(Close Window)
Topic: WOW! This guy came up with a different method for the Origami Illusion!
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Mar 30, 2016 01:19PM)
Who is he? Anyone knows?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IemKihdLwX8

Go to the 4.00 minute mark...

I can't say it is an Origami Illusion knock off as the method is different. Not the best presentation in the world but great technique. ;)
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Mar 30, 2016 02:20PM)
Just so you know, I know how it's done.

So I am not asking for an exposure.

I am just amazed at his approach, totally unique.

Love it! ;)
Message: Posted by: the Sponge (Mar 30, 2016 02:40PM)
The method is different????? um, okay, if you say so.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Mar 30, 2016 03:06PM)
[quote]On Mar 30, 2016, the Sponge wrote:
The method is different????? um, okay, if you say so. [/quote]

Technically, it is. :ohyes:

He went the more classic and common way for effects like these, giving a slightly different look on the whole box and table.

But it WORKS!

(Kinda nice having the table that thin. Well, at least for me it is.)

I have seen the Origami in its "normal" guise as I know guys who perform it in my country, knock offs though, sadly.

(I was actually expecting a snide remark like that sooner or later here... Sooner it seems. Don't you just love the Café? ;) )
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Mar 30, 2016 03:26PM)
I just realized sumthin'! :idea:

Maybe the Sponge has been performing it this guy's way all these years or at least he thinks that is how The Steinmeyer Origami Illusion is accomplished.

Who knows? Maybe... Hmmm...

If that be the case...

You're doing it different than the original Steinmeyer creation!

Just FYI... ;)
Message: Posted by: Frank Simpson (Mar 30, 2016 08:45PM)
I thought it was terrible in every way. Just terrible. This is like a bad copy of the performers who own an authorized Origami but still perform it poorly.
Just my opinion, of course, but I hate it.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Mar 30, 2016 10:39PM)
[quote]On Mar 30, 2016, Frank Simpson wrote:
I thought it was terrible in every way. Just terrible. This is like a bad copy of the performers who own an authorized Origami but still perform it poorly.
Just my opinion, of course, but I hate it. [/quote]

Now if only I knew how you felt. :goof:


But to each his own... I kinda like it. ;)
Message: Posted by: w_s_anderson (Mar 31, 2016 11:14AM)
I agree with Frank on this one. I can only assume that the use of the cloth was because the audience was at such a high angle they could see down into the box. Other than that I see no reason for the cloth. Though, I also didn't think it flowed very well. Just my opinion.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Mar 31, 2016 06:11PM)
[quote]On Mar 31, 2016, w_s_anderson wrote:
I agree with Frank on this one. I can only assume that the use of the cloth was because the audience was at such a high angle they could see down into the box. Other than that I see no reason for the cloth. Though, I also didn't think it flowed very well. Just my opinion. [/quote]

I actually agree with you, it didn't flow very well. Not the best performance of such an illusion.

But my point is that he came up with a new technique! How rare is that for something so established? And to me, it looks good visually. By that I mean the box and table once the illusion is accomplished. The cloth could have been done without actually, regardless of angles, if only he had thought through the design of the flaps.

I like it.

But that's me of course... ;)
Message: Posted by: natmagic (Mar 31, 2016 08:26PM)
The final deception looks convincing. Overall its terrible and makes no sense
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Apr 1, 2016 03:36AM)
[quote]On Mar 31, 2016, natmagic wrote:
The final deception looks convincing. Overall its terrible and makes no sense [/quote]

I can actually agree with that. ;)
Message: Posted by: Sorcerer (Apr 1, 2016 02:44PM)
Performance is simply awful.
Regarding the method, of course it's a different method but it's much worse. When the box is "small" is about one and a half times the size of the original folded box (certainly, there are some home-made origami whose box looks as big as this, but that's another story ;) )
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Apr 2, 2016 01:26PM)
[quote]On Apr 1, 2016, Sorcerer wrote:
Performance is simply awful.
Regarding the method, of course it's a different method but it's much worse. When the box is "small" is about one and a half times the size of the original folded box (certainly, there are some home-made origami whose box looks as big as this, but that's another story ;) ) [/quote]

Performance-wise, I agree. I would not say awful as a circus arena has it's own approach, but even then it does have much to be improved. Although he could not possibly go the slow romantic Copperfield way in that arena, at least I don't think so.

