(Close Window)
Topic: Will Tsai - AGT. Mind=Blown
Message: Posted by: JeremyTan (May 27, 2017 01:28AM)
Have you seen this yet? This is how real Magic will look like. :)

---

[youtube]OPtEFoagU98[/youtube]
Message: Posted by: simplymagicweb (May 27, 2017 04:03AM)
A superbly constructed routine and perfectly executed. Highly visual magic, perfect for TV, which I'm sure will magic up much gold for Will! Bravo.
Message: Posted by: acortest (May 27, 2017 05:07AM)
I love seeing visually stunning magic like this. It sheds a good light on our art in the eyes of the general public. Hopefully, great for Will's career too. We all know him as a great creator and performer, but very few laypersons have ever heard of him. Hopefully that will change as he continues to 'WoW' the AGT judges and audiences.

Great job, Will!
Message: Posted by: ddamen (May 27, 2017 08:57AM)
[quote]On May 27, 2017, simplymagicweb wrote:
A superbly constructed routine and perfectly executed. Highly visual magic, perfect for TV, which I'm sure will magic up much gold for Will! Bravo. [/quote]

Yes great job Will. But let's agree that the only thing getting flooded with gold is Simon Cowell's Syco
Message: Posted by: BCE (May 27, 2017 10:03AM)
The new season of AGT starts May 30 in the U.S. So, no, I haven't seen it - on TV - yet.
Message: Posted by: mh1001 (May 27, 2017 01:24PM)
The performance indeed is mind blowing. And the principle used reminds me of Shin Lim's 52 Shades. I love that.

My only (and big) issue is that people will now know him and know that he is affiliated with SansMinds, which frequently releases magic products. And by googling his name, anyone can find Vapr, Vapr watch and other tools from Will.

I mean... I really don't want to see non-magicians looking at what the products magic dealers are selling.
Message: Posted by: Yuan Moons (May 27, 2017 01:32PM)
Just saw this on youtube and its about as real a magic as anyone could hope for and I thought it was perfect. I suspected though, that there would be at least 1 person that thinks they know better.
Message: Posted by: JonathanW (May 27, 2017 01:46PM)
[quote]On May 27, 2017, Yuan Moons wrote:
Just saw this on youtube and its about as real a magic as anyone could hope for and I thought it was perfect. I suspected though, that there would be at least 1 person that thinks they know better. [/quote]


Yup tons of jealousy going around. God forbid someone goes on TV and does some amazing magic, Magicians have to resort to talking trash about their performance style etc. It reminds me of Blaine's first TV special. Magicians trashed it because he was doing simple card tricks anyone could do! lol
Message: Posted by: Magic Life (May 27, 2017 01:56PM)
This is amazing, this is awesome.
Long time after have felt that magical moment again.
Truly standing ovation for this Will.
True visual magic..

Magic
Message: Posted by: Magic Life (May 27, 2017 02:00PM)
[quote]On May 27, 2017, mh1001 wrote:
The performance indeed is mind blowing. And the principle used reminds me of Shin Lim's 52 Shades. I love that.

My only (and big) issue is that people will now know him and know that he is affiliated with SansMinds, which frequently releases magic products. And by googling his name, anyone can find Vapr, Vapr watch and other tools from Will.

I mean... I really don't want to see non-magicians looking at what the products magic dealers are selling. [/quote]

Hi bro, you have a point, but magic producing companies like s***m**d doesn't care. They only want there sale's to be increased​.

I apologise if I'm wrong somewhere.

Magic
Message: Posted by: MadisonH (May 27, 2017 02:09PM)
I thought this effect was beautiful. It's what real magic would look like.

However, Will has absolutely zero showmanship. He's so boring to watch. Thank God the magic was entertaining.
Message: Posted by: Karl M (May 27, 2017 02:12PM)
MadisonH you talk sense thatis exacly why he wont win it because he hasnt showed much of his personality and thatis what wins it not the tricks in the end
Message: Posted by: emyers99 (May 27, 2017 03:17PM)
I do the exact same act but with tulips instead of roses. Much more difficult with tulips.
Message: Posted by: Maxyedid (May 27, 2017 11:06PM)
You should be in AGT
Message: Posted by: mh1001 (May 28, 2017 01:57AM)
I hope that the future is not what I'm foreseeing, e.g., people googling the performer's name and find about many of the SM products and gimmicks etc...
Message: Posted by: amirb401 (May 28, 2017 04:04AM)
Even if people google him , it doesn't really matter.
People could have googled oz pearlman when he was at agt, people could have googled every other great magician they saw on tv and search for products.
and even if they find prodcuts, I bet one out of 5000 searchers will actually purchase a product.
i mean, how many people will actually buy something just to see how it happends?
it will get WIll the exposure he needs and will help him grow I'm sure of it. I wish him goodluck and he has done wonderful at agt
Message: Posted by: JonathanW (May 28, 2017 07:02AM)
I made a joke video about this, if anyone wants to see it. https://www.facebook.com/jonathan.wooten.94/posts/1905915896353204 It's public so those of you who don't have facebook can watch it :)
Message: Posted by: Jared (May 28, 2017 10:47AM)
Will's performance was stunningly beautiful. His "full-circle" routine was wonderfully creative and execution flawless. I'm very much looking forward to seeing what he does next. Will certainly raised the bar for sleight-of-hand magicians...I'm happy for him.
Message: Posted by: Xiqual (May 28, 2017 10:54AM)
I thought it looked like real magic. Fantastic performance! There is even a slow motion version on Youtube, looks even better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tiML3htyZ0
James
Message: Posted by: Waterloophai (May 28, 2017 02:38PM)
I'm sorry but I'm not SO enthusiastic as most of you all.
Miracles don't exist in real life and people know that.

Shin Lim: yes, but this is TOO perfect (in my opinion) and I fear it will boomerang in his face sooner or later.

But I agree, it is 100% eye candy and very good presented. But it is in the end only the presentation of a technical marvel (the table). And what when this comes out? What is left of the magician? Isn't this the trick that is TOO perfect?
I don't know the answer myself. Just thinking.

On the other side, a good self working card trick is not necessarily bad either.
So I don't know what to think of it.
Message: Posted by: Steven Conner (May 28, 2017 02:55PM)
[quote]On May 28, 2017, Jared wrote: Will certainly raised the bar for sleight-of-hand magicians...I'm happy for him. [/quote]

Really!

Best

Steve
Message: Posted by: Jared (May 28, 2017 05:07PM)
Quote: "But I agree, it is 100% eye candy and very good presented. But it is in the end only the presentation of a technical marvel (the table). And what when this comes out? What is left of the magician? Isn't this the trick that is TOO perfect?
I don't know the answer myself. Just thinking."

This is an excellent point and more or less where I was going with my comment about raising the bar for sleight of hand magicians. You cannot accomplish this exact same routine using standard sleights. Will's table is a technical marvel but most layperson's will assume that he was using sleight of hand. Can you imagine how difficult it's going to be for the next magician wanting to perform a matrix type routine on AGT?...Yup, Will's act is hard one to follow. Anyway, I really enjoyed his routine.
Message: Posted by: MeetMagicMike (May 28, 2017 05:14PM)
The audience could think:
a) It's Real Magic
b) It's Skill
c) It's Special Effects (CGI or trapdoors for instance)

As a performer, I'm going for the Skill explanation. I want them to think I'm fooling them. I'm not going for "real magic" because I don't want my audience to leave my show dumber. This has been the subject of debate on other threads. I realize that many magicians want to convince the audience that there is real magic. I don't.

At the moment Will Tsai's coins began jumping around without cover it seems to me, skill is eliminated as an explanation. It's either real magic or special effects. It's unlikely for the home audience to conclude it's real magic because they are watching on TV so what's left is special effects.

Maybe I'm wrong. Love to hear other viewpoints.
Message: Posted by: Gaz Lawrence (May 28, 2017 05:20PM)
[quote]On May 28, 2017, MeetMagicMike wrote:
The audience could think:
a) It's Real Magic
b) It's Skill
c) It's Special Effects (CGI or trapdoors for instance)

As a performer, I'm going for the Skill explanation. I want them to think I'm fooling them. I'm not going for "real magic" because I don't want my audience to leave my show dumber. This has been the subject of debate on other threads. I realize that many magicians want to convince the audience that there is real magic. I don't.

At the moment Will Tsai's coins began jumping around without cover it seems to me, skill is eliminated as an explanation. It's either real magic or special effects. It's unlikely for the home audience to conclude it's real magic because they are watching on TV so what's left is special effects.

Maybe I'm wrong. Love to hear other viewpoints. [/quote]


I agree 100 % with your assumption Mike it's bang on the money Tarik 😊
Message: Posted by: Merenkov (May 28, 2017 05:33PM)
Will's performance was beautiful and stunning. With an effect that powerful and visual, you don't need "showmanship" or "personality"; the effect speaks for itself. It was jaw-dropping for the judges, the audience, and for me...
Message: Posted by: Steven Conner (May 28, 2017 05:39PM)
You can buy special effects that a child can perform but that's not magic. When its melted into sleight of hand, now you have something. It would appear this is the new wave of magic, (special effects or camera tricks).

Steve
Message: Posted by: JonathanW (May 28, 2017 05:54PM)
Not to start a fuss, but some of this you actually can do live closeup. I don't mean using a special table. I am talking about just a regular mat or table and you can wave over, coins change etc..

As far as the table he used. It'perfect for that setting. People seem to forget that there are more venues than walkaround.
Message: Posted by: SimonCard (May 28, 2017 05:59PM)
This is stage illusion not close up magic. This can be perfectly fit into a stage illusion show like David Copperfield's grandpa's Aces trick.
Message: Posted by: MichaelJae (May 28, 2017 06:13PM)
When this hits the market, you won't see a blurb that say "It looks like real CGI". I know this quote has been said many times for other tricks, but this one, I doubt.
Message: Posted by: MeetMagicMike (May 28, 2017 06:30PM)
I can see the point about stage illusion. When a stage magician waves his hand and a person vanishes and a tiger appears no one thinks he was palming the tiger. Those who don't believe in magic are left to conclude something mechanical happened but they are still fooled. They credit the magician with presenting the magic and they may even assume he created the trick.

So I agree that Will Tsai's trick could be taken that way. Clearly, his hands have nothing to do with the coins moving. He chose to expose that fact. The audience can reason backward and understand that when he covered the coins he was merely hiding the action. He wasn't causing the action. The audience is still mystified (assuming they don't jump to CGI). The judges know it isn't CGI so their reactions are legit.

I don't love stage magic as much as I love sleight of hand magic. This kind of blurs the line. Some will appreciate that. I would rather not have the audience think coins can jump around on their own on the right table.

(I don't know the specifics of how this trick is done. It could be that it is a marvelous display of sleight of hand using techniques that I am not familiar with. That would be a fun discovery for me. For now, it looks like a trick table)
Message: Posted by: Tim Cavendish (May 28, 2017 06:44PM)
[quote]On May 28, 2017, SimonCard wrote:
This is stage illusion not close up magic. This can be perfectly fit into a stage illusion show like David Copperfield's grandpa's Aces trick. [/quote]
I saw the traveling version of The Illusionists last fall, and it did indeed use a similar fancy table for a closeup bit during Darcy Oake's turn on stage.

I believe Darcy's table produced mice. To his credit, I believe Darcy's routine involved manual sleights before that, though.
Message: Posted by: Melies (May 28, 2017 06:56PM)
I find it odd that so many folks are upset about the method here. Are we forgetting Robert-Houdin's countless technical innovations? Tsai's routine is a stunning piece of magic--mind-blowing. "If we could do real magic, this is what it would look like"--isn't that what we say? Well, this routine really is indistinguishable from real magic, and anything that thrills an audience is a success by definition.

Steve, you write: "You can buy special effects that a child can perform but that's not magic. When its melted into sleight of hand, now you have something." But is that really so? Yes, sleight of hand is the pivot for much of our art. But it isn't the whole story. Paul Daniels produced some videos before he died of him taking silly kids' magic gimmicks and turning them to account in performance. It's not in the method, it's in the effect--always. And in this case, the effect is staggering, regardless of how it was done.
Message: Posted by: MeetMagicMike (May 28, 2017 07:08PM)
Melies wrote:

[quote]It's not in the method, it's in the effect--always. And in this case, the effect is staggering, regardless of how it was done.[/quote]

So you would be just as impressed with Will Tsai if you learned that this was all CGI? I'm genuinely curious about what you mean when you say regardless of how it is done.
Message: Posted by: SimonCard (May 28, 2017 07:19PM)
This routine, just like Shin Lim's dream act and 52 shades of red, is a beautiful piece as a magic show, just that they are stage illusions not close up magic.
If not considering methods, I find Zack King's videos most amazing.
Message: Posted by: SimonCard (May 28, 2017 07:21PM)
For a brief moment, I thought that table was a tablet kindda thing till he picked up those petals.
Message: Posted by: Steven Conner (May 28, 2017 07:27PM)
[quote]On May 28, 2017, Melies wrote:
I find it odd that so many folks are upset about the method here. Are we forgetting Robert-Houdin's countless technical innovations? Tsai's routine is a stunning piece of magic--mind-blowing. "If we could do real magic, this is what it would look like"--isn't that what we say? Well, this routine really is indistinguishable from real magic, and anything that thrills an audience is a success by definition.

Steve, you write: "You can buy special effects that a child can perform but that's not magic. When its melted into sleight of hand, now you have something." But is that really so? Yes, sleight of hand is the pivot for much of our art. But it isn't the whole story. Paul Daniels produced some videos before he died of him taking silly kids' magic gimmicks and turning them to account in performance. It's not in the method, it's in the effect--always. And in this case, the effect is staggering, regardless of how it was done. [/quote]

What I'm saying is, this indeed looked amazing, but was obvious. It reminds me very much of a chess board created in the eighties called the Excaliber Phanton where the pieces literally moved by themselves. It was an incredible piece which I also used for psychic chess. IMO, we are sending the wrong message when the trick is that obvious from the apparatus.

Best,

Steve
Message: Posted by: MeetMagicMike (May 28, 2017 10:18PM)
Boy, everything is on Youtube. Steven Conner mentioned this:

[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNv84Z4j8z4]Excalibur Phantom Force Chess[/url]
Message: Posted by: pepka (May 28, 2017 11:03PM)
I had several laymen friends comment on this that "I bet he can't do that on a real table." 'Nuff said.
Message: Posted by: blurrylines (May 29, 2017 12:23AM)
[quote]On May 28, 2017, pepka wrote:
I had several laymen friends comment on this that "I bet he can't do that on a real table." 'Nuff said. [/quote]

The table looked pretty real to me...
Message: Posted by: mh1001 (May 29, 2017 01:08AM)
No one would believe Will is using sleight of hand, especially the moment when he snaps his fingers and the coins teleported, that explanation definitely becomes impossible. Since it removes one possible solution, either the spectator is left with no explanation or (if he is still very skeptical) that a special prop is used.

I don't know what it means to say "it's too perfect". For me, the issue is that when an effect is too simple for people, they guess right. Once, I was doing an ACR, everyone near me were blown away, but one girl (a child...) sitting at the other end of the table, far away from me, said she understands how it's done, and her hypothesis was correct. I tend to think that if we add complexity to our effects, it's much more difficult for the public to guess right, because it needs more imagination. For instance, if you make a silk vanish in your hands and then reappear in your hands, it's more likely they guess right than if you make the silk disappear and then reappear inside a card box, himber wallet, or else. Similarly, it's much safer to use sleeving for switching or impossible location effects than making it travel from your left to your right hand because in the first case there are two ideas/concepts whereas in the latter case you apply only one concept.

I don't know how people would generally react to Will's performance, but I don't think the working of this effect is that simple to imagine. However, I can understand the feeling of those who think that because it's so strong that it eliminates one possible explanation (i.e., sleight of hand), its strength is also his greatest weakness.

[quote]On May 28, 2017, MeetMagicMike wrote:
Those who don't believe in magic are left to conclude something mechanical happened but they are still fooled. They credit the magician with presenting the magic and they may even assume he created the trick.[/quote]

Even if you don't know exactly the method, if you understand the concept or idea, then, you're not fooled. If you understand I'm using sleight of hand, you're not fooled, even if you don't know which techniques I'm using.

pepka, I'm wondering if your friends are more exposed to magic than others.
Message: Posted by: JeremyTan (May 29, 2017 02:15AM)
Arent we all looking to make everything look like "Real Magic"? That's what it looks like to me! The audiences and the judges!
Message: Posted by: blurrylines (May 29, 2017 02:55AM)
[quote]On May 29, 2017, mh1001 wrote:

Even if you don't know exactly the method, if you understand the concept or idea, then, you're not fooled. If you understand I'm using sleight of hand, you're not fooled, even if you don't know which techniques I'm using.

