|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7 [Next] | ||||||||||
Paul Hughes Regular user UK 123 Posts |
Hmmm. This is a tricky one - I don't own COSMOS - I did try but there were problems with the server... Anyway. I understand James W's point, but surely listing a bunch of conditions and then accompanying it with a video preporting to be the effect that doesn't match the conditions is a little "off". Is it not akin to David Blaine describing an impromptu levitation (ie Balducci) and then showing demo footage of the "rigged" full body levitation?
I understand Greg needs to protect the method, and was honest in saying the demo was cut so as not to expose the method - but if its the case the demo doesn't actually match the criteria that's a tough one. Tough call - maybe it would've been better without the video and judged just on the effect alone? |
|||||||||
irishguy Special user Ohio 629 Posts |
A question for those who have this:
If an unedited demo would tip the method to magicians, how likely is it that an intelligent and observant layman would figure out the method after a performance? |
|||||||||
James Watkins Elite user 412 Posts |
Hi Paul, I agree with what you said, but a member above has said that ALL conditions are met, except one.. So I don't think buyers have anything to worry about I guess a few more reviews wouldn't hurt..
Later, James |
|||||||||
pegasus Eternal Order United Kingdom 10537 Posts |
Well I have spent some time practising Cosmos since I purchased it (first customer) and performed it this afternoon at work with a borrowed deck. Now I am no card professional, but it got an unbelievable reaction. I had a large audience and no one noticed a thing. Everyone was gobsmacked. With the correct patter and smoothness in the handling it is perfect.
Put yourself in the spectators seat. The last thing they see is a completely shuffled random deck that has been handled only by the specs and you just push the cards forward randomly to the left or right. The only negative IMO is the 2 person restriction, and the way they must be seated in relation to you. 9.9 out of 10 |
|||||||||
Greg Arce Inner circle 6732 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-04-11 17:25, irishguy wrote: Hate to chime in here, but this point is not valid. You as a magician know about an Elmsley count so you see another magician do a new adaptation of some effect... you immediately know it's an Elmsley... do you think the spectators have that same knowledge. To be even more specific, you know the original workings of OOTW so do you think any reasonable spectator will look at it and say, "Oh, I get it, he's just pulling out the *** ones first then..." Just a thought. Greg
One of my favorite quotes: "A critic is a legless man who teaches running."
|
|||||||||
Scott F. Guinn Inner circle "Great Scott!" aka "Palms of Putty" & "Poof Daddy G" 6586 Posts |
To answer Larry's request, I am a well-read magician with over twenty years' experience, and my review follows.
I have mixed feelings about Cosmos. Regarding the question as to whether a spectator could figure it out, I would say no, unless you were being either very careless or too studied from lack of practice. Cosmos is, as you all know, a version of Curry's Out of this World. There have been a lot of versions of this effect out there. This is a good one and worth learning, particularly if you don't have a version you're already doing. It's definitly a good version. Is it the "best" version? No, not in my opinion. There are other versions out there using a borrowed and/or freely shuffled deck that are, IMO, every bit as good. There are other versions out there that use the same or very similar method as the 2nd version (Tom Ladshaw's springs immediately to mind). The method for the first version is an old Ed Marlo idea that has been applied to this and many other effects. The s***** of p****** at the end has also been around, or at least methods that are very close, by Doug Edwards and others. One thing I didn't care for in this version is that the magi has to pull off each card and push it to one spectator or the other. Of necessity, this often means that one spectator gets a lot more cards than the other spectator does (unless you do the entire deck). In fact, on the video, the female spectator even commented to this effect. Yes, it can be covered by patter, but a very observant spectator could very well be suspicious of this. I personally prefer versions where the spectator does the dealing (JK Hartman, Aldo Colombini and others have versions with this feature). I am not trying to be harsh here. I am being honest. I paid my $20 for a copy of this like everyone else who bought it. I'm not saying this version sucks and you shouldn't get it. No, as I stated earlier, this is a good routine, combining a number of clever ideas. So it comes down to this: is it worth the asking price? Well, I can't speak for others, but for me, I would have to say no. Again, for someone who doesn't already know a version or versions of this, it may