Box size-wise, while it is larger, to the lay audience it is the same effect. The positive "trade off" here (to me) is that the table needs no base, can be coloured other than flat black and it needs no mirror (or whatever blocking apparatus) at the opposite side to the box as in a regular Origami. Only Magicians "in the know" see the difference really. Both methods look like an impossibility, I dare say.

Put it this way, all "colour change" card tricks, to the lay audience, has the same outcome regardless of the technique employed. Only Magicians see the difference really.

Now, ethics-wise, I dunno. It falls into a grey area for me. I don't dare say this is a rip-off of a Steinmeyer Origami, exactly because it is a different design to us Magicians.

However, I feel that it is a viable method to achieve the same effect as with an Origami Illusion.

Again, feel free to disagree. ;)
Message: Posted by: Frank Simpson (Apr 3, 2016 09:24AM)
In my opinion it is utter fallacy to say that "to the audience it is the same effect" simply because it is so terrible. It doesn't look impossible at all. At best it looks uncomfortable.

To say that "only magicians see the difference" is a weak argument. A lay audience isn't even aware of a base as a concept. And they really don't care what color the table is. The mirror is probably the most maligned aspect of the Origami illusion. Most people who own the illusion are completely unaware of its intended function within the presentation of the effect so it becomes an uncomfortable and unnecessary bit of business in the routine. But if you understand Mr. Steinmeyer's concept for the mirror it makes complete sense. Suffice to say that if more people were knocking off Doug Henning's routine rather than David Copperfield's the problem would not be so widespread. This is not to knock David Copperfield because the way he performed it really worked. The way everybody else in the world tries to do it like him does not.

I don't even think it is fair to call this travesty of an illusion a knock-off because it only bears a passing resemblance to Origami. It is less about the fact that it is a [i]different[/i] design than it is about the fact that it is simply a [i]terrible[/i] design. Bad illusion designs should be abandoned altogether. This illusion illustrates that point very well. There are simply too many "magicians" who think they know more than they do about creating a well-crafted design and prop. There are sooooooo many principles that they miss for every one they get. I'd say it's about a 1:25 ratio.

A good illusion is a concert of subtleties that work together to create a unified effect. Bad illusions have a smattering of principles that might occur side by side, but don't work together at all. If I may be permitted an analogy, it is like the difference between a stage full of musicians on a stage playing the same song at the same time, and a [i]band[/i] of musicians playing a song. The former has an unsatisfying effect on the listener, even though he might not be able to articulate why. The latter makes music. The differences are subtle but [i]incredibly[/i] important. More important than unpolished practitioners care to admit.
Message: Posted by: Sorcerer (Apr 3, 2016 10:01AM)
In this illusion box size matters, it's big enough to hold a little girl crouched inside. So it stops being [b]magic[/b] to be [b]contortion[/b].

"Contortion box act" is a classic in circus shows (just google it) Audiences all over the world know this kind of act, they don't consider it "magical" but no more (and no less) than contortion. The novelty in your video is it's disguised as an origami illusion, incidentally poorly performed.

In the small size of an original origami box is phisically impossible for a contortionist to get into, so that's magic.

The supposedly new origami method is not magic; as an example, in this video not one, but TWO girls get into a similar size box than the "new origami" and it's not magic because of box size https://youtu.be/7Rb5SZYRRqo
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Apr 3, 2016 03:23PM)
[quote]On Apr 3, 2016, Frank Simpson wrote:
In my opinion it is utter fallacy to say that "to the audience it is the same effect" simply because it is so terrible. It doesn't look impossible at all. At best it looks uncomfortable.

To say that "only magicians see the difference" is a weak argument. A lay audience isn't even aware of a base as a concept. And they really don't care what color the table is. The mirror is probably the most maligned aspect of the Origami illusion. Most people who own the illusion are completely unaware of its intended function within the presentation of the effect so it becomes an uncomfortable and unnecessary bit of business in the routine. But if you understand Mr. Steinmeyer's concept for the mirror it makes complete sense. Suffice to say that if more people were knocking off Doug Henning's routine rather than David Copperfield's the problem would not be so widespread. This is not to knock David Copperfield because the way he performed it really worked. The way everybody else in the world tries to do it like him does not.

