|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 | ||||||||||
Blair Marshall Inner circle Montreal, Canada 3660 Posts |
RE: chuck Jones - that is where I saw the one with the sliding panel. Thanks for the reference.
RE: The "Little Stink House" - Spreer may have originated the Bamberg version, but it differs from the Mummy Case. Blair
Visit My Facebook Fan Page At
www.Facebook.com/BlairMarshallMontrealMagician www.BlairMarshall.ca www.ShaZzamShow.com www.MontrealMagicien.com |
|||||||||
Sealegs Inner circle The UK, Portsmouth 2596 Posts |
Illusionman2... thanks for the Genii reference for the 'Door Production'. There are a couple of things that puzzle me about this additional 'see through' sliding door/cutout. What does it add other than allowing for the 'movement' of the person to be produced to be from; inside to the side... rather than from inside to the back? If that's the only difference I'm not sure if it adds anything other than an extra unnecessary (and to my mind needed) door... or if I'm missing something?!!
It seems to me that if the 'movement of the person to be produced was designed for movement from; inside rearwards, the illusion would look exactly the same to an audience making the additional door and blind superfluous. The only slight difference regarding practicality that I can see is that by moving to the side rather than the back it very slightly improves the angle issues and allows for the cabinet to be positioned a little bit further downstage. This seems like a very small gain for the extra palaver of extra doors and blinds. But as I said... I might be missing something so obvious I can't see it. But by way of example example... the clip in the OP... I assumed this worked on an; inside to rear movement... (hence my comment that the glass sliding sheet seemed redundant).... however maybe the glass sheet was actually being used with a blind and the prop actually does have an; inside to the side, design.... but it achieves the same result as it if didn't work this way. Either way it's all very interesting rand thanks again for the reference..
Neal Austin
"The golden rule is that there are no golden rules." G.B. Shaw |
|||||||||
Blair Marshall Inner circle Montreal, Canada 3660 Posts |
In your original clip the sliding door does not seem to add anything to the presentation (to the method yes), that I agree. In the Mummy Case the inner doors are supposed to be covered with writing, and then you open them to reveal an actually mummy. To me being able to turn the unit completely around with the doors open is an added kicker (it does not JUST improve the angles). I had thought that in the clip you posted that there might have been a "flash" appearance sort of effect when I saw that it was a clear panel he was pulling back. Sadly it wasn't
Blair
Visit My Facebook Fan Page At
www.Facebook.com/BlairMarshallMontrealMagician www.BlairMarshall.ca www.ShaZzamShow.com www.MontrealMagicien.com |
|||||||||
jay leslie V.I.P. Southern California 9498 Posts |
Other methods:
I have a similar but different illusion on the loft that could be called a Daylight Shadow Box. It was made in 35 by a Kenny Woodword. The rear panel works like a mummy case but all the sides are solid. You can spin it, open it, swivel it, close it and the assistant appears. I've never seen another one of these in plans or in person.
Jay Leslie
www.TheHouseOfEnchantment.com |
|||||||||
illusionman2 Special user 991 Posts |
Quote:
On Jun 5, 2015, Blair Marshall wrote: Yes-Yes- with the Chuck Jones sliding panel method there is surposts to be a flash appearance of the girl (with the front door still open) like in the Phantom Cage illusion. |
|||||||||
Sealegs Inner circle The UK, Portsmouth 2596 Posts |
Blair and Illusionman2, A flash appearance would certainly create a difference in the effect as seen by the audience. Interestingly Chuck Jones' doesn't use the blind in this way at all. It's simply there (as far as I can see) to allow for the method to be sideways moving rather than rearwards moving (with regard to the person being produced... I'm trying to keep some kind of vagueness with my description as this is a public forum)
Neal Austin
"The golden rule is that there are no golden rules." G.B. Shaw |
|||||||||
illusionman2 Special user 991 Posts |
Quote:
On Jun 6, 2015, Sealegs wrote: Thanks I will have to find my copy and reread thanks again |
|||||||||
illusionman2 Special user 991 Posts |
Quote:
On Jun 6, 2015, Sealegs wrote: Sealeg you are right, I reread the article - the flash appearance was not part of the Chuck Jones' illusion so I claim the flash appearance as mine (no copies please). |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Grand illusion » » Can you identify this basic production illusion? (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 < |