[/quote]

I'm not sure I agree with this. Many laymen randomly blurt out "he did that with sleight of hand" as a catch all phrase. It usually means they were fooled.

I can't count the times I've heard the laymen explanation of "sleight of hand" when I performed a self-working effect. I also snicker when accused of using a marked deck when no marked deck is in play. "You did something" or "trick cards" are also common, yet meaningless laymen phrases. The vast majority of the time, if any of those proclamations are uttered it means they were fooled. They can usually be translated as, "You fooled me."

Although it depends on how you define "fooled". It can be loosely defined as, "they have no clue what happened". A prime example of it is on display when people say, "The table did something". :)
Message: Posted by: Slackerking (May 29, 2017 03:19AM)
It's funny to watch all the negativity on here about the methods and the personality.

It was beautiful. The crowd reaction said it all. All the negativity and handwringing and petty jealousy, it's why a lot of folks including a trio of constant posters here accomplish little to nothing while someone like Will Tsai creates a moment of profound beauty. I could give two ****s how it was accomplished. It was astounding and beautiful to watch and the fact that he didn't have a ridiculously calculated persona made it that much sweeter.
Message: Posted by: PRINCE (May 29, 2017 05:07AM)
[quote]On May 29, 2017, Slackerking wrote:
It's funny to watch all the negativity on here about the methods and the personality.

It was beautiful. The crowd reaction said it all. All the negativity and handwringing and petty jealousy, it's why a lot of folks including a trio of constant posters here accomplish little to nothing while someone like Will Tsai creates a moment of profound beauty. I could give two ****s how it was accomplished. It was astounding and beautiful to watch and the fact that he didn't have a ridiculously calculated persona made it that much sweeter. [/quote]

Well said and completely agree.
Message: Posted by: mh1001 (May 29, 2017 05:10AM)
Blurrylines,

Here's the trouble. From your perspective, you think they were fooled, because you know they are uncorrect. But from their perspective, they "know" how you did it. For them, it's not magic.

In another thread, I've explained that once, I did the turnover pass to a colleague, at work, and he asked if I can do it again, as he thinks he understands how it's done. And I thought I did it perfectly right, because I know that I always (or almost) do this sleight perfectly right. I said that if I reveal the method, he must tell me exactly what he saw. And he admitted it was very different from what he imagined.

A good comrade, who sometimes posts on the Café, told me in PM that while he was doing the muscle pass, some people said he must have magnets under his skin, and they seem to truly believe it. Maybe these guys are actually being stupid, but whatever, the effect wasn't magical to them.

For me, this kind of situation is really bothersome. So, I try to do everything I can in order to avoid people thinking they understand the working of my effects.
Message: Posted by: mike herbert (May 29, 2017 07:58AM)
It seems to me that Will thought about his environment, and the medium that he was working with, he would have also known that there would be magicians and the like re playing the video etc. With that in mind he created a piece that looked magical, with subtleties and convincers hopefully creating the illusion? of advanced sleight of hand/magic. I think that he did a great job.

Could some of the folks who have issues with this performance please provide some links of yourselves demonstrating some of your work so We can see how you tackle the same sort of constraints as from my perspective footage speaks louder than words and I would be very grateful to see how your presentations work as trying to get my head around what magic is about has been driving me mad for the last twenty years.

I look forward to seeing what you guys deliver and how your philosophy translates through your work, many thanks

Mike
Message: Posted by: MeetMagicMike (May 29, 2017 09:03AM)
Guys, I understand that Will Tsai performed a beautiful set. I work restaurants and make families ooh and ah but I don't have a set that would work on AGT.

I'm discussing one particular part of Tsai's performance. He let the audience see the coins moving around on their own. I think that took him out of the equation as far as sleight of hand. Many of you are ok with that perhaps because you don't think the sleight of hand explanation is what we should be going for. I do.

This is a difference of opinion or taste. Not an attack on Will Tsai. I love discussion and find them valuable. Give your arguments and make them consise. Address the issues brought up. If you just love the performance feel free to say that.
Message: Posted by: mike herbert (May 29, 2017 09:40AM)
Magic Mike

I guess a question to you could be could be, what does sleight of hand look like?
I have witnessed lay people marvel at a magicians sleight of hand when they were in fact using a Svengali deck. To me sleight of hand is a secret thing that accomplishes potential impossibilities. often times the audience perceive something different to what they really see. It all comes down to presentation.

Mike,,
Message: Posted by: Steven Conner (May 29, 2017 09:51AM)
[quote]On May 29, 2017, mike herbert wrote:
It seems to me that Will thought about his environment, and the medium that he was working with, he would have also known that there would be magicians and the like re playing the video etc. With that in mind he created a piece that looked magical, with subtleties and convincers hopefully creating the illusion? of advanced sleight of hand/magic. I think that he did a great job.

Could some of the folks who have issues with this performance please provide some links of yourselves demonstrating some of your work so We can see how you tackle the same sort of constraints as from my perspective footage speaks louder than words and I would be very grateful to see how your presentations work as trying to get my head around what magic is about has been driving me mad for the last twenty years.

I look forward to seeing what you guys deliver and how your philosophy translates through your work, many thanks

Mike [/quote]

Hi Mike, the issue is not one of comparison. There's really not much magic if all you have is a prop that does all the work. Take a look at Del Rey who was so ahead of the times. He combined great sleight of hand with his props and what he did was magic. Tony Slydini was the Master of pure magic. Omar Pasha was incredible. Now when comes to matrix, David Roth, Neighbors, Gallo, Dean Dill, Gertner and so many more that make it look like real magic. The audience was entertained by Will's performance but doubt they were fooled. Props don't make you a magician, only enhance the effect and skills.

Best

Steve
Message: Posted by: MeetMagicMike (May 29, 2017 10:19AM)
Mike herbert wrote:

[quote]Magic Mike
I have witnessed lay people marvel at a magician's sleight of hand when they were in fact using a Svengali deck. To me sleight of hand is a secret thing that accomplishes potential impossibilities. often times the audience perceive something different to what they really see. It all comes down to presentation.[/quote]

Very good point. Another example would be the use of trick coins. But the distinction is that they audience still credits the magician with sleight of hand (ie skill).

In Will Tsai's performance, I have no problem with the initial matrix routine. It's ok with me if there is a secret device involved (as a magician I'd be more impressed with sleight of hand but that's not relevant here, surprisingly). It's the part where he takes his hands away and the coins move on their own. The audience now knows it's either real magic or a trick table. They probably don't know how the table works (I don't) so in that respect you can say we are fooled. For me, I would rather steer them away from that explanation.
Message: Posted by: mh1001 (May 29, 2017 10:37AM)
Mike herbert, what we see with Will's performance is that coins seem to be teleporting at his command. It's instantaneous, there's no cover and happens in a flash : people feel that it's a real teleportation. Sleight of hand can't accomplish this. I don't think presentation, misdirection or skill can change anything at this point. I do not believe people will feel the same when seeing a coin matrix using sleight of hand techniques.
Message: Posted by: ori (May 29, 2017 11:18AM)
WOW! I enjoyed the performance very much and thought Will Tsai brings to the stage a very open genuine personality. The music and timing are so great that the silence at the end emphasizes the emotional impact on the audience.
As a magician I was completely fooled and I am very thankful for it. It has been a while since that feeling was so sharp.
Message: Posted by: SimonCard (May 29, 2017 12:04PM)
I think the people who expressed different opinions and concerns are genuinely speaking what they think. There is no need to label others with different opinions with 'being jealous' or anything. As an audience, this is truly an amazing and visual piece; but as an magician, I don't think we should stop there, discussing why it's good or why it should be concerned can advance the art.
I kindda agree with meetmagicmike, the first part where the transportation occurs under the cards, though also depending on the gimmick and no sleights, looks more magical. The open transportation at his finger snapping finger makes me think the whole table is a tablet kindda thing. Just my perspective, and I admit it's very hard for me to see it as if I knew nothing about magic.
Message: Posted by: Merenkov (May 29, 2017 12:29PM)
I’m puzzled by comments like, “The audience was entertained…but I doubt they were fooled.” I’ve been playing around with Matrix routines for 35 years, and I was completely fooled. The first time I saw Dean Dill perform his Explosion routine, the appearance of the final coins looked like trick photography to me. Perhaps Will has a tricky table, but is it mechanical or some type of digital surface? If mechanical, it’s an unfathomable marvel to me. If it’s digital, then he has to ditch those clearly physical coins in some fashion that is also unfathomable to me. Watch the video again, and look at the stunned faces of the judges and audience members. They were clearly, unambiguously, fooled…and entertained.
Message: Posted by: entermagic (May 29, 2017 12:35PM)
IMO this performance is brilliant he shocked me with unspected outcome. I don't want know anything about the secret. I love that I was fooled badly. Many my friends asked my opinion about the secre an how this is possible. I refused tothing just a possible solution. I look for the next his perfomance. Congratulations Will Tsai.
Message: Posted by: blurrylines (May 29, 2017 12:36PM)
[quote]On May 29, 2017, Slackerking wrote:
It's funny to watch all the negativity on here about the methods and the personality.

It was beautiful. The crowd reaction said it all. All the negativity and handwringing and petty jealousy, it's why a lot of folks including a trio of constant posters here accomplish little to nothing while someone like Will Tsai creates a moment of profound beauty. I could give two ****s how it was accomplished. It was astounding and beautiful to watch and the fact that he didn't have a ridiculously calculated persona made it that much sweeter. [/quote]

Truth!


[quote]On May 29, 2017, mh1001 wrote:
Blurrylines,

Here's the trouble. From your perspective, you think they were fooled, because you know they are uncorrect. But from their perspective, they "know" how you did it. For them, it's not magic.
[/quote]

They were fooled from their perspective as well. It's "magic" to them, and they don't know how it was done. The majority of the time when you ask them, "What do you mean, sleight of hand?". They say something akin to, "You had to do something funny with the cards, coins, whatever. I don't know what you did and I didn't see anything, but it had to be that." Why did it *have* to be that? Because they don't truly believe you can defy the laws of physics. The phrase "I don't know what you did, I didn't see anything" is key. Your presentation, misdirection, etc caused them to see "magic" in their minds. You showed them something impossible, that their mind can't comprehend, but they know it's not by defying the laws of physics. The only thing that can remotely fall into the category of magic you are referring to are properly presented mentalism and/or influence performances.

No one actually thinks David Copperfield flies across stage; and unless a spectator is under 10 years old, they don't really think he has super powers. You can give them a moment of something that seems impossible (such as Wil did), but they never believe it's magic in the sense that they believe you did something that defies the laws of physics. I suspect they also don't *truly* believe your friend has magnets in his skin. It's similar to the "you used sleight of hand" phrase. In other words, "That looks impossible, but I know you're not a supernatural being". Adults will almost never *seriously* come to that conclusion, even if it's said in jest. Anyway, you can PM me if you want to discuss further. I don't want to derail main thread which is about Wil's amazing performance. Good for him! He did a great job. I am eager to see what's next!
Message: Posted by: mh1001 (May 29, 2017 02:17PM)
Blurrylines,

I can't agree with you here. There's a big difference between "I have no idea what you did" and "I know it's sleight of hand but not exactly what". And the difference in reaction also is visible. When I did my first ACRs, sometimes, at some point, people challenge me this way "can I look at your cards?" "Ok, look at this card, which I now put in the middle" and as he/she gives it back to me, I was asked "now make it happen". I knew at that moment that this person was thinking I was doing something fishy with my hands, yet they didn't see anything, as they admitted. The worst thing was that I was unable to do the effect again, even though I tried "hmm I don't remember, what was your card ? ... well found it, ok it's really that one you want to see it rise to the top ?" and then I did it, success ? Yes, but... that person told me "no, you did the same thing as you did before. Look... I want to be the one who puts the card in the middle of the deck, and once it's inside, I don't want you to touch it. You pick the top one immediately, and make it happen". What do you think I should have done ? At this point, too late. Once they come to understand the main idea, the impact is greatly diminished. But this was already and exactly what I said in my earlier post. There was someone who "knew" how my turnover pass was done, yet he was wrong. If you believe this guy was fooled, this guy was thinking he got me. And he wasn't impressed. I've experienced it many times. Every time people "understood" one possible way which the effect could be done, they were much less impressed compared to people who admitted having no clue at all and said I was a sorcerer or something like this.

If someone thinks "That looks impossible, but I know you're not a supernatural being" it's still much more impactful than saying "I know you have good fingers, but I didn't see your move". Obviously, I never said people believe in magic. Most of the time, people don't, and most of the time, even if they enjoy the act, they like to think about how it's done.

Here's the difference between a miracle and a so-so trick. It is : the more people think about it, the more they become crazy - versus - they think about some possibilities which could have produced this outcome but they are unsure about which the magician has used right now.

Copperfield's flying across the room was "magical" in that the spectators were allowed to "dream" but it's obvious many of them would think "could be wires". As soon as they think such an effect could be done using one particular method, whether it's right or not, it's not magical (unless you define magical as "what Ronaldo does with a ball is like magic"). Regardless, they were being entertained. Perhaps to the point they don't want to think too much about the secret, as they won't be able to fully appreciate the show.

There are some few effects for which I had and still have absolutely no idea how it's done, not even the smallest hypothesis, and the more I think about it and the crazier I become. These are from : Tommy Wonder (his ring, watch and wallet effect) and Tom Mullica (his cigarette's act). And these are the kind which, I would guess, would fool everyone, without exception.
Message: Posted by: Magic Life (May 29, 2017 08:38PM)
This is ****ing awesome..
This is where real magic comes.
One minute act... Killed the whole expectation system, this is what the visual magic is called.

Magic
Message: Posted by: MazingMandy (May 30, 2017 08:55AM)
So when Issy Simpson performs an act full of personality using a light/heavy box everyone is "bah, anyone with one of those special boxes can do that act" Yes when Will Tsai does a pretty boring act with a special magic table no-one seems to think the same?
Message: Posted by: The Duster (May 30, 2017 09:18AM)
[quote]On May 30, 2017, MazingMandy wrote:
So when Issy Simpson performs an act full of personality using a light/heavy box everyone is "bah, anyone with one of those special boxes can do that act" Yes when Will Tsai does a pretty boring act with a special magic table no-one seems to think the same? [/quote]

I know it's not fair

But it's because she is an 8 year old [?] girl

So the idea she has any skill is unbelievable

So the story [angle] is either she is a genius... or - look it was just the effect doing all the work... no wonder even a child can do it

And there is no angle [for the media] in the genius story - as they will look foolish when others report on how she did it...

In fact there is never any 'genius' angle for magic/tricks - both in that it's a non-story and you haven't got anything to add to the story

It didn't help that her performance was so big

As soon as anything goes viral - it's going to be revealed

The only thing that can be done... is the magic circle bans any member that goes on TV... or performs to more than 5 people

So both will be revealed - but the story is bigger and makes the headlines when it's a young child...
Message: Posted by: setsuna83 (May 30, 2017 11:44AM)
Magician
noun
1.
an entertainer who is skilled in producing illusion by sleight of hand, deceptive devices, etc.; conjurer.
Message: Posted by: garywest (May 30, 2017 12:24PM)
Just want to give a shoutout to Will to say Thank You for making a truly magical performance. Not since I witnessed Omar Pasha in Madison Square Garden in 1973 have I ever said "WOW... That looks like REAL magic!" Now, Will Tsai has created that milestone... I am excited to see where he takes this moving forward.
Message: Posted by: SleepyMagic (May 30, 2017 01:12PM)
To people saying "the table is doing all the work and no he isn't using any skill":

Wasn't actually thinking up the idea and the mechanics of this table skill at all?


sleepy
Message: Posted by: PRINCE (May 30, 2017 01:28PM)
So there is no skill in getting the routine and timing spot on??? This act would take a lot more skill than those are questioning. Plus you can't go comparing a self working effect (or being able to push a lever/flick a switch) the same as this structured and perfectly timed routine that had to be presicion for it to have looked as good as it did.
Message: Posted by: Jared (May 30, 2017 01:54PM)
As magicians we appreciate and marvel at seeing exemplary dexterity and skills on display because we know how difficult it is and how much dedication it takes to master such routines. So whenever "the work" is begin done with special props that make the job easier we cannot help but to get a bit defensive.

It's similar to the argument from the old school mentalists who mastered difficult billet peeks and nail writing vs. those using the latest electronic marvels that practically hand you the information on a silver platter. As another example from music industry, can you imagine what drummers felt like after hearing the first electronic drum machine? But from the audience's standpoint they could care less about how the feat is accomplished...All that matters is being entertained.

