|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 | ||||||||||
reignofsound Inner circle Glasgow, UK 2199 Posts |
Defo not for me.
|
|||||||||
Kbuck54 Veteran user 343 Posts |
Kind of like Phy, Surgery for those that remember.
Keith
SHAZAM!
|
|||||||||
nattefrost Special user 703 Posts |
With all due respect to all who is involved with this effect, it seems to me that one of the four magicians, Eric Ross, contradicts what is said by Mike (Insight), who seems to be relaying what Caleb mentioned to him. (that these other magicians had positive comments). I admit that I have a ton of Eric's effects and that I am a big fan of his, but it kind of gets a little blurry when someone says that someone ELSE said that yet ANOTHER person gave positive feedback on an effect. Unless I am wrong, it looks like Eric Ross did not say anything positive about the actual effect itself, because he just said it a few posts back. so I'm wondering about the other 3 magician's "positive comments"- it would be nice to hear what they have to say. Maybe it was just some mis-communication or something like that. But what about the effect itself in which it states "THE SPECTATOR CAN RUN THEIR FINGER ACROSS THE CARD"?
|
|||||||||
geraldk New user California 41 Posts |
Astrocity- Thanks for the feedback! Yes, it does need a gimmick.
Insight- Thanks for the feedback as well! When I said that Caleb has had positive comments from those magicians, I did not mean to imply they say or said that it is the best card through window, but yes it is easy to perform. Nattefrost- Not speaking for Eric Ross and maybe he wants to come back and clarify, but he could have given Caleb positive feedback on his trick without endorsing it, recommending it or using it. Like he said "to each his own" I'm sure he was nice to Caleb, even if he personally does not care for it. As for the other magicians on the list, I don't know how they feel either, as I have not personally talked to them. Here is the quote Bill Abbott said: "yes, interesting take on the trick." I left it as it was written on Twitter as not to put words in anyone's mouth. That sounds positive to me, but I am not leaping to the conclusions that Bill Abbott thinks it is the best card thru window he as ever seen. |
|||||||||
geraldk New user California 41 Posts |
Quote:
On Jun 5, 2014, nattefrost wrote: It does not state that. |
|||||||||
nattefrost Special user 703 Posts |
Sorry, I meant it says the spectator can even touch the glass, which should mean that they can touch the glass where the card is. I hope that does not mean they can touch the glass anywhere but not where the card is, what would the point of that be?
|
|||||||||
Sean Giles Inner circle Cambridge/ UK 3517 Posts |
Quote:
On Jun 7, 2014, nattefrost wrote: You are right and there would be no point. It's a BS language ploy to make it seem better than it is without directly lying. And I'd hardly categorise Bill Abbots comment as an endorsement, or even positive. He said it's an 'interesting take' which sounds like a polite way of saying it's crap to me. |
|||||||||
Bill Hegbli Eternal Order Fort Wayne, Indiana 22797 Posts |
Quote:
On Jun 7, 2014, nattefrost wrote: No, it should not mean that they can touch the glass where the card is! You may want it to mean that, but it does not, sorry. In the vending machine demo, didn't the person touch the glass? Yes he did. Why are you making assumptions and adding what you want it to say, and not what it actually says? What I believe is a complete lie or misrepresentation if the statement, "beautiful cascade". If that clump is beautiful, then what is ugly. LOL The so called pull through looks horrible as well. The $500 dollar version is still the best to date. |
|||||||||
magic_tony Loyal user 277 Posts |
Bill, I disagree. This is the exact wording of the advert:
"You knock on the card and even have the spectator feel the glass!" This gives the clear impression they can feel the glass where the card is. It is not stated directly, but it DOES give that impression - especially since it is said directly after the magician knocks on the card. If somebody magically makes a playing card penetrate through and stick to the other side of a window, would they say "it's on the other side, (as he taps the window directly over the card), touch the window yourself right down there in the corner!"? Of course not. If the spectator is going to want to touch the window, it will be where the card is. This is why they inclused that glass feeling bit where they did in the sentence. This is an example of what I call self-cancelling tricks. The magician appears to do something impossible, but then inexplicably 'reverses' what he has just done. It's a bit like the old gag of putting something under a box or a hat and saying 'it's vanished'. Then without lifting the hat for proof, you say 'now it's back' as you do lift the hat. To most people, it is clear that the magician does this simply because what he claims to have done will not bear examination. Sometimes some clever presentational idea can help to justify the magician's actions in reversing the effect, but a lot of the time not. In this case the magician claims the card has gone through the window, offers a weak visual convincer, then proceeds to reverse the effect. This leaves but one conclusion in the spectators mind: 'the card was just stuck to the window'. With tricks such as the bill switch, changing a $100 bill back to a $1 bill doesn't make sense, but the illusion of the change and cleaness of the effect is extremely convincing which helps to sell the trick. For this card thru window, for it to be even remotely convincing the card stuck to the window would need to be completely and perfectly flat against it to prevent even the slightest shadow being cast. You also have light reflection to contend with etc. I highly doubt any reasonably intellgent person would be convinced for a second that the card is behind the glass. |
|||||||||
MR Effecto Inner circle 2836 Posts |
No matter what it says. Stay away from this.Its really miss leading. Just look at the demo. There nothing in the demo that would make me want to buy this.
|
|||||||||
nattefrost Special user 703 Posts |
Bill, I see what you are saying about the spectator touching the glass. So I guess it means that the spectator can touch the glass or window to make sure there's actually glass there in the window or vending machine? I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but if that is what it means ( spectator knocking on vending machine after effect is over) then that is a horrible way to describe the effect. Anyone who reads the description where it says the spectator can touch the glass they are going to think they can touch it where the magic is happening. So yes, that IS what I want it to mean, what in the world else should it mean? Card goes through glass, spectator can touch the glass. It's a slap in the face to say you can touch the glass to make sure it it just there or whatever-you know when you're standing there that the glass is there. If the description says the card goes through the glass ,and the spectator can touch the glass, then you better believe it should mean to touch it where the card is.
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Latest and Greatest? » » Pulled Through (3 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.02 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 < |