I don't normally buy this kind of stuff, but appreciate your candid review.
Roland, you said it fooled you...perhaps only for a second..but it did fool you. Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with doing a little quickie like this for one or two people in a casual situation and I do believe that it would fool laymen. Not an earth shaking trick but in the right situation I could see this going over really well.
This argument is invalid... because if Rick would have chosen to do that routine using extra pieces suddenly the whole thing would have the potential of being angle proof. Granted it wouldn't fool as many magicians, but even more (both in scope and in mass) laypeople.This product is designed to fool magicians, so they are tempted to buy it. It does not meet the requirements of the real world.
What argument...it's only my opinion. Tell you what..I'm going to buy it, learn it and try it out in "the real world." That's the only way to actually know what reactions it will get. I'll let you know if it passes your requirements. As it's only $6.95 you can afford to put it to the test as well.
wether an effect fools you or not is one of the weakest criteria to judge an effect.
OK...thanks for the input Einstein. I wouldn't want a trick to fool me.
WTF ? OF COURSE, it is one of the strongest criteria to judge an effect. Magician fooler = guarenteed layman fooler. WTF.
@BinderdondatYou are missing my point I think. My point is that there is a world of difference between how a layperson (nonmagic guy) thinks an effect is done versus how a magician thinks an effect is done.Laymen don't have the knowledge we have and thus are fooled by completely different methods then magicians.If a trick fools a magician it just doesn't necessarily mean it fools a layman. Wether a trick fools you shouldn't be a criteria in judging an effect. Wether a trick fools a layman however , ofcourse is ;)that was more or less my point, sorry for the confusion
What the fuck does WTF mean, asshole?BS
You're talking in circles and making me dizzy.
Nice catch by reading between the lines Roland, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Your definition of "organic magic" was great too.I agree with Michiel Tummers as well. The method is impractical and highly angle sensitive. Using a simple gimmick, you can remove the angle sensitivity almost entirely without compromising the effect. To a layman, it will look the same. To the magician, it becomes more practical to perform.
It means 'what the fuck', bull shit.
I just use a tt for that. Angle problem solved.
Binderdondat, if you think fooling magicians should be a judging criteria, then you really need to read "Designing Miracles" by Darwin Ortiz.
Exactly that, Necromancer ;)
"Magician fooler = guarenteed layman fooler."An Alex Elmsley trick may fool me because I don't understand the math involved. But that doesn't mean a layman is going to want to watch three Down Under Deals. On it's own, it IS a weak criterium.
I only comment because I know the guy but I think it's intended as impromptu like when someone asks you you to do something when they find out yer a magician or if they ask you to "do something with this".There are many impromptu effects that could be done with a gaff but that defeats the point. Just be thankful it's not another #*@!&% card trick.
You said a mouthful! Get it?
My friend showed me this at the club yesterday, it looks good! He loves it as well. Maybe not a worker trick but definitely good for showing a friend something quick. As for borrowing the headphones, considering the method, I would rather not!
Post a Comment