What's going to be interesting is seeing what Will performs next because his matrix routine is going to be very difficult to follow assuming that his goal is to build from each performance.
Message: Posted by: SimonCard (May 30, 2017 02:56PM)
Something off topic. I think the real meaning of Will's routine is good manipulation of money can get you multiple pieces of romance.
Message: Posted by: mh1001 (May 30, 2017 04:08PM)
Jared, I feel what other people want to say here is that self-working effects are not rewarding at all. If anyone can achieve that effect with no efforts, then there is no meaning to it. I totally understand this point of view, although I can't agree with them here. To achieve such performance, you need perfect coordination, timing, gesture.
Message: Posted by: StarManager (May 30, 2017 04:53PM)
I think this is about as lovely as a matrix ever gets. Crazy beautiful. Until I saw Will do this I had a favorite matrix which you can see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSROGOfbKLo&feature=em-subs_digest-vrecs It's almost perfect. Those who know the methods here can argue that some of the tools used in this example also are not "sleight of hand" . . . But we all accept these tools. The issue to me is that whatever you can employ that gets the reaction is fair game. Experience tells me the best effects are tools plus misdirection with a spice of gaffs. What Will created is a route to eliminate misdirection as the camera prohibits this. His end result is totally skillful despite the mechanism employed. And it is absolutely beautiful in my opinion.
Message: Posted by: StarManager (May 30, 2017 04:54PM)
That said - how I know where my Vapr Watch resale money went . . . LOL
Message: Posted by: mh1001 (May 30, 2017 05:05PM)
[quote]On May 30, 2017, StarManager wrote:
What Will created is a route to eliminate misdirection as the camera prohibits this.[/quote]
There's a video somewhere which replays it in very slow motion. Yet it didn't explain anything. It's wonderful, Will's timing was perfect. If you read YouTube comments, they are laughable. Guys spend time saying that watching the slow motion video makes them scratch their head even more...
Message: Posted by: Melies (May 30, 2017 06:39PM)
I just want to say that I've been enjoying this discussion--people have raised a number of valid points, even if I don't agree with all of them.

I still have no idea how it was done. None. I mean, it's fine to point to the prop and to conclude, "It was the prop!" That is indeed one weakness in the routine, the lack of any alternative explanation. But having puzzled over the video, I cannot even begin to picture the mechanism involved. As mh1001 says, even in slow motion the illusion is perfect (or near-perfect)....But did I just say "illusion"? In fact, if I'm honest with myself, I have to acknowledge that I'm merely assuming that it was an illusion, based on my own metaphysical beliefs. Because if I had to judge from the evidence of my senses alone, I would have to conclude that Will Tsai actually is some kind of god or demi-god with supernatural powers. Only my faith in what science tells us is possible (a big leap of faith, by the way, given how wrong scientists have been and in some cases continue to be ahout the way the universe works) leads me to conclude that there was trickery involved.

I think some laypeople will definitely come away thinking he has "special powers...." Did you see the shock on some of the faces in the audience? They didn't look entertained--they looked like they had seen a ghost! And that to me is a good thing. Anything that shatters the complacency and cynicism and hubris of our secular-scientific age, even momentarily, is a good thing.
Message: Posted by: Jared (May 30, 2017 08:18PM)
Mh1001, I completely agree with your position. Even if an effect is virtually self-working it still takes skill to bring it to life. In our business everything should be fair game to achieve the desired effect. But personally, I feel better knowing that I can do it both ways. There's something satisfying about investing the time and dedication to make a difficult move look smooth.
Message: Posted by: Doug Trouten (May 30, 2017 09:35PM)
Magicians were once known for exhibiting mechanical marvels. And, as Arthur C. Clarke observed, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

I don't think Will's goal was to impress those "in the know" with advanced sleight of hand. His goal was to stun the judges and audience. Mission accomplished.
Message: Posted by: Merenkov (May 30, 2017 10:40PM)
I was just about to post the same Arthur C. Clarke quote, Doug. Nicely played, and spot on...
Message: Posted by: Decomposed (May 30, 2017 10:45PM)
AGT is not as easy as it looks.....its very much different then being a guest on a local TV show.
Message: Posted by: tophatter (May 31, 2017 01:27AM)
Will did his Job Outstanding "He Fooled the Judges & the Audience " I really enjoyed it very Magical !
Message: Posted by: Magic Life (May 31, 2017 02:09AM)
Audience perspective is what the more important and its flourished well here.
Long time after someone has shown again here the beauty of magic( not mentalism.. Lol)
Message: Posted by: MazingMandy (May 31, 2017 04:10AM)
So does this mean you now all forgive him for his poor business practices?
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (May 31, 2017 09:26AM)
[quote]On May 27, 2017, mh1001 wrote:
The performance indeed is mind blowing. And the principle used reminds me of Shin Lim's 52 Shades. I love that.

My only (and big) issue is that people will now know him and know that he is affiliated with SansMinds, which frequently releases magic products. And by googling his name, anyone can find Vapr, Vapr watch and other tools from Will.

I mean... I really don't want to see non-magicians looking at what the products magic dealers are selling. [/quote]

This makes zero sense. Has this affected Strange Travelers? How about the Self-Tying Shoelace? Bite-out coin? Healed and Sealed? Ambitious card? Two card monte? There were a bunch of others where the ad copy stated as seen done by David Blaine or something of the sort. Those effects still killed even when people started performing them a week after a Blaine special airs. Going by your logic, all those effects would have been worthless due to Blaine having performed them and having the ad copies reference Blaine. Blaine is also arguably far better known than Will so...
Message: Posted by: magicmind (May 31, 2017 09:34AM)
[quote]On May 29, 2017, mh1001 wrote:
Blurrylines,

I can't agree with you here. There's a big difference between "I have no idea what you did" and "I know it's sleight of hand but not exactly what". And the difference in reaction also is visible. When I did my first ACRs, sometimes, at some point, people challenge me this way "can I look at your cards?" "Ok, look at this card, which I now put in the middle" and as he/she gives it back to me, I was asked "now make it happen". I knew at that moment that this person was thinking I was doing something fishy with my hands, yet they didn't see anything, as they admitted. The worst thing was that I was unable to do the effect again, even though I tried "hmm I don't remember, what was your card ? ... well found it, ok it's really that one you want to see it rise to the top ?" and then I did it, success ? Yes, but... that person told me "no, you did the same thing as you did before. Look... I want to be the one who puts the card in the middle of the deck, and once it's inside, I don't want you to touch it. You pick the top one immediately, and make it happen". What do you think I should have done ? At this point, too late. Once they come to understand the main idea, the impact is greatly diminished. But this was already and exactly what I said in my earlier post. There was someone who "knew" how my turnover pass was done, yet he was wrong. If you believe this guy was fooled, this guy was thinking he got me. And he wasn't impressed. I've experienced it many times. Every time people "understood" one possible way which the effect could be done, they were much less impressed compared to people who admitted having no clue at all and said I was a sorcerer or something like this. [/quote]

mh1001 (Not pointing fingers here, just speaking from experience)
If this happens to you, you are letting it. No one challenges unless it is provoked (talking down to spectator/I'm better than you attitude...etc.). Audience management skills would stop this. You are comparing standing at a table with the performance Will is doing on camera. There are no challengers. He has control of (one dimensional) viewing angles AND lighting.

Let's continue the discussion of his performance and not get off into real magic vs. "just tricks" from the spectators point of view.
Message: Posted by: magicmind (May 31, 2017 09:40AM)
He created a fantastically timed routine and subtle movements to avoid suspicion. Excellent routine . [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tiML3htyZ0] See it again here....in s l o w motion.[/url]
Message: Posted by: SimonCard (May 31, 2017 09:43AM)
I think his performance is excellent as long as it's treated as a stage illusion. However, something is still missing I don't know what it is. Copperfield's flying show is the most beautiful and also I don't know what it is that makes it so beautiful. I guess a hybrid of close up and stage illusion just can't achieve that level of romance.
Message: Posted by: Magic Life (May 31, 2017 10:49AM)
[quote]On May 31, 2017, SimonCard wrote:
I think his performance is excellent as long as it's treated as a stage illusion. However, something is still missing I don't know what it is. Copperfield's flying show is the most beautiful and also I don't know what it is that makes it so beautiful. I guess a hybrid of close up and stage illusion just can't achieve that level of romance. [/quote]

You are absolutely right Simon, I think the beauty is hidden in the visual ness of the effect.
Message: Posted by: mh1001 (May 31, 2017 11:09AM)
[quote]On May 31, 2017, kissdadookie wrote:
This makes zero sense. Has this affected Strange Travelers? How about the Self-Tying Shoelace? Bite-out coin? Healed and Sealed? Ambitious card? Two card monte? There were a bunch of others where the ad copy stated as seen done by David Blaine or something of the sort. Those effects still killed even when people started performing them a week after a Blaine special airs. Going by your logic, all those effects would have been worthless due to Blaine having performed them and having the ad copies reference Blaine. Blaine is also arguably far better known than Will so... [/quote]
I didn't say these tricks will become uneffective. You did. It's always the same with you : stop pretending I say something I didn't.
Do I need to copy-paste what you quoted ? "And by googling his name, anyone can find Vapr, Vapr watch and other tools from Will."

Although, I do believe exposure hurts magic (especially the effects which have been exposed) to some extent, this is not what I wrote in that post. I say that I don't want people see the special props SM is selling, and to remind them that we "always" use special props (because that's the stereotype - people "know" we use special props), and letting them know the kind of marvels magicians can invent and put to the market.

It's much worse if props, instead of techniques, are exposed. Because techniques are flexible, and you can add misdirection and presentation in order to mislead the public about your true methods. But a prop, no. At least, for some of them. For instance, if ProMystic products are exposed, then even if you do a which hand effect without this special prop, people will think you used that special tool. Presentation will never save you here. If people know about Vapr watch, presentation won't save you either, nothing can.

[quote]On May 31, 2017, magicmind wrote:
No one challenges unless it is provoked (talking down to spectator/I'm better than you attitude...etc.). [/quote]
Have you seen how I'm performing in front of an audience ? Anyway, that sentence of yours obviously is wrong. You can be entertaining and yet being challenged, by attention-seekers or those who don't like magic.

It's a fallacy to say it's 100% the fault of the performer everytime something goes wrong. There are people who don't like soccer, even if they see Ronaldo and Messi playing with the ball, that doesn't make them love soccer. Yet no one would say it's because they don't play well with the ball or their team play like a group of amateurs.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (May 31, 2017 11:53AM)
[quote]On May 31, 2017, mh1001 wrote:
[quote]On May 31, 2017, kissdadookie wrote:
This makes zero sense. Has this affected Strange Travelers? How about the Self-Tying Shoelace? Bite-out coin? Healed and Sealed? Ambitious card? Two card monte? There were a bunch of others where the ad copy stated as seen done by David Blaine or something of the sort. Those effects still killed even when people started performing them a week after a Blaine special airs. Going by your logic, all those effects would have been worthless due to Blaine having performed them and having the ad copies reference Blaine. Blaine is also arguably far better known than Will so... [/quote]
I didn't say these tricks will become uneffective. You did. It's always the same with you : stop pretending I say something I didn't.
Do I need to copy-paste what you quoted ? "And by googling his name, anyone can find Vapr, Vapr watch and other tools from Will."

Although, I do believe exposure hurts magic (especially the effects which have been exposed) to some extent, this is not what I wrote in that post. I say that I don't want people see the special props SM is selling, and to remind them that we "always" use special props (because that's the stereotype - people "know" we use special props), and letting them know the kind of marvels magicians can invent and put to the market.

It's much worse if props, instead of techniques, are exposed. Because techniques are flexible, and you can add misdirection and presentation in order to mislead the public about your true methods. But a prop, no. At least, for some of them. For instance, if ProMystic products are exposed, then even if you do a which hand effect without this special prop, people will think you used that special tool. Presentation will never save you here. If people know about Vapr watch, presentation won't save you either, nothing can.

[quote]On May 31, 2017, magicmind wrote:
No one challenges unless it is provoked (talking down to spectator/I'm better than you attitude...etc.). [/quote]
Have you seen how I'm performing in front of an audience ? Anyway, that sentence of yours obviously is wrong. You can be entertaining and yet being challenged, by attention-seekers or those who don't like magic.

It's a fallacy to say it's 100% the fault of the performer everytime something goes wrong. There are people who don't like soccer, even if they see Ronaldo and Messi playing with the ball, that doesn't make them love soccer. Yet no one would say it's because they don't play well with the ball or their team play like a group of amateurs. [/quote]

What would it matter if people can google these effects then if your concern is not about them possibly losing effectiveness?

It's always the same with you, not making sense and then getting all butt hurt when someone doesn't agree with you, smh :P

Let me quote you, directly:

"My only (and big) issue is that people will now know him and know that he is affiliated with SansMinds, which frequently releases magic products. And by googling his name, anyone can find Vapr, Vapr watch and other tools from Will.

I mean... I really don't want to see non-magicians looking at what the products magic dealers are selling."

CLEARLY your post implies a concern about effects becoming ineffective if laypeople can google them and see that they products being sold, the alternative would be perhaps that you are afraid of people then going on to become magicians themselves? Makes you feel less special then? LoL.
Message: Posted by: Matthew Crabtree (May 31, 2017 12:37PM)
[quote]On May 31, 2017, kissdadookie wrote:
[quote]On May 31, 2017, mh1001 wrote:
[quote]On May 31, 2017, kissdadookie wrote:
This makes zero sense. Has this affected Strange Travelers? How about the Self-Tying Shoelace? Bite-out coin? Healed and Sealed? Ambitious card? Two card monte? There were a bunch of others where the ad copy stated as seen done by David Blaine or something of the sort. Those effects still killed even when people started performing them a week after a Blaine special airs. Going by your logic, all those effects would have been worthless due to Blaine having performed them and having the ad copies reference Blaine. Blaine is also arguably far better known than Will so... [/quote]
I didn't say these tricks will become uneffective. You did. It's always the same with you : stop pretending I say something I didn't.
Do I need to copy-paste what you quoted ? "And by googling his name, anyone can find Vapr, Vapr watch and other tools from Will."

Although, I do believe exposure hurts magic (especially the effects which have been exposed) to some extent, this is not what I wrote in that post. I say that I don't want people see the special props SM is selling, and to remind them that we "always" use special props (because that's the stereotype - people "know" we use special props), and letting them know the kind of marvels magicians can invent and put to the market.

It's much worse if props, instead of techniques, are exposed. Because techniques are flexible, and you can add misdirection and presentation in order to mislead the public about your true methods. But a prop, no. At least, for some of them. For instance, if ProMystic products are exposed, then even if you do a which hand effect without this special prop, people will think you used that special tool. Presentation will never save you here. If people know about Vapr watch, presentation won't save you either, nothing can.

[quote]On May 31, 2017, magicmind wrote:
No one challenges unless it is provoked (talking down to spectator/I'm better than you attitude...etc.). [/quote]
Have you seen how I'm performing in front of an audience ? Anyway, that sentence of yours obviously is wrong. You can be entertaining and yet being challenged, by attention-seekers or those who don't like magic.

It's a fallacy to say it's 100% the fault of the performer everytime something goes wrong. There are people who don't like soccer, even if they see Ronaldo and Messi playing with the ball, that doesn't make them love soccer. Yet no one would say it's because they don't play well with the ball or their team play like a group of amateurs. [/quote]

What would it matter if people can google these effects then if your concern is not about them possibly losing effectiveness?

It's always the same with you, not making sense and then getting all butt hurt when someone doesn't agree with you, smh :P

Let me quote you, directly:

"My only (and big) issue is that people will now know him and know that he is affiliated with SansMinds, which frequently releases magic products. And by googling his name, anyone can find Vapr, Vapr watch and other tools from Will.

I mean... I really don't want to see non-magicians looking at what the products magic dealers are selling."

