(Close Window)
Topic: Inaccurate advertising of Cellular Mitosis
Message: Posted by: fib (Jul 5, 2005 04:12PM)
The ad for "Cellular Mitosis" on Hank Lee's and other sites reads:
"The features claimed here and by the performer are absolutely true!
Here is what the audiences SEES [CAPS MY OWN]:
A spectator is asked to think of any thought. [true] It can be a name, a place, a date, a number, a color, any thought at all. [true] A phone number is randomly selected from any phonebook.[true] There is no force of the name or number from the book! [true] The person is called and asked to guess what the spectator is thinking. [true] The person on the phone names the thought!..." HUH?

Remember that the advertising claims "Here is what the audience SEES." Well, in this trick -- that I bought recently -- the audience can't see the other person on the phone. The audience certainly can not see the other person on the phone name a thought.

Let's be clear: I am not parsing the advertisement for fun. Quite bluntly, the ad is misleading. When you call or write to order this effect, I suggest asking dealers, "Is the advertisement completely accurate? Does the advertisement portray what REALLY occurs in this effect?" Please do this for the sake of the integrity of the business of marketing and performing magic and mentalism.

fib
Message: Posted by: rumburak (Jul 5, 2005 04:28PM)
[quote]A spectator is asked to think of any thought. [true] It can be a name, a place, a date, a number, a color, any thought at all. [true] A phone number is randomly selected from any phonebook.[true] There is no force of the name or number from the book! [true] The person is called and asked to guess what the spectator is thinking. [true] The person on the phone names the thought!..." HUH?[/quote]

I don't get the point. The spectator [b]thinks[/b] of a thought, but doesn't tell what it is (just literally parsing your quote). A couple of selections is made and somebody on the phone names the (yet unnamed) thought. Which - according to the description - has nothing to do with the wide array of selections.

This description doesn't make any sense to me.

Actually, I would not buy such an effect since I know a crucial piece of information is missing. If the method is that obvious/widely known that any clean description would tip it off, it surely can't be worth getting it ...
Message: Posted by: ElliottB (Jul 5, 2005 04:31PM)
I don’t own this trick, but I imagine that “see” is figurative. For instance people sometimes say “I hear you” and sometimes say “I see”. I guess it would translate to “understand”. Are you saying that the spectator does not actually hear the person on the phone name the thought? If that’s the case, you may be right about the advertisement being a little misleading. Otherwise, it seems OK to me.

Rumburak – it looks like I was typing my post just when you posted. I don’t own the trick, so I’m not sure what you mean (I’m not asking you to provide more information.) It sounds like you are saying that something important was left out of the description. That’s good to know for future reference.
Message: Posted by: rumburak (Jul 5, 2005 05:16PM)
[quote]Rumburak – it looks like I was typing my post just when you posted. I don’t own the trick, so I’m not sure what you mean (I’m not asking you to provide more information.) It sounds like you are saying that something important was left out of the description. That’s good to know for future reference.[/quote]

I do not own the trick, either. My point was that the description was apparently incomplete. At least in the way it is quoted the description does not make much sense - even if it was complete.

But unless the person on the phone is truely psychic, there must be a crucial piece of information missing. I do not know what that is (and, honestly, I also do not care) but the advertisement seems to make the claim that this is imperceptible to the audience.

But whether the audience will notice it or not will depend on the performer and not the actual working of the trick. So do you believe that [b]anybody[/b] will be able to misdirect from an arbitrary, unnamed mechanism of learning and transmitting the information? Since that is what the advertisement ultimately suggests. It just sounds like a fraud to me.

An advertisement like "A c*nt*r t**r", "P**k c*s*", "*mpr*ss**n d*v*c*", or "V*rb*l f*rc*" is meaningful and can help me judge whether or not the method may be up to my skill level and/or working style. A meaningless and pointless description of an unnamed method can not.

So my conclusion just from the quote of the original poster is to keep my hands of it - it is very likely a rip off.
Message: Posted by: david_a_whitehead (Jul 5, 2005 05:17PM)
Fib, do you think these pointless posts of yours advance the art of mentalism? I know Docc Hilford's releases and ideas advance the art. Just what is your point? The effect does what it states. It is excellent. If you don't think so give some valid reasons not some stupid attempt at a word that is somewhat misleading in the ad copy. Good grief.
Message: Posted by: fib (Jul 5, 2005 07:40PM)
"Somewhat misleading?" Mr. Whitehead, who do you admire most -- a performer of mentalism or a carnival barker?
fib
Message: Posted by: Mental_Mike (Jul 5, 2005 07:40PM)
I don't have this yet but I am going to get this...Anything by Docc is good...I love his thinking...but that's just me. Even if it doesn't sound good, just try it out....you might get a good reaction and want to keep doing it.
Message: Posted by: Waters (Jul 5, 2005 08:04PM)
DUAL REALITY. It is bold, but you have to have some imagination. I do own it, and I have performed it. I love it. NOTHING IS REAL MAGIC TO US. But it will be to your audience (where it counts), don't get so hung up on the "method". I own it, I bought it, and I am not disappointed. I am not saying that everyone will like it, but I do. I think Docc deserved some credit for this one.

Sean
Message: Posted by: ElliottB (Jul 5, 2005 09:31PM)
Dual Reality? I tend to avoid dual reality effects because I often perform for just one person or very small groups. Are you saying that I won't be able to perforn this for a friend in a restaurant (or similar situation)?