I don't even think it is fair to call this travesty of an illusion a knock-off because it only bears a passing resemblance to Origami. It is less about the fact that it is a [i]different[/i] design than it is about the fact that it is simply a [i]terrible[/i] design. Bad illusion designs should be abandoned altogether. This illusion illustrates that point very well. There are simply too many "magicians" who think they know more than they do about creating a well-crafted design and prop. There are sooooooo many principles that they miss for every one they get. I'd say it's about a 1:25 ratio.

A good illusion is a concert of subtleties that work together to create a unified effect. Bad illusions have a smattering of principles that might occur side by side, but don't work together at all. If I may be permitted an analogy, it is like the difference between a stage full of musicians on a stage playing the same song at the same time, and a [i]band[/i] of musicians playing a song. The former has an unsatisfying effect on the listener, even though he might not be able to articulate why. The latter makes music. The differences are subtle but [i]incredibly[/i] important. More important than unpolished practitioners care to admit. [/quote]

Still, if you ask a lay audience member what the trick was after the show, you would get the same basic answer. Girl somehow goes into a small box and box is impaled with swords. Then girl survives unscathed. While it isn't as small as the Origami, the illusion still works. It works better here than with most sword basket illusions imho.

Another sad fact of life now is this... If you think a thick table and a thin table makes no difference to an audience after all the Masked Magician exposures, you are kidding yourself. Sounds like a contradiction to my earlier "she went into a small box" but it plays to method. It is the method many would think first when they see a thick table. Blame Valentino for this.

Mirror? In a surrounded arena, the mirror is not needed, logically. It makes no sense. Henning had a different arena. You know the mirror is there to hide something in the original design. But of course you can find a reason for it to be there! A plausible plot is great but if it is not needed and it can be done away with, why not?

I say the technique here is fine. The presentation is wanting but then even the presentation with original Origamis can be wanting.

If you don't think it is deceptive at all, well then it's your choice. I think it is.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Apr 3, 2016 03:30PM)
[quote]On Apr 3, 2016, Sorcerer wrote:
In this illusion box size matters, it's big enough to hold a little girl crouched inside. So it stops being [b]magic[/b] to be [b]contortion[/b].

"Contortion box act" is a classic in circus shows (just google it) Audiences all over the world know this kind of act, they don't consider it "magical" but no more (and no less) than contortion. The novelty in your video is it's disguised as an origami illusion, incidentally poorly performed.

In the small size of an original origami box is phisically impossible for a contortionist to get into, so that's magic.

The supposedly new origami method is not magic; as an example, in this video not one, but TWO girls get into a similar size box than the "new origami" and it's not magic because of box size https://youtu.be/7Rb5SZYRRqo [/quote]

While a smaller box looks better, it is resting on a bigger table in the original Origami. That's the trade-off here, this a slightly bigger box on a totally thin table with no skirting whatsoever. With no mirror or anything else blocking the back view. I feel both are deceptive to the eye. Here, I must say it works better than most sword basket illusions. Unless of course you think sword basket illusions are totally not deceptive?

As an illusion it works for me. As a presentation, well, it has lots to be improved on. But that is another matter altogether really.

And thanks for that contortion video. Wow, that would make one hell of an illusion routine. ;)
Message: Posted by: Frank Simpson (Apr 3, 2016 07:10PM)
I give up other than to say that I think that the illusion is still [i]completely[/i] terrible. In [i]every[/i] way. You can keep liking it if you want to.
Message: Posted by: jcmagicman (Apr 3, 2016 08:06PM)
Just finished showing this video to a lay person and her remark was " where'd she go?"
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Apr 4, 2016 04:31AM)
[quote]On Apr 3, 2016, Frank Simpson wrote:
I give up other than to say that I think that the illusion is still [i]completely[/i] terrible. In [i]every[/i] way. You can keep liking it if you want to. [/quote]

Ok, got it... ;)
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Apr 4, 2016 04:33AM)
[quote]On Apr 3, 2016, jcmagicman wrote:
Just finished showing this video to a lay person and her remark was " where'd she go?" [/quote]

See?

