(Close Window)
Topic: Empty Spaces ????
Message: Posted by: dahih beik (Sep 28, 2011 12:00AM)
One of the better box illusions .. what happened to empthy spaces illusion any one has the rights to build this .. oz had the rights back then
this is really small and very deceptive .!!!
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Sep 28, 2011 02:39AM)

Message: Posted by: John Taylor (Sep 28, 2011 03:36AM)
A very deceptive illusion by my mate Chris Murphy;)
Message: Posted by: Swann101 (Sep 28, 2011 06:02AM)
Is anyone else building for Chris at the moment? He had some nice stuff, his empty spaces and shadow theatre are some of the most deceptive looking props I have seen.
Message: Posted by: dahih beik (Sep 28, 2011 08:10AM)
I cant agree more its sad that no one is building that stuff
his props are relatively small and deceptive
Message: Posted by: Illucifer (Sep 28, 2011 08:43AM)
Shadow Theatre is a Jim Steinmeyer creation.
Message: Posted by: ClintonMagus (Sep 28, 2011 10:05AM)
Can't watch this.

It says it requires Flash 10, but it also says that changes must be made to the security settings before it will work.
Message: Posted by: Aaron Smith Magic (Sep 28, 2011 11:33AM)
This illusion still fools me.

Clintonmagus, I think you just need to upgrade Adobe Flash. I'm able to watch it just fine, and I have the latest version installed.
Message: Posted by: ClintonMagus (Sep 28, 2011 02:06PM)
On 2011-09-28 12:33, Aaron Smith Magic wrote:
Clintonmagus, I think you just need to upgrade Adobe Flash. I'm able to watch it just fine, and I have the latest version installed.

This was after I upgraded Flash. It might be a permissions thing because I was trying to upgrade and view it on my work computer. I can watch it fine at home.
Message: Posted by: Illucifer (Sep 28, 2011 02:10PM)
Can someone explain to me what's amazing about this? Not seeing it.
Message: Posted by: Falconer (Sep 28, 2011 02:13PM)
Yes, the illusion is great and the prop looks very deceptive also!

Message: Posted by: JamesinLA (Sep 28, 2011 02:46PM)
I can't watch it because it's so boring. Dancing, prancing, pointless.

Message: Posted by: Sam Sandler (Sep 28, 2011 03:15PM)
I too did not care for the B level dancing! the illusion although deceptive did nothing for me.

its just jam with the top to the side verses shrinking down. which by the way I think looks more decptive then this thing.

it was ok but did not do anthing for me.

just my opinion

Message: Posted by: Illucifer (Sep 28, 2011 03:28PM)
Are we talking about the appearance at the beginning in the tall box? I really didn't find it deceptive. Black sides and black interior? Very suspicious to a viewer.
Message: Posted by: Laszlo Csizmadi (Sep 28, 2011 04:05PM)
On 2011-09-28 16:28, Illucifer wrote:
Are we talking about the appearance at the beginning in the tall box? I really didn't find it deceptive. Black sides and black interior? Very suspicious to a viewer.

Lol. They talking about the second illusion. What a big deal about this? Just another box on table illusion with at least 8 inches b***.

The appearing illusion was a joke. They did not turn around the box.
Message: Posted by: John Taylor (Sep 28, 2011 04:29PM)
Laszio were not talking about the appearance illusion we are talking about Empty Spaces.
To fully appreciate the illusion you've got to see it up close. I'm not a fan of box tricks but this is very deceptive even standing right next to it in the workshop.
Message: Posted by: w_s_anderson (Sep 28, 2011 04:29PM)
I thought it looked good. Sure it is just another "box on table" illusion, but it's an alternative to all of the other "box on table" illusions. Of course you wouldn't want this in your show if you are doing a Jam, or Origami, or anything similiar to a "tubed out" or "small box on table" type of effect. From the audience perspective I think it looks pretty deceptive.

I agree with the dancing.....I don't understand why magicians think they need big dance numbers before their illusions. It takes away from the performance, and robs the audience of their time. Nobody goes to a magic show to watch dancers, they want to see magic. Cut the dancing and add a few more magic routines to the show, give the audience what they are paying for. Now well choreographed illusions are a must and look great i.e. Joanie Spina, but I don't think the audience wants to see dancing just for the sake of dancing.
Message: Posted by: John Taylor (Sep 28, 2011 04:52PM)
In regards to the dancing post Anderson I don't think it's that cut and dry, but I think I get what you mean and I agree let me explain what I think..

