(Close Window)
Topic: New "Origami" from Pendragons???
Message: Posted by: Aftereight (Dec 30, 2008 04:57PM)
Hi, does anybody know what the name of the illusion in this video from the Pendragons is, and who is the creator of this illusion, and who has building rights?


Thank you,

Message: Posted by: magic-taylor (Dec 30, 2008 05:06PM)
Cubism, I believe. Another Steinmeyer creation.
Message: Posted by: Aftereight (Dec 30, 2008 05:17PM)
On 2008-12-30 18:06, magic-taylor wrote:
Cubism, I believe. Another Steinmeyer creation.

Yes, it is. Thank you for the info...
Message: Posted by: magicofCurtis (Dec 30, 2008 05:34PM)
OMG.... I think Steinmeyer went flat on that one!
Hmm, a GIANT WALL. I wonder where the girl went?!
Message: Posted by: briansmagic (Dec 30, 2008 06:21PM)
There is more to it than you think....
Message: Posted by: magicofCurtis (Dec 30, 2008 07:08PM)
Of course, Brian, but we are not discussing secrets here....... It is a cool concept for the box to be assemble in front of the audience, but you ARE LEFT WITH A WALL on A TABLE.... hmmm.
Message: Posted by: briansmagic (Dec 30, 2008 09:00PM)
I don't think the wall is what you think it is....if you PM me, I can probably say a bit more...
Message: Posted by: Blair Marshall (Dec 30, 2008 10:05PM)
It still is a large wall on a table! Is there something missing in the presentation? Reason, perhaps?? Haven't figure this out yet.

Message: Posted by: j.i.s. (Dec 30, 2008 10:28PM)
I have the same feeling about a giant wall and a part of it is black, and Pendragon rotated the illusion very fast to not see too much.
My opinion...Origami is better.
Message: Posted by: makeupguy (Dec 30, 2008 11:35PM)
I hate to say this, as I have nothing but the highest regard for both Jonathan and Jim... but I hated it.
Message: Posted by: LanceRich (Dec 31, 2008 12:37AM)
I agree that the back wall is bulky looking. If it is supposed to look like a canvas, I could buy that, but why is a canvas mounted to a table in that manner?

I like the 'painting' and the way it is supposed to look like Picasso or Dali or something. And though I like the way the box folds out, it looks suspicious to me somehow.

Also, I was waiting for a kicker. I suppose the silk banner production was...but I wanted more. It seems like stuff that we have seen before, but not as interesting.
Message: Posted by: Chezaday (Dec 31, 2008 01:45AM)
This illusion is actually from a few years back. It was almost a natural progression from the Origami Box to Jim's latest illusion Op Art. It's an interesting effect ... something different.

Message: Posted by: Chris Stolz (Dec 31, 2008 08:42AM)
On 2008-12-31 00:35, makeupguy wrote:
I hate to say this, as I have nothing but the highest regard for both Jonathan and Jim... but I hated it.

My thoughts, as well. I have *HUGE* respect for them both, but this one just didn't do it for me.
Message: Posted by: Stanyon (Dec 31, 2008 09:05AM)

Didn't like the pose the assistant had to strike during the revolve.

Message: Posted by: Jerico (Dec 31, 2008 09:48AM)
OK, I hate to admit, but I hated it too, and I generally love their stuff. I wanted a kicker, as well. The final banner production was so huge, they could have produced an elephant, and regardless of the method, that huge wall looks like it could hold an elephant too.

I love the concept and how the box folds out, but why a wall on a platform? Perhaps it makes more sense and is more deceptive "live".

Message: Posted by: Illusionist11 (Dec 31, 2008 12:06PM)
If anyone cares, here is the patent for the illusion.
Message: Posted by: Nachtzehrer (Dec 31, 2008 02:42PM)
Is there any more videos of this illusion?

I've seen this video before, but the quality of the video is very bad.
Message: Posted by: Michael J. Douglas (Dec 31, 2008 06:38PM)
How shameful they do something different.... :rolleyes: Kudos to them! And the wall makes the audience think, "I bet she's just hiding behind the wall." But then the whole thing is spun around, and she's not there!
Message: Posted by: Blair Marshall (Dec 31, 2008 06:59PM)
Geez, I thought, "Thick base on its side!" LOL

Message: Posted by: magicofCurtis (Dec 31, 2008 07:32PM)
On 2008-12-31 19:59, Blair Marshall wrote:
Geez, I thought, "Thick base on its side!" LOL



HEHEHEHEHE OMG, so true....