It ain't the best trick in the world, far from it... but it works.

Thanks for that jmagicman. ;)
Message: Posted by: Ray Pierce (Apr 4, 2016 05:02PM)
Yes, it probably appears as the same basic "effect" to a lay audience but it just isn't near as good for a multitude of obvious reasons. I can't really fault the "performance" alone as he appears at least as good as many so called illusionists I've seen on some compilation TV magic shows. It seems pretty clear that he just wanted to copy the traditional origami but had no idea how it worked so he made up a method and built it to fit. It isn't an improvement by any means so that does make it an inferior Origami knock-off in my mind.
Message: Posted by: Chris Stolz (Apr 4, 2016 07:29PM)
Yeah, I agree with much of what was already said. The elements didn't come together at all.

They could have easily re-themed the whole thing and done Umbrella box instead of just a couple swords - it looks to be about the same size. They can also cut that stupid useless carpet he keeps putting on there. Nah forget it, no matter how hard I try to think about how to fix it, it just makes more sense to build something entirely new and start over.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Apr 5, 2016 05:40AM)
[quote]On Apr 4, 2016, Ray Pierce wrote:
Yes, it probably appears as the same basic "effect" to a lay audience but it just isn't near as good for a multitude of obvious reasons. I can't really fault the "performance" alone as he appears at least as good as many so called illusionists I've seen on some compilation TV magic shows. It seems pretty clear that he just wanted to copy the traditional origami but had no idea how it worked so he made up a method and built it to fit. It isn't an improvement by any means so that does make it an inferior Origami knock-off in my mind. [/quote]

I can agree with that.

It is different, but not really an improvement.

But for whatever reason, I like it. ;)
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Apr 5, 2016 05:42AM)
[quote]On Apr 4, 2016, Chris Stolz wrote:
Yeah, I agree with much of what was already said. The elements didn't come together at all.

They could have easily re-themed the whole thing and done Umbrella box instead of just a couple swords - it looks to be about the same size. They can also cut that stupid useless carpet he keeps putting on there. Nah forget it, no matter how hard I try to think about how to fix it, it just makes more sense to build something entirely new and start over. [/quote]

I think it's the other way around. He took the sword/umbrella box principle and made it to kinda look like the Origami.
Message: Posted by: George Ledo (Apr 5, 2016 11:12AM)
To me, this was another example of "lookit what my box can do." Granted it was done as a circus act and all, but I didn't care for any of it.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Apr 5, 2016 11:20PM)
[quote]On Apr 5, 2016, George Ledo wrote:
To me, this was another example of "lookit what my box can do." Granted it was done as a circus act and all, but I didn't care for any of it. [/quote]

From that perspective, even Copperfield's performance of the Origami was a "lookit what my box can do". He started it with " I have something very special to show you. It's a special little box. Swords pass through it in every direction. Front to back, side to side and even from top to bottom." Check YouTube.

Given that his was way better choreographed, but still... It's about the box.
Message: Posted by: Sealegs (Apr 6, 2016 08:40AM)
I think this discussion is as interesting as the clip of the illusion that has created it.

The discussion begs the question, what makes a good illusion? Or what makes for a deceptive illusion?

I would suggest that there are two elements... There are all the factors that the performer brings, or potentially can bring, to the props... and there are all the factors of the build, mechanics and function of the prop itself.

Looking just at the prop itself, does the build, mechanics and function of this illusion/prop allow or create something impossible/astonishing/puzzling/etc?

Whether it is less good than the original Origami is another matter, as is if it's less good than a myriad of other illusions. Whether it's ethically sound to use someone's idea and reproduce it in another way is also another matter. Both these questions are interesting topics for debate... but they don't have any bearing on whether this can be seen as potentially a 'good illusion'? Or maybe a better and more useful way of putting it is... Is the illusion this prop creates (or can create) sound and robust? Do the build, the mechanics, and the function create something that looks impossible/astonishing/puzzling/etc?

Personally I think that ultimately it does. I think natmagic's comment, "The final deception looks convincing. Overall its terrible and makes no sense", most closely mirrors my own thoughts.