CLEARLY your post implies a concern about effects becoming ineffective if laypeople can google them and see that they products being sold, the alternative would be perhaps that you are afraid of people then going on to become magicians themselves? Makes you feel less special then? LoL. [/quote]


There have been more than a few articles about this that have come out the last few days that have links to SM products in them. It's almost like he is using AGT as a way to sell magic. I know that sounds like crazy talk and all...
Message: Posted by: Will Tsai (May 31, 2017 12:38PM)
Hi folks, old friends and new, it's Will here. Just got a moment to myself after a couple days of crazy press experience. I am super grateful that my act got such attention. I haven't had time to read through the thread. From what I have seen on the thread, some people like it, some people hate it. In both cases I am happy most were entertained either by the act or by the debate. I just want to say thank you for taking your time and allow me to share my moment with you. Quite a few PMed me and said I disgrace magic and I am not qualified to be a magician.. if I am allowed to chime in on the discussion as well, to me magic is magic. And magic is art. It's not what's involved that makes the magic, rather, the message behind the tricks that an artist wants to deliver. All the performance that I intended is in the patter. The visual was designed to assist. Art is an intimate thing for me. All I wanted to do on that stage is to share a part of the life experience from my past. How I saw life as it is when I was about to die in hospital bed a couple years ago. The chase of achievement, the way money comes and goes, and most of the time people, including myself forgot to take a moment, breathe, feel, and smile. Life is a beautiful thing... For those who stated that I am not a qualified magician or a bad magician.. I have never claimed to be good and I don't intend to. However, I was happy, that I could share a part of my life on that stage doing things I created to express just that.. Just want to leave the record here so for those who plan to message me further with how magic should be done, please understand each of us has a different story to tell, and different ways to tell them.

Just my two cents.

Best,
-will
Message: Posted by: davidredfearn (May 31, 2017 01:17PM)
Hi Will
some people said " Quite a few PMed me and said I disgrace magic and I am not qualified to be a magician "

That has to be the classic of all time even on here Unreal!! Half of the losers that purport to be magicians and professionals at that, would have given their families heirlooms to be in your position for a second.

You do know this I'm sure. Your magic and the attention it gained was spectacular, please ignore these deluded trolls.

Good Luck
DR
Message: Posted by: mh1001 (May 31, 2017 02:01PM)
Kissdadookie, once again, the "your post implies a concern about effects becoming ineffective if laypeople can google them" applies to your comment. And again, I did not say effect, I said props, and I explained that in my post clearly : some props aren't flexible and can't be camouflaged using presentation or skills. It's not like technique and creativity. If people know about DL, I think I can still fool them. The same can't be said for prediction watches; I know I will stop using mine. But I said that already. I will not pursue this pointless conversation.
Message: Posted by: entermagic (May 31, 2017 02:27PM)
[quote]On May 31, 2017, Will Tsai wrote:
Hi folks, old friends and new, it's Will here. Just got a moment to myself after a couple days of crazy press experience. I am super grateful that my act got such attention. I haven't had time to read through the thread. From what I have seen on the thread, some people like it, some people hate it. In both cases I am happy most were entertained either by the act or by the debate. I just want to say thank you for taking your time and allow me to share my moment with you. Quite a few PMed me and said I disgrace magic and I am not qualified to be a magician.. if I am allowed to chime in on the discussion as well, to me magic is magic. And magic is art. It's not what's involved that makes the magic, rather, the message behind the tricks that an artist wants to deliver. All the performance that I intended is in the patter. The visual was designed to assist. Art is an intimate thing for me. All I wanted to do on that stage is to share a part of the life experience from my past. How I saw life as it is when I was about to die in hospital bed a couple years ago. The chase of achievement, the way money comes and goes, and most of the time people, including myself forgot to take a moment, breathe, feel, and smile. Life is a beautiful thing... For those who stated that I am not a qualified magician or a bad magician.. I have never claimed to be good and I don't intend to. However, I was happy, that I could share a part of my life on that stage doing things I created to express just that.. Just want to leave the record here so for those who plan to message me further with how magic should be done, please understand each of us has a different story to tell, and different ways to tell them.

Just my two cents.

Best,
-will [/quote]

Hi Will,

I would never have thought that one day I would be so deceived. Congratulations,
your performance is excellent. For the first time after so long you made me feel the feeling
that every time the audience sees when they see a magic show. I did not even ask what the secret was,
I love this feeling you gave me.
Thanks and congratulations.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (May 31, 2017 02:37PM)
[quote]On May 31, 2017, mh1001 wrote:
Kissdadookie, once again, the "your post implies a concern about effects becoming ineffective if laypeople can google them" applies to your comment. And again, I did not say effect, I said props, and I explained that in my post clearly : some props aren't flexible and can't be camouflaged using presentation or skills. It's not like technique and creativity. If people know about DL, I think I can still fool them. The same can't be said for prediction watches; I know I will stop using mine. But I said that already. I will not pursue this pointless conversation. [/quote]

I direct replied and quoted your post. It's not my responsibility to make up excuses for what your own post implies. It also doesn't matter if it applies to effects or props because the end concern is the same. The end concern implied by your OP has only one of two directions to go:

1) Exposure (which DIRECTLY makes an effect no longer effective since it will no longer deceive)
2) You don't want more new magicians coming to be by starting down the magic rabbit hole through buying a trick they found through watching a magic performance on TV.

Again, YOUR post leaves no room for grandiose semantic interpretation that you are trying to demonstrate here (in essence, to try to dig yourself out of your own hole), why are you so butt hurt and quick to attack my post? You can read your post yourself (I mean, you posted it after all). I've already quoted your own words twice. If your post did not express what you actually wanted to express then that is on you which again comes back to why did you attack my post if the fault is with yourself and inability to properly express what you were trying to express and instead expressed something else entirely (which is what you're trying to imply here, but in all honesty this all simply feels and comes off as a quite convoluted way of back pedaling). Can go all day pointing this out over and over, so have at it hoss.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (May 31, 2017 02:40PM)
Shots fired, lol :)

*grabs popcorn*
Message: Posted by: tophatter (Jun 1, 2017 12:14AM)
Hello Will , "The Perfomance Was Outstanding" I can't wait to see what your going to do next ! Good Luck & God Bless .
Best,
Jeffrey
Message: Posted by: JonathanW (Jun 1, 2017 02:15AM)
Full video is up...

[youtube]G1VvHZ25j_k[/youtube]

---
Message: Posted by: reignofsound (Jun 1, 2017 03:31AM)
Well said Will!
Message: Posted by: MazingMandy (Jun 1, 2017 05:34AM)
You wanted to portray how money comes and goes? Perhaps you should have brought on some of the creators you've ripped off and have them speak on the subject...
Message: Posted by: MR Effecto (Jun 1, 2017 07:06AM)
[quote]On May 31, 2017, Will Tsai wrote:
Hi folks, old friends and new, it's Will here. Just got a moment to myself after a couple days of crazy press experience. I am super grateful that my act got such attention. I haven't had time to read through the thread. From what I have seen on the thread, some people like it, some people hate it. In both cases I am happy most were entertained either by the act or by the debate. I just want to say thank you for taking your time and allow me to share my moment with you. Quite a few PMed me and said I disgrace magic and I am not qualified to be a magician.. if I am allowed to chime in on the discussion as well, to me magic is magic. And magic is art. It's not what's involved that makes the magic, rather, the message behind the tricks that an artist wants to deliver. All the performance that I intended is in the patter. The visual was designed to assist. Art is an intimate thing for me. All I wanted to do on that stage is to share a part of the life experience from my past. How I saw life as it is when I was about to die in hospital bed a couple years ago. The chase of achievement, the way money comes and goes, and most of the time people, including myself forgot to take a moment, breathe, feel, and smile. Life is a beautiful thing... For those who stated that I am not a qualified magician or a bad magician.. I have never claimed to be good and I don't intend to. However, I was happy, that I could share a part of my life on that stage doing things I created to express just that.. Just want to leave the record here so for those who plan to message me further with how magic should be done, please understand each of us has a different story to tell, and different ways to tell them.

Just my two cents.

Best,
-will [/quote]


You did what most on here wish they can do. Great job Will. I thought the effect was badd ass. Killed them.
Message: Posted by: supertoad12 (Jun 1, 2017 08:08AM)
Finally got to watch it last night and I thought the magic was brilliant! A truly magical moment for our family. Well done Will!
Message: Posted by: Xcath1 (Jun 1, 2017 08:21AM)
Anything on his second appearance?
Message: Posted by: dooblehorn (Jun 1, 2017 12:34PM)
[quote]On May 31, 2017, Will Tsai wrote:
Hi folks, old friends and new, it's Will here. Just got...ways to tell them.

Just my two cents.

Best,
-will [/quote]

Well said...the performance was magical and amazing. I'm always just happy to see magicians on AGT. And in most cases, the ones on AGT are entertaining to watch and good performers. I had to watch Will's performance several times just because it was so astounding. I can imagine the timing involved with this performance was not nearly as easy as it looked. VERY Nicely done!
Message: Posted by: RayRannala (Jun 1, 2017 08:52PM)
[quote]On May 31, 2017, Will Tsai wrote:
Hi folks, old friends and new, it's Will here. Just got a moment to myself after a couple days of crazy press experience. I am super grateful that my act got such attention. I haven't had time to read through the thread. From what I have seen on the thread, some people like it, some people hate it. In both cases I am happy most were entertained either by the act or by the debate. I just want to say thank you for taking your time and allow me to share my moment with you. Quite a few PMed me and said I disgrace magic and I am not qualified to be a magician.. if I am allowed to chime in on the discussion as well, to me magic is magic. And magic is art. It's not what's involved that makes the magic, rather, the message behind the tricks that an artist wants to deliver. All the performance that I intended is in the patter. The visual was designed to assist. Art is an intimate thing for me. All I wanted to do on that stage is to share a part of the life experience from my past. How I saw life as it is when I was about to die in hospital bed a couple years ago. The chase of achievement, the way money comes and goes, and most of the time people, including myself forgot to take a moment, breathe, feel, and smile. Life is a beautiful thing... For those who stated that I am not a qualified magician or a bad magician.. I have never claimed to be good and I don't intend to. However, I was happy, that I could share a part of my life on that stage doing things I created to express just that.. Just want to leave the record here so for those who plan to message me further with how magic should be done, please understand each of us has a different story to tell, and different ways to tell them.


Just my two cents.

Best,
-will [/quote]

Will, I was in a room full of laymen and everybody was thoroughly entertained and baffled as was I. This was the closest to "real magic" I have ever seen. Please ignore the debate over sleight vs. mechanical method. It is the entertainment value that counts and nothing else! Bravo!!!!
Ray
Message: Posted by: Ben Blau (Jun 1, 2017 09:24PM)
I haven't read this thread, nor do I plan to. But I want to go on record as saying that there are literally thousands of years worth of traditional approaches to conjuring that consititute the cornerstone of the mystery arts. This tradition is something special, unique, and beautiful. I'm stating this as an opinion only, but I strongly disagree with the attitude of "only the effect" matters. The traditional approach to theatrical conjuring has been a constant catalyst for innovation, cleverness, and discovery. I personally don't want to see magic become a series of Technological special effects.

I voiced this on Facebook and was seriously flamed for it. I don't plan on defending or debating my opinion, so feel free to let this anger you as much as you wish. I'm writing this because I have so much love and respect for our unique tradition, and it's a viewpoint worth considering.

Ben
Message: Posted by: magicnorm (Jun 1, 2017 10:46PM)
Maybe we should call Marco Tempest and tell him to knock it off. Really, a debate over a magician doing his material on AGT. Whats to debate, he rocked a-- and should be congradulated for it.
Great job Will.

NM
Message: Posted by: Merenkov (Jun 1, 2017 11:02PM)
[quote]On Jun 1, 2017, Ben Blau wrote:
I haven't read this thread, nor do I plan to. But I want to go on record as saying...[/quote]
I haven't read your entire post, nor do I intend to. :) But I would bet money that you have no idea how Will Tsai performed his miracle, and that's all that matters...
Message: Posted by: Tim Cavendish (Jun 1, 2017 11:14PM)
[quote]On Jun 1, 2017, Merenkov wrote to Ben Blau:
But I would bet money that you have no idea how Will Tsai performed his miracle, and that's all that matters... [/quote]
Omar Pasha would take your money in an instant.
Message: Posted by: DJ Trix (Jun 2, 2017 04:30AM)
Will, don't allow peoples unresolved emotions to affect you. In these times people are trying to find resolve outside of themselves by engaging others in petty banter as they do not have the capacity to face themselves - the real work needs to be done within - as opposed to attempting to dismantle the power base of others who have the courage to follow their dreams. By putting yourself on the public stage unconscious individuals will use you as a target for their projections. Pay no mind to it.

I came to this thread for one reason. To say the following;

This is perhaps the most incredible piece of magic to have ever been shown on television. Ever.

I am so impressed that someone put this together. It is absolute genius. I send my sincere congratulations to you Will. I am so thrilled to see what you will share going forward. I am hooked to the show now. Thank you from my heart for inspiring me.

Warmest and kindest regards to all.
Message: Posted by: Tim Cavendish (Jun 2, 2017 11:03AM)
A player piano is a marvel of engineering.

But it doesn't belong in a talent contest.
Message: Posted by: SleepyMagic (Jun 2, 2017 11:06AM)
[quote]On Jun 2, 2017, Tim Cavendish wrote:
A player piano is a marvel of engineering.

But it doesn't belong in a talent contest. [/quote]
But the way a pianist uses it belongs in a talent competition...
Message: Posted by: Steven Conner (Jun 2, 2017 11:33AM)
[quote]On Jun 2, 2017, SleepyMagic wrote:
[quote]On Jun 2, 2017, Tim Cavendish wrote:
A player piano is a marvel of engineering.

But it doesn't belong in a talent contest. [/quote]
But the way a pianist uses it belongs in a talent competition... [/quote]

Your answer would indicate you do not know what a player piano is.
Message: Posted by: SleepyMagic (Jun 2, 2017 11:35AM)
[quote]On Jun 2, 2017, Steven Conner wrote:
[quote]On Jun 2, 2017, SleepyMagic wrote:
[quote]On Jun 2, 2017, Tim Cavendish wrote:
A player piano is a marvel of engineering.

But it doesn't belong in a talent contest. [/quote]
But the way a pianist uses it belongs in a talent competition... [/quote]

Your answer would indicate you do not know what a player piano is. [/quote]

isn't it just a piano...surely a pianist will be called a piano player not player piano
Message: Posted by: Steven Conner (Jun 2, 2017 11:46AM)
[quote]On Jun 2, 2017, SleepyMagic wrote:
[quote]On Jun 2, 2017, Steven Conner wrote:
[quote]On Jun 2, 2017, SleepyMagic wrote:
[quote]On Jun 2, 2017, Tim Cavendish wrote:
A player piano is a marvel of engineering.

But it doesn't belong in a talent contest. [/quote]
But the way a pianist uses it belongs in a talent competition... [/quote]

Your answer would indicate you do not know what a player piano is. [/quote]

isn't it just a piano...surely a pianist will be called a piano player not player piano [/quote]

No it isn't just a piano. It plays by itself.
Message: Posted by: drawfull (Jun 2, 2017 11:47AM)
[quote]On May 29, 2017, Merenkov wrote:
I’m puzzled by comments like, “The audience was entertained…but I doubt they were fooled.” I’ve been playing around with Matrix routines for 35 years, and I was completely fooled. The first time I saw Dean Dill perform his Explosion routine, the appearance of the final coins looked like trick photography to me. Perhaps Will has a tricky table, but is it mechanical or some type of digital surface? If mechanical, it’s an unfathomable marvel to me. If it’s digital, then he has to ditch those clearly physical coins in some fashion that is also unfathomable to me. Watch the video again, and look at the stunned faces of the judges and audience members. They were clearly, unambiguously, fooled…and entertained. [/quote]

That's what I got from it too. Thought process was, sleight, sleight, sleight, camera trick, camera trick, WTF!

For me, was I still doing magic, or indeed a matrix-type routine, I'd have left out the visible bits, I think, but it's a stunning matrix either way. Chad Long's matrix (Boston!) is still my favourite although I don't do it nowadays.
Message: Posted by: MeetMagicMike (Jun 2, 2017 09:19PM)
DJTrix wrote:

[quote]n these times people are trying to find resolve outside of themselves by engaging others in petty banter as they do not have the capacity to face themselves - the real work needs to be done within - as opposed to attempting to dismantle the power base of others who have the courage to follow their dreams. By putting yourself on the public stage unconscious individuals will use you as a target for their projections. Pay no mind to it.[/quote]

OR...They could just be people who have opinions that differ from yours.
Message: Posted by: SethHoward (Jun 2, 2017 11:15PM)
Reading this thread reminds me why I quit hanging out with other magicians. It was an amazing effect, that's the purpose if it.
Message: Posted by: rodc (Jun 2, 2017 11:33PM)
Ok, time to add my thoughts to one side of the debate. First off, I love when any magician is featured on tv. Because I love the art. I loved the trick right up to the point where the cover was removed. don't get me wrong, this is where people watching now have discard skill from their minds and ask themselves what is left to explain this. I have a pretty good idea how he did this trick. I prefer that cover, hand movements, props etc.. all add to the spectators thinking that it is the skill of the performer that is what is accomplishing any magic they see. Even though some illusions could never happen as ones sees it, no matter how skilled you are. There has to be a gimmick, trick table etc... to pull it off. but in my opinion it is still better when using a gimmick to give the impression that is was the magicians skill that accomplished it. I hate it, when the audience is forced into a corner with no explanation other than "ah he used a gaff, gimmick, trick table" that is not where a good performer takes people in my opinion.
Message: Posted by: Ado (Jun 2, 2017 11:47PM)
Thoughts:
1) I liked the matrix with cards.
2) I was wowed by the no-cards matrix, but the magician in me is reluctant to appreciate it, because it smacks of gimmicked table.