Elliott
Message: Posted by: Sir T (Jul 5, 2005 09:37PM)
FIB, you always make me think and give me a good laugh! <bravo>
Message: Posted by: Patrick Redford (Jul 6, 2005 12:04AM)
The effect works! did you try it? In fact I performed it last night and got a killer response and booking right there on the spot.

but if one less person is performing it, better for the rest of us.


-Patrick
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Jul 6, 2005 12:08AM)
Hang in there FIB!
I enjoy reading your opinions. You've saved me from becoming a disgrunteled(sp) owner of a few things that I don't need.
Thanks
Dave
Message: Posted by: NJJ (Jul 6, 2005 12:31AM)
Why would you assume you could SEE someone on the end of the phone? Isn't that the point of phone mentalism? That the person is NOT present in the room? If they WERE then it would be far less impressive!

Below is full add as seen on Hank Lee

[quote]
This is the trick that's so strong, Docc Hilford has used it to close his 30 minute mentalism show.
The features claimed here and by the performer are absolutely true!
Here is what the audiences sees:
A spectator is asked to think of any thought. It can be a name, a place, a date, a number, a color, any thought at all. A phone number is randomly selected from any phonebook. There is no force of the name or number from the book! The person is called and asked to guess what the spectator is thinking. The person on the phone names the thought! The spectator speaks to the randomly selected person and he tells the spectator exactly what she's thinking!
This is an incredible effect. Check the important features listed below.
Also included are two bonus effects:
Nudie Call: An original effect using a spectator's cell phone and a mini nudie deck. It's all done in perfectly good taste and has some fun built-in comedy.
Call Me Up Sometime: Ted Annemann's phone test. The pages of annotations by Docc Hilford analyze the psychology of mentalism as seen through a different window.
If you could do only one mental effect for press or audience, Cellular Mitosis would have to be it!
Don't be left behind!
Key Features:
* Any thought can be projected
* Anyone can be phoned
* Any phone book can be used to choose a person
* The spectator always has a free choice in thought and person phoned
* The person phoned can be completely unknown to you or anyone else in the audience
* No code is used
* No stage whispers to spectator or person phoned
* The spectator is never "in on it"
* The spectator can talk to the person
* Can be performed impromptu, up close or on stage
[/quote]
Any performer with some intelligence would know that the routine almost certainly...

1) Has the thought that written down or recorded somewhere.
2) Has the spectator ring up the random person and hear them say the thought.
3) Does not have the person on the other end of the phone appear in the room.
4) Does not have the person on the other end on speaker phone (otherwise they'd mention it in the ad)

Click here http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=see and decide which definition of see would apply to this effect.
Message: Posted by: fib (Jul 6, 2005 05:44AM)
The answer to this riddle, my friends, is not in the definition of the word, "see." The answer is how dealers [or Mr. Hilford] wrote the ad copy for "Cellular Mitosis" using the tried and true method of [b]The List[/b]. The list is semantic deception: The long list -- of old methods you don't use -- numbs you and implies this [b]has to be new and cool!![/b] long list appears fair and comprehensive, offering some incredible mentalism technique that could apparently ONLY COME from the clever mind of the inventor. But [b]ths list is[/b] the trick -- on us.

Many of us are wise to this trick. Fine. But aren't you at least put off by it? And consider a new generation of performers spending considerable sums of money --taken in by something as old as the traveling medicine show.
fib
Message: Posted by: Josho (Jul 6, 2005 08:23AM)
[quote]
On 2005-07-05 05:12, fib wrote:
Here is what the audiences SEES [CAPS MY OWN]:
A spectator is asked to think of any thought. [true] It can be a name, a place, a date, a number, a color, any thought at all. [true] A phone number is randomly selected from any phonebook.[true] There is no force of the name or number from the book! [true] The person is called and asked to guess what the spectator is thinking. [true] The person on the phone names the thought!..." HUH?

Remember that the advertising claims "Here is what the audience SEES." Well, in this trick -- that I bought recently -- the audience can't see the other person on the phone. The audience certainly can not see the other person on the phone name a thought.
[/quote]
[quote]
On 2005-07-06 06:44, fib wrote:
The answer to this riddle, my friends, is not in the definition of the word, "see." The answer is how dealers [or Mr. Hilford] wrote the ad copy for "Cellular Mitosis" using the tried and true method of THE LIST. The list is semantic deception: The long list -- of old methods you don't use -- numbs you and implies this HAS TO BE NEW AND COOL!!
[/quote]

I don't understand. From your first post, one would logically assume that your problem with this advertisement is in the use of the word "see." Now you seem to be saying that the problem isn't with the word "see," it's with an implication that the trick is new and cool.

I readily appreciate distrust of advertisements (magic and otherwise), but your problem with this particular ad seems to shift from message to message.

Respectfully,
Josh
Message: Posted by: Patrick Redford (Jul 6, 2005 08:48AM)
[quote]
On 2005-07-06 06:44, fib wrote:
The answer to this riddle, my friends, is not in the definition of the word, "see." The answer is how dealers [or Mr. Hilford] wrote the ad copy for "Cellular Mitosis" using the tried and true method of THE LIST. The list is semantic deception: The long list -- of old methods you don't use -- numbs you and implies this HAS TO BE NEW AND COOL!! The long list appears fair and comprehensive, offering some incredible mentalism technique that could apparently ONLY COME from the clever mind of the inventor. But THE LIST IS the trick -- on us.