If a sword box like [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZXlnN46Fvk] this one [/url] or UF Grant's Victory Carton Illusion are considered to be good illusions that looks impossible, astonishing and puzzling (which I think would generally be accepted to be the case) I can't see how, in terms of the prop and the effect it finally creates, that this isn't also capable of being considered a 'good illusion'.

My opinion on this comes with the caveat that it is the performance, rather than the function of the props, that is responsible for the awkward and clunky handling in the clip.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Apr 6, 2016 11:54AM)
[quote]On Apr 6, 2016, Sealegs wrote:
I think this discussion is as interesting as the clip of the illusion that has created it.

The discussion begs the question, what makes a good illusion? Or what makes for a deceptive illusion?

I would suggest that there are two elements... There are all the factors that the performer brings, or potentially can bring, to the props... and there are all the factors of the build, mechanics and function of the prop itself.

Looking just at the prop itself, does the build, mechanics and function of this illusion/prop allow or create something impossible/astonishing/puzzling/etc?

Whether it is less good than the original Origami is another matter, as is if it's less good than a myriad of other illusions. Whether it's ethically sound to use someone's idea and reproduce it in another way is also another matter. Both these questions are interesting topics for debate... but they don't have any bearing on whether this can be seen as potentially a 'good illusion'? Or maybe a better and more useful way of putting it is... Is the illusion this prop creates (or can create) sound and robust? Do the build, the mechanics, and the function create something that looks impossible/astonishing/puzzling/etc?

Personally I think that ultimately it does. I think natmagic's comment, "The final deception looks convincing. Overall its terrible and makes no sense", most closely mirrors my own thoughts.

If a sword box like [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZXlnN46Fvk] this one [/url] or UF Grant's Victory Carton Illusion are considered to be good illusions that looks impossible, astonishing and puzzling (which I think would generally be accepted to be the case) I can't see how, in terms of the prop and the effect it finally creates, that this isn't also capable of being considered a 'good illusion'.

My opinion on this comes with the caveat that it is the performance, rather than the function of the props, that is responsible for the awkward and clunky handling in the clip. [/quote]

Sealegs, much thanks for a well thought out post. :applause:

I actually agree with most of what you are saying, especially "it is the performance, rather than the function of the props, that is responsible for the awkward and clunky handling in the clip".
Message: Posted by: nathanernest (Apr 8, 2016 09:09AM)
I think it only looks convincing because of the lighting and bad quality of the video. I'm sure to see this during a live performance, the trim would be much more noticeable.
Message: Posted by: Bill Hegbli (Apr 8, 2016 12:30PM)
Do we actually know that this illusion being discussed does not pre-date Steinmeyer's Origami. There is no reason why this could not have been a precursor to Origami, instead of the other way round.

Looking back at history in magic, and how magic effects and tricks, jump the oceans very easily, even back when there was not air travel, and ships took 3 to 6 months to cross the oceans, and land travel was by train, and horse.
Message: Posted by: jcmagicman (Apr 8, 2016 02:22PM)
Interesting perspective Bill. I don't see why this also couldn't be a valid possibility.

In the eyes of the audience, the illusion comes across as a sword basket effect. In the eyes of magicians, yes that may very well be the origami illusion but with his own presentation approach.

In Illusionsesame (on page 168) there is a method of sawing a lady in half utilizing a base design that seems to be popular with a lot of illusions. This same base design is revealed by Dan Harlan in "Tarbell 45: Illusions, as a different take on this principle. What I am getting at is that the performer in the video is presenting the origami in his own preferred style by choosing to eliminate the mirror. So to answer the original post, no its not a new method; the presentation is slightly altered. With that said, I don't see why he can't utilize the same base design and present the illusion.

His stage movements are obviously not graceful like Copperfields but I think he gets the job done regardless. He's not revealing anything that would do harm to the art of magic. Lets stop being so critical and spend more time bringing new ideas to the table.
Message: Posted by: Bill Hegbli (Apr 8, 2016 02:40PM)
I was thinking, why couldn't it have been possible for Steinmeyer to have traveled to Europe at some time, and happen to see this illusion and it sat their in the back of his mind. Time passes and he creates the Origami illusion, and with similar designs. It could very well have happened.