But then I thought: people use ITR to make stuff fly. How is it different from coins disappearing and reappearing? Not much. In both case it's a gimmick, and in both cases what's happening defies the laws of physics.

So, my new thoughts are:
1') I liked the matrix with cards.
2') Will set the bar high.
3) I will keep on making my magic strong so that even with SoH (which I fancy) I'll be able to leave at least similar impression on audiences who've seen Will's performance.

P!
Message: Posted by: videoman (Jun 3, 2017 12:10AM)
[quote]On Jun 2, 2017, Ado wrote:

3) I will keep on making my magic strong so that even with SoH (which I fancy) I'll be able to leave at least similar impression on audiences who've seen Will's performance.

[/quote]

But keep in mind Ado that when performing a Matrix routine on a stage in a large theater it is probably quite helpful to use some extra gimmickry to create a sense of wonder. Whereas, using only SOH but performing right under their noses can be extremely impactful as well. Don't underestimate how powerful an effect can be when presented live right in front of their faces. I would argue that I have witnessed many people absolutely freak out watching sponge balls appear in their hand even more so than anyone seeing Will's beautiful routine.
Message: Posted by: Doug Trouten (Jun 3, 2017 11:09AM)
Earlier in this thread, somebody suggested Will's performance was like a musician bringing a player piano to a talent competition. I would accept that analogy with these stipulations:

1. The musician designed and built the player piano himself.
2. The player piano was used to present an original arrangement by the musician.
3. The piece performed was a duet, requiring active participation by the musician throughout.
4. Nobody had ever seen a player piano before.
Message: Posted by: drawfull (Jun 3, 2017 11:49AM)
[quote]On Jun 3, 2017, videoman wrote:
[quote]On Jun 2, 2017, Ado wrote:

3) I will keep on making my magic strong so that even with SoH (which I fancy) I'll be able to leave at least similar impression on audiences who've seen Will's performance.

[/quote]

But keep in mind Ado that when performing a Matrix routine on a stage in a large theater it is probably quite helpful to use some extra gimmickry to create a sense of wonder. Whereas, using only SOH but performing right under their noses can be extremely impactful as well. Don't underestimate how powerful an effect can be when presented live right in front of their faces. I would argue that I have witnessed many people absolutely freak out watching sponge balls appear in their hand even more so than anyone seeing Will's beautiful routine. [/quote]

Will's was a good routine. But I agree with you. Anyone that hasn't seen Chad Long's version (loads of subtle **** going on) should check it out.

Those slagging this, in a way I see why, but what I don't see why is the positioning of the camera. Had it been head on, many wouldn't be discussing gimmicked tabletops (IMO)
Message: Posted by: SimonCard (Jun 3, 2017 11:50AM)
Just talking about the player piano thing, sounds to me it fits more in a science tech expo instead of a talent show.
Message: Posted by: mh1001 (Jun 3, 2017 12:02PM)
Rodc, just because sleight of hand is eliminated doesn't imply they will always suspect it's a gaff. Although the likelihood is greater. For instance, the bill in lemon effect immediately discards sleight of hand in spectator's mind, yet they don't think the fruit is gaffed or fake. Another example, card to wallet : people know you can't put the card inside that zip compartment within 2-3 seconds (while they don't even have evidence or feeling of you palming a card) with the wallet inside your pocket and they do not suspect there is a secret device or the wallet is gaffed. If you vanish a silk, and make it reappear inside a card box (using duplicates - and if you showed the box empty before switching it) which they open themselves, people surely won't think it's sleight of hand. It really depends on the effect. The working of some effects is so simple they don't take a lot of imagination (e.g., linking rings, levitation) but some effects would require a high level of imagination (e.g., Out to Lunch) to get it right.
Message: Posted by: Stunninger (Jun 3, 2017 03:44PM)
That was absolutely astonishing to watch! A truly beautiful and mystifying illusion.
Message: Posted by: Steven Conner (Jun 3, 2017 05:36PM)
[quote]On Jun 3, 2017, mh1001 wrote:
Rodc, just because sleight of hand is eliminated doesn't imply they will always suspect it's a gaff. Although the likelihood is greater. For instance, the bill in lemon effect immediately discards sleight of hand in spectator's mind, yet they don't think the fruit is gaffed or fake. Another example, card to wallet : people know you can't put the card inside that zip compartment within 2-3 seconds (while they don't even have evidence or feeling of you palming a card) with the wallet inside your pocket and they do not suspect there is a secret device or the wallet is gaffed. If you vanish a silk, and make it reappear inside a card box (using duplicates - and if you showed the box empty before switching it) which they open themselves, people surely won't think it's sleight of hand. It really depends on the effect. The working of some effects is so simple they don't take a lot of imagination (e.g., linking rings, levitation) but some effects would require a high level of imagination (e.g., Out to Lunch) to get it right. [/quote]

These are terrible illustrations of Will's Matrix. Look, the truth is, Will was very entertaining and there was that magical moment. I assure you all the hits he has had have produced a different mind thought than when they witnessed it. Much like David Blaine's levitation, magicians mind you were going nuts over a camera trick and the stooges. The effect is the same as David Copperfield performing one of his box illusions without the cloth so all could see what happens. A combination of SOH and his board would have been a lot more classie. Learn from the Masters and then inject your creativity and skills. Hollywood can produce/does the same thing.

Best

Steve
Message: Posted by: videoman (Jun 3, 2017 06:54PM)
Be interesting to see what he does next since you have to keep topping each previous performance. I assume he will stay within the realm of close-up magic but who knows.
But I think he has set the bar pretty high for himself since people and the judges will be expecting something more visual than the norm.
Message: Posted by: mh1001 (Jun 4, 2017 12:24AM)
Steven Conner, honestly, you should read more carefully when you're quoting someone, I noticed it's not the first time you misread me. Where did I say (or even suggest) it's an illustration of Will Tsai's matrix ? Can you quote that for me ? I will help you here, "just because sleight of hand is eliminated doesn't imply they will always suspect it's a gaff" : that was in the text you quoted.
Message: Posted by: Steven Conner (Jun 4, 2017 07:42AM)
MH1001, that wasn't a quote, so nothing was misspoken. If I'm not mistaken, this thread is about Will and his effect on AGT. So when one gives illustrations I just assume we're talking about the post. Anything we can use to enhance our performance of magic is great as long as nothing is given away. I don't believe I misread you, but what's with the illustrations if you're not making a reference.

Steve
Message: Posted by: bugjack (Jun 4, 2017 12:21PM)
[quote]On Jun 2, 2017, Tim Cavendish wrote:
A player piano is a marvel of engineering.

But it doesn't belong in a talent contest. [/quote]

Read about Conlon Nancarrow.

http://www.kylegann.com/index2.html
Message: Posted by: mh1001 (Jun 4, 2017 01:59PM)
Steven Conner, if so you shouldn't quote me. But since you did, it was logical for me to assume that your post was a response of the text you quoted. I was merely responding to Rodc, merely saying that it's untrue that if sleight of hand is dismissed, there is necessary nothing left but trick materials. Although I understand that in Will's situation, some people will think there is something going on with the table, because it's not too difficult to imagine, and by reading some comments on YouTube, I see some people seem to think that way.
Message: Posted by: Doug Trouten (Jun 4, 2017 08:24PM)
Bugjack -- Thanks for the link about Conlon Nancarrow. Fascinating and relevant.
Message: Posted by: Teddy Meagher (Jun 5, 2017 02:32AM)
The creator of the gimmicks for this routine did an amazing job, this is what I imagined real magic would look like
Message: Posted by: MNOiSY (Jun 5, 2017 04:38PM)
It was a great performance but the moments after the matrix style introduction were so over the top, it introduced too much doubt.

If he restrained it to two moves, the snap of all coins moving once and then the rose petals, it would have left much more mystery and room for interpretation. The only explanation you are left with for the second half of the trick, from both magicians and non-magicians, is it has to be a trick table.

Not to take away anything from this amazing performance, I just think in this case, in my opinion, less would have been more.

It definitely shows what is possible and his performance was flawless!
Message: Posted by: MagieLucas (Jun 5, 2017 05:59PM)
Loved this. will is very talented which is very good for us and for magic. very good trick.
Message: Posted by: MazingMandy (Jun 6, 2017 04:40AM)
I cant believe the people fawning over Will Tsai in this thread. The mind boggles. Very short memories.
Message: Posted by: BenHowardMagic (Jun 6, 2017 06:56AM)
This looked amazing, good job Will and team!

Ben
Message: Posted by: Dave the Knave (Jun 6, 2017 07:55AM)
[quote]On Jun 5, 2017, Teddy Meagher wrote:
The creator of the gimmicks for this routine did an amazing job, this is what I imagined real magic would look like [/quote]
Succinct and well-stated. Ben Blau has a cogent post a page or two back.

My perspective of the trick, as someone who's been a viewer and practitioner of magic for fifty-five years, is "It looks good." No more than that. Nothing visceral. Forty years ago it probably would have knocked my socks off...
Message: Posted by: terryisaacs (Jun 6, 2017 06:19PM)
[quote]On Jun 3, 2017, Doug Trouten wrote:
Earlier in this thread, somebody suggested Will's performance was like a musician bringing a player piano to a talent competition. I would accept that analogy with these stipulations:

1. The musician designed and built the player piano himself.
2. The player piano was used to present an original arrangement by the musician.
3. The piece performed was a duet, requiring active participation by the musician throughout.
4. Nobody had ever seen a player piano before. [/quote]

I'm going to agree with this thought. I think the act was fantastic and a great show of a creative mind. Really enjoyed it and hope he brings more like it.
Message: Posted by: Tim Cavendish (Jun 8, 2017 12:43PM)
FISM-winning manipulator Yu Ho Jin seems to view the trick table in the same category as camera tricks:

https://www.facebook.com/magicianYu/videos/1459265560810357/
Message: Posted by: Melies (Jun 9, 2017 02:18PM)
Doug, I completely agree with your addendum to the "player piano" metaphor!

Will, I loved hearing about the feeling behind the effect, because I think it helps explain why I found the routine so powerful. It wasn't just the visual transformations. It was the final transformation of the "hard stuff" of life into the ephemeral, fragile, soft, beautiful stuff of life. Coins into rose petals....And done precisely NOT as some "due deference" to the magician's skill at juggling, but as real magic--something impossible, alchemical.

I really think we magicians should stop thinking that audiences want or need to have the attention come back again and again to our "skill." (This is why I don't do flourishes when working with cards, and also why the Professor generally downplayed flourishes, I believe.) Personally, I would rather be thought of as a "metaphysician" than a "trickster."
Message: Posted by: Robert Houdin 78 (Jun 9, 2017 10:24PM)
Thank you Will for this GREAT magical performance on AGT!

R.
Message: Posted by: SleepyMagic (Jun 10, 2017 05:43AM)
To people saying that it isn't a good trick since the table does all the work...do you have the same view on all other gimmicks such as card and coin gimmicks?
Message: Posted by: Steven Conner (Jun 10, 2017 06:34AM)
[quote]On Jun 10, 2017, SleepyMagic wrote:
To people saying that it isn't a good trick since the table does all the work...do you have the same view on all other gimmicks such as card and coin gimmicks? [/quote]

If I pulled out a deck of cards and had someone pick a card, returned the card to the deck they just started shuffling themselves without me touching them, then it did a few fancy cuts and found my card, while this would look great, the magic is in the mechanics. Gimmicks are to enhance our skills not be robotic and watch.
Message: Posted by: ash2arani (Jun 10, 2017 06:48AM)
Magic-wise, it is amazing visual eye candy! The issue of table doing all work or not is irrelevant. We use gimmicks that do all the work all the time. However, the main issue which is also touched upon by Simon in the videos is the stage presence. Magic is not enough on its own. The performer needs to inject their personality and creativity to make it a full magical experience. It is easy to say but much harder to do. I am looking forward to Will taking his performance one notch up with both the magic and his stage presence.
Message: Posted by: MeetMagicMike (Jun 11, 2017 12:51AM)
[quote]To people saying that it isn't a good trick since the table does all the work...do you have the same view on all other gimmicks such as card and coin gimmicks?[/quote]

No, because they are not suspected when used properly.

Coin and cards are often understood and presented as demonstrations of skill. If a performer did an impressive multiplying balls routine and then set the balls on a table and they continued to multiply this would take away from the routine in that context.

The argument that this was really more of stage routine than a close-up one does hold weight with me. Stage routines are visual and often rely on machinery. The magician is in some ways more of a dancer who carries out choreography that suggests he is causing things to happen. Many people like stage routines but I never have. Will clearly made the right call for this venue. It's just not my cup of tea.
Message: Posted by: Joshua Barrett (Jun 11, 2017 01:00AM)
The table did all the work eh? I guess gimmicked tables such as these design and build themselves. A bunch of armchair quarterbacks around here.
Message: Posted by: MeetMagicMike (Jun 11, 2017 01:09AM)
I for one didn't say the table did all the work. And why the hostility toward anyone who didn't love this routine? (ie armchair quarterback comment). Isn't it possible that some people have differing opinions toward any given performance?

I love watching Brian Gillis or Bill Malone perform. I love Copperfield when the camera comes in close and he does sleight of hand but I don't love his stage stuff nearly as much.
Message: Posted by: Merenkov (Jun 11, 2017 11:02AM)
]On Jun 11, 2017, MeetMagicMike wrote:
[quote]Coin and cards are often understood and presented as demonstrations of skill. If a performer did an impressive multiplying balls routine and then set the balls on a table and they continued to multiply this would take away from the routine in that context.[/quote]
The whole point of magic is to create a moment of unexplainable astonishment, not provide a "demonstration of skill", which is more like juggling. Many of our our past masers, like Dai Vernon and John Ramsay, went to great lengths to hide their skill. John Carney, a current master, carries on this tradition. Most of what he does is pure sleight of hand, but he disguises his skill and the moment becomes even more magical. I love watching card mechanics like Richard Turner and Steve Forte demonstrate their skill, but they don't create magical moments for me. For the audience, the reaction is more "I wouldn't want to play cards with that guy", than a truly magical experience. By the way, the climax to a billiard ball routine you describe would elevate that trick to a moment of pure astonishment...
Message: Posted by: MeetMagicMike (Jun 11, 2017 11:50AM)
Merenkov,

[quote]The whole point of magic is to create a moment of unexplainable astonishment, not provide a "demonstration of skill"[/quote]

We, unfortunately perhaps, use the same word for both types of performance. When David Roth or Ricky Jay perform I see plenty of wonder. The audience understands that what they do takes hours of practice. When I see Gazzo do the cups and balls I never suspected he was dematerializing anything and I don't think that is the effect he is going for. Everyone knows that he is skilled and that does not detract from the effect. If he used a table thick enough to hold a watermelon THAT would detract from the effect even if he got a great visual appearance out of it.

Penn and Teller and Mac King have the biggest magic shows in Las Vegas and their skill is no secret to the audience. The audience knows they are being bamboozled not that they are seeing magical powers.
Message: Posted by: videoman (Jun 11, 2017 01:20PM)
Astonishment or skill, it's a matter of personal preference, both for the performer and the audience members. They both can be extremely entertaining and I think it's worth noting that audiences can be completely astonished by feats of pure skill. It could even be argued that skill can be more astonishing simply due to the fact that people can relate to it vs. something which is unexplainable.