Many of us are wise to this trick. Fine. But aren't you at least put off by it? And consider a new generation of performers spending considerable sums of money --taken in by something as old as the traveling medicine show.
fib
[/quote]

I must respectfully disagree. The method is new and very effective. There isn't anything misleading in the ad copy. All of the statements are true to the effect. This seems to be somewhat of a one sided debate where the light will not be seen, however it makes little difference at the end of the day. Either you like the effect and you'll use it or you've wasted your time and money and should move on.

-Patrick Redford
Message: Posted by: fib (Jul 6, 2005 09:48AM)
Oh, but I'll always have a nudie deck routine -- ready to go, on the spot, off the cuff. [Scene switches to Docc smoking a cigar: "The NUDIE routine'll keep 'em quiet....ha, ha, ha, ha!]

fib
Message: Posted by: Jheff (Jul 6, 2005 09:58AM)
FIB:
I didn't get a chance to respond to you regarding an earlier thread on the same topic in which you questioned the integrity of my opinions. So since you've raised the subject again in a different thread (which will probably also get nuked before long) let me respond to your frustrations.

First, you're right that Docc presents a list of features like a snake oil salesman. And I certainly agree that he is talking about two variations of the same effect so that some of the features seem to be misleading. Nonetheless, the list is correct. (And yes, the person phoned does tell the spec her/his thought. Read the book again if you missed it. It's a VERY important subtlety.)

But you seem to have forgotten one key point. It works. And it stuns audiences. Try it and you'll see.

So what does it really matter if the ad seemed misleading if you wound up purchasing a real miracle on your hands that's worth far more than you paid for it? This may seem like a rhetorical question but it isn't. It does indeed matter, but only if you can't do it. And I'm assuming this is the real problem, FIB.

In CM, Docc writes "IMPORTANT: It's your mindset that everything you state is true that sells the trick. If you falter and allow yourself to think that any part of the trick is bluff, the audience won't believe you and the entire effect can be lost. Convince yourself that everything you state is true, because it is!" If you can't convince yourself of what you're doing or you feel that you're one who can't bring it off, then this most definitely isn't for you. CM works and, as Docc writes in the booklet, "The impact on an audience is incredible."

You also mentioned in that earlier nuked thread that anybody watching a hack actor on TV knows what it's like to fake a phone conversation. Mentalists fake things all the time. For instance, in one ahead routines, a mentalist pretends to read one thing while stating it's another. Or in a blindfold routine, the mentalist pretends that he can't. . . hopefully, you get the idea. How is CM any different in terms of that? Even in magic, the audience does not really see what the magician sees or knows is really happening. Does this mean that every magic or mentalism effect ever created and marketed is guilty of innaccurate advertising?

As for CM, what the audience sees is exactly what the audience sees happen. Sean, I disagree that this is dual reality, because that implies that one or more participants witness a slightly different effect than the audience. This is not true, here. The participant actually here's the voice. The audience may be misled, FIB, but no more so than a magician who points to an empty box and says "An empty box." Look at the ads for those magic tricks. Do you think one actually has to ask a dealer if the box is truly empty and, if not, do you think it's inaccurate advertising? I certainly don't think so.

Lee Earle quoted a gentleman on one of the Best of Syzygy videos who said that mentalism basically consisted of four methods: "Fake it. Force it. Find it out. Fill it in." I strongly believe that if a performer disagrees with this or is unable to convincingly perform these four methods, then that person has absolutely no business performing or discussing mentalism.

Please, FIB, try it out. See for yourself. Or decide it's not for you and move on to other effects. But don't make assumptions that highlight your inexperience and make you look very foolish. Docc's routine is brilliant and I'm truly sorry if you fail to understand it. (You're more than welcome to PM me if you'd like help in 'getting it.')

Frankly, to anyone who has doubt about CM from reading this post, then let me satisfy you by saying that you shouldn't buy it. Save your money. You don't want it. You won't like it. It's far too expensive, too simple, too obvious, and too bold of an effect for you. You'll be happier with the latest Jay Sankey stuff.

Rumburak:
You're right. A crucial piece of information is missing. It's called the secret. Does the blurb not make sense to you because you couldn't figure it out? Regardless of why it didn't make sense to you, it's totally idiotic to think that a creator of a mentalism or magic effect must openly reveal the modus operandi in the advertising blurb.

-- Jheff
Message: Posted by: Waters (Jul 6, 2005 10:14AM)
Jheff:
I stand corected. You're right. The spectators all see the same thing, the only "thing" they don't see is the secret (right you are). I too hope no one else buys or performs it (Sorry Docc).

Sean
Message: Posted by: fib (Jul 6, 2005 10:31AM)
Jheff, I appreciate your reply. But I believe in my heart of hearts that the effect is pretty transparent -- your advertisement notwithstanding -- and that if it were so good, you wouldn't throw in two BONUS routines to justify the expense. That's pretty transparent, too. And leave Jay Sankey alone. What was that all about?
Message: Posted by: Greg Owen (Jul 6, 2005 10:40AM)
Not trying to pick to the method, but can any phone be used?

- Greg Owen
Message: Posted by: Jheff (Jul 6, 2005 11:36AM)
FIB:
As a knowledgeable mentalist, there are many many new effects in which the method is obvious to me before I read the manuscript or check out the product. Does that mean that the method is transparent? Sure, but only to an experienced mentalist. How many experienced mentalists do you do your paid performances for? Not many, if you're like most.

