|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 | ||||||||||
videoman Inner circle 6750 Posts 
|
I go back and forth on the whole blade thing. I know some magicians are adamant about it "making sense", but are they only fooling themselves?
Do the specs really care? Perhaps they do but I'm not convinced of it. And as proven by Noel M, they often still don't understand anyway. After all, Noel is a magician who watched the video several times and the sword handling only bothered and confused him. Not to mention that there is no realism portrayed during the "cutting" anyway. The victim's head and feet should move upwards somewhat during the cutting, let alone some facial expressions and moans and groans, etc. And what about the strength and force required to actually slice a body in that way? Does the audience really believe the girl is being sliced? Or are magicians just appeasing themselves? Maybe it gives some ever so slight justification to the dividing in thirds, but couldn't a magician just magically divide a person? Is that breaking some "magic law"? Personally in this illusion I think the whole sword part of the routine is just boring dead time. I'm not an illusionist but I think I'd rather just make a gesture toward the box and have some flash string burn down where the swords would be and then get to the crux of the matter. It's the pulling the middle box up and the other convincers that make the effect and are what folks will remember and hopefully talk about. Why go the through all the hassle and rigamarole of trying to pretend you are actually slicing her when it's likely that nobody really cares anyway except for maybe a few magicians in the audience. In my opinion it's like any other aspect of an illusion, if you stage it right and perform it right, then who is gonna care? After all, if you can make them believe that such a goofy, contrived, and unorthodox way of slicing someone into thirds really does work, then you should just as easily be able to make them believe that you can slice a person by magic. Maybe I'm all alone in this thinking. Whatch y'all think? |
|||||||||
Noel M Loyal user San Rafael. CA 208 Posts
|
I think having a little knowledge for me was the source of my confusion. Pushing the blade through is so common in illusions that I expected to see it and when I saw something else I was thrown. I'm not sure lay people would think the same say. Perhaps if it were demonstrated that the swords appeared to be sharp but I'm just guessing. I wasn't exactly sure if her mid section was lifted or vanished but that's probably the difference between seeing it live and YouTube on an iPhone. I think that the overall effect is quite remarkable and these little points of discussion would not diminish it at all in the eyes of any audience.
When I saw the original video I had no idea how it was done but after about 3 or 4 pages of discussion I have a general idea but absent that, and even with what ever knowledge I may have, I was amazed. My coments are a result of repeated viewing and reading other comments. |
|||||||||
Ray Pierce Inner circle Los Angeles, CA 2604 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2011-08-02 00:49, videoman wrote: Some of this is a presentational issue. I think we all know that this was presented by the builders to show us the prop and see what it does... not necessarily a formulated "routine". When I go to buy a piano, I don't need the builder to play something for me... I just want to see it and hear how it sounds. I'm not there to critique his ability as a musician. I'm somewhat concerned with making sense but more concerned with telling a good story. There is frequently dramatic license we take to make a story more exciting that doesn't keep it in an entirely logical path. Quote:
Not to mention that there is no realism portrayed during the "cutting" anyway. The victim's head and feet should move upwards somewhat during the cutting, let alone some facial expressions and moans and groans, etc. And what about the strength and force required to actually slice a body in that way? Does the audience really believe the girl is being sliced? Or are magicians just appeasing themselves? This discussion should be with Jim Steinmeyer on Modern Art. Is it realistic that as the box slides over we "get" that the body went past the blade? We can indeed debate this and I have some feelings on it as well but it is not an issue exclusive to this prop. Quote:
Maybe it gives some ever so slight justification to the dividing in thirds, but couldn't a magician just magically divide a person? Is that breaking some "magic law"? Personally in this illusion I think the whole sword part of the routine is just boring dead time. Why do we have assistants roll a prop on stage? Couldn't we just magically cause the prop to come on stage? For that matter why do we even have to show up? Couldn't we just sit at home and cause the show to happen from there? I personally think many card tricks are boring and a waste of time... but again, it is the story tellers craft that can bring them to life. I will not debate the presentation of this effect as I honestly don't believe the video was posted to show what great performers they were (although they are better than at least half of what I've seen on youtube!). Quote:
I'm not an illusionist but I think I'd rather just make a gesture toward the box and have some flash string burn down where the swords would be and then get to the crux of the matter. It's the pulling the middle box up and the other convincers that make the effect and are what folks will remember and hopefully talk about. Why go the through all the hassle and rigamarole of trying to pretend you are actually slicing her when it's likely that nobody really cares anyway except for maybe a few magicians in the audience. In my opinion it's like any other aspect of an illusion, if you stage it right and perform it right, then who is gonna care? After all, if you can make them believe that such a goofy, contrived, and unorthodox way of slicing someone into thirds really does work, then you should just as easily be able to make them believe that you can slice a person by magic. I actually tend to agree with you for my taste and performance style, but if you buy the prop... you can do it that way! That's the beauty of magic!
