|
|
|
|||
| Go to page 1~2 [Next] | ||||||||||
Jeff Inner circle Orlando, FL 1238 Posts 
|
First let me say up front that I have a vested interest in the product exposed in the August 2007 issue of Magic.
Brad Henderson reviews "Prohibition" by Charlie Justice, the product which I was the Producer/Author of. I won't get into the actual review of the DVD as Brad does have the right to his own opinion. What I take offense to is that he exposes the entire method to not only Prohibition, but the gimmick to "Enigma" by Nicholis Night. With the existing demo video of Prohibition and Henderson's review, there's simply no need to purchase the DVD anymore. I have emailed Stan Allen our displeasure over this exposure, but to date have not heard back from him. Am I wrong to think that a review should be just that, a review of the effect, quality and production of the product, not blatant expose of method. Tell me if I'm wrong to think that way. I can't imagine Mike Close exposing a method in Genii, even if he did not like the product. Just venting some steam. Thanks Jeff Pierce
Available for order now:
http://www.thecardwarptour.com See new, used, and collectable magic and books for sale at: http://www.jeffpiercemagic.com |
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts
|
Gee Jeff, I don't know. Several folks have exposed some work of mine and that's gone over real nicely with the community.
So what do you want in a magic journal? Hints and suggestions phrased in opaque language? Novel findings couched in allusions to books that most folks could not read much less understand? I'm no fan of exposure but there does seem to be a trend in taking people's work public without permission. So where do you want to draw the line for your own work? That's really the best we can do is have a position and show our integrity by standing where we say we stand and acting according to the principles we claim to hold. BTW, if you want to explore a really nice item which uses some clever principles, check out "enigma" and then get Charlie Justice's cap in bottle for some modern ideas.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
enginemagic Special user Bluffton Indiana 597 Posts
|
Follow the leader>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
theres a lot to learn out there,many interesting subjects,and hobbies to enjoy
|
|||||||||
|
Andy the cardician Inner circle A street named after my dad 3362 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2007-08-01 22:42, enginemagic wrote: mind to explain that? Thanks
Cards never lie
|
|||||||||
|
Drew Manning Special user Dallas, Texas 913 Posts
|
Quote:
Am I wrong to think that a review should be just that, a review of the effect, quality and production of the product, not blatant expose of method. No, I think that as a creator, you should have the right to not divulge your methods to non paying customers without your consent. I think that while we cannot stop exposure, a publication for magicians should understand that concept.
I live my life for a layer of ice
Just like those poured by my bartender vice Any taste of vermouth would be really sublime, When you have a good martini time! -The Reverend Horton Heat |
|||||||||
|
Pathian Regular user Dayton, OH 175 Posts
|
Indeed. In the first issue of Reel Magic Quarterly, David Regal managed to give substantive reviews of two products with the same modus operandi without giving away the method.
|
|||||||||
|
Turk Inner circle Portland, OR 3546 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2007-08-01 15:45, Jeff wrote: Jeff, With all due respect, might you be equally at fault (for the complained-of exposure) by providing the demo video in the first place? As I read your post, it was the combination of both your demo video and Brad's review that might allow for the exposure. Was Brad's comments in the review "fair comments" and non-exposure but for your decision to entice potential purchasers by the demo video you chose to release? Should a reviewer be constrained from giving an honest and full review only because his review might have been pre-empted by a commercial decision of the seller or the producer of the item? IMHO, the key questions is: Disregard the fact that you had released a demo video, did Brad's review standing alone violate any clearly agreed upon ethical standards. If it did not, he should not be saddled with the additional requirement of either searching out your demo videos and/or conforming his review to any demo videos you might choose to release so as to spur sales and/or clearing his reviews with you. As a potential customer, I want the best and most detailed information I can get prior to making a buying decision. So, if I had to choose between an edited and hyped video put out by the seller and a detailed objective honest review (of which I might not ultimately agree with), I'd go for the review everytime. Of course, in any such objective, honest and thorough review, if possible, don't expose the precise methodology. However, does that mean, for instance, that if an item uses a magnet of some sort that that fact can not ever be revealed in the review. No, it does not. For instance, if the secret device was shoddily made, or of limited range and application or impractical in its application, or had certain clothing requirements or limitations, a general remark about the device might sometimes be in order. In sum, IMHO, an honest objective ethical reviewer is under no obligation to limit or base his review upon anything other than the item itself and he certainly has no obligation to review advertising strategies of the seller nor clear his review with the seller in advance. To impose such criteria upon future reviews would place us on a slippery slope indeed. Just, IMHO. Mike
Magic is a vanishing Art.