The point is that it's not transparent to laymen. Just because it doesn't fool you, or you were clever enough to figure it out, doesn't mean that your audience will. And that's really the whole heart to Cellular Mitosis.

As to adding bonuses, I don't see the issue here. What's wrong with adding material? Richard Osterlind added bonuses in his Perfected Center Tear booklet as well as his Very Modern Mindreader booklet. Does that make those brilliant routines "transparent" as to their quality? And I myself added bonus variations to my effect in my Ultimental. Master marketers worldwide add bonuses to their material. It is both a kind gesture and a marketing ploy. It does not mean, and never will, that the material lacks quality. So I steadfastly disagree with your concern.

Greg:
You could use any phone, but there are restrictions. The best phone to use is your personal cellphone. You can't use anyone else's cellphone. You can use a regular phone, but if there's a re-dial feature you must quickly dial another number afterwards so that folks can't call the phoned person. And, without giving too much away, think about the old Mr. Wizard effect. It would be pretty much the same restrictions since, essentially, Cellular Mitosis is an updated version of Mr. Wizard (see Scarne on Card Tricks, if you're unfamiliar with it).

-- Jheff
Message: Posted by: rumburak (Jul 6, 2005 11:44AM)
I would like to thank Jheff and everybody else who voiced his opinion on the effect. Your very detailed posts have given me a much clearer impression of how to judge it.

After following this thread I did get the impression that the routine is potentially good but requires a certain amount of experience on the side of the performer. Clearly, I have initially misjudged the effect based on the advertisement.

I still would like to address this concern further since it is obviously important to the marketing of any effect:

I am a potential customer. I have read the advertisement in the first post and found that the advertisement is totally misleading and hence the effect should be bad as well. This is not a logical conclusion, but just a fact - a bad advertisement has put me off a potentially useful thing.

[quote]Rumburak:
You're right. A crucial piece of information is missing. It's called the secret. Does the blurb not make sense to you because you couldn't figure it out?[/quote]

The description doesn't make sense because it is incomplete. It is not clear that the information is written down and/or recorded somewhere. It could use a) preshow work, b) stooges (somewhat excluded by the complete description posted later), c) open announcement or something different. It could be important to the effect or not.

So it is true - if I don't know what type of method is used and whether or not I am expected to be able to do X prior to working the effect (with X being anything from a classic card force to piloting an airplane) I cannot judge if this is for me or not.

[quote]Regardless of why it didn't make sense to you, it's totally idiotic to think that a creator of a mentalism or magic effect must openly reveal the modus operandi in the advertising blurb.[/quote]

If it doesn't at least reveal the skill level and prerequisites required then the advertisement is indeed misleading.

To give you an example of what I consider useful information and misleading advertisement consider these two blurbs for the same thing:

[b]Misleading[/b]
The spectator freely selects any word from a book. The performer is able to name that word. No stooges or preshow work, no gimmicks. Three bonus routines included.

[b]Useful[/b]
A new method for the surrounded center tear is being described and several routines - a book test and three other routines - are included.

I would suspect the first advertisement refers to a product which is a rip off while I would definitely consider the second one. Maybe that's just me and I am not a typical customer and magic dealers don't need people like me and I should just shut up. But that's the way I make my purchase decisions.

As far as the specific routine is concerned: I could emulate the effect using e.g. a method from Annemann's classic book. And I am a newbie and an amateur, not an experienced professional! Why should I care how somebody else works that thing if I could do it myself using a different method? If there is indeed a "cleaner" way to do it, THEN I may be interested.

So think about how you could best convince me to shell out my money - giving a vague description of a result that even a stupid amateur can emulate? Probably not ...
Message: Posted by: Jheff (Jul 6, 2005 12:56PM)
Rumburak:
Maybe this will surprise you, but I really don't want to convince you to buy anything. I may sell mentalism products, but I'm a high school teacher by day and a performer in my off hours (I'm on summer break right now so I have time to address this thread). If you feel CM isn't right for you, then so be it.

However, advertising is designed to get you to purchase the item. If the item is good, then you will be pleased and recommend it. If you are unsure of that, then it's up to the individual consumer to seek out info about the product or service. When I have doubts, I consult friends or other trusted resources to find out info. For instance, when a movie is released, I'll often consult critics I respect to determine if I should plunk down $10 at a theater or wait a few months and pay $2 to rent it. In magic or mentalism, I'll ask friends or consult forums like this one.

This is one of the reasons I created my website. I won't reveal methods (though I will make references) and I will reveal if there's anything necessary to the effect that ad isn't saying, such as sleights (like Room 101), chemicals (such as Raven's Slates), or magnets. I do try to honestly and objectively reflect on the truthfulness of the ad. And give my comments on it from the perspective of a mentalist.

With Docc's ads, he definitely overdoes it with his lists of features. And I've caught him being misleading in a couple of his products' lists. But he always delivers a solid routine that's been performed and that the details have been worked out. CM is no exception. The ad seems misleading, but it's not. If you owned a copy, you'd be able to see that.

As to the skill level, it requires a very bold acting maneuver and a basic move which cam be altered based on your experience and resources. The former requires a strong performing ability which is a quality that every successful mentalist should have and is arguably a difficult skill to master. The latter should be quite easy for anyone.