But if each are done at the absolute highest level it all comes down to each spectators personal preference IMO.
This is kind of like arguing if juggling is better entertainment than magic. There is no definitive answer because it's subjective.
Message: Posted by: MikeLiu (Jun 11, 2017 03:48PM)
Pure eye candy :)

and willie is a nice guy and good friend too :)
Message: Posted by: hinter_e_p (Jun 12, 2017 03:20AM)
[quote]On May 28, 2017, JonathanW wrote:
I made a joke video about this, if anyone wants to see it. https://www.facebook.com/jonathan.wooten.94/posts/1905915896353204 It's public so those of you who don't have facebook can watch it :) [/quote]

Nice one, always nice to see that some magicians still have a sense of humour :-)
Message: Posted by: JonathanW (Jun 12, 2017 03:36AM)
[quote]On Jun 12, 2017, hinter_e_p wrote:
[quote]On May 28, 2017, JonathanW wrote:
I made a joke video about this, if anyone wants to see it. https://www.facebook.com/jonathan.wooten.94/posts/1905915896353204 It's public so those of you who don't have facebook can watch it :) [/quote]

Nice one, always nice to see that some magicians still have a sense of humour :-) [/quote]

Thanks ;) I have had so many mixed responses to this video. I have had people asking for a reveal of it hahaha. I also have had others mad it was a joke reveal and some thinking it was a real reveal((they didn't watch the video)) they were commenting or messaging saying that's not your routine! lol
Message: Posted by: hinter_e_p (Jun 12, 2017 04:25AM)
I saw it and it baffled me completely...
Still I'm not sure if I like it or not...
I mean, it is a great effect, super clean, fast, visual!
BUT
I think Will "overdid" it a bit.
During the coin matrix it still looked like some neat sleight of hand.
But then he did the same thing without cover, and hands-off the table (look mom, no hands!!)
That's the moment every magician watching got the idea that a very clever gimmick is used (in this case a nicely produced cover table)
But even more.
For most of the audience members and the people at home, the same idea comes up... It must have been the table...

Of course this DOES IN NO WAY CHANGE the way the effect looked! YES; it was absolutely amazing!!

All I say is that for most effects there should be a nice balance in people's heads between different questions, like:
"how did he do it?"
"Did he hide them in his hands?"
"Was he doing it so fast I could'nt see? it was only covered for half a second"
"These were normal coins right?"
"Maybe magnets?"


But because Will did this perfect performance, nearly all the questions are eliminatd...
No cover at all, not even "a fake misleading" cover
No possibility to hide them in the hands since he didn't touch them while "jumping"

So for the audience the only possibility left is, HE didn't do any sleight of hand, the table did the work (or even the coins...)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this might even take away some of the magic if people directly point at the table and say "ha, that's how he did it!"

I think it's a wondeful gimmick (which I don't know 100% how it works) and I would love to have one!!
But there are other techniques of using this, that don't give away so much...

Had he covered his actions only a little, he would even have fooled more magicians who believe in strong sleight of hand.
I absolutely love the use of gimmicks, but gimmicks should not be detected as such.

But this might be the same discussion as the one about "magic apps". As soon as they look like a special App, people don't believe anything, even if you pull an elephant out of your phone, people will say "it's that app, do it with my phone then!"
Message: Posted by: Joshua Barrett (Jun 12, 2017 09:47AM)
[quote]On Jun 11, 2017, MeetMagicMike wrote:
I for one didn't say the table did all the work. And why the hostility toward anyone who didn't love this routine? (ie armchair quarterback comment). Isn't it possible that some people have differing opinions toward any given performance?

I love watching Brian Gillis or Bill Malone perform. I love Copperfield when the camera comes in close and he does sleight of hand but I don't love his stage stuff nearly as much. [/quote]

I for one did not mention you. Perhaps taking your own advice would be in order, looking of the amount of responses you have made to others opinions, or is it only you that is allowed to have a contrary opinion?
Message: Posted by: MeetMagicMike (Jun 12, 2017 11:35AM)
Joshua Barrett wrote:

[quote]I for one did not mention you. Perhaps taking your own advice would be in order, looking of the amount of responses you have made to others opinions, or is it only you that is allowed to have a contrary opinion?[/quote]

It's hard to know exactly who you were referring in your first post because didn't quote anyone.

I don't have any problem with people stating their opinions and responding to comments so what is this about me not taking my own advice? I objected to comments like "armchair quarterback" and other ad hoc assertions about people who have any critique of this performance.

Each of my posts is in answer to a particular point made. I always quote the thing I am responding to and I always try to make my point clear and concise.
Message: Posted by: SimonCard (Jun 12, 2017 01:08PM)
I agree with Mike. Labeling people of different opinions is the fastest to terminate an intellectual discussion.
Message: Posted by: Martello (Jun 14, 2017 06:05AM)
In all honesty, I have scanned through this thread and am simply amazed and puzzled by the moronic issue of "Mechanics". Does anyone complain when a magician dances around an apparatus and places a girl inside only to vanish and appear in the back of the theater?Did anyone scream "apparatus" or "thread" when Blackstone floated his bulb? Do you really think the Zig Zag is plain box that was picked up at the local furniture store?
Get a life! This is magic. Anyway it can leave the viewer scratching his/her head has accomplished the task. This was great magic, plain and simple. If you must obsess with the way it was done, you are just that...."simple".

Arthur
Message: Posted by: MeetMagicMike (Jun 14, 2017 09:54AM)
I wrote:

[quote]I don't have any problem with people stating their opinions and responding to comments... I objected to comments like "armchair quarterback" and other ad hoc assertions about people who have any critique of this performance. [/quote]


SimonCard wrote:

[quote]labeling people of different opinions is the fastest way to terminate an intellectual discussion.[/quote]

And the very next post by Martello contained these words:

[quote]..moronic...Get a life!... you are...."simple".
[/quote]



:)
Message: Posted by: natmagic (Jun 15, 2017 12:51PM)
Lets see what he does next.
Message: Posted by: Dave the Knave (Jun 15, 2017 01:05PM)
[quote]On Jun 15, 2017, natmagic wrote:
Lets see what he does next. [/quote]
It's going to be an Ambitious Card routine using the new $15,000.00 "Hi-Teck Deck," soon to be available from SandMines.
Message: Posted by: martonikus (Jun 15, 2017 08:13PM)
I agree that the audience must conclude the effect has something to do with the table because it is "too perfect" to be anything else.

However, I totally don't agree that this matters!

I also don't think "exposure" is really harmful to magic.

Magic is the means, not the end. It is a medium in which to create humor with jokes or gags, or in which to communicate fantasies and emotions.

For me what matters most, by far, is performance. For me, Will's performance was good, but not quite great. He could have been more expressive and more clear about selling the story behind the illusion.

And the illusion was terrific.

I do agree that a crappy and unbelievable illusion is a huge drag on the impact of any performance.

But a convincing illusion supports a great performance EVEN IF THE AUDIENCE KNOWS THE SECRET.

That's my take.
Message: Posted by: martonikus (Jun 15, 2017 08:29PM)
One more point about all this.

We are "fooled" all the time by cell phones, microwave ovens, refrigerators etc. because most people have basically no idea how any of this really works.

Magic is not about "fooling" - it is about entertaining - by using illusions (effects) as a medium. Convincing illusions are much better than bad ones. But they are still just the medium - not the message.

Kudos to Will Tsai for creating an awesome illusion - and a pretty good performance to go with it.
Message: Posted by: themagician8 (Jun 19, 2017 04:50AM)
I've loved & performed magic for over 45 yrs., but have been "out of the loop" for quite a few. So forgive me if I sound odd.
But tell me when has it become "OK" to use Special FX, camera tricks,false edits & fake audiences in our art? I really don't want to speak badly of Will Tsai. He seems like a nice enough kid, and I know he sells magic for Sansmind. Tho I'm not clear if he invents the effects or not. So if he does, great.
BUT... what I saw on AGT was a guy on stage with a fake camera pointing at his hands as he pantomimed in sync to what was happening on a large screen above him. And that was a prerecorded, heavily edited, routine of camera tricks. And anyone who came away thinking it was sleight of hand or a "special table" should look at it again closely. His hands never even covered the coins at one point, and if you know anything about video editing, you could see there was no "mechanical table" in use. Nothing "flipped or spun" etc.
Simply lightning fast camera edits. There's another kid who does AMAZING things on youtube, like dropping out of his clothing & turning into a puddle of water! And if you don't think he's using fast camera edit FX, visit his youtube page and witness a whole page of "miracles" that use absolutely NO form of our Art of Magic, but instead camera FX. And there are 2 other TV magicians earning a good living doing the same thing... using edits, camera FX, scripted & fake "impromtu", astonishing miracles that could never be performed live with a REAL audience. Yeah, there are only but so many super fantastic miracles of magic to keep a TV audience amazed week after week and retain ratings. But C'mon!
I see it as becoming extremely damaging to our beloved Art. After witnessing "Jesus" FX of walking on water, flying over buildings, etc...
Audiences going to see an actual magician/illusionist perform live would becomed BORED FAST!
A real magician couldn't compete with these "Wizards of Special Camera FX"! And what really disappoints me is some of these fake TV guys are actually really GREAT live magicians! I went to one guy's show on Broadway years ago and he was FANTASTIC! Now he's a "God of Magic" to lay audiences, only he can DO most of those effects live for them. But alas, I guess he's a slave to ratings. And I remember it started many years ago when a very famous person did a statue vanish using a turntable camera trick, and also used a prerecorded video to escape from an imploding building. Later on, someone else "levitated" on a street corner about 4 ft. from the ground.
It might be argued by some, that this practice "keeps magicians on their toes", and "forces them to come up with greater miracles". Or so the "Masked Magician" likes to say as he cashes in on exposing tricks. And that's how I feel about this recent practice of Fake Magic on TV. (Is that an oxymoron?) It's just like it seems "Anything goes" as long as it produces a miracle for TV.
These TV Wonder Workers are also cashing in making a quick name, and a quicker buck for themselves.
But I truly feel it robs from our True Art of Magic. And it's gonna turn around and bite Magic in butt, and damage actual LIVE working magicians.
And eventually make audiences bored with watching them.
Not really trying to bad mouth anyone. It's just that I LOVE our ART. And I don't understand this new thing I see, and especially see others condoning it.
It's not our ART.
Message: Posted by: SleepyMagic (Jun 19, 2017 05:01AM)
I disagree.

I'm pretty sure that these talent shows are not allowed to have camera tricks when magicians perform. I know this because I applied once and it said in the terms that if you are a magician, you will not be allowed to "reveal tricks or use camera tricks of any sort".

Also, if it was a camera trick then why did he vanish the cards the way he did, he could have easily made vanishing the cards look better if he had used camera tricks.


Sleepy
Message: Posted by: themagician8 (Jun 19, 2017 05:15AM)
Maybe not THEIR cameras. Use your eyes.
Also punch in his name on Youtube, and hit subscribe. He does about 8 videos of effects that if you use your eyes, and especially COMMON SENSE... you can easily see they are all done with FX.
Message: Posted by: SleepyMagic (Jun 19, 2017 07:13AM)
Just because you don't know how an effect is done, does not mean it is done using FX.

Sleepy
Message: Posted by: mh1001 (Jun 19, 2017 08:45AM)
Themagician8, I think you lost some credibility when you say it must be camera trick. Let alone the fact you have absolutely no evidence at all. Also, using gimmicks is not the same as using special video effects. As has been said by several people here (including me), even a self working gimmick requires that you practice on your angles, naturalness of movement, and presentation (to make it believable - an effect which is too perfect is its own weakness).

Also, your second post is no less wrong. You're assuming that if an effect can be realized with the use of camera effects, then it must be done this way.

I can talk about the first months when I started magic, about 1.5 years ago, and I was using essentially self-working card tricks, especially those which are based on math principles, and sometimes people guessed right about that. They "knew" it's based on maths. So even if it's super duper easy, it's so wrong to think no work is required on your part.
Message: Posted by: MeetMagicMike (Jun 19, 2017 11:59AM)
Themagician8 wrote:

[quote]what I saw on AGT was a guy on stage with a fake camera pointing at his hands as he pantomimed in sync to what was happening on a large screen above him. And that was a prerecorded, heavily edited, routine of camera tricks. And anyone who came away thinking it was sleight of hand or a "special table" should look at it again closely.[/quote]

Yeah, I think Themagician8 is completely wrong about camera tricks being used. He's definitely wrong to be so sure.

Side note: If someone makes a 500 word post and you want to comment does it really make sense to quote the entire thing? In my opinion it makes things less clear rather than helping. Wouldn't it make more sense to just post the most relevant parts? There is something to be said for keeping things concise.
Message: Posted by: videoman (Jun 19, 2017 01:10PM)
[quote]On Jun 19, 2017, MeetMagicMike wrote:


Side note: If someone makes a 500 word post and you want to comment does it really make sense to quote the entire thing? In my opinion it makes things less clear rather than helping. Wouldn't it make more sense to just post the most relevant parts? There is something to be said for keeping things concise. [/quote]

That is my dream and I hope one day during my lifetime it will come to pass on a wide scale.
And a quick preview (proofread) wouldn't hurt either, but alas, things seem to be getting worse instead of better.
Oh well, I can still dream.
Message: Posted by: themagician8 (Jun 19, 2017 01:37PM)
There's "Hmm, not quite sure how that was done." And then offering some solution. Then there's watching an effect and knowing thru experience and COMMON SENSE, that it would be PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to do.

Watch this video and pay close attention to his pulling a picture from an iphone effect and other closeup effects.

https://youtu.be/x4LqL-CpNds

All these are done with fast edits.

Now, go to Will's Youtube channel and watch all of his effects. Here's a few:


https://youtu.be/dwia7eEyee8


https://youtu.be/ghEnqDkSUOM


How did Will turn a 9v battery into 2 AA with absolutely NO cover, no moves and just a "flick"? And watch the coin routine in slo-mo. Now search YouTube for a slo-mo version of his AGT coin effect. Ain't no table gimmack THAT fast. Even things like an appearing cane are caught in slo-mo.

But tearing apart Will Tsai's effect isn't my goal and especially WASN'T my question.
I was mainly talking about ALL of these fake TV FX used by Criss Angel, David Blaine, Michael Carbonarro ( who really disappointed me becsuse he didn't use these methods at first. And I really liked him.)

Just use your eyes, magical experience, deconstruction, but most of all... COMMON SENSE!



What these new guys are using isn't OUR ART. And I've seen a bunch of other magicians using these camera FX as well.
And this stuff is going to hurt LIVE MAGIC eventually.
Message: Posted by: SleepyMagic (Jun 19, 2017 02:01PM)
I can think up of a method for the battery trick but not the vanish of a card. Still doesn't mean they are fake.

Also, Michael carbonnarro doesn't use camera tricks.

Sleepy
Message: Posted by: TStone (Jun 19, 2017 02:09PM)
[quote]
What these new guys are using isn't OUR ART. And I've seen a bunch of other magicians using these camera FX as well.
And this stuff is going to hurt LIVE MAGIC eventually. [/quote]
There's no camera tricks being used in the AGT performance.
Message: Posted by: Slackerking (Jun 19, 2017 03:09PM)
Sorry magician8 but you're way off base. They don't allow camera tricks on AGT. You just come across as a grumpy curmudgeon who hasn't kept up with the field whether you are or not. Acts like this and all those other performers don't ruin magic for people. If anything they bring more eyes and interests to magic not the reverse. Some of those performers you derided are the reason I and so many others are into magic and love it. All you have to do is watch the audience reaction to know how unbelievably far off base you are. They were stunned en masse. As we're millions like me who watched on our sofas.
Message: Posted by: themagician8 (Jun 19, 2017 03:18PM)
"Audience" reactions are what you go by?
Do you actually think 75% of performers like Criss Angel are using REAL audience members? Nevermind. Keep practicing your backpalms. You'll be fine.
Message: Posted by: SleepyMagic (Jun 19, 2017 03:35PM)
[quote]On Jun 19, 2017, themagician8 wrote:
"Audience" reactions are what you go by?
Do you actually think 75% of performers like Criss Angel are using REAL audience members? Nevermind. Keep practicing your backpalms. You'll be fine.
[/quote]


No one is denying that Criss Angel uses actors. But this thread isn't about him.

AGT does NOT allow camera tricks for magic performances, and that is in their terms and conditions which they cannot go against.

Again, just because you can't explain am effect, doesn't mean it uses camera trickery.