This must not be Kansas anymore, Toto. Eschew obfuscation. |
|||||||||
|
Jeff Inner circle Orlando, FL 1238 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2007-08-02 16:55, Turk wrote: Turk, thank you for your response and question to my post and let me try to answer your concerns. When we released the first demo video on YouTube, within two days there was a site that had stills from the demo explaining step by step the method of Prohibition. I re-edited the demo to remove less than 30 frames from the video. With these frames removed I felt it made it harder to reverse engineer. Needless to say I then caught flack from the online community about editing the demo. I've decided that with at least any products I will release in the future, they will not have demo videos released with them. Now to your question. I suggest you read the review and see if you can't figure Prohibition out, simply by reading the review. I only added the comment about the demo video because those unscupables that I talked about earlier, have already tried to figure it out from the demo. The review takes you almost step by step through the process. Secondly you state "an honest objective ethical reviewer is under no obligation to limit or base his review upon anything other than the item itself and he certainly has no obligation to review advertising strategies of the seller nor clear his review with the seller in advance." If you notice in my first post I stated "I won't comment on the actual review as Mr. Henderson has every right to his own opinion." So the actual review is not in question here, whether I agree with him or not. My complaint is with the blatant exposure of not just the gaff, but the method, sleights, whatever you want to call them. Jeff Pierce P.S. I was not planning on responding to posts regarding this problem and this will be my last post. My sole purpose was simply to bring this matter to everyones attention. I will not get in a ****ing match with anyone over this matter. Thanks.
Available for order now:
http://www.thecardwarptour.com See new, used, and collectable magic and books for sale at: http://www.jeffpiercemagic.com |
|||||||||
|
Turk Inner circle Portland, OR 3546 Posts
|
Jeff,
Thanks for the post. Lots of good points. I've PM'ed you with further thoughts on this for your consideration. Best regards, Mike
Magic is a vanishing Art.
This must not be Kansas anymore, Toto. Eschew obfuscation. |
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts
|
I'm still surprised the Enigma item was mentioned in a way that exposed methods.
I hope folks consider this approach to the coin in bottle effect and give Charlie's routine a fair shake.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
|
britesq New user 2 Posts
|
It's vital to remember that many (if not most) people buy effects based on the advertisement and on what is stated on the packaging. If an effect says you end clean - and you don't - that item should be returned. Prohibition makes a number of untrue claims. A reviewer not only has the right to "expose" the falsity of the claims, he has the obligation to make such an exposure.
|
|||||||||
|
Drew Manning Special user Dallas, Texas 913 Posts
|
Quote:
Should a reviewer be constrained from giving an honest and full review only because his review might have been pre-empted by a commercial decision of the seller or the producer of the item? No, all reviews should be fair and honest, but I have seen many people give reviews of either commercially produced effects or effects pulled from a book etc with out tipping methods. Quote:
A reviewer not only has the right to "expose" the falsity of the claims, he has the obligation to make such an exposure. I am of the opinion that this too can be done with out tipping methods. A simple statment along the lines of "the manufacturer says end clean, but we feel that the way the gimmick must be ditched is a little suspect" or "while the maker claims the levitation will take you three feet off the ground, the best we could get in our trials was one foot" I make these comments without knowing the workings of the effects in question, but I think that a reviewer can give honest feed back without revealing secrets. We do it here all the time when discussing new effects or ideas.