well be. Greg states several times in the video and here at The Café that he gets tremendous response from this routine, and I don't doubt it. However, you will get tremendous response from practically any version of OOTW out there. I have my own version of OOTW, based on Hartman's with a kicker by JC Wagner. I get KILLER reactions from it. I included it in a book of my card effects. And I guess that's where the rubber meets the road for me on this effect. In a book or video collection of other effects for $20-30 I'd say it was well worth it. On its own DVD, with written instructions or a "bare bones" practice outline included, for $15-20 I'd say it was worth it. As a download, where there are no manufacturing costs or shipping costs (and I speak as a person who sells or has sold both hard copies and downloads as well as a DVD), I would say it is too expensive for what you get. I would put the price point more around $10. But that's me, and Greg has every right to sell this for whatever he sees fit. I'm just saying that for me, it was too expensive and didn't show me anything new regarding the effect. Keep in mind, though, that I have a library of around 1500 books and 500 videos/DVDs of magic, I've been doing it for a while and have known or corresponded with some of the all-time greats. So I may well be better informed than the average magician. Bottom line: In my opinion, if you don't already know a bit about this effect, Greg's version is very good. You will be able to perform it and you will get great reactions from it. You have to decide if it's worth $20 to you. If you hav been around a while and already have a version with which you are happy, you probably will be disappointed with this routine at this price. Remember, this review is simply my personal opinion. Some of you may well feel that this is the best version of this effect ever, and for you, $20 may seem cheap. Btw-- Just for clarification, I said "no manufacturing costs." I misspoke. I meant limited costs, compared to making say a DVD, where an actual hard copy has to be replicated, cased, and a sleeve with graphic art made, etc, and then shipped, etc. I am well aware that there was an initial cost to make the video and get it and the website set up to sell it.
"Love God, laugh more, spend more time with the ones you love, play with children, do good to those in need, and eat more ice cream. There is more to life than magic tricks." - Scott F. Guinn
My Lybrary Page |
|||||||||
roya Loyal user Seattle 211 Posts |
Scott, you mentioned some parts of the routine I was trying not to discuss. (Trying not to tip the secret).
But now that it's out there: Quote:
One thing I didn't care for in this version is that the magi has to pull off each card and push it to one spectator or the other. Of necessity, this often means that one spectator gets a lot more cards than the other spectator does (unless you do the entire deck). In fact, on the video, the female spectator even commented to this effect This part is just BAD. It looks more than suspicious. On his way home, a smart spectator will be able to figure out what was going there... |
|||||||||
Scott F. Guinn Inner circle "Great Scott!" aka "Palms of Putty" & "Poof Daddy G" 6586 Posts |
I think my staement was ambiguous enough that only those who already know the basic method ot OOTW effects would understand it.
"Love God, laugh more, spend more time with the ones you love, play with children, do good to those in need, and eat more ice cream. There is more to life than magic tricks." - Scott F. Guinn
My Lybrary Page |
|||||||||
roya Loyal user Seattle 211 Posts |
Scott, since you have about 2000% more experience than I do:
Are you telling me, that in the last 20 years you never had a spectator coming to you after seeing the original OOTW with a pretty good understanding of the method used? I had 1 (The guy is a genius, but still). |
|||||||||
Larry Barnowsky Inner circle Cooperstown, NY where bats are made from 4770 Posts |
Scott,
You far exceeded the qualifications I set for a reviewer. I wanted to hear from a "grown up" who had seriously studied the art of magic and had a sense of perspective on the history of the quest for the perfect color separation effect. My dial up connection at home made downloading Greg's video impractical. By the way, in the mid 1960s Harry Lorayne performed for me his Impromptu OOTW with a thoroughly shuffled deck. I was familiar with OOTW and Harry's OOT Universe. Still, it blew me away for some reason (maybe because I was 14). Months later he published it in My Favorite Card Tricks and like many great things, not complicated at all. I appreciate your candor, and the time you took to write out such a thoughtful review. Thanks again, Larry |
|||||||||
Greg Arce Inner circle 6732 Posts |
My point was specifically at the idea that if a magician can deduce easily then a spectator can too. Personally, I think it is childish to look for magician foolers... I want to ENTERTAIN my audience and I don't care whether a magician is fooled in the process.