But, as I said, I'm not going to convince you to buy it. You should know what you need or not need. You raise the fact that you could come up with your own version. Let me encourage you to do so. Many of mentalism and magic's greatest effects were created by people who were trying to copy ones they have seen or read about. I sincerely wish you the very best of luck doing so and I'm sure Docc Hilford would love to see your result if you succeed. If you find yourself in a state of frustration though, know that $40 will end it.
Message: Posted by: rumburak (Jul 6, 2005 01:28PM)
Jheff, thank you very much for your detailed posts. What you wrote is essentially what I would have loved to read in the original advertisement.

The major point of my criticism was about the advertisement, not the effect itself. However, a bad advertisement does eventually reflect on the routine since subconsciously I expect somebody who is able to write a decent routine to also be able to write a useful advertisement. This is not fair, but at least for me a common shortcut to judging whether I should put a product on my watchlist or not.

Had [b]you[/b] written that advertisement most if not all criticism would have been mute.

[quote]However, advertising is designed to get you to purchase the item.[/quote]

As I have explained, this design goal was clearly missed by the original advertisement. I was totally driven away instead of intrigued. Maybe other people reacted differently and maybe these types of ads generate higher revenues than decent ones. But as the first poster shows it is not a way to keep customers satisfied.

I would strongly suggest Docc Hilford gets somebody like you for his next campaign :D
Message: Posted by: Jheff (Jul 6, 2005 01:59PM)
Rumburak,

The original poster claimed the ad was inaccurate. His claims are untrue. They may mislead one to construe incorrect facts, but that hardly makes the advertising inaccurate. Had he titled this thread "Misleading Advertising of Cellular Mitosis" then I wouldn't have had much to disagree with.

And, yeah, some people don't like that style of advertising. You're not the first or last who will be turned off by Docc's verbose pitches. But if you want good material, then you must do what many others do in regards to Docc's material and that is to simply ignore his lists and focus on whether the effect is something for you or not. You will get quality products.

-- Jheff

P.S. Honestly, I have more fun commenting on Docc's ads for his wonderful products than wanting to write the ads for them. But thanks for the thought.
Message: Posted by: fib (Jul 6, 2005 02:12PM)
My last comment: and thank you all for your patience.
I genuinely consider the folks who write here part of a fascinating sub-culture, even a community. I have been performing for quite a number of years and I use my postings to get feedback from the community. I have given some of my material away at the Café. Then, there are the elites. And they are, indeed, the great thinkers and performers of the business. But even the elites -- like all of us -- grow bereft of new, original, great ideas and methods -- and STILL some charge too much. Still use their names as a guarantee of quality, even when it doesn't exist. Many of us here believe them because we hold onto this shared notion of community. For some, that sort of sentiment seems to have gone away.
fib
Message: Posted by: Kevvy (Jul 6, 2005 05:12PM)
[quote]
On 2005-07-06 11:31, fib wrote:
And leave Jay Sankey alone. What was that all about?
[/quote]
Actually, some of Sankey's mentalism/mental magic effects are good. Especially his card effects.

I don't have any of Docc's material. I like cell phone effects, so I may take a chance with this one.
Message: Posted by: NJJ (Jul 6, 2005 05:28PM)
Re: Bonus Effects - When I bought my car, they threw in a CD player to clinch the deal. Does that my car is no good?

Re: Advertising with lists - A list is an editorial method to make the information easier to read. It answers questions people might have.

Re: new vs. old - Who cares if the method is new or old? I would handsomely for a good presentation of a rough and smooth deck so long as its not a stolen idea. Is this a stolen idea idea?

re: Style of advertising - If the STYLE of the ad is annoying then you should know that by reading it. If the

What EXACTLY is misleading about this ad? You say its the fact you can't SEE the person on the other end, which we've already established, is a stupid thing to expect. So what's your REAL problem?

Perhaps you might just be disappointed that the effect uses a) a new use for an old method you could have thought of yourself (but didn't) b) won't fool your magic buddies down at the club or c) just requires an little effort towards presentation and maybe even, GASP, hard work?

I'm sure if you email Hank Lee with your complaint he will deal with it.
Message: Posted by: ElliottB (Jul 6, 2005 08:14PM)
Jheff,

Thank you for the information and also for all the excellent reviews on your site. I think you effectively answered this question (when you said that there is no dual reality), but to be on the safe side . . .

Am I correct that this effect can be effectively performed for just one person?

Thanks,

Elliott
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Jul 6, 2005 08:34PM)
To me the LIST is a sales tactic to lull you into thinking this is something new, not what it really is. In a way it is just like magic trickery. SOOOO maybe these advertisers being Magicians, just can't help themselves...and perpetuate an illusion....but this time, the trick's on us!
Message: Posted by: Jheff (Jul 7, 2005 12:17PM)
[quote]
On 2005-07-06 21:14, ElliottB wrote:

Am I correct that this effect can be effectively performed for just one person?[/quote]
Yes, it can.
Message: Posted by: Xiqual (Jul 7, 2005 05:26PM)
Jheff is the best dealer on the web. He always gives straight reviews [without actually giving away the effect]

Cellular Mitosis is great in my opinion. Two things though, you need to be able to act a little AND you need to be able to afford a cell phone.

Fib, whenever your mom and dad give you the money to get a cell, try this effect out, it kills.

James
Message: Posted by: ElliottB (Jul 7, 2005 07:32PM)
[quote]
On 2005-07-07 13:17, Jheff wrote:
[quote]
On 2005-07-06 21:14, ElliottB wrote:

Am I correct that this effect can be effectively performed for just one person?[/quote]
Yes, it can.
[/quote]
Thank you very much.

