On 2010-01-10 15:59, Amiable wrote:
@Havens: That is Little Man 2.0. It is to be released in 2012**.
** or when everyone who wants Little Man 1.0 has purchased one, whichever is earlier.

On 2010-01-10 18:37, amedica wrote:
A demo with an audience would be great

On 2010-01-10 19:19, ziggystarsane wrote:

Quote:

On 2010-01-10 18:37, amedica wrote:
A demo with an audience would be great

It took us long enough to get the one we have.... It might be easier to simply show the current one on a big screen to a live studio audience!

On 2010-01-06 13:38, runawayjag wrote:
The unfortunate thing is that the action looks like a magnet is making the little doll shuffle, even if it is not, and that is exactly what spectators will think. So, I think the mystery element is gone, no matter how clever the actual method really is.

On 2010-01-10 20:55, ziggystarsane wrote:
With the L&L audience?

On 2010-01-08 13:53, Robert M wrote:

Quote:

On 2010-01-08 05:08, Sybilmagic wrote:

Quote:

I think it was Angelo Carbone's idea to make a penguin rather than a little man.

Have to agree with Pete. Perhaps it's time to lock this unproductive thread. I wish those who criticize would stop and think about how much time, effort, and expense goes into creating something like this.

Robert

I don't see your point. I work as a professional software engineer. A team can work for years on an application that is beautifully written but might not even see the light of day due to strong criticism. Why is Paul Harris et al. immune to valid points about the what we have seen? The thread is prouductive as it gives other magicians the oppurtunity to prove or disprove their opinion of what they have seen. This is about making informed choices and this thread is helping magicians through that thought process.

I have seen far stronger critique of other products on the market and those threads don't get locked. Prehaps the Café has made a deal to sell advertising for 'Little Man' and therefore doesn't want to support any negative vibes that magicians might have?

Seriously, there is nothing unproductive about this thread apart from the posts that feel the need to wrap the producers of Little Man in cotton wool and tell them that magicians are unable to make informed decisions based on the audiences they perform to.

If anyone does have postives then post them. I like to see a balanced arguement. To be honest the postives so far feel like magicians clutching a straws rather than tweaking the routine.

Just for balance I will always be indebted to Paul Harris for his creative thinking and AOA books and ability to produce some exceptional material. His thinking is thought provoking. No one is questioning Paul Harris' contribution to the Magic community but people do like to make an informed opinion.

All I'm saying is... if this was your trick, I don't think you'd appreciate all the negativity before the product is even released, especially by people who don't even plan on purchasing it. This isn't about "informed choices" because the trick isn't even available yet.

I think we should at least wait until Little Man is released before we crucify him. Surely no one really believed that Little Man was going to walk like a real person or did they? Sometimes I think magicians are more gullible than lay people.

The "creative" thread that Steve Hook started seems to be much more productive than this one - at least at this point. No one's trying to censor anyone. I just wish those who are so quick to criticize would try to put themselves in Paul's or Rodney's or Mark's shoes. It's so easy to be critical yet so incredibly hard to be the one who creates all this cool stuff.

Peace,
Robert

On 2010-01-11 04:34, amedica wrote:
The one leg at a time suggestion seems a little unrealistic

On 2010-01-11 06:36, wmhegbli wrote:
Live Clay-mation action would have been a better description of 'Little Man'.

On 2010-01-11 16:54, professorwhut wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjFXnJc0Q0U