Sr Member
So basically, that sums up the whole topic here doesn't it? Is the new SS fatally flawed? Nope. Mr. Smith's chosen use of it just happens to be particularly rough, and not in accordance with the items design. :cool
Last edited:
I'm wondering if the endcap button is even still used at all. Smith seems to only use the button on the handle now.
From what I understand, the button on the bottom is static and doesn't function. It's just a glued-in pen blank.
I've also never heard anything about the handle button having been added for Matt... It doesn't seem like that would be something you could just add in without a significant re-work of the whole prop.
I've also never heard anything about the handle button having been added for Matt... It doesn't seem like that would be something you could just add in without a significant re-work of the whole prop.
Last edited:
Hey folks,
a few posts were removed since they weren´t helping with the actual topic.
Michael
RPF staff
a few posts were removed since they weren´t helping with the actual topic.
Michael
RPF staff
Not sure if this will help or hurt, but...
Matt Smith breaks at least one sonic screwdriver a day - Comic-Con Doctor Who Panel 2011 - YouTube
Matt Smith breaks at least one sonic screwdriver a day - Comic-Con Doctor Who Panel 2011 - YouTube