If you read the earlier threads on Cosmos you'll find that I stated that many are going to be unhappy when they find out the solution. Why? Because I know that some are looking for some pie in the sky method or solution that will devastate their peers at the next club meeting. I've also said I'm not going to be doing this or any other version because I don't look at it as a magician... I look at it from the spectator's eyes... they see each and every variation as the same thing... somehow they magically or mentally separated the reds from the blacks. It would be a rare spectator that says, "Oh, I see the difference... this one he held all the cards face down instead of that other way where you fanned the cards to yourself... of course, it's obvious. Here's an example: in the mentalism world there seems to be this need for the perfect book test. Some think it is MOAB... I would agree. But I've heard many stories from those that own it and then their friends or family say to them, after watching someone else do a book test, "Hey, it's like that thing you do." Do you know how frustrating it must feel to those who own that when a spectator sees MOAB, UF, BIP, etc all as the same thing... they looked at a word in a book then somehow he knew what I was reading. What Greg put out is his own interesting take on OOTW... some will use it and some won't... just like all the other countless variations that have come before it and will continue to come after it. Look at New World... some rushed to buy it because it was a "magician fooler". It's a great idea, but once again I didn't rush out to get it because I still use the old OOTW... it's worked its magic for me for close to three decades and I don't ever remember a spectator saying, "Oh, so you have to look at the cards!" A friend PM'd me about what I thought about the whole Cosmos issue... here is what I wrote him: "I really couldn't care less about other variations because I think we try to fool other magiicians & mentalists with our variations. The old way of just pulling out one color first from a shuffled deck is fine by me. I"ve NEVER had one spectator either catch on or question what was going on. "Just about every time I do OOTW I remember the first time my friend did it for me when I was about 12. He had just come back from Paul Diamond's Magic Shop and we met behind the school to exchange all the new magic we had learned. He did OOTW and I was shocked! I thought he had learned real magic. I was so stunned that even when he explained it to me I couldn't believe that it was the method because what I had just seen was clearly a miracle. "And that feeling is exactly what spectators feel when they see just about any OOTW's... improvements or no improvements." So, to those that bought it feeling they were going to get the Magician Fooler of all time... I'm sorry. Maybe you've learned the cheapest lesson you'll ever learn in magic... it's not the tricks, it's you that will amaze people... stop looking for the be all & end all of magic. Just my opinion. Greg P.S. by the way, I contacted Rostami myself via an email when I heard Ted had something similar before him. How he chose to deal with that info is not my responsibility. I just warned him to look into it before he put Cosmos out. Apparently some people are still happy with the purchase and some are not... curious that it always seems to work out that way no matter what the product.
One of my favorite quotes: "A critic is a legless man who teaches running."
|
|||||||||
Scott F. Guinn Inner circle "Great Scott!" aka "Palms of Putty" & "Poof Daddy G" 6586 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-04-11 18:43, roya wrote: No, but maybe I've just been lucky. Also, I ONLY use this effect as a closer or an encore, after I've already slayed them. If I don't have cooperative spectators, or if they are constantly challenging or "figuring," I just don't do this effect or others that takes a cooperative spectator. So that may be why I've never run into that. I think that often the issue is the way the routine is presented. Not saying that it was your fault--their are some people who can figure out all kinds of stuff. Those are the people who are then usually fooled by the shell game, or the sponge balls, or a simple prediction effect...