Indeed.... but keep expanding ... WINK.

Love the Pendragrons!
Message: Posted by: Illucifer (Dec 31, 2008 07:52PM)
This is a really unique illusion with wonderful potential. I think most of you are viewing this like an audience of magicians.

The low resolution of this video does not give you a clear picture of the prop. If you look closely you'll notice that you can see into the depth of the picture frame to its back wall when the picture is in its cubed position.

Also, it is not necessary for an assistant to stand behind the frame as the prop is turned.
Message: Posted by: j.i.s. (Jan 1, 2009 10:05AM)
Is not so deceptive
Message: Posted by: Illucifer (Jan 1, 2009 11:12AM)
J.i.s. I submit to you that you are not seeing it properly. Look at the patent diagram. In a lay audience's mind, where is the girl? Remember, they can see into the depth of the frame to the back wall. It's difficult to see this in the video.

I think this illusion can be beautiful and baffling to an audience. I will add that I don't think this particular presentation is a great one.
Message: Posted by: j.i.s. (Jan 1, 2009 11:38AM)
Trust me that I saw the depth frame ...anyhow I expected to a big surprise and ..nothing.
Message: Posted by: Illucifer (Jan 1, 2009 11:48AM)
Okay, well expecting a big surprise and being deceived by an illusion are two quite different things.
Message: Posted by: Blair Marshall (Jan 1, 2009 12:08PM)
I think the "issue" I have with this illusion is that it is almost like a "sucker" effect. But not sure if that is what it is supposed to be. What I mean is the girl vanishes, audience thinks the wall has something to do with it (ie. is she hiding behind it?), then it is revolved to show she is not. It's very "in their face", and I am not sure if I like it.

But you are still left with a very large object (ht. x width) on a base.

Message: Posted by: Illucifer (Jan 1, 2009 12:32PM)
Well, Blair, I could apply your argument to Origami, as well. However, I would prefer to say that it leads the audience down the garden path, methodically removing any and all explanations for the girl's whereabouts: Is she really in the tiny box? Is she concealed behind the mirror? It's a bit of a puzzle, but an intriguing, deceptive, and mysterious one, when presented well.

Cube-ism has the same potential and, like Origami, it must be performed well to achieve maximum effect.
Message: Posted by: magicofCurtis (Jan 1, 2009 12:38PM)

The mirror for the origami has logic so you can see all around. Therefore, it makes since to spend the tabke around.

In Cub-ism when the the canvas/box unfolds logic would tell us we should be able see all the way through now.... When it does not there is no reasonable explanation. I think this effect fails to do such....
Message: Posted by: Blair Marshall (Jan 1, 2009 12:40PM)
One difference with Origami is the mirror is (often)added to the table, and sometimes removed at the end leaving a very small box, on a very small table.

Many use the original story line of "adding the mirror so you (the audience) can see all sides.

The "wall" in this case does not seem to be a part of a presentation/story line.

I would love to see another performers take on the presentation.

Without getting into method, what about having the picture frame hung/flown and then brought down to sit on the table so that it could be opened out and the effect performed???

Message: Posted by: Illucifer (Jan 1, 2009 12:42PM)
I understand your point, Curtis, but there is also a logic for the frame on Cube-ism. It is the frame which holds the picture in it's unfolded state. Pictures are framed. Really quite simple.
Message: Posted by: magicofCurtis (Jan 1, 2009 12:52PM)
Yes, but it is not reasonable logic and it leads to why, WHY , why, OH WHY? ? ?

IT is like saying look there is nothing in this TUBE....
Message: Posted by: Blair Marshall (Jan 1, 2009 12:53PM)
As all our posts are crossing. LOL My note would be is that I have no pictures in my home sitting on a table!