Elliott
Message: Posted by: Greg Owen (Jul 8, 2005 08:34AM)
But can it be performed BY only one person? The traditional Mr. Wizard cannot.

- Greg Owen
Message: Posted by: rumburak (Jul 8, 2005 09:14AM)
[quote]But can it be performed BY only one person? The traditional Mr. Wizard cannot.
[/quote]
The advertisement states that it can be done "impromptu". The "traditional" 2P methods cannot. Furthermore, it has been said that the person "can" be unknown to the audience, but also that "any" person can be called. Hence, an acquaintance can also be called should he happen to be on the selected page. That's just the contents of the advertisement blurb at least ...

I must admit that so far I have not been able to come up with a method that has such features - so this effect really seems to be far more intelligent than I had initially thought. I have been able to come up with a method that can be performed by one person, is semi-impromptu (requires a short set-up that is not apparent to the audience which has to be done once) and can be done even in the streets using a cell phone, possibly with speaker phone capability. However, my method allows for a rather limited selection of items only - like from a list or similar. It also doesn't allow the person on the phone to be debriefed after the effect - it has to be a stranger to everybody and this stranger must not be called back and debriefed. (Restrictions similar to an instant stooge effect.)
Message: Posted by: Greg Owen (Jul 8, 2005 09:29AM)
I guess I am interested in the performance conditions required for the effect. Without knowing this, I cannot make an informed pruchase decision. If it can only be done when my confederate is waiting by the phone to answer, I need to know that. Doesn't mean its not killer and worth the effort, but I just like to know. Especially since "Impromptu" is claimed.

- Greg Owen
Message: Posted by: rumburak (Jul 8, 2005 09:56AM)
[quote]If it can only be done when my confederate is waiting by the phone to answer, I need to know that. Doesn't mean its not killer and worth the effort, but I just like to know. Especially since "Impromptu" is claimed.
[/quote]
Neither a 2P effect nor a modification of it alone can fulfill the requirement that "anybody can be called". All these methods are only possible if the person on the line is a complete stranger.

The obvious modification which allows "the performer to leave the room while the prediction is made" can turn it into a one person effect, but violates the "close up" condition under which the performance can be made.

I did trust Jheff that the advertisement is "misleading, but not inaccurate". So the requirements "anybody can be called", "can be performed impromptu" and "close-up" should better be fulfilled.

There are effects which really deliver what they promise - like Banachek's PK Touches which literally and impressively does everything the advertisement claims. The idea and principle is so strong that I did not believe it possible before and I was positively surprised.

So I similarly expect CM to be more than just another routine (or even a reprint) of a 70-year old thing which do not fulfill the claimed properties.
Message: Posted by: Xiqual (Jul 9, 2005 01:50AM)
[quote]
On 2005-07-08 10:29, Greg Owen wrote:

I guess I am interested in the performance conditions required for the effect. Without knowing this, I cannot make an informed pruchase decision. If it can only be done when my confederate is waiting by the phone to answer, I need to know that. Doesn't mean its not killer and worth the effort, but I just like to know. Especially since "Impromptu" is claimed.

- Greg Owen
[/quote]
Greg,
This is specifically for cellphones. If you don't have a cellphone and your people don't have cellphones, don't buy this.
Message: Posted by: jo (Jul 9, 2005 11:16AM)
Mmmm, with all this talk about CM I have been able to devise a method that fits all the requirements of the ad. If it's THE method that Docc suggests then I agree it is bold, very clever, and definitely not for everyone. If it's NOT, then I have found another way and am willing to give this a try (just because it's that cheeky).
Although no method has been given, we run the risk once again of exposing a marketed effect through our comments and discussions. Perhaps we should stop before too much is said? (if it hasn't already?)

Fib, have you contacted Docc regarding all this? Surely that would solve any complaints, thereby leaving it to those who want this to get it and those who don't to leave it alone.
Message: Posted by: fib (Jul 9, 2005 11:50AM)
No, jo, I haven't contacted Docc privately. This forum, the Magic Café, makes that possible though. It is here for all of us -- you, me, Docc, inventors and patrons -- to share thoughts -- and sometimes uncomfortable subjects come up among friends.

All the best, fib
Message: Posted by: jo (Jul 9, 2005 11:56AM)
I understand, Fib, I'm just concerned about too much info given out. Perhaps I should PM you with my method?
Message: Posted by: backpalmmagic (Jul 9, 2005 12:29PM)
[quote]
On 2005-07-09 02:50, Xiqual wrote:
[quote]
On 2005-07-08 10:29, Greg Owen wrote:

I guess I am interested in teh performance conditions required for the effect. Without knowing this, I cannot make an informed pruchase decision. If it can only be done when my confederate is waiting by the phone to answer, I need to know that. Doesn't mean its not killer and worth the effort, but I just like to know. Especially since "Impromptu" is claimed.

- Greg Owen
[/quote]
Greg,
This is specifically for cellphones. If you don't have a cellphone and your people don't have cellphones, don't buy this.
[/quote]
Not to muddy the waters too much, but ANY telephone can be used. The prevalence of cell phones today provides more opportunities to perform this effect because you are not dependent on traditional, wired land-lines.

A handling is provided that would allow me to use my mother-in-law's wall-mounted, hard-wired, rotary-dial phone successfully.