I agree with you that to many Magicians have to much fluffing around/dancing before the effect.

But if the dancers are good and the routine is good then it can work great! Think David Copperfield.

It also depends on the Illusionist and also the type of show the Illusionist is performing in Eg: A production show in a Casino where the show producer will want to link the talent (Illusionist) into the show with the Dancers so the show all flows together as one.

I think many people in the audience like to see you make good use of your stage partner if he or she is a good dancer but I agree the Magic is the most important element and should always come first. I hate seeing Illusionist over use their assistants in long winded dance routines as well but it's all about getting the balance right I think.
Message: Posted by: John Taylor (Sep 28, 2011 04:59PM)
The Shadow effect someone was talking about is called Evolution and it was invented by Chris Murphy - Oz Illusion with a bit of help by me;)
It is sold by Bill Smith - Magic Ventures and is a brilliant effect!
Check out FISM winners Eun Gyeol Lee from Korea performing it on You Tube with his amazing routine.
Message: Posted by: Laszlo Csizmadi (Sep 28, 2011 05:30PM)

I always compare box on the table illusion to the Origami and to me Empty Spaces not even close (bigger box). It doesn't matter you fold the box in two and put tubes in. It just shows nothing is there. While Origami is smaller box and with push trough the swords shows the same (empty). Because there are more and more different kind of box on the table illusion people have bigger chance realize where could the assistant hide. In a way magicians screwing themselves up.


Message: Posted by: Jay Mahon (Sep 28, 2011 05:43PM)
A few thoughts. First, the illusion isn't that deceptive. Like most base designs, it has a ton of steps, lines and chrome and the obvious black belly of death.

The dancing is atrocious and as for Copperfield as an example of dancers. Let me know the last time you saw him with dancers in his show... I'll be it has an 8 or a 9 in it...

Get with the times!

Message: Posted by: John Taylor (Sep 28, 2011 06:14PM)
Jay I've been performer pro for 29 years but I'm well and truly up with the times and how to use dancers effectively in a magic show.
Before you go shooting your mouth off by telling me to get with the times why don't we see a bit of your show so we can see what your all about?
Message: Posted by: dahih beik (Sep 28, 2011 11:53PM)
I m stunned by some of the openions ...i myself not a fan of big boxes .. but this illusion is really small
its really deceptive and the base is tiny . and the routine ha s anatural progress .
this illusion is build arround a hiding position that makes it really small .. and small makes deceptive
this smaller than jam , and the whole illusion is smaller than oregami ..
I have shown this this to friends compared to jam and mini zag (which I have , puchinger)and many were able to figer out the solution ( more or less).. but with empthy spaces they were destroyed
Message: Posted by: w_s_anderson (Sep 29, 2011 12:44AM)
I agree with you 100%, and the use of dancers can definitely enhance a performance. I used four of them in the Vegas round of AGT and worked a well choreographed act thanks to Joanie Spina. They were part of the routine and enhanced the production value while at the same time making the illusion seem larger. (which was a must since I was following a Ferrari Production) My point was not at all aimed at magicians who effectively use dancers in their shows, it was merely aimed at those who find their dancers at Jiggles Gentlemen's Club and use them before and after every single routine for an inornate amount of time and think they have a "Production." There is a difference between those guys and the ones like you. Yours actually help to make the show....others help to break the show. Now a dance number between a magician and his partner works great, provided they both can dance. (I am thinking DC and cocoon/Origami/after hours. I wish I could do that, but unfortunately was not blessed with a rhythm gene. Luckily with a military theme prevalent throught the show no one would expect me to dance. :) I should have made my post more clear and excluded the real pro's who know how to work dancers into their advantage. Hopefully no offense was taken....I am a big fan of your work and creations.
Message: Posted by: John Taylor (Sep 29, 2011 02:05AM)
None at all Anderson, like I said I did get what you mean and I agree with you so no worries mate. Cheers and thanks:)
Message: Posted by: Swann101 (Sep 29, 2011 06:24AM)
Illucifer, I was refering to the shadow box effect called Evolution as JOhn mentioned. For some reason I thought it was also called shadow theatre. I think it is a very deceptive prop.