I live my life for a layer of ice
Just like those poured by my bartender vice Any taste of vermouth would be really sublime, When you have a good martini time! -The Reverend Horton Heat |
|||||||||
|
Jeff Inner circle Orlando, FL 1238 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2007-08-03 11:56, britesq wrote: britesq, Whether the advertising makes certain claims or not, and that depends on where you visit. If you bought the DVD from my website at http://www.jeffpiercemagic.com you can read the advertising there and I dare you to find any untruths. Also read the copy on the back of the actual DVD and then tell me then if you think he has a right to expose the methodology of the effect. The effect and the ad copy should be independent of each other in the review. Because he does not agree with the ad copy does not give anyone the right to expose the effect. Jeff Pierce
Available for order now:
http://www.thecardwarptour.com See new, used, and collectable magic and books for sale at: http://www.jeffpiercemagic.com |
|||||||||
|
Turk Inner circle Portland, OR 3546 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2007-08-03 16:09, Jeff wrote: What an interesting post!! Four statements of Jeff's really stood out for me and got me thinking of how much of a game a magic seller might think he cleverly plays (and can play) as he hypes his product and says one thing (that might be technically true) as he hopes you (the buyer) think a mistakenly different thing and plunk your money down and by his product. (Hint and notice to sellers: It is this "game" that buyers are tired of playing.) Here are the four statements of Jeff that I found so interesting and intriguing: (bolded emphasis supplied by Turk) 1) "Whether the advertising makes certain claims or not, and that depends on where you visit." Hmmm. Are different claims being made at different locations and Brad perhaps gets castigated because a certain site might not contain the language of which Brad is complaining? 2) "If you bought the DVD from my website at http://www.jeffpiercemagic.com you can read the advertising there and I dare you to find any untruths." What does this mean? Does it mean that, other than on Jeff's website, untrue statements abound? Or, does it mean that there are untruths on Jeff's website but that they are so cleverly obfuscated that Jeff is confident that you won't be able to find or discern them? I have no idea what Jeff meant by this statement. 3) "...read the copy on the back of the actual DVD and then tell me then if you think he has a right to expose the methodology of the effect." Hmmm. Is Jeff indicating that he is confident that no statements (that might be perceived as untruths) are contained at this precise location? What is the purpose of directing our attention to this precise location? 4) "The effect and the ad copy should be independent of each other in the review. Because he does not agree with the ad copy does not give anyone the right to expose the effect." Why so? The effect and the ad copy are intimately and dependently connected by Jeff in the "sales transation". Why should they not continue to be linked in the review especially when the reviewer is attempting to compare the advertised claims (that was the alleged motivation and impetus for the purchase)with what you actually and ultimately "got"? I can certainly appreciate Jeff's desire that the direct comparison not be made, but, IMHO, if more dealer ads were held up to this type of close scrutiny, perhaps a lot of perceived pernicious "dealer hype" would cease as the actual "what you get" is brought out of the shadows and into the light of day. (And perhaps the plethora of items in each of our magic junk drawers would not grow as fast.) Query: Why do dealers and sellers get to set the rules? Why cannot buyers set their own rules as to what they will accept or what they will no longer accept for ad copy and how they (i.e., the buyers) will expose what they perceive as transgressions of the concept of "fair play" in dealer ads? In this new Age of Information and the Internet Age, information is king and moves both inexorably and with the speed of light. Dealers and sellers no longer can have it both ways. They cannot hope that their ads continue to get a free ride and not be subject to detailed and fair scrutiny. Buyers have "had it up to here" (i.e., poster indicating 6" above his head) with cute dealer ads that play games with ad copy and hope that the buyer continues to be gullible and continues to not cast a critical eye at the claims made. If a dealer/seller begins to realize that his ad copy is subject to rigid scrutiny and that methodologies will be exposed if warranted and necessary to compare "what they claim" with "what you get", perhaps, just perhaps, the ad copy will conform a little bit clearer and closer to perceived reality and the "ad gamesmenship" will end. One can only hope. Just, IMHO. Mike P.S. Despite the review by Brad and my above comments, I continue to think that Prohibition is a fine fine "item in the bottle" effect and I still think it was the best new product for 2006. All magic tricks have a built-in weakness (otherwise they would be real and not tricks). I agree with Brad that the "bent cap" is a potential weakness of Prohibition. But, I strongly disagree with Brad as to the magnitude of this perceived weakness. I certainly do not believe that the "bent cap" is a fatal weakness. True, it would have been nicer if an unbent cap was the ultimate penetration, but I felt that the handling was so logical and motivated that the perceived weakness became a non-issue.