Message: Posted by: MagicChris83 (Jan 2, 2009 06:11PM)
When I first saw this in Magic Magzine, was another origami, and only one improvement I could suggest as when the girl goes in box and its put back in the frame the assistnat is apart of the painting in the same sort of style as whatever you get when you got get one built :)
Message: Posted by: Bill Wilson (Jan 2, 2009 07:56PM)
Other then the over extended production of the girl at the end I thought it was amazing, loved the music too.
Message: Posted by: j.i.s. (Jan 3, 2009 03:01AM)
I was a lot in public when a good magician was on stage and I heard a lot of things.
The audience is not so "stupid" how some peoples think and for example they said some things very close to the secret....
That things happened when on the stage are original stuff not garbages.
For example the see origami and a lot say ...the girl is in the t....e.
I am very sure that these peoples don't understand the real secret but for they are enought to say just this thing.
In cubeism they will not put too much atention about the depth from the frame ... will say a single thing ...the girl is in the f..
Message: Posted by: JoyJoy (Jan 3, 2009 07:43AM)
[quote]...I have no pictures in my home sitting on a table!
Well there could be said the same about a mirror sitting on a table.
Message: Posted by: j.i.s. (Jan 3, 2009 08:17AM)
Is not so obvious about mirror ...you could remove it and in cubeism the frame is already there
Message: Posted by: AmazingEARL (Jan 3, 2009 08:41AM)
On the Origami, the mirror is there for another purpose; to constantly show the back side of the box to the audience.

For what it's worth, my wife saw an earlier Cubism clip and immediately gave her explanation of the method...and she was right. After viewing this one, she said, "It's getting better."

Definitely a work in progress.

Message: Posted by: Blair Marshall (Jan 3, 2009 09:02AM)
That is why my suggestion of placing the frame on the table, to allow the opening of the picture. And before folks jump, both Jim S. and Alan W. have a history of using compounded hiding places ie. where the girl was, is not there when she is produced, and where the girl goes, is often not there when the illusion begins.

Message: Posted by: serg (Jan 3, 2009 01:05PM)
Anybody can say,who is autorised builder of this illusion? Thanks,Serg.
Message: Posted by: Blair Marshall (Jan 3, 2009 01:18PM)
I believe Bill Smith advertised it in Genii with a full page ad and photo.

Message: Posted by: serg (Jan 3, 2009 01:30PM)
Thanks,mr.Marshall! Do you have some photos,may be you can send on my e-mail? Sinc.Serg.
Message: Posted by: Blair Marshall (Jan 3, 2009 01:48PM)
Hi Serg,

I just checked my photo file and I do not have one. I have a "hard copy" but have not installed my new scanner.

I also went to Bill's site and did not see it there. Although you could always send him a note ( Http://www.magicventures.com )

Message: Posted by: Christopher Starr (Jan 3, 2009 02:05PM)
I watched them perform this about a year ago, and it got a great reaction from the audience. It is not a show stopping illusion, but it is well presented.

It is also refreshing to read that 12 people aren't writing about how they can't wait to add it to their show. :P
My 2

Message: Posted by: serg (Jan 3, 2009 03:50PM)
OK,thanks,i ask now. Serg.
Message: Posted by: Tony Clark (Jan 3, 2009 06:15PM)
There is something missing here...The back wall is just to permanent...
I'm a big fan of the Pendragons as well, I know there is a solution because the illusion has some wonderful elements. I'm sure they will come up with something. They always do. Hard working illusionist don't sit still...
Just my two cents...
Message: Posted by: Mr. Muggle (Jan 3, 2009 07:09PM)
I hate to critique some of the best in our craft - but I didn't care for the presentation or the effect either. To me, the wall's presence isn't logical and makes this illusion look rather odd (permanent or not). I appreciate all the work the Pendragons and others have done but IMO this effect's design and presentation needs a lot more work. With today's outstanding designers and craftsman, one would think its only a matter of time before someone comes up with a new look and/or design that is not only logical, but much more flattering and mind boggling.
Message: Posted by: Blair Marshall (Jan 3, 2009 09:42PM)
Hi Tony,

Nice to see you here!!! Good to see some workers.

Message: Posted by: kcmagic (Jan 4, 2009 02:56AM)
Have to agree with Curtis. There isn't really any "logic" to this trick. Oragami is very logical. I know I thought this as a magician, but the first thing I thought was "Palaquin" and as a laymen I'd think..why is there a wall there? If other people like it, great, but I think it's weak.