To get back to the Empty spaces illusion, I didn't care much for the presentaion but the prop surely is very deceptive, IMHO much more deceptive than Cube zag or Jam. It is a puzzle effect but a nice one at that!
Message: Posted by: dahih beik (Sep 29, 2011 09:32AM)
Well said
Message: Posted by: Chris Murphy (Sep 29, 2011 06:20PM)
Glad some of you like Empty Spaces - I am the inventor and previously offered the illusion for sale when I was building professionally (Oz Illusions). To clarify, Empty Spaces is the tube and blade illusion performed second in the YouTube clip. It has no relationship to the production illusion. It also doesn't require the dancing!

The prop is very small and also assembles really easily and quickly, which were qualities I always valued as a builder. It can be done surrounded and up close too. I think it also has a couple of strong climax points in the routine which can give you multiple applause cues. Sure, it's a tube illusion, but I think (modestly...) that it's about the best of them. What it is not is a re-worked Jam or Kub-Zag illusion, it's very different in operation and method.

I have recently had discussions with Bill Smith about him building this (he already has the rights to build my Evolution which John Taylor has also discussed). If anybody is interested, please contact Bill. I have full plans etc and will turn these over to Bill, who will, I'm sure make improvements of his own!
Message: Posted by: dahih beik (Sep 30, 2011 08:47AM)
That's really some good news .. do have an idea how much would Bill charge for the illusion .
Message: Posted by: Rolf Reiner (Sep 30, 2011 01:14PM)
The same concept in another shape:
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Sep 30, 2011 01:53PM)
The "Showgirls of Magic" had it right. Let the beautiful dancers do the whole show. Who needs the magician to point at a box? I always thought Bonnie's show was one of the most enjoyable illusion shows I ever saw.
Message: Posted by: ARNOMAGIE (Sep 30, 2011 03:47PM)
Have a brand new EVOLUTION build by Bill Smith for sale.

PM me if interested

Message: Posted by: Laszlo Csizmadi (Sep 30, 2011 04:20PM)
On 2011-09-30 14:14, Rolf Reiner wrote:
The same concept in another shape:

You right same concept but different performer. The 180 illusion is phenomenal illusion. Russ is one of the best performers in the world. I remember when Russ put up the first video and shows how was born this illusion.

On the Empty Spaces video the girls dance were great but way to long and boring. Most of you remember when on the America Got Talent show Piers buzzed off Brett and he explained why(he got bored under the dance). His Monroe illusion was good but the dance not his style and I'm sure Brett would never win the Dancing with the Stars.

So if I would have to choose what illusion I would buy first Origami second 180 then Empty Spaces.


Message: Posted by: Chris Murphy (Sep 30, 2011 08:46PM)
The history with Empty Spaces and 180 is this.

I designed Empty Spaces, built a rough prototype to test my method and concept, then did CAD drawings sufficient to get into the workshop with, and took my first order for it. Mark Parker and I were swapping lots of ideas at the time and I showed the idea to Mark who did a really nice rendering of my prop which I then subsequently built. After having seen my design, Mark designed his 180 illusion which incorporated a very similar flowing routine and the same method. Mark shared his initial drawings for 180 with me and I encouraged him to pursue it.

I'm not trying to be controversial, but do want to document that Empty Spaces was first, both designed and built. 180 was designed after I had shared my concept with Mark.
Message: Posted by: Chris Murphy (Sep 30, 2011 10:45PM)
I must apologise - I've just been informed that Mark's 180 Illusion does not share a method with Empty Spaces. Sincere apologies, I did not mean to lead anybody astray.
Message: Posted by: dahih beik (Oct 1, 2011 03:42AM)
Althought I believe both use the same hiding position and 180 is more complicated techno , I'm still a believer and byest to emthy spaces for size and practicality and effect progresion , hopefully ill be able to by one soon .
Message: Posted by: John Taylor (Oct 5, 2011 02:20PM)
That's what makes the world go around if we all liked the same things then everyone would be clones of each other and the world would be boring. Both Illusions are beautifully made, very deceptive and look a million bucks.