Sleepy
Message: Posted by: themagician8 (Jun 19, 2017 04:14PM)
Then please, "enlighten" me...
How DOES in your opinion, Will Tsai changeand rearrange those coins with no cover. Or for that matter, vanish that card with rolled up sleeves 2 ft. away from his body or "split a battery into to without cover & just a flick?
And a "blanket statement" or "agreement" of "no camera tricks" means can mean nothing and be wirked around. Copoerfield did it with the Statue of Liberty. Angel eith walking on Water. No "camera tricks were used there per se. And Tsai didn't use camera tricks to perform that coin routine... at keast not using AGT's cameras!
I can reverse your statement and say just because you "think" you know (ie, high tech battery gaffs, Trap doors, laser beams etc.) Doesn't mean that YOU are right either. I have over 45 yrs of magic experience, and 58 yrs of COMMON SENSE to know how Tsai's effects are done.
And trust me, unlike you... there's no hero worship going on either.
Use your brain.
Message: Posted by: SleepyMagic (Jun 19, 2017 04:33PM)
[quote]On Jun 19, 2017, themagician8 wrote:
Then please, "enlighten" me...
How DOES in your opinion, Will Tsai changeand rearrange those coins with no cover. Or for that matter, vanish that card with rolled up sleeves 2 ft. away from his body or "split a battery into to without cover & just a flick?
And a "blanket statement" or "agreement" of "no camera tricks" means can mean nothing and be wirked around. Copoerfield did it with the Statue of Liberty. Angel eith walking on Water. No "camera tricks were used there per se. And Tsai didn't use camera tricks to perform that coin routine... at keast not using AGT's cameras!
I can reverse your statement and say just because you "think" you know (ie, high tech battery gaffs, Trap doors, laser beams etc.) Doesn't mean that YOU are right either. I have over 45 yrs of magic experience, and 58 yrs of COMMON SENSE to know how Tsai's effects are done.
And trust me, unlike you... there's no hero worship going on either.
Use your brain. [/quote]

I don't want to, in detail, discuss what I think Will is using for the coin work, however, I will say, think about a well known card gimmick applied to coins and using BA. Again, this is only speculation.

And I'll admit that I don't know how Will Tsai made that card vanish. But I also don't know how this effect was accomplished before I bought it:

https://youtu.be/4yhWTzNWTk8

The above effects looks exactly like a camera trick and I'm sure that you would have thought that as well if it wasnt for sale.

The battery one is too complicated to explain on here and I don't want to because it's such a great trick! But I'll give you hint, what was the need in him putting the battery on a deck of cards.


Will Tsai is just a creative guy and just because his effects look impressive, doesn't mean he's using camera tricks. For example, million dollar baby looked like a camera trick as well, but hey ho, it wasn't.

Sleepy
Message: Posted by: themagician8 (Jun 19, 2017 06:06PM)
I can see how that card effect might look like camera FX, but I can also realize how it's done. But there is also momentary COVER to achieve the effect. When Tsai's coin switch locations there IS no cover, and ehen they change to petals... no cover either. There isn't a table mechanism THAT fast on earth to switch, flip, mask those coins on the planet. Watch it in Slow motion. You'd see SOMETHING. And the table isn't a large tablet, because he actually places tge coins down, picks them up, and removes the petals with absolutely no kind if sleight move.
Watch again in slo-mo:

https://youtu.be/3tiML3htyZ0

Copperfield had a video camera trained on him locked in a safe as he stuggled to free himself before the building imploded from dynamite charges.
Jyst as he started to get out, the building blew up.
The video that played a continuous shot in the lower corner of the screen was a prerecorded video of him escaping.
The other camera was handheld by a cameraman running out of tge building I believe. David was out in seconds and just ran out a back door, as the audience THOUGHT they were watching him escape.
"Camera trick"? Technically no I guess.
But kind of. Same with Will.
That camera in front of him is filming nothing, and he just choreographs his hand motions to a video playing above which you THINK is him... but in reality is a prerecorded tape of him with stop/start camera edits.
I'm sorry if I sounded insulting before, it wasn't my intention.
But that's my story and I'm sticking to it until someone else can PROVE he's doing it thru other means.
Message: Posted by: SleepyMagic (Jun 19, 2017 06:09PM)
[quote]On Jun 19, 2017, themagician8 wrote:
I can see how that card effect might look like camera FX, but I can also realize how it's done. But there is also momentary COVER to achieve the effect. When Tsai's coin switch locations there IS no cover, and ehen they change to petals... no cover either. There isn't a table mechanism THAT fast on earth to switch, flip, mask those coins on the planet. Watch it in Slow motion. You'd see SOMETHING. And the table isn't a large tablet, because he actually places tge coins down, picks them up, and removes the petals with absolutely no kind if sleight move.
Watch again in slo-mo:

https://youtu.be/3tiML3htyZ0

Copperfield had a video camera trained on him locked in a safe as he stuggled to free himself before the building imploded from dynamite charges.
Jyst as he started to get out, the building blew up.
The video that played a continuous shot in the lower corner of the screen was a prerecorded video of him escaping.
The other camera was handheld by a cameraman running out of tge building I believe. David was out in seconds and just ran out a back door, as the audience THOUGHT they were watching him escape.
"Camera trick"? Technically no I guess.
But kind of. Same with Will.
That camera in front of him is filming nothing, and he just choreographs his hand motions to a video playing above which you THINK is him... but in reality is a prerecorded tape of him with stop/start camera edits.
I'm sorry if I sounded insulting before, it wasn't my intention.
But that's my story and I'm sticking to it until someone else can PROVE he's doing it thru other means. [/quote]

Again, IMO the table had nothing to do with it...just think about a classic card gimmick applied to coins and used with BA.

I'm tired of arguing a pointless argument that I will never win anyway.

Sleepy
Message: Posted by: themagician8 (Jun 19, 2017 06:10PM)
On THAT I can agree with you! 🤡

When I went to Frank Garcia's first school for magicians way back in th 70's
(A classmate was a young guy named Seth Kotkin. Google that name.) I used to SWEAR that the Broom Illusion was done with wires until one of the teachers Dick Brooks was going to sell me one out of the trunk of his car.

Ahh... to be young, stubborn & nieve!
Message: Posted by: Stperformer (Jun 19, 2017 06:44PM)
I have been on Got Talent 4 years ago and here's what I saw.

No camera tricks period. Earlier in the day I had a rehearsal and went over exactly what I would be doing...so the camera people knew exactly where to point and where NOT.

The same with everyone else...there are rehearsals and lots of editing for TV but there were no camera tricks as some of you are insinuating.

My experience :-)
Message: Posted by: SimonCard (Jun 20, 2017 10:09AM)
This is stage illusion not close up magic. It is similar to Copperfield' stage illusion in essence.
Message: Posted by: mavericklancer (Jun 20, 2017 11:24AM)
[quote]
Now search YouTube for a slo-mo version of his AGT coin effect. Ain't no table gimmack THAT fast.[/quote]
[quote]Then there's watching an effect and knowing thru experience and COMMON SENSE, that it would be PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to do. [/quote]

I'm more of a lurker these days, but I felt that I could offer some insight that I haven't seen these past 10 pages. As an automation and robotics engineer, I've come across many ways to make something move very fast. So fast that it wouldn't be caught by the relatively snail-like frame rate of a youtube video made from copying a television stream. To show that, let's take one of the simplest of those ways... a pulley system.

Some back of the envelope calculations... Ignore this part and skip to the bottom for the TL;DR version.

[quote]Let's assume we have a system with two pulleys (small and large) that ideally have no slip

d_small = 1.0"
d_large = 3.0"

A quick eyeball of with my own pulley system next to me shows a "quick tug" with my hand is about 10"/sec. Converting that to rotational speed of the small pulley:
RPM_small = 10"/sec x 1 rev/(pi*1.0") x 60sec/minute = 190.9 rpm

If the small pulley is turning at 190.9 rpm, the large pulley is turning at a higher velocity at a 3:1 ratio:
RPM_large = 572.9 rpm

The surface velocity of this large pulley is found:
Velocity_large = 572.9 rev/min x (1 min/60 sec) x (pi*3.0")/rev = 90"/sec[/quote]

The standard television/film frame rate is 24 - 30 frames per second. Assuming 30 fps, we can theoretically move something an entire 3" invisibly on film. Using only my hand and some pulleys. Using a motor turning 2400rpm, I could go exponentially faster and move "invisibly" exponentially farther. Just because something looks "IMPOSSIBLE" doesn't mean it is.

We see tons of things on a daily basis that move faster than our eyes can follow. Look at the wheel of a cruising bicycle. Chances are, the spokes are moving faster than you can see.

------------------

A few observations to consider when thinking about "camera tricks":

1) That table obviously isn't black just because it looks nice
2) That plant and those vines aren't there just because Will thought the set needed some extra greenery
3) The faster the productions come, the more the table shakes
4) Just because something looks like a petal or a coin doesn't mean it's not gaffed in some way
5) Just because you see 4 coins doesn't mean there are only 4 coins

---------

Even if we assume that the entire series was automated through a series of motors and programmed routines, he'd have to be absolutely flawless in this performance timing. Given the speed of the effect, I'd liken it to a perfectly executed dance routine.
Message: Posted by: JonathanW (Jun 20, 2017 04:36PM)
[quote]On Jun 20, 2017, mavericklancer wrote:
[quote]
Now search YouTube for a slo-mo version of his AGT coin effect. Ain't no table gimmack THAT fast.[/quote]
[quote]Then there's watching an effect and knowing thru experience and COMMON SENSE, that it would be PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to do. [/quote]

I'm more of a lurker these days, but I felt that I could offer some insight that I haven't seen these past 10 pages. As an automation and robotics engineer, I've come across many ways to make something move very fast. So fast that it wouldn't be caught by the relatively snail-like frame rate of a youtube video made from copying a television stream. To show that, let's take one of the simplest of those ways... a pulley system.

Some back of the envelope calculations... Ignore this part and skip to the bottom for the TL;DR version.

[quote]Let's assume we have a system with two pulleys (small and large) that ideally have no slip

d_small = 1.0"
d_large = 3.0"

A quick eyeball of with my own pulley system next to me shows a "quick tug" with my hand is about 10"/sec. Converting that to rotational speed of the small pulley:
RPM_small = 10"/sec x 1 rev/(pi*1.0") x 60sec/minute = 190.9 rpm

If the small pulley is turning at 190.9 rpm, the large pulley is turning at a higher velocity at a 3:1 ratio:
RPM_large = 572.9 rpm

The surface velocity of this large pulley is found:
Velocity_large = 572.9 rev/min x (1 min/60 sec) x (pi*3.0")/rev = 90"/sec[/quote]

The standard television/film frame rate is 24 - 30 frames per second. Assuming 30 fps, we can theoretically move something an entire 3" invisibly on film. Using only my hand and some pulleys. Using a motor turning 2400rpm, I could go exponentially faster and move "invisibly" exponentially farther. Just because something looks "IMPOSSIBLE" doesn't mean it is.

We see tons of things on a daily basis that move faster than our eyes can follow. Look at the wheel of a cruising bicycle. Chances are, the spokes are moving faster than you can see.

------------------

A few observations to consider when thinking about "camera tricks":

1) That table obviously isn't black just because it looks nice
2) That plant and those vines aren't there just because Will thought the set needed some extra greenery
3) The faster the productions come, the more the table shakes
4) Just because something looks like a petal or a coin doesn't mean it's not gaffed in some way
5) Just because you see 4 coins doesn't mean there are only 4 coins

---------

Even if we assume that the entire series was automated through a series of motors and programmed routines, he'd have to be absolutely flawless in this performance timing. Given the speed of the effect, I'd liken it to a perfectly executed dance routine. [/quote]


We need a thumbs up 100 times for this post! Though too bad half the magicians will keep crying camera tricks! -_-
Message: Posted by: TStone (Jun 20, 2017 10:36PM)
[quote]On Jun 19, 2017, themagician8 wrote:
Then please, "enlighten" me...
How DOES in your opinion, Will Tsai changeand rearrange those coins with no cover.
[/quote]
Are you trolling?
Why should anyone but Will Tsai publish Will Tsai's work?
If you are so poorly read that you can't get the broad strokes of the work in question, it is surely not the responsibility of anyone here to educate you, and certainly not by stealing material.
It would by silly to a self-destructive degree to use camera tricks in a piece that doesn't require it.
Message: Posted by: themagician8 (Jun 21, 2017 12:41PM)
Trolling? I was asking a bigger question than how Tsai did his coin routine. As a matter of fact, I never asked.
Message: Posted by: Ado (Jun 21, 2017 07:07PM)
[quote]On Jun 19, 2017, themagician8 wrote:
Then please, "enlighten" me...
How DOES in your opinion, Will Tsai changeand rearrange those coins with no cover.[/quote]

You seem to be assuming they are the same coins. If they aren't, then there is much, much less motion that needs to happen. Suppose (and I'm not saying that's how it's done) that you had a sort of flipper coin (or a mouse trap). Then you'd need to move only *half* a coin to cover or expose something the size of a whole coin. That isn't much, and that can happen faster than a FPS of a TV camera can record it.

P!
Message: Posted by: robd (Jun 22, 2017 07:41AM)
Classic magic Café thread this. CLASSIC.
Message: Posted by: Craigers (Jun 22, 2017 03:03PM)
[quote]On Jun 20, 2017, mavericklancer wrote:
[quote]
Now search YouTube for a slo-mo version of his AGT coin effect. Ain't no table gimmack THAT fast.[/quote]
[quote]Then there's watching an effect and knowing thru experience and COMMON SENSE, that it would be PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to do. [/quote]

I'm more of a lurker these days, but I felt that I could offer some insight that I haven't seen these past 10 pages. As an automation and robotics engineer, I've come across many ways to make something move very fast. So fast that it wouldn't be caught by the relatively snail-like frame rate of a youtube video made from copying a television stream. To show that, let's take one of the simplest of those ways... a pulley system.

Some back of the envelope calculations... Ignore this part and skip to the bottom for the TL;DR version.

[quote]Let's assume we have a system with two pulleys (small and large) that ideally have no slip

d_small = 1.0"
d_large = 3.0"

A quick eyeball of with my own pulley system next to me shows a "quick tug" with my hand is about 10"/sec. Converting that to rotational speed of the small pulley:
RPM_small = 10"/sec x 1 rev/(pi*1.0") x 60sec/minute = 190.9 rpm

If the small pulley is turning at 190.9 rpm, the large pulley is turning at a higher velocity at a 3:1 ratio:
RPM_large = 572.9 rpm

The surface velocity of this large pulley is found:
Velocity_large = 572.9 rev/min x (1 min/60 sec) x (pi*3.0")/rev = 90"/sec[/quote]

The standard television/film frame rate is 24 - 30 frames per second. Assuming 30 fps, we can theoretically move something an entire 3" invisibly on film. Using only my hand and some pulleys. Using a motor turning 2400rpm, I could go exponentially faster and move "invisibly" exponentially farther. Just because something looks "IMPOSSIBLE" doesn't mean it is.

We see tons of things on a daily basis that move faster than our eyes can follow. Look at the wheel of a cruising bicycle. Chances are, the spokes are moving faster than you can see.

------------------

A few observations to consider when thinking about "camera tricks":

1) That table obviously isn't black just because it looks nice
2) That plant and those vines aren't there just because Will thought the set needed some extra greenery
3) The faster the productions come, the more the table shakes
4) Just because something looks like a petal or a coin doesn't mean it's not gaffed in some way
5) Just because you see 4 coins doesn't mean there are only 4 coins

---------

Even if we assume that the entire series was automated through a series of motors and programmed routines, he'd have to be absolutely flawless in this performance timing. Given the speed of the effect, I'd liken it to a perfectly executed dance routine. [/quote]

This must be post of the year on the Forum
Message: Posted by: SimonCard (Jun 24, 2017 10:53AM)
I just saw a video of this effect being completely recreated. Not sure if the method is the same, but the effect is exactly the same.
Message: Posted by: robd (Jun 26, 2017 06:29AM)
"A quick eyeball of with my own pulley system next to me shows a "quick tug" with my hand is about 10"/sec"
Message: Posted by: orchid666 (Jun 26, 2017 06:44AM)
I can't even believe this thread has gone so far! Mostly, I love the comments about 'Not being qualified to be a magician'!!! Since when was there a qualification for magic!!!???

To be honest, I have never been a fan of SansMinds or some of Will Tsai's past behaviour,and have never bought an S.M item for that reason, BUT.. I did enjoy Wills routine and was very entertained by it.
The method really does not matter, but I'm surprised by the pulleys, gears etc guessing game! It sounds like a layman desperatly making ridiculous guesses coz they feel like they've been made to look small in front of their friends on a night out!!!!!!
I'm not familiar with some of the names on this thread that are bickering the most. Please tell me they're not working proffesionals with a jealous streak?1
Hmmmmmm
KX
Message: Posted by: MeetMagicMike (Jun 26, 2017 10:53AM)
Orchid666 wrote:

[quote]...It sounds like a layman desperatly making ridiculous guesses coz they feel like they've been made to look small in front of their friends on a night out!!!!!!
I'm not familiar with some of the names on this thread that are bickering the most. Please tell me they're not working proffesionals with a jealous streak?1 [/quote]

themagician8 created a side discussion with his accusation that there was camera trickery. He's pretty much alone but this caused some people to try to hint or explain to him some viable methods.