Magic is a vanishing Art.
This must not be Kansas anymore, Toto. Eschew obfuscation. |
|||||||||
|
ted french Inner circle Columbus Ohio 1946 Posts
|
I really thought there was a lot in the review that should not have been there and I do think there was some exposure and a lot of unneeded jabs at an effect that so many people love. I don't know Brad but it seems like he likes to stir up trouble this is not the first time I have seen some controversy surrounding this guy.
P3
practice practice perform. |
|||||||||
|
Turk Inner circle Portland, OR 3546 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2007-08-04 22:26, ted french wrote: When all is said and done, I think that I agree with you completely in your above assessment.
Magic is a vanishing Art.
This must not be Kansas anymore, Toto. Eschew obfuscation. |
|||||||||
|
Alex Linian Inner circle Peru 1277 Posts
|
I like the appearing cap on bottle effect in the demo...
This effect is sooo much like that trick I released (Puncture) in the fact that the entire method is a one second move done right in front of the audience.... But having not read the review I cannot comment on what I would consider to be exposure or not. All I can say is, how much can you say about a one move DVD, and the accesories needed to perform it, without "exposing"? I mean, what does this actually say about the quality of the trick itself? We´ve all heard people say "I know how it´s done, I just can´t do it" And usually, the purpose of a teaching DVD is exactly this; to get them from just "knowing" to actually being able to do it. Isn´t it? Maybe it should be, maybe what needs to change is what we consider to be good enough to be released as a single DVD costing over 20 bucks. Maybe, just maybe. But I haven´t read the review so I have no idea what I´m talking about. Alex
Check out SKYCAP from Paul Harris Presents!- "A fine trick from the dynamic foursome..."
Jared Brandon Kopf, Magic Magazine PUNCTURE 2.0 - "Jaw-dropping amazing... You also get the absolute best teaching DVD I have ever seen" - Genii Magazine SLEIGHT OF HAND that looks like Magic. --- Alex Linian | Instagram |
|||||||||
|
themagicofdrew New user 49 Posts
|
I think Mr. Henderson was very much out of line. I understand all the views from a Magician's Point, ie. It is a magician's magazine etc. BUT from a business point of view, it seems a lot like showing a movie for free or offering an entire cd for download illegally. I am a firm believer in "THE SECRET IS TOLD WHEN THE TRICK IS SOLD!" You pay for the secret and if the secret is already out there, why buy the DVD?
I know personally, that if I am going to perfrom a trick, I buy it, but I know that not all of us work this way. I beleve that Brad Henderson AKA truthteller has ripped off not only the creator, but also the producer and seller of this effect. I also find it interesting that he has not appeared on either the Genii Forum or the Café since this all started. So, I am calling you out Brad, what is your side of the story? When is exposing someone's effect in a large scale magazine like Magic, (without their permission) OK? Oh and by the way, Alex Linian, you never responded to me....you know what I am talking about. |
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts
|
As I have stayed away from this question and Charlie's product, can someone who owns the thing let us know if the proper credits and permissions (Michael Weber et al) were are in place for the product? BTW I wrote to Brad a while ago and got a reply about his side.
Calling him out (especially presuming you are a peer or even have a credible position in this community) as if this were a street and you wanted to provoke a fight is not going to help much in this discussion... if it's a disucssion you want. The marketplace for magic is changing very fast. And let's just say that right now any form of publishing and public offering is close to public exposure as the item sold is property and hence subject to open discussion. It just happens that here at the Café we have a rule against discussing the methodology of products on the market.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
|
themagicofdrew New user 49 Posts
|
Jonathan, I am pretty sure that no one thinks that I am trying to provoke a fight..."calling you out." I just want to know Brad's side...I find it interesting that Mr. Henderson, WHO NEVER SEEMS AT A LOSS FOR WORDS AND IS ALWAYS HAPPY TO ADD HIS OPINION whether it is asked for or not, has not made any statement at all regarding this....
|
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Right or Wrong? » » Exposure in Magic Magazine (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page 1~2 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Aug 1, 2007 07:45 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.09 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 < 
|