The only thing I seen as far as performance, is that the magician did not utilize his assistants correctly, and why was that cloth so small, had he never performed the trick before in a Circus setting and this was a last minute adjustment. Which, would explain why he did not have those 2 men assistants cover the prop with the cloth. I actually seen no reason for the yellow grid board to be put on or off. It had no purpose. Or, could the mirror been broken or damaged in transport, and as you all know, the show must go on, and this was his last minute repair he came up with.

So many possibilities, so many unanswered questions.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Apr 8, 2016 03:09PM)
[quote]On Apr 8, 2016, Bill Hegbli wrote:
I was thinking, why couldn't it have been possible for Steinmeyer to have traveled to Europe at some time, and happen to see this illusion and it sat their in the back of his mind. Time passes and he creates the Origami illusion, and with similar designs. It could very well have happened.

The only thing I seen as far as performance, is that the magician did not utilize his assistants correctly, and why was that cloth so small, had he never performed the trick before in a Circus setting and this was a last minute adjustment. Which, would explain why he did not have those 2 men assistants cover the prop with the cloth. I actually seen no reason for the yellow grid board to be put on or off. It had no purpose. Or, could the mirror been broken or damaged in transport, and as you all know, the show must go on, and this was his last minute repair he came up with.

So many possibilities, so many unanswered questions. [/quote]

Thanks for the input, interesting thought although I think you answered your own question.

The reason I believe this comes after Steinmeyer's Origami is because he is using the yellow collapsible board that does almost nothing. (I do think that there is a purpose here.)

He wanted to mimic the Steinmeyer design. Exactly because Copperfield has had it in his repertoire. Again, he has to perform it upbeat, because it's a Circus act. Not saying it was good though.

For this to predate Henning's performance of Steinmeyer's Origami Illusion, this performance would have had to have a seventies look and feel. However, the music, clothes, hairstyles and quality of video all point to it being a bit further into the 90's at least. That is my observation though.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Apr 8, 2016 03:11PM)
[quote]On Apr 8, 2016, nathanernest wrote:
I think it only looks convincing because of the lighting and bad quality of the video. I'm sure to see this during a live performance, the trim would be much more noticeable. [/quote]

Maybe, we'll never really know. However, he does have distance to the audience on his side. I think it would still work, just not the best version of such an illusion.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Apr 8, 2016 03:17PM)
[quote]On Apr 8, 2016, jcmagicman wrote:
With that said, I don't see why he can't utilize the same base design and present the illusion.

His stage movements are obviously not graceful like Copperfields but I think he gets the job done regardless. He's not revealing anything that would do harm to the art of magic. Lets stop being so critical and spend more time bringing new ideas to the table. [/quote]

I prefer to believe that he actually did not want to copy Steinmeyer's design with the base. This way he is safe as it really isn't a rip off.

And I think the technique works, that is why I am bringing this to the table. (Pun intended ;) )
Message: Posted by: the Sponge (Apr 8, 2016 04:09PM)
[quote]On Mar 30, 2016, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
[quote]On Mar 30, 2016, the Sponge wrote:
The method is different????? um, okay, if you say so. [/quote]

Technically, it is. :ohyes:

He went the more classic and common way for effects like these, giving a slightly different look on the whole box and table.

But it WORKS!

(Kinda nice having the table that thin. Well, at least for me it is.)

I have seen the Origami in its "normal" guise as I know guys who perform it in my country, knock offs though, sadly.

(I was actually expecting a snide remark like that sooner or later here... Sooner it seems. Don't you just love the Café? ;) ) [/quote]

The DESIGN is different, but again, even though it is not that t****, he is still using a t**** B*** as part of the method. So.... METHOD is still basically the same.
:goof:
s
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Apr 10, 2016 04:06AM)
[quote]On Apr 8, 2016, the Sponge wrote:
[quote]On Mar 30, 2016, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
[quote]On Mar 30, 2016, the Sponge wrote:
The method is different????? um, okay, if you say so. [/quote]

Technically, it is. :ohyes:

He went the more classic and common way for effects like these, giving a slightly different look on the whole box and table.