All of that is quite apart from the discussion about whether or not he should have shown the coins moving with no cover.

It's odd that some people on this thread seem to think the only valid reaction to Will Tsai's performance is "That was great". Anything else results in insinuations of jealousy etc.

David Blain and Chris Angel have been enormously successful on TV. Does that mean critical comments about what they do are always the result of jealousy or some such thing?

(My position is that some critical comments are valid and some aren't. They should be discussed on their merit and not lumped together. It would help if people actually quoted the comments they are commenting on rather than making broad ad hoc statements)
Message: Posted by: mavericklancer (Jun 26, 2017 03:34PM)
[quote]On Jun 26, 2017, robd wrote:
"A quick eyeball of with my own pulley system next to me shows a "quick tug" with my hand is about 10"/sec" [/quote]

I'm an engineer. My current project uses a pulley and belt system with an integrated linear encoder. Those black ribbons on the left side are magnetic tape scales for the encoders. See image below. I was able to give a "quick tug" with my hand a few times and the instantaneous velocity readouts were around 10"/sec.

Do you have something interesting on this point to contribute, or were you trying to be facetious?

[i]Edit: A Café user has kindly PM'd me, telling me that any image I post will be subject to someone saying that I pulled it off of google. Here's an image with me and the pulley system.[/i]

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v373/dbzpred/IMG_4621.jpg[/img]
Message: Posted by: natmagic (Jun 29, 2017 02:12AM)
The routine looks awesome.
The audience loved it as did the judges
This can't be overlooked from an entertainment perspective.

Will Tsai unfortunately, can be replaced by anyone who has rehearsed with the table.
I am in two minds if this is good or bad for magic long term.

Same discussion can be raised on the majority of pre recorded TV magic relying on the medium and its processes to create the impossible. Non of which can be re-created live. Its sadly a much easier route for any face that fits to become a magician winging it on camera these days.

This routine is just 'one' heavily gimmicked routine, the bar is now set so high visually, I believe he would struggle to present a sleight of hand routine to compete with this cgi style magic without more heavily gimmicked items doing the majority of the work.



Interested to see what he does next.
Message: Posted by: Doug Trouten (Jun 29, 2017 04:57AM)
The idea that Will can be replaced by anyone who rehearsed with his props is interesting. Could the same not be said about much of what passes for stage illusion today? So often what we see is the "magician" gesturing theatrically while assistants and props create the effect. David Copperfield didn't stick the Statue of Liberty up his sleeve. From some of the comments on this thread, you'd think AGT was a sleight of hand contest. Will's job was to entertain the audience and get enough judge's votes to move on to the next round. Mission accomplished.
Message: Posted by: Stucky (Jun 29, 2017 05:42AM)
[quote]On Jun 26, 2017, mavericklancer wrote:
[quote]On Jun 26, 2017, robd wrote:
"A quick eyeball of with my own pulley system next to me shows a "quick tug" with my hand is about 10"/sec" [/quote]

I'm an engineer. My current project uses a pulley and belt system with an integrated linear encoder. Those black ribbons on the left side are magnetic tape scales for the encoders. See image below. I was able to give a "quick tug" with my hand a few times and the instantaneous velocity readouts were around 10"/sec.

Do you have something interesting on this point to contribute, or were you trying to be facetious?

[i]Edit: A Café user has kindly PM'd me, telling me that any image I post will be subject to someone saying that I pulled it off of google. Here's an image with me and the pulley system.[/i]

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v373/dbzpred/IMG_4621.jpg[/img] [/quote]

[img]https://media.giphy.com/media/3o7qDSOvfaCO9b3MlO/giphy.gif[/img]
Message: Posted by: Ceierry (Jun 29, 2017 05:51AM)
Still a trick tho' ..
Message: Posted by: natmagic (Jun 29, 2017 08:38PM)
[quote]On Jun 29, 2017, Doug Trouten wrote:
The idea that Will can be replaced by anyone who rehearsed with his props is interesting. Could the same not be said about much of what passes for stage illusion today? So often what we see is the "magician" gesturing theatrically while assistants and props create the effect. David Copperfield didn't stick the Statue of Liberty up his sleeve. From some of the comments on this thread, you'd think AGT was a sleight of hand contest. Will's job was to entertain the audience and get enough judge's votes to move on to the next round. Mission accomplished. [/quote]


Yes essentially true, that is why I believe a balance is needed to present a performer to an audience as a fully rounded artist. Nothing against 'machines and gimmicks' to assist magic, I just feel it shouldn't be the front runner of choices because its the easiest route.
David Copperfield may use 'equipment' to assist him but his presentations are thought out and rehearsed to the finest detail. He also demonstrates obvious skill to his audiences to balance the 'props' as such by including more skillful material. For example Grandpas aces, mislead etc etc.

I'm not a fan of the hand waving performers either, they appear to be one step away from Airport ground staff to me :)
Message: Posted by: Doug Trouten (Jun 29, 2017 08:52PM)
I like the "airport ground staff" comparison! The new season of "Masters of Illusion" starts airing tomorrow, and they always have an act or two where the magician could easily be pictured holding a couple of those signal flashlights.
Message: Posted by: Micheal Leath (Jun 30, 2017 04:52PM)
Found this about Will's performance on Youtube.

https://youtu.be/_dSp_f0f9gE
Message: Posted by: Dave the Knave (Jun 30, 2017 09:26PM)
[quote]On Jun 30, 2017, Micheal Leath wrote:
Found this about Will's performance on Youtube.

https://youtu.be/_dSp_f0f9gE [/quote]
That's a good find. Substantially more entertaining then Will Tsai's Mechanical Matrix, to boot.
Message: Posted by: MeetMagicMike (Jun 30, 2017 09:41PM)
That Quick D video is very well done and entertaining. He makes a lot of good points. I wasn't convinced that Will Tsai's internet video were video effects by the couple of examples brought up in this thread but Quick D seems pretty sure.

However I would question why he would point out the thick table and vines covering the performer's foot and then later confidently say the it was video effects. I'm still on the side that there was no video manipulation but he sure has muddied the waters.
Message: Posted by: Micheal Leath (Jun 30, 2017 09:52PM)
I think he is saying that the video effects cover up the mechanics of the table.
Message: Posted by: CardWiz (Jun 30, 2017 11:32PM)
I agree, kind of like when a mentalist fools a volunteer and an audience differently with the same trick, the audience is fooled with this incredible table that is cleaned up for TV.
Message: Posted by: robd (Jul 4, 2017 05:08AM)
[quote]On Jun 26, 2017, mavericklancer wrote:
[quote]On Jun 26, 2017, robd wrote:
"A quick eyeball of with my own pulley system next to me shows a "quick tug" with my hand is about 10"/sec" [/quote]

I'm an engineer. My current project uses a pulley and belt system with an integrated linear encoder. Those black ribbons on the left side are magnetic tape scales for the encoders. See image below. I was able to give a "quick tug" with my hand a few times and the instantaneous velocity readouts were around 10"/sec.

Do you have something interesting on this point to contribute, or were you trying to be facetious?

[i]Edit: A Café user has kindly PM'd me, telling me that any image I post will be subject to someone saying that I pulled it off of google. Here's an image with me and the pulley system.[/i]

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v373/dbzpred/IMG_4621.jpg[/img] [/quote]


Merely being facetious. I didn't doubt for a moment that you had a pulley system next to you btw.
Message: Posted by: vannma (Jul 5, 2017 11:31AM)
In relation to this post check this out:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/magician-tsai-america-got-talent-090111680.html
Message: Posted by: lynnef (Jul 12, 2017 08:12PM)
Enjoyable topic here! We wouldn't have been fooled by the centuries-old well in the table. All Mr Tsai has done is to bring the effects (coins across/matrix) up to the 21st century. I'm betting that he could do a classic routine if he wanted; but then IMO it wouldn't have had the impact as a 'stage effect' as someone else mentioned. I just hope he is able to keep performing before a live audience (ie rather than camera edits). Lynn
Message: Posted by: technologhee (Aug 5, 2017 10:41PM)
The "quick D" video broke this trick for me. In the same way catching one DL ruins a night of card magic for a layman, the smallest use of visual after effects ruins this for me.
Message: Posted by: Steven Conner (Aug 9, 2017 07:27PM)
Both magicians cut last night.
Message: Posted by: Mindpro (Aug 10, 2017 06:38AM)
Seems this thread has gone awfully quiet. Much can be learned from his last performance. Not sure how this was supposed to "step it up a notch" as far as being impressive and for the judges/audience.

A great example of a performer only being as good as their last performance.
Message: Posted by: MR Effecto (Aug 10, 2017 07:40AM)
I thought the kid was really good. Will Tsai was just really bad.
Message: Posted by: Doug Trouten (Aug 10, 2017 09:23AM)
My mind was considerably less blown by Will's latest appearance. It was very difficult to see the effect, and I think that hurt a great deal. Will's first appearance was perfect for television, and really made the most of that environment. This most recent appearance seemed to suffer from bad lighting and camera shot choice.
Message: Posted by: Alex DLF (Aug 10, 2017 10:48AM)
Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVqJMPfBuYA
Message: Posted by: mh1001 (Aug 10, 2017 12:20PM)
I don't understand what all these guys are saying by "I don't understand what happened". Well, there are lot of visual effects "fire, ice, smoke, etc...". For me, it was easy to see what's going on, it's a ritual for resurrecting a fish. I can understand however why most people seem to enjoy the first performance more, because it's richer, more things were happening. With this performance, there was only one effect, the appearance of a fish (camera angles probably didn't help), while the purpose of the fire, ice, smoke, ... was to assist this effect.
Message: Posted by: Doug Trouten (Aug 10, 2017 01:41PM)
I understood that a fish appeared -- or, more precisely, that a piece of ice was transformed into a fish. Everything else seemed like window dressing. The black background beneath the glass bowl made it very difficult to see the fish appear, and the timing of the camera cuts meant that the television audience missed the moment of magic. It apparently wasn't any better live, since the judges also seemed confused about what happened. Sad to see magicians cut, but I guess that's the nature of the show.
Message: Posted by: Mindpro (Aug 10, 2017 02:36PM)
Yes, it is.

I think there is much to learn from this appearance. First, I applaud Will for his efforts. One of the things I am seeing more and more of is exactly what happened here. He essentially performed closeup in a stage setting. It played very small - the smoke, the goldfish, the eye...it was just to small and compact for the AGT stage, the cameras and both the studio and at home audiences. It's sad to think after weeks of pre-production that was the best they could get from this. If this was the idea of producers or consultants, they should be shot for such poor advice.

I still don't get why closeup guys try to perform on stage at AGT? It plays poorly, rarely gets the response needed from the audience and judge (other than maybe a single initial audition where the stakes are less) and then gets them ousted relatively quickly. Even Mat Franco still struggles with this nightly in Las Vegas. Closeup is designed for closeup and stage for larger audiences. They don't always adapt easily and effective.

And again, one after another closeup guys with "Heidi, will you sign the card you've just selected..." Really? To the audience much of this is just more of the same. Sure it may appear in a playing card one time, a pop-tart another and in someone's something another time, but essentially it is all the same thing.

As performers we must play to the medium, and I think this last performance fell victim to that.
Message: Posted by: magicnorm (Aug 10, 2017 03:53PM)
Did not Matt Franco win on AGT and doing close-up mostly. Seems close-up can be delivered on a big stage with use of big screens to enhance. Copperfield, Alain Choquette and others have used close-up in shows for years. Every show is a learning experience, Wil walks from this taking what needs adjusting and hopefully returns.

NM
Message: Posted by: mh1001 (Aug 10, 2017 03:59PM)
[quote]On Aug 10, 2017, Doug Trouten wrote:
The black background beneath the glass bowl made it very difficult to see the fish appear, and the timing of the camera cuts meant that the television audience missed the moment of magic.[/quote]

Yes, I also agreed on that. But it's different to say that his performance wasn't nice at all or that is hard to follow. It's the most important element, the appearance of the fish, that wasn't "visual" enough.

Mindpro, I somewhat agree with you. That boy was kind of boring. Nothing original in what he is doing. Good sleights, indeed, but that's not enough. Many others were just like that. Yet Will Tsai did something I've never seen, in his two performances. We must applaud him for that. Still, I believe that if presented well, even a close-up act can play well on stage. I think Will's act played well on stage. I just didn't like the camera shot when the fish appeared and the camera cut after his eye changed (his right hand seemed to hold something but because of the cut we don't see what just happened).
Message: Posted by: Mindpro (Aug 10, 2017 04:44PM)
[quote]On Aug 10, 2017, magicnorm wrote:
Did not Matt Franco win on AGT and doing close-up mostly.[/quote]

Yes, I stated that as well as him still struggling with it as well. Mat won because of his personality and likability first (always most important first - doesn't matter how skilled you are if you do not connect with the audience first). He was an entertainer not just a magician. Two different things.


[quote]On Aug 10, 2017, mh1001 wrote:
Mindpro, I somewhat agree with you. That boy was kind of boring. Nothing original in what he is doing. Good sleights, indeed, but that's not enough. Many others were just like that. Yet Will Tsai did something I've never seen, in his two performances. We must applaud him for that. Still, I believe that if presented well, even a close-up act can play well on stage. I think Will's act played well on stage. I just didn't like the camera shot when the fish appeared and the camera cut after his eye changed (his right hand seemed to hold something but because of the cut we don't see what just happened). [/quote]

Yes the kid was good for a 15 year old. Good personality, decent skills but a kid isn't going to win unless it is very special and unique like Jackie Evanco, and even then, there is no place in Vegas for a kid. She capitalized on it with PACs to sustain her AGT momentum rather than Vegas.

The problem with Will is in a closeup situation HE creates the impact, which is what creates the response in the audience/judges. However, on a large medium like AGT the impact was controlled and created with TECH - projection for those in the house and camera coverage and production for the home viewer. Much of that impact was lost and out of his control. Efforts could have been better spent creating or adapting some of his closeup to play larger that could play well on its on on stage and for the medium. That is exactly what I meant when I said "play to the medium."

Still kudos to Will and as I said orignally many lessons to be learned here for other performers or possible AGT candidates.
Message: Posted by: Ba Ba Booey (Aug 11, 2017 10:00AM)
Hmmmm, perhaps Will should have stuck with camera tricks and made a shark appear from his hands into a large tank. Or not. Glad there are a few more magicians left to watch.
Message: Posted by: Magic KL (Aug 11, 2017 02:32PM)
I am a bit disappointed as well. The cameraman definitely made the effect worse.
Message: Posted by: glowball (Sep 22, 2017 07:42PM)
I am an old charity show magician.
Just now stumbled onto this thread and want to add my 2 cents:
When I first saw Will's matrix routine I thought "Oh my gosh, I want that table! Even if I never performed with it! Kinda like wanting Ken Klosterman's light and heavy chest, or the Mona Lisa.

I also had the exact same thoughts as MH1001 about it being too perfect and wished he had stayed with card cover or hand cover matrix then I would be left wondering "was this mechanical or was this some great sleight of hand method never seen before"?
My emotions are mixed on this because I'm also glad he did it the way he did so I can sleep at night knowing it was mechanical and/or electronic, but I still try to dream how it was done. That being said it will remain one of 5 or 6 most memorable effects that I enjoyed the most when it happened.

The first was the dental dam trick that Al Cohen called "Pop".
The second was Mark Wilson doing the Zig Zag illusion on TV.
The third was Peter Tappan doing his floating metal cube high into the audience.
The fourth was David Copperfield doing his Flying Illusion.
The fifth was Daniel Garcia doing his "Torn" card illusion.
And now the sixth is Will Tsai doing his Coin Matrix.

Will, thank you so much for this!
Nothing but love.
Message: Posted by: glowball (Oct 3, 2017 05:08PM)
Cardwiz posted:
"I agree, kind of like when a mentalist fools a volunteer and an audience differently with the same trick, the audience is fooled with this incredible table that is cleaned up for TV."

Good post Cardwiz. Kinda like David Blaine's first TV special levitation effect.

This puts a damper on my enthusiasm for his coin matrix, however I would still like to own his table.
Message: Posted by: Upperstrange (Jul 15, 2018 01:17AM)
Now guys take a look at this Instagram link :- https://www.instagram.com/p/Bgql88Mn1Xo/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=1wln0xcql4595
And also this :- https://www.instagram.com/p/BgIfLQflitg/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=11aclu3z2ywqv
This is a guy named Raffi kazama. He somehow managed to build the same with a regular black piece of clothing and no table hiding anything. So I don't think there's anything to do with the table. The performance was indeed legit!