MFX Inaccuracies - A theory

Having thought about this whole inaccuracy thing I want to propose a theory as to the MFX Sonic Screwdriver's undeniable inaccuracies despite Neill Gorton's denials to the contrary. I'm not going to get personal or snarky as this has no bearing on the matter. What I will stick to is cold hard fact. So, what do we know for sure?

1. 
   
   
   
   MFX employee Chris Martin wrote on the RPF: "both the Sonic Screwdriver and Master Laser Driver should be  faithful duplicates of the actual props . He [Neill Gorton] and I went down to the studios in Cardiff to  measure and photograph both props in order to duplicate them as exactly as possible." . Further he continues "To illustrate how much effort has gone into making these as faithful as possible, here are pictures of both the original we were working from and the duplicates I created from the reference material." He then posts the picture of the prop they are using as reference:
   
   
   

Therefore it stands to reason that the replica should be IDENTICAL to the above prop. And it pretty much is. The pics he posts of his prototypes are spectacular:

2.     On the MFX website it is written:

"Is it an exact replica sonic screwdriver?

This replica prop was built using the original prop as a guide. All the measurements, dimensions, materials and paints used are exact to the original filming prop used by David Tennant. Even the inner workings follow the exact same build technique as the original prop.

Where it differs is in some small areas where we have made its construction stronger by adding threaded joints rather than a glued joint. None of these minor variations in any way affect the aesthetic of the piece. "

 

The implication stated is that it will be dimensionally accurate to the prop. When added to the picture of an accurate prototype shown when compared to the original reference prop, it can be reasonably expected that what he is selling is indeed represented as 'screen accurate'.

 

3.    In early October they release their final production versions. What they delivered differed vastly from not only the reference prop, but also their prototype above. The main differences are detailed here: http://celestialtoystore.blogspot.com/2009/10/analysis-of-mfx-sonic-screwdriver-and.html. It is immediately obvious that visually, the production versions differed substantially to what was promised but it is only to someone like me who has measured and detailed a filming prop and has detailed dims, apparent just how different it was. The data presented in the above blog can be independently verified by anyone with some Verniers and Photoshop.

 

4.   Despite having these differences pointed out to him, Neill Gorton refuses to acknowledge that the production sonic is inaccurate and maintains that his sonic is accurate to the reference prop they had access to. This flies in the face of common sense and visual data.

 

5.   Gorton has claimed that their were many props used hence the differences. But he has said that they only used one prop for reference and his replica was a replica of that single reference prop. This is contradictory and inconsistent since logically his replica should be a faithful replica of that reference prop.

 

6.    When the fact that the spacer at the top of the slider channel was unpainted was pointed out, he again used the excuse that multiple props were used. But didn't he say that they only referenced the one prop to copy? That reference prop had a painted spacer as did the prototype drawn from that. So is the MFX a faithful copy of the single reference prop as claimed or isn't it?

 

7.     No screenshot of a prop matching the MFX has ever surfaced, especially in regard the basic features such as the strut edge thickness and the window placement.

 

8.     No direct answer has ever been given by Neill Gorton as to why the inaccurate MFX replica differs so much from the accurate prototype.

 

 

So let's recap:

 

• 
  
  Neill has denied selling his replica on a 'screen accurate' ticket. LIE
  
  
  
• 
  
  Neill/MFX have stated that have used one prop for reference and that is the prop they are copying. Neill has stated he has made an accurate copy of that one reference prop. LIE (unless he's blind and stupid  and whilst he's many things, he's neither)
  
  
  
• 
  
  Neill has stated he cannot be expected to produce perfection yet he came close enough with his prototype. LIE
  
  
  

So why the lies and the inconsistencies? Look at the following rather cryptic quote:

 

Neill said: "It's like those Persian carpets where they put a deliberate mistake in the pattern because, in the laws of their religion, only God can achieve perfection.".

 

Knowing what I do about Neill and his work, and also knowing that he is in a very, very difficult position in regards to what he can or cannot say, I am willing to bet the above was veiled speech for the following:

 

THE BBC HAVE REQUESTED THAT MFX CHANGE THE DESIGN AS THEIR PROTOTYPE WAS A LITTLE TOO ACCURATE AND ONLY THEY (BEING METAPHORICALLY 'GOD'AND 'THE LAWS OF THEIR RELIGION' BEING THE LICENCE AGREEMENT) WERE ALLOWED TO POSSESS A PERFECTLY ACCURATE SONIC SCREWDRIVER THEREFORE MFX HAVE HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO DELIBERATELY WATER DOWN THEIR DESIGN AND NEILL CANNOT PUBLICALLY ADMIT THIS SO HAS TO BITE HIS LIP AND TOW THE PARTY LINE.

 

To me, this is a very roundabout way of admitting that yes, the MFX is wrong and differs from the prototype but due to a deliberate act at the behest of the licensor. To wit, Neill is aware that the MFX sonic is less than perfect in this veiled admission but it was requested by the BBC for reasons unknown. Not an uncommon occurance with licenced props as we've seen many times with George Lucas and Star Wars replicas.

So there you have it. Under the circumstances that's the best we're ever going to get so I'm going to drop it now and I hope others do too.