But it WORKS!

(Kinda nice having the table that thin. Well, at least for me it is.)

I have seen the Origami in its "normal" guise as I know guys who perform it in my country, knock offs though, sadly.

(I was actually expecting a snide remark like that sooner or later here... Sooner it seems. Don't you just love the Café? ;) ) [/quote]

The DESIGN is different, but again, even though it is not that t****, he is still using a t**** B*** as part of the method. So.... METHOD is still basically the same.
:goof:
s [/quote]

If you say so. ;)
Message: Posted by: de rome (Apr 28, 2016 11:05AM)
I just love MAGICIANS,

must be millions all round the world,
and its the only profession where as you try your best,
and everyone loves to pull you down

Everyone seems to think they are the best
everyone seems to think they are right
everyone seems to think all the other magicians are crap

Yep Im proud to be a magician
Message: Posted by: Ray Pierce (Apr 29, 2016 12:42PM)
I just love Magic.

I'm passionate about magic and trying to make it the best it can be. I'm proud of it as a craft and an art form. Because of that, I have a varying degree of feelings about the broad range of people claiming the title of "Magician". Yes, there are many that share my feelings and deires to elevate this art form and preserve this craft with a reputation it deserves. Not all do however.

If you went down and bought a saxophone, you probably wouldn't dream of calling yourself a real musician after learning to play three notes.. Magic seems to be different in that many people purchase an effect and call themselves a magician. It sometimes can be a catchall for those without any talent or personal skills to bring to the craft. That's just the reality. This isn't to say that these people are wonderful in their own way and have other amazing gifts to bring to the world.

In many occupations the only way to learn from the past is to deconstruct and analyze it. In theater, at the end of many productions either good or bad the production company will do what is called a postmortem where they analyze the strengths and weaknesses of any particular show and find ways of correcting the problems to learn from it. Is this because they don't like actors? Is this because they think they are the best? Is this because they think they are always right? I would postulate that it is because they want to be the best and they want to grow and create something better for future generations.

Yes, there will always be jealousy, bitterness, and !@#$%y comments from some people. It is true that many can't be better try to take others down. I fully understand that. We do have to however differentiate those from the people who are striving to make magic the art it deserves to be and elevate this art for future generations. I will always side with this group.
Message: Posted by: Illucifer (Apr 29, 2016 08:44PM)
If you don't understand the reasons (theatrically and dramatically) for the mirror to be there, then you don't understand the Origami illusion.
Message: Posted by: Illucifer (Apr 29, 2016 08:47PM)
Also, the performance and prop in the video were just awful.
Message: Posted by: flickermaker (May 8, 2016 05:16AM)
Contortion in a Cube

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjg88PAn8rMAhXMSiYKHRMcB8sQjhwIBQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D84f8UbQpJZY&psig=AFQjCNEq_NjNWf2QU5C3pc-Jfxl3tLmJvA&ust=1462788806669118
Message: Posted by: Fungineer (May 8, 2016 10:57PM)
[quote]On Apr 8, 2016, jcmagicman wrote:
Interesting perspective Bill. I don't see why this also couldn't be a valid possibility.

In the eyes of the audience, the illusion comes across as a sword basket effect. In the eyes of magicians, yes that may very well be the origami illusion but with his own presentation approach.

In Illusionsesame (on page 168) there is a method of sawing a lady in half utilizing a base design that seems to be popular with a lot of illusions. This same base design is revealed by Dan Harlan in "Tarbell 45: Illusions, as a different take on this principle. What I am getting at is that the performer in the video is presenting the origami in his own preferred style by choosing to eliminate the mirror. So to answer the original post, no its not a new method; the presentation is slightly altered. With that said, I don't see why he can't utilize the same base design and present the illusion.

His stage movements are obviously not graceful like Copperfields but I think he gets the job done regardless. He's not revealing anything that would do harm to the art of magic. Lets stop being so critical and spend more time bringing new ideas to the table. [/quote]

jcmagicman--I have the book mentioned above and looked this up. What mirror are you talking about? I think you may be mistaken on the purpose of the mirror in Steinmeyer's Oragami. The illusion you referenced is a completely different animal.