Ray Pierce
|
|||||||||
|
videoman Inner circle 6750 Posts
|
I did not mean to limit my thoughts on this exclusively to this prop or the performance in the video, it just happened to be the one closest at hand. I was speaking in general terms. I understand the builders were just doing a basic walk-thru for demo purposes.
But I feel the same way about Modern Art. Seems Jim felt it necessary to make some sense of how the person gets divided in that illusion, but my question is if that is really necessary or are we as magicians just basing that on tradition. After years of debate in my own mind I have come to the conclusion that it is not necessary just for sake of believability, but of course if it adds to the story or drama, or even to the amazement factor, then by all means go for it. I just question doing it because you feel it must be done. IMO, in this particular illusion (InCisi-Vision) I definitely got the impression the designers included the swords for the sake of completeness, not that it was necessary or added anything to the effect. I always felt the same about Modern Art, in fact, I always thought it was unlike Steinmeyer, who is almost always very independent in his thinking, to feel it necessary to include a hokey and unbelievable "cutting" aspect in this otherwise fine illusion. It seemed beneath him. But you are right, that is a discussion for another time. Thanks for sharing your thoughts Ray. I wholeheartedly admit that I may be dead wrong about this issue and am genuinely interested in hearing other magician's viewpoints. |
|||||||||
|
markmiller Special user 731 Posts
|
Since this is so overdone, wouldn't it be great to put the Snowstorm aside and work on some lesser done, or even some - non-cliche unknown to modern audiences - type items? Here's a novel idea, maybe we should all work on effects that we've never seen anyone else do. Books are full of new discoveries waiting to be unveiled.
|
|||||||||
|
markmiller Special user 731 Posts
|
Whoops, this ended up for some reason on this thread instead of the one below... Guess I'll repost.
|
|||||||||
ClintonMagus Inner circle Southwestern Southeast 3997 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2011-08-02 14:09, videoman wrote: I disagree. I think that the blade is the thing in Modern Art that makes the effect plausible and understandable. Without the blade, it's just someone pushing the top of the magician's body to the side. When I built mine, I even made the blade longer so that I could show that it was wider than the table. I personally do not care for the one-man versions of this illusion, because I really think it needs an "outside force" of some sort to effect the cutting. With Incisi-Vision, I didn't understand how the blades were being used until I read the post above. I appreciate you sharing that with us.
Things are more like they are today than they've ever been before...
|
|||||||||
|
magic patagonia Special user 570 Posts
|
||||||||||
Michael late New user 54 Posts
|
How I can watch the video?
many greetings mike |
|||||||||
|
Rudy Sanchez Special user 907 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2011-10-30 14:50, Michael late wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lygzqbfghY
www.cesaral.com
Sales Manager for Cesaral Magic |
|||||||||
M.Frymus Loyal user Oakville, Ontario, Canada! 293 Posts
|
That was cool. I didn't like the whole cloth thing. seems totally pointless. Cant you just put your hand through? And it would also be cool if the box that moves up had a door in the front to show her middle body... Can that be added? And, yes.. the boxes are a bit large. Would look nicer if it was just large enough for the assistant.
MICHAEL FRYMUS
Director of Photography WEBSITE: michaelfrymus.com 289.795.4195 Filmming worldwide Email: dop-michaelfrymus@live.com |
|||||||||
|
M.Frymus Loyal user Oakville, Ontario, Canada! 293 Posts
|
That was cool. I didn't like the whole cloth thing. seems totally pointless. Cant you just put your hand through? And it would also be cool if the box that moves up had a door in the front to show her middle body... Can that be added? And, yes.. the boxes are a bit large. Would look nicer if it was just large enough for the assistant.
MICHAEL FRYMUS
Director of Photography WEBSITE: michaelfrymus.com 289.795.4195 Filmming worldwide Email: dop-michaelfrymus@live.com |
|||||||||
Chad Sanborn Inner circle my fingers hurt from typing, 2205 Posts
|
Well Im not crazy about either version. (Pavlov or Tora) Especially in the Tora version, you can see the gimmick sliding into place as the middle section is lifted. Or at least that what it looks like to me. I don't like the bulky size of the Pavlov table. That box is huge compared to the small area the illusion is created in. The Tora box is better in this aspect. Which also makes it a bit more portable. The bad part about them both, is that they don't create a deceptive illusion. While admittedly I am not sure of the exact optics at work, I am not fooled because I still know that a certain gimmick is involved. And to a layman watching that's all that counts.
I think this appeals to magicians because its very clever and takes an old optical principle in a different direction they haven't seen before. But it seems to me to be based on the periscope principle, which was used in Horace Goldins illusion 'Seeing thru a Hindu'. I think the Goldin version is preferable because the optics happen on a smaller scale and seem a bit more deceptive in the course of the larger routine he created for it. |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Grand illusion » » InCisi-Vision (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 | ||||||||||
Posted: Aug 2, 2011 04:49 am 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.04 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
|
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < 
|