Bob
Message: Posted by: rumburak (Jul 9, 2005 02:07PM)
[quote] Mmmm, with all this talk about CM I have been able to devise a method that fits all the requirements of the ad. If it's THE method that Docc suggests then I agree it is bold, very clever, and definately not for everyone. If it's NOT, then I have found another way and am willing to give this a try (just because it's that cheeky).
[/quote]
Finally, I have also found a handling that meets the major requirements (semi-) "impromptu", "close-up" and "everybody can be called". There may well be some major glitch remaining, but I think it is possible to pull this off.

[quote]Although no method has been given, we run the risk once again of exposing a marketed effect through our comments and discussions. Perhaps we should stop before too much is said? (if it hasn't already?)
[/quote]
Given the comments by other people I think my method is [b]not[/b] identical to the published CM method. I specifically require a cell phone with a certain feature.

So far, it is just a method, not a field-tested and working routine. Probably I should post this in the restricted session. Hopefully, this encourages discussions to make this approach workable. Personally, I don't dare to pull this off yet.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jul 9, 2005 03:46PM)
Hmmm working from the ad as stated.

You get someone on the line who starts complaining, swearing and otherwise screaming about being called at some horrible hour (remember we can dial overseas) and you calmly ask them what country they are in. You happen to find someone in the room who can speak Nairobi or the particular dialect of Chinese emitting from the phone by the irate callee... and they confirm that among other things the caller is an irresponsible *^%))##! and the person who wrote down their thought on that billet has lousy handwriting but seems to have scribbled something about their child's birthday.

;)
Message: Posted by: Jheff (Jul 10, 2005 10:25AM)
[quote]
On 2005-07-09 12:50, fib wrote:
No, jo, I haven't contacted Docc privately. This forum, the Magic Café, makes that possible though. It is here for all of us -- you, me, Docc, inventors and patrons -- to share thoughts -- and sometimes uncomfortable subjects come up among friends.[/quote]
Yes, FIB, but that doesn't include openly revealing and discussing the method of someone else's effect on a public forum. Even the restricted section is not that restricted and you have to be careful. Besides, that's just simply unethical.

BTW, I'm not saying you are revealing the secret. I'm just pointing this out.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Jul 10, 2005 05:34PM)
If someone doesn't want us to analyze what something IS, why give us a list of what it [b]isn't[/b]???
Message: Posted by: Jheff (Jul 10, 2005 06:29PM)
Slim,
There's nothing wrong with analyzing it and trying to figure out what it is based on what it isn't. But everything's wrong with analyzing it by discussing and revealing methods on a public forum.

-- Jheff
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Jul 10, 2005 07:51PM)
I would never reveal a secret on ANY public forum unless it was my own. But all of this talk of misleading or misrepresenting or mis...whatever. Seems like the ad is a little off. Just my opinion after reading the posts. I don't own this. So my opinion doesn't really mean that much, but I am into "Over the Phone" effects and I'm not so sure this is one.
Message: Posted by: Jheff (Jul 10, 2005 09:20PM)
Slim,

Don't underestimate your opinion. It's much appreciated. But just because the ad may be a bit misleading, the effect is solid. You'll notice that others are saying the same thing. I would pay attention to what people are saying about the effect not the ad. That's really what's important, right? After all, Slim, in your show, are you performing effects or reading ads?

-- Jheff
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Jul 11, 2005 06:25PM)
Jheff
WOW...I am performing effects, and NOT reading ads...Very Clear!....And Correct!
Dave
Message: Posted by: DavidCaserta (Jul 26, 2005 08:37AM)
Stay away, run away from this effect, I just saw it and the ad is misleading.
Message: Posted by: Bosko (Jul 26, 2005 01:19PM)
Ok. I won't try "fishing" the method, I swear. But nobody wants spend 40 bucks to read something like: "turn on you cell and let the other person listening to the conversation". I like Docc stuff an I´m thinking in buy that booklet, but I want to be wrong about the method, am I?
Message: Posted by: David Numen (Jul 26, 2005 01:44PM)
Yes, you are wrong. Very wrong!
Message: Posted by: markiquark (Nov 9, 2005 06:26PM)
Jheff: But you seem to have forgotten one key point. It works. And it stuns audiences.

Just wanted to comment that that is probably the most important statement of it all, but also wanted to state that yes, the advertisment is partly misleading.

First, not ANY person can be called. There are two handlings provided. In one it has to be a total stranger. So it's not ANY And in the other one it's still not ANY person. Spec can't call is brother for the same reason everybody recommends in this thread that one does not use someone elses cell phone.

Second: The statement that the person called is the person telling the spec his or her thought, is incorrect. Yes, one could argue against that (and I can't unfortunately explain in more detail), but one would stand on shaky grounds here. It certainly is a misleading, in one of the two handlings this is clearly wrong. And actually in the other one.......with A LOT of good-will it's right.

MY MOST IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTION TO THIS DISCUSSION IS
THIRD: A sentence as stated in the add "the person phoned can be completely unkown to you or anyone in the audience" truly misleads the customer. The tricky part about this add is this: there are two handlings provided in the manuscript and the approach will really be quite different - and the claims made in the add can only pertain to one of them. In handling one I would object with regards to the statement just quoted: MUST (not CAN) be unkown to the audience (unless the spectator participating in this effect is not considered part of the audience). And in handling two I would object: Entire statement untrue. So while everything in the add can be done, it can only be done if you have one spec today and another one tomorrow and you are using one handling today, one tomorrow.

Very sneaky. Honestly, I do understand if people stay away from this just because of this, EVEN IF the effect might be worth it, there is still a lot of magic out there that doesn't leave a bad taste in your mouth.