"Love God, laugh more, spend more time with the ones you love, play with children, do good to those in need, and eat more ice cream. There is more to life than magic tricks." - Scott F. Guinn
My Lybrary Page |
|||||||||
PsiDroid Inner circle 2164 Posts |
Mr.Arce I was not disagreeing with you. What I was pointing out is that irishguy question was legitimate from the way the trick was hyped initially and what you like or not is irrilevant to what is sold by Mr.Rostami.
You may not want magicians foolers but people who have bought it because it was hyped as it could have been something like that, probably hoped for a magicians fooler. |
|||||||||
Greg Arce Inner circle 6732 Posts |
PsiDroid, that's fine. I hope that the best thing that comes out of it is they learn a little lesson from it all.
I did try to warn them in early threads about how the method was not going to be something earthshattering. I never EVER implied that this was something that had broken new ground. I truly feel sorry for those that wanted a magician fooler and didn't get what they wanted and feel worse that they need to think that way. Greg
One of my favorite quotes: "A critic is a legless man who teaches running."
|
|||||||||
Scott F. Guinn Inner circle "Great Scott!" aka "Palms of Putty" & "Poof Daddy G" 6586 Posts |
Mr. Arce's makes a good point. Eugene Burger called it "The Tyranny of the New." Magicians, as a group, tend to think that it is the TRICK that will "make" them. They are always searching for that TRICK that will so WOW everyone that they will be a "success." But it's not the tricks, gang! As Al Goshman said, "YOU are the magic! The props only come along for the ride!"
WHAT we do is not nearly so important as HOW and WHY we do it. Cosmos won't make you a magician. It won't satisfy your life. It won't make you a better person. Neither will any other trick. So don't expect it to, or you most assuredly be disappointed!
"Love God, laugh more, spend more time with the ones you love, play with children, do good to those in need, and eat more ice cream. There is more to life than magic tricks." - Scott F. Guinn
My Lybrary Page |
|||||||||
Greg Arce Inner circle 6732 Posts |
Perfect words, Scott, perfect words... hopefully, they will not fall on deaf ears... or blind readers.
Greg
One of my favorite quotes: "A critic is a legless man who teaches running."
|
|||||||||
Greg Rostami V.I.P. Skynet will become self-aware in 2904 Posts |
Hi PsiDroid,
I never said COSMOS is a magician fooler. I have fooled some magicians with it, and not others. In fact in the Secret Sessions thread I said that a seasoned magician would probably put all the pieces of the puzzle together. As far as the cards being uneven . . . all I have to say to that is, I was a little sloppy with my riffle shuffle for THAT particular performance. A nice riffle shuffle at the front end fixes all that, and the cards seem BETTER mixed too. Let me tell you WHY I think COSMOS is the ultimate version of color separation. If you could do REAL magic, the spectator would shuffle their own cards and perfectly separate them (face down of course) between red and black. For those of you who've bought the trick, you might have heard the lady say at the end "But they where all mixed!" I didn't ask her to say that. That's what she felt at that moment. thank you, Greg Rostami |
|||||||||
Tom G Inner circle SW Michigan 2918 Posts |
My only gripe is that the demo showed it being performed to a single person. That's exactly how I would perform it...for one person. FOR ME I feel I can get
a much better connection with that one person in a mentalist tilt on OOTW. Had I known it could could only work with two people I wouldn't have been interested in purchasing. And that due totally to the way I would want to perform it. |
|||||||||
PsiDroid Inner circle 2164 Posts |
I still have a valid question about the difference between the Cosmos method and Ted Karmilovich's old method. If you apply Mr.Karmilovich's method to two people choosing cards you can even get a cleaner effect than Cosmos.
But the fact this "ULTIMATE" color separation of a shuffled deck employs the same mechanics as Mr.Karmilovich's, is kept undercover and avoided like plague. Probably because otherwise Cosmos could not be presented as a BRAND NEW method. |
|||||||||
roya Loyal user Seattle 211 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-04-11 19:26, grostami wrote: The problem is that in order to meet these conditions, you had to add some very confusing phases to the routine, which makes it unclean IMO. |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Ebooks, PDF's or Downloads » » Review wanted for: COSMOS!!! » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.06 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 < |