I do, however, only partly agree with the statement that someting has been left out in the description of the effect. But that is normal and happens all the time to protect the secret. I could name you several videos on penguinmagic where "the move" does not show up on the video, because it's, say, a slight. For example, I watched the video for Jay Sankey's "Just imagine" once and was convinced that I had figured it out, but there was one little thing bothering me, I just could not have pulled it off without buying it for this simple reason. Turns out after I bought it he winged it a little bit in the demon-video. Is that misleading? Though it certainly is, I think they should be forgiven, for an effect like "just imagine" could not be figured out by most of us after watching it once, so it's not fair to have the chance to watch it 10 times and then know it. So can it be fair to mislead people in a way? I think so, cuz Just imagine is just a stunner an that is what you are getting for your money. Or consider "one for the money" by goldman and read the advertising on whatever magic-website, it is also only 98 percent correct. This happens ALL the time, but if you tried to make it 100 percent fair you would have tipped off the method.

In this case I am not sure. I personally think this is just another method of revealing a thought, just like there is a thousand methods to reveal a card. And one should cost 40 bucks? Sure. If the effect kills, and we probably have to trust the ones who have performed it, I haven't. But: it is recommended that one own another magic prop which I can't mention here, but if you don't have it and are not experienced enough to find an alternative, than you will have to buy either a book on mentalism or the mentioned prop first. So in a way this may not be ready to perform out of the box.

Speaking of which, would anyone consider sending me a few pages of their phone books, I live in Mexico and they don't even sell eml on ebay. That would be so awesome. Do it with the Gringos on the street :))))
Message: Posted by: markiquark (Nov 9, 2005 06:34PM)
Let me also add: in the method when the person calls and tells the spectator the thought, that person is NOT selected from a telephone-book. I think it's only fair to mention this.
Message: Posted by: ElliottB (Nov 9, 2005 06:42PM)
I can’t believe people are complaining about “Cellular Mitosis”. Have you seen the advertisement for “Nostrum Necromancy”?

Here’s an excerpt:

“You will look at the most beautiful woman at the table, extend your open hand and
she'll smile and leave with you! I know it must sound like an ad in the back of a comic book, but it's true. If you're married, you can use this hypnotic control to get a fellow to buy you the cocktail of your choice. You will end up with complete control of the subject”.

The man is offering you an unlimited supply of free beer and your choice of any woman in the world. Still, you’re complaining. I don’t get it.

:) :) :)

Elliott
Message: Posted by: markiquark (Nov 9, 2005 06:48PM)
@Elliot, I remember reading that one day, I even almost bought it!!!! LOL!
Message: Posted by: ElliottB (Nov 9, 2005 06:55PM)
I know what you mean. I’m waiting to hear the feedback on these claims.

:) :) :)
Message: Posted by: Thomas Rudolfo (Nov 10, 2005 04:15AM)
Well, I'm a little bit curious about thist thread regarding Cellular mitosis. Please don't understand my post wrong but IMO there is nothing misleading in the ad for CM.

Well we all, especially mentalism insiders, know that noone can read minds and thus ther must be a method involved. So the ad usually transmitts the impression the effect looks from the audience point of view.

And that exactly is what the ad says. The person called can indeed be unknown to audience and performer. Of course its just one of the two options but it is true and if you take a phonebook with you at the show you always can perform this variation.

And regarding the fact that the person on the phone tells the spectator what she thought of is also true. Of course this also only can happen in one of the two variations.

So please, don't get me wrong but IMO it really is very naiv to complain about single wording.

If we would judge an ad of an effect like this than almost EVERY ad of effects woudl be misleading. So I suggest for the future all dealers and inventors should include the whole explanation within the ad so everyone can judge if it is correct and not misleading.

But wait...that wouldn't be so good because then everybody knows the secret and noone would buy the effect. But then the ad would at least be not miesleading and so we have no need to complain about it here.

So again please get my post wrong but I just wanted to point out that sometimes we really think too much as mentalists and magicians.

IMO an ad always should give the impressions what an effect looks like from audience view. In additional information it also can give some hints on the method.

And at cellular mitosis it says that the any person can be callec- TRUE and the person on the phone can tell the spectator what she thought of -- TRUE.

It didn't say that all this is the only one kind of performing the effect.
I used it quite often now, even in some of my shows and it ALWAYS got huge reactions no matter which variation I performed. I like them both and love to perform it.

Though I'm also not a fan of all products published by Docc, I think CM really is nice thinking and a strong effect.

Just my thoughts
THomas
Message: Posted by: Thomas Rudolfo (Nov 10, 2005 04:39AM)
Just one more word on what Elliot posted. I fully agree with him. I admit I don't own 'Nostrum Necromancy' but it really sounds more like a pipe dream like cellular mitosis does.

Though it also should give the impression the audience has but even as mentalist I hardly can believe that this will work everytime as stated. Sometimes it can happen what ever method it is used. And there is the difference to CM.

There you have two performing variations but regardless which one you perform both work every time you use them.

So I guess there are many other effects out there where the ad sounds more than a pipe dream compared to CM so we could fill tons of threads here at the Café to complain about all this.

So again one should apporach a little bit less naiv to ads regardless what product they are for because as adult people we should know that ad language always is a bit over emphasizing.

But at least regarding CM IMO the ad not really is that over emphasizing because of reasons given in my recent post.

Grettings
Thomas